they transmitted the hadith sometimes in one wording and sometimes in the other. Moreover, requiring a particular Arabic expression in such a case is entirely at odds with Ahmad’s principles and explicit statements, as well as with the principles underlying the scriptural evidence. Marriage is valid whether contracted by a non-Muslim or a Muslim; although it is an act of devotion, it is comparable in this respect to freeing a slave or giving charity. It is well known that freeing a slave requires no particular wording, whether Arabic or otherwise. Likewise, by consensus, no particular Arabic wording is required for charitable giving, endowments, or gifts. Furthermore, a non-Arab who has only just learned Arabic may not understand the intended meaning of that expression as he would in the language he is accustomed to.

Admittedly, it would be reasonable to say that concluding contracts in a language other than Arabic without need is disliked, just as other forms of communication in a language other than Arabic are disliked when there is no need. Statements reported from Mālik, Ahmad, and al-Shāfiʿī indicate that they disliked habitual communication in languages other than Arabic without need. We have discussed this issue elsewhere.

The followers of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Ahmad—including Judge Abū Yaʿlā, Ibn ʿAqīl, and later scholars—have stated that the marriages of non-Muslims are assessed according to their customs. Whatever they regard among themselves as marriage may be allowed to stand when they embrace Islam and bring their case before us, provided that no impediment exists at that time. If, however, they do not regard it as marriage, it may not be allowed to stand. They even said: “If a harbī man overpowered a harbī woman and had intercourse with her