Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (1/612)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

Section

Once zihār becomes binding upon him through a statement or an act, it is not extinguished by the dissolution of the marriage and the complete severance of the marital bond. If he remarries her after she has married another husband, it becomes binding upon him again, without disagreement. If, however, he divorces her three times after taking the oath of zihār but before breaking it, and subsequently remarries her after she has married another husband, the zihār does not become binding upon him again.

Section

There is disagreement concerning a man who pronounces zihār conditionally by an oath concerning his wife, who is a slave woman, and then purchases her before breaking that oath: does the oath become binding upon him again or not? Some scholars held that it does not, because his relationship with her is now one of ownership rather than marriage. This is a different legal relationship from the original one, just as a marriage contracted after three divorces constitutes a new marital bond. One proponent of this view said: “Unless he sells her and then marries her, in which case the oath becomes binding upon him again, because he still has two divorces remaining with respect to her. The oath becomes binding upon him again so long as any of the divorces belonging to that marital bond remain.”

Others held that the oath of zihār becomes binding upon him again when he purchases her, just as it would if, after pronouncing zihār conditionally by an oath, he divorced her once and then remarried her.

My own position is that if he inherits her entirely or purchases her entirely in a single transaction, the oath remains binding upon him and is not extinguished. She has not become unlawful to him by passing from marriage into his ownership. I do not say that the oath becomes binding upon him “again,” since there can be no return without a prior separation. If, however, he inherits or purchases a share in her, thereby making her unlawful to him, and subsequently purchases the remaining share, making her lawful to him through ownership, the oath does not become binding upon him again. Ownership is distinct from marriage, and the difference between ownership and marriage is greater than that between the second marital bond and the first.

Section

As for a man who pronounces zihār conditionally by an oath concerning his slave woman, then sells her and subsequently buys her back, the oath becomes binding upon him again according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, because he is suspected of seeking to release himself from the oath. This applies even if she was sold to settle his debts, or he purchased her from someone whose debts had occasioned her sale. The oath does not become binding upon him again only when she returns to him through inheritance. This is analogous to someone who swears by his slave’s jizya not to perform a certain act, then sells him and subsequently buys him back. The disagreement concerning that case applies to this one as well.

فصل فإذا وجب عليه الظهار بقول أو فعل لم يسقطه عنه زوال العصمة بانقطاع جميع الملك، ويرجع عليه إن تزوجها بعد زوج بلا خلاف. وأما إن طلقها ثلاثا بعد يمينه بالظهار وقبل الحنث ثم تزوجها بعد زوج فلا يعود عليه الظهار. فصل واختلف إذا ظاهر من زوجته وهي أمة بيمين ثم اشتراها قبل أن يحنث باليمين هل تعود عليه اليمين أم لا؟ فذهب بعض الشيوخ إلى أن اليمين لا تعود عليه؛ لأنه ملك يمين لا ملك عصمة، فهو غير الملك الأول كملك العصمة بعد الطلاق ثلاثا. قال: إلا أن يبيعها ثم يتزوجها فإنه تعود عليه اليمين؛ لأنه بقي له فيها طلقتان، واليمين تعود عليه ما بقي من طلاق ذلك الملك شيء. وذهب بعضهم إلى أن اليمين بالظهار تعود إليه إذا اشتراها كما لو طلقها واحدة وقد كان ظاهر منها بيمين أنها تعود عليه إن تزوجها. والذي أقول به أنه إن ورث جميعها أو اشترى جميعا في صفقة واحدة فاليمين باقية عليه لا تسقط عنه؛ إذ لم تحرم عليه بخروجها من عصمة النكاح إلى ملك اليمين، ولا أقول: إنها تعود عليه؛ إذ لا يكون العود إلا بعد المفارقة. وأما إذا ورث بعضها أو اشترى بعضها فحرمت عليه بذلك ثم اشترى بقيتها فحلت له بالملك فاليمين لا تعود عليه؛ لأن ملك اليمين غير ملك العصمة، وملك اليمين من ملك العصمة أبعد من ملك العصمة الثانية من ملك العصمة الأولى. فصل وأما من ظاهر من أمته بيمين ثم باعها ثم اشتراها فإن اليمين ترجع عليه على مذهب ابن القاسم؛ لأنه يتهم في إسقاط اليمين عن نفسه، وإن بيعت عليه في الدين أو اشتراها ممن بيعت عليه في الدين، وإنما لا تعود عليه اليمين إذا رجعت إليه بميراث بمنزلة. من حلف بجزية عبده ألا يفعل فعلا فباعه ثم اشتراه. والاختلاف الذي في تلك يدخل في هذه.