2024 - Issue; He said: "He has the right to marry her off, even if she dislikes it."
In summary, a man has the right to marry off his umm al-walad (mother of his child), whether she likes it or dislikes it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him. It is one of the two views of al-Shafi'i and the choice of al-Muzani. He said in the old view (al-qadim): He has no right to marry her off except with her consent, because the status of freedom has been established for her in a way that the master does not have the authority to invalidate, so he does not have the authority to marry her off without her consent, like a mukataba (slave with a contract of manumission). In the third view, he said: He has no right to marry her off, even if she consents, because his ownership of her has weakened and she has not attained completeness, so he does not have the authority to marry her off, like an orphan. Is she married off by the ruler according to this view? There is a difference of opinion regarding this. It was narrated from Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, that it was said to him: "Malik does not approve of marrying her off." He replied: "What do we have to do with Malik? Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas say: If she bears a child by someone else, her child follows her status." Our position is that she is a slave-woman over whom he possesses the right of enjoyment and service, so he possesses the right to marry her off, like an ordinary slave. This differs from the mukataba, for he does not possess that right over her. The third view is invalid, both for this reason and because it leads to preventing marriage for an adult woman who is in need of it. Their statement that the ruler marries her off is not correct, for the ruler only marries off a woman in the absence of a guardian, or his being away, or his preventing her from marriage, none of which exist here. Once this is established, if he marries her off, the dower belongs to him, because it is akin to her earnings, and her earnings belong to him. If she becomes free upon his death, if her husband is a slave, she has the option (to rescind the marriage) because she became free while under a slave; if he is free, she has no option.
2025 - Issue; He said: "And there is no prescribed punishment (hadd) upon one who falsely accuses (qadhf) her."
This is the opinion of most scholars. It has been narrated from Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, that the punishment is due upon him, as this is reported from Ibn Umar. Also, accusing her is an accusation against her free child, and she possesses a status that prevents her from being sold, so she resembles a free woman. The first view is more correct, because she is a slave-woman whose legal status is that of slave-women in most of her rulings; thus, in the matter of the prescribed punishment, it is even more so, because punishments are averted by doubts and one takes precautions to avoid imposing them, and because she is a slave-woman who gains freedom through death, she resembles the mudabbarah (a slave promised freedom after the master's death), and she differs from the free woman, for the latter is complete.
(1) Its verification preceded on page 599. (2) In M: "wa-faraqat" (and it differed). (3) In B, M: "wa-li-annaha" (and because she). (1) Reported by Abd al-Razzaq in: The Chapter on False Accusation against an Umm al-Walad, from the Book of Divorce, Al-Musannaf 7/439. And Ibn Abi Shaybah in: The Chapter on he who said: The one who accuses an umm al-walad is to be lashed, from the Book of Hudud, Al-Musannaf 9/507.
٢٠٢٤ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَلَهُ تَزْوِيجُهَا، وَإِنْ كَرِهَتْ)
وجملتُه أَنَّ للرَّجُلِ تَزْوِيجَ أُمِّ ولدِه، أحَبَّتْ ذلك أم كَرِهَت. وبهذا قال أبو حنيفةَ، رَضِىَ اللَّه عنه. وهو أحَدُ قَوْلَىِ الشافِعِىِّ، واخْتيارُ المُزنِىِّ. وقال فى القديمِ: ليس له تَزْويجُها إِلَّا برِضَاها؛ لأَنَّها قد ثَبَتَ لها حكمُ الحُرِّيَّةِ، على وَجْهٍ لا يَمْلِكُ السَّيِّدُ إبْطالَها، فلم يَمْلِكْ تَزْويجَها بغيرِ رِضَاها، كالمُكاتبَةِ. وقال فى الثَّالِثِ: ليس له تَزْويجُها، وإِنْ رَضِيَتْ؛ لأَنَّ مِلْكَه فيها قد ضَعُف، وهى لم تكْمُلْ، فلم يَمْلِكْ تَزْويجَها، كاليَتِيمَةِ. وهل يُزَوِّجُها الحاكِمُ على هذا القَوْلِ؟ فيه خِلافٌ. وقد رُوِىَ عن أحمدَ، رَضِىَ اللَّهُ عنه، أنَّه قيل له: إِنَّ مالِكًا لا يَرَى تَزْوِيجَها. فقال: وما نَصْنَعُ بمالِك؟ هذا ابنُ عمرَ، وابنُ عبَّاسِ، يقولان: إذا وَلَدَتْ من غيرِه، كان لوَلَدِها حُكْمُها (١). ولَنا، أنَّها أمَةٌ يَمْلِكُ الاسْتِمْتاعَ بها، واسْتِخْدامَها، فمَلَكَ تَزْويجَها، كالقِنِّ، وفارَقَ (٢) المُكاتبَةَ، فإنَّه لا يَمْلِكُ ذلك منها. والقولُ الثالِثُ فاسِدٌ؛ لذلك، ولأَنَّه يُفْضِى إلى مَنْعِ النِّكاحَ لامْرَأَةٍ بالِغَةٍ مُحْتاجَةٍ إليه. وقولُهم: يُزَوِّجُها الحاكِمُ. لا يَصِحُّ؛ فإِنَّ الحاكِمَ لا يزوِّجُ إِلَّا عندَ عَدَمِ الوَلِىِّ، أو غَيْبَتِه، أو عَضْلِه، ولم يُوجَدْ واحِدٌ منها. إذا ثَبَتَ هذا، فإنَّه إذا زَوَّجَها فالمَهْرُ له؛ لأَنَّه بمَنْزِلَةِ كَسْبِها، وكسْبُها له. وإذا عَتَقَتْ بمَوْتِه، فإن كان زَوْجُها عبدًا، فلها الخيارُ؛ لأنَّها (٣) عَتَقَتْ تَحْتَ عَبْدٍ، وإِنْ كان حُرًّا، فلا خِيارَ لها.
٢٠٢٥ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَلَا حَدَّ عَلَى مَنْ قَذَفَهَا)
هذا قولُ أكْثَرِ أهلِ العلمِ. وقد رُوِىَ عن أحمدَ، رَضِىَ اللَّهُ عنه، أنَّه عليه الحَدُّ؛ لأَنَّ ذلك يُرْوَى عن ابنِ عمرَ (١). ولأنَّ قَذْفَها قذفٌ لوَلَدِها الحُرِّ، وفيها مَعْنًى يمنَعُ بَيْعَها، فأشْبَهَت الحُرَّةَ. والأَوّلُ أَصَحُّ؛ لأنَّها أَمَةٌ، حُكْمُها حكمُ الإِماءِ، فى أكثر أَحْكامِها، ففى الحَدِّ أوْلَى؛ لأَنَّ الحُدودَ تُدْرَأُ بالشُّبُهاتِ، ويُحْتاطُ لإِسْقاطِها، ولأنَّها أَمَةٌ تعْتِقُ
(١) تقدم تخريجه، فى صفحة ٥٩٩.(٢) فى م: "وفارقت".(٣) فى ب، م: "ولأنها".(١) أخرجه عبد الرزاق، فى: باب الفرية على أم الولد، من كتاب الطلاق. المصنف ٧/ ٤٣٩. وابن أبى شيبة، فى: باب من قال. يضرب قاذف أم الولد، من كتاب الحدود. المصنف ٩/ ٥٠٧.
