User:Peracha1/Halala in the light of Hanafia jurisprudence

First and foremost, it should be known that Halala is never recommended according to Islamic law. It is not considered an act of reward in Islam; rather, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) explicitly condemn those who practice and facilitate it. Therefore, anyone who praises it as a means of gaining rewards or considers it commendable according to Islamic law is deserving of the curse of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and is committing an act of rebellion against him.

Marrying with the intention of performing Halala, while adhering to the condition of Halala, is highly disapproved and forbidden. However, if the second marriage is contracted after the completion of the waiting period (Iddah) following a first divorce, it will be permissible. If the condition of Halala is not stipulated and the marriage is contracted, even if there is an intention in the heart, it is not considered reprehensible.

Entering into a marriage with the condition that "I marry you with the intention of divorcing you so that I can make you Halal (lawful)" is considered Makruh Tahrimi (highly disapproved). However, if both parties have the intention of Halala in their hearts, it is not reprehensible. In such a case, the second person will be eligible for reward for marrying with the intention of reforming the situation.

The position of the Hanafi school regarding Halala is as follows: "Nikah bishart-e-tahleel" (i.e., marrying with the condition of Halala) is the act that has been condemned in the Hadith. It means that the condition of Halala is imposed in the contract of Nikah (i.e., marriage proposal and acceptance). This type of Nikah is considered reprehensible and forbidden. Both the first and second husbands (i.e., the husband who gave divorce and the one with whom the woman remarries) and the woman will be considered sinful. However, the woman will become lawful for the first husband through the condition of Halala, and the condition itself is invalid. The second husband is not compelled to give divorce, and if there is no condition in the contract, even if the intention is there, it is not disliked. In fact, if the intention is good, then the person deserves reward.

Before entering into a new marriage contract, it is necessary to inform the second husband that the woman wishes to return to her first husband, and with her first husband, she has some children whose upbringing can be best taken care of through him. The purpose of marrying the second husband is not for the sake of entering into a marital relationship and having sexual relations, except if the intention of the second husband is to resolve the concerns of both the first husband and the woman and to marry her with the intention of making the marriage permissible (i.e., not imposing the condition of divorce at the time of proposal and acceptance, but rather using normal words of proposal and acceptance, even though the intention in the heart is for divorce). Furthermore, no compensation should be taken from the first husband in this matter, and after the marriage, sexual relations should take place, and then the woman should be given divorce so that she can complete her waiting period and then marry her first husband and properly raise the children. By doing so, the second husband will be deserving of rewards due to his desire for the well-being and goodness of both the first husband and the woman. (Darul Ifta Ahl-e-Sunnat, 25th Dhu al-Qa'dah al-Haram 1433 AH, 13th October 2012 CE)

If it is not explicitly stated at the time of marrying another man that he will divorce her after having sexual relations, but if the man himself intends to divorce the woman after having sexual relations, then this situation does not lead to condemnation. Similarly, if a woman intends to obtain a divorce from her second husband and become eligible to reside in the house of her first husband, then it is also not a sin.

The issue of obtaining pleasure for a specific period of time, which is illegitimate and forbidden, and does not determine the duration at the time of marriage, but the permanence of the marriage remains. No statement is issued against it, while the determination of the duration against the permanence of the marriage is stated, for example, we marry you for a week or a month