"And whoever is satisfied with the defect, or whose indication of satisfaction is found from him while he is aware of it, has no option to annul the contract"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And whoever is satisfied with the defect" This is the beginning of the lesson. "And whoever is satisfied with the defect, or whose indication of satisfaction is found from him while he is aware of it, has no option to annul the contract" Whoever is satisfied with the defect has no option to annul the contract thereafter, because he has waived his right to annulment. An example of this is a woman who found that her husband was impotent and unable to have intercourse, and she said, "I am satisfied with him." Then she changed her mind. Can she change her mind? No. She found that her husband had leprosy, she was satisfied with it, and then she returned to demand annulment. She cannot annul the contract, and so on. The reason for this, meaning the reason why she has no option if she is satisfied, is that the right belongs to her and she waived it.
And his saying, "or whose indication of satisfaction is found from him while he is aware of it" "whose indication of satisfaction is found from him" means the indication of satisfaction, "while he is aware of it" means aware of the defect. The two pronouns are different. "Whose indication of satisfaction is found from him" — the pronoun refers to satisfaction, "while he is aware of it" means aware of the defect. An example is a woman who allowed her husband to have access to her, allowing him to have intercourse with her, while he has a defect. This is evidence of satisfaction. Is that clear? But if she did not know, then her right to annulment is valid. If she knew, then her right to annulment is waived, because allowing her husband to have intercourse with her while she is aware of the defect is evidence of her satisfaction with it, so she has no right to annulment after that. If she allowed him access to her while she did not know, what is the ruling? She has the option when she learns of it, because her allowing him was done without knowledge.
And his saying, "or whose indication of satisfaction is found from him while he is aware of it" "whose indication of satisfaction is found from him" means the indication of satisfaction, "while he is aware of it" means aware of the defect. The two pronouns are different. "Whose indication of satisfaction is found from him" — the pronoun refers to satisfaction, "while he is aware of it" means aware of the defect. An example is a woman who allowed her husband to have access to her, allowing him to have intercourse with her, while he has a defect. This is evidence of satisfaction. Is that clear? But if she did not know, then her right to annulment is valid. If she knew, then her right to annulment is waived, because allowing her husband to have intercourse with her while she is aware of the defect is evidence of her satisfaction with it, so she has no right to annulment after that. If she allowed him access to her while she did not know, what is the ruling? She has the option when she learns of it, because her allowing him was done without knowledge.