Chapter on the Wedding Feast

(1) The statement: “He held a feast with a sheep”: In Rahmat al-Ummah, it is said: The wedding feast is a Sunnah according to the predominant view of Ash-Shafi‘i, and recommended according to the other three. In Al-‘Alamgiriyyah: The wedding feast is a Sunnah with great reward. When a man consummates his marriage, he should invite neighbors, relatives, and friends, slaughter for them, and prepare food for them. The command in the Hadith of Abdul Rahman ibn Awf is understood as recommended, as he was ordered with a sheep, which is unanimously not obligatory, as stated in Bazl al-Majhud. In Rahmat al-Ummah: As for feasts other than weddings, such as circumcision and the like, Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ash-Shafi‘i say they are recommended. Ahmad says they are not recommended.

(1) The statement: “And gave her as a dowry, etc.”: Meaning, if he frees a slave woman and makes her emancipation her dowry, saying, “I freed you on condition that you marry me for the compensation of emancipation,” and she accepts, the emancipation is valid, and she has the choice to marry him. If she marries him, she is entitled to the dowry of her peers. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, Zufar, and Muhammad. Ash-Shafi‘i and Abu Yusuf, a companion of Abu Hanifah, differed, citing the Hadith: He married Safiyyah and made her emancipation her dowry. We say: The text of Allah’s Book specifies wealth, as after listing the prohibited women, He permitted those beyond them, conditioned on seeking with wealth, as Allah says: “And lawful to you is what is beyond that, that you seek with your wealth” [An-Nisa: 24]. This is supported by Razinah’s Hadith and the narrator’s statement, which is a euphemism for no dowry, meaning he freed her and married her without anything but emancipation. Marriage without a dowry was permissible for the Prophet (ﷺ), not others. At most, the narrator’s wording is ambiguous, so it should be interpreted to avoid conflict with the Book. If she refuses to marry him, we compel her with her value. In essence, this is specific to the Prophet (ﷺ), and others cannot do so, supported by Ibn Umar’s statement in the text. This is the essence of Al-Marqah and Umdat al-Qari.

(1) The statement: “Let him attend”: In Al-Hindiyyah, from At-Tamartashi: Scholars differed on responding to an invitation. Some said it is obligatory, not permissible to neglect. The majority said it is a Sunnah, and it is best to respond if it is a wedding feast; otherwise, he has a choice. Responding is better, as it brings joy to a believer’s heart. If he responds, he fulfills his duty whether he eats or not, but eating is better if he is not fasting. In Al-Binayah: Responding to an invitation is a Sunnah, whether a wedding or otherwise. In Al-Ikhtiyar: The wedding feast is an established Sunnah; if he does not respond, he sins, as it is said: Whoever does not respond to the invitation has disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. If he is fasting, he responds and supplicates; if not fasting, he eats and supplicates. If he neither eats nor responds, he sins and is rude, as it mocks the host. He said: If invited to a hoof, I would respond. This implies it is a strongly emphasized Sunnah, unlike others. The commentators of Al-Hidayah stated it is close to obligatory. In Rahmat al-Ummah: Responding is recommended according to the soundest view of Abu Hanifah, obligatory according to the prevalent view of Malik, the more apparent of Ash-Shafi‘i’s two opinions, and one of Ahmad’s two narrations.

(1) The statement: “The worst food, etc.”: Al-Tayyibi and Ibn al-Mubarak said: Among the excuses that waive the obligation or recommendation is if the food involves something dubious, is exclusive to the rich, or includes someone whose presence causes harm, whose company is unsuitable, or is invited to avert harm, gain influence, or assist in falsehood, or involves prohibitions like alcohol or entertainment, or silk furnishings, etc., as in Al-Marqah.

(2) The statement: “Has disobeyed Allah and His Messenger”: This is cited by those who say responding is obligatory. The majority interpreted it as emphasizing recommendation, as in Al-Marqah.

(3) The statement: “Whoever is invited, etc.”: In essence, he taught his nation noble morals and forbade base traits. Not responding to an invitation without an excuse indicates arrogance, recklessness, and lack of affection. Entering without an invitation suggests greed, low ambition, and humiliation. Noble character is moderation between these blameworthy traits, as in Al-Marqah.

(1) The statement: “I permit him”: It indicates that no one may join a people’s hospitality without their permission, nor may a guest permit another to join unless explicitly allowed, generally permitted, or known to be pleasing, as in Al-Marqah.

(1) The statement: “He saw a decorated curtain in a corner of the house”: Al-Khattabi, followed by Ibn al-Malik, said it was ornamented and patterned. Others said it was not patterned but set up like a bride’s canopy, covering the wall, which is reckless and resembles the actions of tyrants. It indicates not responding to an invitation with a prohibition, as in Al-Marqah. In Al-‘Alamgiriyyah, Faqih Abu Ja‘far (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Sharh as-Siyar al-Kabir: There is no harm in covering house walls with patterned felts if the intent is to ward off cold. If the intent is decoration, it is disliked. Shams al-A’immah as-Sarakhsi said in Sharh as-Siyar: There is no harm in covering walls with felts to ward off cold, or with straw to ward off heat. What is disliked is that done for decoration, as in Az-Zakhirah. In essence, what is done for arrogance is disliked; if for need or necessity, it is not, which is the chosen view, as in Al-Ghayathiyyah.

(2) The statement: “He returned, etc.”: In Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar: If invited to a feast where there is playing or singing, he may sit and eat. If the prohibition is in the house but not at the table, he should not sit but leave discreetly, per His saying: “Do not sit after the reminder with the wrongdoing people” [Al-An‘am: 68]. If he can prevent it, he should; if not, he endures if not a role model. If a role model and unable to prevent, he leaves and does not sit, as it tarnishes religion. What is narrated about the Imam was before he became a role model. If he knows of the playing beforehand, he does not attend, whether a role model or not, as the duty of the invitation applies after attending, not before, per Ibn Kamal.

(1) The statement: “The food of the third day is for show, etc.”: The Shafi‘is and Hanbalis acted on its apparent meaning. Al-Tayyibi said: When Allah grants a servant a blessing, it is his right to express gratitude, and it is recommended on the second day to compensate for any shortfall on the first, as the Sunnah completes the duty. The third day is only for show and fame. The invited must respond on the first day, it is recommended on the second, and disliked or prohibited on the third. Malik said the feast is recommended for seven days. Summarized from Fath al-Bari and Al-Marqah. In Qadikhan: It is permissible without dislike to invite for three days, then the wedding and feast cease, as in Al-‘Alamgiriyyah and Majma‘ al-Barakat. The statement: “The food of the third day is for show” is understood by us as their custom. Eating at an invitation intended for show and fame is disliked, taken from Bazl al-Majhud and Radd al-Muhtar.

(1) The statement: “Forbade eating the food of those who compete in boasting, etc.”: Meaning, an invitation intended for rivalry or seeking praise or the like should not be responded to, especially by scholars, as in Radd al-Muhtar.

(1) The statement: “Forbade responding to the food of the openly disobedient”: Meaning, one should not respond to the invitation of an openly disobedient person to show disapproval of their disobedience, as in Al-‘Alamgiriyyah.

(1) The statement: “Let him eat his food without asking, etc.”: Meaning, one should not respond to an invitation from someone whose wealth is predominantly unlawful unless informed it is lawful. Conversely, he responds unless it is evident to him that it is unlawful, as in At-Tamartashi. If a usurer or earner of unlawful wealth gifts or hosts him, and most of his wealth is unlawful, he does not accept or eat unless informed that the wealth’s source is lawful, inherited, or borrowed. If most of his wealth is lawful, there is no harm in accepting his gift or eating from it, as in Al-Mutlaqat. This is because people’s wealth rarely lacks some unlawful portion, so the predominant is considered, as is eating their food, as in Al-Ikhtiyar Sharh al-Mukhtar, cited from Al-‘Alamgiriyyah.