#12 Fiqh of Family – Chapter of Khul

Ensenada Do you want

to proceed? So, today inshallah we will talk about hola we will talk about termination of marriage that is prompted have started instigated by the wife. And

I don't know why I put this before tala.

It comes right after the chapter on cosmetic issues. It comes right after the chapter on and the chapter on cosmetic issues. So as if he's saying whatever that doesn't work out,

you know the chapter on hijra is basically companionship, and it means proper treatment of the spouse or proper companionship. And the chapter Kuzmin shows is about the vision of the article wise, and contempt, which isn't it shows a rebellion. And he's probably what he probably wanted to say, if nothing worked out.

Then we let's move on to hula.

So the chapter on cola termination of marriage permitted by the wife

and Allah who died in the year 620, after hedger said in his book alarmed, which is a manual of somebody

with a candidate not

to have to be mahoto de la feet RT for the

men who the maitre D of the woman hates her husband and she fears that she may not be able to honor the injunctions of Allah

or to stay within the limits of Allah to pay for the law to honor the injunctions of Allah

basically, but if you wanted more literal translation to be more stay within the limits of of law. Concerning obedience to Him, she may ransom herself from that relationship I did buy whatever they both agree on by whatever they both agree on.

In La La, la, foto de la femme 15 la up Mercado de la la jolla Halima FEMA

in unless the fear that they will not

stop, establish or stay within the bounds of a law and if you fear that they will not stay within the bounds of the law, then there is no blame on either one of them concerning that which she will ransom herself with, concerning that which he would ransom herself with. So the idea of what is an ingenious

legislation by Islam,

because as we said before, and keep in mind to put things in context, to put things in context.

In the past, women did not have a way out of marriage. Like if you compare Islam to Christianity, for instance,

men and women did not have a way out of out of a failed marriage,

according to Christianity,

except in very, very limited cases. But they did not have a way out of marriage, whether you were Catholic or orthodox,

maybe orthodox a little bit, you know, more flexible, but also extremely limited cases that will allow you to get out of a failed relationship.

But in Islam, Islam recognized the importance of the permanency of this relationship. It is a permanent relationship. And as I'm reading what I recognize this, you know, the Hadith of

the Hadith that's reported by Muslim where the Prophet sallallahu Sallam talked about at least dispatching his troops everyday in the morning, and the one that will be abroad closest to him because he was he would be the most accomplished of his troops is the one who will separate between a man and his wife or between two spouses. So this hadith is

is actually proof on the position of the Hanafi is that was also chosen by an attorney that last Fatah could have the default concerning Pollock is prohibition or not permissibility prohibition not permissibility because of the great,

the great harm, because in this hubbies if talaq really is one of the highest objectives of the team.

It must not be

something that is only the tested and certainly out of hand.

underlie talaq the most hated

halaal permissible thing in the sight of Allah tala. Whether, you know, it is not authentically traceable to the prophets of Salaam, according to the stronger position among the mohabbatein. But it is true

to a great extent in certain cases where there is some reason behind some reason to warrant divorce, we're still saying it is permissible, we're not saying that divorce is haram. But divorce without any justification

is pure harm. If there is no justification, that allows Luffy and has, and the reason why I wanted to start by this is to tell you that when we talk about, you know, limiting or restricting that concept of hula, and reminding women of the evil of breaking down the family, we're not just saying this to women, we're also saying this the men, termination of marriage that is unwarranted

is unwarranted and should not and the default and this should be prohibition, not permissibility.

So, why then is the legislation of whatever then, was introduced, because

women do not have the power to divorce their spouses, they don't have the power to divorce their spouses, if he gave her that power, and you know, then according to the home values, if he gives her that power, she would have that power shield, that power, according to the Hanafi is also there are certain that she, you know, demands this on her prenuptial agreement, and he agrees to it and but in general, women do not have the power to initiate divorce. And it makes perfect sense, because why does it makes perfect sense, because men are the PDR responsible for the expenses of marriage and divorce, the burdens the liabilities, financial liabilities, of marriage and divorce. And that may

deter many of them from taking the sort of hover an unwarranted step towards the dissolution of the marriage.

Ever they are responsible for building the nest, and responsible for you know, liable for everything that will arise from taking apart or tearing apart that nest, then they have the power to make that decision. And it was made easy, because a termination of a failed relationship should be easy. Nowadays, you hear a lot about trying to restrict trying to limit it. You hear a lot in Egypt, for instance, about the president of Egypt wants divorce to be wants to restrict divorce and just like put some

impediments

to slow down the people or hinder the people from making divorce. And this is one of the disagreements between him and several other because she

believes that verbal divorce is a valid divorce and he wants divorce to be on the actual lies

in and you know, through the court, you know,

the the divorce that has been sort of processed by the court is the only divorce that would count.

So anyway, Islam did make divorce easy for the man because Islam put a lot of liabilities on the man that start the marriage is responsible for the expenses. And then also the divorce he will be responsible for maintenance he will be responsible for the maintenance of his children until they grow up and for responsible for the maintenance of his wife during the idle time. He's responsible for matar he's responsible for adrenal hardener for you know compensation for his wife, she will be taking care of his children until his children grow up. It is very complex, you know, it's not easy, it is complicated. So, he will be sustaining

a household that he does not, you know, live in, you know, it, the fact that he moved out the fact that he separated, it does not really relieve him from all the financial liabilities or for all their financial responsibilities.

So it is expected that he will, you know, think about it several times before he makes that decision.

And if some people are not then that is basically there, therefore to the problem,

but then they will be liable for everything that will ensue from this divorce. Now for the for the wife she was not given the power to divorce her husband, as we said if he gives her that power then she can have it

according to the homebodies for his or her buddies and certainly in the different and different rulings.

bodies are talking about someone who's married those gives his wife try it and the 100 thieves are talking about being in the prenuptial agreements conditions the truth Annika so but

she is not going to be able she's not by default of the shot are capable of initiating divorce, is she capable of getting a divorce? She is capable of getting a court order divorce and there are 10 different reasons I will mention the most important ones and varies according to the holidays. But if you want a more elaborate

sort of elaborate discussion of this go to Hades book

where they lead to he has a very elaborate discussion of the 10 different reasons of

a court order divorce a court order the divorce in the different

in the Hanbury method, there are four big ones that are that we usually mentioned

unexcused absence of the husband

and as our inability to maintain sustain

or

unable to sustain

unexcused absence

that the facts that would weren't

the facts weren't in first of Warrenton. galon a moment of they happen after the marriage, they would warrant a court order divorce. So the facts that were in alignment, if they happen before the marriage, they would give the wife the right to annulment First, if there if she did not know about them, and he had some defects, certainly, we met talked about the different defects

when we talked about that chapter,

and then but if they arise after the marriage, then these same defects would would give her the right to court order, divorce. And the last one is ILA.

If he is, if he makes it takes that oath of abandonment, and does not recant. After four months, she is where she is entitled to divorce. These are the four big ones.

The pelicula data, the concept of data, because of harm, when they say that the medic is only are the ones who sanction the data. That is not true, because all of this is not all of the these are different types of data. What the married medic is explicitly talked about, is the law because of Orthopedic or court orders divorce because of verbal or physical abuse, verbal or physical abuse. So the medic E's are the ones who explicitly talk about the right to the lock because of verbal or physical abuse.

Does this mean that the homebodies with verbal and physical abuse will not give the wife a court order divorce? Now it doesn't mean that that just means that it will make this up to the arbitrators that are hired by the court that does not make it like

it does not make it

a given that there will be divorce it will leave it to the assessment of the arbitrators that will be hired by the court. Botha hockman McNally Hackman earlier, the two arbitrators that will preside over the session are the ones that who will determine if she would get divorce or not because of his physical or verbal abuse, okay. But Americans are the ones who explicitly talked about this issue.

Now, if she fails to get so we said that she does not have the right to divorce and that he gives her that right or it's the prenuptial agreement according to Hanna fees.

But then she does have the right to court or the divorce.

And if she fails to prove

anything to the court or she doesn't actually have anything that substantive that would make the court or their divorce,

then that she have any way out of this marriage, let them say that he is they'll carry her that she still hates to be in this marriage, that she have any way out of this marriage.

And she does, which you know, and that is harder, that is harder the ruling of Hala than

you know, the Hannon bellies for instance, say according to the Martina unbury method, they say that what is mcru if it is if the basically the relationship between the two spouses is good, then holla is macro only macro only this like, like, you know, there there is no way that the what the prophet sallallahu Sallam said and this hadith would just mean Bondi macro

Zelda Hata Lockman Heidi bass and

so I imamura

Salah

so

how la Min hiree

sin

la ha

ha

so anyone

who asks

satellite would be asked

her husband

divorce

without

without harm

for her I'm gonna lie to her is the fragrance of Paradise fragrance or hot and then paradise.

So her onto her is the fragrance of paradise. So she will be the prime of the fragrance apparently as well. I think it's a very strong language and that is not the language that the province of Southern you would use with macro only.

So what we can say is what we can say here to reconcile between the honeyberries making this macro because the combat is the side this but they also cite that fella Holly Murphy method B or Phantom nolock Mantra in Milan Epson fekola, honey and Maria. So, if they, you know,

wholeheartedly or they they give you this with with ease or something,

give you your diary back your back with ease then you may consume it

doesn't have to be then there is no blame on either one of them concerning that which with which she ransoms ourselves so they use this to balance out the prohibition here and say that it actually means makuu but you may say that

you may say that this hadith is talking about a woman who does not even have

any resentment to any of this like of the husband who was just asking for divorce because she wants to be free like she just But not only that, the husband is wonderful because the this hurdler basically is is hinting about on one important hobbies. The whole ruling is hinging on this hobbies of Sabbath enterprise jameela Jamil, the wife of Sabbath enterprise when she came to the Prophet sallallahu sallam.

She said to the professor suddenly Neela I

feel caught up in what I do what I can do, I cannot go for this lamp. Denali had a pattern who

had the petticoat of the cutoff lever.

So that's hobbies.

The jameelah who came to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and said to him that I don't find any fault and fair bit of luck is

just not

All right. I don't find any fault in susceptible pies concerning his Deen religious commitment or who has matters. So a wonderful husband, you know, how many women can actually say I don't find any problem with my husband, concerning his religious commitment and concerning his manners, so a wonderful husband, like any academic reference lamb, but I hate to be ungrateful. After becoming Muslim, I hate to be ungrateful man ungrateful toward towards my Lord and towards his creation. So, then the prophet SAW sedima so she indicated what by saying that I hate to be ungrateful, she indicated that she is unhappy. It is not like there is no reason whatsoever that the man is

wonderful, but she is unhappy.

And then she must have had her reasons why she is unhappy with that man. So that sort of the psychological factor that Islam does respect in this case, would make the hola would make this hadith not apply to her. Because it is impossible that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam would say to her, would you give him his

quarter in the back?

And she and then she says yes. And then the prophets of Salaam would order Sabbath hypnotize, take back your orchard, which was his dark history to her and give her one

divorce, give her a divorce. And that is a bad divorce, as we finalize the divorce as we would come to see, so it is impossible that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam would not even exhort her would not do anything if she is committing this Haram. So what jameelah said to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam made the Prophet sallallahu Sallam feel that the man is a wonderful man, but she still has her reasons to get a divorce. That is where this would apply. That is where this does not apply. But in the case that she does not even have reasons,

psychological reasons, the man is wonderful, and she is happy in the marriage. She is happy in the marriage. This is when this habit would apply.

Okay, so you have different so you have different layers here. You have a woman who you have a man who's not a good man, but she cannot get a court order divorce a man who is not a good man, she cannot get a court order divorce whether because she does not prove it or because he is, you know, like

subclinical evil, so it like he's,

you know, like his his camp cats like

one evil act that would warrant a court order divorce, but he's chronically and subclinical evil, like he has this tone of evil, that he just holds on all the time. But she can't really prove anything before the court. So that is one scenario. The other is the one scenario. The other scenario is the wonderful man and unhappy wife.

At the snap of ISIS scenario, wonderful man, unhappy wife. And then you have a third scenario, a

wonderful man. And a Happy wife.

This hobbies will apply to the third scenario, wonderful man happy wife, she's still asking for a divorce.

She's still asking for a divorce for whatever reason that she may want to be free. She may want to travel, you know, he may want to just like do whatever she wants to do, like she just, you know, but this applies to the wonderful man and happy wife, wonderful, fabulous, wonderful man unhappy wife, then you could say it is macro.

Then you could say it's macro, a wonderful man, the relationship you know, the dynamics also are fine. The dynamics are fine, but she is still an unhappy wife, you could say then it has macro.

