Continuation of the benefits of His saying, the Exalted: << قال إني أريد أن أنكحك إحدى ابنتي. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
...that he used to hear the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ... so he did not wish to step forward before him. Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) proposed to him. The point is that a man proposing to a woman for his daughter is a prescribed and well-known matter in the past and in this Ummah.
And from this, it is also derived: the generosity of this man and his good character, for he gave Musa the choice between the two daughters, saying: "Choose one of them." This is an act of generosity, because in reality, giving the choice is broader for the person and more pleasing to his soul, as he chooses what he sees as most suitable. But if he had said: "I want to marry you to this daughter," the man might have had no desire for her. As for one of my two daughters, the choice indicates generosity and that he gave him leeway.
And from this, it is derived that it is permissible to make the offer (ijab) with an unspecified woman, but not the acceptance (qabul). Because it means he says: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and the groom says: "I accept the marriage of so-and-so." This issue has three scenarios. Either the specification occurs in both the offer and the acceptance, where he says: "I give you in marriage my daughter Aisha," and he says: "I accept." This is specification in the offer and in the acceptance. The offer: the guardian said, "I give you in marriage my daughter Aisha," specifying her, and the groom said: "I accept the marriage of this woman." Or the ambiguity is in both the offer and the acceptance, which is not valid, such as if he says: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and he says: "I accept the marriage of one of them." Here, it is not permissible; the marriage does not take effect, because we do not know which one the marriage was contracted for. Or the specification is in the offer but not in the acceptance, where he says, for example: "I give you in marriage my daughter Aisha," and the groom says: "I accept the marriage of one of your daughters." What is the ruling?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible... We remain with the fourth scenario. We said there are three scenarios, but in reality, there are four. The fourth scenario is if he says: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and he says: "I accept the marriage of so-and-so," naming her. Here, the ambiguity is in the offer and the specification is in the acceptance. Is it valid or not?
The student: It is valid.
The Shaykh : The school of thought (madhhab) says it is not valid, meaning that specification must be in both the offer and the acceptance. But what appears to be correct is that it is valid, because when he said: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and he said: "I accept Aisha," does this mean specification occurred or not? It occurred. But the one making the offer, who is the guardian, wanted to give him room for choice. So the apparent validity of the contract is even stronger if he said: "I give you in marriage one of these daughters," specifying them, and he said: "I accept Aisha," and she is among the specified ones. This is also closer to validity, because here specification occurred by what? By pointing, and then he specified one of them by acceptance. Do we say that in this story, there is evidence for this issue, "one of my two daughters" and Musa, in any case... he accepts one of them in exchange for...? Is there evidence in the story?
The students: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It happened before he was a Prophet.
The Shaykh : And because he did not contract the marriage. He said: "I want to marry you," meaning he gave him the choice. Perhaps the contract took place afterwards as a new contract. And it was mentioned earlier that the intention to do something is not the same as doing the thing.
Can it be derived from this noble verse that the husband...?
The students: The father.
The Shaykh : I mean the father. Does the father have the right to contract the marriage of his daughter without her consent?
The student: ....
The Shaykh : The verse does not contain evidence. The verse itself does not contain evidence, as it is possible that the father had asked for their permission before that, or that he understood their consent because she presented herself to him and described him as strong and trustworthy. And in any case, even if we assume the possibility that he did not ask for permission, our Shari'ah came with the opposite: that it is not permissible for a man to marry off his daughter without her consent, and if he marries her off without her consent, the contract is considered invalid, not valid.
And from the noble verse, it is derived: Is it permissible for the father to stipulate something of the mahr (bridal gift) for himself? Is it permissible or not? Can it be derived from the verse that it is permissible for the father to stipulate something of the mahr for himself? The sheep are from...?
The student: For the father.
The Shaykh : For the father, and their grazing?
The student: For him.
The Shaykh : For him. And here, by marrying him on the condition that he hires him for eight years to graze the sheep, there is evidence that it is permissible for the father to stipulate the mahr of his daughter for himself. This is problematic in relation to our Shari'ah, because Allah says: [Al-Nisa: 4] And He said: [Al-Baqarah 2:237] And these two verses indicate that the mahr belongs to whom? To the wife, and she is the one who has the right to dispose of it by forgiving or giving it, and the father has no right in it. And this is also what the Sunnah indicates: that whatever condition or gift (hibaa) is made before the contract belongs to the wife, and whatever is after it, the most honorable thing a man can do is to honor his daughter and his sister. So the mahr before the contract must all belong to the wife. And this opinion is the correct one: the mahr belongs to whom? To the wife, and no one shares it with her, because it is in exchange for her chastity, so it belongs to her. And it is not permissible for the father to stipulate something of it for himself. Yes, the father, if the wife possesses it, may...
The student: Give it to him.
The Shaykh : ...possess it from her, because the father has the right to possess from his child's wealth what he does not need and what does not harm him, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): As for stipulating something of it for himself, no, because the Shari'ah does not permit it. And it is also a cause of corruption, and the father's attention to the mahr leads him to marry whoever he stipulates a larger amount for, even if he is not a suitable match, and to prevent whoever he does not stipulate for, even if he is a suitable match. So both the public interest and the Shari'ah require that it is not permissible for the father to stipulate for himself anything of the mahr. What about the mother and the brother?
The student: All the more so.
The Shaykh : It is even more so. Now, the Bedouins—and may Allah protect us from this—do the opposite: the father stipulates something, the mother stipulates something, the brother stipulates something, the wet nurse stipulates something, the dog stipulates something, the donkey stipulates something, and so on, and what remains for the woman of the mahr is like what is for the donkey and the dog. This is not permissible; it is forbidden. The mahr must all belong to whom? To the wife, and no one has authority over it except the father. When does the father have authority over it?
The student: After she possesses it.
The Shaykh : After she possesses it and it enters her ownership, the father has the right to possess from his child's wealth what does not harm him and what he does not need. Now, some scholars used this verse as evidence that it is permissible for a man to stipulate something of his daughter's mahr, whether the whole mahr or part of it. We say to them: This is not valid, because our Shari'ah came with what?
The students: With the opposite.
The Shaykh : With the opposite. Some scholars also used it as evidence that it is permissible for the mahr to be a benefit that the wife takes from her husband, meaning that he builds a house for her or brings her something. Is the evidence clear or not? Because grazing the sheep is a benefit from him, for if Musa did not graze them, who would graze them? These two daughters. So in reality, it is a benefit for them. Then, our Shari'ah came in agreement with this. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the man who had nothing:Sunan Abi Dawud 2111Sahih (Al-Albani) And this is a benefit. But if she stipulated that he serve her, that her mahr be her service, for example, this is an old, elderly woman whom a man with no money, or with money, proposed to, and she said: "The mahr is that you serve me, carry me, for example, when I perform wudu, and also accept my shoes, wash my clothes, and the like." Is this permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : There is a difference of opinion among the scholars. Some say: It is not permissible, because the status of the husband should be higher than the status of the wife. The husband is the master, as Allah the Exalted said: And the husband is a man, so he is the maintainer (qawwam) over the woman [An-Nisa 4:34] and the woman is a captive with the husband, a captive woman If we say it is permissible for the mahr to be her service, the situation is reversed, and the higher becomes the lower, so it is not permissible. But the school of thought (madhhab) permits it; our school of thought permits this, because it is a benefit, and just as it is permissible to marry him on the condition that he builds her house and grazes her sheep, so it is permissible for him to serve her. This reasoning does not prevent it. Yes, the husband serves her in what she stipulated, and she serves him in what is obligatory upon her, so she is a servant and a served one, like the preposition (harf al-jarr) which works on the verb and is governed by the noun, it is a governor and a governed.
And from this, it is also derived: the generosity of this man and his good character, for he gave Musa the choice between the two daughters, saying: "Choose one of them." This is an act of generosity, because in reality, giving the choice is broader for the person and more pleasing to his soul, as he chooses what he sees as most suitable. But if he had said: "I want to marry you to this daughter," the man might have had no desire for her. As for one of my two daughters, the choice indicates generosity and that he gave him leeway.
And from this, it is derived that it is permissible to make the offer (ijab) with an unspecified woman, but not the acceptance (qabul). Because it means he says: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and the groom says: "I accept the marriage of so-and-so." This issue has three scenarios. Either the specification occurs in both the offer and the acceptance, where he says: "I give you in marriage my daughter Aisha," and he says: "I accept." This is specification in the offer and in the acceptance. The offer: the guardian said, "I give you in marriage my daughter Aisha," specifying her, and the groom said: "I accept the marriage of this woman." Or the ambiguity is in both the offer and the acceptance, which is not valid, such as if he says: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and he says: "I accept the marriage of one of them." Here, it is not permissible; the marriage does not take effect, because we do not know which one the marriage was contracted for. Or the specification is in the offer but not in the acceptance, where he says, for example: "I give you in marriage my daughter Aisha," and the groom says: "I accept the marriage of one of your daughters." What is the ruling?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible... We remain with the fourth scenario. We said there are three scenarios, but in reality, there are four. The fourth scenario is if he says: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and he says: "I accept the marriage of so-and-so," naming her. Here, the ambiguity is in the offer and the specification is in the acceptance. Is it valid or not?
The student: It is valid.
The Shaykh : The school of thought (madhhab) says it is not valid, meaning that specification must be in both the offer and the acceptance. But what appears to be correct is that it is valid, because when he said: "I give you in marriage one of my daughters," and he said: "I accept Aisha," does this mean specification occurred or not? It occurred. But the one making the offer, who is the guardian, wanted to give him room for choice. So the apparent validity of the contract is even stronger if he said: "I give you in marriage one of these daughters," specifying them, and he said: "I accept Aisha," and she is among the specified ones. This is also closer to validity, because here specification occurred by what? By pointing, and then he specified one of them by acceptance. Do we say that in this story, there is evidence for this issue, "one of my two daughters" and Musa, in any case... he accepts one of them in exchange for...? Is there evidence in the story?
The students: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It happened before he was a Prophet.
The Shaykh : And because he did not contract the marriage. He said: "I want to marry you," meaning he gave him the choice. Perhaps the contract took place afterwards as a new contract. And it was mentioned earlier that the intention to do something is not the same as doing the thing.
Can it be derived from this noble verse that the husband...?
The students: The father.
The Shaykh : I mean the father. Does the father have the right to contract the marriage of his daughter without her consent?
The student: ....
The Shaykh : The verse does not contain evidence. The verse itself does not contain evidence, as it is possible that the father had asked for their permission before that, or that he understood their consent because she presented herself to him and described him as strong and trustworthy. And in any case, even if we assume the possibility that he did not ask for permission, our Shari'ah came with the opposite: that it is not permissible for a man to marry off his daughter without her consent, and if he marries her off without her consent, the contract is considered invalid, not valid.
And from the noble verse, it is derived: Is it permissible for the father to stipulate something of the mahr (bridal gift) for himself? Is it permissible or not? Can it be derived from the verse that it is permissible for the father to stipulate something of the mahr for himself? The sheep are from...?
The student: For the father.
The Shaykh : For the father, and their grazing?
The student: For him.
The Shaykh : For him. And here, by marrying him on the condition that he hires him for eight years to graze the sheep, there is evidence that it is permissible for the father to stipulate the mahr of his daughter for himself. This is problematic in relation to our Shari'ah, because Allah says:
And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously. But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it
وَآتُوا النِّسَاءَ صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةً فَإِنْ طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُthen [give] half of what you specified - unless they forego the right or the one in whose hand is the marriage contract foregoes it
فنصف ما فرضتم إلا أن يعفون أو يعفوا الذي بيده عقدة النكاحThe student: Give it to him.
The Shaykh : ...possess it from her, because the father has the right to possess from his child's wealth what he does not need and what does not harm him, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
You and your wealth belong to your father
أنت ومالك لأبيكThe student: All the more so.
The Shaykh : It is even more so. Now, the Bedouins—and may Allah protect us from this—do the opposite: the father stipulates something, the mother stipulates something, the brother stipulates something, the wet nurse stipulates something, the dog stipulates something, the donkey stipulates something, and so on, and what remains for the woman of the mahr is like what is for the donkey and the dog. This is not permissible; it is forbidden. The mahr must all belong to whom? To the wife, and no one has authority over it except the father. When does the father have authority over it?
The student: After she possesses it.
The Shaykh : After she possesses it and it enters her ownership, the father has the right to possess from his child's wealth what does not harm him and what he does not need. Now, some scholars used this verse as evidence that it is permissible for a man to stipulate something of his daughter's mahr, whether the whole mahr or part of it. We say to them: This is not valid, because our Shari'ah came with what?
The students: With the opposite.
The Shaykh : With the opposite. Some scholars also used it as evidence that it is permissible for the mahr to be a benefit that the wife takes from her husband, meaning that he builds a house for her or brings her something. Is the evidence clear or not? Because grazing the sheep is a benefit from him, for if Musa did not graze them, who would graze them? These two daughters. So in reality, it is a benefit for them. Then, our Shari'ah came in agreement with this. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the man who had nothing:
I have given you her in marriage for the part of the Qur'an which you know
زوجتكها - بايش؟ - بما معك من القرآنThe student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : There is a difference of opinion among the scholars. Some say: It is not permissible, because the status of the husband should be higher than the status of the wife. The husband is the master, as Allah the Exalted said: