Marriage In Islam

Gender Segregation In Islam?

When…and how much?

A one day intensive course by renowned Islamic scholar Sheikh Atabek Nasafi

Caught between permissive liberals and watchful puritans?
Don’t know where to get the truth regarding Islamic injunctions about ‘mixing’?
Don’t know how to act at College? Uni? Home?!
Then watch this one — day intensive course and learn about the traditional Islamic position…with plenty of chances to question openly (for boys and girls!)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Divorce In Islam:

Rules Of Compatibility In Islam?

Wait…aren’t those outfits BIDAT?! This union is doomed

It is sad but true that there are numerous idiotic and deluded Muslims, including some well known Dawah carriers and scholars, who hold to the idea that there is a ‘superiority’ of Arabs in Islam, an idiotic deduction that they made from the rules of compatibility in marriage laid down as a recommendation by some traditional scholars. Sadly, these ideas are very common within the Salafi/Wahhabi and Deobandi communities (which have a large overlap anyway). Frankly, this kind of error is to be chastised in the harshest way and is unforgivable of a person or group that claims to follow Islam, the only religion to not only take on racism  but even colour bias within races.

So here is a humorous but harsh reply to those Deobandis who hold to the rules of ‘compatibility’ and the statements in their books that a non- Arab can ‘never’ be a match for an Arab (sheesh). It is taken mainly from the evidence provided in the book ‘The Social System In Islam by Taqiuddin An Nabhani (which I recommend highly).

Many people have been asking me about the whereabouts of Sheikh Rehan lately. As you may know, like his Deobandi colleges in the U.K, Sheikh Rehan started going around mosques in the U.K preaching after he was give ‘Permission to Teach’ by another Sheikh you have never heard of from some place in India you have never been. People were really impressed with his large beard and white turban and flowing robes and he became a fixture in mosques although he has no qualifications you can verify at all. He was particularly known for the intensity of his effort to the sisters, especially the good looking and light – skinned ones and his encouragement to them to ‘fear Allah’ and to ‘marry for the Deen’ (i.e. himself).

We in the Deobandi establishment, along with our Wahhabi friends have felt him to be a great Sheikh and well suited to our purposes. Imagine our shock then when we read the following reply from the Sheikh posted on-line on the issue of matching in marriage. As anyone of us knows, this is a very important subject and it is clear from books like Behishti Zewar by Ashraf Ali Thanvi that ‘compatibility’ or ‘kafa’ is certainly a part of Islam. Our Salafist brothers agree whole heartedly with the statements found in that book, such as that a non – Arab can never be a match for an Arab in marriage even if he/she is a great scholar or noble. We and our Arab masters, er sorry, I meant brothers, are united in this because we are on the Deen ul Haq and we go so far as to say that such a marriage can be annulled by the wali or the judge. I mean for God’s sake, everyone knows that Arabs are a master race and if they do choose to marry one of us lower animals it is an act of great charity which should be scrutinised in the closes terms.

We truly hope Sheikh Rehan is not responsible for the below deviation and is till on the ‘straight path’ of Deoband.

Sheikh Rehan wrote;

‘There is absolutely no Islamic basis for the idea of ‘compatibility’ in marriage. It is not mentioned at all except in fabricated Hadith and is contradicted by authentic hadith and the Nobel Quraan. Every Muslim man is a match for a Muslim woman and vice versa. The son of a Philippino bin man from Manilla is a match for the daughter of the Amir – Ul Mumineen:

The Quraan clearly says;

‘Verily the most honourable of you with Allah is that who has more Taqwa’ (Al – Hujurat 13)

I don’t even know how anyone could mess this topic up to start with, especially when the Prophet (SAW) himself married his own cousin, Zaynab bin Jahsh (ra) to a FREED SLAVE, Zaid bin Haritha (ra), so according to these guys this is ‘never a match’, so why did he do it? Even though Zaynab’s father and brother protested on the grounds of her status and that it was considered a great shame for the daughter of Arab nobility to marry a freed slave?In fact authentic (i.e not Deobandi or Salafist) scholars say that the Prophet insisted on the marriage because he wanted these traditions which existed solely on the basis of tribalism to be erased and for Arabs to understand that they have no superiority over non Arabs. Would our Deobandi scholars have had the marriage made by the Prophet ANNULED on their grounds of ‘compatibility’? Let them answer if they have mouths!

Further, there is a clear hadith narrated by Abdullah Bin Burayda (ra) from his father that a young girl came to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and said;

‘My father married me off to his nephew in order to raise his lowly status’. So the Prophet (SAW) gave her the right to repudiate the marriage. She responded: ‘I accept what my father has done, but I wanted to inform the (other) women that fathers do not have the authority to give their daughters in marriage against their wishes’

This means that the father gave her in marriage against her wishes, because she did not consider him suitable for her, not because he was not a match for her as the Deobandis will argue, indeed, he was her cousin. Also, Deobandis and

Salafists go against this Hadith by allowing a man to marry off his virgin daughter without her consent. But that’s another story.

To further lay the smack down on the Deobandis, Abu Hatim al Muzani reports that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said:

‘When someone whose character and morals are agreeable to you approaches you for marriage give your daughter to him in marriage. IF YOU DO NOT THEN THERE WILL BE TRIBULATION AND IMMENSE CORRUPTION IN THE EARTH’. They said ‘O messenger of Allah (SAW), even if he has some deficiency?’ He replied: ‘When someone whose character and morals are agreeable to you approaches you for marriage give your daughter to him in marriage’. He said this THREE TIMES.

But three times was clearly not enough for the Arabists and the Deobandis! They still didn’t get it! Notice that the Prophet (SAW) did not say ‘when someone whose race or lineage is agreeable to you’. Also,  Abu Hurayra narrates a version of this Hadith as well as other lines of transmission. But that still isn’t enough for them!

However, the Deobandis and Arab racists do try to narrate some ‘evidence’ for their stance, I will now examine this to shame them up properly so that they can’t try to make a comeback; they narrate from Ibn Umar that the Prophet (SAW) said;

‘The Arabs are equal to each other, a tribe to a tribe, a family to a family and a man to a man except a tailor or a clipper’

This hadith is a lie and is rejected, Ibn Abu Hatim said ‘I asked my father about this and he replied; ‘it is rejected’. Ibn Abdel Birr said this hadith is FABRICATED.

They further try to use what Al Bazzar has recorded of the Hadith of Mu’adh:

‘The Arabs are a match to each other and the freedman (non – Arab patrons) are a match to each other’, This hadith has a weak chain of narration, but that won’t stop the Deobandis using it!

Further, people like to use what has been reported from the Prophet (SAW);

‘Do not marry women except those that are your match and do not marry them to men except those who are friends’.

However, this Hadith is classified as ‘daif’ weak and in any case mentions nothing about race or lineage anyway! HAHAHAAHAH! They are so dumb they can’t even prove their case with weak or fabricated Hadith!

An in any case, any evidence has to to reconciled, and there is no way that the stipulation of matching as found in Salafist and Deobandi manuals does not contradict the clear statement of the Prophet (SAW):

‘No Arab is better than a Non – Arab, except in Taqwa’ 

So there is NO FIELD OF ACTIVITY OR LIFE, apart from taqwa, where an Arab can be better than a non – Arab, that explicitly means, lineage and culture or any other criteria of matching they would like to bring up, status etc.

And their ‘rules of compatibility’ also goes against what Allah tells us blatantly in the Quraan.

So what is important for people who follow these scholars or groups who promote these ideas of matching and compatibility is why did people come up with this stuff on such scant evidence when it clearly contradicts authentic narrations and even the Quraan?

Why did they choose to follow it? What is their REAL agenda? One is a fool if one does not ask such questions in light of the evidence.

As for the Arabs, they seem to have no problems finding white, non – Muslim women ‘compatible’ for themselves, the rules only seem to come in to play if a non – Arab man wants to marry an Arab woman, then everyone is up in arms.

I have no doubt that scholars such as Imam Shafi, who is sometimes quoted, did come up with advice about what type of women or men one should marry, but this can’t be taken out of context. For example, when the Muslims were in ascendancy, they would go to many foreign lands with money and prestige and the local women would want to marry them, much like white men are considered desirable in any part of the world today. Arab or Muslim men may marry foreigners and find their customs and manners strange. They would then divorce these women and they would be left alone without a man and their Iman in danger…Oh hang on, isn’t this still happening today?! Arab men marry European and Oriental women, have their fun, ditch them and go off and marry a woman of good Arab lineage (while keeping a few South-East Asian or African concubines of course). Meanwhile, the poor woman is left in the lurch nurturing a hatred for Islam…

Of course, it’s obvious that we need some kind of idea about how couples should be matched up (one I would suggest is don’t marry your daughter to most modern day Arabs for a starter) but there is no Sharia basis for this and it is prohibited and haraam to do this on the basis of race or nationality as this is unambiguous racism and thus tribalism, which has been extensively critiqued by The Prophet (SAW) and GOD.

One would hope that would have be enough for the Scholars…’

People Who Tell You To Marry For the Deen Are Dumb

Loved this: the author clearly has a problem with Deobandi ulema in the U.K and I can understand why: they are unhinged when it comes to this idea of ‘forget everything else, marry the pious person…cos God wants you to’. I suspect it is just a way for their ‘scholars’ to score girls by brainwashing them into valuing a ‘scholar’ above all else. The quality of their actual ‘scholarship’ is another matter entirely.

For people who tell you to ‘marry for the deen’:

Jameelah Bint Salul complained to the Prophet about her husband. ‘By God! I do not dislike him for any fault in his character or faith, but I dislike his ugliness. By God! If I had no fear of God, I would have spat in his face when he came to see me. O Messenger of God! You see how beautiful I am and that Thabit is an ugly man. I don’t blame him for his faith and character, but I fear disbelief in Islam’. Muhammad then enquired, ‘Will you return the garden that he gave you?’ she answered, ‘Oh Messenger of God! If he asks for more, I am prepared to give him even more’. The Prophet said, ‘Not more, but return the garden’. Then he ordered that Thabit should accept the garden and the separation. 


This proves the following;

1) The Deobandis in the U.K have deliberately been misinterpreting the Hadith about a woman is married for four things beauty, piety, lineage, wealth for many years and they are manifest in their deception, since some physical attraction is a prerequisite before that hadith is applied. Even their own muftis have been forced to admit this in public.

Also, if that Hadith applies to ‘women’ and not ‘believing women’ then it is again not used in the way they try, i.e. marry pious but ugly girls your parents tell you to, but rather, out of Jewish, Christian and Muslims women, marry the pious (Muslim) one etc.

