Third Discussion...

Third Discussion: The adopters of the second belief have argued that a vessel that is licked by a dog must be washed three times only because Abu-Hurayrah was reported to have washed such vessels three times only. This justification cannot stand as a reliable proof because reports from him in this respect have been different.

Some have narrated that Abu-Hurayrah issued the verdict that such a vessel must be washed seven times, while others have reported that he himself washed such vessels three times only… etc.

Second Example Abu-Dawud, in al-Sunan ; al-Tirmidhiy, in al-Sunan ; al-Darimiy, in al-Sunan ; al-Darqutniy, in al-Sunan ; al-Hakim al-Nisapuriy, in al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahihayn ; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in al-Musnad ; al-Tahawiy, in Sharh Ma`ani al-Āthar —all these have recorded on the authority of `Ā'ishah that the Prophet said, “Any matrimonial contract that is made by a woman before obtaining the permission of her guardian is invalid.”[^9] Although `Ā'ishah reported this Hadith from the Holy Prophet, she did not act upon it; rather she violated it when she gave in marriage her niece, Hafsah bint `Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi-Bakr, to al-Mundhir ibn al-Zubayr, `Ā'ishah’s nephew, while the father of the woman, `Abd al-Rahman, was absolutely absent from the matter since he was in Syria.[^10] Thus, scholars have disagreed about the interpretation of this violation.

The adopters of the first belief, namely those who act upon the Hadith and reject the Sahabah’s violation of it, have decided that it is obligatory to act upon the connotation of the Hadith and have neglected `Ā'ishah’s violation of it. They thus have decided that it is impermissible for women to give themselves in marriage before they obtain the permission of their guardians. The…