"Or no maintenance, or that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife or more, or that he stipulated an option in it"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He stipulated that there would be no maintenance for her. This means a woman proposed to a man to marry her, and he said yes, but I am poor, on the condition that I have no maintenance obligation. She said, "I have no maintenance obligation on you," and they agreed on this. Is the mahr negated in the phrase "no maintenance for her" or not? The mahr is not negated because it is not part of maintenance. So we say the contract is valid, and she is entitled to the specified mahr, but she is not entitled to maintenance, or is she?
The questioner : She is entitled to maintenance.
The Shaykh : The contract is valid and the condition is invalid. We say, "Provide maintenance." The man asks, "How can I provide maintenance when she waived it from me?" We say, "Because she waived something in the future that she had not yet received. Whoever waives something in the future that has not been received has the right to return to it. So she can return and demand maintenance. If he says, 'I have nothing,' she has the option: if she wishes, she can annul the contract, and if she wishes, she can not annul it. We say this is her right. Now we say to the wife: Are you satisfied with this man without maintenance because he is poor? Then stay with him. Do you want to annul the marriage? You have that right. What if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife or more? This means a man married a woman in addition to a previous wife, who is the co-wife. The term "co-wife" is used because of the frequent rivalry between her and the other wife. When he proposed to this woman, she said, "You are a man with a wife, and the wife is old in age. I accept this on the condition that you allocate two days to me and one day to her. What do you say about this condition, O 'Abd Allah?"
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The contract is valid and the condition is invalid. Why? Because this causes harm to the first wife and waives her right. This second wife does not have the authority to waive the right of the first wife. Is that correct, everyone, or not?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : If she said, "Allocate two days to me and one day to her," this is harm to the first wife. Because the right of the first wife is that one day be allocated to her and one day to the second. So the condition here is not valid, but the marriage is valid. Now, if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife? Meaning she said, "Allocate one day to me and two days to my co-wife?"
The questioner : The condition is valid...
The Shaykh : No, the author says it is not valid. The marriage is valid and the condition is invalid. But do you expect this condition to occur from the woman?
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is possible. The second woman might be a teacher or have a job and say, "I do not want him to come to me one day after another. I want him to come to me one day and to the other co-wife two days." Or she might say, "One day for me and six days for her. For example, Thursday is my day, Friday is a holiday, and the rest is for the first wife." Then he says there is no obstacle. What is the ruling on the marriage?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : And the condition? It is invalid, according to the author's statement, it is invalid. Why is it invalid? We say that if she stipulated that he should allocate to her more than her co-wife, the invalidity of the condition is clear. What is its clarity?
The questioner : Acknowledgment...
The Shaykh : Because it is an encroachment on the right of the second wife. But if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife, what is the prohibition? They said, "Because in that is a waiver of the husband's right. Because it is the husband's right to allocate one day to one wife and another day to the other wife. And this is a waiver of his right." The answer to this is to say, "Yes, it is a waiver of the husband's right, but with his consent and choice. And what is the obstacle?" For this reason, the correct view is that if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife and he consented to it, the condition is valid.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him, "Or she stipulated an option in it". The contract is valid and the condition is invalid. How did she stipulate an option in it? She said, "Yes, but I stipulate that I have the option for three days." This condition is invalid, but it does not invalidate the contract. It is not like temporary marriage (mut'ah). In temporary marriage, if the marriage is limited to three or four days, the contract is invalid, is it not? But here she did not limit the duration. The option was stipulated, and it is permissible for her to choose to stay or to choose to annul. In temporary marriage, is there an option between these two?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, do you know what temporary marriage (mut'ah) is, everyone? What is it? It is a temporary marriage. But here the marriage is not temporary. A temporary marriage is annulled, and there is a difference between it being temporary in the sense that a person can annul it if he wishes or not annul it, and it being temporary with a specific limit that does not exceed that time.
So if she stipulated, "Give me the option for three days," and she is a smart woman who said, "In three days, I can get to know this man, the extent of his intelligence, and the extent of his treatment, so I want to stipulate the option." He said, "Yes, welcome." The man is concerned about marrying this woman and is careful. We say the contract is valid and the condition is invalid, because the marriage is a binding contract, and the one who holds the option is the husband. If the woman stipulated the option, in whose hands does the option become?
The questioner : The wife's.
The Shaykh : In the wife's hands. And similarly, if she said, "I accept the marriage, but I have the option between ratifying the contract and annulling it when I get to know your family and sit with them. If the situation continues as it should, the marriage remains as it is. And if I find something that disturbs me, I have the right to annul it." He said there is no obstacle. Here, the contract is valid and the condition is not valid. The correct view is that both the contract and the condition are valid, because if the condition of option is valid in sales, then its condition in marriage is even more so, especially if there is a intended purpose. The woman's stipulation of the option undoubtedly has an intended purpose for her. In the first case, where we said she stipulated the option for three days, she benefits from this duration by what? By getting to know the man's condition, knowing his character, and knowing his ability to fulfill the woman's rights. Yes, so this is a legitimate purpose. And in the second case, she also has a legitimate purpose, which is to know the condition of her in-laws and how they treat her, because some people's families are worse for their wives than the husband. So the second opinion is that the condition of option in it is valid. And this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, that it is permissible to stipulate an option in marriage because it has an intended purpose.
