because it is an allusion (kinayah) in marriage that requires intent and implied meaning, thus it is not contracted by it, similar to the terms of gift and sale. Our view is that acceptance is explicit in the response, so it is contracted by it, just as sale and other contracts are contracted by it. As for their statement that it requires intent, this is refuted; for it is an answer, so it does not pertain to anything other than what was mentioned.

Section: Marriage is contracted by the terms 'inkah' (marriage) and 'tazwij' (wedlock). The response to both is unanimously accepted, and they are the two [terms] by which the text of the Book arrived, in His, the Almighty's, statement: {We have married you to her} [Surah al-Ahzab 37], and His, the Almighty's, statement: {And do not marry those whom your fathers married of women} [Surah al-Nisa 22]. It is the same whether they agree from both sides or differ, such as if he says: "I have married my daughter to you," and he says: "I accept this marriage" or "this wedlock." It is not contracted by anything other than the terms of 'inkah' and 'tazwij'. This is the position of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, 'Ata', al-Zuhri, Rabi'ah, and al-Shafi'i. Al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Abu Hanifah and his companions, Abu Thawr, Abu 'Ubayd, and Dawud said: It is contracted by the terms of gift, charity, sale, and transfer of ownership. Regarding the term of lease, there are two narrations from Abu Hanifah. Malik said: It is contracted by such terms if the dowry is mentioned. They argued that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) married a man to a woman, and he said: "I have given you possession of her for what you have of the Quran," as narrated by al-Bukhari. Also, because it is a term by which the marriage of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was contracted, it is valid for the marriage of his nation, just like the terms of 'inkah' and 'tazwij'. [And because it is possible] to validate it through its metaphorical sense, it must be validated, like the issuance of divorce through allusions. Our evidence is the words of the Almighty: {And a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers} [Surah al-Ahzab 50]. He designated that exclusively for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Also, because it is a term by which contracts other than marriage are concluded, [it is not valid for marriage], like the terms of lease, permission, and legalization. Also, because it is not explicit regarding marriage, so marriage is not contracted by it, just like what we have mentioned. This is because testimony is a condition [for marriage], and an allusion is only known through intent, and it is impossible to testify to intent because they have no access to it. Thus, it must be that it is not contracted, and for this reason, it differs from the rest of the contracts and divorce. As for the report, it has been narrated as: "I have married you to her," "I have wedded you to her," and "We have married you to her" from authentic channels. The incident is one, and it is apparent that the narrator reported it by meaning, assuming that their meanings are one, so it cannot serve as evidence. Even if the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) combined the terms, there is no evidence for them in it, because the marriage was contracted by one of them, and the rest is superfluous.