Books and Documents

Islamic Sharia Laws (16 Jan 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)

The Qur’anic Sharia (laws) on Divorce, Triple Divorce, Temporary Marriage, Halala Stand Forbidden (Haram)



 By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

Co-author (Jointly with Ashfaque Ullah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009

Qur’anic concern on the prevalent customs regarding divorce

In Pre-Islamic Arabia, men could abandon their wives at whim by simply declaring, “You are to me like my mother’s back” (58:2).

Since handing down a divorce was a man’s prerogative, he needed no ground and did not even release his abandoned wife, who preferred to stay in her husband’s home for want of any other place to go. There is a tradition from Aisha reported in Sahih al-Bukhari (Acc. 134/Vol.7) that institutionalizes this custom. It reads:

“… the women whose husband does not want to keep her with him any longer, but wants to divorce her and marry some other lady, so she says to him: `Keep me and do not divorce me, and then marry another woman and you may neither spend on me nor sleep with me.”

The Justinian Code that dominated the thoughts of the era, placed a woman under the ownership of a man. After marriage the husband became her owner and treated her as he wished. Thus, he could divorce his wife by simply declaring ‘I divorce thee triply or thrice.’ A system of temporary co-habitation (muta marriage) was also in vogue that permitted a woman to live with different men when their husbands were away from home on trading or any other mission. The Shi‘itee Ithna ‘Ashari school retains the practice. Thus according to the dictum of the theologian, al-Hurr al Amili, “The believer is only perfect when he has experienced a muta [1], though there can be little doubt that the custom virtually conflates legalized prostitution. While this did not raise any question of divorce, the married women who practiced this were virtually temporarily divorced from their husbands and had no means of livelihood for themselves or their children and therefore took to heterosexual habitation as part of social norm. 

The Qur’an with its key agenda “to lift from them (humanity) their burdens and shackles that were upon humanity (before)” (7:157) had to deliver the women from the curse of arbitrary divorce, conjugal oppression and lifelong bondage. At a higher plane, it recognizes the serious emotional and financial implications of a divorce for either or both the spouses, as well as the offspring of a broken marriage. It, therefore, discourages divorce by a set of well-guarded stipulations, but allows it if the alternative was life-long unhappiness for the family.

The Qur’an, however, does not consider divorced women as a social burden. It protects their financial interest and those of the children born to them from their broken marriages, permits them to remarry and treats them practically like any other unmarried women.

Context of the Revelation

In the immediate context of the revelation, the Qur’an abolishes the pre-Islamic custom that permitted a man to abandon his wife indefinitely by an oath, but retain her in wedlock, thus preventing her remarriage or freedom. It therefore declares (2:226):

“Those who vow (to abstain) from their wives must wait for four months. Meanwhile if they go back, (remember,) God is Most Forgiving and Merciful” (2:226).

 The concluding God’s attribute of Forgiveness and Mercy is suggestive of Qur’anic encouragement for reconciliation between the spouses and restoration of an effective marriage tie. However, if a man remains firm in his decision on divorce, and abandons his wife for four consecutive months, he must terminate the marriage at the end of this period and release his wife (2:227).

“However, if they decide on a divorce, (let them remember that) God is All-Knowing and Aware” (2:227)

Legislation of a Time-frame for a divorce to take effect as norm for humanity

In a legally phrased passage (2:228/229) the Qur’an prescribes, among other things, a three-month waiting period for a woman under divorce notice (2:228), and commands a man who initiates the divorce to formally articulating his intention at least twice over the period (2:229), obviously in the presence of witnesses. The time-framing is reiterated in two other verses (2:231, 65:2).

“Divorced women shall wait by themselves for three monthly periods, for it is not lawful for them, if they believe in God and the Last Day, to conceal what God has created in their wombs…. (2:228). (O men, you must) pronounce the divorce over two occasions. Thereafter live together (with your mates) honorably, or part with (tasrihu) them honorably…. (2:229).

“And if you divorce women, and they reach (the end of) their term, then either live together honorably, or part with (sarrihu) them honorably, but do not keep them to injure them, (or) to exceed limits. Anyone who does that merely wrongs his own soul…” (2:231).

“And when they reach (the end of) their term, then either live together honorably, or part with (fariqu) them honorably, calling to witness two just members from among yourselves and uphold the evidence (as) before God. This is to instruct anyone who believes in God and the Last Day. (Remember,) God will find a way out for anyone who heeds Him” (65:2).

Remarriage after divorce.  

The Qur’an does not permit the marriage of a divorced woman with her ex-husband after the expiry of the three month-timeframe. 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).

“If he (the husband) divorces her (at the end of the waiting period), she becomes unlawful to him afterwards until she marries another man. If he (her new husband) then divorces her, there is no blame on the (former) couple to reunite - provided they feel that they can keep within the limits set by God. These are the limits set by God, and He clarifies them to a people who have knowledge” (2:230).

This was obviously to allow full freedom to a divorced woman to find a new spouse and marry. The absence of this clause would have led many ex-husbands to prevent their divorced wives from marrying a new spouse out of grudge that normally precedes a divorce. Accordingly, the Qur’an warns men:

“And when you have divorced women (after) they have reached their term, you must not obstruct them from marrying (their would be) spouses (azwaj) if they have mutually agreed in a fair manner. This is instructed to anyone among you, who believes in God and the Last Day. (Remember,) this is more appropriate for you and purer; and God knows, yet you do not know” (2.232).

Any permission to remarry an ex-husband after an irrevocable divorce would have led to the continuation of a pre-Islamic practice of a man divorcing his wife at whim and marrying her back at whim thereby never allowing her a separation. It would have totally frustrated the intent of the divorce: to release a woman from the bondage of a failed marriage.  

Maintenance of divorced pregnant wife, and the offspring

In a clearly stated verse (2:233) the Qur’an spells out: i) the social and financial responsibilities of a man divorcing a pregnant wife, ii) the moral responsibility of his divorced wife to disclose her pregnancy, iii) the need for mutual consultation between them if they wished to put the child under the care of a foster-mother, and iv) the responsibility of the heir of the father if a child was born posthumously (2:233).

“Mothers shall nurse their children for two whole years if they wish to complete the nursing.” The father (has to) provide for them, and clothe them reasonably. No soul is to be burdened beyond its capacity. A mother should not be made to suffer for her child, nor a father for his child, while the heir (is liable) likewise. If they both wish to wean the child by mutual consent and consultation - there is no blame on them; so if you wish to give your children out to wet-nurses, there is no blame on you, provided you pay what is reasonably expected from you. Heed God and know that God is Observant of what you do” (2:233).

The Qur’an further commands men folk to supporting a divorced pregnant wife (65:6), and that they should spend according to their means (65:7).

“Accommodate them (the women in Iddat) in the manner you lodge, according to your circumstances, and do not harass them to reduce them (to straits). If they are pregnant, meet their expenses until they bring forth their burden; and if they suckle (the baby) for you, give them their due, and consult together honorably. But if you find it difficult (for her health reason, or she intends to remarry), let another woman nurse (it) on behalf of him (the father) (65:6). (In all these matters) the rich should spend (according to) his abundance, but the one whose means is limited should spend of what God has given him. (Remember,) God does not burden anyone beyond what He has given him. Surely God will grant relief after distress” (65:7).

Settlement of dower if neither marriage is consummated nor dower fixed 

The Qur'an directs men to give a reasonable provision to their divorced wives, even if the marriage was not consummated (2:236, 33:49).

“There (will be) no blame on you to divorce women before you have consummated (marriage) with them, or fixed their dower (faridah), but provide for them: the rich according to his means, and the poor according to his means – a reasonable provision, a duty binding (haqq), on the compassionate”(2:236).

“You who believe, when you marry believing women and divorce them before you have consummated (marriage) with them, you do not have to count (the waiting) period for them. So make provision for them, and part with (sarrihu) them in a handsome parting”(33:49).

The verse 2:236 uses the term faridah for marriage dower, while the verse 4:4 calls it saduquat.

“Give women their dower (saduquat), as a gift but if they voluntarily favor you with anything from it, take it and enjoy it in good spirit” (4:4).

The former (faridah) connotes with a binding obligation, while the latter (saduqat), with a gift, or charity. Thus, the Qur'an leaves no ambiguity about the legal position of marriage dower: it is a binding obligation of a man towards his wife, and is performed as a gesture of goodwill or charity (saduquat) that s non-refundable. Thus there can be no question about deferring its disbursement and linking it with any other financial or post divorce transaction.

Settlement of dower if marriage is not consummated, but dower is fixed

The Qur’an states:

“If you divorce them before you have consummated (marriage) with them, but you have fixed their dower (faridah), then (give them) half of what you have fixed, unless they (the women) forgo it, or the one in whose (alladhi) hands is the marriage tie forgoes it. To forgo is nearer to heedfulness (taqwa), and do not forget to be generous between yourselves. (Remember,) God is Observant of what you do” (2:237).

The common gender pronoun alladhi, rendered above as whose, is traditionally identified with a husband, implying that only the husband can terminate a marriage that is yet to be consummated. But this purports to revoke a woman’s Qur’anic privilege to dissolve a marriage unilaterally under compelling circumstances (2:229). Therefore the pronoun alladhi must be interpreted in its common gender form, implying that either of the couple - husband or wife can lawfully dissolve an unconsummated marriage. Based on this, the pronouncements of the verse may be broken down into the following simple tenets:

•        If a man initiates a divorce, he has to pay half the dower to the woman, unless she forgoes it.

•        If a woman breaks the marriage from her side, she has to forgo her claim on half the dower that she would have received if the man divorced her.

•        A man, who gives a divorce, has the option to forgo the exempted ‘half' part, and give full contracted dower as a gesture of generosity (fadl).

•        Both the partners of a divorce should be generous to each other, and refrain from exploiting one another. 

Maintenance for a divorced woman

 The Qur’an declares:

“(There shall be) a reasonable maintenance for divorced women - a duty (haqq) binding on the heedful (muttaqin) (2:241). Thus does God clarify His messages to you, that you may use your reason” (2:242).

The Qur’anic injunction is in broad terms: it does not say whether a man is required to make a one off provision, or give a maintenance allowance to his divorced wife until she remarries. The Qur'an, however, asks the menfolk to use reason. Thus, if a man is required to make a provision, commensurate to his income, to a woman with whom he has only contracted marriage but not yet consummated it (2:236 above), he must be fair and considerate to the woman he is divorcing after living together as a husband and wife. He must therefore arrange spousal maintenance, commensurate to his income, and to the financial need, age, health and circumstances of his spouse. This obviously is a matter for the court to decide, depending upon the merit of the case, the prevalent social conditions and securities, and the relative financial positions of the partners in a divorce case.

The Qur’an forestalls any manipulative interpretation of its commandments

The Qur’anic dictates on divorce as discussed above date from two different periods of its revelation. The passage 2:226-242 dates from early Medinite period, while the passage 65:1-7 from mid Medinite period. The passages, separated chronologically by at least three to four years, complement each other with immaculate consistency and clarity in spelling out a husband’s obligations during a divorce. This Qur'anic repetition is understandably to help avoid (i) any misinterpretation by later generation scholars and (ii) any ambiguity on the subject.

Conclusion: The Qur’an deals with the process of divorce in a balanced and phased manner comprising a three month time frame, so that this most agonizing experience in a person’s life is faced in a balanced, phased and harmonious manner, and there is no bitterness and ill feelings between the erstwhile spouses. The institution of temporary marriage (muta) and triple divorce are in direct contradiction to the Qur’anic message and therefore stand haram. Some local customs such as Halala that allows a man to divorce his wife at the spur of the moment, such as in a state of anger or drunkenness and then force her into marriage and sexual intercourse with a friend and get him to divorce her to marry her back the next day or so totally disregarding the three month time for his divorce and that of his friend to take effect also stands utterly haram and sexually shameful sadistic. These practices that remain part of the Classical Islamic Law have defiled and demonized Islam, no matter how few Muslims practice it, and how the Muslims glorify their faith, and reduced Islam to a medieval misogynist cult in the eyes of a section of Western people as summed up By Newt Gringer the 2012 Presidential candidate from the Republicans in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010: “I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” It is time for the Islamic doctors of law to treat the Classical Islamic Law as a closed corpus - and draw a Modern Law of Islam based on its divine Sharia (the Qur’an) and not the Classical Islamic Law, which is not a word of God and contradicts the Qur’anic paradigms on many counts as detailed in a recent article:    

The Classical Islamic Law (Islamic Sharia Law) is NOT a Word of God!


The Classical Islamic Sharia Law is NOT a Word of God! (Part II: The Way Forward)


Final Comment: Muslim Ulema in India are sticking to the personal law that their pre-Islamic ancestors established under the behest of Hanafi law. For the medieval era, when women were grievously oppressed in the non-Muslim word, these brazenly anti-Qur’anic laws held sway.  With the liberation and empowerment of women and a quantum change in gender dynamics in the non-Muslim world – much in line with the Qur’anic message (I am not suggesting they copied it from the Qur’an for if that was so, why couldn’t the Ulema do it), it is time for the Muslim Ulema to reform their laws in line with the Qur’anic paradigms.

One wonders why a section of the Muslim Ulema in India pass Fatwas or stick to rulings that patently contradict the Qur’an, are highly misogynistic, grievously violate international human rights and so immensely preposterous (condoning incest, forcing Indian Government to pass a law to limit the maintenance of a woman after more than 30 years of wedlock.) that one finds it hard to make any candid comment lest it could be too unsavory. The least one may say about the practice of Halala is that a time may also come that a Maulvi from some obscure village of India may insist on watching and filming it as hard core evidence?? God save us from that day.


1.       Azaf A.A.Fyzee, Our lines of Mohammedan Law, Oxford University Press, Fifth  Edition, 2005, p. 117.

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.





  • There is one factual inaccuracy in the Article when it mentions that  mutah was in vouge by women when  their husbands were away from home on trading or any other mission and the Shi‘itee Ithna ‘Ashari school retains the practice.I have read a very detailed book on mutah written by some shia ulema, according to which mutah is permissible in certain circumastances and not as quoted in this article and all conditions of ordinary marriage and inheritance will apply in case of mutah also except that it would be for a specified period. Quotation of the theologian, al-Hurr al Amili, “The believer is only perfect when he has experienced a muta" is also out of context. Since it is very interesting subject, I am following it for the last 40 years but so far I have not come across even a single case of muta. My locality and surroundings are full of shias.I will be very happy to know if even one case of mutah is in your knowledge with circumstances (also complete address) as I have to take my research forward. Thanks in anticipation.
    Mohd Abis

    By Mohd Abis - 7/26/2012 3:35:27 AM

  • @Shahid Husain.

    @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.


    By muhammad yunus - 1/18/2012 7:17:32 AM

  • 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.

    By Raihan Nezami - 1/17/2012 1:18:59 PM

  • @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?



    By Shahid Husain - 1/17/2012 9:54:52 AM

  • 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.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/17/2012 9:38:07 AM

  • 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.

    By Raihan Nezami - 1/17/2012 9:08:44 AM

  • 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.

    By ASHOK KUMAR - 1/17/2012 5:09:45 AM

  • 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.

    By Ashok Sharma - 1/17/2012 3:22:59 AM

  • 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.

    By sadaf - 1/17/2012 1:40:03 AM

  • @Rihan Nizami. I a ppreciate your point, but the taste of the pudding lies in the eating. Read the article already posted on the subject and reflect what the non-Muslims think about us and of the plight, lifelong humiliation and agony of our sisters who go through it. Somebody must bell the cat even at the risk of sacrificing his life and unfortunately Muslims are very shy to challenge the cat. Thanks for your comment but you said noting about the positive side of the article.
    By muhammad yunus - 1/16/2012 11:08:52 PM

  • 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.

    By Raihan Nezami - 1/16/2012 10:03:13 PM

  • 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.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 1/16/2012 3:14:32 PM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.