And a free man may marry his father's slave woman, but not his son's slave woman; and a free woman may not marry her son's slave man.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
From the prohibited matters to the extent mentioned in his statement "And a free man may marry his father's slave woman, but not his son's slave woman". Now, a free man is permitted to marry his father's slave woman. For example, Zayd has a slave woman and a son named 'Abd Allah, and 'Abd Allah wants to marry his father's slave woman. We say there is nothing wrong with that because she is not his property, meaning the son's property, and he has no claim of ownership in her. However, note that the conditions for the permissibility of marrying slave women must be met, as previously mentioned. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) means that the father's slave woman is not prohibited for the son if the conditions for the permissibility of marrying a slave woman are fulfilled, which are that he fears hardship, and that he cannot find the price of a free woman as a mahr, nor the price of a slave woman, according to the author's opinion.
The questioner : And that she be Muslim.
The Shaykh : And that she be Muslim. Now, "but not his son's slave woman" means that it is not permissible for the father to marry his son's slave woman. Take the same example: a man has a slave woman, and his father wants to marry this slave woman. It is not permissible for him to marry her. Why? They said because he has a claim of ownership in her. But this opinion is weak, because the father does not have a claim of ownership in his son's wealth, but rather a claim of acquisition. There is a difference between saying you have ownership and saying you have acquisition. If I say ownership, it means he is a partner with the son. If we say acquisition, it means he is not a partner, but he has the right to acquire it. So which is intended? That he has ownership or acquisition?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second one, he has acquisition. And thus we say that his son's slave woman is lawful for him, due to its inclusion in the generality of His saying, the Exalted:[An-Nisa 4:24] So the author's statement is weak in which of the two issues? In the son marrying his father's slave woman, or the father marrying his son's slave woman?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : As for the son, it is correct that the son may marry his father's slave woman.
Then he said, may Allah have mercy on him: "And a free woman may not marry her son's slave man". A slave man who is not connected to her by a relationship that she may marry, as previously mentioned. A free woman has a son, and her son has a slave man. Is it permissible for this slave man to marry her? They say no, it is not valid for him to marry her. This is also a weak opinion, and the correct one is that a free woman may marry her son's slave man.
From the prohibited matters to the extent mentioned in his statement "And a free man may marry his father's slave woman, but not his son's slave woman". Now, a free man is permitted to marry his father's slave woman. For example, Zayd has a slave woman and a son named 'Abd Allah, and 'Abd Allah wants to marry his father's slave woman. We say there is nothing wrong with that because she is not his property, meaning the son's property, and he has no claim of ownership in her. However, note that the conditions for the permissibility of marrying slave women must be met, as previously mentioned. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) means that the father's slave woman is not prohibited for the son if the conditions for the permissibility of marrying a slave woman are fulfilled, which are that he fears hardship, and that he cannot find the price of a free woman as a mahr, nor the price of a slave woman, according to the author's opinion.
The questioner : And that she be Muslim.
The Shaykh : And that she be Muslim. Now, "but not his son's slave woman" means that it is not permissible for the father to marry his son's slave woman. Take the same example: a man has a slave woman, and his father wants to marry this slave woman. It is not permissible for him to marry her. Why? They said because he has a claim of ownership in her. But this opinion is weak, because the father does not have a claim of ownership in his son's wealth, but rather a claim of acquisition. There is a difference between saying you have ownership and saying you have acquisition. If I say ownership, it means he is a partner with the son. If we say acquisition, it means he is not a partner, but he has the right to acquire it. So which is intended? That he has ownership or acquisition?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second one, he has acquisition. And thus we say that his son's slave woman is lawful for him, due to its inclusion in the generality of His saying, the Exalted:
And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these
وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكمThe questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : As for the son, it is correct that the son may marry his father's slave woman.
Then he said, may Allah have mercy on him: "And a free woman may not marry her son's slave man". A slave man who is not connected to her by a relationship that she may marry, as previously mentioned. A free woman has a son, and her son has a slave man. Is it permissible for this slave man to marry her? They say no, it is not valid for him to marry her. This is also a weak opinion, and the correct one is that a free woman may marry her son's slave man.