Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

of an option in it is invalid, because it is not a purely commutative contract. Were it a purely commutative contract, stipulating an option in it would be valid, as it is in a sale. Rather, its primary purpose is separation.

The second view is that stipulating an option in it is valid; if either of them chooses to return, they may do so, because the right belongs to both of them. What appears correct is that the condition is valid, because this is unlike the first issue: in the first issue, the right of return belongs to the husband, whereas here the option belongs to them both. Nevertheless, someone may say: if the husband chooses it, the wife will be compelled to agree; in that case, we return to its being exactly like the stipulation of a right of return—except that the right of return is unilateral, while this is bilateral.

“If he enters into khulʿ with her without compensation, or in exchange for something unlawful, it is invalid, …”

His statement, “If he enters into khulʿ with her without compensation, or in exchange for something unlawful, it is invalid,” is based on Allah’s saying: “There is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself” [al-Baqarah 2:229]. If he enters into khulʿ with her without compensation, then where is the ransom? There is no ransom. This is the madhhab’s position.

Shaykh al-Islam said that it is valid for him to enter into khulʿ with her without compensation, and he gave two reasons for this:

First: compensation is the husband’s right, so if he waives it voluntarily, there is nothing wrong with that, just as with other rights. Thus, if she entered into khulʿ with him for one thousand riyals, the khulʿ was concluded, and he then absolved her of it, there would be nothing wrong with that. The same applies if they agree from the outset that there will be no compensation.

Second: when he enters into khulʿ with her, he does so in exchange for compensation, because she waives her right to maintenance. If the divorce were revocable, the husband would be responsible for her maintenance throughout the waiting period. But if she enters into khulʿ with him, he owes her no maintenance; thus, it is as though she has offered him compensation, for she has waived her right to maintenance from the husband,

الخيار فيه؛ لأنه ليس عقد معاوضة محضة، ولو كان عقد معاوضة محضة لصح فيه شرط الخيار كالبيع، بل أهم ما فيه الفراق. القول الثاني: أنه يصح شرط الخيار فيه، وإذا اختار أحدهما الرجوع فإنه يرجع؛ لأن الحق لهما، والذي يظهر أنه يصح الشرط؛ لأن هذه ليست كالمسألة الأولى، فالرجعة في المسألة الأولى للزوج، أما هذا فالخيار لهما جميعاً، مع أنه قد يقول قائل: إذا اختار الزوج فإن الزوجة تجبر على الموافقة، وحينئذٍ نعود إلى أنه كشرط الرجعة تماماً، إلا أن الرجعة من جانب واحد، وهذا من جانبين. وَإِنْ خَالَعَهَا بِغَيْرِ عِوَضٍ، أَوْ بِمُحَرَّمٍ لَمْ يَصِحَّ، ........ قوله: «وإن خالعها بغير عوض أو بمحرم لم يصح» لقوله تعالى: ﴿فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٢٩]، فإذا خالعها على غير عوض فأين الفداء؟! لا فداء، وهذا هو المذهب. وقال شيخ الإسلام: يصح أن يخالعها على غير عوض، وعلل ذلك بأمرين: أحدهما: أن العوض حق للزوج، فإذا أسقطه باختياره فلا حرج، كغيره من الحقوق، فكما أنها لو خالعته على ألف ريال وتم الخلع ثم أبرأها منه، فلا حرج، فكذلك إذا اتفقا من أول الأمر على أنه لا عوض. الثاني: أنه إذا خالعها فإنه يخالعها على عوض؛ لأنها تسقط حقها من الإنفاق؛ لأنه لو كان الطلاق رجعياً لكانت النفقة مدة العدة على الزوج، فإذا خالعته فلا نفقة عليه، فكأنها بذلت له عوضاً، فهي قد أسقطت الحق الذي لها من النفقة على الزوج،

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies