and the husband’s interest in teeth lies in the perfection of beauty. Teeth can be fitted, and she may become as beautiful as possible.

Thus, if someone were to ask: “If he finds her unattractive, though she has no defect, does that give grounds for annulment?” The answer is no—unless he had stipulated it. But if he finds a scar on her face, a white spot in her eye, a cleft in her lip, or the like, then there is no doubt that this is a defect. The correct view, therefore, is that defects are not exhaustively enumerated, but are defined by a limit: whatever impairs the purpose of marriage—not merely its perfection—is a defect that establishes the right of annulment, whether for the husband or the wife.

As for age: if he thought she was seventeen but finds that she is thirty, or she thought he was twenty-five but finds that he is thirty-five, then apparently this is not a defect. But if she proves to be an old woman, or he proves to be a very old man, then this is a defect, because it defeats the purpose of marriage.

If someone were to say, “This man can be seen, so why did you not look at him?” we reply: We found him with a beard dyed black, or with it shaved off, and we do not know; thus, people may be deceived by either of these two reasons.

This view that we have chosen was also chosen by Ibn al-Qayyim, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah likewise indicated it, as did some of the Companions of the school. The proof relied upon by the school is that this is what has been reported from the early generations—the Companions and the Successors. It may be said in response: what has been reported from the early generations among the Companions and the Successors concerns particular cases, upon which analogous cases are to be based, whether similar to them or more deserving of the ruling. There is no doubt that everyone knows that some of these defects are not equal to