Fiqh of Inheritance – Miscellaneous Topics & Slavery
A Commentary on a primary text of Hanbali Fiqh manual written by the great Hanbali jurist, Imam al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudamah, ‘Umdat al-Fiqh (The Reliable Source).
Hatem al-Haj – Fiqh of Inheritance #14
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of providing proper legal devices to move past disastrous circumstances and avoid the risk of the woman losing her life. They also discuss the possibility of older individuals not being able to receive money if they are the person who died or become disabled. The discussion touches on the concept of legacy and the need for evidence to determine if anyone claims to have a certain lineage. The speakers also discuss the importance of history in explaining the progression of slavery and sexual assault, and the need for legal devices to protect women and women groups.
AI: Summary ©
I'm about to proceed.
So today inshallah we will go over the rest of the chapter on miscellaneous issues you guys remember from last time we did finish the inheritance of the fetus. And we said, we will presume that we have two males or two females, whichever is greater because the mains could be sometimes greater than two females or two females will be greater, sometimes accepted. So the and then if there ends up to be more than two, then they'll still get their fair share of the inheritance, they'll go back and take from the rest of the heirs.
Mmm Malik would require them to wait until you know, child berries and then to figure out the distribution after a child very similar mathematic would recommend that, but would not require it. So every one of the heirs will get the lesser of the two shares.
We'll get to the IP in which is what is certain what they will certainly get, regardless of whether we have two males or two females. Why did they just limited to males and two females because aside from you know more than two would be extremely rare.
And then we will talk today about so this was already done. We covered this last time we're not going to repeat it today we will talk about
the inheritance with a second.
No, not the third. The fourth is the inheritance of the missing
inheritance of the missing
missing air. Okay, so remember good American law who died in the year 620. After his years and his book on that effect.
We're in Canada as a team of kudan nyata Mahabharata who played the Coronavirus, and he Athene or after Bertie hut. Mahalo Hill and you've got a female aka Tim almudaina, Holy
Father, oh, our boss in in some, you Kasam or yorkson.
The Sheikh said inheritance of the missing heir, if one of the heirs is missing, and his or her whereabouts are unknown, you give each of the other heirs there are certain share, the rest
will be reserved until his condition is known. Unless he goes missing in perilous circumstances, in which case you wait for you You wait four years, and then his share will be the via the key wait four years, and then his share will be divided. So the missing, you know, if someone has missing when do we consider them that according to demand, there are two different reports. But you know, these things have changed nowadays, because the world has changed so much, particularly with technology and communication, and so on and so forth. But if someone goes missing,
we want to make sure that because they used to go missing for, you know, in the past for a long time, and then they would come back.
Some people could be kidnapped and you know, traveling was very perilous and so on. So if someone went missing, Mr. Mack said we will wait until they reach age 90
or in a different report, he said we will wait until it is determined that they are there. And the he left of this to the judge indefinitely, indefinitely. So but he left it the judge and leaving it to the judge is what enables us nowadays because keep in mind that if you move from the past to the presence without the proper sort of connection link, you will sabotage the continuity of this area, you will have to use proper legal devices to move from the past to the present. And to say that this is the modern application, or this is application and application of this and modern time. You have to be happy. We can't just jump in the, you know dark and say well, times are different we're doing
this. You have to be happy to provide the proper legal devices to get us from the past to the present. Particularly, you know, like valid
From the Quran and the Sunnah, from the way of the righteous predecessors from the legal Maxim's even sometimes the three Giada
lcfa, the men in which the ad, or even sometimes an extraction from, you know, the extraction from the different or extrapolation from the different positions of the scholars don't want to add
in the form of dive and outside. So, so here, Lima is saying, we'll leave it up to the judge, okay, we will take that, we will leave it up to the judge. So nowadays, most of the laws and Muslim countries certainly will not wait until the person becomes 90 years old, or until it is known that they are that, but they'll give us certain time, we'll try to reach them, and that give a certain time and then everybody will be free now that you know, to just move on with their lives, including the wife, you know, she can move on with her life. Otherwise, if we wait, then she will have to wait.
So that's the that's what we do nowadays. What is
he we will give them what a certain what a certain sometimes is? Basically, we are not we are not judging, we're not judging. They're a couple of issues here that we need to mention. We're not judging whether he died or not. So
we're not saying that they are alive. And we're not saying that they're dead, we're saying that we're waiting to figure out. So if we're waiting to figure out, let's say, I'll give you an example where if the man who would have been missing was alive, it would be better for some of the heirs can this happen? If the missing is not that some of the heirs will get more than if the missing is that? What is the case scenario?
No, it's like a guy I'm gonna give you a quick example. One example is you have two daughters.
It isn't in your book anyway.
No, you don't have a grandfather, you don't have an uncle.
You have two daughters.
And you have
Okay, and then you have a son who died
that son who died had a daughter
and a missing son
missing son
Okay, so the C's have two daughters had
you know, this uncle here would be the uncle of of the two daughters or or could be the uncle of the deceased as well. It doesn't matter actually could be the brother of the deceased or the uncle of the deceased paternal uncle of the disease. The deceased also had a son but his son died before him his son have a daughter and a missing son
Okay, that daughter of the son
of them missing son
had died
or how do you the divide the inheritance here? Two daughters Get what? Two thirds.
Okay, what what happens to the remaining one third?
What will go to Uncle How does he inherited
as as a residuary heir possible? Okay.
So the daughter of the sun.
If we had one daughter here, there's the author of the Sun get anything? Yes, thank you. One sixth, the remainder of the two thirds. The difference between two thirds and the one half that the one daughter would get? She will get one sixth. But we have two daughters. She does not get the one sixth. She is not possible by herself. If her missing,
you know, that is her missing brother now.
If her missing brother was actually alive, what happens here?
They get the one sir. They're not done.
They get the one third not the uncle. So
It will be asked about the wire.
She will be a reservoir in the air by her brother. Her reservoir here by her brother. Her brother is not present. She doesn't get anything of her property his brother his brother's prison, she gets something if he's missing now then it is better for her that he is alive. Okay, so it is not always that if you know someone is missing
now we're talking about the the form of vibe. Now we're not talking about Rosarito Juba in the sort of Egyptian law and some other laws, she would get something because they would say that the the grandfather shouldn't have
included her in his bequest.
That's it. That's sort of the sort of the required bequest. But that is,
yeah, it. That's the line in Egypt and some other countries but not not in the form of
okay.
So
that's one thing, the other thing that we wanted to say, What if, okay, so what if we did not come to know whether the person
was, you know, we just didn't come to know when the person died? Or, like, we came to know that the person died? But we did not. We don't know that the person died before or after
the disease that were dividing their inheritance that missing person we don't know whether they live with before or after? Does do we give him anything? The missing?
Who died, but we don't know, whether they died before or after? Do we presume that they are alive because the default is that they are alive? At the time of the death of the disease, the one that has his state bid, divided? Now we don't because their presence when alive is a condition for their inherent ability. So if that's a word that they would not be able to inherit, unless we are confident they were alive at the time so they don't in here in this case
before you divide any of these things he does a cat would have to be paid according to the law does not have to be paid on the money if you would wait for years or we wait you know, whatever yours was a capital have to be paid because those account is binding on the money itself.
A second the issue here is what in total lack of married female that mountain Mahabharata huhtala, can you turn fi because they had many had me at us. Let me ask put Mira so have medema data. We're in Ghana, de la hora de la and
so on can have a hottie our model, so on can have a satyavan model. So divorce during terminal illness, if he divorces his wife, while he is terminally ill, in a manner that makes his divorce suspected of being intended to deprive her of inheritance, she is still entitled to the inheritance as long as she is in her waiting period.
So a man is in his terminal illness. And he says to his wife, in the thought of a death, or divorces, or she's been you know.
And he thought it would be
beaten immediately. But the man wants to divorce his wife and to make her better and whether there was two before and he does the third or he does the three in one, according to the majority, you can see as three. So, if he does this, the intending that his wife will be banned from him that his wife will be
finally divorced from him, so that she does not get any part of the inheritance. We win, actually give her her inheritance from him, as long as she isn't here, waiting period.
mathematic in, you know, or in the hand Betty madhhab in the authorized view, not only if she isn't here waiting period indefinitely.
You know, so if he is terminally ill and he divorces his wife to deprive her of inheritance
until unless she marries or apostatize us she will get her and
inheritances from him even after 25 years. I mean, if he stayed terminally ill for 25 years, and she did not apostatize and she did not get married, she would inherit him after 25 years of divorce.
And that's the authorized position in the Meza. Why? monastery, you know,
examines insomnia. And I'm going to start to say and probably I want to hear, okay, Batman, whoever does something, you know, tries to circumvent the Sharia.
He will be punished by the opposite of what he intended, punished by the opposite of what he intended. So he intended to deprive her of the inheritance because he knew that he's about to die.
illness.
he divorced her. Yes.
In his terminal, his terminal illness that he died from
in his terminal endless the bathrobe. Yes.
So then
then the sheikh said,
When cannot Tahlequah Raja am Tara
canopus a hottie our motto, if the divorce is finalized, that they inherit from each other during the waiting period, whether the divorce, whether he divorces her Why is in a state of health or terminal illness
and we have covered this before, right.
So any woman that you can take back will inherit from you and you inherit from her as long as your divorce is finalized. If you cannot take her back, you cannot inherit from her he cannot inherit from you.
Except in this one case, when it is finalized, because you divorced her in your terminal illness to deprive her of her inheritance.
When are Canada and then the next issue here is when to Kowloon Bay Masaryk in longfin miraz for sub Docomo Canon severen module and NASA saboteur NASA boo, boo and acabado millennials but NASA boo boo Murphy yet and macaron
Mirada, which is acknowledgement of disputed lineage, if all the heirs
acknowledge the presence of a co heir who agrees with them or is a or is young and of unknown lineage, then his or her attribution to the deceased
and inheritance from the deceased is established. If only some of the heirs have met this, the attribution to the deceased is not established, still, he or she will have the difference between the received share of the inheritance of those heirs who admitted it and the presumptive share had he or she been eligible for inheritance, okay. So you'll have like a deceased was survived by two sons, two sons. This is simple, simple.
Example.
Two sons, the two sons recognize that there is another son, a third son, they recognize them he was not known to be the son of the deceased, but the two sons recognized him, his lineage will be established and his inheritance from the deceased will be established. So we will divide the estate between three sons. If one of the two sons recognize them, the other one did not recognize. What do we do? Certainly, if the if his lineage established aside from the two sons, like the testimony of two, just witnesses or something that would establish his lineage, their denial does not matter. But we're talking about someone who does not have an established lineage by any means of establishment
of lineage. One son recognize that we do have another brother, one son said, No, he is not the son of our father. So what do we do in this case? So when we divide the inheritance, one son gets one half and one son gets one half. The one who denied gets his one half and walks away with the one who said this is our brother.
Yeah, no, he will not divide with him. So we will have presumed that he is
Was he is actually the brother. So if he was actually the brother, each one of them would get one third, one third, you are the son who is acknowledging that this other man is your brother, are you acknowledging that? Yes? Well, if he is really your brother, then each one of you will take one third. So we will not give you the one half, we will give you only the one third. So, because you acknowledged that the other has a brother, so, the one who was not who has a disputed lineage, what does he get, in this case, one sixth, the wrist, the difference between the one half that this person would have received if he was not a brother, and the ones third that he should have received,
every person is actually a brother.
So, that's that's how we calculated when it comes to acknowledgement of this periods lineage. And in the malborough, Kodama Rahim, Allah did not actually address
the issue of the people who may have all died at once, which is Mira cow and her cow and hadn't those who drowned and died and fire her under the rubble, drowned. You know, whatever disaster that that happened, and all the people the whole house was buried, who inherits from whom now, we don't know who died first. We do not know who died first. So what do we do when people die? All together?
At the same time, you know, or around the same time, what do we do? We have three different possibilities. Right. Three different possibilities.
We know some died before others.
We know
sometimes before others
we are so we are uncertain sometimes before others. We are certain they died all at once.
We are unsure
if they died at once or die before one before the other? If they die in one before the other, then we don't have a problem, right?
Yeah, because the one who died first, I guess they passed on to the one who died last.
When they when we know that they all died at once. What do we do?
Yeah, they don't inherit from each other. They do not inherit from each other.
When we don't know who died first and who died last, what do we do?
Now, we have two different scenarios.
The
sort of the family members make claim
do not make claims.
Having a family members
make claims
that some die before others.
other family members make claims that son died before the others, then we will ask them to prove their claims. And they are unable to prove their claims. What do we do?
Take hosts
you have the high level tacos
after the tacos, and if the old tacos.
Then what we do, we don't let them inherit from each other. Because the you know, basically equivalent of evidence or equal equivalency of evidence. So we don't let them inherit from each other. They don't make claims.
Then we make them inherit from each other. So I'll give you an example. So we have x and y. They are brothers.
And in this case, we'll go back to the issue of whether or allegiance x is the emancipated slave of
a Why is the emancipated slave a slave of B
and they didn't have any other heirs
x&y, were in a ship together, and it sank.
And we don't know whether x die first or y died first.
Naturally, what would happen, the whole emancipated y would get the inheritance, hey, whoa, emancipated X would get their inheritance, we'll get X's inheritance in this case of the via together in the ship be able to get the inheritance of y of x and y will get the inheritance of why
he will get the inheritance of why they will get the inheritance of x
criss cross. Why because since the die that ones and no claims we will make y y and x are brothers and they don't have anyone else. So wise we will make y inherit x and x inherit y
and that is without we will make y inherit x without X's inheritance from why because otherwise we will fall into infinite loop
we will just make y inherit x and x inherit y.
Okay, so
Okay.
You know, the emancipator gets the inheritance of the emancipated if they don't have family to get their inheritance, right.
x and y are brothers X was emancipated by y. So a x was emancipated by a, so he should get the inheritance of x, y was emancipated by B, B should get the inheritance of y. But since the die together and we don't read it together, we don't know that one of them died before the other, and there are no claims
about this. We will make them inherit each other they are brothers. So x would inherit y and y would inherit x.
And f x inherits y and y inherits x. At the end of the day, maybe I'm wrong.
And now the idea. No, I know I'm wrong. Let me tell you why. Because you thought that B is actually inheriting x B will inherit y. But But why have inherited x, so B will get the estate that x had before they died. But B is not inheriting x b instead inheriting y, but because y got X is money and x y is money. Now, B will get X is money and a will get wise money.
Yeah.
So that's, that's briefly what that thing is about.
Okay, yeah, good. This reminded me about the intersex
but we did we did talk about the intersex before, but like a quick reminder on the intersex if we can figure out their *, that's fine. If we cannot figure out their *, we give them half
half
of the male and half of the female.
So we make to my said, we make two scenarios.
That's how we do it. You make a scenario where this is a main and you make all the divisions based on him being a male
and you make another scenario that they are female and you make all the divisions based on them being a female
and not only them but every one of the errors will take half of scenario a and half of scenario be
clear
that it is simple but it's it's genius. It's you know like why are for our just great, great people because they they just nothing that they didn't want to do things ad hoc like arbitrarily so well. I can't know it's been so much good. It's just like a complete
sort of dead end. I will never be able to tell if they are male or female. If I am able to tell that's fine. We're done. No problem. But if I'm if we're not able to tell
then we will have
to different,
we will have two different problems. So we will divide the estate as 60 were main, and we will divide the estate in problem B as if they were female, and every one of the heirs will get half of scenario a half of F plus half of scenario B. And if you do this, it would come to you know, it would be good, it would be fine. If you get half a, scenario a,
scenario B.
That's the interesting thing. Nowadays, and when we talk about intersex, we did talk about it, we did talk about this concept of intersex that the intersex in the past they used to have certain signs
by which they told whether they were male or female. And now we have advanced sort of science to tell attribute them to one of the two genders. That true hermaphrodite.
hermaphrodite is not the politically correct name for it now, but the true intersex that is truly true intersex
is actually half and half
you know these these people exist that is basically
to the mushkil even for medical scientists,
they have the for all the different levels, we have four different levels of gender, we have the genetic, we have the
basically the nr ganando and we have the hormonal and we have the exterior genitalia. And then we have certainly the behavior which was considered the by our scholars as well but not as a substitute for but basically an expression of the above.
So at all different levels, the person is half and half
that is called that used to be called True hermaphrodite, and their incidence in the world was because otherwise Susan hermaphrodite is basically every every one with ambiguous genitalia does have you know, cat you can you could actually ascribe them to one of the two genders at the end of the day. But the true hermaphrodite they have both all throughout the four different layers. And
their incidence is extremely rare. It is one in 25 million deliveries, one in 25 million deliveries. So a country that like the US would have.
And and many times many times also they don't live that long because of some other complications. So country like the US may have three or four people five or six or seven in you know, just that are true intersex.
Let me finish the
just the you know what I wanted to say about the
unless the question is for disambiguation I said something ambiguous and you need
clarity. Yes. So
you're saying that the speaker because
biologically, like intersex people that
do it themselves?
What the ones who change their *,
born a man but change it to a woman later in your example, you're talking about hermaphrodites that are genetically
we're talking about intersex the people that cannot be recognized, that cannot be ascribed to one of the two genders cannot be ascribed to one of the two genders because of ambiguous genitalia.
Then the six then then we have
six different chapters that we will not cover the own pertain to slavery and because of the lack of practical purpose, I will just you know, slavery the talk about slavery nowadays is it belongs not to fit back to the size of apologetics. Islamic apologetics not that we avoid that we are apology apologizing on behalf of the Lord. Allah does not need anyone to apologize on his behalf. apologetics have not does not mean to apologize. It means to put together a rational systematic argument and defense of a doctrine. That's the definition if you don't like the word because it infers some negative connotations. Don't use it but the word
apologetics as a science is not about apology. It's not about apologizing. Even though the people designed those, the people who engage in this are called apologists, they are not apologizing, they are providing a rational and systematic argument in defense of doctrines or practices. So, slavery because of the lack of practical purpose would belong to the discipline of
reduced whatever refutation of misconceptions whatever name that you want to give that science
of apologetics.
That is how I address that that is why I put all the discussion in an appendix at the end of the book,
which hopefully will come out within the next two three weeks.
So
the safe talk about the chapter on allegiance to the emancipator, which is basically
the condition that will make Wella or you know, in the chapter of allegiance, which is Babbitt what that allegiance is, when you emancipate someone, and you have their allegiance. allegiance means that if the person died before they have their own family that would inherit from them, you will inherit from them. Because really, it is such a big deal. It is like you have given birth to them. Because emancipation release releases you from the bondage of slavery is such a good act and such as such a good deed. So the emancipator was rewarded by inheriting them, and if they did not have their own family to inherit them. So but if the amendments repeated now goes out and gets married and has
their kids, the emancipator was not yet anything, okay.
Then,
the sheriff talked about the chapter on inheritance and through allegiance to the emancipator, babban Mira bitwala chapter on inheritance through allegiance to the emancipator,
which is what we're talking about here, the, in the first chapter, when he talks about allegiance, he talks about the conditions that will make why law or allegiance valid. The second he talks about the inheritance of the emancipator, the third he called the book of emancipation, and he called it the book not because it is big, but because it is important. He did not call it the chapter bad, as he called it keytab
not because of this big, but because it is important.
And then he talks about debita dear the chapter on emancipation Upon the death of the owner, that beer, the chapter, the promise of death upon the death of the owner is basically the last opportunity for a person to do the good deed of emancipation, if he did not want to let go of his slave during his life, because he just depended on him so much either this or that. But he wanted the slave to be free after him. They just issue like a promise of emancipation upon this
condition that used to happen then Barbara MacArthur the chapter on the emancipated by contract, the emancipated by contract, which is also a genius model, where the slave was empowered to purchase themselves. And if they were to purchase themselves or they get into a contract with their masters to purchase themselves, the Muslim community would have to support to them as Allah subhanaw taala said in the program,
and then that may happen, I will add the chapter on the mothers of children Hawk method, the chapter on the mothers of children, mothers of children will bring about, you know, thoughts about concubinage, right? Because she would be a slave girl, and her master would have * with her.
And then she would give birth to a child.
Now,
a couple of things that I wanted to mention here is the image that you may have in your mind that the image of sexual assault is not true. It didn't happen.
He you know,
do you know that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said, Whoever slaps his slave, there is no expiation for him except the emancipation.
If you slap your slave, there is no explanation except emancipation. So the idea of having a slave girl being beaten to have to have * with her is
completely foreign to us that that is absolutely untrue. Hip slapping would result in emancipation, could you imagine someone like beating someone
in addition to all of the in addition to all of the teachings of Islam that would make this
reprehensible but also you know, the other thing that is
also important to mention here is that this was a way for them to freedom right? Because once she the liver if he gives birth to a child, she is not saleable. She's not exchangeable. She is not anything and she is prey upon the death of the master. So this was a way for many, many people to
get their freedom.
Who we could talk about this for forever. I'm just a just wanted to mention like a few points. One, one point that we have to take and concern is that not going to be Ronaldo. So this is not something that Islam invented concubine edge is all over the Bible. So this is not something that Islam invented.
What you don't believe it?
Why are you looking so surprised?
He didn't know it was in the Bible.
Welcome to Beyond Moroso means that I was not an you think among the messengers, like this is not an I'm not bringing about inventions here. I'm teaching the same thing that was thought before me, I am relaying a message that is like the messages before me. So Islam did not invented this.
And, you know, after wars during those times, after wars, the harsh conditions, I want to this is not we're not apologizing on behalf of God, we want to understand the wisdom and the mercy of God in His legislation, after wars, when you have lost the war, your sustainer and maintainer, women, he because you were thinking corporate america here, and she can go back and get the masters and stuff.
But, but women did not survive in the harsh circumstances when they lost their sustainers. So to make a particular person responsible for them, that was it, to make accountable, responsible, accountable for their well being for their protection for their sustenance, that's it.
And it is not it because that will also protect them on the battlefield. Because they will not be fair game like habit like happens all the time in modern wars by non Muslims or even bad Muslims. You know, they will not be a fair game, it will be a particular person who will have a relationship. That is not a relationship, like you know, the status not the humanity of the slave has never been
questioned
by Islam, or
compromised by a snap. Do you know? Do you know that this concubine is having * with a slave girl was actually a privilege? Not? Let me tell you why it was a privilege. I'll give you a like fluffy controversy that will highlight that point. Do you know that the magic is sapphires and honeyberries that is the the clear majority, Maliki shefa is at hand Betty's said that
you cannot have * with a non Muslim and anon kitabi slaker.
So that you cannot have * with a slave girl who is not Muslim,
Christian or Jew. That's the position of the majority.
Malaya. Hello, we'll have the lie ahead. What will happen medically I mean,
she who is not permissible to marry to have * with through marriage is not permissible to have * with through custodian of the right hand custodianship of the right hand custodianship of the right hand. What does that tell you? It tells you that they were not really treated as property because a less than a year and I thought, idolatrous slave girl, you cannot have * with her. It's not like according to the medication, according to that.
clear cut majority of Muslim scholars, you cannot you cannot have * with America.
And all of this, we're talking about the past because you know, in time when it comes to application, all Muslim countries are signatories to the all of the agreements, international agreements, which are
a positive outcome from an Islamic perspective, you know, that that than slavery and sort of
dictate the exchange of POW as prisoners of war that they are not going to be enslaved are not gonna be, you know, subjected to harsh treatment, all of this, all of these things are desirable from an Islamic perspective, and all Muslim countries are signatories. And you could say that they were pushed into it, but if they were not pushed away, pushed into it, and it was offered to them, and they were, you know, the strongest and most powerful Islam would have encouraged them to partake in such treaties, if the world agreed on them, because Shara Canada,
with Russia will find no hurry. So the legislation has been always looking forward to emancipation looking forward to freedom and liberty of all people. So but what I wanted to tell you is that
if she was not a Muslim, Christian or a Jew,
you can't have * with her.
If you if this lever was not Christian, Muslim, Christian or Jew,
the Muslim owner master cannot have * with her. According to the Americans, according to the clear majority medication. What does that tell you? It tells you that this was not a surprise for the for the victors. This was a means of protecting, and the privileging or, you know,
sort of satisfying the needs of the of those women who lost their sustainers and protectors, to provide protection to provide sustenance. In addition to this, if they were spiritually compatible with the master, with the Muslim Master, spiritually compatible with the Muslim Master, they can have * together,
spiritually compatible with the Muslim Master, they can have six together if they were not spiritually compatible, like she was an idolatrous
they can't have success together.
It's not like for his enjoyment, because he could, you know, for his enjoyment, that doesn't really matter whether she is Muslim, Christian, or Jew or she's anything else. She's like a theist or idolatrous etc, the doesn't make. But that that is that is important to keep in mind. So there are many points that you want to keep in mind, one of the most important points is we're not talking about this has a branch effect. for practical purposes, we're talking about this as a branch of Islamic apologetics for explanation, so that people don't have, you know, that discomfort about what they're going to have legislated. And so that people understand, you know, the sort of the
progression of things and, and so that we can also we're also providing the people with
basically the the proper legal devices to say to them, this is how we moved from there to here, through these proper
legal devices, where you know, you're able to
fulfill your covenants, if we have if we agree on a covenant and this covenant is desirable, the outcome of the competence is desirable to us, then we will have to fulfill our covenants. But there are many, many points that we can mention. So the image that someone gets a woman out of the battlefield, you know, well, everybody will have to wait until her waiting period ends.
And it's not going to be a fair game for everybody. And it's going to be one particular person, and that one particular person will have been responsible not only for her protection and sustenance, but he they may also have * together in certain cases, if she is compatible with him spiritually if she's Muslim, Christian, or Jew, know that sexual assault is out of the question. No, that is not something that Islam would approve of. That would be reprehensible islamically
slapping your slave would earn them their emancipation. So how could that be when you are beating someone to have * with her so all of these things, just remember them
Because this is a particularly sensitive issue
that I found that many people are unable to provide proper answer to that I, you know, it actually we were short on time this person, I want you to read
that thing on slavery,
have an article on slavery, it can be improved. I mentioned some things now that I did not mention in the article, but
that's what I wanted to say. And that brings us to the end of the book of inheritance and the basically, Book of emancipation in the head, the different chapters on slavery, and next will be
Family Law. So next week, inshallah we'll be Family Law.
Talk about, you know, the good stuff, first, engagement and stuff.
And then we'll talk about the hard stuff later
on excellence