Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/253)

valid; because of this possibility, the intercourse is deemed doubtful, and the prescribed punishment is thereby averted from him.

Thus, if a marriage concerning which there is disagreement is believed by the man to be valid, then no prescribed punishment applies to him, nothing is held against him, and he remains married to her. But if he believes it to be invalid, we separate the two of them in accordance with his belief, yet we do not subject him to the prescribed punishment because of the doubt.

It has also been said that if he believes it to be void, then the prescribed punishment should be imposed upon him in accordance with his own belief, since he considers himself to be having intercourse with someone unlawful to him and considers this contract to have no effect. Why, then, should we not hold him to his own belief?

In such a case, the judge or ruler should consider what the circumstances require.

His statement, “or ownership concerning which there is disagreement,” refers, for example, to a person who has intercourse with a slave woman whose ownership is disputed. This too has several forms. One is where a man who is obliged to attend the Friday prayer purchases a slave woman after the second call to the Friday prayer. Buying and selling at that time are unlawful and invalid, although some scholars hold that the contract is unlawful but not invalid.

If the man who bought her then has intercourse with her, is he subject to the prescribed punishment? The answer is that no prescribed punishment applies to him at all, because the matter is disputed. Yet, if he believes the purchase to be valid, we leave her with him; whereas, if he believes it to be invalid, we return her to her original seller, and he has no right to her.

Another example: a man said to someone praying beside him in the mosque, “I have bought one of the finest slave women: beautiful, young, and educated.” The other said, “Sell her to me,” so he sold her to him in the mosque. He then handed this woman over to him, and he had intercourse with her. The scholars differed over the validity of a sale conducted in the mosque, notwithstanding—

صحيح؛ فمن أجل هذا الاحتمال صار هذا الوطء شبهة، يدرأ الحدَّ عنه. فالنكاح المختلف فيه إن كان يعتقد صحته فلا حد، ولا شيء عليه، ويبقى على نكاحه، وإن كان يعتقد فساده، فنحن نفرق بينهما اتباعاً لما يعتقد، ولكن لا نَحُدُّه للشبهة. وقيل: إن اعتقد بطلانه فإنه يحد بناء على عقيدته، لأنه يرى أنه يطأ فرجاً حراماً، وأن هذا العقد لا أثر له، فلماذا لا نأخذه باعتقاده؟! وينبغي في هذه الحال أن ينظر القاضي، أو الحاكم لما تقتضيه الحال. وقوله: «أو ملك مختلف فيه» كإنسان وطئ أمة في ملك مختلف فيه، وله صور أيضاً متعددة، منها: لو اشترى أمة بعد نداء الجمعة الثاني وهو ممن تجب عليه الجمعة، فالبيع والشراء محرم وباطل، ويرى بعض العلماء أن العقد محرم وليس بباطل. فهذا الرجل الذي اشتراها وجامعها، هل عليه حد؟ الجواب: لا حد عليه مطلقاً؛ لأن فيه خلافاً، لكن إن كان يعتقد الصحة أبقيناها معه، وإن كان يعتقد الفساد أرجعناها إلى بائعها الأول، وليس له فيها حق. مثال آخر: رجل قال له شخص يصلي إلى جواره في المسجد: لقد اشتريت جارية من أحسن الجواري، جميلة، شابة، متعلمة، فقال: بعها لي، فباعها له في المسجد، ثم سلم له هذه المرأة وجامعها، فالعلماء اختلفوا في صحة البيع في المسجد مع