Slavery in Islam

[Muslimwoman]

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

Please ask the women in the stories above if they feel oppressed.

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

I wasn’t talking about Muta, I was talking about Misyar:

Misyar is allowed under Sunni Islam and it is legal in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. But it is traditionally frowned upon and the fact that it leaves the wife financially vulnerable has angered many women's activists and intellectuals.
"Misyar reduces marriage to sexual intercourse," said Hatoun al-Fassi, a female Saudi historian. "For clerics to allow it is shameful for our religion."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012301.php

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.

I would be very interested to know which country you live in. The country I live in almost 100% of women have this barbaric thing done to them, no hospitals or doctors, no anaesthetic and they have the full clitoris taken out. I am also interested that you support this, as even some scholars at Al Azhar have begun to speak against it:
The Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) has published excerpts of transcripts of an Al-Azhar debate among scholars regarding FGC/FC. From Memri: "[The debate is] between Egyptian Al-Azhar University scholars Sheikh Muhammad Al-Mussayar and Sheikh Mahmoud Ashur, who is a member of Al-Azhar's Islamic ResearchAcademy (or Islamic Research Council) on the issue of female circumcision. The debate aired on Al-Arabiya TV on February 12, 2007."
TO VIEW CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1392
Mahmoud Ashur: "Female circumcision is a traditional custom, and not a religious act. All the hadiths dealing with female circumcision are unreliable. Moreover, the hadith cited by those who support circumcision calls to refrain from it more than it calls to perform it.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php
There are 3 types including removal of the whole outer organ and stitching the vagina to make it smaller to give men more pleasure, see the World Health Organisation report here:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

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

Why on earth would you think I need a link to learn more about it, I am a woman, a Muslimah and I live in the country that it is most practiced in the world?

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.

My husband was born a Muslim so of course he follows the Quran completely and before we married he informed me that if there is ever a war in Egypt and Muslim women are left unprotected due to death (ie no husband or father to provide for them) then it is his duty to Allah to marry up to 3 of these women. Of course I accept this completely and would help these women to bring up their children.

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?

Do not put words in my mouth, I was simply saying that I choose to wear it. Many Muslim women choose not to wear hijab because the Quran states we must dress modestly, not that we must wear hijab. I however choose to wear it.

As for girls dying because their heads are not covered – do you think the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) would approve of that? 15 girls in Saudi were trying to get out of a burning school and the religious police beat them with sticks until they went back inside and burnt to death. The reason? They tried to leave the building without being properly dressed. Now I ask you in all honesty, if it was 15 schoolboys that had been playing football and tried to leave the same building in shorts would we have the same result? And you say there is no oppression.

Islam rejects forced marriages..., period.

So explain the above.

[2:191] …….. OPPRESSION is worse than murder

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Please can you give me a source to support this?

InshAllah I'll try and find you an online source.

I am speaking from experience however. There is a Hanafi Islamic council in the UK [in Dewsbury], and I aquainted a sister, who wanted a divorce from her husband as he was not fullfilling her rights [he was not sleeping with her] and was beating her, with this council. The sister had to pay a fee and give them all the neccassary details. The council, after some investigation, and after they themselves saw that the husband was not willing to divorce his wife himself, issued an anouncement of divorce. The whole process only took a matter of a few months...

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

Divorce can take a few years even in the west. if some countires dont have advanced shariah court/coucils set up, than it's the peoples fault and not of the madhabs. The Hanafi madhab does not restrict the setting up of shariah councils that can issue speedy divorces, under the right circumstances.

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.

Hope they didn't apostasise though, as any kind of hardship is better than kufr.

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).

But there are legitimate Hanafi shariah councils, such as the one I described above, that are issuing divorces, when neccassary.

And it is not true that a woman can noly get a divorce when her husband allows it, as I have shown with the above example. If a woman rights are being violated, and if the woman wants out and the husband does not divorce her, than a shariah council/court can issue the divorce, after veryfying the circumstances.

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.

As far as I know, the Hanafi's say that there has to be a violation of the womans right, before she can be divorced by the courts [and that is according to righteous fiqh as has been determined from Quranic and Sunnah evidence]...

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.

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

it is true that some of the four madhabs are of the view that a woman needs a wali [guardian giving her away] in order to get married, and the hanafi's say that a woman doesn't need a wali to get married, but having a wali does not mean that a woman does not have to consent to the marriage. In the Maaliki madhab, only a virgin girls consent is not needed when the father contracts the marriage, [but the girls consent is reccomended]. this is for the reason that a father knows what is best for his daughter. And this opinion is correct according to fiqh. please try and look up the shariah evidence for such views and see wether the shariah permits it, before you condemn it from your western indoctrinated sense of right and wrong.

In the part where it says that a woman cannot anull a marriage if her father of grandfather have given her in marriage, this is only regarding when the girl was married as a minor [before she reached puberty]. And this is correct acording to the Sunnah.

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?

There is a difference between fiqh of the madhabs, and what rights the madhabs allow the women, and the actions of Muslims and Muslim authorities. the former is faultless [at least the dominant opinions of the four madhabs]while the latter could be opressive. I think you are mixing up the two and calling both of them 'fiqh of the madhabs'.

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.

exactly!, so you cannot blame the fiqh for the wrong actions of Muslims.

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.

A womans testimony is half of a mans, only in matters concerning where witnesses are needed for official and financial/business transactions..., and that is for reasons of possible biological, psycological and role differences between the genders, and not because Islam regards women as inferior to men. In Islam, women and men are equall...

A womans testimony is not considered half of a mans...in matters that does not involve oficial duties or financial/business transactions in which witnesses are needed to close the deal. A proof of this is in the divorce case of the sister I gave an example of; the Hanafi council did not say to her "sorry, it's a matter of his words against yours and as his words are worth twice as much as your, we rule in his favour". They just verified the allegations...and issued a divorce within a matter of months

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.

Not really...Hanafi school holds that a triple talaq, said at once, counts as three divorces which irrevocably divorces a couple instantly...heres a fatwa from a Hanafi Imaam that affirms this point:

Question: on a divorce paper it says talaq 3 times in one sentence will it be count as 1divorce or 3. thank you

Answer: Three Talaaqs in one sentence will constitute three Talaaqs and not only one.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Ask Imam :: Fatwa

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?

not suggesting that at all...but women in general are far more likey to do such a thing than men, thus the power of instant divorces have not been allowed to women.

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?

Not suggesting that either. I did not suggest anything. I asserted a litteral biological fact, that women in general are more emotional than men...and for that reason, Allah did not give women the power to issue divorces. In the Hanafi madhab, if the husband hands the autonomy of divorce to his wife, than even a divorce issued by a wife is valid, according to the following Hanafi fatwa:
According to Shariah, the husband has the exclusive right of issuing divorce unless he has handed the autonomy of divorce to his wife or any other person. If the husband has not handed the autonomy of divorce to the wife, divorces issued by the wife is not valid.

Ask Imam :: Fatwa

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?

I think [not sure though] It is only in cirumstances where a woman wants a divorce from a husband that hasn't violated her rights, she has to give back her mahr, and if that is the case with some madhabs, than there's nothing wrong with that as it will be from the Sunnah.

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 not about competency. as it's obvious that a woman can find a man, and get married to him with the required witness'. this is about, what ahs been determined from the Sunnah as being appropriate. here is just an example of what kind of evidences there is in the shariah for the ruling that a woman should have a wali giving her away in order for a marriage to be appropriate:

The Prophet [saw] said: ""A woman does not give herself or another woman in in marriage. The woman who gives herself in marriage is a fornicatress." (as-Daraqutni who said that it is sahih and hasan.)

See that sis?. this is just an example of how there is credible Sunnah evidence out there for all strong fiqh rulings, even though the rulings seem to go against the western concept of right and wrong. We should get our sense of right and wrong from Allah and His Messenger [saw] and not from our own personal opinions and man made doctrines, for the former could never be wrong, but the latter could.

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?

It's not about 'competency', as I've said. since there is sound Sunnah evidence that that is the view of the Prophet [saw] [that a woman needs to be given away by a wali], then we should believe it as a correct opinion straight away, wether we can immediately understand the reasons behind it or not, as Allah and His Messenger [saw] could never be wrong. we can look for the reasons behind it all we want, to further our understanding and knowledge about the issue, but just the evidence that it is based on the Sunnah, is enough for us to accept it as being just and according to Islam.

Hope that helps

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

InshAllah I'll try and find you an online source.

I am speaking from experience however. There is a Hanafi Islamic council in the UK [in Dewsbury], and I aquainted a sister, who wanted a divorce from her husband as he was not fullfilling her rights [he was not sleeping with her] and was beating her, with this council. The sister had to pay a fee and give them all the neccassary details. The council, after some investigation, and after they themselves saw that the husband was not willing to divorce his wife himself, issued an anouncement of divorce. The whole process only took a matter of a few months...

As salaam aleykum brother Abdullah

Now I understand why you think this, thank you for explaining. This is because you are in the UK and this means two things, 1 the sheikhs there tend to be more moderate in their interpretations (the looney extremists are an exception of course) and 2 there was a policy agreement between the UK government and Islamic leaders regarding marital status and divorce in the Muslim community of UK. Can't think where I read it, it was only 3 or 4 days ago, will try to find a link and post it for you. It came about because Muslim men were forced to allow their wives a divorce under UK law but would then refuse to give them a 'religious divorce' so these poor women were being packed back off to places like Africa and India but were unable to remarry, causing them much hardship. Of course the men were then just going out and getting another wife in UK- perfectly legally in Uk law and religious rights of polygamy. Most interesting article, will try to find it for you.

Divorce can take a few years even in the west. if some countires dont have advanced shariah court/coucils set up, than it's the peoples fault and not of the madhabs. The Hanafi madhab does not restrict the setting up of shariah councils that can issue speedy divorces, under the right circumstances.

The women, as you well know have no say in setting up such things. As for speedy Hanafi divorce how has my friend in Egypt waited 3 years and 2 months and still no end in sight? Egypt houses Al Azhar, has had Muslims since long before a community was set up in the UK. Sorry brother but you are being blinkered here. If a male Muslim goes to a shariah council he gets a decision in the blink of an eye, for a sister it’s how long is a piece of string. I suggest you visit some Muslim countries and see for yourself, these wonderful schools and shariah councils in action. In theory they are a good idea, in practice they oppress the hell out of women.

Hope they didn't apostasise though, as any kind of hardship is better than kufr.

Yes they did temporarily and then returned, what would you do if the very system set up to protect you was actually working against you?

But there are legitimate Hanafi shariah councils, such as the one I described above, that are issuing divorces, when neccassary.

And it is not true that a woman can noly get a divorce when her husband allows it, as I have shown with the above example. If a woman rights are being violated, and if the woman wants out and the husband does not divorce her, than a shariah council/court can issue the divorce, after veryfying the circumstances.

Do you really think Islamic jurisprudence is practiced the same way in the UK as in other countries?

I posted this link for you yesterday, perhaps you could have the decency to actually look at it this time. It is called WLUML (Women Living Under Muslim Laws) and is run by – guess what? Yes, women living under muslim laws. If it doesn’t work as a link please just cut & paste it. The first bit talks about the changes to some UK laws so you find that interesting. This site is where the quote I gave you comes from:

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

Contributors to the site include The Arab Organisation for Human Rights.

The paper is called Muslim Women and Divorce in England

The Hanafi jurists, however, have clearly laid down that in cases in which the application of Hanafi law causes hardship, it is permissible to apply the provisions of the Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali law.

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.

This is from the article in the above link and is because the Hanafi jurists have to borrow from other schools to allow a woman a divorce. In the UK the jurists will be reasonable and do this but do you think they are that reasonable in male dominated societies? Look at the left of the site page, you can see buttons for various countries where Muslim women live under very different conditions to the UK.

Here is another example, this is from an article about Muslim women living under Islamic law in Israel:

as the Hanafi rules on the grounds on which the wife might seek judicial divorce are the most restrictive of the four Sunni schools.

http://www.wluml.org/english/pubsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[87]=i-87-36655

PLEASE brother, look around the site, take time to learn what is really happening out there to women living under the Hanafi school of thought. Perhaps then you will begin to understand why I hold the opinions I do. I LOVE Islam but I do not like what certain people are doing to it.

it is true that some of the four madhabs are of the view that a woman needs a wali [guardian giving her away] in order to get married, and the hanafi's say that a woman doesn't need a wali to get married, but having a wali does not mean that a woman does not have to consent to the marriage. In the Maaliki madhab, only a virgin girls consent is not needed when the father contracts the marriage, [but the girls consent is reccomended]. this is for the reason that a father knows what is best for his daughter. And this opinion is correct according to fiqh. please try and look up the shariah evidence for such views and see wether the shariah permits it, before you condemn it from your western indoctrinated sense of right and wrong.

When you have quite finished patronising me please read the information on some of the links I provided. Women HAVE to be virgins to get married the first time, fathers are actually out there selling their daughters to dirty old men because it is merely recommended they do not do this.

You have the nerve to say I see things from ‘my westernised indoctrinated sense of right and wrong’, I live in a Muslim country and am regularly stopped by the police to check my marriage and religious papers, I regularly try to console young girls because they are being married off against their will – does that happen a lot in Dewsbury?

In the part where it says that a woman cannot anull a marriage if her father of grandfather have given her in marriage, this is only regarding when the girl was married as a minor [before she reached puberty]. And this is correct acording to the Sunnah.

So a 9 year old girl is married off to a 65 year old man, for money, as a sex toy and this is ok by you? You think this is in the spirit of Islam?

There is a difference between fiqh of the madhabs, and what rights the madhabs allow the women, and the actions of Muslims and Muslim authorities. the former is faultless [at least the dominant opinions of the four madhabs]while the latter could be opressive. I think you are mixing up the two and calling both of them 'fiqh of the madhabs'.

These oppressions can only happen when men follow the opinions of the four schools. The authorities do not say sod the schools we will do what we want, they are guided by the schools.

exactly!, so you cannot blame the fiqh for the wrong actions of Muslims.

And what about all the examples I have given where it is fiqh itself that is oppressive? Don’t say what examples, anything that allows a 9 year old girl to be sold in marriage to an old man as a sex toy is oppressive.

A womans testimony is half of a mans, only in matters concerning where witnesses are needed for official and financial/business transactions..., and that is for reasons of possible biological, psycological and role differences between the genders, and not because Islam regards women as inferior to men. In Islam, women and men are equall...

A womans testimony is not considered half of a mans...in matters that does not involve oficial duties or financial/business transactions in which witnesses are needed to close the deal. A proof of this is in the divorce case of the sister I gave an example of; the Hanafi council did not say to her "sorry, it's a matter of his words against yours and as his words are worth twice as much as your, we rule in his favour". They just verified the allegations...and issued a divorce within a matter of months

Give me a checkable example from the Middle East, India or Africa and I will agree with you and apologise.

My friend will be so delighted, we will just nip over to President Mubaraks place and tell him you said so, no doubt on your word she will be divorced in no time.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Not suggesting that either. I did not suggest anything. I asserted a litteral biological fact, that women in general are more emotional than men...and for that reason, Allah did not give women the power to issue divorces. In the Hanafi madhab, if the husband hands the autonomy of divorce to his wife, than even a divorce issued by a wife is valid, according to the following Hanafi fatwa:

According to Shariah, the husband has the exclusive right of issuing divorce unless he has handed the autonomy of divorce to his wife or any other person. If the husband has not handed the autonomy of divorce to the wife, divorces issued by the wife is not valid.

Why should I not be allowed to get a divorce? My husband can divorce me in 1 minute, yet unless he agrees I cannot get divorced, thus the potential that I must remain married to a man I hate for the remainder of my life. Why? Why should women be treated so differently to men based on a couple of weak hadiths when in the time of our Beloved Prophet we were treated with equality.

here is the fatwa issued by Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, a prominent Saudi scholar and lecturer, in this regard:

“ Khul`, in principle, can only occur at the request of the wife, and with the husband’s subsequent agreement to end the marriage.

So no matter what, if the husband says no then the wife doesn’t get a divorce.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545564
A woman brought her case to Caliph Umar (raa), he ordered her to stay with her husband, she refused. He locked her in a filthy room for 3 days. After 3 days he asked her if she would return to her husband, she refused again saying that she had known peace for only these 3 days. On hearing this he asked her husband to accept the divorce. (Kashf al Ghummah)
Rubbaiyi bint Mu’awwidh inb Afra’ tried to get khul from her husband in exchange for all her wealth, but he did not agree. The case was brought before Caliph Uthman (raa) and he ordered him to leave her. (Fath al Bari… Abdur Razzaq)
This can no longer happen because scholars decided jurists are not Caliphs and cannot insist a husband allow a divorce (unless the marriage contract has a flaw). How do scholars make so many fatwas based on hadiths yet cannot do the same when it comes to womens rights?

I think [not sure though] It is only in cirumstances where a woman wants a divorce from a husband that hasn't violated her rights, she has to give back her mahr, and if that is the case with some madhabs, than there's nothing wrong with that as it will be from the Sunnah.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 199: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The wife of Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I cannot endure to live with him and I am afraid that I (being a Muslim) may become unthankful (or behave in an unIslamic manner) for Allah's Blessings." On that, Allah's Apostle said (to her), 'Will you return his garden to him?" She said, "Yes." So she returned his garden to him and the Prophet told him to divorce her.

Based on this hadith women are being forced to offer their husbands property in order to get a divorce and even after the property is given to him he must agree to the divorce and has every right to say No. So fair, so equal. And these decisions are coming from scholars, not the guy that works in the local butchers shop.

This is not about competency. as it's obvious that a woman can find a man, and get married to him with the required witness'. this is about, what ahs been determined from the Sunnah as being appropriate. here is just an example of what kind of evidences there is in the shariah for the ruling that a woman should have a wali giving her away in order for a marriage to be appropriate:

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

Where does this refer to a womans modesty or her being a fornicator if she doesn’t have a guardian? It refers VERY clearly to her lack of competency by virtue of being a woman. Am I suggesting a girl or woman does not get her families consent – No.

for the former could never be wrong, but the latter could.

And this is my whole argument, men are wrong, often, including the scholars – even against all reasonable human judgement and morality. But then I do not believe the hadiths are protected and you do.

It's not about 'competency', as I've said. since there is sound Sunnah evidence that that is the view of the Prophet [saw] [that a woman needs to be given away by a wali], then we should believe it as a correct opinion straight away, wether we can immediately understand the reasons behind it or not, as Allah and His Messenger [saw] could never be wrong. we can look for the reasons behind it all we want, to further our understanding and knowledge about the issue, but just the evidence that it is based on the Sunnah, is enough for us to accept it as being just and according to Islam.

Now give me the evidence that a grown woman can be given, against her will, in marriage by her father. I have given you the evidence that this is happening in Islam.

If you read any of my other post you will know that I attempt in my small way to defend Islam and the Quran against the misconceptions about our faith, I try to explain that a lot of misconceptions are not Islam, they are the result of men, culture, etc. Yet neither of us can deny the things that are actually happening to women in the name of Islam and these twisted views are coming from somewhere and I would like to know where. Of course I believe some of it is from the scholars – hence all my links.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Why should I not be allowed to get a divorce? My husband can divorce me in 1 minute, yet unless he agrees I cannot get divorced, thus the potential that I must remain married to a man I hate for the remainder of my life. Why? Why should women be treated so differently to men based on a couple of weak hadiths when in the time of our Beloved Prophet we were treated with equality.

Here is what Hanafi Mufti Ibn Adam says:

Well, coming back to your questions, the brother concerned does not have to divorce his wife if she demands it, as divorcing is the exclusive right of the husband, for which there are many wisdoms that have been explained in an earlier post.
However, if there is allot of hatred between the spouses and there is no real life in the marriage, and all efforts in saving the marriage have failed, then the husband should divorce his wife.

Darul Iftaa

And find out what those 'many wisdoms' are on the following fatwa:

Darul Iftaa

If a woman wants out of a marriage, then she can try and arrange a 'Khul', by offering the husband some money/property, etc, according to Hanafi fiqh, and if it is the husbands fault that the marriage didn't work out, then the husband should release [Khul] the woman without taking anything from her as it will be a sin if he does. A 'Kuhl' can only be implemented if the husband agrees to it, according to all four schools of thoughts.

Here is a link that provides evidence for Khul and it's related rulings:

Darul Iftaa

The above links provides evidence from Quran and the Sunnah of what these fiqh rulings are based on, so sister, please read those articles and see for yourself of waht kind of evidences there are for such rulings, and there not just based on some weak hadiths iether.

The articles in the above links goes to show that what may seem as 'opressive' to some, really is based on substantial Quranic and Sunnah evidence, and thus is bound to have good reasoning and wisdom behind them.

A woman brought her case to Caliph Umar (raa), he ordered her to stay with her husband, she refused. He locked her in a filthy room for 3 days. After 3 days he asked her if she would return to her husband, she refused again saying that she had known peace for only these 3 days. On hearing this he asked her husband to accept the divorce. (Kashf al Ghummah)

Rubbaiyi bint Mu’awwidh inb Afra’ tried to get khul from her husband in exchange for all her wealth, but he did not agree. The case was brought before Caliph Uthman (raa) and he ordered him to leave her. (Fath al Bari… Abdur Razzaq)

This can no longer happen because scholars decided jurists are not Caliphs and cannot insist a husband allow a divorce (unless the marriage contract has a flaw). How do scholars make so many fatwas based on hadiths yet cannot do the same when it comes to womens rights?

Hadiths are not fiqh sister. so we cannot just form an opinion based on the apperant meaning/implications of some hadiths. The jurists put hadiths and Quranic ayahs, relating to a particular issue, into context with all other relevent ijtihad sciences and extract a contextual ruling from it, so therefore, it's best left for them to decide on the fiqh that is to be extracted from hadiths, and not left to our limmited understanding.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 199: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The wife of Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I cannot endure to live with him and I am afraid that I (being a Muslim) may become unthankful (or behave in an unIslamic manner) for Allah's Blessings." On that, Allah's Apostle said (to her), 'Will you return his garden to him?" She said, "Yes." So she returned his garden to him and the Prophet told him to divorce her.

Based on this hadith women are being forced to offer their husbands property in order to get a divorce and even after the property is given to him he must agree to the divorce and has every right to say No. So fair, so equal. And these decisions are coming from scholars, not the guy that works in the local butchers shop.

Ahh!, but there's a verry clear Quranic ayah, which the giving of property by the woman to the husband for a khul agreement, is also based on. And the concept of kuhl is not based on forcing women to give her property...it is based on a second chance for the woman to 'persuade' the husband to release her by presenting an incentive to the husband to do so.

Heres the Quranic ayah:

“It is unlawful for you (men), to take back (dowry, etc…) from your wives, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If you (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom.” (Surah al-Baqarah, 229)

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

Where did you get that statement from?; from that website where that person was trying to convince everyone how the hanafi school was the best?...he/she obviously will try to put certain fiqh rulings of other schools in a negative light, but the fact remains that the 'wali is needed ruling' is based on sound Sunnah evidence.

And this is my whole argument, men are wrong, often, including the scholars – even against all reasonable human judgement and morality. But then I do not believe the hadiths are protected and you do.

It depends on what one regards as 'reasonable human judgement and morality'. The Muslims measure their 'reasonable human Judgement and morality' with the Sunnah of the Prophet [saw], and not with a man-made philosophy/ideology.

You could be going against the ijma if you dont believe that the Sunnah [meaning/practical implementation of the Quran] hasn't been protected.

I think you have fallen for the madhab of the hypocryts sister. There is a group of non-Muslim agents of the west, that pretent to be muslim, and they are trying to re-interpret Islam according to the liking of their western masters. Their madhab [liberal modernism] has lots of kufr in it sister, so please beware, and adhere to the interpretation of the traditionalists less you should fall into kufr yourself.

You mentioned once "Quran is the only hadith to be followed", well let me tell you sister that ahle Sunnah concur that to reject Mutawatir [mass transmitted] hadith is kufr [takes one out of the folds of Islam] and...to reject ahad [those that are not mutawatir] sahih hadiths is fisq [transgression/grave sin]

Now give me the evidence that a grown woman [who is still a virgin] can be given, against her will, in marriage by her father. I have given you the evidence that this is happening in Islam.

So far the evidence i have is that a madhab that has been verified and endorsed by the consensus of the Scholars [hadiths say that consensus could not be wrong], holds this opinion, thus I regard it as a valid opinion. Also, the reasoning that "A father knows what is best for his daughter", makes sense. I'm sure that there is substantial shariah evidence out there, for it. InshAllah if I come across other evidence, I'll post it up.

If you read any of my other post you will know that I attempt in my small way to defend Islam and the Quran against the misconceptions about our faith,

I suppose everything that the liberal moderinsts tell you is a 'misconception in traditional Islam', will be a 'misconception' to you too

I try to explain that a lot of misconceptions are not Islam, they are the result of men, culture, etc.

that is what the LM have lead you to believe... .

Yet neither of us can deny the things that are actually happening to women in the name of Islam and these twisted views are coming from somewhere and I would like to know where. Of course I believe some of it is from the scholars – hence all my links.

Yes there are injustices happening to a lot of Muslim women all over the Muslim world, just as it is happening to a lot of women of other cultures/religions too, but it is not the fault of Islam, or the fault of fiqh rulings of the four madhabs, it is only the fault of Muslim people.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Brother before I answer your post can I just go back to the issue of prayer & marriage/sex with slave girls. I believe you stated that women should pray in the home. Can you then explain to me the opinion of Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi

2. In our salah, we stand very close to each other or as we say “shoulder to shoulder and ankle to ankle” almost touching each other. We stand in straight lines. We make ruku` and sujud. We are supposed to pray with sincerity and devotion concentrating our heart and mind towards the Prayer. For this reason the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told us that men and women should have separate lines. The lines of men should be in the front area, then the lines of children and then women. The imam should stand in front of the congregation and should make ruku` and sajdah before the congregation and they should follow the imam.

The ideal way in this structure of Prayer service is to separate men from women and not allow a woman to be ahead of all men and bow and prostrate in front of them. Haya’ (modesty) is a special character of Islam. It is emphasized that men and women both must observe haya’ always and especially in their places of worship. The Prophet’s wife `A'ishah and his Companion Ibn `Abbas are reported to have said that a woman leading other women in Prayer should not stand in front of them like a male imam, but in their midst.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503549600&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar

If you are not convinced by that then what about the word of Allah? (I confess I got this question and verse from a friend of my husband whose father was an Imam at Mecca).

62:9 O YOU who have attained to faith! When the call to prayer is sounded on the day of congregation, hasten to the remembrance of God, and leave all worldly commerce: this is for your own good, if you but knew it.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نُودِي لِلصَّلَاةِ مِن يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَذَرُوا الْبَيْعَ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ (62:9) ​

As for marriage/sex with slave girls does this verse not suggest a pious man would abstain:

4:25 And as for those of you who, owing to cir­cumstances, are not in a position to marry free believing women, [let them marry] believing maidens from among those whom you rightfully possess. And God knows all about your faith; each one of you is an issue of the other. Marry them, then, with their people's leave, and give them their dowers in an equitable manner - they being women who give themselves in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. And when they are married, and thereafter become guilty of immoral conduct, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free married women are liable. This [permission to marry slave-girls applies] to those of you who fear lest they stumble into evil. But it is for your own good to persevere in patience and to abstain from such marriages and God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

Ahh!, but there's a verry clear Quranic ayah, which the giving of property by the woman to the husband for a khul agreement, is also based on. And the concept of kuhl is not based on forcing women to give her property...it is based on a second chance for the woman to 'persuade' the husband to release her by presenting an incentive to the husband to do so.

Oh now I get it, my husband can divorce me in less than a minute (including by text message) but if I want a divorce I must bribe him, even if it makes me destitute. Well how can I possibly think that is oppression by man just because the Quran allows me equal rights?

“It is unlawful for you (men), to take back (dowry, etc…) from your wives, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If you (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom.” (Surah al-Baqarah, 229)

Yet judges are no longer allowed to pronounce a divorce without the consent of the husband. And where does it say here that a husband can refuse a divorce when a wife offers khul?

Now go back to verse 2:228 – where did my equal rights go?

2:228 And the divorced women shall undergo, without remarrying, a waiting-period of three monthly courses: for it is not lawful for them to conceal what God may have created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And during this period their husbands are fully entitled to take them back, if they desire reconciliation; but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives [with regard to their husbands] are equal to the [husbands'] rights with regard to them, although men have precedence over them [in this respect]. And God is almighty, wise.

I thought I would save some time on the men have precedence over women issue and post this:

Hammuda Abdul-Ati, an Egyptian PhD at Al-Azhar Islamic University, provides a very interesting interpretation of that verse, when he says that this degree is neither a title of supremacy nor an authorization of dominance over women, but is to correspond with the extra responsibilities of men, and to give them some compensation for their familial duties. Thus, "it is the extra responsibilities that give man a degree over woman in some economic aspects," and that degree "is not a higher degree in humanity or in character, nor is it a dominance of one over the other or suppression of one by the other" (Abdul-Ati).

Where did you get that statement from?; from that website where that person was trying to convince everyone how the hanafi school was the best?...he/she obviously will try to put certain fiqh rulings of other schools in a negative light, but the fact remains that the 'wali is needed ruling' is based on sound Sunnah evidence.

Actually it came from here http://muslim-canada.org/mylove.htm

We are discussing the oppression of women, not whether a guardian should arrange the contract but whether he has the right to force a grown woman to marry against her will. So did Hanbal (a scholar that founded one of the schools that you say cannot be wrong) get it wrong?

Elaborating on this issue, we'd like to cite for you the following: "It is not permissible for the father or someone in his place to compel the one under his guardianship to marry someone she does not desire to marry. Rather, it is necessary to seek her consent and permission due to the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that states: “The virgin is not to be married until her consent has been sought.” They said: “O Messenger of Allah! What is her consent?” He replied: “Her silence means consent.” And in another wording: "And regarding the virgin, her father seeks her consent and her consent is her silence."

Therefore it is obligatory upon the father to seek the consent of her daughter before marrying her off. This rule also applies to everyone who happens to be a girl’s guardian, because one of the conditions of the marriage in Islam is the consent of both parties. So if the marriage is arranged without meeting this condition and the lady feels unhappy with the issue, such marriage is not valid.

It is required from the prospective husband, when he knows that a girl does not want to marry him, not to pursue the matter even if her guardian facilitates this for him (give him permission). It is obligatory for him to fear Allah and not to approach the lady who does not want him.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544272

It depends on what one regards as 'reasonable human judgement and morality'. The Muslims measure their 'reasonable human Judgement and morality' with the Sunnah of the Prophet [saw], and not with a man-made philosophy/ideology.

I love your suggestion that my desire to follow the Quran is a man made philosophy/ideaology. Should we not measure our reasonable human judgement and morality with the Sunnah of Allah – that being the Quran? Here is one of the hadiths you would have me follow?

Narrated Hudayfh ibn al-Yaman:
Prophet said: “There will come rulers after me who do not guide to myGuidance and do not practice my Sunnah, and the hearts of some of themj are the hearts of Satans but they are in the body of human”.I said “What should we do at that time?” Prophet (pbuh)said “You should just listen to them and obey those rulers. NO matter if they hurt you and take your wealth, you should follow them and obey them”. Sahih Muslim, chapter of al-Imaarah (chapter 33 for the Arabic version) Section of necessity of joining the majority, 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1476, Tradition # 52

 

[Muslimwoman]

You could be going against the ijma if you dont believe that the Sunnah [meaning/practical implementation of the Quran] hasn't been protected.

Ijmāʿ (إجماع) is an Arabic term referring ideally to the consensus of the ummah (the community of Muslims, or followers of Islam). In reality, ijma referred only to the consensus of traditional Islamic scholars (Arabic ulema) on particular points of Islamic law .

So are you saying that the Quran has not been protected by Allah as he promised? I only ask because of the confusion between the punishment for adultery in the Quran and the punishment for adultery declared by the Ijma. As they are so different then clearly either the Quran or the hadiths have not been protected. Which do you think it is? Or do you think there is a way to interpret 100 stripes as stoning to death?

24:2 AS FOR the adulteress and the adulterer flog each of them with a hundred stripes, and let not compassion with them keep you from [carrying out] this law of God, if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of the believers witness their chastisement.

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (24:2) ​

Hadith attributed to Ubada b. as-Samit:
whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes. And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year

Maaliki Math-hab : “Rajm will be executed against the adult Muslim….” (Mawaahibul Jaleel)
Hanafi Math-hab : “When the ihsaan of the adulterer has been substantiated by means of evidence or confession, Rajm will be inflicted on him on the basis of Nass (categoric Hadith Proof), and on t he basis of rational proof. The Nass is the Mash - hoor Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘ The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except with one of three factors — Kufr after Imaan; Zina after Ihsaan; Killing a person without valid cause . ” (Badaaius Sanaa'i)
Shaa fi Math-hab : “When the adulterer is a muhsin , his (or her) hadd (prescribed punishment) is Rajam.” (Raudhatut Taalibeen)
Hambali Math-hab : “The Aimmah are unanimous that the Hadd of he adulterer and adulteress is Rajm…. ” (Al -Mughni)

I think you have fallen for the madhab of the hypocryts sister. There is a group of non-Muslim agents of the west, that pretent to be muslim, and they are trying to re-interpret Islam according to the liking of their western masters. Their madhab [liberal modernism] has lots of kufr in it sister, so please beware, and adhere to the interpretation of the traditionalists less you should fall into kufr yourself.

And in light of the above I think you have fallen for blind following. My teacher is a graduate of Al Azhar and his father was (before his death, may Allah grant him eternal peace) an Imam of Mecca. Bakr grew up in Mecca and now lives with his mother in Egypt, he has never been to the west and doesn’t speak English – so I rather doubt you could call him a liberal modernist. The first thing he did when he started teaching me was to take away my books of hadith and he quoted the Quran verse
24:54 Say: “Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle.” And if you turn away [from the Apostle, know that] he will have to answer only for whatever he has been charged with, and you, for what you have been charged with; but if you pay heed unto him, you will be on the right way. Withal, the Apostle is not bound to do more than clearly deliver the message [entrust­ed to him].

قُلْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ فَإِن تَوَلَّوا فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْهِ مَا حُمِّلَ وَعَلَيْكُم مَّا حُمِّلْتُمْ وَإِن تُطِيعُوهُ تَهْتَدُوا وَمَا عَلَى الرَّسُولِ إِلَّا الْبَلَاغُ الْمُبِينُ (24:54) ​

Yes there are injustices happening to a lot of Muslim women all over the Muslim world, just as it is happening to a lot of women of other cultures/religions too, but it is not the fault of Islam, or the fault of fiqh rulings of the four madhabs, it is only the fault of Muslim people.

I can only agree it is not the fault of Islam. As can be seen above, re the issue of rajm, the Muslim people follow the four madhabs against the obvious punishment of the Quran – so where does the fault lie?

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Brother before I answer your post can I just go back to the issue of prayer & marriage/sex with slave girls. I believe you stated that women should pray in the home. Can you then explain to me the opinion of Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi

I am not saying that there isn't a difference of opinion amongst some Scholars, about this issue sister, but what I am saying is that the opinion of the madhabs that that it is better for woman to pray in their homes rahter than the mosque, and that it is prohibbited for [young?] women to go to mosque to offer prayer in congregation prayer, is based on Quran and Sunnah evidence as well.

Umar [ra] prohibbted women from going to the mosque due to the fitnah that became widespread with women going to the mosque, and Ayesha [ra] said that if the prophet [saw] himself was here and saw what the women got up to, he would have prohibbted women from going to the mosque. these are just two of the evidences.

There is now a valid opinion amongst some Hanafi [and possibly others] Scholars that due to the lifestyle that Muslims have in the west, it is better to allow a womans praying area in the mosques so that in times of neccessity, sisters can go in there and pray.

Here's a link that gives the evidences that the above views are based on:

Darul Iftaa

As for marriage/sex with slave girls does this verse not suggest a pious man would abstain:

4:25 And as for those of you who, owing to cir­cumstances, are not in a position to marry free believing women, [let them marry] believing maidens from among those whom you rightfully possess. And God knows all about your faith; each one of you is an issue of the other. Marry them, then, with their people's leave, and give them their dowers in an equitable manner - they being women who give themselves in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. And when they are married, and thereafter become guilty of immoral conduct, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free married women are liable. This [permission to marry slave-girls applies] to those of you who fear lest they stumble into evil. But it is for your own good to persevere in patience and to abstain from such marriages and God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

Sister, You only seem to read and accept the 'evidences' provided for the view that sex with slave women is not allowed, unless the man marries his slave. Take a look at the 'other side of the argument' on the following link [there are Quranic verses cited there too]:

Ask Imam :: Fatwa

Oh now I get it, my husband can divorce me in less than a minute (including by text message) but if I want a divorce I must bribe him, even if it makes me destitute. Well how can I possibly think that is oppression by man just because the Quran allows me equal rights?

Does the fiqh say "even if it makes the women destitute"?

And was Allah wrong when He said that there is no blame on either of them if the women gives something of her belongings to her husband for her freedom?. And was the Prophet [saw] wrong when he asked that women [ra]wether she was prepared to give his garden back?

Yet judges are no longer allowed to pronounce a divorce without the consent of the husband. And where does it say here that a husband can refuse a divorce when a wife offers khul?

check out the following link to see the evidences [that consists of Quranic ayahs as well] of why Scholars think that divorce is only the right of the husband:

Darul Iftaa

For the husband to release his wife in a khul agreement, is a divorce, for to 'release' her is to divorce her, thus the view of why it is only the husbands right to divorce [if he wants to or not] explains the view of why the Khul cannot take effect without the husbands agreement.

Now go back to verse 2:228 – where did my equal rights go?

In Islam women have rights SIMMILAR to those that their husbands have over them, and vica versa.

Here's a link that lists a womans rights in Islam:

The Rights and Virtues of Women in Islam

2:228 And the divorced women shall undergo, without remarrying, a waiting-period of three monthly courses: for it is not lawful for them to conceal what God may have created in their wombs, if they believe in God and the Last Day. And during this period their husbands are fully entitled to take them back, if they desire reconciliation; but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives [with regard to their husbands] are equal to the [husbands'] rights with regard to them, although men have precedence over them [in this respect]. And God is almighty, wise.

Yusuf Ali translation:

2:228. Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights SIMILAR to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Marmaduke Pikthall translation:

[SIZE=+1]2:228. Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise. [/SIZE]

You seem to have a corrupt liberal modernist translation sister .

I thought I would save some time on the men have precedence over women issue and post this:

Hammuda Abdul-Ati, an Egyptian PhD at Al-Azhar Islamic University, provides a very interesting interpretation of that verse, when he says that this degree is neither a title of supremacy nor an authorization of dominance over women, but is to correspond with the extra responsibilities of men, and to give them some compensation for their familial duties. Thus, "it is the extra responsibilities that give man a degree over woman in some economic aspects," and that degree "is not a higher degree in humanity or in character, nor is it a dominance of one over the other or suppression of one by the other" (Abdul-Ati).

I agree with the above interpretation. I dont know of any Ahle Sunnah Scholars that disagree with it.

We are discussing the oppression of women, not whether a guardian should arrange the contract but whether he has the right to force a grown woman to marry against her will. So did Hanbal (a scholar that founded one of the schools that you say cannot be wrong) get it wrong?

Hanbal's [ra] opinion, Hanifa's [ra] opinion, Shafi'i's [ra] opinion, and Maaliks [ra] opinion are all correct regarding this matter, all though they may differ. [please dont ask me to explain how they're all correct again, I've allready done that a few times over ]

Elaborating on this issue, we'd like to cite for you the following: "It is not permissible for the father or someone in his place to compel the one under his guardianship to marry someone she does not desire to marry...

Theres a difference of opinion about it, but as I said, all the opinion regarding this matter, of the four madhabs [the dominant one of the madhabs at least] are correct.

I love your suggestion that my desire to follow the Quran is a man made philosophy/ideaology. Should we not measure our reasonable human judgement and morality with the Sunnah of Allah – that being the Quran? Here is one of the hadiths you would have me follow?

My suggestion could never be that at all inshAllah [may Allah protect me from kufr forever, ameen], nauzubillah. The wordings, "Muslims base their 'basic human judgement and morality' on the Quran and Sunnah", would have been more appropriate, to leave out any loopholes for misunderstanding as to I what I'm saying.

The suggestion was sister, that you are holding on to the western concept of 'basic human judgement and morality' and Judging what to reject of the fiqh by it, and what to accept of it.

Narrated Hudayfh ibn al-Yaman:

Prophet said: “There will come rulers after me who do not guide to myGuidance and do not practice my Sunnah, and the hearts of some of themj are the hearts of Satans but they are in the body of human”.I said “What should we do at that time?” Prophet (pbuh)said “You should just listen to them and obey those rulers. NO matter if they hurt you and take your wealth, you should follow them and obey them”. Sahih Muslim, chapter of al-Imaarah (chapter 33 for the Arabic version) Section of necessity of joining the majority, 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1476, Tradition # 52

Here is the translation of the hadith I found on a reliable webiste:

Book 020, Number 4554:

It has been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said: Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

The above hadith says to listen [it dont say to 'follow'] to the Amir and obey his orders.

This is the same principle as 'obeying the law of the land'

Do you not agree that Muslims living in the west should 'obey the law of the land' even though it is not based on shariah?

However, hadith is not fiqh, and according to fiqh rulings, Muslims shouldn't obey the orders of a ruler if it contradicts Islam concerning the obligatory duties of a Muslim... as there is a hadith that basically says that there is no obediance of the creation, if it goes against the obedience of the Creator.

The above hadith shows that even if a Muslim ruler is opressive, then the muslims shouldn't rebel against them [like Al-Qaida are rebelling against Saudi Authorities] and they sohuld remain patient and stick to the principles of their religion as much as they can, and hope and pray for change in peacefull ways.

The above hadith does not say to accept distorted fiqh of those who interpret Quran and hadith without knowledge.

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

Edit

 

[Abdullah]

Ijmāʿ (إجماع) is an Arabic term referring ideally to the consensus of the ummah (the community of Muslims, or followers of Islam). In reality, ijma referred only to the consensus of traditional Islamic scholars (Arabic ulema) on particular points of Islamic law .

The ijma of the Scholars, automatically beomes the ijma of the Ummah, for the Ummah [the non-Muhtahids out of them] follow the Scholars in jima. The hadiths on ijma that I posted up shows that ijma refers to the consensus of the overwhelimng vast majority, thus the ijma of the ahle Sunnah Scholars[Scholars of the four madhabs who comprise of the overwhelming vast majority of Scholars...] is also the ijma of the ummah, for the followers of the four madhabs comprise of the overwhelming vast majority of the ummah.

Maaliki Math-hab : “Rajm will be executed against the adult Muslim….” (Mawaahibul Jaleel)
Hanafi Math-hab : “When the ihsaan of the adulterer has been substantiated by means of evidence or confession, Rajm will be inflicted on him on the basis of Nass (categoric Hadith Proof), and on t he basis of rational proof. The Nass is the Mash - hoor Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘ The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except with one of three factors — Kufr after Imaan; Zina after Ihsaan; Killing a person without valid cause . ” (Badaaius Sanaa'i)
Shaa fi Math-hab : “When the adulterer is a muhsin , his (or her) hadd (prescribed punishment) is Rajam.” (Raudhatut Taalibeen)
Hambali Math-hab : “The Aimmah are unanimous that the Hadd of he adulterer and adulteress is Rajm…. ” (Al -Mughni)

It is practically impossible to get someone convicted for adultery in Islam for a variety of reasons; but there is no disagreement about stoning (rajm) as the punishment for adultery. The Prophet, upon him peace, pronounced and carried out rajm upon three married Muslims - one man and two women - and two Jews, a man and a woman.

Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet, upon him peace, both as verbal injunction (Hadith "The child belongs to the household where he is born and the adulterer gets stones") and actual deed (stoning of Maa`iz ibn Maalik, Allah be well-pleased with him) cf. al-Kattani, Nazm al-Mutanathir (p. 105-106 §181-182). Furthermore, there is complete consensus in the first three generations of Islam - both in law and in its application by the Four Caliphs - that the hadd of adultery for the non-married is stoning, cf. Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (8:158); Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (12:118).

i.e. some say there are no stoning verses on the Qur'an, whilst as far as I know, unmarried individuals get lashes and banishment, whilst married people get lashes and stoning.

There are three types of abrogated Qur'anic verses:

(1) recitation-abrogated and ruling-abrogated
(2) recitation-established and ruling-abrogated
(3) recitation-abrogated and ruling-established

The verses that concern stoning as the punishment for a married person's adultery are of type (3) cf. al-Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (Type 47 of the Qur'anic Sciences, 2:718 of the Mustafa al-Bugha 1993 2nd edition, Dar Ibn Kathir).

And Allah knows best.
Hajj Gibril

Stoning Verses and Abrogation

And in light of the above I think you have fallen for blind following.

You are contradicting yourself sister. remember the following discussion we had?:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdullah
What I am saying sister, is that lay people [non-Mujtahidoun] are not qualified to perform ijtihad, nothing more, nothing less.

smile.

Muslimwoman: "And I cannot agree with you more Brother. Insh'allah I am not an innovator and in matters of jurisprudence I go with my husband to AlAzhar for the answer but only in certain difficult topics..."


Abdullah: "Taqlid only concerns that which is not obvious, so your right that there are things which we [the laymen] ourselves can know without reffering to the Scholars.

The advocates of Taqlid claim nothing more than the following:

1. There is no Taqlid in the fundemental Beliefs in Islam
2. There is no Taqlid in issues which are obvious and which have been transmitted to the degree that they have become almost undoubted
3. There is no Taqlid in those issues of the Quran and Sunnah which are conclusive and not contradictory.
4 Taqlid is made on those issues which there are different and perhaps contradictory statements on the same issue in the Quran and Sunnah and where instead of relying on one's own judgement, the opinion of an expert Scholar is trusted and adhered to.
5 The Mujtahid is not infallible and therefore his opinions are subject to correction
6 If an expert Scholar finds a sound hadith to which there is no contradictions, then he must forsake the opinion of his Imam and follow the hadith."

We seemed to have agreed on the above sister, you said that you agreed taqlid on difficult matters and I said that indeed taqlid was for only difficult matters, pointing out to you six points of the taqlid adovocates which confirms this, but therafter you have continued to disagree with the concept of taqlid and have insisted on giving it the derogatory terms "blind following"

My teacher is a graduate of Al Azhar and his father was (before his death, may Allah grant him eternal peace) an Imam of Mecca. Bakr grew up in

Mecca and now lives with his mother in Egypt, he has never been to the west and doesn’t speak English – so I rather doubt you could call him a liberal modernist. The first thing he did when he started teaching me was to take away my books of hadith and he quoted the Quran verse
24:54 Say: “Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle.” And if you turn away [from the Apostle, know that] he will have to answer only for whatever he has been charged with, and you, for what you have been charged with; but if you pay heed unto him, you will be on the right way. Withal, the Apostle is not bound to do more than clearly deliver the message [entrust­ed to him].

The modernists [there are many modernists that, although they have strayed from the straight path by deciding to cut themselves off from the mainstream Muslims and forming their own modernist faction, are still Muslim, but the one's that reject the Sunnah/ahadith [the 'Quran only' group], are out of the folds of Islam by consensus] have spread throughout the world? it seems. They study traditional Islam just to get aquainted with ways to argue against it.

There is an article of Mufti Taqi Usmani that refutes modernism, that applies to all modernists of our time, but it was particularly adressed to a modernist institution [in Pakistan?] that went by the name of "“Institute of Islamic Research” which was headed by Dr. Fazlur Rahman [not a western name is it?] at that time, and this just goes to show how the modernists have spread in many nationalites.

You can read that article on the following link:

Research or Distortion? (Islaam.Com)

There should have been no way that your teacher could have misinterpreted that verse of the holy Quran when other verses verry clearly show that the "message" which the Prophet's [saw] mission was to convey, came along with an interpretation/practical implementation which it was the duty of the Prophet [saw] to convey as well. how comes he overlooked the following verses, which puts the above verse into context?:

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)

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)

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)

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)​

And Allâh has revealed upon you the Book and the wisdom, and has taught you what you did not know and the grace of Allâh upon you has been great. (4:113)

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

And My mercy embraces all things. So I shall prescribe it for those who fear Allâh and pay zakâh (obligatory alms) and those who have faith in Our signs; those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet whom they find written down in the Torah and the Injîl, and who bids them to the Fair and forbids them the Unfair, and makes lawful for them the good things, and makes unlawful for them the impure things, and relieves them of their burdens and of the shackles that were upon them. So, those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him- they are the ones who acquire success. (7:156-157)​

Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it. (59:7)​

Move not your tongue with it in order to hasten it. It is on Us to gather it (in your heart) and to recite it. So, when We read it, follow its reading. Then it is on Us to explain it. (75:16-19)

Now the relevance of the above verses in showing how the Prophet [saw] had also the duty of interpreting the Quran and setting a practical example of it along with reciting the verses of it, and that he was also an authourity in making new laws of what wasn't allready established, and that the Sunnah is a seperate source of Deen that was also revealed to him alongside the Quran, is overwhelming and verry clear, and as Mufti Taqi Usmani explains it best, I'll just post his explanation of them in the posts below.

Salaam.

ps: no Al-Azhar [one who actually teaches at the institution] teacher will tell you to reject the Sunnah, for all Al-Azhar teachers agree, just like all Islamic Scholars, that to reject the Sunnah is kufr.

 

[Abdullah]

The Status of the Holy Prophet (

)

So, the first pertinent question in the subject is: What status does a prophet occupy when he is sent to the people? Has he no higher a status than that or a message-carrier or a postman who, after delivering the letter, has no concern with it whatsoever? The answer is certainly in the negative. 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.

These verses of the Holy Qur’ân describe the following functions of the Holy Prophet (

):

(a) He is the authority in the way the Holy Book [the Qur’ân] has to be recited.

(b) He has the final word in the interpretation of the Book.

(c) He is the only source at which the wisdom based on divine guidance can be learned.

(d) He is entrusted with the practical training of the people to bring his teachings into practice.

These functions of the Holy Prophet (

) can never be carried out unless his teachings, both oral and practical, are held to be authoritative for his followers, and the Muslims who are given under his training are made bound to obey and follow him. The functions (b) and (c), namely, the teaching of the Book and Wisdom require that his sayings should be binding on the followers, while the function (d), the practical training, requires that his acts should be an example for the Ummah, and the Ummah should be bound to follow it.

It is not merely a logical inference from the verses of the Holy Qur’ân quoted above, but it is also mentioned in express terms by the Holy Qur’ân in a large number of verses which give the Muslims a mandatory command to obey and follow him. While doing so, the Holy Qur’ân has used two different terms, namely the “itaa’ah” (to obey) and “ittibaa’” (to follow). The first term refers to the orders and sayings of the Holy Prophet (

) while the second relates to his acts and practice. By ordering the Muslims both to “obey” and to “follow” the Holy Prophet (

), the Holy Qur’ân has given an authority to both his sayings and acts.


Two Kinds of Revelation
In the early days of his Prophethood, when the Holy Prophet (

) received the verses of the Holy Qur’ân revealed to him, he used to recite the same simultaneously, lest he should forget them. It was a strenuous exercise for him, because he felt it was much too difficult to listen to the revelation, to understand it correctly, and to learn it by heart, all at the same time. Allâh Almighty relieved him from this burden when He revealed the following verses of the Holy Qur’ân:

Move not your tongue with it in order to hasten it. It is on Us to gather it (in your heart) and to recite it. So, when We read it, follow its reading. Then it is on Us to explain it. (75:16-19)

In the last sentence, Allâh Almighty has promised the Holy Prophet (

) to explain the verses of the Holy Qur’ân to him. It is evident that this explanation is something separate from the Holy Qur’ân itself. It is not the Holy Qur’ân. It is its explanation or its exegesis. Therefore, it should necessarily be in some other form, distinct from the words of the Holy Book. And this is exactly what is meant by the “unrecited revelation.” But the two kinds of revelation, though different in their form, are both revealed to the Holy Prophet (

); both are from Allâh; and both are to be believed and obeyed by the Muslims.

The Holy Prophet’s (

) Authority to Interpret the Holy Qur’ân

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 Prophet’s (

) Authority to Make Laws

A number of verses in the Holy Qur’ân establish the authority of the Holy Prophet (

) as a legislator or a law-maker. Some of those are reproduced below:

And My mercy embraces all things. So I shall prescribe it for those who fear Allâh and pay zakâh (obligatory alms) and those who have faith in Our signs; those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet whom they find written down in the Torah and the Injîl, and who bids them to the Fair and forbids them the Unfair, and makes lawful for them the good things, and makes unlawful for them the impure things, and relieves them of their burdens and of the shackles that were upon them. So, those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him- they are the ones who acquire success. (7:156-157)

The emphasized words in this verse signify that one of the functions of the Holy Prophet (

) is “to make lawful the good things and make unlawful the impure things.” This function has been separated from “bidding the Fair and forbidding the Unfair,” because the latter relates to the preaching of what has already been established as Fair, and warning against what is established as Unfair, while the former embodies the making of lawful and unlawful, that is, the enforcing of new laws regarding the permissibility or prohibition of things. This function of prescribing new religious laws and rules is attributed here not to the Holy Qur’ân, but to the Holy Prophet (

). It, therefore, cannot be argued that the “making lawful or unlawful” means the declaration of what is laid down in the Holy Qur’ân only, because the declaration of a law is totally different from making it.

Besides, the declaration of the established rules has been referred to in the earlier sentence separately, that is, “bids them to the Fair and forbids for them the Unfair.” The reference in the next sentence, therefore, is only to “making” new laws.

The verse also emphasizes “to believe” in the Holy Prophet (

). In the present context, it clearly means to believe in all his functions mentioned in the verse including to make something “lawful” or “unlawful.”
The verse, moreover, directs to follow the light that has been sent down with him. Here again, instead of “following the Holy Qur’ân,” “following the light” has been ordered, so as to include all the imperatives sent down to the Holy Prophet (

), either through the Holy Book or through the unrecited revelation, reflecting in his own orders and acts.

Looked at from whatever angle, this verse is a clear proof of the fact that the Holy Prophet (

) had an authority based, of course, on the unrecited revelation, to make new laws in addition to those mentioned in the Holy Qur’ân.

The Authority of Sunnah - Chapter 2

 

[Muslimwoman]

Umar [ra] prohibbted women from going to the mosque due to the fitnah that became widespread with women going to the mosque, and Ayesha [ra] said that if the prophet [saw] himself was here and saw what the women got up to, he would have prohibbted women from going to the mosque. these are just two of the evidences.

Brother Abdullah

Forgive me but at what point in time did we (the Muslim people) decide we could make decisions for G-d and our beloved Prophet (pbuh)? You say the scholars opinion is based on evidence from the Quran and Sunnah – please can you show me the verse that states women should not pray in mosques and it is ‘better’ for them to pray in their homes. Please also comment on the words of the Prophet (pbuh) below. The Quran and the Prophet clearly instructs the followers (all of them) to go to the mosque to pray. If women were behaving badly then those women should be ejected from the mosque, not all women forever. Does this not sound like the Christian "Eve sinned so all women for all time are sinners" stance? The Quran and the Prophet tell me to go to the mosque to pray, so of course I want the right to be allowed to follow the words of G-d and the Prophet, although I accept I will not be punished by G-d if men stop me from doing this. To me this is simply oppression of women.

One example is the ban of Muslim women from entering mosques, despite the clear instruction from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): "Do not ban the (female) creations of God from the mosques of God," (Al-Bukhari) and despite the fact that the Prophet lead the Prayers for many men and many women in his own mosque.
http://discover.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173364216036&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Sister, You only seem to read and accept the 'evidences' provided for the view that sex with slave women is not allowed, unless the man marries his slave. Take a look at the 'other side of the argument' on the following link [there are Quranic verses cited there too

I never said a man must marry his slave. What I argue against is the permissibility of owning a human being and having forced sex with her in 2007. What I have tried to do on this thread is put slavery and sex with slaves into its historical context. I accept it was permissible and quite the norm in those days for all cultures. I truly thank you for posting this fatwa because it clearly explains the historical context by continually using the word "WAS" (past tense) and then goes on to explain how this practice can no longer be achieved under Islam. Anyone reading these posts should look at this fatwa.

Does the fiqh say "even if it makes the women destitute"?

And was Allah wrong when He said that there is no blame on either of them if the women gives something of her belongings to her husband for her freedom?. And was the Prophet [saw] wrong when he asked that women [ra]wether she was prepared to give his garden back?

Of course not, because this is done with compassion and allows the woman to leave an unhappy situation. Now look at what is actually implemented in some Islamic courts.

This is where we really differ brother, you read certain pieces of fiqh and say there you go problem solved, whereas I look at how that fiqu is implemented. Islamic courts now make some women destitute (I believe by way of punishing the woman for wanting a divorce) and they do this by using fiqh. I accept the fiqu may be being misused but that is reality for some women and when this is pointed out to scholars they do not 'enlarge' on their stance, they simply say its not my fault if someone misunderstands me. Do you believe that is how Allah or the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) envisaged Islam?

check out the following link to see the evidences [that consists of Quranic ayahs as well] of why Scholars think that divorce is only the right of the husband: Darul Iftaa

And in one verse, it is quite clear:
“And he in whose hand is the marriage tie.” (al-Baqarah, 237)

This is a quote from the above link, I have changed it in no way. This is how the Quran is used by scholars? They take half a sentence from a verse and call it “quite clear”? When non Muslims do this the scholars are the first to say you must read everything in context, or are scholars exempt from this? This verse discussed what people in the west would call the period of engagement – quite a different situation to divorcing a wife. Here is the whole verse:

2:237 And if you divorce them before having touched them, but after having settled a dower upon them, then [give them] half of what you have settled - unless it be that they forgo their claim or he in whose hand is the marriage-tie forgoes his claim [to half of the dower]: and to forgo what is due to you is more in accord with God-consciousness. And forget not [that you are to act with] grace towards one another: verily, God sees all that you do.

For the husband to release his wife in a khul agreement, is a divorce, for to 'release' her is to divorce her, thus the view of why it is only the husbands right to divorce [if he wants to or not] explains the view of why the Khul cannot take effect without the husbands agreement.

So what are we actually saying here? I am the ‘property’ of my husband? He owns me? If I have absolutely no right to get out of a marriage without paying a bribe, then I must be ‘property’ because only property has no rights. These views stem from your great scholars who utter such tripe as this:
"Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective". (Bukhary).
Do your scholars not base many matters of fiqu on the hadiths contained in this man’s books of hadith? The people ask why Islam treats women so differently now than when the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) began Islam. I wish, I truly wish all women could be allowed on the Day of Judgement to hear this person explain himself to Allah. This is how Allah views men and women, and this is just one single verse:

33:35 VERILY, for all men and women who have sur­rendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves [before God], and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remember God unceasingly: for [all of] them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward.

Sorry but I see nothing there that suggests I am ‘defective’.

You seem to have a corrupt liberal modernist translation sister

The translation is from Islamonline (or is this one of the sites you say are liberal modernists?), the translator is Mohammad Asad – it is shown with the Arabic here:

http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

Hanbal's [ra] opinion, Hanifa's [ra] opinion, Shafi'i's [ra] opinion, and Maaliks [ra] opinion are all correct regarding this matter, all though they may differ. [please dont ask me to explain how they're all correct again, I've allready done that a few times over ]

Of course I will not ask you to explain it again, you have stated quite categorically that they are all right because they all say they are right. Therefore it is absolutely right that it is forbidden to force a woman into marriage against her will, while at the same time being absolutely allowed to force a woman into marriage against her will. No confusion there then.

I think it noteworthy that the first of these great scholars was Hanafi, who was not even born until 70 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), yet you rely so steadfastly on their ability to authenticate hadiths some 100 years or more after the death of the Prophet. Despite all the political wranglings that had occurred during that time.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Theres a difference of opinion about it, but as I said, all the opinion regarding this matter, of the four madhabs [the dominant one of the madhabs at least] are correct.

I am sorry brother but it really distresses me that you can follow so blindly, in that you can accept that something forbidden to Muslims is allowed because a scholar says so. If the same scholar declares next week that we can all eat pork and wear our underwear in the street will you do it?

The Prophet (pbuh) prohibited the practice of forced marriages as completely going against the purpose of marriage as set out in the Quran. The Prophet said:

“The widow and the divorced woman shall not be married until she has consented and the virgin shall not be married until her consent is obtained”.

What is it that your scholars fail to understand about the words of our Beloved Prophet (pbuh)? Or is it just that this does not suit their purpose and so they look elsewhere?
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim parliament, said that earlier this month the parliament had launched its own campaign to stop forced marriages, making it clear that they were not valid under Islamic law. (or is he one of the liberal modernists you warn me about?)
This means that sex within a forced marriage is rape, and parents and religious leaders who conspired to force couples to wed were guilty of aiding and abetting sex crimes.
http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/forcedAsianmarriages.htm

The suggestion was sister, that you are holding on to the western concept of 'basic human judgement and morality' and Judging what to reject of the fiqh by it, and what to accept of it.

I judge what to accept and what to reject of the fiqu based on The Quran. I do not, as you appear to, look at the fiqu then go to the Quran for ‘further reading’. I go first to the Quran, if I am unsure of something I go to the scholars whose opinions I trust. I judge scholars based on their adherence to the Quran and not the heresay of people whose second cousin twice removed may or may not have seen the back of the Prophet 100 years previously. When I read that a scholar has expressed an opinion that goes completely against the Quran (eg forced marriage, ownership of a human being outside jihad) I reject everything else that scholar says. This is not western thinking, it is mere common sense.

Here is the translation of the hadith I found on a reliable webiste:

The quote came from the al_Islam.org. Perhaps you could furnish me with a list of sites you find acceptable, then I will know which Muslims views and translations are (un)acceptable to you.

You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

The above hadith says to listen [it dont say to 'follow'] to the Amir and obey his orders.

To obey means to follow, from the Oxford dictionary:

obey
• verb 1 submit to the authority of. 2 carry out (an order). 3 behave in accordance with

follow
• verb 1 move or travel behind. 2 go after (someone) so as to observe or monitor them. 3 go along (a route or path). 4 come after in time or order. 5 be a logical consequence. 6 (also follow on from) occur as a result of. 7 act according to (an instruction or precept). 8 act according to the lead or example of. 9 take an interest in or pay close attention to. understand the meaning of. practise or undertake (a career or course of action).
So do you really believe our Beloved Prophet (pbuh) told us to obey an Amir that “will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings.”?

Do you believe the Prophet would have us follow this Amir or the Quran?....

3:31 Say [O Prophet]: "If you love God, follow me, [and] God will love you and forgive you your sins; for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace."

stick to the principles of their religion as much as they can, and hope and pray for change in peacefull ways.

Please can you tell me where in the Quran it says “as much as they can”? All I can find is this:

2:208 O you who have attained to faith! Surrender yourselves wholly unto God, and follow not Satan's footsteps, for, verily, he is your open foe.


Brother you seem completely convinced that I am following the wrong people (liberal modernists). Please can you look at the following (I have included the link so you can read the whole thing and it is from Islamonline).

Please look at the comment of the ‘scholar’ regarding A’ishah (pbuh) – he is actually saying that she knew less about the sayings of the Prophet than Abu Hurairah (he spent a total of one year and ten months with the Prophet, after which the Prophet died – this information comes from the reliable site you state above).

http://discover.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173364216036&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

In terms of the Science of Hadith, `A'ishah rejected Abu Hurairah's narration on the basis of its content rather than its chain of narrators. Abu Hurairah is a great Companion, but he simply made a mistake in this narration, apparently he did not hear the full sentence, and he thought he did.
Here, we have two narrations honestly and accurately narrated by Al-Bukhari. However, they are clearly at odds and one of them should be rejected, no doubt about that. It is quite telling that most commentators rejected `A'ishah's narration and accepted Abu Hurairah's, even though she supported the meaning of her narration with a verse from the Qur'an, which says what means,
*{No evil befalls on the earth nor in your own souls, but it is in a book before We bring it into existence; surely that is easy to Allah.}*(Al-Hadid 57:22)
What is more is that another Companion, Mikhmar, supported `A'ishah's narration with a similar narration that says, "There is no such thing as bad omens." But Ibn Al-Jawzi (a great scholar of Hadith in the sixth century died in 597/1200), surprisingly, commented, "How can `A'ishah reject an authentic narration?" And Ibn Al-`Arabi (a scholar from Andalusia who died in 1148 CE), shockingly commented, "`A'ishah's rejection of the narration is nonsense." (Abu Bakr Al-Maliki ibn Al-Arabi, `Aridat Al-Ahwadhi (Cairo: Dar Al-Wahy Al-Muhammadi, vol.10, n.d. p. 264.)
This is why I hold my views, after the death of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) women were no longer treated as required by the Quran and the Prophet. There are so many examples like this, many traditional scholars will take the word of a man over that of a woman, even over A’ishah (pbuh) who over many years lived, worked, prayed with the Prophet, led a Muslim army and the Prophet said of her that we can get half of our religion from her. Yet these scholars seem to say what can she know, she is only a woman – therefore no doubt she is a bad omen. It is also interesting to note how many of the hadiths relating to women being ‘bad omens’, ‘deficient’ and ‘hellbound’ are attributed to this much quoted man, even though Umar fired him for theft, called him a liar and forbade him to narrate ahadith from Muhammad (check out the reliable site you quoted above). Yet his hadith are spoken of daily and used as evidence by men who desire the oppression of women.

You keep quoting ‘liberal modernists’ at me, yet what I actually desire is to take our thinking back in time 1400 years to the true teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Does that sound liberal and modern to you?

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

i.e. some say there are no stoning verses on the Qur'an, whilst as far as I know, unmarried individuals get lashes and banishment, whilst married people get lashes and stoning.

Where in the Quran or the authentic sayings of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) does it say that scholars can use hearsay (which is factually what the hadiths are) to abrogate the Quran? In fact where does it say that even the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) himself could abrogate the Quran? There is absolutely no proof that the stonings were after the revelation of this verse – in fact if you read the hadith the narrator is asked if this was before or after the revelation and he replies I DON’T KNOW. What sort of arrogance would a person need to refuse the Word of G-d over hearsay?

Or do you adhere to this hadith?

"The parchment that the verse about stoning to death for adultery was written on was eaten and abrogated by a goat." (Ibni Majah 36/1944; Ibni Hanbal 3/61; 5/131,132,183; 6/269).

So G-d promised to protect the Quran for all time but some of it was eaten by a goat? Seriously it is laughable.

Please try to imagine Judgement Day, I am being asked to account for my deeds and I am asked “can you read?” - “Yes” - “did you read the verse about the punishment for adultery?”, - “Yes” – “so why did you agree that stoning is the punishment?” – “because men told me to” – “you were instructed to follow the word of G-d, why didn’t you do this? – “because some men said some of it was eaten by a goat”. Do you think this will save me from the fires of hell?

So of all those hundreds of people that learned the Quran by heart, they all forgot this verse at the very same moment the goat ate it?

Ibn Qutayba, in his book Solving the Contradictions Among Hadiths stated that "the goat is a holy animal". And he asked a counter question: "Why not believe in G-'s power? As He destroyed the people of Aad and Thamud, He is also able to destroy His revelations by using even a goat!"

Surely if this is correct and G-d chose to destroy this verse by getting a goat to eat it, then G-d has done this so the verse could no longer be used? Why else would He destroy it?

Or maybe it was the monkeys that did it?

A tribe of monkeys arrested an adulterous monkey and stoned it to death, and I helped them" (Bukhary 63/27).

Here is the verse of the Quran (that is the WORD OF G-D) from 4 different translators, please highlight the word rajm or stoning for me because clearly my ability to read is failing me or perhaps it is written in ink only men can read?????? I don’t give an owl’s hoot what any man on this earth says, G-d gave us the Quran, He protected it and it clearly gives the punishment for adultery (all goats and monkeys aside):

024.002
YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.
SHAKIR: (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

24:2 AS FOR the adulteress and the adulterer flog each of them with a hundred stripes, and let not compassion with them keep you from [carrying out] this law of God, if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of the believers witness their chastisement. Translated by Mohammad Asad

There should have been no way that your teacher could have misinterpreted that verse of the holy Quran when other verses verry clearly show that the "message" which the Prophet's [saw] mission was to convey, came along with an interpretation/practical implementation which it was the duty of the Prophet [saw] to convey as well. how comes he overlooked the following verses, which puts the above verse into context?:

Thanks you just gave my husband a really good laugh. So show us misguided people, where in this verse does it say and ‘the hearsay of anyone who once had a relative that met the Prophet for 5 minutes’ (all sarcasm intended).

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)

None of the verses you quoted say anything other than that G-d sent the Quran through the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), we are required to learn it, recite it, believe it and live it. The reference to Wisdom in this verse is the Wisdom of G-d.

Can you tell me, what is it you think G-d is unable to say for Himself?

PICKTHAL: And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise. 31:27

You keep asserting that we must follow the Quran and Sunnah. If that was desired by the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) can you please explain these to me:

Do not write anything belonging to me. Whoever has written something received from me outside the Qur’an let him destroy it" Muslim “Zuhd” 72

^ Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Taqyid al-‘Ilm, 34: Abu Hurayra narrates: God’s Messenger once came near us while some friends were writing down what they had heard from him. He asked what they were writing. ‘We are writing what we heard from you’, they answered. The Messenger warned: ‘Do you know that the communities preceding you went astray because they wrote down from others beside the Book of God.’

"Omar said: Quran is enough for us, do not write anything from the prophet" (Bukhary, Jihad 176, Gizya 6, Ilim 49, Marza 17, Megazi 83, Itisam 26; Muslim, Vasiyya 20,21,22).

The references are all there, you can check them and give alternative interpretations.

ps: no Al-Azhar [one who actually teaches at the institution] teacher will tell you to reject the Sunnah, for all Al-Azhar teachers agree, just like all Islamic Scholars, that to reject the Sunnah is kufr.

I am not told to reject the hadiths, I am simply warned that there are among the authentic the unauthentic and I should therefore not read them by myself or I may take an unauthentic hadith as authentic. Therefore he took them away. When he feels a hadith is relevant to my learning he tells me the hadith and provides proof of it’s authenticity – this includes ensuring it is strictly in line with the Quran, from a narrator where no blemish can be shown against their character or ability, that it is in line with the spirit of Islam, etc, etc, etc. He doesn't just pick the ones that suit his argument. He also tells me which scholars opinions I should read and accept, they are a wide variety. He is a graduate of al-Azhar and considering who his father was, I shall take his word for it that blind following is simply a lack of willingness to learn (ie laziness). My teacher is the most pious man I know and I trust him (I can’t say that for many men walking this earth).

Salaam

 

[Abdullah]

at what point in time did we (the Muslim people) decide we could make decisions for G-d and our beloved Prophet (pbuh)?

We only 'hear and obey' sister. Umar [ra] is one of the khulafa e Rashideen [rightly guided Caliphs] by consensus. There is a hadith which says """You must follow my sunnah and the sunnah of the rightly guided Caliphs. Hold fast to it and stick to it." {Mishkaat}. There is no way in the world that Umar [ra] would have prohibbited women from the mosque if he wasn't allowed to, and Ayesha [ra], who it is said of that all the Scholars of the world of this day and age, couldn't equall the knowledge of her [ra], endorsed the prohibition. Scholars may argue that the level of fitnah [associated with women going to the mosque for congregational prayers ] is far greater today then the time of the Umar and Ayesha [ra], so there is still the need to enforce the prohibition. just showing how their arguments are not baseless.

I personally adhere to the opinion of Mufti Ibn Adam, who says that it is better to allow a womans praying area in the mosques in this day and age, [in the west] so that the sisters can pray as neccassary.

You say the scholars opinion is based on evidence from the Quran and Sunnah – please can you show me the verse that states women should not pray in mosques and it is ‘better’ for them to pray in their homes.

The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) granted permission to Muslim women to attend the mosque and pray standing behind the rows of men. He even advised the Companions: "Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from going to the mosque." And husbands were specifically told by him: "When your womenfolk ask you for permission to attend the mosque, do not prevent them."

Of course this permission to attend the mosques was on the condition that women strictly observed the various restrictions imposed upon them by the Shari'ah regarding dress, etc., and it is known that the Prophet (peace be upon him) considered it preferable for women to pray in their own homes rather than attend the mosques.

USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

Now regarding Quranic verses that back the opinion that it is better for women to pray in their homes, here is a verse which the Scholars use, in addition to the sayings of the Prophet [saw] which the Quran commands that we must obey:

Generally, the major Fatawa books of the Indian Subcontinent Hanafi jurists (fuqaha) discourage (quite vehemently at times) women from attending and praying at Mosques. They base their understanding on the fact that a woman is encouraged by Allah Most High to remain within the confines of her home unless there is a need for her to emerge outside. Allah Most High says:

“And stay in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, O members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.” (Surah al-Ahzab, V: 33) ...

And here are a few more hadiths:

Sayyida Umm Salama (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The best Mosque for a woman is the inner part of her home.” (Musnad Ahmad & Tabrani)

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Do not prevent your womenfolk from attending the Mosque, even though their houses are better for them.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

Sayyida Umm Salama (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A woman’s prayer in her inner room is better than her prayer in the outside room, and her prayer in the outside room is better than her prayer in the courtyard, and her prayer in the courtyard is better than her prayer in the Mosque.” (Mu’jam of Imam Tabrani)

Please also comment on the words of the Prophet (pbuh) below. The Quran and the Prophet clearly instructs the followers (all of them) to go to the mosque to pray. If women were behaving badly then those women should be ejected from the mosque, not all women forever.

Umar [ra] and Ayesha [ra] knew better then you of what to do about the matter sister. , and times havn't got any better since, rather, it has got much worse, so on what basis should they lift the prohibition, they may argue?

Does this not sound like the Christian "Eve sinned so all women for all time are sinners" stance?

Nope, it's more like, the reasons for which the women were prohibbited, remains, and infact have got worse, so there now is all the more reasons to keep the prohibition in place...

The Quran and the Prophet tell me to go to the mosque to pray, so of course I want the right to be allowed to follow the words of G-d and the Prophet...To me this is simply oppression of women.

Why do you only accept hadith that backs up your views, but reject other hadiths, and Quranic ayah evidence, [that puts the hadiths you use in context] that shows that the opinions of the four madhabs are valid?

I suppose you will say "the hadiths I use are authentic and the others are not"...are you a hadith Scholar? or are you just taking your teachers word for it...and didn't he say that in the Quran Allah says that the Messenger [saw] only had the duty to convey the words of the Quran [and not any hadith], so how comes he pulls out some hadiths to back up his views? , and was it him that showed you those hadiths? [were they all classified not fabricated?] in which some of the Sahabah [ra] were instructed not to write hadith, other then the words of the Quran?, which you yourself used to show me how your view that the Prophet [saw] was only charged with conveying the verses of the Quran and not nothing esle, was correct? ... so how comes you yourself use hadiths that back up your and your teachers view?

Do you not find it contradictory to say on the one hand that the Prophet's [saw] only duty was to convey the verses of the Quran [and no other hadiths that expounded on it/interpreted it], and then you yourself produce as many hadiths as you can that backs up your views?

I suppose it is verry convenient for you to say "I am verry sceptical of hadith", so that you could be sceptical of any hadith that contradicts your view and reject it and accept any hadith that backs up your views, and all this when you argued that the Prophet's duty was not even to convey hadith other then Quranic verses], phew! that is some contradiction!

One example is the ban of Muslim women from entering mosques, despite the clear instruction from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)...:

There are Scholars with differing views sister, and just as they produce hadiths to back up their claim, so do the madhabs. so what criteria do you use to choose between the opinions?

...then goes on to explain how this practice can no longer be achieved under Islam. Anyone reading these posts should look at this fatwa.

Here are the comments of the Sheikh, that your reffering to [I'll post it up so it's easier for anyone to to read ]:

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 [5482] Is having a Slave (girl) for sex nowdyas is allowed?

I accept the fiqu may be being misused[/quote]

Well if fiqh is misused, then how can you blame any rulings that is not in accordance with the fiqh, on the fiqh?

And in one verse, it is quite clear:
“And he in whose hand is the marriage tie.” (al-Baqarah, 237)

How do you know that they have misinterpreted that verse?, and what about all the other Quranic verses in that link?

So what are we actually saying here? I am the ‘property’ of my husband? He owns me? If I have absolutely no right to get out of a marriage without paying a bribe, then I must be ‘property’ because only property has no rights.

Before you get too emotional my dear sister, take a look at the following of the Hanafi view:

...These are just two of the wisdoms behind the right of divorce been given to the man.

This does not, in any way, mean that the husband may abuse this right and harm and mistreat the wife without her having any means to end the marriage. Islam is a complete religion and respects the rights of all. There are various grounds on which a woman may seek the annulment of her marriage.

1) The following are the grounds on which the wife may seek a divorce from her husband at a court of an Islamic country or in the absence of an Islamic Court (as in western countries) from a committee of a few religious people that consists of at least one scholar of Islamic law:

a) Inability or refusal of the husband to financially support his wife (even if she happens to be rich, it is still the full responsibility of the husband to maintain her).

b) Abuse and mistreatment of the wife (which includes beating and swearing, cursing and attempting to force her to do wrong).

c) Impotence or any other illness that prevents the husband from fulfilling the wife’s sexual needs (in recognition of the wife’s legitimate instinctive needs).

d) Incurable, repulsive disease in the husband like leprosy (or aids according to the contemporary scholars).

e) Insanity in the husband.

f) Extended absence or desertion of the husband.

g) The husband deceiving and concealing information regarding himself at the time of marriage.

h) The relationship becoming severely damaged, in that there is allot of hatred between the spouses and it is impossible for them to live a peaceful life.

The above are brief examples in which a woman can seek a divorce. There are certain rules, regulations and principles with regards to the procedure, and one should consult a reliable scholar before taking any action.

2) There are certain situations where a woman may get a divorce even without the intervention of an Islamic court:

a) Delegating of the husband, the right of divorcing, to the wife after marriage,

b) Delegating this right at the time of contracting the marriage,

c) Delegation of this right before the marriage and the marriage is attributed to this delegation,

d) Conditional delegation, where at the time of signing the marriage contract, the wife stipulated certain conditions to her husband, the breach of which would result in a divorce.

There are certain rules for this also. For more details, see a detailed article on this website (in the marriage section) with regards to stipulating conditions in marriage.

In conclusion, Shariah primarily gives the unilateral right to divorce to the husband. However, under certain conditions, the wife also has a right to seek for the annulment of the marriage. This is the ruling that was chosen for us by our Creator and it is totally in accordance with logic, common sense and the betterment of the society as a whole.

And Allah Knows Best
Muhammad ibn Adam

Darul Iftaa

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

We only 'hear and obey' sister.

Hear and obey who? Mere men are abrogating the word of G-d and you say we hear and obey based on hearsay? I will take the word of G-d over anything any man alive or dead has ever said, been reported to have said or wrote in any book (or bone, or banana leaf)

I personally adhere to the opinion of Mufti Ibn Adam, who says that it is better to allow a womans praying area in the mosques in this day and age, [in the west] so that the sisters can pray as neccassary.

Well that is jolly decent of you. So is there something wrong with women’s homes in the west? One would assume that the west is viewed as a more sinful place than an Islamic country, so surely it should be more important for sisters in the west to pray at home?

Or would this be because sisters in the west work but of course so many women in Islamic countries work now, so that argument doesn’t work. Perhaps it is because sisters living in the west simply will not continue to accept the oppression they would receive in Islamic countries and are demanding their rights given to them by G-d?

The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) granted permission to Muslim women to attend the mosque

With all due respect to our Beloved Prophet (pbuh) we didn’t need his permission, it was granted by G-d and there is no higher authority than G-d.

Of course this permission to attend the mosques was on the condition that women strictly observed the various restrictions imposed upon them

Show me the verse of the Quran, specific to women, that states this. It is for both men and women to observe the various restrictions imposed upon them.

Generally, the major Fatawa books of the Indian Subcontinent Hanafi jurists (fuqaha) discourage (quite vehemently at times) women from attending and praying at Mosques.

Ah now we have to go so far as to look to the Indian Subcontinent to back up our views? This is the area of the world most accused of oppression of women, far beyond anything even Saudi Arabia has managed. These would be the good Muslim scholars that ordered a women to be gang raped for something her young brother did. Interesting to note that the men AUTHORISED to carry out the gang rape were in fact the very scholars and jurists that gave the authorization.

I suggest you have a conversation with Niranjan and ask him about the Indian Subcontinent and the behaviour of Muslim scholars and jurists there before you ever quote them again.

“And stay in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, O members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.” (Surah al-Ahzab, V: 33)

Now let us try the old putting it into context trick:

Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much. (33:21)

Are you as a Muslim male expected to achieve the piousness of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)? Or is he simply the best example for you to attempt to follow? Do you expect to receive the same rewards in Jannah as the Prophet?

From verse 28 Allah is speaking specifically to the wives of the Prophet (pbut). In verse 30 the wives are warned by Allah that they (not all women, just they) will receive double the punishment for sins committed. Allah is most merciful and advises them in the next verse that they (the wives, not all women) will receive double the reward if they remain pious.

O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.(33:30)

Now read verse 32,

O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech.

Now we get to verse 33 where Allah is still talking specifically to the wives of the Prophet. We are fully aware that the wives of the Prophet attended prayer in the mosque, so we have to assume, do we not, that this refers to them staying in their houses at times other than for prayer? I wonder then, if this was meant as do not leave your houses and pray in your houses, how A’ishah (pbuh) managed to pray in the mosques and lead a Muslim army on her camel, perhaps she kept her camel in her home?

And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the Time of Ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor-due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing. (33:33)

Umar [ra] and Ayesha [ra] knew better then you of what to do about the matter sister. , and times havn't got any better since, rather, it has got much worse, so on what basis should they lift the prohibition, they may argue?

So do you think that Allah is short sighted? Perhaps you believe that when He stated all believers (men and women) must attend the mosque to pray that He could not see far enough into the future (a matter of only a few years into the future) to know that women would misbehave and have to be banned from mosques?

I find it quite amusing that you state A’ishah (pbuh) knew better than me (if I lived one thousand lifetimes and devoted all my time to study Islam, she would still know better than me) when your great scholars would say this of her:

But Ibn Al-Jawzi (a great scholar of Hadith in the sixth century died in 597/1200), surprisingly, commented, "How can `A'ishah reject an authentic narration?" And Ibn Al-`Arabi (a scholar from Andalusia who died in 1148 CE), shockingly commented, "`A'ishah's rejection of the narration is nonsense." (Abu Bakr Al-Maliki ibn Al-Arabi, `Aridat Al-Ahwadhi (Cairo: Dar Al-Wahy Al-Muhammadi, vol.10, n.d. p. 264.)

So what is your view brother Abdullah, we should accept A’ishah’s (pbuh) vast knowledge and understanding of Islam or that of your scholars who speak this way of her? Bear in mind that Allah has promised A’ishah double the reward in Jannah and I don’t remember a single verse stating that any scholar will receive such an honour from Allah.

the reasons for which the women were prohibited

So in 24 hours we have gone from “it is better for women to pray in their homes” to “it is prohibited”. Yet you will not accept my view that perhaps over 1400 years some things have become prohibited that were not actually prohibited at all. Yet you can manage it in a mere 24 hours.

Why do you only accept hadith that backs up your views, but reject other hadiths, and Quranic ayah evidence, [that puts the hadiths you use in context] that shows that the opinions of the four madhabs are valid?

I only post hadiths at all because you believe in them so completely, as I do not it is matterless to me whether I quote them or not. I do not ever state which hadiths I believe to be authentic and which I do not, as I believe the books of hadith are corrupt I do not believe they are reliable. You know my views, I would much rather just discuss the Quran and take our evidences from there. If I were to discuss the bible with a Christian it would be a little ludicrous to do so without referring to the bible.

so how comes he pulls out some hadiths to back up his views?...... or are you just taking your teachers word for it

You may mock all you like. I am an honest person, when I was given a quote from the Quran that I had not found myself I pointed this out to you. Or do you find honesty something to mock? Here is what I posted:

If you are not convinced by that then what about the word of Allah? (I confess I got this question and verse from a friend of my husband whose father was an Imam at Mecca).

62:9 O YOU who have attained to faith! When the call to prayer is sounded on the day of congregation, hasten to the remembrance of God, and leave all worldly commerce: this is for your own good, if you but knew it.

You will please note that he quoted the word of G-d, not hadiths. Yes I take his word for it, because the verse he quoted is in the Quran and G-d blessed me with the ability to read. If you wish to incorrectly assume that my honesty means someone is sitting beside me telling me what to say then go ahead. I would always state if I am posting something not from my own mind or study, I am not in the habit of blaming anyone for my mistakes or taking credit for their knowledge. I am instructed by Allah to be honest and in case you haven’t noticed I take instructions from Allah rather seriously. Or perhaps you know of a hadith that abrogates the instruction for Muslims to be honest?

Do you not find it contradictory to say on the one hand that the Prophet's [saw] only duty was to convey the verses of the Quran [and no other hadiths that expounded on it/interpreted it], and then you yourself produce as many hadiths as you can that backs up your views?

No I do not find it contradictory. As I stated above I quote hadiths because you believe in them, that being the case I like to point out to you that something you believe has been protected by G-d, actually goes against your argument.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I suppose it is verry convenient for you to say "I am verry sceptical of hadith", so that you could be sceptical of any hadith that contradicts your view and reject it and accept any hadith that backs up your views, and all this when you argued that the Prophet's duty was not even to convey hadith other then Quranic verses], phew! that is some contradiction!

No problem, we will continue our discussions based only on the Quran. So please answer my questions again (without referring to hadiths):

1. I am commanded by G-d to pray in mosques so why can’t I?
2. The punishment for adultery is lashes, so why do the schools say it is stoning?

We will just start with those two because it may take you some time to answer them without referring to the hadiths.

Or would you prefer to stay with quoting the hadiths and answer my other questions:

1. You have stated that you believe G-d has protected both the Quran and Sunnah, so how did a goat manage to eat some of the Quran?
2. If it was by the will of G-d then why do scholars insist we should follow the destroyed portion, when clearly G-d wanted it to be destroyed?
3. When the goat ate the verse how did everyone that knew the Quran by heart forget this verse?
4. Do you believe that the hadith “a group of monkeys ARRESTED a monkey for ADULTERY and stoned it to death” is authentic? If yes, please can you provide the scientific evidence that monkeys are monogamous and that they have a marriage ceremony in order for adultery to apply. If no, why do the scholars rely on it to support their argument for rajm?

There are Scholars with differing views sister, and just as they produce hadiths to back up their claim, so do the madhabs. so what criteria do you use to choose between the opinions?

Well if fiqh is misused, then how can you blame any rulings that is not in accordance with the fiqh, on the fiqh?

I didn’t say I blame the fiqu, I said I blame the scholars. They produce fiqu and then when they are told their fiqu is being misused they just shrug. If someone is going to take such an important position of authority it is incumbent upon them to ensure that their decisions are not misused. If they become aware their fiqu is being misused then it is for the scholars to issue a fatwa stating this and correcting the misuse, not just sit back and shrug. If I was on another thread and said brother Abdullah believes we should eat pork I imagine you would have something to say about it and would wish to correct what I said. So why can’t the scholars do this?

Of course I also have rather large issues with fiqu produced based on hearsay.

The following are the grounds on which the wife may seek a divorce from her husband at a court of an Islamic country or in the absence of an Islamic Court (as in western countries) from a committee of a few religious people that consists of at least one scholar of Islamic law:

Gosh I wonder why nobody ever told Dr Siddiqi about those rights for women to divorce? Maybe he was off sick that day?

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi,

The Shari`ah has not given the right to a woman to divorce her husband, because only the husband has all the financial obligations of the family. After divorce he will be responsible to provide her maintenance during her `iddah and if there are any children in the family then he will be responsible for their expenses. Thus to grant her that right equally with the husband while she has no financial obligation is unfair and unjust. The wife can, however, divorce her husband if her husband gave her that right either at the time of marriage or afterwards.

So because my husband has to pay me £20 sterling a month for 3 whole months I have no rights to divorce. It is now 2007 and many Muslim women work and provide money for the household. Perhaps these women should refuse to earn another penny until they have the right to divorce, I bet the husbands would soon decide to support the view and scholars would suddenly find a reason this is allowed.


I will look at the 'wisdoms' from your link in my next post.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Sorry I missed a question

You said......
There are Scholars with differing views sister, and just as they produce hadiths to back up their claim, so do the madhabs. so what criteria do you use to choose between the opinions?

I answer, the QURAN. Why what do you use the bible? But surely you don't have to choose, as you keep telling me all their opinions are right and you can't pick and choose?

 

[Muslimwoman]

I have carefully read the information at the link you provided, thank you, however I have a few questions.

This is one of the bits you missed out:

Due to this spirit of Islam, Allah Most High granted the right of divorce to the husband and not the wife or any other third party. If one was to look at the verses in the Qur’an that deal with divorce, one will see that the address of divorce is directed to the husbands and not the wives.

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/rdivorce1.htm

Q. Am now so confused, it clearly states here or ANY third party, yet the bottom part states a wife can go to an Islamic court to get a divorce. Is an Islamic court not a third party? Because this is what the courts say to women “we are a third party and have no right to grant you a divorce without the permission of your husband”.

Wisdoms behind the right of divorce being given to men:

There are many reasons and much wisdom in giving this right to the husbands, just to mention a few:

1) As mentioned previously, divorce is the most detested of the lawful things in Shariah. Therefore, in order to prevent unnecessary divorces, there was great wisdom in giving the right of divorce to men.

Q. So why can a man divorce his wife instantly or by text message or through a friend, if the idea is to prevent unnecessary divorces? Surely by making divorce more difficult it prevents unnecessary divorces, not by making it as easy as possible?

I am sorry but the argument immediately loses credibility here.

The reason for this is that, in the case of a divorce, although both the husband and wife suffer as a result (psychologically for instance), a man encounters many financial disadvantages and has the additional burden of a heavy responsibility. He loses the dowry (mahr) that was paid to the woman, he will have to pay Mahr for the second time if he marries again, the wife is entitled to financial support and maintenance (nafaqa) whilst in the waiting period (idda), she is entitled to child maintenance if young children are in her custody, etc…

The husband has so much to lose financially if he divorces his wife and this acts as a natural deterrent from abusing his right of divorce. If women had such a right, however, there would be no such check on them because they do not have any financial responsibilities towards their husbands.

Q. Would you consider £60 sterling to be “so much to lose financially”? I only ask because in Egypt this is the standard amount to be paid to a woman you are divorcing, no matter how rich you are. Now consider, a woman receives her £20 for the first month and a chicken is £3.50, a kg of apples is £1.65 and her electricity for the month will be about £4.50.
Q. These days many women often share the financial responsibility, pay half the mortgage, the bills, the food, clothing, etc and many homes would have great difficulty without the wage of the wife, so if financial burden is a driving force then why are women that earn money not permitted divorce rights? (please note I will not accept the answer “because it was not originally ordained” because fiqu can be issued on the basis that divorce rights are given to those with financial burden, as this is their argument).

2) There is no doubt in the fact that the Almighty Creator created men and women differently in many ways, physically, psychologically, mentally and emotionally. Both men and women have been given certain qualities, features and characteristics and according to these characteristics, Allah Most High divided their responsibilities.

Q. Please can you tell me which verses of the Quran set out the division of responsibilities.

Men and women have been given certain duties and responsibilities that suited them and that it conformed to the way they were created. The responsibility of providing the daily bread was placed on the shoulder of the husband, as it requires physical strength and men were naturally created with more physical power than women. Similarly, the responsibility of looking after the household affairs (to a certain degree) was given to the woman, as that was more suited to her.


Q. How much physical strength does it take to be a teacher or lawyer or doctor?
Q. Is there any evidence that A’ishah (pbuh) was endowed with an unusual physical strength? (one would think leading an army took rather a lot of strength (physically, psychologically, mentally and emotionally).

This is not a question of injustice or sexual discrimination. Let me give you an example: I had two friends that were ready to help and assist me due to seeing me overloaded with work. Now, I had two things that needed to be done, one was to thoroughly clean my office with the moving of heavy furniture, and the other job was to calculate my accounts. One of my friends was physically stronger and had a well-built body, whilst the other was not so quite fortunate in this regard, but had a great brain. It will only be from common sense that I hand the job of calculation to the one who was more able mentally and the lifting of heavy furniture to the one who had more strength, might and power. If the contrary was done, it would be condemned by everybody.

Similar is the case with Allah Almighty in that He distributed the responsibilities and rights between men and women in a way that was suited to them. Women naturally have been created with this great quality of women possess and we as men should definitely learn from it.

Q. What is this great quality women possess?
Q. How is this pertinent to rights of divorce? If men are worried women will divorce out of emotion then surely women could be required to wait 3 months before divorce then that is plenty of time for even our tiny little emotional brains to reflect and reconsider. Even the most emotional woman would find it hard to huff for 3 months (unlike many men).

This is where the argument again loses a little credibility. Yes, alhamdolillah, we women are emotional creatures and if I had the right to divorce my husband instantly the poor man would never have a clue if he was married or not. However as quickly as our emotions rise they also fall. Men on the other hand hang onto their anger, often long after they have forgotten what they are angry about.


Due to women being more sensitive than men, it was natural (keeping in mind the dislike of divorce in Islam) that the right to divorce was not given to them. If it was, then there would be many divorces and break-up of marriages. They would issue divorces in the heat of the moment and regret it later. Ask married couples how many times the wife divorces her husband during the day, but from the heart she truly and genuinely loves him and could not consider a moment of her life without him. A man due to his doggedness and generally having more ability to reflect and ponder was duly given this right of divorce.

Definition of Sensitivity
Sensitivity: 1. In psychology, the quality of being sensitive. As, for example, sensitivity training, training in small groups to develop a sensitive awareness and understanding of oneself and of ones relationships with other

Q. So is the argument that women are more able to understand themselves and their relationships with others therefore they should not be allowed to divorce because they would do so after understanding themselves and their relationships with others?????
Q. Due to their ‘doggedness’ are they not more likely to stick to a divorce even after they change their mind?
Q. Is there any scientific evidence that men have a higher ability to reflect and ponder? Here we are actually considering the brains ability to function. I have posted something on this below.

Please could you ask this gentleman to distribute the rest of this to his fellow scholars, particularly in the Middle East and Indian Subcontinent and Asia (in fact anywhere that isn’t considered ‘the west’), because clearly many of them were off sick that day.

I would never deny that women and men function differently, G-d forbid that women would take to such a violent and aggressive nature. Here is a little information on the differences in male and female brain function (please note the bits in bold):

Yet despite the desire for tidy and definitive answers to complex questions, researchers warn that the mere finding of a difference in form does not mean a difference in function or output inevitably follows.
"We can't get anywhere denying that there are neurological and hormonal differences between males and females, because there clearly are," said Virginia Valian, a psychology professor at Hunter College who wrote the 1998 book "Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women." "The trouble we have as scientists is in assessing their significance to real-life performance."
For example, neuroscientists have shown that women's brains are about 10 percent smaller than men's, on average, even after accounting for women's comparatively smaller body size.
But throughout history, people have cited anatomical distinctions in support of overarching hypotheses that turn out merely to reflect the societal and cultural prejudices of the time.
Overall size aside, some evidence suggests that female brains are relatively more endowed with gray matter - the prized neurons thought to do the bulk of the brain's thinking - while men's brains are packed with more white matter, the tissue between neurons.
To further complicate the portrait of cerebral diversity, new brain imaging studies from the University of California, Irvine, suggest that men and women with equal I.Q. scores use different proportions of their gray and white matter when solving problems like those on intelligence tests.

 

[Abdullah]

The Prophet (pbuh) prohibited the practice of forced marriages as completely going against the purpose of marriage as set out in the Quran. The Prophet said:

“The widow and the divorced woman shall not be married until she has consented and the virgin shall not be married until her consent is obtained”.

The fact that there seemed to be a verry clear and conlusive hadith of the prophet [saw] ...saying "dont prevent the women from going to the Mosque", and then I showed you other hadiths and a Quranic ayah that put that hadith and simmilar hadiths into context, should have made you the wiser to not pre-judge the dominant opinions of the four madhabs, although there may seem to be verry clear and straightforward hadiths that seems to contradict those opinions. does not the fact that the four madhabs have been verified and endorsed by the ijma not indicate to you that there opinions must be based on substantial evidence?

What is it that your scholars fail to understand about the words of our Beloved Prophet (pbuh)? Or is it just that this does not suit their purpose and so they look elsewhere?

They put all hadiths into context with the other hadiths and Quranic ayahs and extract a contextual interpretation.

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim parliament, said that earlier this month the parliament had launched its own campaign to stop forced marriages, making it clear that they were not valid under Islamic law

. (or is he one of the liberal modernists you warn me about?)
This means that sex within a forced marriage is rape, and parents and religious leaders who conspired to force couples to wed were guilty of aiding and abetting sex crimes.
Muslim Parliament: forced marriages

The view that not even virgin girls are allowed to be given away in marriage by the fathers, if the girl objects to it, is a valid, and a strong view in Islam [that is the one I adhere to as well].

There is also another issue here, and that is that, a law of a country overides any fiqh...therefore, Dr Ghayassuddin Siddique is right in what he is doing.

I judge what to accept and what to reject of the fiqu based on The Quran. I do not, as you appear to, look at the fiqu then go to the Quran for ‘further reading’. I go first to the Quran, if I am unsure of something I go to the scholars whose opinions I trust. I judge scholars based on their adherence to the Quran and not the heresay of people whose second cousin twice removed may or may not have seen the back of the Prophet 100 years previously.

If you follow the Quran, then why dont you follow the Sunnah, which the Quran orders you to follow?

And hadith preservation are not based on 'heresay'; If Allah could get the people to preserve the Quran, then Allah could get the people to preserve it's meaning too. The Quran and the hadith have both been preserved basically in the same way; they both were memorised, written down on different materials/papers, and they were compiled in book form. So why could the text of the Quran be preserved this way, but not it's meaning?

When I read that a scholar has expressed an opinion that goes completely against the Quran (eg forced marriage, ownership of a human being outside jihad) I reject everything else that scholar says. This is not western thinking, it is mere common sense.

Anything that does not conform to your views, you reject it on the grounds that "it totally goes against the Quran". I have shown you many Quranic verses that backs up, and some of the time, verry clearly, many opinions that you reject as being valid.

To obey means to follow, from the

Oxford dictionary

The meaning of the Arabic Hadith words and Quranic words are not looked up in the English Oxford Dictionary. if that is what you are doing sister, then no wonder you are misinterpreting stuff. There is a major difference in the root meaning, duplicate wordings, and implications of words, in the two languages. [that is why one of the pre-requisites of being a Muffasir [one who interprets the Quran], and Mujtahid, is to be a master in the Arabic language and it's ancillary sciences...]

The different implications between the word 'follow' and 'listen' are great and verry important to get correct in hadith translation/interpretation.

In the Shariah, the word 'follow' [ithiba], indicates that one should look at the actions of a person and copy the person in his actions, and the words, 'listen and obey" denotes that, if given an order by the ruler, then we should obey the orders.

In this context, we could see that, there is no contradiction in that hadith, for it is well establised in Islam that we should abide by the laws of a country...even if it is not all in accordance with Shariah...one example of that is: The Islamic ruling for Muslims who even live in non-Muslim lands...is to abide by the law of that land.

So do you really believe our Beloved Prophet (pbuh) told us to obey an Amir that “will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings.”?

Obeying the law of the land that one lives in...is a duty of each and every Muslim, even if they are not based on the Quran and Sunnah. one example of that will be, here in Britain, the law of the land [orders of the ruler] is based on kufr, but yet muslims living here are obliged to abide by it.

Do you believe the Prophet would have us follow this Amir or the Quran?....

The Prophet [saw] does not want us to follow a corrupt ruler, but he does want us to not disobey his orders [the law he establishes], but not if them orders [law] contradicts the essential neccesseties [obligations...] of Deen, so for example, if a ruler orders us to not offer Salaat, or to start drinking alcohol, then it is incumbent on us not to obey those orders but keep obeying Allah [swt] on those issues.

I3:31 Say [O Prophet]: "If you love God, follow me, [and] God will love you and forgive you your sins; for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace."

now how should we know what the actions of the prophet [saw] was if we are to follow him, and if his actions have not been recorded and preserved for us to get guidance from them?

Preservation of records of the prophet [saw's] actions are not only in memmory sister, but their in writing as well.

Please can you tell me where in the Quran it says “as much as they can”? All I can find is this:

2:208 O you who have attained to faith! Surrender yourselves wholly unto God, and follow not Satan's footsteps, for, verily, he is your open foe.

The neccesseties of the Deen has to be met by each and every Muslim, even it it means to disobey a corrupt ruler in doing so, but regarding everything else, for the sake of unity, and for the sake of not breaking up into factions, and for the sake of preventing/refraining from rebellion [civil war], the Muslims should obey the ruler even if his orders are not according to the Shariah.

Brother you seem completely convinced that I am following the wrong people (liberal modernists). Please can you look at the following (I have included the link so you can read the whole thing and it is from Islamonline).

Please look at the comment of the ‘scholar’ regarding A’ishah (pbuh) – he is actually saying that she knew less about the sayings of the Prophet than Abu Hurairah (he spent a total of one year and ten months with the Prophet, after which the Prophet died – this information comes from the reliable site you state above).

Discover Islam - Ask About Islam

I have seen that not all Islamonline answers are of the mainstream. My favourite websites are, Sunnipath.com, Ask-Imam.com, Zaytuna.org, Learn-Islam.net and the 'Radical Middle Way' website.

It's best to find out from the mainstream Scholars about how they reconcile apperant contradictions in Hadiths.

Here is an article by Sheikh Hajj jibril, that dispels many myths of the ahadith rejectors and doubters:

Various Issues About Hadiths

You keep quoting ‘liberal modernists’ at me, yet what I actually desire is to take our thinking back in time 1400 years to the true teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Does that sound liberal and modern to you?

But the only problem is sister, that westernisation, and liberal modernisation of our religion isn't how it was 14 hundred years ago

Salaam