| Author |
Message |
    
Vennela
Pilla Bewarse
Username: Vennela
Post Number: 4
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 66.237.36.130
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 10:58 am: |    |
>>rather, she should treat him like her own son.
Apparently, these so called scholars are extremely ignorant
>>The list includes: “The wives of your own begotten sons.”
How come they ignored this part of their Holy Quran while issuing the Fatwa. It is simply ludicrous on their part. |
Prasanth
Bewarse ke Bewarse!
Username: Prasanth
Post Number: 16530
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 203.199.213.4
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 10:41 am: | |
 |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:50 pm: | |
thx mama
 |
Infinity
Bewarse
Username: Infinity
Post Number: 2073
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.27.208.16
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:49 pm: | |
ok mama.. gtg.. taata..
de mama: i initiated the upload...u will be getting it soon.
bye |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1766
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:47 pm: | |
aa judgement yeppudo vasthundhi...
adu sachipoyinaka ???
appudu kooda adu sana manchivadu kani oke chinna thappu chesaru antaru janalu  |
Infinity
Bewarse
Username: Infinity
Post Number: 2072
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.27.208.16
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:45 pm: | |
seer admitted the crime..
judgement lo emanna kaavochu..  |
Yendi_naa_royya
Pilla Bewarse
Username: Yendi_naa_royya
Post Number: 219
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 68.199.132.27
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:44 pm: | |
infinity mama,
manchi point. |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1764
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:44 pm: | |
inthaki aa case yemi ayyindhi mama |
Yendi_naa_royya
Pilla Bewarse
Username: Yendi_naa_royya
Post Number: 218
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 68.199.132.27
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:43 pm: | |
reservations ni,muslims ni evadu emi cheyaleru. katta kattukuni votlestaru. |
Infinity
Bewarse
Username: Infinity
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.27.208.16
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:42 pm: | |
okati cheppana mama.. idey Kanchi ashram issue lo Hindu dharma ki loss ani telsina... court of law antu Jayalalitha.. samasipoyina daanni todi entha prolonge chesindi.. 
manalni manam entha degrade chesukonnamo telsu kada...  |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1763
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:42 pm: | |
yemi sesina problemee mama vallani...
 |
Infinity
Bewarse
Username: Infinity
Post Number: 2070
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.27.208.16
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:39 pm: | |
DE mama  |
Yendi_naa_royya
Pilla Bewarse
Username: Yendi_naa_royya
Post Number: 216
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 68.199.132.27
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:39 pm: | |
votla kosam rajakeeyalu ee mulayam ayina,lallu gaadu ayina. |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1760
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:38 pm: | |
appudu minority, mamalni anichesthunnaru ani antaru ...
 |
Yendi_naa_royya
Pilla Bewarse
Username: Yendi_naa_royya
Post Number: 214
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 68.199.132.27
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:36 pm: | |
asalu siggunda kodukulaki. emita fatwalu? lopalesi aragadeyyali kodukulni  |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:33 pm: | |
thu.. atavika rakalu//
valle best mama, vunnavatini follow avutharu
ee nakodukulu valla ki yela kudirithe ala marchestharu chatha na kodukulu |
Yendi_naa_royya
Pilla Bewarse
Username: Yendi_naa_royya
Post Number: 211
Registered: 06-2005
Posted From: 68.199.132.27
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:31 pm: | |
thu.. atavika rakalu |
Infinity
Bewarse
Username: Infinity
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.27.208.16
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:31 pm: | |
ade kada mama.. ittanti Mathi M leni leaders vundabattey manam ilantivi choostunnam.. inka choostam kuda..karma |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:29 pm: | |
mulayam gadu kuda adhe correct annadu kadha mama
ganthaku thagga bontha ani
illemmma dheniki panikiraru |
Infinity
Bewarse
Username: Infinity
Post Number: 2068
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.27.208.16
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:23 pm: | |
Em ledu mama.. oka islamic law/inistitution...chesina crime ni override chestu.. following statement ni samardhistu.. aa kodalni... aa maama gaadu pelli chesukoni samasaaram cheyyali annaru.
the stmt is ": “Do not marry women whom your fathers have previously married, unless it be a thing of the past. Surely, that is an indecent, abominable and evil practice.” (Verse 22.)"
they are talking about the intricacies of this law and stmt.
Kaani.. first off she is wife of his son.. The fatwa or leaders forgot all ethics and approved the above statement. The above statement may valid when the girl is never married. but she is a wife and mother to kids..
