Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/280)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “a chaste person”: being indefinite in the context of a conditional clause, it is general and includes the case where the chaste person is either a woman or a man. Thus, the word means “a chaste individual.” We have supplied this wording in order to convey its inclusive and general sense.

His statement, “a chaste person,” apparently includes a child falsely accusing his father; he is therefore to be flogged eighty lashes. Thus, if he accuses his father, saying, “O fornicator”—and we seek Allah’s protection—he is to receive the prescribed punishment for false accusation, because a child’s accusation against his father is exceedingly heinous.

The author’s words also include a father falsely accusing his child. If a father says to his child, “You are a sodomite; you are a fornicator; you commit such vile acts,” and the like, then, according to the author’s wording, the father is to be flogged, since he stated without qualification, “a chaste person.” This differs from the established school, which holds that if a father falsely accuses his child, he is not flogged for it, just as retaliation is not carried out against him if he kills the child. We have previously noted that this issue is subject to scholarly disagreement.

The correct view is that the prescribed punishment is obligatory when a father falsely accuses his child, whether we hold it to be a right of Allah or a right belonging to an individual. If we hold it to be a right of Allah, the matter is clear, for the father has no authority over his child in this regard. If we hold it to be an individual’s right, then we say: if the child does not consent to waive his right, he may demand it. Just as he may demand maintenance from his father, so too may he demand this. Since the father has violated his child’s dignity and humiliated him before people, the prescribed punishment should be carried out upon him. The verse is general.

Also included in the author’s words is one who falsely accuses a prophet. It has been said that one who falsely accuses a prophet is subject only to the prescribed punishment. However, this view is weak. The correct view is that whoever falsely accuses a prophet thereby disbelieves and is executed for apostasy. If he repents, he is executed as a prescribed punishment rather than for apostasy. The difference between the two executions is:

وقوله: «محصناً» نكرة في سياق الشرط، فتعم ما إذا كان المحصن امرأة أو رجلاً، فتكون كلمة محصن بمعنى شخصاً محصناً، وقدَّرنا ذلك من أجل الشمول والعموم. وقوله: «محصناً» ظاهره أن ذلك شامل لقذف الولد والده، فيجلد ثمانين جلدة، فإذا قذف والده فقال: يا زانٍ ـ والعياذ بالله ـ فإنه يجلد حد القذف؛ لأن قذف الولد الوالد شنيع جداً. ويشمل كلام المؤلف: قذف الوالد ولده، فالوالد إذا قذف ولده، قال له: أنت لوطي، أنت زانٍ، أنت فاعل لشيء من هذه الخبائث، وما أشبه ذلك، فعلى كلام المؤلف يجلد الوالد؛ لأنه أطلق فقال: «محصناً» وهذا خلاف المذهب، فالمذهب أن الوالد إذا قذف ولده فإنه لا يجلد به، كما أنه لو قتله لا يقتص به، وقد سبق لنا أن هذه المسألة فيها خلاف. والصواب أن قذف الوالد لولده يجب فيه الحد، سواء قلنا: إنه حق لله، أو للآدمي؛ لأننا إذا قلنا: إنه حق لله، فالأمر فيه ظاهر؛ لأنه لا سُلْطَة للوالد على ولده فيه، وإذا قلنا: إنه حق للآدمي، فإننا نقول: إن الولد إذا لم يرضَ بإسقاط حقه فإن له المطالبة به، فكما أن له أن يطالب والده بالنفقة، فهذا مثله، فلمَّا أهدر كرامة ولده، وأهانه أمام الناس، فليقم عليه الحد، والآية عامة. ويدخل في كلام المؤلف من قذف نبياً، وقد قيل: إن من قذف نبياً فليس عليه إلا الحد، ولكن هذا القول ضعيف، والصحيح أن من قذف نبياً فإنه يكفر ويقتل كفراً، فإن تاب فإنه يقتل حداً، وليس كفراً؟ والفرق بين القِتْلتين: