Should a woman change her name to her husband’s when she marries or keep her fathers/maiden name?

Question:

Should a woman change her name to her husband’s when she marries or keep her fathers/maiden name?

ANSWER:

ASSALAMU ALAIKUM

10 Safar 1431 (26-01-2010)

Respected Brother,

Your e-mail pertaining to the maiden name of a woman refers.

While there is no Shar’i incumbency for a woman to adopt the surname of her husband, it is not prohibited. There is also no Shar’i incumbency on a woman to go through a kaafir legal process and spend a large sum of money to have her adoptive (husband’s surname) changed.

In this era, more especially in non-Muslim countries where we live, a woman takes to her husband’s surname merely as a convenience in the same way as we make use of the Christian calendar. In fact, it is haraam to expunge the Islamic calendar. It is Waajib for Muslims to keep alive the Islamic calendar. Many important Shar’i masaa-il are linked to the Islamic calendar. Yet most Muslims even the anonymous author calling for the compulsory cancellation of the husband’s surname, do not use the Islamic dates.

Non-Arab Muslims all over the world from the very early epoch of Islam did not adopt the Arab custom of naming themselves , e.g. Abdullah Ibn Muhammad ibn so and so…, despite the fact that it was Rasulullah’s style and the style of the Sahaabah. There is no incumbency to adopt an Arab style which the Shariah does not impose on us.

If we are going to write only Islamic dates on cheques and other legal documents in the kuffaar country, it will create serious problems. Despite Islamic dates being Waajib, circumstances constrain us to adopt the Christian calendar. In a single city there may be 10 families, all having the same surname, e.g. Ahmad, since Ahmed was their father. In every Ahmed family there is a Maryam, Aisha, Faatimah, etc. Every Maryam thus is ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed’. We have therefore ten women with the name ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed’. Now when one of them dies, if it is announced only that Maryam Binti Ahmad has passed away, no one will know to whom the reference is made. Thus, circumstances constrain us to say: “The Maryam Binti Ahmed died who is the wife of Abdullah Qaasim. Instead of saying or writing on the notice board, ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed, the wife of Abdullah Qaasim, there is no Shar’i restriction to stating the same long sentence in an abbreviated form such as ‘Maryam Qaasim’. Everyone in the town/neighbourhood will know exactly who this particular Maryam who has died is.

Instead of each time when there is a need, to say “Aishah Binti Abdullah, the wife of Husain Patel”, the abbreviation, Aishah Patel is used. This merely conveys the information that Aishah is Husain Patel’s wife, and nothing more. If ‘Aishah’ Patel’ is haraam, then saying ‘Aishah is the wife of Husain Patel’ will likewise be haraam. But just as this is drivel, so too is the former drivel.

With regard to the wife adopting the husband’s surname, it was never ‘eagerness to copy the West’ which led to this. Copying the West on this issue is the furthest from the minds of Muslims, even modernist Muslims. Yes, dress-styles, eating from tables, with knives and forks, shaving the beard, kuffaar hair styles and many other practices which Muslims have adopted are undoubtedly in imitation of the kuffaar West, hence haraam.

It is a pity that the writer of the article has selected to remain anonymous. If he reveals himself then we could direct a number of questions to him to ascertain the degree of his adoption of western life styles. From the style of his writing and thinking it is almost certain that he is a Salafi. If so, then his permanent practice will be to strut around with a bare head in public. They don’t believe in Rasulullah’s headgear. Salafis have adopted the western haraam practice of shunning headgear. Another salient practice of almost all Salafis is to dress exactly like kuffaar with jeans, T-shirts and the like. While they turn a blind eye to such haraam, futile and destructive practices which they have copied from the West, they harp on non-issues which have been adopted for convenience without the intention of emulating the west.

It is not contended that Islam requires a woman to change her name at marriage. By the same token, Islam does not prohibit a woman from adopting her husband’s surname. The imagined prohibition is a figment of someone’s mind. While there may be “nothing in the Sunnah to indicate that a woman should take her husband’s name after she gets married”, there is also nothing in the Sunnah to indicate that we should ride or not ride in cars and planes, and use or not use phones and adopt and use or not the innumerable amenities and practices which have become part of life. Is there anything in the Sunnah to indicate that Muslims should not wear headgear and strut around in public with bear heads like the kuffaar?

The absence of an indication in the Sunnah is not a principle for prohibition. There are principles in Fiqah – in the Shariah – on which the ahkaam are formulated. Wildly fluctuating personal opinion has no share in formulating Shar’i rulings.

Adopting the husband’s surname was simply not a practice among the Arabs. This is not a basis for prohibition. The objector should produce a Shar’i daleel for prohibition.

When a woman adopts her husband’s surname, she is not concealing her lineage. She is not denying that a certain man is her father. The entire community is fully aware of her lineage. Her lineage is not lost by adopting her husband’s surname.

The Qur’aanic verse cited by the anonymous objector has no reference to a woman adopting her husband’s surname. It pertains to an adopted child. In this regard there is an imperative need to retain and publicize the adopted child’s surname to avoid confusion. If this is not done, the child could end up marrying his own sister or sister marrying her own brother. Since concealing the child’s lineage leads to confusion, deception and possible haraam, it is essential to declare the child’s lineage. But there is no such concealment and confusion in the case of a woman adopting her husband’s surname.

The adoption of the husband’s surname is not motivated by any idea of ‘honour’. It is simply an issue of convenience like the adoption of the Christian calendar, nor is it an expression of love as the objector reads into the issue.

While originally she is the daughter of so and so, we shall go further and say that she forever remains the daughter of so and so. But, at the same time she has become the wife of so and so. There is no prohibition in saying that she is the wife of so and so. This is the reality.

When her husband dies or she is divorced and marries another man, what Shar’i prohibition is there to prevent her from taking the new surname? This question of the objector is superfluous.

The rulings to which the objector refers, are not attached to her name as he alleges. The rulings are related to her physical being. Her name change brings no change to the rulings pertaining to inheritance, her mahram, etc. Everything remains exactly the same despite her assumption of her husband’s surname. It is palpably drivel to say that “taking her husband’s name overlooks all that”. It overlooks nothing at all.

The claim: “Besides, the husband has nothing that makes him better than his wife’s father.” , is erroneous. The husband has much which makes him better than her father with regard to her. After marriage, her greater obedience shifts from her parents to her husband. In relation to the wife, the husband has greater say and authority over her than her father. She is subservient to her husband to a far greater degree than to her father. Now when her entire being is subordinate to her husband, what wrong is there if her name too becomes subordinate to her husband? What Shar’i argument is there to prohibit the subordination of her name?

The fact that we shall be called by our father’s name in the Hereafter is no prohibition for adopting the husband’s surname. Some prohibited things in this world will become permissible in Jannat. And, some permissible things of the Hereafter are prohibited for us here in this world.

The argument of the objector is without merit. It is permissible for a woman to adopt her husband’s name. Such adoption is devoid of emulation of the West or any other haraam factor. And Allah knows best.

Was-salaam

A.S. Desai

For

Mujlisul Ulama of S.A..


O Allah, make us the ones who guide aright & are guided aright, who are neither misguided nor do they lead others astray. At peace with Your friends, at war with Your enemies. Loving with Your love those who You love. Despising with Your antagonism those of Your creatures who oppose You. O Allah, this is the supplication & it is up to You to grant it. This is the effort & the reliance is on You.

Facebook knows Instagram is harmful to teens especially teen girls: WSJ

Social Media

Documents seen by The Wall Street Journal show that Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for young girls, which strays from the tech giant’s public position on the matter.

By Al Jazeera Staff14 Sep 2021For the last three years, Facebook has studied how its Instagram photo-sharing app affects the mental health of its millions of young users, and the firm’s researchers have repeatedly found that Instagram is toxic to a sizable percentage of them, particularly teenage girls, according to internal Facebook documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

“We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls,” said one slide from a 2019 presentation by researchers that was posted to Facebook’s internal message board and viewed by the WSJ.

“Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression,” said another slide seen by the WSJ. “This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.”

The Instagram documents are part of a trove of internal Facebook communications reviewed by the WSJ, and show that Facebook has made minimal effort to address these issues and actually minimises them to the public.

As part of a series entitled “The Facebook Files”, the WSJ on Monday reported (paywall) that internal Facebook documents revealed that the social media company has built a system that exempts high-profile users such as politicians, celebrities and journalists from some or all of its content rules while publicly claiming that its more than three billion users are given an equal platform.

The programme, known as “cross check” or “XCheck”, shields millions of VIP users from the company’s guidelines and rules around what content may be removed, the WSJ reported.

Revelations from internal documents describing Facebook’s research on the impact of Instagram, published on Tuesday by the WSJ, appear to be the deepest dive yet into what the tech giant knows about its impact on teens’ mental health and reveals a gap between Facebook’s understanding of itself and what it reveals to the public.

More than 40 percent of Instagram’s users are 22 years old and younger [File: Thomas White/Reuters]

Among teens who reported thinking about suicide, 13 percent of British users and 6 percent of American users traced the desire to take their own lives to Instagram, the WSJ reported after seeing one of the presentation slides.

More than 40 percent of Instagram’s users are 22 years old and younger.

Some 22 million teens log onto Instagram in the United States each day, which is a lot higher than the five million teens signing onto Facebook.

For Facebook, which paid $1bn for Instagram in 2012, expanding its base of young users has been crucial in recent years as fewer and fewer young users turn to Facebook for their social media needs, show the materials seen by the WSJ.

“The research that we’ve seen is that using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg told a congressional hearing back March, when lawmakers probed him about children and mental health.

Then in May, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said that research suggests the app’s effects on teen mental health are “quite small”.

The dive into Instagram’s impact is made up of focus groups, diary studies and surveys of tens of thousands of people. In five presentations over 18 months, researchers found that some of the problems were specific to Instagram, and not social media in general, according to the WSJ.Unlike other apps that are grounded in performance or silly filters, Instagram focuses on the body and lifestyle, which Facebook research found is detrimental to young girls’ self-esteem and mental health [File: Jon Nazca/Reuters]

“Social comparison is worse on Instagram,” states Facebook’s research, referring to the tendency of users to compare themselves to others posting on the site.

While other apps such as TikTok, a short-video app, are grounded in performance, Instagram focuses on the body and lifestyle. The pressure to look perfect and have an ideal way of life could send teens spiralling towards eating disorders and depression, internal research found.

“Aspects of Instagram exacerbate each other to create a perfect storm,” the research said.

Facebook’s findings were reviewed by the company’s executives and mentioned to Zuckerberg in 2020, according to the documents seen by the WSJ.

But when asked last March by the lawmakers about the impact of Instagram on young people, Zuckerberg defended the company’s plan to launch an Instagram product for kids under 13.

“I believe the answer is ‘yes’,” Zuckerberg said in front of the congressional committee when asked if the company had done research on Instagram’s effects on children.

And when several senators in August asked Facebook to send them their internal findings on the impact of Instagram on youth mental health, Facebook sent a six-page letter but did not include the company’s research.SOURCE: AL JAZEERAhttps://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/9/14/facebook-knows-instagram-is-harmful-to-teen-girls-wsj

AAFIYAH SIDDIQUI KIDNAPPED AND BRUTALIZED BY AMERICA

Dr.Aafiyah Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist, disappeared with her three children aged 7, 9 and 1 year, in 2003. On 28 March, 2003, Aafiyah left home in a Metro-cab, in Karachi to catch a flight to Rawalpindi. But she never reached the airport. Seven years later, in February 2010, her eldest son, then 14 years old, was returned and described the abduction. When Aafiyah and her three children came out of their home, about 20 men including a white woman, presumably an Americam, and members of the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency), were waiting in several vehicles on the next street. Aafiyah and her children were promptly kidnapped. Aafiyah was loaded in one car, and the shocked and crying children in another vehicle. A hood was immediately pulled over Aafiya’s head and she was drugged. When she awoke she found herself tied to a wheeled stretcher. She did not know where she was, but the dryness of the air convinced her that she was not in Karachi. Her youngest child who would be 7 years old now, is still missing. It is believed that the one year old baby was killed during the kidnapping. She was later shown a picture of her baby in a pool of blood. According to the Pakistani media, the day after her kidnapping, a woman had been taken into custody on charges of terrorism. The Pakistan Interior Ministry confirmed the ‘arrest’. She was taken to an unknown place for questioning. A year later the Pakistani press, quoting a government spokesman said that Aafiyah was handed over to the US in 2003. Later the Pakistani government and US officials in Washington denied any knowledge of Aafiyah’s custody. However, Aafiyah was kidnapped by the Pakistani intelligence services with her three children and transferred into US custody. She was detained in several prisons for five years and was repeatedly tortured and raped. The International Committee for the Red Cross had also confirmed the presence of a Pakistani female detainee at Bagram, the American torture facility in Afghanistan. Little is known about what happened to Aafia and her children in the five years in which they were missing. However, in October 2009, when Aafia was visited by a Pakistani parliamentary delegation she spoke a little about the five years in which she had been disappeared, saying “I have been through living hell”. She described being given an injection and when she came to, she was in a cell. She said she was being brainwashed by men who spoke perfect English, who may have been Afghans. She did not think they were Pakistanis. She described being forced to make false confessions and sign statements. She alleged that she had been tortured although she provided no details. She was also told by her captors that if she did not co-operate, her children would
suffer. During her trial, Aafia alluded to being tortured in secret prisons, to being raped, her children being tortured, and being threatened to be “sent back to the bad guys” – men she described as sounding like Americans but could not be “real Americans” but “pretend Americans” due to the treatment they had subjected her to. After her trial it emerged that the government of Pakistan had put a gag order on Aafia’s family in exchange for releasing her eldest son Ahmed. Aafia’s lawyers, Elaine Sharpe and Elizabeth Fink, would later corroborate this by stating publicly that she had “been through years of detention, whose interrogators were American, who endured treatment fairly characterised as horrendous” and that she had been “tortured”.
On 7 July 2008, a press conference led by British journalist Yvonne Ridley, in Pakistan resulted in mass international coverage of Aafia’s case as her disappearance was questioned by the media and political figures in Pakistan. Within weeks, the US administration reported that she was arrested by Afghani forces along with her 13 year old son, outside the governor of Ghazni’s compound, allegedly with manuals on explosives and ‘dangerous substances in sealed jars’ on her person. Her lawyers claim that the evidence was planted on her. Aafia would later testify during her trial that the bag in which the evidence was found was not her own and was given to her, being unaware of its contents. She also claimed that the handwritten notes were forcibly copied from a magazine under threat of torture of her children. She recalled the presence of a boy at the Ghazni police station whom she believed could have been her son, but could not know with certainty since they had been separate for several years. On 3 August 2008 an agent from the FBI visited the home of her brother in Houston, Texas and confirmed that she was being detained in Afghanistan. On Monday 4 August 2008, federal prosecutors in the US confirmed that Aafia Siddiqui had been extradited to the US from Afghanistan where they alleged she had been detained since mid-July 2008. They further allege that whilst in custody she fired at US officers (none being injured) and was herself shot twice in the process. Aafia confirmed during her trial that she was hiding behind a curtain in the prison, as the US claim, with the intent of escaping as she feared being returned to a secret prison, but categorically denied picking up the gun or attempting to shoot anyone. Aafia was charged in the US with assaulting and attempted murder of US personnel in Afghanistan. In late August 2008, Michael G Garcia, the US attorney general of the southern region confirmed in a letter to Dr Fowzia Siddiqui that Aafia’s son, Ahmed had been in the custody of the FBI since 2003 and he was currently in the custody of the Karzai government. Earlier the US ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W Patterson had earlier claimed that Washington has no information regarding the children. According to an Afghan Interior Ministry official quoted in the Washington Post, Ahmed Siddiqui was briefly held by the Interior Ministry after his arrest in July 2008 and was thereafter transferred to an Afghan intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), notorious for its brutal treatment of detainees, despite the fact he was too young to be treated as a criminal suspect under both Afghan and international law. Under Afghanistan’s Juvenile Code, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 13 and according to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child a minimum age of criminal responsibility below the age of 12 is “not internationally acceptable.” Ahmed was finally released to the custody of Aafia’s family in Pakistan in September 2009. He later gave a statement to police in Lahore, Pakistan, that he had been held in a juvenile prison in Afghanistan for years. On being reunited with his father for the first time, he ran away screaming in horror, claiming that his father was amongst those who used to beat him in Afghanistan.
The trial of Aafia Siddiqui began Tuesday 19 January 2010, in a Manhattan federal courtroom. Prior to the jury entering the courtroom, Aafia turned to onlookers saying; “This isn’t a fair court, (…) Why do I have to be here? (…) There are many different versions of how this happened,” referring to the alleged shooting. Three government witnesses testified on the opening day of the trial; Army Capt. Robert Snyder, John Threadcraft, a former army officer and John Jefferson, an FBI agent. Both were stationed in Afghanistan at the time of the alleged assault and murder attempt. During the trial, while Snyder testified that Aafia had been arrested with a handwritten note outlining plans to attack the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge and Wall Street, Aafia disrupted the proceedings with a loud outburst aimed at Snyder, after, which she proclaimed her innocence stating; “Since I’ll never get a chance to speak, if you were in a secret prison.. where children were tortured… This is no list of targets against New York. I was never planning to bomb it. You’re lying.” In the morning before the closing remarks, the last government witness, FBI Special Agent, Angela Sercer testified. Sercer monitored Aafia for 12 hours a day over a two week period while she was at a hospital in Bagram. She tried to rebut Aafia Siddiqui’s testimony, by saying that Aafia told her she was in “hiding” for the last five years and further that she “married” someone to change her name. However under cross examination, Sercer admitted that while at the hospital Aafia expressed fear of “being tortured”. Sercer also admitted that Aafia expressed concern about the “welfare of the boy” and asked about him “every day”. Moreover, that Aafia only agreed to talk to her upon promises that the boy would be safe. According to the testimony Aafia said that the Afghans had “beaten her”; that her “husband had beaten her and her children”; and that she was “afraid of coming into physical harm”.
When Sercer was further questioned about what Aafia said about her children during that two week period, she admitted that Aafia expressed concern about the “safety and welfare of her children”, but felt that the “kids had been killed or tortured in a secret prison”. “She said that they were dead, didn’t she” asked Defence attorney, Elaine Sharpe; reluctantly Sercer answered, “Yes.”
The trial took an unusual turn with an FBI official asserting that the finger prints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers. Another event complicated the case further, when the testimony of witness Masood Haider Gul appeared different from the one given by U.S. Captain Schnieder earlier. The defence denied all charges, stating that “the soldiers had given different versions of where she was when the M-4 was allegedly fired and how many shots were fired.”
The trial lasted for 2 weeks and the jury deliberated for 2 days before reaching a verdict. On February 3, 2010, she was convicted and found guilty on all counts. , despite the following discrepancies:
The court proceedings were flawed, and limited to the incident in Ghazni, which itself lacked concrete evidence.
It is still unexplained how a frail, 110 pound woman, confronted with three US army officers, two interpreters and two FBI agents managed to assault three of them, snatch a rifle from one of them, open fire at close range, hit no one, but she herself was wounded.
There were no fingerprints on the gun.
There was no gunshot residue from the gun.
There were no bullet holes in the walls from that particular gun.
There were no bullets cases or shells in the area from the specified gun.
The testimony of the government’s six eyewitnesses contradicted each other.
The statements Aafia made to FBI agent Angela Sercer were made whilst she was under 24 hour surveillance by FBI agents in the hospital at Bagram, with her arms and legs tied to a bed for weeks, several types of medication, sleep-deprived and at the mercy of the agent for food, water and in order to relieve herself. Sercer did not identify herself to Aafia as a FBI agent. The use of these statements in court were objected to by the defence on the basis of ‘Miranda laws’ which mandate that a detainee must be informed of their rights, have access to an attorney, or in the case of international law, consular staff and law enforcement officials must identify themselves. Despite this the judge denied the motion and allowed this to form part of the questioning. Aafia’s disappearance, torture and missing children were not at all addressed during the court case.
Following her conviction, Aafia remained at the Metropolitan Detention Centre in New York where she has spent the best part of her detention in the US. Throughout that time, she has been subject to humiliating and degrading strip and cavity searches, prompting her to refuse legal visits on many occasions. Since the beginning of March Aafia has been refused all contact with her family and has not been permitted any letters, phonecalls, visits or reading material under the pretext of “the security of the nation.” In April 2010, a 12 year old girl was left outside the residence of Fowzia Siddiqui in Karachi by unidentified men claiming she was the missing daughter of Aafia Siddiqui. Although initially it was thought that she was not Aafia’s daughter, following DNA tests conducted by the Pakistani government, the Interior Minister Rehman Malik confirmed that the tests proved that the child was indeed Aafia’s daughter, Maryam, and that her DNA matched that of Ahmed Siddiqui (Aafia’s eldest son) and their father, Amjad Khan. Dr Fowzia intended to carry out their own independent investigation to confirm the girl’s identity. In a press conference Senate Committee for Interior Chairman, Senator Talha Mehmood reported that Maryam Siddiqui was recovered from Bagram airbase in the custody of an American – in the Urdu language press, an American soldier – called “John”. He also said that she had been kept for seven years in a ‘cold, dark room’ in Bagram airbase. After several postponements, Aafia was finally sentenced to 86 years in prison, on 5 counts, on September 23rd 2010, making her eligible for release in 2094. She would be 122 years old at the time of her release, if she remains alive at that time. The whereabouts and welfare of Aafia’s youngest son, Suleman remains a mystery.

FROM AL-HAQ 40

MARCH 2012

Muslim women resemble pearls and Americans are mere prostitutes.

American writer Joanna Francis says:
Muslim women resemble pearls and Americans are mere prostitutes.
 
The American writer and journalist Joanna Francis expressed admiration for Muslim women, reminding them of their strength, beauty, decency and happiness.

The author noted in an article entitled:
“If you are curious about having sex before marriage,”
Muslim women lead a normal life, as women have always lived since the beginning of life.

Joanna Francis criticized American women and life in the West.
“Everything comes from Hollywood but a collection of lies, a distortion of truth, smoke and mirrors.
They view sex as natural as an indestructible entertainment because they aim to destroy the moral fabric of societies by directing them to their audiovisual programs.

She called on Muslim writers not to follow foreigners in their way of thinking and to stay away from anything related to the West.
“They will try to entice you with the tapes and music that tickle your bodies, with us falsely portraying us as happy and satisfied and proud of our dress that is like a prostitute and convinced that we have no families.
In fact most women are not happy, believe me.
Millions of us take antidepressant drugs, we hate our actions and weep at night.

They want to destroy your families and try to persuade you to have a few children. They do this by portraying marriage as a form of slavery, that motherhood is a curse, and that decency and purity are obsolete.
They want but rejection and loss of faith.
They are like a snake who seduced Eve with an apple, so don’t bite off. ”

In the same vein, the American writer believes that the dress of Muslim women modest is more attractive than any Western costume, because, according to them, surrounded by ambiguity, respect and confidence, saying that the sex appeal of women should be protected from trivial eyes, and this attraction should be the gift of women to the man who He loves and respects her for the purpose of marriage, likening Muslim women to precious gems. “
In my eyes you are as precious gems, pure gold or “high value pearl”.

Joanna Francis warned Muslim women not to imitate the West, saying:
“I noticed that some Muslim women go beyond the borders and try to imitate the West as much as possible and even wear the hijab (showing some of their feelings).
Why should we imitate women who regret their lost virtue or will soon lose it?
There is no compensation for that loss. You are flawless diamonds. Do not allow them to cheat on you and turn you into worthless stones, because all you see in Western fashion magazines and Western television are lies.
It is the trap of Satan or Satan.
It is a false gold. ”
She added:
“But we American women have tricked us into making us believe that we will be happier with jobs, owning our own homes and living alone, and the freedom to give love to anyone we choose… this is not freedom, nor is it love. A woman’s body and heart feel safe by giving love only within the marital safe haven. Do not settle for anything less, and the matter is not worth it otherwise, and you will not like it, but will not be satisfied with yourself later.

The American writer concluded by saying:
“My sisters don’t be deceived, don’t let them deceive you, and keep women chaste and clean. We Christians need to see life as it should be for women. We need you to set an example for us because we got lost. If you stick to your purity, remember that toothpaste cannot be returned inside the tube.
Therefore, women should take care of this paste with care. ”

http://boughrara-news.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_3643.html?m=1

RIGHTS OF THE HUSBAND DO NOT GIVE RISE TO BARBARISM

THE RIGHTS OF THE HUSBAND DO NOT GIVE RISE TO BARBARISM AND ANIMALISM

A Sister in distress on account of her husband’s inordinate sexual demands, writes:

“I’ve been having some problems with regard to the conjugal aspect of marriage. It’s been getting worse and so I decided to seek some advice. I have a low desire whereas my husband’s is much higher. The very first time was a very painful experience and I feel that it’s what messed things up. For days afterwards I suffered a bad urinary tract infection, and that has been a recurring occurrence till now, almost 6 years later. I get an infection almost every month or so. According to a doctor, some women are just more prone to these infections and there’s nothing I can do to completely prevent it.

Nevertheless, I went along with what my husband wanted – relations everyday, every second day. Most of the time I wasn’t in the mood for it but I didn’t object, even if it was more than once a day. This was until I gave birth to our first child. I needed to be stitched up afterwards and that took some time to heal.

Throughout the 40 days after baby was born my husband kept asking if my nifaas had ended. It only ended at 40 days and even then I still bled for another 2-3 weeks. As soon as the 40 days had ended my husband wanted to have relations. I was hesitant as I felt that my body had not yet fully healed from giving birth. But I gave in and it was extremely painful and I just had to bear it. For the next few months I did avoid him as much as possible. It took about a year for my body to stop experiencing pain where I had gotten stitches.

After the second baby, it was a similar experience except that he waited until I had completely stopped bleeding. Again it took a year to stop experiencing pain. It’s been almost 8 months now since the birth of our third baby and things are no different. I still experience a lot of pain during and afterwards for a couple of days. But I try my best to see to his needs once a week. I simply cannot manage more than that.

Sometimes we’re not at home which means that we sleep together with the children and in my understanding it’s not correct to have relations with even sleeping children around especially where they can easily see if they happen to wake up. But my husband doesn’t seem to understand that and says I’m just making excuses.

Yes, it is very difficult to put myself there knowing that I’m not going to get anything out of it except pain but I try, even though I’m never in the mood due to being exhausted after seeing to the house and kids all day without him helping me and fearing the pain. And he knows but doesn’t care about it as long as I meet his demands he is fine. If I refuse he flies into a terrible rage.
Even when I injured my hip joint giving birth to my second baby, my husband did not give me a break to heal. Through my 3rd pregnancy the hip was troubling and I felt awful, but all he kept talking about was his rights and that I am duti-bound to fulfil his rights. Does a wife not have any rights in these circumstances when she is sick, tired or in pain, etc.? I am in desperate need of advice and help? If Moulana can give some advice on what can I do, it will be much appreciated.” (End of the Sister’s letter)

This is not the first letter of its kind received by us. It is not the second nor the tenth letter. We have received innumerable similar letters seeking advice regarding the inordinate demands of the husbands for sexual gratification regardless of the ill-health of their wives. Husbands invariably justify their callous demands by brandishing the whip of Huqooq or Rights which the Shariah has granted them, and also by the emphasis on the wife’s subservience stated by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in many Ahaadith.

While the Rights of the husband are in place and correct, and while the wife’s subservience to her husband is correct and necessary, callousness, cruelty and injustice are never within the scope of the husband’s Huqooq. The idea of having an unfettered right to even torture the wife is a satanic deception. Rights do not give rise to barbarism and animalism.

The husband’s attitude as depicted in the letter is crass barbarism befitting only donkeys and pigs. It is haraam for the husband to injure his wife on the pretext of him having such a right – the hallucinated right of excessive indulgence in sexual gratification regardless of the condition and health of his wife.

In the type of circumstances experienced by wives as explained in this letter, the solution is a second wife. The husband should take a second wife, and his first wife should support him since she is unable to satisfy his inordinate cravings.

Furthermore, husbands should understand that the consequences of excessive indulgence in sex are harmful. It brings about physical and spiritual ruin. In later life, husbands of the type described in the letter will suffer serious health problems, and long before the physical harms become manifest, they will become spiritually depleted. Moderation in all spheres of worldly life is an imperative command of the Shariah.

16 Safar 1443 – 24 September 2021

Bursting the Bubble​

As exhausted as she was, she put in the extra effort. “Never mind if I’m tired, I’ll do it for my hubby,” she thought to herself. She wore attractive clothing and jewellery, applied perfume, prepared his favourite meal and dessert and even lit candles, hoping to please her husband by making it a ‘special evening’. Sadly, as soon as he entered, let alone appreciate and admire, and let alone a simple smile and a hug – he didn’t even spare her a second glance! He walked in, glued to his phone, absolutely oblivious to the loving wife who had eagerly awaited him all day. At that moment, her bubble burst and her heart was broken…

After reading the above, most people would be quick to condemn the husband’s behaviour and classify him as insensitive, callous and uncaring. Now, consider the following:

“Mommy! You know what aapa told us today?” Faatimah excitedly exclaimed as she ran in from madrasah. “Not now Faatimah! I’m busy!” her mother snapped while frantically typing on her phone.

“Daddy! See what I made for you with my blocks!” Muhammad said, hopping with happiness. “Can’t you see that I’m on the phone?” his father scolded in irritation.

In all the cases above, a person turned to someone that they love, hoping and expecting to receive warmth, love, attention and acceptance, and were instead brushed off abruptly and painfully ignored. Just as a wife feels hurt when her husband treats her indifferently, children similarly feel hurt when their parents treat them in this way. If the husband is guilty, the parents are also guilty and deserving of condemnation.

In such a child’s eyes, his parents love their phones more than him as they cannot even put it down for a few minutes to give him attention and love. When the child sees that his parents have bonded with their phones more than with him, it is unsurprising that he develops a fascination with the phone and also wishes to acquire one to bond with. If it is not the phone occupying the parents, then regardless of what it is, it causes hurt and pain to the child – especially when it happens on a continuous basis.

As fathers and mothers, we need to understand that parenting is not an eight-to-five occupation where we can knock off for the day, thereafter ignoring all responsibilities of the work place until the next morning. As parents, we can never feel, “I gave my children enough attention today, now it’s my turn to relax and I do not want them to disturb me or bother me.” We are on duty 24/7, and whenever our children come to us, we must show them warmth, love and attention. Failing to do so creates a serious complex in the child, affecting their emotional wellbeing and causing them to develop a dangerous craving for attention.

When the wife is displeased with her husband for ignoring her, then due to her intelligence and age, she will be able to express herself with words or even tears. In the case of the child, he does not know how to communicate his need via words. Instead, when he desperately craves the attention and love of his parents, he looks for other ways to gain it – or he will seek the love from outsiders.

Children are simple souls and do not understand diplomacy and tact. If a child wants a toy from another child, he will often snatch it without thinking twice. Likewise, when the parents do not give the child the attention that he wants, he tries to ‘snatch’ it from them. This often manifests in the form of naughty behaviour such as breaking things, tantrums, etc., as the child knows no other way to draw his parents’ attention. 

How sad that the child has to resort to this behaviour simply to make his parents look at him!

Unfortunately, this plan backfires. The child is given attention – but in the form of scolding, punishment, etc., and this further entrenches the complex and craving within the child. The parents then lament and complain about the behaviour of their children, failing to realise that it is actually a shout for help from a child who is starving for love and knows no other way to express himself.

The next time our child comes to us, even if it may be to show us a flower they picked in the garden, or a ‘picture’ that they scribbled with crayons, or to tell us something silly that their friend told them, or to show us their toy, let us not burst their bubble and break their hearts. Let us take out a few moments to give them our undivided love and attention. 

uswatulmuslimah.co.za

The Somersaults of the Heart

On one occasion, Sayyidah Ummu Salamah (radhiyallahu ‘anha), the respected wife of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), was asked, “Which du‘aa would Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) make the most when he was with you (in your home)?” She replied, “The du‘aa that he would make the most was:

يَا مُقَلِّبَ الْقُلُوْبِ ، ثَبِّتْ قَلْبِيْ عَلَى دِيْنِكَ

Transliteration: Ya Muqallibal Quloob! Sabbit qalbee ‘alaa deenik

Translation: O the Turner of hearts! Keep my heart firm on Your Deen!”

Sayyidah Ummu Salamah (radhiyallahu ‘anha) asked Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) as to why he made this du‘aa in such abundance. He replied, “O Ummu Salamah (radhiyallahu ‘anha)! Every person’s heart is in the complete control of Allah Ta‘ala. Whomsoever Allah Ta‘ala wishes, He keeps steadfast, and whomsoever He wishes, He allows to go astray.” (Sunan Tirmizi #3522)

In the Arabic language, the verb ‘qalaba’ means ‘to turn around’ or ‘turn over’ (e.g. to turn something upside-down). Hence, the heart is called ‘qalb’ in Arabic as the nature of the heart is such that in a mere ‘heartbeat’, it can take a complete u-turn and have a complete turnaround. From being interested, it can suddenly lose interest. From being happy, it can suddenly become sad. From feeling motivated, it can suddenly feel lethargic and depressed. From having conviction, it can suddenly be plagued with doubts and insecurities.

From this, we understand the great importance of safeguarding the heart from elements that influence it towards evil and tempt it towards haraam and sin. For instance, just one stolen glance at a non-mahram is more dangerous and fatal to the heart than even a poisonous arrow. The poison of this glance penetrates deeply, and from loving the halaal spouse, the heart suddenly takes a u-turn and begins to pine for the haraam stranger.

Likewise, one casual conversation or interaction with a stranger, whether in person or through social media, novels, movies, etc. is sufficient to capsize the heart. A person previously had strong imaan and complete conviction in Allah Ta‘ala, but after being exposed to corrupt ideologies, his heart turns and is now besieged with doubts regarding Allah Ta‘ala and Islam. From being a strong, committed Muslim, he becomes a borderline atheist (if not an outright atheist – may Allah Ta‘ala save us and our families!) – all because he did not safeguard his heart.

Therefore, through making this du‘aa, Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) taught the Ummah that together with safeguarding the heart from external influences, we should always ask Allah Ta‘ala to keep our hearts stable and firm on Deen. If our hearts remain firm on Deen throughout our lives, then insha-Allah, we will be able to remain away from sins and will pass away while being firm on Deen and imaan.

Sayyiduna Anas (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) also reports that Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) would make this du‘aa in abundance. (Sunan Tirmizi #2140) Hence, in this era of severe imaani challenges, we should all try to make this du‘aa as often as possible, and should teach it to our children as well.

uswatulmuslimah.co.za

The White Tears for Afghanistan’s Women

We see the War on Terror in Afghanistan conclude in a similar way to how it began, with plentiful white tears for the plight of Afghan women.
It makes sense, since before missiles are fired or bombs are dropped, war requires a hard sell to the public. We must construct, reinforce, and peddle the narrative to the public. This helps to ensure public opinion is controlled, resistance is problematised, and the parameters of debate are tightly regulated.

Western pledges to improve the conditions of Afghan women were one of the most prominent justifications for the intervention and subsequent military operations to defeat the Taliban. What else could unify, outrage, and indulge the Western white-saviour complex better than Afghan women who needed to be saved from their male counterparts?

The military industrial complex cry to “Save the women!” has the same rhetorical framing as “Support our troops” (or “Support our lads!” for a British parlance), rather than “Support the war”, which is what is really being asked.

Recent Wikileaks reports reveal how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) constructed a PR “sell” of the war which revolved around saving Afghan women and girls.[1] It literally weaponised liberal feminism to invade, occupy, and make spectacular profits from one of the poorest countries in the world.

The Bush Administration wasted no time in framing the War on Terror as “also a fight for the rights and dignity of women”. Then First Lady Laura Bush openly and swiftly condemned the “severe repression” against women in Afghanistan. The UK Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Blair, called for moves to “give back a voice” to Afghan women.

In the same breath that the War on Terror was declared, the barbaric treatment of Afghan women under Taliban rule was dramatically thrust into the Western public consciousness. The Western media machine struck narrative gold with the Taliban: these were hostile brown bearded men with turbans and ethnic clothing. They became a dangerous Other as the greatest nation on Earth faced a group who were uncivilised, clumsily handled weapons, failed to speak English, and were hostile to “the freedoms we cherish”.

In 2010, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed to defend Afghan women’s rights. This was a huge part of liberal feminism – vowing to save the Afghan women, while bombing them. So began “white men saving brown women from brown men” in Afghanistan, as feminist scholar Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak eloquently put it.[2]

Funnily, saving Afghan women and girls played out a lot like making them disappear off the face of the Earth altogether. Over 70,000 civilians were killed and countless injured in the US’s longest-running war, the majority of whom were women and children.[3]

Fast forward to 2021, and we are hearing something not too dissimilar. We have come full circle to see dangerous militarism cloaked in humanitarian and women’s rights language, where the same arguments made by Clinton have been recycled. “Western intervention is something million[s] are praying for right now”, tweeted anti-FGM campaigner Nimco Ali recently.[4] There is apparently now a feminist case for keeping Western troops in Afghanistan.

But why? “The imaginary future bloodshed of the Taliban has so much more potential weight in the coverage than the actual people who have been killed by the US in the last 20 years.”[5]

During these two decades of international intervention, troop-contributing nations paid lip service and cash toward women’s rights, but rarely provided the political capital needed to realise actual gains. Over time, the lip service and cash dwindled too. In 2011, the Washington Post reported on how efforts to support women’s rights were being stripped out of US programs. This article quoted an official who said, “All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.” US aid funding to Afghanistan fell from 16,748 million dollars in FY 2010 to 3,120 million dollars in FY 2021.[6]

The West’s intervention was framed as an act of benevolence, with many convinced by the characterisation of a liberatory US military combat. Afghan women were used as symbols and pawns in a hugely complex geopolitical context. This civilising mission by the US meant the diverse needs and interests of Afghan women were obscured and obfuscated, and native females were rendered incapable of defining and taking control of their own aspirations.

Kabul is not the entire country
The broad brushstrokes of lazy narratives prevent us from considering important, nuanced realities. Firstly, it is important to note that Kabul does not represent all of Afghanistan. The central government in Kabul never held sway over the majority of rural areas in the country. Furthermore, the much-lauded US-backed female empowerment of Afghan women largely consisted of a handful of the educated urban elite from professional families in the capital.

Instead of economic, social, and political empowerment, Afghan women in rural areas – where an estimated 76 percent of the country’s women live – continued to experience the devastation of bloody and intensifying fighting between government forces and local militias in the last 20 years.

The apparent gains for Afghan women have been distributed in a highly unequal manner, with the increases far greater for women in privileged urban areas. For many rural women, (particularly in Pashtun areas alongside other rural minority ethnic groups), daily life has not changed much from the 1996 Taliban era. This is despite the formal legal empowerment mechanisms currently in place. Since 9/11, and without any prodding from the Taliban, most Afghan women in rural areas are fully covered with the burqa.

The issues central to their lives did not revolve around the Western obsession of whether or how much they cover, but harsh realities much more foundational. The loss of husbands, brothers, and fathers due to the fighting not only generates complex psychological trauma, but also fundamentally jeopardizes their economic survival and ability to function in everyday life. Widows and their children are thus highly vulnerable to an array of debilitating disruptions due to the loss of male family members.

Interviews with Afghan women conducted in the autumn of 2019 and summer of 2020 revealed that peace and stability is an absolute priority for some rural women. This is even if the prospective peace deal is signed on the terms of the Taliban. This fundamental finding was confirmed in a recent International Crisis Group report. While rejecting a 1990s-like lockdown of women which was once imposed by the Taliban, many rural women acknowledge that in that period the Taliban also reduced the sexual predation and wanton robberies that debilitated their lives.[7]

Indeed, for those who commanded U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, it was in the mostly rural areas of Afghanistan where the administration of swift and equitable justice meant that the Taliban could compete with the Afghan government. The Taliban could not provide fresh water, electricity, or any civil services, but they could provide near-instantaneous shariah-based justice that sometimes served the best interests of both Afghan women and men by ending disputes and violence.

“Afghan women are incapable of helping themselves”
The post-colonial arrogance of Western attitudes routinely exposes itself. Proponents of this “school” deem it unthinkable that women in Afghanistan would not enthusiastically embrace the construct of liberal feminism and instantly seek to instil it into their own homes and societies. Instead, we witness the dehumanisation of native Afghan women as passive entities which need to be rescued by the West. It refuses to understand that Afghan women are not a monolithic group, and that many of them have long resisted both Taliban rule and Western intervention, opting for advocacy relevant to their cultural and political realities instead.

The irony is that there has been a lot of publicity for women’s rights through promoting a handful of elite women activists in recent years. Yet there has barely been any effort to build trust in communities by encouraging these conservative men to join the platform to support women’s rights. Likewise, proponents of this rights discourse not only fail to ensure that their approach is sensitive to the country’s religious and traditional values, but they ignore the complex cultural diversity of Afghanistan.

“The Ghani government wants to say they’re prioritizing women,” a female Afghan diplomat says, speaking on condition of anonymity during the NATO Summit in Brussels in July. “But they’re really not. Supporting women in Afghanistan is something people all over the world pay lip service to, but money and aid never get to them. It’s eaten by corruption, the monster of war.”[8] Transparency International ranked Afghanistan the fourth most corrupt country in the world, noting that corruption hampers humanitarian aid from reaching its rightful recipients.

As Rafia Zakaria – author, most recently, of Against White Feminism – argues, white feminists in the US decided from the outset that “war and occupation were essential to freeing Afghan women”,[9] no matter what those women themselves thought. Obviously, it requires a distinct level of imperial delusion to think that you can bomb and occupy women into accepting a form of freedom that they do not want to be subjected to. “In terms of current laws including the electoral law, elimination of violence against women law, etc., I disagree with using the Westernized word with it. These laws are purely the efforts of Afghans within civil society who made it happen through lots of lobbying and advocacy.

“The majority of Afghans do not consider women’s education a ‘Western value,’ but see improvements in women’s education as one of the biggest achievements of the past 10 years. Similarly, women’s participation in public life is not a new reality to Afghans. The fight for improved education and democracy is not a recent phenomenon funded by the West; in fact, it’s insulting to Afghans to suggest so. Afghans have struggled for their rights since the early 20th century.”[10]

This is a type of imperial hubris and exact embodiment of a brand of paternalistic and sexist condescension. It is skilfully used by the US to relentlessly lecture the Arab and Muslim world on gender equality and women’s rights. This arrogance rears its head with baffled headlines such as: “Despite the West’s efforts, Afghan youth cling onto ‘traditional ways’”.[11] Unfortunately, their hubris is so strong they are unable to grasp the resistance to the US’s transparently Orientalist civilising mission in Afghanistan.

What empowering Afghan women does not look like
The so-called female empowerment of Afghan women is characterised almost exclusively by dress, with the Western gaze imposing its ideal standards. Photographs of elite Afghan women in miniskirts in Kabul during the 1970s are circulated with a starry-eyed nostalgia of a “golden age” for the country. Western priorities for what Afghan women really need mirror this vision, in a revealing and spectacularly tone-deaf way.

The main interveners in a country shattered by decades of ongoing war seem to be wilfully ignorant that the fatal consequences of conflict – not native misogyny – are the biggest challenges to Afghanistan’s women and girls. Indeed, this applies to their men and boys too.

When asked why two-thirds of girls are still out of school at a NATO summit, then-President Ashraf Ghani largely blamed the numbers on ill-conceived and misguided Western aid efforts, which fail to acknowledge the realities on the ground.

“To get to the very nitty gritty, how many girls schools at the age of puberty have a toilet? That’s fundamental,” he said. “How many girl schools are three kilometres away? The issue here is that international experts were male-centric. They talked about gender, but their pamphlets were glossy and totally lacking content.”[12]

Government statistics from 2014 show that 80 percent of all cases of suicide are committed by women, making Afghanistan one of the few places in the world where such rates are higher among women. Psychologists attribute this anomaly to an endless cycle of domestic violence and poverty. The 2008 Global Rights survey found that nearly 90 percent of Afghan women have experienced domestic abuse.

“Women’s rights were supposed to be the success story of the 2001 invasion,” Naseri said. “But the legacy of war is still killing our women.”[13]

The only conception of female empowerment deemed acceptable was imposed externally through the values of liberal democracy. Any gains made for the progress of Afghan women are all attributed to the altruistic intervention of foreign powers, rather than the struggle and work of native Afghan women working within their own cultural context. That work, of course, also includes resistance to foreign occupation.

Twenty years and almost 3 trillion dollars later, the country is still in turmoil. In October, the U.N. said Afghan civilian deaths were the highest since 2014. From January to September 2018, at least 2,798 civilians were killed, and more than 5,000 others were injured. Gallup’s most recent survey of Afghans, conducted in July, revealed strikingly low levels of optimism: Afghans’ ratings of their own lives are lower than any other country in any previous year.[14]

What the selective outrage glosses over
The same people who feel upset about the fate of women in Afghanistan now would probably benefit from expanding their feelings of rage by considering other pressing issues as well. This includes learning about how the military industrial complex profiteered handsomely from an ongoing war, one that need not be ‘successful’, as long as it kept on going. The beneficiaries of the war made trillions; the biggest winners were not Afghan women but the arms firms, military contractors, mercenary firms, press barons, and politicians who will retire into the defence industries.

When it comes to Afghanistan itself, one must ask: where were the tears for Afghan women and girls when reports of Western war crimes were being suppressed? Reports of British soldiers killing children and proven cases of deaths in custody, beatings, torture, and sexual abuse of Afghan civilians are all extremely alarming incidents which have received little attention (let alone tears) thus far.[15]

Or consider when Australian Elite troops had 400 people witness prisoners, farmers, and civilians be killed, with even more egregious crimes committed, including:

– Junior soldiers were told to get their first kill by shooting prisoners, in a practice known as “blooding”.
– Weapons and other items were planted near Afghan bodies to dress them up as militants and cover up crimes.
– Additional incidents that constitute war crimes and fall under the rubric of “cruel treatment” were committed.[16]
Or how about when America punished the International Criminal Court for authorising an investigation of US forces for war crimes against civilians?[17]

Only when the rage and concern for Afghan civilians remains strong and consistent for all injustices – no matter who the perpetrators are – then the flowing liberal tears for Afghanistan’s people might be worth their salt.

Source: http://www.islam21c.com

Notes:

[1] https://twitter.com/North_Star88/status/1429408799450976263/photo/1

[2] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dont-use-girls-as-justification-for-bombing-afghanistan-again/

[3] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan

[4] https://twitter.com/NimkoAli?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[5] https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/afghanistan-taliban-defense-industry-media/

[6] https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/08/17/fragility-womens-rights-afghanistan

[7] https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/what-will-peace-talks-bode-afghan-women

[8] https://time.com/5472411/afghanistan-women-justice-war/

[9] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/21/white-women-washing-the-uss-civilising-mission-in-afghanistan

[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/world/asia/afghans-share-their-views-on-the-wests-influence.html

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/world/asia/despite-wests-efforts-afghan-youths-cling-to-traditional-ways.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

[12] https://www.iwmf.org/reporting/were-all-handcuffed-in-this-country-why-afghanistan-is-still-the-worst-place-in-the-world-to-be-a-woman/

[13] https://time.com/5472411/afghanistan-women-justice-war/

[14] https://time.com/5472411/afghanistan-women-justice-war/

[15] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/17/uk-government-and-military-covered-up-war-crimes-report

[16] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54996581

[17] https://theconversation.com/us-punishes-international-criminal-court-for-investigating-potential-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-143886

FROM: islam21c.com

A MADRASAH APA’S LAMENT

A MADRASAH APA’S LAMENT
“I have seen in The Majlis your criticism of girls madrasahs. I have recently started at girls madressa and have experienced many ups and downs.
I hated the fact that there was no spirituality at my madressa, everyone spoke about birthdays. Proper Islamic dress code was not enforced, not even by the seniors. The male teachers would talk directly to the females even though from behind a screen. The conversation was not about work. During Ramadhaan there was no time allocated for ibaadat or so on. It really bothered me. I felt as though the little spirituality that I had worked so hard on was dying. Then I also had a friend who had disturbed my peace. As much as we were friends we were just not good for each other. We would engage in idle talk, despite both our efforts to be better Muslims. I then decided to rather leave madressa so that I could attend to my house and my husband and my family. I had hoped that I could continue learning at home, but it was very difficult. I left madressa for about 2 months and after not learning much I started to feel bad, so I decided to return to madressa. It’s been one week since I’m back. I love learning but I still don’t feel content with being at the madressa. It feels like it takes up too much of my time that could be spent doing other things for my home and ultimately for my Aakhirah. Please advise.” (End of the Apa’s lament)
OUR ADVICE

Just get out of the madrasah and stay at home where Allah Ta’ala wants you to be. Life is short. Maut stalks us at every moment. Don’t waste your time at these worldly, deceptive girls madrasahs. Shaitaan has carved out these institutions to divert Muslims from the Deen and to ruin the Haya of Muslim women. The only place for a Muslim woman is her home. You will gain the status of shahaadat by remaining at home occupied in your domestic duties.

FROM THE MAJLIS VOLUME 26 NUMBER 01