Fathwa, - Compensation for Khul' incase husband did not give Mahr

Share ::-

Question
i took khul'a from the man i was married to. correct me, the procedure of khul' is that i have to return the mehr money or any gift or dowry from him, but in india the girl's father gives her dowry which included complete room furniture and kitchen equipments, also i was not given my mehr money, so in my case i have the right to take back complete dowry my father gave me, am i correct? he didnt give me my mehr money so theres no question of returning, he did gave me a gold earrings which i returned to him, tell me what apart from the earrings is his right? the gold which my father gave me on wedding in aslo in his house, does he have the right to claim the dowry n gold as his? also he demanded a large sum of money which was paid to him for khul' was that which he claimed his right? he claimed money n is also not ready to return my dowry, my question is how much right do i have n what are his rights. please clarify
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad, is His slave and Messenger.
Khul' is the separation of a wife from her husband in exchange for some compensation she pays to him. This was previously explained in Fatwa 89039. This compensation depends on their mutual agreement. If you agreed with this man on a specific compensation, and you paid it to him, then you are not required to pay anything else. There is disagreement among the jurists regarding whether the husband may take more than the Mahr )dowry( in the case of Khul'. The prevailing opinion is that the husband does not take more than the Mahr from his wife. We note here that some of the scholars concluded that if the husband harmed his wife )to make her ask for Khul'(, then he is not allowed to take anything for compensation.
However, your husband has no right to take the gold which your father gave to you or any furniture with which he provided you as this is not considered part of the Mahr. Rather, the Mahr is a right for the wife over her husband. There have been previous explanations for the invalidity of the Indian custom of the wife’s family paying the Mahr to the husband and how that contradicts the Sharee‘ah. For more details, please refer to Fataawa 85873and 88939.
As we mentioned, the Mahr is the right of the wife over her husband. Hence, if he specified an amount of Mahr in the contract, then that is her right. If he did not specify an amount, she should receive the same dowry as other woman of the same social status like her. As for the husband, his right is that he takes the agreed upon compensation as mentioned above.
Lastly, we note that these matters that breed dispute cannot be sufficiently dealt with in a Fatwa. Rather, it is best to refer this to the authorities specializing in Islamic judgments in those lands lacking Islamic courts, like Islamic centers, etc.
Allaah Knows best.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Fathwa, - His wife enforced Khul' without his consent

Share ::-

Question
ASAK, My friend was very good person, Whenever his wife does any wrong also he use to advice her not to do like this )fear from ALLAH( but still she was doing wrongs things like that telling lies, backbiting etc., she used to obey her mother families only, but she didn’t care her husband & his family. After somedays she started fighting to go separate but my friend told it is not possible. So she went to her mother house she did not came since from 1½ year afterward she sended the bond paper like khula nama signing on the bond. Whether this relationship is valid or not…….? Without permission of husband she did like this, what if she marry another person. Whether 1st marriage will vailid or not. What can my friend marriage to another girl or should take permission from his 1st wife …………………?
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad, is His slave and Messenger.
Khul’ has some pillars without which it is invalid, among which is the consent of both parties – i.e. the husband and the wife – with the exception of some cases like the Khul’ issued by the arbitrators as stated by the jurists.
Therefore, if this document denotes that this woman has divorced her husband, then divorce is in the hands of the husband as clarified in Fatwa 86780; this is the principle, and the wife is not entitled to issue divorce unless the husband had given her permission to divorce herself from him; there are certain conditions for this.
Since we neither know the content of this document nor the authority who issued it, then we cannot authoritatively assert whether or not the marriage bond is still valid. But in principle, it is still valid as it is known.
Therefore, we advise you to consult the trustworthy Islamic organizations such as the Islamic Centers and the like. For more benefit on the rulings on Khul’, please refer to Fatwa 89039.
If that woman is still the wife of that husband, then it is not permissible for her to marry another man; if she does so, it will be a void marriage. Among the impediments of marriage is that the woman is still the wife of her husband; as Allaah Says about the women whom one is prohibited from marrying )what means(: }And ]also prohibited to you are all[ married women.{]Quran 4:24[
Hence, the first marriage remains in its original state which is validity as we have already discussed.
On the other hand, if the husband is able to be just )between two wives(, then it is permissible for him to marry a second wife and he is not obliged to seek the permission of his first wife as we have already clarified in Fataawa 85948and 84411.
Finally, we would like to point out to the two following matters:
1- The wife is obliged to obey her husband in what is permissible.
2- It is not permissible for the wife to go out of her husband’s home without his permission otherwise she is Naashiz )recalcitrant(. For more benefit on how to treat a recalcitrant wife.
Allaah Knows best.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Dought & clear, - Ruling on a child standing in the row with adults in congregational prayer

Share ::-

I have a 8 years old nephew which Comes to pray with me in the Masjid. I wanted to know that can he stand among two adults in the Congregational prayer. what would be the ruling for this particular issue.
Praise be to Allah
It is permissible for a child who has reached the age of discernment, which is the age of seven years, to stand in the row with adults during the congregational prayer. This is indicated by the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (685) from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: I and an orphan in our house prayed behind the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and my mother Umm Sulaym (prayed) behind us.
The author of‘Awn al-Ma‘bood Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood(2/264) said: If there is one boy, he should stand in the row with the men, and should not stand on his own behind the row. This was the view of as-Subki, and is supported by the hadeeth of Anas. The orphan did not stand on his own; rather he stood in the row with Anas (may Allah be pleased with him). End quote.
Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Bassaam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The majority are of the view that it is valid for a boy to stand in the row in both obligatory and supererogatory (naafil) prayers. They quoted as evidence for that the saheeh hadeeth, because Anas described his companion as an orphan.
The well-known view among the Hanbalis is that it is valid for him to stand in the row in a supererogatory (naafil) prayer, on the basis of this hadeeth, but it is not valid for him to stand in the row in an obligatory prayer. But we have stated previously that the rulings that apply to one of the types of prayer [obligatory or supererogatory] are also applicable to the other type, because their rulings are the same. Anyone who singles out one type of prayer for a ruling has to provide evidence, and there is no evidence in this case.
Therefore the correct view is that of the majority. This view was favoured by Ibn ‘Aqeel among the Hanbalis, and was regarded as correct by Ibn Rajab inal-Qawaa‘id.
Based on that, it may be understood from the hadeeth that it is valid for one who has not yet reached puberty to stand in the row for the prayer, because the word orphan (yateem) refers to someone whose father has died and he has not reached the age of puberty.
End quote fromTayseer al-‘Allaam Sharh ‘Umdat al-Ahkaam(1/106)
It says inFataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah(vol. 2, 6/337): Boys may accompany their fathers or their mothers to the mosque, if there is fear for them [if they are left at home]; there is nothing wrong with that, because that was done at the time of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). But they must be kept under control and not allowed to play about in the mosque and disturb other worshippers. Those who have reached the age of seven or older should be told to do wudoo’ and pray, so that they may get used to doing that and so that they and their parents may earn reward. There is nothing wrong with making them stand in the row, and doing so does not create gaps in the row as the questioner suggested, because their prayer is valid and because the children used to stand in the rows with the adults behind the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
And Allah knows best.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M