a wife, these rulings would apply to her. For this reason, some of the early generations said that these rulings abrogated temporary marriage. A detailed discussion would be lengthy, and this is not the place for it.

If he stipulates a fixed term before concluding the marriage contract, this is equivalent to stipulating it when the contract is concluded, according to the more correct of the two scholarly views. The same applies to a “marriage intended to make a woman lawful again for her former husband.”

If, however, the husband intends a fixed term without disclosing it to the woman, there is disagreement: Abū Hanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī permit it, while Mālik, Ahmad and others disapprove of it. If his intention were to make her lawful again for her former husband, the Companions agreed that this was forbidden and regarded it as a marriage contracted for that purpose.

Yet a marriage intended to make a woman lawful again for her former husband is worse than temporary marriage. The former has never been permitted, since the man’s purpose is not marriage itself, but merely to return her to the man who previously divorced her. He establishes the marriage contract only to dissolve it, and this cannot be lawful under any circumstances. By contrast, a man entering a temporary marriage does seek marital enjoyment. Nevertheless, fixing a term undermines the purposes of marriage—affection, mercy and tranquillity—and places the wife in the position of a woman hired for a fee. Thus, intending a fixed term is less serious than intending to make the woman lawful again for her former husband. The question is whether the former is prohibited or merely discouraged.

As for “withdrawal,” a group of scholars have forbidden it. However, the position of the four imams is that it is permissible with the woman’s consent. And Allah knows best.