Letters to the Editor

Yes and no. It is one of those borderline acts about which a definite answer cannot be given.

If we said yes, it would be because it has received disapproval.

There is no solution to hunger other than food.

We suppose it is by oversight and lack of skill on the part of the translators who were assigned the work.

That is, He made it obligatory upon Himself. In simpler words, He will not fail to give His mercy upper hand over His angers so that, it is ultimately mercy that prevails.

The objective of the poster is to offer such short ahadith that can stick in the memory. This one has a powerful expression.

We have not stated that to prostrate before graves is shirk but rather, that it is an act of major shirk. But, while stating such a view, we indulged in some sort of compromise. The crime is quite grave and the matter much more serious. This issue therefore, carries an editorial on this topic.

But in our Shari`ah, ignorance of fundamentals of Islam is not accepted as an excuse.

We neither admit people into Islam nor throw them out. We state the rules. The decision thereafter is the people’s.

In such affairs intention is of no concern. If a man insults our Prophet, then, he cannot escape censor by saying – like the Danish cartoonists – that the intention is clean and healthy.

In Islam, both kinds of sajdah are disallowed: “sajdah ta`zeemi” (prostration of reverence) as well as “sajdah `ibadah” (prostration of worship). Insistence on the former can change it to the latter kind.

Prostration is Allah’s own right. If we defend the actions of the deviated people, we will deserve to hear (4: 109): “Here you are, arguing on their behalf in the life of this world. But who will argue on their behalf against Allah on the Day of Judgment, or who will be their warden?”

It is wrong to say that Ibn Wahhab was the founder of a sect. He was a reformer who stood staunchly against shirk and bid`ah, and a return to the fundamentals of Islam.

It was due to the strong and relentless drive against shirk and bid`ah that today the Gulf is largely free of these two evils – while we in the sub-continent face the greatest threat ever of our survival as pure monotheists. Shirk is making inroads from several directions in a dauntingly unstoppable manner.

The “excesses” of your reference attributed to the movement in the latter part of your letter are, (though undefendable), are the hallmark of all human endeavors. A perfectly balanced way and execution was the share of the Prophet and the Salaf, not to be expected of latter day Muslims.

As regards the opposition to his call, the historical truths that you have alluded to, and the present-day pathetic political situation you have commented upon, these statements are not being published because these are topic too hot for cool discussion. A scholarly unbiased and objective study has not yet been undertaken anywhere in the world, in the absence of which the debate will only inflame passions without leading us anywhere but to bitterness.

We also need to free ourselves of the past and learn to rely entirely on the Qur’an, Sunnah and the understanding of the Salaf, without discarding our rich heritage of the later centuries, but refusing any compromise over issues of fundamental importance, without referring to this or that scholar or reformer. In different words, we need not depend on scholars of the past for fundamental issues. Controversies surround many of them. We can, rather, directly refer to the Qur’an and Sunnah to reach our own conclusions.

Your living with your parents is perfectly legitimate. You are not bound by law to stay with the parents of your husband. Your husband is required to provide you an independent housing. He cannot provide you a mere room in his parents’ house if you disagree to it. If the husband fails to provide you with a suitable house, you have the right to live elsewhere. You can even take a house on rent and ask the husband to pay for it.

Of course, the above is following the law. But it is not always possible to follow the law. Compromises have to be made for convenience of all. So, the husband could ask you to live with his parents instead of in an independent house for the reasons that he cannot afford it. But, if his parents misbehave with you then your husband should either arrange for a separate housing for you, or you could move to your own parents (which you have done). The food, clothing and medicinal allowance still remain on the husband to fulfill.

Your demands are legitimate. In fact, even if he returns, he cannot force you against your will to live with his parents.

Although, as stated above, if he returns but cannot afford a separate house, you might have to strike a compromise deal with him.

Since you have already found a solution to your living problem by moving out to your parents, this should not be the reason for seeking separation.

As for your other conditions that either he move back or take you with him, none might be practicable for him, although you have the right to make such demands, and have the right of divorce if he cannot fulfill. You might suggest to him that a grand style living is not necessary and that you are ready to lead a simple life if he returns but cannot find a well-paid job.

If your husband is out there for your sake, that is, to provide you with a good quality life, then, your assurance that you are ready for a simpler life will encourage him to return.

The laws stated, you must realize that strict application of laws is not always advisable. Separation should not be resorted to so long as all alternatives have not been tried without results.

You say you want to get rid of the man. That is bit of a strong statement and unrealistic. You may get rid of one, but without assurance that the next would not be worthy of same sentiments.

Although it was wrong for the scholars to have recommended early visit, Indian pilgrims number no more than 120,000 and, therefore, the figure of 600,000 needs another explanation.

Carrying the luggage makes it cumbersome to the carrier as well as to others. But it does not explain the stampede.

Stampede is a persistent problem during Hajj. Every time it happens, new reasons are cited. But overcrowding is obviously a common factor. The Saudi authorities have sanctioned a new design for Jamarat to ease the flow of pilgrims. Construction is underway.

To attempt something that has been questioned by the scholars, although some have allowed it, by itself demands reconsideration. But to do it on a specific day, (3^rd or 40^th or any other), pushes it further down to touch the borders of innovation.

This is a kind of phobia from which some people suffer. We are told of a doctor who suffers from this. When his wife is away and he has to manage his kitchen, he washes his dishes in a most thorough fashion, and after they are dry, repeats the operation in fear that an insect might have visited one of them. Then, when the time comes to use them, he washes them once or twice, in a thorough-going manner.

Our Shari`ah has been designed to meet with the broad-band conditions of life in which both the elitist as well as the rustic are taken into account. In other words, an elitist finds that he can meet the Shari`ah requirement without giving up his ceremonious protocols, while the rustic feels that despite the realities that dictate his humble life, he can attain to piety of the highest order. Islam accommodates all.

This applies to the question of cleanliness too. To what extent should it be taken? Should we apply the standards of the upper-most class that can afford to stay without a speck of dust on them, or should we apply the standards of the humble who are covered in dust? The answer given to both is: try for the highest possible state of cleanliness, but what you can achieve with honest application, within the limitations imposed by the realities surrounding you, is just what the Shari`ah desires of you.

The following example from the Prophet (saws) will throw some light on what we are saying. Once had stopped by a watering place. `Umar (ra) was in company. He asked a Bedu at the place: “O Shepherd, have you recently seen a wild animal drink from this water.” But before the Bedu could answer, the Prophet spoke out, “O Bedu, there is no need to tell us about it. The animal had its share and we shall have ours.” What he meant was that we need not be so meticulous and discreet that render us unable to perform our affairs. Desert is not a place where you find water. You are lucky if you have found one. But if you are meticulous, you will have to stay thirsty. So, make compromise with the situation. Here is a watering place but it might have been visited by the beasts about whom it is commonly known that they begin to urinate while they dip their mouths in water. But, if you are fastidious, which you cannot afford in view of the need, then you risk your lives. So, let us not know about the past history of the water-pool. It will only cause unpleasantness.

It was a highly rational rejoinder and we are grateful to our Prophet, on whom be peace, for his guidance.

In accordance with this spirit, the fuqahaa’ have ruled that if a man passes by a little pool which dirties his clothes, he need not inquire whether it is dirty water or clean, nor need he be told by those around as to what it is. It maybe assumed that the liquid is clean.

If we understand the rule (that if we make an honest attempt, then what best we can achieve is what Islam requires of us), then the question of the extent to which we should go in maintaining cleanliness becomes easy to understand. The Prophet has also warned us about going to extremes to try and appease the Shari`ah or get full approval. He said that “Islam will overcome, but it will not be overcome.”

Alcohol, although prohibited to drink, and although nasty to smell, is no more than a chemical solution, and hence, is not najis (unclean).

But it might be added that if it reaches the brain and anytime you feel intoxicated, you may immediately wash your head!

Although you have cited an earlier issue, your present question does not seem to be related to the previous one, except that both speak of elopement. In the previous instance (Jan. 2006), the question was concerning two Muslims, and the reasons were low economic status of one of the two, and other social issues. But this one of yours talks of a Muslim male and a female who has converted to Islam.

Now, conversion of a woman to Islam should not be made the reason to commit a crime, for, elopement is quite near to being a crime. Decent people never resort to such ways. Islam has definitely bestowed on us much higher moral values to allow us resort to such meanly ways of doing things.

As pointed out in the January issue, a Qur’anic verse is quite specific about it. It says (2: 189), “There is no piety in that you should enter (your) houses (during Hajj) from the rear. Rather, piety is (in him) who fears Allah. Therefore, come to the houses by their doors, and fear Allah haply you may prosper.”

Commentators have pointed out that the extended meaning is that you should never do things in an indirect stealthy manner. Always be frank, straight-forward, to the point, open and visible. Do not be secretive: come to the houses by their front doors.

As regards how the girl will protect her faith if she is married off, the answer is, we are living in a world in which women have been so empowered that men have begun to fear them.The chances of a girl married off to someone disapproved by her have faded into the paleness of last century. Today, she stands face to face with her parents, and pointedly announces that if they interfere in her freedom, she will quit the house. The family has no option in such situations but to back down.

Indeed, today the state encourages inter-faith marriages, advertising them through the TV. If she conceals her faith, and announces that she has chosen a Muslim for marriage, but is opposed by the family, women’s NGOs may rush down to help her and the media to publicize a Hindu woman’s marriage to a Muslim (if there is one honest guy left in the media).

But there is no need for such extreme steps. Creating social scenes is another of those things disapproved by Islam. The pair therefore, should simply wait it out. What is not acceptable to people at one time, becomes acceptable after some time. Realities take time to impress on the people’s minds. Ultimately people come down to accepting the facts of life. So, let the two remain consistent and take no steps that are disallowed to civilized and cultured people. Let them reserve Islam for sublime affairs, and not drag it to ventures.

In our view there is nothing you can do, nor could be done with such sites. There are a few run by non-Muslims under pseudo names. Unable to face the Islamic challenge at the intellectual level, they resort to such meanly ways of taking out revenge and venting their anger and frustration. They spit at the moon. We need to ignore them.

Their anger is not with us, but against the concept of One God and with the Revealed Book. We have no solution for this. Allah will deal with them. Let us allow them to rot themselves out, or change their attitudes.

But what we can do in response is to discover who exactly Prophet Muhammad is and then adopt his ways for our lives.

Recurring appearance on the stage is the best way of removing stage fear. Addressing small audiences, such as a group of friends, or moving out with the Tableeghi Jama`ah in a few short trips should also help. In fact, this last method could be the best.

A wife’s rights on her husband’s wealth are many. Islamic law makes a husband completely and totally responsible for the maintenance of his wife’s expenses. This includes food, housing, medicine and excursion. The quality and standard has to be that of the wife. That is, the quality she was used to before marriage. To explain, if she is from a rich family, the husband should offer her the same quality of life, even if he happens to be poor. On the other hand, if she comes from a poor family, then she cannot demand that the husband maintain her in accordance with his own rich standards, if he happens to be rich.

The above is regardless of wife’s own personal economic condition. The husband, (or his children), have no rights whatsoever on the income or wealth of his wife, whether inherited or earned. He is responsible for her maintenance in all circumstances whether she is rich or poor, whether she earns or not. If the husband is unable to support his wife, she has the right to borrow on his behalf for her expenses, which the husband is liable to pay back whenever fortune smiles on him. Accordingly, a poor husband can receive sadaqaat even if he has a rich wife.

Indeed, a man can receive sadaqaat from his wife, if she is rich and he poor: which seems to be happening around us in a few visible cases.