Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

In the first case, the stipulated bridal gift is valid as specified: one thousand for her and one thousand for her father.

In the second case, the stipulated bridal gift is valid, but whatever was stipulated for the brother belongs to her. This is the established position of the school: a distinction is made between the father and others. But how can this stipulation be valid when Allah has assigned the bridal gift to women, saying: “And give the women their bridal gifts graciously” [al-Nisa’ 4:4]? He also assigned to women the right to waive half of it when divorce takes place before consummation, saying: “Unless they waive it” [al-Baqarah 2:237].

In the hadith concerning the woman who offered herself in marriage, the man said, “I will give her my lower garment” (1). Thus, the woman’s ownership of, and right to dispose of, the bridal gift was affirmed. How, then, can it be valid for the father to stipulate a portion of it for himself?!

They answered: the father may take ownership of whatever he wishes from his child’s property, due to the Prophet’s saying: “You and your property belong to your father” (2). Thus, he may stipulate half of the bridal gift, a quarter of it, a third of it, or all of it, because he may take ownership of whatever he wishes from his daughter’s property. The brother, however, has no such right of ownership. Therefore, we say that the entire stipulated bridal gift belongs to the wife; the reason is that he has no right to take ownership of it. Rather, it is unlawful for him, due to Allah’s saying: “And give the women their bridal gifts graciously. But if they willingly give up to you anything of it, then consume it with pleasure and satisfaction” [al-Nisa’ 4:4].

It was also said—and this is the correct view—that whatever is stipulated before the contract belongs to the wife without qualification. Then, once she has taken ownership of it, the father may take ownership of it subject to the well-known conditions, and whatever

(1) Its source has previously been cited on p. 39. (2) It was narrated by Imam Ahmad (2:179, 204), Abu Dawud, in al-Buyu' (Commercial Transactions), chapter: “A Man Eating from His Son’s Wealth” (3530), and Ibn Majah, in al-Tijarat (Commerce), chapter: “What a Man May Take from His Son’s Wealth” (2292), through Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather. Its chain of transmission was graded hasan (sound) in al-Irwa' (838).
في المسألة الأولى: تصح التسمية كما سمى، فيكون ألف لها وألف لأبيها. وفي المسألة الثانية: تصح التسمية، لكن ما شرط للأخ فهو لها، هذا هو المذهب، فنفرق بين الأب وغيره، وكيف يصح هذا الشرط، وقد جعل الله الصداق للنساء، فقال: ﴿وَآتُوا النِّسَاءَ صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةً﴾ [النساء: ٤] وجعل العفو عن نصفه إذا كان الطلاق قبل الدخول للنساء فقال: ﴿إِلاَّ أَنْ يَعْفُونَ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٣٧]. وفي حديث الواهبة نفسها، قال الرجل: «أُعطيها إزاري» (١)، فأثبت للمرأة الملك والتصرف في المهر، فكيف يصح للأب أن يشترط منه شيئاً لنفسه؟! فأجابوا عنه: أن للأب أن يتملك من مال ولده ما شاء لقوله ﷺ: «أنت ومالك لأبيك» (٢)، فله أن يشترط نصف المهر، ربعه، ثلثه، كله؛ لأنه يتملك من مال ابنته ما شاء، وأما الأخ فلا يتملك، ولهذا نقول: إن جميع المسمى يكون للزوجة؛ والعلة لأنه ليس له حق التملك، بل هو حرام عليه لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَآتُوا النِّسَاءَ صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةً فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيئًا مَرِيئًا *﴾ [النساء]. وقيل ـ وهو الصواب ـ: إن ما كان قبل العقد فهو للزوجة مطلقاً، ثم إذا ملكته فللأب أن يتملك بالشروط المعروفة، وما
(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٣٩). (٢) أخرجه الإمام أحمد (٢/ ١٧٩، ٢٠٤)؛ وأبو داود في البيوع/ باب الرجل يأكل من مال ولده (٣٥٣٠)؛ وابن ماجه في التجارات/ باب ما للرجل من مال ولده (٢٢٩٢) عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده، وحسن إسناده في الإرواء (٨٣٨).

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies