Does a Presumably Deceased Husband’s Nikah Still Remain Intact After Discovering He was Alive?

                       6th January 2022


Question: I need your guidance regarding an urgent matter. The problem is that few years back my brother’s family lived in Canada. My brother had a plane crash and the authorities reported him dead. So, his family returned back to Pakistan. My parents married me to my sister-in-law (after completing her iddah). She had 1 son and 1 daughter from her previous marriage. Now after 1 year the embassy reported that my brother is alive and survived the crash but was in comma since then. Now my question is, what is the legal status of my marriage? Also, she is pregnant with my baby girl so who will be the legal father?



الجواب حامداً و مصلياً

In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful


In reference to your case in question, if what you have said is true to its very nature then due to the complex nature of your query, there are a number of factors that must be addressed namely the announcement of her husband’s death, his right to reclaiming his wife after he is discovered to be alive and the legal father of the new baby girl.

As for the first issue about the announcement of her husband’s death, then the general ruling is that post-death injunctions only apply once a person’s death has been confirmed after thorough investigation of a person’s living status. Such confirmed report must be based on sound evidence that establishes near certainty of their death and not founded on mere assumptions. Near certainty can be established either by reliable witnesses or from the reports of such existential calamities that leave little scope of survival. If the authority’s report of her former husband’s death due to a plane crash was convincing enough to accept then it was reasonable to consider him dead as usually the chances of surviving a plane crash is extremely rare.[1] As of which all post death injunctions such as inheritance distribution, grace period of four months and ten days etc will apply.

The second issue is now that after a year the embassy notified the family that her former husband was alive all this time but was in a coma, most probably in a vegetative state and receiving treatment, if this is confirmed and the report can be trusted after investigation then the scholars of the four madhabs have differed as to which husband does she belong to (see footnote).[2] The standard position in the Hanafi school is that her first Nikah remains intact. Which means that she must return back to her former husband and her second Nikah to his younger brother becomes automatically annulled.[3] This ruling is based on Sayyiduna Umar’s radhiyallahu anhu judgment during his reign of Khilafat where a man was abducted by a group of Jinns and became unknown whether he was alive or not. Sayyiduna Umar radhiyallahu anhu issued an injunction for his wife to wait for four years during which if he returned then they can reunite and live as married couple otherwise he will be presumed dead. Her husband did not return during that time and so presuming him to be dead, she observed the post-death grace period of four months and ten days and thereafter remarried to someone else. After remarrying, her former husband suddenly  returned and upon seeing his wife with another man, he went to Khalif Umar radhiyallahu anhu and related the entire incident to him. In one narration Sayyiduna Umar radhiyallahu anhu gave him the choice between returning to his wife or reclaim his mahr back (so she can continue living with her second husband).[4] However, in another version Sayyiduna Umar radhiyallahu anhu retracted from this view in favour of Sayyiduna Ali radhiyallahu anhu who maintained that her former husband has rights over her so she must return back to him and separate from her second husband. She will be entitled to the mahr of her second husband due to the permissibility of intimacy and also observe a separate waiting period from her second husband before reuniting with her former husband. The underlying rational of this view is that the Quran prohibits men from marrying women in the wedlock of someone else. As her former Nikah was not broken, she is still in her previous marriage.[5]

The underpinning ruling of the above is similar to your situation as in, when her former husband was discovered to be alive then he has more rights over her because their nikah was still intact. As a result, your marriage with her shall be automatically annulled. Remember that to end the marriage, her husband must either divorce her or agree to a Khula – wife returning her mahr in exchange of releasing herself from his marriage – in order to remarry elsewhere otherwise she sill remains in his wedlock.

The third issue is that she must now observe a waiting period before returning back to her former husband as indicated in the fatwa of Sayyiduna Ali radhiyallahu anhu. This is because by her consummating lawfully with another man, the waiting period is so to cleanse her womb which is three menses. But if she is pregnant like in your case, then she must not consummate with him until child birth so not to mix his seminal fluid with the child she is already conceiving.[6] This leads on to the final point as to who is considered to be this new baby’s legitimate father that she is now conceiving. The soundest opinion is that her second husband, which is you, will be considered the child’s legal father Islamically which means that the child’s lineage will be attributed to you.[7]

Having said the above, a final note on this is that such sensitive matters must be treated with wisdom. As she rightfully belongs to her first husband, no one can take that right away from him. She can no longer continue with any conjugal relationship with her second husband. Her second husband however, becomes responsible for financially maintaining his new born child.




[Allãh Knows Best]



Written and researched by (Mufti) Abdul Waheed

Answer Attested by Shaykh Mufti Saiful Islam

JKN Fatawa Department




[1] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb al-Mafqood, vol 6 p. 462-463

قُلْت: وَالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ هَذَا غَيْرُ خَارِجٍ عَنْ ظَاهِرِ الرِّوَايَةِ أَيْضًا، بَلْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ إلَيْهِ مِنْ الْقَوْلِ بِالتَّقْدِيرِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ فَسَّرَهُ فِي شَرْحِ الْوَهْبَانِيَّةِ بِأَنْ يَنْظُرَ وَيَجْتَهِدَ وَيَفْعَلَ مَا يَغْلِبُ عَلَى ظَنِّهِ فَلَا يَقُولُ بِالتَّقْدِيرِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَرِدْ بِهِ الشَّرْعُ بَلْ يَنْظُرُ فِي الْأَقْرَانِ وَفِي الزَّمَانِ وَالْمَكَانِ وَيَجْتَهِدُ، ثُمَّ نَقَلَ عَنْ مُغْنِي الْحَنَابِلَةِ حِكَايَتَهُ عَنْ الشَّافِعِيِّ وَمُحَمَّدٍ، وَأَنَّهُ الْمَشْهُورُ عَنْ مَالِكٍ وَأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ. وَقَالَ الزَّيْلَعِيُّ: لِأَنَّهُ يَخْتَلِفُ بِاخْتِلَافِ الْبِلَادِ وَكَذَا غَلَبَةُ الظَّنِّ تَخْتَلِفُ بِاخْتِلَافِ الْأَشْخَاصِ فَإِنَّ الْمِلْكَ الْعَظِيمَ إذَا انْقَطَعَ خَبَرُهُ يَغْلِبُ عَلَى الظَّنِّ فِي أَدْنَى مُدَّةٍ أَنَّهُ قَدْ مَاتَ اهـ وَمُقْتَضَاهُ أَنَّهُ يَجْتَهِدُ وَيُحَكِّمُ الْقَرَائِنَ الظَّاهِرَةَ الدَّالَّةَ عَلَى مَوْتِهِ وَعَلَى هَذَا يُبْتَنَى عَلَى مَا فِي جَامِعِ الْفَتَاوَى حَيْثُ قَالَ: وَإِذَا فُقِدَ فِي الْمُهْلِكَةِ فَمَوْتُهُ غَالِبٌ فَيُحْكَمُ بِهِ، كَمَا إذَا فُقِدَ فِي وَقْتِ الْمُلَاقَاةِ مَعَ الْعَدُوِّ أَوْ مَعَ قُطَّاعِ الطَّرِيقِ، أَوْ سَافَرَ عَلَى الْمَرَضِ الْغَالِبُ هَلَاكُهُ، أَوْ كَانَ سَفَرُهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ وَمَا أَشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ حُكِمَ بِمَوْتِهِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ الْغَالِبُ فِي هَذِهِ الْحَالَاتِ وَإِنْ كَانَ بَيْنَ احْتِمَالَيْنِ، وَاحْتِمَالُ مَوْتِهِ نَاشِئٌ عَنْ دَلِيلٍ لَا احْتِمَالَ حَيَاتِهِ؛ لِأَنَّ هَذَا الِاحْتِمَالَ كَاحْتِمَالِ مَا إذَا بَلَغَ الْمَفْقُودُ مِقْدَارَ مَا لَا يَعِيشُ عَلَى حَسَبِ مَا اخْتَلَفُوا فِي الْمِقْدَارِ نَقْلٌ مِنْ الْغُنْيَةِ اهـ مَا فِي جَامِعِ الْفَتَاوَى.


[2] According to the famous view of the Maliki school, her first husband cannot claim any rights over her as she now belongs to her second husband. According to the Shafi’ee school, like the Hanafi school, her second Nikah will be automatically annulled and must return back to her former husband after completing a cleansing waiting period from her second husband. According to the soundest opinion of the Hanbali school, her first husband can claim rights over her if her second marriage was not consummated. If she consummated her second marriage then her first husband will be given a choice to either to take her back or release her by reclaiming his mahr in order to remain with her second husband.


Mawsoo’atul Fiqhiyyat Kuwaitiyyah, vol 38, p. 279 – shamila

وَعِنْدَ الْمَالِكِيَّةِ أَنَّ الْمَفْقُودَ إِنْ عَادَ قَبْل نِكَاحِ زَوْجَتِهِ غَيْرَهُ، فَهِيَ زَوْجَتُهُ، وَهَذَا هُوَ الْقَوْل الْمَشْهُورُ الْمَعْمُول بِهِ، فَإِنْ عَادَ بَعْدَ النِّكَاحِ، فَعَنْ مَالِكٍ فِي ذَلِكَ رِوَايَتَانِ: الأْولَى: إِنْ عَادَ قَبْل الدُّخُول، فَهُوَ أَحَقُّ بِهَا، وَيُفَرَّقُ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ زَوْجِهَا الثَّانِي، وَأَمَّا إِنْ عَادَ بَعْدَ الدُّخُول، فَالثَّانِي عَلَى نِكَاحِهِ، وَلاَ يُفَرَّقُ بَيْنَهُ، وَبَيْنَ زَوْجَتِهِ. الثَّانِيَةُ: إِنْ عَادَ الْمَفْقُودُ، فَوَجَدَ زَوْجَتَهُ قَدْ تَزَوَّجَتْ فَلاَ سَبِيل لَهُ عَلَيْهَا، وَلَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ دُخُولٌ. وَقَدْ أَخَذَ بِكُلٍّ مِنَ الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمَالِكِيَّةِ، وَقَال ابْنُ الْقَاسِمِ، وَأَشْهَبُ بِأَنَّ أَقْوَى الْقَوْلَيْنِ مَا جَاءَ فِي الرِّوَايَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ  وَهِيَ مَذْكُورَةٌ فِي الْمُوَطَّأِ

وَقَوْل الشَّافِعِيَّةِ يَخْتَلِفُ بَيْنَ الْقَدِيمِ وَالْجَدِيدِ: فَفِي الْقَوْل الْقَدِيمِ: إِنْ قَدِمَ الْمَفْقُودُ بَعْدَ زَوَاجِ امْرَأَتِهِ، فَفِي عَوْدَتِهَا إِلَيْهِ قَوْلاَنِ، وَقِيل يُخَيَّرُ الأَْوَّل بَيْنَ أَخْذِهَا مِنَ الثَّانِي، وَتَرْكِهَا لَهُ وَأَخْذِ مَهْرِ الْمِثْل مِنْهُ. وَفِي الْقَوْل الْجَدِيدِ: هِيَ بَاقِيَةٌ عَلَى نِكَاحِ الْمَفْقُودِ، فَإِنْ تَزَوَّجَتْ غَيْرَهُ فَنِكَاحُهَا بَاطِلٌ، تَعُودُ لِلأْوَّل بَعْدَ انْتِهَاءِ عِدَّتِهَا مِنَ الثَّانِي.

وَذَهَبَ الْحَنَابِلَةُ إِلَى أَنَّ الْمَفْقُودَ إِنْ قَدِمَ قَبْل أَنْ تَتَزَوَّجَ امْرَأَتُهُ، فَهِيَ عَلَى عِصْمَتِهِ. فَإِنْ تَزَوَّجَتْ غَيْرَهُ، وَلَمْ يَدْخُل بِهَا، فَهِيَ زَوْجَةُ الأْوَّل فِي رِوَايَةٍ، وَهِيَ الصَّحِيحُ، وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ أَنَّهُ يُخَيَّرُ.فَإِنْ دَخَل بِهَا الثَّانِي، كَانَ الأْوَّل بِالْخِيَارِ، إِنْ شَاءَ أَخَذَ زَوْجَتَهُ بِالْعَقْدِ الأْوَّل، وَإِنْ شَاءَ أَخَذَ مَهْرَهَا وَبَقِيَتْ عَلَى نِكَاحِ الثَّانِي.


[3] Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Hiylatun Najizah, p. 68-69

[4] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, No: 16720

ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ جَعْدَةَ، أَنَّ رَجُلًا اسْتَهُوَتْهُ الْجِنُّ عَلَى عَهْدِ عُمَرَ، فَأَتَتِ امْرَأَتُهُ عُمَرَ، فَأَمَرَهَا «أَنْ تَرَبَّصَ أَرْبَعَ سِنِينَ، ثُمَّ أَمَرَ وَلِيَّهُ بَعْدَ أَرْبَعِ سِنِينَ أَنْ يُطَلِّقَهَا، ثُمَّ أَمَرَهَا أَنْ تَعْتَدَّ، فَإِذَا انْقَضَتْ عِدَّتُهَا تَزَوَّجَتْ، فَإِنْ جَاءَ زَوْجُهَا خُيِّرَ بَيْنَ امْرَأَتِهِ وَالصَّدَاقِ»


Sarakhsi, Kitāb al-Mabsoot, Kitāb al-Mafqood, vol 11 p. 39-40

عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ قَالَ لَقِيتُ: الْمَفْقُودَ نَفْسَهُ فَحَدَّثَنِي حَدِيثَهُ قَالَ: أَكَلْت حَرِيرًا فِي أَهْلِي ثُمَّ خَرَجْتُ فَأَخَذَنِي نَفَرٌ مِنْ الْجِنِّ فَمَكَثْتُ فِيهِمْ ثُمَّ بَدَا لَهُمْ فِي عِتْقِي فَأَعْتَقُونِي، ثُمَّ أَتَوْا بِي قَرِيبًا مِنْ الْمَدِينَةِ فَقَالُوا أَتَعْرِفُ النَّخْلَ فَقُلْتُ: نَعَمْ فَخَلُّوا عَنِّي فَجِئْتُ، فَإِذَا عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – قَدْ أَبَانَ امْرَأَتِي بَعْدَ أَرْبَعِ سِنِينَ وَحَاضَتْ وَانْقَضَتْ عِدَّتُهَا وَتَزَوَّجَتْ فَخَيَّرَنِي عُمَرُ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – بَيْنَ أَنْ يَرُدَّهَا عَلَيَّ وَبَيْنَ الْمَهْرِ. وَأَهْلُ الْحَدِيثِ – رَحِمَهُمُ اللَّهُ – يَرَوْنَ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنَّهُ هَمَّ بِتَأْدِيبِهِ حِينَ رَآهُ، وَجَعَلَ يَقُولُ: يَغِيبُ أَحَدُكُمْ عَنْ زَوْجَتِهِ هَذِهِ الْمُدَّةَ الطَّوِيلَةَ، وَلَا يَبْعَثُ بِخَبَرِهِ فَقَالَ: لَا تَعْجَلْ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَذَكَرَ لَهُ قِصَّتَهُ.


[5] Sarakhsi, Kitāb al-Mabsoot, Kitāb al-Mafqood, vol 11 p. 39-40

وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ دَلِيلٌ لَنَا أَيْضًا فَنَتَّبِعُ الْآثَارَ، وَلَا نَشْتَغِلُ بِكَيْفِيَّةِ ذَلِكَ، وَكَأَنَّ عُمَرَ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – إنَّمَا رَجَعَ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ فِي امْرَأَةِ الْمَفْقُودِ لَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ مِنْ حَالِ هَذَا الرَّجُلِ، وَأَمَّا تَخْيِيرُهُ إيَّاهُ بَيْنَ أَنْ يَرُدَّهَا عَلَيْهِ وَبَيْنَ الْمَهْرِ فَهُوَ بِنَاءٌ عَلَى مَذْهَبِ عُمَرَ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – فِي الْمَرْأَةِ إذَا نُعِيَ إلَيْهَا زَوْجُهَا فَاعْتَدَّتْ، وَتَزَوَّجَتْ ثُمَّ أَتَى الزَّوْجُ الْأَوَّلُ حَيًّا إنَّهُ يُخَيَّرُ بَيْنَ أَنْ تُرَدَّ عَلَيْهِ وَبَيْنَ الْمَهْرِ، وَقَدْ صَحَّ رُجُوعُهُ عَنْهُ إلَى قَوْلِ عَلِيٍّ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُفَإِنَّهُ كَانَ يَقُولُ تُرَدُّ إلَى زَوْجِهَا الْأَوَّلِ، وَيُفَرَّقُ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ الْآخَرِ، وَلَهَا الْمَهْرُ بِمَا اسْتَحَلَّ مِنْ فَرْجِهَا، وَلَا يَقْرَبُهَا الْأَوَّلُ حَتَّى تَنْقَضِيَ عِدَّتُهَا مِنْ الْآخَرِ وَبِهَذَا كَانَ يَأْخُذُ إبْرَاهِيمُ – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ – فَيَقُولُ: قَوْلُ عَلِيٍّ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – أَحَبُّ إلَيَّ مِنْ قَوْلِ عُمَرَ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ -، وَبِهِ نَأْخُذُ أَيْضًا؛ لِأَنَّهُ تَبَيَّنَ أَنَّهَا تَزَوَّجَتْ، وَهِيَ مَنْكُوحَةٌ وَمَنْكُوحَةُ الْغَيْرِ لَيْسَتْ مِنْ الْمُحَلَّلَاتِ بَلْ هِيَ مِنْ الْمُحَرَّمَاتِ فِي حَقِّ سَائِرِ النَّاسِ كَمَا قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنْ النِّسَاءِ} [النساء: 24] فَكَيْفَ يَسْتَقِيمُ تَرْكُهَا مَعَ الثَّانِي، وَإِذَا اخْتَارَ الْأَوَّلُ الْمَهْرَ، وَلَكِنْ يَكُونُ النِّكَاحُ مُنْعَقِدًا بَيْنَهُمَا فَكَيْفَ يَسْتَقِيمُ دَفْعُ الْمَهْرِ إلَى الْأَوَّلِ، وَهُوَ بَدَلُ بُضْعِهَا فَيَكُون مَمْلُوكًا لَهَا دُونَ زَوْجِهَا كَالْمَنْكُوحَةِ إذَا وُطِئَتْ بِشُبْهَةٍ، فَعَرَفْنَا أَنَّ الصَّحِيحَ أَنَّهَا زَوْجَةُ الْأَوَّلِ، وَلَكِنْ لَا يَقْرَبُهَا لِكَوْنِهَا مُعْتَدَّةً لِغَيْرِهِ كَالْمَنْكُوحَةِ إذَا وُطِئَتْ بِالشُّبْهَةِ. وَذُكِرَ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ – أَنَّ عُمَرَ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – رَجَعَ عَنْ ثَلَاثِ قَضِيَّاتٍ إلَى قَوْلِ عَلِيٍّ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ -، عَنْ امْرَأَةِ أَبِي كَنَفٍ، وَالْمَفْقُودِ زَوْجُهَا، وَالْمَرْأَةِ الَّتِي تَزَوَّجَتْ فِي عِدَّتِهَا. أَمَّا حُكْمُ الْمَفْقُودِ وَالْمُعْتَدَّةِ فَقَدْ بَيَّنَّا.


[6] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb al-Talāq, vol 5 p. 189

مطلب فِي عدة الْمَوْت

(قَوْلُهُ: وَفِي حَقِّ الْحَامِلِ) أَيْ مِنْ نِكَاحٍ وَلَوْ فَاسِدًا، فَلَا عِدَّةَ عَلَى الْحَامِلِ مِنْ زِنًا أَصْلًا بَحْرٌ (قَوْلُهُ: مُطْلَقًا) أَيْ سَوَاءً كَانَ عَنْ طَلَاقٍ، أَوْ وَفَاةٍ، أَوْ مُتَارَكَةٍ، أَوْ وَطْءٍ بِشُبْهَةٍ نَهْرٌ


Fatawa Hindiyyah, Kitāb al-Talāq, vol 1, p. 554

الْبَابُ الثَّالِثَ عَشَرَ فِي الْعِدَّةِ

وَعِدَّةُ الْحَامِلِ أَنْ تَضَعَ حَمْلَهَا كَذَا فِي الْكَافِي. سَوَاءٌ كَانَتْ حَامِلًا وَقْتَ وُجُوبِ الْعِدَّةِ أَوْ حَبِلَتْ بَعْدَ الْوُجُوبِ كَذَا فِي فَتَاوَى قَاضِي خَانْ. وَسَوَاءٌ كَانَتْ الْمَرْأَةُ حُرَّةً أَوْ مَمْلُوكَةً قِنَّةً أَوْ مُدَبَّرَةً أَوْ مُكَاتَبَةً أَوْ أُمَّ وَلَدٍ أَوْ مُسْتَسْعَاةً مُسْلِمَةً أَوْ كِتَابِيَّةً كَذَا فِي الْبَدَائِعِ.

