Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/299)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement: “Or concerning that by which it becomes binding, her statement is accepted.” We have previously explained that the bridal gift becomes fully binding through intercourse, seclusion, kissing, lustful touching, and looking—that is, by making lawful what is permissible only to a husband—as well as through death, as will follow.

Thus, if the wife says, “You were alone with me,” while the husband says, “I was not alone with you,” the bridal gift is established. The wife claims that he was alone with her so that she may receive the full bridal gift, whereas he denies this so that she receives half. The husband’s statement is accepted, because the basic presumption is that neither consummation nor seclusion occurred. But if there is an indication of consummation—such as their having held a wedding celebration—and he then claims that he did not consummate the marriage, the wife’s statement is accepted on the basis of that indication. Ibn Rajab mentioned this in al-Qawa'id, saying: “When the basic presumption and the apparent indication conflict, which of them takes precedence?”

He said: “If the apparent indication constitutes legally valid evidence, it takes precedence; but if it does not, then one considers which of the two is stronger.”

His statement: “Concerning her receipt of it, her statement is accepted.” That is, if they differ over whether she received the bridal gift: the husband says, “I gave you the bridal gift,” while the wife says, “No, you gave me nothing,” then her statement is accepted, because the basic presumption is that she did not receive it. The husband is told: “Bring witnesses that you gave it to her.”

This too is considered in light of the surrounding indications. For example, here in Najd the bridal gift is paid in advance. Thus, if she demands it from him after consummation and says, “Give me the bridal gift,” and he says, “I gave it to you before consummation,” then the husband’s statement is accepted, because that is what is apparent. The basic presumption does not always take precedence. Thus, if a woman has been living with her husband in his house and, on the day he divorces her, says, “I want maintenance from you. I have been with you for ten years, and you did not support me; I used to spend from my own money,” or

قوله: «أو فيما يستقر به فقوله» تقدم لنا أن المهر يستقر بالوطء، والخلوة، والتقبيل، واللمس لشهوة، والنظر، يعني استباحة ما لا يحل إلا للزوج، والموت كما سيأتي. فإذا قالت الزوجة: إنك خلوت بي، وقال الزوج: لم أخلُ، فالصداق ثابت، فالزوجة تقول: إنه خلا حتى تأخذ المهر كاملاً، وهو يقول: لم أخلُ حتى تأخذ النصف، فالقول قول الزوج؛ لأن الأصل عدم الدخول والخلوة، فإن وجدت قرينة على الدخول كإقامة حفل الزواج، ثم ادعى أنه ما دخل، فالقول قول الزوجة بالقرينة، وهذا ذكره ابن رجب في القواعد، قال: إذا تعارض الأصل والظاهر فأيهما يقدم؟ قال: إن كان الظاهر حجة شرعية قدم الظاهر، وإن لم يكن حجة شرعية فينظر أيهما أقوى. قوله: «وفي قبضِهِ فقولُها» أي اختلفا في قبض المهر بأن قال الزوج: قد أقبضتك المهر، وقالت الزوجة: لا، لم تقبضني شيئاً، فالقول قولها؛ لأن الأصل عدم القبض، ويقال للزوج: إيت بشهود على أنك أقبضتها. وهذا ـ أيضاً ـ ينظر فيه إلى القرائن، فعندنا ـ مثلاً ـ هنا في نَجْدٍ المهر مقدم، فلو أنها طالبته بعد الدخول، وقالت: أعطني المهر، فقال: قد سلَّمته لك قبل الدخول، فالقول قول الزوج؛ لأن هذا هو الظاهر، فالأصل ليس مقدماً دائماً، فلو أن امرأة عند زوجها في بيته، ويوم طلقها قالت: أريد منك النفقة، أنا لي معك عشر سنوات، وأنت لا تنفق علي، أنا كنت أنفق من مالي، أو