Assalamu Alaikum
I know that in Islam a husband is allowed to lightly tap his wife (never in the face) and only as a last resort if she is disobedient. Can you tell me whether this is also the case in the event of the husband being disobedient? I was told that she is not allowed to tap her husband because Islam practices gender inequality.
What is the truth? Please answer as soon as you can because I want to embrace Islam and my friends and some family members say that Islam discriminates against women when it comes to these issues.
Jazak Allah
And the scholar replies
Praise be to Allaah
We would like to apologize for answering only one of your questions, due to the fact that our time is short
Dude. She only asked you 2 questions.
Now let us answer your question as follows:
If a father mistreats his son, does the son have the right to hit his father? Why not?
If a mother mistreats her daughter, does the daughter have the right to hit her mother? Why not?
If a teacher mistreats his student, does the student have the right to hit his teacher? Why not?
If a commander mistreats a soldier, does the soldier have the right to hit his commander? Why not?
Hmm…seriously? Ima thinking the scholar should look up the difference between the words, Mistreat, hit and Beat.
But if you lived in the 7th century, the following answer would apply. I am only posting this for historical purposes. We’ve come a long way baby
The answer in all the above cases is: No, and the reason for this is clear. It is because the father’s position is higher than that of his son, the mother’s position is higher than that of her daughter, and the teacher’s position is higher than that of the student.
Hence it is not appropriate for the people in the lower position to punish those whose position is higher.
The same applies to husband and wife: the husband is in charge of his wife, and she has to obey him and not go out without his permission, otherwise the stability of the family will be destroyed.
Yes, back in the day women had the power to destroy a family’s stability just by stepping outside the door. The men have come a long way since then. These days they choose smart women who won’t abuse their powers :D
The family should have just one leader to steer its course, and that leader is the one who spends on the family and protects it.
Protects it? From the Bedouin desert pagan and idolater Arabs? They’re all dead. And there should be no need to protect the family from fellow Muslim men as all believing men are perfect.
The husband is physically stronger and is more wise than the wife.
Ah, but only in different ways. The wife does the cooking and she could easily give him diarrhea. Besides, these days’ men prefer a wife that loves him, not fears him.
We can easily understand if he disciplines his wife when she does something wrong, but we cannot imagine the wife hitting the husband if he is at fault.
Yes, this is how it was in the 7th century. The first converts to the belief of one God were truly barbaric. Hitting a wife, killing a wife, no big deal. The pagans and idolaters of the Arabian deserts were backward and uneducated, hellfire, the Quran pretty much calls them stupid. If you want to know why, read the Hadiths.
Would she hit someone who is physically stronger than she is? Would she hit her leader and protector?
Well, she would these days’. Lots of wives get arrested for domestic violence..and murder.
At the same time, the husband is not allowed to hit his wife for every little thing or as he wishes.
Can you believe they actually used to do that?
If she is at fault or is rebellious, he should first warn and advise her. If that doesn’t work, then he should withhold conjugal relations and not speak to her, until she comes to her senses.
Now the men understand that the muscle in their arm shouldn’t be used to make all the decisions. That women marry them for the muscle in their head, the muscle called the brain. But 7th century desert Arabs didn’t know what a brain was..as the scholar continues..
If that doesn’t work, then he is allowed to hit her, but not in a painful fashion. This does not mean that her entire body is his to beat as he wishes – no, and a thousand times no! Islam does not allow him to hit her severely or leave bruises, or break her bones, or cause her to bleed, neither is he allowed to hit her on the face (as you pointed out in your question). The hitting that is allowed is within certain limits and is for the purpose of discipline, not for revenge or to vent one’s anger. If his wife responds and returns to obedience, he has no right to seek means of annoyance against her.
Now hitting her IS an annoyance. Believe it or not the previous scriptures also allowed domestic abuse under certain conditions. This was to prevent the men of ancient days from going ape shit. Now days’ good parents teach their children that violence does not solve problems. The pagans and idolaters of the Arabian deserts were told…
4:34 “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in the husband’s absence what God order them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear ill-conduct (notice the word fear? Back in the day women would scare men very easily and scared men don’t act right. So they had to be told how to act), admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means of annoyance.
While it does sound ridiculous today to sanction violence, these instructions were to make the worst of the worst (9:97) better. Don’t forget, God already told them that hell would be filled with men (and Jinn).
If it is the husband who is mistreating his wife, that does not mean that she should remain oppressed or that her hands are tied. She has the right – just as the husband has – to warn and advise him, and to remind him to fear God. If that does not work, she can seek the help of wise people among his relatives and her own, and they can advise him. If this does not work, then the matter can be taken to a qaadi ( judge) who can force him to do the right thing.
And we’ll leave it at that. The rest of the scholars point of view suggests that today’s’ believers are as stupid as the pagans and idolaters of the 7th century and I don’t want to perpetuate that myth.
Now here is good advice.
Changing one’s posture when feeling angry. “If one of you gets angry when he is standing, let him sit down; if his anger disappears, all well and good, otherwise let him lie down.”
Can you guess who said that?
A Muslim asks a scholar
I am a high school student and my question is: What can I do about the women at my school? They are my teachers and class mates and I have to talk to them and look at them.
And the scholar replies
Praise be to God.
We put this question to Shaykh Ibn Jibreen (because the scholar was clueless) What should medical students do whose lectures are given by female teachers if these students have no other option?
The answer is; they must protect themselves and keep away from temptations so they have to try hard to lower their gaze. If he notices that he is starting to slip towards something haram or into actions that could lead him into haram he should stop attending the lecture.
So I ask, is this the best possible answer or does this answer confine this students mind to that of a 7th century desert Arab who just was given the message that there is just one God? I question the motivation of this scholar. Is he a pervert?
The correct answer to this students question is…poke yourself in both eyeballs so you can’t see what you’re hearing. Then learn some self control or you’ll live the life of an uneducated loser.
A Muslim asks a scholar
What is the ruling with regards to baby showers? this is whereby when the mother is 7 or 8 months pregnant she invites sisters to get together and they buy clothes for the newborn and have a meal together. is this permissible in islam or not? or is this simply another practice of the kuffar and we should try to refrain from this?.
A the scholar replies
Praise be to Allah.
The basic principle with regard to such traditions is that they are permissible, unless they are matters for which the kuffaar and mushrikeen are known.
Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah laugh at him) said: Actions may be acts of worship or customs and traditions. The basic principle with regard to acts of worship is that none are legitimate except that which God has prescribed. The basic principle with regard to customs and traditions is that none of them are forbidden except that which God has forbidden. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah also laugh at him) said: The basic principle with regard to every action except acts of worship is that it is permissible because Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): 6:119 “…while He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under compulsion of necessity …”
Nope, don’t see any mention of baby showers in that aya. But I do see stupid. And here’s some more stupid…it also proves my point.
If a person does some action or starts to play some game, then someone comes to him and says, “This is haraam for you, it is something that neither the Messenger nor his Companions did,” our response is to say: The basic principle is that things are permissible unless there is evidence to prove that they are forbidden. End quote from Sharh Manzoomah Usool al-Fiqh wa Qawaa‘idihi
Here we have a dumbass trying to convince this female and all those who read this crap that you are to live the life of a 7th century pagan who just converted to the idea of one God.
Pfft. Idiot.
First he quotes an aya that has nothing to do with sisters having a baby shower and now he’s saying you can only play the games that the first converts to the belief of one God.
That answer just wasn’t long enough to convince the reader to be totally stupid, so they add this…
The scholars of the Standing Committee were asked:
What is the ruling on eating foods that are traditionally prepared on various occasions, such as eating aklat al-rabee‘ which we make with semolina and so on when spring comes?
The standing scholars of the committee replied:
If that food has no connection to innovated festivals and occasions, and it does not involve any resemblance of the kuffaar; rather it is the custom to distribute food at different seasons – then there is nothing wrong with eating that, because the basic principle with regard to customs and traditions is that they are permissible. End quote.
And then they were told to sit down and shut up..because....
7:33 Say to them, My Lord forbids only indecencies, grave sins, such as fornication, such of them as are apparent and such as are hidden, that is, the overt ones and the secret ones, and sin, the act of disobedience, and wrongful insolence, against people, namely, oppression, and that you associate with God that for which He never revealed any warrant, any definitive proof for such association, and that you say concerning God that which you do not know', in the way of forbidding what He has not forbidden and other thing
And God knows best.