And certainly if it is,

if the man is not a wonderful man, and she has reasons, but she cannot get a court order divorce, that it would be permissible for her to get a hula. So hula is not really straightforward. The You know, it is not all the same thing. But if you want to have like a three pronged classification of the rulings of hula, then we would have

see different scenarios a bad man she can get a court order divorce a wonderful man and unhappy wife, a wonderful man and a happy wife, it would be most prohibited if this is one of the you know in the third type a wonderful man happy one.

Okay. So, that is as far as the ruling of hola is concerned

you know, because what I would be initiated by the wife, what is it allowed for her to initiate it?

Then we have Yes, if it is warranted justified the man's behavior is just not agreeable at all

makrooh if the the the conditions are fine, but she is still unhappy, Hassan if conditions are fine, marital relationship is fine, and she is happy.

But she said well, then that would be

okay.

And that is why you find this sort of different three way up for me my life not the one rewire that says macro and the one rewire from even a man himself that says Heron about Hola, you will need to contextualize the CEO need to apply in a different way. Because not always that,

you know, it is like some other the proof appear to him it is when the amount changes his position. It is not always a change of position. We need to be fair to him as well, as is not always because of a new sort of discovery or no. Sometimes he would say just like everybody else, and depending on the context, depending on the context, so you need to contextualize the different reports from the email and this is my way of understanding the different reports from Damon.

So the shift says here is a character model with a Roger Ella to be model the life he thought he

loves. Men who leave the woman hates her husband and she fears that she may not be able to honor the injunctions of a law concerning obedience to Him. She may ransom herself from that relationship they whatever they both agree on.

Then the six Edwin Hubble la axoneme.

It is recommended that he takes no more than what he initially gave her. And

it is recommended that he takes no more than what he initially gave her. Now, is this recommendation or obligation?

Well, according to the majority of his recommendation, and that is the authorized the position. And the Hanbury meth habit is only a recommendation What does that mean? He can negotiate with her for more, he can ask for more to give her Fuller, who said that he cannot ask for more to give her what are among the military members of NATO mirano law, he said that he cannot ask for more. He's only entitled to her to take to take back his diary. Because here in one edition in the NSE other strange book to the prophets of Salaam reported by a

farmer who

had the cutter who needs to look at the pattern What is that? So he commanded him to divorce her to take back his orchard? Why is that and to not ask for more or to not to not take more, to not take more. So this would be clear.

If we agree that this is traceable to the Prophet sallallahu sallam, then this would be clear that a man cannot ask for more than the dowry that he gave the wife to give her Hello.

But why is it that he can ask for more according to the majority from from

the majority do not consider to be the right of the woman. Don't give her that. Don't make it obligatory on the man. It is only a blatant Mayor Rahim Allah who makes it obligatory on the man. So it would make sense for him to say that he cannot take more than his salary because holla at him is a right given to the woman that is obligatory on demand for the majority it is not.

It is not for the majority. It is up to the man at the end of the day. So she

When offer

money or fuel, and if it is up to him, and she says, Take back your salary. Okay, if it is up to him, can he say, I will take back my salary? And 10,000? More?

Yes. I mean, that does not mean keep in mind that a likely man would not himself do this to his wife, of course, but he's just looking at it from a legal perspective, not from what he would recommend to his son or what No, absolutely not. He's just looking at it from a legal perspective. If that is not her right, if it is up to him, can he asked for more? Well, he says, Yes. You know, you can ask for more.

For Roger Hallam, if you have to be then there is no blame on either one of them concerning that which with which she ransoms herself, if that he is not designated here in this area, it is absolute, then whatever she offers or whatever he accepts, in terms of the offer.

Would it be befitting of any man of high moral standard to ask his wife for more than whether or to blackmail his wife for divorce? Absolutely not. Actually, a man of high moral standard would give her a divorce, another color to begin with, we'll just give her a divorce and let her keep her diary and everything.

But But anyway, so that the idea here is you have to differentiate between the law

that is the bones and the sort of the ethical or the demands of the Sharia that are not that are beyond the law, there are demands that are beyond the law, because the Sharia is not only about worship and Haram, it is also about Mr. hub and crew, it is also about our land,

that which is closer that which is more befitting favorable or unfavorable. So there are different layers here.

And that is important to understand, because they even have a honey for image of a would have never blackmailed their wives to get more out of them. The fact that they said it is permissible, it is basically from a legal perspective because they don't consider this to be her right. They consider this to be his right. And if he would not give her the whole I except

if she you know paid her more than then they don't find this to be problematic from a legal perspective.