وَسَوَاءٌ كَانَتْ عَنْ طَلَاقٍ أَوْ وَفَاةٍ أَوْ مُتَارَكَةٍ أَوْ وَطْءٍ بِشُبْهَةٍ كَذَا فِي النَّهْرِ الْفَائِقِ. وَسَوَاءٌ كَانَ الْحَمْلُ ثَابِتَ النَّسَبِ أَمْ لَا وَيُتَصَوَّرُ ذَلِكَ فِيمَنْ تَزَوَّجَ حَامِلًا بِالزِّنَا كَذَا فِي السِّرَاجِ الْوَهَّاجِ.


[7] Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitāb al-Talāq, Bab al-Iddat, vol 5 p. 247-248

فَصْلٌ فِي ثُبُوتِ النَّسَبِ

(غَابَ عَنْ امْرَأَتِهِ فَتَزَوَّجَتْ بِآخَرَ وَوَلَدَتْ أَوْلَادًا) ثُمَّ جَاءَ الزَّوْجُ الْأَوَّلُ (فَالْأَوْلَادُ لِلثَّانِي عَلَى الْمَذْهَبِ) الَّذِي رَجَعَ إلَيْهِ الْإِمَامُ وَعَلَيْهِ الْفَتْوَى كَمَا فِي الْخَانِيَّةِ وَالْجَوْهَرَةِ وَالْكَافِي وَغَيْرِهَا. وَفِي حَاشِيَةِ شَرْحِ الْمَنَارِ لِابْنِ الْحَنْبَلِيِّ. وَعَلَيْهِ الْفَتْوَى إنْ احْتَمَلَهُ الْحَالُ، لَكِنْ فِي آخِرِ دَعْوَى الْجَمْعِ حَكَى أَرْبَعَةَ أَقْوَالٍ ثُمَّ أَفْتَى بِمَا اعْتَمَدَهُ الْمُصَنِّفُ، وَعَلَّلَهُ ابْنُ مَالِكٍ بِأَنَّهُ الْمُسْتَفْرِشُ حَقِيقَةً، فَالْوَلَدُ لِلْفِرَاشِ الْحَقِيقِيِّ وَإِنْ كَانَ فَاسِدًا وَتَمَامُهُ فِيهِ فَرَاجِعْهُ.

(قَوْلُهُ: غَابَ عَنْ امْرَأَتِهِ إلَخْ) شَامِلٌ لِمَا إذَا بَلَغَهَا مَوْتُهُ أَوْ طَلَاقُهُ فَاعْتَدَّتْ وَتَزَوَّجَتْ ثُمَّ بَانَ خِلَافُهُ، وَلِمَا إذَا ادَّعَتْ ذَلِكَ ثُمَّ بَانَ خِلَافُهُ اهـ ح. (قَوْلُهُ: وَفِي حَاشِيَةِ شَرْحِ الْمَنَارِ إلَخْ) قَالَ الشَّارِحُ فِي شَرْحِهِ عَلَى الْمَنَارِ: لَكِنَّ الصَّحِيحَ مَا أَوْرَدَهُ الْجُرْجَانِيُّ أَنَّ الْأَوْلَادَ مِنْ الثَّانِي إنْ احْتَمَلَهُ الْحَالُ، وَأَنَّ الْإِمَامَ رَجَعَ إلَى هَذَا الْقَوْلِ، وَعَلَيْهِ الْفَتْوَى كَمَا فِي حَاشِيَةِ ابْنِ الْحَنْبَلِيِّ عَنْ [الْوَاقِعَاتِ وَالْأَسْرَارِ] وَنَقَلَهُ ابْنُ نُجَيْمٍ عَنْ الظَّهِيرِيَّةِ اهـ وَاحْتِمَالُ الْحَالِ بِأَنْ تَلِدَهُ لِسِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ فَأَكْثَرَ مِنْ وَقْتِ النِّكَاحِ. (قَوْلُهُ: حَكَى أَرْبَعَةَ أَقْوَالٍ) حَاصِلُ عِبَارَتِهِ مَعَ شَرْحِهِ لِابْنِ مَالِكٍ أَنَّ الْأَوْلَادَ لِلْأَوَّلِ عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ مُطْلَقًا: أَيْ سَوَاءٌ أَتَتْ بِهِ لِأَقَلَّ مِنْ سِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ، أَوْ لَا، لِأَنَّ نِكَاحَ الْأُولَى صَحِيحٌ فَاعْتِبَارُهُ أَوْلَى. وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ لِلثَّانِي وَعَلَيْهِ الْفَتْوَى لِأَنَّ الْوَلَدَ لِلْفِرَاشِ الْحَقِيقِيِّ وَإِنْ كَانَ فَاسِدًا. وَعِنْدَ أَبِي يُوسُفَ لِلْأَوَّلِ إنْ أَتَتْ بِهِ لِأَقَلَّ مِنْ سِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ مِنْ عَقْدِ الثَّانِي لِتَيَقُّنِ الْعُلُوقِ مِنْ الْأَوَّلِ، وَإِنْ لِأَكْثَرَ فَلِلثَّانِي. وَعِنْدَ مُحَمَّدٍ لِلْأَوَّلِ إنْ كَانَ بَيْنَ وَطْءِ الثَّانِي وَالْوِلَادَةِ أَقَلُّ مِنْ سَنَتَيْنِ، فَلَوْ أَكْثَرَ مِنْهُمَا فَلِلثَّانِي لِتَيَقُّنِ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ الْأَوَّلِ، وَالنِّكَاحُ الصَّحِيحُ مَعَ احْتِمَالِ الْعُلُوقِ مِنْهُ أَوْلَى بِالِاعْتِبَارِ، وَإِنَّمَا وَضْعُ الْمَسْأَلَةِ فِي الْوَلَدِ إذْ الْمَرْأَةُ تُرَدُّ إلَى الْأَوَّلِ إجْمَاعًا. اهـ.

قُلْت: وَظَاهِرُهُ أَنَّهُ عَلَى الْمُفْتَى بِهِ يَكُونُ الْوَلَدُ لِلثَّانِي مُطْلَقًا وَإِنْ جَاءَتْ بِهِ لِأَقَلَّ مِنْ سِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ مِنْ وَقْتِ الْعَقْدِ كَمَا يَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ ذِكْرُ الْإِطْلَاقِ قَبْلَهُ، وَالِاقْتِصَارُ عَلَى التَّفْصِيلِ بَعْدَهُ، وَهَذَا خِلَافُ مَا قَالَهُ ابْنُ الْحَنْبَلِيِّ، وَهَذَا وَجْهُ الِاسْتِدْرَاكِ لَكِنْ لَا يَخْفَى مَا فِيهِ، فَقَدْ ذَكَرْنَا قَرِيبًا أَنَّ الْمَنْكُوحَةَ لَوْ وَلَدَتْ لِدُونِ سِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ لَمْ يَثْبُتْ نَسَبُهُ مِنْ زَوْجٍ وَيَفْسُدُ النِّكَاحُ أَيْ لِأَنَّهُ لَا بُدَّ مِنْ تَصَوُّرِ الْعُلُوقِ مِنْهُ وَفِيمَا دُونَ سِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ لَا يُتَصَوَّرُ ذَلِكَ، وَهَذَا إذَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ بِأَنَّ لَهَا زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ فَكَيْفَ إذَا ظَهَرَ زَوْجٌ غَيْرُهُ فَلَا شَكَّ فِي عَدَمِ ثُبُوتِهِ مِنْ الثَّانِي، وَلِهَذَا قَالَ فِي شَرْحِ دُرَرِ الْبِحَارِ: إنَّ هَذَا مُشْكِلٌ فِيمَا إذَا أَتَتْ بِهِ لِأَقَلَّ مِنْ سِتَّةِ أَشْهُرٍ مُذْ تَزَوَّجَهَا. اهـ.

وَالْحَقُّ أَنَّ الْإِطْلَاقَ غَيْرُ مُرَادٍ وَأَنَّ الصَّوَابَ مَا نَقَلَهُ ابْنُ الْحَنْبَلِيِّ، وَبِهِ يَظْهَرُ أَنَّ هَذِهِ الرِّوَايَةَ عَنْ الْإِمَامِ الْمُفْتَى بِهَا هِيَ الَّتِي أَخَذَ بِهَا أَبُو يُوسُفَ، وَأَنَّهُ لَا بُدَّ مِنْ تَقْيِيدِ كَلَامِ الْمُصَنِّفِ وَالْمَجْمَعِ بِمَا نَقَلَهُ ابْنُ الْحَنْبَلِيِّ، وَأَنَّهُ لَا وَجْهَ لِلِاسْتِدْرَاكِ. عَلَيْهِ بِمَا فِي الْمَجْمَعِ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.