Q. I am a very young revert to Islam. I am also a
part time Da’yee and forced to confront Christian missionaries who
are well-versed with Islamic doctrines. I request you to help me
defend a faith that I believe is the real Truth from God.
- Was there condemnation between the great scholars of
Islam as alleged by some Christian writers? For instance they say
that Imam Shafai has said “There never was born a more damned
person in Islam than Abu Hanifa.” Another scholar, Abu Hamid
Ghazali in his book Manqul fi -Ilmi-Usul says: “In fact Abu Hanifa
distorted the religious code, made its way doubtful, changed it’s
arrangement and intermingled the laws in such a way that the code
prescribed by the holy Prophet was totally disfigured.” This
scholar goes on to say that Abu Hanifa was an infidel Many others
also condemn Abu Hanifa this way like in Ghazali’s Mutahawwal,
Zamakhshari’s Rabiu’l-Abrar etc. Differences of opinion is a thing
that is said to be accepted in Islam, but if differences led to
condemn a great Imam as Abu Hanifa as infidel. How can we say that
they accepted and loved each other? Why so great a difference in
interpreting laws?
- If ‘all companions of the Holy Prophet (Pbuh) are like stars
why don’t we accept Abu Dharr?
- Regarding a practice known as Muta Nikah, the Christian
missionaries quote ample evidences that Muta was practised during
the life time of the Prophet, was banned a number of times but the
ban was annulled again and again. They quote from Sahih Bukhari
and the Musnad of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal part 1, p.25, Abu Raja
reporting of the authority on Imran Ibn Hasis that Muta was
revealed in the Quran. [Surah 4:24]. No verse was revealed to
rescind the practice. Caliph Umar himself has attested to the
practice of Muta in the following words “In the time of the
Prophet two muta’s were permitted. I make both of them unlawful,
and if any does it, I will punish him.”There are many such reports
that say that Muta was practised till Umar forbade it. Jarullah
Zamakhshari in his Tafsir-e-Kashshaf regarding Abdullah Ibn
Abbass’s statment that the verse of Muta was one clear ordinance
of the Holy Quran says that this verse was not repealed. Imam
Malik also was of the same opinion. Mulla Sa’idu’d-din Taftazani
in his Sharh-e-Maqasid, Burhanu’d-Din Hanafi in his Hidaya, Ibn
Hajar in his Fathu’l Bari and others have reported this verdict of
Imam Malik. How far are these things true and what about the
validity of these verdicts that prove what the Shias are saying
relating to the matter? Can the command of Allah and his Prophet
be abrogated by a Caliph? How can such great scholars of the
‘Ahul-l-Sunnah wal Jamaah’ err regarding the fact of such an
episode in history? Please verify the sources also.
Jazakallah Wasalaam, Koshy - 24422 email:
baijukoshy@hotmail.com
A. Mutual Condemnation of Islamic scholars:
Imam Shafa’i never called Imam Abu Hanifa an infidel. It is a
shameful lie to accuse him of such a thing but unfortunately,
telling lies, deception, treachery and trickery is widely used by
Christian missionaries for the propagation of their religion. How
much Imam Shafa’i respected Imam Abu Hanifa can be gauged from the
following. Once Imam Shafai visited the mosque in which Imam Abu
Hanifa led in prayers during his lifetime. As a mark of respect to
the late Imam, he offered all his prayers as per Hanafi Fiq’h in
that mosque. Can such a person call him infidel?
Regarding Imam Ghazali, there were two distinct
phases in his career as scholar. During the first phase, he used
harsh words for other scholars with whom he differed but with time
as he gained in knowledge and insight, he matured and it is his
contribution in the second phase that made him Imam in the eyes of
people. But the fact remains that even in his first phase of
knowledge, though he criticised Imam Abu Hanifa he never called him
an infidel. This again is a lie. I could not lay my hands on
Rabi-ul-Abrar of Zamakhshari. It is most likely that the charge
against him of calling Abu Hanifa an infidel is also concocted.
Why are there differences among scholars in the
interpretation of Shariah? The answer to this question is complex if
we go through arguments and counter arguments of different scholars
but it becomes very simple when we use common sense. The basic
principles guiding the laws of Shariah can never change and will
never change but the the understanding of Sunnah and also sometimes
in implementation of those principles may change with the evolution
of human knowledge. The Holy Book laid down the principles that are
forever. The wisdom of application of the principles is to be learnt
from the Sunnah of the Prophet. The differences among scholars are
regarding the understanding of Sunnah and also sometimes in
implementation of the principles. Let me elaborate. There were
mainly four types of orders and practices of the Prophet (Pbuh).
- Those orders or practices that were binding for all
people for all times.
- Some orders and practices were pertaining to certain
circumstances. Whenever those circumstances and conditions arose,
those orders would be applicable.
- Some specific instructions were for certain specific persons.
And lastly,
- Some of his practices and orders were meant for the era of the
Prophet alone.
The differentiation between the above four for the
understanding of Sunnah was not an easy job and hence there was
difference of opinion among scholars. I now present an example of
difference in implementation of the principle.
The Prophet (Pbuh) practised and recommended Qas’r
(2 Rak’ats instead of 4) in Salat in journeys. He never fixed the
limit of distance of the journey for that purpose. Later with the
increase in population, the townships grew closer and the Fiq’h
scholars thought of defining the limit of journey for the purpose.
Obviously the essence behind the shortening of salat was the extra
hardship of the journey. For the masses, it was expedient to convert
the hardship of the journey in terms of distance. Scholars of
different times and places arrived at different decisions in fixing
the limit of distance considering the means of transport, and the
weather conditions of the geographical area. In today’s world the
application of the principle needs a revision. There are numerous
means of transport ranging from a bullock cart to an aeroplane.
Suppose a labourer in the hottest of seasons goes to the next town
on a bicycle and the journey totally exhausts him. According to the
Hanafi Fiq’h, he will have to offer full Rak’ats of normal prayer if
he has gone to a distance lesser than 90 kms. Another person takes a
flight from N.Delhi to Bombay in 11/2 hour without shedding a drop
of sweat but he will perform Qas’r as he has travelled to a longer
distance. Obviously the application of the principle in present
times needs revision by capable scholars.
The differences in interpretation for the purpose
of codification were natural and inevitable. While most of them
remained confined to expressing the differences, some were
temperamental and used harsh language too. There is no cause for
alarm in this. Except for the prophets no person could be without
fault. Islam does not recognise any such seat as Church or Pope as
representatives of God. We can simply accept that a particular
scholar erred in such and such respect while acknowledging his due
contribution. It is not as frequent as the Christian missionaries
have projected before you that several scholars did brand others
infidel.
It is amazing that Christian missionaries are
taking such pains to collect the quotations (mostly distorted) of
Muslim scholars branding each other infidel. While their religious
history right from the days of Disciples is full of such accusations
for one another. You must read the statements of Martin Luther King,
the pioneer of the Protestant movement about the Pope and vice versa
to confront them if they come to you with such confusions (full of
distortions of course).
Rejection of Hazrat Abudhar Ghifari!
It is mischievous to say that Muslims do not accept
Hazrat Abu Dhar Ghifari. We all hold him in high esteem. What is not
accepted practically by any sect of Muslims is his interpretation of
the needs of a person and the maximum limit of one’s possession.
Were his opinion in this respect to be followed, not a single person
in the Ummah would have been capable of becoming a Zakat payer.
Islam does not forbid earning good money and acquiring things of
comfort as long as one fulfills his due obligations towards the
society.
Did Hazrat Umar abrogate Muta’?
History tells us that the Prophet (Pbuh) permitted
Muta’ on a few occasions of long collective journeys but finally
forbade it forever in 10 AH after the last Hajj in his lifetime. The
Nikah of Muta’ (Contract of marriage for a limited period) was an
ancient practice among Arabs. Arabs were sunk in fornication and
adultery while Islam did not permit sexual relations outside the
genuine wedlock. The binding was so harsh on them that sensing their
weakness, the Prophet (Pbuh) permitted them on four occasions of
long journeys, the Muta’ which had a social sanction in their eyes.
He had sensed that all of them could not bear to keep away from
women for months so the temporary permission of Muta’ was granted as
it was better than indiscriminate sex. It may be noted that the
permission of Muta’ was on all four occasions granted on long
journeys. There is not one occasion when the Prophet announced the
permission while in town. It is a matter of interpretation whether
the permission remained in force after those journeys or not. Those
who believe in Muta’s prohibition should also learn from the Prophet
(Pbuh) the wisdom of gradually implementing the laws that are hard
to practise for the beginners.
Muta’ possessed some psychological, social and
moral respectability over unattatched sex. Firstly the psychological
word of Nikah was attached to it. Secondly there was provision of
Mehar for the woman in Muta’. Thirdly woman was required to pass the
waiting period (Iddat) after the expiry of temporary marriage so
that the parentage of the child (if the woman became pregnant) could
be known. The child born out of Muta’ was considered legitimate and
was accepted as legal heir of his father.
The gradual implementation of prohibition of sex
outside (permanent) marriage can be compared with the gradual
implementation of prohibition of intoxicants. Though the wines were
never permitted in any Shariah of any prophet, the total prohibition
was imposed in three stages. The difference between the prohibition
of intoxicants and the prohibition of illegal sex is that while the
former was implemented in stages by Qur’an, the Prophet (naturally
with the consent of Allah) was also instrumental in its phased
implementation in case of latter.
It is misleading to blame Caliph Hazrat Umar for
repealing or changing a law of Shariah on his own. He only announced
the strict implementation of the prohibition declared by the Prophet
(Pbuh) after Hajj-atul-wida’ (the last Hajj in his lifetime). The
charge of Shias on Hazrat Umar stands annulled on two counts.
- If Muta’ was permitted in Shariah and the second Caliph
repealed it at his whim, the fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali whose
actions are binding on Shias could again have announced its
permission. The prohibition of Muta’ remained enforced during the
reign of Hazrat Ali.
- No Shia would ever permit his daughter to enter into Muta’
contract with any one. The permanent marriages are announced with
pride and the world knows of it but we have never come across even
a small list of clerics’ daughters who were given into Muta’
proudly. It shows that the practice is practically disgraceful in
their own eyes.
Following are some features of Muta’ which are not
permitted in a valid and normal Nikah.
- There is no need of the presence of a witness at the
time of Nikah of Muta’
- The man is not responsible for the food, clothes, lodging and
maintenance of the woman during the period of their relations.
- The man is free to keep as many women as he likes at a time in
his Muta’.
- The woman does not get any share in man’s succession.
- If the girl is willing, the permission of her father or
guardian is not required even if she is a virgin or minor.
- The duration of Muta’ may be as short as a few minutes and may
be as long as any number of years.
- The waiting period in case of separation is half of that in
case of a normal marriage.
- Man is not responsible for the woman’s maintenance during her
Iddat.
Below are the verses of Qur’an which in some
companions’ opinion and in the opinion of Shias, legitimize the
Muta’.
“...All women other than these (described in
5:22,23) are lawful to you, provided you seek them with your wealth
(Mehar) in modest conduct, not in fornication. Give them their Mehar
as a duty for the ‘ISTAMTA’ (benefit) you have had with
them.”(5:24)
The relevant Arabic word in the above verse is
‘Famastamta’tum’ which means, ‘when you have had benefited with
them’. Those favouring the Muta’ translate it as ‘when you had made
Muta’ with them’. There is one clear proof in Qur’an that they are
mistaken. This particular word has been used as it is in two other
verses of Qur’an viz 9:69 and 46:20. I am presenting the translation
of one of these. You can check the other verse yourself. First, see
the translation of the verse preceding 9:69 so that the context
could be known that the description is of hypocrites.
“Allah has promised the hypocrites, both men and
women, and the unbelievers, the fire of Hell. They shall abide in
it. It is sufficient for them; theirs shall be a lasting torment”.
(9:68)
And now, the next verse with the actual translation
of the relevant word in question:
“As in the case of those before you, they were
mightier than you and had greater riches and more children. They had
BENEFITED from their portion and you have BENEFITED from yours as
did those before you. You indulge in idle talk as they did. They!
Their works are fruitless in this world and in the Hereafter, and
they are the losers”. (9:69)
I am again reproducing the same verse below but
this time I am putting the word Muta’ in the translation of
the word FAMASTAMTA’TUM, which Shias claim to mean Muta’, the same
word, which occurred in (5:24)
“As in the case of those before you, they were
mightier than you and had greater riches and more children. They had
their portion of Muta’ and you have had your portion of
Muta’ as did those before you. You indulge in idle talk as
they did. They! Their works are fruitless in this world and in the
Hereafter, and they are the losers”. (9:69)
I have no hesitation in saying that those
companions who against the opinion of other companions thought that
the verse (5:24) of Qur’an authenticated Muta’, erred in its
interpretation.
Q. Will only
Muslims go to Heaven? Who are the people who will enter
Heaven?
A. Muslim means one who has submitted to the
Will of God. How can he who has not submitted to His Will expect to
earn reward from him? However a Muslim is neither by birth nor
anyone who is registered as a Muslim in a Government census. Whoever
has Iman (Belief in Oneness of Allah, the Last Day and
accountability and all His Prophets) and does good work can expect
his reward. A spy of the enemy nation, if caught, can not expect
pardon on the basis of his good social behaviour. The loyalty to the
Government is a pre-requisite for good works to be recognized. Iman
is loyalty to the lone Sovereign of the universe. Good deeds and
works are the manifestation and proof of loyalty. Qur’an is very
explicit about it that both are necessary.
An essential clarification is also required here.
Iman or the Faith cannot be ascertained by declaration alone. It is
inside the hearts and Allah knows all. Only he is a person of Faith
whose Faith is accepted by Allah as genuine. It has been made clear
in Qur’an that all those who declare themselves to be Muslims are
not necessarily Faithful. See the following verse.
“Those who are distant from the center of
knowledge claim that they believe. Tell them: ‘You do not believe;
rather you can say that you profess Islam’. Iman has not yet found
its way into your hearts” (49:14)
On the other hand Allah can accept the Faith of
those who had Iman in their hearts but could not openly declare for
circumstances known to themselves and Allah knew the genuineness of
their concealment. The examples of such people are mentioned in
Qur’an 40:28-45 and 48:25.
There is no claim on Allah of anyone on the basis
of their birth in a particular family. Paradise is for those who
truly believe in the eyes of Allah and do good works also. Qur’an
has repeatedly warned those who call themselves Muslims that
paradise is not their right by birth. These sort of claims, Qur’an
clarifies, were made by those who were corrupted believers. Those
who are called Jews once truly believed in Moses (pbuh) and followed
his teaching but later when their Faith and deeds were corrupted
they started claiming that they would enter paradise on the basis of
their Faith and if the punishment for some deeds had to be inflicted
upon them it will be temporary after which they will be entered into
the eternal paradise. Qur’an warns Muslims not to be in the
footsteps of Jews who make such claims:
“And they say: “The fire shall not touch us but for
a few numbered days”; Say: “Have ye taken promise from Allah for He
never breaks His promise? Or is it that ye say of Allah what ye do
not know?
Nay, those who seek gain in Evil and are girt
round by their sins they are Companions of the Fire therein shall
they abide. But those who have faith and work righteousness they are
Companions of the Garden therein shall they abide.” (2:80-82)
Q. My
brother borrowed a huge sum of money for carrying out a business and
after the business started to flourish he became greedy. He started
making false allegations and back biting me and insulted me in
public with false claims. When I offered to withdraw from all
business relations with him due to the above reason, he refused to
return the money and continued to abuse me. Now I have decided to
sever all ties with him but not to take any revenge. Is my stand
correct?
(Ismail Yousuf ; Bangalore)
A. In the
situation you have described, your stand can not be called
unjustified. Islam permits you four recourses.
- To take the matter to a court of law or Shariat court
or to personal mediators: You would have been fully justified in
opting for any one of these.
- To take revenge: You were permitted to take revenge not
exceeding the excesses committed against you.
