"And both are permissible for one who divorced her less than three times, like a revocable divorce"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said "And both are permissible for one who divorced her less than three times, like a revocable divorce". Now, "both are permissible"—the passive subject refers to what?
The questioner : Explicit proposal.
The Shaykh : Explicit and implicit proposal for whom? That is, for a man who divorced her, meaning the woman in her waiting period, less than three times. We mentioned several examples of types of divorce; among them was?
The questioner : Divorce for compensation.
The Shaykh : Divorce for compensation. Divorce for compensation is a final divorce from her husband, but is it the final divorce of three, or the minor final divorce? It is the minor final divorce. Now, if someone other than her husband proposes to her?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
Another questioner: It is forbidden.
The Shaykh : It is forbidden?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : My brothers? How does he say it? Glory be to Allah, do you forget from this grammar? If someone other than her husband proposes to her, it is permissible implicitly, not explicitly. If her husband proposes to her, it is permissible explicitly and implicitly. That is why he said "both are permissible," meaning explicit and implicit proposal, for one who divorced her less than three times. So the husband may come to his wife whom he divorced for compensation and say, "Marry yourself to me," explicitly, right?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And it is permissible for me to say, "I desire to return to you." The first is explicit and the second is implicit. Is it permissible? Now, if she says, "There is no objection, I agree," is it permissible for him to marry her during her waiting period?
The questioner : Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is no problem. The waiting period is for him. If they said, "There is no obstacle if you return to us, then we will return to you," it is permissible to contract the marriage for him. So the woman divorced less than three times is permissible for the one who divorced her to do what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : To propose to her explicitly, and to propose to her explicitly and implicitly. Now, the author's statement "less than three times", and what about three times? For three times, it is not permissible to propose to her, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Her husband who divorced her three times is not permitted to propose to her, neither explicitly nor implicitly, because he has no way to marry her until she marries another husband. For example, a man divorced his wife, then took her back, then divorced her, then took her back, then divorced her. This third divorce is a major final divorce; she is not lawful for him until she marries another husband. Is it permissible for him to propose to her implicitly?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Explicitly? No. Now, why? Because she is forbidden to him, because he has no way to marry her. She is forbidden to him. Would a man propose to his wife, for example? No, it is not possible because she is forbidden to him. Would he propose to his wife's sister?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, because she is forbidden to him. So long as marrying her is forbidden to him, it is not permissible for him to propose to her, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
The author said "like a revocable divorce". This is a comparison, right? I do not have a pronoun here, but in any case, the one with a pronoun does not prevent this. This comparison is a comparison that requires consideration. Why? Because a revocable divorce does not require a proposal. Taking back his wife requires a proposal and a contract, or does it not? Absolutely not. Two witnesses are present, he says, "I have taken back my wife," and it is done. So this analogy by the author, may Allah have mercy on him, is an analogy that requires consideration, and that is because there is no proposal in taking back a wife in a revocable divorce. The reason?
The questioner : Because she is his wife.
The Shaykh : Because she is his wife, he only has to say, "I have taken back my wife," or have intercourse with her with the intention of taking her back. Now.
The questioner : Explicit proposal.
The Shaykh : Explicit and implicit proposal for whom? That is, for a man who divorced her, meaning the woman in her waiting period, less than three times. We mentioned several examples of types of divorce; among them was?
The questioner : Divorce for compensation.
The Shaykh : Divorce for compensation. Divorce for compensation is a final divorce from her husband, but is it the final divorce of three, or the minor final divorce? It is the minor final divorce. Now, if someone other than her husband proposes to her?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
Another questioner: It is forbidden.
The Shaykh : It is forbidden?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : My brothers? How does he say it? Glory be to Allah, do you forget from this grammar? If someone other than her husband proposes to her, it is permissible implicitly, not explicitly. If her husband proposes to her, it is permissible explicitly and implicitly. That is why he said "both are permissible," meaning explicit and implicit proposal, for one who divorced her less than three times. So the husband may come to his wife whom he divorced for compensation and say, "Marry yourself to me," explicitly, right?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And it is permissible for me to say, "I desire to return to you." The first is explicit and the second is implicit. Is it permissible? Now, if she says, "There is no objection, I agree," is it permissible for him to marry her during her waiting period?
The questioner : Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, there is no problem. The waiting period is for him. If they said, "There is no obstacle if you return to us, then we will return to you," it is permissible to contract the marriage for him. So the woman divorced less than three times is permissible for the one who divorced her to do what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : To propose to her explicitly, and to propose to her explicitly and implicitly. Now, the author's statement "less than three times", and what about three times? For three times, it is not permissible to propose to her, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Her husband who divorced her three times is not permitted to propose to her, neither explicitly nor implicitly, because he has no way to marry her until she marries another husband. For example, a man divorced his wife, then took her back, then divorced her, then took her back, then divorced her. This third divorce is a major final divorce; she is not lawful for him until she marries another husband. Is it permissible for him to propose to her implicitly?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Explicitly? No. Now, why? Because she is forbidden to him, because he has no way to marry her. She is forbidden to him. Would a man propose to his wife, for example? No, it is not possible because she is forbidden to him. Would he propose to his wife's sister?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, because she is forbidden to him. So long as marrying her is forbidden to him, it is not permissible for him to propose to her, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
The author said "like a revocable divorce". This is a comparison, right? I do not have a pronoun here, but in any case, the one with a pronoun does not prevent this. This comparison is a comparison that requires consideration. Why? Because a revocable divorce does not require a proposal. Taking back his wife requires a proposal and a contract, or does it not? Absolutely not. Two witnesses are present, he says, "I have taken back my wife," and it is done. So this analogy by the author, may Allah have mercy on him, is an analogy that requires consideration, and that is because there is no proposal in taking back a wife in a revocable divorce. The reason?
The questioner : Because she is his wife.
The Shaykh : Because she is his wife, he only has to say, "I have taken back my wife," or have intercourse with her with the intention of taking her back. Now.