Channel: Hatem al-Haj
Series: Hatem al-Haj - Fiqh of Family
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
if we can maybe make like a lunch together?
I think so I think we should
have to finish the class.
Yeah, I think people even in smaller groups, but you get to know each other a little bit more. It is really important. It is very, very important.
wa to proceed when
we are back to a monopod Emma's book on that and fellow coaches and abridge many manual, from buddy Felker, to the moment of Madonna wrote, he died in the year 620, after his era.
And we have finished that and Muhammad Malaya.
worship and financial transactions, we just got done with the fact of inheritance. And we are going over the family. After the purple family, we will have the
foods and drinks and
and then judiciary, and judiciary. And that would be it. So we are about
two thirds through it through the book, maybe another more three quarters
through the book.
So Bob Nicholson co founded the chapter on marriage to unbelievers. The criminal law says, Hello, the Muslims in Nicaragua, Catherine behind what are the Muslim in Nicaragua, Catherine edelen.
It's not permissible for a female Muslim to marry an unbeliever under any condition. Nor is it allowable for a male Muslim to marry an unbeliever, except free woman from the people of the book, except a free woman from the people of the book. And this is a matter of consensus. There is no disagreement over this. It's another of consensus. It's not permissible for a female Muslim, to marry an unbeliever under any condition. That's a categorical prohibition for the male Muslim, that it is also a categorical prohibition, but there are exceptions or there is one exception, which is that he is able to marry a Jew or a Christian.
And this requires some explanation. So why is that? And you know, why don't we apply the sort of the concept of reciprocation here that we apply in international relations?
It's a it's it's a good concept of Islam does recognize right concept of reciprocation. So
there are reasons here that Islam tries to protect the religious commitment of its followers. Islam tries to protect the religious commitment to its followers. But it does not force anyone else
basically, to do the same or does not. So it is not forced the Christians and Jews when Muslims propose to them to accept the proper proposal, the proposal, right? Islam does not will not force a Christian woman or a Jewish woman when a Muslim man proposes to them does not force them to accept the proposal. If it is okay and they're the same, then that's fine. If they accept the proposal, and it is fine in their own Sharia, then it is fine. But when it comes to basically instructing the followers, its followers. Islam wants to protect the religious commitment of its followers. And it is undeniable that there is a difference between the roles husbands and wives play within the
structure of the family, and that it is undeniable and has been throughout the history undeniable that it would be easier for a Muslim man to practice his religion. If he were married to a Christian woman than the opposite Muslim woman. married to a Christian man. We have rules and regulations. Islam has rules and regulations to a it wants its followers to abide by and to live by. A Muslim woman for instance, cannot have intimacy during her fasting or during
Her period. Well, Christian or Jewish husband may not necessarily honor this or recognize this. And knowing the family dynamics and knowing the sort of dynamics of this relationship, it is Islam does not trust that even if it happened, even if it was possible that one in one case or in some cases
they will honor it, and it'll be fine. But but the Sharia is not does not, you know,
basically take in consideration the rare scenarios that takes in consideration the dominant scenario. And the dominant scenario here is that it would be difficult for Muslim woman to live by her
sort of religious convictions if she was not married to another man. Now, having said this, this is the difference between Muslim men and Western women and why Muslim men are allowed to marry Christians and Jews and Muslim women are not. But that does not mean that Muslim women and men are given sort of like a sort of a license to do whatever they want. They also have limitations. They were allowed to marry Christians and Jews just because of the divine origin of these books origin of these books makes
you know, the divine origin of these books makes
some common ground creates some common ground between us and the Christians and Jews. There are some commonalities, at least in in the Gospel, and the Torah, the concept of chastity, the, you know, the concept of family life, the values a family concept of chastity. These are concepts that are honored by the Torah and the Gospel, these commonalities would make this would make enough compatibility between a Muslim man and his Christian or Jewish wife
to make this prospect plausible, the prospect of this union plausible, but a Muslim man is not allowed to marry outside of the three religions. He's also having restrictions. It's not like, you know, you're a man, you can do whatever you want. You're also having some restrictions. And the difference, as we said, is because it is and has been easier for a Muslim man to live up
to his religious commitments or to live by his religious convictions, if he's married to a non Muslim woman, Christian or two, then it is for a Muslim woman.
Having said that, it is still disliked for a Muslim man to marry a non Muslim woman because of the obvious three, the obvious reason that compatibility and commonalities the more commonalities you have with your spouse. The better off this the prospects of success of this relationship or this union, and you might want to have more commonalities and of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam is saying
earlier about the Maria Maria Javier Dini Dini derivative, woman is proposed to for four reasons, her beauty her, her, her welfare, beauty, her lineage and her Deen so marry the religious one that you may prosper. And if he's saying this, then certainly it would apply,
first and foremost to marrying a Muslim woman. Now, all of this, so this disliking, marrying a non Muslim woman for the Muslim man
is applicable in the lens of Islam. But what about outside of the land of Islam and when when we say that it is the slide, certainly, it is not forbidden, because sometimes the benefit may outweigh the harm. And that's why it is this like, it is basically to point to that it is probably better for you to marry a Muslim woman. But sometimes the benefit may outweigh the harm for certain special circumstances, that it would be fine.
Particularly if you expect to the to convert or something of that nature, then the benefit May the medic is particularly pointed this out that sometimes the benefit may outweigh the harm. And that is why it was not categorically prohibited.
But this discussion was was a discussion in the lens of Islam but what about outside the lens of Islam What about you know, in outside of the lens of Islam and outside of the lens of Islam,
the scholars in the past that have divided lands into the bow, the feasts and the abode of war or the abode of Islam and the abode of harm
But they also recognize the abode of the abortive treaty. And so that the it is not a compliment the fifth division, it is the economist division in the sense of the abode of Islam. And
you know, because it's either, you know, the majority are either Muslim or the majority of the people of the land are either Muslim or not Muslim. But there are so many intricacies it is a complicated issue, you know, the abode, the division of the abodes is a very complicated issue, because what is it about? Is it about the majority of the inhabitants or it's about the laws that govern the land? or What is it about how do you say that this is the land of Islam, for the for our times that division is not that sort of stiff division is not applicable. And wherever Muslims are able to practice their Deen freely and peacefully, they have enough security to practice they're
being done the suggested title for those lands would be the land of what
the security lands of security lands where there is security.
So you don't have to say it's the land of Islam or the land of hardboard, the land the flow for the land divine insights,
it is also
reconciliation, security from the basically international perspective, it is not a song, it is the land of reconciliation,
or sort of peace. But for from the perspective of the dwellers of those lands, it's not a laminate is the land of security.
So now, when so also when we talk about the the discussion that the earlier scholars have about marrying a
non Muslim outside of the land of Islam, and that it, is it pertinent to us now or not, you can say it is pertinent to us, because they were talking about data. And if it is a land that is inhabited mostly by Muslims, then it is applicable to it, is this
the same discussion that they had is applicable? No, it's not that easy, you will have to figure out because the land of security is not the land of war. It is a land where Muslims are able to practice their religion freely. The relationship
with people of this land, not only by the weather is another relationship between the dwellers of this land, and the rest of the people in this land. But the relationship of Muslim countries with this land is a relationship of reconciliation, it's a relationship of peace, it's a relationship of treaties, and, and so on.
So you can't really
just transplant the rulings from their, their to here, that would not be right. But what you can do is, you can basically look into the reasons that they provided the reasons that they provided the say,
to give the distinction to marrying a non Muslim outside of the lines of Islam. First of all, what did they say about this? We said that in the lines of Islam, all of them agreed that it is permissible was Sankara, but they agree that it is permissible.
But outside of the lens of Islam, the honeyberries and Hannah fees, said that it is not permissible to marry non Muslims outside of the land of Islam.
The mannequins and Shafi said on the rise, but these are the seven semigroup. But the honeyberries and some people may say that, you know, because it is very hard to ascertain the position of a meson hub,
unless you really have like studied the method well. So some people may say that this is not true for the companies, for instance, and if you look up the fatawa online, you will find that many people say that the honeyberries allow permit marriage to the hakobyan marriage to a citizen of a warring
enemy. Yes, they say is a bit of a resort to be I don't have to be it's permissible to marry akademija. One of the moment from the people of the book, even if she's happy, even if she is from the land of war. So how am I saying that it's not combat is they said that it is permissible to marry Leah but they did not say it is permissible to marry her be in the land
You can marry Javier in the land of Islam could be visiting, you could marry her, even when she is in the land of harm, and you are in the land of Islam, that would be permissible according to all of them except for canopies. The canopies consider that the difference in land
rules out the permissibility of marriage, or a they actually the validity of marriage, they say once a
void, once there is a benefit that marriage becomes void. But the majority said that someone could be residing in Islam, someone could be residing in Birmingham, they could get married in their marriage would be acceptable, can, yes, permissible.
He or she is there, you're here in the marriage is permissible. Now,
but when it comes to in Darren Hardy, how
a mama Matt says makrooh even to marry a Muslim and
a Muslim woman and because he says that, because he fears and he says that if someone married a Muslim and he has basically two years, he has basically to not have kids
to sort of have some birth control some modality of birth control,
to not have kids because he's afraid for his offspring. But he said he said if he if he could marry a Muslim
for like some sort of necessity,
but it is not permissible for him even scenario non Muslim in the land of war, because he says that
the stakes are very high for his offspring for his children.
So, he would not allow the canopies would not allow the bodies would not allow but the rest would allow this marriage
with the camera. Now, the fact that they do not allow Does it mean that they are not married? No, it does not mean that they are not married, like if someone is say Hanbury and he has another heart to heart, we're not talking about the land or the land of security through through the heart.
Let's say go back to the time of Malaya, and someone was under Byzantine rule.
He is Muslim. He went to the Byzantine Empire. He's there it is through that hub, there is active war between the Muslims and the Byzantine Empire. And he got married to a Byzantine woman. Now what is the ruling of this? Who okay her arm, but the marriage is valid. They are not in
sort of a zener relationship. They are in marriage, they are married, but his marrying her was harder.
Because not every prohibition means invalidity of the Act. Not every provision means invalidity of the Act, there are certain prohibitions that would invalidate the activity compromise the essence of the Act. But the other prohibitions where there is an act, where they don't compromise the essence of the Act, they do not lead to invalidity. This is one of the scenarios where the prohibition does not lead to invalidity. So if we say to someone that it is forbidden to marry anonymous the woman, then we are not saying that your marriage to her is invalid. We're saying that this is our position, and is haram. But that does not mean that your marriage to her is invalid. And it's also
controversial, but this is our position. Now, when we talk when we say that we are not in the light of war, we are in the land of security, peace, reconciliation, etc, etc.
When we then borrow,
so what are we going to do when we talk about, you know, data, Islam and data harm? What are we going to do? every scenario is different. And we have to look into the reasons why they forbade marriage to another Muslim woman in the land of war. And see if these reasons because we're not in the land of war, we can just take this ruling from them directly.
Without a reexamining we have to see their reasons applicable, not applicable. Because now we are in the land of security.
So what did they talk about? They talked about two things, you know, offspring
and the harm to Muslim women, harm to Muslim women. These are the two reasons they mentioned. They mentioned that
Allah Allah de they may take his children away from him. And could this happen in our times could this happen here, for instance, where your children can be taken away and they can be raised?
Not Muslim, that could happen. So there this reason is applicable? What about this when, you know, Amara, setubal masala Charlie he i, this allow you I for video, primary non Muslim women, because this could be a fitna to the Muslim women who will go out and just marry whatever women you want based on physical attraction or this or that. And then you will leave the Muslim woman behind why you fit in that in the minakami Valley. How you know, is there any fitness words for the Muslim women than this? So so that was the valid? That was the justification of honoring kata? Is this applicable here? It is also applicable. So should we then
say that whatever reasons they provided in the harbor are still applicable to us, even though we are categorically not indicted? Yes.
