Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/130)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

that mentioning some individuals included in a general expression with a ruling that accords with the general ruling does not entail specification.” For example, if you say, “Honor the students,” then say, “Honor Zayd,” and Zayd is one of them, does this mean that the second statement restricts the first? No. But if you say, “Honor the students,” then say, “Do not honor Zayd,” while he is one of them, then the general statement has been restricted, because we have excluded Zayd from its scope. This differs from mentioning him with a ruling that accords with the general ruling, for that does not entail specification.

As for the claim of some regarding the hadith, “The blood-money of a member of the People of the Scripture is half that of a Muslim,” that it is an inference based on a bare designation—and that such an inference is not recognized by the majority of scholars—this is because the restrictively relevant implication, in their view, is one that contains a meaning on account of which the restriction is made. Mere names such as Zayd, Amr, and Bakr, or terms such as garment, stone, and lion, which contain no meaning warranting restriction, are called inferences based on a bare designation, and they carry no weight.

Our response to this is that the implication conveyed by “the People of the Scripture” is not an inference based on a bare designation. Rather, it is an inference based on a descriptive quality, because the People of the Scripture are those affiliated with Judaism and Christianity; this is a description and has a relevant meaning.

Likewise, just as the Muslims are unanimously agreed that it is not lawful to marry a disbelieving woman except one from the People of the Scripture, every ruling that singles out the People of the Scripture must not be regarded as an inference based on a bare designation; rather, it should be treated as an inference based on a descriptive quality. We cite no evidence for the permissibility of marrying a Jewish or Christian disbelieving woman other than the saying of Allah, the Exalted:

“And chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you.” [al-Ma'idah 5:5]

The Muslims are unanimously agreed that a person may not marry a Magian woman,

ذكر بعض أفراد العام بحكم يطابق العام لا يقتضي التخصيص» كما لو قلت: أكرم الطلبة، ثم قلت: أكرم زيداً، وزيد منهم، فهل معنى ذلك أن الكلام الثاني يخصص الأول؟ لا، لكن لو قلت: أكرم الطلبة، ثم قلت: لا تكرم زيداً، وهو منهم، فهنا صار في العموم تخصيص، وهو أننا أخرجنا زيداً من العموم، بخلاف ما لو ذكرناه بحكم يطابق العام فإن ذلك لا يقتضي التخصيص. وأما قول بعضهم في حديث «عقل الكتابي نصف عقل المسلم»: إنه مفهوم لقب، ومفهوم اللقب عند جمهور أهل العلم غير معتبر؛ لأن المفهوم المخصص عندهم هو الذي يتضمن معنى يكون من أجله التخصيص، وأما مجرد اسم زيد، وعمرو، وبكر، أو ثوب، وحجر، أو أسد مما ليس فيه معنى يقتضي التخصيص فإنه يُسمى مفهوم لقب، ولا عبرة به. فجوابنا على هذا: أن مفهوم أهل الكتاب ليس من باب مفهوم اللقب؛ لأن «أهل الكتاب» المفهوم فيه مفهوم وصف؛ لأن معنى أهل الكتاب المنتسبون لليهود والنصارى، وهذا وصف وله معنى. وكما أنه بإجماع المسلمين لا يحل نكاح المرأة الكافرة، سوى التي من أهل الكتاب، فإن كل حكم خصص بأهل الكتاب يجب ألاَّ نعتبره مفهوم لقب، بل نجعله مفهوم وصف، ونحن لا نستدل على جواز نكاح الكافرة اليهودية، أو النصرانية، إلا بقوله تعالى: ﴿وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ﴾ [المائدة: ٥]، وأجمع المسلمون على أنه لا يجوز للإنسان أن يتزوج مجوسية،