So it is recommended that he takes no more than what he initially gave her and as we said,

according to the amount they may or Allah is not permissible for him to take more than what he gave her. He makes it obligatory on the husband to give her a fuller once she offers to give him back has Saba

favor. Hi, Laura aloka have a word ban admin who went to law school who bought of course the the position of hypothermia is the position that

the legislature's and some Muslim countries uphold now, like in Egypt for instance,

allow to lock down admin who admin Hakata who about the valley Queen would be if he gives her cola or divorces her in exchange for compensation her divorce is immediately finalized and she is not subject to more divorces from him, even if he says that to her in her face

and her face.

So, if he if he gives her cola or divorces her in exchange for compensation, keep in mind that if he gives her a court order or divorces or in exchange for compensation, her divorce is immediately finalized and she is not subject to more divorces from him even if he says that to her in her face. So the consequences of Florida the consequences of Florida whether this is cola or Pollock in exchange for compensation, whether this is quote ortholog in exchange for compensation according to all of them. Is this finalized or and finalized, finalized This is the lock back in according to all of them whether it is color or the law.

In return for compensation, but there is a difference between the two Hola, and even in the Hanbury malherbe there is a difference between cola and talaq for compensation for the I has to be conducted in the explicit terminology for cola

Abra tour or

a two key or color to key the except the explicit

terminology of color, but if she offers him if she offers him money and then he divorces her is this call

it his follow up in return for compensation?

It is not color even though

in reality it is just like cola right? She offers him the Saba, he tells her your divorce that looks like hula exactly, but that is not a hula that is called for luck in return for compensation for lack of better word or to lock in return for compensation, how is this different particularly in the bedroom as if it is hole in the handle? It must have been according to the Norton

authorized position in the Meza

it is considered the first and not prologue, if it is the lock for in return for compensation, it is considered a follow up. So, if it does not, you know, if it doesn't happen in the exact explicit terminology of Hola, then it is not fast it is not an element it is for luck, even if he gave her for the with the intention of the lab, it is so, cola is when he gave her a cola with the Nia cola and the explicit terminology

of cola and the explicit terminology of cola only then it is fast and

but according to the majority, it is then a lot how is it different between the 100 bodies and the majority then, so, we are saying here that the food is that it is

except if he gave her color in the explicit terminology of cola and within a color then it is color and if it is color, you know that one exception where there is actually a color. The ham bellies are different from the majority in this case, and these differences are could be huge could have huge consequences.

huge consequences.

One of the two differences is her waiting period What is her waiting period it is an element it is one period it's not the regular waiting period for someone like her it is just one period to make sure to establish to make sure that there is no pregnancy.

The other difference here The other difference here between being fast and being a law is what the number of divorces the number of divorces.

This will not take away from

this will not take away from the three divorces. He is entitled to so if we have

tala tala

Hola, hola.

Okay Wait a second. If we have the LA Cala tala, can they go back to each other fella Allah tala, they can go back to each other have this benefit a lot. They would have not been able to lock the lock the lock would have not been able to tala tala, they would be able to go back to each other, according to whom the ham bellies are guarded.

Pollak ban does not mean by Cobra talaq ban is two different types of the law. The law ban is called finalize divorce and we will come back to it but we went to over two years ago.

Pull up that in means he does not have the right to return her to take her back. You know, that means he does not have the right to take her back in order for him to take her back. He would have to propose and pay you know the delivery and all of that stuff. But that's what the rock band means. That rock band band known as sakara and Bina Cobra, talaq band is two different types finalized with recourse finalized

without recourse, finalize with recourse by non Asakura this is what we're talking about here palapa and Vina Cobra finalized without recourse.

palapa and benoni Cobra finalized without recourse has to be what three divorces or

they are Leon public imprecation a you know if he accuses her of adultery and they go through public education, then it is one but it is immediate finalized and without recourse, okay. So, but here it is finalized the divorce with recourse they can go back to each other, but they can go back to each other upon what mutual agreement the difference between the back end and Roger is what in the talaq Raji Hanford analyze divorce, the husband has the right to take her back

and that means what, regardless of what she thinks,

but in the talaq in the in the you know, in the end, he would have to basically propose and wait for her

answer.

So, these are different, these are some differences, these are some differences. So, if someone you know, when we like, in the past, we used to make a trick.

Like if someone will, for instance,

say to his wife, if you like it was someone who has two divorces, has divorced his wife taught twice and he says why it his wife, if you go to

this town or you are divorced, that is thought

of as hindering on you know, a condition, and if that condition is met, that a lot takes place. So, one of the tricks that can be employed here is for her to ask for Cola, and then He grants her cola and then she can basically go out go wherever she needs to go. And then when she comes back, he takes her back, it doesn't count as a divorce.

But the Henry's made sure that they would say that this would not be valid and all of that stuff, but that is one of the tricks that could have been applied and not all the 100 is considered invalid By the way, some would consider it to be a valid trick. Because you know it handed Masuda valid basically tricks is a completely different story that we can talk about when some other the what makes a halal mushroom

or not.

If it does not defeat the purpose of the legislation then it is sure, but anyway,

that is the difference between hola and talaq two major consequences, the period the duration of the period and the number of divorces. Now, that is given that formula took place in the proper color sort of terminology within a year of holder otherwise if it is not it, it counts as the law and if it counts as a law then it is just like follow in both cases if it is color or polyp and return for compensation in both cases it is finalized that means finally that means finalized

means he cannot take her back except with her approval.

Okay.

Now, did we say that hula is not

the right of the wife right? According to the majority It is only a minute American Allah who said that it is obligatory on the man once she gives him the dowry to give her hola but the majority consider this to not be an obligation on the man. That's the majority then mean that she has no way out if he's refusing. Now according to the Maliki's adhan, Betty's it will be up to the two arbitrators who can force him to give her hola but they will not. Basically the difference between the medic ease and combat is the authorized the view according to the medical exam honeyberries is that they will leave this determination up to the arbitrators.

And then the arbitrators who would force him to give her color. Even if a man makes this obligation at divine one he's already he has already been commanded. It is not pending the arbitrators,

decision or decree, but apparently cinematic is an honeyberries

the arbitrators will be able to force hold on him, the arbitrators will be able to have the arbitrator is found that she's actually hateful or resentful or

unable to proceed in this marriage, then they would force him to accept

them she said we could all be could email us when you oconus adoption we've been Mattoon for lokala to clean up my fear the minute Dara hintel Murphy Beatty Minamata father,

FEMA failed American female a fella who thalassa to the raw him will occur Luma USANA Matan

the compensation for cola is anything that could be a subak even if it is unknown, if she says give me a cola in exchange for their homes in my hand or for the useful properties in my house and he does it is valid and he is entitled to whatever is there. If nothing is there, he is entitled to three their homes in this first scenario or the smallest article that could be considered useful property. And the second scenario, what this is according to the authorized view, and it must have been the unauthorized review of the harmony method that does not apply the law has to be known this level of fraud or undue risk taking is not acceptable in hula is not acceptable, because they

consider this to be like other approved. So in the in the for profit transactions are coded model that is this level of acceptable is this level of risk taking acceptable?

Course not.

Here. Yeah. Well, that is what the Hambali is, that is that he, you know, that he may, you know,

that this is his right to give a divorce. So if he's accepting anything,

it is not, you know, it's not a problem.

But in general, in our not for profit transactions, this level of risk taking is unacceptable. You cannot say, give me your laptop. for that. I'm in my hand. Can you say that? No, it's not acceptable. But give me a call for the derive in my hand, it is acceptable. If he agrees to give her her further arm in here. Well, if she opens her hand, and there is nothing, then he is entitled to three their hands because that is the least that could be called the plural of there.

So he's entitled to three homes. If she says give me a quota for the furniture in my home.

And then he goes back and does not find any furniture, then he is entitled for the least article that may be considered furniture that may be cold furniture, things of that nature anyway, it's not a big deal.

Then the SEC said

how we skipped anything.

We did not skip anything that needed to be discussed before.

Then the sheikh said was Cola, min cola Manya satola, who was

in many hotels are often mad for that is valid from anyone who's calaca is valid. The payment of its compensation is valid only from one who is legally competent to conduct monetary transactions. So who can give a hood who can make

a quantum inquiry column

one is valid from anyone whose Tableau is valid. So if someone who stood up is invalid, like the original one, for instance, like that child, for instance.

And you want to add this to your thing, because I have here the child, I should have said the non discerning child because according to the honeyberries the discerning

child can initiate divorce and Hola.

So the child, the husband that I have here in the in the footnotes,

hi mentor by this the non discerning child.

Why? Because a Teflon mama is the discerning child divorce and are acceptable, according to the honeyberries. Is this true for the majority? No, it is not true for the majority, the majority will not give the child the right to divorce or the capacity to divorce, it is only the 100 bodies that would give it to the starving child. But anyway, according to the insane or to the non discerning child, the the insane and the non discerning child will not have the capacity to divorce. Therefore, they do not have the capacity to give hula is this capacity transferable to their way to their guardian, nomadic ease and honeyberries said that this capacity is transferable to their guardian to

their Willie, this Hana fees and the chef is. And the other report also according to the hamburger is that is, you know, pretty strong. say that this is not transferable to the way

and not transferable to the way.

But

it would be like

it, they would be locked into this. So

it's probably transferable to the relay and the relay will do what is in the best interest of

they're whatever whoever is under their custody, or under their will a protege or whatever the equal this

word

is.

Now the second issue here, so so

and if you are surprised the two children could be married to each other child could be married to an adult, because Islam does not all of this stuff is left in the sort of this area permissibility does not mean that, you know, anyone is telling you to marry off your two year old son to a 16 year old woman. Does that? Is that allowable? Yes, it is. So if your two year old son is married to a six year old woman,

can he divorce her? No, he cannot.

Is he is he able to divorce our according to the you know, the sort of the different positions that I told you?

He may or may not, you know, based on? Can he can if she offers color? Can he give her a color? The two year old? No, he cannot. Can his Well, he gave her Honda

depending on the disagreement that I

just cited here.

Does this Hong Kong law? Does this mean that Allah is telling you to marry off your two year old son to a six year old woman? No, he's not. He just did not put restrictions there. And that's it. Well use your discretion use your whatever just do whatever is in your your son's best interests.

Can the authorities restricted up mobile

if they found that it is being abused as we said before, according to many contemporary scholars, the authorities could restrict them. If they found that it is being abused, it is simply that the law did not put restrictions there. Can the authorities do this if the restrictions will be in the best interest of the public? According to many contemporary scholars, the authorities could actually do this it is part of the power of the Sultan.

Okay, so now your two year old son who's married to the six year old lady,

let us say

that I say that

it is the opposite.

To the child here is the is the spouse that is asking for not the exact opposite. But whatever it is could be like as an eight year old girl married to like a nine year old

Boy

say that this is

so one.

Let's say in the first example, we were talking about

the the capacity to initiate divorce or the capacity to initiate it to give color to grant further

and flip it

the child or the insane have the capacity to demand taller and because when demand and anything No one needs it, it is always in the best interest to get what you what you want, right but, but you also have to pay for this. So you will have to return the Saba at least to get the holla does she have that capacity, if she is module Allah and this how to interdiction interdicted in this interdiction is because of one of two reasons insanity or young age? If there is an interdiction? Can she dispose of her property? No. So can hear whenever you do that, can her guardian do that?

According Yes, according to know according to the majority, including the authorized view and the Hanbury method, yes, according to one view and kamberi mazahub, the Maliki's and epitomes choice?

So they said yes, if that isn't her best interest, he can offer her property in return for this whole if that was in her best interest.

And I want you to I want the mobile app that is that we're talking about here that was not restricted by Allah, his word, the contract, not the consummation, because the consultation has to be deferred until they are capable until she is capable of sort of marriage and the obligations of marriage.

But the the

mobile that is unrestricted is the age where the contract can be conducted. And industry. There is no floor age. There is no cutoff for this age. No, no higher, no low. There are no colors. No no age cut offs. For the contract of marriage. Anyone could get married at any time.

That would bring us to the end. Just make sure that I'm not I have not skipped. I thought there would be more like I did cover everything.

Okay.

Well, actually, we finished in just one hour. That's good.

I have it written here. No, I don't have a trigger. I'm just telling you that has to be explicit. The color has to be explicit.

If it is not explicit, it what happens if it is not explicit?

It will count as the law.

If it is not explicit, it will count as a lock and if it counts as the lock. What does that mean? The period is the rating period is the regular periods for talaq and it will count as one talaq one out of three that they are entitled to.

That's it.

Take five minutes for people to leave and then we'll start our q&a session.

Except

What happened? He lost his voice.

He lost his voice but he's saying the explicit words used

barite fat eight and cannot. Cannot barite fat eight Yes.