Lizzie Schofield’s ‘Halala’ Disaster

Lizzie Schofield of the Pfander Center for Pandering, recently published an article after many lengthy seconds of searching a fatwa (Islamic legal opinion) website for the keyword, “halala” (she refers to the act of Googling as consulting Islamic scholars). Br. Abu Ayoub of MAP and Simply Seerah, recently refuted her, after having done an excellent article explaining why she was wrong. One can read Lizzie’s latest article here.

Unfortunately for Lizzie, the rest of us are interested in honest and sincere dialogue. We do not seek to misinform, misquote, or misinterpret those we disagree with. Therefore, I find it quite embarrassing that Lizzie did not read the sources she was quoting from. See, Lizzie quoted a fatwa from a specific group in Islam, Deobandis. She quoted a fatwa from that group, because according to her statistics, 45% of British Muslims belong to that group:

So, if this is the advice from the group that controls 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques, and almost all of the Islamic training in Britain, is the BBC right to assert that halala marriage is something “the vast majority of Muslims are strongly against?” Can the BBC provide any independent research on this subject?

However, what Lizzie failed to acknowledge, see, or accept, was that the same group, in a fatwa on ‘halala’ explicitly says:

“If Nikah was performed on the condition of Halala or by fixing a fee to be paid to the second man, then this is a grave sin and unlawful.

i.e. if the marriage was performed for the sake of, and with the condition of ‘halala’, it is a grave sin and unlawful.

All she had to do was properly read the website she was quoting from, before rushing to make an article that misrepresented the Islamic faith. In the end though, can we really expect anything different from Lizzie Schofield? If this is her way of inviting people to Christianity, I can see why the faith is losing so many members.

Let's fight the haters!

and God knows best.

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

15 replies

  1. I’m afraid to say I’m not surprised. This type of superficiality and/or intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of Pfander blogs which are written by Lizzie Schofield. I have corrected her on numerous points and flawed argumentation in the past – all to no avail. She just carries on with the same disregard for accuracy and truth. A mirror of Jay Smith.Sad.

    Initially I just viewed her as a middle-aged woman who was being taken advantage of by Pfander Ministries as she probably just wanted a bit of extra cash but now, I can see given she is quite articulate and surely can get a proper job, that she has to accept responsibility for the reputation of dishonesty which has stuck to her.

    Pfander Christians, you do not honour your prohet Paul of Tarsus with dishonesty.

    When I see Pfander Christians, I see folks who need the truth.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Lizzie addressed those points in numbers 2&3. Why are you pretending she *missed* something or deliberately mislead?

    Like

  3. “If Nikah was performed on the condition of Halala or by fixing a fee to be paid to the second man, then this is a grave sin and unlawful. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

    “Allah’s curse is on the one who makes a contract or agreement for Halala (Both the one who carries out Halala and the one who it is done for.” (Sunan al Darami / Mishkat al Masabih)

    However, if there is only an intention of Halala in the heart and no verbal agreement was made, then according to the majority of Fuqaha, this is permissible and valid (Radd al-Muhtar)”

    Lizzie addressed the second paragraph detailing that the Hadith is weak.

    She also addressed the third paragraph, the difference between intention and lawfulness. The fatwa she cited from the same group expilicitly mentioned that no halala was discussed, but was assumed. This is permissible according to this fatwa.

    Ijaz, you are the one being deceitful. As long as no verbal discussion takes place, then the temporary whore house is legal, regardless of intentions.

    Like

    • This Christian polemist is really bad ! First it is Sunan Ibn Majah and not Majar!

      This isn’t some typo. She repeatedly does this in her “debate”. This tells you she that she is reading from a hymm sheet and does not quite understand the references she is putting forward!

      This matters as we shall see later. I quote

      “Is a curse the same as the prohibition? Not according to Dar al-Iftar(sic)…”

      Another typo! It isn’t the Dar of breaking one’s fast! It is Darulifta! Now she claims that in the Hanafi madhab a curse is not a hermeneutic indicator for prohibition. Why because it is “severely disliked”

      She does not understand Hanafi Usul al Fiqh. This term is used when the basis for prohibition comes from a source that does not have mass transmission. It is still forbidden but is not attested to on a mass scale. In other phrase is epistemological and has nothing to do with prohibition on a pragmatic scale!

