this. It is valid, for the gesture suffices for designation. If he adds to that, saying: "this daughter of mine," or "this so-and-so," it is an emphasis. If she is absent, and he says: "I have married you to my daughter," and he has no other, it is permissible. If he names her with her name in addition to that, it is an emphasis. If he has two daughters or more, and says: "I have married you to my daughter," it is not valid until he adds to that what distinguishes her, whether by name or description, so he says: "I have married you to my eldest daughter, or middle, or youngest." If he names her with that, it is an emphasis. If he says: "I have married you to my daughter 'A'ishah, or Fatimah," it is valid. If he has only one daughter named Fatimah, and says: "I have married you to Fatimah," it is not valid, because this name is common between her and all other Fatimahs, until he says along with it: "my daughter." Some Shafi'is said: It is valid if they both intend her. This is not correct, because the marriage requires testimony in a manner that allows it to be rendered if the contract is proven by it, and this is impossible with intention. For this reason, if he said: "I have married you to my daughter," while he has daughters, it is not valid until he distinguishes her by his utterance. And if he says: "I have married you to Fatimah, the daughter of so-and-so," he needs to ascend in her genealogy until he reaches that which distinguishes her from other women.
Section: If he has two daughters, an eldest named 'A'ishah and a youngest named Fatimah, and he says: "I have married you to my daughter 'A'ishah," and the husband accepts that, while they both intend the youngest, it is not valid. Abu Hafs mentioned this. The Qadi said: It is valid for the one they intended. This is incorrect for two reasons: First, they did not utter what is valid for the contract to be testified upon, so it is similar to if he had said: "I have married you to 'A'ishah" only, or if he said: "I have married you to my daughter" without naming her. And since it is not valid when he does not name her, it is even more appropriate that it not be valid when he names her with someone else's name. Second, the marriage is not valid until the woman is mentioned by what distinguishes her, and that was not found, as her sister's name does not distinguish her; rather, it diverts the contract away from her. If the guardian intends the eldest, and the husband intends the youngest, it is not valid, like the case of al-Khiraqi regarding when one proposes to a woman and is married to another; because the acceptance was diverted to someone other than the one for whom the offer was made. It is possible that it is valid if there was no preceding event that would divert the acceptance to the youngest, such as a proposal or the like, for the contract in its wording covers the eldest, and nothing was found to divert it from her, so it is valid, just as if they both intended her. And if the guardian intended the youngest and the husband the eldest, or the guardian intended the eldest and the husband...
هذه. صَحَّ، فإنَّ الإِشارةَ تكفِى فى التَّعْيِينِ، فإن زادَ على ذلك، فقال: بِنْتِى هذه، أو هذه فلانةَ. كان تأكيدًا، وإن كانت غائِبةً، فقال: زَوَّجْتُكَ بِنْتِى. وليس له سِواها، جاز. فإن سَمَّاها باسْمِها مع ذلك، كان تأكِيدًا. فإن كان له ابْنتانِ أو أكثرُ، فقال: زَوَّجْتُكَ ابْنَتِى. لم يَصِحَّ حتى يَضُمَّ إلى ذلك ما تَتَمَيَّزُ به، من اسْمٍ أو صِفَةٍ، فيقولَ: زَوَّجْتُكَ ابنتِى الكُبْرَى أو الوُسْطَى أو الصُّغْرَى. فإن سَمَّاها مع ذلك كان تأكِيدًا، وإن قال: زَوَّجْتُكَ ابنتِى عائشةَ، أو فاطمةَ. صَحَّ. وإن كانت له ابنةٌ واحدةٌ اسْمُها فاطمةُ، فقال: زَوَّجْتُكَ فاطمةَ. لم يَصِحَّ؛ لأنَّ هذا الاسمَ مُشْتَرَكٌ بينها وبين سائرِ الفَواطِمِ، حتى يقولَ مع ذلك: ابْنَتِى. وقال بعضُ الشَّافعيَّةِ: يصِحُّ إذا نَوَياها جميعًا. وليس بصحيحٍ؛ لأنَّ النِّكاحَ تُعْتَبرُ فيه الشَّهادةُ على وَجْهٍ يُمْكِنُ أداؤُها إذا ثَبَتَ به العَقْدُ، وهذا متعذِّرٌ فى النِّيَّةِ، ولذلك لو قال: زَوَّجْتُكَ ابْنَتِى. وله بَناتٌ، لم يَصِحَّ حتى يُمَيِّزَها بلَفْظِه. وإن قال: زَوَّجْتُكَ فاطمةَ ابنةَ فُلانٍ. احْتاجَ أن يَرْفَعَ فى نَسَبِها حتى يَبْلُغَ ما تَتَميَّزُ به عن النِّساءِ.
فصل: فإن كان له ابْنَتانِ، كُبْرَى اسْمُها عائشةُ، وصُغْرَى اسمُها فاطمةُ، فقال: زَوَّجْتُك ابْنَتِى عائشةَ. وقَبِلَ الزَّوْجُ ذلك، وهما يَنْوِيانِ الصُّغْرَى، لم يَصِحَّ. ذكَره أبو حَفْصٍ. وقال القاضى: يَصِحُّ فى التى نَوَياها. وهذا غيرُ صحيحٍ؛ لوَجْهَيْنِ؛ أحدهما، أنَّهما لم يتَلَفَّظَا بما يَصِحُّ العَقْدُ بالشَّهادةِ عليه، فأشْبَهَ ما لو قال: زَوَّجْتُكَ عائشةَ. فقط. أو ما لو قال: زَوَّجْتُكَ ابْنَتِى. ولم يُسَمِّها، وإذا لم يَصِحَّ فيما إذا لم يُسَمِّها، ففيما إذا سَمَّاها بغيرِ اسْمِها أوْلَى أن لا يَصِحَّ. والثانى، أنَّه لا يصحُّ النِّكاحُ حتى تُذْكَرَ المرأةُ بما تتَميَّزُ به، ولم يُوجَدْ ذلك، فإنَّ اسْمَ أخْتِها لا يُمَيِّزُها، بل يَصْرِفُ العَقْدَ عنها. وإن كان الوَلِىُّ يريدُ الكُبْرَى، والزَّوْجُ يَقْصِدُ الصُّغْرَى، لم يَصِحَّ، كمسألةِ الْخِرَقِىِّ، فيما إذا خَطَبَ امرأةً وزُوِّجَ غيرَها؛ لأنَّ القَبُولَ انْصَرفَ إلى غيرِ مَنْ وُجِدَ الإيجابُ فيه. ويَحْتَمِلُ أن يَصِحَّ إذا لم يتَقدَّمْ ذلك ما يَصْرِفُ القَبُولَ إلى الصُّغْرَى، من خِطْبةٍ ونحوِها، فإنَّ العَقْدَ بلَفْظِه مُتَناوِلٌ للكُبْرَى، ولم يُوجَدْ ما يَصْرِفُه عنها، فصَحَّ، كما لو نَوَياها. ولو نَوَى الوَلِىُّ الصُّغْرَى، والزَّوْجُ الكبرَى، أو نَوَى الولىُّ الكبرَى، ولم
