And it is not valid for one who is proficient in Arabic to use any wording other than “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage” and “I accept this marriage” or “I have married her” or “I have married” or “I accept.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :“And it is not valid for one who is proficient in Arabic to use any wording other than ‘I have married off’ or ‘I have given in marriage’”, yes, it is a condition in the offer and acceptance that it be with the wording “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” the offer being with the wording “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” this is if he is proficient in Arabic; if he is not proficient in Arabic, he may use any wording that conveys this meaning. You know that people differ in the Arabic language. Does the brother 'Abdullah al-Afghani give me the wording for marriage and giving in marriage in the Afghan language? Speak to the person on your right.
The questioner : It is a problem, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : “He married her” in your language?
The questioner : Zayd and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Zayd and 'Amr? Good.
The questioner : If there is a Zayd ... Zayd ... who marries off 'Amr, he says ... .
The Shaykh : In the Afghan language.
The questioner : ... . His daughter’s name is Fatimah.
The Shaykh : The name does not matter.
The questioner : ... Fatimah ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He says ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, good, is this with the wording “I have married off” and “I have given in marriage”?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, but it is valid because they have no wording other than this, and likewise in English, French, German, Russian, or anything else, it is in their language. This is why the author specified that it must be from one who is proficient in the Arabic language. Good, if he is proficient and can say “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” but he is not an Arab and does not know the meaning of “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” he says it with his tongue. If he does not know the meaning of “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” he says it with his tongue because he is not obligated by the specific wording, unlike the Noble Qur'an. If someone wanted to recite the Noble Qur'an in his own language, even with the exact meaning, we would say to him: No, because the Qur'an is the speech of Allah and it cannot be changed, and because one is obligated by its recitation. Good, what is the evidence that it is not valid except with these two wordings? There is no evidence in the Qur'an or the Sunnah that marriage is not valid except with this wording. But they say it is because these are the two wordings that came in the Qur'an. In the Noble Qur'an[An-Nisa 4:3] and in the Noble Qur'an [An-Nisa 4:20], so the two wordings that came in the Qur'an are marriage (nikah) and giving in marriage (tazwij), so we do not go beyond them. And there is no doubt that this reasoning is weak, indeed it is dead. If we adopted this rule in argumentation, we would say that a sale is not concluded except with the wording of sale, because in the Qur'an there is only sale [Al-Jumu'ah 62:9]. Do you say that a sale is not valid except with the wording of sale, and that a purchase is not valid except with the wording of purchase? They do not say that. So what is the difference? Then we say that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) freed Safiyyah and made her freedom her mahr, and he did not utter the wording of marriage. Do you say that the marriage of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Safiyyah is not valid? No, by Allah. And so they were forced to make an exception for this issue. They said: Except if he has a slave woman and he says, “I have freed you and made your freedom your mahr,” then it is concluded, because they cannot refute the Sunnah. So they said: Except in the case where he has a slave woman, frees her, and makes her freedom her mahr, then it is valid to say, “I have freed you and made your freedom your mahr.” Do you understand? Good, and the stronger opinion in this issue is that marriage is concluded by whatever indicates it, with any wording, whether he says “I have married you off” or “I have permitted you” or “I have given you” or “I have made you the owner” or the like, because this is a contract, so it is understood according to what people customarily recognize as a contract, and it is not obligated by its specific wording. Then, in the hadith of the woman who gave herself in marriage, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him Sahih al-Bukhari 5030 “I have made you the owner of her,” and in some wordings . When the wordings differed in this, it indicates that they are the same. Otherwise, if this differed from that, it would not have been permissible for the narrators to narrate it in two ways, with the wording “I have married you off” and with the wording “I have made you the owner of her.” Pay attention, everyone, to this point, because some people said there is no evidence in the hadith of Sahl in the story of the woman who gave herself in marriage. They said because the story is one and the contract is one, and it is not possible for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to say “I have married you off” with what you have of the Qur'an and then say “I have made you the owner of her.” It is not possible; he must have said one of the two wordings. We say: The matter is as you said; he said one of the two wordings. But the fact that the narrators say it with the wording “I have made you the owner” and “I have married you off” is evidence that there is no difference between them, because narrating a hadith by meaning is not permissible unless the meaning matches the Prophetic wording. And on this basis, we say the stronger opinion in this issue is that it is valid with the wording of marriage, giving in marriage, making the other party the owner, giving, and the like of what people recognize as an offer. Good, if he hesitated and said to him, “I have hired out my daughter to you for a mahr of one thousand riyals,” is it valid or not valid?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Wait, everyone, there is no god but Allah. How hasty you are in what you do not understand, and how little you answer in what you do understand. Good, if he said, “I have hired out my daughter to you for a mahr of one thousand riyals,” is it valid or not valid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : O my brothers, for a mahr, what is the mahr for? With what?
The questioner : Marriage.
The Shaykh : With marriage. By Allah, He named the mahr a wage[An-Nisa 4:24].
The questioner : Shaykh, at the beginning he said “I have hired out.”
The Shaykh : Yes, “I have hired out” for a mahr. But if he said, “I have hired out my daughter for one thousand riyals.”
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : This is a known matter; it is not valid, without doubt, because the wage is not used in marriage at all. However, in the first case, we validated the contract because it contains what indicates that the intended meaning of the wage here is marriage. Allah the Exalted has named the mahr a wage, so the wife is considered hired. In any case, take this rule: all contracts are established by what indicates them according to custom, whether by the wording that was transmitted or by other than the transmitted wording, and whether that is in marriage or in other matters. This is the correct position, and it is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Shaykh al-Islam says in the marginal note here: "No one has transmitted from Ahmad, meaning Ibn Hanbal, that he specified marriage with these two words. The first person to say that, among the followers of Imam Ahmad, as far as I know, is that it is specific to the wording of 'in'ikah and tawwij. The first to say it was Ibn Hamid, and al-Qadi followed him in that, and those who came after him, due to the spread of his books and the multitude of his followers and adherents." Based on this, it is not correct to attribute this opinion to the Imam's personal madhhab; rather, it is said to be the Imam's technical madhhab. And I tell you that there is a difference between the personal madhhab by which the Imam professes his faith to Allah the Mighty and Majestic, and the technical madhhab. The technical madhhab may be something Imam Ahmad did not say, or he may have said the opposite. The technical madhhab is what the followers of this Imam agreed to be his madhhab, such as choosing, for example, certain scholars from among his followers and saying, "If so-and-so and so-and-so from the scholars of his followers agree on such-and-such, then that is the madhhab," or "If the majority of the followers are on this, then that is the madhhab." But the personal madhhab is different; the personal madhhab is what the Imam professes to Allah the Mighty and Majestic. It may agree with what is said to be the madhhab technically, or it may contradict it. Yes, is the time up? Fine.
The questioner : It is a problem, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : “He married her” in your language?
The questioner : Zayd and 'Amr.
The Shaykh : Zayd and 'Amr? Good.
The questioner : If there is a Zayd ... Zayd ... who marries off 'Amr, he says ... .
The Shaykh : In the Afghan language.
The questioner : ... . His daughter’s name is Fatimah.
The Shaykh : The name does not matter.
The questioner : ... Fatimah ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He says ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, good, is this with the wording “I have married off” and “I have given in marriage”?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, but it is valid because they have no wording other than this, and likewise in English, French, German, Russian, or anything else, it is in their language. This is why the author specified that it must be from one who is proficient in the Arabic language. Good, if he is proficient and can say “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” but he is not an Arab and does not know the meaning of “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” he says it with his tongue. If he does not know the meaning of “I have married off” or “I have given in marriage,” he says it with his tongue because he is not obligated by the specific wording, unlike the Noble Qur'an. If someone wanted to recite the Noble Qur'an in his own language, even with the exact meaning, we would say to him: No, because the Qur'an is the speech of Allah and it cannot be changed, and because one is obligated by its recitation. Good, what is the evidence that it is not valid except with these two wordings? There is no evidence in the Qur'an or the Sunnah that marriage is not valid except with this wording. But they say it is because these are the two wordings that came in the Qur'an. In the Noble Qur'an
marry those that please you of [other] women
فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساءBut if you want to replace one wife with another
وإن أردتم استبدال زوجا مكان زوجwhen [the adhan] is called for the prayer on the day of Jumu'ah [Friday], then proceed to the remembrance of Allah and leave trade
إِذَا نُودِيَ لِلصَّلَاةِ مِنْ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَذَرُوا الْبَيْعَI have married this lady to you for the amount of the Qur'an you know by heart.
ملّكتكها بما معك من القرأنI have married you off
زوّجتكهاThe questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Wait, everyone, there is no god but Allah. How hasty you are in what you do not understand, and how little you answer in what you do understand. Good, if he said, “I have hired out my daughter to you for a mahr of one thousand riyals,” is it valid or not valid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : O my brothers, for a mahr, what is the mahr for? With what?
The questioner : Marriage.
The Shaykh : With marriage. By Allah, He named the mahr a wage
So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation
فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّThe questioner : Shaykh, at the beginning he said “I have hired out.”
The Shaykh : Yes, “I have hired out” for a mahr. But if he said, “I have hired out my daughter for one thousand riyals.”
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : This is a known matter; it is not valid, without doubt, because the wage is not used in marriage at all. However, in the first case, we validated the contract because it contains what indicates that the intended meaning of the wage here is marriage. Allah the Exalted has named the mahr a wage, so the wife is considered hired. In any case, take this rule: all contracts are established by what indicates them according to custom, whether by the wording that was transmitted or by other than the transmitted wording, and whether that is in marriage or in other matters. This is the correct position, and it is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Shaykh al-Islam says in the marginal note here: "No one has transmitted from Ahmad, meaning Ibn Hanbal, that he specified marriage with these two words. The first person to say that, among the followers of Imam Ahmad, as far as I know, is that it is specific to the wording of 'in'ikah and tawwij. The first to say it was Ibn Hamid, and al-Qadi followed him in that, and those who came after him, due to the spread of his books and the multitude of his followers and adherents." Based on this, it is not correct to attribute this opinion to the Imam's personal madhhab; rather, it is said to be the Imam's technical madhhab. And I tell you that there is a difference between the personal madhhab by which the Imam professes his faith to Allah the Mighty and Majestic, and the technical madhhab. The technical madhhab may be something Imam Ahmad did not say, or he may have said the opposite. The technical madhhab is what the followers of this Imam agreed to be his madhhab, such as choosing, for example, certain scholars from among his followers and saying, "If so-and-so and so-and-so from the scholars of his followers agree on such-and-such, then that is the madhhab," or "If the majority of the followers are on this, then that is the madhhab." But the personal madhhab is different; the personal madhhab is what the Imam professes to Allah the Mighty and Majestic. It may agree with what is said to be the madhhab technically, or it may contradict it. Yes, is the time up? Fine.