Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/493)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

impose upon him what he cannot bear; yet neither should we leave this woman to suffer harm, for she is bound to her husband while having nothing with which to sustain herself. Hence, some scholars adopted a sound view that reconciles the respective rights. They said: She has no right to annul the marriage in the third case, because this is not by his choice; nor does she have that right in the second case, because she entered the marriage with full knowledge. However, he may not prevent her from earning a living. When he supports her, he has the right to prevent her from doing so; but if he does not support her, he should permit her to earn a living. This is a strong view, and it was the position of Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him.

Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, cited as evidence that many of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, became poor, yet it is not reported that any of their wives had their marriages annulled. However, his colleague, the author of al-Furu', said after relating his words: “This is what he said.” When a scholar reports the words of another scholar and then says, “This is what he said,” it means that he does not approve of them. The reason why the author of al-Furu' did not approve of Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement is that one might say: the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were not utterly destitute, such that they could not obtain even some basic food. Or another answer may be given: who says that the wives among the female Companions did not request annulment? We say that she possesses the right to annulment, but is not obligated to seek it; and there is a difference between the two. It is therefore possible that the wives of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were content with what had occurred and did not request annulment.

In any event, the view I find most persuasive is that she has no right to annul the marriage, but he has no right to prevent her from earning a living. This applies apart from the first scenario: where she married him without knowing of his poverty.

نكلفه ما لا يستطيع، لكن أيضاً لا نبقي هذه المرأة مع الضرر عليها؛ لأنها محبوسة على زوجها وليس لها ما تقيت به نفسها، ولهذا ذهب بعض أهل العلم إلى قول جيد يجمع بين الحقوق، فقال: ليس لها الفسخ في الحالة الثالثة؛ لأن هذا ليس باختياره، وفي الحال الثانية ليس لها الفسخ؛ لأنها دخلت على بصيرة، ولكن لا يمنعها من التكسب؛ لأنه إذا كان ينفق عليها له الحق أن يمنعها من التكسب، فإذا كان لا ينفق فليرخص لها في التكسب، وهذا قولٌ قوي، وإليه ذهب أبو حنيفة ﵀. وابن القيم ﵀ استدل بأن كثيراً من الصحابة ﵃ يفتقرون ولم يحدث أن أحداً منهم فُسخت زوجته منه، ولكن زميله صاحب «الفروع» قال بعد نقله لكلامه: كذا قال، والعالم إذا نقل كلام أحد من أهل العلم، ثم قال: كذا قال فمعناه أنه لم يرتضه، ووجه عدم ارتضاء صاحب «الفروع» لكلام ابن القيم أنه قد يقال: إن الصحابة ﵃ ما عجزوا عجزاً مطلقاً، بحيث لا يتمكنون من بعض القوت، أو يقال: جواب آخر، من قال: إن الصحابيات الزوجات لم يطالبن بالفسخ؟! ونحن نقول: تملك الفسخ، ولا يجب عليها الفسخ، وبينهما فرق، فيجوز أن نساء الصحابة ﵅ اقتنعن بما حصل، ولم يطالبن بالفسخ. وعلى كل حال فالقول الذي أطمئن إليه أنها لا تملك الفسخ، لكن لا يملك منعها من التكسب، وهذا في غير الصورة الأولى وهي ما إذا تزوجته ولم تعلم بإعساره.