Q. I would like to take issue with you on several points you have mentioned. The first is that you quote a Hadith allowing a wife to steal from her husband. How come theft is said to be permissible in this way when it is certainly forbidden in Islam? The second is that you do not seem to give much weight to the order that a true and good Muslim should give whatever he has above his needs to the state. I would like also to ask Professor Mustafa Azami, who has devoted more than 35 years for research on Hadith: if the compilation of Hadith began in the days of the Prophet, how come God did not guarantee its protection as He did for the Qur’an? Secondly how is it that there are two Hadiths saying that the Prophet had ordered his companions not to write anything from him except the Qur’an, (one of these is in Muslim), then how come that in spite of this Al-Bukhari had the courage to write down the Hadiths? Does it constitute a defiance of the Prophet’s instructions?
M.H. Khan, Karachi
A. To start with, every Muslim knows that the two sources of Islamic law are the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The latter includes everything that is authentically reported to have been said, done or approved by the Prophet. Hence scholars have taken diligent care to establish the authenticity of every Hadith attributed to the Prophet. This process began at the time of the Prophet’s companions, shortly after he had passed away, and culminated in the great efforts by the masters of Hadith scholarship, such as Malik, Al-Shafie, Yahya ibn Ma’een, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Nassaie, Al-Tirmithi, Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah. These are listed in chronological order, although some of them were contemporaries. There are many other scholars who worked hard on the verification and authentication of every reported Hadith. Thus, we have a wealth of Hadith scholarship that gives us practically all that we need in order to establish how to lead our life so that we remain within what God approves.
Why has not God guaranteed to preserve the Hadith as He did with the Qur’an? The answer is simply that He preserved His word, which constitutes the essence of the Islamic faith and left the preservation of the Hadith to us. We cannot say that since its writing began at the time of the Prophet then God could have guaranteed its preservation. He could have done that anyway, without its being written down. He does not need that it should be written on paper in order to preserve it.
Yes, the Prophet instructed his companions at first not to write anything other than the Qur’an. But this was for a period of time, when he feared that his statements might be confused with the Qur’an. Hence, he wanted his companions to concentrate, in that early stage, on the Qur’an. Later, when this fear was no longer operative he allowed the writing down of Hadith. There were many of his companions who wrote down whatever Hadith they heard from him. Most notable among these was Abdullah ibn Amr. So, Al-Bukhari did not defy the Prophet’s orders. Indeed he complied with them and did a great service to Islam by documenting the Hadiths he was certain to be of high degree of authenticity, as did Muslim and the other scholars of Hadith. The whole Muslim community over more than 12 centuries remain indebted to them.
As for a woman taking her husband’s money without his knowledge, this could be stealing and could be acceptable, depending on the circumstances of every particular case. An authentic Hadith mentions that Hind bint Utbah complained to the Prophet that her husband, Abu Sufyan, was stingy and did not give her enough money to look after the family. She asked the Prophet whether she could take some money from him without permission. The Prophet told her: "Take what is sufficient for you and your child, in line with what is reasonable."
This is a situation where the husband is in default on his duties. He has the money but he does not provide his wife and children with the decent standard of living he can afford. So, what is his wife to do? The woman who asked the Prophet this question belonged to a leading family in the highest-ranking Arabian tribe. The Prophet’s answer was to allow her to take only what is sufficient for her and her child, and only according to what is reasonable. This is certainly not stealing. It is a remedy of a difficult situation.
Nor is it true what the reader says about giving to the state whatever is left with us. This is neither stated in the Qur’an, nor was encouraged by the Prophet or practiced by his companions. How come that we could think of it as being required by Islam?
As for your query about the late Sheikh Abdul Azeez ibn Baz, I am sorry to tell you that he passed away a couple of years ago. May God shower His mercy on him.
Re-marriage after first divorce
Q. What is the ruling concerning a person who says to his wife, ‘This is my first divorce to you?’ After nearly four months, he decides to return to his wife in a matrimonial relationship. During these four months of their separation, his wife did not have monthly periods.
S.J. Khan, Jeddah
A. If the man in question intended his statement as a divorce, then that is the effect of his statement. His wife was divorced from him at the time when he said it. As a result, she had to observe a waiting period lasting until she completed 3 menstruation periods or 3 periods of cleanliness. During this time, his wife would be staying in their home, but they should be using separate bedrooms. While this waiting period continues, the man could re-instate the marriage by word or action, and the marriage would then be on again. The couple may have a second divorce and re-marriage, because this is what God says in the Qur’an: "Divorce may take place twice, whereupon a woman may either be retained in fairness or released with kindness." (2: 229) Should this happen a third time, then the divorce is final and the couple may not be reunited again unless the woman marries another man and, in the normal course of life, this other husband dies or decides to divorce her. This other marriage must not be intended as a temporary one, for in such a case it will not be valid. It has to be intended to last like any other marriage.
You say that the woman did not have her period for four months. Was she pregnant? If so, then her waiting period continues until she delivers her child. Therefore, if the re-marriage was before the child’s birth, then what happened was perfectly legitimate. If she was not pregnant, and she was possibly beyond menopause, then her waiting period is three months. Since the re-marriage was after 4 months, then they needed a fresh marriage contract and she is entitled to have a new dowry.
