Riyadh al-Saliheen and Women’s Q&A #28

Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim

Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salatu salam ala shuffled and beato most of the Urbino for the Latina Mohamed Salah was asleep a lot of you may have found out that that'd be my lamp Tana. Amen element the out of me. So I want to come off to like what occurred to everybody welcome to our women's class Thursday evening, half three all the Saudi Hain by email and Norway and half the Islamic legal rulings of divorce.

Let's get to it.

We are at the

second Hadith of

the chapter on patience. That's Arabic. That's not what we want.

Hadith number 26 of the entire book.

I'm gonna read from the translation I have a different book, but it's pretty much the same thing. This hadith is on the authority of Abu serried of Hungary or the Allahu anhu, who reported that the certain people from the unsought the companions that were from Medina asked the messenger of allah sallallahu alayhi wa salam.

What did they ask him for? They asked him for

something, whether it was some type of wealth, whether it was money or whether it was some sort of goods or animals or something like that, and he gave it to them. Then they asked him again, and he gave it to them again, and he kept giving. So Allahu Allahu wa salam, until everything that he had was gone.

The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam then said, what ever wealth I have, I will not withhold it from you.

Or I will hoard it and keep it away from you or conceal it.

Whosoever would be modest and chaste, Allah will keep him modest and chaste. And whoever would seek self sufficiency, Allah will make him self sufficient and whoever would be patient, Allah will give him patience. And no one is granted a gift better or more comprehensive than patients.

This hadith is both in Sahih al Bukhari and Muslim so it is agreed upon its authenticity.

This is a very profound Hadith.

The first thing that we notice is that the Prophet Alayhi Salatu was Salam was the most generous person.

Okay?

When it comes to you and me,

it's hard for us.

Rather, it's impossible for us usually, to have the type of relationship to giving at the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had.

And he declares it here and not out of pride. But out of simple matter of factness. He said, I'm not going to keep anything from you. If you ask me for something I'm going to give it to you.

Which is a promise

that we would find bordering on insanity.

It would be a promise that none of us myself, including would be willing to commit to.

And it would be against every sort of internal feeling that we have, we would be too afraid

of people

running up the tab and taking advantage

of our willingness.

We would not be able to be patient and rely on a Las Palmas Allah in this in a similar social situation. We would have to say no.

We have to draw boundaries. We would have things to say to somebody who would be as persistent in asking us as the people the companions were.

In asking the prophets Allah holiday was

what enabled the Prophet alayhi salatu salam to be so generous

US,

compared to us, or compared to other people,

there's more than one correct answer. One of the things that stands out is his realization.

And his embodiment of the fact that nothing is truly yours.

That everything that we have

is a gift more appropriately, alone,

from Allah subhanho wa taala. And everything that we have, we're going to be asked about how did we use it?

Did we put it in the service of goodness, whether that goodness is for our family or for our community or even for ourselves? We have a responsibility. There's no, there's no unconditional ownership.

Right, a more materialistic understanding of the universe would imagine this kind of unrestricted,

unequivocal

unconditional ownership, if I have something extremely valuable, this library behind me is worth about $10,000. If I wanted to set it all on fire, and destroy it, you know, the materialist mind, if it's consistent, it would have to say it would have to say, well, it's your property you can do with it what you want.

Right?

God forbid, you know, you do something you trespass on someone's property in the United States, we have a very, very strong ethic of personal property. Right. And we kind of look suspiciously at people who would, you know, push the boundaries of that personal property.

In Islam, yes, we have the ownership of private property. Islam is not a communistic sort of

society or, or economic system. However, however, that ownership of property is conditional. It is not unconditional. It is conditional upon good use, as defined by Allah subhanaw taala. It has to be beneficial to you and to others, either in this life and preferably in the next. And if you have extra, if you have extra, you better be prepared to give everything that we're given from Allah azza wa jal. It's an opportunity. It's part of our capital. We imagine ourselves as we're in this world as kind of like a trader, we're a trader of our time, our talents and our energies and our possessions. And the law has gifted us everything, or at least loaned it to us, and he's going to

call back the loan on the day of judgment. And so there might be opportunities, people come to you and they ask you for something and it's easy for you

to comply and to say, yes, but you out of stinginess, maybe you don't. This happens to all of us.

So Allah azza wa jal is going to ask you about that moment.

This is the last I have sold to Katherine. That's a Sedona and in Noreen.

You will all be asked about every single blessing that you have. So the prophets of Allah who lives everything comes back to your belief, and Allah has power. And we don't mean belief in the sense of the English word belief, which is like something that you kind of think is true. But in the Arabic word AMA, it's not possible to separate it from something that you live, something that you embody something that you prove every day with your actions, the prophets of Allah what He was, someone believed that nothing was truly his. He believed that everything came from Allah subhanaw taala. And that's what gave him the freedom and the liberation from stinginess that people could come to him

and ask and ask and ask and ask and he would always give it and then other a hadith we have that the Prophet SAW I said, I'm never turn somebody down for asking him of something, unless he was literally unable to do it.

Which sets the bar extremely high.

So when he says I won't hold anything away from you, or I won't withhold anything from you, he's being honest, he's not bragging. This was the way the prophets of Allah holiday was Saddam was

the second thing that we noticed from this hadith and this is very interesting is the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam

wasn't just going to

sit and take impolite behavior. Okay,

It was a test of his character that he would be asked and asked and asked in kind of this. Less than polite kind of this rude way this inconsiderate, we could say, the very least an inconsiderate way, it's inconsiderate to keep asking for something

you have any more, what else you got? That's basically what the companions were doing to him.

Right? This is something that's extremely bold, most of us would be very, very embarrassed in this sort of situation.

So the prophets, Allah is something he gives, and he gives, and he recognizes the the test of character that is in the moment of being asked and giving, but he also has a role as teacher.

He's not simply going to meekly give it and say, Okay, be on your way. See you next time.

He recognizes that the their orientation to the things that he has is not correct.

But he also knows that it would be self serving and perhaps selfish to refuse them due to their inconsideration.

So he indulges them, but he also gives them something better than the physical thing that he gave them. He taught them.

What he teaches them is something sweet, short, to the point, three things.

One word, which is translated in various ways. Let's see, this translation you have up on your screen is

refrains, which is a good, a good,

a good translation. What's the Arabic is yes staff, beef?

Well, then your staff if in the translation I have that says to be chaste and modest. Another possible translation is to be shy

right now.

And I Fafa. The one form of this word, yes, it also, it often has to do with chastity. But it's a general concept that I think is more close to being shy and modest, and refraining and it's more suitable to the situation because they're not asking him for anything but money and things right. So it would make sense to the Prophet SAW, I said, I wouldn't be giving them a lesson not in chastity. But in shyness,

there was a a moment of inconsideration here in which they were not demonstrating the requisite amount of shyness.

Nor were they refraining and so the Prophet SAW Islam teaches them about shyness or Rift or restraint or refraining, independence and self sufficiency. And finally, patients.

Look at how he tailors the message to exactly what they need. All of these three things are essential.

He doesn't merely berate them for their core behavior.

He doesn't say what's wrong with you guys, nor does he blame them by naming kind of their sin, he doesn't name and shame. You guys are greedy, you guys or you don't know how to act.

Instead, he responds to something that's less than good with that which is better.

He teaches he emphasizes the positive. He gives them something to strive for and attain.

And he puts the ball in their court, whether they're going to accept it or not.

And he clarifies, he says, if I had anything more, I would not keep it for you. He's showing that this is not a conflict of interest here. He's not just telling them this, to get out of giving them things.

And he backs up this statement by actually coming through following through and delivering the goods, but he can't let them get away with just that. And so he teaches them whoever refrains or is shy to ask, Allah will spare them from needing to ask in the first place.

Whoever wants to be independent or self sufficient, Allah will make him independent and self sufficient. Whoever shows fortitude and this other translation patience, over shows patience, Allah will grant him more patience.

And no one can be given any better and greater gift that patience or fortitude. Saba.

So the Prophet Muhammad SAW is that um, he's striking at the root of the problem. He's not treating the out

Word form, he's taking it back to the level of belief, just as his superior generosity was a fruit that flowered from his pure belief and his strong belief, the fruit of their action is a result and consequence of an insufficient belief on their part.

They're scared, they're afraid. They believe a little too much in cause and effects a little bit too much in the rat race in the way of the world.

They haven't relied upon Allah, they haven't learned to be patient

in their moments of need.

And so they are moved from that to desperation, that lack of reliance upon Allah.

And so they ask, and they ask, and they ask, and they don't stop asking because they're afraid this might be their last chance, they ask until it's all gone.

So the Prophet sallallaahu Salam, he seeks to correct their incorrect belief.

And he knows that the correct action and behavior is going to flow from that correct belief.

Whoever holds themself and is shy and refrains, Allah will spare them from ever even having to ask in the first place, whoever wishes to be independent, Allah will make themselves and whoever is patient, Allah will make them even more patient, and patience is a greater gift. So now he shows them he flips their fear, and shows them the greatest thing that they could get isn't what they asked for. It's actually the patience that they lack.

The last thing that we learned from this hadith before we move on to the second half of classes,

that charity is a two way street.

Charity requires generosity from the one who gives and shyness and restraint from the one who asks, or the one who takes even better.

And when either part of this equation falls into extreme charity is ruined.

If the person who has

become stingy instead of generous, it puts the poor and needy in a place of desperation, so that they have to ask, and they humiliate themselves by asking.

And similarly, if the poor and needy do not have the requisite patience,

they get desperate. And they start to ask too much they have not relied properly upon Allah, then the wealthy and those with means will withhold and will become stingy. It's a very delicate balance, a very delicate balance that requires give and take. Giving requires trust. It requires the one who is asking to be known to be trustworthy. What are they going to use it for? What's their actual need? Is it a legitimate need?

And it requires accountability.

The person who has wealth in a community is accountable to the needy of that community.

There is a right

for the poor upon the wealth of the rich.

That is true. And neither extreme is desirable. Neither are we like

Islam is not

like for example,

certain communist societies where we're just going to take everything from wealthy people and redistributed nor are we like some extreme versions of capitalist societies where everybody just makes whatever they make and they have no responsibility towards the other. Oh, Islam Alhamdulillah like with everything is right down the middle of balance between the two extremes.

Anybody have any questions before we move on to the stuff that would divorce

It's

okay, if you have one, you can still send it at all. I'll get to I see.

Okay.

So now that we've covered the types of divorce, okay, we've covered

all AP, which is your conventionally understood divorce. And we have covered Hola, which is, I don't know what we want to translate it as maybe annulment something like this, a type of divorce that's initiated by the wife. And we've covered all the sort of rules regarding that. And we've even covered a third type, which is called Tim leak or tap here, which is where the husband actually gives the rights of that first type of divorce on up to his wife, and his wife avails herself of that opportunity. Now we're going to cross over into the pillars are the essential elements of divorce. Okay, and this is going to take a bit more time than the previous chapters. So there's

three essential

there's three essential

pieces, or aspects or pillars of divorce, the first has to do with the words that are used the formula,

right, which words indicate that someone has been divorced, or do not indicate that someone has been divorced? You would be surprised as to how much discussion there is around these sorts of issues, there's quite a bit.

The second main pillar

is

home or from home is it is of divorce permissible.

And this will make more sense when we get back there's significantly less issues that have to do with that. But they also have to do with

the state of the wife, Is she pregnant? Is she

in her? Is she menstruating? Etc, etc. And finally, the last, the last

pillar, or the last essential element of divorce? Is

getting into the nitty gritty of who can be divorced and who can't or in what situations is it possible? And in what situations is a divorce not valid. And all of this, those two last chapters are fairly small. The biggest chapter has to do with talking about terms formula, what words constitute a divorce and what words do not. There are only two points of consensus in this chapter, according to Eros is the author of this comparative fifth book.

He says that there is consensus from the scholars that divorce occurs and is valid, if it has two components. Okay? If it has the intention of divorce, and it has explicit

wording,

if you have intention and explicit wording, then there is consensus that that is an announcement of divorce, the clock starts ticking this whole thing that we talked about before. Okay. If that's the point of consensus, then it should imply or we should be able to infer from that the points upon which there are disagreements, such as Okay, what if it happens without intention? Or what if it happens with implicit as opposed to explicit language, we will get there.

The second point of consensus is that the word itself divorce is explicit. There is no possible way to reinterpret the word divorce into anything other than explicit, which should tell us already that if someone comes, and they say, they have the intention, and they say, they use the word divorce, and then they wanted to kind of weasel out of it. And they want to say, no, that's not what I meant, then that's an extremely suspicious situation that doesn't really isn't really given any thought for consideration. But we'll get to specifics when it comes to these sorts of issues. Because, as you can tell, and someone in my position can gladly offer examples where we have people who claim that

they didn't say such and such a thing, or that they didn't mean such and such a thing when they said what they said. So this chapter mostly gives us a rubric or a way to kind of evaluate these claims, according to what exactly was said and what I

exactly was intended.

Okay? There we can consider all formula or all words

that can be claimed

as announcements or pronouncements of divorce to fall into four categories, okay? We have explicit at the top, okay? Then we have implicit.

Then below implicit, we have something like possible.

And then we have a fourth level, which is below that. So we're going to run through those four levels of explicitness when it comes to things that are set. And one drawback, and this is something that is a

a need, in fact, is that in classical books of Islamic law, all of this discussion is using Arabic terms. And I'm unaware of any sort of discussion or book that zones in or zeroes in on English terms, because a lot of these things can be translated in different ways. And you'll see it has consequences. So that would be a very useful book to have. And maybe we'll write one one day shall we'll see.

So the first question is, okay, we said that the word divorce or lack a lock to key if somebody said,

right, I divorced you, or I'm divorcing, you are such and such a thing.

We agree 100% consensus that this is explicit, this is an explicit statement.

Are there any other explicit statements, or explicit terms for divorce, other than the word divorce? This is our first issue of disagreement.

The majority,

the majority Malik and Abu Hanifa, and even athma. They say that this is the only true explicit term for divorce,

to use the word divorce.

Whereas everything else they say, would have to be on those other levels, either implicit or possible, or less than that.

What's the stake in this issue? The stake in this issue is that if a certain terminology is deemed explicit, then right away that divorce happens, we don't need to go into

any sort of further questioning as to what was intended or what was meant or anything like this. And we'll see that in a second because this issue will come up actually the following issue. Is the intention required or not?

Even I'm a chef, he he dissented. He dissented from the majority. He said that no, there are other possible terms other than divorce, which are considered explicit, such as alpha rock, which we would translate perhaps as separation.

Okay, we can see already how this is a rich issue with the English language because in English culture, separation and divorce are literally two separate things.

So now, this issue has consequences. If we take the side of the majority, then it concurs with family law in the United States, where if someone says divorce, that means divorce. And if someone says separation, it might not mean divorce, or it might mean divorce, it depends.

Whereas according to the amount of Shafi

if someone says they want a separation, this is divorce explicitly.

So we can see that this issue has consequences. It's not just a theoretical issue.

And the reason for this disagreement is, is one particular word, one specific word required to enact this legal mechanism of divorce, or is this something where anything that can stand in in its place and take on the same meaning is required?

For example, for example,

when you begin your prayer, you say Allahu Akbar, okay? It's like a formula that unlocks the process of the Salah.

And according to the majority, though, not everyone, interestingly enough, that's the only thing that you can say to unlock that mechanism or begin that process of the prayer.

There's different there's some disagreement about that about that.

or what have you say, Allahu Allah lien?

Allah who can be?

There's some scholars, though there are few, though there are a few that say that that actually is permissible. But at the same sort of issue, the whole point of bringing that up is the so it's the same sort of issue. Is divorce so ritualistic that we require a specific formula to unleash it? Or is it something that's just not ritualistic? But it's something that's just common sense. And so any old phrase, that means that same thing, either explicitly or in context, unleashes this type of this type of process, this legal procedure.

The next issue is,

does divorce require intention?

That means if someone uses an explicit formula, according to the disagreement we just talked about, either according to the majority, they say, I want to divorce you, or you're divorced.

Or I'm divorcing.

But they legitimately, we're not going to cover we'll get to issues where that's a lie. But legitimately they didn't mean actual divorce.

Is divorce, again, this sort of ritualistic kind of process that's unleashed by this formula, despite whether the person intends it or not?

Or is it something that requires an intention to accompany a particular formula?

This does have consequences when it comes to the burden of proof. If somebody made a specific explicit pronouncement of divorce, and then backtracks,

and says, Well, that's not really what I meant. And so the majority of scholars, Abu Hanifa, and Shafia and APA, they say, No, we don't look at the intention.

Because if you use a word that explicit, it means that that's what you meant.

We don't need to go into it. So you see how they're trying to prevent people from playing around.

Or as Malik emo Malik, he dissented and he said, Well, technically, technically, technically, it requires intention.

But we'll see in the next issue, how the results are actually the same with all of the four legal schools. So the next issue is, Okay, what if then, according to those issues, somebody says, wife, you are divorced, and then they're questioned and say, Oh, no, wait a second, I didn't really mean that.

I meant something else. I meant that I didn't like the dinner that she cooked tonight, or I meant that, you know, she should change her hairstyle, or something stupid.

Do we accept such a statement from such a person?

All the 14 members said no, we do not

know that's considered divorce. You can't play around with this sort of thing.

The reasons for how they arrived to that conclusion are different according to the previous issue. So we have the our Hanifa and Shafi and Atman.

Who said that you we don't even look at such a statement because

the intention wasn't required in the first place. He said what he said.

Whereas Malik said, Okay, it's possible that he didn't really mean it. But if we were to allow such an exception, then it would cause so much havoc and chaos, that divorce would be kind of meaningless. And so said than live video. He said blocking the kind of, here's the slippery slope argument.

Because we don't want people to abuse this. I'm saying that such a statement is not acceptable. We do not pay any mind to somebody who uses such explicit language.

And then claims that that's not what they meant. Whereas then ceased to have meaning I can say whatever I want and it can mean anything. You're playing around.

Good.

Okay, that's not so important. Okay, moving on to the next level of explicitness. So this all covered explicit statements of divorce according to the differing opinions between the majority and Imam Shafi as to what exactly is left the study is an explicit statement.

What about the next level now?

What about things that are common

phrases that the

ascribe divorce, I'm leaving you, it's over,

pack your bags, right? Or whatever, you know, like we can. This is where the witnesses where we really need, we really need a little book in English to explore the common sort of phrases that are used in the English language and to separate them according to these kinds of categories that the classical scholars have talked about. Okay, you find a wealth of opinions and different opinions on this issue.

For example, Ilana Shaffir, he says that

anything that is not explicit, but that is implicit, then it depends on what the person intended.

Whereas, Mr. Malik, he represents the opposite side, the opposite end of the spectrum, he says, No, if he uses these things that are culturally understood to mean this thing, then we don't need to ask them what they meant. Everyone knows that that means a certain thing in this particular culture. And

we do take into account things that are culturally normative in certain areas of Islamic law, and this is one of them.

And so we have this kind of tension. And this is where the scholars why they have dispersed on the spectrum, whether we prioritize the formula of what set or whether we prioritize the intention behind the words.

And they fall on a various spectrum between those two poles.

Going to the next level down, so not just things that are implicit, common expressions for divorce and separation, but one level lower than that things that possibly could mean divorce and separation.

Right.

I don't know, we could probably each think of some right. I can't take this anymore. I'm going back to my parents house.

Maybe Maybe things like that. Again, this is something that needs more more thought.

How do we make sense of these sorts of situations? The majority

or I should say a good number of scholars says that this doesn't count as divorce even if it is intended.

Whereas Imam Shafi

and even Achmed and Malik, they say that note if He intended it, if he intended divorced by it, and he admits that he intended it, then this is divorce.

Anything less than that?

In probability, so we have explicit words of divorce, and then we have implicit. And then we have possible that we have things that are really out there that nobody really recognizes as standing in for an announcement of divorce. And saying, you know, in Arabic, right, like, or let's just say in English, if somebody said, it's time to change the doormat, or something like this, right? Nobody would understand that as meaning that, you know, you want to divorce that's not in our that's not in our English idiom, in this place, in this part of the world. If somebody claimed that when they said that they intended an announcement of divorce, the majority of scholars said that's nothing. That

doesn't count that

divorce is not reckoned or is not enacted from such a statement, except for Malik Malik dissented, because recall that he's the one that prioritizes intention. And he said that if he intended it, and he admits that he intended by this phrase divorce, then whatever he has intended, is what occurs.

A final Okay, one more issue, I guess, and we'll conclude with that.

So there's one issue here about any sort of statement that covers words that involve haram, your haram for me, right? Or something like that, that kind of allude to a ruling on a woman as if she were divorced. Okay. This is the last issue and then all the issues after that, that have to do with these formula what is said for divorced, they have to do with exceptions, exceptions and conditions, which is what

The next class. So what if somebody says, if my, if my mother wants me to get divorced and you're divorced? What if somebody says that? Or what if somebody says, if,

you know, Mohammed walks through the door, and within five minutes, then you're divorced. Or if the sun rises from the east tomorrow, you're divorced. That's a final law. It seems strange. But regretfully, people play around with this stuff all the time. And it's not from the sun, to play around with this sort of thing with the issue of divorce, and these sorts of threats and things like that. But the fluffy, the Mufti, the person who's involved in dealing with the issues of people, he has to look at these situations, because this is what people do. This is what people do, regrettably. And so he has to look at all of these issues and decide, okay, what is the proper

procedure? What should we judge this as, so that will all be next class, the final issue for tonight has to do with any sort of statement that involves haram? Such and such a person is haram, for me, your hunt on for me from now on? Et cetera, et cetera? Is this sort of thing given any weights or not? There are eight, eight different opinions on this issue.

So it's all over the place. Scholars were very conflicted as to how to deal with this issue. Mmm Akhmed likened it to the hall this other sort of thing in

in divorce law, which we don't really have time to get into right now. Even on the Shafi, he said that whatever he intended is what happened.

Email Malik said that it is counted

as a divorce. Immediately three divorces, the whole thing is over. And you find a

Yeah. Oh, yeah. So that Cola, thank you very much. Exactly. If you go outside, you're divorced. Those sorts of issues where we'll be talking about next class, Inshallah, this last issue, this last issue of caffeine, it's all over the place, there's no one preponderant opinion, you found that on the mat split all over the place.

And the issue is, when you find an issue like that, because there's no direct pneus, there's no text, there's no court, and there's no hobby to really address these sorts of situations. And so the scholars, they had to rely on the best legal reasoning that they could. And

so they differ widely into how to categorize it. And so there's really nothing more than I can say about it.

But Exactly,

that's exactly what we're talking about if you go outside. So we'll see next week in sha Allah, what if the condition is placed upon something that is certain to happen, or something that is likely to happen, or something that might happen? Or the condition is placed upon something that is the action of themselves, or the action of their spouse, or the action of something that's doesn't make sense, like an animal or something like this? Right, so we're gonna deal with all of these crazy issues. Next week, inshallah. Does anybody have any questions before we

depart for tonight?

Okay, good night insha Allah See you next time.