Chapter: And its pillars are the two spouses who are free from impediments, and the offer and the acceptance
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author mentioned this chapter, which is the beginning of the lesson. He said "Chapter. And its pillars", meaning the pillars of the marriage contract. "The two spouses, the offer, and the acceptance", meaning three. A pillar is the strongest side of a thing, and it is called a pillar. That is why we call a corner what? We call it a pillar, because a building is square, and we call each quarter of it a pillar, because the corner is the strongest part of the building. So the strongest side of a thing is called a pillar. The intended meaning of the pillars is that the composition of the essence is not complete without them. For example, in the prayer, standing is a pillar, bowing is a pillar, prostration is a pillar, and sitting between the two prostrations and the tashahhud are pillars, because these are the essence of the prayer, and the essence does not stand without them. As for what is part of the essence but the prayer is complete without it, that is not called a pillar, such as raising the hands in the prayer, for example. The essence is composed of it, but the prayer is complete without it, and for this reason it is not called a pillar. So, the marriage contract must have a husband and a wife, correct? Or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There must be a husband and a wife, and there must be an offer and an acceptance. Because how do they become a husband and a wife?
The questioner : By the offer and the acceptance.
The Shaykh : By the offer and the acceptance. As for the guardian, we can count him as a pillar, and we can not count him, because he is outside the essence, but it is a condition for the existence of the essence that the guardian exists. So, the pillars of the marriage contract are three: the two spouses, the offer, and the acceptance. For this reason, the author said "the two spouses." And his saying "who are free from impediments" is not actually a condition, because the original state is being free from impediments. So if it is assumed that a man married a woman and there was a milk kinship between them and they did not know about it at the time of the contract, then here we say the marriage contract is invalid, or its invalidity is revealed. If the author had said "the two spouses" and stopped there, it would have been more appropriate, but what he mentioned is clearer.
His saying "who are free from impediments", what are the impediments? The impediments are every cause that necessitates the prohibition of the woman upon the husband, such as the waiting period, kinship that establishes the status of a mahram, and the like.
The second is the offer. The offer is the phrase uttered by the guardian or by one who acts in his place, and the acceptance is the phrase uttered by the husband or by one who acts in his place. An example of the offer, brother? An example?
The questioner : The offer?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That he says, "I have married you to."
The Shaykh : That he says, "I have married you to," and the acceptance?
The questioner : "I accept."
The Shaykh : That he says, "I accept." So the offer is the phrase uttered by the guardian or by one who acts in his place. If it is the guardian, he will say, "I have married you to my daughter," for example. And if it is one who acts in his place, he will say, "I have married you to the daughter of my client so-and-so." It is not valid for him to say, "I have married you to my daughter," why? Because she is not his daughter. And it is not valid for him to say, "I have married you to the daughter of so-and-so," why? Because it is not possible to marry her off except through agency. So the formula of the offer from one who acts in the place of the guardian is to say, "I have married you to the daughter of my client so-and-so." And then he must specify her, saying, for example, "I have married you to So-and-so, the daughter of my client so-and-so." Okay. The husband says, "I accept the marriage." And what does one who acts in his place say? He says, "I accept the marriage for my client so-and-so." It is not valid for him to say, "I accept the marriage," and the apparent meaning of their words is that even if we knew that he was an agent, meaning if we knew he was an agent, meaning the two witnesses and the guardian know that he is an agent, then it is not valid for him to say, "I accept the marriage" until he says, "I accept for my client." Is that clear?
The questioner : This is the apparent meaning, yes, this is the apparent meaning.
The Shaykh : Is my speech clear or not clear?
The questioner : Clear, yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Clear. Okay, if the agent who acts in the place of the husband says, "I accept the marriage" only, is it valid?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. He must say, "for my client." If he says, "I meant by my saying 'I accept' that it is for myself, and I left my client aside," is it valid or not valid?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid, because the guardian married off whom? His client. So the one who accepted is not the one for whom the contract was made. The offer was directed to Zayd, who is the client, and the offer came to 'Amr, who is the agent. And on this basis, this agent's trick does not benefit him. If this agent had proposed to all the people and they all rejected him, yes, so he went to a person and said, "I know that you will marry So-and-so." He said, "Yes." He said, "Make me an agent in accepting the marriage." He said, "You are an agent, may Allah reward you with good." That night, he had work and wanted to go to so-and-so. So at the contract, the guardian said, "I have married my client so-and-so to So-and-so," and the agent said, "I accept," and he intended it for himself. Then that is not valid, because the offer was issued to whom? To his client, and he accepted for himself. So he must say, "I accept the marriage for my client so-and-so." And it was said that if it is known that his saying "I accept" means "for my client," then the known is like the explicit, because what did the guardian say? He said, "I have married you to what? My daughter, your client so-and-so." So if he says, "I accept," the meaning is that I accept in my capacity as an agent, so there is no need for him to say, "I accept for my client so-and-so." And this opinion is stronger, based on the fact that contracts are established by what they indicate. And branching from this issue is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned by his saying.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There must be a husband and a wife, and there must be an offer and an acceptance. Because how do they become a husband and a wife?
The questioner : By the offer and the acceptance.
The Shaykh : By the offer and the acceptance. As for the guardian, we can count him as a pillar, and we can not count him, because he is outside the essence, but it is a condition for the existence of the essence that the guardian exists. So, the pillars of the marriage contract are three: the two spouses, the offer, and the acceptance. For this reason, the author said "the two spouses." And his saying "who are free from impediments" is not actually a condition, because the original state is being free from impediments. So if it is assumed that a man married a woman and there was a milk kinship between them and they did not know about it at the time of the contract, then here we say the marriage contract is invalid, or its invalidity is revealed. If the author had said "the two spouses" and stopped there, it would have been more appropriate, but what he mentioned is clearer.
His saying "who are free from impediments", what are the impediments? The impediments are every cause that necessitates the prohibition of the woman upon the husband, such as the waiting period, kinship that establishes the status of a mahram, and the like.
The second is the offer. The offer is the phrase uttered by the guardian or by one who acts in his place, and the acceptance is the phrase uttered by the husband or by one who acts in his place. An example of the offer, brother? An example?
The questioner : The offer?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That he says, "I have married you to."
The Shaykh : That he says, "I have married you to," and the acceptance?
The questioner : "I accept."
The Shaykh : That he says, "I accept." So the offer is the phrase uttered by the guardian or by one who acts in his place. If it is the guardian, he will say, "I have married you to my daughter," for example. And if it is one who acts in his place, he will say, "I have married you to the daughter of my client so-and-so." It is not valid for him to say, "I have married you to my daughter," why? Because she is not his daughter. And it is not valid for him to say, "I have married you to the daughter of so-and-so," why? Because it is not possible to marry her off except through agency. So the formula of the offer from one who acts in the place of the guardian is to say, "I have married you to the daughter of my client so-and-so." And then he must specify her, saying, for example, "I have married you to So-and-so, the daughter of my client so-and-so." Okay. The husband says, "I accept the marriage." And what does one who acts in his place say? He says, "I accept the marriage for my client so-and-so." It is not valid for him to say, "I accept the marriage," and the apparent meaning of their words is that even if we knew that he was an agent, meaning if we knew he was an agent, meaning the two witnesses and the guardian know that he is an agent, then it is not valid for him to say, "I accept the marriage" until he says, "I accept for my client." Is that clear?
The questioner : This is the apparent meaning, yes, this is the apparent meaning.
The Shaykh : Is my speech clear or not clear?
The questioner : Clear, yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Clear. Okay, if the agent who acts in the place of the husband says, "I accept the marriage" only, is it valid?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. He must say, "for my client." If he says, "I meant by my saying 'I accept' that it is for myself, and I left my client aside," is it valid or not valid?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid, because the guardian married off whom? His client. So the one who accepted is not the one for whom the contract was made. The offer was directed to Zayd, who is the client, and the offer came to 'Amr, who is the agent. And on this basis, this agent's trick does not benefit him. If this agent had proposed to all the people and they all rejected him, yes, so he went to a person and said, "I know that you will marry So-and-so." He said, "Yes." He said, "Make me an agent in accepting the marriage." He said, "You are an agent, may Allah reward you with good." That night, he had work and wanted to go to so-and-so. So at the contract, the guardian said, "I have married my client so-and-so to So-and-so," and the agent said, "I accept," and he intended it for himself. Then that is not valid, because the offer was issued to whom? To his client, and he accepted for himself. So he must say, "I accept the marriage for my client so-and-so." And it was said that if it is known that his saying "I accept" means "for my client," then the known is like the explicit, because what did the guardian say? He said, "I have married you to what? My daughter, your client so-and-so." So if he says, "I accept," the meaning is that I accept in my capacity as an agent, so there is no need for him to say, "I accept for my client so-and-so." And this opinion is stronger, based on the fact that contracts are established by what they indicate. And branching from this issue is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned by his saying.