Issue 5, Corroboration for the Non-Establishment of the Option for the Minor Boy and Minor Girl, Issue 6, Brief Statement of the Issue

Session Twenty-Six

Issue 5 – Corroboration for the Non-Establishment of the Option for the Minor Boy and Minor Girl – Issue 6 – Brief Statement of the Issue – The Statement of the Late Sayyid – First Supposition – Second Supposition – Positions

November 17, 2025

Corroboration for the Non-Establishment of the Option for the Minor Boy and Minor Girl

The discussion of the fifth issue has come to an end; the conclusion of the discussion on the fifth issue was that, as the Imam (may God’s mercy be upon him) has stated, for a minor boy and minor girl who, at an age before maturity, have been married off to another by the father or paternal grandfather, the option is not established, and the marriage contract is binding. This is corroborated by the fact that the marriage contract, in a general manner, is a binding contract, and wherever this contract is concluded, it carries bindingness. Only in certain cases has the Lawgiver established an option—such as where there are defects in the woman or man, or deception (tadlīs), or a stipulated condition is not fulfilled; in these cases, the option is established; otherwise, in other cases, the marriage contract is binding and the option is not established.

Issue Six

“If the guardian marries off the minor girl for less than the customary dower (mahr al-mithl), or marries off the minor boy for more than it, then, if there is a benefit that requires this, the contract and the dower are valid and binding. But if the benefit lies in the marrying-off itself, not in the dower, then the stronger view is that the contract is valid and binding, and the dower is void—meaning that it is not effective and is contingent upon ratification after reaching maturity; if he ratifies it, it becomes fixed; otherwise, it reverts to the customary dower.”

Brief Statement of the Issue

The sixth issue concerns the marrying-off of a minor boy or minor girl by the guardian in which the dower does not conform to the conditions it ought to have—for example, if a girl, given her circumstances, would ordinarily be assigned a certain customary dower upon marriage, but the guardian of this minor girl has married her off to another for a lesser dower; whatever the customary practice and the customary dower (mahr al-mithl) might be, he has set a dower less than the customary dower. This, in fact, constitutes a problem for this marriage. Or, for example, he has married off a minor boy to another (a customary dower would ordinarily be set for someone with his circumstances), and the guardian has set a dower for this boy’s marriage that is greater [than customary]. What is the ruling here? Thus, the subject matter of the sixth issue is the marrying-off of a minor girl for less than the customary dower, which is counted as a loss for her, and the marrying-off of a minor boy for more than the customary dower, which is likewise a loss for the boy. Is this contract valid or not? Is this dower acceptable or not? Is this contract binding or not? There are three questions here: one concerns the contract itself—is a contract concluded by the guardian in this manner valid or not? Second, is this dower acceptable, or does it revert to the customary dower? Third, is this contract binding or not? Do the minor boy or minor girl have the right to dissolve the contract, or is no such right established for them? The Imam (may God’s mercy be upon him), in the sixth issue, has stated as follows: if the guardian marries off the minor girl for less than the customary dower, or marries off the minor boy for more than the customary dower, two suppositions exist here.

If there was a benefit that required such an arrangement—for example, this girl, although her dower is less than what is customary for her, had a benefit in this marriage; for example, [the suitor comes from] a good, devout family with sufficient means, even if the dower is small—in this case, the contract is valid, this dower is correct, and this contract is binding, and the minor girl has no right to dissolve this contract.
But if the benefit lay in the marriage itself and not in the dower that was set, then, in this case, the answer to the three questions stated is different. First, he states that the stronger view is that the contract is valid—that is, in opposition, there is another position that this contract is not valid. Second, that this contract is binding. Third, that the dower is void—that is, the dower is not effective and is contingent upon ratification after reaching maturity; if, after maturity, he agrees with this dower, that very dower becomes fixed; otherwise, if he does not ratify it, it reverts to the customary dower. For example, a dower greater than the customary dower has been set; after maturity, he says, I do not accept this dower; in this case, recourse is had to the customary dower—that is, the amount that is customary for a marriage between such a person and an ordinary girl. This is a general explanation of the sixth issue. Thus, the Imam (may God’s mercy be upon him) has envisioned two suppositions here; in the first supposition, he has accepted the validity of the contract, the validity of the dower, and bindingness; but in the second supposition, where the benefit lay in the marriage itself and not in the dower, he has stated that the stronger view is that the contract is valid and binding, but the dower is void—that is, it is contingent upon his ratification after maturity. This does not conflict with the validity and bindingness of the contract; only with respect to the dower, if he accepts it, that same dower is established, and if he does not accept it, recourse is had to the customary dower.

Question:

Professor: Setting [a dower] in excess of the customary dower with respect to a minor boy leaves room for this discussion as to whether the contract is correct or not; with respect to a minor girl, this is raised in the case of less [than the customary dower]. This differs; because less than the customary dower, for the minor girl, is a loss. Since they could have set a greater dower, why have they set a lesser one? With respect to a minor boy, setting [a dower] greater than the customary dower is counted as a kind of loss.

The Statement of the Late Sayyid

The late Sayyid, in the sixth issue of al-ʿUrwah, has stated the same matter, though with certain additions; he states: “If the guardian marries her off for less than the customary dower, or marries off the minor boy for more than it, then, if there is a benefit that requires this, the contract and the dower are valid and binding.” If there is a benefit that requires such an action—that is, requires the marrying-off of the girl for less than the customary dower, and the marrying-off of the boy for more than the customary dower—both the contract and the dower are valid and binding. “Otherwise, regarding the validity of the contract and the invalidity of the dower with recourse to the customary dower, or the invalidity of the contract as well, there are two positions.” He states: if there is no such benefit requiring less or more than the customary dower with respect to the girl and the boy, then, regarding whether this contract is valid and the dower void (if the dower is void, recourse is had to the customary dower and the contract is not affected), or whether, in addition to the dower, the contract is also void—there are two positions here. We have stated that, there too, the Imam stated, “the stronger view is that the contract is valid and binding, and the dower is void”; in opposition to this, there is another position—namely, the invalidity of both the contract and the dower. “The stronger of the two is the second”—the stronger view is the second [position stated, i.e., validity of contract with voidance of dower]. “And what is meant by invalidity is non-effectiveness”—when we say that this dower is void, what does the invalidity of the dower mean? Non-effectiveness—that is, this dower is not correct and is not effective. What is to be done here? “Meaning that it is contingent upon her ratification after reaching maturity”—the dower is contingent upon the girl’s ratification after maturity; according to the supposition, the contract is valid, and the discussion concerns the invalidity of the dower and what it means. “And it is possible that it is invalid even with ratification, on the basis of the requirement that the one granting permission exist at the present time”—the possibility of invalidity exists here as well. “It is possible that it is invalid” is in opposition to the validity of the contract; there, they said, “otherwise, regarding the validity of the contract, there are two positions”; then here it states, “and it is possible that it is invalid”—that is, the invalidity of the contract—even if he ratifies that dower. Of course, according to this basis, the possibility of invalidity exists, which we shall explain later. Some of the annotators, of course, have notes and annotations regarding this possibility; the late Muḥaqqiq Nāʾīnī states: “It has previously been established that the stronger view is the opposite of this.” Muḥaqqiq ʿIrāqī, too, regarding the possibility of the invalidity of the contract, has written the same: “And it is very weak, and its basis is clear.” He states that the possibility of the invalidity of the contract is very weak indeed. Perhaps this is the reason why the Imam (may God’s mercy be upon him), in the text of Taḥrīr, has not referred to this possibility, and has stated, “the stronger view is the validity of the contract and its bindingness, and the invalidity of the dower”; he has made no further reference to the possibility of the invalidity of the contract, because of its very pronounced weakness. We have explained, in summary, the text of Taḥrīr and the text of al-ʿUrwah; but, as we have indicated, two suppositions are envisioned in this issue. The first supposition presents no discussion; the main discussion and dispute pertains to the second supposition. Therefore, we shall discuss this issue under two suppositions; since the first supposition presents little discussion, we shall, God willing, state it in this session and move past it, and then arrive at the second supposition.

First Supposition

As we have stated, the first supposition is that there is a benefit in this marriage that has required this contract to be concluded, even with a lesser dower for the girl, or a greater dower for the boy. Suppose there is a minor girl whose father has married her off to a man from a respectable, learned, well-off family possessing abundant virtues and merits, and, because of these merits, has set a dower less than what is customary for her. It is clear that this benefit is more important for the girl than a dower that, hypothetically, is less than the customary dower; suppose the customary dower is fourteen gold coins, but he has set five gold coins. Or, for example, with respect to a boy, he has married him off, before maturity, to a girl who, along with her family, parents, and so on, possesses such merits that, even if he accepts a greater dower, this is in the boy’s interest; the benefit has required accepting a dower greater than the customary dower for the boy. In this case, it is a matter of agreement that the contract is valid, the contract is binding, and the dower is also valid, whether for the boy or for the girl. Given the existence of such a benefit, which reverts to the ward—either the minor girl or the minor boy—everyone here has stated that this contract is valid and binding, and the dower too is accepted; no one has disagreed, and there are no multiple positions on this matter; its rationale, too, is clear. After all, this falls within the framework of the general rules, and there is no obstacle against it; the underlying cause (muqtaḑī) exists, and the impediment (māniʿ) is absent. This is like a sale in which someone, due to a benefit existing in the sale of a house, sells it for less than its price. It is true that he sells this house cheaply, but there was a benefit on account of which he sold this house more cheaply; the sale there is valid, binding, and complete. Just as this is possible there, so too in marriage. Therefore, the first supposition is clear and presents no discussion.

Second Supposition

The second supposition is one in which this action has been undertaken by the guardian without there being any benefit for the ward—that is, for example, he has married off the minor girl to a man, and this marrying-off indeed possessed benefit, or at least had no corruption in it, but her dower is small—that is, benefit was not observed in the dower, even though, in the marriage and marrying-off itself, benefit was observed, or at least there was no corruption in the matter. Here there is discussion and dispute; or if he has married off the minor boy to another and has set a greater dower, even though he could have set a lesser one; this dower greater than the customary dower did not possess benefit, even though the basic contract met this standard. What is to be done here?

Question:

Professor: If he has the option, he either accepts or does not accept, and the contract is dissolved… perhaps some have raised this objection precisely for this reason. I am stating the basic supposition.

Positions

In the second supposition, three positions exist on this matter; the late Sayyid has mentioned two positions, whereas there are three positions on the matter.

The Imam has stated one position: “the stronger view is the validity of the contract and its bindingness, and the invalidity of the dower”; this is the position to which the Imam has given a definitive ruling (fatwā), and he has mentioned only this one position—that is, that the contract is valid and binding, but the dower is void.
The late Sayyid has also mentioned, as a possibility, a second position; there, where he stated, “and it is possible that it is invalid”—that is, the contract is void and the dower is also void. Although, in the view of the annotators, this possibility is a very weak possibility.
There is also a third position on this matter which, according to some, such as the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī, the late Sayyid has not mentioned because it is very weak. What is the third position? The position of the validity of the contract and the validity of the dower, like the first supposition. This is a position attributed to Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, and the late Āyatullāh Khūʾī states, “its weakness is more evident than to need concealing,” and perhaps for this reason the late Sayyid has made no reference to this position, because it is the weakest of the three positions.

Therefore, in the first supposition, we stated that there is one position, but in the second supposition, where the benefit lies in the contract itself but not in the dower, there are three positions: the position of the validity of the contract and the validity of the dower; the position of the validity of the contract and the invalidity of the dower; and the position of the invalidity of the contract and the invalidity of the dower. We shall state the arguments for these positions to determine whether they are acceptable or not. Only this point must be borne in mind: that there must be benefit in the contract itself; because, if there is no benefit in the contract itself, or if there is at least corruption in it, the contract itself runs into difficulty on its own account, because guardianship is lost—since guardianship is conditioned upon benefit, or at least the absence of corruption. Therefore, in the second supposition, we have three positions; we must examine these three positions and their arguments.