2) If the Hadith is from after the passages revealed about hijaab, it utterly refutes those who say that the face of a woman must be covered, for she tells the Prophet ‘YOU SEE how beautiful I am’. Although there is much other evidence for this, the Salfists and their lackeys the Deobandis will keep lying about this anyway so don’t waste your time with them about it because they will just refer you to some five – hundred page book  called ‘Stuff We Just Made Up About Islam’, the sequel to their previous best-seller ‘Stuff We Made Up About God’.

Also, the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) regarding the non – necessity of veiling of the face is manifest even in Maliki scholars writings, such as ‘The Reliance of the Traveller’ (available in English translation with accompanying Arabic text by Nuh Hamim Keller, as is the Muwatta of Imam Muhammad, Abu Hanifas’ greatest student). Since the Deobandis claim to be Hanafis, their deception is again manifest. Although, since many of them do not respect the creed of Abu Hanifa, why bother with his fatwas?

3) It could be interpreted as giving women the right of unilateral divorce. Many scholars have interpreted it otherwise. Why?

One Man’s Modesty Is Another Man’s Pornography…

By Big Boss

I came across the following online (at the excellent blog)  in the context of criticising a female Muslim Nobel prize winner for her comments upholding the Hijaab and ended up having an interaction with the author:

”Modesty, which leads to respect for oneself and for others, is the key here. It is strange when people typecast women in the world to lie in either of two extremes; those who wander about naked and those who wear the hijab. It is the ones in between who truly respect their bodies. They are the ones who really display a higher level of intellect, not only because they respect themselves but also because they do not go about defending or propagating their way of life in an egotistical and immature manner. Kudos to the woman for her achievements, but saying it represents the highest level of intellect seems silly. Its just another way of defending one’s beliefs and desperately wanting to feel that your way alone is the supreme way.”

Unfortunately I think you need to accept that ‘modesty’ is a subjective concept. Take skirts for example: what is ‘modest’ – below knee? Above knee? How high above knee? Are hot pants o.k? How about a G – string? And who gets to decide? You? Me? Women only? Society? Which one? And according to what time frame? If you went out in a short skirt in Europe in the 40′s you would be ridiculed. Does modesty change with the times? What time should we follow?

Which civilization decides? What is civilization? The Nazis definition of ‘civilization’ was different to the Romans which was different to the Chinese. Who decides?

You see, you just showed the problem by deciding that the two ‘extremes’ were naked and ‘hijaab’. You probably don’t even realise how offensive you are being. Who gave you the authority to decide that wearing loose fitting clothes and a scarf is ‘extreme’? Do you speak for all women? You just said that wearing a scarf is as ‘extreme’ as being naked, thereby insulting all the women throughout history, Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim or whatever who decided to dress like that, including Christian nuns like Mother Teresa and Mary, Mother of Christ (pbuh). I can also include the Buddhist nuns who wear even looser robes that Muslims and don’t allow their hair to be shown by shaving it.

This is why in Islam, we propose a non – human and objective criteria to transcend human subjectivity and bias i.e. God: you don’t have to accept that our criteria is from God or follow it and are free to do what you like: however, you cannot say that your opinion is objectively right either. It’s just right to you.

You said:

”Its just another way of defending one’s beliefs and desperately wanting to feel that your way alone is the supreme way.”

Good point. But then you went and made your way the supreme way by taking upon yourself to define the extremes and saying that anyone who was not following it was an extremist. This is grossly offensive to women in general, and again, who gave you that authority?

”It is the ones in between who truly respect their bodies. They are the ones who really display a higher level of intellect, not only because they respect themselves but also because they do not go about defending or propagating their way of life in an egotistical and immature manner.”

So you are agreeing with her and saying that the way you dress does effect your intelligence, except according to you, it’s the ones in your self – defined ‘middle’ who are more intelligent.

So according to you, people (presumably like yourself) who are in the ‘middle’ are superior to everyone else in intellect and self respect and maturity as well as lacking egotism. And then you criticise others for feeling like ‘their way is the supreme way’ having just said that your way is the supreme way.

You see in Islam, only God is always right, not me, not you. So you should not put – down everyone who does not adhere to your standard, especially as you were complaining about ‘extremists’. I think the reality is that you need to think for yourself instead of reflexly labelling anything practised by Muslims as ‘extreme’.

Rules Of Compatibility Blasted AGAIN: Arab Superiority?

It’s a good thing for idiots who bring this up that he’s dead…

Replies by a proper scholar & (Arab) GF HADDAD (who I am sure Wahhabis do not like). I don’t agree with this guy 100%, but see how it is not an issue of ‘cover up your ears!’. You can see why certain people with a priori beliefs such as Ahl al Hadith, taqleed on aqeeda and Wahhabism can be lead to serious errors when dealing with such questions.

As our Salafi brothers always tell us: ‘First you have to get your aqeeda right!’ 


I have included three comments by him on the issue. Even though I personally follow Abu Hanifa (RA) & other authentic scholars from the Salaf and today instead of him, see how he as an orthodox, Hadith defending scholar, answers in a much more sensible and palatable way than some people. So there is no need to take my views on this, now you have a ARAB SPEAKING SCHOLAR! 


I would advise people who are interested to look into the issue without fear, as it is indeed brought up in Christian polemics against Islam and they have gone to the extent of finding it in the Deobandi book ‘Behishti Zewar (Heavenly Ornaments)’, which purports to be a book of ‘Hanafi’ fiqh(!). So you better know about it or you will hear about it from them.

The issue is clarified very succinctly in the Hanafi school and even HT (Wahhabis don’t like them either…pattern recognition?) have got a good understanding of it, as well as the error on relating the issue to the Caliphate having to be from the Arabs.

As idiots will relish in telling me, I’m no scholar! But this guy is, and so are some of the HT guys, so if they have a problem with what has been said, they can take it up with them.

All a stupid ajnabi non-Arabic speaker like me knows is that listening to what Ibn Taymiyya and Albani say about ANYTHING is a good way to get more confused.

Q: Has Allah placed Arabs above non Arabs?

There is no greatness left to being Arab after Arabs turn their backs on the Sunna, as indicated by Sayyidina `Umar’s famous saying: “Nahnu qawmun a`azzana Allahu bil-Islam.” I.e. Arabs are adhilla otherwise.

We are commanded to love the Arabs for the sake of Sahib al-Sunna and his distinguished lineage, upon him and them blessings and peace. At the same time, Islam has made the mahmud meaning of being Arab consist in being a believer that follows the path of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, according to the rule that there is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab except in God-consciousness and the athar: “Arab tongues and `ajam hearts…” to designate those salivating-after-kufr Arabs, “… `Ajam tongues and Arab hearts” to designate non-Arabs who long for Akhira {wa-ma baddalu tabdila}.

Some verses and hadiths emphasize the worth of Arabs, some emphasize the worth of non-Arabs, and some criticize part of the Arabs harshly. Our approach to this question must balance mostly the first two kinds of emphasis. This is not a defense of a cultural bias, but a description of what Allah and His Prophet  said.

The evidence for the superiority of Arabs can only be based on the fact that the last Revelation took place within the historical context of Arab culture. Because of that, Arabs are distinguished, just as Muslims are distinguished, but accidentally (i.e. historically) the Arabs stand in the forefront and this is from Divine favor.

In the same sense, the Arabs are the first concerned by the Divine Revelation because Allah Most High said {We have revealed it in a clear Arabic tongue}.

The linguistic superiority of Arabic, and the superiority of Arabs in achieving full knowledge of Arabic, is a reality which is derived from the necessity of knowing the Qur’an and the Sunna fully, and they are expressed in Arabic. In that superficial linguistic sense, as in the accidental historical sense, Arabs also have a natural superiority.

None of this is to say that an impious Arab is superior to a pious non-Arab nor that an ignorant Arab is superior to a knowledgeable non-Arab: in those cases, the reverse is true. Also, a non- Arab who learns Arabic intending fuller knowledge of Shari`a, is rewarded more than if he didn’t have to learn Arabic first even if the teaching and learning of Arabic simply as a language, is mustahabb (a praiseworthy act) for all over and above that of any other language. That is why the Shari`a encourages every Muslim to learn Arabic and it is said to be a duty.

Allah also said {You are the best of peoples} (3:100) and this ayat addresses primarily the first generation of Muslims, the Muhajirun and Ansar, who were Arabs except for very few. The ahadith that praise the Prophet’s  generation or century, “then the next, then the next” (Muslim) and Abu Bakr and `Umar as the best of mankind after him, confirm that verse although the number of non-Arabs increased.

But the epicenter of both the abovementioned verses and the hadiths is THE PROPHET .We respect and love Arabs only because the Prophet  is one of them, in the sense that we respect and love him  in those whose Arab pride consists in following him . In this respect we respect and love every sincere Muslim as every sincere Muslim is an Arab through the kinship of Islam; and every sincere Muslim is a Friend of Allah (in the general not the special sense of Wilaya) for being a follower of His Prophet . This is Imam al-Shafi`i’s understanding of the Aal Muhammad  in the Salat Ibrahimiyya in the last tashahhud.

It is confirmed in the narration of the two freedmen among the Companions who quarreled, whereupon each one hurled at the other the name of his ethnic origin by way of insult, namely: “You Copt!” and “You Abyssinian!” Hearing this, the Prophet  said to them: “Stop this, for you are now both from Aal Muhammad.” The Shaykh of our teachers Abu al-Yusr `Abidin mentioned it in his book on slavery in Islam titled _al-Qawl al-Wathiq fi Amr al-Raqiq_ citing al-Sayyid al-Hifni’s _al-Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tarikh al-Habashan_.

In addition we *have to* love the actual Family of the Prophet  and most of them are non-Arabs in our time. But the reason why we love anyone in Islam is Taqwa (Godwariness) without which we cannot give them any attention even if they are from Ahl al-Bayt. We certainly do not love transgressors, even if they should be from Ahl al-Bayt. When the Arabs lost their Taqwa, Allah Most High withdrew power from them. So it means little to be a Sayyid or Sharif without taqwa, and even less to be an Arab unless one has taqwa.

In his last `Umra (year 1421) the Sharif Sidi Mustafa Basir al-Hasani was sitting in front of the Muwajaha al-Sharifa at which time one of the Arab guards there asked him: “Does it help anyone to be from Ahl al-Bayt?” He replied without looking at him: “With Taqwa.” The other said: “And without Taqwa?” Shaykh Mustafa replied: “I told you: with Taqwa.”

Allah Most High said in the Qur’an (49:13):

{{O humankind! Lo! We created you male and female, and made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Surely, the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the most righteous of you. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.}}

“Qila ya rasulallah man akram al-nas?…” The Prophet was asked: “Who are the best of people?” He replied: “The most God-conscious.” They said: “We did not mean that.” He said: “Yusuf the Prophet of Allah, son of the Prophet of Allah (Ya`qub), son of the Prophet of Allah (Ishaq), son of the Friend of Allah (Ibrahim).” They said: “We didn’t meant that.” He said: “If you are asking me about the nation [ma`adin = stocks] of the Arabs, then the best of them in the Time of ignorance are the best of them in Islam if/when they understand.” Sahih Muslim.

In other words, nobility is of three kinds: (1) Godwariness – of which the Prophet Muhammad  is the highest example; (2) the Prophetic House; and (3) Fitra or Pristine Disposition.

Furthermore, Rasulullah  said in the Farewell Pilgrimage:

“There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab…. except in whoever fears Allah the most.”

This is narrated from 17 Sahaba, so it is mutawatir (mass-transmitted). And this is the belief of Imam al-Shafi`i (ra).

Whatever ruling Imam al-Shafi`i meant when he said he preferred Arabs to marry Arabs, does not have a bearing on affirming superiority in the eyes of Allah but only with custom and on condition that those concerned are people of Taqwa. Imam al-Shafi`i never said that he would prefer a non-muttaqi Arab over a muttaqi non-Arab. It is likely, also, that what the Imam meant by “Arabs and non-Arabs” in this particular ruling was as an euphemism for free men and slaves, and this sense is also implied in the narration

“There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab.” Meaning: of a free man over a slave or former slave, because slaves and former slaves were overwhelmingly non-Arabs since the earliest centuries in Islam. This is confirmed by the narration adduced by

Ibn al-Salah in his Muqaddima on the Hadith sciences from `Ata’ that the latter was asked by the Caliph Hisham ibn `Abd al-Malik in al-Rusafa:

– “O `Ata’! Do you know anything about the foremost Ulema in the world?”
– “Yes, Commander of the Believers.”
– “Who is the Faqih of Ahl al-Madina?”
– “Nafi` the Mawla of Ibn `Umar [most likely a Persian according to al-Dhahabi].”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “A Mawla.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl Makka?”
– “`Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah.”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “No! A Mawla.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl al-Yaman?”
– “Tawus ibn Kaysan.”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “No! A Mawla.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl al-Yamama?”
– “Yahya ibn Abi Kathir.”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “No! A Mawla.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl al-Sham?”
– “Makhul.”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “No! A Mawla.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl al-Jazira?”
– “Maymun ibn Mihran.”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “No! A Mawla.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl Khurasan?”
– “Al-Dahhak ibn Muzahim.”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “No! A Mawla.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl al-Basra?”
– “Al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin.”
– “Were they Mawlas or Arabs?”
– “No! Mawlas.”
– “Then who is the Faqih of Ahl al-Kufa?”
– “Ibrahim al-Nakha`i.”
– “Was he a Mawla or an Arab?”
– “An Arab!”

Hearing which, Hisham said: “Had you not said an Arab I think I would have expired on the spot.”

Mawla is one of the addad in Arabic- words referring also to their opposites – and can mean the slave-owner, as illustrated by `Ali’s word to the Ansar: “How can I be your Mawla [=owner] when you are all Arabs [= free men]?”. Narrated by Ahmad with a chain of sound narrators as per al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa’id (9:128-129 #14610).

In this sense, what al-Shafi`i meant by his fatwa was that it is disliked for a free woman to marry a slave because it is preferable for her to bring free men and women into the world, and Allah knows best.

“Innallah hina khalaqani ja`alani min khayri khalqihi… ” “When Allah created me He made me the best choice of His creation, and when He created tribes He made me come from the best of tribes, and when He created souls He made me come from the best of souls, and when He created clans He made me come from the best of them.” Al-Tirmidhi and al-Bayhaqi.

The Prophet  also emphasized, although his tribe and clan are the best and they are the Arabs, that being related to him, in fact, consists in obeying Allah, not in being the son of so-and-so among his relatives: “Inna Bani fulanin laysu li bi awliya, innama waliyyi Allah.” “The sons of So-and-so are not (necessarily) my relatives. Allah is my Patron, and (so are) the righteous believers.” This is part of emphasizing the worth of non-Arabs. The Prophet  similarly emphasized that Salman al-Farisi, a Persian, was related to him.

Another hadith reads: “Hubb al-`Arab min al-iman”, “The love of Arabs is from belief.” But this is forged (mawdu`) according to Abu Hatim, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Dhahabi, and others.

The hadiths which emphasize that a non-Arab can achieve higher status than an Arab, are the two sayings related to Salman, although the first clearly applies to his particular person only: first, that he is of Ahl al-Bayt, second, that some Persians would reach knowledge even if it were at the Pleiades. This is in reference to the words “Wa akharina minhum…” “And other than them (the Arabs)” in the verses {He it is Who hath sent among the unlettered ones a messenger of their own, to recite unto them His revelations and to make them grow, and to teach them the Scripture and Wisdom, though heretofore they were indeed in error manifest, Along with others of them who have not yet joined them} (62:2-3).

And Allah knows best.

“Muhammad is the noblest of the Arabs and `Ajam. Muhammad is the best of those who trod the earth.” (Al-Busiri)


In the Kanz al ‘Ummal of Muttaqi Hindi quoting from the history of Ibn ‘Asaakir on the authority of Salmaan Farsi we have that the Prophet said  :

“Oh Mankind! The Lord is One Lord. The Father (Adam) is one father. The religion is one religion. To be an Arab is not based from the father or mother but it is a language. Whoever speaks Arabic then he is an Arab.”

Ibn `Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (Dar al-Fikr ed. 21:407) said:

Abu al-Faraj Qawwam ibn Zayd ibn `Isa and Abu al-Qasim Isma`il ibn Ahmad narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Naqur narrated to us: Abu al-Hasan `Ali ibn `Umar al-Harbi narrated to us: Ahmad ibn al-Hasan ibn Harun al-Subahi narrated to us: al-`Ala’ ibn Salim narrated to us: Qurra ibn `Isa al-Wasiti narrated to us: Abu Bakr al-Dhuhli narrated to us: From Malik ibn Anas: From al-Zuhri: From Abu Salama ibn `Abd al-Rahman who said:

“Qays ibn Mattatiyya came to a circle in which were sitting Salman al-Farisi, Suhayb al-Rumi, and Bilal al-Habashi, whereupon he said: ‘Here are Aws and Khazraj rising to help this man [the Prophet  ], so what is the meaning of this?’ Hearing this, Mu`adh ibn Jabal stood, seized him by the collar, and brought him to the Prophet  and told the latter what he had said. The Prophet stood and walked trailing his garment until he entered the Mosque and it was called out that the people have gathered to pray. Then he said: O people! The Lord is One and the Father [Adam] is one. Arabness (al-`arabiyya) is not, in any of you, inherited from father or mother but it is only the language that is spoken (innama hiya al-lisan). So, whoever speaks Arabic then he is an Arab.’ Then Mu`adh stood – still holding the other’s collar – and said: ‘What do you order us to do with this Munafiq, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘Leave him to the Fire.’ And Qays was among those who committed apostasy during the Ridda, at which time he was killed.”

Cited in two places in Kanz al-`Ummal (#33936 and #37132) which also states that the above is mursal and adds the words, “the Religion is one religion” as well as repeating the substantives (The Lord is One Lord, the father is one father).

Yet more:

I remember in the Shifa of Qaadhi Iyadh that Muhammad {saw} was sent to the red and the black and the commentary of this is that the Arabs were counted among the black. Can you comment on this?

The hadith is authentic and narrated from Jabir, Ibn `Abbas, Abu Musa, and Abu Dharr by Muslim, Ahmad, al-Darimi, al-Bazzar, Ibn Hibban and others.

`Iyad mentioned it in al-Shifa’ (2000 ed. p. 218 #401) then explained: “It was said that the black are the Arabs because swarthiness is their dominant complexion so they are among the black while the red are the `Ajam (non-Arabs). And it was said that [it means] the white (al-beed) and the black among the nations. And it was said that the red are human beings while the black are the jinn.”

If some of this is established as stated above, does this put the Africans and the Arabs {not dis-cluding others races, because of the first question} in even a stronger connection, rather than what the Orientalists tries to teach us?

The Arabs did not know racialism (race theories) and to them, probably tribe and clan were the dividing factor in defining ethnicity, which was then abolished by Islam. However, the term for slave (`abd) definitely denotes a black man in Arabic, which caused and continues to cause friction although it runs counter to the objectives of the Law. There are also some forged narrations attempting to inject racist notions into Islam.

Wife Beating In Islam?

There are few verses in the Quran that excite the opprobrium of critics of Islam more than Surah 4, verse 34. Here is a reply by Paul Williams using Muhammad Asad’s translation (excellent for apologetics: the Malaysian single volume edition is about to be released imminently). The commentator is ‘Big Boss’, a favourite of mine from the MDI site.

Muhammad Asad’s translation of the verse 34 goes:

Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has ordained to be guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will (44) you have reason to fear, admonish them first; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them (45); and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!

In the Prophet Muhammad’s final sermon he taught his companions that, ‘I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example (the Sunnah), and if you follow these you will never go astray’. It is instructive to read Asad’s commentary on this verse (see especially note 45 below):

44 The term nushuz (lit., “rebellion”- here rendered as “ill-will”) comprises every kind of deliberate bad behaviour of a wife towards her husband or of a husband towards his wife, including what is nowadays described as “mental cruelty”; with reference to the husband, it also denotes “ill-treatment”, in the physical sense, of his wife (cf. verse 128 of this surah). In this context, a wife’s “ill-will” implies a deliberate, persistent breach of her marital obligations.

45 It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one’s wife, and said on more than one occasion, “Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, “Never beat God’s handmaidens” (Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn ‘Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur’an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: “I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing – and what God has willed must be best” (see Manar V, 74).

With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife “has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct”, and that it should be done “in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)”; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this “beating”, if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic – “with a toothbrush, or some such thing” (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even “with a folded handkerchief” (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi’i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet’s personal feelings with regard to this problem.

Big Boss:

For people who say Asad is ‘heterodox’ in this matter, here is a tract from contemporary (and too strict for my liking) scholar GF Haddad, who is very critical of Asad’s interpretation.

Q. Has the phrase ‘wadribuhunna’ in 4:34 normally been interpreted as a command or has it been interpreted as more of a recommendation?

Not even a recommendation. Al-Razi said in his Tafsir on 4:34 (1308/1891 edition 3:222): “Al-Shaf`i said: ‘wa al-darbu mubah, wa al-tarku afdal – and hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable.”

The basic rule (asl) is strict prohibition, followed by dispensation (rukhsa) as explicited by the Prophet in the hadith below, which al-Shafi`i took for his evidence in his ruling:

The Prophet said: “Do not hit the maidservants of Allah!” (la tadribu ima’ Allah). Then `Umar (RA) came to the Prophet and said [NB: by way of exaggeration, cf. `Awn al-Ma`bud]: “The women are rebelling (dha’irna) against their husbands!” So the Prophet GAVE A DISPENSATION (rakhkhasa) to beat them. Whereupon women started pouring in to see the family of the Messenger of Allah and complain about their husbands. Seeing this, the Prophet said: “Many women have poured in to see the family of Muhammad, complaining of their husbands, and *the latter are certainly not the best of you*.” Narrated from Iyas ibn `Abd Allah ibn Abi Dhubab by al-Shafi`i in his Musnad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani in al-Kabir, and al-Hakim. Al-Nawawi and al-Suyuti graded it a sound (sahih) narration in Riyad al-Salihin [RS-281] and al-Jami` al-Saghir respectively.

The Prophet also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when he said: “Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” (Bukhari and Muslim).

The crafty little anti-Islam page on states:

“The Qur’an states:
“Righteous women are therefore obedient, And those you fear may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.”

“Some translators add the word lightly after ‘beat them’ in Q 4:34. Others like Mohammed Pickthall and Rodwell translate the word ‘edrebouhon – beat them’ as ‘scourge them’. […] But “a beating without causing injury” (agreed upon)

“So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in injury.”

Of course the above is false and tendentious but couched in the syrupy style typical of missionaries.

The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet in his Farewell Pilgrimage said: “Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that – EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY (fahisha mubina = adultery). If they do, then refuse to share their beds and beat them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE (fadribuhunna darban ghayra mubarrih*). Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision.”

*** Then he took the covenant from them and from us that they and we all heard and understood this from him, respectively, directly and indirectly, with his forefinger raised, and said: “O Allah! bear witness.” ***

After this, whatever Muslim man derogates to the recommendation of the Prophet has violated his covenant with the Prophet and shall be called to account for it; and whoever of the non-Muslim men or women claims – even the Archbishop of Canterbury and his wife – that beating women is allowed in Islam, has belied the Divine witness invoked by the Prophet and shall be called to account for it in the Divine Court.

Q. What is the evidence for saying that this ‘striking’ is in fact only supposed to be carried out with something small, like a miswak?

`Ata’ said: “I asked Ibn `Abbas: ‘What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?’ He replied: ‘[With] the siwak and the like’.” Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).

Al-Razi (3:222) mentions that as a rule (a) it must be a light beating and (b) the face must be avoided. He added that certain of the Shafi`i jurists said “a coiled scarf (mindil malfuf) (NB: NOT “a folded handkerchief” as mistranslated by Asad) or his hand may be used but not a whip nor a stick.”

To be honest, Haddad’s quote from the Prophet (SAW) that you could only beat them if they commit ‘manifest indecency’ which he indicates means ‘adultery’ or letting a stranger into your house/bed seems a little TOO lenient (i.e she has to be up to hanky panky in a house you own, in which case hitting her would probably be a ‘dispensation’ to stop you from KILLING her, as many men would do), but that’s how it is (I am sure that Liberals will object to spanking one’s wife even if one finds her in bed with a stranger in the manner Haddad describes in one’s own bed)

I would like to add that Asad and Haddad’s opposing but agreeing interpretations (if that makes sense) are very plausible for anyone who actually knows about Islam and Sharia (so not most Muslims and Islamophobes): For example, to prove and punish adultery, you need four live witnesses (who are reliable and ‘pious’) who witnessed not only ‘humping’ but ACTUAL PENETRATION (rather hard to get that money shot without the couple spotting you).

Unless your wife/husband moonlights as an orgiast or porn star, this criteria is going to be hard to meet. And since I reckon that many people who witness adultery are not going to want to divorce their wife (there was such a case in the Hadith) or have her stoned AND since most adultery WILL be you coming home to find a strange guy coming out of the shower or like that show, ‘Cheaters’, finding your husband/wife going to a hotel or room with someone, you ain’t going to recourse to the adultery punishment.

So allowing you to ‘beat’ your wife for ‘sexual misconduct’ is a useful tool given the strictures of the Islamic requirement to prove adultery (and the seriousness if it is) and the fact that not everyone who sees adultery will went to separate.

If a man caught his wife doing ‘sexual misconduct’ but could not/did not want to prove adultery, then a good spanking MAY assuage some people’s manhood as a sort of halfway house.

I agree that it seems very lenient, but nothing is too lenient for people who worship unlimited individual freedom, like the Liberals you mentioned, so they still will say that the Quran allows you to hit your wife so it’s ‘evil’.

Well, yes it does, but only if she is guilty of sexual misconduct.

I think anyone who has ever been the victim of ‘sexual misconduct’ by a man or a woman will understand. Hitting your wife is no small matter, but neither is cheating on a guy in his own house.

Also, I would like to add that it was made clear by the CLASSICAL Islamic Jurists and schools that if a man exceeded the limits (basically, slapping/spanking on the backside as you cannot hit the face, sexual areas or leave a mark, the only target left really is the bottom) and caused ‘damage’ to a woman, the judge would have the man beaten to the satisfaction of the woman, in public. It was then up to her if she wanted a divorce (although I think if that happened, the GUY would probably want a divorce…). And there are documented incidents of this happening.

One of the problems that we have today is that certain Muslims (*cough*) have decided to go ‘back to the book’ and re-interpret everything and say ‘beat means beat’, ignoring the decisions of Imam Abu Hanifa, Shafi (RA) etc. in favour of other people, and this despite the Prophet (SAW) telling us of the reliability of the earliest generations interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, which don’t forget also have to interpreted, hence the idea of Fiqh (jurisprudence) being superior to simply reading off Hadith.

Sadly, ‘Free Lover’ thought he would chime in:

That’s so lenient that I’M shocked!

If I caught my wife with another guy in MY house the HELL YES she would be getting a slap (or several). If anything, Islam is TOO liberal on this. I actually think the hitting is indeed to PREVENT YOU FROM DOING A LOT WORSE as most guys would want to do if they found some guy ‘enjoying’ their wife in a house they paid for (I’m sure most Liberals would not hit her and join in the fun. In fact it’s a favourite fantasy of Liberals to have a ‘threesome’ right?).

Won’t satisfy the haters though…just you watch. They WANT Muslims to be wife beaters. And rapists. And paedophiles. And murderers. And anything else that people dislike…

Which begs the question of where all the Non – Muslim wife beaters have been getting their ideas from…Maybe the Quran is more widely read in America than we are led to believe…

I agree that there are contradictory Hadith on this and most of them seem to support not spanking at all, and this case was made convincingly by Jeffrey Lang in his book ‘Losing My Religion’.

But I personally think that a lot of people start off thinking about this with the assumption that there is never any grounds for physical correction of women, even adultery. I think this is as unrealistic as saying you will never ever have to raise your hand to another man.

I think it is legitimate to hit one’s wife if she is caught by one having sex with someone else, as Assad and Haddad and others based on a clear narration of the Prophet (SAW) during his farewell pilgrimage no less, suggest.

I think if women (or men) think they have the right to cheat on their spouse without getting some kind of whopping, then they are idiots (or Liberals).

(as far as we know ‘Free Lover’ is not married – Ed)

Why single-sex schools are bad for your health (if you’re a boy)


The guy must be a strict Wahhabi…

I don’t agree with this methodology, but with those Muslim speakers who like to spam statistics and empirical evidence…then have this and be consistent.

Boys taught in male-only schools face divorce and depression by their early 40s, research reveals.

You might have thought that boys brought up in a single-sex environment would find relationships with girls difficult to handle. Now research due to be published tomorrow proves it.It shows that boys taught in single sex schools are more likely to be divorced or separated from their partner than those who attended a mixed school by their early 40s.

Gender Segregation and Your Kids

Fortunately the lightening strike missed them both…

I seem to remember the Prophet (SAW) saying something about marrying early, but it seems that there is some hard evidence emerging that it is harmful to leave having kids too late for guys as well as what is already known for women:



Why Some Girls Don’t Wear Hijaab

I would like to suggest, tentatively, that other than the tremendous discrimination, social pressure, legislation in places like France, Singapore,  China etc as well as almost daily street violence, (lest we forget the case of the German Hijaab martyr, Marwah), which causes women to take off the hijaab, I think one of the other leading causes for women neglecting the hijaab is that they cannot find a suitable partner, so feel they need to draw attention to their physical beauty to a greater degree to ‘throw the net wider’ so they can get one.

The first problem of discrimination and Islamophobia is being tackled by people like Paul Williams and his ‘gang’ (MDI etc.) but who is doing anything about my suggested latter problem? No – one methinks, and brothers who claim that we should be on the (alleged) path of the ‘Salaf’ don’t really seem to propose a solution, other than to defer it to the next life. Well, God wants the good for us in this life and the next, and we are to seek it. Nowhere does he tell you to wait for companionship and sexual fulfilment in the next world: this is a very Catholic or Puritan idea. So if women and men want to have sex and partner up, then they are free to seek that and facilitate it. However, a certain type of Muslim brother or sister, who also claim to be on ‘the path of the Salaf’ erect tremendous and insurmountable barriers to the interaction of good Muslim men and women, making it impossible for them to get any kind of attention, good OR bad. What are they supposed to do then, according to this guy? I bet you it never occurs to the puritans that there may be a link between the marriage crisis in the Muslim community and the way girls dress. After all, why would girls want ATTENTION eh? What does that tell you?

As someone once said: ‘Be tough on crime, be tough on the CAUSES of crime’.

I’m going to be controversial and say that the excessive (unIslamic) practices in the Muslim community of segregation and non – mixing leading to loneliness, isolation and sexual frustration of both sexes due to the practices and teaching of those who claim to be on the ‘path of the ‘Salaf” is the leading cause of sexual and dress immodesty in the Muslim community (apart from outside pressure): they induce the desperation and then condemn people for acting desperate or immodestly.

Like a bad doctor kills all his patients and blames their lifestyle.

I’m happy to be corrected, especially by a woman.



One thought on “Marriage In Islam

  1. In regards to 4:34, if a wife is accused of Sexual Misconduct, then Hadd or other punishments are to be applied in accordance with the Law as applicable within a Muslim Regime. Now if husband has a liberty to take law into his own hand and execute the punishment then how can it be monitored, controlled to regulate the punishment. Each executioner will have his own discretion on use of a siwak/handky etc. This creates an anarchy. In view of this ambiguity, please explain the view that Idhrabuhunna does mean beating for all practical purposes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s