Letters to the Editor

The difference between the two wars, that of Abraham Lincoln and that of Islam, both against slavery is that Abraham Lincoln lost, whereas Islam won.

Although liberated, the former slaves have not yet won equality in the USA or Europe. Although no more slaves, they are still kept economically low to be serving the whites in various low-paid jobs. Socially, they are far from equal. Spiritually, they are worth used tea bags. No black man has been a pope. And the day one is, Christians will think it as the last nail in the coffin of Christianity as understood and practiced in the west.

Anger against the whites is so high that once this writer was asked by an Afro American Muslim performing Hajj if Muhammad was black or white? If not for their flair for music and performance in sports, the blacks in the USA would surely have been worse off. Tired of living as unequals, once they were thinking of mass migration back to Africa.

A black motorist was (infamously) beaten blue by white policemen in the USA, for no fault of his, even the while the whole incident was being filmed. The law keepers were left scot-free. An unarmed black man was killed in his own flat by the police, for simply making a move. A study says that a black has twice the chance of being convicted for the same kind of crime than a white man. In the USA, almost every second black person has been in prison some time or the other in his life. Lincoln failed.

Socially too, the freed slaves have not been accepted at all as free men. There are areas where blacks cannot buy property. Once when a newly appointed black doctor attended a monthly meeting in a hospital, he was politely told that it was an all-white meeting. Villains in American films are generally blacks against white heroes. (In India we are told it is Muslims that are shown as villains). Never is a black shown as a hero with a white man as villain: unless it is a heroic villain. You have seen how a white Kennedy was acquitted for a clear case of rape, but a black Tyson was jailed over a doubtful case. (What was the woman doing in Tyson’s room past midnight? She was not even a friend. Just somebody, an admirer). Malcom X was told by his white teacher that he shouldn’t aspire to become a doctor, or an engineer, etc., rather, should hope to become a painter, janitor etc. Yes. Ibrahim Lincoln failed. He gave them only political rights. And political rights are only political rights. And political rights are only on paper. Just like Muslims in India, they have all the political rights. But, in employment they are less than 2% although in population 20%. In industrial ownership they are perhaps only 0.2%.

Political rights are worth banana skins, if the majority is hell bent on denying those rights – however innocent faces they may carry.

In contrast, Islam succeeded in liberating the slaves. Who was the Pope at the time of the Prophet? It was Bilal. It was not a white Qurayshi who climbed the Holy House, the Ka’aba building, to call for Prayers. It was Bilal, the African, the black. “Umar used to say, “Our master Abu Bakr freed our master Bilal.” When ‘Umar allowed Bilal a front seat, and the handsome, fair Arabs a back seat in his assembly, and when they made faces, he didn’t say, sorry. He said, “This is how you will be treated in the Hereafter also.” When Bilal the black wished to leave Madinah, Abu Bakr the fair, the most important man in Islam after the Prophet said, “Bilal. Don’t abandon me in my old age.” An Arab in Syria received a proposal for his daughter for another Arab. He said, “I don’t know you. Bring me a good recommendation.” The man brought Bilal as the one to recommend him.

Islam succeeded where Lincoln failed. By the second generation most top class scholars in Islam were former slaves. Thousands of “never been slaves” followed them like shadows, handling their boots, kissing their hands, making notes of their dictations. They enslaved the free through learning, piety, and other-worldliness.

They didn’t ask for political rights. But, within a few centuries they were the rulers in Egypt and in India.

Islam succeeded were Muslims failed. The Muslims enslaved people whom they had no right to enslave.

They will pay for it through their bleeding noses in the Hereafter. After Islam had almost finished off this ugly phenomenon, the corrupt Muslims gave it a new life, played a dirty role. It could be that their present day slavery to other nations is a first installment punishment for their renewal of slavery when Islam had killed it.

Aside that, today millions are in slavery, but they are made to think that they are free. Aren’t they free to vote, or move about, or choose their professions, etc.? Only words. They are slaves in every sense there were slaves in former times. They are “free” to live in ghettoes, “free” to move, but not too far, “free” from their masters, but not free from economic clutches, “free” in political terms, but not free as a community to determine their present and future. Only Islam can remove this slavery, If…there is an Islamic state. There isn’t one today.

A question is often asked. “Why didn’t Islam ban slavery outright, like the American government did, or as other governments have done? It seems governments are kinder upon man than the God who created them.

The questioners seem to have a point against Islam. “It couldn’t be a revealed religion that allows for slavery of any kind.” The answer is as follows:

Islam is a revealed religion. It was revealed by Allah, the Creator of man. Allah is All-Knowing. He knows how cunning man can be. He, the All-Knowing could not be trapped in a snare laid up by man.

Islamic laws are permanent. They are for all times, all ages, all societies and all nations. But human laws are not permanent. They change. Slavery might be banned in one century to be revoked in another. What would happen to Muslim slaves if slavery is permanently disallowed by Islam but others legalize it in future?

Again, human laws are selectively applied. Double standards are the hallmark of humans. Laws are there for all “to read.” But they are not there for all to be applied to. Many laws are for a particular race, people of a particular region, of a particular colour. They are not for all. The right of self-determination, for instance, is for all on paper. But in practice, it is not for Palestinians, or Chechens, or many others.

But Islamic laws are for everyone: whatever the region, the religion, the race, the language, the colour of the people.

The above applies to the law of slavery. Had Islam banned it, it would have been a unilateral action. The non-Muslims would bring it back and enslave the Muslims. So, Allah, the All-knowing, has kept the door open.

He made it clear that it is a terrible thing. Slaves should be emancipated. But, it doesn’t mean, Muslims should be taken slaves, while they have no law to retaliate with.

You excuse is not a sound one. Many of those who do well in competitive examinations do not enjoy good academic environment at home or in the universities, One who applies himself seriously to the studies, forgets his surroundings.

The objections you have raised are nothing new. But, neither they have a satisfactory reply to their views, nor their critics are able to provide a viable alternative, or a solution to problems that they foresee. One answer to the above objections is that the Jama’a does not disagree with the fact that the Qur’an and Sunnah are of paramount importance. But, they would not like to extend the right of interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the laity. They believe, therefore, that a proper Dars (lecture) on the Qur’an or Hadith is something that only a qualified scholar can handle. And, not finding any in most places, they end up opposing those non-scholars who engage in their studies, or pooh-poohing those who engage in such studies.

But, truly speaking, it is not the laity’s ignorance of the Qur’an and Sunnah that is deplorable. It is the ignorance of the so-called khawaas (the elites). It is among them that it is incomprehensible, unacceptable. It has seriously affected the quality of religion of the common adherents of the Jama’ah. The failure to bring in meaningful societal changes can only be attributed to the neglect of the sources of Islam. In the long run, it is feared that the Jama’ah will pay dearly for the neglect of the Qur’an and Sunnah. May Allah not show us that day, and may He guide everyone to the right course.

You have asked for the best of both the worlds. That is a big thing to ask. To get even the best of one world requires the devotion of a life-time. What about both the worlds then? If you look around at people who have been successful businessmen, doctors or artists, you will find that they have been working day and night for years on to achieve success.

Our answer then is, double up your efforts if you desire to get the two: this and the next world, the material and the spiritual, the earthy and the heavenly, the secular and the religious. We don’t mean that you double up “your” efforts. (Your efforts after all, don’t seem to be enough to solve your financial problems). Rather, look at the efforts of the most hard-working person around you, and double up those efforts for yourself, to achieve what you are desiring to achieve.

As to why a thing is disallowed in Islam, we truly don’t know much. We can only guess. All we know that liquor is disallowed in the Qur’an. With that we don’t need to know the reason. It’s like the parents disallowing their child something. It isn’t necessary for the child to know why it is disallowed. It is enough for him that the disallowance has his parents, as the authority. Similarly, after it is disallowed in the Qur’an, there is no need to check on why it is disallowed. The one who disallowed must have had a good reason. If we knew a thing was prohibited, we wouldn’t need guidance from above. We could have worked it out ourselves.

When the Companions heard about the revelation, they went back to check if it was revelation. Once convinced that Muhammad couldn’t be speaking on his own behalf, they never asked about any Islamic injunction as to “Why” it was prohibited or enjoined. A’isha (ra) was once asked as to why women were to repeat fasts missed during menstruation but not the Prayers? It was a straight-forward “Why” question. But the answer was very significant. She said, “Because, at the time of Prophet, we were asked to repeat the missed fasts but not the Prayer.”

