Letters to the Editor

This issue has been addressed in this month’s editorial.

That person is right about all religions. But he needs to make an exception. Islam is excluded. It is not man-made. It was revealed by Allah. It is in the Qur’an, and the Sunnah both of which have been preserved from adulteration. Of the two, the Qur’an, has been so worded that it cannot be imitated, and it cannot be altered. It will remain – until the end of time – without human hand ever being able to manipulate it.

A skeptic’s exercise is to investigate: Have the Qur’an and Sunnah been adulterated by human hands since the first – the Qur’an – was presented by Prophet Muhammad, and the second – the Sunnah – was codified in the first, second and third centuries after him.

We can only ask a non-Muslim, and a Muslim plagued by doubts, to be rational, and, of course, serious. No one will ever investigate these issues but will turn Muslim, and if already a Muslim, then, a true Muslim.

If they turn away, whether a non-Muslim or a Muslim, they will be the losers on the Day of Judgment. Said Allah (39: 15): “Say, ‘Surely, losers are those who lost themselves and their families on the Day of Standing.’”

According to the Hanafi school of thought, as also many others, zakah funds cannot be used for the purposes stated above. This is because in the Qur’anic ayah, 60 (Surah Al-Tawbah)

إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاء وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَالْغَارِمِينَ وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ وَاللّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ.

which contains the commandment pertaining to Zakah, the “laam” of the “fuqaraa’” is, without any difference in opinion, “laamu tamleek.”

This is something you should demand of those who have aired the opinion, who think that Islamic Law is so simple that it can be taken to the “non-fuqahaa’” level.

The hadith is fake, a manufactured one.

Yes, they are included. In fact, the Qur’an refers to them alone as the ahl al-bayt. It is Sunnah which includes others such as `Ali and descendants. The wives of the Prophet are the “ahl al-bayt” by default. Others are included on textual support and evidence. In fact, `Ikrimah, one of the great scholars of the Qur’an, would not extend the term’s usage to anyone other than the wives of the Prophet.

The definition of a rasool is clear, but not so of a nabiyy. Hence there does not seem to be a clear way to distinguish between a rasul and a nabiyy. A definition which draws the approval of most is that a rasool is a raised one, sent specifically to a people, who, therefore, is given a new Shari`ah and hence a new Revelation. In contrast, although a nabiyy is also a raised one, but he follows the Shari`ah of a previous rasool, although he may on his own receive some Revelation or he might not. Hence every rasool is a nabiyy, but every nabiyy need not be a rasool.

Riba’ is an Arabic word whose equivalent in Urdu is Sood.

We are not aware of such fatwas issued by rightful authorities. Kindly send us the fatwas for our investigation.

Aa`laa Hazrat is an Urdu term, and in historical works we find that the term was used for the Nizams – former rulers of the Uthmani Sultanate of Hyderabad.

In many cases love of the Prophet is a slogan for us Muslims. There is no true regard for him. He is an icon – like every nation has its icon. Those who claim to love him, rarely know him, his life, his character and his concern to improve the world around him. To treat his concerns as one’s own is the true manifestation of love.

Singing out salam to him, (because people like to sing in chorus), is one of the worst ways of demonstrating love for him. Sending salam is a kind of devotional acts. Devotional acts cannot be sung out. They need solitude, concentration, and meditation. If the people wish to sing, let them, but let them choose something else, and not salam to the Prophet.

Such actions were never practiced by the Companions, who loved him most.

It is another thing that to stand up in love is prohibited. The Prophet said in a trustworthy hadith, “Whoever wishes that people should stand up for him when he comes in, may find his abode in the Fire.” Accordingly, when he entered an assembly, the Companions did not stand up for him. They were the most obedient of Allah’s servants after the Prophet. They were more sober than that they would sing out salam instead of living out his Sunnah.

Broadly speaking, if you draw back from a policy the exact amount you had deposited, then there is nothing wrong in it. On the other hand, to deposit a small sum, but ultimately draw a huge amount, will be at the cost of some others. This is unlawful. Or, to get back a smaller sum, as against large deposits, simply because one failed in depositing the subsequent premiums would also be unlawful. It would be like offering interest.

Television is a tool neither good in itself nor bad. It is the purpose to which it is put that makes its viewing lawful or unlawful. If an Islamic program presented on the TV is authentic of its contents, then watching its presentation would be a virtue. But, if it is not authentic, then one may switch off.

In addition to authenticity, running an Islamic channel to profit – which is the main objective – is itself a hard job filled with problem. Running TV stations is an expensive affair. It can only be run without regular monetary losses if it can manage to win advertisements. Therefore, most channels use sex to lure the viewers. Islamic channels cannot accept this, and so, loses clients.

On the other hand, a TV station that airs religious materials has fewer viewers. Accordingly, winning advertisement even from those clients who do not insist on sexual allurements, becomes difficult. Expenses not met, the owners turn to charity. But charity for such causes comes not from the very religious circles (most of the religious are too poor to contribute), but from those circles where there is more regard for money than for religion.

Again, the advisors that owners of TV channels have around them cannot be expected to be good quality, god-fearing Ulama’. The true Ulama’ are in the Madrasas, teaching high level subjects, exerting all their efforts to leave behind them good quality scholars. Many of them are engaged in research, and are also involved in Ummah related issues of importance. They hardly have time to appear in public. (No wonder American presidents hate them). This allows for the doors of TV program-rooms to be wide open for such of those who cannot be relied for expert knowledge of Islam. In consequence, you have all and sundry airing his views on the screen, especially those who can win approval of the masses. Whoever impresses the masses, attracts greater number of people to his programs (whatever his quality of knowledge). He draws the respect that a true scholar deserves, and what he says becomes the word of Islam.

Occasionally, a good scholar is coaxed into giving some time for the TV but his voice is drowned in the twittering of birds of every origin and every hue.

What happens in practice is that the programmer is supposed to present his audience with – say 8 hours  – of programs everyday. He requests several scholars to give time. But they are too busy. Those jump in who have plenty of time on their hands. They are not true scholars. (A true scholar normally suffers hyper-acidity or even ulcer, for his non-regularity in meals. He is overloaded with works). Sometimes the presenter knows that he has not got the right man for the topic he has chosen. But, where is he to produce the right men from? So he makes compromises just to fill in hours. How long can he air run-down old recordings? As time passes, it gets worse, and, finally, it is the sub-standard people who take over.

These are some of the reasons why Islamic TV channels are not successful. Some of them are controlled by the wrong people right from the start. Some have their own agenda or view point to project, and, therefore, we do not recommend any.

There is every possibility that you – as an individual – are not seeking the information for your own sake; that is, it is not your case that you are referring to. But that somebody has asked you to raise the query. Or maybe, you are just inquisitive about it and need to educate yourself.

At all events, what we would like our readers to think about is that somehow it is only Sunni girls who seem to be exposed to friendship with Shi`ah boys. We never get to hear from a Shi`ah girl inquiring about marriage to a Sunni boy. If the Shi`ah claim that their girls are more virtuous than that, then, what do we say in reply? Shall we not command some self-respect at the community level? Disrespect to a community comes from its women.

Now, as regards your statement that, in your words, “it cannot happen”, (i.e., marriage to a Zaydi), well, it can happen. It is another thing that – a Sunni girl’s marriage to a Shi`ah, of whatever denomination, should not happen, at least until further investigation.

You may ask: what about this “further investigation?” Well. Of the Zaydis there have been so many kinds since the 2^nd Islamic century when, in Kufa, they broke away from the main body of the Shi`ah.

There were the Kufan Zaydis, those of Dagestan, Ingushetia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and some parts of Turkey. And then there are those of them in the Yemen. In all three places, however, they broke into several sub-sects. Perhaps the only thing common among the various Zaydis – except for the Zaydis of the low lands of Yemen – is condemnation of the three Khulafa’ earlier than `Ali as the usurpers. (In fact, they broke away from Zayd b. `Ali, a common Imam of most of the Shi`as, when he refused to condemn Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman).