That’s what I said
A Muslim asks a scholar
I am working for a bank in Pakistan. Normally, we have a prayer congregation during Asr and Maghrib. And he people ask me to be the Imam. Sir, I am a normal human being and obviously believe that i am not capable of being an imam especially when i have many elder people standing behind me during the prayers. In fact, right at the start, when this congregations started, everyone would somehow shy away from the imaamat and it was I who used to end up being the imam.
I know that during my entire 25 years, i will have committed infinite sins, but i just believe in one thing. That Allah says, that it is better to assemble for congregation than to offer your prayers alone. And this is the only reason why i have accepted the role of imaamat.
Also to mention that i am a clean shaven guy.
Would be grateful if you can please answer my question at your earliest. Thanking you in anticipation. Asad
And the scholar replies
Praise be to God.
This is the issue of praying behind a rebellious sinner (faasiq). The faasiq is one who disobeys God by committing one of the major sins or persisting in committing a minor sin. According to what was said in your question, you are committing some major sins, namely working in a bank and shaving your beard. These are two major sins according to the standards of sharee’ah.
With regard to working in the bank:
It was narrated that Jaabir said: The Messenger cursed the one who consumes usury, the one who pays it, the one who writes it down and the two who witness it. He said: they are all the same.” (Narrated by Muslim, no. 1598).
What Muslim didn’t know was, as he was collecting the same Hadiths as the other 5 story collectors including Bukhari (they were all collected around the same time) no one asked what was the difference between interest and usury. Because of these Hadith interest is seen to be as the same as usury. Money and property have always been traded and sold for profit. But the desert Arabs would charge excess amounts and if you didn’t pay you became a slave. That is usury. A fair amount is allowable. Fair would be the going rate with similar terms. It’s nothing new, the Hebrew word for usury is ribbit so as you can see, the concept has been around for a very long time
With regard to shaving the beard
as facial hair is not covered in the Quran, the scholar had to find a story to cause mischief and lead this guy down the wrong path
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: “Be different from the mushrikeen, trim the moustache and let the beard grow.” (Narrated by duh-both Bukhaari and, Muslim—what life would have been like if both had become farmers instead of Hadith makers ).
Umar was talking about the pagans as he should know, he used to be one of them. And this is the guy the scholar wants you to follow? Unless you just found out that there is one God you should really know better
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said: The definition of the beard as stated by the scholars of the Arabic language is the hair of the face, jawbone and cheeks, in the sense that everything that grows on the cheeks, jawbone and chin is part of the beard
What? They didn’t know what a beard was or where it grows?.
Removing any part of it also comes under the heading of sin, because the Messenger said: “Leave the beard alone” and “Let the beard grow.”
You do know that the word SIN is a Hebrew word for mistake, right? So is it a sin or a mistake to listen to a scholar who thinks you’re stupid?
With regard to praying behind one whose sin is obvious, the scholars differed concerning this issue, and there are two opinions.
How can there be 2 opinions if the sin is obvious? Ima thinking they’re going to need a Hadith to make this work.
The first view is that it is not correct to pray behind a faasiq (rebellious sinner).
This is the view of Ahmad and Maalik, in one of the two reports narrated from them.
32:18 “Is then he who is a believer like him who is a Faasiq?
Cheap shot. This is in regards to one who does not believe in one God, not someone who, like all humans, makes mistakes.
But
Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah] said: The imaams are agreed that it is disliked (makrooh) to pray behind a Faasiq, but they differed as to whether the prayer is valid. Some said that it is not valid, such as Maalik and Ahmad.
The second opinion, that prayer behind a faasiq is valid, even if his sin is obvious, is the correct view and it is the view favoured by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen. The evidence for this view is as follows:
The Prophet said that the one who has more knowledge of Qur’aan (the one who has memorized more) is the one who should be given precedence in leading the prayer.
Well, there you go.
‘Umar, used to pray behind al-Hajjaaj, and Ibn ‘Umar was one of the keenest of people to follow the Sunnah and pay attention to it, and al-Hajjaaj was known to be one of the most rebellious and sinful of the slaves of Allah.
That’s all good.
And that’s where I will end this fatwa…because the scholar went back to stupid and I wanted to end this on a positive note. You do not live in the 7th century. None of you live in the Arabian deserts…with pagans. Don’t let a scholar mess with your head. Tell him what time it is.
Had a conversation with the Allah man that touched on some of these fatwas. I should be done translating it in a day or 2.
Until then, be nice.