Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the Quran according to the ruling of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance, for in that era they regarded a man’s saying to his wife, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” as a divorce. But the Sacred Law differed from them in this and made it ẓihār. Thus, if a person uses the explicit wording of ẓihār, it is ẓihār, even if he intends divorce by it. We say: Your wife remains married to you, and do not approach her until you have done what Allah has commanded you regarding the expiation.

Do we say that this does not apply when he uses it in the sense of an oath—for example, if he says, “If I do such-and-such, then my wife is to me like my mother’s back”? The answer is: Yes. According to the stronger view, it may be treated as an oath; that is, he intended to restrain himself and did not intend to forbid his wife to himself or make her like his mother’s back, in view of the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “Actions are only by intentions, and every person shall have only what he intended.” (1)

However, his saying, “You are forbidden to me,” is not equivalent to saying, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” because we have a text in the Quran. Allah Most High says:

“O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you?” [al-Taḥrīm 66:1]

Then He says:

“Allah has already ordained for you the expiation of your oaths.” [al-Taḥrīm 66:2]

Thus Allah has made prohibition an oath, and excluding one’s wife from this generality requires evidence—and there is no evidence.

Therefore, according to the madhhab, they treat a person’s saying, “You are forbidden to me,” as equivalent to his saying, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” and deem it ẓihār in every case, even if he intends divorce by it. Thus, if a man comes seeking a legal ruling and says, “I told my wife, ‘You are forbidden to me,’” then according to the madhhab we do not ask, “What did you intend?” Rather, we say: You have pronounced ẓihār, so do not approach her until you have done what Allah has commanded you. But according to the correct view, we ask: What did you intend?

His statement, “Likewise, whatever Allah has made lawful for me is forbidden”: “whatever” is the subject, and its predicate

(1) Previously cited on p. 17.
الظهار بحكم الجاهلية؛ لأنهم في الجاهلية يرون أن قول الإنسان لزوجته: أنت علي كظهر أمي طلاق، ولكن الشرع خالفهم في هذا وجعله ظهاراً، فالإنسان إذا أتى بصريح الظهار فهو ظهار، ولو نوى به الطلاق، فنقول: الزوجة باقية في ذمتك، ولا تقربها حتى تفعل ما أمرك الله به من الكفارة، وهل نقول: ما لم يجرِه مجرى اليمين، بأن قال: إن فعلت كذا فزوجتي علي كظهر أمي؟ فالجواب: نعم، على القول الراجح أنه قد يُجرى مَجرى اليمين، أي: منع نفسه، ولم يرد أن يحرم زوجته ويجعلها كظهر أمه لقول النبي ﷺ: «إنما الأعمال بالنيات وإنما لكل امرئ ما نوى» (١). لكن قوله: «أنتِ علي حرام»، لا تساوي «أنت علي كظهر أمي»، لأن عندنا نصاً في القرآن، يقول الله تعالى: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ﴾ [التحريم: ١]، ثم قال: ﴿قَدْ فَرَضَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ تَحِلَّةَ أَيْمَانِكُمْ﴾ [التحريم: ٢]، فجعل الله التحريم يميناً، وإخراج الزوجة من هذا العموم يحتاج إلى دليل، ولا دليل. إذن على المذهب يجعلون قول الإنسان: أنت عليَّ حرام كقوله: أنت عليَّ كظهر أمي، فيجعلونه ظهاراً في كل حال، ولو نوى به الطلاق، فإذا جاء رجل يستفتينا يقول: إني قلت لزوجتي: أنت عليَّ حرام، فعلى المذهب ما نقول: ماذا نويت؟ بل نقول: أنت مظاهر، فلا تقربها حتى تفعل ما أمرك الله به، أما على القول الصحيح فإننا نقول: ماذا نويت؟ قوله: «وكذلك ما أحل الله عليَّ حرام» «ما» مبتدأ، وخبره
(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٧).

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