17th February 2021
Question: What is the ruling on a man divorcing his wife in the state of anger. Does it occur or not?
الجواب حامداً و مصلياً
In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Answer
It is seldom the case for a man to divorce his wife without anger as normally, a divorce is pronounced during an intense altercation between a couple due to an underlying existing problem. Any couple experiencing marital problems must initially seek reconciliation through a third-party intervention; be it a family member, professional Muslim marriage counsellor or a local experienced scholar. Divorce should be left as a last resort after exhausting all avenues of reconciliation and should divorce be the final solution, then to pronounce it just once to end the marriage.[1] Divorce is very delicate and should never be trivialized as it can take place without even intending to do so. In other words, if a husband utters the word ‘talaq’ or ‘divorce’ addressing his wife, it instantly takes into effect regardless if he was serious about it or not.[2] The Messenger of Allāh said, “Three matters whose seriousness are taken seriously and their joke are (also taken) seriously; nikah, talaq and ruju’.[3] Many quote the below Hadīth wrongfully assuming that divorce in the state of anger does not take into effect. Sayyidah Aisha radhiyallahu anha reports that the Messenger of Allāh sallallahu alayhi wasallam said, “There is no divorce and no emancipation during ghilaq.” Imām Abu Dāwood rahimahullah states that I assume ghilaq to mean anger.[4] According to Imām Abu Dāwood rahimahullah, the Hadīth negates the occurrence of divorce in the state of anger. Many scholars however have rejected this position arguing that ghilaq in this context instead refers to compulsion and force otherwise, no divorce will ever take place because divorce only happens during anger.[5]
It is not uncommon that the husband who is triggered into an angry mode during an argument and ends up swearing or even in some instances becomes physically violent against his wife to thereafter regret over his actions and impulsive behavior. He still remains responsible for his own actions and unless his mental faculty is affected to the degree that his actions have been corrupted and completely lost his senses of right from wrong, the ruling of takleef (legal responsibility) is not uplifted from him. But reaching to such state of insanity during anger is extremely rare. It is agreed upon that if an angry person renounces his religion by uttering clear kufr statements, kills someone or steals someone else’s property, then he is still legally liable for his own actions and not pardoned. Similarly, an angry husband pronouncing divorce to his wife makes him responsible for his actions because unlike an insane person, he maintains some form of control over himself.[6]
Not surprisingly though, many commonly assert that he had mental issues at the time and so didn’t mean to divorce her in anger and nor could he remember what he said. Again, this is seldom the true nature of the reality but supposedly if this was the case then this requires further exploration. It is important to note that due to the delicacy of the matter, each case must be treated independently by its own merit. It is therefore strongly recommended to consult an experienced qualified Mufti on such matters.
Anger could be of one of three possible stages. Ibn Abideen Shami rahimahullah citing Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzi’s rahimahullah lists them as follows;[7]
- The first stage is the ordinary state of anger whereby the husband’s mental states is still intact, knows what he is saying and intended the divorce.
- Or his mental state was such that he could not genuinely recall nor comprehend his previous words or actions nor intended to divorce due to insanity.
- Or was in an intermediary state between these two whereby he is not mentally stable in one sense but retains some level of sanity.
In the first state all of the scholars agree to the effectiveness of the divorce. In the second state, all of the scholars agree that divorce does not take place. This stage is the junun state – insanity – which the jurists such as Ibn Abideen Shami rahimahullah and others describe it to be the impairment of the mental state whereby the faculty of being able to distinguish between right from wrong is inhibited and no control of actions. This can happen either due to a particular accident affecting the brain or the over powering of a Jinn that takes them out of their state of moderation.[8] During this stage, the victim due to his mental impairment loses comprehension over his past actions and statements because of their abnormal behavior. It is this state where the ruling of takleef is uplifted and hence, no divorce takes into effect. This is based on a prophet narration wherein the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wasallam said, “The pen has been uplifted from three people; a sleeping person until he wakes up, a child until he reaches puberty and an insane person until he recovers.”[9]
Another term used in conjunction with junun is the state of madhosh in which the sanity of fear and shame is depreciated significantly that a person loses complete consciousness of what they are doing. It can also include that individual with overwhelming anxiety who genuinely struggles with self-control over their actions and statements.[10] Even in this state, divorce is not effective.
