Often you hear that men may not want their wife working because they believe it “impinges on her other duties”. I’ve never really understood what they mean by that. If you are married and have children, then yes I can see the point thats being made. But the point again becomes obsolete when children are of school age or when they dont require the same level of attention they once needed.
An even more absurd scenario is where there are no children, then what “duties” are they referring to? The housework-cooking? cleaning? gardening??
Whats being impinged on? These chores that are seen as “duties” or the man’s ego?
Inner Reflections Transcribed 
Hehe, my husband thinks I should get another job moonlighting or something ;).
It’s the man’s ego! If there are children then I completely understand, they need their mother AND their father. But if there aren’t any children she should do whatever she pleases, be it work or lazing by the pool. It shouldn’t be up to the man, she’s not an animal that he can order around!
I call it “Ihsaan”, I do my Ihsaan, he does his. A marriage is a partnership, we all do our chores/duties. Am at home with 2 young children who need my attention and it is my choice since am the primary caregiver while he goes out and brings the “meat”. 🙂
I wouldn’t call it male ego if a man would prefer it if his wife didn’t work, other things may affect his preference.
«The men are the guardians of the women because Allah favoured some of them over others, and because of what they spend of their wealth. So, the righteous [women] are obedient, guardians for the absence, due to what Allah guarded» (4:34).
Imam Ibn Kathîr mentions, “«So, the righteous» meaning from the women. «Obedient»: Ibn ‘Abbâs and several [others] said, ‘it means obedient to their husbands, «guardians for the absence».’ as-Suddî and others said, ‘Meaning she guards her husband in his absence, with respect to herself and his wealth.'”
As for a wife’s duties, many scholars throughout the ages have mentioned that among a wife’s duties to her husband are things such as maintaining their home, caring for and maintaining her husband and anyone else under her charge (such as children).
Totally men’s ego. Something in that brain just can’t accept the fact that wifey will be socializing with others hmm… perhaps even men even if it’s just on a professional business level, and oh yea the big crush of her having a higher salary. I think men are just needy, they need to feel important and that he is the center of attention of the wife. If there are children in the marriage I think it depends on whether they need the extra cash or needs to save part of her sanity LOL…. but a woman is allowed to work and I personally think that some men tend to use their marital rights to their advantage to surpress the woman so they can feel in control. So in the end I think its both his ego and obsession to control. Hugs 😉
This is not a religious debate, is it? Because if it is there are ample arguments that housework is ‘not’ a woman’s job and if she does it she is doing a favour to her husband. Women have worked since the beginning of societies and if this is a religious debate then let’s begin with Khadeejah (pbuh) who employed and then proposed to the future Messenger of Islam or Aisha (pbuh) who waged a war.
If it isn’t a religious debate then the truth is humans are the only animals where the male is supposed to fetch the “meat” and this is a relatively new concept as well. The Stone Age carvings show unisex figures hunting and cooking. Modern humans draw Stone Age men as hunting mammoths and their women gathered around bonfires cooking elephant meat! Women have worked in fields, battle fields, factories, butcheries, parliaments, armies, shoe shops – everywhere. There were goddesses in Greek and Roman mythology and one of the greatest gods of wisdom and war was Athena. If women were always perceived by societies as petite creatures who cook, dust and iron I’m sure the ‘godly’ scenario would have been quite different.
Animals are smarter; they let the female hunt and then sit patiently to feed last. Men by comparison are … well, I can’t really say smarter, can I? There have been strict matriarchal societies in the past and there have been societies where women were honoured and respected as equal members of the societies beyond strict gender roles and there still are a few but obviously the general trend has shifted towards gender roles. There are a few tribes in Arabia where a woman gets married to a man and brings her home to live with her family! This has been carrying on since pre-Islamic Arabian times and it is absolutely fascinating to attend a wedding where the groom embraces his mum and bids her farewell. A whole new meaning to abandoning ‘babul ka ghar’!
I can’t keep sane if I don’t work. I have to go out everyday, see and meet people. I need to think beyond what to cook and which clothes to wash. Mashallah I have kids who are never neglected, I study, work, play with the children and I look after my home (you have seen pictures of my home), I blog, and I eat first!
Roar!
If her husband tells her to do these chores, then it becomes her obligation to do these things, not just a mere favour she’s performing for him. There is ample evidence from the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah to show that obeying her husband is a wife’s religious duty. Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, as well as many other scholars past and present, use the verse I quoted above as evidence that serving her husband is among a wife’s obligations (including serving him, travelling with him if need be, making herself available to him, housework, and so on) just as it is every Muslim’s obligation to obey his or her parents in that which does not entail disobedience to Allah.
The issue is not so much whether women are allowed to work outside the home and own businesses or the like. This is something permissible in Islam; Khadîjah is just one example of that. Using ‘Â’ishah as an example to support your claims, however, is invalid as ‘Â’ishah herself realised her wrong doing during that time of turmoil and expressed regret at having participated in the Battle of the Camel.
I don’t want to repeat the debate; its already on many forums:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-12219.html
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-1155.html
Basically Shafis and Malakis don’t believe that housework is a woman’s duty whereas Hanafis do.
I like carimuslima’s response 🙂
You seem to be missing the point.
Regardless of whatever the various madhâhib say regarding housework being a wife’s duty or not, it’s pretty much consensus that obedience to her husband in that which does not entail disobedience to Allah is one of her religious obligations. Thus, if a woman’s husband tells her to do these things, it becomes an obligation she’s got to fulfill based on that alone. After this, the debate is pretty much rendered useless.
I find it funny when a lot of women look to get married to a stinkin’ rich guy so that they could stop working — and then do what?!?! Some of these women don’t even desire to have children. Don’t they find it boring getting massages and facials every single day? And when people ask them what they do… what do they say? They can’t say “I’m a stay-at-home mum” cuz they have no kids…
Totally totally male ego! “Impinges on her other duties.” I always wondered about this too! I mean, if you don’t have children, what other duties are there? Oh I forgot, furniture simply must be dusted every day! *sarcastic*
Some men have are so insecure that they don’t want their women to talk to anyone outside the house – male or female! That scares me. Girls out there, be careful who you choose to marry – a guy like that sounds like a prison guard to me more than a husband. Rasheed Gonzales, I don’t mean to be rude, but you make it sounds like men are these tryants who want women to obey their every command. The word “obey” is a problem. Women should LISTEN to their husbands, but men should also LISTEN to their wives… otherwise I don’t know how you can call it a marriage.
If you’ve got pretty bad eczema and dust allergies like my wife and I do, then dusting and vacuuming everyday is almost a must.
What of those husbands who ask their wives to stay home and do the daily household duties, while also allowing them to visit and mingle with their family and friends on a regular basis? I don’t think insecurities about their women talking to anyone outside the home applies in this case.
Why is tyranny always automatically associated to men who ask of their wives to be obedient to them? Also, why is the word “obey” a problem when in the Qur’an (4:34) Allah describes the righteous women as “qânitât”, which means submissive, obedient, humble women. In the various exegeses of the Qur’an, such as those by Imams Ibn Kathîr, as-Sa’dî, and others, you’ll see that they say this description means that they are obedient to Allah, first and foremost, then their husbands. As should be known, Prophet Muhammad has said that there is no obedience in disobedience to Allah. Thus, the wife is only obligated to obey her husband in things that will earn her Allah’s pleasure, not Allah’s anger.
A husband who is tyrannical and oppressive to his wife (such as commanding her to do things clearly outside of her ability or to do things against Allah’s commands), then he will be held accountable for his actions on the Day of Standing.
Good communication is conducive and integral to a healthy marriage. Hopefully, no one is disputing that. However, the conduct a husband and wife are to show towards each other (e.g., listening to each other, advising each other, being kind and merciful to one another, reminding each other about Allah, etc.) is an issue separate from the one being discussed here i.e., a woman’s duties to her husband/family/household.
what a waste of discussion….
I am extremely curious brother Rasheed. If we are going to follow your “obey” logic. So does this mean if the husband commands his wife to not read a salafi book, is she not allowed then to read it? Does this mean if a wife wants to wear a blue dress and he says “no blue dress, I prohibit you” does that make the blue dress haraam for her?
What are the guidelines for obedience in your opinion? I think the issue of mutual respect and obedience from both sides is preached by many Islamic scholars. Maybe we can bring forth to the discussions a rough guidelines as to what they really mean by obedience?
If an adult woman wants to leave the house and her husband says no, she must listen? If an adult woman refuses to eat goat meat, but her husband commands her to eat it, does she have to listen? If a woman follows a certain madhab and her husband disagrees with her madhab and orders her to follow his madhab, must she oblige?
I will not argue your obedience statement, I only wish that you clarify in detail to an American Muslimah of Arab origin on how to be a good wife in the future.
Waiting for your response akhi!
I mean it sounds more like a discussion for feminists than anything else. If this is the attitude muslim women have towards men then I wish you all the best in your marriages…
You get some men who state “I follow certain opinions about X issue, but if the opinions you follow differ to mine, thats fine” but really its not fine because then they will ask you “why do you follow that opinion? Do you know its not the strongest opinion on this issue? The opinion I follow is more robust” and then you take the trouble and hassle free route of “following his opinion” to keep the peace. Where’s the room to make your own choices and follow your madhab here?
The “obey” issue cannot be understood to mean an “I order, you obey” type of relationship because most of us know that arrangement isn’t conducive unless you are docile, subervise and just “dead”.
But usually this kind “commanding” doesn’t go down at all that well with most people, because it equates to tyrannical behaviour. If he doesnt let you do and make choices (that have no effect on him – such as what books you read, what colour you wear, how you chew your food etc) then he is essentially infantilasing you. Plus just because he is the husband that doesnt necessarily mean he knows what is best for you, as an individual and for the marriage. These things need to be discussed and mutually agreed on. Otherwise you might as well be a breathing mannequin.
honestly how do we maintain the patience to have this dialogue? I’m so tired of it that I really feel I can’t be bothered, but then if we leave people to continue to spout this nonsense, nothing will ever change. All I can do is let out one resounding aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
oh and there are many more definitions of ‘qanitat’ than brother Rasheed has provided us with.
Everything I have read on this issue mention obedience to the husband in a general sense without mentioning any specifics other than the fact that this obedience has to be in accordance with Islam i.e., there is no obedience where disobedience to Allah is called for.
Pleasing her husband is one of the wife’s duties and there are several authentic hadîths to indicate this. While most of these hadîths are in the context of pleasing him sexually, there are a number of hadîths which mention pleasing the husband in a general sense, one in which Prophet Muhammad told one woman to “look to [her] standing with [her husband], for surely, he is your Paradise and your Fire” (declared authentic by Imams al-Hâkim, adh-Dhahabî, al-Albani, and others).
Sister Asiya, would you care to share these many other definitions of the word “qânitât” with us?
Btw, for whoever is interested, there are a number of books in English regarding these issues that you can refer to. Among them are The Righteous Wife by Muhammad Shoomaan, translated by Daawood Burkbank, and introduced by a sister who goes by Umm Nusaybah, and My Advice to the Women by sister Umm ‘Abdillah al-Wâdi’iyyah, daughter of the late Shaikh Muqbil bin Hâdî al-Wâdi’î. Shaikh al-Albânî’s Âdâb az-Zifâf also has some good information regarding these issues. It has been translated to English, but has been abridged (leaving out quite a large portion of the original work by the shaikh).
I was quitting for the same reason as mentioned by Asiya. However, I have this thing with Feminism. Let’s not push anyone to the limits of ‘ism’. I have always maintained that I believe in loving and caring for humans and never women alone but if I will be pushed towards the wall I will have to take sides. How do you push someone to the wall? By insisting that one gender is born an infant and lives all her life an infant. “Obey” is a strong word and it automatically reduces the one on the ‘receiving’ end to a four-legged or infantile position. Marriage has been reduced to a military exercise where one commands and the other obeys.
The ayah Rasheed quoted is from Surah Nisaa (women) but it is addressed to men. Men who compiled the Quran called it Nisaa although it mainly addresses “three main problems which confronted the Holy Prophet at the time” in Medinah after migration (Maududi). A title always has a huge effect on what is in the surah and one automatically starts to think that the surah is a Code of Conduct for women.
Universally, the particular verse has been understood as – men are protectors of women as they are better/stronger than women. Good women are obedient to their husbands and guard their chastity. If a man fears disloyalty and disobedience from his wife he should first admonish her verbally, then refuse sex to her and finally beat her so she returns to the right path. Once she starts to obey her husband he should not try to seek revenge for earlier misconduct because Allah is always watching.
This is the most common interpretation.
But no where in the verse does it say that men excel women especially in strength. The beginning of the verse means, “Men are maintainers of women because of what Allah has gifted them as more than the other” and the word “fadllAllah” (bounty from Allah) refers to monetary bounty/gift. Men received more than women in inheritance and women mostly did not work but were homemakers. Therefore, men, who have more wealth/lands through employment/ business/ inheritance are told to make sure they look after the financial needs of women. Women are, earlier in the surah, already instructed that their money is for them to keep and they have no obligation to spend it on their husbands (see verse 32).
I wonder how the translators came up with “strength” because if “fadllAllah” can refer to strength then it can refer to any other attribute just as well – intellect, beauty, stamina, and even negative qualifiers like stupidity! Even today we use the phrase “kulu shaiin min fadllAllah” (everything is Allah’s bounty) to almost always refer to objects that can be bought (e.g, car, house, land, jewels, gold).
Moving on to the second part, this ayah was revealed at one time as can be understood from the word “fa-salehaat” as referring to “so the righteous women” indicating continuation of the verse. The next part of the ayah reads as “so the righteous women are those who are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded.” The word used for obedient is “qanitaat” which is often translated to mean “devoutly obedient to her husband” but it is not so. No where is obedience of a woman related to man in the verse and since the word “qanitaat” is used in conjunction with “saalihaat” (which means righteous, as in ‘on the right path of God’), “qanitaat” therefore must refer to women who are obedient to Allah. This makes sense because Allah continues to say, “… guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded” meaning remaining faithful in a relationship by guarding their chastity.
I can go on and talk about the ‘beating’ part of the ayah too but I’ll stop here. Sorry for the long comment Sumera! I really hogged your comment space but I felt it was important although it is such a digression to your initial question.
Very interesting. As long as men like Rasheed think women have to obey their husbands as long as it is not in direct contradiction, well i suppose it means feminists will not be marrying such men!
Of course, nowadays Muslim women are increasingly marrying non-muslim men, perhaps this is why.
An earlier post by me is awaiting moderation. I will, however, comment on some of the stuff posted by sister Achelois.
Does this mean that Allah reduces us all “to a four-legged or infantile position’? After all, we all have to obey Allah, we are also commanded by Allah to obey Prophet Muhammad (3:32, 4:59, 8:20, 54:24, 33:47), as well as obey those in authority over us (4:59).
Perhaps this misperception is your snag.
F.y.i., women such as ‘Â’ishah (radiyallah ‘anhâ) participated in compiling the Qur’an into a single mus·haf. As for who named the chapter, Prophet Muhammad himself has referred to it as an-Nisâ’ in many authentic hadîths, so while some chapters of the Qur’an are referred to using more than one name, all the names given to the chapters of the Qur’an were known during the Prophet’s lifetime as he would often advise his companions to read certain chapters during certain prayers or at certain times.
What does strength have to do with anything in this present discussion? It wasn’t mentioned in any of my posts, or anyone else’s other than yours. Strawman?
The word (verb) used in the verse is “faddala” which means to choose, to prefer, to favour, something over something else.
This is a nice bit of reasoning. However, one important thing is ignored. In a verse referenced above, Allah commands us, «O those who believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you given the authority» (4:59). Earlier in the chapter, Allah places the men in authority over the women saying, «The men are custodians of the women … » (4:34), thus making obedience to one’s husband obedience to Allah.
I don’t have a problem with that. I’m already happily married to a woman who wants to please her Lord, and the praise is Allah’s.
So instead of having to obey their Muslim husbands, they’d rather marry non-Muslim men, earning great sin and Allah’s anger? Allah al-Musta’ân.
I was reffering to all the comments about mens ego’s just because a man would prefer it if his wife didn’t work.
As for marrying non muslim men – subhanAllah I’d rather die, i’m sure most believing women feel the same.
Have not yet read all the comments but soon will, insh’Allah. I have read that the idea of kitchen or home being the rightful place of women emerged with the transition from hunter gatherer society to settled agriculturalists and later industialists as the concept of the “home” did not exist in pre-agricultural society where what was gathered was more or less consumed there and then.
Digression/offtopic or long comments very welcome!
Im still not completely sure how tending to the house chores can take a whole day. Surely not having contact with the outside world is alienating yourself further from society?
“… making obedience to one’s husband obedience to Allah”
I guess I’ll leave it at that because clearly I’m thinking on a different level (not saying good or bad but just different). To me that becomes almost blasphemous but that’s just me.
Kind of reminds me of the phrase “mazaji* khuda” (wordly God/God on earth) that some Desi women use in reference to their husbands status and authority. If thats not blasphemous then what is?
*Majazi is the word, thanks to SK for pointing that error out :p
What men don’t get and what’s stated CLEARLY in Islam is that the basic point of marriage is do give birth to a better nasal (er…generation. 😛 ) So when kids come the lady should not be given the burden of a job as well, coz her main objective in this world is to raise her kids really well. And infact she is also excused from housework if that ‘impedes’ her giving her full attention to her kids. IF she does do housework as well, as we women do like to, God has said that the men should be THANKFUL that she is doing that for her man. So basically it’s an EHSAN not a DUTY!! Accept it and live with it MEN!! Women have been given a brain and an equal choice to do what they want…try and respect that!! And, TOUGH if you can’t accept it!
err…sumera…Mejazi Khuda is the term… 😀 What men and SOME women refer to these guys is “mejazi Khuda”…what those men SHOULD be called of course, like you said is Mezaji (moody) Khuda! 😛 Blasphemous indeed!
I apologize for coming back here when I see you’ve already posted something new, but I’m still curious for answers! 🙂
Rasheed, just in your reply to my comment, you say that your wife dusts everyday because of your and her allergies. I guess that’s not really my point. What else does she do? I’m not trying to question her role, I’m just really curious. If a woman has young children, then I understand if she stays home to raise them, that’s in fact what I want to do – it’s something my fiance and I both agree on for when I have children. However, if she doesn’t, then I don’t see how dusting/vacuming would take all day? Honestly, I’m just curious about what else she does.
Whenever I’ve asked a married woman with no children this question, the reply I get is usually something along the lines of “staying home is great because I get to watch my Soaps.” That just doesn’t sounds appealing to me! I can think of a million other ways that I can benefit my community/society by going in to the outside world to do something rather than staying home and watching Tv. Of course, I’m not saying that this is what your wife does, please don’t take my words in the wrong way, but dusting/cooking/keeping house only takes so long right? And for that matter, don’t you help dust too?! Please let me know, I’m really just curious!
Sorry for err..joining? …in but ‘dusting/cooking/keeping house only takes so long’…very very true.
And love the ‘don’t you help dust too?!’ 😀
Women should be given a choice to do what makes them happy….they have been given that choice and right in Islam; now its time for the men to shape up and RETURN that right to women.
And I still don’t know whose blogworld I have suddenly invaded. Blame it on Xil (Abbas) IF you ever see him. 😛
Achelois: Sory but I just have to say.. “… making obedience to one’s husband obedience to Allah”…this is SOO not in the Quran. Atleast not in the light men would prefer. First saying this is shirk coz you’re not supposed to join anyone with Allah. Your hubby is as human as you. (err…not yours…you get the point). Second, what’s in our Book is that women listen to their hubby PROVIDED the hubby is taking care of ALL, TOTAL responsibilities towards her (so that she doens’t have to worry about anything else but raising the kids), including Total Financial responsibility. AND uspe bhi the woman has been told ke “tumhari neki aur ehsan hoga” IF we chose to listen to hubby. Experience? Women would go to any lengths for their ‘man’ if the man keeps them happy and shows them respect. Result? MEN are BASICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THEIR MARRIAGE. Of course men prefer to take it as their right and not responsibility. *oh you sooo don’t want me to get into this subject*
Tending to household chores on a daily basis doesn’t necessitate that one seclude one’s self from society and the community as a whole.
