Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/317)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The sound view is that she may withhold herself, because if the man delays payment, we should not enable him to obtain the full right; for we cannot make the reward of kindness to be wrongdoing, nor can we treat the spouses differently—dealing justly with one and wrongfully with the other. Rather, we say: just as he has withheld what is due from him, she may withhold herself.

If he is insolvent with respect to the dowry that is presently due, she may annul the marriage, even after consummation; and none may annul it except a judge …

His statement, “If he is insolvent with respect to the dowry that is presently due, she may annul the marriage, even after consummation,” means that if he is insolvent regarding the dowry that is due—whether it was due from the outset or became due after having been deferred—she may annul the marriage, because he has not delivered her consideration.

For example, a man marries a woman with a dowry of ten thousand payable immediately, and consummates the marriage with her. When she demands it from him, it becomes clear that he is insolvent and possesses nothing. We say that she may annul the marriage contract. If she annuls it, the dowry remains a debt owed by him, because it became fully binding through consummation. Likewise, according to the preponderant view, even if it had not become fully binding, she may demand from him whatever is due to her before consummation, because the separation in this case is caused by him. It has previously been stated that when the separation is due to his defect, then according to the sound view the separation is attributed to him, whereas the madhhab holds that it is attributed to her.

If someone were to ask: Why do you not say that she may withhold herself until he pays her the dowry?

The answer is: because we do not know when he will become financially able.

If he is insolvent regarding the dowry, but, upon seeing that the woman wishes to annul the marriage, he borrows money and pays her in full, may she then annul the marriage?

The answer is: No, because her right has reached her. So if she says, “I do not want…”

والصحيح أن لها أن تمنع نفسها؛ لأن الرجل إذا ماطل لا نمكنه من استيفاء الحق كاملاً؛ لأنه لا يمكن أن نجعل جزاء الإحسان إساءة، ولا يمكن أن نخالف بين الزوجين فنعامل هذا بالعدل، وهذا بالظلم، فنقول: كما امتنع مما يجب عليه، فلها أن تمتنع. فَإنْ أَعْسَرَ بِالمَهْرِ الحَالِّ فَلَهَا الفَسْخُ، وَلَوْ بَعْدَ الدُّخُولِ، وَلَا يَفْسَخُهُ إِلاَّ حَاكِمٌ ....... قوله: «فإن أعسر بالمهر الحال فلها الفسخ، ولو بعد الدخول» أي: إذا أعسر بالمهر الحال، سواء كان حالاً من الأصل، أو حل بعد التأجيل فلها الفسخ؛ لأنه لم يسلم لها العوض. مثال ذلك: رجل تزوج بامرأة على عشرة آلاف حالة، ودخل عليها، فلما طالبته تبين أنه معسر لا شيء عنده، نقول: لها أن تفسخ عقد النكاح، وإذا فسخت بقي المهر في ذمته؛ لأنه استقر بالدخول، وكذلك على القول الراجح إن كان لم يستقر، فلها أن تطالبه بما يجب لها قبل الدخول؛ لأن الفراق هنا بسببه، وقد تقدم أن الفراق إذا كان لعيبه فالفرقة من قبله هو على الصحيح، والمذهب أنها من قبلها. فإن قال قائل: لماذا لا تقولون: تمنع نفسها حتى يسلمها المهر؟ فالجواب: لأننا لا ندري متى يحصل الإيسار. ولو أنه أعسر بالمهر، ولكنه لما رأى المرأة تريد أن تفسخ النكاح استقرض وأوفاها، فهل لها أن تفسخ؟ الجواب: لا؛ لأن حقها أتاها، فإذا قالت: أنا لا أريد