Is it against the Shariah to put an age limit for Marriage Q&A

Well I

mean

he saw the how

many mean animals Nene

As Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato, who Hamdulillah. All praise is due to Allah the one and the unique he revealed the Quran and he taught man how to speak it Is he alone that we worship, and it is His blessings that we seek. So we ask Allah Subhana Allah to Allah to send salat, and salam upon Al Mustafa, the one who reached the prophetic peak as to what follows today inshallah we have two questions, but isn't it to Allah? Let's begin. Firstly, brother Rashid, from a certain African country best not to mention, as you'll see why, right, that there's a lot of discussion going on in his land, regarding a new legislation that aims to curb the minimum age of marriage, that they want

to make a minimum age, that is, you know, regulating it. So they want to curb child marriage, so say, and they want to regulate

marriage to a certain age. And he is saying that there is a debate amongst the aroma of his land, some saying that it is a good step, whereas others are saying that the Sharia does not have any age limits. So therefore, to put an age limit goes against the Sharia. He asks for my thoughts on this issue. And another question that is similar to this is that sister Hydra from Sri Lanka asks to what level can social culture be used to limit rulings of 50? This is a similar question. So we'll just lump them together. Now, I want to begin by stating that my talk is generic. That's why I did not mention your country's name. And that it is not my place to take sides amongst the aroma of your

land and your country regarding the specifics of whether a particular law is justified in their situation. It's not my job speaking from 1000s of miles away, to talk about your particular land, and what the Roma are saying in that land. I will answer generically, the question can be broadened, and we can say whether, from a theoretical perspective, it is allowed for an Islamic political system to restrict what might otherwise be the default of halal and to what extent can it restrict what is the default that is halal? And as you've already mentioned, that the scholars of your land have differed, which already gives you an indication that this is an issue which obviously there

will be some back and forth some sensitivities, some various interpretations. And there is no doubt that this question is one of the most hotly debated amongst the aroma of all the lands because the the the reality that we're dealing with is that governments and legislations obviously have their own paradigms and sources. Sometimes there's direct clash, sometimes there's conformity, but usually it's this type of gray area here. So let us first eliminate the problematic areas that we're not talking about the problematic areas clearly for an entity for a Muslim government to legislate making that which is wajib. prohibited. So it is obligatory to pray five times a day, it is

obligatory to foster month of Ramadan, it is obligatory to, you know, maintain Islamic decorum and public to wear the hijab whatever it might be, for any Muslim entity for any government to ban to prohibit that which the Sharia has made obligatory, there is no question that this is a rejection and a something that is completely by unanimous consensus, it will be something that is prohibited. And we as Muslims should try our best to maintain the Sharia in our personal lives. And if possible to flee from that land. If the wajib has been made, quote, unquote, haram, if the wajib has been banned, then that has crossed a red line. The exact flip side, if the Haram has been made obligatory

as well, the same thing, it is haram to drink alcohol, it is haram to eat pork, if these types of things have become obligatory in the country that you're living in that you are required to do the Haram once again, you know, there is no question that that is not allowed for us to do if we're forced to do it. May Allah forgive us, it's not allowed, if we're able to leave from that land, we should leave from that land. Now. Let us again, be realistic. The vast majority of laws that Muslim countries enact are not in those two extremes, rather, we're talking about that middle. And that is where all of these discussions come. And the fact is that this branch of Islamic knowledge is in

fact an entire branch of Islamic science, which is called CS or Sharia. It is basically the knowledge of how Islamic politics works. And you have a number of Roma that have written about this for

Example Alma worthy in his camsell Tawnya, for example, even Taymiyah has written a treaties. And you have other scholars as well, in the books of filth you find brief mentioned is actually not something that is generally discussed in detail in the books of faith. And that is because the books of faith are not meant to be constitutions for governments, this is one of the biggest mistakes of the very beginning students of knowledge. And, frankly, sometimes even those that have studied a lot, but they didn't study this branch of CSS, Sharia that they substitute books are fit for constitutions. And we see some times in certain areas, especially rural areas where people that have

studied very basic madrasa and you know, they might be students of knowledge and politics, but they become in charge. And they don't understand that ruling a country is not something that you just pick up a book of filth, and then you take the ruling, and you apply that there is leeway that is allowed in this regard. And so today, Inshallah, this brief response, I'm going to just shed some light, and then I will state that this is a topic that needs to be discussed on a case by case basis by local scholars in conjunction with their areas of speciality. And again, I am not taking sides in your particular land and the scholars of that land, I'm speaking a bird's eye view, theoretically,

because when you look at Islamic history, when you look at 14 and a half centuries of the Muslim world, you actually do find that soul bonds and holo fat and governors many times enacted laws that conflicted with theoretical ideals, and sometimes the scholars approved, sometimes they justified usually they grudgingly went along, because the ideal and the real is always generally speaking different from one another, the ideal and the real, is something that there's tension in class how the world should be, versus how it actually is. And this was the case even in the time of actual Hola, an actual soul thorns. Do you really think every single time and every governor and every

ruler acted like I'm gonna blah, blah, blah, the Allah who I'm obviously not many times they enacted rules that were hotly disputed, and opposed by the people have their times. But what is to be done? Rulers are rulers and the people simply if they, you know, they obey along and they hate it in their hearts, then it is what it is to compound this problem. If this was the reality of actual Khalifa and Salatin, what do you think in our times when we don't have Islamic judgments and governments what we have are nation states, with countries, some of which have a Muslim majority, some of which might have, you know, Muslim minorities, but Muslims in Congress, and the majority of which the laws

of these lands do not go back only to the Sharia, rather than a hodgepodge, a mixture of this and that elements of the Sharia elements of other laws. And of course, we also have to think about the minorities of other faith traditions living in these Muslim majority lands, and the realization that modern laws must apply equally to every single faith in a nation state. That is the nature of the nation state, if you're a citizen, all the laws will be equal, the nation state was not meant to cater to, you know, different laws for different faith traditions, by and large. So the point being, with all of this, you know, caveat over here, you're asking me, Is it allowed to restrict that wish?

The Sharia has made permissible, it is not obligatory? It's permissible? Is it allowed for an Islamic government to restrict the permissible? You asked me, I'll give you my opinion, I follow the position, which is the mainstream, this is not a fringe minority. You know, this is our problem here is that people who don't understand or don't know, they make this to be some type of deviancy and in reality, this is the default position that an Islamic rulership has the right in consultation with the aroma, and with the experts to restrict the MOBA to restrict that which might be otherwise permissible, permissible, or to take charge of the rights that the Sharia might as a default, give

to an individual, that the government can take charge of that right and take it from the individual as a matter of policy, as long as certain conditions are met. And this position, is what history itself shows us going back to the era of the Khalifa or Russia doing that there are so many examples of this. Some of these examples deal actually not only with, you know, running the country, they deal with core religious policies. In fact, one of the first things that a worker suited with Allahu Anhu did as a matter of policy was to compile the Quran in one book, and this compilation of the Quran was one of the biggest blessings that Allah gifted to this ummah, as a matter of government.

He did this and then Earthman Radi Allahu Allah and he made that version or that most half if you like, he made it the the only one and he said anybody who has a personal copy by government policy, it should be destroyed. Now some even of the people objected they say Hey, hold on a sec. This is my copy. I heard it from the Prophet

From an earth tomorrow the Allahu said I don't care right now we have a greater good to do we have to unify the entire Ummah and we thank Allah He did this because of those wise decisions, then a lot of fitna later on was gotten rid of and the OMA has remained united because of a matter of politics because of a political decision of Earthman Radi Allahu Allah. And the same applies for other actual religious Institute's such as the Tarawih prayer that are modeled by Allah who instituted Of course, when it comes to non religious matters. So many policies were done in that era of the Hoda and the early are my years, whether it was to divide the government into various administrative bodies, or

even to put into place simple laws that we still see. Let me give you a simple example. Do you think that it is another Islamic for an Islamic government to put in laws pertaining to traffic and to pertaining to, you know, stop signs and violations? What if the government says you must have a driver's license to drive a car and then some, let's say, you know, person who doesn't understand the Shetty or says, Oh, this is haram, Allah doesn't say that we need a driver's license Subhanallah if somebody brings this issue, then honestly, the mentality of this person is so far removed from our level of discourse that frankly, I don't even know if we can have a legitimate conversation with

this person. Allah azza wa jal did not require these types of things simply because Allah azza wa jal said what to our other ability, what Taqwa cooperate on that, which is good. So if a group of people come together, and they say, it is good, that we put in traffic laws, it is good that we have red and green and yellow traffic signs, stop signs, it is good that we regulate, you know, the city in this regard, then it is therefore a part of our system that we follow that there is no problem just because the shady I didn't come with it, obviously, that's what society does. The Sharia is a very broad rubric. And it is something that is meant to be applicable in every single time and

place. And therefore, if the ruler wants to restrict that, which the default of the Shediac is permissibility it is permissible. And let me show you some examples that are even more explicit. I'm gonna I'm gonna follow the law who aren't heard that some of the people in the newly conquered land some of his administration, some of the senior Sahaba were marrying ladies that were Jewish or Christian. I had Nikita I'm gonna go hakab wrote them a letter saying that you should not marry a holy Kitab ladies marry Muslim ladies. So they wrote back that oh Ameerul Momineen Oh leader. Allah has said in the Quran is allowed. Are you saying it is haram? Allah has explicitly said it is

Khaled, how are you saying for us that we should not marry Ali kitab. And Agra hubbub said I am not saying It's haram. I'm not using that word that Allah has said is haram. But it is I don't want to you as my government employees, as my officials, as the governor, as people employed by the state, I don't want you to do this. Because, you know, according to one book of history, it says, If you were to start marrying the allocator, and you are the role models, then all the Muslims are going to follow you who's going to marry our ladies who's going to marry the Muslim ladies and commenting on this had been JD authority, the historian, he says that rewardable hottub did not allow Talhah and

who they for and other of the senior Sahaba to marry Jewish and Christian ladies out of a fear that other people might follow in that custom and therefore the female Muslims, the Muslim art would be left unmarried. And so he commanded that as role models, they should restrict themselves to Muslim ladies now, did Ramadan no hotdog or with or without with the will contradict the Sharia? No, because it's not obligatory to marry a Kitabi. It's allowed, it's MOBA. And in this point, by testimony of the Quran, it is allowed to marry a Kitabi lady, Allah says in the Quran or Hadith that law is allowed for you right, that it is permissible for you to marry more so not in vitam was after

Hatton that as long as they're pure and righteous that you may marry and Nikita that.

By the testimony of the Quran is hella Ramadan Nakata is not saying haram. He is saying for you. My government deploys at this time in place, I'm going to legally prohibited what has happened here. He has taken the MOBA, the the permissible and he has restricted it. That's completely allowed. Another issue of emerald above that he did famously I talked about this in other q&a, that he took the issue of the triple divorce, and he made the triple divorce actually a triple divorce. Again, this is another topic altogether.

And maybe I'll talk about it in a longer q&a. I have given a brief q&a. I remember the phenomena of the law when he took the issue of the triple divorce

Before his point in time, a triple divorce was considered one. If a man says, I divorced you, I divorce your idea for you is considered one, or I'm going to follow the law, one took a diplomatic political decision. And he said, triple is tripled. This is a political decision, not a sugary position. And he and now if somebody were to say, as you change the Shetty, I know, it's a political and he took this and it became the law of the land. And in fact, not just political decisions, illegal decisions. Some of these decisions, even involved rituals are a matter of the Allah who instituted two events to advance for Juma, one of them in the marketplace, and one of them outside

of the masjid as was the custom. And the people understood that this was done for the benefit of the Ummah, there was no bidder, or no evil or no contradiction of the Shetty. So actually, if you look at the early scholars and the early, you know, the Holy Fathers, you don't, ironically, you actually find a level of pragmatism and forward thinking that is absent in many of our students of knowledge. And dare I say, even many of our clergy, it is simply absent because we have Al Hamdulillah, a massive tradition, 1400 years of scholarship, but in that scholarship, we also have, unfortunately, some elements of stagnation. Because we have so many volumes written in the last 14 centuries, a lot

of people stick to what is written in those volumes. And they don't understand that those volumes written in 700 Hijra 1000, Hijra 300 Hegira. Those volumes represent the cumulative efforts of human beings. But the Shediac is broader than these books. And when you go back to what pub and others did, they understood this point, given the current dynamics that we're facing, given the situation of the modern world, there is no problem for forward thinking or Adama to come together and to see what else can be done to make the Sharia applicable as much as possible to make the Sharia applicable as much as possible. Once again, and this is the problem that we face, we do have a

hypersensitive reactionary group of self professed defenders have what they believe to be orthodoxy. And I have no doubt in my mind, that if these groups of people were alive during the time of Fatah rhodiola, one, they would have considered him to be a deviant reformist, they would not understand this is what the Sharia itself commanded to do. And throughout history have so many examples of CODA and Salatin doing things that were in the gray area. And eventually the scholar said, Okay, well that I understand this needs to be done. And sometimes the scholars opposed it, not everything they do is this rulers do is automatically good. One example that comes to mind is when the Mongols

invaded Muslim lands, the rulers began to charge a special tax. Now generally speaking, the rulers are not allowed to charge these types of taxes to the population. And Allah is even Abdus Salam, one of the greatest scholars of that time, he gave a fatwa to the ruling family, that you cannot charge these taxes unless and until your own personal wealth and your own lifestyle and your own multiple palaces and horses have been sold off, you know, the ruling family always gets fat and rich, this is the reality wherever you know corrupt people are and the majority of politicians are corrupt. So the ruling family of the time also is extremely wealthy, you know, this person has appointed his cousin

and the ministers here the second cousin here, the brother there, and of course, the ruling family gets rich off of the the money of the of the of the people. So it isn't Abdus Salam said, it is how long for you to charge one penny to the peasants. When you have 1000 horses in your stables, get rid of all of your excess wealth live like everybody else. And once you have gotten rid of your haram money, and we have to now pay to defend against the Mongols, no problem at that stage, we will pay extra taxes. And that's what you know, was enacted at that timeframe. So the point being that, you know, the situation called for taxes, even though generally speaking, the Shetty out, you know, does

not allow, you know, governments to have these types of of taxes being done. But when you have the Mongols at your doorstep, well, then you had better, you know, defend your land. So the point that you're asking about a minimum age for marriage, and this is clearly something that is shady, I did not come with that there's an age or no age, the Sharia doesn't have an age number. So in some societies, it was the norm, it was completely permissible and the shady I did not forbid it that as long as it is something that the culture and the people are accustomed to. The Sharia is meant to be applied in every time in place. And marriages done at young age was the norm across the globe,

Western and Eastern societies. How many go read up history, how many of the royal family of England of Germany of Bavaria of of the Mamluks they would get their children married at a young age to solidify the bonds and for whatever reason this was the norm. No, you know, even in this country of America

cut that up until recently, to have two teenagers, even 14 year old 13 You'll get married 100 years ago, it was not something that raised an eyebrow, it was the norm. People are living shorter lives, children mature faster than, you know than they do now. And so it is something that was considered normal. Now in our times we understand that young marriages might be potentially problematic in many cultures and societies. And if the government feels that we should raise the age of marriage and make it something that is reasonable, and the government therefore then restricts the MOBA could because child marriage is MOBA. It's not haram. It's not worship, it's MOBA. If the government

restricts the MOBA, if one would have no hottub radula one can explicitly restrict the Quranic verse that says you can marry a gay Tabby lady. And this is explicit in the Quran, you can marry, he goes, No, I don't want you to marry. And the people understood this, then how about when there is nothing explicit in the Quran and Sunnah about the age of marriage and the ruler comes and says that the minimum age is 16 or 17 or 18. How can anybody say that it is haram to do that? Is that ruler doing something more radical than honorable Kotaro the law one, the point being that it is permissible to restrict that which is MOBA. There is no problem. And in fact, the majority of Muslim countries

around the world have many laws in which the MOBA is restricted. And it is understood that this is the norm, and it is positive. And one simple example for this is marriage registration and divorce registration. As far as I'm aware, almost every single Muslim country in the world with the approval of their Allama has said that a marriage must be registered with the appropriate authorities, you must go to the ministry and register the marriage so that we know who's married so that we know children born to which marriage so that when a divorce happens, you know everything is registered. Now, if some you know Ultra fundamentalist who studied you know, grade 1/5 comes in and says, Oh,

there'll be law, the shoddy or does not say you must register your marriage. The Sharia law says you must have the worldly, you must have the the bride and the groom, you must have the mother, you must have the two witnesses. The Hijab and the hobo no book of fig says you have to register with the government. We say this person BarakAllahu feek, Yanni learned some wisdom and learned some fifth and learn some CSS, CSS with the Sharia, you haven't understood it the goals of the Sharia, we want marriages to be protected. And one of the ways to protect marriage in the world that we live in is to register them with the government to make sure the authorities know who is married in case of

divorce in case of something we need to have legal backup. And so we want marriages to be registered. We want divorces to be registered. And that's why I am not aware of any mainstream scholarly body that is saying oh, it is haram to register marriages. On the contrary, it fits the goals of the Shetty AI to protect women to protect inheritance to protect children. We want the legal backup. And so yes, the marriage requires these conditions, do it in the masjid but then go register with the court of law go register with your country so that your marriage is known and your marriage is done acceptably. And the same goes for divorce as well that you should be registered so

that the government is aware this is another example of that which is MOBA being restricted. There are so many other examples that can be given as well. Simple example is the reality of rec and of milk. I mean you know Melaka a Maluku was the Quran, Allah was right at the concept of booty and servitude and whatnot. Once upon a time, it was something that was the Shetty allowed it the Sharia allowed it. Now, that concept of REC is completely banned in every single country in the world Muslim and non Muslim, it is globally illegal to have a erotic or to have a milkman now suppose hypothetically, hypothetically, that a person went to another land where there's a legitimate

struggle going on. And he legitimately acquires a prisoner of war. That's not ransom. And so he takes this stuff click back to his home country back to the this nation state that he lives in. He goes, Oh, lucky. You know, I acquired this stuff here legally from the Islamic Sharia. And this is now my rakia. Okay, so this is giving a hypothetical example. What do you think would happen? Yeah. Be again, be realistic, you know, from Morocco, to Kazakhstan from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, which land would allow a rockliffe And why should they allow? This is restricting the MOBA it is not why Egypt to have it's not wajib to have milk me it is not wajib it was MOBA for a time in place. Now

the world has banned it officially. Now. I know unofficially, things happen but what not, and you know, there is still illegal slavery in the world. But I'm saying as a matter of policy, the world the globe has banned this institution, including every single Muslim country without exception. Do you know any Harlem that is saying this is haram? Do you know an alum that is saying I will do Billa why has every single Muslim land you know banned

it they understand that it is allowed and maybe even desirable in this case, to stop this institution and Hollis, it was something of the past. We don't need to move it on. So the with utmost respect to your scholars that I'm not taking sides, I'm just asking them ask you to ask them, the same scholars that are problematizing marriage age and whatnot. Are they also problematizing? The fact that the same country that you're from has banded it and milk, I mean, are they saying that, you know, to obey those laws issued can confer they themselves don't have Rockley can build came in, and they're not calling for it in their own countries. And globally, it is now completely

gone. So again, this notion of making an issue out of something that should really not be an issue, per se, again, I'm speaking theoretically that conceptually speaking, it is allowed for a proper Islamic government that actually wants to follow the Sharia to restrict the MOBA, how much more so that when a government doesn't even follow the Sharia and is doing these things, okay, you just follow along that if a proper Islamic government were to do it, it would be halal? How about if it's not even Islamic government and they're just doing it for their political reasons? Okay, what are you gonna say about this? It just, you know, it's it is it is what it is. My point being many

examples can be given in this regard. The famous scholar Paul had been assured, perhaps one of the most brilliant scholars of the previous century, North African scholar, Tunisia, he actually said that a number of instances, he actually said, the rights that Allah has given to the individual can be taken by an Islamic system and taken away from the individual. So for example, the right of disciplining, you know, one spouse that Allah says in the Quran will be reborn, or totally been assured said in light of all that is going on in the world. By heaven, I should have said, this right should be taken away from the husband. And it should now go to the Hill coma to the

government's, one of my own teachers, very conservative, very traditionalist, you know, old school scholar, one of my own teacher said that, that, in light of the misuse of divorce, in light of how divorce has become so common and prevalent, there is no problem in stripping the right of divorce away from the husband, and in forcing the husband to go to the court of law, and in presenting his case, so that there are checks and balances, right? This is something that is coming very common in our times to hear this type of rhetoric to restrict the MOBA is something that the Sharia allows, and so many other examples can be given in this regard. But it's want to conclude with what a number

of our scholars have said that to restrict the MOBA is allowed when it is done for the common good of the people, when it is done in consultation with aroma and with experts is that simple, even Taymiyah himself comments on a particular case, that there's a Hadith of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, in which a man came and said, O Messenger of Allah, can you regulate the price of commodities amongst us? Can you regulate the price of commodities amongst us? Because inflation has begun and prices have gone high? So whatever was $10 from their homes has become maybe 15 drops, right? So they're saying a messenger of Allah set the prices. So the Prophet salallahu alayhi wa

sallam said, I don't want to do so. Allah is the one who sets the prices, Allah is the Messiah, let it be somewhat of a free economy and Islam is not 100% free economy. But overall, it is more free economy than communism overall. There are more aspects if you like of some aspects. Don't misquote me, I'm being very simplistic here. Some aspects of free economy are more in conformity with Islam than socialism and communism. But Islam has its own because it does not allow interest and other things of this nature. My point being the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam explicitly refused to set prices, even Taymiyah. And he is not somebody who's considered to be a progressive or whatnot.

He is very, you know, mainstream. Adam would not even tell me a comment on this. And he says that sometimes sometimes setting prices is justice and permissible. Now, and he gives an example that if somebody, you know, has inflated the price of that, which is not, for example, water, and if some groups of criminals have overtaken the water industry, let's say two or three mafia gangs have overtaken the water industry, and for no reason they're raising prices to exorbitant levels. Should the government step in bread? Should the government step in and say, Hey, you families that are running the bread industry, the rice industry, you're not allowed to, you know, form a cartel,

you're not allowed to come together and you know, make sure that everybody's paying double, triple five times the going rate just because you have a monopoly on the market, or should they follow the explicit Hadith? I'm not going to get involved. Allah is the one who sets prices. You see once again, we get

What we call what I call superficial level one knowledge, the beginning student who reads the Hadith. And, you know, again, if you were to, quote even Tamia to this person who was a notable people would never say that, how could you contribute the Hadith. And again, the problem always is a very, very flimsy, superficial understanding of the Quran and Sunnah. And the notion that the Quran and Sunnah have phrases that are constitutions, rather than they have phrases from which we derive broad laws and ethics. And there's always exceptions, even Taymiyah himself says, the default is we don't get involved, yes, but if a commodity that is needed by mankind is being abused by a group of

people, then to get involved and to set prices becomes the essence of justice, you must get involved, and you must set prices, even if it appears that you're contradicting the Hadith explicitly, still, you do it because the Hadith was not meant to be with no exceptions. Once again, this is the government getting involved in legislation that the Shetty might default by saying don't get involved with So in conclusion, the majority position, and it is the majority, in spite of unfortunately, some of our clergy and some of our students of knowledge, saying otherwise, then it with my utmost respect to somebody who has gone through training and scholarship, I will tell you

that, frankly, many of the people who study just a few years, they form hard line positions that those who study 2030 years, eventually abandon. I'm just being honest here. And you will see for yourself, if you look at some of the most elderly and senior scholars who have gone through life and gone through much knowledge, and especially if you look at the council's of the globe, the tahajjud Earlimart Islami and the Robert Sami and the others, you know, in our case in America, you follow the European Council and namja and the third Council North America, if you look at these bodies, and the scholars on those bodies, generally speaking, you will find that they have gone through the

stage of simplistic literalism and they have broken beyond this. And they've understood that no, the Sharia does not require you to stick to a textbook written 500 years ago by a great Adam, but have a particular time and place. And in fact, the Sharia allows for thinking through specific issues, and perhaps restricting that which is unrestricted in the Sharia. And let me give you a simple example. You asked about the setting the age in Saudi Arabia recently, with the with the backing of the clergy, with the backing of many odema, the government did restrict the minimal age. Yes, there was some pushback, yes, some scholars said, you don't have the right to do that. But the majority of

scholars of that tradition understood that it makes sense to restrict, we don't want young marriages anymore, because generally speaking, person is not qualified to get married. And in fact, the harms are going to be greater than the good. If a person is very young, you know, 10 years old, or 12 years old, they're not qualified to understand the implications of marriage, and it's going to be problematic later on. So even a very conservative land that is full of scholars, you know, like Saudi Arabia, recently passed legislation with the backing of the scholars, and they raised the age of marriage, and it is now the law of that land, and is the law of many Muslim lands as well. And so

even though I'm not qualified to judge in your particular land, and I don't know your culture, that well, and I don't know, you know, your particular society, I will say, as a general default in the current world that we're living in, it does make sense to me to raise the age of marriage to make it something that is reasonable. And the Sharia does allow this, even Noujaim, one of the great scholars of a solid field of the Hanafi madhhab. And he wrote a number of treatises that are considered to be referenced works in the theory of Islamic law, he wrote that the leader, the Imam has the right to

enact laws that will be beneficial for the community, the leader has the right to make laws that are not explicit in the Sharia, in order for benefit of the community. And therefore, if laws are passed, that don't contradict the explicit Sharia. We're joined by a contract I said, to make the wajib illegal or to make the Haram mandatory. These are the two extremes that we cannot tolerate that which is wajib. If you say you're not allowed to do that, or that which is haram, you say you must do that. There is no question that now you're in trouble. And if you're able to leave, leave that land if you're able to change change that that law, however, the bulk of laws that we do are in

the middle of these categories, and that is the shadow or silent or maybe even the God has allowed it as MOBA not as wajib and the rules come along and say hey, we want to restrict it. As long as it is done with this, you know, I conclude the conditions. The first condition is that this change must be in conformity with the goals of the Sharia, not with the goals of the pocket of the ruler, the goals of the shed.

Yeah, so for example, child marriage of the goals of the Shediac is to protect children and to protect women and men and to protect families, if in a particular time and place young marriages is detrimental, then in that case, we should say, You know what, let us stop young marriages. And let us not go down that route. So, the first condition, we say that it must be in line with the goals of the Sharia. The second condition is that the scholarly community should be consulted along with experts, the scholarly community should be consulted, along with experts, these decisions should not be done simply by a group of politicians, because we don't trust them to be honest, we don't trust

that they're doing it for their own good or for the good of the community, you should have rules. And you should also have experts in whatever field that is, whether it is you know, whether it is, you know, child psychology in this case, or whatever it might be, there should be experts who understand the reality of this situation and to be involved as well. And then the third condition is that this change, this change cannot be a permanent or an ethical change, it is a temporary legal one for the sake of that particular time and place. So, if this law is passed and says, the minimum ages for example, 17 years old, they cannot say that all marriages that took place before this time,

in the past, we consider them to be haram and against the Sharia, no, they have no right to dictate ethics in the past, they can make something

illegal, but they cannot make it impermissible in the eyes of the Sharia. What's the difference? To make it illegal means that we're not going to accept this. They cannot bring the word haram in Allah's religion No, because Haram is the right to Allah See, I think this is the fundamental point that most Muslims are many Muslims don't understand. When the government says you must stop at the traffic light. Okay? They are not saying that if you don't stop you are committing haram act that will take you to jahannam they're saying you're doing something that is for the good of the community. And if you don't follow these laws and everybody is going Helter Skelter, it will harm

the community. It's not allowed to bring in Haram and say, Allah is telling you to stop at the traffic light. No, Allah did not tell you to stop at the traffic light. Allah said, live in a civil society. Allah said Ramu Robina, whom Allah azza wa jal said, obey your rulers and your rulers have come together and have enacted laws that are for the betterment of society. Therefore, for you to follow these laws will bring a healthy society, it's that simple. And the same goes for these other areas where the Sharia is silent or maybe even the Shediac explicitly allows, but for certain times in places, scholars and other people think that it is best to change for that time and place it

cannot be permanent, you cannot and no one has the right to permanently abolish that which the Shetty has considered to be permissible, but they may do so for a temporary period of time. And so with that, in sha Allah Allah we conclude this question by stating that from a theoretical perspective, it is permissible to do so and then with regards to your particular country. Listen to both sides and my position always is that track record speak volumes and go to those who are rooted in the tradition but at the same time understand the realities of the world and you will always find such aroma go to those aroma and stick with them. Time has finished brothers and sisters were there

was I was thought we had time for one more but unfortunately there's no time for that inshallah we'll continue our q&a next week. Until next time, cheers Docomo Allah who played on was set up by Deacon rahmatullahi wa barakato

in many Muslim me now almost Lima T one meaning Mina dean will call on et now I looked on it that thing was slowly been I was born in Poland he was saw the Rena was Slavia right the one before she you know wonderful she

wouldn't fall she no one would fall she I think one down one btw no one downside the party was on me now was all in

one heavy Lena photo gentlemen, one half year warranty. Was that good enough luck.

What's going on? I don't know who

was a gentleman Eileen.