And there is no expiation, and taking back the wife is valid
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says "And there is no expiation", meaning there is no expiation in it. What is the evidence? The evidence is the absence of evidence, Sami. The evidence for the absence of expiation is the absence of evidence. Explain this to us?
The questioner : The evidence for the absence of expiation is well known.
The Shaykh : Explain it to us, I am learning.
The questioner : The evidence that there is no expiation.
The Shaykh : In the marriage contract, the evidence is the absence of evidence.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Some people are slow to understand and do not get it until the second or third time.
The questioner : The evidence for the marriage contract.
The Shaykh : No, the evidence that there is no expiation in the marriage contract is the absence of evidence.
The questioner : That is, the evidence that when a man contracts marriage with his wife in one of the three forms, there is no expiation in it, is the absence of evidence.
The Shaykh : What does the absence of evidence mean?
The questioner : It means there is no evidence that obligates the expiation.
The Shaykh : Well done. The evidence is the absence of evidence, meaning there is no evidence that obligates the expiation. The original state is the innocence of the conscience and the absence of obligation. The original state is the innocence of the conscience and the absence of obligation. Is that clear, everyone? So if someone says, "If you take this original state, then say there is no expiation in perfume and no expiation in clothing, because there is no evidence that there is an expiation in them. The evidence only came regarding shaving the head and the penalty for hunting. Where is the evidence for the obligation of expiation in wearing a shirt, trousers, a cardigan, a turban, or socks? There is only a prohibition in them. Yes, what is the evidence?" They say the evidence is analogy, because the operative cause in their view for the prohibition of shaving the head is indulgence, and a person indulges in clothing. The truth is that there is another opinion regarding the marriage contract that there is an expiation by analogy to clothing, and they said that a person's indulgence in the marriage contract is stronger. That is, what is a person's feeling when he contracts marriage with a girl he desires, or when he wears a torn shirt? Which is stronger, the first or the second? The first one makes him almost walk on air from the intensity of the joy, and this is the opposite! In any case, the opinion that the evidence is the absence of evidence is one that the soul finds reassuring. Therefore, we see that there is no expiation in the marriage contract, but there is sin and the marriage is defective.
Now, if someone says, "If he contracted marriage while not knowing that contracting marriage in the state of ihram is forbidden, then there is no sin, as will come if Allah wills. But is the marriage valid?" It is not valid, because contracts are judged by the actual reality.
Then he said "And taking back the wife is valid". What is taking back the wife? It means that a man takes back his divorced wife over whom he has the right of taking back. For example, a man entered the state of ihram for 'Umrah or Hajj, and he had previously divorced his wife with a revocable divorce, so he wanted to take her back. He came to ask and said, "I want to take back my wife. Can I take her back while I am in the state of ihram?" We say, yes, there is no blame on him. Taking back the wife is valid, and taking back the wife is also permissible. Here we distinguished between initiating the marriage and continuing the marriage. This is because taking back the wife is not called a contract, but rather a return, and because continuation is stronger than initiation. Have you seen that perfume is permissible for the one in the state of ihram at the time of entering ihram to use perfume and enter ihram, and the perfume on his body is permissible? But if he wanted to start using perfume anew, we said it is not permissible, because continuation is stronger than initiation. Here we have two branches based on this rule regarding the prohibitions of ihram. What is the first branch?
The audience: Perfume.
The Shaykh : Perfume. He continues using it but does not start using it anew. The second branch is marriage. He continues it but does not start it anew. He continues it by what? By taking back the wife. If he had divorced his wife and took her back while in the state of ihram, then taking back the wife is lawful and valid, unlike the contract.
The questioner : The evidence for the absence of expiation is well known.
The Shaykh : Explain it to us, I am learning.
The questioner : The evidence that there is no expiation.
The Shaykh : In the marriage contract, the evidence is the absence of evidence.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Some people are slow to understand and do not get it until the second or third time.
The questioner : The evidence for the marriage contract.
The Shaykh : No, the evidence that there is no expiation in the marriage contract is the absence of evidence.
The questioner : That is, the evidence that when a man contracts marriage with his wife in one of the three forms, there is no expiation in it, is the absence of evidence.
The Shaykh : What does the absence of evidence mean?
The questioner : It means there is no evidence that obligates the expiation.
The Shaykh : Well done. The evidence is the absence of evidence, meaning there is no evidence that obligates the expiation. The original state is the innocence of the conscience and the absence of obligation. The original state is the innocence of the conscience and the absence of obligation. Is that clear, everyone? So if someone says, "If you take this original state, then say there is no expiation in perfume and no expiation in clothing, because there is no evidence that there is an expiation in them. The evidence only came regarding shaving the head and the penalty for hunting. Where is the evidence for the obligation of expiation in wearing a shirt, trousers, a cardigan, a turban, or socks? There is only a prohibition in them. Yes, what is the evidence?" They say the evidence is analogy, because the operative cause in their view for the prohibition of shaving the head is indulgence, and a person indulges in clothing. The truth is that there is another opinion regarding the marriage contract that there is an expiation by analogy to clothing, and they said that a person's indulgence in the marriage contract is stronger. That is, what is a person's feeling when he contracts marriage with a girl he desires, or when he wears a torn shirt? Which is stronger, the first or the second? The first one makes him almost walk on air from the intensity of the joy, and this is the opposite! In any case, the opinion that the evidence is the absence of evidence is one that the soul finds reassuring. Therefore, we see that there is no expiation in the marriage contract, but there is sin and the marriage is defective.
Now, if someone says, "If he contracted marriage while not knowing that contracting marriage in the state of ihram is forbidden, then there is no sin, as will come if Allah wills. But is the marriage valid?" It is not valid, because contracts are judged by the actual reality.
Then he said "And taking back the wife is valid". What is taking back the wife? It means that a man takes back his divorced wife over whom he has the right of taking back. For example, a man entered the state of ihram for 'Umrah or Hajj, and he had previously divorced his wife with a revocable divorce, so he wanted to take her back. He came to ask and said, "I want to take back my wife. Can I take her back while I am in the state of ihram?" We say, yes, there is no blame on him. Taking back the wife is valid, and taking back the wife is also permissible. Here we distinguished between initiating the marriage and continuing the marriage. This is because taking back the wife is not called a contract, but rather a return, and because continuation is stronger than initiation. Have you seen that perfume is permissible for the one in the state of ihram at the time of entering ihram to use perfume and enter ihram, and the perfume on his body is permissible? But if he wanted to start using perfume anew, we said it is not permissible, because continuation is stronger than initiation. Here we have two branches based on this rule regarding the prohibitions of ihram. What is the first branch?
The audience: Perfume.
The Shaykh : Perfume. He continues using it but does not start using it anew. The second branch is marriage. He continues it but does not start it anew. He continues it by what? By taking back the wife. If he had divorced his wife and took her back while in the state of ihram, then taking back the wife is lawful and valid, unlike the contract.