A man said to his wife to frighten her: Do not go to your family, for if you go, there will be separation between us. His intention was to divorce her, but in his heart, if she went once a month, he thought there was no harm in that.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : A questioner says: Your Eminence, when I was leaving Egypt, I said to my wife to frighten her: Do not go to your family, for if you go, there will be separation between us. My intention was to divorce her, and in my heart, if she went once a month, I thought there was no harm in that. Then my wife went because her mother was ill, and my father gave her permission to go. When I learned of this, while I was on a nearby trip, I wanted to seek advice. What must I do?
The Shaykh : First: This man did not condition the divorce on her going to her family. Rather, he said: "I will divorce you." This is a promise, not an execution. Therefore, if she goes to her family, she is not divorced unless he divorces her. The choice is in his hand, even if she goes to her family. As long as that is the case, the wife remains in his marriage bond, and there is no problem in this. However, I advise him and others not to be negligent regarding the matter of divorce. Some people are very negligent about it, to the extent that one says to his brother: "Take this cup, pour two cups for him." He says: "I am finished, I have quenched my thirst." The other says: "I swear by divorce that you will take it." A cup of tea becomes the condition for divorcing his wife. This is a mistake. This is common in the desert and has now moved to the cities. People have started to play with it. The reason for this is that a fatwa appeared stating that a conditional divorce, if intended as an oath, becomes an oath for which one expiates with the expiation of an oath, and the woman is not divorced. For example, if he says to his wife: "If you go to your family, you are divorced," and she goes, a fatwa appeared stating that it is sufficient for him to expiate with the expiation of an oath, and the wife remains in his marriage bond and is not divorced. But do you know the value of this fatwa in the Islamic world? This fatwa contradicts all four schools of jurisprudence: the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Shafi'i, Malik, and Abu Hanifah. They all say: The woman is divorced, whether he intended an oath, or intended to threaten, or intended to prevent her. The woman is divorced because he spoke by his own choice, he was not forced, and he said: "If you go, you are divorced." She went, so she is divorced. The matter is serious, and it is not easy or trivial. Even if a fatwa appeared following the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), a person should not be negligent. The majority of the Ummah, its imams and scholars, say: This is a divorce that has taken place. Let us suppose it is the triple divorce, for example, that this is the last divorce. He said to her: "If you go to your family, you are divorced," then she went to her family, and this was the last divorce. Then we say: Take her back. Does he have the right to take her back? Answer, people? No. Now we are left with either taking the view that this is an oath, so he expiates with the expiation of an oath and the wife returns to him, or taking the view of the majority of the Ummah that she has become unlawful to him and does not become lawful to him again except after another husband. If he takes the first view and takes her back on the basis that he expiates with the expiation of an oath, then his intercourse with her is zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) according to the opinion of the majority of the Ummah. It is zina according to the opinion of the majority of the Ummah, because she has become unlawful to him. And according to the opinion of those who see it as an oath for which he expiates, his intercourse with her is lawful, because she was not divorced. I only said this to warn against this negligence in which many people have fallen today. If this door were closed to keep people away from it, it would have a basis, for this is part of Shari'ah policy. The triple divorce in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and in the time of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar, was one divorce. That is, if a man said to his wife: "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced," or said: "You are divorced three times," it was one divorce, and he had the right to take her back in the two periods: the period of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and the period of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar. When 'Umar saw that people had become lax in this matter, and it is forbidden for a person to divorce three times, when he saw them become lax in it and perish, he said:, and his preventing the taking back was a Shari'ah policy of 'Umar. If people issued a fatwa that the conditional divorce takes place, following the view of the majority of the Ummah, in order to keep people away from this play, this fatwa would have a basis. And Allah is the helper.
The Shaykh : First: This man did not condition the divorce on her going to her family. Rather, he said: "I will divorce you." This is a promise, not an execution. Therefore, if she goes to her family, she is not divorced unless he divorces her. The choice is in his hand, even if she goes to her family. As long as that is the case, the wife remains in his marriage bond, and there is no problem in this. However, I advise him and others not to be negligent regarding the matter of divorce. Some people are very negligent about it, to the extent that one says to his brother: "Take this cup, pour two cups for him." He says: "I am finished, I have quenched my thirst." The other says: "I swear by divorce that you will take it." A cup of tea becomes the condition for divorcing his wife. This is a mistake. This is common in the desert and has now moved to the cities. People have started to play with it. The reason for this is that a fatwa appeared stating that a conditional divorce, if intended as an oath, becomes an oath for which one expiates with the expiation of an oath, and the woman is not divorced. For example, if he says to his wife: "If you go to your family, you are divorced," and she goes, a fatwa appeared stating that it is sufficient for him to expiate with the expiation of an oath, and the wife remains in his marriage bond and is not divorced. But do you know the value of this fatwa in the Islamic world? This fatwa contradicts all four schools of jurisprudence: the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Shafi'i, Malik, and Abu Hanifah. They all say: The woman is divorced, whether he intended an oath, or intended to threaten, or intended to prevent her. The woman is divorced because he spoke by his own choice, he was not forced, and he said: "If you go, you are divorced." She went, so she is divorced. The matter is serious, and it is not easy or trivial. Even if a fatwa appeared following the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), a person should not be negligent. The majority of the Ummah, its imams and scholars, say: This is a divorce that has taken place. Let us suppose it is the triple divorce, for example, that this is the last divorce. He said to her: "If you go to your family, you are divorced," then she went to her family, and this was the last divorce. Then we say: Take her back. Does he have the right to take her back? Answer, people? No. Now we are left with either taking the view that this is an oath, so he expiates with the expiation of an oath and the wife returns to him, or taking the view of the majority of the Ummah that she has become unlawful to him and does not become lawful to him again except after another husband. If he takes the first view and takes her back on the basis that he expiates with the expiation of an oath, then his intercourse with her is zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) according to the opinion of the majority of the Ummah. It is zina according to the opinion of the majority of the Ummah, because she has become unlawful to him. And according to the opinion of those who see it as an oath for which he expiates, his intercourse with her is lawful, because she was not divorced. I only said this to warn against this negligence in which many people have fallen today. If this door were closed to keep people away from it, it would have a basis, for this is part of Shari'ah policy. The triple divorce in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and in the time of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar, was one divorce. That is, if a man said to his wife: "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced," or said: "You are divorced three times," it was one divorce, and he had the right to take her back in the two periods: the period of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and the period of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar. When 'Umar saw that people had become lax in this matter, and it is forbidden for a person to divorce three times, when he saw them become lax in it and perish, he said: