Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/64)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

But the response to them is: We have said only what the evidence indicates. Some scholars have authenticated the hadith, while others have graded it sound; there is no doubt that it is authoritative, so we act upon it. It is the view of the majority of the Ummah. Moreover, sound reasoning requires it, for if we adopted this position and opened this door, everyone would make such a claim, and no divorce would remain effective anywhere.

Thus, the correct view is that it takes effect, whether he was serious or joking. Moreover, holding that it takes effect has an educational benefit: it restrains those who play about with divorce and similar matters. If a person who treats divorce and the like frivolously knows that he will be held accountable for it, he will never dare to do it. The view that he is not held accountable undoubtedly opens a door for people, and Allah’s signs would be taken in mockery.

“If he intends by ‘divorced’ to mean ‘released from a tether,’ or refers to a previous marriage of his or of someone else, or intends ‘pure’ but misspeaks, his claim is not accepted judicially. If he is asked, ‘Have you divorced your wife?’ and replies, ‘Yes,’ it takes effect. Or if he is asked, ‘Do you have a wife?’ and replies, ‘No,’ intending thereby to lie, then it does not.”

His statement, “If he intends by ‘divorced’ to mean ‘released from a tether,’” means that he intends the word “divorced” to mean released from a tether. Is his claim accepted? The author says, “His claim is not accepted judicially.” Thus, if he says to his wife, “You are divorced,” and then says, “I intended ‘released from a tether’—that is, I did not bind your hands and feet,” we say: the wording may bear that meaning, but his claim is not accepted judicially—that is, in court. If she brings a case against him and takes him to court, his claim is not accepted, because what he alleges is contrary to the apparent meaning of his words. A judge rules only according to what is outwardly apparent, due to the Prophet’s statement, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him: “I judge only according to what I hear” (1). But if she does not take him to court, believes him, and leaves the matter to his religious conscience, then she remains his wife. As for the matter between him and Allah, his claim is accepted.

(1) Reported by al-Bukhari in al-Ahkam (Judgments), chapter: The imam's admonition to litigants (7169); and by Muslim in al-Aqdiya (Judicial Decisions), chapter: Clarification that a judge's ruling does not alter the actual reality of a matter (1713), on the authority of Umm Salamah.

ولكن الرد على هؤلاء أن نقول: إننا ما قلنا إلا ما دل عليه الدليل، والحديث صححه بعضهم وحسنه بعضهم، ولا شك أنه حجة فنحن نأخذ به، وهو قول عامة الأمة، ثم إن النظر يقتضيه؛ لأننا لو أخذنا بهذا الأمر، وفتحنا الباب لكان كل واحد يدعي هذا، لا يبقى طلاق على الأرض. فالصواب: أنه يقع سواء كان جادّاً أو هازلاً، ثم إن قولنا بالوقوع فيه فائدة تربوية، وهي كبح جماح اللاعبين، فإذا علم الإنسان الذي يلعب بالطلاق وشبهه أنه مؤاخذ به فما يقدم عليه أبداً، والقول بأنه غير مؤاخذ به لا شك أنه يفتح باباً للناس، وتتخذ آيات الله هزواً. فَإِنْ نَوَى بِطَالِقٍ مِنْ وَثَاقٍ، أَوْ فِي نِكَاحٍ سَابِقٍ مِنْهُ، أَوْ مِنْ غَيْرِهِ، أَوْ أَرَادَ طَاهِراً فَغَلِطَ لَمْ يُقْبَلْ حُكْمَاً، وَلَوْ سُئِلَ: أَطَلَّقْتَ امْرَأَتَكَ؟ فَقَالَ: نَعَمْ؛ وَقَعَ، أَوْ أَلَكَ امْرَأَةٌ؟ فَقَالَ: لَا، وَأَرَادَ الكَذِبَ فَلَا. قوله: «فإن نوى بطالق من وثاق» يعني إن نوى بكلمة «طالق» طالقاً من وثاق، فهل يقبل؟ يقول المؤلف: «لم يقبل حكماً» فإن قال لزوجته: أنت طالق، وقال: أنا ناوٍ طالقاً من وثاق، يعني ما قيدت يديك ورجليك، فنقول: اللفظ يحتمل ولكن لا يقبل حكماً؛ أي: عند المحاكمة، فإن رافعته وحاكمته ما يقبل؛ لأن ما يدعيه خلاف ظاهر لفظه؛ لأن القاضي إنما يحكم بالظاهر لقول النبي ﷺ: «إنما أقضي بنحو ما أسمع» (١)، فإذا لم تحاكمه وصدقته ووكلت الأمر إلى دينه فهي زوجته، وأما فيما بينه وبين الله فإنه يقبل.

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الأحكام/ باب موعظة الإمام الخصوم (٧١٦٩)، ومسلم في الأقضية/ باب بيان أن حكم الحاكم لا يغير الباطن (١٧١٣) عن أم سلمة ﵂.