English abstract
One of the most common causes of division in relationships is the division that occurs due to
discord. Discord has always represented an incurable disease that has afflicted many spouses,
jurists, and jurists. This research came to shed light on the reality of discord that requires
separation and its treatment, in Islamic law and the Omani personal status law. It aimed to clarify
the opinion of the Ibadi school of thought, the four schools of thought, and Omani law regarding
the ruling on separation due to discord. Identifying the causes of discord, its conditions, the
extent to which it causes separation or not, the means of proving it, and the role of the judge and
his discretionary authority in treating it.
The letter was intended to answer the following questions:
What are the doctrines of jurists and jurists regarding the rule of separation due to discord, and
why does Omani law combine harm and discord in some of its provisions?
What are the causes of discord that necessitates separation, its conditions, and the means of
proving it in jurisprudence and law ?
What is the role of the judge in resolving the existing discord between the spouses and his
discretionary authority ?
In this research, I followed the inductive and comparative approach, and reached the most
important results:
The jurists do not agree on the rule of separation due to discord, due to the difference in the
status of the two arbitrators, namely two agents, or arbitrators, and that the most likely view is its
permissibility, and it is an irrevocable divorce, in which the compensation is according to the
offense, and the law agreed with the opinion of those who permitted the ruling and its effect, and
that the reason for the law’s combination of harm The difference in his texts is their shared
meaning of abuse, and their similarity in the result.
The separation of discord must meet its conditions and exhaust its requirements in order for it to
be a discord that requires separation. Proving cases of discord is done through legitimate means
of proof, but it is often impossible due to the specificity of the marital relationship. The law has
agreed with the opinion of some jurists that proof is up to the discretion of the judge and
arbitrators . .
Informing the judge of his due role in admonition and reconciliation, and exploiting his
discretionary power to take measures that address the discord in a manner consistent with Sharia
objectives, has a great impact in resolving the issues of discord existing between the spouses
