Issue 9, Arguments for the Recommendation of Seeking Permission from the Father and Grandfather

Session Forty-Seven

Issue 9 – Arguments for the Recommendation of Seeking Permission from the Father and Grandfather – First Argument: Specific Narrations – An Objection and Its Response – Second Argument: Unqualified Narrations – An Objection and Response

January 24, 2026

Summary of the Previous Session

In the ninth issue, we stated that the subject consists of a woman who is considered to possess discretion over her own affairs in marriage; three claims or three rulings have been raised concerning this subject. We stated that the absolutely certain instance (qadr musallam) of the subject is the thayyib, and based on certain foundational views (mabānī), it encompasses the mature virgin as well; on the basis that we consider the mature virgin independent in the matter of marriage, not sharing it with the father, nor being entirely under the guardianship of the father; rather, the discretion is in her own hands. The first claim was that it is recommended to seek permission from her father or her grandfather; we stated that several arguments have been advanced for this claim.
The first argument is the specific narrations; what is meant by specific narrations are those narrations that specifically concerning the mature virgin indicate the necessity of seeking permission from the father or grandfather; except that we stated, since opposite these narrations there are narrations that negate seeking permission and indicate the independence of the mature virgin in the matter of marriage, in reconciling them, these narrations are interpreted as recommendation. Thus, the formulation of the argumentation upon these narrations for the recommendation of seeking permission is that we, by means of the narrations negating the necessity of seeking permission, interpret these narrations as the recommendation of seeking permission and relinquish their [apparent purport of] obligation. We cited several narrations in this regard, which were the specific narrations.

Objection

Here, the author of Ḥadāʾiq has raised an objection, which the author of Jawāhir has also related, and that is: the narrations that have prohibited the marriage of the virgin without the father’s permission indicate the reprehensibility (karāhah) of autocracy (istibdād); meaning, if the virgin marries on her own accord, by her own opinion, and without seeking permission and authorization from the father, it is reprehensible. If these narrations indicate reprehensibility, we cannot derive the recommendation of seeking permission; in other words, these narrations do not indicate the recommendation of seeking permission from the father and grandfather; rather, if we consider the totality of the narrations, the reprehensibility of autocracy in marriage is derived; meaning the reprehensibility of autocracy and not seeking permission. There is a difference between considering something reprehensible and considering its exact opposite recommended. Seeking permission and autocracy stand in opposition to one another; autocracy means persisting in one’s own opinion; seeking permission means obtaining authorization from him. It makes a difference to say autocracy is reprehensible or seeking permission is recommended. Therefore, what is derived from these narrations is the reprehensibility of autocracy, not the recommendation of seeking permission. The recommendation of seeking permission, which is our claim and which we are discussing here, is not derived from these narrations.

Response

The author of Jawāhir himself states: “Unless it is claimed that this is derived conventionally (ʿurfiyyan)”; unless it is claimed that a conventional entailment (mulāzamah) exists between these two. When autocracy is reprehensible, seeking permission is recommended; when they prohibit marriage without the father’s permission, it means autocracy and acting upon one’s own opinion without the father’s authorization is reprehensible. The reprehensibility of autocracy conventionally entails the recommendation of seeking permission; unless someone wishes to prove it through the avenue of this connection and conventional entailment.
With the articulation we stated in formulating the argumentation, perhaps there is no room for this objection; those narrations indicate the necessity of seeking permission. The narrations that oppose them indicate the independence of the virgin; meaning seeking permission is not necessary. If we, by the indication of the narrations demonstrating the daughter’s independence, interpret the narrations demonstrating the obligation and necessity of seeking permission as recommendation, there is no longer any problem. Meaning, by means of the opposing narrations, we relinquish the apparent purport of obligation in these narrations; this is a conventional reconciliation (jamʿ ʿurfī) and possesses no problem whatsoever; and therefore there is no longer any need to enter through the avenue of conventional entailment between the reprehensibility of autocracy and the recommendation of seeking permission. When we view these two groups of narrations, we say that in reconciling them, we interpret the narrations demonstrating the necessity of seeking permission as recommendation.

Second Argument: Unqualified Narrations

The second category is the unqualified narrations; what is meant by unqualified narrations are those narrations that encompass both the virgin and the thayyib. Because the first group comprised narrations that pertained solely to the virgin; but the second group comprises narrations from which, in an unqualified manner (ʿalā al-iṭlāq), concerning the woman (marʾah) and the girl (jāriyah), the issue of seeking permission is derived. Among them is the narration of ʿUbayd ibn Zurārah, whose apparent purport is that the daughter has no discretion opposite the father and must seek permission; except that this seeking permission bears more of a moral aspect and the observance of courtesy (adab) and respect.
“From ʿUbayd ibn Zurārah, from Abū ʿAbdillāh (peace be upon him), who said: I was one day with Ziyād ibn ʿUbaydillāh al-Ḥārithī when a man came seeking justice against his father. He said: ‘May God rectify the Emir. My father married my daughter off without my permission.’ Ziyād said to his companions who were with him: ‘What do you say concerning what this man says?'” He says I was with Ziyād ibn ʿUbaydillāh al-Ḥārithī when someone came and was complaining about his father, and addressing the Emir, said: My father has married my daughter off without my permission. Ziyād said to those who were present in that gathering: What do you say, and what is your opinion? What is your opinion concerning this issue that this man raises? “They said: ‘His marriage is invalid.'” They said his marriage is invalid. “He said: Then he turned to me and said: ‘What do you say, O Abū ʿAbdillāh?’ When he asked me, I turned to those who had answered him and said to them: ‘Is it not among what you yourselves transmit from the Messenger of God (peace be upon him and his progeny) that a man came seeking justice against his father in a matter like this, and the Messenger of God (peace be upon him and his progeny) said to him: “You and your wealth belong to your father”?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ So I said to them: ‘How can this be, when he and his wealth belong to his father, yet his [the father’s] marriage [of the daughter] is not permitted?’ He said: So he took their statement and left my statement.” Then he turned to me and said: What do you say, O Abū ʿAbdillāh? I said a similar incident occurred in the presence of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him and his progeny); someone came and complained and brought a grievance against his father; the Messenger of God (peace be upon him and his progeny) said to him: You and your wealth belong to your father. Then he says, how can it be that this person, he and his wealth belong to their father, but his [the father’s] marriage [of the daughter] is not permitted? The apparent purport of this sentence is that this marriage is not invalid; they said the marriage is invalid, but the Imam stated the marriage is not invalid. However, his stating that it is not invalid, in reality, seems to point to a point of etiquette among etiquettes; meaning it is a moral recommendation, not a binding obligation. It is as though he wishes to say respect and courtesy toward the father require that the father’s opinion be obtained. As for what some have stated here, that because the father performed this act and the daughter or her father had no knowledge, this is invalid—this is not the case either. In reality, these narrations wish to say courtesy and respect toward the father and grandfather are necessary; but this courtesy and respect are not solely for the father and grandfather; generally, elders, the mother, the eldest brother, or the paternal uncle—this respect exists for all of them. It wishes to say that concerning the father and grandfather, beyond this respect, the recommendation of permission is established. Our discussion is concerning the recommendation of seeking permission; we have no recommendation of seeking permission concerning the mother, the paternal uncle, or the brother in the presence of the father. Yes, every [act of] respect toward an elder is recommended. Now, later on we shall indicate a matter that the late Mr. Khoei has stated; at times we wish to see whether seeking permission and obtaining authorization is recommended in its own title (bi-ʿunwānih), and at times we say this is recommended under the category of respect for an elder, not that it itself is recommended in its essence (fī nafsih); because it is an instance of respect, it is recommended.
In any case, this narration by its unqualified scope encompasses the thayyib and the virgin; because the discussion is of the girl (jāriyah) and daughter. Concerning the daughter, it says that if she wishes to marry, this encompasses the thayyib and the mature virgin. We have other narrations similar to this, on the basis of which we can say the thayyib‘s seeking permission from the father in the matter of marriage is recommended.
Thus, the conclusion is that according to certain narrations (the unqualified narrations), seeking permission from the father or grandfather is recommended; according to certain narrations (the specific narrations), it is recommended for the mature virgin as well to seek permission in the matter of marriage.

Objection

The late Mr. Khoei has raised an objection to the unqualified narrations. He states these narrations, according to their apparent purport, possess an unqualified scope; because they indicate the validity of the girl’s seeking permission, whether she be a virgin or a thayyib. He accepts that some unqualified narrations indicate the recommendation of seeking permission, however, he believes these unqualified narrations must be interpreted as referring to the virgin; meaning, they do not encompass the thayyib. Why? To reconcile the reports (jamʿan bayna al-akhbār); because those narrations are concerning the virgin and the virgin’s seeking permission has been raised in them, to reconcile the reports we must say these narrations, too, are concerning the virgin; in order to prevent their contradiction and reconcile them. Therefore, he believes that since we are forced, to reconcile the reports, to interpret the unqualified narrations as referring to the virgin and consider them restricted to the virgin, these unqualified narrations do not indicate the recommendation of seeking permission in relation to the thayyib.
He has also raised another objection, which is that he wishes to conclude generally that we have no narration whatsoever indicating the recommendation of the thayyib‘s seeking permission from the father under its specific title (bi-ʿunwānih al-khāṣṣ).
Thus, Mr. Khoei has an objection to the unqualified narrations; he has also raised another objection here, and his aim is to say we absolutely have no narration concerning the recommendation of the thayyib‘s seeking permission under its specific title. Yes, if someone were to say, under the title of respect for an elder, under the title that seeking permission in the matter of marriage is among the most manifest instances of respect for the father and grandfather—under that title it is recommended—this is no longer specific to the father and grandfather; seeking permission out of respect is also established for the mother, the paternal uncle, and the like; the father and grandfather no longer possess any particularity. The late Mr. Khoei believes that here the mature virgin is excluded from the locus of discussion; because concerning the mature virgin, he considers the consent of the father or grandfather and the consent of the daughter necessary. He rejected the view of independence; therefore, he states that if our foundational view is the adjunction of the father and grandfather’s consent, the issue of the recommendation of seeking permission is set aside entirely. The recommendation of seeking permission is raised in the event that we hold to the daughter’s independence in the matter of marriage, otherwise there is no place for this discussion; we say both her own consent is necessary and the father’s consent. Therefore, he considers it excluded from the subject of discussion. Concerning the thayyib, too, he claims we cannot establish anything as the recommendation of seeking permission; we have no specific narration or argument for the recommendation of seeking permission. Now, we shall explain his statement further; for now, the main point is the objection he has raised against the unqualified narrations; he says we must interpret this as referring to the virgin and it does not encompass the thayyib.

Response

It appears this statement of the late Mr. Khoei is subject to objection. Because without considering those narrations, it is clear that it possesses an unqualified scope and encompasses the thayyib as well. In the context of reconciling the reports, too, the path is not restricted to this avenue the late Mr. Khoei has stated—that we interpret this as referring to the virgin. The path is what was indicated; we previously stated as well that we can claim, in the context of reconciling these reports, that these narrations indicate the recommendation of seeking permission. Yes, had the path been restricted to what the late Mr. Khoei stated, the right would be his; but for reconciling the reports, other than interpreting it as referring to the virgin, we have another path as well. Therefore, his objection against the unqualified narrations is not valid. We shall examine his second objection in the next session, God willing.