as well as the Qadi. Abu al-Khattab said: There are two views on this. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions regarding it; one of them is that her right does not lapse because she traveled with his permission, making it similar to the case if she had traveled with him. Our view is that the division of nights is for companionship, and maintenance is for enabling intimacy, and both have become impossible for a reason on her part, so they lapse, just as if it had become impossible before he had consummated the marriage with her. It differs from the case where she travels with him, because it has not become impossible in that case. It is possible that the division of nights lapses definitely, because if he were to travel and leave her behind, her division would lapse, and the impossibility would be on his part; so if it becomes impossible on her part due to her traveling, it is more fitting. Regarding maintenance, there are two views. In this there is an indication that both lapse if she travels without his permission; for if her right to them lapses due to a lack of enablement for a reason that involves neither disobedience (nushuz) nor sin, then it is more appropriate that they should lapse in the case of disobedience and sin. There is no disagreement on this, as far as we know. As for if he sent her (ashkhasaha)—which means he sent her for his own need, or ordered her to move from her town—her right to maintenance and division does not lapse; because she did not prevent him from having access, nor was it lost on her part; rather, it happened due to his action, so her right does not lapse, just as if a buyer destroys the sold item, the seller's right to receive its price from him does not lapse. Based on this, he compensates her according to the amount of time he stayed with her co-wife. If she travels with him, she retains her right to both.
1228 - Issue; He said: (And if he intends to travel, he should not take any of them with him except by drawing lots, and when he returns, he begins the rotation of division among them.)
The sum of the matter is that if the husband intends to travel and wishes to take all his wives with him, or to leave them all behind, he does not need to draw lots; because the drawing of lots is for determining which one of them is specifically chosen for the travel, and here he has treated them equally. If he wishes to travel with only some of them, it is not permissible for him to travel with her except by drawing lots. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.
(2) In A: "wajhan" (two views). (3) In B and M: "shakhkasaha". (4) Omitted from: A, B, and M.
والقاضى. وقال أبو الخَطَّابِ: فى ذلك وَجْهانِ. وللشَّافعىِّ فيه قَوْلانِ؛ أحدُهما، لا يَسقطُ حقُّها؛ لأنَّها سافَرتْ بإذْنِه، أشْبَهَ ما لو سافَرتْ معَه. ولَنا، أَنَّ القَسْمَ للأُنْسِ، والنَّفقةَ للتَّمْكينِ من الاسْتِمْتاعِ، وقد تعذَّرَ ذلك بسبَبٍ من جِهَتِها، فسقَطَ، كما لو تعذَّرَ ذلك قبلَ دُخولِه بها. وفارَقَ ما إذا سافَرتْ معَه؛ لأنَّه لم يتعذَّرْ ذلك. ويَحْتَمِلُ أن يسْقُطَ القَسْمُ، وجهًا واحدًا؛ لأنَّه لو سافرَ عنها لَسقطَ قَسْمُها، والتَّعَذُّرُ مِن جِهَتِه، فإذا تعذَّرَ من جهتِها بسَفَرِها، كان أوْلَى، ويكونُ فى النَّفقةِ الوَجْهانِ (٢). وفى هذا تَنْبيهٌ على سُقوطِهما إذا سافَرتْ بغيرِ إذنِه، فإنَّه إذا سقَطَ حقُّها من ذلك لعَدَمِ التَّمْكِينِ بأمرٍ ليس فيه نُشوزٌ ولا مَعْصِيَةٌ، فَلأنْ يَسْقُطَ بالنُّشوزِ والمعصيةِ أوْلَى. وهذا لا خلافَ فيه نعْلمُه. فأمَّا إنْ أشْخَصَها (٣)، وهو أن (٤) يبعثَها لحاجتِه، أو يأمرَها بالنُّقْلَةِ مِن بلدِها، لم يَسْقُطْ حقُّها من نَفَقةٍ ولا قَسْمٍ؛ لأنَّها لم تُفَوِّتْ عليه التَّمْكِينَ، ولا فاتَ مِن جِهَتِها، وإنَّما حصَلَ بتَفْوِيتِه، فلم يَسْقُطْ حقُّها، كما لو أتْلَفَ المُشْتَرِى المبيعَ، لم يَسْقُطْ حقُّ البائعِ من تسْليمِ ثمنِه إليه. فعلَى هذا، يَقْضِى لها بحَسَبِ ما أقام عندَ ضَرَّتِها. وإن سافرتْ معَه، فهى على حقِّها منهما جميعًا.
١٢٢٨ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَإِذَا أَرَادَ سَفَرًا، فَلَا يَخرُجُ مَعَهُ مِنْهُنَّ إِلَّا بِقُرْعَةٍ، فَإِذَا قَدِمَ ابْتَدأَ الْقَسْمَ بَيْنَهُنَّ)
وجملتُه أَنَّ الزَّوْجَ إذا أرادَ سفرًا، فأحَبَّ حَمْلَ نسائِه معَه كلِّهِنَّ، أو تَرْكَهُنَّ كُلَّهُنَّ، لم يَحْتَجْ إلى قُرْعةٍ؛ لأَنَّ القُرْعةَ لتعْيِينِ المخْصُوصةِ منهُنَّ بالسَّفَرِ، وهاهُنا قد سَوَّى، وإن أرادَ السَّفَرَ ببعْضِهِنَّ، لم يَجُزْ له أن يُسافِرَ بها إلَّا بقُرْعةٍ. وهذا قولُ أكثرِ أهلِ العلمِ.
(٢) فى أ: "وجهان".(٣) فى ب، م: "شخصها".(٤) سقط من: أ، ب، م.
