I do not understand this Hadith. Aren't
Muslims discouraged from begging generally?
Volume 2, Book 24,
Number 554: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The poor person is
not the one who asks a morsel or two (of meals) from the others, but the poor
is the one who has nothing and is ashamed to beg from others."
Answer:
This is a typical example of a hadith which
can cause problems if it is not understood in its proper context. What the
hadith, to me, means is simply the fact that if Muslims are looking for the
right candidate to give their charity, they should look for the one "who
has nothing and is ashamed to beg from others"; they should not look for
the one who "asks a morsel or two (of meals) from the others".
Quite often we find in ahadith that the
narrator quotes a statement of the prophet, alaihissalaam, but doesn't give you
the context. You have to imagine a context yourself through your understanding
of Qur'an and hadith and through the use of your common sense.
I need your advice on a religious matter. My
friend who got married last year has clashes with her husbands family so [she]
just came to her parents to spend some time refresh herself and start again.
But she was ok with her husband. Now the situation is this her husbands family
dont want her to come back and asked her husband to break this marriage.
Yesterday she got a text message from her husband that he is giving divorce to
her and it was written there three times. But she is not gonna believe this
wether its valid or not. we contacted here our local masjid's imam sahib and
one said its valid other said its not. Can i have your advice on this.
Answer:
[Note: the question was posed in the context
of living in a non-Muslim country]
Please find out clearly the procedure that is
followed in matters of Talaq amongst the Muslim community [where your friend
lives]. May be you may need to get advice from some lawyer. If the decision is
primarily to be taken by an Imam, then you need to know which Imam is it going
to be. I have a feeling that the Imam has to be first informed that no decision
can be binding unless the person taking it is given freedom to decide.
Therefore it is absolutely necessary that your friend's husband should get a
chance to decide without the influence of his family.
As for the correct Islamic way of conducting
Talaq, the husband has to give it only once and then wait for three periods to
pass and if he then decides to leave her, she will be divorced. If during this
three month's or so period he decides to reconcile with her, then the matter is
over and she need not go through any other formality. Unfortunately many Muslim
scholars accept an un-Islamic way of giving Talaq as valid as well, which is
that if the husband ponounces Talaq three times in one sitting. I believe in
this case you should try to convince the Imam Sahib that your friend should be
allowed to live with her husband for three months during which if he revives
his relations with her, then Talaq pronouncement would be nullified.
Someone (whom I do not know) has asked me
this question, for which I was unable to find a clear answer:
"I have been talking to a Muslim woman
and am considering marrying her. There's one catch. Currently, she drinks alcohol.
Now I know this is forbidden in our religion. She claims that she wants to stop
and needs my help; however, she wants to continue drinking in the first year of
our marriage. It is my belief that if she continues to do this after we are
married, I also will be held accountable for her sins (held accountable for
what happens in my household). She states that that’s not true, ultimately
everyone is accountable for their sins only, no one else. Which is true? If I
know that she drinks and don't attempt to stop it, will I also be held
accountable for this? If so, can you provide a hadith or a Qur'anic verse so
that I can use to back up my argument?"
I understand from Surah Nisaa, verse 34 and
via Prophet(sws)'s ahadith that a husband should stop his wife from drinking,
but I am not sure that if she does not stop, what happens.
I am not sure what to say to this person,
especially because he has not married this woman as yet, and maybe he can avoid
it!
Answer:
Generally speaking, one should be careful in
choosing one's life partner. If a prospective partner has a moral/religious
problem, it is better to choose another. However, life sometimes is not as
simple as that. You may have no choice and you may be in desperate need to get
married. In that case, you should try to let your partner know about what is
right and what is not, intelligently, and pray for him/her. If you think that
the problem is of a serious nature and things are not improving, you can always
call the arrangement off. The morals of your spouse are also important because
she is going to be the mother of your children. You cannot afford to let your
children be brought up by somebody whose morality is suspect.
The mention in Surah Nisaa, in my opinion,
is concerning situations where things appear to go out of hand, in a way that
the wife resorts to a revolt-like attitude (nushuz). In that case, you can
follow the sequence that has been mentioned in the Qur'an. Remember that there
are three steps listed there of which, beating up mildly is the last one. The
sequence is important. Also what has been mentioned is not in the form of a
binding command but a suggested way to adopt in preference to divorce.
What does Islam
say about being friends with the opposite sex? Please, could you include
references as well, and if it is not correct then what should one do about the
people they are already friends with?
Answer:
Given the Islamic guidance
on man-woman relationship, I am of the view that a woman can't make a
non-mahram man her friend. She can benefit from his talents (and vice versa)
within the limits imposed by Islamic teachings. To be a friend calls upon the
two individuals to be close to each other, both emotionally and, on most
occasions, physically. That kind of intimacy
is something not
possible to have with a member of opposite gender if you are genuinely
following the teachings of Islam.
The following are
only a few of the many Qur'anic verses and ahadith on the subject that have
helped me in coming to the above-mentioned conclusion.
"And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination
and an evil way." (
"Enjoin the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their
modesty; that is chaster for them. Surely Allah is well aware of their actions.
Likewise enjoin the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their
modesty; not to display their beauty and ornaments except what normally appears
thereof; let them draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their
charms except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their own
sons, their stepsons, their own brothers, their nephews on either brothers' or
sisters' sides, their own womenfolk, their own slaves, male attendants who lack
sexual desires or small children who have no carnal knowledge of women. Also
enjoin them not to strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden
trinkets. And O believers! Turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, about your
past mistakes, so that you may attain salvation." (24:30-31)
Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas: "Al-Fadl (his brother) was
riding behind Allah's Apostle and a woman from the tribe of Khath'am came and
Al-Fadl started looking at her and she started looking at him. The Prophet
turned Al-Fadl's face to the other side." (Bukhari)
Narrated Ibn Abbas: " That he heard the Prophet saying, '
It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should
travel except with a Muhram (i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry
in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.).' Then a man got up and
said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have enlisted in the army for such-and-such
ghazwa and my wife is proceeding for Hajj.' Allah's Apostle said, ' Go, and
perform the Hajj with your wife.'"
If you have a
friend / friends from the opposite sex, try to reduce the frequency of
interaction with him / them. Avoid being in their company alone with immediate
effect. You can tell them plainly that such a possibility is out of question.
Mention that you have come to this decision through your religious
understanding. Mention everything politely but clearly. Pray to the Almighty to
help you out in your efforts. You will see that the more you are moving towards
the Almighty's way, the more you are getting stronger from inside. May the
Almighty help you in your firm resolve.
