I meant I need to see the actual text, as in what the few paragraphs before it say, something like that. My copy of the book is in long term storage and I didn't memorize it
. I would need to read more than that to say anything about it. If you want an answer as to what scholar-worshipping sunni Islam says on something, then yes, you would need a source like that. There are different Islams, with different rulings and concepts, so it depends on which Islam you want to know this about. A lot of Muslims say they are followers of mainstream sunni Islam, but they don't even know about rules like this or some of the other stuff - in my view, they are something else. I think they are making - without even thinking of it - a new Islam that is more in tune with what we consider human rights.
However, separately, I'd like to know more about "The Reliance" and what weight it carries in Islamic law, etc. It contains some rulings I've never heard of before but which appear to give justification for all kinds of things e.g.
Reliance of the Traveller is what we can call an abridged handbook for everyday shafii fiqh. Its rulings are abriged, if you will, from imam Nawawi's shafii masterwork, al-Majmu sharh al-Muhadhdhab. The Majmu is not available in English. It is either 9 volumes or 13 - I can't remember.
Reliance was intended for laymen and women, to be quick reference to the daily issues of life that they might need an answer for, and until this century was studied by the youngest students of Islamic law - 12 yr olds and the like. Now, of course, one needs a certificate to teach it and should only study it under the guidance of a proper sunni shaykh.
However, even with all of these things in mind, it is still not to be taken as a comprehensive fiqh work. Many of the rulings in there are one sentence or two sentences, and the book almost never gives any 'daleel' for the rulings or in depth explanations of them - that is what al-Majmu is for (and also what the scholar-gods are for, according to ... them).
9.1.2 Those not subject to retaliation:
The following are not subject to retaliation however does not wave the punishment in here after when applicable - :
....4. A father or mother (or their parents) for killing their children, or the childrens children.
Is that so? Then what exactly does justify killing your own children?
Are you reading the actual book itself - the actual published book - or one of these online versions? I'm only asking because some of the online versions are "edits" of actual published book which is a translation and which itself has added material to it. But I mean some of the online versions - if not all of them - are actually salafi 're-imaginings' of the book, and so one should be aware that there is no concept of the integrity of any text other than quran with these people and they will chop and add at will without letting the reader know where they have done this. At least the translator of the original text, Noah Keller, who added in things, let readers know what was original to the text and what was added in by him to 'explain' it more.
It also confirms that circumcision is obligatory for women as well, or at least sunna:
@E4.3: Circumcision Is Obligatory
Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)
I studied this particular matter in this chapter with several shaykhs and yes, in the shafii madhab, the type of circumcision known as 'sunna' is obligatory for girls. Or was. They were of the opinion that this ruling can and should be suited for the times and that since it is now considered, by Muslims as well as the rest of the world, to be barbaric and unnecessary, then it should not be done to girls. Even within madhab there can be a dominant ruling, a minority ruling, a deviant ruling, a difference of opinion, and so forth. Their opinions were that this may have been the dominant ruling, but that minority rulings are to be taken as equally valid, and that therefore, this ruling no longer applies. These were not the sort of men who were trying to accommodate and make Islam more palatable to the media either. They were hard assed supporters of patriarchy and putting women in their place, but I suppose even they were uncomfortable with 18th century Arabian norms being passed off as Islam today, so they worked within the self-imposed constraints of this version of Islam to find a way for people today, knowing that if they say it is obligatory (wajib, in this instance), then they will lose people either from the madhab or from Islam altogether.
It is not considered so in other madhabs, and that is important to remember, for even sunni Islam has four different opinions on many things and so in different regions, only one of those schools may dominate. So it's not 'confirming that circumcision is obligatory' in Islam, only that it is wajib according to the dominant ruling for those who follow shafii Islam. It's also worth noting, because you will get this response if you try to argue this with a Muslim who knows anything about the religion, that one can take a dispensation from another madhab and this is why Keller has inserted the ruling above - he intends it to serve as a dispensation for any shafii parents who would rather prefer not to cut up their daughter's genitals. Many people take the dispensation without even knowing or thinking about it, that is how much such things have become the norm. For example, all these women who pray the shafii way or follow shafii rules of fasting and don't wear niqab are taking a dispensation that has become the norm; they don't even realize that covering the face in every land, not just the Muslim ones, is wajib in their madhab.
In this version of Islam, where the word of self-appointed scholars becomes the word of god, it is necessary to find a dispensation to excuse you from following a ruling, otherwise, it is considered as though you are disobeying allah himself an committing a great sin. And just think - this is how sunni Islam was traditionally followed up until the early 20th century!
(The capital A there denotes that the opinion was written by another scholar and is not original to the text; I forget who the A stands for, maybe it was Abdal Wakil al Durubi or Shuayb Arnaut, but it is given in the key at the front of the book. This is an example of what I mean that at least this person told you when he was adding things that weren't original to the text).
Topic: Question for Muslim/exMuslim on Forced Marriage