"And the annulment of either one is not completed except by a judge. If it is before consummation, there is no mahr; and after it, she is entitled to the specified amount, and he may seek recourse for it from the one who deceived him, if found."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the annulment of either one is not completed except by a judge". He did not say "the annulment of it is not completed" nor did he say "the annulment of him is not completed," but rather he said "either one," because the defect may be in the husband without being in the wife, or in the wife without being in the husband. Except by a judge: if you hear the word "judge" in the speech of jurists, it means the qadi (judge), by the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Sad 38:26]. So if a woman finds a defect in her husband and says, "I want the annulment," then she testifies with two men and says, "I have annulled the marriage," the annulment is not completed. Why? Because it is not by the ruling of a judge. She must go to the qadi and ask him to annul the marriage, otherwise it is not valid. If someone asks, "Why does this matter require the annulment by a judge, when this is her right?" Have you seen if a defect is found in a commodity that someone bought, does he annul it, or does he go to the judge and say, "Annul it"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The first one annuls it. So why is this not like that? We say this is because it is a marriage contract, so more caution is taken with it. And because a judge might come who sees that this defect for which she annulled is not a defect, and he rules for the continuation of what? The continuation of the marriage. So if she goes to the judge and he annuls the contract, this becomes a ruling, and the ruling of the judge is not overturned. And because that is safer in reality, safer so that no dispute occurs. The husband might say, "This is not a defect," and she says, "It is a defect," and so on.
If the annulment is completed, does she have to observe the waiting period? And does she have a mahr, or what? We say, as for the issue of the waiting period, if it is after seclusion or consummation, meaning intercourse, then she has to observe the waiting period. And if it is before that, she has no waiting period, because any separation between the husband and wife before consummation and seclusion has no waiting period.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "If it is before consummation, there is no mahr". This is the issue of the mahr. Also, if it is before consummation, meaning and seclusion, there is no mahr. Why?
The questioner : She is the one who annulled it.
The Shaykh : Because if the defect is in her, she is the cause of it. And if it is in the husband, she is the one who chose the annulment, so she has no mahr. Are you with us?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, we say if it is before consummation and seclusion, there is no mahr. Why? Because if the defect is in the husband, she is the one who annulled the contract. And if it is in her, she is the cause... If the defect is in her, she does not deserve anything, and this is clear because she is the cause of the annulment. So if she is the cause of the annulment, she has nothing. An example of that is a contract with a woman, and after contracting with her, it became clear to him that she is a hunchback and cannot be had intercourse with, so he annulled the marriage. Does she have a mahr?
The questioner : She does not have it.
The Shaykh : No, because she is the cause. Okay, a man contracted with a woman and did not consummate the marriage, then it became clear that the man is impotent and cannot have intercourse, so she annulled it. She annulled it before consummation and seclusion. The author says she has no mahr. Why?
The questioner : She is the one who annulled it.
The Shaykh : Because she is the one who annulled it. How can she annul it and then we say to her, "half the mahr"? Do you understand now, or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Or not, because the weak opinion... are you not understanding? We say if the annulment is before consummation and seclusion, she has no mahr, not half of it and not all of it. Why? If the defect is in her, what?
The questioner : She is the cause.
The Shaykh : She is the cause, and the husband is excused. And she might have also deceived him, so we do not enable the one who deceived to have the deception and the compensation. And if the defect is in the husband and she says, "I don't want it, I don't want a defective husband," it is said because she is the one who separated, so the separation is from her side. But the stronger, established opinion is that if the defect is in the husband, he owes half the mahr, because he is the cause of the annulment. And it is known that if he divorces before consummation, she has half the mahr, by the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:237].
In summary, if the annulment is before consummation and seclusion, what?
The questioner : There is no mahr.
The Shaykh : There is no mahr for the wife according to the author's statement, whether the defect is in her or in the husband. And the correct opinion is that if the defect is in the husband, she has half the mahr, because he is the one who deceived her. Okay.
"And after it, she is entitled to the specified amount". After what? After consummation, she, meaning the wife, is entitled to the specified amount. This is a description of a described thing that is omitted, and the estimation is "the specified mahr." She has the mahr, specified, whether little or much. An example of that is a man who married a woman and consummated the marriage, and after consummation, it became clear that there is a defect in him, so she annulled the marriage. Does she have the mahr? Hmm?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah. After consummation?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, she has the full mahr by what he made lawful of her private parts. So she is given the full mahr and the marriage is annulled. This is one case. And if a defect is found in her, she also has the mahr. Why? Because the mahr became established.
The questioner : By consummation.
The Shaykh : By consummation. It became established by consummation, so she has the full mahr. So if this man, brothers, if this man had given her a mahr of one hundred thousand riyals, and it became clear that there is a defect in her and he cannot reside with her, so he annulled the contract because of this defect, does he retrieve the one hundred thousand riyals, or is it hers?
The questioner : It is hers.
The Shaykh : It is hers.
The questioner : Did he not deceive her?
The Shaykh : A minute. It is hers. Did you understand? The author says: "And he may seek recourse for it", meaning with this mahr, "from the one who deceived him, if found". He seeks recourse for it from whom?
The questioner : The husband.
The Shaykh : The husband from the one who deceived him, if found. So who deceived him? The one who deceived him is the wali (guardian), because he is the one who contracted. But the author says "if found." So if the wali says, "I did not know about the defect, and I did not deceive or trick," we look: did the wife deceive him? If she deceived him, he seeks recourse from her, because the author's statement "from the one who deceived him" includes the wife and the wali. So if she says, "I did not know about the defect at all," does the husband seek recourse from anyone? Hmm?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, he does not seek recourse, and that is the truth. This is the correct opinion. He does not seek recourse from anyone. But you might say, how can she not know when the defect is in her? Yes, it is possible. It might be a spot of vitiligo between her shoulders. Yes, this is possible. Can she not know, or is it not possible?
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : Hmm? It is possible she does not know, because a person, even if he bathes, for example, and takes off his clothes, he cannot see what is between his shoulders, is that not so? So she does not know. She says, "By Allah, I did not know about this thing." And the one who bathes also bathes alone, he is not with anyone, so we cannot say, "If you did not see it, those around you saw it." So this can exist.
And in summary, now, if the annulment is before consummation and seclusion, hmm?
The questioner : There is no mahr.
The Shaykh : There is no mahr, no mahr, whether the defect is in the husband or in the wife. And the correct opinion is that if the defect is in the husband, she has half the mahr. Okay, if it is after consummation and seclusion? She has the full mahr, and the husband seeks recourse for it from the one who deceived him, if found. If the wife informed the wali about the defect, but the wali said, "I will not stipulate it to the husband. Yes, perhaps Allah will cure her from this disease, or something like that," then who is the one who deceived?
The questioner : The wali.
The Shaykh : The wali. And if the wife did not inform the wali, then who is the one who deceived?
The questioner : The wife.
The Shaykh : The wife. And if the wife did not know about the defect, there is no deception, and in this case, he does not seek recourse for the mahr from anyone.
The questioner : The time is up.
The Shaykh : And the time is over.
The questioner : ... it is necessary ... .
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : After the fiqh.
The Shaykh : Five minutes, okay.
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you...
The Shaykh : Five minutes, yes?
O David, indeed We have made you a successor upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth
يا داود إنا جعلناك خليفة في الأرض فاحكم بين الناس بالحقThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The first one annuls it. So why is this not like that? We say this is because it is a marriage contract, so more caution is taken with it. And because a judge might come who sees that this defect for which she annulled is not a defect, and he rules for the continuation of what? The continuation of the marriage. So if she goes to the judge and he annuls the contract, this becomes a ruling, and the ruling of the judge is not overturned. And because that is safer in reality, safer so that no dispute occurs. The husband might say, "This is not a defect," and she says, "It is a defect," and so on.
If the annulment is completed, does she have to observe the waiting period? And does she have a mahr, or what? We say, as for the issue of the waiting period, if it is after seclusion or consummation, meaning intercourse, then she has to observe the waiting period. And if it is before that, she has no waiting period, because any separation between the husband and wife before consummation and seclusion has no waiting period.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "If it is before consummation, there is no mahr". This is the issue of the mahr. Also, if it is before consummation, meaning and seclusion, there is no mahr. Why?
The questioner : She is the one who annulled it.
The Shaykh : Because if the defect is in her, she is the cause of it. And if it is in the husband, she is the one who chose the annulment, so she has no mahr. Are you with us?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, we say if it is before consummation and seclusion, there is no mahr. Why? Because if the defect is in the husband, she is the one who annulled the contract. And if it is in her, she is the cause... If the defect is in her, she does not deserve anything, and this is clear because she is the cause of the annulment. So if she is the cause of the annulment, she has nothing. An example of that is a contract with a woman, and after contracting with her, it became clear to him that she is a hunchback and cannot be had intercourse with, so he annulled the marriage. Does she have a mahr?
The questioner : She does not have it.
The Shaykh : No, because she is the cause. Okay, a man contracted with a woman and did not consummate the marriage, then it became clear that the man is impotent and cannot have intercourse, so she annulled it. She annulled it before consummation and seclusion. The author says she has no mahr. Why?
The questioner : She is the one who annulled it.
The Shaykh : Because she is the one who annulled it. How can she annul it and then we say to her, "half the mahr"? Do you understand now, or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Or not, because the weak opinion... are you not understanding? We say if the annulment is before consummation and seclusion, she has no mahr, not half of it and not all of it. Why? If the defect is in her, what?
The questioner : She is the cause.
The Shaykh : She is the cause, and the husband is excused. And she might have also deceived him, so we do not enable the one who deceived to have the deception and the compensation. And if the defect is in the husband and she says, "I don't want it, I don't want a defective husband," it is said because she is the one who separated, so the separation is from her side. But the stronger, established opinion is that if the defect is in the husband, he owes half the mahr, because he is the cause of the annulment. And it is known that if he divorces before consummation, she has half the mahr, by the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them an obligation, then [give] half of what you specified
وَإِنْ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ وَقَدْ فَرَضْتُمْ لَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً فَنِصْفُ ما فَرَضْتُمْIn summary, if the annulment is before consummation and seclusion, what?
The questioner : There is no mahr.
The Shaykh : There is no mahr for the wife according to the author's statement, whether the defect is in her or in the husband. And the correct opinion is that if the defect is in the husband, she has half the mahr, because he is the one who deceived her. Okay.
"And after it, she is entitled to the specified amount". After what? After consummation, she, meaning the wife, is entitled to the specified amount. This is a description of a described thing that is omitted, and the estimation is "the specified mahr." She has the mahr, specified, whether little or much. An example of that is a man who married a woman and consummated the marriage, and after consummation, it became clear that there is a defect in him, so she annulled the marriage. Does she have the mahr? Hmm?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah. After consummation?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, she has the full mahr by what he made lawful of her private parts. So she is given the full mahr and the marriage is annulled. This is one case. And if a defect is found in her, she also has the mahr. Why? Because the mahr became established.
The questioner : By consummation.
The Shaykh : By consummation. It became established by consummation, so she has the full mahr. So if this man, brothers, if this man had given her a mahr of one hundred thousand riyals, and it became clear that there is a defect in her and he cannot reside with her, so he annulled the contract because of this defect, does he retrieve the one hundred thousand riyals, or is it hers?
The questioner : It is hers.
The Shaykh : It is hers.
The questioner : Did he not deceive her?
The Shaykh : A minute. It is hers. Did you understand? The author says: "And he may seek recourse for it", meaning with this mahr, "from the one who deceived him, if found". He seeks recourse for it from whom?
The questioner : The husband.
The Shaykh : The husband from the one who deceived him, if found. So who deceived him? The one who deceived him is the wali (guardian), because he is the one who contracted. But the author says "if found." So if the wali says, "I did not know about the defect, and I did not deceive or trick," we look: did the wife deceive him? If she deceived him, he seeks recourse from her, because the author's statement "from the one who deceived him" includes the wife and the wali. So if she says, "I did not know about the defect at all," does the husband seek recourse from anyone? Hmm?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, he does not seek recourse, and that is the truth. This is the correct opinion. He does not seek recourse from anyone. But you might say, how can she not know when the defect is in her? Yes, it is possible. It might be a spot of vitiligo between her shoulders. Yes, this is possible. Can she not know, or is it not possible?
The questioner : It is possible.
The Shaykh : Hmm? It is possible she does not know, because a person, even if he bathes, for example, and takes off his clothes, he cannot see what is between his shoulders, is that not so? So she does not know. She says, "By Allah, I did not know about this thing." And the one who bathes also bathes alone, he is not with anyone, so we cannot say, "If you did not see it, those around you saw it." So this can exist.
And in summary, now, if the annulment is before consummation and seclusion, hmm?
The questioner : There is no mahr.
The Shaykh : There is no mahr, no mahr, whether the defect is in the husband or in the wife. And the correct opinion is that if the defect is in the husband, she has half the mahr. Okay, if it is after consummation and seclusion? She has the full mahr, and the husband seeks recourse for it from the one who deceived him, if found. If the wife informed the wali about the defect, but the wali said, "I will not stipulate it to the husband. Yes, perhaps Allah will cure her from this disease, or something like that," then who is the one who deceived?
The questioner : The wali.
The Shaykh : The wali. And if the wife did not inform the wali, then who is the one who deceived?
The questioner : The wife.
The Shaykh : The wife. And if the wife did not know about the defect, there is no deception, and in this case, he does not seek recourse for the mahr from anyone.
The questioner : The time is up.
The Shaykh : And the time is over.
The questioner : ... it is necessary ... .
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : After the fiqh.
The Shaykh : Five minutes, okay.
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you...
The Shaykh : Five minutes, yes?