The confusion in KHULA

061B2F9A-94D8-43D9-97C0-36F68AC63A1DThe concept of ‘Khula’ amongst Muslims is based largely upon a sole incident regarding Thaabit bin Qais.

 

‘Scholars’ use this hadith https://sunnah.com/bukhari/68/24 to claim that:

1). If a woman asks for divorce, she must give back the mahr.

2). The wife of Thaabit bin Qais went to the Prophet so women have to divorce through a court/judge.

3). The judge or judges will decide if the woman’s request is valid.

 

So, according to most Muslims, while a man can just divorce a woman by saying the word ‘divorce’, a woman follows a completely different process.

 

Does this sound right to you?

 

Those who know Islam know that this is simply NOT the religion (See my blog on ‘Khula’ here). In fact, if we take a closer look at the ahadith about Thaabit bin Qais we find a LOT of confusion.

 

Why did the wife of Thaabit bin Qais want a divorce?

 

Firstly, in the account found at https://sunnah.com/bukhari/68/25 , the wife (Habibah bint Sahl Al-Ansarriyah) states she is ‘afraid of the kufr’. Imam Bukhari also included this version https://sunnah.com/bukhari/68/22 which states she ‘hates the kufr in Islam’ (Bukhari found a problem with one person in this chain but included this hadith in his authentic collection because it is backed up by the one mentioned prior to it – (68/25). It also appears with the same words (the wife stating she wants a divorce because ‘she hates the kufr in Al Islam’) in the collection of An Nisa’i.

 

Now, if what we take away from this account is that the wife of Thaabit bin Qais wanted a divorce because of his ‘kufr/disbelief’ in Islam, then this fits with evidence from the Quran (See my blog on this here).

 

There is a hadith (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/61/120) that names Thaabit bin Qais as from the people of Paradise. This does not mean he was a Muslim at the time of this divorce (He is known to have fought at Uhud but not at Badr). There does not seem to be sufficient information about him to know when exactly he became Muslim.

 

However, if we conclude (like the clergy have) that the problem here was the wife fearing she would ‘be ungrateful’ (translating ‘kufr’ to mean ‘ingratitude’) makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover it contradicts the Quranic verse which states the Mahr cannot be taken back by the husband (4:20 – See it here in my blog).

 

What does this event tell us about Thaabit bin Qais?

 

If you have a read through the ahadith about Thaabit bin Qais here (https://sunnah.com/search/?q=Thabit+bin+Qais) you will see the picture you get is a confusing one. In the narration by Ibn Abbas where Thaabit’s wife asks for a divorce, she states, ‘It is not his religion nor his character which is the reason for the divorce.’

 

However, there are a couple of ahadith – one about Habibah and another about another wife (Jamilah bint Abdullah) where he broke the named wife’s hand/caused her physical injury – for both of the women.

 

Does this fit with the statement that ‘his character’ is not the reason for the divorce?

 

There seems to be a discrepancy here.

 

How long was the iddah (‘waiting period after divorce’) in this event?

 

In this version by An Nisa’i, (https://sunnah.com/nasai/27/109), the Prophet, according to the narration, orders Habibah an iddah of 1 month when we know from the Quran that the iddah must be 3 periods in these cases.

 

So, either this took place before the verses about iddah were revealed or we are missing other relevant information. As it is, what we are left with is a confusing picture. Even the clergy ignore the part about the iddah of one month and still insist on a three month period. Ignoring one part and taking the rest? What does that tell us about the confusing picture this hadith paints?

 

I included the hadith about Thaabit bin Qais (in my blog here) because ‘scholars’ around the world are using it to create the ‘Khula’ process and through it, take away a woman’s right to divorce more easily – she has to fight for it.

 

The responsibility of following the truth lies with us all. Nothing less will ever suffice.

 

*This blog is about the ahadith about this event. If you’d like the complete picture, see my blog here on ‘Khula, Mahr and Halala’.

 

 

 

 

The Muslim headscarf – NOT Allah’s religion

B8BB95CA-2376-416B-A838-628B4640B3FBFor centuries, most of the clergy have claimed women must (at the very least) wear a headscarf. Women’s dress is probably the most talked about issue both in the Eastern and Western world and the headscarf is now synonymous with a woman’s religion.

 

Before we look at the evidence, we need the context, the backdrop – if you like. The culture of the Arabs at the time of the Prophet; the people were scantily clad and often exposed their private parts.* Keep this in mind as you read on.

 

As usual, I will let the evidence speak for itself and you can make up your own mind but prepare to be shocked.

 

I always start with the Quran – There are 2 verses in the Quran about how Muslim women should dress in public. The first is in Surah Al Ahzaab (59):

 

يأَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ قُل لاًّزْوَجِكَ وَبَنَـتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَـبِيبِهِنَّ ذلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلاَ يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُوراً رَّحِيماً

 

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to lower their Jalabeeb over their bodies. That will be better that they should be known so as not to be harmed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

So, this verse commands:

 

1). All Muslim women to ‘lower’ their ‘jalabeeb’

The majority of ‘scholars’ claim the jalabeeb (plural of ‘jilbaab’) means to cover from head to toe. Some even include the eyes/one eye. They equate ‘jalabeeb’ in this verse with a cloak worn by modern day Muslim women. They present no evidence whatsoever to back up their claim. However, anyone with common sense will understand that the ‘jalabeeb’ here refers to something the women already owned. It simply refers to clothing/garment.

 

So, in other words, Allah told the women to cover more of their bodies than they currently were (remember the culture of the time!)

 

2). Women were commanded to lower their ‘jalabeeb’ so that they could be recognised as Muslims and as a result, not harmed.

 

Another significant point to note here is that many translations of the Quran wrongly translate ‘fa la yu’dhayn’ as ‘not be molested’, immediately connecting the concept of covering to sexuality.

 

The verses just before this one, using the same word (yu’dhoon), tell us about ‘harming’ God, the Prophet and the believing men and women. Common sense would dictate that it is obviously not anything sexual being suggested here – you cannot ‘molest’ God. 

 

In summary, this verse commands women to cover up their bodies more than they had been at that time to be different from the pagans. It is general. The specifics came later in the 2nd verse.

 

The 2nd verse is from Surah An Nur (31):

 

وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَـتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَـرِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلاَ يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلاَّ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلاَ يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلاَّ لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِى إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِى أَخَوَتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَـنُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّـبِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُوْلِى الإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُواْ عَلَى عَوْرَتِ النِّسَآءِ وَلاَ يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ وَتُوبُواْ إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعاً أَيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

 

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze, and cover their private parts and not to show off their adornment except that which is apparent, and to draw their covers all over their Juyub and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their women, or their right hand possesses, or the Tabi`in among men who do not have desire, or children who are not aware of the nakedness of women. And let them not cover their legs so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful.

 

Now, as mentioned, this verse is very specific. It includes:

 

1).  Women must cover their private parts (just like men are commanded in the verse prior to this one) and not expose them except that which is apparent. ‘That which is apparent’ is defined differently by ‘scholars’ – Some claim it is what is necessary to see (ie. one eye/eyes) while others propagate it is the face. BUT it is obviously related to the covering of the private parts. In other words, it means cover up the private areas except that which is impossible to hide (eg. the size of the hips or bottom).

 

2). Their ’juyub’ (plural of ‘jayb’) must be covered – this refers to covering the chest area/breasts/cleavage. Again, ‘and not to reveal their adornment except that which is apparent’ means cover the chest with fabric except that which is impossible to hide (eg. size of bust). The covering of the chest may be relaxed in the company of the list of people which follows.

 

‘Scholars’ claim the ‘khumr’ mentioned here means ‘headscarves’ but linguistically, the root خمر – also used to refer to ‘alcohol’ in the Quran – means ‘cover’. It is only over time that the word has now evolved to imply a headscarf when the Quranic meaning is the original one. Here, it means ‘cover with clothing/fabric’.

 

3). Their legs must be covered in a way which doesn’t make what they are covering visible/apparent. In other words, clothing must cover the legs and not be so tight/transparent that there is nothing left to the imagination.

 

This part of the verse is commonly translated as ‘And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment’ but the verb used here is the same verb as is used to state the chest must be covered (ضرب). Therefore, in the same verse, about the same topic, it has to mean the same thing.

 

Anyway, how would stamping your feet reveal anything except the sound of anklets? Any claims to this are based on shaky evidence.

 

The Quran makes it very clear. Women are commanded to cover their private parts, their chests and their legs. In other words, to dress modestly. So, where is the command to wear a headscarf ?

 

Well, put frankly – it isn’t in the Quran.

 

Despite all the attention given to how Muslim women dress, there is NO book on women’s dress in the collections of ahadith. In fact there is actually more information about men’s dress (eg. Gold, silk, covering the private parts)! So, it cannot be found in ahadith either. Surely, if the women covered their heads, we would have some evidence about how and when they wore it.

 

So, in conclusion, the headscarf does not seem to be based upon evidence and Allah’s religion. The reasons for it differ between communities and time periods in history. It is a concept intertwined with symbolism/recognition, belonging, misogyny, patriarchy, and culture. I am not the first to state this view and am sure will not be the last.

 

Sometimes, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow but our religious practices must be based upon evidence and our Lord’s commands, not what makes us comfortable because we are used to it. The headscarf is not a woman’s religion. It’s a direct result of centuries of misogyny, patriarchy and culture. More recently, it is now associated with belonging/recognition and even liberation. The solution to this is my answer to most problems in life – Knowledge. Muslims (men and women) need to know the real religion instead of relying on the mere opinions of clerics. It will be a tough road to begin with but we owe it to ourselves and to future generations. May The Almighty guide us all.

 

*If you read the Quran in it’s entirety (verses about covering the private parts) alongside ahadith about dress (easily found online), this becomes very clear.