Obedience to Parents

Q: Can we say that obedience to parents is imperative?
A: When we study the Glorious Quran, we find that it does not speak about children’s obedience to parents; that is no verse clearly voices that the order of a parent represents a binding obligation or value to the child and thus should be obeyed as the order of the Messenger, authority figures or God should be obeyed. Islam did not make from parents’ orders and commands a legal binding duty that must be fulfilled by children; it rather enjoined on man kindness to parents. Actually, the word “kind” was frequently repeated in the Glorious Book and Allah, the most Exalted, did explain what this word stands for by illustrating it with an example in His saying: {Thy Lord has decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: "My Lord! Bestow on them Thy Mercy even as they cherished me in childhood."} (17: 23 - 24)
The above two verses tell us that Allah, the most Exalted, wants to say: be kind to your parents; do not offend them; do not treat them badly; open up to them; show humility, mercy and compassion toward them; always remember how they took care of you as a child and deal with them on this basis. And so, the Glorious Quran mentioned nothing about obedience; however, it elaborated on the negative aspect of obedience in H/is saying :{ But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou have no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love) } (31: 15). As we notice, this verse inhibits kindness to one’s parents once they start encouraging deviation from the right path and worship of other deities besides Allah . In fact, we see that bringing up worship of other deities besides Allah in this context is meant to be an example of the different forms of deviation that parents could order. And those forms include exhorting the child to perpetrate acts of unbelief, commit wrongdoings, do what goes against his welfare or forbid him from carrying out the activities that strengthen his spirituality and devotion such as going to mosques, help his intellectual and religious growth such as attending religious lectures and so on and so forth. This also applies to the question of Jihad - struggle for the cause of God - where he must be an effective part; in this case, we believe that parents have no right to prevent their children from undertaking the Jihad even if the latter was a collective duty rather than a duty that each and every person must fulfill. Hence, while this verse clearly indicates that you won’t be doing your parents any good by disobeying Allah, the most Exalted, it does not say either that you should obey them as long as they are not ordering you to commit wrongdoings; it only says that you should be kind to them. Therefore, if parents ordered their children to carry out what proves to be against their best interest such as marrying or divorcing this or that person, specializing in a field of study which they dislike, or undertaking a certain trade to which they find themselves unqualified… etc,­ they should refuse to obey them even if it hurt them.

The guardian’s consent
As for the case of an early marriage , assuming that it is an established kind of marriage, and we are not saying that it is , well, it has nothing to do with the question of obedience. It is rather related to the fact that the legitimacy of a girl’s marriage is decided by the guardian’s consent; that is, the consent of her father or grandfather. So, it is not about obeying the guardian but about fulfilling a legal requirement that might be laid down as a way to protect her against being subjected to seduction and deviation.

Q: What would be my legal stance if I refused to comply with my father’s desire in marrying some girl, knowing that that it might affect my relationship with him negatively?
A: Actually, if you exert yourself and obey him; God would greatly reward you for your deed. Then again, obedience to him is not a must.

Q: If I want to travel and my father refused to let me; would my travel be a wrongdoing?
A: If traveling redounds to your benefit like pursuing studies and does not endanger your life in a way to dread your parents; it won’t be regarded as wrongdoing.

Q: Am I allowed to dispose of my parents’ funds without their knowledge, and what if I obtained their approval later?
A: You may not dispose of their funds if you do not acquire their absolute approval with relation to any kind of exploitation of these funds whether you want to use them for spending, carrying out transactions such as selling, purchasing, trading ... etc. Once you have their agreement; there would be no problem in that.

Q: If my father was stingy; may I take some of his money to provide some of my essential needs?
A: If your need to spend on yourself represents one of his responsibilities; you may turn to the religious authority asking for authorization.

Q: Am I allowed to practice usury in dealing with my father?
A: It is not allowed in principle because we have weak evidences and stories proving its conclusive permissibility and because there is a unanimous opinion claiming it is not authoritative.

Q: If my father disinherited me because I disobeyed him in a certain matter, would his attitude be legal?
A: Disinheritance may be regarded from two perspectives. When during his lifetime and while still enjoying legal capacities and good health he (as your father) transfers his possessions definitively to one of his children, to a charitable foundation and others, as he dies he would be leaving no legacy to which you claim having rights or of which you claim being deprived. On the other hand, if he carries out such donations or allocations while suffering a serious decease or illness which, very likely, might lead to death; two opinions govern the issue in this respect: the first one says that he cannot dispose but of the third of his properties by sale or gift exactly as the will dictates. However, the other opinion which we adopt says that the conclusive disposals of a dying person of his properties are the same as his disposals while being in healthiness and do not depend on the heirs’ approval. And here, depriving heirs of inheritance proves to be valid because people are the absolute masters of their belongings. So, during his lifetime, a person has the complete power over his properties and can dispose of them as he wishes by transferring them to this person or divesting them of that. Nevertheless, supposing that this deprival was fulfilled through allocating his legacy to one or several members of his family e neglecting others; the will, in this case, will not be implemented but to the amount of the third because if a person was bequeathed with more than the third of the legacy; the will won’t be valid unless heirs expressed their consent, and if some of them refused to agree, they must be allotted their part of the legacy.

Q : Do you see that the act of disclosing family’s secrets and problems to others is a slander?
A :Sure it is. It is not only just a slander; it is rather the most sinful kind of slanders. In case the child suffered no oppression or bad treatment, not only such doing reveals parents’ secrets - those who have looked after him, who have granted his needs and desires ; but it also disrespects and destroys their privacy and damages their reputation amongst people. However, if the child was abused, meaning that he was physically or psychologically maltreated, and he was expressing his unhappiness to someone; in this particular case his disclosure would be permissible for God says:{Allah loves not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for Allah is He who hears and knows all things.} (4: 148). Nonetheless, it would be better that he limits his disclosure to those who can help him and end his suffering. Thus, speaking about the problems of one’s parents showing their vices as they conflict for the simple purpose of releasing one’s tensions or letting off of psychological disturbance caused by these problems is not legally justified. The same logic would also be true if slanders involve brothers or sisters.

Q: As a worker in my father’s store, do I have the right to ask him for a salary the same as any other worker?
A: Yes you can but once you get enough money to support yourself he won’t be obliged to sustain you any more. In other words, his duty to provide you with all the necessities of life persists as long as you need him. He, moreover, has no right to force you to work for him in exchange for supporting you. Actually, you can negotiate with him with regard to the amount of the maintenance he is providing you with in comparison to the wage you are supposed to cash from your work and he is not allowed to pressure you on this issue or to compel you to work for him. Indeed, you can work elsewhere and pay him in return the amount of money he spends on you in case he does not want to spend on you considering that you are in no need for his support. Furthermore, if the son was an adult, his father is not allowed to coerce him to work with him even under the pretext that this would be in exchange for maintaining him because the question of maintenance necessitates lots of considerations and deliberations. However, in the case of a little child - meaning that he is still immature and completely dependant on the guardianship of his father - the father has the authority to make him participate in the work if that would be deemed beneficial for the child; but if there was no benefit or interest for the young boy, the father may do nothing about it.

Q: My father treats us harshly and relentlessly; do we have the right as children to do, behind his back, what might spur his cruelty toward us but with the knowledge of our mother?
A: Yes you can do it provided that these deeds won’t hurt him or carry unlawfulness.

Children’s secrets

Q: Are parents authorized to search their son’s closet or drawers to discover his secrets?
A : In fact, mothers, fathers, brothers, even wives have no right to search the closet or the drawers in which a person keeps some of his private things. In other words, people’s hidden stuff constitute an area forbidden to other people no matter how close they were even if the concerned person was still a minor. However, an exception to this rule is approved once it is feared that the person is about to stray and deviate from the right path or to fall prey to a certain danger embraced by his private concealments. All the more so, parents are not allowed to open their son’s private letters except for when the question involves a danger threatening his moralities or faith emanating from some of his relationships or friendships.

Raising children and the principle of freedom

Q: My father interferes in all my private affairs, he even meddles in what clothes to buy, how to do my hair, what kind of books to purchase, when to return home… etc­ .He says he wants to educate me. Actually, I am feeling as if I am being deprived of my own personality; does he have the right to do so?
A: In principle, he does not. However, a father has the right to advise and put some pressures on his son trying to achieve what is best for him, as long as he does not reach the extent of canceling the latter’s personality or humanity.
We always urge parents to recall how they, themselves, used to be children and how they felt with regard to their parents’ actions and decisions when the latter tried to persecute them, to confiscate their humanity, to weaken their personality and to frustrate their spirits. We ask them to remember all those hard emotions they went through and deal with their children the way they wanted their parents to deal with them. Nevertheless, if you (as a parent) were facing a highly dangerous situation imperiling your child, you have the right to interfere in his affairs, but you must do so through the means of persuasion or by pressuring him in a way that does not affect his personality because in return he might suffer some serious psychological distresses. Indeed, we do not want you to fix a problem by causing another far more dangerous one.
I believe that adopting violence as a way to treat one’s children represents an impractical and unrealistic method and includes lots of unlawful practices especially if we were dealing with an adult and mature person. In fact, such a method leads the child either to lie to his father or to develop a psychological complex with regard to him; a complex that might blow up in the future to destroy all the great qualities that his father wanted him to develop; that is a personality of honesty, morality and so on and so forth. Therefore, I invite parents to assume their role in working toward achieving their children’s best interest, saving them from all the dangers that surround them through lenience and tolerance; a way that might convince them with their opinion or that might talk them into obeying. When following this pattern in dealing with one’s children, a father must resort to reason, emotions, or to fulfilling some of the child’s desires and wishes. Then again, if the seriousness of the situation reaches the extent of endangering the child’s faith or moralities and violence proves to be the only way to save him without causing any greater negative repercussions, the father has the right to take certain actions he deems necessary to resolve the problem. And here, his behavior will be based on his duty to enjoin right and forbid wrong exactly as he has to act with regard to saving any other person, besides his child, from committing wrongdoings and deviation if saving the latter happens to be dependent on a particular action that might be violent he has to take.
I am not encouraging children to think of themselves as absolutely free to deal with their parents with rebelliousness and defiance; I am only trying to tell parents that the choice between violence and lenience is a practical issue that is determined by the results of each in educating and raising our children, and that putting harsh pressures on our children would only lead to a reverse result. The problem with some people is that they only think of the beginnings while I think of the ends. It was reported that a person said to The Prophet(p.) “O Messenger would you advise me” Muhammad(p.) answered him “Would you follow my advice if I did?!” and he repeated that three times consecutively and each time that person replied affirmatively. So, The Messenger(p.) said: “I ask you to reflect on the end of whatever deed you are about to undertake; if it turns out to be right, you shall proceed in it; but if it was just about evil, you ought to forsake it.” I look at the content of issues rather than the form they take.
And here lies the real problem because some people are trying to preserve appearances regardless of the consequences. Actually, some people do not think of the gravity and weightiness of the consequences and accordingly they neglect them and behave as if the results of what they are doing are conclusive. There is this important point that we have to draw parents’ attention to; that is, some of the methods they adopt in raising their children might cause the latter some severe troubles: influence their psychological status badly by creating in them a persecution complex for example, affect their relations with people negatively to the extent of turning their lives upside down, etc­ in a word, grave problems that might have bad influences on their lives as a whole. Therefore, the question of a father raising his son must be governed by the father’s deep conviction that he is not simply dealing with a physical body that needs to be subjected, but that he is dealing with a person who has soul, mind, thoughts, feelings and emotions. Consequently, a father must take all of these factors into deep consideration as he chooses the most appropriate method to use in bringing up his child.
Women’s adornment
Q: Are women allowed to wear unattractive rings and bracelets?
A: I find the following Glorious Quranic verse very useful in this respect {that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof} which means that women are allowed to wear apparent ornaments in the visible spots of their body; that is, she can wear rings, bracelets, etc­ provided that they won’t be appealing and alluring.

Q: What about wearing perfumes; is it legal?
A: If a woman wants to go out wearing perfume, she can. However, if perfuming herself reaches the extent of seduction, or inciting a weak person to covet her; that is, arousing, in the latter, unchaste feelings and desires caused by her seducing him and not by a certain vulnerability or complex in him; in such case, putting on fragrances is deemed undesirable if not forbidden.

Q: What is the legal stance with regard to contact lenses being used for adornment?
A: If contact lenses are used for embellishment and prettification, they would be forbidden.

Q: Are transparent stockings sufficient to cover woman’s leg?
A: If stockings still reveal what is underneath meaning that legs can still be seen; the act of covering will not be fulfilled then and transparent stockings are not adequate, let alone all the forbidden elements of allurement they embrace.

Q: Is a woman allowed to, reverberatingly, intone chants and recite prayers or verses of the Glorious Qur’an in solace gatherings in front of men?
A: Yes, she can provided that her voice is not provocative and does not evoke feelings or desires in vulnerable persons.

Wigs and veils

Q: What is the legal evaluation of wigs “ false hair “ covering the original hair; is it regarded the same as a veil?
A: If wigs were simply used to cover the original hair, they won’t be forbidden because the ultimate aim is to cover hair. Nevertheless, if they are worn for adornment and seduction; they, indeed, would be prohibited. On this basis, a woman would be considered veiled in the material and not in the spiritual sense of the veil. Verily, the spiritual aspect is what counts, and wearing veils is only one of the material aspects leading to the spiritual one.
On the other hand, the wig represents sometimes the best legal solution for the women who undergo hard pressures by society to remove their veils as has happened, and as happens, in some countries of oppression and unbelief where, being threatened by expulsion, imprisonment… etc­ Muslim female students were prevented from wearing veils, and this deprives them, in return, of education or any other vital need in their lives causing them uneasiness and troubles. In such case, wearing a wig represents the best answer to solve the problem while abstaining from revealing the original hair which must not be revealed.

Music and dancing

Q: What is the legal judgment vis-à-vis dancing and music for both men and women; and what about a woman dancing for her husband, is it lawful?
A: According to the opinion of Sayyed Al- Khou’i (May the Mercy of Allah be upon him) , we do not consider dancing as forbidden when men dance together or when women dance together in their private gatherings and not before men. Yet, when dancing reaches a certain degree of seducement that arouses the woman and leads her to deviation, it is certainly deemed unlawful. Furthermore, it is not permitted that men and women dance with each other, not to mention that women are not allowed to dance before foreign or strange men. Women, however, can dance in front of their husbands even if their dancing was sensual and passionate.

As for music, it is forbidden when it becomes erotic arousing sexual feelings and desires and that is what jurists interpret by saying it is the melody of the people of debauchery. As for enthusiastic music or smooth and peaceful music which relaxes the nerves, carries deep thinking, and embraces spiritual aspects, they are allowed.

Q: What is the legal attitude, on that account, with relation to rhythmical and tuneful music , popular music , the aim of which is to create an ambiance for dancing (given that the latter is lawful as you have already mentioned)?
A: Such music is not forbidden as long as it does not involve temptation and enticement; that is, as long as it is not the melody of the people of debauchery as jurists say. Unlawful music is the one that leads to dissoluteness and dissipation, the one that suits the overindulgence of the people of debauchery, and the one that, by its tunes, melodies and notes, stimulate desires and cravings.

Q: Does an engaged person, man or woman, have the right to refrain from telling his or her fiancé everything about his or her past including relationships before engagement and marriage?
A: If such disclosure was a condition agreed upon by the two, then they must honor their commitment and reveal to each other the history of their previous relationships. But if there was no similar condition; from a legal perspective, none of the two fiancés has the right to know the past of the other, even if they are supposed to work together to build trust in their relationship and opening up to each other.

Q: I am a grown-up girl. Does my big brother have the right to impose on me his decisions and opinions and to order me to behave as he wishes, knowing that my father is alive and lives with us . And what if my father is no longer with us?
A Legally speaking, a brother has no authority over his sister but in his capacity as a believer, he can enjoin her to the good , and forbid her from carrying out wrong. Similarly, a father has no power over his adult and mature daughter but to enjoin her to the good , and forbid her from carrying out wrong; to advise, preach and guide. Hence, the authority claimed by brothers and fathers and which exceeds the scope and limits of enjoining right and forbidding wrong has no legal consideration.

Q: I convinced a girl to veil herself, and when I decided to marry her, my parents prevented me claiming that she only wore the veil to deceive me and coax me to marry her, but I do not believe so. What do you think about such situation?
A: I recommend that this young man study the issue carefully and thoroughly, because he could be confused and lost between the emotional and the realistic aspect of reality. It could be that this girl wants to marry him and that is why she is approving of everything he wants. Then after marriage , she might refuse to continue with the commitment of veiling herself; and so, it would turn out that he had been trapped and that it is too late to escape the pressures she would be applying on him. Actually, I am not saying that he should follow his parents’ opinion; nay, he must think of the question more deeply, and consider and study the situation away from all the emotional and psychological influences and impacts. He must do so in order to reach a good, clear, and strong decision that could either enable him to persuade his parents or allow him to leave the girl.

Q: Inside home, I wear clothes that show legs, arms and chest but I have brothers, does that embrace any legal contravention?
A : No, it does not unless you feel that by doing so you are facilitating the formation of an ambiance of deviation in the house, especially with the pornographic movies that the brothers might be watching. So, if you feel that you might be participating in stimulating your brothers by wearing those clothes, you must not do it because you have to save the prevailing environment in your home from the elements of seduction. Society has, actually, started to witness some cases of deviation with regard to the indulgence in wrongdoings through the videotapes and movies that speak about it. We have even received some cases of incest involving a father and his daughter, a brother and his sister and those cases often happen by coercing victims by force. Such cases of deviation make us feel a danger threatening moralities and that is why society must face this problem, in all its parts and with all its force, by studying all the means that help preventing them and one of these means is that girls abstain from wearing sexy clothes.

Q :To which extent, a woman is allowed to reveal parts of her body before the persons who are too closely related to her and who are lawfully forbidden to her?
A: A woman is allowed to reveal all her body parts except for her genitals or what constitute an element of seduction according to the nature of the issue as jurists have mentioned. She is forbidden, furthermore, from revealing her breasts in front her brothers, father and uncles. Considering that those two organs in a woman’s body represent one of the forms of seduction where custom considers them as sex organs, she should cover them.

Q: My father walks around before us in his underwear; is it legally unlawful?
A :It is not legally unlawful to look at him. However, a father must not expose his body to his daughters in such way just as a brother must not do so in front his sisters, because it might help creating an atmosphere of deviation which could be unlawful according to other secondary lawful considerations.

Q: My father is a drunk and he forces my mother to prepare his alcoholic drinks; would she be committing a sinful act or a legal transgression? Is she allowed to refuse to do so?
A: If she fears his reaction, which potentially might be divorcing, hitting or oppressing her, she may do it. But if she is not worried about his response, then she must refuse to obey his demands because; firstly, the act is unlawful and illegal in itself and secondly, as a believer, she must enjoin right and forbid wrong.

Q My father is a usurer. What is the legal standpoint with regard to the purchases he provides us with?
A They are not regarded as unlawful because it is not necessary that their cost was paid from the money of usury especially that purchasing is carried out through obligations; that is, a debt that somebody owes in return for something given. Thus, there is no problem or illicitness in the purchases he brings home.

Q: My father kisses my mother on her cheeks and hugs her before us as an expression of his affection and love for her; does this involve any illegality?
A: If it does not engender sexual thoughts and implications in the children’s minds, then it is not a problem. In other words, if the prevailing customs accept the fact that a father kisses his wife in a friendly manner exactly as he kisses his son or daughter, no unlawfulness is realized then. Nevertheless, if the customary and generally accepted habits reject such behavior and consider it a stimulating sexual act, the father must refrain from doing so.

Q :Is it allowed to leave young children walk about without their underwear?
A: If, in this respect, we were dealing with a question of wrongdoing, the mother must be forbidden from doing so, but we are not. Leaving a child without his underclothes does not represent a transgression in itself.

Q: Are women allowed to receive their husbands’ friends?
A : As a matter of fact, I believe that Islamic moralities forbid such kind of interaction between a wife and her husband’s friends because, in one way or another, this will lead to deviation. Indeed, that’s what we see in the numerous marital and moral problems that are widely spread these days, especially if, in the house, there were young marriageable girls who might stir and affect others. Accordingly, this kind of interaction inside the house might lead to negative results. What I want to say is that, in conformity with the principles of Islam, interaction between a man and a woman who are strangers to each other does not happen; however, it becomes permitted if the they were certain that no repercussions would emerge from their contact. And let me say here that chances of safety against bad consequences have become too little nowadays. And I do not want you to take my words as mistrusting men and women in our society; in fact, I am talking about a reality with regard of which all of us must show caution.

Q: Is it necessary to separate men from women during family meetings?
A: According to Islam, they must be separated because we find that this kind of contact or communication which usually turns into a social habit even between believers, men and women, has given rise to lots of marital problems. In fact, it is possible that the husband might find himself drawn to his friend’s wife as he discovers in the latter qualities lacking in his own wife. Equally, another attraction could grow between a wife and her husband’s friend as the latter appears to her filling in the gaps she detects in her husband. Like so, plunging into an atmosphere of intimacy where barriers are overcome, one feels liberated and embarks on speaking to the other party ¨C the friend’s wife or husband ¨C as if speaking to his own wife or husband. Therefore, I believe that we must work toward setting moral restrictions and limitations to this atmosphere which has been frequently dominant in social meetings, even if it has to be fulfilled at the level of separating men and women during social visits.

Q: My father is old and cannot work and I, his only daughter, work to support the family. Well, a man has proposed to me. Do I have the right to move on with my life and leave my parents to manage their life on their own?
A: In such cases, the girl would be allowed to get married, especially if she personally needs to, regardless of whether her need sets from an individual or a religious basis. If she managed to continue supporting her family while being under the guardianship of her husband, then she must sustain only her mother and father in case there was no one to do the job. As for if she was not able to continue in assisting her family, she does not have to. In anyway she won’t be regarded as sinful by getting married.

Q: Does supporting parents represent a duty binding on children?
A :Of course, it does. As fathers and mothers have the obligation to spend on their poor children, children too have a binding obligation to support their poor parents. And it ought to be mentioned that all children, male and female, are charged with this obligatory duty with no distinction between them in terms of the elder and the junior.

Beating children

Q: What are the permitted limits with relation to beating a child with the aim of realizing his welfare and teaching him good manners? And how would mothers and fathers be legally regarded if they exceeded the acceptable level of violence?
A: Islam considers children as consignment entrusted to parents. So, when Islam made fathers legal guardians of their children, it did not mean by this guardianship the absolute mastery and domination of fathers over children, and it did not mean that fathers are free to dispose of their children affairs based on their personal whims and tempers. Verily, what Islam does mean is that fathers act according to their children’s best interest and welfare motivated by the simple desire of setting right their children’s concerns. Consequently, fathers have no right to carry out any damaging or sinful act that might negatively affect the life of their sons and daughters. On this basis, fathers must raise their children by having recourse to all the methods that make from the latter a good, pious, and honest human beings whether in their moralities, knowledge, religion or in their general behavior toward people. Moreover, fathers must never resort to applying pressures on their children as long as other means are available and can attain the same educational goal.
On the other hand, if raising children decently proves to be dependant on hitting them, fathers are allowed to do that; however, they must hit them for educational purposes; that is, to use physical force as one of the psychological and physical pressuring means, provided that it won’t reach the extent of cruel abuse. In fact, Islamic rules and principles have drawn the legal limit for hitting a child with no retroactive obligations and this limit says that the act of hitting must not lead to reddening the skin; more specifically, if the skin became reddened and its redness was mainly caused by the hitting independently from any other factor, the father would be considered as having committed a sin and must make up for his misdeed by paying an atonement(1). Then again, if the father finds himself dealing with an urgent and critical situation tightly related to protecting his child against the greatest dangers which might entrap the latter, and he feels unable to treat the situation but through severe and violent beating; in this particular case, a father is allowed to hit his child. Still, a father must be very precise and delicate in assessing the situation in hands, he must be very careful in evaluating the level of dangerousness that allows him to take an exceptional action so that he won’t be committing a wrongdoing while all he wants is to right what’s wrong, or fall prey of unlawfulness while all he is aiming at is righteousness.

Q:Can a man forbid his wife from beating children claiming that she won’t be doing them any good by doing so?
A :If a woman wants to beat her child to teach him discipline, she will be in need for her husband’s authorization. Beating a child for educational purposes requires the approval of his father or legal guardian. In any other case, beating a child is forbidden for both men and women.

Q: Another question imposes itself in this respect: are teachers or school administrations allowed to beat students in order to educate them?
A :If the authorization of fathers or legal guardians include such case considering that they know that some beating are sometimes unavoidable, teachers can do it after exhausting all other peaceful means, so to speak. So, if teachers see that the situation necessitates beating, they can do it but they still have to observe the legal limits for such deed.

Q :Can grown-up girls elope with the person they want to marry if their parents refused to allow such marriage?
A : Even though some edicts establish no connection between the marriage of a girl and her father’s authorization, we do not prefer that girls get married without the consent of their parents, in particular their father’s approval, especially in our eastern societies. Actually, this kind of marriages affects the girl’s life as well as the future of her marriage forever and frequently leads to numerous family and marital problems. In consequence, instead of being a way to acquire psychological, physical and social stability, the marriage turns into an element of instability and insecurity.
Nevertheless, if parents treated their girl oppressively and refused to let her marry the person she finds a suitable match or partner, either because they want her to stay at their service forever or because they want to marry her to another person who fulfills their own requirements, measures and, sometimes, narrow-minded standards and ideas such as some societies’ arranged marriages between cousins, between nephews and nieces, and so on and so forth­ .If parents acted upon their own convictions neglecting their girl’s best interest forcing her to do something against her will and desire, if this girl and her future chosen husband found no way out of this closed family encirclement but to elope; in this particular case, they would be allowed to run off with each other in order to get married.
In this regard, we would like to advise parents to always keep in mind that the young man or the young woman living under their roof; those young children are not pieces of furniture or static items void of feelings and soul. Parents must always remember that their children are human beings who have desires and dreams exactly as they, as youth, used to dream and desire.
We ask fathers and mothers to recall the feeling that used to inhabit them under the pressure of their own fathers and mothers. We ask them to recall those feelings that boiled inside the young man who had certain dreams he wanted to achieve, and those feelings that boiled inside the young girl who had certain desires she wanted to fulfill. Parents must push their children toward achieving their wishes and ambitions in life so that they live a life of tranquility, security and peace. As a matter of fact, it is not the father who wants to marry and thus specifies the characteristics of the future wife according to his preferences, it is not either the mother who wants to get married and consequently defines the features of the potential husband in harmony with her desires and dreams; indeed, it is the young man or woman who is about to commit himself/herself to a person in marriage, and thus it is up to them to choose the marriage that fulfills their own wishes and dreams because as living their lives they will find themselves obliged to tolerate the advantages as well as the disadvantages of their decisions.
Therefore, heavily pressuring one’s children to choose this husband or that wife represents an inhuman act that has nothing to do with mercy and compassion. Parents, in fact, have the right to be listened to and they have the right to tell their children what do they think and how do they feel about the latter’s decisions. Parents must discuss their opinion with their children and try to convince them with what appears to them as the child’s best interest. Once parents exhaust all their efforts and all means of persuasion and failed to convince their child with their viewpoint, if the young man or woman refused to change their minds and insisted that the experience they are about to undertake is the one that is going to bring them happiness; in this case, parents must allow their children to embark on their experience after blessing their step and let them take full responsibility for the consequences of this step in the future. Furthermore, parents must continue in looking after their child’s well being even after the latter leaves them to set about new experiences on his own. In fact, the question is not about a game in which you score a point or goal against your child as he fails in his life projects because that is what happens with some fathers and mothers who say to their young girls and boys, ®if you disobey us, we will disavow you denying any knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with you’.
If our children were not convinced with the way we regard matters, we ought to let them carry out and form their own experiences even if they were unsuccessful in their try. And if their experience turned out to be a failure, then we must help them getting out of it and move on with their lives with as little losses as possible; and that is the case of life. We want to make fathers and mothers understand that children are not part of them in their extension even if they were part of them in the beginning of their existence. Parents must, thus, comprehend that their children have their own humanity, thoughts and dreams and that they should not persecute them or treat them cruelly and unfairly because of their humanity, thoughts and dreams.

Q :If I cannot stand living in my father’s home because he commits lots of legal transgressions, do I have the right to leave and stay at the house of some relatives or friends who understand my situation?
A :We do not advise children, males or females, to leave their parents’ house if they see that deviation and transgressions are being carried out because this would violate God’s will in bearing them company with justice and consideration which includes the unbeliever, the dissolute, the deviating father or mother for He says: {"But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration)} (Luqman; 31:15). If this Glorious Qur'anic verse speaks about polytheist parents; then, indeed, it also implies Muslim but dissolute parents! Verily, Allah, the most Exalted, wants children to stay beside their unbelieving, deviating and dissipated parents, to company them with justice and consideration, to show tolerance and mercy in dealing with them, to address Allah, the most Exalted, with supplications and prayers so that He guides them towards the right path, and to work on guiding them.
Then again, if living with the unbelieving and deviating mother or father leads to the deviation of the daughter or the son as being affected by the internal family environment from which they cannot escape or run away and against which they cannot protect themselves in that they cannot preserve their religious commitment intact; in this case, they might be allowed to depart from that house; all the more so, in some very critical and serious cases, they might be bound to abandon their parents to places where they can preserve their devotion and their religious fervor away from any state of internal pressures and temptations that might lead them astray from the right path.

Q: How do you define the discerning child? And how this child should be legally regarded and treated?
A :The discerning child is the one who reaches a certain level of mental awareness and physical predisposition to open up to the sexual aspect of the human nature and personality so that he becomes affected by a particular look or touch or by living in an environment where the feminine element is present. In other words, the discerning child would be best defined as the one whose sexual drive or libido brings itself to light. And when we speak about the rules governing the status of this child, we say that we have some positive rules related to him like, for example, his worships which are considered legal. He might also carry out some acts of adoration with complete independence if they were implemented according to the recognized pattern. Scholars maintain that his worship of God through prayers, fast and pilgrimage are legal and valid. Nevertheless, when we look at the negative aspect of those rules, we find that, in general, authoritative principles regard matters such as looking and touching as tightly related to the regulations set forth to govern and guide the behavior between men and women as they attain puberty. So, a boy is not liable until he becomes sexually mature and, accordingly, he is allowed to look at a woman while she is unveiled, to shake hands with her, and to watch her unveil herself.
Yet, some jurists argue that it would be legally best for the human being, even if he was still a child, to stay away from all forms of deviation and to avoid being exposed to aspects arousing sexual desires. Furthermore, some jurists might claim that the issue is far more dangerous to a child than it is to somebody else with regard to the question of looking at or touching a woman while she is unveiled because this might lead to stirring his feelings in a complicated way that might negatively affect his life in the future. Actually, some jurists might be inspired by His saying {Or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex} (Light; 24: 31) to assert that reservations and cautions must also be applied to small children, in these respects, if they became aware of the shame of sex, which means that they became able to detect the feminine sexual element in the relationship between a male and a female. And we do tend to support this kind of reservation even though we do not issue it as an edict.

Wives and household chores

Q: A widely held opinion says that managing a household (housekeeping, child-rearing, cooking… etc­) is a tacit condition in a marriage contract and it is not true that men can demand nothing from their wives but the rights to the private marital relationship. What do you think about that?
A :As Sayyid Al Khou’i (May the mercy of Allah be upon him) asserts, carrying out housework is not a tacit condition that is legally binding on women because the common sense says that a woman can take on the charge of managing her household tasks and affairs if she willingly volunteered to. Indeed, when she takes on this responsibility, her job won’t be governed by the same feeling of the binding obligation or commitment that regulates the relationship between an employee and his employer. On the contrary, by handling the affairs of her house, a woman would be expressing her devotion to her husband and that is why she serves him and takes care of his matters. Thus, the common sense says that a woman takes the role of a homemaker out of her loyalty and devotion to her husband and home exactly as the husband carries out all the necessary but non-obligatory external efforts and works in order to sustain and take care of his home.
In fact, the contract of marriage does not bind women, from a legal point of view, to do housework, unless the two married people worked on including the carrying out of these works in the marriage contract under special terms and conditions, and unless there were conversations that discussed this particular point prior to the contract. Accordingly, if the marriage contract was based upon this condition through the mutual understanding of the two spouses or through people’s implicit awareness of the case where the meaning of obligation is understood when the woman says “I give myself to you in marriage’ or when the marriage becomes effective as the marriage official says “I give my authorizer to you in marriage. It would be as if he is saying, “provided that she commits herself to carry out all the household chores that women fulfill in houses’.
Verily, it might help us to consult the following Glorious verse which speaks about the father’s obligation to pay the mother for breast-feeding her baby: {And if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable.}(Divorce; 65: 6). On this basis, we find that marriage in Islam does not make from suckling babies a tacit condition that legally binds women because if it was so, women wouldn’t have had the right to refuse to suckle their newly born babies although the question of nursing a child falls historically traditionally and naturally on the mother in all societies. Therefore, we say that breast-feeding a child does not represent a condition that all marriage contracts implicitly include because when a woman nourishes her baby; she won’t be acting driven by the contractual commitment that she had made; nay, her deed is rather motivated by the voluntary and human commitment .

Beating wives

Q: Is a woman allowed to hit her husband back if he unjustly hits her? And in which cases can we say that husbands have the right to hit their wives?
A: Wives have the right to defend themselves against any attack regardless of whether the attacker was the husband or a strange person because the right to defend oneself is legally authorized and valid. Therefore, from a general legal perspective, if a husband hits his wife unjustly, the latter has the right to retaliate against him even though we do not recommend such doing for the preservation of the marital life. Still, if the attack threatens the safety of the wife or endangers the life of the wife; she has indeed the right to react and strike back.
Speaking of the question of hitting one’s wife, a man is not allowed to hit his wife unless she denied him his legal conjugal right to sexual intercourse and he is not allowed to do so either unless he exhausts all peaceful means such as admonishing her, deserting her, etc­ like in His saying {As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)} (Women; 4:34). Likewise, the traditions have mentioned that light beating is the kind of beating that does not cause bleeding nor fractures­; it is not violent and agonizing hitting; it is rather the kind of light hitting that only aims at dealing with the case of defiance. And this method of physically treating a case of defiance is only resorted to after exhausting all psychological, mental and intellectual means of treating it. In reality, there is reason for why we made this exception that allows a man to hit his wife; actually this exception deals with the most vital aspect of marriage, it is the right to satisfy the spouse’s need providing him with the sensual gratification or pleasure, the aspect that keeps the two spouses from deviation and going astray. When facing such kind of defiance, the husband cannot have recourse to the legitimate ruler nor can he present his case to courts of law considering that courts cannot oblige women to respond to the atmosphere of intimacy that husbands are trying to create (sexual relationships) in this particular case, the husband (the claimer of the right) has to find a way to exercise his right.

Q Don’t you feel that there is a contradiction between the essence of the sexual activity and the act of beating, coercing, etc­?
A Actually, there is a very important point in this question that we must pay attention to. It could be that the woman is abstaining from the sexual activity as a result of an illness, an intense embarrassment, or an intolerable state of being; and in this case, she can refuse to comply with her husband’s desires. Nonetheless, if she suffered from nothing at all and her refusal is only an attempt to apply pressure on her husband while he is undergoing a severe state of sexual arousal; her unwillingness, in this case, to satisfy her husband’s sexual cravings represents a betrayal of promises and vows which in return will naturally lead to the deviation of the husband or to the destruction of the conjugal house. That is why, indeed, the solution of beating the wife proves to be the lesser evil.
In consequence, the wife that respects her values and shows deep and great understanding to her husband’s needs, desires and wants; such wife can never lead her husband to a point where he finds no other way but to hit her and treat her arbitrarily. Such woman knows very well how to manage her conjugal life to the extent that she can refuse to be engaged in a sexual relation with her husband if she wanted to; verily, she can realize that by approaching her spouse with love and kindness in a way that does not complicate his life or hers.
Hence, the question is not about normal cases where we can shed light on the fact that sexual desires require the presence of an intimate atmosphere that is mainly based upon caressing and fondling, upon spiritual, emotional and physical harmony and closeness. As to hitting, it represents an unusual if not abnormal case where you need to handle a very difficult situation, which might lead to the destruction of the marital life. And here arises a problem of conflict of interest: what shall a husband do? Should he divorce his wife giving rise to a new problem that inflicts bad consequences on the children, on her and on him as a husband? Should he search the satisfaction of his desires outside the scope of his conjugal life breaking his commitment and jeopardizing the safety of his conjugal house? Or should he repress his feelings and block his impulses and desires, which might cause him to feel frustrated and pressured which also lead to negative and terrible results? Truthfully, adopting the beating way remains the best means to save one’s marriage after exhausting all other peaceful means, like admonition for example, that are mainly based on resolving the problem through intellectual and psychological approaches.

Responding to wives’ desires

Q Are men obliged to satisfy their wives’ sexual desires if they didn’t feel like it?
A The general widely spread edict states that a man does not have to gratify his wife’s sexual cravings except once each four months. Looking at the issue from the perspective of the obligatory precaution , some religious scholars deliver the edict saying: if the wife was afraid that she might commit an unlawful activity, her husband must content her needs and desires based on the obligatory precautionary measure(1) that needs to be taken; all the more so, some people say that in such cases he simply must comply with her.
However, we see that if they were capable, men must satisfy their wives desires in normal situations even if they did not have the inclination or the desire for it because we recall, in this respect, His saying : {And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable} (The Cow; 2: 228). The right to have sexual relations with one’s spouse applies to women as well as it applies to men meaning that it is the right that husbands or wives are entitled to in a marriage. However, we found no one to agree with us on this opinion at the level of edicts.

Q In some countries, people are selling their children for reasons of indigence and destitution. Are these transactions lawfully allowed, especially if those children were destined to work as servants? And if they were; do we regard the sold boy or girl as a slave “the property of the person he or she works for”?
A: Treating one’s boy or girl this way is null and void because no father or mother has the right to dispose of his or her child according to what suits him or her. Parents have no right to abandon their children for the sake of other people, in particular if the latter were unbelievers who will raise the child as an unbeliever. Still, parents have no power or authority to transfer their children to other people even if the latter were Muslims. Verily, a free child cannot be sold because we do not have a slave trade market for children. Some people speak about the question of legitimizing bondage in Islam where bondage has its reasons. Actually, the human being has no right to sell his child or to sell himself because a free person remains free. That is why, indeed, a child remains free and never turns into a slave or a serf. He, moreover, never becomes the child of the men or women who buy him and want to adopt him because adoption is not recognized in Islam {Nor has He made your adopted sons your sons} (33: 4). Therefore, what we are facing here is an unlawful issue where the whole transaction of selling one’s children is deemed invalid and where the price cashed in return is also deemed illicit. On the other hand, we might have some special cases where the mother or the father could not act as a parent or guardian to their child, meaning that they could not nurture, rear and look after him, and they found that some people eagerly wish to raise a certain child, if they found that those people can foster and take care of their child while preserving his family name and his religion; in this case, transferring the child to those people is permitted but not under the consideration of trading the child. Well, parents might take some money but not as the price of their child; they might do so as an act of enabling those people to have and raise their child.
Actually, giving away one’s child can be deemed lawful if it aimed at saving the child and getting him out of the atmosphere of corruption and dissolution and there were no other wrongdoings or transgressions. Still, resorting to the method of selling the child here remains null and void unless the great and noble cause of rescuing the child proves to be dependant on using this method (even if it was false and not factual). Nevertheless, the child won’t be deprived of his family name or his freedom. Verily, it is not lawful that he would be given to another family or that he would be enslaved or used.

The Marriage Bond
Q: Can a woman make her husband comply with her wish to break the marriage bond by including this demand as a stipulation in the marriage contract? And will the contract be annulled if the husband breaks this condition or rejects it?
A: We can regard this condition from two perspectives. First, claiming the right of breaking the marriage bond(divorce) is a void demand because God the most Exalted has made it men’s responsibility. As a matter of fact, this demand proves to be contradictory to the teachings of the Glorious Book and thus it is null and void.
Nevertheless, jurists have another interpretation of this particular issue. That is, the wife might actually be authorized by her husband to assume the act of divorcing; meaning that the husband empowers his wife ¨ just as he might empower anybody else ¨ to instigate divorce and it is a valid authorization. Furthermore, if such authorization was based on stipulation ⁽¹⁾, it becomes binding on the husband where he enjoys no power to revoke it. In this respect, once the conditions of this stipulation are fulfilled, women become entitled to initiate divorce because it is no more a question of the husband refusing or accepting; indeed it is up to her to end the marriage. However, if we are dealing with a case of a revocable divorce, which is the common kind of divorce, the two spouses can reunite and the wife’s right to divorce her husband ceases to be valid or effective since it had been used up unless the condition was clearly stipulated that it is a case of khul’a divorcing (2).

Q :What are the times of exposure ( when spouses meet each other in private ) mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an and how should children behave during these times?
A: The Glorious Qur’an has spoken about the times during which a man meets his wife in private in the Arab, Oriental environment considering that in this specific region especially in the hot climates , it is known that people take naps in the afternoon and after the late-night prayer. Nevertheless, our issue here is that children should always ask for their parents’ permission before they interrupt their privacy. So, it is a question of principle that children are supposed to ask for permission before they come to their parents presence whether in or outside those specific times. It is not regulated by specific rules; indeed, it falls under the social and customary manners.

(1) Stipulated authorization: the authorization based on stipulation happens when the girl says “I give myself to you in marriage with the dowry ¨ Mahr ¨ of …­, provided that I am officially authorized by you to instigate divorce whenever I wish to; and in return, the man says: I agree.
(2) It means divorcing a wife for a monetary compensation given to her khul’a. Such divorce happens when the wife’s hate for her husband reaches the extent of disobeying Allah if he did not divorce her. In this case, the wife grants her husband whatever pleases him a sum equal to her dowry( it might be more or less ) so that he repudiates her; that he says “I divorce my wife in return for what she had offered”.

Rules concerning women
Q :{Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage, - there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments} 24: 60) Does this mean that elderly women are not obliged to wear veils?
A :This verse refers - as it seems - (And Allah knows all things) to that old woman are not obliged to abide by the imperativeness imposed on young women who are in the age of marriage. Apparently, and according to the generalization of this verse and our interpretation of other related texts, an elderly woman is allowed to display parts of her body she used to show such as her hair, her arm… etc­.

Q :Is it lawful to shake hands with elderly women?
A: It is unlawful to shake hands with any strange woman, was she old or young, according to the evidences stated in this context and the tradition reporting the Imams of Ahlul-Bait (a.s.) as they answered the question “Can a man shake hands with a woman who is not unlawful to him” by saying “No, except from behind clothes and he is not allowed to squeeze her palm.”

Earnestness in temporary marriage

Q: When two people, wishing to conclude a contract with regard a particular matter, disagree when evaluating or judging it, like when a person believing in the lawfulness of the temporary marriage wants to marry a girl that does not believe in the authenticity of this kind of marriages and yet she neglects its unlawfulness in order to get married, knowing that he is aware of this fact; do we consider this contract valid as for what concerns the first party?
A: If by accepting or by affirmatively responding, the aim of the second party was the contract itself, the contract is regarded as valid even if the behavior of the second party was set from carelessness and indifference to the unlawfulness he believes in. Indeed, the essence of the contract is the meaning of the contract intended by the two parties; that is to say that both of them, the man and woman, mean the commitment to each other as temporary or permanent spouses. If this meaning was really or seriously intended, then the contract is considered valid even if one of the two parties did not believe in its lawfulness. In other words, if the belief in the wrongfulness of such contract led to flippancy in the contract or the relationship, the contract would be considered null and void. Nevertheless, if a person defies this judgment and decides to proceed with this marriage committing himself to it, the same way he would have done in normal cases, the contract would be considered valid to whomever believes in its lawfulness.
Then again, if we consider that the second party, who does not believe in the legitimacy of this marriage, establishes the marriage with no intention of fulfilling the real meaning of marriage but he does so just to please the other party in order to reach what he wants from the illegitimate relationship in the name of lawfulness; in this case, the contract would be considered illegal and void. Verily, the true contract is the one in which the two parties show seriousness and earnestness in their commitment to the contract or else the relationship would be considered as an adultery.
To be precise, regarding this relationship as adultery or marriage is something defined by how earnest the contractual parties are in carrying out this act of marriage. If both or one of them lacked seriousness in concluding the contract, if the question was only about pronouncing the adequate words without meaning them; then no contract and no legitimacy are fulfilled.

Polyandry!!!...

Q: Islam is accused of violating the principle of equality between men and women with regard to the subject of polygamy since men are granted this right while women are not. What do you think?
A: When we endeavor to organize various aspects of human relations, we must examine the considerations and justifications of any law because laws are not only an urgent temperamental state allowing this and forbidding that; indeed, laws are connected to real life. Therefore, when we come to deal with the question of polygamy we find ourselves asking: why having multiple wives? The answer for that is, above all, found as we study the issue from the sexual aspect of the subject. Sexuality represents the vital, if not the primordial, aspect in conjugal relationships. Actually, men’s sexual desires are not gratified with only one woman and that’s why we find that men, throughout history, have been involved in extramarital affairs; this is a fact that has always governed the movement of men throughout history. It’s true that some people might be monogamous as concerns marriage; however, at the same time, they are having multiple sexual relationships.
From here, we see that adultery had accompanied marital relationships throughout history. Even now, we see the West, the Muslims who follow it and others are legalizing the practice of being married to only one woman at a time; we find that they are, legally or illegally, paving the way for extramarital, illegitimate relationships. Even more, we have seen that some Western laws endow illegitimate relationships with some legal considerations that make them equal, if not superior, to legitimate ones. All of this means that polygamy in sexual relationships is imposed by the human being’s reality during the course of history.
On the other hand, men are aroused faster than women which, in many cases, makes their need for sex greater than that of women to the extent that one woman won’t be able to satisfy their desires.
Hence, in order to deal with this critical situation (even if it does not constitute the majority of cases), a serious solution needed to be found out especially in the cases where the husband needs stability in the multiple sexual relationships. From here rose the issue of having multiple wives; verily, it is to deal with this particular sexual situation.
Another point is to be considered with this respect and that is wars. It is historically known that during wars men are more susceptible to be harmed and to die than women because men are the fuel of wars ( and if some new systems and regimes of modern armies allow women to participate in wars, they are not that large in this respect ) which inevitably affects the balance between the percentage of men and that of women.
What should we do then with this excess of women? Should we prevent them from having sexual relationships or should we push them towards deviation? In fact, this complicates the problem even more instead of resolving it. Therefore, a second or a third marriage, despite its disadvantages, represents the best solution in this regard.
Besides, sometimes the wife could be sterile and the husband, who is deeply in love with her, wants to have a child and still he refuses to abandon his wife; in this case too, a second marriage represents the best solution that satisfies the man’s desire to have a child­. Similarly, we have lots and lots of cases that we cannot go into all proving the helpfulness of multiple marriages.
Some people might ask :why is it lawful to men and not to women to have multiple spouses? When we historically examine the question, we find that women have no history of having multiple spouses except when they worked as prostitutes. Moreover, it is not a case of physical sexual need for her as much as it is a circumstantial, economical reason making her resort to this kind of work.
Thus, women are historically known as being monogamous in their relationships and not as having multiple spouses. It is even said that; in their nature, women prefer to have one relationship at a time instead of several because they like to possess their men and to be possessed by them from a certain perspective. Furthermore, women are known that they cannot but give themselves, as a whole, to only one man, and that they cannot divide themselves between two.
In addition, women do not face the same previously mentioned problems justifying polygamy because; with regard to sexual needs, women’s nature is different than that of men. In general, women are slower than men as to being sexually aroused and stimulated and in most cases one man proves to be pretty much enough to satisfy her sexual needs (except for the cases of perversion which are unusual). Most of family problems usually arise from men’s inability to lead women to orgasm and sexual gratification considering her slowness and the scarcity of her sexual excitement with relation to his. Besides, if you want to say that there is a need for having multiple spouses based on the assumption that women are larger in number than men, you cannot not under usual or unusual cases, such as wars­ because it is not a universal fact. Another point needs to be taken into consideration in this respect: Islam sees the benefit of families in patriarchal systems where the issue is related to the natural as well as the social aspect. Verily, the family needs a person who watches over and takes care of it and men are more capable of handling the responsibility of a family than women. You could regard the issue from the physical perspective and say it is a question of who has the stronger muscles; indeed, it is not about that. It is rather about women’s natural task of getting pregnant, breastfeeding, etc­ because all of this, women cannot move around freely and they cannot undertake the responsibility of the family but at the expense of their children.
What is more, the family system which is a patriarchal one is incompatible with a system of polyandry considering that it generally leads to the loss of one’s origin and lineage. People still regard this question from this particular point of view, even the West still adopts the patriarchal system despite its support of equality between men and women in rights and obligations. For this specific reason, a woman takes her husband’s family name and not the reverse, for this reason a child takes his father’s name and not his mother’s (except for accidental and unusual cases) which means that the whole world is based on a patriarchal system necessitating that a child is affiliated with his father. Truly, this is not possible if polyandry was allowed even if we impose lots of restrictions, limits and constraints because no matter what we do, we cannot be sure that when a woman becomes pregnant with somebody’s child, she would stop having relations with another; this is an abnormal situation.
Equally important, running the house and its affairs differs from women to men since the personality of the latter has lots of the characteristics that protect the child as he feels weak and vulnerable. Therefore, we find that the men who had lived with their mothers are different form those who had lived with their fathers. For this reason, Islam has given children’s custody (after the age of two) to the man and not to the woman even if by doing so some disadvantages are to be involved. Indeed, advantages are far more important in this context. So, the question has another angle to be regarded from. It takes into account the distinguished characteristics of men which are related to his organic and physical structure as well as to his movement imposed by the elements of his personality; actually, those characteristics help him running the family affairs in a different manner than the woman. And it seems that the whole world (even the civilized and advanced world) moves on the basis that men’s way in running the great cases is better than that of women even where women are given the chance to prove themselves in the world of management.
Let’s imagine a home where one woman lives with several men; how would it be like? Truthfully, it won’t be in any way a home of peace since men’s characteristics in their relationship with women make from this polygamy a state of war and conflict between men. On the other hand, we see that the historical circumstances and the features of personality that have governed women’s relationship with men do not turn the home into a battlefield when the latter joins one man and several women. Of course, some complications and problems might arise as a result of having multiple wives; however, when the issue is about one woman and several men, problems might turn into a war that destroy any home peace. In reality, that’s what we notice when several men come to desire one particular woman, when provocations reach demarcation lines (so to speak), the issue turns into a state of war between the conflicting parties.
History mentions that at some unknown or vague stage, a maternal system existed. However, we do not know much about it because nothing details its realistic movement in the relationships between men and women. Regardless of what this issue really was; definitely, it was just a simple phenomenon witnessed in a particular area during one of history’s gaps. Nonetheless, when we thoroughly study history, we find that the patriarchal system is the kind of systems that did, and still, govern families in general.

(1) The obligatory precaution: such precaution is adopted when the jurist finds that the evidences he possesses are not good enough to prohibit a certain action. On the other hand, we find a widespread consensus on acting if precaution necessitated acting or on abandonment if precaution necessitated abandonment (i.e. the well-known edicts dictating this or that). For example, attending Friday held prayers is a precaution necessitating acting; the illicitness of shaving one’s beard is a precaution necessitating abandonment. When the jurist is not pretty much convinced with the widely agreed upon thing to do, or if, for any other reason, he was not so sure and secure about it; in this case, he resorts to adopting the opinion of taking the obligatory precaution and to consult the opinion of another jurist in order to reach a final decision with regard to the question.