A Jurisprudential Phenomenology of Polygamy and Filiation in Cases of Uncertainty (shobhe)

If a man assumes that an unrelated woman is his lawfully wedded wife and enters into a sexual relationship with her, this sexual relationship gives rise to two consequences: first, to religious (shar’i) filiation and second, after the discovery of the fact that the sexual relationship was indeed extramarital, a waiting period (iddah) is also established. Such a mistake can be the result of uncertainty in the issue itself or of uncertainty in judgment. However, in any case, mitigation and lack of ill-intent constitute the distinguishing characteristics of the essence of uncertainty.Existence of incoherence and lack of clarity in narrative proof of intercourse have given rise to numerous ambiguities in the positive jurisprudential rules to the extent that, according to general agreement, the determination of the mitigation, the status of polygamy and the amount of the marriage portion (mahr) are problematic. Based on a methodology of jurispudential deduction and utilising explicit principles, this paper proves that negligence issues preclude mitigation and that polygamy remains the right of the husband. On the basis of the marriage contract, the marriage portion (mahr) becomes payable as a result of sexual intercourse. In conclusion, complete absence of certainty should not be considered as doubt (error?). Lack of knowledge whether the marriage contract has been concluded correctly also obviates the necessity to observe the waiting period (iddah). Likewise, certainty that the marriage contract has not been concluded correctly also obviates the necessity to observe the waiting period (iddah); in addition, the marriage portion (mahr) in principle constitutes a compensation for [the husband’s] sexual gratification.