"And if he was rejected, or he gave permission, or the situation is unknown, it is permissible"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says "If he was rejected, or he gave permission, or the situation is unknown, it is permissible". Pay attention, if he was rejected, who?
The questioner : The specific one.
The Shaykh : The second one or the first one? The first one, meaning you know that so-and-so proposed to so-and-so's daughter, but they rejected him. Is it permissible for me to propose? Or he gave permission, meaning you know that so-and-so proposed to so-and-so's daughter, so you went to him and said, "O so-and-so, I heard that you proposed to such-and-such a girl, and I would like to marry her," and he said, "There is no harm, I give you permission." There is no harm in proposing, but if we know that he gave permission out of shyness and bashfulness, not by choice, what is the ruling?
The questioner : No ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because this permission is like no permission at all. Or you know that he gave permission out of fear, because the one who asked for permission was a wicked man who would have harmed him if he had not given him permission. Is it permissible to proceed? No. But if he gave permission by choice, with consent and willingness, then it is permissible for the second man to propose, because the right belongs to the first suitor, so if he drops it, it is his right.
He said "Or the situation is unknown". Does "the situation is unknown" mean it is unknown whether she is proposed to or not? Or is it unknown whether he was rejected or not? The intended meaning in the author's words is the second one, meaning you know that so-and-so proposed to so-and-so's daughter, but you do not know whether they accepted or rejected him. In that case, it is permissible to propose, because the original state is that there is no acceptance. So I am allowed to propose. Do you understand me or not? Good. So proposing on top of your brother's proposal is permissible in three places. The first place is if he was rejected. The second is if the first suitor gave permission. The third is if we do not know whether they rejected him or accepted him. The correct view in the third issue is that it is not permissible to propose. Good. If it is said that the original state is that there is no acceptance, we say that the prohibition is not for this reason. The prohibition is because of proposing on top of your brother's proposal, and that has already happened. It may be that the family of the woman has inclined toward the suitor and wants to marry him to you, but if you propose, they will turn away from him, and if it were not for your proposal, they would have married him. This is aggression. So the correct view is that if we do not know whether they accepted or rejected, proposing is not permissible. Good.
The questioner : The specific one.
The Shaykh : The second one or the first one? The first one, meaning you know that so-and-so proposed to so-and-so's daughter, but they rejected him. Is it permissible for me to propose? Or he gave permission, meaning you know that so-and-so proposed to so-and-so's daughter, so you went to him and said, "O so-and-so, I heard that you proposed to such-and-such a girl, and I would like to marry her," and he said, "There is no harm, I give you permission." There is no harm in proposing, but if we know that he gave permission out of shyness and bashfulness, not by choice, what is the ruling?
The questioner : No ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because this permission is like no permission at all. Or you know that he gave permission out of fear, because the one who asked for permission was a wicked man who would have harmed him if he had not given him permission. Is it permissible to proceed? No. But if he gave permission by choice, with consent and willingness, then it is permissible for the second man to propose, because the right belongs to the first suitor, so if he drops it, it is his right.
He said "Or the situation is unknown". Does "the situation is unknown" mean it is unknown whether she is proposed to or not? Or is it unknown whether he was rejected or not? The intended meaning in the author's words is the second one, meaning you know that so-and-so proposed to so-and-so's daughter, but you do not know whether they accepted or rejected him. In that case, it is permissible to propose, because the original state is that there is no acceptance. So I am allowed to propose. Do you understand me or not? Good. So proposing on top of your brother's proposal is permissible in three places. The first place is if he was rejected. The second is if the first suitor gave permission. The third is if we do not know whether they rejected him or accepted him. The correct view in the third issue is that it is not permissible to propose. Good. If it is said that the original state is that there is no acceptance, we say that the prohibition is not for this reason. The prohibition is because of proposing on top of your brother's proposal, and that has already happened. It may be that the family of the woman has inclined toward the suitor and wants to marry him to you, but if you propose, they will turn away from him, and if it were not for your proposal, they would have married him. This is aggression. So the correct view is that if we do not know whether they accepted or rejected, proposing is not permissible. Good.