Dought & clear, - The reasonwhy the one towhom a homosexual act is done is to be executed

Share ::-

Why is the one to whom a homosexual act is done to be executed like the one who does it?.
Praise be to Allaah.
Al-Tirmidhi (1456), Abu Dawood (4462) and Ibn Maajah (2561) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani inSaheeh al-Tirmidhi.
The Sahaabah were unanimously agreed on the executing of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed.
Some of them, such as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with them) thought that they should be burned to death. Some of them, such as Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) thought that they should be thrown from a tall building followed by stoning. Some of them thought that they should be stoned to death, which was narrated from both ‘Ali and Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with them).
See:al-Mughni(9/58).
The reason why the one to whom such an act is done should also be executed is because he is a partner in the sin, because this sin can only be committed if both parties take part, so it is only just to carry out the punishment on both of them. Similarly in the case of zina (adultery), the punishment is carried out on both the man and the woman. Moreover there is nothing good to be gained from letting the one to whom it has been done remain alive, because of the great evil that has befallen him and because of the great evil that may result from his presence.
It says inMataalib Ooli al-Nuha(6/174): Even though adultery and homosexuality are both immoral deeds and are both evils that go against the wisdom of Allaah in His creation and His command, in homosexuality there are innumerable evils and it is better for the one to whom it was done to be executed than to let him repeat that evil action, because he has been corrupted in such a way that there is no hope of reform for him, and there is no goodness left in him, and after that he will not feel shy before Allaah or before His creation. The sperm of the one who did that will affect his heart and soul as poison affects the body, and he does not deserve to be guided to anything good, and every time he tries to do something good, something will happen to spoil his good deed, as a punishment to him. Hardly ever do you see one who was like that in his youth but he is the worst he can be when he grows old. He does not gain any beneficial knowledge or do any righteous deeds, or repent sincerely, in most cases. Once this is established, the evil consequences of homosexuality are among the worst of evil consequences, so its punishment is one of the most severe of punishments in this world and in the Hereafter.
The companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) agreed unanimously that the homosexual is to be executed, and none of them differed concerning that. Rather they differed as to the method of execution. Some people thought that this difference means that they disagreed about executing him, so they narrated it as a matter concerning which the Sahaabah differed, but it is a matter concerning which there was consensus among them, not a matter of difference. End quote.
The source for this was Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him), who mentioned it inal-Jawaab al-Kaafi li man sa’ala ‘an al-Dawa’ al-Shaafi.
But if the one to whom it was done was forced, then he is not to be punished, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah has forgiven my ummah for mistakes and forgetfulness, and what they are forced to do.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah (2045); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani inSaheeh Ibn Maajah.
And Allaah knows best. Share ::

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

For children, - Hatred in Islam, Diseases of the Soul, Islam and Hate, Human Vices, Hatred (Nafrat)

Share ::-

In the time of a caliph, a rich man bought a slave whom he treated, from the beginning, like a gentleman, giving him the best of food and clothes, and money exactly like his own child or even more lavishly. But the slave noticed that his master always felt uneasy.
Eventually the rich man made up his mind to set him free and provide him with some capital. One night as they were sitting together, the master said: "Do you know why I have treated you so well?" The slave asked the reason. The master said: "I have one request to make which if you fulfill, you would enjoy all I have given and will give you! But if you refuse, I will be discontented with you." The slave said: "I will obey whatever you ask. You are my benefactor who has given me my life." The master said: "You must promise me in good faith to do it, for I am afraid you may refuse it."
The slave said: "I promise to do what you want." The master said: "My proposal is that you must behead me at a specific time and place." The slave exclaimed: "What? How can I do that?" The master said: "That is what I desire." The slave said: "That is impossible." The master said: "I have got your promise. You must do it."
One midnight, he awakened the slave and gave him a sharp knife and a bag full of money and climbed up a neighbor's roof, and told the slave to behead him there and then go wherever he liked. The slave asked the reason for such an act. The rich man answered: "I hate this one man and prefer death to seeing his face. We have been rivals but he, my neighbor has gone ahead of me and excels me in everything, and I am burning with hatred. I desire my neighbor to be jailed for this fake murder and this idea is a relief to me. Everyone knows him to be my rival, and so my neighbor will be condemned to death for this act." The slave said: You seem to be a foolish man and deserve this death."
So he beheaded the rich man and ran away, His rival neighbor was consequently arrested and imprisoned, but no one believed that he would have killed his rival on his own roof. It had become a mystery. At last, the slave felt a prick of conscience, went to the authorities and confessed the truth. When they understood the matter, they freed both the slave and the neighbor.
This is a fact that Hate is a disease of the soul. The Noble Qur'an says in Chapter "The Sun" (Shams 91:9-10). "He will indeed be successful who purifies it, and he will indeed fail who corrupts it." Thus, the first proposal of the Noble Qur'an is purification of the self from ailments, complexes, ignorance, deviations and metamorphoses.
You could have heard that in the past there were people who, because of excess of sins, were cursed by the Prophets of their time and were thus metamorphosed, that is, they were transformed into animals such as a monkey, a wolf, a bear etc.
Someone said: "We had made a pilgrimage to Makkah along with Imam Sajjad (as)and when we looked down at the Desert of Arafat it was full of Hajis (pilgrims). There were so many of them that year. The Imam Sajjad said: "There is much uproar, but few are true Hajis (pilgrims)." The man says: "I don't know how Imam Sajjad gave me the insight, but when Imam Sajjad asked me to look down again, I saw a desert full of animals, like that in a zoo, among whom a few human beings were moving about." The Imam Sajjad told him how things looked to those who had a clear sight and were concerned with the inward concept of things.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Fathwa, - Some issues about divorce and 'Eelaa'

Share ::-

Question
I have two questions related to Divorce: 1. The Hanafi school's opinion is that if a divorce is executed via an indirect or implied statement then the nikkah terminates immediately even if this is the first or second divorce. Is this opinion correct? Are scholar's of other school approve this opinion? Why Hanafi's do not allow to unite without a new nikkah if this was the first or second divorce )in case when an implied or indirect statement was used to issue divorce(? 2. If a husband takes an oath to not have sexual relations with his wife and the period of 4 months elapses then does this cause automatic divorce between them? I believe this is the stance of the Hanafi school. Can you please clarify if other scholars hold this view as well. I was under the impression that the husband is asked to divorce his wife after four months )no automatic divorce( and if he refuses then a judge can annull the marriage. Secondly, if the husband does have sexual relations before the four month time limit expire )like within the first 1-2 months( then is the nikkah intact and valid? and what kaffarah husband has to offer, if any? Lastly, if wife forces the husband to make such a promise to not have sexual relation with her )due to personal marriage related problems( but husband stays quite )does not make a promise( and later in the same conversation he says that "Yes I will be careful and will watch out to not have sexual activity" )he did not intend to make an oath or promise( then will such situation/statement falls under the ruling of oath of sexual abstinance? Jazzak Allah.
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad, is His Slave and Messenger.
The Hanafi scholars divide the metaphors of divorce into two categories:
1- Metaphors with which divorce occurs once in a revocable manner. Words of this category are like, "Observe your ‘Iddah", "Make sure that you are not pregnant" or the like which implies divorce.
2- Words with which divorce occurs irrevocably one time, such as "It is irrevocable", "It is absolute", "She is forbidden to me", or the like which implies strong intention of irrevocable divorce.
We drew this conclusion from “Al-Bahr Ar-Raa’iq”byIbn Nujaymand this shows that the Hanafi scholars detailed the issue of divorce by indirect words. In fact, we did not find any school of jurisprudence having the same details of the Hanafi scholars.
As for renewing the marriage contract, it depends on the type of divorce which occurred by indirect words. If the divorce is revocable, it does not need a new contract unless the woman's ‘Iddah expired. If the divorce is irrevocable or revocable but the woman's ‘Iddah expired, it needs a new contract. This is the answer to the first question.
With regard to the second question, the scholars differed about Eelaa’ )a husband swearing not to have sexual intercourse with his wife and refusing to approach her( when its period elapses. The majority of scholars held the opinion that when the period of Eelaa’ elapses, the husband has to choose to return to sexual activity with his wife or to divorce her. The Hanafi scholars said that the woman is automatically divorced after this period elapses. The preponderant opinion is the opinion of the majority of scholars. Allaah The Almighty Says )what means(: }For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if they return ]to normal relations[ - then indeed, Allaah Is Forgiving and Merciful.{]Quran 2:226[ The verse apparently signifies that the period of return is after four months. The verses continue )what means(: }And if they decide on divorce - then indeed, Allaah Is Hearing and Merciful.{]Quran 2:227[ Had divorce occurred automatically after the elapse of this period, there would have been no need for deciding on divorce, asIbn Qudaamahsaid in “Al-Mughni”.
However, if the man, who swore not to have sexual intercourse with his wife, had intercourse with her, he would be no longer doing Eelaa’, but he is required to make expiation, according to the majority of scholars, because he broke his oath. Allaah The Almighty Says )what means(: }He Will Impose blame upon you for ]breaking[ what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people.{]Quran 5:89[ So, marriage remains valid and Eelaa’ alone does not affect the marriage bond. For further information, see Fataawa 89737and 88228.
On the other hand, the Muslim jurists differed about if the husband stopped having intercourse with his wife without swearing. The majority of scholars held that he the ruling of Eelaa’ does not apply to him unless he swears not to have intercourse even if he intends to harm his wife. ImaamMaalikconsidered it Eelaa’ if the husband intended to harm his wife by avoiding intercourse with her, otherwise there will be no Eelaa’, according to him, if the husband does not intend harm. Thus, the majority of scholars based their ruling on the apparent meaning of Eelaa’, whereas ImaamMaalikconsidered the purpose behind it, asIbn Rushdstated in “Bidaayat Al-Mujtahid”. The opinion of the majority of scholars is the preponderant one.Ibn ‘Abbaassaid: "There is no Eelaa’ until it is accompanied by an oath."‘Ataa’said, "Eelaa’ occurs only by swearing not to have intercourse ]with the wife[." It was narrated on the authority ofAbu Hurrahthat he askedAl-Hasanabout a man who deserted his wife for seven months, he said, "This a long desertion." I asked him if this would be considered Eelaa’, he asked, "Did he swear ]to avoid intercourse with her[?" I said, "No." He replied, "There is no Eelaa’ until he swears."Allaah Knows best.

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M