Question:
Can a widow stay with
her deceased husband's family, as per the latter's desire? What does Islam say
in this case?
Answer:
One way of making
such a scenario workable is to get the widow married to some other male member
of that family after her iddat (waiting period) is over. That, of course, has
got to be done only after the lady gives her free consent.
The other
possibilities of her living among the deceased husband's family are if she
hasher own children and if she gets a separate portion of the house where she
is allowed to live with dignity. Also, if she is an old lady, there isn't much
problem in enabling her to live with them. However, it is not desirable that
the lady, if still in her marriageable age, stays in a house where there are no
male mahram relatives, unless it is unavoidable because of her circumstances.
Feedback:
In your article titled, "Spreading Evil the Indirect Way", the main concern you raise is that of extra marital
relations resulting as a consequence of movies or dramas. The point I wish to
raise is that before we address this issue today, let us step back and look at
the societal fabric.
In the entertainment genre one would have poetry, novels,
movies, music, paintings, sculptures apart from other stuff.
1) Let us forget movies for some time and look at the other
forms of entertainment. The poetry of Ghalib and many other poets is infested
with the mention of wine, fleeting loves, and if I dare proclaim, some of the
poetry can be categorized as quite X-rated. In this category not even the likes
of Maulana Rumi resist themselves;
Look at Afzal Iqbal's book on Rumi (in the LUMS library), and on
the last chapters, you would find mention of sodomy and bestiality;
Now consider paintings and sculptures, the nudes of Mrs. Hashmi
and the other painters;
Novels and women digests, full of love stories that many
Pakistani women gorge on;
Music on love themes, songs, etc. The very few are on patriotism
are played only around the 14th of August. All our Pakistani bands have songs
mainly on love.
Recapitulating, poetry, music, novels, paintings et al (mind
you, I have not, as yet, included movies) are all about love, man-woman
relations, etc. Given all this, tell me whether this promotes promiscuity and
leads one to extra marital affairs or not.
If yes, then our society should have been full of fornication
crimes. I am not aware of the statistics, but I do not think that, as a
consequence of all these things which have been there for quite some time now,
our society has become infested with fornicators.
Dramas and movies are just another addition to the above. They
do not change anything.
Now, you might argue that opposing forces have been at work i.e.
the tablighi jamaat, Islamization, etc. And in that case, I would
respond with the following.
2) Marquis De Sade, as I learnt form a movie, was the father of
Sadism. He used to write X-rated stuff. His washerwoman used to read all of
them, but the abbot under whose care he was, was always critical of him.
Eventually, however, the washerwoman died a virgin while the abbot spent his
time fantasizing and romancing!
So you see, even in a mud pool could grow a lotus e.g.: Muhammad
Asad; and even in a mosque could child molesting be done, as has happened in
mosques in
For Muhammad Asad, the wine was not strong enough to sway him
and for 'that' maulvi, the Qu'ran was not strong enough to sway him from
molesting.
I believe that belief is based soundly on some other thing
rather than on rituals. Rituals do not stop you from backbiting, ogling et al.
The examples of fornication you provided were of those who never
knew whether it was forbidden or not. Their parents would never have taught
them against it, as I am sure of it.
3) I know from my personal experience - my Chinese roommate has
gone for hanky panky on several nights but that did not compel me to go out and
do the same. I must have watched hundreds of movies but that has never made me
go out for gratification.
Now, I do not offer my prayers 5 times a day, even the four that
I do offer are, occasionally, just to get the fardh done. I do not think
that it was all these prayers that have stopped me from fornication, to date,
but, in fact, I have had my strength from a very deep understanding and
appreciation of the Islamic code of conduct imbued in me by my father and
mother.
Some of my friends have even watched all that X-rated stuff and
yet, they remain, in agreement, against committing what they believe is quite
heinous.
After seeing all this, I can only conclude that it is something
else that protects one from extra-marital relations, and it is one's upbringing
and not rituals.
Rituals only confirm what already lies within our hearts.
4) I guess I have digressed, so coming back to movies. The only
thing I want to say is that one can watch a hundred movies and remain a virgin
or see no movie and molest children in mosques.
5) Finally, I do not perceive a more religious society following
a ban on movies since the world is fast becoming a global village. I hope you
remember
In the end, a quote from Gautama Siddharta Buddha:
'If you tie the string too tight it will break'.
Answer:
Whatever you have mentioned is well taken, but I would want to mention the
following points for your consideration:
1) It is not just fornication that is prohibited in Islam, even coming
near it as well as participating in what constitutes 'fahhashi' (obscenity),
are also strongly condemned. The real evil is the filth that is associated with
obscenity that expresses itself in many forms: evil thoughts, evil talks, evil
views, and obscene acts. Fornication and sodomy are the ultimate acts of
obscenity, but most certainly, not the only ones. The problem with all such
acts is that they corrupt your soul and deprive it of its original purity. When
you lose the natural purity of your soul, you are unable to remember God
Almighty the way He deserves to be remembered. That explains why some people
say that even though they pray, they don't get anything out of their prayers.
The reason being that while prayer has an outer form, its real essence lies in
the kind of appreciation of the Almighty you are able to achieve while getting
involved in the process. That appreciation is done by your heart that, if it
gets degenerated by sin (obscenity being one of them), refuses to provide you
with the facility to properly remember God.
2) The analogy of traffic rules helps me a lot in understanding
some of the finer issues in man-woman relations. You are quite right in
observing that many individuals never get indulged in fornication despite
watching dirty movies and remaining in a filthy environment. However, that, in
itself, is not a good enough reason to conclude that a filthy environment does
not contribute to adultery and therefore, should be acceptable to us; quite as
much as it would be wrong to conclude that since some expert drivers are able
to control their vehicles even while driving at speeds far beyond the legally
allowed limits, they, as well as all others, should be allowed to indulge in
over speeding. Rules of a society are decided on the basis of the abilities of
an average individual. Indeed, individuals do have different temperaments, and
therefore, you are bound to come across exceptions to most rules concerning
humans.
I can also understand that an individual who is regular in his
prayers is found involved in things that are obscene. However, that is because
the chap is not considering his prayers seriously or else his prayers would, at
least, admonish him on what he is doing. Another person may be staying away
from obscenity simply because of his different personality. Such stray
examples, however, do not prove anything except the fact that when it comes to
humans, there could always be exceptions to the rule.
3) The problem with stuff like movies is that it is able to slow
poison the society. Since the themes of most of the 'decent' movies is good,
even decent people get involved in the process of experiencing objectionable
stuff without even realising it. The end result is that the moral fabric of the
society gradually begins to fall apart. I am a witness to the phenomenon of
moral degeneration in our society with regard to man-woman relations in the
last three decades. The Satanic trick in this regard is to mix good with evil.
The result of this strategy is that when an evil aspect of the package is
pointed out, the good part of it is highlighted by the defenders of the idea
and thus, evil manages to survive and to thrive.
Although, on the face of things, slow poisoning does not appear
to be desperately wrong, the net effect in the long run is a huge benefit to
the evil ways. The defence mechanism of the society is gradually eaten away.
To give you an example, in our childhood days, it was normally
very difficult for a young boy to talk to a young girl. It is still the case
with many youngsters today. But because of the growing popularity of more
openness, that natural hesitation -- that God-designed 'first line of defence'
-- has been demolished. As a consequence, flirtation is commonplace in our
society. Now, all those who flirt don't end up doing zina, but some of
them most certainly do. Had these opportunities not been available, the
frequency of such crimes would have been much lower.
4) The works of Ghalib and other poets and prose writers also
illustrate essentially, the same process of slow poisoning. I cannot imagine
how stuff like Ghalib's poetry or Manto's fiction could be acknowledged as
Islamically acceptable. I hope you will not object to my claim by stating that
Ghalib has always been a popular poet amongst Muslims of the sub-continent. We
are talking about what is desirable in Islam and not what Muslims have been
desiring. The damage caused by Ghalib and his likes to the moral fabric of our
society is immeasurably huge. Since his poetry is otherwise a classic of Urdu
literature, it has caused its damage in an indirect way, influencing many more
people than what cheap obscenity would have done. Likewise is the case with all
other works of fine arts that promote obscenity.
5) There are at least two important differences between poetry
and dramas/movies, which make the latter even more damaging. While poetry, by
its nature, is less accessible to the people, given the effort it takes to read
and appreciate it - even though its impact on the society in the long run is
profound - it is relatively limited in the short-run. Movies and dramas, on the
contrary, by their very nature are available to a larger audience and since the
only effort required to get involved in them is to passively receive them, the
number it is able to influence is considerably large, and the time it takes in
inflicting its damage is much less.
The other, more important difference in the two forms of
expression lies in the fact that poetry, literature and the rest are just ideas
- pure or filthy - so long as they are
When you say, in a novel, that 'A' fell in love with 'B', you
are just mentioning a thought. When you are showing 'A' as a real, young man who
is romancing a young lady 'B', as a Muslim, you have to ask yourself whether
the two are allowed to do so, and whether you would allow your sister to do so.
If the answer to these Questions is "no", then neither can you
yourself can act like 'A' nor are you allowed to see 'A' involved in his
romantic adventurism with 'B'. This is so because the least part of the faith,
we have been told by our prophet, alihissalaam, requires us to condemn crime at
least in our hearts. If you are enjoying a drama/film, you cannot possibly
condemn it for being partly un-Islamic. I am sure you would agree that there
could be no threat more serious than the one that targets your faith. That is
what alarms me the most. I just want to know exactly what do you do when such
scenes appear in films you watch. Probably, you ignore them. How can you remain
neutral to an un-Islamic act? They are a part of the plot of the enitre film: a
woman playing the role of a wife of a perfectly stranger (na-mahram)
man. If one were to watch movies and dramas, one should stop reading, at least,
surah Nur and surah Ahzab, because some parts of these two surahs are not
important to people involved in the process of entertaining themselves with
movies and dramas. Maybe, a workable idea is to not to go deep into their
meanings and just go through their recitation. That is exactly what many
Muslims are doing today.
Question:
Were the companions of the Prophet (sws)
allowed to have a physical relationship with their slave girls? Is the keeping
of slaves allowed in Islam? Is having an intimate relationship also allowed?
Answer:
Muslims were allowed to have
physical relationships with their slave girls because that was the norm of the
society at the time when the Qur'an started getting revealed. The curse of
slavery was common at that time, and the Qur'an could have either followed the
strategy of revolution or that of evolution to eradicate the curse forever. A
revolutionary policy of overnight elimination of slavery was likely to bring
more harm than good. Therefore, slavery was gradually removed from the society
through lasting measures. During the period when slavery was not as yet fully
removed, not only the acceptable norms that were governing the treatment of
slaves were allowed to operate, they were further reformed to make the lives of
these vulnerable people more comfortable.
Is celebrating birthdays unislamic
- even wishing a person or sending card to him or her?
Answer:
Birthdays have nothing to do with
Islam. Therefore, if somebody celebrates without giving it a religious content,
it would be considered as one of those activities that an individual has a
right to undertake.
I personally don't like the idea of
birthdays, because I think it is a foreign custom. I don't want any of the
Western occasions celebrated in my society because their celebrations show a mentality
of subjugation on our part. I also don't like the idea because it causes
unnecessary burden on the parents who can't afford such celebrations every
year. It is also a waste of time and a cause of diversion from the real purpose
of life. I also sometimes have a feeling that we should be more concerned our
accountability after death, rather than celebrating an occasion which brought
us into this world for trial. However, all these thoughts are my very own, and
I don't claim them to be originating from the Islamic sources directly.
If alcohol is prohibited because of
its results, that is, we are led into a state of consciousness, wouldn't it be
permissible to consume as much as does not affect our sanity?
Answer:
The general principle that holds
good in all such matters is that what is prohibited because of the bad
influence of its consumption in large volume is also prohibited in smaller
volumes. The rationale behind this general understanding is that one doesn't
know what is the maximum extent of the volume which can be described as safe.
Only Allah Almighty can tell if a certain volume of consumption is safe or not.
Since he hasn't done so, nor has the prophet, Allah's mercy be on him, nobody else
is competent to give that verdict.
Moreover, we find in the Qur'an in
sura al-Baqarah, verse 249 this mention:
"When Talut set forth with the
armies he said: 'Allah will test you at the stream; if any drinks of its water
he goes not with my army; only those who taste not of it go with me; a mere sip
out of the hand is excused.'
The verse is telling us that in
certain cases of prohibition a maximum allowable limit has been prescribed by
the messenger's of Allah. Obviously, had there been a need for such a limit to
be mentioned in the case of alcohol, it could have been done in the Book.
Moreover, we also find that when describing the prohibition of pork and some
other items, the Qur'an has allowed consumption of a small volume of these
items in exceptional circumstances of extreme hunger to enable the individual to survive. (See
al-Baqarah, verse 173, for instance). If that exception could find its way in
the Qur'an, why couldn't a minimum allowable volume be likewise mentioned in
it, had it been the intent of Allah Almighty?
Does Islam allow the wearing of
aftershave and perfume that contain alcohol?
Answer:
A straightforward answer to the
question is that it doesn't disallow it. Alcohol is disallowed to be consumed
as a drink. If it is used for a purpose other than as an edible, there can be
no objection to it. However, if the religious taste of an individual doesn't
permit him/her to go for even the non-edible uses of alcohol or any other prohibited
item, it's upto the individual.
Although there are narrations on
the subject which give apparently conflicting messages, I prefer the
understanding of the following narration:
"Once Allah's Apostle passed
by a dead sheep and said to the people, 'Wouldn't you benefit by its skin?' The
people replied that it was dead. The Prophet said, 'But only eating it is
illegal.'" (Bukhari)
The conflicting message is
mentioned in the following hadith:
"I heard Allah's Apostle, in
the year of the Conquest of Mecca, saying, 'Allah and His Apostle made illegal
the trade of alcohol, dead animals, pigs and idols.' The people asked, 'O
Allah's Apostle! What about the fat of dead animals, for it was used for
greasing the boats and the hides; and people use it for lights?' He said, 'No,
it is illegal.' Allah's Apostle further said, 'May Allah curse the Jews, for
Allah made the fat (of animals) illegal for them, yet they melted the fat and
sold it and ate its price.'" (Bukhari)
One interpretation that could help
in unifying the apparently conflicting messages in the two narrations is that
while the first hadith is permitting Muslims to benefit from a prohibited item
(as an edible) for non-edible uses, the second hadith is prohibiting them from
getting directly involved in its trade. Probably the difference lies in the
fact that when one is getting involved in the trade of such items, the spirit
of the prohibition gets compromised and the chances of it getting consumed as
edible also increase. Allah knows best.
Question
(on Women's Rights:
Two Extremes):
In the article, "Women's
Rights: Two Extremes", you wrote that western women expose parts of their
bodies to 'satisfy the lust of men'. And that they should be taught the concept
of 'restricted freedom' and not be driven by this 'maddening propaganda' for it
diminishes the respect of women in society. You and the Swedish priestess also
wrote that prostitution and propaganda will not be practiced in a society even
in secret if it is legally restricted.
First of all, I completely agree
that the exploitation of women by the electronic and print media does indeed
reduce women's chances of gaining respect in society. However, at least in
Western society, women enjoy their basic human rights which Afghani women are
brutally denied alongwith South Asian and Middle Eastern women. And the two
cannot be compared on any account. Even in our so-called pious Muslim societies,
women are exploited by the media, there is much prostitution, so it would be
wrong to highlight only the 'low moral standards' western women in this regard.
And they are much better off than us, for their women are at least not
suppressed in other spheres of life. But we on the other hand, have both
problems.
There is so much prostitution in
The analogy of the burglary and
traffic laws with that of prostitution seems rather pointless to me. Even in
Where is our morality then? It is
barred by law, but it still goes on in secret. And that doesn't make us any
more moral than our western counterparts. They just do the same in the open. In
fact, again, we are worse off: we have double the amount of their sins, for we
not only immoral, but because we pretend not to be, we are hypocrites too.
Western society is much better than
our own for all their immorality, they value the virtues of honesty,
truthfulness, work ethics, helpfulness, etc. Something we would never be able
to achieve no matter how Islamic we get. We'll probably just transform into
rigid Islamic extremists, pounce on our women everytime they try to acquire
their rights., and confine them in burqas. Not much sense in pusrsuing such an
end. Women out of purdah are not morally inferior women. In Islam, everything
is judged by intention. So maybe we should look at ourselves before jumping to
reprimand others.
Answer:
The following are some of my
observations on the comments you have made in your message. If we are to
achieve a meaningful dialogue, I would suggest that we should better focus our
attention on one issue at a time. Otherwise, the discussion gets scattered.
The purpose of mentioning the
analogy of traffic laws to elucidate Islam's standpoint on man-woman
relationships was to show through a similar example the fact that essentially
the same principle is being applied in both cases even though one of them is
being acknowldged as desirable while the other is described as
over-restrictive. The judgement on whether an analogy is good or not should be
based purely on the fact whether it helps in bringing about the relationship
that the two situations share with each other and whether the situations are
essentially similar. Let's have a look at the analogy once again.
There are two evils which all
decent societies should seek to avoid: deaths and injuries due to accidents and
zina (fornicaton and adultery). The Western society has realised that the
former evil is really serious and something should be done about it. On
realising that there is a serious threat to life of the people on the roads
given the fact that there are a large number of vehicles plying on them, they
came to the conclusion that there ought to be some restrictions imposed on the
movement of these vehicles if the evil of accidents is to be minimized. The
result of this realisation can be seen in the form of traffic laws that
describe in considerable details what kind of behavour is desirable on the
roads. These laws are fairly restrictive: speed limits, traffic lights, use of
indicators, fitness test of vehicles before bringing them on roads, brakes to
be in order, tyres to be at least of a minimum thickness, lights to be in
order, seat belts to be properly fastened by the passengers etc. All these
restrictions are religiously followed in the West without many people complaining
that they have restricted their freedom. The reason is they know that although
restrictions cause some discomfort, everyone realises that they are necessary
if accidents are to be avoided. The fact of the matter is that frequency of
accidents has actually been brought down dramatically because of the imposition
of stringent traffic laws.
In our country, on the contrary,
although traffic laws are in place, they are by and large flouted by a vast
majority of drivers. In fact, many people neither know nor care to know what
these laws are. The result is that the frequency of accidents and the resultant
injuries and deaths on the roads is far greater than what is experienced in the
West.
Islam has imposed certain
restrictions on the free intermingling of the opposite sexes and has desired a
certain dress code to be observed by both genders, apart from other reasons, to
get rid of the evil of zina. These restrictions are a subject of ridicule in
the Western society and the western-minded Eastern society as well. The result
is that zina is taking place in these societies at a colossal frequency. One
the other hand, wherever these restrictions are honoured, the frequency of zina
is extremely low. The lesson one learns is that it is not possibile to fight
against human nature. The only way out, therefore, is to follow the
instructions of the Creator of that nature Who has required us to follow the
principle of "better be careful than sorry" in the case of a
man-woman relationship. In other words, the same principle of prevention that
has done wonders in reducing accidents in the West seems to be at the heart of
the Islamic restrictions on free intermingling of genders to avoid zina.
