The My Husband 's Wife Full Movie Hd In Hindi Download ~REPACK~
hi ive been married 2 1/2 years all was good til our son came along 2 year ago im basically a single parent my husband works full time but doesnt provide for our son hell buy shopping gas/electric but thats it i pay mortgage,council tax etc with part time job then he goes mad if i treat myself i dont love him anymore but when we argue he starts to cry making me feel guilty 4 wanting 2 leave help im too soft n fall 4 this but nothing changes x
the My Husband 's Wife full movie hd in hindi download
Hello,I am reading these posts from the other side of the coin. I am husband that my wife is no longer IN love with. We were highschool sweethearts that married and started a family shortly after graduating college. We have been together for 18 years (married for almost 10). We started talking about this about 3 years ago, after our 3rd child was born. My wife confessed to talking to a guy from college ( someone that confessed his love to her shortly before we got married), that I had no clue existed. We talked about this and she stopped talking to him, but the damage was done to me, even without a physical relationship with him. He has a faimly of his own, so I am not sure what they wanted to happen (she could not answer that either) She explained that she is going through something and expressed that she has been questioning all decisions she in her life to that point. This hurt me, but ultimately opened up a dialogue to talk about it. We went to counseling for this and my wife felt ganged up on from the therapist because she was focusing on the emotional relationship instead of getting to the real problem.
My wife blindsided me with the divorce request. This is the worst thing you can do to your husband. A response unhappeness in marraige should be to talk to your spouse about it. Blindsiding just shows how you have no respect for him and have no respect for the marraige. No one deserves that after many years of hard work at the relationship. Blindsiding is a selfish, cheap move. One can only hope if anyone takes this option that it back fires and he ends up happier than you.
Hajjar Lisa claims Shari'a law encourages "domestic violence" against women when a husband suspects nushuz (disobedience, disloyalty, rebellion, ill conduct) in his wife. Other scholars claim wife beating, for nashizah, is not consistent with modern perspectives of Qur'an. Some conservative translations find that Muslim husbands are permitted to act what is known in Arabic as Idribuhunna with the use of "Strike," and sometimes as much as to hit, chastise, or beat.
In some exegesis such as those of Ibn Kathir(1300-1373AD) and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari(839-923AD), the actions prescribed in Surah 4:34 above, are to be taken in sequence: the husband is to admonish the wife, after which (if his previous correction was unsuccessful) he may remain separate from her, after which (if his previous correction was still unsuccessful) he may[nb 1][nb 2] give her a light tapping with a Siwak. Ibn 'Abbas, The Cousin of the Prophet, is recorded in the Tafsir of al-Tabari for verse 4:34 as saying that beating without severity is using a siwak (small toothbrush) or a similar object.
The discussions in all four Sunni law schools institutionalised the viewpoint of the Quranic exegeses by turning wife-beating into a means of discipline against rebellious wives. Ayesha Chaudhry has examined the pre-colonial Hanafi texts on domestic violence. Her findings are as follows. Hanafi scholars emphasised the procedure of admonishing, abandoning and hitting the wife. The Hanafi jurists say that it is the husband's duty to physically discipline his wife's arrogance (nushuz). They permitted the husband a lot of leeway in the severity of the beating. While Hanafi scholars admonish husbands to treat their wives with kindness and equity, they do not recognize the principle of qisas (retributive punishment) for injuries sustained in marriage, unless they cause death, permitting the husband to hit his wife without any liability and that Hanafi scholars assert that the husband is allowed to hit his wife even if that causes wounds or broken bones their only condition is that the beating must not kill her this view was taken from Hanafi Scholar Al-Jassas and within this framework they emphasised the need of following the sequence of admonishment, abandonment and hitting. However, al-Jassas also says that the reprimand should only be "A non-violent blow with siwak [a small stick used to clean the teeth] or something similar to it.
Al-Kasani added that the admonishment contains two steps: gentle admonishment and then harsh admonishment. Al-Nasafi adds that if a wife dies during sex, the husband is not liable, Al-Nasafi interpreted this to be the position of Imam Abu Hanifah. Ḥanafi Scholars used general qualifiers to describe the type of hitting a husband might undertake when disciplining his wife the hitting should be non-extreme (ghayr mubarrih) and that should not cause disfigurement. Ibn al-Humam believed that a husband can whip his wife with only ten lashes. However, al-Nasafi put the maximum limit at 100 lashes. Al-Nasafi also ruled that if a wife dies from the beating the husband is not liable as long as he does not exceed 100 strikes. However, if he exceeds 100 lashes then he is considered to have crossed the limit of discipline into abuse and he would have to pay blood money (diya). Ibn Nujaym and al-Haskafi also ruled that a husband cannot be punished with the death penalty if he kills his wife while disciplining her. He only owes blood money.
Evidence of judicial records from the sixteenth century on wards show that Ottoman judges who followed the Hanafi school allowed divorce because of abuse. This did this partially by borrowing rulings from other schools of thought and partially by blending abuse with blasphemy since they reasoned a "true Muslim would not beat his wife." A number of women in British India between the years of 1920 and 1930s left Islam to obtain judicial divorce because Hanafi law did not permit women to seek divorce in case of cruel treatment by a husband. Mawlana Thanawi reviewed the issue and borrowed the Maliki rulings which permits women to seek divorce because of cruelty by the husband. He expanded the grounds of divorce available to women under Hanafi law.
According to Ayesha Chaudhary, unlike Hanafi scholars who were more interested in protecting a husband's right to hit his wife for disciplinary purposes, the Malikis tried to stop husbands from abusing this right. The Maliki scholars only allowed striking a rebellious wife with the purpose of rectifying her. They specified that the strike should not be extreme or severe, must not leave marks or cause injuries and that the strike must not be fearsome, cause fractures, break bones, cause disfiguring wounds while punching in general and punching her in the chest were unacceptable and that the strike could not harm the wife. The Malikis held that a husband would be legally liable if the hitting led to the wife's death. They also did not allow a husband to hit his wife if he did not believe the hitting would cause her to stop her arrogance. The Shafi'i scholars upheld the permissibility of wife beating but encouraged avoiding it and did not hold the imperative "wa-ḍribūhunna" to mean an obligatory command. Shafi scholars also restricted what the husband could do in regards to hitting his wife, that he should only hit his wife if he thinks it will be effective in deterring her from her arrogance ; he should hit her in a non-extreme (ghayr mubarrih) manner; he should avoid hitting her face, sensitive places, and places of beauty and not hit her in a manner that causes disfiguration, bleeding, that he should not hit the same place repeatedly, loss of limbs, or death. According to Shafi scholars a husband is permitted to hit his wife with a cloth, sandal and a siwak but not with a whip. The views of the Hanbali scholars are a mix of the positions of the other three schools of law.
The vast majority of the ulama across the Sunni schools of law inherited the Prophet's unease over domestic violence and placed further restrictions on the evident meaning of the 'Wife Beating Verse'. A leading Meccan scholar from the second generation of Muslims, Ata' bin Abi Rabah, counseled a husband not to beat his wife even if she ignored him but rather to express his anger in some other way. Darimi, a teacher of both Tirmidhi and Muslim bin Hajjaj as well as a leading early scholar in Iran, collected all the Hadiths showing Muhammad's disapproval of beating in a chapter entitled 'The Prohibition on Striking Women'. A thirteenth-century scholar from Granada, Ibn Faras, notes that one camp of ulama had staked out a stance forbidding striking a wife altogether, declaring it contrary to the Prophet's example and denying the authenticity of any Hadiths that seemed to permit beating. Even Ibn Hajar, the pillar of late medieval Sunni Hadith scholarship, concludes that, contrary to what seems to be an explicit command in the Qur'an, the Hadiths of the Prophet leave no doubt that striking one's wife to discipline her actually falls under the Shariah ruling of 'strongly disliked' or 'disliked verging on prohibited'.
A collection of legal documents and contracts from the time of Akbar, called Munshat i Namakin, reveal that Muslim brides would often make four stipulations in their marriage contracts. If the husband violated these conditions, the wife would be entitled to divorce. These were conditions such as the husband would not marry a second wife or take a concubine. Another condition was that the husband would not beat the wife in a way which would leave a mark on her body, unless she was guilty of a serious offence. A miniature from the time of Akbar's reign shows a husband lashing his wife on the buttocks with a stick. This reflects the stipulation found in marriage contracts of that time which were against beating in such a way that it would leave any mark on the body. One 17th century Muslim marriage contract from Surat, examined by Shireen Moosvi, contained a stipulation by the bride, Maryam, that her husband, Muhammad Jiu, would give her a specific amount of maintenance. The amount of maintenance which was specified in it indicated that the couple belonged to the lower middle class. However, the marriage contract contained no stipulation against wife-beating. This reflects that women of that socio-economic class were expected to submit to any kind of violence by their husbands.