#10 Fiqh of Family – Proper Treatment of Women

I'm about to proceed.

So today, I'll try to go quickly over the rest of the chapter of subharti. Remember where we stopped, we were talking about the halfing of the Saba, when, you know after the war after the contract and before the consummation of divorce takes place, what happens?

She gets half

of this about the bride gets half of the or, you know, yes, the bride gets half of this

hand, if he's here at the event, he returns one half of it to him. But then, we were talking about

the case where she is the one who initiated the separation, not him,

or cause of the separation, not him, in this case that she gets half.

Know

what if she asks him for Coraline, he gives her color. Isn't that an initiation on her part? Yes, but she gets half Yes, because at the end of the day, he gave her that hoarder.

But there are certain cases, there are certain cases where she initiated and it is all her doing.

And she excelled.

In his books spoken on the

first one popular forgotten Japan America Islami out today at our office in the IB, IB.

Our SPI he has to be a be

subsection of AP is dropped in all cases where separation is caused by the woman before consummation, such as her conversion to Islam, apostasy breastfeeding or the fact the same applies if annulment was caused by the fact of the husbands because she's the one who demand that the annulment has his lack of means or her emancipation. All of these things. She is the one who caused that she does not get to keep one half.

Then he said when Jackman is xlg cataloging your holiday eternal safavi malaba, Noma and Yahoo

out of four. Hey on Happy Hour here I'll see you there. For for your Camaro as to

how you come

to Linux.

If the separation before consummation comes in from the side of the husband, when he divorces her grants are cooler than her deserve dollar or sabacc is half

unless he exempts her by paying the Fulbright of the hour or she exempts him by forgoing the deserving half assuming that she is crushy the armature, if she's not there achieved that she cannot exempt.

If she is not, she that she cannot exempt him her you know?

On the Arashi they can give up her right. Her child cannot give up right.

She should not

give up her right because it's not his

or at least according to the Hanbury mazhab

is not the way

it is the husband so went to law to warn them and probably antimuscarinic

went a lot Mohammed Hassan

funa

funa

Takara documentary on the Moto moto C. So in any foreigner except if they basically forego their half

PR phone department Forgive me meaning to exempt to give up here your rights are exempt the other party have their obligation. California for now, we are for another big or opposite on the account for the person who has basically who's in control of the marriage which was the husband

if he forgives, pardons exempt gives up his right.

This means what happens on top of a document Don't forget graciousness in dealings among you, because this particular relationship is not based on justice. Justice is the very basic foundation for sure. But it is it mainly runs on graciousness, not justice.

We can say it is based on justice, but it mainly runs on graciousness.

I said cannot run on justice.

So, then, if the if the separation comes from the side of the husband, then he will give her half court. If he is gracious, he will give, give her the whole Saba court. If she is gracious, she won't give up her half, you know, and the encouragement here is for, for people basically, to demonstrate graciousness.

So this is where we stopped last time.

Then the sheer criminal law said we're in German as an AVI and farla zildjian is for nahariya giobbi rabina. The separation is caused by a third party, the husband will owe half of the sybok. But he can claim it from the party that separated them.

How can the separation because the by a third party

let's say he is married to an infant.

And his sister, you know, picks her up. And breast feeds are

five times according to buddies, but breastfeed her achromatic is on how to piece. But let's say if I actually did breastfeed her five times according to the homebodies, what does that make her? his niece? Can he consummate the marriage with her know that she ruined it for him? Yes. Now is not the infant's fault, no.

She deserving of her half of her Valerie. Yes,

he doesn't have to pay. And then he can go back and Sue his sister

for you know,

half an hour.

So in order to VRM and fabric, but he can claim it from the party that's separated.

He can demand that his sister kindly give him the and then if he refuses, then he can take her to court.

Then the she acts

Berkey and lunghezza crema to Sarabhai, no man is fine, if the sybok is half and it is a particular item whose value does not change, it will be divided between them

it will be divided between them.

So let us say now, we said that the contract took place.

And consummation has not taken place yet.

In this period, the divorce that happened here, she gets one half.

Now we will talk about because we'll talk about what happens with us sabab if it goes up it goes down, you know increases and decreases.

Now if he gave her a particular item, a piece of furniture for instance, then he is entitled to half of it at the time at the end, you know,

or half of its value.

So that is if it doesn't change the value of it does not change what ends up is the other common fallacy like a condominium Walla Walla Walla Hannon binomo pasilla.

Mr. Insane in semi nettleham rocked by in a perfect industry has never been a doctor industry Pima Tia Yama, Allah

ibaka greases and increases separate from the original item such as when a sheep gives birth to a baby lamb, the increase belongs to her the original sheep will be divided between them. If the increase is attached to the original item, such as when a sheep

gains weight, she can choose to return half of the larger sheep for to return half of the sheep's value as of the day of the contract.

So let us finish what he will have to say about these scenarios where the value of the salary goes up or down and then discuss it in detail. He then says when not the thought fella, it should be fella who it's you know, in this particular manuscript of a fetus, there is an error, typo and nakazato ltr by aquabion sp NACA sam ouabain aquaventure strippy Mati Yamaha intellifax

p Mati hi Yamanaka. If it decreases, he can choose to take half of the diminished property, or half of its value as of the day of the contract. If the item has been done as he is entitled to half of its value

As of the day of the marriage contract as of the day of a marriage contract, okay, so Saba Saba could be half

the principle here is that from the day of the contract who is the owner of the entire sabacc? Not half who's the owner of the entirety of the bride? She's deserving from the time of the contract, she is the owner.

So, there are many scenarios here. One scenario we have fungible and non fungible fungible means what substitutable fungible goods are like what Miss

we have something called Miss Lee yet and kimia Miss Li

is when the like of which is universally available to sell appealable PME you can find that exact light, but you hit can be valued has a key measure of value that we know. So, these are two different things. In fact, Miss Leah comes from Miss

means substitutable for fungible

the light which can be found

fimea means things that have a value but the like of which are not you know found

the likes of which are not found

like what dollars does matter you know, like you know, when it doesn't matter the dollars in my wallet now and dollars in your water, is there a difference? Are they exactly the same they are

also mystery yet are like two tonnes of a particular or two pounds of a particular

grain or seed or something

described in detail. So, when you say two pounds or two tonnes I

have access to tons of

floor than wheat, whatever it is, you know,

then then that is Miss Leah takamiya that Smith Leah fungible, they exact like which can be proud. So, we have different tools when it comes to the city and

for the necessity yeah the funds doubles

the funds doubles

whoever has the money he just he just has that particular value. If it would be half then half of it half of that money you know if you have that money, you could do whatever you want with it because the like of which is is easily found is not a problem.

So if you want to have to if he gives her $1,000 for instance us about $1,000

and he does not give her the money he loses the money What does he have to give her if divorce happens 500 an hour problem on an issue two tons one time etc. If she takes the money and she loses the money

and the divorce takes place afterwards before consummation, what did she give him back 500 fungible easy, no problem here

whoever has that money, whoever has has that money and if he invests it and it grows, the growth is his the person who has it even if it is the husband

How come the money belongs to her, but these are convertibles. What he promised to her is $1,000 any $1,000 worth do any $1,000 will do but when it comes to non fungible it's a different story. One function balls are like what a particular piece of furniture a particular candle cow etc.

These are non fungible because the exact like of which may not be found the exact like of which may not be found. Let us say it's a cow.

So this she gets the cow

Okay, one scenario is he does not give her the cow.

He keeps the cow.

There are two scenarios here that she demanded.

Let's say that

okay. So let us talk about increase in decrease. Let's divide it this way increase and decrease

How can the count increase

No gives birth or Yes Wait or gives birth. So, the separable and inseparable inseparable, inseparable,

the separable decrease increase is gives birth, the inseparable as gains weight.

How can a cow decrease in value loses weight right?

Or becomes a blind or whatever something happens, okay. Now, we have two scenarios here, in the case of increase, increase what happens? Who owns this cow?

Right? If he had the cow, if he had the cow with him, who still owns the property, the bride, not him. Because this is different from fungible, fungible, he does not, he does not owe her this cow, he owes her $1,000, he can bring the $1,000 from wherever, that's what he owes her. But when it comes to the why, and the particular cow, if he's then has the cow, she makes the profit.

Okay, she makes the profit. If she has the cow, obviously, she will make the profit. Now, if the profit is separable, and divorce takes place, what happens?

That's fine. She keeps the separable profit, she keeps the babies.

She keeps the babies what happens?

has specific

so if the if the health of the game is not separable, the cow gained weight.

But what happens if the cow gained weight and she would have to return half half

she has the option, she has the option to give him half of the value of the cow at the time of the contract for half of the cow now, half of the cow now after the increase, she can choose.

She has the choice. I mean, she's generous, she's nice.

She wanted to give him half of the cow like half of the the larger cow now the cow after she gained the weight on the old hat.

What if she has the choice, then she's bound to give him the least is half of the value of the cow at the time of the contract. Any profit after that is hers. So she is bound to give him at least half of the value of the cow at the time of the contract. Any profit is hers. But if she wanted to give him half of the cow now which is the larger cow, the better cow the fatter cow, then that's, that's nice to her.

But what if the cow decreased? What if the cow you know became blind last wait email ciated whatever.

What happens? Who has the cow siarhei she has the cow Okay, if she has the cow, then she then he has he has the right to demand half. He can either take half of the cattle now the mlca that cow or has the right to demand half of the value of the account at the time of the contract.

Okay.

Now what if he has the cow and the cow lost weight?

He still has the cow.

Yeah, he did not submit the cow to her. He said I was the cow after the contract and now the cow lost weight.

two scenarios two scenarios that she'd demand to think of a cow for she did not demand to take the cow.

If she'd been man the

cow and he procrastinated, he is liable for the cow for the decrease. He's liable for the decrease.

If she did not demand to take and the cow last Wait, who's liable?

She is in the sense that it's a loss unless

Because what is the what is it the key for capital Baccarat? What is the basically the key description of the Bukhara? It is what it is Amana alaria it is a man it's a trust, she left it with him, willingly left it with him, it means that the council has a trust with him. When does he become liable for the loss? negligence or transgression is tough read how hard the tough read or Todd if he did not commit an act of negligence or transgression? The fruit or the she loses?

She's she it's it's airboss not his loss if he committed to Frito top the it is his loss. Okay, so that is basically a very quick summary of when the salary increases or decreases.

Well, why do these cars have to get into the nitty gritty of stuff like this? Why do we have to get in because they had people come to them with these problems, they have to say this is what you do when something happens. They have this nature

so that they can basically

do the work the good work of reconciliation mediation arbitration or judging between people.

Then he said

shy once he can't see me the marriage contributes to the marriage with her, the mother or Slovak becomes entirely binding on him, and it will never be announced it will never be unknown.

Once the consummation happens, the woman will take it, there is one case on the where the woman would lose the money if she was the only deceiver. If she deceived them tricked him into the marriage and she is the only deceiver not her when she is the one responsible.

She is the one who hid from him, how I had the fact that when I had no mention of the contract, she hid from him at the fact that weren't the announcement of the contract, who had it she did actively not actively hid the fact that clients and anonymous have become one of the well he is the one who did

the one he is responsible, then the man pays the woman and he goes back and takes it from the weather. Okay, but aside from this scenario, whenever consummation happens to the entire market, it becomes a mind thing at once and it's never hung out

in color, is it only consummation in the sense of consummation having intercourse

know when cannot be How about a lock to a column

if he has been in seclusion with her after the contract, but he says I did not have intercourse with her and she confirms his statement, the matter is still binding on him and the waiting period is binding on her. Okay. Now, they both agreed that you know, that they did not consummate in the sense of conservation, you know,

they just

have

so, illegal seclusion

and seclusion, but after this kind of a shot, he said I did not touch her.

Right?

What is this?

No.

They are together in one room without anyone being without any adult sane adult in the company. So,

cor ma is child the discerning child according to the company's So anyway, but But anyway, this is kind of what I was sure I and the Hanbury method makes everything binding just like consummation.

Even if they both say nothing happened, she agrees. She gets half of them because it's hot. Who said that, in addition to the handout is the herpes

who said that also

in his old nothing.

But there is another report from the honeyberries which is

the weaker a porn plus the Maliki plus the Shaka and enter the authorized report of a safaree The old saying if she agrees with him that consummation

did not take place then he's not bound is he's not bound to pay half of them. She says why are they saying that he must pay half of them because they say that the Hanawon

okay. So what is the proof? What is the proof that proof is the proof of the magic is in Java is an unauthorized possession in the hands of any member

when

and if you divorce them before you touch him? He did not gotcha.

So what do they say here that the Halliwell would make it minding they say that this is the fact we're gonna find out about the four calipers. You know dharapani reported from Zurab and Alfa from the forklift says that whenever seclusion takes place,

it counts like consummation

makes it making the homeowner binding and making the waiting period binding on her. Okay. So these are the different proofs here. They say irrationally irrationally when they try to give like a rational proof for this, that she may just agree with him because she's too shy to say

that consummation took place. She may just agree with him, because she is too shy to say no consummation that takes place.

So they will give her half an hour. Now when it comes to the waiting periods. The Maliki's came in sided with Hana fees and hand bellies and they said that waiting period is binding on her even if they both deny

intimacy the sapphires are still saying no it's not by then if they both denied intimacy

Okay.

What else what make that the Mahara? All binding according to the honeyberries

kissing in public

last fall, Carson. Just last last couple touching. He called binding kissing in public makes it bind halwa so consummation halwa.

lustful touching, kissing in public call make it binding in the Hanbury mouth. The

Okay, then the CX Manifesto, john for savarkar caudry for colocar lumenier di maharal mislim. In Houma, Miami in the two spouses disagree about the sub or it's the exact amount the accepted claim will be that of the one who claims and amount comparable to the customary Mahara for equals along with his or her coast. So they disagree about the mom. And she says, No, actually, and the ferraccioli you specified designated

$1,000. He says $500 who do we believe now?

Okay, we believe the one who's closer to the amount of her equals So if it isn't the estimation of the judge, that her equals to get $1,000 then we will believe her. If it isn't the estimation of the judge that he equals get $500 we will believe him.

Keep in mind that in the authorized view in the Hanbury method, we will believe him not heard. Why? Because whenever two people claim make a claim, you take the lower and the Ask the one who's making the higher claim to prove his higher claim. So she said 500 he's he says 500 he says 1000 then for sure 500. They agreed on the 500. What about the difference? He is she is claiming gap. In addition, then she will need to prove

her claim. Okay.

Moving on to Bob isotta nessa or the chapter on the proper treatment of women or their good companionship.

cfml law said in Minnesota in Mahabharata sahibi evil maruf each one of the to

California had Minnesota ame Sahaba Sahabi bin maruf

la mina Cady McClain.

Each of the two spouses must accompany their partner in life with fairness and kindness.

Each one of them must have fulfilled the rights of the other without procrastinating or showing resentment or showing resentment. So this chapter is about the rights and obligations and here between the

wife and husband, it will be mostly talking about the rights of the wife, but it does briefly address the rights of the husband. But it started by saying, putting them on equal footing. And saying they both the two spouses need to accompany each other with fairness and kindness. Now, the idea of maruf here is a very beautiful idea, because more often is translated as sensible, reasonable, good, kind, but it comes back. It comes from the router, which has a lot of RF to know that which is known to be sensible, making room for what difference in cultures and costumes, making room for some differences, as long as those differences are not in defiance of what the Spirit or

the level of Sharia have, they are in defiance, they're dismissed, you know,

is secondary source of legislation, not primary source of legislation, what is the difference? So only it's only applicable when it is not in conflict with the primary sources, when it's not in conflict with the primary sources? Okay. So Bill now,

Bill Morrow.

The concept here the philosophy philosophical Foundation, here is what I want to miss.

Mr. Levy, Allah.

Well, originally Allah, Allah says,

Allah lofi, Caracas era, live with them and kindness, and if you dislike them, you may dislike something and Allah makes they're in much good. So that is an encouragement, encouragement for people to basically

stand the course and to worry, and to keep the marriage and continue their relationship and to avoid divorce.

The principle here is

Miss Lola z.

One originally, Alena

Of course, nowadays, if you want to be politically correct, you have to delete this part from the act.

But we certainly don't do that.

But what does it say here? Well, ohana to them.

Miss Lu, our rights equal like lovey ohana, that which is upon them the obligations upon them, Bill maruf within reason to them, our rights equal to the obligations upon them within reason. What are the other hand men have a degree over them? Men have a degree over them. What is this degree? What is this Raja

which means what position of leadership

or the position of leadership is actually a position of responsibility and accountability. But again, whenever somebody is responsible, they get also the corresponding rights because it's not just like you're responsible, but you don't get any privileges You know, it is only a burden without the corresponding rights, it is only an obligation without the corresponding rights, if he will be responsible for the safety and the financial stability of the family and the soul wanted blame in case you know of trial and error the family goes through hardship, then he will be the one to

have

to make the decisions

that are conducive to the safety and the well being of the family.

And

to him, because of what Allah has given them,

cheaper than with him because of their spending two things not one. Okay.

So that is basically the concept but this The idea here is that the default is what the default is the balance between

rights and obligations and equity, equitable distribution of the burden equitable distribution of everything obligations, right? It has to be equitable and there has to be balanced between the rights and obligation.

To the extent that the you know, how did this how longer Sanders have 11 hours would say, for instance, in your head, why not as an American, I have wanted to generally be analyzed.

I like to make myself handsome or beautiful myself for my wife, like I want her to be the fire herself for me because I lost sight of what Mr. laziale bill Morrow

really took it to heart to this, this idea, this concept

which was completely foreign, for and not only in Arabia, before in the world at that time, don't tell me you know, we can talk about you know, what the Bible says about women

we can talk about the Romans we can talk about the Persians it was foreign a foreign concept to the world at the time.

So, that

So, this is basically a you know, in like briefly

philosophical foundation for how this relationship should be addressed.

Six, now, he will start with the rights of the husband, he says what happened

when he was finished in time at a rod.

He said, It is his right for her to let him enjoy lovemaking with her whenever he wishes and obey Him in this regard. Unless she has an excuse, unless she has an excuse. Okay.

Here Here is one of the things are important.

Because this will look like

this will look like discriminating between men and women. Because the profits are seldom used very forceful and very, like assertive, forceful, powerful statements to warn Women Against denying their husbands the right to intimacy.

Why? Because a shout out the legislator, God, the Creator knows us very well. And he knows that when women do this, this is a capitalist of the minds of the relationship, break down this integration of the relationship and complete the minds have the relationship and he wants not only to point out to us, that danger, but he wants to grab us, shake us and tell us Don't do it. This is evil, this will result in corruption. So in the province of Southern says

forgotten

America headquarters, this is authentically report from the profit or loss of love. When a man invites his wife to his bed meaning to intimacy, and she then she denies anger, right? And he goes to bed angry with her. The angels were concerned to the morning when he didn't say the same thing about the man Why did he not? We'll come back to it. But

why did he say this? Why did he use the powerful the forceful language because Allah knows that not only not only that he would be upset, but this may result in the disintegration of the family and for men with weak religious commitment as well. This will result in them seeking their needs, their biological needs, physiological needs.

Elsewhere, what does that mean? It means corruption, it means corruption will prevail. And eventually the women are the ones who will pay the heavier price of this corruption. So, that is why the prophets are telling us that this powerful language to warn women haggins through this attitude. Now keep in mind

that he said that the end works, man

unless she has an execute, unless she has an excuse. The Prophet was on him said this but keep in mind that our understanding of the deen in our hermeneutical system. There are two important concepts. What are they intertextuality and can

textuality intertextuality means what? That you will not understand that any of us without, basically has the power of the rest of the muscles without comprehensive consideration of the rest of themselves. Right. And he will not understand anything else in isolation from the context. Why not because you are limited to the context, but the context will help you understand what is meant by the analysis or the statement. So, when the Prophet says this, the prophet also said law there are there will be no harm or reciprocation of harm. So, if she is extremely exhausted, sick, you know, or psychologically incapable her hair her father just died like a few hours ago. And it just

happened to her husband that he wants, you know, if she's psychologically incapable, if she is truly incapable, then she made an eye, because it causes her create harm.

Now, you will not find that that particular example in the books of the area or their scholars, they will talk about tangible harm to her, he will not talk about the psychological harm, but it is not something to be considered, he has said that something can be considered, because it is, you know, the and under there is multiple multitudes of clues and hints that they did consider the emotional or the psychological impact or the psychological and emotional harm, if it was not in that particular scenario, but it is considered in many other scenarios. So you could extrapolate from this and apply it to this particular scenario. Like if someone if her mother died, and she just came

back from the funeral,

you know, any sensible husband,

but if someone is not particularly that sensible, and she denies, then

many believe I believe in many believe that she would be justified in this case.

So that is one thing that we wanted to say in this regard. And the other thing that we wanted to say is what about the man refusing or denying? Well, the Shara did not really talk about this in practice. Why?

Just like the Shawn, I did not say to the parents that they should treat their kids nicely and kindly.

And to Shara always talks about better every day, and it doesn't talk about better, Abner doesn't talk about often about better. And certainly there are indications that you should be in a kind to your kids. But where where is that where, you know, we found like a plethora of muscles that talk about very well today, you know, and where it's better than now, because it's there is no need to make that emphasis. And why is it that there is no need to make that emphasis because biologically, conventionally, and traditionally, it has been known that men have a higher sex drive.

Some of the science proves this nowadays, but the science nowadays also

is not particularly impartial. And everybody in science knows that the science is not particularly impartial. But there are some indications. And let's not call it science, because when you do when you start to cite it, then you get into like a conundrum.

But traditionally, it has been known that men have a higher sex drive. Therefore, the seek intimacy more than the wives, particularly after a certain age, they continue to seek intimacy have more frequent sebrae to them, their wives, therefore, their wives were told that

they should not deny them that right to intimacy. But should a man also fulfill the needs of his wife, he has absolutely a mansion fulfill the needs of his wife, and should not deprive her half her needs. And when the scholars will be will come and say later that he is bound to have intimacy with her once every four months. I honestly don't believe in this and you know, many scholars don't believe that it is basically based on her needs. He is required to fulfill her needs, but there is one factor that we have to also be cognizant of, which is that

men don't always have the capacity to you know, to have intercourse to fulfill the needs for intimacy his wives needs intimacy. Without intercourse bs Him He will always have the capacity

but in terms of

intercourse per se, they may not always have that capacity or that ability.

So that was the first part, which is the right intimacy, he did not really mention any other rights.

He did not mention any other rights have the husband accepted the right to intimacy, and he just moved on to basically addressing the rights of the wife. Does the husband have any other rights, in addition to the right intimacy? Yes, I think he should have some other rights that he did not mention here, because it's an abbreviated book, but all of them will talk a lot and all of the sort of the larger the larger books in the Hungarian government the other half, they do mention other rights. What are the other rights by agreement by agreement, a woman has to obey her husband, not only when it comes to intimacy, but also when it comes to any demands by the husbands that are,

within reason, Ben models.

What What do we mean by demands that are within reason?

We mean that the demand

and certainly the word for this is is is is great for women, if something comes out

if I'm a woman, you know, praise the five prayers and makes fun of the Ramadan fasting and obeys harassment, she will be called from all the doors or the gates of the heavens, just like a backless of the could be called from all the gates of the heavens, she will get the knowledge of the just because of these basic things. Because it is a great deal. And because she is a full blown adult, it is not easy to basically, to have an authority over you, when you are a full blown adult. And because it takes a lot of fortitude, and a lot of religious commitments, you will be given that enormous reward. And that's why the husbands will also be aware of the difficulty of this matter.

But when we say that the top end model, the profits are gonna say La Tata, females have to learn them apart from all of this was reported by only about the lower end, from the profits on the lower side, and there is no tie in this obedience in you know how to expensive disobeying the law in America, Otto from moto star is only in that witches model that which is good, that which is sensible, reasonable, what is good or sensible, reasonable. Some people say if he can make it, if he commands her to do anything, that is not a mafia, then she is bound to obey Him. Is that true? No, it's not. Because my I'll say, first of all, it should not be a must say action. Not not sinful.

That is not.

But there are three basic words that I want you to remember. And we will validate all of them and asked to be sensible, and has to be purposeful, and has to be harmless. harmless.

harmless to her.

sensible

and purposeful.

How to give you examples.

Let's start with purposeful. If he demanded her to do something, you know, I want you basically to

anything,

stand on one foot, it will not be even sensible. It's not purposeful.

Yes, it is. But it is not even sensible. So I'm keeping it for a sensible

but purposeful, like me, for instance, he said, that if if a man demanded his son, to follow his mother,

he doesn't have to obey Him.

Because that is utter foolishness when there is no purpose in it.

That is huge. That's a huge statement by a very math heavy scholar.

That's up to them was a big thing. So if your son decided to take them to take up a meth lab that is not yours. He is saying that it would be foolishness of you to demand your son to take your mouth have to basically

which meant a lot for them, and keep in mind, but he said it's still foolish unless you have a good purpose. You know, it's purposeful meaning son, there is no one year that can teach you how much are

you going to be lost than he needs to obey you. But if it is merely because of what you want now, that's for

And he doesn't have to obey Him He can pick up whichever method he wants. So purposeful is one sensible is another one sensible is another one has to make sense.

It has to make sense.

It has to make sense

that stand on one foot stand facing the wall. That doesn't make sense.

Within reason, if you break the majority of sensible people would say that, that doesn't make sense. Why do you want to have to stand facing the wall or stand on one foot? So sensible, but sensible is not basically a matter of subjective judgment also, because if you say sensible, and she will judge what is sensible, then there is, then obedience is meaningless, completely sensible. The majority of people don't consider this harmless. harmless. So anytime a law says that

people don't need to listen to their parents

in

Canada, in a female fee enough en la la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la La, he, he will listen to their parents, if the if the command if they have some interest in the command.

And there is no harm against them. They have some interest in the command meaning purposeful. There is no harm again, on him, meaning harmless because of loss of law there are and certainly sin you don't need. We don't need to elaborate further on this.

To Kadena Sookie reports from associate Maliki. He said if they commanded him to not pray the Sunnah one day or sometimes he should comply, but of the always command to him to operate it. So now, he does not need to listen to them. Liana vivatic a method Shara because that compromises their in their religious commitment. So

can ask to be good.

Not counter to the sin, not counter to the sin.

So not only that, it is not sinful, but it does not also counter the Sunnah. It does not also, yes.

A little bit about the subjectivity of

subjectivity.

Well, the harmless the harmless thing, you know, what is what could be determined as harm is also measured, the by the majority of sensible people will determine that this is harm, because that time thing is also sub subjective. The harm, that's the mean is the thing that would be called how much or machaca the thing that well,

because

everything, there is a little bit of a shock and everything, you know, if I tell you, you know, if your father

tells you to get out of bed, you may say, you know, it's machaca, it's just too hard and you can get out of bed.

It is cold, it is just so inconvenient. And I don't need to listen, Well, that certainly does not qualify as harm, the harm is

like the heart and the machaca they talk about that when absolve you of religious obligations.

And at the end of the day, there is some degree of subjectivity. And whenever there is some degree of subjectivity, we'll have to refer to what

the majority of sensible people, the judgment of the majority of sensible people.

There is one thing that I wanted to say at the end, then quickly because we need to stop because there will be a class and important class about the importance of not going to class above the one thing that we need to quickly go over, which is does the man have the right to be answered by his wife?

And so we were going to be done with the rights of the husband and then next time inshallah we'll go over the rights of the wife.

But does the man have the right to be in served?

Okay. So basically, the contract of marriage does not include that right. And we have to agree on it. The contract of marriage does not include that right.

So that is why the harmonies, hanger fees Maliki's hand shafa is the say

can't even buy Harry's. They say No, she doesn't need to serve them. That's not part of the contract.

But again, you know,

even medically, that's why you find it a lot in the medical books, the airports the body and the profit divided the worker between them, he gave him the work outside, he gave her the work inside. And that is how division basically, that's the division of burden. It just doesn't make sense that he is he has to basically provide and then come back to do the housework. And she just watched him.

So you will find people like Danny Han,

and having a lot of the hand having a concern even have you been medically as I said, who said no, she does need to serve him benimaru with him within reason, if he's going out to work, then she will cook you know, he will come back and find a meal to eat things of that nature. So many scholars for from the different vibe as well who was an avid email have some scholars, but this is the authorized the view of them as I have to be honest. But many scholars said it has to be reasonable division of burden and the reasonable division of burden they cited that the prophet SAW Southern divided the work, you know, the Maliki's cite this in their book. It may not be hevc wise, traceable courier

authentically, but the medic is often cited in the in their books. And also we do know that that's not used to have a service provider. We do know from the Sahaba gun law that women used to work at home and that was the division.

Why is it important to that we mentioned that the authorized view in the form of I have is that she does not need to serve Him. Because how are we saying that she does need to serve him What are we using?

Reason. So if you're using reason, then don't overdo it.

If your reason is the equitable division of burdens, then don't overdo it like for the working woman nowadays, she should not be responsible for all the house work, because that does not that is not equitable division of burdens. That is not fair division of burdens. And if the theory that we are basing this on is equity, that is not equitable, that's inequitable.

So the concept goes back to equitable division of burdens. And so like if if she went to have to go out to work, and she would be responsible for sustaining the family, and if they're doing it half in half, then the divide the work at home to half and half. That makes sense or not,

including the half and half the division of half and a half, including child rearing, which he may not be able to do, then he will have to compensate for the so he will do more like washing and because like if he's unable to breastfeed, then he would have to do to work to compensate. If they're dividing, if they're dividing, if they are sustaining the household half and half, then it makes perfect sense that they also sustained the work at home half and a half, that they shared half and half. And if he's unable to breastfeed, then he will need to make up laundry, washing the dishes stuff.

But if they decided to have a different type of arrangement, that basic philosophy here is what equity, fairness, if they decided that it would be one corner and three corners for our maintain and you know, financial sustenance, then flip, three quarters and one etc.

Just to maintain equity and to maintain fairness in the relationship so that no party burns out.

I guess we're out of time. So inshallah, next time we will talk about uncertainty if she's doing this.

If scholars were discussing with her, she needs to survey her husband, her husband turn up, then a force your AI serving his brothers and sisters and all of the you know, the family members. A far cry is not obligatory on her. And if she does show kindness to his parents, then he should show appreciation for that because it is not incumbent on her. And certainly we do, like want to encourage kindness to the elders in general. And if the elders are the parents of your husband, then you know

Certainly there's there are so many reasons now to show kindness to those particular elders. But he also should be appreciative because the contract of the marriage does not include this

you know, particular item

it's not it's not part of the contract we'll probably have

like, a far cry but

you know, the stronger argument