      Then we have a concern about the “weakness” of the hadith in “Ibn Majar”. There are quite few narrations that talk about this matter! Although aspects are debated i.e. some phrases that surround the narration, the core phrase is not. The phrase that God curses the muhalal etc is authentic. She has to deal with many more narrations.

      See this link

      http://majles.alukah.net/t50941/

      Finally we need to talk about intentions and lawfulness.

      Judges can only judge by what is apparent. The contract maybe unlawful to God but but not to a judge who can’t see what is in someone’s heart. So if I pretend to marry someone with the secret intention of divorcing her, the marriage maybe valid in an apparent manner but not in the real sense. We also have the possibility where a woman really does marry another man and things do not work out. Why isn’t that a possibility? Why would this contradict the narration about the intention of the muhalil?

      To show how silly this, one can play legal fictions with commercial contracts (not just interest based), employment contracts, marriage contracts etc.

      For example I marry for the first time with the hidden intention to divorce, does that make marriage contracts invalid and contradictory ? Oh yes, forgot the impractical divorce proceedings in some Chrisitian denominations.

      Really bizarre reasoning.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “If Nikah was performed on the condition of Halala or by fixing a fee to be paid to the second man, then this is a grave sin and unlawful. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

    “Allah’s curse is on the one who makes a contract or agreement for Halala (Both the one who carries out Halala and the one who it is done for.” (Sunan al Darami / Mishkat al Masabih)

    However, if there is only an intention of Halala in the heart and no verbal agreement was made, then according to the majority of Fuqaha, this is permissible and valid (Radd al-Muhtar)”

    Lizzie addressed the second paragraph detailing that the Hadith is weak.

    She also addressed the third paragraph, the difference between intention and lawfulness. The fatwa she cited from the same group expilicitly mentioned that no halala was discussed, but was assumed. This is permissible according to this fatwa.

    Ijaz, you are the one being deceitful. As long as no verbal discussion takes place, then the temporary whore house is legal, regardless of intentions.

    Like

  5. Anyone for Sharia blasphemy law camouflaged as hate speech law?

    What is your definition of hate speech, anything that slanders Islam?

    Are Muslims here exhibiting signs of Pathological Dissentophobia?

    Like

  6. Amos 5:15

    Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate:

    Here is our God given right to publically discuss what is good and evil in the public square. No law can be against it.

    Like

  7. Halala means an intention where a man asks his ex-wife to marry another man and have sex with him just to make her lawful to him again. And on this contract the three parties i.e., The Man, Ex-Wife and the Billy-GOat(another man) agree to do such thing, this is called halala which is strictly a haram thing in Islam.

    #1.Lizzie shamelessly mention that Quran 2:230 implies halala.She interpolates his own sad views into the Quran by claiming that the Quran allows halala. Can she back her arguments up by Standard Tafsirs of Classical scholars? This is dismissed as errant nonsense by all those who know what this verse says.It just goes to show that a ‘little knowledge is dangerous’, I would like to add that severely stunted knowledge coupled with a hateful agenda is even more dangerous as illustrated by the nature of the ignorant claims of the Islamophobes.The verse Quran 2:230 is not understood the way understand. Check out Tafsir Ibn Kathir

    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=172

    The reason for the woman (who was divorced thrice) to marry another man must be that the man desires her and has the intention of having an extended married life with her. These are the legal goals and aims behind marriage. If the reason behind the second marriage was to make the woman eligible for her ex-husband again, then this is the Tahlil that the Hadiths have cursed and criticized. In addition, when the reason behind this marriage (if it was Tahlil) is announced in the contract, it would make the contract invalid according to the majority of the scholars.
    Imam Ahmad reported that `Abdullah bin Mas`ud said, “Allah’s Messenger cursed the one who does Tahlil, the one in whose favor it is done, those who eat Riba (usury) and those who feed it (pay the usury).” At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i reported this Hadith and At-Tirmidhi said, “This Hadith is Hasan.” He said, “This is what is acted upon according to people of knowledge among the Companions, among whom are `Umar, `Uthman and Ibn `Umar. It was also the saying of the scholars of Fiqh among the Tabi`in (second generation of Islam). And it has been reported from `Ali, Ibn Mas`ud and Ibn `Abbas”.
    In his Mustadrak, Al-Hakim reported that Nafi` said: “A man came to Ibn `Umar and asked him about a man who divorced his wife three times. Then, his brother married her to make Tahlil for his brother, without the brother knowing this fact. He then asked, “Is she allowed for the first (husband)” He said, “No, unless it is a marriage that involves desire. We used to consider this an act of adultery during the time of Allah’s Messenger .” Al-Hakim said, “This Hadith has a Sahih chain although they (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it.”The wording of this Hadith indicates that the ruling came from the Prophet . Abu Bakr bin Abu Shaybah, Al-Jawzjani, Harb Al-Kirmani and Abu Bakr Al-Athram said that Qabisah bin Jabir said that `Umar said, “If the participants to Tahlil are brought to me, I will have them stoned.”

