Subscribe to receive the most important news
I am not a supporter of what women are demanding all along the line, except for what they have the right to, away from obsession and frivolity, and what the stage accepts, and the most that men can tolerate and push it with reluctance and coercion, and the truth is that they have suffered from the kind of men throughout its history, so women will not forget that they have They were cursed in the slave market, and the men were forced to sleep and rape, and forced their slave girls and slaves to serve, dance and drum, so you men, men, should secure this tragic history, for it is alive in their consciences. I am also not with the class of men in blocking these rights and preventing them, under historical or religious claims, and I warn you … your history is unfair … and your victories over impeachment were not heroic, and your interpretations of the texts were masculine and according to the whim of the sheikhs of men, even if women had something to do with this. But we men were standing at the doors of the courts, screaming about the lack of maintenance, seeing the children, or proving the divorce … You men are in your hand, not in the hand of Amr.
Come together to this project, what it has and what it is:
First: I agree to the penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, and a fine of not less than twenty thousand pounds, if the man marries and does not inform his wife of this new marriage, even the authorized marriage official himself, and I am inclined to the principle (He who is afraid of the goblin and does not avoid him by reporting deserves everyone who drags him Rather, I also demand that marriage to another be by a court decision, in order to ensure a decent life for the old and new family alike, and the man is able to spend, educate and raise all of these, otherwise there is no and a thousand no, but I strongly beware of tampering with the notification of the wife that is done on paper Without the truth.
Second: I agree, support and firmly support the legislator that the punishment for anyone who spouses or participates in the marriage of a child under the age of eighteen (a boy or a girl) at the time of marriage should be imprisonment for a year, and a fine of fifty thousand pounds not exceeding two hundred thousand pounds. More than a year and the two punishments together, without (or any of the two punishments). Rather, it must explicitly state those who participated in the crime, namely (the father of the two parties, the witnesses and the contractor even if his name is not mentioned) so that everyone knows that participation in this act is a punishable crime. He escaped from them, and beware of the manipulation of some people.
Third: I do not agree … and I do not see a good reason to terminate the right to custody at the age of fifteen, which is a critical age for the child, especially girls, and they need the mother more than others. Specific, provided that the judge’s decision is after studying the circumstances of the father and mother together, and the lesson is what is achieved in the interest of the child in custody. Not all fathers, mothers, grandmothers, or aunts are equal..
Fourth: Clarification for women .. I do not see a reason for the women’s revolution on the right to accompany their “child-in-law” children outside the country except with the consent of the father. The draft also stipulated that the father should not accompany them outside the country except with the consent of the mother as well. “It stipulated that it is not permissible to change the name of the foster child or his travel. Outside the country alone or with the companion of the custodian except with the notarized consent of the parents other than the custodian, so if it is not possible to refer the matter to the President of the Family Court »and I think it is fair, because either of them is often mistreated, traveling with them and depriving the other party of his children, but the question is in this matter It is very dangerous, and what about children in the company of the father or the mother when traveling outside the country with them without divorce, and under normal circumstances?.
Fifthly: I do not agree and strongly reject .. Depriving the incubator of guardianship, for she is more deserving of care and responsibility, and this is clearly visible, for she is responsible for their education, lessons, training, delivery and waiting for hours in front of schools and examination committees, and the guardianship «I mean the full state, including the educational» Here is not a grant or charity Rather, it is an inherent right of the partner and the main shareholder, whether “mother or father.” It is inconceivable that the incubator cannot transfer the children in custody to other schools without the consent of the father. Notifying the father here is a matter of necessity and not for approval or rejection. Therefore, I think that guardianship should be the right of the custodian until the time it moves to the new custodian. Do we trust the women over the fate of the states and then not trust them over the fate of their children?
Sixth: How can the government ignore the proof of divorce and its documentation, and if it had studied the matter from the legal point of view, it would find someone who supports proof of divorce as well as proof of return, based on the text of the Qur’an, and the male commentators neglected it, and if the decision was in my hands, proving the divorce would be a duty before the judge, It does not occur unless the issues of alimony, custody and vision are settled. We return to the verse: “If they reach their deadline, they seize them with a favor, or they separate them with favor, and testify to those of you who are just and establish testimony to God“ and the interpretation ”: If the divorced woman nears the end of the waiting period, either her husband revisits and holds her, or he leaves her with good,“ and those of you who are just will testify. ”And whoever The fuqaha ‘are those who interpreted that the testimony is in the return only, and some of them saw the testimony in the return and in the divorce as well, because the word “testify” in the verse came after the return and divorce. The Ja`fari Imamate sees “the testimony of two witnesses of justice as a condition for the occurrence of divorce.” This Sheikh al-Suyuti “marriage with witnesses, divorce and taking back witnesses” and this Sheikh Abu Zahra “if we had to choose, we would take an opinion that is required for the occurrence of divorce or reviewing witnesses of justice” and Sheikh Al-Albani “We cannot witness people in Marriage is “constructive” and we do not witness people in a “demolition” divorce. I would like to make it clear that the testimony of witnesses is documentation in its modern sense, whether it is in front of the marriage officer or the judge..
Wake up, may God have mercy on you. Women are our women and children are our children. “The civil state is the solution».
- The situation in Egypt
- The situation around the world