man,” may the person conducting the marriage contract proceed solely on the guardian’s word, or is her own statement required? What are the scholars’ rulings on this matter?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. Having witnesses attest to her permission is not a condition for the validity of the marriage contract according to the vast majority of scholars. There is only an isolated dissenting view within the schools of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad that makes it a condition. The well-known position in both schools, like that of the majority, is that it is not required.

If the guardian says, “She has authorized me to conclude the marriage contract,” then concludes it with witnesses attesting to the contract, and the wife subsequently confirms that she gave him permission, the marriage is established and valid both in reality and in outward legal judgment. If, however, she denies having given permission, her word, supported by her oath, is accepted, and the marriage is not established. His claim that she gave permission is comparable to a claim of marriage made after the witnesses have died, and similar cases.

The marriage witnesses should nevertheless witness the woman’s permission before the contract is concluded, for three reasons:

The first is that the resulting contract is unanimously considered valid. Whenever it is possible to conclude a contract whose validity is unanimously accepted, one should not depart from it in favour of a disputed form—even if the dissenting view is weaker—unless there is an overriding consideration.

The second reason is that this helps secure the purpose of the contract and safeguards against its denial, particularly in places and times where denials and lies by women are common. Failing to have witnesses attest to her permission often leads to the opposite outcome. It may then result in her being a wife in reality but not in outward legal judgment, which entails numerous harmful consequences.