Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/327)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

We say: Whoever adheres to the outward wording of the verse does not regard seclusion as consequential, but bases the ruling on intercourse. This view has been held by some scholars. However, the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—ruled that a man who has been alone with her is like one who has touched her. (1) They explained this on the grounds that the husband has been permitted with her what is not permitted to anyone other than a husband. Accordingly, she is required to observe a waiting period. Yet there remains some reservation regarding this issue, because the noble verse is explicit: “before you have touched them,” and because, although seclusion allows a person what is not permitted to anyone else, they nevertheless say that if a man kisses her without being alone with her, she need not observe a waiting period, even though kissing is not lawful for anyone other than a husband. Thus, there remains some reservation regarding the matter. However, it is well known from the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—that if he lowers a curtain or closes a door, he is regarded like one who has consummated the marriage; thus, she must observe a waiting period.

His statement, “or after both of them,” means: after intercourse and seclusion.

His statement, “or after one of them,” means: intercourse or seclusion.

His statement, “while he is one who is not of an age at which he can father a child,” refers to one below the age of ten. For example, a man marries a woman to his son and brings him in to her, but the boy is small, nine years old. He remains with her throughout the night having intercourse with her, then divorces her in the morning. We say: She need not observe a waiting period, because he is not of an age at which he can father a child. This issue, too, raises some concern, in light of Allah’s saying, “before you have touched them.” This boy has touched her, and he is her husband. Our saying that “he is not of an age at which he can father a child” is not the effective legal cause. Thus, if he were impotent yet had intercourse with her—or even if he had merely been alone with her—she would have to observe a waiting period. The issue is not whether pregnancy is likely or not, but

(1) Its source citation has been given previously on p. 183.

قلنا: من أخذ بظاهر الآية لم يعتبر الخلوة، ويعلق الحكم بالوطء، وقد قال به بعض أهل العلم، لكن الصحابة ﵃ حكموا بأن من خلا بها كمن مسها (١)، وعللوا ذلك بأن الرجل استباح منها ما لا يباح لغير الزوج، فعلى هذا تكون العدة واجبة عليه، والمسألة في القلب منها شيء؛ لأن الآية الكريمة صريحة ﴿مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ﴾، ولأن الخلوة ـ وإن كان الإنسان استباح ما لا يباح لغيره ـ فإنهم يقولون: إن الرجل إذا قبلها بلا خلوة فلا عدة، مع أن التقبيل لا يحل لغير الزوج، فالمسألة في القلب منها شيء، لكن المعروف عن الصحابة ﵃ أن من أرخى ستراً أو أغلق باباً فإنه كالذي دخل، فيلزمها العدة. قوله: «أو بعدهما» أي: بعد الوطء والخلوة. قوله: «أو بَعْدَ أحدهما» أي: الوطء أو الخلوة. قوله: «وهو ممن لا يولد لمثله» الذي لا يولد لمثله من دون العشر، مثل رجل زوج ابنه امرأة، وأدخل عليها، لكنه صغير له تسع سنوات، وبقي عندها كل الليل وهو يجامعها، ولما كان في الصباح طلقها، فنقول: لا عدة عليها؛ لأنه لا يولد لمثله، وهذه المسألة ـ أيضاً ـ في النفس منها شيء لقوله تعالى: ﴿مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ﴾، وهذا الصبي قد مس وهو زوج، وكوننا نقول: «لا يولد لمثله» ليس هذا هو العلة، ولهذا لو كان عنيناً وجامعها، بل لو خلا بها فعليها العدة؛ وليست المسألة كونها مظنة الحمل أو لا، لكن

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٨٣).