These headless leaders.. forgot the basic commonsense that.. he did gross crime by raping her. |
Donga_evaru
Bewarse
Username: Donga_evaru
Post Number: 1756
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 134.130.240.233
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 12:11 pm: | |
infi mayya antha sadavatam kastam kani asala ishayam yemiti |
Infinity
Bewarse
Username: Infinity
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 04-2005
Posted From: 66.27.208.16
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 11:44 am: | |
Monday, July 04, 2005
Imrana ‘fatwa’ is absurd, infuriating
By Adil Salahi, Religion Editor, Arab News
Imrana Ilahi, an ordinary Muslim Indian woman, recently found her name mentioned in countless articles, news despatches, email messages and angry reports going in all directions. Many people would love to be famous, and some know how to use such sudden fame to advantage. But not so Imrana, whose newly acquired fame is for the wrong reasons, and for nothing she had done or contemplated. Poor Imrana has been the target of several wrong actions by the wrong people.
To start with, Imrana was the victim of rape by none other than her father-in-law, who, according to news reports, is now in prison awaiting trial. She was, secondly, the victim of a fatwa issued by certain people who ruled that she can no longer remain married to her husband; rather, she should treat him like her own son.
Thirdly, Imrana was further victimised by the local authorities who said that they endorse the fatwa since it has been issued by a recognised institute. Fourth, she has been the victim of many self-appointed defenders who took up her case and are trying to bring pressure to bear on her, her family and the authorities to reverse this fatwa. Finally, according to some reports, Imrana has been told to move in with her rapist as she can be married to him now instead of his son, her own husband.
In the midst of all this furore, Imrana feels like one in a whirlwind of confusion. After her personal tragedy, her only desire is to continue her simple life, abiding by Islamic teachings and looking after her children. Needless to say, the case has provided new ammunition to those who are always on the lookout for anything to use in order to attack Islam and Muslims.
Looking at a reported fatwa:
Unfortunately, when the media takes up such a case, the truth is often forgotten and we are rarely able to establish the simple facts of the case. In all news agency reports I have seen, very little is written about the basis of the fatwa. A couple of quotations attributed to spokespersons at Darul-Uloom at Deoband are often mentioned, but we cannot determine who actually said what. Nevertheless, it is important to make clear the Islamic standpoint on such cases. Thus, if we see a reference to, say, a Hanafi viewpoint in the writings of a highly reputable scholar known for his accuracy and scholarly achievement but is not a Hanafi, we cannot rely on his viewpoint. We must go back to references and scholars of the Hanafi school and consult them.
Therefore, without having seen the fatwa as issued by Darul-Uloom and reviewing its basis and the evidence cited in support of it, I cannot comment on the fatwa itself. What I propose to do is to discuss the reports I have seen, and then I will look at the case of a woman raped by her father-in-law and the effect of such a situation on her marriage.
Basis of the fatwa
The reports mention that the fatwa is based on the fact that the rape was a sexual relation between Imrana and her father-in-law, and this makes it forbidden for her to be married to her husband. The reports quote certain spokespersons as saying that it does not matter that the relationship was by consent.
If the reports are accurate, then those who issued the fatwa must have taken as their basis Verse 22 of Surah 4 of the Quran, entitled Women, which may be translated as follows: “Do not marry women whom your fathers have previously married, unless it be a thing of the past. Surely, that is an indecent, abominable and evil practice.” (Verse 22.) It has to be said, however, that the Arabic word nakaha, which is used in the verse for marriage, is nowadays more often used in spoken Arabic to refer to sex, rather than marriage, but in official documents it continues to signify marriage. However, Quranic statements must be understood and interpreted according to the common usage by native Arabic speakers. We know for certain that this word was used in Arabic to refer to marriage. Therefore, it must be treated as such, and we say that the verse refers only to marital relations.
Thus, all Muslim schools of thought are unanimous that a man cannot marry his father’s former wife. It is important also to look at the above Quranic verse and its construction in order to understand its full significance. The word nakahai, or marry, is used twice in the verse, but it is used first in the present tense, which in Arabic signifies the present and the future, while it is used in the past tense in the second instance. Thus it prohibits the initiation of marriage with a woman who was previously married to one’s father. In other words, the woman’s relationship with the father is over.
Applicability to Imrana’s case
It cannot be overemphasised that the verse speaks about marital relations, and their initiation. As such, it is inapplicable to the case in hand. What happened bet-ween them came later, after she has been in a valid marital relationship with her husband to whom she has given five children. Therefore, there is no question about the validity of her marriage.
Moving in with the rapist
Most infuriating is the suggestion that some scholars are saying that Imrana should, or could move in with her father-in-law, or may marry him. I seriously doubt that this has been said by any scholar worthy of the name. The Quranic verse next to the one we have quoted above gives a list of the women Muslims are not allowed to marry in any circumstances.
The list includes: “The wives of your own begotten sons.” (4:23) These are again totally forbidden for Muslims to marry in any circumstances. Is it possible that someone who has any knowledge of Islamic family law could suggest that now that the father-in-law has raped Imrana, he can marry her? Can it be true that anyone imagines that the crime of rape could nullify a ruling by God, stated in His book, the Quran? The Prophet says that no right can accrue as a result of an offence or wrongdoing. Here it is suggested that a prohibition by God Himself is set aside as a result of such wrongdoing. The fatwa is absurd.
Courtesy: deccan.com |
