@Sahid Husain: Please see your questions and my answers in red.
1. “You say if a man divorces his wife then she would have to marry athe same thing –what is the difference?
Ans: The practice of halala (not theory mind you) as under active debate on this website allows a man to divorce his wife at the spur of moment by saying the word tallaq thrice and then get someone to marry her, have intercourse with her – rather rape her and divorce her may be the very second day. If you read the article against whom you have commented, you will see that the Qur’an stipulates a timeframe of three months for a divorce to be irrevocable (Verses (2:228/229, 2:231, 65:2). The difference is in timing. The Qur’an does not permit a man to divorce in a single session – as was the practice in pre-Islamic Arabia and that’s why it introduced a time-frame as amply explained in the article which I will request you to read without any pre-conceived notions.
2. “You say that a man has to say 'talaq' 3 times but not at the same time,it has to be spread over the 3 months. Since there is no stated time betweensaying talaq once and the next two times a second or a minute or a month whichone is right and who decides that. Can you please clarify this point.”
Ans: Please understand. I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING OF MY OWN. I AM A MORTAL LIKE YOU AND MAY STAND BEHIND YOU IN GOD’S COURT. I am only tabling what God Says in the Qur’an. Are you not convinced that the Qur’an does prescribe a three month time frame for a divorce to take effect. If not, its not my task to guide you. I can only, on behalf of our beloved Prophet and as a witness to humanity convey the message with clarity. Even the Prophet was not empowered to guide (rashda) others (72:21).
Ref. last two questions, (marriage of Muslim men and women with believing non-Muslims, I can at this moment quote the following (Ch. 32.3) from a book that has the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif and authenticated by a renowned international jurist and scholar of Islam [Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, June 2009]:
“Towards the concluding phase of revelation (5:5), the Qur’an gives explicit permission to Muslim men to marry from among the ‘People of the Book' (Jews and Christians), or those who believe in One God (mu’minat).
“This day (all) good things are made lawful for you. The food of those to whom Scripture [Book] was given is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and so are chaste believing women (mu’minat), and chaste women from among those (who have been) given the Scripture [Book] before you - after you give them their dowers (and take them in wedlock) as chaste women, not in lewdness, nor as secret love-companions. Anyone who rejects faith (in God), his deed is in vain, and he will be among the lost ones in the hereafter” (5:5).
The verse does not require women from among the believers in One God (mu’minat), and the people ‘to whom Scripture was given’ (Jews and Christians in the context of the revelation) to embrace Islam while marrying Muslim men. Thus, there are plenty of examples in Islamic history of believing non-Muslim women marrying Muslim men and living together with their privileges enhanced, and religions unchanged, unless they opted to become Muslims.
The verse does not bar Muslim women from marrying believers in One God (mu’minin) or from among the ‘People of the Book’. But historically this has not happened obviously because a Muslim woman would have lost all her Qur’anic privileges as well as individual legal status by marrying a non-Muslim believer (mu’min) – who could also compel her to adopt his faith. However, with the permeation of Islamic values across the global multi-religious communities and the remoteness of the Qur’anic ideals from many Islamic societies, the table has turned and there have been cases of interfaith marriages between Muslim women and believing non-Muslim men
Thank you and may God guide all of us in the right way.
Mr. Shahid: According to my knowledge, "Halala" as a rule is not mentioned in Quran, you know the way of offering Namaz is also not there. Halala is not more than a marriage, but with a difference and within a time-frame. The article itself clearly clarifies your point. I would request Younus Sb to further elaborate your querry.
@RihanNezami - Can you please elaborate on your understanding of Halala and whetherit is permitted in Islam or not.
@MuhammadYunus – You say if a man divorces his wife then she would have to marry someonebefore she can be married to him again. Halala says pretty much the same thing –what is the difference?
@MuhammadYunus - You say that a man has to say 'talaq' 3 times but not at the same time,it has to be spread over the 3 months. Since there is no stated time betweensaying talaq once and the next two times a second or a minute or a month whichone is right and who decides that. Can you please clarify this point.
@MuhammadYunus - I know that it is not related to this article but what does the Quransay about marriage between Muslims and non Muslims. We know that a Muslim malecan marry a woman of 'the book' - does this imply Christian and Jew only? Dothey have to convert? (probably not). With women of all other religious beliefsI suppose it is allowed unless they convert.
Howabout Muslim women? They not allowed to marry anyone other than a Muslim male?Not even a Christian or Jew?
Mr. Sharma says, "There is no valid reason to believe in the existence of any god."
Promoting atheism may be his agenda, but this article is about some specific issues.
Janab Yunus Sb: I was in a hurry in the morning, but as a habit, I opened the site, had a cursory look upon the articles and went through the whole article by skimming . I found that one sentence begging for attention so I pointed out it; your effort is really commendable and I appreciate your courage as you have dedicated yourself for the noble cause of the reformnation of evil Islamic practices and offered your head to the altar.
Actually there is nothing wrong in the Islamic practices if one goes accordingly, but some people with vested interest have spoilt its face by manipulating some rules suitable to their business. Halala is one such case which has been widely misused, wrongly interpreted and made a wrong practice. If one goes into detail; as you have done it, it is quite clear (Azhar min al-shamsh); there is no question of any ambiguity, but alas! what to be said to the concerning parents, husbads and mostly affected woman who agrees to the wrong dictact of any so-called Mullah. I want to quote one paragraph from your article,
The Qur’an does not permit the marriage of a divorced woman with her ex-husband after the expiry of the three month-time-frame. She must marry a new spouse, live with him as his wife and should this second marriage fail and her new husband divorces her, she could remarry her first husband after the expiry of the three month waiting/notice period (Iddat) (2:230).
In the light of the above quotation, there is no scope for any confusion. It is a pure case of marriage. The woman is made free to re-marry; in case the husband dies or she is divorced again; she can think to marry her first husband again. There should not be any pre-arrangement or agreement between the first husband and second husband.
The marriage should not be performed for a night only; it should be a complete marriage with the period of iddat being completed in advent of any mis-happening. Ultimately, the concerning woman should be given absolute freedom to decide in this regard, in that situation the woman would never agree to any such proposal for the sake of children or family. And it should not be; as Allah Kareem is the Provider to one and all, here and there, evrywhere.
This site presumably tries to portray modernity and liberalism but what I noticed is a dichotomy in approach (may be completely unintentional)...of over 20 odd figures mentioned on the page, every name comes with a title like Sir, Ustad, Queen, etc., except for Swami Vivekananda who is just mentioned Vivekananda - this is akin to mentioning Prophet Muhammed as Muhammed. Swami Vivekananda is among the revered Hindu monks of modern India and if you have to use his name and photo, please do so with respect. I appreciate the website and also the efforts.
Buddha's statement:"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise man said it.Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held.Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books.Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin.Believe nothing just because someone else believes it.Believe only what you your-self test and judge to be true."There is no valid reason to believe in the existence of any god. So-called 'sacred books' have no validity and no argument for the existence of any god stands up under investigation, e.g. the argument that there must be a creator greater than humans can be extended ad infinitum.
There is just one Quran and its singularity unites the various factions of Muslims. It is only when it is interpreted by different factions that all the differences crops up. Each group has their own Shariah. To achieve the purpose of unity of Muslims either the Shariahs have to be sacrificed or every group agree to the existence and possibility of having different Shariahs under the same Quran. But for that Muslims have to be tolerant of people having different Shariahs. If none of this is possible then no power on the earth can unite Muslims and they will continue to fight like dogs and stay divided and keep fulfilling the Prophecy of Quran that Muslims, just as some other religious group divided themselves in 71 sects, so shall Muslim will be divided into 72.Therefore the emphasis should always be on just one Quran. One for all Mankind and hence all Muslims and if anyone would like to have an interpretation or a Shariah of his liking, then he should not encroach on the right of another Muslim who might like to have another interpretation or another Shariah. But all this elaborate understanding of the need for tolerance gives too much of importance to Shariah. In fact much more than people should have given to Quran which is acceptable to all Muslims. There is basically no need to have Shariah at all. What is the use of Shariah when it fails to achieve the desired objective of Quran which instructs in no uncertain words for Muslims to stay united?However if someone insist on having a Shariah, that particular Shariah that suites his taste so selfishly, then he cannot achieve the unity of Muslims and that is for sure, because people similar to him but insisting on their version of Shariah are no less adamant and stubborn. There is a tug of war kind of situation. And this tug of war doesn’t have just the regular two opposite direction but multi directional pull from a centrally placed Quran. With so many teams each pulling a page in their direction they are literally shredding the Quran apart. If we acknowledge the deficiency in humans of bringing their ego ahead of their understanding, we will have to humbly accept that people insisting on the need of Shariah of their liking or what they believe is the correct one and people emphasizing the importance of Shariah more than the importance of Quran, though they would not say it and argue endlessly that they are actually not doing so, will never achieve the unity of Muslims. To achieve the unity of Muslims, there is need to purge away all existing Shariahs, which of course is not going to happen, and we are destined to stay divided into 72 sects and will ensure that Quran’s threat be read as Quran’s instruction!There is another aspect of the need to purge away all Shariahs. It is apart from the political wisdom of staying united under the banner of single Quran and not staying divided under various Shariahs. This aspect is the need to carry out the instructions of Quran: To stay united, to not quarrel, to be like bricks of a wall. This instruction of Quran need no justification as to why should it be followed. There is a Divine Wisdom in it and as Muslims we ought to follow it whether we are able to understand it or not. As a Muslim our loyalty is towards, Allah, His Prophets, and Quran. That’s it. No Shariah is as important as instructions recorded in Quran. The Quran overrules all Shariah and the sources of it, be it Fuqaha, be it Hadees, be it whatever. The Quran that has been preserved the way it is, is the final words. While the same is not true for any other guide, because while any other piece of writing helps in developing our understanding of Quran, all such writings were done by mortals- however good their intention was, but fallible in their wisdom to record and discern things properly, there is not a single letter that has been altered in Quran that was communicated by Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Either we give up our pledge to stay united and become more tolerant of each other, or we purge the whole Shariah thing and start afresh writing a common Shariah, like common minimum programme. But the question one should ask of oneself that is the common minimum programme kind of Shariah required at all when we already have the Quran which itself is the common minimum for all of us. The matter of day to day governance can be sorted out more easily if we just go and check back regarding it in Quran. If it is written there, ‘prohibited’ in specific words, it is prohibited. If not, then, not. Since very few things are ‘prohibited’ explicitly and rest others written in quite general way not specifying the details, then it should be taken as the magnanimity of Quran to not be nitpicking of issues that does no harm to the objectives of Islam.Remember, one particular objective of Islam is unity of Ummah. Just as anybody would interpret it, I too have my own interpretation of it. While some may say that is to bring political strength, I interpret the objective behind it is to bring Peace. Some other may say, we don’t care for the objective, but we know what the instruction is and that is Unity. But whatever it be, each brick is an entity in its own, but together such bricks make up a wall. The entity of brick is not lost in wall; it only adds to the strength. If accommodated properly, the brick will remain peacefully at its place. Regarding Halala or whatever, either let each Muslim decide what is correct for him/her as per the Quran that has been there for him/her without anyone coming in between his/her Quran and him/her or let us purge the whole thing and re-write the Shariah based on the exact words of Quran. Let us not even go to the intent of it, because the moment we go into it, each will start understanding the intent as per their understanding. Lot many Maulvis, Muftis, Ulemas will jump in to have their understanding prevail over other's understanding. If not heeded by others, they may take it on their ego and see to it that they ruin the peace and unity of Muslims by questioning the wisdom of majority. While maority may or may not be right, but so may the Mulvis, Muftis and Ulemas be or be not right. They best is to go back to see the wordings of Quran, find out the Ayat regarding the issue and let nobody insert a single word other than that which is written and let nobody make out a meaning and declare that his/her's is the only acceptable meaning.
Janab Yunus Sb: The statement, "Some local customs such as Halala that allows a man to divorce his wife" is wrong. Halala doesn't allow anyone to divorce. Halala is a different act of making a broken relation legitimate. Some people divorce their wives "at the spur of the moment”, in a state of anger or drunkenness" is different case. For such divorces, don’t blame Halala. Divorce in a rush of blood and arranging divorce for Halala are two different things. Please take notice of my comment.
If a divorced couple want to re-marry each other, there should be no impediment in their way. The requirement that the woman should have married another man and be divorced from him before she can remarry her first husband is an unnecessary encumbrance and the verses in the Quran which impose such a requirement must be re-examined and re-interpreted. Moreover the Quran, although it mentions re-marriage and divorce as prior conditions, does not say that such a marriage to another man has to be consummated. The requirement of consummation may have been added by some lecherous Maulana for his own illicit pleasure.Prof. Azizah al-Hibri of the University of Richmond says, "The fundamental notion in the Qur'an is that of justice, and justice is gender equality." If a particular requirement is imposed on a woman and the same requirement is not imposed on man, we must always question it.