Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/375)

marry another husband. If she marries and the first husband returns, the question then arises: which of them is her husband—the second or the first?

The author says, “Then the first returns before the second has intercourse with her.” The ruling here is contingent upon intercourse, not upon consummation or seclusion.

His statement, “Then she belongs to the first,” is because, when he returns, it becomes clear that the second marriage contract was invalid, since it was contracted with a woman who was still bound in marriage to a husband. This is the stated rationale, but it is not consistently applicable; and when a legal rationale is not consistently applicable, it is invalid.

Based on their reasoning, we say that when the first husband returns, there are one of two situations:

The first is that he returns before the second husband has had intercourse with her. If he returns before the second has had intercourse with her, then she belongs to the first husband, whether he likes it or not. Even if he says, “I do not want her, since she married another man,” we say: No; she is your wife.

The second is his statement, “And after it,” meaning after the second husband has had intercourse with her.

His statement, “He may take her as his wife under the first contract,” is because nothing has occurred to invalidate that contract, so it remains as it was. He therefore has the choice: if he wishes, he may leave her; and if he wishes, he may take her as his wife under the first contract.

His statement, “Even if the second husband has not divorced her,” indicates that the second marriage is valid, because his saying, “even if he has not divorced her,” implies that, if he had divorced her, the divorce would have taken effect. Yet divorce can only take effect after a marriage. This demonstrates the invalidity of the previous rationale—namely, that when the first husband returns, it becomes clear that the second contract was invalid. For so long as the rationale for invalidating the second marriage is the existence of the first husband, then here

تتزوج زوجاً آخر، وإذا تزوجت وقدم الزوج الأول فحينئذٍ تقع المشكلة، أيهما الزوج، أهو الثاني أم الأول؟ قال المؤلف: «فقدم الأول قبل وطء الثاني» الحكم هنا معلق بالوطء، وليس بالدخول والخلوة. قوله: «فهي للأول» لأنه لما قدم تبيَّنا أن عقد الثاني باطل؛ حيث كان على امرأة في عصمة زوج، هذه هي العلة، وهي غير مطردة، والعلة إذا لم تكن مطردة فهي باطلة. وعلى ما عللوا به نقول: إذا قدم الزوج الأول لا يخلو من حالين: الأولى: أن يقدم قبل وطء الثاني، فإذا قدم قبل وطء الثاني، فهي للأول غصباً عليه حتى لو قال: أنا ما أريدها ما دام أنها تزوجت، نقول: لا، هي زوجتك. الثانية: قوله: «وبعده» يعني بعد وطء الثاني. قوله: «له أخذها زوجة بالعقد الأول» لأنه لم يرد عليه ما يبطله، فبقي بحاله، فهو بالخيار إن شاء تركها، وإن شاء أخذها زوجة بالعقد الأول. قوله: «ولو لم يطلق الثاني» أفادنا المؤلف أن النكاح الثاني صحيح؛ لأن قوله: «ولو لم يطلق» يفيد أنه لو طلق لوقع الطلاق، ولا طلاق إلا بعد نكاح، وبهذا يتبين لنا بطلان العلة السابقة، وهي أنه لما قدم الأول تبينا بطلان العقد الثاني، فما دام أن العلة في بطلان النكاح الثاني كون الزوج الأول موجوداً، فهنا