Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/31)

If she has rejected him, or he has given permission, or the situation is unknown, then it is permissible …

His words, “If she has rejected him, or he has given permission, or the situation is unknown, then it is permissible,” indicate that the prospective suitor’s case falls into one of four situations:

The first is that his proposal is accepted, in which case it is prohibited to propose over his proposal.

The second is that he is rejected, and it is known that they have rejected him. In that case, it is permissible to propose, because his right has come to an end.

The third is that he gives permission. For example, I learn that he has proposed to this woman, so I go to him and say: “So-and-so, you have proposed to so-and-so, and my heart is attached to her. I would like you to allow me to propose to her.” If he gives permission, then it is permissible, because the right belongs to him, and when he waives it, it is waived. But if we know that he gave permission merely out of shyness and embarrassment, rather than willingly, then this is not permissible, because such permission is as though it did not exist. Or if we know that he gave permission out of fear—because the one asking his permission is an evil man who would harm him if he did not grant it—then one may not proceed. But if he gives permission freely, willingly, and voluntarily, then the second man may propose.

The fourth is when the situation is unknown: we do not know whether his proposal has been accepted or rejected. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that one may propose, because the man’s right has not yet been established—like one who is bargaining for an item, over whom you may offer a higher price.

But the correct view is that it is not permissible, because this constitutes an infringement upon his right. The woman’s family may perhaps have inclined toward this suitor, yet have not given him their answer; then, when another proposal comes, they may turn away from him. Thus, the correct view is that when the situation is unknown, proposing is forbidden. This is indicated by both textual evidence and rational consideration:

وَإِنْ رُدَّ أَوْ أَذِنَ، أَوْ جُهِلَ الحَالُ جَازَ ............ قوله: «وإن رُدَّ أو أذن، أو جُهل الحال جاز»، أفادنا المؤلف ﵀ بهذه العبارة أن حال الخاطب لا تخلو من أربع أحوال: الأولى: أن يجاب فتحرم الخطبة على خطبته. الثانية: أن يرد ويعلم أنهم ردوه فتحل الخطبة؛ لأنه انتهى حقه. الثالثة: أن يأذن، مثلاً علمتُ أنه خطب هذه المرأة، فذهبتُ إليه، وقلت: يا فلان أنت خطبت فلانة، وأنا متعلِّق قلبي بها، أريد أن تسمح لي أن أخطبها، فإذا أذن جاز؛ لأن الحق له، وإذا أسقطه سقط، لكن إذا علمنا أنه أذن حياء وخجلاً لا اختياراً فإن هذا لا يجوز؛ لأن هذا الإذن كعدمه، أو علمنا أنه أذن خوفاً؛ لأن الذي استأذنه رجل شرير لو لم يأذن له لآذاه، فلا يجوز الإقدام، لكن إذا أذن اختياراً وبرضا وطواعية فإن يجوز للثاني أن يخطب. الرابعة: إذا جهل الحال، فلا نعلم هل أجيب أو رد؟ فظاهر كلام المؤلف أنه يجوز أن يخطب؛ لأنه إلى الآن ما ثبت حقه، كالذي يسوم سلعة، فلك أن تزيد عليه. ولكن الصحيح أنه لا يجوز؛ لأن هذا اعتداء على حقه، وربما يكون أهل الزوجة قد ركنوا إلى هذا الخاطب، إلا أنهم ما أجابوه، فإذا جاءت خطبة أخرى عدلوا عنه، فالصحيح أنه إذا جهل الحال حرمت الخطبة، ويدل لذلك الأثر والنظر: