Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/274)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

If he stipulates for her a usurped property as the bridal gift, or a pig and the like, then she is entitled to the customary bridal gift, ……….

His statement, “If he stipulates for her a usurped property as the bridal gift, or a pig and the like, then she is entitled to the customary bridal gift,” means that if he gives her usurped property as her bridal gift, there are two possible cases: either they both know this, or they do not. If they know it, then she is entitled to the customary bridal gift. If they do not know it, then she is entitled to its equivalent or its value.

For example, if he says, “I give you this recorder as your bridal gift,” while both of them know that it is stolen, then this is invalid, and she is entitled to the customary bridal gift, because they have specified as a bridal gift something that cannot validly serve as one: it does not belong to the husband, and the wife has no right to acquire it.

But if they are both unaware of this, and it later becomes clear that it was usurped, then she is entitled to its value or its equivalent, according to the disagreement among the scholars. The wife may be unaware that it was usurped, but how could the husband be unaware that it was usurped? The answer is that this is possible if he had usurped a recorder and placed it among his own possessions, without realizing that this was the very recorder he had usurped, and then made it the bridal gift for this woman. She is therefore entitled to the value of this item if it is value-assessed, and to its equivalent if it is a fungible item.

The correct view is that a recorder falls under the category of fungible items. According to the madhhab, every manufactured item is not fungible; rather, it is value-assessed. But the correct view is that a fungible item is one that has an equivalent and a counterpart. Hence, concerning the food sent by one of the Mothers of the Believers while the Prophet was in the house of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), when she broke the vessel and spilled the food, the Prophet took her food and her vessel and said: “Food for food, and a vessel for a vessel” (1). This indicates that fungibility also applies to

(1) Al-Tirmidhi narrated it in al-Ahkam, the chapter on what has been reported concerning one whose property is broken, no. 1359, on the authority of Anas. He said: “Hasan sahih.” The hadith is also recorded by al-Bukhari, but without the words, “food for food and vessel for vessel,” no. 2481. See also al-Irwa, no. 1523.

وَإِنْ أَصْدَقَهَا مَالاً مَغْصُوباً، أَوْ خِنْزِيراً وَنَحْوَهُ وَجَبَ مَهْرُ المِثْلِ، .......... قوله: «وإن أصدقها مالاً مغصوباً أو خنزيراً ونحوه وجب مهر المثل» أي: إن أصدقها مالاً مغصوباً فلا يخلو من حالين، إما أن يعلما ذلك، أو لا يعلما، فإن علما ذلك فلها مهر المثل، وإن لم يعلما ذلك فلها مثله أو قيمته. فلو قال: أصدقتك هذا المُسَجِّل، وهما يعرفان أنه مسروق، فلا يصح ولها مهر المثل؛ لأنهما عينا مهراً لا يصح أن يكون مهراً، ليس مملوكاً للزوج، وليس للزوجة أن تتملكه. فإن كانا يجهلان ذلك، ثم تبين أنه مغصوب، فلها القيمة أو المثل، حسب الخلاف بين أهل العلم، والزوجة يمكن أن تجهل أنه مغصوب، لكن الزوج كيف يمكن أن يجهل أنه مغصوب؟ الجواب: يمكن ذلك بأن يكون قد غصب مسجلاً ووضعه مع الذي عنده، وهو لا يدري أن هذا هو الذي غصبه، وجعله مهراً لهذه المرأة، فيثبت لها قيمة هذا الشيء إن كان متقوماً، ومثله إن كان مثلياً. والصحيح أن المسجل من أقسام المثليات، والمذهب كل مصنوع فليس بمثلي، بل متقوم، والصواب أن الشيء المثلي هو الذي له مثل ونظير، ولهذا قال النبي ﷺ في الطعام الذي أرسلت به إحدى أمهات المؤمنين، وهو في بيت عائشة ﵂ وكسرت الإناء والطعام، أخذ النبي ﷺ طعامها وإناءها، وقال: «طعام بطعام وإناء بإناء» (١)، وهذا يدل على أن المثلية تكون في

(١) أخرجه الترمذي في الأحكام/ باب ما جاء فيمن يكسر له الشيء … (١٣٥٩) عن أنس ﵁، وقال: «حسن صحيح»، والحديث في البخاري دون قوله: «طعام بطعام وإناء بإناء» (٢٤٨١)، وانظر: الإرواء (١٥٢٣).