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.
Mr. serrulata medium in order to proceed, we will start now, the prologue or the chapter on divorce or the actually it's called Get up. So it's the book of divorce.
And as we said before, so many times,
there is GitHub there is Bevin there is fast.
And so if we call the chapter that GitHub would be bigger than the chapter, we still call it a book. It does not mean that the book has many chapters under it, it just means that it is bigger than the chapter. Sometimes it means that it is a book that has chapters under it like eatable Salah will have many chapters under double Salah.
But at times you will have a key tab that does not have chapters under it, they just called it because it's too big to be called the Bab or a chapter and then you have the fast which is the sub chapter
So here is an Allah tala Kodama, who died in the year 620 after Hitler says in his book on that, in fact, or long the
under Khattab talaq the book of divorce lassa Polanco in lemons Elgin McCullough Finn matar in what is called a local mocha.
mocha he has a lot Illa Sakura.
Divorce is only valid for a medically competent and willful husband. Divorce under compulsion is invalid. Also invalid is the divorce of the one without intact intellect.
Except for the drunk, except for the drunk.
There's so much that we have to say here. So get a bottle of the chapter or the book of divorce.
Here's a disclaimer.
You know, I have I always say that one of the ways I find certainty we were talking about certainty and we were talking about the duty then stripping your disclosure of
stripping gear disclosure of the acquired certainty. Acquired certainty is contemplation and reflection on the signs of Allah subhanaw taala and reflection on the Sharia and so on.
You do understand that although some people have used this concept, but you do understand that there is a difference between Sharia and Phil. Sharia is what Allah had prescribed felker's
a great extent the human perspective, the human understanding of what the law prescribes for the law legislated.
people have used this to basically destroy the Sharia. They say that it's a human product is this that and we don't really need to
pay attention to the codify ceria. They call it codified Sharia. I guess it's a pejorative term.
Because it is the product of people that lived in different eras that are not basically like us, and we have our own minds and our own intellects, and they have their own. What other stuff, certainly all of that stuff is.
deviation, but at the same time,
like an extreme response to this, that is dogmatic, aren't realistic.
An untrue, is unwarranted, is unwarranted. There is a difference between God and there is a difference between what Allah have legislated and with what the scholars understood. Yes, the consensus of the scholars, the true bona fide consensus of the scholars is a coordinate to us that is sudden, infallible. That's the true bonafide consensus of the scholars.
But when they disagree, and when there is room for disagreement, the fact that the majority or even the overwhelming majority chose that particular possession does not mean that the truth is confined in that particular position.
And I have shared with you my writing on the agreement of the forum as I have been when is it permissible to basically depart from or
from their agreement
Take a position that is outside of the agreement of the form of
if there is any particular area of hair that I have this comfort in, that is naturally, but that I have some discomfort with it is the chapter, the book of the Boers
that the detailed rulings in the book of divorce by the scholars caused me a little bit of discomfort. And that is fine. I, you know, I don't shy away from admitting this.
And it doesn't hurt me it doesn't hurt my certainty because my certainty is immune. And I'm not really trying to, like
promote myself here. But I do believe that my certainty, even my acquired certainty, let alone disclosure or anything of that nature. I'm not claiming any of that. I'm just saying that my acquired certainty. I believe it is too big to be hurt by this comfort with
a few rulings or a few sort of
massage, in fact, that I just find them a bit
inconsistent with the spirit of the Sharia or inconsistent with even sometimes the letter of the Sharia. So this is my my work. I'm not talking about my certainty in the study our certainty in God, I'm talking about my certainty in,
in our heritage, my certainty in the collective heritage, a collective heritage of Islamic scholarship. That's the certainty I'm talking about. So I am a believer in the beauty and soundness and authenticity and strength, of the collective heritage of Islamic scholarship.
And because my certainty in this is great, is great, I don't have a problem finding a few issues, they don't cause me a crisis
at all, if I find this comfort, in some areas in some corners,
which is completely fine, because there has to be
what kind of an undefeated hero to defeat Telefunken See, if it if it is from other than Allah subhanaw taala they would have found much inconsistency in it. And the books
are not the book of Allah. They are the books of the authors, the scholars
and if they are not the book of Allah, there will be much inconsistency in the
last prophet Allah told us this I find comfort in this
but that inconsistency will not take away from my faith in the collective collective soundness authenticity beauty of
Islamic scholarship, our heritage our tourist
sometimes also the in the sort of the some of these rulings were a response to
idiotic individuals that are making a
mockery of the dean and the you know the rulings of the dean so when someone says that his wife
your toddler two and a half times,
two and a half Sunita locks and one half bit eight o'clock. So then scholars get busy now to talk about this and addressing the you know how what would make sense of this, it is a response to an idiot to
was making a mockery of the
Kesava talaq the book of divorce
Pelican lemons, Elgin McAuliffe and mozzarella as
well as a lark Lila Sakura, divorce is only valid from a legally competent and willful husband. Divorce under compulsion is invalid, also invalid as the divorce of the one without intact intellect except for the drunk. There are so many issues that I would discuss so keep track of them of my commentary because the commentary goes beyond the mountain. So if I skip an issue, an important issue, remind me of it.
So talaq basically the beauty of this legislation the permission of Allah, palapa is a very beautiful legislation the you know, the
The ability to walk away from a failed relationship, it's a partnership. And like any partnership, it can become so dysfunctional to where it is not in the best interest of any party all of the parties involved or it is the detriment to some of the parties involved.
You know, the parties involved here would be the wife, the husband and the children, because they are always they have to be always taken in consideration. This is not a partnership between two anymore, it's a family and there if there are children, they have to be given due consideration in in the decision in making that decision. But that partnership can become so dysfunctional, that it could truly be to the detriment of all parties involved.
