© Transcript (Experimental)
Disclaimer: Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We rely on volunters to edit. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
audios have been awesome. I'm about to proceed. This will be the second session on the chapter of celebrar.
acknowledgement or confession.
Hitting mountain for that matter whom Allah said in his book lambda was a cloud or ad with Daniele, Adobe. What is cloud oho? v Mara the multi device Illa with a Stevie sir Eduardo.
The acknowledgment by a terminally ill person in favor of non inheritors is valid, but one in favor of an heir is not valid, unless the other heirs concur, if he acknowledges.
Okay, well, let's explain this first.
you are in your terminal illness, and someone who is not related there was not an heir who will not inherit from you.
comes by and you acknowledge that you owe them money.
We accepted this acknowledgement and your terminal illness. Yes. Yep. We will accept it as acknowledgement.
If you say that this money that I have is actually local. I found it and I didn't announce it.
We will have to accept
because that is not in favor of one of your heirs, so that we suspect favoritism here.
If you say to one of your heirs, I owe him money. And he's one of your heirs. You say to one of your children, you say to you say about your whatever, sister if she would inherit something
I owe them money.
We will not accept it. Because we all suspect favoritism.
When would it be accepted? If the other heirs concur? Yes, we we acknowledge that or agree.
So that's the first
statement he made here. Then he said what are Coronavirus and fissara warisan Let me ask why now Corolla Hua Hua kioware a sensor Massara Ethan's claro
when he says
if he acknowledges of right in favor of an heir, who later becomes an inheritor, the acknowledgement is not valid. However, if he acknowledges are right in favor of a non inheritor who later becomes an heir, the acknowledgement is valid. So what does that mean?
I have no children.
I do have
presumed though I have no children.
And I have a brother
and I don't have a father
So my brother would inherit
if I acknowledge money
to my brother acknowledge that I owe him money.
Well, you know, I have no children.
And after the acknowledgement, I die like this I in 12 months after the acknowledgement,
Or three months, or maybe one day
and in this one day, I have a child
you know, so, three days later after this acknowledgement, I have a child.
at the time of my death, my brother is not an inheritor. Well, this acknowledgement to be valid, because of the final my destiny is not an inheritance. No, because what matters is the time of acknowledgment.
Keep in mind that this is controversial in the meth lab and there is another narration in the meth lab, that what matters is
The Time of death but, and we when we talked about married or the gift of the terminally ill
they talk about this, but when it comes to acknowledgement,
the authorized position in the medical hub is that what matters is the time of acknowledgement, not the time of this. Because I am suspected here that I am favoring my inheritor.
I am suspected that, you know, if I'm giving to my inheritor, I'll be suspecting that I'm very favoring my inheritor. Now, this would not be valid, what if I have
children and a brother
and at the time of economics, I acknowledge that I owe my older brother money.
And I have children.
Okay, by the time of my death, my children had already died. So my brother at the time of my death is an inheritor.
But at the time of acknowledgement, he was not an inheritor. Because I have children.
You know, of course, like, like a boy will block my brother, like a girl, that's not going to block my brother, it will be but long story but, so, let's say I have a son,
I have a I had a son here and the son died before me. So, at the time of my does, my brother was in fact an inheritor. This will be valid to be accepted, because at the time of acknowledgement,
my brother was not an inherit. So my acknowledgement will be valid, he will be treated like anyone else, if anyone if anyone is for
came and claimed that I owe them money, and acknowledged that that that will be acceptable, we will treat my brother just like anyone else, because he's not one of the inheritors.
the other opinion is the reverse of this, the exact reverse of this,
because the in the other opinion, which is the variant opinion and the mother hub, that is the lesser opinion and the madhhab. What matters is still the time of death. Now, the time of acknowledgement, like an athlete and married or the gift of determining the
authorized position is that what matters is the time of acknowledgment, not the time of this.
point you will make in this paragraph is where he says, while the crowd will be awareness, his acknowledgement of an air is valid is an acknowledgement of an air is valid. So if I am terminally ill, and I acknowledge that I have another child
that happens, you know, not infrequently.
So if I'm terminally ill, and I acknowledge this close to my family that I actually have another child.
That acknowledgment is about an acknowledgment, it won't be accepted.
Then, under acknowledgments concerning the estate of the deceased to the SEC says, Well, if I cannot admit it, they don't let me yell XAML let me examine huaraz attalla
ella and you can leave Atari Catan
Fattah en la casa de you know who will be fine or How bad was that who
will after that he gets he, for the home
of the deceased owed a debt. The Heirs are not required to pay it off unless he leaves behind an estate, in which case the debt will be paid from it.
He leaves behind enough wealth to cover the debt.
If the heirs wish to pay off the debt and take the estate intact, they are entitled to that they are entitled to that so I left a building
and I also left a debt for $1 million.
is worth $1.2 million $1.2 million
Certainly, we will take the building
and sell it and pay off the creditor. But the inheritors may say we want the building would pay off their creditor the $1.2 million
up to them, or let us say,
we pay off the creditor, the $1 million, it's up to them.
Let us say the building is worth,
it's the opposite the building is worth 1.2 million, you know, whatever. Anyway, forget about this, the building, the heirs will say we will pay off the creditor whatever it is, if it is more than the building less than the building will pay them off. And we'll keep the building it's up to them they have the right.
Otherwise, we will sell the building. If the building is worth more than that, that the heirs will get the rest the difference. If the building is worth less than that, that the creditor will take the worst the price of the building the value of the building and no more will not be entitled to any more. He cannot tell the inheritors. Well the building did not cover that the building is everything this is left behind.
The Heirs will not be responsible to pay off the debt of their relative are they encouraged? Of course,
of course, you are encouraged to pay off like if it is your Father and the Father have that you're encouraged to pay off
the debt of your father.
Then the then he goes on and says when are karami Anwar 30 billion in Allah Morrissey m sebata be applauding if all of the heirs acknowledge a debt owed by is there this theater that that is buying then because of their acknowledgement.
So now someone came and claimed that the deceased had older than $1 million
and failed to produce evidence, admissible evidence in court
then it would be left to the acknowledgement of the heirs.
If all the errors are acknowledged, that that then it is a valid acknowledgement and we will give we pay the creditor off and that's it.
Let's say some of the errors acknowledge that that and some did not.
If you have a quorum,
like you have two airs,
it will not be that that are willing to testify.
Then he has he has he has evidence?
Well, if you have one err
that is willing to testify with you
that you're actually owed this money.
What What can you do?
According to the medication that Pfizer Hungary's
taken Oh, oath,
taken oath. So you have one witness and your oath, and you will be entitled.
According to the Hanafi is no they require two witnesses. But according to the majority, one witness plus heroes will entitle you
but what if one person only acknowledges
he says here when our para Ba ba ba, ba ba ba cadre, happy fellow handla five nine when we add a Durham para huduma beatin Diana and halaby la zema ham so another Harmon fan can Atlanta shahida be here. Forever Karimi ner Khalifa ma Shahada t Wi
Fi. If only some of them acknowledge it, it will be binding for them in proportion to their shares if the deceased left behind two sons and 200 their homes and one of the sons acknowledges that the that his father owed 100 Durham's? That's not
will be responsible for 50 their homes only.
If he is trustworthy and testifies in favor of the claimant, the claimant may take an oath and thereby take the rest of his money from the brother. So, he left behind two sons
and $200 each son is entitled to $100 some creditor claim that he is owed by the deceased $100 then each son is responsible for 50 right?
What if this son
How can I acknowledged
that that the sun did not acknowledge that that we would only take 50 from the sun and give it to the creditor?
Okay, take 50 from the center and give it to the creditor
whatever this son is trustworthy, his his testimony is accepted in court. And he says to the claimant, I will go on testify with you. You know, my crooked brother is not going to give you the money. How to go on testify with you. Is he encouraged to do this if it is true? Yes, of course. You know,
probably a combination of a piano fella. So
here are the nine men Okay, no problem Amina because he's from LA, madre de nada crabby.
So yo believe,
stand up for the truth
and be witnesses to God, even if it's against yourselves, for your parents, or your close kin.
So you went and testified against your brother,
and this person, but you have to be trustworthy or your testimony has to be accepted in court. And this person is willing to take an oath.
Then we will take the 50 and give it to him based on your testimony, the testimony of this one son, and the oath of the claim.
Okay, that's clear.
Then let's accept we're in Fela, Nan Hua Mia for da da da da, da da da da Who?
because keep in mind that why are we saying this when you one of the sons acknowledge that? We said before like Roger cassara intransitive restricted proof. His acknowledgement does not apply to his brother. Unless it is a testimony.
And it is this the money that's also qura corroborating the oath of this claimant.
When fella feminine woman, Roger and me at an OBE for sadaqa husana da Coronavirus da de casa de campo lebbon. For incana images in wowhead familia to be in our home our encounter immediately say any for here allow what Allah say le Sani.
If he leaves behind one son and 100 coins, then a man claims that the deceased owed him 100. And the son agrees with him when another man claims the same, and the son agrees with him as well. If both happen in the same session, the 100 will be divided between them. If they occur in two different sessions, the first man gets the 100 and the second is not entitled to anything.
It's first come first serve.
Now, is it possible that the deceased actually owed two different people 100 each? Yes.
So when someone came in, claimed his that and wanted to be paid off?
And the son agreed, yes, my father did actually owe $100 we will take the $100 and give it to him.
Then another creditor comes back comes by and says in a different method is in a different session is a different court sort of session. Because they both came in the same session. Then we will divide 100 between them if desired.
acknowledged both debts. But if they came one after the other, the first would get the 100. The second gets nothing. Why does he get nothing?
Because, yeah, because the heirs are not responsible to pay off the debt of their deceased relative. So, you know,
once that Erica the estate that he left behind is gone. That's it. No creditor is entitled to anything.
What can I do to the to the man that he's that
we're in Canada, I wanted to hire Howard to attend for South Dakota, who lived in Medina, Dhaka who lived near here
the ANA who for water, how he be applauded.
If the first man claims that the 100 coins are his wadiya money he had deposited with the Father for safekeeping, and the son concurs, and then another man claims that the same 100 coins
as is what they are, and the son concurs with him as well, it will all be for the first was nothing for the second.
However, here, the son will have to compensate the second man, since it was his first acknowledgement that caused this man to lose it.
Now, if it was a debt, that is for them, that I am liable for a debt,
they are not claiming my particular property that I left behind, they are not claiming the particular darica it's not that they are claiming that this darica that I left behind belongs to them,
they are claiming that I owe them money, that I owe them money. In this case,
they would only get whatever the tariqah you know,
whatever the value of the tariqa can pay off of these debts of these many debts. And that's it once Botanica is is gone, no one is entitled to anything. But in the second case,
belongs You know, this building that your father left behind is mine. Okay, and I am the only survivor am one that one son? And then I say yes, it is yours
acknowledged that the building says he will take the building.
All right. Now, a second one comes and says this devil thing that your father left
If I acknowledge that this building is his
Well, the building was taken by the first claimant. So what do we do here? Of course, we not give him the building, because they was thinking about the first payment, but I owe him the value of this building. Why? Because my first acknowledgement cause them to lose the building. Well, are you sure you're acknowledging the building to two different people. So your acknowledgement to the second person will be valid, but the building is gone. So you owe him the value of the building. Because the building could have not possibly been
the there's, you know, all the building and you know, ties either belong to this or that or they have to be partners or something. If you acknowledge made the acknowledgement, your first acknowledgement made the second claimant lose his building. And if you're saying that the second claiming claimant owns the building, it is actually is okay compensated because your first acknowledgement made him lose it.
Alright, that brings us to the end of this chapter and this is the chapter on acknowledgement and confession. So I would like to make some confessions
So I certainly acknowledge that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his last messenger.
I acknowledge the perfection of his study.
I acknowledge the goodness of our tradition. I acknowledge the need for renewal.
Our legal theory has solid foundation
nations and flexible framework to allow for renewal by the sincere, independent scholars that are well grounded in the tradition.
I also acknowledge my ineptness and incompetence and had it not been for the extreme need in our times for someone like me to be teaching a noble discipline like this I would have not.
So I asked you to pray for my forgiveness for all the shortcomings.
And I pray for forgiveness also for my parents and my message if
memory Warden May Allah forgive them, and May Allah reward you, bless you and forgive you. protocol. Yeah, that's not from