Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And the agreement of religion, except for what is mentioned, and justice"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Or do we say that his guardianship over the Muslims is dropped, or not? It is not dropped. He is a guardian, a guardian over the Muslims, even if he commits what he commits of open sinfulness, as long as we do not see clear disbelief in it for which we have proof from Allah. So, if the ruler marries a Muslim woman who has no guardian, but he is an open sinner, the contract is valid. Likewise, the author says, "the master with his slave woman", even if he is an open sinner, he marries her. But we must say, as we said in the first case, that his open sinfulness must not compromise what? The interest of the woman. If it compromises it, then no. Now, what is your opinion of a disbeliever who marries his disbelieving daughter to a Muslim, meaning a Christian who marries his Christian daughter to a Muslim?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it valid? Because the agreement of religion exists, and it is not required that the religion of the husband and the religion of the guardian agree. The important thing is that the religion of the guardian and the religion of the woman agree. Now, if this Christian father contracts for him with a non-Islamic contract, is it valid or not? The husband is Muslim. He contracts for him with a non-Islamic contract. We say this is not valid. But what do we do in some disbelieving lands where a Muslim marries there by marriage or by their customary contract? We say he contracts outwardly, but the woman is not made lawful by it until he contracts in the Islamic manner. And that is because if he contracts in the Islamic manner there, they do not give him explicit permission that this woman is his wife. So we say: contract outwardly with this invalid contract, then contract with a valid contract, or contract with a valid contract, then contract with this invalid, formal contract which you do not believe in and do not accept. Yes, Samih?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it valid? Because the agreement of religion exists, and it is not required that the religion of the husband and the religion of the guardian agree. The important thing is that the religion of the guardian and the religion of the woman agree. Now, if this Christian father contracts for him with a non-Islamic contract, is it valid or not? The husband is Muslim. He contracts for him with a non-Islamic contract. We say this is not valid. But what do we do in some disbelieving lands where a Muslim marries there by marriage or by their customary contract? We say he contracts outwardly, but the woman is not made lawful by it until he contracts in the Islamic manner. And that is because if he contracts in the Islamic manner there, they do not give him explicit permission that this woman is his wife. So we say: contract outwardly with this invalid contract, then contract with a valid contract, or contract with a valid contract, then contract with this invalid, formal contract which you do not believe in and do not accept. Yes, Samih?