Detaining daughters to prevent their marriage in order to use them for tending livestock
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
The second question: The questioner says: We have daughters who are between thirty-five and thirty-six years old, and they have not married. What is your opinion? Does the state have a position on this, even if it leads to forcing them? Their purpose in doing so is to use the women for tending their livestock and other private interests?
Answer:
It is obligatory for the guardians to make every effort to marry off their daughters, sisters, and nieces, and so on. He has no right to use her for his sheep or camels and prevent her from getting married. This is injustice and aggression; it is absolutely not permissible. It is obligatory for him to strive to find husbands. If a good husband comes, he should hasten to marry her to him, even if it means wronging a relative. This is the duty of the guardians. The state should intervene in this matter if it hears about it, if it is reported to them by trustworthy people that he is detaining his daughter or sister for the sake of his sheep or camels, or the like. They should not intervene in a way that hinders it, but rather they should facilitate her marriage and compel her marriage if someone she approves of proposes to her, someone whose religion and trustworthiness she accepts. It is not permissible to carry out this practice. Perhaps the judges and notables should intervene in this matter with the guardian, advise him, and inform him that this is not permissible. If he forces the issue, the court and the authority in charge will compel him to marry her off, exposing the injustice of the unjust guardian who is wronging her, because he is called a *'adil* (one who prevents marriage). His guardianship is rejected, and the court marries her off if she has another guardian who can assist. However, if she has no guardian other than the one who prevented her, she is transferred from this forcing, unjust guardian to the next in line among the guardians and the *'asabah* (residuary male heirs), starting with the closest and then the next closest.
The bottom line is that it is not permissible for women to remain with the livestock and the like, and be prevented from marriage for the sake of the guardian’s interest. This is an injustice that is not permissible. Yes.
The second question: The questioner says: We have daughters who are between thirty-five and thirty-six years old, and they have not married. What is your opinion? Does the state have a position on this, even if it leads to forcing them? Their purpose in doing so is to use the women for tending their livestock and other private interests?
Answer:
It is obligatory for the guardians to make every effort to marry off their daughters, sisters, and nieces, and so on. He has no right to use her for his sheep or camels and prevent her from getting married. This is injustice and aggression; it is absolutely not permissible. It is obligatory for him to strive to find husbands. If a good husband comes, he should hasten to marry her to him, even if it means wronging a relative. This is the duty of the guardians. The state should intervene in this matter if it hears about it, if it is reported to them by trustworthy people that he is detaining his daughter or sister for the sake of his sheep or camels, or the like. They should not intervene in a way that hinders it, but rather they should facilitate her marriage and compel her marriage if someone she approves of proposes to her, someone whose religion and trustworthiness she accepts. It is not permissible to carry out this practice. Perhaps the judges and notables should intervene in this matter with the guardian, advise him, and inform him that this is not permissible. If he forces the issue, the court and the authority in charge will compel him to marry her off, exposing the injustice of the unjust guardian who is wronging her, because he is called a *'adil* (one who prevents marriage). His guardianship is rejected, and the court marries her off if she has another guardian who can assist. However, if she has no guardian other than the one who prevented her, she is transferred from this forcing, unjust guardian to the next in line among the guardians and the *'asabah* (residuary male heirs), starting with the closest and then the next closest.
The bottom line is that it is not permissible for women to remain with the livestock and the like, and be prevented from marriage for the sake of the guardian’s interest. This is an injustice that is not permissible. Yes.
Source
فتاوى الحج - ٣ — archive.org (14:54)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.