Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (1/636)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

in one instance, did not hold him bound in another, and in another allowed him to disown the child even if she was pregnant, as amounting to two positions. They treat his statements, “In another instance he did not hold him bound” and “In another he allows him to disown the child even if she was pregnant,” as expressing a single position. Others take these statements at face value as three positions. They understand his statement that he may disown the child even if she was pregnant to mean that he may do so through a second mutual imprecation, even without claiming to have ascertained through menstruation that she was not pregnant. In his imprecation, he says, “I testify by Allah that I am not the father of the child she is carrying.” On this interpretation, there are three positions concerning one of the two cases and two concerning the other. This applies whether or not the husband knew of and acknowledged the pregnancy. This is explicit in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book and is the apparent meaning of al-Makhzūmī’s statement in al-Mudawwana.

Some have interpreted the words “while acknowledging the pregnancy” as meaning “while acknowledging intercourse.” Some scholars have interpreted the disagreement reported from Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—in al-Mudawwana as applying only where the husband neither knew of nor acknowledged her pregnancy, but discovered that she had been pregnant only when she gave birth less than six months later. This is an unlikely interpretation, given the differing positions we have related from Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—from Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book. Bear this in mind.

If, after she gives birth, he claims to have ascertained through menstruation that she was not pregnant, saying, “The child is not mine; I had ascertained that she was not pregnant,” he may do so in all these cases, by agreement, and the child’s attribution to him is removed. According to one position, this occurs through the original mutual imprecation; this is Ashhab’s position. According to another, a second mutual imprecation is required; this is the position of Asbagh and ‘Abd al-Malik. Al-Mudawwana contains indications supporting both positions.

Section

A group of scholars have held that when a man disowns a child born within his marriage, the child’s attribution to him cannot be removed through mutual imprecation or by any other means, citing the words of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him:

“The child belongs to the marital bed, and the adulterer gets nothing.”

It is related that al-Sha‘bī said: “Ibrāhīm, Ibn Ma‘qil and Mūsā disagreed with me concerning the child involved in mutual imprecation. They said, ‘You should attribute the child to him.’ I replied, ‘Am I to attribute the child to him after he has testified four times by Allah that he is telling the truth, then concluded with a fifth invocation that Allah’s curse be upon him if he is lying?’ They wrote to Medina about the matter, and the reply was that the child should be attributed to him.”

This is an anomalous opinion. Its proponents have no proof in the words of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, which they cite: “The child belongs to the marital bed, and the adulterer gets nothing.” For this statement concerned only someone claiming, on the basis of adultery,

مرة ومرة لم يلزمه ومرة ينافيه وإن كانت حاملا راجع إلى قولين ويجعل قوله ومرة لم يلزمه ومرة ينفيه وإن كانت حاملا، شيئا واحدا. ومن الناس من يحملها على ثلاثة أقوال على ظاهرها، فيقول معنى قوله ينفيه وإن كانت حاملا أنه ينفيه بلعان ثان وإن لم يدع استبراء، فيقول في لعانه أشهد بالله ما حملها هذا مني. فيأتي على هذا في الطرف الواحد ثلاثة أقوال وفي الطرف الثاني قولان. وسواء كان الزوج عالما مقرا به أو لم يكن. وهذا بين في كتاب ابن المواز، وظاهر قول المخزومي في المدونة. وقد تأول بعض الناس قوله وهو مقر بالحمل أي بالوطء. وقد تأول بعض الشيوخ أن الاختلاف الواقع في قول مالك ﵀ في المدونة إنما هو إذا لم يعلم الزوج بحملها ولا كان مقرا به، وإنما علم أنها كانت حاملا بما انكشف من وضعها قبل ستة أشهر، وهو تأويل بعيد لما حكيناه من وجوه الاختلاف في ذلك لمالك ﵀ في كتاب ابن المواز، فاعلمه. فإن ادعى الاستبراء بعد أن ولدته وقال ليس الولد مني قد كنت استبرئت كان ذلك له في الوجوه كلها باتفاق وسقط نسب الولد، قيل بذلك اللعان وهو قول أشهب، وقيل بلعان ثان وهو قول أصبغ وعبد الملك، وفي المدونة ما يدل على القولين جميعا. فصل وقد ذهبت طائفة من أهل العلم إلى أن الولد المولود على فراش الرجل إذا نفاه لا ينتفي منه بلعان ولا بما سواه، لقول رسول الله ﷺ: «الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر». وروي عن الشعبي أنه قال: خالفني إبراهيم وابن معقل وموسى في ولد الملاعنة فقالوا تلحقه به فقلت ألحقه به بعد أربع شهادات بالله إنه لمن الصادقين ثم ختم بالخامسة أن لعنة الله عليه إن كان من الكاذبين، فكتبوا فيها إلى المدينة فكتبوا أن يلحق به، وهو شذوذ من القول، ولا حجة لقائله فيما احتج به من قول رسول الله ﷺ: «الولد للفراش وللعاهر الحجر؛» لأنه إنما ورد في المدعي بالزنا