Slavery in Islam

[Muslimwoman]

I don't post for praise or brownies.).

My apologies I was trying to inject a little humour into my post, I shall try to be more formal with you in future.

The word 'prohibit' is in the Qur'an, and so is the word 'unlawful', but neither of them are in the verses describing 'intoxicants'. I do not wish to wrongly interpret the Qur'an and remove any meaning, but then neither shall I add the words 'prohibit' or 'unlawful' where Allah (swt) or Muhammud (pbuh) did not place them.

I am confused here as to your way of thinking. Of course we should not prohibit something that was not prohibited by Allah but then how do you read this
O You who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones and (divination by) arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid (such abominations) that you may prosper. (5:90)

You seem to be suggesting that because the Quran does not say "intoxicants are unlawful" then they must be ok. So do you not accept any hadiths?

Jabir

narrates that a man came from Yemen and asked the Prophet

about a wine made from corn called ‘Mizr’, which they drank, in their land. The Prophet

asked, "Is it intoxicating?" He replied, "Yes" The Prophet

said, "Every intoxicant is unlawful. Verily there is covenant upon Allah for one who drinks intoxicating drinks, that he will make him drink from ‘Teenatul Khabal,’ they asked, "O messenger of Allah, what is Teenatul Khabal?" He said, "The sweat of the inmates of hell or the pus (of impurities) of the inmates of hell." (Muslim)

Interesting approach, but I would beware of a verse like 15:91 with any approach that discredits or explains away part of the Qur'an).

Sorry you will have to expand on this, I am not getting what you are trying to say. Are you saying I should not use verses of the Quran to explain other verses of the Quran?

I would like to point out that it is not sin to become intoxicated or play games of chance, but that doing so often leads to sin.

Again I would ask do you reject all hadith as unauthentic?
Jabir

reported that the Holy Prophet

said, "Whosoever drinks wine, whip him. If he repeats it for the fourth time, kill him." He (Jabir) says, A man was later brought to the Prophet

who had drunk wine for the fourth time. He beat him, but did not kill him. (Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood)

The following Hadith clearly states that the Holy Prophet

prohibited intoxicants. 2) Ibn Umar

reported that the Messenger of Allah

said, "Every intoxicant is khamr (wine) and every intoxicant is haraam (unlawful). Whosoever drinks wine in this world and dies whilst consumed in it and does not repent will not drink it in the next world. (Muslim)

A day of judgment is not to be feared, but to be embraced. I seek Allah's (swt) judgment daily. People must have the freedom to make errors, to disobey, and to follow Shaitan if they so desire. Without those who go the wrong direction, then there is nobody to help. Preventing the symptom of a disease does not cure the disease. If people do not have that freedom to choose then they become misguided slaves rather than guided servants. As you witness, Allah (swt) desires servants... not slaves.

Yes people must have choice in order to be good servants of Allah but you seem to be suggesting that people must sin in order to be a good servant?! My mind is boggling, surely the point is that sin exists and to be a good servant of Allah it is up to us to choose to reject that sin, not incumbent upon us to commit the sin.

Allah gave us freedom of choice, He then set down rules to follow in order to please Him. I would have thought it was obvious that Allah would wish us to reject sin and choose to follow His rules. The Quran has so many verses that inform us of the punishments for choosing sin.

I am amused by your comment "Without those who go the wrong direction, then there is nobody to help". You make it sound like this would be a bad thing. Would you also say without cancer there would be no need for cancer treatments, as though we need cancer or cancer specialists would be unemployed?

With due respect to the prophet Muhammud (pbuh), he was very wrong with that statement.

I am now very curious as to which religion, if any you follow? The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was telling us that if something in large quantity is a sin then avoid it in any quantity. I accept that, I agree with it, I applaud it, I am grateful to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) for his wisdom and guidance. Would you say a sin in small quantity is then not a sin?

I simply recognize that the word 'prohibit' is not in the Qur'an next to intoxicant and so I am not going to falsely attribute any man made prohibition to Allah (swt).

Satan’s plan is to sow hatred and enmity amongst you with intoxicants and gambling, and to hamper you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you not give up? (5:91)

Please explain to me how you interpret Allahs rhetorical question about intoxicants?

Ibn Umar reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "Every intoxicant is khamr (wine) and every intoxicant is haraam (unlawful). Whosoever drinks wine in this world and dies whilst consumed in it and does not repent will not drink it in the next world. (Muslim)

I agree there must be freedom of choice or we are simply slaves, I also agree that we should not follow innovations, however we should also step back sometimes and look at our own judgements and interpretations to ascertain whether we are 'twisting' things to allow our own desires. Even the most moderate of Muslims would agree that intoxicants are unlawful.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

I've read, been baffled, been confused.

Short and sweet, does Islam today believe owning another and enslaving them is acceptable under any circumstances?

As salaam aleykum Wil

The simple answer is no, slavery was made unlawful in Islamic countries in the early 20th century (it was even made illegal in Saudi). Unfortunately this is Islam so there is no simple answer. Here are some views of Islamic scholars:

Syed Qutb, the most renowned scholar of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood said in his (Tafsir) of the Quran

"And concerning slavery, that was when slavery was a world-wide structure and which was conducted amongst Muslims and their enemies in the form of enslaving of prisoners of war. And it was necessary for Islam to adopt a similar line of practise until the world devised a new code of practise during war other than enslavement"
​

Maulana Mawdudi of Jamaat-e-Islami has said:

Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of [Muhammad] are as follows:

"There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).
​

The words of this Tradition of the Prophet are also general, they have not been qualified or made applicable to a particular nation, race, country or followers of a particular religion.....After this the only form of slavery which was left in Islamic society was the prisoners of war, who were captured on the battlefield. These prisoners of war were retained by the Muslim Government until their government agreed to receive them back in exchange for Muslim soldiers captured by them.​

Shiekh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a shariah judge accredited by Al-Azhar University, gives the following explanation:

When Islam came, for the situations where people were taken into slavery (e.g. debt), Islam imposed Shari’ah solutions to those situations other than slavery. For example Islam clarified in relation to the bankrupt debtor that the creditor should wait until a time of ease for the debtor to pay. The Supreme (Allah) said in the Quran: "And if he is one in difficulty then waiting to a time of ease"'....It (Islam) made the existing slave and owner form a business contract, based upon the freedom , not upon slavery...It forbade the enslaving of free people with a comprehensive prohibition ... So Allah will deal with the seller of the free person. As for the situation of war, Islam prevented the enslaving of captives or prisoners of war absolutely. In the second year of the Hijrah, it clarified the rule of the captive in that either they are favoured by releasing without any exchange, or they are ransomed for money or exchanged for Muslims or non-muslim citizens of the Caliphate.

​

Unfortunately some fundamentalists have, for the last few years, been calling for the return of slavery as they say it is a fundamental part of Islam. It is noteworthy that these men do not wish to enslave men during war but rather wish to enslave young women (allowing them to have intimate knowledge of the women). I think that it is obvious what these men want and why they are using Islam in this abhorrent way. The word pervert springs to mind.

 

[Abdullah]

I've read, been baffled, been confused.

Short and sweet, does Islam today believe owning another and enslaving them is acceptable under any circumstances?

Hi Wil,

The article which I posted talks about how Islam dealt with slavery in the past and it is not advocating that slavery is still allowed in this day and age.

Islam gradually moved towards the abolishment of slavery and the Ottman Empire abolished it a few centuries? ago.

Peace.

 

[Abdullah]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muslimwoman
Ass salaam aleykum Brother Abdullah

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your comments. You appear to be implying that laypeople have no moral judgement and are incapable of understanding what Allah requires of us.

wa alaikum salam wr wb sister.

What I am saying sister, is that lay people [non-Mujtahidoun] are not qualified to perform ijtihad, nothing more, nothing less. smile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
I kept coming across this topic on various sites so decided to ask an Imam for the definitive answer, I have copied and pasted his whole reply as I feel it is not only pertinent but far sighted:

You have apperantly asked a 'Salafi'/Wahhabi Imam and he has given you an answer that goes against the view of the traditional Scholars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman Bismillahir-RaHmanir-RaHeem. The Glorious Qur'an says: "And hold fast,All together, by the rope Which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves;" [Al-Qur'an 3:103]...

Agreed hundred percent; but the irony of the imaam saying that, is that he himself has decided to divide himself from the traditional Scholars in the matter of taqleed atleast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman If only all Muslims read the Qur'an with understanding and adhere to Sahih Hadith...

Agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
It is not obligatory for a Muslim to follow any particular madhhab among these four.

It is the ijma [consensus] of the traditional Scholars that one of these four madhabs has to be adhered to by the laymen, for the laymen does not have the pre-requsite knowedge and qualities to perform ijtihad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
People vary in their level of understanding and ability to derive rulings from the evidence. There are some for whom it is permissible to follow (taqleed), and indeed it may be obligatory in their case.

It is obligatory for all non-mujtahids to adhere to taqlid, for the pre-requisite knowledge that qualifies one as a Mujtahid is absolutely essential in order to perfrom ijtihad. InshAllah I will be posting soon, a list of all the pre-requisite knowledge and qualites that is required to perfrom ijtihad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
There are others who can only follow the shar’i evidence.

Yes, and they are the mujtahidoun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah are not to be regarded as opposition to the Maalikis, Shaafa’is, Hanbalis and the like, rather they are opposed to the followers of innovated and misguided beliefs and ways such as the Ash’aris, Mu’tazilis, Murji’is, Sufis and so on.

The School of Ashari is infact a traditional School of theology/Aqeedah [not a School of fiqh] which many Scholars of the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah base their Aqeedah upon. it is a righteous School of theology. The followers of Maaliki, Hanabali, Shafi'i, Hanafi continue to follow the Imaams in their fiqh.