The third category above is however vague leading to scholars differing whether divorce takes into effect or not in this instance. For divorce to be effective or not at this stage would depend on the individual’s mental state at the time. One state that jurists do discuss that is arguably intermediate between junun and a non-junun person is a ma’tooh – a person with a disrupted mind who understands very little and muddles his speech and at times raves without realizing what he is saying. He is not completely like a majnun who can spin out of control by inflicting harm upon himself (or completely forgets his actions) but at the same time he is not considered normal either amongst people. He has been equated to a minor child in ruling as this is a (minor) form of insanity that legally absolves him from all responsibilities which means that his divorce is not effective.[11] This is evident from a prophetic narration reported from Sayyidunā Abu Hurairah radhiyallahu anhu that the Messenger of Allāh sallallahu alayhi wasallam said, “All types of divorces are valid (effective) except for a ma’tooh and whose sanity has been clouded.”[12]
A ma’tooh person albeit is not fully insane behaves immaturely who not necessarily forgets what he says but lacks comprehension over his actions. Like with a junun and madhosh, he is abnormal except to a lesser degree. Such a state must be established through strong evidence either through medical experts or genuine testimony of people around him. It is necessary to point out that not remembering anything is not a binding condition for divorce not to be effective. Ibn Abideen Shami rahimahullah comments that customarily, a mentally unstable person whether madhosh or otherwise who raves and muddles his words with both seriousness and jokes can at times recall past actions but not know why they are doing it. It is the disruption of their mental state that is mainly taken into account. He states’
“It is therefore necessary to underscore the ruling of a madhosh or otherwise with the overpowering of impairment (mentally) affecting their statements and action that takes them out of normality in their conduct and likewise anyone whose sanity is impaired due to old age, illness or a calamity that has struct him. Therefore, so long as during the overwhelming impairment (of their mental state affecting their) actions and statements, their statements are not considered even though they know what they are saying and intend it because their recognition of anything is not counted due to them not having the ability to grasp (what they are saying).”[13]
It is clear that not being able to recollect the past is not essential for divorce not to occur when their sanity has been corrupted.[14] This is not the same as forgetfulness as forgetting is a human trait. The difference between the two is that an insane person lacks mental capacity to think and comprehend due to a mental illness that has struck him whereas an angry person during the heated moment may forget, such as by overthinking.[15]
To summarize and conclude the above, an angry person divorcing his wife claiming to be mentally unstable at the time must be diagnosed with one of the following conditions for divorce not to take into effect;
- Either he was in a majnun state whereby the faculty of differentiating between right from wrong is inhibited and cannot recollect his previous actions. This maybe due to a calamity that has afflicted him affecting his state either permanently or during that specific moment.
- Or he was in the state of madhosh which is a type of junun except that the faculty of recognizing fear and shame is depreciated and not able to fully comprehend what they are saying or doing.
- Or in a ma’tooh state who raves by muddling words without the ability to comprehend in what he is saying. In both the second and third category, they may at times recall their previous actions or words but lack the capacity of self-control and clear sense of meaning in what they do.
The common underpinning principle is that their mental state has significantly deteriorated to the degree that it negatively impacts their actions and statements. A common sign is their abnormal behaviour towards others and raving by saying unusual things that a normal person would not generally say. This must be established with evidence either by an expert such as a medical psychiatric report or by the testimony of his associates who can genuinely testify to his abnormal condition. So, any man who divorces his wife in the state of anger takes into immediate effect under normal circumstances regardless if he forgets or not. If he has been diagnosed with some of the above-mentioned symptoms of mental instability then divorce does not take into effect.
[Allãh Knows Best]
Written and researched by (Mufti) Abdul Waheed
Answer Attested by Shaykh Mufti Saiful Islam
JKN Fatawa Department
[1] It must be noted that three divorces are not necessary for the marriage to end. It is strongly discouraged to give three simultaneously otherwise reconciliation thereafter is not possible.
[2] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb Talāq vol 3, p. 241 – shamila
(أَوْ مُخْطِئًا) بِأَنْ أَرَادَ التَّكَلُّمَ بِغَيْرِ الطَّلَاقِ فَجَرَى عَلَى لِسَانِهِ الطَّلَاقُ أَوْ تَلَفَّظَ بِهِ غَيْرَ عَالِمٍ بِمَعْنَاهُ
(قَوْلُهُ بِأَنْ أَرَادَ التَّكَلُّمَ بِغَيْرِ الطَّلَاقِ) بِأَنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَقُولَ: سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ فَجَرَى عَلَى لِسَانِهِ أَنْتِ طَالِقٌ تَطْلُقُ لِأَنَّهُ صَرِيحٌ لَا يَحْتَاجُ إلَى النِّيَّةِ، لَكِنْ فِي الْقَضَاءِ كَطَلَاقِ الْهَازِلِ وَاللَّاعِبِ ط عَنْ الْمِنَحِ، وَقَوْلُهُ كَطَلَاقِ الْهَازِلِ وَاللَّاعِبِ مُخَالِفٌ لِمَا قَدَّمْنَاهُ وَلِمَا يَأْتِي قَرِيبًا.
وَفِي الْفَتْحِ الْقَدِيرِ عَنْ الْحَاوِي مَعْزِيًّا إلَى الْجَامِعِ الْأَصْغَرِ أَنَّ أَسَدًا سَأَلَ عَمَّنْ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَقُولَ زَيْنَبُ طَالِقٌ فَجَرَى عَلَى لِسَانِهِ عَمْرَةُ عَلَى أَيِّهِمَا يَقَعُ الطَّلَاقُ؟ فَقَالَ: فِي الْقَضَاءِ تَطْلُقُ الَّتِي سَمَّى وَفِيمَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى لَا تَطْلُقُ وَاحِدَةٌ مِنْهُمَا، أَمَّا الَّتِي سَمَّى فَلِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يُرِدْهَا، وَأَمَّا غَيْرُهَا فَلِأَنَّهَا لَوْ طَلُقَتْ طَلُقَتْ بِمُجَرَّدِ النِّيَّةِ (قَوْلُهُ غَيْرَ عَالِمٍ بِمَعْنَاهُ) كَمَا لَوْ قَالَتْ لِزَوْجِهَا: اقْرَأْ عَلَيَّ اعْتَدِّي أَنْتِ طَالِقٌ ثَلَاثًا فَفَعَلَ طَلُقَتْ ثَلَاثًا فِي الْقَضَاءِ لَا فِيمَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى إذَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ الزَّوْجُ وَلَمْ يَنْوِ بَحْرٌ عَنْ الْخُلَاصَة
[3] Sunnan Abu Dawood No: 2194
باب في الطلاق على الهزل
عن أبي هريرة أن رسولَ اللهِ – صلَّى الله عليه وسلم – قال: ” ثلاث جدُّهنَّ جَدٌّ وهَزْلُهُنَّ جدٌّ: النكَاحُ، والطَلاقُ، والرَّجْعَة”
[4] Sunnan Abu Dawood No: 2193
بَابٌ فِي الطَّلَاقِ عَلَى غَلَطٍ
عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ: سَمِعْتُ عَائِشَةَ تَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «لَا طَلَاقَ، وَلَا عَتَاقَ فِي غِلَاقٍ»، قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ: ” الْغِلَاقُ: أَظُنُّهُ فِي الْغَضَبِ
[5] Awnul-Ma’bood vol 6, p. 187
ثُمَّ الطَّلَاقُ فِي غَيْظٍ وَاقِعٌ عِنْدَ الْجُمْهُورِ وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ عَنِ الْحَنَابِلَةِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَقَعُ وَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّهُ مُخْتَارُ الْمُصَنِّفِ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى انْتَهَى قُلْتُ وَفِي بَعْضِ النُّسَخِ الْمَوْجُودَةِ عِنْدِي عَلَى غَضَبٍ بَدَلُ قَوْلِهِ عَلَى غَلَطٍ وَفِي نُسْخَةِ الْخَطَّابِيِّ عَلَى إِغْلَاقٍ (كَانَ يَسْكُنُ إِيلِيَّا) قَالَ فِي الْمَجْمَعِ هُوَ بَالْمَدِّ وَالْقَصْرِ مَدِينَةُ بَيْتِ الْمَقْدِسِ (لَا طَلَاقَ وَلَا عِتَاقَ فِي إِغْلَاقٍ) وَفِي بَعْضِ النُّسَخِ فِي غِلَاقٍ
(قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ الْغِلَاقُ أَظُنُّهُ فِي الْغَضَبِ) فَعِنْدَ الْمُصَنِّفِ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ مَعْنَى الْإِغْلَاقِ الْغَضَبُ وَفَسَّرَهُ عُلَمَاءُ الغريب بالإكراه وهو قول بن قتيبة والخطابي وبن السَّيِّدِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ وَقِيلَ الْجُنُونُ وَاسْتَبْعَدَهُ الْمُطَرِّزِيُّ وَقِيلَ الغضب وكذا فسره أحمد ورده بن السَّيِّدِ فَقَالَ لَوْ كَانَ كَذَلِكَ لَمْ يَقَعْ عَلَى أَحَدٍ طَلَاقٌ لِأَنَّ أَحَدًا لَا يُطَلِّقُ حَتَّى يَغْضَبَ
[6] Zuhayli, Fiqhul Islami wa adillatihu, inhilal al-zawaj wa atharihi, vol 7 p. 352
طلاق الغضبان: يفهم مما ذكر أن طلاق الغضبان لا يقع إذا اشتد الغضب، بأن وصل إلى درجة لا يدري فيها ما يقول ويفعل ولا يقصده. أو وصل به الغضب إلى درجة يغلب عليه فيها الخلل والاضطراب في أقواله وأفعاله، وهذه حالة نادرة. فإن ظل الشخص في حالة وعي وإدراك لما يقول فيقع طلاقه، وهذا هو الغالب في كل طلاق يصدر عن الرجل؛ لأن الغضبان مكلف في حال غضبه بما يصدر منه من كفر وقتل نفس وأخذ مال بغير حق وطلاق وغيرها
Ibn Humām, Fathul Qadeer, Kitāb al-talaq vol 3, p. 487
لَكِنْ مَعْلُومٌ مِنْ كُلِّيَّاتِ الشَّرِيعَةِ أَنَّ التَّصَرُّفَاتِ لَا تَنْفُذُ إلَّا مِمَّنْ لَهُ أَهْلِيَّةُ التَّصَرُّفِ وَأَدَرْنَاهَا بِالْعَقْلِ وَالْبُلُوغِ خُصُوصًا مَا هُوَ دَائِرٌ بَيْنَ الضَّرَرِ وَالنَّفْعِ خُصُوصًا مَا لَا يَحِلُّ إلَّا لِانْتِفَاءِ مَصْلَحَةِ ضِدِّهِ الْقَائِمِ كَالطَّلَاقِ فَإِنَّهُ يَسْتَدْعِي تَمَامَ الْعَقْلِ لِيُحْكِمَ بِهِ التَّمْيِيزَ فِي ذَلِكَ الْأَمْرِ
[7] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb Talāq vol 3, p. 243
قُلْت: وَلِلْحَافِظِ ابْنِ الْقَيِّمِ الْحَنْبَلِيِّ رِسَالَةٌ فِي طَلَاقِ الْغَضْبَانِ قَالَ فِيهَا: إنَّهُ عَلَى ثَلَاثَةِ أَقْسَامٍ:
أَحَدُهَا أَنْ يَحْصُلَ لَهُ مَبَادِئُ الْغَضَبِ بِحَيْثُ لَا يَتَغَيَّرُ عَقْلُهُ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا يَقُولُ وَيَقْصِدُهُ، وَهَذَا لَا إشْكَالَ فِيهِ.
وَالثَّانِي أَنْ يَبْلُغَ النِّهَايَةَ فَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَا يَقُولُ وَلَا يُرِيدُهُ، فَهَذَا لَا رَيْبَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَنْفُذُ شَيْءٌ مِنْ أَقْوَالِهِ.
