Islamic law

"Imagine your son becomes your guardian, no matter my capabilities as a woman, I am still enslaved to somebody else. Freedom for me is to live with dignity, and if my dignity and freedom is controlled by a man, I will never be free."

"We need to stop the flow of suicide bombers, we need to stop the fatwas (religious edicts) coming from Saudis to justify the killings of innocent Iraqis."

"In a word, fatwas are the shariah in action."

"“We should, in particular the Muslim liberal should speak the whole truth about the condition of Muslim society—for instance about the plight of women within it. And not flinch from tracing it back to its roots—the text, the laws, the ways of thinking. We should document the social practice of the Ulema [Muslim religious leaders] and of the fundamentalist politicians.…We should document what the Ulema etc. have been saying and decreeing on religious issues themselves.…We must, in particular the Muslim liberal must, take the consistently secular position on every matter—that is the only way to confront the fundamentalists, it is the surest way to bring home the alternative viewpoint to the community.…Fatwas and the rest which impinge upon the civil rights of a person are manifestly a criminal infringement of law; we should show them up as such; and join others in demanding that anyone who seeks to trample upon the rights of others by using…fatwas should be brought to book under the law. Similarly, we must expose, and work to thwart concessions by our opportunist politicians which are meant to appease, and will in the end strengthen the grip of these reactionary elements.…"

"And yet I find in the majority judgement a fatal innocence... The judgement quotes the proclamations from the Rig, Yajur and Atharva Vedas - about all human beings being one, about their being the children of the same Mother-Earth, about the yearnings that all of use be friends. But it does not note that less than a mile from its building volumes upon volumes of fatwas are being sold and distributed which exhort Muslims never to trust Kafirs, never to allow them into their confidence; which tell them that their first duty and allegiance is to their religion and not to sundry laws..."

"If some people do not like a representation of art, there are other ways to counter it. I never support violent attack on artistic freedom. I also do not support the trend of issuing fatwa. But, there are politicians, who support or protest on the basis of religion."

"The thing which is lawful but disliked by God is divorce."

"The woman who asks her husband to divorce her without a cause, the smell of Paradise is forbidden her."

"There are three things which, whether done in joke or in earnest, shall be considered serious and effectual, namely, marriage, divorce, and taking a wife back."

"Every divorce is lawful except a madman's."

""Cursed be the second husband who makes the wife (divorce) lawful for her first husband, and cursed be the first husband for whom she is made lawful." - (Mishkat, xiii, c xv.)"

"Whenever attention is drawn to the absolute and inhuman power that the Shariah gives to the husband to throw his wife out, to terrorize her into submission, the apologists say, ‘That is just a smear. Allah and the Prophet have declared repeatedly that of all things, talaq is the worst.’ They have indeed. ... That is all very well. But, having recounted such declarations, the apologists never explain how that which is the most detestable thing has been made so easy for the husband! For, while in theory talaq is said to be so abominable to Allah, in practice the position is entirely the opposite. The jurists repeat the counsel that divorce is something from which one should abstain. But this is just counsel. As to the power, they are unanimous: it is a power which lies with the husband, and it is untrammelled. Should the husband choose to exercise it, no one, and no consideration can save the wife. The counsel itself has the caveat invariably built into it, a caveat large enough to drive an elephant through it: you should not give talaq, the jurists say adding, except when there is need for it! In the typical instance, we read in Durr-ul-Mukhtar, one of the great works of Sunni jurisprudence, ‘And giving of divorce is permissible, according to all (the jurists) because the verses (of the Quran) are unconditional (in this respect). And it has been said by Kamal, that the most correct view is that one should abstain from it, except when there is need for it, for example, in cases of suspicion (about the character of the wife) and old age (of the wife)...’ and so on, each clause permitting that which the previous one had counselled against. In theory talaq may be abominable but in practice the husband has the power—the absolute, unconditional power, a power for exercising which he is not accountable to anyone on earth—to throw the wife out by just uttering the word ‘talaq’... The fatwas enforce these rules with the utmost rigour. They enforce two rules in addition: the rule that, faced with such a pronouncement, the wife has no recourse at all, there is no one, no authority which can intervene to save her as wife; and the rule that once she is thrown out she is entitled to no maintenance at all, save the minimum sustenance during three menstruations, that is she is entitled to nothing at all after three months are over."

"The rationale for throwing the wife out even in these circumstances is telling. It is set out in the Hidayah: The divorce of one acting upon compulsion, from threats, is effective, according to our doctors—Shafi’i maintains that it is not effective, because a person who is compelled has no option, and no formal act of law is worthy of regard unless it be purely optional: contrary to the case of a jester, who, in mentioning divorce, acts from option, which is the cause of its validity. Our doctors, on the other hand, allege that the person here mentioned pronounces divorce under circumstances of complete competency, (maturity of age and sanity of intellect), the result of which is that the divorce takes effect equally with that of a person uncompelled, for with him necessity (namely, the necessity of separation from a wife who may be odious or disagreeable to him) is the reason of its efficiency; and the same reason applies to the divorce of a compelled person, as he is also under necessity of divorce, in order that he may be released from the apprehension of that with which he was threatened by the compeller. The foundation of this is that the man alluded to has the choice of two evils; one, the thing with which he is threatened or compelled; and the other, divorce upon compulsion; and viewing both, he makes choice of that which appears to him the easiest, namely, divorce; and this proves that he has an option, though he be not desirous that its effect should be established, or, in other words, that divorce should take place upon it; nor does this circumstance forbid the efficiency of his sentence; as in the case of a jester; that is to say, if a man pronounce a divorce in jest, it takes effect although he be not desirous that it should; and so likewise the divorce of one who is compelled."

"The point is put in perspective on the very next page. If there is some doubt about a woman, the Fatawa-i-Rizvia rules, or if she is a sinner, or if she does not observe namaz, or if she has become old, then talaq given without detestation is proper and valid. In fact, in certain cases it is desirable to do so, says the Fatawa-i-Rizvia. The ulema hold, it declares, that if she does not observe namaz, then, even if he is unable to pay the dower, even then the husband should give the talaq. In certain circumstances it is proper to do so, the fatwa reiterates. For instance, if the mother and father order one to give talaq and if not doing so will upset them or if they will be put to hardship, then to give talaq is wajib, it is proper, even if she, the wife, is not in the wrong at all. Yes, in the Hadis it is said that talaq given without need or justification is detestable or prohibited, notes the fatwa. But if the husband gives it, it shall certainly be effective. His sinning and doing that which is detestable does not stop it from taking effect, it says. For instance, it is haram to give talaq during menstruation, it is disobedience of the hukum of Allah. But if it is given, it shall certainly take effect, the fatwa declares."

"In glaring contrast to the gloss which modern apologists try to put on the matter, Islamic jurists have faithfully followed the view of women embedded in the Quran and Hadis. They have enforced the true position: that the husband has absolute power in the matter of divorce; that he need assign no reason for throwing his wife out; that he owes the wife no maintenance beyond providing her the barest minimum in the three months following his pronouncement of talaq; and that the wife has no corresponding power. The apologists make much of the fact that in certain circumstances under Islamic law the wife can divorce herself—this, they say, is a unique facility which Islamic law alone gives to the wife. But they glide over two facts about the matter: the wife acquires this power only if the husband delegates it to her; and, the moment the wife exercises this power, that is the moment she dissolves the marriage by divorcing herself she loses even the meagre rights she would otherwise have had upon the dissolution of the marriage. Far from being a facility for the wife, the practice becomes a facility for the husband: by driving the wife to divorce herself, the husband is not only able to rid himself of her, he is able to rid himself of anything that might otherwise have been her due. The total inequality of the relationship is brought home by the hundreds of pages which the law books and the volumes of fatwas devote to what is called ‘Conditional Divorce’. In this form the husband makes the divorce contingent upon some act or event: the moment that act or event transpires, the wife is out."

"To begin with, the rulings of the jurists show that the husband has the total, absolute, unbridled power to tell his wife, ‘Unless you do “X”,’ or, in the alternate, ‘Unless you refrain from doing “Y”,’ ‘you are divorced’. A mere listing of the ‘X’ and ‘Y’ which the Islamic jurists have held to cause, unless complied with, full and final divorce, a mere listing of these takes one’s breath away. It shows that under the much-vaunted Islamic law of marriage and divorce, at a mere statement of the husband the wife must either reduce herself to totally submitting to the whim and fancy of the husband or stand divorced. She has absolutely no option in the matter. Indeed, once he has stated his whim or condition, the husband has no option either: he cannot ex post facto take pity or give in to the entreaties of the wife and let her stay unless she fulfils the condition he had laid down—unless she fulfils it, that is, as completely, and as fervently, and as promptly as he had specified."

"But, to proceed. In the rulings of which the foregoing are representative the wife can survive by submitting herself completely to the whims and fancies, the commands and worse of the husband. The rulings thus entail subjugation, complete subjugation, but only subjugation. At least there is something the wife can do—namely, submit herself completely to the husband’s whims and wishes—to keep herself from being thrown out on the street. The next set of rulings entail much more—they reduce the woman to a condition of terror. For the husband may by his mere statement—a statement he may make in anger, a statement he may make just to emphasize a point, and of course a statement he may make when he in fact wants to plunge the wife into terror—the husband can make the continuance of the marriage contingent on events over which the wife has no control whatsoever. In the face of the hundreds of rulings to this effect which Islam’s canonical law books contain, to maintain, as the apologists do, ‘No religion has given a higher place to women than Islam’, is not just ludicrous, it is chicanery. Three reasons alone explain how such assertions continue to be made, and continue to be repeated in our newspapers: first, hardly anyone among us looks up, or even knows about these rulings—although they are the very stuff of the fundamental books of Islamic jurisprudence; second, echoing, and adopting as one’s own the assertions of Islam’s champions is the way to be secular in India; and third, there is the power of terror—to recall that these rulings are what constitute the truth about the position of Muslim women is to open oneself to the terrorism of Islam’s champions. While reading the rulings, one should assess whether this kind of jurisprudence leaves any room for the kinds of reform that some would like to bring about by relying on ‘the principles of Islamic jurisprudence’ themselves."

"The question whether in the particular circumstance the wife shall stand divorced or not is ever so often put alongside the question whether in the analogous circumstance a slave would be freed or not: if in those circumstances, according to some previously settled ‘principle of Islamic jurisprudence’, the slave would be freed, the wife stands divorced; if in those circumstances the slave is to continue in bondage, the wife continues as wife.... That perceptual equivalence—between the wife and the slave—marks the Durr-ul-Mukhtar too. There is not a trace of concern for what shall pass on the wife. The concern is with the power of the husband, the concern is that he should not fall short of having his oath prevail."

"One can safely presume that Muslim women would want to be liberated from the extreme insecurity it foments as much as non-Muslim women would if the latters’ husbands had been given the same power. The Muslim husband can scotch any thought his wife may have of expressing support for reform by declaring, ‘If you ever question the Triple talaq rule, you will be thrice divorced.’ He can go further and have her demonstrate in favour of her continuing to live in bondage. He can say, ‘Unless you join the demonstration against the Triple talaq judgment (or the Shah Bano judgment, or whatever) on Wednesday, three talaqs on you’—and unless she joins the demonstration she is out without maintenance, without rights, without any authority from which she may seek succour. And our editorialists will marvel at the miracle: so devoted are the women to the shariah, the editors will write, that they are out shouting that they would rather continue in servitude than allow anyone to touch it!"

"The net result of the much-vaunted shariah is obvious: the woman lives in the sort of dread which a non-Muslim woman cannot even imagine, to say nothing of non-Muslim males. The husband can make her continuance subject to the most humiliating and painful conditions. He can take on other wives at will, without so much as a nominal ‘By your leave’. He can pronounce a revocable talaq at a whim, and ‘resume’ her at will. That the power to resume the wife on whom he has pronounced the talaq once or twice within the iddat period is as absolute as the power to throw her out, that in fact it is but an aspect of the power to throw her out is affirmed repeatedly by the ulema. The wife’s consent is not needed at all, they declare."

"Surah ii 226: -"They who intend to abstain from their wives shall wait four months; but if they go back from their purpose, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful." ... "And if they resolve on a divorce, then verily God is He who Heareth, Knoweth.""

"Surah lxv 1:-"O Prophet! When ye divorce women, divorce them at their special times. And reckon those times exactly, and fear God your God. Put them not forth from their houses, nor allow them to depart, unless they have committed a proven adultery. This is the precept of God, assuredly imperilleth his own self. Thou knowest not whether, after this, God may not cause something new to occur which may bring you together again."

"O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period. Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God's bounds; whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not, perchance after that God will bring something new to pass."

"Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy."

"The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying. ..."

"Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Quran the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible."

"Surah al-Talaaq 65:4: If a woman does not menstruate, either because she is very young or old and past menopause, then her ‘iddah is three months, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise."

"And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter."

"(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! "What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months." Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well."

"(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”."

"Al-Wahidi, Asbab al-nuzul Qur'an 65:4"

"The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise". He said: The same applies to the 'idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them."

"Mujahid said that "if you have any doubt" (65:4) means if you do not know whether she menstruates or not. Those who do not longer menstruate and those who have not yet menstruated, their 'idda is three months."

"Sahih Al-Bukhari, Chapter 68: Book of Tafsir CCCLXXXIV: The Tafsir of Surat at-Talaq"

"Giving one’s young children in marriage (is permissible) by virtue of the Statement of Allah: ‘And for those who have courses’ (i.e. they are still immature) (Sura 65:4) And the ‘Iddat [waiting period for a woman before lawful sexual intercourse] for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse)."

"The Durr-ul-Mukhtar declares, ‘A man divorces his wife once after consummation, then renders that one divorce three, it is all right, just as when a man repudiates his wife with a reversible divorce and then turns it, before retracting, into absolute.’ A man says the word Aituddi thrice and intends a repudiation by the first and menses by the rest, he will be believed judicially, because he has intended (in his second and third repetition of the term) to use it in its original sense, but if he makes no intention thereby, i.e. by his second and third repetition of the term, three repudiations will be effected, because his intention of repudiation by the first use of the term shows the state of his mind. Two divorces will be effected if he intends by the second use of the term only to effect a repudiation, but one only will be effected if he intends to repudiate only by the third repetition of the term. And it will not be effected (at all) if by none of the three (repetitions) he meant to effect a divorce. Twenty-four different results follow from various uses of the term Aituddi as has been mentioned by Kamal. To these may be added one more case in which the speaker means to effect only one repudiation by every repetition of the term. In such a case one will take effect according to conscience, and three according to law."

"In the great classic of Sunni law, the Durr-ul-Mukhtar, the work that is treated as gospel by so many of our authorities giving fatwas, we read: A husband says, ‘If my wife’s mother does not come to me tonight, my wife is divorced,’ and there are witnesses who testify that, indeed, the mother did not come to him in the night, the wife is out."

"The counsel that to the extent possible one should not divorce a woman during her menses again has nothing to do with protecting her interests. The reason is the same one on account of which the divorced woman is prohibited from remarrying until she has completed three menstruations: the object is to preclude subsequent disputes about the paternity of a child that may be born later on. This becomes evident from considering the attitude of the jurists in the case of girls who are too young to bear children and to that of women who are too old to do so. Do the jurists require that the husband pause and reconsider? Here is the answer in Durr-ul-Mukhtar: And it is valid to divorce them, that is a woman whose menstruation has stopped on account of old age, and a minor girl, and a pregnant woman, soon after having sexual enjoyment (with them), because the prohibition (against repudiation soon after having sexual enjoyment) in case of wives subject to menstruation is due to the suspicion (or possibility) of the wife being pregnant, but this is impossible here (that is in the case of wives who are too old or too young)"

"It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that: the Messenger of Allah said: “No woman should arrange the marriage of another woman, and no woman should arrange her own marriage. The adulteress is the one who arranges her own marriage.” (Sahih)"

"It was narrated from Aishah that : the Messenger of Allah said: “Any woman whose marriage is not arranged by her guardian, her marriage is invalid, her marriage is invalid, her marriage is invalid. If (the man) has had intercourse with her, then the Mahr belongs to her in return for his intimacy with her. And if there is any dispute then the ruler is the guardian of the one who does not have a guardian.” (Sahih)"

"It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that: the Prophet said: “A woman may be married for four things: Her wealth, her lineage, her beauty or for her religion. Choose the religious, may your hands be rubbed with dust (i.e., may you prosper).” (Sahih)"

"It was narrated that Ash'ath bin Qais said: "I was a guest (at the home) of 'Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he went and hit his wife, and I separated them. When he went to bed he said to me: 'O Ash'ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah" A man should not be asked why he beats his wife, and do not go to sleep until you have prayed the Witr."' And I forgot the third thing." (Hasan)"

"It was narrated that: Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said” When Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: 'What is this, O Muadh?' He said: 'I went to Sham and saw them prostrating their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.' The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the one in who hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfill her duty towards Allah until she fulfills her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.' “(Hasan)"

"It was narrated that Iyas bin 'Abdullah bin Abu Dhubab said: "The Prophet said: 'Do not beat the female slaves of Allah.' Then 'Umar came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, the woman have become bold towards their husbands? So order the beating of them,' and they were beaten. Then many women went around to the family of Muhammad,. The next day he said: 'Last night seventy women came to the family of Muhammad, each woman complaining about her husband. You will not find that those are the best of you.' " (Sahih)"

"He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?...""

"Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

"Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

"Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you."

"Malik said, "The mourning of a young girl who has not yet had a menstrual period takes the same form as the mourning of one who has had a period. She avoids what a mature woman avoids if her husband dies.""

"The prophet of Allah said: When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, let her come to him though she is occupied at the oven."

"Iyas b. Abdullah reported God's messenger as saying, "Do not beat God's handmaidens;" but when `Umar came to God's messenger and said, "The women have become emboldened towards their husbands," he gave licence to beat them. Then many women went round God's messenger's family complaining of their husbands, and he said, "Many women have gone around complaining of their husbands. Those are not the best among you." Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Darimi transmitted it."

"Narrated Abu Usaid: We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, "Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift." She said, "Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family." Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses. (See Hadith No. 541)."

"Narrated 'Aisha: I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Apostle! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent.""

"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: I was accompanying the Prophet on a journey and was riding a slow camel that was lagging behind the others. The Prophet passed by me and asked, "Who is this?" I replied, "Jabir bin 'Abdullah." He asked, "What is the matter, (why are you late)?" I replied, "I am riding a slow camel." He asked, "Do you have a stick?" I replied in the affirmative. He said, "Give it to me." When I gave it to him, he beat the camel and rebuked it. Then that camel surpassed the others thenceforth. The Prophet said, "Sell it to me." I replied, "It is (a gift) for you, O Allah's Apostle." He said, "Sell it to me. I have bought it for four Dinars (gold pieces) and you can keep on riding it till Medina." When we approached Medina, I started going (towards my house). The Prophet said, "Where are you going?" I Sad, "I have married a widow." He said, "Why have you not married a virgin to fondle with each other?" I said, "My father died and left daughters, so I decided to marry a widow (an experienced woman) (to look after them)." He said, "Well done." When we reached Medina, Allah's Apostle said, "O Bilal, pay him (the price of the camel) and give him extra money." Bilal gave me four Dinars and one Qirat extra. (A sub-narrator said): Jabir added, "The extra Qirat of Allah's Apostle never parted from me." The Qirat was always in Jabir bin 'Abdullah's purse."

"Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider was the Prophet himself. He said, 'What makes you in such a hurry?" I replied, I am newly married " He said, "Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, "A matron." He said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?" When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, "Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region."

"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'"

"If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."

"Had I ordered anybody to prostrate before any one, I would have ordered women to prostrate before their husbands on account of men's rights over the women ordained by Allah."

"There is one passage, however, which apparently endorses a pre-Islamic Arab custom. This is the sentence at the end of verse 38 permitting a husband to beat his wife: "And those women whose insubordination you fear, admonish them, then leave them alone in the beds, then beat them!" … Abu Bakr's daughter Asma, who was the fourth wife of Zobayr b. ol-Awwam (one of the Prophet's first ten converts and principal companions), is reported to have said, "Whenever Zobayr was angry with one of us, he used to beat her until the stick broke.""

"A man should marry four wives: A Persian to have some one to talk to; a Khurasani woman for his housework; a Hindu for nursing his children; a woman from Mawaraun nahr, or Transoxiana, to have some one to whip as a warning to the other three."

"There is the Islamic view of marriage. Apologists of Islam, ever so anxious to show how progressive and avant-garde and modern their religion has always been, never tire of saying: In Islam marriage is not a sacrament, it is just a contract. Woman, as we shall see when we turn to the Quran and the Hadis, is just an ‘affliction’ that man has to suffer; she is just a field that he may irrigate or not irrigate as it pleases him; at best she is one of the things that Allah has created for him to enjoy; when on top of all this marriage is but a contract specifying the terms on which he may enjoy the thing—the mehr, as Ram Swarup reminds us being literally the ‘wages’ or ‘hire’ for using the woman—the ulema naturally visit all the consequences on the woman. The husband has but to enjoy the woman, and when he tires of her can just cast her off paying her the nominal maintenance, and the mehr which had been agreed to in the contract. And Allah, in His mercy, has not put these latter at anyonerous level. The minimum mutah, the consolatory gift, we learn, is one pair of clothes and the maximum is one slave or slave girl. The maintenance is to be board and lodging for just three months. And while it is fashionable nowadays to fix the mehr at poetically grandiloquent levels, it is just as fixed a practice to have the wife agree to forego it on the nuptial night itself. [...] The Quran (2.241) explicitly says, ‘Those of you who die leaving surviving widows shall bequeath to their widows provisions for a year without (their) being turned out.’ In direct contravention to this the compendium of Islamic law, the Hidayah, states, ‘Maintenance is not due to a woman after her husband’s decease...’ The Imamia goes even further to say, ‘A widow has no right to maintenance even though she be pregnant.’"

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,—desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.""

"And those who preserve their chastity. Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;"

"Who abstain from sex, And who guard their modesty, And who guard their private parts, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,—for (in their case) they are free from blame."

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;—this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;—in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

"It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things."

"It was unnecessary to invite infidels in the abode of war to embrace Islam before seizing their persons, because they were ‘something which is the property of no particular person and may by law become the property of a Mooslim. ... They are classed with inanimate things ... thus liable to be reduced to state of property, like things which were originally common by nature’. For a raider, this entailed that ‘such of the inhabitants, as have fallen into his hands, are at his absolute disposal, and may be lawfully reduced to slavery’ ."

"If Zoroastrian and idolatrous women are taken prisoner, they are coerced into Islam; if they embrace it, sexual relations with them are permissible and they can (also) be used as maidservants. If they do not embrace Islam, they are used as maidservants but not for sexual relations."

"A man may gratify his passion with his female slave in whatever way he pleases. It is lawful for a man to perform the act of Azil (i.e. coitus interruptus) with his female slave without her consent, whereas he cannot lawfully do so by his wife unless with her permission. The reason of this is that the Prophet has forbidden the act of Azil with a free woman without her consent but has permitted it to a master in the case of his female slave."

"Besides, carnal connexion is the right of a free woman for the gratifying of her passion, and the propagation of children (whence it is that a wife is at liberty to reject a husband who is an eunuch or impotent); whereas a slave possesses no such right.—A man, therefore, is not at liberty to injure the right of his wife, whereas a master is absolute with respect to his slave. If, also, a man should marry the female slave of another, he must not perform the act of Azil with her without the consent of her master."

"The object, in the purchase of a female slave, is cohabitation and generation of children."

"They (i.e., the Prophet’s companions) did not make sexual relations with Arab captives contingent on their conversion; rather they had sexual relations with them after one menstrual period. God allowed them to do this and did not make it conditional on conversion."

"There is nothing wrong in a man having sexual relations with his Zoroastrian slave-girl."

"When directly confronted, in a polemical context, with historical and textual permission for the sexual use of unfree women, Muslim authors sometimes respond defensively, seeking to protect Islam’s reputation. It may be argued, for instance, that Islamic “slavery” bore no resemblance to harsh American chattel slavery. In this view, the Qur’anic permission for men to have sex with “what their right hands possess” was merely a way of integrating war captives into society. Sometimes, it is added that the captives would be “integrated” into the Muslim community through becoming the property of a specific man who would be responsible for them and their offspring. Whatever merit these arguments have in the context of inter-communal polemics and apologetics, however, they are insufficient for internal Muslim reflection. In particular, the notion that women would be integrated into society by bearing offspring to their owners or captors does not apply to the case of the Bani Mustaliq: the rationale for the captors to practice withdrawal, according to other accounts, is that they did not want to impregnate the women lest they spoil their chances to ransom them."

"They agreed unanimously that an enslaved female’s consent was never required for a marriage contracted by her owner. Al Shafii (d. 820) is typical: “He may marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.”"

"A man’s intercourse with a female slave might constitute zina only if she belongs to someone else."

"Given that the vast majority of contemporary Muslims reject slavery, many have chosen to ignore the issue. Rather than reiterate the classical religious permission for slavery and slave concubinage, even to oppose it, they seem to believe that a moderate or progressive agenda is better served by emphasizing the contemporary agreement that slavery, and especially concubinage, is forbidden as completely outside the bounds of Muslim sexual morality. Although a few authors deny the validity of slave concubinage outright, asserting that “those jurists of Islamic law who laid down the rule that a master may have [a] sexual relationship with his female slave without marriage are totally mistaken,” most simply ignore what prevailed as the consensus for over a millennium."

"'Tis true, our law forbids to wed a Christian; But it forbids you not to ravish her. You have a conqueror's right upon your slave; And then the more despite you do a Christian, You serve the prophet more, who loathes that sect."

"The Muhammadan religion appears to give almost unlimited license to concubinage, provided the woman be a slave and not a free Muslim woman."

"Islam made it lawful for a master to have a number of slave-women captured in wars and enjoined that he alone may have sexual relations with them ... Europe abhors this law but at the same gladly allows that most odious form of animalism according to which a man may have illicit relations with any girl coming across him on his way to gratify his animal passions."

"Established Islamic jurisprudence therefore often describes marriage as a type of sale, with the item being purchased being a wife’s sexual organs. There are qualitative differences between the rights of a wife and a female slave, of course, and the jurists do carefully lay these out, but nevertheless, the concept of male ownership of women’s sexual parts becomes an important part of the traditional juristic understanding of what makes sex licit in Islam."

"Most Muslims today either are not aware, or do not like to emphasize, the theoretical presumptions embedded in the Islamic jurisprudence of marriage law because they are quite far from contemporary sensibilities. Established Islamic marriage contract law uses the contract of sale as its basic conceptual framework—a model which leads to some uncomfortable conclusions about what is being sold and the role of women’s agency in that sale."

"The master could sell her or give her away as a gift. The concubine could not own property, because her master owned everything, although she could carry out a trade or business by herself. Levy described the concubine saying "She has no more right than other chattels".... Therefore, it can be said that the destiny of a captive woman depended on two points: a. if her tribe was able to pay the ransom b. if she was married to her captor. Sometimes neither of these events might occur and therefore the woman suffered and was humiliated because her captor or the one who bought her, had control of both her body and her life."

"“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution. … Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash. … Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed. … Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” —"

"Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' ""

"Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'""

"Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.""

"Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him. Then he admitted them and (when they came in), he said, "What do you think of Al-Qasama?" They said, "We say that it is lawful to depend on Al-Qasama in Qisas, as the previous Muslim Caliphs carried out Qisas depending on it." Then he said to me, "O Abu Qilaba! What do you say about it?" He let me appear before the people and I said, "O Chief of the Believers! You have the chiefs of the army staff and the nobles of the Arabs. If fifty of them testified that a married man had committed illegal sexual intercourse in Damascus but they had not seen him (doing so), would you stone him?" He said, "No." I said, "If fifty of them testified that a man had committed theft in Hums, would you cut off his hand though they did not see him?" He replied, "No." I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."..."

"Narrated 'Ali: I relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection.""

"Narrated Uthman ibn Affan: AbuUmamah ibn Sahl said: We were with Uthman when he was besieged in the house. There was an entrance to the house. He who entered it heard the speech of those who were in the Bilat. Uthman then entered it. He came out to us, looking pale. He said: They are threatening to kill me now. We said: Allah will be sufficient for you against them, Commander of the Faithful! He asked: Why kill me? I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) say: It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam, fornication after marriage, or wrongfully killing someone, for which he may be killed. I swear by Allah, I have not committed fornication before or after the coming of Islam, nor did I ever want another religion for me instead of my religion since Allah gave guidance to me, nor have I killed anyone. So for what reason do you want to kill me?"

"Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle"

"Narrated Abu Burda:That the Prophet sent his (i.e. Abu Burda's) grandfather, Abu Musa and Mu'adh to Yemen and said to both of them "Facilitate things for the people (Be kind and lenient) and do not make things difficult (for people), and give them good tidings, and do not repulse them and both of you should obey each other." Abu Musa said, "O Allah's Prophet! In our land there is an alcoholic drink (prepared) from barley called Al-Mizr, and another (prepared) from honey, called Al-Bit"' The Prophet said, "All intoxicants are prohibited." Then both of them proceeded and Mu'adh asked Abu Musa, "How do you recite the Quran?" Abu Musa replied, "I recite it while I am standing, sitting or riding my riding animals, at intervals and piecemeal." Muadh said, "But I sleep and then get up. I sleep and hope for Allah's Reward for my sleep as I seek His Reward for my night prayer." Then he (i.e. Muadh) pitched a tent and they started visiting each other. Once Muadh paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a chained man. Muadh asked, "What is this?" Abu Musa said, "(He was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate." Muadh said, "I will surely chop off his neck!""

"Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood."

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace be upon him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

"This news reached Allah's Apostle , so he sent (men) to follow their traces and they were captured and brought (to the Prophet). He then ordered to cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, and then he threw them in the sun till they died." I said, "What can be worse than what those people did? They deserted Islam, committed murder and theft."..."

"Most Indian Muslims are Sunnis, some say almost 85 to 90 per cent are Sunnis. Most Indian Sunnis are Barelvis, some would say two-thirds of them are, in particular those living in the countryside. The Fatawa-i-Rizvia is the most important collection of fatwas of the Barelvis. It consists of the fatwas issued by the most influential figure among them—Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan. He was a prolific issuer of fatwas, a formidable polemicist, often an abusive one, an indefatigable campaigner, in a word a pugilist. Few dared to cross swords with him, indeed few dared to even stand in his way. He lived from 1856 to 1921, and came to exercise a mesmeric hold over vast numbers."

"But merely refraining from befriending and associating with kafirs is not enough. Enmity against the enemies of Allah and the Prophet is a duty incumbent upon every Muslim, declare the ulema. In the Fatawa-i-Rizvia the fatwas on kafirs are grouped under the heading, ‘Nafrat ke Ahkam’ — the ‘Ordinances of Hatred.’ Anyone to whom the struggle between Islam and kufr is ‘just a quarrel between clerics’ is himself a kafir: he is out of Islam, his wives are out of his nikah, declare the fatwas."

"Under no circumstances can the Islamic ruler give permission to kafirs to continue their religious rites, declares the Fatawa-i-Rizvia, and asks: shall he permit them to practise their kufr and thereby himself become a kafir?"

"‘And among these Kafirs too there are gradations,’ declares the Fatawa-i-Rizvia in its Nafrat ke Ahkam, the Ordinances of Hatred. ‘One hard kind of basic kufr is Christianity; worse than it is Magianism; worse than that is idolatry; worse than that is Wahabiyat; and worse than all these and more wicked is Deobandiyat.’"

"The point is put in perspective on the very next page. If there is some doubt about a woman, the Fatawa-i-Rizvia rules, or if she is a sinner, or if she does not observe namaz, or if she has become old, then talaq given without detestation is proper and valid. In fact, in certain cases it is desirable to do so, says the Fatawa-i-Rizvia. The ulema hold, it declares, that if she does not observe namaz, then, even if he is unable to pay the dower, even then the husband should give the talaq. In certain circumstances it is proper to do so, the fatwa reiterates. For instance, if the mother and father order one to give talaq and if not doing so will upset them or if they will be put to hardship, then to give talaq is wajib, it is proper, even if she, the wife, is not in the wrong at all. Yes, in the Hadis it is said that talaq given without need or justification is detestable or prohibited, notes the fatwa. But if the husband gives it, it shall certainly be effective. His sinning and doing that which is detestable does not stop it from taking effect, it says. For instance, it is haram to give talaq during menstruation, it is disobedience of the hukum of Allah. But if it is given, it shall certainly take effect, the fatwa declares."

"To even say, ‘What is shariah? Does anyone go by shariah today?’, is kufr, declares the Fatawa-i-Rizvia. Even if the words have been uttered to taunt others, they constitute a grave sin. To say, ‘We do not recognize shariah, we go by custom,’ is kufr, it declares. The ulema issue a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from joining processions of polytheists. A man says, ‘Issuing a fatwa not to join processions of polytheists, etc., is sheer lathbazi.’ The utterance is reported to the ulema. The utterance constitutes denigration of shariah, the Fatawa-i-Rizvia rules, and denigration of shariah is kufr. The man’s wife is free of his nikah. ... To question ijma (consensus) or taqlid (literal adherence) is kufr, they declare. ... Not to believe in Fiqh is kufr, they declare. He who does not accept Fiqh is Satan, they declare."

"People take pride on the basis of wealth and are looked down on the basis of poverty."

"Definition of the term.—Nifka, in the language of the law, signifies all those things which are necessary to the support of life, such as food, clothes, and lodging: many confine it solely to food and the latter poor; and as the Prophet in his decision left this to the judgment of the parties themselves, the proportion is not specifically determined by the law.— Shafei has so determined it, saying that the Nifka or maintenance incumbent upon a husband in behalf of his wife, if he be opulent, is two Mids, or about one thousand Dirms annually,— if he be poor, one Mid: and if in middling circumstances, one and a half: this, however, is not admitted, because a thing declared to be incumbent "so far as may suffice" cannot be legally fixed at any specific rate, as the proportion must neces- sarily vary according to circumstances. And this, although she withhold herself on account of her dower. — If a woman refuse to surrender herself to her husband, on account of her dower (that is, on account of its not having been paid to her), her maintenance does not drop, but is incumbent upon the husband, although she be not yet within his custody, since her refusal is only in pursuance of her right, and consequently the object; on to the matrimonial custody originates with the husband. But not if she be refractory. — If a wife be disobedient or refractory, and go abroad without her husband's consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoy her by force. But not if she be refractory.—If a wife be disobedient or refractory and go abroad without her husband’s consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoy her by force."

"The Imam, with respect to captives, has it in his choice to slay them because the Prophet put captives to death and also because slaying them terminates wickedness; or, if he choose, he may make them slaves, because by enslaving them the wickedness of them is remedied, and at the same time the Muslims reap an advantage; or, if he please, he may release them so as to make them freemen and Zimmis, according to what is recorded of Omar. … but it is not lawful so to release the idolaters of Arabia, or apostates… If captives become Muslims, let not the Imam put them to death; … but yet he may lawfully make them slaves, after their conversion…"

"If the Imám should not bestow in gratuity the Sillib (or personal property) of one who is slain, upon the slayer, it becomes a part of the general plunder, in which the slayer and other have all an equal share. Shafei maintains that the personal effects of the person slain belong to the slayer, provided the latter be one of those who are entitled to share in the plunder, and that he killed the slain in open fight, because the prophet has said, "Whoever slays an INFIDEL is "entitled to his personal property." OBJECTION.—It is possible that the prophet may have mentioned this merely in a gratious sense, and not as the award of the LAW. REPLY.—It is evident, from the situation of the prophet, that he spoke this as an award of the LAW; since he was sent to enforce the awards of the LAW. A person, moreover, who kills another prepared to oppose him in open fight exposes himself in a superior degree, and hence the personal property of the slain goes to him, for the purpose of making a distinction between him and others."

"JIZYAT, or capitation-tax, is or two kinds. The first species is that which is established voluntarily, and by composition,—the rate of which si such as may be agreed upon by both parties,—because the prophet entered into a composition with the tribe of Bimmey Birán, for twelve hundred pieces of cloth, and not more,—and also, because the fixing of tribute in this mode is mutual act of both parties, and therefore is not lawful to swerve from what has been so mutually agreed upon. The second species is that which the Imán himself imposes, where he conquers infidels, and then confirms them in their possessions, the common rate of which is fixed by his imposing upon every avowedly rich person a tax of forty-eight dirms per annum, or four dirms per month;—and upon every person in middling circumstances, twenty-four dirms per annum, or two dirms per month;—and upon the labouring poor twelve dirms per annum, or one dirm per month. This is according to our doctors. Shafei maintains that he should exact from each sane and adult person, one deenar, or something to that amount;—and the poor and wealthy are on an equal footing in this point; because the prophet said to Máaz, "Take from every male and female adult one DEENAR, or cloth to that value, —from wich it appears that there is no manner of difference between the rich and the poor, as the prophet spoke generally, without making any distinction: moreover, capitation-tax is due only in lieu of destruction, (whence is that it is not due from persons the destruction of whom on account of infidelity is illegal, namely women and children,) and in this sense it applies equally to the rich and the poor.—The arguments of our doctors upon this head are twofold.—FIRST, their doctrine is adopted from Omar, Othman, and Ali, with whom all the companions agreed upon this point: SECONDLY, capitation-tax serves as an aid to the troops, and therefore differs in its rate, according to the difference of men's circumstances, in the same manner as tribute upon land. The ground of this is the capitation-tax is due in lieu of assistance, with person and property; but as property is different with respect to being more or less, so in the same manner that is different, which is a substitute for it.—With respect to the tradition adduced by Shafei, we are only to understand from it that the taking of deenars, and so forth, from the tribe to whom he alluded was in the way of a composition, in which there is no difference between the poor and the rich, as is further proved by the term female adults, im the saying referred to, since capitation-tax is not incumbent upon women. It is to be observed that in the exaction of capitation-tax from the labouring poor, it is a condition that the person upon whom it is levied be in state or health for greater part of the year. ... Whence it is that it cannot be accepted of the infidel if he send it by the hands of a messenger, but must be exacted in a mortifying and humiliating manner, by the collector sitting and receiving it from him in a standing posture; (according to one tradition), the collector is to seize him by the throat, and shake him saying ‘Pay your tax, Zimmee’."

"CAPITATION-TAX is to be imposed upon Kitabees, because this is mentioned in the Koran: and it is in the same manner to be imposed upon Majoosees, as the prophet imposed capitation-tax upon Majoosees.—Capitation-tax is also imposed upon the idolaters of Ajim, [Persia.] This is contrary to the opinion of Shafei, for he argues that destruction is incurred by all infidels; but the legality of abstaining from it, in consideration of a capitation-tax, with respect to Kitabees. is known from the word of KORAN, and with respect to Majoosees, from the traditions; any others, therefore, than those, (namely, idolaters,) remain subject to the original penalty, which is destruction. The argument of our doctors is that it is lawful to make slaves of the Idolaters of Ajim, it follows that it is also lawful to impose capitation-tax upon them because, in the same manner as, by reducing them to slavery, they are deprived of power over their own persons, so also, they are deprived of power over their own persons by the imposition of capitation-tax, since they must in this case work, and pay the Mussalmans the produce of their labour, and their subsistence is furnished from their labour. If a Mussulman army subdue an infidel territory before any capitation-tax be established, the inhabitants, together with their wives and children, are all plunder, and the property of the state, as it is lawful to reduce to slavery all infidels, whether they be Kitcbees, Majoofees, or idolaters."

"CAPITATION-TAX is not imposed upon slaves, Mokátibs, Modabbirs, or Am-Walids, because capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction, with respect to them, and; with respect to us, it is substitute for aid [in the wars of the faith;] now in conformity with the first of these, it would, it would follo that capitation-taxt is due; a doubt therefore arises with respec to its being due; and as this is the case, it is determined not to be incumbent upon them: neither is it incumbent upon their owner to pay capitation-taxt for them, because he himself by their means pays an increased capitation-tax, as he through them becomes rich, or obtains a mediocrity of circumstances; and in either case he pays capitation-tax in a degree superior to the labouring poor."

"CAPITATION-TAX is not imposed upon Ráhibs, (that is, Christian or Pagan monks and hermits, who do not mix with the rest of mankind:)—the same is mentioned by Kadooree: Mohammed, in the Jama-Sagbeer, reports from Haneefa that capitation-tax may be imposed upon those, where they are capable of labour, (and such is the opinion of Aboo Yoofaf;) because where, being capable of labour, they refrain from it, they waste their ability; capitation-taxt, therefore, is due from the,m. in the same manner as tribute from the landholder, where he (being able) suffers his land to remain unfilled.—The reason for what is related by Kadoore is that a monk is not to be destroyed where he does does not mix with mankind; and capitation-tax, with respect to them, would be for the purpose of warding off destruction."

"If a person becomes a Mussulman, who is indebted for any arrear of capitation-tax, such arrear is remitted: and in the same manner, the arrear of capitation-tax due from Zimmee is remitted upon his dying in a state of infidelity. Shafei holds that the tax is not remitted in either case; because it was due either in return for protection to the person, or in return for permission to reside in the mussulman territory; and the Zimmee or convert has continued under protection, and resided in the Mussulman territory: the return from him, therefore, is not to be remitted in consequence of the supervenient circumstance of death, or convention of the faith; in the same manner, as in case of hire, or of composition for blood;—in other words, if capitation tax be a return for residence, it comes under the construction hire, and is not remitted in consequence of death, or conversion to the faith, in the same manner as if a Zimme were to hire a house and reside therein for the period agreed upon, and then die, or embrace the faith, in which case the rent of the house does not cease; and so likewise with respect to capitation-tax:—or, if capitation-tax be a return for protection to the person, it comes under the construction of a composition for blood, and is not remitted in consequence of death or conversion to the faith, in the same manner as if a Zimme were wilfully to kill a person, and afterwards enter into composition for the murder with the friends of the deceased, for a certain consideration, and them become a Mussulman, or die, in which case the consideration is not remitted from him;—and so likewise capitation-tax, (which is the consideration for protection to his person,) is not remitted. The arguments of our doctors upon this point are threefold.—First, the prophet has declared that "capitation-tax is not incumbent upon Mussulmans:"—Secondly, capitation-tax is a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Yizyat, which is derived from Yizya, meaning retribution; now the temporal punishment of infidelity is remitted in consequence of conversion to the faith; and after death it cannot be inflicted, because temporal punishments are instituted solely for the purpose of removing evil, which is removed by either death or Islám:—THIRDLY, capitation-tax is a substitute for aid to the Mussulmans, and as the infidel in question, upon embracing the faith, becomes enabled to aid them in his own person, capitation-tax consequently drops upon his Islám.—With respect to the a to the argument adduced by Shafei, we reply that capitation-tax is neither consideration for protection to person, nor residence, because protection to the person is established in virtue of humanity, and a Zimme resides, in the mussulman territory, within his own dwelling; wherefore the case does not admit that a consideration, for protection to his person, or for residence, should be exacted from him."

"The construction of churches or synagogues in the Mussulman territory is unlawful, this being forbidden in the traditions:—but if places of worship originally belonging to Jews or Christians be destroyed, or fall to decay, they are at liberty to repair them,—because buildings cannot endure for ever, and as the Imán has left these people to the exercise of their own religion, it is a necessary inference that he has engaged not to prevent them from rebuilding or repairing their church and synagogues. If, however, they attempt to remove these, and to build them in a place different from their former situation, the Imán must prevent them, since this is and actual construction: and the places which they use as bermitages are held in the same light as their churches, wherefore the construction of those also is unlawful. It is otherwise with respect to such places of prayer as are within their dwellings, which they are not prohibited from constructing, because these are an appearance to the habitation. What is here said is the rule with respect to the cities; but not with respect to villages or hamlets; because as the tokens of Islám (such as public prayer, festivals, and so forth) appear in cities, Zimmees should not be permitted to celebrate the tokens of infidelity there, in the face of them; but as tokens of Islám do not appear in villages or hamlets, there is no occasion to prevent the construction of synagogues, not only in cities, but also in villages and hamlets; because in the villages of our country various tokens of Islám appear; and what is recorded from Haneefa, (that the prohibition against building churches and synagogues is confined to cities, and does not extend to villages and hamlets) relates solely to the villages of Koofa, because the greater part of the inhabitants of the villages are Zimmes, there being few Mussulmans among them, wherefore the tokens of Islám do not there appear: moreover, in the territory of Arabia, Zimmees are prohibited from constructing churches or synagogues either in cities or villages, because the prophet has said "Two religions cannot be professed together in the peninsula of Arabia.""

"WHEN a Mussulman apostizes from the faith, and exposition thereof is to be laid before him, in such manner that if his apostacy should have arisen from any religious doubts or scruples, those may be removed. The reason for laying an exposition of the faith before him is that it is possible some doubt or errors may have arisen in his mind, which may be removed by such exposition; and as there are only two modes of repelling the sin of apostacy, namely, destruction or Islám, and Islám is preferable to destruction, the evil is rather to be removed by means of an exposition of the faith;—but yet this exposition of the faith is not incumbent, (according to what the learned have remarked upon this head,) since a call to the faith has already reached the apostate. AN apostate is to be imprisoned for three days, within which time if he return to the faith, it is well: but if not, he must be slain.—It is recorded in the Jama Sagbeer that "an exposition of the faith is to be laid before an apostate, and if he refuse the faith, he must be slain:"—and with respect to what is above stated, that "he is to be imprisoned for three days," it only implies that if he require a delay, three days may be granted him, as such is the term generally admitted and allowed for the purpose of consideration. It is recorded from Haneefa and Aboo Yoosaf that the granting of a delay of three days is laudable, whether the apostate require it or not: and it is recorded from Shafei that it is incumbent on the Iman to delay for three days, and that it is not lawful for him to put the apostate to death before the lapse of that time; since it is most probable that a Mussulman will not apostatise but from some doubt or error arising in his mind; wherefore some time is necessary for consideration; and this is fixed at three days. THe arguments of our doctors upon this point are twofold.—FIRST, GOD says, in the Korán, "SLAY THE UNBELIEVERS," without any reserve of a delay of three days being granted to them; and the prophet has also said "Slay the man who changes his religion," without mentioning any thing concerning a delay: SECONDLY, an apostate is an infidel enemy, who has received a call to the faith, wherefore he may be slain upon the instant, without delay. An apostate is termed on this occasion and infidel enemy, because he is undoubtedly such; and he is not protected, since he has not requered a protection, neither is he a Zimmee, because capitation-tax has not been accepted from him; hence is proved that he is an infidel enemy. It is to be observed that, in these rules, there is no difference made between an apostate who is a freeman, and one who is a slave, as the arguments upon which they are established apply equally to both descriptions."

"If a Mussulman woman become an apostate, she is not put to death, but imprisoned, until the return to the faith. Shafei maintains that she is to be put to death; because of the tradition before cited;—and also because, as men are put to death for apostacy solely for this reason, that it is a crime of great magnitude and therefore requires that its punishment be proportionably severe, (namely, death,) so the apostacy of a woman being likewise (like that of man) a crime of great magnitude, it follows that her punishment should be the same as the of a man. The arguments of our doctors upon this point are twofold.—FIRST, the prophet has forbidden the slaying of women, without making any distinction between those who are apostates, and those who are original infidels, SECONDLY, the original principle in the retribution of offences is to delay to a future state, (in other words, not to inflict punishment here, but to refer it to hereafter,) since it retribution were executed in this world, it would render defective in the state of trial. as men would avoid committing sin from apprehension of punishment, and therefore would be in the state of persons acting under compulsion, and not of free agents: but in the case of apostacy of men the punishment is not deferred to a future state, because it is indispensably requisite to repel their present wickedness, (namely, their becoming enemies to the faith,) wicch wickedness cannot be conceived of women, who are, by natural weakness of frame, in incapable thereof: contrary to men.—A female apostate, therefore, is the fame as an original female infidel; as the killing of the one is forbidden, so the killing of the other also. She is however to be imprisoned, until return to the faith; because, as she refuses the right of GOD after having acknowledged it, she must be compelled, by means of imprisonment, to render GOD his right, in the same manner as she would be imprisoned on account of the right of the individual. It is written in the Jama Sagbeer,—"A female apostate is to be compelled to return to the faith, whether she be free', or a slave.—The slave is to be compelled by her master:—she is to be compelled, for the reasons already recited; and this is compulsion is to be executed by her master, because in this regard is had to the right both of GOD and of the master. It is elsewhere mentioned that a female apostate must be daily beaten with severity until she return to the faith."

"Whoredom and bastardy are defects with regard to a female slave, but not with regard to a male ; because the object in the purchase of female slave, is cohabitation and the generation of children..."

"Zimmies may testify concerning each other--THE testimony of Zimmiees with respect to each other is admissible, notwithstanding they be of different religion.--Malik and Shafei have said that their evidence is absolutely inadmissible, because, as infidels are unjust, it is requisite to be slow in believing any thing they may advance, GOD having said (in the Koran). WHEN AN UNJUST PERSON TELLS YOU ANY THING: BE SLOW IN BELIEVING HIM;"--whence it is that the evidence of an infidel is not admitted concerning a Mussulman; and consequently, that an infidels stands (in this particular) in the same predicament with an apostate.--The arguments of our doctors upon this point are twofold--FIRST, it is related of the Prophet, that he permitted and held lawful the testimony some Christians concerning other of their sect.--SECONDLY, and infidel having power over himself, and his minor children is on that account qualified to be a witness with regard to his own sect; and the depravity which proceeds from his faith is not destructive of this qualification, because he is supposed to abstain from everything prohibited in his own religion, and falsehood is prohibited in every religion. It is otherwise with respect to an apostate, as he possesses no power, either over his own person, or over that of another; and it is also otherwise with respect to a Zimme in relation to a Mussulman because a Zimme has no power over the person of a Mussulman--Besides, a Zimme may be suspected of inventing falsehoods against a Mussulman from the hatred he bears to him on account of the superiority of the Mussulmans over him. OJECTION.--In the same manner as there subsists an enmity between Musulmans and Zimmees, so also is there an enmity between the followers of other religions, sects as the Jews, the Christians, and the Magians: it would follow, therefore, that amongst these testimony of those of one religion cannot be admitted with relation to other of a different religion; whereas it hath been declared admissible. REPLY.--Although the religions of these be different, yet none of them being under subjection to another, so as to engender reciprocal hatred; there is no cause to suspect that they will invent falsehoods against each other."

"WHOREDOM and bastardy are defect with regard to a female slave, but not with regard to a male. because the object, in purchase of a female slave, is cohabitation and the generation of children, which must be affected by either of the above circumstances; whereas, the object in the purchase of a male slave is the use of his services, the value of which is not depreciated by his committing to whoredom.—IF, however, a male slave be much addicted to whoredom, our lawyers are of opinion that it is a defect, because in the pursuit of women he neglects the service of his master."

"A man may gratify his passion with his female slave in whatever way he pleases—It is lawful for a man to perform the act of Azil with his female slave without her consent, whereas he cannot lawfully do so by his wife unless with her permission. –The reason of this is that the Prophet has forbidden the act of Azil with a free woman without her consent but has permitted it to a master in the case of his female slave. Besides, carnal connexion is the right of a free woman for the gratifying of her passion, and the propagation of children (whence it is that a wife is at liberty to reject a husband who is an eunuch or impotent); whereas a slave possesses no such right.—A man, therefore, is not at liberty to injure the right of his wife, whereas a master is absolute with respect to his slave. If, also, a man should marry the female slave of another, he must not perform the act of Azil with her without the consent of her master."

"It is the duty of every free Muslim arrived at the age of maturity to offer a sacrifice, on the ‘Idu’l-Azha’, or ‘Festival of the Sacrifice’, provided he be then possessed of a Nisab (i.e., sufficient property), and be not a traveller. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, Muhammad, Zufar, and Hasan, and likewise of Abu Yusuf, according to one tradition. According to ash-Shafi’i, sacrifice is not an indispensable duty, but only laudable. At-Tahawi reports that, in the opinion of Abu Hanifah, it is indispensable, whilst the disciples hold it to be in a strong degree laudable. The offering of a sacrifice is incumbent on a man on account of himself, and on account of his infant child. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah in one tradition. In another he has said that it is not incumbent on a man to offer a sacrifice for his child..."

"The following is the teaching of the Hanafi school of Sunnis on the subject of Jihad, as given in the Hidayah...:-- "The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Muslims, and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who said in the Qur’an, ‘Slay the infidels,’ and also by a saying of the Prophet, ‘War is permanently established until the Day of Judgment’ (meaning the ordinance respecting war). The observance, however, in the degree above mentioned, suffices, because war is not a positive injunction, as it is in its nature murderous and destructive, and is enjoined only for the purpose of advancing the true faith or repelling evil from the servants of God; and when this end is answered by any single tribe or party of Muslims making war, the obligation is no longer binding upon the rest, in the same manner as in the prayers for the dead-(if, however, no one Muslim were to make war, the whole of the Muslim, would incur the criminality of neglecting it) – and also because if the injunction were positive, the whole of the Muslims must consequently engage in war, in which case the materials for war (such as horses, armour, and so forth) could not be procured. Thus it appears that the observance of war as aforesaid suffices, except where there is a general summons (that is, where the infidels invade a Muslim territory, and the Imam for the time being issues a general proclamation requiring all persons to go forth to fight), for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the inhabitants, whether men or women, and whether the Imam be a just or an unjust person; and if the people of that territory be unable to repulse the infidels, then war becomes a positive injunction with respect to all in that neighbourhood; and if these also do not suffice it, then comes a positive injunction with respect to the next neighbours; and in same manner with respect to all the Muslims from east to west. The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."

""It is not incumbent upon infants to make war, as they are objects of compassion; neither is it incumbent upon slaves or women, as the rights of the master, or of the husband, have precedence; nor is it so upon the blind, the maimed, or the decrepid, as such are incapable. If, however, the infidels make an attack upon a city or territory, in this case the repulsion of them is incumbent upon all Muslims, insomuch that a wife may go forth without consent of her husband, and a slave without the leave of his master, because war then becomes a positive injunction; and possession, either by bondage or by marriage, cannot come in competition with a positive injunction, as in prayer (for instance) or fasting. This is supposing a general summons; for without that it is not lawful for a woman or slave to go forth to make war without the consent of the husband or master, as there is in this case no necessity for their assistance, since others suffice, and hence no reason exists for destroying the right of the husband or master on that account. If there be any fund in the public treasury, so long as the fund lasts any extraordinary exaction for the support of the warriors is abominable, because such exaction resembles a hire for that which is a service of God as much as prayer or fasting, and, hire being forbidden in these instances, so is it in that which resembles them. In this case, moreover, there is no occasion for any extraordinary exactions, since the funds of the public treasury are prepared to answer all emergencies of the Muslims, such as war, and so forth. If, however, there be no funds in the public treasury, in this case the Imam need not hesitate to levy contributions for the better support of the warriors, because in levying a contribution the greater evil (namely, the destruction of the person) is repelled, and the contribution is the smaller evil, and the imposition of a smaller evil to remedy a greater is of no consequence. A confirmation of this is found in what is related of the Prophet, that he took various articles of armour, and so forth, from Safwan and ‘Umar; in the same manner also he took property from married men, and bestowed it upon the unmarried, in order to encourage them and enable them to go forth to fight with cheerfulness; and he also used to take the horses from those who remained at home, and bestowed them upon those who went forth to fight on foot. When the Muslims enter the enemy’s country and besiege the cities or strongholds of the infidels, it is necessary to invite them to embrace the faith, because Ibn ‘Abbas relates of the Prophet that he never destroyed any without previously inviting them to embrace the faith. If, therefore, they embrace the faith, it is unnecessary to war with them, because that which was the design of the war is then obtained without war. The Prophet, moreover, has said we are directed to make war upon men only until such time as they shall confess, ‘There is no God but one God.’ But when they repeat this creed, their persons and properties are in protection (aman). If they do accept the call to the faith, they must then be called upon to pay jizyah, or capitation tax, because the Prophet directed the commanders of his armies so to do, and also because by submitting to this tax war is forbidden and terminated upon the authority of the Qur’an. (This call to pay capitation tax, however, respects only those from whom the capitation tax is acceptable, or, as to apostates and the idolaters of Arabia, to call upon them to pay the tax is useless, since nothing is accepted from them but embracing the faith, as it is thus commanded in the Qur’an). If those who are called upon to pay capitation tax consent to do so, they then become entitled to the same protection and subject to the same rules as Muslims because ‘Ali had declared infidels agree to a capitation tax only in order to render their blood the same as Muslims’ blood, and their property the same as Muslims’ property."

""It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war."

""If a Muslim attack infidels without previously calling them to the faith, he is an offender, because this is forbidden; but yet if he do attack them before thus inviting them and slay them, and take their property, neither fine, expiation, nor atonement are due, because that which protects (namely, Islam) does not exist in them, nor are they under protection by place (namely the Daru ‘l-Islam, or Muslim territory), and the mere prohibition of the act is not sufficient to sanction the exaction either of fine or of atonement for property; in the same manner as the slaying of the women or infant children of infidels is forbidden, but if, notwithstanding, a person were to slay such, he is not liable to a fine. It is laudable to call to the faith a people to whom a call has already come, in order that they may have the more full and ample warning; but yet this is not incumbent, as it appears in the Traditions that the Prophet plundered and despoiled the tribe of al-Mustaliq by surprise, and he also agreed with Asamah to make a predatory attack upon Qubna at an early hour, and to set it on fire, and such attacks are not preceded by a call. (Qubna is a place in Syria: some assert it is the name of a tribe)."

"If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do. And having so done, the Muslims must then with God’s assistance attack the infidels with all manner of warlike engines (as the Prophet did by the people of Ta’if), and must also set fire to their habitations (in the same manner as the Prophet fired Baweera), and must inundate them with water and tear up their plantations and tread down their grain because by these means they will become weakened, and their resolution will fail and their force be broken; these means are, therefore, all sanctified by the law."

"It is no objection to shooting arrows or other missiles against the infidels that there may chance to be among them a Muslim in the way either of bondage or of traffic, because the shooting of arrows and so forth among the infidels remedies a general evil in the repulsion thereof from the whole body of Muslims, whereas the slaying of a Muslim slave or a trader is only a particular evil, and to repel a general evil a particular evil must be adopted, and also because it seldom happens that the strongholds of the infidels are destitute of Muslims, since it is most probable that there are Muslims residing in them, either in the way of bondage or of traffic, and hence, if the use of missile weapons were prohibited on account of these Muslims, war would be obstructed. If the infidels in time of battle should make shields of Muslim children, or of Muslims, who are prisoners in their hands, yet there is no need on that account to refrain from the use of missile weapons, for the reason already mentioned. It is requisite, however, that the Muslims in using such weapons aim at the infidels, and not at the children or the Muslim captives, because, as it is impossible in shooting to distinguish precisely between them and the infidels, the person who discharges the weapon must make this distinction in his intention and design by aiming at the infidels, and not at the others, since this much is practicable, and the distinction must be made as far as is practicable."

""If the Imam make peace with aliens, or with any particular tribe or body of them, and perceive it to be eligible for the Muslims, there need be no hesitation, because it is said in the Qur’an: ‘If the infidels be inclined to peace do ye likewise consent thereto,’ and also because the Prophet in the year of the punishment of Eubea, made a peace between the Muslims and the people of Mecca for the space of ten years; peace, moreover is war in effect where the interest of the Muslims requires it, since the design of war is the removal of evil, and this is obtained by means of peace: contrary to where peace is not to the interest of the Muslims, for it is not in that case lawful, as this would be abandoning war both apparently and in effect. It is here, however, proper to observe that it is not absolutely necessary to restrict a peace to the term above recorded (namely, ten years), because the end for which peace is made may be sometimes more effectually obtained by extending it to a longer term. If the Imam make peace with the aliens for a single term (namely, ten years), and afterwards perceive that it is most advantageous for the Muslim’s interest to break it, he may in that case lawfully renew the war after giving them due notice, because, upon a change of the circumstances which rendered peace advisable, the breach of peace is war, and the observance of it a desertion of war, both in appearance and also in effect, and war is an ordinance of God, and the forsaking of it is not becoming (to Muslims). It is to be observed that giving due notice to the enemy is in this case indispensably requisite in such a manner that treachery may not be induced, since this is forbidden. It is also requisite that such a delay be made in renewing the war with them, as may allow intelligence of the peace being broken off to be universally received among them, and for this such a time suffices as may admit of the king or chief of the enemy communicating the same to the different parts of their dominion, since by such a delay the charge of treachery is avoided.".."If the infidels act with perfidy in a peace, it is in such case lawful for the Imam to attack them without any previous notice, since the breach of treaty in this instance originates with them, whence there is no occasion to commence the war on the part of the Muslims by giving them notice. It would be otherwise, however, if only a small party of them were to violate the treaty by entering the Muslim territory and there committing robberies upon the Muslims, since this does not amount to a breach of treaty. If, moreover, this party be in force so as to be capable of opposition, and openly fight with the Muslims, this is a breach of treaty with respect to that party only, but not with respect to the rest of their nation or tribe, because, as this party have violated the treaty without any permission from their prince, the rest are not answerable for their act; whereas if they made their attack by permission of their prince, the breach of treaty would be regarded as by the whole, all being virtually implicated in it."

"If the Imam make peace with the aliens in return for property, there is no scruple; because since peace may be lawfully made without any such gratification it is also lawful in return for a gratification. This, however, is only where the Muslims stand in need of the property thus to be acquired; for if they be not in necessity, making peace for property is not lawful, since peace is a desertion of war both in appearance and in effect. It is to be observed that if the Imam receive this property by sending a messenger and making peace without the Muslim troops entering the enemy’s territory, the object of disbursement of it is the same as that of jizyah or capitation-tax; that is, it is to be expended upon the warriors and not upon the poor. If, however, the property be taken after the Muslims have invaded the enemy in this case it is as plunder, one-fifth going to the Imam and the remainder to be divided among the troops, as the property has in fact been taken by force in this instance. It is incumbent on the Imam to keep peace with apostates, and not to make war upon them, in order that they may have time to consider their situation, since it is to be hoped that they may again return to the faith. It is, therefore, lawful to delay fighting with them in a hope that they may again embrace Islam; but it is not lawful to take property from them. If, however, the Imam should take property from them, it is not incumbent upon him to return it, as such property is not in protection. If infidels harass the Muslims, and offer them peace in return for property, the Imam must not accede thereto as this would be a degradation of the Muslim honour, and disgrace would be attached to all the parties concerned in it; this, therefore, is not lawful except where destruction is to be apprehended, in which case the purchasing a peace with property is lawful, because it is a duty to repel destruction in every possible mode."

"The Hidayah is quite explicit about the legality of Jihad (holy war) against infidels even when they have not taken the offensive."

"Being kafir is a defect in both ghulam and bandi as by nature the Musalman detests to associate with or keep company of a kafir."

"He (Muhammad Ghauri) now possessed Alberuni's India and Burhanuddin's Hidayah, works which were not available to his predecessor invader. Alberuni's enecyclopedic work provided to the Islamic world in the eleventh century all that was militarily advantageous to know about India. Equally important was the Hidayah, the most authentic work on the laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali in the twelfth century. These and similar works, and the military manuals like the Siyasat Nama and Adab-ul-Harb, made the Ghauris and their successors better equipped for the conquest and governance of non-Muslim India. There need be no doubt that such works were made available, meticulously studied and constantly referred to by scholars attached to the courts of Muslim conquerors and kings."

"The Fateh - ul - Qadir comment on the Hidaya also states that the object of Jihad is not only to test his creatures but also to give glory to Islam and prevent Mobammedans from being oppressed by non - believers."

"Perhaps the most well known book on jurisprudence available in India was the al-Hidāyah fī sharh bidayāt al-mubtadī by Burhān al-Dīn al-Farghānī al-Marghinānī (530/1136–593/1197) which contains Islamic law as interpreted by Abū Ḥanīfah. Indeed, it was used, along with its commentary called the Sharh al-Wiqāyā by ‘Ubayd Allāh bin Mas ‘ūd al-Maḥbūbī (d. 1346–7), in Indian seminaries for teaching the law by all sub-sects and is still a textbook in madrasahs. The Hidāyah was translated into Urdu in the nineteenth century and published from Calcutta. It was also used by the British as a source of Muslim law in the courts. Since most Indian Muslims were and remain Sunnis, it is an important source about jihad. The Urdu translation of this work has several sections dealing with the subject. Ch 3"

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation)."

"And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful."

"As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in ˹enforcing˺ the law of Allah, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a number of believers witness their punishment."

"Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah."