Letters to the Editor

It is not correct that forty Prayers are not accepted for watching porn. As for repentance, the best would be to bind oneself to offer as much money in charity as it takes to watch the porn if you are of the poor class, double the amount if you are of the middle class, or multiply the charity amount by three if rich.

One might make a fresh wudu and wash the area touched by secretions. Prayers are not forgiven for this reason.

Yes, it is.

The laws are quite severe for such crimes. If it is an unmarried person, he will be whipped in public, but if married, and he admits, he will be condemned to death. Of course, there are a few other conditions for handing down a capital punishment but which need not be discussed here.

He will be asked to repent. If he repeats he will be imprisoned and educated. If he repeats he will be given other suitable punishment decided by the judicial authorities. If it is a completely blasphemous cartoon, on which he insists, despite education, he may deserve death.

His repentance is acceptable. He should recite the Shahadah and revert to Islam, without any official ceremony or function. He can do it on his own but announce his reversion to the Muslim society.

We wish you had pointed out a few mistakes – of the non-type type.

Islam demands both verbal assertion as well as practice that mirrors the assertion. Therefore, if a girl pronounces the Shahadah, and then on leads an Islamic life, then, there is no reason to doubt her intentions. As for practice, it is enough if she prays five times, expends in charity and observes dietary laws, if previously she was a Christian, and, if a Hindu, shows no hesitation to eat beef. A high level of commitment to Islam might not be expected of such converts. It is those who choose Islam after study that are fully committed to it. Others, even if they chose it for reasons other than to please their Lord, are also won over by Islam once they see it from close quarters, and begin to increase practice as conviction grows.

An Islamic Nikah is not legal without the custodian of the bride, two witnesses, an offer by the bridegroom and consent by the bride (Eijaab wa qubool). This ceremony could be performed in a mosque, at a house, or in a court conducted by a Qazi (as is the case in many Muslim countries). But, if the court is secular and the above conditions are not met, then the marriage is not legal in Islam.

As we understand, where court appearance is necessary, Muslims first perform the Nikah and then report to the court for registration.

According to the Hanafiyyah, (who differ from some others) a bath is preferable, though not mandatory.

We do not have our own opinion in this regard, but are given to understand by Muslim jurisconsults that such investment is allowable. For further details please contact any of the Imaarat-e-Shari`ah.

We do not know of any opinion which says that the above conduct is legal, nor do we understand why this is resorted to. Why do the Muslims not reverse the rule of “Taqseet” i.e., the well-known “Installment purchase system.”

What we mean is, instead of handing over a certain lump sum and then taking it back after a few years, which is certainly a disguised riba-dealing, the house owner should set a lower rent amount for his house if the rent is paid in full for a number of stipulated years, but a higher amount if it is to be paid in say monthly installments. The ultimate lower total amount – although to be paid in full at the start itself – becomes a sizable amount which the owner can immediately utilize.

If, for example, a property’s rent is 5000/= a month, due every month. In contrast, it is rented out at say Rs.4000/= a month, on condition that the tenant pays the whole amount due for next five years right at the start. The amount works out to 4000x12x5=240,000 which is a substantial figure. This would be better than taking a larger sum from the tenant, investing it in business with the risk of losing the whole, and losing the house also.

In the normal course we would not comment on a writing of such poor quality. The parading of such words as: “microbiology, epidemiology, and evolutionary biology” in connection with religious concepts is evidently to impress learning, which in actual fact is missing.

There is no point in discussing any issue with people of such mental order, and especially when this kind of writing comes from someone who is, to all appearances, a hater of all religions, and, in particular Islam. Fanatics can never be cured. The Qur’an has the last word on them (3: 119): “Die in your anger.”

But, unfortunately, with the influence and the pressure increasing, a great number of Muslims now display the same quality of reasoning and intellection as of those exerting pressure on them. They can be disturbed by the stupid.

Cleanliness and uncleanliness are concepts endowed to the humans, and, in a lower degree, to the animals, by nature. Land animals – except for the pig which goes straight for the slime – not only stay clean, but also avoid unclean surroundings. As for humans, their natural tendency to stay clean only varies in degrees, but is never lacking. Religion guides the humans further.

For example, Manu Shastra declares the “Untouchables, a menstruating woman, a woman who has just given birth, a corpse, or any third person” who has touched any of these, as sources of defilement, requiring a bath. Priests are defiled by a few other things, for instance, by the touch of a human bone. He has to purify himself with a bath “if the bone has fat on it.” But, “if it has no fat on it,” then he has to cleanse himself by “rinsing out his mouth and (then) touching a cow or looking at the sun.” Again, “When a child dies when he has just got his teeth, or when he has had his first ceremonial haircut, all of his relatives become unclean,” – they must take a ritual bath to cleanse themselves. Similarly, “A Kandala (Untouchable), a village pig, a cock, a dog, a menstruating woman, and a eunuch must not look at the Brahmanas while they eat,” otherwise, “the intended results will not be produced.” (Ref. “The Laws of Manu” Penguin Classics, 1991, pp. 108 and 105 respectively, and Buhl’s translation of the Manu Shastra, Chapter 3, v. 239).

The above is in theory. Practices of course vary from one extreme to the other extreme. It seems many of these laws have been abandoned in our times. But religious laws cannot be obliterated by ignoring them. If one generation refuses, another will take them up. If one group rejects, another will not. Not long ago, when Hindus were more religious than they are now, these laws were strictly adhered to. See for instance, “Hindu Manners Customs and Ceremonies” by Abbe J.A. Dubois, (Oxford Univ. Press), in which he presents a detailed account of how, in practicing Hindu society of his time, a woman in her cycle was not only unclean, but also rendered unclean whatsoever she touched: the reason why she was confined to a separate room during the period (ref. pages 708-710).

Interestingly, Jews (as also the earliest Christians) have had rules quite close to those of Manu Shastra. For instance, “He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days.” And, “This is the law: when a man dies in a tent every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.” (The Bible, Numbers, ch. 19, verses 11 and 14). “And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven‑footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you” (Levi, 11: 7). “And if any animal, of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening” (Levi, 11: 39).

A man’s issue is also unclean: “When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean” (Levi, 15: 2). “Every bed on which he who has the discharge lies shall be unclean; and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And any one who touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening” (Levi, 15: 4, 5).

We might also note the Jewish laws pertaining to women: “Say to the people of Israel, if a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean” (The Bible, Levi, 12: 2). “But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks” (Levi, 12: 5). And, “When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean” (Levi, 15: 19, 20).

Islam has a short list of the unclean: urine, faeces, swine, and dog’s saliva. This is the full list of the “najis” (not “najjes”) in Islam. Human beings are never defiled. They are always clean. But they enter into a “state of ritual impurity” because of a few reasons: after sexual intercourse, or with menstruation. Being in a “state of ritual impurity” means they cannot recite the Qur’an or offer Prayers. Otherwise they are clean and hence normal in every thinkable sense. Women are not unclean during their cycles. They can live normally. In fact, no one in a home needs to know whether a woman is undergoing her cycle.

To clarify: does a person become unclean because a woman in her cycle touches him? No. Does a man become unclean because he was touched by another who had sex? No. Does a person become unclean because he touched a corpse? No. Does someone become unclean because he touched a dog? No. Does a person become unclean if a child dies? No.

It might be added that Islam takes us yet another step beyond the material, the physical. It teaches us about “tahaaratu al-qalb” and “tahaaratu al-niyyah.” The first refers to a state of heart in which there is, on the one hand, absence of any deceit for anyone in the world, of any nature, and, on the other hand, absence of the intention to do a wrong against man or God. The second, “tahaaratu al-niyyah,” refers to purity of intention so that all deeds performed (or abstained from) are for no other reason but for the sake of God.

It is the attainment of all these forms of purities that finally leads to “purity of the soul.” A man, clean and neat, trimmed and with an impeccable suit on, is “najis” in Islam if he lacks the Islamic purity of above description.

It should be obvious that things being “najis” or not, has nothing to do with the presence or absence of micro-organisms. In fact, as the contradiction in the article sent to us indicates, there is nothing on the earth that is free of micro-organisms. If micro-organisms are the standard of judgment, then, the air within which we live is “unhygienic” and hence dirty because it is the carrier of every sort of micro-organism we can think of. By this logic, we humans are always in a state of impurity, being bathed by an unclean air. But of course, such logic is simply “najis.”

There is no such statement either in the Qur’an or in the hadith literature. Even a weak report to this effect is not to be found. But there is a forged report which says, “Law laak, lamaa khalaqtu al-aflaak.” That is, “If not you, I would not have created the heavens.” The report is fabricated and hence it does not matter what it means. Nonetheless, it is obvious that it has vague intentions: “If not you!” Who is intended by “you”? No other report, even if forged, is available to explain this. So it is assumed that it is the Prophet who is meant. But, is there another hadith of the same nature in the vast Hadith literature? No, there is none, neither a true hadith nor even false.

What we mean is that even a forged report, which happens to  only one of its kind, is not clear enough to use as evidence that Allah created the world in love of Muhammad.

As to why the story is popular, it is because it is the most devastating weapon to use against the masses. To them, whatever is said in favor of the Prophet is true. Authentic or inauthentic are not terms that they understand, nor do those who have access to them, lead them and live off them.

With regard to the first question, it is perfectly alright to pray in a mosque built inside a Muslim cemetery.

We do not know what the exact situation is. However, if, for want of space, the scholars have allowed that remains of older graves, perhaps bones, be moved to another area, then, their ruling could be followed.

It is only disallowed to Pray if a tomb happens to be directly in front, on the Qiblah side, within the mosque walls. But, we do not know of mosques that have been built this way.

It is not necessary at all to bend down in front of aged relatives, scholars, or, the Mashaa’ikh, or anyone else. It is enough to say Al-salamu alaykum. In addition, as a mark of respect, the young ones may kiss the forehead of the aged one, or a scholar, or Sheikh. Children may kiss the hands of the elders, or, elders kiss their hands and foreheads. But, bending down is undesirable, as also is undesirable the act of shoving one’s head into another’s stomach, a practice common among some Peer-Mureed systems.

In vitro fertilization is allowed provided the medical personnel involved are trustworthy. But, we believe you might not resort to this method as early as this. You might wait for a while, seek Allah’s help, and save the extraordinary costs involved, with no guarantees of success in the first try.

If a man finds it unbearable, he might consider making use of the Islamic polygynous solution.

Volume 11 is in the press, and it could well be out by the time this issue reaches you.