Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/177)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The first is when the wife selected by the lot has remarried. If she has remarried, his acknowledgment that she was not the divorced wife would invalidate the new husband’s right—and invalidating the new husband’s right is something we cannot accept.

The reasoning also indicates that if the second husband were to believe him and say, “I trust this man: the wife upon whom the divorce fell is the one still with him, and this woman was not divorced,” would the marriage be annulled? The answer is yes, because his believing the first husband entails his acknowledging that the marriage is invalid.

The second is when the lot was drawn pursuant to a judge’s ruling. If the husband were then to retract and say, “I now remember that the wife selected by the lot was not the divorced one,” we would say to him: “We do not accept your statement,” because a judge’s ruling settles the dispute. Accordingly, his statement is not accepted, since the judgment has been executed. Thus, if witnesses retract their testimony after a judge’s ruling, the judgment is not overturned. For example, if two men testify that disputed property belongs to a particular person, and the judge rules in his favor, then after the ruling they retract and say, “We lied in our testimony,” or, “We made a mistake,” or, “We were under a mistaken impression,” the judge does not overturn the ruling. However, they are liable to compensate the person against whom they testified.

If proof is established that the judgment was contrary to the facts, then it is reconsidered—even in the matter of marriage. Thus, if people come to us and say, “We testify that the man divorced the woman upon whom the lot did not fall,” then everything is set aside, because drawing lots is not itself a judicial ruling; rather, it is a means of identification.

His statement: “If he says, ‘If this bird is a crow, then so-and-so is divorced; and if it is a dove, then so-and-so is divorced,’ and its identity is unknown, neither woman is divorced.” This refers to a man past whom a bird flew, and he said:

الأولى: إذا تزوجت التي قُرعت؛ لأنها إذا تزوجت فإن إقراره بأنها غير المطلقة يكون فيه إبطال لحق الزوج الجديد، وإبطال لحق الزوج الجديد ما يمكن أن نقبله. وعلم من التعليل أن الزوج الثاني لو صدَّقه، وقال: أنا أثق بهذا الرجل، وأن التي وقع عليها الطلاق هي التي عنده، وأن هذه لم يقع عليها الطلاق، فهل ينفسخ النكاح؟ الجواب: نعم؛ لأن تصديقه للزوج الأول يستلزم إقراره ببطلان النكاح. الثانية: إذا كانت القرعة بحكم حاكم، فإنه لو رجع الزوج وقال: أنا تذكرت أن الزوجة المقروعة ليست المطلقة، قلنا له: لا نقبل قولك؛ لأن حكم الحاكم يرفع الخلاف، وعلى هذا فلا يقبل قوله؛ لأن الحُكم نُفِّذ، ولهذا لو رجع الشهود بعد حكم الحاكم لم ينقضِ الحكم، فلو شهد رجلان لشخص بأن هذا المال المدعى به له، فحكم به القاضي ثم بعد الحكم رجعا وقالا: كذبنا في شهادتنا، غلطنا، أو توهمنا؛ فإن الحاكم لا ينقض الحكم، ولكن يلزمهما الضمان لمن شهد عليه. وإذا ثبت ببينة أن الحكم بخلاف ذلك، ينظر حتى في الزواج، فلو جاءنا ناس وقالوا: نحن نشهد أن الرجل طلق فلانة التي لم تقع عليها القرعة، فحينئذٍ يلغى كل شيء؛ لأن القرعة ليست بحكم، بل القرعة تمييز. قوله: «وإن قال: إن كان هذا الطائر غراباً ففلانة طالق، وإن كان حماماً ففلانة، وجُهل لم تطلقا» هذا رجل مرَّ به طائر، فقال: