An excellent episode by the beloved brother Hussam Abdel Aziz, in which he combines simplicity of expression with strength of argument. We strongly advise you to follow and share it. We uploaded it directly to the page after his permission.
Peace be upon you. There is a well-known fallacy called "Straw Man" (or "Rajul Al-Qash"). The idea of this fallacy is that you put an argument in your opponent's mouth and then refute this argument that they never said in the first place, making it seem as if you have "crushed" them and shattered their forehead.
If we wanted to lie to people and present the four imams, scholars, and hadith narrators over the centuries as ignorant and male chauvinists, what would we do? We would attribute weak speech to them that they never said, and then respond to this weak speech, causing people to lose trust in Al-Shafi'i, Malik, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifa, and instead trust Nilly Karim, Saad Al-Hilali, and Ibrahim Eissa.
Ibrahim Eissa, and perhaps those who helped him write the series, committed this "Straw Man" fallacy in the series' dialogues with the scholars regarding the issue of custody being revoked from a divorced mother if she remarries. The series portrays "Faten" as she debates two scholars and wins against them, while the scholars - oh my eyes - are like parrots repeating words they do not understand. The Azhari raises the white flag and says to her, "I told you what I know, or to be honest, what I have memorized or what I can say," while the Salafi scholar blasphemes and shouts at her as is customary in Egyptian drama.
Therefore, I said: Let us conduct the dialogue in a second way, and I will show you how the scholar can expose her ignorance. Did our Lord say that when a divorced woman remarries, her custody of her children is revoked? No, our Lord did not say this in His Book in so many words, but this is the Sharia of our Lord; because the Sharia is not only the Quran, the Sharia is the Quran and the Sunnah.
Even "Faten" (or Ibrahim Eissa, the writer of the series) when a Muslim is asked what he means by applying the Sharia, he does not find an answer except the word "hudud." Did our Lord Himself say that there is no guardianship for a woman over her children and that her custody is revoked when she remarries? No, our Lord did not say that in so many words, but He revealed to His Messenger the legal ruling on the matter of custody.
Our Lord revealed to His Messenger legal rulings; there are rulings whose wording is from our Lord, and these are found in the Quran, and there are other rulings whose wording is from the Messenger but whose meanings are from our Lord, and these are found in the hadiths of the Prophet. Our Lord commanded us in the Quran to obey Him, glorified and exalted be He, and just as He commanded us to obey Him, He commanded us to obey His Messenger. He, the Exalted, said: {O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and do not invalidate your deeds} (47:33), and He, the Exalted, said: {Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah} (4:80).
Imagine, Miss Faten, if a company owner hired you in his company, and as soon as you were appointed, he said to you, "You listen to my words and you listen to the words of the manager of the company whom I appointed," would it be useful for an employee to show you a decision from the manager of the company and you refuse to implement it and ask, "Did the owner of the company say this himself?"
Our Lord in the noble verse said: {O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you disagree on a matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger} (4:59). Our Lord repeated the word "obey" with the Messenger, which means that obedience to the Messenger is obligatory just as obedience to Allah is obligatory. And when a woman referred to the Prophet regarding the matter of custody, he gave her his ruling: "You are more entitled to him as long as you do not marry," meaning your son is in your custody unless you marry. Therefore, this is the ruling of the Messenger, which is from the Sharia of Allah.
When you say, "I ask about the words of our Lord and not about jurisprudence," jurisprudence is the science of practical legal rulings derived from their detailed evidence, and its source is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. He, the Exalted, said: {Then why do they not come forth for a group from every faction of them to understand the religion?} (9:122).
As for your statement that "the Merciful will not deprive a mother of her children," why did you see that the revocation of custody contradicts mercy? Custody is a ruling that follows divorce, and logic says that custody cannot be with both parties at the same time after separation. The Sharia gave you custody first, and no man objected, saying, "Our Lord is Merciful and will not deprive a father of his children." And when you marry, the Sharia gives custody to your mother (the grandmother) and not to the child's father, and the men did not object either. So why, when it is the father's turn after your marriage and the death of your mother, do you say, "It is impossible that our Lord, the Merciful, would deprive me of my children?"
Furthermore, the revocation of custody does not mean deprivation of visitation and contact, as this right is guaranteed to both parties in the Sharia. The series portrays the matter as if it were "male jurisprudence," but if it were male, why did the scholars make custody transfer to the mother of the mother and not directly to the father?