And in this case, the loss of Hello Tyler allowed divorce and we have seen that in other religions and you know, in other theistic traditions Abrahamic
sort of face, talaq is prohibited
by their sort of
scholars like us, so that the provision of the law when when we're detrimental to the, to those spouses where there's a very dysfunctional relationship, and that could result in infidelity, right, because you're locked into this relationship into this failed relationship resulting to infidelity, the provision of talaq also will often be
to the detriment of the woman, because she is, you know, throughout the ages, he is the weaker party. In that partnership. She has the weaker party in that partnership. So if you look two places in one room, one of them is stronger, one is weaker. Obviously, that is a disservice to the weaker, two, like people that are in conflict, you lock them into one room and sleeve them and you throw away the key. Certainly the person that will suffer for suffer more is the weaker party. So
So Islam legislated for law for these benefits, but Islam does recognize that the law is basically
a problem. You know, a law means the termination of that relationship, termination of that partnership, and particularly, when there are children.
There could be consequences, there could be side effects, untoward consequences, and they could be massive. So what is the ruling of the law? What is happening this year, talk to hear about when it is valid, and whether it is invalid, but did not start by addressing the problem of a polyp itself. I think sometimes in
sort of summarize the manuals, Mattoon, they skip some rulings and some of the rulings they skip are either find details that are not suitable for the manual, or things that are quite known. So they figure we'll skip this because it's known.
The routing of talaaq is any one of five the five categories the five categories of routings, our haraam,
crew must have been welded, the lock could be welded together could be hora de la could be anything in between. So when is the last hoorah
and that's about you know, the five prongs category pipe prank classification is not the hand and the hand is farther here
and the macro and Z and macro Reman macro and Z and so macro is splitted into micro and macro. But anyway, practically speaking, it converges back to the five to the five is an easier classification and it all comes back to the five categories.
when is it haram?
How is haram? Certainly there are certain sort of political ideas around the threefold divorce as heroine to alter the makeup and we will come to see that to talk about the controversy here.
But the stronger position of the majority is the three fold divorces Haram. palapa bitter is haram by consensus which is the divorce the woman and during her period or
in a state of purity in which
there was intimacy or or intercourse.
So that would be hot um, but is it haram outside of that, you know, outside of that is Paula Haram.
There are two reports from Mr. Ahmed, one report that is haram one report
that had called the we are mentioned the two reports. So,
so, and there is so much also disagreement among the Hanafi is about talaq and that is why when I talked about the the default for the Hanafi position I used capital H and capital H two. So, h and h two I did not use capital and small h and use capital H and capital h2 because the disagreement among them is so intense
that the Hanafi is polop you know that they disagree with is haram or mcru
has a default default. The default for product is hazaribagh mokara. So is the default for Tara is the prohibition which would mean haram or moku. Anyway.
So, the default for tala, as I said would be like this.
haram prohibited mazor hossler. These are the people who said that
it is everywhere in the Hanbury mouth hub that was chosen by the mayor and it is the Hanafi madhhab. According to economic Dean, because everybody will say you know the happiness of the best animal that is that, you know,
eventually, you know, I put a lot of
trust into it and Aberdeen's choices, and even Aberdeen is the latest have the greatest
higher fees. So, anyway, so this would be
hard on Amazon prohibited us by default. And the rest of the people including h2, which would be included in the live Hana fees as well
would say. So you'll have the capital A you will have the h2, you will have the s they will say it is macro. And the Maliki's will say it is unfavorable, they don't even go as far as macro. They say it is unfavorable.
permitted. Yeah, we will come to we will come to the misclassification back, but I just wanted to highlight what they say in terms of the default.
And then that when the new one says we will add the nuances and talk about them here, but this is the default. And here and the new ones is
now collapsing, I will have items to have whatever you will use to
So Haram. So if we try to make sense of the two reports from Yamaha, remember, that was not you know, sometimes very, like I said before, when Mr. Ahmed says two different things, you need to add new ones to them to show that you are not always claiming that Mr. Muhammad was always changing his mind. So, you know, sometimes he would be asking within a certain context and another time he'd be asking about, you know, in a different context, and we may have been unable to capture the context. So that's why you get like
South Africa or bodywear having to
miss impossible, I mean,
is a habit Muslim. So it is not like you know, he was doing ad hoc fatawa here and then every time he learned something, you know, certainly you acquire more than
knology change your mind and the mind was impartial enough to do that and was brave enough to do that. But at the same time,
it's not all about that just a little bit of context and flavor here and understand that the man may have been talking about different contexts. And you know, and the man the transmitters, the reporters may have not been able to capture the context. So that's why there are disagreements. So if we tried to say that
the man had the authorized view, and the method, as we said that it is macro, you know, sort of the authorize the view in the month have is that it is a macro, but let's understand that a way of where he said that is haram.
By default, we could say that, when it is completely unwarranted, entirely unwarranted, it would be hard on when it is entirely unwarranted, it would be hard on.
And that is someone who is just like, he gets married, he divorces, he gets married, he divorces because he just wants to change, you know, he was like, is
just, yeah. Like, like, Sue that. So completely unwarranted, you know, no matter how good she is, no matter how, you know, it's just, he wants to change.
And in this case, why would it be why would it be hard on me? Let's let's first talk about why would it be Haram in this case?
Well, it would be hard on because
the provenance items that are that are there should be no harm or reciprocation of harm or you should not bring harm about to yourself or to others.
What does that you know, is divorce data.
Let's be real here. Divorce is that, you know,
there is no doubt that divorce is this data. So when it is completely unwarranted, there is no doubt that there is an unwarranted data.
And if it is unwarranted, that makes perfect sense that would be harder.
When you know the Hadith that I cite here, the hadith of at least
some verses that we have also saw
the where it leaves puts his throne on the water and he then then he dispatches, and if you don't just like grow up and don't get stuck, we have this he put a stone on the water, just you know, don't get distracted with it. So and then he dispatches his troops and he he says to them that
men who have a minimum education Alabama home fitness the closest or the one that he would bring closest to him, when they come back is the one who caused the greatest fitna or the greatest harm the greatest evil and then in this Hadith, which is reported by Muslim it's it's highly authentic. The one that Jeb read will say the snuffer obliques would say to him, and to caribou la the one he will bring closest to him and he will tell him you are the you're the winner you
as the one who was able to separate between two spouses between the man and his spouse or his wife. So in light of this Hades Could this be like a mobile like a mobile thing? When it is the sort of the the work of the child teen is the work of child teen? Can the work of shell teen or the sort of
most evil work of Sheltie that the prophet SAW Southern told us that this is the most accomplished shaitan of the day is the one who will separate between a man and his wife that most accomplished a task Did he just make this man do something
that didn't make any sense? So you know, you add you add it to this and then it will be very obvious that
I personally believe very strongly in this position.
It has lost Luffy and has unwarranted divorce has to be hot off.
Okay, we said that the authorized position in the meth lab is that it is makuu it is the test. And we can say that we can make try and make sense of this when it is not completely warranted. It is detested with is when it is entirely unwarranted. It is haraam. When it is not coming.
pletely warranted it is the test to just make sense of it
and understand the reports from development rationally and try to contextualize them and add new ones to them. So when it is entirely unwarranted is haraam when it is not completely warranted, it is my crew. But as I said, in the mouth hub, usually the authorize the view is that it is macro.
So macro, and then we would be when it is not completely weren't, you know, there are conflicts, but they have not really invested enough in reconciliation, they have not invested enough, they have not shown enough patience, while I should open up a model for encoding to warn us and technology at a low fee. Hi, I'm Cassie euro. And if you dislike them live with them kindly or you know,
been model and goodness or kindly. And if you dislike them, you made this like a thing and Allah would put there in much good. Allow it put there much good. What does this I say? Wait, be patient, be patient, Don't be hasty. invest more effort more time into reconciling into saving your marriage. Okay. So, so here it is conflict, but they have not really invested enough time into
here MOBA would be when there is conflict, and they have invested in and it is just not working, it's become very dysfunctional that is causing harm to the two spouses to the children.
I mean, then certainly at one point, this dependent because it's it isn't spectrum, because we're talking about, we're not talking about math here, they bleed into each other, these categories overlap and bleed into each other. Because this is not math, we're talking about a relationship here. And we're talking about family dynamics that are extremely complicated. So to be able to provide you like clear cut categories. This is when it is hard. This is impossible, because we're talking about human condition. We're talking about relationship, we're talking about dynamics, there's so complicated, but we're these are hints, you know, these are hints, like sort of like a
vague blueprint to when it is mobile, when is it nice to have, it is nice to have, but when it is this functional that it has caused harm that people like you know, they don't honor the rights of Allah subhanaw taala it is most a habit for the woman also to ask for her if her husband is not honoring the rights of Allah, if she is not honoring, if they are not able to stay within the bounds of a less than it is it is most to have.
And when there is clear cut harm, it is Mr. hub, when does it become? Well? Certainly, if it is court enforced divorce, it is where the court enforced, you have you're being commanded to divorce your wife by the judge that is wired up to divorce her.
But when is it also? Well, you know, there are certain scenarios where it could be well, like, let us say, you know, the wife is not chaste. And you fear that she may
bring about disgrace to the family. And, you know,
and that's not that's not uncommon, you know, like, in a certain non Muslim country, I read statistics recently that 40% of women have regular
have regular sort of
men that are not there 40% of married woman in that country, it's not Muslim country, but 40% of married women and that non Muslim country, they regularly have intercourse with people with men that are not their husband.
So these things are not really that uncommon.
Hopefully the rates in Muslim countries will be much less. But again, at the same time, it does not mean that it never happens. And if there's this concern,
and it is it is a justifiable concern. Then it becomes wet.
to divorce. The wife You know, when a man came to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and said to him in the Marathi letter, I miss my wife never pushes away the hand
Anyone who wants to touch her,
which means that she's promiscuous. He said to her, which means send her away divorce her, that is what it means. So divorce her
so when is it also
it would be what
you know and this would be like it's a can of worms but if she if she does not pray for instance, and she insists and not pray, and you're really hungry and you think
anyway, but there are certain cases where it could become weird.
And that would that way it would be on the woman Also, if you're really hungry also and you know, and the husband does not pray it would be watchable on the woman to see cola to try to get rid of that relationship.
So that's basically the ruling of divorce. The default for divorce, according to the majority is that it is my crew because of the Hadith Inaba hora de la talaq. The most detested, permissible act in the sight of Allah is prologue and this hadith is not authentically traceable to the Prophet sallallahu sallam, but the meaning is valid meaning when it is Hillel it is still the tested most of the time when it is somewhat were entered. So because most of the time the prophets are selling a few he say that this hadith is actually traceable to the prophets Allah Southern what would he have meant? He would have meant that most of the time it is somewhat warranted because people don't
usually just divorce because they just like to, so most of the time it is warranted but most of the time it is still detested, disliked by Allah subhanaw taala because it could have been worked out and people did not invest enough into reconciliation.
Amanda, do you have a question?
You raise your hand. Okay. So
then last thought okay, then the next point here that the sheriff would address we are done with the routing of divorce and the default for it this next point that the shake will address is the law in lemons out certainly you Pollock will not be valid accepted by as out so what does that mean? It means that if you know if your wife
of course, like you know people would say, you know that doesn't make sense. It makes sense. Because if you divorce your wife and the divorce is finalized, and even if it is finalized and even inherited, you tell her your divorce, that does not count as a second one
because the divorce has been finalized, finalized the divorce, so if it is a finalized divorce, she is not a wife anymore, like
she is not subject to divorce anymore.
lassa talaq environments Elgin McAuliffe in matar xiao qian makanda Macario husband, who is more Caliph authorized
and matar willful, what does he mean by mocha left makanda means that he is sane and sane, sane adult as an adult, two words sane adult, sane, let's let's go over sane and then go over about or let's flip. Let's go over adult so the child cannot give a divorce. The discerning child according to the Amana method can issue divorce can pronounce divorce. The majority of scholars including smoly
say the child cannot give the horse cannot give divorce can the well he gave divorce
on his behalf. We have discussed that controversy last in the last week. But the child himself cannot pronounce divorce according to these that the discerning child acquired the non discerning child according to everybody. But according to these the child cannot pronounce the discerning child cannot pronounce divorce. He says the discerning child can pronounce divorce and the discerning child would be usually someone who's seven or older, usually the surname child survey at the moment
okay, that's as far as the child is concerned. What about this scene? So what does that mean? If you are not known, if you are insane, your divorce does not count. And if you go in and out of sanity when you are insane in your divorce will not count. And there are people who are like this, you know, there are, you know, bipolar people, for instance, that that go in and out of it. And when they just when they lose their mind that their divorce in this case, will not count. So this is not an impractical thing. It's a very practical ruling.
But what about the foolish person who divorces his wife? It will count by the agreement of the four scholars, because we're not talking about foolishness here we're talking about insanity. So the insane
is the one
Cuando la caja as in LA palapa moto.
This was reported from ATI and it was traceable to the profit but not with a strong chain.
It is it is probably more kofod alejado on every law is valid except that the law of
Moto, moto and moto so every talaq is valid except that a lot of in moto which is the person who
incoherent basically lost his mind.
But the scholars use this often to basically validate a lot of bollocks like Pelican has it for instance jokingly the person who pronounces Pollock jokingly, for the forum as I will count serve Allah tala, because they say Curatola concerns. He was not not to. He was joking with counted
so foolish. It will it
it will go through it won't be validated the foolish person.
what about the person who's so angry? The person who is extremely angry that his anger basically took him out of shape here says
Motorola, Motorola, Motorola mokara.
It has to be from a husband who is basically McKellar
legally competent and willful divorce under compulsion is in valid
divorce under compulsion is in valid
the profits on sentiment This is an important piece in the chapter of talaq
very important to have these
are reported by a Buddha Delivery Manager from Shara delana considered it
Rahim Allah and others. So, Latta lock so there is no tala meaning there is no valid
and no valid many admission or emancipation
or emancipation fee holla. In case of her lap, what does it mean they disagree?
academical. Bab means what Close the door. So it means what that their mind is completely blocked out, sort of complete mental block, complete mental block, or compulsion, duress
So it's either mental block or duress. Most of the scholars said that that means compulsion
Because the mental block the mental block, they say that the insane where this divorce is not in Canada. So we don't need this hadith basically to say that the product of the insane is not does not count because they insane is not legally competent, authorized or liable. There are two arms to tech leave to be legally authorized and legally liable, authorized meaning competent, that you could actually
be able to study and do things because you're you're competent, but liable, meaning that you will be held accountable so that no one who's not in Canada is neither competent or competent or liable, authorized or liable. But
Can we say that anger is luck or anger causes overlap?
We can Yes, we can say that anger causes a lot and particularly to the and you will find the same thing often here.
certainly the mayor Kamala anytime any.
That would be unfair to him. But more he was looking to invalidate the locks as much as he could, because of the the crisis of you know, the mohanlal thing and the issue of the lock. So whenever he found the method that invalidated the lock or something, he would certainly side with that method. You could say that this was his conviction, but it was also shaped by his circumstances. Because
sometimes our convictions are shaped by our circumstances. And we don't think of it this way. We don't even feel it. Like when you are when you when you have this crisis, the you know, and people are divorcing their wives wives left and right, and three fold divorce and then three fault divorce happening all the time. And then people bring in someone to marry them for like a day and then resume the marriage afterwards and so on. That's a crisis. So now we are studying the different myths
even unconsciously, or subconsciously, you will be inclined to choosing them the the positions of the mazahub that will invalidate divorce, that divorce becomes more of a willful decision, well thought out decision.
Not basically an impulse. So he was trying to invalidate all impulsive divorces. So every time there was like a meth lab that invalidated impulsive divorces, he would side with that method. So here the issue of anger here
and how you define anger, if not Dean again and I you know, and many of the harpies will not agree with this,
the this particular issue but they have not been
felt that anger is not and that is ignored by him before him as well.
So, I've never paid him and Edna Dean was like there's a few sort of nuances here. But generally speaking, given a claim and have not been said that there are three different levels of anger. There is an anger where you become completely unconscious and that is like insane. And that would invalidate the talaq Nero by agreement. That anger that made you insane, unable to sort out right from left man from woman, heavens from Earth, you're just completely not here. You lost all of your mental faculties he had become, you've become insane. There is the mild anger, sort of the reasonable the moderate anger, mild to moderate anger than say, mild to moderate anger that people
would experience anyone who divorces his wife, when not certainly be I mean, some some people could you know, but but most of the time, people will not be particularly having a good day.
they're on a picnic or something and then it's decided to divorce. But so they will be somewhat angry. And we cannot invalidate all the divorces because they are pronounced in a state of anger because that would mean that
would be no valid divorces. So that type of mild to moderate anger that will not cause the divorce to be invalid according to anyone. Now there is some type of anger in the middle here that they've not been and I am try to identify, they try to basically
bisect that type of anger out of the two angers and give it some parameters that would make it somewhat objective and they say like, if you regret immediately if you felt compelled, like if you felt pushed, like the type of anger that is severe, that makes you not your stead of recognizing that she's your wife, you still know that you're saying divorce, you still can differentiate between man and woman and heavens on earth and so on. You've not completely lost your mind. But it is this a VR anger that feels like someone is pushing you from behind, the anger is pushing you. And in this case, it is a lap.
