Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/40)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

It may be said in reply: the fact that the narrators transmitted it by meaning as, “I have given her to you in possession,” is evidence that there is no difference between this wording and the other. Had there been a difference, they would not have been permitted to replace the wording with one that differs from it in meaning. For a condition of the permissibility of transmitting a hadith by meaning is that the substitute wording must not differ in meaning from the Prophet’s wording. This shows that it carries the same meaning, and that they saw no difference between the two expressions.

We further say: the rational proof is analogy with all contracts: they are concluded by whatever indicates them. Allah Most High says:

“O you who believe, fulfil your contracts.” [al-Ma’idah 5:1]

Whatever people regard as a contract is a contract. According to this view, it is valid for one to say to a man, “I have given you my daughter in marriage,” or, “I have given you my daughter in possession.” However, the customary indication of the expression must convey the legal meaning of marriage. Thus, if he says, “I have leased you my daughter for one thousand riyals,” it is not valid, because leasing is never used to refer to marriage. But if he says, “I have leased you my daughter for a bridal gift of one thousand riyals,” the contract is valid, because this contains an indication that what is meant by leasing here is marriage. Allah Most High has called the bridal gift a wage, saying:

“So for whatever you have enjoyed of them, give them their due compensation as an obligation.” [al-Nisa’ 4:24]

The principle, then, is that all contracts are concluded by whatever customarily indicates them, whether it is the prescribed wording or some other wording, and whether this concerns marriage or anything else. This is the correct view, and it was the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

As for the fact that the marriage contract is of grave importance, it may be said that this makes it even more appropriate for it to be concluded

فيقال: كون الرواة ينقلونه بالمعنى «ملكتكها» دليل على أنه لا فرق بين هذا وهذا، ولو كان هناك فرق ما جاز أن يغيروا اللفظ إلى لفظ يخالفه في المعنى؛ لأن شرط جواز رواية الحديث بالمعنى أن يكون اللفظ البدل لا يخالف اللفظ النبوي في المعنى، فدل هذا على أنه بمعناه، وأنه لا فرق عندهم بين هذا وهذا. ثم نقول: الدليل النظري القياس على جميع العقود أنها تنعقد بما دل عليها، والله ـ تعالى ـ يقول: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ﴾ [المائدة: ١]، فما عده الناس عقداً فهو عقد، وعلى هذا القول يصح أن تقول للرجل: جوزتك بنتي، أو ملكتك بنتي، ولكن لا بد أن تكون دلالة اللفظ العرفي دالة على المعنى الشرعي للنكاح، فلو قال: آجرتك بنتي بألف ريال فلا يصح؛ لأن الأجرة لا تستعمل في النكاح إطلاقاً، لكن لو قال: أجرتك بنتي على صداق قدره ألف ريال هنا يصح العقد؛ لأن فيه ما يدل على أن المراد بالأجرة هنا النكاح، وقد سمى الله تعالى المهر أجرة فقال تعالى: ﴿فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً﴾ [النساء: ٢٤]. فالقاعدة أن جميع العقود تنعقد بما دل عليها عرفاً، سواء كانت باللفظ الوارد أو بغير اللفظ الوارد، وسواء كان ذلك في النكاح أو في غير النكاح، هذا هو القول الصحيح، وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀. وكون عقد النكاح له خطر قد يقال: إن هذا أولى بأن ينعقد