الثَّالِثُ مَنْ تَوَسَّطَ بَيْنَ الْمَرْتَبَتَيْنِ بِحَيْثُ لَمْ يَصِرْ كَالْمَجْنُونِ فَهَذَا مَحَلُّ النَّظَرِ، وَالْأَدِلَّةُ عَلَى عَدَمِ نُفُوذِ أَقْوَالِهِ. اهـ. مُلَخَّصًا مِنْ شَرْحِ الْغَايَةِ الْحَنْبَلِيَّةِ، لَكِنْ أَشَارَ فِي الْغَايَةِ إلَى مُخَالَفَتِهِ فِي الثَّالِثِ حَيْثُ قَالَ: وَيَقَعُ الطَّلَاقُ مِنْ غَضَبٍ خِلَافًا لِابْنِ الْقَيِّمِ اهـ
[8] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb Talāq vol 3, p. 241
(لَا يَقَعُ طَلَاقُ الْمَوْلَى عَلَى امْرَأَةِ عَبْدِهِ)۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ (وَالْمَجْنُونُ) إلَّا إذَا عَلَّقَ عَاقِلًا ثُمَّ جُنَّ فَوُجِدَ الشَّرْطُ
(قَوْلُهُ وَالْمَجْنُونُ) قَالَ فِي التَّلْوِيحِ: الْجُنُونُ اخْتِلَالُ الْقُوَّةِ الْمُمَيِّزَةِ بَيْنَ الْأُمُورِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَالْقَبِيحَةِ الْمُدْرِكَةِ لِلْعَوَاقِبِ، بِأَنْ لَا تَظْهَرَ آثَارُهُ وَتَتَعَطَّلُ أَفْعَالُهَا، إمَّا لِنُقْصَانِ جَبَلٍ عَلَيْهِ دِمَاغُهُ فِي أَصْلِ الْخِلْقَةِ، وَإِمَّا لِخُرُوجِ مِزَاجِ الدِّمَاغِ عَنْ الِاعْتِدَالِ بِسَبَبِ خَلْطٍ أَوْ آفَةٍ، وَإِمَّا لِاسْتِيلَاءِ الشَّيْطَانِ عَلَيْهِ وَإِلْقَاءِ الْخَيَالَاتِ الْفَاسِدَةِ إلَيْهِ بِحَيْثُ يَفْرَحُ وَيَفْزَعُ مِنْ غَيْرِ مَا يَصْلُحُ سَبَبًا. اهـ. وَفِي الْبَحْرِ عَنْ الْخَانِيَّةِ: رَجُلٌ عَرَفَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ مَجْنُونًا فَقَالَتْ لَهُ امْرَأَتُهُ: طَلَّقْتَنِي الْبَارِحَةَ فَقَالَ: أَصَابَنِي الْجُنُونُ وَلَا يَعْرِفُ ذَلِكَ إلَّا بِقَوْلِهِ كَانَ الْقَوْلُ قَوْلَهُ. اهـ.
[9] Ma’rifatus Sunnan, No: 8881
قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «رُفَعَ الْقَلَمُ، عَنْ ثَلَاثَةٍ، النَّائِمِ حَتَّى يَسْتَيْقِظَ، وَالصَّبِيِّ حَتَّى يَبْلُغَ، وَالْمَجْنُونِ حَتَّى يُفِيقَ»،
[10] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb Talāq vol 3, p. 244
(وَالْمُدْهَشُ) فَتْحٌ. وَفِي الْقَامُوسِ: دَهَشَ الرَّجُلُ تَحَيَّرَ وَدُهِشَ بِالْبِنَاءِ لِلْمَفْعُولِ فَهُوَ مَدْهُوشٌ وَأَدْهَشَهُ اللَّهُ
(قَوْلُهُ وَفِي الْقَامُوسِ دَهِشَ) أَيْ بِالْكَسْرِ كَفَرِحَ. ثُمَّ إنَّ اقْتِصَارَهُ عَلَى ذِكْرِ التَّحَيُّرِ غَيْرُ صَحِيحٍ، فَإِنَّهُ فِي الْقَامُوسِ قَالَ بَعْدَهُ أَوْ: ذَهَبَ عَقْلُهُ حَيَاءً أَوْ خَوْفًا اهـ وَهَذَا هُوَ الْمُرَادُ هُنَا، وَلِذَا جَعَلَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ دَاخِلًا فِي الْمَجْنُونِ.
مَطْلَبٌ فِي طَلَاقِ الْمَدْهُوشِ وَقَالَ فِي الْخَيْرِيَّةِ: غَلِطَ مَنْ فَسَّرَهُ هُنَا بِالتَّحَيُّرِ، إذْ لَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ التَّحَيُّرِ وَهُوَ التَّرَدُّدُ فِي الْأَمْرِ ذَهَابُ الْعَقْلِ. وَسُئِلَ نَظْمًا فِيمَنْ طَلَّقَ زَوْجَتَهُ ثَلَاثًا فِي مَجْلِسِ الْقَاضِي وَهُوَ مُغْتَاظٌ مَدْهُوشٌ، أَجَابَ نَظْمًا أَيْضًا بِأَنَّ الدَّهْشَ مِنْ أَقْسَامِ الْجُنُونِ فَلَا يَقَعُ، وَإِذَا كَانَ يَعْتَادُهُ بِأَنْ عُرِفَ مِنْهُ الدَّهَشُ مَرَّةً يُصَدَّقُ بِلَا بُرْهَانٍ
Zuhayli, Fiqhul Islami wa adillatihu, inhilal al-zawaj wa atharihi, vol 7 p. 352
طلاق المجنون والمدهوش: ولا يصح طلاق المجنون، ومثله المغمى عليه، والمدهوش: وهو الذي اعترته حال انفعال لا يدري فيها ما يقول أو يفعل، أو يصل به الانفعال إلى درجة يغلب معها الخلل في أقواله وأفعاله، بسبب فرط الخوف أو الحزن أو الغضب، لقوله صلّى الله عليه وسلم: «لا طلاق في إغلاق» (1) والإغلاق: كل ما يسد باب الإدراك والقصد والوعي، لجنون أو شدة غضب أو شدة حزن ونحوها.
