two views. What is explicitly reported from him is only the prohibition of what was exclusive to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), namely a woman’s giving herself in marriage without a dower.

Ibn al-Qāsim said:
“If a man gives his daughter as a gift, intending thereby to marry her off, I do not recall a statement from Mālik on this. In my view, it is permissible.”

The assertion of some followers of Mālik and Ahmad that marriage can be contracted only through these two expressions is far removed from the principles of both imams. This ruling rests on two premises. The first is that all other expressions are indirect, and that indirect wording requires intention.

Yet their well-known position is that contextual indications make indirect expressions explicit and take the place of an express declaration of intent. Thus, in divorce, accusations of unchastity, and similar matters, both treated indirect expressions accompanied by contextual indications as equivalent to explicit wording.

The contextual indications surrounding marriage are well known: people gather for that purpose and discuss what they have gathered for. If a man then says, “I have made her yours for a thousand dirhams,” those present know beyond doubt that marriage is intended.

This expression has become so widespread in customary usage that people call the marriage contract imlāk or malāk. For this reason, people have transmitted the Prophet’s words (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to the suitor of the woman who offered herself in marriage—the man who searched but could not find even an iron ring—in one version as:

“I have married her to you for what you know of the Quran,”

and in another as:

“I have made her yours.”

It has not, however, been established that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) confined himself to saying, “I have made her yours.” Rather, he either said both expressions or said one of them. But since, in their understanding, the two expressions were equivalent in such a context,