There's still applicable to us, even though we are in the Land of Peace, reconciliation, security, where we can practice our religion freely, but the reasons they provided
are still applicable.
So that's my position on this issue. Now,
as I mentioned, you know,
why is it that you know, you're
not in front of
This is the answer to Hannah or Montana, both are correct. So
Allah subhanaw taala says, Oh, you who believe when the believing women come to you Mahavira, making hedra from tahina, when examine them, verify their face, that they did not just run away from their husbands, they actually ran away because they are Muslims, not runaways, because some women can run away from their husbands and pretend that they're Muslim, just sort of, and this happens in some Muslim countries, by the way, were non Muslims, you know, enter Islam just
to get out of a relationship because in some religions, marriage is permanent. There is no divorce. So from Kahan examine them to verify that they're actually Muslims fade out into Wonder Woman epileptogenic afar and this was after had a beer. So if you know that they are, if you verify that there are believers, returns or not return them not to the believers long held alone, what
they are not permissible for them and nor they are nor other, nor are the disbelievers permissible for them.
So Allah is telling them that you know, the treaty that you have with an unbelievers to return anyone who comes to you as a Muslim, don't apply this to women. This treaty was applicable was it men were intended by this treaty, don't apply this treaty to women don't return the women to the unbelievers. So and the justification is they're not permissible for them. Then.
Then Allah subhanaw taala also says in sort of the background, I
mean, not amateur. Chicken in the bedroom.
Not a mineral, one optimal mineral Hieronymus chicken Raja Kumara Catherine at another level.
national level, you have to be careful.
Don't marry the, this unbelievers.
polytheists or unbelieving
unbelievers until they believe and a believing slave. Believing slave woman is better than a
Even if you like the freedom, what a lot of ethical even if, if you're attracted to her, but a believing slave woman is better for you than an unbeliever, even if you are attracted to her, the non believer, and the same applies, the same was repeated for the man.
Don't marry unbelieving men,
as a male.
Believing slave is better for you than
like a free unbeliever, even if you're attracted to them.
They invite you to another and Allah invites you to engender one Moksha and to forgiveness and agenda and forgiveness. And he explains or clarifies signs for the people that they may take heat in the corrode. So anyway, this is a categorical prohibition that applies to men and women. So men, Muslim men and women must marry based on this idea in Surat Al Baqarah, only Muslims, so how can Muslim men are able to marry Christians this is a this is a general preoccupation, there is a specification out of that generality, and sort of the meta
topic public. So Allah subhanaw taala.
today, the wholesome things have been made permissible for you that's food in terms of food,
wholesome things in general, what armanino to get up ahead of the curve, and the food of the People of the Book is permissible for you.
And your food is permissible for the
public, and also chaste woman women,
Chase believing women and chase women from the people of the book, Chase women from the people of the book, Harper miserable for you. That exception, it was only for Muslim men to marry chaste woman from the people of the book. And this is a matter of consensus, but it was not extended to Muslim women, because of the reasons that we have discussed before. It was not the exception is not applicable to Muslim women, because of the reasons we have discussed before.
So now this is the ruling. So the ruling is that Muslim women you don't have to worry about there is a categorical prohibition, there are no details Muslim men, there is an exception of marrying non Muslim women if they are Christians, or do
but they also believe in chastity and stuff. There is an exception here, that exception is always standing in the doorway and Islam in the land of Islam, outside of the land of Islam, where the laws, you know, particularly the family laws are not necessarily Islamic, outside of those lands. You we have two concerns that would make make us two concerns. One of them is about the offspring and the other one is about the harm that could be inflicted to Muslim women. These concerns would make the prohibition of marrying non Muslim women women stronger
and stand up until now.
Okay, so is it still controversial? It is still controversial and telling you my position. And would I recognize these marriages as a marriages I do recognize these marriages, marriages, I'm saying that it's Haram, but it does not mean that the marriages invalid or that they are in
a relationship. No, absolutely not. It's a marriage, but it is forbidden.
Earn this in
your earnings in your sinful in the sight of God but the relationship itself is is not you don't turn the sin of Xena here in the sin of risking your kids
religion religious commitment and harming other Muslim women.
Muslim women also
They don't have to worry about to begin with because they are categorically forbidden from marrying non Muslims.
You still have the offspring from
a different discussion for later them.
Is it a marriage? Or is it the marriage like the longevity of the marriage?
It is not a perpetual sin.
It is a sin at the time of marriage.
When the next one talks about here will matter as long as as long as the agenda for non family from Annika Haman, upon the conversion to Islam by the husband of a woman from the people of the book for the conversion of two unbelievers simultaneously, their marriage remains in effect.
So, upon the conversion of Islam by the husband of a woman from the viewpoint of the book or the conversion of two unbelievers simultaneously, their marriage remains and effect. What does that mean? Now, we will talk about the conversion apostasy and conversion, people walking in and out of religions, you know, so you have many scenarios here, you have a scenario of two unbelievers marrying in the end being married to each other, to Muslims being married to each other, one Muslim and one kitabi, one woman from the people of the book, being married to each other, and so on. So, let's say we have certain scenarios where the marriage is does not, you know, get suspended or
It's not affected by someone moving in and out of a religion. What are those two scenarios, if you have two people like to choose married, married to each other, to Christians married to each other?
One of them converts this the the marriage remains valid. You don't need to renew the marriage. The marriage remains valid. Because it's so happy though husa has stated our motto you know if the marriage is okay to initiate it is okay to basically keep maintain.
The other scenario is to unbelievers becoming Muslim simultaneously at the same time. And in an era him Allah said or before one of them finishes. The other one
fetishize the testimony of faith, the other one accepts it. So it doesn't have to be simultaneous to the fraction of a second but at the same time, they are
converting in this case the marriage remains valid. This is whether or not
the marriage has been consummated. In all scenarios consummated, not consummated. The marriage remains valid in these two scenarios. Now, let's talk about other scenarios. When in Atlanta huddle home and that's by agreement, all of this by agreement, when asked
our desert Jane
and Muslim a gobbler, who in Thessalonica
aside from the husband of a woman from the people of the book, if one of two unbelieving spouses converts to Islam, or one of two Muslim spouses apostatize us, and this is before the consummation, the marriage becomes handled immediately becomes annulled immediately.
So, to people that are contracted, but they have not consummated the marriage to people that are contracted, and they have not consummated the marriage.
Aside from the man who's married to a Christian or a Jewish woman,
if someone apostatize us or someone convert to Islam, the difference in religion between the two, there is one difference in religion that's permissible. That is when the man is Muslim, and the woman is happy. But aside from this scenario, if there is a difference of religion that happens before the consummation, that difference in religion, some one bastardizing or converting
Difference in religion would mean what for the marriage invalidation immediate and validation of the marriage because it is not a marriage that has been consummated with a marriage that has been consummated. We give it time. You know, there is something here the stakes are high here. So we have to give it time but this is just a contract. This contract becomes a void immediately. But what if the marriage was consummated whatever they are actually husband and wife they consummated the marriage they're living together.
Then the chief said in Cana pathetic about the whole economic capital mineral mafia that he had, for whom he had Anika Hema
Diana and Anika confessor Carmen de terre de Noma, if this happens after the consummation, but the disbelieving spouse becomes a Muslim before the end of the IDA, than their original marriage remains, in effect, otherwise, the marriage will be considered to have been unknown as of the time they're religions different. As of the time the religions differ. What does that mean? Now you have a husband and wife who are married and they consummated the marriage and everything.
One of them are proselytizers, one of them converts. One of them proselytizers. What do we do? We suspend the marriage scald suspended, we don't avoid it immediately, we suspended until the waiting period ends, that is the period of suspension. If the apostate came back or the other one who did not convert convert, and then the marriage will remain in effect, there is no need to initiate a new contract. It remains in effect.
And all of this has to do with the Prophet sallallahu Sallam he is the daughter of the Prophet sallallahu sallam. And whether she was
given back to her disbelieving husband after he converted
on the basis of the first contract or whether a contract was was renewed. And this is how these wise it's a very complicated issue and very controversial and complicated issue. But let's just take from this
that in the Hanbury Meza,
the marriage will remain suspended until the whatever the apostate comes back for the one who did not convert converts, until they both become Muslim, and then the marriage will remain in suspension. And then if the person who did not convert converts, or if the apostate comes back, within the waiting period of the woman, the marriage resumes, without initiation of new contract, everything is the same. Now, if they did not come back, what happens? We will say that the marriage was terminated from which time from the end of her period know, from the time the person left Islam? How is that practically consequential because she will not need to restart her period. Because if we
say that the marriage terminated from the end of her period, she will need to restart a period No. The marriage was terminated from the time they
one of them apostatized or one of them converted to Islam. Now, what else would be practical here?
If he divorces her during that time, if he divorces her during that time, like let's say someone apostatize a man, two Muslim people are married. The men apostatize left Islam
so he left Islam here.
You know, God forbid been a husk of my father. So
he left Islam here and her period ended here.
And here he divorced her.
Okay. If he if he
came back to Islam here
yeah, that divorce Calvin's.
That will count as one of the fate of horses that he is entitled to. If he did not come to Islam, he until here that divorce does not count. Why? Because we are saying that since he did not come to Islam within her period, we're saying that retrospectively, the marriage had ended here. So you can't divorce
non wife, he can divorce and non wife. Okay. So what if we What if we had intimacy here?
Why don't we have intimacy here?
No suspension does not. That's a controversial issue. Does she have to leave the house or not? It's a controversial issue. But but the suspension, no.
suspension, no intimacy. Okay. So, what if he, what if he, what if they have intimacy here?
Yes, she should not because marriage is suspended. However, however,
what if someone had intimacy because of chabahar because of some misgivings with a woman that is not his wife, that he has to pay?
Yes, he has to.
No, because of a show pad, because there is still a ship, they still, they still may think this is a ship, that for sure. They still feel that they're married
or they think or they have the misgiving or whatever it is,
that had do not apply be applied here at all. But the idea here is whenever they had intimacy here, and then he came back to Islam here,
and she entitled to any money now,
because she was his wife, because we did sort of go back
and prevented permit, she was she that she, she was wrong to allow him, you know, to have intimacy with him, because at that time, it was suspended. But we are going back retrospectively and saying that the marriage resumes,
what if they had intimacy here and he did not come to Islam and
her period ends, then this she deserves more credit for this
marriage? No, she deserves because of the intimacy it is a you know,
any woman who has intimacy in a relationship that is a true power relationship not as
not is in a
well deserved, because of a relationship.
Yes, she already have a Mahara but we said the retrospectively we will consider the government the marriage and the terminated here at the time of his apostasy, or at the time of the conversion of one of them at the time of the conversion of one of them.
We did not we suspended it, but we retrospectively if he does not come back within her period retrospectively, and that is why we're saying that it is practical, there are practical consequences, because retrospectively we will say that the marriage terminated here, it did not terminate here, it terminated here.
And since we're saying that the marriage terminated here, a divorce that happened here is inconsequential, because it's a divorce of an unwise consequential intimacy that happens here when basically entitle her to the Mahara because it is, like intimacy that happened during sort of like on the basis of a dubious relationship. There should have here
Three months, or three or three periods, core whatever the sir, whatever appeared applicable to the pregnancy to the theodoric section.
Okay, now we're done with this part.
Then, the next
Mom, so Mia, Womack, caffeine unfuckable
bother to FICO freehand. How are we done with all these tires? We will give enough time for people to ask about these things because there could be a lot of intricacies and a lot of different scenarios but this is finished with this
one so me,
McAfee Ron zacapa daata eak, roughly half a euro.
Or should I say
we're in Canada man, we're in Nantucket when Canada.
Miss Leah alnus, fubu Heights, whatever it was a doc was assigned while they were unbelievers and the wife received it while they were unbelievers another nothing else is due to her, even if that was unlawful. If she has not received it, and it is unlawful. She would have the spark of a woman her equal or half of that. When indicated. What does that mean? We're talking here, about not about we're talking here about marriage to unbelievers, but we're talking about marriage of the unbelievers to so to unbelievers were married for instance,
to unbelievers who were married.
So this is the life
they are married. And he gave her this a lot. He gave her this a lot. And they also Bob was like two barrels of wine
or a herd of pigs.
And he gave her the whole soda.
And then they became Muslim.
And she came and said, You know, when we were unbelievers, he gave me my Saddam Hussein barrels of wine. And since that is not acceptable, I want myself luck. I want my mind. Yeah, we will say that it's too late because she had received all of it. She had received all of it. And the concept that we uphold here is that marriage of the unbelievers is marriage.
reports from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam that he said
two men Nika Han la sefa. Hai was born out of a marriage, not Xena. So if he called that marriage, this means that the marriage of the unbelievers counts has full blown marriage. The Marriage of the unbelievers is always accepted. Regardless of the Siva, regardless of the formalities and technicalities of marriage was there, you don't go back and say to them was there What did you have to choose? Whatever counts for them, we will just take it, we will just accept it. They are married. We're not look into how they got married. What are the two exceptions
or the one exception?
If the marriage there are one exception, that is by agreement, and one exception that is not by agreement, the one exception that is by agreement is that if you cannot initiate the marriage now with her, you can't keep it.
If you're married to five women, you'll have to leave the one
if you are married to your sister, which isn't some people have some religions, they can marry their sisters or to your Some people even can marry their mothers.
Historically, maybe not as often now, but historically that used to be the case. And if you if you're married to someone that is an incestuous relationship, then you will have to leave her we can not approve of this marriage now and say that it happened in the past, but you can start it now so you can keep it now. Okay, so that's one thing.
Are you married? You're even married to your your daughter sister, which is a more common scenario because many people don't recognize the milk sister as a sister, but we do. So you can't keep her.
Okay. What is the other one that is controversial? Let us say a believer that two unbelievers accepted Islam and they are married and they have had four or five divorces in the past who are in
What do we do? What do we do? The majority said they have to separate because their past divorces count.
The Maliki's come to our rescue and they say
marriage their marriage. No. And they despite the fact that we disagree with very much on their saying that the marriage does not count they say that the Caprica license they said the marriage among this believers is not correct, it is not validated because in our sharra it is not you know, it has to be a valid nicotine, our chocolate validated. Therefore there are a lot is not that. So neither there in the gap was valid nor their clock was valid. They start anew he has three divorces from now.
That's I mean, if he if you believe in that form of faxing between them, which I believe in strongly and have quality before in the past, why, then you could certainly find a way out of this because it is hard for two loving spouses to tell them now that you have become Muslim, you must separate.
Anyway, so But what if he gave her that that what he wanted? So he gave her the boundary? she asked for the dowry again, we can't give you anything because that happened in the past.
Now what if he gave her half of it? Like the diary was four barrels of wine, he gave her two. And
she said, he said owes her to and then they converted or they came to us to seek our judgment. What do we say?
Okay, we will say, what is the portion of the dowry that he gave her? two out of four, he gave her 50%. Now she is entitled, not to the value of the two barrels of wine because wine is not like watermelon does not have a value for us. She's entitled to 50% of the value of her equals minus 50% of the dowry of her equals Mohammed. Because he had given her 50% of the dowry. She's entitled, what if he gave her one out of four barrels? She's entitled to 75% of the dowry of her equals.
What if he gave her two barrels of wine, and then they converted this lamb, and then he divorced her. He divorced her before
consummation, she will now need to give him one barrel back. No part of the hammer it is treated like cod that part of the farmer just loan wine is inconsequential wine should be wine is not money, it's, you know, should be thrown.
But there are a lot of different scenarios, whatever the wine became vinegar, and there are a lot of different scenarios like an intricate scenarios that are interesting. But I guess that's enough to just get make sure that these concepts are clear. And then
we can talk about the scenarios and some other time and critical data as