Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/185)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

have married my wife, then this does not constitute taking her back. Likewise, if you say, “I call you to witness that I have married my wife so-and-so whom I divorced,” it is not valid, because this is the initiation of a new marriage contract, while she remains within your marriage bond. A new contract can only be made with a woman who is not one’s wife.

Some scholars have said that it is valid by saying, “I have married her,” and similar expressions, if it is known that he intends thereby to take her back, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Every person will have only what he intended.” (1) This view is very strong, because what matters in expressions is their meanings.

It is recommended to have witnesses, and she remains a wife, possessing the rights and subject to the rulings of wives; however, she is not entitled to a share of her husband’s nights, ................................

His statement, “It is recommended to have witnesses,” means for taking one’s wife back. That is, when a man wishes to take back his divorced wife, it is recommended that he have witnesses to it. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this applies without qualification: whether he takes her back in her presence or not, he should have witnesses, due to Allah’s saying: “Then, when they have reached the end of their waiting period, either retain them according to acceptable terms or part with them according to acceptable terms. And call to witness two just men from among you.” [al-Talaq 65:2]

It has also been said that having witnesses is obligatory, because Allah says, “And call to witness,” and a command denotes obligation. Moreover, taking one’s wife back is like initiating a marriage: just as the initiation of a marriage requires witnesses, so too taking one’s wife back requires witnesses.

It may be said that there is further detail: if he takes her back in her presence, there is no need for witnesses; but if he takes her back in her absence, having witnesses is obligatory. For if he takes her back in her absence without witnesses, she may deny it and say, “You never took me back,” when he informs her and tells her of the taking back after the waiting period has ended. At that point, a difficulty arises.

(1) Its source has been previously cited on p. 17.

نكحت زوجتي، فلا يكون رجعة، وكذلك لو قلت: أشهدكم أني تزوجت زوجتي فلانة التي طلقت ما يصح؛ لأن هذا ابتداء عقد جديد، وهي إلى الآن في عصمتك، والعقد الجديد لا يكون إلا للمرأة الأجنبية. وقال بعض أهل العلم: يصح بلفظ نكحتها ونحوه، إذا علم أن مراده المراجعة، لقول النبي ﵊: «وإنما لكل امرئ ما نوى» (١)، وهذا القول قوي جداً؛ لأن العبرة في الألفاظ بمعانيها. وَيُسَنُّ الإِشْهَادُ، وَهِيَ زَوْجَةٌ، لَهَا وَعَلَيْهَا حُكْمُ الزَّوْجَاتِ، لَكِنْ لَا قَسْمَ لَهَا، ................................ قوله: «ويسن الإشهاد» أي: على الرجعة؛ يعني إذا أراد الإنسان أن يراجع زوجته المطلقة فإنه يسن أن يشهد على ذلك، وظاهر كلام المؤلف ليس مطلقاً، سواء واجهها بالمراجعة، أم لم يواجهها، فإنه يُشهد لقوله تعالى: ﴿فَإِذَا بَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ فَارِقُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ﴾ [الطلاق: ٢]. وقيل: إن الإشهاد واجب لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَأَشْهِدُوا﴾، فالأمر للوجوب؛ ولأن الرجعة كابتداء النكاح، فكما أن ابتداء النكاح لا بد فيه من الإشهاد، فالرجعة لا بد فيها من الإشهاد. ويحتمل أن يقال: في هذا تفصيل، إن راجعها بحضرتها فلا حاجة للإشهاد، وإن راجعها في غيبتها وجب الإشهاد؛ لأنه إذا راجعها في غيبتها ولم يشهد، ربما تنكر وتقول: أبداً ما راجعتني إذا أعلمها وأخبرها بالمراجعة بعد انتهاء العدة، وحينئذٍ يقع

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٧).