Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

In such a case, if someone were to seek your legal opinion, must you ask for further details? Or do you say, “Continue from where you left off”? Or do you say, “Begin anew”?

Here the mufti must ask for further details, because a ruling cannot be reached without knowing the circumstances. This is like someone who asks you: “A deceased person left behind a daughter, a brother, and a full paternal uncle.” As for the daughter, there is no need to ask further about her. But regarding the brother, we must ask: “Is he a maternal half-brother or not?” The uncle is known to be a full paternal uncle. If he says that the brother is a maternal half-brother, we say: “He receives nothing, for he is excluded by the daughter, who is an inheriting descendant; the remainder goes to the uncle, because he is a residuary heir and is ‘the closest male relative.’” But if he says that the brother is a full brother or a paternal half-brother, we say: “The remaining estate belongs to the brother, and the uncle is excluded.”

If someone were to ask me, “A deceased person left behind a son and a father,” there would be no need for me to ask whether the son is enslaved or free, a killer or not a killer.

Thus, we derive from this a principle: I am not required to ask whether an impediment exists, but I am required to ask whether a condition has been fulfilled. This is because the basic presumption concerning an impediment is that it does not exist, and the basic presumption concerning a condition is likewise that it does not exist; hence, I must verify that it is present. In reality, this is an issue which the student of knowledge needs when giving legal opinions. We therefore say: asking about the existence of an impediment is not obligatory, whereas asking about the fulfillment of a condition is obligatory, because the basic presumption in both cases is nonexistence.

His statement: “If he vows a specified number of days, consecutiveness is not binding upon him,” meaning that consecutive fasting is not binding upon him, “unless stipulated or intended.” The evidence that it becomes binding when he stipulates it is Allah’s saying:

“O you who believe, fulfil your contracts.” [al-Ma'idah 5:1]

Even if it is not clear

في مثل هذه الحال، لو أن أحداً استفتاك: هل يلزمك الاستفصال؟ أو تقول: ابنِ؟ أو تقول: استأنف؟ هنا يجب على المفتي الاستفصال؛ لأنه لا يتم الحكم إلا بمعرفة الحال، كما لو سألك سائل فقال: هلك هالك عن بنت، وأخ، وعم شقيق، فالبنت ما يحتاج أن نستفصل عنها، والأخ نستفصل، نقول: هل هو لأم أو لغير أم؟ والعم معروف أنه شقيق؛ لأنه إذا قال: الأخ لأم، قلنا: ليس له شيء، والذي أسقطه البنتُ، الفرعُ الوارثُ، والباقي للعم؛ لأنه عاصب وهو «أولى رجل ذكر»، وإن قال: إن الأخ شقيق، أو لأب، قلنا: المال الباقي للأخ، والعم يسقط. ولو سألني سائل قال: هلك هالك عن ابن وأب، فما يحتاج أن أستفصل: هل الابن رقيق، أو حر، أو قاتل، أو غير قاتل؟ إذن نأخذ من هذا قاعدة: أنه لا يلزمني السؤال عن وجود المانع، لكن يلزمني السؤال عن تحقق الشرط؛ لأن المانع الأصل عدمه، والشرط الأصل عدمه، ولهذا أتحقق من وجوده، وهذه مسألة في الحقيقة يحتاج إليها طالب العلم عند الفتوى، فنقول: السؤال عن وجود المانع ليس بواجب، والسؤال عن وجود الشرط واجب؛ لأن الأصل فيهما العدم. قوله: «وإن نذر أياماً معدودة لم يلزمه» أي: التتابع «إلا بشرط أو نية» الدليل على أنه يلزمه إذا اشترط قوله تعالى: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ﴾ [المائدة: ١]، وإن لم يتضح

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies