Benefits of the Hadith: (His mahr for his wives was twelve uqiyah and a nash...)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We derive the following benefits from this hadith:
Among them is the eagerness of the Salaf for knowledge, as seen in the question of Abu Salama ibn Abd al-Rahman.
But we ask: does Abu Salama’s question intend merely to be informed, or does it intend to cite it as evidence for a legal ruling?
It is undoubtedly the latter, and these were the questions of the Salaf. They did not ask about a matter except to build legal rulings upon that question, unlike what many people are accustomed to today, where they ask merely to be informed. For this reason, you find some people asking this man, then the second, third, and fourth, simply to see what they have to say, and this is contrary to the guidance of the Salaf. Among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of a man addressing a woman if it is for a benefit, because what is it? He addressed Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) and asked her.
And among its benefits is the permissibility of a woman teaching men, meaning it is permissible for a woman to teach men, is that possible? Where is this derived from?
It may be said that there is a consideration in deriving this benefit from this hadith, because there is a difference between a woman appointing herself as a teacher for men and being asked about a legal ruling, and the difference between the two is apparent. This is because the former may lead to free mixing of men and women, lead to excessive conversation, and lead to favoritism. And the woman, as you know, is deficient in intellect and quick in emotion. If a man flatters her or smiles in her face, he would attract her as a sheep is drawn to the slaughterhouse. This is the reality. Therefore, one may object to the argumentation in this hadith by saying: there is a difference between a man who asked a woman about a legal issue, which is not a problem and no one says is forbidden, unlike one who appoints herself as a teacher for men.
Then, there is a difference between the Mothers of the Believers, who have in the hearts of people a degree of respect and reverence that prevents there being any doubt. For this reason, Allah said to the Mothers of the Believers:[Al-Ahzab 33:32]: meaning, no one will be greedy except one who has a disease in his heart, whereas one whose heart is sound and healthy will not be greedy.
Now, among the benefits of this hadith is that a woman’s voice is not an awrah (part of the body that must be covered), because if it were an awrah, Aisha would have rebuked him. And this is a matter that is certain due to the indication of the Qur'an. What is the indication of the Qur'an?
Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Ahzab 33:32], so the prohibition of submission in speech is evidence for the permissibility of what is broader than it. And this is a useful rule in the principles of jurisprudence: "The prohibition of the specific or the negation of the specific indicates the existence of the general", because if the general were negated, the negation of the specific would be a deficiency in clarity, or the prohibition of the specific would be a deficiency in clarity. For this reason, the scholars cited the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Al-An'am 6:103] as evidence that Allah is seen. They said: because the negation of perception is evidence for the existence of the essence of seeing, and if seeing were impossible in the original sense, it would be obligatory, or it would be the requirement of eloquence and clarity, to negate seeing altogether, and it would be said: eyes do not see Him. Is that clear, everyone?
So, if Allah prohibited submission in speech, this indicates the permissibility of the essence of speech, and that there is no harm in a woman addressing men.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of stating the general while intending the specific, and this is not considered lying. Where is this derived from?
From the action of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), and her action is a proof. She stated the general while intending the specific. But note that it is not permissible to state the general while intending the specific if there is a possibility that the general is intended, because this is contrary to clarity. Rather, there must be a contextual indicator, a connected indicator, or a disconnected indicator that this generality is not intended. As for addressing people with a general statement while you intend the specific without there being anything to clarify that, this is not permissible.
So here, what clarified that Aisha did not intend the general?
The reality is that the mahr of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) for all his wives was not like this. So when she said: "for his wives," we know that she knew that some of his wives, yes, did not have this as their mahr. And among the benefits of this hadith is that it is recommended for the mufti, when he speaks to the questioner about something he thinks the questioner is ignorant of, to clarify it.
And among the benefits of this hadith is that one of the methods of teaching knowledge is asking, because she asked him first: "Do you know what a nash is?" and she did not say: "and a nash is half," but she asked him. Because when a person is asked, his mind prepares to accept what he is ignorant of, unlike when he is informed directly.
Among them is the eagerness of the Salaf for knowledge, as seen in the question of Abu Salama ibn Abd al-Rahman.
But we ask: does Abu Salama’s question intend merely to be informed, or does it intend to cite it as evidence for a legal ruling?
It is undoubtedly the latter, and these were the questions of the Salaf. They did not ask about a matter except to build legal rulings upon that question, unlike what many people are accustomed to today, where they ask merely to be informed. For this reason, you find some people asking this man, then the second, third, and fourth, simply to see what they have to say, and this is contrary to the guidance of the Salaf. Among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of a man addressing a woman if it is for a benefit, because what is it? He addressed Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) and asked her.
And among its benefits is the permissibility of a woman teaching men, meaning it is permissible for a woman to teach men, is that possible? Where is this derived from?
It may be said that there is a consideration in deriving this benefit from this hadith, because there is a difference between a woman appointing herself as a teacher for men and being asked about a legal ruling, and the difference between the two is apparent. This is because the former may lead to free mixing of men and women, lead to excessive conversation, and lead to favoritism. And the woman, as you know, is deficient in intellect and quick in emotion. If a man flatters her or smiles in her face, he would attract her as a sheep is drawn to the slaughterhouse. This is the reality. Therefore, one may object to the argumentation in this hadith by saying: there is a difference between a man who asked a woman about a legal issue, which is not a problem and no one says is forbidden, unlike one who appoints herself as a teacher for men.
Then, there is a difference between the Mothers of the Believers, who have in the hearts of people a degree of respect and reverence that prevents there being any doubt. For this reason, Allah said to the Mothers of the Believers:
do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet
لا تخضعن بالقول فيطمع الذي في قلبه مرضNow, among the benefits of this hadith is that a woman’s voice is not an awrah (part of the body that must be covered), because if it were an awrah, Aisha would have rebuked him. And this is a matter that is certain due to the indication of the Qur'an. What is the indication of the Qur'an?
Allah the Exalted said:
do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet
ولا تخضعن بالقول فيطمع الذي في قلبه مرضVision perceives Him not
لا تدركه الأبصارSo, if Allah prohibited submission in speech, this indicates the permissibility of the essence of speech, and that there is no harm in a woman addressing men.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of stating the general while intending the specific, and this is not considered lying. Where is this derived from?
From the action of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), and her action is a proof. She stated the general while intending the specific. But note that it is not permissible to state the general while intending the specific if there is a possibility that the general is intended, because this is contrary to clarity. Rather, there must be a contextual indicator, a connected indicator, or a disconnected indicator that this generality is not intended. As for addressing people with a general statement while you intend the specific without there being anything to clarify that, this is not permissible.
So here, what clarified that Aisha did not intend the general?
The reality is that the mahr of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) for all his wives was not like this. So when she said: "for his wives," we know that she knew that some of his wives, yes, did not have this as their mahr. And among the benefits of this hadith is that it is recommended for the mufti, when he speaks to the questioner about something he thinks the questioner is ignorant of, to clarify it.
And among the benefits of this hadith is that one of the methods of teaching knowledge is asking, because she asked him first: "Do you know what a nash is?" and she did not say: "and a nash is half," but she asked him. Because when a person is asked, his mind prepares to accept what he is ignorant of, unlike when he is informed directly.