Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/290)

a specified bridal gift. Thus, she may dispose of it, for she owns it, and she may deal with it in every manner of disposition: by selling it, leasing it out, pledging it, endowing it, or gifting it.

His statement, “She must pay its zakat”: that is, if it is zakatable property, such as gold or silver, then she must pay its zakat from the time of the marriage contract, because it is specified. There is, however, a difficulty here: it is well known that one of the conditions for zakat to become obligatory is that ownership be firmly established. Yet the wife’s ownership of the entire bridal gift is not firmly established, since it is liable to be forfeited, or for half of it to be forfeited. If he divorces her before consummation and seclusion, she is entitled to only half of the bridal gift. So how can she be required to pay zakat on the bridal gift in its entirety?

The established position of the school is that divorce is a contingent occurrence, whereas the basic presumption is that the marriage contract remains in effect. Divorce that causes half of the bridal gift to be forfeited is rare, and thus is not taken into consideration. Accordingly, the Hanbali scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, held that the wife owns only half of it, while the remainder is held in abeyance: if something occurs that confirms her entitlement to the full bridal gift, it becomes clear that she owned all of it; otherwise, the half is what is certain. This view has considerable force, for although divorce before consummation is uncommon, it does occur. Since it remains liable to forfeiture, there is room to question whether zakat should be imposed upon it.

Accordingly, there are two views on this issue:

The first is that she owns all of it, may dispose of it, and must pay its zakat.

The second is that she owns only half of it. These rulings apply to that half, but not to the other half until it becomes clear that the bridal gift has become firmly established. Once its establishment is confirmed, the ruling follows the amount upon which it has ultimately become fixed.

المهر المعين، فلها أن تتصرف فيه؛ لأنها ملكته، وتتصرف فيه بكل أنواع التصرفات، ببيع، أو تأجير، أو رهن، أو وقف، أو هبة. قوله: «وعليها زكاته» أي: إذا كان مالاً زكوياً، مثل أن يكون ذهباً أو فضة فإن عليها زكاته من حين العقد؛ لأنه معين، وهنا إشكال؛ لأنه من المعروف أن من شرط وجوب الزكاة استقرار الملك، وملك الزوجة على جميع الصداق ليس مستقراً؛ لأنه عرضة للسقوط، أو سقوط نصفه؛ لأنه إذا طلقها قبل الدخول والخلوة فليس لها إلا نصف المهر، فكيف تلزم بزكاة المهر كاملاً؟! المذهب يقولون: الطلاق عارض، والأصل بقاء العقد، والطلاق الذي يسقط النصف أمر نادر، فلا عبرة به، ومن ثم ذهب الأصحاب ﵏ إلى أن الزوجة لا تملك إلا نصفه فقط، والباقي يكون مراعى، فإن ثبت ما يقرر المهر تبين أنها ملكته جميعه، وإلا فالنصف هو المتيقن، وهذا القول له وجهة نظر قوية؛ لأنه وإن كان الطلاق قبل الدخول نادراً لكنه واقع، فما دام عرضة للسقوط ففي إيجاب الزكاة فيه نظر، وعلى هذا فالمسألة فيها قولان: الأول: أنها تملك جميعه، ولها أن تتصرف فيه، وعليها زكاته. الثاني: أنها لا تملك إلا نصفه، فتثبت هذه الأحكام في النصف، وتنتفي في النصف الثاني حتى يتبين استقرار المهر، فإذا تبين استقراره فعلى ما استقر.