[11] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb Talāq vol 3, p. 243
(وَالْمَعْتُوهُ) مِنْ الْعَتَهِ، وَهُوَ اخْتِلَالٌ فِي الْعَقْلِ
(قَوْلُهُ مِنْ الْعَتَهِ) بِالتَّحْرِيكِ مِنْ بَابِ تَعِبَ مِصْبَاحٌ (قَوْلُهُ وَهُوَ اخْتِلَالٌ فِي الْعَقْلِ) هَذَا ذَكَرَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ تَعْرِيفًا لِلْجُنُونِ وَقَالَ وَيَدْخُلُ فِيهِ الْمَعْتُوهُ. وَأَحْسَنُ الْأَقْوَالِ فِي الْفَرْقِ بَيْنَهُمَا أَنَّ الْمَعْتُوهَ هُوَ الْقَلِيلُ الْفَهْمِ الْمُخْتَلِطُ الْكَلَامِ الْفَاسِدِ التَّدْبِيرِ، لَكِنْ لَا يَضْرِبُ وَلَا يَشْتُمُ بِخِلَافِ الْمَجْنُونِ اهـ وَصَرَّحَ الْأُصُولِيُّونَ بِأَنَّ حُكْمَهُ كَالصَّبِيِّ إلَّا أَنَّ الدَّبُوسِيَّ قَالَ تَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ الْعِبَادَاتُ احْتِيَاطًا. وَرَدَّهُ صَدْرُ الْإِسْلَامِ بِأَنَّ الْعَتَهَ نَوْعُ جُنُونٍ فَيَمْنَعُ وُجُوبَ أَدَاءِ الْحُقُوقِ جَمِيعًا كَمَا بَسَطَهُ فِي شَرْحِ التَّحْرِيرِ
Ibn Nujaym, Bahr Rāiq, Kitāb al-Talaq, vol 3 p. 268
وَأَرَادَ بِالْمَجْنُونِ مَنْ فِي عَقْلِهِ اخْتِلَالٌ فَيَدْخُلُ الْمَعْتُوهُ وَأَحْسَنُ الْأَقْوَالِ فِي الْفَرْقِ بَيْنَهُمَا أَنَّ الْمَعْتُوهَ هُوَ الْقَلِيلُ الْفَهْمِ الْمُخْتَلِطُ الْكَلَامِ الْفَاسِدُ التَّدْبِيرِ لَكِنْ لَا يَضْرِبُ وَلَا يَشْتُمُ بِخِلَافِ الْمَجْنُونِ وَيَدْخُلُ الْمُبَرْسَمُ، وَالْمُغْمَى عَلَيْهِ، وَالْمَدْهُوشُ، وَفِي الصِّحَاحِ الْبَرْسَامُ دَاءٌ مَعْرُوفٌ، وَفِي بَعْضِ كُتُبِ الطِّبِّ أَنَّهُ وَرَمٌ حَارٌّ يَعْرِضُ لِلْحِجَابِ الَّذِي بَيْنَ الْكَبِدِ، وَالْمَعَاثِمِ يَتَّصِلُ بِالدِّمَاغِ وَهُوَ مُعَرَّبٌ وَبُرْسِمَ الرَّجُلُ بِالْبِنَاءِ لِلْمَفْعُولِ يُقَالُ بَرْسَامٌ وَبِلْسَامٌ وَهُوَ مُبَرْسَمٌ وَمُبَلْسَمٌ
[12] Sunnan Tirmidhi No: 1191
بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي طَلَاقِ المَعْتُوهِ
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «كُلُّ طَلَاقٍ جَائِزٌ، إِلَّا طَلَاقَ المَعْتُوهِ المَغْلُوبِ عَلَى عَقْلِهِ»
[13] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb Talāq vol 3, p. 244 – shamila
هَذَا الْمُوَافِقُ عِنْدَنَا لِمَا مَرَّ فِي الْمَدْهُوشِ، لَكِنْ يَرِدُ عَلَيْهِ أَنَّا لَمْ نَعْتَبِرْ أَقْوَالَ الْمَعْتُوهِ مَعَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَلْزَمُ فِيهِ أَنْ يَصِلَ إلَى حَالَةٍ لَا يَعْلَمُ فِيهَا مَا يَقُولُ وَلَا يُرِيدُهُ وَقَدْ يُجَابُ بِأَنَّ الْمَعْتُوهَ لَمَّا كَانَ مُسْتَمِرًّا عَلَى حَالَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ يُمْكِنُ ضَبْطُهَا اُعْتُبِرَتْ فِيهِ وَاكْتُفِيَ فِيهِ بِمُجَرَّدِ نَقْصِ الْعَقْلِ، بِخِلَافِ الْغَضَبِ فَإِنَّهُ عَارِضٌ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَحْوَالِ، لَكِنْ يَرِدُ عَلَيْهِ الدَّهَشُ فَإِنَّهُ كَذَلِكَ. وَاَلَّذِي يَظْهَرُ لِي أَنَّ كُلًّا مِنْ الْمَدْهُوشِ وَالْغَضْبَانِ لَا يَلْزَمُ فِيهِ أَنْ يَكُونَ بِحَيْثُ لَا يَعْلَمُ مَا يَقُولُ بَلْ يُكْتَفَى فِيهِ بِغَلَبَةِ الْهَذَيَانِ وَاخْتِلَاطِ الْجَدِّ بِالْهَزْلِ كَمَا هُوَ الْمُفْتَى بِهِ فِي السَّكْرَانِ عَلَى مَا مَرَّ، وَلَا يُنَافِيهِ تَعْرِيفُ الدَّهَشِ بِذَهَابِ الْعَقْلِ فَإِنَّ الْجُنُونَ فُنُونٌ، وَلِذَا فَسَّرَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ بِاخْتِلَالِ الْعَقْلِ وَأَدْخَلَ فِيهِ الْعَتَهَ وَالْبِرْسَامَ وَالْإِغْمَاءَ وَالدَّهَشَ. وَيُؤَيِّدُهُ مَا قُلْنَا قَوْلُ بَعْضِهِمْ: الْعَاقِلُ مَنْ يَسْتَقِيمُ كَلَامُهُ وَأَفْعَالُهُ إلَّا نَادِرًا، وَالْمَجْنُونُ ضِدُّهُ. وَأَيْضًا فَإِنَّ بَعْضَ الْمَجَانِينِ يَعْرِفُ مَا يَقُولُ وَيُرِيدُهُ وَيَذْكُرُ مَا يَشْهَدُ الْجَاهِلُ بِهِ بِأَنَّهُ عَاقِلٌ ثُمَّ يَظْهَرُ مِنْهُ فِي مَجْلِسِهِ مَا يُنَافِيهِ، فَإِذَا كَانَ الْمَجْنُونُ حَقِيقَةً قَدْ يَعْرِفُ مَا يَقُولُ وَيَقْصِدُهُ فَغَيْرُهُ بِالْأَوْلَى، فَاَلَّذِي يَنْبَغِي التَّعْوِيلُ عَلَيْهِ فِي الْمَدْهُوشِ وَنَحْوِهِ إنَاطَةُ الْحُكْمِ بِغَلَبَةِ الْخَلَلِ فِي أَقْوَالِهِ وَأَفْعَالِهِ الْخَارِجَةِ عَنْ عَادَتِهِ، وَكَذَا يُقَالُ فِيمَنْ اخْتَلَّ عَقْلُهُ لِكِبَرٍ أَوْ لِمَرَضٍ أَوْ لِمُصِيبَةٍ فَاجَأَتْهُ: فَمَا دَامَ فِي حَالِ غَلَبَةِ الْخَلَلِ فِي الْأَقْوَالِ وَالْأَفْعَالِ لَا تُعْتَبَرُ أَقْوَالُهُ وَإِنْ كَانَ يَعْلَمُهَا وَيُرِيدُهَا لِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْمَعْرِفَةَ وَالْإِرَادَةَ غَيْرُ مُعْتَبَرَةٍ لِعَدَمِ حُصُولِهَا عَنْ الْإِدْرَاكِ صَحِيحٌ كَمَا لَا تُعْتَبَرُ مِنْ الصَّبِيِّ الْعَاقِلِ،
[14] See Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, Kitab Fatawa vol 5, p. 35 & 45
[15] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb Talāq vol 3, p. 369
قُلْت: وَمُقْتَضَى هَذَا الْفَرْعِ أَنَّ مَنْ وَصَلَ فِي الْغَضَبِ إلَى حَالَةٍ لَا يَدْرِي فِيهَا مَا يَقُولُ يَقَعُ طَلَاقُهُ وَإِلَّا لَمْ يَحْتَجْ إلَى اعْتِمَادِ قَوْلِ الشَّاهِدَيْنِ أَنَّهُ اسْتَثْنَى مَعَ أَنَّهُ مَرَّ أَوَّلَ الطَّلَاقِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَقَعُ طَلَاقُ الْمَدْهُوشِ.
