The Book of Marriage, Breastfeeding, Divorce, Mutual Oath-Swearing, and Manumission-02b

The reciter: Yahya ibn Yahya narrated to us, saying: I read to Malik from Nafi' from Ibn 'Umar .

The Shaykh : This is shighar, as explained by Nafi' or Ibn 'Umar. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade shighar. It is when a man marries off his daughter to a person on the condition that that person marries him to his daughter, and there is no mahr between them. Accordingly, the term shighar is derived from the word for a place becoming empty when it is vacated. It has also been said that shighar is when he marries her to him on the condition that the other marries him to his daughter, even if there is a mahr between them. In this case, it is derived from their saying "the dog shighar" when it lifts its leg to urinate, because when the dog wants to urinate, it lifts its leg and shighars. The scholars differed on this issue. Some scholars said that shighar marriage is what was mentioned in this hadith: marrying off his daughter on the condition that the other marries him to his daughter, and there is no mahr between them. In this case, one woman becomes the mahr for the other, because there is no mahr between them. There is no doubt that this marriage is invalid by the explicit text of the Qur'an, based on the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), after He mentioned the prohibited women: . The one who married off his daughter on the condition that the other marries him to his daughter did not seek [a mahr] with his wealth; rather, he sought it with his daughter's private parts, and this cannot validly be a mahr. Therefore, the invalidity of this marriage is very clear. Furthermore, there is betrayal in it, because generally, a person in this situation does not look at the suitability of the husband or whether he is a match, but rather looks at his own interest, because he married him to the daughter he has, not because he is of good character and religion. Thus, betrayal occurs, which is the opposite of trustworthiness, and harm occurs to both women. This is clear when there is no mahr. If there is a mahr, and it is a ruse, such as saying, "I give you a thousand riyals as mahr on the condition that you give my daughter a thousand riyals," then what does that mean? There is no mahr. There is no mahr between them, as long as he gives her a thousand riyals and takes a thousand riyals from him; the reality is that there is no mahr. There is no doubt in forbidding this either. If the mahr is substantial, not a ruse, and it is the customary mahr, and both women are willing, and both husbands are suitable matches, then the scholars differed on this. Some forbade it to block the means to harm and to protect the woman's right. Others said that in this case, it is permissible. The latter is the well-known position in the school of thought: if he conditions that he marries him to his daughter, but with a complete mahr, and each man is a suitable match, and both women are willing, then there is no harm in that. However, if it were said that it is forbidden absolutely, that would have a basis, especially in our time when trustworthiness has been lost and a person does not care except for his own private interest. I say that if it were said to be forbidden absolutely, it would have a basis. But if the matter has occurred and the two men have married, with or without a mahr, what is the solution? The solution is to say that if the two women are willing, the contract is renewed with a valid marriage. The contract is renewed with a valid marriage. And if the two women have received the mahr and are satisfied with it, there is no need to renew the contract, because the invalidity of the contract in this case is subject to consideration and hesitation, so there is no need to renew the contract; rather, the contract remains as it is. Yes.