![20150821_031421[1]](https://asharisassemble.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/20150821_0314211.jpg)
Okay, so I think he’s joking…but not really. In any case, it’s an opinion piece and I think there are some important points.
DECLARATION: I don’t think he likes Jonathan Brown. Or Salafis. Or Salafis who like Jonathan Brown.
No real Jonathan Browns were harmed during the writing of this article. I think.
Recently on this site, ‘The Sultans Jester’ posted an article about most ‘public’ Muslims’ ambiguity and ambivalence towards ISIS and its violence. He posited that this may be due to the fact that they – the Salafi speakers and ISIS – both in fact venerate the same authorities, with ISIS practicing what Salafis in fact only preach. You can see if his argument was convincing here: https://asharisassemble.com/2015/07/05/many-muslim-leaders-denounce-isis-out-of-convenience-not-conviction/
I was expecting a robust discussion on the issue of whether Salafis and ISIS do indeed use the same narrations, but to my surprise, no one was able to respond to serious claims such as that venerable Imams of the Muslims sanctioned non-punishment for murdering non-Muslims.
So it was with even greater alarm that I visited Paul Williams’s excellent site (http://bloggingtheology.net/) and saw this from Jonathan AC Brown and Hina Azem:
http://bloggingtheology.net/2015/08/19/1810/#comment-2192
I would encourage you to read through this long winded piece. It seems he is, er, ‘responding’ to allegations that the type of systematic rape that ISIS has set up are ‘Islamic’. I became alarmed as it made the Jester’s article ring true for me. On the issue of rape, as well as violence, the response was double-speak and underhanded – not to mention wholly inadequate.
A summary of this excerpt:
1) There is no specific punishment for rape in Islam (according to these people), it just comes under ‘Zina’ (= extramarital sex, whether adultery or fornication).
So the punishment for rape in Islam is the same as fornication or adultery.
And this helps our image how…?
2) You can get punished for rape by the death penalty though…but only if you are a non-Muslim raping a Muslim woman.
[LAME EXCUSE TRIGGER WARNING]
It’s because it’s treason. Like apostasy. And all the other reasons we want to kill people for, which also come under treason. BTW, Muslims can’t commit treason by raping someone though ‘cos…ummmmm…uhhhh…
Oh joy! Islamophobes debunked!
3) Raping slave girls is fine according to the ‘classical’ sources (as edited by Salafis like Brown and Co. of course), but you have to pay a fine…to their owner.
This makes Muslim look SOOOOOOOOO good!
4) If you are the person who got raped, rest assured, you won’t be punished for fornication or adultery.
Wow! Such a merciful religion!
OR AN EVEN MORE SIMPLIFIED SUMMARY OF THIS POST:
‘There is no such thing as rape in Islamic law, it comes under fornication and adultery. You know, since there is absolutely no difference between rape and fornication’.
And then Muslims wonder why people hate them. With friends like these…
I don’t know to which allegations, or as he calls it ‘misinformation and ignorance being batted around over the issue of rape in Islamic Law’ he was responding to. I don’t really know what Brown thinks he is doing here – if he is trying to ‘help’ Muslims or just state the positions of previous jurists for academic purposes without commenting on them or giving his own opinion (and thereby providing more ammunition for Islamophobes in all of these scenarios).
If this is how the new generation of ‘white Salafis’ such as Jonathan AC Brown er…’addresses’ misinformation and ‘ignorance’ then God us.
All these people seem to have done is to confirm the worst accusations of Islamophobes and punish us additionally with an exercise in excessive verbiage.
Assuming, despite the total lack of referencing, that these two individuals have the authority or knowledge to narrate the positions of the different madhabs as well as Shi’ites – which would kind of make them Mujtahids (as their besotted fan boys no doubt already believe), since it is very hard and requires a lot of study to elucidate the ‘mutamad’ or ‘authoritative’ position of even one school (and even then it is often not even the strongest position after all anyway. For example, Abu Hanifa has Sunni, Mutazzila and Murji students relating contradictory opinions from him. Same goes for Malik and others). Brown has shown his inability to engage in this depth of unbiased analysis multiple times before – for example on the issue of wife beating and apostasy killing, where he attributed it to Abu Hanifa despite narrations to the contrary from Mutazzili Hanafis. Of course, Brown and people like him don’t like to dwell on people they (and other Salafis) do not like, so…
Brown seems to have confirmed the dumbness with these facile comments on Facebook;
Now, I avoid going on Facebook precisely because it is infested with unrestricted stupidity like the above. But the guy is basically saying, like a politician that there is no ‘rape’ in Islam…but slave girls don’t have a choice.
I don’t know if I am weird or something but I thought sex without a choice = rape. But of course, that is why he is playing politics – he has an idiosyncratic definition of rape. Or more likely, like others lately, he just wants to keep his Salafi/Deobandi etc fan base happy. Never mind the abhorrence or disgust felt by non-Muslims or others.
The funny thing is Brown and Co are avoiding what ISIS and their ‘scholars’ (basically Haddad types not restricted by UK laws) actually use to justify their rape antics theologically:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?_r=0
Basically, this is precisely their idea, found in many scholars’ fatwas (and from the hadith literature which takes the Prophet himself attempting a rape as ‘canonical’ – in ‘Sahih al Bukhari’ no less), that:
1) You take over a place, the soldiers wives and or perhaps even the civilian girls are now automatically ‘divorced’ and can be made into slaves.
2) Your slaves are like your wives (except they aren’t really as they had no choice. Not that Salafis give free women a choice either)
3) There is no such thing as marital rape
4) Therefore you ‘can’t’ rape your slave as she is your property
5) ENJOY!
Basically, ISIS can prove all of this from hadith and the opinions of the same scholars that Salafis and many others hold dear (again, see Jester’s previous articles for an in depth analysis of this in the case of violence).
Have you noticed how none of Muslims’ interlocutors have addressed what ISIS have actually said and done and are instead resorting to a series of fudges to try and doublespeak their way out of it? Like, how does Brown’s contribution help at all? He’s basically admitting that the classical ‘authorities’ allowed you to rape your slaves. At least he should say ‘but Muslims think these guys messed up, don’t worry’. But his Facebook comments appear to be compound dumbness.
Muslim speakers often say you are not allowed to hit a slave and thus you wouldn’t rape her (standard Salafi argument to prove that slaves are not to be raped). They bring some narrations to show that this is a case, basically hadith which show that people who hit their slaves were compelled to set them free. But this is contradicted by the fact that these same people say that say you can beat your wife according to the Quran [1] and that, according to Brown, ‘slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them’.
Isn’t this just confusing, politician style jabberwocky gobbledegook double talk crap-ism?
Also, since they are spamming us with the opinions of ‘classical jurists’, from which classical jurist did they get this opinion that hitting precludes forced sex/rape of slaves? Or did they just make it up?
It’s also funny how the ‘jurists’ and hadiths talk about not hitting your slave but this is extended to rape – well, it’s just like the thing about fornication and adultery including rape!
You see, rape is such a minor thing that there is no need to address it specifically! I guess it is the same with murder and mutilation – there’s just no need to address it as it comes under ‘hitting’! I wonder what else comes under ‘hitting’ if rape does. War? Manslaughter? Drone strikes? Nuclear Holocaust? Why, who knew that Sharia was so simple – everything comes under ‘hitting’!
But then, strangely, when it came to non-Muslims, there WAS, all of a sudden, a death penalty for rape…curious!
This is why such ‘defences’ by people like Brown are frankly a bit rubbish and make no sense at all.
I mean come on, their way of making Islam ‘look good’ is to say that you can take women as slaves and rape them, but don’t leave a mark or it will come under hitting. And then you might get told off. Or get a small fine. Or nothing.
I get what they are trying to do. But it is dumb. And does not help at all. What would be more useful is if Brown used his history skills to say that ‘well, you know the Quran never says the majority is right, quite the opposite. Even if most or all Muslims scholars said this, it does not mean that Muslims or the Quran agree with this anymore than a Christian or a Hindu today would be beholden to the politicised and contextual fatwas of their scholars from the past which show a similar degree of indifference to coercive sex and slavery. Here’s my actual opinion…’ (something, which if you have read his latest book, he never actually gives, except in a rather underhand way).
It would be better to quote something like this, which actually makes it clear that you can’t have sex with slaves [as does the Quran according to many commentators – see later]:
”If the man has had intercourse with the female slave forcibly then the slave is free…but if the slave had agreed to the act then she belongs to him’
Related By Salamah Ibn Muhabbaq.
[Of course, muhaditheen think this is ‘weak’. Big surprise]
Now I know it has become fashionable for Muslims to be ‘agnostic’ about what is going on with ISIS due to the alleged bias of the ‘Western Media’ (and the not so Western media like RT. And CCTV. And Press TV…so Muslims would have to actually hold the same ‘agnostic’ stance about every news issue including Gaza until they had their own ‘proper’ news outlets i.e never) apart from the fact that ISIS is a Western/Saudi/Israeli induced hydra, ISIS are admitting to all of the stuff that people are saying about them: they are all over Facebook, Instagram and Youtube proudly saying exactly what the press says about them. It’s fine to be agnostic about it if they were not but they are publishing fatwas and admitting to rape as recreation on their official page! Anyone who wants to get put on a watch-list can follow the links and see for themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?_r=0
It’s also rampantly hypocritical for Muslims to spam non-Muslims about issues such as Palestine using sources such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty…but when these same sources lay the smack down on ISIS or Saudi, Muslims are like ‘you can’t trust the Western media!’.
Most Muslims are SELECTIVELY AGNOSTIC.
It also makes me laugh that the same groups of Muslims (Salafis and Co.) who insist that you can take ahad or single chain testimony into creed and belief, to the extent that they accept the single chain reports which say the Prophet tried to kill himself, was driven out of his mind by magic and even tried to rape people, now turn around and say you can’t accept what is basically mass testimony about what ISIS are doing. And on top of that, ISIS said themselves ‘yes, we are doing it!’
Total nonsense. Salafis and others selectively ostracise, marginalise and even anathematise people for rejecting ahad reports written down hundreds of years after the Prophet like those that accuse him of compromising on monotheism (as per the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident = nonsense)…and then refuse to accept contemporary testimony that is from multiple chains and people and sources that ISIS are mentalists [in his defence, I don’t think Brown accepts the Satanic Verses incident because he found some weakness in its chain…unlike other Muhaditheen].
On another note, although this is not directly related, don’t you think that it is TOTALLY MENTAL that the same group of people who argue that ‘free mixing’ and a woman showing her face to men is HARAAM (forbidden) think it is fine to RAPE RANDOM WOMEN YOU JUST MET and not only look at them but actually have sex with them (but its actually rape).
Could it be that these people studied Fiqh (jurisprudence or legal theory) while HIGH ON CRACK?
What the…?!
Yes boys, according to some Salafis, you can rape girls. But not look at them. Because rape isn’t really rape. But looking REALLY is looking!
The proof of the banality of Browns’ response and its unhelpfulness is obvious:
Let’s say that all Islamic scholars, ever from the most famous to your local imam said that raping slaves was fine and was not in fact rape. So there was a super ijma on it [2].
Would you agree with it?
No.
*(unless you are mental).
So in the end, you decided whether it made (moral) sense to YOU or not – exactly as the Quran told you to. You are willing to ignore the opinions of every single scholar on this matter.
You know the funny thing? Even if (God forbid) the Quran itself told you rape was fine you still wouldn’t follow it and would decide that Islam was not the religion for you. You would probably then proceed to kill the crap out of those who did follow such a book before they raped you or your family.
It’s precisely because the Quran does NOT say dumb stuff like that that diverse people have accepted and followed Islam for as long and as widely as they have. The Quran tells you to contemplate and think and reason over matters of faith and morality and to resist oppression, blind following and argument from authority.
When the angels questioned God about how come he was putting something on Earth which would result bloodshed (and the angels were right, mankind did indeed shed blood, even in Gods’ name), he didn’t give them a narration or a quote or a fatwa or say ‘shut up, I’m God, how dare you test me?!’
Instead he said okay, let’s talk about this, I’ll show you – I’ll show you a rational proof that this creature is better than you. Let’s check him out. QED if you will [3].
The logical consequence of demanding a hadith or a fatwa to tell you everything that is right or wrong is that Muslims are worse than non-Muslims, since they managed to work out that stuff like rape is wrong without a narration.
So Islam doesn’t work like that. Not real Islam anyway.
Islam is not really for people who refuse to use their brain. The Quran is quite explicit about that. If anyone bothered to read it instead of crap posts from Brown etc.
Also, don’t you think that the Quran seems to assume that people are not TOTAL AMORAL PLONKERS and have a brain and some moral sense? Since the Quran tries to appeal to peoples’ existing morality and intellect, perhaps the fact that some Muslims need a narration or a fatwas to tell them that rape is wrong or that you don’t need four witnesses for rape tells us more about these people than Islam?
TRANSLATION:
If you need someone to give you a narration or a fatwa explaining that raping people is wrong then providing this will probably not help you as you are WRONG IN THE HEAD and should probably be sent to PRISON (which you would presumably enjoy due to all of the rape that goes on there).
What’s also funny is that if non-Muslims started practising this fatwa in all the Muslim countries they are messing up i.e saying that the women were deprived of sexual rights as they are slaves and started having sex with everyone’s mum, sister, wife and neighbour by force, do you think Brown or Muslims would be saying; ‘Hmm, curious, this reminds me of the fatwa of the classical scholars that says this is fine…’.
Poppycock!
Muslims subjected to such vile treatment by non-Muslims would be the first to say that this was a grave injustice. They sure as hell would not be posting dumb stuff about how slave women don’t have agency over their vagina and other hogwash like that [4].
What’s more useful is these guys saying that ‘what your right hand posses’ doesn’t even refer to slaves – at least in the ayats about conjugal relations. Here is Asad, who is also quite Salafi, but obviously not as mental as Brown:
4:24
[SALAFI TRANSLATION: ‘And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess’]
And [forbidden to you are] all married women other than those whom you rightfully possess [through wedlock]
The term muhsanah signifies literally “a woman who is fortified [against unchastity]”, and carries three senses: (1) “a married woman”, (2) “a chaste woman”, and (3) “a free woman”. According to almost all the authorities, al-muhsanat denotes in the above context “married women”. As for the expression ma malakat aymanukum (“those whom your right hands possess”, i.e., “those whom you rightfully possess”), it is often taken to mean female slaves captured
in a war in God’s cause (see in this connection 8:67, and the corresponding note). The commentators who choose this meaning hold that such slave-girls can be taken in marriage irrespective of whether they have husbands in the country of their origin or not.
However, quite apart from the fundamental differences of opinion, even among the Companions of the Prophet, regarding the legality of such a marriage, some of the most outstanding commentators hold the view that ma malakat aymanukum denotes here “women whom you rightfully possess through wedlock”; thus Razi in his commentary on this verse, and Tabari in one of his alternative explanations (going back to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, and others). Razi, in particular, points out that the reference to “all married women” (al-muhsanat min an-nisa’), coming as it does after the enumeration of prohibited degrees of relationship, is meant to stress the prohibition of sexual relations with any woman other than one’s lawful wife.
23:1
[I won’t give you the Salafi or other translation this time. Because you see what they are doing right?]
TRULY, to a happy state shall attain the believers: (23:2) those who humble themselves in their prayer, (23:3) and who turn away from all that is frivolous, (23:4) and who are intent on inner purity; (23:5) and who are mindful of their chastity, (23:6) [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses – that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]
Lit., “or those whom their right hands possess” (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Most of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw (“or”) denotes a permissible alternative. This conventional interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with one’s female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption which is contradicted by the Qur’an itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and 24:32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur’an applies the term “believers” to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj (“spouses”), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of “their female slaves”; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here, it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4:24 – namely, “those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock” (see note 26 on 4:24) – with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who “rightfully possess” one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative (“or”) but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase “in other words” or “that is”, thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning,….. save with their spouses – that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock)..”, etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25:62 – “for him who has the will to take thought – that is [lit., “or”], has the will to be grateful”.)
Problem solved…
Oh wait, I forgot, Razi and Tabari are not Imams of the Salafis/Muhaditheen and they tried to kill/actually killed them both (as well as Asad BTW, who lived out his later years in unwilling ‘exile’ in Spain). So I guess Brown ‘forgot’ about them, the same way he ‘forgot’ about Zamakhshiri and Qushayris’ opinion on wife beating in the Quran (Imam Qushayri, surprise, surprise, is another guy the Muhaditheen/Salafis tried to kill…)
And while I am on the subject, as far as I am concerned, the actions of ISIS do not come under rape law and they most certainly don’t come under fornication or adultery. These guys are not dirty old men hiding in parks but are systematically and ‘scientifically’ raping captives. Rather this kind of behaviour comes under ‘fasad fil ard’ or ‘spreading corruption in the land’ [5].
It is one of only two things that the Quran specifies the death penalty for – the other is a subset of this one, which is murder. So you could say it is the only thing the Quran specifies the death penalty for. (An interesting aside here is that according to people other than Salafi brain-cases, the death penalty has to have a Quranic or Muttawatir hadith proof = mass transmitted like the Quran, of which there are none agreed upon pertaining to the death penalty anyway. It cannot be applied based on Ahad (‘single chain’) Hadith, Mashoor (multiple or famous) Hadith, Ijma (consensus), Qiyaas (analogy) etc. People who actually study the diversity of Islamic law instead of navel gazing their favourite (Salafi) scholars would know that).
Funny how Salafists, who demand the death penalty for apostasy, adultery and a whole heap of other things such as homosexuality (and anathematise anyone who disagrees), NONE of which are mentioned in the Quran AT ALL, then curiously forget to mandate the death penalty for the one thing for which it is mentioned in the Quran, namely fasad.
So the opinion of ‘classical scholars’ on rape is hardly pertinent to the actions of ISIS since rape fans would already receive the death penalty for spreading fasad through coercive sex and the other dumb stuff they do.
Of course, stupid people will nevertheless choose their (Salafi) sources and claim that rape on an industrial scale as practised by ISIS doesn’t come under ‘Fasad’, but we know otherwise don’t we?
Or do you still need a narration to tell you?
I get that Muslims are groping in the dark and desperate. They feel under siege, they are disempowered and with their scholarly institutions largely destroyed in the post-colonial period, they need someone who they think can help them. So they fall for people like Brown. It’s understandable.
But my question: ask yourself honestly – did his post really help? Or would it have been better if he answered the questions and challenges of the Islamophobes properly instead of playing to the gallery and spamming you with scholars?
**** Join us on next week’s instalment of ‘Let’s Annoy Jonathan Brown and His Cult-ish Fans’ where we will send him and his Salafi fan club into conniptions by denying apostasy killing and stoning of adulterers. But before they can say ‘modernists’, we will show it to them from the classical sources – but the ones they don’t like and don’t want you to know about!
With special guest stars Hanafis, Mutazila (Booooooooo! Hisssssssssss! Takfiiiiiiirrrrr!) and the pride of London, Benedict Cumerbatch – for the ladies! Swoon!
Yes boys and girls! Live in Technicolour! ****
[1] It doesn’t say that – refer to Laleh Bakhtiar or Khaled Abou El Fadl (in his ‘Reasoning With God’) in today’s translations or Zamakhshiri or Imam Qushayri in the more classical period. Or Hisham Kabbani (=Satan according to Salafis) and ‘Domestic Violence in Islam’
[2] BTW, that’s kind-of what he is saying you know. But God is adamant in the Quran that the majority is usually wrong – not the non-Muslim majority but the majority period.
[3] Quran 2:30 onwards. Not the Salafi translation please.
[4] BTW, Brown also made some above his pay grade comments about slavery and again tries to fudge it in the Facebook posts above. I don’t have time to get into slavery here but just because the Quran talks about something does not make it a moral good or an article of faith – for example, the Quran talks about magic but doesn’t say whether it actually exists or not. So he is saying that the Quran allows slavery. All I can see is that the Quran mentions slavery. Where is it allowed though or approved so that we can’t say it is bad as Brown is claiming? And is everything ‘allowed’ a good thing? Even some harmful things are allowed: the Quran says alcohol is harmful and do not be intoxicated – but it stops short of banning it, at least according to Abu Hanifas’ reading. Being a stingy bastard is ‘allowed’ as long as you pay the minimum charity. Maybe slavery is allowed, but do you trust these inconsistent and waffler politico guys to tell you the truth?
[5] The Ottomans BTW would sometimes castrate rapists and in other instances execute them – it would depend on the harm caused by the rapist. For example, if you steal there is the possibility of losing one of your hands. But if you steal like bandits, causing havoc and fear amongst the people, then not only the hand but a foot can be amputated in addition. And this is from Quran. Now whether we agree with the Ottoman reasoning or not, it is more helpful than to spam narrations. But that is all historians and Muhaditheen types (Brown) know how to do. They have no ability to apply usool (epistemic principles) or reason out whether legal judgements are consistent. This kind of ‘dumb robot’ behaviours results in the sort of posts Brown is making.
Brown did this before when he spoke about apostasy killing and attributed it to Abu Hanifa. But not understanding usool, he failed to see that Abu Hanifa’s own principles conflicted with his purported judgement. Not only did he fail to highlight this but he also failed to mention that Abu Hanifa said that if my judgements clash with juristic principles (his own), then don’t follow them. Slaves to narrations, as historians and Muhaditheen are wont to be, are unable to fathom this though. There was also the interesting point that Abu Hanifas’ Mutazilite students narrate a different opinion from him on apostasy killing. But Brown would never throw this into the mix and like all from his camp he avoids certain heretical sects (mutazilites) but not others (kharijites, many of whom are narrators of Bukhari and other hadith collections).
Asharis: Assemble 
Reblogged this on Blogging Theology.
Is Razi’s point legal or just linguistic? Does he actually think that sex with female slaves is forbidden, or does he just think it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an?
I think the point really is more about rape than about sex with female slaves. Many of the Yazidis are being forcefully converted, married and then raped. You could still believe that sex with female slaves is legitimate while also believing that rape is reprehensible. This seems to have been the attitude of the Barbary pirates.
”If the man has had intercourse with the female slave forcibly then the slave is free…but if the slave had agreed to the act then she belongs to him’
Related By Salamah Ibn Muhabbaq.
[Of course, muhaditheen think this is ‘weak’. Big surprise]
Awesome find of this hadith. Thanks much.
This hadith rings true to me….I mean what would be the motivation to make such a hadith up? I think the chances that such a sensible hadith is made up is unlikely.
Furthermore, if any muhadithoon in the past commented on this hadith, then it should be investigated if that muhadithoon (of if his male family members) had female slaves since I assume slaves were common in that time period.
And if he (or his family members or close associates) had female slaves, then that is a conflict of interest for him to make any judgement on it.
I think the hadith listed above was accidentally not quoted completely accurately.
This is what I found…is there different versions of this hadith?
Sunan an-Nasa’i » The Book of Marriage
It was narrated that Salamah bin Al-Muhabbaq said:
“The Prophet passed judgment concerning a man who had intercourse with his wife’s slave woman: ‘If he forced her, then she is free, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement; if she obeyed him in that, then she belongs to him, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement.'”
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ قَبِيصَةَ بْنِ حُرَيْثٍ، عَنْ سَلَمَةَ بْنِ الْمُحَبَّقِ، قَالَ قَضَى النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي رَجُلٍ وَطِئَ جَارِيَةَ امْرَأَتِهِ “ إِنْ كَانَ اسْتَكْرَهَهَا فَهِيَ حُرَّةٌ وَعَلَيْهِ لِسَيِّدَتِهَا مِثْلُهَا وَإِنْ كَانَتْ طَاوَعَتْهُ فَهِيَ لَهُ وَعَلَيْهِ لِسَيِّدَتِهَا مِثْلُهَا ” .
Sunan an-Nasa’i » The Book of Marriage
It was narrated from Salamah bin Al-Muhabbaq that a man had intercourse with a slave woman belonging to his wife, and was brought to the Messenger of Allah. He said:
“If he forced her, then she is free at his expense and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as a replacement. If she obeyed him in that, then she belongs to her mistress, and he has to give her mistress a similar slave as well.”
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ بَزِيعٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ سَلَمَةَ بْنِ الْمُحَبَّقِ، أَنَّ رَجُلاً، غَشِيَ جَارِيَةً لاِمْرَأَتِهِ فَرُفِعَ ذَلِكَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ “ إِنْ كَانَ اسْتَكْرَهَهَا فَهِيَ حُرَّةٌ مِنْ مَالِهِ وَعَلَيْهِ الشَّرْوَى لِسَيِّدَتِهَا وَإِنْ كَانَتْ طَاوَعَتْهُ فَهِيَ لِسَيِّدَتِهَا وَمِثْلُهَا مِنْ مَالِهِ ” .
Excellent work brother, I wanted to post this but you beat me to it! Well done!
This might seem way off topic but this site seems a lot more honest so I thought I’d ask. Most Muslims I know won’t date out of fear of pre-marital sex, which they view as forbidden or sinful, personally I’d agree when it comes to things like casual sex, prostitution or one night stands, but what about sex in a committed extra-marital relationship, is consensual sex in a loving and committed relationship sinful without marriage?
Thanks for the compliment! I do feel that an honest person can come to the truth much more quickly and easily than a knowledgeable one. But honest people are exceedingly rare as most people tell the truth about OTHERS and not themselves – as the Quran tells them to do.
It is an excellent question. So first of all, on the issue of sins in general, this is another thing that the Salafis like to grossly exaggerate: according to most of the scholars who are authoritative in theology and fiqh, esp. Al Ghazzali, Razi and the Hanafi’s, major sins are not that many – seven or eight. Fornication, adultery and even homosexuality are not in them.
That will shock most Muslims but if they stop and think, it is pretty dumb to rate fornication and murder both as ‘major sins’. So is fornication as bad as killing a baby? So the current Muslim theory of sins needs work. Some scholars have three grades, minor, major and faisha (intermediate) and they put all of the sex stuff in the middle category. Another group says that all this stuff, including fornication are minor sins (that doesn’t mean you should do it but the ranking has to make sense and you can’t compare shagging to politicians lying about the Iraq war or murder) and of course there are those scholars who claim Ibn Abbas said there are 500 major sins who take all of these and many more into major sins, but that position is untenable and leads to the bigger problem of how you would differentiate between murder and sexual misconduct (in fact, non -Hanafis already have this problem where the punishment for adultery is much worse than the punishment for murder – stoning without leniency vs beheading with chance of leniency. More on this in a future article).
The issue come down to how are major sins established: like the death penalty or anything ‘serious’, Mutazzila and Hanafis will always say that the proof has to be huge i.e Quranic: others will say a simple single chain narration or ahad hadith can suffice to establish what is a major sin. This leaves the bigger problem of if the Quran is not going to tell you what are the major sins and death penalties then what good is it? Most people today follow the position of the Shafis/Salafis/Hanbalis, but again, it is not the earliest nor coherent as can be seen very easily.
You made an excellent point about dating: they don’t date because they think it is haraam and one of the justifications used to say that is that fornication might happen. Again, they apply this ‘principle’ in a nonsense way as if what might happen is a reason to make things haraam then basically everything should be haraam (the puritan position in all religions). As you can see, Muslims are having serious problems finding mates and even fifteen year old girls are going to ISIS to find husbands. The Muslims current aversion to ‘free mixing’ has led to a bigger problems.
Again, there is no reason why you have to have sex or get to a ‘base’ when you go out with a person. You can just go to a park or something or just get to know each other conversationally as opposed to vaginaly. People used to go out for months or years without having physical contact. So what? Why does it have to be like todays MTV/Spring Breakers culture? It is about the legal theories and puritanism that is present within Muslims, which is always today influenced and filtered by reactionary post-colonial groups and petro-Islam.
But you are not likely to convince people who are insisting on Niqaab as compulsory that there is such a thing as ‘halal dating’. So people will continue to suffer from loneliness and long term virginity plus/minus perversions.
I think I see what you are saying: why do you have to have sex with people you are married to, what about long term relationships? Well, this is a bit anecdotal, but before we get to the Islamic side, in the UK, I have friends who are having sex and living with someone for ten years, taking out a mortgage and having kids with someone but are still not married to them. So I would posit that they are doing EXACTLY the same stuff that married people including exclusivity AND are often given the same legal leeway (eg: ‘common law’ wives). So if you ask me, what’s the difference, basically a name, ‘marriage’. So it seems that these people haven an ideological problem with the name or institution but they are emulating that institution ‘infomally’, (albeit in all studies I have seen, with an even higher rate of relationship failure than married people, which is already very high now). My purely personal feeling is, and I say this to my friends, is that this is irritating: emulating marriage in all but name. It’s like me having sex with men and saying I’m not gay, I’m polysexual. But it’s up to them. Islamicaly, it would probably be recognised (for non-Muslims) as these people are in their own type of ‘marriage’ and marriages vary a lot between cultures.
As for why sex within marriage, it is useful to look at an analogy. Everything has a definition or parameters, even love. And especially a contract, which is what marriage is in Islam. The reason is that if you are afforded certain privileges and recognition by the state then you have to prove that you deserve these (incidentally, denial of these privileges to gay couples was an argument featuring prominently in their bid for marriage equality, so it is assumed that these privileges exist, tax breaks or whatever). So I can’t just say ‘ill sleep with other people, it’s still, the same’ or marriage has no definition at all. But that is what it is like now in the West: what can’t You do in a marriage? Decriminalisation of adultery makes marriage aimless as even when you take a part time job, you have a contract and get penalised or sacked if you violate it. But there is no punishment at all (I don’t believe in stoning) for adultery and it won’t even help you if your partner did it in divorce settlements nowadays. So we think it is dumb to make marriage the only ‘contract’ which is totally undefined and like this.
So our thesis is that sex is a powerful factor in society and we can’t have jealous lovers kicking off all the time. Sex should take place with someone you love as opposed to ad hoc due to the intimacy and chance of diseases and pregnancy plus all the other stuff and if you love them you should acknowledge that love and make it public, especially if you want the protection and privilege of the state. If you are Muslim, the way of doing that is by marrying someone and that’s a contract and if you break it, it isn’t just between you two but like any other legally binding agreement, there can be financial and other penalties. For non-Muslims, they might have their own relationship structures and ways of showing love or not showing it and that is fine and is acknowledged, within reason.
But in nearly every other sphere of life, from education to being in a move, there are ‘standard contracts’ and we have the same for sex and marriage. People are free to have their own or no version of the contract but I think it is a bit weird how in the West the most trivial of ‘contracts’ is the family and marriage bond, with the least legal consequences for violating it, whereas if you acted like that in any other sphere like a job or where money was involved, the stuff would hit the fan in Capitalist society. Decriminalising adultery in our context is like decriminalising fraud.
That was a bit meandering but I hope it helps. In summary: the main message of Islam is not sexual hygiene, though you wouldn’t know that listening to how Muslims go on about illicit sex more than bigger issues like injustice and loads of others. We don’t encourage casual sex and thus say that sex should be with someone you would be willing to formally acknowledge your attachment to them and enjoy the social and legal recognition of that. One way of doing that and the way agreed for Muslims is marriage. So it could be said that one of the tools that Islam uses to limit casual sex and promiscuity (which are considered and in Islam) is marriage and the challenge of ‘well, if you REALLY like this person, why don’t you hold off a bit and marry them’. And ‘If you don’t want to marry this person, why have sex with them and do these intimate things with someone who you don’t really rate that much?’ That’s basically how people used to think in the West too for a long time until the sexual revolution in the 60’s.
It’s one theory of how to behave and conduct one’s personal life, there are others and people can see the merits and demerits for themselves or through observation. Today, most people think virginity is repulsive and promiscuity and bisexuality (but only for girls) is a heroic act. A few years ago, when I was a kid, they were insisting on virginity and giving crap to homosexuals. My suspicion is that these two groups are in fact the same people, i.e those who follow social fashions instead of thinking what works or what works for them. People can argue about this stuff and try out new systems and see if they hold water, like (only some) gays are doing now. In fact, now marriage is being ditched wholesale and it takes place less and later in the West. We can see if this works better (I would say it isn’t). For Muslims, marriage has a divine indication of greater success overall than say other set ups.
Also, remember, assuming low levels of medical care and in less developed societies with unreliable contraception (like the past and possible future), promiscuity was not only not heroic but dangerous. also, poor people have more sex but with less people. They have other things to do than chasing after sex for most of their free time, if they have any. Modern civilization has it easy and in this sense, promiscuity is a bit of a ‘first world problem’: don’t worry about having a husband or wife who is invested in you or kids, the state will look after you when you are old etc. It all assumes, wealth, medical care, pension, welfare states etc. Most of the world does not have that. And won’t any time soon. Poor people do not have the latitude to marry late and undermine traditional family structures the way people here do.
Well what I really wanted to ask is how are young Muslims supposed to licitly deal with natural sexual urges when marriage is an increasingly distant prospect for many of them, and it’s drilled into their head that any sort of sexual act, mastrubation, even looking at women too much, is an unforgivable ultimate sin that will send them to an eternal barbecue? I’ve noticed many Muslims will resort to pornography anyway, which has become endemic in many Muslim communities, a cause for concern.
Hbzarri
The sad thing is that one of the movements you mentioned, the quran-only movement, is a pure-islam reaction to the dumb methodology of salafism/wahabbism, which is set up to be “traditional islam.” The taking all sahih hadith methodology is very fishy and fails to rationalize in the minds of many Muslims, especially when they’re used to supplant the Quran and even taken to levels of scripture. I should know, I used to be Quran-only. It was only by chance that I’d come across non Wahabbi sources and explanations of hadith and its role in belief that hadith finally made intellectual sense.
Good point.
‘By chance’ is right. What chance do ordinary Muslim youth have now though?
All of the translations are problematic. I don’t know about Yusuf Ali in detail though but there are big issues with translations in general.
It is as you say, everyone is influenced by Salafism, including good guys like Asad and Muhammad Al Ghazzali, and others who have huge knowledge (like Al Ghazzali) the latter of whom one could say is ‘Salafi’ but as we can see, he was anathematised by the movement for being honest.
So not all Salafis are ‘bad’ but to be honest, the ‘good’ ones like Asad and Al Ghazzali were not really Salafis how we mean them and are hated by the ‘real’ Salafis.
Neither of them are Mujassims though (as far as I know). That’s my acid test for Salafis. And why I always look first of all at what scholars say about Ibn Taymiyya, since he is the granddaddy of the Mujassims. The great-granddaddies are usually the muhaditheen unfortunately.
“So first of all, on the issue of sins in general, this is another thing that the Salafis like to grossly exaggerate: according to most of the scholars who are authoritative in theology and fiqh, esp. Al Ghazzali, Razi and the Hanafi’s, major sins are not that many – seven or eight. Fornication, adultery and even homosexuality are not in them.”
This is new info for me. I never heard this before. What are these major sins?
”The reason I mention this is that Salafis use this to confuse people and argue that A’shari and even Imam Ahmad are themselves mujassim, which is frankly not inconceivable.”
what? Imam Ashari and Imam Ahmad are mujassim? ”not inconceivable”? maybe you’ve heard the alleged book by Imam Ashari written toward the end of his life, Al Ibanah, where he is said to become mujassim. but this book is fabrication by his enemies, and salafis really love to use it as ”proof” that Imam Ashari turned mujassim. Ibn Bugz , i mean Ibn Baz even wrote commentary in one of its print! but that’s impossible for imam of ahlus sunnah wal jamaah to turn heretic mujassim.
as for imam Ahmad, there was stories about him when he listened to a qari reciting verse Allah holds the earth in His hand in qiyamah, this qari made a hand gesture trying to ilustrate that. imam Ahmad was angry he said may Allah cut your hand, something like that.
”BTW, the early Maturidis regarded the A’sharis as more heretical than Mutazzila. So they changed a lot in response to the students of Al Ashari. Or rather, the alleged students of Al Ashari.”
why? in what aspects the early Ash’aris more heretical than Mu’tazila?
afaik Ash’aris and Maturidis only have some minor differences between them?
As I mentioned to the other guy, with all due respect, we need to stop this crap where we pretend that our favourite Imams are somehow like those 10 sahabah promised Paradise. If that’s what you want to believe, then Shi’ism is the logical choice. There is nothing to stop anyone, including the senior Imams from committing Kufr: God did not promise to protect any of them from it and nor us. All of the great scholars of Islam are the same as you and me: they have to fear Hell and they and we are all in danger of it. This is the promise of God and Ashari and Ahmad are not exempt from it.
Regarding the specific points you made, as far as I know, everyone regards ‘Al Ibana’ to be authentic. If you know otherwise, that’s fine. But if it is just something your teacher told you then I would warn you that a lot of people act like no one was ever a mujassim and this is nonsense. There are many who like to pretend that Ibn Taymiyyah was not even Mujassim. So you need to protect yourself by realising that many of the alleged ‘senior Imams’ of Muslims were indeed Mujassims, such as Ibn Kathir and many if not most of the Muhaditheen.
As for Imam Ahmad, Salafis and Orientalists have insisted for a while that he is Mujassim and I have not seen an especially good refutation of this apart from a kind of ‘He can’t have been mujassim because he is Imam Ahmad’, which of course is a stupid argument. Most of what we have narrated from Imam Ahmad is through his son Abdullah, and he is for sure a Mujassim and everyone agrees on this much as far as I can tell. I am not convinced nor do I care either way because I find Imam Ahmad to be inconsequential to my faith, but those who respect him highly today and in the past are often Mujassims (i.e todays Wahhabis).
Of course, we do not want to accuse anyone of anything so we have to be careful or agnostic about this. But at the same time, saying that certain people are absolutely not Mujassim or heretics or whatever is not being careful, it is in fact making a positive statement and then people will start asking for proof. So many of my knowledgeable teachers played the same game out of good intentions – giving certain scholars the benefit of the doubt or being very Sufi about it. But then the students got doubts when they saw the Mujasiim type quotes from the scholars the teachers were trying to protect.
The reason I have to mention this to you is that Orientalists produce a lot of evidence that Ahmad was an anthropomorphist. They then use this and say that since Ahmad is ‘authentic’ according to Muslims thus Muslims are Mujassims and Wahhabis are the real Muslims. Don’t take my word for it, read stuff like Wesley Williams’ paper ‘ASPECTS OF THE CREED OF IMAM AHMAD IBN HANBAL: A STUDY OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM IN EARLY ISLAMIC DISCOURSE’
‘’Second, ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad, the person most responsible for the publication of Ibn Hanbal’s dogmatic works, quotes from his father a different exegesis of this hadith, which is startling in its frank anthropomorphist suggestions: My father reported to me … from ‘Abd ai-Rahman ibn al-‘A’ish from some of the companions of the Prophet: “He came out to them one morning while in a joyous mood and [with] a radiant face. We said [to him]: ‘Oh Messenger of God, here you are in a joyous mood, with a glowing face!’ -‘How could I not be’ he answered. ‘My Lord came to me last night under the most beautiful form, and He said [to me]: “‘O Muhammad!’ … ” And my father [Ibn Hanbal] reported to us, ‘Abd al-Razzaq from Ma’mar from Qatada [from the Prophet), “Allah created Adam according to His form.” My father reported to us, ‘Abd al-Razzaq from Ma’mar from Qatada, ‘in the best stature (ff absan taqwrm)’ meaning ‘in the most beautiful form’.” Ibrahim ibn al-Hajjaj reported to us, Hammad (ibn Salama) reported to us … that the Prophet said, “Allah is beautiful Uamrl) and He loves beauty.’
The implication of this collection of traditions is unmistakable. The “most beautiful form” is first identified with that form of God according to which Adam was created. This identification is further supported by the imam’s interpretation of sura 95:4: “Surely We created man in the best stature (ft al;zsan taqwfm).” Ibn Hanbal accepts the tafsir or exegesis of Qatada identifying man’s “best stature” with God’s “most beautiful form…This interpretation is confirmed by the imam’s treatment of a similarly uninhibited narration on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas. Hammad ibn Salama reported from Qatada, from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas, that the Prophet said, “I saw my Lord in the form of a young man, beardless (amrad) with short curly hair Ua’d) and clothed in a green garment.” Ibn Hanbal not only acknowledged the soundness of this report; he made its belief obligatory. In his ‘Aqrda III, the imam declares one of the fundamental principles of the sunna (u!jal al-sunna) to be[tJo have faith in the Ru’ya (Beatific Vision) on the Day of Judgement as has been reported from the Prophet in the authentic hadith. And that the Prophet saw his Lord, since this has been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah and is correct and authentic. It has been reported by Qatada from ‘Ikrima from Ibn ‘Abbas. He says again in his ‘Aqida V: In one of the sound hadiths about the Messenger of God, it is said; ‘The Prophet has seen his Lord.’ This is transmitted from the Messenger of God. Qatada reported it from ‘Ikrima from Ibn ‘Abbas…. Belief in that and counting it true is obligatory.’’
So if people can reply back to these types of things, then fine. But if they cannot, then I am not going to suggest that we abandon the whole of Islam and become Mujassims or whatever just to protect the reputation of Ahmad or anyone else, who, just like us, is at risk of Hellfire. I did not want to bring this up but since Mujassim type narrations by people like Ahmad Ibn Hanbal are a staple in Salafi and Orientalist propaganda (so Williams in his paper goes on to kind of suggest that Muslims are fake and maybe should be Mujassims if they are ‘real’ Muslims), I have to do it now.
Thus we played a dangerous game as Muslims : we insisted that certain people are flawless Imams and then if someone can show that they were Muijassims or Khawarij or whatever, then our whole faith comes into danger or we say ‘Oh, Ahmad was Mujassim so then it is fine’, which is totally retarded. Islam is still Islam without Ahmad, Abu Hanifa, Gahzzali whatever. You have to use your own brain or else just be Christian or any other or no religion then.
As for Mu’tazzila – why are they heretical? Do we even know or is it something that teachers kept telling us without proof so we believed it? As I said, early Maturidis did not respect A’sharis at all and thought they were more misguided than M’utazzila, but later Maturidis started coming together with them. They differ on minor issues mainly but some are very major (such as fate and destiny). Also, nearly everyone today claiming to be A’shari or Maturidi is fake, often without their knowledge. Ramadhan Al Bouti was the last guy I know who had really good knowledge of aqeeda. Muslims are generally totally ignorant about aqeeda today, as you will know if you discuss these issues with the so-called scholars, they just study hadith and nothing else.
For what it’s worth, Wesley Williams is part of the Nation of Islam, he’s not just a random orientalist. He wants to find precedent in early Islam for their belief that God came to Elijah Muhammed in the form of W.D. Farad.
Interesting…I did not know that. But the problems of the quotes remains. He’s not the first to bring these up and it seems they were narrated in Ahmads’ works sans explanation. You are right about NOI or whatever they are called though. The point is, even if Ahmad or anyone else is mujassim, it doesn’t affect Islam as Islam is not dependant on Ahmad or anyone else (much to the chagrin of most Muslims today though).
What evidence do you have for your Ashari Beliefs.
According to Maturidi Aqeedah this guy mmmclru has commited Kufr by saying that Al Ashari and Imam Ahmad are Mujassims without making Takfir on them. So don’t take him seriously.
According to Maturidi aqeeda (which you haven’t studied at all, as evidenced by your comments, since ignorance is an excuse in that creed), you are a moron. And I never said they are mujassims, I just said it is not inconceivable (in fact Salafis insist that they ARE Mujassims) – unless you or your peers have some kind of secret text from God that says it is impossible for Ahmad and Al Ashari to be Mujassims. In fact, it is possible for anyone apart from the Prophets and Sahabah to even be kaafir. To say so otherwise means you have the same knowledge as God.
So if anything, we should make takfir on you. But you are too stupid to understand any of this.
Firstly, I don’t have A’shari beliefs since I am Maturidi and secondly, what type of stupid non-specific question is that?
I wasn’t talking to you akhi.
I meant to reply to the original poster.
Apologies! Sorry for that.
No problems sorry as well.
I try to not take aqeedah because of the risk, and I didn’t want him or anyone to do it.
Also, according to that idiot, is is fard to make takfir on everyone who commits ‘kufr’. So we should walk around New York City Takfiring most of it’s 13 million or so inhabitants. No doubt he is one of those Brelwi or Salafi mentalists who actually sits around takfiring everyone.
The funny thing is that if I did takfir anyone then he would start going on about the dangers of takfir or how such and such Imam can never be kaafir etc.
So these types of people are just mental. They never studied anything properly (they talk about Maturidi aqeeda but they never published a single book of his in English – but they spam us with hardbacks of the biographies and waffle of their latter day imams) and are just personality worshippers. In fact, even studying is not necessary, Allah says use your brain, but they don’t do that either.
If they were born as Hindus, they would just be fanatical Hindus and never change their way, likewise if they were atheists, Shamans or whatever.
It is just their good luck and our bad luck that they are in the Muslim community.
1. I have studied Maturidi aqidah.
2. I never criticized someone for making Takfir for itself. I may disagree with a particular Takfir but I never ever said be careful about Takfir.
3. Though I was born as a Muslim I have been an atheist for some time because I did not understand the existence of God. I learned true belief in God through Imam Maturidi BTW.
So you are not telling the truth about me. Why do you judge me that hard after only one comment?
What I can say is that anyone who believes God is a body (=mujassim belief) is a Kafir and there is no exucse for ignorance. If Imam Ahmad had this belief and I knew this for sure I would make Takfir on him. So I told you to make Takfir on him if you think he was a mujassim.
And please tell us, from where (book/place/person) did you study Maturidi aqeeda, so we can rest with your vast expertise? You know, given that you said that you learnt ‘true belief in God’ through Maturidis teachings…but yet are an atheist. I think you mean you used to believe in God. Also, how exactly does an atheist make takfir? Isn’t that weird?
Anyway, you must have amazing language to understand Maturidis books (none of which are translated or even fully published). I don’t know a single scholar who understands Maturidis Arabic properly.
I read the commentary of Al Fiqh Al Akbar by Maturidi or Abu Layth As-Samarqandi. I read Al Fiqh Al Absat too and some important parts from Kitab ut-Tawhid from Maturidi. I always read the Tafsir of Maturidi and Samarqandi when I want to know about a verse.
I meant I was an atheist until I learned about real Islamic Tawhid from Islamic scholastics. Especially Maturidi kind of reasoning. Salafi theology was very illogical for me and not convincing.
What I still do not believe is that people are going to hell forever. For me this is a spiritual problem. Kufr may be a reason for eternal punishment from a rational point of view but and I don’t see why God needs such a thing. Eternity is simply too much.
Arabic of past scholars is difficult to understand in general. I don’t know why to highlight Imam Maturidi. He did not write in some Tajik (or where he was from) Arabic slang. But I know that all kind of Muslim groups use linguistic tricks to fit a saying of a scholar to their agenda.
How about the view that Imam Ahmad did tafweed? Which is a different thing than tajsim.
jazakallah khair, brother. that explains so much. I’m not on belief that Imams are ma’sum. I have tried many religions before and disilussioned, I won’t end up in Islam if I don’t use my brain :D. so I can’t get all this nonsense that you must blind follow scholars or ”no aql just naql” or ”just submit, no question asked” when Quran say to use your ‘aql. I’m here as a seeker of truth inshaa Allah.
it’s just I’m surrounded by some madrassa students (Shafi’ Ash’ari) and they say something like how ”those pesky Wahhabis” are trying so hard to make Imam Ash’ari sounds mujassim while he fought mujassim all his life. also I’ve been taught that there is not much difference between Ashari and Maturidi aqeeda except minor ones. that’s why I’m asking you how come early Maturidis consider Asharis heretic, I’ve never heard about this before honestly.
I’m not as knowledgeable about Imam Ahmad, just read slightly an explanation from a Shafi’ modern scholar that he was not mujassim, but his successors the extremist Hanbalis and Hashawis ruined his madhab and make him sound like mujassim — something like that. I don’t know deeper than that. there’s another explanation by a Hanbali scholar (now jailed by Saudi because he criticizes Salafism, muhaditheen and Imam Ahmad), basically a number of muhaditheen threw far their ‘aql and Quranic reasoning, were influenced by Bani Umayyah rulers or Ahl Kitab, they came up with strange hadiths about anthropomorphism, killing, fatalism… and authenticated them.
I don’t think Dr. Jonathan Brown was responding to discussion surrounding ISIS with Hina Azam’s article. Rather, it seems like he was trying to clear up a debate on Facebook.
Whatever the case, his replied sucked.
I think I understand why you think it sucks: it doesn’t address what you think is important. I think it may be an okay article on the classical juristic discussions concerning ‘rape.’ And as for the veracity of its contents, I’m willing to rely on Dr. Hina Azam’s scholarship without endlessly scrutinizing it (she wrote an entire book on ‘rape’: http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Violation-Islamic-Law-Civilization/dp/1107094240/).
And note again that the article and the response are concerning Islamic *law* (i.e. the stuff people go to court for), not the fiqh of halal and haram.
That aside, I don’t appreciate the way you frame the article he cites. You treat it as though it is some kind of defense or a way to make Islam ‘look good’ when it is just the entry of an encyclopedia that he was quoting to elucidate the topic of the legal ramifications of rape, as well as the evidentiary standards in such cases, to people who had some confusion. So I see no “doublespeak” or “fudges” here.
Also, I’m not sure why you say that Dr. Brown is Salafi. If you were to read his work, you might find that he can draw quite a few points of criticism against Salafi scholars. By referencing his company, do you mean to imply Dr. Azam is Salafi? I personally find that unlikely.
I read his work (both academic and populist) and that’s how I know he is Salafi. Salafis criticize each other all the time. Bin Baz and Uthaymeen and Albani did it. Are they also not Salafis?
I don’t see how a guy who literally venerates Shah Wali Allah and tells the whole history of Islam through this one Ibn Taymiyya apologist (sans context) in ‘Misquoting Muhammad’ is not a Salafi. Maybe you think Ibn Taymiyya isn’t ‘Salafi’ either or whatever and that’s cool, up to you. If you read my article, you would see that I addressed all of this and my ‘tone’ is to concern myself with the public image of Islam and not Brown. It is glaringly obvious that his explanation of rape in both his own words and his quotes was unhelpful and only perpetuates what Islamophobes want to assert.
Law and Fiqh are the same thing. Your statement is the same as saying ‘the law and the reasons people go to court for are different things”.
If we can get over our fanboy-ism and engage our own brain instead of saying stuff like we should rely on people’s scholarship without endlessly scrutinizing it (since we didn’t even accept the Quran without scrutinizing it). I made some points about their ”scholarship”. Your retort is basically ”I trust them”. That’s your problem and prerogative but it is not an argument. Having written a book does not make you an expert or above scrutiny – quite the opposite (unless you think that Hitler was an expert in the History of Jews in Europe because he wrote Mein Kampf), we will see clearly that if someone had said, in a discussion accusing Islam of being a ‘rape friendly’ religion or with a view of merely discussing rape in any context, that raping slave girls was not rape because they are property and you own their vagina and this was the “Juristic” or Islamic position without giving their own position or critiquing it, no sane person would find that helpful. And before you start telling us that it was just an ‘academic’ point, it wasn’t and ‘Facebook’ isn’t really the place for those. Please wake up.
With respect, your desire to defend Brown and Co. possibly overrides your common sense in this case.
Well shoot… I had a nice reply going and I accidentally reloaded the page. Oh well. In short form, here is what I was going to say:
Didn’t know that about Shah Wali Allah. Thanks for the info. Upon rereading a paper of Dr. Brown’s, I see your point regarding his alleged Salafism.
The main point that I take an issue with in your article is that a fair portion of it seems predicated on the assumption that Dr. Brown was trying to present a defense of Islam. I don’t think this was the case. However, I agree that this Facebook post is not particularly helpful given the current situation, though I really enjoyed some of the discussions in the comment section! I really liked Sana Saeed’s comment for instance. But to cap on my point, I don’t think he had a bad intention; some of us are just not good at certain pastoral issues.
Feel free to scrutinize Dr. Azam’s work. I don’t accept it as truth.
As for your citing of Tabari and Razi, I don’t think that’s immensely helpful either, despite how well known these scholars are. I hope you can appreciate that neither Islamophobes nor troubled Muslims will be particularly consoled – at least not for long – by the fact that certain minority opinions exist, however logical they may be.
Nor does your statement that ISIS is spreading corruption do much to abate concerns of the above people in my opinion. What would do so, however, is a widely accepted judgement by a qadi who ruled against a slaveowner who raped his slave without physical damage. Can you produce anything of the like?
And I missed one point: I think that Dr. Brown and Dr. Azam are using the term “Islamic law” in the juridical sense (i.e. concerning real-world court-ordained punishments), I don’t think they’re using “Islamic law” as a translation for fiqh. The tricky thing when translating on this issue is that we have a sacred law that goes beyond what you can be punished for on Earth by people, so it can be hard to come up with a simple English term to use when you want to talk about only court treatments.
I should also mention that I share your frustration with current trends in Islamic discourse. There seems to be a dearth of powerful voices that emphasize the intellectual tradition upon which our religion rests. I am also extremely disappointed by certain massively popular Da’wah efforts with which non-Muslims (and Muslims) unfortunately come into contact.
I was mulling over why your criticism can be so biting, and it clicked for me when I thought about your geographical location. The situation in the UK seems very troubling, and I can definitely see where you’re coming from when you talk about the image of Islam.
On the other hand, I tend to be very lax about the whole deal because I live in a quaint city where the vast majority respects Muslims and the Salafis (or at least I think they’re Salafis) put me to shame in adab and akhlaq.
Anyways, I enjoy your blog for its very interesting information related to fiqh, aqeeda, etc. You seem quite learned. 🙂
oh come on mmmclmru!
leave alone slave girls, I’ve come across salafis who stated there is no such thing as marriage rape, since the husband owns his wife’s vagina so basically he can have sex with her anytime he wishes even forcefully. after all, according to their favorite hadith, woman must satisfy her husband desire even if she is on camel’s back. if this is what they think about free woman, wife, what could you expect from the poor slave girls?
p.s. off topic, but just discussed a while back with a maliki talib ‘ilm that the favorite hadiths of puritans and islamphobes about women, like women lacking intellect and deen, majority of women will be in hell for being ungrateful, hoor ‘ayn cursing wife who’s angry with her husband, and even 72 virgins, are either ignored or rejected by malikis. just share 🙂
@mmmclmru, you are showing bigotry in your reason why Brown is a Salafi. First of all this Shah Waliullah was not a Salafi. He was an Indian Hanafi scholar. Both Deobandis and Barelvis praise him so he was in no way a Salafi.
He seemed to have a passion for Ibn Taymiyyas way of writing but it is up to you to show that he had the belief of Ibn Taymiyyah THAT ACCORDING TO MATURIDI BELIEF IS DISBELIEF. So if you can show that Waliullah had this belief I would make Takfir of him and you would need to likewise if you were a Maturidi.
What you do is the same as if I said you are a disbeliever because you seem to promote this “Avicienna Academy” since it has it’s name from Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina was from the so-called philosophers in Islamic tradition and many scholars considered these “philosophers” to be disbelievers.
Ahhh…now I remember you! You are that same guy who used to post from different email addresses and got banned! You used to post under these names like ‘Hanafi’ and stuff. If I remember correctly, you had serious mental issues and just takfired everyone. So you waited a while and got a new email address!.
You are in fact rather stupid. First of all, Deobandis and Brewlis, neither of whom, are Maturidi or even Hanafi since the places where they differ from Maturidi in Aqeeda and Hanafis in Fiqh are so many that they would take several volumes to elaborate. Not that you would know since you already informed us that you studied ‘portions’ of the books of Imam Maturidi and learnt about Maturidi Aqeeda through Abu Layth Samarkandi who again had numerous differences with Maturidi.
I remember you also had this unhealthy obsession with the guys at Avicenna and tried to ask for references but could never bring any yourself. So again, you are an idiot because you don’t know anything about the relationship between Shah Wali Allah and Ibn Taymiyya: It has nothing to do with his ‘writing style’ (which NO ONE, not even Salafis admires) but was actually a hagiographical biography of Ibn Taymiyya saying how his opponents were misguided. And the hilarious thing is that this biography is mentioned by Brown in this book when mentioning Shah Wali Allah, as well as the fact that it is admiring of Ibn Taymiyya. So that WHOLE BOOK is my reference that Shah Wali Allah admired Ibn Taymiyya BECAUSE HE SAID SO HIMSELF. Although you won’t bother reading this since you ‘understood’ Maturidi aqeeda without actually reading Maturidis book either.
Guess you have to get a new email address now again!
I discovered Avicienny Academy on Facebook some months ago. I wouldn’t call it an obsession but I do think that what they do is very shameless. I discovered your site through your writer Adil on Paul Williams’ blog. I haven’t been here before so please stop being so agressive.
And regarding the topic, I am more inclined towards Barelvis altough I do like certain Deobandi scholars. Your claim that I and my friends the Barelvis are not Maturidi is very severe. You can come to Sunniport and discuss. Or you can do it here.
Discuss what? You haven’t said anything apart from that you are ‘sure’ that Shah Wali Allah expressed his support of Ibn Taymiyya, including in Aqeeda, without reading the relevant books by him (no proof at all apart from your say so). Which makes Shah Wali Allah quite dumb then.
So first educate yourself about the issues before ‘debating’ you time waster.
Factually you are right. We don’t know if Shah Waliullah read all of Ibn Taymiyyas books. If he did so he is an infidel. But there is no reason to exaggerate.
One other problem I saw is how Avicienna Academy deals with the so-called philosophers. They object to any Takfir on them because they were so successful in other sciences. For them Takfir on them means Takfir on someone who is practicing science like the Church did “Takfir” on Galileo. But they delibaretely ignore that the reason for the Takfir are logical and theological issues like denying finiteness of the existence, denial of atomism or their view about causality.
I do not say blatantly Ibn Sina or a similar one is a Kafir. I only say that anyone who holds these beliefs is indeed an infidel.
You are the one calling him infidel and then you are telling ME not to exaggerate?! Are you mental?
Frankly, you just pulled that stuff about Avicenna out of thin air: I’ve never even seen them address this stuff at all. I see no evidence that you understand even Maturidi aqeeda (since you were totally ignorant of Abu Layth Samarkandi’s numerous differences with Maturidi let alone Deobandis and Ahmad Ridha Khans HUGE differences with him) let alone philosophy.
You quite obviously never studied these things you are talking about like logic or atomism. Nor do you know why they constitute kufr or even if they do. I am afraid you are another madrassa boy who has been told by his Deo-Brelwi teachers, who frankly know nothing but Hanbali hadith sciences and a little bit of tafseer and seera literature, that Ibn Sina is a ‘Greek’ philosopher, that he says the universe is eternal blah blah. Most of you have not read even an introductory text in philosophy or science and go around getting hyped up and takfiring people nonetheless. You people are so ignorant it is frightening. At best you have been told that Ibn Sina is kaafir because Al Ghazzali says so. If you had studied both Al Ghazalis book, Ibn Sina’s original Shifa etc and Ibn Rushd’s response as well as those of others which again you have never read, you would know that Al Ghazzali did not even understand what Ibn Sina was saying about eternality of the universe and his ideas of whether time has a beginning etc.
It is not my job to teach people who run their mouth on topics that they are completely ignorant on such as atomism and other philosophical tenets just because they heard a few lectures from Deobandis and Brelwis, any more than I need to educate someone who starts talking about Quantum Physics being kufr without having even rudimentary knowledge of it.
Many kufaar write to me here to discuss theology and philosophy – but they show some knowledge of the subjects, not rubbish like ‘my teachers said philosophy is haraam’. Go and study about Philosophy and the positions of Ibn Sina from their own books and others if you want to talk about these issues and who is kaafir or not. Then go and show me from Quran and Hadith how these positions are kufr. Or if you want to use ‘logic’ let me know your consistent position on ‘logic’ and how it relates to kufr and whether Quran and hadith can go against logic or not or is it only Ibn Sina that is not allowed to go against ‘logic’ (something which he actually contributed a lot to with his work on Mantiq) Otherwise be a good Deo-Brelwi and blindly follow your teachers, but don’t pretend to have a discussion.
This is what you notice about all of the dumb people who want to takfir, Salafis, Brelwis and Deobandis: fast on the takfir but no knowledge at all. Their interest is in takfir: he is eager to declare people heretics if they believe this or that but he didn’t study Shah Wali Allah nor Ibn Sina nor even why these things are kufr. Everything is ‘kufr this, kufr that’ but they don’t have any brains at all – when they are discussing with Christians and Philosophers they become ‘logical’ and ‘rational’ but when it comes to their favourite hadith, fatwas and Deo-Brelwi moulanas they become ‘naql not aql’ (‘Islam is imitation not brains’). ‘If he said so and so he is kaafir’. But why is that kufr and did he say it? They don’t know. Then just shut up isn’t it?
So now I’m supposed to teach this guy whole of Philosophy, A’shari Aqeeda and Maturidi aqqeda and the differences and also a consistent theory of the limits and role of rationality is Islam but he can just come in and say ‘yeah, philosophers got takfired due to their views of causality. Don’t learn from anyone who even had the name of a philosopher on their institute’ but doesn’t need to say what these views are and why they are kufr. Bloody hell! It’s as dumb as saying (as some of these Deo-Brelwi type Moulanas have) that Physics is kufr. But what is physics? Oh we don’t know!
This is why wherever these people come into power, there is oppression: We know about the Salafis and we have all seen the Taliban/Deobandis.
OK, I tried to explain my methodology but it seems that I was not clear enough.
1. I am no Barelvi. I meant if I was to choose between Bar and Deo I would rather be inclined towards Barelvis. I think this is important to say because many Deobandis incline towards Salafi views and lack knowledge of actual Hanafi and Maturidi principles.
2. When I said I follow the Maturidi view I didn’t mean that I am originally coming from a non-Arab Hanafi country like Pakistan or Afghanistan. I meant I know what the Maturidi theology is. So of course I am putting logic over revelation. I have read Maturidis Kitab al-Tawhid about this. I told you that I was an atheist for some time. My problem was that I thought just because physics can reduce all problems to few laws everything is explained and there is no God. When thinking more about axioms and these basic laws one sees that the excistence is not consistent. And Maturidi and Ashari scholars explained exactly this problem.
3. I did not even say that Ibn Sina is a kafir. I said if he believed in some sort of things typically attributed to the so-called philosophers he would have been a kafir. I didn’t say he believed this since I haven’t studied him.
4. Please state clearly if you are relating some view to me or to people in general. I would never say that quantum physics is kufr. I know what atomism, which is related to QM means and it is extremely important in theology and for understanding theories about quantum gravity that could solve questions about the fundamental being of space and time.
Why don’t you engage a discussion with Abu Adam Al-Naruji from Sunnianswers? There is obviously a discrepancy between your understanding and that of him (both of you claim logic and Hanafism). You could clear it up with him instead of internet guys like me whome nobody knows. I say that I can discuss logical and fundamental issues but of course I cannot discuss about what this or that scholar said in most cases.
What do I need to clear up with Al Nuruji? He’s Ashari and not Hanafi so he is entitled to his opinion/school. BTW, he has an excellent site which I use a lot.
I told you bluntly – if you have not studied the works of Ibn Sina or philosophy (Islamic or otherwise) why are you getting excited about takfir of Ibn Sina and whether people who believe in atomism or whatever are kafir? You should be agnostic about it and just say ‘hmmmm…I don’t know’. If you used to be atheist then you should know the danger of blind following and not using your brain. It is completely not allowed to blindly follow anyone – that is in Kitab Ut Tawhid page one.
So it was your own fault for talking trash and saying ‘I think Avicenna guys are dodgy, philosophers like Ibn Sina are dodgy, if they did believe in atomism or eternal universe they are kaafir etc’. But you admit to not knowing anything about this or why and if these things are kufr. Even if Asharis said some of these things are kufr, do you blindly follow Asharis or Al Nuruji or whatever or do you have your own brain? It sounds like you are smart to have worked out that stuff about atheism. So how come now as a Muslim you have stopped using your brain and start accusing people based on rubbish?
Your first move was to come on here and start saying ‘if so and so believes so and so then he is heretics/kaafir/infidel’. But then you don’t know why. Just because Al Ghazali or some guy told you is it?
Ibn Sina said the same thing as Plotinus: it depends which came first, time or matter. If matter came first, then it is prior to time and hence eternal. If time came first then universe is not eternal. The idea of time without matter was unacceptable for some of the philosophers – like the colour red existing by itself without matter. Red only exists with matter. So the debate is if time is the same as something like colour or quantity i.e needed matter to exist. If time needs matter to exist, then matter is eternal. That’s obvious. But it does not mean that God did not create both of them, it just means that matter was created outside of time and God is outside of time anyway (and matter). neither you, your teachers nor even Al Ghazzali understood this, nor other points of Ibn Sina and then go around takfiring him and not only this but warning people about Avicenna Academy for using him. Ibn Sina is Hanafi in Fiqh and Mu’tazzili in aqeeda. You have to read his own books not what Muhaditheen and enemies say about him without proof. All of the people getting involved in this argument without knowledge, including Deo-Brelwis have a bigger kufr issue than Ibn Sina since by saying matter is not eternal they did not clarify whether time has a beginning.
BTW, Ibn Taymiyya is the one who actually said that there is no first creation, there must always be a creation for Allah to be creator, so he is the one who did what they accuse Ibn Sina of.
Quantum Physics was only used as an example, not that it has anything to do with the discussion directly, my point was that you are talking without knowing about the topic or thinking for yourself.
Sunny, have you read Averroes and Avicenna’s works directly? Have you read Ash Shifa, for example, and his essays? Or do you conclude he is misguided because your scholars say so? Do you even understand atomism and how Ash’ari theology views atomism and evolution of cosmos?
You’re no different than salafis and some deobands who say Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi is kafir just because their scholars say so, or simply because they don’t understand mystical metaphysics enough to really decipher the depth of his works. (I used to succumb to that lie until I actually opened Ibn Arabi’s work myself and found it’s beyond incredible, nowhere near kufr – IF you understand) Now I mention Ibn Arabi’s name as rough example, not to stray from topic. I can see you’re not salafi ok but You clearly are ignorant about medieval muslims’ philosophy, this is not the first time I heard statements like yours.
So true!
Here is the very first hit you can get on ‘Google’ when searching for Shah Wali Allah and Ibn Taymiyya (and it is from Salafis, so no need to accuse me of bias):https://ahlalbidah.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/shah-wali-allah-al-dihlawi-on-sh-ibn-taymiyyah/
Also, if some scholars making takfir on someone is a criteria for not naming an institute after those takfired, you can’t name institutes after Abu Hanfia, Ahmad, Al; Ghazzali or nearly anyone else either. So dumb.
You are right that it is problematic how he liked Ibn Taymiyyah. But he was not upon Ibn Taymiyyas creed. He was Hanafi and also Maturidi. Everyone who reads Ibn Taymiyyas book Bayan at-Talbis al-Jahmiyyah and does not declare Ibn Taymiyyah a disbeliever is a disbeliever him/herself. I am convinced Shah Waliullah did not read this book. Most of the other statements by Ibn Taymiyyah are ambogious and we can excuse those who don’t takfir him for them.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The link from the ahlalbidah blog is not in ANY way associated with Salafis.
And we know this because?
Hermes Trismegistus:
“…leave alone slave girls, I’ve come across salafis who stated there is no such thing as marriage rape, since the husband owns his wife’s vagina so basically he can have sex with her anytime he wishes even forcefully. after all, according to their favorite hadith, woman must satisfy her husband desire even if she is on camel’s back. if this is what they think about free woman, wife, what could you expect from the poor slave girls?”
Exactly! That was the sticking point which wasn’t adequately addressed.
In Hina Aza’s “Sexual Violation In Islamic Law”, Hina states:
“A second topic that I have chosen not to pursue in this study is that of marital rape. In part, this is due to the way that traditional jurisprudence handled non-consensual relations within marriage, which is do[to] say, NOT REALLY AT ALL.
And then:
“In the minds of the jurists, sexual rights were the single most important thing a husband acquired upon marrying a woman, and so the possibility that a husband was violating or committing a crime against his wife by sexually coercing her simply did not arise. (The same can be said about sexual coercion within the other licit type of relationship, which was slave-concubinage.)”
So Hina Azam’s book is of ZERO relevance on the issue of concubine-rape by the owner when it leads to harm (physical or emotional), the issue that more light ACTUALLY needs to be shed upon… since that’s what ISIS is ACTUALLY doing.
In Kecia Ali’s “Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam”, Kecia states:
“Only the Shafi texts explicitly address how a refusal affects her claim to time with her husband. The early Maliki texts do not address this issue, for reasons that are unclear. The silence of the Hanafis can be explained easily: a wife’s sexual refusal is irrelevant if not accompanied by her departure from the conjugal home, because her husband is permitted to have sex with her WITHOUT HER CONSENT. Non-Hanafis DO NOT PENALIZE A HUSBAND FOR FOCING SEX ON HIS WIFE, BUT NEITHER DO THEY EXPLICITELY AUTHORIZE IT IN THE WAY AL-KHASSAF DOES. For all, marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by the husband. Still they do make a distinction between forced and consensual sex within marriage.”
She states the above without citing any references to Quran/hadith or any past court rulings. But this doesn’t have any relevance to the issue at hand either.
Personally, irrespective of what legal theories supposedly or implicitly state as a result of being supposedly silent on the issue (concubine-rape by the owner leading to physical or emotional harm), I think many past judges (from the passing of the Prophet S.A.W., until the time slavery was abolished) could have ordered manumission in such cases. If true, one can conclude through inductive reasoning that marital rape was not an “Oxymoron” [Kecia says it herself, although confusingly,… when she states: “STILL they do make a distinction between forced and consensual sex within marriage”]
Btw, I think this was somewhat of a better response to ISIS’s war-rape: http://www.turkeyagenda.com/isiss-compounded-ignorance-is-criminal-but-not-a-theology-2772.html
Excellent points! Very well said.
I didn’t fund that article helpful at all. I thought it was part of the problems: it is a fudge, no references and non-Muslims will easily find a thousand holes in it. it ends with an ‘its Americas fault for invading Iraq’ excuse which is poor. These 55 countries that have declared slavery illegal and ‘muftis’ from around the world. As you know, there is not a single well known sect from Salafis, Deo – Brelwis, Ikhwaanis, Wahhabis or whatever who says this and hardly any famous scholar at all. Most of the countries that have banned slavery have done so on secular basis. though I agree, the author is doing the same thing as ISIS and pick and choosing sources to misrepresent the Islamic poisition.
BUt as you said, it’s somewhat better, and anything is better than Brown’s rubbish.
@manny5 : excuse me but can I ask whether the author’s background of your book source is an islamic scholar with sanad, and not just an outside observer or orientalist ?
just because there is no capital punishment /penalty to a wrongdoing doesn’t make it allowed or permitted to do. We’re not supposef to say bad words to our parents, there is no islamic physical penalty for that but it’s forbidden and a sin nonetheless. My knowledge might be lacking in this matter but Islam has commanded both spouses to treat each other in kindness, and marital rape is harming, harming is forbidden in Islam. I just can’t accept the way puritans seek a loophole from Islamic jurisdiction to justify their twisted view and make it seems allowed (and tbh it’s not just that but many others. breastfeeding adults and mishar marriage are examples that come to mind).
You are right but the issue is that Islam and what Islamic scholars say are often two different things. So Quran says don’t murder non-Muslims it’s evil. Shafi and Ahmad say: no penalty for killing non-Muslims. So how come no penalty for murder when it is prohibited and penalised in Quran?
I’ve asked 2 ‘alims of Maliki and Shafi’ previously, both answered that muslim who killed ahl dhimmi doesn’t get death sentence indeed, but he must jailed for a lifetime. Unfortunately I didn’t ask them if it’s mu’tamad, though…
Sorry, but they are lying – especially the Shafi guy. Or they are ignorant.
The author gave all of the references.
And no point narrating anything other than the Mu’tamd isn’t it? Otherwise al schools have al opinions, including Shi’ia and heretical sects.
Some more info on marital-rape, from Kecia Ali’s “Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam” (my notes):
If wife’s refusal to have sex was legitimate, in the theoretical or in an actual case (I don’t know which) she refused due to unpaid dower:
– Abu Hanifa supported refusal even after consummation 70 [al-Khassaf -d874, Kitab al Nafaqat]. A man forcing his wife to have sex in this case would be illegal and sinful.
– Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani did not give wife right to withhold sex from husband in this case. In one manuscript they say husband forcing sex on wife is LEGAL and NOT SINFUL. Another manuscript says it is LEGAL but SINFUL, which was a distinction between the legality and morality of the action 71 [?], 72 [the Hanafis make a point of ethical vs. legal distinctions in other cases as well. The early jurists treated rape as property usurpation as well… see Hina Azam, “Sexual Violence in Maliki Legal Ideology: From Discursive Foundations to Classical Articulation”. See also the brief discussion in Ali, Sexual Ethics and Islam, 11-12]
** If unpaid dower was not an issue, they (Abu Hanifa, Shaybani, and Abu Yusuf) agreed the husband had a right to force sex on the wife because she was a wrong doer (zalima – as opposed to nushuz), 73 [according to al-Khassaf from his Kitab al Nafaqat]. She was a wrong doer for breaching the martial contract, of which sexual access was a main stipulation.
So for al-Khasaaf explicitly authorizing forced sex on his wife (when her refusal was illegitimate), the sanad = Al-Khasaaf >Abu Hanifa.
In regards to “had a right to FORCE sex on the wife”, there is no exact statements from what Abu Hanifa considered to be legal and sinless or legal but sinful methods for forcing sex on the wife in the book. There is however the possibility of withholding maintenance as a legal option drawn from his student Shaybani. Maintenance was a right of the wife stipulated in the marriage contract (which broadly included food, clothing, and lodging – part of an interdependent scheme that also included inheritance, dower, sex, and companionship.
Shaybani attributes to Abu Hanifa that the right of maintenance is tied to the right of dwelling with the husband (in Shaybani’s Kitabs Al-Jami Al Saghir, Al-Jami Al Kabir, and Kitab Al-Hujjah). So, if the wife was physically present for sex, maintenance was her right. If she was physically absent for an illegitimate reason, maintenance could be taken away. This does not explicitly address the case of physically present but actively refused sex however; sexual refusal is analogous to physical absence in this context according to Shaybani. On a side note, there is no mention of hitting being a valid option from the Hanafi’s in Kecia’s book.
Also, for:
Malikis – Withholding maintenance was a legal option (Ibn Al-Qasim). No mention of hitting.
Shafis – Withholding maintenance was a legal option (Shafi – Al-Umm (K. al-Nafaqat), Al-Muzani – Mukhtasar al-Muzani) and no mention of hitting despite Shafi classifying the act as “nushuz”
Hanbalis – No mention at all.
So from the above, none of the scholars cited said a wife could be beaten into having sex. She can however possibly lose some form of maintenance for illegitimate refusal.
It’s important to note that there are no proofs from Quran or hadith presented in the book for the views relating to forcing sex on one’s wife for illegitimate refusal of sex, nor any case studies exemplifying how the legal theories actually played out in real-life disputes, in which the founders of the schools or their students arbitrated.
There are just too many statements in the book that require verification from source texts (in Arabic) and questions unanswered so I personally can’t definitively attribute the opinions presented relating to marital-rape to the scholars referenced, let alone determine the correct Islamic position based on proof from Quran and hadith. That’s why I said it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. It may be helpful for someone looking to start their research… it’s just not the end of the line.
@Hermes
Whatever the case, like I said earlier, irrespective of legal theory, in real-life cases (my) husn al dhun dictates the arbiters (e.g. Abu Hanifa) would more likely recommend couples resolve their disputes ethically and never resort to recommend a husband causing unbearable harm by withholding a maintenance right due to the wife, let alone beating his wife into having sex.
Pingback: Are Muslims Really Not to Blame for the Paris Attacks? | Asharis: Assemble
Good read. I show the link you posted. Unbelieveable Muslims and some classical opinion disgust me. It clearly shows that Muslim women don’t have rights according to sick people. Have you seen Islam qa? They quoted that it was ok to have sex with nine years WITHOUT her consent. Keep in mind, this whole fatwa is speaking about giving minors away for marriage. So this nine years old girl didn’t consent to the marriage.
mmmclmru: You are right but the issue is that Islam and what Islamic scholars say are often two different things. So Quran says don’t murder non-Muslims it’s evil. Shafi and Ahmad say: no penalty for killing non-Muslims. So how come no penalty for murder when it is prohibited and penalised in Quran?
You are absolutely right! I don’t know what to make of this (http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/marital-rape/) other than holy shit these Hanafi scholars got it wrong.
Wow this is hardcore. I never thought that Islamic scholars allow marital rape blatantly. It is clear that Islam does not have many measurements for women to be protected against men. But this is really too much.
Ultimate justice meted out by God in the hereafter will take care of all those who unjustly harm others in the end. But atheists like you don’t believe in that concept. So as long as someone doesn’t get “caught” or they don’t directly feel any negative ripple effects from their actions… perhaps within a few days and within a 50 kilometer radius of the little bubble/city center they live in, rape, pedophilia, slander, racism, torture, murder/genocide, various forms of theft (embezzlement, bribery, time or monetary theft from employer, tax-evasion, insider trading…), slave-labor, wasting of natural and government resources on gluttony (basically hedonism) bare absolutely no ultimate consequences. So what constraints does atheism promote that can dissuade people from doing any of the aforementioned? That’s right… nothing!
I agree that there is no positive perspective in my view. But if your God was really just he would not need final justice. He would not have created evil to begin with.
There are absolutely no constraints for atheists except those one wants and nobody has to want any. I needed some time to swallow this but when you start to see how insignificant our life and everything around us is it is possible.
“But if your God was really just he would not need final justice.”
Final (and therefore “delayed”) justice is indeed imperfect compared to immediate justice.
But “final” justice is only how it looks to us people who are temporarily imprisoned in time and duration.
There is no “final” or “initial” for those who are in eternity – like God, who is aware
of everything all at once.
So yes, God’s justice seems “final” only to us – and only while we’re in this world.
“when you start to see how insignificant our life and everything around us is .”
Insignificant compared to what ? This is the classical “incomplete comparison” fallacy.
This is interesting for considering how God takes happenings on the earth.
“Insignificant compared to what ? This is the classical “incomplete comparison” fallacy.”
Yes, this was only a subjective solution for a subjective problem which is that with no God there will be no final justice achieved.
“If your God was really just…”.
I don’t understand how Atheists can bring up the so called “problem of evil”. When an Atheist brings this up, it sounds more like he/she believes in the existence of God but is just pissed at Him for allowing people to choose to do bad things (i.e. free will).
You already stated the unjust atheist view i.e. all of the unpunished rapists, murderers, fraudsters, slavers, sex traffickers, arms dealers etc. will just get away with it. Anything beyond this is irrelevant.
@Manny5 Excellent points. But don’t be surprised, and don’t expect those type of “atheists” to be minimally consistent. They are glad to repeat the same thousand-times-refuted garbage over and over again as long as they are let to.
Basically, they are proudly displaying their refusal to use their brain or think (which seems “cool” and “original” to them). Presenting them rational arguments will only feed their stupidity more.
On the topic of ‘ma malakat aymanukum’ I’d like some feedback (if possible) on the followng argument. As much as I like Asad’s interpretation it does seem to be a possible stretch. Regardless, here’s my argument on that incredibly volatile subject:
Surahs in the Quran are distinguished by when they were revealed either as Meccan in origin or Medinan. The latter indicates Surahs revealed to the prophet post-Hijrah. Thematically, Meccan Surahs tend to focus primarily on God and humanity’s relation to Him. Medinan Surahs tend to detail practical applications of faith such as the treatment of women, laws of inheritance, judicial and punitive measures, etc. Much of what we define as Shariah draws from the Medinan Surahs and these are the final arbiters regarding moral and ethical behavior for Muslims.
The process of revelation (not to be confused with process theology) as revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) – again, from Meccan injunctions to Medinan ones – demonstrates that sexual relations with slaves were finally decreed as impermissible. Remember, the entire revelation of the Quran took over twenty years to complete. Outside of worship of God and God alone, the practical moral framework established in Islam involved a definite and legitimate process.
Certainly the Quran was revealed in perfection and remains perfect. In relation to ma malakat aymanukum, the early Meccan verses understood that sexual relations were occurring between owners and their slaves. More importantly, these early verses understood that virtually no boundaries existed at the time for the sating of one’s sexual desires. Worse, women had no place or value in pre-Islamic Arabia:
“Drunken orgies were commonplace…marriage arrangements were so loose as to be scarcely recognizable. Women were regarded as nothing more than chattel…” – Huston Smith, The World’s Religions
As a result, the early Meccan Surahs decreed as follows:
“…[Those] who abstain from sex, except from their wives or those their right hands possess…” – Quran, 23:5-6 (Yusuf Ali)
“And those who guard their chastity, except from their wives or those their right hands possess…” – Quran, 70:29-30 (Yusuf Ali)
These early verses are not granting permission they are establishing a very clear boundary. This distinction cannot be impressed upon enough. A limit had now been set on one’s sexual conduct as decreed by the Quran in relation to the existing licentiousness throughout the pre-Islamic community.
As the process of revelation moved forward and the first Islamic community formed post-Hijrah the mandates regarding sexual relations were finally codified in the Medinan verses regarding ma malakat aymanukum:
“If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” – Quran, 4:25 (Yusuf Ali)
“Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)…” Quran, 24:33 (Yusuf Ali)
The Meccan verses set a limit, the Medinan verses established the rule. The Medinan verses make clear that consummation is allowed only within the confines of marriage regardless of social status, be it a free woman or a slave. As a result, any interpretation or ruling allowing for sex with slaves outside of marriage is now deemed a sin.
Are there any Mu`tazilah on this site? I’d like to speak to you, if so.