    [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

    Also Maulana Maududi Tafsir

    It is known from authentic Traditions that it is totally illegitimate for a person to arrange the marriage of his divorced wife with someone else on the understanding that the latter will divorce her to make it possible for the former husband to recontract marriage with that woman. Such trickery would in fact be an act of sheer sexual corruption and would not render the woman liable to remarriage with her former husband. According to a Tradition transmitted from ‘Ali, Ibn Mas’ud, Abu Hurayrah and ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir, the Prophet pronounced his curse on those who arrange, as well as on those who agree to contract, such fictitious marriages. (See Muslim. ‘Talaq’, l5, 71; Nasa’i, ‘Talaq’, 8; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, P. 314 and vol. 5, p. 334; Al-Muwatta’, ‘Talaq’, 27; Abu Da’ud. ‘Talaq’. 10 – Ed.)

    [Tafsir Maududi]

    She then claims the law of Quran oppressive where it is incumbent upon women to have a normal marriage and then have a normal divorce after which she can go back to her former husband. Well, In Islam, if a woman gets divorced or divorces herself from her husband through the Islamic court by “Khala'”, then the only way she can get back with her husband, or her husband gets back to her is by HER MARRYING ANOTHER PERSON, HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HIM, AND THEN GET A DIVORCE FROM HIM. This is to guarantee that divorce would not be a joke among Muslims. And both Man and Woman should think before they take extreme action and not in haste and under anger.

    #2.The hadees of Rifa’h that Lizzie mentioned doesn’t mention that Abd al-Rahman married her with the intention of Halala. Rather the reports of the hadees indicate that he married her and wanted to keep her, and he did not divorce her just because she asked for a divorce. Rather she wanted to go back to her first husband.And then Prophet explained and made her understand. That is it. Simple. Where is halala in this?

    #3. Next,these are the 5 hadees which condemns halala.

    It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said:“The Messenger of Allah cursed the Muhallil and the Muhallal lahu.” [Ibn majah Book 9, Hadith 2009]

    ‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir narrated: that the Messenger of said: ‘Shall I not tell you of a borrowed billy goat.” They said: “Yes, O Messenger of!” He said: “He is Muhallil. May curse the Muhallil and the Muhallal lahu.”[Ibn Majah Book 9, Hadith 2011]

    It was narrated that ‘Abdullah said:”The Messenger of Allah cursed the woman who tattoos and the one tattooed, the woman who fixed hair extensions and the one who had her hair get extended, the consumer of Riba and the one who pays it, and Al-Muhallil and Al-Muhallal Lahu.” [Sunan an-Nasa’i 3416]

    Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:(The narrator Isma’il said: I think ash-Sha’bi attributed this tradition to the Prophet)The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Curse be upon the one who marries a divorced woman with the intention of making her lawful for her former husband and upon the one for whom she is made lawful. [Sunan Abu Dawud 2076]

    It was narrated from Ibn ‘Awn, from Ash-Sha’bi, from Al-Harith, who said:”The Messenger of Allah [SAW] cursed the one who consumes Riba, the one who pays it, the one who writes it down and the one who witnesses it; the woman who does tattoos and the woman who has that done”- he said: “Unless it is done as a remedy;” he said: “Yes”- “the man who married a woman in order to divorce her so that she may go back to her first husband and the man (the first husband) for whom that is done; and the one who withholds Sadaqah (Zakah). And he used to forbid wailing (in mourning), but he did not say ‘cursed'” [Sunan an-Nasa’i 5104]

    Moreover,According to Hazrat Umar (R.A.) the punishment of Halala is Rajam.

    ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) said whilst addressing the people: “By Allaah, no muhallil or muhallal lahu will be brought to me but I will stone them.”[This is narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannif 7/293, Abd al-Razzaaq with his chain in his al-Musannif 6/2650, Sunan Saeed bin Mansoor 2/75,ad-Dahabee in Seyar ailam an-Nubala under the Tarjuma of Al-Amash]

    If Caliph Umar would see the practice of halala he would have ordered to stone these people (who practice even after knowing it is haram) to death.

    #4.Then we have famous Scholars condemning like

    Ibn al-Qayyim said:
    “With regard to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursing them [the muhallil and the muhallal lahu], this is either telling that Allah, may He be exalted, has cursed them, or it is a supplication for them to be cursed. This indicates that it is haraam and is a major sin. End quote from Zaad al-Ma‘aad fi Hadiy Khayr al-‘Ibaad (5/672)”

    So here we see that the concept of Allah or the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) cursing some action means clearly that it it considered impermissible.

    In addition to the past scholars forbidding such practices, we also have modern Islamic countries not only banning the practice, but also considering it as fornication. Take for instance the previous Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh ibn Baaz who said about Halala marraige:

    “This is one of the most abhorrent kinds of falsehood, and one of the gravest kinds of corruption. He is in effect a zaani (fornicator or adulterer), because he did not marry her so that she could be a wife to him, and keep him chaste and stay with him, and so that he might hope to have children from her. No, rather he came as a borrowed billy-goat, to make her permissible for the one who came before him, by having intercourse with her once, then leaving her and finishing with her. This is the muhallil; his marriage is invalid and is not legitimate, and she does not become permissible for the first husband so long as (the second husband) married her with this intention and for this purpose. It is an invalid marriage and she is not permissible for him or for the first husband, because this is not a marriage, and Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “until she has married another husband” [al-Baqarah 2:230]. This is a borrowed billy-goat, not a legitimate husband, and he does not make her permissible for the first husband .”
    End quote from Fataawa ash-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (20/277, 278)

    We also have Shaykh Muhammad Al-Munajid who when asked about such marraiges said:
    “It is not permissible for the man who issued the divorce, or for the woman, to use tricks to get around the laws of Allah and get back together by means of what is called a tahleel marriage. This kind of marriage takes several forms, including the following:
    1. where the husband who had issued the divorce, or the woman, or her guardian, hire a human “billy-goat”, and stipulate that he must marry the divorced woman, consummate the marriage with her, then divorce her, and they give him a sum of money in return for that!
    2. Where a man marries that divorced woman without making any agreement with anybody, but his aim is to make her permissible for the first husband, then he divorces her.
    Tahleel marriages are haraam and invalid, and those who do that deserve to be cursed.”

    In addition to this the Standing Committee in Saudi Arabia was asked about a similar case in which they issued the following ruling (which mind you is then becomes the official government opinion):

    “Getting married with the intention of divorce is a temporary marriage, and a temporary marriage is an invalid marriage, because it is mut’ah, and mut’ah is haraam by consensus. Valid marriage is where a man gets married with the intention of keeping his wife and staying with her if she proves to be a good wife and he gets along with her, otherwise he may divorce her. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness” [al-Baqarah 2:229].
    And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessing and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.
    Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah Aal al-Shaykh, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd.”
    Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (18/448, 449).

    #5. Finally, she try to twist the meaning of Curse. Well, when in religion something is Cursed that means it’s a sin. Curse is a solemn utterance intended to invoke a supernatural power to inflict harm or punishment on someone or something. Now when we get punishment? When we committ sin. Exactly.
    Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:With regard to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursing them [the muhallil and the muhallal lahu], this is either telling that Allah, may He be exalted, has cursed them, or it is a supplication for them to be cursed. This indicates that it is haraam and is a major sin. [Zaad al-Ma‘aad fi Hadiy Khayr al-‘Ibaad (5/672)]

    So stop mis-quoting verses. Go read and learn from our exegetes and seek the help of our scholars if you are sincere and honest individual.

    Don’t get why Lizzie is so desperate every time. Does she need lies and tricks to spread Christianity?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Deut 24 says that it is forbidden for a woman to marry her former husband if she has married another man.

    So what would be allowed under Sharia would be forbidden in the law of Moses.

    It is ironic that Mohammed saw himself as the fulfilment of a law that he commanded others to break as a condltion of remarriage after divorce.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Lizzie Schofield’s ‘Halala’ Disaster | kokicat
  2. Br. Paul Debates Lizzie in Hyde Park – Blogging Theology

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: