Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (3/129)

Islam.” According to this interpretation, the verse remains in force concerning support and assistance, but not inheritance. Abū Hanīfah and his companions held that the verse remains in force according to its apparent meaning, regarding inheritance and other matters. If two men have no known kinship and one enters into an affiliation with the other on condition that they inherit from one another and pay blood money on one another’s behalf, the agreement is valid, and they acquire these mutual rights and obligations. They said that either party may withdraw from the affiliation, annul it, and affiliate himself with someone else, provided neither has paid blood money on the other’s behalf. Once he has done so, the affiliation becomes binding upon him.

This is refuted by the Messenger of Allah’s statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “There is no pact of alliance in Islam.” This means that such a pact has no effect in conferring mutual inheritance as practised in the pre-Islamic period. Furthermore, they themselves depart from the verse they cite as evidence and do not uphold its terms. Allah Most High made entitlement to a share conditional upon an oath-bound agreement, saying:

“And those to whom your oaths have bound you.” [Al-Nisā’: 33]

Yet they do not consider an oath to have any effect upon entitlement to inheritance.

Reports have been transmitted from the Prophet, peace be upon him, concerning this matter, indicating Abū Hanīfah’s view that a client affiliated by agreement may transfer his allegiance to whomever he wishes without his patrons’ permission; upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all mankind.

There is also his statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “Whoever affiliates himself with a patron without his permission, upon him is the curse of Allah.” And his statement: “A people’s client must not affiliate himself with others except with their permission.” Al-Tahāwī held that these reports should be applied according to their apparent wording and the meanings they convey. He said that a client

الإسلام». فالآية على هذا التأويل محكمة فيما عدا الميراث من النصر والمعونة. وذهب أبو حنيفة وأصحابه إلى أن الآية محكمة على ظاهرها في الميراث وغيره، وأن الرجلين إذا لم يكن بينهما نسب معروف فوالى أحدهما الآخر على أن يتوارثا ويتعاقلا فإن ذلك يصح ويتوارثان ويتعاقلان. قالوا ولكل واحد منهما أن يرجع على الموالاة ويفسخها ويوالي غيره ما لم يعقل أحدهما عن صاحبه، فإن عقل عنه لزمته الموالاة. وهذا يرده قول رسول الله ﷺ: «لا حلف في الإسلام» معناه لا حكم له في الموارثة على ما كان يفعل في الجاهلية. وأيضا فإن الآية التي احتجوا بها يخالفونها ولا يقولون بها، وذلك أن الله تعالى علق فيها استحقاق النصيب بعقد اليمين فقال: ﴿وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ﴾ [النساء: ٣٣] وهم لا يرون أن اليمين تؤثر في استحقاق الميراث شيئا. وقد رويت عن النبي ﵇ في هذا المعنى آثار تدل على ما ذهب إليه أبو حنيفة من أن للمولى بالموالاة أن يرجع بولايته إلى من شاء بغير إذن مواليه، فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين. وقوله ﷺ: «من تولى مولى بغير إذنه فعليه لعنة الله». وقوله: «لا يتولى مولى قوم إلا بإذنهم». وذهب الطحاوي إلى استعمال هذه الآثار على ظواهرها وما تدل عليه من معانيها فقال: إن للمولى