It is highly instructive to quote the footnote given in Asad's translation of the Qur'an explaining the importance of this statement: "According to all available traditions based on the testimony of the Prophet's contemporaries, the above passage — which sets, as it were, a seal on the message of the Qur'an — was revealed at Arafat in the afternoon of Friday, the ninth of Thul-Hajjah, 10 H, 81 or 82 days before the death of the Prophet. No legal injunction whatsoever was revealed after this verse and this explains the reference to God's having perfected the faith and bestowed the full measure of His blessings upon the believers. Man's self-surrender (Islam) to God is postulated as the basis, or the basic law of all true religion. This self-surrender is expressed itself not only in belief in Him but also in obedience to His commands: And this is the reason why the announcement of the completion of the Qur'anic message is placed within the context of a verse containing the last legal ordinances ever revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

With such a statement, no one can ever suggest that the message of Islam is incomplete, or that Islamic law does not respond to any clear human need. Scholars agree that whatever is outlined in the Qur'an or the Sunnah is part of the Islamic religion. If neither the Qur'an nor the Sunnah provides guidance on a particular matter, then whatever attitude we adopt toward that matter is permissible. We can choose for ourselves; [the only consideration being that conscious efforts shall be made to remain, as far as may be, within the laid down regulations].

What I would like to point out is that it was never intended that Islam should provide a particular model of life to be copied in all human societies, generation after generation. There is simply no attempt to create a uniform human society. What Islam wants to provide is a system which can be adapted in a great variety of human societies, and by all human communities, in order to establish a way of life that brings out the best in human beings. This Islam has certainly done. It was possible for a wide variety of human societies, races and communities to live together and to establish together a human civilization that benefited by the contribution of all such groups.

None of the four caliphs or the five imams as you call them, had ever added anything to the religion of Islam. None could suggest that an addition is needed. What they contributed was an interpretation of Islamic rules and method by their application in their communities. This is open to all of us, provided that interpretation has the right basis. People do not make their interpretations of Islamic law at will. They have to follow the proper procedure and to adopt a process of proper learning and careful analysis of a coherent set of rules of deduction.

When a country decides to adopt Islam as a state religion, it is an Islamic country although it may in practice fall short of the expectations of the advocates of Islam. What we should realize is that the important thing is that God's law is given its proper place of importance.

Suppose that the law of the country permits some actions that people do while these are forbidden in Islam. A Muslim may bring a law suit requiring that these practices be outlawed. He need not have any basis for that except the fact that Islam disapproves of them in order to have a ruling in his favor. In such a case we have to consider that country to be Islamic, although it falls short of application and implementation in certain areas.

A couple of years ago [1993 or so], there was a court verdict in a certain Muslim country against a company which required it to pay a hefty fine with interest. The company brought a law suit claiming that the interest required was against the law because Islam forbids it. After a protracted hearing, the court determined that the payment of interest was against the constitution which specified that Islam was the state religion. The ruling was binding and easy to implement. This example shows that the country was basically Islamic.

I happen to know that country very well and I would say that on the face of it, there is little in that country to suggest that it is Islamic. Should this line of action be followed by the advocates of Islam in the country, its government would soon find that there must be a change in the way it is run. This could easily become the key to a positive change toward Islamic life.

To start with, Islamic legislation must be viewed within the context of Islamic society. Moreover, when we evaluate a piece of Islamic legislation, we must make our evaluation on the basis of what is intended by that piece of legislation and whether it can achieve its purpose when properly implemented. Every law and regulation is open to abuse. We cannot abruptly dismiss a certain law as impractical because people abuse it. What we can do is to consider what is needed for the implementation of that law so that its purpose is achieved.

The overall purpose of all Islamic legislation is to serve the interests of people and to protect their lives, faith, property and children and to safeguard their physical and mental well-being. Moreover, Islam views man as an "honored" creature to whom Allah has sent messengers and prophets, peace be upon them all, to convey messages which provide guidance for man in all areas where such guidance is needed to serve the above purposes. That honor is given to both man and woman in equal measure. They are viewed by Islam as two parts of a single soul. The fourth surah in the Qur'an, which is the second longest, is primarily devoted to legislation concerning the family and provides details of which many people are unfortunately no longer aware. This surah begins with a statement that Allah has created all mankind from a single soul, and that He has created the spouse of that single soul (i.e. woman) from within itself. Therefore, when Allah states that He has honored the children of Adam, i. e. mankind, that honor is applicable to both man and woman. It is not possible that Allah, the Most Just, honors man and punishes woman. How can this fit with His justice?

Islamic legislation makes it absolutely clear that men are required to look after their womenfolk. In the Islamic system, no woman is required to earn her living, whether she is married or unmarried. Even when she is richer than her husband, it is his responsibility to look after her and provide her with decent living, according to his means.

It is true that Islam gives the right to divorce to man. What we have to understand here is that Islam makes right commensurate with duty, privilege counterbalanced with obligation and gain offset by loss. In the family set-up, in Islamic society, it is the man who stands to lose as a result of divorce. When divorce takes place, a man is required to pay his wife whatever remains outstanding of her dowry, or "mahr", and he may not claim back any part of what he had paid of dowry in the first place. He pays his wife maintenance during her waiting period, and he suffers the breakup of his family, having to look after the children on his own. For this purpose, he may have to employ a housekeeper or seek the help of someone from his family, such as his mother or sister. If he wants to marry again, he has to go through the process of finding a wife, paying her a dowry and incurring the expenses of establishing a new home. In a proper Islamic system, the divorced wife moves from her husband's home to that of her father or her brother where she should be looked after and treated well. If she has no one to support her, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the Islamic government, which should be adequate for her life expenses. Even when the divorce is requested by the wife, the man has to meet all these expenses, with the exception of what is settled as a result of the wife's application of divorce. It is only proper, therefore, that the party who stands to lose more be given the right to initiate the process of divorce, considering that he would not do so except in circumstances which make the continuation of family life very difficult.

It is in order to deal with cases where the wife finds it extremely difficult to continue with her husband that Islam allows her to seek divorce through a court. As I have already said, her decision is bound to cause financial losses to her husband. Hence, it is permissible to arrive at a settlement between them with regard to that to which she is entitled. That is by no means an obligatory condition. If the court finds that she has been mistreated by her husband to the extent that makes life in the home impossible, the court may order the husband to pay the outstanding dowry as provided for in the marriage contract.

It is not true that a divorcee's children are snatched away from her. Islam does not approve that a mother be denied proper access to her children. She has the custody of her children in their early years, and the husband is required to pay their maintenance even when they are with her. Because the father is required to look after the upbringing and education of his children, they join him at a later stage and they maintain their relationship with their mother. That is the proper Islamic rule. If people abuse Islamic law and treat their former wives unjustly, that is their own doing. The blame cannot be laid on the doorstep of Islam. No God-fearing Muslim will deny his former wife access to her children.

You also go through the question of her going through a marriage with a second husband in order to make it possible for her to have reconciliation with her first husband and to be reunited with him in marriage. I realize that the way you have described it is what is practiced in certain parts of the Muslim world. I have discussed this particular problem on more than one occasion. That practice is not an Islamic one. I will explain.

Divorce takes place when a man pronounces the word of divorce, by saying to his wife: "I divorce you" once only. The marriage can be resumed without a new contract, if the resumption takes place during the divorced wife's waiting period, or with a new marriage contract after the waiting period. When a married couple go through this whole process of marriage and divorce twice, and then a third divorce takes place, it all goes to show that there is something basically wrong with that marriage. Islam views marriage as a very serious institution and it does not accept that it should be abused in this way. By way of punishment to both husband and wife, Islam precludes their reunion in marriage for a third time, except in one situation.

That situation is a marriage in the full sense of the word which takes place between the woman and another man. I must emphasize that it must be a proper marriage, not one of convenience. It cannot be arranged in such a way as to facilitate the return of that woman with her first husband. The marriage must be intended as permanent. If it is agreed between the two parties, or indeed the three, that it is only an arrangement for the purpose of making it possible for the woman and the first husband to be reunited together, then that marriage is not valid. Since it is not valid, a return to the first marriage remains precluded. It cannot be done. I emphasize once again that such an arranged marriage is one abhorred in Islam. The Prophet, peace be upon him, describes the man who is hired to go through the process of marrying the woman for one night and divorcing her the following morning as a "hired bull." He also curses him as well as the first husband and the wife who are also involved in this arrangement. Since such arrangement is forbidden, it cannot initiate a legitimate process. In other words, a forbidden marriage cannot be a means to legitimize a marriage which would have otherwise remained precluded. You describe the arrangement with a second man as "rape." It may be so, and Islam certainly views it as highly abominable. It forbids it and accepts no validity of any subsequent arrangement on its basis.

Islam wants the marriage with the second husband to be absolutely normal. As I said, it should be intended as a permanent marriage. In other words, the new husband and the wife could live together all their lives. If however, it so happens, in the normal course of events, that the second husband dies or divorces that woman, then that divorce or the death of the second husband makes it possible for her to be reunited with her first husband [just as she could marry any other person.] That must come about normally, not by arrangement.

These rules are certainly abused in parts of the Muslim world. Their abuse, however, does not mean that they are not sound. You have to understand that these rules are given for a minority of cases where a marriage goes through frequent problems, ending in one divorce after another. Allah who has created man and knows what is best for him has decided in His wisdom that a married couple who have gone through the divorce process three times may have a chance to make their new marriage successful after having gone through the pains of being denied the chance to be reunited together permanently. When the wife is married to another man, and to all intents and purposes that marriage is permanent, but gets divorced or widowed after a while, this new experience is bound to have a great effect on both herself and her first husband. If they feel that they can make things work between them, then they are allowed a fresh start.

According to Islam, it is the man who pays his wife a dowry when he marries her. I know that the reverse is true in certain Muslim countries. That has come about through ancient traditions. It is not possible, therefore, to blame Islam for it. Certainly Islam does not approve of selling a bride or bribing a bridegroom in order to marry her. Islam makes it a condition for marriage that a woman should have a financial benefit in the form of a dowry which is paid by her husband and remains her property over which she has sole discretion.

I hope I have been able to dispel certain doubts from your mind.