Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/189)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

A revocation may also be effected by having intercourse with her, but it is not valid if made contingent upon a condition, ……….

His statement, “A revocation may also be effected by having intercourse with her”: all that preceded concerned effecting a revocation verbally, whereas this is effected by an action. For intercourse with her indicates that he has taken her back; thus, once he has intercourse with her, the revocation takes place. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that revocation is effected by intercourse with her whether or not he intends thereby to take her back, since he did not stipulate such an intention. He did not say, “Revocation is effected by having intercourse with her if he intends it.” This is the well-known position of the school, because this act is only lawful with one’s wife; thus, by deeming it lawful for himself, it is as though he has taken her back, and this is stronger than a verbal declaration.

The second view is that revocation is not effected by intercourse unless it is accompanied by the intention to take her back. Mere intercourse may be regarded as lawful by a person with a woman unrelated to him in marriage, as in fornication. This man may have been overcome by desire for her, or he may have seen her adorned herself and been unable to restrain himself, and so had intercourse with her—while having no intention of revocation, no desire for her return, and no intention to take her back. According to this view, then, revocation is not effected by intercourse except with the intention of revocation. This is the correct view, and it was the position chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. For intercourse may arise from a desire to take her back, in which case it constitutes the intention to restore the marriage; or it may be merely for intercourse and desire, and thus does not indicate taking her back.

The third view is that revocation is not effected by intercourse, even if accompanied by the intention to take her back; rather, a verbal declaration is indispensable. However, this view is weak, because Allah’s saying, “Then retain them in a fair manner or part with them in a fair manner” [al-Talaq 65:2], is general. Thus, anything that indicates retaining them effects it.

وَتَحْصُلُ الرَّجْعَةُ أَيْضاً بِوَطْئِهَا، وَلَا تَصِحُّ مُعَلَّقَةً بِشَرْطٍ، .......... قوله: «وتحصل الرجعة أيضاً بوطئها» كل ما سبق في حصول الرجعة باللفظ، وهذا حصول بالفعل؛ لأن وطأها دليل على إرجاعه لها، فإذا جامعها حصلت الرجعة، وظاهر كلام المؤلف: أن الرجعة تحصل بجماعها، سواء نوى بذلك الرجعة أم لم ينوِ؛ لأنه لم يشترط، فلم يقل: تحصل الرجعة بوطئها إذا نوى، وهذا هو المشهور من المذهب؛ لأن هذا الفعل فعل لا يباح إلا مع زوجة، فكأنه لمَّا استباحه راجعها فيكون أقوى من اللفظ. القول الثاني: أنها لا تحصل الرجعة بالوطء إلا بنية المراجعة؛ لأن مجرد الوطء قد يستبيحه الإنسان في امرأة أجنبية مثل الزنا، فهذا الرجل قد تكون قد ثارت شهوته عليها أو أنه رآها متجملة وعجز أن يملك نفسه فجامعها، وما نوى الرجعة، ولا أرادها، ولا عنده نية أن يرجع لها، فعلى هذا القول لا تحصل الرجعة بالوطء إلا بنية الرجعة، وهذا هو الصحيح وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀؛ لأن الوطء قد يكون عن رغبة في إرجاعها فيكون نية إرجاع، وقد يكون لمجرد الوطء والشهوة فلا يدل على الإرجاع. القول الثالث: أنه لا تحصل الرجعة بالوطء ولو بنية الرجوع، بل لا بد من اللفظ، ولكن هذا القول ضعيف؛ لأن قوله تعالى: ﴿فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ فَارِقُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ﴾ [الطلاق: ٢] عام، فكل ما يدل على الإمساك فإنه يحصل به.