Pages

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Taliban School Poisoning: Nearly 100 Girls Fall Ill in Herat, Afghanistan

















Several of the girls remain in a critical condition after the latest suspected attack on women in education

Saudi Woman Denied Custody of Breastfed Orphan
Ghulam Fatima: Bonded To Her Cause
In First, Hijab-Wearing Woman Named Minister in Turkey
African Superstars, Bono in Campaign to Empower Women
Call for Female Quota in Saudi Municipal Elections
Thai Woman, Unknown Man New Suspects in Bangkok Bombing Probe
Women Drive Success of Somali Mall in Minneapolis
Compiled by New Age Islam News Bureau
--------

Taliban School Poisoning: Nearly 100 Girls Fall Ill in Herat, Afghanistan
By Fazul Rahim & F. Brinley Bruton, August 31, 2015
KABUL — Nearly 100 Afghan schoolgirls fell sick on Monday, prompting officials in the western city of Herat to investigate whether they were poisoned by Taliban militants.
"Our initial finding shows some kind of spray was used by some of the students to freshen up the classrooms," provincial police spokesman Col. Abdul Rauf Ahmadi told NBC News. "Our investigation is ongoing to determine if it was an act of sabotage or poor quality spray."
Forty of the 94 sickened girls from a minority Shiite neighborhood were admitted to hospital after feeling ill at school, Herat's police chief Gen. Majid Rozi told NBC News. All were were feeling better and in good health by Monday afternoon, he added.
Fundamentalist Sunni Muslim Taliban militants have a history of targeting both girls' schools and the Shiite Muslim minority in Afghanistan. However, the group did not immediately claim responsibility for Monday's incident.
rawa.org/temp/runews/2015/08/31/school-poisoningo-dozens-of-girls-fall-ill-in-herat-afghanistan.html#ixzz3kOk6Tqvr
-----

Saudi woman denied custody of breastfed orphan
31 August 2015
YANBU: Like many Saudi women, Amani dreamt of becoming a mother, but was unable to have children of her own after many years of marriage. Therefore, she decided to spend her time taking care of orphans with special circumstances in Makkah.
However, things took a turn for the worse when she came across seemingly unfair difficulties in adopting one of the children she had been caring for at the orphanage.
Since her very first visit to the center, Amani spent her days nursing orphan babies. When the time came for her to try and adopt a child for her and her husband, she was asked to present personal identification papers and a salary slip for herself and her husband, and did just that. A committee came to the house to double-check her circumstances, and after six months she obtained approval to foster a boy named Rami.
Shortly after this, she tried to foster another girl, called Raneem. Amani prepared herself and her home to receive Raneem. She bought her new clothes to join her foster brother, Rami, but she was surprised when the center refused to assign her the girl. She then complained to the Ministry of Social Affairs.
Amani said that before she adopted Rami, she saw Raneem and asked to nurse her at the center with the intention of adopting her eventually, but said that the staff told her to nurse Rami first and to then begin with Raneem. Nonetheless, Amani said: "I was able to feed the girl five times with the presence of witnesses, and with the proper breast feeding technique. I filed for her custody with the social office in Makkah, and after the application, the society prevented me from nursing Raneem, and instead told me to continue with my application to adopt Rami, first. Subsequently, the society decided to give Raneem to another family at this time, but the family brought her back to the society anyway."
"After the family brought Raneem back, I breastfed her upon the society's request again. I stayed in the society from eight in the morning until midnight to finish feeding her. I got ready for Raneem's arrival in my home, only to discover that she had been given to a single woman," she added.
Amani received specialists in her house to follow up on Rami's progress, who was only 15 months old. "I remember them telling me at the time that they would follow up on awarding Raneem to me, and I called the administration. They told me they were waiting for the ministry's response to my case," she said.
Amani demanded the return of Rameen, especially after she found out that the girl had been given to a single woman, and requested that the ministry review her case in addition to looking into her breastfeeding history with the child, which was undertaken according to Shariah procedures.
Amani's complaint was filed to the chairman of the board, Hussein Saeed Hussein Bahri, who confirmed that according to the Ministry of Social Affairs, giving two children to one family in less than two years violates their regulations. He confirmed that Amani already has custody of a boy who isn’t yet two years old, and therefore recommended the awarding of the girl to a family that did not yet have a child. He further said that Raneem will not be awarded to another family until Amani is fully aware of the ministry's rules in this regard.
He added that the society deals with an independent center that is supervised by Modi Baterjee, called "Bidaya (beginning)" that specializes in stimulating barren women to breast feed when they wish to adopt a child. This is done in one of two ways: the first is by natural means such as herbs, and the second is done by using mechanical tools to stimulate milk. The second method was approved according to a recent fatwa, which means that the child can grow in a family environment and can become a son or daughter to new parents. He added that the society has awarded 40 children in this manner so far.
http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/799476
--------

Ghulam Fatima: Bonded to her cause
Waqar Gillani 
August 30, 2015
In a rundown meeting room comprising an old wooden table and broken chairs sits a simple-looking and straightforward Syeda Ghulam Fatima. She is the general secretary of Bonded Labour Liberation Front (BLLF).
But wait. She has already been introduced to the world in more powerful words by the globally-known photo journalist Brandon Stanton, who blogs and publishes his work under the name of Humans of New York (HONY): “Meet Syeda Ghulam Fatima. Described as a modern day Harriet Tubman, Fatima has devoted her life to ending bonded labour. She has been shot, electrocuted, and beaten numerous times for her activism. Quite literally, she places herself between the workers and their owners. The organisation she leads, the Bonded Labour Liberation Front, is small but determined. It is working to set up Freedom Centers throughout rural Pakistan so that every bonded labourer has access to advocacy and legal aid. Fatima operates on a very small budget. So as we learn her story over the next few days, anyone wishing to help empower Fatima can donate to Bonded Labour Liberation Front…”
Stanton concluded his Pakistan visit highlighting Fatima’s work and appealing to the world to help her eradicate bonded labour in Pakistan. What followed after this call for help was phenomenal to say the least.
In an unexpectedly extraordinary response, people from all over the world collectively donated more than 1.2 million USD to the BLLF in a matter of 48 hours or so. “This was motivated by nothing else than genuine compassion and a desire to empower a woman who has devoted her life to freeing people trapped in modern slavery,” says Stanton, explaining the reason for his appeal on his Facebook page timeline.
What he had stated earlier in the post to generate the response was this: “Throughout rural Pakistan, illiterate and desperate labourers are tricked into accepting small loans in exchange for agreeing to work at brick kilns for a small period of time. But due to predatory terms, their debt balloons… If the labourer dies, the debt is passed on to his or her children. The practice is illegal. But due to the extreme power and wealth of brick kiln owners, the law is often unenforced in rural areas. It is estimated that well over one million men, women, and children are trapped in this modern feudalist system.”
He was spot on. Sitting in her office, Fatima says she and her friends had not hoped for such a huge grant. “We took that photographer as a routine visitor and appreciated him for highlighting the cause with no expectation. Our mission is not to get huge grants but continue to highlight bonded labour.”
Forty-seven-year-old Fatima, daughter of a trade-unionist and small-scale railway employee Syed Deedar Hussain, was motivated by her father. Earlier, as a college student, she used to go with her friends to the kilns to teach the workers voluntarily. In 1991, at one kiln where the owner detained her colleague, they picked up a fight with the owner that led to a big dispute ending up in lodging of police cases and firing at her family in 1991.
“My brothers and I were going home when they fired on us. My brothers were badly injured. One brother was disabled forever while I received bullets in my legs,” she recalls the bad day of 1991 that led her to commit herself to bonded labour. “My legs still can’t bear my weight. I am unable to move freely,” Fatima says, talking of the days when she was attacked, beaten, harassed.
“For me, red brick represents blood — of the kiln worker who makes it. Bricks make finest buildings but its maker earns nothing.”
According to Fatima, the total estimated number of kiln workers in Pakistan is around 4.5 million while the total number of kilns is not less than 20,000. In Punjab alone, the largest province of the country, there are around 2.5 million kiln workers and the number of kilns not less than 10,000.
The movement against bonded labour was started by left-leaning activists in this city. BLLF operates from an old building named Freedom Campus for Bonded Labour at Lawrence Road Lahore, in the same premises as the ideological magazine Viewpoint. It has a history of almost four decades. It started working under the name Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz (BMM), established by a group of trade unionists. It was renamed BLLF after the September 18, 1988 landmark judgement of Supreme Court of Pakistan which prohibited bonded labour. The judgement was a result of public interest litigation by Darshan Masih, a bonded labour victim and the main petitioner who, through a telegram, urged the court to take up the issue.
The 1988 judgement also proved instrumental in moving Kailash Satyarthi, noted Indian rights activist who shared Nobel Peace Prize with Malala Yousfzai, to help one of the co-founders of BMM to look at the larger picture of bonded labour including carpet weaving and other sectors.
The root cause of bonded labour in Pakistan is paishgi (advance payment). “It is this paishgi because of which the never-ending exploitation of bonded labour begins,” says Fatima. “Until and unless the state does not strictly applies the law of minimum wage in all sectors, particularly on kiln workers and tenants, this issue is not going to be addressed properly.”
Fatima feels the realisation to get freedom and rights is gradually growing among the bonded labour because of this long struggle of a number of local and global groups. “Challenges also increase with awareness as owners of kilns and landlords start applying different tactics when workers raise voice for their rights.” Fatima believes that lack of political will, bureaucratic and administrative hurdles (mainly from police), and disinterested parliamentarians are the major reasons behind the exploitation of bonded labour “despite the laws and policies”.
BLLF relies on membership fee, monthly subscriptions, donations and grants. The organisation aims to utilise its money, property and income solely to realise the objectives of the organisation. No portion of its money shall be paid or transferred directly by way of dividend, bonus or profit to the members of the board of the organisation. BLLF Pakistan aims to empower bonded labour and give them access to advocacy and legal aid. The mission of BLLF is to eradicate bonded labour, injustice, illiteracy, inequality and poverty in Pakistan.
BLLF came to the notice of Stanton through a documentary aired on HBO last year. Fatima received a call from Stanton’s team this July. On his arrival, he also visited some kilns in the suburbs of Lahore.
The huge public money BLLF has been promised, would come to them through an account of HONY. “There are no conditions on how to use it but we assure everybody that these donations would be spent for the cause in a transparent manner. We have been criticising government for its badly-implemented projects to eradicate bonded labour and now when we have huge money we are open to any question regarding utilisation of this grant,” says Fatima.
She runs the organisation with only one regular paid staff and her husband Mehar Safdar who is the programme officer. The staff is hired on a project basis while there are hundreds of volunteers across the province. The organisation is supervised by an executive committee.
“We want to spend this amount on rehabilitation, counselling and empowerment of kiln workers in Pakistan,” says Fatima. “The response of people across the world highlights the importance of this subject — of how much this form of labour is hated and rejected. This message is an endorsement of our view. This response is a loud and clear message to Pakistan, its government, administrative machinery, brick kiln owners and civil society.” She is utterly thankful to HONY and people across the world who have helped in any form with the victims of bonded labour.
Influenced by late Tahira Mazhar Ali Khan, a prominent women rights activist who donated her husband’s property where the Freedom Campus or the operational office of BLLF is housed, Fatima appears a strong and brave woman. She seems determined about her goals after getting this extraordinary response from the world and confidently claims that now BLLF should be able make significant progress towards eradicating bonded labour.
http://tns.thenews.com.pk/ghulam-fatima-bonded-to-her-cause/#.VeQ2liWqqkp
--------

In first, hijab-wearing woman named minister in Turkey
Aug 31, 2015
Ankara — For the first time in the history of Turkey, a Muslim but secular country, a woman who wears an Islamic headscarf has been named as a government minister.
Aysen Gurcan, a 52-year-old academic, was appointed Friday to be the minister in charge of family and social policies in the provisional government of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu that will run the country until November 1 elections.
The mother of three is also a member of the board of the Foundation for Youth and Education (TURGEV), of which Bilal Erdogan, a son of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is an executive.
The NGO was at the centre of a corruption scandal involving Erdogan, who was then prime minister, as well as his family and political entourage.
Over the past two years, the Turkish government has lifted bans on women and girls wearing headscarves in schools and state institutions, moves denounced by opponents as undermining the basis of the country’s secular society.
Erdogan, who co-founded the ruling Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP), called new elections after Davutoglu failed to form a coalition government with the opposition after June polls. — AFP
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150831255019
--------

African superstars, Bono in campaign to empower women
August 29, 2015
LAGOS — African stars joined U2 frontman Bono on Friday in a campaign to use music to help empower women around the world.
Bono and top African male musicians D’banj, Diamond and Banky W announced that they will be included in a remix of the song “Strong Girl,” a rallying cry for women’s empowerment which features top African female talent.
Bono, whose ONE advocacy group is the creative force behind the campaign for women’s empowerment, said music can create awareness and help shift policies because politicians are driven by popular things.
“Politicians in the end have to be elected, and what is popular drives all of their decisions. It’s that simple. So if the subject is popular among the electorate, then it suddenly dawns on politicians that this is a subject they, too, feel strongly about,” Bono told reporters.
Sipho Moyo, Africa executive director of ONE, said the campaign hopes to create structural and policy changes globally that will ensure women are empowered. The ultimate goal is to eradicate extreme poverty in 2030, Moyo said. — AP
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150830254974
--------

Call for female quota in Saudi municipal elections
August 30, 2015
Caption: A Saudi businesswoman said that a quota system should be introduced in the upcoming municipal elections to ensure the success of some female candidates.
Faten Bandakji attributed her call to the “lack of experience of Saudi women as voters and candidates in municipal elections.”
“Such a support, particularly from society, will boost municipal work and consolidate development achievements,” she said, Saudi daily Okaz reported.
Several businesswomen and social activists have signed up to run in the elections, the first in which women are allowed to run and vote. The first two elections were an all-men affair, but the late King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, often seen as a champion of women’s rights in the conservative kingdom, decided that women should have an active role starting with the third elections that will be held in December.
The registration process was launched last week and voters and candidates have up to 21 days to ensure their names are on the lists.
According to Okaz, Luma Al Sulaiman, a businesswoman, Hala Hakim, a legal consultant and former media figure, Zabi, a social activist and a consultant, Rasha Hifdhi, a social activist, Amal Al Abadi, Basma and Zainab Al Attas are among the candidates in Jeddah.
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/call-for-female-quota-in-saudi-municipal-elections-1.1575497
--------

Thai woman, unknown man new suspects in Bangkok bombing probe
Aug 31, 2015
Thai police issued two new arrest warrants and released images Monday of more suspects, a Thai woman and a foreign man of unknown nationality, in the widening investigation into Bangkok’s deadly bombing two weeks ago. During a televised statement, police broadcast a photograph of the woman’s Thai identification card showing a young woman in a black headscarf and a sketch of the man whose nationality was unknown. The development came after police arrested a man from an apartment in Bangkok’s outskirts on Saturday and seized bomb-making equipment that included detonators, ball bearings and a metal pipe believed to be a bomb casing. More bomb-making materials were discovered in a second apartment during a raid Sunday in a nearby neighborhood, national police spokesman Prawuth Thavornsiri said Monday. He said the second apartment, in a neighborhood known as Min Buri, was rented by the Thai woman identified as Wanna Suansun and 26 years old. Prawuth described what police found as “important bomb-making materials such as gunpowder, urea-based fertilizer which can be used as explosive powder when mixed with other substances, a remote-controlled car with its controller which can be used as a detonator, nuts and bolts, small light bulbs and digital watches,” among other things. The man, whose face is shown in a police sketch with short brown hair and a light beard and mustache, is believed to have lived in the apartment, said Prawuth, adding that his nationality was not known. Arrest warrants were issued for both the woman and man on charges of possessing unauthorized explosives, Prawuth said. Saturday’s arrest marked the first possible breakthrough in the investigation into the Aug. 17 blast at the Erawan Shrine, which killed 20 people, more than half of whom were foreigners, and injured more than 120 others. Much remains unknown about the suspect, including his nationality, his motive, his relationship to the alleged bombing network or if he was plotting an attack, Prawuth said, adding that another attack was “possible” because police found 10 detonators. “We still have to work out the details,” he said. “But we are very certain he’s part of the network” that carried out the bombing. On Sunday, Prawuth said police were working with “a number of embassies” and interpreters to try to establish the man’s nationality, adding that he did not speak Thai but spoke some English. Authorities have dodged questions about whether the suspect is believed to be Turkish, saying that he was traveling on a fake passport. Images circulated online after his arrest of a fake Turkish passport with the apparent suspect’s picture. The Turkish Embassy in Bangkok could not immediately be reached for comment. A Turkish government spokesman contacted over the weekend in Istanbul said he had no information on the suspect or any possible Turkish link to the attack. The blast at the Erawan Shrine was unprecedented in the Thai capital, where smaller bombs have been employed in domestic political violence over the past decade, but not in an effort to cause large-scale casualties. No one has claimed responsibility for the blast, sparking a variety of theories into who might be behind it. Possible suspects include parties seeking to avenge Thailand’s forced repatriation of ethnic Uighurs to China. Uighurs are related to Turks, and Turkey is home to a large Uighur community. Other theories included Muslim separatists from southern Thailand, opponents of Thailand’s military government and feuding factions within the security services.
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/asia/thai-police-find-bomb-materials-in-2nd-apartment/
--------

Women drive success of Somali mall in Minneapolis
By Adam Belz
AUGUST 31, 2015
A tax preparer in a shirt and tie dropped in on Bulbulo Mohamud’s cafe last week and said he believes it’s better for women to stay home and take care of children.
Mohamud, a mother of three in a red and black headscarf whose husband travels for work, poured a drink and looked at the man sideways. He was half-grinning, goading her. A European soccer game droned on a TV in the corner.
“You’re trying to make me mad,” she said.
It was an odd venue to argue for stay-at-home motherhood. Women who own businesses are driving the growth of Karmel Square at the corner of Pillsbury Avenue and Lake Street. The mall is probably the largest collection of Somali businesses in the U.S.
What began as a warren of stalls and storefronts in an old machine shop has grown into a second, four-story building along the Midtown Greenway. Inside are 175 clothing shops, hair salons, henna shops, restaurants and even a mosque. All but 25 are owned by women.
The mall is the scene of a rich paradox in Somali culture. The women who run the shops cover their heads, and many of them believe it is a man’s responsibility to pay bills for the family. Yet they are aggressive businesspeople, cherish financial independence and preside over a microeconomy at the core of the Twin Cities’ Somali community.
“Our man does not control us as people think. It’s not like that. We are free to do anything,” said Mohamud, who opened her cafe there four months ago. “If we decide to achieve something and make it clear, we can.”
Ubah Diriye grew up in Seattle from age 4, where her family settled in public housing in the 1990s. “It was very hard for my mother and father,” she said. “We started from the bottom.”
She dressed like a Westerner before moving to Minneapolis three years ago. Now she wears a headscarf and designs and sells clothes that aim to blend modesty and fashion. It’s a small shop and she has no regular employees, but she creates her own designs and has them manufactured in China. She supports herself with the shop and is looking for other businesses to start.
“I’m after the American dream,” she said.
A business mind-set
The owner of Karmel Square, Basim Sabri, barged through the maze of corridors spilling over with dresses, shoes and fabric, and proudly announced the owner’s gender at each shop he passed.
“Woman, woman, woman, woman, woman!” Sabri said.
He charmed his way past tenants and their customers, pressing shoulders, dishing out compliments, always moving. He told a father his young daughter was beautiful, called older women “Mama” and fended off conversations with shop owners. “They’re very aggressive,” he whispered.
A woman stopped him outside her clothing store and asked for another window onto the corridor.
“OK, sister, it’s on the list,” Sabri said. “It’s not a top priority. Look, you got a beautiful glass, you need a little more glass? We’ll take care of it. Don’t worry. Insha’Allah.”
“OK, OK,” she said.
When Sabri first bought the building 15 years ago, a young Somali man walked in and asked Sabri if he could open a coffee shop there. Sabri liked the man’s face and said yes. The next day, a group of women showed up seeking to open stalls to sell clothing to other Somalis.
So many women were interested that he had them draw numbers out of a bucket to decide who went where. Most of the original tenants remain in their spots.
“In my opinion, they’re the smartest businesspeople in Africa, probably the smartest in the Middle East,” Sabri said. “Women play a big role in Somali business doing.”
An entrepreneurial culture
The state’s strong job market and the self-reinforcing attraction of the Twin Cities area as home to one-fourth of the U.S. Somali population have created a cycle of population growth. More Somalis, like Diriye, arrive from other U.S. cities each year.
Census estimates put Minnesota’s Somali population at 39,000 in 2013, but that figure is probably low, because the Somali diaspora in the U.S. is still so new and fluid. In 2012, few had been in Minnesota for more than 10 years, many didn’t speak English well and the population was growing fast. Nearly half — around 16,000 — of the estimated population depended on welfare of some kind, according to the Minnesota demographer’s office.
But that was a small fraction of the 1.2 million Minnesotans who receive public assistance, and the Somali job picture is improving. Unemployment dropped from about 20 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in 2013, according to Susan Brower, the state demographer. Somali women have turned en masse to entrepreneurship in part out of necessity, said Osman Ahmed, who manages the Riverside Mall — where 37 of 44 businesses are owned by women — in Minneapolis’ Cedar-Riverside area.
Some feel they can’t get hired by others because of cultural barriers. Others picked up skills going into business on their own before they moved to the U.S., during turmoil in Somalia in the 1990s.
“After the civil war, there were no jobs, the government collapsed, there was no money,” Ahmed said. “Somali women started helping the men more.”
The roots of female Somali entrepreneurship run deeper than the civil war, said Amallina Ali, the owner of a beauty salon that just moved into new space at Karmel Square.
In Somalia, women have long performed many of the same jobs as men — raising livestock, cultivating crops — even while caring for their children, she said. And a culture where polygamy was widely accepted has, for generations, pounded into women the need to be financially self-sufficient, she said.
“That’s in our head. We want to depend on ourselves,” Ali said. “Mothers will teach their daughters to do everything.”
Starting up without a bank
To do it, like business owners anywhere, they need money and they need to balance work and home.
Even a small clothing shop requires $20,000 in start-up cash, said Ahmed at the Riverside Mall, the building with the leopards painted on it next to a light-rail station.
Because of Islamic strictures against paying or earning interest, Somali entrepreneurs must find ways to raise start-up capital other than from a bank loan. Many rely on family members and their community.
Ali’s husband gave her some of the money she needed to start her business, and Sabri gave her a good deal after his own sister told him Ali’s concept was promising.
“I got a break for rent, designing the whole place on his expense, everything,” said Ali. “I know he’s a big guy now and he owns everything, but when things go heated, I always remember the beginnings. I’m always appreciative of that.”
Ali believes local banks are missing an opportunity by not tailoring finance to Muslim businesses. Views on what constitutes an acceptable financial product vary across the Muslim world, but to Ali it’s simple.
“If you have a fixed-rate loan, you can charge me whatever you want and precalculate it, and say because of this, this is how much money I’m making on this deal,” she said. “The banks could sell anything they want, at any price, just precalculate your thing and let me know.”
Mohamud, the new cafe owner in Karmel Square, came to the U.S. as a 13-year-old and landed in Memphis. She moved to Minneapolis in 2000, married and had children, and opened a clothing accessories store at the 24th Street Mall.
She learned how to make customers feel welcome, but the business was not successful. She let her mother take over, and she opened her own coffee shop instead. The business did better and, after Karmel Square expanded, she moved to a corner space in its new wing.
Managing all of her responsibilities is a challenge, she said, but her family helps by watching her children.
“If you don’t have a support group, you’re not going to succeed,” she said. “Every business you see has a support group of family.”
Somali in America
Mohamud is happy to run a business, and is protective of that. Still, she considers her husband the breadwinner and is happy to bow to that expectation of Somali life.
“It’s different in our culture and you guys’ culture. You guys, if you bring money to the house and she does, you pay things together, right?” she said. “Ours, no, unless he’s really broke. If there is a financial problem, he can’t provide, she will help him out, but always he’s the breadwinner. Always. It’s a good responsibility. It’s good to have that, because when he married you he took that responsibility.”
Ali, the salon owner at Karmel Square, said Somali businesses are growing in Minnesota because the state has been good to Somalis.
A few years ago she flew for a visit to Egypt, where her family first settled after fleeing Somalia. She shed tears of joy when the plane landed. But then something funny happened: Egyptian culture kept rubbing against her American expectations.
“The American in me is inside,” she said. “I want good customer service. I want justice.”
As she landed back in the U.S. on the return flight, her first thought was “thank God I’m home.” When she hears complaints about the unfairness of American society, it strikes her as odd, given the unfairness and injustice she has witnessed elsewhere.
“Why we are a superpower is the justice, equality. It does not exist anywhere. That’s why we do well here,” she said. “It might not be 100 percent, but we have the best on this planet. I don’t care what anyone says.”
http://www.startribune.com/women-drive-success-of-somali-mall-in-minneapolis/323386601/
--------

A Wife cannot refuse Sex to the Husband: Fifty Common Misconceptions about Islam - Part 4

A Wife cannot refuse Sex to the Husband: Fifty Common Misconceptions about Islam - Part 4

By Dr. Shehzad Saleem
31 August 2015
VII. Family Issues
1. A Wife Cannot Go Out Without The Husband’s Permission
It is believed in religious circles that a wife cannot go out of the house unless she seeks permission from her husband. In this regard, a Hadith is also quoted. It reads thus:
  عَنْ بن عُمَرَ عَنِ النَبِّي أَنَّ اِمْرَأَةً أَتَتْهُ فَقَالَتْ مَا حَقُّ الزَّوْجِ عَلَى اِمْرَأَتِهِ فَقَالَ … لاَ تَخْرُج مِنْ بَيْتِهِ إِلاَّ بِإِذْنِهِ (سنن البيهقي الكبرى ، رقم: ١٤٤٩٠)
Ibn ‘Umar reports from the Prophet that once a lady came to the Prophet and asked him about the rights of a husband on his wife. He replied: “… She should not leave his house without his permission.” (Sunan Bayhaqi, No: 14490)
It needs to be appreciated that a family by analogy is similar to a state. All citizens of a state are expected to abide by the rules and regulations of the country they live in. They are expected to adopt an attitude of adjustment and harmony with the country. This, of course, does not mean that they cannot differ with its policies. They have the inalienable democratic right to differ and present their differences in a befitting manner. This submission is actually an essential requirement for discipline and order without which anarchy may result. Similarly, in the case of a family set up, it is essential that the person who is its head be shown obedience. In other words, submission to authority is not specific to the gender of the authority. Whoever is the authority must be submitted to. Gender does not dictate submissiveness – it is authority which does. It is common knowledge that in different spheres of activities people have different abilities and justice entails that a person be made responsible according to his or her abilities and given authority on that basis. We have been informed by divine revelation that it is the husband who is more suitable to be the head of the family. Owing to this relative superiority, women are directed to submit to men not because men are superior human beings, but because in this particular case it is the men who have been vested with authority in accordance with 4:34. If women had been more suitable for the task of heading a family, men would have been similarly directed to adopt this attitude of adjustment.
Thus Islam requires that the wife adopt an attitude of adjustment and harmony with the husband and the husband is required to be affectionate and accommodating as far as possible to the needs of his wife. He must not impose any undue restrictions on her for this will ignite the wrath of God upon him.
With regard to a wife seeking her husband’s permission before leaving the house, the proper perspective must be understood. In general circumstances of mutual trust, there is no need for a wife to ask permission from her husband to go out. However, in certain circumstances in which the husband genuinely considers that going out might disrupt the family in any way, he has the authority to exercise his right of stopping her and in these circumstances, she should always ask permission to leave the house. In this regard, the husband must remember that if he imposes himself without any sound and justifiable reason, he would be crossing the bounds and invoking the displeasure of the Almighty. His wrong behaviour may even lead the wife to abandon him for which he would be solely responsible.
2. A Wife cannot refuse Sex to the Husband
On the basis of the following Hadith, it is generally understood that if a wife refuses sex to her husband she will be cursed by the angels:
 عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا دَعَا الرَّجُلُ امْرَأَتَهُ إِلَى فِرَاشِهِ فَأَبَتْ فَبَاتَ غَضْبَانَ عَلَيْهَا لَعَنَتْهَا الْمَلَائِكَةُ حَتَّى تُصْبِحَ (بخارى ، رقم:٣٠٦٥)
Abu Hurayrah reports from the Prophet (sws): “When a husband calls his wife to bed, and she refuses and [as a result] the husband spends the night in anger, then angels curse the wife all night till dawn.” (Bukhari, No: 3065)
 In order to understand this Hadith, the following points need to be understood:
Firstly, a husband and wife safeguard the chastity of one another by providing one another a legitimate means of satisfying the sexual urge. This protection of chastity is essential for the preservation of the family unit – the very institution on which the stability of a society hinges. Hence anything which puts chastity in jeopardy is disliked by the Almighty.
Secondly, a man is an addressee of the directive mentioned in this Hadith on an equal basis. This is evident from the directive of ila mentioned in the Qur’an (2:226-7) in which the Arabs of the pre-Islamic period would swear to sever sexual relationship with their wives because of anger. Although the husbands were prescribed a period of four months to decide the fate of their wives by either resuming these relations or divorcing her, it is evident from the directive that in normal circumstances a husband is not allowed to sever sexual relations from his wife without a valid reason. So much so, if a person swears such an oath, he must break it. Such relations are the right of a wife and if a husband does not fulfil them, then he can be regarded a criminal both in the eyes of the law and before the Almighty in the Hereafter.
Thirdly, the basis of refusal by the husband or wife must also be taken in consideration. If either of them is tired, sick or simply not in the proper mood and in the appropriate frame of mind then it does not entail any wrath of the Almighty. It is only when a spouse starts to deliberately evade such natural needs of the other that the attitude becomes questionable.
3. A Husband has an Absolute Right to beat his Wife
The right given by the Qur’an to the husbands to physically punish their wives in certain circumstances is a thorny issue in the modern mind. The issue needs to be understood in its true perspective. The Qur’an says:
 وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا (٣٤:٤)
And as for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them [first] and [next] refuse to share their beds and [even then if they do not listen] punish them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted and Mighty. (4:34)
 The following implications of this verse need to be understood in their proper perspective:
a. Firstly, this measure can only be resorted to when a wife starts to challenge the authority of the husband and threatens to disrupt the family set-up. It is in fact a last resort to protect the institution of family from breaking up. It must not be resorted to in anything less in severity than a rebellious attitude from the wife. This rebellious attitude is termed as نُشُوز (Nushuz) by the Qur’an. It has not used the word “disobedience”. Any difference of opinion or altercation must not be resolved by this procedure. Disagreements and disputes must be settled mutually. It is only when the wife stands up against the authority of her husband that this procedure be employed.
b. Before resorting to physical chastisement, the two previous stages mentioned by the Qur’an (4:34) must elapse. The husband should first of all admonish his wife and convince her to give up her defiant behaviour. He should exercise all the patience he can muster to urge and beseech her to change her stance. If after repeated pleas and continuous admonition over a considerable span of time, the wife continues to persist in her rebellious attitude, he has the authority to go on to the second stage by avoiding marital contact with her. This detachment, it is clear, is a form of reproof, and a very strong appeal to the wife to correct herself. Again, this attitude should continue for a substantial period of time so that the point is driven home. It is highly unlikely that most wives would persist in their arrogance after these two initial stages. In all probability, patience, forbearance, and restraint would have conquered their hearts. However, even after this stage, if a wife refuses to accept the authority of her husband, the husband has the right to finally resort to gentle physical affliction.
c. If the husband is left with no alternative but to physically punish his wife, he must be very careful in this regard and must not wound or injure her. He should remember that this physical chastisement is similar to the one a mother gives to a rebellious son or the one a teacher gives to an unruly student. He must be aware that in case he misuses this authority in any way, he would be held responsible before the Almighty on the Day of Judgement. In this world also, his wife has the right to report his behaviour to the authorities who can punish him for any misconduct in this regard.
d. It finally needs to be considered that all rights must be exercised with prudence keeping in view the circumstances. Exercising one’s right is never obligatory. There can be circumstances in which a person chooses not to exercise this right.
4. Regarding Divorce and Divorce declarations51
Most people are ignorant of the proper way of divorcing wives. It is generally thought that a wife stands separated from her husband if the divorce is declared thrice. This notion is against the Qur’an which says that a lady must be divorced by just one declaration to the effect.
Moreover, there are many other misconceptions regarding divorce giving rise to the following questions:
I. Do Women Have A Right To Divorce?
Ii. Should The Wife Pay Money For Seeking Divorce?
Iii. What Is The Correct Procedure Of Divorce?
Iv. How Should Wrongly Given Divorces Be Tackled?
V. In Whose Custody Should The Children Be Given?
I. The Right To Divorce
When a man and a woman marry each other, it is their utmost wish to remain in this relation of wedlock forever. They are desirous of the fact that the change in times not change their commitment to each other and only death separate them in this world. But then, sometimes there does arise a situation when part they must. Differences become so pronounced that it becomes necessary to sever this relationship. If such circumstances do arise that a husband and wife must separate permanently, Islam lays down a specific procedure for this separation. In Islamic terminology this dissolution of marriage is called divorce. It says that both a man and a woman have an equal right to it. The only difference is that a man divorces a woman while a woman demands a divorce from her husband. The Qur’an explicitly states that it is the husband who has the right to give divorce:
 ِبيَدِه عُقْدَةُ الِّنكَاح (٢: ٢٣٧)
In his hands, is the tie of marriage? (2:237)
 Women, however, can seek divorce if they want to. If the husband refuses, she has all the right to take the matter to the court. The matter will then be decided by the ruling of the court.
This prerogative, sense and reason demand, should go to the head of the family. Since, according to the Qur’an, it is the husband who is the head of a family, therefore, he has been given this right. In other words, this right is not “gender specific” it is “authority specific”: whoever is entrusted with the authority of being the head should possess this right. Had women been more suitable to head a family, they would have been given this right.
Ii. Should The Wife Pay Money For Seeking Divorce?
A common misconception when a woman seeks divorce from her husband is that she must give some wealth to her husband on this occasion of separation. This has no basis in the Qur’an; on the contrary, the Qur’an says that it is not at all permissible for the husband to demand anything from his wife on this occasion. However, there are two exceptions to this:
Firstly, if a husband has gifted a lot of wealth and property to her wife and is afraid that in divorcing her he would lose all his riches, the Qur’an says that she can forgo some or all of her share and return it to her husband to end the whole affair. It is clear that this is only an exception and not a general principle as is generally held and practiced. It is allowed when only wealth is the husband’s reason for not divorcing his wife. The Qur’an says:
 وَلَا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَأْخُذُوا مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شَيْئًا إِلَّا أَنْ يَخَافَا أَلَّا يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَنْ يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الظَّالِمُونَ (٢ :٢٢٩)
And [if you decide to depart from them, then on this occasion] it is unlawful for you to take back from them anything you have given them unless both husband and wife fear that they may not be able to keep within the bounds set by Allah. Then if you also feel that they will not be able to remain within the bounds set by Allah, there shall be no offence for either of them [regarding the gifts given by the husband] if the wife seeks divorce [by returning them to him] in ransom. These are the bounds set by Allah; do not transgress them. [And you should know that] those who transgress the bounds of Allah are wrongdoers (2:229)
 Secondly, if the wife is guilty of open sexual misconduct. Since such a behaviour destroys the very foundation of marriage, a husband has been allowed to take back any gifts or wealth given to her. The Qur’an says:
 وَلَا تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ لِتَذْهَبُوا بِبَعْضِ مَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَأْتِينَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُبَيِّنَةٍ….  وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمْ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا  وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ وَقَدْ أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا (٤: ١٩-٢١)
And do not treat them with harshness that you may take away what you have given them – except where they have been guilty of open lewdness… And if you decide to take a wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure of wealth take not the least bit of it back: Would you take it by slander and usurping [her] rights? And how could you take it when you have lain with each other and [at the time of marriage] they have taken from you a solemn covenant? (4:19-21)
iii. The Procedure of Divorce
If a husband has decided to divorce his wife, he should first wait until she has completed her menstrual cycle and then desisting from any further carnal relationship, he should utter the divorce sentence just once. The wife, after she has been divorced in this way, must stay in her husband’s house for a period of three menstrual cycles. This period is called ‘iddat. If a woman does not have menstrual cycles owing to age, disease or any other reason, and still there is a chance of pregnancy, then she must wait for three months. For a pregnant woman this period is up to the birth of the child, while for a newly married couple who have had no contact, divorce does not entail any period of ‘Iddat for the wife. According to the Qur’an, there is one basic reason for this waiting period: to ascertain whether a wife is pregnant or not so that the lineage of the child does not remain a matter of doubt. Another thing which is achieved through it is that it affords the husband and other family members a chance to rectify the situation, for matters in which emotions and feelings run high, sometimes only time is needed for recovery.
During this ‘Iddat period:
(a) The husband cannot turn his wife out from the house except if she is guilty of adultery, nor should she leave the house herself.
(b) The wife, if she is pregnant, must not hide her pregnancy.
(c) The husband should continue to provide for her.
(d) A husband, if he changes his mind, can revoke his decision. The only thing required, according to the Qur’an, is that he should call in two persons to testify to his decision52.
If after this period of ‘Iddat, a man is still firm in his stance, his wife shall be considered as separated permanently. She is now a free woman and if she wishes to marry some other person, she has all the right to do so and must not be inhibited in any way. If circumstances change, she can even remarry her former husband. Furthermore, the Qur’an stresses that on this occasion of parting it is not at all lawful for a husband to take back any property or asset gifted to her53. This, it must be kept in consideration, does not pertain to Mahr (dower) only, but to every type of gift given to the wife. Not only should a husband not take back these gifts, he should, in fact, give her something on this occasion of separation. Even if her Mahr has not been fixed, it is better for him to give her something. If the Mahr has been fixed but the divorce occurs before the husband and wife have had contact, he must return half the money, unless the wife even forgoes this. In this case also, though it is better that he should give her the whole money.
However, in case the husband revokes his decision during the ‘Iddat period, there is no need for re-marriage. The two shall be considered as husband and wife once again. If after annulment of this divorce, due to some reason, the untoward situation arises a second time that the husband intends to divorce his wife, the Qur’an says that the husband can exercise his right of divorce for the second time as well. He should pronounce just one divorce sentence to repudiate his wife. Again, the post-divorce period shall be observed in the manner just described. Once again, if the husband wishes, he has the chance to revise his decision during this period, in which case the divorce shall be considered null and void and the two shall once again become husband and wife. If, unfortunately, for the third time, the situation arises that divorce becomes inevitable, the Qur’an says that a husband can exercise his right for the third time as well and pronounce the divorce sentence. After the expiry of ‘Iddat during which a husband will have to support and provide shelter to his wife (though the two are not required to live together), the wife shall be permanently separated from him. After divorcing his wife for the third time, he cannot re-marry her now, unless and until, the wife marries some other person and owing to some reason gets divorced from him – not under a planned strategy, but on account of naturally arisen circumstances. This last measure, actually, is meant to prevent this affair from becoming mere child play.
In the words of the Qur’an:
 الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ فَإمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ (٢ :٢٢٩)
This divorce [in which the husband can revoke his decision in the ‘Iddat period] is permitted twice only, and then a woman must be retained with kindness or allowed to go with kindness. (2:229)
 It is evident from these details that the Qur’an only prescribes one divorce sentence and stresses that a husband has the right to divorce her wife three times in one marriage contract. It does not at all approve the utterance of three divorce sentences in one go. Consequently, it is clear from these details that the two prevailing procedures of divorce ie (1) pronouncing three consecutive divorces in one instance, and (2) pronouncing each of the three sentences in three months are not at all prescribed by the Qur’an. When the Prophet (sws) came to know that a certain person had divorced his wife by pronouncing three divorce sentences one after the other, he stood up in anger and said:
 أَيُلْعَبُ بِكِتَابِ اللهِ وَأَنَا بَيْنَ أَظْهُرِكُمْ (نِسائ ، رقم: ٣٤٠١)
In my presence, such playful attitude has been adopted with the Book of Allah. (Nasa’i, No: 3401)
iv. Tackling wrongly given Divorces
Mentioned above is the Shari’ah as far as the concept of divorce is concerned. However, as does happen with prescribed laws and procedures, situations arise in which a person is guilty of breaching the law and deviating from the right course. Human nature is prone to extreme emotional conditions in which it deviates from the path set forth by the Almighty. These deviations, it is extremely evident, are not part of the Shari’ah; they fall into breach of law category and it is up to the legislature of a country to enact laws about such departures. At times, such cases are even left to the discretion of the judge and at other times the judge himself is bound by the legislation done in this regard by the parliament.
In case of divorce, keeping in view various precedents, this deviation is generally of two types:
i) A husband divorces his wife during her menstrual period, or divorces her after he has had contact with her in her period of purity.
ii) A husband divorces his wife by pronouncing the divorce sentence thrice.
As far as the first deviation is concerned, an Islamic government can ask the husband to revoke his decision and carry it out in the proper manner at the proper time. The Prophet (sws) in his own times dealt with the case of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar (rta) in a similar manner. When he was told that ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar (rta) had divorced his wife during her menstrual cycle, he was really annoyed and remarked:
 مُرْهُ فَلْيُرَاجِعْهَا ثُمَّ لِيُمْسِكْهَا حَتَّى تَطْهُرَ ثُمَّ تَحِيضَ ثُمَّ تَطْهُرَ ثُمَّ إِنْ شَاءَ أَمْسَكَ بَعْدُ وَإِنْ شَاءَ طَلَّقَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَمَسَّ فَتِلْكَ الْعِدَّةُ الَّتِي أَمَرَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تُطَلَّقَ لَهَا النِّسَاءُ  (بخارى ، رقم:٥٢٥١ )
Ask him to take her back and keep her in wedlock until she is through with her menstrual cycle and then once again passes through this cycle and then is through with it. After this, he can either detain her [in wedlock] or divorce her before having sexual intercourse with her. Because it is this beginning of the ‘Iddat keeping regard of which the Almighty has directed [believers] to divorce their wives. (Bukhari, No: 5251)
 In case of the second deviation, a deliberation on the injunctions of divorce, particularly on their linguistic aspects, reveals that there are three possible solutions:
(a) The husband can be called to court and asked to testify to the nature of these pronouncements: if he testifies that he had pronounced the three sentences in anger to only strongly assert his decision or that he had thought that pronouncing three sentences was the correct procedure of divorce, the court, if satisfied by his statement, can re-unite the husband and wife. In this case, it shall be clearly spelt out to the husband that he now has exercised one of his three chances to repudiate his wife. If on the other hand, a person testifies that he had consciously uttered the three sentences knowing that he was exercising his three rights in one time, the wife, of course, shall be divorced from him. The case of Rukana Ibn ‘Abdi Yazid (rta) was decided in a similar manner by the Prophet (sws)
(b) A second possible solution in this regard is that a state, while observing that people have adopted a carefree attitude in following this procedure, legislates that three divorce sentences shall be considered as three whether pronounced in anger or in a normal emotional state. A precedent of this solution can be found in the times of the Caliph ‘Umar (rta). He himself, in the capacity of a ruler in consultation with the members of the Shura, upon seeing that people had adopted a very careless attitude in this regard, as a punishment, promulgated three divorce sentences as final.
(c) A third possible solution in this regard is that the state while observing the fact that people are mostly ignorant of the correct procedure and in their ignorance thinks that the correct way of divorce is to pronounce the sentence three times, legislates that the three pronouncements shall be considered as one.
Any of these three ways can be adopted keeping in view the welfare of the Muslims. However, in adopting the second or third solutions, it is necessary that a legislation has been done in their favour, but as far as adopting the first solution is concerned, no prior legislation is needed and the matter can be left to the discretion of the judge.
iv. The Custody of Minors
In post-divorce scenarios, the matter of the custody of minor children has not been touched upon in the Shari’ah. In other words, it has been left to the welfare of the children. In case of a dispute, a judge should make this ruling after analyzing the situation of a case in the light of this principle
Perhaps the reason for which nothing has been fixed in the Shari‘ah in this regard is the varying circumstances which may be found in different cases.
5. Regarding Halalah54
The concept of Halala is one of the ugliest and shameful of issues of Islamic jurisprudence. According to the Shari’ah, if a man divorces his wife for a third time in his life, the two cannot re-marry unless the wife marries a second person and then that person due to some reason divorces her. In order to fulfil this legal requirement, subterfuges have been devised and marriages are planned with the understanding that a person will divorce the wife in order to make her legal to marry the first husband. In this regard, the jurists also impose the condition that before he divorces his wife he must have sexual intercourse with her. In religious parlance, this subterfuge in which a lady is made legally allowed for her first husband by marrying another person and then being divorced from her after having sexual intercourse with him is called Halala.
Needless to say, that all subterfuges amount to playing with the Islamic law and its spirit. Moreover, the condition of sexual intercourse imposed has arisen because of not understanding a very subtle comment of the Prophet (sws) in a Hadith. If its text reported by Bukhari is analyzed it is evident that a certain lady had married a person only to become legally permissible to marry her first husband. She demanded divorce from her second husband on the false grounds that her husband was sexually impotent. When the Prophet (sws) became certain of her scheme, he reprimanded her in very subtle words. He told her that she could only become permissible for the first husband after “tasting” her second husband. This of course was not a condition as has been generally construed: the implied meaning being that if according to her, her second husband does not have the ability to copulate with her then she can only be divorced from him after he copulates with her – which of course he will never since, according to her, he is not capable of it. Thus if anything can be deduced from this Hadith, it is prohibition of Halala and not vice versa. Hence it is absolutely prohibited and is tantamount to making fun of the law.
The text of the Hadith is as follows:
 عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّ رِفَاعَةَ طَلَّقَ امْرَأَتَهُ فَتَزَوَّجَهَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ الزَّبِيرِ الْقُرَظِيُّ قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ وَعَلَيْهَا خِمَارٌ أَخْضَرُ فَشَكَتْ إِلَيْهَا وَأَرَتْهَا خُضْرَةً بِجِلْدِهَا فَلَمَّا جَاءَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالنِّسَاءُ يَنْصُرُ بَعْضُهُنَّ بَعْضًا قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ مَا رَأَيْتُ مِثْلَ مَا يَلْقَى الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ لَجِلْدُهَا أَشَدُّ خُضْرَةً مِنْ ثَوْبِهَا قَالَ وَسَمِعَ أَنَّهَا قَدْ أَتَتْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَجَاءَ وَمَعَهُ ابْنَانِ لَهُ مِنْ غَيْرِهَا قَالَتْ وَاللَّهِ مَا لِي إِلَيْهِ مِنْ ذَنْبٍ إِلَّا أَنَّ مَا مَعَهُ لَيْسَ بِأَغْنَى عَنِّي مِنْ هَذِهِ وَأَخَذَتْ هُدْبَةً مِنْ ثَوْبِهَا فَقَالَ كَذَبَتْ وَاللَّهِ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّي لَأَنْفُضُهَا نَفْضَ الْأَدِيمِ وَلَكِنَّهَا نَاشِزٌ تُرِيدُ رِفَاعَةَ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَإِنْ كَانَ ذَلِكِ لَمْ تَحِلِّي لَهُ أَوْ لَمْ تَصْلُحِي لَهُ حَتَّى يَذُوقَ مِنْ عُسَيْلَتِكِ قَالَ وَأَبْصَرَ مَعَهُ ابْنَيْنِ لَهُ فَقَالَ بَنُوكَ هَؤُلَاءِ قَالَ نَعَمْ قَالَ هَذَا الَّذِي تَزْعُمِينَ مَا تَزْعُمِينَ فَوَاللَّهِ لَهُمْ أَشْبَهُ بِهِ مِنْ الْغُرَابِ بِالْغُرَابِ(بخاري ، رقم: ٥٣٧٧)
‘Ikramah narrates that Rafa‘ah divorced his wife. Thereafter she married ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Zubayr Qurzi. ‘A’ishah says that she came to her wearing a green cloak and complained of her husband and showed ‘A’ishah her bruises – women do help one another – so when the Prophet (sws) came by, ‘A’ishah said: “I have only seen Muslim women being treated in such a way. Her skin is greener than her cloak.” ‘Ikramah says that when her husband came to know that she had complained to the Prophet (sws), he also came over to the Prophet (sws) along with his two sons from his other wife. Upon seeing her husband, she got hold of the end of her cloak letting it hang from her hand and remarked: My only complaint is that whatever he has is no more than this [soft cloth]. At this, ‘Abd al-Rahman said: “O Prophet (sws) of Allah she has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her; the truth of the matter is that she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rafa‘ah.” When the Prophet (sws) heard this, he said: “If this is the case then you shall not be permissible for Rafa‘ah unless ‘Abd al-Rahman tastes you.” Then, upon seeing the sons of ‘Abd al-Rahman, the Prophet (sws) remarked: “Are these your sons?” When he replied in the affirmative, the Prophet said: “Do you tell such lies [O ‘Abd al-Rahman’s wife]. By God, these [young boys] resemble ‘Abd al-Rahman n more than a crow resembles another crow.” (Bukhari, No: 5377)
Shehzad Saleem has been under the tutelage of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi since 1988 and is currently a Research Fellow of Al-Mawrid. He has Bachelors in Electrical Engineering from U.E.T Lahore, Pakistan and holds a PhD on the History of the Qur’an from the University of Wales, UK. He is the Editor of the Monthly Renaissance (1991-1995; 1998- to date).
Source: monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=16

Muslims Must Combat the Extremist Cancer

Muslims Must Combat the Extremist Cancer
By Fethullah Gulen
August 27, 2015
As the group that calls itself Islamic State, known as ISIS, continues to produce carnage in the Middle East, Muslims must confront the totalitarian ideology that animates it and other terrorist groups. Every terrorist act carried out in the name of Islam profoundly affects all Muslims, alienating them from fellow citizens and deepening the misperceptions about their faith’s ethos.
It isn’t fair to blame Islam for the atrocities of violent radicals. But when terrorists claim the Muslim mantle, then they bear this identity, if only nominally. Thus members of the faith must do whatever possible to prevent this cancer from metastasizing in our communities. If we don’t, we’ll be partly responsible for the smeared image of our faith.
First, we must denounce violence and not fall prey to victimhood. Having suffered oppression is no excuse for causing it or for failing to condemn terrorism. That the terrorists are committing grave sins in the name of Islam is not merely my opinion; it is the inevitable conclusion of an honest reading of primary sources: the Quran and the accounts of the life of Prophet Muhammad. The core principles of these sources—relayed over the centuries by scholars who devoted themselves to studying the Prophet’s sayings and practices, and to the “author’s intent” in the Holy Book—dispels any claims terrorists make of religious justification.
Second, it is important to promote a holistic understanding of Islam, as the flexibility to accommodate the diverse backgrounds of its adherents can sometimes be abused. Islam’s core ethics, however, are not left to interpretation. One such principle is that taking the life of a single innocent is a crime against all humanity (Quran 5:32). Even in an act of defense in war, violence against any noncombatants, especially women, children and clergy, is specifically prohibited by the Prophet’s teachings.
We must demonstrate these values by showing solidarity with people who seek peace around the world. Given the nature of human psychology and the dynamics of the news, it’s obvious that mainstream voices are less likely to capture headlines than extremist ones. But instead of blaming the media, we should find innovative ways to ensure our voices are heard.
Third, Muslims must publicly promote human rights—dignity, life and liberty. These are the most basic of Islamic values and no individual, nor any political or religious leader, has the authority to snatch them away. Living the essence of our faith means respecting diversity—cultural, social, religious and political. God identifies learning from one another as the primary goal of diversity (Quran 49:13). Respecting each human being as a creation of God (17:70) is respecting God.
Fourth, Muslims must provide educational opportunities to every member of their communities, where the study of sciences, humanities and arts is embedded in a culture of respect for every living being. Governments in the Muslim world must design school curricula that nurture democratic values. Civil society has a role in promoting respect and acceptance. This is the reason participants of the Hizmet movement have set up more than 1,000 schools, tutoring centers and dialogue institutions in more than 150 countries.
Fifth, providing religious education to Muslims is critical to depriving extremists of a tool that they use to spread their twisted ideologies. When religious freedom is denied, as it has been for decades in parts of the Muslim world, faith grows in the shadows, leaving it to be interpreted by unqualified and radical figures.
Finally, it is imperative that Muslims support equal rights for women and men. Women should be given opportunity and be free from social pressures that deny their equality. Muslims have a great example in Prophet Muhammad’s wife Aisha, a highly educated scholar, teacher and prominent community leader of her time.
Terrorism is a multifaceted problem, so the solutions should address the political, economic, social and religious layers. Approaches that reduce the problem to religion do a disservice to at-risk youth and the world at large. The international community would do well to realize that Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism—both literally and symbolically—and they can help marginalize terrorists and prevent recruitment. That’s why governments should avoid statements and actions that result in the alienation of Muslims.
Violent extremism has no religion; there will always be people who manipulate faith texts. Just as Christians do not endorse Quran burnings or the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, and Buddhists do not endorse atrocities against Rohingya Muslims, mainstream Muslims do not endorse violence.
Muslims have historically added much to the flourishing of human civilization. Our greatest contributions were made in eras when the faith cherished mutual respect, freedom and justice. It may be immensely difficult to restore the blotted image of Islam, but Muslims can be beacons of peace and tranquility in their societies.
Source: wsj.com/articles/muslims-must-combat-the-extremist-cancer-1440718377

