For too long, we have had an Islam which has its roots in a book that was written 1,400 years ago in a hot, violent place in the middle of nowhere with too many camels. Seriously, most of us haven’t been there, don’t know anyone from there, and feel more at home in a “two piece chicken and chips” take-away restaurant than we would in the Middle East.
We might have been forced to read their alphabet as young children, but the vast majority of us don’t know more than a few words in Arabic. We just throw in a little “Al-Hamdulillah” in conversation amongst other Muslims so that we can “be Islamic”.
Isn’t it about time to change? We aren’t Arabs, and the people we live with don’t like our choice of clothing, our convoluted names or our insistence on only eating animals that have been bled to death by some hairy bloke with a big knife.
This “problem” couldn’t have been better expressed than by the City Circle, who have today held an event launching “The Muslim Marriage Contract”, which gives new rights to married couples. As reported by the Telegraph:
The husband has to agree not to:
- abuse his wife/child(ren) verbally, emotionally, physically, or sexually
- be absent from the marital home for more than 60 days unless by agreement
- withhold money towards his wife/family
- transmit disease
- interfere with the wife’s property
The husband must provide accommodation outside his existing family home, and he “must delegate the power of divorce to his new bride”. She also doesn’t need her parents (wali) involvement in the marriage, and the witnesses to the marriage need not be Muslims - anyone will do.
Aww, so sweet! Not only have the authors of this contact inherently decided that Muslim men cannot be trusted, they’ve also decided that Islam isn’t good enough for them. The “default” marriage contract - the nikah - seemingly needs additional provisos and conditions added to it; those provided by Islam aren’t enough.
Amusingly, this is being described as “equality”, but even with these new changes, the woman isn’t expected to provide financial support to her family; that’s the man’s problem.
The usual slew of MPs and feminists have crawled out to say how they support these wonderful revisions to Islam. However, the best part is that this contract wasn’t the product of a drunken night, but took four years to compile. After four years, they have produced something that tarnishes the Muslim man, and doesn’t for even one second address the underlying problems in some marriages. I mean, seriously, who is going to be “nice” just because some contract says so? Does that work for non-Muslims?! All that stuff about “loving, honouring, richer, poorer” still leads to a lot of battered women and broken homes. This doesn’t solve anything, it just makes us look pathetic.
We do have good and bad marriages amongst Muslims, but basing a marriage on Islam, i.e. actually practicing what was proclaimed by the prophet Muhammad (saw) is the ONLY solution for a successful productive Muslim marriage.
So there it is: these people have decided that our Islam has been too Qur’anic, and our methodology based too much upon the sunnah of the prophet Muhammad (saw). They want to add in a little of their own spices to make it taste better. Yummy.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Each time I read it, this contract annoys me more. Another thing I’ve noticed:
If the intent was to bring Muslim marriages in line with existing laws in Britain, this could be achieved by simple registration of the marriage. This ALREADY HAPPENS amongst many Muslims in addition to the nikah. The same applies for Hindus, etc, since their religious ceremonies are not recognised by English Law.
Furthermore, the restrictions placed upon men by this innovative contract far exceed those of non-Muslims. For example, where in British law does it state that a husband cannot leave his wife (or vice-versa) for 60 days? Do the authors of this contract believe that Muslims need to be suppressed more than anyone else?
Certainly the objective is sinister. This is an attempt to change Islam, not to protect women.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
The Muslim Marriage Contract launched by the City Circle recently, though purportadly in line with Islamic Law, explicitly claims that certain conditions of the marriage contract can be fulfilled by certain persons who are ineligible to do so, according to all four schools of Sunni Islam. The major problem is that this contract claims that the witnesses to the contract must be adult, sane and reliable and that faith and gender are irrelevant.
To the best of my knowledge- reliable has never been a condition required by any Islamic scholar, rather the requirement of being adl- Just has been required by Imam Ash-Shafi, however being adl requires that one be a MUSLIM of good standing, who isn’t known for openly transgressing Islamic Law. As for gender, only the Hanafis allow women to witness a marriage and that is still restricted to the case of one man and two women witnessing a marriage, whilst two women alone or even four is insufficient, all the other schools stipulate two male witnesses only. With regards to religion, all four schools agree that only Muslims may witness a marriage between two Muslims, the school of Imam Abu Hanifah, May Allah’s Mercy be upon him, allows Jews and Christians living under an Islamic state to witness the marriage of a Muslim man to a Jew or Christian living under the Islamic state. However this is a very narrow stipulation which does not allow the witnessing of people from other religions or those of no religion and is disputed within the Hanafi Madhhab by Imam Muhammad Ash-Shaybani and Imam Zufar, May Allah’s Mercy be upon them. Finally this contract claims that a woman doesn’t need to be given in marriage by a guardian (wali) although this is a requirement by all the scholars with the exception of the Hanafis. The contract then is an innovation unacceptable to the Ahl-e-Sunnah as it conforms to none of the schools of the Ahl-e-Sunnah although interestingly it would conform with the Shi’a Jafari school which claims that witnesses and a wali are not necessary at all.
The Muslim Marriage Contract also stipulates that the man MUST give the right of divorce (talaq-e-tafweed) to the woman, which is an undermining of his right according to Islamic Law to give the right or withhold it. Islamic Law gives other avenues to the woman to secure a divorce through khula and other means. Also bizarrely the Contract seeks to extend British Law to foreign jurisdictions with regards to the issue of polygany by stating:
The husband is not to enter into formal or informal nikah (Muslim marriage) contract in the UK or abroad with another woman, as it is unlawful under the laws of England and Wales as well as the Scottish legal system.
It would seem that this contract would most likely be regarded as invalid according to the majority of the Ulema and that the Hanafi jurists while upholding the contract would strike down the invalid conditions within it and if the contract was actually witnessed by invalid witnesses then they would have to declare the contract completely void.
It seems likely that the Wahhabi Shariah Council which is one of the sponsors of this document will be the only ones adjudicating in lines with is provisions and as such will add to the undermining of their authority which can only be a good thing. Most Sunni Ulema will not use it and continue with the traditional system of conducting the nikkah and allowing the couple to have a British marriage as well if they like. Sadly this contract will engage many innocent Muslims ignorant of the provisions of the Shariah to be involved in sin and innovation and possibly even zina and it is a shame that more credible figures such as Shaykh Haitham Tamim, Maulana Shahid Reza and Mufti Baraktullah have also endorsed this document. The claim for its need is that it will help Muslim couples know their religious and legal obligations and secure their financial rights under British law. However it is the constant struggles for property and children in the British courts which is destroying the Muslim community from within, further recourse to it will not aid the situation but make it worse. Legal solutions can never substitute for the engendering of taqwa- the awareness of Allah in the Muslim community. All legal systems including the Shariah can be subverted by the deviousness of individuals due to their lack of fear of recompense on the Day of Judgment. The real work of developing this quality in our communities needs to be the priority of our Ulema and leaders, not these documents which compromise Islamic Law for the sake of gaining endorsement from the British legal system whose family legal provisions are often the cause of great injustices and inquities being created and perpetuated within Muslim families and which are at odds with our Laws and values.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Here we go again another Bidat that has been introduced by these Tableeghi-Sufi-Wahabi alliance and we are supposed to accept this as a revelutionary step in the history of Islamic legislation. I for one will not abide by any introduced clauses from this contract that contravenes that which is established within our Islamic law. According to the spirit of our Islamic Law we have to reject these newly invented rules so that we are able to preserve the pure Islamic Tradition as it has always been.
It was only inevitable that something like this had to happen. By allowing these so called Islamic personalities to do this we are now deviating further and further away from the pure pratice of our Holy Prophet Peace and Blessings be upon him and the early community of the pious believers and those that followed them. In the comming days, people will see Secular Islamic organisations such as MCB, City Cirlce, Muslim Parliment etc rising to the challenge and promoting this government machinery lead legislation to persuade people to accept it. There will be many who will be persuaded by these government mouth-piece organisations because they simply inspire thier confidence and anyone in opposition will be ridiculed and labled as an extremist according to the practice of Social control.
It is time we distanced ourseleves from these groups and thier leaders and from the government agenda’s that they are promoting(Social Cohesion, Integration, adoption of western ideals and values). If you are wondering how do we disassociate? it can easily be done-by not donating any monies to thier group causes. As they are already recieving vast sums of funding from the British Establishment for their work.
We must stop thinking that these groups are there to promote the interest of the Muslims or they are there to teach us Islam. One can learn Islam without being in a group. One can travel for knowledge.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
what a Cily Circle !
August 13th, 2008 at 11:32 am
It turns out one of the key players in developing this “muslim marriage contract” is Cassandra Balchin, who is pictured at the foot of this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm from only a few months ago where she was arguing against Shariah Arbitration Tribunals, she is also connected to a number of campaigns against all polygamy and against hudud punishments, the latter even being suggested as being unIslamic. Well its good to know that the kind of calibre of “Alima” being involved in drafting this nonsense.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Shaykh Haytham on the Spurious ‘Marriage’ Contract:
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=15089
August 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Indeed! Now these godless people have to suggest a few changes here and there and trim our true Religion so that it can be adjusted into their essentially godless society! No doubt such attacks will continue to mount against an unconscious and unsuspecting Muslim population (Muslims by name only, with a few exceptions ofcourse).
August 18th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Haitham al-Haddad has publically denounced this contract and claims to be doing so on behalf of both the Islamic Sharia Council and the MCB, however there are no official retractions on either of the organisations’ websites, rather the MCB has issued a rather wishy washy statement which seems to be endorsing the document but trying to distance itself the official guidelines issued with the contract.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
If a couple have two or three different reference points, then naturally there’ll be problems in a marriage. Some Muslims in the UK refer to a mixture of traditions, culture, Islam, and the liberal society they live in. This is partly to blame for the breakdown of Muslim marriages.
The solution isn’t a new contract - especially a contract based on the laws and values of a nation that has a pathetic track record when it comes to marriage. My non-Muslim friends tell me how they have no choice but to “trust” their spouses… but in reality they have no guarantee of loyalty… can you blame them? How can you trust someone to be loyal when he/she has spent their life without restriction? They only restrict themselves to one partner when they see the benefit of it. When the benefit no longer exists, what then?
The real solution is to return to the values of Islam and submit to the wisdom of the Creator holistically. There’s no other guarantee better than the accountability to Allah and the love and tranquillity Allah instils in the hearts of the spouses who refer to Islam alone.
I look at my wife lying back on the sofa, reading an article about this Frankenstein contract on her laptop. The pure antipathy on her face made me smile and thank Allah for liberating us both from the worship of man, to the worship of Allah, the Creator of the Universe.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
So, amongst other things, your definition of a ’successful, productive Muslim marriage’ would involve the approval of domestic violence:
Sahih al-Bukhari 5377 - ‘Ikrima narrated that Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!”When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.”Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent). But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,”
Sahih Muslim 1619 - Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi’ (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you. ?
Sunan Abi Dawood 1834 - Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.
Sunan Abi Dawood 1835 - “The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”
But if you must emulate someone, could you in good conscience emulate the aforementioned behaviour or prescribe it for somebody else?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Imam Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi sounds to me like some fundamentalist Christian trying to pretend he is a Muslim scholar. They are plenty of jokers like him on YouTube, one even had the audacity to pretended that he was hafiz and studied at Al Azhar. Anyway,
The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said in a hadith
“The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best and kndest to his wife” (Tirmidhi, ibn Maja)
A woman came to the Prophet of Islam stating her father had given her in marriage against her wishes to his nephew: So the Prophet gave her choice of repudiating the marriage.(Bukhari, bint Khidam)
Some Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, even where permitted, are not to be harsh or some even contend that they should be “more or less symbolic.” According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating. Abu Shaqqa refers to the edict of Hanafi scholar al-Jassas (d. 981) who notes that the reprimand should be “A non-violent blow with siwak [a small stick used to clean the teeth] or similar. This means that to hit with any other means is legally [Islamically] forbidden.”
Scholars and commentators have stated that Muhammad directed men not to hit their wives’ faces, not to beat their wives in such a way as would leave marks on their body, and not to beat their wives as to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih). Scholars too have stipulated against beating or disfigurement, with others such as the Syrian jurist Ibn Abidin prescribing ta’zir punishments against abusive husbands.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
It would be appreciated if the other brothers on the blog could actually look at the comment from al-Huthi above. SRR has hyperlinked the hadiths to the correct sources. Jzk.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Ya ‘Abdullah this seems a little truculent to me,
‘Imam Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi sounds to me like some fundamentalist Christian trying to pretend he is a Muslim scholar. They are plenty of jokers like him on YouTube, one even had the audacity to pretended that he was hafiz and studied at Al Azhar.’
Mayhap I ’sound’ like one of these fellows, but I’m not. Why Imam Husayn Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi though I wonder…
Could you provide the hadith nos. from Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah,
“The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best and kindest to his wife (Tirmidhi, ibn Maja)”
…so that I can verify the (Arabic) matn and isnad?
Likewise,
“A woman came to the Prophet of Islam stating her father had given her in marriage against her wishes to his nephew: So the Prophet gave her choice of repudiating the marriage.(Bukhari, bint Khidam)”
Your Wikipedia excerpt is a trifle worrying,
“Some Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, even where permitted, are not to be harsh or some even contend that they should be “more or less symbolic.” According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating. Abu Shaqqa refers to the edict of Hanafi scholar al-Jassas (d. 981) who notes that the reprimand should be “A non-violent blow with siwak [a small stick used to clean the teeth] or similar. This means that to hit with any other means is legally [Islamically] forbidden.”
To describe a consensus of commentators advocating a ‘light beating’ on 4:34 is to be economical with the truth. On the contrary, a cursory reading of the appropriate parts of at-Tabari’s Jaami’a ul-Bayaan via altafsir.com, suggests that incomplete consensus rests on delivering a ‘non-violent’ beating and that the beating itself is prescribed to ensure ‘obedience’ to Allah if she rebels against you in divinely-ordained matters. Non-violent does not necessarily equate to ‘light’.
Nonetheless, why advocate any sort of corporal punishment? Surely this sort of behaviour is incompatible with citizenship in a secular democracy…
I seem to remember hearing about the Imam al-Jassas (Abu Bakr al-Jassas ar-Razi)ruling somewhere, but I don’t have a copy of Ahkam ul-Qur’aan to verify this.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
In the event of a family dispute, the Qur’an exhorts the husband to treat his wife kindly and not overlook her POSITIVE ASPECTS (see Qur’an 4:19).
If the problem relates to the wife’s behavior, her husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem continues, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in deliberate mistreatment and expresses contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations.
Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but NEVER ON THE FACE, making it more of a symbolic measure then a punitive one. Following is the related Qur’anic text:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) do not share their beds, (and last) beat (tap) them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (4:34)
Even here, that maximum measure is limited by the following:
a. It must be seen as A RARE EXCEPTION TO THE REPEATED EXHORTATION OF MUTUAL RESPECT, KINDNESS AND GOOD TREATMENT, discussed earlier. Based on the Qur’an and hadith this measure may be used in the cases of lewdness on the part of the wife or extreme refraction and rejection of the husband’s reasonable requests on a consistent basis (nushuz). Even then, other measures, such as exhortation, should be tried first.
b. As defined by hadith, it is NOT PERMISSIBLE TO STRIKE ANYONE’S FACE, CAUSE ANY BODILY HARM OR EVEN BE HARSH. What the hadith qualified as dharban ghayra mubarrih, or light striking, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolic) use of miswak (a small natural toothbrush)! They further qualified permissible “striking” as that which leaves no mark on the body. It is interesting that this latter fourteen-centuries-old qualifier is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from “abuse” in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort, and “lesser of the two evils” measure that may save a marriage does not meet the definitions of “physical abuse,” “family violence, ” or “wife battering” in the 20th century law in liberal democracies, where such extremes are so commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.
