[Guaranano]

Salam

A few years ago I had the misfortune of watching a Q&A session on tv with this "scholar" advising an abused wife to put up with domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He explained that all family units should follow a hierarchy – the man of the house (husband/father) makes all the decisions and has the right (or even the obligation) to deny his wife her personal autonomy (eg. he has every right to stop his wife leaving the house). He then explained a woman is 'naturally emotional' and needs to be led, and that she should always obey her husband. Even if he is abusive.

He argued that a woman who puts up with mental and physical abuse will be rewarded for her Sabr on the day of judgment. He then justified such an extreme position by painting a picture of the dystopian lawlessness and anarchy that would prevail without leaders – his point was that women have to be led in the same way people have to be led. Even if the leaders are ruthless, tyrannical and despotic.

Leaving aside the ugly chauvinism described above, what I'm finding difficult to come to terms with is this authoritarian streak in Islam which I find regardless of what tafsir I read. Don't get me wrong, I am no anarchist but I strongly believe that forcing people to adhere to inflexible, sometimes draconian rules (and punishing free thinking souls who refuse to conform) impedes human progress. It's tragic that a number of Imams (even eminent ones like Al-Sudais) went out of their way to condemn the protesters in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya and Syria as 'unislamic'. It is even more tragic that they are technically right, if we are to follow mainstream interpretations of the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

Please share your thoughts.

JazakAllah Khair.

[Adiamant]

Don't watch TV.

Read books instead.

[Guaranano]

Well I read the Qur'an and a number of different tafsirs...

The overarching problem I'm having is that the words of Allah do seem to rail against what are in my view noble values like democracy, equality, etc...

[Adiamant]

Well I read the Qur'an and a number of different tafsirs...

The overarching problem I'm having is that the words of Allah do seem to rail against what are in my view noble values like democracy, equality, etc...

Or you can say it that these man made noble values like democracy, equality, etc.. all these rail against the noblest WORDS of ALLAH.

[Britiobby]

Well I read the Qur'an and a number of different tafsirs...

The overarching problem I'm having is that the words of Allah do seem to rail against what are in my view noble values like democracy, equality, etc...

The noble values are man made they have their limitations. Well on the Day of Resurrection Allah will ask us if we followed His Divine laws not man made laws. Fear Allah and it will be easier. Remember Allah's Logic and reasoning is far more superior than ours.

[Guaranano]

akhi, would you agree with Al-Sudais in condemning the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, Libya and Syria who wanted to overthrow their oppressive, brutal leaders?

After all, it is unislamic to 'disobey' your leaders?

[Creva4k]

Sofian has a point though regarding male bigotry in rulings related to marriages. I think the worst was Islam lite channel 813 with that fat woman who said marital rape was ok.
The point is don't get your Islamic fatwas of the box, contact your maulvi or a reliable elder.

[MAKEMONEY]

akhi, would you agree with Al-Sudais in condemning the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, Libya and Syria who wanted to overthrow their oppressive, brutal leaders?

After all, it is unislamic to 'disobey' your leaders?

That's a judgment based on situational circumstances.

Ultimately, democracy is not an Islamic value and neither is equality (in the Western sense) and neither is 'progress' - all of these are liberal doctrine (liberal in the Locke sense) which is foreign and alien to Islam.

An Islamic leader is responsible for what his people do. So say he enjoins upon them the prayer, five times daily- and then they vote against that. Is that legal? Should he stop enjoining upon them the prayer? No, because the prayer is to be established by an Islamic leader, it is entirely one hundred percent necessary, and the suffering of an individual who detests the prayer and is an apostate in his heart is not relevant.

Say the people want to drink alcohol. So they vote that it should be legalized. Should it be legalized? No. Absolutely not. This is the problem with democracy in the Western sense that it lends a sort of profound blissful resonance to the idea of personal autonomy when that's not how Islamic matters work. It is not 'your business' if you do it (whatever 'it' may be) in public. If you do 'it' (whatever it may be) in private and nobody knows about it but you and Allah and whomever else is involved, fine. But the public morality must be established and the matters which contradict Allah's law must be punished as per Allah's decree.

As the Prophet said "If Fatima daughter of Muhammad stole, I would order her hand cut off." There is no exception to this except for the rare circumstances such as the prevailing one when Umar suspended something for a brief time.

[enfoires]

Salam

A few years ago I had the misfortune of watching a Q&A session on tv with this "scholar" advising an abused wife to put up with domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He explained that all family units should follow a hierarchy – the man of the house (husband/father) makes all the decisions and has the right (or even the obligation) to deny his wife her personal autonomy (eg. he has every right to stop his wife leaving the house). He then explained a woman is 'naturally emotional' and needs to be led, and that she should always obey her husband. Even if he is abusive.

He argued that a woman who puts up with mental and physical abuse will be rewarded for her Sabr on the day of judgment. He then justified such an extreme position by painting a picture of the dystopian lawlessness and anarchy that would prevail without leaders – his point was that women have to be led in the same way people have to be led. Even if the leaders are ruthless, tyrannical and despotic.

Leaving aside the ugly chauvinism described above, what I'm finding difficult to come to terms with is this authoritarian streak in Islam which I find regardless of what tafsir I read. Don't get me wrong, I am no anarchist but I strongly believe that forcing people to adhere to inflexible, sometimes draconian rules (and punishing free thinking souls who refuse to conform) impedes human progress. It's tragic that a number of Imams (even eminent ones like Al-Sudais) went out of their way to condemn the protesters in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya and Syria as 'unislamic'. It is even more tragic that they are technically right, if we are to follow mainstream interpretations of the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

Please share your thoughts.

JazakAllah Khair.

Well, first off, just about any religion is essentially "authoritarian" in nature, because it assumes itself to be an authority and tells you how to lead your life. What you are essentially getting at is governance. Personally I don't subscribe to the Saudi view of governance that says the government should monitor and control every aspect of one's life to make sure one never is able to do anything remotely un-Islamic.

First off, it's quite simply impossible for a government to do such a thing. Saudi Arabia--a country which has almost unlimited financial resources and a tiny population--fails horribly in this manner even though it should be immensely easy given all the resources at their disposal.

Secondly, I don't believe the government itself should enforce Islamic values (laws of course need enforcement). I think people should. A government is simply not capable of truly doing such a thing; only social pressure will ensure that Islam is adhered to. This seems to be how most Islamic societies have operated within the past.

Sure, the Ottomans and other caliphates enforced the hudood and such things, but in no text that I've ever read on them have I heard of these governments having morality police that patrolled the villages making sure people never er. Their people took care of this for them.

Also, all Saudi shaykhs have come out to speak against the uprisings happening in the Middle East--they were pretty much forced to. Whether or not the protests violate Islam is quite questionable. First, the protestors weren't rebelling, at least not a first. They were merely taking to the streets to express their dissatisfaction. Is it un-Islamic to say you're dissatisfied with how your country is being run? Of course not! It was only when protestors started getting shot at that the rumblings of a rebellion started to occur, and even then, almost none of them broke out into true rebellions--with the exception of Libya. As for whether or not those are justified I'd remind you, oppression is worse than killing.

[Creva4k]

Bismillah
TV is the last place to learn deen from. Often the people doing the Q&A are there not because of scholastic credebility with ijaza or even seassoned mufti but rather he fitted in with the secterian bais of the media organisaiton. Stick to well reputed sites run by seassoned scholars for Q&A.
www.daruliftaa.com, www.askimam.org, seekerguidance.org, www.sunnipath.com, www.daruliftaa.com

Sunnipath

[Vodonaeva]

akhi, would you agree with Al-Sudais in condemning the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, Libya and Syria who wanted to overthrow their oppressive, brutal leaders?

After all, it is unislamic to 'disobey' your leaders?

You're mixing two issue in such a way that it's wrong to reply with either "yes" or "not".

It's unislamic to disobey your leaders until they remain into the folds of Islam and don't command you to commit some sin.

But if they are apostate tyrants, it's permissible to disobey and revolt against them.
The issue is deep and there are various conditons and so on.
The point is that we can't apply the Islamic ruling of obeying leaders (which goes against anarchy etc.) to the present situation of kuffar tyrants being leaders of most of "Muslim countries".

[estheticianI]

Well I read the Qur'an and a number of different tafsirs...

The overarching problem I'm having is that the words of Allah do seem to rail against what are in my view noble values like democracy, equality, etc...

The terms you are using (democracy, equality, etc.) have a very broad application and mean different things in different parts of the world.

Why don't you give a clear definition of the terms you are using and then highlight where your view the Word of Allah is at odds with these noble values.

[lakraboob]

Salam

A few years ago I had the misfortune of watching a Q&A session on tv with this "scholar" advising an abused wife to put up with domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He explained that all family units should follow a hierarchy – the man of the house (husband/father) makes all the decisions and has the right (or even the obligation) to deny his wife her personal autonomy (eg. he has every right to stop his wife leaving the house). He then explained a woman is 'naturally emotional' and needs to be led, and that she should always obey her husband. Even if he is abusive.

He argued that a woman who puts up with mental and physical abuse will be rewarded for her Sabr on the day of judgment. He then justified such an extreme position by painting a picture of the dystopian lawlessness and anarchy that would prevail without leaders – his point was that women have to be led in the same way people have to be led. Even if the leaders are ruthless, tyrannical and despotic.

Leaving aside the ugly chauvinism described above, what I'm finding difficult to come to terms with is this authoritarian streak in Islam which I find regardless of what tafsir I read. Don't get me wrong, I am no anarchist but I strongly believe that forcing people to adhere to inflexible, sometimes draconian rules (and punishing free thinking souls who refuse to conform) impedes human progress. It's tragic that a number of Imams (even eminent ones like Al-Sudais) went out of their way to condemn the protesters in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya and Syria as 'unislamic'. It is even more tragic that they are technically right, if we are to follow mainstream interpretations of the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

Please share your thoughts.

JazakAllah Khair.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...omics-vs-Islam

The above thread will clearly tell you that not everything which occurs in the "Holy Lands" is Islamic.

Secondly, in Islam we are not supposed to issue a judgment unless and until we hear both sides of the story.

It is indeed sad if our Sister was suffering and I don’t know why the Shaykh advised and indeed what he advised.

There are other areas of recourse open to her. You have listened to an event which has clearly affected you and somehow attributed it to Islam. Did it occur to you that:

1. The Sister could be wrong.
2. The husband could be wrong.
3. The Shaykh could be wrong.

Why jump the gun and blame Islam on a short TV exchange?

[enfoires]

On a side issue
Does anyone know how many muslim men get beaten up their wives. Atleast in the asian community, a lot of men out of shame suffer in silence. I know this because one of my frined who deals with asian families for social services as well as family dispute!!
Allahualam

Of course such stuff happen, but no one cares. It's only women and homosexual men that western liberals care about; straight men--especially straight Muslim men--are presumed to be guilty of at least some crime, so anything done to them is perfectly fine.

[realnilkless]

Well, the fatwa relating to putting up with domestic violance was obviously wrong, and this has not been supported by the fuqaha' as far as I'm aware. You're free to bring in a few references to prove your point.

That aside, your generalizations regarding the "authoritarian streak in Islam" were frankly ridiculous; yet more ridiculous was your relating of this notion to as-Sudays (may Allah preserve him), a shaykh on the payroll of the Saudi government comdemning protests; what else do you expect? If you had been studying the positions of the scholars concerning the protests carefully, you'd have realised that [1] the saudis and their allies have been condemning the bahraini protests and supporting the aal khalifah (since the protestors are shi'ah) whereas they have been supporting the syrian revolution (e.g. Sh. 'Adnan al-'Ar'ur) (since the protestors are sunni, rebelling against shi'ah alevi kuffar); [2] on the other hand, Iran and its allies (like 'Sayyid' Hasan NasruLlah) have been condemning the syrian protests, and supporting the bahraini protests for the opposite reasons.

And no, the 'mainstream interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunnah' would not necessitate condemnation of the protests, given their peaceful nature (hence their shouts, "silmiyyan, silmiyyan"), and the massacres brought about by the reigimes coupled with their religious justification of such actions. In Yemen, both salafi scholars like az-zindani and zaydi shi'i scholars in addition to the Islah etc have come out in support of the protests. There have been religious precedents too - take the uprising of Imam Zayd b. 'Ali and Imam Nafs az-Zakiyyah, both of whom were armed, and supported by the likes of Imam Abu Hanifah.

was-salam

[Penisvergroesserung]

Sadly, sister Sofian has not replied to the phethora of responses.
I hope she does insha Allah.

I read recently Gulfnews that domestic violence against men is on the rise in the Gulf. Over 30% of men had been attacked in their homes.
And men are far less likely to do anything about it, whether report it to police or respond with violence, let alone divorce over it.
Should men automatically divorce wives that hit them?

Quite a few women claim if a woman hits a man, he must have done something to deserve it- are women really that absolute and certain in their judgement, better than men?
Of course not.

The 'value' of equality would suggest that a man automatically divorce a woman who hits him.
The 'value' of equality should also demand 50% of a woman's wealth as a result of divorce.

Feminism propagates the notions that women are superior to and should dominate men. These notions can drive women to forcibly confront men despite their superior physical strength, which can lead to physical violence. It also leads to the notion that a woman should divorce her husband simply for hitting her despite the circumstances.


Muslims have to open their eyes as to what "values", concepts, ideologies they are practicing and upholding and whether they are from Allah or not. And whether they are consistent with the Truth, or not.

[Penisvergroesserung]

As for the protests, I recently received photos of Yemeni protesters with Qat bulges in their cheeks. Dozens of photos of men with bloodshot eyes, qat bulges, shouting about hurria and such.

I believe there was a hadith about this:

From Abû Hurayrah (radiyAllâhu 'anhu) who said that Allâh's Messenger (salAllâhu 'alaihi wa'sallam) said: "There will come upon the people years of deceit in which the liar will be believed, the truthful disbelieved, the treacherous will be trusted and the trustworthy held to be treacherous, and
the despicable (ar-Ruwaybidah) will speak out." It was said: Who are the despicable ones (ar-
Ruwaybidah)? He said: "The lowly, ignoble man w ho speaks out about the public affairs."( 5 7)Reported by Ahmad as weak This hadith seems to embody our reality today. One needs only to read and hear what many leaders of the Egyptian activists are saying about Islam, and one can recognize ar Ruwaybidah among us. Democracy presents that people with no knowledge, no morality can rule and determine the affairs if they so choose. Hence, the rise of libertinism as evident by the Guardian magazine and the spread of immorality throughout the world.


From Aboo Sa'eed al-Khudree (radiyAllâhu 'anhu) who said: "Allâh's Messenger (salAllâhu 'alaihi w a'sallam ) stood amongst us to deliver an address, and from his address was that he said: Indeed it is about to occur that I will be called and will respond. Then after me will follow rulers over you w ho say what they have knowledge of, and act upon what they know. Obedience to them is obedience to me, and you remain like that for a time. Then there will follow rulers over you after them who say what they do not have knowledge of and act according to what they do not have knowledge of. So whoever is sincere to them and assists them , or strengthens them then they are destroyed and have
caused destruction."
"Accompany them with your bodies and differ with them by your actions, and bear witness for the doer of good from them that he is a doer of good, and for the doer of evil that he is a doer of evil."( 6 3 ) (This hadith from Baihaqi)

It is argued that this hadith pertains to the rulers after the khulafa rashiduun but not those of today. The distinction is that today, the rulers essentially represent kufr overtly or betray their authority as rulers of Muslim lands. Removing them is critical to bringing back Islam into life, as today's rulers and regimes and modern states stand against Islam and are obsticals to the resumption of Islam in life and the true worship of Allah.

The Hadith of Ubaadah ibn Saamit.

“We swore allegiance to Allah’s Messenger (SAW) to hear and obey… and not to dispute about rule with those in power, except if you see kufr bawaah (clear kufr).” (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)

Qadi Iyad said: "If he is adamant on Kufr, (and) in changing the shariah, or on innovation, then his obedience is invalid and it becomes a duty upon the Muslims to revolt against him, removing him and placing a just Imam (ruler) in his place if possible”.

[enfoires]

As for the protests, I recently received photos of Yemeni protesters with Qat bulges in their cheeks. Dozens of photos of men with bloodshot eyes, qat bulges, shouting about hurria and such.

I believe there was a hadith about this:



This hadith seems to embody our reality today. One needs only to read and hear what many leaders of the Egyptian activists are saying about Islam, and one can recognize ar Ruwaybidah among us. Democracy presents that people with no knowledge, no morality can rule and determine the affairs if they so choose. Hence, the rise of libertinism as evident by the Guardian magazine and the spread of immorality throughout the world.



(This hadith from Baihaqi)

It is argued that this hadith pertains to the rulers after the khulafa rashiduun but not those of today. The distinction is that today, the rulers essentially represent kufr overtly or betray their authority as rulers of Muslim lands. Removing them is critical to bringing back Islam into life, as today's rulers and regimes and modern states stand against Islam and are obsticals to the resumption of Islam in life and the true worship of Allah.

The Hadith of Ubaadah ibn Saamit.


(Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)

Qadi Iyad said: "If he is adamant on Kufr, (and) in changing the shariah, or on innovation, then his obedience is invalid and it becomes a duty upon the Muslims to revolt against him, removing him and placing a just Imam (ruler) in his place if possible”.

I have to disagree with this notion, and it's something that is often trotted out as a reason that Islam and democracy cannot coexist. I've heard so many people say that Muslim cannot have a democratic system of government because people might vote to approve something which is un-Islamic. However, the solution to this is incredibly obvious: make a Constitution that says all newly proposed laws and regulations must abide by the shariah, and have a court system that could strike down laws and regulations that they deem un-Islamic. I just find this whole "oh but they could vote on something and make that which Allah declared haram halal" argument to be absurd. Well...so could any ruler! The difference is that if that ruler does such a thing, within a democratic framework, the people could simply elect him out of office or the courts could simply strike down his laws. In an autocratic system, the leader could do all of these things, and nothing could stop him other than a revolt, which of course is a horrible thing to occur within a country because it leads to economic stagnation and the purging of counter-revolutionaries--or if the revolt fails, simply quite a lot of dead people.

[Teeppoodiug]

I have to disagree with this notion, and it's something that is often trotted out as a reason that Islam and democracy cannot coexist. I've heard so many people say that Muslim cannot have a democratic system of government because people might vote to approve something which is un-Islamic. However, the solution to this is incredibly obvious: make a Constitution that says all newly proposed laws and regulations must abide by the shariah, and have a court system that could strike down laws and regulations that they deem un-Islamic. I just find this whole "oh but they could vote on something and make that which Allah declared haram halal" argument to be absurd. Well...so could any ruler! The difference is that if that ruler does such a thing, within a democratic framework, the people could simply elect him out of office or the courts could simply strike down his laws. In an autocratic system, the leader could do all of these things, and nothing could stop him other than a revolt, which of course is a horrible thing to occur within a country because it leads to economic stagnation and the purging of counter-revolutionaries--or if the revolt fails, simply quite a lot of dead people.

Salam alikum
.. just to say - I agree with your opinion, reading many posts I found your answer very interesting and more less compatible with mines.
I think also state under saria should be based on democracy -it is not about to oppose sharia but to choose more suitable form of sharia. I rely on that as in addition to that in islam is forbiden oppression of minorities of any kind so that it would be an additional issue by any voting. I think it wuold be just another type of democracy - not exactly the same as we wee now in the west, as it would be within sharia - role of sholars should be in high position too, but more as advisory, is some cases decisive - like when establishing courts, proposing law .....
I believe people are still more and more smart, they must learn and take big portion of responsibility, othrewise we can not progress.
I dont say this is my final opinion on subject - jast couple of thoughts

w salam

[Guaranano]

Thanks for the replies, and sorry for the delay in replying back...

suleimanibnsalim: I guess the point I am really trying to make is that those protests symbolise, to me, progress. They symbolise enlightenment replacing jahiliya. I mean, these were movements that stuck two fingers up at the systems of oppression that drew strength from religious backwardness which sternly demanded that people keep their head down at all times, unquestionably 'obey' and never ever think for themselves.

The protestors were young, tech savvy and fought for their rights and freedoms through twitter and social networking media. Clearly they were inspired by what they saw in the West. The Imams and everyone of later generations are still by and large in the clutches of this jahiliya imo and to them, such acts of civil disobedience is just incomprehensible.

Abd ar Rahman: You are right, it is not really possible to precisely define Democracy. All I'll say is that it doesn't neccessarly mean 'balloting' - ie. one person one vote. To me it's about consensus and the idea that people should have a say in matters that affect them. Further, I don't see democracy as a "man made" concept at all - it is universal value that we all hold dear but somehow religion has managed to condition people to think otherwise (militantly so). We human beings need personal autonomy and flourish when we have it; we become mindless automatons incapable of progress when we don't.

ibn Mikael - great posts. I agree that governments should never enforce Islamic values - but disagree that people should. People enforcing their values? How would that work in practice?

As regards your second post - good idea, but you're presupposing the Sharia is infallible. We must remember that the Shariah is 'man made' - it consists of fiqh which is merely the opinion of classical jurists in expansionist Abassid Period - it isn't really divine.