Is it a condition for the two witnesses that they not be from the ancestors or descendants of the husband, the wife, or the guardian?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Among the conditions is also that they not be from the ancestors or descendants of the husband, the wife, or the guardian. So, is it valid for the woman's brother to be a witness?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it valid for him to be a witness?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : If it is...
The Shaykh : If the one contracting the marriage is the father, then the brother is not valid as a witness because he is from the descendants of the guardian, correct? And if one of the two brothers is the witness, it is valid for him to be a witness, yes. And if one of the two brothers is the one contracting the marriage, it is valid for the other brother to be a witness because he is not from the ancestors of the one contracting, nor from his descendants, nor from the ancestors of the husband, nor from his descendants, nor from the ancestors of the wife, nor from her descendants. Now, the son of the husband: a man and his father went, and the son of the husband witnessed the contract?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. The son of the wife? It is not valid. And this is also a statement that is not correct. The correct view is that the testimony of ancestors and descendants is accepted, whether they are related to the guardian, the husband, or the wife. The reason for the prohibition is that they say the contract is in the interest of the one contracting, so if the ancestors or descendants testify, they have testified for someone whose testimony is not accepted for them. It is said: the contract is not necessarily in the interest of the one contracting; it may be in his interest, or it may be to his detriment, because the marriage contract obligates a right for the person and a right upon him, what is it? Let us take the husband: the husband, yes, he has a right and an interest in the marriage, but he has obligations upon him, such as financial maintenance and justice between wives if he has multiple wives, and the like. In any case, the correct view is that kinship does not affect the testimony in marriage. Now, look at how many points we have corrected contrary to what the author said. Now, he says: "And there is no requirement of compatibility." I think the time is up.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it valid for him to be a witness?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : If it is...
The Shaykh : If the one contracting the marriage is the father, then the brother is not valid as a witness because he is from the descendants of the guardian, correct? And if one of the two brothers is the witness, it is valid for him to be a witness, yes. And if one of the two brothers is the one contracting the marriage, it is valid for the other brother to be a witness because he is not from the ancestors of the one contracting, nor from his descendants, nor from the ancestors of the husband, nor from his descendants, nor from the ancestors of the wife, nor from her descendants. Now, the son of the husband: a man and his father went, and the son of the husband witnessed the contract?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. The son of the wife? It is not valid. And this is also a statement that is not correct. The correct view is that the testimony of ancestors and descendants is accepted, whether they are related to the guardian, the husband, or the wife. The reason for the prohibition is that they say the contract is in the interest of the one contracting, so if the ancestors or descendants testify, they have testified for someone whose testimony is not accepted for them. It is said: the contract is not necessarily in the interest of the one contracting; it may be in his interest, or it may be to his detriment, because the marriage contract obligates a right for the person and a right upon him, what is it? Let us take the husband: the husband, yes, he has a right and an interest in the marriage, but he has obligations upon him, such as financial maintenance and justice between wives if he has multiple wives, and the like. In any case, the correct view is that kinship does not affect the testimony in marriage. Now, look at how many points we have corrected contrary to what the author said. Now, he says: "And there is no requirement of compatibility." I think the time is up.