تحلیل وضعیت «توافق بر تشکیل نکاح» با ابتناء بر جواز حقی و حکمی

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The study explores a complex facet of contract law in Islamic jurisprudence: the binding or discretionary nature of agreements concerning future marital commitments. Specifically, it delves into whether a promise between two individuals to marry in the future constitutes a binding contract enforceable by judicial authorities or remains a discretionary commitment, allowing either party to withdraw from the agreement. This question holds significance as agreements of this nature are increasingly relevant within Islamic societies, where traditional legal principles intersect with evolving societal norms.
     The article recognizes that contract law within Islamic jurisprudence contains distinct principles related to bindingness and permissibility, which influence the enforceability of agreements, including those associated with marriage. The scope of this study includes a doctrinal analysis examining authoritative legal texts and juristic opinions on agreements to marry, as well as an evaluation of perspectives within Islamic law that argue for and against the binding nature of these commitments. The findings aim to clarify the role of judicial intervention in enforcing marital commitments and determine whether a right-based or rule-based approach better aligns with foundational Islamic legal principles. This distinction between right-based permissibility, which reflects individual discretion, and rule-based permissibility, which entails inherent legal obligations, serves as a central framework for analyzing whether an "agreement to form a marriage" constitutes an enforceable contract.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
This study addresses the following critical question within Islamic jurisprudence and contract law:
     Is an "agreement to form a marriage" between two parties legally binding, allowing for enforceability in an Islamic court, or is it inherently discretionary, permitting either party to retract the agreement without legal repercussions?
     In answering this question, the article also examines related considerations, such as the authority of the Islamic ruler to intervene in marital agreements and the potential for a court to act on behalf of a recalcitrant party to formalize a marriage. This inquiry into the scope and limits of bindingness in marital agreements addresses broader concerns regarding personal autonomy, judicial authority, and the interface of religious principles with societal expectations in Islamic contexts.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The authors hypothesize that the enforceability of an agreement to marry under Islamic jurisprudence is governed by a rule-based framework of permissibility rather than a right-based approach. This hypothesis proposes two key points:
     Permissibility as Rule-Based: The permissibility attached to such agreements is intrinsically connected to the contract’s nature, meaning it is governed by fixed principles of Islamic law rather than individual rights or discretionary powers.
     Non-Enforceability of Marriage Agreements: Following a rule-based interpretation, a commitment to marry lacks enforceability, implying that the agreement does not grant the other party a right to compel marriage, nor does it empower the court to enforce such a contract through a proxy.
     The hypothesis suggests that an agreement to marry is not inherently binding, as its enforceability would compromise the individual's "right to refuse marriage," which Islamic law recognizes as a protected right. Thus, the article posits that any attempt to enforce an agreement to marry contradicts the rule-based understanding of permissibility in Islamic contract law and that the autonomy to refuse remains intact under this framework.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This study employs a doctrinal methodology, focusing on a detailed analysis of primary Islamic legal texts and interpretations by prominent Islamic jurists. The approach involves reviewing classical jurisprudential sources, including Quranic verses, Hadith, and scholarly commentaries, as well as secondary literature that addresses modern interpretations and applications of Islamic law. The framework is divided into two central concepts: right-based permissibility and rule-based permissibility, both of which are foundational in Islamic legal theory.
     Right-Based Permissibility: This concept reflects agreements where the permissibility or bindingness is viewed as a right of the individual parties, allowing them to retain discretion over enforcing or withdrawing from the agreement. Such permissibility emphasizes personal autonomy, implying that the individual has the liberty to uphold or reject the agreement without legal consequences imposed by an external authority.
     Rule-Based Permissibility: In contrast, rule-based permissibility asserts that the nature of the agreement inherently includes obligations, thereby embedding bindingness within the contract itself. This interpretation aligns with principles suggesting that the obligations are inseparable from the contract's nature and must be upheld according to Islamic legal precepts, leaving little room for personal discretion.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The study's findings elucidate the complexity of enforcing marital agreements within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence, distinguishing between rule-based and right-based permissibility. Through an analysis of juristic opinions and principles, the research demonstrates that an "agreement to form a marriage" does not constitute a binding commitment in the legal sense, due to its unique position as an agreement with irrevocable permissibility. This classification diverges from most contract types, where obligations are often enforceable by law and governed by a right to terminate or fulfill the contract based on mutual consent or legal authority.
     The research clarifies that while Islamic contract law generally upholds the binding nature of agreements—backed by principles like "fulfill your contracts" and "the faithful are bound by their conditions"—a promise to marry operates outside this paradigm. Marriage agreements are categorized under "rule-based permissibility," where the permissibility (or non-binding nature) is inherent to the agreement. This type of permissibility underscores the autonomy retained by the individuals involved, reinforcing that they possess an unalterable right to refuse the marriage at any stage. This right to autonomy in marital decisions is not only protected but also deemed non-negotiable, emphasizing that neither party can unilaterally, nor can an Islamic court on their behalf, compel the marriage to proceed.
     The findings also reveal that attempts to enforce marriage agreements may lead to misinterpretations of Islamic legal principles if the hierarchical reasoning and subject-matter relationship are disregarded. Misapplication of the principle "the Islamic ruler has authority over the recalcitrant" risks confusing moral or ethical expectations with enforceable legal duties, particularly where marriage is concerned. Unlike typical contracts that bind parties to fulfill obligations, the promise to marry prioritizes individual discretion and respects the "right to refuse," underscoring that marriage decisions rest firmly within the realm of personal choice.
     Additionally, the concept of "irrevocable permissibility" further defines the nature of a marital promise, indicating that while the agreement may be morally binding in some respects, it remains legally non-binding. This distinction reflects the values embedded within Islamic jurisprudence regarding the sanctity of marital autonomy and freedom of choice. The discussion highlights that marriage agreements fall outside the enforceable scope of Islamic contract law principles, as binding individuals to marry would violate the principle of mutual consent and respect for personal choice in matters of marriage.
     The study also suggests an amendment in legal terminology, proposing that the term "promise" be replaced with "commitment" to reduce interpretive errors. This distinction clarifies that a promise to marry, unlike other contractual obligations, lacks enforceability and maintains the individuals' autonomy, emphasizing the importance of precise language in addressing commitments with significant moral but limited legal weight.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The study concludes that the enforceability of marriage agreements is distinct from most contractual commitments due to the nature of marriage as a personal and discretionary decision in Islamic jurisprudence. The analysis reveals that misinterpretation of key Islamic principles may arise when the hierarchical structure of reasoning or the relationship between legal rulings and specific subject matter is overlooked. Specifically, the principle of irrevocable permissibility underlines that individuals retain the right to terminate the agreement, even if made as a commitment, and this right cannot be overridden by external authorities or enforced by a judicial body.
     Unlike other contracts where the "right to terminate" is intrinsic and non-revocable, a marital promise holds a unique position. The commitment to marry remains "permissible (revocable)" and operates under a rule-based framework, whereby autonomy and discretion in marital choices are safeguarded. This means that, regardless of whether the agreement is a unilateral or bilateral commitment, or directed at a third party, it does not impose enforceable obligations on the parties involved. Islamic law thereby excludes such agreements from the general rules mandating the fulfillment of commitments, underscoring the significance of maintaining autonomy in decisions related to marriage.
     The exclusion of marriage agreements from enforceability within Islamic jurisprudence is thus rooted in the importance of preserving the individual's right to choose freely in marriage matters. Attempts to enforce a marriage agreement would undermine personal freedom and autonomy, contrary to the principles of Islamic law that protect individual rights in marital selection. The conclusion emphasizes that the commitment to form a marriage should not be construed as a legally binding contract, reinforcing that the right to withdraw or refuse marriage is inherent and cannot be waived by either party.
     In response to interpretive ambiguities, the study recommends adopting "commitment" instead of "promise" to clearly delineate non-binding moral obligations from enforceable legal contracts. This precision in terminology could enhance legal clarity in addressing the nuances of agreements within Islamic jurisprudence, avoiding misinterpretations that might otherwise obscure the protective principles surrounding marital autonomy.