For the mukatab, it is even more appropriate. Furthermore, a woman's maintenance does not lapse for any person unless there exists from her that which would cause her maintenance to lapse. It is not possible to mandate it upon his master, because the maintenance of the mukatab is not mandatory upon his master, so the maintenance of his wife is even less so. As for the maintenance of his free children and relatives, it is not mandatory upon him because it is only required by way of charity, and he is not among those obligated to provide it. For this reason, zakat is not mandatory upon him regarding his wealth, nor is fitra (obligatory alms at the end of Ramadan) upon his person. If his wife is free, then the maintenance of her children is upon her, because they follow her in freedom. If they have free relatives, such as a free grandfather or a free brother alongside the mother, each of them provides maintenance according to their share of inheritance, and the mukatab is as if he were non-existent in relation to maintenance.
1391 - Issue: He said: (The mukataba is responsible for the maintenance of her child, not her husband who is a mukatab.)
The summary of this is that if a mukatab has a child, [it cannot be otherwise than] either from a wife or from a slave-woman. If it is from a wife, and she is a mukataba, then her children follow her in the kitaba (contract of emancipation) and they are suspended upon her kitaba; if she is enslaved, they are enslaved, and if she becomes free through performance of the contract, they become free. Thus, their maintenance is upon her from what is in her hands, because they are in the same legal status as herself, and her maintenance is from what is in her hands, so it is the same for her child. As for her husband, the mukatab, their maintenance is not upon him because they are slaves to the master of the mukataba. If his wife is free or a slave, we have already explained their ruling. If the mukatab wishes to voluntarily provide maintenance for his child, and it is from a slave-woman or a mukataba belonging to someone other than his master, or from a free woman, he is not permitted to do so because it involves placing the property of his master in jeopardy. If it is from a slave-woman belonging to his master, [it is permissible, because it is property belonging to his master]; thus he provides for the child from the wealth that his master's right is attached to. If it is from a mukataba belonging to his master, it is possible that it is permissible, because in that
(1) In A: "la yakhlu" (it cannot be otherwise than). (2) In M: "zawjatihi" (his wife). (3) In the manuscripts: "amatihi" (his slave-woman). See the remainder of the issue and the following issue. (4) In B: "yadiha" (her hand). (5) In B: "sayyidiha" (her master). (6) Missing from the original. A scholarly note.
فعلى المُكاتَبِ أَوْلَى، ولأنَّ نَفقةَ المرأةِ لا تَسْقُطُ عن أحدٍ من الناسِ، إذا لم يُوجَدْ منها ما يُسْقِطُ نفَقَتَها، ولا يُمْكِنُ إيجابُها على سَيِّدهِ؛ لأنَّ نَفقةَ المُكاتَبِ لا تَجِبُ على سَيِّدِه، فنَفقةُ امْرَأتِه أَوْلَى. فأمَّا نَفقةُ أولادِه وأقاربِه الأحْرارِ، فلا تجبُ عليه؛ لأنَّها تجبُ على سَبِيلِ المُواساةِ، وليس هو من أهْلِها، ولذلك لا تجبُ عليه الزَّكاةُ في مالِه، ولا الفِطْرَةُ في بَدَنِه، فإن كانتْ زَوْجَتُه حُرَّةً، فنَفقةُ أوْلادِها عليها؛ لأنَّهم يتْبَعُونَها في الحُرِّيَّةِ. وإن كان لهم أقارِبُ أحْرارٌ، كجَدٍّ حُرٍّ وأخٍ حرٍّ مع الأُمِّ، أنْفَقَ كلُّ واحدٍ منهم بحَسَبِ مِيراثِه، والمُكاتَبُ كأنَّه مَعْدُومٌ بالنِّسْبةِ إلى النَّفقةِ.
١٣٩١ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَعَلَى الْمُكَاتَبةِ نَفَقَةُ وَلِدهَا دُونَ أبِيه المُكاتَبِ)
وجملتُه أنَّ المُكاتَبَ إذا كان له ولدٌ، [لم يَخْلُ] (١)؛ إمَّا أن يكونَ من زَوْجَةٍ (٢) أو من أَمةٍ (٣)، فإنْ كان من زَوْجةٍ (٢)، وكانت مُكاتَبةً، فولَدُها يتْبَعُونها في الكِتابةِ، ويكونُون مَوْقُوفِينَ على كِتَابَتِها؛ إن رَقَّتْ رَقُّوا، وإن عَتَقَتْ بالأداءِ عَتَقُوا، فتكون نفقَتُهم عليها ممَّا في يَدَيْها (٤)؛ لأنَّهم في حُكْمِ نَفْسِها، ونفَقَتُها ممَّا في يَدَيْها، فكذلك على ولَدِها. وأمَّا زَوْجُها المُكاتَبُ، فليس عليه نفقَتُهم؛ لأنَّهم عَبِيدٌ لسَيِّدِ المُكاتَبةِ. وإن كانت، زَوْجَتُه حُرّةً أو أمةً، فقد بَيَّنَّا حُكْمَهم. وإن أراد المُكاتَبُ التَّبَرُّعَ بالإِنْفاقِ على ولَدِه، وكان من أمَةٍ أو مُكاتَبةٍ لغيرِ سَيِّدِه (٥)، أو حُرَّةٍ، لم يكُنْ له ذلك؛ لأنَّ فيه تَغْرِيرًا بمالِ سَيِّدِه، وإن كان من أمَةٍ لسَيِّدِه، [جاز؛ لأنَّه مَمْلوكٌ لسَيِّدِه] (٦)، فهو يُنْفِقُ عليه من المالِ الذي تعَلَّقَ به حَقُّ سَيِّدِه، وإن كان من مُكاتَبةٍ لسَيِّدِه، احْتَمَلَ الجوازَ؛ لأنَّه في
(١) في أ: "لا يخلو".(٢) في م: "زوجته".(٣) في النسخ: "أمته". وانظر بقية المسألة، والمسألة التالية.(٤) في ب: "يدها".(٥) في ب: "سيدها".(٦) سقط من: الأصل. نقل نظر.
