<![CDATA[Islamic jurisprudence distinguishes wife-initiated dissolution (khul?) from husband-initiated repudiation (?al?q), yet the juridical status of compensationless khul? and the conditional obligation of post-consummation mut?a remain undertheorized in comparative scholarship. This study examines the doctrinal rulings of the four Sunni schools on these two questions. Employing a qualitative doctrinal design, the research critically analyzes authoritative classical manuals across the ?anaf?, M?lik?, Sh?fi??, and ?anbal? traditions through comparative fiqh and u??l? frameworks. The findings reveal that compensationless khul? is uniformly classified as a metaphorical formula (kin?ya) requiring juridical intention (niyya), with divergent revocability outcomes: irrevocable (b??in) in the ?anaf? and dominant M?lik? and Sh?fi?? views, yet revocable (raj??) in the authoritative ?anbal? position. Regarding mut?a, only the Sh?fi?? school mandates it as obligatory for post-consummation divorcees, whereas the ?anaf? and ?anbal? schools restrict obligatoriness to pre-consummation scenarios with unrealized dower, and the M?lik? school treats it as uniformly recommended. These findings demonstrate that classical divergence stems from differential calibration of linguistic formalism and substitutive-obligation logic, carrying direct implications for contemporary Islamic family law codification.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
