Channel: Hatem al-Haj
© 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.
Bismillah Alhamdulillah wa salatu salam
some I'm about to proceed.
So today inshallah we will go over explicit and implicit divorce the chapter on explicit and implicit divorce has a chapter on conditional divorce two chapters
and the chapter on explicit and implicit divorce is babyliss bollocky working at explicit divorce sorry,
implicit divorce Can I add to talaq? How can I add to
and we will talk about an introduction to the chapter mistaken pronouncement if someone you know, mistakenly pronounces the force
and mistakingly maybe just simply maybe, you know, a slip of the tongue or maybe
he wanted to say,
to mean something else, like you're released from your thighs or something.
And then we will talk about writing the writing of divorce and we will talk about granting the wife the right to divorce the husband,
sisters, I hear
you probably excess the
condition of divorce is the second chapter to cover today inshallah, we will talk
like, give an intro to the chapter.
And then we will talk about the legal consequences of condition of divorce, condition of divorces, when you make the divorce contingent upon something
time on the calendar, you say that you are divorced, if you do such and such. Or if you fail to do such and such. There's this condition of divorce.
So, we will talk about the legal consequences of condition of divorce and we will talk about three sending condition and if you say to your wife, if you visit
that sister, your divorce, can you come back later can say, Well, I take it back, you could go ahead and visit her
That's what we will
discuss shortly inshallah.
Let's begin with explicit and implicit divorce.
And just for the people that may be here for the first time, we're going over
somebody's mouth, Martin, or 91. And we're providing comparative commentary.
Anyone on the commentary is comparative, certainly was a humbling leaning, because no matter how competitive, you know, the No one can be completely neutral. So even if we discuss, if you try to be as fair as possible, and as far as impartial as possible, no one can become completely neutral. Because everybody has his own orientation and inclinations, and his own mindset that will make him not neutral, despite being fair. And just so you know, so that is something that many times we fail to understand how come all of those colors are fair and just and seeking the truth, but they still stick to their positions, because they have different mindsets. And the mindset is basically, there
are two elements that contribute to the mindset the scholar has, nature and nurture. So by nature, you could be inclined towards a certain way of thinking, or juristic. school, or our way of deduction, our way of approach to the text of Revelation, by nature. Some people have this inclination, some people have the inclination, and then nursery because when you get trained into one school, that's nursery, and then it is not about injustice, for zealotry. It's just about that
the nurture made you think this way.
So you will still most of the time side with your school.
But in all honesty, like all fair, and really impartial.
Allah had always
ventured out of their schools or sided with, you know, positions outside of their school, even sometimes, and the most notable of the, you know, school adherents such as now you, for instance, have the bucket of neurostimulator media,
whether it be Shafi, Maliki hanafy, they always venture. The prime example on this is the two students that remember honey for themselves, Mohammed and Hassan. And I will use it, who used to all the time go in and out and choose positions other than the positions of the man who is their master, and the one who took care of them. Like in many regards, like over hanifa, took care of Abu Yusuf, in many, many regards.
that's why I'm saying that the my commentary, although it's comparative, but you know, don't expect anyone to give you like a neutral assessment, because it can be impartial, fair, just, but it cannot be neutral. Because that person himself
has like a built in built an inclination. I wouldn't call it a bias because of the negative connotations of the word, but it is a bias.
But it is not in the negative way. It's just that by nature and nurture, I tend to think this way. By nature and nurture, I tend to approach the hobbies that I have this way.
So he might have no pradana in his book on that effect, which is one of the most important Hanbury
mappings or manuals or codes or abridged texts of the honeyberry method.
Set in the chapter of explicit and implicit divorce double sorry.
Sorry, who loves talathi to saga for men who can totally empty Polycom with a laptop with a lock to key to explicit words of divorce are those derived from it?
As you are
such as you are thought of, which is an adjective multiple lotta adjective in the passive voice or a lot to keep I divorced you. That's the past that's.
So those words are sorry, HIPAA law. They are explicit on divorce. And why are we studying sorry, HIPAA law can LTE because it's legally consequential the word that he uttered is legally consequential because for sorry, HIPAA law, whatever you will call sorry, Pollock in whichever method
but once you call it sorry, HIPAA law explicit on divorce, you will not ask the husband about his intention
because it doesn't really matter.
Once he uttered the word about this, consider signing up, it will be very helpful. There are some few
intricacies that we will discuss. But as a basic formula, sorry, Pollock, you say we equals Pollock, can I add a Pollock and plus a divorce then we will have to look into the circumstances and the intention console.
So, in order for them I mentioned that these are the words that are quotes I have put up and there is no disagreement between the scholars that sorry haha luck, you know,
basically results in luck, right away
explicit words for a lot in languages other than Arabic, which may be pertinent to us.
In order for them I did not mention this here, but it is mentioned in the commentary because of its relevance. words that are customarily explicit on a lot and other languages such as divorce in English will be considered
not everyone will consider them sorry.
But by the hierarchies and cafes and the
the Maliki's will consider them sorry, also, but there has to be two witnesses that
understand that language.
I guess they're they're basically looking from the perspective of the judge.
And they're looking from the perspective of the judge Islam and judgment
speaks Arabic. So, if someone comes to him and says I pronounced the force in Persian
and then he will tell him So, what did he say? And he will give him any word and then the judge is clueless where is the saya telekinetic What is this? So, you want to require two witnesses
is usually in the house between the husband and wife.
So, even in a different language to say my husband does whatever portion or do
because otherwise he would not be able to judge that this is sorry how to lock in that language
but then the you know the judges not everything by the way, because people should hear no Shapira Allah if this is a paddock it is sorry,
the judge has needed only in the case of disputation, which are rare cases.
But the like if you pronounce the word of divorce,
that is sorry, Tanaka. Tanaka. You can certainly you know what to send, my husband particular is, does the wife
she has to witness.
He herself, she does not have to be
okay. If you're sitting in your bedroom alone in your dark bedroom alone under your comforter. And you said My wife is potluck that counts.
And that counts by the agreement of Anderson.
It would not count according to the car because they require two witnesses for talaq, but my son that counts.
So how does this apply to situations? They apply that in Raja which is taken back?
But that would be what the car would use. But the center said that this applies to Raja taking the wife back and Paula.
And certainly in Fela, it would be applied in the capacity of Mr. hub
recommended not what?
So mistaking pronouncement and pronounced met pronouncement made ingest?
So as far as just or jokingly divorcing your wife, jokingly, you're sitting down and you're having fun and then you tell your wife, you know what, you're divorced.
You want to scare her, you want to
have excitement to the moods.
They will all counted against you. She is divorced.
She has the voice.
And then and then this is by agreement, they will count against you. Hanafi Maliki Shafi, Hanbury, all four will count. It's none.
Why? Because of two things Hadees that has some controversial authenticity, but has been authenticated by some consider the Hudson Bay sun, which is the last one who has the hondajet Anika hautala paletta, Arnica palapa Raja
Raja, that's very important. So three things they are consequential or three things whether undertaken serious the oranges are treated a serious marriage divorce and taken back away.
Marriage divorce and taking back life.
In some reports, what I thought which has emancipation
and that's a solid agreement. Because we said before that the Sharia Sherif motto shall not let
us live event
in Allah, Allah Adam Azaria
What is this net Hola, Hello, good evening, Monza young colada Malika.
So the default concerning the children of Adam is a little, you know, freedom. And there's the snap or the exception is slavery. So the default is arraigns. Always so pre that is because Allah created Adam and his progeny are free.
But then because of the wickedness of people and so on,
and wars and things of that nature,
some people got into slavery, at any rate,
so that sat down with the Shall we funded Hooray, I said, as eager for emancipation. So he will take it from you whether you're serious or not. So if you haven't,
you know, whenever they have slaves in the past,
and you say to your slave to her,
if he were joking, he is free. It's done. Because the shadow just wants it wants it to come out of you, to hold you accountable to it.
So why is it that the Sarah is doing this also and Talat provides a different case, like he would be looking forward to freeing the slaves. But why are we looking forward to breaking down families?
here because that because the scholars said that divorce should be marital relationship, relationship is sacred. And people who play around with the word divorce must be punished by countering it.
Because this is not a joking matter. If you want to be funny, you could think of many other jokes other than saying to your wife, your divorce.
So by agreement, divorce in just counts, and that is according to the four schools.
Then, the other thing is if he intends to say another word, but the word Pollock comes out, orthotic comes out of his mouth unintentionally, or he intends to say the word tarlac for another meaning
such as she is tied, and then he
he, you know, under ties, and says to her, your product, you're now free from your ties releasing? Well.
So that's another way of mistaking the pronounce.
mistakenly pronouncing Polo. So just we said all of them agree that in just for joking, if you knew at the time, what you're trying to say, this is not mistaken. You're trying to be funny. So you will be punished by counting this according to the form of that.
But if you really weren't, if you were really mistaken, if it really just came out of you and you weren't mistakenly so what will they do? Okay, so we have three scenarios here. One scenario is if there is a Purina what is Carina? Carina is a little bit
short of adaline.
There is proof evidence. And there are you know, there is a detailed discussion
about the differences between arena and the
arena is a softer Danny
Kareena is called corroborative evidence here in the legal system. It's corroborated, corroborated evidence,
complimentary evidence, assistive secondary, whenever.
So software evidence, it does not really amount to like an evidence of a software error. So there if there is clarity, you know, there is corroborate of evidence that he intended divorce, such as if he said, if he was arguing if they were in the middle of in the middle of an altercation, and he said to her your thought and then he comes back and says hi meant, she is farther from
our commitment or whenever he tries to make up a story where he wants to take back the word. In this case, the former VA him, we're counting against them. Because now we have a Purina that he actually said the word of the horse intentionally.
So they all were counted against them.
If there is
They are in the middle of an altercation. No joking is a different story. But none was joking, we said, joking would always count against him, because of the hotties. And because the scholars said that this is a punishment, because the sacredness of this relationship would make it beyond, you know, joking again,
speaking and just so, but the if you weren't mistaken, they were asked the wife and husband when.
So when he said your father, what were you guys doing?
And then they will say, when we were fighting, then the judge will say done. Your father, because now Purina you have a corroborated evidence that he was actually trying to divorce her.
Clear right hemispheres can
not be an issue.
Well, if you have a corroborated evidence to the contrary.
So what were you guys doing? We're actually having dinner and you know, everything was fine.
And then it just came out of his mouth. Or, in fact, he had just released her from her thighs.
or her, you know, her
garment, you know, snatched onto something, and then he handed it and then he sat around the pallet, because in Arabic, that means you're released. So some corroborating evidence that he was actually saying product to mean something else, for another implication, because the word product is a homonym
larger than most are
here, because you have synonyms, which is Muralitharan.
kr are synonyms.
Common is the opposite of synonym.
Which means the most part, so is
a word that has different implications.
The most famous love the most product in the history of Islamic jurisprudence as a quarter, which has ministration, or the period between two minutes ratios, because it could sometimes linguistically mean that or the other, the other one, so its purity administration used by the Arabs for both purposes, which caused the controversy. The controversy note is known in terms of either tomorrow or the waiting period of the model. Do you count by periods of purity or do you count by periods of menstruation?
So, since startup is a lot of the masaka, then we will have to figure out what what he intended from the corroborated evidence. What if there was no corroborated evidence
to either side?
And he said to her your father,
no corroborate of evidence to support his claim or rejected that he pronounced it mistakenly, what would you do?
So the hafeez Maliki's shaft is and one Hanbury
report said we will count
because he did not really establish a proof that he was mistaken. So we were counted as divorce.
Another position and the Hanbury method chosen by the mayor said we will not count it when they you know who behind meaning that we will sort of like give them the gift chip. So the judge will tell him what warned him, if you're really lying to us, you can fly to Allah, Allah knows what you meant, and so on. So the judge will do that to him.
And then if he insists that he did not mean it, and he pronounced it mistakenly, we will just not count.
As I said before, even if I may add it when it whenever it came to divorce, he was trying to narrow down divorce, so any position from any major scholar on which they had in the past that divorce that does not count, unless it was from outside of China suddenly he would not certainly you know, venture out to the public.
NCR, but anything that he was able to get, and to provide some justification for it, to narrow down the spectrum of divorce, he was he was doing it. Because the problem of his time, the major problem of his time was just like,
divorce was happening all the time in every household. And it was composite, composite divorce divorces. And then they have to bring in someone to marry her for, like a day or so. So that he would make her cut out for the previous husband. And it was like a messy situation, that he had an appliance that made us the laughingstock of all the nations, Christians and Jews and other people.
And then in reality, the divorce during the run of the province was obviously very limited. It is after the profits or some of the people started to sort of come up with all kinds of divorces. But the divorce during the time of the Prophet, there was no mohalla divorce conditional divorce was almost just immediate divorce. There was no three composite divorce, it was all singular divorces, they did not think of all he you know, if you look at the books have them as I have, when you look at what the people came up with, you're divorced three times minus two plus four divided by three.
Some people will do that, you know, your divorce three minus two minus one. And then we get into like a whole logical or basically
like a discussion of dialectics. three minus two minus one. What is that? Is that zero? Or is that two because you're subtracting that one from the two and then you're subtracting the one from the three are gone this one or you're subtracting the two and the one from the three or you're subtracting the three the two from the three and then subtracting the one from the result and all of these are discussions.
What what be fearless into this trouble
is how is that basically the ridiculousness of the people?
Because why would you?
Why would you divorce your wife this way?
So, Catherine, aka finance, for your address along with him.
He said, the more people come up with wickedness or deviation, corruption, the more Allah will give them
the lemmas up there to basically to deal with.
in this case, we covered three points here, where we talked about the introduction, and then we talked about the product and just all of it counts that a lot of that is mistaken. corroborative evidence that it was mistaken, we will
release you, according to the majority, corroborated, corroborated evidence that it was not mistaken, then we will hold you accountable for it, no evidence whatsoever to basically make us inclined towards this side or that side. Then the majority said you will be held accountable, but one position from a map chosen by a mayor
you will not be held accountable one with the you know who behind give him was telling him that between you and Allah, whenever we tell you will not hold if you are lying, you can lie to us, you can lie to Allah and so on.
Right. Now, the next point here,
came out of nagamma him Allah said, Well, now that we may
not all be HIPAA law in anywhere, otherwise all implicit words that could mean divorce will be treated as metaphors. their ultimate interpretation will be dependent on his intention. So if he sat her and happy VIP, go back to your father. What did you mean by this? Did you mean to divorce her? If he meant to divorce her? Because then it would count as divorce. If he did not mean to divorce her by this word, then it would not count Why? Because it is not explicit.
It is implicit. People did use it to say your divorce. how good you were like in English here I gave some examples. If you said the husband says
It's done. It's over whether this is the end?
What did you mean? Did you mean to divorce her? Did you mean it's the end of the marriage? So you are divorced or divorcing? Or if you are, it would count. Because it is implicit, if not explicit. In English, the only thing that would be explicit is
Hi, divorce, you heard divorce Do you know something like, has to be it has to do with the word divorce? Because that is the only one that's expressed explicitly English. Do you know of any other words that's explicit?
in English? No. Okay.
I mean, sometimes
in an argument, a husband or wife saying, I'm done with you, it's absolutely normal. So
is not absolutely normal. It is absolutely normal for us. Keep in mind that we are very,
I don't want to generalize, and I don't want to be harsh. But we are a very different generation.
We're really not good.
We're really not good.
And that's all of us. And that's not preaching from a hypothesis that we're really not will.
It automatically reported that Elisa is Salaam saw a pig. And he said to the pig, more rubbish
passed peacefully, he saw a pig on the street in the street. And he said to the pig, okay, go ahead, pass peacefully, and he stopped for the pig.
So one of his disciples have not reported this and what one of his disciples said
here saying this the pig
and then he saw a salad and said, in the last half an hour with an essene manticore soup. I don't like to train my tongue to speak.
to you know, ugly, poor.
Monkey at the zoo.
So we we, we speak all the time in a way that is suboptimal?
Because that is what we are. But it is not really normal in the absolute sense that our husband and wife get into an agreement and then he says to her I'm done with you or she says them and permanency. It is not enough for us.
Can we can we agree on this?
It is normal for our generation. It's normal for us. It's relatively normal nowadays. But that's that normal in terms of how our heritage our legacy as Muslims
One of the traveler inside that gentleman chemical black home in takuna tai chi Lam come up on capoeira attire in the summer. The people before you they used to pick the most beautiful words apply but can have the best words or five comes from right, by the way.
Come out into Coronavirus, firmer as you do when you go to the grocery store and you pick the most ripe or the best fruit. So they used to be extremely careful with every other ends of their lungs.
But we are not. So let's say it is normal for us. Since it is normal for us. That is why he will not be held accountable for it automatically. That is why there will be a process. And that is why we would ask him what did you mean? Did you mean to divorce?
Or we asked her what did you mean but in this case, she might she has a much easier time. Because you know if she meant divorce, the divorce will not count
unless she was given the right to divorce children.
Guys, if he's not intending divorce if there's not divorce, he has to intend divorce
Yes. Oh, don't ask me the same question. Listen,
listen, if he swears it
mahamadou me over, you're talking about explicit or implicit.
Implicit if he's not intending divorce, it is not. It is not divorce.
Implicit other than the explicit words of divorce, if he's not intending divorce,
it does not count. intention is crucial essential for the occurrence of divorce in all implicit utterances
Why are you doing this?
When someone swears the look of beautiful harmony,
and it's okay, and he can go back but if he says I like to look at
the code, which is more, has more significance.
did we talk now about Allah, Allah?
Allah is different from this. He's telling Gary, you're divorced, I divorced you. If you
thought that this was this
a different story. It's not in this chapter to begin with.
When it's coming in the next chapter.
Forget about I forgot.
know, you never know.
We suffer from them all the time here anyway.
Like, you know,
I was just talking
earlier this morning, we immigrants who came here, we brought our problems here. But not you know, it was not enough for us. So we also acquired the problems of here
which make it's a double whammy, yes.
But speaking of regret, I have seen it personally coming from the subcontinent, the gay neighbors, they used to give their wives club like every day, you come home the food is not ready, you know?
So in this case, is going to be
we discussed this and
yeah. Well, that that impropriety of this does not need to be underscore is extremely improper.
