It is related from him that he said:

“Temporary marriage was nothing but a mercy from Allah—Mighty and Majestic—through which He showed compassion to the community of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Had ʿUmar not forbidden it, no one would have been driven to fornication save a truly wretched soul.”

This report from Ibn ʿAbbās is transmitted by Ibn Jurayj and ʿAmr ibn Dīnār.

ʿAtāʾ said:

“I heard Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh say, ‘We practised temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—during the caliphate of Abū Bakr, and for half of ʿUmar’s caliphate; then ʿUmar forbade it to the people.’”

3 – Their disagreement over a marriage in which the proposal is made on top of another man’s proposal

As noted earlier, there are three views: one declares the contract void and subject to annulment; another upholds it; and a third—Mālik’s view—distinguishes between a second proposal that comes after the first suitor has gained acceptance and is close to completion, and a proposal that comes before that point.

4 – The muhallil marriage

By this we mean a marriage contracted with the sole purpose of making a woman who has been thrice-divorced lawful again for her first husband. Mālik says such a contract is annulled; Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī hold that it is valid.

The reason for their disagreement lies in how they understand the Prophet’s words, peace and blessings be upon him, “Allah curses the muhallil….”

Whoever understands the curse to imply only sinfulness says the marriage is valid; whoever takes it to imply both sin and invalidity—by analogy with prohibitions that render the act itself void—rules the marriage void. These, then, are the marriages invalidated by explicit prohibition.

Marriages invalidated by the purport of the Sacred Law

Such contracts become void for one of three reasons: (1) dropping a condition required for the validity of marriage; (2) altering a rule the Law has made obligatory—originating from Allah, Mighty and Majestic; or (3) adding a stipulation that effectively negates one of the conditions of validity. Additional clauses that do not reach this level do not, by consensus, invalidate the marriage. The jurists differed only over whether such clauses are binding—stipulations, for example, that the husband will not marry another wife, will not keep a slave-concubine, or will not move her from her hometown.

Mālik says that if such a condition is inserted, it is not binding unless it is reinforced by an oath involving emancipation or divorce; in that case the oath is binding unless he divorces or emancipates the person concerned, at which point the original condition also lapses. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah hold the same.

Al-Awzāʿī and Ibn Shubruma, however, say: the wife is entitled to her condition, and the husband must honour it.

Ibn Shihāb said, “The scholars I met used to rule that way.” The opinion of the majority is reported from ʿAlī, while that of al-Awzāʿī is reported from ʿUmar.

The root of their disagreement is the clash between general and specific evidence.

The general evidence is the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah—may Allah be pleased with her—in which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, addressed the people, saying:

“Every condition that is not in the Book of Allah is void, even if one were to stipulate a hundred conditions.”

The specific evidence is the ḥadīth of ʿUqbah ibn ʿĀmir, from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “The conditions that…"