If a man frequently divorces his wife, should she leave him or stay with him, and what is the ruling if a woman says to her husband:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : This is a letter from the questioner Fatimah Khalid, Umm 'Amjad, from Jordan. She says: I am the wife of a man who is sixty-one years old. He suffers from diabetes, so he is quick to anger. When he gets angry for any reason, he utters inappropriate words and often pronounces divorce, even if his wife is not the cause. He has divorced her many times on various occasions, including instances where he pronounces a triple divorce, such as saying "Talaq, talaq, talaq." In one situation, he divorces her according to the four schools of jurisprudence, and in another, and another. However, she does not leave his house because of her children and her desire to remain with them. Therefore, she endures his temperament and anger, but she is not with him as wives are; she considers him a stranger to her, does not sit with him, and he sees nothing of her but her face. She asks: What is the ruling on her remaining with him in this state? Should she continue with that, or leave him, or treat him as wives do in every respect? Does his divorce, which issues from him, not take effect given his quick anger and his illness, or what should she do? Also, in one of their quarrels, she said to him, "You are like my son and my brother." What is the ruling on such a statement if it comes from the wife?
The Shaykh : The summary of the answer to this question is: If the husband, when pronouncing divorce, is in a state of anger where he cannot control himself, then his divorce does not take effect, because there is no divorce in a state of compulsion, and anger is divided into three categories.
The first is that it is in its beginning, such that the angry person understands what he says and controls himself; his actions are like those of one who is not angry, because there is no obstacle to their implementation. If he pronounces divorce in this state, his divorce takes effect.
The second state is that his anger is very intense, such that he does not comprehend what he says, does not know what he is saying, and does not know whether he is in the house or in the market, in a state like one who has fainted. In this case, his divorce does not take effect without doubt, because he has no thought and no mind regarding what he says at that time.
The third state is that the anger is moderate between the first and second states, such that he comprehends what he says and knows what he is saying, but he is unable to control himself; he cannot control himself with this anger. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars regarding whether his divorce takes effect in this state. The stronger opinion in my view is that his divorce does not take effect in this state, because he is like one who is coerced, as the underlying psychological state compels him to say this divorce. Especially since his husband, as mentioned, suffered from a mental illness. If his husband is in this state, his divorce does not take effect on her, no matter how many times he repeats it.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : As for what she said to him in some of their quarrels, that he is like her son, this is not zihar. The woman is not among those who commit zihar. If she says to her husband, "You are to me like the back of my father, or like the back of my son, or like the back of my brother," this is not zihar, and she does not owe the expiation for zihar either, because the expiation for zihar is only obligatory on the one who commits zihar, which is the husband. As for her, she does not owe the expiation for zihar if she says that to her husband. However, she owes the expiation for an oath, which is freeing a slave, or feeding ten poor people, or clothing them. If she does not find what to feed them with, or if she finds it but does not find poor people, then she fasts for three consecutive days. Here is an issue that arose in her question.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : She mentioned that her husband says, "You are talaq, talaq, talaq." This repetition in this manner, meaning repeating the predicate without the entire sentence, does not result in a triple divorce, even according to the well-known view of the school of Imam Ahmad, unless he intends the triple divorce with it. If he does not intend it, then only one divorce takes effect. If a person says to his wife, "You are talaq, talaq, talaq," and does not intend the triple divorce, only one is obligatory on him. Some people may be ignorant of the ruling on this issue and think that the school holds that a triple divorce takes effect with this phrase, and the difference between repeating the entire sentence and repeating the predicate alone has not become clear to them. Repeating the predicate alone does not exceed one divorce unless he intends it. If someone says to his wife, "You are talaq, talaq, talaq," and comes to ask, "Did my wife get divorced three times?" we say to him: Did you intend the triple divorce? If he says yes, the divorce becomes a triple divorce according to the well-known view of the school.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : If he says, "I intended one," then it is only one, even according to the well-known view of the school. If he says, "I did not intend anything; I only pronounced this repetition, and I did not have that intention at that time," we also say to him that only one divorce takes effect on him, even according to the well-known view of the school.
As for the stronger opinion which we hold, the triple divorce does not take effect even if he repeats the entire sentence, even if he says, "You are talaq, you are talaq, you are talaq." Because the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father): "The triple divorce in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), the time of Abu Bakr, and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar, was considered one divorce. When people became lax in this matter, 'Umar compelled them and said, 'I see that people have become lax in a matter in which they used to be cautious. If we were to allow it for them, we would allow it.' So he allowed it for them." This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), that repeating the divorce, or repeating the divorce by phrase, does not take effect as multiple unless it is after a raj'ah (taking back) or a new marriage.
The questioner : Yes, so what do we say to this wife? We tell her to treat her husband normally, as if nothing had happened? Yes.
The Shaykh : We tell her to treat her husband normally if his state is as we mentioned.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That is, in a state of anger where he cannot control himself, then the divorce does not take effect from him regarding his wife at that time, so she remains his wife.
The questioner : And what came from her, she owes the expiation for an oath.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : From him.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Regarding what came from her? Yes.
The Shaykh : So the summary.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That if her husband gets angry to the point where he cannot control himself in his anger, then no divorce, no zihar, or anything else takes effect from him, so she remains in her status with him. And as for her, she owes the expiation for an oath for the words of zihar she said to her husband.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Then it occurred in her question that she said, "I do not uncover anything for him except my face." This indicates that she uncovers her face for him in a state where she believes she has separated from him and that she is not his wife. But I say to her and to whoever hears: Uncovering the face is forbidden except for male mahrams. So whoever is not a mahram to her, she has no right to uncover her face for him. It is forbidden for her to uncover her face for him, because the face is the greatest cause of fitnah (temptation) from the woman's body. It is a greater fitnah than the man's, regarding which some who said it is permissible to uncover the face said that she must cover her feet and uncover her face, and it is permissible for her to uncover her face. It is said: What is a greater fitnah, that a person sees a woman's foot, or that he sees her face?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And there is no doubt for every rational person who looks at women that the fitnah of a person by the face is much greater than the fitnah of the man. Perhaps Allah will make it easy for us to have another occasion to speak about this important and great issue, which some people have begun to be lax about in these lands that used to adhere to it with an adherence required by religion and approved by morals. And success is from Allah.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
O dear brothers, in our session today, we answered the questions of the brothers 'F M' from al-Mahd, and the brother questioner from Libya who did not clarify his name, and the sister Khadijah Shukr al-Jawadi from Iraq, Nineveh, and the brother 'M M' a Sudanese resident in Jeddah, and the brother Khalawi Ghazi al-Mahmud al-Mutair from al-Sar, and the sister Fatimah Khalid, Umm 'Amjad, from Jordan.
Our dear ones, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, the teacher at the College of Sharia at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in al-Qassim, and the imam and khatib of the Grand Mosque in Unayzah, answered the questions of these brothers. So thank him for his answer, and thank you for your good follow-up. Until we meet again, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
The Shaykh : The summary of the answer to this question is: If the husband, when pronouncing divorce, is in a state of anger where he cannot control himself, then his divorce does not take effect, because there is no divorce in a state of compulsion, and anger is divided into three categories.
The first is that it is in its beginning, such that the angry person understands what he says and controls himself; his actions are like those of one who is not angry, because there is no obstacle to their implementation. If he pronounces divorce in this state, his divorce takes effect.
The second state is that his anger is very intense, such that he does not comprehend what he says, does not know what he is saying, and does not know whether he is in the house or in the market, in a state like one who has fainted. In this case, his divorce does not take effect without doubt, because he has no thought and no mind regarding what he says at that time.
The third state is that the anger is moderate between the first and second states, such that he comprehends what he says and knows what he is saying, but he is unable to control himself; he cannot control himself with this anger. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars regarding whether his divorce takes effect in this state. The stronger opinion in my view is that his divorce does not take effect in this state, because he is like one who is coerced, as the underlying psychological state compels him to say this divorce. Especially since his husband, as mentioned, suffered from a mental illness. If his husband is in this state, his divorce does not take effect on her, no matter how many times he repeats it.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : As for what she said to him in some of their quarrels, that he is like her son, this is not zihar. The woman is not among those who commit zihar. If she says to her husband, "You are to me like the back of my father, or like the back of my son, or like the back of my brother," this is not zihar, and she does not owe the expiation for zihar either, because the expiation for zihar is only obligatory on the one who commits zihar, which is the husband. As for her, she does not owe the expiation for zihar if she says that to her husband. However, she owes the expiation for an oath, which is freeing a slave, or feeding ten poor people, or clothing them. If she does not find what to feed them with, or if she finds it but does not find poor people, then she fasts for three consecutive days. Here is an issue that arose in her question.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : She mentioned that her husband says, "You are talaq, talaq, talaq." This repetition in this manner, meaning repeating the predicate without the entire sentence, does not result in a triple divorce, even according to the well-known view of the school of Imam Ahmad, unless he intends the triple divorce with it. If he does not intend it, then only one divorce takes effect. If a person says to his wife, "You are talaq, talaq, talaq," and does not intend the triple divorce, only one is obligatory on him. Some people may be ignorant of the ruling on this issue and think that the school holds that a triple divorce takes effect with this phrase, and the difference between repeating the entire sentence and repeating the predicate alone has not become clear to them. Repeating the predicate alone does not exceed one divorce unless he intends it. If someone says to his wife, "You are talaq, talaq, talaq," and comes to ask, "Did my wife get divorced three times?" we say to him: Did you intend the triple divorce? If he says yes, the divorce becomes a triple divorce according to the well-known view of the school.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : If he says, "I intended one," then it is only one, even according to the well-known view of the school. If he says, "I did not intend anything; I only pronounced this repetition, and I did not have that intention at that time," we also say to him that only one divorce takes effect on him, even according to the well-known view of the school.
As for the stronger opinion which we hold, the triple divorce does not take effect even if he repeats the entire sentence, even if he says, "You are talaq, you are talaq, you are talaq." Because the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father): "The triple divorce in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), the time of Abu Bakr, and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar, was considered one divorce. When people became lax in this matter, 'Umar compelled them and said, 'I see that people have become lax in a matter in which they used to be cautious. If we were to allow it for them, we would allow it.' So he allowed it for them." This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), that repeating the divorce, or repeating the divorce by phrase, does not take effect as multiple unless it is after a raj'ah (taking back) or a new marriage.
The questioner : Yes, so what do we say to this wife? We tell her to treat her husband normally, as if nothing had happened? Yes.
The Shaykh : We tell her to treat her husband normally if his state is as we mentioned.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That is, in a state of anger where he cannot control himself, then the divorce does not take effect from him regarding his wife at that time, so she remains his wife.
The questioner : And what came from her, she owes the expiation for an oath.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : From him.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Regarding what came from her? Yes.
The Shaykh : So the summary.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : That if her husband gets angry to the point where he cannot control himself in his anger, then no divorce, no zihar, or anything else takes effect from him, so she remains in her status with him. And as for her, she owes the expiation for an oath for the words of zihar she said to her husband.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Then it occurred in her question that she said, "I do not uncover anything for him except my face." This indicates that she uncovers her face for him in a state where she believes she has separated from him and that she is not his wife. But I say to her and to whoever hears: Uncovering the face is forbidden except for male mahrams. So whoever is not a mahram to her, she has no right to uncover her face for him. It is forbidden for her to uncover her face for him, because the face is the greatest cause of fitnah (temptation) from the woman's body. It is a greater fitnah than the man's, regarding which some who said it is permissible to uncover the face said that she must cover her feet and uncover her face, and it is permissible for her to uncover her face. It is said: What is a greater fitnah, that a person sees a woman's foot, or that he sees her face?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And there is no doubt for every rational person who looks at women that the fitnah of a person by the face is much greater than the fitnah of the man. Perhaps Allah will make it easy for us to have another occasion to speak about this important and great issue, which some people have begun to be lax about in these lands that used to adhere to it with an adherence required by religion and approved by morals. And success is from Allah.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
O dear brothers, in our session today, we answered the questions of the brothers 'F M' from al-Mahd, and the brother questioner from Libya who did not clarify his name, and the sister Khadijah Shukr al-Jawadi from Iraq, Nineveh, and the brother 'M M' a Sudanese resident in Jeddah, and the brother Khalawi Ghazi al-Mahmud al-Mutair from al-Sar, and the sister Fatimah Khalid, Umm 'Amjad, from Jordan.
Our dear ones, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, the teacher at the College of Sharia at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in al-Qassim, and the imam and khatib of the Grand Mosque in Unayzah, answered the questions of these brothers. So thank him for his answer, and thank you for your good follow-up. Until we meet again, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.