فَذَكَرَ مَا حَدَّثَنَا يُونُسُ ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو ، عَنْ عَطَاءٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ : إِذَا نَكَحَ الرَّجُلُ فَفُوِّضَ إِلَيْهِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَمَسَّ فَلَيْسَ لَهَا إِلَّا الْمَتَاعُ . قِيلَ لَهُ : لَيْسَ هَذَا مُخَالِفًا عِنْدَنَا لِمَا قَدْ رَوَيْنَاهُ قَبْلَهُ فِي الْخَلْوَةِ وَالْمَكَانِ ، عَنْ مَنْ رَوَيْنَاهُمَا عَنْهُ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ ، وَالتَّفْوِيضُ عِنْدَنَا الْمَذْكُورُ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ هُوَ التَّفْوِيضُ إِلَى الزَّوْجِ فِي تَسْمِيَةِ الصَّدَاقِ لِمَنْ يُزَوِّجُهُ عَلَى غَيْرِ صَدَاقٍ ، فَلَا يَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ ، ثُمَّ يُطَلِّقُ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَمَسَّ ، فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ إِلَّا الْمُتْعَةُ ، وَلَيْسَ هُوَ عِنْدَنَا عَلَى تَفْوِيضٍ مَعَهُ خَلْوَةٌ وَلَا إِمْكَانَ لَهُ مِنَ الْجِمَاعِ ، وَإِذَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ مُحْتَمِلًا لِمَا قَدْ ذَكَرْنَا لَمْ يَكُنْ مُخَالِفًا عِنْدَنَا لِمَا ذَكَرْنَاهُ قَبْلَهُ عَمَّنْ ذَكَرْنَاهُ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ . فَإِنْ قَالَ : فَإِنَّ ظَاهِرَ الْقُرْآنِ يَدُلُّ عَلَى مَا تَأَوَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِ مِمَّا رُوِيَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ لِأَنَّ اللهَ تَعَالَى قَالَ فِي كِتَابِهِ : { وَإِنْ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ وَقَدْ فَرَضْتُمْ لَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً فَنِصْفُ مَا فَرَضْتُمْ إِلا أَنْ يَعْفُونَ أَوْ يَعْفُوَ الَّذِي بِيَدِهِ عُقْدَةُ النِّكَاحِ } وَكَانَ مَعْقُولًا بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ مَنْ طَلَّقَ وَلَمْ يُمَاسَّ أَنَّ الَّذِي يَلْزَمُهُ بِهَذِهِ [2/114] الْآيَةِ هُوَ نِصْفُ الصَّدَاقِ لَا كُلُّهُ . قِيلَ لَهُ : إِنَّ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا فِي هَذَا بِوُجُوبِ الصَّدَاقِ وَوُجُوبِ الْعِدَّةِ هُمُ الْخُلَفَاءُ الرَّاشِدُونَ الْمَهْدِيُّونَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَعُثْمَانُ وَعَلِيٌّ ، وَلَحِقَ بِهِمْ فِي ذَلِكَ زَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ وَهُوَ كَاتِبُ الْوَحْيِ وَالْمُؤْتَمَنُ عَلَيْهِ ، وَالْقُرْآنُ نَزَلَ بِلُغَتِهِمْ وَهُمْ يَعْرِفُونَ تَأْوِيلَهُ ، وَكَانَ بِمَا أَشْكَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْهُ يَسْتَعْلِمُونَ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَيُعْلِمُهُمْ بِمُرَادِ اللهِ تَعَالَى بِهِ ، وَفِي خِلَافِهِمْ تَجْهِيلٌ لَهُمْ وَالْخُرُوجُ عَنْ مَذَاهِبِهِمْ إِلَى مَا سِوَاهَا ، مِمَّا نَعُوذُ بِاللهِ مِنْهُ ، مَعَ أَنَّا قَدْ وَجَدْنَا فِي اللُّغَةِ مَا قَدْ أُبِيحَ لَنَا أَنْ نُسَمِّيَ مَنْ أَمْكَنَهُ الْمَسِيسُ وَلَمْ يُمَاسَّ بِاسْمِ الْمَسِيسِ ، كَمَا سُمِّيَ ابْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَامُ إِمَّا إِسْمَاعِيلُ وَإِمَّا إِسْحَاقُ ذَبِيحًا ، لَا لِأَنَّهُ ذُبِحَ وَلَكِنْ لَمَّا أَمْكَنَ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ وَأَمْكَنَ أَبُوهُ ذَلِكَ مِنْهُ بِأَنْ تَلَّهُ لِلْجَبِينِ سُمِّيَ بِذَلِكَ ذَبِيحًا وَإِنْ لَمْ يُذْبَحْ . فَمِثْلُ ذَلِكَ مَا قَدْ ذَكَرْنَاهُ مِنْ إِمْكَانِ هَذِهِ الْمَرْأَةِ نَفْسَهَا زَوْجَهَا مِنْ جِمَاعِهِ حَتَّى لَمْ يَكُنْ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ ذَلِكَ حَائِلٌ وَلَا لَهُ مِنْهُ مَانِعٌ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يُطْلَقَ عَلَيْهِ اسْمُ مُمَاسٍّ لَهَا ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ مُمَاسًّا لَهَا فِي الْحَقِيقَةِ ، وَتَدْخُلُ بِذَلِكَ فِي مَعْنَى الْمُطَلَّقِ بَعْدَ الْمَسِيسِ لِأَنَّهُ فِي مَعْنَى الْمُطَلِّقِ قَبْلَهُ ، وَقَدْ وَجَدْنَا مَا قَدْ أَجْمَعَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَيْهِ لِأَنَّهُمْ لَمْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي مَنْ بَاعَ شَيْئًا لَهُ بِثَمَنِ حَبْسِهِ حَتَّى يَقْبِضَ ذَلِكَ الثَّمَنَ فَمُكِّنَ مِنْ قَبْضِهِ وَخُلِّيَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَهُ فَلَمْ يَضَعْ يَدَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَمْ يَقْبِضْهُ وَلَحِقَهُ [2/115] هَلَاكٌ أَنَّهُ يَكُونَ هَالِكًا مِنْ مَالِهِ لَا مِنْ مَالِ بَائِعِهِ . وَفِي ذَلِكَ عَلَى مَا وَصَفْنَاهُ دَلِيلٌ مَعَ تَعَلُّقِ أَكْثَرِ فُقَهَاءِ الْأَمْصَارِ بِهَذَا مِنْهُمْ : أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ فِي مُتَّبِعِيهِ ، وَمَالِكٌ فِي مُتَّبِعِينَ مِنْ مُتَّبِعِيهِ ، وَاللَّيْثُ فِي مُتَّبِعِيهِ ، وَالْأَوْزَاعِيُّ فِي مُتَّبِعِيهِ ، وَالثَّوْرِيُّ فِي مُتَّبِعِيهِ أَيْضًا ، وَاللهَ نَسْأَلُهُ التَّوْفِيقَ .
EnglishUnverified translation
Then he mentioned what Yunus narrated to us, Ibn Uyaynah narrated to us, from Amr, from Ata, from Ibn Abbas who said: When a man marries and tafwid is made to him, then he divorces before touching, she has nothing but muta provision. It is said to him: This is not in our view opposed to what we narrated before it concerning seclusion and enabling, from those we narrated them from in this chapter. And tafwid in our view mentioned in this hadith is tafwid to the husband in naming the dower for one who marries him off without a dower, so he does not do that, then he divorces before touching, so there is upon him nothing but muta, and it is not in our view concerning tafwid accompanied by seclusion nor enabling for intercourse. And when that is probable for what we mentioned, it is not in our view opposed to what we mentioned before it from those we mentioned in this chapter. If he says: the outward Quran indicates what we interpreted upon it from what was narrated from Ibn Abbas in this hadith, because Allah the Exalted said in His Book: {But if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already appointed for them a dower, then half of what you appointed, unless they pardon or he pardons in whose hand is the marriage tie}, and it was understood by that that one who divorces and did not touch, what binds him by this verse is half the dower, not all of it. It is said to him: Those who said in this the obligation of the dower and the obligation of the waiting period are the Rightly Guided Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, and Zayd ibn Thabit joined them in that, and he is the scribe of the revelation and trusted with it, and the Quran came down in their language and they know its interpretation, and what was obscure to them of it they would ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about, so he would inform them of Allah the Exalted's intent by it, and in opposing them is declaring them ignorant and departing from their doctrines to what is besides them, from which we seek refuge with Allah, besides that we have found in the language what has permitted us to name one whom touching was enabled for but did not touch with the name of touching, as the son of Ibrahim, upon them both be peace, whether Ismail or Ishaq, was named dhabih, not because he was slaughtered, but when he enabled himself and his father enabled that of him by laying him on his forehead he was named by that dhabih though he was not slaughtered. So like that is what we mentioned of this woman's enabling herself to her husband for his intercourse with her until there was between him and that no barrier nor for him from it any preventer, it is permissible to apply upon him the name of one touching her, though he was not in reality touching her, and she enters thereby into the meaning of one divorced after touching, because he is in the meaning of one who divorces before it. And we have found what the Muslims have agreed upon, for they did not differ concerning one who sold something of his for the price of detaining it until he receives that price, then he was enabled to receive it and left between him and it, but he did not place his hand upon it nor take it, and destruction befell it, that it is destroyed from his wealth, not from his seller's wealth. And in that upon what we described is proof, along with the adherence of most jurists of the lands to this, among them: Abu Hanifa among his followers, and Malik among followers among his followers, and al-Layth among his followers, and al-Awzai among his followers, and ath-Thawri among his followers also, and Allah we ask for success.
