Fatwa ID: 08707

 

 

Answered by: Maulana Abdurrahman Mohammad

 

Question:

 

“If his anger is such that he loses control of his ability to make the conscious decision, most of his speech is slurred, anger takes over as the driver and his conscious is a far distanced second to such an extent he loses self-control of his words and actions, then a divorce will not occur.”

 

Does this apply to a person who is still aware of his surroundings but due to the inability to think clearly, and his judgment is clouded by let’s say a partner who provokes but provides no support in resolving it or tries to calm the situation and instead remains quiet similar to baiting?

 

I can’t say emotional manipulation as I would not know the person’s intention. But this pressure of feeling as if there is no way out even though the intention for the one is to try and sort it out at the time but anger escalates due to unresponsiveness in the partner, leading to this state of ghalaq where you feel compelled to say or act in a certain way and anger just builds up on this feeling, should divorce apply to him especially if divorce wasn’t what he wanted but the lack of clarity led to this mental disorientation. 

 

 

 

 

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

 

Answer:

 

The ruling on divorce (Talāq) given in anger depends on the mental state of the person and the level of anger involved. Divorce does not take effect if pronounced by someone who is mentally impaired or unable to exercise rational judgment. This includes insane people and those permanently or temporarily devoid of rational capacity. Unconscious and sleeping individuals will also fall under this category. The Pen is lifted from the minor, the insane person and the sleeper.^[1]

 

 

Based on this, if the anger reaches a level where the person loses control over their actions and speech and renders them unaware of their words and surroundings, only then will the Talāq not occur. In all other situations of anger, Talāq will occur. Anger is categorized into three types and will be explained below.

 

 

Mild Anger (Initial Stage)

 

The person remains rational and aware of their words and actions. In this state, if they issue a divorce, it is valid because they are considered in control of their faculties. Al-Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim al-Hanbali has a treatise on divorce in anger, in which he said: It is of three types: One of them is that he has the beginnings of anger, such that his mind does not change and he knows what he is saying and intends, and there is no objection in this.^[2]

 

 

Extreme Anger (Insanity-Like State)

 

The anger is so intense that it resembles insanity. The person loses awareness of their surroundings, becomes unable to understand or intend their words, and speaks without conscious thought or rationality. In this state, divorce does not take effect, as it is considered similar to the actions of an insane person. The second is that he reaches the end and does not know what he is saying or what he wants. There is no doubt that nothing he says will be implemented.^[3]

 

Intermediate Anger (Clouded Judgment)

 

The person is angry to the point that their judgment is clouded, but they still retain partial awareness of their words and actions. The person feels emotionally overwhelmed and mentally disoriented due to anger but has not reached the point of insanity. The person acts out of compulsion or an inability to think clearly but retains some awareness of their surroundings and speech. Scholars differ regarding this state. The most correct view is that divorce takes effect because some elements of reason and intent remain.

 

 

The third is the one who is in between the two levels, such that he does not become like a madman. This is the subject of consideration and evidence of the invalidity of his statements … It may be answered that since the insane person is continuing in one state that can be controlled, it is considered in him and it is sufficient in him to have a mere lack of reason, unlike anger, which is an accident in some cases, but astonishment befalls him, so it is like that. What appears to me is that neither the astonished nor the angry person necessarily has to be in a state where he does not know what he is saying, but rather it is sufficient for him to be in a state of delirium and for seriousness to be mixed with jest, as is the fatwa issued regarding the drunkard, as mentioned above. This is not contradicted by the definition of astonishment as the loss of reason, for madness is of many kinds.^[4]

 

 

This perspective is further supported by the analogy of divorce pronounced by a drunkard or a coerced person where the Talāq is considered valid, as both retain a degree of judgment and accountability. (And the divorce of every adult, sane husband takes place) even if it is a strange assumption, so that the drunkard is included (even if he is a slave or a coerced person) then his divorce is valid, not his admission of the divorce.^[5]

 

 

Reminder

 

Remember that Talāq is a serious matter and is not to be taken lightly. Words can have binding legal implications in the Shariah and result in unintended consequences. The Prophet SWS said: There are three things which, whether undertaken seriously or in jest, are treated as serious: Marriage, divorce and taking back a wife (after a divorce which is not final)^[6]

 

 

References:

 

[1] يُرْفَعُ الْقَلَمُ عَنِ الصَّغِيرِ وَعَنِ الْمَجْنُونِ وَعَنِ النَّائِمِ

(Sunan Ibn Majah 2042, Book 10, Hadith 27)

 

[2] وَلِلْحَافِظِ ابْنِ الْقَيِّمِ الْحَنْبَلِيِّ رِسَالَةٌ فِي طَلَاقِ الْغَضْبَانِ قَالَ فِيهَا: إنَّهُ عَلَى ثَلَاثَةِ أَقْسَامٍ: أَحَدُهَا أَنْ يَحْصُلَ لَهُ مَبَادِئُ الْغَضَبِ بِحَيْثُ لَا يَتَغَيَّرُ عَقْلُهُ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا يَقُولُ وَيَقْصِدُهُ، وَهَذَا لَا إشْكَالَ فِيهِ.

(Radd Al-Muhtār, vol. 3, pg. 244, Darul Fikr Beirut)

 

[3] وَالثَّانِي أَنْ يَبْلُغَ النِّهَايَةَ فَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَا يَقُولُ وَلَا يُرِيدُهُ، فَهَذَا لَا رَيْبَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَنْفُذُ شَيْءٌ مِنْ أَقْوَالِهِ.

(Radd Al-Muhtār, vol. 3, pg. 244, Darul Fikr Beirut)

 

[4] الثَّالِثُ مَنْ تَوَسَّطَ بَيْنَ الْمَرْتَبَتَيْنِ بِحَيْثُ لَمْ يَصِرْ كَالْمَجْنُونِ فَهَذَا مَحَلُّ النَّظَرِ، وَالْأَدِلَّةُ عَلَى عَدَمِ نُفُوذِ أَقْوَالِهِ. اهـ. مُلَخَّصًا مِنْ شَرْحِ الْغَايَةِ الْحَنْبَلِيَّةِ، لَكِنْ أَشَارَ فِي الْغَايَةِ إلَى مُخَالَفَتِهِ فِي الثَّالِثِ حَيْثُ قَالَ:

وَيَقَعُ الطَّلَاقُ مِنْ غَضَبٍ خِلَافًا لِابْنِ الْقَيِّمِ اهـ وَهَذَا الْمُوَافِقُ عِنْدَنَا لِمَا مَرَّ فِي الْمَدْهُوشِ، لَكِنْ يَرِدُ عَلَيْهِ أَنَّا لَمْ نَعْتَبِرْ أَقْوَالَ الْمَعْتُوهِ مَعَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَلْزَمُ فِيهِ أَنْ يَصِلَ إلَى حَالَةٍ لَا يَعْلَمُ فِيهَا مَا يَقُولُ وَلَا يُرِيدُهُ

وَقَدْ يُجَابُ بِأَنَّ الْمَعْتُوهَ لَمَّا كَانَ مُسْتَمِرًّا عَلَى حَالَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ يُمْكِنُ ضَبْطُهَا اُعْتُبِرَتْ فِيهِ وَاكْتُفِيَ فِيهِ بِمُجَرَّدِ نَقْصِ الْعَقْلِ، بِخِلَافِ الْغَضَبِ فَإِنَّهُ عَارِضٌ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَحْوَالِ

، لَكِنْ يَرِدُ عَلَيْهِ الدَّهَشُ فَإِنَّهُ كَذَلِكَ. وَاَلَّذِي يَظْهَرُ لِي أَنَّ كُلًّا مِنْ الْمَدْهُوشِ وَالْغَضْبَانِ لَا يَلْزَمُ فِيهِ أَنْ يَكُونَ بِحَيْثُ لَا يَعْلَمُ مَا يَقُولُ بَلْ يُكْتَفَى فِيهِ بِغَلَبَةِ الْهَذَيَانِ وَاخْتِلَاطِ الْجَدِّ بِالْهَزْلِ

كَمَا هُوَ الْمُفْتَى بِهِ فِي السَّكْرَانِ عَلَى مَا مَرَّ، وَلَا يُنَافِيهِ تَعْرِيفُ الدَّهَشِ بِذَهَابِ الْعَقْلِ فَإِنَّ الْجُنُونَ فُنُونٌ، وَلِذَا فَسَّرَهُ فِي الْبَحْرِ بِاخْتِلَالِ الْعَقْلِ وَأَدْخَلَ فِيهِ الْعَتَهَ وَالْبِرْسَامَ وَالْإِغْمَاءَ وَالدَّهَشَ.

(Radd Al-Muhtār, vol. 3, pg. 244, Darul Fikr Beirut)

 

 

[5] (وَيَقَعُ طَلَاقُ كُلِّ زَوْجٍ بَالِغٍ عَاقِلٍ) وَلَوْ تَقْدِيرًا بَدَائِعُ، لِيَدْخُلَ السَّكْرَانُ (وَلَوْ عَبْدًا أَوْ مُكْرَهًا) فَإِنَّ طَلَاقَهُ صَحِيحٌ لَا إقْرَارَهُ بِالطَّلَاقِ

(Radd Al-Muhtār, vol. 3, pg. 235, Darul Fikr Beirut)

 

 

[6] ‏ ثَلاَثٌ جِدُّهُنَّ جِدٌّ وَهَزْلُهُنَّ جِدٌّ النِّكَاحُ وَالطَّلاَقُ وَالرَّجْعَةُ

(Sunan Abi Dawud 2194, Book 13, Hadith 20)

 

 

 

Only Allah (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) knows best.

Written by Maulana Abdurrahman Mohammad

Checked and approved by Mufti Mohammed Tosir Miah

Darul Ifta Birmingham