Friday's Fatwa--Muhammad the seal and the Quran

A Muslim asked me

The Quran says to obey and follow the messenger. 

Basic principles are mentioned in Quran where something related to daily life is not described in Quran then we have to follow from the Hadiths. Following the message or Messenger is same because Muhammad Peace is upon him is Blessings for the whole universe.

It doesn’t matter how many people belief in one GOD until they don’t believe that Muhammad Peace be upon him is the messenger of Allah they will be assumed as non belivers. Until you dent believe that Muhammad Peace be upon him is the messenger of Allah u can’t even understand the value of Hadith. For your uncompleted information regarding to Hadith.

We receive Quran by Muhammad Peace be upon Him so the importance of acts and words of Prophet is much more than those who without knowing start saying against Muhammad..

And I reply

Well that wasn’t much of a question as much as it is a false belief.  as it is for too many. You’re under the misconception that believers must obey and follow the messenger, as if the messenger were a partner to God.  Following stories of the messenger, the Hadith, have caused women in Saudi Arabia to be denied the right to vote, drive or go out alone.

Following Hadith has caused most of the problems we see with Muslims living in the west, like the whole hajib issue which is based on really bad Hadith, as well as the disruption of the many of the societies Muslims have immigrated to.  Following Hadith is the main reason why so many Muslim countries are poor and are seen as backward.  Hadith are also the foundation for many fatwa’s which also cause the Muslims to be seen as ignorant, intolerant and barbaric.

The fact is, there are not many Hadith that serve the good of humanity.  Apostate laws, stoning laws, blasphemy laws, these are not found in the Quran only in Hadith, they are offensive not only to human dignity but in the eyes of God.

But let us dissect your view that you are to follow the messenger.  Here are 2 verses that have misled you to believe the messenger is more important than the message.

4:80"Whoever obeys the messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them."
What does it mean when it says; we have not sent you as a keeper over them?  Maybe you need to read the verses before and after.

4:78  "Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!" If some good befalls them, they say, "This is from Allah.; but if evil, they say, "This is from thee" (O Prophet). Say: "All things are from Allah." But what hath come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact?

4:79  Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah. but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own) soul. and We have sent thee as an apostle to (instruct) mankind. And enough is Allah for a witness

4:80 He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah. But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).

4:81 They have "Obedience" on their lips; but when they leave thee, a section of them Meditate all night on things very different from what thou tellest them. But Allah records their nightly (plots): So keep clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah, and enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs
What was Muhammad supposed to tell them?  Was he supposed to tell him about his life or about the message of one God?

And here we have another verse that some believe prove they are to follow the messenger instead of the message.  But how does it play out when you read the verses before and after?

8:20"O you who believe! Obey Allah and His messenger and do not turn back from Him while you hear"
Can you still hear the messenger?  No?  This verse was also given to the people at that time as you can see from the verses before and after.

8:19 (O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if ye return (to the attack), so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily Allah is with those who believe!

8:21 Nor be like those who say, "We hear," but listen not

8:22 For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not
So what is this story about?  Does it still say to you, imitate or follow the prophet?  Or, is this story about what God is telling Muhammad?

And now we are back to a contentious subject.  Is the Quran complete?

16:89  And We have revealed the Book to you which has the clear explanation of everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit."

Is this a lie?

7:3 Follow what has been revealed to you from your Sustainer and do not follow guardians besides Him (His Laws), how little do you mind."
And who is the sustainer, God or Muhammad?

28:49 "Say: Then bring some (other) book from Allah which is a better guide than both of them, (that) I may follow it, if you are truthful."
And they bring Hadith.  What does the Quran say about Hadith?

31;6 Wamina alnnasi man yashtaree lahwa alhadeethi liyudilla AAan sabeeli Allahi bighayri AAilmin wayattakhithaha huzuwan olaika lahum AAathabun muheenun
Translation

31: 6: But, there are among men those who patronize ridiculous Hadith without knowledge thereby misleading men from the Path of Allah and throwing a butt of mockery on the Path: for such there will be a humiliating Penalty."

And then we have the mass confusion over the word “Seal”

33:40 Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is Aware of all things

Many mistakenly interpret the word seal to mean last.  How does the dictionary define the word seal?

Seal-noun/

1. an embossed emblem, figure, symbol, word, letter, etc., used as attestation or evidence of authenticity.

2. a stamp, medallion, ring, etc., engraved with such a device, for impressing paper, wax, lead, or the like: The king took the seal from his finger and applied it to the document.

3. the impression so obtained: It was unmistakably the royal seal on the document.

4. a mark or symbol attached to a legal document and imparting a formal character to it, originally wax with an impression.

5. a piece of wax or similar adhesive substance so attached to an envelope, folded document, etc., that it must be broken when the object is opened, insuring that the contents have not been tampered with or altered.

6. anything that tightly or completely closes or secures a thing, as closures or fastenings for doors and railroad cars, adhesive stamps and tapes used to secure the flap of an envelope, etc.

7. something that keeps a thing secret: Her vow was the seal that kept her silent.

8. a decorative stamp, especially as given to contributors to a charitable fund: a Christmas seal.

9. a mark, sign, symbol, or the like, serving as visible evidence of something.

10. anything that serves as assurance, confirmation, or bond: She gave the plan her seal of approval

Does any of this compare to the word Last?  How does the dictionary define last?

1. occurring or coming after all others, as in time, order, or place: the last line on a page.

2. most recent; next before the present; latest: last week; last Friday.

3. being the only one remaining: my last dollar; the last outpost; a last chance.

4. final: in his last hours.

5. ultimate or conclusive; definitive: the last word in the argument.

6. lowest in prestige or importance: last prize.

7. coming after all others in suitability or likelihood; least desirable: He is the last person we'd want to represent us.

8. individual; single: The lecture won't start until every last person is seated.

10 a person or thing that is last.

11. a final appearance or mention: We've seen the last of her. That's the last we'll hear of it.

Synonyms
1. Last, final, ultimate refer to what comes as an ending. That which is last comes or stands after all others in a stated series or succession; last may refer to objects or activities: a seat in the last row; the last game. That which is final comes at the end, or serves to end or terminate, admitting of nothing further; final is rarely used of objects: to make a final attempt. That which is ultimate (literally, most remote) is the last that can be reached, as in progression or regression, experience, or a course of investigation: ultimate truths.

And this is what the verse says in Arabic

مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا 

And the translation is…

What was one of Mohammad Aba your men, but the messenger of God and ring prophets,
The actual word used is…ring.  Not last, not seal. 

Any questions?

Friday Freaky Fatwa--Muslim scholars believe a woman's forehead is a genital, why Muslim women should challenge the hijab

A Muslim asks a scholar

Is it permissible to show the eyes only in front of non-mahram men?

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.

Yes, it is permissible for a woman to show her eyes. That is so that she will be able to see. But it is not permissible for men to look at the eyes of a woman.

Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Humayd said:

If the burqa’ [a kind of face veil] covers the entire face, leaving only the eyes uncovered, there is nothing wrong with that. But if it does not cover the entire face, rather it covers the mouth and leaves the rest of the face uncovered, that is not permissible, especially in the presence of non-mahram men.

So the entire face must be covered, but the eyes may be left uncovered so that the woman can see where she is going, as was said by Ibn Mas’ood, ‘Ubaydah al-Salmaani and others. And Allah knows best.
These are some of the most insecure men I have ever come across, worse than a bad movie.  And the crazy part is how many men are willing to believe in these incredibly insecure, paraniod, un-manly, male scholars.  Generations of being taught to be paranoid needs to stop.  I think we need to stage an intervention to help these poor wimps find their balls and feel like real men.  So generous of them to let their women see where their going.  Maybe they should be restricted to maryying blind women.

And Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:

There is nothing wrong with covering the face with the niqaab or burqa’ [kinds of face veil] which has two openings for the eyes only, because this was known at the time of the Prophet, because there is a need for that. If nothing shows but the eyes, that is acceptable, especially if that is what women customarily wear in that society.
Translation; we are still as bad as those whom Allah called, the worst of the worst. 9.97.  And we have no hopes of getting better or smarter.

But we should note that the majority of women, nowadays, do not stop at uncovering the eyes only, rather they go beyond that and uncover part of the forehead and nose, so they go beyond the area that it is permitted for them to show. Hence some of the scholars – such as Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen forbade wearing the burqa’ and niqaab, because of the careless attitude on the part of some women.
Cracked me up, they go beyond and show their nose and forehead.  Oh Allah, just to funny, in a sick and twisted way.  But see if you can find the bullsht as you read on, think Ibn.

And Allah knows best.If that were true, they wouldn't be making their men stupid by quoting dead guys.

A Muslim asks a scholar

As I browse some of the answers I found this phrase the most correct ruling, this was about the ruling of covering woman face, while I found that most scolars say the oppisite regarding this issue, I found it in the "al-fiqh alaa almathahib al arbaa'a by abdelrahman aljazeeri".

Then how come the shiekh did not mention this and just state one opinion, I can understand if the sheikh sees the strongest opinion for that is his, but the others too see theirs as well. Then why did not he tell us that this is based on his opinion and not the majority of scholars.

And the scholar replied

Praise be to Allaah.

This phrase, “the most correct opinion”, means that the opinion chosen is the strongest opinion in terms of evidence. It does not mean that it is the view of the majority of fuqaha’; it may be so, or it may be the view of some of them.
Translation; the scholars do not believe the Quran is tough enough on women because they've made their men stupid and insecure by quoting hadith.

The view which we chose – which is that it is obligatory for women to cover their faces – is what is indicated by the Quran and Sunnah, and was the practice of the believing women for many centuries. It is also the view expressed in fatwas by contemporary scholars such as ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, the scholars of the Standing Committee and others.
Firstly, the Quran, as you will see, does not command women to cover their faces or their hair.  Secondly, you just read what Uthaymeen said, and thricely, the standing committee are not real believers as they always put some dead guy ahead of Allah.  As they continue….

The Standing Committee, under the leadership of Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, was asked the following question: Is the woman’s face a genital (awrah)?

They replied:

“Yes, the woman’s face is a genital (awrah) according to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions.”

It should be noted that when there is a difference of opinion, Muslims are obliged to refer to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, as Allah commanded when He said (interpretation of the meaning):  Notice the word Interpretation?  They can take liberties with that, and the Quran says it is complete with no need of a...sunnah.

4:59 “(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and in the Last Day”
Duh.  That was for when Muhammad was alive and the Quran was not yet a book.  Interesting note, Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the last day.  Me?  I believe in the day after that.

By referring to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messeng, it becomes clear that the Muslim woman is obliged to cover her face in front of non-marriage-able men. There follows some of the evidence for that:

1 – Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): They need to make interpretations because it's in poetic form with far fewer words,  But that's not an excuse to distort the intent.

33:59 “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way) when the go abroad. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
Let’s look at what they added in their interpretation (which is everything in parenthesis).  Allah is telling Gabe to tell Muhammad to tell women; if you go abroad, don’t go naked.  And men, don't annoy the women.  Clothing wasn’t a requirement of people of that day unless they were rich.  And a cloak is not the same as a veil.  And the whole point was for the believers to be seen and respected, not to be treated as slaves--by non believing pagans of the day.   
And a cloak or an outer garment doesn’t cover the head. So what does that leave? A long piece of material that covers you from the shoulders down.

 
The translitteration uses the following words--this is for those who email me on anything female/Islam related, most of whom are named Muhammad, and might know arabic translitteration.  Ready?  "bi" = with , "khumurihinna"= their coverings/their khimar/length of cloth, `ala'=on/over, "Juyūbihinna", from jaib = their chest/bosom.  The arabic word for bosom is pockets.  I find that amusing.  SO, the verse is saying cover your pockets/bosoms.  In fact the arabic words head (raas), and neck (jeed/`unq/raqbah) are not even found in this verse, even though they do appear in other verses--in an unrelated way.
Nothing about hair, forhead, nose, neck, mouth or chin or anything else that normally appears on a human.
I’d also like to point out that hellfire is for murderers, cheaters, thieves, liars, adulterers--no punishment listed at all for showing the hair, and, in the entire Quran, hair is only mentioned 5 times, hairy dates, hairy critters, Moses hair, grey hair, and not once does it say to cover it.  Just thought you'd like to know that.  And then..

They cite this Hadith, which always cracks me up. Al-Bukhaari narrated that ‘Aiesha said: “When Allah revealed the words ‘and to draw their veils all over their necks and bosom"
they tore their aprons and covered their faces with them.”
Getting a visual of faces with bosoms. 

Out of hundreds and thousands of stories of Muhammad (hadith) the veil/hijab/full covering is mentioned only a half a dozen times!  Yet they make such a big deal out of it. 
The Quran does command that they not make religion a burden, that it is to be simple and a rewarding experience, not a burdon. 
But the pervs insist on following these half a dozen hadith, all based on how perverted some of the companions were, watching his wives at their 'call of nature'.  Umar...pffttt.  Any wonder why Muhammad wanted the young girls not to run around naked once they started developing?  He knew they were pervs.
Oh, and for those who believe Muhammad was a sex starved, war lord tough guy, not even close.  But I'm sure the radicals prefer this image and having others believe it, too.  It's hard to hate softie.  And back to the scholars and why women are allowed to keep at least one eyeball uncovered.

2 – Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

24:31 “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent”
Again, anything in parenthesis is added in as an ‘interpretation’.  But this is very simple command.  Cover your genitals and don’t stare at anyone else’s genitals.  But these scholars decided that the Quran has no meaning and God as no power.  Think about it, who is going to beat you up if you show your hair, God or a follower of the wimpy, castrated by sharia, scholars who give Hadith more power?  Perhaps they don’t want you to know that the Quran clearly says, do not follow stories/Hadith 31;6 or you will have a humiliating penalty.

As they continue…..watch how they twist the words of, 'adornments', which are apparent, like arms and legs, the face and eyes, and so on.

In this verse, Allah forbids showing all adornment except that which is apparent, which is that which a woman cannot avoid showing, such as the outer garment.
Hence Allah said “except only that which is apparent”, and He did not say, except that which they show.
Then He again forbade (did anyone see the word forbidden?  No?  It’s because the word isn’t in the verse) showing any adornment, except to those for whom an exception is made 24:31 “..and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers…”  – interpretation of the meaning”
According to them, bosoms are an adornment that husbands, fathers and other male relative are allowed to see.  Now why would the verse say that?  Because back in that day running around naked or half naked was the norm.  Ever see the hieroglyphs of the Egyptians?  Lots of half naked humans all over the place. But it would be unheard of to say; 'gramps can see the adorning bosoms', espeically if you read my other blogs where the scholars work extra hard to convince the men that they can't trust anyone, not even close relatives.  But back in the day, gramps would have seen her ta-ta's as would most of the village/tribe.
They continue....

This indicates that the adornment mentioned in the second phrase is not like the adornment mentioned in the first; the first adornment is that which appears in all cases and cannot be hidden, and the second adornment is that which is hidden, and is done deliberately [but concealed from all but those mentioned in this verse]. If it were permissible for everyone to see the hidden adornment, then there would be not point of speaking in general terms about the first and making an exception in the case of the second adornment.
The 2^nd adornment they speak of is jewelry, more specifically it's toward the end of the verse they speak of, “..and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments..”  I guess there’s a good reason for them to have excluded that part of the verse.  Just so there's no confusion, here is the entire verse.

24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.

Hmm....do they want to succeed?  You should probably read that verse twice, if you're debating hijab you'll want the truth.  And they're they’re not done yet…

3 – Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): They always use that ( )

33:59 “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
We saw this verse earlier.  They really don't have much support for the veil in either the Quran or hadith, so they repeat the few they have, over and over.  Again, everything in parenthesis has been added because the scholars do not believe the Quran was complete and they want you to be stupid and have a miserable life before you go to hell for believing them.

Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “Allah commanded the believing women, when they go out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from the top of the head with the jilbaab, and to leave only one eye showing.”
Ibn is now in the hellfire sucking on bitter fruit.  Want to join him?  Just keep putting Hadith before Quran and distorting Quran to fit the perverted views of scholars and you’ll be sucking on bitter fruit, too.

I believe western women who wear the hijab have motives that have nothing to do with religion.  When I see a woman covering her hair or going to other extremes- that do not ordinarily appear- they are drawing as much attention to themselves as a woman in a bikini.  They want attention.  And I don't think they really care if it's good attention or bad attention, just so long as they get attention.  Totally contradicts the intent of the verse.

And for those of you who debate the subject, if you hear a lie/hadith you should challenge it with the truth.  Because Allah loveth the truth tellers.  And you'll always win the debate.

The Truth about Sharia in America

-- To be fair, I'm not sure if all Republicans love Sharia law, but they certainly do love talking about it.
Republicans Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum don't agree on everything, but they all concur that we must stop Sharia law from being imposed upon America.

And Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, winner of a Tea Party convention straw poll in February, went a step further when he recently declared that he would not even nominate an American-Muslim to his Cabinet because in his words, Muslims "are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country." (Although to be honest, Charlie Sheen has a better chance of "winning" the 2012 presidential election than Cain.)

Add to this mix Republican state legislators in more than a dozen states who have introduced legislation to ban state court judges from considering Sharia law. And in Tennessee, Republican state Sen. Bill Ketron has upped the ante by proposing a law that would make it a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for any person who knowingly supports Sharia law.

To warrant this hysterical call to arms by these Republicans, American-Muslims must certainly be aggressively pushing for Sharia law to be imposed upon all Americans -- which would be an especially amazing feat considering only about 2% of our nation's population is Muslim.

So I began looking into the issue of which American-Muslims are calling for this. I started out simply enough by asking the Muslims in my family and my Muslim friends if they wanted Sharia law to be the new law of America. After they stopped laughing, they all responded "no."

Northern Sudan mulls Sharia

This isn't surprising to me because I have never met an American-Muslim who has commented: "America is great, but you know what would make it even better? More laws like Afghanistan."

OK, then maybe it's the American-Muslims in elected office? In their positions of power, they could easily propose legislation calling for Sharia law.

First stop, the two American-Muslim representatives -- Keith Ellison and Andre Carson. But both their records are devoid of pushing for Sharia law.

Well, then maybe it's the American-Muslim state legislators who serve in places such as New Hampshire, Missouri, Michigan and North Carolina -- including the longest-serving Muslim state-elected official, Larry Shaw, who has been a member of the North Carolina General Assembly for 16 years. Maybe they're the ones hankering for Sharia law? But alas, I came up empty.

Oh, I know, how about Dearborn, Michigan, the city with the highest concentration of Muslims in America? If there is any place in America that wants Sharia law, it has to be there. However, Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly -- clearly a very Muslim name -- said in an interview last year: "There's no Sharia law in Dearborn, Michigan. ... It isn't even talked about in Dearborn."

I keep striking out. Then it occurred to me, perhaps Sharia law is part of the agenda of the biggest American-Muslim organizations in the country: the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America.

So I reached out to the Islamic Society of North America's national director, Sayyid Syeed, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations' national outreach coordinator, Aseel Elborno, and asked them point-blank: Do you want to impose Sharia law across the United States? Their answer: a resounding "no." They explained they simply want to be able to practice their faith just like all other proud Americans. Nothing more.

This is now getting confusing. My Muslim friends and family members don't want Sharia law, neither do the Muslim elected officials nor the biggest American-Muslim groups -- not even the people of Dearborn. Then who is furthering this dastardly plan?!

The best evidence these Republicans cite in support of their claim is a case from New Jersey where a trial judge sided with a Muslim man who had raised Sharia law as a defense to the charge of marital rape. The state that brought us "Jersey Shore" actually brought us something worse with this court decision. However, thankfully, the New Jersey appellate court correctly overturned the trial judge's decision, alleviating any concern about Sharia law trumping American law.

If religious law -- regardless if it is Muslim, Jewish or Christian -- does not comport with the principles of U.S. law, our courts will not follow it. It's that simple. This is a well-established principle of our American legal system -- one that I would have hoped the Republican politicians would have been known. Of course, maybe I'm assuming they know more than they do, as I was reminded by Bachman's recent gaffe in saying the American Revolution began in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts.

It appears that certain Republicans have created this "Sharia monster" for their own purposes. They scare us with their monster, and then they want to take credit for saving us from their own creation.

To those Republicans who continue to stoke the flames of fear and bigotry to attract media attention and benefit their own political careers, I hope you will heed the words of your fellow Republican Ronald Reagan, who famously stated: "No one group in this country is better than another. No one race or religion or sex or color is better than another. ... It's time we erased the last vestiges of intolerance, bigotry and unkindness from our hearts. Decency demands this and so does our history."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/18/obeidallah.gop.sharia.law/index.html?hpt=C2

Interesting news from Saudi Arabia....Muslim women take a stand

Fatwa Centre tells husbands to respect wives

Men must treat their wives with respect in line with Islamic tenets which guarantee women their rights and a fair treatment, according to the government Fatwa (Islamic edict) Centre in Abu Dhabi.

The Centre said the UAE, acting in line with such tenets, has enforced laws to ensure women’s rights and allow them to participate in their country’s development by encouraging them to take up all types of jobs.

The Centre was responding to a question by the public on the woman’s status in the UAE, according to Alkhaleej newspaper.

“The UAE’s personal law is fair to the woman and ensure all her rights…it has annulled discrimination against women and punishes those who practice violence against them…the judicial law is also fair to women and protect them against oppression,” the Centre said in a fatwa (edict) published in Alkhaleej Wednesday.

“The Centre appeals for all husbands to follow sui.t…you are invited to stick to the tenets of the Koran and Islam in treating your wives nicely and in respecting them and their role, privacy and status.”

Abuse your wife? It will cost you.  Husbands must now pay wives half their marriage dowry.
Published Monday, July 05, 2010

Husbands who abuse their wives to get them to divorce them are now going to have to pay dearly, following a landmark court case. (AFP)

Husbands divorced by their wives must now pay them half the marriage dowry if there is evidence of abuse, following a landmark Federal Supreme Court ruling.

According to a report in The National, this latest ruling, in which a Northern Emirates wife applied to divorce her husband on the grounds that he was abusive, will set a legal precedent likely to become law.

The ruling is designed to prevent a husband from abusing his wife with the intention of forcing her to divorce him – a circumstance that previously meant the wife usually forfeited her deferred dowry. A deferred dowry is a portion of the marriage dowry money that goes to the wife after the divorce.

According to the report, UAE husbands frequently desert their wives and refuse to pay for their daily needs, with some wives even paying to get their husbands to divorce them.

The newspaper reported that in this landmark case, the wife had demanded Dh60,000 for the deferred dowry; Dh6,000 a month for a marriage allowance (a payment under Sharia law); and Dh50,000 for the 40-day period after divorcing, during which the wife cannot re-marry.

The court found that the husband had neglected the wife and had not paid the required monthly allowance since their marriage on November, 2008. The marriage had been annulled in December, 2009 on the condition that the wife forfeit her right to the deferred dowry. The wife appealed and the Appeals Court upheld the lower-court verdict. The woman then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, which struck down all other verdicts and granted the wife all of her demands.

Nashwa Al Qubaisi, a lawyer who deals with marriage and divorce disputes, told The National that the verdict would likely “reduce violence and exploitation often practised by husbands”.

“This kind of ruling would definitely help prevent husbands from taking advantage of the family law,” said Ms Al Qubaisi.

“A large number of women sacrifice themselves and all that they have in order to get a divorce.”

She said the current family law needed such legal precedents to move forward.

While change may not be happening at lightening speed things really are changing.

Husband slaps doctor for checking wife
By Staff Published Saturday, March 12, 2011

A Saudi man slapped a doctor in the face after he asked his sick wife to show him where she feels pain during examination at a hospital in the Gulf Kingdom, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

The man had brought his veiled wife to the hospital in the southern province of Jazan with pain in her abdomen and asked the male doctor to treat her.

“When the doctor asked her to show him where the pain is, her husband jumped and slapped him in the face,” Aljazeera Arabic language daily said.

“Hospital security men seized the husband and handed him to the police…a local court ordered that he is lashed 15 times in the presence of that doctor.”

Dad left in shock after kid checked by stranger
By Staff Published Wednesday, February 23, 2011

A Saudi man who took his ill little daughter to a clinic in the Gulf kingdom was left in a state of shock after a presumed doctor who checked her vanished, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The unnamed father was waiting in the examination room when a man wearing a necktie came in and asked him about his daughter, the online Arabic language paper 'Sabq' said.

“He then checked her and left…the father waited for a long period of time but that man did not come back,” the paper said in a report from the central town of Makkah.

“When he asked the nurse about the doctor who checked his daughter, she replied that there is only one doctor who was busy with another patient…the father searched the other sections of the clinic and then rushed out to look for that strange man….he could not find him and remained in a state of a shock about his identity.”

Fridays Freaky Fatwa--Muslim men on Jobs, alcohol and prayer

A Muslim asks a scholar

There are poor families who have grown-up children who are able to earn money, but they do not work on the grounds that this work is not befitting for them. Should they be given charity (zakaah)?

 

And the scholar replies

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: that always means they’re going to make up an answer.

It is not permissible to give charity to a poor person who is able to earn a living, because he is not regarded as poor so long as he is able to earn a living by working.

 

Narrated by Abu Dawood; It was narrated from ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Adiyy ibn al-Khayyaar from two men who were Companions of the Prophet (so it must be true…right?) and asked him for charity. He looked at them and saw that they were strong and said: “If you wish, I will give to you but there is no share in it for one who is independent of means or one who is strong and able to earn a living.”

Based on that story (Hadith) the scholars came up with the following rulings.

In Fiqh al-‘Ibaadaat  (a Maaliki scholar book): The one who is independent of means is the one who has what is sufficient for one year, or he is able to earn a living, or he has a salary that suffices him. End quote.

And this guy says...

 

In al-Minhaaj ma‘a Mughni al-Muhtaaj says: The poor man is the one who has no wealth and no means of earning a living and meeting his needs. End quote.

And this guys says…

 

Ibn Qudaamah said: Whoever has a means of earning a living that will make him and his dependents, if he has dependents, independent of means and he has enough to suffice him every day, is “rich” and has no right to charity.

But at the end they decided….

 

But it is stipulated that the work by which he earns a living should be befitting for him; if it is not befitting for him, such as if he is one of the prominent people then he becomes poor, he is not obliged to do work that is not befitting for him, so he should not be obliged to work in a shop and the like. It is permissible to give charity to one who is like this.

Perhaps the scholars were afraid they’d get fired because they continue with…

 

Al-Ghazaali was asked about a strong man from a prominent family who usually do not earn a living through physical work; can he take charity from the share of the poor and needy?

He said: Yes, this is in accordance with what is mentioned above, that what matters is a profession that is befitting for him.

So these scholars decided that Bukhari’s stories (Hadith) of the prophet really weren’t that important as they continue…

 

In al-Minhaaj it says: The poor person is the one who has no wealth and cannot earn enough to meet his needs. And he is still regarded as poor even if he can earn a living in something that is not befitting for him. End quote.

 

The commentator al-Sharahbeeni said in Mughni al-Muhtaaj it is not befitting for him with regard to his status and dignity, because it undermines his dignity, so it is as if that job does not exist. The word ‘earning” in the hadith is to be interpreted as referring to permissible and suitable means of earning.

What a load of camel crap.  And they end with…

 

To sum up: with regard to people who do not work on the grounds that the work is not befitting for them, if the work is indeed not befitting to them, they may take charity. But if the work is befitting and others like them do this kind of work without any reluctance, it is not permissible to give them charity; rather they should be advised to work.

Pretty stupid, huh?

And Allah knows best.
So does Judge Judy.  She would tell him, “Go pick up tin cans”.

 

A Muslim asks a scholar
 

I have dishes made from clay. If someone has used the dish and their alcohol has fallen into my dish then do I have to throw the dish away, or can I just wash it normally. I really like the clay dishes and I came across the hadith that utensils which have been in contact with swine or alcohol should be washed. Please advice according to Quran and Sunnah.

 

And the scholar replies

 

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: yeah we all know about firstly…maybe they should start using the word ‘clueless’

 

The scholars differed as to whether alcohol is impure.  The view of most of the scholars is that it is impure and they quoted as evidence the verse in which Allah says:
5:90 “O you who believe! Intoxicants, and gambling, and stone altars for sacrifices to idols, and arrows for seeking luck or decision are an abomination…“
well it’s not like a clay plate can get drunk!

 

He ended with; abomination is impurity.
From wiki; Alcohols can be used as a beverage (ethanol only), as fuel and for many scientific, medical, and industrial utilities as well as antifreeze.   Maybe they should stop using anything that uses any form of alcohol

Some scholars favoured the view that alcohol is pure.
They were probably educated in the west.

 

Secondly:  was anyone impressed with firstly?

 

If any impurity falls into a vessel, it should be washed with water so as to remove the impurity. Thus the vessel will become pure and it is permissible for the Muslim to use it and put food and drink in it.
duh.

This is indicated by the following:

 

Bukhari; The Prophet forbade the meat of domesticated donkeys when the Sahaabah had been cooking it in pots, so the Messenger ordered them to empty out the pots and break them. A man said: O Messenger of Allah, or can we empty them out and wash them? The Messenger said: “Or that.”
Now that’s funny!

And Allah knows best
lmao

 

A Muslim ask a scholar

 

I have internal bleeding, i.e., blood comes out with the feces or sometimes it comes out spontaneously on my underwear. I may spend more than 12 hours at work. Can I pray when there is this blood on my underwear or not? Please note that I am at work and cannot change my underwear.

 

And the scholar replies

 

Praise be to Allah.

 

What everyone who wants to pray must do is to purify his clothes of any impurity that is on them, because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): 74:4 “And purify your garments
 

Bukhari said; oh who cares what Bukhari said.  Here is what the Quran says;

 

22:78 “…and Allah has not laid upon you in religion any hardship”
 

2:185 “Allah intends for you ease, and He does not want to make things difficult for you”

And Allah knows best

 

Memorize both of those verses…