My own understanding is that the
movement of women's rights that has influenced many women of our times is a
reactionary movement. It is a movement that started as a reaction to the
appalling conditions many women of the world were going through because they
belonged to a different gender from men. The problem with reactionary movements
is that they take you away from one evil to throw you into another, in many
cases, a bigger one. Because reactionary movements are primarily emotional in
nature, they don't take into account the realities of life and, as a result,
they prevail for a short while, take their tolls, and then disappear. Socialism
is another example of a similar movement. It emerged as a reaction to the evils
of capitalism and because it had an emotional, appeal it was able to influence
many people of the world. However, despite the fact it was able to get the
opportunity to get implemented in a number of countries of the world, because
the basic idea was divorced from the realities of life, it took its toll and
passed away. It is understandable for those who have no better alternatives to
the current problems to get influenced by such reactionary movements; however,
for Muslims to be influenced by such movements when they have a solution from
their Creator, even though at the moment in theory only, is, to say the least,
disappointing.
What seems to be a strange
phenomenon in the West is the fact that despite the strong Western propaganda
against Islamic teachings on women, more Western women are converting to Islam
than men. On tracing the reasons behind this phenomenon, one finds that behind
the smokescreen of propaganda of freedom that women have been given in the
West, there is increasing realisation amongst many women there that they have
gained this freedom at a huge cost of their sense of security and peace of
mind. The statistics of broken families are growing at an alarming pace. The
reasons for this state of affairs are not quite difficult to trace. If you
allow unbridled freedom to men and women to intermingle at all levels, there is
going to be increasing propensity amongst individuals of both categories to
make swift changes of loyalties. Sticking to the same partners over long
periods of marital association would come under serious challenge, and even
minor domestic disputes, which are quite frequent in a normal, healthy domestic life, can trigger a move towards the
next match. Women, generally speaking, are more adversely affected by this
tendency, and, therefore, the more mature amongst them show a liking for a
society which values permanent family bonds.(Also see the article "A
Statistical Analysis of the Impact of Feminist Movement in the
The suggestion that men should mind
their own business even if women are out in the streets with objectionable
dresses (if any) is not quite as easy to follow as some women feel it is.
Forgive me for the analogy if you don't like it, but sometimes I feel that it
is not very different from expecting people to keep doing their normal business
despite the fact that there is good knowledge that there are bacterial germs in
the surroundings. Why should a health-loving population be expected to put up
with that kind of environment? Obviously, the answer is that they should not.
Likewise, why should a decency-loving population be required to put up with a
situation where indecency is being openly advertised with impunity? The only
difference between the two examples is that whereas in the one case the damage
to the population is physical, in the other case it is moral. There is no doubt
about the fact that obscenity is contagious. It has a tendency to spread
swiftly. Generally speaking, man has a weak nature in this regard. That's why
the Creator of that nature has given us injunctions that take care of that
weakness.
One of the reasons why complete
freedom is considered by some people to be preferable over restricions despite
the fact that the evils of freedom are quite apparent is that such people
become insensitive to the evil effects of freedom. That is especially true in
the case of moral issues. For instance, the modern tendency amongst most
families to live independently without the elders may seem a good idea to those
who are insensitive to the plight of the older generation, although the fact is
that the psychological aspects of their suffering because of their isolation
from their children are so serious that the physical advantages that the recent
changes in lifestyles have brought about can in no way be presented to justify
that tragedy. Likewise, it is an extremely insensitive observation that even if
women are being made objects of sensual gratification for men in the West, they
are still better off than those women who, they believe, are being confined to
the fourwalls of their homes in Afghanistan. I would repeat what I had written
earlier that, even if we accept for the sake of discussion that the Afghani
women are being forcibly confined to their homes, I am not too sure as to which
of the two conditions of women is a greater tragedy: confinement
or open advertisement of scarcely
clad women?
Finally, I would like to point out
that it is not fair on Islamic teachings to judge about their results from the
performance of the present-day Muslim societies. These societies are not
properly Islamic. Wherever they are following Islam even in parts, they are
most certainly showing results. However, unfortunately we don't have a living
example of a model Islamic society to show and therefore many people make an
erroneous comparison between the present-day Western society and the Muslim
countries of the world to decide whether the modern ways are better than the
Islamic ways.
Is the friendship and free mixing
between the opposite sexes allowed in Islam?
Answer:
The Qur'an mentions a few
principles which should always be followed while dealing with members of the
opposite sex. Summarised in points, they look like this:
1. A lady's husband, father,
brother, real uncle, son, and father-in-law are her 'mehrem' relatives. She can
freely interact with them and doesn't need
to be particular about her dress,
except to the extent that it should be within the limits which all decent
people know.
2. All other men are 'non-mehrem' for
her. She can interact with them only when it is necessary and that too when she
is preferably in the company of a 'mehrem' relative. If that is not workable,
she should avoid being alone with a 'non-mehrem' man unless it is unavoidable
and that too for as short a
duration as could be possible.
3. While in the company of each
other, non-mehrem men and women should lower their gazes. That, to my
understanding, means that they should look at each other only sparingly: the
lesser, the better.
4. A lady in the company of
non-mehrem men should be fully covered, with the exception of her face, hands,
and feet, especially ensuring that her chest is properly covered. (There are
scholars who would dispute even that much of liberty). Men should also be decently
dressed in the company of women who are 'non-mehrem' to them. A 'mehrem' lady
is one who is so closely related to the man that he can't get married to her,
like mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.
Whatever friendship and free mixing
one can have with the members of the opposite sex should be confined to the
above-mentioned limits.
Referring to "free mixing of
opposite sexes", with all due respect, I feel that you have not elaborated
the principles and their practical implications vis-à-vis all environments. I
am having a lot of problems in understanding the extent of this implication
where in no boundary is marked. For instance, every time I come face to face
with a friend of the opposite gender, I am caught up in this dilemma as whether
I should initiate a talk? If not, should I greet her? Should I avoid her after
that? Already people think I am having some attitude problems. So, in a
nutshell, my Question is: what is 'the extent'?
Answer:
I can understand your anxiety about
the matter, and I want to congratulate you on realising that there is a
problem. It is an important starting point towards making progress.
I do understand that the
environment at LUMS doesn't allow us to fully realise our spiritual potential.
However, let's not forget that God Almighty knows our limitations, on the basis
of which He is going to judge us. I can tell you just broadly to take care of a
few things: Guard your eyes as much as you can; as soon as an evil thought crosses
your mind, try to seek help and forgiveness from your Merciful God. Don't allow
yourself to be in the company of those people who make fun of these concerns of
yours. It is alarming to realise how effectively Satan is able to influence us
through bad company. In my opinion, there is no harm in saying 'salaam' to the
fellow girl students or exchanging important information with them, if you are
used to taking the precautionary measures the shari'ah has required us to
follow. However, indulging in detailed discussions is something you should
avoid. Do try to eliminate the possibility of being alone in the company of a
girl student. Keep a regular check on your feelings. If you will do that, you
wouldn't need to ask anyone about what situation to avoid. Do specially worry
about the quality of your prayers. Quite often, disturbed prayers have
something to do with one's behaviour towards the opposite gender.
