text:
Shia/Raafidhi
The Shiite accusations against Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and the issue of Tahkeem (Arbitration)
October 31, 2016 islamreigns	Leave a comment
The incident of Tahkeem (Arbitration) is one that is well-known amongst scholars. Unfortunately, the details of this incident have been mixed with many filthy and poisonous lies, and propagated with such strength, that for many it has become a fact-beyond-question. In the version that the Persian/Jewish-satanists ensured gets propagated, one finds a blatant attack being made upon the honour and noble character of Hadhrat 'Amr ibn Al-'Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), an illustrious companion of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), a Sahabi who had the honour, after accepting Islam, of being invited by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to all major consultations, and only after hearing his opinion would Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) make a decision.
Unfortunately, due to the effort made behind the propaganda regarding him, many good Muslims and even certain scholars have become doubtful of his sincerity. Certain individuals have even gone to the extent of labeling him as a traitor, a liar, a deceiver and a cunning fox. (Naudhubillah)
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to first shed some light on the issue of Tahkeem, an arbitration that was carried out by Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat 'Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), the conqueror of Egypt, to solve the dispute which had occurred between Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and thus bring an end to years of in-fighting which had (according to what has been narrated) already claim the lives of over seven thousand believers, a figure which even the wars against the mighty Persian and Roman empires had not managed to produce.
When the battle of Siffin (A huge battle, in which Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Iraq fought against Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Shaam, due to Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) not being prepared to pledge allegiance to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), as long as the killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) were not brought to trail and punished) was brought to an abrupt halt, each party was asked to send an arbitator to to discuss the situation and find some solution to end the bloody conflict that had begun with the death of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) sent Hadhrat Abu Musa Ashari (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) sent Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu).
The details generally given for what occurred during the arbitration process, are as follows:
(Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) met, discussed the matyer in great detailand finally decided to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) from their posts and leave the Ummah to then choose someone else for the Caliphate.
When the time came to make this announcement , Hadhrat Amr ibn al Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) requeated Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) to address the crowd first. Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu), after praising Almighty Allah and sending salutations upon Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) announced that he had decided to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) and leave the Ummahfree to elect a new leader.
After stepping back, Hadhrat Amr ibn ai Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) came forward and contrary to what had previously been decided, announced that he agrees with Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) as far as removing Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from his post is concerned. As for Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) it is his decision to keep him in his post.
When Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) heard this he became furious and a heated argument broke out between the two. The two parties returned to their leaders, informing Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) of his removal from the seat of Caliphate, and giving Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) the glad tidings of becoming Amirul-Mu'mineen.
When the party of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) were informed of a decision, a huge number of them broke away from his party and put up a tent at a place known as Harura. This group came to be known as the Khawarij. Dissatisfied by the decision made by the arbitrators, the branded Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) kafir (disbeliever) and began making terrible attacks on his followers, going to the extent of cutting the bellies of Muslim women, when still alive. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) made great attempts to bring them back under his authority, but when all efforts failed, he launched a severe attack on them, which resulted in their almost total annihilation)
These are the details which are generally in the minds of those who have a little knowledge about Islamic History, due to man's quick preusal through the books of history, without any concern for what is authentic and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not, what cpuld be considered as probable and what could not.
Again, with just a little pondering over the above, keeping in mind the principles laid down for the acceptance of historical narrations, with the honour and integrity of the Sahabah (ridhwanallahu anhum) being at the prime, one shall quickly realize that much of the details of the above account are nothing but lies propagated by the satan-worshiping Persians, posing as soldiers in the armies of both parties.
A few of the events mentioned above, which obviously cannot be correct shall be listed below, intended merely as a guide, knowing full well that a thorough investigation of the incident shall surely result in more and more lies coming to the fore.
First Lie regarding the Tahkeem:
The Khawarij were angered by the deceit of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)
It has generally been understood that the Khawarij broke away from Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) due to their dissatisfaction with the ruling of Hadhrat Amr bin al Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), whereas the reality is that they had expressed their anger and dissatisfaction with Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from the very beginning, i.e. from the time they were informed that both parties had agreed to arbitration. Thus, their anger was never with the decision made by the arbitrators, rather it was with the fact that the Muslim Ummah had brought an end to the in-fighting, which had already resulted in the death of thousands.
These filthy people were never going to accept any decision made by the arbitrators, since disunity within theUmmah was their prime objective. The basis of their mission was to divide the entire Ummah and they were will aware that arbitration would burst their balloon. Criticizing the decision made by Hadhrat Amr bin al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and portraying him as deceitful, cunning politician, was done merely to formulate a better excuse for their breaking away from Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).
The proof of this is what has been narrated in Al-Bidayah that when the decision was made to allow Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari abd Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) to arbitrate in the matter of the Ummah. Ash'ath ibn Qais was sent to inform all of this decision. When he came to the tribe of Banu Tamim and read the message to them, Urwah ibn Uzainah stood up angrily and shouted out, 'How dare you allow man to decide in the matters of religion! Only Almighty Allah is the one who decides!' Urwah then swiped his swprd towards Ash'ath, but missed, with the blade landing on the behind of the horse of Ash'ath.
The division in the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) began at the event, with thousands seperating themselves and camping themselves in the area known as Harura. The evil perpetrated by this band finally compelled Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to raise his sword against them, whereas just a few months ago, they formed a major part of his army.
In reality, it was this very group which was behind the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and the wars of Jamal and Siffin. Until that moment they had been operating in the guise of pious men, constantly in prayer and recitation of the Qur'an. At this point in history their guise were thrown off, and their identity exposed. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had warned the Ummah of this hidden threat, he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had mentioned that the first time the identity of these hypocrites shall get exposed is when they shall rebel against Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).
Exactly as predicted by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), these filthy group of hypocrites surfaced, and as predicted, were halted in their tracks and brought to their heels by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and his faithful Companions, but only after having wrecked great damage upon theUmmah. After the war, when remarked that the hypocrites have now been eradicated, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) corrected him by saying that this group shall continue re-surfacing till the end of time, with the sole mission being to halt the progress of Islam and the Muslim Ummah. [refer to Tarikh al Baghdad]
Anyway, the actual purpose of mentioning the above is to show that irrespective of what decision the arbitrators would make months later, this group of hypocrites were never going to accept it, since their sole desire was to keep the Ummah divided, fighting amongst themselves.
During the incident of Tahkeem (arbitration) neither did Hadhrat Abu Musa Ash'ari (radhiyallahu anhu) make a cowardly decision , nor did Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) deceive. Rather their gathering brought a halt to years of infighting which had already claimed the lives of close to one hundred thousand. The only group angered by their decision was that of the hypocrites, and it was these very people who would later disfigure the entire issue of Tahkeem and have historians record it with fabricated versions.
Second Lie regarding the Tahkeem
Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) had discussed the matter in privacy, but Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu), later, in front of all, spoke lies regarding the decision they had reached.
Narrations show that many Sahaba and prominent men were present at the meeting between Abu Musa Ash'ari and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and each detail of the meeting was recorded on paper. How then it could ever be possible that Hadrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) to lie in front of the entire crowd, gathered to hear a decision, without a single person from those present standing up at that moment, or even after, and explaining to both parties that his announcement was not true.
The purpose of arbitration was to unite both parties, with both parties accepting the decision taken by the man they had elected on their behalf, if Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas had lied, why then did Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (radhiyallahu anhu) not just say so? The words of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) could never demand the obedience of the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). Rather, that which Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) would decide for them, only that would they regard as binding and necessary to accept.
In arbitration matters, no one man can deceive, since each party shall only listen to his own member!
Third Lie regarding the Tahkeem
Both parties had initially agreed on removing both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) from their posts, and to leave the Ummah free to choose their Caliph.
Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had until now, never made the claim of being the Caliph. He himself had repeatedly said that when the killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) would be brought to trail, he would be the first to pledge allegiance to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). When Hadhrat Mu'awiyah never laid the claim for the Caliphate, what then would be the need for Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas and Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (radhiyallahu anhu) to decide to remove both and let the Ummah choose a new leader!.
He who was never in a post, how does one remove him from that post??!
It would not even be correct to say that perhaps what is meant is that he be removed from his position as governor over Sham, because the words attributed to Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) clearly state that they wanted to remove both, so that the ummah could again decide who should rule over them. In an Islamic State it is only the Caliph that rules over all. As for the governors, they shall remain governors only as long as the Caliph allows, thus they have no rule of their own. To remove a governor would have no significance, since his post depends upon the Caliph. If the new Caliph would choose to keep him, he would remain. If the new Caliph would dismiss him, he would be dismissed.
A different scenario of the Tahkeem (arbitration) has been narrated in the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq as well as in the Tarikh of Tabari, with amuch stronger chain of narrators (sanad). In this narration clear mention is made that after agreeing upon choosing a new Caliph, Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) presented the name of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn 'Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) as a suitable candidate, but Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) did not agree. Thereafter, Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) presented the name of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as a suitable candidate for the Caliphate, but Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) did not agree. Both parties then separated, since they could not agree upon a new Caliph. Had there been any truth to the normally-famous version that they had initially agreed to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhum) from their posts, what then would be the reason for Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) presenting the name of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah to Hadhrat Abu Musa as a suitable candidate for the Caliphate? After agreeing to fire one, would one ever present the same person's name as a candidate for the position one had just fired him from??
The sanad of this narration is indeed much stronger than all the other narrations describing the Tahkeem (arbitration), thus to ignore it would truly be a great injustice to the field of proper research. The narration, as recorded by Abdul Razzaq, narrating from Abdullah ibn Ahmad, narratimg from his father Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, narrating from Sulayman ibn Yunus, narrating from Zuhri is as follows:
In this narration a completely different picture has been painted, quite contrary to what is normally mentioned with regards to a great Sahabi lying and deceiving, an act which even the pagan Arabs would not do!
The above-mentioned text forms only a small portion of a lengthy narration, the crux of which is that when the time appointed for 'The Arbitration' drew near, the parties representing Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) arrived at the selected spot, known as Daumatul-Jundal. A special invitation was sent to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), who had kept himself aloof from the conflict, and Hadhrat Abdullah bin Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) to attend and help the Ummah reunite. The invitation was accepted, and these two luminaries, accompanied by many of their friends and students, also presented themselves at the meeting. Nothing was discussed in privacy, The discussions that took place between Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhuma) were witnessed by many. In fact, Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) ensured that all important points and issues on which consensus had been reached, be written down in paper.
The first Major decision upon which the consensus was reached was that the present Caliph steps down from his post, affording the Ummah to the opportunity to unanimously choose a leader. The problem however arose when it came to choosing a new Caliph. Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (radhiyallahu anhu) proposed the name of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), which Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not prepared to accept. Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) then proposed the name of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), which Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) was not prepared to accept. Thus the two parties separated without the arbitration proving unsuccessful.
(In this narration there is no mention of Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) deceiving or lying. Had the issue of preference been solely the strength of this narration over all the other narrarions regarding the 'Tahkeem', that would have indeed been sufficient for it alone to be considered and all conflicting narrations be left aside. However that is not the case. Besides the fact that this narration is backed up with a much stronger chain of narrators, there are many other factors also which demand it be given preference and placed above all the other conflicting narrations. Among those factors are the following:
a) This narration refutes the accusation laid against Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) that he won the arbitration through deceit and blatant lies. Arguments and harsh words on many occasions occurred between the Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum), since they were the children of the same household, i.e they were all from the illustrious faternity of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) and were not bound to those laws of respect which we have been commanded to observe for the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum). Prince's, in the court of the King, may criticize, argue, and even fight against each other, but dare any man to from out of the royal family attempt to slap a prince or merely look at him with contempt! The Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), due to the fervour each one had for establishing the truth, would many a time issue harsh word against his fellow Sahabi brother, bit never would he dare lie or deceive.
The hearts of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), as mentioned in the Qur'aan, have already passed the test of Imaan. The purity of their hearts had received certificates from the highest of quarters, i.e. Almighty Allah himself. Only that mind which has not as yet understood the strength of Almighty Allah's declaration of purity could ever conceive such heart to still be filthy, hypocritical traits such as deceit, lies, etc.
Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) occupied a most prominent place amongst the Sahaba. After his accepting Islam, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) included him amongst his selected confidants, with whom he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) use would consult all the matter of importance. During the era's of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhuma), he played a leading role as a leader in the conquests of prominent areas like Egypt, al-Aqsa etc.
Could any sane mind can ever imagine a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu) of this calibre concluding his chapter in the glorious history of Islamic heroes with an act of deception, and that too, not just deceiving a few individuals or friends bit rather the entire Muslim Ummah, the illustrious Sahaba around him, and all those who until that time had viewed him as a true leader and a hero of Islam?!
Could any sane mind can ever imagine a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu) of this calibre concluding his chapter in the glorious history of Islamic heroes causing untold harm to the cause of Islam, that Islam for which he had on so many occasions thrown himself at the tip of poisonous swords without a concern for his life? Na'audhubillah! The Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum) were men of true purity and piety and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) was from amongst the elite of this illustrious fraternity.
b) Logically also, deception from the side of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) cannot be conceived possible. The reason being that he only played the role of one member from the panel of two, chosen to artbitrate between two major forces. Even if he lied as to what had been agreed betweem him and Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (radhiyallahu anhu), his lie would hold no effect, since the party of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would obviously only accept as true what Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) would report.
c) History itself shows that the arbitration never led to the appointment of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as Caliph. Rather, after assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali was chosen as Caliph, and it was he who handed over the Caliphate to Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), what then was the purpose of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas deceiving and lieing to Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (radhiyallahu anhu), and what did it achieve? The only logical answer would be that there was no deception and no lie. Both the parties attempted choosing a new Caliph, but they were unable to reach any consensus. The two parties thus returned to their lands, without agreeing upon a new leader.
Despite no agreement being reached, fighting between the two parties however came to an halt, due to a pact made soon thereafter between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma), with each promising not to launch any attack on the land of other. Iraq will be the land of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Sham will be the Land of Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
False Allegation on Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)False allegations on Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)Shia lies on the incident on Tahkeem (arbitration)The original story of Tahkeem between Hadrat Ali and Mu'awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)
Current Events, Nikah/Marriage related Issues
HUSBAND & THE RIGHT OF DIVORCE [Indian Government Interferes in Muslim Personal Law]
HUSBAND & THE RIGHT OF DIVORCE
(Translation of the Foreword)
BY WORLD REKNOWNED MUFTI AND SPIRITUAL GUIDE, THE PRIDE OF INDIA, MUFTI AHMAD KHANPURI SAHEB]
The Constitution of India that was designed after the Independence of India declared India a Secular State. This implies that India does not have a state religion. Rather, the Constitution respects every religion and grants its followers complete Freedom of Religion, it has been clearly stated that the Government shall not pass any law which eliminates or decreases basic Fundamental Rights. If such a law is passed, it will be unconstitutional.
It is within the scope of such fundamental rights that every citizen is guaranteed to preserve his culture and the adherents of all religions in India have complete Freedom of Religion. The Government cannot interfere in such rights and cannot create any law that will affect this Basic Constitutional right.
Despite the guarantee of Freedom of Religion being an entrenched Constitutional Right, there is repeated discussion of changing and Reforming Muslim Personal Law through a Civil Code. Hence, a few days ago the Government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court requesting that there should be restrictions on the Laws of three Talaaqs, halala and polygamy. Presently, there are intense discussions and the media (which is meticulously used to brainwash against Muslim Personal Law) has published some articles, one of which is, "Why a man has the right of talaq?". These articles are presented in such a way that creates doubts in the minds of many Muslims.
Moulana Atiq Ahmad Bastawi (Lecturer at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow) has critically analysed and answered the related issues in this treatise in such a way that it will easily dispel doubts instigated by the misleading campaign of the media and others. Seeing the relevance and the imminent threat to vulnerable Muslims, I deemed it necessary to have this treatise translated into English. To undertakes this important task, I requested the honorable and respected Moulana Mufti Ebrahim Desai (Senior lecturer of Hadith at Masrasah Nu'maniyyah, Durban, and a world renowned Scholar) who immediately fulfilled my request. May Allah bless him in knowledge and practice.
This treatise is therefore being presented to the Muslims in general and specifically for those who have been trapped in the net of doubts to dispel rheir doubts and increase their faith and conviction.
May Allah grant us all strength and consideration for Imaan. Aameen.
(Mufti) Ahmad Khanpuri
17th Muharram, 1438 A.H.
Translators Note
I have been advised to by my most revered and spiritual guide, Hadhrat Mufti Ahmad Khanpuri Sahib to translate the book "عائلی تنازعات کا شرعی حل اور شوہر کو حق طلاق کیوں" as a matter of urgency. It is indeed very challenging to translate such intricate academic topics.
We have endevoured to maintain the message of the subject matter rather than a strict literal translation.
We humbly request you to overlook any shortcomings in the translation. Bear in mind, this book has been translated in one way due to the urgency of the matter. We hope to revise the translation in future Insha' Allah.
_[Mufti] Ebrahim Desai
In Islam, Nikah is not a temporary enjoyment. Rather, it is a bond of love between two people which has to be revered and preserved till death. It is due to this that Islam has emphasised to both spouses to go out of their way in fulfilling every right of the other and overlooking each others faults.
Islam has decreed that women be obedient to their husbands in all permissible acts. In doing so, she has been fiven glad tidings of Paradise. There are many Ahadith of Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam in this regard:
Hadhrat Umme Salamah (RadhiyAllahu Anha) narrates that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, "If a woman dies in a state wherein her husband was pleased with her, she shall enter Jannah." (Sunan Tirmidhi Pg 457, Vol 2. Hadith 1161 Daral Gharbi Islamiy, Beirut 1998 edition).
It is narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Anas (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, "A woman shall have the honour of entering Jannah from whichever door of Jannah she pleases if she performs her five times prayers, fasts during the month of Ramadhan, safeguards her chastity and is obedient to her husband." (Hilyatul Awliya Pg. 308. Vol.6. Darul Fikr. Beirut. fourth impression)
Hadhrat Abu Usama (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) narrates from the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam),
"After attaining conciousness of Almighty Allah, the next best thing a person can get is a pious wife with the following characteristics;
she accedes to his directives, she makes him happy when he sees her, if her husband takes an oath keeping her trust in mind, she fulfils the oath and in the absence of the husband she safeguards her chastity and his wealth." (Sunan ibn Majah Pg. 62. Vol. 3. Daral Risalatal Alamiyyah, first impression 2009).
However, to facilitate harmony in domestic life, Islam's guidance is not one sided. There is much emphasis on the husband to be extremely kind and considerate to the wife that even if he does not like his wife, he is advised to display good conduct towards her.
The Qur'aan explicitely outlines this in the following verses:
And show good conduct (because) if you dislike them (wives), it is possible that you only dislike something and Allah might have placed a lot of good in it. (Chapter of Women: Verse 19)
Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) mentions that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) mentioned,
"If a man dislikes a woman, then possibly is just because of one habit wherein she may posses many other qualities." (Sahih Muslim Pg. 1092 Vol. 2, Dar Ihya Turath Al-Arabiy, first impreasion)
Islam has made a man's conduct with his spouse a yardstick to define his character.
Hadhrat Aisha (RadhiyAllahu Anha) reports that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned, "The best amongst you is the one who has the best conduct with his wife and I am the best amongst you in terms of good conduct with my family." (Sunan Tirmidhi Pg. 709 Vol 5 Hadith 1161 Daral Gharbil Islamiy, Beirut 1998 edition)
To make the personal life harmonious and successful is the duty of both, the husband and the wife. However, the husband being the head of the house has a greater responsibility. Whenever there is discord between the spouses, since the husband is in charge in terms of management, he should abandon his firmness and take the first step in resolving the matter.
If the discord is due to his behaviour, then he should correct himself and try to win her over, and if it is because of the incorrect attitude of the wife, then the husband should deal with her with utmost patience, love, care and wisdom. Instead of being harsh and emotional, one should involve in dialogue and try to resolve the problem amicably.
The Qur'aan provides various instructions as remedies to family dissention. If these steps are taken, then the husband and wife will easily resolve their problem.
Men have charge over women (as their overseers, guardians, protectors) because of the virtue (distinction) Allah has (in His infinite wisdom) bestowed some of you over others and because of what men spend (on women) from their wealth. So the righteous women are obedient and in the absence (of their husbands), are protective of their chastity and property of their husband, because of that (those rights of women) which Allah has protected. As for those whose disobedience you fear, advice them; separate your bed from theirs and tap them (gently). If they obey you, then do not look for a way against them (to wrongfully accuse them). Verily, Allah is Most High, the Greatest. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people, if they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Knowing and acquainted (with all things) (chapter of Women: Verses 34,35)
In the above verses of Surah Nisah (Chapter of Women), four stages have been outlined to bring about reconciliation
The beginning of verse 34 says that a man is the leader of the family. The simple logic behind this is that no organisation can function without a leader. And generally men are more capable of carrying out this duty. A man is more capable in bringing about discipline and channel the energies of his household in the right avenues.
This does not necessarily imply that a man possess unrestrained and unlimited mandate. Rather it is his duty to oversee the smooth running of the house. He is responsible of taking charge and control of the family members. He has to arrange for their well-being and education.
In the above quoted verses, man has been appointed the care-taker and the head of the house-hold due to two reasons:
1. Allah Taala has given man a degree of virtue over women.
This is understood from the following verse:
Women have rights similar to what they owe in recognised manner, though for men there is a step above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Surah Baqarah: Verse: 228)
2. The responsibility of the maintainance and the expenses of the wife and children is on the husband.
For this reason, our jurists explicitly mention that though the wife may be rich and wealthy, her expenditure, maintainance and arrangements for living accomodations are still the responsibility of the husband even if he may be poor. A woman supports herself financially and does not load the responsibility of her maintainance on her husband, rather she bears the finances of the house through her own wealth, this will not affect the status of the husband veing the caretaker.
The appointment of the man as the caretaker is due to man being given a degree of virtue over woman because generally men have been more blessed with those certain capabilities which assist in the heading and taking care of the household. However, women have less of a role of than men in the structure and running of the household. The internal issues of the household and supervision is solely the responsibility of women. Men and women both play a central role in the family system. The only way the household can be successful is through their mutual trust and co-operation.
Two qualities of a righteous women are described in the verse 34 of Surah Nisaa:
1. Righteous women obey her husbands.
2. In the absence of their husbands, they protect his wealth and reputation.
The qualities of righteous wives mentioned in this verse are clarified further in the upcoming Ahadith.
Hafidhatul Ghayb can also mean that righteous wives are the confidants of the husband's secrets. In a martial relationship, secrecy and concealment (of the wives, i.e. for her to not gossip regarding her husband and vice-versa) is a very important and crucial quality. This vital quality is very eloquently expressed in the Qur'an:
They are apparel for you, and you are apparel for them (Surah Baqarah- 187)
If any woman is unable to maintain the husband's secrets, and she divulges those secrets, and she is unable to maintain the reputation and dignity of her husband, and in the absence of her husband, she allows strangers to enter the home, then this woman is a source of destruction to her husband's morale. Rather than being a source of happiness in the personal family life of the husband, she is a source of bitterness and distaste.
This verse, after mentioning the virtuous qualities of a wife, provides a solution to bring the wife back to the correct path. If the wife does not inculcate these virtuous qualities in her, and she does not fulfil her martial duties, she does obey her husband in lawful matters, she does not maintain and protect the wealth and reputation of her husband, she is ill-natured and mischievous, then a process with three stages and initiatives is presented to husbands to bring these types of women back to the correct path.
THE FIRST INITIATIVE: ADVICE AND COUNSEL
The concept of advice and counsel is that the husband repeatedly explains with utmost concern and care, leniency and gentleness. He should try to instil the fear of Allah, explain the consequences awaiting in the hereafter. If the wife veers from the correct path, and the husbands counsels her and tries to make her understand with a passion to steer her back on the straight path and rectify her while understanding her nature, then by the will of Allah, he will be successful in his attempt.
Counsel does not mean to admonish her and get angry at her. To admonish her and get angry at her without taking into consideration her emotions and feelings will more often than not lead to her becoming withdrawn and unresponsive. Rather than rectifying her, hostility and animosity is created within her.
SECOND INITIATIVE: SEPARATION IN THE BED
If the disobedience of the woman is not resolved through advice and counsel, then the husband should display inattention and construct an invisible barrier. Some commentators of the Qur'aan explain separation in the bed as abstaining from sleeping with the wife. Others explain it as abstaining from conversing, and others explain it as turning away from the wife in the bed. The sum of the various explanations is that the husband should develop a change in the way he deals with his wife and display his disapproval to her. This stage is very effective in resolving the issue in most women.
THE THIRD INITIATIVE: SLIGHT CHASTISEMENT
If the issue is not resolved with the first two initiatives, then Shariah has allowed to administer a slight rap on her by hitting her lightly if he is confident that such an attitude will jolt and rectify her. However, the following conditions should be borne in mind:
1. Hitting her should not be the outcome of revenge or one's anger towards her. Rather the sole intention must be to rectify her. If it is done for revenge then the adverse effects will be that the relationship will become even more bitter.
2. If the wife displays open disobedience, the husband can implement the reformation process presented in the Qur'aan. If the first two initiatives fails to produce any results and the husband is confident that slightly hitting her will not resolve the issue, then it will be incorrect to hit her merely to finish the reformation process.
3. In any given situation, the husband is not allowed and does not have the right to beat and assault her severely. Hitting the wife to such an extent that it leaves a mark, breaks a bone or injures her in any way has been prohibited by numerous Ahadith. It is also prohibited to hit her, slightly or harshly, in the sensitive areas of her body.
Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) mentioned in the plains of Arafat during the farewell Hajj: "Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by the words of Allah. You too have right over them, and that they should mot allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner." (Sahih Muslim V-2/ Pg 891 Dar Ihya Turath Al-Arabi)
4. It is not necessary and not advisable to slightly hit women after the first two initiatives fail to reform her. It is merely allowed in the case of extreme necessity. Islam does not condone the hitting of wives, rather Islam discourages hitting women. Islamic law concedes slight chastisement of women in certain scenarios with certain conditions since maintaining and improving the household can only be achieved through it in certain societies. But to the contrary, Islam encourages such practices through which utmost consideration is given to maintaining the respect of women. Hitting is a distant notion, in fact, wives should not even be spoken to harshly!.
There were some incidents during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) When the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) brought complaints against their wives in regards to their sharp tongues with the hope of securing concession to hit them. Rather than conceding to hitting the wives, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) advised that they should terminate the martial relationship instead.
The famous Tabi'ee, Hadhrat 'Ata (Rahimahullah) mentions:
"If a wife refuses or opposes the command of her husband, then too the husband will not hit her rather he will be upset." Qadi Ibnul Arabi (Rahimahullah) has mentioned this statement of Hadhrat 'Ata (Rahimahullah) to be the culmination of his great intellect, insight and understanding. (Ahkam ul Qur'an li Ibnul Arabi – V 1/ Pg. 536)
The method of hitting wives in Shari'ah is further elucidated in the following Ahadith:
Hadhrat Iyas ibn 'Abdullah reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: "Do not beat Allah's handmaidens (wives). After this advice, Hadhrat Umar (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) came to the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and said: "Women have become emboldened towards their husbands". He (the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) gave permission to hit the wives. After this, many women came to the wives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) complaining against their husbands. So the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: "Many women have come to my wives complaining about their husbands hitting them. Those husbands who hit their wives are not good people" [Sunan Abi Dawud Pg. 479, Vol 3 – Dar Ar- Risalah al-Alamiyyah]
From the above narration, it is clearly understood that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) disliked the practice of hitting the wives. However, considering the fact that in various communities/societies there exists some disobedient and transgressive women (as explained by Hadhrat Umar (RadhiyAllahu anhu), the ruling of hitting has not been absolutely prohibited.
If the matter has reached such a stage where the husband and wife cannot mutually resolve their differences, then this conflict and tension will not only affect the couples but shall have a negative impact on both families and the society hence, the matter shall no longer remain their confidential issue but will become a community/public issue. In this regard, the Qur'an has addressed and explained the Muslim welfare societies or judges (who are in charge of the Muslim welfare societies) how to resolve issues between two spouses.
In Surah Nisaa, Aayat 35, Allah Ta'ala says:
"And if you fear dissension between the two send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people of they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Knowing and acquainted (with all things)" [Surah Nisa': Verse 35]
The summary of the discussion is if the relationship has reached such a crucial stage where there is no hope of mutual conciliation, then the Qadhi (Muslim judge) or Muslim judicial committee should appoint two members/parties and conduct an arbitration/adjudication. One member from the husband's family and other member forms from the wife's side. The two members should be pious, sincere and knowledgable about the case. They will be responsible to hear the statements and arguments of both, the husband and wife and will try their best to reconcile the two. It is the promise of Almighty Allah that, if both the parties have firm intention of goodness and reconciliation to resolve the matter, Allah Ta'ala will bring harmony between the two. When arbitrators would report to Hadhrat 'Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) that inspite of their efforts, they failed to reconcile the couple, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) would alert them by saying, "You people did not try to your best to resolve your matter. Try again!"
It is the promise of Almighty Allah that if the arbitrators try to sincerely resolve the dispute, Allah will definitely bring harnony and will reconcile the two.
Eventually, if the arbitrators fail to resolve the issue, and according to them the only way to overcome/ avoid the controversies/ conflicts between the spouses is to annul the Nikah, then in that case, if the husband is ready/ wants to terminate the Nikah, it is simple. But if the husband is not willing to terminate the relationship, do the arbitrators have the right to terminate this relarionship?
The Muslim jurists are of two view on this issue: According to Imam Malik (Rahmatullah Alaih), if the arbitrators confirm that annulment of the Nikah shall be the only solution to this case, then they (the arbitrators) will have the right to terminate the Nikah even if the husband objects. But most of the Muslim jurists are of the view that it will not be permissible for the arbitrators to do so.
In order to remove conflicts between husband and wife, and to create a harmonious martial relationship, Allah Ta'ala has prescribed four measures in Surah Nisaa. If one practices upon these measures, then all domestic issues will be resolved. Then there won't be the need for Talaq or separation.
DIVORCE IS REGARDED AS AN UNDESIRABLE ACT IN ISLAM
Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has expressed great dislike towards divorce in various narrations:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrated, the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, of all the lawful acts, the most detestable to Allah is divorce. [Sunan Abu Dawud: Pg. 305, Vol. 3, Dar Ar-Risalah al-Alamiyyah]
Just as it is undesirable for a husband to initiate/issue talaq without any valid cause, similarly it is disliked by Almighty and His beloved Rasul (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) for the wife to demand talaq without any valid reason.
Shaytan gets happy when a couple gets separated, this can be understood from the following narration:
Hadhrat Thawban (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, "Any women who asks her husband for a divorce when it is not absolutely necessary, the fragrance of Paradise will be forbidden to her" [Ibn Maajah: 2055]
Hadhrat Jabir (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrated that the Prophet of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, "Iblis places his throne on the water and he dispatches his army (to cause mischief). The closest Shaytans to Iblis in rank are those who are most notorious in causing mischief. One of the Shaytan comes to Iblis and reports: 'I did so and so' Iblis says: 'You have done nothing'. Then one amongst them comes and says: "I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between the husband and a wife." Iblis goes near him and says: "You have done well." A'mash said: "He then embraces him" [Sahih Muslim, pg. 2167, vol. 4, Dar Ihya al-Turath Al-Arabi]
From the above narrations, we understand that shaytan gets immensely happy upon the separation of the spouses and he congratulates those shaytans who bring about separation between the spouses. The happiness of the Shaytan is due to a home being destroyed, consolidating the enmity between the two families and giving Iblis the opportunity to spread unlimited mischief and deviation.
DIVORCE (TALAQ) IS AN UNAVOIDABLE NECESSITY
Despite the fact that ending a marriage or giving a divorce (talaq) may be an extremely abhorrent act, one cannot deny the reality that at times, this act become an unavoidable necessity. At times, natural harmony is not found between a husband and wife; even though both are pious and noble, they are incompatible to one another due to immense differences between them in their temperments, attitudes and eventual habits.
In such a case, if all attempts to amend the situation by creating harmony lead to a total failure, there is no benefit for any of the parties (the husband, wife or the society) in binding the two spouses to the institution of marriage through legislative force.
The flag of marriage can only be at full mast if the wind of mutual afftection, love, trust and co-operation is blowing. The purpose of a marriage cannot be fulfilled if the environment of evil presumptions, mistrust, hatred and enmity.
It is for this reason that Islam has shown us the method of dissolving a marriage if such a situation were to occur, and despite the notion of divorce being detestable, Islam has not completely prohibited it.
The unavoidable necessities of life cannot be deferred. Thus, a system should be put in place to accommodate these necessities. In even the most affluent and fashionable areas of the cities, sewage pipes are found beneath the ground. If a muncipality were to announce that they no longer require these dirty pipes and decide to close them. What would happen to the city? All the roads and pathways would be impossible to cross due to the filthy water and slime, as well as its horrid stench and smell.
RECOGNISING THE NEED FOR DIVORCE (TALAQ)
Despite the fact that fifty years ago, the Islamic system was criticised for the plethora of disapprobation for its validation of divorce (Talaq), the world now sees that the notion that was once considered a fault in Islam is a same notion that is now considered a merit of Islam. In every political and religious dispensation, the vision of Islam with regards to divorce (talaq) has been adopted in some form.
In the Hindu religion, as mentioned by the representatives of the religion from the latter centuries, divorce (talaq) was not considered permissible. Eventually, however, the Hindu members of the Indian Parliment formed a Hindu Code Bill in which permission for divorce (talaq) was granted.
Even still, the conditions and restrictions added to the Code Bill with regards to the permission for divorce (talaq) are such that it does not fulfill the requirements of the Hindu society with regards to divorce (talaq). For this reason, at times, a Hindu husband has to go to the extreme of converting to a different faith in order to free himself from a disliked wife.
The Christians also did not allow divorce (talaq). However, after constant demand and pressure, all the Christian countries gradually brought in laws to facilitate the right of divorce (talaq). Demand for the right of divorce (talaq) did not only come from men, in fact, women's rights groups were also persistent and ardent in their demand.
Despite the fact that in the western countries, the right of giving permission for divorce lies in the hands of a court, the incidents of divorce are perpetually on the rise. The institution of marriage and the notion of divorce (talaq) have become sport and play. The tranquility of family life has been destroyed.
WHO SHOULD HAVE THE AUTONOMY OF DIVORCE?
We have agreed that in some instances, divorce (talaq) becomes an unavoidable necessity for a human being. We have also agreed that to keep a husband and wife tied to the institution of marriage even when it has completely broken down is manifest oppression upon the two spouses as well as upon the society. However, the question arises: to whom should the autonomy of divorce (talaq) should be given in order to facilitate minimial aggravation and the deliverance of justice in the entire procedure of divorce (talaq)?
There are four possibilities:
1) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) should be jointly given to both husband and wife; just as the institution of marriage was formed through their consent, it should not be revoked except through a joint consultation and decision by both parties. This possibility is compatible with the Shari'ah of Islam.
If a man and a woman mutually agree to end their marriage, they have the right to do so. In Islamic jurisprudence, this is referred to as Khula'. The Qur'an itself and the Prophetic teachings mention the permissibility of Khula'.
However, this is not the obly method of ending a marriage in the Islamic Shari'ah. In fact, there are other methods which we shall elaborate upon soon.
2) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) is given to the husband alone.
This option is also compatible with the Shari'ah of Islam. From an outside perspective, this may come across as a strange view that the institution of marriage which only came into existence through the consent of both the man and the woman, may be ended through the decision of one party.
However, due to the various profound reasons supported by wisdom (which shall be elaborated upon soon), Allah The Most High has given the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to the husband alone. Along with this, the husband has been advised not to use his autonomy of divorce (talaq) frivolously. In fact, he has been guided by the Qur'an and Prophetic teachings towards the proper manner of giving a divorce (talaq).
3) The autonomy of divorce is given to wife alone. This option is not compatible with the shari'ah of Islam. In Islamic law, woman alone has not been given the autonomy of divorce (talaq). This ruling is one which serves to the benefit of woman. We shall shed light upon the reasons as to why a woman has not been given the autonomy of divorce in the coming chapters.
Although Islam has not given the sole autonomy of divorce (talaq) to a woman, Islam has emphasised that a women must not be oppressed or hurt in anyway whatsoever. For this reason, if a husband does not fulfill the rights of his wife or oppresses her, the woman shall have the right to presenting her case to a judge with the hope of having her marriage anulled.
4) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) is not given to a husband, nor is it given to the wife. Rather, the issuing of a divorce or autonomy of divorce is left to the discretion of a judge. Whosoever from the husband or wife wishes to end the marriage is required to go to a court, file for a divorce (talaq), and establish the claims and reasons behind such a decision.
The judge shall then summon the other party, and avail him or her the opportunity to respond to the claims. Finally, if the judge feels that the claim for divorce (talaq) is reasonable and understandable, he shall anull the marriage. Otherwise, he shall discard the claim. In the current times, the family laws administered by a country generally grant the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to a court supporting the claim that by taking away the autonomy of divorce (talaq) from the husbands and giving it to the courts, it shall reduce the rate of divorce, bring oppression upon women to a halt and shall also protect their family rights. Islam does not concur with this argument.
We shall soon elaborate that the reports of those countries that have adopted the practic of granting the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to the courts show that instead of decreasing the rate of divorce, this practice has actually increased the rate of divorce and has not decreased the oppression upon women in a significant manner. Through this law, there is less benefit and more harm for women and the society in general.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO HAND OVER THE RIGHT OF DIVORCE TO THE COURTS?
It is first and foremost important to discuss why Islam has not given the right of divorce at all to the courts, although this appears to be most logical since a husband and wife are two separate persons in this matter. Each one may demand/threaten divorce some time or the other by being overridden with emotions at times.
On the other hand, the judge is an understanding and a neutral personality. He is the only one who can determine whether the demand of divorce is due to an abrupt disapproval of an act or due to interim emotions or the feud between them escalated to such a state that there is no scope of the relationship remaining.
In order to understand this point better, it is vital and necessary to have a clear insight on the correct nature and spirit of the relationship of Nikah.
Nikah is not based on absurd laws. The entire success of Nikah is wholly based on love and affection between husband and wife and having trust on each other. Without love and affection, unity and trust, the relationship of Nikah cannot be kept by mere absurd laws. Even if this lifeless Nikah is somehow kept, instead of it being a priceless bounty and happiness, both will perceive restraint and unhappiness.
This reality should also be borne in mind that the relationship and bond of marriage is very sensitive and delicate. There are so many means/causes for the husbands' heart to be wearied from the wife and for the emotions of hatred to be entrenched in his heart, that they cannot be brought to the justice of the court and sometimes the grounds of divorce are of such a nature that there is no benefit to the woman in bringing such cases to the court. In fact, keeping such issues a secret is better for them.
Understand these brief points through few examples:
1. Assume that a Nikah took place between Khalid and Zainab whom are both pious and devout, however, there is world of difference between their habit and nature. Because of their being no compatibility in their nature, there is resentment on petty issues. This daily resentment and disputes have developed into hatred. Now Khalid has no place left in his heart for Zainab. In this situation, Khalid is willing to end his Nikah with Zainab.
Now if he goes to the court and gives true reasoning for a divorce, the court does not give him permission to do so, because according to the court, Zainab has not done such an act that warrants a dicorce. Now Khalid has only two ways; either he wrongfully accuses her (of fornication, etc) and brings forth false witnesses and releases himself from her.
In this case there will be no doubt that Khalid will be a sinner. Apart from that, Zainab will have her public image tainted and this will make it extremely difficult for her to get another match.
The second scenario is that after having exhausted all means and instead of him being able to relieve himself from Zainab, he is forced by the rule of law to keep Zainab in his marriage. It is obvious that when Khalid's heart is broken/hardened from Zainab and his heart has been entrenched with emotions of hatred, so how then will he fulfil Zainab's due martial rights? It is possible that perhaps due to having the fear of Allah or fearing the rule of law, he may keep giving Zainab maintenence, however, it is far-fetched that Zainab will be receiving that love, affection and harmony which hold greater importance than maintenence.
2. The husband is extremely possessive over his wife. Let's assume that he has complaints in regards to his wife being immoral. After having cautioned and reprimanded her several times, he sees no changes in her and she is still involved in those immoral habits. The husband is coerced to terminate this relationship with her. Now if the husband was given the sole right of divorcing his wife, he will do so silently without anyone knowing.
Through this, the husband would be relieved and the shameful act of the wife would also remain concealed. It is possible that she would repent from this evil and get married to another person.
On the other hand, by handing the court the right of divorce, the husband and wife's paths are blocked. If the husband has to go to the court and give a true account of a event and seek divorce, the wife would be infamous and notorious in the eyes of the community even before the jugde has issued a decree. Her standing and status in society is highly tarnished/stained. (Even if the court clears her of the accusations). She cannot show her face to anyone. Allah Forbid, if this case has to come to the knowledge of journalists!.
It is apparent that if fictious stories are not made and false witnesses are not brought forth, then it is a tough task to prove lewd acts. That's why, if the husband has only sufficed on truthfulness, then he will not be able to prove his claim and thus he will not be given the right of divorcing his wife by the courts.
In this situation, how will he then be able to bear and fulfil the demands and requisites of a Martial life, even though, according to law and paper, they will be in the bond of Nikah, however, practically they will be living as though they are not married, in fact even worse than that. The wife specially will be placed in uphill calamity.
In these types of situations, many persons of nobility and dignity do not take the matter to the courts due to fear of defaming their families and as such continue living with swallowing their blood (extremely difficult). Instead of the bond of marriage being a bounty and mercy, it turns into psychological, mental and financial burden.
THE COURTS RIGHT OF ISSUING A DIVORCE AND THE EXPLANATION OF DIVORCE
By giving the right of divorce to the courts, the increase and decrease in such cases will be confined to how loose/broad or how constricting the reasoning's of divorce has been kept. In those countries where the reasoning's/causes of divorce have been kept broad, especially more in favour and respect of the wife, then in such cases by giving the right of divorce to the courts, the cases of divorces escalate to alarming rates.
The wife becomes extremely unhappy with the husband due to a certain matter, by being overriden with extreme emotional interim moods, she decides that she cannot bear living with her husband, she then applies for the annulment of marriage to the courts
According to the courts, she qualifies to apply for annulment on this basis that the wife is not prepared to live with her husband, the judge then annuls the marriage. Because in view of the court, the insistence of the wife in annuling the marriage may be due to her suffering grossly at the hands of her husband, even though the wife cannot prove/ justify her claim.
The current concept of her being deemed as a victim of oppression in all situations is a result of the legalising and action of the courts. As a result, many a times, the legitimate/valid interests and welfare of the husband and children are negatively affected. In specific, the husband suffers huge monetary and family loss.
Very often the wife becomes remorseful on her actions, after her anger having cooled off and her coming into her senses after making a rash decision. However, the husband does not risk bringing her back to his Nikah because of his bitter past experience with her.
Due to opening the doors of divorce wide open, marriage and divorce have become a play in western countries. Marriage relations have become unstable. The rates of divorce are increasing at an amazing pace.
The daily marriage and divorce is causing great harm to those boys and girls who came into existence due to the short period enjoyment of their parents. After becoming deprieved of the love and upbringing of the parents, they become a target of different types of sicknesses, bad habits, psychological and mental disorder, even though the government might provide them with medication, upbringing and high level of education standards.
The daily increase of children who are getting deprived of the love of the parents and upbringing of the family culture are becoming a dangerous fear to the community. These children easily get caught by the evil spreading groups. They get involved in bad habits. Instead of using their talents in the development and upbringing of the country. Their talents are used in destroying and bringing the country to a downfall.
After handing over the power of giving divorce in control of the judge, if the limits and conditions of giving divorce are kept strict, then the bad situations are created on the other hand.
If the government gives the power of divorce to the husband only when he can prove the fornication or evil act of his wife through witnesses, then even if the wife did these types of evils and the husband witnessed them and has the knowledge of those evil practices, how is he going to present witnesses for all these evil practices? Most of such evils are done in privacy.
To give lawyers and judges a chance to conduct a deep investigation is not in the interest of a woman. The poor lady won't be able show her face in the society irrespective of the decision of the court. And if the wife didn't get involved in fornication or any other evil through which the government gives the right to the husband to divorce his wife, but the husband hates his wife because of her bad habits and not having same temperments, the husband hates his wife with complete soul and mind and the husband's heart is not inclined towards his wife in any way, then they are only two ways if he decides that he does not want to lie and present a false accusation. It is either he wont go to the court and if he does go to the court he will be unsuccessful.
In this situation, the marriage will remain based on the government rule, but instead of the marriage becoming a means of happiness, comfort and joy, the marriage will become a distressful painful one. The daily inner fights will frustrate the family more.
A husband in whose heart is filled with the hatred might pay expenses of the wife due to government fear, but it won't be possible for him to give his wife love and comfort. In this situation keeping the marriage is not beneficial, especially when both are young, there is great fear. It is either they will keep fighting or they will look for non-permissible ways to fulfil their passion and end up losing their honour, chastity and dignity. And if the husband decides to get rid of his wife at any cost, then the situation will get worse than before.
Through the advice of the lawyer, the husband ends up putting false accusations on his wife such as fornication and other evils and claims for a divorce through false proofs and documents.
In this era, when religious teachings and good character and conduct are a scarcity and wealth has attained the status of been worshipped and the intelligent lawyers and government workers who are talented are involved in making the truth into lies and lies into truth, to present false proofs and accusations in the court through expert lawyers is not difficult for the husband.
Whatever will be the decision of the court will spoil the future of the wife and she will become suspected in the eyes of the family. What can be a greater harm for a woman than this?
If the husband does not succeed in getting rid of his wife through false accusations, then he will look for other criminal ways of getting rid of his wife.
Only Allah knows how many woman are being killed and burnt in different countries because their husbands hate them and could not divorce them due to government rules. Our media is filled with information about woman being burnt and killed by their husbands.
Is divorcing of hundred women are great concern or killing of fifty women? It is something to ponder upon.
ONE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUBSIDIARY ISSUE OF DIVORCE
Few years ago, the Supreme Court made a big uproar based on the claim of four hindu women whose husbands accepted Islam and remarried. According to the judge, these four men accepted Islam because they wanted to get rid of their wives. If the findings of the judges were true, then a shocking reality is in front of us. The Hindu Code Bill needs to be adjusted as it cannot facilitate the causes of divorce in the Hindu custom. Hence, there is a need to change and expand the Hindu Code Bill.
In our Indian Community, changing religions is not an easy task. After changing religions, one gets cuts-off from his family and community and is faced with many difficulties, especially if he has left Hinduism and become a Muslim. Therefore, a person who has the courage to leave Hinduism and become a Muslim will do so in one of the two situations:
1. His beliefs have actually changed due to research and pondering. He has such firm belief in the truthfulness of Islam that he would rather cut away from his community and face difficulties as he cannot bear to stay on in his old religion which he believes to be false and baseless.
2. His beliefs have not changed, in terms of beliefs, he is still a Hindu. However, he has accepted Islam due to a severe difficulty or torment that he is facing which he cannot be saved from except by changing his religion.
For example, he has formed severe hatred and enmity towards his wife and is not willing to stay with her under any condition. However, according to the Hindu Code, he does not have the right to divorce which is why he would rather change his religion in order to separate from his wife, inspite of knowing the challenges that he will have to face upon changing his religion. However, in comparison to the difficulty of keeping his Hindu wife, he considers the difficulties and dangers of changing his religion to be easier and bearable.
SHORCOMINGS OF THE HINDU CODE BILL
It is clear from the above analysis that the reasons for a divorce in the Hindu Code Bill are very narrow as they do not fulfil the need of divorce within the Hindu community. This is why many educated and wealthy Hindu males even take the step of accepting Islam in order to leave their wives.
The solution for this difficult situation is that some changes be made to the Hindu Code Bill so that the reasons for issuing divorce are expanded or the husband is given the right to divorce. Imposing the Civil Code is not the solution to this difficulty. The negative consequences of imposing the Civil Code is that the husbands who are frustrated with their wives will no longer be able to change their religion in order to gain freedom from their wives.
How will this solve the problems facing married women? A husband who is frustrated with his wife to such an extent that he resents her, does not want to see her face and in order to get freedom from her, does not even mind going to the extremes of changing his religion, shall not be able to stay in the same house as his wife.
This attitude, we fear, will increase the oppression on Hindu women and no court will be able to prevent such oppression.
Recently, some shameful news was published that a Hindu Husband made his brother and nephew rape his wife so that he may be able to leave his wife due to the person not having the right to divorce his wife without her being immoral according to the Civil Code.
It is clear from the above analysis that to hand over the complete right of divorce to the Court is not in the interests of husband and wife, and not in the interest of the community. It does not decrease the rate of divorce and neither does it fulfil the needs of divorce. The only outcome is the personal spousal secrets becomes exposed in the courts and becomes a public talk. This leads to humiliation for both husband and wife. A better alternative is to quietly and amicably terminate the marriage so that both do not get disgraced and their secrets are not exposed.
DIVORCE THROUGH MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HUSBAND AND WIFE:
In the previous lines, we have highlighted the argument that granting the autonomy of divorce solely to the court is not beneficial for the husband, wife or the society in general. The actual objectives of a divorce are not even fulfilled through this method.
Now, we wish to discuss the issue of granting the autonomy of divorce jointly to both the husband and wife i.e. if a legislation were to be made that a divorce cannot be given without mutual agreement and consensus between the two parties and neither of the two parties would have the sole autonomy of ending a marriage, how would this work out? It cannot be disputed that if the husband and wife were to mutually agree upon ending the marriage, they should have the right to do this. Islam has given the husband and wife this right, it is known as Khula'.
However, to limit the methods of divorce to this one method is not an appropriate measure at all. Many incidents are found in which either one partner, the husband or the wife wishes to end the marriage in all instances whilst the other is not at all prepared in the marriage to end. Hence, in the many hundreds and thousand of situations where this occurs, divorce would not take place even though one of the two partners either the husband or a wife, becomes vexatious and frustrated to such an extent that emotional hatred has reached its summit in his or her heart for the other partner.
The institution marriage can only be successful and prosperous if the hearts of the two partners connect with one another, the hearts of the two partners have love and respect for one another and the two companions have complete trust over one another. Therefore, it is not appropriate in any way whatsoever to create the restriction that a marriage can only be dissolved through mutual agreement between the husband and wife. The result of this shall be that in order to escape from the other partner, the vexed partner shall commit a deeply unlawful and destructive act.
WHY DOES THE HUSBAND HAS THE RIGHT OF DIVORCE?
Shariah grants the unilateral right of divorce only to the husband. If the husband does not fulfil his responsibilities or he is oppressing his wife, the wife could request a judge for the annulment of her marriage. However, she does not have the right of divorce. What is the reason for granting this right only to the husband and what is the rationale behind it? What has shariah considered and the wisdom behind it? This can be understood from the following points.
To answer this question lies in the nature of roles that a husband and wife assume in a married life. In an Islamic society, the husband bears all the financial burden which results from a marriage contract. It is he who has to pay dower to his wife. It is he who has bear the expenses incurred during the wedding in terms of walimah etc. It is he who has to support his family financially and provide a home for his wife and children.
The wife on the other hand, does not have to provide even a small share of the family expenses, although she could take some responsibilities upon herself to save a percentage of her husband's income.
On the flip side, the wife receives gifts and dowry which boosts her finances tremendously. The husband have to bear the burnt of all expenses after marriage and even after divorce. If the husband has not discharged the dowry due to the wife, then would be asked to settle it immediately. During the iddah period, the husband has to continue to bear financial expenses incurred by the wife. The husband also has to maintain his sons who have not yet attain maturity and he has to maintain his daughters as well. In fact the divorced wife will be remunerated for the time she looks after their sons who have not yet attained puberty.
Moreover, when a man has divorced his wife and he wishes to marry another woman, he has to pay similar expenses which makes the whole idea of divorce a very costly affair. Thus if one acts according to the teachings of Islam through divorce, a woman does not suffer any financial loss and in addition she sometimes acquires added financial benefits. There are so many duties and responsibilities on the husband after marriage and even after divorce that any man would think twice before going through the process of marriage and divorce because he realises that it constitutes a great financial burden on him. Thus, in view of this expected financial loss, a husband thinks very carefully before he decides to terminate his marriage.
A question may arise that why should the husband bear the responsibility of the expenses after marriage and after divorce and why the wife don't bear some expenses also?
To understand the answer one should first unravel the inherent natures of every male and woman. To fathom this point, a detailed discussion is necessary.
One of the main reasons, for the man holding the right of divorce is he is more capable of controlling his emotions especially in disputed with his wife, whereas women are more emotional and hasty.
If the wife had been given the right of divorce, there is a possibility of abuse whereby the wife could divorce the husband on minor issues due to her being unable to control her emotions, thus leaving the husband with a substantial financial burden. According to Sheikh Abu Zuhra, those women who secured an undertaking from her potential husband to transfer the autonomy of divorce to her, the rate of giving divorce is higher. We can blow our trumpets to prove the equality between men and women, the reality is that we can never delete the different temperments of both genders.
We cannot deny the fact that some women can control their emotions and temper better than man, however rules are designed according to the general situation and not according to rare situations. Even though the right of divorce is held by the husband, Shariah has also taken into consideration that the wife is not oppressed and she could ask for the annulment of her marriage through a judge when the husband oppresses her or does not fulfil his duties.
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE BY A JUDGE
There are many options available for a woman to dissolve her marriage, for example:
1. Absent husband: absconding or missing.
2. Failure to provide maintenence: inability or refusal
3. Husband is insane
4. Husband is impotent
5. Severe Abuse: Physical or other
6. Serious health condition or disease: leprosy or any such disease which can endanger the wife.
According to Imam Malik (Rahimahullah), when a judge presides over a martial dispute and the disputing spouses present their witnesses and it has not become clear who is the transgressing party due to the wife not presenting her claim of annulment clearly, the judge can grant the application of the woman if he feels the discord between the spouses is too deep and there is fear of more harm in maintaining the marriage.
Furthermore, if there is insistence on handing over the sword of divorce to the delicate hand of the wife, then there is a leeway for that as well. If at the time of the Nikah or after the Nikah, the husband hands over the anatomy to the wife or a third party, then the wife or third party may exercise that right which cannot be revoked by the husband.
IMPORTANT ADVICES PERTAINING TO DIVORCE
While Islam has given the husband the right to issue divorce, it has also set certain guidlines. If those guidelines are considered, then the use of the right of divorce will be exercised in extreme desperation and as a last resort after all the avenues of resolving the disputes and attempting a reconciliation have failed.
Furthermore, if one considers the procedure of divorce in Islam, the door of a dignified reconciliation remains open. Some of the important and fundamental advices from the Quran and Sunnah pertaining to divorce are;
1) If someone wishes to divorce a woman with whom he was intimate, he should issue one talaq raj'ee (revocable divorce) after her menstrual cycle has ended without engaging in conjugal relations. He should not issue a divorce during her menstrual cycle or in a clean cycle in which they were intimate.
The wisdom behind this is that during her mentrual cycle, the husband may feel disinclined towards her as she is not clean and there are restrictions to being intimate with her. Similarly, the husband may feel disinclined towards his wife after being intimate with her in a clean cycle. On the contrary, his divorce in a clean cycle where his emotions are still strong indicating his complete detachment from his wife and divorce being his final recourse.
2) Secondly, the husband is advised to suffice on one talaq raj'ee. This is the best form of divorce because if the husband regrets his decision, he still has the opportunity to revoke his divorce within the 'iddah period. Revoking the divorce will not necessitate a renewal of the Nikah or dowry and the initial Nikah will remain intact.
If he does not revoke his divorce within the 'iddah period, the divorce will be finalized with the completion of the 'Iddah period and their Nikah will terminate. However, if they wish to remarry, they shall have the option to do so.
3) If the husband is adamant on giving three talaqs, Shariah advises him to give one talaq raj'ee in a clean cycle in which he did not have intercourse with his wife. Thereafter, he should give the second talaq raj'ee approximately a month later; after her second menstrual cycle finishes. He should give the third talaq after her third menstrual cycle.
The husband still has the option to revoke the first and second talaq within the 'iddah period if he wishes to restore the marriage. If he chooses not to give the third talaq and allows her 'iddah period to finish without revoking the talaq, they can still consensually remarry.
After the third talaq, the husband cannot revoke his talaq nor can the husband and wife remarry regardless of their desires.
4) Shariah advises these methods of divorce so that the husband and wife are availed an opportunity to ponder and reflect over the situation, understand and restore their relationship, and rectify their flaws.
5) Islam has bestowed a great favor to women by limiting the number of talaqs to three and has prevented the martial life after becoming a mere child's play. In the pre-Islamic era, the Arabs would not have any limited number of talaqs. After every talaq, the husband had the right of taking back his wife. In this manner, many husbands would revoke these divorces before the completion of the 'iddah. This system of talaq and revoking continued for many years. Thus, the wife was never able to get deliverance from her oppressive husband nor was she able to conduct herself as a typical wife should.
Islam then abolished this practice and uplifted this oppression; which gave the husband the right to issue unlimited number of talaqs and revoke the talaq thereafter. Islam also put such mechanisms in place which restricts the husband from reconciling with his wife and remarrying her during her 'Iddah after issuing three talaqs. Consequently, the respect and awe for Nikah was restored.
6) Violations of the Islamic teachings of talaq is a grave sin. For example, to give talaq during menses, giving three talaqs at once and giving more than one talaq in the state of tuhr (purity). Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) would punish husbands who would give three talaqs at once.
Currently, due to the lack of understanding of Deen and lack of conciousness of the fear of Allah, there has been a rise in the violation of the laws of talaq taught by Islam.
Many arrogant men think that talaq is not even valid unless you give three talaqs, this is why three talaqs are given. Some given talaqs during periods, some give talaq on trivial arguments. In relation to this, two things are very important.
1. In order for this ignorance to be removed, the understanding of the laws of Nikah and talaq should be given importance. It should be advised that to give talaq without any necessity or to give talaq against the teachings of Islam is a grave sin. There will be great accountability for this in the court of Allah.
2. A communal effort should be made to explain to people not to take the matters of Nikah and talaq lightly. The awareness of giving talaq without necessity and to give it in the wrong manner should be made. A penalty should be imposed for those who violate the laws of talaq and if there is a need then a social boycott should be implemented.
The prevention of wrong-doings is not only stopped by the laws. At times, the social boycott is very effective. Many reputable Darul Iftaas have agreed that an appropriate penalty should be imposed for those who violate the laws of talaq or a social boycott should be implemented.
In relation to this, a question which was posed to Mufti Rasheed Sahib (May Allah have mercy on him) is presented.
TA'ZEER (PENALTY) SHOULD BE WAJIB ON PRESENT (WRONG) WAYS OF TALAQ
Question: In this day and age, the most detestable of lawful actions to Allah (i.e. talaq) has become quite common, due to which trespassing the laws of Allah, corruption of the mind and rebellion are common in the society. Nevertheless, it is undeniably the right of the man to issue talaq in any given circumstance. In most cases of talaq, the man himself is the oppressor and hastens in issuing talaq. Is issuing talaq a punishable offence in this case? The punishment applicable in this situation is would be that his fellow faternity display animosity towards his actions and disassociate themselves from him until his mockery of the commands of Allah come to an end. Is this penalty in the form of disassociation and social boycott permissible or not?
Answer: Nowadays, there are many sins committed in the way divorce is issued. The correct method for issuing talaq is foe the husband to issue one revocable talaq (talaq raj'ee) while the wife is in a state of purity in which conjugal relations did not take place. This should only be done once a sincere effort was made to reconcile and advice was sought from upright and honest people. Hereunder are some of the mistakes committed while giving talaq:
1. Talaq is given without any thought or consideration and without hesitation.
2. A sincere effort to reconcile is not carried out.
3. Upright and honest family-members were not consulted before issuing divorce
4. Istikhara was not made
5. Talaq is given suring the menstrual cycle
6. One thinks that it is necessary to give two or three talaqs at once
7. Many adopt the detested practice of halalah since that is the only method of reconciliation available after issuing three talaqs. Some even avoid halalah and choose insted to involve themselves in Zina for the remainder of their lives.
Based on the above-mentioned points, it is necessary that the government enforces a severe penalty. In the case the government turns a blind eye to these situations, then the penalty of social boycott and disassociation should be enforced. [Ahsanul Fatawa, Pg 194-5, vol. 5]
RECIPE FOR A SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGE
BY: MUFTI EBRAHIM DESAI
Question: Every human being by nature has an instinct to dispute. This instinct becomes more manifest between the husband and wife, thus leading to martial disputes. How can this instinct be controlled?
Answer: Consider the following ten points to control the instinct of dispute and maintain a happy marriage.
1. Fear Allah: It was the noble practice of Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam to conscentise the spouses about the fear for Allah before performing a Nikah (Nisa v14, Ahzab v69, Aali Imraan v101) from the Quraan. All the verses are common in the message of Taqwa (fear of Allah). The spouses will be first committed to Allah before being committed to their partner. There can be no doubt in the success of a marriage that is governed by the fear of Allah.
2. Never be angry at the same time: Anger is the root cause for all martial disputes. One Sahabi came to Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam and sought some advice. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam replied "Control your anger". The same advice was rendered three times. [Mishkaat pg. 433]
3. If one has to win an argument, let it be the other: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: "Whoever discards an argument despite being correct shall earn a palace in the center of Jannah" [Ibid pg. 412]
4. Never shout at each other unless the house is on fire: Luqman (Alaihissalaam) while offering advice to his son said: " and lower your voice for verily the most disliked voice is that of a donkey" [Surah Luqman v19]
5. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly: Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam said, "A Mu'min is a mirror for a Mu'min" (Abu Dawud vol. 2, pg. 325; Imdadiyah). Advise with dignity and silently.
6. Never bring up mistakes of the past: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: "Whoever conceals the faults of others, Allah shall conceal his fault on the day of Qiyamah" [Mishkaat pg. 429]
7. Neglect the whole world rather than your marriage partner: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam confirmed the advice of Salman to Abu Darda' (Radhiyallahu Anhum) for neglecting his wife: "Verily there is a right of your wife over you". [Nasai Hadith 2391]
8. Never sleep with an argument unsettled: Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) resolved his dispute with his wife over-feeding the guests before going to bed. [Bukhari Hadith 602]
9. At least, once everyday, express your gratitude to your partner: Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "whoever does not show gratitude to the people has not shown gratitude to Allah" [Abu Dawud pg. 662]
10. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness: Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "All the sons of Aadam commit error, and the best of those who err are those who seek forgiveness". [Tirmidhi Hadith 2499]
Divorce (Talaq) is regarded as an undesirable act in IslamHalalahHand over the Right of divorce to the Courts?Husband and the Right of DivorceIndian Government Interferes in Muslim Personal LawIslamic Ruling on Divorce (Talaq)Khula'Nikah and TalaqRecipe for a successful marriageShortcomings of the Hindu Code BillTa'zeer is Wajib on the present ways of divorce (talaq)Talaq (Divorce) through Mutual AgreementWho should have the autonomy of divorceWhy does the husband have the right of Divorce in Islam?
The Reality of Halloween – Worshipping Satan the Accursed
October 29, 2016 islamreigns	1 Comment
HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF HALLOWEEN
Ancient Celtic Pagans
For many centuries before Christianity, the pagan Celts in ancient Britain and Ireland celebrated the eve and day of their New Year, called the Samhain, on October 31st. In the Celtic language, Samhain (or Samain) meant "End of Summer".
During Samhain Eve, it was believed that the world of the gods became visible to mankind, and that they played many tricks on their mortal worshipers; it was a time loaded with danger, fear, and supernatural episodes. The Celts made human sacrifices and offerings to ward off the perils of the season and the anger of the deities.
Samhain was also the Day of the Dead. During it, it was believed that the souls of those who had died during the year were allowed access into the "land of the dead".
Furthermore, the ancient Celts believed that on that evening the Lord of the Dead called forth hosts of evil spirits, and the souls of the dead were believed to revisit their homes. Thus, Samhain acquired sinister significance, with spirits, ghosts, witches, hobgoblins, black cats, fairies, and demons said to be roaming about. Huge bonfires were set on hilltops to frighten away evil spirits.
In addition, being the last evening of the year, Samhain Eve was regarded as a most favorable time for examining the portents of the future. Divinations were performed concerning marriage, luck, health, and death; and the devil's help was invoked for such purposes.
Romans and Early Christians
After the Romans conquered Britain, they added to Samhain features of the Roman harvest festival, held on November 1st in honor of Pomona, goddess of tree fruits.
The pagan practices influenced the Christian festival of Halloween (Hallow-Eve), celebrated on the same date (October 31st), and elements of the Samhain festival were incorporated into it. Hallow-Eve (or All Hallows' Eve) is the Christian festival of the night preceding All Saints' (Hallows') Day, celebrated on November 1st in the Western churches.
In some parts of Europe, the people continued to believe that on this night the dead walked among them, and that witches and warlocks flew in their midst. Thus, bonfires were lit to ward off those malevolent spirits.
Therefore, most historians consider Samhain the predecessor of Halloween, which has preserved many of the practices and beliefs of its precursor: Samhain.
Contemporary Europe and America
By the 19th century, witches' pranks were replaced by children's tricks. Immigrants to the U.S., particularly the Irish, introduced Halloween customs that became popular in the late 19th century. Boys and young men performed mischievous acts on this occasion, often causing severe damage to properties.
Halloween thus gradually became a secular observance, and additional customs and practices developed, many of which turning to games played by children and young adults. In recent years, the occasion has come to be observed mainly by small children; they go from house to house, often in costume, demanding "trick-or-treat". The treat, often candy, is generally given, and the trick is rarely played.
Many traditional beliefs and customs associated with Samhain, however, continue to be practiced on the 31st of October. Most notably, the practice of leaving offerings of food and drink (now candy) to masked and costumed revelers, and the lighting of bonfires. A common symbol of Halloween is the jack-o-lantern, which is a hollowed-out pumpkin carved in the appearance of a demonic face and with a lighted candle fixed inside.
Satan Worship
Since Halloween was largely based on rituals involving dead spirits and demon worship, it now represents, among other things, a most sacred day for the devil worshippers.
Because of this sinister nature, many devout Christians condemn the Halloween festival. They realize that the spiritual forces that some people experience during this festival are indeed real, but are manifestations of Satan. Thus, they reject the customs associated with Halloween, including all symbols of the dead (ghosts, vampires, and human skeletons), the devil, and other malevolent and evil creatures.
THE ISLAMIC STANDPOINT ON SATANIC ACCURSED HALLOWEEN
Islam Is the Perfect Deen
By Allah's blessing and grace, Islam contains the complete and perfect guidance for humanity:
"This day I have perfected your religion for you, have completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." [Al-Ma'idah 5:3]
Islam does not neglect any information that the people need to achieve happiness and avoid harm, in all aspects of their lives. It directs them to all that would save them from the Fire and admit them into the gardens of Paradise.
This was the mission of all of the prophets, including the Final Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wassalam) who said:
"There is nothing that would bring you closer to Jannah and farther from the Fire but it has been clarified [by me] to you".
[Musnad Ahmad]
Because of this, it is a major atrocity to seek guidance (whether partially or totally) in any religion other than Islâm. Allah says (what means):
"He who seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him; and he is among the losers in the Hereafter." [Surah Aal 'Imran 3:85]
The Islamic Concept of Festivities
Part of the perfection of Islam is the Islamic festivals. The Muslims have only two annual festivals: al-Fitr and al-Adha. They are both Allah's choice for this Ummah. Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) reported that once the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wassalam) said:
"When I came to al-Madinah, its people had two days that they celebrated from the times of Jahiliyyah; indeed, Allah has substituted them for you with two better days: the day of Sacrifice and the day of Fitr."
[Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud]
This indicates that festivals are religious occasions that Allah granted for the Muslims. Furthermore, Allah alone has the right to prescribe festivals and set their dates and the manner of celebrating them. Thus, festivals and their celebration in Islam carry a special meaning and spirit. They are totally different from the celebrations of other nations and cultures.
Differing from the Non-Muslims
A true Muslim associates with the believers and adheres to their ways. He strives to be distinctive and different from the non-believers. The Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wassalam) said:
Differ from the Jews and the Christians. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
"Differ from the disbelievers"
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
"Whoever imitates a people is one of them." [Ahmad and Abû Dâwûd ]
The Muslims are blessed with the best guidance. The disbelievers are misguided, and their ways are based on wrong views. Their actions frequently reflect their deviant views. Why, then, would one wish to imitate them? Yet, sadly, some Muslims imitate them, even in meaningless acts!
The Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wassalam) said:
"You will follow the ways of the nations who preceded you so closely that even if they entered a lizard's hole you would enter it." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
Indeed, outwardly resemblance leads to harmony of the hearts. Resembling the disbelievers is Satan's first step in leading the Muslims to behave and believe like them. The worst form of imitation of the non-Muslims is in practices that involve shirk or are based on their deviant religious beliefs.
Differing from the Non-Muslims in Celebrations
A true Muslim holds a correct Islamic understanding regarding celebrations. He only celebrates the festivals that have been legislated by Allah. Festivals are religious occasions characteristic of every nation's religion or beliefs. Thus, it is compulsory on the Muslims to avoid imitating the disbelievers in their festivals or join in any of the practices that are associated with them. This includes answering their invitations, congratulating them, giving them presents, displaying their symbols, or doing any other act, regardless of how small it might appear, that indicates approval of their festivals. Allah says (what means):
"And those (the servants of Allâh) who do not witness falsehood, and when they pass by vain practices, they pass with dignity." [Surah Al-Furqan 25:72]
Many of the companions and scholars of the salaf explain that the term "falsehood" in the above ayah refers to the holidays of the disbelievers. A Muslim should never join the non-Muslims in their celebrations, particularly those that involve clear shirk and kufr. Knowingly doing this subjects one to Allah's anger and punishment. 'Abdullah Bin 'Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said:
"One who settles in the lands of the non-Muslims, celebrates their festivals, and behaves like them until he dies, will be raised among them on the Day of Resurrection."
Celebrating Halloween Is a Major Sin
Since Halloween carries a strong pagan symbolism, observing it is an endorsement of its historical diabolical origin. Furthermore, the Halloween's seemingly innocent practices still carry a good deal of its pagan roots.
Therefore, taking any part in celebrating it is greatly prohibited in Islam. It is worse than joining with sinners in their sins or congratulating them for drinking wine, fornication and so on. Celebrating Halloween is similar to celebrating Christmas or Easter, or congratulating the Christians for their prostration to the crucifix. The Muslim parents should caution their children and prevent them from participating in any of its practices. Despite its clear prohibition, it is sad to see some Muslims participate in Halloween, purchase and wear silly Halloween costumes, and send their kids "trick-or-treating". They try to justify this by that they want to make their children happy. But what is the duty of the Muslim parents? Is it to follow the wishes of their children without question or to mould them within the correct Islamic framework as outlined in the Qur'an and Sunnah? Is it not the responsibility of the Muslim parents to impart correct Islamic training and instruction to their children? How can this duty be performed if, instead of instructing the children in Islam, their parents allow and encourage them to follow the ways of the unbelievers?
If the children are taught to be proud of their Islamic heritage, they themselves will abstain from Halloween and other non-Muslim celebrations, such as birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, Valentine's Day, etc. Islam is a pure religion with no need for accommodating any custom, practice or celebration that is not a part of it. The question arises as to what to do on Halloween night. The Muslim parents must not send their kids "trick-or-treating". Our children must be told why we do not celebrate Halloween. Simplifying the above material may be very suitable for this purpose. Most children are very receptive when taught with sincerity.
It must also be noted that, even the Muslims who stay home and give out treats to those who come to their door are thereby participating in this festival. In order to avoid this, they should leave their front lights off and should not open their door. Furthermore, they should educate their neighbors about the Islamic teachings and inform them in advance that the Muslims do not participate in Halloween.
Finally, we must remember that we are fully accountable to Allah for all of our deeds. If we insist on rejecting the Truth and joining Halloween or other non-Islamic practices, we would be liable to Allah's anger, as He warned in the Quran:
"Let those who reject his (the Messenger's) command beware lest a tribulation or a severe punishment be inflicted upon them!" [Surah An-Nur 24:63]
May Allah guide us, help us to stay on the right path, and save us from all deviations and innovations that would lead us into the fires of Hell.
HalloweenIslamic view on HalloweenOrigins of HalloweenSamhainSatan worshipSatanic festival
Aqeedah, The Salafi Sect
A Response to: "Akhi! If Allah is Everywhere, then is He also in Filthy Places??"
By Majlisul Ulama
Presenting another argument to bolster the Taimiyyite belief of makaan for Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep says:
"The same Molvi was asked about Allah being in filthy places after having implied that Allah is everywhere…..The Salaf have clearly used the argument of filthy places to negate that Allah is everywhere coupled with the many evidences to prove that Allah is Above everything…."
The coprocreep is mired in confusion as an effect of his stupidity. The argument of 'filthy places' was utilized by the Salaf-e-Saaliheen to negate the Jahmiyyah/Taimiyyah belief of makaan for Allah Azza Wa Jal. It was not used to negate 'everywhere' in the meaning in which the masses understand it, viz. there is no makaan to confine Allah Azza Wa Jal. The coprocreep's difficulty stems from his kufr belief of Allah Ta'ala being physically confined to the Arsh. In the Qur'aan Majeed Allah Ta'ala states with clarity and emphasis that His Wajh (Face) is 'everywhere' – wherever you turn your face, there is the Divine Face. Since 'Face', 'Hand', etc. do not have physical meanings in the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah as expounded by Imaam Maturidi, these being among His Sifaat, the question of 'filthy places' does not apply to the concept of 'everywhere bila makaan–bila kayf'. Yes, undoubtedly, it applies to those who confine Allah Ta'ala to physical space like the Jahmis and Taimiyyis. The coprocreep should answer: Is Allah Ta'ala aware of what goes on in filthy places? Does Allah Ta'ala see into filthy places? Does Allah Ta'ala hear what takes place in filthy places? Does Allah's power extend into filthy places, etc., etc. ad infinitum in relation to His Sifaat? Whatever the coprocreep's answer is to these questions will be our answer to the question in relation to 'Presence'.
Just as Allah's Sifaat of Basr, Sam'a, Kalaam, Hayaat, Ilm, Qudrat, Takhleeq, Tarzeeq, etc. are not the effects of physical appendages, so too is His Sifat of Wajh (Face). His Presence is His Sifat which has absolutely no physical connotation, hence the stupid question of 'filthy places' does not apply. It dwells only in the filthy minds of coprocreeps who assign Allah Azza Wa Jal into a confined created space, thereby stripping Allah Azza Wa Jal of His Sifaat. It is utterly baseless to direct the 'filthy places' argument to those who do not believe in makaan for Allah Ta'ala.
The coprocreep's contention that there are 'many evidences to prove that Allah is above everything' is baatil. It should be understood that when the coprocreep uses 'above' in relation to Allah Azza Wa Jal, he means physical aboveness. He assigns makaan to Allah Ta'ala, and he confines Allah Azza Wa Jal to the restricted space of the created Arsh. There is no 'evidence' of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen for such a corrupt and blasphemous belief. None of the Salaf believed in this copro-doctrine of kufr which is the disease of the Taimiyyites.
The belief of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding Allah's Presence is the concept of Nufoothul Ilaahiyyah (Permeation of Divinity), and this is precisely what the masses understand when it is said Allah Ta'ala is 'everywhere'. The masses with their uncorrupted minds do not believe in a physical being and the confinement of Allah Azza Wa Jal to physical makaan as the Taimiyyites do. Thus, if the 'filthy places' argument is directed to the Sifat of Wajh, it should likewise be directed to all the other Divine Sifaat, for verily, they are all in the same category – azli, abadi, and NOT physical. The coprocreep's confusion is the product of his physical concept fabricated for Allah Azza Wa Jal.
Presenting another stupid argument for ascribing physical space and dimension to Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep says:
I confronted him with the text of Sharh Aqaa'id "and Allah is not set in ANY place". His reply (while smiling): 'I need to check it up.'"
The Molvi's inability to understand or his lack of knowledge of the finer points of Aqeedah is not an adverse reflection on the Ulama of Deoband or on Imaam Maturidi. The text of Sharah Aqaa'id is 100% correct. Allah Ta'ala is not confined to any makaan. This is our Aqeedah. It is the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah while the belief of the Taimiyyites is that Allah Ta'ala is confined to the created space of the created Arsh. Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) stated unequivocally that the belief of confining Allah Ta'ala to makaan is kufr.
The coprocreep's criticism of Allaamah Kauthari is grounded in his (the coprocreep's) jahaalat. At no stage did Allaamah Kauthari deny the greatness, highness, glory, grandeur and majesty of Allah Azza Wa Jal. It devolves on this moron to produce the precise statement/s of Allaamah Kauthari to back up his slander. Like the rest of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, Allaamah Kauthari denied the physical 'highness' – the confines of the physical space of the Arsh – the Taimiyyite belief of kufr. There is no person even among all the baatil sects subscribing to a multitude of kufr beliefs who ever had the kufr audacity to deny the 'highness' of Allah Ta'ala in the abstract meaning of the term. The denial relates to the rejection of the Jahmi/Taiymi belief of the physical 'highness' (presence) which the coprocreeps ascribe to Allah Azza Wa Jal.
Little does the coprocreep realize that the blasphemous belief of physical 'aboveness' spawns for Allah Azza Wa Jal the defective attributes of derogation and imperfection, since it makes Allah Ta'ala subservient to His makhlooq (created space – makaan) –Nauthubillaah! Continuing with his spurious arguments, the coprocreep says:
"A former colleague studying Saheeh Muslim in a Darul Uloom asked the Sheikh for some guidance about how to counter the Salafis on this particular Hadith. The teacher hesitated, then referred them to Nawawi's Sharh. But no answer."
The inability of the student and the Ustaadh to provide a satisfactory answer cannot by any stretch of imagination or logic be interpreted as being a conflict in the Minhaaj of the Ulama of Deoband. It is ridiculous to expect every student and every Ustaadh to be experts in the polemical science of Aqeedah. Great Ulama too are unacquainted with many issues due to lack of research in particular fields of knowledge. Sometimes there is no need to waste time on research for which there is no need. Not everyone is inclined to a subject. Not everyone has the intellectual ability to grasp the hair-splitting arguments which are encountered in philosophy and Kalaam within the parameters of which the polemics of Aqeedah are discussed. It is therefore no blot whatsoever on the Ustaadh who was unable to answer the student on the specific question pertaining to a specific Hadith. In short, this issue of the Ustaadh and the student is an insipid stupid copro-filled, silly argument which is devoid of any substance.
Presenting another nonsensical argument, the coprocreep says:
"Another guy responded to me: And Allah is with you wherever you are (al-Hadeed). A trait of the People of Whims and Innovation is that they do not look at the whole picture; they concentrate on perverted interpretations of some theological provisions and use them to create doubts within the minds of their masses."
In fact, the Taimiyyites do not look at the 'whole picture', hence they apply their corrupt principle of ta'weel selectively. When it suits their whims and fancies, they adopt ta'weel to innovate blasphemous beliefs such as their corrupt interpretation of the Istiwa' aayat to innovate the blasphemy of a physical Allah confined by physical space on a physical throne, all of which are His creations. Taimiyyites look at issues with oblique vision. They fail to understand the consequences of a corrupt belief. Specifying physical dimension and direction for Allah Azza Wa Jal, spawns a physical deity – Nauthubillah.
They are the ones guilty of not looking at the whole picture. They are the ones who corrupt the minds of the ignorant masses by propagating a kufr belief which was originated by the Jahmiyyah centuries prior to the appearance of Ibn Taimiyyah. His idea of physical 'aboveness' or physical 'highness' for Allah Azza Wa Jal is his heritage from the Jahmiyyah.
As for the aayat in question, the Qur'aan Majeed states in Surah Al-Hadeed:
"It is He Who has created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established (His Qudrat) on the Arsh. He knows what enters into the earth and what emerges from it. He is with you wherever you are. And, Allah sees whatever you are doing." [Al-Hadeed, aayat 4]
The coprocreep interprets part of the aayat literally, and part of it figuratively. While ascribing a literal meaning to the Istiwa' part, to convey the notion that Allah Ta'ala sits on the Arsh, he ascribes an abstract meaning to the presence in the heavens and the earth. Thus, he says that Allah Ta'ala is in reality on the Arsh, but not in reality in the heavens and in/on the earth. What is his daleel for creating this difference? While we are not averse to the interpretation applicable to the statement: 'in the heavens and in the earth', the coprocreep should explain why it is not possible for ascribing a similar or identical meaning to fissamaawati wa fil ardh – the meaning ascribed to istiwa alal arsh? Both issues could be depicted as being bila kayf. The Qur'aan affirms both conditions for Allah Azza Wa Jal.
Refuting the idea of Allah Ta'ala sitting on the Arsh, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Kitaabul Wasiyyah: "If He (Allah) was dependent on sitting and resting, then before the creation of the Throne where was Allah? Thus He is free from this. High and great (is He)."
Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) further states in his Kitaabul Wasiyyah: "We acknowledge that Allah has made 'istiwa' on the Arsh without Him having any need for it (the Arsh) nor any need for resting thereon. He is the Protector of the Arsh and (everything) besides the Arsh."
It is best to refrain from presenting a translation/interpretation for the word 'istiwa' due to the corrupt notions which stem from translations and interpretations. The notorious idea which the Taimiyyite conception of 'istiwa' spawns is that Allah Ta'ala sits on the Throne like a human king. In this regard Mullah Ali Qaari states in the annotations of Sharah Fiqhil Akbar:
"Imaam Abu Hanifah said that whoever says that Allah is in the heavens or on earth is a kaafir because the (logical) conclusion of this statement is that he has fixed a place for Allah Ta'ala. He who entertains this notion (of makaan) for Allah Ta'ala is a Mushabbihah (a deviant sect)."
The dogmatic and bigoted averment that Allah Ta'ala is stationed on the Arsh is tantamount to fixing makaan for Allah Ta'ala since the Arsh is a created finite structure. With regard to the Arsh being Allah's creation as was explicitly and emphatically confirmed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the later reviver of the Hashwi anthropomorpic cult, Ibn Taimiya propounded the kufr that the Arsh in its species was not created by Allah Azza Wa Jal, but is co-eternal with Allah Ta'ala, having had no temporal origin. This kufr has been demolished in this treatise: The Kufr and Shirkiyyah Philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah
In Anwaarul Baari, Hadhrat Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) enumerates several of Ibn Taimiyya's beliefs. One of his beliefs, is: "Allah sits and rests on the Arsh. Eight rams are bearing aloft the Divine Arsh. ……In Fathul Baari, Vol.13, page 314, Haafiz states that the math-hab of the Jismiyyah sect who interprets istiwa' to mean istiqraar (to rest), is baatil. On page 316, Vol.13, Haafiz narrated that Imaam Muhammad said the Sifaat of Allah Ta'ala should be accepted without analogy and interpretation. Whoever resorts to interpretation like Jahm (the founder of the Jahmi sect), is far from the path of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah, and beyond the fold of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah."
"Inside Allah Ta'ala is such mass (weight) which is heavier than the mass of the entire world, hence there is so much pressure on the Arsh (as a consequence of this weight)……Allah is in a direction, viz., above, hence people inhabiting mountain peaks and top floors of buildings are closer to Allah…….On the Day of Qiyaamah, Allah Ta'ala will seat Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) alongside Him on the Arsh. …. The Arsh along with Allah Ta'ala is eternal."
There are many other absolutely baatil beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah. These corrupt beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah scuttle the coprocreep's lament, viz.:
"They (i.e. the Deobandis) constantly put words in the mouth of the Sunni Hanaabilah like: 'If Allah is on the throne, this would mean He has a body and is restricted and is subject to direction and has a literal/physical presence' and all that nonsense."
All of that 'nonsense' has in fact been propounded by Ibn Taimiyyah, and all of that 'nonsense' is the logical and rational conclusion of confining Allah Azza Wa Jal to a specific makaan (space). The Ulama of Deoband are not putting any words in the mouths of the Taimiyyites. The Taimiyyites themselves are gorging out these words of nonsense.
ALLAH IS EVERYWHERE SAYS THE QUR'AAN
Presenting another spurious argument, the coprocreep says:
"I asked a Molvi about this, and he replied with the verse: 'And Allah is in the skies and the earth', implying that Allah is everywhere. But this is wrong. In Arabic, the structure of this verse is similar to one saying:
Abu Bakr is the Khalifah in the East and the West. So does this mean that Abu Bakr is everywhere? In the light of this, the correct translation of the verse in al-An'aam is: And He is the Allah in the skies and the earth, i.e. the one who is worthy of worship in the skies and the earth…"
It is most significant that the coprocreep has resorted to ta'weel (interpretation) to explain this aayat. In terms of his crooked 'manhaaj', ta'weel is not valid. Just as the Taimiyyites posit a literal translation for the ayaat pertaining to Istiwa alal Arsh, so too does it behove them to accept the literal meaning of this aayat which he has subjected to ta'weel to avoid conflict with the Taimiyyite belief pertaining to Istiwa. In terms of logic, there is no valid reason to negate ta'weel for the Istiwa' aayat, and to affirm it for aayat 3 of Surah An'aam (the above verse). There is no Shar'i basis for this selective adoption of ta'weel, especially by a sect which ostensibly and deceptively negates Ta'weel.
While there are several versions in the tafseer of this aayat, there is consensus of the authorities of the Shariah in rejection of the Jahmiyyah belief of the existence of Allah Azza Wa Jal in every makaan. This consensus is likewise extended to the Taimiyyite belief of the attribution of makaan for Allah Azza Wa Jal. They assign a confined makaan, viz. the Arsh, for Allah Ta'ala with their literal ta'weel of the Istiwa' aayat while they have no rational reason for negating the literal meaning of aayat 3 of Surah An'aam. In addition to seeking refuge in ta'weel of this aayat, the coprocreep deletes the term 'fi' (in) from ardh (the earth). He has no right to discard the 'fi' on the basis of ta'weel which the Taimiyyites deny when it comes to the Istiwa' aayat. He has committed downright chicanery by deleting the term 'fi'.
The coprocreep has no basis for decrying someone who resorts to ta'weel for istiwa' in view of the Salafi ta'weel of ma-akum (together with you). The coprocreep who inhabits a glasshouse should beware of casting stones at others.
The Molvi merely said what Allah Ta'ala Himself says: "And, He is Allah Who is in the heavens, and in the earth." While the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah are entitled to resort to ta'weel of this aayat to refute confinement of Allah Azza Wa Jal to created makaan, Taimiyyites have no such entitlement in view of their corrupt belief of confinement of Allah Ta'ala to the created makaan of the created Arsh. They are logically bound to literally translate and literally understand this aayat just as they do with the Istiwa' verse.
The 'everywhere' explanation is the way to convey to the masses the negation of makaan for Allah Azza Wa Jal. In other words, Allah Ta'ala is not contained in any specific space/place. So where and how does He exist? This He Alone knows. We believe in His Existence and Presence bila kayf. All the philosophical contentions regarding the manner of Allah's Existence are futile and dangerous for the layman.
Attributes of Allah Ta'alaBila kayfistiwaNegation of MakaanSalafi misuse of the term 'filthy places'SifaatSurah An'aam verse 4The copro-ta'weel of the SalafisWajh
Basic Islamic Laws
Television is Immoral and Haraam
By Darul Uloom Zakariyyah
Respected Ulama al-Kiraam and to whom it may concern!
Assalamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu…
The following has not been written with the intent to criticise but rather because it is incumbent upon every Muslim, especially those who are affiliated with the pristine Deen of Allah Ta'ala to encourage the truth (Tawaasi Bil Haqq) and to differentiate between righteousness and falsehood. Hence, we have penned the following at your service:
It is an accepted fact that the TV is and has been amongst the most lethal Dajjali weapons and tools of misguidance. Its harms are limitless and it relentlessly indoctrinates immodesty into society. Simply put, if alcohol is 'The mother of all evil', then the TV is the 'The mother of immodesty'. And it is a well known fact that the enemies of Islam have been using it to destroy our pristine Deen and the Ummah. Therefore, you will notice in their past and present scheme of wars that they will first launch a full scale moral war by degrading the Islamic values and lifestyles of those targeted and then only will they invade their land and homes.
Not only is the TV an evil in itself, it openly promotes evil in all its forms. The following are some of the evils that the TV promote indiscriminately that can be observed by any unbiased, sensible and honest person.
• Nudity
• Promiscuous intermingling of the genders
• Alcohol and drug consumption
• Violence and crime
All of the above are indisputably impermissible, and these are just a few examples. Hence, the TV and all that is affiliated to promoting its usage is impermissible.
To cite an example; the initial prohibition pertains to alcohol and usury but our Beloved Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) has condemned all those factors which promotes the consumption of alcohol and usury. Therefore, the respected Jurists of Islam have established that any factor which can potentially be impermissible will also be deemed as impermissible. Nevertheless, if the possibility is only an assumption it will not be taken into consideration.
At this point we need to analyse the implications of whether the TV is a potential threat that promotes the impermissible or is this merely an assumption based on conjecture? Well, the obvious answer is that all those with sound knowledge and understanding have concurred that it is surely and definitely a tool promoting misguidance which has limited benefit. At this point we need to have a look at the following well known maxim of the Fuqaha pertaining to understanding the objectives of the Shariah:
"Preventing harm takes precedence over acquiring benefit." This maxim means that if an individual is in the process of doing something beneficial, but that act is accompanied by harm then he/she should leave that action so as to not be affected by the harm. So whenever there is a clash between harms and benefits the prevention of harm takes precedence even if it leads to the loss of beneficial things. The Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) states, "Stay away from that which I have prohibited for you and do what I have commanded you to as much as you can." [Sharh al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiyyah Pg. 205 Shaykh Ahmad Bin Shaykh Muhammad al-Zarqa]
❖ The general Muslim public will consider that the TV is permissible due to the Ulama al-Kiraam's participation and involvement in TV programmes. Hence, they will introduce the TV in their homes on the pretext of necessity and eventually it will destroy the Muslim homes by becoming its adornment. And certainly, the wrath and consequences will be borne by those who deemed it permissible.
❖ The apprehension related to its detriments will come to an end. Hence, its negative impacts will become widespread, thus outgrowing the consideration for abstaining from evils and immodesty. Alhamdulillah, at least there exists some sort of consideration regarding its evilness, that upon the visit of an Aalim of Deen or upon the dawn of the Mubarak month of Ramadaan, the TV is switched off. If the Ulama are involved in TV programs, it is certain that the Muslim Ummah will lose that very little bit of regard for Deen which is currently holding by a thread.
❖ As for those countries which had issued the verdicts of permissibility, please have a look at the evils that have engulfed them. Its negative impacts and detriments has corroded these societies to such an extent that there are reports of individuals who have succumbed to the snares of TV and perpetrated the most shameless of sins such as incest.
❖ It is not sufficient to say that if we do not seize this opportunity then the enemies of Islam will spread corruption and evil. The fact of the matter is that their efforts have been ongoing for ages and our benefit in using such avenues is much less in comparison to its harms and detriments.
❖ It is compulsory to abstain from that which is recommended when it has the potential of opening the doors of evil and corruption and it is not permissible to object at such aversions.
❖ It will create dissension amongst the Ulama thus presenting an opportunity to those who want to spread corruption and mischief.
❖ To use the statement of the great Jurist of Islam, Hadhrat Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh), " One should greet those who are engaged in frivolities so that at least for a few moments they become engaged in good and righteousness", is incorrect. Because issuing the verdict of permissibility for its usage will create more opportunities for people to individually and collectively become engaged in unnecessary and harmful frivolities.
❖ It is totally incorrect to say that 'We need to change in conformity to modern times', but instead we should endeavour to ensure that all our affairs related to the propagation of Deen is free from factors that are reprehensible in the Shariah.
❖ Please take the statement of Hadhrat Gangohi (Rahmatullah Alayh) into consideration when there was a request that an individual who did not conform to the Shariah to be appointed as a trustee of Darul Uloom Deoband. Hadhrat said, "To appoint such an individual as a trustee is a sin and shows total disregard of the Shariah and it is not necessary to run the Darul Uloom in such a situation." Nonetheless, if those who are seeking the verdict of permissibility see certain benefits in this matter, they must take heed of the fact that 'Its harms are greater than its good'
❖ Certainly, 'Necessity removes restriction' is an important and established juridical rule from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. During the times of necessity to use the impermissible is established from this very principle. But, it is also incumbent upon us that we analyse the extremes which makes the impermissible, temporarily permissible.
This Deen belongs to Allah and He has taken the responsibility of preserving His Deen. We are only required to use those avenues which are permissible, to promote and propagate the Deen of Allah Ta'ala.
❖ Currently, the most fruitful effort pertaining to the promotion and propagation of the Deen has been undertaken by the Tableeghi Jamaat. Did they use the TV?
❖ It is certain that evil and corruption will spread through the TV, yes, someone may or may not acquire some beneficial information from it from time to time, but that also at the detriment: of losing the light of one's Imaan.
❖ We need to question ourselves as to whether we have used the established avenues of the Shariah for the propagation of Deen, to its fullest or not?
❖ Rationally and from a Shari perspective, the most stringent rules pertaining to the prohibition of TV is not enough.
❖ Those claiming permissibility, the most they have been able to establish is a very narrow margin of convenience. Is that sufficient to create dissension amongst the Ummah?
❖ Certain Ulama viewing video clips on their phones is their personal doings and hence cannot be established as the dictates of the Shariah.
❖ The change of times is telling us that soon every home will be invaded by the evils of TV. Doesn't this warrant us to be precautious and to abstain from such filth?
❖ Finally, as long as the TV industry is not free from those factors which are impermissible and reprehensible within the Shariah, to seek the verdict of permissibility and to become involved in TV programs is a very slippery slope and tantamount to inviting the curse and wrath of Allah Ta'ala.
One should not appear on TV programs but should rather follow the guidelines of the effort of Tableegh and establish Deeni programs at various Masaajid and venues. To impress the general public by appearing on TV is possible but to actually benefit the Ummah through Islaah (spiritual reformation) is practically impossible. Nowadays, the youth are spending lengthy hours on similar avenues such as the internet, tablets etc. Sadly, instead of improvement this has resulted in their destruction, depravity and has driven them away from their duties and obligations.
AND ALLAH TA'ALA KNOWS BEST AND UNTO HIM IS OUR RETURN
harms and evils of T.VIslamic rulings regarding T.VScholars and TelevisionT.VTelevision is Haraam
Qabar Pujari Sect
Bid'at leads to Shirk
By Mufti Afzal Hoosen Ilyas
"Shirk" means to associate anyone or anything in the worship or in the special and exclusive attributes of Allah Taala. The highest and worst form of shirk is to include another being or object within the "Person" of Allah Taala or to raise or regard anything besides Him as worthy of worship, e.g. the belief in trinity, the belief in idols, Association or Shirk in the Attributes of Allah are, for example:
Shirk fil Qudrat – the attribution of Allah's Quality of Qudrat, (or power) to anything else. For example, to believe that any being besides Allah Taala also has the power to create, give life, cause rain, etc.
Shirk fil Ilm – is the attribution of Allah's All-embracing and allencompassing Knowledge to anyone or anything else. For example, to believe that a Nabi or a Wali has knowledge of the unseen like Allah Taala has.
Shirk fil Hukm – or to attribute Allah's Attribute of Decree or Command to another. For example, to render obedience to a saint or any other being like one would do for Allah Taala. These are some forms of Shirk. There is no greater crime than the commission of shirk.
THE TYPES OF SHIRK
SHIRK means to associate any person or object in the worship or qualities of Allah Taala. There are several forms of shirk which are described here briefly.
(1) Shirk fil Qudrat. To attribute Allah's quality of power to anybody else, for example, to believe that a certain prophet or Wali or martyr can bring about rains or cause the births of babies or fulfill desires or give food. Or to kill or bring anything into life or to bring benefit or damage is in their power. All these things are Shirk.
(2) Shirk fil Ilm. To attribute Allah's power of knowledge to others, for example, to say that a prophet or a pious man has the knowledge of unseen, or like Allah knows about everything, or they are aware of all of our affairs or they can tell what is happening far and near. All this is Shirk fil Ilm.
(3) Shirk fil Sama'a and Basr. To attribute Allah's power of seeing and hearing to others, for example, to believe that a certain prophet or a pious person could hear things far and near or could see all of our own acts.
(4) Shirk fil Ibaadah is to accept any other person as worthy of worship like Allah, for example, to do sajda on or bow before a grave or a pious person, or doing ruku likewise or to keep fast in the name of a prophet, Wali or Imam, or to give away Nazar or to promise an offering like that etc., or to go round a house like one goes round Ka'bah (Tawaaf) all these are Shirk fil Ibaadah.
Are there any more acts of Shirk? Yes, there are many acts of Shirk which must be avoided. These acts are: to ask about heavenly secrets from astrologers, or to show hands to a palmist to know about future, to ask others for Faal, which is another way of trying to know future from omens, to treat diseases like smallpox etc., as contagious and infectious which can be contracted without Allah's permission to make Tazias and Alams. To offer as sacrifice, sweets flowers etc., on graves, to swear in the name of someone other than Allah, to put pictures and pay respects to them, call any pious person one's rescuer or saviour, or to grow hair in the name of a Wali, to turn Fakir in Muharram in the name of an Imam.
QABR PUJA
The people who resort to grave-worshipping make sajda (prostrate) to the graves. They justify this practice of shirk by claiming that they are not worshipping the grave, but that they merely rendering the prostration as a mark of respect to the buried saint. But, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has rebutted and prohibited such prostrations even if the intention underlying such sajda is respect. Hadhrat Qais ibn Sa'd (radhiyallahu anhu) said:
"I reached Heerah (a town) where I saw people making sajda for their chiefs. I thought then that the most worthy person to whom one should prostrate is Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). I went to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and said: I went to Heerah and saw people prostrating to their chiefs. But, you are the worthiest who deserve to be prostrated to. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then said to me:
'Will you make sajda to my grave when you would pass by it?'
I (Qais) said, 'No'.
Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then said: 'If I had to order anyone to make sajda (for any created being), I would have ordered wives (to make sajda for husbands) because of those rights which Allah has granted them."
Practices associated with Shirk:
The above are but a few of the countless Bid'ats practiced by ignorant Muslims. There are other practices which can be closely associated with Shirk, such as:
(1) The offering of Tazias.
(2) The kissing of graves and bowing down before them.
(3) The act of prostrating before saints out of reverence. (4) The offering of food as sacrifice on graves.
(5) The hanging of pictures of saints in homes and showering undue respect to them by way of garlanding, kissing and even prostrating before them.
BidatNazarPractices associated with ShirkQabr PujaSajda to gravesShirkShirk fil HukmShirk fil IlmShirk fil Qudrat Tazia'sTypes of Shirk
Islamic Code of life and Uniform Civil Code
[By Maulana Syed Hasan Ali Nadwi (rahumahullah)]
(We are presenting herewith relevant excerpts from the Presidential Address delivered by Maulana Syed AbuI Hasan Ali Nadwi at the 10th Annual Session of All India Muslim Personal Law Board held at New Delhi on 23rd and 24th November, 1991).
We are meeting at a time when the country is passing through constitutional, economic, moral and political crises and the future appears bleak and preservation of life and liberty of conscience doubtful; when Delhi itself is facing many grave problems though it is the seat of the Government. It appears ill-timed to meet and analyse these apprehensions and invite the attention of the powers-that-be, but I will say, without apologies, that it is in-time and in the interest of the country. I wish that all the truth-loving and conscientious persons and all those who have the good of the country at heart should take notice of this Convention as without such analysis and deliberations democratic values cannot endure for long.
It is necessary for the progress and development of the country that the climate of fear, distrust and confusion should be brought to an end as no country can march forward when the different sections of its population may harbour doubts about the irreligious tenets, laws, rites and rituals without which it would be difficult for them to live as true followers of their religion. There can be nothing worse than that the energies which ought to be utilised in strengthening and advancement of the country should be spent in dispelling doubts and suspicions. I will go further and say that we have an apprehension that if our future generations do not hold the beliefs which are dearer to us than our lives, then there will be uncertainty and confusion among the Muslims which will not only be harmful to them but to the country also.
Secondly, the wide scope of Islam should also be kept in mind. The difference in religions is not confined to minor rites and rituals but in the fundamental principles of religions themselves. There are religions which were founded on revelations and prophethood, but their followers confined them to acts of worship alone. There is no such thing in Islam. It encompasses the whole of a life of Muslim. It is a basic reality which cannot be appreciated without realising the relations between the Creator and the created. Every Muslim Is an obedient servant of God and his relationship with Him is eternal and all-embracing:
"O Ye who believe! Come, all of you, into submission (unto Him); and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you." [Surah Baqarah:208]
It should be clearly understood that the religion of Islam owes its origin to revelation and the last Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself has been directed to follow it. The glorious Qur'an lays down:
"And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road of (Our) commandmant; so follow it, and follow not rhe whims of those who know not." [Surah Jathiya: 18]
When the innocent and beloved Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is being directed to follow it, how then can it be demanded from his followers to change or accept any change in it?
These are the two basic realities which when understood in their correct perspective, there would be no such demands from the Muslims. They would be saved of an avoidable embarrassment and their faculties and energies would not be spent in refuting such unnecessary demands and the government would save time to spend on useful pursuits.
We are told that for the sake of unity and integrity of the country we may accept uniform Civil Code. I ask a question which a school-going child can answer. The First World War was fought, at the beginning, between Britain and Germany. The Britons and Germans are not only Christians but Protestants and their Personal Law is also the same. Why then they fought? If uniform Civil Code could stop fighting it should have stopped them. The Second World War is another example. They were both Christian and Protestants and their Personal Law is the same. But they fought as blood-thirsty enemies bent on annihilating each other. If we go to law courts we find there are law suits between Muslims and Muslims, Hindus and Hindus. The complainant wants to seal the doom of the respondent and vice versa. Their Personal Law is the same and at times, they belong to the same caste and family-in some cases they are blood-relations. In fact, the cause of enmity is selfishness, greed and materialism. It is on account of the wrong system and curriculum which has neglected moral teachings. I can say, indeed challenge, that there would be no change in morality even after introduction of a uniform Civil Code. Why then uniform Civil Code is mentioned time and again that there be unity by it.
What an eminent British legist E. Bodenheimer, while discussing the system of law and its social importance, has written is enough for us to realise the futility of such a move:
"If the feelings of fairness of a large part of the population are outraged by a system of law purporting to establish 'orderly' condition of life, it will be extremely difficult for the public authorties to maintain such a legal system against
attempts at evasion or subversion. Men will not stand long for an order they feel to be totally unreasonable and unbearable, and a government bent on perpetrating such an order will run into serious difficulties of enforcement. Thus an order which does not have a substantial anchorage in justice will rest on an unsafe and precarious basis. As John Dickson points out: we came upon the need for not merely a system of fixed general rules. but of rules based on justice, or in other words, on a regard for a certain demands and capacities of human nature. Otherwise the system would not be workable; offending ingrained proclivities and standards of judgment, it will be continually violated and so fail to yield the certainty which is the excuse for its existence." [E. Bodenheimer, Jurisprudence, Harvard, 1967, p. 213]
We should also keep in mind that if any law clashes with the fundamental beliefs of any section of population, sect or religion then it would not create unity, cooperation, sincerity and peace of mind but create confusion, lack of interest and a sense of compulsion and serfdom which is dangerous for the unity of the nation and the country.
The religion which has reached us and of which we are the trustees, has not reached us through social workers, reformers or empire-builders. They are worthy of our respect. But there is a line of damarcation in between religion, culture and school of thought which differentiates one from the other. This demarcation cannot in any circumstances be ignored. II is that the revealed relgions have reached us through specially selected persons who were consecrated with prophethood and who used to receive revelations. The ignorance of this delicate, yet very important point creates confusion and most of those people expect or make such demands from us (the Muslims) for which there is absolutely no scope or sanction. Some people show their broad-mindedness and assume the responsibility of interpreting religion in a way as if it were a philosophy, or cultural or social system or an economic theory.
So far as the Muslims are concerned it is part of their faith and belief that their Personal Law is Divine and ordained by the same God Who revealed the glorious Qur'an and fundamental beliefs and the system of worship and without which one cannot remain a Muslim. It means that the law has been decreed by All Knowing God Who has created man and Who knows his natural wants and weaknesses.
"Will not He Who has created know? He is the Subtile, the Aware." [Surah Mulk: 14]
The Muslims of India gave such proof of their adherence to 'Shariat' and attachment to their religion after Shah Sano case the parallel of which is not found in any religious movement in the long and past history of the 'Millat'. There were big meetings from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari and in all such meetings members of the Muslim Personal Law Board and other Muslim Scholars were present. The gathering of a lakh of people even in small towns was not uncommon. It is estimated that about half-a-million people gathered at a public meeting at the historic Shahid Minar Park, Calcutta on 7th April, 1985 on the occasion of Annual Session of All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Over and above, these meetings thousands of telegrams and resolutions passed at such meetings were sent to the Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
Besides, these country-wide meetings (in which discipline and dignity were strictly observed) the office-bearers of the Board met the Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv Gandhi and at his behest they met the Law Minister, Shri Ashok Sen and others. The members met the Prime Minister twice or thrice in an informal atmosphere and had a free and frank discussion with him and impressed on him the seriousness of the problem and placed the religious point-of-view and tha fcolings of the Muslim Community on their Personal Law wilh sincerity. He heard our views with attention (he must have received reports of unrest amongst Muslims and the big public meetings in this connection). He was convinced that it is a purely religious problem of the Muslims and it can be interpreted by such scholars who have deep and wide study of Islam and they are the true exponents of glorious Our an, religion. and "Shariat". The Muslims do not want to gain political mileage out of it. He spoke more than once that he has exchanged views with eminent Muslim Scholars and he is convinced that Islam protects the rights of women including divorcees in a better way than the present laws in force. He presented the Protection of Rights of Muslim Women Bill, 1986, in the Parliament with grent moral courage and sense of responsibity and issued a whip to the members of his party. The said Bill was passed with thumping majority on 6th May, 1986, and tho Muslim Community, which has not been deprived of the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong, sincerity, and politicking offered thanks with an open heart and expressed their satisfaction over this bold step.
It is now necessary that the law courts be instructed either through the Supreme Court or Law Ministry that the Protection of Rights of Muslim Women Act. 1986 is the current Act and it should be applied and implemented in all cases of Muslim divorcees. lt is, however, found that the law courts are ignoring the said Act and still deciding such cases by reference to section 125 of Cr. P. C. The recent judgemnts by Gujarat and Kerala High Courts are the examples of turning a blind eye to this new Act. It is also found that the lawyers are either ignorant of the new Act and they do not plead that this Act should be applied in all cases of divorce. It is also necessary that the legal profession should be educated in this regard else ignorance and laxity in this respect will continue and the said Act will adorn the archives of the law courts. A representative delegation of the Board met Shri V. P. Singh during his tenure of Prime Ministership and invited his attention to the responsibility of the Government in this aspect. He promised to look into it. It is, however, necessary to continue our efforts in this direction.
I would like to say a few words to our countrymen, intellectuals and journalists who reacted with vehemence over the feelings of the Muslims in the Shah Bano Case as also over the Protection of Rights of Muslim women Bill. 1986 when it was presented in the Parliament and decried it as unjust to Muslim women.
It should be kept in mind that there is a difference in social system, family life and enviroment in Muslim and non-Muslim societies as regards religious law and conventions. That a girl after marriage in Muslim society is not cut-off from her family during married life and after, unfortunate divorce, she remains a member of the family and continues to have a share in tha family property according to 'Shariat
' which has been described in detail in the glorious Qur'an. It has also emphasised the need to pay her share. She can also claim it as a right and the law courts are bound to decide in her favour. Whoever goes against it, he is considered a sinner since it is regarded as defiance of Divine "Shariat
As against this, I may say with apologies. that in the Hindu society a girl after marriage is almost cut-off from her parents and the family. The liability for her maintenance becomes the sole responsibility of her husband. The Hindu widow becomes all alone and so to say an orphan. The responsibility of her guardianship, maintenance and protection does not devolve on her family and it becomes difficult for her to live a respectable life. This practice is prevalent for a long time and it has probably forced the Hindu widows to commit "Sati"
which was the only way to avoid a forlorn life in destitution. It has become a matter of pride in respectable families. The Muslim Rulers did not stop it as it might be construed as Interference in religion. Dr. Bernier has mentioned in his travelogue that the ladies from the ruling and respectable Muslim families used to dissuade the Hindu widows from committing "Sati"
. Thus British Government prohibited it. But it is still practised in some places specially in Rajasthan.
Besides pointing this difference in Muslim and non-Muslim societies, which was resorted to out of compulsion, it must be clearly understood that a Muslim divorcee does not become a destitute and forced to begging or end her life. She can live with respect with her relations.
I would, with due respect, invite the attention of our critics and fault-finders to pay more attantion to the curse of bride-burning and dowry-deaths which occur almost every day in our country.
We should look at our problems in their correct perspective and should not try to make a mountain of a mole hill. It is against common sense.
Importance of Islamic Personal LawsIslamic Laws and Civil CodeMuslim Personal LawUniform Civil Code

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl