Forced to divorce
Greg Kavalec
Below you will read "proof" from the Hanifi madhab that a verbal divorce
issued by the husband, EVEN WHEN HE IS FORCED, is considered to be valid
and effective.
Anyone who bothers to FIRST heed the Word of Allah, can see this as
actual proof... Proof that our 'orthodox' madhabs have gone far astray.
Consider...
Allah tells us in al-Baqara 2:256 "La ikraha fee alddeeni qad tabayyana
alrrushdu mina alghayyi faman yakfur bialttaghooti wayu/min biAllahi
faqadi istamsaka bialAAurwati alwuthqa la infisama laha waAllahu
sameeAAun Aaaleemun"
(YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out
clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath
grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah
heareth and knoweth all things.)
MORE, he tells in in al-Furqan 25:54 "Wahuwa allathee khalaqa mina
alma-i basharan fajaAAalahu nasaban wasihran wakana rabbuka qadeeran"
(YUSUFALI: It is He Who has created man from water: then has He
established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has
power (over all things).)
IT IS HE who has established relationships of lineage and marriage, yet
there are those who would force these asunder?
AND OUR SO-CALLED SCHOLARS would support this false divorce, the DIRECT
NAY-SAYING of what Allah has established?
Astaghfirulla!
Any who go this route are no less than criminals, for they have
supported a crime.
Masalaam,
G.Waleed Kavalec
---------------------------------------
Forced to divorce.
According to the Hanafi School of Islamic law, a verbal divorce issued
by the husband, even when he is forced, is considered to be valid and
effective.
Imam al-Mawsili (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"The divorce issued by a person who is forced (mukrah) is
effective..because he intended the divorce but did not want it to occur,
thus he is similar to the one who pronounced the divorce in jest."
(al-Ikhtiyar li ta'lil al-Mukhtar, 2/154)
The great Hanafi jurist, Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him)
states:
"Divorce will occur when it is pronounced by a husband who has reached
puberty (baligh) and is sane (aqil).even if he is a slave or is forced,
for divorce pronounced by a forced person is valid, but not his
admittance to issuing a divorce (m: meaning, if one was forced to admit
that he had divorced, then that will not be a valid admittance)." (See:
Radd al-Muhtar, 3/235)
This ruling is based on the famous Hadith narrated by Sayyiduna Abu
Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah
bless him & give him peace) said: "There are three things which, whether
taken seriously or in jest, are treated as serious (and the effect of
them occur in all circumstances): Marriage, divorce and taking one's
wife back (raj'a)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 2188, Sunan Tirmidhi, no. 1184
& Sunan Ibn Majah, no. 2039)
Shaykh Zafar Ahmad al-Usmani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his
exceptional work, I'la al-Sunan:
"In this (the above) Hadith, there is signification that the divorced
pronounced by an individual in jest is valid, thus it implies that
divorce will occur in every situation where the one pronouncing the
divorce has a free will in speech (m: as opposed to someone who was
overcome by sleep, insanity, etc where he has no will and no choice in
his action), even though if he does not intend the outcome. Hence, an
individual forced to pronounce a divorce is like the above, in that he
utters the divorce with his free will but does not intend the outcome,
as the one divorcing in jest does the same." (I'la al-Sunan, 11/176-177)
Thus, a divorce pronounced by the husband when he is forced and
compelled by his parents, friends or any other person will stand,
regardless of the nature of force used.
Having said that, it is worth remembering that if one was forced into
writing a divorce (and one did not utter divorce verbally), it will not
be valid.
Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:
"In al-Bahr (m: name of a book) it is stated that the ruling (m: of
divorce being effective) is when one is forced to pronounce the divorce
verbally. Thus, if one was forced to write a decree of divorce to one's
wife and he did so, divorce will not occur." (Radd al-Muhtar, 3/236)
Those who are unfortunately faced with the situation of being forced to
divorce their wives despite their unwillingness to do so can use the
abovementioned ruling as a means of avoiding divorce. They can avoid
possible harm unto them selves and also divorcing their wife. But it
should be remembered that any verbal utterance of divorce will be valid.
Now, this leaves us with the definition of "force (ikrah)" for it is
imperative that we understand what is exactly considered a situation of
being forced or compelled.
The jurists (fuqaha) state that there are two situations of force:
1) Extreme or complete force (mulji')
2) Not so extreme or incomplete force (ghayr mulji')
A complete level of force is when a person is threatened in a way that
he fears loosing his life, limb of the body or he is threatened with
excessive beating.
The incomplete level of force is when one is threatened with minor
beating or being imprisoned. (See: Radd al-Muhtar, 6/129, kitab al-ikrah
& al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/35)
It should be remembered that only the extreme and complete level of
force will be effective in changing the ruling of divorce.
Thus, Imam al-Mawsili (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"If one is threatened with the striking of a whip or being imprisoned
for a day or two, then that will not (legally) be considered as being
forced." (al-Ikhtiyar)
Imam al-Haskafi mentions in his Durr al-Mukhtar that there are four
conditions for force to be effective in making a change:
a) The compeller has the power and means to enforce his threat,
b) The threat and the subsequent fear is at present and not in the
future,
c) One is threatened in a way that he fears loosing his life or a limb
of the body, or fears being saddened in such a way that it removes his
content of doing that action,
d) The one forced does not carry out the action willingly from his
heart. (See: Radd al-Muhtar, 6/129)
Therefore, if one was forced without actually being threatened with
anything or one was threatened with minor beats, then this will not be
considered a legal situation of force. Hence, a divorce written in such
a situation will remain valid.
However, if one was threatened in a way that he risked loosing his life
or an organ of the body, or he feared excessive punishment, then his
written divorce will not come into effect.
Moreover, the jurists (fuqaha) have stated that an individual of respect
and honour will be considered in a situation of legal "force" even in a
lesser degree of force than that which was mentioned above.
Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"The nature of force changes from one individual to another, because
reputable people become saddened (m: extremely as mentioned earlier)
with even rough conversation, and disreputable people may not become so
saddened except with excessive beating." (See: Radd al-Muhtar, 6/129)
The same has been mentioned in Bahr al-Ra'iq, 8/71, al-Ikhtiyar, 2/105,
Majma' al-Anhur, 2/430 and other references. (See for more details on
this: Fatawa al-Rahimiyya, 5/316)
The meaning of this is that if an individual is highly respected within
the community, such as a religious scholar or a community leader, etc,
and he is threatened with minor force, such as his wife holding him by
the neck or screaming loudly demanding him to divorce her in the
presence of other people in the community, etc, then in such a case, his
written divorce will not come into effect. However, one should not take
this as a blanket ruling, rather refer and take each individual case to
a local scholar of knowledge and piety.
In conclusion, a verbal pronouncement of divorce is considered valid in
the Hanafi School. However, a written divorce in a state of (legal)
force will not come into effect.
In light of the above, your question has been answered, in that you were
forced to pronounce the divorce. Thus, if you pronounced divorce three
times, it will be valid, hence your marriage with your wife is over.
Fariduddien Rice
> Salaam all
>
> Below you will read "proof" from the Hanifi madhab that a verbal divorce
> issued by the husband, EVEN WHEN HE IS FORCED, is considered to be valid
> and effective.
>
> Anyone who bothers to FIRST heed the Word of Allah, can see this as
> actual proof... Proof that our 'orthodox' madhabs have gone far astray.
Let's take this situation... For one reason or another, a man (let's
say) is FORCED to divorce his wife, such as under threat of death. He
may not intend it, but he has no choice, or he'll be killed.
Afterwards, he has no chance to tell his wife that he was forced (for
example, if he's then thrown in prison).
What happens to the wife then?
According to Kavalec, in this case, the husband and wife are still
married - but the wife thinks she is divorced, as she doesn't know the
husband has been forced. So, if she remarries, her remarriage is
invalid (as she's already married). If she has sexual relations with
her new husband after remarrying, she's then committed adultery, since
she's still married to her old husband - even though she doesn't know
it.
This seems like a possible scenario under Kavalec's "solution" - in
the end, the wife unwittingly commits adultery.
Schools such as the Hanafi school of law have been determined over
many centuries, and undoubtedly they have considered questions like
this. For a person to come along and with 5 minutes consideration try
to show how superior they are only seems to be a demonstration of
arrogance. In the end, law also has to be practical.
Fariduddien Rice
(Speaking for myself)
Haroon
> the end, the wife unwittingly commits adultery.
>
> Schools such as the Hanafi school of law have been determined over
> many centuries, and undoubtedly they have considered questions like
> this. For a person to come along and with 5 minutes consideration try
> to show how superior they are only seems to be a demonstration of
> arrogance. In the end, law also has to be practical.
>
> Fariduddien Rice
> (Speaking for myself)
Salam,
It is a sad state of affairs when people who are so ignorant are
interpreting the Qur'an and using it as evidence to derive their own
legal rulings. The Prophet (saw) said that whoever speaks of the Qur'an
of his own opinion, should prepare for his abode in the fire.
The Hanafi school - the only one of the 4 schools which was founded by
3 mujtahid mutlaqs (absoloute mujtahids) - them being Imam Abu Hanifa,
and his two students Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Mohammed bin Hasan Al-
Shaybani.
Ignorant people can read the Qur'an and can advocate just about
anything from it. I have just seen Irshad Manjil's interview on BBC
Online, where she quotes from the Qur'an in an attepmt to justify
homosexuality.
May Allah subhanawatallah protect us from such evil.
Note that the issue of forced divorce is something which there is
disagreement upon within the four madhabs. However, every opinion is
based upon the ijtihad to their great scholars - AND these were people
who had the necessary qualifications to do this though.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:e9c6e946.0404...@posting.google.com...
....
> Let's take this situation... For one reason or another, a man (let's
> say) is FORCED to divorce his wife, such as under threat of death. He
> may not intend it, but he has no choice, or he'll be killed.
> Afterwards, he has no chance to tell his wife that he was forced (for
> example, if he's then thrown in prison).
>
> What happens to the wife then?
So, are you saying it is better to wink at the compulsion that is not
supposed to be in our deen?
Why do ask how to 'fix' the results of the compelled lie instead of
encouraging the prevention of the compulsion and the lie?
As far as the wife's "crimes" any good Muslim knows that sin is a matter of
intention, and a good Islamic judge *SHOULD* decide that the marriage was
dissolved... but not until the day the wife remarried, innocent of any
knowledge of the truth.
But you seem to rather point an accusing finger at her, rather than at your
Hanafis.
Me,. I don't have that problem.
--
Peace and Blessings
G. Waleed Kavalec
------------------------
http://www.kavalec.com/path_to_islam.htm
Nima Rezai
> "Greg Kavalec" <Gr...@Kavalec.com> wrote in message
> news:<090a01c42bb3$d60db760$2d02...@bswa.com>...
>> divorce issued by the husband, EVEN WHEN HE IS FORCED, is considered
> ...a man is FORCED to divorce his wife, such as under threat of
> death.
> Afterwards, he has no chance to tell his wife that he was forced (for
> example, if he's then thrown in prison).
> According to Kavalec, in this case, the husband and wife are still
> married - but the wife thinks she is divorced, as she doesn't know
the
> husband has been forced. So, if she remarries, her remarriage is
> invalid (as she's already married). If she has sexual relations with
> her new husband after remarrying, she's then committed adultery...
the scenario you have construed here is of extremely low probability,
but I would suggest a solution:
In such a case that a woman is said that her husband divorced her and
that for some unspecified reason he is not "available", she should be
obliged to a) try to contact him directly and ask about his motives (or
at least get an impression whether other reasons such as force have
been behind his decision) or b) to try to find reliable persons who can
get access to him or at least find out about his whereabouts and
situation.
If all efforts fail, she should wait for a period - say two years - and
then remarry.
Only my opinion.
It does not happen all day that a husband divorces his wife and
disappears for reasons other than death in accident, suicide or
becoming victim of a murder.
Nima
Fariduddien
> "Fariduddien Rice" <farid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e9c6e946.0404...@posting.google.com...
> ....
> > Let's take this situation... For one reason or another, a man (let's
> > say) is FORCED to divorce his wife, such as under threat of death. He
> > may not intend it, but he has no choice, or he'll be killed.
> > Afterwards, he has no chance to tell his wife that he was forced (for
> > example, if he's then thrown in prison).
> >
> > What happens to the wife then?
>
> So, are you saying it is better to wink at the compulsion that is not
> supposed to be in our deen?
I didn't say that. This is you trying to put a "spin" on my words
which isn't there.
> Why do ask how to 'fix' the results of the compelled lie instead of
> encouraging the prevention of the compulsion and the lie?
This isn't the issue you raised. If that's what you wanted to know,
you should have asked that in your original post!
Instead, you are clearly now trying to change the subject.
> As far as the wife's "crimes" any good Muslim knows that sin is a matter of
> intention, and a good Islamic judge *SHOULD* decide that the marriage was
> dissolved... but not until the day the wife remarried, innocent of any
> knowledge of the truth.
Ah, I see you've changed your belief now. The divorce was still false
(since it was forced), but now you say that under certain
circumstances (such as remarriage), this false divorce should be
upheld.
Let's say what Waleed said earlier:
Waleed: "IT IS HE who has established relationships of lineage and
marriage, yet there are those who would force these asunder? AND OUR
SO-CALLED SCHOLARS would support this false divorce, the DIRECT
NAY-SAYING of what Allah has established?"
Waleed's answer now is apparently, yes, it is okay to force the
divorce in some circumstances, such as remarriage.
Waleed also said: "Any who go this route are no less than criminals,
for they have supported a crime."
So is Waleed now admitting to be "no less than a criminal" - according
to his own words - by supporting a forced divorce in some
circumstances?
By the way, isn't it easy to always have an answer when you can change
your beliefs at will?
Unfortunately, this is the approach of the "Qur'an-only" sectarians.
What they really follow is not "Qur'an-only" - but instead they follow
their own opinions, which can change in an instant. Their approach to
religion is like building a house on quicksand.
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:236d4bae.04050...@posting.google.com...
....
> Ah, I see you've changed your belief now. The divorce was still false
> (since it was forced), but now you say that under certain
> circumstances (such as remarriage), this false divorce should be
> upheld.
No, I am saying that the WIFE's de-facto divorcing of the HUSBAND clearly
becomes legal at the time of her remarriage. If Allah has allowed her to get
to that point uninformed of the true state of her first husband's heart then
she, ** having no ill intent **, is marrying legally.
> Let's say what Waleed said earlier:
>
> Waleed: "IT IS HE who has established relationships of lineage and
> marriage, yet there are those who would force these asunder? AND OUR
> SO-CALLED SCHOLARS would support this false divorce, the DIRECT
> NAY-SAYING of what Allah has established?"
>
> Waleed's answer now is apparently, yes, it is okay to force the
> divorce in some circumstances, such as remarriage.
Your scholars are not forcing a divorce. Period. NOWHERE in the Qur'an are
they given that authority. You don't have to like it, that's just the way it
is.
The wife is clearly LETTING GO of her first marriage.
Twist this all you want, the 'forced divorce' that started this unlikely
scenario DID NOT HAPPEN. It is a LIE, and a COMPULSION, and a FICTION, yet
your beloved scholars clearly embrace it.
> Waleed also said: "Any who go this route are no less than criminals,
> for they have supported a crime."
And I am twice as convinced of that now than when I originally posted.
Their ability to mislead believers is beyond my understanding. I seek refuge
with Allah from shaitan the outcast.
> So is Waleed now admitting to be "no less than a criminal" - according
> to his own words - by supporting a forced divorce in some
> circumstances?
Believe what you will.
I know that Allah is merciful. You seem to know your scholars are perfect.
We will learn the truth of our differences on judgement day.
> By the way, isn't it easy to always have an answer when you can change
> your beliefs at will?
It will be interesting then to see if Bukhari, Malik, Muslim, and all the
approved scholars of the four remaining orthodox Sunni madhabs will be
forced to bear the burdens of those who followed them instead of submitting
to Allah.
The Qur'an tells us the answer to that. Please review it.
There will be a test.
> Unfortunately, this is the approach of the "Qur'an-only" sectarians.
> What they really follow is not "Qur'an-only" - but instead they follow
> their own opinions, which can change in an instant. Their approach to
> religion is like building a house on quicksand.
I do not claim to be Qur'an-only. I just refrain from worshipping hadith. I
also refrain from worshipping scholars.
If that makes me a 'sectarian' so be it.
My sect is called "Islam"
Joubin
We are in agreement regarding the Hanifi 'ruling'. Surely there is a
clear difference between 'choosing' to 'jest' and 'being forced to' do
and say what you do not want. [There are many examples of where
words/actions contrary to HIS Commandments, when one is "forced to" is
explicitly forgiven. I suggest that the Hanafi School review The
Qur'an more carefully.]
However:
I do not find anything in the actual 'hadith' that is contrary to
Qur'an. In other words, this Hadith is clearly being misinterpreted
and misapplied.
Nor do I find a case such as this "ruling" to provide proof for the
wholesale rejection of the Sayings of The Prophet. (And this is not
even a case of 'misinterpretation'. It is a 'extension' of a
misinterpretation into a truly egregious ruling.)
Now
Have you ever considered that it is a mistake to simply accept the
'traditional' understanding of a (reported/purported/...) saying of
the Prophet?
Wouldn't an effort to consider the sayings of the Messenger within an
context of a renewed, contemporary, and culturally neutral Spiritual
Understanding actually be more 'pleasing' and 'acceptable' to ALLAH,
WHO Has *clearly* and *explicitly* disallowed sectarian tendencies?
For example, lets take this hadith of The Messenger Islam and The Seal
of The Prophets (Salaam be upon him and his house!):
--
There are three things which,
Whether taken seriously or in jest,
are treated as serious:
Marriage,
divorce
and taking one's wife back.
--
OK.
As you have _correctly_ noted, ALLAH Has made it Clear that 'marital'
relations are not simply social/temporal relations. There is both a
clear Spiritual dimension ("ALLAH Has Established") and belong to a
transcendent context ("He Who has created man from water: then has He
established relationships of lineage and marriage").
OK, so 'Marriage' is clearly (right?) a Sacred Institution and a
Sacred Relation.
Are we in agreement?
OK.
How are we to treat that which is sacred? And when is 'jesting' --
you know, having fun with friend, joking around, normal light human
interactions -- unacceptable?
Here is one example:
2.1 In Name of ALLAH Ar'RahMaan Ar'RaHeem!
...
2:68 And ** Remember ** when
Moses said to his people
ALLAH Commands you to slaughter a cow
They said
Dost thou make a jest of us ?
He said
I seek refuge with ALLAH
least I should be of the ignorant !
OK. So here these Israelites are ignorant enough to think that Moses
(Salaam be upon him) would actually "jest" regarding a "Command" of
ALLAH.
Note what The Messenger is saying here:
I seek refuge with ALLAH least I should be of the ignorant !
Are you with me brother?
To make 'Jest' of that which is 'sacred' is the way of the who?
The ignorant.
How serious is it?
I seek **refuge** with ALLAH least I should be of the ignorant !
Serious.
OK.
Another example:
2:232 And when you divorce women
And they approach the end of their appointed period
Then
either retain them in a becoming manner
or send them away in a becoming manner
but retain them not wrongfully
so that you may transgress against them
And whoso does that
surely wrongs his own soul
** And do not make a jest of the Commandments of ALLAH **
And ** Remember **
The Favour of ALLAH upon you
AND
The Book
AND
The Wisdom which HE HAS Sent Down to you
Whereby HE exhorts you!
And fear ALLAH
And know that
ALLAH Knows all things well !
OK.
So, according to The Qur'an (And truly thanks be to ALLAH for this
Wonderful and * Most Perfect * Book !) the Commandments of ALLAH --
such as those pertaining to "Marital Relations" -- are not to be taken
in 'Jest' nor trifled with.
I'm sure we are in agreement, are we not my brother?
OK.
Another example:
5.1 In Name of ALLAH Ar'RahMaan Ar'RaHeem!
...
5:58 O ye who Believe !
Take not for friends [*]
Those who
[*i] make a jest and sport of your Religion !
From among those who were given the Book before you
and the disbelievers.
And fear ALLAH if you are believers !
5:59
And who when you call people to Prayer
[*ii] take it for a jest and sport
This is because they [*] are people who do not understand.
Alright.
So ALLAH Is Guiding us to a 'correct' understanding of the
'psychological' and 'spiritual' condition of people [*] who encounter
(other) Religion(s) with ridicule.
We are Guided to the Knowledge that such people lack "Understanding".
And who but the ignorant would seek the friendship of such people?
OK. Another example:
9:65 And if thou question them
they will most surely say
We were only talking idly and jesting !
Say
Was it ALLAH and HIS Signs and HIS Messenger that you
mocked at ?
Who are "they"?
9:64 The Hypocrites ...
OK. One last example:
4:1 In Name of ALLAH Ar'RahMaan Ar'RaHeem!
...
4:141 And HE HAS already Revealed to you in the Book that
When you hear the Signs of ALLAH
being denied and *mocked* at
Sit not with those who indulge in such talk
Until they engage in some other talk
For in that case *** you would be like them ***
Surely
ALLAH WILL Assemble the hypocrite and the disbelievers
** in Hell **
all together!
OK. I think we're done.
For a Believer to make 'light' of, to 'mock' at, or to 'take in jest',
that which is from ALLAH, and is Sacred, and Eternal, is no better
than that which "hypocrites" and "unbelievers" do.
So, it is reported that Mohammad Mustafa (Salaam Salaam Salaam be upon
him!) has Said:
--
There are three things which
Whether taken seriously or in jest
are treated as serious:
Marriage
divorce
and taking one's wife back
--
Now tell if you are of those who think this a 'false' report, or ALLAH
Forbid, do you think that the Prophet has made a 'mistake' ??
(As far as I can ~see~, here The Prophet, as usual, has 'woven' in his
own inimitable way, a deep understanding of these matters, based
PURELY on The Guidance of The Qur'an.)
For there have surely been, and continue to be, those who may have
said, "in jest", something that which they did not 'intend' regarding
Marital Relations.
And had they not recourse to this Saying of our Beloved Mustafa, and
had they insisted to think themselves Spiritually, Intellectually, and
Psychologically, sufficient to arrive at the correct Understanding by
their application of "Qur'an alone", well then they would "like [the
hypocrites and the unbelievers]".
They would have said "Oh! But we were *only* jesting when we
mockingly proposed Marriage, or mockingly said 'I divorce you', or
mockingly said 'Come, I shall take you back!'".
They'll say 'Show me where in the The Qur'an it is written not to say
these things in 'light' conversation'".
So my brother Greg.
"Remember The Favour of ALLAH upon you "
And what is this Favour?
9:128
Surely!
A Messenger has Come unto you from among yourselves
*** Grievous to him is it ***
*** that you should fall into trouble ***
He is
*** ardently desirous of your Welfare ***
And to the believers he is specially
compassionate and merciful !
So
Salaam Be Ever Upon Mohammad Mustafa!
The Messenger of ALLAH !
And The Seal of The Prophets !
And
Salaam be upon his 'House':
The House of Ra'ouf Ra'Heem !
So hasten not, O You who Believe, to make 'common cause' with the
enemies of ALLAH and HIS Angels and HIS Messengers!
Do not be of those who seek to cause DIVISION amongst the Muslim
Umma.
Surely 'that' is a most grievous Crime in HIS Sight!
And Remember:
ALLAH
HE IS
The Forgiving !
The Merciful !
Oft Returning with HIS Mercy !
Oft Returning with HIS Forgiveness !
And HE IS
The LORD of Mercy !
And HE IS
The LORD of Infinite Grace !
Wa Salaam.
"Greg Kavalec" <Gr...@Kavalec.com> wrote in message news:090a01c42bb3$d60db760$2d02...@bswa.com...
> Salaam all
>
> Below you will read "proof" from the Hanifi madhab that a verbal divorce
> issued by the husband, EVEN WHEN HE IS FORCED, is considered to be valid
> and effective.
>
> Anyone who bothers to FIRST heed the Word of Allah, can see this as
> actual proof... Proof that our 'orthodox' madhabs have gone far astray.
> Consider...
[...]
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:3767f8c6.04050...@posting.google.com...
> Salaam Greg,
>
> We are in agreement regarding the Hanifi 'ruling'.
> However:
>
> I do not find anything in the actual 'hadith' that is contrary to
> Qur'an. In other words, this Hadith is clearly being misinterpreted
> and misapplied.
>
> Nor do I find a case such as this "ruling" to provide proof for the
> wholesale rejection of the Sayings of The Prophet.
Salaam Joubin
I believe we have similar understanding.
This is why I shrug off others' attempts to label me 'Quranist' or
'Quran Only'. It is they who are violating the injunctions against
division into sects by applying such labels.
I do not indulge in 'wholesale rejection' of hadith, I rather reject
the notion that they are appropriate sources of Islamic Law,
when our Rabb has clearly said that law comes from Him.
> Have you ever considered that it is a mistake to simply accept the
> 'traditional' understanding of a (reported/purported/...) saying of
> the Prophet?
>
> Wouldn't an effort to consider the sayings of the Messenger within an
> context of a renewed, contemporary, and culturally neutral Spiritual
> Understanding actually be more 'pleasing' and 'acceptable' to ALLAH,
> WHO Has *clearly* and *explicitly* disallowed sectarian tendencies?
Exactly!
We have always seen ourselves as 'above' some of the common
errors of non-Muslim peoples, such as ancestor worship.
But the reality is we indulge in effectively the same practice, just
wrapped in Islamic-like packaging. We paint the figures in our
history...
LARGER THAN LIFE !
....and then rabidly turn on anyone who questions such depiction.
The truth is that acknowleging that ALL HUMANS are fallible, and
including those great names in our history in that acknowledgement
seems to anger the 'othodox' to no end.
Well, I fear Allah FAR more than I fear the orthodox edifice!
Jazakallah khair for your comments.
G. Waleed Kavalec
Joubin
[Please note that this is a 2nd attempt to get this post past the
censors of SRI. Your comments have been drastically truncated --
please refer to the full paragraphs of your original post for explicit
context. Further please note that citations from The Qur'an are based
in the indexing that numbers the Bismi'LLAH as Sign 1.]
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote in message news:lqydnb9W9dQ...@intertex.net...
[...]
> I do not indulge in 'wholesale rejection' of hadith, I rather reject
> the notion that they are appropriate sources of Islamic Law,
Please amplify your thought above as it is not clear to me.
For:
* Given * "Favor" and "The Book" and "The Wisdom" - whereby "Favour"
is "Pardon and Mercy" and "The Book" is The Guidance *Most Perfect &
Complete*, and "Wisdom" is in its 'application' in 'Time' and in
'Space'.
For I've been Taught that is not enough to be True.
And I've been Taught
Be Timely
Be True
Now the Spirit 'animates' Man, and ALLAH Bestows "Wisdom" [2:130,
2:152, 2:252, 3:49, 3:80, 3:165, 4:114, 5:111, 19:13] & "correct
Understanding" [21:80] & "interpretations of matters Divine" [12:7] to
HIS Chosen Servants.
And 'such' Wisdom Governs 'his' (PBUH) thoughts, and thoughts are
expressed in 'words' and in 'deeds'.
So certainly the Source of *Everything* is ALLAH, and HIS Words Is
Perfection, and most certainly HE IS The Master of us all.
But then there Is Yahya, and then there Is Suleimaan, and then lets
not forget, for there Is Joseph.
~!~ ~!~ ~!~
[&] Surely in Joseph and his brethren
There are Signs
For *the Questioners*
~!~ ~!~ ~!~
> We have always seen ourselves as 'above' [errors]
> such as ancestor worship.
Without question mistakes have been, and are being, made.
& Ancestor worship is clearly the way of *the misguided* amongst the
Materialists.
(And I guess that makes them doubly misguided ;)
And most certainly, ALLAH IS the Sole Perfection.
But thankfully, HE IS Forgiving and Oft-Returning.
> But [in] reality [.] we indulge in [.] the same practice [...]
Questioning is most healthy (for even Angels questioned our RAB'B!),
but there are 'Stations' and 'Ranks' and we note that the Angels
question with great respect.
And respect for The Prophet
is most effective in curbing self-exaltation.
> The truth is [.] HUMANS are fallible [.]
> incl. .. great names ...
Yes and ...
> .. I fear Allah FAR more than [.] the orthodox edifice!
... Of course, fear *none* but ALLAH.
(I am with you on that!)
And so it is that I tell you:
Question not the Prophet who Came with "Authority Manifest", but
question those who misunderstand and misuse his Sayings, perhaps
because of a deficit of Reason and/or Science, or perhaps to please a
Sultan who had been eyeing the wife of a servant!
> Jazakallah khair for your comments.
Glory Be to ALLAH.
Most Gracious IS HE
And Far Far Exalted IS HE above HIS Servants!
> G. Waleed Kavalec
Salaam !
G. Waleed Kavalec
> Salaam Greg!
>
> > I do not indulge in 'wholesale rejection' of hadith, I rather reject
> > the notion that they are appropriate sources of Islamic Law,
>
> Please amplify your thought above as it is not clear to me.
Salaam Joubin
Hadith contain records of the Prophet(saws), his word, his deed, his habits,
etc. But as they were collected and transmitted by fallible (and
corruptible) humans, without the guranteed protection that is given the
Qur'an, we must deal with them with great caution. We are NOT guranteed that
there is no twisting of words, we are not guaranteed that forgeries have not
slipped in.
Not just human error can exist in these texts, but the intentions of our
avowed enemy as well.
But we are given the Critereon to test for these attempts.
The Qur'an.
Any hadith or hadith-interpretation that contradicts the Word is either
incorrect or a deliberate attempt to mislead us.
For me, personally, the keystone example of this is rajam (stoning). The
Qur'an says lash the adulterer 100 times. Period. No qualifications.
PRIOR to the revelation of that surah, the only know scriptural law
concerning adultery was Jewish law. And that law called for stoning. So
certainly the Prophet applied that law until it was abrogated by the
revelations he was receiving.
He also was party to the agreement known as the Covenant of Medina. A
treaty, nearly a constitution, that called for Muslims to be judge by the
laws of Islam, and for Jews to be judged by the older Judaic laws.
In keeping with this agreement Muhammad(saws) did possibly sentence JEWISH
adulterers to stoning, even though by this time he knew the correct
punishment was 100 lashes. Muslims are enjoined to keep our agreements.
Yet through the fog of time, and I am sure with some help from other than
good forces, we came to a point where Islamic scholars believe they have
enough hadith to outweigh the very word of Allah. And they tell us the
punishment for the MARRIED adulterer is stoning.
Worse, some hadith even claim there was such an AYAT!
Only Allah can alter the word of Allah.
Are you seeing why I reject the notion that hadith can be appropriate
sources of Islamic Law? We have too much history of hadith being used to
manipulate the Message.
As individual guidance, for one to emulate the Prophet? Absolutely! Study
the hadith, with care.
But as LAW? When we are oft told to judge by the Law of Allah.
NO!
> Question not the Prophet who Came with "Authority Manifest", but
> question those who misunderstand and misuse his Sayings, perhaps
> because of a deficit of Reason and/or Science, or perhaps to please a
> Sultan who had been eyeing the wife of a servant!
I do not have such arrogance brother. But I do reserve the right to
question those who claim to know his commands.
Salaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
PS: Yes, getting messages, with quoted text, posted here can be a trial.
Often it is best to use several replies, each addressing a single bit
of the original.