چالش‌هاي فقهي محدود بودن حق استمتاع زن در چهار ماه

Jurisprudential Challenges Regarding the Limitation of Wife’s Sexual Enjoyment Right in Four Months

استمتاع جنسي زن از شوهر و بالعكس، حق طبيعي و شرعي هر دو است. اما اين حق در لسان مشهور فقها، از جانب زوجه، به ارادۀ مثبت شوهر محدود شده است. البته شوهر نمي‌تواند بيش از چهار ماه، درخواست همسرش را ناديده بگيرد و پس از آن بر او واجب است به خواستۀ او تن دهد. اين پژوهش كه به روش توصيفي‌تحليلي است، نشان مي‌دهد كه ادله‌ و مستندات قول مشهور ناتمام است؛ زيرا اولاً اجماع ادّعايي مشهور محقق نشده و علاوه بر اين به جهت مدركي‌بودن فاقد حجّيت است؛ ثانياً روايات مورد استناد آنان نيز يا از جهت سند ضعيف‌اند و يا از ناحيه دلالت، مُثبِت ادّعا نيستند؛ ثالثاً نه‌تنها كشف مناط از ادله ممكن نيست بلكه علاوه بر اين، روايت ابو‌صبّاح كناني، اقتضاي ذاتي و اطلاقي عقد نكاح، ملاك‌هاي نفس‌الامري احكام، قاعدۀ لاضرر و فهم عقلي وعرفي برخلاف قول مشهور است؛ درنتيجه به نظر مي‌رسد حق استمتاع زن محدوديت زماني ندارد و لزوم توجه شوهر در جهت رفع نياز همسرش در كمتر از چهار ماه، به واقع نزديك‌تر باشد.

Sexual enjoyment by wife of her husband and vice versa are natural and religious rights of both. However, as far as wife is concerned, under the famous opinion among Islamic jurists, this right is subject to the husband’s positive will. Indeed, husband may not ignore his wife’s request for more than four months after which he is obliged comply with her demand. This descriptive-analytical research shows that the proofs and evidences of the famous opinion are incomplete; since, first, the Idjma (consensus) claimed by the famous Islamic jurists has not been realized and in addition, it lacks authority because its source is known; second, the narrations cited by them are either weak in terms of their chain of narrators or do not prove the claim from the aspect of denotation; third, not only rectifying the effective cause of the proofs is not possible but also the narration of Abou Sabbah Kenani, the essential requirement and absoluteness requirement of contract, criteria relating to the inherent essence of precepts, the No Loss (La Zarar) Rule and the rational and conventional understandings are against the famous opinion. In conclusion, it appears that the wife’s sexual enjoyment right has no time limit and the need for husband to pay attention to meet his wife’s needs in less than four months is closer to reality.