Extremely intelligent as she was, she perhaps understood the sickness of the heart and confusion of the mind, and straightaway pointed out “why” we do things in our religion. If the question is, “Why?”, the answer is, “Out of obedience.” As regards, beer, the answer is, first of all, the definition of what is “wine” or “alcohol” has to be understood: Anything that intoxicates is “wine”.

And now the principle: “Anything of which a big quantity causes drunkenness is prohibited in small quantities also.” That is because big and small quantities are uncertain terms. What is small quantity for one, is big for another and what is big for one is small for another. Again, bodies vary in physical, psychological and moral reactions to similar causes. Some people can get drunk with 2% wine in water. On another, it might have no effect. Therefore, beer, if it has any amount of alcohol in it stands forbidden. But that beer is permissible which is completely free of alcohol or other intoxicants. The effects of intoxicants on the libido are well known by the doctors. It seriously affects the performance.

As we have said earlier, we do not know all the reasons why wine was prohibited. But Qurtubi the famous commentator of the Qur’an has reported that once a drunken man was seen, drinking his own urine and saying, “Allah be praised for having guided me to Islam.”

Tobacco is different from wine in two important aspects. It is not an intoxicant regardless of how much is consumed. Therefore, it cannot be declared prohibited on those grounds. Many scholars hold the opinion that tobacco consumption, in whatever form, although undesirable, is not unlawful. It is undesirable because it wastes money, makes one dependent on it and has a foul smell which is disliked by angels visiting man. However, such disadvantages do not call for a permanent, irrevocable prohibition.

This question is often asked. And there is good reason why. It is because of a great decline in the quality of Muslims. And there are several reasons why that has happened. Some details are necessary for a better understanding of the situation. First, Muslims are under great pressure to abandon their religion. Their religion of One God is not tolerated by the non-Muslims in any part of the world. As the Muslims succumb to this pressure, they practice their religion less and less. And, since they do not accept other ideas either, (how could they when they abandon Islam?), they are generally worse off than non-Muslims within the same society.

Second, the general atmosphere all over the globe is non-religions. Materialism, hedonism and individualism are the new faiths to which the whole of the world is devoted. Making as much money as possible, as fast as possible, in any way possible, lawful or unlawful, and seek maximum amount of pleasure are the motto of the people’s of the world today and their aim of this life. Muslims cannot remain unaffected by the motto and the aim, and the culture of insatiable greed that they have generated. That directly has a bearing on the quality of their religion.

Third, there is greater economic pressure on the Muslims than on others. Wealth is taken away from them, individually and collectively, one way or the other in a gradual and subtle manner. As individuals, they are denied jobs and opportunities. (An industry in U.P. which boasts of most modern facilities has six hundred employees. Only one of them is a Muslim, employed in the packing department. In Malaysia, 80% of the wealth is in the hands of non-Muslims). There are pressures on Muslim countries too. Their National wealth is taken away from them by other nations through some guile or the other. The economic factor leads to the spread of poverty, which directly affects the morals of the Muslims. The poor can hardly be expected to have character, especially when the rest of the world is so rich, which makes poverty all the more difficult to bear, especially in a world where moral principles are hardly appreciated in any quarter. All that the poor get is derisive looks by the cunning and the crooked rich. This again affects the Muslim morals and the quality of religion they practice. The above factors, as said earlier (although there are a few others), lead the Muslims to moral depravity. They seem to be uneducated, dishonest, lazy, undisciplined and crude. In contrast, the non-Muslims appear to be educated, honest, hard-working, disciplined and cultured. (Why not? Don’t they have all the money?) the question that then arises in the mind of the poorly informed people is the one raised above: If Paradise is for Muslims – of the quality we have before us – why should it not be for the non-Muslims – those of contrasting qualities? Often, it is the non-Muslims who raise this question. Quite ironic, of course. The answer need not be long. It is in the definition of the term Muslim. The word Muslim literally means someone who have surrendered himself to God. Have the non-Muslims done that?

Yes, the Muslim too doesn’t seem to have surrendered himself in the fullest sense. But, at least theoretically he does that. He acknowledges that there is a God, the Supreme, who will reckon his beliefs and actions. He fears the Day, however faintly, when he will be raised and questioned. It is another thing that he fastens false hopes on God that he will be forgiven because of the circumstances he was in.

But, what about the non-Muslim? Does he at least theoretically recognize God? Does he believe in a Day when he will be raised and questioned for drinking wine, having illicit sex, gambling, devouring poor people’s money through usury, spreading immorality through the media, devotions to stone gods? He, or those of similar mind, asks, why should he not be admitted into Paradise. But the question is: does he believe in Paradise, in Hell-fire, in reckoning? Does he want a share in a Paradise that he does not believe in?

The Muslim says: “I recognize You, O God, that You are the sole Lord of the universe. And I am sorry for my sins against You and Your creation. Will you forgive me then?” The non-Muslim says: “I recognize you O Someone in the heavens, that you are one of the three, or the one on top of a few million deities. (But, really, do YOU exist? If you do, may I know what are You doing up there?).” We may ask: If Paradise is not for Muslims alone (those who surrender themselves to the God who created it), then who else can it be for? For those who laugh at the idea?

You see, Islam is the name of devotion to God. It severs all relationships with false gods, idols, deities and stone-gods, and leads man to One God who alone is the Creator and Sustainer of this world. It disapproves of devotion to men who assume divinity, to angels, holy men, spirits, material things, natural phenomena, physical forces, etc. Graves and graveyards are not the central theme of life. Islam is not the religion of Ka’aba either, or that of the mosques, or the temples, or shrines, or tombs, or graveyards. It is the religion of devotion to One God.

Islam is a way of life that has devotion to One God as the end purpose and the central theme. If Muslim women understand this, it will become immaterial to them whether they are allowed to go to the graveyards or not.

What a Muslim woman has to be worried about is: Is she devoted to Allah? How much does she pray to Him everyday? How much of the Qur’an and Hadith does she read during the 24-hour cycle? Is she able to raise her children on Islamic principles? Is her house a centre of virtue? Do the people of the surroundings look to the people of her house for guidance, help and comfort? These are the things that she should be worried about and not whether she can go to the graves or not: whether allowed or not is another matter. Where is the time for an Islamically oriented woman to visit the graves?

In fact, the questions above should be the concern of Muslim men also. Being allowed to visit the graves, does not mean that the grave should become the centre of all activities. The living are more deserving of service than the dead.

It is only when Muslims lost grounds to their enemies on the surface of the earth, that they began to shift emphasis to what is beneath the surface: the graves. And, therefore, they lament that half of their population is not allowed to the graves.

As for why men are allowed to visit the graves, and not women, it shouldn’t be too difficult to work out the answer, if one knows the role and duties of women in Islam, and the position that she takes in the system.

A woman in Islam is not the cheap thing that you see in the streets today: the rough and tough barber, or car mechanic, or petrol-filler, or sweeper, or garbage collector, or bus driver, or sales-girl, or cat-walker, or prostitute, or butcher, or street vendor, or police-woman, or ticket–collector, airline hostess, men’s parlour masseur, or welder, or tennis ball collector, boxing ring advertiser, or bench-fitter, or boot polisher, or gate-keeper, or gardener, or drug peddler, or gangster, or nude-model, or pimp, or waitress, or disco-dancer, or open-show sex partner. She is none of that in Islam. In Islam she is a honourable lady of the house: serving the husband and children and in turn served by the father, brother, husband and children. She doesn’t go out at all, for any purpose, except for pleasure or when unwell. She doesn’t earn her living. Somebody else toils for her, while she does the simpler, less daunting, less harassing, less de-basing, house chore. Doing these things, within the confines of the house, gives her a character and personality entirely different from that of the Western woman of today: the one who bears half the burden of life. In Islam, a woman is a much respected person. This is in complete contrast with the position she occupies in the West. There, she is told she is equal to man. Therefore, when she is raped, she doesn’t know what to do. If she complaints, she will lose respect and maybe nothing will be done about it. After all, a woman is raped every few minutes in the USA. Being of equal rights, she can fight the case in the court. But, in practice, can she? Can she afford, for instance? In contrast, in Islam, a woman is well respected and well-guarded. If she is raped, the rapist will lose his life. If the law fails, the father, brother, husband, or son, will kill the rapist. So she remains safe from the humiliating assault on her self.

