Please briefly explain Fasaaq and khulla.

Answer

The word is Faskh which means annulment. The other word is Khulah, not khulla. (1) Faskh of a marriage can be granted if the husband fails to fulfil the rights of the Nikah such as providing support, separate home and conjugal rights to his wife.

When a wife wants her marriage to be annulled, she has to submit an application to the Ulama body stating the reasons. The Ulama will then fix a date for the hearing. Both parties have to attend. If the husband does not attend, the marriage will be annulled in his absence. If he attends and if it transpires that he is guilty but he promises to reform himself and fulfil his wife's rights, then the marriage will not, and cannot be annulled. But, if he refuses to conform, the marriage will be annulled. A marriage cannot be annulled without a hearing attended by both parties.

(2) Khulah is a mutual agreement by the husband and wife to dissolve the marriage in consideration of a payment which the wife will make to the husband. If there is no compatibility between husband and wife, and she wants a divorce but the husband refuses, then she could induce him to issue Talaaq in lieu of a monetary payment. A Khulah is valid only if the husband agrees.

(3) The above is the ruling of the Shariah. However, nowadays there are many frauds – such sheikhs and maulanas who sell the Deen for money or they fall into the snare of a cunning woman who cries on their shoulders pouring out lies about her husband.. Without following the procedures of the Shariah they summarily issue the woman with a letter of annulment without even having heard the side of the husband. Such 'annulments' are not valid. The Nikah remains intact. Nevertheless, the woman regards her Nikah as terminated and gets 'married' to another man. In this way she spends her life in an adulterous relationship, and begets illegitimate offspring while labouring under the false impression that she is validly married. made clear to them…."

(al-Baqarah, 2:109)

The history of Orientalism shows that it was closely connected with the needs and purposes of colonialism and with Christian missionary ambitions. That connection remains. It has now become a part of the geopolitical strategies of Western governments and their intelligence services.

Western study of Islam as a formal discipline has long been established in specialist faculties called 'Oriental Institutes', the best known founded as long ago as the early and mid-eighteenth century. They have since spread much further and are now called 'centres' for 'Islamic studies'. The change of name is certainly intended to deceive Muslims who, naturally enough, would distrust the Oriental Institutes. The purposes and prejudices of Orientalism are now offered as 'Islamic studies'; and the purposes of Christian missions are now presented as 'Christian-Muslim relations'. In the United Kingdom, examples of the former are centres in Oxford, Exeter and Wales, and of the latter Selly Oak College in Birmingham and in the USA, the Holy Cross College in New York. It is no coincidence that such centres should have sprung up in the early or mid-eighties.

They are part of the long-term strategy of response to the revival of Islam. Centres for so-called 'Islamic studies' now exist in the prestigious academic settings of the universities of Havard, Princeton, New York, Oxford, Cambridge and Paris. Many of them are, in significant measure, financed, and also directly patronised, sponsored and supported by Arab governments, especially the Saudis. The support from Arab governments includes the appointment to the boards of these centres of 'Ulama as-Sultan (court scholars) in the role of 'trustees' or 'consultants'. These Muslim names help to legitimise the 'Islamic studies' and so deceive the Muslims further.

In these centres, atheist, Christian and Jewish scholars have at least an equal, usually greater, authority than Muslim scholars in the choice and framing of topics for research in Islamic history and civilisation and in teaching of Islam. The 'court scholars' (among whom are Yusuf Qardawi, Abdullah Naseef, and Abdullah Turki) are rarely, if ever, present in the centres, attending only ceremonial meetings, at most once a year: they do not supervise or monitor or direct or decide anything. Their only job is to provide a façade of legitimacy and to establish the fact of collaboration.

How should we judge this collaboration with Orientalists otherwise than as the Qur'an commands us to judge? One of the duties of Muslim scholars is to invite non-Muslims, especially the People of the Book, to Islam, not to work alongside them in denigrating Islam:

"Say: 'O People of the Book, come to an agreement between us and you – that we shall worship none except Allah, and that we shall associate no partner with Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah.' Then, if they turn away, then say: 'Be witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah)." – Aal-e-Imraan, 3:64 To collaborate with Orientalists is, in practice to ally with them, which is the opposite of what the Qur'an commands. But why do we call such collaboration an alliance? Because it takes the form of material and moral assistance to the activities of the Orientalists for their purposes. This helps to sustain their attack on Islam and to continue their ridicule of the Qur'an and the Nabi, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.

"Those who choose unbelievers for their allies instead of believers – do they look for power at their hands? Surely, all power belongs to Allah. He has already revealed to you in the Book that when you hear the revelations of Allah rejected and made fun of, you should not sit with them until they are in some other conversation. For surely, if you (did stay with them) you would be like them." – (an-Nisaa, 4:139 – 140)

Alliance with the enemies of Islam is forbidden. Also forbidden is receiving Islam from them. Muslims may not learn Islam from non-Muslims. How should believers receive Islam from those who not only disbelieve in Islam but are hostile to it. How should they receive right guidance from those who are misguided?

Refusing to work with the People of the Book in the study of Islam is, it is argued, an expression of intolerance when, as we all know, Islam requires Muslims to be tolerant. But this argument is quite false and based upon a dishonest confusion between tolerating the People of the Book and being loyal to their purposes.

A Muslim is required to be tolerant of the People of the Book, but he is forbidden to give them loyalty, that is, to help them as allies."

(To be continued, Insha'Allah)