Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (3/177)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

the subsidiary ruling more binding than the principal one. In Arabic usage, one scarcely finds coordinated statements in which the first imposes no obligation while the last does. This is hardly known. What is familiar in their speech is that the first imposes an obligation while the last does not. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:

“Indeed, Allah commands justice, benevolence, and giving to relatives.” [al-Nahl: 90]

He begins with justice, which is obligatory, then mentions benevolence, which is not obligatory. Allah Most High also says:

“If you divorce them before you have touched them, but after you have stipulated a dowry for them, then half of what you stipulated is due, unless they waive it or the one in whose hand is the marriage bond waives it. To waive it is nearer to righteousness. And do not forget generosity between yourselves.” [al-Baqarah: 237]

He begins with what is obligatory, then mentions generosity afterward.

Section

Another indication that al-Shāfi‘ī’s position is unsound is that subtracting an unknown amount from a known amount leaves an unknown remainder. How, then, can it be valid, for example, to stipulate four thousand dirhams as the slave’s debt under the manumission contract and have witnesses attest to it against him, when it is actually less than four thousand? They have tolerated this, although the written agreement is required to be equitable between the contracting parties. If what the master has stipulated as his slave’s debt and had attested against him is a valid debt, then none of it must be remitted. If it is invalid, however, the manumission contract is dissolved, and what the two parties have had witnessed concerning their obligations is false.

Moreover, al-Shāfi‘ī maintains that a slave under a manumission contract remains a slave so long as he still owes one dirham under that contract. If he means one dirham out of the entire amount originally agreed upon, then he has abandoned his own position. If he means one dirham out of the amount remaining after the required remission, then the amount to be remitted must be specified in the original contract, so that it is known when the slave becomes free and when he does not. This is a definite legal status on which many rulings depend. It must therefore be known, just as the amount due under the manumission contract is known; yet al-Shāfi‘ī leaves it unknown.

الفرع أوجب من الأصل. وليس يكاد شيء من كلام العرب يعطف بعضه على بعض يكون أوله غير واجب وآخره واجبا، هذا لا يكاد يعرف. وإنما المعروف من كلامهم أن يكون أوله واجبا وآخره غير واجب. قال الله ﷿: ﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ وَإِيتَاءِ ذِي الْقُرْبَى﴾ [النحل: ٩٠] فبدأ بالعدل وهو واجب، ثم ذكر الإحسان بعده وهو غير واجب. وقال تعالى: ﴿وَإِنْ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ وَقَدْ فَرَضْتُمْ لَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً فَنِصْفُ مَا فَرَضْتُمْ إِلا أَنْ يَعْفُونَ أَوْ يَعْفُوَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ عُقْدَةُ النِّكَاحِ وَأَنْ تَعْفُوا أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى وَلا تَنْسَوُا الْفَضْلَ بَيْنَكُمْ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٣٧] فيبدأ بالواجب ثم ذكر التفضل بعده. فصل ومما يدل على فساد قول الشافعي أن الشيء المعلوم إذا أسقط منه شيء مجهول عاد مجهولا غير معلوم، فكيف يصح أن يُكتَب على العبد أربعة آلاف درهم في التمثيل ويُشهد بها عليه وهي أقل من أربعة آلاف قد حلموا على ذلك وحكم الكتاب أن يكون عدلا بين المتعاملين وإن كان الذي كتب السيد على عبده وأشهد به عليه حقا فليس يجب أن يسقط عن العبد شيء منه، وإن كان باطلاً فالكتابة منفسخة، وما أشهدا به على أنفسهما كذب. وأيضا فإن الشافعي يزعم أن المكاتب عبد ما بقي عليه من كتابته درهم فإن كان يعني من جميع ما كاتبه عليه فقد ترك قوله، وإن كان يعني مما تبقى عليه من الكتابة بعد وضع ما يجب وضعه، فالواجب أن يكون ما يوضع عنه معلوما في أصل الكتابة حتى يعلم الحال التي يعتق فيها من الحال التي لا يعتق فيها، لأنها حال معلومة تتعلق بها أحكام كثيرة، فلا بد أن تكون معلومة كما كانت الكتابة معلومة، والشافعي يجعلها مجهولة.