because he died before the completion and validity of the contract. There is another view that if the contract is of a nature that, had it been referred to the judge, he would have authorized it, then the other party inherits from him; this is because it is a contract that requires his authorization, making it equivalent to a valid contract. If it is of a nature that he would rescind, then he does not inherit.

Section: Whenever a woman marries without the permission of her guardian, or a female slave without the permission of her master, our companions have mentioned this as part of the scenarios regarding which there are two narrations. The correct view, in my opinion, is that this does not fall under those cases, due to the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explicit statement regarding its invalidity. Furthermore, authorization is only applicable to a contract issued by those competent to do so regarding its subject matter. [As for that which is not issued by someone competent, such as a contract made by a madman or a child, it does not remain pending upon authorization, and this is a contract not issued by someone competent], for the woman is not competent for it, evidenced by the fact that even if he permitted her to do it, it would not be valid from her. Since it is not valid with a concurrent permission, it is even more fitting that it not be valid with a delayed authorization. There is no derivation to be made on this. As for the other opinion, whenever a woman marries without the permission of her guardian and the matter is raised to the judge, he does not have the authority to permit it, and the matter rests with the guardian. Whenever he rejects it, it becomes void, because for whoever a ruling depends upon his authorization, it becomes void upon his rejection, like a woman who is married off without her consent. There is another view that if the husband is an equal (kuf'), the judge orders the guardian to authorize it. If he does not do so, the judge authorizes it, because when he refrains from authorizing, he becomes an 'adil (one who prevents marriage), and the guardianship transfers from him to the judge, just as it does at the inception of the contract. Whenever intimacy occurs before the authorization and then it is authorized, the dower is one: either the specified amount or the dower of a peer (mahr al-mithl) if nothing was specified; this is because the authorization relates back to the time of the contract, thus establishing legality and ownership from the time of the contract, as we mentioned regarding sales, and for this reason, the hadd (prescribed) penalty is not incurred. Whenever a female slave marries without the permission of her master and then she leaves his ownership before authorization to someone to whom she is lawful, the marriage is annulled, because a valid state of permissibility has intervened upon a pending one, rendering it void, and because