Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

she speaks to Zayd. She then marries another husband, who separates from her; thereafter, her first husband marries her again, and she speaks to Zayd. According to the majority, she is not divorced, whereas according to the author’s view, she is divorced, because his words, “then irrevocably separates from her,” are general. There is no doubt that the majority’s view is more correct in this case, owing to the strength of its reasoning.

There is another view: that the condition never resumes effect, even if the irrevocable separation was through something other than three divorces. They say that the apparent intent when a man says to his wife, “If you speak to so-and-so, you are divorced,” is that he intends it to apply within this marriage. It would not normally occur to him that it should remain operative even if he divorced her and later married her again. Moreover, once she has become irrevocably separated from him, her ties to him have been severed. The contingency related only to a previous marriage, and she became irrevocably separated from that previous marriage; this is a new marriage, so she is not divorced. For Allah, Exalted is He, has only made divorce applicable after marriage. He says: “O you who believe, when you marry believing women and then divorce them...” [al-Ahzab: 49] Thus, there is no divorce before marriage, whereas in this case he made the divorce contingent during a previous marriage, before the second marriage.

Thus, we have three views:

The first is that the condition resumes effect without qualification; this is the established school position.

The second is that it never resumes effect.

The third is the view of the majority: it does not resume effect if she became irrevocably separated through three divorces, but it does resume effect if the irrevocable separation was through fewer than three divorces.

All of this applies where the condition occurs during the period of irrevocable separation. But if it does not occur—for example, if he says, “If you speak to Zayd, you are divorced,” then divorces her and she becomes irrevocably separated from him, then he remarries her before she speaks to Zayd, and she speaks to Zayd after the remarriage—

كلمت زيداً، ثم إنها تزوجت بزوج آخر، وفارقها، ثم تزوجها زوجها الأول، ثم كلمت زيداً، فعلى رأي الجمهور لا تطلق، وعلى رأي المؤلف تطلق؛ لأن قوله: «ثم أبانها» عام، ولا شك أن رأي الجمهور أصح في هذه المسألة لقوة تعليله. وهناك قول آخر: أنها لا تعود مطلقاً، ولو كانت البينونة بغير الطلاق الثلاث، قالوا: لأن ظاهر الحال أنه لما قال الرجل لزوجته: إن كلمت فلاناً فأنت طالق أن قصده في هذا النكاح، ولم يكن يطرأ على باله أنه حتى لو طلقها وتزوجها بعد، وهي ـ أيضاً ـ إذا بانت منه فقد انقطعت علائقها منه، فالتعليق إنما كان في نكاح سابق، والنكاح السابق بانت منه، وهذا نكاح جديد فلا تطلق؛ لأن الله ـ تعالى ـ إنما جعل الطلاق بعد النكاح، فقال: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَكَحْتُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ﴾ [الأحزاب: ٤٩] فلا طلاق قبل النكاح، وهذا قد علق الطلاق في نكاح سابق قبل النكاح الثاني. فعندنا ثلاثة أقوال: الأول: أن الصفة تعود مطلقاً وهو المذهب. الثاني: أنها لا تعود مطلقاً. الثالث: رأي الجمهور، أنها لا تعود إن بانت بالطلاق الثلاث، وتعود إن بانت بغير الثلاث. وكل هذا فيما إذا وجدت الصفة في حال البينونة، لكن إذا لم توجد، بأن قال: إن كلمتِ زيداً فأنت طالق، ثم طلقها وبانت منه، ثم تزوجها قبل أن تكلم زيداً ثم كلمت زيداً بعد التزويج،

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies