Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/62)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

even if he did not intend it. This is because it is a separation contingent upon a verbal expression, and so it occurs by that expression. It is not an act through which a person draws near to his Lord, such that we would say: “Actions are only by intentions.” Whenever the expression is uttered, the separation is complete—just as with buying, selling, leasing, and gifting: when a person carries them out, they take effect even if he did not intend them, so long as the expression was uttered. This is the well-known position of the madhhab of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him.

Know that when a man pronounces divorce, he may at times intend divorce, at times intend something else, and at times intend nothing at all. If he intends divorce, it takes effect, without question. If he does not intend divorce, but rather means by “You are divorced,” “You are unbound,” then divorce does not take effect. If he intends neither divorce nor anything else, this is a matter of scholarly disagreement. Some scholars say that she is divorced, based on the apparent meaning of the wording.

Some scholars have said that if he did not intend it, it does not take effect, because Allah, Exalted is He, says: “Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for what you have bound yourselves to by oaths” [al-Ma'idah: 89]. An oath has a ruling contingent upon it: when a person swears an oath, the ruling becomes attached to his oath. Yet Allah, Exalted is He, did not deem it consequential unless he intended it. Thus, if an oath is not binding except with intention, divorce likewise is not binding except with intention. Whoever did not intend it has not effected a divorce.

However, we have previously mentioned that one who did not intend it because of ighlāq does not effect a divorce. Our discussion concerns one who is not under ighlāq. The reasoning of this view is very strong: how can a person be held accountable for words that slipped from his tongue without intent? They said: An oath is a right between him and Allah, and Allah has pardoned it; whereas divorce is a right between him and another person. Thus, the wife says: “The expression was uttered, whether he intended it or not; so long as it was uttered, she is entitled to demand separation.”

وإن لم ينوه؛ وذلك لأنه فراق معلق على لفظ فحصل به، وليس عملاً يتقرب به الإنسان إلى ربه حتى نقول: إنما الأعمال بالنيات، فمتى وجد تَمَّ الفراق، مثل البيع والشراء والإجارة والهبة إذا حصل من الإنسان، ولو لم ينوِ ما دام وجد اللفظ، وهذا هو المشهور من مذهب الإمام أحمد ﵀. واعلم أنه إذا طلق فتارة ينوي الطلاق، وتارة ينوي غيره، وتارة لا ينوي شيئاً، فإن نوى الطلاق وقع ولا إشكال فيه، وإن لم ينوِ الطلاق، بل قصد أنت طالق؛ أي: غير مربوطة فهذا لا يقع به الطلاق، وإن لم ينوِ الطلاق ولا غيره فهذا موضع خلاف؛ فمن العلماء من قال: تطلق؛ أخذاً بظاهر اللفظ. وقال بعض أهل العلم: إنه إذا لم ينوه فإنه لا يقع؛ لأن الله ﷾ يقول: ﴿لَا يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللَّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ يُؤَاخِذُكُمْ بِمَا عَقَّدْتُّمُ الأَيْمَانَ﴾ [المائدة: ٨٩] مع أن اليمين له حكم معلق عليه، فإذا حلف الإنسان تعلق الحكم بيمينه، ومع ذلك لم يجعله الله ﷾ معتبراً إلا إذا نواه، فإذا كان اليمين لا ينعقد إلا بالنية، فالطلاق ـ أيضاً ـ لا ينعقد إلا بالنية، فمن لم ينوه لم يقع، ولكن سبق لنا أن من لم ينوه لإغلاق فإنه لا يقع طلاقه، وكلامنا فيمن ليس عنده إغلاق، وهذا القول تعليله قوي جداً، إذ كيف يؤاخذ الإنسان بلفظ جرى على لسانه بدون قصد؟! قالوا: إن اليمين حق بينه وبين الله وقد عفا الله عنه، بخلاف الطلاق فهو حق بينه وبين غيره، فالزوجة تقول: حصل اللفظ نوى أو ما نوى، فما دام حصل اللفظ فهي تطالب بالفراق.