it is permissible, just like the Abode of Islam. And because ownership is established therein by force, conquest (9), and seizure, its distribution is valid, just as if it had been secured in the Abode of Islam. The evidence for the establishment of ownership therein consists of three matters: First, the cause of ownership is full possession, which has been found, for we have established our hands upon them in reality, overpowered them, and expelled them from it, and possession indicates the need of the possessor; thus, ownership is established by it, as in the case of permissible (unowned) things. Second, the ownership of the disbelievers has ceased over it, evidenced by the fact that their freeing of slaves who were obtained as spoils is not effective, nor is their disposal of them valid, and their ownership did not pass to a non-owner, as it is not, in this state, permissible (to everyone). Thus, it is known (11) that their (12) ownership has transferred to the conquerors. Third, if a slave of a warrior (harbi) embraces Islam and joins the army of the Muslims, he becomes free, and this indicates the cessation of the disbeliever's ownership and the establishment of ownership for the one who conquered him. By this, the response to what they mentioned is achieved.
1655 - Issue: He said: "And when they are taken captive, a father shall not be separated from his child, nor a mother from her child."
The scholars have reached a consensus that separating a mother from her young child is not permissible. This is the view of Malik among the people of Medina, al-Awza'i among the people of al-Sham, al-Layth among the people of Egypt, and al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the proponents of opinion regarding it. The basis for this is what Abu Ayyub narrated, saying: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say: 'Whoever separates a mother from her child, Allah will separate him from his loved ones on the Day of Resurrection.'" Related by al-Tirmidhi (1), who said: "A hasan gharib hadith." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said: "Let no mother be distressed over her child" (2). Ahmad said: "A mother shall not be separated from her child even if she consents." That is—and Allah knows best—because of the harm it causes the child, and because a woman might consent to something that harms her, then her heart changes afterward
(9) Omitted from A, B, and M. (10) Omitted from M. (11) In the original, B, and M: "'ulima". (12) In M: "milkuha". (1) Its extraction was mentioned previously in: 6/232. (2) Related by al-Bayhaqi, in: Chapter on a mother marrying, whereby her right to the custody of the child lapses... from the Book of Maintenance. Al-Sunan al-Kubra 8/5. See what was mentioned previously in: 6/370.
جازَتْ، كدارِ الإِسلامِ، ولأنَّ المِلْكَ ثبَتَ فيها بالقَهْرِ والغَلَبةِ (٩) والاسْتِيلاءِ، فصَحَّتْ قِسْمَتُها، كما لو أُحْرِزَت بدارِ الإِسلامِ. والدليلُ على ثُبوتِ المِلْكِ فيها أمورٌ ثلاثة؛ أحدُها، أنَّ سَبَبَ المِلْكِ الاسْتِيلاءُ التَّامُّ، وقد وُجِدَ، فإنَّنا أثْبَتْنَا أيْدِيَنا عليها حَقِيقةً، وقَهَرْناهم، ونَفَيْناهم عنها، والاسْتِيلاءُ يدُلُّ على حاجَةِ المُسْتَوْلِى، فيَثْبُتُ به (١٠) المِلْكُ، كما فى المُباحات. الثانى، أنَّ ملْكَ الكُفَّارِ قد زالَ عنها، بدليلِ أنَّه لا ينْفُذُ عِتْقُهم فى العَبيدِ الذين حَصَلُوا فى الغنيمةِ، ولا يصِحُّ تصَرُّفُهم فيها، ولم يُزلْ مِلْكُهم إلى غير مالِك، إذْ ليست فى هذه الحالِ مُباحةً، فعُلِمَ (١١) أنَّ مِلكَهم (١٢) زالَ إلى الغانِمين. الثالثُ، أنَّ لو أَسْلَمَ عبدُ الحَرْبِىِّ، ولَحِقَ بجيشِ المسلمين، صارَ حُرًّا، وهذا يدُلُّ على زَوالِ مِلْكِ الكافِرِ، وثُبوتِ المِلْكِ لِمَنْ قَهَرَه، وبهذا يحْصُلُ الجوابُ عمّا ذكرُوه.
١٦٥٥ - مسألة؛ قال: (وإذَا سُبُوا، لَمْ يُفَرَّقْ بَيْنَ الْوَالِدِ وَوَلَدِه، وَلَا بَيْنَ الْوَالِدَةِ وَوَلَدِهَا)
أجْمَعَ أهلُ العِلْمِ على أنَّ التَّفْرِيقَ بين الأُمِّ وولَدِها الطِّفْلِ غيرُ جائِزٍ. هذا قولُ مالِك فى أهلِ المدينةِ، والأَوْزاعِىِّ فى أهلِ الشامِ، واللَّيْث فى أهلِ مصرَ، والشافِعِىِّ، وأبى ثَوْرٍ، وأصْحابِ الرَّأْىِ فيه. والأصلُ فيه ما رَوَى أبو أَيُّوبَ، قال: سمِعْتُ رسولَ اللَّه -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- يقول: "مَنْ فرَّقَ بَيْنَ وَالِدَةٍ ووَلَدِها، فرَّقَ اللهُ بَيْنَه وَبيْنَ أحِبَّتِهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيامَةِ". أخرجَهُ التِّرْمِذِىّ (١).، وقالَ: حديثٌ حَسَنٌ غريبٌ. وقال النَّبِىُّ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-: "لَا تُوَلَّهُ وَالِدَةٌ عَنْ وَلَدِهَا" (٢). قال أحمدُ: لا يُفَرَّقُ بين الأُمّ وولَدِها وإنْ رَضِيَت. وذلك -واللَّه أعْلَمَ- لما فيه من الإِضْرارِ بالوَلدِ، ولأنَّ المرأَةَ قد تَرْضَى بما فيه ضَرَرُها، ثمّ يَتَغَيَّرُ قَلْبُها بعدَ
(٩) سقط من: أ، ب، م.(١٠) سقط من: م.(١١) فى الأصل، ب، م: "علم".(١٢) فى م: "ملكها".(١) تقدم تخريجه، فى: ٦/ ٢٣٢.(٢) أخرجه البيهقى، فى: باب الأم تتزوج فيسقط حقها من حضانة الولد. . . من كتاب النفقات. السنن الكبرى ٨/ ٥. وانظر ما تقدم فى: ٦/ ٣٧٠.