If a father marries off a chaste woman to a wicked man, or an Arab woman to a non-Arab, then the annulment belongs to the woman or the guardians who are not pleased.

The Shaykh : He says "If a father marries off a chaste woman to a wicked man", meaning it is valid. This is a point of consideration. If he marries off a chaste woman to a wicked man, meaning a fornicator, the marriage is valid. This is incorrect. The author's statement is incorrect due to the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: . Thus, Allah the Exalted made the marriage of the fornicator like the marriage of the fornicatress. Just as a fornicatress is not married except to a fornicator or a polytheist, so too a fornicator is not married except to a fornicatress or a polytheist. They are equal. It is strange that our scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) say that the marriage of a fornicatress is not valid until she repents, while the marriage of a fornicator is valid before he repents, even though the verse is one and the ruling is one. The correct view is that if a chaste woman is married to a wicked man, the marriage is not valid unless he repents. If this man becomes known for fornication, for example, if we know that he goes to another country to commit fornication there, may Allah protect us, or in his own country, and someone marries him, we say: What is the marriage? According to the stronger opinion, the marriage is not valid by the text of the Qur'an: . If the suitor says he has repented and he actually intends to purify himself, we say: We will look into it. We will wait. Instead of answering them today, we will answer him after a month or two. If we see that the man has reformed, repented, and abstained from fornication, we will marry him. Good. So, the author's statement "If a father marries off a chaste woman to a wicked man", is the marriage valid, or "an Arab woman to a non-Arab"? An Arab woman is one from the tribes, meaning from a known tribe, from Tamim, from Quraysh, from Ghatafan, from such and such, to a non-Arab, one who is not from the Arabs. What is he called by our custom?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, he is called a Khudayri in the Najdi dialect, a Khudayri, or he is called an 'Abd. The one from the tribe is called a Shaykh. So, if he marries an Arab woman to a non-Arab man who is not from the Arab tribes, the marriage is valid. This is the right. The marriage is valid. Or he said: "Then the annulment belongs to the woman or the guardians who are not pleased". Meaning, is the marriage valid or not valid? It is valid. The evidence is that he mentioned annulment, and there is no annulment except for a valid marriage. For example, the father—pay attention—a father from the known tribes marries his daughter to a man who does not have a known tribe. What is the ruling on the marriage?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : It is valid. But a person from the guardians, a paternal uncle, comes and says to the father: Why did you marry your daughter to this man who does not have a known tribe? He says: This is my daughter, and she is pleased, and we are pleased with his religion and his character. He says: I can annul the marriage. O son of the noble, the woman is pleased and happy with this marriage, and the man is good in character and religion. He says: No, I can annul the marriage. They go to the judge, and the judge, according to the author's opinion, what does he do? He annuls the marriage. He annuls it, even though his religion and character are pleasing, and he is a good, noble man, a man of wealth. Add to that that he is a scholar who benefits people with his knowledge, his wealth, and his status. He says: No, you, O son of the lawful, are a distant paternal uncle. The father says: Am I not more merciful to her than you? He says: No, I can. Look at this statement. Can it be accepted in taste? No, not in taste, and not in Shari'ah either. Not in taste, and not in Shari'ah. Who said that this distant guardian, whom we know, and Allah knows best, that he only objected out of envy and malice? The correct view, without doubt, is that compatibility is not a condition for validity, nor for what? Nor for bindingness. Meaning, according to the author's statement, compatibility is a condition for bindingness, not for validity. This means that whoever is not pleased among the guardians has the right to annul the marriage. The correct view is the opposite, except in one issue mentioned by the author, which is?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, what?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Chastity. This is a condition. Meaning, we do not marry a man known for fornication unless he repents. Good. If someone says: This man is not known for fornication, but he is known for having intercourse with a woman in her rear. He is known for not having intercourse with women except in their rears. Is he married or not?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : He is not married, because this is aiding in what is forbidden. Even the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If a man is known for having intercourse with his wife in her rear, he is separated from her, because we cannot approve of them establishing what is forbidden. Good. If a man is known, may Allah protect us, for sodomy, is he married?

The questioner : He is not married.

The Shaykh : No, he is not married until it is known that he has repented, because if fornication, which is a great sin, prevents that, then sodomy, which is the great sin, is even more so. Sodomy is described as "the great sin," and fornication is described as "a great sin." The difference is that which entered "great sin" makes it greater, meaning it is the greatest of the great sins, and fornication is a great sin among the great sins. Clear?

The questioner : Clear.

The Shaykh : Good. The marriage of those with whom marriage is forbidden is described by Allah as a great sin and abhorrent, and fornication is a great sin, and sodomy is the great sin, because the marriage of those with whom marriage is forbidden is greater than fornication. It does not have "abhorrent," because the marriage of those with whom marriage is forbidden is abhorrent to the minds and hated, so it is greater than fornication with non-relatives. Good. He says: "Then the annulment belongs to the woman or the guardians who are not pleased." Regarding the woman, we say: If she is not pleased at all, the contract is not valid, because the stronger opinion is that the father cannot force his daughter. The annulment is annulled. It says in the explanation: "It is annulled by a brother with the father's consent". And the annulment is also on a delayed basis, which is a problem. Annulment on a delayed basis means that if the father, who is from a known tribe, marries his daughter to someone who is not known to have a tribe, the distant paternal uncles can annul it, and on a delayed basis, meaning he can say: Let them get accustomed to each other for a month or two... until happiness reaches its peak, then he objects to them. Meaning, he does not annul it on the first night or the second night. No, if it is on a delayed basis, and Glorious is Allah the Great, I do not think a Shari'ah would ever bring something like this. But these are the rules established by some jurists who do not think about the consequences, and Allah knows best. Yes, Yusuf?