Because not only is it the mental block or removes you're sort of like the complete faculty. But then there's also compulsion because the anger acts in this case, as a compeller like someone is pushing you you're not in control anymore because your anger has overtaken you. So that level in the metal here that was identified by an Aberdeen and I am this is basically where you know if you go to Darren fatwah and lasar it's a little room next to my mosque, that Azar you'll see the Messiah there and everybody comes in and they ask them question.
This is their sort of most favorite fat where they just look and because they consider it to be sort of classical. They they're always quoting this this fat word because it is, you know, Egypt and you know, people are usually angry.
So it is not it is not really difficult to
This is this is the top most anger. This is where you cannot you're unconscious. You can't you don't know. Like you were saying divorce but you don't know that you're saying divorce, you don't know what it means. You can differentiate between man and woman and heavens and earth. And so this No, you are you still are able you're conscious here, you know what you're saying. But you are in a state of severe anger that you're pushed into it.
You don't have complete control.
Well, according to have not been in no time and have not been this will not count.
This one would not count for sure. This would count by all of them, which is mild to moderate anger. This severe anger that did not make you unconscious will not count according to evanov. Dean and
this one now isn't
really for him to get
somebody to lose consciousness kind of angry.
But isn't that like sickness? Well,
people are sick.
You know, if you if you tried. personality disorders are very common that if you try to find someone without a personality disorder in this room, it will be difficult will be extremely difficult.
Yeah, my Yes. But a lot of people are not.
the idea here is that
I have to lock in lemons origin mocha and mocha. So we talked about mocha left, and we talked about the child we talked about the insane the motor is the willful and then the mokra the one
so so what about the state of ekra forget about anger now. And what about the real estate of Accra. It is somewhat interesting that the HANA fees do not basically the electric ignites the state of Accra, because here in a state of Accra,
someone is pointing a gun to your head, but you are completely conscious aware, and if you pronounce divorce, they will count it against you.
You know, under gunpoint, but the majority will not. The majority will not. And I believe that position of the majority is stronger,
not only because law
of law and part of the you know, some of the scholars interpreted this to be a compulsion
but also because the Prophet was an unsettled man said us,
because the Prophet sallallahu Sallam
said, What is the credo Allah He that
No, in the last two there was a multi
The other one is in the lockout, automatic This is in a market that is automatic.
So, this had Ethan lock at the generosity of Katana, siano Crowley,
Allah subhanaw taala had basically exempted or pardon my own from the from okay. And
so Allah have exempted
What else? Have you think of other translations? My own man
messy and forgetfulness.
Well, Mr. Craig walay, and that which they do under compulsion.
So, what does it mean?
What does it mean here?
does it mean, you know,
it's, you know, the I don't know if we should get into the discussion, because it's like a detailed discussion, but the idea that the discussion of moqtada Omen moqtada how do you
how do you interpret this moment moqtada moqtada is required clodagh require macdon would be required. So, it is a required implication, you will have to insert a word here to validate to validate this so exempted my own mouth error and they see and that does that mean that the oma does not make errors does not mean that the oma does not forget does not do things under compulsion, no, it doesn't mean that. So, you will have to figure out what is this exemption, what is the sort of you know, last sort of relief this from this, so, it in order for us to validate this, we would have to insert a word that is required to be inserted. And when, whenever this happens, the HANA fees and
the HANA fees and Malik is they try to insert the the least sort of
desert the least the smallest insertion that will validate the meaning. And the Hannah shafa is and Han bellies they will try to insert
the widest, most comprehensive insertion. What are they trying to do? They're saying that since we cannot understand that this literally to mean that a lot relieved from error and forgetfulness is the old man still makes errors. The old still forgets. Then in order for us to validate this we will have to insert something that we that the oma has been relieved of
Is it the same
the sin that is accrued or is it a consequences, all the consequences of the consequences.
So, the hidden fees and the magic keys, they figured, we will take the sin, we will take the sin, why, because if we must insert something into the speech of the Prophet, we will insert the least that will validate the meaning
right instead, so, the sin is one of the consequences, but there are other consequences. So, since we will have to insert something, we will
also say that some of the consequences we cannot remove, like if you by mistake had somebodies car and cause damage to it, all of us, we will make you liable, everybody will make you liable, because this is a property of somebody and stuff like that. So, they say we cannot say the cancerous consequence of So, we'll say the sin on the then the shaft is an honeyberries said, since this hadith means that these have been lifted, been exempted, relieved of them. And, you know, we cannot justify this, we cannot validate this, because obviously, we are not
sort of relieved of annainsea and completely we still make errors and we still forget, then that, then the meaning must be the one right next to it. So, if we cannot validate
proper NDC and to be relieved of provenance here, then we would have to validate everything that is short of the meaning of that is not conceivable. So, what is next to copper nscn being being removed from the oma is all the consequences of
being removed from them. And then we will come to a point where certain constant consequences we will exclude, like your liability, the liability of destroying somebody's property, for instance, certain consequences will be removed from all the consequences based on some other proofs based on some other than lead. So this is the the concept of our moment. moqtada and it is the hanon buddies and cefa is that believe in a moment makabayan harpies and Maliki's don't believe in a moment moqtada. But keep in mind,
a larger 250 laffan costiera. The scholars
you know, are genius brilliant
They were not error proof and they were not the human beings. So you will find the inconsistencies, you will find some of them as I have that uphold a particular principle.
departure from that principle. their departure from the principle is not always because of their inconsistency. It could be because of your inability to grasp to capture the reason of their departure. But sometimes it's because they're human beings and they make mistakes.
Anyway, so the
divorce of the one under compulsion is invalid according to the majority and that is Maliki's shafa is on honeyberries it is valid according to the HANA fees and we said that the majority position seems to be stronger.
We're still here in this one statement that's causing us so much.
So he said what the mokra whether as a lack of Ella sacrum also invalid is the divorce of the one without intact intellect. Except for the drunk except for the drunk now the here is the discussion of palapa Sakura Sakura.
Well has, well the divorce of the one who was intoxicated count. Keep in mind and if you're under anesthesia, if you if you are under the effect of anesthesia, that does not apply to you. If you have taken a medicine that would cause you intoxication for a valid reason or not knowing that it is it will cause you intoxication. This discussion does not apply to you.
The intoxication that we're talking about here is your sinful consumption of wine or sinful consumption of drugs
that are in toxicon, sinful consumption of intoxicants. That is, you know, if you do this by error if you do this for a medical need if you do this for this is not your clock does not count by agreement, you're not being addressed here. But if you are, if you have simply consumed intoxicants, does your column count? Who said yes,
all of them
there's all of them mean consensus No, it means the agreement of the form of
So, who said it does not count Can you read? Can you tell me Of course, you can tell me who before him said that does not count towards Anahata maybe
toes toes slices half
I was out Tata is not one of them right. Okay. So,
but, you know, these are not insignificant these are these are these are very big names, you know. So, it what we are trying to establish here is that this is not a matter of consensus, it is the agreement of the form of hype and it is not a matter of consensus, if you have people like these interviews and without and so on
who do not believe the productive sector on takes place, then it is not keep in mind that ebenen Monza reported that at Monza reported that the consensus is that provoca saklan does not count because of a monster said that all ceman ruled the La Casa Grande does not count and there was no contestants among the Sahaba.
So, so, anyway it is
the logic is that
okay, the, the logic, which is, which is
the Prophet did not say something about tilaka saccharin in particular. So, that is where the disagreement will take place. But, in general, if someone is unconscious, does not know what he's saying then by default, has the lock does not count. They actually counted that a lock against the second because they said that he he did it to himself. He called he Yes, but they said that he has to be punished by causing himself the state of intoxication or everything that the sacrum, keep in mind that they agreed outside of the area of follow up, that everything that the salon does, we will hold him accountable for everything he does.
Because he caused that to himself. So he will not only be it will not only be civil liability, but it will also be criminal liability for the sacrum because he's done it himself.
And no one pushed, No one forced him to drink. So
so then you like
drink and drive is your problem.
Okay, but the people who said that adequate sacrum does not count. They said that palapa is different from other sort of infractions of the law, that this is not about infraction of the law, you know, and he needs to be conscious in order for him to lock the bit account. It is a matter of this agreement. just want you to know that the agreement of the form of the palapa saccharin count, but I want you to know that this is not a matter of consensus. So it's the agreement of the former lover. Okay.
We're done with the people that were done with the valid and invalid talaq as far as the pronouncement of talaq as far as the pronouncer of talaq, initiator of tala.
Then the sheikh said why omniconvert rule selasa took the car to LA produced in a tiny so I own Canada takahama hauraton however, the free man is entitled to three divorces.
And the slave is entitled only to whether the wife is free or not, whether the wife is free or not. If I get into the three for divorce, I will use 10 more minutes 10 five to 10 more minutes
you know above the sort of
the limit. So do you want me to defer this then next time or you want me to go over this now I have 15 minutes, I would use additional five to 10 maybe five.
Okay. Okay, so I am liquid heraclea apart while Abdul snottiness on Karnataka Mahara, Anna, the free man is entitled to three divorces and the slave is entitled The only to do whether the wife is free or not. So this is the idea of the three divorces and the pronouncement of three divorces the three for the composite divorce
the composite three fault divorce, what is the ruling of the composite three for the divorce and why is it a problem?
We will talk about whether it counts as the or counts as one later. But what is the ruling to begin with? Is it helpful to make that pronouncement or haraam? This for someone to say to his wife and
is it helpful to make that pronouncement are haram?
haram? Yes, it is haram according to the majority. And the reason why it is haram is that it is the source of
The reason why it is haram is that it was not prescribed and if it is not prescribed monopolies are formed in Malaysia minimal foreign it is there if it is innovation. And for the people who would count it as leader horses it is haram because he had basically deprive themselves of the chance to
reconcile and to go back to his wife had he given her one divorce, they would have been able to go back together.
So it is haram according to a loss last age plus m capital. And it is MOBA, according to hate to loss is
actually another position in the honeyberry method and the shafa is don't find the problem in it. It's just you know, he lost the chance. He did he deprive themselves of the of the ability of Raja to take his wife back. It's up to him. He is entitled to divorce. He's entitled to one and if he's entitled to one, he's entitled to three, they didn't find a problem with okay, but the majority said that the three fault divorces hoorah.
And so the next next, the big one, the big one is coming, which is is this is that does this count as one or three? When someone says to his wife that he is divorce leptonic with Serato or something? Does this count as one or three huka whose other counts as three?
Okay, so they said that counts as three.
And then they say it counts as three because he is capable of one divorce then he's capable of three divorces. And if he's capable of three consecutive divorces, then he's capable of three simultaneous divorces. And he does that if he's done it to himself, then it is his fault. And the report also there's, there's some there is some, you know,
pretty important from Bordeaux Khanna
that he divorced his wife, three that he gave his wife a three for divorce, a three for divorce. And there are variants of this report. Some of them when say that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said to him take your wife back and he did not count it as like sort of the finalized divorce without recourse. And some will say that no, this is not true that you know some reports said that the profits or loss of land
enforce the enforce that
honestly speaking because of the conflicting reports, it is probably
it makes perfect sense that we that we should not use this on either side
that this whole story of Alberta Canada should not be used by the people who count it as the or the by the people who count it as one because we really have conflicting reports about the same story and that cannot be different about Canada's you know who divorced his wife their wives three times. So it has to be inconsistency among the narrator's and that creates doubt sufficient enough to disregard these reports
when it comes to making the rulings one thing that we have not mentioned in the beginning is the different types of divorce and you guys did not remind me
You thought hey, I coming to all that time and
we're almost done.