According to a famous hadith, one
of the five Questions which each individual will have to answer on the Day of
Judgement, before which he will not be allowed to move even an inch, would be
on the manner one had spent one's youth in. If you guard yourself against the
threats to your morality, the spiritual reward you are certain to get as a
young man in this world is immense.
My answer to you is equally
relevant to girl students as well.
If a couple is engaged formally
with their consent as well as their elder's willingness, are they then allowed
to have physical contact? Also, if due to some unavoidable circumstances they
fall into a situation where they get physically intimate, then what has Islam
to offer them? Is it Islamically haram or unethical to come into physical
contact with your wife-to-be or husband-to-be?
Answer:
Engagement has no official status
from an Islamic point of view. It is only an understanding between the two
parties which is not even binding on either of them. Perhaps the only logic
behind the arrangement is to enable the two to feel psychologically comfortable
that they are committed to each other. Also, the families get to know each
other better in the period between the engagement and 'Nikah'. In case if there
are reasons felt by either of the parties that necessitate 'disengagement', it
is not quite as complicated as breaking a 'Nikah'. However, the two (boy and
girl or man and woman) are as strangers for all practical purposes in the eyes
of Shari'ah as they were before their engagement. Therefore, there is no
question of the two having any physical relationship with each other.
Another way out for the intending
couple could be to bind each other by going through the formality of 'Nikah',
even though without 'Rukhsati'. In that case the relationship would be
officially recognised and the complications of the sort you have referred to
are not likely to arise. The only difficulty in this case is that, as mentioned
earlier, disengaging 'Nikah' entails a more complicated process.
My question is about divorce. There
is alot of confusion in this country and alot of controversy about the timing
of the "three divorces". There are groups who believe that all 3 on one
occassion constitute a divorce... while there are others who say that there has
to be a waiting period in between so that both the parties can think about the
sitaution. Secondly, is divorce brought into effect just by the saying the
word, 'Talaq' 3 times or does the man have to go to court to do it? Can the man
divorce the wife in any condition? Lastly, how does the woman get divorce from
her husband for any reason ?
Answer:
The Qur'an has gone into details of
not only how divorce is to be given but also how the couple is expected to
behave in such situations. The reason for the mention of these details is that
since an individual is likely to be emotional and imbalanced in his/her
approach in situations when divorce is being considered, God Almighty has
cautioned us to behave in a manner befitting for a believer. Moreover, it seems
from the mention of the Qur'an that such tense occasions when one can be unfair
to the other person because of the absence of external pressures are a
believer's real test of faith in Allah.
The right way of giving 'Talaq' is
this: A husband who wants to divorce his wife should pronounce 'Talaq' with an
intention to divorce her at the time when his wife is in 'tuhur' i.e. in her
clean, non-menstrual period. Having done that, he should allow her to live in
his home comfortably, but should not have any physical contact with her if he
wants the divorce to get consummated. This process would take three 'tuhur'
i.e. after the lapse of two menstrual periods, when she reaches the end of her
third 'tuhur', she can be allowed to go respectably, in which case the divorce
shall be effective. However, the husband can also decide to keep her as wife
even before or at the culmination of that period, in which case they will
continue to live as husband and wife. The husband should however know that the
process of pronouncing 'Talaq' has resulted in him losing one of the two
chances God Almighty has given him of giving 'Talaq' to his wife. Thus, if the
husband loses his patience once again, the same process shall be followed and
the two can continue to live as husband and wife, either at any time during
these three periods or at the end of the duration. However, having availed the
two chances of giving 'Talaq', a husband cannot give it once again to his wife
a third time and retain the option of keeping her with himself during or after
the waiting period. That is what is meant by the Qur'anic verse which
says:
"Talaq can be given only
twice".
Having given a 'Talaq' and having
sent her off once or twice, the two can rejoin after going through the 'Nikah'
formality. However, if a 'Talaq' has been given thrice, in such a way that the
two priviliges of taking the wife back have been lost, then the two can only
resume marital relationship if the divorced lady genuinely marries another man
who then divorces her.
The manner of the pronouncement of
'Talaq' can take any form considered acceptable in the society. The Qur'an has
left such matters to 'Ma'ruf' i.e custom. A society can even decide that the
pronouncement of 'Talaq' shall only be acceptable if it is done in writing, as
was the law in Pakistan until recently, before the Family Law Ordinance was
withdrawn. Now, in the absence of any new law, there is nothing clear in this
regard, and it would be upon the judge/'qazi' to decide.
A woman can seek divorce from a
court by mentioning her reasons. In her case it is an indirect way that has
been proposed for the purpose. The court is expected to expedite the request
quickly, unless the request is found unreasonable.
If there is any aspect of your
question that has not been answered properly, please don't hesitate to ask
again.
My question concerns the concept of
love marriages in Islam. Teenagers in Islamic societies today are in greater
contact with members of the opposite sex than their predecessors. This may
inevitably lead to developing romantic feelings for a friend. On the one hand,
we often hear it is unIslamic to get extra friendly with a non-mehram. However,
if you are interacting with the oppostite sex on a regular basis and talking to
people all the time, it gets very difficult to hold back romantic feelings for
a person. The more you get to know a particular person and like the way he/she
thinks, the more you wish he/she could become a permanent part of your life and
you start thinking in terms of marriage. Isn't it only human to be unable to
control your feelings? What then is the Islamic viewpoint on this concept? Does
Islam allow falling in love before marriage?
Answer:
Please do have a look at the answer
I have given to another, similar question. I am sure that what you have
mentioned regarding the experiences of Muslim youth of the present times is
correct. But I believe that Islam has nothing to do with it. Islamic teachings
would only come to play a role when an individual is interested in taking it
seriously.
If an individual thinks that now
that he/she has fallen in love with another person because of a regular contact
with him/her, Islamic teachings should come to his/her rescue, that to me is an
unfair demand on those teachings. I do understand that there is a possibility
that a boy or a girl realises at some stage of his/her romance that what is
happening is wrong. In that case the individual should do as best as is
possible to stay away from direct communication with the person who is the
cause of those feelings, because in such matters, the more one gets indulged
directly, the further one damages one's religious feelings. The best way is to
approach elders from both sides and get the association formalised. (Do have
look at my answer to the question on engagement).
