Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/487)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

There is some reservation regarding Shaykh al-Islam’s preferred view, because this is a statement made by a sane person who knows its meaning, and therefore he cannot retract it. Rather, it should be said: if she gives him one thousand, she is divorced. According to the stronger view, this is khulʿ (divorce initiated by the wife in exchange for compensation), or a divorce in return for compensation; and she is not lawful for him again except through a new marriage contract, because she has become irrevocably separated from him in exchange for the compensation he took.

But may a judge, in this matter, rule according to whichever view he considers more beneficial? For instance, if he considers separation from the husband better than her remaining with him, may he adopt one of the views within the madhhab; and if he considers the husband more suitable for the wife, may he adopt the view of Shaykh al-Islam?

The answer is: since there is no explicit textual proof on this issue and it is a matter of juristic reasoning, there is no harm if the judge considers it beneficial to deal with the husband according to either of the two views.

If she says, “Grant me khulʿ for one thousand,” or, “for one thousand,” or, “and you shall have one thousand,” and he does so, she becomes irrevocably separated from him, and he is entitled to it, …

His statement, “If she says: ‘Grant me khulʿ for one thousand,’ or, ‘for one thousand,’ or, ‘and you shall have one thousand,’ and he does so, she becomes irrevocably separated from him, and he is entitled to it”: according to the madhhab, all three of these formulations have the same ruling. For example, she says, “Grant me khulʿ for one thousand,” and he replies, “I grant you khulʿ”; or she says, “Grant me khulʿ, and you shall have one thousand,” and he replies, “I grant you khulʿ,” without mentioning the one thousand. He is nevertheless entitled to the one thousand, because although his words are unrestricted, they undoubtedly refer to the stipulated qualification. Thus, we say that he is entitled to the one thousand.

His statement, “and he does so”: the fa here denotes sequence and immediacy. If he does so at once, he is entitled to it; but if he delays, he is not entitled to it, because the author expressed it with the fa. If he delays, the khulʿ is invalid, because it has become one without compensation.

وفي النفس من اختيار الشيخ ﵀ شيء؛ لأنه كلام صدر من عاقل عالم بمعناه فلا يمكن أن يرجع فيه، بل يقال: إذا أعطته ألفاً فهي طالق، ويكون ذلك خلعاً على القول الراجح، أو طلاقاً على عوض ولا تحل له إلا بعقد جديد؛ لأنها بانت منه بالعوض الذي أخذه. لكن هل يجوز للقاضي في هذه المسألة أن يقضي بما يراه أصلح، فإذا رأى ـ مثلاً ـ أن الزوج فراقه خير من بقائه يأخذ برأي بالمذهب، وإذا رأى أن الزوج أصلح للزوجة يأخذ برأي شيخ الإسلام؟ الجواب: ما دامت المسألة ليس فيها نص وإنما اجتهاد، فإذا رأى القاضي أن يعامل الزوج بأحد القولين للمصلحة فلا بأس به. وَإِنْ قَالَتْ: اخْلَعْنِي عَلَى أَلْفٍ، أَوْ بِأَلْفٍ، أَوْ وَلَكَ أَلْفٌ فَفَعَلَ بَانَتْ وَاسْتَحَقَّهَا، ........ قوله: «وإن قالت: اخلعني على ألف، أو بألف، أو ولك ألف ففعل بانت واستحقها»، كل هذه الصور الثلاث على المذهب حكمها واحد، مثال ذلك: قالت: اخلعني بألف فقال: خلعتك، أو قالت: اخلعني ولك ألف، فقال: خلعتك، وما ذكر ألفاً فإنه يستحق الألف؛ لأن كلامه وإن كان مطلقاً، فالمراد به القيد بلا ريب، فعلى هذا نقول: يستحق الألف. وقوله: «ففعل» الفاء هنا للترتيب والتعقيب، إن فعل الآن استحق، وإن تأخر فإنه لا يستحق؛ لأن المؤلف ﵀ عبر بالفاء، أما إذا تأخر فإنه لا يصح الخلع؛ لأنه صار على غير عوض.