And if one of the spouses, or his free son, or his mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) buys the other spouse, or part of them, their marriage is annulled.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And if one of the spouses, or his free son, or his mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) buys the other spouse, or part of them, their marriage is annulled". We begin with the first issue: "If one of the spouses buys the other". An example of this is a woman who is married to a slave who is not her slave, and then he buys her. The author says that the marriage is annulled because a free woman cannot marry her slave. We have previously discussed this, and it is by consensus. They say that if the commencement of the marriage is prevented, its continuation is also prevented. The same applies in reverse: if a man marries a slave woman and then buys her, the marriage is annulled because a man is not permitted to marry his slave woman, as mentioned before, is that not so? They say that what prevents the commencement prevents the continuation. Is it clear, Adam? Is it clear? Good. So, why is the marriage annulled if the husband buys his wife?
The questioner : There is a reasoning for it.
The Shaykh : A reasoning?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because a man does not marry his slave woman, and what prevents the marriage from commencing prevents it from continuing. Good. And the reverse is also the case: if a woman buys her husband, he becomes her property, and the marriage is annulled. Why? Because she cannot marry him if he is her property, and what prevents the commencement prevents the continuation. Which one is the calamity: that the man buys his wife, or that the woman buys her husband?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second one is the calamity, because if she buys her husband, the marriage is annulled and he does not become lawful to her. But if he buys his wife, the marriage is annulled and she becomes lawful to him by right of ownership, meaning there is no difference. Yes, good.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Or his free son, or his mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom)". These two issues are not correct as stated by the author. That is, if a son buys his father’s slave wife, the marriage is annulled. Why? Because a free man cannot marry his son’s slave woman, and what prevents the commencement prevents the continuation. This is incorrect because we have previously established that the correct view is that it is permissible to marry one’s son’s slave woman. So, if a man’s son buys his father’s wife, yes, if the son buys his father’s wife, the marriage is annulled. But is it permissible for the son, knowing that the marriage will be annulled, to buy his father’s wife? It is not permissible, why? Because it is undutifulness to parents. The father may be attached to this wife and desire her, so the son comes and buys her. Likewise, "or his mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom)". If a man’s mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) buys the man’s wife. That is, Zayd has a slave whom he made a mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom), meaning Zayd sold him to himself for a known price, and this mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) was a free man. Among his purchases, he bought the wife of his master who had made him a mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom). What is the ruling? The marriage is annulled, so this mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) has become a calamity for his master. Yes, he bought his wife and she escaped from him. But this opinion, and praise be to Allah, is weak and not correct. The reasoning given is that the mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) might fail to complete the payment, in which case the wife would return to the ownership of whom? Her master. It is said that this is a possible scenario, and there is no harm in it. Since this possibility has not occurred, the original ruling is that the marriage is not annulled.
The questioner : There is a reasoning for it.
The Shaykh : A reasoning?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because a man does not marry his slave woman, and what prevents the marriage from commencing prevents it from continuing. Good. And the reverse is also the case: if a woman buys her husband, he becomes her property, and the marriage is annulled. Why? Because she cannot marry him if he is her property, and what prevents the commencement prevents the continuation. Which one is the calamity: that the man buys his wife, or that the woman buys her husband?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second one is the calamity, because if she buys her husband, the marriage is annulled and he does not become lawful to her. But if he buys his wife, the marriage is annulled and she becomes lawful to him by right of ownership, meaning there is no difference. Yes, good.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Or his free son, or his mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom)". These two issues are not correct as stated by the author. That is, if a son buys his father’s slave wife, the marriage is annulled. Why? Because a free man cannot marry his son’s slave woman, and what prevents the commencement prevents the continuation. This is incorrect because we have previously established that the correct view is that it is permissible to marry one’s son’s slave woman. So, if a man’s son buys his father’s wife, yes, if the son buys his father’s wife, the marriage is annulled. But is it permissible for the son, knowing that the marriage will be annulled, to buy his father’s wife? It is not permissible, why? Because it is undutifulness to parents. The father may be attached to this wife and desire her, so the son comes and buys her. Likewise, "or his mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom)". If a man’s mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) buys the man’s wife. That is, Zayd has a slave whom he made a mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom), meaning Zayd sold him to himself for a known price, and this mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) was a free man. Among his purchases, he bought the wife of his master who had made him a mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom). What is the ruling? The marriage is annulled, so this mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) has become a calamity for his master. Yes, he bought his wife and she escaped from him. But this opinion, and praise be to Allah, is weak and not correct. The reasoning given is that the mukatab (a slave who has contracted to buy his freedom) might fail to complete the payment, in which case the wife would return to the ownership of whom? Her master. It is said that this is a possible scenario, and there is no harm in it. Since this possibility has not occurred, the original ruling is that the marriage is not annulled.