But intoxication differs, for a drunken man may enter upon her and kill her, or kill her children. Indeed, such incidents have occurred: some drunkards—may Allah protect us—enter upon their wives and say, “I want my daughter so that I may have intercourse with her.” If his wife refuses him, he kills her. Such people are not to be married off because of the harm they pose.

His statement, “or a man with leprosy,” means one afflicted with leprosy. A woman must be prevented from marrying him, even if she is an adult and sane, because harm to her and to her children cannot be ruled out. Leprosy is a contagious disease, and if she consents to marry such a leper, she is foolish. Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“And do not give the weak-minded your property.” [Quran 4:5]

If the foolish are not given their property, then likewise they are not to be given control over themselves.

Suppose that she herself also has leprosy and says that she is content with him. Should we say that, since the defect is the same, she is not to be prevented, because the feared condition—namely leprosy—is already present in her?

What appears to be the case is that she is not to be prevented in this situation—unless doctors say that leprosy has different types, and that the type found in this woman is not the same as that found in this suitor. In that case, the matter requires further consideration.

His statement, “or a man with vitiligo,” means that she is to be prevented from marrying a man with vitiligo, because there is concern for the children. Yet this is problematic, since it would mean that all people with vitiligo cannot marry, and no one says this. That would mean that they remain dependent upon society, and perhaps fall into corruption and cause corruption. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that she must be prevented as an obligation. The correct view in this matter is that she is not to be prevented, because it has been established that vitiligo is not