We discussed the fallout of the angry person and we said according to the
look, only the 100 Hanafi madhhab
would consider kamgar to be consequential. But the early Hanafi scholars talked about extreme anger,
where you do not differentiate between
the male and female
anger that makes you insane. You don't differentiate between hot and cold male and female sky and earth here. That's the anger that you were talking about earlier, honey Hanafi scholars from the final webinar of Dean Han words. So for the last 200 some years or 200 to 300 years.
Well, like any time he has tried to do try and figure out a way to stop all of these divorces from Kalimantan
heaven abdeen came up with this concept that there are three different layers of anger, the beginning the end in the middle,
and he compared with earlier Hanafi scholars, that the end of anger will be consequential and invalidate the divorce. And he compared with the other scholars that the beginning of anger, which is a little bit of anger will not be consequential will not the homies agree with 100 he's on the extreme anger by the way.
Everything I've been
having before I have no idea if the students are belittling me if they tried to craft our
category in the middle between the extreme anger and the mild anger, which is the substantial significant anger
that will make the person impaired in judgment not completely insane. So, he sees that he is his wife, he understands the difference between the sky and the earth and the hot and the cold. So, but he is very impaired, because of the anger His judgment is extremely impaired,
that he is not fully
conscious of like, what he say, and the implications of his statement can have no time added to this. And that he becomes once the anger abates, he immediately regretful and remorseful. Once the anger basically says themselves, what have I done, what did I say
hi, where they agree was this minority position Keep in mind this is a very minority position. This is some of the latter Hanafi scholars and some of the latter Hungary scholars, but because of the pressing need for to hold on to this position, hi concur that anger that causes impairment of judgment should be treated like another modifier of divorce or invalidated of the divorce. So, it would not count.
But anger, anger, because there was not much salt in the food, if the person like there was not enough salt in the food, and if the person gets to that substantial significant anger, where he is very impaired, just because there was not enough salt in the food
is a person that needs to see a psychologist
Or it is not true that his anger was substantial.
So he you know, he will it is either that natural that his anger was substantial, therefore his divorce counts or that he's really sick and he needs to get his own health. spiritual health consultant imagines he has psychiatry stock counselor tickets do something about because life is unacceptable.
Anyway, writing the words of divorce, what about if you write
My wife is divorced you write this?
No, because the writing is contingent upon intention. So it's okay to write
what have you write this
according to the form as I have, it is contingent upon your intention.
So, this is also another matter of agreement, they consider the right thing to be equivalent to implicit words of divorce, not explicit words of divorce, even if you wrote the explicit word.
But the fact that you did not say it, and you weren't capable of saying it, unless you are mute, in this case, they would count to this as explicit. But if you are capable of saying and you did not say and you wrote it, maybe you were basically learning how to write maybe like I guess there could be you know, possibilities here. So it is contingent upon your intention.
So now, the question if, what about if you sign the documents of divorce in the court outside of the Muslim lands? So you are here in the court and you sign
that document of divorce Does this count?
Let us say the husband claimed that he did not intend it. Well, we count it against them.
It has to be a controversial issue right. It has to be a controversial issue. Okay, let me we discussed it thoroughly yet under one of the annual conferences. Let me read the statement that
the resolution and legally enforced divorce that is performed by man made by the man made judicial system outside the lens of Islam when contrary to the desire of the
Husband only terminates the seven marriage contract. As for the American one in the eyes of the Sharia, that is referred back to the husband, for the Islamic judge, are those in his position. But if the husband willingly signs the divorce papers willingly without coercion, signs, the divorce papers, then the divorce becomes a legitimate and the role of the man made judicial system in that case would simply be the documentation of that.
So therefore, had divorce that is issued by the judge
the you know, for the Islamic law, because of this marriage was based in the Islamic law, it has to be resolved through the Islamic law, because this marriage is a religious
basically, venture, it is not just like a secular thing. It is primarily a religious undertaking. And it is sanction people why do people seek the mayor he versus just cohabitating or living together, they seek to marry so that it is legitimate, what is what is legitimacy mean?
meaning it has to do with God, it has to do with the divine.
Therefore, marriage has been always linked to religions.
It's a religious institution.
to dissolve it, you need to basically go back to that
foundation of law because this was founded on or, you know, the foundation that this marriage was built on, so that the judge cannot dissolve and Islamic divorce he all he can do is to dissolve the civil marriage, and whatever
of the civil marriage
have dissolved dissolving the civil marriage. The only way we can dissolve an Islamic divorce would be an Islamic judge. However, if the husband willingly without coercion, signed the divorce documents in the court, whether it is you know, also that I'm going to slam inside of them slam and wherever
it will count against them as a divorce.
Yes, yes. So
regardless of his intention.
So let's say a man is being forced by whatever
he's forced to divorce.
Yeah, this was last chapter. last chapter. We also we said that if he's divorced, if he's forced to divorce his wife, who will count it,
him or any family Malick stuff, if not, will not count, the amount of hanifa will count. And we discussed the concept of our moment moqtada, the generality of the required implication,
and we talked about, but the majority would not count the divorce done under coercion.
So the woman has the paper but he says
that he's signed that divorce in an Islamic arbitration court, not court because they get irritated from that word. So let's find another word.
In an Islamic arbitration setting.
You're bringing in tribes all sorts of America.
Okay, you're gonna destroy the country.
So anyway, no, listen.
Because here you can't really try to be politically correct. It's just like, you know, there is right and wrong. It's black and white left and right.
And Islamic marriage cannot be dissolved
by a judge that does not recognize the Islamic marriage.
It's not his jurisdiction. It's not his territory. He does not recognize navigation.
So these people were islamically, married. There is also seven marriage, they went to the city and they got their seven marriage done. That is the jurisdiction of the civil judge. He can sever that he can enforce a civil divorce.
There is the Islamic divorce, which is in the sight of God, that cannot be severed, except on the basis of Islam.
You know, Islamic law.
Now, when will When will it be okay for the judge to sever that non Muslim judge? Who whose jurisdiction is the civil divorce? Not their second marriage, not the religious marriage? When would it be his jurisdiction to separate?
Husband refused Islamic arbitration?
Then she will be stuck.
I mean, where does she go?
