The stepdaughter, if she was not in the husband's house and then he divorced her mother; is it permissible for him to marry her? And what is the meaning of stepdaughter?

The questioner : In the name of Allah, and praise is to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) mentioned in His noble Book among the things forbidden permanently: , of course is the completion of the verse .

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Okay; if this girl was not a stepdaughter in the husband's house and then he divorced her mother; is it permissible for him to marry that girl who is not a stepdaughter in the same...

The Shaykh : What do you mean by your saying: she was not a stepdaughter?

The questioner : So what is the meaning of stepdaughter? I mean, we need to understand what the meaning of stepdaughter is so that...

The Shaykh : Good; the meaning of stepdaughter is that a man marries the mother, and the stepdaughter lives under his guardianship, upbringing, and care as if she were his daughter.

The questioner : Okay; if she was not in his house; does she not become a stepdaughter in that case?

The Shaykh : Ah, here there are two opinions among the exegetes, that some of them say: if she was not in that state, then she is lawful, and this means the opinion of 'Ali, as I recall.

Another questioner : Ibn Abi Talib.

The Shaykh: Yes.
And the majority of scholars and exegetes said that His saying (the Exalted): does not have a concept (mafhum), so in that case the verse is general even if she was not in his custody; do you understand how? And the verse, according to the majority as we said, is like His saying (the Exalted) by way of approximation: The verse does not mean that it is permissible to consume riba (usury or interest) if it is not doubled and multiplied, so their expression is that this verse has no concept, meaning the concept is not taken into account, by evidence that certainly established itself with the scholars; because the original rule is that the concept is a proof, and this is a disputed issue in the principles of jurisprudence between the Shafi'is and the Hanafis. The Shafi'is say: the concept of the text in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah is a proof. The Hanafis say: it is not a proof. The correct view is with the Shafi'is here, but without a doubt they do not say that the concept is a proof absolutely, rather the disagreement between the two schools is as a principle or as a rule: is the concept a proof or not? As it is said: is the indication of the general text a proof or not? The answer, by their consensus, is that the general text is a proof except if an exception is made, except if an exception enters it, meaning a specification occurs to it. If no specification occurs to it, the general text is a proof.
In the manner of this disagreement regarding the explicit wording (manṭūq), regarding the concept; is it a proof as a rule or not? The Shafi'is say: it is a proof. The Hanafis say: it is not a proof. The truth, we said, is with the Shafi'is; why? For many things, some of which are from Arabic usages; if a poor person comes to you, give him, its concept is if a rich person comes to you, do not give him, this is the concept, but the legal evidence is stronger because you may know that there is an old customary language and a legal language, meaning legal terms, like zakah (the obligatory alms), for example, and prayer, the term zakah is known to the Arabs, prayer is known to the Arabs, prayer meaning supplication, whereas prayer meaning worship with its pillars and conditions and so on; this is a legal term, so if it is said to so-and-so: pray; it means pray units with their conditions and pillars..., it does not mean pray supplicate, although this comes in the Arabic term and the legal term - for example: ; meaning let him supplicate.
The conclusion: the legal evidence is stronger, of the evidence by which the Shafi'i school is argued is the hadith narrated by Imam Muslim in his "Sahih" that a man said to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, as I recall: if I had met the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), I would have asked him. He said: about what? He said: I would have asked him about His saying (the Exalted): . He said: We do not fear them now; why do we continue to shorten the prayer when the fear has ceased? This is a man saying to 'Umar: if I had met the Messenger, I would have asked him. He said to him: I asked the Messenger this question, and the answer was: .
And what is the point in the hadith? First, the questioner was an Arab; so he understood from the condition that if it ceased, the dispensation (rukhsah) which is shortening ceased; so he understood the verse in the Arabic style, and 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the pure Arab, preceded him to that; and therefore he rushed to ask the Messenger: what is the matter with us shortening when we are safe? The Messenger approved his question; and therefore I say, by way of killing two birds with one stone, jokingly at the Hanafis and clarifying the legal truth: if the Messenger had been Hanafi in his school, he would have said to him: your understanding is wrong; why? Because you relied on the concept. I said to him: the concept is not a proof. So the question is invalid in consideration, but the Messenger was not Hanafi in his understanding, rather first he is an Arab who speaks in the style of the Arabs, and second he is inspired from the sky; so he did not say to him: you erred in understanding because you relied on and considered the concept to have an indication, and there is no indication in the concept, rather he approved 'Umar in his question and answered him with his saying; as if he is saying to him: you are right; the understanding is your understanding, but Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) bestowed a favor upon His servants, so He pardoned and gave to them, and said to them: let you continue to shorten even if what? The condition ceased, .
So the original rule is to rely on the concept, except if evidence comes indicating that the concept is not intended, like the previous verse: , and His saying (the Exalted): , Ah; but if he worships with Allah another god for which he has no proof, why not? No; this has no concept; by what do they justify mentioning the concept in the verse without relying on it? They said: the first and last verse came to clarify the reality, the Arabs were consuming riba (usury or interest) doubled and multiplied, so the verse came: , do you see? It did not come for caution and correction and restriction, but their reality was like this, so their Lord of the Worlds said to them: .
And it is possible that this was at the beginning of the legislation of the prohibition of riba (usury or interest); because you know that when the Messenger (peace be upon him) was sent, he did not start with prohibiting the forbidden things, but with establishing the creed, and especially tawhid (the oneness of Allah) from it, then the rulings came gradually, and the most famous example is the issue of the prohibition of khamr (intoxicants); how the wise Lawgiver graduated in the prohibition, so it is possible that this verse was the first thing revealed in the prohibition, at the beginning of uprooting the root of what? Riba (usury or interest), and they were consuming riba (usury or interest) doubled and multiplied; so He said to them: . Then the other verse came: , the other verse: , He said: this is a continuing reality that everyone who worships with Allah another god for which he has no proof; this is to clarify the reality that does not accept change ever.

The questioner : Like .

The Shaykh : Yes, there are many concepts that are not intended; so what did the Hanafis do? They looked at these concepts; they said: these are by consensus not relied upon; so the concept has no proof; no; the original rule is that it has proof except what evidence establishes, so what evidence establishes that the concept has no proof, we do not take it.
The point of all this speech - also: this is a restriction that is not precautionary in the legal ruling, but it is a restriction to clarify the reality; because what is the reality? Now imagine, if you have heard or read, how many men do you imagine marry a woman who has a daughter; does the daughter live far from her mother and the mother far from her daughter except rarely? The majority of the time the wife goes to her husband with her daughter, so this restriction came - also - to clarify the reality that usually people are in by custom; and therefore the majority of exegetes and jurists said that this concept is not relied upon; so whether she was in his custody or not, she is forbidden to him.
You are leading us to the path of your brother-in-law!

Another questioner : ... I refer to ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

Another questioner : Regarding their argument that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed the Friday prayer in a single mosque, thereby establishing its conditionality: the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not mean that they should take the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as a basis for the agreement between the command and the action regarding the festival prayer in the open ground. The festival prayer in the open ground includes both a command and an action from the Prophet (peace be upon him); yet, despite this, they do not accept the obligation of going out to the festival prayer in the open ground.

The Shaykh : Correct.

Another questioner : This means following one's desires.

The Shaykh : ... .