Therefore, in Islam, she is innocent, simple, and, for those reasons, trusting. If she goes to the graves, with such a mind, she will surely be fooled and exploited. Visit to the graves will not only adversely influence one whose body, mind and soul are kept soft, tender and impressionable but will also expose her to witchcraft, magic, spiritualist’s guile, and grave-keeper’s cunning. Entering into the grave-yard, she will lose the protection of the home, the husband, children, family-seniors, the neighbourhood elders, the society, and will be exposed to the world and tricks of the Graves & Inc.

She is kept away and insulated from the world of crooks, the pervert, not for her own sake alone, but for the sake of men too. It is she who works at home on her husband and others against cunning, perversions. That is the reason why most traditional societies did not tolerate moral perversion on the part of women. She is supposed to act against it, and help bring in order. She is the monitor, the moral-police woman. If she is corrupt, how are men to be taught chastity? Therefore, she must be least exposed to the outside world.

You have levelled a few charges against your father but have not substantiated with examples as to what exactly is his fault. Let us take your allegations one after another, and examine them.

You say your father has not exhibited his love for you. Now, not to love a child is one thing, and not to exhibit it is another. We are sure you cannot say he does not love you simply because he does not make a show of it. Who knows what he has in his heart? We know of at least one case where the father and the son disagreed over everything. But, when the son went away overseas, the father was quite in despair over the son’s absence. You see, between those who live together, it is extremely difficult to judge from their attitudes if they love each other or not. Little things happen that spoil the atmosphere. But whatever said because of those little frictional events, love stays firm in the heart.

Again, there are certain types of individuals who do not like to demonstrate their love or concern, even if they are deeply in love.

As for your mother facing hardships, again, it is not clear why she had to undergo suffering in consequence of hardships, if she suffered at all. Hardships are nothing uncommon in the world. Most people face hardships at some time or the other in their lives. But, facing hardship does not necessarily mean suffering too, although quite a few do suffer. But that is true mostly of Western countries where people suffer even without facing hardships. Hardship is something physical, whereas suffering is mental, psychological spiritual. In the Muslim world, hardships do not necessarily mean suffering too. And, even if they do, many people suffer for no reason other than that they are sentimental, emotional or fretful over little things. Moreover, if your mother suffered at your father’s hands, then unless your father was a drunkard, or suffered some such horrible character failure, unless that is the case, this is a “no go” area for you. It is something only the two can settle between themselves. It’s not for you to comment, take sides, or judge. For, there may be lots of background details that your parents will never disclose to you.

Your another allegation about your father being negligent of your career is also unclear. Did he not guide you to the course of studies you wished to adopt? Or, did he force you into a course that you disliked? If he did not guide you to a course of study you wished to adopt, then, we do not know the reason. Maybe he wished you to make an independent judgement. Alternatively, if he forced you into the present course, then, perhaps, he thought that was the best choice for you. Perhaps you need to discuss the issue with him a quiet evening.

In the overall, we might tell you that unless it is a clear moral failure, it is very difficult for a son to judge his father. To the children, all parents are extremely lovable initially. Then comes the period in their lives when they become indifferent to their parents while the parents continue to fret over them. Then comes the great transition phase of the teenager into manhood. In this stage the parents sound funny to their children. If not handled properly, this can be carried into adulthood also. In the next stage, all scores seem to be settled as the parents get old. Finally, with death, all is forgotten and forgiven. In some cases, death is followed by regrets, griefs and pangs of love. But that too dies off, and the person, the child of yesterday, the man of today himself dies uncaring of anyone in the world, just as when he was born. Our advice to you is not to be in a haste to judge your father. You cannot attribute your failures to him.

Everyone gets what he strives for, and there is a way out of every situation of dissatisfaction. Again, generosity is a marked character of a Muslim. And Parents are first of those who deserve it. Some time later, when you have grown older, maybe your father will be in a mood to discuss the past with you. Perhaps you will then know the true motives of his behaviour now.