Fear Around Touching To Be Mother In Law, Hurmat-E-Musahrat
Our religion has given room for Ijtihad, which implies differences of opinion. If you adopt the opinion that looking at private parts causes the prohibition, the same goes for the images.
@Irfan76 sir I have an important question. When quran tells that if a father does nikah with a woman then she automatically becomes Haram for son, regardless of whether physical relations happen or not. She becomes Haram for son… Nikah which is a declaration that now they both are couple, makes then halal on each other for having relations… But then shouldn’t having mere ownership of a female slave automatically make her Haram for his son, regardless of whether physical relations happen or not? As ownership of slave, i.e with a sale transfer. Automatically makes her halal for the man to have physical relations with? Just like nikah? Why do some scholars differentiate that if the slave of father had physical relations, then only she is Haram for son. Else if he inherits her in a way that she didn’t have relations with father, then they both can have relations?
In this case of Khula too, it inherently means that the nikah is to be consummated, but if it is not, is it invalid? Of course not. Therefore, the condition of consummation cannot be applied here. The case of Khula is different. It should be the second husband’s free will to keep her or divorce her. Nothing should be planned. It is a matter of whether a woman is supposed to be halal for the first husband or not. However, to announce something haram needs more qualifications. The word Dakhaltum Behinna makes it explicit that it is only the intercourse or penetration that makes the daughter of a woman haram. If the uncommuted nikah were enough, the world Dakhaltum Behinna would not have been used. This rule will also apply to other cases.