- Forgive him: This would have been the best course. The holy
Qur’an recommends:
“The recompense for an injury is an
injury equal thereto. But he that forgives and seeks reconcilement
shall be rewarded by Allah. He does not love the wrongdoers. Those
who avenge themselves when wronged incur no guilt. But great is the
guilt of those who oppress their fellowmen and conduct themselves
with wickedness and injustice. These shall be sternly punished. To
endure with fortitude and to forgive is an act of great
resolution. (42:40-43) (iv) Lastly, you are recommended to keep
clear of him. “So keep clear of them and put your trust in Allah.
Allah is enough as a disposer of affairs”. (4:81) Keeping clear
(I’raaz) is not exactly severing all relations altogether. It
includes a will and effort, if possible, to reform him who has
resorted to evil due to ignorance. “Hold to forgiveness, enjoin
justice and avoid the ignorant”. (7:199)
Q. I have come to
learn that Moplah Muslims of North Malabar live in matrilineage
units and among them the matrilineage is an exogamous unit. This is
almost exactly as practised by the Khasis (including Jaintias) and
Garos of Meghalaya. The growing “Khasi Muslim” community here is
also resorting (according to traditional law) to the traditional
family system of matriliny and perhaps exogamy, whereby marriage
within the same clan (maternal) is prohibited. How far are these
practices in conformity with Shariah (Qur’an and Hadith) and
science?
(M. Ali Haider ;
Shillong)
A. Both type of genes producing good qualities
as well as bad multiply and occur frequently in the progeny.
Marriage in close blood is against the advice of today’s medical
science if there is known genetic disorder in the family. There are
some distinct advantages in the marriage within the clan. The
character and background of the proposed spouse is better known and
predictable besides better chances of mutual adjustment due to
similar cultural traditions. Its disadvantages are also known today.
The chance of occurrence of genes producing bad effects can be
further minimized by marrying in a totally different caste instead
of mere avoidance of the sub-caste. Should we then say that the
matchmaking be considered only where DNA tests show different
lineages? That would be very impractical. Besides, there is a chance
of inheriting bad genes of other clans or castes by marrying
distant. It should be a matter of individual choice, weighing social
and medical pros and cons of both, taking into consideration, the
known history of both the families. If we look far ahead, all human
beings are related to each other by blood. A barrier had to be
defined by religion between the permissible and prohibitory limits
of relations for the purpose of marriage. The closest relation
beyond which the marriage is forbidden has been specified by the
Creator Himself who has created and hence knows the qualities and
deficiencies as well as what is good and bad for all. It must
however be understood that those limits are the minimum limits and
have been fixed for all races and all times. Sticking to the
borderline of prohibition against a medical advice is neither the
intention of Qur’anic injunction nor personal wisdom. The wisdom
lies in keeping to a safe margin from the line of prohibition
especially when the medical guidelines demand so in certain times.
The law the Qur’an has laid down states:
“Henceforth you shall not marry the women who
were married to your fathers. That was an evil practice, indecent
and abominable. Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters,
your sisters, your parental and maternal aunts, the daughters of
your brothers and sisters, your foster-mothers, your foster-sisters,
the mothers of your wives, your step daughters who are in your
charge, born of the wives with whom you have lain; but it is no
offence for you (to marry them) if you have not consummated your
marriage with their mothers. (Forbidden to you also) are the wives
of your own begotten sons and to take in marriage two sisters at one
and the same time unless this had happened in the past. Allah is
Forgiving and Merciful”. (4:22,23)
It may be pointed out here that traditionally the
Companions did not usually marry their first cousins. There are less
than one percent known cases of marriages as close as first cousins.
It is also stated that the Prophet (Pbuh), generally, advised
against marrying very close. Imam Ghazali has quoted a Hadith of the
Prophet (Pbuh) saying: “Do not marry in close relatives as the
offspring may be inflicted with deficiency” (Note: I could not
find this Hadith anywhere in any book of Hadith I possess.)
There is no harm in sticking to its family
traditions as far as the members of a group understand that Islam
did not forbid them marrying within the maternal or paternal clan.
There is no person who does not follow the local or family
traditions at least to some extent. The Prophet expressed
appreciation for the Pajama of Majoos (Zoroastrians - Iranians) but
never wore it himself although it was more Satar-concealing than a
Lungee.
