Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/250)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

impose a punishment for a crime when we doubt whether it is in fact a crime, for this is judging on the basis of conjecture, harming a Muslim, and diminishing his standing and reputation. Such a thing is not permissible except on the basis of clear evidence upon which we can rely.

The author then gave examples of legal ambiguity, saying: “No prescribed punishment is imposed for having intercourse with a female slave in whom he has a share of ownership.” This concerns a man who jointly owns a female slave with another man. They purchased her for ten thousand riyals, each contributing five thousand riyals toward her price. Is she lawful to either of them? She is lawful to neither of them, neither as a concubine nor through marriage, even if one of them consents. However, she may be married to someone else: if they agree to marry her to a man, that is permissible. Yet if either of them has intercourse with her, no prescribed punishment is imposed on him, because he owns a portion of her; thus, there is an ambiguity of ownership. Even if he knows that she is not lawful for him and that such intercourse is prohibited, we say that the ambiguity of ownership prevents the prescribed punishment from being carried out.

His statement, “or [a female slave] in whom his child has a share of ownership,” is a more remote case. If he commits illicit intercourse with a female slave in whom his child has a share, the father does not own her; however, he has the right to acquire what his child owns of this female slave. Since he has the right to acquire her, his illicit intercourse with this female slave in whom his child has a share involves a legal ambiguity, and so the prescribed punishment is not imposed upon him—even if his child owns only one share out of ten thousand shares in her—due to the general wording, “in whom he or his child has a share of ownership.” As for a slave belonging to his brother or his father, this does not constitute an ambiguity. Thus, if he commits illicit intercourse with his father’s female slave, the prescribed punishment is imposed upon him, because this is not an ambiguity: a child cannot acquire ownership from his father’s property, unlike the reverse case.

His statement, “or if he has intercourse with a woman thinking her to be his wife or his concubine”: a wife is one whom

نوقع عقوبة على جريمة نشك في كونها جريمة؛ لأن هذا حكم بالظن، وإضرار بالمسلم، وحَطٌّ من قدره وسمعته، ومثل هذا لا يجوز إلا بشيء واضح نعتمد عليه، ثم ضرب المؤلف أمثلة للشبهة فقال: «فَلا يُحَدُّ بِوَطْءِ أَمَةٍ لَهُ فِيهَا شِرْكٌ» هذا رجل بينه وبين رجل آخر أمة مشتركة، اشترياها بعشرة آلاف، كل واحد قدم في ثمنها خمسة آلاف ريال، فهل تحل لواحد منهما؟ لا تحل لأحدهما، لا بالتسري، ولا بالنكاح، وإن وافق أحدهما، لكن تحل لغيرهما بالنكاح، فلو اتفقا على أن يزوجاها شخصاً حل ذلك، فإن وطئها أحدهما فلا حد عليه؛ لأن له بعضها، ففيه شبهة مُلك، حتى لو كان يعلم أنها لا تحل له، وأن هذا الجماع محرم، نقول: لأن شبهة الملك تمنع من إقامة الحد. قوله: «أو لولده» هذه أبعد، فلو زنا بأمةٍ لولده فيها شِرك، فالأب لا يملكها، لكن يملك أن يتملك ما يملكه ولده من هذه الأمة، فلما كان له أن يتملك صار زناه بهذه الأمة التي لولده فيها شرك فيه شبهة، فلا يقام عليه الحد، ولو لم يكن للولد فيها إلا واحد من عشرة آلاف سهم، لعموم قوله: «له فيها شرك أو لولده»، أما لأخيه أو لأبيه فليست شبهة، يعني لو أنه زنا بأمة أبيه أقيم عليه الحد؛ لأن ذلك ليس بشبهة؛ لأن الولد لا يتملك من مال أبيه، بخلاف العكس. قوله: «أَوْ وَطِئَ امْرَأَةً ظَنَّهَا زَوْجَتَهُ أَوْ سُرِّيَّتَهُ» الزوجة من