A I S E H M A N . O R G

'It is clear that Marina Mahathir is in a state of extreme anger, in which case her words that purportedly amount to reasoned and reasonable opinion are invalid.'

..Touché..

For everything, God has a reason.

Yes, in Islam, men are entitled to double shares of inheritance. No doubt about that.

But this is because they have the responsibility to look after all the women in their family!

A married woman has no financial obligations at all. Her money is hers. His money, some of it, must be hers.

So what's the deal?

I'm a relatively recent Muslim woman in this country and I do not think I am going 'backwards' at all! As a matter of fact, I have never felt this liberated in my entire life!

In Islam, it is important to have knowledge of the religion. And from the right persons too.
If not, don't talk about it. Don't write about it. It's just giving a wrong impression of what Islam really is.

And whatever we do and say we will be held accountable for.

And Allah knows best.

A divorce via sms is still valid subject to the criterias being fulfilled, i.e. intent,sound mind, acceptance of message, and proof of sender.
You will not be fined by the court if you can show that the person had left the house and did not come back for good to communicate with you and the sms was the only means of communicating to her. Also you need to put in a sentence to say that you shall make it official when she communicates and comes back to settle it. If you can show this and prove to the court that you had no intent to be a chicken but she was the one who did not return for you to make it official, you are OK.
I should know.

At the heart of liberty is the right of every person to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of marriage and human relationships.

Yes, wives must submit to their husbands but husbands must respect and protect women's rights as well as to make them happy.

What a wife cares most is not about equality or equity but her husband's investment in the emotional content of the marriage.

What a wife cares most is for her husband to be affectionate and understanding and not to get angry when at times she declines his invitation to have sex.

What a wife cares most is for her husband to spend quality time with her together as a couple that does not necessariy involved sex although marital sex is important.

Mahathir said, if the laws (of the Quran) doesn't seem logical nowadays, why are ulamas not strong enough to change it?

Mahathir said that, Marina believes in that.

They believe Quranic laws can be changed according to times.

It's not the laws of the Quran that is the problem, but the laws of the Syariah. Syariah laws, by the way, are human interpretations of what's in the Quran, using the Hadith (Prophet's sayings/traditions) as the basis of interpretation, and the determination of punishment, etc. Now, considering that the Hadith were only collected 50 - 100 years AFTER the Prophet's demise, and AGAINST his wishes, and that the Hadiths were validated ONLY against the credibility of the reporter (in many cases reported second or third hand since the original witness had already died) and not validated against what the Quran had to say about the subject matter, how can one possibly come to the logical conclusion that the Syariah, in toto, is God's law? IMHO, it's the Syariah that needs to be re-examined, not Quranic laws per se, and that's what Mahathir had advocated. God gave humans intellect so that we can properly follow the path to Him, and not so that we succumb to mob mentality.In the end, Allah knows best

I am just back from a business trip from a foreign country. I noticed with some discomfort that Marina's statement was picked up by AP and given some prominence by the local papers there. Not much about Malaysian get reported in foreign press and when we do make it to the news, it is often something that is less than flattering.

While I can understand Marina's frustrations, I feel that the language she used was rather too strong.

The teachings in Islam is sourced from BOTH the Qur'an AND the Sunnah (Ahadeeth); and not JUST the Qur'an.

The Qur'an states in Surah An-Nisa, verse 115 (what means):

"But as for him who, after guidance has been vouch safed to him, cuts himself from the Messenger and follows a path other than that of the Believers ­ him shall We leave unto that which he himself has chosen, and shall caused him to endure Hell : and how evil a journey's end!"

"Say, Obey Allah and the Messenger but if they turn their backs, Allah loves not the disbelievers." (3:32)

"And obey Allah and the Messenger so that you may be blessed." (3:132)

"O you believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. This is better and more suitable for final determination." (4:59)

"And we sent no messenger, but that he should be obeyed by the leave of Allah." (4:64)

"And whoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys Allah." (41:80)

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet whom they find written down with them in the Torah and Injeel..." (7:157)

And many, many more such verses in the holy Qur'an.

Our guide is the Qur'an, and our example is in the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasalaam) which is the best example, and sourced from the ahadeeth that are saheeh.

Therefore, both sources are indispensable.

I shall be grateful if someone who understands well explain what does the holy Quran teaches about polygamy and divorce. Can the laws be viewed in its historical and cultural context? And therefore interpreted as such that these laws are no longer binding or absolute in this modern age?

I'm not even disputing any verse anyone quoted here. Just two questions:

1. How many Muslim men have abused their privileged and forgot about their responsibility. For e.g., yes they are entitled to double share of inheritance because they have to look after the women but do you know how many people have neglected that duty but proceeded to enjoy the inheritance?

2 No matter what rights the Quran grants Muslim women, have you any idea how biased Syariah courts can get against women? Even in a divorce case of a battered wife, the Hakim Syari'e and even the woman's own Peguam Syari'e trivialises her case and advises her to just forget about the whole thing and go back to her husband. And now we have laws to open a bigger door for the biased officials? For what? To encourage the abuse of more women?

in the beginning of the revelation of the quran, yes, the prophet did not allow his companions or scribes to write down his sayings so as not to confuse his sayings and the quranic verses, so that the arabs may differentiate and recognise which are quranic verses and which are his reported sayings. but after the arabs are able to differentiate between his sayings and the quranic verses, he allowed his companions and scribes to memorise and write down his sayings and actions. in fact, he encouraged them. he allowed his companions and scribes follow him around so that they may witness an example of a perfect muslim. and if he was so against the scribes writing and memorising every word of his, he would have told them off, but those companions and scribes are close friends of his.

"but after the arabs are able to differentiate between his sayings and the quranic verses, he allowed his companions and scribes to memorise and write down his sayings and actions. in fact, he encouraged them. he allowed his companions and scribes follow him around so that they may witness an example of a perfect muslim."

- zaini

I take offence at zaini for making assumptions of the Prophet's behalf and a total disregard for historical or factual controversy. The prophet never called himself the perfect muslim. The tradition of hadiths (sayings) is common in the Arab society, but the Prophet has never agreed to it in his instance. The Khalifahs respected the Prophet's wishes and avoided creating a competing hadith to obscure the message of the Quran. The Quran is self sufficient and complete, as it needs no other.

I quote Ibrahim Mustafa http://www.geocities.com/athens/4796/hadith-corruption.html :

The four guided Khalifas who ruled the Muslim Umma (nation) after the death of the Prophet
Muhammed, respected the order of the Prophet and prohibited the writing and collection of
Hadiths.

Abu Bakr at one point was not sure whether to keep what he knows of hadiths or not. He had
collected 500 Hadiths during very long companionship of the Prophet Muhammed, but he could not sleep the night until he burned them. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab insisted on destroying the Hadiths collected by his son Abdullah. Islamic history mentioned the story of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab restraining four of the Prophet's companions because of their insistence on telling Hadiths, these were Ibn Masoud, Abu Al-Dardaa, Abu Masoud Al-Anssary and Abu Tharr Al-Ghaffary. Omar called Abu Hurayra a liar and threatened to send him back to Yemen where he came from if he does not stop telling these lies about the prophet Muhammed. He stopped until Omar died then started again.

Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the fourth Khalifa in one of his speeches said, "I urge all those who have writing taken from the messenger of God to go home and erase it. The people before you were
annihilated because they followed the Hadiths of their scholars and left the book of their Lord."
(Sunan Al-Daramy)

KHALIFA OMAR IBN ABDUL AZIZ, THE BEGINNING OF THE END;

Abu Hurayra narrated more Hadiths than anybody else including Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali, and
Aysha who lived with the prophet all their lives. In less than two years of being with the prophet,
Abu Hurayra narrated more Hadiths than all these companions of the prophet altogether. He
narrated 5374 Hadiths. Ibn Hanbal quoted 3848 of his Hadiths in his book. The Guided Khalifas,
Al-Khulafaa Al-Rashedun, who ruled the Muslim Umma after the death of the Prophet
Muhammed respected the Prophet's wish in not writing anything but the Quran and denounced
any attempt of writing the Hadiths and Sunna. Their example was followed for the first two
centuries after the Prophet's death. By that time, the lies about the prophet Muhammed was
widespread and the people deserted the Quran to look for Hadiths, that is when the Khalifa Omar
Ibn Abdel-Aziz issued an order to permit the writing of Hadiths and Sunna thinking that he would
put an end to the lies about the Prophet Muhammed. In his ruling he disregarded the
commandments of God in the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed and the
examples of his predecessors and the objection of many of the scholars in his time. Since then
Islam moved from the religion of God, the Quran, to the infamous Hadiths and Sunna that were
originally prohibited by God and His Prophet. Praise be to God, He preserved and protected His
PERFECT religion, Islam (Submission in English) in His Book that He insisted on calling the
BEST HADITH.

THE EARLY WRITING OF HADITHS;

As for the notion that Hadiths were written as early as the Prophet's time, this is historically
correct but the prophet himself and those who ruled after him condemned these writings and
looked at those who wrote these Hadiths with disgrace. The hadiths books mentioned that the
Prophet Muhammed burned the collected hadiths, and was very angry at people making "another
book with the book of Allah." Abu Baker and Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, were also reported to burn
the Hadiths collections.

This prohibition of hadiths was continued until Omar Ibn Abdel-Aziz permitted the writing of
Hadiths and Sunna, then many books and (Kararees) appeared containing Hadiths, e.g. Ibn
Greeg, Malik Ibn Anas, Mohammed Ibn Is'haq. The most famous from among these were the
book of Malik Ibn Anas, (Al-Muwattaa). that had about 500 Hadiths. At the end of the second
century the books known as (Masaned) appeared, e.g. the Masnad of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal that
has about 40,000 Hadiths. In the first half of the third century the famous six books of hadiths
appeared and these are the books used by many of the scholars these days. 1- Sahih Bukhary. 2-
Sahih Moslem. 3- Sunan Abu Daoud. 4-Sunan Al-Termethy. 5-Sunan Al-Nesaay. 6- Sunan Ibn
Mageh.

chez1978:

Not neccessarily so. Instead of quoting from the Internet, I suggest you read some of these books:

1. Hadith Literature : Its Origin, Development & Special Features by Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqui

2. Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature by Muhammad Mustaffa Azami

3. The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam; The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period by Herbert Berg

4. Constructive Critics, Hadith Literature, and the Articulation of Sunni Islam: The Legacy of the Generation of Ibn Sad, Ibn Man, and Ibn Hanbal by Scott Lucas

You choose your circle jerk members, aisehman. All I am saying is that zaini is putting words into the Prophet's mouth, and denying the fact that the collection of traditions was not without controversy. The Prophet and the four khalifahs have reservations as to the writing of the hadith, and this is pointed out by Berg himself (2000).

The hadith's authencity has always been an issue, hence the detailed effort to justify its existence by a clear methodology. The claim has always been that the methodology has weeded out questionable claims, and what had been preserved are actual words and deeds of the Prophet. Whether you prefer Goldziher's or Abbott's suggestions and explanations, this much is clear, the hadith is a human enterprise. At best, it represents a scholarly effort by early muslims to preserve the words and actions of the Prophet, and it is a body of human knowledge, not divinely ordained work. Once this fact is clear, muslims can learn to unshackle themselves from the chains of thought that has enslaved the ingenuity and passion for knowledge which early founders of Islam possessed.

The question is, are muslims prepared to listen?

Personally, I am of the opinion that the present body of Hadith contains authentic accounts of the Prophet's sayings and actions. However, the Prophet is a Messenger of God with the end product of the Quran. The Prophet is also human, and while he is a model for muslims, we must also remember the contextual narrative in which his life sprang forth.

Reference

http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par246/L21RHadithCriticism.htm

http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par246/L22RWansbrough.htm

one should no quote anything form internet unless the sources are proven and reliable, they r many misleading info ..tumbs up aisehman

chez1978:

Don't get me wrong ... I'm all for a contemporary, scholarly revision of the Hadith.

But the article by Ibrahim Mustafa you quoted can hardly be regarded as an objective analysis and is clearly one-sided, without any reference to opposing views.

Ibrahim clearly puts forth evidence that is convenient to his arguments. The title of his article already gives him away: Hadith and the corruption of the great religion of Islam.

And who the heck is Ibrahim Mustafa anyway?

Now we are playing the appeal to authority game, are we?

Sure as heck the title gives away the position of the opinion. However, I did not dismiss Harun Yahya's thrash just because the titles are coincidentally honest about its contents.

Similarly, who the heck cares who Ibrahim Mustaffa is? For those who are fed the one-sided historical fiction, an alternative account is always refreshing. Who is Kassim Ahmad? If you don't like the name, why not read another link by Mahmud Abu Riyyah. Who is he too?

http://alrafed.net/books/other-lang/adhwaa/05.html#13

Besides, you are way too intelligent than to attack the obscurity of the author rather than the points made. I never questioned zaini for who he is, I am questionning the veracity of his statement that "he (the Prophet) allowed his companions and scribes to memorise and write down his sayings and actions. in fact, he encouraged them. he allowed his companions and scribes follow him around so that they may witness an example of a perfect muslim."

Muslims get upset when Islam and the Prophet was insulted by infidels, but they hardly bat an eye over the gross misrepresentation of how the Messenger of God has conducted his life.

I agree, Aisehman.

It's convenient for chez1978 to put forth his arguments with 'supposed' scholars who have no proven background of scholarship. Why should I believe Ibrahim Mustafa over Al-Bukhari, Tirmidzi or Al-Ghazali?

chez dude, all I'm saying is that we need to approach the Hadith issue objectively.

If I am guilty of having been less than objective, then it's my bad.

Still, there is a lot of work to be done on the Hadith front, a lot of very important work.

I share your opinion that "the present body of Hadith contains authentic accounts of the Prophet's sayings and actions."

chez1978,

Can you please not turn this into another jeff ooi blog?

This is not the place to get all emotional especially when Aisehman is letting it slide.

If you cant handle issues without being objective and emotional, i suggest you take it somewhere else as it's spoiling the decorum.

Bak to the main subject of women's rights.
What about equality ? full life with or without a man ? Full freedom in jobs, education as any human being should enjoy regardless of sex and religion.
It is stricking to see all of you discuss whether women are free or not in Islam when basic rights are denied since there is absolutly no equality in front of the law.
Women should not be in submission of men. Women and men are equal in rights.
What islam needs is a good dose of feminism.

okay i aint no feminist but..i did REASEARCH (yes research)this is an issue no1 speaks about
we are entering the new age of gender apartheid...if your concerned read below(i aint no feminist dont worry im just a CONCERNIST) soon we will be drinking from different water fountains...acctually women will have to drink from a toilet...

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS GO INTO MY FAVORITES(FLASHBOX) AND CHECK OUT THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ALPHA MALES THIS IS SO FUCKING RETARDED IT PISSED ME OFF SO MUCH EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO ACT LIKE THIS!!!

IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GENDER APARTHEID(LIKE THE APARTHEID IN THE 80S BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE BUT ITS HAPPENING TO GENDERS TODAY) WELL GUESS WHAT IT IS VERY SO ALIVE AND EVERYWHERE THINK ABOUT IT:

Apartheid is the "strict racial segregation as practiced in South Africa."1 Gender apartheid has been used to describe the strict gender-based segregation currently practiced in Afghanistan.

Gender apartheid began in Afghanistan in September 1996, when the Taliban militia took over the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul.2 The Taliban militia is a fundamentalist group that claims to represent pure Islamic principles.2 However, most Muslim countries condemn the practices of the Taliban as being un-Islamic.2-4

As of 1998, the Taliban controlled at least 85% of Afghanistan, and instituted gender apartheid policies throughout this region.5 These gender-based segregation policies have been denounced as human rights violations by governments and people around the world.2, 5-8

- EXXONMOBILE(COMPANY) SOLD OUT A DEAL IN IRAN THAT IS TO FEED WOMEN JUST SO THEY CAN GET A TAX BREAK( PROOF THAT THE US GOVERMENT IS SEXIST AND OIL WINS OVER THE FEMALE RIGHTS ISSUE HANDS ON)

MORE PROOF: IS THAT IN THE US MORE WOMEN FAVOR TO GET OUT OF IRAQ(55% WOMEN/62% FEMINISTS AND ONLY 43% MEN)

MORE PROOF:THE ONLY WOMENS RIGHTS PROGRAM IN IRAQ ALOUD(THANK TO THE US GOVERNMENT) DOESNT EVEN HAVE A BUDJET LIKE ALL OTHERS!

MORE PROOF:After the Bush administration changed hiring procedures in 2002, less than half of the new hires to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division(CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE ALOT TO DO WITH GENDER AND RACE!)

MORE PROOF(I CAN RIGHT IN LOWER CASE NOW.. ) : there acctually was a demand to end gender apartheid Over 140 women from 60 countries including environment ministers from Iran, Kenya, South Africa, Swaziland and Sweden have attended the Nairobi WAVE conference. The assembly’s aim was to put women’s issues at the centre of the global environmental effort to deliver the United Nations Millennium also be presented at the 2005 Governing Council meeting where gender equality and empowerment will be a key theme.
more proof:In her historic radio address to the nation on November 17, 2001, First Lady Laura Bush eloquently stated that "the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women," noting that "the brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists." meaning !!!THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE WAR!!!!

The Bush administration has yet to develop a strategy to pressure corrupt extremist regimes to grant basic rights to women and enable them to choose how to exercise those rights. Empowering women is critical to promoting democracy, which is imperative if we are to defeat terrorism.Pr.Bush has turned a blind eye to U.S. business practices that aid and abet gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Congress should also consider imposing restrictions on U.S. companies with investments and operations in countries that practice gender discrimination to confront the system in the same way that the Anti-Apartheid Act (enacted over President Ronald Reagan’s veto) confronted racial apartheid in South Africa.

Years before the terrorist attacks of September 11, Eleanor Smeal and the Feminist Majority argued that the Taliban’s brutal suppression of women in Afghanistan and the growing oppression of women in other Muslim countries was a sign of exploding fanaticism that could lead to attacks on the West.
THUS RESULTS IN THE 911 ATTACKS!!
Their prophecy haunts us still. We can no longer afford to deny this growing threat. We cannot defeat the evil and hatred that drives the terrorists until we stand firmly against the brutal and unjust system of gender apartheid.

Globally, women hold only 16 per cent of parliamentary seats an increase of only 4 per cent since 1990. Some of the greatest strides are being made in developing countries. Rwanda, for example, has now surpassed Sweden with the highest proportion of women holding parliamentary seats in the world.

IN CONCLUSION(incase you couldnt read it all): basically the bush administration is fighting in iraq and the middle east because they attacked on 911, and the U.S cant just let a country bomb all over them can they? ..the terrorist attacked because on November 17, 2001, First Lady Laura Bush eloquently stated that "the fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women," noting that "the brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists." so hello cant you people see the whole reasdon for everything now!!!the terrorist will stop at nothing untill you and me(women) are wearing barquas

NOW FOCUS ON USA:->once an American woman marries a Muslim, and lives in a Muslim country, she is a citizen of no country. She is no longer entitled to the rights she once enjoyed.the Western academy and media appear to have all but abandoned vulnerable people—Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, and Hindus—to the forces of Islamism.America must begin to factor both gender and religious Apartheid into our evolving foreign policies.Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated, "Your approach [PC feminism’s]...would justify a federal remedy for alimony or child support." the (violence against womens act)in america is nothing but a gender witch-hunt – has almost killed free speech and academic liberty for women in America.There is nothing noble or righteous about the VAWA. The Act is a money grab to back an agenda. In the wake of its political turbulence, it is women who will be battered (AS WELL as men) by having to live with the burden of gender apartheid."As sociologist William Julius Wilson points out, '. . . while income inequality has widened generally in America . . ., the divide is even more dramatic among African Americans,'" the book states, and then addresses issues on the gap between male and female income

The Bush administration is pushing rule changes to encourage more single-sex classes and schools, marking a significant change in the U.S. government's 30-year policy prohibiting gender discrimination in public schools.
LIKE THE GENDER SPLIT CLASSES IN YELLOWKNIFE(IF YOU READ THE PAPER wed.july.12 page# 21 IN COLOUR)
Civil rights advocates plan to challenge the proposal, charging that separate public schools for boys and girls raises questions about education equality. Civil rights advocates also question whether this is the best way to prepare boys and girls for the real world.WHICH RAISES MY QUESTION"what do you mean real world president bush? the male world and the female world will the females be taught to cook and clean and the male be taught how to play sports and science)
So if Women currently make up 57% of all college students. what would split classes do arent students doing good enough or has president bush heard that news and is attacking women in there elementary years? becaue in YELLOWKNIFER (LIKE THE GENDER SPLIT CLASSES IN YELLOWKNIFE(IF YOU READ THE PAPER wed.july.12 page# 21 IN COLOUR) it stated that the boys learned 10% more since the split...conspiracy i know so...
now dont you see what i mean gender apartheid??
FIRST SPLIT CLASSES THEN ITS HOUSE AREST AND LESS WOMEN GRADUATING COLLEGE
THE AMERICAN SAW THE WOMEN GRADUATING MORE THAN MEN AS APROBLEM MORE THAN PROGRESS thus president bush taking action and WELEDEH TRYING OUT THE OUTRAGEOUS TEST