Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/185)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The answer is no, because a man may intend to remain married to her only as long as he stays in this town, yet after marrying her and consummating the marriage, he may come to desire her and not divorce her. In that case, the marriage is not dissolved by virtue of the contract or by virtue of a condition, for he neither stipulated such a condition nor was it stipulated upon him. Thus, the marriage is valid and is not a temporary marriage.

Shaykh al-Islam—may Allah have mercy on him—gave differing statements on this issue. At times he held it permissible, and at other times he prohibited it. What appears correct to me is that it is not a temporary marriage, but it is unlawful for another reason: it betrays the wife and her guardian. Indeed, it is a betrayal, because had the wife and her guardian known of this, they would not have consented or married her to him. If he had stipulated it to them, it would have been a temporary marriage. We therefore say that it is unlawful, not because there is a defect affecting the contract itself, but because it falls under betrayal and deception.

If someone were to say, “Once they have married her to him, can they compel him to keep the wife in his marriage? He may marry today and divorce tomorrow.”

We say: Yes, that is true: the matter is in his hands; if he wishes, he may divorce, and if he wishes, he may keep her. But there is a difference between someone who enters a marriage genuinely intending permanence, then, after consummating the marriage, finds that he has no desire for his wife, and someone who, from the outset, enters no marriage other than a temporary marriage in his intention, his sole aim being to enjoy her for these few days and then divorce her.

If someone were to say, “Your claim that this is a betrayal of the woman and her guardian is unsound, since a man generally has the right to divorce whenever he wishes. The woman and her guardian therefore enter into a venture involving uncertainty and risk, whether in this case or any other, because they do not know when he may say, ‘I do not want her.’”

الجواب: لا؛ لأنه قد ينوي الإنسان أنه لا يريد أن يتزوجها إلا ما دام في هذا البلد، ثم إنه إذا تزوجها ودخل عليها رغب فيها ولم يطلقها، فحينئذٍ لا ينفسخ النكاح بمقتضى العقد، ولا بمقتضى الشرط؛ لأنه ما شرط ولا شُرط عليه، فيكون النكاح صحيحاً وليس من نكاح المتعة. وشيخ الإسلام ﵀ اختلف كلامه في هذه المسألة، فمرة قال بجوازه، ومرة قال بمنعه، والذي يظهر لي أنه ليس من نكاح المتعة، لكنه محرم من جهة أخرى، وهي خيانة الزوجة ووليها، فإن هذا خيانة؛ لأن الزوجة ووليها لو علما بذلك ما رضيا ولا زوجاه، ولو شرطه عليهم صار نكاح متعة، فنقول: إنه محرم لا من أجل أن العقد اعتراه خلل يعود إليه، ولكن من أجل أنه من باب الخيانة والخدعة. فإذا قال قائل: إذا هم زوَّجوه، فهل يلزمونه بأن تبقى الزوجة في ذمته؟ فمن الممكن أن يتزوج اليوم ويطلق غداً؟ قلنا: نعم، هذا صحيح أن الأمر بيده إن شاء طلق وإن شاء أبقى، لكن هنا فرق بين إنسان تزوج نكاح رغبة، ثم لما دخل على زوجته ما رغب فيها، وبين إنسان ما تزوج من الأصل إلا نكاح متعة بنيته، وليس قصده إلا أن يتمتع هذه الأيام ثم يطلقها. فلو قال قائل: إن قولكم إنه خيانة للمرأة ووليها غير سديد؛ وذلك لأن للرجل عموماً أن يطلق متى شاء، فالمرأة والولي داخلان على مغامرة ومخاطرة، سواء في هذه الصورة أو غيرها؛ لأنهما لا يدريان متى يقول: ما أريدها.