and it has not worn out, is he obligated to provide a replacement? There are two views. One of them is that he is not obligated to replace it, because she is not in need of clothing. The second is that he is obligated, because the consideration is given to the passage of time rather than the actual need, evidenced by the fact that if it had worn out before that, he would not be obligated to replace it. If clothing is gifted to her, her [right to] clothing does not lapse. If food is gifted to her and she eats it, and her provision remains until the next day, her [right to] food for that time does not lapse. If he clothes her and then divorces her before it wears out, does he have the right to reclaim it? There are two views: One is that he has that right, because he provided it for the future; so if he divorces her before it passes, he may reclaim it, just as if he had paid her maintenance for a period and then divorced her before it elapsed. The second is that he has no right to reclaim it, because he provided the clothing to her after it became incumbent upon him, so he cannot retract it, just as if he paid her maintenance after it became incumbent and then divorced her before she consumed it, which differs from future maintenance.
Section: If he provides her with her clothing and she wishes to sell it or give it as charity, and that would harm her, or impair her adornment with it, or her covering, she does not have the right to do so, just as if she wished to give her food as charity in a way that harms her. If there is no harm in it, it is possible that it is permissible, because she owns it, so it is like maintenance. It is also possible that it is forbidden, because he has the right to reclaim it if he divorces her, according to one of the two views, unlike maintenance.
Section: A Dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) woman is like a Muslim woman regarding maintenance, housing, and clothing, according to the opinion of the generality of scholars. This is also the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the people of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), due to the generality of the texts and the meaning.
1381 - Issue: He said: (If he withholds it from her, and she finds nothing to take, and she chooses to separate from him, the ruler shall separate between them).
(18) Omitted from the Original and [A]. (19) Omitted from [B]. (1) In [A] and [M]: "wa-ikhtarat" (and she chose).
تَبْلَ، فهل يَلْزَمُه بَدَلُها؟ فيه وَجْهان؛ أحدُهما، لا يَلْزمُه بدَلُها (١٨)؛ لأنَّها غيرُ مُحْتاجةٍ إلى الكُسْوةِ. والثانى، يَلْزمُه؛ لأنَّ الاعْتبارَ بمُضِىِّ الزَّمانِ دُونَ حَقيقةِ الحاجةِ، بدليلِ أنَّها لو بَلِيَتْ قبلَ ذلك لم يَلْزمْه بَدَلُها. ولو أُهْدِىَ إليها كُسْوةٌ، لم تَسْقُطْ كُسْوتُها. وإن أُهْدِىَ إليها طَعامٌ فأكَلَتْه، وبَقِىَ قُوتُها إلى الغدِ، لم يَسْقُطْ قُوتُها فيه. وإن كَسَاها، ثم طَلَّقَها قبلَ أن تَبْلَى، فهل له أن يَسْتَرْجِعَها؟ فيه وَجْهان؛ أحدهما، له ذلك؛ لأنَّه دَفَعها للزَّمانِ المُسْتقْبَلِ، فإذا طَلَّقَها قبلَ مُضِيِّهِ، كان له اسْتِرْجاعُها، كما لو دَفَعَ إليها نَفَقةَ مُدَّةٍ، ثم طَلَّقها قبلَ انْقضائِها. والثانى، ليس له الاسْتِرْجاعُ؛ لأنَّه دَفَعَ إليها الكُسْوةَ بعدَ وُجُوبِها عليه، فلم يكُنْ له الرُّجوعُ فيها، كما لو دَفَعَ إليها (١٩) النَّفَقةَ بعدَ وُجُوبِها ثم طَلَّقها قبلَ أكْلِها، بخلافِ النَّفَقةِ المُسْتَقْبَلةِ.
فصل: وإذا دَفَعَ إليها كُسْوتَها، فأرادتْ بَيْعهَا، أو التَّصَدُّقَ بها، وكان ذلك يَضُرُّ بها، أو يُخِلُّ بتَجَمُّلِها بها، أو بسُتْرَتِها، لم تَمْلِكْ ذلك، كما لو أرادتِ الصَّدَقةَ بقُوتِها على وجهٍ يَضُرُّ بها، وإن لم يكُنْ في ذلك ضَرَرٌ، احْتَمَلَ الجَوازَ؛ لأنَّها تَمْلِكُها، فأشْبَهَتِ النَّفَقةَ، واحْتَمَلَ المَنْعَ؛ لأنَّ له اسْتِرْجاعَها لو طَلَّقَها، في أحدِ الوَجْهينِ، بخلافِ النَّفَقةِ.
فصل: والذِّمِّيَّةُ كالمُسْلِمةِ في النَّفقةِ والمَسْكنِ والكُسْوةِ، في قولِ عامَّةِ أهلِ العلمِ. وبه يقول مالكٌ، والشافعيُّ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ، وأصْحابُ الرَّأْىِ؛ لعُمومِ النُّصوصِ والمعنى.
١٣٨١ - مسألة؛ قال: (فَإذَا مَنَعَهَا، ولَمْ تَجِدْ مَا تَأْخُذُهُ، فَاخْتَارَتْ (١) فِرَاقَهُ، فَرَّقَ الْحَاكِمُ بَيْنَهُمَا)
(١٨) سقط من: الأصل، أ.(١٩) سقط من: ب.(١) في أ، م: "واختارت".