Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/70)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Section

The explicit allusive expressions include: “You are free of me,” “You are absolved,” “You are irrevocably separated,” “You are completely severed,” “You are cut off,” “You are free,” and “You are al-ḥaraj (the restriction),” ................................................

His statement, “The explicit allusive expressions”: Divorce has both explicit and allusive wording. The explicit wording has already been discussed: it is “the word divorce and its derivatives, other than the imperative, the present tense, and the active participle muṭalliqah (one who divorces).” We have previously explained that explicit wording admits no other meaning, whereas allusive wording may bear that meaning as well as another. Hence the poet said:

Every expression that may signify separation,
Is an allusion: with intention, it takes effect.

That is, everything that can signify separation is an allusive expression. “With intention, it takes effect” means that divorce takes effect when accompanied by the intention. Our jurists, however, divided such expressions into two categories: explicit and implicit. The explicit differs from the implicit in that it plainly indicates irrevocable separation; hence, they rule that it effects three divorces. The implicit expression, on the other hand, does not plainly indicate irrevocable separation, so they rule that it effects only one divorce unless he intended more. There is no evidence for this division, as we shall explain, Allah willing. Rather, it may be said that allusive expressions are of two types: clear allusions that are close in meaning to divorce, and remote allusions. Their ruling is the same.

His statement, “Such as: ‘You are free of me,’ ‘You are absolved,’ ‘You are irrevocably separated,’ ‘You are completely severed,’ ‘You are cut off,’ ‘You are free,’ and ‘You are al-ḥaraj (the restriction)’”: The expressions they listed are not exhaustive, for we have said that they are expressions which may signify divorce as well as something else. If they indicate irrevocable separation, they are explicit; otherwise, they are implicit.

His statement, “You are khaliyyah (free of me)”: This is on the pattern faʿīlah and has the sense of a passive participle—that is, mukhallāh (set free). So if he were to say, “I intended a honeycomb,” we would say, “How can a woman be a honeycomb?” He might reply, “Yes, because she has many things; a honeycomb contains …”

فَصْلٌ وَكِنَايَاتُهُ الظَّاهِرَةُ نَحْوُ: أَنْتِ خَلِيَّةٌ، وَبَرِيَّةٌ، وَبَائِنٌ، وَبَتَّةٌ، وَبَتْلَةٌ، وَأَنْتِ حُرَّةٌ، وَأَنْتِ الْحَرَجُ، ................................................ قوله: «وكناياته الظاهرة» الطلاق له صريح وكناية، الصريح تقدم، وهو «لفظ الطلاق وما تصرف منه غير أمر، ومضارع، ومطلِّقة اسم فاعل»، وسبق لنا أن الصريح هو الذي لا يحتمل غيره، والكناية ما تحتمله وغيره؟ ولهذا قال الناظم: وكُلُّ لفظٍ لِفِراقٍ احْتَمَلْ … فَهُو كِنَايَةٌ بِنِيَّةٍ حَصَلْ أي: كل ما يحتمل الفراق فهو كناية، «بنية حصل» أي مع النية يحصل الطلاق، لكن فقهاؤنا ﵏ قسموها إلى قسمين، ظاهرة وخفية، فالظاهرة تختلف عن الخفية في أنها صريحة في البينونة، ولهذا يوقعون بها ثلاثاً، والخفية غير صريحة في البينونة فلا يوقعون بها إلا واحدة، ما لم ينوِ أكثر، ولا دليل على هذا التقسيم كما سنبينه إن شاء الله، لكن يقال: الكنايات نوعان: كنايات بينة قريبة من معنى الطلاق، وكنايات بعيدة، وحكمها واحد. قوله: «نحو: أنت خلية، وبرية، وبائن، وبتة، وبتلة، وأنت حرة، وأنت الحرج» هذه الألفاظ التي عدوها ليست على سبيل الحصر؛ لأننا قلنا: هي التي تحتمل الطلاق وغيره، فإن دلت على البينونة فهي ظاهرة، وإلا فخفية. وقوله: «أنت خلية» على وزن فعيلة، اسم مفعول، يعني مخلاة، فلو قال: أنا أردت خَلِيَّةَ نَحْلٍ، قلنا: كيف تكون امرأة خلية نحل؟ قال: نعم؛ لأن عندها أشياء كثيرة، فخلية النحل فيها