Benefits of the Hadith: (Put on your clothes and return to your family).

The Shaykh : So let us return to the benefits of the hadith, as long as they do not contradict the principles.
His saying: From this it is derived that it is the woman who enters upon the husband, which is why it is said: "His wife is brought to him." The custom of people today is that the husband enters upon his wife, but this does not contradict the Sunnah, because it appears that this is a matter of custom and not a matter of worship. If it is a matter of custom, then custom and usage are followed in it, as long as it does not contradict the Shari'ah.
And it is derived from this hadith that it is permissible for the wife to be naked before her husband, and likewise for the husband before his wife. This is permissible by the explicit text of the Qur'an. Allah the Exalted said: So this includes guarding the private parts from fornication and from looking as well.
And among the benefits of this hadith is that there is no blame on a person if he finds a congenital defect in his wife and he divorces her. It is not said: "This congenital defect is from Allah Mighty and Majestic, and she cannot get rid of it." Because we say: if a person does not desire food, he is not forced to eat it. Likewise, if his soul is not at ease with this wife, there is no blame on him. If someone says: "This breaks her heart, because she is then afflicted from two sides: the first is the defect in her, and the second is what? The separation from the husband." We say: This is among the calamities, and the calamities that befall a person—pay attention—are themselves expiations for sins. They expiate sins, and then if the person is patient and seeks reward from Allah, there is the reward of patience in them. So in any case, calamities, if a person is patient with them, expiate sins, and then if he seeks reward from Allah, they become a reward. He is rewarded with the reward of the patient. So we say to this woman who was afflicted with what necessitated that her husband separate from her: You were afflicted by the command of Allah and His decree, so for you is the reward. Be patient and seek reward.
And among the benefits of this hadith is: arguing from the necessary consequence to the thing that necessitates it. Where is this taken from? From his saying: So this is a necessary consequence of his separating from her.
And among the benefits of this hadith is also: that his saying: "Return to your family" is from the words of separation. But do we say that this is a divorce or a hint at annulment? It is possible. If we look at the cause, which is the defect, we say: it is a hint at annulment. And if we look at the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to her regarding the mahr, we say: this is from divorce, because his choosing divorce indicates that he wanted her, but he could not bear living with her, so he divorced her. But perhaps someone will say: "We understand it as being for separation, i.e., for annulment," meaning it is for annulment a hint at annulment, and the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to her regarding the mahr is from the category of generosity, even though it is not obligatory on him, because she deceived him. But this is from the category of generosity, and how abundant was the generosity of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)! Here he is with Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah (may Allah be pleased with them both), he bought the camel from him and gave him the camel and what? And the dirhams. He gave him the camel and the dirhams. So the command regarding the mahr, if it is based on the understanding that his saying: is a divorce, then the command in it is clear. What is the aspect of clarity? Because it is a divorce after seclusion, and divorce after seclusion necessitates the full mahr. And if the intended meaning of his saying: is annulment, then there is a problem, because if the husband annuls the marriage with the woman because of a defect, he takes back the mahr, meaning: he takes the mahr which is the compensation. So we say in answer to this problem: this is from the category of what? From the category of the generosity of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
Now, assuming the authenticity of this hadith, it is derived from it: that leprosy or vitiligo is a defect by which the marriage is annulled, do you understand? And it is so. If the husband finds leprosy in his wife, he has the right of annulment. And if she finds it in him, she has the right of annulment. There is no difference between this leprosy being inside the clothes or outside the clothes, by the proof that the Messenger saw this whiteness on her chest inside the clothes. Let no one say: "What is inside the clothes is covered and does not appear." We say: But the feeling of the husband or the wife about this defect necessitates the revulsion of the soul and its dislike.
It is possible to take from this a rule: this is a principle in the establishment of the option of annulment due to a defect. And if the option of annulment due to a defect is established, and the husband has paid a mahr, he has paid the mahr, so if he annuls because of the defect, is his mahr lost? No, we say: the mahr, if it is after consummation, he gave the mahr and then the husband takes it back from the one who deceived him. Who deceived him? The direct guardian, unless the guardian was not aware of the defect, then it is taken back from the woman. It is taken back from the woman. This is if the mahr was established by consummation. But if the defect was known before he had seclusion with her, then there is nothing. It is annulled and she has nothing, because she deceived him and tricked him, so she has nothing.
The summary now: if the annulment is for a defect before seclusion and consummation, there is no mahr, she has nothing. And if it is after consummation or seclusion, she has the mahr, and the husband takes it back from the one who deceived him. Who deceived him? The guardian, because he is the direct one. If the guardian did not know, he takes it back from the woman. If the woman did not know.
The student: How can she not know?

The Shaykh : Yes, suppose it is leprosy on her back, for example, no one told her and she does not know, because it is known that the eye is in the front. Is it possible or not possible?
The student: It is possible.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is possible that she does not see it.
The student: Her mother knows.

The Shaykh : Her mother is not concerned. Her mother... her clothes are on her.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, the question is: is it possible that the defect is not known and it is not possible?
The student: It is possible.

The Shaykh : It is possible. So if the guardian did not know and the woman did not know, then he has nothing, because he was not deceived and not tricked. Now, this rule in the issue of annulment due to a defect.
But what is the defect by which annulment occurs? Is it limited or counted?
First: the scholars differed on annulment due to a defect. Some of the scholars said: there is no annulment, and it is said to the husband: if you are satisfied with her with the defect, otherwise divorce her. And this is clear for the husband... because what does he do if he does not want her, he divorces her. But the problem is if the defect is in the husband, and the woman says: "I do not want him." They say: she should be patient and seek reward, this is from the trials. And this is the madhhab of the Zahiriyyah that there is no annulment due to a defect. Why? They said: because the narrations regarding annulment due to a defect are weak and a legal ruling cannot be built upon them. And analogizing marriage to sale is what? Not correct. Why? Because the Zahiriyyah do not consider analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning is invalid with them, so there is no analogical reasoning with them. And based on these two premises, annulment due to a defect is negated, because if the narrations are weak and analogical reasoning is invalid, we have no evidence. But the majority of the scholars opposed them in this and said: rather, the defect is a cause for annulment or a justification for annulment. This is the correct view: the defect is a justification for annulment, whether it is in the husband or the wife. And they said: if these narrations are not authentic individually, then they are authentic in their totality.
Second: the analogy regarding the defect. If a person buys a donkey and finds a defect in it, he has the right to return it. And what is done with the donkey? It is ridden. How is the woman? He finds a defect in her. He marries a woman, and if her ears are torn, her fingers are cut off, she is deaf, blind, and mute, how is this?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : We say: this does not have the option. And if a person finds a limp in a donkey he bought, we say: you have the option.
Then we say: the defect is contrary to the requirement of marriage, because Allah the Exalted said: What? And how can there be affection with a defect that a person is repelled by and wishes not to see in his life? Where is the affection and where is the tranquility? For this reason, the text, or the hint of the text, and the narrations, and the correct analogical reasoning, all indicate what? The establishment of the annulment of marriage due to a defect. It remains to look at whether the defects are limited or counted. Some scholars said: they are counted, three, some four, five, ten. And others said: rather, they are limited. And this saying is the correct one. So let us follow the narrations mentioned by the author.