#17 Fiqh of Family – Impact of Number of Divorces and Other Matters

Allah so inshallah we'll go over the chapter on the impact of the number of divorces and other matters that method it will be here.

And before we talk about this and we talked about, you know the different

types of divorce,

when it comes to the number of divorces, why is it important to discuss this in the first place, it is important to because Allah subhanaw taala wanted to limit the number of divorces wanted to limit the number of basically attempts at restoring the marriage during the time of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam men had the ability to restore the marriage and take back their wives indefinitely. So, they would

divorce them, take them back, divorce them, take them back, and keep on doing this and the woman would be in limbo for the rest of her life or for an extended period of time. Allah subhanaw taala wanted to limit this to three divorces, after the third divorce, he cannot take her back, it is basically given them three opportunities. And if they were unable to have marital harmony, then in this case, a lot wanted to say to them, there may be a life outside of this marriage, and sometimes we will get locked into particular relationships that are toxic relationships and the feel the fear from the unknown. And they

fear from moving away from a partner that has been particularly harmful to their well being. So Allah subhanaw taala said if you have tried three times and you are unable to have harmony, than you should basically move on. So that is why it's consequential. Since the third divorce is called finalized with our three course finalized without recorders meaning that the husband cannot take his wife back. He cannot even re marry her with her own consent until she gets married to another person and separates from that other person genuinely gets married to another person and separates from them. So at the moment for them I will start this chapter here by saying and Mara is lm yet will be

here to be Taka Remo has said is

it lm yet could be Hmm. Or eval me It could be both would be correct. To be don't have taco to herremans minute 20 minute hop is much more CO de antibiotic, anti tonic water lipo tonic, a woman with whom marriage was not consummated shall have a finalized divorce by a single pronouncement, composite three full divorce from the free man and two fold from the slave shall make her unmanageable for him. For example, if he says you are divorced three times or if he says you are divorced, and divorce and divorced. The idea here is there is divorce before and after consummation, consummation of marriage, consummation of marriage

before

and after consummation, before consummation of marriage, the man may say to her you are divorce

and that's it just you are divorce. What does that do? It makes the divorce finalized. But with recourse, whether the courts if he says to her, you are

divorced, three for the divorce, that is in one pronouncement that makes the divorce finalized with our three co recourse without recourse because it is a three fold divorce

before the consummation

before the consummation, the second and the third, if they were simultaneous with the first when count and she wouldn't have been her

Han marriageable to him, have they are in one pronouncement? When is it that the second and the third will not count? If he says to her and T

and T

and T.

Father,

you are divorced. You are divorced. You are a divorce.

The first anti father made her What?

finalized.

The second empty file will not count. Because how could you divorce a woman whose divorce has been finalized?

Keep in mind that according to the formulas, and the vast majority, if the divorce was unfine, alized, she's gonna die. Yeah, he can take her back. This second divorce will count and the third the divorce will count.

As we said before, according to Melvin Tamia, it will not count whether she is right or not.

But

if she is if the if it is before consummation, if it is before consummation,

and he says to her, you are divorced, she's now finalized. Certainly a second divorce will not count.

What if he instead of saying Auntie pilot, anti fog, anti fog he said to her, you anti fog this tell us you are divorced, the three false divorce

is finalized without recourse. What if he in his stead of saying empty, empty toilet? He said Where? Empty toilet

Where?

How anticyclonic watashi? wa Taala?

Aunty toilet water,

water water.

And, and, and the means what? have the same time simultaneously.

All of them will count against them. And it will be free.

If he says empty, some of them. Some of it would be one or two or three, one.

Because there's not me it's not like and it's not simultaneously. So this is an important distinction between

the force before consummation and after consummation before consummation before consummation, you only have one divorce to make her finalized.

If that the number of divorces were not simultaneous in the same pronouncement, the second and the third will not count. If the number of divorces were simultaneous in the same pronouncement, the second then the third wave count and in this case it will be finalized without recourse.

Okay, so that's why he started by the unconsummated marriage to get it out of the way.

But he will still talk about it still talking about the unconcealed consummated marriage in the next paragraph he says when are more commonly antibody coated somehow some

antibiotic anti father

in law took effect some metal aka how kilometer locked up for anti tala How could Llama Llama t antibiotic.

Let me be a level headed if he pronounced pronounces it in succession, such as when he says your divorce, then divorce then divorced or you are divorced you are divorced.

Or if if I divorce you then you are divorced or every time I divorce you you become divorced. Or every time I don't divorce you you become divorced. And like only one divorce would count. And I understand that you're laughing. It is not the fault of the scholars. As I reminded you so many times it is the fault of the people who came up with this other nonsense. And the scholars have to respond to the nonsense that was generated by

Sort of the perverted people

okay.

