Mere Ban Jao (HUM) Zahid Ahmad , Azfar Rehman , Kinza Hashmi - Page 21

Originally posted by: BlueWaters20

Amna and Hasan are wrong. Islamically you are not supposed to give three talaaqs in one go. A man is supposed to give the three divorces across a period of regular intervals, to allow for a chance of potential reconciliation. If a man doesn’t follow these guidelines, and gives three divorces in one go, he is sinful however the divorce remains valid. This is the case for all schools of thought in Islam, to my knowledge, so I’m not sure what Amna and Hassan were talking about. There is no onus on the ex-wife to ‘prove’ she was divorced in this scenario. Her family should take her word for it. If push comes to shove and the ex-husband is refusing to acknowledge what he’s done she can get help from a scholar, who can in this situation enforce the divorce.

Arrre….Amna and Hasan are saying exactly what you are saying.

Originally posted by: columbia

Arrre….Amna and Hasan are saying exactly what you are saying.

Originally posted by: BlueWaters20

lol, sorry I thought you said they were saying three divorces given in one go and privately is not valid. If they were saying that, they would be wrong. Three divorces given in one go and in private is sinful but it is also valid. So in this drama, for instance, Kinzas character has been divorced. Islamically they are no longer married.

ohhhhhh hold on, then there is some nuance I am missing. It’s sinful but valid?! I assumed if it’s not allowed by religion then it’s not valid, so I am wrong in understanding Amna and Hasan?

So this is something immoral by religion by valid by law? Is this how I must interpret it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iFDqo4psCg&t=4411s

pls see from 11:44 onwards

Originally posted by: columbia

ohhhhhh hold on, then there is some nuance I am missing. It’s sinful but valid?! I assumed if it’s not allowed by religion then it’s not valid, so I am wrong in understanding Amna and Hasan?

So this is something immoral by religion by valid by law? Is this how I must interpret it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iFDqo4psCg&t=4411s

pls see from 11:44 onwards

There are different school of thoughts. The opinion is divided on this matter. Some believe that if husband has said talaq three times in one go then talaq has happened.

Some believe that talaq is given over a period of time and triple talaq is actually the instances not the words talaq. So for example if husband at once in an instance said talaq (albeit how many times e.g. main tumhain talaq deta hoon talaq deta hoon talaq deta hoon in one instance) then it will be considered as one talaq. After a duration (and there is difference of opinion on duration as well some believe there should at least be one month gap between one instance and another) if husband is still adamant and says main tumhain talaq deta hoon (albeit however many times) it will be considered as second talaq and so on. Intention is also considered that is the intention should be of continuity and the act should be deliberate (with consideration) and 'masalihat' has not happened in between. Three instances of talaq are considered as complete talaq. So if you consider the duration then a school of thought believes that over four month period talaq should be given.

I belong to a school of though that believes that at least one month gap is to be given between each talaq instance.

I also belong to a school of thought that believes that talaq talaq talaq .. one instance .. divorce 'has not' happened. After that if there is a conflict then wife can file a case. Pakistani law also supports divorce over a time period.

Thank you everyone, for explaining. I was so confused especially after haute review.

Originally posted by: columbia

ohhhhhh hold on, then there is some nuance I am missing. It’s sinful but valid?! I assumed if it’s not allowed by religion then it’s not valid, so I am wrong in understanding Amna and Hasan?

So this is something immoral by religion by valid by law? Is this how I must interpret it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iFDqo4psCg&t=4411s

pls see from 11:44 onwards

Alright I’ve watched what they said and looked into this a bit more and I think I understand where the confusion is coming from. So Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims have different beliefs regarding triple divorce.

The Sunni school of thought is what I said before - triple talaaq in one go is sinful but juridically it is a valid divorce - if a man gives all three divorces in one go then that’s it there’s no going back - they are divorced.

The Shia school of thought is what Amna and Hassan are talking about - triple talaaq in one go only counts as one talaaq. Pakistan is something like 75% Sunni Muslim and 15% Shia, so I’m assuming in this drama they are going to follow the Sunni school and Kinza/Azfars character are divorced.

Ahhhh thank you so much for these detailed explanations. It makes lot of sense. I do hope this is something that the show throws some light on too. It would make for an interesting story no doubt.

But it seems like from both of your posts there is still some confusion on what is legally or judicially acceptable by Pakistani law. am I correct in understanding this?

Originally posted by: columbia

Ahhhh thank you so much for these detailed explanations. It makes lot of sense. I do hope this is something that the show throws some light on too. It would make for an interesting story no doubt.

But it seems like from both of your posts there is still some confusion on what is legally or judicially acceptable by Pakistani law. am I correct in understanding this?

Pakistani law and Islamic jurisprudence are 2 different things. Although Pakistani law is based on 'Sharah' but law has to cater to all parties and separate school of thoughts. Issues related to Islamic jurisprudence are referred to shariat court with representation from different school of thoughts. Triple talaaq was abolished as per Muslim Family Law Ordinance in 1961, Section 7 but shariat court still takes into consideration triple talaaq in one go to cater to the school of thought that considers it valid.

So suppose if there is a conflict between husband and wife that whether divorce has happened or not for example wife says divorce has happened and I don't want to live with this man, husband says yes I said triple talaaq but it is not valid. In this case if the case goes to the court most likely the outcome would be that husband should finalize the divorce possibly over a time period through formal notice as wife does not want to live with husband anymore or she believes that the talaaq has happened.

But if husband totally refuses that I have not even uttered the words I have not even said anything then that is not the issue related to triple talaaq being valid or not but the issue is related to proving whether the triple talaaq was said or not. Then in this case investigation would occur most probably and matter would be decided based on the investigation.