ShamelaTranslate
Search
Sign in
ShamelaTranslate

© 2026 ShamelaTranslate. Scholarly Open-Access Project.

AboutContactDonateImprintPrivacyTermsRight of WithdrawalCancel a subscription
Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudama - Edited by Al-Turki
Volume 10 · Page 380Section

Translation · EN

This is the explicitly stated position from Ahmad regarding this issue. Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ata', Masruq, al-Zuhri, Makhul, Malik, and Ishaq held this view. It was narrated from 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and al-Nakha'i: 'If they accept her, it is one irrevocable divorce; if they do not accept her, it is one revocable divorce.' From Zayd ibn Thabit and al-Hasan: 'If they accept her, it is three; if they do not accept her, it is one revocable divorce.' A similar position was narrated from Ahmad. Rabi'ah, Yahya ibn Sa'id, Abu al-Zinad, and Malik said: 'It is three in all cases, whether they accept her or reject her.' Abu Hanifah said regarding it the same as his statement regarding an explicit allusion, whether they accept it or reject it. Al-Shafi'i said the same. They differed here based on their differing [views on similar cases]. As for our argument that it does not cause divorce if they do not accept it, it is that it is a transfer of ownership of the marital bond (bud'), thus it requires acceptance, like his saying, 'Choose,' or 'Your affair is in your hands,' and like marriage. As for why it does not constitute three, it is because it is an ambiguous expression, so it is not interpreted as three when stated without qualification, like his saying, 'Choose.' And regarding it being a revocable divorce, it is a divorce for someone against whom there is a waiting period ('iddah) without compensation, before the completion of the number [of divorces], so it is revocable like his saying, 'You are divorced.' His statement, 'It is one [divorce],' is interpreted as applying when he leaves the intention unqualified or intends one. If he intends three or two, it is according to what he intended because it is a non-explicit allusion, so he is referred back to his intention regarding the number, as with all other allusions. And there must be an intention of divorce, or there must be an indication of the circumstances; because it is an allusion, and allusions require intention as well. Al-Qadi said: 'It is appropriate that the intention of the one who accepts is also considered, just as it is considered in the wife's choice when he says to her, "Choose," or "Your affair is in your hands." Once this is established, the formula of acceptance is that her family says, "We have accepted her." Ahmad explicitly stated this. The ruling regarding gifting her to herself or to a stranger is the same as the ruling regarding gifting her to her family.

Section: If he sells his wife to someone else, no divorce occurs, even if he intended it. This is the view of al-Thawri.

Notes

(1) In [A], there is an addition: "fihi" (regarding it). (2) In the original: "tallaqa al-battah" (he divorced [her] definitively). (3) Omitted from the original. (4) In [B] and [M]: "wa-qala" (and he said).

Arabic (Source)

هذا المنصوصُ عن أحمدَ فى هذه المسألةِ. وبه قال ابنُ مسعودٍ، وعَطاءٌ، ومَسْرُوقٌ، والزُّهْرِىُّ، ومَكْحُولٌ، ومالكٌ، وإسحاقُ. ورُوِىَ عن علىٍّ، رَضِىَ اللَّهُ عنه، والنَّخَعِىِّ: إن قَبِلُوها فواحدةٌ بائنةٌ، وإن لم يَقْبَلُوها فواحدةٌ رَجعِيَّةٌ. وعن زيدِ بنِ ثابتٍ، والحَسَنِ: إن قَبِلُوها فثلاثٌ، وإن لم يَقْبَلُوها فواحدةٌ رجعِيَّةٌ. ورُوِىَ عن أحمدَ مثلُ ذلك. وقال رَبِيعةُ، ويحيى بنُ سعيدٍ، وأبو الزِّنَادِ، ومالكٌ: هى ثلاثٌ على كلِّ حالٍ، قَبِلُوها أو رَدُّوها. وقال أبو حنيفةَ فيها كقوله فى الكنايةِ الظَّاهرةِ، قَبِلُوها أو رَدُّوها. وكذلك قال الشَّافعىُّ. واخْتلَفا ههُنا بِناءً على اخْتلافِهما. ولَنا، على أنَّها لا تَطْلُقُ إذا لم يَقْبَلُوها، أنَّه تَمْليكٌ للبُضْعِ، فافتقَرَ (١) إلى القَبُولِ، كقولِه: اخْتارِى، وأمرُك بيدِك. وكالنِّكاحِ. وعلى أنَّها لا تَكونُ ثلاثًا أنَّه لفظٌ مُحْتمِلٌ، فلا يُحْمَلُ على الثَّلاثِ عندَ الإِطْلاقِ، كقوله: اخْتارِى. وعلى أنَّها رَجْعِيَّة، أنَّها طَلْقةٌ لمِنْ عليها عِدَّةٌ بغيرِ عِوَض، قبلَ اسْتيفاءِ العَدَدِ، فكانت رَجْعِيَّةً كقوله: أنتِ طالقٌ. وقولُه: إنَّها واحدةٌ. محمولٌ على ما إذا [أطْلَقَ النِّيَّةَ] (٢)، أو نَوَى واحدةً، فأمَّا إن نَوَى ثلاثا، أو اثْنتَيْنِ، فهو على ما نَوَى؛ لأنَّها كنايةٌ غيرُ ظاهرةٍ، فيُرْجَعُ إلى نِيَّتِه فى عَدَدِها كسائرِ الكناياتِ. ولابُدَّ مِن (٣) أن يَنوِىَ بذلك الطَّلاقَ، أو تكونَ ثَمَّ دَلالةُ حالٍ؛ لأنَّها كنايةٌ، والكناياتُ لابُدَّ فيها مِنَ النِّيَّةِ كذلك. قال (٤) القاضى: ويَنْبَغِى أن تُعْتَبَرَ النِّيَّةُ مِن الذى يقبَلُ أيضًا (٣)، كما تُعْتبَرُ فى اخْتيارِ الزَّوجةِ إذا قال لها: اخْتارِى، أو أمرُك بيدِك. إذا ثَبَتَ هذا؛ فإنَّ صِيغةَ القَبُولِ أن يقولَ أهلُها: قَبِلْنَاها. نصَّ عليه أحمدُ. والحُكْمُ فى هبتِها لنفسِها، أو لأجنبىٍّ، كالحُكْمِ فى هِبَتِها لأهلِها.

فصل: فإن باعَ امرأتَه لغيرِه، لم يَقعْ به طلاقٌ، وإن نَوَى. وبهذا قال الثَّوْرِىُّ،

Notes

(١) فى أزيادة: "فيه".(٢) فى الأصل: "طلق البتة".(٣) سقط من: الأصل.(٤) فى ب، م: "وقال".

PreviousVolume 10 · Page 380Next
Previous10·380Next