Q. It is said that
by reading the holy Qur’an running the forefinger of the right hand
on each line of the Qur’an and reciting Bismillah, whatever (lawful)
is asked for, is granted by Allah. I want to know more about it.
(F.R. ; Bangalore)
A. There is no basis for this belief in Shariah
or known science. In Prophet’s time and up to well after the reign
of Hazrat Usman, who issued six standard canonic copies of Qur’an to
different regions, the Companions usually did not possess written
manuscripts of the Book. They recited from their memory and hence
there was no question of running a forefinger along the text.
However there are personal experiences of the pious people that defy
known logic. I cannot comment on the one you have mentioned, as I
have never heard of it.
Some people may argue that whatever the Prophet
(Pbuh) did not do, is not correct. It is their exaggeration. The
rule is that whatever the Prophet (Pbuh) did not forbid, is
permitted. However, though the Qur’anic verses may be of help in
genuine needs, the real purpose of Qur’an should not be forgotten.
It is a guidance for mankind to pass the test of life successfully
for the next and eternal life. It will be a trade of heavy deficit
if such an invaluable gain is forgotten and only minor worldly gains
are sought after. What you might gain from running a forefinger over
the verses is like a drop of water in an ocean compared to what you
will surely gain by trying to understand the meaning of those
verses.
Q. To do what
Prophet did is Sunnah. Is having more than one wife Sunnah?
A. Some orders and permissions were exclusively
for the Prophet and his Ahl-e-Bait (his wives, daughter, son-in-law
and their progeny). For example, accepting Zakat is prohibited for
his progeny. The prophet’s wives were not to marry others after his
demise. The Salat of Tahajjud was obligatory for the Prophet (Pbuh).
The above do not apply to all Muslims. All such exclusive orders and
permissions have been clearly mentioned either in Qur’an or in the
Prophet’s sayings.
The Prophet (Pbuh) had exclusive instructions and
permission for his marriages. Those do not apply to other Muslims.
The conditions in which, a Muslim is required or permitted to marry
more than one wife, are known from the Qur’an and the practice of
the Prophet’s close companions.
Q. If husband asks
his wife to do Hijab and she tells him she will do Hijab only when
Allah gives her Hidaya. (She is a New Muslim who accepted Islam
recently). Can husband force her? If not, explain.
A. Allah has already given her Hidaya when she
embraced Islam. Hidaya means guidance or showing the correct path.
It is wrong to put onus of one's intention and efforts on to Allah.
He does not force any one on any particular path. The tone of the
question indicates that she knows Hijab (at least a long robe or
Chaadar to be wrapped over the body to cover the clothes) is
required in Islam (for going out) but is putting the responsibility
of her non-compliance over Allah. A wife can disobey the husband if
he imposes such conditions upon her that are against Islam but when
he asks something required by Islam, then the disagreement amounts
to the disobedience of Allah. The question here is bigger than
merely of the disobedience of the husband. She must realize that she
embraced Islam to submit to Allah. She changed the course of all her
life and now is spoiling the fruits of her sacrifices by earning His
displeasure by not adopting Hijab which is to her own advantage even
in this world. Yes, the husband should explain to her, quoting Allah
and His Prophet's order and then he can put pressure over her. Had
not she given her consent to Nikah with him in the Name of Allah,
which implies that she had taken a vow at the time of Nikah to abide
by the orders of Allah in her marital life.
Q. Nowadays it is
not that easy to maintain Hijab because most of us study in
co-education though we want to maintain strict Hijab. What can be
done under such circumstances? Will God forgive us?
A. Hijab or veil is required while passing
through streets. In the classroom it is not obligatory for you to
sport a veil. There are girls and women in India and abroad who
stick to covering their faces before the strangers in all
circumstances, attend classes and do other diverse jobs while
sporting the veil. They testify that they experience not only no
discomfiture but feel more secure. However for the girls in their
classrooms the adherence to wearing the scarf is necessary. Head and
hair are included in the Sat’r (concealable parts) of a woman.
Q. Is nuclear
research and testing allowed in Islam?
A. Yes, if the intention is to use it for
the benefit of mankind and in the service of Allah, it is not only
allowed but also essential.