Okay, but anyway, so so the different types of divorces here would be Roger and Ben.
So Roger and
Roger it means what and finalized
that means what finalized
and the back end is the NBA norrona
and the new
Cobra so this is by no means finalized with recourse.
And by noon Sora means finalized
Okay, so what is all the talaq by default is Roger. Every time someone divorces, his wife can take her back during her period, that is largely take her back during her period. So the first divorce the second divorce, first divorce second divorce, the default is that a man can take his wife back during her period that is Raja, that is to take her back without a new contract, no new contract. So take her back with during the period without a new contract. That is the lock rajai, and that is the default for all first, for all first and second divorces during the period.
When does that lock become band becomes finalized? All of the Pollock's after the period are bad.
All of the products after the period are bad.
And the all of that, Alex, when does the talaq become the end?
In the period
there are talks that don't have period that is not a lock before consummation, there is no period the you know, so the woman does not have to observe a period. So without consummation, there is no period to begin with.
So the follow up is ban immediately.
Right? No, no period for the woman who did not consummate her marriage after the contract.
We're talking about all termination before consummation, whether even after consummation is bad. And during that the hula ortholog is back in whether it is
before after consummation, that's regardless of the concentration thing. So all the
so so after the period of the galaxy become ban,
there are women who don't have any period during the period certain bollocks for women who have to observe the period during the period.
The default for the first and the second is that they are gradually he can take her back third back in Pollock,
which is the lock and in return for compensation or hola back in
Even before the period ends, it becomes a band from the time of pronouncement that is third. That is
that is that I would or that is court enforced divorce that lead by the court. That is currently enforced divorce as well. So this becomes a ban immediately. Now, when is it bailing us over or by Cobra The default is that it has been
finalized with recourse meaning that they can remarry with a new contract and everything but they can remarry. When is it by Noah Cobra?
Sir divorce, and then there is like a Nuna Cobra, that is really sort of that is the iron public application.
They can't even go back together even after she gets married to another man. They just that's it not in this life, you know, you're done. So
so these are the different types of follow up. So just put things in perspective. So now we're talking about the three four divorce here and the three the composite three for divorce. Now by consensus, if you have consecutive three divorces, your wife with would not be hard for you until she marries another man consummate her marriage with a man and then you could remarry later on. You could marry marry later on.
That's by consensus, where the composite three vote for divorce is when you make that pronouncement when it is when they are combined simultaneous in Swan pronouncement where you divorce your wife three times
or according to a small minority if the pronouncement was back to back without Raja in between them. And honestly speaking, I believe that this would be most consistent with
the verse in the Quran that there has to be divorce Raja, divorce Raja, divorce Raja, for the third divorce to become
finalized without recourse. As Ignacio rahimullah pointed out, this would be the implication of the area. Why did a lot of Kanata not allow them to come back after a third of the divorce? Because, you know, people during that time man during that time would abuse the woman and they would have unlimited number of divorces, the divorce, they take her back the divorce, they take her back
as long as she is in her head.
And then so Allah subhanaw taala said, No, you you are entitled up to three. In addition to this, there is another wisdom, which I you know, which I point out in the commentary. The other wisdom is that sometimes people are too afraid of the unknown. They're just too paralyzed to take an unnecessary, brave decision to terminate the marriage, because it is completely dysfunctional. And they have been unable, like they got divorced, they came back and try it again. And then they didn't work out came back, try it again. didn't work out. So as if alized setting them there is life away from each other. You may be successful with a different partner, you are not a good match. It's an
obvious mismatch. Find yourself somebody else. That's what that's the message here. So, that third divorce
That is why Allah subhanaw taala did not allow them to go back after the third divorce, okay. So, the composite three fold divorce, we said that the form as I have said that it will count there is a minority position.
That seventh will not count that it will not count as three it will count only as one will not count as three and it will count only as one before I discuss this minority position because you know that even if they may have died in jail because of this position.
Sorry, ma'am. Tamia common law who is the person who
fought for this position defended this position it is known to be his, and even the laws and Muslim countries that take
that take that position that they call it is the correlativity, mayor's position, whether it is. And keep in mind that these are laws, the legislators in those countries or the bodies in those countries are not particularly
like fans of anything man, you know, but they still, they still
attribute the position to him. And they they still uphold that position, you'll find countries like Syria and Jordan, Egypt and so on.
And of course, in Saudi Arabia, they take that position.
It is it is a position that the they uphold. And they refer to Tamia because he's the one who basically fought for it. He's the one who defended it the most. It's like my husband and music, for instance, certainly even husband's not the only one in the world to say that music was hollow. But since he's the one who brought up, wrote about it in detail and fought for it, sort of like was assertive about it and gave a detailed,
wrote a detailed treatise in defense of it, then it became a position
and I'm not comparing the two because I believe when it comes to music, I believe in the majority's position, but I'm just saying that sometimes opposition would be known to be somebody when it is not only his but it is because he is the one who wrote most extensively on it. Now read for me, was a harder read for me the names of
the names that were mentioned in 118 Rahim Allah said that this was a consensus that three divorces count as one and no one ever disagreed 700 was really sort of triggered by this were really and really found that completely unfounded statement of an 18 Rahim Allah
and the mentioned the people who actually consider the three fold divorce to be to count only as one certainly the greatest of all would be our lay universal, have now bass of the Americana, how is
you know, at least in that layer, that's the layer of the Sahaba they
have their heart of mouth as of a hypnotic bass that is in the layer of the Sahaba you come down a little and then you will find tacos or anything that will stand out and who else
Muhammad Okay. And then after that, okay.
Mohammed Abu Salam and Christian he is American scholar.
Whatever efforts further from the people later on, it is up north shore and he
he also cited the urbanization Bauer's position, Muhammad is in bad
position. And he cited some other mannequins Anyway, what what I'm trying to say here is that, although this was the agreement of the form of have, it is completely unfair on unfound. To say that this is something that they may have made up, you know, when you have all of the whole of this precedence, it is not like something that you made up without precedents.
And what are their proofs, whether they're proofs, and nashotah is a great medical scholar of our times.
talks about this when he talks about the Tafseer of the hat in sort of the Baccarat where Allah subhanaw taala talks about the three divorces
that Allah Kumara Naropa has written this and what I had recommended for the limited
life and 50 million people laugh Latina Halima FIM after their
Life on the moon and the Loch Lomond
Raja and Allah, Allah, Allah
Okay, so in these verses, Allah subhanaw taala says a lot more. So divorce a lot more time means divorce says twice
firm second tomorrow, like you know you divorced twice, and then after the second divorce firm second the model out and
then you hold them kindly. You take them back and hold them and stay married kindly, quarter three, they are sad or beautiful. Termination is an excellent graciousness, beautiful termination. So you hold them kindly release them kindly, excellently
what I have lamento podomatic, Mona se en la, la, la La and it is not permissible that you take anything back from them that you have given them, you know, to the to the women in the island, you have accepted the fear that they do not stay within the bounds of a line of the fear that they don't stay from the bar and within the bounds of a law, then it there is no blame on either one of them if she ransoms herself, that is her law. She ransoms his or herself, for I don't know how they match up with whatever she randoms herself with. She ransoms themselves herself from the marriage.
And then Allah subhanaw taala said that these are the bounds of a Muslim without the limits of a model and cross them those who cross them are the volume on the transgressors. Then Allah said for infoblox thereafter if he divorces her, then
So if he divorces her, then there is no blame on them if they come back together.
If they believe that they can stay within the bounds of Allah, and then if he divorces her, then
and then it will not become hard for him to take her back until she marries another person. So the point of the thought of not sure is making here is that these are obviously consecutive divorces. The idea is not speaking about simultaneous divorces by speaking about divorce and Rajon divorce and Rajon divorce, or rather, and it is clear that these are consecutive divorces. And it is clear in the sort of the philosophy of the legislation that this is based on it the whole thing is predicated on having had enough chances. And now it's time to move on. But the simultaneous composite three fold divorce, that is not having enough chances. It is being married to a woman for seven years for
17 years, having seven kids together. And then you get into a conflict and you say empathetic with us. And then you're done. And she's done. And the kids are out that that crisis is not what the legislator had intended.
In the belief of the scholars who count this as one divorce the composite three for for divorce, in their belief that this is not what the legislator had intended. I find as ignatia points out this idea to be the strongest evidence on the side of the minority position that count three for divorce as one divorce. In addition to this idea, you will have the upper Arcana and we said we will not use our cannon, both sides should not be used using Americana, is of that conflicting in the variant reports.
But then you will have the hadith of Abdullah bass and that is also a strong, although certainly agnihotra, who is a supporter of the majority position provides an excellent rebuttal of the use of the citation of the Hadith of the love na bass EF at the end of the day, this hadith that is solid, it's reported by Muslim authentically traceable to the Prophet sallallahu sallam. And the wording of the expression of the love now seems to be also solid when it comes to the implication that divorce used to be count as one during the time of the profits of a lot in southern Abu Bakr and the beginning of the Halawa bomber and then Omar said in the capital of Americana in Vienna, from
Vienna, who lay him that people are making haste in a matter in which they should have exercised the liberation. Let us count it against them.
So this was basically disciplinary action by Omar, either people who said, you know, so so if you say, if he lives say that it actually is one counts as one and Omar did this as a disciplinary action. So if this is your belief, the majority said no armor did not start this. So they don't have to answer for armor or defend, speak on behalf of armor, because they will say there's something a process of, you know, this is the this is the status quo. This is the legislation default. But the minority position who said that armor actually did this, then they will have to split and some of them will say, you know, Omar did it, it may have not been particularly, you know, the best thing to
do. But, you know,
Omar is Omar, and his mistakes are submerged in the ocean of us has an asset and good deeds and so on. And but the majority of them will say that it is within, and that creates also like you it is consequential, because the majority of them will say that this is within the capacity of the Sultan, the authorities to enforce certain disciplinary actions, to restrict them, as we have said before, to enforce certain disciplinary actions, when the people have used the legislation.
When the people have used the legislation, and I believe in the second position, I believe that it was warranted of armor to instigate this as a disciplinary action, but the disciplinary action does not change the default. It is a picture, it is a crust that can be removed. It is like an executive order by the Sultan, that can be
sort of reversed by the next sort on, or by some other sort of thought. And that seems to be the, you know, the way we can come to terms with with this.
So the majority of contemporary scholars at this, you know, in our times, do count to the three for divorce, as one divorce. Now Someone may say, you know, so
someone may say that they may or may Allah defied the establishment, and was brave enough to defy that establishment. Keep in mind that he had, there was precedent.
There were proofs that he could say, in favor of his position, and there were many precedents. So it is not for anyone to do
it, this is not basically to support rebellion against the established
if there if you have the same amount of knowledge that he had,
having reached the pinnacle of local monopoly on the player roster, and transmitted knowledge, if you have strong proofs as he had, and if you have precedent,
which we mentioned so many of them, then maybe, you know, if you if the these are the prerequisites to go ahead and and defy an established position. We don't have an establishment we like but we have established positions, that somebody can defy them if they fulfill those three criteria. They are much the head in the right sequence or the head of moments they deem and they have proof, strong proof and they have precedent. He had all of them could only have a snippet of this particular lens