Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/379)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

“The second husband may seek recourse from her for what the first husband took from him.” That is, the second husband may recover from the wife what the first husband took from him. Thus, the second husband ultimately bears no financial liability, because he may recover from the wife the amount he paid to the first husband. The reason is that the dowry given to her by the first husband came into her possession; and since she received it, she must return it.

The sound view, however, is that he may not recover anything from her unless she deceived him. How could she have deceived him? By failing to inform him that she was the wife of a missing man. In that case, if the first husband takes his dowry from the second husband, the latter may recover it from her. But if there was no deception, he may not recover anything from her, because it was he who caused her to be lost to her first husband. Although a marriage necessarily requires her consent, the reality is that he was the one who committed a form of infringement upon the first husband’s right.

In summary: the wife of a missing man waits for the prescribed period of waiting for him; she then observes the waiting period for a widow. Thereafter, if she wishes, she may marry. If her husband remains missing, the marriage remains as it is. But if he returns, then the matter requires further detail according to the madhhab: if he returns before the second husband has consummated the marriage, she belongs to the first husband; but if he returns after consummation, the first husband is given the choice between taking her back and leaving her. If he takes her back, he does not need to renew the marriage contract, but he may not have intercourse with her until the second husband’s waiting period has ended. If he leaves her with the second husband, the latter does not need to renew the marriage contract; rather, she remains with him under the original contract. The first husband may take from the second husband an amount equal to the dowry he gave her, and the second husband may recover from her what was taken from him.

The correct view in this issue is that the first husband has an unrestricted choice, whether the second husband consummated the marriage or not. If he leaves her with the second husband, she remains his wife, and the first husband takes from him his dowry; the second husband may not recover anything from her. But if the first husband takes her back, she is his wife.

«ويرجع الثاني عليها بما أخذه منه» أي: يرجع الثاني على الزوجة بما أخذه الزوج الأول منه، إذاً صار الزوج الثاني ما عليه غرم؛ لأن الغرم الذي غرمه للأول يرجع به على الزوجة؛ ووجه ذلك أن الصداق الذي أعطاها الزوج الأول دخل عليها، وإذا كان دخل عليها فلترده. والصحيح أنه لا يرجع عليها بشيء إلا أن تكون قد غَرَّته، وكيف تغرُّه؟ يعني لم تُعلِمْه أنها زوجة مفقود، فحينئذٍ إذا أخذ الزوج الأول صداقه من الزوج الثاني رجع الثاني عليها، وأما بدون غرور فإنه لا يرجع عليها بشيء؛ لأنه هو الذي فوَّتها على زوجها الأول، وإن كان النكاح لا بد فيه من رضاها، لكن حقيقة الأمر أنه هو الذي صار منه نوع من التعدي على حق الأول. الخلاصة: أن امرأة المفقود تتربص مدة انتظاره، ثم تعتد للوفاة، ثم إن شاءت تزوجت، فإن بقي زوجها على فقده فالنكاح بحاله، وإن رجع ففيه تفصيل ـ على المذهب ـ إن كان قبل وطء الثاني فهي للأول، وإن كان بعده خُيِّر الأول بين أخذها وتركها، فإن أخذها لم يحتج إلى تجديد عقد، ولكنه لا يطأ حتى تنتهي عدة الثاني، وإن تركها للثاني فالثاني لا يحتاج إلى تجديد عقد، بل يتركها بالعقد الأول، وللأول أن يأخذ من الثاني قدر الصداق الذي أعطاها، ويرجع الثاني عليها بما أخذ. والصواب في هذه المسألة أن الزوج الأول بالخيار مطلقاً، سواء قبل وطء الثاني أو بعده، فإن أبقاها للثاني فهي له ويأخذ منه صداقه، ولا يرجع الثاني عليها بشيء وإن أخذها فهي له.