Husband Consent in Khula and Court Jurisdiction | An Analytical Study | Part-2

Evidence of Husband Consent in Hula and Court Jurisdiction: An Analytical Study - Part-2

Husband Consent in Khula and Court Jurisdiction | An Analytical Study | Part-2

Absurd Views and their Arguments:

The decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the khula (3) has been heavily criticized by many Pakistani scholars and it has been noted that the court cannot pronounce the hula without the husband's consent. the spouses will not be able to defend the limits of Allah, then the court may divorce without the consent of the husband. It is disgusting and wrong from a Sharia point of view”.

As far as our study is concerned, almost all the jurists and mujtahids of the Islamic Ummah agree with this point, and the arguments from the Quran and the Sunnah also confirm that blasphemy is a matter of mutual consent of the parties, and no of the parties cannot force the other to do this..."

Almost all scholars who have considered arguments about the necessity of the husband's consent in blasphemy have cited the following arguments:

From this detail it becomes clear that there are three phrases in the blasphemy verse which clearly signify the agreement of husband and wife:

(1) If they are not afraid of Allah's limits

(2) Also in wealth that a woman pays as a ransom

(3) There is no sin on both

They say that (the person in whose hands the marital relationship is) treats her husband according to the instructions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), whose verse makes it clear that the marital relationship is in his hands I am alone, so no one can break this relationship except him.

Analysis of Arguments:

Scholars who are of the opinion that blasphemy is like a case and in which the consent of the parties is required, neither party can force the other in this regard, and no third party has the right to interfere. It comes from Quranic words. that wherever blasphemy is mentioned, husband and wife are mentioned together, so that their consent is also required. However, to resolve any legal issues, the decision is only made after considering all aspects, taking into account the Quranic verses and related hadiths. And Professor Dr. Muhammad Munir said it in the following words: There is no doubt that the later interpretation of the verses of the Quran originates from the case of Habiba and the decision of the Holy Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) is a precedent.

Here is an analysis of the arguments mentioned above:

First Reason:

The first argument that has been made regarding the consent of the husband to blasphemy is that husband and wife are mentioned together in these parts of the verse

إِلَّا َْنْ يَخَافَا أَلَّا يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ

without their consent.

Analysis:

After the words of the verse from which this argument was drawn, the following words follow:

The Almighty says: I am not saved, but I live by it. (Hudud Allah) What is obligatory to them is fine companions and a fine dozen. This order is appreciated by the addressees of rulers and intermediaries, and if these are not rulers.

Allah said (interpretation of the meaning): The decision of these matters depends on the people, even if they are not the ruler.

The same comment is written in the Ruhul Bayan interpretation of this verse:

Ibn Abi Hatim says in his commentary:

The Almighty said, "If you told me about Musa ibn Harun at-Tusi, then you should write to Sana al-Hussein ibn Muhammad al-Marwazi."

Musa ibn Harun at-Tusi (may Allah be pleased with him) told us about it in a text he wrote to me. Shokani in his commentary on Fateh al-Qadir says in his commentary on this verse:

He said: If you do not end with the limits of God, then: if the fear of imams and rulers, or mediators between spouses - and if they do not become rulers and rulers - the limits of God of spouse, they are not like that.

And the word of Allah haftam ala yakima hudud Allah i.e. when those who mediate between imams and rulers, as well as spouses (although they are not classified among imams and rulers ) are afraid of the non-existence of borders. things that were imposed on them both, as described above.

Thus, the interpretation of Haftam shows that in case of blasphemy, not only the husband and the wife are involved in it, but also the authorities and other people, having reached a certain level, and they can decide what is the better for both. the authorities do not receive anything in their jurisdiction and they are just mentioned as a party that only sees the problem, but has no role in solving the problem, so it will be a very strange situation. This is what Syed Maududi said in the following terms:

"If indeed the judge only has the right to hear the case, but has no right to enforce his decision without the person's consent, then it would be pointless to call the judge an authority. " Because the end result of going to him is similar to now no longer going”.