"A woman should not ask for the divorce of her sister [to empty what is in her bowl (13)], but let her marry, [for she has what has been decreed for her." Both were narrated by Al-Bukhari] (14). The prohibition entails the invalidity of what is prohibited, and because she stipulated against him the annulment of his contract and the voiding of his right and the right of his wife, so it is not valid, just as if she stipulated against him the annulment of his sale. Abu al-Khattab said: It is a binding condition, because it does not contradict the contract and she has a benefit in it, so it resembles the case where she stipulates against him that he does not marry [another woman] over her. I have not seen this [opinion] for anyone else, and we have already mentioned what indicates its invalidity; analogous to this is [the case] where she stipulates against him the sale of his slave woman.
The second category: Conditions that are void, but the contract is valid, such as if he stipulates that she has no dowry, or that he will not provide for her, or [that] if he gives her a dowry he will take it back from her, or she stipulates against him that he shall not have intercourse with her, or that he will practice coitus interruptus (azl) with her, or that he will divide [his time] for her less than his [other] wife or more, or [that] he will not be with her on Friday except for one night, or he stipulates for her the day instead of the night, or he stipulates against the woman (17) that she will provide for him or give him something. These conditions are all void in themselves because they contradict the requirements of the contract, and because they entail the forfeiture of rights that become obligatory by the contract before it is concluded, so it is not valid, just as if the pre-emptor (shafi') forfeited his right of pre-emption before the sale. As for the contract itself, it is valid because these conditions pertain to an additional meaning in the contract, [the mention of which is] not stipulated, and ignorance of it does not cause harm, so it does not invalidate it (18), just as if
(13) Omitted from: A, B, M. (14) Omitted from: M. The categorization (takhrij) was presented previously in: 6/306. Added to what is narrated here: Al-Bukhari, in: The Chapter of Conditions in Divorce, from the Book of Conditions. And in: The Chapter of 'And the Command of Allah is a Decree Determined,' from the Book of Decree. Sahih al-Bukhari 3/251, 8/153. And Muslim, in: The Chapter of the Prohibition of Combining a Woman with Her Paternal or Maternal Aunt in Marriage, from the Book of Marriage. Sahih Muslim 2/1029, 1030. And Abu Dawood, in: The Chapter of the Woman Asking Her Husband for the Divorce of [Another] Woman of His, from the Book of Divorce. Sunan Abi Dawood 1/503. And Al-Tirmidhi, in: The Chapter of What Came Regarding 'A Woman Should Not Ask for the Divorce of Her Sister,' from the Chapters of Divorce. Aridat al-Ahwadhi 5/165, 166. And Al-Nasa'i, in: The Chapter of the Prohibition of a Man Proposing Over the Proposal of His Brother, from the Book of Marriage, and in: The Chapter of the Sale of a Migrant to a Bedouin, and The Chapter of Deception (Najash), from the Book of Sales. Al-Mujtaba 6/95, 7/224, 227. And Imam Ahmad, in: Al-Musnad 2/41, 42, 508, 512, 516. (15) Omitted from: A, M. (16) Omitted from: B. (17) In the original: "imra'atihi" (his wife). (18) In M: "yubtil" (it invalidates).
