He said: The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was informed about a slave girl of theirs who had committed adultery, so he sent me to her and said: "Flog her the prescribed punishment." He said: So I set out and found that she had not yet dried from her blood, so I returned to him and he said: "Have you finished?" I replied: I found that she has not yet dried from her blood. He said: "When she has dried from her blood, flog her the prescribed punishment, and carry out the prescribed punishments upon those whom your right hands possess" (31). The apparent meaning is that he only intended that punishment and its like. As for the action of Hafsa, Uthman rebuked her for it and it was difficult for him, and his statement takes precedence over hers. As for what was narrated from Ibn Umar, we do not know its authenticity from him. The second condition is that the master must have exclusive right to the slave. If the slave is shared between two, or if the slave girl is married, or if the slave is a mukatab (under a contract of manumission), or if part of him is free, the master does not possess the right to carry out the prescribed punishment upon him. Malik and al-Shafi'i said: The master possesses the right to carry out the prescribed punishment upon a married slave girl, due to the generality of the report and because he has exclusive right to her ownership, while the husband only possesses some of her utility, so she resembles a hired person. Our position is what was narrated from Ibn Umar, that he said: "If the slave girl has a husband, she is to be referred to the Sultan, and if she does not have a husband, her master shall flog her half of what is due to a chaste woman" (33). We know of no one in his era who disagreed with him, so it is considered a consensus. Also, because her utility is owned by another entirely, she resembles a shared slave, and because the shared slave is only prohibited from having the punishment carried out upon him because he is carrying it out on someone not under his exclusive ownership; for the free portion or the portion owned by another is not owned by him, yet he is carrying out the punishment upon him. This resembles that, because the location of the punishment is the location of the husband's enjoyment, which is her body, so he does not possess it, and the report is specifically about the shared slave, so we analogize upon it. As for the hired person, her hiring is temporary and will expire (37). It is possible to say: He does not possess the right to carry it out upon her while she is under a hire contract.
(31) In M there is an addition: "He said". (32) Omitted from the original. (33) Recorded by Abd al-Razzaq in: The Chapter on the Adultery of a Slave Girl, from the Book of Divorce. Al-Musannaf 7/395. (34) In M: "And he did not". (35) Omitted from B. (36) In the original: "and the owned". (37) In the original: "so it expires".
قالَ: أُخْبِرَ النَّبِىُّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- بأَمَةٍ لهم فَجَرَتْ، فَأَرْسَلَنِى إليها، فقال: "اجْلِدْهَا الحَدَّ". قال: فانطلَقْتُ، فوَجَدْتُها لم تَجِفَّ مِنْ دَمِهَا، فرَجَعْتُ إليه، فقال: "أفَرَغْتَ؟ ". فقلتُ: وجَدْتُها لم تَجِفَّ من دَمِها. قال: "إذَا جَفَّتْ مِنْ دَمِهَا، فَاجْلِدْهَا الحَدَّ، وأَقِيمُوا الْحُدُودَ عَلَى مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ" (٣١). فالظَّاهِرُ أنَّه إنَّما أرادَ ذلك الحَدَّ وشِبْهَه. وأمَّا فعلُ حَفْصَةَ، فقد أَنْكَرَهُ عثمانُ عليها، وشَقَّ عليه، وقولُه أَوْلَى مِنْ قَوْلِها. وما رُوِىَ عن ابنِ عمرَ، فلا نعلَمُ ثُبوتَه عنه. الشَّرْطُ الثَّانِي، أن يَخْتَصَّ السَّيِّدُ بالمَمْلوكِ، فإن كان مُشْتَرَكًا بينَ اثْنَيْنِ، أو كانتِ الأَمَةُ مُزَوَّجَةً، أو كان المملوكُ مُكاتَبًا، أو بعضُه حُرًّا، لم يَمْلِكِ السَّيِّدُ إقامَةَ الحَدِّ عليه. وقال [مالِكٌ، ] (٣٢) والشَّافِعِيُّ: يَمْلِكُ السَّيِّدُ إقامَةَ الحَدِّ على الأَمَةِ الْمُزَوَّجَةِ؛ لِعُمُومِ الخبَرِ، ولأنَّه مُخْتَصٌّ بِمِلْكِهَا، وإنَّما يَمْلِكُ الزَّوْجُ بعضَ نَفْعِها، فَأشْبَهَتِ المُسْتَأْجَرَةَ. ولَنا، ما رُوِىَ عن ابنِ عمرَ، أنَّه قال: إذا كانتِ الأمَةُ ذاتَ زوجٍ، رُفِعَتْ إلى السُّلْطانِ، وإن لم يكُنْ لها زَوْجٌ، جلدَها سَيِّدُها نصْفَ ما على المُحْصَنِ (٣٣). ولا (٣٤) نَعْرِفُ له مُخالِفًا في عصرِه، فكانَ إجْماعًا. ولأنَّ نَفْعَها مملوكٌ لغيرِه مُطْلَقًا، أشْبَهتِ الْمُشْتَرَكَةَ، ولأنَّ المُشْتَرَكَ إنَّما مُنِعَ من إقَامةِ الحَدِّ عليه، لأنَّه يُقِيمُه في غيرِ مِلْكِه، فإنَّ الجزءَ (٣٥) الحُرَّ أو المملوكَ (٣٦) لغيرهِ، ليس بمَمْلوكٍ له، وهو يُقِيمُ الحَدَّ عليه، وهذا يُشْبِهُه؛ لأنَّ مَحَلَّ الحَدِّ هو مَحَلُّ اسْتِمْتاعِ الزَّوْجِ، وهو بدنُها فلا يَمْلِكُه، والخبرُ مَخْصوصٌ بالمُشْتَرَكِ, فنَقِيسُ عليه، والمُسْتأجَرَةُ إجارتُها مُؤَقَّتةٌ تَنْقَضِى (٣٧). ويَحْتَمِلُ أنْ نقولَ: لا يَمْلِكُ إقامَتَه عليها في حالِ إجارتِها؛
(٣١) في م زيادة: "قال".(٣٢) سقط من: الأصل.(٣٣) أخرجه عبد الرزاق، في: باب زنى الأمة، من كتاب الطلاق. المصنف ٧/ ٣٩٥.(٣٤) في م: "ولم".(٣٥) سقط من: ب.(٣٦) في الأصل: "والمملوك".(٣٧) في الأصل: "فتقضى".
