7th October 2021
Question: The man said the following to his wife in a heated argument. Here is his full statement. “Gosh I still tried to make this so-called relationship work because of nikaah I was so stupid I should have left u when I found out about your bad habits. Your mother who is a divorcee knows about her life but she still chose a divorce for u as well – where is the shame in that. You don’t know the value of nikah or the importance of it. A woman like you who ruined her marriage without the blink of eye. U don’t know what marriage is? What nikah is? Now you have ruined your marriage after using me you have started a relationship with someone else. How can you value nikah? I am well rid of u now, good riddance to bad rubbish and that’s the end of it. Don’t ever contact me again.” What type of Talaq has taken place?
الجواب حامداً و مصلياً
In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Answer
In reference to your query by uttering such words constitute one irrevocable divorce. From the above statement, there is no clear mention of the word divorce. However, looking at the context of the full conversation we can deduce that statements such as “I am well rid of u now…that’s the end of it”[1] and “Now you have ruined your marriage after using me” within such a context are ambiguously[2] referring to divorce[3], hence an irrevocable divorce would imply from the use of these sentences even if he later on denies it. [4]
[Allāh Knows Best]
Written by: Mufti Anas Mullah Reviewed by: Mufti Abdul Waheed
Attested by: Shaykh Mufti Saiful Islam
JKN Fatawa Department
[1]Ibn Ābideen, Durrul Mukhtār wa hashiyah Ibn Ābideen Shāmi, Kitābul Talaaq, Bāb Alkinayaat, vol 3 p. 298
وَأَمَّا حَالَةُ الْمُذَاكَرَةِ فَتُصَدَّقُ مَعَ كُلٍّ مِنْهُمَا بَلْ لَا يُتَصَوَّرُ سُؤَالُهَا الطَّلَاقَ إلَّا فِي إحْدَى الْحَالَتَيْنِ لِأَنَّهُمَا ضِدَّانِ لَا وَاسِطَةَ بَيْنَهُمَا…(قَوْلُهُ انْتَقِلِي) مِثْلُ اُخْرُجِي وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ
[2] Fatawa Hindiyyah, Kitāb al-Talaaq, Bāb fi Eeqaa’ al talaaq, Fasl fil Kinaayat vol 1, p. 375
وَالْأَحْوَالُ ثَلَاثَةٌ (حَالَةُ) الرِّضَا (وَحَالَةُ) مُذَاكَرَةِ الطَّلَاقِ بِأَنْ تَسْأَلَ هِيَ طَلَاقَهَا أَوْ غَيْرُهَا يَسْأَلُ طَلَاقَهَا (وَحَالَةُ) الْغَضَبِ فَفِي حَالَةِ الرِّضَا لَا يَقَعُ الطَّلَاقُ فِي الْأَلْفَاظِ كُلِّهَا إلَّا بِالنِّيَّةِ وَالْقَوْلُ قَوْلُ الزَّوْجِ فِي تَرْكِ النِّيَّةِ مَعَ الْيَمِينِ وَفِي حَالَةِ مُذَاكَرَةِ الطَّلَاقِ يَقَعُ الطَّلَاقُ فِي سَائِرِ الْأَقْسَامِ قَضَاءً إلَّا فِيمَا يَصْلُحُ جَوَابًا وَرَدَّا فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُجْعَلُ طَلَاقًا كَذَا فِي الْكَافِي
[3] Fatawa Hindiyyah, Kitāb al-Talaaq, Bāb fi Eeqaa’ al talaaq, Fasl fil Kinaayat vol 1, p. 375
وَلَوْ قَالَ فِي حَالِ مُذَاكَرَةِ الطَّلَاقِ بَايَنْتُك أَوْ أَبَنْتُك أَوْ أَبَنْت مِنْك أَوْ لَا سُلْطَانَ لِي عَلَيْك أَوْ سَرَّحْتُك أَوْ وَهَبْتُك لِنَفْسِك أَوْ خَلَّيْت سَبِيلَك أَوْ أَنْتِ سَائِبَةٌ أَوْ أَنْتِ حُرَّةٌ أَوْ أَنْتِ أَعْلَمُ بِشَأْنِك. فَقَالَتْ: اخْتَرْت نَفْسِي. يَقَعُ الطَّلَاقُ وَإِنْ قَالَ لَمْ أَنْوِ الطَّلَاقَ لَا يُصَدَّقُ قَضَاءً
[4] Usool al-shashi,Fasl fi Al Sareeh wal Kinaayah, pg 68
وَالْكِنَايَة هِيَ مَا استتر مَعْنَاهُ وَحكم الْكِنَايَة ثُبُوت الحكم بهَا عِنْد وجود النِّيَّة أَو بِدلَالَة الْحَال إِذْ لَا بُد لَهُ من دَلِيل يَزُول بِهِ التَّرَدُّد