So, when you speak of a Zaydi Shi`ah who recognize five Imams alone, then, we do not know what sect this is; perhaps a new one. Could you throw some light on the one in question: history of its sect, especially, to which body of the Zaydis does he belong; and when was it that this sub-sect broke away from the main body of the Zaydis. What is the name by which this sub-sect goes, and from which geographical region are they? This is because the beliefs of all of them vary widely between themselves – from the most radical (those who declare all Sunnis Kafir) to the most moderate, such as those of the low lands of Yemen, some of whom even praise Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman.

You have stated that you have no knowledge. You are right. And this is where some people get the chance to bug you. Also, interestingly, you have no knowledge that they have no knowledge too, except that they know a few ahaadith, or have been taught just few enough to be able to create a polemical atmosphere. Otherwise, they are as ignorant as a penguin.

But they are more unknowing than you. This is because of several reasons: Firstly, someone who has no knowledge should acknowledge that he has no knowledge. Secondly, one should not argue in religious matters. This is forbidden in Islam. But rather they should educate by offering books, not of Fiqh, but those that soften the heart, increase faith, and inspire to better practice. Thirdly, it is forbidden in Islam to spread dissension, differences, and antagonism. The unity of the Ummah must be maintained at every level except when basic tenets of Islam are involved, such as: the authority of the Qur’an and Suunah, the finality of Prophet Muhammad, the superiority of the Companions over the Muslims of the later times, etc.

Thus, the people who have been bothering you are in three different ways more ignorant than you are, unless, of course, you also indulge in these “muhlikaat” (destructive elements) of the modern “Jaahiliyy” world – getting “aj-hal” by the day.

You have stated that you Pray as Imam Abu Hanifah used to Pray. You could not be more wrong. The Hanafiyy way of Prayers is exactly in confirmation of how the Qur’an demands it done, how the Prophet demonstrated it and how the Salaf practiced it, especially the majority of the Companions. Imam Abu Hanifah did not write a book on “How to Pray.” He merely laid the principles of Law. The school of “Mujtahids” that he created came to be recognized as the “Hanafiyy School of Law.” The seeds that he laid grew into a massive and powerful tree that is the envy of many who have neither the land, nor the skill, nor the seeds.

You might show this answer to those who bother you. (We know that most of them do not know English, or are very poor in it, that they are poor in Urdu also, and that Arabic to them is like Hebrew. But try). But if they persist in arguing with you, give them an exercise: Get together in one volume what the Qur’an demands with regard to Prayers, how the Prophet demonstrated, and how the Salaf practiced. Let them gather together, all the relevant texts, opinions and practices, from every trustworthy source, (and not merely from a single hadith collection – or from a chapter in it). Of course, they should not quote from any Fiqh books. (Fiqh books are sources of knowledge, but not sources of Islamic Law).

If they fail to produce a single volume, on this single topic, and of course they will fail, (even if you gave them 10 years) then ask them, “Do you speak of things you have no knowledge of?”

On your part, you need to study, first, a good, comprehensive, but thorough Hanafiyy book on Salah. That will teach you the Law. Hold on to it firmly. But Law is one thing, spirit is another. There are several ahadith that stress on the inner value of devotional acts, rather than the outward which is a point well discussed by Imam Ghazali, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Rajab Hanbali, Shah Waliyullah, Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Rasheed Raza Misri, Imam Hasan al-Banna, Abul Hasan `Ali Nadwi – to name a few.

To gain the spirit, go into books of Hadith and Salaf practices. Note the variety, the richness, the depth they offer. If you spent a few years of your life, just learning the Salah, and practicing it, you have every right to believe that you will fair well on the Day of Judgment, in the “test” on Salah. Salah will be the first deed to be questioned about on that difficult Day. If someone passed through this test, he is likelier to pass through other tests concerning other deeds. If he fails, he is likelier to fail in the rest.

We are asked this question by so many and so often that– after several years of persistent request, YMD has decided to address it. We should be presenting an article on this issue in one of the forthcoming issues.