Controversial Questions about Islam and Comments

[فداء الرسول]

Terrorism, Fanaticism

And Violence

It is strange that some prominent politicians and opinion leaders do not differentiate between “terrorism” and “violence” and between oppressive terrorism and defensive terrorism. Neither do they consider fanaticism as a relative matter.
In fact, there is a clear distinction between violence and terrorism. Violence is confined to using physical violent means such as beating, physical torture and using weapons etc. to express a feeling, an opinion or to achieve a special or a public goal. Terrorism, on the other hand, includes physical and non-physical means. It includes verbal abuse and non-verbal threats, enforcing economic siege, voting against, or using the veto against, the resolutions that condemn or punish the aggressor in the General Assembly of the UN and in the Security Council. Terrorism can take the form of oppressive press campaigns that propagate hatred and disdain against a group or a nation. Terror may not kill instantly, but it may kill in the long run, after a long suffering of hunger and pain.
We also have to recognize that terror in itself is not pure evil or goodness. It is a means, which is not designated to evil or goodness. It can be used to defend the truth, to defeat an oppressor or defend a victim. It can also be used to cause injustice to the innocent, to rob people of their properties and money, deprive them of their rights and occupy their lands.
In other words, we can distinguish between two kinds of terrorism: oppressive terrorism, and defensive terrorism. However, offensive terrorism is uncontrolled, but defensive terrorism is usually controlled by the natural disposition of man or by laws.
It is known to the followers of the religions of Divine origin, and perhaps to the others, that this life is a test to distinguish between the good person who deserves rewards in the Eternal Life and the bad person who deserves punishment in the Eternal Life. So, the battle between evil and goodness is one of the means of this test. Allah says: {For, had it not been that Allah checks one group of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where in the name of Allah is praised often would surely have been demolished}([1])
Terror can occur unintentionally, and might occur even against the intention of the one who causes it. But if this person does not stop the cause of terror after being reminded, then it is considered an intentional act.
Because Islam invites to comprehensive peace in this life and the Hereafter, it condemns using terror to cause injustice to any person and assigns an appropriate punishment for it, but after making sure that it has been unjustly used as a means of aggression.
However, Islam considers it a necessary means to remove aggression and to help the helpless innocent people. This is what Muslims call “Jihad” or “fighting in the cause of Allah.” Allah says: {Permission to fight is given to those who are oppressed…}([2]) and says: {And what stops you from fighting in the cause of Allah and for those week, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women and children.}([3]) Allah also says in a Divine tradition: {O my servants I have forbidden injustice to Myself and I have forbidden it among you.}([4])
In other words, “Jihad” in Islam is not an oppressive act but a legal defensive act, which is approved by all laws, including those of the “democratic countries’ and others. It is the legal justification for building strong armies and developing highly destructive weapons.
In general, those who use terror could be classified into these categories:
1. A person who uses it for aggression, regardless of whether he believes in the Eternal Life or not. And by so doing, he violates the natural disposition, the man made law and the Divine teachings, including the Islamic teachings.
2. A person who uses it to defend his own life, dignity and properties or to defend the innocent who are oppressed, even though he may not believe in the Eternal Life. This person is usually motivated by the natural disposition.
3. A person who uses it to defend his own life, dignity and properties or to defend the innocent who are oppressed, and he believes in the Eternal Life. This person is usually motivated by both the natural disposition and the Divine teachings, which promise a great reward for so doing.
The last category is the most courageous and fiercest of all, because it considers this life as a means, not as a goal by itself. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons behind suicidal operations carried out by the oppressed Palestinians.
Generally speaking, Muslim scholars’ opinion about these operations is divided between two legal opinions:
1. Those who approve it and encourage it as long as it is a legal defensive operation. In their opinion, all soldiers in all types of systems are required to do their best in a defensive situation even though they may have to sacrifice their own lives.
2. Those who prohibit that because they consider this a kind of intentional suicide, which is forbidden in Islam even for a legal cause. Although this differs from the personal causes i.e. to take one’s life in his hand out of despair of life, which is absolutely forbidden.
In all cases Islam forbids killing the innocent, the aged, women and children unless they actually engage in aggressive terrorism.
It is a common fact among the adherents of religions of Divine origin that this life is a test to distinguish between the good who deserve rewards and the bad who deserve punishment, especially in the Eternal Life. Thus the struggle between the followers of the truth and the followers of falsehood, and the between the supporters of justice and the supporters of injustice is vital. Allah says in the Holy Quraan: {Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another there would be surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundance measure.}([5])
Terrorism sometimes occurs unintentionally or even against the will of the person who causes it. But if he is reminded of what he is doing and persists in doing it, he is considered an aggressor, and so is the one who knowingly helps him.
Because Islam invites to a comprehensive peace in this world and in the Hereafter, or the limited peace in this world only, it forbids utilizing terrorism to cause injustice to the others.

---

([1] ) Holy Quraan, 22: 40.

([2] ) Holy Quraan, 22: 39-40.

([3] ) Holy Quraan, 4: 75.

([4] ) Muslim: al-Bir was Silah; A divine tradition is a tradition which meaning
from God but wording is of the Prophet.

([5] ) surah 22: 40.

[فداء الرسول]

What is the Difference between Oppressive and Defensive Terrorism?

We have already mentioned that both the oppressor and the oppressed use terror, but how can we distinguish between the two cases; i.e., the one who uses it for aggression and the one who uses it for defense?
The basic criterion between the two types is:
Who used it first against the other? The first one who used it is the one who is using it for aggression, and the second is the one who is using it for defense. And whoever supports and helps the aggressor is an aggressor himself, and whoever supports or helps the oppressed holds the status of the oppressed.
Sometimes, it is difficult to tell who started it. Therefore, we need another criterion. The second criterion is to try to bring reconciliation and the one who rejects a fair judgment is the oppressor. Allah says: {And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both; if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you all against the one that outrages till it complies with the command of Allah.}([1])
Terrorism could appear in other forms such as to punish a person without sufficient evidence or to exceed the limits of reasonable punishment. The punishment for a specific crime should be fixed in terms of severity. We cannot be lenient with a friend or someone from whom we expect benefits and to be harsh on someone whom we consider an enemy. Allah says: {O you who believe stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice…}([2]) This is exactly the opposite of the practice of some ‘democratic’ governments which are supported by the “majority” of their people. For example, some ‘democratic’ governments violated the independence of a member of the UN under the accusation of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. At the same time its rival in the same region, which has weapons of mass destruction with the help of one of these democratic governments, is being aided with more weapons. What is more ironic is that this super democratic government possesses the most weapons of mass destruction and refuses to sign the treaty of banning the test of nuclear arms.([3])
It is natural that in spite of the clear teachings of Islam that some Muslims may violate them and use terror for aggression. It is also natural that all nations try to bring up their citizens to behave correctly, yet their prisons are full of criminals. But we cannot say that all nations are criminals or bring up criminals. It was reported that there were 175 incidents of terrorism in the USA between 1982 and 2001, and 143 out of them were attributed to Christians. Can we say that Christians are terrorists? It is certainly unfair to generalize or attribute the bad acts of a few to all or even to the majority.
If some democratic governments that call to justice supported a country, which was established on pure religious fanaticism by driving the original inhabitants out of their lands and homes, can we say that all democratic regimes encourage oppression? And if some democratic governments claiming to fight terrorism by waging war against some poor countries while continuously support a state based on oppressive terrorism, can we say democracy is a hypocritical system?
To demonstrate the criterion we have just established, let us take the Palestinian case as an example.
The Palestinian Case:

To be realistic, let us confine ourselves approximately to the date when the idea of the United Nations appeared at the beginning of the 20^th century. For, if we go beyond that date some earlier inhabitants of some continents will claim that some of today’s democratic states have no legal grounds to be established by occupying their lands.
When we look back to the early 20^th century, we find Palestine occupied by 91% Arabs, among them a few Christians, and the Jews were only 9%. In general they were living in peace, till some extremely fanatic Jews (Zionists) came up with the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. They started buying influential governments of the time and began terrorizing the Palestinians to occupy their lands and homes. They worked on replacing the original Arab inhabitants with immigrant Jews, who were living in different countries. As it is the case with any group of minorities, these Jews were treated in their countries well by the majority, when they behaved well but mistreated when they misbehaved. Sometimes, they could be subject to injustice, as it is the case with all minorities.
The Jewish fanatics not only encouraged the Jews living in other countries to immigrate to Palestine, they even resorted to some mean tricks to force them to do so. These fanatics faked explosions threatening the properties of their brother Jews who refused to immigrate and accused their fellow citizens. Sometimes, they made them pay dues to help the immigrants. I say, the fanatic Jews because there are many Jews living in different parts of the world as good citizens, and they are in disagreement with the extremely fanatic Jews (or Zionists).
The Palestinians tried to hold to their lands, and the conflict started between the immigrant Jews and the original inhabitants, the Arabs. The Jews’ financial power played its role in buying some ‘democratic’ governments of the time which backed up the Jewish immigrants to drive the Palestinians out of their lands and homes, massacring them, burning their farms, demolishing their houses and practicing the ugliest forms of oppressive terrorism against them.
I am sure no one who is acquainted, the least, with the history of this clash between the Jews and the Palestinians can dare to claim that the Jews, who are controlling Palestine now are the original inhabitants and that the Palestinians are the immigrants, who came from other parts of the world.
In other words, according to the criterion we established above, Israel is the one who started the conflict and used offensive terrorism for two reasons:
1. The Israeli government was based on driving a huge number of the original inhabitants of Palestine out of their lands and homes with the help of some ‘democratic’ governments, which call to justice and to fight oppression. With the constant open support of the super democratic government Israel has been practicing terrorism against the innocent Palestinian men, women and children for over fifty years now, using the meanest means that violate human rights.
2. The Israeli government’s rejection of the resolutions of the UN, which partially preserve the Palestinians rights in their lands.
Recognizing these facts, can we blame the Palestinians if they were forced to use defensive terrorism to restore their robbed rights, especially with their poor means in the form of stones and random disparate explosions?
Can we consider equal the person who uses poor means of terror to defend himself, his home and land to a person who uses bombs, rockets, fighter jets and tanks in order to rob the others’ land and rights to lead decedent lives?
Can we deny that the Charter, resolutions of the UN and the Security Council and the democratic conventions prohibit occupying others’ land to give it to some immigrants?
Can any democratic state, which has plenty of land, accept that some immigrants invade their land and occupy it to build only a house, not a state, without the consent of its citizens or the government, which represents them? If the answer is no, then how can some democratic governments openly support the invaders of the land of other people, especially a land which is well populated?
Since we are discussing Islam, the question that arises automatically is: how does Islam deal with offensive terrorism?

---

([1] ) Holy Quraan, 49: 9.

([2] ) Holy Quraan, 5: 8.

([3] ) Shanker and Sanger, New York Times July 7, 2001.

[فداء الرسول]

How Islam Deals with Offensive Terrorism:

Islam treats offensive terrorism by three means:
1. Provision of good discipline from childhood and instilling the principles that prohibit aggression and oppression, and encourage justice and fairness.
2. Removal of the causes of offensive terrorism by protecting human rights, providing fair trial, securing just treatment, encouraging cooperation in the ways of goodness, and securing decent means of living.
Therefore, no wonder if the second Guided Caliph Omar put at halt the punishment of cutting the hand of the thief during the year of famine.
It is wiser for us to find out the reason behind terrorism and to remove it than rushing to condemn it and punish people for it. Sometimes, we blame the Palestinians’ desperate random defensive violence causing some innocent victims, but we forget or ignore to condemn the oppressive violence that cause thousands of innocent victims face humiliation, hunger and death after long suffering for over fifty years.
Some countries may blame some defensive terrorism against them, but ignore to remove the cause, which is in their hands. Instead, they agitate terrorism more by committing more atrocities against the oppressed or continue supporting the oppressor.
It is note worthy that some decision makers of some countries base their decisions on misleading information, provided by some prejudiced or ignorant information sources. In the light of this fact, the decision makers should be more careful try to verify the information from several first hand sources as much as possible. This is not to exclude the fact that some of the decision makers may forge some information to realize personal goals. And here comes the role of the wise opinion leaders of the nation and the dedicated honest media men and women.
3. Islam assigns suitable punishment for offensive terrorism, but after proofing guilt beyond doubt, which authorizes the judge to reject some suspicious confessions. This is so, because punishing innocent people out of negligence and insufficient investigation or revenge-like punishment, will only agitate more offensive, random terrorism.

[فداء الرسول]

Does Wahhabism Encourage Offensive Terrorism?

So called “Wahhabism” is actually only a reformation movement that calls Muslims to go back to the pristine teachings of Islam, preserved by the Holy Quraan and the authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It calls to stop worshipping the deceased and glorifying the tombs of so-called saints, and to worship Allah alone.
Wahhabism is not even a special school of Islamic jurisprudence; basically, it follows one of the four well-acknowledged schools of thought, “Hanbali” school. Therefore, if Islam forbids offensive terrorism “Wahhabism” also forbids it.
Sometimes, the word ”Salafism” is used for the so-called Wahhabi movement, but we should differentiate between the two. Salafism is sometimes, but not always, used for some groups who adopt the puritanical interpretations of the Holy Quraan or the Prophetic traditions and apply them very strictly.
Does Establishing Quranic Schools Instill Hatred and Fanaticism?

As it was made clear by the above quotations from the Holy Quraan, Islam invites all humans and the jinn to comprehensive peace and felicity, not only on the level of this temporary life but also on the level of the Eternal Life. The Holy Quraan also makes it compulsory for Muslims to respect the others’ rights, regardless of the difference in faith. The Holy Quraan encourages everyone who reads it with comprehension to stick to the highest moral values and to treat all people kindly, even to do favor to them and to care for their happiness in both the temporary life and in the Eternal Life. Allah says: {Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion Verily Allah loves those who are just and fair. It is only as regards as those who fought you on account of your religion and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out that Allah forbid you to take them as guardians…}([1])
The Holy Quraan, for instance, encourages observing the rights of the guests, the neighbors, the kinships, and of the parents, even if they were non-Muslims. Allah says: {And We have enjoined on man to be good and dutiful to his parents; but if they strive to make you join with Me in worship anything as a partner… then do not obey them}.([2])
The Holy Quraan is concerned for the dignity and the honor of people, and it encourages self-esteem, without arrogance, and praises strength, without oppressing others.
It also includes the history of the struggle of Prophet Muhammad, description of those who took a hostile position against him and his preaching as well as about his tolerance of the harassment of his enemies for about fourteen years, till he was finally granted the permission to defend himself and fight back.
We all know that many wars have occurred in the world between the various races, religions, and states. Both sides in these conflicts have utilized different types of terrorism: violence, psychological, spiritual, mental suppression…etc
Can we say that all parties in these conflicts are oppressive terrorists? Or it depends on the actual motivations of each, whether it is oppressive or defensive.
All countries have armies, military academies, and pay a great deal of attention and spend great fortunes to train their soldiers to use the destructive weapons efficiently. In fact, the most technically developed democratic countries are the most advanced in the area of developing the most destructive weapons in the whole world. Not only that but they are the sellers of these weapons to the lesser-developed countries. And they are the ones who brag about having the most advanced and capable armies and having the most advanced facilities to develop the most destructive weapons.
Can we say that these countries encourage oppressive terrorism and train their citizens to be more efficient in carrying out oppressive terrorism, or terrorists? The answer is certainly no, because a wise person should prepare himself within his capabilities to defend himself against injustice and oppressive terrorism. This is why all laws of the whole globe legalize self defense, regardless of whether these laws are Divine or man made. They all grant permission to defend oneself, properties and honor.
Some Western politicians claim that teaching the constitution of the Muslims, the Holy Quraan, instills hatred and fanaticism because it includes the history of parts of the struggle between the Muslims and some of the non-Muslims. Using the same logic, should we say: “We have to forbid all nations to teach their histories because they agitate hatred and fanaticism even between the various groups in the same country? In fact, there is a great deal of documentaries about the world, regional or civil wars that are full of the bloodiest fighting. Should we forbid them too?
In addition to that, there are many texts in the Bible if taken out of their proper contexts they would seem to be very violent. For example, in the Old Testament the Bible reads:
“So now kill every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgin.([3])
It also reads: “The Lord your God will bring you into the land that you are going to occupy, and He will drive many nations out of it… When the Lord your God places these people in your power and you defeat them, you must put them all to death. Do not make an alliance with them or show them any mercy. Do not marry any of them, and do not let your children marry any of them…”([4])
In the New Testament the Bible reads: “I tell you, he replied, that to those who have something, even more will be given; but those who have nothing, even the little that they have will be taken away from them. Now, as for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king bring them here and kill them in my presence.”([5])

---

([1] ) Holy Quraan, 60: 8-9.

([2] ) Holy Quraan, 29: 8; see also 31: 15.

([3] ) Numbers 31: 17-18.

([4] ) Deuteronomy 7: 1-2, see also Deuteronomy 20: 10-18.

([5] ) Luke 19: 26-27.

[فداء الرسول]

Status of Women in Islam

Islam emphasizes and enhances the natural disposition, which Allah has instilled in His creation. Allah has created men and women, with different attributes, for each to fulfill part of the essential needs for both to live happily in this life and to work more efficiently for the Hereafter. He made them indispensable and complementary to each other. They are like the day, which is composed of two indispensable parts: night and daytime; also electricity, which is composed of two elements that blow life into many lifeless materials.
Among the things that Allah Has distinguished the female with is that He made her highly affectionate and emotional in her behavior. Besides, He made her elegant and fragile to increase her attractiveness, though it limits her freedom of movement in the environment where she lives. She was made tender and affectionate to be capable of absorbing man’s stiffness and to attract him, and to provide him with the psychological refuge and sooth his pains and relieve his worries. Also she was made to be more ready to sacrifice herself for the others in order to be suitable to take care of the children.
In fact, all these qualities are indispensable to the happiness of any family or community. It was proven by the psychological experiments that females are stronger than males in surviving the unusual psychological situations and recovering from psychological shocks.
On the other hand, Allah Has created man to be distinguished with strength to protect his family, and to make him more capable to move freely in the environment where he lives. He can wander freely in a wider area; i.e., go to isolated or deserted areas, and he can move more freely during the late hours of the night and in darkness. Man is also less exposed to aggression and more capable to defend himself.
However, when we speak about the distinctive characteristics of men and women, we should bear in mind that there are exceptional cases where a man or a woman may excel in the other’s field of specialty.
What is the Status of Women Compared to Men?

Some people like to quote some Prophetic traditions, intentionally or unintentionally, to come up with meanings that contradict the previous facts. Among the misunderstood quotes is the saying of the Prophet: “O you women give in charity. I have been shown that you represent the greatest proportion of the dwellers of Hell-Fire. Women asked: ‘Why, O Prophet?’ He said: ‘You are accustomed to cursing and denying favors. I have not seen such as you having incomplete mind and incomplete religion and have the power to influence the decisive, wise men.’ They said: “What is missing in our religion and mind?’ He said: ‘Is not your testimony half of the testimony of a man?’ That is why your mind is incomplete. Is it not true that you do not pray or fast during the menstruation period? That is why your religion is incomplete.”([1])
The context here is: the day was a festival day and the Prophet wanted to encourage women to donate for the sake of Allah. It was an appropriate time to tease them, using partial facts. They are partial facts because if their testimony, in some cases, is considered to be equal to half of the man’s testimony or if they do not pray or fast during menstruation period it is not their fault. Here, the Prophet was praising the women by contrasting the special power they have over strong men with some apparently weak points of theirs. And if they represent the greater proportion of the dwellers of Hell, this is also natural because they outnumber men in reality. As for denying the favors by exaggerating the dislikes, it is one of the characteristics of the emotional person.
However, women’s status in general could be classified under three categories:
1. Men and women are equals:
Islam made women close sisters of men, as the Prophet said, ([2]) and it made men and women guardians for each other. The Holy Quraan reads: {The believers, men and women are guardians of each other. They enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil…}([3]) The Quraan reads too: {To men is allotted what they earn and to women what they earn…}([4]) It also reads: {Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily, to them will We give a new life and life}.([5]) In another verse the Quraan reads: {For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, for men and women who engage much in the remembrance of Allah, for them Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.}([6])
Islam puts only half of the blame on Eve for being discharged from Paradise. ([7]) Not only that, but it puts a greater blame on Adam, because he had the final word.([8])


2. Women have greater rights:
In Islam, the mother’s rights are greater than the father’s.([9]) In Saudi Arabia, for example, based on a Prophetic tradition related to after birth confinement,([10]) the government’s civil service grants the new mother a fully paid forty-five days vacation, at least, in addition to her annual vacation. It also grants a widow about one hundred and thirty fully paid days off for mourning, on the basis of the period appointed for mourning, upon the death of a husband in the Holy Quraan ([11]).
In Islam only females are allowed to wear pure silk cloth and golden ornaments.([12])
Not only that, but Islam promised great rewards for bringing up female children. The Prophet said: “Whoever has three daughters or sisters and takes good care of them will surely enter Paradise.”([13]) It made the way a husband treats his wife a criterion of good character. The Prophet said: “The best among you is the best to his wife.”([14])
Men get neither of these privileges. Shall we say that Islam discriminates against men?
3. Greater rights and responsibilities for men:
Islam made man in charge of his family concerning the living expenses and the final word in the family’s affairs. It assigned him twice as much of the female’s share of the inheritance if he is responsible for her living expenses.
Thus, we notice that Islam considers the male and the female as equals in importance, as night is equal to day-time, but not as night is equal to night. Both men and women are indispensable for any happy family. Likewise, a complete day cannot exist without both night and day time.
By way of comparison, if we go back to resolutions of the French revolution, which is a model of all cries of equal rights for women, and to some constitutions of the prominent Western systems, we notice that these models did not grant women many of the rights that Islam granted to women fourteen centuries ago, except during the last century.([15]) In fact, there are still more rights to be legislated and approved for women in the West, after tireless efforts on their, rights which are already part of Islamic law. Among these is to put the full financial burden of the family on the man’s shoulder and granting the female complete control over her wealth.

---

([1] ) al-Bukhari: menstruation.

([2] ) at-Termidhi: purification.

([3] ) Holy Quraan 9: 71.

([4] ) Holy Quraan 3: 32.

([5] ) Holy Quraan 16: 97.

([6] ) Holy Quran 33: 35.

([7] ) Holy Quraan 2: 36.

([8] ) Holy Quraan 20: 121.

([9] ) see for example; Ismaeel, the Relation between Muslims and Non-Muslims p.86

([10] ) at-Termidhi, purity.

([11] ) Holy Quraan 2: 234.

([12] ) Muslim: clothing.

([13] ) at-termithi: doing favor and care.

([14] ) at-Termidhi: qualities.

([15] ) Dawalibi pp. 4-5; The American Constitution did not grant the right to vote (i.e.
to play a role in the nation’s politics) except in 1920.

[فداء الرسول]

What is the Women’s Role in the Political System?

In the light of the previously stated special qualities and privileges of females and males, it seems reasonable to put the highest decision-making responsibility in the hands of men. Muslim scholars who adopt this legal opinion depend on a Prophetic Tradition that says: “No success is expected for a nation that chooses a woman to be in charge of their affairs”.([1])
However, the opponents of this opinion say that this comment of the prophet is not a judgment but rather a prediction. He said it when he was told that the Persians had chosen a woman to be in charge of their affairs.
In general, we should bear in mind that the highest position in Islam used to be held by a person whose authority included the power of deducing laws from the Holy Quraan and the Prophetic Traditions, the judicial and the executive authorities. The question is: what is the case if the authority is limited? In fact, the issue is still under discussion.
It is also worthy to note that we should distinguish between the qualification of the leader of the whole Community of Islam and the leader of a particular Muslim nation or community. The debate regarding a woman assuming a leadership position is mainly related to the former, not the latter.
As far as the consultative authority is concerned, Islam respects women’s intelligent consultation. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who received revelation took the advice of a woman seriously and put it into action, as we can see in the following story. After concluding a pact with the tribe of Quraish, before embracing Islam, the Prophet commanded his Companions to give up their intention to perform umrah (the minor pilgrimage). They were so upset that they hesitated in carrying out his order because the agreement with Quraish included a provision, which says that Muslims should return whoever embraces Islam from Quraish, but not vice versa. When the Companions hesitated in complying with the Prophet’s order he felt sad. Then Um Salamh, one of his wives, advised him to do the rituals of giving up the umrah himself without saying any word. The Prophet took her advice and did what she suggested. All the Companions followed suit instantly.([2])
In general, Islam considers a woman not only qualified to hold responsible positions, but it considers her responsible in many areas. Among these is her family. The Prophet said: “All of you are guardians and responsible for your wards and the things under your care. The ruler is the guardian of his subjects and is responsible for them, and a man is the guardian of his family and responsible for them, and a woman is the guardian of her husband’s house and responsible for it…”([3])
Why is a Woman’s Testament Half of a Man’s in Some Cases?

As a corollary to the above mentioned facts, it was natural for a man to be charged with the responsibility of supervision in his family. And this made him entitled to a greater weight in voting; i.e. the chairman’s vote has a special weight. In addition to that, because of man’s greater freedom to move around the environment and because he is less emotional and physically stronger he became more suitable to attest in some cases, especially in cases which may endanger the witness.
However, there are cases where a female’s testament is equal to or more valuable than a male’s. For example, even in learning the religious teachings, which is of utmost importance, Muslims took some of their knowledge from the wives of the Prophet Muhmmad (pbuh) and studied at the hands of some prominent female teachers. In others, women are more qualified to attest, and their testament is weightier, such as in the purely female affairs. Similarly, in some cases only men are qualified for testament.
As a matter of fact, in some secular or man made laws the female is considered more qualified to take care of the children. In the USA, for example, when the parents are separated usually the children are given to the mother’s custody. Here we do not say that the law discriminates against men or vice versa. The question is: Who is more appropriate for the case we have on hand?
After all, the verse that is quoted to support the case that a woman’s testimony is half of a man’s testimony reads: {O you who believe, if you deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing…and get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are no two men, then a man and two women.}([4])
In other words, the verse may be considered a recommendation for the parties involved, rather than a judgment. What confirms this fact is that the testimonies accepted by judges in court could differ. For example, a judge may reject a testimony of a man who is a relative to the plaintiff and accept the testimony of a non-relative woman.

---

([1] ) Imam Ahmad: Sanad al-Basryeen.

([2] ) Ibn al-Qayyem, Zad vol. 3: 195.

([3] ) al-Bukhari: Jumaah prayer.

([4] ) Holy Quraan 2: 282 and the commentary on the verse.

[فداء الرسول]

Why a Woman Cannot Marry without a Male Guardian?

A woman cannot marry herself without the approval of a guardian in general because in Islam before marriage her father, her brother or her son takes care of her, including the living expenses. If the marriage fails she goes back to her guardian’s care. Furthermore, if the divorced husband fails to pay for his children the burden goes back to her guardian too. However, there are scholars who permit a woman to marry without a male guardian, in certain cases.
Divorce is in the hand of the man because the man is the one who pays the marriage expenses, including gifts for his wife, housing and furnishing. The woman receives a dowry, which ranges from a symbolic gift to thousands of US dollars or Euros. On the top of that the husband should provide her with decent living, including clothing, housing and medical expenses. And if marriage fails, it is he who pays the alimony and is required to pay for his children’s support, which includes their education’s expenses. In addition to that, the more emotional person is the less thoughtful and sensitive to the end results of a wrong decision whether it is the marriage or the divorce.
In the light of all these facts, the husband usually looks at divorce more seriously than the wife, especially if he is aware that divorce is the most hateful act to Allah among the permissible things.([1])
On the other hand, a wife can acquire divorce through the courts, if necessary, and keeps the dowry for her husband’s failure to fulfill his essential duties. She can also buy her way out by paying back her dowry, and/or, sometimes, by paying part of the marriage expenses too.

---

([1] ) Abu Dawood: divorce.

[فداء الرسول]

Why only a Man Can Marry a non-Muslim?

In fact, this is a good example of how much Islam cares for women. It allows a Muslim to marry a woman from among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). Allah says: {Made lawful to you this day all good things. The food of the People of the Book are lawful to you [except when specifically mentioned to be forbidden such as swine] and your food is lawful to them, and the chaste women from the believers and the chaste women from the people who received the scriptures before you, if you pay their dowry and take them in legal wedlock, not illegally or as concubines (girl friends).}([1]) This is perhaps due to two reasons:
1. Judaism and Christianity are the early versions of Islam. Both religions were referred to in the Holy Quraan as Islam or some of its derivations. Accordingly, the Muslim husband partially respects his wife’s religion, which in turn prevents him from humiliating her or forcing her to change her faith.([2]) This same fact made marriage to an atheist or a pagan forbidden for a Muslim, because Islam completely contradicts atheism and paganism. This fact is likely to jeopardize the marriage bond sooner or later.
2. Islam guarantees the wife’s rights as part of the Divine law, which is not subject to change and it is binding on the Muslim husband.
As far as the non-Muslim husband is concerned, he is either not committed to any religion that has obligatory laws, which preserve the wife’s rights, or he follows some man made laws, which could be wrong and subject to change. Indeed, if we look closely at the laws concerning wife’s rights in the secular systems we will find many contradictions and on-going changes. Under all circumstances, there are no guarantee of freedom of belief or worship for the Muslim woman if she marries a non-Muslim person.

---

([1] ) Holy Quraan, 5:5.

([2] ) see for example Holy Quraan, 2: 128, 132; 3: 67 and see al-Qadi who quoted
over 20 verses from the Holy Quraan.

[فداء الرسول]

Why a Man Can Marry up to Four Wives?

The issue of Islam permitting a man to marry up to four wives provided that he is fair to them all was looked at as a negative thing especially from the women’s perspective. But what are the facts? Allah says: {…Marry of your choice two or three or four, but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal with them justly, then only one…}([1]) Not only that, but Allah warns: {You will never be able to show perfect justice between wives, so do not incline too much to one of them…}([2])
However, looking at this issue with an open mind, especially the unmarried females will find it not only a positive law, but a Divine gift! for the following reasons:
1. It is obvious that females out number males in the world. This means if we have only one wife for a man, then there will be no chance for many women to get married.
2. It is a Divine gift because if the chance for a female to get married is one, by allowing men to marry up to four her chance of marriage will be four folds. A female may say: I do not need this opportunity. It is alright for her to say that, but she should remember that no one can force her to take it, and the opportunity is there in case she needs it.
3. Logically, to share a husband with other wives and to have clear-cut moral and legal rights along with the chance for safely satisfying sexual and motherhood inclinations is better than to have nothing of these. It is also better than to express the sexual instinct illegally, not only to be deprived of many advantages a married woman has, but also to be burdened with numerous responsibilities. In addition to that, she will also be more subject to humiliation and exploitation by men.
As far as married women are concerned, it is natural that they may cast a scornful look at this kind of law, at first. But is it really that bad? I assume we agreed that without this permission of polygamy there would be more unmarried women. This means the unmarried women will compete harder to get married, even at the expense of getting a married woman divorced. In fact, many women recognize that the secret, illegal relations are threatening many families that are used to peaceful nests for the married couples. Therefore, allowing men to marry more than one woman will help the married women to keep their husbands and homes better.
Related to this issue also, a woman may ask: “Why women are not allowed to marry more than one man?” The question at first glace seems logical. But to be realistic, let us ask what women would gain from such opportunity? Would it – in the long run- secure her a man who will be next to her when she needs him, especially if she has no money or when she becomes sick? Would it secure her a responsible husband and a responsible father for her children?
In reality, the most probable answer is a big NO. One of the major reasons for this answer is because this kind of opportunity is a good chance for men to relieve themselves from the responsibility of being fathers and to hang this responsibility on the mothers’ shoulder.([3])

---

([1] ) Holy Quraan, 4:3.

([2] ) Holy Quraan, 4:3.

([3] ) See other reasons in the discussion of the penalty of adultery.

[فداء الرسول]

Why Women are not Allowed to Drive in Some Countries?

Departing from the fact that the correct Islamic legal opinion is a result of a perfect interaction between the texts of the Holy Quraan and the authentic Prophetic traditions, on one hand, and the diagnosis of the reality in many cases, we can assure the reader that Islam does not prohibit nor does it encourage women to drive cars. The whole question depends on the environment in which women live.
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example, women tend to apply the maximum limits of veiling (hijab); i.e., to cover her complete face or only reveal her eyes, and the society in Saudi Arabia also prefers that kind of hijab and demands that from the females. In this kind of environment it seems better for a woman not to drive herself, especially if she is alone. This tendency, in fact, goes in harmony with the natural tendency of many people, including men who like to have the luxury of having a driver to take them around, as long as this luxury does not cost them too much.
In other environments, women prefer observing the minimum limit of hijab; i.e., revealing the whole face and wearing the Islamic clothes that do not reveal except the necessary parts of her body. In this environment though some prefer to drive themselves, but still many like to have the luxury to have someone to drive the car for them as long as it does not cost too much.