Husband Consent in Khula | Different Arguments and Analysis | Part-3

Evidence of Husband Consent in Hula and Court Jurisdiction: An Analytical Study - Part-3

Husband Consent in Khula | Different Arguments and Analysis | Part-3

The Second Argument:

In light of the opinion of Ibn al-Qayyim, it is argued that ifta'ad occurs when a slave pays the price of his freedom, and both sides agree on this point. Therefore, the consent of both husband and wife is required here.

Analysis:

Again, it is not necessary that the consent of the parties be required in the affidavit.

“Verily, those who disbelieved and will die as disbelievers, if any of them pays a ransom (for deliverance) from the land, it will not be accepted from them. Will be.

In this verse there is the same word as in the blasphemy verse, but here, on the one hand, it is an expression of happy compensation, and on the other hand, an expression of dissatisfaction. In the case of Aftada, the problem is resolved only with the consent of both parties. In such a case, the consent of both parties is required and a decision cannot be made due to the disagreement of the other party, even if only the women are mentioned. It should be noted that there is an explicit statement of disagreement with the other side in the above verse, which is not in the khula verse. The argument is therefore not correct. The authorities are also empowered to decide by involving them in this matter, so what they decide will necessarily be a source of satisfaction for one, and the other will inevitably have to accept it without their consent. Where did this decision come from and was this case mentioned in the hadiths related to qadha? We find the answer in a hadith narrated by Imam Qurtubi with reference to Dar al-Qahtani that the question of the hula was a decision and not a meeting. Movie The Story of Tabitha Ibn Qays Kala

When the news reached Thabit bin Qays, he said, “I accepted the decision of the Messenger of Allah.

The hadith even mentions that Thabit loved his wife very much and hated him very much.

"If you hate him, you will hate him, and you may love him greater than you like him," he said.

Thus, it is said that she (Thabit's wife) hated her husband very much and Thabit loved him very much, but the Messenger of Allah (SAW) separated them out of blasphemy.

And from the words transmitted by Imam Shukani with reference to Dar-ul-Qatani, it is clear that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself received compensation and gave it to his wife Thabit. The Prophet (peace be upon him) took this compensation and left it.

If this notice was given, or if the other side's consent was so necessary that no decision could be made without it, then why did they make it? I was present there and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told Barira (may Allah be pleased with him) that you should not break your marriage with Magit, but he did not obeyed, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) of Allah be upon him and salutations), may Allah bless him and grant him peace) advised them here. . . .

Third Argument:

Likewise, it has been said from the words of Fal Jinnah that with a little thought, one can understand that the words in their context have a clear meaning of the consent of husband and wife.

Analysis:

If, in relation to this argument, it is said that it is not necessary that in a question where two persons are mentioned together, there must also be their agreement. It is not a rule of thumb that the two parties that are always mentioned together also have their own agreement on this matter.

In this case, hula does not need to address husband and wife at the same time. Perhaps only the wife is mentioned here, since this question may come to mind in the same way as the previous verse forbids the husband from receiving compensation. Whether or not the wife is allowed to pay compensation, the problem is solved by the fact that the wife can pay. ؑ And the mention of this young man who was with them during the journey, and when he arrived at the place, he forgot the fish, but Allah Almighty turned to them instead of forgetting.

Ibn Kathir writes in his commentary on this verse:

The lineage of oblivion for them and if they were Joshua it is oblivion

Forgetting was attributed to both of them, although Joshua had the forgetting.

The Fourth Argument:

Apart from these arguments, he had argued from the marriage contract that the one in whose hand the marriage relates means the husband, therefore no one else can end the relationship without the consent of the husband.

Analysis:

This argument is inconclusive and inconclusive because in the interpretation of this verse many commentators have also called him Wali. In addition, a third party has the power to terminate the marriage.