Section: It is not disliked for the guardian to retract an acceptance if he sees a benefit for her in doing so, because the right belongs to her, and he is a deputy acting on her behalf in looking after her interests; therefore, a retraction in which he sees a benefit is not disliked, just as if he were negotiating the sale of her house and then it became clear to him that there was a benefit in abandoning it. It is also not disliked for her to retract if she dislikes the suitor, because this is a lifelong contract in which the harm would be lasting, so she is entitled to take precautions for herself and look after her own interest. If both retract from that without a valid excuse, it is disliked because of the element of breaking a promise and going back on one's word, but it is not unlawful, because the right has not yet become binding upon them, just like someone who negotiates for his merchandise and then changes his mind about selling it.

Section: If the first suitor is a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen), the proposal over his proposal is not rendered unlawful. Ahmad stated this explicitly, saying: One should not propose over the proposal of his brother, nor negotiate over the negotiation of his brother; this pertains only to Muslims. If one were to propose over the proposal of a Jew or a Christian, or negotiate over their negotiation, it would not fall under that, because they are not brothers to the Muslims. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: It is also not permissible, because this [ruling] was issued in the context of the most common occurrence, not to restrict it specifically to Muslims. We say: The wording of the prohibition is specific to Muslims, and analogizing others to them is only valid if they are similar; yet the dhimmi is not like the Muslim, nor is his sanctity equal to his sanctity, and for this reason, it is not obligatory to accept their invitations to a wedding feast and the like. Regarding his statement that it was issued in the context of the most common occurrence, we reply: Whenever the entity specified in the text contains a meaning suitable to be considered in the ruling, it is not permissible to omit it nor to extend the ruling without it, and Islamic brotherhood has an effect on the obligation.