So this is clear now then he says when cannot withhold and behave on behalf

of her marriage was consummated, then all the divorces he pronounces will take effect. All the divorces he pronounces will take effect. Why? Because according to the majority, when she is meaning that the divorce is finalized, when is it read when he or

she is Raja, if the marriage was consummated, and this is the first or the second divorce, without that is given by the husband without being legally enforced? And without compensation? And it is a lock now that is not sort of

an ailment. Okay. So that is when she becomes an injury we have, it has to be consummated.

Because if it is not consummated, then it isn't she's not on a diet, it has to be first or second.

No compensation.

no legal enforcement.

Basically, if it is a court of law, it does not gradually because, you know, the court does not just want to play with him, you know, force the Pollak on him, and then he takes her back. And it is for compensation. Certainly, like she would not give him his monitor back, and then tell her you know, I'm taking you back. That doesn't make sense.

And it has to be the first or second, and it must be counsel consummated, because if it is not consummated, then

and all of this, we're talking about prologue

not fast and fast is what anonymous, anonymous, anonymous, basically, you will and now the contract itself, it is not like the contract was valid. And now you are ending terminating the contract. This is not a termination of a valid contract. This is invalidation of the contract to begin with. And we talked about fescue before, and we talked about some of the things that would warrant entered. Okay. So

now

if she isn't here, according to them majority and it is the vast majority and it is the agreement of the forum as if she is at a meeting he can take her back.

She is subject to mortal locks to a number of divorces.

And as we said before the Tamia himolla had this position because it is not clear in the scriptures.

was the moment the mayor of La had this position that no a woman who is divorced is not subject to more divorces.

Once she is divorced, she's not subject to more divorces until he takes her back. So between every talaq and the next block, between every block and the next block, there has to be restoration. Otherwise, she is divorced and she is not subject to more divorces. So it has to be a law

and then Rajon

law

and then Roger,

and then polop.

And then after that, that's it. No, Roger.

So if he had the, you know, before the Raja

to him,

you know, you can't have talaq talaq Raja, that second, Pollock will not count. She's not so to him. And this is, like I said, just to be honest, is this planter minority position,

very small sort of minority position in some of the contemporary scholars, many of the contemporary scholars or some of the contemporary scholars.

I actually accepted that position because it

does make sense to a great extent it agrees with the sort of the apparent template

Patients of the poor and the objectives of the legislator because the objective here is three opportunities. So, you know, talaq, talaq talaq is not three opportunities to Lok Raja talaq. Raja talaq would be three opportunities. But anyway, the agreement of the forum as I have, as we said before, is that you can have the lock the lock padlock for someone who has been, who had her marriage consummated, not for someone who did not have her marriage unseemly.

So that is the position that academic

sites here

and this is the body position and this is also the agreement of the Ford Mazda. When cannot metoden be our car behind me I'm Alka who is her marriage was consummated and all the divorces he pronounces will take effect. You don't need more than three Of course, some lenses say the worse the number of stars in

anything that's more than three is just like nonsense. manchaca

talathi added he

added he better

whoever doubts the occurrence of divorce or its number or the number of breast feedings should assume only what is certain should assume only what is certain because we have the you know the pillars of the shock factor is how many obtain different expressions of the same principle which is that

doubt does not contend with certainty Don't doubt does not remove certainty. certainty is not removed by doubt, etc, etc.

So this applies not only in Turlock but also in RDA. So if she doubted whether she fed the baby four times or five, and and certainly there is the number of breastfeeding that will make a baby unmanageable is controversial between them as a few go by the hand and Sapphire Hanbury position of the five, best feedings, and now she doubted whether she breastfed four or five times is he on marriageable?

No, he's not unmanageable, because she's doubting the fifth breastfeeding. So tapani added up, meaning you assume what is certain what is certain year four or five, for a lower number is always the certain number. Okay?

When carmellini say he cannot or

when I'm young, we were headed and behind Neha belcarra. If he says to his wives, one of you is divorced, and he doesn't intend the particular one, she will be appointed by casting lots. Now, there are two ways to teach is basically to skip over things that make people uncomfortable, and I don't believe in this way, because I believe that the people should be exposed to our sort of tradition, without sterilization, you know,

without

basically, you know, cutting out any part, except things that are error, completely irrelevant to our times they would be discussed, but not in factor but rather in apologetics or some other discussion, like slavery, for instance. So that's why I removed the sort of the discussions on slavery, I don't translate them, I keep the Arabic but they don't translate them because there is no nothing practical that needs to be known here.

But in general, I like to, you know, full exposure to the tradition and then we try to understand the tradition.

Because what

I heard from one of the nurses one time, she said that her grandmother used to be very religious churchgoer, very religious throughout her life, until

she read the Bible

about when she lost her face. So

the idea here of having selected readings,

is as problematic, it may save you a lot of sort of anguish early on upfront.

But eventually, when people stumble on what you have hidden from them,

it will be a crisis. You know, and how many people really out there that are committed Christians have read the Bible cover to cover not that many. And so that was like a very interesting

Sort of disclosure. You know, she was religious throughout her life, and she read the Bible.

Anyway.

She here says, When colonists say the Karnataka parliamentary dionaea coura. If he says there's wives, one of you is divorced, then he does not intend the particular one. She will be appointed by casting lots. Now.

Why? Because because they're, you know, why are you saying this because this is a humbling position wherever somebody's saying this because they want it to be fair.

They just said that if he did not intend the particular one, it would be unfair to designate one without

sort of without him intending her at the time of divorce. So casting lots will be the fair way to do it. The Maliki said all of them will become divorced.

And the canopies and Chevrolet's and that's another report from the honeyberry method as well. They said he would have to choose one

to divorce.

Now when you find a lot of controversy, it means what it means there is nothing that is traceable to the profits are solid and definitive. Always when you find the love controversy, what should come to your mind is that we don't have something traceable to the prophet SAW Selim that is definitive. We have something traceable to the profits also island that is developed definitive, you will likely not have controversy.

Then

the sheikh said we're in Tanaka doesn't mean it he Moshe on my urine case by here we are dia Tanaka. Aloha cola was in our shot our demo and a lot of be if he divorces a part of his wife, whether or not the part is specifically intended such as her finger or hand, she becomes divorced except for the names teeth, saliva tears, and they're like divorcing those does not result in her divorce.

Because people used to do this and they will, you would say for instance, I divorce your ear.

I divorce your hand. Hi, divorce your little toe, big toe. So what does that all mean? It means I divorce you because teleclass does, you can sort of

fragmented you can break it down.

So any any lock will be a lock of any part of her will count as the lock except to the parts that are not integral to her being.

And these are, you know, if you lose a tooth, you know it's not it's not an integral part of you. Nail hair,

secretions also stuff like that.

Or even if you say, in the Hanbury method, if you say a Lacroix you know i divorce your soul. They don't count this

as a talaq.

But if you say it a lot the hieratic a divorce your life, the countless and then certainly some of these things could be controversial as well. And you know, these things are not traceable to the profit, people come up with things, you know, so every time I judge, keep in mind that these scholars used to be judges as well, or many of them were judges as well, or they have to entertain the questions that came to them from the judges. So the judge would would would tell them, so if someone came to me here, and he had divorced his wife's spirit, or so what do I do? So they have to come up with an answer. And then for the future, to basically spare themselves? trouble. They would

include the answers that the judges read this, they don't have to go back all the time, and text them at two o'clock in the morning.

No.

Whatever I can get in the minds of those people, because it's, you know, these are certainly nonsensical types of divorces. So

when people make no sense, you really can't

rationalize because they just make no sense. Just get in the mind of someone who's

completely irrational.

Then Then he said when Kira and Tito lochness photo Liga, our parliament has total control headed, if he says you are divorce by half of a divorce or less than that, she becomes divorced once. So, he says to her, you know you are divorced one third of a divorce, one quarter of divorce, one eighth of a divorce,

she becomes divorced ones.

And then there are all kinds of sort of possibilities there. And he says, his wife's for instance, he has four wives. And he says the four wives you are Hi,

give you or

buy an akuna comes with a la carte, or the you know, I give you over the divide between you five divorces,

then how many times is each one divorce?

Two,

because the quarter What counts is one.

We said we don't count quarters, two, because the quarter would count as one

because each one of them would have one and a quarter. So

we said the quarter does not count the counts as one. So each one of them would have to

Yeah, and, and things of that nature. And keep in mind that these used to be monumental rulings, because like someone could really be married to four wives and then he could say to them anything like this or he can give them like a three fold composite divorce, all of them, you know, how devastating that is for that person and then they would come and then the judge would actually validate it.

And then so, so, all of his four wives are now divorced and divorced and unmanageable

sometimes because of this composite divorces.

So that brings us to the end.

because keep in mind that all of these would be would be under divorce in jest and divorce in just a last minute I said, What are the typical at lay usual and not take the eye out of a lie is is hard to smother versus another sign that's both and more than this, proofs versus signs and everything. Don't take them in just if you do Prophet sallallahu Sallam said,

who has learned Annika hatanaka Raja three things, whether you do them seriously or unjust, they will be serious, or they will be deemed serious marriage divorce and restoration of marriage, and then some reports of

emancipation as well. So because of this and to try to sort of when people from this misbehavior, the scholars were very strict and in enforcing these kinds of products.

So I'll stop here we'll take like five minutes of a break and we'll come back to the chapter of Raja or the restoration of the marriage cover the other stuff