talaq-ul-khiyar -- vs. (the false law of) "talaq-ul-muallaq"

Talaq-ul-khiyar is (how I interpret) a "conditional" divorce. The husband might tell his wife that he will divorce her, if she would violate his concern (about what [not] to do). That is not a pledge to bind him.

That is a khiyar (how a bought good, is returnable), pending his final approval.

Finalizing that, is left to the whim of the person who is able to divorce. Normally, only the husband has the right to divorce. Women might get that right, before marrying.

In contrast, "talaq-ul-muallaq" is a contradictory and massively ugly invention. Nothing Islamic.

Supposedly binding the husband with his condition ("pledge beyond sworn").


Hadiths allowing talaq-ul-khiyar, merely reflect the Islamic point of not forbidding divorce (talaq).

Catholics forbid divorce. Islam is allowing, but a hadith is informing that talaq is the permission (halal) that Allah has most antipathy about. Hadiths allow taming talaq.

Talaq-ul-khiyar is taming the talaq likelihood, through a process of ultimatum. That is, talaq-ul-khiyar is providing time, for correcting that wrong behavior. Tool for keeping a marriage vs. abruptly terminating.

No new law there. The talaq is the right, and in case of need, invoking your right, is your right. Talk with your wife, if in marital trouble because of (her) behaviors.

Thinking and negotiating in the case of selling your old office space (or, truck) is understood. Rushing out and selling to whom you see on the street that instance, would count in the category of mania. Similarly, abrupt talaq might be thoughtless.

In theory, a talaq-ul-khiyar is neither a sworn statement, nor a pledge to bind the person stating that. But if the person is a serious type, he/she would not invoke talaq-ul-khiyar unnecessarily. Therefore, if the target behavior is going on, the talaq that was pending in the ultimatum, might inescapably happen.

But this is assuming that he/she thought the most appropriate remedial action, at first. In cases, the two might talk, and think a third way that would satisfy both. Thus, the wording of the ultimatum statement is not necessarily the optimal.

For example, if you had married your wife in 1980s when there was no internet, and she is now an addict, you might be one of those couples who have fight at home. But your ultimatum statement "I or internet" might turn out to have excess. Thus, through talking, you would probably list what and when is allowable, what is not.

For cases beyond the ila (ee-luh) time, the woman has acquired the right to divorce (even if she had not got that right, by requesting that before marrying). Thus, the husband need not re-state the talaq word, for finalizing the divorce process. The woman might assume/invoke the ila-caused divorce procedure.

the falseness of "talaq-ul-muallaq"

The (sunni) Islamic mezhebs have mostly kept a high standard of law, and codifying the shariah is a honestly Islamic work. But "talaq-ul-muallaq" is a bug, a logical fault, falsely interpreting the hadiths.

Allah is the Creator. Naturally, His law is our finest guide for living [among humans].

The Quran is His word, and the hadiths of Muhammed (s.a.s.) help understanding.

With scientific theorizing, or personally introspecting, you might think up a few more rules-of-thumb, but that might only serve informally. Otherwise, if putting that into the law books, that would be your invention poking into Islam (your "innovation").

The "talaq-ul-muallaq" bidat enterprise is such excessive that, some take such sefih words even more important than sworn statements -- trying to sell "talaq-ul-muallaq" as a "pledge beyond the sworn."

That is a bidat beyond all logic. To acknowledge that a pledge is valuable, then to acknowledge that talaq is a serious thing, but then inventing a bidat to help satans' fitna (puppetizing people) through momentary explosiveness, to have major lasting effects, is itself thoughtlessness (sefih). Islam is opting for safety, in known issues. (Not getting nigh adultery, not consuming alcohol, hadiths offering safety, etc.)

The Quran is allowing to revert a sworn statement -- if re-thinking well, would.

I have not noticed any hadith which supports "talaq-ul-muallaq." For example,

The hadith from Aisha (r.a.) is telling that "all sworn statements are reversible, except manumitting and divorce." But that is fitting the case of the opponent getting a right, when talaq is immediate (if he told "wallahi, I give you talaq"). The "sworn" is not necessarily in the future. Let alone being a "conditional"/shaky (muallaq) type.

People yell "conditions" just to be taken serious, or socially.

In contexts maybe totally unrelated to what the spouse does or not. In contrast, all of the hadiths about talaq-ul-khiyar, are to the wife to correct her behavior.

A sefih (seh-feehh, thoughtless) jerk hanging with his crew, might explode "may that be a condition that ("shart olsun ki") I won't get off the table tonight until winning against Jack in poker." Or, "may that be a condition that I'll kill you, if you do not ..."

At gunpoint or under torture? Some use that as a tool to make ignorant people talk (with absurd custom-making, to the effect of "if not talking true, being automatically divorced"). Islamic law-inferring people would automatically nullify that oppression.

In summary, if there were some Islamic source to suggest "talaq-ul-muallaq" to exist, then I would not invoke my mere mind, to point out its aspects which look problematic. The checks and balances (fair-play), is what the Creator knows best. But the people who support talaq-ul-muallaq (in fiqh books), list absurd justifications. Nothing from the Quran, nor interpreting a hadith right. Then, nullify that bidat.

what else?

The issue is grave. But I thought a (multi-lingual, Istanbul) pun, probably appropriate to poke with.

Why haven't I chosen the name "talaq-ul-mukhayyer" (equivalent to talaq-ul-khiyar)? Because the word "khiyar" in Istanbul, has the sense of "stupid, uncultivated, thoughtless type" (the name of a popular salad fruit, "cucumber").

Obviously, that is not what applies to talaq-ul-khiyar itself, but was fitting to the legacy, talaq-ul-muallaq. Like telling about a case thought as "talaq-ul-muallaq" but you talk about that like "Oh, that was a talaq-ul-"khiyar", truly." That is, an awkward talaq of sefih/stupid people. The statement is true in both senses, thusly. A pun.

Forum: . . (Fair Menu . . . . . Fault Report? . . . . . Remedy for your case . . . . . Noticed Plagiarism?)

Referring#: 0
Last-Revised (text) on June 4, 2009 -- J.akhir 11, 1430
Written by: Ahmed Ferzan/Ferzen R Midyat-Zila (or, Earth)
Copyright (c) 2009 Ferzan Midyat. All rights reserved.