Just a short blog to say that in addition to Ayatullah Saanei, Ayatullah Fadlallah has the same opinion and I'd just like to quote his main (3 volume) risala - [note that this is a book of laws and most 3 volume risalas don't have reasoning but his has a basic reasoning]. I noticed this as I was checking something that a friend asked for me:
"As for women, the widely held opinion is that she reaches the age of taklif [having to perform all the wajibat...etc.] dependent on her age (specifically reaching the age of 9). However, what is apparent from the evidence, is that she reaches [this age of taklif] when she gets her period. In one of the narrations that mention 9, it even says: "and that is because she gets her period at 9". Similarly, it says in narrations about the idda period, when it discusses about those for whom there is no idda period: "...'what is the limit of it [having to wait for the idda [period]'? When she has not reached 9". From here, we can infer that 9 is the age that is distinctly mentioned because it is the age at which a girl gets her period, other than in exceptional situations; the issue of bulugh is thus about the period, regardless of whether the age is mentioned or not. For this reason, it is clearer [than any alternative] that a girl becomes responsible for her actions, if she reaches 13 lunar years, or sees the blood of period before then. However, it is still better to encourage a girl to perform the important rituals in shar'i law, especially hijab and prayers after reaching 9 lunar years (=8 years and 9 months in Christian calendar)"
(Source: http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/kotob/fekhalshari3a-1.pdf, page 5)
Tuesday 29 December 2009
Saturday 26 December 2009
Age of Bulugh for women (6 - final)
Now we have seen the arguments on both sides, it is up to you to decide!
To me, the age of 9 would normally seem very arbitrary, especially as there is no minimum age for boys. However, with the first set of narrations, there is a wonder as to why the age of 9 is mentioned at all, even though it is never mentioned on its own. Potential reasons seem to be:
• Cultural phenomenon where at that time, 9 was the age when most girls got their period…etc. [this is backed up by the third narration which says: “that is because she gets her period at 9”
• 9 is the minimum age rather than the maximum age at which one could be baligh i.e. if you are 9 AND get your period…so if you get your period before then, that does not count
• The arguments proposed by Ayatullah Saanei
All at least give some doubt as to its authenticity. We then see some of the Qur`anic proofs put forward by Ayatullah Saanei and they seem to suggest that age is not a reason at all. At the minimum, if it is a reason, it is doubtful and the rule of istis-hab works. For me, this shows that the readiness to get married i.e. physical maturity is the factor, which determines bulugh.
(for maximum age, as there is one for guys, it seems that there should be one for girls just to ensure all are baligh and those with exceptional physical differences are not treated too differently).
A question that was put to me very well was: we are having a discussion about bulugh but what is bulugh.
There is an important discussion to be had here. When one is able to distinguish between right and wrong, God is able to use that as a basis for judging actions. This could occur from as early as 3 for example. This ability is a hidden factor, and one left for God to judge. Therefore, it CANNOT be the basis for the application of Islamic law by judges here (other laws could be used).
Bulugh is a testable factor, which is the basis when ALL Islamic laws are then applicable on both sides:
• From your side: you are then responsible for your actions being in line with Islamic law
• From the side of society e.g. if there is an Islamic state with hudud punishments, they can only be applicable at this age
Therefore, this age of bulugh is more important from this angle, rather than that of the next life, as God will judge and He is the best of judges.
To me, the age of 9 would normally seem very arbitrary, especially as there is no minimum age for boys. However, with the first set of narrations, there is a wonder as to why the age of 9 is mentioned at all, even though it is never mentioned on its own. Potential reasons seem to be:
• Cultural phenomenon where at that time, 9 was the age when most girls got their period…etc. [this is backed up by the third narration which says: “that is because she gets her period at 9”
• 9 is the minimum age rather than the maximum age at which one could be baligh i.e. if you are 9 AND get your period…so if you get your period before then, that does not count
• The arguments proposed by Ayatullah Saanei
All at least give some doubt as to its authenticity. We then see some of the Qur`anic proofs put forward by Ayatullah Saanei and they seem to suggest that age is not a reason at all. At the minimum, if it is a reason, it is doubtful and the rule of istis-hab works. For me, this shows that the readiness to get married i.e. physical maturity is the factor, which determines bulugh.
(for maximum age, as there is one for guys, it seems that there should be one for girls just to ensure all are baligh and those with exceptional physical differences are not treated too differently).
A question that was put to me very well was: we are having a discussion about bulugh but what is bulugh.
There is an important discussion to be had here. When one is able to distinguish between right and wrong, God is able to use that as a basis for judging actions. This could occur from as early as 3 for example. This ability is a hidden factor, and one left for God to judge. Therefore, it CANNOT be the basis for the application of Islamic law by judges here (other laws could be used).
Bulugh is a testable factor, which is the basis when ALL Islamic laws are then applicable on both sides:
• From your side: you are then responsible for your actions being in line with Islamic law
• From the side of society e.g. if there is an Islamic state with hudud punishments, they can only be applicable at this age
Therefore, this age of bulugh is more important from this angle, rather than that of the next life, as God will judge and He is the best of judges.
Wednesday 23 December 2009
Age of Bulugh for women (5)
Method 2 – Verse 6 from Surah Nisaa
“And test the orphans until they reach marriage; then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property,”
The important thing to note here, is that this “make over to them their property” is the same phrase as is used in the narrations in blog 1 (“her property is given to her”) as the measure of bulugh, which has two conditions:
This means that there are two conditions for giving property to the young orphans:
1. Reaching the age where you are ready to be married(بلغوا النكاح)
2. Maturity of intellect (رشد)
As we know that the age of bulugh is not marriage itself, it must be reaching the age of bulugh is being ready for marriage.
Method 3: Verse 59 of Surah Nur
“And when the children among you have had a wet dream/attained puberty [حلم], let them seek permission as those before them sought permission”
Similar to the narration before, this means that you do not reach bulugh until you have a wet dream.
Method 4: Verse 34 from Surah Israa
“And draw not near to the property of the orphan except in a goodly way till he attains his maturity” (بلغ أشدّه)
A narration from Hashim bin Salim from Abu Abd Allah (AS), who said: “being an orphan is stopped when you reach puberty [same word used as in surah nur above], and this is reaching maturity [أشده – as used in surah israa]. And if he reaches puberty and is not mature or is stupid, or weak, then let his guardian hold on to his property.”
The point of this, is this is another indication that age is not a decisive factor.
Method 5: Narration of “not being answerable to God” رفع القلم
The Prophet (SAW) said: “There is no answering to God for three types of people: from a young person until he has a wet dream, and from a mad person until he becomes sane, and a from someone sleeping until he is conscious”
This is a narration, that there is consensus about – that it came from the Prophet (SAW).
Method 6: No evidence
There is no actual clear evidence for reaching bulugh before 13, and this is enough by itself.
Method 7: Istishab of not being baligh
Istis-hab is a jurisprudential tool that is used based on rationality. It says that we value certainty over doubt and if we have certainty and then doubt about something changing, we must refer to the certainty.
We have certainty that when born, a girl is not baligh. There are traditions which mention 9 (but NONE that mention 9 independently of any other factor). We can thus not be sure that you definitely become baligh at 9. We can thus refer to the certain state of not being baligh.
There are traditions for 9, 10 and 13 so when you reach 13, you can know for sure that if there is a maximum age limit (which makes sense to make sure that those who are late developers do not get a completely different age of bulugh), you can be sure that when you reach 13, you have reached the age of bulugh.
Overall, the deduction of most scholars in deciding that the age of bulugh is 9 for women has a lot of problems with it. This is because there are other factors which make the age of 9 not required. And Ijma’ does not work.
The Qur`an does not specify an age and we have potentially conflicting narrations. If the evidence above does not satisfy one to ignore the age of 9, then both sets of narrations are disregarded, and there is no reason to have the age of 9.
“And test the orphans until they reach marriage; then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property,”
The important thing to note here, is that this “make over to them their property” is the same phrase as is used in the narrations in blog 1 (“her property is given to her”) as the measure of bulugh, which has two conditions:
This means that there are two conditions for giving property to the young orphans:
1. Reaching the age where you are ready to be married(بلغوا النكاح)
2. Maturity of intellect (رشد)
As we know that the age of bulugh is not marriage itself, it must be reaching the age of bulugh is being ready for marriage.
Method 3: Verse 59 of Surah Nur
“And when the children among you have had a wet dream/attained puberty [حلم], let them seek permission as those before them sought permission”
Similar to the narration before, this means that you do not reach bulugh until you have a wet dream.
Method 4: Verse 34 from Surah Israa
“And draw not near to the property of the orphan except in a goodly way till he attains his maturity” (بلغ أشدّه)
A narration from Hashim bin Salim from Abu Abd Allah (AS), who said: “being an orphan is stopped when you reach puberty [same word used as in surah nur above], and this is reaching maturity [أشده – as used in surah israa]. And if he reaches puberty and is not mature or is stupid, or weak, then let his guardian hold on to his property.”
The point of this, is this is another indication that age is not a decisive factor.
Method 5: Narration of “not being answerable to God” رفع القلم
The Prophet (SAW) said: “There is no answering to God for three types of people: from a young person until he has a wet dream, and from a mad person until he becomes sane, and a from someone sleeping until he is conscious”
This is a narration, that there is consensus about – that it came from the Prophet (SAW).
Method 6: No evidence
There is no actual clear evidence for reaching bulugh before 13, and this is enough by itself.
Method 7: Istishab of not being baligh
Istis-hab is a jurisprudential tool that is used based on rationality. It says that we value certainty over doubt and if we have certainty and then doubt about something changing, we must refer to the certainty.
We have certainty that when born, a girl is not baligh. There are traditions which mention 9 (but NONE that mention 9 independently of any other factor). We can thus not be sure that you definitely become baligh at 9. We can thus refer to the certain state of not being baligh.
There are traditions for 9, 10 and 13 so when you reach 13, you can know for sure that if there is a maximum age limit (which makes sense to make sure that those who are late developers do not get a completely different age of bulugh), you can be sure that when you reach 13, you have reached the age of bulugh.
Overall, the deduction of most scholars in deciding that the age of bulugh is 9 for women has a lot of problems with it. This is because there are other factors which make the age of 9 not required. And Ijma’ does not work.
The Qur`an does not specify an age and we have potentially conflicting narrations. If the evidence above does not satisfy one to ignore the age of 9, then both sets of narrations are disregarded, and there is no reason to have the age of 9.
Monday 21 December 2009
Age of Bulugh for women (4)
We have discussed the main arguments for the age of 9 being the maximum age at which a girl can become baligh. Now we can discuss Ayatullah Saanei's point of view and his proactive arguments. He believes that the maximum age is 13, and that there is no actual proof for 9.
How can it be 9, which adds a huge weight on girls who do not have physical growth and are not even ready to be married. Is this not against the law of tolerance/liberality (سماحة) and ease? If the other signs are there, that is a different case.
Saanei uses a range of methods, the first of which is detailed in this blog:
Method 1 – Hadith of Ammar Saabati
“I asked him [Abu Abd Allah] about when a young man has to pray and he replied: “When he reaches 13. If he has a wet dream before then, then he has to pray, and the pen starts writing [good and bad deeds] and for a young girl, it is like that as well, if she reaches 13 or has her period before then, then she has to pray and the pen starts writing [good and bad deeds]”
This narration is clear, and the chain of narrations is strong (موثق – not صحيح though).
Problems with this:
1. The majority say that it is 15 not 13 for boys. So if this is not correct, the rest of the narration might have to be dropped.
Answer: just because the first part of the narration is in contradiction with many narrations that mention 15 rather than 13 for boys, does not mean the remainder of the narration is not reliable.
2. No jurist has said that the age of bulugh for girls is 13
Answer: Shaykh Tusi used this narration as something that can be the basis of legal rulings. In addition, the widespread opinion that the age is 9, only came after Shaykh Tusi, and this widespread opinion cannot be relied upon (by itself) because it only is based on Shaykh Tusi’s opinion, and it is not the widespread opinion of the early scholars - only those after Shaykh Tusi.
3. Ammar Saabuti is from the Fat-hi sect.
Answer: Shaykh Tusi mentioned this but said that in spite of this, he is trustworthy, and there is no problem with him. Najashi also considered him trustworthy in our early books of Rijal. Allama Hilli says that he is trustworthy….
4. The narration contradicts those which talk about the age of 9, and because of the number of the narrations that discuss 9, those should be given precedence due to the higher probability that they are true, in addition to the fact that this is supported by the majority held view.
Answer: As has been discussed previously, these narrations are not about reaching the age of bulugh at 9, and therefore there is actually no contradiction.
If we accept that there is some link to reaching bulugh at 9, we realise that this narration in clear in what it says, whereas those are not clear, and therefore, there is no actual contradiction, as what is clear always takes precedence.
How can it be 9, which adds a huge weight on girls who do not have physical growth and are not even ready to be married. Is this not against the law of tolerance/liberality (سماحة) and ease? If the other signs are there, that is a different case.
Saanei uses a range of methods, the first of which is detailed in this blog:
Method 1 – Hadith of Ammar Saabati
“I asked him [Abu Abd Allah] about when a young man has to pray and he replied: “When he reaches 13. If he has a wet dream before then, then he has to pray, and the pen starts writing [good and bad deeds] and for a young girl, it is like that as well, if she reaches 13 or has her period before then, then she has to pray and the pen starts writing [good and bad deeds]”
This narration is clear, and the chain of narrations is strong (موثق – not صحيح though).
Problems with this:
1. The majority say that it is 15 not 13 for boys. So if this is not correct, the rest of the narration might have to be dropped.
Answer: just because the first part of the narration is in contradiction with many narrations that mention 15 rather than 13 for boys, does not mean the remainder of the narration is not reliable.
2. No jurist has said that the age of bulugh for girls is 13
Answer: Shaykh Tusi used this narration as something that can be the basis of legal rulings. In addition, the widespread opinion that the age is 9, only came after Shaykh Tusi, and this widespread opinion cannot be relied upon (by itself) because it only is based on Shaykh Tusi’s opinion, and it is not the widespread opinion of the early scholars - only those after Shaykh Tusi.
3. Ammar Saabuti is from the Fat-hi sect.
Answer: Shaykh Tusi mentioned this but said that in spite of this, he is trustworthy, and there is no problem with him. Najashi also considered him trustworthy in our early books of Rijal. Allama Hilli says that he is trustworthy….
4. The narration contradicts those which talk about the age of 9, and because of the number of the narrations that discuss 9, those should be given precedence due to the higher probability that they are true, in addition to the fact that this is supported by the majority held view.
Answer: As has been discussed previously, these narrations are not about reaching the age of bulugh at 9, and therefore there is actually no contradiction.
If we accept that there is some link to reaching bulugh at 9, we realise that this narration in clear in what it says, whereas those are not clear, and therefore, there is no actual contradiction, as what is clear always takes precedence.
Wednesday 16 December 2009
Age of Bulugh for women (3)
So we've discussed the traditions supporting the age of 9 being the maximum age for girls to reach bulugh, and Saanei has demonstrated flaws in the traditions. Before presenting his case as to why it should be actually based on the signs of puberty (i.e. period), with a maximum at 13, he discusses the second main method that some use to justify the age of 9:
Consensus (Ijma')
In general, consensus (with conditions) is used as a source of Islamic law. The basic premise is that if everyone agrees, how can they be wrong (especially if that everyone includes the 12th Imam (AS)). I will discuss the details of consensus as a method of proving something by referring to Ayrwani's commentary on Syed Muhammad Baqir Sadr's Halaqat al-Thalitha in a later blog.
In this specific situation, the aim is to find out whether there is ijma' and if it could be used.
1. Can it be used?
Ijma’ based on narrations is not a source in itself i.e. the individuals who form the consensus used the narrations to justify their position, and thus the narrations are the proof, not the consensus.
2. Is there actually consensus?
There isn’t even consensus as there are examples in books of the early scholars that don’t even mention the age when discussing bulugh, but they put getting one’s period as the measure of bulugh.
There is no sign of age before Shaykh Tusi and those books actually had other points:
Shaykh Saduq: When a woman has her period
Sayyid Murtada: When a woman has her period
There is no hadith about when a woman has to start fasting other than when her period has started.
Regardless, the point is that without these two major scholars, there is clearly no consensus. In addition, there are other scholars in the past who have considered 10 (and 13) to be the age of bulugh.
Overall, consensus cannot be used.
Consensus (Ijma')
In general, consensus (with conditions) is used as a source of Islamic law. The basic premise is that if everyone agrees, how can they be wrong (especially if that everyone includes the 12th Imam (AS)). I will discuss the details of consensus as a method of proving something by referring to Ayrwani's commentary on Syed Muhammad Baqir Sadr's Halaqat al-Thalitha in a later blog.
In this specific situation, the aim is to find out whether there is ijma' and if it could be used.
1. Can it be used?
Ijma’ based on narrations is not a source in itself i.e. the individuals who form the consensus used the narrations to justify their position, and thus the narrations are the proof, not the consensus.
2. Is there actually consensus?
There isn’t even consensus as there are examples in books of the early scholars that don’t even mention the age when discussing bulugh, but they put getting one’s period as the measure of bulugh.
There is no sign of age before Shaykh Tusi and those books actually had other points:
Shaykh Saduq: When a woman has her period
Sayyid Murtada: When a woman has her period
There is no hadith about when a woman has to start fasting other than when her period has started.
Regardless, the point is that without these two major scholars, there is clearly no consensus. In addition, there are other scholars in the past who have considered 10 (and 13) to be the age of bulugh.
Overall, consensus cannot be used.
Thursday 10 December 2009
Age of Bulugh for women (2)
Summary of previous sets of arguments on Hadith study which talk directly about bulugh and the age of 9: 9 is always supplementary to something else, which has far greater reason for being the cause of bulugh. Why is 9 mentioned at all? Well I will answer that in a later blog but in a basic sense, the 3rd hadith is one of the reasons (other reasons in future blog!)
Also three comments to me from readers:
1. I do not provide sources in these last few blogs - that is laziness and anyone wanting them can just ask (they are all from Wasa`il al-Shia and I have the sources in the book)
2. Blogs are long - sorry but I want to try and cover a topic
3. The argument is not good enough! Well...let's finish the main arguments on both sides, and with a holistic view we can try and deal with this point...if there are individual arguments you do not like, ping me an email or write a comment, and I can try and give you what I think he means...
So far, we have discussed the first part of the hadith study i.e. the narrations that directly talk about the age of 9. Now we come to the second bunch of narrations: those that discuss the fact it is allowed to get married to girls of 9, and consequently, that is the age of bulugh.
Hadith 1: “If a man marries a young girl, he should not enter her until she is 9”
Hadith 2: “A girl should not be entered until she is 9 or 10 years old”
Hadith 3: The prophet (SAW) said: “the limit of a woman being entered into by her husband is a girl of 9”
Hadith 4: “whoever has relations with his wife before 9, is punishable…”
Hadith 5: “Whoever enters a girl before she reaches 9 is punishable…”
Hadith 6: “… ‘if he entered her when she was 9, then there is no problem but if she was not yet 9, or she was under 9 by a bit then and he deflowered her, then he has caused fasaad…”
All of these are based on the consensus view that it is not allowed to have relations before bulugh, and these narrations discuss whether it is allowed after 9, which would then imply that the age of bulugh is 9. Bu there are a few problems:
The first and second narration say that sex before 9 is not allowed, which one may think implies that after 9, it is allowed. However, this tactic of implying what is understood (مفهوم) has certain rules and limitations such as it cannot be absolute (إطلاق) unless the speaker makes it clear that it is, which requires something to indicate this – and there is nothing here [this is how Ayatullah Khumayni discussed the limitations of مفهوم.
To be clearer, you cannot infer directly that after 9 you will definitely be allowed to have sex with a girl because that requires proof, as it is not actually what is said - that requires a generalisation of the مفهوم (making it absolute - إطلاق) which cannot be done without proof/evidence.
Even if we were to assume that the مفهوم is absolute, there are other narrations (such as those of type 1), which limit this to only certain situations such as getting married…etc.
The sixth narration mentioned the reason for not being allowed to consummate the marriage and that was the fact it would cause fasaad on the girl, but the reality is that regardless of this reasoning, the impermissibility would still be there and thus the age by itself is not by itself enough to be a sign of bulugh.
[i.e. if you deflower a girl before 9, you are causing fasaad but that does not mean anything about deflowering her after 9 – and is independent of bulugh/not]
Therefore, this sixth narration must be understood in context of others as it cannot be the one that is the basis of the ruling.
There is a hadith from Abu Ayyub al-Khazzar that explains when it is allowed to enter a woman:
“…The Prophet of Allah (SAW) entered A’isha when she was 10 and he did not enter a young girl until she became a woman”
Therefore, the measure of bulugh is physical growth and becoming a woman, as well as being ready for relations. Therefore, the age of 9 is not by itself the reason for being allowed to have relations but it is whilst also being ready for having kids.
In the next post, we will discuss the prevailing opinion of 9, and the second major evidence used to back this up - that of Ijma' (consensus).
Also three comments to me from readers:
1. I do not provide sources in these last few blogs - that is laziness and anyone wanting them can just ask (they are all from Wasa`il al-Shia and I have the sources in the book)
2. Blogs are long - sorry but I want to try and cover a topic
3. The argument is not good enough! Well...let's finish the main arguments on both sides, and with a holistic view we can try and deal with this point...if there are individual arguments you do not like, ping me an email or write a comment, and I can try and give you what I think he means...
So far, we have discussed the first part of the hadith study i.e. the narrations that directly talk about the age of 9. Now we come to the second bunch of narrations: those that discuss the fact it is allowed to get married to girls of 9, and consequently, that is the age of bulugh.
Hadith 1: “If a man marries a young girl, he should not enter her until she is 9”
Hadith 2: “A girl should not be entered until she is 9 or 10 years old”
Hadith 3: The prophet (SAW) said: “the limit of a woman being entered into by her husband is a girl of 9”
Hadith 4: “whoever has relations with his wife before 9, is punishable…”
Hadith 5: “Whoever enters a girl before she reaches 9 is punishable…”
Hadith 6: “… ‘if he entered her when she was 9, then there is no problem but if she was not yet 9, or she was under 9 by a bit then and he deflowered her, then he has caused fasaad…”
All of these are based on the consensus view that it is not allowed to have relations before bulugh, and these narrations discuss whether it is allowed after 9, which would then imply that the age of bulugh is 9. Bu there are a few problems:
The first and second narration say that sex before 9 is not allowed, which one may think implies that after 9, it is allowed. However, this tactic of implying what is understood (مفهوم) has certain rules and limitations such as it cannot be absolute (إطلاق) unless the speaker makes it clear that it is, which requires something to indicate this – and there is nothing here [this is how Ayatullah Khumayni discussed the limitations of مفهوم.
To be clearer, you cannot infer directly that after 9 you will definitely be allowed to have sex with a girl because that requires proof, as it is not actually what is said - that requires a generalisation of the مفهوم (making it absolute - إطلاق) which cannot be done without proof/evidence.
Even if we were to assume that the مفهوم is absolute, there are other narrations (such as those of type 1), which limit this to only certain situations such as getting married…etc.
The sixth narration mentioned the reason for not being allowed to consummate the marriage and that was the fact it would cause fasaad on the girl, but the reality is that regardless of this reasoning, the impermissibility would still be there and thus the age by itself is not by itself enough to be a sign of bulugh.
[i.e. if you deflower a girl before 9, you are causing fasaad but that does not mean anything about deflowering her after 9 – and is independent of bulugh/not]
Therefore, this sixth narration must be understood in context of others as it cannot be the one that is the basis of the ruling.
There is a hadith from Abu Ayyub al-Khazzar that explains when it is allowed to enter a woman:
“…The Prophet of Allah (SAW) entered A’isha when she was 10 and he did not enter a young girl until she became a woman”
Therefore, the measure of bulugh is physical growth and becoming a woman, as well as being ready for relations. Therefore, the age of 9 is not by itself the reason for being allowed to have relations but it is whilst also being ready for having kids.
In the next post, we will discuss the prevailing opinion of 9, and the second major evidence used to back this up - that of Ijma' (consensus).
Sunday 6 December 2009
Age of Bulugh for women (1)
Sorry for the long gap between last post - my wife surprised me by coming to London last week (when I was planning to write these blogs)! Anyway, after some discussions, I think it makes sense to start a new topic (new book by Saanei)...enjoy!
Majority View
Saanei says that the majority of scholars use the following two main methods of deriving the rule that girls become baligh at 9 or whenever the girl has her first period (depending on what is earlier):
1. Hadith study
2. Ijma’
After discussing each of these, he then puts forward his views and methodology for deriving that getting your period is the main arbitrator, with 13 being the age limit.
1. Hadith Study
There are two types of hadith that are used:
1. The narrations that say that a girl comes out of childhood at 9 and the fact that the laws then apply
2. Narrations that say that at that age you are allowed to marry and do similar things
Type 1
Narration 1: “A young girl is not like a young boy. When a young girl marries and it is consummated [lit: husband enters her] and she is 9, she no longer remains an orphan and her property is given to her, and she has the right to buy and sell, and the Islamic law is applicable to her in its entirety…”
Narration 2: Someone asked if 9 is the correct age for the application of Islamic law, if the young girl has not yet got the signs of a woman in terms of having a period, to Abu Ja’far, and he replied: “Yes, if her husband has entered her and she is 9, then she no longer remains an orphan, and her property is given to her and all the Islamic laws are applied to her”
Narration 3: “When a young man reaches 13, good and bad deeds are written about him, and he is punishable. And when a young woman reaches 9, the same thing happens. And that is because she has her period at 9”
Narration 4: “When a young woman reaches 9, her property is given to her, she has the authority of her money and all the Islamic law is applicable to her”
Narration 5: “The limit of bulugh for a woman is 9”
Response 1: the age of 9 is not enough by itself – there must be other factors as well (so 9 is actually irrelevant)
In response to this, the first two narrations have the age of together with the fact that she is married and the husband enters her. These narrations do not show that 9 by itself is the maximum age of bulugh but that the age of 9 together with these extra factors are needed, because if she is married, that means she has reached the physical maturity required to get married.
In fact these narrations seem to suggest that 9 is not the main aim of these two ahadith, but in fact it shows that you need to be strong enough in terms of bodily growth that they naturally have the other signs of bulugh like growth of hair in the pubic region or having a period.
It is true that in the second hadith, it is based on if there is no period, except that this is a very rare situation, as well as the fact that this situation would naturally also include other signs such as the growing of hair in the pubic area.
The point is that the age of 9 is only there, when it also has these other facts, and thus is an indicative factor rather than a factor in itself, and this is clear because nobody says that you reach the age of bulugh when you also marry.
Response 2: the reason is the other factors not being 9
The third hadith makes it clear that the young girl becomes baligh because she gets her period, and if she does not get her period, she does not become baligh.
Response 3: there are other reasons
Assuming that the age of 9 in the final two narrations are meant in an absolute sense, they are still there together with the other factors such as marriage or having their period.
Response 4
Those which do not mention marriage or period (4th and 5th hadith) directly have problems: they both have gaps in the chain of narration.
The fourth also does not mention the age by itself but also the fact that she has to be able to spend her money, and this only happens after the person is mature:
Quran 4: 6: “then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property”
And this maturity is when adult decisions are made rather than childish ones, and this accompanies when a woman gets her period and the other signs of bulugh.
The fifth narration only implies that the limit is 9 but it could mean the minimum limit.
Overall, the 5 narrations, in spite of the fact:
1. Weakness of Abd al Aziz al-Abdi in the chain of the first
2. The fact that Yazid al-Kanaasi is not known in the chain of the second
3. The fourth and fifth have gaps in the chain of narration
In spite of these facts, even if we accept them, the age of 9 is always accompanied with another factor such as being ready for marriage, or getting one’s period, or maturity or growth.
Majority View
Saanei says that the majority of scholars use the following two main methods of deriving the rule that girls become baligh at 9 or whenever the girl has her first period (depending on what is earlier):
1. Hadith study
2. Ijma’
After discussing each of these, he then puts forward his views and methodology for deriving that getting your period is the main arbitrator, with 13 being the age limit.
1. Hadith Study
There are two types of hadith that are used:
1. The narrations that say that a girl comes out of childhood at 9 and the fact that the laws then apply
2. Narrations that say that at that age you are allowed to marry and do similar things
Type 1
Narration 1: “A young girl is not like a young boy. When a young girl marries and it is consummated [lit: husband enters her] and she is 9, she no longer remains an orphan and her property is given to her, and she has the right to buy and sell, and the Islamic law is applicable to her in its entirety…”
Narration 2: Someone asked if 9 is the correct age for the application of Islamic law, if the young girl has not yet got the signs of a woman in terms of having a period, to Abu Ja’far, and he replied: “Yes, if her husband has entered her and she is 9, then she no longer remains an orphan, and her property is given to her and all the Islamic laws are applied to her”
Narration 3: “When a young man reaches 13, good and bad deeds are written about him, and he is punishable. And when a young woman reaches 9, the same thing happens. And that is because she has her period at 9”
Narration 4: “When a young woman reaches 9, her property is given to her, she has the authority of her money and all the Islamic law is applicable to her”
Narration 5: “The limit of bulugh for a woman is 9”
Response 1: the age of 9 is not enough by itself – there must be other factors as well (so 9 is actually irrelevant)
In response to this, the first two narrations have the age of together with the fact that she is married and the husband enters her. These narrations do not show that 9 by itself is the maximum age of bulugh but that the age of 9 together with these extra factors are needed, because if she is married, that means she has reached the physical maturity required to get married.
In fact these narrations seem to suggest that 9 is not the main aim of these two ahadith, but in fact it shows that you need to be strong enough in terms of bodily growth that they naturally have the other signs of bulugh like growth of hair in the pubic region or having a period.
It is true that in the second hadith, it is based on if there is no period, except that this is a very rare situation, as well as the fact that this situation would naturally also include other signs such as the growing of hair in the pubic area.
The point is that the age of 9 is only there, when it also has these other facts, and thus is an indicative factor rather than a factor in itself, and this is clear because nobody says that you reach the age of bulugh when you also marry.
Response 2: the reason is the other factors not being 9
The third hadith makes it clear that the young girl becomes baligh because she gets her period, and if she does not get her period, she does not become baligh.
Response 3: there are other reasons
Assuming that the age of 9 in the final two narrations are meant in an absolute sense, they are still there together with the other factors such as marriage or having their period.
Response 4
Those which do not mention marriage or period (4th and 5th hadith) directly have problems: they both have gaps in the chain of narration.
The fourth also does not mention the age by itself but also the fact that she has to be able to spend her money, and this only happens after the person is mature:
Quran 4: 6: “then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property”
And this maturity is when adult decisions are made rather than childish ones, and this accompanies when a woman gets her period and the other signs of bulugh.
The fifth narration only implies that the limit is 9 but it could mean the minimum limit.
Overall, the 5 narrations, in spite of the fact:
1. Weakness of Abd al Aziz al-Abdi in the chain of the first
2. The fact that Yazid al-Kanaasi is not known in the chain of the second
3. The fourth and fifth have gaps in the chain of narration
In spite of these facts, even if we accept them, the age of 9 is always accompanied with another factor such as being ready for marriage, or getting one’s period, or maturity or growth.
Saturday 21 November 2009
Women and the moon (4)
The previous blogs are important here (especially Women and the moon (2) and (3)...this is a continuation).
Secondly, there are 6 points to note about the narrations (these might not all make sense as I have not included all the narrations in the previous blog but I am including these points to help us all understand how scholars work!):
1. There are three types of language used: either "I do not allow","it is not allowed" or "it is not accepted"
2. 4 of the 6 relevant narrations are from Halabi or Hammad bin Uthman or Hammad from Halabi
3. Muhammad bin Muslim did not mention the name of the Imam as his source, but the narration was the same as the narration from Hammad or Halabi
4. The content of Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub's narration is the same as that of Halabi
5. There are two narrations from Hammad bin 'Uthman from Halabi, one with the phrase from Ali ibn Abu Talib: "I do not allow", and one "it is not allowed"
6. In 'Abd Allah bin Sannan's narration, the term "Muhammad bin 'Isa from Yunus" is mentioned, and this is not an accepted chain based on Shaykh Saduq relating from his teacher Muhammad bin Hasan bin Walid that he did not accept this chain (refer to Maamqani, Tanqih al-Muqal 3:167, Number 11211).
