Posted by: TheMajlis

“And if you decide to change one wife for another wife (i.e. divorce a wife to marry another woman), and you had already given one of them abundant wealth (by way of gifts), then do not take back from her anything. What! Do you repossess it by way of usurpation and flagrant transgression?

And how indeed can you take it back after having mutually met (i.e. after having consummated the marriage), and after they (women) have obtained from you a sacred pledge (of Nikah)?” (Surah Nisaa’)

A very common reaction of spiteful men of low moral calibre and defective intelligence, when the marriage ends, is to demand that his ex-wife returns all the expensive gifts which he had given her at a time of mutual enjoyment and pleasure.

USURPATION
The Qur’aan Majeed describes such repossession of gifts as usurpation. It is unjust, despicable and totally unbecoming of a honourable man to degenerate to the low ebb of reclaiming gifts from a woman who was his lawful wife and with whom he had enjoyed conjugal relations.

VOMIT
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that a person who repossesses a gift is like a dog which laps up its own vomit. In many cases when the marriage collapses, the husband goaded on by his parents or bristling with malice, demands that his ex-wife returns all the expensive gifts he had given her in happier times.

UNLAWFUL
This attitude is abominable and totally at variance with Muslim moral character. Besides the morality of the issue, reclaiming gifts from a wife is not permissible nor valid. If by pressure, the man manages to take possession of the gifts, he does not become the owner. The gifts remain in the ownership of the woman who was once upon a time his wife.

The excuse that the jewellery, etc. were given to the wife on loan is not valid after the marriage ends in divorce unless the man can prove with acceptable evidence that he had made such a declaration to the woman at the time when he gave her the assets.

CUSTODY
The husband’s or his parents’ custody of the items do not make him the owner thereof. It is normal for the wife to leave her expensive jewellery in her husband’s custody for safe-keeping. He holds it as an amaanat for her. As long as she had taken possession of the gifts, she remains the owner.

When the heart-breaking event of divorce takes place, the husband should acquit himself honourably by softening the blow. He should not compound the tragedy for the sake of finding gratification for his spiteful and malicious attitude. The assets should be given to her without any problem or hassling.

Many Sahaabah lauded their wives with substantial gifts on the occasion of divorce. Acrimony and malice did not feature in the dissolution of their marriages. Divorce at times becomes necessary. When the tragedy occurs, Allah Ta’ala should not be obliterated from the mind.

834 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

In most cases when husband and wife are separated, the ex-spouses are determined to resolve the custody issue of their minor children with spite and malice. Despite being mother and father to their children, who should conduct themselves with the directive of their brains in the best interests of their little children, they go to great lengths of acrimony to spite their own faces by cutting off their noses.

HARM
In the ensuing wrangle and entanglement, acrimony and venom from both sides become the order of the lives of the ex-spouses. Meanwhile the children suffer irreparable psychological, intellectual, physical and moral harm in the wake of the ridiculous and childish conduct of their parents.

This attitude is unbecoming of people who profess to love their children. Both parties should behave like adults—Muslim adults—who fear Allah Ta’ala. The past acrimonious and miserable relationship should be buried when it comes to the welfare of the minor children.

SENIORS
Both parties, being Muslim, should keep Allah Ta’ala and the Hisaab of Qiyaamah in mind. In the light of their Imaan and fear for Allah Ta’ala, intelligent decisions should be made with the assistance of senior and pious members of both families. If there are no such intelligent and experienced seniors in the family, the services of other pious men who are seniors in the community should be enlisted.

In this regard, the counselling of young molvis who have just passed out from Madrasah should not be sought. The molvi certificate does not transform the molvi into an automatic marriage counsellor. He lacks the requisite experience and the necessary taqwa for this task. Only pious and experienced seniors should be consulted in marital problems. The molvi sahib is needed only to explain the mas’alah of the Shariah. He lacks the qualifications for counselling couples floundering in marital storms.

THE RIGHT
In a separation, the mother has the right of custody over a boy child until the age of seven years. Thereafter custody automatically passes to the father.The mother has the right of custody of a girl child until the age of ten years. Thereafter it is the father’s right. The un-Islamic character and lifestyle of the spouses can disturb this arrangement. On the basis of fisq and fujoor a rightful custodian can be denied his/her right of custody.

609 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

The custody mas’alah is grossly misunderstood by even men of learning. When there is a separation between husband and wife, two distinct issues develop. The one is custodianship and the other is guardianship of the minor children.

Until a certain age, the mother retains custody of the minors. But the father at all times remains the legal guardian of his children. Custodianship should not be confused with guardianship.

CUSTODIAN
The mother as the custodian of her minor children acts in the capacity of a kind, loving, benevolent servant who sees to the day to day needs of the children. The father, being the guardian, makes the decision pertaining to all matters related to the upbringing of the children. It is his right and choice to dictate the terms of the upbringing, ta’leem and tarbiyat of the children.

ACCESS
The mother has absolutely no right to debar the father from access to his children. The access and visitation ‘rights’ decreed by a non-Muslim court have no validity in the Shariah.

The father may not be restricted from communicating with his children. He has the right of daily access and communication. There is no time frame to regulate the children’s association with their father.

For most part of the time, the children are with the mother during the tenure of her custody. It is unlawful Islamically for the mother to spitefully restrict the father’s unfettered right of visitation.

VISITATION
But visitation does not mean that the father has the right to see the children in the home of his ex-wife. A suitable alternative venue should be arranged. In fact, the father should himself not drive up to the home of his ex-wife, hoot and wait for the children. It is dishonourable to do so, and it is in violation of the rules of Hijaab. An intelligent and an honourable arrangement should be made to pick-up and drop the children.

FISQ
The only factor which disrupts this Shar’i arrangement is the fisq and fujoor (immorality) of the father. The same applies to the mother. This factor has a bearing on custody, access and visitation rights.

250 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

An interesting question is: Why do dogs and pigs not get Aids? Millions of human beings all over the world have become the victims of the raging epidemic of Aids. In South Africa, graveyards are filled within months. Tens of millions or billions of rands are spent in desperate bids to eradicate the Filthy Disease which has afflicted a large segment of humanity. Millions of zina promoting contraptions called condoms are dished out free. But everything is in vain. The disease is spreading and claiming more and more lives by the day.

PROMISCUITY
Even the non-Muslims who live a culture of immorality, attribute Aids to fornication. Aids is the product of unbridled illicit sexual pursuits at a sub-bestial level. When the human being degenerates lower than even dogs and pigs, Divine Wrath smites him with disease and disgrace.

The billions of condoms distributed free, far from curbing the epidemic of filth, only promotes opposite results. The measures introduced to eradicate Aids have merely given further impetus to this fearsome disease. Condoms are a licence and an exhortation for unbridled fornication

ANIMALS
The condom-people who contract Aids are just as promiscuous as dogs and pigs. They indulge in illicit sexual gratification in exactly the same manner as dogs and pigs. Yet, we find that dogs and pigs do not get Aids despite their indulgence without condoms. Furthermore, there are no other methods of prevention for the animals. But they do not have Aids.

On the other hand, human beings, despite their ’safety’ measures and condoms, get Aids and perish like vermin, rotting away ignominiously all the way to the grave. What is the explanation? Why do human beings get Aids, not dogs and pigs despite the sexual indulgence of these animals being akin to the acts of fornication of the condom crowds?

PUNISHMENT
Since the human being has been endowed with intelligence and religion, he is not expected to behave like a dog and a pig. Sexual gratification for human beings is regulated by a divine code of law. When the Divine Code is flagrantly transgressed, the consequence is Divine Chastisement.

Since dogs and pigs behave quite naturally to satisfy their natural instincts and desires, they submit to a natural law divinely ordained for them, hence they are not punished by Allah Ta’ala for their acts of sexual gratification. On the contrary, man is punished for volitionally descending to sub-animal levels of moral decadence. Aids is thus the Punishment of Allah Ta’ala. Indeed, man has become worse than even dogs and pigs although he is capable of the loftiness of the Angels.

307 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

The abomination and moral filth of these unnatural acts perpetrated by a sub-human specimen of mankind need no exposition. Every Muslim who enjoys a healthy Imaan and who possesses an intelligence unadulterated by un-Islamic mundane considerations knows and understands that the Qur’aan and Sunnah do not entertain the slightest mitigation in the divine condemnation of these crimes which brought about the horrendous destruction of the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, where dwelled the nation of sodomists, homosexuals, gays and lesbians.

Summing up the abhorrence of these unnatural misdeeds which revolts the conscience and hearts of people whom lust has not driven to insanity, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “(And remember) Loot when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit such immorality which no one of the worlds had ever committed?

You approach males for lustful (gratification) besides females. Undoubtedly, you are a nation of flagrant transgressors.’ ”
(Surah A’raaf, 80 and 81)

Many Qur’aanic verses and Ahaadith repeat the castigation of these verses. As far as the evil, unnatural filth and prohibition of these revolting misdeeds are concerned, there is absolute consensus of the Ummah. The denier of the prohibition of homosexuality and lesbianism is undoubtedly a renegade (murtadd). One who believes in the permissibility or acceptability of homosexuality and lesbianism cannot be a Muslim. There is no room in Islam for a person who subscribes to such corruption even if he believes in its rectitude for non-Muslims.

Thus, if a Muslim believes that homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism and gayism are permissible for non-Muslims, he forthwith abdicates his Imaan.

INTRODUCTION
This introduction brings us to the views which a constitutional court judge, one Mr. Mohammed Zakaria Yaqub aired over a so-called ‘Islamic’ radio on 6th December 2005. In the interview conducted by the radio, the judge, justifying his condonation of gay/lesbian sexual association which is baselessly termed ‘marriage’, laboured on the rationale of his ‘job’ as a judge in the constitutional court. In vindication of homosexuals and lesbians, the judge said: “…my job in the constitutional court, and let me repeat that, I can’t do my job in the constitutional court on the basis that Islam is the only way in this country. I have to do my job according to our constitution which says there are many other ways and it is the other ways that must also be respected and protected. If you say, that gay and lesbian people are minorities and therefore they can be disregarded, therefore their needs must not be taken into account, it is problematic for me.”

A Muslim understands that his very first and fundamental allegiance is to Allah, our Creator and the Creator of the universe. The Judge claims to be a Muslim, yet his views confirm that his first allegiance is to the secular constitution of the country, hence he is constrained to approach all issues from the constitutional perspective, and not in the light of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. If a Muslim sets aside the Qur’aan and executes his ‘job’ on the basis of a cult or man-made law which is in diametric conflict or refutation of the Divine Law of Allah Ta’ala, then he should understand that he comes within the full glare of the following Qur’aanic pronouncement declaring the alienation of his Imaan:

“Those who do not decide (do their jobs) according to (the Law) revealed by Allah, verily, they are the kaafiroon.”

The Qur’aan Majeed further declares: “It is not lawful for a believing man nor for a believing woman when Allah and His Rasool have decreed a matter that he/she has any choice in any of their affairs.”

IMAAN
In the interests of his Imaan, it is essential that the judge understands that notwithstanding his position as a judge in the constitutional court, he has neither right nor permission to endorse a decision which legalizes the unnatural sexual vices of sodomists and lesbians.

RATIONAL
He is under Qur’aanic obligation to cast a dissenting opinion, clearly pronouncing the illegality of these unnatural acts of sins. He is under Shar’i obligation to oppose the haraam immorality even if it costs him his job at the constitutional court. Any Muslim, in fact any non-Muslim who has some conception of a Creator and human morality, can furnish ample rational arguments for the evil and villainy of gayism, and base his opinion rationally on such evidence. Thus, despite Mr. Yaqub being a constitutional court judge, he could or should be able to argue legally and constitutionally the impropriety of the unnatural misdeeds of the despicable breed of humanity described as gays, homosexuals, sodomists and lesbians. And there is no need to present the Qur’aan and Hadith to bolster rational and constitutional arguments presented in derogation of the unnatural immorality to which all religions unanimously subscribe.

NOT BOUND
The judge is not bound by the constitution to concur with the other judges on all and every issue. Dissent is a legal and valid right which every judge in every court possesses. But it appears that the judge is in entirety bereft of Qur’aanic influence. He therefore has the temerity of divesting his mind and heart from an allegiance which he had inherited when he was born into a Muslim home, reared and nurtured by an august personality such as his marhoom father, Hadhrat Munshi Saheb of Inanda.

STRANGE
Introducing judge Yaqub, the radio presenter mentioned the judge’s year of marriage and that he has two adult children. Strangely, the radio presenter deemed it prudent to omit mention of the noble father of the judge. Hadhrat Munshi Saheb of Inanda was a Khalifah of Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Masihullah Khaan (rahmatullah alayh). However, the judge has adopted a path in sharp deviation from the orthodox School of Sunnah which his noble father followed.

NASEEHAT
In addition to our criticism of the repugnant view of the judge on the gay ‘marriage’ issue, we offer naseehat to him. He should ruminate and reflect on his humble beginnings in the small Natal village of Inanda. He should not lose sight of the Nisbat of his noble father. At the time of Maut, in Barzakh and in Qiyaamah, the constitution of this country will not succour him.

The judge should understand that it is not his job in the constitutional court which will benefit him when the breath of man breaks at the juncture of departure from this ephemeral abode. The journey ahead into Barzakh and Qiyaamah is long and arduous. If the holy Nisbat is honoured as the Shariah commands, it will come as an aid in all the stations beyond this material world. Neither the constitution nor his colleagues in the constitutional court will avail the judge sahib when he makes his exist from this dunya, all alone—lost and forlorn.

DIGRESSION
We deem this digression was necessary. Perchance a responsive chord is struck in the heart of the judge to induce in him the understanding which Imaan demands that, as a Muslim, if he believes himself to be one, he cannot unfetter himself and extricate himself from the divinely fitted straitjacket within the narrow confines of which the Qur’aan and Sunnah command every Mu’min to operate. May Allah Ta’ala assist the judge to understand his folly—the folly of speaking in defence of the worst type of human beings—sodomists, gays, homosexuals and lesbians. One act of sodomy / homosexuality / lesbianism is worse than a thousand acts of fornication.

THE BASIS
The judge claims: “I can’t do my job in the constitutional court on the basis that Islam is the only way in this country.” Not even a child believes that ‘Islam is the only way in this country’. Muslims have never ventured this preposterous claim. Everyone is aware that we are living in Daarul Kufr as a minority community, and that we should find our way through the labyrinth of a constitution inimical to our way of life notwithstanding the superficial constitutional claim of freedom of religion.

FREEDOM?
The judge is in stark error for claiming: “It’s a constitution which says that there must be complete freedom of religion…” The judge’s comment is presumptuous and devoid of reality. We dare say that judge Yaqub lacks in the sphere of Islamic Knowledge, hence he has ventured this baseless supposition. The scope of this article precludes an elaborate discussion on this question. It will, however, suffice to say that the judge’s claim in this regard is baseless. There is no such thing as ‘complete freedom of religion’ in a secular state.

CONSTITUTIONAL
To make a constitutional stand against the evil of gayism, there is no need to cite the basis as being Islam and on the false premises of ‘Islam being the only way in this country’. A Mu’min who sits in the secular court should in the first place not be there. But since he has chosen that post in conflict with Islam, the minimum requirement for the safety of his Imaan is to formulate a case against homosexuality on rational and constitutional grounds.

It is absolutely unacceptable for a Muslim to argue in favour of homosexuals and gays on the basis that they as a minority have constitutional rights. The judge has descended into a quagmire of absurdity for presenting this puerile basis which he has conjectured in his ardour to fight the cause of the sodomists, gays, lesbians and homosexuals. If the judge researches the country’s constitution with deeper insight, he will discern adequate latitude for manoeuvring against the rot and the filth of sodomy and lesbianism—acts which are the very antithesis of humanity. There will be constitutional grounds for lodging a valid and a rational dissent.

Assuming that due to a deficiency in his research of the constitution and constriction in intellectual grasp, the judge is unable to discover constitutional arguments to reject the immorality of gayism, then as a Muslim, he has no option other than to resign his post. How can it be tolerable for a Mu’min to sit in a forum which legalizes a host of immoralities which the Qur’aan and Sunnah have unequivocally branded haraam? If, you are unable to ‘do your job according to the constitution’ which, it appears you have elevated above the Qur’aan, the way out is to say goodbye to the constitutional court and to safeguard your Imaan. In a clash of allegiances, a Muslim is supposed to know his option.

BASELESS
In defence of his pro-gayism stance, judge Yaqub presents the following baseless argument: “And it is this caring attitude by the constitution which results in the fact that we Muslim people are comfortable in this country, well looked after in this country and we are not discriminated against in this country. But you see, as a Muslim again it is the same constitution which says we will not discriminate against anyone else either. We will not discriminate against gay and lesbian people too. We can’t as Muslim people on the one hand say we must not be discriminated against as a minority, we must be treated properly as human beings and in a next breath say under the South African constitution we have trouble if gay and lesbian people are respected.”

Here the judge makes some comments which detract from the issue which Muslims and Islam are concerned about in this country where there is no government by the Shariah. In the aforementioned citation, the judge states:

* That according to the constitution, Muslims should not discriminate against gays and lesbians. In response to this averment, we say that the destiny of gays and lesbians is not in the control of the Muslim community of this country. What does the judge precisely mean by Muslims discriminating against gays and lesbians? He has not explained himself. He merely makes an averment which is completely out of the context of the criticism which Muslims direct to him for his un-Islamic and haraam views on this issue.

The discussion is unrelated to the issue of discrimination. Although the radio presenter had made a feeble attempt to tender discrimination as a basis for the criticism, he (the radio presenter) was actually talking gibberish. Is the Muslim’s attitude and ideology on this issue, the ‘discrimination’ which the judge refers to? If yes, then we have to say that he has overlooked the constitution which grants all citizens of this country freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of religion. If Muslims believe that gays and lesbians are scum and destined for everlasting damnation in hell-fire, how can such a belief and a thought be constitutionally discriminatory when the constitution allows freedom of thought and religion? Are Muslims not entitled to believe that sodomy is immoral and filth of the worst kind? If not, then what is the meaning of the constitution’s freedom of thought and freedom of religion principles? How does Muslim ideology constrain Muslims to discriminate against gays and lesbians? It is entirely a different matter if in Daarul Islam the Qaadhi orders the homosexual to be thrown to his death from a clifftop. But in South Africa this situation does not arise. Muslims do not make the laws.

DISCRIMINATION
The issue is not Muslim discrimination against lesbians and gays in this country because there is no such discrimination. The issue is merely the views of a judge who professes to be a Muslim. Muslims are not clamouring for the obligatory discrimination which the Shariah commands against gays and lesbians. Such a clamour is futile in a secular state which follows the law produced by man’s lust and his deficient intellectual vision. Muslims are only saying that a Muslim judge is not supposed to support lesbianism and throw in his lot with the homosexuals.

To be continued in next issue Insha’Allah

244 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

The Qur’aan Majeed orders men: “And live with them (women) honourably.” Undoubtedly, Allah Ta’ala has given man a higher status over woman. The Qur’aan Majeed says: “And for men over them is a rank.” , and, “Men are the rulers of women…”

Due to ignorance and lack of moral reformation, husbands usually abuse the superiority which Allah Ta’ala has bestowed to them. Instead of applying their superiority correctly to fulfil the rights of wives, husbands taking unlawful advantage of their rank, abuse the rights of their wives and make inordinate demands, not only for fulfilment of their own rights, but also for the assumed rights of others such as in-laws.

ABUSES The very first abuse committed by husbands is total indifference with regard to the moral and ta’leemi welfare of their wives, The Qur’aan imposes this duty as an incumbent obligation on husbands. Many wives are compelled to slave for their in-laws. The right of the wife to separate and private living quarters is denied.

Husbands become entangled in extra-marital affairs, soiling their eyes, minds and bodies with acts of moral turpitude while they expect total and perfect purity, chastity and modesty from their wives. Remember! When you cast lascivious eyes on another man’s wife, someone will do the same to your wife. When a man casts lustful eyes on another woman, he should immediately contemplate on his wife and ask himself: How will I feel if my wife casts evil eyes on another man?

Some husbands are exceptionally miserly. Despite having more than adequate money, their hearts are too constricted to spend lavishly on their wives. Lavish spending should not be confused with waste and spending on haraam.

Many husbands have exceedingly vile tongues and foul tempers. Which are reserved for their wives. They acquit themselves with cowardice by venting their tongues and tempers on their defenceless and weak womenfolk while they are constrained to act like sheep when a confrontation develops outside the home.

The honourable husband is instructed by the Shariah to be tolerant of the indiscretion of his wife. Allah Ta’ala has created her from the crooked rib of man. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that if an attempt is made to entirely straighten the rib, it will break. In other words, the marriage will break up. Wives are an Amaanat (Trust), custody of which men have taken in the Name of Allah Ta’ala. A full and detailed account will be demanded for this Amaanat.

276 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

Question: When Ustaadhs in a certain Muslim school are absent on a Monday, the management deducts three days pay from their salary. If they are one minute late on Friday, for example, a whole day’s pay is deducted. Is such punishment permissible?

Answer: No, it is never permissible. Such punishment is zulm. The deductions from the salary of the Ustaadhs is haraam. The school management is guilty of usurpation and gross injustice.

Although the intention of the management may be to constrain the ustaadhs to be punctual and regular, injustice is not permissible. Precisely for this reason does the Shariah disallow monetary fines. For a day’s absenteeism, only the day’s pay may be deducted. For a minute of late-coming, only a minute’s pay may be deducted. This school’s system of punishment is unprecedented in injustice.

KHIYAANAT
Besides this unjust action of the school, it has to be conceded that Ustaadhs in Madaaris and personnel of Deeni institutions generally take undue and haraam advantage with their careless attendance.
Although they expect their salaries to be paid in full, they do not meticulously observe the huqooq (rights) of their work contract. It is indeed peculiar and lamentable that men of Deeni knowledge who are supposed to have a better understanding of the Deen, regard the theft of time as an insignificant perpetration. In fact, if a just deduction is made, they take offence, little understanding that they will be answerable in the Divine Court on the Day of Hisaab when an account will have to be given for every misappropriated cent.

GRAVITY
Many personnel in Deeni institutions are guilty of khiyaanat. It is surprising that inspite of having acquired Deeni Ilm and working in Deeni institutions, they miserably fail to understand the gravity of the khiyaanat they commit when they do not meticulously observe the time for which they are being paid.

It is simply considered an acceptable norm for an Ustaadh or a Deeni worker to step late into the class, take unofficial breaks and holidays, do private work during his paid time, read newspapers/magazines, etc. when he is supposed to devote every minute of his paid time to the duty for which he has been engaged.

THEFT
It is also surprising that persons connected to Deeni institutions differentiate between theft of money and theft of time. While there is a technical difference in the zaahiri Shariah, the crime is the same morally and in terms of the Aakhirah. In fact, abuse of the amaanat of time by Deeni personnel is worse than the theft of money by ignorant labourers who lack understanding of the Deen.

Ustaadhs and Deeni workers in general, who are paid from the Lillaah funds of the organisation should not labour under any misapprehension regarding the khiyaanat they are guilty of for collecting full pay when they did not devote full time to their duties and obligations.

They should understand well, that the money they are being paid, for the time which they had stolen, is haraam. They ingest haraam into their systems. Their morality will further suffer by such ingestion of food, etc, purchased with contaminated Lillaah funds.

SIMPLE METHOD
Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) had devised a simple method for creating awareness in Ustaadhs and for saving them from the grave sin of khiyaanat. Ustaadhs should daily fill in a register in which they themselves will record the times they clocked in and out. Obviously it is not expected that an Ustaadh or an employee of a Deeni institution would falsify the register by making false entries.

If an ustaadh who teaches the Qur’aan or any Deeni subjects falsifies the time-register, he will be totally unfit to be retained in the position of trust. Such an unscrupulous person should be dismissed

The worker of the Deen who is paid from Lillaah funds should himself keep a time register and record the times he had faithfully devoted to his duties. At the end of the month he should inform the management of the institution of the amount that should be deducted from his salary for late-coming and for the time he had engaged in private affairs.

If Deeni workers fail to maintain proper records of the time they had actually worked, and despite this, expect full pay, they should then understand that they are guilty of ‘theft’ and abuse of Amaanat. Such khiyaanat will undoubtedly have to be accounted for in the Court of Allah Azza Wa Jal.

FITTING NASEEHAT
The episode of the buzrug of Bani Israaeel, which appears on this page should be adequate naseehat for Deeni Ustaadhs and workers who commit khiyaanat in the time for which they are being paid.

223 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

Once when Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a man in the Musjid drooping his head in concentration, he exclaimed: “Humility is in the heart” In other words, there is no need to display the humility of the heart with an external show of a drooping head.

THE MUSJID
Such external acts of piety should not be displayed in public. Since public expressions and displays of ibaadat are fraught with the peril of riya, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) forbade the young man from expressing his humility in public in the Musjid. The Musjid is a public venue primarily for the Fardh Salaat, not for individual ma’mulaat which are supposed to be discharged in privacy at home or in the khaanqah.

In these days, Hadhrat Umar’s admonition is very appropriate for those who engage in Halqah Thikr, Khatm-e-Khwaajgaan and other acts of thikr in which the head is swayed from side to side. These are not Masnoon acts of ibaadat

The Musjid is a public venue where people of a variety of Deeni persuasions congregate to fulfil Masnoon acts of ibaadat. The Musjid is not a private khaanqah or a house where the special forms of athkaar of certain Buzrugs may be practised. Riya is bound to contaminate the motives of the thaakireen. These non-Sunnah forms of auraad practised forcefully and regularly in the Musjid ultimately develop into hard core bid’ah.

This was the fundamental error of the Ahl-e-Bareilwi and other sects of bid’ah. Gradually they assign their private, non-Sunnah acts of thikr a greater status than even Sunnat acts of ibaadat.

AT HOME
Once the Sahaabi, Hadhrat Abu Umaamah (radhiyallahu anhu) passed by a man in the Musjid, who was crying profusely in Sajdah. He commented: “It would have been wonderful if you had been at home where no one can see you.”

The man was, undoubtedly, crying in his Sajdah with sincerity and humility. He was engaged in a valid act of ibaadat. Despite the excellence and desirability of such excellent humility, Hadhrat Abu Umaamah (radhiyallahu anhu), the eminent Sahaabi, understood the wiles and deceptions of the nafs. Since there was the real danger of the man’s ibaadat being contaminated with riya, he advised the man while he was in Sajdah to perform such individual acts of ibaadat in the privacy of his home.

BID’AH
From this episode it should not be difficult to understand the error of today’s rowdy thikr sessions conducted in the Musaajid. The safety of our Deen is embedded in following the Sahaabah. Diversion from their ways and methods leads to moral and spiritual disaster. The ultimate consequence is bid’ah.

231 Reads

Posted by: TheMajlis

Khula’ is a mutual contract between husband and wife, which secures for the wife a divorce in lieu of a monetary payment.

Regarding Khula’, there exists a great deal of misunderstanding due to ignorance. Modernists, having acquired a smattering of defective knowledge which leaves them with the understanding that they are ‘experts’ on ‘Islamic law’, peddle the idea that the wife has a right to impose Khula’ on her husband. This conception of Khula’ is utterly baseless. Khula’ cannot be imposed on any of the spouses. It is a purely voluntary contract.

TALAAQ In Khula’ the wife offers the husband a sum of money to gain her freedom by way of Talaaq. Spiteful husbands who maltreat their wives, generally refuse to issue Talaaq. Such husbands could be induced by wives to set them free in lieu of a monetary payment. Since the husband in such a case is devoid of honour and piety, he may accept the offer and issue Talaaq. However, if he refuses, Khula’ cannot be imposed on him. An imposition by a tribunal or council of theologians or by any committee of ulama is not Khula’. Such an imposition on the man is not annulment of the marriage.

When the husband agrees to the wife’s proposal of Khula’, the contract has to be finalised in that very same session. If any of the spouses remains silent or walks out, then returns with his/her agreement, it will not be binding on the other spouse. The contract will have to be renewed with proposal and acceptance.

On finalisation of the agreement, it is incumbent on the wife to pay the amount agreed on. The husband will be obliged to issue Talaaq only if the wife makes payment.

BAA-IN When payment has been made, one Talaaq Baa-in comes into effect. The Nikah is terminated and the woman is free to marry another man after expiry of the Talaaq Iddat which is a period of three haidhs (menses).

Despite finalisation of Khula’ and separation, the couple can still reconcile and have a fresh Nikah performed. It is not necessary for the woman to first marry another man and be divorced after consummation of the Nikah. This rule applies only in the event of three Talaaqs having been issued.

MORALITY Although the Shariah has instituted the provision of Khula’, from the Islamic moral perspective it is honourable and expected of the husband to acquit himself with dignity, kindness and understanding. Instead of Khula’, he should agree to issue Talaaq if the marriage has irretrievably broken down. If all hope of living correctly like Muslim husband and wife has evaporated, the husband should act in accordance with the Qur’aanic instruction:

“Keep (wives) honourably (and kindly) or set (them) free with kindness.”

It is dishonourable and far below the dignity of a Muslim husband to demand monetary benefit in exchange for Talaaq from a woman whose body and service he had made lawful for his desires in the Name of Allah Azza Wa Jal. End the sad chapter of life honourably, amicably and with justice.

275 Reads