Ammar Khan Nasir
Muti Syed: Ashath ibn Qays became a guest in the house of Umar (RA). He says that Umar (RA) struck his wife and said to Ashath that the Prophet (PBUH) had said that three matters should not be questioned from a person. One of these is that a man should not be asked why he struck his wife (No. 122). What is the proper context of the Prophet’s statement that a man should not be questioned about this? Does this not create the impression that a husband is not accountable to anyone in matters concerning his wife and has absolute authority over her?
Ammar Nasir: The intent of the Prophet’s statement is that an outsider should not interfere in someone’s domestic matters. The affairs that occur between husband and wife sometimes cannot even be explained before an outsider, and the head of the household may also regard it as interference in his private matters. However, this does not mean that a man is absolutely not accountable in the matter of beating his wife. If he has exceeded the proper limits, then he is accountable. But the questioning may be done either by the authority (the ruler or judge), or if the wife brings a complaint against the husband, then he can be questioned on that basis.
Similarly, jurists write that if a husband has a violent temperament, the authority may assign the people of the neighborhood the responsibility of keeping an eye on him. In such a case, neighbors may also report complaints to the authority. So, if a situation arises in which a complaint becomes necessary, then justice will be sought. When the occasion for complaint arose, women would also bring their complaints to the Prophet (PBUH), and he would sometimes admonish the husbands and sometimes the wives according to the situation. But under normal circumstances, the instruction was given that if a man needs to exercise this authority in order to maintain order within his household or to preserve the proper environment of his home, others should not interfere. They should not exert pressure on him, because that might embolden the other party; and if such encouragement is given, the matter may deteriorate and its effects may spread.
Muti Syed: Even so, in today’s age this seems quite strange to us.
Ammar Nasir: Yes, a great deal has changed in our culture. Especially regarding the status of women and the particular sensitivity that now exists concerning their rights, it has become quite difficult to understand such matters. The Quran gave this instruction primarily in order to stabilize the social order. If there is the possibility that this order may be disturbed and irresponsible behavior may arise, then such guidance serves as a preventive measure. In reality, this was a tribal social order, in which the entire structure of society and the responsibility of the family and household rested fully upon the man. If a man’s authority within the home is challenged, then his entire life and the responsibilities placed upon him are affected. In a tribal civilization, individual rights do not possess fundamental significance. The primary concern is that the foundations upon which society stands—and the division of responsibilities and rights established within it—should not be undermined. If they are undermined, numerous problems will arise.
If such a tendency exists among women and they express it, the entire order of the household will be affected. You can see that the Quran proposes the disciplinary correction of the wife as a possible method. It does not say that if someone strikes his wife there is “la junaha alaykum”—that there will be no sin; rather, it proposes that this may be done for the sake of reform. The authority is given in the context of ensuring that the established social order is not disrupted.
Muti Syed: Dr. Fazlur Rahman wrote regarding qiwamah that the era in which it operated in that way no longer exists, and on this basis he says that it needs to be reconsidered in light of social change. He expresses a similar view regarding the shares of inheritance. Do you also see these matters in the same way?
Ammar Nasir: In society, different principles operate simultaneously. For example, the principle of qawamiyyat exists in the Shariah, but alongside it the principle of individual rights and personal dignity has also been articulated. In a sound and balanced society, the proportion between these two must be maintained. The real objective is to preserve the order of the household. When civilization changes, the relationship between these principles has to be determined again in a new way.
In today’s environment, it would not be proposed that the authority of the man is absolute in the sense that no other person may intervene in it. Today the instruction would rather be that if a man has struck his wife, he should have an answer to the question of what circumstance compelled him to raise his hand. If such a restriction is imposed, it would not be contrary to the Shariah. Even in the society of his own time, the Prophet (PBUH) created a balance through his practice within the general permission given by the Quran. The Quran emphasizes the aspect of discipline, but the Prophet (PBUH), through his example, highlights the aspect of moral conduct—what a man’s behavior should be according to good character. He said, “The best among you is the one who is best to his family,” and he never struck any of his wives or servants. In other words, on the one hand the Quran describes the disciplinary aspect so that women do not become rebellious, while on the other hand the Prophet (PBUH) directs people toward good moral conduct so that men themselves do not become oppressive.
Muti Syed: Some people say that the ideal society is actually the one described in the Quran and Hadith, and that we have deviated from it. In other words, society should be brought back to that original form. If society continues to become distorted, should we also continue to become distorted along with it?
Ammar Nasir: That is one perspective, but it can be disagreed with. What should really be considered is this: maintaining order within the household is certainly a desired objective, but must the method of maintaining that order be the same in every civilization? If there is a society in which a woman is more sensitive regarding her personal dignity and self-respect, and psychologically does not accept the method of physical discipline, then could there not be some alternative method—acceptable in the view of the Shariah—for maintaining qawamiyyat? Maintaining order is the fundamental principle, but the strategy for achieving it can change according to the civilization. If we look at the matter in light of the fundamental objectives of the Shariah, then restricting and conditioning the permission for physical discipline would not seem incorrect.
Muti Syed: Before his death, Umar (RA) made a will that at the time of his death all the slaves who were Arabs should be set free (No. 129). In what sense did he say this? Was he declaring slavery to be prohibited for Arabs, or as the caliph was he instructing people to free Arab slaves?
Ammar Nasir: This was a political decision. In the Shariah, obviously no such distinction was made that non-Arabs may be slaves while Arabs may not be. Umar (RA) made this decision under the principle of siyasah shariyyah that no Arab should remain a slave. Even in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), Arab tribes who were captured in wars were eventually freed. For example, when the people of Banu al-Mustaliq were taken captive, they were collectively freed because of the marriage of the Prophet (PBUH) to Juwayriyah (RA). Likewise, in the Battle of Hunayn, those who were taken captive were distributed as part of the spoils of war, but afterward the Prophet (PBUH) asked the people to free them all and promised that compensation for their freedom would be given to them on a later occasion.
During his caliphate, Umar (RA) observed that many Arabs who had been captured in mutual wars during the age of ignorance were still living as slaves. During his rule he made efforts to have their price paid and to secure their freedom. At the time of his death he also made a will that whoever remained among them should have their price paid from the Bayt al-Māl, and they should be set free.
Muti Syed: Why was this policy specifically directed toward Arab slaves? Was there any particular reason for this specification?
Ammar Nasir: It was not specific to Arabs in the sense that he took no measures for the freedom of non-Arab slaves. For example, some reports state that he advised the caliph who would succeed him that among the slaves owned by the Bayt al-Māl, every slave who performed prayer should be set free, although the caliph could continue to take service from them for two years if he wished (al-Tabaqat al-Kubra 3/333).
Similarly, he adopted the policy and wrote to all his governors that if a slave-woman had given birth to her master’s child, the master could not sell her, because this would amount to severing family ties and would not be permissible (al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, No. 3708). He stated this because regarding a slave-woman who became the mother of her master’s child, the Prophet (PBUH) had declared that upon the death of the master she would automatically become free. However, during the Prophet’s time and the caliphate of Abu Bakr (RA), the Companions would sometimes sell such slave-women during their lifetime if the need arose. Umar (RA) exercised independent reasoning (ijtihad) that the fundamental moral principle of the Shariah requires that such a slave-woman should not be sold and separated from her child. Accordingly, with the agreement of the leading Companions, he imposed a prohibition on this and declared it equivalent to severing kinship ties.
As for making the freedom of Arab slaves a primary objective, that was a natural inclination. Sympathy and solidarity for one’s own people tend to be stronger than for other groups.
Muti Syed: From the measures of Umar (RA), it appears that he wanted to gradually restrict slavery. Can it be said that if he had been given more opportunity, he might also have decided to abolish it altogether?
Ammar Nasir: I also have the impression that if the continuity of Umar (RA)’s measures had been maintained, and if either he himself or a later caliph with similar insight and courage had been given further opportunity, then perhaps at some stage the Muslims might have decided much earlier to abolish slavery completely. The Prophet (PBUH) had initiated a process, and Umar (RA) continued to advance it with considerable focus. However, the stage did not arise in which he could decide upon its complete abolition. After him, the continuity of this way of thinking was also not maintained in the same manner.
Muti Syed: Does the idea of considering Arabs superior to other peoples not involve an element of racial discrimination? The Jews also had a similar notion, which the Quran criticized. The Prophet (PBUH) also said in the Farewell Sermon—a very famous statement—“La fadla li-arabiyyin ala ajamiyyin illa bil-taqwa.”, (There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab except through piety). So in what sense do they have superiority?
Ammar Nasir: That is a good question. The key point here is whether superiority and equality can coexist. In other words, can a group be acknowledged as superior or distinguished in one respect while remaining equal to other groups in another respect? As far as superiority on the basis of race is concerned, Islam has not endorsed it. Rather, it has stated that all human beings are the children of the same parents, and no race possesses inherent superiority over another. In the sight of God, the criterion for being favored and close to Him is a person’s deeds. In that sense, there is equality.
However, if God, in His wisdom, selects certain groups or peoples for a particular responsibility or role, then in that sense they possess a distinction over others. For example, the Israelites were chosen for prophethood and divine law, and after them the Ishmaelites were selected for shahadah ‘ala al-nās (bearing witness over humanity). This is a distinction granted by God and has its own significance. The Israelites went wrong at this point when they transformed a distinction granted because of responsibility and role into a notion of racial superiority. To a large extent, if a sense of superiority exists among Arabs as well, it has the same nature.
Muti Syed: There is a narration in which the narrator is Ibn ‘Abbas. He explains the context in which the Quranic verse ’لَا تَجْهَرْ بِصَلَاتِكَ وَلَا تُخَافِتْ بِهَا .‘1 was revealed in Makkah (No. 155). Why has this narration been placed in the Musnad of Umar (RA)?
Ammar Nasir: In this verse it is instructed that while offering prayer one should neither recite in a very loud voice nor in an excessively low voice. In the exegetical reports related to this verse, it is narrated that among the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH), Abu Bakr (RA) would recite in a low voice and Umar (RA) in a louder voice. The Prophet told Abu Bakr to raise his voice somewhat and told Umar (RA) to lower his voice slightly (Tafsir al-Tabari, 17/586). Since the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (RA) also describes the occasion of revelation of this verse, it may have been placed in the Musnad of Umar (RA) due to this connection. However, it is also possible that it remained here by mistake, because Imam Ahmad did not have the opportunity to finalize the arrangement of the Musnad.
Muti Syed: A few days before his death, Umar (RA) delivered a sermon in which he spoke about several important matters, including stoning (rajm). He said that this is one of the limits set by God and that if he did not fear that people would say that Umar (RA) had added something to the Book of God, he would have written it in the margin of the mushaf. He also said that people would arise who would deny stoning, the punishment of the grave, and the coming of the Dajjal (No. 156). When Umar (RA) had similar concerns about the denial of other matters, why did he speak of writing only rajm in the mushaf?
Ammar Nasir: The reason he spoke in this way about rajm is explained in the reports which state that Umar (RA) said that its ruling had been revealed in the Quran. He said that the verse of stoning had been revealed and that they had memorized it well. In some narrations, the wording of this verse has also been transmitted:
الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا أَلْبَتَّةَ
(Al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Nasa’i, No. 7118).
Muti Syed: Maulana Islahi and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi have declared this narration fabricated. They say it was invented to cast doubt on the Quran. If the verse had been revealed in the Quran, then where did it go?
Ammar Nasir: One of their objections concerns the wording of the verse itself. They say that from the perspective of Arabic style it is extremely crude and cannot be accepted as a Quranic verse. However, the primary objection is that if the verse was truly revealed in the Quran, then why is it not present in the existing mushaf? Clearly, this objection is reasonable, and this difficulty has also been recognized by scholars.
For this reason, the hadith scholars do not take this statement in its literal sense. They explain it in this way: Umar (RA) was not referring to a Quranic verse, but to a ruling that had been revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) through revelation. This is the opinion of Imam al-Tabari. He says that some narrations mention that Umar (RA) said he once came to the Prophet (PBUH) so that he might have the verse of stoning written down, but the Prophet refrained from having it written (al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhaqi, Nos. 7107, 7110). From this it appears that the ruling had indeed been revealed through revelation, but not as a Quranic verse; otherwise the Prophet would not have refrained from having it written.
Similarly, some scholars say that Umar (RA) was in fact referring not to the Quran but to the verse of stoning revealed in the Torah, whose ruling is also present in our Shariah and mentioned in the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH). Some other hadith scholars hold the view that Umar (RA) was referring to a verse that had indeed been revealed in the Quran, but whose recitation was later abrogated; that is, it was not included in the mushaf, although its ruling remained. From this, the scholars of legal theory derived a separate category of abrogation called “mansukh al-tilawah dun al-hukm” (abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains).
However, this is intellectually difficult to comprehend. Maulana Maududi and others have criticized it from this perspective, arguing that it is understandable and logical for a ruling to be abrogated while the verse remains in the Quran, but what possible logic could there be in retaining the ruling while removing the words of the verse from the Quran?
Muti Syed: Another question arises: when Umar (RA) himself is stating that this ruling is not now in the Quran and that he cannot write it in the mushaf, then why does he not regard it as abrogated? For example, regarding hajj tamattu (Hajj following Umrah) and nikah mutah (temporary marriage), he would say that the Prophet (PBUH) had permitted them temporarily for some specific expediency granted by God. Why does he not view the ruling of rajm (stoning) in the same way? On what basis does he insist that people in the future should not deny it, but should continue to act upon it?
Ammar Nasir: This is a difficult question. Obviously, Umar (RA) himself did not provide an explicit answer. But if we try to understand his viewpoint by inference, it seems to me that he did not interpret it as abrogated or as a temporary ruling because the Prophet (PBUH) did not practically abandon the ruling of rajm, rather he continued to implement it.
You may recall that Umar (RA) once had a similar question in his mind regarding shortening the prayer (qasr) during travel. The Quran permits it in a situation of fear. When he saw that the Prophet (PBUH) continued to shorten the prayer even after the situation of fear had ended, he asked him about it. The Prophet (PBUH) explained that they were still doing so with God’s permission and not contrary to it. Perhaps Umar (RA) reasoned by analogy that even though the ruling of rajm is not written in the Quran, since the Prophet (PBUH) continued to act upon it, it is still part of the Shariah. Therefore, it should not be denied merely because it is not written in the Quran.
Muti Syed: Umar (RA) states that in three matters his opinion coincided with the will of God. One of these he mentions as follows: he said to the Messenger of God (PBUH) that both good and bad people come to you, so it would be better if you instructed the Mothers of the Believers to observe seclusion. Then the verse of hijab was revealed (No. 157).
Ammar Nasir: Yes, it is very clear both from the verse of the Quran and from the narrations that the requirement of hijab was specifically for the wives of the Prophet and its purpose was to ensure the sanctity and respect of the Prophet’s wives. Umar (RA) had already been insisting on this, and besides advising the Mothers of the Believers, he would also request the Prophet (PBUH) that not everyone should be allowed to freely visit and interact with his wives.
In a detailed article, I have gathered all the narrations which show that during the time of the Prophet and the period of the Companions and Successors, hijab was understood as a special ruling for the Mothers of the Believers, and the Companions would mention the observance of hijab as a distinctive sign for women who entered into marriage with the Prophet (PBUH). This article has been published in several episodes in the monthly magazine Ishraq.
Muti Syed: Umar (RA) once gave a horse in the path of God. After some time the same horse—or its offspring—came up for sale in the market. Umar (RA) asked the Prophet (PBUH) whether he could buy it. The Prophet
(PBUH) replied: Do not go back on your charity (No. 166). Apparently, this was not taking back charity; Umar (RA) was simply buying his horse again.
Ammar Nasir: This is a subtle point. It is not really a legal or juristic ruling. One aspect of charity and its reward is that a person willingly parts with something beloved and gives it in the path of God. Now if the same beloved item is purchased again, in a way it compromises the spirit of the charity. It is from this perspective that the Prophet (PBUH) described it as returning to one’s charity.
Muti Syed: Samurah ibn Jundub sold wine, and Umar (RA) said “May God destroy Samurah,” adding that the Jews had done something similar with fat: when God made fat unlawful, they started selling it (No. 170). Samurah was among the prominent Companions. Was the prohibition of trading in wine not clear to him?
Ammar Nasir: It seems that the saying of the Prophet (PBUH)—in which he prohibited buying and selling anything that is itself unlawful—was not known to him. He probably reasoned by analogy that the prohibition related to the consumption of wine, but that it could still be sold for a price. In other words, one could not consume it personally but might sell it to a non-Muslim.
Muti Syed: From Umar’s statement it appears that he did not take any action against him.
Ammar Nasir: Yes, he only made a comment. No punishment was imposed for an ijtihadi (analogical) mistake.
Muti Syed: The Prophet (PBUH) said: “The child belongs to the bed (al-walad lil-firash)” (No. 173), meaning that the child is attributed to the one who has marital or ownership rights over the mother. Could you clarify this a bit? Today we have many other means to determine who the father of a child is.
Ammar Nasir: The statement was originally made in a situation where a slave-woman belonged to one man, but another person claimed to be the father of her child. When the case came before the Prophet (PBUH), the two men themselves were not present; rather, their relatives were claiming the child’s lineage. The Prophet (PBUH) ruled that since the slave-woman belonged to a particular man, the child would also be attributed to him. The other man was considered an adulterer, and his claim over the child was rejected.
From this, the juristic principle derived is that if a woman is in someone’s marriage or ownership and she forms a relationship with another man during that time, then if the husband or owner does not deny the child, the child will be considered his. However, if the husband refuses to accept the child as his responsibility, then he must perform lian (mutual oath of condemnation). Likewise, if an owner does not accept responsibility for the child of his slave-woman, then the lineage will not be established through him.
Thus, the principle “al-walad lil-firash” primarily applies in situations where the husband or owner himself does not deny the child. In addition, there were cases brought before the Prophet (PBUH) where a slave-woman was jointly owned by several men and all of them claimed to be the father of her child. In such situations, the Prophet (PBUH) decided the matter by drawing lots, because no other method was available. In my opinion, if such a case arose today, medical means could be used instead of drawing lots. Similarly, if a husband accuses his wife of adultery and refuses to accept the child’s lineage while the wife insists that it is his child, medical methods should also be used in such cases. The husband’s denial alone should not be considered sufficient to negate the child’s lineage.
Muti Syed: Asma’ once sent her servant Abdullah to Ibn Umar (RA) to ask why he declared three things unlawful, one of which was placing silk patches on clothing. Ibn Umar (RA) explained that Umar (RA) had narrated to them the saying of the Prophet (PBUH): “Whoever wears silk in this world will not wear it in the Hereafter” (No. 181). However, it seems that the hadith literature permits small pieces of silk to be used in clothing. So why was Ibn Umar (RA) prohibiting it?
Ammar Nasir: Yes, the narrations do contain that concession. In fact, the detailed narration of this incident mentions that when ‘Abdullah returned to Asma’ with the answer of Ibn Umar (RA), she brought out a cloak and showed it to him, saying that this was the cloak of the Prophet (PBUH) which he used to wear, and it also had silk patches on it (al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhaqi, No. 6084).
As for why Ibn Umar (RA) prohibited it, one possibility is that he may not have known that the Prophet (PBUH) had allowed it, and from the general prohibition of silk he inferred that even a small amount of silk should not be used. Another possibility is that he was aware of the concession but, based on the principle of blocking the means (sadd al-dhariah), he felt that people were not actually observing a proper limit and that allowing small pieces was effectively opening the door to widespread use of silk. Both explanations are possible.
[To be continued…]
- Surah Bani Israel 17:110