Taking these 6 into consideration, it seems that all the narrations are pointing to the same thing, and it is our aim to find out what that is. The difference between "I do not allow" and "is not allowed" is important, but only one of them can be what the Imam intended. And whenever Jafar al-Sadiq mentions "from Ali ibn Abu Talib who said", he uses the phrase "I do not allow". It thus seems likely that the narrators might have narrated this sentence by what they thought it meant i.e. "it is not allowed" rather than "I do not allow".
Regardless, even if this is not accepted, there are two possibilities: "I do not allow" and "is not allowed", and whenever there are two differing narrations, you must take what is common between them (when they are both as reliable...etc.) to try and resolve this apparent contradiction.
"I do not allow" - means it is not allowed for that time as the Imam did not allow it*
"It is not allowed" - means that it is not allowed for all time
The common/joint meaning is that it is not allowed for that time (think of it as a Venn diagram with the circle representing the first phrase entirely inside the second).
(*e.g. in Wasa`il al-Shi'a, Volume 1, Page 457, Book of Ritual Purity, Chapters on Wudu, Chapter 38, Hadith 1: Zurara asked Imam about Taqiyya about wiping your sandals and Jafar al-Sadiq replied: "I do not do Taqiyya in 3 things: drinking wine, wiping my sandals, and Mut'a of Hajj". What is clear from the hadith is that the Imam is not saying NOBODY can do taqiyya on those things, just that HE in particular does not)
There might have thus been specific conditions at the time of Imam Ali that pushed him specifically to not allow women's testimony when it comes to sighting the crescent. Thus Saanei reaches the result that we cannot place any credence to the ruling that women's testimony does not ever count with regards to sighting the moon.
He notes also (again) that based on custom and what the rational person would think, there is no difference between the testimony of a man and a woman as the goal is confirming that the moon is actually seen. This is confirmed by his explanation of the Qur`anic verse:
"And seek two witnesses to testify from your men" (2:282) when it comes to debts. Why did God mention "from your men"? Because normally, without that phrase, it would be obvious based on the rational person's understanding that there is no difference between men and women when it comes to testimony. In this case, God wants to make clear that there is a difference in this case for an external reason, which is shown by the next phrase: "If you do not have two men, then a man and two women" (2:282). Therefore, whenever something is mentioned by God or the Prophet/Imams that is against what the rational person would think, he would explain it by giving external evidence. So in this verse, God is saying that the rational person's general understanding (in this time and context) is not applicable when it comes to debts.
Thus in this context, God has not said the rational person's general understanding is not applicable so we have two apparently contradictory sources:
1. The narrations that are above concerning (at the minimum) women's testimony not being applicable when it comes to Ramadan and Shawwal (at that time or all time)
2. The law and rational person's understanding that there is no difference between men and women's testimony when it comes to seeing the crescent because what matters is that they are just people who actually saw the crescent and not their gender
Therefore, taking the narrations at face value, given the second point does not make sense, and we have to realise that as there is no reason mentioned anywhere (like there was with the debts - forgetfulness and carelessness, refer to previous blogs), the value of both's testimony must be equal.
[the problem with this, however, is that one may argue that God has explained that rational person's general understanding is not applicable through the Prophet/Imams in the narrations!]
Having discussed the Quran and Hadith, Ayatullah Saanei then moves onto consensus. Consensus (Ijma') is often used as a strong piece of evidence to suggest that something is correct, as if all the scholars believe something to be true, then that (assuming there is no other information e.g. they are all taught by one scholar...etc.) is a good reason to suggest that their opinion is correct, as they are all independently coming to a decision using the sources at their disposal.
Najafi, for example, in his book Jawahir al-Kalam (12:363) says: "Similarly the testimony of women does not count independently of men, and this is true by Ijma' and using the texts".
However, Saanei (as in the earlier chapter and in an earlier blog) explains that in Shi'i Fiqh, Ijma' is not an independent source, especially when there are narrations and practices of the Prophet. This is because the Ijma' might have come from the narrations, in which case, it is not an independent source of evidence.
So overall:
1. There is no Qur`anic verse directly relevant
2. Ijma' is inapplicable here as there are narrations
3. The narrations, when studied in depth, show that perhaps the inadmissability of women's testimony in the field of sighting the moon in Ramadan and Shawwal at the time of Imam Ali, but that is as far as it goes, and is unlikely to be applicable now as there is no evidence to suggest that
4. The general view of a rational person that the goal of testimony is to find out whether the crescent was there or not, so the gender is irrelevant. This last point can be cancelled if there is any strong evidence that can be relied on, which there is not here.
Therefore, women's testimony is equal to men's (even) on the topic of sighting the moon.
The rest of Saanei's book (we have reached P109 out of 242) is split:
1. Topics such as Women's testimony in Divorce, Marriage, Breastfeeding, Murder
2. A chapter on the general rule of not accepting the testimony of women
3. Equality of the testimony of men and women in terms of number - study and analysis
4. ًWomen's testimony as evidence for hudud punishments
I have not read these yet but I think that there may be a lot of repetitition in terms of methodology so I will only mention interesting (and new) ideas/thoughts. My guess is that Saanei will say everywhere that women's testimony is equal to man's.....but we shall see!
Following this, I think the next steps will be:
- Maybe other books by Ayatullah Saanei?
- Use Ayatullah Khui's major work on Istidlal (extracting rulings from the sources) to show another one or two examples of how he specifically has extracted certain rulings. (if you have any preferences on this, please get in touch)
- Use Ayatullah Fadlallah's work on Istidlal on some topics to show how he has done so in other rulings.
- I am unaware of any Istidlal work by Ayatullah Seestani but his work is likely to be very similar to Ayatullah Khui in methodology
- Alternatively, I think I might move focus onto Ilm al-Rijal and Usul al-Fiqh to just develop the grounding for further work...
From these, the aim is that the reader should have a good overall understanding as to how rulings are extracted. There will be details that are not known but these can be picked up at later stages. Following this, I think we can focus on summarising developments from the email group:
"I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me...."
Thursday 12 November 2009
Women and the Moon (3)
You probably have to read previous blog - otherwise this won't make much sense!
Firstly, Saanei notes that most narrations in both groups are only to do with sighting the moon of Ramadan and Shawwal (as they mention fasting or ending fasting), and therefore, not necessarily valid for other months.
Therefore, due to the absence of any impermissibility in other areas, women's testimony would be accepted in other matters such as when a debt is completed. For example, if two women testify that this day is the 1st of Ramadan, someone can say that their debt is over (where applicable).
This is with the exception of 4 narrations (Wasa`il al-Shi'a, Volume 10, Page 287-9, Book of Fasting, Chapters on the rules of the Month of Ramadan, Chapter 11, Hadith 3, 7, 8, 9) like the authenticated tradition from Hammad bin Uthman from Halabi: "women's testimony is not accepted when it comes to sighting the crescent; only two just men's testimony [is accepted]" and that of Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub who said: "I only allow two men [when it comes to testimony] with regards to divorce and [sighting] the crescent." And these four by themselves imply that women's testimony does not count in any month.
If, however, these narrations were put together with the majority of traditions, some of which are mentioned in the previous blog, then we have an apparent contradiction:
- Majority of traditions which talk only about Ramadan and Shawwal
- These 4 which talk about all months
In general, in such situations, scholars try and resolve the contradiction by finding a way of accepting both sets of traditions. Here, this could be that what is actually meant in these 4 when it says "sighting the crescent" is sighting the crescent of Ramadan or Shawwal. This idea of solving an apparent contradiction in narrations by using one group (here the majority) to explain the other (the 4), is a very common tool used amongst scholars in Usul al-Fiqh when they are deducing rulings.
Some may believe that this does not work
(And perhaps there is a point here - one may argue that the reason for the majority of traditions being about Ramadan and Shawwal, is because they are the most important months.)
To them, there is another argument. When there are a majority of narrations that only say women's testimony is not acceptable in Ramadan and Shawwal, and a minority which say that it is not ever acceptable when sighting the moon, then there is a possibility that this second group could be not true. Therefore, we come to the famous rule: "If possibility [i.e. not certainty] enters [the mind], then any deduction [using them] is invalid" (the Arabic is more poetic: فإذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال).
From this, we can say that this discussion of women and the moon is nothing to do with being a woman or women's rights and not accepting their testimony (if this is the case), is something specific when it comes to fasting. Even for two just men testifying about seeing the crescent, there are extra conditions that are not normally relevant when it comes to testimony in general such as they should be outside the town (if being inside would prevent them seeing the moon) or they should be people who in general enter and leave the city (there are traditions indicating this). Therefore, it is clearly not to do with their inferiority...etc. but to do with the specificity of sighting the moon being special.
Firstly, Saanei notes that most narrations in both groups are only to do with sighting the moon of Ramadan and Shawwal (as they mention fasting or ending fasting), and therefore, not necessarily valid for other months.
Therefore, due to the absence of any impermissibility in other areas, women's testimony would be accepted in other matters such as when a debt is completed. For example, if two women testify that this day is the 1st of Ramadan, someone can say that their debt is over (where applicable).
This is with the exception of 4 narrations (Wasa`il al-Shi'a, Volume 10, Page 287-9, Book of Fasting, Chapters on the rules of the Month of Ramadan, Chapter 11, Hadith 3, 7, 8, 9) like the authenticated tradition from Hammad bin Uthman from Halabi: "women's testimony is not accepted when it comes to sighting the crescent; only two just men's testimony [is accepted]" and that of Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub who said: "I only allow two men [when it comes to testimony] with regards to divorce and [sighting] the crescent." And these four by themselves imply that women's testimony does not count in any month.
If, however, these narrations were put together with the majority of traditions, some of which are mentioned in the previous blog, then we have an apparent contradiction:
- Majority of traditions which talk only about Ramadan and Shawwal
- These 4 which talk about all months
In general, in such situations, scholars try and resolve the contradiction by finding a way of accepting both sets of traditions. Here, this could be that what is actually meant in these 4 when it says "sighting the crescent" is sighting the crescent of Ramadan or Shawwal. This idea of solving an apparent contradiction in narrations by using one group (here the majority) to explain the other (the 4), is a very common tool used amongst scholars in Usul al-Fiqh when they are deducing rulings.
Some may believe that this does not work
(And perhaps there is a point here - one may argue that the reason for the majority of traditions being about Ramadan and Shawwal, is because they are the most important months.)
To them, there is another argument. When there are a majority of narrations that only say women's testimony is not acceptable in Ramadan and Shawwal, and a minority which say that it is not ever acceptable when sighting the moon, then there is a possibility that this second group could be not true. Therefore, we come to the famous rule: "If possibility [i.e. not certainty] enters [the mind], then any deduction [using them] is invalid" (the Arabic is more poetic: فإذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال).
From this, we can say that this discussion of women and the moon is nothing to do with being a woman or women's rights and not accepting their testimony (if this is the case), is something specific when it comes to fasting. Even for two just men testifying about seeing the crescent, there are extra conditions that are not normally relevant when it comes to testimony in general such as they should be outside the town (if being inside would prevent them seeing the moon) or they should be people who in general enter and leave the city (there are traditions indicating this). Therefore, it is clearly not to do with their inferiority...etc. but to do with the specificity of sighting the moon being special.
Women and the moon (2)
Saanei begins by noting that on this topic: "Women's testimony when it comes to sighting the moon", there is no Qur`anic verse used by any Shii or Sunni scholar when deriving the ruling about the lack of value to women's testimony. So the main discussion is on narrations from the Prophet or Imam. There are two groups of narrations:
1. Those that say that it is enough to have two just people, and there is no specific indication about whether the witness should be male or female.
2. Those that specifically say that only two just males are allowed as witnesses when it comes to sighting the crescent
Group 1 - No specific disregard for women's testimony when it comes to sighting the moon
1. A hadith whose chain of narration is authenticated, narrated from Mansur bin Hazim from Jafar al-Sadiq: "[Start] Fast[ing] when the crescent is sighted, and stop fasting when it is seen; if two satisfactory witnesses, testify [they have seen it] in front of you, then accept it because they have seen it" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 253, Book of Fasting, Chapters on the Rules of Month of Ramadan, Chapter 3, Hadith 8)
2. A narration from Zayd bin Shahham from Jafar al-Sadiq: "...Only if evidence of just people reaches you, if they witness that they have seen the crescent before that, then accept that day" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 262, Chapter 5, Hadith 4)
3. A narration from Muhammad bin Qays from Muhammad al-Baqir, who said: "if two witnensses testified to the Imam that they saw the crescent 30 days earlier, the Imam said that it was the end of fasting" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 275, Chapter 6, Hadith 1)
There are many others but I do not think it adds much to our discussion (if you would like references, please email me).
The common understanding by any rational person reading such narrations is that you can rely on a testimony if the person is "just" or "satisfactory".
Some may say that these narrations refer to men, but even in such cases the reason is not that they are men but they are just or satisfactory in their testimony, in which case women are not excluded.
But the thing that Saanei finds very important to point out is that: " 'Aalim" (scholar), " 'Aadil" (just person) and similar terms, are more general than masculine or feminine, and the importance of these terms are their meaning at their core i.e. a scholar is a scholar due to his knowledge; a just person is just due to his justice...etc., and this is not to do with their inherent masculinity in any sense.
Group 2 - Specific mention of women's testimony not counting when it comes to sighting the moon
This will obviously be the focus of the discussion and a few of them are:
1. A hadith whose chain of narration is authenticated, narrated from Halabi from Jafar al-Sadiq that Ali bin Abu Talib said: "I only allow two just men's testimony when concerning [sighting] the crescent" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 286, Chapter 11, Hadith 1)
2. A narration from Hammad bin Uthman from Jafar al-Sadiq from Ali bin Abu Talib: "The testimony of women is not accepted when it comes to the crescent; and only two just men's testimony is allowed" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 288, Chapter 6, Hadith 8)
3. A narration from Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub from Jafar al-Sadiq from his father, from Ali ibn Abu Talib: "I only allow two men's testimony when it comes to [testifying about] divorce and [seeing the] crescent" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 289, Chapter 6, Hadith 9)
4. A narration from Muhammad bin Muslim: 'He said: "the testimony of women is not allowed with regards to [sighting] the crescent, or when it comes to divorce" and I asked him about women - is their testimony [ever] accepted. He said: "yes, when it comes to determining virginity and after birth"'. (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 289, Chapter 6, Hadith 9). Although this does not mention who it comes from, the nature of Muhammad bin Muslim is such that he always narrated from one of the Imams so that is not a problem here.
[I included this narration mainly to show how scholars sometimes accept narrations even when the Imam's name is not mentioned - normally they do not, but for specific people, who are known to only narrate from trustworthy people, they are accepted]
This should give an insight into the main narrations on this topic. In the next blog, we will discuss Saanei's critique.
1. Those that say that it is enough to have two just people, and there is no specific indication about whether the witness should be male or female.
2. Those that specifically say that only two just males are allowed as witnesses when it comes to sighting the crescent
Group 1 - No specific disregard for women's testimony when it comes to sighting the moon
1. A hadith whose chain of narration is authenticated, narrated from Mansur bin Hazim from Jafar al-Sadiq: "[Start] Fast[ing] when the crescent is sighted, and stop fasting when it is seen; if two satisfactory witnesses, testify [they have seen it] in front of you, then accept it because they have seen it" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 253, Book of Fasting, Chapters on the Rules of Month of Ramadan, Chapter 3, Hadith 8)
2. A narration from Zayd bin Shahham from Jafar al-Sadiq: "...Only if evidence of just people reaches you, if they witness that they have seen the crescent before that, then accept that day" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 262, Chapter 5, Hadith 4)
3. A narration from Muhammad bin Qays from Muhammad al-Baqir, who said: "if two witnensses testified to the Imam that they saw the crescent 30 days earlier, the Imam said that it was the end of fasting" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 275, Chapter 6, Hadith 1)
There are many others but I do not think it adds much to our discussion (if you would like references, please email me).
The common understanding by any rational person reading such narrations is that you can rely on a testimony if the person is "just" or "satisfactory".
Some may say that these narrations refer to men, but even in such cases the reason is not that they are men but they are just or satisfactory in their testimony, in which case women are not excluded.
But the thing that Saanei finds very important to point out is that: " 'Aalim" (scholar), " 'Aadil" (just person) and similar terms, are more general than masculine or feminine, and the importance of these terms are their meaning at their core i.e. a scholar is a scholar due to his knowledge; a just person is just due to his justice...etc., and this is not to do with their inherent masculinity in any sense.
Group 2 - Specific mention of women's testimony not counting when it comes to sighting the moon
This will obviously be the focus of the discussion and a few of them are:
1. A hadith whose chain of narration is authenticated, narrated from Halabi from Jafar al-Sadiq that Ali bin Abu Talib said: "I only allow two just men's testimony when concerning [sighting] the crescent" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 286, Chapter 11, Hadith 1)
2. A narration from Hammad bin Uthman from Jafar al-Sadiq from Ali bin Abu Talib: "The testimony of women is not accepted when it comes to the crescent; and only two just men's testimony is allowed" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 288, Chapter 6, Hadith 8)
3. A narration from Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub from Jafar al-Sadiq from his father, from Ali ibn Abu Talib: "I only allow two men's testimony when it comes to [testifying about] divorce and [seeing the] crescent" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 289, Chapter 6, Hadith 9)
4. A narration from Muhammad bin Muslim: 'He said: "the testimony of women is not allowed with regards to [sighting] the crescent, or when it comes to divorce" and I asked him about women - is their testimony [ever] accepted. He said: "yes, when it comes to determining virginity and after birth"'. (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 289, Chapter 6, Hadith 9). Although this does not mention who it comes from, the nature of Muhammad bin Muslim is such that he always narrated from one of the Imams so that is not a problem here.
[I included this narration mainly to show how scholars sometimes accept narrations even when the Imam's name is not mentioned - normally they do not, but for specific people, who are known to only narrate from trustworthy people, they are accepted]
This should give an insight into the main narrations on this topic. In the next blog, we will discuss Saanei's critique.
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Women and the moon
Ok...so now I'm back from America and I'm going to move onto the next chapter of Saanei's book: "The testimony of women in sighting the crescent".
The main value for me in discussing this part of the book is threefold:
1. Reinforce the methodology of Saanei in a (slightly) different context
2. Topical (as the moon issue will undoubtedly rear its head again as Eid is coming again!)
3. It's the next chapter of the book!
The potential problem here is that there are riwayaat (reports from the Prophet/Imams), and consequently fatawa (religious rulings) that give no value at all to women's testimony in this field.
For example, there is a sahih (chain is authenticated) hadith from Jaffar al-Sadiq (reported by Hammad bin Uthman in Jawahir al-Kalam [apologies for lack of lines in transliteration], Page 355, Hadith 17):
"The testimony of women is not accepted concerning the sighting of the crescent, and only two just men's testimony are accepted."
However, there is one hadith that Najafi (the author of Jawahir al-Kalam) includes and that is of Dawud bin Hasin from Jaffar al-Sadiq (Page 361, Hadith 36), which says:
"The testimony of women is not allowed for Eid al-Fitr - only two just men [are allowed]. [But] there is no problem of women's testminoy when it comes to the [first] fast, even if it is just one woman"
Because of this apparent contradiction, there are three opinions in this regard:
1. The testimony of two just men is sufficient (prevalent opinion amongst scholars)
2. The testimony of two just men is not sufficient if there was something preventing them seeing the moon e.g. clouds/fog; but otherwise, it is sufficient (opinoin of Saduq, Tusi..)
3. The testimony of two just men does not count at all, as you cannot be sure of what they see exacfly (Muhaqqiq al-Hilli)
In terms of Shi'i scholars nowadays, I can quote:
1. Ayatullah Seestani: [Sighting the moon] "is not confirmed by the testimony of women" (Minhaj al-Salihin - http://www.najaf.org/arabic/book/1/, Book of Fasting, Confirming the moon is sighted number 1)
2. Ayatullah Fadlallah: "The testimony of women is not sufficient, even if they are just, unless you reach Itmi'nan*, then you can accept it, as reaching Itmi'nan itself by any method is sufficient..." (http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/marjaa/fekhalshari3a-1.pdf, Page 384)
3. Ayatullah Khamanei: "The testimony of 4 women, or 2 women and one man...is not counted with regards to confirming the sighting of the moon" (http://www.leader.ir/tree/index.php?catid=13, Book of Fasting, Method of confirming the crescent's sighting for Ramadan and Shawwal, Issue 3)
*Itmi'nan is a term used to basically mean "peace of mind". Some try and say it is 90%+ certainty but I think that peace of mind is sufficient in this regard.
As a side point, it is important to note that Fadlallah here is not accepting women's testimony but he is saying that reaching peace of mind is enough by any means (he includes calculations as a possibility here).
Saanei then goes on to discuss the methods used by the scholars to reach this conclusion and critiques it....which will be the next blog!
Finally, (I am going to put this at the bottom of every few posts now!) I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me....
The main value for me in discussing this part of the book is threefold:
1. Reinforce the methodology of Saanei in a (slightly) different context
2. Topical (as the moon issue will undoubtedly rear its head again as Eid is coming again!)
3. It's the next chapter of the book!
The potential problem here is that there are riwayaat (reports from the Prophet/Imams), and consequently fatawa (religious rulings) that give no value at all to women's testimony in this field.
For example, there is a sahih (chain is authenticated) hadith from Jaffar al-Sadiq (reported by Hammad bin Uthman in Jawahir al-Kalam [apologies for lack of lines in transliteration], Page 355, Hadith 17):
"The testimony of women is not accepted concerning the sighting of the crescent, and only two just men's testimony are accepted."
However, there is one hadith that Najafi (the author of Jawahir al-Kalam) includes and that is of Dawud bin Hasin from Jaffar al-Sadiq (Page 361, Hadith 36), which says:
"The testimony of women is not allowed for Eid al-Fitr - only two just men [are allowed]. [But] there is no problem of women's testminoy when it comes to the [first] fast, even if it is just one woman"
Because of this apparent contradiction, there are three opinions in this regard:
1. The testimony of two just men is sufficient (prevalent opinion amongst scholars)
2. The testimony of two just men is not sufficient if there was something preventing them seeing the moon e.g. clouds/fog; but otherwise, it is sufficient (opinoin of Saduq, Tusi..)
3. The testimony of two just men does not count at all, as you cannot be sure of what they see exacfly (Muhaqqiq al-Hilli)
In terms of Shi'i scholars nowadays, I can quote:
1. Ayatullah Seestani: [Sighting the moon] "is not confirmed by the testimony of women" (Minhaj al-Salihin - http://www.najaf.org/arabic/book/1/, Book of Fasting, Confirming the moon is sighted number 1)
2. Ayatullah Fadlallah: "The testimony of women is not sufficient, even if they are just, unless you reach Itmi'nan*, then you can accept it, as reaching Itmi'nan itself by any method is sufficient..." (http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/marjaa/fekhalshari3a-1.pdf, Page 384)
3. Ayatullah Khamanei: "The testimony of 4 women, or 2 women and one man...is not counted with regards to confirming the sighting of the moon" (http://www.leader.ir/tree/index.php?catid=13, Book of Fasting, Method of confirming the crescent's sighting for Ramadan and Shawwal, Issue 3)
*Itmi'nan is a term used to basically mean "peace of mind". Some try and say it is 90%+ certainty but I think that peace of mind is sufficient in this regard.
As a side point, it is important to note that Fadlallah here is not accepting women's testimony but he is saying that reaching peace of mind is enough by any means (he includes calculations as a possibility here).
Saanei then goes on to discuss the methods used by the scholars to reach this conclusion and critiques it....which will be the next blog!
Finally, (I am going to put this at the bottom of every few posts now!) I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me....
Thursday 5 November 2009
Contextualising the Qur`an within the Qur`an
"Contextualising the Qur`an within the Qur`an"
A very nice one-line summary of Saanei's methodology - provided by a friend but also just to clarify - as someone asked - this is fundamentally different and goes much further than "Commentary of the Qur`an with the Qur`an" (Tafsir al-Qur`an bi al-Qur`an - advocated by many including Tabatabai in his al-Mizan) for the following reasons:
1. It is not using verses of the Qur`an only to understand other verses; it is using the overall view and principles of the Qur`an
2. These principles can be used outside the Qur`an as equivalent to Qur`anic verses, when trying to explain something or propose a law to a new theory...
Couple of things to clarify
Sorry for the delay since the last blog - I am currently abroad on holiday!
Following discussions with a couple of friends, there are two main issues that I need to discuss before moving forward here....
This methodology of Saanei in this regard (using the Quranic worldview to supplement Quranic verses, over and above even sahih ahadith), although in line with many western liberal thinkers (as defined in an earlier blog), is not the only methodology that is worth discussing. There is also a strong movement to a philosophically-based principles approach to discerning the Islamic way of life. The advocates of this approach consider the approach of Saanei to still be too limiting in a growing world, and believe the Quran is a living, growing book, whose true inner meaning will only be discovered through developing independent rational and philsophical principles, that can and will grow with time. This approach similarly has many very powerful implications and I hope to discuss some of the thought in this viewpoint after giving the methodology of Saanei due service.
Secondly, I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me....
Following discussions with a couple of friends, there are two main issues that I need to discuss before moving forward here....
This methodology of Saanei in this regard (using the Quranic worldview to supplement Quranic verses, over and above even sahih ahadith), although in line with many western liberal thinkers (as defined in an earlier blog), is not the only methodology that is worth discussing. There is also a strong movement to a philosophically-based principles approach to discerning the Islamic way of life. The advocates of this approach consider the approach of Saanei to still be too limiting in a growing world, and believe the Quran is a living, growing book, whose true inner meaning will only be discovered through developing independent rational and philsophical principles, that can and will grow with time. This approach similarly has many very powerful implications and I hope to discuss some of the thought in this viewpoint after giving the methodology of Saanei due service.
Secondly, I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me....
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Hadith 1 on the inferiority of women - discussion of content
Here we are aiming to discuss the actual content of the hadith (which is in the previous blog)
This type of discussion is specific to Shii Fiqh. In Sunni Fiqh, if you are content that something is from the Prophet (SAW) i.e. a sanad critique, then you have no right to question the content of the hadith. However, for the Shi'a, content does matter, and if it goes against theology, Qur`an or absolute logic, then it CANNOT have come from an infallible, and thus must be disregarded. The Shi'a regard the theology, Qur`an and absolute logic to be stronger than chain-critique, which is fallible process.
For this narration, it seems clear to Saanei that there are many items that go against the legal and rational precepts that are obvious and clear to everyone, and that it goes against the reality of the world around us!
Firstly, there is a part of the hadith that is not relevant to our discussion which distinguishes Muslims and non-Muslims in terms of God's mercy and justice. The hadith implies that the testimony of a Muslim is accepted (compared to that of a non-Muslim) due to someone being a Muslim rather than their characteristics. This for him is against the absoluteness of God's justice. Further to this, it means that non-Muslims cannot testify against non-Muslims either, which does not make sense! Although this bit is not relevant to our discussion, the methodology used by Saanei is interesting....
Next, he discusses the parts about women, in particular the bit about women not praying due to her being in her period for half her life. He mentions several points of critique:
1. It is not 1/2 .... potentially 1/3 for some but this is a clear error in the content of the hadith, which the Prophet could not have made?
2. Women start praying before men (at bulugh), which means that in the end women pray similar amounts to men? So any discussion that women don't spend as much time of their life praying is irrelevant.
3. It is clearly not the quantity of prayers that matters but the quality...
4. There is a legal obligation not to pray, and thus women are following God's commands, which is a sign of strength in belief.
It is clear that the content in this part of the hadith is very difficult to accept, when it goes against legal and accepted understandings of religious teaching and rationality.
The next bit he discusses is the hadith about how there is always a woman who is worse than an evil man; and always a man who is better than a good woman. He notes that it is clear how this is against the principles of Islam that all women are worse than all men, as it then does not give the choice to women to be good, and it means that goodness is caused by gender first. In fact, he goes further to say that this is a prime example of a hadith that is against the Qur`an and all verses that talk about the equality of women (e.g. Aal-Imran: 195, Nahl: 97, Ahzab: 35, Ahzab:73, Hujurat 13), and how the distinguishing factor is taqwa.
He then discusses the "deficient in intellect" point in the hadith. He says this is such a general statement , that does not give exception to anyone! How can this be? What is also interesting according to Saanei is that the Prophet never used this verse in his discussion of "deficiency of intellect".
Following these discussions, he says it is clear that such talk is not possible to come from a person such as Ali ibn Abu Talib!
This type of discussion is specific to Shii Fiqh. In Sunni Fiqh, if you are content that something is from the Prophet (SAW) i.e. a sanad critique, then you have no right to question the content of the hadith. However, for the Shi'a, content does matter, and if it goes against theology, Qur`an or absolute logic, then it CANNOT have come from an infallible, and thus must be disregarded. The Shi'a regard the theology, Qur`an and absolute logic to be stronger than chain-critique, which is fallible process.
For this narration, it seems clear to Saanei that there are many items that go against the legal and rational precepts that are obvious and clear to everyone, and that it goes against the reality of the world around us!
Firstly, there is a part of the hadith that is not relevant to our discussion which distinguishes Muslims and non-Muslims in terms of God's mercy and justice. The hadith implies that the testimony of a Muslim is accepted (compared to that of a non-Muslim) due to someone being a Muslim rather than their characteristics. This for him is against the absoluteness of God's justice. Further to this, it means that non-Muslims cannot testify against non-Muslims either, which does not make sense! Although this bit is not relevant to our discussion, the methodology used by Saanei is interesting....
Next, he discusses the parts about women, in particular the bit about women not praying due to her being in her period for half her life. He mentions several points of critique:
1. It is not 1/2 .... potentially 1/3 for some but this is a clear error in the content of the hadith, which the Prophet could not have made?
2. Women start praying before men (at bulugh), which means that in the end women pray similar amounts to men? So any discussion that women don't spend as much time of their life praying is irrelevant.
3. It is clearly not the quantity of prayers that matters but the quality...
4. There is a legal obligation not to pray, and thus women are following God's commands, which is a sign of strength in belief.
It is clear that the content in this part of the hadith is very difficult to accept, when it goes against legal and accepted understandings of religious teaching and rationality.
The next bit he discusses is the hadith about how there is always a woman who is worse than an evil man; and always a man who is better than a good woman. He notes that it is clear how this is against the principles of Islam that all women are worse than all men, as it then does not give the choice to women to be good, and it means that goodness is caused by gender first. In fact, he goes further to say that this is a prime example of a hadith that is against the Qur`an and all verses that talk about the equality of women (e.g. Aal-Imran: 195, Nahl: 97, Ahzab: 35, Ahzab:73, Hujurat 13), and how the distinguishing factor is taqwa.
He then discusses the "deficient in intellect" point in the hadith. He says this is such a general statement , that does not give exception to anyone! How can this be? What is also interesting according to Saanei is that the Prophet never used this verse in his discussion of "deficiency of intellect".
Following these discussions, he says it is clear that such talk is not possible to come from a person such as Ali ibn Abu Talib!
Hadith 1 on the inferiority of women
The pre-hadith discussion is worth reading to give a bit of background as to hadith study! The hadith that is chosen by Saanei is one that is from Hasan al-Askari from Ali ibn Abu Talib. It is relatively long so I will only translate the relevant bits:
"A woman stopped in front of the Messenger of Allah and said: '....what is the issue with two women being equal to one man in testimony concerning inheritance?' So the Messenger of Allah said: '...because you are deficient in religion and intellect.'. She replied: 'What is the deficiency in our religion?' He said: 'Women spend half their life not praying due to their period, and you curse a lot*, and are ungrateful to the grace of Allah. If one of you spend 10 years or more with a man and he is good to you but if one day, he does not give you what you want, or is antagonistic towards one of you, she would reply: 'What good have I seen from you ever!'...then the Prophet said 'There is no evil man except that there is a woman who is more evil. There is no good woman except one such that there is a better man than her.." (Tafsir al-Burhan 1:263)
* not 100% sure of the translation here
It is clear how this shows that the reasoning is not forgetfullness but the deficiencies in woman. Saanei begins his critique by studying the chain of narrators:
1. There is no chain of narrators to the book in which this was quoted. For famous books such as the 4 Shii collections (al-Kafi, al Tahdhib, al-'Istibsar, and Man la yahduruhu al-faqih), we don't need a chain of narration TO the book because they were well known. However, for a book such as this, we need to be sure that there has not been any changes made to the book, as there are examples in history where books have been altered or falsely attributed to people
2. The chain of narrators (from the book to Hasan al-Askari) is mursal - this means that there are gaps in the chain and thus we cannot rely on it. The danger in relying on such a hadith is that:
A. The chain may have had someone untrustworthy in it, and the narrator thus chose to omit him
B. The narrator of the hadith may have wanted to attribute something to Hasan al-Askari without any proof
Thus from this discussion, the chain of narrators (sanad) is not something that can be relied on. This by itself is enough to disregard a hadith. However, to understand Saanei's thinking, it is worth looking at how he discusses the matn (content) of the hadith.
"A woman stopped in front of the Messenger of Allah and said: '....what is the issue with two women being equal to one man in testimony concerning inheritance?' So the Messenger of Allah said: '...because you are deficient in religion and intellect.'. She replied: 'What is the deficiency in our religion?' He said: 'Women spend half their life not praying due to their period, and you curse a lot*, and are ungrateful to the grace of Allah. If one of you spend 10 years or more with a man and he is good to you but if one day, he does not give you what you want, or is antagonistic towards one of you, she would reply: 'What good have I seen from you ever!'...then the Prophet said 'There is no evil man except that there is a woman who is more evil. There is no good woman except one such that there is a better man than her.." (Tafsir al-Burhan 1:263)
* not 100% sure of the translation here
It is clear how this shows that the reasoning is not forgetfullness but the deficiencies in woman. Saanei begins his critique by studying the chain of narrators:
1. There is no chain of narrators to the book in which this was quoted. For famous books such as the 4 Shii collections (al-Kafi, al Tahdhib, al-'Istibsar, and Man la yahduruhu al-faqih), we don't need a chain of narration TO the book because they were well known. However, for a book such as this, we need to be sure that there has not been any changes made to the book, as there are examples in history where books have been altered or falsely attributed to people
2. The chain of narrators (from the book to Hasan al-Askari) is mursal - this means that there are gaps in the chain and thus we cannot rely on it. The danger in relying on such a hadith is that:
A. The chain may have had someone untrustworthy in it, and the narrator thus chose to omit him
B. The narrator of the hadith may have wanted to attribute something to Hasan al-Askari without any proof
Thus from this discussion, the chain of narrators (sanad) is not something that can be relied on. This by itself is enough to disregard a hadith. However, to understand Saanei's thinking, it is worth looking at how he discusses the matn (content) of the hadith.
Final Look at his Qur'anic understanding
Later in the book, Saanei discusses the Quranic view again so it makes sense for me to bring it here as it is a good summary of his viewpoint.
The Quran is the primary source of all legal injunctions, and it is clear that the verse (2:282 as explained in previous blogs) is concerning financial matters (and there are many ahadith that support this point of view, and ijma' supports this as well). The question that must be asked is:
"Is the inequality in financial matters:
1. absolute
2. able-to-be-generalised-to-other matters
3. true for all time
4. not able to be contextualised;
Does it imply that testimony of two women instead of one man is because of the position of a woman AS a woman, or does the verse imply a contextualised ruling, based on the cause* and not on the fact that she is a woman" (Page 87)
*He has noted that the cause is the possibility of forgetting due to the lack of expertise of the general woman at that time.
Saanei's question makes it clear that it does not make sense that all these four extrapolations hold to something that is very specific. He also says that the cause is clear from the grammatical construction of the sentence, and this is confirmed by the fact that two women are sufficient, because one can remind the other. This is a clear indication that the cause is forgetfulness from the women.
Therefore, when the forgetfulness is not present, the ruling does not apply. This tactic is used all the time in jurisprudential discussions and it seems appropriately used here.
Now to ahadith!
The Quran is the primary source of all legal injunctions, and it is clear that the verse (2:282 as explained in previous blogs) is concerning financial matters (and there are many ahadith that support this point of view, and ijma' supports this as well). The question that must be asked is:
"Is the inequality in financial matters:
1. absolute
2. able-to-be-generalised-to-other matters
3. true for all time
4. not able to be contextualised;
Does it imply that testimony of two women instead of one man is because of the position of a woman AS a woman, or does the verse imply a contextualised ruling, based on the cause* and not on the fact that she is a woman" (Page 87)
*He has noted that the cause is the possibility of forgetting due to the lack of expertise of the general woman at that time.
Saanei's question makes it clear that it does not make sense that all these four extrapolations hold to something that is very specific. He also says that the cause is clear from the grammatical construction of the sentence, and this is confirmed by the fact that two women are sufficient, because one can remind the other. This is a clear indication that the cause is forgetfulness from the women.
Therefore, when the forgetfulness is not present, the ruling does not apply. This tactic is used all the time in jurisprudential discussions and it seems appropriately used here.
Now to ahadith!
Thursday 22 October 2009
Consistency - requirement of religion?
Today I met with a friend of mine from Syria - a philosopher and a very clever guy. He gave a very interseting potential answer to my difficulty with consistency.
My problem (amongst other things!) is that the conservative tradition has developed over 100s of years to become something that has not that much inconsistency. It has worked pretty well to have a system, within which it makes sense. The modernist tradition is relatively new, and this paradigm shift in thought, is very inconsistent at the moment, with a push for using reason in some instances, and not in others. And the question on what to do when the conservative tradition is not something that makes sense to an individual, but the modernist tradition is still maturing....
The problem is that it is difficult/inconsistent to follow the modernist view in some aspects, and a conservative view in others. So can this be done?
Marius quite interestingly made the following point: we are imperfect beings, in an imperfect world, trying to work towards the infinite. It is impossible to achieve true consistency or purity. Everything in this world that we do is defective BUT what the aim is to become less defective. We can strive for more consistency but inconsistency is not a problem.
He gives the example of a two-person world. In such a world, the infinite demands of the other must be considered by the individual in true morality. Now if there are millions of people, true morality requires you to consider the infinite demands of everyone! This is impossible. Thus we are left with a morality that requires betrayal of the rights of some for the few. Thus the morality is defective but we can strive to make ourselves more moral - even though true morality remains impossible.
Therefore, given our circumstances, we can only strive to achieve what we genuinely believe to be God's will, even if it is inconsistent, it is our best attempt and that is something that must not be discarded as an inconsistent genuine attempt at getting to God's will is better than a consistent attempt that doesn't make sense to the individual.
Next post will be back on the ahadith - sorry for sidetracking!
My problem (amongst other things!) is that the conservative tradition has developed over 100s of years to become something that has not that much inconsistency. It has worked pretty well to have a system, within which it makes sense. The modernist tradition is relatively new, and this paradigm shift in thought, is very inconsistent at the moment, with a push for using reason in some instances, and not in others. And the question on what to do when the conservative tradition is not something that makes sense to an individual, but the modernist tradition is still maturing....
The problem is that it is difficult/inconsistent to follow the modernist view in some aspects, and a conservative view in others. So can this be done?
Marius quite interestingly made the following point: we are imperfect beings, in an imperfect world, trying to work towards the infinite. It is impossible to achieve true consistency or purity. Everything in this world that we do is defective BUT what the aim is to become less defective. We can strive for more consistency but inconsistency is not a problem.
He gives the example of a two-person world. In such a world, the infinite demands of the other must be considered by the individual in true morality. Now if there are millions of people, true morality requires you to consider the infinite demands of everyone! This is impossible. Thus we are left with a morality that requires betrayal of the rights of some for the few. Thus the morality is defective but we can strive to make ourselves more moral - even though true morality remains impossible.
Therefore, given our circumstances, we can only strive to achieve what we genuinely believe to be God's will, even if it is inconsistent, it is our best attempt and that is something that must not be discarded as an inconsistent genuine attempt at getting to God's will is better than a consistent attempt that doesn't make sense to the individual.
Next post will be back on the ahadith - sorry for sidetracking!
Leaps in traditionalist and modernist thought
Before I move on, I think it's important for me to explain a few points (based on discussions about my blog).
There is a misunderstanding that the reformists/liberals/modernists/critical thinkers...etc. want to impose their view on the Qur`an and ahadith, and do exactly what they accuse the traditionalists of (imposing their misoginistic views...etc. on the Qur`an). However, it is important to take a step back and see what the leaps/jumps that are taken on both sides and see which makes more sense:
1. That of the traditionalists - that A. hadith in one context apply in other times ; B. ahadith (which have less reliability than the Qur`an) should be used to explain the Qur`an (which is tawatur plus more) The first view has two major leaps, both of which in my view, are completely unjustifiable and don't go together with reason. The second view has a leap - because it requires detailed thinking on deriving the spirit of the Qur`an and Islam - but this is a leap that must be taken as the other alternative is potentially illogical and dangerous.
There is a misunderstanding that the reformists/liberals/modernists/critical thinkers...etc. want to impose their view on the Qur`an and ahadith, and do exactly what they accuse the traditionalists of (imposing their misoginistic views...etc. on the Qur`an). However, it is important to take a step back and see what the leaps/jumps that are taken on both sides and see which makes more sense:
1. That of the traditionalists - that A. hadith in one context apply in other times ; B. ahadith (which have less reliability than the Qur`an) should be used to explain the Qur`an (which is tawatur plus more)
2. That of modernists/reformists - that there must be a Qur`anic worldview derived from the Qur`an which is used in conjunction with philosophy, reason and the spirit of islam to explain the Qur`an and ahadith where the context has changed, or it is unclear
Wednesday 21 October 2009
"Liberal"
After writing my previous blog, it seems that I need to be careful with terminology. A friend of mine pointed out the ambiguity and potentially unintended consequences of using the term "liberal" when referring to either myself or "liberal" scholars. The fact is that he is right - this term does have many connotations associated with it.
So here is my chance to define what I mean when I use the term liberal:
A liberal for me in the religious context - what one may term a "religious liberal" is someone who is:
1. Religious i.e. within the fold of the religion and still belieiving in the core parts of the religion and its practices i.e. believes in one God, the Qur`an, Prophethood, prays, fasts...etc.
2. BUT is willing to look at some of these practices/beliefs again, understanding the implications of our current context and desire for rationality, not just taking from what "our fathers" (/parents!) have passed down to us;
This means the "religious liberal" has an open mind, and is willing to challenge (only willing - does not have to actually challenge) long-held views and theories.
The main problem I see with this, however, is that although there have been centuries of work building on the previous methodologies in usul al-fiqh...etc., comparatively little work has been done to create a holistic and consistent jurisprudential framework, rooted in liberal principles. Therefore, although the "traditional" (I really normally don't like labels but it's the only way to make my point!) methodology has a relatively consistent view on most things, based on its principles, the liberal methodology does not have a comparable body of work.
This is the reason why I am very interested that Saanei seems to have discussed these views using a more "liberal" methodology, as this would imply that such work is being done, although I am not yet sure if this is consistently applied everywhere!
Anyway, next post will be back to the book and will discuss one hadith. It will be useful for two reasons:
1. We will see how hadith study happens
2. We will see how HE uses "liberal" principles in his study, which (as far as I'm aware) are different to the traditional view.
So here is my chance to define what I mean when I use the term liberal:
A liberal for me in the religious context - what one may term a "religious liberal" is someone who is:
1. Religious i.e. within the fold of the religion and still belieiving in the core parts of the religion and its practices i.e. believes in one God, the Qur`an, Prophethood, prays, fasts...etc.
2. BUT is willing to look at some of these practices/beliefs again, understanding the implications of our current context and desire for rationality, not just taking from what "our fathers" (/parents!) have passed down to us;
This means the "religious liberal" has an open mind, and is willing to challenge (only willing - does not have to actually challenge) long-held views and theories.
The main problem I see with this, however, is that although there have been centuries of work building on the previous methodologies in usul al-fiqh...etc., comparatively little work has been done to create a holistic and consistent jurisprudential framework, rooted in liberal principles. Therefore, although the "traditional" (I really normally don't like labels but it's the only way to make my point!) methodology has a relatively consistent view on most things, based on its principles, the liberal methodology does not have a comparable body of work.
This is the reason why I am very interested that Saanei seems to have discussed these views using a more "liberal" methodology, as this would imply that such work is being done, although I am not yet sure if this is consistently applied everywhere!
Anyway, next post will be back to the book and will discuss one hadith. It will be useful for two reasons:
1. We will see how hadith study happens
2. We will see how HE uses "liberal" principles in his study, which (as far as I'm aware) are different to the traditional view.
Tuesday 20 October 2009
Pre-Hadith Discussion
One of the major problems faced by liberal scholars is their attitude to ahadith because the ahadith in general are much more misognynistic and illiberal than the Quran. The focus of these scholars has thus been very much on the Qur`an, sometimes completely disregarding the sayings of the Prophet (SAW).
There must, however, be some recognition of the Prophet (SAW)'s life as the Qur`an itself tells us to obey the Prophet (as well as Allah) and what else could that mean? We cannot just ignore 10000s of reports about a period in history that is integral to the beginning of our faith.
At the same time, we cannot blindly look at these reports without framing them in the correct context, and this is what "reformist" scholars have tried to do by maintaining two important things when discussing traditions from the Prophet:
1. The hadith CANNOT in any sense, go against the essence of the Qur`an - its wordview - its Weltanschauung
2. Any hadith must be understood in the context of its time and culture
These two are supplemented by hadith analysis (authenticity question):
1. The chain of narrators (sanad) cannot have any person in it, who is not known to be trustworthy
2. The contents of the hadith (matn) must make sense as something that could come from the Prophet or Imam
What is very interesting, is that Ayatullah Saanei did not immediately go to the hadith analysis stage after discussing the Quranic ayat. He started by framing the discussion on the ahadith in the way that liberal reformists have been doing. He states that the Quranic view of women is positive (e.g. the usage of gender neutral terms such as Bani Adam (children of Adam), Ulul Albab (those of understanding), Insan (humankind)...etc.) and thus any hadith that goes against this and is unjust to the rights of women is against this Quranic worldview. Such ahadith must be understood in the light of the Quran (not the other way around - a vital distinction). In addition, he says that if they cannot be reconciled, then such ahadith (even if they have passed the authenticity test) must be cast aside or left for the Imams to consider.
After this, he does start looking at ahadith one-by-one, and I think that the analysis of a few ahadith, will give you a useful insight as to how critique of ahadith can and does take place.
I have written about this in more detail in the past so if you would like my article on what i consider to be a paradigm shift in Shii jursiprudence, please gimme a bell!
There must, however, be some recognition of the Prophet (SAW)'s life as the Qur`an itself tells us to obey the Prophet (as well as Allah) and what else could that mean? We cannot just ignore 10000s of reports about a period in history that is integral to the beginning of our faith.
At the same time, we cannot blindly look at these reports without framing them in the correct context, and this is what "reformist" scholars have tried to do by maintaining two important things when discussing traditions from the Prophet:
1. The hadith CANNOT in any sense, go against the essence of the Qur`an - its wordview - its Weltanschauung
2. Any hadith must be understood in the context of its time and culture
These two are supplemented by hadith analysis (authenticity question):
1. The chain of narrators (sanad) cannot have any person in it, who is not known to be trustworthy
2. The contents of the hadith (matn) must make sense as something that could come from the Prophet or Imam
What is very interesting, is that Ayatullah Saanei did not immediately go to the hadith analysis stage after discussing the Quranic ayat. He started by framing the discussion on the ahadith in the way that liberal reformists have been doing. He states that the Quranic view of women is positive (e.g. the usage of gender neutral terms such as Bani Adam (children of Adam), Ulul Albab (those of understanding), Insan (humankind)...etc.) and thus any hadith that goes against this and is unjust to the rights of women is against this Quranic worldview. Such ahadith must be understood in the light of the Quran (not the other way around - a vital distinction). In addition, he says that if they cannot be reconciled, then such ahadith (even if they have passed the authenticity test) must be cast aside or left for the Imams to consider.
After this, he does start looking at ahadith one-by-one, and I think that the analysis of a few ahadith, will give you a useful insight as to how critique of ahadith can and does take place.
I have written about this in more detail in the past so if you would like my article on what i consider to be a paradigm shift in Shii jursiprudence, please gimme a bell!
Monday 19 October 2009
Women Witnesses
I am currently reading a book by Ayatullah Saanei on women's rights in Islam. It is most interesting not necessarily because of what he says but because it is a religious scholar saying it!
Firstly, he quite rightly talks about the difference between rules that are specific to women because of specific characteristics, and those that are due to her position as a woman. For example, if you see a sentence in the Quran saying:
"In the garden, don't eat the apple in order that you do not fall sick"
You can (using Usuli techniques i.e. logic!), deduce a few things:
1. This injunction is to do with being in the garden and CANNOT be extended outside the garden
2. This injunction would not apply if you are not going to fall sick
Similarly in Surah Baqarah, verse 282, it says:
"O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witness; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things." (Shakir)
After he discusses non-plausible arguments about why this is not relevant, he very carefully uses traditional Usuli techniques to explain how this is not relevant now:
1. He notes that this is to do with debts only and should not be extended to other contexts. This would be wrong, and not what is said in the Qur`an.
2. He notes that the reasoning ('illa) is that if one of the women errs, the other should remind them. This means that it is clearly to do with the fact that the woman might err. If the context changes, and perhaps the man might err, then the injunction would apply to the man. He goes further and remarks that it is clear that women being witnesses is not seen as less than a man BECAUSE she is a woman as there are examples of when women's accounts and testimonies are considered more important than men's e.g. to do with women's issues. This makes it clear that the ONLY consideration that matters is if it is likely that one of them might make a mistake.
3. He also notes earlier that the point of testimony is to reach satisfaction of what happened. There is little doubt that this can happen with women as well, as this happens in normal life.
Therefore, he concludes that based on the Qur`an, there is no doubt that a woman's value as a witness is the same as a man, and any difference will be dependent on their characteristics as people, rather than based on their gender.
There are only two questions remaining:
1. So why were women mentioned in this ahadith. It is plausible that in those days, matters to do with debts and other financial details were, in the most part, dealt with by men, and thus most women would not be well equipped to give witness in such cases. But this would only apply IF she might err and to remind her, simliar to if there was a man in a context that he was unfamiliar.
2. What about all the ahadith that discuss this topic.... this is the next chapter and will keep you informed!
Firstly, he quite rightly talks about the difference between rules that are specific to women because of specific characteristics, and those that are due to her position as a woman. For example, if you see a sentence in the Quran saying:
"In the garden, don't eat the apple in order that you do not fall sick"
You can (using Usuli techniques i.e. logic!), deduce a few things:
1. This injunction is to do with being in the garden and CANNOT be extended outside the garden
2. This injunction would not apply if you are not going to fall sick
Similarly in Surah Baqarah, verse 282, it says:
"O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witness; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things." (Shakir)
After he discusses non-plausible arguments about why this is not relevant, he very carefully uses traditional Usuli techniques to explain how this is not relevant now:
1. He notes that this is to do with debts only and should not be extended to other contexts. This would be wrong, and not what is said in the Qur`an.
2. He notes that the reasoning ('illa) is that if one of the women errs, the other should remind them. This means that it is clearly to do with the fact that the woman might err. If the context changes, and perhaps the man might err, then the injunction would apply to the man. He goes further and remarks that it is clear that women being witnesses is not seen as less than a man BECAUSE she is a woman as there are examples of when women's accounts and testimonies are considered more important than men's e.g. to do with women's issues. This makes it clear that the ONLY consideration that matters is if it is likely that one of them might make a mistake.
3. He also notes earlier that the point of testimony is to reach satisfaction of what happened. There is little doubt that this can happen with women as well, as this happens in normal life.
Therefore, he concludes that based on the Qur`an, there is no doubt that a woman's value as a witness is the same as a man, and any difference will be dependent on their characteristics as people, rather than based on their gender.
There are only two questions remaining:
1. So why were women mentioned in this ahadith. It is plausible that in those days, matters to do with debts and other financial details were, in the most part, dealt with by men, and thus most women would not be well equipped to give witness in such cases. But this would only apply IF she might err and to remind her, simliar to if there was a man in a context that he was unfamiliar.
2. What about all the ahadith that discuss this topic.... this is the next chapter and will keep you informed!
Welcome
Salaam Alaykum all
This is my first blog ever! The aim of this blog is just to keep you informed when I read something interesting...most people don't have the time to read a whole book on something but might be able to read a summary of a few thoughts....and that's the point of this blog!
Hope you enjoy it! :)
This is my first blog ever! The aim of this blog is just to keep you informed when I read something interesting...most people don't have the time to read a whole book on something but might be able to read a summary of a few thoughts....and that's the point of this blog!
Hope you enjoy it! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)