Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/341)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

to take concubines under any circumstances. In their view, he may lawfully have intercourse only through a marriage authorized by his master. They supported this position by citing the consensus that his master may take from him all his property, whether acquired through his earnings or otherwise, and the consensus that he does not inherit from his relatives. They said: The consensus that a master may take his slave’s property indicates that the slave did not own it; had he owned it, the master could not rightfully have taken it from him, just as a man cannot take the property of a slave with whom he has concluded a contract of emancipation. They also said: The consensus that a slave does not inherit indicates that whatever property comes into his possession belongs solely to his master, and that he does not own it. They understood the Messenger of Allah’s ﷺ attribution of property to the slave in his statement, “Whoever sells a slave who has property, his property belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates otherwise,” as figurative, like saying “the shepherd’s flock,” “the animal’s saddle,” or “the house’s door.” None of this reasoning is sound.

Their appeal to the consensus that a master may take his slave’s property provides no proof for their position, because that consensus does not cover the point in dispute: our disagreement with them concerns ownership before the property is taken. Likewise, their appeal to the consensus that a slave does not inherit provides no proof for their position, since we do not concede that the reason a slave is barred from inheriting is that he cannot own property. Their argument can therefore be valid only after they establish that this is indeed the operative reason. Yet they have no evidence for its validity beyond their own strong presumption: neither the Quran nor the Sunnah contains an explicit statement or an indication that this is the reason, nor has the Muslim community reached a consensus on it. Their position is therefore no stronger than that of someone who says that the reason is the insecure nature of slaves’ ownership of their property.

Section

A slave is thus restricted in his dealings with his property: he may not dispose of it in any way without his master’s permission, nor may he engage in trade unless his master authorizes him to do so. If his master authorizes him, he may trade on credit

التسري بوجه من الوجوه ولا يحل له عندهم وطء فرج إلا بنكاح يأذن له سيده فيه، واستدلوا على ذلك بالإجماع على أن لسيده أن ينتزع منه كل ما له من المال من كسبه وغير كسبه، وبالإجماع على أنه لا يرث قرابته، قالوا فلما أجمعوا أن للسيد أن ينتزع مال عبده، دل ذلك على أنه كان لا يملكه، إذ لو كان يملكه لما صح له انتزاعه منه كما لا ينتزع الرجل مال مكاتبه؛ قالوا أيضا: ولما أجمعوا أن العبد لا يرث، دل على أن ما يحصل بيده من مال، إنما هو لسيده، وأنه لا يملكه؛ وحملوا إضافة رسول الله ﷺ المال إلى العبد في قوله: «من باع عبدا وله مال فماله للبائع إلا أن يشترطه المبتاع» - على المجاز، كما يقال: غنم الراعي، وسرج الدابة، وباب الدار، وهذا كله لا يصح. فأما احتجاجهم بالإجماع على أن للسيد أن ينتزع مال عبده، فلا حجة لهم فيه؛ لأن الإجماع لا يتناول موضع الخلاف، إذ الخلاف بيننا وبينهم إنما هو قبل الانتزاع، وكذلك احتجاجهم بالإجماع على أن العبد لا يرث لا حجة لهم فيه؛ إذ لا يسلم لهم أن العلة في منع ميراث العبد أنه لا يملك، فلا يصح لهم ما استدلوا به إلا بعد إقامة الدليل على صحة العلة، ولا دليل لهم على صحتها إلا غالب ظنهم، إذ ليس في الكتاب ولا في السنة نص ولا تنبيه على أنها هي العلة، ولا أجمعت الأمة على ذلك، فليسوا بأسعد ممن يقول: إن العلة في ذلك عدم استقرار ملك العبيد على أموالهم. فصل فالعبد محجور عليه في ماله لا يجوز له فيه فعل بغير إذن سيده، ولا يجوز له أن يتجر إلا أن يأذن له سيده في التجارة؛ فإن أذن له فيها جاز له أن يتجر بالدين