What distinguishes you as a Muslim is your belief that everything that Allah decrees or commands is justice and mercy, even if our minds do not comprehend it. Justice and mercy were in sending the righteous servant to kill a boy to protect his parents from his tyranny and disbelief. Justice and mercy are in the verse of flogging the fornicator and the fornicatrix and prohibiting mercy towards them in the religion of Allah.
He, the Exalted, said: {Fighting has been enjoined upon you, and it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah knows, while you know not} (2:216). Perhaps you hate the revocation of custody, and in it lies goodness for you and your child, and Allah knows while you do not know.
It is a story to say to Allah, "In order for You to be just and merciful, You must do such and such," this is a lack of etiquette with Allah, and it resembles the logic of Satan when he said, {I am better than him} (7:12).
The Muslim has no choice in his affair if Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter: {And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should have any choice in their affair} (33:36).
Since you, Miss Faten, know the rulings that align with justice and mercy from your perspective, why do you seek a legal ruling in the Book of your Lord? You do not need the Quran at all; put a book and write in it what you see as justice and mercy, and undoubtedly what you see will be "the Word of Allah" that He wants! Thus, congratulations, you are among those whom Allah said about them: {Have you seen him who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray knowingly, and has sealed upon his hearing and his heart, and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will they not remember?} (45:23).
This reminds me of an actress who said, "Allah is too kind to burn," they are the ones who decide what Allah does. The series, despite its attempt to arouse sympathy, portrayed the heroine - unintentionally - as a "snake"; she goes to the Salafi scholar and says to him, "From you, we learn and enlighten, O our Sheikh," and after he answers her, she says, "I want the words of our Lord, I do not want the words of the scholars and their explanations." Why this manipulation? If you see that the Sharia is only the Quran and do not want to take the religion from the scholars, why do you go to ask them in the first place? Are you unable to read the Mushaf?
The series promotes ignorance; it conveys the message that "the mother," even if she is ignorant, is always right and understands religion more than those who have studied for years. Ibrahim Eissa claims that these matters "do not require study," then takes "the script" to give it to Saad Al-Hilali to review! People, you have confused us. Does religion not need intermediaries and people take directly from the Mushaf, or should the speech be presented to a "specialist" to review it?
The story is clear, this is a "high-quality enlightened text," and it is the same logic of "Caid Essebsi" in Tunisia when he demanded equality for women with their brothers in inheritance despite the existence of a clear Quranic verse. The whole story is a "setup"; if the ruling is in the Sunnah, they will say "We want the Quran," and if it is in the Quran, they will say "It is outdated" and clinging to it is "stale and burdensome heritage."
Look at what they say about those who adhere to the verse of Allah: {Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, a portion equal to that of two females}, they describe that as "entrenchment, fortification, freezing, and clinging to outdated heritage." We have now become the "evil ones" because we refuse to exercise ijtihad in the presence of the Quranic text! You now know that if the Quran itself is not to their liking, they will demand ijtihad "outside its texts."
By the way, if you open the episodes of Ibrahim Eissa's program on YouTube, you will find a sentence under any video: "Al-Hurra channel is fully or partially funded by the American government."
I could have spoken about the series as the viewpoint of its author, but since the actress announced her support for the ideas of the series, I will give her an example from her life: she stated that her daughters live with their fathers "by mutual understanding and agreement" because their best interest is there. So, you left your children with your ex-husband because you saw their best interest in that, so why do you get angry when Allah sees that the best interest of the daughters is to live with their fathers when the mother remarries?
Oh Nelly, the Sunnah clarifies the Quran, and you personally could not do without the Sunnah and the sayings of the scholars when you ate "the liver." Our Lord said in the Quran: {Forbidden to you are dead animals and blood}, and the liver is full of blood, yet you did not say it is forbidden because you took the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Two dead animals and two bloods have been made lawful for you... As for the bloods, they are the liver and the spleen."
Religion is not a game that we change according to our emotional perception of justice and mercy. Our rejection of this chaos is not a "masculine" stance, but it is the same stance we would take if a man demanded to be exempted from prayer because women are exempted from it during menstruation, or if a father demanded the abolition of dowries in the name of equality. Religion has constants, not whims to be decided by drama.
Peace be upon you.