The questioner : She is entitled to maintenance.
The Shaykh : The contract is valid and the condition is invalid. We say, "Provide maintenance." The man asks, "How can I provide maintenance when she waived it from me?" We say, "Because she waived something in the future that she had not yet received. Whoever waives something in the future that has not been received has the right to return to it. So she can return and demand maintenance. If he says, 'I have nothing,' she has the option: if she wishes, she can annul the contract, and if she wishes, she can not annul it. We say this is her right. Now we say to the wife: Are you satisfied with this man without maintenance because he is poor? Then stay with him. Do you want to annul the marriage? You have that right. What if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife or more? This means a man married a woman in addition to a previous wife, who is the co-wife. The term "co-wife" is used because of the frequent rivalry between her and the other wife. When he proposed to this woman, she said, "You are a man with a wife, and the wife is old in age. I accept this on the condition that you allocate two days to me and one day to her. What do you say about this condition, O 'Abd Allah?"
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The contract is valid and the condition is invalid. Why? Because this causes harm to the first wife and waives her right. This second wife does not have the authority to waive the right of the first wife. Is that correct, everyone, or not?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : If she said, "Allocate two days to me and one day to her," this is harm to the first wife. Because the right of the first wife is that one day be allocated to her and one day to the second. So the condition here is not valid, but the marriage is valid. Now, if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife? Meaning she said, "Allocate one day to me and two days to my co-wife?"
The questioner : The condition is valid...
The Shaykh : No, the author says it is not valid. The marriage is valid and the condition is invalid. But do you expect this condition to occur from the woman?
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is possible. The second woman might be a teacher or have a job and say, "I do not want him to come to me one day after another. I want him to come to me one day and to the other co-wife two days." Or she might say, "One day for me and six days for her. For example, Thursday is my day, Friday is a holiday, and the rest is for the first wife." Then he says there is no obstacle. What is the ruling on the marriage?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : And the condition? It is invalid, according to the author's statement, it is invalid. Why is it invalid? We say that if she stipulated that he should allocate to her more than her co-wife, the invalidity of the condition is clear. What is its clarity?
The questioner : Acknowledgment...
The Shaykh : Because it is an encroachment on the right of the second wife. But if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife, what is the prohibition? They said, "Because in that is a waiver of the husband's right. Because it is the husband's right to allocate one day to one wife and another day to the other wife. And this is a waiver of his right." The answer to this is to say, "Yes, it is a waiver of the husband's right, but with his consent and choice. And what is the obstacle?" For this reason, the correct view is that if she stipulated that he should allocate to her less than her co-wife and he consented to it, the condition is valid.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him, "Or she stipulated an option in it". The contract is valid and the condition is invalid. How did she stipulate an option in it? She said, "Yes, but I stipulate that I have the option for three days." This condition is invalid, but it does not invalidate the contract. It is not like temporary marriage (mut'ah). In temporary marriage, if the marriage is limited to three or four days, the contract is invalid, is it not? But here she did not limit the duration. The option was stipulated, and it is permissible for her to choose to stay or to choose to annul. In temporary marriage, is there an option between these two?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, do you know what temporary marriage (mut'ah) is, everyone? What is it? It is a temporary marriage. But here the marriage is not temporary. A temporary marriage is annulled, and there is a difference between it being temporary in the sense that a person can annul it if he wishes or not annul it, and it being temporary with a specific limit that does not exceed that time.
So if she stipulated, "Give me the option for three days," and she is a smart woman who said, "In three days, I can get to know this man, the extent of his intelligence, and the extent of his treatment, so I want to stipulate the option." He said, "Yes, welcome." The man is concerned about marrying this woman and is careful. We say the contract is valid and the condition is invalid, because the marriage is a binding contract, and the one who holds the option is the husband. If the woman stipulated the option, in whose hands does the option become?
The questioner : The wife's.
The Shaykh : In the wife's hands. And similarly, if she said, "I accept the marriage, but I have the option between ratifying the contract and annulling it when I get to know your family and sit with them. If the situation continues as it should, the marriage remains as it is. And if I find something that disturbs me, I have the right to annul it." He said there is no obstacle. Here, the contract is valid and the condition is not valid. The correct view is that both the contract and the condition are valid, because if the condition of option is valid in sales, then its condition in marriage is even more so, especially if there is a intended purpose. The woman's stipulation of the option undoubtedly has an intended purpose for her. In the first case, where we said she stipulated the option for three days, she benefits from this duration by what? By getting to know the man's condition, knowing his character, and knowing his ability to fulfill the woman's rights. Yes, so this is a legitimate purpose. And in the second case, she also has a legitimate purpose, which is to know the condition of her in-laws and how they treat her, because some people's families are worse for their wives than the husband. So the second opinion is that the condition of option in it is valid. And this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, that it is permissible to stipulate an option in marriage because it has an intended purpose.