Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/233)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

If he abstains from intercourse with her in order to harm her, without an oath and without excuse, then he is like one who has sworn abstinence (mūlī).

His words, “If he abstains from intercourse with her in order to harm her, without an oath and without excuse, then he is like one who has sworn abstinence,” mean that he is treated as one who has sworn abstinence. This is like a man who abstains from intercourse with his wife without taking an oath, but does so in order to harm her. He is sinful; therefore, we give him the same ruling as one who has sworn abstinence. According to the author’s wording, he is given four months from the time he began abstaining, on condition that his intention is to harm her. We say to him: either have intercourse with her and live with her honorably, or, if she seeks annulment, the marriage is dissolved.

It was also said that he is not like one who has sworn abstinence, and that we cannot give him the same ruling when the actual circumstances differ. This is the sounder view: one who abstains from intercourse with her in order to harm her, without an oath and without excuse, is not one who has sworn abstinence. Rather, he must be required to live with her honorably; otherwise, she is entitled to seek annulment or divorce. The difference between him and one who has sworn abstinence is that the latter has taken an oath, and the waiting period mentioned by Allah follows from his oath, out of consideration for it. As for this man, he is merely harming her. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “There should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm” (1). Allah the Exalted also says: “Do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress against them.” [al-Baqarah 2:231] How, then, can we say that such harm is to last four months?!

Thus, the correct view in this matter is that it should be said: whoever abstains from intercourse with her in order to harm her,

(1) Narrated by Imam Ahmad (5:326) and Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Ahkam (The Book of Legal Rulings), chapter: “Whoever Builds on His Property in a Way That Harms His Neighbor” (no. 2340), on the authority of Ubadah ibn al-Samit. It was also narrated by Imam Ahmad (1:313) and Ibn Majah (no. 2341) on the authority of Ibn Abbas, and by Malik (2:745) in mursal form. The hadith has numerous chains that reinforce one another; therefore, it was graded hasan (sound) by al-Nawawi in al-Arba'in (no. 32), Ibn Rajab in Jami al-Ulum wa al-Hikam (2:210), and al-Albani in al-Irwa (no. 896).

إِنْ تَرَكَ وَطْأَهَا إِضْراراً بِهَا، بِلَا يَمِينٍ وَلَا عُذْرٍ فَكَمُولٍ. قوله: «وإن ترك وطأها إضراراً بها بلا يمين ولا عذر فكمولٍ» يعني فهو كمولٍ، كرجل ترك وطء زوجته بدون يمين، لكن تركه إضراراً بها فهذا آثم، فنجعل حكمه حكم المولي، فيضرب له على كلام المؤلف أربعة أشهر منذ ترك، لكن بشرط أن يكون المقصود الإضرار بها، فنقول: إما أن تجامع وتعاشر بالمعروف، وإلا إذا طلبت الفسخ فسخ. وقيل: إنه ليس كمولٍ، ولا يمكن أن نجعل حكمه كحكمه مع اختلاف الواقع، وهذا أصح أن الذي يترك وطأها إضراراً بها، بدون يمين وبدون عذر أنه ليس بمولٍ، بل يطالب بالمعاشرة بالمعروف، وإلا تملك الفسخ أو الطلاق، والفرق بينه وبين المولي، أن المولي آلى وحلف فترتب على حلفه التربص الذي ذكره الله ﷿؛ مراعاةً ليمينه، أما هذا فمجرد إضرار بها، وقد قال الرسول ﵊: «لا ضرر ولا ضرار» (١)، وقال تعالى: ﴿وَلَا تُمْسِكُوهُنَّ ضِرَارًا لِتَعْتَدُوا﴾ [البقرة: ٢٣١]، فكيف نقول: إن الضرار أربعة أشهر؟! فالصواب في هذا أن يقال: إن من ترك وطأها إضراراً بها،

(١) أخرجه الإمام أحمد (٥/ ٣٢٦)، وابن ماجه في الأحكام/ باب من بنى في حقه ما يضر بجاره (٢٣٤٠) عن عبادة بن الصامت ﵁. وأخرجه الإمام أحمد (١/ ٣١٣)، وابن ماجه (٢٣٤١) عن ابن عباس ﵄، وأخرجه مالك (٢/ ٧٤٥)، مرسلاً، وللحديث طرق كثيرة يتقوى بها، ولذلك حسنه النووي في الأربعين (٣٢)، وابن رجب في جامع العلوم والحكم (٢/ ٢١٠)، والألباني في الإرواء (٨٩٦).