Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/489)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and he divorces her once, the divorce takes effect, but he is not entitled to the one thousand, because she requested a threefold divorce. Yet there is some basis for saying that he is entitled to it:

First: a threefold divorce is prohibited, whereas he has turned away from what is prohibited to what is permissible: one divorce is lawful, while three are prohibited.

Second: the woman has not failed to attain her objective if he divorces her once, because it is in exchange for compensation and he has no right to revoke it.

Third: he has given her something better, because if circumstances change and improve, she may become lawful for him through a new marriage contract. This differs from a threefold divorce, after which she is not lawful for him until she has married another husband. Thus, the sound view in this issue is that he is entitled to it.

“Except in the case where one divorce remains. A father may not arrange khulʿ for the wife of his minor son, nor divorce her, nor arrange khulʿ for his daughter in return for any of her wealth, …”

His statement, “Except in the case where one divorce remains,” means that he is entitled to the one thousand if she says, “Divorce me three times for one thousand,” when he had previously divorced her twice and only one divorce remained. If he then says, “You are divorced once,” he is entitled to the one thousand. If she says, “I requested that you divorce me three times,” we reply: Had he divorced you three times, the other two would have been ineffective, because only one divorce remained available to him. For this reason, a man once asked one of the early righteous predecessors, saying, “I divorced my wife one hundred times.” He replied, “She became unlawful to you by three, and ninety-seven were acts of disobedience.” (1)

His statement, “A father may not arrange khulʿ for the wife of his minor son, nor divorce her,” means that a father may not arrange khulʿ for the wife of his minor son, whether using his own wealth or the son's wealth, because khulʿ lies in the husband's authority, not in that of

(1) See: Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq, no. 11348; and al-Daraqutni, no. 3925, al-Risalah edition.

فطلقها واحدة فإن الطلاق يقع، لكن لا يستحق الألف؛ لأنها طلبت طلاقاً ثلاثاً، ولو قيل بأنه يستحقها لكان له وجه: أولاً: الطلاق الثلاث محرم، وقد عدل عن المحرم إلى المباح فالواحدة حلال، والثلاث محرم. ثانياً: أن المرأة لم يفت مقصودها فيما إذا طلقها واحدة؛ لأنه على عوض إذ لا يملك الرجعة فيه. ثالثاً: أنه زادها خيراً لأنه لو تغيرت الحال وتحسنت حل له أن يتزوجها بعقد، بخلاف الثلاث فإنها لا تحل إلا بعد زوج، فالصحيح في هذه المسألة أنه يستحقها. إِلاَّ فِي وَاحِدَةٍ بَقِيَتْ، وَلَيْسَ لِلأَبِ خَلْعُ زَوْجَةِ ابْنِهِ الصَّغِيرِ، وَلَا طَلَاقُهَا، وَلَا خُلْعُ ابْنَتِهِ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ مَالِهَا، ......... قوله: «إلا في واحدة بقيت» يعني فإنه يستحق الألف، بأن قالت: طلقني ثلاثاً بألف، وسبق أن طلقها مرتين وبقيت واحدة، فقال: أنت طالق واحدة فإنه يستحق الألف، فلو قالت: أنا طلبت أن تطلقني ثلاثاً، نقول: لو طلقك ثلاثاً، فالثنتان لاغيات؛ والسبب أنه ما بقي له إلا واحدة، ولهذا سأل رجل بعض السلف قال: إني طلقت امرأتي مائة طلقة، فقال: حَرُمَت عليك بثلاث، وسبع وتسعون معصية (١). قوله: «وليس للأب خلع زوجة ابنه الصغير ولا طلاقها» أي: ليس للأب أن يخالع زوجة ابنه الصغير، سواء من ماله هو، أو من مال الولد؛ لأن الخلع بيد الزوج وليس بيد

(١) انظر: مصنف عبد الرزاق (١١٣٤٨)، والدارقطني (٣٩٢٥) ط/ الرسالة.