c. The permissibility of such symbolic expression of the seriousness of continued refraction DOES NOT IMPLY ITS DESIRABILITY. In several ahadith, Prophet Muhammad (P) discouraged this measure. Among his sayings are the following: “Do not beat the female servants of Allah;” “Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you;” and”[It is not a shame that] one of you beats his wife like [an unscrupulous person] beats a slave and maybe he sleeps with her at the end of the day.” (See Riyadh Al-Saliheen, op.cit,p.p. 137-140). In another hadith the Prophet(P) said:
…How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?… (Sahih Al-Bukhari,op.cit., vol.8.hadith 68,pp.42-43).
d. True following of the sunnah is to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad (P), who NEVER RESORTED TO THAT MEASURE, regardless of the circumstances.
e. Islamic teachings are universal in nature. They respond to the needs and circumstances of diverse times, cultures and circumstances. Some measures may work in some cases and cultures or with certain persons but may not be effective in others. by definition, a “permissible” act is neither required, encouraged or forbidden. In fact it may be BETTER TO SPELL OUT THE EXTENTof permissibility, such as in the issue at hand, rather than leaving it unrestricted and unqualified, or ignoring it all together. In the absence of strict qualifiers, persons may interpret the matter in their own way, which can lead to excesses and real abuse.
f. Any excess, cruelty, family violence, or abuse committed by any “Muslim” can never be traced, honestly, to any revelatory text (Qur’an or hadith). Such EXCESSES AND VIOLATIONS ARE TO BE BLAMED ON THE PERSON(S) HIMSELF, as it shows that they are paying lip service to Islamic teachings and injunctions and failing to follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet (P).
August 19th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
The ‘ruling’ from Imam al-Jasaas regarding using siwak for the ‘non-violent’ beating can be found by downloading Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan at the perenially excellent Maktabat Mishkat il-Islamiyyah. You can find the section on ‘Proscription of Marital Discord’ (Baab an-Nahiyu ‘ani an-Nushoozi) at pg870 in the first Word document from the zip file.
But despite the quote from Wikipedia citing this ‘ruling’, it’s hardly that. Rather it’s a narration by one Ibn Jareej from ‘Ataa included in al-Jasaas’s treatise; there’s no ruling here from al-Jasaas himself. I’m not quite sure where Abd ul-Haleem Abu Shaqqah gets his ruling from that castigation ’should only’ be applied with a miswak, given that in the same section of Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan, the use of the hand is discussed.
Don’t forget that the Araak tree roots from which the siwak is taken are ubiquitous in the Arabian peninsula. They can be quite big and, as anyone can testify who’s touched a ‘natural’ miswak toothbrush, are durable and sturdy. My wife says she’d prefer the use of a large, prickly hatol as, she maintains, at least we could eat it afterwards (joke).
August 19th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
An excellent, well-researched posting Reelpolitik, but might I be so bold as to take issue with you on one or two points?
“Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but NEVER ON THE FACE, making it more of a symbolic measure then a punitive one.”
Perhaps it’s just me, but from Allah’s use of the ‘word’ aDrabuhunna, commentators have asserted that any ’strike’ should not be on the face, should be light etc. I appreciate that they have made their conclusions based on narrations about prophetic tradition, but why did Allah use this particular word? He could’ve used any number of other words to denote a ‘light, symbolic’ quality. Instead, He chooses to use the same verb associated with Moses and his stick.
“True following of the sunnah is to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad (P), who NEVER RESORTED TO THAT MEASURE, regardless of the circumstances.”
But I contest that HE DID resort to physical violence, with his ‘favourite’ wife, and even without observing the preconditions that you (and the commentators, jurists before you) state. We know this because of the ‘exemplary’ isnad of the Sahih Muslim hadith 1619.
Last point, and sorry to be pernickety, but could you provide an ‘original’ (ie Arabic edition) hadith number for your Imaam al-Bukhaari citation,
“…How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?… (Sahih Al-Bukhari,op.cit., vol.8.hadith 68,pp.42-43).”
I only have access to a summarised copy in English of one volume and I prefer to use the Arabic libraries online.
“c. The permissibility of such symbolic expression of the seriousness of continued refraction DOES NOT IMPLY ITS DESIRABILITY. In several ahadith, Prophet Muhammad (P) discouraged this measure. Among his sayings are the following: “Do not beat the female servants of Allah;” “Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you;” and”[It is not a shame that] one of you beats his wife like [an unscrupulous person] beats a slave and maybe he sleeps with her at the end of the day.” (See Riyadh Al-Saliheen, op.cit,p.p. 137-140).”
The same applies for Imam an-Nawawi’s Riyadh us-Saaliheen. Could you provide details for the Arabic edition, please? It’ll save me an immensely long trawl through my ‘miniature’ copy with tiny Arabic script.
Many thanks.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
This string of comments is excellent! “Imam Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi” has managed to raise an issue that I hadn’t thought to address.
Rather than get into the intricate details of one hadith or another, I think we ought to be approaching this another way. In my experience, the usual approach taken by Muslims is “you bring your daleel and I’ll bring mine”. That can never and will never work.
For starters, lets consider the following example from the Qur’an, where Allah seems to curse the Muslims:
“Woe to the worshipers” [Al-Maun, Ayah 4]
Read alone, that one complete verse of the Qur’an would seem to suggest that being Muslim is a one-way ticket to the Hellfire. However, I’ve taken one complete verse, from one surah, from a complete book. That is rather like taking one hadith, from an entire hadith collection, from the complete life of a human being.
Focusing on chains of narration is a distraction. This is about something else: Whenever a sahabi heard a narration of Muhammad (saw) - even an authentic hadith - he was encouraged to convey it to another Muslim because that 2nd person may have a better understanding of the hadith. There is a distinct difference between someone who knows all of the evidences and someone who is able to derive a ruling.
I note three things: First, there is not a single classical scholar who says that we should be abusing our wives. That means that in over 1400 years, not one scholar has supported “Imam Badr ud-Deen”’s opinion regarding “the approval of domestic violence”.
Furthermore, Badr ud-Deen has stated that his viewpoint is affected by “secular democracy”, something that is quite counter to Islam.
Third, I note that Badr ud-Deen has not proposed a solution to a problem, but is pointing out what he considers to be a problem with Islam. Some of us who have replied have been defensive, but in reality the issue is that Islam is an ideology, not a religion. Islam solves problems, whereas secular democracy leaves the decisions up to mankind. As this post clearly shows, when mankind is left to decide, we end up with all kinds of nonsense.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Ya Shaykh,
“Rather than get into the intricate details of one hadith or another, I think we ought to be approaching this another way. In my experience, the usual approach taken by Muslims is “you bring your daleel and I’ll bring mine”. That can never and will never work.”
I understand what you’re saying and I can’t argue with your experience, but surely point-counterpoint leading to an eventual consensus or situation of ‘agreeing to disagree’ is the most logical, rational, tried and trusted formula for debate the world over?
Whilst I acknowledge that one verse doesn’t make a tradition, or that one narration doesn’t paint a balanced character portrait, there are, in my honest opinion, some troubling canonical texts for those wishing to practice Islam, follow Muhammad bin Abdullah’s tradition to the letter and also conform to the standards expected of a citizen in a secular democracy.
Quite the contrary to what you assert, singular, yet nonetheless vitally important texts for the practise of Islam have been responsible for the formulation of Islamic religious dogma. Were individual texts as ‘dispensable’ as you purport them to be, I think the current debate over the framing of Islam within the context of British citizenship would be considerably more open and flexible.
Reelpolitik, rightly, raises the Islamic legal question of permissibilty. Are the actions of Muhammad in the ahadith cited previously recommended or desired or compulsory or, or, or…In these instances, involving behaviour towards ones wife, I must confess to being egregiously uninformed. Yet, the mere fact that such behaviour was exibited by someone considered virtually infallible, whose actions have debated and discussed for nearly a millenium and a half, raises questions of its own.
“Focusing on chains of narration is a distraction.”
I contend that it is NOT a distraction for the very fact that without a verifiable and reliable chain of narrators, the matn itself is meaningless, as I’m sure you would agree. Without the pioneering work of the early hadith scholars, contemporary Islam would be in a pretty pickle. Witness the amount of emails, memorabilia and comments today about the illustrious 99 names, whose compilation as a set can be traced to a weak, interpolated hadith. Any self-respecting calendar, living room or work place from Syria to Egypt (can’t speak for the Gulf or further east) is not complete without at least one example of this wholly invented (wa Allahu a’alam) list. Yet this superstition persists precisely because of a lack of awareness regarding narrator quality.
“First, there is not a single classical scholar who says that we should be abusing our wives.”
This is where we differ. Our definitions obviously diverge over whether light slapping, or beating would be considered ‘abuse’.
“That means that in over 1400 years, not one scholar has supported “Imam Badr ud-Deen”’s opinion regarding “the approval of domestic violence”.”
As to whether any scholars have ’supported’ my opinion that these various texts advocate abuse, well, you are of course correct: no scholar has ever considered these actions an ‘abuse’ to my knowledge. Yet as to whether any non-’scholars’, either Muslim or non-Muslim, or non-Muslim scholars of Islam support my contention that these texts constitute abuse, then I’d say that a significant number do.
“Furthermore, Badr ud-Deen has stated that his viewpoint is affected by “secular democracy”, something that is quite counter to Islam.”
This is worrying, but not altogether unexpected. The jury, as I’m sure you would agree, is still out on whether the two are compatible. A significant proportion of UK Muslims and most if not all non-Muslims, I would wager (not literally of course, haraam alayiy!), would hope that they are not counterpoised and further antagonism can be avoided.
“Third, I note that Badr ud-Deen has not proposed a solution to a problem, but is pointing out what he considers to be a problem with Islam. Some of us who have replied have been defensive, but in reality the issue is that Islam is an ideology, not a religion. Islam solves problems, whereas secular democracy leaves the decisions up to mankind. As this post clearly shows, when mankind is left to decide, we end up with all kinds of nonsense.”
I wasn’t aware I should have proposed a solution. My purpose for darkening your corner of the webosphere was just to make you and others aware of the some problematic hadiths and take issue with a statement that I disagreed with.
Some Muslims and non-Muslims rail against uberliteralists such as Ibn Hazm, but they should really extend their discussion to encompass Islam as a whole, which in my honest opinion, is hampered by its stubborn overreliance on texts of ill-repute.
You assert that Islam is an ideology and not a religion. This presents all sorts of problems from a theological standpoint, as it maintains that Allah has an ‘id’. All contemporary Muslims, to my knowledge, believe that Allah is transcendent and therefore cannot possess ‘human’ qualities such as an ideolect.
I understand your stated disapproval of secular democracy and its attendant human concepts, but what you cannot deny is that there has necessarily been a ‘human’ element in the formulation of Islamic doctrine: from revelation to tradition to law, there has been ‘human’ involvement at every stage, conceptually and practically.
Whilst you may disagree with the concept or some of the applications of secular democracy per se, could an ‘Islamised’ version suit your tastes? For a contemporary viewpoint on this and a discussion of some of the issues surrounding Islam and democracy, I would recommend a visit to Dr Qaradaawy’s site (http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=6145&version=1&template_id=119&parent_id=13). He’s written a trilogy of recent articles addressing just this issue, of which the latest via the link, is but the latest instalment.
Jazakum ‘Allahu khayran
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I think an obvious point has been missed from the discussion.
IBDH is asking for a study of the isnad in order to know if the math is worth considering, but if one does not believe in the divine nature of Islam in the first place, then what is the need to study the isnad of hadith, that such individual doesn’t believe in anyway, let alone the matn.
The question to IBDH is a fundamental one. Who should have the right to legislate: the unlimited, perfect Creator or the limited and flawed human beings?
August 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Exploring the “Islamic” marriage contract…
The so-called Islamic marriage contract recently proposed by the Muslim Institute has attracted a lot of attention in the Muslim blogosphere lately, much of it negative, for reasons anyone who has read it will understand. It contains brazenly anti-Isla…