Many Sufi's are upon righteous too, although some sufi's have adopted bidah [and possbily shirk too] in their tariqahs

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
The Hanafis, Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis are schools of fiqh, whose imams are among Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and indeed are among the leaders of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. But unfortunately the followers of most of those madhhabs and schools of fiqh have begun to follow the people of innovation and misguidance in their beliefs, so many of the Shaafa’is and Maalikis have become Ash’aris, and many of the Hanafis have become Maatireedis.

Maturidi is a righteous School of Aqeedah too, and ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah Scholars form their Aqeeadah from iether of these two Schools or from Aqeedah At-Tahawiyyah...so that means that the followerd of the four Schools of thought have not strayed from the orignal teachings of these Schools. it is only the Wahhabi's that have decided to follow Scholars who have gone against the Hanbali School of thought, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, that have strayed from the original teachings of the Hanbali School in many matters, and yet claim to follow the Hanbali School in these matters?

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
But with regard to ‘aqeedah, the Hanbalis – apart from a very few – have been spared the change to something other than the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

And these relatively 'verry few' that have strayed from the Aqeedah of ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah which the hanabli School's Aqeedah is based upon, are the so called Salafis...

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman The basic principle concerning the Muslim is that he adheres to the Qur’aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and those who followed them in guidance.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
As for following one of these four madhhabs or any other, that is not obligatory or recommended,

It is indeed obligatory and most defenitely reccomended for those who are not mujtahids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
and the Muslim does not have to adhere to any one of them in particular. Rather the one who adheres to a particular madhhab in every issue is being a partisan who is guilty of blind following.

That is not true. The four Schools of thought are the only surviving traditional Schools of thought....the traditional Scholars have, unaniomously, only enjoined the following [for the laymen] of these four Schools of thought and prohibbited the following of any other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwomanEnd quote. Hal al-Muslim mulzim bi Ittibaa’ Madhhab mu’ayyin min al-Madhhab al-Arba’ah? By al-Ma’soomi, p. 38. There is nothing wrong with following the four schools of fiqh if a Muslim does not have sufficient knowledge to enable him to derive rulings from the Qur’aan and Sunnah himself,

Not only is there nothing wrong in doing so, but it is also fardh for one who does not have suffiiceint knowledge, to follow one of the four Schools. And 'sufficient knowledge' is the knowledge [and qualities] which qualify one as a Mujtahid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman but if it becomes clear to him that the correct view is other than that of his madhhab, then he must follow the correct view and not his madhhab.

If he is not a mujtahid, then it cannot become clear to him, for he will not be able to view the evidence in the comprehensive contextual way, for in order to do so, he will have to have the insight of a Mujtahid. [for example, one of the pre-requisite knowledge of a mujtahid is to be a master of the Arabic language and other ancillary sciences. If he does not have this mastery insight into the words of the hadith/Quranic verse, then that is just one of the barriers in him having a clear and precise insight into the evidence, and likewise, all his other ignorance of the sciences needed for ijtihad, are barriers as well in him being able to precisley judge the evidence from an expert and comprehensively contextual point of view.

In other words, for him to be able to judge accurately the evidence he come across, he will have to perform ijtihad himself, and he just does not have the pre-requisite knowlege to perfom ijtihad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: In the Qur’aan, Allaah condemns the one who turns away from following the Messengers and follows instead the religion invented by his forefathers. This is imitation (taqleed) which is forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger, i.e., following someone other than the Messenger in matters that go against the Messenger. This is haraam for everyone according to the consensus of the Muslims, for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.

Agreed, but the concept of taqleed of the four Imaams/Madhabs, is following those who have a DEEP knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah and who have interpreted it for us according to this deep knowledge and insight that they have, so following them is the verry essence of following the Quran and Sunnah, and this kind of taqleed is not forbidden. it is the kind, as said above, that goes against the obedience of Allah and His Messenger [saw] that is forbidden. not the kind that is in accordance with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman Obedience to the Messenger is obligatory for every one, elite and common folk alike, at all times and in all places, both inwardly and outwardly, and in all situations… Allaah has enjoined obedience to the Messenger upon all people, in approximately forty places in the Qur’aan.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman It is permissible for one who is unable to derive rulings to follow a scholar, according to the majority of scholars

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman
…

Agreed, and not only is it permissable, but it is obligatory upon them to, for if one who is unable to perform ijtihad does not follow one who is, then how will he know what the correct interpretation or the practices of Islam is?. Such a person is not allowed to derive rulings from the Quran and Sunnah from his ignorance [extremely limmited knolwdge] Cybepi is a good example of what happens when laymen start forming their own personal opinions by reading the just reading the apperant meaning of the Quran.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muslimwoman the kind of imitation or following that is forbidden by the texts and according to scholarly consensus is that which goes against the words of Allaah and His Messenger. end quote. [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 19/260-266 ] May Allah guide us all to the straight path! Wassalam and Allah Almighty knows best.

Agreed.[/quote]

Salaam

PS: InshAllah I will start a new thread with evidences for taqlid, as this thread is going off topic, Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Quote:
PS: InshAllah I will start a new thread with evidences for taqlid, as this thread is going off topic, Salaam

As salaam aleykum Brother Abdullah

Please can you get a mod to move your post to the new thread, when you start it, I would llike to discuss further but do agree it goes way off topic. Thankyou.

Salaam

 

[cyberpi]

The above verses talks about the Christians and jews who follow their Scholars in what they make haraam and halaal contrary to Allah's law.

The Islamic Jurists derive the Prophetic interpretation from the Quran and Sunnah, and thus they declare the haraam and halaal according to Allah's law and not in contrary to it.

Same same. Scholar for Scholar, Slave for Slave... I hold a mirror up and the image is the same.

I dont know why you have included this imposters, who claimed to be a Prophet, corrupt interretation here, as this imposter is only but a kaafir and an enemy of Islam who's aim is to lead Muslims and others astray.

Is that what Allah (swt) has judged? I am not impressed with any of the translations. They are all different but there is only one Qur'an.

The prophet [saw] interpreted the Quran for us, so that that mean that we took him as a partner to Allah/lord besides Allah when we accepted his explanation of the Quran?

If the prophet interpreted the Qur'an for you, then you would have no need for the Qur'an.

But we cannot just know the 'straight path' just by reading the apperant meaning of the Quran, we have to seek out the Prophetic interpretation, and for that, we have to refer to the Scholars who have this Prophetic interpretation.

If Allah (swt) guides me, and a scholar guides you, which one of us is certain? Allah (swt) makes the paths.

Dont take any man besides Allah, as lord, but do learn the Prophetic interpretation of the Scholars who are qualified to derive the Prophetic interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah.

Joseph (pbuh) was thrown in a well by his brothers, sold as a slave, placed in prison, and yet I suggest he is the best prophetic interpreter in the Qur'an. Do you see how it is Allah (swt) that guides?

Yes, people place Faith in each other including anyone deemed a scholar, just as we place Faith in Allah (swt). But NO, I find another scholar is not a requirement. Allah (swt) is sufficient. May we all be guided scholars.

I am reminded of Surah 103.
Peace be upon you brother.

 

[cyberpi]

My apologies I was trying to inject a little humour into my post, I shall try to be more formal with you in future.

My apologies too then, I shall be less formal in the future.

You seem to be suggesting that because the Quran does not say "intoxicants are unlawful" then they must be ok. So do you not accept any hadiths?
...
Again I would ask do you reject all hadith as unauthentic?

I see that the hadiths were not written by Allah (swt). There is sin in them; however, there is also some good. What shall we do?

Sorry you will have to expand on this, I am not getting what you are trying to say. Are you saying I should not use verses of the Quran to explain other verses of the Quran?

I was saying that newer verses revealed do not replace older verses. Do you think they do?

Yes people must have choice in order to be good servants of Allah but you seem to be suggesting that people must sin in order to be a good servant?! My mind is boggling, surely the point is that sin exists and to be a good servant of Allah it is up to us to choose to reject that sin, not incumbent upon us to commit the sin.

There is some sin in every scholar... do you drink from scholars?

Allah gave us freedom of choice, He then set down rules to follow in order to please Him. I would have thought it was obvious that Allah would wish us to reject sin and choose to follow His rules. The Quran has so many verses that inform us of the punishments for choosing sin.

Yes, but some people derive rules to eliminate freedom and choice, and then try to place every rule in Allah's (swt) name.

I am amused by your comment "Without those who go the wrong direction, then there is nobody to help". You make it sound like this would be a bad thing. Would you also say without cancer there would be no need for cancer treatments, as though we need cancer or cancer specialists would be unemployed?

If patience, forgiveness or mercy is part of the lesson, then how will Allah (swt) teach it? How do you learn or teach them? If there is either SIN or NOT SIN in a person, then how will Allah (swt) teach Faith? How did you learn or teach Faith? If everyone only speaks Truth and hears only Truth, then how will Allah (swt) teach it? How did you learn the difference between a Truth and a Lie? How do you teach it? Please think about that one for a bit. Does a person always tell the Truth? When was a Lie learned? Same for the other traits.

I am now very curious as to which religion, if any you follow?

The religion that Allah (swt) prescribes.

The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was telling us that if something in large quantity is a sin then avoid it in any quantity. I accept that, I agree with it, I applaud it, I am grateful to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) for his wisdom and guidance. Would you say a sin in small quantity is then not a sin?

Then either an intoxicant is not sin, and/or the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was wrong in his guidance. There is a clear example: Water is an intoxicant in quantity and can even kill the body, but it is a more frequent requirement than food to live.

Please explain to me how you interpret Allahs rhetorical question about intoxicants?

I interpret that it is a question asked.

I agree there must be freedom of choice or we are simply slaves, I also agree that we should not follow innovations, however we should also step back sometimes and look at our own judgements and interpretations to ascertain whether we are 'twisting' things to allow our own desires. Even the most moderate of Muslims would agree that intoxicants are unlawful.

I find the word 'innovation' is not the best word. I suggest something like: false witness, tale, fable, conjecture, gossip, manufactured belief, fabrication, a lie, propaganda... or maybe as you suggest: twisting. The word 'innovation' is more associated with something new... as in the Qur'an was an innovation when it was first revealed. That does not mean that the prophet fabricated it, but rather that it was something new to people. I think that is one where the translation to English is off, and NOT the interpretation of the Arabic. The translated words are hard to keep up with, maybe innovation one day meant something different.

Peace be upon you Sister.

 

[cyberpi]

Hi Wil,

The article which I posted talks about how Islam dealt with slavery in the past and it is not advocating that slavery is still allowed in this day and age.

Islam gradually moved towards the abolishment of slavery and the Ottman Empire abolished it a few centuries? ago.

Peace.

While this was directed at Wil: If I may,

The last two paragraphs of that author describe modern slavery in the West in an 'us' versus 'them' fashion. I recognize this out of the Middle East, but I actually agree somewhat with the author. I can vouch that there is outright slavery within the West along similar lines. However, by that same definition there is widespread slavery in the Middle East and other parts of the world that enduces a great deal of hardship. Is it not hypocrisy to apply a different standard or a double-standard? It is more ellusive, like a timeshare slavery than outright ownership. It is partial oppression, control, or propaganda mixed in. There are different ways to enslave a person: by force, by resource, and by information. In varying degrees I have seen it in the West, but I have also witnessed each form of slavery in the Middle East.

Peace

 

[Abdullah]

If the prophet interpreted the Qur'an for you, then you would have no need for the Qur'an

The prophets are not sent merely to deliver the word of Allâh. They are also required to explain the divine Book, to interpret it, to expound it, to demonstrate the ways of its application and to present a practical example of its contents. Their duty is not restricted to reciting the words of the Book, rather they are supposed to teach it and to train people to run their lives in accordance with its requirements. The Holy Qur’ân leaves no doubt concerning this point by saying:

Allâh has surely blessed the believers with His favor when He raised in their midst a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, while they were, earlier in open error. (3:164)

He (Allâh) is the One who raised up, among the unlettered, a Messenger from among themselves who recites the verses of Allâh, and makes them pure, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom. (62:2)

The same functions were attributed to the Holy Prophet (

) in the prayer of Sayyidna Ibrahim (

) when, according to the Holy Qur’ân, he prayed:

Our Lord, raise in their midst a messenger from among themselves who recites to them Your verses and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom and purifies them… (2:129)
These are the terms of reference given to the Holy Prophet (

) which include four distinct functions and the Holy Prophet (

) has been entrusted with all of them:

(1) Recitation of the Verses of Allâh.
(2) Teaching the Book of Allâh.
(3) Teaching the Wisdom.
(4) Making the people pure.

Thus, the Holy Qur’ân leaves no ambiguities in the fact that the Holy Prophet (

) is not supposed to merely recite the verses and then leave it to the people to interpret and apply them in whatever manner they like. Instead, he is sent to “teach” the Book. Then, since teaching the Book is not enough, he is also required to teach “Wisdom” which is something additional to the “Book.” Still, this is not enough, therefore the Holy Prophet (

) has also to “make the people pure,” meaning thereby that the theoretical teaching of the Book and the “Wisdom” must be followed by a practical training to enable the people to apply the Book and the Wisdom in the way Allâh requires them to apply.

The Authority of Sunnah - Chapter 1

The second type of authority given to the Holy Prophet (

) is the authority to interpret and explain the Holy Book. He is the final authority in the interpretation of the Holy Qur’ân. The Holy Qur’ân says:

And We sent down towards you the Advice (i.e. the Qur’ân) so that you may explain to the people what has been sent down to them, and so that they may ponder. (16:44)
​

It is unequivocally established here that the basic function of the Holy Prophet (

) is to explain the Holy Book and to interpret the revelation sent down to him. It is obvious that the Arabs of Makkah, who were directly addressed by the Holy Prophet (

) did not need any translation of the Qur’ânic text. The Holy Qur’ân was revealed in their own mother tongue. Despite that they were mostly illiterate, they had a command on their language and literature. Their beautiful poetry, their eloquent speeches and their impressive dialogues are the basic sources of richness in the Arabic literature. They needed no one to teach them the literal meaning of the Qur’ânic text. That they understood the textual meaning is beyond any doubt.
It is thus obvious that the explanation entrusted to the Holy Prophet (

) was something more than the literal meaning of the Book. It was an explanation of what Allâh Almighty intended, including all the implications involved and the details needed. These details are also received by the Holy Prophet (

) through the unrecited revelation. As discussed earlier, the Holy Qur’ân has clearly said,

Then, it is on Us to explain it. (75:19)
​

This verse is self-explanatory on the subject. Allâh Almighty has Himself assured the Holy Prophet (

) that He shall explain the Book to him. So, whatever explanation the Holy Prophet (

) gives to the Book is based on the explanation of Allâh Himself. So, his interpretation of the Holy Qur’ân overrides all the possible interpretations. Hence, he is the final authority in the exegesis and interpretation of the Holy Qur’ân. His word is the last word in this behalf.

The Authority of Sunnah - Chapter 2

So there you have it my friend, the Quran itself says that one of the functions of the Holy Prophet is to interpret/explain the Quran to us [the way Allah intended for the verses to be understood].

And it is that correct interpretation of the Quran, which without, mankind will not be able to be correctly guided, that we should seek out and not just form our own opinions from the apperant/litteral meaning of the Quranic verses.

Peace.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Wil,

The article which I posted talks about how Islam dealt with slavery in the past and it is not advocating that slavery is still allowed in this day and age.

Islam gradually moved towards the abolishment of slavery and the Ottman Empire abolished it a few centuries? ago.

Peace.

As salaam aleykum Brother Abdullah

Sorry to interupt but Wil is right to ask the question of us. Whilst the article you posted does refer to slavery in the past Islam is reluctant to move forward and we do insist on living according to 1500 year old traditions, so how would non Muslims know what we deem acceptable in 2007.

Also in 2003 Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” He attacked Muslim scholars who said otherwise maintaining, “They are ignorant, not scholars ... They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.” At the time of the fatwa, Al-Fawzan was a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research, the Imam of Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh, and a professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, the main Wahhabi center of learning in the country.

How do we, as Muslims, defend this? I would also be interested in your views, given your insistence that all Muslims are obliged to follow one of the four madhhabs, because I am struggling to support this view in Islam (actually I find I simply cannot because I strongly disagree with modern men owning women so they are 'what their right hand possesses' and all that entails).

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

My apologies too then, I shall be less formal in the future

We’ll meet in the middle and when I am trying to be funny I will remember to always put a happy face icon.

I see that the hadiths were not written by Allah (swt). There is sin in them; however, there is also some good. What shall we do?.

Ah the eternal dilemma. Indeed, what shall we do? I agree totally but I cannot ignore all hadiths just because some were ‘added’ for good and bad reasons to enhance certain desires of men.
I heard yesterday that there is a new documentary out on channel 4 later in the year, ‘Who wrote the Quran’. I think you will also be interested in this. I will try and let you know when it’s on and you can record it and send it to me.

I was saying that newer verses revealed do not replace older verses. Do you think they do?
There is some sin in every scholar... do you drink from scholars?

Oh I see, sorry you lost me there for a minute. No of course they don’t replace, they add to or expand on. That doesn't mean we can ignore the verses we don't like.

Yes, but some people derive rules to eliminate freedom and choice, and then try to place every rule in Allah's (swt) name.

I agree totally and it makes me really crazy. Read some of my “where does it say that in the Quran” posts.

If patience, forgiveness or mercy is part of the lesson, then how will Allah (swt) teach it? How do you learn or teach them? If there is either SIN or NOT SIN in a person, then how will Allah (swt) teach Faith? How did you learn or teach Faith? If everyone only speaks Truth and hears only Truth, then how will Allah (swt) teach it? How did you learn the difference between a Truth and a Lie? How do you teach it? Please think about that one for a bit. Does a person always tell the Truth? When was a Lie learned? Same for the other traits.

I did as you asked and I thought about it overnight before I replied to your post, very interesting point and not one I have considered in depth before. Firstly may I point out that I accept that all adults sin, even the Prophets sinned (pbut).

My first reaction was children, that is how we learn patience, forgiveness and mercy, from our parents and society as children and our parents learnt the same lessons as children from their parents, etc, etc, etc. This is when we receive our moral base. This reaction was reinforced when I answered your next question:
How did I learn the difference between a truth and a lie? As a child I told a lie at school and got into trouble with my teacher and my parents.
So my question to you is….do children commit sin? We know that anyone that dies as a child is accepted into Jannah without judgement. So is it not the case that only adults sin, because we have learnt these lessons in childhood but choose to ignore them?
There is the difference surely? As adults we know that we are committing a sin but we still go ahead and do it. Why are we punished for these sins – because we were taught the difference between right and wrong as children but still choose as adults to cross that line. That however doesn’t mean we need sin to learn these lessons, as we learn them naturally in childhood and children do not sin, they test boundaries.

Wow what a great question, really stretches the little grey cells.

The religion that Allah (swt) prescribes.

Alhamdolillah, I wasn’t being rude I was just not sure (never really know who you are talking to on here).

Then either an intoxicant is not sin, and/or the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was wrong in his guidance. There is a clear example: Water is an intoxicant in quantity and can even kill the body, but it is a more frequent requirement than food to live.

I am not a doctor so cannot comment on this with any particular knowledge. However, put water+intoxicant in your search engine and what you get are ‘recipes’ for using water to strengthen the hit you get from your drugs. This would require a chemical change to the water, caused by the actions of man.

If you are talking about drinking water when seriously dehydrated, the effect of drunkenness is due to the chemical reaction in your brain (the chemicals already being present in the brain, not coming from the water).

Of course this is only my opinion and I am quite happy for a chemist to correct me if I am wrong.

I interpret that it is a question asked.

Well I accept your view, I disagree but accept your right to have it. As Allah told us He will judge each of us and tell us the difference between us. Maybe on the Day of Judgement I will kick myself because of all those glasses of wine I could have drunk? However, if on Judgement Day you see a woman in the crowd sticking her tongue out at you and saying told you so – guess who it will be?
That said I would like to ask you about other questions Allah asked us or things He urged us to do. One example is that of slavery, Allah did not command us to be kind to slaves or free them but in many verses He urges us to do it or asks us “if we will not” do it. There are so many topics where Allah has urged, encouraged and asked questions of us. On Judgement Day, if you choose not to follow where Allah has urged, encouraged and asked us if we will not go, how will you answer for this? Not trying to be rude, I am genuinely interested how you rationalise this.

I find the word 'innovation' is not the best word. I suggest something like: false witness, tale, fable, conjecture, gossip, manufactured belief, fabrication, a lie, propaganda... or maybe as you suggest: twisting. The word 'innovation' is more associated with something new... as in the Qur'an was an innovation when it was first revealed. That does not mean that the prophet fabricated it, but rather that it was something new to people. I think that is one where the translation to English is off, and NOT the interpretation of the Arabic. The translated words are hard to keep up with, maybe innovation one day meant something different.

I agree completely, one of the greatest difficulties facing the Ummah is that there are now far more non Arabic Muslims than Arabic ones and translation from Arabic is the hardest in the world I believe. As you know my husband is Arabic so he reads the Quran in his own language (he says reading the english version is llike reading a completely different book - the meanings are changed so much) and I read it in English – you should hear the rows we have over interpretations because of the language barrier. There are certain words he simply cannot translate for me because there is no equivalent English and no amount of learning Arabic is ever going to give me the in depth knowledge of the language that you get if it is your mother tongue.

Oh and by the way re the intoxicant issue – you are bearing false witness, telling tales, repeating fables, making conjecture, gossiping, manufacturing a belief, fabricating, telling a lie, making propaganda and twisting it.

Wa aleykum salaam Brother.

 

[Abdullah]

As salaam aleykum Brother Abdullah

wa alaikum salam wr wb sister

Sorry to interupt but Wil is right to ask the question of us.

ofcourse. people have a right, to ask about any query which arises from an article, or about anything which requires further clarification. goes without saying

Whilst the article you posted does refer to slavery in the past Islam is reluctant to move forward and we do insist on living according to 1500 year old traditions

Your above sentence has a negative connotation about it sister. The general? teachings of Islam are 'constants', that is set forever, and thus not subject to change, and there are certain matters which can be subject to change, such as those that are subject to contemporary fiqh...and as far as I know, there are righteous Scholars that are engaging in the deriving of, and propogation of contemporary fiqh, as is neccessary, thus such a generalising statement like "Islam is reluctant to move forward", is not appropriate.

Those that do not engage in contemporay fiqh in matters which some other Scholars do, may not do so due to lack of knowledge about wether they're allowed to change a certain traditional view of Islam or not, or out of the opinion that it is a constant ruling that is not subject to change [at least, under the circumstances]. And we should respect such 'carefullness', and legitimate differences of opinions amongst the righeous Scholars, for they are held out of genuine sincerity and are based on evidence.

Also in 2003 Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” He attacked Muslim scholars who said otherwise maintaining, “They are ignorant, not scholars ... They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.” At the time of the fatwa, Al-Fawzan was a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research, the Imam of Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh, and a professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, the main Wahhabi center of learning in the country.

Well to be frank, I wouldn't consider any fatwa [that is contradictory] coming from a Wahhabi, to be 'authoritative', simply for the fact that Wahhabi's have gone astray to the extent where they are not part of the ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

But I think there may be a valid difference of opinion about wether Islam has abolished slavery or not. In the answer to a question about slavery, A Hanafi Website says at the end of it's long answer:

One question that still remains is whether slavery still legally prevails anywhere in the Islamic world and whether it can be successfully implemented in this age. Well, there is no prevalence of lawful slavery in the Islamic world today and it would be difficult to implement it because of the stringent conditions attached to it. Firstly, the prisoners have to be captured in 'Jihaad' in the true sense of the word. Then again, If true 'Jihaad' did break out somewhere, there are still a number of other laws and conditions to abide by which are far too stringent for any Islamic country in the world to abide by in this time and age when people's personal gains and whims and desire are being given preference to over Islamic Law. According to Islamic Law, captive female prisoners are also part and parcel of the booty. One fifth of the booty has to be first distributed to the needy, orphans, etc. The remaining four-fifths should then be distributed among the soldiers who participated in the war. The distribution can only take effect after the booty is brought into Islamic territory. The Ameerul-Mu'mineen (Head of the Islamic State) remains the guardian of the female prisoners until he allocates them to the soldiers. Only after a soldier has been allotted a slave girl, and made the owner of her, will she become his lawful possession. After she spends a period called 'Istibraa', which is the elapse of one menstrual period, It becomes permissible for her owner to have relations with her. After possession of the slave too there are a number of other laws that affect the master and slave. There is hardly any Islamic country today that can abide to all these conditions, with the result that it is quite difficult to implement slavery in this time and age.

Ask-Imam.com [17298] What is the Islamic law with regard to slave-women? Was It permissible to have relations with these slave-women without a formal marriage ceremony?

Also from the same website:

A man may have intimate relations with his wife or slave girl. This applies no matter how many slave girls one may possess. He may not have intimate relations with his servant. A slave is one whom one physically owns. Since slavery is not in vogue nowadays, this does not apply today.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai


Ask-Imam.com [4821] What does the Islam say regarding intercourse with slave girls? In my opinion Zina or sex with any women is forbidden in Islam

And:

Slave girls were women captures as pows in a Jihaad. In this era, there are no such women who could be classed as slave girls.

Mufti Zubair Bayat

Ask-Imam.com [14208] My Question is regarding “Mulk Al-Yameen” Slave Girls which allowed for us

The above fatwas suggest that the only reason slavery is not in vogue today [in the Islamic world], is because of the 'difficulties' of implementing it in this day and age, and not because Islam has abolished it.

So it seems that there are some genuine and righteous Scholars who are of the opinion that Islam hasn't abolished slavery, and that such an institution can be implemented again in the future when the khilafa is established.

InshAllah I will look into the subject in more detail and find out for sure of wether there is a difference of opinion about this issue amongst righteuos Scholars, and if there is, then we should respect that, as righteous Scholars form their opinions out of sincerity and based on evidence from the Quran and Sunnah. While we may adopt one opinion over another, yet we should respect valid differences of opinions for they are legitimate differences of opinions, which Islam allows.

How do we, as Muslims, defend this? I would also be interested in your views, given your insistence that all Muslims are obliged to follow one of the four madhhabs, because I am struggling to support this view in Islam (actually I find I simply cannot because I strongly disagree with modern men owning women so they are 'what their right hand possesses' and all that entails).

Well I would certainly defend any opinion of the four schools of thought, however much it may not be to my preference, as their rulings are based on sincerity and Quranic and Sunnah evidence.

Scholars belonging to the four school of thoughts, do engage in contemporary fiqh, and a lot of them do have a concept of 'bidah e hasanah' [good innovation] so it's not neccessarily that the four Schools of thought, or any of their Scholars, regard slavery as being not abolished in Islam, thus adhering to one of the four School of thoughts does not mean that we neccassarily have to be of the view that slavery is not abolished.

Salaam

ps: A duty of the Muslims is to honour any contract or treaty that they get into with the non-Muslims, thus it may be the case that all Muslim countries that have signed up to the Geneva conventions or UN agreement to abolish slavery, are bound by that agreement. What the case of those who may say that slavery is not abolished in Islam, may be, is that, ...once the Khilafa gets established [with the advent of Imam Mehdi], then slavery laws may be implemented once again as the Khilafa will not be bound by any of the current UN treaties.

 

[Abdullah]

Edit

 

[Muslimwoman]

Your above sentence has a negative connotation about it sister. The general? teachings of Islam are 'constants', that is set forever, and thus not subject to change, and there are certain matters which can be subject to change, such as those that are subject to contemporary fiqh...and as far as I know, there are righteous Scholars that are engaging in the deriving of, and propogation of contemporary fiqh, as is neccessary, thus such a generalising statement like "Islam is reluctant to move forward", is not appropriate.

It was not meant to be a negative comment Brother, just a factual one. The laws sent to us by Allah are binding and eternal and 1500 years old. My concern is not with those laws, of course I accept any law that Allah places on us. My concern is for the laws based on scholars interpretations, we know from experience (re the oppression of women - that was never originallly a part of Islam) that some interpretations are simply not conducive to modern society. I certainly respect the work of many scholars and am grateful to them for their time and knowledge but you must accept that some scholars do not make interpretations in an appropriate way because it would interfere with traditional life. The example of the oppression of women is a perfect one.

Those that do not engage in contemporay fiqh in matters which some other Scholars do, may not do so due to lack of knowledge about wether they're allowed to change a certain traditional view of Islam or not, or out of the opinion that it is a constant ruling that is not subject to change [at least, under the circumstances]. And we should respect such 'carefullness', and legitimate differences of opinions amongst the righeous Scholars, for they are held out of genuine sincerity and are based on evidence.

I most certainly do respect their difference of opinion, you and I do not agree about blind following and no doubt you feel I am misguided but that does not make either of our opinions invalid. But this situation does not help the ummah, which was my point. If we choose just one school to follow we have to cross our fingers that we have not followed a school that will tomorrow make a decision that will hurt us (I am thinking of my example of conditions of marriage and divorce for women).

Also Islam, our beloved Prophet Mohammad and the ummah are judged by the outside world based on these opinions and those of the more extreme sheikhs. Whilst I do not think we need concern ourselves too much about the outside worlds (by that I mean non Muslims) opinion, you must agree that a vast majority of the ummah now live outside the middle east and are judged daily by these sometimes considerable differences in opinion.

Well to be frank, I wouldn't consider any fatwa [that is contradictory] coming from a Wahhabi, to be 'authoritative', simply for the fact that Wahhabi's have gone astray to the extent where they are not part of the ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

I shall try to find the article I read which included the names of the sheikhs from the traditional schools that came out in support of this fatwa.

But I think there may be a valid difference of opinion about wether Islam has abolished slavery or not. In the answer to a question about slavery, A Hanafi Website says at the end of it's long answer:

One question that still remains is whether slavery still legally prevails anywhere in the Islamic world and whether it can be successfully implemented in this age. Well, there is no prevalence of lawful slavery in the Islamic world today and it would be difficult to implement it because of the stringent conditions attached to it. Firstly, the prisoners have to be captured in 'Jihaad' in the true sense of the word. Then again, If true 'Jihaad' did break out somewhere, there are still a number of other laws and conditions to abide by which are far too stringent for any Islamic country in the world to abide by in this time and age when people's personal gains and whims and desire are being given preference to over Islamic Law. According to Islamic Law, captive female prisoners are also part and parcel of the booty. One fifth of the booty has to be first distributed to the needy, orphans, etc. The remaining four-fifths should then be distributed among the soldiers who participated in the war. The distribution can only take effect after the booty is brought into Islamic territory. The Ameerul-Mu'mineen (Head of the Islamic State) remains the guardian of the female prisoners until he allocates them to the soldiers. Only after a soldier has been allotted a slave girl, and made the owner of her, will she become his lawful possession. After she spends a period called 'Istibraa', which is the elapse of one menstrual period, It becomes permissible for her owner to have relations with her. After possession of the slave too there are a number of other laws that affect the master and slave. There is hardly any Islamic country today that can abide to all these conditions, with the result that it is quite difficult to implement slavery in this time and age.

There is certainly a great difference of opinion between the scholars as to whether slavery has or even can be abolished. I note with particular interest that in this answer it first address booty and then states "until he allocates them to the soldiers" - is this 2007 or have I time warped? We are talking about human beings here, not property that can be handed out to soldiers to own and have their way with. And we wonder why people hate Islam and Muslims.

A man may have intimate relations with his wife or slave girl. This applies

no matter how many slave girls one may possess. He may not have intimate relations with his servant. A slave is one whom one physically owns. Since slavery is not in vogue nowadays, this does not apply today.

I read this and I am truly ashamed to call myslf a Muslim. I read the Quran and yes it refers to slave girls and a mans rights with them but did the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)not take every opportunity he could to free slaves? Did he not anticipate that slavery would dissappear because he placed so many punishments resulting in the freeing of slaves?

Slavery is not in vogue? Does he think it is a fashion accessory?

I will ask outright, would you own a slave and have sex with her?

This is 2007 and brothers are asking whether they can have sex with slaves, perhaps Islams critics are right and Muslim men are truly sex mad and can think of nothing else. I am at least delighted to see that the sheikh has said it does not apply today.

Where has our humanity gone? Did it die when the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) passed away?

Slave girls were women captures as pows in a Jihaad. In this era, there are no such women who could be classed as slave girls.

Mufti Zubair Bayat.

Tonight I shall pray for Mufti Bayat - the voice of reason at last. This is all it takes from the scholars, to acknowledge that girls could not be classed as slaves in this day and age. The world has moved on and we must move with it.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

It was not meant to be a negative comment Brother, just a factual one. The laws sent to us by Allah are binding and eternal and 1500 years old. My concern is not with those laws, of course I accept any law that Allah places on us. My concern is for the laws based on scholars interpretations, we know from experience (re the oppression of women - that was never originallly a part of Islam) that some interpretations are simply not conducive to modern society.

What opinions, out of the four school of thoughts, do you consider to be 'opression of women' if any?. As far as I know, there is nothing in the four madhabs that amounts to 'opression of women'. As for other innovative/astray schools, such as the Wahhabi's or the shia's, they may hold opinions that amounts to 'opression of women', but that is because they are astray in a lot of their interpretations, and are out of the folds of mainstream Islam.

I certainly respect the work of many scholars and am grateful to them for their time and knowledge but you must accept that some scholars do not make interpretations in an appropriate way because it would interfere with traditional life. The example of the oppression of women is a perfect one.

What traditional views do you consider as 'opression of women'?; did the Prophet [saw] and the Sahabah [ra] not have 'traditional views?, so did they opress the women?

I most certainly do respect their difference of opinion, you and I do not agree about blind following.

I do not agree with blind following, but I do agree with taqlid; they're two different things .

and no doubt you feel I am misguided but that does not make either of our opinions invalid.

Only legitimate differences of opinions are valid, and I doubt that yours is, as if it was, then the Scholars of ahle Sunnah wouldn't refute/debunk it.

But this situation does not help the ummah, which was my point. If we choose just one school to follow we have to cross our fingers that we have not followed a school that will tomorrow make a decision that will hurt us (I am thinking of my example of conditions of marriage and divorce for women).

We dont have to 'cross our fingers' [one reason is because we are not christians ] as the opinions of the four schools of thought have been verified by the consensus of the Scholars. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf said that the four madhabs have been thoroughly scrutinised for many centuries by the Scholars and then they declared that there opinions are correct and there is no need for further scrutiny. Also, there is a hadith in which it says [to the extent] that if a layman follows the opinion of a mufti, and if the mufti gets it wrong, than the laymen gets no blame, but the blame will be on the Mufti, thus this should reassure us even more, that by chance if any opinion of a Mufti/Mujtahid that we follow should be wrong, than we will not be to blame.

Also Islam, our beloved Prophet Mohammad and the ummah are judged by the outside world based on these opinions and those of the more extreme sheikhs.

There are no extreme opinions in the four madhabs; all of thier madhabs are moderate. There are extremist Muslims out there that are giving a wrong impression of Islam to the non-Muslims and we have to work on bringing them into moderate mainstream Islam.

Whilst I do not think we need concern ourselves too much about the outside worlds (by that I mean non Muslims) opinion, you must agree that a vast majority of the ummah now live outside the middle east and are judged daily by these sometimes considerable differences in opinion.

The non-Muslims like the idea of 'differences in opinions', as it is simmilar to their concept of individuality and freedom of speech and thought, which are tenets of their civilisation and which they hold verry dear to themselves.

I shall try to find the article I read which included the names of the sheikhs from the traditional schools that came out in support of this fatwa.

I'll look into it as well inshAllah.

There is certainly a great difference of opinion between the scholars as to whether slavery has or even can be abolished.

And we should respect that. There is no clear or direct reference in the Quran or the Sunnah that says or implies? that the Umaah should aim to abolish slavery in the near or far future. What evidence we do have is that, slavery [within the confines which Islam allows] is condoned in the Quran and the Sunnah, so can you really blame any Mufti/Mujtahid that comes to the conclusion that salvery is not to be abolished? If some Scholars have come to the conclusion that the reccomendations for the freeing of the slaves, and the incentives [reward] for doing so, implies that the Ummah should aim to gradually abolish slavery, then other Scholars have come to the conclusion that such an implication is not there, since if this is the implication which Allah and the Prophet [saw] wants us to realise and implement, the Prophet [saw] could have easily just as said "slavery is to be gradually abolished".

Another reason that some Scholars may think that slavery is not to be abolished, is because slavery was part and parcel of Jihad...in the days of the prophet [saw], and since jihad will remain untill the last day, then so will slavery [they may deduce].

If slavery [within the confines which Islam allows] was such an abhorrent, evil and inhumane practice, than surely there would have been more clearer evidence that it should be abolished gradually, than just left for us to figure out such an implication from the recomended practice of freeing of slaves [voluntarily] and it's incentives?, some Scholars may deduce.

I'm not saying from the above that I'm of the opinion that Islam hasn't abolished slavery, I'm just showing that with the kind of evidence there is for the argument that slavery is not abolished, the Scholars could not be blamed for such an opinion, and that such an opinion is valid.

I note with particular interest that in this answer it first address booty and then states "until he allocates them to the soldiers" - is this 2007 or have I time warped? We are talking about human beings here, not property that can be handed out to soldiers to own and have their way with. And we wonder why people hate Islam and Muslims.

Were they not human beings in the seventh century and the early centuries of Islam?.

The kuffar will find reasons to hate Islam, as it is in their kuffar nature to hate it, but we shouldn't try to change Islam just because they hate it, we should love Islam, the religion that has been perfected during the time of the Prophet [saw], and the religion that is from Allah [swt], the lord of the worlds.

I read this and I am truly ashamed to call myslf a Muslim. I read the Quran and yes it refers to slave girls and a mans rights with them but did the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)not take every opportunity he could to free slaves? Did he not anticipate that slavery would dissappear because he placed so many punishments resulting in the freeing of slaves?

There was no punishment in the not freeing of slaves. there was reward in the freeing of slaves. and the atonement of certain sins was to free a number of slaves, so how does that amount to the Prophet [saw] placing so many punishments resulting in the freeing of slaves?

Slavery is not in vogue? Does he think it is a fashion accessory?

He used the following definitions of the term vogue: popular, acceptance, favour

I will ask outright, would you own a slave and have sex with her?

First I'll have to see what Scholars back the 'slavery is not abolished' and the 'slavery is abolished' views, and...look into what type of evidences they are using for their arguments...also I'll...look into wether they both are considered as valid opinions by the righteous Scholars, then I'll decide on one opinion which I think is best...and if that opinion should be that slavery is not abolished by Islam, then, If I lived in a country where the law allowed slavery and if I owned a slave girl that could be defined Islamically as a slave, then wether I have sex with her or not is up to me, but I'd be doing nothing wrong if I decided to do so.

This is 2007 and brothers are asking whether they can have sex with slaves, perhaps Islams critics are right and Muslim men are truly sex mad and can think of nothing else.

That is not true, if you look at the Islam Q&A websites, then you'd see that Muslims are asking all kinds of questions [relating to all aspects of Islam] and the questions about wether they can have sex with slave girls or not, is relatively few, so that means that they are not sex mad.

I am at least delighted to see that the sheikh has said it does not apply today.

Where has our humanity gone? Did it die when the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) passed away?

Wether Islam has abolished slavery or not, did the Quran and Sunnah, when it condoned slavery, condone inhumanity?... just showing that it is not wise to imply that the opinion that slavery is not abolished, lacks humanity, as that opinion may be correct/valid [have to find out for sure now of wether it is or not, but it may not be neccasarily one that I adopt]

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

I am just going to answer the quick bits first as some questions will require quotes and I don't want to get them wrong, so I'll do another post for those.

I do not agree with blind following, but I do agree with taqlid; they're two different things

We will have to agree to disagree on this subject because to me they are one and the same, as shown in some of your comments in this post - I refer to your saying you would have to see what the scholars say but if they said slavery is ok you would OWN another human being and may or may not have sex with her. Sorry but my brain blows a fuse at the mere thought.

Only legitimate differences of opinions are valid, and I doubt that yours is, as if it was, then the Scholars of ahle Sunnah wouldn't refute/debunk it.

Ah yes but then you require an army of scholars to tell you your opinion.

We dont have to 'cross our fingers' [one reason is because we are not christians ] as the opinions of the four schools of thought have been verified by the consensus of the Scholars. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf said that the four madhabs have been thoroughly scrutinised for many centuries by the Scholars and then they declared that there opinions are correct and there is no need for further scrutiny. Also, there is a hadith in which it says [to the extent] that if a layman follows the opinion of a mufti, and if the mufti gets it wrong, than the laymen gets no blame, but the blame will be on the Mufti, thus this should reassure us even more, that by chance if any opinion of a Mufti/Mujtahid that we follow should be wrong, than we will not be to blame.

Brother Abdullah, forgive me but you keep answering this question without ever answering the question I am asking. You have repeated to me numerous times now that all the scholars agree that all the scholars are right but what about the question. HOW? I have given you a specific example and asked you to explain to me how they can all be right. I am not asking you to state this one is right and this one is wrong, just explain how it can be right that a woman can place conditions on her marriage contract and get a divorce if the condition is broken and also be right that she can't.

So by your way of thinking, if one schools says day is night and another says day is day then they are both right? And people wonder why Muslims are confused.

The non-Muslims like the idea of 'differences in opinions', as it is simmilar to their concept of individuality and freedom of speech and thought, which are tenets of their civilisation and which they hold verry dear to themselves.

But they do not like it when those differences of opinions go against

And we should respect that. There is no clear or direct reference in the Quran or the Sunnah that says or implies? that the Umaah should aim to abolish slavery in the near or far future. What evidence we do have is that, slavery [within the confines which Islam allows] is condoned in the Quran and the Sunnah, so can you really blame any Mufti/Mujtahid that comes to the conclusion that salvery is not to be abolished? If some Scholars have come to the conclusion that the reccomendations for the freeing of the slaves, and the incentives [reward] for doing so, implies that the Ummah should aim to gradually abolish slavery, then other Scholars have come to the conclusion that such an implication is not there, since if this is the implication which Allah and the Prophet [saw] wants us to realise and implement, the Prophet [saw] could have easily just as said "slavery is to be gradually abolished".

Slavery was a huge part of the economy then, to simply say 'as of tomorrow no slavery' would cause more problems than it solved.

As far as I can find there are 70 verses of the Quran that refer to 'slaves' (many of these are in the transaltion and can also be translated as servant):

Slaves of Allah (people) 2:90 3:79 5:118 6:118 6:61 7:194 (referring to idols) 8:51 12:24 14:11 15:40 15:42 15:49 17:07 17:17 17:30 17:96 18:65 19:61 20:77 21:26 21;105 22:10 23:109 25:17 25:63 26:52 27:15 27:19 27:59 28:82 35:31 35:45 37:40 37:74 37:81 37:111 37:122 37:128 37:132 37:160 37:169 38:83 39:46 39:53 40:15 40:31 40:44 40:48 41:46 42:19 42:27 43:68 44:18 44:23 50:29 66:10 71:27 76:6

Nature 2:164

Free slaves 2:177 24:33

Do good to slaves 4:36

Do not give so much of your provisions to slaves to make them your equal 16:71

Angels 17:05 43:19

Sex with wives & slaves 23:06

Women can show their adornments to & converse freely with 24:31 33:55

Marry slaves 24:32

Slaves & children to ask permission before they come into your presence (on 3 occasions not all the time) 24:58

So of the 70, 1 refers to bahaviour of slaves, 1 tells you to marry them, 2 refer to your wives behaviour with them, 1 refers to sex, 1 refers to sharing provisions, 1 says do good to them, 2 say free them, 1 refers to nature as a slave of Allah, 2 refer to angels as slaves to Allah and a whopping 58 refer to mankind being the slaves of Allah.

I would be grateful if you let me know which verses I have missed.

Another reason that some Scholars may think that slavery is not to be abolished, is because slavery was part and parcel of Jihad...in the days of the prophet [saw], and since jihad will remain untill the last day, then so will slavery [they may deduce].

You mention Jihad, have you ever heard of prisoners of war? There are many ways to stop your enemy coming back to kill you without enslaving them.

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the Allah-fearing. 2:177

Read this verse then explain how may they deduce this? Do they not understand that over time, with everyone obeying Allah, that slavery would die out?

If slavery [within the confines which Islam allows] was such an abhorrent, evil and inhumane practice, than surely there would have been more clearer evidence that it should be abolished gradually, than just left for us to figure out such an implication from the recomended practice of freeing of slaves [voluntarily] and it's incentives?, some Scholars may deduce.

The evidence is very clearly in the verse I quoted above. I am sorry but do you need Allah to say something more than once before you listen? This verse does not leave anything for us to figure out.

I'm not saying from the above that I'm of the opinion that Islam hasn't abolished slavery, I'm just showing that with the kind of evidence there is for the argument that slavery is not abolished, the Scholars could not be blamed for such an opinion, and that such an opinion is valid.

It is just a matter of mathematics, Allah tells us to free slaves, there were only a given number of slaves so if we free them hey presto no more slaves.

Were they not human beings in the seventh century and the early centuries of Islam?

Yes which is why the Quran tells us to treat them well and free them.

The kuffar will find reasons to hate Islam, as it is in their kuffar nature to hate it, but we shouldn't try to change Islam just because they hate it, we should love Islam, the religion that has been perfected during the time of the Prophet [saw], and the religion that is from Allah [swt], the lord of the worlds.

I have no desire to change Islam because a non Muslims hate it, I desire change within Islam so that we go back to adherence to the wordss of Allah and even though I repeat myself he told us to free slaves. I am so confused as to how anyone can say we should love Islam and then completely ignore the instructions of Allah because the scholars play pick and mix with the Quran and the hadiths. I am sorry that sounds so rude but really I am feeling so frustrated by the situation the scholars have brought us to.

There was no punishment in the not freeing of slaves. there was reward in the freeing of slaves. and the atonement of certain sins was to free a number of slaves, so how does that amount to the Prophet [saw] placing so many punishments resulting in the freeing of slaves?

Here we are saying exactly the same thing, just using different words.

First I'll have to see what Scholars back the 'slavery is not abolished' and the 'slavery is abolished' views, and...look into what type of evidences they are using for their arguments...also I'll...look into wether they both are considered as valid opinions by the righteous Scholars, then I'll decide on one opinion which I think is best...and if that opinion should be that slavery is not abolished by Islam, then,

If I lived in a country where the law allowed slavery and if I owned a slave girl that could be defined Islamically as a slave, then wether I have sex with her or not is up to me, but I'd be doing nothing wrong if I decided to do so.

Wow now that is what I would call blind following. Do you own a copy of the Quran? Can you read the above verses? Is there anything in the words "and to set slaves free" that you are not capable of understanding?

That is not true, if you look at the Islam Q&A websites, then you'd see that Muslims are asking all kinds of questions [relating to all aspects of Islam] and the questions about wether they can have sex with slave girls or not, is relatively few, so that means that they are not sex mad.

Please remember I am married to an Arabic Muslim, we live in an Arabic country that is 98% Muslim and the customers in our business are virtually all young Arab Muslim men - I think I know a little about Muslim men.

Wether Islam has abolished slavery or not, did the Quran and Sunnah, when it condoned slavery, condone inhumanity?... just showing that it is not wise to imply that the opinion that slavery is not abolished, lacks humanity, as that opinion may be correct/valid [have to find out for sure now of wether it is or not, but it may not be neccasarily one that I adopt]

I am sorry but I and a few billion other people believe slavery is inhumane, I believe the Quaran accepted slavery as a reality of the time and in the verses above set in motion the means to abolish it.

Salaam (I shall go to do my reply about womens rights now).

 

[Muslimwoman]

as salaam aleykum

Oppression of women.

Issue 1. Divorce. Shafi'i school allows a wife to obtain a divorce on the grounds of non support from her absent husband in as little as 3 days. Hanafi school never allows her a divorce, even if the husband abandons the wife for decades. So now we have a woman with young children, no means of support and no opportunity to remarry. Of course by now her missing husband can have 3 other wives (and don't quote the must treat them all equally verse because the jurisprudence does not allow for that).

My husband can divorce me in less than 1 minute, however if I wish to divorce him it would realistically take me 4+ years, if I ever managed it at all. Virtually all Sunni jurists consider triple repudiation given at once to be totally effective, although Shi'i says this only counts as one (gosh so with them it might take him 10 or 20 minutes to divorce me).

Does this sound like oppression to you? Perhaps not, so next

Issue 2. The Maliki school says a fathers power to force a girl into marriage ends when she is 9 years old (I will not even mention the rights of children) yet the Maliki school allows a father to contract a marriage for his never married daughter, over his daughters objections, even if she is a 30 year old doctor.

What happened to the Islamic right of women being allowed to choose a husband and can not be forced into marriage against her objections?

Starting to sound like oppression yet? Maybe not, carrying on

The Hanafi school state that if a woman is RAPED by her father in law her marriage is automatically disolved. Now we have a rape victim, with no husband, no means of support and no-one else will touch her with a barge pole.

Well that doesn't sound oppressive at all.

How about a nice simple one? Prayer.

In our area, if I am out with my husband and he wants to pray I have to hang around outside like a prostitute because there is no harem for women to pray (there are 5 mosques within 500 mtrs of my apartment). When we go to Cairo I am permitted to pray in the tiny little harem, as long as I wait in the long queue for my turn to fit in. Needless to say my husband has no 'waiting time'.

Now please read this article, it not only sites the reasons women should pray with men but also gives the reasons the scholars give for rejection of this and repudiations.

Progressive Muslim Union: Nevin Reda's Support of Woman-led Prayer


Issue 3. Women are punished for being rape victims, their punishments are far worse than for the rapist. Rape is an act of violence not fornication. The punishments for adultery or fornication are far more severe (can you get more severe than death?) for women as they are for men. So either kill the victim, or at least lash her and put her in prison and give the man a few lashes and tell him he is a naughty boy.

Is this oppression? Perhaps we need to define oppression?

Issue 4. Polygamy. My husband, if he wished, could not only have 2 other wives but could go out tomorrow and get a temporary 30 minute marriage if he fancied shagging a woman he is not married to. Of course he can do this every hour of every day (the poor man would be exhausted but die with a smile on his face). This practice is becoming more common and the great scholars of Al Azhar tut, sometimes they even frown but of course that is all they do.

Issue 5. FGM (female genitalia mutilation). This is cultural but all sorts of fatwas over the years have failed to preclude it as non-Islamic. Al Azhar did go as far as to say it was not recommended. How can I put this into terms that you will understand? Let us role reverse. Ah yes the penis, the place where all your sexual pleasure comes from. You are approximately 12 years old and come home from school one day to find the woman from No 43 with a sharp kitchen knife. Your mum and sister hold you down while this woman slits your penis open (no anasthetic of course), she then cuts the main nerve of your member at the base and sticks her finger in the hole to ensure that any remnant of your ability to enjoy sex is removed. You grow up and get married, your wife has the right to have sex with you as and when she feels like it (if you dont she'll divorce you - but it's ok she is a woman so it will only take 1 minute to get a divorce). So you spend 60 years of married being humped silly by your wife with absolutely no ability to enjoy the experience.

Feeling a little oppressed yet?


I have to say alhamdolillah, I have a wonderful husband who believes in monogamy, I choose to wear my hijab it is not forced upon me by religious police or my male relatives, if I was a rape victim I would be protected by my nationality, I was born in the west so cannot be forced to marry the first dirty old man that offered my dad enough money and my body is still intact.

I await your explainations as to why I am wrong and these issues are not the oppression of women. Oh when you explain them to me please, as well as the scholars 'because we say so' could you please also back them up with verses of the Quran that allow this treatment of women under the four schools. Thank you.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

as salaam aleykum

Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

Oppression of women.

Issue 1. Divorce. Shafi'i school allows a wife to obtain a divorce on the grounds of non support from her absent husband in as little as 3 days. Hanafi school never allows her a divorce, even if the husband abandons the wife for decades.

That is not true. In the hanafi school, if the wife's rights are not met by her husband, than she can apply to a shariah court/council and obtain a divorce, the divorce could take as little as a couple of months to be implemented.

Of course by now her missing husband can have 3 other wives (and don't quote the must treat them all equally verse because the jurisprudence does not allow for that).

Jurisprudence allows for equall treatment...

My husband can divorce me in less than 1 minute, however if I wish to divorce him it would realistically take me 4+ years, if I ever managed it at all. Virtually all Sunni jurists consider triple repudiation given at once to be totally effective, although Shi'i says this only counts as one (gosh so with them it might take him 10 or 20 minutes to divorce me).

Not sure if all the four schools of thought hold the 'three instant divorces' opinion, and if they do, that is because it is according to the Sunnah/Shariah. woman are not allowed 'instant divorces' as they are a lot more emotional in nature, than a man, thus they could easily divorce out of emotion and later regret it.

Does this sound like oppression to you? Perhaps not, so next

Course not

Issue 2. The Maliki school says a fathers power to force a girl into marriage ends when she is 9 years old (I will not even mention the rights of children) yet the Maliki school allows a father to contract a marriage for his never married daughter, over his daughters objections, even if she is a 30 year old doctor.

After your mistaken comment about Hanafi School, I will need a quote and link to be sure that that is indeed what the Maaliki's say.

What happened to the Islamic right of women being allowed to choose a husband and can not be forced into marriage against her objections?

A condition of marriage to be valid in Islam, is that the bride and groom must consent to the marriage. If you think any of the four madhabs believe otherwise, then give us the evidence with the link please.

Starting to sound like oppression yet? Maybe not, carrying on

Not as far as I can ascertain

The Hanafi school state that if a woman is RAPED by her father in law her marriage is automatically disolved. Now we have a rape victim, with no husband, no means of support and no-one else will touch her with a barge pole.

If they do say that, then maybe it's because they have determined that a marriage of a woman to her husband would be anulled if she has sex [forced or otherwise] with her husbands father. Have you looked into the evidence for this opinion before you decided to condemn it? [not convinced if they do say that though, link?]

Well that doesn't sound oppressive at all.

You got that right

How about a nice simple one? Prayer.

In our area, if I am out with my husband and he wants to pray I have to hang around outside like a prostitute because there is no harem for women to pray (there are 5 mosques within 500 mtrs of my apartment). When we go to Cairo I am permitted to pray in the tiny little harem, as long as I wait in the long queue for my turn to fit in. Needless to say my husband has no 'waiting time'.

The Hanafi's say that it is more better for a woman to pray in her home rahter than the mosque, other Scholars hold that it is prohibbited for the woman to go to the mosque, and they have Quranic and Sunnah evidence for it.

Now please read this article, it not only sites the reasons women should pray with men but also gives the reasons the scholars give for rejection of this and repudiations.

Progressive Muslim Union: Nevin Reda's Support of Woman-led Prayer

Aminah Wadoud decided to go against ijma? and a fifteen hundred year tradition when she led the mixed prayer, thus commiting a bidah and a grave sin. The so called Progressive Muslims are a kuffar group who are out of the folds of Islam. I'd steer clear from such sites if I was you sister.

Issue 3. Women are punished for being rape victims, their punishments are far worse than for the rapist.

Not true.

Rape is an act of violence not fornication. The punishments for adultery or fornication are far more severe (can you get more severe than death?) for women as they are for men.

Not true, the punishments are equall for man and woman.

So either kill the victim, or at least lash her and put her in prison and give the man a few lashes and tell him he is a naughty boy.

Not true, as I pointed out.

Is this oppression? Perhaps we need to define oppression?

Since it's not true, it's not opression.

Issue 4. Polygamy. My husband, if he wished, could not only have 2 other wives but could go out tomorrow and get a temporary 30 minute marriage if he fancied shagging a woman he is not married to. Of course he can do this every hour of every day (the poor man would be exhausted but die with a smile on his face). This practice is becoming more common and the great scholars of Al Azhar tut, sometimes they even frown but of course that is all they do.

Muta [temporary marriage] is forbidden by consensus in Sunni Islam.

Issue 5. FGM (female genitalia mutilation). This is cultural but all sorts of fatwas over the years have failed to preclude it as non-Islamic.

This is a matter of opinion., and there are hadiths on female circumcision [so it is not based on culture]

"female circumcision" means removing the prepuce of the clitoris, not the clitoris itself.

The Maliki school holds that female circumcession is Sunnah, while Hanafi school as well as a reported view from the Hanbli school maintain that it is not sunnah; rather it is merely a makrumah (customarily recommended act, but no provisions in the Qur’an or Sunnah obligate nor recommend it).

The Shafi`i school, on the other hand, and the famous view of the Hanbali school are of the opinion that it is mandatory as in the case of male circumcision.

Here's a link that explains a bit more about it:

IslamonLine.net

Feeling a little oppressed yet?

Nope

I have to say alhamdolillah, I have a wonderful husband who believes in monogamy,

He may choose to have only one wife for whatever reasons, but inshAllah he does not reject that a man is allowed upto four wives.

I choose to wear my hijab it is not forced upon me by religious police or my male relatives,

Hijab is obligatory, and not wearing it [in public] can lead to serious fitnah, thus how do you know that such an obligation is not to be enforced by the authorites, according to Shariah?

if I was a rape victim I would be protected by my nationality, I was born in the west so cannot be forced to marry the first dirty old man that offered my dad enough money and my body is still intact.

Islam rejects forced marriages..., period.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

That is not true. In the hanafi school, if the wife's rights are not met by her husband, than she can apply to a shariah court/council and obtain a divorce, the divorce could take as little as a couple of months to be implemented.

Please can you give me a source to support this?

Look at the lengths Indian women were having to go to in order to get divorced:

a few desperate Hanafi women had discovered that a way out of intolerable matrimonial situations existed if they were willing to apostatize, even temporarily, from Islam.

The Hanafi view is that the arbiters can only attempt to reconcile the spouses and have no authority to dissolve the marriage unless the husband has specifically empowered them to pronounce talaq on his behalf. (Therefore a woman can only get a divorce with the permission of her husband and if he refuses the judges have no way of pronouncing divorce).

There is, however, considerable divergence among the schools of Islamic law concerning the precise grounds which would entitle a Muslim wife to judicial dissolution of her marriage. The classical Hanafi school is by far the most restrictive in this regard.

http://www.wluml.org/english/pubsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B87%5D=i-87-2684

To try to be fair so I found an article that supports the Hanafi school of thought, at the link below. Please make careful note of the 2 small comments in pink, these are by the Hanafi woman that posted the article.

http://members.tripod.com/~SuzyAshraf/htm/_ed._Syed_Mumtaz_Ali.htm

I know a Hanafi women that has waited 3 years and 2 months so far for a divorce. She, being a woman and a Hanafi, can only get a divorce through Khul’. She is from a poor family and so cannot give her husband property or pay him money. 3 years ago he beat her so badly she spent 12 days in hospital, he then left her and only came back once a week when he wanted his conjugal rights (to me this is tantamount to rape). For 3 years he has not paid one pound for her maintenance (food, home and clothes). Eventually, last year, a family friend gave her the money to pay to her husband for a divorce, he turned up in court and refused to divorce her and the court had no means to pronounce the divorce because the husband claimed he still loves her. The husband is now happily living with his new wife just 2 streets from this poor woman and she cannot remarry. And you don’t feel this is oppression of women?

Jurisprudence allows for equall treatment....

It should but it doesn't, it is very gender biased. Read the above. The problem comes when judges do not stick to the spirit of fiqh. Take for example the Hanafi view that “so long as there are good relations between husband and wife, divorce is prohibited”. A womans testimony is half that of a mans (another means of oppression) so if a husband says relations are good and a wife says they are not – hey presto the man must be right because his testimony is worth twice that of his wife.

Not sure if all the four schools of thought hold the 'three instant divorces' opinion, and if they do, that is because it is according to the Sunnah/Shariah. woman are not allowed 'instant divorces' as they are a lot more emotional in nature, than a man, thus they could easily divorce out of emotion and later regret it.

As I stated, Hanafi school counts the triple repudiation as only one. It takes 3 months under Hanafi for a husband to pronounce divorce, one pronouncement each month.

Are you seriously suggesting that my husband never gets emotional or could get angry enough to say this and then regret it when he calms down? Are you also seriously suggesting I am so stupid and emotional that it would take me over 4 YEARS to consider my position if I wanted a divorce (and of course had the money or property to pay my husband for the divorce)? Or perhaps you feel that khul is there to make me stop and think before I get a divorce?

I own a flat in Egypt and if my husband deserts me and I apply for a divorce I have to give him my flat as payment for divorce. If my husband divorces me he must pay me 200le (about £21 sterling) a month for 3 months, “to give me time to get married again”. The flat is worth about £18,000 sterling and I worked bloody hard to pay for that flat. Please tell me how this is equality?

After your mistaken comment about

Hanafi School, I will need a quote and link to be sure that that is indeed what the Maaliki's say.

I posted the proof above re Hanafi but to be fair here you go:

For instance, neither women nor men require marriage guardians in Hanafi law – a huge difference from the Maliki school where fathers have the right to determine the husband of never-married daughters…….This is from here
Africa Program : Documents : Research Presented at the Africa Program

under the Maliki school of law ………a father's ijbar allows him to "arrange the marriage of his virgin daughter, regardless of her age and without her consent" This is taken from here:

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/rir/?action=record.viewrec&gotorec=449976

According to Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, a woman even if she has attained to puberty and maturity is not competent to contract marriage independently and needs a guardian to consent to her doing so.

This is taken from the article on the link above. So a 30 year old female heart surgeon can save lives on a daily basis but is not competent to contract her own marriage. Exactly how is this equality?

 

[Muslimwoman]

A condition of marriage to be valid in Islam, is that the bride and groom must consent to the marriage. If you think any of the four madhabs believe otherwise, then give us the evidence with the link please.

As above

If they do say that, then maybe it's because they have determined that a marriage of a woman to her husband would be anulled if she has sex [forced or otherwise] with her husbands father. Have you looked into the evidence for this opinion before you decided to condemn it? [not convinced if they do say that though, link?

I am sorry but you actually want me to look into evidence before I condemn a woman being punished for being the victim of rape?

The Hanafi's say that it is more better for a woman to pray in her home rahter than the mosque, other Scholars hold that it is prohibbited for the woman to go to the mosque, and they have Quranic and Sunnah evidence for it.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, states the following:
Women used to attend the jama`ah or congregational Prayers and the Friday Prayers in the Prophet's Mosque. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to urge them to stand in the last rows behind men.
At the beginning, men and women used to enter through the same door. When this caused overcrowding on entrances and exits, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him, said: "(It would be better) if this door is left for women." Upon saying so, the men made that door for women, and it became known up until today as "The Women's Door".
Shedding more light on the issue, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America, adds:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly told men not to exclude women from going to the Mosque. It is reported that the wife of `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) used to attend the congregational Prayer in the Mosque at Fajr and `Ishaa' Prayers. It was said to her, "Why do you leave home, you know that `Umar does not like that and he feels ashamed (that you leave home at that time)?" She said, "So what prevents him from stopping Me?" The person said, "It is the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) 'Do not prevent the she-servants of Allah from Allah's Mosques.'" (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544352
What about this evidence?

Aminah Wadoud decided to go against ijma? and a fifteen hundred year tradition when she led the mixed prayer, thus commiting a bidah and a grave sin. The so called Progressive Muslims are a kuffar group who are out of the folds of Islam. I'd steer clear from such sites if I was you sister.

The above is from islamonline – or would you like me to steer clear of that site as well brother?

Not true, the punishments are equall for man and woman.

Would you like to visit my town and I can introduce you to a number of girls who were forced to marry their rapists. When the girls go to the police a judge and a sheikh is called, they then convince the girl and her father by explaining that she doesn’t have 4 male witnesses and of course she cannot now marry anyone else. So if she doesn’t go along with this she is going to be charged with fornication. These girls are then forced to either their punishment for fornication or be married to their rapists. So the man gets no punishment and the girls spend the remainder of their lives being raped. This may not be law but it is Islam in action in Egypt.

The Hudood Ordinance criminalises all sex outside marriage, so if a rape victim fails to present four male witnesses to the crime she herself could face punishment and be prosecuted for adultery.

How many rapists allow the woman time to go and get 4 male witnesses or bring them along to watch? This is from here, it is a short article please read it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5337752.stm

the woman and the man were stopped and abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took them to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors. Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif, near the woman's hometown. But the judges also decided to sentence the woman, identified by the newspaper only as “G,” to 90 lashes (because she had been in a car with a man).

Pakistani legislation, for example, defines both adultery13 and rape14 as 'sexual intercourse without being validly married' and does not draw the distinction that one is forced while the other is not. Under current Pakistani law, if a women is raped and reports the crime or becomes pregnant, she has to prove that she was raped. What constitutes proof in Pakistan is the man's admittance of the crime, or four witnesses who saw the man force her into having sex. If she can not prove this, she is charged with having an illicit sexual relationship with someone and is punished. Because of this policy, rape victims are punished for reporting the crime, and because men can get away with it, there has been an increase in rapes every year.

A disturbing piece of news from the Bangladesh Daily Star relates the case of a woman who became a victim of rape in Fulchari upazila (borough) in Gaibandha district, in the north of Bangladesh.
Rapes are not unusual, though Gaibandha district seems to have a high amount for a rural district. What is unusual here is that the 16-year old rape victim, Kanti Begum, who was attacked and sexually assaulted on January 31 by two men, was subjected to local Muslim justice. This was meted out by two clerics from the Fulchari madrassa. As a result of this, on March 24, not only were the two rapists sentenced to a public flogging of 57 lashes, but Kanti, the rape victim, was sentenced to the same punishment.
The verdict was made according to "Islamic jurisprudence" by Senior principal of the madrassa, Sirajul Islam, and lecturer Aminul Islam.
Oh sorry, she only got the same punishment – can’t be oppression then.

One law, introduced during Zia's dictatorship in 1979, removed the distinction between adultery and rape. This meant that a private offense, such as adultery became a criminal offense. At the same time, it ensured that in cases of rape, the burden of proof relies on the victim proving innocence. As both adultery and rape require four witnesses to establish a crime, a woman who claims she has been raped is in effect admitting to adultery, and is often charged and subsequently jailed.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) announced last month that during 2005, there were 6,000 women and children held in Pakistani prisons. 80 percent of the women in jail are being held under so-called "hudud" ordinances, with the largest number facing charges of adultery.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001885.html



Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali……….The Egyptian-born Sheik also appeared to refer to a series of notorious gang rapes in Sydney by a group of Lebanese Muslim men who received long prison sentences. He said there were women who "sway suggestively", and wore make-up and immodest dress, "and then you get a judge without mercy [who] gives you 65 years... but the problem all began with who?"

Let me guess you agree completely with the sheikh?

Nurul Huda Abdul Ghani, a ten-year-old girl, was raped and killed in Tanjung Kupang, Gelang Patah, Malaysia in January. According to the khatib (mosque official) of Masjid Batu, Permatang Pauh, this occurred as punishment from God because her parents did not support attempts to impose Islamic law on the region.

So is this oppression?