Friday Freaky Fatwa--Divorce me or I will kill you

A Muslim asks a Scholar

Is it obligatory to change one's name if its meaning is not good?

And the scholar replied

Praise be to Allaah.

The Prophet used to change bad names to good ones.

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that a daughter of ‘Umar was called ‘Aasiyah (disobedient), but the Prophet renamed her Jameelah (beautiful). Narrated by Muslim,

The ruling – changing names to good names is not obligatory or binding.

The evidence for that is the report narrated by al-Bukhaari from Ibn al-Musayyab that his father came to the Prophet and he said, “What is your name?” He said, “Hazn (meaning rough).” He said, “You are Sahl (meaning easy).” He said, “I will not change the name that my father gave to me.” Ibn al-Musayyab said, “And we have had roughness (in character) ever since.” Roughness means being harsh and difficult to deal with.
Yeah, that’s rough.  He didn’t want to be known as easy.

And Allaah knows best.
and so did Hazn

A Muslim asks a scholar

I read that upon getting married a female should not change her last name to that of her husband because that is like claiming to belong to a family or someone that she doesn't, and that she should keep her father's last name.

I understand that, but what do you do if you don't know your father's last name. Should you keep that name of your mother's family? I currently have my mother's family name. I plan to change my first name to an Islamic name, should I do the same for my last name?

And the scholar replied

Praise be to Allaah.

It is haraam for a person to call himself after anyone other than his father, or after people to whom he does not belong. This was stated in the Hadith -Bukhaari, narrated from Abu Dharr, who heard the Messenger of Allah say: “There is no one who knowingly calls himself after someone other than his father, but he is guilty of Kufr…”

Falsely attributing a person to people he does not belong to results in violation of the laws of Mahram (close blood ties dictating who is and is not permissible for marriage), inheritance, custody, guardianship in marriage, etc.

With regard to what should be done, we put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, may Allah preserve him, who answered as follows:

She cannot take the name of anyone other than her family, and it is not permissible to do so. She has to change her name.If she does not know her father’s name or family, she can call herself by a general name such as Faatimah bint ‘Abd-Allaah or Faatimah bint ‘Abd al-Rahmaan.
I guess this scholar didn’t read the ruling from the other scholar.

And Allaah knows best.
Allah was silent.

A Muslim asks a scholar

During an argument with my wife, she raised a knife against me and threatened me so that I would divorce her and I said to her: You are divorced, so as to put a stop to the matter, but I did not really intend to divorce her. Does this divorce count as such?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allaah.

If you were afraid that your wife would carry out her threat to attack you with the knife that she had with her, then this comes under the heading of being forced, and the divorce does not count as such.
Helloooo--she tried to kill him.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: The Sahaabah issued fatwa’s saying that a divorce issued under compulsion does not count as such.
Will it count if she kills him?

It is narrated in Hadithfrom ‘Umar that a man suspended himself from a mountain by a rope to collect honey and his wife came and said: Either I cut the rope or your divorce me. He adjured her by Allah and she insisted so he divorced her.

He came to ‘Umar and told him about that, and he said to him: Go back to your wife, for this is not a divorce.
Wives wanting to kill their husbands seem to be a big issue. Lots of scholarly advice. Seems they want him dead, too.

If a man who is forced issues a divorce, the divorce is not binding; if what was done to Thaabit ibn al-Ahnaf is done to him, then he is forced, because they squeezed Thaabit’s foot until he divorced his wife, then he went to Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn al-Zubayr, and they did not think it counted as anything,
What’s wrong with these husbands that so many 'force divorce' on them?

as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

16:106 from the single aya of taqiyya!! “except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith”

I hope you all read my note and blog on how those who know enough about Islam to be dangerous, are now trying to learn Arabic -- from the terrorists, then want you to believe them.

Taqiyya can only be used under force, duress, torture. Got that?
It’s rare that I ever find a scholar who gets it right.

Imam al-Shaafa’i quoted this verse as evidence that the divorce issued by one who is forced does not count as such.
Maybe he should quote the Hadith of the pissed off (Jewish) woman who cooked a poisoned, talking lamb chop that killed Muhammad.

But if you knew that your wife would never harm you, or you could put a stop to her threat without causing harm, then you were not forced in that case, then you are divorced.
I think he should take the hint, she wants a divorce.
And Allah knows best.
maybe, but some of the men are sooo stupid
37:62 Is that the better entertainment or the Tree of Zaqqum?

And this will be the last Friday Freaky Fatwa for awhile

Taqiyya...the new buzz word. who is lying to you?

The new buzz word…Taqiyya!

Everyone is learning Arabic! It’s too bad they’re learning it from terrorists.

Lately I’ve been seeing bloggers, blog radio and a whole host of others who know just enough about the Quran to be dangerous-- who now want to learn Arabic. Like the word ‘Taqiyya’ (ta-key-ya). That word is being touted about like it’s the national anthem of the Sharia terrorists.

Many non Muslims (those who do not believe in one god) are under the impression that taqiyya means all Muslims (believers in one god) are allowed to lie about anything, everything and at anytime for any reason, so long as it furthers Islam, themselves, or an agenda by way of taqiyya.

Non Muslims have been told by the Sharia terrorists that the Quran sanctions lying. Some say the Quran sanctions lying but only under certain circumstances.

The Sharia terrorists are never challenged. Everyone assumes they are telling the truth, while at the same time they say they can’t be trusted. What do you call someone who believes these liars that can’t be trusted? Stupid?

The goal of a Sharia terrorist is to get all Americans to hate all Muslims, even the good law abiding Muslims. And they know something that you haven’t even thought about. Teenagers. Think Columbine High School. Many of these law abiding American Muslims have teenagers. If all they see and hear about is your hate, then guess what the result will be? A larger gang of Sharia terrorists.

And it’s all a word game. A word game hooked up to psychological terror. And it’s effective!...for terrorists. If the Sharia terrorists can get you to do the work for them, they not only win, they get to laugh about how you helped

But they can’t win on their own, they need your help. After all, they’re a gang. They don’t have a country, there’s not one head honcho. They pop up everywhere—hating those who hate them. And if they are not hated in an area, they’ll blow something up or kill someone. But their goal isn’t for you to just hate them; their goal is for you and all Americans to hate all believers in one God (the Arabic word is Muslim).

I decided it would be a good idea to explain the word taqiyya. But to make it more interesting, instead of going to Sharia website, I thought I go to a well respected non Muslim (those who do not believe in one God) website. I chose ‘The religion of peace’ website. I’ve heard it’s a reputable site. It’s quoted often. I’m sure they know the Quran as well as I do. I’m not expecting them to lie…taqiyya

But in all fairness, I want you to know that the same information can be found at Faith Freedom, Jihad Watch and many other websites.

On the Religion of Peace website, the page on taqiyya started off with a question and then it listed 11 verses from the Quran to prove that all Muslims are allowed to lie for any reason, to anyone at anytime.

Before you start reading you need to know a few of the terms.

A ‘non believer’ is one who does not believe in one god. In the Quran they were known as pagans and idol worshippers.

A ‘believer’ is one who believes in one god.

The word ‘Muslim’ is an Arabic word that means, one who believes in one god.
Anything in bold print are my comments.

From Religion of peace website;

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."
Remember that!

Question:

Are Muslims permitted to lie?

Summary Answer:

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

I find it odd that they didn’t quote the entire verse. So here it is….

16:106 Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief, save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with Faith but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom

This verse says that if one is forced to not believe in one God then they can lie. The Quran translator Asad writes that force in this case would be torture or fear of death. It also says that if you say you no longer believe in God because it’s easier, your reward is an awful doom.

Perhaps the Muslim cab driver who was asked by his customer if he was a Muslim, then stabbed multiple times when he said yes, should have used this taqiyya.

And this is what the verse right after that one says….

16:107 This because they love the life of this world better than the Hereafter: and Allah will not guide those who reject Faith.

If you want to live in the hereafter, don’t lie in this world just to get what you want. This seems to be proof that Allah doesn’t like liars.

The Religion of Peace said at the start; when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse

So I ask, why is ok for you to do this?

Next….

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

This verse has nothing to do with lying. Here it is…

3:28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you To remember Himself; for the final goal is to Allah

3:29 Say, O Muhammad: Whether ye hide that which is in your breasts or reveal it, Allah knoweth it. He knoweth that which is in the heavens and that which is in the earth, and Allah is Able to do all things

Does the writer believe that Muhammad is still alive? Did the writer help fight in the war this verse refers to? Does the writer even know who a believer is?
Put this in it’s proper perspective. At the time the Quran was written, the deserts of Arabia were filled with pagans and idol worshippers. These were, as Allah called them, the worst of the worst (9;97). They would burn or bury their female babies, kill, torture and rape for fun, and of course women and orphans were fair game. These were the tribal gangs of the desert. And they all wanted to kill Muhammad. They did not want to give up their many gods or change their behavior. Many of Muhammad’s companions were leaders of these desert gangs before they were converted, and they were for the most part, really rotten people. You’ve read the Hadith. Is it any wonder that a God would want them to have a better message?

This verse could not apply to Muslims today. Muhammad is dead and there are no longer any pagans or idol worshippers in the Arabian desert.

And no, I don’t think it matters if their name is Muhammad and living in Arizona. The original Muhammad was a prophet, these newer Muhammad’s are not.

And still no proof that Muslims are allowed to taqiyya.

This was next on their website….

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Hmmm….again they only used a fragment of the verse. Why? Here is the verse as well as the one that comes immediately after it…..

9:3 And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and so is His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings O Muhammad of a painful doom to those who disbelieve

9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. As for these, fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty

Well I’d say that using this verse as proof that all Muslims can lie is more than a bit deceptive. I’d say it falls more under stupid.

The key words here are; Allah and His messenger are free from liability…. to the idolaters…in Mecca. I’d like to ask the writer, are you an idolater who lives in Mecca, in the 7th century?.

I don’t see any evidence in any of these verses, clear or otherwise, that allows today’s Muslims to lie to Christians and Jews…or even idolaters.

Well let’s see what else they have.
Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

40;28?? Oh I can’t believe that the writer pulled up that verse to prove Muslims can use taqiyya! But I can see the pattern of only using a fragment of a verse.

Here is the full verse…

40:28 And a believing man of Pharaoh's family, who hid his faith, said: Would ye kill a man because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is lying, then his lie is upon him; and if he is truthful then some of that wherewith he threateneth you will strike you. Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a prodigal, a liar

Pharaoh!!

And, this verse actually tells Muslims NOT to lie!

The Quran has many stories of the prophets of the Old Testament. This prophet dealt with a Pahroah…and he’s dead.

What else do they have to prove that all Muslims are allowed to taqiyya…

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Can anyone see where this verse says Muslims are allowed to lie?

These guys are as bad as the scholars I make fun of. Using part of a verse to prove a lie is a lie. Read the entire verse and the one that comes right after it.

2:225 Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths. But He will take you to task for that which your hearts have garnered. Allah is Forgiving

So what is this about?…you’re going to laugh.

2:226 For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives, a waiting for four months is ordained; if then they return, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

Yes, it’s about wives! And it still does not give Muslims permission to taqiyya.

Next…

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

That sounds bad. I wonder what it’s about…no I don’t. I already know. Again, they only used part of the verse. Here is the entire verse.

66:2 Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths in some cases: and Allah is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

In some cases…in which cases?
66:1 O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

When Muhammad was dealing with his wives! Seriously? They’re all dead. And a dissolution is not a lie.

I wonder if the writers believe the Sharia terrorists will marry the leaders of western countries so they can practice this kind of taqiyya.

This is really getting stupid.

Next….

Qur'an (3:54) - "And the disbelievers schemed, and Allah schemed against them: and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

Really? If Allah is deceitful all Muslims can be deceitful? I don’t know how the writer could come to such a conclusion.

But what is Allah being deceitful about?

We better read 3 verses that come right before 2:54 so you can trap the sharia’s terrorists as they practice their taqiyya on you!

3:52 But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear thou witness that we have surrendered (unto Him).

Holy Jesus!

3:53 Our Lord! We believe in that which Thou hast revealed and we follow him whom Thou hast sent. Enroll us among those who witness to the truth.

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they the disbelievers schemed, and Allah schemed against them: and Allah is the best of schemers

Who is the taqiyya now? Who is the real schemer?

And here is the verse that comes right after…

3:55 And remember when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.

That’s a pretty good verse if you’re a Christian. The writer should have included all of these verses, but didn’t. What is the motive here?

But we still haven’t found one verse that proves this website is telling the truth.

At the end they included these two….

(See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Ok. Let’s start with 8;30….

8:30 And when those who disbelieve plot against thee O Muhammad to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah also plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.

Oooh scary…if you were Muhammad!! Good thing Allah was the best of plotters. But this has nothing to do with taqiyya.

Btw, a talking poisoned, lamb chop killed Muhammad. I wonder if Allah saw that plot coming.

Ok, they have one more chance to prove their taqiyya. 10;21 This better be good….yeah, as if.

10:21 When We make mankind taste of some mercy after adversity hath touched them, behold! they take to plotting against Our Signs! Say: "Swifter to plan is Allah." Verily, Our messengers record all the plots that ye make!

Hmm…..fail!

And this is what they end with

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

Do you find this to be a true statement?

So I declare this website to be totally taqiyya in their assertion that they can prove all or any Muslims can use taqiyya at will…or at all. And if they take offense, I say bring it. And if anyone else wants to challenge me, I say bring it.

But I hope you learned something. Most of these websites and blogs make money by scaring you. They all have a ‘donate to them’ button. That should be your first clue.

Muslims (believers in one God) are not allowed to lie--taqiyya. And unlike the website ‘The Religion of Peace’ or any of the others that copy and paste all that crap, I can back up my claim by using the Quran.

6:150 Say: "Bring forward your witnesses to prove that Allah did forbid so and so." If they bring such witnesses, be not thou amongst them: Nor follow thou the vain desires of such as treat our signs as falsehoods, and such as believe not in the Hereafter: for they hold others as equal with their Guardian-Lord.

9:34 O ye who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of Allah. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah. announce unto them a most grievous penalty-

9:107 And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars

10:30 There will every soul prove (the fruits of) the deeds it sent before: they will be brought back to Allah their rightful Lord, and their invented falsehoods will leave them in the lurch

.16:116 And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed

Bored yet? Tough. There’s more. Actually there are hundreds so be glad I’m only posting 11.

16:117 In such falsehood is but a paltry profit; but they will have a most grievous Penalty

16:62 They attribute to Allah what they hate (for themselves), and their tongues assert the falsehood that all good things are for themselves: without doubt for them is the Fire, and they will be the first to be hastened on into it!

24:13 Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars

29:13 They will bear their own burdens, and (other) burdens along with their own, and on the Day of Judgments they will be called to account for their falsehoods

45:27 To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and the Day that the Hour of Judgment is established,- that Day will the dealers in falsehood perish

58:18 One day will Allah raise them all up for Judgment: then will they swear to Him as they swear to you: And they think that they have something to stand upon. No, indeed! they are but liars!

Understand that you are being hit by both sides. The Sharia terrorists who want to scare you, and the fear bloggers who want to make money off of your fear.
Instead of believing what either one of these groups tells you look it up yourself! Repeating a lie can make it true and in this case it can be very dangerous. And if you already believe the Sharia thugs are liars, why the hell are you repeating what they say?

Do you know how much these Sharia terrorists count on the bloggers like…well, I’d love to name names, but I don’t want to promote any more website whose sole job is to scare you shtless and then ask you for money so they can scare you again tomorrow. Scared humans are pretty useless. I’d rather see knowledgeable humans challenge the Sharia scaries.

When you come across a blog that taqiyya’s on taqiyya—tell the truth. Don’t make the Sharia terrorists right. They are winning the war by scaring you. And some of you are dumb enough to pass it on. Stop it. You want to win the war on terror? Start with de-scarifying yourselves. And remember, anyone can lie.

The knowledge you need is not in what they do, it’s how you respond to it. Try using the truth of their own texts. If you can prove they are disbelievers, they have to kill themselves.

17:60 Behold! 17:60 And it was a warning when We told thee: Lo! Thy Lord encompasseth mankind, and We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind, and the Accursed Tree in the Quran—The Az Zaqqum. We warn them, but it increaseth them in naught save gross impiety

I tell the truth. A lot of people don't want to know the truth.  That alone can make me an ordeal. 



Any questions?

Fridays Freaky Fatwa---Driving while Muslim

A Muslim asks a scholar

My wife is not in the habit of going outside of the house without a mahram unless it is a case of dire necessity. Now, a problem which has recently occured is that sisters who regulary go out unchaperoned are telling her that it is stupid to wait at home until I come if she needs to buy something. What should I say?

And the scholar replies

It is allowed for a woman to go to the market to buy something necessary if there is no one to buy it for her. While going out, she has to observe proper Islamic dress, avoid mixing with men in one place, and conduct herself morally
…conduct herself morally. Obviously that must be very difficult for Muslim women. I can only assume it’s because they get wild urges to strip naked, jump on the hood of a car and holler Allah akbar! Islam liberates women!! The men don’t seem to have this problem. We never hear of Muslim men acting immorally. Only women. Based on that, Muslim women must be outlawed. They just can’t be trusted.

A Muslim asks a scholar

A Muslim woman who wears Hijab was divorced by her husband in Switzerland. Right after this she asked a Swiss court for separation. She takes more than half of the husband’s monthly salary.

This woman does not work and she has the custody of her 4 years old daughter. According to Swiss law, this is not considered divorce. As for them divorce does not take place unless both husband and wife agree to it, or after two years of separation.

More than one year passed and this woman takes more than her right, and does not agree to divorce in order to prevent her husband (who divorced her) from marrying another.

1- Is it correct to turn to the law of Switzerland instead of the Islamic law, and justify this by saying that we should abide by the law of where we live?

2- The father spends on his daughter, has he to spend on his ex-wife, knowing that she finished her ‘iddah more than one year ago? When should he stop spending on her?

3- What is the ruling on this woman who used the law of Switzerland to stop her husband from marrying another, although he divorced her more than one year ago?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.
It is not permissible to refer for judgment to anything but the Sharia of Allah, because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

4:65 “But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you O Muhammad judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission”
Ah, but Muhammad is dead. So they should refer to the Quran which is the living word of Allah. So what does Allah say about this matter?


Ibn Katheer said: Allah swears by His Divine Self that no one truly believes unless he makes the Messenger judge in all his affairs. What he rules is the truth which must be followed both inwardly and outwardly.
Uh—no. Allah doesn’t say that at all. Allah knew Muhammad would die. It’s why Allah sent the Quran…right?

Hence He (Ibn Katheer-who lived in the 1300’s then Allah made him blind) says “and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission” i.e., if they refer to you (Muhammad) for judgment and obey you inwardly so that they find in themselves no resistance against your ruling, and they follow it outwardly and inwardly, then submit to that fully with no objection, resistance or argument.
Translation; Obey Muhammad as he knows more than Allah. Doesn’t matter if he’s dead, his stories live on as do those of his companion war thugs, like….

Ibn ‘Uthman said: This oath begins with the words Fa laa (But no) which is used for emphasis, then Allah swears by the most specific type of Lordship – which is the Lordship of Allah to His Messenger.
Well that certainly sounds like shirk. Allah hates shirk more than anything else. (shirk is making a partner with Allah. Totally pisses him off). I have to wonder if these scholars want Muslims to go to the hellfire. Like I don’t have enough to do…
– that the one who does not do the following things has no faith:

1 – Referring for judgment to the Messenger, because He says “until they make you O Muhammad judge”. The one who seeks judgment from anyone other than Allah and His Messenger is not a believer, and is either a kaafir who is beyond the pale of Islam or a kaafir in the sense of lesser kufr.
The word kafir predates Islam. It was a word used by farmers when the covered up their seed. It’s clear if you read the Quran that muhammads only message was the Quran.

3:144 Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many Were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah. but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who serve Him with gratitude
Aw, but who the hell cares, right?

2 – Contentment with and acceptance of his ruling, so that they do not find in themselves any resistance against what he has decreed, rather they accept it and are content with what the Prophet has decreed
What the prophet has decreed? Allow me to quote the Quran again.

2:23 And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave Muhammad, then produce a sura or the like thereof, and call your witnesses beside Allah if ye are truthful.

3 – That they accept with full submission, submit totally. Beware, O Muslim, of cancelling out your faith. End quote.
I think it’s been cancelled. And they still haven’t answered the original question

What this sister – in whom it seems that there is a great deal of good, based on what it says about her in the question, such as that she wears hijab – should do is refer for judgment to someone who can judge between her and her ex-husband on the basis of the laws of Allah.

Interesting that she is deemed good simply for wearing the magical penis repellent. So let’s see what laws of Allah they will produce to answer the question.

We advise her to try again to set things straight and try to re-marry her husband, as that is in the interests of their daughter.
Obviously she didn’t want to do that…so now what?

As for the answer to the questions that are mentioned:

1. Divorce occurs when the husband utters the word of divorce and it does not need a ruling from a Sharia judge let alone a ruling from one who does not rule in accordance with that which Allah has revealed.
Like the scholars, she made up her own rules. The uttered (probably shouted) that she wants a divorce. And I’ll bet she also believes that Sharia law sucks…so now what?
2. It is not permissible to turn to man-made laws in order to prevent a man from doing that which Allah has permitted; that is a transgression against him and is wronging him.
Hadith and Sharia are all man-made laws. Maybe she knew that and thought, hell, the western laws are better.

This sister should fear Allah and remember that wrongdoing will be darkness on the Day of Resurrection.
Or maybe she read the Quran which says;

3:144 Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many Were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah. but Allah will swiftly reward those who serve Him with gratitud
If Muhammad was no more than an apostle, then Uthman was a poser


3. After the end of the ‘iddah, (3 periods) the divorced woman is not entitled to any maintenance or accommodation. Ibn Qudaamah said: Accommodation and maintenance are only due to a woman from her husband in the case of a revocable divorce. End quote.
And according to the aya above, this fool is a fake, too. So far, no one has quoted from the Quran. Is it possible that the Quran is not complete?...or not important?

4. If it is known that she is not entitled to any maintenance or accommodation, then what she is taking from the man on the orders of the court, which is not given by him willingly, is haraam, because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

4:29 “O you who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves unjustly except it be a trade amongst you, by mutual consent”
Seriously? This is the best they have? I doubt she’s eating the couch. And if 2 people consent it’s mutual. The Swiss courts agreed with her. So far, she’s winning.

And because the Prophet said: “Every Muslim is sacred to his fellow-Muslim, his blood, his wealth and his honour.” Narrated by Muslim. Based on that, she should return it to him or ask him to let her off.
They’re reading this wrong. She is a Muslim therefore she is sacred to her Muslim husband including his wealth. His honor is debatable as it has not been proven. He doesn’t wear the Hijab. Doubt he wears high water pants, either. And I’m sure she wants to let him off—go. But, western women have more rights than Muslim women and Allah is all about fairness. As shown in this aya’

2:62 Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve
She is just asking for part of her reward up front.

5. Custody of the daughter before she reaches the age of seven years is her mother’s right, so long as she is Muslim and trustworthy, and has not remarried. Imam Ibn Qudaamah said: If the couple separate, and they have a child who is still a minor or disabled, his mother has the most right to custody of him if she fulfils all the conditions, whether the child is male or female.

This is the view of Yahya al-Ansaari, al-Zuhri, al-Thawri, Maalik, al-Shaafa’i, Abu Thawr, Ishaaq and ashaab al-ra’y, and we do not know of anyone who disagreed with them.

Really, you don’t know anyone who disagrees with them? Obviously the woman disagrees, I disagree and so would Allah. This is not based on the Quran; it’s made up by Muslim men….as if they were the pillar of knowledge and all things good…ppfftt

3:94 And whoever shall invent a falsehood after that concerning Allah, such will be wrong doers
Maybe she actually read the Quran?

6. Maintenance of the daughter is a Sharia obligation on her father, even if she is in her mother’s custody, because of the report (this is a he said, she said, someone said, Muhammad said, Hadith) narrated by Bukhari and Muslim from ‘Aiesha, that Hind bint ‘Utbah said: O Messenger of Allah, Abu Sufyaan is a miserly man who does not give me enough for myself and my child, except for that which I take without his knowledge. He said: “Take that which will suffice for you and your child, on a reasonable basis.”
Isn’t that what she is trying to do?
This indicates that the maintenance of the children is their father’s duty, and that the maintenance should be based on what is sufficient, and she has no right to take more than what is sufficient.
Based on the Hadith, she gets to decide what is sufficient.

And Allah knows best.

And so does she, according to Swiss courts

Fridays Freaky Fatwa--A Parrot says to a Muslim...

A Muslim asks a scholar;

When the presenter of a program on television or radio says salaam (peace), are we sinning if we do not respond to the salaam in this case?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.

If the broadcast is live, then it is prescribed to return the salaam, because of the general meaning of the evidence which shows that it is obligatory to return the greeting of salaam.
What evidence?

But it is a communal obligation, so if some people do it, it is waived for the rest.  But if it is recorded, it is not obligatory to return the greeting in this case.

Imam Abu Sa’d al-Mutawalli and others said: If someone calls out to someone else from behind a screen or a wall and says, Peace be upon you, O So and so, or he writes a letter in which he says: Peace be upon you, O So and so, or he sends a messenger and says: Give greetings of salaam to So and so, and the letter or messenger conveys that, it is obligatory for him to return the greeting.

Similarly others stated that it is obligatory for the one to whom the letter was written to return the salaam when it reaches him. End quote.
I was expecting the scholar to post a Hadith to prove that Muslims are forbidden to look at images that they can’t recreate.  Instead I got, O So and so saying such and such.

Technology seems to have created new questions for the scholars.


A Muslim asks a scholar

If the broadcaster on television says salaam (peace), is it obligatory to return the greeting in this case?

And the scholar replies

Yes. It is obligatory to return the salaam if one hears it directly or even indirectly by reading the message, because of the general meaning of the evidence that returning the salaam is obligatory. End quote.
And what is the evidence behind this ruling?

Ibn ‘Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) did not go so far as to say that it is obligatory to return the salaam because the greeter cannot hear the response, but he said: The greeting should be returned so as to be on the safe side.
So, whatever scared Uthman should scare you.
I’ll bet Uthman didn’t even have a parrot. ….and he’d ban the tv and newspaper.
As Uthman knows best

A Muslim asks a scholar

What is the ruling if the Muslim hears the broadcaster or Shaykh saying salaam (peace) on the television? Does he have to return the salaam?

And the scholar asked questions

Is it a live broadcast?

Questioner: Yes, he is listening to the Shaykh or broadcaster on the radio.

Shaykh: Sometimes it is recorded; they put it on a tape and broadcast it. If it is recorded, then you do not have to return the greeting, because this is just transmission of sound.

But if it is live, then I may or may not say that it is obligatory. If I say that it is obligatory, the basic principle is that this is a greeting to everyone who hears his words, so they have to respond to it.

But if I say that it is not obligatory, that is because the one who gives the greeting cannot hear the response and does not expect it either.

The one who says salaam in a broadcast does not expect the people to respond to him. But to be on the safe side, we should return the greeting and say, Wa ‘alayka al-salaam (and upon you be peace).

Questioner: Is that more on the safe side?

Shaykh: That is more on the safe side, but it is not obligatory.
To be really safe, I want to ask…what if you just say it in your head, does that still count, are you still safe?

A Muslim asks a scholar

In my grandfather's house there is a real live parrot, and when I pass by it, it greets me and says ‘al-salaamu ‘alaykum”. In this case do I have to return the greeting of this bird?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allaah. Firstly: Some of the scholars have stated that it is not prescribed to prostrate if one hears a verse from a parrot.
LOL

The listener need not do the prostration of recitation if he hears it from a source that is not human, such as a trained bird like a parrot or hearing it from an echo. End quote.
From an echo?

Secondly: It is not prescribed to return the greeting of a parrot which has learnt how to say salaam
..still laughing.

Because saying salaam is an act of worship and a supplication which requires intention on the part of the one who said it, and there is no such intention on the part of this trained creature. So one should not return its greeting.
Not even to be safe?

The ruling is the same as that on a tape on which the greeting is recorded and can be heard. It is transmission of sound and does not come under the ruling on greeting when it is broadcast live, in which case returning the greeting is prescribed and is a communal obligation.
And Allah knows best.
Gotta wonder what would happen if the parrot learned how to say the call of prayer.

So to be clear, a Muslim does not have to say peace (salaam) to a bird because birds do not need to be reminded. But to be safe, a Muslim should return the greeting of peace to a tv, letter or newspaper. This is not a law but Muslims should remind themselves often that peace is important.

9-11 may peace be upon us all.
*

100 Reasons why Sharia would not work in America. Sharia fear? Let’s get real.

A few days ago I posted an informal opinion poll on Face Book. I asked all of my 'Friends' to read the following and then post their thoughts.

The answers were very encouraging. It would be good to pass this on as a reminder of what's true.


100 Reasons why Sharia would not work in America. Sharia fear? Let’s get real.

Thanks to the internet, camera phones and videos we have all seen the horrors of Sharia. We know that Sharia law produces poverty, lack of education and poor social skills. We know Sharia is why Muslims leave their homes and their countries.


Being an ancient tree from hell, I don’t have much to fear and while there are many things in life for humans to be afraid of, the fear of America falling to Sharia is not one of them.

Don’t buy into the blogs and reports that tell you what life is going to be like for non Muslims under Sharia. Most of those blogs and reports sensationalize and profit off of your fear. In fact, what they are really doing is their own version of Sharia; they play into your fear.

And Hells bells, none of them even know enough about Sharia to give you useful information. How many quote the Sharia law that forbids them to live here? It’s backed up by the Quran, scholars and fatwa’s. So why don’t the fear players tell you that?

I want everyone to list one reason why you believe Sharia would never work in the USA.

Put this on your wall and see what your friends say. And if you do that, come back in 3 days and post your link. I think it would be really interesting to see all the reasons why Sharia will never work in the USA. I’ll use the information for a blog.

I’ll start if off.

1- The USA would never cave to Sharia because….if men were allowed 4 wives, there would be a lot of dead husbands.

Your turn


The plan was to put all the responses on this blog, but as of today there are over 200 comments. It would be easier to give you the link. I have an open page so you don't have to 'friend' me to read the responses or post your own.

No doubt, there are some people who are very afraid that America could or would cave to Sharia. But I do believe that those few who are scared can be carried by the majaority who are not scared, who are firm in the commitment to freedom.

Az Zaqqum

Fridays Freaky Fatwa--Cats, Dogs and WIves

A Muslim asks a scholar

What is the ruling on buying and selling cats?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.

The majority of scholars are of the view that it is permissible to sell cats, and some are of the view that it is haraam (forbidden).

The view that it is haraam to sell cats is the more correct view, because it is proven that the Prophet forbade that, and there is nothing to suggest the contrary.
Unless you read the verse that says…you are forbidden to forbid what Allah has not.

Muslim (he collected Hadith hundreds of years after Muhammad was killed) narrated that Abu’l-Zubayr said: I asked Jaabir about the price of dogs and cats. He said: The Prophet told us not to do that (sell them).

Some scholars are of the view that these Hadith are da’eef (weak), but their view is to be rejected.
So now they argue over what someone said a companion said that Muhammad said…

Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo: As for what as al-Khattaabi and Ibn al-Mundhir said about the Hadith being weak, this is a mistake on their part, because the Hadith in Muslim has a saheeh isnaad (it was said by more than one collector of Hadith-companion). End quote.
But this guy says…

Al-Shawkaani said in Nayl al-Awtaar, refuting the majority who interpret the prohibition in the Hadith as meaning that it is makrooh (bad) and that selling cats is not a noble attitude or sign of chivalry: It is obvious that this is understanding the prohibition in a way that is contrary to its true meaning for no reason. End quote.
That made sense to you, right? No?

Some scholars have interpreted it as referring to cats that are wild and cannot be caught. Some claim that this applied at the beginning of Islam when cats were ruled to be naajis (impure), but when it was ruled that their leftover food and water are taahir (pure), it became permissible to sell them. But there is no clear evidence for either of these two views.
Whenever Allah is not specific, the scholars get silly.

Ibn al-Qayyim stated that it is definitely haraam (forbidden) to sell them where he said: This was stated in a ruling (fatwa) by Abu Huraira and it is the view of Tawoos, Mujaahid, Jaabir ibn Zayd and all the Zaahiri scholars, and it is one of the two views narrated from Ahmad. This is the correct view, because the Hadith which state that are saheeh (authentic), and there is no evidence to the contrary, so this is the view that must be adopted. End quote.
Unless they read the Quran, which clearly says not to forbid what Allah—not Muhammad—did not forbid.

Ibn al-Mundhir said: If it is proven that the Prophet forbade selling them, then such sales are invalid, otherwise they are permissible. End quote from al-Majmoo
More proof that the Quran is not the real message, Hadith is.

And it has been proven that the Prophet forbade it, as in the Hadith quoted above from Muslim.
It is not permissible to sell cats, monkeys or dogs, or any other carnivores that have fangs, because the Prophet forbade that and discouraged it, and because it is a waste of money, and the Prophet forbade wasting money.
And Muhammad knows best

A Muslim asks a scholar

Is it permissible to have a CAT in the house according to Islam and its teachings?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly:
It is permissible to keep cats in the house, and there is nothing wrong with that because cats are not harmful or naajis (impure).
With regard to cats not being harmful, no one disputes that, rather they are useful because they eat snakes, rats bugs and other things that may be in the house or yard.
So does my dog.


With regard to cats not being naajis (impure), this is known from the Hadith of Kabshah bint Ka’b ibn Malik, who said that Abu Qutaadah (did you get all that?) – her husband's father – entered upon her and she poured water for him to do wudoo’ (wash before prayer) and a cat came to drink from it, so he tipped the vessel for it to drink. Kabshah said: “He saw me looking at him and said, “Do you find it strange, O daughter of my brother?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘The Messenger of Allah said, “They (cats) are not impure, rather they are of those who go around amongst you.”
These scholars also believe bird poo is clean.

Secondly:

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: The Messenger said: “A woman entered Hell because of a cat which she tied up and did not feed, nor did she let it loose to feed upon the vermin of the earth.” Bukhaari
I wonder which companion saw her in hell.   Be nice to the cats.

Thirdly:

The great Abu Huraira (literally “Father of the Kitten”) was so called because he used to love cats and keep them. He became well known by this name and people forgot his real name, until the scholars disputed concerning his real name and there were nearly thirty different opinions as to what it was. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said in al-Istee’aab: “The most correct view is that his name was ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Sakhr but none of them disputed that he was Abu Huraira.”
The father of kittens made many laws, almost like he was a prophet, yet know one really knows his name..?

Fourthly:

It is permissible to keep cats but it is not permissible to buy or sell them; they may be given as gifts or given away. That is because of the Hadith of Abu’l-Zubayr who said: “I asked Jaabir about the price of dogs and cats. He said, ‘The Prophet forbade that.’
Yet no one knows why. It’s just the law.

And Allaah knows best
Not many Muslims believe that…

A Muslim asks a scholar


What is ruling on buying and selling dogs?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: We have stated that it is haraam (forbidden) to keep dogs, and that the one who keeps a dog will have two qiraats (mountains) deducted from his reward every day, except for dogs that are kept for hunting, guarding livestock and guarding crops, which it is permissible to keep.
What are they going to do with a bunch of mountains?

Secondly: There are many Hadith narrated from the Prophet which state that it is forbidden to sell dogs. The general meaning of these Hadith include all kinds of dogs, those which it is permissible to keep and those which it is not permissible to keep. These Hadith include the following:

1 – Bukhaari narrated that Abu Juhayfah said: The Prophet forbade the price of a dog.
Dogs are free.

2 – Bukhaari and Muslim narrated from Abu Mas’ood al-Ansaari that the Messenger of Allah forbade the price of a dog, the wages of a prostitute and the fee of a fortuneteller.
Dogs, prostitutes and fortunetellers are free.

3 – Abu Dawood narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah forbade the price of a dog, and if a person comes asking for the price of a dog, then fill his hand with dust.”
Dust, huh?


Al-Nawawi said in Muslim (Hadith)
The prohibition on the price of a dog and the fact that it is among the most evil of earnings and is something vile indicates that it is haraam to sell dogs; the transaction is not valid and the price is not halaal (allowed) and the one who destroys it is not obliged to repay its value, regardless of whether the dog is trained or not, or whether it is one that it is permissible to keep or not. This is the view of the majority of scholars.

The sale of dogs which bring some benefit is permissible, and the one who destroys them must repay their value.
Would he be paid in dust?

The apparent meaning of the prohibition is that it is haraam to sell them. This is general in meaning and includes all dogs, trained and otherwise, whether it is permissible to keep them or not. This also implies that the one who destroys them is not obliged to repay their value. This is the view of the majority. End quote.
So why did Allah put dogs in the Middle East?  To piss off  Muslims?

Amr said: The Messenger of Allah forbade the price of a dog, the wages of a prostitute and the fee of a fortuneteller. – agreed upon, end quote.
As the companions know best.

Secondly:

Those who regard it as permissible to sell hunting dogs quote as evidence the Hadith narrated by al-Nasaa’i from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah, according to which the Messenger of Allah forbade the price of dogs and cats, except for hunting dogs.
And hunting kitty cats.

This exception in the Hadith – “except for hunting dogs” – but this is considered da’eef (weak).

Al-Nasaa’i said, after quoting the Hadith: This is munkar (a type of weak Hadith).
With regard to the Hadith that have been narrated about the prohibition on the price of a dog except for hunting dogs, and that ‘Uthman gave twenty camels in compensation to a man for a dog that he killed
20 camels? I’m thinking the dog owner didn’t believe in Hadith and was going to kick Uthman’s ass.

Thirdly:

If a person needs a dog for hunting or guarding and cannot find anyone to give him a dog except by selling it, it is permissible for him to buy it, and the sin will be on the seller, because he has sold something that he is not permitted to sell.
But not according to the Quran. But this next ruling takes the bone.

Ibn Hazm said in al-Muhalla: It is not permissible to sell a dog at all, whether it is a hunting dog or a herding dog, or any other kind. If a person is forced to buy a dog and cannot find someone to give him one, then he may buy it, and it is halaal (ok) for the buyer and haraam (bad) for the seller, and the buyer may take back his money whenever he is able. This is like a bribe in order to ward off oppression and ransoms for freeing prisoners and appeasing an oppressor. There is no difference. End quote
This is what happens when they forbid what Allah has not. It’s all so Allah damn stupid.

A Muslim asks a scholar

Does a man have to treat his co-wives equally in terms of gift-giving and intimacy?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allaah.

Ibn Qudaamah said:
He does not have to treat his co-wives equally in terms of spending and clothing, so long as he does what he is obliged to do with regard to each of them.

Ahmad said concerning a man who had two wives: he has the right to favour one of them in terms of spending, intimacy and clothing, so long as the other has enough. He may buy for one of them clothing of a higher quality than for the other, so long as the other has enough.

This is because treating them equally in all these matters is too difficult, and if it were obligatory then he would only be able to do it with great difficulty. So he does not have to do it, as is the case in treating them all equally with regard to intimacy.

This totally goes against the Quran which specifically says;

4:3 ‘……but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then (marry) only one…’
Yeah, I’d better make more fruit…


A Muslim asks a scholar

The tins of cat food include pork. Is it permissible to buy them for cats?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.

We put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, who answered as follows:

If you buy the tins, then it is not permissible, because it is not permissible to pay for pork and buy it. But if a person finds it by chance and feeds it to his cat, then there is nothing wrong with that.

And Allaah knows best.
And these guys crack me up!

And for Ramadan

A Muslim asks a scholar

I have a problem in my stomach that makes food come back up when I have some liquid in the mouth, and this happened in Ramadan. Do I have to make up that day?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allaah.

If something comes back up out of the stomach into the mouth, then the fasting person must spit it out; if he deliberately swallows it, his fast is invalidated, but if he swallows it without meaning to, he does not have to do anything.

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas
I vote that they all sit down and shut up.

5:87 O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, and transgress not. Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors

7:33 Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.

6:150 Say: "Bring forward your witnesses to prove that Allah did forbid so and so." If they bring such witnesses, be not thou amongst them: Nor follow thou the vain desires of such as treat our signs as falsehoods, and such as believe not in the Hereafter: for they hold others as equal with their Guardian-Lord

7:50 And the dwellers of the Fire cry out unto the dwellers of the Garden; Pour on us some water or some of that where with Allah hath provided you. They say: Lo! Allah hath forbidden both to disbelievers

56:52 "Ye will surely taste of the Tree of Zaqqum

*