"The right of annulment is established for each of them, even if the defect occurred after the contract, or if the other party has a similar defect"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "The right of annulment is established for each of them" to the end. Yes, "The right of annulment is established for each of them". The pronoun "them" refers to the spouses. So if a man finds that his wife has a hernia, he has the right to annul the marriage. And if she finds that her husband is impotent, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean castrated. The important point is that if she finds her husband is castrated, she has the right to annul. The author said "even if it occurred after the contract". This indicates a difference of opinion, because some scholars say that if this occurs after the contract and its harm does not extend beyond the immediate issue, she does not have the right to annul. If it occurs and its harm does not extend, she cannot annul. For example, urinary incontinence. If the husband is afflicted with urinary incontinence, his wife does not have the right to annul according to the correct opinion, because this is something that happened. Likewise, if leprosy occurs in him and the doctors say it is not contagious, she does not have the right to annul because it has not harmed her. And he said "or if the other party has a similar defect", so he has the right to annul. This means if the wife says, "My husband has leprosy, so I want to annul," and she is also a leper, she has the right to annul. Do you understand? Good. So if she demands annulment and he says, "Why?" She says, "Because you have leprosy." He says, "And you have leprosy." Does he say that or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, he says that. But she says that a person is repelled by the defect of another, but not by his own defect. Is this correct or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is correct. A person is repelled by the defect of another, but not by his own defect. That is why you find a person cleaning himself and touching the excrement with his hand, but if he were told to touch so-and-so's excrement, he could never do it. Meanwhile, he easily washes the excrement from his rear and touches what comes out, and sees no harm in it. Is that not so? Good. Another thing: a person spits and does not see it as a defect in himself, but if a person spits in front of him, yes, he is disgusted. Is that correct? So if he says, "You are a leper," she says, "Yes, I am a leper." But a person is repelled by the defect of another, not by his own defect. However, if he knew that she was a leper, he has no option. And if he did not know, he has the option. In that case, does he return to the one who deceived him, or is the mahr (bridal gift) dropped in this situation? Yes? He was deceived, and she was also deceived.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Here, he does not return [the mahr]. How would he return it? Because she also says, "I want to annul." And if I want to annul, I am entitled to the full mahr. We might say that he returns to the one who deceived him, but the one who deceived him does not return [the mahr] to her, because she was also deceived. And perhaps this is the most correct view, and we will clarify it, if Allah wills, later.
The questioner : The time is up.
The Shaykh : Yes. Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I mean castrated. The important point is that if she finds her husband is castrated, she has the right to annul. The author said "even if it occurred after the contract". This indicates a difference of opinion, because some scholars say that if this occurs after the contract and its harm does not extend beyond the immediate issue, she does not have the right to annul. If it occurs and its harm does not extend, she cannot annul. For example, urinary incontinence. If the husband is afflicted with urinary incontinence, his wife does not have the right to annul according to the correct opinion, because this is something that happened. Likewise, if leprosy occurs in him and the doctors say it is not contagious, she does not have the right to annul because it has not harmed her. And he said "or if the other party has a similar defect", so he has the right to annul. This means if the wife says, "My husband has leprosy, so I want to annul," and she is also a leper, she has the right to annul. Do you understand? Good. So if she demands annulment and he says, "Why?" She says, "Because you have leprosy." He says, "And you have leprosy." Does he say that or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, he says that. But she says that a person is repelled by the defect of another, but not by his own defect. Is this correct or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is correct. A person is repelled by the defect of another, but not by his own defect. That is why you find a person cleaning himself and touching the excrement with his hand, but if he were told to touch so-and-so's excrement, he could never do it. Meanwhile, he easily washes the excrement from his rear and touches what comes out, and sees no harm in it. Is that not so? Good. Another thing: a person spits and does not see it as a defect in himself, but if a person spits in front of him, yes, he is disgusted. Is that correct? So if he says, "You are a leper," she says, "Yes, I am a leper." But a person is repelled by the defect of another, not by his own defect. However, if he knew that she was a leper, he has no option. And if he did not know, he has the option. In that case, does he return to the one who deceived him, or is the mahr (bridal gift) dropped in this situation? Yes? He was deceived, and she was also deceived.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Here, he does not return [the mahr]. How would he return it? Because she also says, "I want to annul." And if I want to annul, I am entitled to the full mahr. We might say that he returns to the one who deceived him, but the one who deceived him does not return [the mahr] to her, because she was also deceived. And perhaps this is the most correct view, and we will clarify it, if Allah wills, later.
The questioner : The time is up.
The Shaykh : Yes. Yes?