it is unlawful for him to travel and break his fast. Likewise, if he eats onions in order to avoid going to the mosque, it is unlawful for him to eat onions. Something being permissible does not mean that it is permissible in every circumstance. Therefore, although I believe that the marriage contract itself is not invalid, since it has been used as a means to fornication—which no scholar has ever deemed permissible—I say: it must be prohibited, and this view must not be disseminated among the people.

His statement, “or sets it for a specified period”: if he sets it for a period that is inherent in the contract, such as saying, “I marry my daughter to you until you or she dies,” then it is valid, because this is entailed by the marriage contract. When either the husband or the wife dies, separation takes place.

Question: If it is stipulated that divorce is in the woman’s hands, is this permissible? The Messenger ﷺ said: “I have not seen any who are more deficient in intellect and religion, yet more capable of robbing a resolute man of his reason, than one of you.” (1) Can we then place the bond of marriage—one of the noblest contracts and among the gravest in consequence—in the hands of a deficient woman?! When she goes out to the marketplace and sees this handsome young man in the full vigor of youth, she might say to her husband, “You are divorced three times over!” This is never permissible.

However, it is permissible to stipulate an option for an intended purpose. For example, she may say, “If I find the residence agreeable, the marriage will continue; otherwise, I retain the option.” If it then becomes clear that the residence is unsuitable—whether because of poor relations with the husband’s parents or his brothers, or because the husband is a miser—then she has the option. But merely saying, “I have the right to divorce you,” is not appropriate, for divorce belongs to the one who has taken hold of the leg; thus divorce is in the hands of men.