What Is Wrong With 120 Moderate Ulema's 'Open Letter To 'Khalifa' Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, And Why It Will Not Work? This Moderate Fatwa Does Not Leave Any Leg For Moderate Islam To Stand On

What Is Wrong With 120 Moderate Ulema's 'Open Letter To 'Khalifa' Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, And Why It Will Not Work? This Moderate Fatwa Does Not Leave Any Leg For Moderate Islam To Stand On

By Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam
1 September 2015

As many as 120 ulema from around the world belonging to most schools of thought have sent an Open Letter to Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, And To the Fighters and Followers of the Self-Declared ‘Islamic State.’
Written in over 14, 000 words, this is a valuable document. It shows what is wrong with self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi's rulings. But, more importantly, it also shows what is wrong with moderate Islam at the present juncture; why this refutation will not work, and other such refutations do not work; and why our children will keep running away to ISIS and other terror centres. In fact, read between the lines, this moderate fatwa does not leave any leg for moderate Islam to stand on.
No 16-year-old is going to read the whole 14,000-word document. But she/he will be mightily influenced by bits like this that will be seized upon by the apologists of violent Islamist ideologies:
"... everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired."
This is confirmation from moderate ulema that what terrorist ideologues have been telling their pupils is correct. This is precisely their argument. No difference between Quran and Hadees; they are both divinely inspired. One verse of the Quran is as good as the other. One Hadees narration supposedly from the Prophet (saw) is as good as the other. All immutable, universal, eternal guidance for all time to come. The fatwa does say in one place that "it is not permissible to invoke a specific verse from the Qur’an as applying to an event that has occurred 1400 years after the verse was revealed." But it is not this that will be emphasized by the terror ideologues. What will be stressed is the consensus among the ulema of all schools of thought, including those who consider themselves moderate, that both Quran and Hadees (even though collected scores and hundreds of years after the demise of the Prophet) are divinely inspired and all of it represents "truth." This will only reassure our 16/20-year-old kids that what they are learning in the terror manuals is correct and has universal acceptance of all ulema including the moderates.
Similarly in the chapter 13 - Coercion and Compulsion - of the Open Letter, the moderate fatwa says: "It is known that the verse: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca, hence, no one can claim that it was abrogated." Then the fatwa goes on to criticise Baghdadi for using coercion. But the important thing is that even the moderate fatwa has accepted the basic premise of Baghdadi and the like that peaceful Meccan verses revealed before the conquest of Mecca have been abrogated or, at least, may have been abrogated, and it is the militant verses relating to war that should now prevail.
In any case it is wrong that "the verse : ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca." It was actually revealed before the conquest and in Madina when some  Muslims wanted to take back their children from the custody of Jews on their expulsion from Madina and convert them to Islam. So according to these moderate ulema, and for those who know the actual shaane nuzool (context), this verse too is abrogated. Does moderate Islam have any leg to stand on any more?
[Context of this verse from Quran Tafsir ibn-Kathir: "It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said ﴿ that before Islam ﴾"When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated ﴿ from Al-Madinah ﴾some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed, ﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ
(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)'']
In point 16. Hudud (Punishment), the moderate fatwa in the form of Open Letter establishes a general rule: "Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law." Having accepted the basic premise of the Baghdadi tribe it goes on to criticise its implementation in the so-called Islamic State. It says: "however, they are not to be applied without clarification, warning, exhortation, and meeting the burden of proof; and they are not to be applied in a cruel manner." And so on. But once you have accepted the basic premise of  Hudud (Punishment) based on 7th century Bedouin tribal Arab mores being "unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law" what difference does actually remain between moderation and extremism.
In point 20, moderate ulema seem to be justifying the destruction of idols. Read the following from the Open Letter: 
"Your former leader, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi said: ‘In our opinion, it is obligatory to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry) and to prohibit all means that lead to it because of Muslim’s narration in his Sahih:  on the authority of Abu Al-Hiyaj Al-Asadi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “Should I not tell you what he [i.e. the Prophet saw]  sent me to do: not to leave a statue without obliterating it nor a raised grave without levelling it.”’ However, even if what he said were true, it does not apply to the graves of Prophets or Companions, as the Companions were in consensus regarding burying the Prophet (saw) and his two Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, in a building that was contiguous to the Prophet’s Mosque."
The impression is unmistakable that the moderate ulema are only opposed to the destruction of "the graves of Prophets or Companions," and not quite to the supposed obligation to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry). This is not a very good sign of maintaining inter-faith relations in contemporary world where all civilised countries respect each other's right to practise their religion.

 In point 22 of the Open Letter, titled,  The Caliphate, the moderate ulema again concur with the basic proposition of the Baghdadi clique: "There is agreement (Ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE." Then it goes on to criticise Bghdadi for  lack of consensus from Muslims, etc. and accusing him of sedition, fitna, etc in fairly strong language. But the problem is the same. Moderate ulema agree with Baghdadi on the basic premise of the so-called obligation of the umma to have a Caliphate. This is absurd in this day and age. Clearly both Baghdadi group and moderate ulema are equally outdated, seemingly continuing to live in the 7th century CE.
But on one issue, Baghdadi emerges as more humane and civilised than these moderate ulema, if that is possible. In point 23 - National affiliations, the Open Letter to Baghdadi says: "In one of your speeches you said: ‘Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis54.’ In the same speech, you called on Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant. By doing so, you take the rights and resources of these countries and distribute them among people who are strangers to those lands, even though they are of the same religion. This is exactly what Israel did when it invited Jewish settlers abroad to immigrate to Palestine, evict the Palestinians and usurp their ancestral rights and lands. Where is the justice in this?"
Something doesn't become wrong just because Israel is doing it. In fact Israel is doing many things right and Muslims would do well to follow it. In this case, it is not only Israel but the entire civilised world, that shares "the rights and resources" of their countries and distributes them "among people who are strangers to those lands" but have immigrated either as economic migrants or political asylum seekers. Indeed, even students acquire permanent residence permits in some countries in less than two years, without having contributed anything to the economy. On the other hand, in the barbaric Arab countries, including the land of "puritan Islam," now called Saudi Arabia, even if you serve the country for half a century you cannot expect to get so much as a green card or permanent resident status, and then, of course, you will be thrown out once you have outlived their need. If Baghdadi is giving resident status, for whatever it is worth,  to those he is calling to work or fight for him, he is being civilised, considering he is an Arab ruler, and no Arab ruler of any persuasion, whether Islamist, secular, leftist, or nationalist, is known for this kind of civilised behaviour. And here are moderate ulema criticising him for that. They apparently support Arab barbarism in this matter.
This is not to say the Open Letter is entirely useless or totally counter-productive. It is good as far as it goes. It does criticise Baghdadi and his clique, and quite vehemently, at least, for faulty implementation of Islamic principles, even if it agrees with him on the basics in several areas. But to expect the Open Letter to stem the tide of gathering support for the so-called Islamic State will be futile.
Extremism has been endemic in Islam, present almost from  the beginning of Islamic history. Muslims fought among themselves and quite vehemently even before the creation of Hadees and Sharia, which they now consider divine. Muslims have still not found an antidote to militant verses in the Quran that are now available to anyone with access to internet. Calling all verses of the Quran as of eternal value is not going to solve the problem. Calling Hadees and Sharia divinely inspired is no answer to the questions of the day.
Muslims will just have to  abandon the theology that leads to violence and supremacism and look for a new theology, a coherent theology of peace and pluralism, consistent in all respects with the teachings of Islam, and suitable for contemporary and future societies.