Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (33/23)

Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

the first period of purity, retaining her would serve none of the purposes of marriage if he retained her only to divorce her. If he intended to divorce her during that first period of purity, this would merely cause them both further harm, and the Lawgiver does not command such a thing. Thus, if he is prevented from divorcing her during the first period of purity so that he has the opportunity for intercourse that is not followed by divorce, then, if he has not had intercourse with her, or has had intercourse with her, or she has menstruated thereafter, he may divorce her. Furthermore, if he abstains from intercourse with her during that period of purity and then divorces her during the second, this indicates that he needs to divorce her because he has no desire for her. Had he desired her, he would have had intercourse with her during the first period of purity.

They further argued that he did not instruct Ibn ‘Umar to have witnesses present when taking her back, as Allah and His Messenger commanded. Had the divorce taken effect and he been taking her back, he would have been instructed to have witnesses present. Moreover, although Allah Most High mentions divorce in several verses, He does not command anyone to take his wife back immediately after divorcing her. Rather, He says:

“When they have nearly reached the end of their waiting period, either retain them honourably or part with them honourably.”

Thus, when the waiting period approaches its end, He gives the husband the choice between retaining her honourably—which means taking her back—and releasing her, leaving her free to go when the waiting period ends. He must not keep her confined after the waiting period has ended as she was confined on his account during it. Allah Most High says:

“Do not turn them out of their homes, nor should they leave, unless they commit a clear indecency.”

Furthermore, if the prohibited divorce had taken legal effect, the harm that Allah and His Messenger abhor would already have occurred. That harm is not removed by taking her back when he is permitted to divorce her

الطُّهْرِ الْأَوَّلِ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي إمْسَاكِهَا فَائِدَةٌ مَقْصُودَةٌ بِالنِّكَاحِ إذَا كَانَ لَا يُمْسِكُهَا إلَّا لِأَجْلِ الطَّلَاقِ؛ فَإِنَّهُ لَوْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يُطَلِّقَهَا فِي الطُّهْرِ الْأَوَّلِ لَمْ يَحْصُلْ إلَّا زِيَادَةُ ضَرَرٍ عَلَيْهِمَا وَالشَّارِعُ لَا يَأْمُرُ بِذَلِكَ فَإِذَا كَانَ مُمْتَنِعًا مِنْ طَلَاقِهَا فِي الطُّهْرِ الْأَوَّلِ لِيَكُونَ مُتَمَكِّنًا مِنْ الْوَطْءِ الَّذِي لَا يُعْقِبُهُ طَلَاقٌ؛ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَطَأْهَا أَوْ وَطِئَهَا أَوْ حَاضَتْ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ: فَلَهُ أَنْ يُطَلِّقَهَا؛ وَلِأَنَّهُ إذَا امْتَنَعَ مِنْ وَطْئِهَا فِي ذَلِكَ الطُّهْرِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقَهَا فِي الطُّهْرِ الثَّانِي: دَلَّ عَلَى أَنَّهُ مُحْتَاجٌ إلَى طَلَاقِهَا؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا رَغْبَةَ لَهُ فِيهَا إذْ لَوْ كَانَتْ لَهُ فِيهَا رَغْبَةٌ لَجَامَعَهَا فِي الطُّهْرِ الْأَوَّلِ. قَالُوا لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَأْمُرْ ابْنَ عُمَرَ بِالْإِشْهَادِ عَلَى الرَّجْعَةِ كَمَا أَمَرَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَوْ كَانَ الطَّلَاقُ قَدْ وَقَعَ وَهُوَ يَرْتَجِعُهَا لَأُمِرَ بِالْإِشْهَادِ؛ وَلِأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى لَمَّا ذَكَرَ الطَّلَاقَ فِي غَيْرِ آيَةٍ لَمْ يَأْمُرْ أَحَدًا بِالرَّجْعَةِ عَقِيبَ الطَّلَاقِ؛ بَلْ قَالَ: {فَإِذَا بَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ فَارِقُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ} فَخَيَّرَ الزَّوْجَ إذَا قَارَبَ انْقِضَاءُ الْعِدَّةِ بَيْنَ أَنْ يُمْسِكَهَا بِمَعْرُوفٍ - وَهُوَ الرَّجْعَةُ - وَبَيْنَ أَنْ يُسَيِّبَهَا فَيُخَلِّيَ سَبِيلَهَا إذَا انْقَضَتْ الْعِدَّةُ؛ وَلَا يَحْبِسُهَا بَعْدَ انْقِضَاءِ الْعِدَّةِ كَمَا كَانَتْ مَحْبُوسَةً عَلَيْهِ فِي الْعِدَّةِ قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: {لَا تُخْرِجُوهُنَّ مِنْ بُيُوتِهِنَّ وَلَا يَخْرُجْنَ إلَّا أَنْ يَأْتِينَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُبَيِّنَةٍ} . وَأَيْضًا فَلَوْ كَانَ الطَّلَاقُ الْمُحَرَّمُ قَدْ لَزِمَ لَكَانَ حَصَلَ الْفَسَادُ الَّذِي كَرِهَهُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَذَلِكَ الْفَسَادُ لَا يَرْتَفِعُ بِرَجْعَةِ يُبَاحُ لَهُ الطَّلَاقُ