Allah also demands obedience to His messenger, and to the ones placed in authority over us (e.g., the rulers). Of course there’s the condition that this obedience is not in things which contradict Islam. Does obeying the Messenger and the rulers border on blasphemy too? If Allah commands you to obey these people, how can it be blasphemous? It’s not like you’re raising them up to the status of gods.
‘liya, to answer your question, my wife raises our children. We have two: a daughter who’s 3, and a son who’s 1. Aside from taking care of them and teaching them what they need to know at their respective ages, she cooks, cleans and maintains our apartment. Obviously certain things don’t take all day to do, but there are some tasks that she can’t get around to due to other things that get in the way. Before we had kids, she would do these household chores and spend her free time reading, listening to lectures, and learning her religion. She would also keep contact with her friends, speaking to them over the phone. Sometimes she would go to visit them at their homes or have them come over to visit ours.
As for helping out, I do what I can, when I can. I will occasionally wash the dishes, vacuum the rugs, mop the floors, clean the bathroom, throw the garbage out and help out with the laundry. I do these things to help ease her burden, just as Prophet Muhammad used to help his wives with certain tasks. He would do these things not because they were obligatory on him, but to help out where he could.
Is obedience to the Prophet and those in authority shirk to you as well? Shirk is associating partners with Allah in things that are soley His right, such as worship, divinity, and His perfect names and characteristics. If Allah has commanded you to obey certain humans in certain things, then that is not shirk.
Kindly provide the reference for the first in “our Book” that stipulates this. Jazâkillah khairâ.
I am really confused, can I say that?
I can’t stand the idea of being in a marriage where I am not allowed to do the things I enjoy, I must fear my husband’s disapproval because that will cost my my hereafter. From the various experiences I have witnessed and the years I’ve worked at my local Islamic Center, I’ve only learned that men abuse this Godly power you mention.
I’ve seen women feel miserable because they were treated like children in their marriages. Once a friend of mine wanted to read an Islamic fictional novel. Her husband wasn’t pleased with the idea, he wanted her to read another book and prohibited her from reading the book she really wanted to read. He accused her of disobedience when she wanted to read. I have hundreds of similar tales. My most one is, a friend in Australia was banned from any Salafi websites because her husband enjoys Sufism and hates Salafi lectures. My friend decided to follow the Salaf, and now she can’t because she must “obey.”
When my friend calls me and cries because her husband decided she could no longer finish her college degree, he had changed his mind is what he announced one day. When her husband decided that cute shirt she bought the other day wasn’t pretty and demanded she takes it back (after all she used his money), how inferior and subordinate do you think she feels? Tell me, isn’t this misuse of power? How far does a woman have to go with her obedience is my question that no one is yet to answer?
I don’t mind listening and obeying occasionally. I have done it with my parents, but I need my limits. I need to know when I have the right to say “NO.” And please don’t answer with “as long as it doesn’t contradict Islam.” answer.
I understand sometimes in a marriage you will have to compromise and follow your spouse. However, it seems that only women have to follow the advice.
I believe Islam is perfect, but I can’t see how it could be perfect when Allah grants a man full right to treat a woman like she is a child.
I was reading last month a fatwa by Al Albani (may ALlah have peace on his soul). His fatwa declared women were not allowed to leave the house without dire need. The fatwa never included men. I can see the man jumping from his job to his many after work activities (like visiting friends, shopping, playing sports) while his wife is couped up at home and is only allowed to leave for dire need.
It seems the understanding is women are lesser than men in many aspects. Her femininity and beauty prevent her from achieving equal tasks and to act out her life equally as a man. As a result, women are asked to stay at home, obey the other gender who controls the money and doesn’t cause fitnah when he leaves the house. Women are for their house, while a man may enjoy a life of full freedom. He may go to the beach and swim (of course while lowering his gaze from the hotties on the beach), he may play soccer out in the open with shorts, he may shout around with his friends in public, be seen in public, go about doing his favorite things, be heard in society via his writings, become a scholar, travel around the world, have children, have multiple relationships, all while the wife must remain home, obeying him, even if he is out of town, she must call to seek permission to leave the house.
Allah is just, I don’t see justice in this system. I believe the flaw is from humans, not Allah.
La ilah ila Allah.
Maybe I will have a tough time getting married, only because I don’t want to be part of a patriarchal system where I am transfered from the authority of my father to a husband (which btw my father has given me full freedom since I was a teenager and alhumdulilah I have never misused it, unlike the boys in my family)
I think the process before marriage is important.
If you are someone that will want to work and pursue a career after marriage then obviously you’ll need to state that to a prospective spouse, if they say they do not want their wife to work then khalas if its really important to you then don’t marry him coz it’ll cause problems later one. Don’t be naive and think once I marry him he’ll change his mind.
But if your someone who does not mind not working then Alhamdulillah.
You need to ask questions about things that are important to you obviously.
This is why I think there is a lot of pointless discussion here.
If a man doesn’t want his wife to work then fine thats his preference we all have preferences – I don’t think its down to ego etc. He’ll need to marry a woman who doesn’t mind that. I don’t think all this debate will make him change his mind.
Likewise if you’re someone who wants to work you will want to marry someone who is ok with that.
i totally agree wid organic muslimah.
SK, I was quoting Rasheed. I actually think it is blasphemous to associate obedience to God with obedience to the husband. Yes, we can bring in the argument that we must obey the Prophet but clearly there is a difference between the Prophet and all men. My argument is not that no man should be obeyed. My argument is that husbands should not be given the status of God and that husbands should realise that they are neither God nor the prophet to expect reverence in the shape of obedience. But I’m not going into that argument because its long, winding and never-ending. I’ll have to go into how ayah 4:59 cannot be used to support 4:34 because if a husband decides that he is “given authority” then he’s clearly missed the boat.
I like Umm Maymoonah’s idea that the “process before marriage is important.” We may think that women who sit at home dusting and wiping spit are caged or marginalized but let’s not forget that some of them love that life. We are nobody to decide whether or not they are wasting their lives. However, there are women who truly feel caged and I feel sorry for them because their haughty husbands are too bust playing boss which they can’t do at work, perhaps. My father (may he rest in peace) was an excessively bossy man and now that he is no more my mum can’t even decide if she should bathe at a specific time! She asks for advice (and even expects orders) on every little issue. Minutes ago she asked me if she could drink some cocoa! I’m now looking after three kids because my children seem more independent than my mum.
I always thought that men and women were supposed to be “garments for each other” and here we have men who want to be “obeyed.” This is more serious than we may think. It is a thirst for power and for control over human lives and brains. It is the inner need to marginalize a part of your family.
If men and women are truly garments for each other then what about women; can they order and expect to be obeyed too? What about women who are much older than their husbands; would they like to be ordered? What about women who are more educated and know the world more than their husbands? What about my friend whose husband invariably feels sleepy around dhur on Fridays; should she plead her husband to go for Jumma or can she order him?
Can you please explain to us what the word “qawwâm” means?
Also, if you can, please explain to us the authentic hadîth in which the Prophet, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, stated, «Verily each of your is a shepherd. And each of you will be questioned about his flock. So the imam over the people is a shepherd and he will be questioned about his flock; the man is a shepherd over his the people of his household and he will be questioned about his flock; the woman is a shepherd over the people of her husband’s household and his [children] and she will be questioned about them; the man’s servant is a shepherd over his master’s wealth and he will be questioned about it. Verily, each of you is a shepherd and each of you will be questioned about his flock» (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, no. 6719)?
Or perhaps the hadîth in which Prophet Muhammad states, «Every soul from the children of Adam is a master. So the man is the master of his family and the woman is the master of her home» (Sahîh al-Jâmi’ as-Saghîr, no. 4565)?
Jazâkillah khaira, sister Achelois, for describing me as a “gentleman” on your blog and showing me kindness and respect in doing so.
While I understand that my comments can be infuriating to some (probably most) of the sisters taking part in this discussion, the reaction (at least to me) seems a bit unwarranted given the fact that we all (i.e., mankind) have to obey someone. Allah has stipulated and legislated laws and obligations to maintain order and peace, whether it be for the whole of society or within the family structure. Citizens must obey the goverments of their lands; tribesmen must obey the chiefs of their tribe; servants and slaves must obey their masters; children must obey their parents (and for men, this obligation does not cease after they move out on their own or marry); and of course, we Muslims all have to obey Allah and His messenger.
Why when it comes to a wife’s religious duty of obeying her husband does everyone seems to start getting aggitated and annoyed? Yes, there are men who abuse this right afforded to them by Allah, but they will be held accountable for their actions–just as all of us will be held accountable for our actions. Their abuse of the right does not mean the right is negated. Having this right also does not mean that one can abuse it, or that one can treat his wife like a child, some lowly subordinate, a servant, or even a slave or prisoner. Accountability is one thing that seems to be constantly overlooked; as just mentioned, we will all be held accountable for our actions, for our obligations, for our responsibilities.
Btw, just to be clear, the questions above asking you to explain certain things are because i genuinely want to know how you explain these texts.
In western society, where we do have access to freezers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners etc, housework, unless you’re cooking lavish 3 course meals every night, really shouldn’t take up the bulk of anyone’s time. However, by dismissing housework as a non-activity, we would be dismissing the frankly hard labour that many women do in the third world where housework might involve dehusking grain, fetching water and washing clothes by hand. In Algeria, for example, where extended families under one roof are the norm and in where everyone returns home to eat a cooked meal at lunchtime (which must be fresh and hot and served by one of the women charged with this responsibilty)it would be impossible for her to absent herself from the hous at this time. the same goes for the water supply which only comes every two days and which must be collected in resevoirs. Failure to be at home for the arrival of the water would result in the family not having any drinking water. So even if a woman is doing very little at home (and this is usually not the case) she is there in the capacity of a watchful, waiting caretaker.
Discussion here:
Husband: Blind Obedience/a>
Cross posted at Organic’s blog
I’ve always made it clear that I am not child, I dont generally behave like one, so I wouldnt be expected to be treated like one. I find it incredibly offensive to be infantalised.
But if he behaves like an idiot, then he’ll be treated as one. The issue of “obeying” him in that regard doesnt come into the equation at all. I take “obeying” to mean pleasing one another – but it has to be mutually agreed upon. The “obeying” we all understand (the extreme nature) is more to do with customs than religion. Its common amongst other Indo-Pak religions for women to behave that way towards their husbands (and for the husbands to throw their weight about as a result)
If theres something you dont like him doing (AND it upsets you -thats important, since sometimes you can dislike/disapprove of something someone does but theres no “bad” feelings towards it) then he’d have to give it up. Same goes for the wife. But if this includes either party having to forsake their own happiness out of force just to keep the other peachy keen then that isnt conducive and soon over time cracks appear in the r’ship.
I think its important to deduce this and his attitude in general prior to marriage
I think the issue is with the term “obey”. It infers a relationship whereby the husband is considered superior and “master” and the woman is akin basically to a lowly servant. It doesnt describe a r’ship whereby the wife is seen to be an equal and is entirely independent of being “disciplined” and “mastered”
We can’t compare “obey” in this context to the “obeying” we are to do towards our parents or we do in regards to the Prophet (saw) and Allah (swt) since those relationships are different; they constitute different levels and superiority. Parents are “above” and therefore “superior” to their children, Allah (swt) is the Creator and so theres no question about that and the Prophet (saw) is His messenger. Obeying them is within these contexts.
The husband is the partner of the wife, he is not above her, nor is she below him. He may be the “maintainer” but if the status of maintainer is associated with the one who provides financially security then what happens in a r’ship where the wife earns more than the husband and her earning contributes substantially towards the running of the home? Who’s maintaining who in this example? So therefore who is the “maintainer”? What makes someone a “maintainer”? The one who provides financial security? Strength (physical)? Intellect? Or is it purely based on gender?
What I don’t get is why people are quoting hadiths and surahs. Surely it’s a matter of common sense. I would hate to be the husband who tells his wife “Hey, you MUST obey me … um… coz the Quran says so! That’s right.”
What makes you think if things go to that point she’s gonna do it just because of QURAN says so?
I would want her to do things for me out of her own love for me, not out of just a sense of duty. And surely, marriage is a two-way street?
Haleem, I love how you are all traditional with a twist 😀
Basically, all I wanted to say Sumera has said on Organic’s blog and much more eloquently. Bravo! Those are my sentiments, exactly.
Yes Haleem, things should be done for one another out of love and mutual agreement, but you also get those on the other boat who believe she should obey him regardless of what she thinks.
People quote things to suit their own arguments, but really it all comes down to likes and dislikes.
That sounds really blasphemous, but I think in terms of how people actually live their lives it’s true.
Befroe anything other emotion in a marriage, there has to be respect. If the husband and wife respect each other, there shouldn’t any problems.
Also, whoever said getting this issue sorted pre-marriage was vital is absolutely right.
In my own case, i made it clear that I was both mouthy and opinionated. So any big decision we make, is discussed between us and no one has the monopoly on being in the right. We’re a team alhamdulilah with different strengths and weaknesses.
Thank goodness I read this and I am still single. I will make sure I sort these things out before marriage, God willing.
I think at the end of the day the whole things comes down to interpretations. If the husband is indeed like the Prophet (Pbuh) and woman would have no problem being an Aishah or Khadeeja to him. The problem is, is there any man quite like the Prophet(pbuh)? And you know you couldn’t achieve that highet, so why, so unjustly, do you expect women to be like a certain way when men (yes all men) have not reached the level of height yourselves.
I thought (and was taught) that men are indeed the protectors of women: they would protect their rights, dignitiy, honor. However, this very word led men to violate women’s right at EVERY single level. Men are SO careful about their ‘rights’ yet completely neglect their ‘resposnsibilities’.
women outthere, just make sure your men have GOOD understanding of the Islamic texts. Shaykh hamza once said “Islam is based on naql (texts) and ‘aql (the way u understand the texts). Some people just have the texts – we call them naql-heads. ”
Just remember that. just because you have read the texts does NOT mean you have UNDERSTOOD! Not everyone can handle a highly technical paper though can read it. Similarly not everyone will have clear understanding. May Allah help us ALL to understand!
///I would want her to do things for me out of her own love for me, not out of just a sense of duty. And surely, marriage is a two-way street?\\\
Wouldn’t you prefer that she obeys you out of love for Allaah? Surely, if any reason should be behind it, it should be this.
Women from a number of backgrounds are “recommended” to obey their husbands.
In Christianity
in Judaism
in Hinduism
So a general understanding of gender roles would lead to the argument that women are “told to obey men” because this “trait” is in her nature, if not innate.
Again, this is under the assumption that the man, who is the “leader” of the home and marriage is the one who is more knowledgeable, more acquainted with the world and how it works than the wife and so is able to “command” as a result of this. It is not necessary that r’ships need to include any one person who is “leader” and the other a “follower” and that this enactment remains static for all issues and circumstances that arise in a marriage. Relationships dont work like that.
Sumera, your last comment is really interesting. Now because you and I write on religion it is almost natural that our readers bring in religion when they discuss anything on our blogs. However, I can see this whole argument without bringing in religion and I would really like to see how people discuss gender roles and issues without saying that we must obey men just because Allah says so and because we love Him. I mean the argument can go both ways, shouldn’t a man not command his way around the house (which is also not his domain, btw, if he is the “maintainer”) just for the love of Allah?! What about people without religion? What do they do? Does an atheist man have the right to tell his wife she can’t work and must stay at home? Just wondering…
I would think that our being Muslim (I’m assuming the large majority of those who have taken part in this particular discussion are Muslims, if not all) would make it pretty much impossible to not bring religion into it, as our religion is a complete way of life that covers every aspect of it. Everything we do should be done in accordance with our beliefs and our religion’s laws.
As for other religions and their followers, what they do and what they believe shouldn’t be of any consequence to us, as they’re not Muslims. «The religion with Allah is Islam» (3:19) «and whoever seeks other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him and in the Afterlife he will be from the losers» (3:85).
I often look at history to understand Islam. A lot of times you can see Allah’s will practiced way before the revelation of the Quran. Simply because many Prophets came before Saydna Muhammed (pbuh). These prophets taught people to worship Allah (swt) and to follow the way of life He wills for us.
Now, if all three major religions have the same concept Muslim scholars are pushing on women, this makes me think.
a) There must be a true Godly message about gender roles, and just maybe the truth is that women should obey their husband (this doesn’t reflect what I believe, I am only thinking out loud)
b) All four concepts (Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism) around gender roles were influenced by culture.
I don’t know 😦
As a Muslim, I would also like to see what my faith says about this whole obedience thing. It’s important.
Ironically, I’ve found the non-practicing non-religious men treat their wives better and with complete freedom and respect? Maybe because he doesn’t feel like he owns her? Maybe because he doesn’t feel like he has that Godly right to command and receive blind obedience?
So far my only solution is to read the Seerah (biography of the Prophet), the stories of the companions (both genders), and study how society functioned in the pre-Islamic era and after. I think I will get all my answers.
Now people, recommend me books 🙂 I read both Arab and English fluently, although I would prefer English over Arabic anyday.
OM, I look at it the other way. Islam came as a reformation of society and would reform/do away with practices which were not socially helpful so why would it support Hindu practice, for example. While I agree that Islam is very similar to Judaism and Christianity so much as to be called its off-shoot, Hinduism is paganism so wouldn;t Muslim men be told/taught that all/everything is from Allah and they don’t own anyone/anything? Just thinking aloud myself.
I agree with you. I think Islam came to reform certain thing and also reinforce things that were already there. When I look at a few Christian or Judaic practices, I can see Allah’s words all over it.
Thanks for filling in that gap.
The same command exists for other religions, including Sikhism and a few others which I didnt get round to searching!
The notion of “obeying” someone falls hand in hand with elements of control. It implies that you really have no control over yourself, but that someone else dictates how you should be – and ultimately decides your fate = you obey and adhere, you go to heaven, you disobey you are eternally damned. I cant understand mere man having that role and why your fate is decided because of him. Theres numerous references to women being granted entry into heaven if their husband are pleased with them. He is their gateway which reeks of the thing people belittle the Christain set up with priests and popes.
And of course we love to say “Islam states women are not the property of men” and its true. But practise is far removed and that is exactly how women are treated.
as-Salaamu `alaykum
Sister Sumera, these are mentioned in our Qur’aan and Sunnah. It’s one thing to have a problem with those who transgress the set limits (which mny do) and another to have a problem with the concepts that as Muslims we shouldn’t have a problem with. Submission, obedience etc. are very simple for the mind, but going into the fine details of things like this is bound to cause harm to the heart of the believer.
WalaykumAsalaam Umm Layth: As a Muslim I dont have an issue with concepts of submission, obedience and obligations to name a few. But I do have a problem with how these concepts are understood (especially submission and obedience) and applied to the r’ship with what is meant to be your spouse. And with having the husband be a gateway to entry into heaven. What happens in the r’ship, and how we treat each other obviously matters, but “submitting” oneself to their husbands in the manner that one submits to Allah is blasphemous. Commitment, yes. Love, yes. Mutual appreciation and honour, yes. But “obey” his “commands” in the manner that we are told to obey Allah (swt) is not a concept, its an ideology. An ideology that holds the husband to be a demi-god.
Trangressing set limits is not that easy to figure out, since these “set limits” are not “set” and all we have is the example of the Prophet (saw) which still seems to be out of the grasp of some people’s ability to behold.
Some husbands think them telling their wife she cant read that book, or wear that colour, or stay up til late etc is within his right to do and he is being “kind” to her; but even if he knows she doesnt like it, he can present her with “I am your maintainer and know better for you” and then you dont have a husband/wife r’ship, you have a husband/child r’ship.
Blind obedience we cannot do, nor would I recommend it. The same goes for blind faith.
Very good points Sumera. Particularly about the idea that is pervasive that we need to submit to men in the manner one should submit to God – it is never said as that obviously but effectively that is what it ends up being.
i like this sentence: “An ideology that holds the husband to be a demi-god.”
absolutely that is what we need to get away from.
I read your comment in the morning, Sumera and got so excited but I was in class after that and forgot to say it to you here. I loved what you have to say.
I can understand that obedience is the basis of any religion but I don’t understand why people don’t understand the difference between obedience to God and obedience to people. Within that itself there are many categories. I have been an obedient daughter; the most obedient one actually. As a Muslim I automatically submit to God. But when I entered into a “marital contract” I became a “partner.” I obviously don’t share a blood bond with my husband; ours is a relationship which is a legal/religious one and because there exists a marriage contract that binds us I can’t accept him as anything but a partner. And a partner is always equal and never more equal!
No one said that the wife is to obey her husband in the manner that we are told to obey Allah. It’s been explicitly mentioned numerous times that her obedience to her husband is conditional, whereas our obedience to Allah is unconditional. No one is saying that you should raise your husband to the status of a “demi-god” or anything like that. Having to obey someone does not mean you are then worshipping him/her. Saying that one necessitates the other is a bit of a stretch.
An over-controlling husband can place great strain on a marriage, often without his ever realising it. This is because his tendency to command rather than listen to his wife’s opinions could lead to her not conveying her true feelings to her husband lest he discovers a hidden desire which he could then trample on with a…”don’t you EVER consider asking me whether you can go to xyz place or do xyz thing or visit xyz person!”
The woman married to such a man and who doesn’t buy into the idea of blind obedience might decide that her husband doesn’t think properly and that for the sake of her own mental health she is jolly well going to do xyz. However, the costant commandeering at home mean that she’s to frightened to make mention of her desire to her husband so she is instead forced to lie or withhold truth about something really quite benign, when she’s questioned by her husband as to where she’s been or to whom she’s been talking. And the stress of trying to keep secret all details of something that you plan to do at a future point in time lest he finds out and issues THE COMMAND against it leads to resentment,loss of love and feelings of being trapped and worried that your husband will see you as deceitful person in all respects even though you were only trying to develop your personality whilst still keeping within Allah’s limits.
Sonia: Yep, husbands are indeed treated as demi-gods. Its quite apparent in the Indian subcontinent – most women fear to put a foot wrong incase she is then damned to Hell.
Achelois: In a marriage you are equals and that indeed is how it should be seen.
Rasheed: Obedience to the husband is conditional as long as he asks her to do that which falls under “permissible”. But why would he need to “command” her to do anything? And then add on “you have to obey me”? What if it is permissible but she doesnt want to do it – she can’t refuse because then she’d be seen as disobedient. Or if he simply has a distate for whatever she wants or likes and therefore “bans” her from it. How is that a marriage? Is he her husband or her babysitter?
And if this isn’t enough, they then present the following hadith:
(Taken from here)
What do people prostrate for? You prostrate towards something that is greater than you and is deserving of your devotion. Is this a novel way of the wife showing “appreciation” or “respecting” his position in the marriage?
I can’t see how behaving like this is conducive to a relationship. He is human and is capable of making mistakes. No marriage can work whereby one orders and the other obeys without question. Being responsible for someone does not imply one is then in “control” of the other.
And if responsibility is for clothing, shelter and food then that is clearly stated as being her right. Her “obeying” him isn’t an obligation on her, thats clearly stated. Obedience in a woman is a desirable quality, but that is obedience to Allah (swt), not to mere man and there is no “sin” on her if she doesn’t listen to him. Frequent and consistent rebelling, for no real reason, is detrimental to any relationship. Which is where compromise comes into. She may adhere to something out of love for him, he may do the same for her. It needs to be a natural inclination which develops over time but which does not mean it then becomes static.
If he grants her the shelter, food, clothing right I was speaking of above, but gives the impression he’s doing her a favour by providing her with these then one can only imagine what kind of feelings that would generate in her. And the same goes for her – if she listens to him and does things for him but makes it appear like she’s doing him a favour. Its tit for tat – whereby he does one thing for her, and she does something in return, almost as if you are keeping a marksheet. It shouldnt have to feel like that, but sadly these days this is what marriage has been reduced to – ticking off what rights and obligations are being fulfilled and how to squeeze more out of the other.
Justagal: I agree with you. It can definitely lead to resentment and its not exactly how a r’ship should be.
Was following the whole discussion with interest.
There is this authentic hadith.
The best of you is he who is best towards his wife.
Although I do believe as head of the household men do deserve some deference (open: can of worms), honestly, do you think you will be ‘best’ towards your wife if you are always commandeering, overbearing, inconsiderate or fatwa-brandishing?
As an aside, this is also another reason why I think Islam is unfair towards men. How can we be “best” towards our wife, when we know there’s no pleasing a woman? 😉
I guess it’s only natural, but I still find it amusing how when this topic of obedience to the husband is discussed, most (if not everyone) automatically assumes that a husband commanding his wife to do certain tasks entails that he act in the ways brother Mezba has mentioned in the quote above.
There are ways of telling one’s wife to do things you want her to do without sounding or coming across as some slave’s master or a commanding officer.
As for marriage in general, I think it would be interesting to discuss the objective behind marriage and its purpose in Islam. I’m sure that’ll be quite an eye-opener to all the romantics out there ;).
Subhanallah, so the last comment I read was Rasheed’s and hey… I get to the bottom and find that what I wanted to say was already said! He said:
I guess it’s only natural, but I still find it amusing how when this topic of obedience to the husband is discussed, most (if not everyone) automatically assumes that a husband commanding his wife to do certain tasks entails that he act in the ways brother Mezba has mentioned in the quote above.
There are ways of telling one’s wife to do things you want her to do without sounding or coming across as some slave’s master or a commanding officer.
I told my fiance when we first started talking that I really resented it when people tried to order me around–anyone. Reading along here I think that’s the natural tendency I guess, that people don’t like being told into what to do, a kind of master/slave relationship. I find it an affront to my personal dignity really to take orders.
But at the same time, I want a happy marriage and I told him that I want to do the things he wants me to do, that I want to be so close and understand him so well that I don’t even have to be asked to do things, that I could almost read his mind, as it were. And he accepts that.
When I get “orders” and “commands” I take them, invariably, as insults. So if my husband were ordering me around, I would be constantly insulted and no, I wouldn’t take it. I’d rather think that we are working together to please Allah swt, and without one person preventing the other from doing so.
And back to the original post anyway–I’d go nuts staying inside all day… on the random vacation days where I will stay home all day, or if I’m sick, I just go nuts, sick of looking at the walls even. I don’t do much but sit there, eat junk, watch TV. I cannot be productive there in my home. I can’t even study there, I have to leave just to study. If my husband didn’t let me work I’d be hurt, really, because I’d feel like I couldn’t be useful or productive, and for me I need to feel useful.
On the other hand, the kind of man that bothers me much more than one who won’t let his wife work, is the one who insists that his wife work to support the home. Money, and greed… that makes me want to spit.
Amy, I also find it difficult to remain at home all day and often feel better after a brisk walk, even if short.I’ve really welcomed my daughter’s entry into primary school because it’s given my day structure that I so craved beforehand. I’ve also noticed that whilst I have always enjoyed being outdoors, my urge to leave the home have become stronger which I think has to do with the fact that I know that that right could be curtailed at any moment.
Rasheed, it’s not so much the wasy in which a command can be made,(of course, it can be done pleasantly enough)it’s the fact that the potential for a dominant husband/submissive wife relationship exists which is the problem because of its negative effect on society’s perception of women. Also, I don’t know how relevant being obedient as opposed to respectful is in a society such as we have now in the West where people marry for companionship as opposed to economic reasons.
When I was doing my first Masters I had to work because that meant data collection for dissertation. I was pregnant at that time and once I had the baby I wanted help with baby-sitting so my husband took time off for a year. For a year I supported the family, paid bills, bought groceries, worked full-time, paid my programme fee and my husband’s as well because he decided he too could stay home and study. I was the “maintainer” and if we were to see “maintainer” as a guardian then I was the guardian because at that point God favoured me and I was spending my “wealth.” With a couple of degrees, lucrative career choice and a long work history I often make more money than my husband (although at the moment he earns more than me because we are on his visa!) and the money I make goes towards running the household. Do I have the God-given right then to demand obedience? If I come home and the house is dirty can I command that it be cleaned? Close your eyes and imagine a woman commanding her husband if she is the “head of the household”. It is unimaginable that even if the woman is the “maintainer” she can ever boss around the house. The reason is we are trapped in the labyrinth of gender roles and male egoism and clearly we are using religions to support our “ideologies” (like Sumera points out so superbly).
Rawi left an interesting comment
on my blog; something I didn’t know.
I read Rawi’s comment – that then opens up another pandora’s box. If obedience is for Allah (swt) alone, then why are we told to be “obedient” to humans? Where does that idea come from? The examples they often use is that the man is the leader and if leaders aren’t obeyed the team is let down etc but leaders often dont ask for obedience – they ask for consultation, opinions and then make a decision based around that. Obedience hungry leaders are usually on “power trips” and more often than not other people can’t stand them and definitely dont respect them.
The following contains reference to the obedience issue and states that secondary to obedience to Allah, woman’s social duty is towards her husband
Mind you, he doesnt really respond to the whole query of obedience of the wife to the husband – but simply goes on to mention that he also has to be obedient towards his mother – in the “context” of the argument (which was the position of women in Islam) he uses the mother card to demonstrate that women per se are not “inferior”. Which doesnt really answer the query we’ve got going on here! But the rest of it can be read here
I have trouble with ahadith, like you may already have guessed Sumera. And the article Sabrina sent us is what I have felt for a long time. Now when I say I have trouble with ahadith I don’t mean I have trouble with the Prophet or his teachings but there are many ahadith that don’t sit well with me and I can’t believe that the last prophet of God could say that.
Some of such ahadith are the ones that claim that the Prophet said a woman should suck the pus oozing out of her husband’s nose; if sijda was allowed a woman would be asked to bow down to her husband; a woman will not enter paradise if she annoys her husband; angels will curse her all night if she refuses sex – particularly I don’t accept the hadith in which the prophet is claimed to have said that he loved women and perfume from this world. Such ahadith do much damage to religion and the ideologies of religious people.
I don’t mean to offend anyone here; it is just that I can’t believe that a prophet would be sexist because he wasn’t.
I agree with you Achelois, thats why if I come across a hadith that seems “weird” I take it with a pinch of salt- even if it is “sahih” and in Bukhari!
Accepting authentic (sahîh) hadîths is from the creed of the People of the Sunnah. As Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash’arî mentioned in his Maqâlât al-Islamiyyîn,
That is, if the report is found to be authentic from the Prophet (i.e, its chain of transmission and its text are sound and uncontradictory), they accept it and believe in it.
I came across the following hadith a while ago:
what is one to make of that hadith considering its found in Muslim and is “sahih”? I thought Islam dispelled the notion of Original Sin and doesnt hold Hawwa to be the cause of her and Adam(as)’s dejection from Heaven – so to say she’s the cause of women’s “unfaithfulness” is meaning what?
Some of the hadith found in Muslim and Bukhari regardless of their “soundness” are bizarre and seemingly opposite to the spirit of Islam
The quote you provided is only a fragment of the hadîth. I’d have to find the whole text to find the context of it and what the hadîth is actually talking about.
Here’s the whole thing:
Blame the disposition of women and view them all as “unfaithful” because of the Original Sin.
And man must be a henpecked husband because of what- not taking the lead and making his own decision? After all thats what Adam did, he listened to Eve and then they both had a swift exit from Heaven.
Firstly, jazâkillah khairan for quoting the hadîth along with a reference I could use to find out where the hadîth is in the original Arabic (the numbering found on the USC database differs from the standard numbering used in most books).
Secondly, the concept of the Original Sin is that all of mankind are born sinners because of the sin Hawwâ’ (Eve) committed (it does not place blame on Âdam). This Christian concept dictates that we are all held accountable for the sin our mother Hawwâ’ committed. This is contrary to Islamic belief which states that each and every person from mankind is accountable for his/her own actions. Islamic belief is also that both Âdam and Hawwâ’ chose to eat from the tree and thus, both were to blame for doing so. We also believe that both were forgiven for what they did and that the rest of mankind is not going to be held accountable for it (i.e., we are born without sin).
This Christian concept is quite different from what is mentioned in the hadîth (which is also found in Sahîh al-Bukhârî). It does not say that women are blamed or held accountable for Hawwâ’s disloyalty, it merely mentions that «if it were not for Hawwâ’, a female would not be disloyal to her husband» i.e., Hawwâ’ introduced disloyalty to the husband. This is similar to Qâbîl’s introducing the crime of murder to mankind; it can be argued that if he had not killed his brother, murder would not exist. Likewise, Iblîs was the first to disobey Allah and display arrogance.
In Fat·h al-Bârî Imam Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalânî mentions that
Thanks for the excerpt explaining the hadith.
But it still clashes since as you say sin was on both Eve and Adam since they both ate from the tree – but we mankind are not born sinners.
So to THEN state she introduced him to disloyalty by saying to Adam “ah look, lovely tree and fruit! lets eat” and making it look good is “disloyalty”? Adam could’ve refrained from eating it – but the fact that he agreed and also found it appealing because Eve did would make HIM an equal in being disloyal too, since he was also in agreement with her and was equally “taken by what Iblis made beautiful”
So if we are born without sin, as Adam and Eve were forgiven for their “sin” – then to blame “disloyalty” (and say its a trait inherit in women) for something that was an illusion (the beautification of the tree)and by no way her “fault” is also wrong.
Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The example of Qabil would lead some to conclude that man is capable of killing another man – and therefore the trait of “bloodless murder” itself is “inherit” in man. But instead if one reads into the story of Qabil properly it would be better and more apt to conclude that it is not “murder” and the potential to commit crime that is inherit in man but that it is the potential volatility and extent of anger and its mismanagement that plays a role in exhibiting behaviours and engaging in actions that are “extreme”, “detrimental” and “sinful”- and it is THAT potential which is inherit in man.
If you have any further info on the hadith, such as commentary on it etc please do share! Its intriguing. JazakAllahu Khayr.
How does it clash when the hadîth says nothing, nor does it imply, that accountability for their sin transfers to us (which is what the concept of the Original Sin does–accountability for Hawwâ’s sin transfers onto the whole of mankind)?
She introduced being disloyal to mankind, not merely to Âdam, may Allah send peace and blessings upon him. If Âdam’s eating from the tree is disloyalty, it would be disloyalty to Allah, not to Hawwâ’; he did not tempt her to eat from the tree. Iblîs, may Allah curse him, did. Âdam was tempted by Hawwâ’, not Iblîs. Iblîs got to Âdam through Hawwâ’.
Again, how so, when the hadîth does not say that all women will fall into being disloyal. As Imam Ibn Hajar mentioned, they are not safe from it, but that does not necessitate that all women will fall into it. It also does not necessitate that they are born with her sin. It is a negative trait. Humans are all born with negative traits. «All the children of Âdam err [often] and the best of those who err [often] are those who repent [often].» In this hadîth, Prophet Muhammad used the word khattâ’ which is the large form of the word khâti’ (one who errs) and it emphasizes the fact that humans constantly make mistakes. This does not necessitate that we are born with sin, as sin is only earned once the mistake/sin is committed.
You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making. Once someone introduces an action, others then come to know of it. It follows that if an action is never introduced, no one would come to know of it. Hence, «If it were not for Hawwâ’, a female would not be disloyal to her husband;» because of Qâbîl, people have come to know of unjust killing (murder) and Allah legislated that «whoever killed a soul without a soul (i.e., legal retribution/qisâs) or [in causing] corruption in the land, then it is as if he killed all of mankind … .» And similarly, the people of Lūt were the first to ever commit that heinous and disgusting sin. Had they never committed it, people would never have come to know of it.
Imam an-Nawawî doesn’t go into as much detail as Imam Ibn Hajar does, but here’s what he said:
Ibn Hajar has a bit more on the hadîth in Fat·h al-Bârî, but it wasn’t relevant to the part of the hadîth we’re interested in so I didn’t mention it.
If Hawwa ate the fruit and introduced it to Adam, then would her “disloyalty” not be to Allah rather than Adam? After all is/was she not accoutable to Allah and not her spouse?
My issue is this – if we dont take on the sin of Hawwa/Adam then why are women “assigned” to possess this trait of disloyalty/unfaithfulness? Does disloyalty not occur in man also? Do men not be unfaithful? If Hawwa introduced “disloyalty” to mankind, then Iblis introduced temptation, disobedience, defiance and arrogance, Qabil introduced murder.
But where does disloyalty come into this? Surely the events in the Garden would’ve been temptation? Whats so disloyal about introducing someone to something that you think is “beautiful”? If Hawwa knew what the tree was, if she had THEN introduced it to Adam – then yes that would be on purpose and then you would see the point being made.
It makes absolutely no sense, to say that WOMEN possess the trait of unfaithfulness in them (which common sense and life experiences would demonstrate to most people occurs regardless of gender; unfaithfulness is not innate, it is a acquired and learned behaviour).
No-one says “because of Qabil men are murderers” or “because of Adam men are weak and succumb to their wives weaknesses” or “because of Iblis men are arrogant, disobedient and defiant” so to slap on “if it wasnt due to Eve, women would not be unfaithful towards their husband” is below the belt.
That is what I said above, isn’t it?
They were both told by Allah to stay away from the tree. This is mentioned in the Qur’an in two places where Allah says, «O Âdam, live, you and your mate, in Paradise and eat pleasantly from it wherever you wish. And do not come close to this tree, for you will be from the oppressors» (2:35) and (7:19).
The point I was trying to address by stating the traits of arrogance, defiance etc is that they are generally applicable to mankind and are often spoken of in that context. However “unfaithfulness”/”disloyatly” – or “deception”/”betrayal” as some refer to it- is ascribed to women only.
The Quranic verses actually point to Adam being tempted and Shaytaan prompting him, not Hawwa
These verses imply the trespass was done by Adam and then Hawwa followed suit. Anyway even if Hawwa did entice Adam then her trespass and “disloyalty” or “unfaithfulness” would be her own mistake and this trait would not be trickled down to her “daughters”.
To say that disloyalty and unfaithfulness had to come about for people to be made aware of it is a different argument and I understand that point – but this point is not being made in that same respect; it is not saying these traits are available in all of mankind.
It is assiging a trait, character or even inclination of deception,betrayal,unfaithfulness and disloyalty to one gender only, which the hadith clearly is stating, and it is THAT which makes the hadith – regardless of its stamp of authenticity – questionable.
That’s quite an inference considering the hadîth says nothing about it being a trait specific to women only. It merely says if it weren’t for Hawwâ’, a female would not be disloyal to her husband. That’s differs quite a bit from saying that men cannot be disloyal or that this trait is only found in women.
Not necessarily. Some of the verses that tell the story mention that Iblîs tempted both of them and that they both ate from the tree. The verses you quoted show that Iblîs addressed Âdam directly. It does not say who ate first, or who tempted who. All of the verses and authentic narrations that tell us of this event should be looked at and understood in light of each other in order to understand what happened. In Qasas al-Anbiyâ’, Imam Ibn Kathîr states,
Oops. The quote from Ibn Kathîr ends at “… is understood.”
The explanations, including those by ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar dont answer the query – they tend to give the much fashionable circular answer.
The hadith states “were it not for Eve, women would not be unfaithful to their husbands”
It doesnt mention anything about man being unfaithful or disloyal – and because of Eve, their mother, that is why man is unfaithful or disloyal – however nor does it not state he isn’t capable of being unloyal or unfaithful.
That is the vague aspect of this and many other hadiths, it doesnt clearly state (as much as we make this “inference” by reading into the hadith and try to gain a deeper understanding – on the face of it it appears and is understood as I have mentioned to you) this “negative” trait to exist in man – nor does it hint at its double barrelled applicability for both genders – that the unloyalty and unfaithfulness that husbands may exhibit towards their wives.
It explicitly states the trait in the context of a relationship – and the events of the Garden provide the background. Hawwa, the wife of Adam enticed him to eat from the fruit – she therefore effectively introduced these “traits” to the world, to mankind as a whole and to him and that is why a woman is unfaithful to her husband.
Making aware and knowing that humans can possess these qualities and traits (arrogance, defiance, disobedience, disloyalty etc) as a result of events is one thing; but passing on “traits” and making them appear to be gender specific without emphasising that these “traits” are dormant in most people and it is life experiences and events that “activate” them is a dangerous board to tred.
I know what the hadith is referring to and was aware of it when I first came across it (intro of the trait of unfaithfulness to mankind due to events of the Garden) and most of these hadith’s speak of the relationship of marriage in the context of the behaviour and actions of the wife towards the husband. Most people note the audience to which the Prophet (saw) was addressing (usually men) and the context and from that we understand the style of speech, why concepts were presented as they were, the way concepts are explained so the target audience could comprehend the point being made and the pattern by which other similar hadith follow suit.
This is just one of the hadith that on the face of it is seen negatively (as I have demonstrated to you in my previous points)- theres numerous others that speak of women being “the devil” and all sorts. And these are sahih. Having these kind of hadith, regardless of their “sahihness” drifting about available to anyone who wishes to use it and apply its concepts negatively is far too common an occurrence and simply adds to the improper treatment towards women by some men.
JazakAllahu Khayr Rasheed for your input. Its been interesting!
JazakAllahu Khayr Rasheed for your defending shariah.
I find it terribly amusing how questioning of roles or anything that is took to be “Islamic” is seen as being a “heretic” or indulging in “blasphemy”
The Shariah didnt need “defending” in this instance since we werent talking about laws, but of gender roles. By Shariah guidelines gender roles arent “policed” – women are recognised to be able to engage in various roles – but whether they are “permitted” to do that is a different case altogether.
Rasheed, your logic sounds to me like the same logic that Christians use to reconcile the Holy Trinity with monotheism. You know – an explanation that isn’t an explanation. Just an equating of one thing with another.
She “introduced” being disloyal to mankind!
What are the implications of this “introduction” – have you thought? That no such thing as the possibility of being disloyal ever existed before? Well seeing as they are supposed to be the first people, then i guess they must be therefore responsible – for ‘introducing’ all manner of behaviour to ‘mankind’.
So tell us, which man can we credit with ‘introducing’ leering – to mankind? Is there not a similar Hadith?
some of my thoughts on the implications of your argument:
What about ‘eating’ – did they introduce eating too?
And reproduction – they must have introduced sex too – no? if they were the first people to ‘do it’.
What did they introduce and what was decided by the mechanism of being human? i.e. at what point do we drag in the biological determinism arguments – Nature -and then – of course God. ?
No, the hadîth does not imply that at all. All it states is that if it weren’t for our mother Hawwâ’, women would not be disloyal to their husbands. It speaks nothing of the possibility, but given the fact that she was the first woman ever, I guess there wasn’t any possibility for another human woman to do so.
I think it’s safe to say that they’re responsible for a lot of the behavior human’s exibit, but not all as there are numerous acts that weren’t introduced until a great deal of time after Âdam (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) and Hawwâ’ (may Allah be pleased with her) had long passed away; one example of such are the People of Lūt (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) who introduced homosexuality to mankind, and Allah’s refuge is sought from such filth.
I have no clue who can be credited with that. If you know of a hadîth that mentions it, quote it and I can try to find its reference and its grading.
These acts are not “voluntary acts” in the sense that these acts you mention are essential for the survival and continuance of mankind. Not anywhere remotely close to being like disloyalty or homosexuality.
Salaams all
A very interesting debate, one that will go on for centuries unless we re educate our mulsim men or better still get rid of them. sorry no offense but bros you are just following in the steps of tyrannical muslim men who have misused the term obedience AKA suffocation! If marriage is really about traniquility and mercy then obeying your husband with regards to housework and how you eat, breathe, sleep, dress etc is simply death! Just dont bother getting married, its no wonder why muslim men state they are happily married, i’m sure you are with such a wonderful doormat at your disposal! Whoa! poor wives, dont know how they do it, everything in a marriage should be mutually discussed even intimacy, behaving like animals and militants is no way merciful beahviour. Obedience is about giving your wife an easy time, making her obedience to Allah swt easy, not giving her realistic things to do, if she isnt accustomed to domestic chores, you should do it or hire a maid, i think its ibn Taymiyah who states that the chores relate to what the wife can do REALISTICALLY, so a rural woman is used to certain tasks and so on. Back to the physically stronger argument, if men are given more physical strength then surely it makes sense that they should do more of the housework, i mean the hoover is exhausting work!
And what happened to treating your wives well? thats a command from Allah swt, amazing how there arent books stressing on this topic! slavery was abolished in Islam way before it was in the western world, so come on bros show the world what Islam really is about and break the notions that muslim men dont treat their women well, because really its true, its got nothing to do with Islam but with evil male desire to torment and silence women.
I’ve personally witnessed non muslim men treat there wives better, men who have no inspiration from the best guide in the world, Al Quraan, yet they are so loving and kind, subhanAllah, makes me feel so teary sometimes, i could never marry a disbeliever but when it comes to persoanlity they are better than some of our bros, on the other hand you hear so many stories of marital abuse, domestic violence, unfair divorce, and so on.
I’m still waiting to read… the merciful husband, how to treat you wife well and how to earn jannah through being good to your wife… any offers peeps? Hope i get to read them in my lifetime!
We need to empower ourselves via Quran and Sunnah, no femo agendas but Allah swt’s laws, i think we need the male scholars to give us women folk a chance to educate ourselves to scholarly level, how many female scholars are there today? Well if we were allowed to break the chains from the kitchen sink, i’m sure we could all achieve this noble status, its high time we were given a chance to use our intelligence and study the deen hard. MEN, stop using us for your own needs, let us serve our LORD and feel the spiritual worth by actually gaining ‘ilm, living Islam, writing books and helping the ummah. STOP misquoting the ayats to serve your own purpose!
Sisters- get writing!
Salaams
Sorry i meant UNREALISTIC commands, please forgive the typo errors!
and i meant you hear about muslims abusing their wives etc.
Worlds Apart…Spot on mashallah.
Worldsapart: WalaykumAsalaam. Thanks for your comment! Yep, this discussion was quite interesting and from it we concluded that obedience per se is a desirable trait in a spouse, but that doesnt necessarily mean obedience to each other for a marriage is not based on “rule and conquer”.
And ive noticed the same about some non-Muslim men, and how they treat their wives/partners and wonder whats wrong with the Muslim men. But theres good and bad sorts in any group. Hopefully we come across the good sort, the bad can rot or go sort themselves out! 🙂
Teacher12: She made good points ~thumbs up~
pretty late to the debate but i’ve got to add this: i don’t think the problem is with the men as much as it is with women. my husband is a muslim (well, he doesn’t exactly practice the faith much but believes in Allah & his Prophet. i guess that’s what counts, right?). and i think depending on the kinda girl he ended up with, he could have really gone either way. sure, someone like rasheed wouldn’t come near me with a 10 foot pole but there ARE men on the fence about the whole dominance/’i’m the head of the household’ thing and women push them into the dark side by listening to all their demands until it get too late and the first ‘no’ is seen as disobedience.
and i agree, this isn’t much of an issue in non-muslim men but i think that’s because of a combination of upbringing, culture and the women themselves (as opposed to religion). still, there are plenty of non-muslim men who intentionally seek asian wives because the western women are too independent and strong-willed for them to handle.
in fact, i am sure that most of the western men would have been more than happy with obedient women who just gave them food and sex but it never was a choice. our muslim men happen to have a choice. there’s us lot, the ‘i ain’t gonna take no shit’ side and then there’s the ‘let me take your shoes and socks off and massage your feet’ as soon as he gets home side. and some in between (obviously). and if the doormats started to stand up to the men who get these odd ideas in their head (like they deserve to be obeyed!! that one REALLY makes me laugh) and said ‘go iron your own damn shirt’ occasionally, the world would be a much better place.
also, rasheed, no offense but i seriously, seriously pity your wife. i hope i run into her someday and can give her a few tips!
I find it incredibly hilarious how you can make these types of judgements about me from the little I’ve posted here about my private life and the relationship I have with my wife. Why is it that everytime the issue of a wife’s obedience to her husband comes up, many of you automatically assume that the husband wants to completely dominate and suffocate his wife, having her completely submissive to his every whim and desire. I demand from my wife what Allah and His messenger have demanded of wives. That does not mean that I exclude her from important family decisions or that I don’t ask her for her input and opinion regarding various issues.
No offense taken. I wouldn’t mind you meeting my wife one day, she’d probably be able to teach you a bit about what Allah and Prophet Muhammad have commanded us. Honestly, you can pity her all you want. I’m sure she’s very happy with the role she’s playing. I’m also sure that if she read your comment here that she’d pity your husband as much as I do.
May Allah guide us to what pleases Him.
I think its unfair to comment on Rasheeds marriage and to “pity” his wife. Its inappropriate since we only see Rasheeds opinion on this issue, we dont know what his marriage is like and we dont know about his wife’s opinion on this matter. Therefore to make negative comments on something as personal as someones marriage or significant other is uncalled for and improper.
sumera, it was probably improper to say that and i realize this is your place and respect that. so i’m sorry if the comment upset you. however, i was being honest in what i thought/felt (in spite of it being ‘improper’) and i prefer to come out and say what i feel. self-censorship is really not my thing. besides, he pities my husband so i’d say we’re equal now!
Even stevens then! :p
Salaam All
The obedience aspect strikes me as used out of context, since there are also references to “partnership” as a definition of what marriage should be.
There is a hadith which i forget the exact details of, but which basically describes the main duties of a wife towards her husband as follows:
1. To bear children
2. To guard the husband’s property in his absence
3. To have sexual relations
I believe there is no compulsion for a wife to suckle her children, but she has the right to demand a wet nurse. Technicsally she can also demand that the husband employs a cook and cleaner.
Obviously a man shall provide in accordance with his means, so this is where the partnership bit comes into its own……
Interpretation is still such a problem…
How many men get away with domestic violence by quoting that verse in the Quran and maintaining that the wife “provoked” them or was “disobedient”?
And what recourse has the woman got?? Who polices the police?
WalaykumAsalaam Mar.
Most people view marriage as consisting of 2 indiivduals who are partners, one isn’t above or beneath the either. And if we refer to things Islamically, she doesn’t really need to “do” anything that women these days do (such as the housework, or even raising her children)
Quite a few probably do get away with violence by flagging verse 4:34. Whats a woman to do when she relies on her husband to “teach her Islam”? And exactly, who polices the police! Complex I’m sure you’ll agree.
At the end of the day? Allah.
If a woman truly feels oppressed she always has supplication. Supplication is the believer’s weapon and is greatly overlooked by many these days. There is no veil between Allah and the supplication of the oppressed individual, just as Prophet Muhammad has informed us.
Supplication may act as a communication link between her and Allah but Allah (swt) is aware of one’s state regardless.
If a man is behaving so appallingly to his wife, I really dont think driving home fear of God will get him to shift his position.
The only way to stop being a victim and being oppressed is to get rid of the oppresser.
You misunderstand.
First, supplicating to Allah for the oppressed person is more than just a communication link between the person and his/her Lord. It’s a way out and a means for relief from the oppression. As I mentioned above, there is no veil between the supplication of the oppressed person and Allah i.e., ask and it will be answered.
Secondly, Allah polices the police. By that, I didn’t mean that you should remind the oppressor to fear Allah. I meant that the oppressor will face Allah on Judgement day and be held accountable for his oppression, which is a grave and major sin in Allah’s eyes. They will be punished severely, while those who were patient in the face of oppression will be rewarded greatly.
But why should one “be patient” and carry on being oppressed and hope it gets redeemed later? By that account nothing would ever be taken to court, sued, punished if we all held that attitude. I find a lot of women simply “put up” with things because they think of themselves as “mini martyr’s” for tolerating the bad treatment they receive, and focus on the “rewards” they’ll get in the Hereafter for such patience. But why put yourself and stay in such a situation? Is it not self-inflicted harm?
Is it not incumbent upon the oppressed to topple the oppresser? Otherwise, if they dont take themselves out of their dire situation, then they have no-one to blame but themselves.
No one’s saying the shouldn’t go to a court or a judge or an imam to get their rights. In fact, I would say that if the situation, in this case a marriage, is such that the woman is unhappy, oppressed, and is being harmed (whether in her religion or physically & mentally), then she should ask her husband for a divorce. If it is not granted to her, then she should seek an annulment from the proper authorities (a judge in an Islamic court or the imam of her community). However, I do recall you mentioning (in either this discussion or one of the other ones on your blog), that for for many women in heavily culture-influenced Muslim communities and societies, none of this is really possible because of the possible dangers facing the wife if she tries. In such cases, what else can she do but be patient and rely on Allah to get her out of her situation?
In terms of dealing with the Muslim rulers, no. It is from the belief and creed of the People of the Sunnah that we do not rebel or revolt against the rulers, whether they be righteous or wicked, incompetent or oppressive. Whether this applies to the husband-wife relationship, Allah knows best. However, as I mentioned above, a wife has certain options available to her in the Sharî’ah that give her different ways out of an unfavourable situation; sometimes culture, however, puts up some roadblocks.
And Allah’s help is sought.
Nothing is impossible. Sure Allah’s help should be sought, and He should be your comfort, and pillar of support.
Cultures may dictate how someone is treated, but some women realise their own sanity is far more important than what the community will say. And well done to them for that. For those who have no other option and who have to stay in such marriages, then its the fault of us, the Muslims who dont bother to do anything about such attitudes. I can’t see how we can be complacent with such a scenario and simply say “make dua your situation eases” instead of making things better through example and action. Sure its not an overnight task, but someone has to start somewhere.
You cannot revolt against incompetent rulers? Im sure you could? Did that not happen with Yazid? Would the ruler not be held accountable/be brought to account for the oppressive state of his people? (as Umar (ra) had stated regarding the case of a man who stole food due to poverty and hunger)
As I mentioned, it is from the beliefs and creed of the People of the Sunnah that we do not rebel or revolt against the rulers.
Some of the authentic hadîths proving this:
“It is your duty to listen and obey your rulers whether you are in difficulty or at ease, whether willingly or unwillingly and even when you do not receive what is your right.” (Reported by Muslim)
“The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you; you curse them and they curse you. It was asked: ‘O Prophet of Allaah should we not lift arms against them.’ The Prophet (sall-Allaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) replied: ‘No, as long as they establish the prayer among you’.” (Reported by Muslim)
“Whoever desires to advise the sultan (authority) about a matter, then he must not expose it in public, but rather he should take him by his hand and go in privacy with him. So if he accepts (the advice) then that is (reward) for him, and if he doesn’t (accept) then he has conveyed what will be held against him.” (Reported by Ahmad)
And there are others … .
There are a number of issues here, and Allah knows best just how they relate to the original topic, but in the Qur’an, Allah tells us that He will not change the condition of a people until they change what is with them (i.e., in terms of their beliefs, understanding, and implementation of Islam).
He also tells us that He will place as leaders over the people, those who are a reflection of the general condition of that people. So if the people in general are sinning and far away from their religion, then Allah will place a leader over them that is of that like.
Also, if a person fears Allah and desires a way out of his/her current situation, Allah will facilitate that for him/her. Of course, the person should always try what’s within their ability to bring this facilitation from Allah about.
S, a few comments back mentioned how the obedience issue is not an issue with western men. Whilst I mostly agree, there is some evidence to suggest a trend towards girlsa nd young women embracing more traditional female gender roles along with the beliefs about man as head of the household. Intersestingly,one of the feminist blogs I read has been highly some loathsome articles that have been appearing in popular magazines aimed at young men which give advice on how to housetrain a girlfriend so that she’s servile,always sexually available and speaks only when spoken to. The arguments given to support this attitude (that the household is like a businss and in order to be successful there can only be one decision maker) curiously parallel those given by Muslims and Christians in defence of man as head of the household.
very interesting to hear Rasheed’s arguments. To me I hear shades of the colonial missionary converters of slaves and indentured labourers: they would not free them, but they would ‘give’ them a religion that offered them ‘higher’ salvation. religion used as an ‘opiate’ to oppression.
Such hypocrisy. Such manipulation.
“Also, if a person fears Allah and desires a way out of his/her current situation, Allah will facilitate that for him/her.”
So clearly the slaves in history didn’t pray hard enough Rasheed?
!!!
People abuse the guidelines and they also try to interpret them with love and compassion… hopefully lengthy verbal tussles help us to become more compassionate. It’s obvious that a wife dancing to her husbands tune at the expense of her sanity and wellbeing and spirituality would not afford the respect of her children…they would pity her, not admire her for her submission. We have enough to cope with in terms of being ground underfoot by leaders to have to put up with a tyrannical husband too.
I tend to think that a husband has to earn the respect he is due. I wouldn’t let mine lead me into the fire even if he does take full responsibility. And if a wife becomes his puppet then it is obvious that he is feeling manipulated by someone ‘bigger’ than him and is taking it out on her.
Any bloke demanding full submission from his wife has a ‘god complex’. True God conciousness does not involve increasing the suffering of another. I sound arrogant…and I am sorry about that. Allah knows.
So Imam Hussein then was wrong to fight against Yazid’s gang. Same with Imam Hassan – he should just have accepted the tyranny.
Funny – I always thought “do not oppress and do not be oppressed” was a valid Hadith.
I know of the hadîth where Prophet Muhammad said to aid the oppressed and the oppressor, but this is the first time I think I’ve heard that hadîth. Care to give a reference for it?
The hadith you heard is this.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
“Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is oppressed.” The Prophet was asked: “It is right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” He replied: “By preventing him from oppressing others.”
{Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Hadith 624}
I don’t of course see how we can prevent the oppressor from oppressing if we are going to passively accept whatever our leaders do to us.
Yes, I did say, “I know of the hadîth … .” That’s not the hadîth I was asking the reference for.
I was asking about the one which you say says, “do not oppress and do not be oppressed.”
The searches I’ve done say it’s from the Last Sermon during the Farewell Hajj, but all the narrations I know of containing this sermon do not contain those words. Reference, please.
Here is the hadith from which I deduce ‘do not oppress and do not be oppressed’.
“Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is oppressed.” The Prophet was asked: “It is right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” He replied: “By preventing him from oppressing others.”
{Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Hadith 624}
So, we are under direct orders to prevent (i.e. resist) an oppressor.
Other hadiths about similar behaviour.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: the same occasion: Help the oppressed (sorrowful) and guide those who have lost their way (i.e. the oppressor).
{Book 41, Number 4799: Sunan Abu-Dawud}
Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection .”
{Book 43, Volume 3, Number 622: Sahih Buhari}
This hadîth doesn’t exactly translate to “do not be oppressed.” So your deduction is kind of off.
I’m not where I can check the hadîth’s explanation right now, but I highly doubt preventing the oppressor from oppressing others means to resist them, i.e., revolt and rebel in the case of the rulers. It would befit to check the hadîth’s explanation as given in books like Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalânî’s Fat·h al-Bârî. When I get a chance to do so, I’ll post up what he mentions, unless you or someone else does so before me.
As for the other hadîths you mention, none of them can be remotely understood to mean “do not be oppressed.” So the question still remains, where did you get that statement from?