Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/377)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and this is termed an unauthorized person’s disposition. We have previously stated that, according to the madhhab, an unauthorized person’s disposition is not valid except in a limited number of cases, one of which is this case. For the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—ruled that the first husband has the choice either to take her back or to leave her with the second husband under his original marriage contract (1).

If he chooses to take her back, must he compensate the second husband for the dowry he paid, or not? He is not required to compensate the second husband, because the latter entered into the marriage knowing that she was the wife of a missing man, and a missing person may return. So we say: you were negligent, and therefore you are entitled to nothing.

The evidence for this is the reports from the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—who said concerning the wife of a missing man: she may marry, and if her husband returns, he has the choice. What has been reported from the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—makes no distinction between before and after consummation, and this is also what analogy requires. If we say that the marriage contract becomes invalid once it is discovered that her husband is alive, then there is no difference whether the second husband has had intercourse with her or not. And if we say that the reason is that, once she has married him, the first husband may become willing to leave her to the second husband—either out of embarrassment before him, or out of aversion to a wife who remarried without waiting, or for some other reason—then here too there is no difference between before and after consummation.

Hence, the sound analogy and correct reasoning are what has been related from the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—namely, that he is given the choice in all cases, because the first husband has the greater right to her, since she is his wife.

If it is asked: Why do you give him the choice rather than declare the marriage invalid outright, as some scholars have held, so that she belongs to the first husband in every case if he returns, without distinction?

We reply: We give him the choice because the right belongs to him, and when a man returns and finds his wife

(1) Its source has been cited previously on p. 376.

وهذا يعبر عنه بتصرف الفضولي، وقد سبق لنا أن المذهب لا يجوز تصرف الفضولي، إلا في مسائل معدودة، منها هذه المسألة، فإن الصحابة ﵃ قضوا بأن الزوج الأول له الخيار بين أن يأخذها أو يدعها للزوج الثاني بعقده الأول (١). وإذا اختار أَخْذَها، فهل يضمن للثاني مهره أو لا؟ لا يضمن للثاني؛ لأن الثاني دخل على بصيرة أنها زوجة مفقود، والمفقود من الجائز أن يرجع، فنقول: أنت الذي فرطت وحينئذٍ ليس لك شيء، والدليل على هذا آثار عن الصحابة ﵃ قالوا في امرأة المفقود: تتزوج، وإذا قدم زوجها فهو بالخيار، والوارد عن الصحابة ﵃ لا فرق بين ما قبل الدخول وبعده، وهذا هو مقتضى القياس؛ لأننا إن قلنا: إن العقد صار باطلاً بتبين أن زوجها موجود، فلا فرق بين أن يطأها الثاني أو لا يطأها، وإن قلنا: إن العلة أنه لما عقد عليها فإن زوجها قد تطيب بها نفسه للزوج الثاني، إما حياءً منه وإما كراهةً لهذه الزوجة التي تزوجت ولم تنتظر، أو لسبب من الأسباب، فهنا لا فرق ـ أيضاً ـ بين ما قبل الدخول وبين ما بعده، ولهذا كان القياس الصحيح والنظر الصحيح ما جاء عن الصحابة ﵃ من التخيير مطلقاً؛ لأن الزوج الأول أملك بها؛ لأنها زوجته. فإذا قيل: لماذا تخيرونه، ولا تبطلون النكاح مطلقاً، كما قال به بعض العلماء، فتكون للأول بكل حال ـ إذا قدم ـ بدون تفصيل؟ نقول: نخيره؛ لأن الحق له، والإنسان إذا جاء وزوجته

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٣٧٦).