Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/222)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The same applies to what common people call a muhadhri: someone who has reached extreme old age and begun to confuse his speech. His words carry no legal weight.

“And one incapable of intercourse because of complete castration or paralysis: if he says, ‘By Allah, I will never have intercourse with you,’ or specifies a period exceeding four months, or until Jesus descends, or the Dajjal emerges, …”

His statement, “and one incapable of intercourse because of complete castration,” means that ilaʾ is not valid from one incapable of intercourse, where the incapacity is not expected to cease—either because he has lost the organ, which is what is meant by “complete castration.” Castration means the removal of the penis. One whose penis has been removed, whether he swears or does not swear, cannot have intercourse; how could intercourse possibly be conceived of in his case? But if half of his penis has been removed, such that he is still able to have intercourse with what remains, then ilaʾ is valid from him.

His statement, “or paralysis,” refers to the loss of movement in the organ. Thus, if the organ is paralysed, ilaʾ is not valid from him, because the incapacity to have intercourse is not expected to cease. His abstention from intercourse is due to a physical defect. Indeed, even if a castrated man said to his wife, “By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you,” she would say to him, “You are not going to have intercourse with me, whether you swear or not.” The same applies to one who is paralysed.

His statement, “if he says, ‘By Allah, I will never have intercourse with you,’” is an oath formula: the wāw is the particle of oath, and the response to the oath is “I will not have intercourse with you,” which is grammatically a past-tense verb. If it is asked, “How can he say, ‘By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you’?” we reply: when a past-tense verb occurs as the response to an oath and is coupled with lā (not), it conveys the future sense. Thus, his saying, “By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you,” is like saying, “By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you.” This differs from when it is coupled with mā (not), as in, “By Allah, I did not have intercourse with you,” for that refers to the past.

Thus, if he says, “By Allah, I will never have intercourse with you,” he has made ilaʾ, because “never” exceeds four months. Likewise, if he says, “By Allah, I will not have intercourse with you,” he has made ilaʾ.

His statement, “or specifies a period exceeding four months,” such as when he says:

ومثله ما يسميه العوام بالمُهَذري، الذي بلغ من السن عتياً وصار يخلط في كلامه، فلا عبرة بكلامه. وَعَاجِزٍ عَنْ وَطْءٍ لِجَبٍّ كَامِلٍ أَوْ شَلَلٍ، فَإِذَا قَالَ: واللهِ لَا وَطِئْتُكِ أَبَداً، أَوْ عَيَّنَ مُدَّةً تَزِيدُ عَلَى أَرْبَعَةِ أَشْهُرٍ، أَوْ حَتَّى يَنْزِلَ عِيسَى، أَوْ يَخْرُجَ الدَّجَّالُ، .................................... قوله: «وعاجز عن وطء لجب كامل» أي: لا يصح الإيلاء من العاجز عن الوطء، لكن عجزاً لا يرجى زواله، إما لفقد الآلة وهو معنى قوله: «لجب كامل» والجب معناه قطع الذكر، فمقطوع الذكر حلف أو ما حلف ليس بواطئ، وكيف يتصور منه الوطء؟! أما لو جب نصف ذكره بحيث يتمكن من الوطء بباقيه، فإنه يصح منه الإيلاء. قوله: «أو شلل» وهو فقدان الحركة في العضو، فلو كان فيه شلل في العضو فإنه لا يصح منه الإيلاء؛ وذلك لأنه لا يرجى زوال عجزه عن الوطء؛ لأن الامتناع عن الوطء هنا للآفة؛ لأنه حتى لو قال لزوجته وهو مجبوب: والله لا أجامعك، لقالت له: ما أنت بمجامع، حلفت أو ما حلفت؛ وكذلك الأشل. قوله: «فإذا قال: والله لا وطئتك أبداً» هذه جملة قَسَمية، الواو حرف قسم، وجواب القسم «لا وطئتك» وهو فعل ماضٍ، فإن قيل: كيف يقول: والله لا وطئتك؟ نقول: إن فعل الماضي إذا وقع جواباً للقسم مقروناً بـ «لا» صار بمعنى المستقبل، فقوله: «والله لا وطئتك» كقوله: والله لا أطؤك، بخلاف ما لو وقع مقروناً بـ «ما» مثل: والله ما وطئتك، فهذا يكون للماضي. فإذا قال: «والله لا وطئتك أبداً» فهو مولٍ؛ لأن أبداً تزيد على أربعة أشهر. وكذلك لو قال: «والله لا وطئتك» فهو مولٍ. قوله: «أو عَيَّن مدة تزيد على أربعة أشهر» مثل أن يقول: