Does "marry not women married by your fathers" include rape? [Archive] - sunniforum.com - a resource for the propagation of authentic Islamic teachings

View Full Version : Does "marry not women married by your fathers" include rape?

Insaniac

04-08-2005, 02:12 PM

Muawiyah

05-08-2005, 12:11 AM

Yes,at least in the Hanafi madhhab, if a man touches his sons wife with sexual intention, her marraige is broken and she becomes haram for both of them to ever marry again. Wallahul Musta'an

haqq

05-08-2005, 03:14 AM

Extracted from Islamic Hijaab page 19th:

Although, Hijaab for mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law is of lesser degree than Hijaab for total ghair mahaareem, nevertheless, the Shariah orders that great caution be exercised. The disaster which can arise out of an illicit relationship between a man and his daughter-in-law is irreparable and irrevocable. Should a man merely touch his daughter-in-law with lust, his son's nikah with his daughter-in-law will perpetually break. She falls out of his nikah and there is no way in which the couple can ever be reunited. Marriage after even three talaaqs is possible under certain conditions, but a nikah broken by a haraam touch of the father-in-law on his daughter-in-law or by the son-in-law on the mother-in-law can never be rectified. The calamity is too great, hence the need for great caution. According to certain Mujtahideen even a lustful glance at one's daughter-in-law or mother-in-law invalidates the nikah of the partners.

The need for Hijaab of this kind is stated in Shaami as follows:

"if the mother-in-law is a young woman, the neighbours are entitled to prevent her son-in-law living with her if they fear any mischief between them".

The same ruling applies to a man and his young step-mother.

Insaniac

05-08-2005, 11:48 AM

Yes,at least in the Hanafi madhhab, if a man touches his sons wife with sexual intention, her marraige is broken and she becomes haram for both of them to ever marry again. Wallahul Musta'an
Can't see why the woman has to suffer b/c of father-in-law's sin... I feel really bad now... It's as if this fatwa breaks general principles of Islam, like does an innocent person have to suffer because of the sin of others..? This is a great fitnah for me. I feel like abandoning the idea of taqlid right now, and start doing talfiq. How can this be called equity, peace and the perfect way of life?

JazakumaAllah khayr
Wassalam

Karim_sunni

05-08-2005, 03:33 PM

What does this verse say about rape???

I dont see anything mentioned about rape, it is only going about prohibiting marraige to a fathers ex-wife or mother in law (allah knows best)

tafsir Ibn kathir

Marrying the Wife of the Father is Prohibited

Allah said,

[وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ ءَابَاؤُكُمْ مِّنَ النِّسَآءِ]

(And marry not women whom your fathers married,) Allah prohibits marrying the women whom the father married, in honor and respect to the fathers, not allowing their children to have sexual relations with their wives after they die. A woman becomes ineligible for the son of her husband as soon as the marriage contract is conducted, and there is a consensus on this ruling. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "During the time of Jahiliyyah, the people used to prohibit what Allah prohibits (concerning marriage), except marrying the stepmother and taking two sisters as rival wives. Allah sent down,

[وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ ءَابَاؤُكُمْ مِّنَ النِّسَآءِ]

(And marry not women whom your fathers married,) and,

[وَأَن تَجْمَعُواْ بَيْنَ الاٍّخْتَيْنِ]

(and two sisters in wedlock at the same time) [4:23].'' Similar was reported from `Ata' and Qatadah. Therefore, the practice that the Ayah mentions is prohibited for this Ummah, being disgraced as an awful sin, r

[إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَـحِشَةً وَمَقْتاً وَسَآءَ سَبِيلاً]

(Indeed it was shameful and Maqtan, and an evil way.) Allah said in other Ayat,

[وَلاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الْفَوَحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ]

(Come not near to Al-Fawahish (shameful acts) whether committed openly or secretly) [6:151], and,

[وَلاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الزِّنَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَآءَ سَبِيلاً ]

(And come not near to unlawful sex. Verily, it is a Fahishah and an evil way.) [17:32] In this Ayah (4:22), Allah added,

[وَمَقْتاً]

(and Maqtan), meaning, offensive. It is a sin itself and causes the son to hate his father after he marries his wife. It is usual that whoever marries a woman dislikes those who married her before him. This is one reason why the Mothers of the Faithful were not allowed for anyone in marriage after the Messenger . They are indeed the Mothers of the Faithful since they married the Messenger , who is like the father to the believers. Rather, the Prophet's right is far greater than the right of a father, and his love comes before each person loving himself, may Allah's peace and blessings be on him. `Ata' bin Abi Rabah said that the Ayah,

[وَمَقْتاً]

(and Maqtan), means, Allah will hate him,

[وَسَآءَ سَبِيلاً]

(and an evil way), for those who take this way. Therefore, those who commit this practice will have committed an act of reversion from the religion and deserve capital punishment and confiscation of their property, which will be given to the Muslim Treasury. Imam Ahmad and the collectors of Sunan recorded that Al-Bara' bin `Azib said that his uncle Abu Burdah was sent by the Messenger of Allah to a man who married his stepmother to execute him and confiscate his money.

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10715

Insaniac

07-08-2005, 12:27 PM

New question:

Are there any other analogical situations where someone innocent has to suffer b/c of some other's sin?

haqq

07-08-2005, 02:46 PM

nauk

07-08-2005, 04:26 PM

How can something deemed halal (marriage) be made invalid by a haram act when it was not intention or in the womans control?

1Message4all

07-08-2005, 07:58 PM

I also have the same question...How can some one else break the strong bond between a husband and a wife through their sinful acts...If the husband and wife have been true to one another and have commit no such sins or even had any intensions of wrong doing, how could they face an end to the their marriage?...This gives complete control of the marriage to someone else...This just seems really unjust to me...Every man will be judged on account of their own sins...Does this not abide with this topic?...

Insaniac

08-08-2005, 10:10 AM

:salam:

Man many times suffer from the sins of others (ie. Murder and etc.).

Brother don't be hung up on this. Ultimately, everything is in Allah's control.

You statement about abandonment of taqlid concerns me much. One must understand that our intellect is not sufficient to comprehend the wisdom behind the Ahkaam (commands).

It you are able to, pick up a copy of the book "The Wisdom behind the Commands" (or something like that) by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayhi).

Was-salaam,
haqq
Wa 'alaykum assalam.

In the cases of murder, theft, etc. it's not the shariah that makes any innocent suffer. It's the sin in itself - whereas in this case, the sin has been done, ppl suffered, and then afterwards the shariah comes in and makes the innocent suffer even more. So, as far as I can remember, this has got to be the only case in shariah, when if everybody talks the truth and are honest and everything is in it's best order, and the sinner even repents, but when all things are cleared up, innocent ppl has to suffer...

I know it's a case I should just accept, independent of the wisdom behind the ruling. It seems as if it's only a "sami'na wa ata'na"-case, like death penalty, issue of beard, etc. Mufti ibn Adam has a great lecture about this: http://www.edars.com/dars/MMAK-Islam_Means_Submission.rm, lakin bro.. I'm in to that, but this just ain't the same, as I explained.

I called the mufti... He gave the same fatwa, and I told him about my difficulty with accepting this, and he adviced me to sit down, study what the other madhahib say, and choose the opinion I'm convinced about. Lakin it doesn't make the case any better what I choose, when my school of thought says what it says, regardless of what opinion I should choose.

I've come down to the earth again, left the talfiq thoughts (alhamdulillah), and have stopped thinking so much on this.. But this problem will stay there, 'cuz this is too much for me. I just can't digest this. If I had known about an analogical case, it'd make things better, and wouldn't make this ruling be in opposite to all other, that I know about.

I hope I haven't spread my thoughts to anyone who might get affected by my dalala and ignorance. Of course we're supposed to accept all of the ahkam, and everyone who hasn't, should listen to that lecture I linked to, but I just don't have enough taqwa to swallow this one.

Karim Sunni, Tafsir ibn Kathir is good, but not perfect. Anyway, imam ibn Kathir was a hanbali, I think. Mufti ibn Adam told me there is difference of opinion here, but fiqh hanafi does have many dala'eel. So, I guess there are lots of ahadith we don't have access to through the net, so I don't say this ruling is wrong, it's just that I can't comprehend it.

If anyone can remember an analogical situation, please let me know.
Brother Haqq and Muawiyah, jazakuma Allahu khayr for your help.

Wassalamu 'alaykum,
Your confused bro Insaniac.

Karim_sunni

08-08-2005, 02:17 PM

ahkar

09-09-2005, 03:10 PM

Insaniac

09-09-2005, 03:49 PM

Are there any other analogical situations where someone innocent has to suffer b/c of some other's sin?
It has been clear that rape is included in the ayah, but I would appreciate an answer to above quoted question also.

Ansari

12-09-2005, 10:32 AM

It has been clear that rape is included in the ayah, but I would appreciate an answer to above quoted question also.
The child of an adulterer not able to inherit?

SO what did mufti ibn adam say? Did he also say there is a difference of opinion on a mere touch of the father?

Insaniac

13-09-2005, 03:07 PM

The child of an adulterer not able to inherit?

SO what did mufti ibn adam say? Did he also say there is a difference of opinion on a mere touch of the father?
He didn't mention the touching of the father... But he said that fiqh hanafi has really good dalail for their opinion, and that if I have problems accepting that, I should read about it and use some time to get into it. If I get convinced by some other non-hanafi views, then I should adopt them in that particular case.

AFM

14-09-2005, 02:17 AM

Sunnipath it?

saalikulilm

14-09-2005, 09:23 PM

I called the mufti... He gave the same fatwa, and I told him about my difficulty with accepting this, and he adviced me to sit down, study what the other madhahib say, and choose the opinion I'm convinced about. Lakin it doesn't make the case any better what I choose, when my school of thought says what it says, regardless of what opinion I should choose.

There are a few mu`tamad opinions in every school that I find unconscionable. Further, in the Hanafi madhhab, if a man is forced to irrevocably divorce his wife, then the divorce stands. Now, of course, there are always "minority" opinions within that school. Perhaps there was a mujtahid of the Hanafi school who differed with the mainstream position. That way, you don't have to leave your madhhab, and can still adhere to the dictates of your conscience.

zabbyh

20-09-2005, 07:51 PM

"And marry not those women whom your fathers married, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! it was ever lewdness and abomination, and an evil way." [4:22]

Ok Just by seeing this I had to register and post my opinion...

The son is already married to the woman so this cannot be taken as evidence to support a divorce against a rape victim..
The father in law was never married to this girl..

Another point had this girl been raped by the father in law before she married his son then such an arguement can be used, as the father in law has already touched this woman and then this would not seem right...

A woman must cover in front of her father in law, brothers in law, uncles in law etc. As they are not her mahram. (the only person who is, is her husband from his side of the family)

Now the father in law himself has committed a great sin, I believe he is married therefore he has committed the major adultery of which the punishment is stoning to death (you can't go and do this yourself, it must be done in an islamic state under islamic law....). Else the punishment awaiting the father in law will be far greater in the hereafter..

The question to ask is, does the woman want to remain married to the son of the man who raped her?, will she not re-live this everyday?. If she wants a divorce then you must give her it..

Analysing the quote of the verse at the top, you have to consider that is referring to both parties consenting to be in a married relationship i.e. 'don't marry women that your father has before you', the answer to this is quite simple. The women your father marries take on a "step-mum" role equivalent to another wife that your father may have as well as his present wife. This means that any child they have are your half brothers and sisters whom you cannot marry as the same blood runs through you..

That is why you cannot marry the same women your father married previously as they had the potential to give you a half siblings and they are like a "mother to you".

Whereas this situation is different, you were already married to this woman and she was a victim of lust. So I believe it would be your choice if you wanted to keep this woman or divorce her as it was not her fault and Allah forgives all and does not punish you for something that is not your fault..

I did find this though and I highlighted the main issue..

Question: What are the valid reasons for divorce, from your point of view your Eminence?

Response: For divorce there are many reasons:

From them (i.e. the many reasons for divorce) is lack of harmony between the husband and the wife such that it does not cause love from either one for the other or from both of them.

And from them is bad behaviour of the woman or lack of listening and obedience to the husband in what he commands of the good.

And from them is bad behaviour of the husband and his oppressing the woman and lack of fairness/justice for her.

And from them is his falling short of fulfilling her rights and her falling short of fulfilling his rights.

And from this is the occurrence of wrongdoing from one of them or both of them such that the situation is made worse because of this, so the only route is divorce, and from this is the husband or the wife turning to intoxicants and smoking.

And from them is the bad state of affairs between the woman and the husband's parents or either of them, and the lack of use of wise politics in dealing with each other.

And from them is the lack of the woman in caring and showing concern in cleanliness and dressing up and beautifying herself for her husband with perfume and good speech and cheerfulness when she meets her husband and when they have sexual intercourse.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz
Fataawa Islaamiyyah - Volume 3, Page 264

jinnzaman

22-09-2005, 05:36 PM

Bismillah

Assalamu alaikum

Allahu alim, but most of the deobandi scholars I've asked this question have affirmed that the marriage of a daughter-in-law who gets raped by her father-in-law will dissolve.

I do not disagree with the ruling because its not my place, however, I would strongly advise the Ulema to really step up to the plate and provide a solid defense of the ruling because of the following reasons:

1. The Authority of the Scholars will be irrevocably damaged if they do not provide an adequate response.

2. The Kuffar will utilize this as an example to preclude Islamic movements from adopting the Shariah as their legal systems and instead, impose secular liberal democratic governmetns or maintain them in areas where they already exist.

3. Salafis will utilize this as an excuse against taqleed of a particular madhab and reinforce their claim for ijtehad.

4. Modernists will utilize this as an excuse to reject the authority of the scholars and proclaim themselves as mujtahids and begin issuing their own rulings.

This has the potential to cause a lot of fitnah so it must be dealt with properly. I think it would be useful if the scholars of the other madhaib came to the support of the Deobandis.

Regardless of how it is done, a very conclusive response must be given and it must be given in a very quick manner. Even if the facts of the case turn out that the lady did not get raped by her father in law, it will still set a legal precedent. If father in laws come under the impression that no legal remedies can be sought against a rape, they will have free reign to destroy marriages.

A very good explanation is due. May Allah (swt) preserve our Ummah from this fitnah and raise up a leader from amongst us who will fight it and unite us. Ameen.

Below, you will find the response that Shaikh Irfan Kabeeruddin from the Islamic Society of Baltimore gave me when I asked him this quesiton. Shaikh Irfan has studied in South Africa and also Darul Uloom Karongi under Mufti Taqi Usmani.

> Subject: Re: Question
>
> Wa alaikum assalam
>
> May this e-mail reach you in the best state of health and iman.
>
> No, I didn't recieve the answers.
>
> masalama
>
>
>
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Irfan Kabeeruddin imam@isb.org
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:03:32 -0400
> To: jinnzaman@sunnipath.com
> Subject: Re: Question
>
> >
> > >
> > > From: <jinnzaman@sunnipath.com>
> > > Date: 2005/09/16 Fri PM 02:18:15 EDT
> > > To: imam@isb.org
> > > Subject: Question
> > >
> > > Assalamu alaikum
> > >
> > > May this e-mail reach you in the best state of health and iman.
> > >
> > > In the Hanafi madhab, if a father-in-law rapes his daughter-in-law, does this mean that her marriage with her husband dissolves?
> > >
> > > Also, what are the remedies in the Shariah when a woman gets raped.
> > >
> > > masalama
> > > As Salaamu 'Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh
The answer to your first question is yes in regards to the Nikah being dissolved brother.
In regards to your second question, the answer is that Al-Islam has not really placed any type of specific rulings in regards to such a situation. It really varies with the individual and the situation. We should try to be very caring and thoughtful with that specific person. We should talk alot about the hereafter with that person and remind her in regards to the virtues of patience. May Allah protect all our mothers and sisters from such things Ameen.
As Salaamu 'Alaikum
Irfan Kabiruddin

haqq

23-09-2005, 01:18 AM

Extracted from Islamic Hijaab page 19:

Although, Hijaab for mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law is of lesser degree than Hijaab for total ghair mahaareem, nevertheless, the Shariah orders that great caution be exercised. The disaster which can arise out of an illicit relationship between a man and his daughter-in-law is irreparable and irrevocable. Should a man merely touch his daughter-in-law with lust, his son's nikah with his daughter-in-law will perpetually break. She falls out of his nikah and there is no way in which the couple can ever be reunited. Marriage after even three talaaqs is possible under certain conditions, but a nikah broken by a haraam touch of the father-in-law on his daughter-in-law or by the son-in-law on the mother-in-law can never be rectified. The calamity is too great, hence the need for great caution. According to certain Mujtahideen even a lustful glance at one's daughter-in-law or mother-in-law invalidates the nikah of the partners.

The need for Hijaab of this kind is stated in Shaami as follows:

"if the mother-in-law is a young woman, the neighbours are entitled to prevent her son-in-law living with her if they fear any mischief between them".

The same ruling applies to a man and his young step-mother.

haqq

23-09-2005, 01:19 AM

Here is an interesting article from IslamOnline

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/04/article04.shtml

Imrana Case…Rape of Truth in India (Special Report)

By Zafarul-Islam Khan, IOL Correspondent

NEW DELHI, July 4, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) - The alleged rape of a
Muslim woman by her father-in-law in an obscure Indian village has,
once again, proved the mighty role—vicious as it may be—the media can
play in our lives.

The case that has shaken India, grabbed headlines worldwide, and
caused secularists, feminists, communists, and extremist Hindus to cry
out aloud, demanding the abolition of Muslim personal laws, against
the wishes 145 million Indian Muslims, is—in a nutshell—the work of "a
journalist".

It was only natural for IslamOnline.net to be alarmed by the case as
it appeared in the media and it was up to IOL correspondent in India
to dig as deep as humanly possible to get to the bottom of the
so-called Imrana case. This report reveals "astonishing" facts, to say
the least.

"Property Dispute"

According to IOL correspondent, the issue reportedly started on the
morning of June 3—a month ago—when a 28-year-old illiterate Muslim
woman, called Imrana, living in the north Indian district of
Muzaffarnagar claimed that her father-in-law (Ali Mohammad) had
"raped" her at night. Imrana, mother of five, claimed that he fled
when she "screamed".

Enquiries by this correspondent show that no one in the tiny house or
her immediate neighbors heard any "scream" at night. This was strange
as it is summer time when all people living in the tiny interconnected
houses sleep on the terrace or in open courtyards inside their homes.

What adds a new dimension to the case is that this allegation was made
in the midst of an on-going dispute in the family about selling the
ancestral property. The father-in-law wanted to sell the house while
the son, Noor Ilahi, and his wife Imrana—the heroine of the infamous
story—opposed the move as they had nowhere to go.

A team of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which visited the
concerned village and met the alleged victim, her relatives and
village people Saturday, July 2, came back with the impression that no
rape had taken place and that it was a case of property dispute, says
IOL correspondent.

"First Bullet"

The father-in-law has all along denied the rape claim and the issue
was dismissed within the family but some neighbors got wind of it and
soon a small-time local journalist called Shakti of the Hindi paper
Dainik Jagaran got wind of it.

Shakti came to the family and demanded ten thousand rupees to keep
silent. The poor family pleaded that it did not have this kind of
money, according to IOL correspondent, citing local witnesses.

The journalist went ahead and published the story in his newspaper.
Zee TV picked it from Dainik Jagaran and thereafter all the channels,
newspapers, agencies, NGOs and government organizations descended on
the small village of Charthawal whose inhabitants would tremble even
at the sight of a single baton-wielding policeman.

These vultures started interviewing just about anyone they found on
the village streets, reporting edited versions which showed that a
great crime had been committed against a hapless Muslim woman even
before the crime was established, says IOL correspondent.

The local media continues to describe what happened as "rape,"
discarding the adjective "alleged" in such cases, although no
authority till now has proved it to be a case of rape.

Unusual media focus and the incompetence of the Indian Muslim
religious and political leadership has only worsened the situation as
was seen in the somewhat similar case of Gudiya a few months ago.

Local Council

Alleged "rapist" Mohammad Ali arrested by the police.

As in many rural areas in the Subcontinent, a local elders council
(panchayat) was called in the village June 15 to deliberate over the
issue. A local maulavi (scholar) told the panchayat that after the
incident the woman was haram (forbidden) for her husband as she is
like his "mother" now and that she should marry the rapist.

The panchayat was described by the media as a "Shariat Panchayat" as
if a meeting of Islamic scholars had taken the decision, which is not
true. Naturally the woman refused this grand gesture and moved out to
live with her brothers in a nearby village. Noor Ilahi, a rickshaw
puller, could not stand the attention and fled from the scene.

Next day, June 16, the 59-year-old father-in-law was arrested by the
police on rape charges and sent on judicial remand for 14 days.

While all this was going on, neither the woman nor her husband had
complained to the police. It was only two weeks after the alleged rape
that the woman made a complaint to the police and an FIR (first
information report) was registered. She appeared before a civil court
in Muzzafarnagar June 20 to make her statement.

"No Rape"

That was the time for political meddlers to exploit a situation for
their benefit, as usual. A Delhi-based secularist women's outfit
called Muslim Women Forum sent two representatives June 20, to meet
Imrana. They bribed her with five thousand rupees and asked her to say
to the media and police that she would not accept the ruling of
Shari`ah (Islamic Law) and would only go for the civil court's
judgment to safeguard her rights.

On June 30, Dr. Tasleem Rahmani, president of the Muslim Political
Council, called a press conference in Delhi in which he showed a
3-hour video in which Imrana appeared saying that no rape had taken
place, that she was given five thousand rupees by a "feminist
organization".

Rahmani said that the case was blown out of proportion to malign the
Muslims and the Shari`ah. He planned to file a complaint in the Press
Council of India against "irresponsible" reporting. Most newspapers
and channels chose not to carry Rahmani's statement.

Fatwa

Then comes the role of some religious people to unintentionally fuel
anti-Muslim media. A Noida-based Urdu newspaper, Rashtriya Sahara,
asked the mufti in India's premier Muslim seminary, Darul Uloom
Deoband, to give his opinion.

The mufti, Maulana Habibur Rahman, without ascertaining the facts of
the case or going to the area or sending someone there to find out the
truth, issued a fatwa on June 25, saying Imrana "is now haram
(forbidden) for her husband and should leave him".

"We have obtained a copy of this fatwa and asked Mufti Habibur Rahman
certain questions. He was unable to counter our argument that the
Qur'anic injunction ("And marry not women whom your fathers married…"
4:22) does not apply here," says this correspondent.

"The mufti gave us some references to support his view but when we
read them, they did not seem to support the mufti's interpretation
which is the opinion of some Hanafi fuqaha (scholars) who consider
rape also as a cause for prohibiting such marriages.

"We confronted the mufti again. This time he referred us to another
maulana who, he said, was present in the meeting when the decision was
taken. We asked him, why should we go to someone else when he (Mufti
Habibur Rahman) had signed the fatwa. Seemingly he was not pleased
with our argument and asked us to write down whatever "problems" we
had in mind. We did this promptly and are still waiting for his
reply."

Other schools of thought like Shafi`i, Maliki, Jaafari Shia and Ahl-e
Hadees reject this interpretation, as they hold that only legitimate
marriage is meant in the Qur'anic injunction and a crime does not
change the rule.

Just one day after our interaction June 29, the mufti's office
announced Friday, July 1, that the previous fatwa was not about
Imrana, which is factually incorrect. While the name "Imrana" is not
mentioned in the question to which the fatwa was given, her village
and district are mentioned. Moreover, the July 3 issue of Rashtriya
Sahara Urdu newspaper carries an article by Mufti Habibur Rahman which
explicitly mentions the name of Imrana and pronounces the same opinion
he earlier expressed in his fatwa.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, too, has now distanced itself
from that fatwa and will soon reconsider the issue, says IOL
correspondent.

Political Chance

Political parties were also quick to take advantage of the issue in
order to indulge in their usual pastime of attacking the Muslim
personal laws and repeat their age-old demand to force a "Uniform
Civil Code" (UCC) applicable to all citizens.

True, UCC is a "guiding principle" laid down in the Indian
Constitution's Article 44, but at the same time personal laws of
various communities including Hindus are respected and the stated
policy of the government ever since independence has been that the
personal laws will not be changed unless the demand is made by the
concerned community itself, according to IOL correspondent.

Various communist, socialist, and rightist parties repeated their
demand to enact UCC. The most vociferous was the beleaguered Hindutva
leader LK Advani who thundered Friday that "Muslim laws must change".

The Imrana issue had given a strong stick for the Baharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) to beat "pseudo-secularists".

"No civil society can accept the treatment being meted out to Imrana,
the victim of a heinous crime, by scholars. The ulemas (scholars) must
reconsider their decision to ensure that dignity is restored to
Imrana," said Advani.

On June 28, BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said in a specially
convened press conference that "the entire nation is concerned over
recent developments in relation to the case of Imrana, a helpless
victim of rape allegedly committed by her father-in-law." Jaitley
demanded the implementation of UCC, saying that Imrana's case shows
that "obnoxious religious practices [are] still prevalent. … This is
wholly unacceptable under any civilized notion of the rule of law."

President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council-VHP) Ashok
Singhal said that "the time has come to quash the Muslim Personal
Law."

Marxists, too, joined the fray. Communist Party of India (CPIM)'s
Brinda Karat on June 27, said that it's a "shocking example of how
contractors of religion can bulldoze the constitutional rights of a
citizen."

Congress Party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi announced on the same day
that "Fatwas are irrelevant." Replying to a question, Singhvi said if
there is a crime involving a person of any religion, caste or creed,
then it is dealt under the criminal law and fatwas or personal laws
become irrelevant.

A delegation of the National Commission for Women visited the victim
on 30 June. It demanded a speedy trial and appealed against
politicization of the incident. Commission chairperson Girija Vyas, a
Congress leader, said that "the issue should not be politicized but
treated on humanitarian grounds." She said that the "Constitution is
supreme."

Personal Laws

According to IOL correspondent, it is a fact of life in India today
that all possible liberties are taken where Muslims are concerned. The
media does not take the same freedom when it comes to other
communities. The same media was repeating ad nauseam that the AIMPLB
was supporting the Deoband fatwa when only a certain member of the
board, a laywoman, had done that. Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan
said July 1, that in the guise of the Imrana issue, the media is
targeting Islam. "There is an attempt behind this conspiracy to malign
Islam and Muslims," he added.

On July 1 the AIMPLB distanced itself from the Deoband fatwa and said
that a meeting of its working committee would be called to deliberate
on the issue. Next day Syed Shahabuddin, president of the All India
Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat (AIMMM), came out strongly against Advani's
outpourings. He said that the AIMMM condemns the political
exploitation of the Imrana case by the BJP to promote its
long-cherished agenda of religious assimilation of the Muslim
community through imposition of a common civil code in substitution of
its Shari`ah-based Personal Law.

The storm over Imrana will die down as time passes, but forces which
are ever ready to use any handle against Muslims will soon find some
other issue and blow it out of proportion unless leaders of the Muslim
community are ready to meet the challenges and adapt to the demands of
the modern times and requirements of natural justice.

Muawiyah

24-09-2005, 12:11 PM

Karim_sunni

25-09-2005, 09:57 PM

But the context of the verse speaks about marriage.

lets look at the tafsir from Ibn kathir again

Marrying the Wife of the Father is Prohibited

Allah said,

[وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ ءَابَاؤُكُمْ مِّنَ النِّسَآءِ]

(And marry not women whom your fathers married,) Allah prohibits marrying the women whom the father married, in honor and respect to the fathers, not allowing their children to have sexual relations with their wives after they die. A woman becomes ineligible for the son of her husband as soon as the marriage contract is conducted, and there is a consensus on this ruling. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "During the time of Jahiliyyah, the people used to prohibit what Allah prohibits (concerning marriage), except marrying the stepmother and taking two sisters as rival wives. Allah sent down,

[وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ ءَابَاؤُكُمْ مِّنَ النِّسَآءِ]

(And marry not women whom your fathers married,) and

(and two sisters in wedlock at the same time) [4:23].'' Similar was reported from `Ata' and Qatadah. Therefore, the practice that the Ayah mentions is prohibited for this Ummah, being disgraced as an awful sin, r

[إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَـحِشَةً وَمَقْتاً وَسَآءَ سَبِيلاً]

(Indeed it was shameful and Maqtan, and an evil way.) Allah said in other Ayat,

Further the message of Islam is that no one will be punished for the crime of someone else, islam is a religion of justice:

In the following Surah, the same order is given in another way: (O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, for this is closest to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. ) (Al-Ma’idah: 8)

What is Justice?

Justice is described in the Qur’an with two important words: Al-`Adl and Al-Qist. Al-`Adl means “equity, balance.” It means doing things in a proportionate manner, avoiding extremes. Al-Qist means “share, portion, measure, allotment, amount.” It means that every one and every thing has a due. One who gives every one and everything its due is “Muqsit” and the one who takes away others dues is called “Qasit”.

Allah says: (… and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). ) (Al-Hujurat: 9) and (But those who swerve, they are (but) fuel for Hell-fire. ) (Al-Jinn: 15)

faqir

15-10-2005, 08:36 PM

Assalamu 'alaykum,

"And marry not those women whom your fathers married, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! it was ever lewdness and abomination, and an evil way." [4:22]

In light of the above quoted ayah, if a father-in-law rapes his son's wife, would it make the woman impermissible for the rapist's son?

I need a hanafi answer, but answers from other madhahib are also appreciated, insha'Allah.

JazakumAllahu khayr
Wassalam

:salam:

The following is from a "salafi" website:

The Effects of Incest on the Validity of Marriage|

Sheikh Nâyif al-Hamad, presiding judge at the Rimâh District Courthouse|

If a man has sexual relations with his son’s wife, what affect does it have for the status of the woman’s marriage to the man’s son? Scholars have expressed two differing views on this matter.

The first opinion is that the woman and her husband become unlawful for one another on account of the sexual act between the woman and her husband’s father. This is the recognized position of the Hanafî and Hanbalî schools of law. They argue that any sexual act between a man and a woman – regardless of whether it occurs in a lawful or unlawful context – makes it unlawful for either party to the sexual act to ever be married to the children of the other party. Therefore the woman can never be married to the son of the man with whom she has experienced sexual intercourse. This applies to sex within a valid marriage, sex within an invalid marriage, sex under a false assumption of marriage, and outright fornication.

The Hanafî school goes further to assert that even foreplay and sensual kissing bring about this prohibition, since such foreplay leads to sex and thus brings about the same legal consequences. [1]

Hanbalî scholars, however, do not accept that mere foreplay results in prohibiting or invalidating marriages. [2]

Abû Hanîfah said: “Many jurists do not regard caressing and kissing to bring about a prohibition (of marriage with near relatives) since there is no textual evidence to establish such a prohibition. However, as a matter of caution, we take it to be so and construe a cause that calls to a sexual act to take the role of the sexual act itself.” [3]

The following is cited as evidence in support of the view that the woman and her husband become unlawful for one another on account of the sexual act between the woman and her husband’s father:

1. Allah says: “And marry not women whom your fathers married – except what is past: It was shameful and odious – an abominable custom indeed.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 22]

They argue that the Arabic word nikâh used in this verse not only refers to marriage but also to the act of sexual intercourse.

2. Whatever marital relations become prohibited by virtue of a lawful sexual act likewise become prohibited if an unlawful sexual act takes place, like sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle.

3. Marriage is a contract that can be invalidated in the case of a sexual act under a false assumption of marriage. Therefore, it also becomes invalidated by way of fornication or adultery.

The second opinion is that a sexual act engaged in under the false assumption of marriage does result in prohibiting marriage with the near relatives of those who engaged in the act. However, fornication and adultery do not bring about such consequences. According to this opinion, if a man hypothetically has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law under a false presumption that she was his wife, then as a result the woman would become unlawful to her husband.* By contrast, if the husband’s father commits adultery with the woman, such consequences will not take place. This is the recognized position of the Shâfi`î [4] and Mâlikî [5] schools of law.

They argue that sexual intercourse under a false presumption of marriage is still something within the bounds of what is to be respected; therefore it brings about the prohibition of marriage with near relatives, even if the ones who engaged in it are already prohibited to marry one another. However, fornication and adultery are different. It is not to be respected in any way, and therefore it does not bring about the legal consequences of prohibiting marriage with the near relatives of the perpetrators. [6]

The opinion that fornication and adultery do not result in the prohibition or invalidity of marriage with near relatives is the view preferred by the Hanbalî jurist Ibn Taymiyah. [7]

The Hanbalî jurist Ibn al-Qayyim concurs with this view, saying: [8]

The preferred opinion is – as asserted by al-Shâfi`î and by Mâlik in one of the narrations from him – that this act does not result in the unlawfulness of marriage. Such a prohibition requires evidence, and there is no evidence from the Qur’ân, the Sunnah, nor is there consensus nor there any valid juristic analogy to support such an opinion.

It is incorrect to compare an unlawful sexual act to marriage in effecting a prohibition of marriage with near relatives. There are differences between the two. Allah has made the relationship by marriage (i.e. in-law relationships) the partner of biological lineage. It is a blessing which he has bestowed upon his servants. Both types of relationship are blessings and from His grace. The ties of kinship through marriage are not established by unlawful means any more than legitimate lineage is established by such means.

Indeed, if lineage – which is the most fundamental relationship – does not come about from unlawful sexual intercourse, then in-law relationships which are subsidiary and which resemble the blood relationships are even further from being established by way of unlawful sexual intercourse.

Moreover, had marriage been forbidden by an unlawful sexual relationship by virtue of it bringing about an in-law type of relationship, then it follows that a full mahram relationship would be established between the relevant parties as well. Since this is not the case, then the unlawfulness of marriage cannot be established either.

What is more, Allah says (in the verses enumerating prohibited degrees of marriage): “…and the wives (halâ’il) of your sons” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 23] Women whom a son had fornicated with are not called halâ’il.

Allah says: “And marry not women whom your fathers married – except what is past.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 22] What is meant here is marriage that is the very opposite of unlawful sexual relations. The word for marriage – nikâh – does not appear even once in the Qur’ân with the meaning of fornication or referring to sex outside of the bonds of marriage.

Al-Shâfi`î debated some Iraqi jurists on this matter.*

This view is also supported by the fact that the rulings pertaining to marriage that Allah has set forth – the waiting period, mourning for widows, inheritance, lawful and prohibited degrees, attribution of lineage, the obligation of maintenance, that of dowry, the possibility of the khul` separation, of divorce, the oat of abstention, that of limiting a man to four women and that of justice between them, the ruling of revoking a divorce, that of consummated chastity, of restoring lawfulness to a former husband, and other such rulings – none of them apply to fornication and adultery, with the exception of some disagreement about the waiting period and dowry. However, the correct view is that there is no dowry for prostitution, as clearly stated in the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him). Also, the minds of people are naturally predisposed to having an aversion to it. Then, how can the prohibition of marriage on the basis of an in-law like relationship be established through fornication?
Ibn al-`Arabî writes: “In a case where no direct lineage can legally be established, it follows that no in-law relationship can be established. Therefore, fornication with a woman or her mother does not make marriage unlawful. What becomes unlawful by virtue of something lawful does not become unlawful on account of something unlawful.” [9]

Al-Shinqîtî writes: “The stronger of the two opinions with respect to the evidence is that fornication and adultery do not prohibit or nullify a valid marriage.”

The Hanbalî jurist Ibn al-`Uthaymîn says: [10]
The Hanbalî position is that fornication and adultery are like marriage in that the mother and the daughters of a woman with whom a man has unlawful sexual relations with become permanently unlawful for that man to marry. This is one of the strange opinions in the body of knowledge in that it makes unlawful sex like marriage…

The correct opinion is that nothing brings about prohibition of marriage through in-law relationships except a valid contract and that is because whenever Islamic Law mentions a contract in an unqualified statement, it refers to a valid contract. Therefore, the correct ruling on this matter is that what comes by way of an unlawful relationship does not bring about the prohibition of marriage similar to the prohibition of in-law relationships.
What about the perpetrator of the crime and the woman victim in a case of rape?

As for the man who raped his daughter-in-law, if he was of sound mind and committed the crime of his own free will, and if this is established in a court of law by confession or by proper procedures of evidence, then the prescribed punishment for adultery is to be carried out upon him. This punishment is for the convicted perpetrator to be stoned to death.

The evidence for this is related by Jâbir b. `Abd Allah that a man from the clan of Aslam approached the Prophet (peace be upon him) and informed him that he had committed adultery and bore witness against himself four times. The Prophet (peace be upon him) then ordered that the man be stoned. The man who committed the crime had been a married man. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6429)]

This sentence cannot be carried out by anyone other than the authorities. If the public were to take the law into its own hands, this would lead to anarchy. It can only be carried out after an official judicial verdict to that effect is issued. Moreover, capital punishments are prescribed to only be carried out by the state. They require the due process of law to be fully observed whereby the crime of adultery is legally established and all prohibitive factors and any doubts that would lead to a suspension of the sentence are ruled out.

As for the woman, since she was forced into the act, she is guilty of no sin or crime. Her innocence is a point about which all scholars are agreed.

She is also definitely not to be separated from her children. Indeed, they are her children by the consensus (ijma`) of the people of knowledge. It is unlawful to separate them. It is related from Abû Ayyûb al-Ansârî that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever separates between a woman and her child will be separated by Allah from those he loves on the Day of Judgment. [Mustadrak al-Hâkim (2/63)]

Al-Hâkim said about this hadîth: This is an authentic hadîth according to the conditions of authenticity set forth by Muslim, though he did not include it in his compilation.”

And Allah knows best.

------------------------------------------

Notes:

[1] al-Mabsût (4/702, 9/117, and 24/64) and Badâ’i` al-Sanâ’i` (2/260)

[2] al-Tahqîq (2/275), Sharh Muntahâ al-Irâdât (2/256) and Kashshâf al-Qunnâ` (5/82)

[3] al-Mabsût (9/117), Badâ’i` al-Sanâ’i` (7/41), Tabyîn al-Haqâ’iq (6/106), Fath al-Qadîr (3/216), and al-Bahr al-Râ’iq (3/105)

* Note form the editors: Such a situation may seem far-fetched, but it is conceivable where a man and his father have both recently married women through arranged marriages and the father mistakenly goes to the wife of the son or vice-versa.

[4] Manh al-Jalîl (3/330) and Sharh al-Kharashî (3/209)

[5] al-Umm (8/270) and Tuhfah al-Muhtâj (7/309)

[6] Hâshiyah al-Bujayrimî (3/366)

[7] al-Insâf fî Masâ’il al-Khilâf (8/1170)

[8] I`lâm al-Muqaqi`în (3/190)

* [Due to its technical nature, this debate has been moved to the endnotes.] The debate was as follows:
Al-Shâfi`î said: “Fornication does not make what is lawful unlawful. This is what Ibn `Abbâs said. This is because the unlawful is the opposite of what is lawful and something is not to be compared by way of analogy with its opposite.”

Someone said: “What do you say about a man’s wife who kisses his son with lust? Does she become unlawful to her husband forever?”

Al-Shâfi`î said: “Why do you say this? Since Allah has only forbidden the mothers of your wives and the like by way of marriage. It is therefore not permissible to compare the unlawful with the lawful.

Someone said: “I merely see one sexual act and another.”

Al-Shâfi`î responded: “One is a sexual act that is praiseworthy and consecrates a marital relationship while the other is a sexual act that a person gets stoned for. One is a calumny while the other is a blessing by which Allah establishes lineage and in-law relationships and people’s rights, and by which He makes you a mahram to your wife’s mother and daughter so you can be their escort on a journey. Allah has made fornication a calumny by prescribing a capital punishment for it in this world – and the Hellfire for it in the Hereafter, except if He forgives it. So you would compare by way of analogy the unlawful calumny to the lawful blessing?”

Al-Shâfi`î then posed the question: “Consider a woman who was divorced thrice irrevocably who can only be made lawful again to her former husband if she marries another man who consummates the marriage with her (and then divorces her). Would you say that she could be made lawful to her former husband by committing adultery with somebody else because it is ‘one sexual act and another’?”

He replied: “This is a mistake, because Allah has only made marriage lawful (for the former husband) by way of another husband.”

Al-Shâfi`î said: “Likewise is what Allah has prohibited in His Book by way of marriage with a spouse and by way of consummation of that marriage.”

He said: “Is there anything that becomes unlawful through the practice of what is lawful but does not become unlawful through the practice of what is unlawful?”

Al-Shâfi`î replied: “Yes, when a man has married four women, it becomes unlawful for him to marry a fifth. Would you claim that anything would become unlawful for him had he fornicated with four women?”

He conceded: “No, the unlawful act does not prohibit for him what the lawful act prohibits him.” Then he introduced the argument: “If a woman became an apostate, she would consequently become unlawful to her husband.”

Al-Shâfî`î observed: ‘Indeed, and to the rest of creation as well. Moreover, she would be executed and her wealth would be repossessed.”

He said: “(The point is) that here we have an unlawful act making a lawful relationship unlawful.”

Al-Shâfî`î said: “As for matters like the ones we are discussing with respect to women, that is not the case.”
[9] Tafsîr al-Qurtubî (13/59)

[10] al-Sharh al-Mumti` `alâ Zâd al-Mustaqni` (10/200)

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=774

faqir

15-10-2005, 08:41 PM

see also:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6844&page=2&pp=10

Insaniac

16-10-2005, 09:39 AM

:salam:

The following is from a "salafi" website:

The Effects of Incest on the Validity of Marriage|

Sheikh Nâyif al-Hamad, presiding judge at the Rimâh District Courthouse|

Al-Shâfi`î debated some Iraqi jurists on this matter.*

(...)*[Due to its technical nature, this debate has been moved to the endnotes.] The debate was as follows:
Al-Shâfi`î said: “Fornication does not make what is lawful unlawful. This is what Ibn `Abbâs said. This is because the unlawful is the opposite of what is lawful and something is not to be compared by way of analogy with its opposite.”

Someone said: “What do you say about a man’s wife who kisses his son with lust? Does she become unlawful to her husband forever?”

Al-Shâfi`î said: “Why do you say this? Since Allah has only forbidden the mothers of your wives and the like by way of marriage. It is therefore not permissible to compare the unlawful with the lawful.

Someone said: “I merely see one sexual act and another.”

Al-Shâfi`î responded: “One is a sexual act that is praiseworthy and consecrates a marital relationship while the other is a sexual act that a person gets stoned for. One is a calumny while the other is a blessing by which Allah establishes lineage and in-law relationships and people’s rights, and by which He makes you a mahram to your wife’s mother and daughter so you can be their escort on a journey. Allah has made fornication a calumny by prescribing a capital punishment for it in this world – and the Hellfire for it in the Hereafter, except if He forgives it. So you would compare by way of analogy the unlawful calumny to the lawful blessing?”

Al-Shâfi`î then posed the question: “Consider a woman who was divorced thrice irrevocably who can only be made lawful again to her former husband if she marries another man who consummates the marriage with her (and then divorces her). Would you say that she could be made lawful to her former husband by committing adultery with somebody else because it is ‘one sexual act and another’?”

He replied: “This is a mistake, because Allah has only made marriage lawful (for the former husband) by way of another husband.”

Al-Shâfi`î said: “Likewise is what Allah has prohibited in His Book by way of marriage with a spouse and by way of consummation of that marriage.”

He said: “Is there anything that becomes unlawful through the practice of what is lawful but does not become unlawful through the practice of what is unlawful?”

Al-Shâfi`î replied: “Yes, when a man has married four women, it becomes unlawful for him to marry a fifth. Would you claim that anything would become unlawful for him had he fornicated with four women?”

He conceded: “No, the unlawful act does not prohibit for him what the lawful act prohibits him.” Then he introduced the argument: “If a woman became an apostate, she would consequently become unlawful to her husband.”

Al-Shâfî`î observed: ‘Indeed, and to the rest of creation as well. Moreover, she would be executed and her wealth would be repossessed.”

He said: “(The point is) that here we have an unlawful act making a lawful relationship unlawful.”

Al-Shâfî`î said: “As for matters like the ones we are discussing with respect to women, that is not the case.”

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=774
JazakaAllahu khayr, brother faqir. This is what I've been lookin for. May Allah guide the salafi judge and accept his good actions.

Karim_sunni

16-10-2005, 11:09 PM

JazakaAllahu khayr, brother faqir. This is what I've been lookin for. May Allah guide the salafi judge and accept his good actions.

I completely agree with that, the fatwa is perfect! may allah swt guide that salafi judge and reward him for his fatwa.

wa salaam

Abba

19-10-2005, 10:19 PM

Mashallah!
I am happy to see that people are accept the good from where ever it comes from.

Insaniac

23-10-2005, 04:43 PM

Al-Shâfi`î debated some Iraqi jurists on this matter.*
(...)
* [Due to its technical nature, this debate has been moved to the endnotes.] The debate was as follows:
Al-Shâfi`î said: “Fornication does not make what is lawful unlawful. This is what Ibn `Abbâs said. This is because the unlawful is the opposite of what is lawful and something is not to be compared by way of analogy with its opposite.”

Someone said: “What do you say about a man’s wife who kisses his son with lust? Does she become unlawful to her husband forever?”

Al-Shâfi`î said: “Why do you say this? Since Allah has only forbidden the mothers of your wives and the like by way of marriage. It is therefore not permissible to compare the unlawful with the lawful.

Someone said: “I merely see one sexual act and another.”

Al-Shâfi`î responded: “One is a sexual act that is praiseworthy and consecrates a marital relationship while the other is a sexual act that a person gets stoned for. One is a calumny while the other is a blessing by which Allah establishes lineage and in-law relationships and people’s rights, and by which He makes you a mahram to your wife’s mother and daughter so you can be their escort on a journey. Allah has made fornication a calumny by prescribing a capital punishment for it in this world – and the Hellfire for it in the Hereafter, except if He forgives it. So you would compare by way of analogy the unlawful calumny to the lawful blessing?”

Al-Shâfi`î then posed the question: “Consider a woman who was divorced thrice irrevocably who can only be made lawful again to her former husband if she marries another man who consummates the marriage with her (and then divorces her). Would you say that she could be made lawful to her former husband by committing adultery with somebody else because it is ‘one sexual act and another’?”

He replied: “This is a mistake, because Allah has only made marriage lawful (for the former husband) by way of another husband.”

Al-Shâfi`î said: “Likewise is what Allah has prohibited in His Book by way of marriage with a spouse and by way of consummation of that marriage.”

He said: “Is there anything that becomes unlawful through the practice of what is lawful but does not become unlawful through the practice of what is unlawful?”

Al-Shâfi`î replied: “Yes, when a man has married four women, it becomes unlawful for him to marry a fifth. Would you claim that anything would become unlawful for him had he fornicated with four women?”

He conceded: “No, the unlawful act does not prohibit for him what the lawful act prohibits him.” Then he introduced the argument: “If a woman became an apostate, she would consequently become unlawful to her husband.”

Al-Shâfî`î observed: ‘Indeed, and to the rest of creation as well. Moreover, she would be executed and her wealth would be repossessed.”

He said: “(The point is) that here we have an unlawful act making a lawful relationship unlawful.”

Al-Shâfî`î said: “As for matters like the ones we are discussing with respect to women, that is not the case.”

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=774

Some questions still remain after having a look at this debate.

The Iraqi jurists argue that the case of discussion is analogical with when a wife does kufr.

But in that case, the wife is guilty herself, and is NOT analogical with the case of discussion, because there is no third person who sins here, causing the relationship to become unlawful. Let me explain a little:

When the father-in-law rapes, then two persons who haven't sinned have to suffer.

When the wife becomes kafirah, then she has sinned and has to suffer, there is no third person in the picture here.

And also another point to think about, is the following:

If a woman is raped by her father-in-law, she has to [according to hanafi fiqh] suffer punishment in this life, but she hasn't sinned, and therefore she doesn't deserve punishment in the hereafter.

While in the case of a wife becoming kafirah, then she has sinned and deserves punishment in the hereafter and also has to suffer punishment in this life.

So I actually still am searching for an analogical case of punishment, similar to the ruling of hanafi fiqh in the case of the father-in-law raping the wife of his son.

I really hope someone could provide such an example.

JazakumAllahu khayr,
Wassalamu 'alaykum

lumumba_s

27-10-2005, 10:23 PM

Abdur_Rahman

29-10-2005, 05:50 AM

As'salamu 'alaykum,

Imam Malik mentions in the Muwatta' that the fornication of one's parents is not taken into consideration, and therefore a person can marry an individual that their parents fornicated with. In the Maliki school such a thing would not even break her fast.
:salam:

Brother I do believe I've met you before in Hampton, Virginia (TideWater Masjid)

Please activate your Private Messaging :insh:

Insaniac

29-10-2005, 02:51 PM

As'salamu 'alaykum,

Imam Malik mentions in the Muwatta' that the fornication of one's parents is not taken into consideration, and therefore a person can marry an individual that their parents fornicated with. In the Maliki school such a thing would not even break her fast.
Wa 'alaykum assalam,

there is no problem with the rulings of others, but it's the hanafi ruling which gives me a headache.

lumumba_s

29-10-2005, 05:39 PM

Wa 'alaykum assalam,

there is no problem with the rulings of others, but it's the hanafi ruling which gives me a headache. As'ssalamu 'alaykum,

Pose the question to Sunni Path (http://qa.sunnipath.com/).

Insaniac

31-10-2005, 08:54 AM

Wa 'alaykum assalam,

I did, but didn't get any answer... They pobably don't consider this to be any beneficial knowledge...

Insaniac

31-10-2005, 08:55 AM

Wa 'alaykum assalam,

I did, but didn't get any answer... They probably don't consider this to be any beneficial knowledge...

lumumba_s

07-11-2005, 01:30 AM

Wa 'alaykum assalam,

I did, but didn't get any answer... They probably don't consider this to be any beneficial knowledge...
As'salamu 'alaykum,

Give them time. They probably get a hundred questions per day and there are only a select number of people who answer. I myself have asked 5 questions recently. Two before Ramadan and three in Ramadan. The two before Ramadan were answered almost within days and the three during Ramadan have yet to be addressed.

Additionally, if it is a question that requires research it will take longer to answer. The people at Sunnipath are not want to answer questions without refering to scholarship.

Ansari

07-11-2005, 11:50 AM

Wa 'alaykum assalam,

I did, but didn't get any answer... They probably don't consider this to be any beneficial knowledge...:salam:
Have you read this:

Marriageable Relations Being Forbidden by Touching
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=249&CATE=87

AbuZaid

22-11-2005, 02:20 AM

As Salaam Alaikum

Based on the verse of Surah Nisaa “And marry not those women whom your fathers have had sexual relations with” Abu Bakr Jassas RA says:

This verse makes it compulsory that Nikaah is Haraam with a lady with whom the father has had sexual intercourse with, either through adultery or otherwise is Haraam. The reason is that the word (Maa Nakaha) means sexual intercourse in its reality; therefore it is Waajib to take it upon that meaning.
And when this is clear in regards to the father then the ruling will be the same if one has had sexual intercourse with ones wife’s mother or daughter, because the one situation is not different from the other two.
And evidence to this is the verse “your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have had sexual intercourse with”. In this verse the word Dukhool (in the verse the word is dakhaltum bihinna) means sexual intercourse, and it is Aam (general) to all types of sexual intercourse whether it may be Mabaah (term in Shariah meaning neither Haraam or Halaal) or Haraam, and Marriage or fornication.

Based on this, rape will be included in this, because it comes under the generality of Maa Nakaha.
Note: I have also translated the two verses in accordance to this ruling laid out by Allamah Abu Bakr Jassas RA.

Wallahu Alam
Abu Zaid Uthman Bin Mahmood

ankaboot

22-11-2005, 06:43 AM

amal

22-11-2005, 08:19 AM

Assalamu Alaikum, I had always wondered about this issue, jazaakallahu Khair for clearing it Mawlana Abu Zaid.

Could you please clear one more similar issue, suppose things do not go that far, but the father in law or step father who ever, a fatherly figure just touches a girl with bad intentions, but control themselves before thing got further, would the same ruling be applied then.

Jazaakallahu khairan.
I don't think its very clear his bad intention. Without to go further he could just excuse himself like i just wanted to scarry you or something to prevent to look after other mens.

AbuZaid

24-11-2005, 02:21 AM

As Salaam Alaikum

In my research, I have found opinions regarding this from Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Shafi, And Imam Maalik, but I could not find a specific mention of this issue from the Hanaabilah . However, after discussing this issue with some Hambali scholars they had given me a similar answer as the other three Fuqahaa.

According to the Ahnaaf, Thawry, Maalik, Awzaai, Al Laith, and Ash Shaf’i the touch of lust and desire is the same as Sexual intercourse. This will cause separation between the husband and the wife. There has been an Ijmaa’ on this ruling in the days of the Fuqahaa.

Abu Bakr Jassass RA says:

There is one opinion which is said to have come from Ibn Shubrumah that he said, A lady will not become Haraam (i.e. separated by Al Lams…touching, rather she will only become Haraam by sexual intercourse, that thing which will give a similar punishment (which is 100 lashes of stoning). However this is a lone opinion and surely there has been an Ijmaa before him in this issue.

Wallahu Alam
Abu Zaid Uthman Bin Mahmood

ankaboot

24-11-2005, 02:41 AM

Assalamu Alaikum, JazaakAllahu Khair M. Abu Zaid, for clearing this. May Allah bless you'll for your efforts, ameen.
assalamu Alaikum.

Salafi1

10-07-2011, 07:19 PM

What I would like to know is....
What happens to the father who raped his daughter-in-law?
Should he not be stoned to death first?