Women's libaration through Islam

["Zuleika Ramzi" <"Zuleika Ramzi"]

III&E Brochure Series; No. 21
published by The Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E)

================================
WOMEN'S LIBERATION THROUGH ISLAM
================================

Today people think that women are liberated in the West and that the
women's liberation movement began in the 20th century. Actually, the
women's liberation movement was not begun by women but was revealed by God
to a man in the seventh century by the name of Muhammad (peace be upon
him), who is known as the last Prophet of Islam. The Qur'an and the
Traditions of the Prophet (Hadith or Sunnah) are the sources from which
every Muslim woman derives her rights and duties.

I. HUMAN RIGHTS
================

Islam, fourteen centuries ago, made women equally accountable to God in
glorifying and worshipping Him - setting no limits on her moral progress.
Also, Islam established a woman's equality in her humanity with men.

In the Qur'an, in the first verse of the chapter entitled "Women," God
says, "O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you
>from a single soul and from it its mate and from them both have spread
abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah
in Whom you claim (your rights) of one another, and towards the wombs (that
bore you). Lo! Allah has been a Watcher over you." (4:1)

Since men and women both came from the same essence, they are equal in
their humanity. Women cannot be by nature evil (as some religious believe)
or then men would be evil also. Similarly, neither gender can be superior
because it would be a contradiction of equality.

II. CIVIL RIGHTS
=================

In Islam, a woman has the basic freedom of choice and expression based on
recognition of her individual personality. First, she is free to choose
her religion. The Qur'an states: "There is no compulsion in religion.
Right has been made distinct from error." (2:256)

Women are encouraged in Islam to contribute their opinions and ideas.
There are many traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) which indicate women would
pose questions directly to him and offer their opinions concerning
religion, economics and social matters.

A Muslim woman chooses her husband and keeps her name after marriage. A
Muslim woman's testimony is valid in legal disputes. In fact, in areas in
which women are more familiar, their evidence is conclusive.

III. SOCIAL RIGHTS
===================

The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Seeking knowledge is a mandate for every Muslim
(male and female)." This includes knowledge of the Qur'an and the Hadith
as well as other knowledge. Men and women both have the capacity for
learning and understanding. Since it is also their obligation to promote
good behavior and condemn bad behavior in all spheres of life, Muslim women
must acquire the appropriate education to perform this duty in accordance
with their own natural talents and interests.

While maintenance of a home, providing support to her husband, and bearing,
raising and teaching of children are among the first and very highly
regarded roles for a woman, if she has the skills to work outside the home
for the good of the community, she may do so as long as her family
obligations are met.

Islam recognizes and fosters the natural differences between men and women
despite their equality. Some types of work are more suitable for men and
other types for women. This in no way diminishes either's effort nor its
benefit. God will reward both sexes equally for the value of their work,
though it may not necessarily be the same activity.

Concerning motherhood, the Prophet (pbuh) said: "Heaven lies under the
feet of mothers." This implies that the success of a society can be traced
to the mothers that raised it. The first and greatest influence on a
person comes from the sense of security, affection, and training received
>from the mother. Therefore, a woman having children must be educated and
conscientious in order to be a skillful parent.

IV. POLITICAL RIGHTS
=====================

A right given to Muslim women by God 1400 years ago is the right to vote.
On any public matter, a woman may voice her opinion and participate in
politics. One example, narrated in the Qur'an (60:12), is that Muhammad
(pbuh) is told that when the believing women come to him and swear their
allegiance to Islam, he must accept their oath. This established the right
of women to select their leader and publicly declare so. Finally, Islam
does not forbid a woman from holding important positions in government.
Abdur-Rahman Ibn Auf consulted many women before he recommended Uthman Ibn
Affan to be the Caliph.

V. ECONOMIC RIGHTS
===================

The Qur'an states: "By the creation of the male and female; Verily, (the
ends) ye strive for are diverse." (92:3-4)

In these verses, God declares that He created men and women to be
different, with unique roles, functions and skills. As in society, where
there is a division of labor, so too in a family; each member has different
responsibilities. Generally, Islam upholds that women are entrusted with
the nurturing role, and men, with the guardian role. Therefore, women are
given the right of financial support.

The Qur'an states: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has
made some of them to excel others and because they spend of their wealth
(for the support of women)." (4:34)

This guardianship and greater financial responsibility is given to men,
requires that they provide women with not only monetary support but also
physical protection and kind and respectful treatment.

The Muslim woman has the privilege to earn money, the right to own
property, to enter into legal contracts and to manage all of her assets in
any way she pleases. She can run her own business and no one has any claim
on her earnings including her husband. The Qur'an states:

"And in no wise covet those things in which Allah hath bestowed His gifts
more freely on some of you than on others; to men is allotted what they
earn, and to women, what they earn; but ask Allah of His bounty, for Allah
hath full knowledge of all things." (4:32)

A woman inherits from her relatives. The Qur'an states: "For men there is
a share in what parents and relatives leave, and for women there is a share
of what parents and relatives leave, whether it be little or much - an
ordained share." (4:7)

VI. RIGHTS OF A WIFE
=====================

The Qur'an states: "And among His signs is that He created for you mates
>from among yourselves that you may live in tranquillity with them, and He
has put love and mercy between you; Verily, in that are signs for people
who reflect." (30:21)

Marriage is therefore not just a physical or emotional necessity, but in
fact, a sign from God! It is a relationship of mutual rights and
obligations based on divine guidance. God created men and women with
complimentary natures, and in the Qur'an, He laid out a system of laws to
support harmonious interaction between the sexes.

"...They are your garments and you are their garments." (2:187)

Clothing provides physical protection and covers the beauty and faults of
the body. Likewise, a spouse is viewed this way. Each protects the other
and hides the faults and compliments the characteristics of the spouse.

To foster the love and security that comes with marriage, Muslim wives have
various rights. The first of the wife's rights is to receive mahr, a gift
>from the husband which is part of the marriage contract and required for
the legality of the marriage.

The second right of a wife is maintenance. Despite any wealth she may
have, her husband is obligated to provide her with food, shelter and
clothing. He is not forced, however, to spend beyond his capability and
his wife is not entitled to make unreasonable demands. The Qur'an states:
"Let the man of means spend according to his means, and the man whose
resources are restricted, let him spend according to what Allah has given
him. Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him."
(65:7)

God tells us men are guardians over women and are afforded the leadership
in the family. His responsibility for obeying God extends to guiding his
family to obey God at all times.

A wife's rights also extend beyond material needs. She has the right to
kind treatment. The Prophet (pbuh) said: "The most perfect believers are
the best in conduct. And the best of you are those who are best to their
wives." God tells us He created mates and put love, mercy, and
tranquillity between them.

Both men and women have a need for companionship and sexual needs, and
marriage is designed to fulfill those needs. For one spouse to deny this
satisfaction to the other, temptation exists to seek it elsewhere.

VII. DUTIES OF A WIFE
======================

With rights come responsibilities. Therefore, wives have certain
obligations to their husbands. The Qur'an states: "The good women in the
absence of their husbands guard their rights as Allah has enjoined upon
them to be guarded." (4:34)

A wife is to keep her husband's secrets and protect their marital privacy.
Issues of intimacy or faults of his that would dishonor him, are not to be
shared by the wife, just as he is expected to guard her honor.

A wife must also guard her husband's property. She must safeguard his home
and possessions, to the best of her ability, from theft or damage. She
should manage the household affairs wisely so as to prevent loss or waste.
She should not allow anyone to enter the house whom her husband dislikes
nor incur any expenses of which her husband disapproves.

A Muslim woman must cooperate and coordinate with her husband. There
cannot, however, be cooperation with a man who is disobedient to God. She
should not fulfill his requests if he wants her to do something unlawful.
A husband also should not take advantage of his wife, but be considerate of
her needs and happiness.

VIII. CONCLUSION
=================

The Qur'an states: "And it becomes not a believing man or a believing
women, when Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) have decided on an affair
(for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair;
and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His Messenger, he verily goes astray
in error manifest." (33:36)

The Muslim woman was given a role, duties and rights 1400 years ago that
most women do not enjoy today, even in the West. These are from God and
are designed to keep balance in society; what may seem unjust or missing in
one place is compensated for or explained in another place. Islam is a
complete way of life.

-- Mary Ali and Anjum Ali

---------------------
INTRODUCTION OF III&E

The Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E) is dedicated to
the cause of Islam in North America through striving to elevate the image
of Islam and Muslims by providing the correct information about Islamic
beliefs, history and civilization from the authentic sources. Enquiries
are welcome.

Islam-on-the-Phone (312) 777-0767
Ask for a list of questions and codes.

For more information please contact:
The Institute of Islamic Information and Education
P.O. Box 41129
Chicago, IL 60641-0129 U.S.A.
Tel. (312) 777-7443, Fax. (312) 777-7199

--

Email: Zuleika*@cable.A2000.nl
- *

[paul]

Section Two

The Veil of

Equality

and Justice

Muslim propagandists take advantage of the fact that Westerners do not read
Arabic and therefore (out of ignorance) do not know the reality of Islamic
faith as recorded in the books of Muslim scholars. Therefore, Muslim
missionaries roam across Europe and America, East and West, writing a throng
of books, declaring with a loud voice: "How great Islam is! It is the
religion of social justice, equality, women’s rights and dignity." Many
naive and superficial people believe these claims and are deceived by this
message, but this deceit should end. This veil should be removed.

We have found in Muhammad’s sayings (as well as of those of all Muslim
scholars – intentionally or unintentionally – that both Islam and Muhammad
discriminate between human beings. It matters whether they are males or
females, Muslims or non-Muslims. We even find discrimination between Muslims
because slavery (as we will see) is an Islamic principle.

Slavery in Islam has regulations and laws which differ from those for
freemen, the masters. Actually, Muhammad, his wives, his successors,
companions and his relatives owned slaves—males and maids. We can list the
names of Muhammad’s slaves: men and women, whites and blacks, and we will
show that Muhammad himself was a slave merchant especially after he claimed
to be a prophet.

After reading these pages it should become very evident to all (including
the most fanatical and tenacious Muslim) that Islam is a religion of social
injustice, inequality, and racial discrimination.

Before we start our discussion, it is relevant to quote one verse from the
Holy Gospel which emphasizes equality in Christianity,

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

Chapter Three

The Status of Women in Islam

Some mistakenly believe that Islam honors women and dignifies them for the
simple reason that they have not read the Qur’anic verses, and the sayings
of Muhammad and all Muslim scholars concerning women. Thus they take at face
value all the claims of Muslim missionaries in this respect. We seek to
excuse those who have converted to Islam and are deceived because no one
would expect a religion which claims to be divine (at the same time) to
treat women so disgracefully.

We found on the other hand, some thinkers (even among Muslim Arabs) who have
realized that women are not treated equal to men in Islam, though only a few
of them occasionally dare to claim that publicly. Still, since their
knowledge of Muhammad’s sayings and the commentaries of the scholars is
limited, they present a few examples related only to the subjects of
polygamy (marrying four women) and easy divorce. Therefore, we seek to
discuss here several issues to clarify the point under discussion and to
remove the deceitful veil of Islam concerning women.

The Qur’an Commands Men To Beat Women

While the New Testament commands men to love their wives and even to
sacrifice their own lives for their sake as Jesus gave His life for us
(Ephesians 5), we see that the Qur’an plainly and disgracefully commands men
to beat their women as soon as they show any sign of disobedience to man’s
authority and orders. It states in Chapter 4:34:

"As for these from women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to
beds apart and scourge them."

Without any exception, all the Qur’anic expositors agree upon the meaning
of this verse because it is so obvious. In their famous commentary, page 69,
the Jalalan said:

"Those of you who are afraid of their disobedience which symptoms become
evident to you, threaten them with the fear of God and banish them to beds
apart and scourge them."

The Zamakhshari reiterates the same opinion (al-Kash-Shaf Vol. 1, p. 524).
Both Imam Baydawi (p. 111), and Al-Tobari (p.92) repeat the same
explanation. If we also search Ahkamal-Qur’an (the Ordinances of the Qur’an)
by the Imam Shafi’i (Vol. 1, p.211), we read:

"In case of a husband’s ill-treatment [of his spouse], the Qur’an permits
reconciliation of the spouses and arbitration, but in the case of the wife
it allows scourging her."

At the inception of Islam, we come across a very famous incident which all
the Muslim chroniclers record (refer to Imam al-Nawawi: Riyad al-Salihin,
"The Orchards of Righteous Men", p. 107-108),

"Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to Muhammad saying, ‘Women have dared to disobey
husbands.’ He allowed their husbands to scourge them. Many women approached
Muhammad complaining against their husbands because Muhammad received a
verse for the Qur’an which commands their husbands to scourge them."

In the Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamakhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525), we read
the following,

"On the authority of Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), he
said: ‘Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see
it.’

Also, on the authority of Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik:

"I was the fourth wife (among four) of al-Zabayr Ibn al-Awwam. Whenever he
became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was broken."

This hemistich was composed by al-Zabayr:

"If it were not for her children, I would have hit her."

The command to scourge women is repeated in Sahih al-Bukhari, "The Sound
Tradition of al-Bukhari" (Vol. 7, p. 100). Ponder for a moment over Muhammad
’s order to the husband: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it."
This is intimidation and threat, as if a husband were telling his wife:
"Beware of disobedience, for this is the scourge which is ready to fall upon
you!"

There is no security or love in Muhammad’s words or in the deeds of
al-Zobayer Ibn al-Awwam, who was a relative of Muhammad, one of his
companions, and one of those models whom every Muslim imitates and vies with
all over the world. He was one of the ten whom Muhammad assured of paradise
and one of the six whom Umar recommended for the Caliphate. This man used to
scourge his wife until the wooden hook was broken, as Asmaa (the daughter of
Abu Bakr El Sedik who was one of his four wives) tells us. Is there greater
wife abuse than that?

Contemporary Scholars

All contemporary scholars attest to this fact which is obvious in the Qur’
an. In the book, "You Ask and Islam Answers" (p. 94 for example),
Abdul–latif Mushtahiri says,

"If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the
woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on man the right to
straighten her out by way of punishment and beating provided he does not
break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type
and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!"

In his book, "The Individual Guarantee In the Islamic Law" (p. 63), Ahmad
Ahmad, a professor at the college of Law at the University of Qatar, denotes
the following under the title of "Family Problems’ Solution",

"If a woman is afraid that her husband may turn away from her or detest her,
she will hasten to bring understanding and reconciliation. But if the
husband is afraid that his wife may rebel against him, he hastens to bring
mutual understanding by means of exhortation, then by abandonment of the
bed, then by the scourging which deters."

Did you read it?—"By the scourging which deters" This is if the symptoms of
disobedience became apparent exactly as the Jalalan, Baydawi, Zamakhshari
have said and as the Saudi scholars indicated in AI-Muslimun magazine in its
issue of March 17, 1989 (page 12). I can also easily list dozens of
references, both ancient and contemporary, which explain this verse (4:34).
Actually, it does not need any exposition because it is
self-explanatory—"and scourge them." It is evident that Christian countries
regard wife abuse as a crime punishable by law because nature itself (as
well as the simplest human principle) teaches us that it is not permissible
for a man to beat an animal—much less his wife!

Yet according to the Islamic faith and by distinct orders issued by the Qur’
an and Muhammad, a man is allowed to scourge his wife with a peaceful
conscience because he is carrying out God’s command as recorded in the Qur’
an. "God the compassionate, the Merciful" and the Glorious Qur’an—and
Muhammad, the prophet of mercy and humanity who claimed that he honored
women, yet said: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it."

The Story of Job and his Wife in the Qur’an

In Chapter 38:44, the Qur’an declares that God has commanded righteous Job
to beat his wife. We read:

"And (it was said unto him), ‘Take in thine hand a branch and smite
therewith and break not thine oath."’

All Muslim scholars agree on the exposition of this verse. Both Jalalan
(page 383), and Baydawi (page 604) say:

"When Job’s wife was slow (to do something for him) one day, he swore to
scourge her one hundred times. God told him, ‘Do not break .... oath, but
take a bundle of grass in your hand or rods to beat her up with."’

The Jalalaan say that Job took one hundred sticks and scourged her once.
The Baydawi says that Job’s wife’s name is Liyya, daughter of Jacob or
Rahmeh, daughter of Aphraim, son of Joseph.

Who among us would believe this ridiculous story of the Qur’an about Job,
the righteous man, who was famous for his patience? Who among us would
believe that God encouraged him to beat his wife with a bundle of grass or
sticks so that he would not break his oath?

Forcing the Virgin to Marry

Most people believe that this was merely a detestable habit practiced by
some Arabs and Muslims who lived in some underdeveloped countries. However,
we must realize that this practice has its roots deep in Islamic law and
that it is a principle applied by Muslim scholars. Yet, I myself have read
this ordinance in the main sources of Islam acceptable to all Muslim
commentators. Let us study together the ordinances and the statements of
scholars of exposition and the Islamic law.

Ibn Timiyya and Ibn Hazm, Famous Legists

Muslims regard Ibn Timiyya as the Sheikh of Islam. He truly is. He is the
author of great many huge volumes on various subjects If we open Vol. 32,
pp. 29 and 30, we read,

"Even if the virgin is an adult, her father may force her to get married.
This is in accordance with Malek Ibn Ons, al-Shafi and Ibn Hanbal’s."

On page 39, he also states:

"The young virgin can be forced by her father to get married without being
consulted."

This is the verdict of Ibn Timiyya who was joined by some great Legists
such as the Shafii, Malek, Ibn Hanbal, and the professors of Islamic law at
the inception of Islam in Mecca and Medina. Most Arabs and most Islamic
countries embrace their teaching. Actually, if we study Malek Ibn Ons book
(Vol. 2, p. 155), we read,

"A father can force his virgin daughter, his maid-slave and his male-slave
to get married."

What is Ibn Hazm’s opinion concerning the daughter’s marriage? How can we
ignore the opinion of the chief Legists of Islam in this respect? It is well
known that Ibn Hazm also composed huge volumes of books on various topics on
which all contemporary Muslim scholars rely because he is one of the
greatest scholars of the Islamic law through the ages. In his sixth volume,
part 9 of his book al-Muhalla ("The Sweetened", pp. 458-460), he says,

"A father may give his consent to have his young virgin daughter married
without obtaining her permission, for she does not have a choice, exactly as
Abu Bakr El Sedick did to his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old.
He married her to the prophet Muhammad without her permission."

Then Ibn Hazm adds:

"Even if she was deflowered (previously married and divorced, or a widow) as
long as she is young and has not reached the legal age, her father may force
her to marry without obtaining her permission."

As long as she is a virgin or just still young, she can be forced to get
married without her consent. These are unequivocal, plain words. "Without
her consent", and "does not have any choice." These are cruel, hard words
and iniquitous Islamic principles which the free human conscience utterly
rejects and detests because it is related to the most important subject in
the girl’s life, that is, her body and her future.

If enrolling in a certain school or seeking employment for a particular job,
even buying a house or a car, should be in accordance with person’s choice,
how much more should choice control the issue of a girl’s marriage? We
acknowledge that a girl should consult with her parents in this matter, and
their duty is to offer their sound opinions to protect her interest and
future, but we cannot understand or even imagine that a father may force her
to get married to a man she does not know and has never met. This is Islam!

These are not just mere words. This is actually what happened to the prophet
of Islam because Abu Bakr, El Sedick who was Muhammad’s friend, wed him to
his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old, though the actual marriage
took place when she was nine years old, according to all the Muslim scholars
and Chroniclers, without exception. Even Aisha related the story of her
marriage, which we will review shortly.

The difference in their ages was 45 years! Muhammad at that time was 54
years old, the age of her grandfather, but what is significant for us now is
not the great difference in age, but rather Aisha’s marriage without her
permission. Even she was taken by surprise when she found out about it.

What about a son? In part nine, page 462, Ibn Hazm stresses that it is not
permissible for the father to force his son to get married.

The reader may be interested to read the text recorded in Sahih Muslim (Vol.
3, p. 577) with the commentary of al-Nawawi, because this book is a basic,
indispensable book. Aisha said,

"The messenger of God betrothed me when I was six years old and then married
me when I was nine years old."

In another story, he married her when she was seven years old. This is a
clear text which makes it permissible for a father to make his daughter
marry without obtaining her permission. All Muslims consent to that, and she
did not have the option of nullifying this marriage which her father
planned. This is according to Malek, al-Shafi’i and the rest of Hedjaz
legists.

This was from Sahih Muslim, and a similar text is reiterated several times
in Sahih al-Bukhari, part 7.

The Temporary Contractual Marriage

What a disgraceful and degrading thing a temporary, contractual marriage is
for a woman! This is something which Muhammad made lawful according to all
the scholars and chroniclers without exception. What an insult to a woman
whom Muhammad stripped of her humanity and dignity in order to become a mere
instrument for man’s enjoyment! Can contemporary Muslim scholars who would
die defending Islam answer this specific question and tell us why Muhammad
allowed men to have sexual relationships with women merely for the sake of
enjoyment? According to Muhammad’s statement, it could be for some money, or
a dress, as Muhammad said to his followers, then he could desert her,
leaving her without any rights. What is the difference between this and
adultery and debauchery? Could Muhammad and the scholars solve this problem
by calling it a temporary marriage or marriage of enjoyment?

Muhammad made it lawful for his followers at first, then prohibited it! Then
he made it legal again! Therefore, as soon as he died, the most famous
Muslim scholars and relatives of Muhammad (such as Abdulla Ibn -Abbas and
Ibn Mas’ud) made it lawful It was also in practice during the era of Abu
Bakr and Umar, as is recorded in Sahih Muslim.

At present, the Shi’ite sects are accustomed to it and practice it in
different parts of the world because the Shi’ite leaders claim it. There are
more than one hundred million Shi’ites worldwide. Ibn Abbas, who defends the
legality of the temporary marriage of enjoyment and its continued practice,
is well known among all the Muslim scholars. He occupied a very esteemed
position with Muhammad and the caliphs who used to seek his legal opinion
and call him the interpreter of the Qur’an.

Sahih al-Bukbari

In part 7, page 37, we read the following,

"While we were in the army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, ‘You have
been allowed to have pleasure (Muta), so do it.’ If a man and a woman agree
to marry temporarily, their marriage should last for three nights, and if
they want to continue, they may do so."

There is also a very famous story related to us by Ibn Mas’ud and recorded
in all the Islamic sources. We will allude to some aspect of it as it as
mentioned in al-Bukhari, part 7, pp. 8,9, (also in section 6 of the
interpretation of Sura, Chapter, "The Table," p.66- Arabic edition). Ibn Mas
’ud said,

"We used to participate in holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had no
wives with us. At that time, he allowed us to marry women with a temporary
contract and recited to us this verse, ‘Oh you who believe, make not
unlawful the good things which Allah (God) has made lawful for you"’ (5:87).

This famous story is recorded also in Zad al-Ma’ad by Ibn Qayyimal-Jawziyya
(part 5, p. 111). In Sahih Muslim, exposition of Nawawi (Vol. 3 pp. 553,
554), he indicated that Muhammad had allowed his followers to have sexual
intercourse with women for a dress !

Sahih Muslim

It was proven that contractual marriage was permissible at the beginning of
Islam. It used to be practiced during a journey or a raid, or when it was
"necessary" and there was a lack of women. In one of Ibn Abu’Umar’s
episodes, it said that it was admissible at the inception of Islam,
especially when "there was a need for it".

Also, we read the following,

"The contractual marriage was lawful before the campaign of Khaybar; then it
became unlawful in the day of the campaign. Then it was made lawful again in
the day of Mecca’s conquest. After three days, it was prohibited. The
episodes concerning the lawfulness (of the contractual marriage) in the day
of the conquest are not ambiguous and it is not permissible to forfeit it.
There is nothing that may inhibit the repetition of practicing the
contractual marriage again, and God is the omniscient, and the scholars have
agreed to regard the contractual marriage as a temporary legal marriage,
which does not entail any inheritance. The separation occurs as soon as the
date of the agreement expires, and it does not require any legal divorce.
Ibn’Abbas used to preach its lawfulness" (pp. 553,554 volume 3 Sahih
Moslem).

Actually Sahih of Muslim (in the same volume 3) records for us what Muhammad
’s followers did when he allowed them to practice this. They used to meet a
woman who belonged to one of the tribes (children of Amir) and attempt to
seduce her by offering her either a dress or some dates or flour (p. 556).
They spent three days with the harlot. Also sahih of Muslim describes for us
in detail some moral scandals of which Muhammad approved. It also recounts
that Muhammad himself used to bring the women to his followers or send a
heralder to proclaim that it is permissible to sign contractual marriages
(p.555 Vol. 3).

Ismail Ibn Kathir

In his famous book, "The Prophetic Biography", he tells us the following in
part 3:

"The prohibition of the contractual marriage took place in the day of the
Khaybar campaign. Yet it had been established in Sahih of Muslim that
Muhammad allowed them again to (sign) a contractual marriage in the Day of
Mecca’s conquest. Then he prohibited it. The Shafi’i said: ‘I do not know
any other thing which was made lawful, then prohibited, then made lawful
again, then unlawful except the contractual marriage, which was prohibited
in the year in which Mecca was conquered, then after that it became lawful"’
(pp. 365,366).

Ibn Hisham recorded the same text in part 4, p.55.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

In part 3, pp. 459, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya repeated this same statement of
al-Shafi’i. He also said on p.345:

"After the death of Muhammad, Ibn’Abbas made it lawful when there was a need
for it. He used to say that the apostle prohibited it when it was
dispensable, but it was made lawful when it became a necessity."

He also says on p.46 1:

"Ibn Mas’ud said: ‘I made it lawful when it became indispensable for a man."
’

Imam al-Baydawi

He agrees with all the above in his famous book, "The Interpretation of the
Baydawi". He says,

"The purpose of the contractual marriage is the mere pleasure of intercourse
with a woman, and her own enjoyment in what she has given" (p. 108).

I believe that all those scholars were very lucid in their statements and
it is sufficient for us. They are Ibn’Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Sahih al Bukhari,
sahih Muslim, Ibn Hisham Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and al-Imam
al-Baydawi. Those scholars are recognized by all. Muslims and all
contemporary scholars agree absolutely.

The Contemporary Scholars

1. The Saudi scholars: In the context of their interpretation of the Sahih
al Bukhari (Vol. 7, p.36), they indicate:

"Nikah-al-Muta (marriage of pleasure) means temporary marriage for a limited
period of time. This type of marriage was allowed in the early days of
Islam."

2. In his book, "Nur al-Yaqin" ("The Light of Certainty"), the Sheikh
al-Khudary says,

"The contractual marriage, which was a marriage for a definite time, had
been practiced since the inception of Islam" (p. 207).

3. The scholar Musa al-Musawi

In his famous book, "The Shi’ites and the Reformation", he lucidly tells us:

"All the legists believe that Muhammad made this matter lawful at the
inception of Islam" (p. 108).

4. The current Sheikh of Islam, Muhammad Mutawalli al-sha-rawi, indicates
in his book, "al-Fatawi" ("The Legal Opinions"),

"The Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, leading other scholars, mentioned that
contractual marriages were made lawful by the prophet and they were not
abolished nor rescinded, but many scholars said that this matter was
abolished later and that Muhammad, after making it lawful for a particular
time during Islamic history, prohibited it" (p. 26).

We say to Dr. Musawi and to Sheikh al-Sha’rawi: Your statement that all the
legists believe that Muhammad made it lawful at the inception of Islam is
sufficient for us. This statement and this acknowledgment are what we want
the reader to know. It is evident, however, that the scholars who said that
this practice was not abolished or prohibited were among the most esteemed
scholars such as Ibn’Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, and the Imam Fakhr al-Razi. In his
book, "The History of Islamic Law", Dr. Ahmad Shalabi states that Ibn’Abbas
said that it is possible to allow contractual marriages when they are
necessary (p. 190). Ibn Kathir also emphasizes in his book, "al-Bidaya Wa
al-Nihaya" ("The Beginning and the End"), Vol. 8, p.300, that Ibn’Abbas was
of the opinion that contractual marriage should be made lawful. In his
Sahih, al-Bukhari records this dialogue,

"I heard Ibn Abbas when he was asked about Muta (pleasure) with women, and
he permitted this kind of marriage. Only a slave of his said to him, ‘That
is only when it is badly needed and women are scarce.’ At that Ibn Abbas
said, ‘Yes"’ (Vol. 7, p. 37).

Who is Ibn Abbas?

All the scholars acknowledge that he is of the opinion that the contractual
marriage should be made lawful when it is needed, and he believes that its
ordinance is still applicable and has not been abolished. If we open Vol. 8
of Ibn Kathir’s book, "al-Bidaya We al-Nihaya" (pp. 295-307), we come across
ample references pertaining to Ibn’ Abbas’ highly esteemed status among
Muhammad’s relatives and companions in regard to his knowledge and thought.
We would like to allude briefly to some of what is said about him.

Ibn Kathir says:

"Ibn ’Abbas is the most knowledgeable person among the people as to what God
has revealed to Muhammad. Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to say that the
interpreter of the Qur’an is Ibn’Abbas. He was accustomed to telling him:
‘You have acquired a knowledge which we never received. You are the most
expert in the book of God"’ (pp. 299, 300).

Ibn’Abbas was the official legist of the Islamic law during the era of ’
Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and ’Uthman Ibn ’Affan. When he died, Muhammad’s friend
said,

"This nation has been afflicted with an incurable tragedy because Ibn’Abbas
was the most knowledgeable among the people. We always needed him from
sunrise to sunset."

These references to Ibn’Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, are sufficient to
convince the most skeptical of the importance of Ibn’Abbas’ status. It is
well known that the argument of Ibn’ Abbas was strong and it was conclusive
to the continuation of the practice of temporary contractual marriage
because Muhammad made it lawful then unlawful, then he made it lawful again
when it was necessary.

Yet, even if we assume that Ibn’Abbas (who was the most knowledgeable among
people of what God had revealed to Muhammad) was mistaken, as well as Ibn
Mas’ud al-Razi and many other scholars, and that Abu Bakr was also wrong
since he allowed people to practice this matter during his reign; even if we
assume that Muhammad made it unlawful permanently after he made it
permissible, and that all those people were wrong, we still have this
pressing, unanswerable question: Why did Muhammad make this disgraceful
matter lawful in the first place; i.e., adultery and immorality? Why, even
for a short period of time, would he legalize prostitution and call it
contractual marriage? Why did Muhammad tell his followers, "Make an
agreement with any woman to make love to her for three days, then give her
compensation, such as a robe." His companions did so. Later, Muhammad
prohibited it, then made it lawful again according to the need!

We would like to refer to Dr. Musa al Musawi’s statement in his book, "The
Shi’ites and The Reformation", in which he says:

"This contractual marriage contains a license for licentiousness and
degradation of woman’s dignity, the thing which we do not find even among
permissive societies in ancient and modern history" (p. 109).

Then he adds (p. III), concerning the characteristics of this marriage:

"This marriage is carried out without a witness. The period of this marriage
could be a quarter of an hour, or a day, or any period of time. In it, it is
permissible for a man to have collectively an unaccountable number of women
at the same time. The woman may not inherit her husband’s possessions, and a
man does not give alimony to the spouse. Divorce is also carried out without
a witness. This marriage is nothing but a license to practice sex provided
that the woman is not married to another man."

Dr. Musa has a Ph.D. in Islamic law from the University of Tehran He taught
Islamic philosophy and was elected as President of the Supreme Counsel of
West America. Of course, Dr. Musawi’s criticism of the contractual marriage
is appropriate. He indicates that this type of marriage has been abolished,
yet he acknowledges (p.108 of his book) that all the scholars and legists
without exception say that Muhammad made it lawful for his companions from
the very beginning.

My friend, we had to discuss the issue of contractual marriage, or "legal
prostitution" (as some would like to call it) in detail, but this
prolongation is significant because this is an important matter for our
practical life. It is also related to the dignity of women and reveals
Muhammad’s view of women as being nothing more than tools for pleasure.

Fire In Hell—Most Of Its Inhabitants Are Women

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, expresses clearly that most of those who
enter hell are women, not men. None of the scholars deny these statements.
We will quote only contemporary Azhar scholars of Egypt.

In the "Liwa al-Islami" magazine which was issued on August 13, 1987, under
the title, "Women In Tradition", we read the following:

"The apostle of God said: ‘Oh assembly of women, give charity, even from
your jewelry, for you (comprise) the majority of the inhabitants of hell in
the day of resurrection’" (p. 21).

Of course, the Azhar scholars are the people most acquainted with Muhammad’
s sayings.

Ancient Scholars

These scholars are quoted from Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. 7, p.96),

"Muhammad said: ‘I saw Paradise and I stretched my hand to pluck a bunch of
grapes, then I saw Hell (fire), and I have never before seen such a horrible
sight as that the majority of its dwellers were women.’ The people asked, ‘O
Allah’s apostle, what is the reason for that?’ He replied, ‘Because of their
ungratefulness.’ It was said, ‘Do they disbelieve in Allah (God)?’ He
replied, ‘They are not thankful to their husbands and they are ungrateful
for the favors done to them. Even if you do some good to one of them all
your life when she sees some harshness from you she will say, "I have never
seen any good from you."’"

The same text is repeated in Vol. 1, p.83. In Vol. 7 of the same book
(p.94), Muhammad says,

"I stood at the gate of the fire and saw that the majority of those who
entered it were women."

In the Mishkat al-Masabih (p. 14), we encounter the following exciting
episode about Muhammad who, when met by some women, had the following
conversation (Mishkat al Masabih p. 14),

"Allah’s messenger went out to the place of worship and he passed by the
women and said to them, ‘O women, give charity, for I have been shown that
the majority of the inmates of Hell are amongst you.’ They said: ‘Allah’s
Apostle, wherefore?’ He said, ‘It is because of the fact that you curse one
another very much and show ungratefulness to your husbands."’

It seems that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, utters meaningless statements
because who can say that only women curse each other? Do not men behave the
same way in their quarrels? Do not men kill each other in bitter wars? Who
said that only women, if they suffer from their husband’s abuses, forget all
the good characteristics of their spouses? Do not men cheat on their wives,
abandon them and divorce them for the most insignificant reasons or for no
reason at all? Do not Muslim men marry two, three, even four wives at a
time, causing deep psychological pain and material loss for their wives? It
is nonsense to say that the majority of the people in the fires of hell are
women because they curse each other and they do not acknowledge the merits
of their of husbands!

It is nonsense to make these accusations or to label women in general. Even
if Muhammad had painful experiences with his various wives so that he almost
divorced them (as we will see), he still should not have issued verdicts
against all women.

How miserable women are in Muhammad’s view! He orders men to scourge them,
forces young girls to marry against their will, and exploits single women as
tools of pleasure. He also declares that the majority of people in hell are
women!

"Women Are Short Of Faith And Intelligence"— Muhammad Said

The Egyptian contemporary scholar Sheikh al-Sha’rawi stresses the fact that
Muhammad uttered this statement. This is recorded in Vol. 4, p.21 of his
famous book, "You Ask And Islam Answers". Al-Sha’rawi, who is regarded as
the Sheik of Islam, relies on the former recognized scholars. We encounter
the following dialogue in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. l, p. 83) and in the
Mishkat al-Masabih (p.15) which took place between Muhammad and some women:

"Muhammad said: ‘I have seen that you, in spite of being deficient in mind
and religion, rob even a wise man of his senses.’ They said: ‘Allah’s
messenger, where lies our deficiency of reason and faith?’ He said: ‘Is not
the evidence (testimony) of a woman equal to half the evidence of a man?’
They said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘This is because of the deficiency of your minds
(mental status). Is it not a fact that when you enter the period of menses,
you neither observe prayer nor observe fast?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ Then he
said: ‘This is the deficiency in your faith."’

"Women are short of faith and intelligence!" A strange statement uttered by
Muhammad which is an obvious insult to the women who asked him! Why, Why,
Muhammad? He responds with the above-mentioned, weird reasons. If God does
not command women to fast or to pray during their menstrual period, why
should He regard this matter as a lack of faith and religion? Is it because
they obey God’s orders? Or is prayer a mere physical exercise of standing up
and prostrating? Or is it a matter of lifting the heart up to God at any
time?

What about the woman’s testimony in court? According to Islamic law, the
testimony of a woman is equal to one half of a man’s testimony. This is one
of the incomprehensible, unjustifiable Qur’anic laws which is regarded as
another insult to women. If Muhammad attempted to justify this on the basis
of women’s lack of faith and intelligence, it would be an excuse which is
worse than an offense. Thus, when Muhammad tried to justify his attitude, he
really rendered women another insult especially by claiming that a woman is
equal to half a man.

A Female Inherits Only Half Of A Male’s Portion

A female inherits only half of a male’s portion and her testimony is
regarded as half a man’s testimony. Though the general public is not aware
of this fact, the Qur’anic text is very blunt concerning this matter, and is
also acknowledged by all the Muslim scholars without exception.

First, concerning an inheritance, The Qur’an clearly indicates:

"Allah chargeth you concerning your children—to the male a portion
equivalent to that of two females" (Chapter 4: 11).

This is in regard to a man’s offspring, whether they are males or females.
The same concept is applied to the brothers and sisters of a deceased
person. The Qur’an says:

"If there be brethren - men and women - unto the male, the equivalent of the
portion of two females" (Surah 4: 176).

This matter is a well-known fact and practiced all over the Islamic world.

Al-Bukhari, al-Jalalan and al-Baydawi

The Bukhari alluded to it (part 6, p.55), as well as the Jal-alan in their
famous commentary (p.65). We read:

"A male may have the portion of two females if they are related to each
other. He takes half of the inheritance and the two females take the other
half. If the male has one sister only, she takes one-third of it and he
takes two-thirds" (p.65).

On page 66, the Jalalan says:

"If he leaves his parents an inheritance, his mother takes one-third and the
father two-thirds."

Al-Baydawi (page 104) and the rest of the scholars follow the same
interpretation which is based on the indisputable Qur’anic verse.

The Contemporary Scholars

1) In his book, "Islam in the Face of Modern Challenges", Abu al-a’la
al-Mawdudi states conclusively:

"There is no room in Islam for the idea that a woman’s portion of an
inheritance be equivalent to the man’s portion. The prohibitory reason is
one of decisive Islamic laws" (p.264).

The Sheikh al-Sha’rawi

He also acknowledges this fact in part II of his book, "You Ask and Islam
Answers":

"The portion for a woman from an inheritance is half of the man’s portion
because a woman is not responsible for her livelihood but rather the man is
the responsible one (p 39, part 2).

French Philosopher, Roge Jaroudi

Even the French philosopher, Roge Jaroudi, who was converted to Islam
reiterates in the magazine, "The League of the Islamic World" (the issue of
February/March, 1984), the same logic of al-Sha’rawi. Jaroudi says:

"Concerning the inheritance, it is true that the female inherits half of the
portion her brother inherits, but in view of that, the responsibility of
taking care of her falls on her brother’s shoulder" (p.39).

Dr. Ahmad Shalabi repeated the same meaning in his book, "The History of
Islamic Legislation" (p. 137).

The statement of al-Sha’rawi and the French philosopher that a woman should
inherit half of the portion because man is the one who bears responsibility
for her livelihood is a meaningless and unacceptable justification because
it is very possible that a woman may be much more in need of the money than
her brother. Why should she receive only half of what her brother inherits
>from his parents? Is it not possible that the sister may be married to a
poor man and have many children, while her brother may be a rich businessman
or single without responsibilities?

Even if the sister is still single, why should her brother receive double
her portion from the inheritance and have control over her expenditures? He
may spend the money on his own pleasures while his sister could be wiser and
more prudent than her brother, who may be younger than she. These situations
happen daily in Arab and Islamic countries. Any man takes twice what his
sister receives. The only reason for it is the inequality between females
and males. Why does this happen? Al-Mawdudi tells us it is because this is
one of the decisive Islamic laws based on an indisputable Qur’anic verse in
the Chapter of Women. This is the inequality of unfair Islamic law.

Secondly, what about a woman’s testimony before the court and in business
contracts? In the Chapter of the Cow (282), we read:

"From among your men, two witnesses, and if two men be not at hand then a
man and two women of such as you approve as witnesses, so that if the one
erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember (and we read about
what Muhammad said about the testimony of a woman)."

The Ancient Scholars

Scholars have agreed upon the interpretation of this verse which is recorded
in the chapter of the Cow concerning the testimony of women because it is
very conspicuous and unquestionable. We would like to refer briefly here to
the statements of al-Baydawi and the Jalalan. The Jalalan says (on page 41):

"There must be two adult free Muslim witnesses. If they are not available
then (let it be) a man and two women. (The reason for having) numerous women
is that if one of them forgot something because of lack of intelligence, the
other one would remind her."

These are the same words of Muhammad and the Qur’an.

On page 64, the Baydawi says:

"The two men must be two free Muslims, or one man and two women. (The reason
for having) numerous women is because of their lack of intelligence and to
obtain accurate information."

But the statement of the Jalalan and Bawdawi that the witness should be
"two free Muslims" is because Islam does not accept the testimony of
non-Muslims or slaves, as we will see later.

Nobody denies this about Islam, including all the Azhar scholars as well as
the Saudi and Pakistani scholars. Among them, the Grand Imam Dr. Mahmud
Shaltut emphasizes this point in his book, "Islam: A Dogma And A Law"
(p.237).

In its February/March, 1985 issue (p.17), the magazine, "The League of the
Islamic World", records for us an incident which took place in Pakistan
during the enactment of some of the Islamic laws. The magazine says:

"Three groups of women demonstrated against the new law which gives women
only half of the men’s rights when they sign business contracts. These
groups which are located in Lahore in Pakistan, say that this law, derived
>from Islamic Law, intends to insult women and debase their dignity."

It is obvious that any intelligent, thinking man who enjoys a sensitive
conscience would object to this unfair Islamic law, just as these female
groups objected. How could a woman’s testimony be regarded as half of a man’
s testimony in court and when signing business contracts? The same magazine
also published on the same page, the response of Dr. Aly Farrukha, Director
of Islamic Studies in Chicago, in which he says:

"The issue of a woman’s testimony in court is a divine order which
necessitates that a woman who is a witness should be accompanied by another
woman in order to remind her if she forgets (some details) and to correct
her if she makes an error. This verdict does not intend to insult women but
rather to help them."

This is the conclusion of Dr. Farruka, who senses that this law really does
insult women, but tries to defend Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islamic law.
However, the insult is inevitable and there is no way to avoid it. The
statement of Dr. Aly that there is a need for two women in opposition to one
man in the case of testimony in order to help the women not to forget or to
be corrected if she makes an error, is a polite statement, though it does
not negate that in Islam, women are treated as second class and cannot be
trusted to be accurate when witnessing in court.

Actually Muhammad was more pointed than Dr. Aly Farrukha. He expressed his
opinion without any vagueness. He says that the reason that a woman’s
testimony is regarded as equal to one half of a man’s testimony is not to
help her but because she is short of intelligence!

Men Belong To A Higher Level Than Women—They Are Better Than Women

While the Bible assures us in I Corinthians 11:11 that man is not less than
woman and woman is not less than man, the Qur’an declares to us in Chapter
2:22 that men are a degree above women. It also says in Chapter 4:34:

"Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them excel the
other."

Of course, we do not believe that the God of "equality among people" says
that men surpass women. If the reader wonders what these Qur’anic verses
mean and why Islam says that men are a degree above women and they are
better than them, we would like to refer him to the answer of the Muslim
scholars.

The Ancient Scholars

On page 79, the Jalalan says:

"Men have been given authority over women to discipline and control them by
the merits of knowledge, intelligence and custody, etc., which God bestowed
on some over others."

In his commentary, page 111, the Baydawi says:

"God preferred man over woman, and the reason for the bestowing of this
verse (4:34) is a well-known episode which says that a man from the helpers
beat his wife, whose name was Habiba, the daughter of Zayd. Her father took
her to the apostle of God (to complain). Muhammad said: "Let us punish him."
But God sent down this verse 4:34. The woman returned home without having
her husband punished. Muhammad said: ‘I intended to do something (that is,
to punish the man), but God willed otherwise, and what God wills is better.’
"

This famous incident was the reason God sent down this verse which prefers
men to women and prohibits the retribution of men if they abuse their wives.
This episode is mentioned also in the commentary of the Jalalan (page 69) as
well as in the suyuti’s book, "Reasons for Sending the Verses From God"
(Asbab al-Nuzul, p.75). Suyuti tells us that the women said to Muhammad:

"My husband beat me and left some marks on my face. In spite of that, the
man was not punished though Muhammad wanted to do so but the just God, the
God of equality, declined and did not allow Muhammad to punish the man for
abusing his wife."

What a compassionate God who sympathizes with relentless men! Is this the
God who honors women? This God revealed a verse which confirms that men are
better than women and above them by one degree, and that they have the right
to discipline them. However, what concerns us here is to stress the point
that the Qur’an says that men are a degree above women and better than them.

The Contemporary Scholars

It is sufficient here to quote the Azher scholars: Mrs. Iman Kamil
corresponded with the Azhar scholars and Sheikhs inquiring about this
critical subject in order to comprehend the meaning of the verse under
discussion (4:34). The following is her question and the answer she received
as they were published in "Liwa al-Islamic"("The Islamic Banner")in its
issue of July 4, 1985, page 6. The question was:

"What is the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse: ‘Men are the managers of
the affairs of women for that God preferred in bounty one of them over
another?"’

The answer of the Azhar scholars was:

"Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: ‘A woman came to the prophet complaining
against her husband, who slapped her face. The apostle of God said: "(He
must be) punished." But God sent down this verse, and the woman returned
home empty-handed.’ The meaning of his saying: ‘Manager’ is that a man is
the woman’s lord and her disciplinarian whenever she disobeys him. God has
explained that the reason for this lordship is that men excel women."

What more can be said after this issue has become so obvious? The reader
can easily discern if God is the one who composed it to please the powerful
men among his followers.

The Gospel in various places indicates that man is the head of the woman;
that is, he sacrifices himself for her sake as Christ is the head of the
church; that is, He gave himself for it. But it is obvious from the comment
of the ancient scholars as well as the Azhar scholars that Islam does not
penalize a man when he abuses his wife because men are superior to women!
The story is well known, and it was cited by all the Muslim scholars without
exception.

The Muhallil—Men Who Make Something Lawful

Who is a Muhallil? A person who marries a divorced woman even for one night
in order to make it possible for her ex-husband to reinstate her.

The Qur’an, as well as Muhammad say clearly that if a man divorces his wife,
he can reinstate her, but if he said to her: "You are divorced three times"
or if he divorces her three times, he would not be able to get her back
easily. In order to reinstate her, she has to get married to another man and
have sex with him at least once before the second man divorces her, then she
can go back to her first husband. This practice is in vogue all over the
Islamic world and is practiced whenever there is a need for it because there
is a well-known Qur’anic verse on this subject.

Was this the verdict of Muhammad and the Qur’an? Muhammad not only supported
it, but even ordered a woman to practice it if she wished to go back to her
first husband. It is recorded in an episode which all Muslim scholars
acknowledge as authentic. But let us first scrutinize the Qur’anic verse. It
is recorded in the Sura of Cow:

"And if he divorced her, then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until
she has wed another husband" (Surah 2:230).

This second husband is called by Islam "The Muhallil" because he makes the
woman lawful to go back to her ex-husband by marrying her for only one
night, then later divorcing her so that she can go back to her first
husband. All the scholars agree on this interpretation of that verse. An
example is found in the Zomokchory (Vol. 1, p.368, Alkashaf), Jalalan (page
32), and al-Baydawi (page 50). The Baydawi says plainly that a real marriage
(not a marriage in name only) must take place between the Muhallil and the
wife. Also, the Baydawi recounts for us the famous episode which occurred
between Muhammad and the wife of Rafa’a. This incident is recorded in most
of the Islamic books such as Asbab al-Nuzl by al-Suyuti (pages 45,46), also
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya alluded to it several times in part 5 of his book,
"Zad al-Ma’ad". In part seven (page 136) Sahih al-Bukhari quoted it several
times. This is the story as it is recorded in the Shih and other books:

"The wife of Rifa’a Al-Qurazi came to Allah’s apostle and said, ‘O Allah’s
Apostle, Rifa’a divorced me irrevocably. Afterward, I married Abdul-Rahman
bin Az-Zubair, who proved to be impotent.’ Allah’s apostle said to her,
‘Perhaps you want to return to Rifa’a? Nay, you cannot, until you and
Abdul-Rahman consummate your marriage.’"

In his book, "Asbab al-Nuzul" (p.46), the Suyuti states that this woman
came to Muhammad and told him:

"‘Abdul-Rahman (the Muhallil whom she wed after she was divorced) has
divorced me without having any sexual intercourse with me. May I go back to
my ex-husband?’ Muhammad said to her: ‘No, that is not permissible until
Abdul-Rahman has sex with you first, then you may go back to Rafa’a."’

This incident is confirmed and recorded in al-Baydawi, al-Suyuti,
al-Bukhari and the rest of the sources. Al-Bukhari mentions another similar
story in which the woman receives the same answer from Muhammad because the
order of the Qur’anic verse is very plain: "... until she has wed another
husband."

We wonder (and the free human conscience wonders with us) if there is more
insult and more humiliation to the dignity and honor of a woman and her
husband than this? Muhammad is supposed to either allow her to return to her
husband, Rafa’a, or to stay away from him, but to impose such a condition on
her is to humiliate her, her husband and children, for who is the man who
would allow such things to happen to his divorced wife? Or is there a
respectable woman who would be inclined to carry out such a practice?

The contemporary scholars who defend this verdict argue that Muhammad
enacted this law to make it difficult for a husband to divorce his wife
three times. A man, according to Islamic law, may divorce his wife by
saying: "You are divorced... you are divorced... you are divorced" or "You
are divorced by three" in a moment of anger which he later regrets and makes
every effort to restore her for himself and her children. Of course, she
would like to go back to her husband and her children who might be still
very young or teenagers. Thus, is it comprehensible, according to all
standards of mercy, chastity, purity and dignity of a woman, her husband and
children, for Muhammad to state that it is not permissible for her to return
to her husband and children unless she has sexual intercourse at least once
before she is restored to her husband and children. Would the reader agree
with this verdict imposed on a mother, wife or daughter? Oh God have mercy
on these people and protect them from the laws of the Islamic religion.

You may say, "All the evidence which you have presented concerning the
alleged claim that Islam honors women is sufficient to remove this deceptive
veil. Muhammad’s perspective towards women has become very apparent. Why do
you want to present additional arguments?" True, the aforementioned issues
are sufficient, but after you read the following discussions, the picture
will become even clearer concerning this vital and basic issue in every
religion, that is women.

Polygamy, Mistresses and Concubines

The Islamic religion is very lenient when it comes to the issue of marriage
and divorce which causes serious emotional, psychological and economic
disasters to women, in order to satisfy man’s desires. The Qur’an allows a
man to be married to four women at the same time. If he wishes to marry
other women, all he has to do is to divorce one of them and to replace her
with another. Several verses emphasize this point. However, the reader might
not be aware that the Qur’an allows a man to own as many women as he wants
in addition to the four legal wives; that is, he is permitted to have
concubines, mistresses and maid-slaves. In this respect, Ibn Hazm indicates
(Vol. 6, part 9, pp. 441 and 467) that,

"No one is allowed to wed to more than four women, but he is permitted
however, in addition to them. to buy (women), as many as he wants."

Thus, we are going to see that Muhammad, his successors and his relatives
owned (in addition to their many wives) concubines and maid-servants who
were taken as prisoners of war or purchased. They had sexual intercourse
with them as they willed. This is, of course, in addition to the contractual
marriages which Muhammad permitted when it was "necessary". A Muslim is not
allowed lawfully to have more than four wives at the same time. Only
Muhammad had the

right to marry as many as he wanted because this was one of his distinctive
privileges because he was a prophet and an apostle! There arc various
indisputable verses which the angel Gabriel supposedly revealed to Muhammad,
allowing him to enjoy this status; however, we will confine our study to the
general practice of polygamy and easy divorce.

The Qur’anic Verses And The Comments Of The Scholars

The Sura of the Parties: 50

The Qur’an stresses that it is lawful for a man to have several wives and to
own concubines. The Qur’an says,

"We are aware that we enjoined on them (the believers) concerning their
wives and those whom their right hands possess."

We read the same text in Sura of Women: 3 and Sura of the Believers: 5
which indicates:

"The captive from war that your right hand possessed" (Sura 4:3).

War bounties, whether they were women or children or money, used to be
distributed among Muslim fighters after Muhammad received one-fifth.
Therefore, most Muslims (led by Muhammad the prophet) had many captive women
who were regarded as owned slaves and concubines. It happened that in one of
the invasions (Awtas Hunayn) that some Muslim warriors among Muhammad’s
companions captured some women whose husbands were still alive. Some Muslims
refrained from having sex with them out of shame, but Muhammad told them
that it was lawful for them to sleep with them because they were what "their
right hand possessed". Then God sent a Qur’anic verse (chapter 4:24) making
it lawful.

In regard to the concubines, the Baydawi, on page 102 says:

"A man is not forced to treat the concubines equally as he is obliged to do
with the (legal) wives."

A little provision (food and clothes) were sufficient.

The Jalalan says on page 64:

"The maid-slaves do not have rights as the wives."

If we examine the volumes of Ibn Timiyya, we read in volume 32, p.7 I the
following plain text:

"It is lawful for a Muslim to (have sex) with as many as he wishes of those
whom his right hand possesses, but he is allowed to wed four women only.
Yet, God has bestowed on the apostle of God (enough) strength to marry more
than four women. Also God allowed him to marry without paying a dowry.
Muslims are not prohibited from having more than four concubines provided
that no two sisters are among them."

This is similar to the above mentioned quotation from Ibn Hazm. In the same
volume (page 89), Ibn Timiyya says boastfully,

"Islam has made it lawful to its followers to have sex through marriage as
well as with what the right hand possesses, while (for Jews and Christians)
they may have sex through marriage only. They are not (allowed to have sex
with) what their hand possesses. The beginning of slavery were the captives
of war.

"The war bounty has not become lawful for any nation except the nation of
Muhammad by the evidence of sound tradition. Muhammad said, ‘God has
preferred me over the prophets by making the bounties of war lawful to me.
This was not made lawful to anyone before me."’

In this respect, the Gospel is very clear and denotes that a man must have
only one wife on whom he bestows all his love. Therefore, we read:

"Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband
... let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also
the wife unto the husband" (I Cor. 7:2-3).

To be wed to one woman is a natural thing because God created Adam then one
Eve. He did not create four women for Adam plus a number of concubines. Some
famous men of the Old Testament such as Solomon, wed many women, but that
was against God’s plan. God regarded that as a perversion from the right
worship, and admonished him for his sins. God did not allow this practice in
the Holy Scriptures, whether in the Old Testament or in the Gospel. If some
biblical characters deviated from God’s plan, they committed a sin, and they
were subject to God’s disciplinary action—they harvested problems. This took
place before Christ, but after the coming of Christ we do not know about any
of God’ s men who married more than one women or who had concubines or who
was allowed to divorce his wife to replace her with whomever he wanted until
the rise of Muhammad and the inception of Islam.

The Harmful Consequences of Polygamy

The consequences of polygamy such as jealousy, envy, quarrels, and conflict
among the wives are evident. A woman has to wait for several days for her
turn to enjoy the love and the care of her husband; that is, if he has
preserved some of his love for her and for the children. A man who has four
wives and numerous concubines begets, of course, many children. So what can
he do to please all of them?

Muhammad himself was the first to know the nature of the quarrels which take
place among the various wives as the result of his personal experiences with
his wives, who used to join forces against him (Bukhari part 3, p. 204).
Later, we will discuss Muhammad’s wives’ conspiracies, especially those of A
’isha. This particular problem made Muhammad express his displeasure to his
son-in-law, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was married to Fatima, Muhammad’s
daughter, when he wished to marry a second wife besides Fatima. This
incident is recorded by all the chroniclers such as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
(part S, p. 117); Ibn Hisham (part 4, p. 114); as well as al-Bukhari, who
mentioned it twice (part 7, pp. 115 and 152). Let us read together what is
recorded in the Bukhari:

"I heard Allah’s apostle who was in the pulpit saying ’Bano-hisham bin
Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali
bin Abi Taleb, but I do not give them permission and will not give
permission unless Ali divorces my daughter because Fatima is a part of my
body, and I hate what she hates to see and what hurts her."

So Muhammad knew well that marrying more than one woman hurts the first
wife. Then, why did he wed so many women causing so much harm to each one of
them? Why did he permit Muslims to practice polygamy? Ali’s incident is
rather strange, but it also reveals Muhammad’s consuming selfishness.
According to the account of Ibn Hisham, the girl’s name whom Ali intended to
marry was Juwayriyya. Muhammad used to encourage people to practice
polygamy. Bukhari tells us (Vol. 7, p. 124) that Muhammad, while talking to
a man, discovered that he had just married a divorced woman. He told him to
find himself another virgin girl.

It is obvious that polygamy was the rule practiced by Muhammad’s successors
and companions. For example, Umar Ibn al-Khattab married seven women in the
course of his life (including those whom he divorced), in addition to two
maid-slaves who were called Fakhiyya and Lahiyya. Uthman Ibn Affan was wed
to eight women. After the death of Fatima, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (to whom
Muhammad denied permission to marry a second wife beside Fatima) married ten
women and housed nineteen concubines and maid-slaves for a total of 29
women. This is Ali, the cousin of Muhammad and the fourth Caliph who assumed
power after the death of Uthman.

When we indicate the number of wives as seven, ten, etc., we do not mean
that those men housed them at the same time because it was not admissible
for any Moslem to have more than four wives at any given time, but these men
would "taste" the beauty of a woman and then plan to enjoy the "taste" of
another woman without any regard to the feelings of the first wife. If it
was necessary, he would divorce her for no reason but to be able to get
married to another woman without exceeding a total number of four wives.

This situation accurately applies to al-Hasan Ibn Ali, of whom Muhammad said
that he is the master of the youth of paradise. This Hasan (Muhammad’s
grandson) during the course of his life, married seventy women and begot
thirty-one children. Sometimes he used to divorce two women in a day. Even
his father urged the residents of Iraq not to marry their daughters to him
because he was a man who constantly divorced his wives, but the Kufa’s
people continued to marry their daughters to him hoping that their daughters
would bear children who would be descendants of the prophet Muhammad.

All these episodes are recorded in the biographies, such as the Bidaya and
the Nihaya, by Ibn Kathir, V. VII and VIII; also, the Chronicles of the
Caliphs, by Suyuti, who indicated that the Hasan was accustomed to divorcing
four women and marrying another four instead. He also mentioned that the
number of maid-slaves during the era of Yazid Ibn Abd-ul-Malik was in the
hundreds, and grew into the thousands during the time of the Abbasid
Caliphs. Al-Mutawakki, one of the Abbasid Caliphs, housed about four
thousand maid-slaves.

The reader can refer to the "Book of Al-Aghani" ("The Book of Songs") by
al-Isfahani; the "Akhbar al-Msa" ("The Necklace of the Dove") by Ibn Hazm,
and "al-Imta wa al-Mu’anasa" ("Entertainment and Friendly Sociability") by
Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi to obtain more information. In Vol. VIII of his book,
Ibn Kathir reports that al-Mughira Ibn Shu’ba (who was one of Muhammad’s
greatest friends and the ruler over some Islamic districts) had been wed to
three hundred women!

The Qur’an states clearly that a woman is like a piece of property which a
husband can replace easily. The Qur’an says in Sura of Women (20 ):

"If you wish to exchange one wife for another and you have given unto one of
them a sum of money take nothing from it."

What a glorious Qur’an and what a merciful God is Allah! This is the only
condition for the replacement: If a man intends to replace a woman with
another, he is not allowed to take from the first woman an object or money
he has already given her at the time of the marriage. No other conditions
are stated. A man is free to divorce his wife for a reason or for no reason,
and at any time he wishes And he has the right (if he divorces his wife) to
reinstate her without her permission during a certain period of time
(several months) as long as there are no other conditions pronounced in the
marriage contract. In volume 32, p. 238, Ibn Timiyya taught that men can
divorce their wives, but that women are not allowed to divorce their
husbands.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya emphasizes in his book, "Zad al-Ma ad" (part 5, page
278) that the knot of marriage is in the hand of the man and only he has the
right to divorce.

The Easiness of Divorce

Divorce in Islam is made very easy. By uttering the phrase, "You are
divorced," the divorce takes place. In part 7, page 145 of al-Bukhari we
read, " A man can suddenly tell his wife, ‘I am not in need of you.’ Then
the verdict is to be given according to his intention."

Most often, that wife would need his support and help, but that is no
concern of Islamic law as long as the man does not need that wife. Thus, the
Qur’an says: "It is no sin for you if you divorce women" (Sura 2:236).

Most probably the man felt bored with that wife or he lusted after another
woman who was younger and more beautiful. Since he was not able to support
two women at the same time, he divorced one to marry the other. If the great
men of Islam, the famous companions of the prophet and the Caliphs did so,
what remained for the public but to follow the example of those great men of
their religion in dealing with the matters of marriage and divorce?

The Qur’an allows this easy divorce. It does not impose certain conditions
or limits on this painful action which causes a great deal of suffering
among women, treating her as if she were a piece of furniture. Let us listen
to the al-Bukhari as he explains to us (Part VII, pages 145-146) how this
easy divorce takes place:

"If a man says to his wife, ‘Go to your family,’ then his intention is to be
taken into consideration. Or if someone says to his wife, ‘If you become
pregnant, then you are divorced thrice’; then, if her pregnancy becomes
apparent, she will be regarded as divorced irrevocably! If he wants her back
she must marry another man first."

It is that easy for a man to divorce his wife if he wishes, even if she
does not commit any wrongdoing. This often happens in Arab and Islamic
countries without any regard to the woman’s dignity. The husband says: "If
this thing does not happen, my wife is divorced by three". These things
actually happen, as the Bukhari said, and the wife finds herself divorced
for reasons entirely unknown to her, because every divorce is lawful (except
the divorce made in drunkenness) according to the Muslim scholars. As long
as the husband was not drunk when he made the divorce, even if it was in a
moment of anger, that divorce becomes lawful (refer to Bukhari, part VII, p.
145).

The Azhar scholars, when they were asked about that, gave the same answer:
Every divorce is admissible except the divorce made by a drunkard. What a
joke! Or what a tragedy! Daily Arabic newspapers are filled with such tragic
news and the courts are overloaded with thousands of divorce suits which
causes the eviction of children and wives who are helpless and dependent
mainly on their husbands. This tragic situation made an Egyptian Muslim
lady, Dr. Nawal Sa’dawi (the great Egyptian writer and thinker), voice her
objection loudly during a dialogue between her and the Azhar scholars by
saying:

"I want to say that a Christian wife enjoys a secure married life compared
to the Muslim woman because she is not afraid of a surprise divorce made by
her husband in a day and a night" (Refer to al-Liwa al- Islami newspaper,
issued on July 9,1987, page 6 ).

You are right Dr. Sadawi! You are acknowledging the truth as you describe
the status of women in Islam. Your words have powerful effect because you
are a Muslim and a woman also. But what could the Sheiks of Azhar tell you
if this is the law of Islam and if Muhammad himself was allowed to divorce
all his wives in one day and claimed that he received (through Gabriel) a
verse inspired by God in which he threatened them. The verse:

"It may happen that His Lord—if he (the prophet) divorced you—will give him
in your stead wives better than you" (Chapter 66:5).

What could the Azhar Sheikhs tell you if Muhammad himself had actually
divorced one of his wives by telling her, "Go to your people?" She was the
daughter of June, as the Bukhari remarked (page 131 of Vol. VII). He also
divorced Hafasa, daughter of Umar Ibn al-Khattab, then brought her back, as
well as his wife Sawda (daughter of Zam’a), then restored her to his
household after she asked for his mercy, telling him: "I will give up my day
(that is the day he allocated to Sawda) to A’isha," as we read in the "Book
of Women of the Prophet "("Nisa’ al-Nabi") by Bint al-Shati (p. 125 and p.66
regarding Hafsa and Sawda).

This same author, who is a contemporary Muslim scholar and writer, said:

"When Muhammad intended to divorce Sawda or when he actually divorced her,
she received the news with utmost bewilderment, and she almost fainted. She
wept in the presence of Muhammad and said: ‘Keep me and I assign the right
of my night and day to your young wife A’isha’ (p.66); he agreed. It is well
known that this Sawda had served Muhammad very well and was very good to him
and no one had accused her of any wrongdoing. But because of lack of beauty,
he intended to divorce her."

Divorce in Christianity

In spite of escalating problems, and regardless of the nature of numerous
causes (such as sickness or barrenness), it is not permissible for a divorce
to take place among true Christians who learn from the Lord the meaning of
love and humility. A conflict may exist, and the husband may lose his temper
for all of us are human beings subject to making mistakes. We may scream or
show anger or encounter conflicts, yet a true Christian will never think of
divorce. Divorce does not exist in the dictionary of relationships between
Christian couples.

The Christian wife can rest at peace concerning her future because the
church will not allow her husband to divorce her except in one case; namely,
adultery. In this case, Christ himself gives the man or the woman the right
to divorce the guilty party and remarry another person. Yet even this
circumstance is almost non existent among true Christians. In case of
genuine repentance, the innocent party is encouraged to show forgiveness and
shun a divorce. However, the innocent party has the right to divorce and to
remarry whether this innocent party is a man or a woman.

In the Gospel, we read the following dialogue between Christ and some of the
Pharisees from among the Jewish religious leaders:

"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ And He answered
and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning
"made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore
what God has joined together, let not man separate"’ (Matt. 19:4-6).

Christianity does not say that "divorce is lawful but unfavorable," but
rather that it is unlawful and is not allowable

except for adultery. That is because the interests of the spouse, the
children and society are above all other considerations and greater than any
marital conflict. It is supposed that problems, struggles (whatever they
are) can be solved by prayer, humility, and a deeper relationship with the
Lord. God is able to sow love in human hearts, give the ability for
forbearance and He is capable of changing the most wicked man or woman
because Christianity believes in the experience of spiritual new birth and
the work of the Spirit of God.

Divorce in the West...In the East

It is obvious that the percentages of divorce in Europe and America is very
high, but it is also obvious that most of those who divorce their spouses
are (at best) nominal Christians who have not committed their lives to
Christ. Christ and the Gospel are very clear in this regard. The Gospel is
not guilty because of some practices of westerners, such as sexual
corruption and the increasing number of divorces.

We do not blame Islam or the Qur’an for things committed by Muslims which
are against their religion. We are examining Islam as it is manifested in
the Qur’an and practiced by Muhammad and Muslim scholars. When we discuss
Christianity, we quote Gospel references and Christ’s life. Certainly, there
is sexual corruption in the East, though it is practiced in secrecy.
Westerners, in this case, relinquish hypocrisy. They don’t seem to care what
other people may say against them, contrary to Easterners.

If we take a quick glimpse at the Christian East, we will realize the rarity
of divorce eases. I have lived dozens of years in Arab countries, especially
in Egypt which has a population of thirteen million Christians, and yet I
have heard about only one divorce in the Christian community. Westerners
must recognize this fact in order to learn from the Eastern Christians this
Christian biblical principle. Of course, premarital sexual relationships
(which are in vogue in the West) are not practiced among Christian
Easterners. It is possible to say that in the Christian East there is one
divorce for every one hundred thousand marriages!

Yet even if a divorce takes place (whether in the East or in the West), the
door of repentance is open to anyone who is ready to repent because every
sin is forgivable if it is accompanied by repentance.

I would like to urge the leaders of Islamic and Arabic countries to enact
laws and restrictions to solve marital problems, similar to those laws
practiced by Tunisia, which do not allow polygamy or easy divorce—in order
to protect the wife and the children from eviction and agony. If Muhammad
and the Qur’an have failed to do so, the leaders of Arab and Islamic states
are able to pass laws to protect women and children (and thus, the entire
society) from tragedies and fragmentation. If these states would allow
opportunity for the Gospel to be preached through radio and television. most
of the problems of society would diminish because many Muslims would become
Christians.

A Woman is the Husband’s Slave His Captive!

Readers may wonder if this is true. Is it possible that Islam and Muhammad
say that a woman is a man’s slave—his captive? Yes, my dear reader, this is
a fact which no Muslim scholar denies. Let us scrutinize this matter which
is really amazing when we read Muhammad’s unquestionable statements.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

In Zad al-Ma’ad (part V, p. 189), we read:

"In sound tradition, Muhammad called woman a ‘aniya’. The ‘ani’ is a
prisoner of war (or captive). The duty of the captive is to serve his
master. There is no doubt that marriage is a sort of slavery as some of the
former scholars indicated: Marriage is slavery, thus let each one of you be
sure of the man to whom you would like to enslave your daughter."

This text tells us that according to sound Hadith (approved by all
scholars), Muhammad said so. Therefore, scholars emphasize that a father
must choose a good man for his daughter because marriage is slavery.

Ibn Qayyim states also (part V, page 188), "A woman must serve her husband
because he has already paid the dowry, and if a man served his wife at home
he would commit a grave sin."

Ibn Timiyya (Sheikh al-Islam)

He was very plain when he discussed this issue. In Vol. 32, p.262, Ibn
Timiyya unquestionably agrees with the statement of the former scholars that
marriage is slavery. He states that Umar Ibn al- Khattab himself is the one
who uttered those words. Also, on pages 305-307, he remarks,

"If a woman said to her husband, ‘Divorce me’ and he responded by saying, ‘I
divorce you,’ then this divorce is final and irrevocable for the husband
because it is regarded a ransom by which a woman redeems herself from her
husband, as a captive redeems herself from captivity. It is also permissible
for any person to redeem the wife, as in the case of the redemption of the
captive. As it is admissible for anyone to pay a ransom to the master of a
slave to set him free, it is also allowable for a woman to set herself free
>from the slavery of the husband. The purpose of that is to disclaim the
ownership and slavery of the woman in order to be free from his slavery, as
in the case of freeing the slave and redeeming the captive."

Ibn Timiyya has repeated several times the phrase that the relationship of
a wife to her husband is like a slave to his master—or like a prisoner of
war.

Imam al-Nawawi

In his book, "Ryad al-Salihin" ("The Orchards of the Righteous Men", p 107),
he repeats Muhammad’s statement that "women are captives in your hands." He
also adds:

"The apostle of God here likens the woman as she comes under the authority
of her husband to a captive; and Muhammad uttered these words in his address
to men in the farewell year."

These are the words of Muhammad himself concerning women, and these are the
declarations of three of the greatest Muslim scholars: Ibn Qayyim
al-Jawziyya, Ibn Timiyya and the Imam al-Nawawi. These three confirm,
according to tradition, that Muhammad is the one who said that a woman is
like a prisoner and a slave to a man. Thus a woman is not only less than a
man by a degree, and enjoys only half of his rights, but she is less than
him by dozens of degrees. She holds the status of a slave or a captive.

A Donkey and a Dog

This is exactly what A’isha said to the great Caliphs and companions when
she remarked:

"You have put us on the same level with a donkey and a dog."

The question is why did A’isha make this statement to those great
companions and scholars of the time of Muhammad. A’isha said that to Ali Ibn
Abi Talib, Abdalla Ibn Abbas, Abu-zarr, Abu Hurayra, Anas Ibn Malik and
others on whose authority most of Muhammad’s Hadith and interpretations of
the Qur’an were handed down. Why did you say that A’isha?

She said it because those pillars of Islam assured people that Muhammad said
that if a man is praying and a donkey, a dog, or a woman passes in front of
him, his prayer will not be acceptable, and he has to perform ablution
(washing) again and repeat his prayer. None of the scholars question this
matter which is repeated daily—whenever a woman passes in front of a man
while he is praying or if a dog or a donkey walks in front of him. In this
case, he has to wash himself again and repeat his prayer; otherwise his
prayer will not be counted.

Ibn Hazm Confirms and Quotes

In his book, "al-Muhalla", "The Sweetened" (part 4, p. 8), Ibn Hazm says:

"A prayer is rescinded by a dog, whether it is passing by or not, and by a
woman and a donkey!"

At the beginning of page 9, Ibn Hazm emphasizes that all the great
companions of the prophet without exception attested to that. Then he
records for us (page 11) that A’isha told them: "You have put us on the same
level with a donkey and a dog." Why is it that if a man passes in front of a
praying man his prayer is not repealed, while if a woman walks in front of
him, the prayer must be repeated? Why is the presence of a woman regarded as
similar to the presence of a donkey or a dog? The above-mentioned discussion
does not need more comment.

Women are the Cause of Evil Omen

It is obvious that Sahih of al-Bukhari is a source upon which all of the
Islamicists depend whenever they want to learn Muhammad’s Hadith (sayings),
and consequently, to know Islamic laws and ordinances which the Qur’an doesn
’t mention. If we open part VII of Sahih of al-Bukhari which is translated
into English (page 21), we read:

"Allah’s apostle said: ‘Evil omen is in the woman, the house and the horse."
’

On the same page (21), we encounter the interpretation

of the above statement as follows: "The evil omen of a woman is her bad
character". The reader may wonder (if there is such a thing as an "evil
omen") why it is said then that a woman who has bad character is the cause.
Why it is not said that a bad person (in general, whether a male or female)
may cause an evil omen; that is if there is such a thing as an evil omen
since we do not believe in the existence of evil omen among true believers.
Why is it always a woman? If a woman walks in front of a man while he prays,
he has to repeat his prayer because it does not count. Since a woman has bad
character, she causes an evil omen. In the first case, Muhammad equates her
with a donkey and a dog. In the second case, he reduces her to the level of
a horse and a house. The woman! Always the woman! She is always persecuted
in Islam. Even Muhammad believed that the majority of the people in hell are
women, as it was revealed to him.

Women have Crooked Characters

All the scholars confirm that Muhammad said that women have crooked
characters. He also said that a husband should not attempt to straighten his
wife of the perversity. He must enjoy her though she is still subject to
this waywardness. In Sahih of al-Bukhari (part 7, p. 80) the following is
recorded,

"Allah’s Apostle said: ‘The woman is like a rib: if you try to straighten
her, she will break; so if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she
still has some crookedness."’

Also in "Riyadh al-Salihim" by Imam al-Nawawi (p. 106), we find a quote by
Sahih of Muslim,

"Muhammad said, ‘A woman was created from a crooked rib; thus she would
never be straightened by any means. If you enjoy her, you do that along with
her crookedness and if you endeavor to straighten her, you will break her,
and breaking her is divorcing her."’

We have here two questions: First, why is the woman the one who is crooked?
Muhammad answers: "Because she is created from a crooked rib!" Is it
possible that man is free from any crookedness? Can we not find one thousand
women who would say, "My husband has many detestable characteristics. He is
always drunk, gambling, or violent and abusive." Why is it always the woman
who is crooked?

Then there is the other question which we cannot avoid: If there is a
crookedness in a woman, why does the husband not attempt to straighten her
in humility, love, prayer and understanding? Why does he have to leave her
on her own without rendering any help lest the crooked rib breaks; namely,
to be divorced? Why all this ill-advice by Muhammad? Do prophets tell the
husband to scourge his wife or forsake her on the one hand and urge him to
leave her alone with her crookedness on the other? Muhammad himself told his
wives upon occasion that he would divorce them and replace them with other
women.

The Sheikh al-Sharawi, the contemporary Sheikh of Islam in Egypt,
acknowledges in his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers" (part II, p. 5) that
Muhammad said this, but the Sharawi tries intelligently to justify Muhammad’
s statement by saying that Muhammad meant that the woman usually shows
compassion and is bent over her child like a crooked rib! If this is what
Muhammad meant, then how are we to interpret his saying she will never be
straightened by any means, it is impossible to change her, and men should
not attempt to do so because that will be conducive to divorce, but they
should rather enjoy women along with their crookedness? Is this crookedness
a virtue, like showing tenderness towards a child? Crookedness is something
bad and difficult to change or straighten.

The Sharawi also interprets Muhammad’s testimony that women lack
intelligence and faith as being not required to perform all the duties and
ordinances of the religion; they lack faith by way of commission! We tell
him: Do they lack intelligence by way of commission also? What about their
testimony being regarded equal to a half man’s testimony? Is that by way of
commission also or lack of intelligence so that if one of them forgot
something the other one would remind her? !

Women are Harmful to Men

This is another statement which all the scholars agree that Muhammad uttered
against women. In part 7, p.22 of Sahih al-Bukhari, we read,

"The prophet said: ‘I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than
women."’

The Imam al-Nawawi in his book, "Riyadh al-Salihin" (p. 110), reiterates
that these words were spoken by Muhammad. Of course, Christianity rejects
such statements and disapproves of all these accusations against women.

Lastly, we have to ask: If this was Muhammad’s view of women, why then, did
he possess so many wives, concubines and prisoners of war?

Conclusion

This is the true status of women according to Muhammad and to Islam. We have
presented this discussion so that no one will say that Islam honors females,
whether they are daughters, single or married.

° We have seen that the father has the right to force a daughter to marry
without her permission. She does not have any choice.

° Muhammad made it lawful for a man to have sexual relationships with a
single woman in lieu of some presents, then leave her without any rights.
This is what is called in Islam "contractual marriage".

° As for married women, the mother of children, Muhammad, in the Qur’an,
commanded men to scourge them (if they show any sign of disobedience) if
instruction, admonishing, and abandoning their beds fail to bring forth any
results. Scholars say that scourging should not lead to breaking bones, but
to be a deterring element. A man scourged his wife and left some marks on
her face. When she complained to Muhammad, he refrained from punishing him
and claimed to have received a verse in which he declared that men are above
women and better than them. Men are their custodians, entitled to discipline
them and to deter them by punishment and beating.

° We also see that a married woman is a slave to her husband; she is his
captive, his prisoner because marriage is a type of slavery. Muhammad
himself, the prophet of freedom, equality and honoring of women said so, as
well as Umar Ibn al-Khattab.

We also discussed polygamy and how a man is allowed to marry as many as many
as four women at the same time, in addition to what he owns of maid-slaves.

° We have examined also the issue of easy divorce and replacement of wives
as it is manifested clearly in the Qur’anic verses and exemplified by the
behavior of Muhammad, the Caliphs and the companions. This divorce drives
away the woman and her children and propagates corruption in society. Islam
does not enforce any restriction or limitation against it (as Christianity
does) to protect women, children and society. If a man divorced his wife by
uttering three times, "You are divorced," then he wished to restore her and
she agrees to do so, Muhammad insists that she should get married to
somebody else first and actually have sexual intercourse; then she could go
back to her first husband and her children as Rafa’a’s wife did when she
wanted to return to her ex-husband. Muhammad told her that she had to have
an actual marriage and full sexual intercourse with her new husband, Abdul
Rahman, before she could return to her first husband. Muhammad relied on a
clear text "revealed" to him through Gabriel the angel for this judgment. He
said it was revealed that the divorced wife is not lawful for the first
husband until she marries another man (Chapter 2:230).

° Women in general (as Muhammad declared) are the majority of the people in
hell on the day of judgment.

° They are the cause of evil omens.

° They lack intelligence and faith.

° In regard to inheritance, they are entitled only to one-half of the man’s
rightful inheritance.

° Her testimony in courts and business contracts is equal to one-half of the
man’s testimony and value.

° Muhammad also said that women possess sinister characters.

° Lastly, if a woman walks in front of a man while he is praying, she will
invalidate his prayer and he has to repeat it. Muhammad said that a prayer
would be nullified if a donkey, a dog or a woman pass in front of the
praying man.

The greatest among the companions, such as Ibn Abbas, Abu Zarr, Abu Hurayra,
as well as the Caliphs (like Ali Ibn Abi Talib) have confirmed these
statements. All Muslims know who these famous personalities are and what
position they occupy in transmitting the Hadiths. Such abuses made A’isha
scream in their faces, "You have put us on the same level with a donkey and
a dog!"

[Fariduddien Rice]

On 22 Oct 1998, paul (ixthu...@hotmail.com) wrote:

> Section Two
>=20
> The Veil of
>=20
> Equality
>=20
> and Justice

Unfortunately, this article is full of many half-truths, selecting
the most extreme opinions among varying Muslim opinions, and depicting=20
them as the opinion of all Muslims. This kind of approach towards=20
polemics is completely dishonest, and reflects the dishonest tactics=20
which are used by some Christian missionaries against Islam.

Due to the length of the article, and a lack of time, insha-Allah I'll=20
just address a few issues mentioned in it.... However, these few
examples will hopefully show the lack of honesty and lack of scholarship=20
in the article in general....

[...]

> The Qur=92an Commands Men To Beat Women
>=20

> While the New Testament commands men to love their wives and even to
> sacrifice their own lives for their sake as Jesus gave His life for us

> (Ephesians 5), we see that the Qur=92an plainly and disgracefully comma=
nds men
> to beat their women as soon as they show any sign of disobedience to ma=
n=92s

> authority and orders. It states in Chapter 4:34:

>=20
> "As for these from women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them=

to
> beds apart and scourge them."

[...]

In the whole discussion given (mostly deleted), not a single mention
has been made of the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allah be with him) said that this "striking" must not cause pain.
No mention has been made of suggestions of the scholars that, in order
to facilitate this, such "striking" should be made with a folded
handkerchief or some such thing. What this shows is that clearly,
this "striking" is symbolic, and is designed to draw attention of=20
the wife to the marital problems, and it is not a punishment of any
kind.

Here is Muhammad Asad's commentary on "beating" in verse 4:34. The
most important part is the part marked with a double asterisk [**]
below. This commentary is important because it contains several
hadiths explaining the meaning of this part of the verse.

The meaning of it is, in summary, that this "beating" _must not cause
pain_. My understanding is, to physically harm your wife, and
intentionally cause her physical pain, is without doubt clearly haram
[prohibited].

Qur'an 4:34, Muhammad Asad's translation (with the word "strike"
inserted), says:

Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has
bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and
with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the
righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy
of which God as [ordained to be] guarded.

And as for those women whose ill-will [*] you have reason to fear,
admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then
[strike] them [**]; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not
seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!

In his commentary on the above verse, Muhammad Asad writes:

[*] The term _nushuz_ (lit., "rebellion" - here rendered as
"ill-will") comprises every kind of deliberate bad behaviour of
a wife towards her husband or of a husband towards his wife,
including what is nowadays described as "mental cruelty"; with
reference to the husband, it also denotes "ill-treatment",
in the physical sense, of his wife (cf. verse 128 of this surah).
In this context, a wife's "ill-will" implies a deliberate,
persistent breach of her marital obligations.

[**] It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the
Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's
wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you
beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her
in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another
Tradition, he forbade the beating of _any_ woman with the
words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn
Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the
authority of Iyas bin `Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority
of `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm
Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating
of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to
have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another
thing - and what God has willed must be best". With all this,
he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell
Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be
resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious
manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in
such a way as not to cause pain (_ghayr mubarrih_)"; authentic
Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu
Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these
Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if
resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a
toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of
scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded
handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars
(e.g. Ash-Shafi`i) are of the opinion that it is just barely
permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they
justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with
regard to this problem.

[From _The Message of the Qur'an_, translation and commentary
of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad (1980), footnote 45, p.109
(one of the commentaries on verse 4:34).]

When you take these hadiths into account, that any "striking" must
not cause pain, the picture is completely different. Not taking=20
these hadiths, and viewpoints based on them, into account when=20
addressing this issue shows an intellectual dishonesty in the polemics
of the Christian missionary who wrote the article I'm responding to.

> Forcing the Virgin to Marry

>=20
> Most people believe that this was merely a detestable habit practiced b=
y
> some Arabs and Muslims who lived in some underdeveloped countries. Howe=
ver,
> we must realize that this practice has its roots deep in Islamic law an=
d
> that it is a principle applied by Muslim scholars. Yet, I myself have r=

ead
> this ordinance in the main sources of Islam acceptable to all Muslim

> commentators. Let us study together the ordinances and the statements o=

f
> scholars of exposition and the Islamic law.

>=20

> Ibn Timiyya and Ibn Hazm, Famous Legists

>=20
> Muslims regard Ibn Timiyya as the Sheikh of Islam. He truly is.=20

This is a false claim about Ibn Taimiyya, who in fact is a very
controversial figure. He was jailed in his life-time for likening Allah
to His Creation, a ruling which many scholars until this day have
apparently agreed with. The groups which tend to follow him are the
"Wahhabis" and "Salafis" who constitute a minority among Muslims.

Ibn Hazm was also not representative of usual Islamic scholarship.
While he followed the Shafi'i madhhab (school of thought), he=20
rejected the use of qiyas (analogical reasoning) in coming to=20
decisions, in contrast to the majority of Shafi'i scholars. He
was considered misguided by the other scholars of his time.

[The above notes are summarized from the biographical notes in
Nuh Keller's translation of "The Reliance of the Traveller."]

Here we see how this Christian missionary takes minority,
unrepresentative views from Muslims, and tries to claim that all Muslims
follow them. This is nothing but dishonest.

The general point of view, to my understanding, is that a virgin may of
course refuse to marry anyone she does not want to. She may not be
forced into an unwanted marriage. This is clearly shown by the
following hadiths:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be with him) said:

A woman who has been previously married has more right concerning
her person than her guardian, and a virgin's consent must be asked
about herself, her consent being her silence.

[Bukhari and Muslim]

The above hadith is very explicit and clear that a virgin woman may=20
not be married against her consent.

Also, the following hadith shows that it is prohibited to marry=20
a girl against her wishes:

A girl came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be with
him) and informed him that her father had married her to her
cousin against her wishes, whereupon the Prophet (peace and=20
blessings of Allah be with him) allowed her to exercise her
choice. She then said, `I am reconciled to what my father did
but I wanted to make it known to women that fathers have no
say in this matter.'

[Tirmidhi]

[The above hadiths were quoted from "The Lawful and the Prohibited
in Islam" by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, pp. 176-7.]

>From these we can see how the Christian missionary has dishonestly
completely misrepresented the topic, mainly by taking extremist
views which are rejected by the majority of Muslims and scholars,
and trying to claim that all Muslims follow this point of view.

The intellectual dishonesty showed in these topics continues=20
throughout the whole article.

Allah will give such liars what they deserve.

Peace,

_________________________________________________________________________=
_

Fariduddien Rice Email : drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au (remove the spaces)=
=20

Learn how Tasawwuf is an important Islamic discipline

http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
_________________________________________________________________________=
_

[paul]

This reply to my posting shows the typical Islamic propagandist technique
and dishonesty of building a straw dummy and then burning it.

Rewriting History, redefining Islam and interpreting clarity into obscurity
are very common dishonest techniques of bankrupt argumentation. Proof in
themselves that the argument is lost.

Take for example the wife beating

quote

"all the authorities stress that this "beating", if
resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a
toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of
scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded
handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars
(e.g. Ash-Shafi`i) are of the opinion that it is just barely
permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they
justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with
regard to this problem. "

Notice the statement "all authorities" - When he has already agreed that the
posted article has authorities that disagree with what he is saying.

That the beatings are "symbolic" is obviously a last ditch effort to get out
of what is so plain

Newton writes

"The Qur'an states:

"Righteous women are therefore obedient, ... And those you fear may be
rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat
them."[55]
Some translators add the word lightly after 'beat them'[56] in Q. 4:34.
Others like Mohammed Pickthall and Rodwell translate the word 'edrebouhon -
beat them' as 'scourge them'.

The occasion in which Q. 4:34 was revealed sheds more light on the meaning
of that verse. Most commentators mention that

"the above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who complained to
Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face (which was still marked by
the slap). At first the Prophet said to her: 'Get even with him', but then
added: 'Wait until I think about it.' Later on the above verse was revealed,
after which the Prophet said: 'We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another,
and what Allah wanted is best.'"[57]
The beating in the previous incident can hardly be described as light,
unless that is what is meant by light beating. This beating comes as the
last corrective measure when sexual desertion fails. Light beating after
sexual desertion is an anticlimax that serves no purpose. But firm beating
is the logical progression from admonishing, then sexually deserting,
finally beating her. This beating must be stronger than sexual desertion to
have any effect.

This beating however is not like the whipping of a slave,[58] but "a beating
without causing injury"[59] (agreed upon).

So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that beating
is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in injury.

The translator of Mishkat Al-Masabih wrote in a footnote of Fatwa by Qazi
Khan that said beating the wife mildly is

"allowed in four cases (1) When she does not wear fineries though wanted by
the husband, (2) When she is called for sexual intercourse and she refuses
without any lawful excuse, (3) When she is ordered to take a bath [to clean
herself] from impurities for prayer and she refuses and (4) When she goes
abroad without permission of her husband."[60]
In another footnote the translator of Mishkat Al-Masabih said,

"No wife shall refuse her husband what he wants from her except on religious
grounds ie. at the time of menstrual flow or fasting. Some theologians
regard this refusal as unlawful as the husband may get enjoyment from his
wife in other ways, by embracing, kissing etc. The duty of the wife is to
give him comforts in his bed whenever he wants her."[61] (emphasis added)
This beating is the husband's unquestionable right.

Ibn Kathir in his commentary mentioned a Hadith on the authority of zal
Ash'ath Ibn al-Qays who was visiting 'Omar and at that time. 'Omar took his
wife and beat her, then said to Ash'ath:

'Memorise three things from me, which I memorised from the prophet who said:
"The man is not to be asked why he beat his wife ..."'[62]
Man's right to 'beat his wife' does not belong to the distant past. The
Guardian Weekly reported,

"In 1987 an Egyptian court, following an interpretation of the Koran
proposed by the Syndicate of Arab Lawyers, ruled that a husband had the duty
to educate his wife and therefore the right to punish her as he wished."[63]
Sayyed Qotb a modern scholar and commentator tries to justify the provision
for a man to beat his wife, found in the above Qur'anic verse:

"The facts of life, and the psy chological observations of certain forms of
deviations indicate that this approach (beating the wife) is the most
appropriate one to satisfy a particular form of deviation, reforming the
behaviour of the person...and gratifying her...at the same time!
Even without the existence of this form of psychological deviation, perhaps
some women will not recognise the power of the man whom they love to have as
their guardian and husband, except when the man conquers them physically!
This is not the nature of every woman. But this kind does exist. And it is
this kind that needs this last treatment to be set straight, and remain
within the serious organisation [marriage] in peace and tranquillity."[64]

Some intellectuals, referring to the above quotation, said:

"Women's rebelliousness (nushuz) is a medical condition. It is of two kinds:
The first is the condition when the woman delights to be the submissive
partner who finds pleasure in being beaten and tortured. This is what is
called Masochism. The second is when the woman loves to hurt and master and
dominate the other partner. This is what is called Sadism. Such woman has no
remedy except removing her spikes and destroying her weapon by which she
dominates. This weapon of the woman is her femininity. But the other woman
who delights in submission and being beaten, then beating is her remedy. So
the Qur'anic command: 'banish them to their couches, and beat them' agrees
with the latest psychological findings in understanding the rebellious
woman. This is one of the scientific miracles of the Qur'an because it sums
up volumes of the science of psychology about rebellious women."[65]
The above two quotations state that the Qur'anic injunction to beat the
perverted masochist woman will cure her from her disorder. But will it
rather increase her perversion by giving her the pleasure she sought? Will
giving alcohol to the alcoholic be his remedy too? And why beat the sadist
wife? Why not let her have her own way too, like the masochistic one? Why
not let her beat and torture others?

Even if this treatment is of benefit to the minority of women who are
perverted, does this justify the command to beat the wife who rebels for any
and every reason?

Whether or not the beating of wives is justified, this is the man's right,
and his alone.

The man who fears rebelliousness in his wife must admonish her first. If
that does not work, the husband has the right to desert her sexually. If
that does not work either, he has the right to beat her.

Sayyed Qotb explains the dynamics of deserting the wife sexually if
admonishing her does not work:

"Here comes the second phase ... the man has to make a superior
psychological move against all her attraction and beauty, by banishing her
to her couch, for the couch (the bed) is the place of temptation and
enticement, where the rebellious woman reaches the summit of her power. If
the man can conquer his disposition against her temptation, then he has
disarmed her from her sharpest and most treasured weapon."[66]
Another scholar reiterating the above said:

"This sexual desertion is a remedy that curbs the rebelliousness of the
woman, and humiliates her pride, in that which she treasures most, her
femininity ... thus inflicting the most humiliating defeat on the woman.
"[67]
The man then has the right to desert his wife sexually and beat her, if he
fears rebelliousness in her.

The woman, however, can not resort to such measures, if she fears
rebelliousness in her husband, as is clear from the following verse:

"If a woman fears rebelliousness or aversion in her husband, there is no
fault in them if the couple set things right between them; right settlement
is better."[68]
It is clear from Q. 4:128 & Q. 4:34 that the Qur'an commands diplomacy when
a woman fears rebelliousness in her husband. But when the man fears
rebelliousness in his wife, the Qur'an commands the use of force and sexual
desertion.

Bukhari gives an example of the wife's options if she fears cruelty or
desertion on her husband's part in the following Hadith:

"... narrated 'Aisha (regarding the verse:- 'If a wife fears cruelty or
desertion on her husband's part...) It concerns the woman whose husband does
not want to keep her with him any longer, but wants to divorce her and marry
some other lady, so she says to him: 'Keep me and do not divorce me, and
then marry another woman, and you may neither spend on me, nor sleep with
me.' This is indicated by the statement of Allah:- 'There is no blame on
them if they arrange an amicable set tlement between them both, and such
settlement is better.'"[69] (emphasis added)

So according to Bukhari's sound Hadith, the recommended amicable settlement
for the woman who fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, is to
submit to her husband's will to marry another woman, and to forego her
financial and sexual rights.

Beating the rebellious wife is the last resort before divorcing her. She
must be admonished first. If that does not work, the husband has the right
to desert her sexually. The Qur'anic injunction to consort with women kindly
is not inconsistent with beating the rebellious wife and sexually deserting
her, this beating is included and part of the scope of the kind treatment.
The prophet himself, who was the kindest of all Muslims to his wives,
deserted them all sexually for one month.[70] Imam Ghazali puts it this way:
"There is wickedness and weakness in women. Diplomacy and harshness is the
remedy of wickedness, kindness and gentleness is the remedy of
weakness."[71] "

[Fariduddien Rice]

On 25 Oct 1998, paul wrote:

> This reply to my posting shows the typical Islamic propagandist technique
> and dishonesty of building a straw dummy and then burning it.

Let's see if that is true.

> Rewriting History, redefining Islam and interpreting clarity into obscurity
> are very common dishonest techniques of bankrupt argumentation. Proof in
> themselves that the argument is lost.
>
> Take for example the wife beating
>
> quote
>
> "all the authorities stress that this "beating", if
> resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a
> toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of
> scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded
> handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars
> (e.g. Ash-Shafi`i) are of the opinion that it is just barely
> permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they
> justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with
> regard to this problem. "
>
> Notice the statement "all authorities" - When he has already agreed that the
> posted article has authorities that disagree with what he is saying.

In the above, I was quoting Muhammad Asad's comment -- it was not my
own comment.

However, the most important part of Muhammad Asad's comment on this
issue was the part which you deleted, which was the Prophet's own comment
on this (peace and blessings be with him).

Since you seem to have overlooked the most important part, here it is
again (I have reformatted it, to make it easier to read).... I mainly
want to draw your attention to the hadiths in the following passage....

Muhammad Asad wrote:

It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet
himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said
on more than one occasion,

"Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave,
and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim).

According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of _any_ woman
with the words,

"Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad
ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas bin `Abd
Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas; and
Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum).

When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory
wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said:

"I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God
has willed must be best".

With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the
Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be
resorted to only if the wife

"has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct",

and that it should be done

"in such a way as not to cause pain (_ghayr mubarrih_)"; authentic
Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu
Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah.

These are the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be with
him), so they are of the utmost importance. You seem to have been stuck
on what the scholars may have said, yet for some reason you chose to
delete what the Prophet himself said (peace and blessings of Allah be
with him).

I think the most important comments are those which he made during the
Farewell Pilgrimage, which was shortly before he died. The reason why
these comments are the most important is because they are the final say
on the matter. The important part is that the "striking" SHOULD NOT
CAUSE PAIN. This is the part which this particular Christian missionary
wants to hide. He prefers to quote the selective words of particular
scholars, chosen in a way so as to hide this point. However, this
point, that it must not cause pain, changes the whole thing, as it shows
clearly that such a "striking" must be symbolic and not a punishment.

> That the beatings are "symbolic" is obviously a last ditch effort to get out
> of what is so plain

What is plain is that the "striking" must not cause pain. Do you deny
these words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be with him) ?

His words are the final say on the matter -- not yours, nor even any
scholar which contradicts him. That it is prohibited to cause pain
is stated very plainly, and it is still true even if you choose to
delete it in your next post in order to continue misleading others.

[....Many quotes deleted....]

Thanks for these many quotes. However, I noticed you have managed to
completely avoid any mention that the "striking" _must not cause pain_.

Why are you avoiding this topic?

My guess is that it is because you wish to mislead people about Islam,
through a dishonest misinformation campaign about Islam.

You apparently consider yourself a follower of Jesus (peace be with
him). Would he accept people who lie about others, claiming to be
following his example? It is sad that whereas Jesus (peace be with
him) taught truth, some who claim to be his followers prefer to focus
on spreading falsehood about others.

As I said before, I believe God will give you what you deserve for
your dishonest attempts to spread lies about others, which goes against
all the teachings of the Prophets (Jesus included).

Fariduddien

__________________________________________________________________________

Fariduddien Rice Email : drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au (remove the spaces)

http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
__________________________________________________________________________

[sol_ar]

Besides the beating, which is covered in the legal books as a possible cause
of accidental killing, why is the blood-money for a woman half of that for a
man? Is her life half the value of his?

[paul]

Again you have proved me right.

>From my previous posting I said

"Notice the statement "all authorities" - When he has already agreed that
the
posted article has authorities that disagree with what he is saying. "

Well is it "all" or do you mean "some"?

Again this is part of the dishonesty I am talking about.

Your interpreters are being used to reinvent Islam to fool westerners that
Islam is not so dangerous afterall. That in some way they bring liberation
to women.

No, enough is enough.

Your methods must be exposed.

[fat...@ppp.nasionet.net]

Assalamu 'alaikum,

> "sol_ar" <sol...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

> Is her life half the value of his?

That's not what Allah said. On the contrary,the following
is His Word:

"O Mankind! Reverence your Guardian Lord, who created you
from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate,
and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless
men and women - fear Allah, through Whom ye demand
your mutual (rights)..."

He also said: "And (reverence) the wombs that bore you." (4:1)

Hopefully, Allah-willing, after reading the above, the poster would want
to know more more about the liberation of women by Islam.

May Allah guide the Erring to His Perfect Path for He Alone is the Guide.

Wassalam
>From a Muslim woman who enjoys complete freedom and unparalled
equality in Islam. And All Praise is to Allah for having
guided her and her sisters.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[sol_ar]

Thank you for the quote (without reference), sister Fatima.

It still does not answer my first question, unless by implication that
Islamic Law contradicts a Koranic precept in this instance.

[mar...@vom.com]

"paul" <ixthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This reply to my posting shows the typical Islamic propagandist technique
>and dishonesty of building a straw dummy and then burning it.
>
>Rewriting History, redefining Islam and interpreting clarity into obscurity
>are very common dishonest techniques of bankrupt argumentation. Proof in
>themselves that the argument is lost.
>
>Take for example the wife beating

Paul himself indulges in some semantic mischief in his response. He
presents a reasonably cogent argument (which is clearly not accepted
by many Muslims) that the "darb" of the wife can be more than with a
toothbrush.

However, note that he has acknowledged that the "beating" must not be
such as to cause injury or severe pain. Now, the word "beat" in
English implies severe and repeated blows, generally causing injury.
One may punish a child, but if one beats the child, in the United
States, one may well be arrested and prosecuted. To use the term
"beat" after one has become aware that, by consensus, the Arabic verb
"adrib" does not mean, in the Qur'anic context, to "beat," is nothing
but deceptive polemic.

It is unfortunate that many translators of the Qur'an have used the
term "beat" as a translation of "adrib," and though they often append
the parenthesis, "(lightly)," it has the appearance of an attempt to
weasel out of the clear Qur'anic meaning.

The word is better translated as "strike" or perhaps "slap." Once
again, we have clear evidence that this is at the mild end of what
these terms indicate.

By the way, it is mentioned in the Qur'an that for the women is the
like of what is against them. I would understand that a woman has the
same right of "striking" as does her husband, in similar
circumstances.

Elsewhere I have written about the various meanings of "adrib" in
Arabic, which often parallel similar meanings of the term "strike" in
English.

When we say "strike up the band," the band members do not end up black
and blue!

As a parenthetical note, I have read quite a bit of case law on the
subject of the physical punishment of children in schools. I remember
a case where a young woman, who was practically an adult, was caned.
She sued the school. And she lost, the right of the schools to impose
discipline being, by common law, nearly unchallengeable unless it
results in actual injury. This is probably changing, but I don't know
of any recent cases. Politically, such punishment has become pretty
untenable.

Islamic law, according to some schools, is not necessarily a fixed and
rigid thing; rather, what is ma'ruf (often translated as good) is, as
the word implies "what is *known* as good," i.e., accepted custom, or
"'urf." What may be good and acceptable in one society may not be the
same in another, which is not to say that there are no universals.

Nevertheless, it is dangerous to intrude into the marriage relation. A
woman should not be kept a prisoner in a marriage, but neither should
a man be forced to accept misbehavior on the part of his wife. Or
vice-versa. We note that the Prophet, SAS, in the reported hadith,
appears to have had one opinion and Allah another. This is reason
enough to be very careful about the interpretation of that hadith.

I would lean to the opinion that the Prophet's view was the norm,
which is that women are not to be struck, but that there is an
exception, and the exception is what was revealed. *If* you fear
rebellion, then admonish them.... And the rebellion being feared is
not merely an incidental refusal to allow the sexual relation, but,
likely, something more serious, more likely to destroy the marriage,
or even worse, if it is not confronted.

AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
USA

[paul]

I think he is referring to :

A. In court witness "And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if there
are not two men, then a man and two women such as ye choose for witness."
Surah 2:282 B. In inheritance "To the male a portion equal to that of two
females". Surah 4:11

Islam is backward in many respects.

[ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com]

Dear Mr. Rice,

Regarding the symbolism aspect of women beating in Islam, it strikes me as
plain offensive. Symbolism of what? Men's superiority and authority over
women? It might not have been meant to inflict pain, but still the
psychological messages the "ritual" carries is disastrous and simply WRONG
and UNCIVILIZED. It basically is a proclamation that women are as hardened
and thick as mules so we, men, should teach them a lesson, though it doesn't
hurt it rings the bell in their dumb heads that they are only inferior
creatures who must submit to us.

Mr. Rice, as a woman I can't see the wisdom of the above ruling no matter
how rosy you want to polish and wrap it with flowery words.

Regards,
Ana Karenina

-----Original Message-----
From: Fariduddien Rice <dr...@see.text.for.email.address>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam,soc.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam
Date: 26 October 1998 17:30
Subject: Re: Women's libaration through Islam

>
>I think the most important comments are those which he made during the
>Farewell Pilgrimage, which was shortly before he died. The reason why
>these comments are the most important is because they are the final say
>on the matter. The important part is that the "striking" SHOULD NOT
>CAUSE PAIN. This is the part which this particular Christian missionary
>wants to hide. He prefers to quote the selective words of particular
>scholars, chosen in a way so as to hide this point. However, this
>point, that it must not cause pain, changes the whole thing, as it shows
>clearly that such a "striking" must be symbolic and not a punishment.
>
>> That the beatings are "symbolic" is obviously a last ditch effort to get
out
>> of what is so plain
>
>What is plain is that the "striking" must not cause pain. Do you deny
>these words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be with him) ?
>
>His words are the final say on the matter -- not yours, nor even any
>scholar which contradicts him. That it is prohibited to cause pain
>is stated very plainly, and it is still true even if you choose to
>delete it in your next post in order to continue misleading others.

>__________________________________________________________________________

>
> Fariduddien Rice Email : drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au (remove the spaces)
>
> http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

as-salamu 'alaykum.

Fariduddin has, for one, already responded to Paul, pointing out that
Paul has collected the most extreme positions found among Muslims
through history and has presented them as if they were the central
views of our faith.

One of the unfortunate accidents of translation of the Qur'an has been
the all-too-common rendering of "fadribuwhunna" as "so beat them." The
word involved, root drb, *can* mean "beat," but it has many other
meanings as well, and the most literal translation would not be
"beat," but, rather, "strike." To "beat" means to hit repeatedly, and
implies severity, whereas "strike" implies a single blow or action
and, when applied to persons, it also does not imply severity. "Slap"
might be an equivalent term in English, though it should be noted that
striking one's spouse on the face has been specifically forbidden.

I have written in the past that the word "strike," like "adrib" in
Arabic, carries quite a large range of meanings, and only some of them
involve a physical striking. The man had a striking appearance. Strike
up the band. Strike it rich. It struck me as strange. Strike out on
your own.

And even "strike!", meaning that the ball was *not* hit.

Of course, the various meanings of adrib in Arabic are not all the
same as strike in English. But strike is probably the best single
English word to use as a normal translation. "Beat," if one really
looks into the matter, is very misleading.

"paul" <ixthu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Muslim propagandists take advantage of the fact that Westerners do not r=
ead
>Arabic and therefore (out of ignorance) do not know the reality of Islam=

ic
>faith as recorded in the books of Muslim scholars. Therefore, Muslim

>missionaries roam across Europe and America, East and West, writing a th=

rong
>of books, declaring with a loud voice: "How great Islam is! It is the

>religion of social justice, equality, women=92s rights and dignity." Man=
y
>naive and superficial people believe these claims and are deceived by th=

is
>message, but this deceit should end. This veil should be removed.

First of all, I'm a Westerner. And I read Arabic, at least the Arabic
of the Qur'an and hadith, and encourage the reading of Arabic for
Muslims. If one can read Arabic, one will not be deceived either by
the missionaries like Paul, not that he is really worthy of the term,
nor by those Muslims who likewise will present a very dark picture of
Islam in accordance with their own desires.

If a man wants to beat his wife, it is easy for him to take the
position that this is justified by God, even though anyone who knows
Islam and the Sunna knows that it is forbidden; that only in extreme
situations can one even so much as strike one's wife; in no
circumstance can one beat her.

The same was done with the Christians. There were Christians aplenty
who justified the horrific chattel slavery of the American South with
scriptural references, who justified the murder of those of different
religions in the name of God, and the list can go on and on.

If we want to look at the worst of the people who claim to practice a
religion, we can pretty quickly become completely cynical.

>We have found in Muhammad=92s sayings (as well as of those of all Muslim
>scholars =96 intentionally or unintentionally =96 that both Islam and Mu=

hammad
>discriminate between human beings. It matters whether they are males or

>females, Muslims or non-Muslims. We even find discrimination between Mus=

lims
>because slavery (as we will see) is an Islamic principle.

Yes, there are differences between people. One who thinks that there
are not is living in a dream world. There are differences in physical
and intellectual capacity, there are differences in religious rights
and responsibilities, and so on.

And the doublespeak of these pseudo-missionaries is exposed when we
consider what slavery is and how it is still practiced today, and who
practices it. (If you want to see a real missionary, look at the late
Mother Theresa; and she did not go around insulting the beliefs of
others. If it weren't for the bad theology, I'd consider becoming
Catholic because of people like her.)

It is very popular in the United States for the same conservative
candidates who court the Religious Right to be "strong on crime." And
in some places this means not only putting more people in prison and
for longer terms, but also forcing them to work, for example, on road
crews. If this is not slavery, what is?

Yes, Islam did not outlaw slavery, though it is very clear that it
encouraged the freeing of slaves, not through violence but through
lawful means which recognise justice. The Prophet and his companions
did not kill the owner of Bilal; rather they purchased Bilal from the
man and freed him.

Now, societies everywhere have enforced penalties for crime and
rebellion. It's not in the Qur'an, but the penalty in classical Muslim
societies for serious crimes was often death or slavery (note that in
English law a "felony" meant any crime for which one could receive the
death penalty; only later was imprisonment substituted for death).=20

Prisons are expensive operations to run; most societies which were not
wealthy did not maintain prisons: they punished crime more directly
and quickly. Thus the hand of the thief is cut off, or the offender is
banished, or killed. Or enslaved, which is like prison with the owner
being the warden.

And the Qur'an explicitly provides for parole: that is, an owner was
obligated to make a way for the slave to earn his freedom. This
feature is often still absent in modern penal practice: in California,
I know a prisoner who was convicted of murder when he was young. He
was a Vietnam veteran, decorated and honorably discharged. He got a
job as a bouncer in a bar (He was not Muslim at the time!), was
attacked by a man with a knife, and he killed the man, as he had been
trained to do, with his bare hands. While we have seen some rather
well-publicised cases where members of favored classes have committed
murder -- even without any excuse of self-defense, or a flimsy one --
and have essentially received a slap on the wrist, this man was given
a sentence of 15 years to life. I think one might guess, correctly,
that he was African-American. He accepted Islam in prison; that's how
I met him. I was told by prison authorities that I could trust him,
that if he asked me to do something, I could be sure that it was
legitimate to do it. He had taken advantage of all the educational
programs in the prison and took a job in Prison Industries, as a
result of which he was able to send a few hundred dollars a month to
his wife. For many, many years, he had a clean record.

Yet there was no parole for him. One year, I wrote a letter of
recommendation for him. He went before the parole board, and they
said, "We see that you have done everything we have asked, and we'd
like to grant you parole, but there is one problem: we have no letters
of recommendation." It appears that all his letters had somehow been
misplaced from his file.

Now, I had recieved an acknowledgement for my letter. I subsequently
wrote again to the authorities and complained, and he later told me
that my complaint was now part of a lawsuit against the parole board;
but the basic problem was that the governor of California simply did
not want to see any prisoners released. There is a new governor now,
but the political climate is still very much "tough on crime."

And what does "tough on crime" mean? To take us back to our
discussion, it means to keep the criminals and alleged criminals in
slavery. And one finds, in general, that it is "Christians" who are
loudest in support of this. Not all of them are like this, of course,
but my point is that if one can judge Islam by the worst Muslims, it
would also be fair to judge Christianity by the worst Christians.

>Slavery in Islam has regulations and laws which differ from those for
>freemen, the masters. Actually, Muhammad, his wives, his successors,

>companions and his relatives owned slaves=97males and maids. We can list=
the
>names of Muhammad=92s slaves: men and women, whites and blacks, and we w=
ill
>show that Muhammad himself was a slave merchant especially after he clai=
med
>to be a prophet.

A slave merchant he was not. That he may have bought and sold slaves
was common in his time; but probably he did this *less* after his call
to prophethood. I don't know the details, but he left no slaves among
his property when he died; in fact, he left practically nothing. He
was a man who sent out the door everything that came in each day,
except for a very few personal possessions.

His freedman, a slave whom he had bought and freed, Zayd, is the only
one of his companions mentioned in the Qur'an.

>After reading these pages it should become very evident to all (includin=
g
>the most fanatical and tenacious Muslim) that Islam is a religion of soc=

ial
>injustice, inequality, and racial discrimination.

Ambitious, isn't he? But he is letting us know, by his extreme claims,
at the outset, that he is not to be trusted, for he shows no
moderation nor caution in speech.

Now, I will certainly grant that there are *Muslims* who practice
these evils. But it is not Islam.

>Before we start our discussion, it is relevant to quote one verse from t=

he
>Holy Gospel which emphasizes equality in Christianity,
>

>"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there =
is
>neither male nor female; for you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:2=
8).

In other words, "Our ideals are better than your reality." *Anyone*
can play that game. One finds a very similar saying in a well-known
tradition from the Prophet, SAS.

Paul was not saying that, for example, men and women were the same,
for he wrote elsewhere giving different advice for women than for men,
and he was not freeing the slaves, except metaphorically, rather he
was writing about the soul and that which transcends the accidents of
worldly life, that one is rich or poor, free or slave, a man or a
woman.

If this verse established "equality" in Christianity, why then did it
take almost two thousand years for Christians to notice it? And if it
took Christians two thousand years, then perhaps one might allow the
Muslims another six hundred for them to be on the same foot!

But the Apostle Paul did not mean that. He was, rather, pointing out
the common nature of people instead of their differences. And we all
stand in need of guidance.

>The Qur=92an Commands Men To Beat Women

>
>While the New Testament commands men to love their wives and even to
>sacrifice their own lives for their sake as Jesus gave His life for us

>(Ephesians 5), we see that the Qur=92an plainly and disgracefully comman=
ds men
>to beat their women as soon as they show any sign of disobedience to man=
=92s

>authority and orders. It states in Chapter 4:34:
>

>"As for these from women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them =

to
>beds apart and scourge them."

I have answered this above; the term "scourge" is unjustified; it
implies whipping such that the skin is severly broken; and, once
again, we know that to be forbidden.

It is odd that Paul would quote his namesake in Ephesians 5 on this
point:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of
the church..."

There is a similar saying in general intent from the Prophet,
something like "if it were lawful for one to worship anyone but God, I
would command the women to worship their husbands."

The similarities between what Paul says and what is in the Qur'an and
in the traditions of our Prophet is much stronger than the difference.
But the missionaries are a contentious people, and Paul is not
responsible for what they do.

> Without any exception, all the Qur=92anic expositors agree upon the mea=
ning
>of this verse because it is so obvious. In their famous commentary, page=
69,
>the Jalalan said:

It is somewhat unusual for all the commentators to agree on
*anything,* but I understand that all the commentators agree that the
"striking" of this verse is not a beating nor anything which can cause
injury.

Paul wants to use their unanimity when it *seems* to favor his point,
but he does not emphasize it when it negates what he was saying. And
he calls us intellectually dishonest!

>"Those of you who are afraid of their disobedience which symptoms become

>evident to you, threaten them with the fear of God and banish them to be=

ds
>apart and scourge them."
>

> The Zamakhshari reiterates the same opinion (al-Kash-Shaf Vol. 1, p. 52=

4).
>Both Imam Baydawi (p. 111), and Al-Tobari (p.92) repeat the same
>explanation.

The "explanation" is hardly an explanation, it is just a restatement,
adding little. But Paul imagines that this strengthens his case.

>If we also search Ahkamal-Qur=92an (the Ordinances of the Qur=92an)
>by the Imam Shafi=92i (Vol. 1, p.211), we read:
>
>"In case of a husband=92s ill-treatment [of his spouse], the Qur=92an pe=
rmits
>reconciliation of the spouses and arbitration, but in the case of the wi=
fe
>it allows scourging her."

He does not explain, knowing that someone who does not read carefully,
again, may think that this is scandalous.

The Imam is essentially noting that the community will come to the aid
in defense of the woman when the man abuses her, but a man has
recourse to his own means, provided they do not reach the level of
abuse. This is a comment (it's not a ruling) noting a way in which
women enjoy more protection than me, probably because it is assumed
that if the woman hits the man, he can take care of himself, but if he
hits her, she needs help.

Essentially, if he follows the verse and strikes his wife an extreme
situation, if she believes that she has been wrongfully struck, she
has the right to appeal to the community, and, I will note, the
community can order a divorce or otherwise punish the man, if she is
in the right. If he complains that she hit him, they will mostly laugh
at him!

There is a saying of the Prophet to the effect that a man came to him
and said, "Prophet of God, my wife will not say no to any man." I
don't know if this refers to sexual crime or to something less than
that....

He replied, "Then divorce her." The man said, "But I love her." The
prophet reportedly replied, "Then don't divorce her."

Yes, the rights and responsibilities of men and woman are different in
Islam. The Qur'an explicitly tells us that they have *similar* rights,
but not necessarily *equal* rights. And this is natural.

On the average, women are supported by men, and this is precisely what
is mentioned in the Qur'an as the reason for what differences exist.
With support comes authority: no support, no authority. A woman who
wants to be free in Islam is not forced to submit to any husband.
Islam established that she could own property (at a time when this was
not allowed in Europe, as it was not allowed until very recent times),
conduct a business, execute contracts, etc.

The oldest university in the world, I understand, is that at Fez, and
it was founded by a woman.

> At the inception of Islam, we come across a very famous incident which =
all
>the Muslim chroniclers record (refer to Imam al-Nawawi: Riyad al-Salihin=

,
>"The Orchards of Righteous Men", p. 107-108),
>

>"Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to Muhammad saying, =91Women have dared to dis=
obey
>husbands.=92 He allowed their husbands to scourge them. Many women appro=

ached
>Muhammad complaining against their husbands because Muhammad received a

>verse for the Qur=92an which commands their husbands to scourge them."

This is a classic case of quotation out of context, and particularly
outrageous. Quotation out of context is a favorite technique of
slanderers, because it can make it appear that one thing is true when
the very opposite is clear from the full text.

It's so extreme that it makes it completely unnecessary to go any
further. There is no need to answer further one who stoops to such
deception, once the deception has been exposed. I had much more that I
could have said, for there were mistranslations of the Qur'an and much
more, below.

Here is the full text. In my translation of the Riayd, it is hadith
281, in chapter 34, "On kindness towards women."

Just the title ought to give a clue!

281. Iyas ibn Abdullah relates that the Prophet admonished: Do not
strike the handmaidens of Allah [the term means "female servants," the
corresponding "male servant" is one of the titles of the Prophet as
well as the name of his father]. Some time later Umar came to him mand
said: Women have dared to disobey husbands. So he permitted their
chastisement. Thereafter a large number of women came to the wives of
the Prophet and complained against their husbands. The Prophet
announced: Many women have come to my wives complaining against their
husbands. These men are not well-behaved.

Now, this hadith is somewhat in contradiction to another hadith about
the occasion of revelation of the verse of darb. But perhaps there is
a ready resolution.

As to Paul, he should know that no good cause is advanced through
slander, unless it is good for him to be cast into hell by his own
hand.

>
> In the Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamakhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525), we =
read
>the following,
>
>"On the authority of Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him),=
he
>said: =91Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can =
see
>it.=92

>
> Also, on the authority of Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik:
>

>"I was the fourth wife (among four) of al-Zabayr Ibn al-Awwam. Whenever =
he
>became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was brok=

en."
>
> This hemistich was composed by al-Zabayr:
>
>"If it were not for her children, I would have hit her."
>

> The command to scourge women is repeated in Sahih al-Bukhari, "The Soun=
d
>Tradition of al-Bukhari" (Vol. 7, p. 100). Ponder for a moment over Muha=
mmad
>=92s order to the husband: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see=

it."
>This is intimidation and threat, as if a husband were telling his wife:

>"Beware of disobedience, for this is the scourge which is ready to fall =
upon
>you!"
>
>There is no security or love in Muhammad=92s words or in the deeds of

>al-Zobayer Ibn al-Awwam, who was a relative of Muhammad, one of his

>companions, and one of those models whom every Muslim imitates and vies =
with
>all over the world. He was one of the ten whom Muhammad assured of parad=
ise
>and one of the six whom Umar recommended for the Caliphate. This man use=
d to
>scourge his wife until the wooden hook was broken, as Asmaa (the daughte=
r of
>Abu Bakr El Sedik who was one of his four wives) tells us. Is there grea=

ter
>wife abuse than that?
>
>Contemporary Scholars
>

>All contemporary scholars attest to this fact which is obvious in the Qu=
r=92

>an. In the book, "You Ask and Islam Answers" (p. 94 for example),

>Abdul=96latif Mushtahiri says,

>
>"If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the

>woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur=92an bestows on man the ri=

ght to
>straighten her out by way of punishment and beating provided he does not

>break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous ty=

pe
>and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!"
>

> In his book, "The Individual Guarantee In the Islamic Law" (p. 63), Ahm=
ad
>Ahmad, a professor at the college of Law at the University of Qatar, den=
otes
>the following under the title of "Family Problems=92 Solution",
>
>"If a woman is afraid that her husband may turn away from her or detest =

her,
>she will hasten to bring understanding and reconciliation. But if the

>husband is afraid that his wife may rebel against him, he hastens to bri=

ng
>mutual understanding by means of exhortation, then by abandonment of the
>bed, then by the scourging which deters."
>

> Did you read it?=97"By the scourging which deters" This is if the sympt=
oms of
>disobedience became apparent exactly as the Jalalan, Baydawi, Zamakhshar=
i
>have said and as the Saudi scholars indicated in AI-Muslimun magazine in=

its
>issue of March 17, 1989 (page 12). I can also easily list dozens of

>references, both ancient and contemporary, which explain this verse (4:3=

4).
>Actually, it does not need any exposition because it is

>self-explanatory=97"and scourge them." It is evident that Christian coun=

tries
>regard wife abuse as a crime punishable by law because nature itself (as

>well as the simplest human principle) teaches us that it is not permissi=
ble
>for a man to beat an animal=97much less his wife!
>
>Yet according to the Islamic faith and by distinct orders issued by the =
Qur=92

>an and Muhammad, a man is allowed to scourge his wife with a peaceful

>conscience because he is carrying out God=92s command as recorded in the=
Qur=92
>an. "God the compassionate, the Merciful" and the Glorious Qur=92an=97an=

d
>Muhammad, the prophet of mercy and humanity who claimed that he honored
>women, yet said: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it."
>

>The Story of Job and his Wife in the Qur=92an
>
>In Chapter 38:44, the Qur=92an declares that God has commanded righteous=

Job
>to beat his wife. We read:
>

>"And (it was said unto him), =91Take in thine hand a branch and smite
>therewith and break not thine oath."=92

>
> All Muslim scholars agree on the exposition of this verse. Both Jalalan
>(page 383), and Baydawi (page 604) say:
>

>"When Job=92s wife was slow (to do something for him) one day, he swore =
to
>scourge her one hundred times. God told him, =91Do not break .... oath, =
but
>take a bundle of grass in your hand or rods to beat her up with."=92

>
> The Jalalaan say that Job took one hundred sticks and scourged her once.

>The Baydawi says that Job=92s wife=92s name is Liyya, daughter of Jacob =

or
>Rahmeh, daughter of Aphraim, son of Joseph.
>

>Who among us would believe this ridiculous story of the Qur=92an about J=

ob,
>the righteous man, who was famous for his patience? Who among us would

>believe that God encouraged him to beat his wife with a bundle of grass =

or
>sticks so that he would not break his oath?
>
>Forcing the Virgin to Marry
>
>Most people believe that this was merely a detestable habit practiced by

>some Arabs and Muslims who lived in some underdeveloped countries. Howev=

er,
>we must realize that this practice has its roots deep in Islamic law and

>that it is a principle applied by Muslim scholars. Yet, I myself have re=

ad
>this ordinance in the main sources of Islam acceptable to all Muslim
>commentators. Let us study together the ordinances and the statements of
>scholars of exposition and the Islamic law.
>
>Ibn Timiyya and Ibn Hazm, Famous Legists
>

>Muslims regard Ibn Timiyya as the Sheikh of Islam. He truly is. He is th=
e
>author of great many huge volumes on various subjects If we open Vol. 32=

,
>pp. 29 and 30, we read,
>
>"Even if the virgin is an adult, her father may force her to get married.

>This is in accordance with Malek Ibn Ons, al-Shafi and Ibn Hanbal=92s."

>
> On page 39, he also states:
>

>"The young virgin can be forced by her father to get married without bei=

ng
>consulted."
>
> This is the verdict of Ibn Timiyya who was joined by some great Legists

>such as the Shafii, Malek, Ibn Hanbal, and the professors of Islamic law=

at
>the inception of Islam in Mecca and Medina. Most Arabs and most Islamic

>countries embrace their teaching. Actually, if we study Malek Ibn Ons bo=

ok
>(Vol. 2, p. 155), we read,
>

>"A father can force his virgin daughter, his maid-slave and his male-sla=
ve
>to get married."
>
> What is Ibn Hazm=92s opinion concerning the daughter=92s marriage? How =
can we
>ignore the opinion of the chief Legists of Islam in this respect? It is =
well
>known that Ibn Hazm also composed huge volumes of books on various topic=

s on
>which all contemporary Muslim scholars rely because he is one of the

>greatest scholars of the Islamic law through the ages. In his sixth volu=

me,
>part 9 of his book al-Muhalla ("The Sweetened", pp. 458-460), he says,
>
>"A father may give his consent to have his young virgin daughter married

>without obtaining her permission, for she does not have a choice, exactl=
y as
>Abu Bakr El Sedick did to his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years ol=

d.
>He married her to the prophet Muhammad without her permission."
>
> Then Ibn Hazm adds:
>

>"Even if she was deflowered (previously married and divorced, or a widow=
) as
>long as she is young and has not reached the legal age, her father may f=

orce
>her to marry without obtaining her permission."
>

> As long as she is a virgin or just still young, she can be forced to ge=
t
>married without her consent. These are unequivocal, plain words. "Withou=
t
>her consent", and "does not have any choice." These are cruel, hard word=
s
>and iniquitous Islamic principles which the free human conscience utterl=
y
>rejects and detests because it is related to the most important subject =
in
>the girl=92s life, that is, her body and her future.
>
>If enrolling in a certain school or seeking employment for a particular =
job,
>even buying a house or a car, should be in accordance with person=92s ch=
oice,
>how much more should choice control the issue of a girl=92s marriage? We
>acknowledge that a girl should consult with her parents in this matter, =

and
>their duty is to offer their sound opinions to protect her interest and

>future, but we cannot understand or even imagine that a father may force=
her
>to get married to a man she does not know and has never met. This is Isl=
am!
>
>These are not just mere words. This is actually what happened to the pro=
phet
>of Islam because Abu Bakr, El Sedick who was Muhammad=92s friend, wed hi=
m to
>his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old, though the actual marri=
age
>took place when she was nine years old, according to all the Muslim scho=

lars
>and Chroniclers, without exception. Even Aisha related the story of her
>marriage, which we will review shortly.
>
>The difference in their ages was 45 years! Muhammad at that time was 54

>years old, the age of her grandfather, but what is significant for us no=
w is
>not the great difference in age, but rather Aisha=92s marriage without h=

er
>permission. Even she was taken by surprise when she found out about it.
>

>What about a son? In part nine, page 462, Ibn Hazm stresses that it is n=

ot
>permissible for the father to force his son to get married.
>

>The reader may be interested to read the text recorded in Sahih Muslim (=
Vol.
>3, p. 577) with the commentary of al-Nawawi, because this book is a basi=

c,
>indispensable book. Aisha said,
>

>"The messenger of God betrothed me when I was six years old and then mar=

ried
>me when I was nine years old."
>

> In another story, he married her when she was seven years old. This is =

a
>clear text which makes it permissible for a father to make his daughter

>marry without obtaining her permission. All Muslims consent to that, and=

she
>did not have the option of nullifying this marriage which her father

>planned. This is according to Malek, al-Shafi=92i and the rest of Hedjaz
>legists.
>
>This was from Sahih Muslim, and a similar text is reiterated several tim=

es
>in Sahih al-Bukhari, part 7.
>
>
>
>The Temporary Contractual Marriage
>

>What a disgraceful and degrading thing a temporary, contractual marriage=
is
>for a woman! This is something which Muhammad made lawful according to a=
ll
>the scholars and chroniclers without exception. What an insult to a woma=
n
>whom Muhammad stripped of her humanity and dignity in order to become a =
mere
>instrument for man=92s enjoyment! Can contemporary Muslim scholars who w=
ould
>die defending Islam answer this specific question and tell us why Muhamm=
ad
>allowed men to have sexual relationships with women merely for the sake =
of
>enjoyment? According to Muhammad=92s statement, it could be for some mon=

ey, or
>a dress, as Muhammad said to his followers, then he could desert her,
>leaving her without any rights. What is the difference between this and

>adultery and debauchery? Could Muhammad and the scholars solve this prob=

lem
>by calling it a temporary marriage or marriage of enjoyment?
>

>Muhammad made it lawful for his followers at first, then prohibited it! =

Then
>he made it legal again! Therefore, as soon as he died, the most famous

>Muslim scholars and relatives of Muhammad (such as Abdulla Ibn -Abbas an=
d
>Ibn Mas=92ud) made it lawful It was also in practice during the era of A=

bu
>Bakr and Umar, as is recorded in Sahih Muslim.
>

>At present, the Shi=92ite sects are accustomed to it and practice it in
>different parts of the world because the Shi=92ite leaders claim it. The=
re are
>more than one hundred million Shi=92ites worldwide. Ibn Abbas, who defen=
ds the
>legality of the temporary marriage of enjoyment and its continued practi=

ce,
>is well known among all the Muslim scholars. He occupied a very esteemed

>position with Muhammad and the caliphs who used to seek his legal opinio=
n
>and call him the interpreter of the Qur=92an.

>
>Sahih al-Bukbari
>
>In part 7, page 37, we read the following,
>

>"While we were in the army, Allah=92s Apostle came to us and said, =91Yo=
u have
>been allowed to have pleasure (Muta), so do it.=92 If a man and a woman =
agree
>to marry temporarily, their marriage should last for three nights, and i=

f
>they want to continue, they may do so."
>

> There is also a very famous story related to us by Ibn Mas=92ud and rec=

orded
>in all the Islamic sources. We will allude to some aspect of it as it as
>mentioned in al-Bukhari, part 7, pp. 8,9, (also in section 6 of the

>interpretation of Sura, Chapter, "The Table," p.66- Arabic edition). Ibn=
Mas
>=92ud said,
>
>"We used to participate in holy battles led by Allah=92s Apostle and we =
had no
>wives with us. At that time, he allowed us to marry women with a tempora=
ry
>contract and recited to us this verse, =91Oh you who believe, make not
>unlawful the good things which Allah (God) has made lawful for you"=92 (=
5:87).
>
> This famous story is recorded also in Zad al-Ma=92ad by Ibn Qayyimal-Ja=

wziyya
>(part 5, p. 111). In Sahih Muslim, exposition of Nawawi (Vol. 3 pp. 553,

>554), he indicated that Muhammad had allowed his followers to have sexua=

l
>intercourse with women for a dress !
>
>Sahih Muslim
>

>It was proven that contractual marriage was permissible at the beginning=
of
>Islam. It used to be practiced during a journey or a raid, or when it wa=
s
>"necessary" and there was a lack of women. In one of Ibn Abu=92Umar=92s

>episodes, it said that it was admissible at the inception of Islam,
>especially when "there was a need for it".
>
>Also, we read the following,
>

>"The contractual marriage was lawful before the campaign of Khaybar; the=
n it
>became unlawful in the day of the campaign. Then it was made lawful agai=
n in
>the day of Mecca=92s conquest. After three days, it was prohibited. The
>episodes concerning the lawfulness (of the contractual marriage) in the =
day
>of the conquest are not ambiguous and it is not permissible to forfeit i=

t.
>There is nothing that may inhibit the repetition of practicing the

>contractual marriage again, and God is the omniscient, and the scholars =

have
>agreed to regard the contractual marriage as a temporary legal marriage,

>which does not entail any inheritance. The separation occurs as soon as =

the
>date of the agreement expires, and it does not require any legal divorce.

>Ibn=92Abbas used to preach its lawfulness" (pp. 553,554 volume 3 Sahih
>Moslem).
>
>Actually Sahih of Muslim (in the same volume 3) records for us what Muha=
mmad
>=92s followers did when he allowed them to practice this. They used to m=
eet a
>woman who belonged to one of the tribes (children of Amir) and attempt t=
o
>seduce her by offering her either a dress or some dates or flour (p. 556=
).
>They spent three days with the harlot. Also sahih of Muslim describes fo=
r us
>in detail some moral scandals of which Muhammad approved. It also recoun=

ts
>that Muhammad himself used to bring the women to his followers or send a

>heralder to proclaim that it is permissible to sign contractual marriage=

s
>(p.555 Vol. 3).
>
>Ismail Ibn Kathir
>

>In his famous book, "The Prophetic Biography", he tells us the following=
in
>part 3:
>
>"The prohibition of the contractual marriage took place in the day of th=

e
>Khaybar campaign. Yet it had been established in Sahih of Muslim that

>Muhammad allowed them again to (sign) a contractual marriage in the Day =
of
>Mecca=92s conquest. Then he prohibited it. The Shafi=92i said: =91I do n=

ot know
>any other thing which was made lawful, then prohibited, then made lawful

>again, then unlawful except the contractual marriage, which was prohibit=
ed
>in the year in which Mecca was conquered, then after that it became lawf=
ul"=92

>(pp. 365,366).
>
> Ibn Hisham recorded the same text in part 4, p.55.
>
>Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
>

>In part 3, pp. 459, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya repeated this same statement =
of
>al-Shafi=92i. He also said on p.345:
>
>"After the death of Muhammad, Ibn=92Abbas made it lawful when there was =

a need
>for it. He used to say that the apostle prohibited it when it was
>dispensable, but it was made lawful when it became a necessity."
>
> He also says on p.46 1:
>

>"Ibn Mas=92ud said: =91I made it lawful when it became indispensable for=
a man."
>=92
>
>Imam al-Baydawi
>
>He agrees with all the above in his famous book, "The Interpretation of =

the
>Baydawi". He says,
>

>"The purpose of the contractual marriage is the mere pleasure of interco=

urse
>with a woman, and her own enjoyment in what she has given" (p. 108).
>

> I believe that all those scholars were very lucid in their statements a=
nd
>it is sufficient for us. They are Ibn=92Abbas, Ibn Mas=92ud, Sahih al Bu=

khari,
>sahih Muslim, Ibn Hisham Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and al-Imam
>al-Baydawi. Those scholars are recognized by all. Muslims and all
>contemporary scholars agree absolutely.
>
>The Contemporary Scholars
>

>1. The Saudi scholars: In the context of their interpretation of the Sah=

ih
>al Bukhari (Vol. 7, p.36), they indicate:
>

>"Nikah-al-Muta (marriage of pleasure) means temporary marriage for a lim=

ited
>period of time. This type of marriage was allowed in the early days of
>Islam."
>
>2. In his book, "Nur al-Yaqin" ("The Light of Certainty"), the Sheikh
>al-Khudary says,
>
>"The contractual marriage, which was a marriage for a definite time, had
>been practiced since the inception of Islam" (p. 207).
>
>3. The scholar Musa al-Musawi
>

>In his famous book, "The Shi=92ites and the Reformation", he lucidly tel=

ls us:
>
>"All the legists believe that Muhammad made this matter lawful at the
>inception of Islam" (p. 108).
>

> 4. The current Sheikh of Islam, Muhammad Mutawalli al-sha-rawi, indicat=

es
>in his book, "al-Fatawi" ("The Legal Opinions"),
>
>"The Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, leading other scholars, mentioned that
>contractual marriages were made lawful by the prophet and they were not
>abolished nor rescinded, but many scholars said that this matter was

>abolished later and that Muhammad, after making it lawful for a particul=

ar
>time during Islamic history, prohibited it" (p. 26).
>

> We say to Dr. Musawi and to Sheikh al-Sha=92rawi: Your statement that a=
ll the
>legists believe that Muhammad made it lawful at the inception of Islam i=
s
>sufficient for us. This statement and this acknowledgment are what we wa=
nt
>the reader to know. It is evident, however, that the scholars who said t=
hat
>this practice was not abolished or prohibited were among the most esteem=
ed
>scholars such as Ibn=92Abbas, Ibn Mas=92ud, and the Imam Fakhr al-Razi. =
In his
>book, "The History of Islamic Law", Dr. Ahmad Shalabi states that Ibn=92=

Abbas
>said that it is possible to allow contractual marriages when they are

>necessary (p. 190). Ibn Kathir also emphasizes in his book, "al-Bidaya W=
a
>al-Nihaya" ("The Beginning and the End"), Vol. 8, p.300, that Ibn=92Abba=

s was
>of the opinion that contractual marriage should be made lawful. In his
>Sahih, al-Bukhari records this dialogue,
>

>"I heard Ibn Abbas when he was asked about Muta (pleasure) with women, a=
nd
>he permitted this kind of marriage. Only a slave of his said to him, =91=
That
>is only when it is badly needed and women are scarce.=92 At that Ibn Abb=
as
>said, =91Yes"=92 (Vol. 7, p. 37).
>
>Who is Ibn Abbas?
>
> All the scholars acknowledge that he is of the opinion that the contrac=
tual
>marriage should be made lawful when it is needed, and he believes that i=
ts
>ordinance is still applicable and has not been abolished. If we open Vol=
. 8
>of Ibn Kathir=92s book, "al-Bidaya We al-Nihaya" (pp. 295-307), we come =
across
>ample references pertaining to Ibn=92 Abbas=92 highly esteemed status am=
ong
>Muhammad=92s relatives and companions in regard to his knowledge and tho=

ught.
>We would like to allude briefly to some of what is said about him.
>
>Ibn Kathir says:
>

>"Ibn =92Abbas is the most knowledgeable person among the people as to wh=

at God
>has revealed to Muhammad. Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to say that the

>interpreter of the Qur=92an is Ibn=92Abbas. He was accustomed to telling=
him:
>=91You have acquired a knowledge which we never received. You are the mo=
st
>expert in the book of God"=92 (pp. 299, 300).
>
> Ibn=92Abbas was the official legist of the Islamic law during the era o=
f =92
>Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and =92Uthman Ibn =92Affan. When he died, Muhammad=92=
s friend
>said,
>
>"This nation has been afflicted with an incurable tragedy because Ibn=92=

Abbas
>was the most knowledgeable among the people. We always needed him from
>sunrise to sunset."
>

> These references to Ibn=92Abbas, Muhammad=92s cousin, are sufficient to
>convince the most skeptical of the importance of Ibn=92Abbas=92 status. =
It is
>well known that the argument of Ibn=92 Abbas was strong and it was concl=

usive
>to the continuation of the practice of temporary contractual marriage

>because Muhammad made it lawful then unlawful, then he made it lawful ag=

ain
>when it was necessary.
>

>Yet, even if we assume that Ibn=92Abbas (who was the most knowledgeable =
among
>people of what God had revealed to Muhammad) was mistaken, as well as Ib=
n
>Mas=92ud al-Razi and many other scholars, and that Abu Bakr was also wro=
ng
>since he allowed people to practice this matter during his reign; even i=

f we
>assume that Muhammad made it unlawful permanently after he made it
>permissible, and that all those people were wrong, we still have this
>pressing, unanswerable question: Why did Muhammad make this disgraceful

>matter lawful in the first place; i.e., adultery and immorality? Why, ev=

en
>for a short period of time, would he legalize prostitution and call it
>contractual marriage? Why did Muhammad tell his followers, "Make an

>agreement with any woman to make love to her for three days, then give h=

er
>compensation, such as a robe." His companions did so. Later, Muhammad
>prohibited it, then made it lawful again according to the need!
>

>We would like to refer to Dr. Musa al Musawi=92s statement in his book, =
"The

>Shi=92ites and The Reformation", in which he says:
>
>"This contractual marriage contains a license for licentiousness and

>degradation of woman=92s dignity, the thing which we do not find even am=

ong
>permissive societies in ancient and modern history" (p. 109).
>
> Then he adds (p. III), concerning the characteristics of this marriage:
>

>"This marriage is carried out without a witness. The period of this marr=
iage
>could be a quarter of an hour, or a day, or any period of time. In it, i=
t is
>permissible for a man to have collectively an unaccountable number of wo=
men
>at the same time. The woman may not inherit her husband=92s possessions,=
and a
>man does not give alimony to the spouse. Divorce is also carried out wit=
hout
>a witness. This marriage is nothing but a license to practice sex provid=

ed
>that the woman is not married to another man."
>

> Dr. Musa has a Ph.D. in Islamic law from the University of Tehran He ta=
ught
>Islamic philosophy and was elected as President of the Supreme Counsel o=
f
>West America. Of course, Dr. Musawi=92s criticism of the contractual mar=
riage
>is appropriate. He indicates that this type of marriage has been abolish=
ed,
>yet he acknowledges (p.108 of his book) that all the scholars and legist=
s
>without exception say that Muhammad made it lawful for his companions fr=
om
>the very beginning.
>
>My friend, we had to discuss the issue of contractual marriage, or "lega=

l
>prostitution" (as some would like to call it) in detail, but this
>prolongation is significant because this is an important matter for our
>practical life. It is also related to the dignity of women and reveals

>Muhammad=92s view of women as being nothing more than tools for pleasure.
>
>
>
>Fire In Hell=97Most Of Its Inhabitants Are Women

>
>Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, expresses clearly that most of those who

>enter hell are women, not men. None of the scholars deny these statement=

s.
>We will quote only contemporary Azhar scholars of Egypt.
>

>In the "Liwa al-Islami" magazine which was issued on August 13, 1987, un=

der
>the title, "Women In Tradition", we read the following:
>

>"The apostle of God said: =91Oh assembly of women, give charity, even fr=
om
>your jewelry, for you (comprise) the majority of the inhabitants of hell=
in
>the day of resurrection=92" (p. 21).
>
> Of course, the Azhar scholars are the people most acquainted with Muham=
mad=92

>s sayings.
>
>Ancient Scholars
>
>These scholars are quoted from Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. 7, p.96),
>

>"Muhammad said: =91I saw Paradise and I stretched my hand to pluck a bun=
ch of
>grapes, then I saw Hell (fire), and I have never before seen such a horr=
ible
>sight as that the majority of its dwellers were women.=92 The people ask=
ed, =91O
>Allah=92s apostle, what is the reason for that?=92 He replied, =91Becaus=
e of their
>ungratefulness.=92 It was said, =91Do they disbelieve in Allah (God)?=92=
He
>replied, =91They are not thankful to their husbands and they are ungrate=

ful
>for the favors done to them. Even if you do some good to one of them all

>your life when she sees some harshness from you she will say, "I have ne=
ver
>seen any good from you."=92"

>
> The same text is repeated in Vol. 1, p.83. In Vol. 7 of the same book
>(p.94), Muhammad says,
>
>"I stood at the gate of the fire and saw that the majority of those who
>entered it were women."
>
> In the Mishkat al-Masabih (p. 14), we encounter the following exciting
>episode about Muhammad who, when met by some women, had the following
>conversation (Mishkat al Masabih p. 14),
>

>"Allah=92s messenger went out to the place of worship and he passed by t=
he
>women and said to them, =91O women, give charity, for I have been shown =
that
>the majority of the inmates of Hell are amongst you.=92 They said: =91Al=
lah=92s
>Apostle, wherefore?=92 He said, =91It is because of the fact that you cu=
rse one
>another very much and show ungratefulness to your husbands."=92
>
> It seems that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, utters meaningless statem=
ents
>because who can say that only women curse each other? Do not men behave =
the
>same way in their quarrels? Do not men kill each other in bitter wars? W=
ho
>said that only women, if they suffer from their husband=92s abuses, forg=
et all
>the good characteristics of their spouses? Do not men cheat on their wiv=
es,
>abandon them and divorce them for the most insignificant reasons or for =

no
>reason at all? Do not Muslim men marry two, three, even four wives at a

>time, causing deep psychological pain and material loss for their wives?=
It
>is nonsense to say that the majority of the people in the fires of hell =
are
>women because they curse each other and they do not acknowledge the meri=

ts
>of their of husbands!
>

>It is nonsense to make these accusations or to label women in general. E=
ven
>if Muhammad had painful experiences with his various wives so that he al=

most
>divorced them (as we will see), he still should not have issued verdicts
>against all women.
>

>How miserable women are in Muhammad=92s view! He orders men to scourge t=
hem,
>forces young girls to marry against their will, and exploits single wome=
n as
>tools of pleasure. He also declares that the majority of people in hell =
are
>women!
>
>
>
>"Women Are Short Of Faith And Intelligence"=97 Muhammad Said
>
>The Egyptian contemporary scholar Sheikh al-Sha=92rawi stresses the fact=

that
>Muhammad uttered this statement. This is recorded in Vol. 4, p.21 of his

>famous book, "You Ask And Islam Answers". Al-Sha=92rawi, who is regarded=
as
>the Sheik of Islam, relies on the former recognized scholars. We encount=
er
>the following dialogue in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. l, p. 83) and in=
the
>Mishkat al-Masabih (p.15) which took place between Muhammad and some wom=
en:
>
>"Muhammad said: =91I have seen that you, in spite of being deficient in =
mind
>and religion, rob even a wise man of his senses.=92 They said: =91Allah=92=
s
>messenger, where lies our deficiency of reason and faith?=92 He said: =91=
Is not
>the evidence (testimony) of a woman equal to half the evidence of a man?=
=92
>They said: =91Yes.=92 He said: =91This is because of the deficiency of y=
our minds
>(mental status). Is it not a fact that when you enter the period of mens=
es,
>you neither observe prayer nor observe fast?=92 They said, =91Yes.=92 Th=
en he
>said: =91This is the deficiency in your faith."=92
>
> "Women are short of faith and intelligence!" A strange statement uttere=
d by
>Muhammad which is an obvious insult to the women who asked him! Why, Why=
,
>Muhammad? He responds with the above-mentioned, weird reasons. If God do=

es
>not command women to fast or to pray during their menstrual period, why

>should He regard this matter as a lack of faith and religion? Is it beca=
use
>they obey God=92s orders? Or is prayer a mere physical exercise of stand=

ing up
>and prostrating? Or is it a matter of lifting the heart up to God at any
>time?
>

>What about the woman=92s testimony in court? According to Islamic law, t=
he
>testimony of a woman is equal to one half of a man=92s testimony. This i=
s one
>of the incomprehensible, unjustifiable Qur=92anic laws which is regarded=
as
>another insult to women. If Muhammad attempted to justify this on the ba=
sis
>of women=92s lack of faith and intelligence, it would be an excuse which=
is
>worse than an offense. Thus, when Muhammad tried to justify his attitude=
, he
>really rendered women another insult especially by claiming that a woman=

is
>equal to half a man.
>
>
>

>A Female Inherits Only Half Of A Male=92s Portion
>
>A female inherits only half of a male=92s portion and her testimony is
>regarded as half a man=92s testimony. Though the general public is not a=
ware
>of this fact, the Qur=92anic text is very blunt concerning this matter, =

and is
>also acknowledged by all the Muslim scholars without exception.
>

>First, concerning an inheritance, The Qur=92an clearly indicates:
>
>"Allah chargeth you concerning your children=97to the male a portion

>equivalent to that of two females" (Chapter 4: 11).
>

> This is in regard to a man=92s offspring, whether they are males or fem=

ales.
>The same concept is applied to the brothers and sisters of a deceased

>person. The Qur=92an says:
>
>"If there be brethren - men and women - unto the male, the equivalent of=

the
>portion of two females" (Surah 4: 176).
>

> This matter is a well-known fact and practiced all over the Islamic wor=

ld.
>
>Al-Bukhari, al-Jalalan and al-Baydawi
>

>The Bukhari alluded to it (part 6, p.55), as well as the Jal-alan in the=

ir
>famous commentary (p.65). We read:
>
>"A male may have the portion of two females if they are related to each

>other. He takes half of the inheritance and the two females take the oth=

er
>half. If the male has one sister only, she takes one-third of it and he
>takes two-thirds" (p.65).
>
> On page 66, the Jalalan says:
>

>"If he leaves his parents an inheritance, his mother takes one-third and=

the
>father two-thirds."
>
> Al-Baydawi (page 104) and the rest of the scholars follow the same

>interpretation which is based on the indisputable Qur=92anic verse.
>
>The Contemporary Scholars
>
>1) In his book, "Islam in the Face of Modern Challenges", Abu al-a=92la
>al-Mawdudi states conclusively:
>
>"There is no room in Islam for the idea that a woman=92s portion of an
>inheritance be equivalent to the man=92s portion. The prohibitory reason=

is
>one of decisive Islamic laws" (p.264).
>

>The Sheikh al-Sha=92rawi
>
>He also acknowledges this fact in part II of his book, "You Ask and Isla=
m
>Answers":
>
>"The portion for a woman from an inheritance is half of the man=92s port=
ion
>because a woman is not responsible for her livelihood but rather the man=

is
>the responsible one (p 39, part 2).
>
>French Philosopher, Roge Jaroudi
>
>Even the French philosopher, Roge Jaroudi, who was converted to Islam

>reiterates in the magazine, "The League of the Islamic World" (the issue=
of
>February/March, 1984), the same logic of al-Sha=92rawi. Jaroudi says:
>
>"Concerning the inheritance, it is true that the female inherits half of=

the
>portion her brother inherits, but in view of that, the responsibility of

>taking care of her falls on her brother=92s shoulder" (p.39).
>
> Dr. Ahmad Shalabi repeated the same meaning in his book, "The History o=

f
>Islamic Legislation" (p. 137).
>

>The statement of al-Sha=92rawi and the French philosopher that a woman s=
hould
>inherit half of the portion because man is the one who bears responsibil=
ity
>for her livelihood is a meaningless and unacceptable justification becau=
se
>it is very possible that a woman may be much more in need of the money t=
han
>her brother. Why should she receive only half of what her brother inheri=
ts
>>from his parents? Is it not possible that the sister may be married to =
a
>poor man and have many children, while her brother may be a rich busines=

sman
>or single without responsibilities?
>

>Even if the sister is still single, why should her brother receive doubl=
e
>her portion from the inheritance and have control over her expenditures?=
He
>may spend the money on his own pleasures while his sister could be wiser=
and
>more prudent than her brother, who may be younger than she. These situat=

ions
>happen daily in Arab and Islamic countries. Any man takes twice what his

>sister receives. The only reason for it is the inequality between female=
s
>and males. Why does this happen? Al-Mawdudi tells us it is because this =
is
>one of the decisive Islamic laws based on an indisputable Qur=92anic ver=

se in
>the Chapter of Women. This is the inequality of unfair Islamic law.
>

>Secondly, what about a woman=92s testimony before the court and in busin=

ess
>contracts? In the Chapter of the Cow (282), we read:
>

>"From among your men, two witnesses, and if two men be not at hand then =
a
>man and two women of such as you approve as witnesses, so that if the on=
e
>erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember (and we read abou=

t
>what Muhammad said about the testimony of a woman)."
>
>The Ancient Scholars
>

>Scholars have agreed upon the interpretation of this verse which is reco=
rded
>in the chapter of the Cow concerning the testimony of women because it i=
s
>very conspicuous and unquestionable. We would like to refer briefly here=
to
>the statements of al-Baydawi and the Jalalan. The Jalalan says (on page =
41):
>
>"There must be two adult free Muslim witnesses. If they are not availabl=
e
>then (let it be) a man and two women. (The reason for having) numerous w=
omen
>is that if one of them forgot something because of lack of intelligence,=

the
>other one would remind her."
>

> These are the same words of Muhammad and the Qur=92an.

>
> On page 64, the Baydawi says:
>

>"The two men must be two free Muslims, or one man and two women. (The re=
ason
>for having) numerous women is because of their lack of intelligence and =

to
>obtain accurate information."
>
> But the statement of the Jalalan and Bawdawi that the witness should be
>"two free Muslims" is because Islam does not accept the testimony of
>non-Muslims or slaves, as we will see later.
>

>Nobody denies this about Islam, including all the Azhar scholars as well=

as
>the Saudi and Pakistani scholars. Among them, the Grand Imam Dr. Mahmud
>Shaltut emphasizes this point in his book, "Islam: A Dogma And A Law"
>(p.237).
>

>In its February/March, 1985 issue (p.17), the magazine, "The League of t=

he
>Islamic World", records for us an incident which took place in Pakistan
>during the enactment of some of the Islamic laws. The magazine says:
>

>"Three groups of women demonstrated against the new law which gives wome=
n
>only half of the men=92s rights when they sign business contracts. These
>groups which are located in Lahore in Pakistan, say that this law, deriv=

ed
>>from Islamic Law, intends to insult women and debase their dignity."
>
>It is obvious that any intelligent, thinking man who enjoys a sensitive
>conscience would object to this unfair Islamic law, just as these female

>groups objected. How could a woman=92s testimony be regarded as half of =
a man=92
>s testimony in court and when signing business contracts? The same magaz=
ine
>also published on the same page, the response of Dr. Aly Farrukha, Direc=

tor
>of Islamic Studies in Chicago, in which he says:
>

>"The issue of a woman=92s testimony in court is a divine order which
>necessitates that a woman who is a witness should be accompanied by anot=
her
>woman in order to remind her if she forgets (some details) and to correc=
t
>her if she makes an error. This verdict does not intend to insult women =

but
>rather to help them."
>

> This is the conclusion of Dr. Farruka, who senses that this law really =
does
>insult women, but tries to defend Muhammad, the Qur=92an and Islamic law.

>However, the insult is inevitable and there is no way to avoid it. The

>statement of Dr. Aly that there is a need for two women in opposition to=
one
>man in the case of testimony in order to help the women not to forget or=
to
>be corrected if she makes an error, is a polite statement, though it doe=
s
>not negate that in Islam, women are treated as second class and cannot b=

e
>trusted to be accurate when witnessing in court.
>

>Actually Muhammad was more pointed than Dr. Aly Farrukha. He expressed h=
is
>opinion without any vagueness. He says that the reason that a woman=92s
>testimony is regarded as equal to one half of a man=92s testimony is not=

to
>help her but because she is short of intelligence!
>
>
>

>Men Belong To A Higher Level Than Women=97They Are Better Than Women
>
> While the Bible assures us in I Corinthians 11:11 that man is not less =
than
>woman and woman is not less than man, the Qur=92an declares to us in Cha=

pter
>2:22 that men are a degree above women. It also says in Chapter 4:34:
>

>"Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them excel=
the
>other."
>
> Of course, we do not believe that the God of "equality among people" sa=
ys
>that men surpass women. If the reader wonders what these Qur=92anic vers=

es
>mean and why Islam says that men are a degree above women and they are
>better than them, we would like to refer him to the answer of the Muslim
>scholars.
>
>The Ancient Scholars
>
>On page 79, the Jalalan says:
>

>"Men have been given authority over women to discipline and control them=
by
>the merits of knowledge, intelligence and custody, etc., which God besto=

wed
>on some over others."
>
> In his commentary, page 111, the Baydawi says:
>
>"God preferred man over woman, and the reason for the bestowing of this

>verse (4:34) is a well-known episode which says that a man from the help=
ers
>beat his wife, whose name was Habiba, the daughter of Zayd. Her father t=
ook
>her to the apostle of God (to complain). Muhammad said: "Let us punish h=
im."
>But God sent down this verse 4:34. The woman returned home without havin=
g
>her husband punished. Muhammad said: =91I intended to do something (that=
is,
>to punish the man), but God willed otherwise, and what God wills is bett=
er.=92
>"
>
> This famous incident was the reason God sent down this verse which pref=
ers
>men to women and prohibits the retribution of men if they abuse their wi=
ves.
>This episode is mentioned also in the commentary of the Jalalan (page 69=
) as
>well as in the suyuti=92s book, "Reasons for Sending the Verses From God=
"

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

as-salamu 'alaykum.

ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>Dear Mr. Rice,
>
>Regarding the symbolism aspect of women beating in Islam, it strikes me as
>plain offensive. Symbolism of what? Men's superiority and authority over
>women? It might not have been meant to inflict pain, but still the
>psychological messages the "ritual" carries is disastrous and simply WRONG
>and UNCIVILIZED. It basically is a proclamation that women are as hardened
>and thick as mules so we, men, should teach them a lesson, though it doesn't
>hurt it rings the bell in their dumb heads that they are only inferior
>creatures who must submit to us.

One of the ironies of Qur'anic interpretation as it is commonly
practiced is that every Arab will tell you that the male includes the
female; when the masculine pronoun is used, it may refer to a group
which includes women.

However, when verses of the Qur'an refer to men in their relationship
with their mates, the commentators do not generally note that,
essentially, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Essentially, the "striking" of the relevant verse in the Qur'an is,
whatever its literal realization, a last-ditch warning of a situation
that will otherwise be a divorce. Even, "I will divorce you if you
continue in this way!" might fulfil the command of the verse.

Does Ms. karenina think that a husband should simply divorce his wife
without making attempts to warn her that her course of behavior is
disastrous? Does she think that in every situation between a man and a
woman, if there is a conflict, the man is wrong?

(Hmmm. Maybe she has a point. If a man is alone in the forest, and
there is no woman there, is he still wrong? :-)

In any case, the sunna for men and women is not greatly different, but
it is a little different. But this verse can be applied by both men
and women, except that it is more difficult, for *natural* reasons,
for women to apply and use it. The masculine includes the feminine. So
if a woman fears wrongdoing on the part of her husband, she may
admonish him -- this part is easy for many women --, leave him alone
in his bed, or strike him.

For she has rights similar to those of the man, but there is a natural
imbalance if one of them is supporting the other.

But a woman has, in addition, resort to arbitration from the
community, which can order the man to treat his wife with due respect
and care, or it can order him to divorce her, which is tantamount to
granting a divorce, for if he does not divorce her, she may be
considered divorced even without his consent.

When they are divorced, her responsibilities toward him cease.

On the other side, a man may divorce his wife without recourse to the
community. But his responsibilities to her are not thereby removed. He
still owes her the mahr and he may owe her maintenance for a time.
And, as frequently happens, if he wants to return to her, he may need
to renegotiate the marriage and establish a new mahr (the dowery which
becomes the separate property of the woman).

The woman can say "I divorce you" as much as she likes without
suffering any consequences. Even if they have a contract that she has
the right of divorce, which is fairly common in our place and time,
she still exercises that right through a considered process, unlike
the case with the man, she cannot in a fit of anger divorce her
husband; she is protected from that.

And if a man abuses his wife, he is clearly in the wrong, and only a
corrupt Muslim community would allow it. I was once with a prison
community and I said something that led my wife to start crying. One
of the brothers, a large man with a soft voice -- but he was there for
killing a man with his bare hands, many years before (I have mentioned
this man many times in my writing in soc.religion.islam) -- put his
arm around me and said, quietly and calmly, "You made my sister cry. I
do not like to see my sister cry. Don't let me see this again." He did
not know nor did he care to know what I had said. This is how a real
Muslim community functions. It is, unfortunately, not too common
outside of prison these days. But when one reads the reports of the
Prophet, SAS, and his companions, RA, that is, in fact, how they cared
for each other, so

*this is the religion,* and what is less than that is mere corruption
and social decay.

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

as-salamu 'alaykum.

"sol_ar" <sol...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

>Besides the beating, which is covered in the legal books as a possible cause
>of accidental killing, why is the blood-money for a woman half of that for a

>man? Is her life half the value of his?

No, but her earning capacity might be.

First of all, it should be understood clearly that we are talking
about accidental killing, where the person who killed did not intend
to do so.

Secondly, it is offensive to translate the term used in the Qur'an and
the books of fiqh as "beating." The word is a word which implies a
single blow, with some implication that the blow is light, not a
repeated series of intense blows as is implied by "beating."

A "slap" is darb. A "beating" looks more like an intention to
seriously harm, and this we might no longer be talking about an
"accidental" killing. But if someone dies from a slap -- and it can
happen -- most of us would consider it an accident.

It would be very difficult to prosecute someone for murder in the
United States if the victimm died from a single slap. But if the
victim were covered with bruises, i.e., had been beated, a murder
prosecution would be likely.

Where the killing is accidental, it is recommended that the family
accept diya, compensation.

Consider the matter in Western common law. If one kills someone
through negligence, but without intention, criminal prosecution is
rare unless the negligence is extreme. But civil prosecution is
common, resulting in a payment to the estate of the deceased. How much
is this payment?

It may consist of three parts: actual financial damages, damages for
emotional stress and loss of consortium and the like, and punitive
damages. Setting aside the punitive damage part (for diya is not about
punishment), and damages for emotional stress, which are a fairly
modern concept, the actual financial damages will typically be based
on the earning capacity of the deceased. In a society where men earn
substantially more than women, and especially where men support women,
one expects to see the average damage award to be higher for the loss
of a man than for the loss of a woman. That is still the reality in
the United States, for sure.

Islamic law is basically similar, just stated a little more simply. It
should be remember that the context for the order of diya was a tribal
situation where blood feuds were common. To establish some kind of
fixed compensation was crucial, lest there be disagreement about
whether or not compensation was adequate. The compensation was not
different for a rich man or a poor man, a man of position and honor
and a man of no means. This is where Islamic law on this point differs
>from western common law, or, more accurately, the concern of Islamic
law in the matter of qisas (retaliation) and diya is not so much a
remedying of damages but the preservation of the public good by the
avoidance of blood feuds.

The old principle in English common law was "let the damage lie where
it is." If someone died in an accident, it was not presumed, as it is
now, that someone is at fault. However, Islamic law does provide for
diya even when the killing was truly an honest mistake without any
forseeable negligence. But the rules for honest mistake, culpable
mistake (where, for example, one intended to injure another but not to
kill them, like the slap I mentioned above), and intentional killing.

With intentional killing, retaliation is the right of the family, and
it is also the right wherever it is possible to reproduce the original
injury without exceeding it. Thus the famous phrase "an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth," since one can reproduce injuries like the
loss of any eye or a tooth. But the general recommendation is to
accept diya, in an amount acceptable to the family.

If the injury was a killing, retaliation means that the offender is
killed. To emphasize the point, retaliation is not allowed if the
killing was not intentional. To put this in modern terms, felony
murder is not a capital offense. And the killing must not be done
without the permission of the khalif or ruler and is done under public
authority, or, more accurately, it is an offense to exact retaliation
without public authority.

Indemnity for men from an intentional killing was set by the Shafi'i
scholars at 100 camels of a certain quality, and they stated an
equivalent in gold, 5,646.6 grams, which is worth today about $59,600
at $300 per ounce. This seems to me to be relatively small compared to
the loss of income involved for a breadwinner. This diya is due
immediately and it is due from the offender himself.

Where the killing was a mistake but was connected with a deliberate
injury (the killer intended to harm but not to kill, and the death was
not foreseeable), the diya is the same as for intentional injury, but
payment may be deferred to three years, and it is to be paid by the
family of the killer, by any member of that family with the means. If
it is not paid within three years, it is paid from public funds.

And if the killing was an honest mistake, it is as with a culpable
mistake, but the diya is reduced by reducing the necessary quality of
the 100 camels, the Shafi'i equivalent in gold being 4,235.0 grams or
about $45,000 as calculated above.

Certain factors are applied to reduce the indemnity. Remember that
this is the minimum Islamic law; local jurisdictions may establish
other rules according to the public interest, at least according to
the schools which recognise this right and responsibility of the
rulers.

Indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is half that paid for a
man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity
paid for a Muslim. The indemnity for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of
that of a Muslim. I would guess that there is no indemnity for a
polytheist.

Where a miscarriage results from an injury to a pregnant woman, the
indemnity is one-tenth of that payable for killing the mother. (As an
aside, the indemnity for this was stated as "a slave" worth this
amount, i.e. roughly $2500.)

Once again, it seems clear to me that this system was set up to
provide for a clear and simple system substituting for retaliation.
But for deliberate injury, retaliation *against the offender only*
remained permissible. The effect of all this was to confine injury so
that it did not spread through feuding. Had there been a system such
as we now have, with compensation paid according to the "worth" of the
individual, there would have been endless arguments about how much the
victim was worth, and it would not have worked.

There are other details which I have not mentioned; for example, the
indemnity for the loss of a body part was the full indemnity if one
only has one of these body parts, and it was divided according to the
number of body parts if it is one where there is more than one of them
in a healthy body. So the loss of a finger produced a one-tenth
indemnity.

Now, it is an offense against the entire public for a person to
deliberately injure another. For this reason I suspect that *in
addition* to the diya, there would be public action against an
offender, what we now call a criminal action. The diya was a way of
establishing some level of private justice sufficient to reduce the
level of feuding, but it did not necessarily substitute for the right
of the ruler to establish and maintain order through discretionary
law.

Now, do these values apply today? I would suggest that we can
understand these values as the sunna of the early Muslims, which is
valuable to us as a guide, and we can accept these amounts as
defaults, rebuttable presumptions, as it were. But we may also allow
recovery of actual damages where these damages exceed the minimums of
diya.

But to make such a decision would really require one thoroughly
knowledgeable in the shari'a proofs behind the rules I have stated, to
know how best to apply the sunna in our day.

What is offensive about the critics of Islam on the basis of diya is
that the system of diya was clearly designed to protect a society
which was quite different from today's society, a society in which the
strongest social entity was the tribe. If diya had been set higher,
poor tribes might not have been able to pay it; but poor tribes could
still fight in the desert!

Yes, the diya for a woman is half that for a man. But if a woman is
murdered, the family of the woman has the right to kill -- or have
killed -- the murderer, even if he is man. So the life of a woman is
not worth half the life of a man; it is equivalent (since it is
forbidden to retaliate with an injury which is more than the original
injury). The "half" only applies to a voluntary amount accepted by the
family in lieu of retaliation, at their choice, and, again, the
concern there is public welfare, not primarily some "value" to the
person's life.

[paul]

Women's liberation through Islam is a contradiction in terms.

Quote

[ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com]

Dear Mr. Lomax,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My answer is below:

AbdulraHman Lomax wrote in message <71tb0m$oca$1...@bolero.rahul.net>...
>as-salamu 'alaykum.
>
>ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>

>Does Ms. karenina think that a husband should simply divorce his wife
>without making attempts to warn her that her course of behavior is
>disastrous? Does she think that in every situation between a man and a
>woman, if there is a conflict, the man is wrong?

I didn't imply anything of the sort. Warning attempts are not equal to
symbolic beating. The same can be asked to you: do you think that in every

situation between a man and a woman, if there is a conflict, the man is

always right? What happens when the man is wrong, can the woman
symbolically beat him? According to your statement above the use of male
gender to mean both sexes, the answer should be yes.

>
>(Hmmm. Maybe she has a point. If a man is alone in the forest, and
>there is no woman there, is he still wrong? :-)

And your point is....?

>
>In any case, the sunna for men and women is not greatly different, but
>it is a little different. But this verse can be applied by both men
>and women, except that it is more difficult, for *natural* reasons,
>for women to apply and use it. The masculine includes the feminine. So
>if a woman fears wrongdoing on the part of her husband, she may
>admonish him -- this part is easy for many women --, leave him alone
>in his bed, or strike him.
>
>For she has rights similar to those of the man, but there is a natural
>imbalance if one of them is supporting the other.
>
>But a woman has, in addition, resort to arbitration from the
>community, which can order the man to treat his wife with due respect
>and care, or it can order him to divorce her, which is tantamount to
>granting a divorce, for if he does not divorce her, she may be
>considered divorced even without his consent.

I have never heard of this, though I have heard in Egypt a Muslim
intellectual was deemed divorced from his wife by the Muslim community for
writing what considered to be blasphemous accounts on Islam. I think this
kind of practice can backlash as the example above. I see Ummah not less
than a cult.

>
>When they are divorced, her responsibilities toward him cease.
>
>On the other side, a man may divorce his wife without recourse to the
>community. But his responsibilities to her are not thereby removed. He
>still owes her the mahr and he may owe her maintenance for a time.
>And, as frequently happens, if he wants to return to her, he may need
>to renegotiate the marriage and establish a new mahr (the dowery which
>becomes the separate property of the woman).
>
>The woman can say "I divorce you" as much as she likes without
>suffering any consequences. Even if they have a contract that she has
>the right of divorce, which is fairly common in our place and time,
>she still exercises that right through a considered process, unlike
>the case with the man, she cannot in a fit of anger divorce her
>husband; she is protected from that.

It is interesting that you see Islamic divorce in this "overly positive"
light :-). Many including myself see it as a mere product of an extremely
patriarchal society that sees women as half-human.

>
>And if a man abuses his wife, he is clearly in the wrong, and only a
>corrupt Muslim community would allow it. I was once with a prison
>community and I said something that led my wife to start crying. One
>of the brothers, a large man with a soft voice -- but he was there for
>killing a man with his bare hands, many years before (I have mentioned
>this man many times in my writing in soc.religion.islam) -- put his
>arm around me and said, quietly and calmly, "You made my sister cry. I
>do not like to see my sister cry. Don't let me see this again." He did
>not know nor did he care to know what I had said. This is how a real
>Muslim community functions. It is, unfortunately, not too common
>outside of prison these days. But when one reads the reports of the
>Prophet, SAS, and his companions, RA, that is, in fact, how they cared
>for each other, so
>
>*this is the religion,* and what is less than that is mere corruption
>and social decay.

Then it is the time for a new revelation, since apparently Islam has been
much corrupted from its true teaching and very few are aware of it
(especially in the way you perceive/interpret Islam). Am I correct?

Regards,
Ana Karenina

[Dr. Christoph Heger]

Greetings to all,

At various occasions Mr. AbdulraHman Lomax <mar...@vom.com> questioned my
scholarship in Arabic linguistics with rather impertinent words. Therefore I
wonder why he himself is so incautious to present assertions which easily are to
be recognized as wrong.

In his contribution <71uklo$6bn$1...@bolero.rahul.net> of 6 Nov 1998 Mr. Lomax
replied to what "sol_ar" <sol...@my-dejanews.com> had written:

>>Besides the beating, which is covered in the legal books as a possible cause
>>of accidental killing, why is the blood-money for a woman half of that for a
>>man? Is her life half the value of his?

Now Mr. Lomax:

>Secondly, it is offensive to translate the term used in the Qur'an and
>the books of fiqh as "beating." The word is a word which implies a
>single blow, with some implication that the blow is light, not a
>repeated series of intense blows as is implied by "beating."
>
>A "slap" is darb. A "beating" looks more like an intention to

>seriously harm,...

Whom do you hope to deceive besides yourself, Mr. Lomax?

In article <71r4in$ook$1...@bolero.rahul.net> of 4 Nov 1998 in the thread "Re:
Allah exists without a place" Mr. Lomax had written:

>my Arabic is that of a beginner, though my Qur'anic
>Arabic is better than what one might expect from that, since I have
>focused entirely on the Qur'an and not on colloquial or even other
>aspects of classical Arabic.

In this way the matter gets circular: The commentator/interpretor hasn't to
follow the rules of a language, but he derives the rules of that language from
the sense commentators/interpretators like to force upon the Qur'anic text. The
Qur'an itself, on the contrary, maintains that it is "in clear Arabic"
("bilisaanin Arabiyyin mubin") and not in any fancyful "Qur'anic Arabic".

But now, concerning "Daraba", "to beat" things get even worse. Now Mr. Lomax'
Arabic is an even more special one, an "Arabic for the purpose of apologetics".

The Arabic word "Daraba" (infinitive "Darb"), of course, does have the meaning
of "to beat". Mr. Lomax' other assertions also are wrong:

Firstly, "Daraba" is used in the sense of a single blow as well as in the sense
of "to beat repeatedly". The latter sense of repeated beating is especially
clear in phrases like "to swim in the water", "to mix one thing with another",
"to play a musical instrument" etc., which all involve the use of "Daraba" in
Arabic.

Secondly, "Daraba" by no means usually implies that the blow is light (the
famous "beating with a tooth-brush" of Islamic apologetics). On the contrary,
"Daraba" is used in phrases like "to coin a mint", and "Daraba `unuqahu" even
has the meaning of "he beheaded him", "he had him beheaded".

To sum up: The word "Daraba", "to beat" in the famous ayah, advicing the Muslim
husband how to deal with his "rebellious" wives (and a fortiori: slave girls),
by no means excludes any harmful beating. In reality it can amount to raping or
"accidental" killing. The familiar attitude of Muslim apolegetics -- "beating
only like with a tooth-brush" -- is nothing than a blatant lie.

Kind regards,
Christoph Heger

[Fariduddien Rice]

Assalamu alaikum,

On the topic of accidental killing, and the consequences of it
in Shari`ah (i.e. the paying of compensation).....

On 6 Nov 1998, AbdulraHman Lomax wrote (on the view of the Shafi'i
madhhab specifically):

> Certain factors are applied to reduce the indemnity. Remember that
> this is the minimum Islamic law; local jurisdictions may establish
> other rules according to the public interest, at least according to
> the schools which recognise this right and responsibility of the
> rulers.
>
> Indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is half that paid for a
> man.
>
> The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity
> paid for a Muslim. The indemnity for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of
> that of a Muslim. I would guess that there is no indemnity for a
> polytheist.

I have read, though, that in the Hanafi madhhab the view is different,
and that there is no difference in the indemnity paid irrespective of
the religion of the one who was killed.

I read this in the article, "My love and my choice," edited by Syed
Mumtaz Ali. This article is all about the Hanafi madhhab --
insha-Allah, I will post the complete article in a separate post (since
permission has been given to redistribute the article for non-profit
purposes).

However, here is a short excerpt from the article which deals with the
case of the indemnity paid from the Hanafi madhhab....

The biggest question in this connection is that of murder and
retribution for it. In Abu Hanifah's opinion, the blood of dhimmis is
equal in sanctity to that of Muslims. He holds that if a Muslim
murders a dhimmi, he must be put to death in return, and if it is a
case of killing in error, then the same blood money must be paid as is
payable by a dhimmi for killing a Muslim in error.

Remember that, in the Hanafi madhhab, polytheists may also be dhimmis,
so in that case there is also no difference in the indemnity that must
be paid between Muslims and non-Muslims in the state.

There is also a lot more on this topic in the article; please read the
entire article for the rest (which insha-Allah, I will post as a
separate post).

(The article does not address the issue of compensation of the
accidental killing of a woman vs. a man, however, so I do not know the
Hanafi position on this topic.)

Wassalamu alaikum,

__________________________________________________________________________

Fariduddien Rice Email : drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au (remove the spaces)

Learn how Tasawwuf is an important Islamic discipline

http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
__________________________________________________________________________

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

as-salamu 'alaykum.

ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>Dear Mr. Lomax,
>
>Thank you for your thoughtful response. My answer is below:

A kind word takes away wrath. At least for a moment....

>AbdulraHman Lomax wrote in message <71tb0m$oca$1...@bolero.rahul.net>...

>>Does Ms. karenina think that a husband should simply divorce his wife

>>without making attempts to warn her that her course of behavior is
>>disastrous? Does she think that in every situation between a man and a
>>woman, if there is a conflict, the man is wrong?
>
>I didn't imply anything of the sort. Warning attempts are not equal to
>symbolic beating.

First of all, Ms. Karenina still does not get that "adrib" does not
mean "beat." Fatima Mernessi makes this point very well. So a symbolic
"striking" would be what if it was not a warning?

>The same can be asked to you: do you think that in every
>situation between a man and a woman, if there is a conflict, the man is
>always right?

I answer more directly than did Ms. Karenina. No. In fact, he might
even be usually wrong. That's been my experience anyway!

>What happens when the man is wrong, can the woman
>symbolically beat him? According to your statement above the use of male
>gender to mean both sexes, the answer should be yes.

Excellent logic producing a true conclusion.

>>(Hmmm. Maybe she has a point. If a man is alone in the forest, and
>>there is no woman there, is he still wrong? :-)
>
>And your point is....?

Perhaps it is a question rather than a point. The question is whether
or not the readers have a sense of humor.

And it also an allusion to my own experience: when I get angry with my
wife, I'm usually wrong. But that doesn't mean that she is right. It
just means that I am wrong, I'm suffering from the normal narrowness
of vision that afflicts men. I won't say whether or not it afflicts
women; if it does, it seems to do it differently than with men.

>>In any case, the sunna for men and women is not greatly different, but
>>it is a little different. But this verse can be applied by both men
>>and women, except that it is more difficult, for *natural* reasons,
>>for women to apply and use it. The masculine includes the feminine. So
>>if a woman fears wrongdoing on the part of her husband, she may
>>admonish him -- this part is easy for many women --, leave him alone
>>in his bed, or strike him.
>>
>>For she has rights similar to those of the man, but there is a natural
>>imbalance if one of them is supporting the other.
>>
>>But a woman has, in addition, resort to arbitration from the
>>community, which can order the man to treat his wife with due respect
>>and care, or it can order him to divorce her, which is tantamount to
>>granting a divorce, for if he does not divorce her, she may be
>>considered divorced even without his consent.
>
>I have never heard of this, though I have heard in Egypt a Muslim
>intellectual was deemed divorced from his wife by the Muslim community for
>writing what considered to be blasphemous accounts on Islam. I think this
>kind of practice can backlash as the example above. I see Ummah not less
>than a cult.

The right of the community to declare a divorce without the consent of
the husband can be abused. If the wife asked for that divorce, it was
not an abuse; if she did not, my opinion is that the practice is an
egregious abuse interfering in the sanctity of marriage. I understand
the technical basis, but it is still a regrettable thing.

Yes, that is an example, though an extreme one. The more simple
example would be where the man abuses the woman and she complains and
asks for a divorce. If he will not grant it, a judge, on reviewing the
case and finding abuse, will. In my own opinion -- it may not always
be done this way by actual judges -- if a woman persists in asking for
a divorce, it should be granted, but the judge, if there has been no
abuse, may require the woman to give up her dowery.

>It is interesting that you see Islamic divorce in this "overly positive"
>light :-). Many including myself see it as a mere product of an extremely
>patriarchal society that sees women as half-human.

Is it surprising that actual practice reflects the actual conditions
of a society? I have described what I see as the prescriptions of the
shari'a. If people do not follow those prescriptions, yes, I might be
"overly positive," as she says, but it might also be that they are not
following the full implications of the shari'a, only half of it.

>>*this is the religion,* and what is less than that is mere corruption
>>and social decay.
>
>Then it is the time for a new revelation, since apparently Islam has been
>much corrupted from its true teaching and very few are aware of it
>(especially in the way you perceive/interpret Islam). Am I correct?

No. The revelation we have is quite sufficient, if people would read
and reflect upon it. But each one prefers to go his own way.

Ignorance of the Qur'an and the authentic tradition is rampant among
Muslims, and, all too often, those who stridently call for a return to
the way of the early Muslims are themselves not aware of how these
Muslims behaved. They only know and retain a few aspects, pieces, of
the accounts of these people, pieces that confirm what they believe.
If they believe that women are half-human, they will remember what
seems to confirm that, even if, known in context, it does not do that.

If one wants to get a good idea of what a feminist Islam might look
like, read Fatima Mernessi or Amina Wudud-Muhsin. I'm not endorsing
all they say, but it is about time that competent and knowledgeable
women spoke up and said the obvious.

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

as-salamu 'alaykum.

"paul" <ixthu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Women's liberation through Islam is a contradiction in terms.

Only if God is a powerless illusion, a'udhu billah min dhalika l-zann.

>"The Temporary Contractual Marriage
>
>What a disgraceful and degrading thing a temporary, contractual marriage is
>for a woman!

I am not going to enter the dispute, which still exists, between the
Shi'a and the Sunnis as to the continued lawfulness of mut'a marriage,
known as temporary marriage.

Some of the Sunnis condemn mut'a as being equivalent to prostitution,
forgetting that it was a thing allowed by the Prophet at one time even
if it was subsequently prohibited.

The real fact, obscured by this debate, and certainly not made plain
by corrupt criticism like that of Paul, is that the difference between
mut'a marriage and regular marriage is quite small. Essentially, if
one marries a woman with the intention of divorcing her, but does not
tell her this, it is a reprehensible act but not a criminal matter. On
the other hand, if the intention is made plain in the contract, a
contract agreed upon by both parties, the marriage is a nullity
according to the majority of the Sunnis and is lawful according to the
Shi'a. Such a marriage, a marriage with a fixed term, no matter how
long the term, is called a "temporary marriage."

Now, the case which we know where the Prophet allowed a temporary
marriage was one in which the man knew that he was going to leave the
region after a time, and the woman did not want, presumably, to leave
with him.

Other than the term, a temporary marriage is the same as any other
marriage: there must be a dowery accepted by the guardian of the woman
(or by her if she acts as her own guardian) and upon divorce she must
wait a certain period before she can marry another.

This does not resemble prostitution. Rather, it is marriage, though
not as desireable as a union which will remain.

If this is degrading, how much more degrading is the situation where
the reality is that nearly every couple formed in the United States
consummates the relationship prior to declaring the marriage?

The Prophet did not implement the shari'a all at once. It is clear,
for example, that the early companions drank wine, and the Prophet did
not forbid this. Because he did not forbid it, one could derive that
it was lawful. But it was subsequently forbidden. And this is the
Sunni position on temporary marriage.

Because the Shi'a have certain differences on various aspects of
marriage, for them temporary marriage has a certain utility. I am told
that the Shi'a scholars consider it the obligation of a woman, if she
is married, to have intercourse with her husband, but they do not
consider that any such obligation exists in temporary marriage. So it
appears that a legitimate use of temporary marriage, for them, is to
allow a couple to get to know each other, to be alone with each other.
If they decide to marry permanently, they can. If not, they can
separate when the term completes. Or before, if they like.

If the temporary marriage ends without being consummated, half the
dowery is due; or it can be forgiven in either direction; if it is
consummated, the full dowery is due. I don't know exactly how the
Shi'a rule on these points, but this is what I would expect.

Basically, the situation in Islam is that divorce is lawful. The only
difference between the Shi'a and Sunnis on this point being whether or
not it is lawful to agree in advance on a divorce, and the various
effects of that.

Again, compare this with a completely unregulated situation as exists
in the United States, where men and women are alone together,
routinely, in a romantic context, and where the obligations of the two
parties are completely unclear, where confusion is rampant, where
natural inclinations and desires and aspirations are all mixed
together in an environment which encourages the couple not to directly
confront the issue of their relationship, but rather to allow
themselves to be seduced from stage to stage until they are
emotionally committed to each other, or, more likely and more
commonly, one is emotionally committed and the other is along for the
ride.

Originally, Christianity did not allow divorce. But the paradox is
that divorce is now the likely ending of the average marriage in the
United States, whereas divorce appears to be much less common in
societies holding to Islamic ways.

What would the situation be like if peope were punished if they
engaged in sexual relations without being married in some way? Or,
since punishment is only a means, not the goal, if people actually
considered formalizing their relationship in some way *before* falling
into bed together? "Temporary marriage" would be a tremendous
improvement over the deranged mess that is American courtship and
marriage.

But full marriage is better, and I think even the Shi'a would agree.
Temporary marriage is a concession to certain situations; I only
mentioned one of them; it is not held up as an ideal.

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

as-salamu 'alaykum.

Christo...@t-online.de (Dr. Christoph Heger) wrote:

>At various occasions Mr. AbdulraHman Lomax <mar...@vom.com> questioned my
>scholarship in Arabic linguistics with rather impertinent words.

"Impertinent" is a term which is used by the elevated to describe bad
manners on the part of those inferior to them. The attitude in this is
one which we have come to expect from Dr. Heger.

>Therefore I
>wonder why he himself is so incautious to present assertions which easily are to
>be recognized as wrong.

Perhaps because I might like to learn something?

>In his contribution <71uklo$6bn$1...@bolero.rahul.net> of 6 Nov 1998 Mr. Lomax
>replied to what "sol_ar" <sol...@my-dejanews.com> had written:

[...]

>>A "slap" is darb. A "beating" looks more like an intention to
>>seriously harm,...
>
>Whom do you hope to deceive besides yourself, Mr. Lomax?

I will turn for a moment to Dr. Heger and ask him "When did you decide
to consider yourself above all other human beings?"

I'll stand with what I wrote. It is obvious from the Arabic and from
the English meaning of 'beating', which is suspect I know at least as
well as Dr. Heger. To slap someone is to "strike" someone. And
Darabahaa would mean "he struck her." A slap would certainly fit this.
But so too would his shouting at her, though the meaning becomes
somewhat metaphorical. But Arabic is full of metaphorical usages which
become standard usages.

Mernessi, by the way, makes this very point. And she's an Arab.

>In article <71r4in$ook$1...@bolero.rahul.net> of 4 Nov 1998 in the thread "Re:
>Allah exists without a place" Mr. Lomax had written:
>
>>my Arabic is that of a beginner, though my Qur'anic
>>Arabic is better than what one might expect from that, since I have
>>focused entirely on the Qur'an and not on colloquial or even other
>>aspects of classical Arabic.

Yes, I wrote that. In this, he speaks the truth.

>In this way the matter gets circular: The commentator/interpretor hasn't to
>follow the rules of a language, but he derives the rules of that language from
>the sense commentators/interpretators like to force upon the Qur'anic text. The
>Qur'an itself, on the contrary, maintains that it is "in clear Arabic"
>("bilisaanin Arabiyyin mubin") and not in any fancyful "Qur'anic Arabic".

Ah, the nonsense that a perverted mind can inflict upon itself. He has
no idea what I have been talking about, since his approach has been
entirely different.

Qur'anic Arabic is nothing other than the language of the Qur'an. It
is a synonym, almost, for the Qurayshi dialect of the Prophet.
Classical Arabic continued its development and is not precisely the
same as the Arabic of the Qur'an. It is certainly written differently,
witness the writing of alif. But there are also shifts in meaning.
When I say that I learned Qur'anic Arabic, it means that I know the
contexts of words as they occur in the Qur'an. That words may occur in
other contexts in classical Arabic literature, showing a wider range
of meaning, is someting of which I frequently remain unaware unless I
read the dictionaries. Since I don't read much besides the Qur'an.
That is starting to change.

Anyway, if Dr. Heger has any criticism of substance, I wish he would
get on with it. For me, the hour is late.

>But now, concerning "Daraba", "to beat" things get even worse. Now Mr. Lomax'
>Arabic is an even more special one, an "Arabic for the purpose of apologetics".

Dr. Heger is almost right. My Arabic is for the purpose of
understanding the Qur'an. That is not exactly apologetics, but is
close to it.

>The Arabic word "Daraba" (infinitive "Darb"), of course, does have the meaning
>of "to beat". Mr. Lomax' other assertions also are wrong:

Dr. Heger, if he is going to be honest, should explain also what
"beat" means. He is right, however, that "beat" is among the
*possible* meanings of the word, but he does not disclose that in each
of the cases in Lane, the word "strike" would still suffice to carry
the same meaning. And in none of the Qur'anic usages is there any
explicit usage of a form of DRB which would imply repeated physical
striking, i.e., beating.

Now, the article on daraba, just the first form verb, is more than two
full pages of fine print in Lane. But the common thread in nearly all
the meanings is some kind of striking. Yes, sometimes it might be
translated, and is translated by some, as "beating." It is clear that
there is some force in the striking, it is not a mere contact,
"touch." Sometimes the blow is fatal: daraba a'naaqahum, strike their
necks, i.e., cut off their heads. But one would not translate this as
"beat their necks"!

To get closer to our subject, daraba kalbahu 'ala S-Saydi is given by
Lane as "he beat, or disciplined, or trained, his dog, for the purpose
of the chase." Anyone who knows animals knows that one might possibly
strike them to good effect, but if one beats them, they are ruined.
Anyway, this usage apparently can mean discipline that does not
necessarily involve striking at all, since Lane gives "trained" as one
option.

Looking over the article, I see *many* usages where a translation as
"strike" full conveys the meaning, and many of these make no sense if
one translates the word as "beat." I submit that "strike!" is a clear
and simple translation of "aDrib." "Beat" is not *impossible* but it
is misleading, confining the meaning to a repeated series of injurious
blows.

>Firstly, "Daraba" is used in the sense of a single blow as well as in the sense
>of "to beat repeatedly". The latter sense of repeated beating is especially
>clear in phrases like "to swim in the water", "to mix one thing with another",
>"to play a musical instrument" etc., which all involve the use of "Daraba" in
>Arabic.

As I said, there are usages. Now, suppose that "adrib" applied to
one's wife means "play her as a musical instrument." Does "beat"
convey that? Only with a drum!

(And, yes, daraba is what he did with the drum. We think the drum was
not injured.) The playing of a drum, because it almost inherently
involves a series of blows rather than a single stroke, is one place
where "beat" is truly a good translation of daraba, and where "strike"
does not work as well.

but Daraba l-^uwd, which may be the example Heger is thinking of,
would never be translated as "he beat the oud" (Oud is I would guess
the same word as our lute.) Rather, one plucks or strums the oud or
strikes a note on it.

But a scorpion strikes. Darabati l^aqrab.

So one cannot say that linguistically darb is without injury. My point
is only that it does not *require* injury; then we turn to the sunna
for guidance as to what it *does* mean.

>Secondly, "Daraba" by no means usually implies that the blow is light (the
>famous "beating with a tooth-brush" of Islamic apologetics). On the contrary,
>"Daraba" is used in phrases like "to coin a mint", and "Daraba `unuqahu" even
>has the meaning of "he beheaded him", "he had him beheaded".

Yes, he is correct. But he means "mint a coin."

In English, a coin is "struck" from a die. I tell you, "he struck"
fits very many of the meanings of daraba.

>To sum up: The word "Daraba", "to beat" in the famous ayah, advicing the Muslim
>husband how to deal with his "rebellious" wives (and a fortiori: slave girls),
>by no means excludes any harmful beating. In reality it can amount to raping or
>"accidental" killing. The familiar attitude of Muslim apolegetics -- "beating
>only like with a tooth-brush" -- is nothing than a blatant lie.

And this assertion, "rape or 'accidental' killing" is where Heger
tosses in his real poison without any evidence whatsoever.

He is correct, however, that the verse does not, by itself, *exclude*
some harmful form of striking. The Qur'an has many verses which, taken
in isolation by someone who does not understand the sunna, a wrong
action will seem to be suggested. That's why we read the *whole* book
and why we also look to the example of our Prophet, who clearly
forbade the injury of women.

The reconciliation of that with this verse is a more complex subject,
but it does establish a limit: it is forbidden to interpret this verse
such that it seems to command an injury.

What would Mr. Heger have a husband do when faced with a wife who has
temporarily lost her mind? Should he allow her to do things which she
will later regret? Should he divorce her? Or should he shock her into
realizing the gravity of the situation?

It appears that the predilication of the Prophet was toward gentleness
toward women; but it also appears that extremity in this, as in many
things, was wrong in some situations. It is reported that this verse
was revealed to counter a situation which arose when the Prophet
forbade his followers to strike their wives. This verse restored
balance. And Heger has neglected to note that it has never been
questioned but that a woman has a right to strike her husband if he
wanders astray.

Anyway, these discussions continue to amaze me. I do not think of
myself as one who knows much Arabic. I would guess that Mr. Heger
knows a great deal more formal Arabic grammar than I do. But
nevertheless, I have been told by those who *do* know Arabic well that
I am generally correct in dealing with Mr. Heger. Perhaps they just
want to encourage me.

Even so, I'd rather be encouraged in a matter where I continue to
learn that be discouraged by one whose intention is contempt and
ridicule.

So while Mr. Heger may know more grammar, of the meaning of the Qur'an
he knows nothing. Or worse.

He is like a man who condemns a mirror because of the face he sees in
it.

[Zubair Ahmed]

Dr. Christoph Heger wrote in message <722sfq$irh$1...@bolero.rahul.net>...
>Greetings to all,

>
>To sum up: The word "Daraba", "to beat" in the famous ayah, advicing the
Muslim
>husband how to deal with his "rebellious" wives (and a fortiori: slave
girls),
>by no means excludes any harmful beating. In reality it can amount to
raping or
>"accidental" killing. The familiar attitude of Muslim apolegetics --
"beating
>only like with a tooth-brush" -- is nothing than a blatant lie.

Dr. Heger, given that you are a *Doctor*, presumably a PhD of some
description, I would have assumed that you would have learnt by now that
reading things within context is part and parcel of any critical analysis of
a passage. So please try to be sincere to the learning you should have
acquired over the ages.

First of all, let us stick with the "rebellious wives" category, and not try
to slip in the controversial allegations concerning the term: "slave girls",
which is not referred to in this verse anyway, nor infact in any other verse
of the Qur'an (please refer to this in another thread if you wish to debate
the point at a later stage). Moreover, the verse concerns such a rebellious
wife who threatens to disclose private secrets intimate between spouses, to
the outside world.

Secondly, the verse in question (4:35) instructs the husband to stay away
>from the beds of such a wife; rather than rape them!! One should not try to
put pre-conceived biases, originating perhaps from brainwashing propaganda
by anti-Islamics, into Qur'anic understanding. The verse is so abundantly
clear that forced sex is not an option open to husbands. Besides, rape is a
form of adultery, i.e. adultery by force. Their is no adultery within
marriage, and consequently, forced sex within marriage is not categorised as
"rape" anyway. So one should be careful not to employ inflammatory
terminology.

Thirdly, the husband is advised to adopt a stage-wise method of trying to
quell the rebellion. First, he is instructed to advise/admonish/warn her by
means of whatever logical arguments he can muster, of the (long and
short-term) consequences of her rebellion (to herself, her children, her
family etc etc). If she still insists on carrying out her threatened
exposure (of herself or her husband or family as a whole), then he must show
his disapproval by severing the normal 'spousal' relations with her, rather
than force her to sex, or kick her out of the house etc. This would also
serve as a cooling off period between husband and wife, because it makes
sense to assume that at least one night would be spent away from her bed. As
a last resort, if she still insists that she will carry out her threatened
exposure, he is permitted, only then, to make a show of his physical
strength over and above her, by striking her so as to try to knock her to
her senses, rather than knock her out of her senses.

Throughout this time-period, he is meant to show restraint, and infact, he
is meant to show such restraint even afterwards, if she thereafter repents
of her silly intentions (4:35). If there is still no reconciliation possible
between them, then a final attempt is to be made to reconcile them by means
of using family members, rather than outsiders to the family (4:36).

Compare this with the fact that incidents of domestic violence (and child
abuse and incest etc) are rampant within western societies. Infact, I just
saw a trailer for a documentary on domestic violence to be shown on British
TV in the next few days. Which verse of the Bible do they use to justify
such actions? If none, then why accuse the Qur'an, which teaches wise
restraint, of an incorrect teaching? The object is reform as a last resort
in a crisis situation, by means of a light punishment only as much as
necessary, when all other methods fail to reform. The cases of domestic
violence are committed by those people who beat up their wives because of
their own inner frustrations in a life empty of Divine influence; such lives
exist in non-Muslim societies as well as some Muslim societies, much the
same way as alcohol is also consumed in some Muslim societies as well as all
non-Muslim societies.

Now, I would like to grant the "learned" Doctor the benefit of the doubt
when he states that:

> reality it can amount to raping or "accidental" killing.

by saying that this is an "accidental distortion" of the Qur'anic teaching
by the Doctor. But perhaps he has a point when he states that:

> The familiar attitude of Muslim apolegetics -- "beating only like with a
> tooth-brush" -- is nothing than a blatant lie.

Dr Heger seems to have exaggerated in calling it a lie, but it also sounds
like an exaggeration by apologetics who seems not to have understood the
wisdom of the verse. Muhammad s.a.w. did indeed state that such a beating
should not leave any mark on the body; the toothbrush may well fulfill this
requirement, but precious little any other! It would make a mockery of the
wise, step by step, crisis management procedure given in the verse. And
Muhammad s.a.w. did also state that the best of men do not hit their wives.
They probably don't need to; their wives probably never rebel anyway,
because they have such a good relationship of kindness with them which the
Qur'an instructs Muslim men to have with their wives.

In short, one should understand the Qur'an in context, in the light of other
verses, and the Sunnah. But perhaps most important of all, one should
understand the Qur'an with the fear of God (Taqwa), because the Qur'an is
only a means of guidance for those people who read the Qur'an because of
Taqwa [2:2], and not for those who use the Qur'an for an agenda of
propaganda.

Wasalaam/Peace.

[Jochen Katz]

In article <7249gp$eb6$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
mar...@vom.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:

} >At various occasions Mr. AbdulraHman Lomax <mar...@vom.com> questioned my
} >scholarship in Arabic linguistics with rather impertinent words.
}
} "Impertinent" is a term which is used by the elevated to describe bad
} manners on the part of those inferior to them. The attitude in this is
} one which we have come to expect from Dr. Heger.

With all the general respect I have for Mr. Lomax, the last sentence
above shows that he has in himself exactly what he condemns in the
other. It exhibits how Mr. Lomax sees himself in general above Dr.
Heger. [Apart from the fact that he speaks in the plural of majesty
for himself, or what group exactly has appointed him their spokesman?]

There is a certain kind of "apologetic" scholarship (or was it
the word "scholarship" that needs to be put in quotes, not the
word "apologetic"?). A scholarship that is not a priori loyal to
Islam and might come up with an understanding very much unliked
by those who need to make Islam acceptable to the western taste
-- and that is what the topic of women liberation is all about.
Women's lib movement was no topic in the Islamic world until
recently (as far as I know). It is an issue that Muslims suddenly
found necessary to address because it is an issue coming at them
>from the west.

And obviously the verse about beating your wife if she is
unruly doesn't fit very well with the women lib movement
and the gender equality expectation that is promoted in most
of the western world.

I have been posting several things about "historical context"
already today. So let us put this verse about beating your
wife into the context of its "revelation" as well.

--------

The man according to the Qur'an has the responsibility to admonish his wife,
and the right to desert her sexually, and to beat her to correct any
rebelliousness in her behaviour.

The Qur'an states:

"Righteous women are therefore obedient, ... And those you fear
may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches,
and beat them."[55]

Some translators add the word lightly after 'beat them'[56] in Q. 4:34.
Others like Mohammed Pickthall and Rodwell translate the word 'edrebouhon -
beat them' as 'scourge them'.

The occasion in which Q. 4:34 was revealed sheds more light on the meaning
of that verse. Most commentators mention that

"the above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who
complained to Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face
(which was still marked by the slap). At first the Prophet said to
her: 'Get even with him', but then added: 'Wait until I think
about it.' Later on the above verse was revealed, after which the
Prophet said: 'We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and
what Allah wanted is best.'"[57]

! The beating in the previous incident can hardly be described !
! as light, unless that is what is meant by light beating. !

This beating comes as the last corrective measure when sexual desertion
fails. Light beating after sexual desertion is an anticlimax that serves
no purpose. But firm beating is the logical progression from admonishing,
then sexually deserting, finally beating her. This beating must be
stronger than sexual desertion to have any effect.

---
The above two paragraphs is what Mr. Lomax will have to deal
with when he wants to defend that "beating" is supposed to be
only a light and symbolic touch. Light touches do not leave
marks that are visible for a long time after the slap occured.
It was the Qur'anic answer to THIS incident and unless the
answer is unrelated to the question, this is the historical
context that defines the meaning of the word for "beat".

Just for completeness sake, let me quote the rest of the discussion
in this verse from the below indicated web site. It is interesting
what some other prominent Muslim scholars (and experts of Arabic)
have to say, and how they do not exactly agree with Mr. Lomax
---

55. The Qur'an, 4:34. (Arberry's translation).
56. The Holy Qur'an, Yusuf Ali's Translation.
57. Razi, At-tafsir al-Kabir, on Q. 4:34.
58. Mishkat al-Masabih, English translation, Book 1, section 'duties of
husband and wife', Hadith No.50.
59. Ibid., Hadith No.76.
60. Ibid., Footnote No 138.
61. Ibid, Footnote No 140.
62. Ibn Kathir, Commenting on Q. 4:34, this Hadith is also reported by Abu
Dawood and al-Nisa'i and Ibn Magah.
63. Guardian Weekly, 23/12/1990, Violence against Women Highlighted, p. 13.
64. Sayid Qotb, Fi Zilal al-Qur'an, commenting on the Qur'an 4:34.
65. The Australian Minaret, published by the Australian Federation of the
Islamic Councils, November 1980, p.10.
66. Sayid Qotb, Fi Zilal al-Qur'an, commenting on the Qur'an 4:34.
67. Al-Bahi al-Khuli, Al-Islam wa-l-Mar'ah al-Mu'aserah, Dar al-Qalam,
Kuwait, 1984, p. 105.
68. The Qur'an 4:128. (Arberry's translation).
69. Sahih Bukhari, Arabic-English translation, vol. 7, Hadith No. 134.
70. Ibid., Hadith No. 130&131
71. Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol
II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p. 52.

The above is quoted from http://debate.domini.org/newton/womeng.html

} >Whom do you hope to deceive besides yourself, Mr. Lomax?
}
} I will turn for a moment to Dr. Heger and ask him "When did you decide
} to consider yourself above all other human beings?"

Where did he do so? I may point out that Mr. Lomax is not averse
to use very similar language in many of his postings. In particular
in his discussion with the Abash about various interpretations of
Qur'anic verses he is very plain in condemning them of utter
blindness and not knowing what they are talking about.

Does that mean Mr. Lomax considers himself above ALL OTHER human
beings?

It seems it is time to look into the mirror before making
such kinds of character statements.

} I'll stand with what I wrote.

This is your choice and freedom. But your choice and standing
is not in itself evidence that it is true.

} It is obvious from the Arabic and from
} the English meaning of 'beating', which is suspect I know at least as
} well as Dr. Heger.

You certainly know English better than Dr. Heger, but the English
usage of the word is utterly irrelevant to the meaning of the
Arabic word.

And in particular, the occasion of revelation does have a
strong bearing on the interpretation of what this word is
supposed to mean in this verse.

Don't you agree?

If not, WHY not?

} Ah, the nonsense that a perverted mind can inflict upon itself. He has
} no idea what I have been talking about, since his approach has been
} entirely different.

And certainly this comment does not indicate that Mr. Lomax sees
himself above Dr. Heger and called upon to examine his mental
health? On what basis does he complain about the word "impertinent"?

} But a scorpion strikes. Darabati l^aqrab.

So, does that mean this "strike" is allowed to feel as hurtful
as the sting of a scorpion? And that hurts BADLY. Let alone that
people can die from it.

I don't think that you can defer from the word itself that
the beating should be light. You have to import other sources
to make this work. But if you need outside info to determine
the meaning what would be more appropriate than the context
into which this text was given?

} So one cannot say that linguistically darb is without injury. My point
} is only that it does not *require* injury; then we turn to the sunna
} for guidance as to what it *does* mean.

Very well. So therefore you cannot legitimately reject the
translation of "beat" on linguistic grounds which you tried
to do many times.

You HAVE TO look to other grounds of defending this verse
as less severe as it seems.

Again: Why would not the occasion of revelation be the first
place to turn to for understanding this verse?

} He is correct, however, that the verse does not, by itself, *exclude*
} some harmful form of striking.

Thank you. I hope you are aware that you have denied this
very thing many times and asserted that this only means
a light touch.

Maybe this discussion and your study of Lane's article
on the word might help you to not brush this issue away
so easily as you have done many times before.

} The Qur'an has many verses which, taken
} in isolation by someone who does not understand the sunna, a wrong
} action will seem to be suggested. That's why we read the *whole* book
} and why we also look to the example of our Prophet, who clearly
} forbade the injury of women.

But a beating can be rather severe and HUMILIATING even before
there is any bodily injury.

} The reconciliation of that with this verse is a more complex subject,
} but it does establish a limit: it is forbidden to interpret this verse
} such that it seems to command an injury.

I agree, that is not necessary, but a beating that is hard and
whether hard or not, humiliating, is not appropriate in a marriage
relationship. That is the issue. The husband is not "above" the
wife in the same sense as a father is above the children with the
responsibility to raise them and at time chastise them because
of their disobedience. The parents have to educate and raise
their children and teach them what is proper. A hubands duty
is to provide and protect, to appreciate and love, but not
to treat his wife like a minor and not to beat her. This is
humiliation, no matter how light it is. It says that "I am
above you" and you are supposed to do what I determine is
right.

} He is like a man who condemns a mirror because of the face he sees in
} it.

Think about it. How much that you condemned in Heger was only
what you have to see in your own practice of writing and relating
to various people, including Dr. Heger? Maybe you were hitting
a mirror?

However, I have to say, in general I have experienced you
as cautious and humble far beyond the average Muslim. And
I have hope that you will actually accept this reproof and
recognize that there might be some truth to it. I do not
expect you to react like Saifullah whose only answer would
be as so often:

} As I said, I do not need Katz's advice. He might be better
} off not wasting time on such things.

True wisdom will even learn from those whom we might not
generally agree with. Solomon has said something to that
effect in Proverbs [don't have the reference at the moment].
The wise will learn from reproof. The fool rejects all
counsel (because it comes from one he doesn't like?)

And Mr. Lomax is no fool, though sometimes a bit stubborn
and too committed to his own idiosyncracies. But then,
he might say the same about me. :-)

May the Lord bless Mr. Lomax as he seeks to follow
the truth as he perceives it.

Jochen Katz

P.S. There is a similar issue of contempt that came up just
a few days ago in another posting of Mr. Lomax in response
to Dr. Heger. My short response was deemed not relevant in
itself, so I include it here as it does fit the issue. Why
else would one conclude that serious postings are "only funny"
if not to somewhat deride them and dismiss them in this way?

And it also says something about the "two scholarships" as
well, which I discussed a bit in the above.

===================================================================
In article <71ob0o$rn4$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
mar...@vom.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) wrote under the subject title
"Re: Again: Waraqa was no supporter of Muhammad":

} as-salamu 'alaykum.
}
} I've come to the conclusion that Heger is not in the least serious.
} Very funny, Christoph!

Well, I might not agree in everything with Dr. Heger, but I know
he is serious. You should better say that you have decided not
to take him serious.

} What he has done is to take the account of Waraqa in Ibn Hisham's
} edition of Ibn Ishaq, and account which many indeed consider to be
} somewhat "garbled," in the words of Guillaume, consider that it is
} corrupt, speculate on what the original might have been based on what
} is plausible to him, and then use the "reconstructed" text as if it
} were a clear proof of his thesis.
}
} Even though the extant text says precisely the opposite of what Heger
} speculates.
}
} With logic like that, you could prove that carrots are bunny poop.

I a sense you are right. However, you seem to be very little
aware of Quranic or Biblical scholarship (the game played in
academia), because that is exactly how the critical scholars
work on both books.

And somehow, Muslims are very eager to use the stuff produced
by this very method by the liberal / critical scholars of
Biblical Studies (see the Jesus Seminar) even though most of
their "findings" plainly contradict the text. One of the big
names in the Jesus Seminar is Dominic Crossan, a leading NT
scholar. He concludes that Jesus was not raised from the dead,
but instead his body was eaten by the dogs. Muslim apologetics
books like Misha'al Al-Kadhi's "What did Jesus really say?"
[ For a rebuttal see:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/toc.html ]
contain lots and lots of quotations from the Jesus Seminar
material, and somehow the "carots are bunny poop" approach
does not at all trouble them. No, it is the proof of what
Muslims were saying all along "that the Bible is corrupted,
and the texts unreliable" and "even the Christian scholars
admit this".

IF this kind of scholarship is acceptable to Muslims when
applied to the Bible, then I find it rather silly to complain
when these methods are applied to Muslim texts. That is where
I see the major hypocrisy in Muslim dawah and propaganda and
even what is sometimes called "scholarly" books. They use two
sets of methods.

I personally have no expertise in discussing details of Arabic
grammar, strange features of texts and possible conclusions
>from them. So, I will pass on the topic being the actual
occasion for this thread and leave the rest for those who
have the ability to do so. But I could not let this comment
go unresponded.

Because the vast majority of Muslim writings about the Bible
is nothing but the very same bunny poop, picked up and recyled
>from anti-supernaturalist western scholars' output.

[AltWay]

In article <7264hm$mmb$1...@bolero.rahul.net>, Zubair Ahmed

<Zub...@Ahhmed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Dr. Heger, given that you are a *Doctor*, presumably a PhD of some
> description, I would have assumed that you would have learnt by now that
> reading things within context is part and parcel of any critical analysis
> of a passage. So please try to be sincere to the learning you should have
> acquired over the ages.

etc etc etc.....

Comment :-

It is necessary to understand these and other verses not only in context
within the Quran, but also within the whole of the Islamic system and also
the times when the Quran was revealed.

Wife beating was a common practice ( even more than it is in USA today). The
Quranic instructions were meant to control it and confine it as much as
possible.

It is agreed by most scholars that the verses concerned with chastisement
are not recommendations but permissions on severe provocation.

They do not take priority over the instructions to be kind and doing one's
duty.

Marriage was a carreer for women in the past. This means that they had
certain duties in return for their maintainance. Whereas a disobedient or
inefficient employee can be dismissed even in West today, the wife could not
be dismissed so easily. Thus the rights of husbands were recognised.

The instructions in the Quran are there in order to give guidance as to what
the mutual duties are in order to keep a stable family in which children can
be brought up in the best way for their physical, emotional, mental and
spiritual development. When these duties are known and the people concerned
fulfil them, then any punishment for failing to do so becomes redundant. Are
there laws against theft and murder? Or should they be abolished because it
is an insult to assume that some people will steal and murder?

In general nature has made women attractive to men so that they would want
to maintain and protect them. To compensate for this and restore a balance
nature has also made men stronger so that they can undertake this
protection. It should be noted that whereas women are much more intimately
connected with their children (bearing them in their wombs and through
lactation), men are much more remotely connected with them. For this reason
nature itself had to provide some kind of reward to men to undertake their
task. Now, these natural tendencies developed over millions of years.

It is only recently that owing to technology, training and organisation, it
has become possible for women to take up careers and become economically
independant of men. The schools have taken over the children, industry has
taken over most of the domestic work which women used to do and the
protection of women is now the duty not of husbands but of the State. This
implies that the collective strength of men has been turned against them in
order that the superiority of physical strength and freedom from bearing and
rearing children should be equalised. In the meantime the attractiveness of
women has been increased not only through cosmetics butby a culture which
stimulates sexuality. The balance between the sexes which nature provided
has been destroyed.

But nature itself fights back. The present status of both men and women is
unsatisfactory to both of them - it does not conform to inherent nature.
Neither sex knows their own or the other needs and cannot give it to them.
The frustrations increase and so does mutual violence. The state of
marriage is no longer one of mutual comfort and co-operation but a
competition. It is no longer child orientated. It is not difficult to see
that all this leads to easy break up of marraiges, adultery, prostitution,
mutual sexual exploitation, sexual perversions of all kinds, illigitimate
births, abortion, child neglect and cruelty, the increase in juvenile
crimes, inadequacy and psychopathy, all kinds of sexually related
infectious, organic and psychological diseases.

In so far as sex is connected with the birth of human beings, their life
(e.g marital states) and their death (loss of sexuality and death are
connected) then it should not be surprising that the self-image of people is
connected with it and now distorted and that the value of life itself
diminishes leading to increase in general violence and murder.

H.S.Aziz

--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way"
_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
______________________/ ... ha...@argonet.co.uk

[Zubair Ahmed]

Peace.

Jochen Katz wrote in message <7264iq$ms5$1...@bolero.rahul.net>...

>...

>The man then has the right to desert his wife sexually and beat her, if he
>fears rebelliousness in her.
>

Not just 'simple' rebelliousness; please try to read the verse in context;
it refers to rebelliousness with the threat of exposure; such exposure may
be her own (physically), or the private and personal secrets of her husband;
in any case, something seriously affecting the family and threatening to
throw it into a crisis.

>The woman, however, can not resort to such measures, if she fears
>rebelliousness in her husband, as is clear from the following verse:
>
> "If a woman fears rebelliousness or aversion in her husband, there
> is no fault in them if the couple set things right between them;
> right settlement is better."[68]
>

What a wise instruction!! Most women are weaker than their husbands, and any
attempt to correct him physically is not in her own interests! It would be
stupid on the part of the wife to imagine she can correct a rebellious
husband by means of a physical threat! It is a matter of "common sense".

>Beating the rebellious wife is the last resort before divorcing her. ...

No, the subsequent verse advises arbitration between the couple by members
of their respective families as the last resort. Please read the Qur'an with
sincerity; it is afterall, only a means of guidance for those who fear God
[2:2].

>And in particular, the occasion of revelation does have a
>strong bearing on the interpretation of what this word is
>supposed to mean in this verse.
>Don't you agree?
>If not, WHY not?

Even if such reported incidents did not occur, the Qur'an would still have
been exactly the same. The order of the revelation might conceivably have
been different, but the final ordering of the chapters and verses would
still have remained the same. The verses were revealed to shed light at
times when there was a particular need for Divine guidance on a certain
matter. Whether or not we are reported the circumstantial incidents, or
whether or not they are accurate reports, is immaterial, because the Qur'an
is internally consistent with itself.

>But a beating can be rather severe and HUMILIATING even before
>there is any bodily injury.

The very object is to prevent public humiliation of the entire family, so a
PRIVATE reformative chastisement, albeit humiliating, which saves herself,
her husband, and/or her entire family from public humiliation, is a sort of
"lesser evil". The other options are far worse under the circumstances where
it is permitted.

Peace.

[bah...@geocities.com]

>In article <722msm$3sa$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,

> "paul" <ixthu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Women's liberation through Islam is a contradiction in terms.
>

> Quote

>
> "The Temporary Contractual Marriage
>
> What a disgraceful and degrading thing a temporary, contractual marriage is
> for a woman! This is something which Muhammad made lawful according to all
> the scholars and chroniclers without exception.

Asalaam alaikum ya Muslimeen and hello to others,

I'm back :-)

Insha'Allah I will give the background on Temporary Marriage, to clear
up the ignorance.

What is temporary marriage?

It is a temporary marriage upon agreement of the two parties. This temporary
marriage was a custom amongst eastern countries, as it was also practised by
some men at the dawn of Islam on their missions / trips.

Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.a.) said: "Temporary marriage was at the beginning
of Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries
for a fixed time depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his
provisions and prepares his food, until the verse was revealed: "Except to
your wives or what your right hands possess." Ibn 'Abbas explained that any
relationship beyond this is forbidden. [narrated by Tirmizy]

As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it
would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of
Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of
people.

It is well established that temporary marriage does not agree with the
interests of people because it causes loss to the offspring, uses women for
fulfilment of the lusts of men, and belittles the value of a woman whom Allah
has honoured. So temporary marriage was forbidden.

The evidence of its illegality:

We will show - God willing - some of the countless evidences in order to wipe
out some of the maligning accusations which the misguided repeat against Umar
Ibnul Khattab (r.a.a.). These people falsely claim that he was the person who
forbade it when he was Caliph. Their motive for this false claim was but their
blind spite for the companions of the Messenger (s.a.w.) who had succoured
him, supported him, and assisted him.

Allah Most High says: "So whatever you enjoy from them, give them their
recompense, this is an obligation." [4:24]. This is the verse relied on by
those who support temporary marriage. They rely on it either in ignorance or
in order to fool others, giving a superficial meaning to the verse without
referring to the interpretation of it, and without availing the correct
interpretation to the general public.

The following is the interpretation of it:

Imam Qurtuby says in his commentary on this verse, the payment in the context
is the dowry, it has been called recompense because it is a fee for the
enjoyment. This is a support for dowry being a recompense. Alhasan, Mujahid,
and others said: The meaning relates to what you have 'enjoy'ed through your
union with women in proper marriage, so "give them their recompense" that is,
their dowries. Ibn Khuwayz Mindad said: There is no support and it is not
permissible to use the verse as a permission for temporary marriage as the
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) has warned against and has forbidden temporary
marriage as Allah Most High said: "So marry them with the permission of their
families." It is natural for the marriage to take place with the permission
of the parents, this is a proper marriage which has a trustee and two
witnesses, temporary marriage is not like that. 'A`isha said: "It has been
forbidden in the Qur'an in the words of the Most High: "And those who
preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right
hands posses, then they would have no blame." [23:5]. Temporary marriage is
not regarded as a proper marriage, and the spouse does not fall into the
category of what the right hand possesses.

Ibn Katheer says in his commentary on this verse: as you enjoy them, give
them their dowries as the Most High said: "give women their money as a gift"
[4:4]. He has interpreted the generality of this verse to include temporary
marriage saying: There is no doubt that it was permitted at the dawn of
Islam, and became forbidden afterwards.

Ibn Jawzy says in regards to this verse: some commentators have said: what is
meant by this verse is the temporary marriage, and then it was superseded with
what has been reported from the Prophet (s.a.w.) when he forbade temporary
marriage. This interpretation has no basis. The Prophet (s.a.w.) permitted it
then forbade it with his own words, so his later prohibition supersedes
the permissibility. As for the verse, it does not touch on temporary marriage.
It only relates to enjoyment through proper marriage."

There is a plethora of statements of the Messenger (s.a.w.) which forbid
temporary marriage, some of the Hadith include:

According to Sabra Bin Ma'had AlJuhany who said: I was with my cousin when we
passed by a woman who liked my youth and a robe which my companion had. So
she offered temporary marriage with the robe as the dowry. I married her and
spent the night with her. In the next morning, I went to the mosque and heard
the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) saying: 'O people, I had permitted you
temporary marriage before, whoever of you has any part in it currently must
part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them,
as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of
resurrection.' " [narrated by Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and
Darimi]

Ali Bin Abi Taleb (r.a.a.) said that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) had
forbidden temporary marriage on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the
eating of the meat of domestic camels. [narrated by bukhary, Muslim, Tirmizy,
Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi'i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]

According to Sufyan Althawry according to Isma'il Bin Umayya according to
Alzahry according to Alhassan Bin Mohammad according to Ali (r.a.a.) who said
to a man: "You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) has
forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of
Khaybar." [Narrated by Muslim and Bayhaqy]

According to Misdad Bin Masarhad according to 'AbdulWareth according to
Isma'il Bin Ummaya according to Alzahry who said: "We were with 'Umar Bin
'Abdul'Aziz and we recalled temporary marriage, a man called Rabee' Bin Sabra
said to him: 'I testify that according to my father that it happened that the
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) had forbidden it on the farewell pilgrimage.' "
[narrated by Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad]

According to Abu Huraira (r.a.a.), the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) had
forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its
waiting period, and its inheritance. [narrated by DarQutny, Ishaq Bin
Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

Abu Bakr Bin Hafs reported according to Ibn 'Umar who said: "When Ali was
given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said: 'O
people, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) had permitted temporary marriage
three times then forbade it. I swear by Allah, ready to fulfil my oath, that
if I find any person who engages in temporary marriage without having
ratified this with a proper marriage, I will have him lashed 100 stripes
unless he can bring two witnesses to prove that the Messenger (s.a.w.) had
permitted it after forbidding it.' " [Ibn Majah]

Imam Muslim has narrated that according to Mohammad Bin 'Abdullah Bin Numayr
who said: "My father had narrated to us according to 'Ubaidullah according to
Ibn shahab according to Alhassan and 'Abdullah the sons of Mohammad Bin 'Ali
according to their father according to 'Ali (r.a.a.) that he heard Ibn 'Abbas
(r.a.a.) being lenient towards temporary marriage, so he said, 'wait Ibn
'Abbas, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) had forbidden it on the day of
Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic camels.' "

This evidences illustrates the correctness of the consensus about its
prohibition. Particularly as 'Umar Ibnul Khattab (r.a.a.) had mentioned its
prohibition from the pulpit and stated its punishment, and reminded the
congregation that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) had prohibited it and
strongly admonished against it, this was at the presence of both the migrants
and the supporters, and none disputed it with him or differed with him,
knowing well their care and attention to make sure that the truth is always
revealed, and any error is corrected as they had done with respect to other
issues. Furthermore, the prohibition has been reported according to a number
of companions other than 'Umar.

Its prohibition has been reported according to 'Ali Bin Abi Taleb, 'Abdullah
Bin 'Umar, 'Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, 'Abdullah Bin Alzubayr, 'Abdullah Bin 'Abbas
who when reminded of its prohibition also supported the prohibition when he
understood the references of the others. This is also the understanding of
the followers, the scholars, and all the Imams. They were all unanimous on
this issue.

To cap the research, below are the opinions of the four Imams; these will
leave no excuse for any.

Hanafi Mazhab: stated in Fathul Qadir that the temporary marriage is void,
and defined this marriage as a man saying to a woman I will enjoy you so many
times for a certain sum of money. He also said in AlHashia after dealing with
the two different types of temporary marriage, that it is a contract with a
woman which is formed with the intention of not providing security or
fosterage for a child, instead it is for a fixed period, and the marriage
ends with this period, or a non fixed period based on the person's stay with
the wife until he decides to leave, and then the contract is ended.

Shafi'i Mazhab: temporary marriage is a marriage for a period, so if it was
requested of a guardian to marry his ward for a month, this would be a void
marriage.

Maliki Mazhab: temporary marriage is one for a term, as if saying to the
guardian allow me to marry your ward for a month for such a fee, if they
agree, the marriage would be void and both spouses would be liable to a
penalty. This marriage is ended without a divorce, regardless of whether it
is before consummation or after.

Hanbali Mazhab: Temporary marriage is a marriage for a term whether fixed or
not, there is no difference whether it is labelled as a marriage or not,
where the man says to the woman allow me to enjoy you, she says I give you
myself for enjoyment, without a guardian or two witnesses. The temporary
marriage raises two issues. One for a fixed term having a guardian and two
witnesses, or one called enjoyment not having a guardian or witnesses. In
both cases it is void.

After the opinions of the four Mazahib, we report the opinions of scholars
from other Mazahib below.

Ibn Hazm said, "temporary marriage is not permitted; this is a fixed marriage
which was permitted at the time of the Messenger (s.a.w.), then Allah
superseded it through His Messenger (s.a.w.) until the day of resurrection."

Imam Shawkany: "We worship in accordance with what we learnt from the
Messenger (s.a.w.), and we have ascertained the authenticity of his eternal
prohibition of temporary marriage. The fact that some companions were not
aware of this does not negate the large number of companions who were aware
and who have acted upon the prohibition and proclaimed it."

Qady 'Ayyad said: "The scholars reached consensus that temporary marriage was
a marriage for a term with no inheritance, its separation at the expiry of
the term without dispute, the consensus after this was that it was prohibited
according to all the scholars with the exception of the rejectors. Ibn 'Abbas
allowed it until he became aware of the prohibition and then forbade it and
said: "If temporary marriage takes place now, it is void regardless of
whether it had been consummated or not."

Imam Nawawy said: "The truth of the matter is that it was permitted and
prohibited on two occasions. It was permitted before Khaybar, then prohibited,
then permitted on the day of liberation, the day of Awtas, then prohibited
forever after three days of the event."

Imam Bayhaqi said: "Imam Ja'far Bin Mohammad was asked about temporary
marriage, he said: 'It is adultery.' "

Before we close this research, we refer to the words of Imam Alfakhr AlRazy
in response to those who claim that 'Umar added the prohibition of temporary
marriage himself. So they declared him as an apostate and attributed apostasy
to all who did not stop him: "all this is erroneous. All that is left to say
is that temporary marriage was permitted during the time of the Messenger
(s.a.w.), and I prohibit it with what has been authenticated with me that the
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) prohibited it."

In this manner we see the manner in which Islam treated the issue of
temporary marriage and how it became prohibited forever until the day of
resurrection as has reached us through the true Ahadith. There is no doubt
that contemplation in this brief message will find in it convincing proof
that temporary marriage is prohibited for those who believe in Allah and are
free from blind loyalty. We supplicate Allah Most High to make us of those
who listen to the words and follow the best standard therein.

[khatija 39]

AltWay wrote:
>
> In article <7264hm$mmb$1...@bolero.rahul.net>, Zubair Ahmed
> <Zub...@Ahhmed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Wife beating was a common practice ( even more than it is in USA
today). The
> Quranic instructions were meant to control it and confine it as much
as
> possible.

I think there is a definite misunderstanding/misrepresentation in the
issue of Jahilia (pre-Islamic) women's position in Arabia. If we were
to examine the woman and her place in Jahilia period, the best example
of Jahilia women would be Khatija, the first wife of Mohammed. Since
she lived most of her life as a Jahilia women. She was shaped by
Jahilia ways, and her life and outlook would be a good example of
Jahilia attitudes and practices. She had economic independence, she
initiated her own marriage, not even needed a male guardian as
intermediary, and she remained in a monogamous marriage with Mohammed.
This all must reflect Jahilia, not Islamic, practices, since Islam was
not around before her marriage to Mohammed. Besides, none of these are
typical practices of Mohammed in his marriages after he was established
as a prophet and a leader in Arabia, nor they are the practices of
Muslim since. The difference between Khatija's marriage to Mohammed and
his other wives marriages, especially Aisha's (because Aisha was born to
Muslim parents and she was a Muslim) reflects the difference between
Jahilia women and Muslim women. Khatija was a lot more independent, and
degree of control with respect to marriage was a lot more compared to
Muslim wives of Mohammed.

Frequently, it is claimed that Islam improved the condition of women in
Arabia, especially in its own days, and the status Islam gives to women
a better status than that of in other cultures and religions. Muslim
scholars claim that Islam banned the Jahilia practice of female
infanticide, gave women the right to inherit property, and in permitting
men up to four wives, restricted a previously raging polygamy. They
also claimed that "in the pre-Islamic era there was no question of a
woman being an heir". All of these are evidently wrong claims as
Khatija's financial independence shows us that women's inheritance,
indeed, may have been a custom in Mecca, and of course there are other
instances of Meccan women trading, like Khatija, in their own right,
i.e. Asma bint Mukharibah (1).

There are historical evidences pointing that pre-Islamic society had
been matriarchal and Islam replaced the matriarchy to patriarchal order
(2). During Jahilia period, uxorilocal (wife-headed) marriage as well
as polyandry, and matrilineal practices, in which paternity was little
or no importance, were common (1).

It cannot be ignored that the gender issues and marital arrangement of
pre-Islamic Arabia were very different from those of Islam. It is well
known that the area in which Islam introduced the greatest reform was on
the issues of marriage and gender relations. A large proportion of
Qur'anic ruling is devoted to regulating marital relations and the
conduct of woman. This shows that the establishment of Islam brought
the institution of new sociogender norms as well as religion and polity.

It is evident that the changes in male/female relations brought by Islam
have occurred against matrilineal system present in Arabia, and they
definitely were not to protect women since women didn't seem to need
protection in this system.

1. Montgomery Watt, Mohamed at Medina, 1956, Oxford: Clarendon Press
2. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 1885,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

> Marriage was a carreer for women in the past. This means that they had

It wasn't the carreer for women before Islam in Arabia, Khatija being
the best example, but it has been since Islam started.

> certain duties in return for their maintainance. Whereas a disobedient
or
> inefficient employee can be dismissed even in West today, the wife
could not
> be dismissed so easily. Thus the rights of husbands were recognised.

I thought Islam took care of dismaying wives so easly.

Conclusion is that historical evidence shows us that Islam did change
the women's status in Arabia--for the worse.

Khatija

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[AltWay]

In article <72tua0$fde$1...@bolero.rahul.net>, "khatija 39"

<khat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Conclusion is that historical evidence shows us that Islam did change
the women's status in Arabia--for the worse.

Comment :-

That is your perception of how things were and it differs from that of
Muslims. This is why you are not a muslim.

I wonder whether this was your view before you converted or after.

But we know from the same sources from which you draw conclusions that even
people like Omar used to beat their wives, and new born girls were often
killed. I have not heard or read that the Prophet (saw) whi is an example
to muslims of Islam mistreated his wives.
But I do not wish to get into an argument about all this. The fact
is that women are not well treated among many muslims, and this has nothing
to do with the teachings of Islam. It probably has to do with the economic
conditions. The status of women was just as bad in the West or even worse
when the economic conditions there were as the same. Read about Victorian
England or before. Nor is the status of women as described in the Old or
New Testament better than that in the Quran.

[Ak Tuah]

>Conclusion is that historical evidence shows us that Islam did change
>the women's status in Arabia--for the worse.

They say you can lie with statistics. But a few biased samplings
is not even valid for statistics. Anyway, let us leave ancient
Arabia and look at Muslim women now; are they liberated?
If liberation means being allowed to become the leader of a
nation, or to pose naked for magazines, the answer is no. (I
am not going to debate the legality of the positions of certain
Muslim women in the leadership ranks of their nations). Islam
liberates us (men and women) from the slavery of this world
to serve Allah alone.

Some people think they are wiser than Allah ...

Wassalam

--
Nor Jaidi Tuah, Curtin University, Western Australia
tua...@cs.curtin.edu.au
ja...@earthling.net

[ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <7249g7$e8i$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,

mar...@vom.com wrote:
> as-salamu 'alaykum.
>
> ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Dear Mr. Lomax,
> >
> >Thank you for your thoughtful response. My answer is below:
>
> A kind word takes away wrath. At least for a moment....

A reflection or need an answer?

>
> >AbdulraHman Lomax wrote in message <71tb0m$oca$1...@bolero.rahul.net>...
>
> >>Does Ms. karenina think that a husband should simply divorce his wife
> >>without making attempts to warn her that her course of behavior is
> >>disastrous? Does she think that in every situation between a man and a
> >>woman, if there is a conflict, the man is wrong?
> >
> >I didn't imply anything of the sort. Warning attempts are not equal to
> >symbolic beating.
>
> First of all, Ms. Karenina still does not get that "adrib" does not
> mean "beat." Fatima Mernessi makes this point very well. So a symbolic
> "striking" would be what if it was not a warning?

And it works both ways, right, though sadly it is not widely known so who to
trust?

>
> >The same can be asked to you: do you think that in every
> >situation between a man and a woman, if there is a conflict, the man is
> >always right?
>
> I answer more directly than did Ms. Karenina. No. In fact, he might
> even be usually wrong. That's been my experience anyway!

Good!! :)

>
> >What happens when the man is wrong, can the woman
> >symbolically beat him? According to your statement above the use of male
> >gender to mean both sexes, the answer should be yes.
>
> Excellent logic producing a true conclusion.
>
> >>(Hmmm. Maybe she has a point. If a man is alone in the forest, and
> >>there is no woman there, is he still wrong? :-)
> >
> >And your point is....?
>
> Perhaps it is a question rather than a point. The question is whether
> or not the readers have a sense of humor.

Sorry, I don't see how humor could fit in the context. We must have a
different kind sense of humor. :)

>
> >>In any case, the sunna for men and women is not greatly different, but
> >>it is a little different. But this verse can be applied by both men
> >>and women, except that it is more difficult, for *natural* reasons,
> >>for women to apply and use it. The masculine includes the feminine. So
> >>if a woman fears wrongdoing on the part of her husband, she may
> >>admonish him -- this part is easy for many women --, leave him alone
> >>in his bed, or strike him.
> >>
> >>For she has rights similar to those of the man, but there is a natural
> >>imbalance if one of them is supporting the other.
> >>
> >>But a woman has, in addition, resort to arbitration from the
> >>community, which can order the man to treat his wife with due respect
> >>and care, or it can order him to divorce her, which is tantamount to
> >>granting a divorce, for if he does not divorce her, she may be
> >>considered divorced even without his consent.
> >
> >I have never heard of this, though I have heard in Egypt a Muslim
> >intellectual was deemed divorced from his wife by the Muslim community for
> >writing what considered to be blasphemous accounts on Islam. I think this
> >kind of practice can backlash as the example above. I see Ummah not less
> >than a cult.
>
> The right of the community to declare a divorce without the consent of
> the husband can be abused. If the wife asked for that divorce, it was
> not an abuse; if she did not, my opinion is that the practice is an
> egregious abuse interfering in the sanctity of marriage. I understand
> the technical basis, but it is still a regrettable thing.

It happens quite a lot apparently in Islamic countries. How are you gonna fix
this? This is like a sexual harrasment litigation, your words against theirs.
:) I see much such confusion in Muslims, none knows what's for real.

At any rate, I think the problem is Muslims themselves. If they themselves
don't know what the actual teaching of their religion is how could you expect
non-believers to know better? Far too often I find differing, even
contradictory opinions, among Muslims regarding fundamental issues so in the
end I would just take everything coming from a Muslim with a grain of salt.
And this should also go to you. You are certainly an "interesting" kind of
Muslim, unorthodox and intelligent but that doens't necessarily mean you are
right and the learned Sheikhs/ustads from Al-Azhar are wrong for holding a
much more extreme view of Islam than you.

Anyway, point is taken though I don't know how long it will stick in my mind,
probably only until I meet an irritating, unthinking Muslim.

BTW, this is beside the point, what do you think of Asma bin Marwan's murder
by Muhammad's hitmen? What is your justification for this? I have seen quite
ridiculous, mind-boggling ones coming from Muslims.

Regards,
Ana Karenina

[khatija 39]

in article <72vp0s$v6$1...@bolero.rahul.net>
Altway wrote:

>That is your perception of how things were and it differs from that of
>Muslims. This is why you are not a muslim.

Hmmm, this is interesting. I thought I am not a Muslim, because I don't
believe that Muhammad is the last apostle of Allah, Qur'an is the last
book God sent to human beings. I wasn't aware that it is because my
perseption is different.

>I wonder whether this was your view before you converted or after.

It was before my conversion.

In my posting I disagreed with your point on Islam changing the
condition of women for the better. And you disagreed with my point, and
said that this is not what the Muslims think. But I would like to
point that this all this information we have on the pre-Islamic costumes
of Arabia has been edited from an Islamic stand point. All the material
we have on the Jahilia dates from at least a century after Muhammad's
death and it is written by Muslims. The term Jahilia means the Age of
Ignorance, and this name was given by Muslims to that period. For
example Ibn Sa'd in Kitab al-Tabaqat asserts that none of Muhammad's
foremothers through five hundred generations, was a "fornicator" in the
manner of the Jahilia, he refers to forms of union, including polyandry,
that were accepted as the practice not fornication in the Jahilia and
that were outlawed by Islam. I don't say that I agree with the
practices of Jahilia, but it is historically know that Jahilia had a
matriarchal order previous to Islam. And Muslims scholar accept this
too.
God bless.

[khatija 39]

in article <731773$3a8$1...@bolero.rahul.net>
Ak Tuah wrote::

>Arabia and look at Muslim women now; are they liberated?

>nation, or to pose naked for magazines, the answer is no. (I

No, that's not liberation. That is treating God's creation with
irrespect.

>am not going to debate the legality of the positions of certain
>Muslim women in the leadership ranks of their nations). Islam
>liberates us (men and women) from the slavery of this world
>to serve Allah alone.

In Islam women can't really serve God, because she is religously
deficient. She can't even properly worship. (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1,
Book 6, Number 301, Narrated by Said Al-Khudri.)

[AltWay]

In article <733k0o$p7r$1...@bolero.rahul.net>, "khatija 39"
<khat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Regarding :- " That is your perception of how things were and it differs

>from that of Muslims. This is why you are not a muslim.

Hmmm, this is interesting. I thought I am not a Muslim, because I don't
believe that Muhammad is the last apostle of Allah, Qur'an is the last
book God sent to human beings. I wasn't aware that it is because my

perception is different.

Re :- I wonder whether this was your view before you converted or after.

It was before my conversion.

Comment :-

Yes I thought so. So it is your perception of the position of women brought
by Islam which led you to abandon Islam.
It is not the case as with many other muslims, that they first accept that
the Quran is a genuine revelation from God and then judge all things by the
Quran. You judge the Quran and the Messenger by your own idea about what
the status of women should be or some other equally subjective values.

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

ana_ka...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[I had written:]

>> First of all, Ms. Karenina still does not get that "adrib" does not
>> mean "beat." Fatima Mernessi makes this point very well. So a symbolic
>> "striking" would be what if it was not a warning?
>
>And it works both ways, right, though sadly it is not widely known so who to
>trust?

Trust in God. That is a trust which will not fail.

That the striking of the verse is not a "beating" is, in fact, well
and widely known. Translators do use the term "beat" sometimes, but in
a Qur'an with notes, one will always find that it is explained as not
allowing any injury. For example, Hilali-Khan insert "lightly" in
parenthesis after "beat." Now, a light beating is an oxymoron in
English!

Yes, and this too works both ways.

>> >>(Hmmm. Maybe she has a point. If a man is alone in the forest, and
>> >>there is no woman there, is he still wrong? :-)
>> >
>> >And your point is....?
>>
>> Perhaps it is a question rather than a point. The question is whether
>> or not the readers have a sense of humor.
>
>Sorry, I don't see how humor could fit in the context. We must have a
>different kind sense of humor. :)

Now, Ms. Karenina put a smiley face after what she said. If she can
find humor in the subject, why can't I?

Actually, the question I asked has become somewhat of a stock joke;
I've seen it in several places recently. I find it quite funny,
because my own experience is that, when I argue with my wife, I am
wrong, no way around it. Even if I am right, I am wrong. :-)

>> The right of the community to declare a divorce without the consent of
>> the husband can be abused. If the wife asked for that divorce, it was
>> not an abuse; if she did not, my opinion is that the practice is an
>> egregious abuse interfering in the sanctity of marriage. I understand
>> the technical basis, but it is still a regrettable thing.
>
>It happens quite a lot apparently in Islamic countries. How are you gonna fix
>this? This is like a sexual harrasment litigation, your words against theirs.
>:) I see much such confusion in Muslims, none knows what's for real.

I have enough trouble knowing what to do in my own house, or city, or
nation; I'm not ready to take on what people should do in other
countries!

All I can do is to assert that it is an enormity to interfere in a
marriage without having standing to do so. My neighbor does not have
standing to go to court and claim that my wife and I should be
divorced. The husband or wife have standing. The wali of the woman has
standing *if* the woman does not oppose him.

I was referring to the case of an alleged apostate, where it has been
declared by this or that 'alim that the man, because he is an
apostate, is divorced from his wife. As I said, there is a technical
basis. But I do not agree that any action should be taken in the
absence of a complaint from the woman. And this is moot outside of
those countries, and my own opinion is just that. It is certainly not
binding on anyone except for one who recognises whatever is true about
it.

>> If one wants to get a good idea of what a feminist Islam might look
>> like, read Fatima Mernessi or Amina Wudud-Muhsin. I'm not endorsing
>> all they say, but it is about time that competent and knowledgeable
>> women spoke up and said the obvious.
>
>At any rate, I think the problem is Muslims themselves. If they themselves
>don't know what the actual teaching of their religion is how could you expect
>non-believers to know better?

She is "preaching to the choir."

>Far too often I find differing, even
>contradictory opinions, among Muslims regarding fundamental issues so in the
>end I would just take everything coming from a Muslim with a grain of salt.

Good idea. I'd borrow an old joke about the Jews: Two Muslims, three
opinions, except that too many Muslims are too sure of themselves to
allow themselves more than one opinion.

>And this should also go to you. You are certainly an "interesting" kind of
>Muslim, unorthodox and intelligent but that doens't necessarily mean you are
>right and the learned Sheikhs/ustads from Al-Azhar are wrong for holding a
>much more extreme view of Islam than you.

They do? We would only know if they participated in a full discussion.
The rulings of scholars are not to be taken and applied outside the
jurisdiction and circumstances in which they ruled. I've actually read
some pretty good fatawa from al-Azhar....

>Anyway, point is taken though I don't know how long it will stick in my mind,
>probably only until I meet an irritating, unthinking Muslim.

There is no shortage of these. Sometimes I think that Islam, being
light, attracts bugs.

On the other hand, when the sun rises, the bugs disappear.

>BTW, this is beside the point, what do you think of Asma bin Marwan's murder
>by Muhammad's hitmen? What is your justification for this? I have seen quite
>ridiculous, mind-boggling ones coming from Muslims.

I don't know enough about it; I would only say that in the times there
was a war going on, and the very survival of Muhammad, SAS, and his
community were at stake. Necessity justifies what is otherwise
forbidden. And I am unqualified to judge what was necessary then!

But I assume that whatever he did was right, without assuming that
everything he did was flawless. He made mistakes from time to time. In
fact, to continue a theme from a previous post, that is better than if
he had never made any mistakes!

[AbdulraHman Lomax]

as-salamu 'alaykum.

"khatija 39" <khat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In Islam women can't really serve God, because she is religously
>deficient. She can't even properly worship. (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1,
>Book 6, Number 301, Narrated by Said Al-Khudri.)

Now, "Khatija" is not a Muslim, she has informed us. But she also
thinks she can inform us as to our religion, based on having
considered herself a believer for a short time. We do not believe what
she says about women nor about Islam, and she is, most definitely, not
qualified to interpret for us the meaning of the cited hadith.

It's an interesting hadith, because it reveals a great deal about the
Prophet, SAS, and his companions, RA, including the women, and also
about the traditionists, who have been known to cite the hadith with a
straight face....

I'll let someone else quote the hadith if they care to....

[khatija 39]

In article <73a87i$env$1...@bolero.rahul.net>
AbdulraHman wrote:

Dear Abdulrahman,
Thanks for your reply. You said;

> Now, "Khatija" is not a Muslim, she has informed us. But she also
> thinks she can inform us as to our religion, based on having
> considered herself a believer for a short time. We do not believe what
> she says about women nor about Islam, and she is, most definitely, not
> qualified to interpret for us the meaning of the cited hadith.

Now, calm down!!! You guys have been telling me what I believed, what
was in MY heart, if I was sincere or not, if I am real or not, and I
didn't get as irritated as you did. And I only repeated what your
prophet said. It wasn't even my idea, I just quoted him, right???

Here are a couple more hadith in the issue of women being religiously
deficient, and not being considered clean even to worship. (Narrated
Al-Qasim, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 293), (Narrated 'Aisha, Volume 1,
Book 6, Number 302). I will not even write them, sInce you seem to get
irritated when I "interpret" it :-)

> It's an interesting hadith, because it reveals a great deal about the
> Prophet, SAS, and his companions, RA, including the women, and also
> about the traditionists, who have been known to cite the hadith with a
> straight face....
>

Well, I checked it for you. This hadith has been narrated by 5
different people, and it made it to both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Here are the referances.

Sahih Bukhari:
(Volume 4, Book 54, Number 464, Narrated 'Imran bin Husain), (Volume 7,
Book 62, Number 125, Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas), (Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 126: Narrated Imran), (Volume 8, Book 76, Number 456, Narrated
'Imran bin Husain)

Sahih Muslim:
(Book 1, Number 0142, Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar)

> I'll let someone else quote the hadith if they care to....

I am not sure which hadith you are talking about, so I will just wait to
hear from those who care to quote. I am replying Fariduddien's posting,
you can read that, if you care more hadiths on women in Islam.

[de6w...@ezmd55.hl.siemens.de]

Assalam Alaikum

With this posting, I want to initiate a discussion on the dynamicity of Fiqh.
In opinion, most of the conflicts in Ummah are the result of a static consideration of of Fiqh.

By being static of Fiqh I mean, the notion that the Fiqh is completed with the death of well known schools of fiqh. The obvious result of this belief is that most of us are not prepared to discuss issues which we need to discuss in this new time and which we still consider "well settled".

I request my brothers and sisters to comment on this opinion and give suggestions, how we can revive the true spirite of Fiqh in Ummah.

Wassalaam,

Saif Ali Butt

[AltWay]

In article <73jgck$a...@ezmd55.HL.Siemens.DE>, de6w...@ezmd55.HL.Siemens.DE
wrote:

By being static of Fiqh I mean, the notion that the Fiqh is completed with
the death of well known schools of fiqh. The obvious result of this
belief is that most of us are not prepared to discuss issues which we need
to discuss in this new time and which we still consider "well settled".

Comment :-

Fiqh was created by righteous scholars and not by the Prophet. Nor is it the
Quran. Righteous scholars means :-
(1) They have the capacity and know the Quran, not just superficially but by
meditation.
(2) practice it inwardly and outwardly.
(3) Are involved in the affairs of the world, interact with it but are not
wordly - i.e they are not trapped by or attached to it.

These righteous scholars created the Fiqh by
(1) studying the Quran -
(2) consulting the Hadith in which the Prophet (saw) applied the Quran to
the conditions in which he found himself, and
(3) in accordance with the circumstances and problems of their time.
(4) The Quran and Hadith are also interprted according to the conditions in
which a person is brought up, how he experiences things, how the language is
used and the relative frequency of different kinds of events.

If the right to create a Fiqh existed in the past, then it still exists
today. It has not been abolishd. People adhere to the Fiqh of the past only
because they think it is sacrosanct. This is a form of idolatry.

It follows that other righteous scholars can also create the Fiqh for their
own times.

[AltWay]

[Achmed Abdel-Rahim]

Saif Ali Butt wrote:

>Assalam Alaikum
>
>With this posting, I want to initiate a discussion on the dynamicity
>of Fiqh.
>In opinion, most of the conflicts in Ummah are the result of a static
>consideration of of Fiqh.
>

>By being static of Fiqh I mean, the notion that the Fiqh is completed
>with the death of well known schools of fiqh. The obvious result
>of this belief is that most of us are not prepared to discuss issues
>which we need to discuss in this new time and which we still
>consider "well settled".

>I request my brothers and sisters to comment on this opinion and give
>suggestions, how we can revive the true spirite of Fiqh in Ummah.
>
>Wassalaam,
>
>Saif Ali Butt

Bi-ismi-l-laahi-r-Rahmaani-r-Rahiim
In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Merciful

Salaamu 'alaikum, brother Saif 'Ali,

At first, a clarification on a non-reflected or ignored assumption
of your thinking should be brought up to discussion, a point
that will not be generally accepted in the way you see it and which
is in no way evident:
Which "death of wellknown schools of fiqh" are you talking about?
>From where do you take the measure to say that the schools of fiqh
are dead?
I think we have to distinguish significantly between what could be
seen as an "overemphasized tradition" on the one side and what you
call a "death of wellknown schools of fiqh" on the other! To express
the observable facts of our contemporary real world in this way, could
arise a lot of misunderstandings.
These two things are not the same.
It would be inappropriate to reality to state the wellknown schools
of fiqh as "dead" for at least two reasons, first of which is the fact
that the 'ulamaa in the Islamic World living in our times carry
on the knowledge of the schools as a heritage of history and that they
continue the research in fiqh from the point at which their generation
takes over the tasks of the development of fiqh from the elder
generations of 'ulamaa whereby this process can be regarded as a
continuous flux... ; second of which is the fact that the everyday
practice in the doings that muslims perform in their lifes are
often but not always derived from certain school's norms, what cannot
be ignored either - so, in this sense, a "death" cannot be stated.
And in the same sense, especially in concern with the work of the
'ulamaa, fiqh has never been "completed"...

Nevertheless I have to admit that Islamic culture and civilization
is seriously affected by a deep intellectual chrisis today. Indeed,
the unability to interpret the basic sources dynamically, became an
urging truth. Even though the fiqh principles were well formulated
and a methodology had been developed in the past, the problems arouse
more from the material itself on which the methods had to be applied,
than from the methods as such. Especially the recognition and
interpretation of the narrative stuff that had been compiled (ahadith
and athaar) brings up many difficulties for us, because a systematic
critical history of the revelation and the contents of this narrative
material had not been contributed yet. This does not mean that there
were no efforts into this direction in hadith science by the researchers

among the 'ulamaa. Instead the observed absence of such a systematic
critical history is due to the fact that the meant types of analytical
methods of history were only developed quite recently during the past
two centuries and with more stiffness during the last fifty years in
the West; so that these are only accessible since not too long ago.
As another aspect in this context it has to be noticed that
(of course) the sunnah always had been a topic which is deeply
connected with human emotions which the 'ulamaa sometimes could not
hold back totally while performing their work - they are human beings -
so that the critical measures were not applied always consequently while

performing research, and further, what is more important, the human
influence entered the sphere of interpretation. This fact could be
at least reduced by the means of critical historic analysis works
in the field; if the will to perform such kind of work and the
analytical rigour of mind would be there.
As a result, the absence of a systematic critical history of the
revelation and the contents of ahadith and athaar makes the majority
of the contemporary muslims being incapable to recognize and evaluate
the time-space-aspect of the deeds and behaviour of our prophet
Muhammad(p.b.u.h.); even more it has brought up within Islamic
culture and civilization an atmosphere of non-openminded traditional
rigidity; and this sets the muslim ummah before a variety
of problems, today even more than ever, and leads many muslims to the
overemphasis of tradition, sacralizing sunnah as a set of absolute
norms without enough critical reflection when transforming it into
practice. This situation also unavoidably brings forth its consequences
for the practice of fiqh, and especially its weeknesses in recent times,

because fiqh is always interrelated with and based on the material of
the sunnah.
Nevertheless all these considerations could not lead to the conclusion
that sunnah is unpracticable today, which would be a totally
unacceptable position for me, according to my personal opinion.
But what is regarded as well-settled by traditional muslims is not
well-settled for me.

At last, it might be useful to bring in mind that cultural enlightment
is always based on a process of criticism of intellectual traditions
within a culture on the one side and of preservation of intellectual
traditions on the other. This implicates that one has always got to
resume the intellectual discourse within a culture using self-evident
certitudes from its intellectual traditions as a starting point and to
hold back oneself from anarchical and singe-sided views within an
exchange of opinions, in order to obtain new positive achievements
for a culture. This has to be noticed in general and is valid for
the development of fiqh within Islamic culture in special, seeing the
latter as a part of the totality of the existence of a variety of
cultures that we can find in our contemorary world. What I observe
is that this unwritten principle is often ignored by muslims so badly,
that I could hardly evaluate if our Muslim ummah has got even the
slightest chance to cope with its main cultural tasks in the future.

Peace be upon those who believe in the One and Only God and seek for
the humanization of mankind.

Wa-s-salaamu 'alaikum,

Achmed

APPENDIX: Some few Web-pages on shari'a and fiqh

To be informed additionally about shari'a and in some few aspects
about fiqh, the following texts on the "web" might be helpful:

a) as a more general and introductory source, see:

http://www.islamforum.org/readmind/chp4.html

b) as a more special and advanced source with emphasis on
the aspect of interpretation in islamic law, see:

http://ds.dial.pipex.com/masud/ISLAM/nuh/bida.htm

Both texts can only offer a slight glimpse of what shari'a and fiqh
is all about. These cannot be seen as independently readable sources
of information.

c) for additional informations a link page on fiqh can be found at:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/isl/thought.html#fiqh