certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam, Women and Feminism (12 May 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)


Indian Muslim Clerics Reduce Muslim Women To The Level Of Whore With Whom The Son, The Father, The Brother And The Friend Can Have Sex Within The Ambit Of Islamic Law

 

 

By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

12 May, 2015

(Co-author (Jointly with AshfaqueUllah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009)

Indian Muslim Clerics Reduce Muslim Women To The Level Of Whore With Whom The Son, The Father, The Brother And The Friend Can Have Sex Within The Ambit Of Islamic Law – A Man-Made Law Given The Rubric Of Islam

Related Video:

A Replay of Imrana Case: 'Incest is not Rape,' says Mulla, 'Marry the Rapist'

 

Before any ignorant Muslim gets upset on the claim that the Indian Muslim Personal law or for that matter the so-called ‘Hanafi Law’ is man-made, he is advised to read the following article:

What Is Popularly Known As The Sharia Law Of Islam Is Actually The Cumulative Rulings Of Muslim Jurists With A Tag Of Islam, And Not Any Immutable Word Of God Or The Laws Of The Qur’an

http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/what-is-popularly-known-as-the-sharia-law-of-islam-is-actually-the-cumulative-rulings-of-muslim-jurists-with-a-tag-of-islam,-and-not-any-immutable-word-of-god-or-the-laws-of-the-qur’an/d/87378

The above article lays down compelling arguments to demonstrate that the Classical Sharia Law of Islam is a system of law that the Muslim jurists belonging to different law schools evolved based on their own opinions as informed by their Islamic knowledge, worldview and historical realities of the era. Sure, the Muslim jurists draw on the limits set by the Qur’an, but, at the same time, they remain free to sidetrack or defy any clear Qur’anic dictate and claim that “any Qur’anic verse which contradicts the opinions of ‘our masters’ will be construed as having been abrogated, or the rule of preference will be applied thereto. It is better that the verse is interpreted in such a way that it conforms to their opinion.” [1]

As defined by Khaled Abou El Fadl, “Shari’a law refers to positive Islamic law or the Ahkam, the positive legal commandments deduced and expounded through centuries of cumulative legal practice.” In reality however, an opinion of any jurist of Islam, however outrageous or contradictory to the message of the Qur’an, by definition becomes a part of Islamic Juristic Tradition. Thus, if today, a man rapes his own daughter-in-law, such as June 2005 case of Imrana and September 2014 case of a Muzaffarnagar victim, and any jurist belonging to any school of thought at any time in the past had given a ruling asking the raped woman in such a case to divorce her husband and marry her father-in-law, this precedent becomes a part of the Islamic Law and the woman is asked to comply with it. If the argument is stretched further, if a man rapes his own young step-mother, a jurist may give a ruling that his father cannot have sex with his young wife anymore and must divorce her and then marry her off to his son. He can always find a precedent or introduce this ruling to serve as precedent for the posterity and this becomes a part of labyrinthine juristic tradition of Islam. This sounds very harsh indeed but as a Muslim we are asked bid to the good and restrain evil and this author is committed “to protest the demonization of their Holy book by some of their own theologians and jurists, who, in the name of implementing the Qur’anic ordinances, justify blatantly anti-Qur’anic heinous crimes, particularly against womenfolk” [2]. Hence he is doing this article to lift the veil of piety from the faces of the so-called custodians of Islam and to show the ugliness behind it.

Now let us see how the Qur’anic verse abolishing incest is interpreted to accommodate incest.

The Qur’an declares:

“And do not marry (Tankihu) women whom your fathers had married (Nakaha), except what is already past. It is indeed abominable and abhorrent, and a sinful way (4:22). (Also) forbidden (Haram) to you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your foster-mothers, your foster sisters, your wives' mothers, your stepdaughters under your guardianship, (born) of your wives with whom you consumed marriage; (but there is) no blame if you did not consume marriage with them; and the wives of your own begotten sons; and two sisters (in wedlock) at the same time - unless it was a thing of the past. (Remember,) God is Most Forgiving and Merciful (4:23)”

Any jurist in the past, not Imam Abu Hanifa for sure whose name was attached to the so-called Hanafi law some three hundred years after his death, interpreted the above verse by translating the root NKH (Tankihu, Nakaha) with sexual intercourse – as marriage is virtually a sanctification of sexual intercourse within a moral code. He then arrived at the following interpretation, conceivably to win a case for any wealthy rapist client:

“And do not have sex (Tankihu) with women with whom your fathers had sex (Nakaha), except what is already past. It is indeed abominable and abhorrent, and a sinful way (4:22). (Also) forbidden (Haram) to you (for sex) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your foster-mothers, your foster sisters, your wives' mothers, your stepdaughters under your guardianship, (born) of your wives with whom you consumed marriage; (but there is) no blame if you did not consume marriage with them; and the wives of your own begotten sons; and two sisters (in wedlock) at the same time - unless it was a thing of the past. (Remember,) God is Most Forgiving and Merciful (4:23)”

Thus, when a man rapes his daughter-in-law – a rare crime that is not restricted to Muslims alone, the Ulema of Islam invoke the opening underlined distorted interpretation of the above passage to appropriate incest in Islam – though the second underlined statement declares such relation Haram or forbidden. They can use the above distorted interpretation to allow the son the same exceptional privilege if he rapes his young step mother and impregnates her. The Clerics can ask the father to divorce his young wife and marry her off to his rapist son.

This wife robbing by way of rape is not the only sexual perversion in the so-called Islamic Sharia or Muslims Personal Law of India. The other example is the custom of Halala that empowers a man to give triple divorce to his wife and then force her to marry a friend, or his own brother, let him retain her and have sex with her for a day or a few days and then get him to divorce her by pronouncing Talaq thrice and marry her back – and all within the framework of the so-called Islamic Sharia

All these customs under the ambit of the so-called Islamic Law – each of which blatantly contradicts the Qur’anic message, reduces a Muslims women to virtually to the position of a whore who can within the framework of the so-called Islamic Sharia can be a wife and a daughter today, or a mother today and a wife tomorrow and so forth – in gross defiance of the Qur’anic passage on abolition of incest (4:22/23) and putting the global Muslim community to shame.

Those who want to know more about the custom of Halala and temporary marriage may read the following article:

Qur’anic Sharia (Laws) On Divorce: Triple Divorce, Temporary Marriage, Halala Stand Forbidden (Haram)

http://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/the-qur’anic-sharia-(laws)-on-divorce.--triple-divorce,-temporary-marriage,-halala-stand-forbidden-(haram)/d/6391

In one word, the institutional degradation of married Muslim women in the Indian Muslim Personal Law and actual practice can best be described in the following words of the great Indian poet Sahir Ludhyanwi : –

“Ye Biwi Bhi Hai Aur Beti Bhi Ma Bhi – Kahan Hain Kahan Hain Muhafiz Mazhab Ke Sanaa Khane Taqdeese Muslim Kahan Hain”

The Crux of the Issue Inserted On 13.05 after Detailed Discussions With The Commentators Over The Past Two Days:

The crux of the article lies in monstrosity of the Sharia ruling under discussion which entails the legitimization of the breaches of Qur’anic commandments relating to punishment for adultery, rape, prohibition of incest, time-frame for divorce, compensation to a divorced woman, her willingness to enter into a wedlock or choose her spouse. It exempts a rapist from the punishment for a major crime, dehumanizes the rape victim by forcing her to swap the father-in-law for the son in wedlock, thereby becoming the mother of her erstwhile husband, and thus causes her enduring trauma and agony that simply cannot be captured in words. It also gives an unlimited power to a father-in-law who can, if he wishes, treat his daughter-in-law like a bondmaid slave or a mistress, having the power to break her marriage at will and take her into his own wedlock simply by raping her. It is socially most humiliating to the victim woman as in her society she will be singled out as an odd and condemned woman once a wife of a man and later of his father. The most grievous thing of all is the distortion of the meaning of a key Qur’anic verse for which the Hand of God may seize the advocates of this heinous ruling and its tacit supporters if any by their neck and cut their aorta off. Above all, in the backdrop of sexual mores of this era, appropriation of incestual rape in its present form grievously demonizes Islam As one committed to protest any demonization of Islam, the author has done this article and removed a subsidiary argument re Muta marriage as it is unlawful in Sunni Islam – though in the article, the reference to this custom was in general terms only and its omission does not alter the flow and force of the arguments in any way. [3]

 

1.    Doctrine of Ijma in Islam, by Ahmad Hussain, New Delhi, 1992, p.16.

2.    Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA 2009, Afterword, Final Note of Appeal to Muslims.

3.    The following statement has been removed from the original article two days after its posting: “Yet another example is the Muta marriage, whereby a woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week.”

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. KhaledAbou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/indian-muslim-clerics-reduce-muslim-women-to-the-level-of-whore-with-whom-the-son,-the-father,-the-brother-and-the-friend-can-have-sex-within-the-ambit-of-islamic-law/d/102904

Related Articles:

What Is Popularly Known As The Sharia Law Of Islam Is Actually The Cumulative Rulings Of Muslim Jurists With A Tag Of Islam, And Not Any Immutable Word Of God Or The Laws Of The Qur’an

Qur’anic Sharia (Laws) On Divorce: Triple Divorce, Temporary Marriage, Halala Stand Forbidden (Haram)

Halala: Another Name for Rape of Muslim Women






TOTAL COMMENTS:-   100


  • Shahin Sb says: "But your insistence on using the urdu word, as it sounds more gross for us than the English word, is inexplicable".

     

    How he twists what I said?

     

    This is what I said protesting against the use of all three words (whore, prostitute and Randi):

     

     

    The title of the article creates an impression that Muslim society in India is highly incestuous and a woman is routinely raped by her husband, his friends, his brothers, his father and his grandfather!

     

    The woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse  but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expressions which was there earlier, appears to have been dropped. These words are not used for the victims of sexual abuse whether she is raped or gang raped but for a woman who is a willing partner for pecuniary benefit. It is Yunus Sb who has reduced Muslim women to the status of prostitute and the Indian Muslim  men to lascivious beasts who freely indulge in incest and wife swapping and the Indian Maulvis for  sanctifying these acts.

     


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 3:06:26 AM



  • Mr Shahin,

    I did not say that all the three words were there together in the headline itself.  This is what I said "the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi." All three words were used in the article.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 1:39:29 AM



  • Shahin Sb,

    This is what Yunus Sb said:

    "Naseer Sahab,/ all those critical of the article 

    Where do you find the word with R you quoted in your comment. It is not there. You are again twisting my word......"

     

    Now you confirm that the "R" word was very much there and Yunus Sb was lying when he was implying that it was never there and that I was twisting his word.

     

    Not only me, but everyone else found the article in poor taste, with not a single commentator having anything positive to say about the article. I have however acknowledged that there are issues that are screaming for reform in my very first comment. Reform cannot however be achieved through the use of the hyperbole and to the over sensationalizing with imaginary situations to the point that it becomes a lie.  Ghulam Ghaus Sb was constrained to ask "Only Twelver Shias approve Muta, yet they do not believe in what you have said, “A woman can marry a son for a week, his father for the next week and his grandfather for the following week”. Please correct me if any Twlever Shias believe in what you have said."  

    Has Yunus Sb produced any evidence that any cleric has approved marriage disregarding the iddat period? He also retracted that Muta is a practice in India.

    A sensitive subject must be dealt with with sensitivity. The article is gross!

    When it comes to abusing, there are few who can match Yunus Sb. Let me correct you once again, I never abuse. 



    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/21/2015 1:27:12 AM



  • Dear Naseer Saheb, one of the items in my to-do list is responding to your insistent demand for discovering if Yunus Saheb got deleted an Urdu word in his article, in translation of the word “whore, ” after its publication. It is not unusual for writers, including perhaps you, though I am not sure, to suggest an improvement or correct a typo mistake after the publication of the article.  One writer used to invariably send a completely revised article after the publication, so we now invariably wait for him to revise after he has sent the first draft.

    I didn’t remember the situation in this case, so I asked Yunus Saheb, and he says he had suggested dropping the urdu word from the article, translating the word whore, immediately after publication, though we had taken some time in effecting the change. You may have seen the first draft, though you should take the final wordings as the final draft. But your insistence on using the urdu word, as it sounds more gross for us than the English word, is inexplicable.

    However, this does not allow you to twist his words into saying something entirely different. This would amount to slandering a Quran exegete of the stature of Yunus Saheb. For instance, you write: “The specific reason for my request was that I had written in my comment saying that for Yunus Sb, “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expression which was there earlier appears to have been dropped.”

    Yunus Saheb had actually written: "All these customs under the ambit of the so-called Islamic Law – each of which blatantly contradicts the Qur’anic message, reduces a Muslims woman virtually to the position of a whore.”

     Indian clerics “reducing a woman to the position of a whore” and the woman being a whore [what you put as “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi” ] are two different statements. It’s your contention that a woman victim is is a whore or prostitute or randi. that you are ascribing to Yunus Saheb.  This is not Yunus Saheb’s position. The very headline of his article says: “Indian Muslim Clerics Reduce Muslim Women To The Level Of Whore With Whom The Son, The Father, The Brother And The Friend Can Have Sex Within The Ambit Of Islamic Law.”

    Yunus Saheb is not willing to explain all this to you himself for fear of being abused and slandered and his words being twisted again. But I felt that I must not allow Yunus Saheb’s thoughts being twisted in this fashion and he being slandered.

    Your insistence on the use of urdu word for whore is truly bizarre. What purpose does this serve? You are a writer yourself and have a right to improve your write-ups and have second thoughts, though, of course, it would be much better for us if authors sent us revised and final documents, not requiring changes later.
     
    I wish you focussed on the crux of the article which lies in the words of Yunus saheb “in the monstrosity of the Sharia ruling under discussion which entails the legitimisation of the breaches of Qur’anic commandments relating to punishment for adultery, rape, prohibition of incest, time-frame for divorce, compensation to a divorced woman, her willingness to enter into a wedlock or choose her spouse. It exempts a rapist from the punishment for a major crime, dehumanises the rape victim by forcing her to swap the father-in-law for the son in wedlock, thereby becoming the mother of her erstwhile husband, and thus causes her enduring trauma and agony that simply cannot be captured in words. It also gives an unlimited power to a father-in-law who can, if he wishes, treat his daughter-in-law like a bondmaid slave or a mistress, having the power to break her marriage at will and take her into his own wedlock simply by raping her. It is socially most humiliating to the victim woman as in her society she will be singled out as an odd and condemned woman once a wife of a man and later of his father. The most grievous thing of all is the distortion of the meaning of a key Qur’anic verse for which the Hand of God may seize the advocates of this heinous ruling and its tacit supporters if any by their neck and cut their aorta off. Above all, in the backdrop of sexual mores of this era, appropriation of incestual rape in its present form grievously demonises Islam.”
        
    It would be best if you as an expert yourself commented on the body and contents of the article, rather than focusing on an urdu word he used initially then got us to delete.  Also, you should not twist his statement which blames the Sharia ruling as a definitive statement coming from him.

    By Sultan Shahin - 6/20/2015 11:02:28 PM



  • A simple request made three times before that can be answered by a yes or no remains unresponded. And yet Shahin Sb has the gall to say: 

    "Yunus Saheb has explained to me in a private mail why he has stopped interacting with you on that issue despite your allegations.  I would have liked him to continue debating the issue, but I cannot stop you from abusing him and I cannot ask him to grin and bear it like I do. That is a personal choice. "

    The request was as follows:

    Shahin/Yunus Sb,   I had requested both of you to list the changes made to the article since it first appeared but the request is not responded.

    The specific reason for my request was that I had written in my comment saying that for Yunus Sb,  “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expression which was there earlier appears to have been dropped.

    While commenting itself I had noticed that the word ‘Randi” that had appeared the first day was changed to whore. The first day had all three words – whore, prostitute and randi. Now all these have been uniformly change to whore.

     To my surprise however, Yunus Sb asked me “where is the ‘R’ word?” and accused me of distorting what he said.

    I would therefore like the record to be put straight. Was the word Randi there or not there when the article first appeared?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 5:58:03 AM


    By Naseer Ahmed - 6/8/2015 11:53:36 AM



  • Rational,

    There is an article "Is the Quran a Book of Contradictions?". Incidentally, the question of intercession is answered in a comment under the article.

    You will have to come up with the best response to your own question before I answer your question.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 11:46:44 AM



  • Naseer Saheb
    the right answer is the Quran if full of contradictions despite its claim of no contradiction. its challenge is challenged by itself.

    in which thread you want to continue?


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/18/2015 4:21:46 AM



  • Rational,

    Provide the best answer to your questions that you are capable of before I answer your questions.

    And choose the appropriate thread.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/18/2015 12:08:43 AM



  • Naseer Saheb
    your progressive revelation doesn't solve the problem of contradiction.


    Quran (31:15)
     
    "But if they strive (Jahada) to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration)..."

    Quran (9:23) 
    "O ye who believe! Take not protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above faith: If any of you do so, they do wrong"

    How the verse 9:23 is faith neutral?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 10:59:25 PM



  • In continuation to contradiction in the Quran
    Further contradiction in the Quran:
    Intercession or no intercession?


     
    Sahih International
    And fear a Day when no soul will suffice for another soul at all, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be taken from it, nor will they be aided.


    Sahih International
    That Day, no intercession will benefit except [that of] one to whom the Most Merciful has given permission and has accepted his word.
    The way Naseer saheb eliminating the contradiction, no book including corrupt Bible and other holy books contain any contradiction.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/17/2015 12:42:48 AM



  • Shahin/Yunus Sb,   I had requested both of you to list the changes made to the article since it first appeared but the request is not responded.

    The specific reason for my request was that I had written in my comment saying that for Yunus Sb,  “the woman is also not just a victim of sexual abuse but a whore or prostitute or randi. The last expression which was there earlier appears to have been dropped.

    While commenting itself I had noticed that the word ‘Randi” that had appeared the first day was changed to whore. The first day had all three words – whore, prostitute and randi. Now all these have been uniformly change to whore.

     To my surprise however, Yunus Sb asked me “where is the ‘R’ word?” and accused me of distorting what he said.

    I would therefore like the record to be put straight. Was the word Randi there or not there when the article first appeared?


    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 5:58:03 AM



  • Rational,

    We have discussed 9:29 before. Go back to the same thread if you want to continue that discussion and don't use wrong threads. You have covered the discussion on this article under so many comments that are irrelevant to the article helping the author to evade answering the questions that he has been asked.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 5/15/2015 5:16:17 AM



  • 9:29

    no words can hide what Allah said in the verse.
    there is no word to qualify the to make it specific.
    why to go to other verses when we have clear command to fight against believers.
    Beside that Muslims believe in universality of the Quran, Muslims have applied and are applying these verses. these verses are recited to those Muslims who are fighting under the command of ISIS.
    those who are not doing so, may apply when the need will demand.
    How could Afghanis drive out the Soviet? who gave tme strength to fight for Afghanistan ans in fact for USA?

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 4:38:54 AM



  • Naseer Saheb
    though one contradiction is enough but i have posted more than one.
    you will not accept because the Quran is foundation of Islam and no Muslim will like to destroy this foundation.
    For that they invented abrogation, interpretation and out of context tools. you have invented one more tool to define the central theme of the Quran.
    for what? to make it peaceful, to make it inclusive, to make it logical.
    it is you are trying to do and Muslims are not giving ears to it.
    for that Muslims including you slandered the translators, mufassireens, muhadditheen mujaddids etc.
    all were slaughters at the altar of the contradictory, unclear supposedly speech of God.
    if unclarity, errors and contradictions become attributes then nothing can be said, because that wil;l not accepted despite obvious facts.

    for time being these are enough. it will come up time to time.


    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 4:28:58 AM



  • an open violation of fundamental of Islam " la nufarriqu mim baina ahdim minhum"

    An open case of contradiction.

    2:253
    Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake, while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree.
    2:285
    We make no distinction between any of His messengers.

    By rational mohammed yunus - 5/15/2015 3:52:07 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content