Always listen to Hooyo! High-Profile Divorce Case.

[adventurequestworlds1.0.2]

not only food/house. car insurance, health insurance, even some shopping (the amount is debatable among the sheikhs, but all sheikhs agree he needs to provide for some shopping)......etc

Nope husband dont have to pay car insurance health insurance
And no husband doesnt have to provide Shoping
Where do those sheikhs get tht idea their own let the sheikhs bring oroof from quran and hadith that is narrated from nabi mohamed

 

[Yaraye]

Nope husband dont have to pay car insurance health insurance
And no husband doesnt have to provide Shoping
Where do those sheikhs get tht idea their own let the sheikhs bring oroof from quran and hadith that is narrated from nabi mohamed

quran says necessities to live in the society. Those things are a necessity

 

[adventurequestworlds1.0.2]

quran says necessities to live in the society. Those things are a necessity

Nope those arent necessities necessities are foods and shelter nothing else

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

There is precedent, in law, in that his attempt to structure his assets, to keep them out of reach of the wife, shall fail in court.

Case law:
In the matter of T. Akhmedova v F. Akhmedov: In its initial ruling, Court ordered husband to pay £450m to the wife, 41.5% of his identified assets; he was subsequently ordered to pay a lump sum of 350m, and transfer of certain property; this was due to the husband reorganising his assets to keep them out of reach of the wife viz. hiding assets in offshore shell companies incl. Bermuda, Dubai, Isle of Man etc. The case set a record for the largest divorce settlement in the UK in 2016.

There is resemblance here with A Hakimi's strategic positioning of assets, and shall result in the same, methinks.

Facts of the case.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Akhmedova-v-Akhmedova-full-judgment.pdf

Further reading.

https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2021/05/28.-Akhmedova-v-Akhmedov.pdf

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Most recently entered marriages are unfortunately loveless and opportunistic. Even Ronaldo did not marry the mother of his kids. Be very careful. Both sexes should protect themselves in whatever way they can.

Here is a wild idea: could one avoid the quandary, if one were to experiment with marriage guidelines, as outlined in Islam.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Nope husband dont have to pay car insurance health insurance
And no husband doesnt have to provide Shoping
Where do those sheikhs get tht idea their own let the sheikhs bring oroof from quran and hadith that is narrated from nabi mohamed

Should a man even seek marriage, if unwilling to shoulder basic necessities like 'health insurance'?

 

[World]

There is precedent, in law, in that his attempt to structure his assets, to keep them out of reach of the wife, shall fail in court.

Case law:
In the matter of T. Akhmedova v F. Akhmedov: In its initial ruling, Court ordered husband to pay £450m to the wife, 41.5% of his identified assets; he was subsequently ordered to pay a lump sum of 350m, and transfer of certain property; this was due to the husband reorganising his assets to keep them out of reach of the wife viz. hiding assets in offshore shell companies incl. Bermuda, Dubai, Isle of Man etc. The case set a record for the largest divorce settlement in the UK in 2016.

There is resemblance here with A Hakimi's strategic positioning of assets, and shall result in the same, methinks.

Facts of the case.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Akhmedova-v-Akhmedova-full-judgment.pdf

Further reading.

https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2021/05/28.-Akhmedova-v-Akhmedov.pdf

He’s been giving his assets to his mother for years now, since his professional career began. Nobody can touch that money, it belongs to his mother. Not even Hakimi can touch it unless she lets him. The example you used is a guy hiding his own assets in his own name, not giving his assets away legally to another person.

What will happen is that she will get alimony and child support from his future salary. But that’s it.

 

[AbdiFreedom]

Here is a wild idea: could one avoid the quandary, if one were to experiment with marriage guidelines, as outlined in Islam.

Too many narcissistic, uncooperative, and selfish people today. They couldn't practice Islamic or traditional marriages even if they wanted to.

 

[Rorschach]

Comparing a need to a want will never not be funny. We’re talking poverty, kids having a decent life ect to you securing a new woman. Really goes to show how a lot of men have life on easy mode when it comes to the risks of a relationship. We women are talking about basic life necessities that you already take for granted as a husband. Hence you’re comparing the incomparable. Also, If you were able to to put your ego to the side, you’d know that a woman being financially secure lessons the need for them to run into an arms of another man as soon as you die. How about that for a thought?


Also, men do that all the time, ever heard of polygamy or the fact that men are 20% more likely to divorce their wives if she’s ill?

No, YOU are demanding something that wouldn’t ever impact you. Whilst she risks her future, you save for a rainy day via working and investing and to add insult to injury you equate having a roof over one’s head or being able to escape abuse or being able to look after your kids to having the luxury of a woman warm your bed and cook and clean for you. What’s funny is that even if having a spouse was just as important as basic life necessities, a woman without savings for a rainy day would still fare even worse because hey, she’s got no man and no money to boot with young kids.

Hilarious indeed Wallahi. I’m sure you’d never utter what you’re saying to a rich man who wants to have a prenup. Isn’t it bruising to a woman’s ego that her husband fears she might need up being a money grabbing greedy woman? But love has no backup right? Lol, that’s only for women it seems.

Wouldn't be you without straw-manning to hell and back and removing all nuiance in a discussion.

I'm writing about the internal struggle many men will have, especially high-earning men, in their wife attempting to work up to 40 hours a week, regardless if it's for a logical cause - rainy day fund in this case- and the impact to the traditional husband/wife dynamic.

Believe it or not, but it would not sit well with primary bread-winners to have a full-time working wife - you can hide from this fact if you want to.

But at the same time, I'm actually sympathising towards the idea and logic of nest-egging. It’s why I called it a catch-22.

And my last sentence still stands true. What wife would ever tell her husband she's working to save for a possible divorce? Who would be stupid enough to break the illusion of a life-long commitment? Is this what you tell your husband?

A woman can do what she wants with her own money, whether she hoards it or makes it rain on herself, that's none of your concern.




According to Islam a woman's money is hers and hers alone to spend as she sees fit. So whether she calls it a "rainy day fund", "splurging fund" or "none of ya business fund", that's her business.

What I would like to know, is why two grown men care about a woman's money. Worry about what your duties are in Islam.

Who's talking about her money here? What is this paranoia - naa lacagtada yaa rabo?

The point I'm putting forward here is the juggle between a wife’s obligation vs her need to save money in preparation for a possible divorce and the conflict in this.

The ruling on the wife’s income is clear and no-one is disputing it. She can do whatever she likes unless it infringes on her husbands rights. The question is the method of acquiring that income.

 

[Rorschach]

I hope women avoid you like the plague. You need to get help

Look at this dhoocil.

 

[𐒁𐒚𐒒𐒂𐒘𐒂𐒗 𐒎𐒚𐒗𐒗𐒒]

Wouldn't be you without straw-manning to hell and back and removing all nuiance in a discussion.

I'm writing about the internal struggle many men will have, especially high-earning men, in their wife attempting to work up to 40 hours a week, regardless if it's for a logical cause - rainy day fund in this case- and the impact to the traditional husband/wife dynamic.

Believe it or not, but it would not sit well with primary bread-winners to have a full-time working wife - you can hide from this fact if you want to.

But at the same time, I'm actually sympathising towards the idea and logic of nest-egging. It’s why I called it a catch-22.

And my last sentence still stands true. What wife would ever tell her husband she's working to save for a possible divorce? Who would be stupid enough to break the illusion of a life-long commitment? Is this what you tell your husband?

Who's talking about her money here? What is this paranoia - naa lacagtada yaa rabo?

The point I'm putting forward here is the juggle between a wife’s obligation vs her need to save money in preparation for a possible divorce and the conflict in this.

The ruling on the wife’s income is clear and no-one is disputing it. She can do whatever she likes unless it infringes on her husbands rights. The question is the method of acquiring that income.

"The question is the method of acquiring that income"

Let me guess? You would tell your wife not to work because that means "free-mixing". Even though you would "free-mix" yourself at work, the gym etc, etc.

Anyway. Your life. Your wife. Waxaad doontid ka dhaadhici

 

[Yaraye]

Look at this dhoocil.

there are people who agree with me. You mentality of women/marriage is something the women need to avoid

 

[Rorschach]

"The question is the method of acquiring that income"

Let me guess? You would tell your wife not to work because that means "free-mixing". Even though you would "free-mix" yourself at work, the gym etc, etc.

Anyway. Your life. Your wife. Waxaad doontid ka dhaadhici

Are you arguing in favour of free-mixing here - especially in office settings?

In your previous comment you were being disingenuous when comparing running errands, to working in an office where close engagement is required.

One of the reason we're told to maintain our wife is precisely to have her not mingle with other males for a pay-check.

 

[𐒁𐒚𐒒𐒂𐒘𐒂𐒗 𐒎𐒚𐒗𐒗𐒒]

Are you arguing in favour of free-mixing here - especially in office settings?

In your previous comment you were being disingenuous when comparing running errands, to working in an office where close engagement is required.

One of the reason we're told to maintain our wife is precisely to have her not mingle with other males for a pay-check.

I am not being disingenuous if I do not agree with your opinion. Okay?

Yes, free-mixing happens everywhere. What is the difference between talking to a male colleague or talking to a shop keeper, mechanic, gardener etc etc?

The only way to prevent free-mixing is if a husband handles all outside chores and accompanies his wife everywhere. I have even seen Arab men whose wives do not even address waiters.

 

[Rorschach]

Ma saas baa baayo - wayahay.

Just know us high-earners will never stomach our wives slaving for a pay-check, especially among men in office settings.

On one side you fight the gen-z 50/50 crowd, and on the other us traditional men who want to put it on a plate subject to some conditions. Truly a lonely fight.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

He’s been giving his assets to his mother for years now, since his professional career began. Nobody can touch that money, it belongs to his mother. Not even Hakimi can touch it unless she lets him. The example you used is a guy hiding his own assets in his own name, not giving his assets away legally to another person.

What will happen is that she will get alimony and child support from his future salary. But that’s it.

It is an age old scheme rich men, and some women, esp. from affluent extraction, have been utilising, and under Common family law, liberal Justices will tear it to shreds, construing his deeds as a half-pint manoeuvre to cascade, if hide his assets, and will effect an injection to freeze, or take ownership to redistribute, if not done so voluntarily. There are similar case law in the US.

Too many narcissistic, uncooperative, and selfish people today. They couldn't practice Islamic or traditional marriages even if they wanted to.

No suggesting humanoids are not smarter than their Creator, are you sir?

 

[Nak-Muay-Femeu]

Firstly, there is nothing haram about registering a marriage, unless you think muslim wives should be seen as 'baby mamas' and 'girlfriends' in the eyes of the law.

Secondly, a woman can choose to do what she wants with her money, if she chooses to spend it on her children, that's her choice, but that's not her responsibility. A man also has rights over his wife and she has to meet those rights.

Finally, yes, Muslim women have the right to find men who are willing to provide 100%, even if it's difficult for them and there are plenty of men who are willing to be stepfathers.

In this economy? Good luck with that and good luck to said Muslim women. I'm sure they'll be beating off the oil-rich Saudi multi-millionaires lining up to be stepfathers with a stick

FYI: The research on step parents abusing children at a significantlly higher rate than biological parents is pretty conclusive, so you might want to pump the breaks with the "stepfathers" shite lol

 

[Angelina]

Wouldn't be you without straw-manning to hell and back and removing all nuiance in a discussion.

I wasn’t straw-manning. You compared the incomparable and it was an annoying one which is why I zeroed in on that.

I'm writing about the internal struggle many men will have, especially high-earning men, in their wife attempting to work up to 40 hours a week, regardless if it's for a logical cause - rainy day fund in this case- and the impact to the traditional husband/wife dynamic.

There shouldn’t be an internal struggle. A good man that wants his wife to stay home who can actually afford to do so, can always make a savings account/investment for his wife and invest in his wife money monthly in case anything happens to him. A woman could have a good nest egg and that’s the case without having to work in an office. He could encourage her to work online and actually pay towards her courses to achieve this. The remote digital world is a massive market. Tbh, most high-earning men who are decent do provide alternatives for their wives, a common one is helping them start a business ect and funding it ect. But the issue is that many men are selfish and don’t look past the present. They want their wives to not think of the future, whilst they stack up and don’t provide alternatives for their wives to also have money as well. So what you have is a husband who is economically stable with savings and a woman that has 0 to her name with 0 safety net. She’s basically a poor individual dependent living with an economically stable individual. Your money is her money is a myth and women should smell the coffee.

Believe it or not, but it would not sit well with primary bread-winners to have a full-time working wife - you can hide from this fact if you want to.

Not every man is the same. In this day and age most Faraxs don’t care as much. The vast majority of women now work anyways. Even our traditional aunties. Blame cost of living. The idea of having issues is now a luxury. Also, you’re sighting free-mixing. Last time I checked, freemixing is haram for men and women. You too shouldn’t be mingling with women and I’m sure you try to create boundaries as well. I don’t see why your spouse can’t create boundaries as well.

But at the same time, I'm actually sympathising towards the idea and logic of nest-egging. It’s why I called it a catch-22.

And my last sentence still stands true. What wife would ever tell her husband she's working to save for a possible divorce? Who would be stupid enough to break the illusion of a life-long commitment? Is this what you tell your husband?

Obviously not, because why would you have a rainy day fund just for divorce? Unfortunately, you can’t depend on humans.
Your husband could be your soulmate ( a man you couldn’t even see yourself living without and I do hope everygets spouses like that) but Allah can take him away from you any time. We don’t know when we are going to die.

Talking about that, I was listening to this podcast about this Muslim sister. She married the love of her life. She was pregnant and vulnerable when she lost him.
She never thought she’d be a single mother and overnight, her home life changed. Basically your spouse could succumb to death, illness, and the list goes on. So no, I don’t recommend saving solely for divorce.

Also, I highly doubt you have issues with Prenup. What’s a prenup? It’s basically saying if we divorce, you don’t have any rights on my money. So I’ll ask you the same questions, Who would be stupid enough to break the illusion of a life-long commitment? Is this what you tell your wife? Hey, just in case we divorce, I’m saving my assets because you could end up being greedy. So my point stands, it seems it’s stupid when women do it, but not if a man with assets breaks the illusion of life long commitment.

That is precisely why I had issues with your comments. It was the insane comparisons and double standards. I don’t mean to attack you, but just think about what I’m trying to say. You have no problems when men protect themselves in the event of divorce, but when women do it, all of a sudden men’s feelings and ego comes into play. It shouldn’t be a catch 22.

Who's talking about her money here? What is this paranoia - naa lacagtada yaa rabo?

The point I'm putting forward here is the juggle between a wife’s obligation vs her need to save money in preparation for a possible divorce and the conflict in this.

The ruling on the wife’s income is clear and no-one is disputing it. She can do whatever she likes unless it infringes on her husbands rights. The question is the method of acquiring that income.

 

[Rorschach]

I wasn’t straw-manning. You compared the incomparable and it was an annoying one which is why I zeroed in on that.

There shouldn’t be an internal struggle. A good man that wants his wife to stay home who can actually afford to do so, can always make a savings account/investment for his wife and invest in his wife money monthly in case anything happens to him. A woman could have a good nest egg and that’s the case without having to work in an office. He could encourage her to work online and actually pay towards her courses to achieve this. The remote digital world is a massive market. Tbh, most high-earning men who are decent do provide alternatives for their wives, a common one is helping them start a business ect and funding it ect. But the issue is that many men are selfish and don’t look past the present. They want their wives to not think of the future, whilst they stack up and don’t provide alternatives for their wives to also have money as well. So what you have is a husband who is economically stable with savings and a woman that has 0 to her name with 0 safety net. She’s basically a poor individual dependent living with an economically stable individual. Your money is her money is a myth and women should smell the coffee.


Not every man is the same. In this day and age most Faraxs don’t care as much. The vast majority of women now work anyways. Even our traditional aunties. Blame cost of living. The idea of having issues is now a luxury. Also, you’re sighting free-mixing. Last time I checked, freemixing is haram for men and women. You too shouldn’t be mingling with women and I’m sure you try to create boundaries as well. I don’t see why your spouse can’t create boundaries as well.

Obviously not, because why would you have a rainy day fund just for divorce? Unfortunately, you can’t depend on humans.
Your husband could be your soulmate ( a man you couldn’t even see yourself living without and I do hope everygets spouses like that) but Allah can take him away from you any time. We don’t know when we are going to die.

Talking about that, I was listening to this podcast about this Muslim sister. She married the love of her life. She was pregnant and vulnerable when she lost him.
She never thought she’d be a single mother and overnight, her home life changed. Basically your spouse could succumb to death, illness, and the list goes on. So no, I don’t recommend saving solely for divorce.

Also, I highly doubt you have issues with Prenup. What’s a prenup? It’s basically saying if we divorce, you don’t have any rights on my money. So I’ll ask you the same questions, Who would be stupid enough to break the illusion of a life-long commitment? Is this what you tell your wife? Hey, just in case we divorce, I’m saving my assets because you could end up being greedy. So my point stands, it seems it’s stupid when women do it, but not if a man with assets breaks the illusion of life long commitment.

That is precisely why I had issues with your comments. It was the insane comparisons and double standards. I don’t mean to attack you, but just think about what I’m trying to say. You have no problems when men protect themselves in the event of divorce, but when women do it, all of a sudden men’s feelings and ego comes into play. It shouldn’t be a catch 22.

Walaashay have you ever seen me advocating for prenuptial agreements on this forum? I've only ever argued the husband's full earnings is shared which is a controversial point with men in the first place.

As for free-mixing for the man, I believe it's the lesser evil as it's waajib for him to maintain his family, but I still don't like it none the same. I'm a private contractor (llc) in a male dominated field (construction project management) so I've managed to avoid it for the most part alx, but can sympathise with the vast majority of men.

Also I believe it's reasonable to give your wife a separate allowance for her savings.

Again, I honestly believe a lot of women - even with these terms - still want to work for fear of being a caged bird. This goes beyond pragmatism. I have high earning friends who have divorced over this.

My comment was a dialogue across these different points, and this back and forth could've gone smoother if you didn't drop a nuke on it.

 

[Angelina]

Walaashay have you ever seen me advocating for prenuptial agreements on this forum? I've only ever argued the husband's full earnings is shared which is a controversial point with men in the first place.

As for free-mixing for the man, I believe it's the lesser evil as it's waajib for him to maintain his family, but I still don't like it none the same. I'm a private contractor (llc) in a male dominated field (construction project management) so I've managed to avoid it for the most part alx, but can sympathise with the vast majority of men.

Also I believe it's reasonable to give your wife a separate allowance for her savings.

Then we’re in agreement and I don’t think we have much to debate on.

Tbh, most Somali girls tend to work in female dominated fields. Teaching, very female dominated, to such an extent people are blaming that for boys failing grades. Health sector, like nursing and obviously midwives entirely female dominated ect. A lot of Somali girls as of late are also going into remote tech roles as well.

Again, I honestly believe a lot of women - even with these terms - still want to work for fear of being a caged bird. This goes beyond pragmatism. I have high earning friends who have divorced over this.

A lot of it is due to how cut throat the job market is today. So instance, if you decide to stay home and not work for let’s say, 5 to 10 years, the likelihood of being able to get a good stable job when things hit the fan so to speak is very low. I’ve seen women who at middle age have to work in the care sector and wash the bums of pensioners because of this. The best route would be is to encourage wifey to go into the tech route which is usually remote or help her have a side business. I think both men and women should try to have different streams of income anyways.

Also, let’s be real. How can one divorce over this when this is the type of conversation one has during the talking stage? If a woman works and has made it clear she will continue working after marriage, why marry her?

My comment was a dialogue across these different points, and this back and forth could've gone smoother if you didn't drop a nuke on it.

Okay, walal have a good evening!