In a nutshell what I am saying is
that if you have fallen in love with another person accidentally, don't do
anything deliberate to further strengthen your feelings towards the other
person. What happens naturally is not within your means, but donot allow it to
'worsen'. If you feel that the formalising of the relationship is out of
question, then do whatever you can legitimately, within your means to get rid
of those feelings. Recite the Qur'an regularly, remember Allah more frequently,
get more actively involved in positive activities to stay away from the Satanic
influence that comes to you through those feelings.
Question:
There seems to be
a very strong attitude against the feelings of love being preached in this
forum. I openly admit that illegitimate relations, especially of the physical
kind and even of the intense verbal kind, are forbidden in Islam until
marriage. But how could the concept of love become forbidden? What is the
protocol for marriage if we are never to love someone? Are you implying that we
should merely go after physical attributes then? Or that the average person is
compatible with the majority of the rest of the population? I have had these
questions for quite some time yet no one to answer them. How do we judge the
people we are to marry, or even decide - for that matter - if we want to, if
the factor of love is completely ruled out, and relations of any type are
forbidden?
Answer:
I have to mention
opinions in this site that I think are Islamically correct. I believe that
extra-marital romance between a man and a woman is un-Islamic - that's why you
find that my site criticizes it. I believe that when a stranger (non-Mahram)
man and woman come close to each other frequently, there is a serious
possibility of zina (fornication and adultery) emerging out of that contact.
Examples of such incidents are so replete that one can deny them only if one
wants to close one's eyes from reality. Even if zina is not the ultimate
outcome, the contact does affect the normal feelings of the individual and evil
thoughts swarm one's mind. Once you allow your mind to be influenced by the
thoughts of a woman (or a man) who doesn't have Islamically legal relations
with you, your soul begins to degenerate and your spiritual contact with God
Almighty is
negatively
affected.
The following are
some of verses and ahadith that have helped me in forming the above opinion:
" And come
not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way." (
" Enjoin the believing
men to lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that is chaster for them.
Surely Allah is well aware of their actions. Likewise enjoin the believing
women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty; not to display their beauty
and ornaments except what normally appears thereof; let them draw their veils
over their bosoms and not display their charms except to their husbands,their
fathers, their fathers-in-law, their own sons, their stepsons, their own
brothers, their nephews on either brothers' or sisters' sides, their own
womenfolk, their own slaves, male attendants who lack sexual desires or small
children who have no carnal knowledge of women. Also enjoin them not to strike
their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden trinkets. And O believers!
Turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, about your past mistakes, so that you
may attain salvation." (24:30-31)
Narrated Abdullah
bin Abbas: "Al-Fadl (his brother) was riding behind Allah's Apostle and a
woman from the tribe of Khath'am came and Al-Fadl started looking at her and
she started looking at him. The Prophet turned Al-Fadl's face to the other
side." (Bukhari)
Narrated Ibn
Abbas: "That he heard the Prophet saying, ' It is not permissible for a
man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Muhram
(i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g.
her father, brother, etc.).' Then a man got up and said, "O Allah's
Apostle! I have enlisted in the army for such-and-such ghazwa and my wife is
proceeding for Hajj.' Allah's Apostle said, ' Go, and perform the Hajj with
your wife.'"
Your answer to relations with
people of the opposite sex refers mostly to the observance of 'purdah' and the
'lowering of gazes'. I ask then, would e-friendship with a person of the other
gender be right?
Answer:
I am not too sure. I'll tell you
what the problem is. Although people belonging to the other sex are individuals
like us, they have a potential threat for us as we have for them. So, in a way,
when you are dealing with them, you are dealing with another person. However,
the danger is that you may not be able to keep the kind discipline on your
feelings that is desirable in Islam. If your question wouldn't have used the
word 'friendship' and would have have just confined itself to the mention of a
case of exchanging important information through e-mail, my answer would have
been that 'yes', it seems okay. However, the word 'friendship' even if it is on
e-mail makes me nervous. I tell you, it is always better to be careful today
than to be sorry tomorrow.
The Qur'an says:
"Discard both the visible and
the invisible sin." (6:120)
So if while going through the
communication you start feeling that the latter part of the above verse is
getting violated, just withdraw yourself from the process. Allah Almighty knows
the best. Do read my article "The Two Levels" in the light of what I
have mentioned here.
I believe that Islam does not
recognize a woman's witness equal to that of a man. I know its an Islamic
principle which should be followed but if you could just elaborate on the
rationale behind this principle I'd be very grateful.
Answer:
I disagree with your sweeping
statement that in Islam women's witness is half that of men. I know that that's
what the popular understanding is, but I also feel quite confident that the
popular understanding is not correct.
The truth of the matter is that the
Qur'an has mentioned the need for having witnesses for various purposes on a
number of occasions. See, for instance, 2:282,
The reason why I believe that the
verse 2:282 should be taken as a special case is that it is talking about a
situation wherein a debt contract is to be written and witnesses are to be
invited for the purpose giving evidence. They can be asked to give their
evidence in case it is needed in the future. In such a situation the Qur'an has
desired that two male witnesses should be produced for the purpose. The
possibility of bringing in women in case men are available is not even
mentioned. However, in the rare situation when two men are not available, the
Qur'an says that a man and two women should be asked to give witnesses for the
purpose, so that "if one of them forgets, the other should remind
her". On the other hand, in the case of witnessing required to be done in
verses 4:15 and 24:4 for cases of zina (fornication and adultery), since
witnesses are not chosen like it is done by those who are to write a contract,
but happen to be there at the time when crime is committed, there is no mention
that only men should be selected for the purpose, or only in case if there are
no men that women should be asked to come forward for the purpose. There is
always a possibility that in case of crimes, there may only be women present to
witness. Would their evidence be just rejected because of their gender?
I would like to draw your attention
to verse 24:6-9 where there is a mention of a possibility of a husband accusing
his wife of adultery. The Qur'an requires the husband to swear upon God
"solemnly affirming that he is of those who speak the truth; and the fifth
time that Allah's curse be upon him if he be of the liars." Then it goes
further to allow the accused wife to avert punishment from her "if she
bears witness four times in the name of Allah that he (her husband) is of the
liars; and the fifth time that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he has spoken
the truth." In other words, despite the evidence of the husband against
her, the Qur'an allows the wife to get herself acquitted in the eyes of law by
giving a counter evidence of her innocence. Whose evidence has been considered
the heavier of the two in this case: the husband's or the wife's? That's why I
mentioned earlier that your sweeping remarks in the question are not
justifiable.
Why has it been required in the
verse 2:282 that two women in place of one man should appear for giving
evidence. As mentioned earlier, it says that the reason is that if one of them
forgets the other should remind her. To me the logic behind this reason is
simply this that when you are called upon to give evidence in an area other
than the area of your interest and you are not familiar with it, you will most
certainly not be able to retain its contents quite as much as someone else who
is familiar with the field can. I therefore believe that if there was to be a
need to provide evidence for a matter that has to do with a situation where men
are more likely to forget because of their lack of interest in it (matters that
have to do with 'kitchen affairs' or upbringing of children, for instance),
their evidence
will also be needed to be beefed up
in some manner.
The final Question:
Is the need to have two women instead of one man still relevant today when
there are many women who have become professionals in the field of Finance and
they are much less likely to forget financial issues than many of the men who
are non-professionals in this field? I think it is a tough question, far beyond
my domain of competence. I don't want to see the Qur'anic formula changing, but
then I do understand that there was a definite reason why it was needed.
Perhaps the fact that ladies are getting professional expertise in these fields
is not in line with the ideals of Islam. I donot know. I invite you to think
about it and give your opinion on the subject. Forgive me for being unclear
here.
I heard a thing a couple of days
back and I could not believe it at first. I heard that a muslim man can marry
again without the consent of his first wife. And that every muslim girl shoud
expect and should not mind her husband marrying again. Is it true?
Answer:
Legally speaking, a husband is not
required to seek permission from his first wife before getting married to a
second one. Had that been a condition, no second marriage would ever have taken
place, because no woman would permit her husband to get married to another,
unless if she is an extraordinary person or the circumstances are exceptional.
However, it is highly recommended that, given the nature of the decision, the
husband should do so or else he will have an extremely difficult time ahead,
and would be in many cases guilty of being unfair as well. However, informing
the new wife that he is already married is a legal requirement, otherwise he
will be held guilty of deceiving her.
About plural marriages, one should
always bear in mind that it is not something that is obligatory on Muslim men,
nor is it highly recommended. It is only allowed. There is a huge difference
between the two. Moreover, despite this permission, the vast majority of Muslim
men have all along Islamic history married only once. Therefore, ladies need
not worry about the prospects of living with another 'fellow wife'. One of the
reasons that have acted as a deterrant against plural marriages has been the
strict Qur'anic principle that in case of plural marriages, a husband must
remain absolutely fair in providing all his wives exactly the same attention
and facilities.
The reason why several marriages
have been allowed to men is that sometimes the conditions of a society are such
that allowing men to marry more than one wife is an absolute necessity or else,
great harm is likely to be caused. In case of wars, for instance, more men are
killed than women, thus causing great harm to the man-woman balance in the
society, as was the case in
If polygamy is allowed why is
polyandry (allowing women to have several husbands) not allowed as well? The
reason is simple: It is important that in case of every child parents should be
clearly identified so that both parents and children could attend to the
respective obligations they owe to each other. In case a woman has several
husbands, that identifiaction would become impossible.
The Qur'an has mentioned clearly
that the reason why prophet Muhammad, Alaihissalaam, married several women was
that he had a special mission to achieve for which it was necessary that he
should be given that privilege. Otherwise, as a scholar has rightly pointed
out, the ideal Muslim household under normal circumstances is comprised of one
husband and one wife. Had that not been the case, God Almighty wouldn't have
arranged only Eve to accompany Adam, Alaihissalaam. There should have been
several wives with him at the beginning of man's arrival in this world.
I am a little confused about
Muslims' relationship with the non-Muslims. What sort of terms should we have
with non-Muslims in everyday life?
Answer:
We should behave with the
non-Muslims in an exemplary manner. They are the people who learn about Islam
through our conduct. There is, therefore, no confusion, at least in my mind,
that we should be extra kind to them. That means that within the limits of
Islamic injunctions we can make them friends, have food with them, and
socialise with them the way we do with fellow Muslims.
I know that there are many Muslims
who would tell you that making non-Muslims as your friends is disallowed in
Islam. The reason why they say so is that they believe that verses like the
following are requiring them to do that:
"O ye who believe! Take not
the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but
friends and protectors to each other.
And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.
Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." (
You might then ask me how I dare
form an opinion contrary to the clearly mentioned principle in the Qur'an. My
response to this legitimate question is that the above-translated verse is
requiring us to stay away from the friendship of only those Christians and Jews
who make fun of our religion. Those who don't make fun of it but instead show
respect towards it are not included in this category. In other words, in my
opinion, only a particular category of non-Muslims have been required to be
stayed away from. The proof of my claim can be seen in the following verse:
"O ye who believe! take not
for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport
whether among those who received the Scripture before you or among those who
reject faith; but fear ye Allah if ye have Faith (indeed)." (
Also read surah Al-Mumtahanah (60)
to see more evidence of what I am trying to suggest.
You can see for yourself that if
the Qur'an is interpreted by considering only one verse, isolating it from the
rest of the text, it can sometimes cause a lot of misunderstanding. In my opinion,
the translation of the first verse that mentions "the Jews and the
Christians" actually means "these Jews and these Christians". In
other words, there was a particular category of people from amongst the two
groups whose friendship was outlawed. You can also imagine that, going by that
criterion, many so-called Muslims of today who make fun of Islam would also
belong to the category of the people with whom we cannot have friendship.
How can it be explained to women
that it is not unfair for them in Islam:
Answer:
I would like to know if this
question of your still remains after reading my answers to questions on the
witnessing of women and plural marriages. Please do let me know if there still
remains a reason for women to feel uncomfortable about these matters.
A friend of mine recently started
observing 'purdah'. Her family's reaction to this change is rather upsetting
and discouraging. So far, she has not been able to get her point accross to her
family and neither have they been able to convince her to retrace her steps.
Her family is probably suggesting that it is not right to become so sober, so
early in life. We definitely cannot agree to this. How, in your opinion, should
she react to this and handle the criticism?
Answer:
There is nothing surprising about
what is happening to your friend. The difficulty your friend is going through
is a trial we all are given to go through when we start taking our faith
seriously. My advice to your friend is that she should not adopt an
unnecessarily rigid stance while handling these reactions. She should be extra
polite with her parents and siblings, but she should not compromise on her
principles. In other words, she should be polite but firm. Elders in such
circumstances normally make an effort to check the firmness of the
son's/daughter's commitment. If she gives in, their purpose is achieved; if she
doesn't, they realise they have to live with it. She should not worry about
what her parents' assessment is. She should do her duty, which is:
"And your Lord has ordained
that you worship no one except Him, and be good to your parents."