property, so it resembles the ownership of a slave. Do you not see that he does not need to say: 'She is not in her waiting period, nor is she an apostate'? Our position is that people have differed regarding the conditions of marriage; among them are those who stipulate the guardian and the witnesses, and among them are those who do not. Among them are those who stipulate the permission of the virgin adult for her father to marry her off, and among them are those who do not. He might claim a marriage that he believes to be valid, while the judge does not see its validity. It is not appropriate for [the judge] to rule on its validity while being ignorant of it, and [the judge] does not know of it unless the conditions are mentioned and evidence for them is established. It differs from property, for its causes are not restricted, and the cause for the establishment of his right might be hidden from the claimant. Contracts have many conditions, and for this reason, we have stipulated seven conditions for the validity of a sale. Often, the claimant does not know how to count them or is unaware of them, while matters of property are treated with more leniency; this is why they differ regarding the stipulation of the guardian and witnesses in their contracts, and thus they differ in the claim. As for the absence of a waiting period or apostasy, the default is their absence, people do not differ on this, and purposes do not vary because of them. If the woman is a slave and the husband is free, the analogy of what we have mentioned is that he needs to mention the absence of the means [to marry a free woman] and the fear of hardship (anatt), because these are conditions for the validity of her marriage. As for if he claims the continuity of the marriage without claiming the contract, he does not need to mention its conditions in one of the two opinions, because it is established by common notoriety. If the mention of the conditions were stipulated, testimony regarding them would be stipulated, and that is not required in testimony of common notoriety. In the second [opinion], it is necessary to mention the conditions because it is a claim of marriage, so it resembles a claim of the contract.

Section: If a woman claims marriage against her husband and mentions with it one of the rights of marriage, such as the dowry, maintenance, and the like, her claim is heard without any disagreement that we know of. This is because she is claiming a right of hers and attributing it to its cause, so her claim is heard, just as if she claimed ownership and attributed it to a purchase. If she separates the claim of marriage, the judge said: Her claim is also heard, because it is a cause for rights that belong to her, so her claim regarding it is heard, like a sale. Abu al-Khattab said: There is another view regarding it, that her claim is not heard;