—even over her father. Whether that son belongs to her ʿaṣaba (agnatic relatives) or is outside their line, the ruling is the same. Likewise, in Mālik’s view a grandson has priority over the father; the father has priority over the brother; the brother and the brother’s son outrank the grandfather; and the grandfather takes precedence over the paternal uncle and anyone more remote. His sequence is: the father, then his fathers, then the brother, then the brother’s sons, then the uncle, then the uncle’s sons. Whoever is closer to the woman through her father’s side has the stronger right to contract her marriage—whether the link is through both parents or the father alone. If two guardians stand at the same level but differ in number, the one related through both parents is preferred, unless he is profligate and of unsound condition, for no one may act as guardian except a free, Muslim, sane adult of sound judgment.

If several guardians are equal in degree, the most virtuous among them is preferred. Should they be equal in rank and merit yet quarrel, the judge weighs the matter: whatever he deems proper and in her best interest he executes, either contracting the marriage himself or referring it to whichever guardian he selects. Some have said he should simply order one of them to perform the contract while he himself refrains, provided that a competent guardian is present. The first opinion, however, is the authoritative position of the school, based on the Prophet’s ﷺ statement about guardians: “If they dispute, the ruler is the guardian of whoever has no guardian,” and on the saying of ʿUmar cited at the chapter’s outset.

If the woman has no agnatic relatives, her guardian is the patron who emancipated her; if he is absent, that right passes to his agnatic heirs. A junior patron has no authority over a senior one, although some have claimed that the junior patron shares in the guardianship—an opinion of no weight.

When no guardian exists by lineage or by emancipation, the judge contracts the marriage on her behalf. If a more distant relative marries her off while a nearer guardian is present, and the nearer one neither objects nor rescinds, the contract stands. But if he objects—and she is a previously married woman, or a virgin who has reached legal majority, is an orphan, and has no executor—then Mālik, his associates, and a group of Medinan scholars have differed. Some said the contract is not annulled; it is valid because it was concluded with the permission of a guardian from her own clan and family branch. Those who held this view said that the only texts that have come