Farewell Sex with Dead Wife -- discussion forum

Posted at www.WorldMuslimCongress.org and WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com  - to be a member, just send an email to WorldMuslimcongress-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

First of all, Our Christian and Jewish members have said it well, one sums it,  “Mike, You have put this out on your group's email and the lie has been exposed. Since apparently any leader of a mosque can write a "hadith" - it has been discovered that this is not Islam - just some leader's opinion. Thanks for being open - better to expose lies than ignore them or cover them up.”

If we don’t condemn this,  it gets to be believed that it must be true, since no Muslim raised the voice against it. It is necessary to condemn the wrong things first, rather than let it grow and grow.

Secondly, I have appended the original note below, and the notes from Sheila Musaji and Khalid Azam about their find on the bogus nature of it, and have just added the comments from Gehan, Arif, Hasan, Irtaza and Jazoo to a few others from yesterday.

Gehan – my apologies for not responding to Arif’s note before you did. As Muslims and members of the civil societies we cannot stereo type any Muslims. Arif, there are bad dudes among all of us, and bad moments within each one of us. Gehan’s comment about your note is right on! Please refrain from stereotyping any one.

Nadeem – the question is not whether anyone believed or not in the report, stuff like this is out on the net, the question is if any one condemned it or not. Alhamdu Lillah, we have, even though it is false, we have gone on the record that it was a wrong fatwa. There is awareness about it.

Jazoo – there are many false fabricated Hadiths in circulation out there, you asked for it, there are two quote from Hasan and Irtaza below - Kanz al-‘Umal  - intolerable Hadith about the Prophet. It outraged me to no end, and I had to sit and pray and ask God to give me guidance.  You read it if you have the stomach. For you and I, it is a fabricated Hadith, for others, it is not, it is in the book – that is all they know. I hope you can see differentiate between the perceptions and realities.

Jazoo, you and Nafis did not like to know about these and did not want to see it published… but it is out there and we simply cannot bury our heads in the sand.

By the way, I have written the article on the topic and Dr.Imam Zia Shaikh is reviewing and will be adding his take on the topic – his latest book “silencing the critics” is available on Amazon, it is a book worth reading.  We have to acknowledge and refute the lies, if not they will be going in circle un-checked.

Mike Ghouse

---

From Gehan

With all due respect Mr Arif Khairuddin ... I find your comment very derogatory of Egyptian Muslims ... not to mention biased of your own, since you seem to only give credence to fatwas coming from India, Syria etc ...

You may want to call the EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT stooges ... BUT NOT EGYPTIAN MUSLIMS or for that matter Al Azhar, the oldest and most respected Islamic University .....!!! I take great exception to what you say!!! especially if you do not understand the politics of what is going on at present ... you may want to check the previous messages in this chain to find out that it was NOT TRUE, and certain western media thrive on perpetuating such "untruths" ...

HONESTLY!!!!

Gehan

---

From Arif Khairuddin

Edicts from just and muslim countries have sense. Based on my experience, Fatwas from only 4 organizations should be binding: Deoband, Nizamal Ul Uloom, both from India, the one in South Africa and the one in Syria. Basically, anything which is harmful to living things is Haram in Islam. And a dead wife is 'Ghayr' Mahrim to a man, so he should not even look at her! By virtue of previous two statements it is abhorable to even think about such absurdities!

Egypt is a stooge of special interests, one must expect muslim defaming fatwas coming from there! You may recall another Fatwa from Egypt banning the handling of Banana and Cucumber by women!

May Allah(SWT) give sanity to these mischief mongers, Amen!

Sent from my iPhone4

---

AOA, One of the strategy to malign the image of Islam is to spread misleading stories about it's followers, or distortion of the facts about the teachings of the Islam in itself. I am hoping that most of us did not fall for this story. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/334222/20120427/egypt-s-farewell-intercourse-law-news-reportedly.htm Best Regards, Nadeem Zaman

---

Salaam,

The story was not accurate at all. No one raised the question in Egypt, although there was one Imam in Morocco who made a statement on this over a year ago. I have written an in-depth discussion about the entire story

About that Supposed Egyptian Necrophilia Law

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/about-that-egyptian-necrophilia-law/0019097

God bless,

Sheila Musaji

---

Amina Jindali

Egypt’s MPs deny existence of sex-after-death law, confirm early marriage draft

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/04/30/211238.html

Members of the Egyptian parliament responded to the uproar caused by Egyptian and Arab media reports about a new law that would allow a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours after her death and denied existence of any such draft. “This is indecent and nonsense. The whole issue is unacceptable. It is even unacceptable to give any statement to media about this issue,” Islamist MP Mamdouh Ismail told Al Arabiya. The news about passing the so-called ‘Farewell Intercourse’ law by the country’s Islamist-dominated parliament was first reported by Egyptian state-run al-Ahram newspaper and Egyptian ON TV on Tuesday. It was picked up and analyzed by Al Arabiya English a day later, following which international media picked up the story.

EGYPTIAN RIGHTS OFFICIAL SAYS ‘FAREWELL INTERCOURSE’ LEGISLATION WAS NEVER PROPOSED NOR DEBATED

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/01/474265/egyptian-rights-official-says-farewell-intercourse-legislation-was-never-proposed-nor-debated

Last week, ThinkProgress and other news outlets reported that Egypt’s parliament was considering a controversial law allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death. Newer reports show that this story originated from Egypt’s state-owned newspaper, Al Ahram, a newspaper with a long track record of “devoting hagiographic and occasionally utterly frabricated coverage to [former Egyptian President Hosnu Mubarak] and his regime,” reports the Christian Science Monitor’s Dan Murphy. His report adds that Mervat el-Tallawy, the head of Egypt’s National Council for Women, “issued a statement today that says she’s concerned about legislation that may harm the position of women in Egypt, but that there was never any ‘sex after death law’ under consideration, let alone one she complained about.”

---

Mike,

We rightfully condemn our Imams and Alims whenever they do something obstinate. Remember another case just like sex with dead wife? We exploded when an Egyptian high level Imam commented that women should breastfeed unrelated adults in certain circumstances. But trust me whatever they do normally has a theological support. Thye are only following those.

There are not one but two Sahi Hadises that record Prophet advising women to breastfeed unrelated adults. Similarly, there is another record of the Prophet having sex with his dead aunty inside the grave ! It is not in our 23,000 Sahi Hadises nor in 16,000 Shiite Hadises but in Kanjul Ummal, a collection of 40,000 Sunni “Sahi” Hadises. This book was considerably used to create many violent Sharia laws.

Simply remember Imam Zia’s comment that FGM is cultural. He bypassed at least ten Islamic roots that I quoted. That way you can never defeat FGM and likes.

The Egyptian scenario proves that we have many miles to go. Blaming the Imams/Alims/Al Azhar University without addressing the theological root will certainly fail us, as it did for centuries.

Hasan.

---

alamun Alaykum.

There is no such thing in the Quran as farewell sex with dead wife.

However, as always, you will find anything you want in the hadith books.  The enemies of Prophet, as stated in the Quran,  were heavily engaged in writing all the bad stuffs and attributed them to the Prophet.  They added some good stuffs with bad stuffs and created hadith books, so that no one can understand the satanic trics! 

[6:112] We have permitted the enemies of every prophet - human and jinn devils - to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.

There is a hadith that exists in Kanz al-‘Umal by Mutaqi al-Hindi andAl-Hujja fi Biyan al-Mahujja, an authoritative text on Sunni Doctrine, by Abu Qassim al-Asbahani.

According to this hadith, Muhammad took off his shirt and placed it on a dead woman and “lay” with her in the grave.  The buriers proceeded to bury the corpse and the prophet with dirt, exclaiming, “O Prophet, we see you do a thing you never did with anyone else,” to which Muhammad responded: “I have dressed her in my shirt so that she may be dressed in heavenly robes, and I have laid with her in her grave so that the pressures of the grave [also known as Islam’s “torments of the grave”] may be alleviated from her.” 

Thank you and may God guide me,

Muhammed Irtaza

---

Mike WS A disgust on making a mountain out of mole for no apparent reason other than championing the Islamic ideology without knowing an iota of Islam, is not personal attack. Be a gentleman and to show you are a decent person...Cite the false hadith with complete quote. Pl dare not lecture me on ethics and code of conduct on these forums...spreading the demeaning disinformation about Islam and Prophet of Islam in between the lines as casual talk is not acceptable and its below moral for someone who still pretend to be Muslim. Jazoo

---

AA

Khalid, Saala and Nafis;

Your responses are appreciated.
We have at least three choices in responding to falsities like this

1. Don't even read it.

2. Not doing anything about it, wich may cause it to multiply on the net, then
it will be too much of a fire to handle. The ones who know about it, have a
responsibility tp speak out.

3. condemning the wrong up front has its own merits

A. At least those on the margins will not believe it
B. A debate will follow and the truth will surface
C. A lot more crap will surface, and it has. there is a Hadith that says prophet
did it, naoozubillah
D. As Muslims, shall we remain silent about false Hadiths and let the issue
remain in the market?

Ofcourse, we do not have a body to put an end to this, as a result we have
allowed perpetuation of these issues. Should we not speak up at least in our
own nucleus?

Condemning is the right thing to do, finding the truth and solutions is even
better.

JAK

Mike Ghouse

---

Egypt 'necrophilia law'? Hooey, utter hooey.

'Necrophilia law'? Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, kids. At least until there's like, you know, some proof.

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / April 26, 2012

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0426/Egypt-necrophilia-law-Hooey-utter-hooey

Update: Further research showed there was no validity to the claim that Egypt was considering a "sex after death" law. I followed up with a piece on April 30.

Today, Egypt's state-owned Al Ahram newspaperpublished an opinion piece by Amr Abdul Samea, a past stalwart supporter of the deposed Hosni Mubarak, that contained a bombshell: Egypt's parliament is considering passing a law that would allow husbands to have sex with their wives after death.

It was soon mentioned in an English language version of Al-Arabiya and immediately started zipping around social-networking sites. By this afternoon it had set news sites and the rest of the Internet on fire. It has every thing: The yuck factor, "those creepy Muslims" factor, the lulz factor for those with a sick sense of humor. The non-fact-checked Daily Mail picked it up and reported it as fact. Then Andrew Sullivan, who has a highly influential blog but is frequently lax about fact-checking, gave it a boost with an uncritical take. TheHuffington Post went there, too.

There's of course one problem: The chances of any such piece of legislation being considered by the Egyptian parliament for a vote is zero. And the chance of it ever passing is less than that. In fact, color me highly skeptical that anyone is even trying to advance a piece of legislation like this through Egypt's parliament. I'm willing to be proven wrong. It's possible that there's one or two lawmakers completely out of step with the rest of parliament. Maybe.

SEE ALSO – IN PICTURES: Behind the veil

But extreme, not to mention inflammatory claims, need at minimum some evidence (and I've read my share of utter nonsense in Al Ahram over the years). The evidence right now? Zero.

There was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know. But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe. How fringe? He also ruled that pregnant women can drink alcohol. Remember, alcohol is considered haram, forbidden, by the vast majority of the world's Muslim scholars. Putting an unborn child at risk to get drunk? No, that's just not what they do. Whatever the mainstream's unpalatable beliefs (there are plenty from my perspective) this isn't one of them.

It's important to remember that the structure of the Muslim clergy is, by and large, like that of a number of Protestant Christian sects. Anyone can put out a shingle and declare themselves a preacher. The ones to pay attention to are the ones with large followings, or attachment to major institutions of Islamic learning. The preacher in Morocco is like the preacher in Florida who spent so much time and energy publicizing the burning of Qurans.

Stories like this are a reminder of the downside of the Internet. It makes fact-checking and monitoring easier. But the proliferation of aggregation sites, newsy blog sites, and the general erosion of editorial standards (and on-the-ground reporters to do the heavy lifting) also spreads silliness faster than it ever could before.

Follow Dan Murphy on Twitter.

---

From Mike Ghouse

I am writing an article on the subject, and hope to get it corrected and endorsed by our Imams and publish it.

Normally, I ignore these loonies (article below). However, enough of us need to condemn this for a record. As the President of the World Muslim Congress I condemn it, and asking Muslim Scholars to condemn this ruling in Egypt that a man can have farewell sex with his dead wife.

I am also asking our Egyptian friends to verify the veracity of this piece below.

If you know any Imams and Muslim Scholars who would like to review the article and become co-authors, please have them send me an email to - WmcArchives@gmail.com

Those clerics who find sexual relief through pornographic Khutbas about the transparent hoors, and the sex she gives (You Tube is full of them), and the clerics who find relief imagining disgusting acts of sex with a dead person, tend to focus on passing these gratuitous laws.

Just as it is wrong to slap the Catholic clergy with sexual misconduct for the acts of a few, it would be wrong to stereotype all clerics whether Egyptian, Iranian or Saudi..

Thanks for sharing this, and I will not be surprised if Hannity will not call me on this. Think about his, who feeds the right wing Media?

Mike Ghouse

---

---

Mike
- - - - -
(214) 325-1916 | MikeGhouse is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He is a professional speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, civic affairs, Islam, India, Israel, peace and justice. Mike is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News and regularly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. The blog www.TheGhousediary.com is updated daily. 

What a Rabbi Learns from Muhammad

There is an actual verse in Quraan, where God tells to treat no prophet above the other, it was to prevent arrgance among people, feeling and treating people on an equal footing is a strong Islamic value

Mike Ghouse

Interfaith Religious Education - Article Ref: IC1103-4558
IslamiCity* -

I first studied Islam when I was a student at UCLA almost 50 years ago, Then again while I was in Rabbinical school. Over the years I continued to read the Qur'an and other Islamic books. I read these books as the Prophet taught his followers in a Hadith "not as a believer, and not as a disbeliever". What does that mean? The Qur'an, of course, is sacred scripture for Muslims. A disciple of Muhammad named Abu Huraira relates, "The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah, and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " Following Muhammad's teaching I too neither believe nor disbelieve in the Qur'an. If I believed in the Qur'an I would be a member of the Muslim Ummah (community). But I cannot disbelieve in the Qur'an because I believe that Muhammad is a prophet and I respect the Qur'an as a kindred revelation, to a kindred people, in a kindred language. In fact, the people, the language and the theology are closer to my own people, language and theology than that of any other on earth.

I would like to begin by sharing my understanding of several Ahadith that have taught me about my own religion. My understanding is reflected in my application (gloss) of each insight from my perspective as a Liberal/Reform Rabbi. They are all from Bukhari: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded. (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38)

Gloss: The statement against becoming extremists needs to be taught in every house of prayer in the world. This applies of course, to political extremists as well as religious extremists who always prefer the stricter path to the more lenient way. For example, both Islam and Judaism teach the importance of sacred slaughter of meat, and the avoidance of certain animals for food. In Islam the rules are simpler and fewer than in Orthodox Judaism. Most Liberal/Reform Rabbis regard the increasingly restrictive developments in kashrut (Jewish dietary laws), especially for Passover, as a counterproductive, overburdening of the people. The expansion of restrictions on Shabbat activities over many centuries is also seen by most Liberal/Reform Rabbis as a counterproductive, overburdening of the joy of Shabbat. Muhammad wisely differentiates between extremism and striving to be near perfect (no one is perfect) which involves a rejection of extremism. Just trying hard to do well will be rewarded.

Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn' Abbas: On his deathbed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "May Allah's Curse be on Jews and Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." He intended to warn (Muslims) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done. (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660)

Gloss: Allah's apostle strongly opposed any diversion of reverence or worship to anyone other than God. Christians, and even Jews, had started worshiping at the graves of holy men, saints and prophets. Although they claimed to be only worshiping God, their feeling that prayer was better or more effective at such sites was cursed by Muhammad. In later centuries, Muslims also began worshiping at the tombs of holy men and building places of worship near their graves. Liberal/Reform Rabbis would agree that such activity at grave sites should be condemned and could be seen as a curse. Allah's apostle must also have realized that even the Muslim community would also produce people whose piety would lead to such errors for a Hadith on the same page says,

Narrated Abu Said: The Prophet said: "You will follow the wrong ways of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of an animal, you too will go there." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?" He replied, "Who else?" (Volume 4, Book 56, # 662)

Gloss: Muhammad criticized the failings of many in the Jewish and Christian communities (as did the prophets of Israel) but he realized that people are human, and most do not seem to learn from the failings of others. He hoped that Muslims would retain their original purity, but he foresaw that with time and power; corruption, decay and falsification were inevitable. Allah's apostle would certainly attack the false tradition of female genital mutilation in Africa today as sharply as he attacked female infanticide in Arabia in his day. It is a shame that many Muslim leaders in Africa today do not aggressively condemn it. But then, most Jewish leaders in the west do not aggressively condemn the Orthodox for not allowing Jewish woman to divorce their husbands. We all have to do a better job.

Abu Huraira related: Two men, a Muslim and a Jew, abused each other. The Muslim said , "By Him Who gave superiority to Muhammad over all the people." At that, the Jew said, "By Him Who gave superiority to Moses over all the people." The Muslim became furious at that and slapped the Jew in the face. The Jew went to Allah's Apostle and informed him of what had happened between him and the Muslim. Allah's Apostle said, "Don't give me superiority over Moses, for people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to gain consciousness, and behold! Moses will be there holding the side of Allah's Throne. I will not know whether Moses was among those people who became unconscious and then has regained consciousness before me, or was among those exempted by Allah from falling unconscious." (Volume 8, Book 76, #524)

Gloss: Allah's messenger is so well known for his sense of justice that a Jew can appeal to him even in a conflict with a Muslim who has attacked a Jew. It is only natural for Jews to think that Moses is the best, and for Muslims to think that Muhammad is the best. Muhammad rebukes the Muslim, telling him not to claim that Muhammad is superior to Moses because even on the day of Resurrection, Muhammad himself will not know their relative merit, for although Muhammad will be the first to be revived, Moses will already be standing there holding the side of God's throne. Muhammad teaches us that comparisons of religious superiority are wrong, for no one in this world, and perhaps even in the world to come, will know who is the best. 

Most Americans that I have spoken are amazed to hear such liberal and flexible statements coming from a religion that they think is ridged and fanatical. But the politicized Islam that has captured so much attention in the Muslim world today is the outgrowth of two recent factors. One is an anti-western reaction and scapegoating due to the great upheavals occurring in all modernizing societies in the 20th and 21th centuries. This reaction is inflamed as the result of several previous centuries of socio-economic decline that took place in the Middle East. Also Judaism and Christianity have already had reforming movements that took generations to bare fruit.. Islam is just starting the process of revival and reform. The Prophet had predicted that over the centuries Muslims would also become more rigid and orthodox, just as the Jews and Christian had. Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger as saying: You will tread the same path as was trodden by those before you, inch by inch and step by step, so much so that if they had entered into the hole of a lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Do you mean Jews and Christians? He said: Who else?" Muhammad was wise enough to realize that even his own ummah was subject to the circumstances of history.

Nevertheless as a Reform Rabbi, I realize that in many ways Muhammad showed seventh century Jews in Arabia how to reform Orthodox Judaism to bring it back to the simpler rules of the Torah..

Unlike Orthodox Rabbis, Liberal/Reform Rabbis accept the doctrine of nullification - which teaches that one verse in scripture can nullify another, and that rulings can be changed due to changed circumstances. Muhammad provides an excellent example of this principle in the following account. The Prophet originally told women not to visit graveyards, but toward the end of his life, he said to them: "I had told you not to visit graves; now I am telling you to visit them." The reason was that Arabian women used to wail at graves. The Prophet wanted this practice to be stopped. Therefore, he banned women from visiting graves to start with. After sometime, when Muslim women were better aware of how Islam wants them to behave in different situations, he allowed them such visits. In fact, the Prophet encourages visiting graveyards because such a visit reminds the visitor of his or her own death and the fact that they would have to stand in front of God when their actions are reckoned to determine their reward or punishment. Scholars like Ibn Qudamah, of the Hanbali school of law, make it clear that since this is the purpose of visiting graveyards, both men and women need such visits.

Another important teaching of the Qur'an is that God chose not to create human beings as one nation or with only one religion so that each religion could compete with the others in order to see which religion produces the highest percentage of moral and loving people. As it is written in the Koran [5.48] "For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way. If Allah had pleased He would have made you one people, but (He didn't) that He might test you in what He gave you. Therefore compete with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; for all return to Allah, so He will let you know (after Judgement Day) that in which you differed." This is a wonderful further development of the teaching of the Biblical prophet Micah (4:5) that in the end of days-the Messianic Age "All people will walk, each in the name of their own God, and we shall walk in the name of the Lord our God forever."

There is no conflict, nor can there be any conflict, between Judaism and Islam. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a territorial dispute. There are people who would like to make this territorial dispute into a religious one in order to rally support for their side. We must resist this. I believe that the Koran itself predicts the return of the Jewish people to the Land God gave to the descendants of Abraham and his two sons. I believe the reference in the Koran to the land of Israel in Sura V, where God says to Moses and to the Jewish people: "O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has decreed for you", Koran [5:21].  More important for us today is the statement "WE SAID TO THE ISRAELITES AFTER HIM "DWELL SECURELY IN THE LAND OF PROMISE (THE PROMISED LAND) BUT WHEN THE SECOND OF THE WARNINGS COME TO PASS WE GATHER YOU TOGETHER IN A MINGLED CROWD BANI ISRAIL, Koran [17:104]. This refers to the return of Jews to the Land of Israel that is part of the great upheavals that proceed the age of the final judgment. The age we live in. The mingled crowd refers to both the Palestinians and the Israelis who will share the Promised Land together.

Neither side can claim it has the only right to the land or that its view is the only true one for as we have learned from the Hadith narrated Abu Huraira:The Prophet himself taught that even in the world to come it will not be clear if Moses or Muhammad is the supreme Prophet. Each is supreme for his own faithful community. A Muslim is one who submits to the will of Allah and believes that Allah has sent many different prophets to the many peoples of the world. As a Liberal/ Reform Rabbi I believe that Muhammad was the Prophet sent to the Arab people. I believe that the Qur'an is as true for Muslims as the Torah is true for Jews. Indeed, I love the Hadith Narrated by Abu Huraira that says, "The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah, and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " Following Muhammad's teaching I repeat that I too neither believe nor disbelieve in the Koran. I do respect the Koran very much as a kindred revelation to a kindred people in a kindred language. In fact, the people, language and theology are closer to my own people, language and theology than that of any other on earth. The strong support that the Qur'an gives to religious pluralism is a lesson that is sorely needed by the religious fundamentalists of all religions in the world today. As a well known Hadith says, "Prophets are brothers, sons of one father by co-wives. Their mothers are different but their religion is one." (Bukhari and Muslim).

*****

Rabbi Allen S. Maller is a former Liberal/Reform Rabbi. He retired a few years ago after 39 years as Rabbi of Temple Akiba in Culver City, Ca.

For God's sake; a movie

Khuda Ke Liye, For God's sake; a Movie
'The film's script was kept under complete secrecy'

Article follows my comments;

I am pleased to share they bravery of this film and pick the point he has raised about terrorism.

Mike Ghouse
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Khuda Ke Liye, For God's sake; a Movie

Videos:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s0ys3Hsgxz8/default.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xQ5Sq0NWVOA/default.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xAoTD072n04/default.jpg

Khalid Mohamed, Hindustan Times
Mumbai, April 09, 2008
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=45e02ca3-8033-4033-8665-d2d55fe17173

It's a brave, outspoken, film on the state of Islam. Surprisingly, the film has been embraced even by conservative sections of the global audience.

It’s common knowledge that the Pakistani film has been feted at numerous festivals. It’s news, though, that the ticket sales have picked up considerably at the Mumbai multiplexes where it was released five days ago. At some of the auditoria, there’s a large turn-out of women in burkas.

Surprisingly, too, it seems that Khuda Kay Liye was possible only because it had the de facto sanction of Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf. The film’s director Shoaib Mansoor discusses the obstacles that were in an interview with Khalid Mohamed. Initially, the 50-year-old writer-director is reluctant. He looks the other way when you want to know about what-happened and what-didn’t in the course of completing a project that raises quite a few uncomfortable questions.

Speaking in an Urdu laheza, lost to the Mumbaiya, he says, “I just dropped by after reading your review, socha milna munasib hai before I leave for Lahore.” It takes some doing, then, to get him clicked. A mug of tea later, he gets talking:

"The few friends I have did dissuade me from going ahead. So without making much of a noise, I did my research for six months."Did you need hausla? Did you have to steel yourself.. before starting on Khuda Kay Liye?

Before starting, I did tell myself, “Shoaib you don’t have too many friends.” The few friends I have did dissuade me from going ahead. So without making much of a noise, I did my research for six months. I knew I had to make my film after spending 30 years in television. I’ve done serials like Ankahee and Alpha Bravo Charlie..

Oh, Ankahee’s videos were pretty popular here. In the context of the religious complexities depicted in your film, can you tell me about your own upbringing?
(Wryly) Samajhiye parvarish na hone ke barabar thi. My mother is from Ajmer, my father from Ghazni, he worked at the Lahore high court, handling documents. My entire childhood went by in reading history, fiction..and sketching.

We were soft, madham people. My mother had this one big ambition.. that I should become a railway guard!

But wasn’t taking to entertainment criticised by your orthodox family?
Actually, we were 13 brothers in the family, we could all sing in sur.. yes, 13 because abba had married again. I have sung ghazals on radio, read the news, anchored programmes. I had to complete my MA in economics, before landing a job in television.
I believe you have made a TV feature on Anarkali.

Yes, Unilever wanted me to do a TV series on ishq. One was about a Sufi romance, then I did one on Anarkali. It’s still debated whether she existed or not.. but Lahore’s Anarkali Bazaar has her shrine. Believe it or not, this mazaar is located in an inconspicuous corner of the Punjab secretariat building. Next, Unilever offered to finance a feature film.

Aisa laga ki Id ho gayee. But when it came to approving the script, it took them six months to even get back tome. Being a multi-national company, they didn’t want to get into any kind of controversy. After a while, I looked for finance from a sarkari source, a loan helped.
I’m sure you must have had to contend with problems.

Beshumar problems. After a photo-shoot and even that picturisation of the courtroom scene with Naseer saab (Naseeruddin Shah), the two lead actors had to be dropped.. I’m accustomed to working with mainly newcomers.

Weren’t there political problems?
The script was kept under complete secrecy. Even the actors and technicians would be only shown a few scenes at a time. The film was shot in 45 days.. but spread over two years.
"The script was kept under complete secrecy. Even the actors and technicians would be only shown a few scenes at a time. The film was shot in 45 days.. but spread over two years."
Why didn’t your film’s main lead, Shan —said to be the Shah Rukh Khan of Pakistan — attend the Bombay premiere?

He didn’t want to come.. that was conveyed to me. But please, let’s talk about good things. At this point, to be honest, I would say the film wouldn’t have been possible without Pervez Musharraf saab. He saw it in the President’s House and backed me to the hilt.
Before the release of Khuda Kay Liye, maulvis of 20-25 madrasas had brought out fatwas against me, running into three pages. I was to be excommunicated. Yet, the reality is that fundamentalists are in a very small minority in Pakistan. Their presence is much more pronounced elsewhere.

How did the mullas react to your film?

(Laughs) But they don’t go to see films, it’s against their beliefs. But I felt so, so vindicated that after the film’s release in Pakistan (20 July, 2007), it was said that it should be shown in every college. See so many misconceptions continue.

It is the boy who is supposed to get the dahej (dowry) but with all sorts of influences, particularly in India, the onus is put on the girl’s family. Shouldn’t such points be brought up for debate?

Which misconceptions about Islam concern you most?

I truly believe that if more Muslims don’t go further in education and science, there will be little or no progress. My film is not about fundamentalism at all. That’s why I included the track about the American attitude after 9/11. It’s about, let’s forget US, Europe or India. Let’s go to the root cause of fundamentalism.. and terrorism. No one has bothered to say, the death of one terrorist gives birth to another hundred.

How does one go to the root cause?

By not turning away from it. From sitting across the table, at the highest level, and discussing its presence.

Are you thinking of a sequel to Khuda Kay Liye?
Yes. I left the film at a certain point with a sequel in mind. But it won’t be possible may be.. because I’ll need the same actors.. and some actors can be irresponsible.

Is the reference to your hero Shan?
He’s done nine-to-ten Punjabi films. For reasons best known to him, he doesn’t want to be associated with this film. In an interview, he had even stated, “Shoaib has made the film for himself and his friend. Who else will see it?” Now, he must be embarrassed of that statement.
But he did give an edge to your film. Certainly. (Laughs) He’s a born actor. A bit too healthy.. chubby. Nasamajh hai, he should have come here with us.

Is a truce possible?

No, not even if it means abandoning the sequel. Shan believes he has given something to the film.. but the film has given him nothing. How do you argue with such a person?
"I did see Jodhaa-Akbar but thought it was cast all wrong.. and its script trivialised history.. it said it was fiction.. it claimed to be researched history"Are you satisfied with the way your film was publicised in Mumbai?

Things seemed to be low-key. I couldn’t expect the film to be promoted on the scale of Om Shanti Om, could I? Percept Pictures has moved cautiously.. I think it’s been okay.
So are you directing a film for them?

I’ve been offered a film by them and two other producers. But let’s see, I don’t know what they would expect of me. I haven’t been seeing too many Hindi films of late.. I did see Jodhaa-Akbar but thought it was cast all wrong.. and its script trivialised history.. it said it was fiction.. it claimed to be researched history.. kuchh samajh mein nahin aaya.
Stop.. do you want to get into another controversy? Jaise aapki marzi.

Divorce in Qur'aan

Moderator's note is followed by Dr. Asghar Ali Engineers' article below.

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/04/divorce-in-quraan.html

.

Dear God, help us stand up for the rights of the women on whom injustice is heaped through irresponsible statements by the anamolic Aalims. In the following article Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer takes us through the malady that exists in Muslim societies. Could some one translate this into regional languages and get it published for the benefit of the common people.

Not all, but a few political, civic, business and religious leaders make gross mistakes. Maulana Rahmani quoted below falls into that category. He may have self interests in trying to interpret it that way.

The core value of Islam is Justice; even the wahdaniyat (oneness) is a catalyst to get the humanity to edge towards Justice. In a just society, the fear of taking advantage of the week and the meek dissipates, when that is gone, there is lesser wrong doing to happen – no more lying, cheating, robbing and infidelity.

Qur’aan talks about a refined language that occurs in a civil dialogue. The pitiful language used by the interlocutors “Divorce is given only when husband gets angry with his wife due to some act of hers lack civility.” This is a bad language where the woman is treated less than the man. Alhamdu Lillah, Qur’aan has expressly added the language that Women can initiate a divorce for the very same purpose – to believe in the equal rights of men and women. The language of the Ulema should be “Divorce is an outcome of misunderstanding between the spouses” which is a language of the equals, which is an expression of Justice.

These are the dumb acts of individuals that we can find in every group be it religious or otherwise. Unless we stand up and speak out, we are part of it. There was a statement by a wise man “ evil triumphs because good people don’t do anything about it”. The least one can do is spread the word. I admire Dr. Asghar Ali Engineers stand on this issue and I hope that should be the stand of every Muslim – Justice to all humans.

Mike Ghouse
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
DIVORCE IN QUR’AN AND SHARI’AH

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective April 1-15, 2008)

The other day I read an article on divorce in Inquilab, an Urdu Daily from Mumbai written by a well known ‘alim and member of Muslim Personal Law Board Khalid Saifullah Rahmani. The title of the article was “Ghusse ki haalat ka f’al m’utabar hota hai to talaq kyun m’utabar nahin hogi” i.e. if generally anything done in anger is valid why not a divorce given in anger? If any lay person had written this article even then it would have been considered outrageous and when written by one who is considered an ‘alim, it is much more so.

The Maulana argues that generally divorce is given in state of anger only and he argues if a husband is happy with his wife, will he gift her divorce? Divorce is given only when husband gets angry with his wife due to some act of hers. And then he says not only divorce but also several things are done in the state of anger. One would not like to comment on such arguments had it not involved fate of hundreds of Muslim women. One can only ring ones hands at such status of our prominent ‘ulama. They take divorce so lightly and break up of family for them is only a matter of husband’s anger with his wife.

Maulana Rahmani also maintains in this article that all fuqaha’ have consensus that divorce takes place if given in state of anger because in this state as in this state man remains conscious of his act. Then the Maulana goes on to quote noted jurist Allama Abidayn Shami who has quoted Hafiz ibn Qayyim (very well known jurist and ‘alim and disciple of Ibn Taymiyyah) and argues that anger has three stages: one that no change has occurred in his reasoning power due to anger and what he says, he should be understanding that and he should remain aware of its consequences and divorce pronounced in this state of anger will be valid. Second state is of extreme anger when man is unable to understand consequences of what he is doing and lacks in his will power. In this status divorce will not be valid since such a status of anger borders on madness and divorce given in a state of madness is not valid. Third state of anger is between the two states i.e. when man is partially aware of what he is saying and doing and partially not and divorce given in this state will also not be valid.

These are hardly acceptable arguments and at best these are rationalization or justification of divorce given in a state of anger. One would like to ask Maulana and the jurists he quotes who will determine what state of anger one is when pronouncing divorce? Is there any objective criteria available to measure husband’s anger at the time of pronouncing divorce? Has any instrument like thermometer available for measuring the degree of anger? And for these jurists even two witnesses for divorce are not necessary as prescribed by the Qur’an?

A divorce simply takes place if a husband pronounces divorce thrice in one breathe and no witnesses are required. If witnesses are not required who will bear witness as to which state of anger divorce was pronounced? Will husband’s own statement will be relied on? And if husband is determined to divorce his wife, how can his statement as to what state of anger he was in at the time of divorce can be acceptable. Who will decide what state of anger he was at the time of pronouncing divorce? Very strange rationalization indeed for justifying divorce in a state of anger.

Also, these arguments are completely at variance with what Qur’an says about divorce. Firstly, Qur’an requires, as pointed out earlier, two witnesses for divorce. Also, there is not even indirect evidence in Qur’an for giving divorce in a state of anger. See these two verses of Qur’an from Chapter 65 (Surah Al-Talaq) “O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed period, and calculate the period; and keep your duty to Allah, your Lord. Turn them not out of their houses – nor should they themselves go away – unless they commit an open indecency. And these are limits of Allah. And whoever goes beyond limits of Allah, he indeed wrongs his own soul…” (65:1)

And we find in second verse of this chapter (65), “So when they have reached their prescribed time, retain them with kindness or dismiss them with kindness, and call to witness two just ones from among you, and give upright; testimony for Allah. With that is admonished he who believes in Allah and the latter Day. And whoever keeps his duty to Allah, He ordains a way out for him.

Let Maulana Rahmani note that Qur’an not only does not talk of divorcing in a state of anger but requires husband to divorce her (fariquhunna) with kindness. Also, she should not be thrown out of her marital home by the husband nor should she herself leave her marital home unless she comes with an indecent act (bi fahishatin). Also, Qur’an wherever talks of divorce, requires husbands to divorce them or separate them, with kindness. The verse 229 of Chapter 2 also talks of kindness while letting them go or separating them.

The verse is as under:” Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep them in good fellowship (bi m’arufin) or let (them) go with kindness (tasrihun bi ihsan). Also so ensure full justice for women Qur’an requires arbitration before divorce (4:35). Thus there cannot be fairer method for divorce than the one prescribed by the Qur’an.

It is so unfortunate that Muslim jurists, under the influence of patriarchal ethos of their societies, they ignored all Qur’an injunctions and gave more credence to prevalent social practices and that too in the name of Islam. All this corpus of laws are referred to as Islamic laws of divine origin. In total contradiction to what Qur’an prescribes, the jurists, not only justified divorce given in a state of anger but also described states of anger.

What is more central to Islam - justice (‘adl, qist) or state of proper consciousness in anger? Forget about anger, Qur’an does not approve of divorce in normal state of consciousness if proper method is not followed for giving divorce which ensures justice for wife. Any unjust act is zulm (oppression, wrong doing). According to the Qur’an women must be treated with fairness and justice and no act, committed in a state of anger (whatever the state of anger) can be a just act.

Maulana Rahmani’s argument is very strange indeed that husband if not in a state of anger, will he divorce when he is happy with wife? Divorce, in fact should never be given in a state of anger at all. Whatever state of anger, intense, extreme or moderate, one does loose control of oneself and even if he is conscious of consequences of his act, is unable to think coolly and rationally. And Qur’an requires husband to remain kind even when divorcing her. Can anyone be kind while pronouncing divorce in a state of anger? Kindness and anger are two opposite states of mind.

Also, there are several instances in which husband pronounce divorce on getting angry on petty quarrels with wife. Can then such divorces be justified? Often husband repents after pronouncing divorce thrice in a state of anger but our jurists maintain his wife has been irrevocably divorced and he cannot take her back unless she marries some other man and he divorces her.

Husband and wife often quarrel and husband gets angry temporarily and is provoked to pronounce divorce. So such petty quarrels would become basis for divorce. This is not only legally wrong but also morally totally wrong. But such are our jurists and ‘responsible’ members of personal law board. Can Muslim women then ever expect justice from them?

On one hand these jurists will argue that Islam greatly raised status of women and in pre-Islamic society women were treated as chattels and, on the other hand, to maintain manly authority, bring back those pre-Islamic practices in divine garb. Qur’an put the entire responsibility of treating women fairly and with kindness on men and our jurists gave total authority to men to throw their wives away whenever they liked.

There is not a single verse in Qur’an which exhorts women to treat their husbands with kindness while in their nikah (marital bond) whereas there are several verses requiring men to treat their wives with kindness. This was because women were in weaker position in that society and Islam has all the sympathy for weaker sections of society. In fact Islam lad greatest stress on giving justice to weaker sections of society including slaves, servants, orphan, widows and the poor.

As we have repeatedly pointed out Qur’an’s sympathy is with mustad’ifin (those who have been weakened) (5:28) and our Ulama show all the sympathy with men who had all the power over women in that society (and still this continues even in most modern society) and juristically gives all the power over them. Let us remember justice is more central than opinion of any jurist howsoever eminent that jurist may be. Justice is Qur’an’s central principle which cannot be sacrificed on the altar of any jurist’s opinion.

If we have to project Islam as religion of justice and compassion for weaker sections of society we will have to revise our jurisprudence completely and prioritize justice over opinions of all past jurists of eminence. Eminence is not a principle it is only a social status whereas justice is a moral value central to Islam. Divorce is a very serious act and should be treated with utmost caution and responsibility. It breaks families and causes trauma to wife and children. According to a well-known hadith Allah has permitted act of divorce with utmost reluctance. Thus neither Qur’an nor authentic hadith are problem for women, it is male authority which is.
===

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai: - 400 055.
E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Mohammad Irtaza share verses from Qur'aan

[1:1] In the name of GOD, Most Gracious, Most Merciful[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess. Salamun Alykum. Does it a matter if "Muslims" outnumber Christians or Christians outnumber "Muslims"? [5:100] Proclaim: "The bad and the good are not the same, even if the abundance of the bad may impress you. You shall reverence GOD, (even if you are in the minority) O you who possess intelligence, that you may succeed." Who are the majority, anyway? What kind of people are they?! Please note that "Muslims" are not excluded from the following verses! [6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.

[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.

[16:83] They fully recognize GOD's blessings, then deny them; the majority of them are disbelievers.

Please also note that "Muslims" do not get special privilege as noted from the following verses! [2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

[5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

[10:98] Any community that believes will surely be rewarded for believing. For example, the people of Jonah: when they believed, we relieved the humiliating retribution they had been suffering in this world, and we made them prosperous.

[16:93] Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He sends astray whoever chooses to go astray, and He guides whoever wishes to be guided. You will surely be asked about everything you have done. The various Quranic stories always give us bad news: majority of people are disbelievers, wicked and idol worshipers! [3:110] You are the best community ever raised among the people: you advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and you believe in GOD. If the followers of the scripture believed, it would be better for them. Some of them do believe, but the majority of them are wicked.

[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.

[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.

[16:83] They fully recognize GOD's blessings, then deny them; the majority of them are disbelievers.

[19:73] When our revelations are recited to them, clearly, those who disbelieve say to those who believe, "Which of us is more prosperous? Which of us is in the majority?" Thank you and may God guide us, M. Irtaza Moderator - This is not anti-majority verses, but simply verses that value what is right, rather than majority or minority. thanks Mohammad, for the verses. Jazak Allah Khair. This was in reference to a question by Hasni Essa located in the archives: http://muslimarchives.blogspot.com/2008/04/04-03-2008-wednesday.html