Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And it is a condition for its obligation upon a woman that her mahram (a relative one may not marry) be present, and he is her husband or one who is forbidden to her permanently by lineage or a lawful cause."

The Shaykh : He must be willing to travel with her. Pay attention, meaning it is not sufficient for a mahram (a relative one may not marry) to merely be present; rather, it is necessary that a mahram (a relative one may not marry) be present who agrees to travel with her. It is understood from the author's words that the presence of a mahram (a relative one may not marry) is a condition for the obligation, because his presence is included in the ability (istita'ah) that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has made a condition for the obligation of Hajj. This inability, which I mean the inability of a woman who has no mahram (a relative one may not marry) to reach Makkah, is a legal inability, not a physical inability. So she is like one who has no money, and Hajj is not obligatory upon her. If she dies and she has a lot of money, but she did not find a mahram (a relative one may not marry) to travel with her, does Hajj come out of her estate, or do we say that she owes nothing? The second option, because this is a condition for the obligation. Some scholars said "That the mahram (a relative one may not marry) is a condition for the obligation of performing it personally, not for the obligation itself". Based on this opinion, we say that if this woman finds a mahram (a relative one may not marry) in her lifetime, it is obligatory for her to perform Hajj herself. If she does not find one, then if she dies, Hajj is performed on her behalf from her estate, because the presence of a mahram (a relative one may not marry) is a condition for what? For the obligation of performing it personally, and not a condition for the obligation itself. But the correct view of the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) is that it is a condition for the obligation, because this woman is unable to reach the sacred sites with a legal inability, so Hajj is not obligatory upon her. And based on this, we say that when the author said "It is a condition for its obligation", this indicates that a woman who does not find a mahram (a relative one may not marry) to travel with her is not obligated to perform Hajj, and if she dies, she does not die in a state of sin, and nothing comes out of her estate to perform Hajj.
Now, the second opinion in this matter is that it is a condition for the obligation of performing it, meaning a condition for the obligation of performing it personally, and not a condition for the obligation itself. And based on that, we say that if she dies, it is obligatory to bring out Hajj from her estate, because it is obligatory upon her.
He says "And it is a condition for its obligation upon a woman that her mahram (a relative one may not marry) be present, and he is—meaning the mahram (a relative one may not marry)—her husband or one who is forbidden to her permanently by lineage or a lawful cause". He says the mahram (a relative one may not marry) is the husband, or one who is forbidden to her permanently by lineage, meaning by kinship, or by a lawful cause. The lawful cause means that two things occurred: the first is breastfeeding (rada'), and the second is affinity (mushaharah). As for lineage, the mahram (a relative one may not marry) is the father, the son, the brother, the paternal uncle, the son of the brother, the son of the sister, and the maternal uncle. How many are these? These are seven: the father, the son, the brother, the paternal uncle, the maternal uncle, the son of the brother, and the son of the sister. These are seven. These are mahram (a relative one may not marry) by lineage. Are these forbidden permanently, or for a limited time?
The audience: Permanently.

The Shaykh : Now, the lawful cause, we said, is limited to two things: affinity (mushaharah) and breastfeeding (rada'). The mahram (a relative one may not marry) by breastfeeding is like the mahram (a relative one may not marry) by lineage, exactly the same. So her mahram (a relative one may not marry) by breastfeeding is her father by breastfeeding, her son by breastfeeding, her brother by breastfeeding, her paternal uncle by breastfeeding, her maternal uncle by breastfeeding, her brother's son by breastfeeding, and her sister's son by breastfeeding. Seven by breastfeeding and seven by lineage. How many are these? Fourteen.
The mahram (a relative one may not marry) by affinity (mushaharah) are of four types: the father of the woman's husband, the son of the woman's husband, the husband of the woman's mother, and the husband of the woman's daughter. The mahram (a relative one may not marry) by affinity (mushaharah) are of four types: the father of the woman's husband, the son of the woman's husband, the husband of the woman's mother, and the husband of the woman's daughter. But three of them become mahram (a relative one may not marry) merely by the contract: the father of the woman's husband, the son of the woman's husband, and the husband of the woman's daughter. Yes. As for the husband of her mother, he does not become a mahram (a relative one may not marry) unless he has intercourse with her. Is that clear? The husband of her mother does not become a mahram (a relative one may not marry) for her unless he has intercourse with her mother.
And the author's statement "by a lawful cause" excludes what is established as forbidden by an unlawful cause, such as the mother of the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), the mother of the one with whom one committed liwat (sodomy), and their daughters, according to the opinion that this necessitates prohibition. Meaning, if a man commits zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) with a woman, does he become a mahram (a relative one may not marry) to her mother? No, her mother is forbidden to him permanently. Her daughter? Forbidden to him permanently. And this passed by us in the chapter on prohibited marriages. But the stronger opinion is that the mother of the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) is not forbidden to the fornicator, and the daughter of the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) is not forbidden to the fornicator, because Allah the Exalted said and in another reading , and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) did not mention the mother of the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) and her daughter, but rather He said . And it is known that the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) is not among his wives at all, because his wives are his married wives, so she is not among his wives. If she is not among his wives, then it is not correct to attach the result of unlawful intercourse to the result of a valid marriage. So the stronger opinion is that the mother of the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) and the daughter of the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) are not forbidden to the fornicator. So if he repents from zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), it is permissible for him to marry the mother of the woman with whom he committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) and her daughter. Now, does the woman with whom one had intercourse under a doubt (shubhah) fall under this or not? Meaning, if one had intercourse with a woman under a doubt of contract or belief, is he a mahram (a relative one may not marry) to her mother? The madhhab (school of jurisprudence) says no, because this woman with whom one had intercourse under a doubt is not lawful to him in the inner reality, so the prohibition of her mother or daughter is due to an unlawful cause. And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose that the mother of the woman with whom one had intercourse under a doubt and her daughter are among his mahram (a relative one may not marry). He said "Because when he had intercourse with this woman, he believed she was among his lawful wives, so what follows from this intercourse follows from lawful intercourse". And based on this, whoever has intercourse with a woman under a doubt, her mother becomes forbidden to him and she is among his mahram (a relative one may not marry), and her daughter likewise becomes forbidden to him and she is among his mahram (a relative one may not marry). So the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) is to equate the woman with whom one committed zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) and the woman with whom one had intercourse under a doubt in that her mother and daughter are not among the mahram (a relative one may not marry) of the one who had intercourse. And the correct view is to distinguish between them, and that the mother of the woman with whom one had intercourse under a doubt and her daughter are among the mahram (a relative one may not marry) of the one who had intercourse, because he had intercourse while believing it was lawful. Let us give an example for this: a man married a woman, and then it became clear that she was his sister by breastfeeding. His intercourse with her? Under a doubt, because he did not know the prohibition at the time of intercourse. Do we say that the mother of this wife is forbidden to him? We say yes, she is forbidden to him, there is no doubt in this. But is she among his mahram (a relative one may not marry)? The answer is yes, she is among his mahram (a relative one may not marry), because when he had intercourse with the woman he married, he believed she was lawful for him, so this is intercourse under a doubt.
And the summary is that the mahram (a relative one may not marry) is one who is forbidden to her permanently by lineage or a lawful cause, and the cause is two things: breastfeeding (rada') and affinity (mushaharah). Now, is a woman who is forbidden to him for a limited time among his mahram (a relative one may not marry), like the sister of my wife, for example? She is not among his mahram (a relative one may not marry) because it is not permanent. Although we alerted you when explaining the prohibited marriages and said that the sister of the wife is not forbidden to the husband; the forbidden thing is combining them. And for this, Allah the Exalted said , and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said . We ask the brother Khalid: who is the mahram (a relative one may not marry)? The mahram (a relative one may not marry) of the woman is from whom?

The questioner : Her husband.

The Shaykh : Or one who is forbidden to her permanently by lineage or a lawful cause.