A man married a woman through a marriage of exchange, and after that he asked about the ruling on this marriage. He was told that it is not permissible and that it is obligatory for you to pay the mahr with a new contract. What should he do?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says: I married my wife through an exchange, and this happened due to several annoyances from one of the neighboring relatives. When the young man came to propose to my sister, one of the neighboring relatives wanted to turn him away from her because I had not proposed to their daughter. The suitor of my sister came and said that my father and mother did not agree to my marriage to your daughter unless you marry my sister. I consulted some colleagues at work, and they told me this was a good thing, and no one told me that this is forbidden. After the marriage, problems arose because of the exchange, without limit. I admitted my mistake. I have been blessed with four children, and the situation has settled. However, I asked a man well-versed in religion, and he told me that your marriage is not from Islam, and Islam invalidates it, and he called your marriage shigar, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade it. He said it is necessary that you make a new contract and give a mahr to your wife before you cohabit with her. Knowing that we made the first contract with a deferred and a present portion, and I did not give her anything from the present portion, but I furnished my house and my sister's, and he furnished his house and his sister's. Is that contract invalid and must it be renewed, or what should we do?
The Shaykh : This contract you mentioned is contrary to the marriage of shigar, because the marriage of shigar says, "I will not marry you my daughter until you marry me your daughter." As for your question, it says, "I will not marry your daughter or your sister until you marry my sister."
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So it is the opposite of the marriage of shigar. And with this, I say that if that happened by way of exchange, meaning that each of the two women becomes the mahr for the other, then that is not permissible, because Allah the Exalted made the condition for permissibility that money be spent. He said, Exalted is He:[An-Nisa 4:24] And you and the other man did not seek with your money, but each of you made the woman the mahr for the other. This is forbidden and is not valid.
As for if you named a mahr, then some of the scholars say regarding the marriage of shigar that if a full mahr is named for them and each woman is satisfied with the man who married her, then the marriage at that time is valid. What I advise you is to return to the court you have. If it confirms the first marriage, then it is according to what the court sees. And if it does not confirm it and the judicial authority sees that it is necessary to repeat the marriage, then let the marriage be repeated. Yes.
The questioner : Yes, he says they made the contract with a present and a deferred portion, but he did not pay anything from the present portion?
The Shaykh : Yes, its apparent meaning is that the mahr was named for each of the two wives, but it was not delivered, so it remains in the husband's debt. However, the consideration remains: is the marriage of shigar that each of them marries without a mahr, or with a small mahr by which they deceive, and that if each of them marries with the full mahr and the two wives are satisfied, then it is not shigar? This is a point of disagreement among the scholars. And since it is a point of disagreement, what I advise is what was mentioned before: that they return to the court regarding that.
The questioner : Yes, may Allah bless you.
This questioner is the mother of Hussein from Iraq, Baghdad.
The Shaykh : This contract you mentioned is contrary to the marriage of shigar, because the marriage of shigar says, "I will not marry you my daughter until you marry me your daughter." As for your question, it says, "I will not marry your daughter or your sister until you marry my sister."
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So it is the opposite of the marriage of shigar. And with this, I say that if that happened by way of exchange, meaning that each of the two women becomes the mahr for the other, then that is not permissible, because Allah the Exalted made the condition for permissibility that money be spent. He said, Exalted is He:
And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse
وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم أن تبتغوا بأموالكم محصنين غير مسافحينAs for if you named a mahr, then some of the scholars say regarding the marriage of shigar that if a full mahr is named for them and each woman is satisfied with the man who married her, then the marriage at that time is valid. What I advise you is to return to the court you have. If it confirms the first marriage, then it is according to what the court sees. And if it does not confirm it and the judicial authority sees that it is necessary to repeat the marriage, then let the marriage be repeated. Yes.
The questioner : Yes, he says they made the contract with a present and a deferred portion, but he did not pay anything from the present portion?
The Shaykh : Yes, its apparent meaning is that the mahr was named for each of the two wives, but it was not delivered, so it remains in the husband's debt. However, the consideration remains: is the marriage of shigar that each of them marries without a mahr, or with a small mahr by which they deceive, and that if each of them marries with the full mahr and the two wives are satisfied, then it is not shigar? This is a point of disagreement among the scholars. And since it is a point of disagreement, what I advise is what was mentioned before: that they return to the court regarding that.
The questioner : Yes, may Allah bless you.
This questioner is the mother of Hussein from Iraq, Baghdad.