The husband's refuses Islamic arbitration, the Muslim arbitrators have no executive power to enforce anything, anyone.
So she thinks that takes them to the court, because they do have the executive power to basically bring him to court subpoena, bring him to court, you know, force things on him, let him sign things. And in this case, it will count
because he had refused Islamic arbitration.
And all of what we are saying, is basically within the religious domain,
because we don't have power outside of the religious domain.
We don't have executive power, we cannot enforce anything. The only thing we could say to the man or the woman is that if you depart from the law of God,
God will be pleased displeased with you.
That's it. Well, we and we can't say less than this. Because that is just
tenets of religious commitment.
The other is of the word divorce and those that are derived from it should be taken seriously. This is because the judges should only go by that which is a parent, they cannot discover the intentions of the people in this case.
In this case, the case that I'm talking about is the case they haven't
mentioned the year if he wedding The other is the word divorce, it would count. So you have an up or down that says, Philippine Allahu Allah Ratan Tata, Allah Yan will cast the blame to talak if it was said to him to the mature man, do you have a wife and he said no intending to lie he does not because she does not become divorced because he did not instigate a divorce.
But if he said the fan paletta luck to her in Colorado luck to her, in Colorado luck to her
follow pathway in our cabin, if he said hi divorced her she becomes divorced, even if he intended to lie,
even if he was lying, but he uttered the word
once again. While the lie saying here is that or what the Sharia is saying is that you should not be playing around with this word, red line, stay off, stay back. If you come close your burn yourself and it will count against you and you will break down your family and then you will be in trouble. And if you try to fool our deceive alarm, trick this area or do whatever your little tricks and lie to the Mufti or bring someone to marry your wife, fake marriage on paper, paper marriage, and so on. So that you could go back to your wife, all of this is your own foolishness, because Allah does not get deceived.
So, there are certain words here that you will find their explanation they belong to Arabic speaking people, classical Arabic speaking people, none of you would ever say to his wife, you are Berea back in bapta or batla orfalea. Therefore, we will not discuss these issues.
linguistic roots the linguistic roots of these words are all mentioned here. So you know Berea from Bara back
Problem vector which is coming off a layer, which is a camera that was released. And, you know, Butler from Tibet turn which is a woman with no husband like mariamman
etc. So but none of you would say any more of those words.
Now we will read it for those of you who are interested in the academic aspect of it, just read it because this is really completely impractical.
The last point that we will discuss in this chapter before we break
and then we're coming back to discuss the next chapter.
Okay, we're in Funny
enough, Sara, Tara,
Tara, Tara, Johanna me across a
prioritized soccer player and our son was in southern Africa. If he gave the choice to his wife, and she she chose separation, she becomes singularly divorced. She gets like a one divorce in this session. So if he's sitting with his wife, and he tells her choose whether you want to stay or not. And she chose separation. She gets a she gets one divorce.
What if she did not?
What if she did not
use it in the same session. So you're sitting with your wife, like someone else, hopefully. But someone is sitting with his wife and tells her, you know, you have the choice. And she doesn't use it in the same session. And she comes back the next day and she said, you know what I thought about it. I'm using the choice that he gave me and
What do you do you pass it as a divorce or not?
Well, the Hanafi is masochism. Safra is we're not passive as a divorce, they will say if she did not take it on the spa, she lose
the Hungary's on the other side, because the hammer is over liberal with this
may sound contrary to their reputation. But the honeyberries on the other side, well differentiate between him intending to give her the choice on the spot, or him intending to give her the right to divorce
until he sends it or takes it back.
And if he intended to give her the right to divorce, the honeyberries would give her that right whenever she wants.
It will be an ongoing thing.
Until unless he takes it back.
When is it that he cannot take it back?
If he has given her that pride in the prenuptial agreement before at the time of the contract, then she will not be able he will not be able to take it back.
Who will agree with the honeyberries on this particular one?
The Hana fees
but they agree with a little bit of a twist.
They say if he offered her at the time of the contract the right to divorce
it it's invalid meaningless. The husband offers his wife the right to divorce and makes it part of the prenuptial agreement.
It doesn't count invalid.
But the Hanafi is when say if she demanded it, and he yield it to her demand and they put it into the prenuptial agreements. It will count it will be valid. So she will have to instigate that request the demand
not an offer from him.
It's a proposal from her and an offer from him and then she accepts
offer. In this case, the herpes adhan buddies will have a way, technically, for the woman to hold the right to divorce.
he or she offers whoever
does this recording?
know if the wife says if you don't do this particular thing I would have the right to divorce you then you will have to look.
This is a few chapters back when we talk about
conditions. If the wife said if you don't do such and such, then I will have the right to divorce you then we will have to look at her request. Is this counter to the essence of marriage? Is this counter to the requirements of marriage? Or is this a valid request?
The ham bodies are the most liberal in validating the requests of women. So the Hanbury said that he can ask that he does not get married to another woman that he would not move him for from her, move her from her town that he what it whatever she wants to ask for. That she feels is in her interest. And it is not counter to the essence of marriage or requirements of marriage, in the Hanbury view.
She can ask for it.
But the higher fees will allow her to ask for things that are very like that Madison chapter is also
things that don't touch upon restricting his God given rights because the medical staff or his family, his medical interface would say that marrying up to four is his God given right. And she does not have the right to restrict. The Hanbury said she is not restricting his God given right. She's only telling him
Let go of me if you want to use your God given right and marry for women. That's it.
at the Hanbury position seems to be stronger, it may be my nature and nurture. But that's my own bias or inclination
and it may it may be also to some extent, some form of Americanization because you get affected by your environment, your environment goes into your lungs, it is something that is beyond your control to repair.
So it It may be that I am more inclined towards sort of free to crease or mutual agreement between the spouse and the husband versus like an arrangement that would be suppressive of one of them. Yes.
Divorce simply for benefits are
more conducive to their living conditions. So they both sign the papers and go through a divorce.
If they sign the document of divorce wedding, the divorce takes place
to sign governmental documents of divorce willingly without coercion, when it counts as divorce, regardless of the intention Islam.
Because that's what matters.
The first one which
we know is that if there is a session and you get to the ability and you want to divorce, but then you can take her back by the way.
Like if you sign the document would count as divorce. Can you take her back? Yes, you could take a
written prenuptial we in the marriage contract. That's one issue. But what did that somebody might have had to say if we were in a session, it's a it's just one night and
The husband says to his wife, I'll give you that option. And he never rescinded. We're not talking about prenuptial and writing tomorrow. He said, Well, I thought about it
20 years down the road, if he did not resend it, they still give her that. Right. She still has the right. Yes. Well, most guys, if you thought that there's no way they give her some ganyan limited option.
Well, yeah, and in all honesty, and despite the fact that the the sisters may dislike this, but really, the sisters are
prone to pronouncing divorce
the first you know?
you know that the beginning of the first level location, not the end.
So if she has the right to divorce should be extremely quick to use in it.
No, but but when women get angry.
Okay. No. So what is the wisdom behind making the man in charge of divorce by God?
a responsibility to say you are the head of the family that should be one captain of the ship. It means you have a big responsibility there.
No, I did not say incompetent, I said that she would be more prone to making the pronouncement.
I'm not talking about I'm not talking about wanting to get a divorce I'm talking about
in all honesty,
but I was part of my love.
counseling and women
very often do you want to divorce
or that is the idea. That is the idea is that she will basically lose her patience or give up on the husband. So she would want a divorce. And, and then when she gets upset because of some misconduct of that jerk, she will want to divorce. And in this case, she may not hold it back.
So it may come out, have an Let's forget about who's more prone to the making the pronouncement. But if you allow two parties to be both capable of making the pronouncement, you're increasing the likelihood of the basically the solution of this family by at least twofold.
But you're giving it to one.
And that one happened to be hero. And I'm not talking about a man and woman from the viewpoint of
sort of intelligence or competency or anything, but that one happened to be the one who put it together this marriage, the one who was responsible for all the financial burden, the one who is responsible for constructing that, you know, institution with all of the burdens that come with with this venture.
The one who will be responsible for considerada
compensation for how to honor custody and the compensation for
compensation for other breastfeeding compensation for custody which is separate from Rhoda nafa which is maintenance
as well as the motor which is the bereavement gift or the separation gift as well as more often a server which has the different parts of the delivery. So
it is natural that this man who will have all of this to me
About in addition to starting another family, so you will have to play Mozart and Africa and more cassava and puja Havana
and then start another family It is natural that he has many differences, economic differences, financial burdens that will make him hesitant.
But anyway, these things cannot be proven because there is no empirical science that proves these things or this proves unless we have like, statistics and even the statistics sometimes and humanities can be always arguable. Yes.
She raised the issue about
Oh, yes. Hey, by the way in acting since before Eman said that the marriage and divorce and just Calvin's
if they're acting get counts together.
Yeah, the two actors the two actors have it.
Not that it was two strangers are acting on one scene two strangers are acting and they are having a marriage contract.
Yeah, so she says the offer proposal acceptance witnesses everything in the studio. They're married.
If she if she is married to someone else, then it will be an invalid marriage.
different personalities different follow how they're playing different personalities. So they're playing different personalities, but he's making it offers that we Dini enough psyches, a watch to kind of see compared to
the guy who's playing
How Duffy's m Malik is by the way with with with thick because the medic is PD have the distinction between different women. Now every woman needs a guardian for the Maliki's. So you will be married Hanafi. Maliki with the Hanafi Maliki way.
Because this is a clip on the internet.
This is like a
religious people will take this as we have.
They will look.
They think of us as crazy.
What? Basically that? No, they should not. It is not really. But keep in mind. So Allah is saying that this institution is so sacred, so important.
Don't play with it. Don't mess with it. Don't come near the red lines. Don't speak marriage or divorce in just jokingly actively don't do it angrily. Don't do it any other way that then what I prescribe, don't do three divorces don't do a divorce when the woman is in her period.
Just respect to the sacredness of that relationship.
And if you want to come close and burn your hands, burn your hands.
But what what what? So what is the necessity of people acting you know, like a full blown contract of marriage? What's the necessity there?
To justify the this
there is no necessity. Why are you doing? This is not up to me. And this is not a natural thing. This is serious. And Allah wants it to be treated seriously. And a lot once husbands in particular because they were entrusted with a word of divorce that treated very carefully because it is very serious. And that is why many times the fact was that the scholars issues issues were punitive in nature.
Do you think that all of the
yes and it is fine to be punitive in nature.
You know, all of the compensation that you get here in American courts
For for accidents and mishaps and lawsuits, medical lawsuits, whatever lawsuit, he followed the you break your ankle, and they give you $2 million. Do you think that this is a compensation for your disease infirmity, timeout of work? Only? Absolutely not. There is a punitive element. And the punitive punitive element here varies with the amount of recklessness on the part of the offender. So if someone did not shovel the snow in front of their store, they may be somewhat merciful with this person. But if it was, like,
accompany Johnson and Johnson, just last case in Europe for $720 million, or something,
because they included an ingredient that is somewhat controversial.
So the jewelry in this case, or the judge in this case, would be punishing that company for their wrongdoing.
It's not just simply compensation.
Why don't we say the same year
you're being punished for taking it jokingly, for taking it lightly. It is not to be taken lightly.
Take a break for five minutes. And then we'll come back only for half an hour
So, what is the condition of divorce conditional divorce is when the husband says to his wife, you are divorced or you will be divorced.
Consider yourself divorce if you visit or go out to this place or buy this thing or any action or inaction or you fail to do this, you do that or you fail to do that. So any action or any action makes makes that divorce contingent upon this action or inaction. That is conditional divorce. And there is also conditional divorce on a time specific time on the calendar Muharram first you are divorced or divorced by Mahatma refer.
So like I told you like oh my God. He said that people as much wickedness as people come up with a Lost Planet Allah gives them dilemmas to deal with.
During the time of the prophets of Salaam there was no such creation such as the condition of divorce. The divorce used to be the more not just divorce, which was the immediate divorce. But people came up with things. So when people came up with these things, and sometimes it is Terry the wife from doing a certain thing or scare her away or something like this. So when people came away with these things, then the scholars of this agreed. There are first two scenarios here because they are not pretty much the same. They are not exactly the same. The first scenario is when the divorce is contingent upon a specific time in the calendar
a day of the month. In this case, all of them said one of inadequacy Scheffer you can barely by that date, she's divorced.
