Issue 5, Second Position: Examination of the Establishment of the Option for a Minor Boy

Session Twenty-Four

Issue 5 – Second Position: Examination of the Establishment of the Option for a Minor Boy – Arguments for the Second Position – First Argument: Traditions – First Tradition and Its Examination – Second Tradition and Its Examination – Third Tradition and Its Examination

November 15, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

We stated that the second position regarding the bindingness or non-bindingness of a contract that the father or paternal grandfather has concluded on behalf of a minor boy before maturity, marrying him to a girl, is that this minor boy, after reaching maturity, has the option of rescission and can dissolve this contract, just as he can also accept it and the contract becomes binding. We have referred to those who hold this position, and we have stated, of course, that some have regarded the “option” here as belonging to the category of the option with respect to an unauthorized contract (fuḑūlī), while others regard it as belonging to the category of the option with respect to the contract of the principal party (aṣīl). As we have previously stated, our discussion concerns the latter, because this contract is not unauthorized—since it was concluded by the father or paternal grandfather, who had guardianship; therefore, what they have done is not the act of an unauthorized person. Therefore, when we discuss whether the minor boy, after reaching maturity, has the option of rescission or not, what is meant is whether a contract that was validly concluded and possesses actual validity (ṣiḥḥah fiʿliyyah) can be rescinded by the minor boy after reaching maturity or not.

Arguments for the Second Position

Several arguments have been advanced for this claim—that is, that this contract is revocable (jāʾiz) and that he can dissolve it.

First Argument: Traditions

The most important argument is traditions; several traditions have been mentioned and invoked on this matter.

First Tradition

Among these traditions is the authentic tradition of Muḥammad ibn Muslim: “From Muḥammad ibn Muslim, who said: I asked Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him) about the boy who marries the girl. He said: If it was their two fathers who married them, then yes, it is valid; but they have the option when they reach maturity, and if they consent to it thereafter, the dower is upon the father. I said to him: Is it permissible for the father to divorce his son [on his behalf] during his minority? He (peace be upon him) said: No.” Muḥammad ibn Muslim states: I asked Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) about a minor boy who has married a minor girl; the Imam (peace be upon him) said: if their fathers have married them to one another, it is valid—that is, this contract is effective and valid. But both have the discretion to rescind this marriage, should they reach maturity. Then, if they consent to it after reaching maturity, the dower is upon the father—that is, what has been stipulated as the dower in the contract, which the boy must pay, must be paid by his father. He then raises a further question: can the father, during the period before maturity, obtain a divorce for the boy from that very girl? The Imam (peace be upon him) said: no. The chain of transmission of the tradition presents no problem; with respect to its indication as well, it clearly indicates the discretion to rescind this marriage; it states: “but they have the option when they reach maturity”—this minor girl and minor boy, once they have reached maturity, can dissolve this contract. Therefore, this tradition is sound both in chain of transmission and in indication, and presents no problem; therefore it indicates revocability.

Examination of the First Tradition

There are two objections to invoking this tradition as an argument.

First Objection

In the tradition, the option has also been established for the minor girl, and this is contrary to the consensus on the absence of the option for the minor girl. Even if there were a distinction with respect to the option—that is, if the option were established for the minor boy [alone]—no one has held to the option for the minor girl. This ruling is contrary to consensus, and therefore we cannot hold to a tradition that entails a ruling contrary to consensus.

Second Objection

What emerges from the apparent sense of the tradition pertains to one particular supposition, namely that both are in a state of minority—that is, the minor girl and minor boy have not yet reached the age of maturity. In this case, it means that we cannot say, in an unqualified manner, that if this minor boy is married to a mature girl, he has, upon reaching maturity, the right to dissolve the marriage. In other words, the option pertains only to a supposition in which both are minors. The claim is the establishment of the option in an unqualified manner—that is, that the minor boy, in an unqualified manner, if he is married to a girl or woman, has, after reaching maturity, the option of rescission. But this argument ultimately establishes only that this option is established for them in a case where both are minors. Therefore, the argument is narrower than the claim; hence this tradition cannot establish the option in an unqualified manner. If we wish to explain this in another way, we must say that this is a possible construal of this tradition—that is, granting acceptance of its chain of transmission and indication, we interpret and construe the tradition as pertaining to the supposition in which both are minors.

Second Tradition

The second tradition is the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī: “From Buraid al-Kunāsī, who said: I said to Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him): When is it permissible for the father to marry off his daughter without consulting her?” At what point is it permissible for the father to marry off his daughter to another without seeking her view? This is the part of the tradition relevant to our discussion, where it states: “Indeed, if a boy is married off by his father and has not yet reached maturity, he has the option when he reaches maturity and turns fifteen years of age, or [if] facial hair appears on him, or pubic hair grows [before that].” If a minor boy is married off by his father to another while he has not yet reached maturity, when he reaches maturity, he has the discretion to dissolve the contract. Three pathways to maturity are mentioned here, with which we are not concerned: one, reaching fifteen years of age; or facial hair appearing, or pubic hair growing. These are means of ascertaining the attainment of maturity; we have previously stated, in its proper place, that the reality of maturity is one matter, and the signs of maturity are another. What the Imam has stated here are the signs of maturity, not maturity itself; some signs are natural and definite, and some are signs that hold predominantly (ghālibī). The growth of facial hair is of the predominant kind; this is not the subject of our discussion. The main point is that it states that, when the minor boy reaches maturity, he has the option of rescission.

Examination of the Second Tradition

There is discussion regarding the chain of transmission of this tradition; some have raised objections regarding Yazīd al-Kunāsī. However, on the whole, it appears that his traditions are authoritative; we shall assume that the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī is authoritative. If we have no problem with the tradition with respect to its chain of transmission, certain objections have been raised regarding its indication. We have previously transmitted both this tradition and the tradition of Muḥammad ibn Muslim in the discussion of the establishment of the option for the minor girl, because some of these traditions have been invoked in both positions. This tradition has its own specific objections, apart from what we stated regarding the authentic tradition of Muḥammad ibn Muslim. In any case, some have raised an objection regarding its chain of transmission; for example, the late Āyatullāh Ḥakīm has objected that Yazīd al-Kunāsī is not reliable (thiqah). However, to validate this tradition, he has stated that the presence of certain individuals suggests the reliability of Yazīd al-Kunāsī, because, in the chain of transmission of the tradition, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā, al-Ḥasan ibn Maḥbūb, and Abū Ayyūb al-Khazzāz appear; the presence of these individuals in the chain of transmission, given that they ordinarily do not transmit from someone unreliable, suggests the reliability of Yazīd. We have previously stated that we hold Yazīd al-Kunāsī to be reliable, and we have mentioned the arguments for this. Therefore, with respect to the chain of transmission, there is no problem regarding Yazīd al-Kunāsī. Certain objections have also been raised regarding the indication of this tradition; one objection is that, in the opening of the tradition, the option has been established for the minor girl, and this is contrary to consensus; either we must set this aside, or we must construe the tradition contrary to its apparent sense, because, as we have stated, no one holds to the establishment of the option for the minor girl. Some have also raised a further objection, which, in our view, is not very significant—namely, that three signs have been mentioned for maturity: 1) reaching fifteen years of age; 2) the growth of facial hair; 3) pubic hair growth. The jurists have generally accepted two of these signs: one is reaching fifteen years of age, and the other is the growth of coarse hair in the pubic region; but they have not accepted the growth of facial hair. Therefore, this tradition has been cast into doubt on the grounds that it mentions a sign that is not acceptable. However, it appears that this objection is not very significant; because, in evaluation and comparison with other traditions, the result is that maturity is realized by reaching fifteen years of age and the growth of coarse pubic hair; the growth of hair on the face has not been accepted. Moreover, as I have stated, reaching fifteen years of age is a sign of maturity—that is, when an age is stated, this indicates that, when a person reaches this age, it discloses the prior occurrence of maturity. This is because these signs are disclosive of a certain reality. The growth of coarse pubic hair is a sign of maturity itself—that is, maturity is realized by these very signs. But, for instance, reaching fifteen years of age discloses the occurrence of that reality before that point. Therefore, we have signs for maturity, and we have signs disclosive of the prior occurrence of maturity. In any case, the tradition of Yazīd al-Kunāsī has also been objected to with respect to its indication.

Third Tradition

The third tradition is the tradition of ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn, which we have previously read; the tradition is as follows: “From ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn, who said: I asked Abū al-Ḥasan (peace be upon him): Is the girl married off while she is three years old, or is the boy married off while he is three years old, and what is the lowest limit of that age at which they may be married off? Then, if the girl reaches maturity and is not satisfied, what is her status? He (peace be upon him) said: There is no harm in that if her father or guardian was satisfied.” ʿAlī ibn Yaqṭīn asks the Imam (peace be upon him) whether a minor girl, while she is three years old, can be married off to another, or whether a minor boy, while he is three years old, can be married off to another. He then mentions these two as examples and asks: in general, what is the lowest limit at which a boy or girl can be married off? He then asks: if this minor girl reaches the age of maturity and is not satisfied, what is her status? The Imam (peace be upon him) said: there is no problem, provided her father or guardian was satisfied. The fact that the Imam (peace be upon him) stated, “There is no harm in that if her father or guardian was satisfied”—he states that if the girl’s father or guardian was satisfied, the matter is settled, and her own satisfaction is not important—and he has said nothing regarding the boy—is indicative of the fact that the boy has the option.

Question:

Professor: Do not take the present day as your criterion; especially in that era, it was customary among kin, clans, and tribes that, in order to prevent a girl from leaving that clan or tribe, they would, from a very young age, name and betroth her in order to eliminate the possibility of her marrying outside [the group]—especially given the interests of the tribes and clans… or even between two tribes that had a covenant of friendship and affection with one another, such marriages were undertaken to consolidate these covenants. Or, for example, it was customary among relatives to do this for the sake of establishing a relation of unmarriageability (maḥramiyyah); it is true that they speak of a “ṣīghah for maḥramiyyah,” but this is in fact a marrying-off—except that it is a marrying-off to which the effects and consummation of marriage are not applied. In any case, it is a genuine marrying-off; it makes no difference—we have no separate formula apart from the marriage formula for establishing maḥramiyyah. The common people think that the “ṣīghah of maḥramiyyah” is something separate from marriage; no, this is the very same marriage and marrying-off, whose effect is maḥramiyyah. In the past, there were abundant rational purposes for such marryings-off. In any case, the narrator has raised three questions and asked them of the Imam (peace be upon him); the arguer states that, when these three questions were asked, the Imam (peace be upon him) said “there is no harm” with respect to the girl; the Imam (peace be upon him) said nothing regarding the boy. The very fact that the Imam (peace be upon him) stated this with respect to the girl and ruled bindingness, but said nothing with respect to the boy… he said: “There is no harm in that if her father or guardian was satisfied”—if the girl’s father or guardian were satisfied, there is no problem—that is, it is binding. But he said nothing of this sort regarding the boy. This indicates that the contract is not binding for the boy and lacks bindingness, and that the option is established for him.

Examination of the Third Tradition

The truth of the matter is that we can say that, although the bindingness of the daughter’s marriage contract is understood from this tradition, it is silent and ambiguous with respect to the boy; to wish to conclude, from the Imam’s (peace be upon him) silence in answering, that his contract is revocable, is not very clear.