This seems fair enough to me.
Marriage is business after all!
Those of you who have had an expensive divorce (Are you reading this, John Cleese and Roman Abramovich?), read the following and marvel at the fairness and commonsense of these principles.
According to Islamic law, marriage is the most sacred commitment in life between two adults of opposite sex. It attempts to save it wherever possible.
As a consequence divorce is regarded by Allah as the most ‘hated thing’.
However, breakdown in marriage does take place for a variety of reasons. If the divorce is initiated by husband he has to pay the woman any Mahr [the price paid to the bride - think of golden handcuffs and you will get the idea!] that remains unpaid.
If the divorce is initiated by the wife, and the husband is found to be at fault by the arbiters she does not lose her Mahr.
But if she cannot prove his fault, she has to return to her husband whatever Mahr amount she has already received. If the wife initiates the divorce without any grounds, this is called ‘khula’ and she must return whatever the husband has given her in consideration for the marriage.
Talaq-e-tafwid is the delegated right to divorce given by husband to his wife. If and when the wife exercises this delegated right she does not lose her Mahr amount.
claims that this right is a sham, because it is up to man to delegate this right, and he may well refuse.
But what would be the problem if a woman refuses to marry a man until and unless he incorporates this term into the marriage contract??