But the mannequins did not only say that, but the medic is said she's immediately divorced.
So if a man tells his husband on Ramadan, first he will be divorced.
The magic is will say she is divorced now. Immediately.
The holidays and cafes and ham bellies would say on Ramadan, first she will become divorced.
That's as far as the time
who's the only one who said none of this works?
No, he did not go as far as that.
He just kept a little bit
on this particular issue.
But having a husband
so the husband said none of this stuff works there was only one of our serums out with a profit that's what counts. And if the husband does not believe in chaos, extrapolation, you know analogy all of that stuff.
He takes only the you know the verbal
basically explicit implications and the meanings of math homomorphic which is the conversion implications of the Quran and the Sunnah, but nothing beyond us
I also don't believe in the divorce, just for the sake of completeness.
The legal consequences of the condition of divorce where the contingency is an action that may or may not take place,
not a specific time in the calendar,
an action that may or may not be a possibility, or an inaction. If you fail to do this or if you do that, you become divorced.
So, who said that once she does it or fails to do it, she becomes divorced.
So, if you say to your wife, if you visit your
or your brother
you're considering divorce to be divorced once you step into the house of your brother.
It's a bad thing. Yeah.
Were you using the example here?
And she goes and visits her brother
who said that this will count
everybody Hanafi Maliki, Shafi and Hanbury
This is like a divorce. He's, he's making his divorce conditional upon something since he owns the divorce, he can make the divorce. And he since he has enough differences from making the divorce, and he makes it
they will count against them.
It is basically handgun act on an action or an inaction. Once this action happens, the reverse takes place. Can you take
one second? Can he take it back?
Hanafi Maliki Shafi Hanbury? No, he cannot take it back. So they're stuck here.
Forever. And then also, if he said to her, you were divorced, three times. She'll be divorced three times. And there's the
But anyway, well, let me finish this
who said that it will not count. EPA has said will not count
70 they may try to basically carve out a category in the middle where it is not completely count contrary to because he took a lot of stances that were outside of the law on this issue of divorce. So like, and I'm not saying that he's trying to basically
calculate his position is he most likely we believe in our imams that they were observant of Allah, observant of the text of Revelation, the pride and discernment.
But at the same time, in the three divorce the composite divorces, he said that they count as one, this was countered to Hafiz Maliki sapphires have been buddies, although it is the law in most Muslim countries now.
So he did not take up the husband's position all the way. But he tried to carve out a category in the middle. And he said, when he made that pronouncement, if you visit your brother,
once you step into the house of your brother, your divorce, when he said that, did he mean to actualize the divorce upon this occurrence in his heart? Or did he mean just the mere deterrence of his wife? He was not basically
attentive to the occurrence of divorce. He's just telling me to determine.
Don't go visit that woman. Have you visited that woman? Your divorce? Has he tried to deter her from visiting that woman? Or he's intending that, yes, I wouldn't want her out of my house, I would want this relationship to end if she ever visits that woman. If he intends that I do want this relationship to end if she does visit that woman. Then even if they may, I would say it would count as divorce.
But he said if he intended to determine his wife from visiting that woman and that is what deepened his art what he meant, and he did not meant actualization of divorce upon this occurrence, then
it will he will count it against
a a mean, custom host,
like when the Prophet sallallahu Sallam made an oath to not drink honey or not eat honey, and a lot of them and sort of control over the compiler medicham Allah prescribed for you, basically, the
expansion of your oath. And the expansion of the oath is not, you know, not
to harm or threaten the SEC, you know what to
So, it is the emancipated slave or to feed or, or close 10 poor people, and for those who cannot afford any of that too fast three days, that's the explanation for those. So, they may have said, If you say to your wife that wanting to deter her from this action, then and she doesn't, she does not become automatically divorced. Because he did not mean to actualize the divorce, he meant only to deter. Since you met you, you said Allah tala
sends you other the word divorce that you made it, it is like an oath that you should execute for. And that is why some of them are safe in the in the MSA of sometimes or some of the,
the use that expiation for every divorce at any time, conditional, not conditional. So someone comes in and he said enforcement wife, just put put $10 in the box.
Sometimes it depends on the neighborhood with like $500 in the box.
This is not what it is. This is a very specific circumstance, that conditional divorce where the husband did not mean to divorce but meant to deter the wife. So that is the position that the mayor sort of crafted out of the previous positions
did not go all the way back of the house and where he invalidated or condition of divorces. But he started to sort of look at the intent of the husband at the time of that pronouncement that even deterrence or even divorce.
law in Muslim countries in most Muslim countries nowadays that I know of uses me as position, whether they are fans of him or not, but they still use this position. So to have him with me, his positions are widely used in laws, the three composite divorce counting gets one and the condition of divorce not being an automatic divorce. But going back to the intention of the husband.
If he meant divorce or meant deterrence.
will finish and then I'll take all the questions inshallah.
So, like I said,
Every they may or whenever he came up with these positions, he had to find someone who said it before him. Because it's not acceptable within orthodox Islam
to come in the seventh or eighth century and say,
I have a new position for you guys. That is completely unprecedented.
Basically, the whole oma did not think of it.
But they may have found some of the Sahaba, including Allah, you know, he is not a small figure. He's one of the four calafell, who held that position.
So there is always a need to find a precedent. It's like the English law, you know, not like the English law. But
that precedent issue. It's like the English common law. They work on, they don't work on principle, they want to work on precedent, versus the French laws, which they took from, you know, to a great extent they were influenced by the Islamic laws in nearby Spain. Islamic laws are based on principles where you could extrapolate from them and branch off from them. But the English laws are based on precedent only by the Islamic law, we also have the precedent in addition to the principle. So you use the principle to argue and matter in and out
and at the same time, you should mention the precedent, particularly if you were of the latter generations of the latter generations.
there is another important point which
is the possibility of resending
that statement. So you say to your wife, if you go visit your brother, your divorce, and then you regret.
And then to make it even worse, you say to your wife, you are divorced to the partner 334, composite divorce part of the toilet
that in this case,
it is problematic.
The heart of his marriage is Sephora is
set, you're stuck, you can take a bet.
They're saying it's your fault. Why are you doing this, but we will count against you. You are the foolish one. It's not the most, it's not the judge hearing whoever told you to do that.
But keep in mind, because you may have like heartburn and hard feelings for the scholars or the Messiah, or the embargo study. But who is foolish In this scenario,
whoever told them to do that
they'd have money for medical stuff or or admin, tell anyone to be foolish and tell his wife, if you go visit your, your brother, he will be divorced, or your your product, or whatever. They did it. They told him Don't do that. Don't be responsible, be mature and wiser. But then you insisted on doing it. So that we don't you don't talk against the scholars. They're just trying to keep the sanctity of the institution of divorce.
there is a variance report that the government has which have made a veto
and upheld, which is that you could rescind
that since you're the one who made the conditional divorce, you can say I take it back, you will not be divorced if you go visit your brother.
And so that is a minority position. That is everything, his position of resentment, the condition of divorce, taking it back.
Despite the fact that I understand that the logic of the four emails here, and the form is
to protect the sanctity of divorce. I believe that taking the position of a mayor nowadays, in our times,
is indispensable. It is essential.
Otherwise, it is going to be a big mess.
And some of the scholars will argue against this and say, well, you're contributing to the mess, because you're making
exits for them, or shortcuts for them, circumventing the law for them. So you're making it easy for them to create more mess, and to continue on their mess.
But in all honesty, no. Well before anything made where they are not really getting divorced all the time left and right. They were and that is why the the mayor came and said, Look at us look at how the agents around us are, you know, making
fun of us because of just like perpetual divorces, and handles that come into the picture to get married to the woman and take the makeup permissible back for her husband, and so on and so forth. In addition to this, not only the other religions, but the Shia also are making us a laughingstock because most of these fatalities the car don't have they have stringent criteria for divorce. So divorce happens a lot less within
the car sector than it happened within Addison. So basically, to go back and say this is the position of friends via my
desk, and I've loved them as well. And this is the position that has some justification and discipline of the prophets Allah Allah
would not be
be with you would not be compromising the integrity of the law. Because all of those people are not insignificant. And if the position has justification, upheld by people of that caliber, and we need it badly to resolve and and in a gigantic problem, then we will use it and that is that is why most of the current laws are using these
fatawa Deputy Mayor, like I said before, coordinate the photo of me Tamia does not mean that these are his own making.
It is because he's the one who put together the the best, most comprehensive arguments argument on behalf of this position.
Because I have never thought I
did not sit down and write a treaties on these positions, which is a statement. Yes, no. And then Naresh, a very poor, so that isn't someone from the person who's in Santa. But then the scholar who comes later and puts a complete argument on behalf of that position, we will call it the fact of this car. Not because he instigated the position, but because he defended the position.
Now there are certain a basically fifth he puzzles here that American dimensions,
which will be helpful in terms of the
conjunct conjunctions of conditional sentences and the differences between them.
But don't worry about them. You just read them that's not really such a.
So if he said every time I don't divorce you, you become divorced and a time lapse during which he could have divorced her three times and he did not divorce her then she becomes divorced three thrice if her marriage was consummated.
If he said to her,
he says to her every time I don't divorce you, you are divorced.
Yeah. So every time I fail to divorce you, you are divorced.
So how much time does he need to divorce her to say you are divorced, five seconds. So in 15 seconds, she'll be divorced three times. Because every time I don't divorce you, you are divorced.
When now he's making, he's
no, but they have many differences. They have really the economic differences that women don't have, in terms of making the pronounce. But it's
but what so if he said to her, look at this, because this is how foolish that people have become. You. You blame it on the scholars. They didn't say that they didn't make these things up. They have some foolish person come to them and tell them I told my wife every time you're not divorced your divorce? Well, so he is throws us it throws us at in the into the lap of the scholar. And then you think that this scholar is making things up that are very funny. Well, he's not making them up. He had someone come to him and tell him that. So look at this. When Tyler Kolenda what he wanted and found people that follow the three main thought our better be Sally Apollo COVID, our monk and Dan
O'Bannon decided and that's yeah be what I'm talking about be.
If he said every time you give birth to a child, you become divorced and she gave birth to twins she becomes divorced upon the birth of the first child and upon the birth of the second her divorce becomes finalized because her at the end that by his birth, but no divorce will result from his birth because he
was already divorced and had died that was finalized.
So every time you give birth,
yeah. Every time you marry if you're trying to give birth to a child, you are divorced. So she gave birth to the first child. She became divorced. When does he write the end? She is still carrying the second child. She is a pregnant woman. What is the idea of a pregnant woman?
The delivery, she delivered the second child, you know, two minutes later, and her eyes ended and her divorce became finalized. So no other divorce would count against her. Because no divorce would count against a woman who already have a finalized divorce.
Okay. And if he said to her whenever you've been swayed to become divorced, she becomes divorced at the beginning of her height.
If it turns out that it was not hired, then she would not be divorced. If she said I did, I did mean straight. And he did he belied her, she becomes divorced because she isn't trusted with her body. She also becomes divorced if he said, humans were humans rated and keep the light. This is because of his admission.
If he said, If humans read, then you, you and my other wife are divorced, and she said, I'm in swated, but he belied her then only she becomes divorced and not his other wife.
the only thing that you keep in mind
is that condition of divorce is does count according to the form of that.
The only one who said condition and divorce does not count period of equity sooner than what's the demands of an Asana isn't my husband variety in
the form of our current condition of divorce.
conditional divorce in general. But if you come to conditional divorce, where the contingency is an action or inaction that is possible in the future, it will count in the form as I have, except that heavily the mayor said if he meant the deterrence, it will not count and he will have to explain it for those
resending divorce the form of that episode, you cannot resend recant take back that conditional divorce, you're stuck until she does that action. And the worst happens. And even if they may have chose a variant position that was already there, in the Hanbury meth lab, that you can actually present recant of your condition of divorce. You could read it, you can take back your condition, and of course, all of the other discussion. And most of the laws and Muslim countries are using the federal government, the mayor in this regard,
because the price tag of rejecting those pathways is like too
gigantic to pay
all the other discussion,
just read it for the academic
of knowledge, but they are very practical, because I hope that you're wise enough to not be making those kinds of courses.