r/MuslimAcademics

My Previous post:

https://preview.redd.it/jgchrpnk7kkh1.jpg?width=1800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd26a947e2ec7993146e177166748b7a77408783

https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimAcademics/comments/1vifjed/how_do_hanafis_address_the_sahih_hadith_where_the/

The Hanafi position on a woman's awrah seemed contradictory to this hadith to me. I searched for a long time but never found any Hanafi article or website where they explained how exposing the feet could be permissible for women according to the Hanafi position when this hadith exists (and even some Hanafi scholars themselves considered feet to be awrah and used this hadith as an evidence. Nevertheless, the default Hanafi position remains that the feet is not part of a woman's awrah). And I never found the explanation how they addressed this particular hadith. The closest one I found was this article

• https://islamqa.org/hanafi/qibla-hanafi/34710/covering-the-feet-for-women-if-by-the-prophet-to-only-show-hands-and-face-how-come-the-hanafi-madhab-allows-this/

But even here they did not explain how the Hanafis who don't considered the feet awrah address this hadith. They only mentioned this hadith and said that the hanafis who believe feet to be awrah use this hadith as evidence, but they did not explain how the other hanafis (majority) who don't believe the feet to be awrah address this hadith.

I asked the question on this subreddit as well but nobody could answer the question.

Thankfully, yesterday I got to ask this question to a Hanafi Mufti and finally got the explanation of how the Traditionalist Hanafis address this particular narration from their traditionalist perspective. I was very pleased to finally find the answer I had been looking for, thanks to his website.

>Question:

>As Salamu Alaikum. A woman's feet is not generally considered awrah in the Hanafi Madhab. However, the other madhabs consider the feet of a woman awrah based on this hadith: “It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever drags his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him.' Umm Salamah said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what should women do with their hems?' He said: 'Let it down a hand span.' She said: 'But then their feet will show.' He said: 'Let it down a forearm's length, but no more than that.'"” Sunan an-Nasa'i 5336, Jami at-Tirmidhi 1731. The hadith is generally considered to be authentic I would like to know how the Hanafi Madhab addresses this hadith, because this hadith seems to be contradicting the Hanafi position that allows a woman to expose their feet in front of non Mahrams.

>Answer:

>Walekumussalam,

>In the Hanafi Madhhab, a woman’s feet are not considered part of the ‘awrah (that which must be covered), and it is regarded as permissible for them to remain exposed both during and outside of prayer.

>Regarding the hadith of Umm Salamah (رضي الله عنها) that you mentioned, according to the Hanafi jurists, it does not contradict their position. Rather, the Hanafi scholars have explained this hadith by understanding the instruction as referring to what is recommended and more virtuous, rather than as an obligation.

>According to the Hanafis, the instruction in this hadith to let the garment down by one handspan or one cubit was given to indicate the recommended and preferable manner of dress, not as an indication that it is obligatory.

>For a woman to cover her feet and to keep her garment longer provides greater covering, modesty, and virtue.

>Consideration of Necessity and Hardship

>One of the fundamental principles of Hanafi jurisprudence is the removal of undue hardship and difficulty.

>A woman needs to use her feet for household work, walking, and her everyday needs. If the feet were categorically considered part of the ‘awrah, it would cause considerable hardship and difficulty for women.

>For this reason, the jurists, taking into consideration general prevalence of the need (ʿumūm al-balwā) and necessity, have treated the feet (qadamayn) as an exception, similar to the face and hands, in the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse:

>إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا

>“Except what ordinarily appears thereof.”

>(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, Vol. 1, Kitāb al-Libās wa’l-Zīnah, p. 88)

>فمن مقدمة هذه المبادي ان اللباس ان يكون ساترا لعورة الانسان، فالاسلام يلزم المرأة ان تستر كل جسدها ما< عدا وجهها وكفها وقدميها فستر العورة من اهم ما يقصد باللباس.

>Al-Ashbāh wa’l-Naẓā’ir, pp. 568–571:

>الضرورات تبيح المحظورات

>ما أبيح للضرورة يتقدر بقدرها

>And Allah knows best.

Source: AskMuftiOnline

https://preview.redd.it/gx3ps2237kkh1.png?width=1800&format=png&auto=webp&s=631f718ac44f510bd059fbb299393682e70d5f22

I'm sharing this here so that in case someone else struggles the same way as me with understanding the hanafi position (which seems contradictory to the Sahih Hadith at first glance), they can access the answer more easily​

I was born in a majority Muslim country, so I naturally grew up knowing a lot about Islam. At a certain point in my life, however, I began reading more extensively and educating myself about the religion. One issue that I genuinely struggle to understand is how Muslims reconcile their belief in a prophet who, according to traditional Islamic sources, married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

The counterarguments I usually hear are:

1. It was common at the time.
2. This was what God guided him to do.
3. Women reach puberty differently depending on their race and geographical environment.

However, even if such marriages were common at the time, wouldn't a prophet be expected to understand that this could still be harmful to a young girl who is taking on enormous physical, emotional, and mental responsibilities before she has fully developed? And if Muhammad himself was somehow an exception to what would otherwise be considered harmful, why didn't he explicitly state that he was an exception? Doing so could have limited or at least reduced the number of underage marriages that continue to occur in some Muslim majority countries.

This is not simply a matter of modern opinion. The concerns surrounding child marriage, early pregnancy, and the consequences of having children before full physical and psychological maturity have been extensively studied in medicine, psychology, and public health. Research has consistently documented serious physical and mental health risks associated with child marriage and adolescent pregnancy, including increased risks to both the mother and child.

Furthermore, puberty itself does not mean that a girl is biologically or psychologically ready to become pregnant or take on the responsibilities of marriage and motherhood. This is also well established scientifically. Regardless of race, geography, or environment, reaching puberty is not equivalent to reaching full physical or psychological maturity. The fact that someone is biologically capable of reproduction does not mean that their body or mind has completed its development or that pregnancy and childbirth are therefore safe.

Another issue I struggle with concerns a hadith in which Muhammad reportedly instructed some men in the desert to drink camel milk and urine as a treatment for an illness. When I looked further into this claim, I could not find scientific evidence establishing camel urine, or urine generally, as an effective treatment for disease. In contrast, medical research has identified potential health risks associated with consuming urine, including exposure to harmful microorganisms and other contaminants. The broader scientific evidence does not establish urine consumption as a medically effective treatment for disease.

Again, these are not merely personal opinions or arguments based on modern cultural preferences. Many of the concerns I am raising have been extensively researched and studied in medicine, biology, psychology, and public health. There is substantial scientific evidence concerning the risks of child marriage, adolescent pregnancy, incomplete physical and psychological development, and the potential health dangers associated with consuming untreated biological waste products such as urine.

This leads to my broader question: how can someone continue to believe in a religion when they believe its prophet was an illiterate man who, according to its own traditional sources, engaged in wars, killed people, married a child, and described women as ناقصة عقل, meaning "deficient in intellect" or "deficient in reason"?

More specifically, how does a Muslim man reconcile that description with the women he loves and respects in his own life? How does he accept the idea that this label could be applied to his own mother or sister? And how do Muslim women themselves reconcile being described in this way with their understanding of their own dignity, intelligence, and worth?

I am not asking these questions simply to attack Muslims or Islam. I am genuinely trying to understand how these apparent contradictions can be reconciled. If Muhammad is supposed to be the ideal moral example for humanity, I struggle to understand why actions and statements that are strongly criticized by modern scientific and ethical understanding, and that have demonstrable consequences for human health and wellbeing, are attributed to him and yet defended rather than critically examined.

My question, ultimately, is this: what is the theological and moral reasoning that allows a person to look at these issues honestly, consider the historical sources as well as the scientific evidence surrounding the consequences of these practices, and still conclude that Muhammad was a divinely guided and morally exemplary prophet?

Hello everyone. Is the right given to the husband to verbally divorce/take back one's wife seen only in Islam? Do we see it across other cultures and traditions, and what is the basis of this in Islam?

The Quran itself in Surah Talaq says the following:

Then when they have ˹almost˺ reached the end of their waiting period, either retain them honourably or separate from them honourably.^(1) And call two of your reliable men to witness ˹either way˺—and ˹let the witnesses˺ bear true testimony for ˹the sake of˺ Allah. This is enjoined on whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make a way out for them.

While the scripture confirms that the husband is permitted to divorce/take back, one thing that is often not followed based on this ayah alone is a) waiting till the end of the iddah to decide whether to take back one's wife or not and b) the presence of 2 witnesses.

What I have seen scholars say is that simply saying I take you back is enough at any point in the iddah even if it was moments after pronouncing divorce, and witnesses are not needed. Where did they get this from?

These practices seem to go against the procedure laid out in these ayahs. Because there is nothing honorable in saying divorce in anger and later saying take you back, treating ones wife like a toy. The Quran stresses on the importance of doing this honorably.

Based on the ayah, the divorce may be pronounced. However for it to take effect, as in the wife is now set to leave her husbands home, witnesses need to be present. And in the case of taking back as well. This makes sense so that if the husband does take her back and gets her pregnant, and later claims that he divorced her and the baby is not his, witnesses can come forth and say he did in fact take her back.

I believe the process of a verbal divorce is psychosocially abusive to the woman. No matter the state of the relationship, divorce should be done through a court with full accountability. It is the dissolution of a contract, not an argument on Friday night. Leaving a woman should be harder than taking her, not easier. Because divorce is a stressful and painful procedure, the room for abuse should be minimized. I believe divorce as scholars have laid it out is wrong and not in accordance with the scripture.

Please correct me and challenge my thoughts. Thank you.

I'm realising that scholars have taken the notion of what is "gambling" literally too far.

The abstraction that any transaction where money changes hands based on an unknown future outcome might not be the essence of the "gambling" that is prohibited in the Quran.

The most common-senae understanding of the prohibition of gambling would imply a prohibition on the specific detrimental activity that involves the thrill of making money based on an unknown future outcome that can equally end in loss, and it is addictive and ruinous for that very reason. Any extrapolation or abstraction of gambling away from that specific kind of addictive and ruinous activity is irrational.

And it is equally absurd that people who end up ruining their and others' lives doing day-trading in halal stocks are completely fine from a religious perspective whereas those who buy pet insurance because the cost of veterinary care is exorbitant are somehow invovled in gambling.

What do the people here think about pet insurance and "gambling"?

I hope this question doesn’t offend anyone, but I’m curious to hear the different perspectives on this subject. As I understand it, Joshua Little argued that hadiths are unreliable, but I don’t think he himself is a revisionist.

So I have read the book of Abo Isaac on Amazon: The Non-Existence of The Islamic Dilemma

His main point is that the Quran actually nowhere says that it "confirms the Torah" or "confirms the Gospel".

Verses like 3:50, 5:46, 5:48, and 61:6 say that Jesus "confirmed what was present from/of the Torah" and that the Quran "confirms what is present from/of the Book (Torah and Gospel)".

He argues that the verses 3:50, 5:46, 5:48, and 61:6 use the preposition "from/of", in Arabic "مِنْ" pronounced "min".

Something from/of the Torah and Gospel exist in the time of Prophet Muhammad which is being confirmed.

This means that the whole, pristine Torah and Gospel were not available in that era until now. The Quran therefore does not acknowledge any claim of Jews and Christians that the original and complete Torah and Gospel are present. Their remains are present. This is highlighted by that preposition.

This cracks the backbone of the dilemma because the Quran does not recognize any book in its time and future as fully divine. What your thoughts on this

I have seen a series of posts that revolve around this thing for the past few weeks (not just debunk, but also defend this dilemma). This entire argument exposes how many people here are not actual academicians.

As a non-academician, I might as well do one (paraphrased from one of my past comments)

The Islamic dillema assumes that the Quran claims Gospels and Torrah are divine. It also assumes that God would never let someone follow a something God himself says is a false thing.

In my opinion, these arguments miss the point of those verses and what they are trying to mean. And I do think that these arguments are based on non sequitur and slippery slope fallacy.

First of all, the second one (God wouldn't tell someone to follow a wrong thing) is a strawman argument. It's not that God would promote you to follow a wrong thing. Rather, God would judge you based on what you think it to be the right thing, even if it is wrong.​

One example I can think of is is Quran's criticism of monasticism.

In surah 57:27 Quran criticize 2 things:

They made that up.

EVEN if they made it up, they COULDN'T FOLLOW IT.

So Quran not only criticizes them for making rulings up, but it also criticizes those people of not being able to uphold the obligations they themselves put.

Quran affirms that it cares about your intent of doing an action. There is a hadith that even if a judge is wrong, they will receive a reward because they were sincere. (reliability not pending)

In that way, when Quran talks about these other books, it uses ad-hominem/rhetoric to *critique* those people.

For example: The context of Surah 5:43 is believed to be that Jewish leaders came to the Prophet Muhammad hoping for a lenient verdict on a legal matter (adultery). They tried to evade the ruling in their own scriptures. The Quran *exposes their hypocrisy*. They claimed to follow their scripture, yet sought to abandon its laws when it is inconvenient for them.

So, these verses that "affirm" past books can be understood in this light:

"Your books are made-up/changed/corrupted. However, even then, you don't obey the books you yourselves wrote that you claim to be divine. The person that follows those books do it because they have the genuine/pure intent to follow God's words. So if you are actually sincere in your belief, follow the books you yourselves claim to be divine."

That is, in my opinion, what the Quran is actually saying.

It doesn't claim their books are divine. It says "If YOU THINK your book is divine, then follow it. I am the filter that is supposed to expose the right from the wrong in your books. Either believe me, or believe in what you think is divine. And if you are sincere, follow it. But don't come to me to affirm your own wickedness.​" (I think Quran 5:53 is literally this)

Edit: Just to be clear, I am strictly talking about the verses that tell people to "judge by their own book."

I am NOT saying that EVERY VERSE is this. I am saying that just *this branch* of verses mean this.​

Edit 2: another example:

About the execution of the Jewish tribe, Prophet Mohammad allows them to judge themselves according to their own holy book (Torah).

What is Mutazila firqa ? Where do they disagree with the ashari school of thought ? Are there any prominent personalities following it ? Was sir syed ahmed khan ( founder of Aligarh University ) a follower of mutazila ??

I want to be a stronger Muslim I don’t want to go to hell. But I want to know WHY ISLAM for you?

Thank you all

This is a struggle to me as an intellectual person because I see so many Muslims using this.

The doctrine of Tahrif is historically unverifiable independent of Islamic theology. Making it a purely theological stance rather than a historical truth. I believe it should not be used to defend the authenticity of Quranic claims and used as a presumed truth that happened in history to disprove/critique authenticity of the Bible.

It is a theological necessity that seems to be posing to be a historical truth. It cannot be used to prove or disprove authenticity because authenticity relies on historical evidence of a lack of corruption that agrees with secular definition of corruption in textual criticism. I think a theological doctrine should not be used to prove/disprove authenticity of religious texts or their parts. This is a category error.

Category error because we are taking a theological claim (tahrif), mixing it with the minor textual variations (our "evidence") and replacing the actual conclusion of scholars with the tahrif (corruption) to prove the tahrif (corruption). It's circular because we are using our own claim as an evidence. It's a categorical error because we are taking something we believe in faith with “textual evidence” to disprove authenticity which requires historical evidence (which we claim are the textual variations) and reason. We cannot mix faith with empirical evidence to prove authenticity. It requires reason and evidence. Worse, we are misrepresenting what the textual criticisms actually conlude: that 95%+ of the contents of manuscripts agree with each other, with thousands of manuscripts with only minor variations, this is a proof of independent corroboration and a lack of falsification.

I have read from a lot of places. I have read traditionalist views, modernist views, progressive views, historical views, academical views from both seculars and religious ones. Read arguments, debates, counter arguments, criticisms, rebuttal, methodologies...

Now what?

What am I supposed to believe/follow now?

Which madhab? Which sect? Which thought?

Hanafi? Maliki? Shafi? Hanbali? Salafi? Wahabi? Quranist? Non-sectarian? Progressive? Modernist? Sunni? Shia? Sufi? Ibadi? Ahmadiyya?..

Who do I trust? How much do I trust? How much do I trust tradition over history, secular explanations over divine exceptions etc... Do I trust all sahih hadiths? Do I reject all of them? Do I go on 3 hours of research for each single hadith? Do I accept whatever I like and reject whatever I dislike? Do I accept consensus? Do I have the ability to reject consensus? How much do I trust secular explanations? At what point do I reject secular explanations and say HCM is biased? Do I even at all say that, or just roll with it to the end?

What. How. Why...

If let's say you had a single wish that would come true, and your wish was for every Muslim to essentially read everything that was posted here and there, to learn about the history of Islam, from both views, and learn the nuances it has...

then what? What would happen?

We have so many research, opinions, peer-reviewed published stuff... yet we have no methodology, no way to communicate these to the average Muslim to allow them to embody these knowledges to their normal life.

If you could speak to the average Muslim, average laymen... what would you tell them to follow? To believe? To live?