Getting Married In Shawwaal


Can we say it is recommended to get married in Shawwal because of the narration of Sayyidah ‘Aaishah (radiyallahu ‘anha) that Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) got married to her in Shawwal, or it was just coincidence?



As Muslims, we believe nothing was a coincidence in the life of Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam). Allah Ta’ala divinely chose for his Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) whatever was ideal for him.

For example, our Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) left this world on a Monday. This was no coincidence.

Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (radiyallahu’anhu) had wished that he too should die on a Monday.

Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) has cited the following chapter in his book:

‘Chapter on [the virtue of] dying on a Monday’

(See Fathul Bari, Hadith: 1387)

In the same light, since Sayyidah ‘Aaishah (radiyallahu’anha) was the most beloved of wives to Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) -after Sayyidah Khadijah radiyallahu’anha-. Many people take a good omen in also emulating the date of their marriage, so as to acquire love and harmony in their relationship. Like was the case of the relationship between Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) and Sayyidah ‘Aaishah (radiyallahu’anha).

There is no harm in this.

In fact, Sayyidah ‘Aaishah (radiyallahu’anha) herself would also like to get the women of her family and friends married off in Shawwal.

(Sahih Muslim, hadith: 3468)

Therefore several Muhaddithun have cited this Hadith [of Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) marrying Sayyidah ‘Aaishah (radiyallahu’anha) in Shawwal] under the chapter of it being mustahab to get married in Shawwal. 

See: Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith: 1093 and ‘Allamah Nawawi’s wording of the chapter in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 3468.


And Allah Ta’ala Knows best,

Answered by: Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar


camel hump bun hair4.4


The sudden upsurge in the new “hijabi” trend amongst Muslim females is both
unfortunate and disturbing. This trend involves making a large bun in order to attract
attention to oneself, sometimes using hair clips to create a big camel-like hump on the
head. This is not only a deception but also a form of Tabarruj (a woman’s making a
wanton display of her beauty) which is contradictory to the rules of hijab and a
destructive sin in the Sight of Allah.
Nabi sallaahu alaihi wasallam said:
“There will be in the latter part of my Ummah scantily dressed women, the hair on the
top of their heads like a camel’s hump. Curse them, for verily they are cursed.”
(Muslim & At-Tabrani)
“There are two types of people from the inhabitants of Hell whom I have not seen: men
in whose hands are whips like the tails of cattle, with which they beat the people, and
women who are clothed yet naked, those who incline towards others and cause others
to incline towards them, whose heads are like the humps of camels. They will neither
enter Paradise nor smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be detected from
such and such a distance.” (Muslim)

Should a woman change her name to her husband’s when she marries or keep her fathers/maiden name?

While there is no Shar’i incumbency for a woman to adopt the surname of her husband, it is not prohibited. There is also no Shar’i incumbency on a woman to go through a kaafir legal process and spend a large sum of money to have her adoptive (husband’s surname) changed.
In this era, more especially in non-Muslim countries where we live, a woman takes to her husband’s surname merely as a convenience in the same way as we make use of the Christian calendar. In fact, it is haraam to expunge the Islamic calendar. It is Waajib for Muslims to keep alive the Islamic calendar. Many important Shar’i masaa-il are linked to the Islamic calendar. Yet most Muslims even the anonymous author calling for the compulsory cancellation of the husband’s surname, do not use the Islamic dates.
Non-Arab Muslims all over the world from the very early epoch of Islam did not adopt the Arab custom of naming themselves , e.g. Abdullah Ibn Muhammad ibn so and so…, despite the fact that it was Rasulullah’s style and the style of the Sahaabah. There is no incumbency to adopt an Arab style which the Shariah does not impose on us.
If we are going to write only Islamic dates on cheques and other legal documents in the kuffaar country, it will create serious problems. Despite Islamic dates being Waajib, circumstances constrain us to adopt the Christian calendar. In a single city there may be 10 families, all having the same surname, e.g. Ahmad, since Ahmed was their father. In every Ahmed family there is a Maryam, Aisha, Faatimah, etc. Every Maryam thus is ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed’. We have therefore ten women with the name ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed’. Now when one of them dies, if it is announced only that Maryam Binti Ahmad has passed away, no one will know to whom the reference is made. Thus, circumstances constrain us to say: “The Maryam Binti Ahmed died who is the wife of Abdullah Qaasim. Instead of saying or writing on the notice board, ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed, the wife of Abdullah Qaasim, there is no Shar’i restriction to stating the same long sentence in an abbreviated form such as ‘Maryam Qaasim’. Everyone in the town/neighbourhood will know exactly who this particular Maryam who has died is.

Instead of each time when there is a need, to say “Aishah Binti Abdullah, the wife of Husain Patel”, the abbreviation, Aishah Patel is used. This merely conveys the information that Aishah is Husain Patel’s wife, and nothing more. If ‘Aishah’ Patel’ is haraam, then saying ‘Aishah is the wife of Husain Patel’ will likewise be haraam. But just as this is drivel, so too is the former drivel.
With regard to the wife adopting the husband’s surname, it was never ‘eagerness to copy the West’ which led to this. Copying the West on this issue is the furthest from the minds of Muslims, even modernist Muslims. Yes, dress-styles, eating from tables, with knives and forks, shaving the beard, kuffaar hair styles and many other practices which Muslims have adopted are undoubtedly in imitation of the kuffaar West, hence haraam.
It is a pity that the writer of the article has selected to remain anonymous. If he reveals himself then we could direct a number of questions to him to ascertain the degree of his adoption of western life styles. From the style of his writing and thinking it is almost certain that he is a Salafi. If so, then his permanent practice will be to strut around with a bare head in public. They don’t believe in Rasulullah’s headgear. Salafis have adopted the western haraam practice of shunning headgear. Another salient practice of almost all Salafis is to dress exactly like kuffaar with jeans, T-shirts and the like. While they turn a blind eye to such haraam, futile and destructive practices which they have copied from the West, they harp on non-issues which have been adopted for convenience without the intention of emulating the west.
It is not contended that Islam requires a woman to change her name at marriage. By the same token, Islam does not prohibit a woman from adopting her husband’s surname. The imagined prohibition is a figment of someone’s mind. While there may be “nothing in the Sunnah to indicate that a woman should take her husband’s name after she gets married”, there is also nothing in the Sunnah to indicate that we should ride or not ride in cars and planes, and use or not use phones and adopt and use or not the innumerable amenities and practices which have become part of life. Is there anything in the Sunnah to indicate that Muslims should not wear headgear and strut around in public with bear heads like the kuffaar?
The absence of an indication in the Sunnah is not a principle for prohibition. There are principles in Fiqah – in the Shariah – on which the ahkaam are formulated. Wildly fluctuating personal opinion has no share in formulating Shar’i rulings.
Adopting the husband’s surname was simply not a practice among the Arabs. This is not a basis for prohibition. The objector should produce a Shar’i daleel for prohibition.
When a woman adopts her husband’s surname, she is not concealing her lineage. She is not denying that a certain man is her father. The entire community is fully aware of her lineage. Her lineage is not lost by adopting her husband’s surname.
The Qur’aanic verse cited by the anonymous objector has no reference to a woman adopting her husband’s surname. It pertains to an adopted child. In this regard there is an imperative need to retain and publicize the adopted child’s surname to avoid confusion. If this is not done, the child could end up marrying his own sister or sister marrying her own brother. Since concealing the child’s lineage leads to confusion, deception and possible haraam, it is essential to declare the child’s lineage. But there is no such concealment and confusion in the case of a woman adopting her husband’s surname.
The adoption of the husband’s surname is not motivated by any idea of ‘honour’. It is simply an issue of convenience like the adoption of the Christian calendar, nor is it an expression of love as the objector reads into the issue.
While originally she is the daughter of so and so, we shall go further and say that she forever remains the daughter of so and so. But, at the same time she has become the wife of so and so. There is no prohibition in saying that she is the wife of so and so. This is the reality.
When her husband dies or she is divorced and marries another man, what Shar’i prohibition is there to prevent her from taking the new surname? This question of the objector is superfluous.
The rulings to which the objector refers, are not attached to her name as he alleges. The rulings are related to her physical being. Her name change brings no change to the rulings pertaining to inheritance, her mahram, etc. Everything remains exactly the same despite her assumption of her husband’s surname. It is palpably drivel to say that “taking her husband’s name overlooks all that”. It overlooks nothing at all.
The claim: “Besides, the husband has nothing that makes him better than his wife’s father.” , is erroneous. The husband has much which makes him better than her father with regard to her. After marriage, her greater obedience shifts from her parents to her husband. In relation to the wife, the husband has greater say and authority over her than her father. She is subservient to her husband to a far greater degree than to her father. Now when her entire being is subordinate to her husband, what wrong is there if her name too becomes subordinate to her husband? What Shar’i argument is there to prohibit the subordination of her name?
The fact that we shall be called by our father’s name in the Hereafter is no prohibition for adopting the husband’s surname. Some prohibited things in this world will become permissible in Jannat. And, some permissible things of the Hereafter are prohibited for us here in this world.
The argument of the objector is without merit. It is permissible for a woman to adopt her husband’s name. Such adoption is devoid of emulation of the West or any other haraam factor. And Allah knows best.


A.S. Desai

For Mujlisul Ulama of S. A.

Malpractice in Modern Medicine

Dr Robert Mendelsohn received his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Chicago in 1951. For 12 years he was an instructor at Northwest University Medical College, and an additional 12 years served as Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health and Preventive Medicine at the University of Illinois, College of Medicine.

He was also President of the National Health Federation, former National Director of Project Head Starts Medical Consultation Service, and Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of the State of Illinois.

He appeared on over 500 television and radio talk shows, and is the author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women, and How To Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor

The following are excerpts from an article prepared by a concerned fiend some time ago in Australia on the topic of The Immorality of the Western medical practice.

For the last three years I have been writing my thoughts and observations regarding the futility and immorality of the ritual examinations of pregnant women and the tactics adopted by obstetricians.

The book, “Health Shock” devotes a chapter on the risk of all types of obstetrical interventions. But, that was not enough, I felt.

Finally my search for literature on this subject proved successful.

The book, “Male Practice-How the Doctors Manipulate Women”, answers all my questions.

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn gives enough details on the subject ranging from obstetrical deceptions to hazardous and erotic interventions.

Dr. Mendelsohn calls obstetricians idiots.

The present birth position adopted in hospitals, the learned doctor says originated with King Louis XIV. To satisfy his erotic desire of peeping from behind the curtain, he induced his nurses to adopt the current posture ( the supine position) for his laboring mistresses so that he could get an erotic view of it.

The birthing stool disappeared and the supine position was adopted. A risky and an erotic view sustained by royal patronage was elevated to a science. There are many dangers to the child and the mother by adopting this supine position.

Research has revealed that squatting alters the pelvic shape in a way that makes it advantageous for delivery. But by a royal edict the law of gravity was subverted. The lithotomy position was the result of an erotic craving of the aberrant French king, which position it is said creates the pathology that makes normal birth abnormal.

Eroticism is at the heart of many modern medical practices.

There are the erotic contact, erotic ogling, erotic handling, erotic prickling and in extreme cases erotic orgasm. On account of this type of perversion sociologists consider nude examination of pregnant women an act similar to rape. The recollection of this physical violence gives them recurrent nightmares.
Dr. Mendelsohn states in support of this:

“Clearly, sexist behavior is at the heart of the medical abuse that women suffer.”

Very often we read reports of the misbehavior of physicians towards female patients. They derive erotic pleasure by viewing the nude female body. The white-robed “priests” pose as saints to the unsuspecting victim.

The entire immoral ritual of female examinations like prickling, pinching, squeezing, rubbing and ogling has sexual connections but no basis in science.

Dr. Mendelsohn describes all routine examinations purposeless and ritualistic. In fact, the Doctor explodes:

“Doctors are latter-day Don Quixote, battling sometimes real but too often imaginary diseases. The disastrous difference is that doctors are not tilting at windmills.

Rather, it is people who are damaged by their insistent search for dubious diseases to conquer.”

Another tragedy which occurred in medical history, was the transition of the functions of the midwifes to the hands of male doctors. For thousands of years, midwives have been faithfully and efficiently executing their duty of assisting in delivering babies.

The natural births they attended to were a tremendous success without the complexities we see happening today in hospitals births because of technological and obstetrical intervention.

Dr. Mendelsohn recounts the story of how the male doctor arrogated to themselves the function of the dictates midwives thus:

“The obstetrical practice originated in Europe when the 18th century male barber-surgeons realized that they were losing countless opportunities to increase their income, and began plotting to take childbirth away from the midwives. It wasn’t easy to do because midwives were quite capable of assisting at childbirth and had been demonstrating this capability for thousands of years.

In order to get their hands on all those patients, the doctors had to convert childbirth into a disease. They did it by interfering with the natural process and creating medical interventions that only they could perform.

As insurance, they defamed the midwives, branding them as witches. The first “witch” hanged in the American colonies was a midwife whom the doctors accused”.

When barber-surgeons came to the scene, pandemonium resulted. Dr. Mendelsohn says:

“Maternal and infant death rates doubled when the barber-surgeons got into that act. Hospitalized mothers got childbed fever because doctors rushed from the sick beds to autopsies to deliveries without bothering washing their hands”, He further says: “ Almost every stage of obstetrical procedure in the hospital is part of the mechanism that enables the doctor to create his own pathology. Once he has created the pathology, he has the excuse to intervene.”

He cites results from a study of 2000 births conducted by Dr. Lewis E.Mahl of the University of Wisconsin Infant Development Centre. Of these nearly half were home-births. Home-births being safer were noticeable.

There were 30 birth injuries among the hospital born babies and none among those born at home. 52 of the babies born in the hospitals needed resuscitation against 14 born at home. Six hospital babies suffered neurological damage compared to only 1 of the born at home. None of the home-born babies died after birth although the national infant mortality rate is more than 22 per 1000.

“Dr. Albert D.Havercamp, head of the high-risk obstetrics section at Denver General Hospital says that the use of internal fetal monitors nearly doubled the number of Caesarean sections performed in American hospitals between 1971 and 1976”.

Dr. Mendelsohn has this to say:

“Women would find having babies a lot less painful, risky and demeaning if the obstetrical specialty was simply abolished. Except for a handful of doctors who encourage natural childbirth, obstetricians are guilty of perpetuating an unhealthy, unscientific, medical disgrace…

I have a low regard for Modern Medicine in general but obstetrics sets my teeth on edge.

It is the only medical specialty in which almost everything that the doctor does is medically indefensible and terribly wrong”
*We reproduce here a verbatim report by Dr. Mendelsohn of the shocking,

sickening and revolting methods employed by modern hospitals to induce


*Induced birth is evil. It is torture and brutal.

*Damning the evil hospital delivery methods, Dr. Mendelsohn says:*
“…….The mother’s pain will be increased, so drugs will be administrated that will retard and prolong her labor. Labor will be induced by invading theuterus and rupturing the membranes, increasing the risk of infection and fetal damage or death. The mother will be further confined by attachment of intravenous gadgetry to keep a vein open and to provide nourishment because she will not be allowed to eat or to drink.

A fetal monitor will be strapped to her abdomen or her uterus and screwed into the baby’s scalp, to monitor the fetal trauma that the obstetrician’s intervention may well induce. Ultimately, and usually for the convenience of the doctor, oxytocin will be administrated to expedite labor, resulting in tetanic (and titanic) contractions so strong that they may injure the fetus.

The mother’s pain, which escalates because of the way she is being treated, becomes so unbearable that pain-killing injections are given to paralyze the lower half of her body. The mother can no longer feel her contractions and must be told to push. Finally, the poor woman is moved to the delivery room, strapped into stirrups, and an episiotomy is performed. The mother is no longer able to do it, and more often than not he will use forceps because he is unwilling to wait for nature to take its course.

Thus concludes the mothers experience with “the miracle of birth”.

The doctor hurriedly cuts the cord before it has stopped pulsating, so the infant’s blood backs up in the mother. It is that mixing that produces erythroblastosis (Rh disease) in a subsequent child. He tugs on the cord to expedite delivery of the placenta, increasing the mother’s risk of hemorrhage and possibility leaving some pieces behind.

He must then invade the uterus to capture the fragments.

The mother’s risk of infections, already increased over the previous hours by multiple vaginal examinations, becomes greater. Next, he must repair the damage done to the perineum by the episiotomy he performed.

As I will explain later, this will cause sexual dysfunction, later on. Finally, in denial of everything that prompted the mother to go through this ordeal, the baby is whisked off to the newborn nursery, and the mother to the recovery room to sleep off the drugs.

*This is motherhood? This is medicine?

This factual report by a leading medic should be sufficient to jolt husband’s into some alertness to realize the suffering their wives are put to on the occasion of having to give birth in the unholy and unclean hospitals. They should make it their business to ascertain what exactly the doctor is doing to their wives and to vehemently protest when doctors decide to subject their wives to the type of torture with far reaching consequences, as explained by Dr. Mendelsohn.

“Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., has been practicing for almost thirty years. He has been the national director of Project Head Start’s Medical Consultation Service, chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee for the State of Illinois, and associate professor of Preventive Medicine and Community of Health in the School of Medicine of the University of Illinois. Dr. Mendelsohn has received numerous awards for excellence in medicine and medical instructions.

Dr. Mendelsohn is one of America’s leading pediatricians. In his book, CONFESSIONS OF A MEDICAL HERETIC, he tells you how to guard yourself against the harmful impact upon your life of doctors, drugs and hospitals. After practicing for decades as a physi8cian, Dr. Mendelsohn is convinced that

*Annual physical examinations are health risks,*

*Hospitals are dangerous places for the sick*

*Most operations do ;little good and many do harm*

*Medical tasting laboratories are scandalously inaccurate

Many drugs cause more problems than they cure *

The X-ray machine is the most perverse and most dangerous tool in the doctor’s office.

Niqaab & Modesty

Modesty, JamiatKZN & Mufti Ebrahim Desai

QUESTION – Some people argue that a woman does not have to conceal her face from the gazes of Ghair Mahram men. They cite the following view of the JamiatKZN:
It is compulsory for her to cover her entire body from head to toe with the exception of her hands, feet and face in front of strange (nonMahram) men. This is irrespective if strange men are present on one’s property/house/yard or strange men have a ‘view’ into one’s property/house/yard. (Maraaqil Falaah 1/91)

Is there a valid difference of opinion on the issue of women covering the face? If this
is true then why do Muslims go through so much effort and difficulty to cover their
faces if it is not a Sharia requirement?
(Ghair Mahaareem: All males except those with whom nikaah is not permissible.)
Allah Ta’ala commands: “O Nabi! Say to your wives, your daughters and the
women of the Believers that they draw over them their Jilbaabs (outer-cloaks).
That (i.e. covering themselves with Jilbaabs) is the least (minimum requirement
which they should adopt) so that they be recognized (as respectable and
honourable ladies) and not be molested (by evil men)”. – (Surah 33, Aayat 59)
Commenting on this Aayat, Allamah Abu Bakr Jassaas says: “In this verse is the
indication that young women have been commanded to conceal their faces from
strange males when they emerge (from their homes).” [Ahkaamul Qur’aan]
Innumerable Fuqaha, Mufassireen, etc. have stated that this Aayat refers to women
covering the face. According to all four Math-habs, women must conceal their faces
from Ghair-Mahram men. Here are a few quotes from the four Mathaahib:

 Hanafi Math-hab: “It is mentioned in Al-Muntaqaa that women will be
prohibited from exposing their faces so that it does not lead to Fitnah. And in
our era, it is Waajib to prohibit them (from exposing their faces) – in fact it is
Fardh due to the preponderance of Fasaad.” [Majma’ul Anhur] The
Honourable Faqeeh was speaking about 400 years ago. Today, it is much
worse! The Wujoob of females covering their faces appears in innumerable
 Maaliki Math-hab: “And verily the two (i.e. face and palms) are not Aurah,
even though it is Waajib to conceal them (i.e. the face and palms) due to the
fear of Fitnah.” [Jawaaahirul Ikleel – Haashiyaa Saawi & other Maaliki Kutub]
 Shaafi Math-hab: “Yes, that woman who is certain of the gaze of a strange
man falling on her, it is incumbent upon her to cover her face from him (i.e.
the Ghair-Mahram man). Otherwise (if she does not conceal her face), then
she will be assisting him towards Haraam. Thus, she will be committing a sin.”
[Tuhfatul Muhtaaj] The Wujoob of females covering their faces is mentioned
in Nihaayatul Muhtaaj and many other Shaafi Kutub as well.
 Hambali Math-hab: “And the face is Aurah outside Salaah as far as gazes
(of ghair-Mahram men) are concerned just like the rest of the body.” [AlIqnaa’ and other Hambali Kutub] In fact, Imaam Ahmed Bin Hambal has
mentioned that even the finger-nail of a woman is Aurah (i.e. it is Waajib to
conceal). What then should be deduced regarding the face???
The scope of this article precludes us from presenting all the Qur’aanic Aayaat,
Ahaadeeth, names and quotes of the authorities of the Shariah which prove that
women should cover their faces. The Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, Fuqaha of the four
Math-habs, Muhadditheen, Mufassireen, etc. have mentioned that it is Waajib upon
women to conceal their faces from ghair-Mahram men. Their consensus is sufficient
for the sincere seeker of the truth.
A Mu’min strives for the highest degree of Hijaab. When speaking about modesty,
then the highest degree of Hijaab should be expounded on. Allah Ta’ala commands:
‘And (O Women!) Remain firmly in your homes.’ (Surah 33 – Aayat 33)
Women must remain at home. They may not emerge from their homes
unnecessarily. It is known as Hijaabul Ash-Khaas Bil Buyoot which means that a strange man (Ghair Mahram man) will not see the woman at all to the extent that he
does not see her even with her clothes on. Since he does not see her at all, her face,
palms and her entire body is automatically concealed from him.
This is the highest level of Qur’anic Hijaab (Purdah) commanded in at least two
Aayaat and proven by several Ahaadeeth. There are at least 24 Ahaadeeth which
substantiate the Shar’i Law that women must remain glued to their homes and they
may only emerge from their homes for necessities deemed imperative by the
Shariah – not so-called necessities which human minds fabricate.
The command is for women to be glued to their homes – not an exposed yard or the
outside of one’s home which exposes a woman to passing traffic. It is not permissible
for the man’s wife and/or daughter to emerge from their homes into their exposed
yards even for the sake of relaxation. This is because they are exposing themselves
to Ghair Mahareem for no valid reason which is shameless.
A woman may not emerge from her home without valid Shar’i reason even if she is
covered from head to toe. The Burqah, Niqaab, Jilbaab, etc. are not a license to
emerge from the home without valid Shar’i reason.
2. When a woman emerges from her home for a reason deemed imperative by the
Shariah, the Jilbaab is a requirement. This vital Qur’aanic injunction may not be
omitted. The masses should be given Ta’leem pertaining to the Jilbaab.
Women wearing pyjamas, exposing their hair, the bodily shape and/or also exposing
their faces to Ghair Mahrams, are indeed shameless. Part of modesty is for a woman
to cover her face as well. Read carefully the following articles:
1. The Indisputable Wujoob of The Niqaab
2. Menk & The Female Pilot.
3. More Hijaab Articles
In regards to a woman, it is compulsory for her to cover her entire body from head
to toe including the face with the exception of her hands and feet in front of strange
(non-Mahram) men. JamiatKZN quoted “(Maraaqil Falaah 1/91)” as a reference
that it is not compulsory for her to cover her face in front of strange (nonMahram) men.

Since the text is misleading, it is necessary to elaborate. The text of Maraaqil Falaah is as
“ومجيع بدن احلرة عورة إال وجهها وكفيها” ابطنهما وظاهرمها يف األصح وهو املختار
Translation: “And the entire body of a free woman is AURAH except her face and palms
– the front and back (of the face and hands) according to the most authentic view and this
is the chosen opinion.” [Emphasis ours]
The Mas’alah mentioned in Maraaqil Falaah pertains to Aurah – not Hijaab. Even the
Qur’aan explains the Mas’alah pertaining to Aurah (Satr). This is not disputed. We agree
that the face is not included in the Aurah (Satr) of a woman. However, as far as Hijaab is
concerned, a woman must cover her face. The references to prove that women MUST cover their faces in front of Ghair Mahrams are innumerable.
Why did they omit the Sharah (commentary) on this Mas’alah mentioned by Allamah
Tahtaawi Rahimahullah on the issue of a woman exposing her face?
قوله: “إال وجهها” ومنع الشابة من كشفه خلوف الفتنة ال ألنه عورة
Translation: “And the young woman is prohibited from exposing her face due to the
fear of Fitnah – not because it is Aurah.”
There is a need to ask the JamiatKZN and Mufti Ebrahim Desai: Is there Fitnah
when women expose their faces to Ghair Mahrams?
Since there is Fitnah, why does the JamiatKZN claim that there is a difference of
opinion when it is acknowledged that unveiling is a cause of temptation for men
and women?
In the article they sent to the brother, the following is what Mufti Ebrahim Desai
“Unveiling has a number of disadvantages. Some of them are as follows:
1. It is a violation of the Quran and Hadith;
2. It shows woman’s weakness in belief;
3. It is a cause of temptation for men and women;
4. It strips off her modesty that is an integral part of Faith;
5. It subjects her to adultery and sexual harassment (especially now in Egypt with
the vaginal kit, adultery has become so easy. Had all the women been veiled, the
government would not have so much difficulty in trying to outlaw this kit);
6. It hurts her dignity and feelings and it stains her chastity;

7. It prompts woman to take part in commercial advertisements and films as a
showpiece and a source of enjoyment for the viewers.”
Firstly, there is a difference between Hijaab and Aurah. We are discussing Hijaab
here – not Aurah. Secondly, there is a difference of opinion amongst the Fuqaha
whether the face of a woman is included in her Aurah or not. Thirdly, whilst we agree
that a woman’s face is not Aurah; her face has to be concealed from Ghair Mahrams
due to Hijaab. Fourthly, there is no valid difference of opinion as far as Hijaab is
concerned. Those who claim that there is a difference of opinion amongst the Fuqaha,
should send their dalaa-il for scrutiny. When a person requires a Shar’i Masalah,
then the Masalah is obtained from the Kutub of the Fuqaha. Referring directly to
Qur’aan and Hadeeth for deriving Masaail, is the function solely of the Mujtahideen.
It seems as if the JamiatKZN realized that they committed a huge blunder in their
newsletter. The following statement of Imaam Shaafi’ (Rahmatullahi Alaih) should
be salutary: “Whenever I put forward Shari’ Hujjat (Evidence from the Shariah) in
regard to any mas-alah to someone and he accepted it, honour for him in my heart

Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape

How to Deal with a Husband Having an Affair with another Woman

When a husband has been afflicted with the great misfortune of having fallen into the trap of an extra-marital affair, it calls for considerable patience and intelligence from his wife. Such a development is extremely delicate and is fraught with calamitous consequences for the marriage bond. The course which the marriage will take largely depends on the attitude and reaction of his wife. If she behaves intelligently and demonstrates considerable patience, she can assist her husband in his predicament and save her marriage. On the contrary, if she loses her mind and gives vent to her emotional feelings, she will only achieve the alienation of her husband. She will drive him away from herself and wreck her marriage.


The wife should understand well that she will never be able to induce her husband to abandon the other woman by displaying anger and by hurling accusations and insult at her husband. When a wife discovers that her husband is having an affair with another woman, the first thing she should do is to arrest her emotional feelings and understand that she will not succeed to separate her husband from the other woman by anger and argument. By adopting anger and a stance of confrontation, her husband will only become more obstinate. Whatever little love and feeling he still cherishes for his wife will be eliminated by her confrontation with him. She will only drive him closer to the other woman.

The husband involved with another woman is emotionally disturbed. His wife’s rough and harsh attitude will convince him that the other woman possesses qualities of love and charm which his wife lacks. Her fighting attitude – which wives usually display when they hear of their husband’s extra – marital affairs – will make her appear as a hag, and a witch to him. Her harsh confrontation with him will eliminate any guilt feelings which he had hitherto cherished in his heart. He will now feel that the other woman is offering him love and happiness which he cannot obtain from his wife. An intelligent wife who desires to salvage her husband and keep intact her marriage, will not allow the situation to deteriorate to this level.

The woman of intelligence and understanding should face this delicate situation with great patience (Sabr), supplicating to Allah Ta’ala to guide her husband and to open his mind so that he wakes up and becomes alert to the dangerous and sinful trap into which he has allowed himself to become ensnared. She should discuss the matter with him intelligently and respectfully without adopting an argumentive and obstinate attitude. She should endeavour to explain to him his folly, wrong and sin. She should endeavour to win over his heart with love and tender tones reminding him of the Law, Fear and Punishment of Allah Ta’ala. If the husband rebuffs her Naseehat, she should not give up hope. Leave the matter for a while and resume the Naseehat respectfully, humbly and intelligently at another time when he is in a better mood.

She should bear her grief within herself, seeking solace in the Thikr of Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan Shareef says:

“Those who have Imaan, their hearts find peace with Thikrullah. Verily, with the Remembrance of Allah do hearts find peace.”

She should resign herself to Allah Ta’ala and make Dua earnestly and constantly. She should understand that in the final analysis, whatever Allah Ta’ala chooses for her will be in her best interests. She should, therefore, not allow her grief – which is just normal and natural – to give rise to frustration, impatience, and un-Islamic behaviour. An intelligent wife facing up to this delicate situation with courage, understanding and patience will put her husband to shame by means of her noble and dignified reaction. His indulgence in his error will be self-devouring. He will feel guilty and his injustice will torture his soul. He will feel mediocre in his own heart. His conscience will be smitten with guilt and regret. A good man will soon see his folly and return to his wife humbly and full of shame and regret.

On the other hand, if the wife attempts to alienate her husband from the other woman by adopting a bullying, quarrelling, nagging and un-woman-like attitude, then the result will be the opposite. It will lead to the breakdown of the marriage. A wife should learn a very important rule, viz. that a husband cannot be tamed and won over by nagging and quarrelling. To achieve success for her marriage the wife must be submissive, humble, and walk the path of piety. If she seeks to emulate her western Kuffaar counterparts in the movement of liberalism and female ‘emancipation and equality’, then she should understand that she is treading the road to divorce which is a daily occurrence among western couples.


Extract from: Al-Mar’atus Saalihah – The Pious Women – By Musjisul Ulama of S.A

Is Homebirth for You? 6 Myths About Childbirth Exposed

Is Homebirth for You?
6 Myths About Childbirth Exposed
Editor: Janet Tipton
originally published by Friends of Homebirth
© 1990 by Friends of Homebirth,*
103 North Pearl Street, Big Sandy, Tx 75755*.
* Foreword
* Should You Have Your Baby at Home?
* Studies Indicate That Homebirths Are Safe
* Midwives Are Trained Professionals
* Technology Can Complicate a Normal Birth
* Normal Household Germs Do Not Affect Mother or Baby
* “There’s No Place Like Home” For Childbirth
* Qualified Homebirth Attendants Are Available
* Contact Guide
* Resource Guide
By David Stewart, Ph.D.,
Executive Director, National Association
of Parents and Professionals for Safe
Alternatives in Childbirth
(NAPSAC) International

This brief booklet may change your life. It could be the most important few pages you have read yet in guiding you to choose the safest alternatives in childbirth for you and your baby.
Most of American obstetric practice in hospitals is not based on science but on myth. What obstetricians do may be the utmost in high-tech, but it is not true science. What you don’t know about modern medicine can hurt you and your baby, perhaps permanently.
The authors of this excellent little publication have thoroughly researched what they say here. You can trust what they have written. It is factually and scientifically correct.
The choices you make in childbirth for your baby — home vs. hospital. midwife vs. doctor, natural vs. medicated birth — will impact the rest of your child’s life, and yours, too. It can be for good or for ill. The choice is yours.
Should You Have Your Baby at Home?
Today in the United States, at the end of the twentieth century, advances in science and technology account for many positive changes in our quality of life. Yet more and more women from all walks of life are choosing to give birth the old-fashioned way — in their own homes. Why?
The fact is, in spite of all the good that has come from scientific discoveries and experiments, medical science has not been able to improve the human body and the way it was designed to work. Yet when our bodies are not functioning the way they were created to function, we are more fortunate than our ancestors in that modern medical science can sometimes help.
So why are families having homebirths? Though each couple may have individual reasons, most plan homebirths because they believe that most of the time pregnancy and childbirth are normal functions of a healthy body — not a potential life-and-death crisis that requires the supervision of a surgeon.
Science has not been able to improve upon the human body and the way it was designed to work.
In 20 other countries, more babies survive their first months of life than in the U.S.
There are risks involved in childbearing. In a small percentage of cases the skills of an obstetrician/gynecologist and high-tech equipment like ultrasound and fetal monitors are necessary in order for the mother or the baby to survive childbirth without long-term ill effects.
The neonatal mortality rate for the U.S. in 1989 was slightly more than 10 per 1,000 live births.[1] We have the most highly sophisticated and expensive system of maternity care in the world, yet in the same year twenty other countries — countries with less technology than we have in our hospitals and laboratories — had more babies survive their first months of life than our babies in the United States.

What do they do in those 20 countries to have better outcomes?

With fewer high-tech hospitals and obstetricians available, many of those countries — like Holland, Sweden and Denmark — use midwives as the primary care-givers for healthy women during their pregnancies and births.[2]

The World Health Organization urges the U.S. to return to a midwife-based system of
maternity care.
Understanding the potential danger in the overuse of childbirth technology, the World Health Organization has repeatedly implored the U.S. medical authorities to return to a midwife-based system of maternity care as one way to help reduce our scandalously high mortality rates.[3]

Midwives, in fact, still attend most of the births around the globe. Physicians, in spite of their advanced training and surgical specialties, have never been proven to be better childbirth attendants than midwives. And no research has been done that proves hospitals to be the safest places in which to give birth.
In fact, study after study has demonstrated that for the majority of child-bearing women in the U.S., the homebirth/midwifery model should be the standard for maternity care. In the pages ahead, you’ll see why.

1. National Committee to Prevent Infant Mortality, HOMEBIRTH No. 8, Sept/Oct 1990, p. 5.
2. The Five Standards of Safe Childbearing, 1981, Stewart, p. 114.
3. Mothering, Jan/Feb, 1990.

Studies Indicate That Homebirths Are Safe

Myth #1
— Hospital births are statistically safer than homebirths.
Safety in childbirth is measured by how many mothers and babies die and how many survive childbirth in less than perfect health.
Studies done comparing hospital and out-of-hospital births indicate fewer deaths, injuries and infections for homebirths supervised by a trained attendant than for hospital births. No such studies indicate that hospitals have better outcomes than homebirths.
Respiratory distress among newborns was 17 times higher in the hospital than in the home.
The U.S. has the highest obstetrical intervention rates as well as a serious problem with malpractice suits.
While maternal death rates have vastly improved since the turn of the century, factors like proper nutrition and cleanliness have played a big part in the change.
Overall neonatal death rates have also improved since the 30s, but homebirths appeared to be safer even then. In 1939, Baylor Hospital Charity Service in Dallas, Texas, published a study that revealed a perinatal mortality rate of 26.6 per 1,000 live births in homes compared to a hospital birth mortality rate of 50.4 per 1,000.[1]
Since the 1970s, research done in northern California, Arizona, England and Tennessee all point to the relative safety of homebirth.[2] The only matched population study, comparing 1,046 homebirths with 1,046 hospital births, was published in 1977 by Dr. Lewis Mehl, a family physician and medical statistician.[3]

While neonatal and perinatal death rates were statistically the same in Mehl’s report, morbidity was higher in the hospital group: 3.7 times as many babies born in the hospital required resuscitation. Infection rates of newborns were four times higher in the hospital, and the incidence of respiratory distress among newborns was 17 times higher in the hospital than in the home.

A six-year study done by the Texas Department of Health for the years 1983-1989 revealed that the infant mortality rate for non-nurse midwives attending homebirths was 1.9 per 1,000 compared with the doctors’ rate of 5.7 per 1,000.[4] Certified nurse midwives’ mortality rate was 1 per 1,000 and “other” attendants accounted for 10.2 deaths per 1,000 live births.[5]

A study of 3,257 out-of-hospital births attended by Arizona licensed midwives between 1978-85 shows a perinatal mortality rate of 2.2 per 1,000 and a neonatal mortality rate of 1.1 per 1,000 live births.
In testimony before the U.S. Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality, Marsden Wagner MD, European Director of the World Health Organization, suggested the need in the U.S. for a “strong independent midwifery profession as a counterbalance to the obstetrical profession in preventing excessive interventions in the normal birth process.”[6]

Wagner states that in Europe midwives far outnumber physicians: “In no European country do obstetricians provide the primary health care for most women with normal pregnancy and birth.” He states that the U.S. has the highest obstetrical intervention rates as well as a serious problem with malpractice suits and concludes that a strong, independent midwifery service in the U.S. would be a most important counterbalance to the present situation.
1. The Five Standards of Safe Childbearing, 1981, Stewart, p. 241.
2. Ibid, p. 115-116, 127, 243-246.
3. Ibid, p. 247-253.
4. Texas Lay Midwifery Program, Six Year Report, 1983-1989, Bernstein & Bryant, Appendix VIIIf, Texas Department of Health, 1100 West 49th St., Austin, TX 78756-3199.
5. Labor Pains: Modern Midwives and Homebirth, Sullivan & Weitz, 1988.
6. Mothering, Jan/Feb, 1990.

Midwives Are Trained Professionals
M yth #2 —
You can get more professional attention in a hospital than you could get at home.

In the hospital, obstetricians do not routinely sit at the bedsides of their laboring patients but rely on machinery and others for information — then appear at the last minute in the delivery room. Most physicians do not build a relationship of supportive rapport with each patient or offer much encouragement to give birth naturally.
Labor and delivery room nurses by and large enjoy giving support to women during childbirth. Hospital life, however, involves a great deal of paperwork, personnel changes by the clock and wild fluctuations in how many women each nurse must be responsible for. And nurses have no authority to stop an impatient doctor from trying to “speed up” a slow-but-steady, normal labor.
Over the last few decades, women have protested against the cold and clinical atmosphere of birthing wards, and many hospitals have bent under popular pressure to make their sterile environments more home-like.[1] Most allow women’s partners into labor and delivery rooms, and some even accept the presence of a professional labor coach.
But for many women, the natural act of giving birth does not belong in a clinical environment when all is well.
Planned homebirths with a trained attendant present have good outcomes.
While statistics indicate that unplanned or unattended homebirths have worse outcomes than hospital births, planned homebirths with a trained attendant present have good outcomes.[2]

There are a variety of trained and experienced homebirth practitioners from which to choose — physicians, certified nurse midwives and direct-entry, or non-nurse midwives. A small number of doctors, some of whom are members of the American College of Home Obstetrics, maintain homebirth and/or clinic practices. Several birth centers in the U.S. are physician-owned and operated.
Certified nurse midwives are registered nurses who have continued their education in the specialty of obstetrics. Most CNMs work only with physician backup in a hospital environment, but a few have homebirth practices.
Midwifery is basically a system of wellness care given by professional midwives to women and infants during the childbearing year, and in many other countries midwives are the primary care givers in maternity systems with better neonatal mortality rates than ours. Midwives are trained to watch for deviations from health throughout the pregnancy and labor and refer their clients to a physician if necessary.

Midwives are the primary care-givers in countries with better neonatal mortality rates than ours.
Prenatal visits with a midwife are usually relaxed, friendly and can last from 30 minutes to an hour.
The number of direct-entry midwives has increased in the last twenty years due to more demand for their services. Most non-nurse midwives have completed a course of study and then furthered their education by apprenticing with a more experienced midwife. These midwives practice legally in only 12 states, some of which require them to be licensed. Where midwifery is illegal, the states have declared these time-honored professionals to be “practicing medicine without a license.”
Midwives practice freely in all but 20 states. They do so either under statutory regulation or in states with no specific midwifery laws. [Ed. — Information about the current midwifery legal situation in individual states or Citizens for Midwifery Grassroots Network.]

Prenatal visits to an obstetrician’s office or public health department usually involve long waiting periods before seeing a doctor or nurse for a very brief checkup. By contrast, each prenatal visit with a midwife is usually relaxed, friendly and can last from 30 minutes to an hour. Midwives traditionally use this time for teaching the benefits of good nutrition, exercise, hazards to avoid and how to prepare for a natural birth.

Though the educational background of midwives varies widely, many collect laboratory specimens, monitor the baby’s heart rate for signs of fetal distress during labor, carry oxygen equipment and are trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
1. A Good Birth, A Safe Birth, 1990, Korte & Scaer, p. 8-21.
2. Ibid, p. 64-68.
Technology Can Complicate a Normal Birth
Myth #3
— The more modern technology you have on hand, the easier the birth will be.

In a sincere effort to catch complications early and produce healthier babies, medical science has changed the atmosphere surrounding birth from one of a circle of loving support around laboring women to one of space age technology in a laboratory setting.
Though technology can save lives in a crisis, the routine use of technology can interfere with the normal birth process.
Each intervention in a normal labor has its own set of risks.
The U.S. has the highest obstetrical intervention rates as well as a serious problem with malpractice suits.
It is common in hospitals to use intravenous fluids and electronic fetal monitors to ensure that the mother stays well hydrated and that each contraction and beat of the baby’s heart is recorded. However, many women dislike being confined to a bed with needles in their arms and belts around their abdomens.
Women who are allowed to move about freely during labor complain less of back pain, and many childbirth authorities feel the motion of walking and changing positions can enhance the effectiveness of the contractions.

Some hospitals still require women to birth lying flat on their backs with their legs held high in stirrups. Because the position defies gravity and makes pushing less effective metal forceps are sometimes used to pull the baby out of the vagina. Research shows that forceps are rarely used when women are allowed to assume a position of comfort during the bearing down stage.
Obstetricians frequently rupture the bag of waters surrounding the baby in order to speed up the birthing process. This procedure automatically places a time limit on the labor, as the likelihood of a uterine infection increases with each passing hour in the hospital after the water is broken.
Once the protective cushion of water surrounding the baby’s head is eliminated, the belt monitoring the baby’s heartbeat may be exchanged for a scalp electrode — a tiny probe that is screwed into the baby’s scalp to continue monitoring the heart rate and to collect information about the baby’s blood.

Each of these interventions in a normal labor has its own set of risks, and none of the above procedures has ever been proven to be more advantageous in eliminating complications or to produce healthier babies.

A recent study published in a medical journal states that the routine use of electronic fetal monitors, compared to the old-fashioned method of listening to the baby’s heartbeat after contractions with a fetoscope, may actually cause more problems than it prevents.[1] In eight randomized clinical trials, perinatal mortality was not reduced with electronic fetal monitoring. And perhaps because electronic monitoring can lead to unnecessary cesareans, birth outcomes were mostly superior in the groups monitored by fetoscope.[2]

Today at least 25 percent of all birthing mothers are delivered surgically. This compares to an average c-section rate of about 10 percent in other countries with better mortality rates.[3] These numbers indicate that we are not getting better outcomes with more c-sections.
Several decades ago, in an effort to lessen the pain of childbirth, physicians routinely gave laboring women pain-killing and anesthetic drugs. Over the years the use of most of these medications has subsided somewhat after studies revealed that drugs given to the mother had adverse effects on the baby, including asphyxia, hypoxia and even brain and central nervous system damage.[4]
Drugs are still available to laboring women in the hospital, though no drug given in childbirth has been proven to be safe for the baby.[5]
Women who have taken drugs in labor report decreased maternal feelings towards their babies and an increase in the duration and severity of postpartum depression.[6]

The artificial hormone pitocin, a drug given to intensify labor and to contract the uterus after childbirth also has potential side effects, including rare cases of uterine rupture and a slight increase in jaundice in the newborn.[7]

Interrupting the natural process of birth with technological wizardry can cause more harm than good.
1. New England Journal of Medicine, March 1, 1990.
2. The Cutting Edge, Feb. 1990, p. 4, P.O. Box 1568, Clayton, GA 30525.
3. Birth Without Surgery, Carl Jones, 1987, p. xii.
4. The Five Standards of Safe Childbirth, 1981, Stewart, p. 185.
5. Ibid, p. 175
6. A Good Birth, A Safe Birth, 1990, Korte & Scaer, p. 18, 201-209.
7. The Five Standards of Safe Childbirth, 1981, Stewart, p. 300.

Normal Household Germs Do Not Affect Mother or Baby
Myth #4
— A hospital is a more sanitary place to have a baby than at home.

Childbed fever killed thousands of women in the 19th century — about the time physicians, who also cared for the ill and dying, began to attend births in clinics. As hospitals became the places to go for birth and death, infections became a plague upon childbearing women and other hospital patients.

About 100 years ago, in Austria, a doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis attempted to lower the number of maternal deaths from infections — as high as 40 percent of those delivering at the Vienna maternity hospital.[1] Semmelweis discovered that simply by washing their hands between performing autopsies and attending births, the rate of infections caused by doctors dropped dramatically. Semmelweis was ridiculed by his colleagues, and it wasn’t until five years after his death that his findings began to gain acceptance. With the advent of aseptic technique in the late 1800s and the development of antibiotics in the 1940s, gradual improvement was seen. [Ed. — As antibiotic-resistant bacteria have evolved so that they are unaffected by antibiotics, it can be expected that this trend will be reversed, and we can expect to see an increase in deaths from hospital-acquired infections.]
In the 1930s, studies in New York City and Memphis, Tennessee, show that fewer women died from infections and hemorrhage during homebirths than died from the same complications in the hospital.[2]
Strict and expensive infection control procedures have still not eliminated hospital-caused infections.
Today, strict and expensive infection control procedures have still not eliminated nosocomial, or hospital-caused infections from common and dangerous organisms, like resistant strains of staphylococcus.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the nation’s hospital-regulating agency, The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, is failing to enforce infection control standards — compromising the health of hospital patients: “The Joint Commission allows dangers to health and safety to go uncorrected for weeks, months and even years. Sloppy, irresponsible hospitals have little to fear from the Commission: punishment in recent years has been nearly nonexistent.”[3]
Each family becomes accustomed to its own household germs and develops a resistance to them. Since fewer strangers are likely to be present at a homebirth than at a hospital birth, the chances of acquiring foreign germs are less likely in a homebirth situation.
Every effort is made to provide a clean environment at homebirths. Midwives and homebirth doctors wear sterile gloves and use sterilized instruments for cutting the umbilical cord.
Homebirth research studies indicate much lower rates of infection in the mother and the baby than is likely in the hospital. In a 10-year study (1970-1980) of 1,200 births at the Farm in Summertown, Tennessee, 39 mothers suffered postpartum infections, and only one baby developed septicemia.[4]
Calling the hospital nursery a cradle of germs, Dr. Marsden Wagner, European Director of the World Health Organization, warned doctors at an international medical conference in Jerusalem in the spring of 1989 that hospital births endanger mothers and babies primarily because of impersonal procedures and overuse of technology and drugs.[5]

1. The Birth Gazette, Fall, 1987, review of The Cry and The Covenant, p. 32-33.
2. The Five Standards of Safe Childbearing, 1981, Stewart, p. 240-241.
3. The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 12, 1988.
4. The Five Standards of Safe Childbearing, 1981, Stewart, p. 127.
5. Mothering, Oct/Nov/Dec, 1989.
“There’s No Place Like Home” For Childbirth
Myth #5
— A hospital is the most comfortable place to have a baby.

The idea of being comfortable during childbirth may strike many mothers who have delivered in the hospital as impossible. They remember being confined to a hospital bed, denied food and water, separated from their other children and supportive family members and friends, enduring frequent internal examinations and vital sign checks, being transfered from one room to another on a stretcher at the peak of labor’s intensity and having their legs strapped into stirrups.
Birthing rooms and their homey furnishings are an effort to eliminate some of the stress and discomfort that comes from being in the strange surroundings of the hospital.
Studies show that labor can be compromised by an unfamiliar environment. Discomfort and fear can actually increase the pain experienced in childbirth, while relaxation can diminish maternal stress, improve oxygen flow to the baby and facilitate labor.

In her own home a laboring woman has “the home court advantage.” She can move about freely, wear what clothing she chooses, sip on energizing juices, continue caring for other children as she is able, relax in a warm tub of water, have her feet rubbed by loving friends and try different birthing positions. Normal labor is a healthy stress for the baby, clearing the lungs of fluid and preparing it to take its first breaths.

After the birth, the baby is never taken from its mother’s side. The entire family can climb into a clean bed for a much needed cuddle and nap. The emotional bonding that takes place in the moments after birth between mother and child and between the baby and the entire family promotes well being, encourages breastfeeding and speeds recovery of the mother.

Qualified Homebirth Attendants Are Available
Myth #6
— It’s impossible to find any qualified person to assist you in having a baby at home.

While discussion over the pros and cons of homebirths and who should attend them continues in medical circles and around supper tables, thousands of healthy babies are being born in their own homes each year.
Homebirth is not for every woman. It takes a high degree of commitment to health and learning and a high level of responsibility to go against the majority who believe hospital births are better.
As you consider where to give birth, read the books listed in the Resource Guide. Talk to women who have given birth at home, in birthing centers, in birthing rooms and in hospital delivery rooms. Discuss your concerns with your physician and your midwife.

Interview several alternative birth practitioners in your area. Assess the level of skill, integrity, knowledge and philosophy of each to discover if they are compatible with your expectations. Whereas obstetricians deliver the great majority of babies in hospitals, some are operating alternative birthing centers. Family practitioners who attend births can still be found, but their ranks are decreasing because of the soaring expense of malpractice insurance.
Certified nurse midwives are located in many metropolitan areas, and in some hospitals offer primary maternity care in a clinic and birthing room setting. Well-educated and trained direct-entry midwives are specialists in normal childbirth. Some operate birth centers, and many have homebirth practices all across the country.
In 1989 the average family in the U.S. paid about $4,334 for an uncomplicated hospital birth, according to a Health Insurance of American survey of 173 community hospitals, 70 childbirth centers and 153 licensed midwives.[1]
In 1989 the average family in the U.S. paid about $4,334 for an uncomplicated hospital birth.
Breakdown of costs for a hospital birth include an average physician’s fee of $1,492 ($2,053 for a cesarean), and hospital costs (not including other fees like the services of an anesthesiologist) of about $2,842.
In 20 other countries, more babies survive their first months of life than in the U.S.
In 1989 the average fee charged by a midwife was $994.

The average fee charged by a midwife was $994, a price that usually includes prenatal care, childbirth classes and supplies, while a physician’s fee does not.

Which setting and type of birth attendant is right for you? In some states, your choices are limited based on laws that restrict the practice of midwives. Friends of Homebirth was founded in 1989 with the goal of working to ensure your right to choose homebirth with a trained attendant. Homebirth is a reasonable choice for many families, and restrictive legislation must give way to the Constitutional right of responsible parental choice.
To find alternative birth attendants in your area, contact childbirth educators and your local La Leche League group. You might also check with health food stores, well-woman health centers and your public health department.

For more information about birth practitioners in your area, write or call the organizations listed in the Contact Guide.
1. Health Insurance Association of America, 1989, 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington D.C., 20036-3998.
Contact Guide
American College of Home Obstetrics
2821 Rose Street
Franklin Park, IL 60131
(312) 383-1461

American College of Nurse Midwives
1522 K Street NW
Suite 1120
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 347-5445

Association for Childbirth at Home, Intl.
116 S. Louise
Glendale, CA 91205
(818) 545-7128

International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN)
1304 Kingsdale Ave.
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(310) 542-6400

Informed Homebirth
P.O. Box 3675
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
(313) 662-6857
International Confederation of Midwives
57 Lower Belgrave St.
London SW1W
Ozlr, England

La Leche League Intl.

Midwives Alliance of North America
P.O. Box 1121
Bristol, VA 24203
(615) 764-5561

NAPSAC International
Rt. 1, Box 646
P.O. Box 267
Marble Hill, MO 63764
(573) 238-2010 Voice or Fax

National Association of Childbearing Centers
RFD 1 Box 1
Perkiomenville, PA 18074
(215) 235 — 8068
Resource Guide
[Ed. — Many of these publications are available from Cascade Birth and Life Bookstore at (800) 443-9942.]
* A Good Birth, A Safe Birth, D. Korte & R. Scaer, 1984 & 1990, Bantam Books.
* A Guide to Midwifery, Heart & Hands, Elizabeth Davis, 1981, John Muir Press.
* Birth At Home [Ed. — now titled Homebirth], Sheila Kitzinger, 1979, Penguin.
* Childbirth At Its Best*, Nial Ettinghausen, 3595 Santa Fe #166, Long Beach, CA 90810
* Immaculate Deception, Suzanne Arms, 1985, Bergin & Garvey.
* Labor Pains: Modern Midwives and Homebirth, D. Sullivan & R. Weitz, 1988, Yale University Press.
* Midwifery Today, P.O. Box 2672, Eugene, OR 97402, (503) 344-7438, quarterly.
* Mind Over Labor, Carl Jones, 1988, Viking Penguin.
* Mothering Magazine, P.O. Box 1690, Santa Fe, NM 87504, quarterly.
* Safe Alternatives in Childbirth, ed. David & Lee Stewart, NAPSAC Intl.
* Special Delivery, Rahima Baldwin, 1979, Celestial Arts.
* Spiritual Midwifery, Ina May Gaskin, 1980, The Book Publishing Co.
* The Birth Gazette, 42 Summertown, TN 38483, quarterly.
* The Cultural Warping of Childbirth, Doris Haire, 1972.
* The Five Standards for Safe Childbearing, David Stewart, Ph.D., 1981, NAPSAC Reproductions.
* The NAPSAC Directory, Rt. 1, Box 646, P.O. Box 267, Marble Hill, MO 63764
*Childbirth At Its Best, by Nial Ettinghausen, is out of print but available from Jerry Gentry at the address listed below.

Paper Copies of This Booklet Are Still Available
Remaining copies of the paper version of this booklet are available in bulk, minimum 50 copies, for $50 plus $5 shipping. Please send check and order information to:
Jerry Gentry
Rt 2 Box 198
Big Sandy, TX 75755
This booklet formatted by Ronnie Falcao

Please e-mail feedback about errors of spelling, grammar or presentation. Thank you.
Permission to link to this page is hereby granted.



After Imaan, the greatest and most precious attribute of the Muslim female is her Hayaa (modesty and shame). While hayaa is intrinsic with feminity in general, its perfection co-exists only with Imaan. It is therefore, impossible for a non-Muslim female to possess the same degree of hayaa as her Muslim counterpart whose nature has not been corrupted by the kufr influences of western culture. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Hayaa is a branch of Imaan.” This treasure of hayaa incrementally decreases with the increase of the attributes of kufr. When hayaa is lost, its opposite, viz. shamelessness/audacity fills the vacuum. Shamelessness has reached its lowest ebb in western civilization which has by far surpassed even barbarians and asses in its exhibition of immorality and lewdness.

Muslim females of this era have also become the victim of the onslaught of western lewdism and shamelessness to such an extent that even the females who don niqaab lack the hayaa which Islam advocates for them. The niqaab has become an outer façade of deception. Most females who don niqaab nowadays treat it as a deceptive symbol to project the image of piety while in reality almost all of their natural Imaani hayaa has been extinguished.

The fundamental problem is the failure in the home. From the very inception, parents miserably fail to develop the natural attribute of hayaa of their daughters. In fact, parents are instrumental in the destruction of the hayaa of their daughters from a very tender age. The quality of hayaa, like all other natural attributes of excellence, has to be developed, nurtured and nourished until it attains its degree of perfection. It is for this reason that the Shariah commands the inculcation of Hijaab from a very early age.

According to Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh), a girl should adopt Purdah for the ghair mahram males of the family (cousins, brothers-in-law, etc.) from the age of seven years, and for outsiders from the age of six years. True purdah – that is, Purdah of the heart – cannot be achieved instantaneously and simultaneously with the advent of buloogh (maturity). The Hijaab dress, niqaab, concealing the hair and arms introduced to a girl only at the advent of buloogh is adopted as a social imposition without her understanding the value of Hijaab. The girl nurtured in the western cult of shamelessness, feels the sudden imposition of Hijaab at the age of buloogh to be claustrophobic, burdensome and even loathsome. While she will adopt Hijaab as a consequence of social pressure and norm of her ‘pious’ family, inwardly she rebels against the concept of Hijaab which Allah Ta’ala has decreed for females.

The development of hayaa and adoption of hijaab have to be inculcated and ingrained in girls from the cradle. However, since parents themselves lack understanding of the Islamic concept of Hijaab, they sow the seeds of aversion for Hijaab in their little daughters. They achieve this dastardly feat by cladding their infant daughters with kuffaar western garments. In so doing they betray their hidden preference for the ways and styles of kufr. They may have adopted an outward display of hijaab due to social considerations, but their hearts are bereft of hijaab, hence it is seen that most Muslim parents have no qualms in dressing their little girls like prostitutes, with tight-fitting pants and skin-tight tops. The girl’s hair is perpetually exposed. She is allowed to mingle with boys and outsider males.

She is allowed to ruin all vestiges of natural and Imaani hayaa by peddling a bicycle. It is thus seen that the muraahiq (near to buloogh) daughters of even Ulama are furiously peddling bicycles. Shaitaan has succeeded in his plot of deception. He has managed to deceive even the Ulama with talbees-e-iblees logic – “she is riding the bicycle in an enclosure which conforms to Hijaab standard”. This type of deceptive argument is whispered into the hearts of pious parents to achieve the satanic objective of ruining every vestige of a girl’s natural hayaa.

When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has cursed females who ride horses, such admonition was not the product of his whim and desire. The Qur’aan Majeed states: “He (i.e. Muhammad) does not speak of desire (whim and fancy). It (i.e. whatever he says) is Wahi revealed to him.” Thus, the Muslim lady who drives a car should not labour under self-deception that she is observing Hijaab simply because only her two eyes are on exhibition while her nose, cheeks and lips are concealed by the semblance of niqaab she dons behind the steering wheel. She should remember, and make constant thikr behind the steering wheel of the fact that every second she is under Divine La’nat. The plethora of arguments fabricated to justify her exploits behind the steering wheel and the surreptitious exploits of her eyes and heart from behind the flimsy ‘niqaab’, have no validity in the Shariah. The fact that she is able to steer away the vehicle in a public swarming with fussaaq and fujjaar of a million persuasions, is adequate evidence for her audacity bordering on immorality in terms of the Islamic concept of Hayaa. A woman behind a steering wheel is a mal-oonah (accursed) in the same class as the mal-oonah in the saddle.

A little girl – a five and six year old – who is allowed to ride a bicycle, ruins her natural hayaa. To display tomboy antics on the bicycle – to peddle furiously – requires audacity. Audacity is the opposite of hayaa. The little girl, instead of her hayaa being developed, and instead of her being schooled in greater hijaab as she grows, her natural shame is neutralized by acts of self-expression. Whereas Islam commands Ikhfa’ (Concealment) for its female adherents, parents nurture their little daughters in Izhaar (self-expression) and audacity by encouraging and aiding them with dress, mannerisms and activities which only promote abandonment of hayaa.

The programme of developing the hayaa of girls requires that they be clad with Islamic attire from infancy. Western lewd styles are absolutely haraam for even little girls. All aspects of Hijaab, barring the niqaab, should be incumbently inculcated in little girls from infancy. Hijaab should become an inseparable constituent of the morality of Muslim females. If parents adopt the proper Islamic concept of Hijaab for their little daughters, the girls will feel ‘naked’ even if an arm is momentarily bared in the presence of a non-Muslim female.

The hair of a female is extremely delicate. Hijaab applies to a greater degree to her hair than to her face. A female’s exposed hair attracts even spiritual and unseen calamities and curses. Allah Ta’ala is The Creator. He knows why He has ordained that not a single hair of the female should be exposed. While evil beings such as the jinn and shayaateen are attracted by the female’s exposed hair, the pious celestial beings such as the Malaaikah (Angels) cherish a natural abhorrence for a female whose hair is exposed. Therefore, the Malaaikah of Rahmat do not frequent a home where the females habitually wander around with their hair exposed, and this applies even if there are no ghair mahaareem males present.

Parents should treasure the amaanat of children and not ruin the hayaa and akhlaaq of their daughters and sons with the mannerism of the western cult of immorality in which self-expression is an emphasised demand while Islam teaches the exact opposite. And of vital importance to understand and never to forget is that secular school, especially the so-called ‘islamic school’, is the last nail in the coffin of the girl’s hayaa.

Allah Ta’ala, commanding women, says in the Qur’aan Shareef:

“And remain (glued) within your homes, and do not make an exhibition of yourselves like the displays of jaahiliyyah (the times of ignorance of the mushrikeen era).”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Never will prosper a nation who assigns its affairs to a woman.”

The domination of the kuffaar and the fall of the Ummah in prostration at the feet of the kuffaar, have disfigured the intellectual process of Muslims. The thinking of Muslims has become subservient to kuffaar ideologies, especially western kuffaar culture. What is enlightenment to the west, is accepted and adopted as an incumbent requisite of life. Minus the ‘progressive’ attitudes of the western cult, Muslims see no progress.

One of the most dehumanising aspects of western culture is its cult of immorality which hinges on female exposure, female exhibition and prostituting the female body. There is no sphere of western life which is devoid of the preponderance of female exhibition. In emulation of the western kuffaar cult of libertinism, Muslims too have adopted this vice of female exhibition. Following in the footsteps of the western shayaateen, Muslims of all walks of life, including the so-called religious sector, are portraying their adoption of the western cult of female exhibition with Islamic hues. People of the Deen are justifying female emergence, female exhibition and female participation in public activities by presenting deceptive ‘Islamic’ arguments.

While the Qur’aan vehemently proscribes female emergence from the home, we find in this era Ulama, the Madaaris, the Khaanqahs and the Tabligh Jamaat – all Deeni institutions – advocating the diametric opposite of the Qur’aanic prohibition. Thus, women are encouraged in their droves to emerge from their homes to participate in Salaat in the Musaajid, so-called Thikr and so-called Tableegh in public places. So-called deceptive shaitaani ‘separate’ facilities are supposedly arranged to cater for the droves of women who have been encouraged to violate the Qur’aanic prohibition. While the Sahaabah had unanimously forbidden women to leave their homes for performing Salaat in the Musaajid, the modern molvis, sheikhs and muballigheen sneer at the Qur’aanic injunction and have resolved to do the very opposite. By their devilish conduct they imply that the Qur’aanic command has been abrogated.

By their vigorous advocacy of female emergence, they rebelliously disregard the explicit Qur’aanic prohibition, the Ijma’ (Consensus) of the Sahaabah and the Ijma’ of the Ummah down the long corridor of Islam’s history. It is only in this century that the liberalized ulama reeling under western influence, have legalized female emergence and actively encourage them to follow in the footsteps of their western counterparts. A direct consequence of the corruption which have contaminated and derailed the Ulama, are the outdoor female activities such as:

ÆAttending secular educational institutions

ÆAttending the Musaajid

ÆAttending public halls for lectures and evil wedding functions

ÆAttending thikr programmes

ÆParticipating in Tabligh Jamaat activities.

ÆManaging shops

ÆGirls Madrasahs

Most of these outdoor activities which are in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, have been awarded Shar’i licence by misguided ulama who have strayed from Siraatul Mustaqeem. Thus, even Shaikhs of Khaanqahs invite females to come out of their homes to attend their thikr sessions; Ulama entice them from their homes to attend madrasahs, and the Tabligh Jamaat folk take women out of the homes to wander around on tableegh programmes. All these outdoor activities are presented to the women as acts of ibaadat, while in reality these are acts of deviation which open up the doors of fitnah. These Deeni personnel have destroyed the natural hayaa which Allah Ta’ala has endowed womenfolk. Self-exhibition has ruined their modesty, and has made them audacious.

The concept of gender-equality is nothing other than female exhibition to gratify the inordinate carnal lusts of the male ‘master’. Allah Ta’ala has created woman for only the home role. She has no share in outdoor activities which are the domain of the man. The consequence of elimination of the natural role of women is the collapse of the Islamic culture of morality which was handed to the Ummah by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The more this cult of female exhibition is promoted, the greater will be the fitnah in the community. There can never be prosperity in the Muslim community when women vie with men outside the precincts of the home.