The Book of Divorce
Date:
Channel: Hatem al-Haj
File Size: 88.33MB
Related
- Waleed Basyouni – Incredible Marriages from Islamic History – Lessons from Them
- Zakir Naik – Why do Muslim Pilgrims follow Hindu Rituals of fasting, circumambulating the Ka’bah…
- Mohammed Hijab – Words of Protection at Night
- Nouman Ali Khan – My Favorite Dua In The Quran
- Abdulbary Yahya – The Major Signs
- Omer El-Hamdoon – Ramadan Reminders 2019 – #26 Complete your profile
- Hussain Kamani – 40 Ahadith of Imam An-Nawawi 17 – Striving For Excellence
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers discuss the legal framework for divorce in Canada, including the definition of liability and the importance of strong faith in one's partner. They stress the need for proper consideration and communication in the decision process, avoiding mistakes and negative behavior, and the "three" method used in court, which involves avoiding mistakes and negative behavior. There is no clear context or purpose to the conversation, and the topic of divorce is discussed with minimal context or purpose.AI Generated Transcript ©
I'm about to proceed and carry on with the chapter wars or the book of divorce.
And last time, we went over the introduction to the course, we talked about the ruling of the wars. And we set the default
According to the New Jersey, but the fault is this like that, according to a minority that we supported last time is prohibited divorces prohibited by default.
And we talked about the details of those. And that would be the decision.
And one of the two positions that are chosen by the divorce by default is prohibited because of the harm that it causes that have overstayed
has then certain sometimes a divorce will be permitted. And sometimes that will be preferred. And sometimes it wouldn't be obligatory. We're talking about the divorce, that is when it is not wired, or totally unwarranted.
And then we talked about the last divorce and we said that the lives of divorce are gradually gradually.
So you can bring her back, you can take her back, that means separated,
or separation gallopin meaning that there is now a great barrier.
Laura porches. And basically the original idea, we translated this as final finalized, and the language has been finalized when the song was finalized with recourse so he can take her back with a new contract of a non Cobra is finalized without recourse, he cannot take her back until she's married to someone else.
And they
cannot borrow the is when people
basically get away with when a husband goes to the island with his wife, or mutual
implication of Paris, public implication, whatever he will translate the as an invalid is when the husband accuses his wife of Zara
and goes through the process of
how
you know completely fine, meaning there is not even recourse after she gets married to someone else according to the stronger position.
The names are long, talk about four different major topics come and see the pronounced divorce, finalized divorce analogy course, three fold divorce, and the middle of divorce, which is to divorce a woman during her period or between the periods during her purity if there was copulation, or intercourse during the interval.
So the first one that we will talk about here is the competence competency to conduct a divorce.
And, you know, set out your pronouncement of divorce with counsel, who's competent to do this now. Da da da da, da started the chapter by actually talking about the competency. So all of these things that we mentioned before, was part of my introduction, but he started the chapter or the book of the forest by talking about the competency intensity or to initiate the divorce. And he sat down at a central Illinois learning zoning Academy nothing more Mota divorces are only valid for legally competent and willful husband zones in Canada from a legally competent and willful husband. So he cannot divorce her before he marries her because he is not her husband.
And
and don't think that this is not consequential. He will have not
mentioned that it is out is everything that you mentioned in this average tax is consequential is there for a purpose. For us a lot aliens out in California, the course is only valid for legally competent and willful person. Legally competent is my translation for those
The economists, and you do want to review the attachment
I have about maganda, who is on
the McKenna's is the one who is who's been asked to carry a burden, it is apparent in the passive voice is an adjective in the passive voice. So, he is the one who has been asked to carry a burden. So Canada means are required, can love to carry, I required you to do a job attacks, usually it has to do with like a burdensome task, it will be technique when it is a burdensome task, if I asked you to just, you know, move this a little bit to the right, that usually be called.
But technique is where is Canada, where is a burden involved in the process.
So it's an adjective in the passive voice, it means the one who's been required to carry a burden, the burden here is their religious obligations, and prohibitions that have strayed from the provisions and comply with
exemptions or to comply with religious regulations in general.
The beauty of the word muqarnas, by the way,
sometimes be legally,
legally
liable, because technique means liability, if I cannot, if I require the view to perform, and I have a superior position that you're applying bio.
And certainly a lot has a severe position over all of us. So when a lot of asks of us to do something or requires us something, then we're all responsible and subsequently and liable. So that is why the paragraph is translated by many interpreters as liable or legally while
it does not only mean legally liable, in case you consider part of the conditions of that lead, is the lead Muslim, that could be legally liable and legally authorized. And there is controversy controversy over this are non Muslims require to apply. It is certainly the controversy comply with the details are there is no obligations Islamic on agents, certainly the the issue does not apply to them being forced to comply in this life because they are not forced to comply. But in the sight of God, whether they be held accountable for not complying with a detailed injunctions of the Sharia are not held accountable. And there is controversy over those some scholars that there is you know,
that they are held accountable for this belief and that is enough. So, there is no accountability for anything that comes after this belief or that is beneath this belief in
in the degree of evil. But the some of the scholars said that they are also not accountable for following somebody on a national scale scheme open up the open and
when they are questioned on the Day of Judgment, they say blah, blah, can we learn something we will not have those who prey on
water we see and we will not use the lead
for the
poor.
Brother he is anyway probably from a practical standpoint, if you consider them to not be Motown left because they are not required in the dunya to perform with the technology for saiya or their religious obligations. Then the word in Canada here will mean legally competent and authorized because they are not authorized the past until the exceptions and of the faster before they accepted Islam. The first thing was not get out of the sight of God because he had wanted the first to walk through the door not the window and the door is blind and bla bla
bla so it will not count because it is not the probably does not really wants to live.
So legally competent and legally authorized is the meaning of the word and Canada's you will find various translations liable, responsible. competent.
And authorized all of this will apply
that the beauty of the definition calculus is that it also comes from the three letter root of capital and fat which is which is a beautiful route because it talks about love caring for Raja Raja the man loves his wife.
So caring for Raja Raja means the middle of the day his wife. So why is it relatable? What is the relationship between tech and even the burden and so because when the tech lead comes to you from a law when there was or when the demand
requirements comes to you from Allah has devoted worship or as a devout believer, you should be a loving Lee comply. You are lovingly taking on the burden. So you're loving Lee waking up to praise
here lovingly fasting until the sun
set
on a long the long summer. You're loving me do it doing it, because it is coming to you from your beloved sorry requirement from your beloved your blog and they said anything you wanted please me do this. I would lovingly do it to please draw near or close to him.
So he saw what I saw palapa 11 zolgensma cannot divorce is only valid for any any competent and willful, has now legally
comprehend.
We will now talk about whether
China may issue divorce and
the stream of
coffee Friday, Saturday?
No, of course not. And also opposition. Opposition was
referring to your document. He says the main issue of divorce, usually after he, he has like a different category by himself for children. He uses the Sunday domains, the discerning child, he puts him in a different category, he passes away and remains in a different category, he makes an even while.
But the rest of the Imams said no, that is puberty. And
there is a variance report will go down very well. That the cut off is puberty. So just go by the vast majority and take various positions very much
as the sort of the most acceptable position.
Because it is also a really good artist Madison chapter,
you may do this with it, you may take the variant position, whether the mouth caps and however you do not report it as the stronger position in the mouth, there is a difference when you're reporting the stronger position. It is not you determines the stronger position. If you say that this sounds ultimately stronger, and if there's an agreement with the outcome of that, that still does not make it stronger and above that, because you're not a verified seller among the 34th circuit that we want is stronger in the moment.
So the verifying Scholars Program
will be to major scholars, you know, the most influential scholars of the latter generations of NACA Dharma and
not the popular military mayor, his grandfather, his grandfather is an authority and demelza. Why is popular is not an authority. In terms of his choices. We have also the latter generations, they always quote him and take his position. But in terms of taking this position as a variant view within the last hour, and even at the Act of Parliament, they don't usually take his position in verifying the stronger position of the Messiah. Because he was liberal, liberal within the earth. He was not tricked in following the stronger viewpoint within the mouth. He's like a neurosurgeon above the bar in the morning.
They're actually sort of
The strict follower that will basically spend all of their effort on verifying the standard position within them. So that they may well go up and look at the forum event ahead and upwards from that and look at the Sahaba and so on. So, but but his grandfather was an authority because he was limited to the health he was limited to the amount needed malpractice absolutely yes, they have gone silent the mother uses everything himself.
When he agrees with that said
when he disagrees with every offer, there are usually we'll take a look at the adverse possession because within the bathtub there is no greater than a propaganda of the latter generations. He is the author of this text manual that we are going over on.
So, the latter generations there is no figure within the house to have that car competes with he died in the year 620 after hedger
okay. So,
yes,
yeah. So, the stronger position
to determine a child's divorce counts, but this is a peculiar peculiarity of the harmonica more for that
product another one of the peculiarities of the harmonica motorolla is when one month have disagrees with a three hour.
So, that will be for that.
So, now,
what I was trying to tell you that if you want to remember the sort of the stronger position in America, it counts the stronger position overall and the position that is consistent with the rest of the Maliki staff right. Now,
yes, we can divorce but, you know, within our eyes are also concerned there
is
no seven or eight will not be considered the second child.
Usually it is after 10 according to the scholars of America, that you will become a discerning child
you know, trying to lose and in all honesty, and he has some point because even in science 11 years that is as the power of or
abstract operational thinking, abstract operational thinking, you know, operational thinking in general starts at seven years of is when you can, basically sorry about
two different factors at the same time simultaneously, which is, for instance, the length and width.
If you give a child that is less than seven years of age, two different vessels, one of it is one is hotter, and the other one is shorter, even though we'll study the bigger one is the taller one
without considering the width,
but a child that is seven years of age will look at both length and widths. And he made you the shorter ones the taller one, because even though it is taller, it is shorter. Yeah, it is weidler. Therefore, it is bigger. That's that is called the operation of thinking once you start to use even though that is called operational thinking, but operational thinking in the physical world starts at seven or eight years of age and operational thinking in the abstract world and the values starts at each level. So the child may understand that even though there may be some benefits to why it is for them, even though there may be some benefits to smoking, it is forbidden, even because then because
the evil outweighs the good. Even though there may be some benefits and gambling is forbidden is the evil outweighs the good.
Chocolate is younger than this don't confuse and talk to them about you know the benefits of gambling
because it would be hard for them to digest the information process anyway.
So that is the child wearing this. Now the next one is composer
or the rest
so there is you know extra
because here in mountain for them I said well I cycled up on a mocha he was that you know what a cynical pull up and lucra he was that in a lovely endless Sacra divorce under compulsion is invalid. Also invalid is the divorce of the one without intact intellect except for the drunk.
intoxicated
Okay. Now
that so who said divorce under compulsion does not count?
Yes, yeah.
So divorce honor compulsion does not count.
does not count according to nine.
So why did I say
huh?
Yeah. Eventually he said that he pronounced the worst one for the because even though it's a function that is new that is, that is pronounced and divorce.
But as also
the difference between
the difference is not divided along those lines, you will have allocated penalties.
together and the sufferings of buddies together concerning invisible Sunni difference. So imaginary important from our dilemma bass that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said he lived
in Seattle, almost the creator Allah,
my Allah in the law of law, the data was any argument,
pardon my own for me, or forgive my own for me, for their errors pop up, when they see our forgetfulness, and that which they do on their composure for the rest.
And incentive, there is another report also with like a little bit of variant word and in which the Prophet said rofi are automatically caught up when we see him lifted off my own removed from my own error,
forgetfulness, and the things that under compulsion, but how have they been really removed?
What does it mean? A lot of that was a lot harder than what does it mean and have the habit has
forgetfulness, removed from the
forgetfulness itself?
So the province has something
called the R on command Z,
row yard is removed
from my own my own
grandfather air
now can take this literally,
I can't take this
because it's impossible
because the GM makes errors.
So
you can't really do so in this case, here, we'll have
to presume that there is a missing word.
This is the concept of a multiple that require the implication
for required missing word
that something required the view you know that that what this statement is not believable without inserting a word. to correct the same number correct the same system The thing is incorrect, to correct our understanding of the state, the state and our understanding of the same, this same thing cannot be understood literally. And and keep in mind
People don't always use literal speech, because there is abstract speech. So,
the profits may
not be making any mistakes or not events.
What
are you?
And then the word that we will insert here to make the statement plausible
enough to insert a word.
Hmm.
Yeah. So,
or, you know.
So, how's that, okay. So, everyone here is trying to be very careful with the statement of the profit, we are trying to treat it very, very delicately. So, the hotkeys automatically set, if I have to insert a word, to make the statement, plausible, than a insert, the minute that sort of the slightest, for the least, that would make this statement plausible.
So, I will insert is, because it is only like,
you know, because, what
if a happy thought, which is the essence of error,
the entire thing, error has something lifted than what has been left, I never own the consequences of error
for the sin,
you know, this consequent of error, or the sin that results from this error, so, in the amount of money that you can manage Excel, if I have to choose the insert, all the consequences are the same, I will choose the sin, because it is much less than all the consequences, and it is my insertion. So I'll insert the least that would correct the statement. So, here, I will insert removed off Oklahoma the sin of error,
he now shut down.
If I cannot accept
the literal implication of the statement, which is that error itself has been removed, then I should come as close as possible to the literal statement.
And if it is it possible, that error has been removed, that at least I should say, all of the consequences of error have been removed. Therefore,
you do not need to do a makeup and this is fine.
And you're not responsible for the sin in the hereafter.
So,
they will validate what you have done. You will fast them but you
you know, okay. Like a sip of water in the middle of a fast that
will say this is error
Has anyone been in exists before because all of the consequences of error should be
sort of neglected.
overlooked
manuka honey you should have both said,
No, you have not sinned, because the same has been removed, because you did this out of forgetfulness, but you need to repeat that,
because you wrote into the fast even though it was out of forgetfulness, but you still ruined it, the only thing that you will be relieved from is the sin of that path of forgetfulness, not all the consequence.
But usually the scar is the there is usually some reason to
basically not follow consistently all the time your room. So the amount of money for this particular regard of the fast thing. He said no, you don't need to repeat it either. Not only because he does not believe
because he believes in a moment
as the shaft in Silicon Valley's which is generalizing the require the implication that required implications in circa Chinese companies.
generalizes make as big as possible.
But because of the hobbies, he says that this is basically opposite to my problem, opposite to my rule rule for Maxim
that, if you like, my rule is that the sin is removed because not all the consequence. But I am at least that says whoever eats or drinks while fasting that hadn't finished his fasting because it was a lot, who fed him and gave him water or give
or serves. So now Monica here would say I will do this is that Santa
have a touristic preference juristic reference here does not mean like, sort of
nearby Mere juristic choice based on loving, he's doing the juristic preference based on the hobbies. So assassin, sometimes meaning following the hobbies, if the hobbies is counter to the pie that that prints the legal Maxim, that he follows all the time.
In this particular scenario in mathematics, which would not have any concern, or hanifa, held true to his title, and set the bar under duress, when count, you know, Malik switched sides and took the position of
those who believe in our moment of power or the generalization of the requirement
is, do I need to repeat? Please tell me if I need to regroup. Good. Because this is not like an online thing about watching a YouTube video.
Three things will exempt you from or will relieve you from the burden of sin according to the consensus, same as removed according to the consensus that this agreement is over.
Other consequences like integrity makeup, no yet, but centers removed by all of them. So if it is done out of error, you're not responsible. Basically, you did not know. You did not know
that.
There is a little discussion about the car, he did not know that factor is in here.
So then you you're allowed, you're forgiven for eating urgent, since he did not know this error.
You did not know the religious ruling itself.
that something was wrong. And he committed it not knowing that it was kind of that is error.
You forgot and you ate, you knew everything, but you forgot and ate. That's forgetfulness. That's the second exemption.
You do and you did not forget, but you were forced
as duress post quarters, and that also were removed the same by consensus.
And whether or not that removes all of the consequences, then there will be other disagreements or any failure. So that doesn't really involve
in this case.
The you know, the worst under compulsion would count. The vast majority or the majority, that's a matter he's half the combat. He said, divorce under compulsion does not count.
The next point, yes.
Yes, not knowing what we consider under under this Yeah, it's not forgetfulness, it is error.
Errors is twofold. It's two things. Basically not knowing the religious ruling
or making an error
Applying their religious ruling and reality
in sort of like an error
fill
in water.
So if you make a mistake concerning the ruling, that is an error from Huck Finn, what if you make a mistake concerning the reality so you got married to a woman,
that who Who's your sister
who's your milk sister,
because someone made an error concerning her sucklings
how many times she rested from your milk mother, that is an error concerning the water or concerning
the workout concerning the reality
then
if you
got married her because you believe that you need to feed because you made an error and you thought that she shouldn't have nurse
10 times
from your milk mother, or by agreement that's incorrect. The the most anyone talked about is five times the same you figure you thought it was 10 times and when you got married, that is considered the error in identifying the religious ruling. So in both cases, you will be forgiven.
In both cases, you'll be forgiven.
Now that there's only one caveat here is that when you embark on a religious God, you should really learn about it so you will not be forgiven for not learning not you may be held accountable for so if someone is going to hat you know, he'll you really need to learn how about if you someone needs to perform somehow to everybody, they need to learn about the salah and then Ramadan comes they need to learn about fasting then when they have enough money to base a cap they need to learn about the cap.
So, they will be held accountable for their negligence
you know,
but not for that particular error. Yes.
There a certain guideline for what is considered
risk of financial loss
or
compulsion is what causes someone to default someone into great hardship
great hardship and certainly there is a little bit of subjectivity and
and is compulsion like, let us say hero discover even talked about compulsion, when someone is threatened by ruining his reputation spreading rumors about his wife Is that considered a compulsion? You know, no one is such again to begin with. So there is the vision of compulsion is that someone is like putting a gun to your head who not always like this, but emotion is basically whatever causes someone a great deal of hardship and a matter of honor may be in a great deal of hardship of someone you know, ruin his reputation. So that would be considered compulsive in this case. So it is whatever that causes you are breaking apart
the next
point here is divorce of the line with impaired intellect we're gonna go through both soon. The next point is divorce of the one with impaired anger.
So we have
insanity, anger and intoxication.
All of these things would impair your intellect right.
First one is insanity. You have no intent to begin with.
Insomnia is when you're completely
you know no right or wrong for you that are properly beneficial. So in sanity by consensus, your divorce does not count. So there's just you know, there's a lot of concerns of divorce and rock out here.
But
Yes,
so in
anger
but before exactly before we move on
foolishness is not considered ancient and Sabbath.
That MSL or the mentally retarded it completely mentally incompetent is insanity. The foolish one is not insane. Hence the Moore's word count by the agreement of the force comes
out he was not informed
a president marry someone who's insane and he does not enforce him
the insanity that he can ask for fast for revocation of marriage among
nice is anger.
Anger, we said the foolish one is the more sort of counter according to the formula The
next is anger.
And
I mentioned anger footnotes let's discuss them without books. did not mention anger here
in the text, in the main text and longer Why?
Because there is the official position of the wrath of is that anger is not consequential. He as angry as you want your divorce so step count and that is the position of dramatic isn't surprising.
So can add variable divorce well counterpart informalities chef is apprehended.
So who said you're divorced or knock out?
Whoever is up,
have these kind of variants position within the method chosen by everything.
He that's why we don't take him as like a verifier of the restaurant because he ventures all too often. And thanks for another event. So he took the Harvey position here, that anger will be consequential and could invalidate the pronouncement of divorce. If it is substantial.
Substantial manner, then we talk about substantial, there will be some degree of subjectivity here. That earlier stars may have been a little bit stricter with substantiating anger. We have some verified scholars like from the happy mother but like even our Dean, the author of Hacienda got the one of the most authoritative books in the Horn of Uganda. He said that the anger that would impair your intellect not that you're not cognizant of what you're saying. We're aware of what you're saying. But you're not aware of the consequences. You're that you're angry and hurt your intellect to the point where you are not aware of the consequences or what you're saying.
It's extreme anger.
But it is not an extreme anger about some of the earlier scars of a half you don't have talked about where you don't know the difference between the male and female, for the sky and the earth. So it is not where you're just completely obstructed. Mentally, it there is a little bit of awareness remaining. But it's now been said
here and intellect isn't apparently enough to not understand fully appreciate the consequences of your pronouncement of divorce. If not, I am added another kind of basically qualification for this and he said that you would be immediately regret for your phone. Once your anger awaits. You become immediately regretful like you just cooled off a little bit. And then you say to yourself, what have I got? What did I say?
That is an indication that your anger was substantial enough to affect the validity of the claim.
pronouns, yes,
extreme
extreme, and are the causes someone to murder somebody or to basically destroy their property?
Well not exempt anyone from the punishment by consensus.
When not,
however, if it was provoked, it may lighten the punishment.
If it was provoked, it means lighten the punch.
But you're responsible because you're taught to not get in. However, divorcing Your wife is different from
getting go to her thing, one thing somebody or destroying their property,
they
their body, their life, their property is sacred in the law. So, here anger will not be consequential here. But your marriage,
according to discovers, is different from someone else's property
for someone else's body,
but yes, consensus that the anger will become submerged. But if it was provoked, it may be consequential to the punishment,
law theocracy, other
proof, this minority groups cite some analytical, you know, particularly when you take that medium anger, that is not our dean and I are talking about
if you think that medium anger that would not make you unaware, but not fully cognizant of the consequences.
It's a minority, even within the Happy Mother's love, everybody will listen when I read
about this medium anger because I'm the happy mama Yes, anger does invalidate the divorce. But it is extreme, extreme anger that was described by the army of scholars, and that medium anger is a minority position. Yes, what may support the mayority position here?
Certainly they, you know, contemporary scholars always like to mention the intent of the legislature and the objectives of the Sharia as consequential factor. That does not mean they're wrong. But
but it
is
basically quandra. It's not, like easy to invoke the objectives of Sharia in the face of the detailed pieces of evidence. And you have to be very careful when you do this.
Because you're human after the observation of both your eyes are fixed on the objectives of Sharia. But your way to objectivism Sharia is guarded by the milestones of the detail patterns.
You're surrounding yourself by the detail that it says you're not usurping, violating them. But you're here you are sort of observing watch scope of the objectives of this area.
Is it clear? So, once you ignore one of the two points here and apply, so the objectives Australia and the drowning the detail there, then says kind of the technique after technicalities, then you will be in error? Once you ignore the
detailed evidences, and you're only watchful of the objectives of Sharia, then it will be basically
completely unregulated process because the objectives of Sharia law, Jenkins charter be defined even by non Muslims. So he talks about Muslims sacredness of life property,
the roadmap to achieve and we're realizing the objectives of God are his
journey
by those milestones on the side to the way the dpmm would protect you from the VA.
Anyway, so
the VA
What
is one of the strongest proofs
in support of the minority position in our DNA? Is that substantial anger? That is short of making you completely unaware would still affect the validity of your pronouncement. Love of God there is no there is no follow up.
Wow. time there is no
man named Mr. emancipation
in a club in a state of
here's a state.
Now, what is that
about? You know, is
some people say a lot would mean infuriation cover they all said that, some people will say Allah means cursor, compulsion
infuriation does sound acceptable, because there are a lot of consequences from the three letter route. Rain, rain,
which is which means closing or shutting, closing glows.
And anger can close the veil obstruct your insert.
Right? So it makes sense that they have locked what also mean anger that reaches the point of obstructing, even partially, you're innocent.
So,
you want to remember what is the position of the character is inconsequential? You want to know what is the factor of contemporary scholars, most contemporary scholars,
anger is counselors. Because most contemporary scholars, they have no problems and every one of these physician concerning anger, yes.
It's funny, isn't it?
controversy over the authenticity, however, even 111 and overlapped in both consider that handsome or sound.
person so it has like two issues. One is the establishment of transmission. But some of the scholars probably most modern scholars at least, consider that person or sound.
And it does seem to be
acceptable. And then the other issue with hobbies is the implication of the word of Allah because they disagreed over the meaning of the word.
But if you accept going back to the root of the word, if you accept that infuriation should be in a substantial anger.
And I'm using substantial, you know, intentionally versus extreme because I currently have now been training that is substantial, not just extreme, because extreme is when you become aware, in anger causes you to be almost unconscious and have that power of people to get angry to the point where they become just completely or they're out here.
No,
no, some people actually get angry, they press their mouth. It's become really not here
that they may eventually get into trouble with the law, but you know, not necessarily to their preference.
When we said what I just said to who was asked the question about
murder, theft, just destruction of property anything inconsequential. Anger is inconsequential once you serve the rights of others.
If you're unaware of what you're saying, then know
if you're if, because part of the technique is sort of a part of the psyche, keep in mind is a child, the ruler, the property of somebody, the child will be responsible, even though he's not viable in the sight of God in the hereafter.
But there is something else that we're looking at here.
The sacred as a people's property.
So a child goes and ruin someone's property. That's not safe chart. Are cattle reliable in the sight of God in the day of gentlemen, they have judgment. No. But if the capital go and ruin the property, the owner of that capital will be liable. In certain cases,
if it was expected a limited key
from people's property and so on, then he will be alive but because we're not looking at the action of the capital, we're looking at the sacredness of property. And that is why you know, people will have to watch their steps. In a society that is regulated where people's property is sacred. People need to be watched. If you have cattle, make sure that you keep them, you know, in their stables particularly at night. If you have children, make sure that your kids are Mr. Wilde going out through people's properties? Yes.
Unless it has to do with people's property and people's rights, anything that is between you and God. Anger, extreme anger that will make you unaware will make that inconsequential
everything because part of the conditions of the grief is sound the internet if you don't have that sound intellect you're not responsible. If the anger was extreme enough to basically obstruct you from
understanding what you're saying you don't know what you're saying then you should not be responsible for
his
or
did he know what he said at the time? He said
Did he know what he said at the time? He said if he knew what he said he is liable if he did not know what he said he is not liable.
That's Obama Yes.
Now
on top
of a
hammer
next is like I said the HANA fees that are the are kind of these will only consider extreme anger. But the latter half of fees particularly from eggnog, Lena, and
after about the they would consider substantial anger does what not make you completely out of nowhere, but what make you
aware of the consequences.
Even substantial with with what substance the latter opinion of the hierarchies is that substantial anger will invalidate the pronounced so it will not tell.
Yes.
Correct. Okay. The problem is that because I mentioned in all of the different positions that people get confused,
do you want the position of the company or you want my choice?
Okay, so the Okay, so, if you want the contemporary scholars, and certainly even if I say most of the contemporary scholars, then I count them all
That's my assessing, call the sub subject.
But a lot of the contemporary scholars that I have come across I have seen
would consider substantial anger that would impair your judgment not necessarily completely obstruct. So you're still aware of what you said.
When you said your divorce, you were aware that you're saying to your wife, your divorce,
but your anger was substantial enough that you were not really Cognizant and aware, conscious of all the consequences.
So, if we are being served at any time added another qualification said this angry person, once his anger and Bates, he will say what did I say he will be extremely regretful.
And he will regret once his anger pulls off or happens.
So, it will not happen based on this minority position that became a majority position in our times because a lot people are foolish and get angry too often, and forcing their wives.
Now, the next point
raises here.
Okay, so he said that even the sub except the one who was driving, he noticed intoxication. So, according to
according to the heart, he is the amenities. That is,
is, if you're brand new, and you pronounce divorce, they will count against
the cow.
Have you smell the coffee shop or your competitors? Who is that
there is a variable position in the company, whether
small, small a chosen, by
the way, is not counting
that it would not count.
And so why is the disagreement to begin with? Why are they disagree?
The majority said that the one who gets drawn is legally liable, liable, because Thus, it is the agreement of the Sahaba to hold him accountable or the did in fact, hold them accountable for guys that
so they're saying that this This means that the Sahaba is accountable. So his divorce would count,
because he was not deprived of his intellect, he himself in parallel. So we will not exempt him from his actions, because it is him or her for impaired their
drug capacity.
So this very position that kind of bad enough that
they will also say another word for that example sentence for the purpose of
echo doc and there is a lot a lot a lot to
every account except for a lot of the mentally incompetent, who has the private present.
But this is the era era the report itself is not.
So here this various
chosen by anything, how do they rebuttal this, there seems to be a very formidable argument
to hold them accountable.
How does that they may have a rebuttal.
He said that
I agree with somehow as a reader. I hold him accountable for murder and stuff. But he will raise you know the sort of the point of distinction between murder and stuff on one end and divorce on the air. So he will hold them accountable for burglary and theft. He will not hold him accountable for divorce because he will say whether in fact are different from divorce.
Because in America, and
you have already usurped someone else's property or sacred sacredness of their life or body of their property, so you will be held accountable. Everybody is agreeable. And this is a consensus, no one is arguing.
He said divorce is unlike.
And then pause man, while the other one who hasn't the ones that can report this
off, Man did not come to the divorce of intoxicate in in one verse
that there is no contestant of the Sahaba hoarseness position. So to anyone that he wants to say that consensus of the Sahaba is that the divorce of the one intoxicated does not care.
Yes, the older them accountable for burgers.
But because our man said that that man did not count the divorce of the one who's intoxicated. And that position about man, we don't have our report
can tell that somehow these who can test the deposition, if the mother wants to say that consensus of the Sahaba is that the divorce of the one toxicated will not count. And that would be the same as
sort of principle support in this regard.
In addition to that,
the principle which is you need to have the sound and the intellect to be reliable, and responsive. And the fact that you are imperative, that imperative will make you liable if you serve other people's property, but not when not make you liable, will not make you liable if you
did not use other people's property concerning your marriage. So if someone gets intoxicated, and then he's
he says
he makes a pronouncement of this belief is this believer? No, he is not at this.
Because he did not know what he was saying.
The fact that he you know committed the sin of drinking wine should not just throw him into this belief. He's a sinner. But, you know, it doesn't get him into this belief because he was not aware of what he said that would be also another
so some workload for corroborative evidence for and with me.
No, yes.
saving
more
Yeah, she wants to get rid of him. Because he gets drunk and she wants to get rid of them she will not have difficulty getting rid of him initially on court.
Watch this watch.
Because that was
what it is. If you pass on the judge, the judge believes that the horse have been taught to be intoxicated person does not count then he will not count it
is then then the wife could ask for the horse or the dog because of the heart.
So the
the cards on babies
Okay. All right.
Yeah, I assume the peloton has has it has it has which has
to pronounce the horse jokingly, it will count according to the form of
for Canada according to the form of value, and besides the hobbies in which the crafts
philosophy has broken,
which is, which is the one and nikka what Pollock one another
who certainly there, there are various reports and some of the reports that opt out, which has many missions. So, in some report, it is marriage, divorce, and Roger are taking her back. And in some of the consulting reports artha is the third one man you mentioned.
Ms the agreement of the form of data, and in this case, he said it jokingly so there is there there is no intent of divorce, but we will hold them accountable because he was aware he was he knew what he's saying he was wonderful. He was not worse.
So he's not going to play with divorce. So he will be held accountable
that
according to the form of that
Ah, yeah.
Yes.
Yeah, here we will do this out of touristic preference with a shovel shout out.
If the native he's angry and he freezes slaves, they will.
They will not make anger consequential It is called Sen. Se Senado. Korea. to Seoul, South Korea means the keenness of the legislator on many mission emancipation, liberation of the slaves, because it is one of the objectives of the story art, emancipate the slaves, they will take any emancipation. Even if someone did a joking the someone did it while he's angry. They will not say anger here is consequential, they will say it's consequential in divorce, because it is the objective of the shout out to keep the families intact.
Right, versus the objective of this era to liberate the slaves. So since the shadow wants to slaves elaborated and the legislator the intent of a lot is to free and emancipate the slaves, then we will always lean on the side of freeing the slaves and we will not exempt one from
is
you know emancipation is the the that unless he is completely completely angry, the the extreme anger is not completely where he is completely obstructed and some of the scholars will say
the emancipation will not count but this is a minority position very small minority position. The vast majority would count
Why are delinquent 100 authorized or totally caught when artisan attain sonka takahara. The free man is entitled to three divorces and the slaves entitled only to whether the wife is free or not. Anyway, you know the free man is a type of defeat divorce.
As the final is divorce without recourse that is the bane of Cobra. So why do we not like give the free man free three divorces commonly? Why don't you just take her back? She wants to come back. You want to come back? Why don't you stick her
to reasons that we can comprehend to comprehensible wisdoms is that the UCM use the women in the past can during the waiting period we will take them back.
So they divorce them and then they let them hang out for a little while and before the waiting period as they take them back. Commonly divorce them and then they will
spend a lot of time in the waiting period and
so Allah put an end to this by giving
The free man three divorces own, after which you can take your back
the other benefits of this legislation or the other wisdom enough legislation, and sometimes both of them are blind. And I wanted to show them the way how they're,
you know, quagmire, the theory. So it's a failed marriage. And sometimes people like their miserable reality lie or their army, the unknown, the fear from breaking away from their miserable reality.
They would take abuse, they would take, you know,
a lot of things, you know, and just to keep the status quo, so a lot of seven is forcing them to move away from their faith packs. It didn't work out your marriage is not working out. So you want to look for, like another path for another life partner, because you both are not mixing with.
So that's the reason why you have a seat.
Next, set for another self out of apalagi
asahikawa, Dakota, Southern Liberty fair alakina anthem de la liga, la has to say that the whoever,
whoever uses the number of divorces, he is entitled to his wife will not thereafter be marriageable to him until he marries, she marries another man and they have intercourse This is because of the statement of the Messenger of Allah Azza wa sallam to the wife of Russia, maybe you want to go back there if
you can't, until you enjoy sex with your new husband, and enjoy sex with you.
So basically, because people always look for loopholes in the law.
And a lot you that people once you know, you make legislation, people start to look for loopholes. Okay, so he wants us to get married, we will get married, you know, just like formerly married, but we will not transmit the marriage and then I'll go back to my husband, then it becomes like, sort of a loophole in the law and people circumvent the law by this. So the Prophet said no, until you have sex, which means that it has to be a bona fide marriage. It is not only like
paper marriage?
No.
Yes, because it has to be a real marriage.
If they come out after the close the door and they said we're done that
then they'll be centers. But in the court of law, closing the door will count as intercourse. But they weren't the centers, because they married they did not marry
they did not need to marriage, their marriage was a fraud, it was not free. So, the Prophet is saying there has to be a remarriage you have you must have married her to marry her not to make her permissible for her previous
conduct. We will discuss this later in another chapter the issue of the Mohan The one who makes the woman permissible for the previous husband, this is coming in a different chapter. So let us defer to that chart
then Okay, so now we're talking about the composite the composite three for divorce composite three four for divorce.
Because after after he said this you know
what i Hello, gentlemen status. It is impermissible to combine three divorces in one impermissible the divide to combine the three divorces in one hand, I'm not going to stop but if you guys are tired, someone you know, anyone who wants to walk around to stretch to get coffee from the back. Do this. Now I'm not I don't mean
Don't
do this on an individual basis because we're not great.
But please feel free to do it on individual basis.
So the finalize the course with with our three course we work on with us, okay, when we started to finalize the horses they love Cobra
and this happens after the third the horse for now all of this and this is what we have left on these two issues say for the doors and the red are the doors there to only when there
yeah
so the three fold divorce demand for dominance and what I have no doubt of that is it is impermissible to combine the three so you don't say to your wife have the product with us
for you don't say to your wife on the part of
you don't combine them in the same session is that permissible?
permissible permissible according to
accounting is another issue that we will come to see for divorce
Okay, so in permissible
according to Anita Merritt.
It is Halla meaning permissible
according to who said that I had another
report
paid to
okay, but let me say that the majority said that is impermissible. Yes.
But it will still be permissible and your approval is a is a category of permissible. It's not forbidden, but they they did not all send an approval,
but the the
openings are permissible in both positions. So as you saw a permissible purpose
in mind, the Pelican itself is not so would not be like such
permissible, permissible. Nothing as far as permissible.
It's time for me to do it.
Now doesn't count.
Okay.
Okay, so free for
divorce
has three
counts as one.
So we said counts as the
fee,
Maliki saffire.
Who said Khan says want
to save because he needed
to go out to eat during this time because there was just like the exam It was like to his contemporaries. What's the What's this guy doing? So like a lot of
choices outside of the format there.
But keep in mind that he collected them all together. You will not find them too many. And most of them are in this area of divorce. Most of these choices outside of them
have been in this area.
The war. Why? Because in his time, it was like, sort of reference to the people that are divorcing at times. And then they're digging the Mohan led to the you know, to, some of them were observing the rules and letting the Mohammed actually speak with their wives. And then some of them are now observing the rules and letting them handle just close the door, and try and circumvent the rules. And it was terrifying given the fact that we have become the laughingstock of the nations because of this dilemma of divorce, so some of these angry divorces, his wife, the times they have four kids together, or during that time, probably 14 kids.
And then, instantaneously, they can't get back together.
So, yeah.
Okay, well,
here's the issue, when we say that the way of the province of Southern was that it was worse.
We are sort of
in validating the rationale, we will say this, but within the context,
we are presenting the different arguments. So we will put at ease, we will cite these, we will explain it, but
you will have to also be considerate of the position of the forum as that.
However, they are on top of me.
So I am set to get into the zone through some medium here. Through Palin,
right. hog monster had emails, it's just like, the other day when I was that I was
talking to someone about like, some issue
will be too much branching off.
But
so, okay.
Kansas City, Kansas.
Now, so for everything we had to come up with this position during the apply and, you know, sort of eighth century after he entered our position that's counter to the agreement of the former that when the complete in the form of them it was as habits.
When he got a lot of heat, you put us put in prison. You know, he
basically,
some people went as far as calling and cancer and all of us. But was it the mayor, the first one to come up with that position? Absolutely not. And have you been the first one to come up with this position, man, he's an innovator.
But he was not the first one to come up with this position.
He couldn't
be Marcos. In fact, he had been in teams claim that this is that there is no controversy over this issue. And harder and harder mentioned to, you know, regarding the teens claim that there is no controversy over this issue. Even hotjar mentioned that people who contested that position, which is that three will count as three. So the hunter said that the people who can test that position, are not irrelevant at all, are not insignificant, they are unable to be thought of the lovingness rule of the Rachmaninov is so valuable our hidden our best tools offer several magnetic scholars like Muhammad Ali Baba in the method, how many of the ceramic crochet and others in our shore, which is a
contemporary of the hunter said that even though hunter supports the majority position theory prophecy, but just out of academic fairness, he was saying that even though I support the majority position, this minority position is not the invention of the media. It is it has been deposition of several Sahaba and zaveri and emails and farmers
beforehand, but not sure
supporter of the minority position, a great Maliki scholar, great contemporary medical scholar, contemporary meaning, you know, he died in the 16th of last century.
So, really temporary radical scholar.
He mentioned that his book a company director, we're about to hear some other names or Madigan is supporter of this, which is a minority position. And many of the contemporary scholars are supporters of the minority position, they may, even the people who will
take that position.
Because Because, you know,
the price tag of the other position is just like huge social kind of social.
So it now sort of mentioned here that Mohammed bin is back and asked about Nicaragua, and I've met him in police tonight today has have all
upheld that minority position, the three would count as one. So if you can test can test the position of the formulas that help you better come up with a formula, formidable argument that will be based on the text of Revelation, the position of the earlier generations.
And you have to be qualified to undertake the gigantic task of refuting deposition that is upheld by the former that
is believed by most of the contemporary scholars that their conditions were better than me, they may I was qualified to undertake the gigantic task, that his position was not
on calendar, in terms of the text of Revelation, and that it was not an preceded or unprecedent
that some people preceded her to upholding this position of the Sahaba and the tambourine and other generations.
Therefore, many of the laws in Muslim countries nowadays have opened up minorities.
But because why do we say it is the minority position? Why do people always blame?
You know, the permissibility
of news music director has even gotten to agree with it. But why are we always blaming the husband for preventing abuse
because he's the one who basically constructed the the sort of the most
complete argument on behalf of W position.
So that is, it does not mean that it hasn't only been in the history of Islamic scholarship and said music is permissible. It just made me it just means that Evernote has put it all together and he was the spokesman of that position, because he put the argument of that position hold together.
The same applies here when we say this isn't the same as position, we're not saying look at what 100 look at the names. So every time he has greater or even the thought of love and some
of them have this available. Oh, well. It was a no brainer, but why are we putting it in there? Because he was the one who put together the argument defended it always got in prison for it and got you know, sort of
this reputed for
Okay, the argument of the other emails, okay, if we tried to look up the arguments now, we have
the ongoing practice from the client of armor the manual is that the force three forces counters.
This is ongoing practice from the time
the foreigners would say a homeowner would have not invented this Parmesan.
Omar must have taken this from the Prophet.
So that's what our second argument the events because they have any arguments and you know, I did notice all their arguments because discussing arguments here would certainly be beyond the scope of the book.
But the second argument is the heavy fulcrum paradigm where the story of Roca. And this story of Oregon has been used by a majority position and has been used the minority position because there are variations in the story of
the majority position science, the variance report were broken. I came to the process of the lawyers. And he had divorced his wife and bet, her final divorce. And then the Prophet asked him, did you mean one divorce or three divorces? And Rocha said that he meant one divorce. So the profit
basically, give her back to him. Give her back to him. The majority would say this is quite obvious. The province inquired whether it was one of the three divorces. He gave her back to him when he's when he said that it was one divorce. The problem with the story of rocchetta is that it has been reported also that Rokia came to the Prophet sallallahu sallam. And he had the forest and his wife three times had the Prophet said to him, this is only one divorce.
Therefore, the very story of Ghana comes with conflicting reports. And it wouldn't be prudent in this case to drop the story of Coca Cola out of the discussion.
Probably the modeling for literary pieces one variation.
There are not many there are two integrations where there are several versions. But if you put all generations together, it is extremely hard to reconcile between but
you know, some scholars will have the wit of making it plausible, but plausible, does not necessarily improbable. So you can make a plausible argument on behalf of the reconciliation. But it was said about the probable harm.
In all honesty, it I find it difficult to reconcile all of the reports of the story of Roca, you have the reporters here polyboard
report with inconsistency, one story
it is safe to say drop the story out of the discourse, take it out because there is some inconsistency or look for something else.
So looking for something else,
the minority position at some of the contemporary scholars like a national for instance, who supported the minority position or they may have to deal with countless one
particular dimensions let's because he's an officer, so, he has like an emphasis on the corner. He mentions the high end which allows him to allow more time for him second binaural out as soon as divorce is twice their fat is there which doesn't which means these are not happening simultaneously. There there is there are steps here one comes after another and separated from the other so a lot of people monitor fat insert from the morrow out this year on BSF
and then later on down the page about what happened I thought about
a lot back
then, later on law said and if event divorces are that's actually the second time that she would not be able if he then divorces her after the Second Amendment she will not be able they will not be able to return together. confetti varies a lot. And then a few divorces are after she got married and she came back to him had he divorces her then they may be able to reunite because he will have three more divorces. When she marries that they will start the CLU
because in this case it is scoped to that she married someone arranged marriage and failed and married at the second marriage so that she didn't
behavior.
Or he may be a
when they come back together, when there would be there would have been a period of separation, she realized that she got married to another man, the marriage failed, she figured that there must be something wrong I'm doing on my end that is making my marriages fail. So that they will be given three chances starting anew
or he may wise up because he will say, you know, my wife, what company?
It's not a pleasant experience for any man. So,
anyway, so now short is saying that this is clear that divorce does not happen simultaneously. It happens once after another hand, he argues that this is the incentive that legislator did yesterday, chances are, if you lose all of your seat, chances are at some moment of anger, you're not you haven't been given three chances, because people get angry. And then you pronounce the freakin three combined divorces in a moment of anger, it takes away the purpose of the legislation which is allowing you three distinct chances.
Now the next you know
that sort of the
the bomb, the elephant in the room that they may use is an authentic hadith reported by Muslim from our blog now pass Cara Pollock audio sort of the sort of audio set one, what have you back where somebody was playing on the Oman SLS collapse travel to Africa for kind of horrible support in the NASA.
I don't blame them or anything from God. So this is the strongest argument for the minority position
is a report with regard to refute in terms of transmission and hard to refute in terms of clarity as well even go the best one who put an organ together to presume the implication of the hobbies would be
buried. under the title of those who permitted the three combined before Susan Shaka sapphires are the ones who are permitted to see combined divorce.
So in the first half buried under this cycle, he put like a solid argument on behalf of the majority position against this study.
For against our understanding of this
would never the fire and the other is more committed to the center than all of us here combined.
With even a slight who are combined, so but if
so he will never been fired. But it's again, it's our understanding of that there are deduction from
so you can give us.
But this is pretty clear at this pretty verifiable in terms of transmission, not our best set that the provider can see a lot the open horse used to count as one during the time of the processor center, and the final Walmart a couple back to normal, and the first few years of the
caliphate of armor for the Lord. And then on our side, some people are making nice concerning a matter in which they shouldn't have shown that abrasion or regarding which they shouldn't have shown that abrasion. So let us count it against Linda's in forcing on them. So that the
instructors, so I'm going to say that they are doing something on purpose. They're divorcing their wives that combines the force, they're making a combined pronouncement of divorce, or equal combined divorce. And this is impermissible in this sense they were doing this around let's just enforce it on them. So they've been in a very preyed upon by nobody and so it's unfortunate of them. This, whether whether the owner was right or wrong, this is a different discussion, because our map is not available during the process, although similar. Online is the greatest service home after the propaganda
that causes fire alarm.
Arizona who would have deserved to be the Prophet after the prophet SAW seven and a half their den prophets after the prophets of Allah etc.
Yeah, by the consensus of all Muslim scholars,
because there is only one that is one person that is incapable of this own map, find a gumball, just a promise.
So whether it was right or wrong, but it was done in, you know, goodwill, or wanted to make them refrain, so it was an executive board
and the executive or not at this video, there is a difference between the executive order, and that the CEO.
So I wanted to not make this real here. But he made that executive order as a form of punishment for people who violated the law, He punished by separating them from their lives.
So that particular hobbies wouldn't be any
sort of Princeton support, he will be practically
You know, he gets it, he gets called to the court, because almost
sort of Harris, you know, which is countering the position of the foreign affair.
Having done he would say,
you know, most of the reports from Obama best, but you he will still look good, right? Because he had perfect how he said it was agreed upon. And then the clarity of mind is also quite obvious. And then another learner
who's
said, says, use the counters wondering how to profit and are welcome the first few years of the caliphate of Allah, you still look good, even though you're in prison.
Father, Father, Father,
Father, Father,
divorce divorce divorce,
if you really meant to
it is I
wanted to emphasize the first divorce, basically reiterate that I need your divorce. I'm not instigating a second divorce your father, but I want you to hear that will count as one.
But this is also similar in order to position
only certain variables remembered by
the majority is not over. But there is a minority position but the same loses between emphasis and instigation of new divorce.
Okay, so we're done with this part right? isn't clear. Do you have questions pertaining to this particular part? Most of the contemporary scholars, those who are fans of those who are not fans of me or take his position
in even, you know, contemporary laws in Muslim countries, because the like I said, the consequence of taking the majority position is huge socially, for most of them.
Two years from
the default the three divorces count as one. Correct. So how this is interpreted as
the three is three in that he How come it became an executive order seems like it's obvious here. If he
then he says in the continuation that people rushed the NHS
By now unable so it's not like I'm creating a new legislation here, the legislation is is already exists. Just enforcing that at least this is my understanding I'm a bit confused and how the interpretation of this became an executive order because it's clearly says
he says that divorce is counted as one. So like a Walmart or Walmart,
in
the care of a movie, people are making these in southern America. So people are making three divorces. So let us know, divorce three divorces on them, not the one
let us enforce it as the pronounce three as the Nazi as one. This is supposedly a wrongdoing of people. This is not the legislation. The legislation is. So we will punish them because they are doing wrong. They are doing something impermissible, we will punish them and counted.
Say then this is a new legislation. This is not an executive order to enforce existed. No, I've been insane. It's an executive order to enforce an existing legislation. It's an executive order to punish the people for their wicked
not enforce an existing legislation, if you believe in the minority position.
So we're not disqualifying the majority position as you know,
if you want to look at the two positions with in things fairness, because it was also beyond the scope of our discussion today, but if you want to look at it with balance, read my mother's chapter on those who permitted the three fall divorce
in fact, have been Batman about a lot of stuff, in fact. So he basically puts together the strongest argument on behalf of the majority position. And this will be where you will have a balanced view or exposure to both positions. Let's finish this quickly the final one so that we would have finished it up and follow up
the horses during the menstrual period. The horse during the menstrual period is hot on by agreement. There is no controversy here like the three combined divorce. It was taken by a divorce we said it is harder for the majority. But the shafran is an opposition in the Hanbury mother have said it is permissible but in the case of bigger divorce to divorce a woman during her period or to divorce a woman in her partner purity after calculation or intercourse
is high
purity after calculation
divorcing on kfda for found curity after calculation after the not sexual relations is far
according to home.
AdSense
Okay, so having known that those accounts
that's
interesting discussion doesn't go because hon Oregon.
haraam Keep in mind, this is pertinent to certain women, women who have periods or we will do not have periods is not pregnant.
Women who are not pregnant because women who are pregnant that is not pregnant.
Women who are in that consummated marriage, women who are only contracted not in a consummated marriage, this is not a permanent
agreement or creating menarche
or post menstrual woman
or a pregnant woman
or a contracted wife that has not consummated the marriage or out of this discussion. The divorce will be welcome at any part would be hard.
to work
on breeding and archaea, menarche is what is when a woman has appeared as far as 200 period, Pregnancy for postmenopausal is menopause is when a woman substandard or sneeze after. So premine RPM, postmenopausal pregnant
and contracted woman who has not consummated their marriage, those who do not have a divorce, they can be divorced at any time.
So it is worth
writing, right? So you don't have to
basically watch for the time when you're divorcing, one post, whatever.
It is a woman who's having periods and not pregnant and consummated their marriage, what do you need to watch when you're divorcing here?
So that sort of metaphors.
Alasania the feeling of optimism that empathy has over you profit, when you must divorce women divorce before the commencement of their life,
which was explained to the power by a prophet to mean divorce them either in a state of purity, what do you have not touched them, or in a state of
your do the theory and practice.
But don't divorce them in a state of purity where you have perhaps had intercourse, or if they are having their period, one of the reasons that we can understand from this legislation or about this legislation at the forester in European year, you're probably the waiting period by the end of this, then you will not come to that period. So you will
have a waiting period,
which may constitute a degree of harm to some of them are so important.
So you're not counting this waiting period in which you divorce.
So you're not counting, so you're promoting them here. So if you're divorced from this area, you're not going to count to this year, right? So you're going to count from next year
that is for one prolonging during the year.
So that is what I mean by agreement. Now, does it count or not?
Okay.
So did it horse
downs
does not know
who said counts Hanafi. Maliki,
who said does not count with me.
happen and it is not only the mayor, but once again, is all put together. So it sort of went with me I was on a campaign to narrow down
the divorce that the cause of divorce just like invalidate as much divorces as he can
to prevent the consequences.
So why is it that they may have you know,
I don't know is America scholars as well. And after contemporary scholars, you know, shall county and southern audience for some fun. And I'm gonna check it out even if it doesn't, you know, this is the position of the car and the fire just work. So outside of understanding that it is the position of all of the factions outside of me, suddenly they don't count. They don't come without a voice. She had no minds don't come to fit on the force, Jonathan Assad did not count. And they might follow Jonathan Sotherton not counted. So it was not really once again and with me as a veteran, but he is sort of responsible for the position of making the husband's hand responsible for permitting music,
because again, he is the one who put together the argument, who are the most complete arguments on behalf of deposition
and the fact that he got, you know, interrogated for and so on.
Two things here are two issues here and that is basically the crux of this matter.
There is one hobbies and one key principle the one hobbies is not enough.
About dilemna Omar when he divorced his wife when she was in her period and profits are on our way to the Prophet told them about Omar did this and the prophets also said to him moral failure Raja
ordered him
to take her back. had that possible from not only from my daughter from Allah, so tell him to take her back, and then she becomes pure, and then she has a period, and then she becomes pure. And then if he still insists, then you will divorce so far,
you cannot use this lease, the same accounting software does not count. The problem is this honey, have varying reports. In some of those variants reports. The Prophet said, What did he say and
for the narrative said about the prophet and he did not count it as anything.
And another hobbies that Erica said that the prophet SAW someone said, while a sabbatical you say this is nothing
less lay out the hash and does not did not count does anything for what he says is when we say this is nothing, what does it mean? So even if they may, I would say it means that he did not count as a divorce, he did not count as a valid divorce, the majority would say, no, it does not mean that it means that you did not count it as something good.
That we are saying on Sunday.
Every hour, I would rebuttal this, you know, like a dog on to sue the basis that whenever the profit does not count as anything, you're something that the closest to not counting it all together, or denying it the hockey of the divorce is to deny the validity because that validity is closest to the hockey but the essence if I can't deny, if the province of the law circumstances does
not support the
National Water.
There is no support without purification without purity, then it if I can say that there is no the essence of so I can't deny you negate the essence of Salah because he stood up and he did this, and so on. I will negate the validity of this. And when at least negate the validity of design and say this isn't. So that's your strongest position here. Yeah, the other scholars said that this would be a hobby from Alabama or have parents reports. And in some reports, it said
that we have john our head itself and some reports that it was counted against the hair that he counted, counted as one in other reports, then we will get into the discussion on which reports sound stronger than others. And that's a whole different discussion. Yeah, in all honesty, just like that story of rocchetta. This hubbies there is so much inconsistency in reporting this companies take it out of the picture and get to some other part of the discourse. The other part of the discourse is where everything they are on the mobile asset and now you have something to sell. We agree we all agree that this is prohibited, it is hard to do this without divorce, had an idea of a
facade that prohibition implies invalidity, because this is a part of a pain. However, the prohibition does not imply invalidity or the time here without revision pertains to the essence of the matter.
essence or pillars are care for conditions of relativity, Sharon's
or inseparable attributes sopapilla Zima. then in this case, the prohibition will indicate the rigid invalidity.
The prohibition would indicate in this case in validity, such as seven in
basically
for
invalid transaction, because the essence of the transaction is forbidden port as a commodity is not a commodity.
You know, praying is selling during the time of Java
code so is invalid
then they disagree over certain things because they, you know,
fasting on the day of AI, invalid or valid
or invalid according to the majority crowd will be according to the Hanafi although they say it is wrong, they will validate, because the say that prohibition of crossing livery is extraneous to the fast thing, its essence installers its conditions of validity, but the more would say, but it is the prohibition, it pertains to an inseparable attribute is the profit for bid The very first thing on the day of me, you cannot separate that this is the day of or even from fasting, you fasted on the day in which it is prohibited to fast so that you more would say, fasting on the day and it is a valid because that prohibition here is pertaining to or pretends to have an inseparable attribute or
a cipher that
all they know, I believe that the majority position is stronger.
The majority position is stronger that the law will come because the prohibition here is truly about capturing the vision of the essence that can summon the essence of color, pillars of law. In addition, the validity of the law or the inseparable attributes of it is a precondition of something extraneous to the law. When the issue with is extraneous to
that would be elsewhere in this particular book, the book of divorce
and next week, we will go over the chapter on explicit and implicit divorce. That was a really productive working on LTE. We'll talk about
fixing divorce,
writing the divorce and legal document or, or stuff like this and divorce is
basically
cannot accept less it
certainly
Shannon's tougher go to work.