Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/492)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

may Allah be pleased with him, from giving in charity more than one-third of his wealth. (1)

“Even if he acknowledges that he had irrevocably divorced her while in good health, her right of inheritance is not forfeited. If he acknowledges something in favour of an heir who, at the time of death, becomes a non-heir, his acknowledgement is not binding—though it is not void. If he acknowledges something in favour of a non-heir, or gives him a gift, it is valid, even if that person becomes an heir at the time of death, ...”

His statement: “If he acknowledges a dowry owed to his wife, she is entitled to the customary dowry by virtue of the marriage, not by virtue of his acknowledgement.” The subject of “acknowledges” is the husband who is terminally ill. He says: “I call you to witness that I owe my wife a dowry.” She is then entitled to the customary dowry by virtue of the marriage.

However, if he specifies an amount by saying, “I owe fifty thousand as a dowry for my wife,” then, if it is less than the customary dowry and she confirms it, she is given the fifty thousand. If it is equal to the customary dowry and she confirms it, she is given the fifty thousand. If it exceeds the customary dowry, she is entitled only to the customary dowry, because his acknowledgement is not legally effective, since the wife is an heir.

Yet we have made the customary dowry obligatory because a marriage is not valid without a dowry. When a woman is married, she is entitled to whatever dowry was specified; if the specified amount is not established, then the customary dowry is established. Thus, we say that this man either says, “I call you to witness that I owe my wife a dowry,” or says, “I owe such-and-such an amount as a dowry for the woman.” In the first case, he owes the customary dowry because he did not specify anything. In the second case, we say: if the amount he specified is less than, or equal to, the customary dowry, the woman is given it; but if it is more, she is not given the stated amount, because it is an acknowledgement of property in favour of his heir.

This issue demonstrates what we mentioned earlier: if there is a reason for his acknowledgement of property in favour of an heir to which the ruling can reasonably be attributed, then his acknowledgement of property in favour of an heir is accepted—for example, if it is known that this car had passed to him from one of his heirs.

(1) Its source citation has already been provided on p. 226.

﵁ أن يتصدق بما زاد على الثلث (١). وَلَوْ أَقَرَّ أَنَّهُ كَانَ أَبَانَهَا فِي صِحَّتِهِ لَمْ يَسْقُطْ إِرْثُهَا. وَإِنْ أَقَرَّ لِوَارِثٍ فَصَارَ عِنْدَ الْمَوْتِ أَجْنَبِيّاً لَمْ يَلْزَمْ إِقْرَارُهُ لا أَنَّهُ بَاطِلٌ، وَإِنْ أَقَرَّ لِغَيْرِ وَارِثٍ أَوْ أَعْطَاهُ صَحَّ، وَإِنْ صَارَ عِنْدَ الْمَوْتِ وَارِثاً، .... قوله: «وإن أقر لامرأته بالصداق فلها مهر المثل بالزوجية لا بإقراره» «أقر» الفاعل يعود على الزوج المريض مرضاً مخوفاً، قال: أشهدكم بأن في ذمتي مهر زوجتي، فلها مهر المثل بالزوجية، لكن قوله: «مهر زوجتي» إن عيَّن بأن قال: في ذمتي خمسون ألفاً مهراً للزوجة، فإن كان أقل من مهر المثل وصدقت أعطيت الخمسين، وإن كان مثل مهر المثل وصدقت أعطيت الخمسين، وإن زاد على مهر المثل فليس لها إلا مهر المثل؛ لأن إقراره غير معتبر؛ لأن الزوجة وارثة، لكننا أوجبنا مهر المثل؛ لأن النكاح لا يصح إلا بمهرٍ، وإذا تزوجت امرأة ثبت لها ما عُيِّن وإن لم يثبت المعين ثبت مهر المثل، ولهذا قلنا: إن هذا الرجل إما أن يقول: أشهدكم بأن في ذمتي مهر امرأتي، أو يقول: في ذمتي كذا وكذا مهراً للمرأة، فعلى الأول يلزمه مهر المثل؛ لأنه لم يعين شيئاً، وعلى الثاني نقول: إن كان ما عيَّنه أقل من مهر المثل، أو مساوياً لمهر المثل أعطيته المرأة، وإن كان أكثر لم تعطه؛ لأنه إقرار بالمال لوارثه، وهذه المسألة تدل على ما سبق من قولنا: إنه إذا وجد لإقراره بالمال للوارث سبب يمكن إحالة الحكم عليه فإنه يقبل إقراره بالمال للوارث. كما لو عرف بأن هذه السيارة منتقلة من أحد ورثته.

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٢٢٦).