The meaning of the poet’s statement: “But the private parts are not made lawful by the permission that *** is the condition of its validity from women”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :“But the private parts are not made lawful by the permission that *** is the condition of its validity from women”
This is after a problem has arisen: a man has completed the marriage contract with a woman based on the testimony of witnesses regarding the woman’s permission and the contract. Is it permissible for us to make the private parts lawful based on a presumptive matter? Huh? It is not permissible. They say that the indication of words is presumptive. So, the woman’s permission to her guardian regarding the contract, huh? Its indication is presumptive. The guardian’s statement to the groom, “I have married you to my daughter,” and he says, “I accept,” is also presumptive. How can we make lawful the private parts, whose prohibition is definitive, based on a matter whose indication is presumptive? Because it is known that a definitive matter is not removed except by what is definitive. So look at how this statement, and may Allah protect us from it, leads to the corruption of religion and worldly affairs. He said:
“Is it permissible for the witnesses to assert that ***” Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : That she consented, she consented, yes.
“Is it permissible for the witnesses to assert that *** she consented with a word that is open to interpretation”
The answer is: No. It is possible that when it was said, “Do you consent to be married to so-and-so?” she said, “Yes, I consent,” meaning I consent to someone else, assuming something is omitted. Yes, is that not so? There is a possibility. If we allow rational possibilities to enter into the linguistic indications, no statement would remain to be trusted absolutely.
This is after a problem has arisen: a man has completed the marriage contract with a woman based on the testimony of witnesses regarding the woman’s permission and the contract. Is it permissible for us to make the private parts lawful based on a presumptive matter? Huh? It is not permissible. They say that the indication of words is presumptive. So, the woman’s permission to her guardian regarding the contract, huh? Its indication is presumptive. The guardian’s statement to the groom, “I have married you to my daughter,” and he says, “I accept,” is also presumptive. How can we make lawful the private parts, whose prohibition is definitive, based on a matter whose indication is presumptive? Because it is known that a definitive matter is not removed except by what is definitive. So look at how this statement, and may Allah protect us from it, leads to the corruption of religion and worldly affairs. He said:
“Is it permissible for the witnesses to assert that ***” Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : That she consented, she consented, yes.
“Is it permissible for the witnesses to assert that *** she consented with a word that is open to interpretation”
The answer is: No. It is possible that when it was said, “Do you consent to be married to so-and-so?” she said, “Yes, I consent,” meaning I consent to someone else, assuming something is omitted. Yes, is that not so? There is a possibility. If we allow rational possibilities to enter into the linguistic indications, no statement would remain to be trusted absolutely.