Clothes Below the Ankles – Is it Just a Problem of Pride?
August 15, 2008
إن النشيد: أي الصوت المطرب، إذا كان من رجلٍ لنفسه كالراكب الذي يُنشد وهو سائر في الطريق، أو كان هذا النشيد كذلك
مسجلاً في أشرطة يسمعها، ولم يكن بآلة، وكان الذي فيه غير معصية بأن كان ثناءً على الله أو على رسوله أو على المؤمنين فلا حرج فيه شرعاً، بل هو من السنن، فإن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمر به في حديث أنجش عندما قال: “رفقاً بالقوارير يا أنجش“، وكذلك شارك فيه كما في حديث البخاري أنه قال: “أبينا” ويرفع بها صوته، وفي رواية يمد بها صوته، وكذلك قال لعامر بن الأكوع يوم خيبر: “من هذا غفر الله له؟” فقال له عمر: ألا أمتعتنا به؟ وكذلك شارك في النشيد في حفر الخندق وفي بناء المسجد وكان يقول يوم حنين: “أنا النبي لا كذب *** أنا ابن عبد المطلب” Read the rest of this entry »
Unnatural offences: The Controversy
July 30, 2008
The unnatural offence is a sin of lust against the order of God. [1] It can be defined as carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal performed through the anus. [2] In the Holy Quran, it is stated that Allah has created man and woman as sexual beings for procreation purposes. On the contrary, the unnatural act such as homosexual sodomy, heterosexual, masturbation and bestiality are examples of no procreative sexual gratification which are in conflict with man’s spiritual destiny.
The Islamic Ruling on working in a ‘Nashid’ group and Imitating Popstars? Shaykh Salih al-Munajjid
June 14, 2008
Q - I have been offered a job in an Islamic Nashid group [performing at weddings and so on]. What should I do? I am desperately in need of work.
Free-Mixing Between Men and Women
June 5, 2008
The terms “mixing” and “mingling” are used frequently in discussions on the subject of male-female relations in Islam, but these terms were not used at the time the Qur’ân was revealed. For this reason, we cannot find direct references in the Qur’ân and Sunnah that say “free mixing between men and women is unlawful”. However, this does not mean that such conduct is permissible or that Islam has failed to address the matter. Islam has detailed the relationship between men and women in the most precise and exacting terms. It has set down clear guidelines to show men and women how they must conduct themselves with one another. From all of this, there can be no question that Islam prohibits the free mixing of the sexes.
The Hadith:
“Whoever imitates a people is from them.”
This hadith was related on behalf of four different Companions: ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar, Abu Hurairah, Hudhayfa and Anas bin Malik [May Allah be pleased with them].
Shaykh Jamal Zarobozo on the Copyright Issue
May 6, 2008
This is an issue that lots of people discuss and debate. To give a complete and convincing answer to this question would require an extensive and lengthy discussion. Unfortunately, that is not the goal or the purpose here. Hence, I will begin referring to three works that the interested individual may consult if he is interested in more details concerning this issue. Obviously, there are works other than these three available but these three references are comprehensive in the sense that they cover both sides of the issue in detail. Again, the goal here is to be brief and therefore the interested individual may consult the following three works:
Question: Are wedding anniversaries an innovation?
Answered by Sheikh Salman al-Oadah
Some young couples, when the date of their wedding comes around again, like to celebrate that day. The husband often presents a romantic and affectionate gift to his wife. Sometimes, they rent a room in a hotel for the night and spend a romantic time together.
Some Muslims, however, look upon this with suspicion, wondering if this comes under the prohibition of observing holidays aside from the established `ids.
Kissing the Bride in Public [Updated]
January 30, 2008
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of All the Worlds. May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, and upon his family and Companions.
This fatwa from our eminent Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah seems quite strange. It conveys to the reader [well, to me at least] that kissing one’s spouse in public is valid in Islam. Showing affection and being intimate with one’s spouse is an integral aspect of marriage life, and it is something that Islam encourages. However, the customary kissing that takes place at non-Muslim weddings in the western countries is outside the mura’ah [Honour and Decency] as far as Islam is concerned. As far as I am aware that the default ruling in observing the local customs is valid as long as it does not contradict the Shari’ah. Does not kissing one’s wife in public [as the question implies] on the lips fall outside the lawful parameters?
Addressing a judge as ‘lord’ in court
November 18, 2007
Question: In a British court of law, I have to respond the judge by saying “My Lord”. Is it Islamically permissable? I ask this because I understand that our only Lord is Allah.
Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
The meaning of the English word “lord” is not exclusively for Allah.
It is linguistically used for a person who is in authority over an estate or over a jurisdiction. It is used metaphorically for God (just like the word “king” is used).
Even in Arabic, the word which is translated as Lord – rabb – has other uses. It can be used in various phrases to mean different things.
Ibn Ashour on al-Nisa verse 34 (spousal reprimand)
August 2, 2007
Muhammad Al-Tahir ibn ‘Ashour says in Al-Tahrir wal-Tanwir:
((Men are maintainers of women; because of what Allah has bestowed for some of them upon others… and those that you fear from bad conduct then admonish them verbally, then abandon them in their beds, and then hit them. If they obey you then do not transgress against them, Verily Allah is most high and great.))
Those being addressed in {that you fear} are the either the husbands … it is also conceivable that those being addressed are those communally capable of performing these actions, thus including both husbands and the local authorities; each group would then take responsibility for the actions they are responsible for.
Allah says: “O Prophet! When you (men) divorce women, divorce them for their waiting periods and reckon the waiting period accurately. And fear Allah, your Lord, and do not turn them out of their homes. Nor shall they leave on their own. Excepted from this is if they are guilty of open lewdness. These are the limits set by Allah, and whoever transgresses Allah’s limits has indeed wronged his own soul. You do not know; perhaps after that Allah will bring about some new situation.” [Sûrah al-Talâq: 1]
Spring of Life
June 17, 2007
Question regarding the ‘Spring of Life’.
Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
The story of Moses’ quest for Khidr is related in the Qur’ân in Sûrah al-Kahf. The Qur’ân does not make mention of any “Spring of Life”.
The “Spring of Life” mentioned in reference to the Khidr story is, to the best of our knowledge, just a story passed down from older traditions. Its authenticity is not verifiable. This is the case for many stories related in books of Qur’ân commentary (tafsîr).
The verse in question is verse 63 of Sûrah al-Kahf:
He replied: “Did you see (what happened) when we betook ourselves to the rock? I did indeed forget (about) the fish – and none but Satan made me forget to tell (you) about it – It took its course through the sea in a marvelous way!”
These words are said to Moses (peace be upon him) by his traveling companion.
Mention of this Spring of Life is found in Sunan al-Tirmidhî (3074) in a hadîth explaining this verse. However, the discussion about the spring is given by one of the hadîth’s narrators. They are not the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
Sufyân (a narrator) said: “People have alleged that this rock contained the spring of life, and if its waters touch something dead it must come back to life. They had already eaten from the fish, but when this water splashed on it, it returned to life.”
Sufyân attributes this to hearsay, not to the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is a case where a narrator inserts commentary into his narration of a hadîth, while clearly distinguishing his commentary from what is actually part of the hadîth
The hadîth in Sunan al-Tirmidhî is itself authentic, and is graded as authentic by al-Albânî and others. This commentary about the Spring of Life, however is not actually part of the hadîth.
Consequently, we cannot assert the existence of such a spring on this Earth. And Allah knows best.
There is another hadîth reference to a Spring of Life in the Herafter.
Ibn Mas`ûd relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “There will be people in the Hellfire for however long Allah wishes them to be there. Then ALlah will show mercy to them and take them out. They will be at the very lowest area of Paradise. They will then be bathed in the Spring of Life. The People of Paradise will call then ‘Jahannamites’…” [Sahîh Ibn Hibbân (7428)]
Shu`ayb al-Arna’ût says about this hadîth: “Its chain of transmission is strong.” [Critical notes on Sahîh Ibn Hibbân (16/449)]
Therefore, the Spring of Life in the Hereafter is established in the Sunnah.
And Allah knows best.
www.islamtoday.com
[Shaykh Al-Majid presents a thought-provoking insight into the issue of the face veil or niqab] maqasid
There are Muslim women around the world who have chosen to cover their faces in public. Most of these women sincerely believe that it is their religious obligation to do so. Their decision can be met with resistance, especially in the workplace or when they are engaged in certain public activities. Often those who oppose their wearing the face veil cite practical considerations that they claim make the veil unviable. The women who wear the face veil can find themselves under a lot of stress. They sometimes feel that they have to choose between either functioning normally in society or obeying their Lord.
The matter of the woman covering her face has two dimensions. One is the matter of a woman showing her face in public. The other is that of the man looking at a woman’s face. Scholars who discuss this matter might approach it from one of these two angles or both.
In brief, we can say the following with certitude:
1. It is unlawful for a Muslim man to look lustfully at a woman who is not his wife, regardless of who the woman is or how she is dressed. If a man deliberately does so, then he is sinning.
2. It is unlawful for a Muslim woman to present herself in any way with the deliberate intention of inciting the sexual desire of any man besides her husband. If she does so, then she is sinning.
3. The matter of covering the face is something about which there is legitimate scholarly disagreement. The majority of scholars hold the view that it is not obligatory for the woman to cover her face, though many of these scholars consider it obligatory in cases where sexual temptation is feared. However, there are others who consider it obligatory for women in general, and they have evidence to support their opinion. Their view is to be respected. Likewise, a Muslim who holds either view on the matter has a right to do so and this also should be respected.
A Muslim who does not consider the face veil to be obligatory should not dismiss or belittle the needs of those who do. Likewise, a Muslim who advocates covering the face has no right to look down upon those who do not.
The Degree of Seriousness
Though some scholars are of the view that a woman must cover her face when she can be seen by unrelated men, their opinion is based upon an interpretation of the evidence. There is no direct, unambiguous statement on the matter.
When a matter in Islamic Law is of great importance, there is always unambiguous and direct textual evidence about it. This is the case for rulings like the prohibition of polytheism, adultery, and theft. It is also the case for the prohibition of a man and woman being alone together. This is why all scholars agree on these matters.
The prohibition against a woman showing her face in public, on the other hand, is based on indirect evidence.
For instance, they cite the verse: “They should draw their head coverings over their bosoms” [Sûrah al-Nûr: 31]
Those who say a woman must cover her face use this verse to argue that if Allah orders a woman to draw her head covering over her bosom, it means implicitly that she will be covering her face.
Other scholars counter that the same effect can be achieved by wrapping the head covering around the face and allowing it to drape over the bosom. This is, indeed, what we see most women doing.
Therefore, we must realize that if the ruling on covering of the face had been a grave and serious matter, Allah would have addressed it with a direct and unambiguous statement.
We are certainly not saying that the scholars who regard covering the face to be obligatory are wrong. In fact, the author of this article considers them to be in the right. However, even if we accept that they are right, the matter is not as serious as other matters of Islamic Law which are established by decisive texts.
Relaxing the Veil
We now will examine more closely the statements of those scholars who claim that it is obligatory for a woman to cover her face in public. When we read the statements of the jurists who held this view – among the most vociferous in this matter being Ahmad b. Hanbal – we see that all of them allowed women to show their faces for a legitimate need. In brief, they allowed the woman to show her face in any case where the positive identity of the woman is needed and likewise, they permitted men to look at the face of the woman in order to make that positive identification.
Ibn Qudâmah, a leading Hanbalî jurist and proponent of covering the face, says the following in al-Mughnî (9/498): A male witness may see the face of the woman he is to be a witness for…
If a man engages in business with a woman, either buying and selling or entering into a rental agreement, then he has a right to see her face… It is related from Ahmad b. Hanbal that that he disliked his doing so if the woman in question is young, but not if she were old. It is likely that he meant that he disliked it for someone who feared temptation and in cases where it is not necessary for him to transact with her. As for when there is a need and where there is no fear of overt sexual arousal, there is no objection.Dr. Muhammad b. Sâlih al-Duhaym, the presiding judge at the Layth District Courthouse in
Saudi Arabia, is a contemporary scholar who regards covering the face to be obligatory. He issued the following ruling: If a woman is living in a country, or in a time, or under circumstances where she cannot cover her face and hands – whether the reasons are societal, political, or related to public safety – and if she might face difficulty or might lose out on a greater good, then it is permitted for her to uncover her face and hands.Many Hanafî jurists hold the view that a man can look at woman’s face as long as his doing so does not incite sexual desire. If it does incite such desire in him, then he is prohibited from looking at her face. Nevertheless, in cases where there is a compelling need for him to see her face, then he may look at it, even if he feels desire.
The eminent Hanafî scholar, `Alâ al-Dîn al-Samarqandî, writes in Tuhfah al-Fuqahâ’ (3/334): If there is a necessity, then there is no objection to the man looking at her face, even if he feels desire. This is the case for the judge or the witness. They can look upon her face in the dispensation of justice or when carrying out the function of acting as a witness.
Likewise, he can do so if he is intent on marriage, since the purpose is not to indulge his sexual desires. This is because of what is related from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said to al-Mughîrah b. Shu`bah: “If you would take a look at her, it is better for fostering harmony between you.”We can see that the scholars who held that view that the face veil is obligatory all agreed that it can be removed when there is a need to do so. There are many cases where a positive identification is needed. This is the case when a person is giving testimony or being testified about in a court of law, or when a man needs to be a witness for the woman in some matter, or in business where a positive identification is needed – for instance at a bank – or when being questioned by law enforcement officials or when acting in the capacity of a law enforcement official. A modern but equally valid example would be when a woman goes to the polls to cast her vote in an election.
Necessities and Needs
Scholars of Islamic Law make a distinction between matters that are prohibited for their inherent evil and matters that are prohibited only because they have the potential to lead up to the perpetration of an inherent evil. For instance, murder, fornication, and drug abuse are prohibited in their own right. By contrast, a woman showing her face in public is prohibited – by the scholars who regard it as prohibited – because of the temptation that it might cause and that might lead to the sin of fornication or adultery. The woman is not required to veil her face for the mere sake of covering it.
This is an important distinction in Islamic Law. Things that are prohibited in their own right cannot be permitted except in cases of dire necessity (darûrah). For instance, a person may not drink wine. However, if that person is choking on something and can only find wine to save himself, he may drink it out of necessity. By contrast, things that are prohibited only because they can lead to other unlawful activities are allowed for any valid need (hâjah).
Ibn al-Qayyim explains this principle in I`lâm al-Muwaqqi`în: Prohibitions regarding the means to wrongdoing are not like things that are prohibited for their own sake. Prohibitions regarding the means to wrongdoing will be lifted for a valid need (hâjah). As for things that are prohibited for their own sake, their prohibition is not lifted except in cases of dire necessity (darûrah).
We have already seen in the statements of scholars who considered the covering of the face to be obligatory, many cases where they allowed a woman to show her face for a valid need.
In societies where there is no public segregation between the sexes, there are many situations where a face veil is impractical and poses hardship on women, especially in professional fields. This is the case where a woman is a teacher who needs to interact effectively with her students. It is also the case where female students are in a school with male teachers or classmates. It places great difficulties upon a teacher who has to manage a full classroom if he or she cannot see the faces of all of the students. Indeed, it is often difficult enough under normal circumstances.
People living in such environments cannot compare their circumstances with those of people living in societies like
Saudi Arabia where schools and banks are segregated. We can see that the reason why there is segregation in banks in Saudi Arabia – as opposed to the general Saudi marketplace – is chiefly because of the impracticality of accommodating the covering of the face while carrying out banking transactions.
Therefore, the needs of teachers, students, and other people in the public sphere are legitimate needs which are recognized and accommodated by Islamic Law. In mixed societies, these needs have to be accounted for. Women who believe that covering the face is obligatory under ideal circumstances may relax the face veil in consideration of these legitimate needs.
It is important for Muslims living in non-Muslim countries to be aware of these matters. Muslims have a right to petition for their legitimate religious rights. Part of this means knowing what those rights are and what is reasonable to demand. In many non-Muslim countries, the government and the people are willing to accommodate the needs of the Muslims. When Muslims demand to be accommodated by non-Muslim countries under circumstances which Islamic Law itself deems exceptional and where Islamic Law makes concessions, this leads to unnecessary tensions between the communities which might lead to a souring of relations between them.
On a more general note, we must take time to consider the effect that the face veil has on relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in countries where Muslims are a small minority. For non-Muslims, covering the face can be a scary matter, and something that they have a difficult time accommodating. It is not the same as when a Muslim woman wears a head scarf, and should not be compared with it, since the visibility of the face is a great comfort to people who are not used to the veil and since the evidence for covering the head is far clearer in Islamic Law. The obligation of covering of the head is a matter of consensus (ijmâ`). The matter of covering the face is not.
Therefore, the need for harmonious relations between Muslims and non-Muslims must be weighed against the benefits of a woman in that society covering her face under various circumstances. Muslims need to ask themselves: Will covering her face achieve the desired benefit of limiting sexual temptation in the society in which she lives and with respect to the people with whom she interacts? Will it produce negative consequences for her or for the society as a whole that outweigh those benefits? These are matters that the Muslims who live in such countries need to determine for themselves coolly and objectively.
And Allah knows best.
There has been lot of confusion regarding the latest news that some Chocolate bars such as Mars etc, will contain animal rennet. The following article clarifies the Islamic positions on this issue. [maqasid]:
There is no problem using the rennet extracted from animals that were slaughtered according to Islamic Law. However, there is a lot of cheese in our markets coming from non-Muslim countries containing bovine rennet. The question arises as to whether or not we as Muslims can eat this cheese.
Cheese made with rennet extracted from animals that were illegally slaughtered was deemed permissible by Imam Ahmad, as stipulated in al-Mughnî (1/3). Muslims used to eat the cheese brought from the Magians and other unbelievers.
The people of knowledge have two sayings on this matter:
The opinion of the majority is that such rennet is impure, [refer to: al-Qawânîn al-Fiqhiyyah page 121, al-Majmû`2/588, Nihâyat al-Muhtâj1/244, Sharh Muntahâ al-Iradât 1/31, al-Insâf 92/1, al-Iqnâ` 1/1]. They believed the rennet is impure because it comes from an impure source, the stomach of the illegally slaughtered animal. They say it is a liquid material that touched an impure substance and thus becomes impure. Imam al-Nawawî said: “It is part of the animal so it is impure, like all the other parts of the animal.”
The other saying is that it is pure. This is the opinion of some of the Companions and successors, `Umar, Salmân al-Fârisî, Talhâ, al-Husayn b. `Ali and others. It is also the opinion of the Hanafî school of thought, one narration from Ahmad, and the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah, [refer to: Badâ'` al-Sanâ'`1/63, al-Bahr al-Ra'q 1/112, Tabyîn al-Haqa'q 1/26, Ihkâm al-Qur'an by al-Jassâs 1/168, al-Mabsût 24/27-28, Majmû` al-Fatâwa 21/102].
In his book al-Mughnî, Ibn Qudâmah writes: “Someone asked Imam Ahmad about cheese. The Imam replied: ‘You can eat it from any source.’ But, when asked about the cheese made by the Magians, he said: ‘I do not know, but there is an authentic hadîth through al-A`mash that `Amr b. Sharhabîl said that `Umar was asked about cheese and the rennet of illegally slaughtered animal used therein. `Umar instructed him to mention Allah’s name upon it and eat it.”
They offer the following for evidence:
1. The hadîth related by Ibn Abî Shaybah (5/130) and `Abd al-Razzâq (4/53 
through al-A`mash, as mentioned above. The line of transmission of this hadîth is absolutely sound. Imam Ahmad said: “It is the most correct hadîth on the subject.”
2. The narration of Ibn Abî Shaybah (5/131) that Talhah used to put the knife over the cheese, mention Allah’s name, then cut it and eat it. This also has a sound line of transmission.
3. The narration of Ibn Abî Shaybah through Waqî` that al-Hasan B. `Ali was asked about the cheese. He said: “It is alright, just put the knife to it, mention Allah’s name, and eat it.” All its narrators are reliable save Jahsh b. Ziyâd.
4. The narration of al-Tirmidhî (1726) and Ibn Mâjah (3367): “We were informed by Ismâ`îl b. Mûsa al-Fazarî through Salmân that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about ghee, cheese and fur. He replied: “The lawful things are the ones mentioned in Allah’s book as lawful and the unlawful things are the ones which are mentioned in Allah’s book as unlawful, and whatever is not mentioned there, then it is exempted”. It is a weak hadîth. Ibn Abî Shaybah mentioned in his book al-Musannaf (8/9 that he was informed by Waqî’ through Suwayyid, the servant of Salmân, that he said: “When we won the battle of Madâ’in, Salmân said: ‘We had found a basket in which we found four pieces of fine bread, cheese and a knife. Then Salmân took the knife and cut the cheese then he said: “Pronounce Allah’s name and eat”.’ ” The line of transmission is weak.
5. They said the milk and the rennet will not become impure after death and whatever is extracted from the living animal becomes as if dead. Therefore, since milk is lawful in such cases, then rennet is lawful.
Ibn Taymiyah said:
Regarding the milk and the rennet of unlawfully slaughtered animals, there are two saying from the scholars; one that it is pure, held by Abû Hanîfah and others, including one saying of Imam Ahmad. The other saying is that it is impure which is the saying of Malik, al-Shafi`î and another opinion of Imam Ahmad.
This disagreement took place regarding the cheese brought from the Magians as their slaughtered animals are totally unlawful by consensus. Still, there are two sayings about their cheese. I believe their cheese is lawful, since the milk of the illegally slaughtered animals is lawful and because the Companions ate from their cheese after the battle of Iraq. This has been authentically narrated to us from that time.
There are some weak narrations that some people from Hijâz disliked it, but they are not reliable. The people of Iraq are more trustworthy than others in this case because they lived there and knew the Magians firsthand. Salmân al-Farisî was the Caliph `Umar’s governer in that area and he considered the cheese of the Magians to be lawful.
As for the argument that a liquid will become impure when it touches an impure place, we reply that it is known from Sunnah that the liquid is pure. We also say that even if it touches an impure place that will not matter. Allah says: “From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood we produce for you a drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.” This is why it is permissible to carry a child while praying despite of what is inside his body. And Allah knows best.
On the strength of the above arguments, I hold the opinion that eating cheese is lawful even if the rennet is extracted from unlawfully slaughtered animals.
And Allah knows best.
‘and his wife…’
March 28, 2007
There are many issues in relation to Fiqh which the Scholars have differed upon but when carefully looking at the verses of the Qur’an they give you a clear and accurate answer. The Qur’an was revealed in the Arabic language and therefore any issue that the Muslims are faced with must be traced back to the Qur’an in its Arabic context in order to find the correct position of Islam on it.
Below is an example:
Scholars have differed on the issue of whether a couple who has embraced Islam need to renew their marriage contract islamically?
Forced Marriages Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah
March 19, 2007
May a father force his virgin daughter who attained puberty to marry? Two well-known opinions in this regard are reported from Ahmad:
- That he may compel her. This is also the opinion of Maalik, ash-Shaafi`ee, and others.
- That he may not. This is also the opinion of Aboo Haneefah and others, and is the correct one.
People have differed as tot he reason permitting the compulsion: whether it is virginity, the daughter being under-aged, or a combination of both. The closest opinion to the truth is her being under-aged, whereas no one can compel a grown-up virgin in marriage. Aboo Hurayrah, radhiallahu `anhu reported that the Prophet, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam, said:
“A non-virgin woman may not be married without her command, and a virgin may not be married without her permission; and enough permission for her is to remain silent (because of her natural shyness).” [Al-Bukhaaree, Muslim, and others]
Thus the Prophet, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam, prohibits forcing a virgin in marriage without her permission, whether it be her father or someone else. Furthermore, `Aa’;ishah, radhiallahu `anhaa, said that she asked the Prophet, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam, “In the case of a young girl whose parents marry her, should her permission be sought or not?” He replied, “Yes, she must give her permission.” She then said, “But a virgin will be shy, O Allaah’s Messenger.” He answered:
“Her silence is [considered as] her permission.” [Al-Bukhaaree, Muslim, and others]
This applies to the father as well as others. Furthermore, Islaam does not give the father the right to use any of her wealth without her permission, how then could he be allowed to decide, without her permission, how her body (which is more important than her wealth) is to be used, specially when she disagrees to that and is mature to decide for herself?
Also, there is evidence and concensus in Islaam to restrict an underage person’s free control of his wealth or person. However, to make a virginity a reason for the restriction contradicts the Islaamic basis.
As for the difference between the non-virgin and virgin in the hadeeth of the Prophet, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam, it is not a differentiation between compulsion and non-compulsion; the difference between the two cases is that (a) the former gives her instructions for the marriage whereas the latter gives permission, and that (b) the virgin’s silence counts as a permission. The reason for this is that a virgin would be shy to discuss the matter of marriage, so she is not proposed to directly; rather, her walee (guardian) is approached, he takes her permission, and then she gives him the permission not the command to marry her.
And as for a non-virgin, she would not have the shyness of virginity anymore; thus she can discuss the matter of her marriage, she can be proposed to, and she gives the command to her walee to perform the marriage, and he must obey her.
Thus the walee is command-executor in the case of the non-virgin, and is permission-seeker in the case of the virgin. This is what the Prophet’s words indicate. As for compelling her to marry despite her loathing to do so, this would contradict the fundamentals and reason. Allaah ta`ala did not permit a walee to force her to sell or rent her property without her permission. Neither did He permit him to force her to eat or drink or wear that which she does not wish. How would He then oblige her to accompany and copulate with a person whose company she hates - at the time when Allaah ta`ala has sent between the two spouses love and mercy? If such company happens despite her hatred and repulsion, where is the love and mercy?
Fatwaa from “Al-Masaa’il ul-Maardeeniyyah”
Translated by Aboo `Abdillaah Muhammad al-Jibaalee
Hudaa, November 1995