وَأَفْتَى بِهِ الْخَيْرُ الرَّمْلِيُّ فِيمَنْ طَلَّقَ وَهُوَ مُغْتَاظٌ مَدْهُوشٌ لِأَنَّ الدَّهَشَ مِنْ أَقْسَامِ الْجُنُونِ. وَلَا يَخْفَى أَنَّ مَنْ وَصَلَ إلَى حَالَةٍ لَا يَدْرِي فِيهَا مَا يَقُولُ كَانَ فِي حُكْمِ الْمَجْنُونِ، وَقَدَّمْنَا الْجَوَابَ هُنَاكَ بِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ بِمَا هُنَا أَنَّهُ وَصَلَ إلَى حَالَةٍ لَا يَدْرِي مَا يَقُولُ بِأَنْ لَا يَقْصِدَهُ وَلَا يَفْهَمَ مَعْنَاهُ بِحَيْثُ يَكُونُ كَالنَّائِمِ وَالسَّكْرَانِ، بَلْ الْمُرَادُ أَنَّهُ قَدْ يَنْسَى مَا يَقُولُ لِاشْتِغَالِ فِكْرِهِ بِاسْتِيلَاءِ الْغَضَبِ، وَاَللَّهُ تَعَالَى أَعْلَمُ
مُقْتَضَاهُ أَنَّهُ إذَا كَانَ لَا يَدْرِي مَا يَقُولُ يَقَعُ طَلَاقُهُ وَإِلَّا فَلَا حَاجَةَ إلَى الْأَخْذِ بِقَوْلِهِمَا إنَّك اسْتَثْنَيْت، وَهَذَا مُشْكِلٌ جِدًّا، وَإِلَّا أَنْ يُجَابَ بِأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِكَوْنِهِ لَا يَدْرِي مَا يَقُولُ أَنَّهُ لِقُوَّةِ غَضَبِهِ قَدْ يَنْسَى مَا يَقُولُ وَلَا يَتَذَكَّرُهُ بَعْدُ، وَلَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ أَنَّهُ صَارَ يَجْرِي عَلَى لِسَانِهِ مَا لَا يَفْهَمُهُ أَوْ لَا يَقْصِدُهُ إذْ لَا شَكَّ أَنَّهُ حِينَئِذٍ يَكُونُ فِي أَعْلَى مَرَاتِبِ الْجُنُونِ، وَيُؤَيِّدُهُ هَذَا الْحَمْلُ أَنَّهُ فِي هَذَا الْفَرْعِ عَالِمٌ بِأَنَّهُ طَلَّقَ وَهُوَ قَاصِدٌ لَهُ، لَكِنَّهُ لَمْ يَتَذَكَّرْ الِاسْتِثْنَاءَ لِشِدَّةِ غَضَبِهِ، هَذَا مَا ظَهَرَ لِي فِي تَحْرِيرِ هَذَا الْمَقَامِ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِحَقِيقَةِ الْمَرَامِ ثُمَّ رَأَيْت مَا يُؤَيِّدُ ذَلِكَ الْجَوَابَ، وَهُوَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ فِي الْوَلْوَالِجيَّةِ: إنْ كَانَ بِحَالٍ لَوْ غَضِبَ يَجْرِي عَلَى لِسَانِهِ مَا لَا يَحْفَظُهُ بَعْدَهُ جَازَ لَهُ الِاعْتِمَادُ عَلَى قَوْلِ الشَّاهِدَيْنِ، فَقَوْلُهُ لَا يَحْفَظُهُ بَعْدَهُ صَرِيحٌ فِيمَا قُلْنَا وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.