His statement, “and religious commitment”: what is meant by religious commitment here is fulfilling the obligatory duties and avoiding prohibitions. It is not a condition that the husband fulfill every obligatory duty and avoid every prohibition; thus, it is valid to marry off a flagrantly sinful man.

The correct view is that religious commitment is a condition for the validity of the marriage contract when the deficiency concerns chastity. Thus, if the husband is known to commit fornication and has not repented, it is not valid for him to be married off. Likewise, if the wife is known to commit fornication and has not repented, it is not valid for her to be married—whether to the fornicator or to anyone else. This will be discussed later.

But if the husband smokes and the wife practices plucking the eyebrows, this impairs religious commitment and undoubtedly diminishes faith. So, may a smoker be married off, and may a woman who plucks her eyebrows be married? Apparently, yes, because we do not know of any scholar who stipulated, for the validity of marriage, that the husband and wife must both be upright. Were this stipulated, marriage would be out of reach for many people. However, if there is a choice between a sinful man and an upright man, then there is no doubt that the upright man should be chosen for marriage.

His statement, “and social standing, which is lineage,” means that a person should be of noble lineage—that is, that he should have ancestry among the Arab tribes—as opposed to one who has no lineage.

Lineage, then, is not a condition for the validity of marriage. Accordingly, it is permissible to marry a woman of tribal lineage to a man who is not of tribal lineage.

His statement, “and freedom”: likewise, freedom is not a condition for its validity. Thus, it is permissible to marry a free woman to