one of them will come on the Day of Resurrection with one side of his body leaning.” (1) Moreover, it entails injustice toward the co-wife, for she may say, “You must treat me equally with her.” By doing so, he would be forfeiting the established wife’s right, and he has no authority to forfeit her right. If, however, the first wife consents, then there is no objection.

His statement, “Or that he stipulate an option in it,” means that the husband stipulates an option in the marriage contract. A stipulation of an option is of two types: one made by the wife against the husband, and one made by the husband against the wife.

If it is made by the wife against the husband—for example, if a man proposes to a woman and she says, “I retain the option for one month”—then, according to the school, the condition is invalid, because marriage takes effect as a binding contract; thus, stipulating an option in it conflicts with the contract and is invalid.

The correct view, however, is that it is valid if she stipulates the option for herself, because she may have a legitimate purpose in doing so. The man may be known for bad character, or his family may be known for bad character, so she says, “I retain the option: if I find the situation acceptable, then so be it; otherwise, I may annul the marriage.” If he agrees to this, then the correct view is that there is no objection. As for the fact that marriage becomes binding, we say: even a sale becomes binding, yet it is permissible to stipulate an option in it; likewise, then, in marriage.

If the husband stipulates the option, the school holds that it is invalid, because the husband