Update on Nahla Mahmoud

11 Comments

1. Reliance of the Traveller
   Revised Edition

   The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik
   by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with
   Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices
   Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

   e13.0 THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD

   e 13.1 The minimal age for menstruation is about 9 full years. There is no maximal age for the end of it, as it is possible until death.
   The minimal menstrual period is a day and a night. It generally lasts 6 or 7 days. The maximal period is 15 days.
   The minimal interval of purity between two menstruations is 15 days. There is no maximal limit to the number of days between menstruations.

   e13.2 Whenever a woman who is old enough notices her bleeding, even if pregnant, she must avoid what a woman in her period avoids (def: e 13.4). If it ceases in less than 24 hours (lit. “the minimum”), then it is not considered menstruation and the woman must make up the prayers she has omitted during it. If it ceases at 24 hours, within 15 days, or between the two, then it is menstruation. If it exceeds 15 days, then she is a woman with chronic vaginal discharge (dis: e13.6).
   Yellow or dusky colored discharge is considered menstrual flow.
   If a woman has times of intermittent bleeding and cessation during an interval of 15 days or less, and the times of bleeding collectively amount to at least 24 hours, then the entire interval, bleeding and non-bleeding, is considered menstruation.

   e13.3 Postnatal bleeding (nifas) lasts at least a moment, generally 40 days, and at most 60. If it exceeds this, the woman is considered to have chronic vaginal discharge (dis: e13.6).

   e13.4 All things unlawful for someone in a state of major ritual impurity (janaba) (dis: elO.7) are unlawful for a woman during her menstruation and postnatal bleeding. It is also unlawful for her to fast then, and the (N: obligatory) fast-days she misses must be made up later, though not missed prayers.
   It is unlawful for her:

   (1) to pass through a mosque when she thinks some of her blood might contaminate it (N: and it is unlawful for her to remain in the mosque under any circumstances (n: when menstruating or during postnatal bleeding»;
   (2) to make love, or take sexual enjoyment from what is between her navel and knees;
   (3) to be divorced;
   (4) or to perform purification with the intention to raise a state of ritual impurity.

   When her bleeding ceases, then fasting, divorce. purification, and passing through the
   mosque are no longer unlawful for her, though the other things remain unlawful for her until she performs the purificatory bath (ghusl, def: ell).

   e 13.5 If a woman claims to be having her period, but her husband does not believe her, it is lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her.

   e13.6 A woman with chronic vaginal discharge (N: preparing to pray) should wash her private parts, apply something absorbent to them and a dressing, and then perform ablution (N: with the intention discussed above at e5.3). She may not delay (N: commencing her prayer) after this except for reasons of preparing to pray such as clothing her nakedness, awaiting the call to prayer (adhan), or for a group to gather for the prayer. If she delays for other reasons, she must repeat the purification.
   She is obliged to wash her private parts, apply a dressing. and perform ablution before each obligatory prayer (N: though she is entitled, like those mentioned below, to perform as many nonobligatory prayers as she wishes, carry and read the Koran, etc. until the next prayer’s time comes (n: or until her ablution is broken for a different reason), when she must renew the above measures and her ablution).

   e13.7 People unable to hold back intermittent , drops of urine coming from them must take the same measures (def: above) that a woman with chronic vaginal discharge docs. (N: And likewise for anyone in a state of chronic annulment of ablution, such as continually breaking wind, excrement, or madhy (def: eIO.5), though washing and
   applying an absorbent dressing are only obligatory when filth exits.) (A: If a person knows that drops of urine will not stop until the time for the next prayer comes, then he takes the above measures and performs the prayer at the first of its time.)

   *
   RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER:
   A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW
   Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri

   w45.0 A WIFE’S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS (from m5.I, end)
   A WIFE’S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE SHAFI’I SCHOOL
   *
   w45.1 (Abu Ishaq Shirazi:) A woman is not obliged to serve her husband by baking, grinding flour, cooking, washing, or any other kind of service, because the marriage contract entails, for her part, ONLY THAT SHE LET HIM ENJOY HER SEXUALLY, and she is not obligated to do other thar. that. (A: Rather, it is considered sunna in our school for the wife to do the housework, and the husband (who is obliged to support her) to earn the living, since this is how the Prophet (Allah bless him and give.
   him peace) divided the work between Fatima and ‘Ali (Allah be well pleased with them)) (alMuhadhdhab fi fiqh ai-Imam al-Shafi’i (yI25), 2.68).

   A WIFE’S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE HANAFI SCHOOL

   w45.2 (Nahlawi:) The wife’s serving her husband at home-by cooking, cleaning, and baking bread-is religiously obligatory for her, and if she does not, she is committing a sin, though it is not something that she may be forced to do by the court (al-Durar al-mubaha fi ai-hazr wa ai-ibaha
   (y99),I72).

   Reply

2. Actually it was Maryam’s earlier post of ‘Report them!’ I refer to. Apologies… again.

   Reply

3. @ number 5; I had misconstrued your sentence of ‘And that would be why a lot of folks don’t even bother reporting’ as a cheap mockery regarding Maryam’s earlier in the year post ‘Just report it’.

   I was wrong. I’ll say I was wrong. I’m sorry.

   Reply

4. Hey, number 4, jackass, I did sign the letter. Maryam just asked a question in one of her earlier posts, and look, here, amazingly, there was the answer, in the blog post she just wrote. I know, I know, terrible that I expressed a hope someone learn something.

   Reply

5. @ Number 2; Look, over at Greta Christina’s place Richard Dawkins is being attacked. Yup, he’s being accused of ‘black-balling’ (what ever the hell that means). Why don’t you go over and join in the witch hunt. He’s being labelled as a racist and misogynist too. It should keep you busy. Either that or you could do something productive, like sign the fucking open letter on behalf of this young woman instead of making petty quips.

   @ Maryam, thanks for all the information and education.

   Reply
6. Pingback: Threats against Nahla Mahmoud « Skeptical Science

7. Signed, subscribed, liked.

   Reply
8. Pingback: Around FtB » Pharyngula

9. And that would be why a lot of folks don’t even bother reporting.

   Reply

10. ISLAM IS A FARCE!

    MOHAMMED & HIS COMPANIONS WERE HIGHWAY ROBBERS:

    RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER:
    A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW
    Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri

    Based on this Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Mohammed & his Gang of Highway Robbers should have had their limbs & legs cut off & then killed.

    WAS BADR A BATTLE OR MOHAMMAD’S HIGHWAY ROBBERY?

    The skirmiss between Muhammad’s army and his Meccan opponents is seem as the most glorious battle in Islam. In reality, it does not qualify to be a battle at all, but a treacherous highway robbery by desert decoits.
    In this article I investigate the claim that the events at Badr constitute a battle. For fourteen centuries, Muslims refer to the incidents at Badr as the Battle of Badr, the most glorious one in Islam. It is my conviction that the events at Badr were not elements that constitute what can be called a battle. I provide evidence to my claim below.
    What is a Battle?

    A battle is understood as an encounter of two opponent armies. There should an element of prior knowledge between the two parties that they are warring each other.
    Is this what happened at Badr? Let us investigate that.
    Islamic sources

    Al-Islam website has some interesting remarks on the events at Badr. Here are some quotes:
    1. The Battle of Badr is one of the greatest and most famous battles of Islam and those who participated in it enjoyed a special distinction amongst the Muslims.
    2. One of the praiseworthy policies adopted by the Prophet in all the battles (the details of which will be given later) was that he used to collect information about the strength of the enemy and his location. And even till today the question of procurement of information enjoys great importance in global as well as local wars.
    It is true that collection of information is good whether in times of peace or war. We collect information and analyze it when we fight disease, plan to buy a home, go to one of many universities… etc. Even if we were a gang of bandits wanting to rob a commercial caravan, it is very important to collect information to know if what we are robbing is of any value or not, and if it is worth it to risk our lives or not. Muslims believe that Badr is a battle; not just any battle, but a great battle of early Islam. Or is it?
    The events leading to Badr
    In The Life of Muhammad, which is a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (translated by Guillaume, 21st impression, 2007), we can easily find the truth about the incidents involved in what Muslims call the battle of Badr (p. 289 and after). Let’s look at some quotes and do some critical analysis:
    “…when the apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.’” (p. 289)
    The above is the reason that started the events leading to what happened at Badr.
    Does this look like going to battle, or going to do some highway robbery?
    What is the difference between what Muhammad was trying to do, and what the Somali pirates try to do?
    What Muhammad said reminds me of what the robbers of cowboy movies used to do. Jesse James and billy the kid used to do similar things. They would hear about some caravan or train, loaded with commodities, money or gold, then they would talk to the gang members and set out on their way to do the robbery. This is what Muhammad is doing here. He heard about a commercial caravan lightly protected by about thirty or forty people, so he summons his gang; the Muslims, to get moving so they can do the robbery.
    Muslims, off course, try to justify what Muhammad is trying to do. Al-Islam website that I linked the reader to does just that:

    As Quraysh had confiscated the property of Muslim Muhajirs residing in Madina, it was only appropriate that the Muslims should also confiscate their merchandise and if they persisted in withholding the property of the Muhajir Muslims on account of their enmity and obstinacy, the Muslims should, as a retaliatory measure, divide their merchandise amongst themselves as war booty.

    The above justification of what Muhammad and his bandits tried to do and did at Badr is, as we say in Arabic ‘an excuse that is worse than admittance of guilt’. The claim is that Muhammad was justified in attacking a Qurayshi commercial caravan because when the Meccan Muslims immigrated to Medina, the Qurayshites took over their property, is ludicrous. First of all, there is no supporting evidence to such a grand claim. Second, even if some people of Quraysh took over some of what was left by the immigrants, it was their family members left in Mecca who did that. This is a family matter in this case. Third, suppose I came to your home and stole an expensive computer, does this justify you going to a food store and robbing it just because I am one of the share-holders of that store? In short, the above claim in Al-Islam website cannot be defended.

    My goal of this article is not to relay the story of Badr, but rather to analyze its nature. In any case the story goes as follows:

    Abu Sufyan, the caravan leader realized that Muhammad and his bandits are trying to attack and steal all of what they had, so he changes the travel route and reaches Mecca safely.

    Abu Sufyan also sent someone to Mecca alarming them about what Muhammad and his bandits were up to, and asked the Quraysh to send their men to help protect the caravan, which they did.

    Now, does this look like Quraysh is trying to make war upon Muhammad, or, are they just trying to protect their livelihood in securing the safety of the incoming ommercial caravan that Abu Sufyan is in charge of?
    Once the caravan was secured, Abu Sufyan sends word to the Qurayshites that the caravan is safe, and that they should go back to Mecca. Sure enough, some of the Qurayshites go back. However, Abu Jahl, one of Quraysh leaders, and some others decided to stay. Here is why:

    Abu Jahl said, ‘By God, we will not go back until we have been to Badr’- Badr was the site of one of the Arab fairs where they used to hold a market every year. ‘We will spend three days there, slaughter camel and feast and drink wine, and the girls shall play for us. The Arabs will hear that we have come and gathered together, and respect us in future. So come on!’ (Sirat, p. 296)

    Now, Muslims love to vilify two people in early Islam, one of them is Abu Jahl (abu Lahab being the other). Does the above quote tell of a man going to war? You see, this man, while Muhammad was in Mecca, made fun of Muhammad, and knew that Muhammad was a crazed man. Narcissists never forget things like that. Muslims follow Muhammad’s suit and hate Abu Jahl, because Muhammad did. But clearly, the above quote tells of a man wanting to have a good time. War and fighting at Badr is not on his mind. Since I myself enjoy a good glass of wine, I think I would have enjoyed visiting with Abu Jahl if we were living in the same time period. All he wanted to do is go to Vegas (Badr!!) and have some enjoyable time.

    Now, it is important to understand Muhammad at that point in time. He had becoming the sole leader of Mecca in his mind all along. When he moved to Medina, he always inquired, and sent groups of Muslims to watch for Qurayshi caravans for possible looting. His first success was the Nakhla raid, but it was not his first attempt. He had many failed attempts before. Now, to become a leader of Mecca, an option is to kill some of its leaders who are a hindrance to Muhammad. This is exactly what Muhammad did at Badr. The Muslims controlled the route to the water, and killed many Muslims trying to get some water. Now, the killing of Abu Jahl was the prized trophy of Badr as far as Muhammad’s concern. The man, Abu Jahl, made fun of him in Mecca. And he would be a great obstacle for Muhammad taking over control of Mecca if the chance arises. So, killing him and some of the other Meccan leaders would make an easier road for Muhammad in controlling and taking over Mecca in the future.

    What we have here is not really a battle, but rather the Muslims ambushing the Qurayshites, thus killing some of them (mostly when they were trying to get some water to drink), including some of the leaders, and imprisoning the rest. True, the commercial caravan escaped, but the Muslims could still get some ransom money for the imprisoned ones. History bears me out here. Muhammad and the Muslims got a lot of compensation for the Badr Qurayshite prisoners.

    015.0 THE PENALTY FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY

    015.1 The caliph is obliged to summon whoever uses a weapon (0: though force suffices to be considered a weapon, or taking money by dint of one’s fists) and makes people afraid to use the road (0: no matter whether in the wilderness, a village, or in the country; meaning he frightens those who pass along the way by means of his strength or weapons). If the highwayman responds to the summons before he has injured anyone, then he is only disciplined (def: 017).

    If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold under the previously mentioned conditions (014.1), both his right hand and left foot are amputated.

    (A: The difference between a highwayman and someone who takes by forcible seizure (dis: 014.6) is that the latter does so within earshot of help, while the offense of the highwayman is far greater because he menaces the lifeline of the community, its trade routes.)

    015.2 If a highwayman kills someone, he must be executed, even when the person entitled to retaliation (def: 03) agrees to forgo it. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days. If he wounds or maims someone, retaliation is taken against him, though it may be waived by those entitled to take it.

    015.3 (N: The penalty for highway robbery, such as mandatory execution, crucifixion, and amputating the hand and foot, is cancelled if the highwayman repents (A: desists, and gives himself up) before he has been apprehended, though he is still liable to retaliation (def: 03) by parties entitled to it (A: for injuries or deaths he caused to victims) and is financially responsible for restoring the money he has taken.)

    014.0 THE PENALTY FOR THEFT
    014.1 A person’s right hand is amputated. whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he:

    (a) has reached puberty;
    (b) is sane;
    (c) is acting voluntarily;

    014.2 Justice
    (d) and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (n: 1.058 grams of gold) or goods worth that much (A: at the market prices current) at the time of the theft;
    (e) from a place meeting the security requirements normal (A: in that locality and time)
    for safeguarding similar articles (def: 014.3);
    (f) provided there is no possible confusion (dis: 014.2(3» as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason.
    If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot. If he steals a fifth time, he is disciplined (def: 017). If he does not have a right hand (N: at the first offense), then his left foot is amputated. If he has a right hand but loses it after the theft (0: by an act of God) but
    before he has been punished for it, then nothing is amputated. After amputation, the limb is cauterized with hot oil (A: which in previous times was the means to stop the bleeding and save the criminal’s life).

    014.2 A person’s hand is not amputated when:
    (1) (non-(d) above) he steals less than the equivalent of] .058 grams of gold;
    (2) (non-(e» he steals the article from a place the does not meet normal requirements for
    safeguarding similar articles (dis: below);
    (3) or (non-(f» when there is a possible confusion as to why he took it, as when it was taken from the Muslim common fund (bayt ai-mal) (0: provided the person is Muslim, since he might have intended to use it to build mosques, bridges, or hospices), or when it belongs to his son or father.
    014.3 A place that meets normal security requirements for safeguarding similar articles means a place appropriate for keeping the thing, this varying with the type of article, the different countries, and with the justness of the ruler or lack of it, as well as the ruler’s relative strength or weakness. A suitable place for safeguarding fine clothes, money, jewels, and jewelry, for example, is a locked box; the place for trade goods, a locked
    warehouse with guards; the place for livestock, a stable; the place for pallets and bedding, a shelf in the house; and the place for a shroud, the grave.

    014.4 If two persons jointly steal the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold, then neither’s hand is amputated.

    014.5 A freeman’s hand may not be amputated by anyone besides the caliph or his representative (def: 025).

    014.6 There is no amputation for forcible seizure (0: meaning someone relying on foree (N: to take people’s money, who has a gang nearby to abet him in this», snatching (0: meaning someone who depends on running away and is unarmed), or betraying a trust (0: of something entrusted to him, such as a deposit for safekeeping), or appropriating something by disavowal (A: i.e. denying that the victim loaned or entrusted him with such and such a thing), (0: because of the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him
    peace) saying, “There is no amputation for someone who seizes by force, snatches and runs, or betrays a trust,” a hadith Tirmidhi classified as rigorously authenticated
    (sahih». (A: But if one of the above mentioned persons is a repeated offender whom it is in the interests of society to kill, the caliph may kill him.)

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.