Issue 9, Arguments for the Recommendation of Seeking Permission from the Father and Grandfather
Session Forty-Eight
Issue 9 – Arguments for the Recommendation of Seeking Permission from the Father and Grandfather – Second Argument: Unqualified Narrations – Second Objection and Its Response – Conclusion – Third Argument – Objection – Fourth Argument and Its Examination – Arguments for the Recommendation of Seeking Permission from the Brother – First Argument
January 25, 2026
Summary of the Previous Session
In the ninth issue, the discussion centered around whether it is recommended for a woman who has discretion over her own affairs to seek permission from her father or grandfather or not? The Imam (may he rest in peace) stated that seeking permission is recommended; the question concerns the argument for the recommendation of a woman who is considered to possess discretion over her own affairs seeking permission from her father or grandfather. We stated several arguments have been advanced for this claim.
The first argument is the narrations. The specific narrations which have been transmitted particularly concerning the mature virgin and indicate the obligation of seeking permission; except that, reconciling between these reports and the reports indicating the negation of seeking permission, these narrations are interpreted as recommendation. An objection was also raised to which we responded.
The second argument is the unqualified narrations; certain narrations indicate the recommendation of the girl seeking permission in an unqualified manner, which encompasses the virgin and the thayyib; it includes both the virgin and the thayyib. We mentioned the formulation of the argumentation upon these narrations. The late Mr. Khoei objected that it is true some narrations possess unqualified scope, however, they are interpreted as referring to the virgin and do not encompass the thayyib. On the other hand, given that in his view the virgin, too, does not possess independence in the matter of marriage, the recommendation of seeking permission is therefore not derived; we responded to this as well.
Second Objection
Here, another objection is raised, and that is: generally, concerning the thayyib, we cannot derive recommendation from the narrations under its specific title; because no narration indicating the validity of the thayyib‘s seeking permission has been transmitted such that it would be interpreted as recommendation. The late Mr. Khoei states we neither have an unqualified narration (which is the very objection from the previous session) nor do we have a specific narration concerning the thayyib; not even a single narration exists that specifically indicates the validity of seeking permission concerning the thayyib. Therefore, reconciling the reports and relinquishing the apparent purport of obligation in those narrations has no meaning.
Response
The response to this objection also becomes clear from what we stated in the previous session, and that is: it is true we have no specific narration that indicates the validity of seeking permission regarding the thayyib, but we do have unqualified narrations; the unqualified narrations encompass the thayyib as well. We also responded to the objection he raised regarding the unqualified narrations. Therefore, their claim that no narration exists indicating the validity of seeking permission concerning the thayyib is also not acceptable.
Conclusion of the Discussion on the First and Second Arguments
Thus, it appears that concerning the virgin, on the foundational view that we hold she possesses independence in the matter of marriage, we can establish the recommendation by means of those narrations. Concerning the thayyib, too, we can invoke the unqualified narrations; therefore, the recommendation of seeking permission, just as the Imam (may he rest in peace) has stated, can be established by the narrations. However, the late Mr. Khoei has a point here, on the basis of which one can generally establish the recommendation of seeking permission from elders, and not specifically the father and grandfather, such as the mother, the paternal uncle, and rather every elder; God willing, we shall mention this subsequently.
Thus, on the basis of the first argument, which is the specific and unqualified narrations, the recommendation of seeking permission is established.
Third Argument
The third argument is that we have narrations on the basis of which respect toward the father or grandfather is recommended; respect in an unqualified sense, the issue of seeking permission is not raised at all. However, since the matter of marriage and obtaining permission in the matter of marriage from the father or grandfather is among the most manifest instances of respect toward the father and grandfather, we can rule on the recommendation of seeking permission. After all, respect toward the father and mother is not merely greeting them and saying “yes” in ordinary matters; the matter of marriage is an important issue in every person’s life; individuals’ futures depend on marriage. Naturally, the expectation of the father or grandfather is that his respect be preserved in such an important matter; that his opinion be sought, that he be consulted, and that his permission be obtained. Therefore, on the grounds that seeking permission from the father is among the most manifest instances of respect, we can rule on the recommendation of seeking permission. Thus, based on the third argument, the recommendation of seeking permission under its specific title is not established in the narrations; rather, what exists are narrations indicating the recommendation of respect and reverence toward the father and grandfather, and seeking permission is among its most manifest instances.
Question:
Professor’s: The supposition is that they do not possess guardianship; even, according to the statement of some, this is established for the son as well, which we shall articulate later.
Thus, the third argument is the narrations indicating the recommendation of respect toward the father, and since the daughter seeking permission and obtaining authorization from the father is among the most manifest instances of respect, therefore this too becomes recommended.
Thus, a minor premise and major premise are formed: seeking permission from the father is counted as respect toward him; respect toward the father is recommended; therefore, seeking permission from the father is recommended. When we wish to establish a recommendation, it must be based on a scriptural articulation or the Lawgiver’s confirmation; in this manner, we can establish the recommendation.
Objection
Here, the late Mr. Khoei has raised an objection, stating: If we wish to establish the recommendation of seeking permission from the father on these grounds, there is no harm, but this is not exclusive to the father; rather, it encompasses every elder in the family. This is broader than the claim; the claim was that “It is proper, rather it is recommended, for a woman who possesses discretion over her own affairs to seek permission from her father or her grandfather”, however, if it wishes to rely on these narrations, it is not “to seek permission from her father or her grandfather”, and it must say “to seek permission from every elder of the family”.
Furthermore, this is not exclusive to the daughter and encompasses the son as well, whereas the claim is “the woman who possesses discretion over her own affairs”. If the issue of respect toward the father, or grandfather, or any elder is raised, it is recommended for the son as well to seek permission. Therefore, it appears this statement and objection are noteworthy; thus, if our argument is the narrations indicating the recommendation of respect and reverence for the father and mother, firstly, it is not exclusive to the father and grandfather and encompasses the mother and others as well. Secondly, it is not exclusive to the daughter, and concerning the son too, it is recommended that he seek permission from the father or grandfather.
Fourth Argument
Some have also mentioned another argument as a rational ruling; the first, second, and third arguments were narrations, either under its specific title or under a title that encompasses this case as well. But the fourth argument is the ruling of reason; from the perspective of reason, utilizing the experiences and accumulations of those who possess experience is proper and possesses goodness (ḥusn). It might not reach the level of bindingness and obligation, but reason independently apprehends that a person should utilize the opinions of those who possess experience and background in any matter. It is natural that the father, or grandfather, or whoever is recognized as a guardian, possesses experience in life, knows people, and is more familiar with the difficulties and issues of marriage; because either they themselves have experienced this, or they have seen those around them who have married, and what their fate was, and what their difficulties were. It is natural that the daughter or child needs these experiences; therefore, reason rules on the preferability (rujḥān) of utilizing their opinion and obtaining their authorization. If this is recognized as an independent rational ruling and is known with certainty, it naturally entails the confirmation and endorsement of the Lawgiver as well. This argument is not based on narrations; it is not based on the Lawgiver’s articulation; although the Lawgiver has also endorsed and confirmed it. This is an independent rational ruling.
Question:
Professor: It does not become more difficult; after all, the important thing is that its preferability be established, whether under its specific title or under a general title. As for the matter we stated concerning the third argument, it is not actually an objection; we stated its entailment is that it is not exclusive to the daughter, otherwise, in terms of being an argument, it has no problem. A general argument can establish a specific claim, but the reverse is not possible, that a specific argument should wish to establish a general claim. This is a general argument; now it is applicable to a specific instance; therefore, it has no problem.
Examination of the Fourth Argument
However, the question is whether this is counted among the independent rational rulings (mustaqillāt ʿaqliyyah) or not? It is known what propositions and statements the independent rational rulings encompass; oppression is repugnant and justice is good; those very rulings of practical reason and the “oughts” and “ought-nots” that are situated within the domain of rational apprehensions. Is the goodness and preferability of utilizing the experiences of others in any matter counted among the independent [rational rulings]? Apparently, it has no problem; just as it is said reason rules on the necessity of the ignorant referring to the learned; one of the most important arguments for the legitimacy of emulation (taqlīd) is the ignorant referring to the learned; that someone who does not know something must refer to someone who does know it. This is a rational ruling and possesses no problem whatsoever. It is not conjectural preference (istiḥsān ẓannī) either, but rather a definitive ruling of reason; with it, the legitimacy of emulation is also established. Here, too, it is the same; the goodness of benefiting from and utilizing the experience of those possessing experience is an issue to which no objection is directed. Automatically, it has also been confirmed and endorsed from a scriptural perspective.
If reason intervenes and we consider this among the independent rational rulings, we can say “it is proper” (yanbaghī); but does this rational apprehension establish recommendation (istiḥbāb)? This is subject to reflection. Therefore, the Imam (may he rest in peace), contrary to the late Sayyid, has mentioned the word “it is proper” here.
We previously stated this is one of the differences between the text of al-ʿUrwah and Taḥrīr; the Imam (may he rest in peace) stated “it is proper, rather it is recommended”; but the late Sayyid merely stated “it is recommended for the woman who possesses discretion over her own affairs”. The Imam’s phrase is more precise than the late Sayyid’s phrase; “it is proper” points to this very rational acquisition and apprehension; “it is recommended” points to the narrations that exist regarding this issue; whether the narrations under its specific title that have been transmitted concerning seeking permission, or the narrations under a general title that have raised the issue of respect toward the father. Therefore, he states “it is proper, rather it is recommended”.
What we have stated thus far was concerning the first claim; we stated three claims have been raised here; the first claim is the recommendation of seeking permission from the father or grandfather.
Arguments for the Recommendation of Seeking Permission from the Brother
The second claim mentioned in the text is this: “and if they are not present, then her brother”; if the father or grandfather are not present, her brother… meaning the recommendation of the daughter seeking permission from her brother. On what argument is this based? How is this recommendation of seeking permission established concerning the brother? Here too, one can invoke several arguments.
First Argument
The first argument is certain narrations; the narrations have mainly been transmitted under the verse “he in whose hand is the marriage tie” (Quran 2:237) and have interpreted it; they have named those as the ones in whose hand is the tie and the matter of marriage; among them is the brother. In reality, these narrations enumerate the guardians of the contract; the verse points to the guardians of the contract. Certain narrations under this verse, in addition to the father and grandfather, have also mentioned the brother. If the brother is among the guardians of the contract, is obtaining permission from him necessary just as it was necessary from the father and grandfather? We had certain narrations there that obliged the virgin to obtain permission; but concerning the brother this is not the case; concerning the brother, permission is not necessary. It is true these narrations have been transmitted under this verse and indicate the necessity of seeking permission from the brother, but we have certainty that the brother’s permission is not a condition. Therefore, we relinquish the apparent purport of these narrations that have been transmitted under this verse, interpret them as recommendation, and the recommendation of seeking permission from the brother is established.
Among them is the narration that Abū Baṣīr has transmitted from Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him): “I asked him concerning him in whose hand is the marriage tie. He said: He is the father, the brother, and the man to whom a bequest is made.”
Another narration is this: “Whichever of these pardons, his pardoning is permitted concerning the dower, if he pardons it.” Whichever of these pardons, then his pardoning is permitted in the discussion of the dower, and that some can forgo the dower, it states these persons in whose hand is the marriage tie are counted among the guardians of the contract. Whichever of these pardons, his pardoning is permitted, which encompasses the brother as well.
Therefore, certain narrations, with this formulation, indicate the recommendation of seeking permission.
Discussion for the Next Session
An objection has been raised here concerning this argument and these narrations, which we shall articulate in the next session, God willing.