Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/224)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

“Whoever accepts the defect, or from whom an indication of acceptance is found despite knowing of it, has no option [of annulment] …”

His statement, “Whoever accepts the defect, or from whom an indication of acceptance is found despite knowing of it, has no option [of annulment],” contains a conditional particle in “whoever”; “accepts” is the conditional verb, and its clause of consequence is, “then he has no option.”

His statement, “accepts the defect,” means that he or she explicitly declares it. Thus, if the woman says, “I accept him despite his defect,” or he says, “I accept her despite her defect,” then neither of them has an option, because the right belongs to them and they have waived it.

His statement, “or from whom an indication of acceptance is found,” means an indication of acceptance.

His statement, “despite knowing of it,” means knowing of the defect. If someone says, “This poses a problem from the standpoint of Arabic grammar, for the pronoun in ‘its indication’ refers back to acceptance, yet the antecedent of a pronoun can only be a noun and cannot be a verb,” the answer is that it refers back to a noun—namely, the acceptance understood from “accepts.” A comparable example occurs in the Quran: “Be just; that is nearer to righteousness” [al-Ma'idah: 8]. That is, justice, as understood from “Be just,” is nearer to righteousness.

An indication is a sign demonstrating acceptance, such as her allowing him to have intercourse with her. If she permits him to do so while knowing of his defect, this indicates that she accepts him. This is the view adopted by the author.

Some scholars said that this does not remove the right of annulment, because she may allow him intercourse while not accepting the defect, but while considering her situation: whether to agree to remain married or to refuse. Others made an exception in the case of impotence, saying: she may allow him intercourse in the hope that his impotence will cease and that he will be able to have intercourse. Thus, permitting intercourse is not evidence of acceptance. Accordingly, it should be said that it is necessary to ascertain that she did what indicates

وَمَنْ رَضِيَ بِالعَيْبِ، أَوْ وُجِدَتْ مِنْهُ دَلَالَتُهُ مَعَ عِلْمِهِ فَلَا خِيَارَ لَهُ، ....... قوله: «ومن رضي بالعيب أو وجدت منه دلالته مع علمه فلا خيار له»، «من» شرطية «رضي» فعل الشرط، وجوابه «فلا خيار له». وقوله: «رضي بالعيب» بأن صرح به، فقالت المرأة: رضيت به معيباً، أو قال هو: رضيت بها معيبة، فإنه لا خيار لهما؛ لأن الحق لهما وقد أسقطاه. وقوله: «أو وجدت منه دلالته» أي دلالة الرضا. وقوله: «مع علمه» أي بالعيب، فإذا قال إنسان: هذا فيه إشكال من الناحية العربية؛ لأن الضمير في «دلالته» يعود على الرضا، ومرجع الضمير لا يكون إلا اسماً، ولا يمكن أن يكون فعلاً، فالجواب أنه يعود على اسم وهو الرضا المفهوم من «رضي» ونظيره في القرآن قوله تعالى: ﴿اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى﴾ [المائدة: ٨] ﴿اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى﴾ أي: العدل المفهوم من ﴿اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى﴾. والدلالة: العلامة الدالة على رضاه، مثل أن تمكنه من الجماع، فإذا مكنته من ذلك مع علمها بعيبه دل هذا على أنها راضية به، هذا ما ذهب إليه المؤلف. وقال بعض أهل العلم: إن هذا لا يسقط الفسخ؛ لأنها قد تمكنه وهي غير راضية، لكن تفكر في أمرها هل توافق أو ترفض؟ وبعضهم استثنى مسألة العنين قال: لأنها قد تمكنه رجاء أن تزول عنَّته ويقدر على الوطء، فليس التمكين من الوطء بدليل على الرضا، وعلى هذا يقال: يجب أن نتحقق بأنها فعلت ما يدل على