Can a man prevent his wife from working, knowing that he agreed to marry her after he knew that she worked as a teacher. What is the ruling for this case according to the Malikite school or according to ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah (adherents to the Sunnah and the Muslim mainstream)?

All praise is due to Allah. Peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), upon his family and his companions. And upon you be peace, together with the mercy and blessings of Allah. First, we say to the questioner that the Malikite school is not foreign to ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah. Imam Malik is a leading scholar among ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah. Hence, there are not two separate opinions; one according to Malik and the other according to ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah.
As for the wife’s work, the basic principle is that the husband has guardianship over his wife provided that he can afford her provision and needs. Therefore, according to Malik and al-Shafi`i, who are from ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah, if he cannot afford this, his guardianship is not complete and hence she can ask for a divorce. On the other hand, Abu Hanifah views that such a provision remains as a debt on the husband.
Thus, one can prevent his wife from working if he can provide her needs. But for me – and I am one of ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah – it seems that the issue refers to customs and the individuals concerned. I
n some places, if the wife is prevented from work and remains at home, this will be a reason for great inconvenience and for more evils. Accordingly, the issue should be weighed up according to the benefits and evils. Women among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) worked. Asma’, wife of al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), worked. She provided fodder for the watering-camel of al-Zubayr, as reported in an authentic hadith. [See al-Bukhary (5224) and Muslim (2182)] Another woman was told to stop working on her palm-trees as she was in her waiting period, but the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) said to her, “Reap your palm-trees.” This is an authentic hadith [See al-Musannaf by `Abd al-Razzaq (7:25)]

Thus, work for women is not something new. It is something known in Islam and hence we should be broadminded in this regard. It is true that the husband has guardianship over his wife as the head of the family. In the Islamic Shari`ah, things have to be under control. “No three persons should travel without having one person as a chief.” [See al-Bayhaqy (9:359) and al-Musannaf by `Abd al-Razzaq (4:58)] Thus, in order to keep order and discipline, the husband is the person who is the chief. But this does not mean that he may do or say whatever he wants. Rather, the household is arranged according to his counsel. Almighty Allah commands that the two spouses should consult one another with regard to weaning their child, “But if both [parents] desire to wean [the child], by their mutual consent and consultation.” [2:233] How much more, then, should be the case with regard to her own affairs?
In short, if he commands her to do something that does not contradict the Shari`ah, she has to obey him, but he is not permitted to command her to do something that leads to evil or to losing some benefit. But if her work will lead to mingling with men or to other evil consequences, he has the right to command her to leave it and she has to obey him. This is the answer according to the position of Malik and the majority of scholars.

There is a great controversy among scholars on the use of musical instruments. Most scholars judged it to be impermissible, citing a Prophetic hadith that prohibits it, while some others permitted it. To be in the safe side, use non-string and non-wind instruments, such as drums, tambourine, and other percussion instruments.

Once, I met the chanter Sami Yusuf in Canada, where he made several performances. I cannot disapprove of his use of music in chants. Unless there are evident considerations that entail prohibition, no decisive judgment should be given on such controversial issues as the use of music. So, I do not blame Yusuf or others who use music in chants; however, this by no means implies my approval.

In which language were the Torah, the Evangel and the Psalms sent down?

The Torah was sent down in Hebrew, assuming that what exists now is the original Torah. The Jews say that Moses (peace and blessings be upon him) broke the Tablets. Of course, we read in the Quran that Almighty Allah said “So when Moses’ wrath abated, her retrieved the Tablets.”
Thus, to us the Tablets were not broken, though they say that he broke them and thus he needed to rewrite the Torah. But they also say that the Torah was totally lost during the Babylonian captivity and was written thereafter by one of the prophets of the children of Israel. It is said that he found a copy of it and rewrote it. Anyway, it is beyond doubt that there are many distortions and alterations in the Torah. But it apparently was sent down in Hebrew. The Psalms were also in Hebrew, for David was one of the prophets of Israel. As for Jesus, none knows if the language he spoke was Aramaic or Hebrew. This is not clearly determined in history.
In addition, the existent four gospels were written such a long time after Jesus that it is hard to say that they constitute what was sent down to and spread by Jesus. Some of the Apostles wrote the gospels: the gospel of Luke, the gospel Peter, the gospel of Mathew and the gospel of John. These four gospels were written after Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, none knows whether they were written in Aramaic or in Hebrew. Allah knows best. Now the gospels are in other languages, after being translated into Latin and then to English, such as the James’s Gospel. Thus, the gospels are now in languages other than their original ones.

If a slaughterer mentioned another name along with the Name of Allah when slaughtering an animal, would that animal be lawful to be eaten? For example, someone said, “In the name of Allah, in the name of the Messenger.”

It is not permissible to mention other than the Name of Almighty Allah when slaughtering an animal. But is this slaughter valid or not? If he did not intend with this word to associate others with Almighty Allah, but it was just to seek blessings, the animal he slaughtered would be lawful.
Nevertheless, in this case we should advise him not to add any other name to the Name of Almighty Allah. Almighty Allah says, “Thus you shall not eat of that over which the name of Allah has not been mentioned.” However, if he did not intend to associate others with Allah, we cannot go to the extent of deeming the animal he slaughtered as unlawful. Allah knows best.

Does the one who does not have residency and fears the authorities become remitted from the obligation of Friday Payer, taking into account that if he is found by the authorities, there will be no great hazard.

If the consequences will be simple, he has to go to Friday Prayer. But if the case is that if he goes to Friday Prayer, he will suffer great losses or imprisonment, this remits him from the obligation of Friday Prayer and thus it becomes permissible for him to pray at home.