'and if any one believes in Allah, ((Allah)) guides his heart (aright): for Allah knows all things'. [Quran:64:11]
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Saturday, November 25, 2006
The Face Veil
The Face Veil
Written by Dr. Bilal Philips
The following text is an edited translation of a summary of ar-Radd al-Mufhim by Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee found in pages 5-20 of the introduction of his book Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, 3rd edition, 1996, al-Maktabah al-Islaamiyyah. The main errors of those who make the face veil obligatory
1. The interpretation of al-idnaa’ in the verse of the Jilbaab to mean “covering the face”.
This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of the word in Arabic which is “to come close”, as is mentioned in authoritative dictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghib al-Asbahaanee. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation of the leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbaas, who explained the verse saying, “She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it.” It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradict this interpretation are authentic.
2. The interpretation of jilbaab as “a garment which covers the face.”
Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has no basis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leading scholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which women drape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himself narrated this interpretation from Ibn Mas‘ood and other Salafee scholars. Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3, p. 518) saying, “It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn above the dress (dir ‘) and the headscarf.” Ibn Hazm also said, “The jilbaab in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) spoke to us is what covers the whole body and not just a part of it.” (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubee declared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, “It is the cloak worn above the headscarf.” (vol. 3, p. 518)
3. The claim that the khimaar (headscarf) covers the head and the face.
In doing so “the face” has been arbitrarily added to its meaning in order to make the verse: “Let them drape their headscarves over their busoms” appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended. For example in the hadeeths on wiping (mas-h) on the khimaar and the prophetic statement, “The salaah of a woman past puberty will not be accepted without a khimaar.” This hadeeth confirms the invalidity of their misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves – much less the scholars – use it as evidence that the covering of a woman's face in salaah is a condition for its validity. They only use it as proof for covering the head. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa‘id “… to remove their clothing” to mean “jilbaab” further confirms it. They hold that it is permissible for old women to appear before marriagealbe males in her headscarf with her face exposed. One of their noteable scholars openly stated that. As for Shaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it.
After checking the opinions of the early and later scholars in all the specializations, I found that they unanimously hold that the khimaar is a head covering. I have mentioned the names of more than twenty scholars, among them some of the great Imaams and hadeeth scholars. For example, Abul-Waleed al-Baajee (d. 474 AH) who further added in his explanation, “Nothing should be seen of her besides the circle of her face.”
4. The claim of a consensus (Ijmaa‘) on the face being considered ‘awrah.
Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held that the woman's face was ‘awrah and many who have no knowledge, including some Ph.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false claim, which no one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which he learned from, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of its falsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example, Ibn Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the face is not considered ‘awrah in the three main schools of Islaamic law and he added, “It is also a narrated position of Imaam Ahmad.” Many Hambalite scholars preferred this narration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference saying, “Because necessity demands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands be uncovered for taking and giving.”
Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih al-Hambalee about whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, “There is no one under the dome of the sky more knowledgeable about the school of Imaam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.” And his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, “You aren't Ibn Muflih, you are Muflih!”
It is incumbent on me to convey Ibn Muflih’s statements for the readers because of the knowledge and many benefits contained in them. Included in them is further confirmation of the falsehood of Shaykh at-Tuwaijree’s claim and support for the correctness of my position on the issue of uncovering the face. Ibn Muflih stated the following in his valuable work al-Aadaab ash-Shar‘iyyah – which is among the references cited by Shaykh at-Tuwaijree (something which indicates that he is aware of it, but has deliberately hidden these crucial facts from his readers while claiming the contrary):
“Is it correct to chastise marriageable women if they uncover their faces in the street?
The answer depends on whether it is compulsory for women to cover their faces or whether it is compulsory for men to lower their gaze from her. There are two positions on this issue.
Regarding the hadeeth of Jareer in which he said, “I asked Allaah’s Messenger about the sudden inadvertent glance and he instructed me to look away.” Al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad commented, “The scholars, May Allaah Most High have mercy on them, have said that there is proof in this hadeeth that it is not compulsory for a woman to cover her face in the street. Instead, it is a recommended sunnah for her to do so and it is compulsory for the man to lower his gaze from her at all times, except for a legislated purpose. Shaykh Muhyud-deen an-Nawawee mentioned that without further explanation.”
Then al-Muflih mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement which at-Tuwaijree relies on in his book (page 170), while feigning ignorance of the statements of the majority of scholars. Statements like those of al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and an-Nawawee’s agreement with it.
Then al-Muflih said, “On the basis of that, is chastisement legal? Chastisement is not allowed in issues in where there is a difference of opinion, and the difference has already been mentioned. As regards our opinion and that of a group of Shaafi‘ite scholars and others, looking at a marriageable woman without desire or in a secluded circumstance is permissible. Therefore, chastisement is not proper.”
This answer is in complete agreement with Imaam Ahmad’s statement, “It is not proper that a jurist oblige people to follow his opinion (math-hab).” And this is if the truth were on his side. What of the case where the jurist proudly, dishonestly misleads people and declares other Muslims to be disbelievers as at-Tuwaijree did on page 249 of his book saying,
“… Whoever permits women to expose their faces and uses the proofs of al-Albaanee has flung open the door for women to publicly flaunt their beauty and emboldened them to commit the reprehensible acts done by women who uncover their faces today.” And on page 233 he said, “… and to disbelief in the verses of Allaah.”
Those are his words – May Allaah reform him and guide him. What would he say about Ibn Muflih, an-Nawawee, al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and other Palestinian scholars, as well as the majority of scholars who preceded them and who are my salaf regarding my opinion on this matter?
5. The agreement of at-Tuwaijree and the extremists with him to explain away the authentic hadeeths which contradict their opinion.
At-Tuwaijree did this with the Khath‘amiyyah hadeeth. They developed a number of comical methods to nullify its implications. I have refuted them all in ar-Radd and one of them in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah. Some reputable scholars have said that the hadeeth doesn’t contain a clear statement that her face was exposed. This is among the farthest opinions from the truth. For, if her face wasn’t exposed, where did the narrator or the viewer get the idea that she was beautiful? And what was al-Fadl repeatedly looking at? The truth is that this is among the strongest and most clear proofs that a woman’s face is not ‘awrah. In spite of that, there remains a group that insists that she was in ihraam while knowing that her ihraam does not prevent her from draping some of her clothing over her face. At-Tuwaijree does accept sometimes that her face was uncovered but he cancels its implication by saying, “There is no evidence in it that she continuously exposed her face!” He means that the wind must have exposed her face and at that instant al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas saw it. Is it possible for an Arab to say that after reading in the hadeeth “al-Fadl began to stare while turning towards her,” and in another narration “… so he began to look at her and her beauty amazed him.” Isn’t this pride with two protruding horns? At other times at-Tuwaijree interprets it as al-Fadl looking at her size and stature.
6. The frequent use of inauthentic hadeeths and unreliable narrations.
For example, the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas about exposing only one eye is commonly used by those who insist that women are obliged to cover their faces in spite of their knowledge of its inauthenticity. In fact, one among them also declared it inauthentic. Perhaps the most important of these unreliable hadeeth commonly used as evidence is the one in which the Prophet is reported to have said, “Are you both blind?” They blindly followed at-Tuwaijree and the others in claiming that this inauthentic narration was strengthened by other supportive narrations and that it was evidence for the prohibition of women from looking at men, even if they are blind. They took this position in spite of the fact that the narration was classified inauthentic by the leading verification experts among the hadeeth scholars like, Imaam Ahmad, al-Bayhaqee and Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr. Al-Qurtubee related that the narration was not considered authentic among the scholars of hadeeth. Consequently, many Palestinian hambalite scholars made their rulings on that basis. Furthermore, that is what the science of hadeeth and its methodology requires as was clearly stated in al-Irwaa. However, in spite of all that evidence to the contrary, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir as-Sindee had the nerve to go along with Shaykh at-Tuwaijree and others and claim that its chain of narration was authentic. By doing that he exposed himself and his ignorance or feigned ignorance. It is unfortunate that he took this position, because the hadeeth’s chain contains an unknown narrator from whom only one person narrated along with its contradiction to what leading scholars have narrated. Contrary to the level of scholarship that we are used to from Shaykh as-Sindee, he has brought in support of his claim the most amazing things. He arguments unexpectedly contain deception, misguidance, blind following, hiding knowledge and turning away from his own fundamental principles. Among the amazing positions is Shaykh as-Sindee’s feigned ignorance that the narration contradicts the hadeeth of Faatimah bint Qays which contains the Prophet’s permission for her to stay at the home of the blind companion, Ibn Umm al-Maktoom, whom she would be able see. The Prophet gave the reason for that instruction in his statement to her, “For if you take off your head scarf, he won’t see you.” In at-Tabaraanee’s narration from Faatimah, she said, “He instructed me to be at Ibn Umm Maktoom’s home because he couldn’t see me whenever I took my head scarf off.”
There are also a number of other unreliable hadeeths gathered by at-Tuwaijree in his book. I mentioned ten of them in my response, and among them are some fabricated traditions.
7. The classification of some authentic hadeeths and confirmed narrations from the Companions as inauthentic.
The extremists have declared well-established reliable narrations as unreliable and feigned ignorance of strengthening narrations. They have further declared some narrations extremely inauthentic, like the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah concerning the woman who reaches puberty, “Nothing should be seen of her besides her face and hands.” They have persistently declared it inauthentic – the ignorant among them blindly following others devoid of knowledge. In so doing, they contradict those among the leading scholars of hadeeth who strengthen it like al-Bayhaqee and ath-Thahabee. Most of them, including some prominent scholars, feign ignorance of its various chains of narration. In fact, at-Tuwaijree openly stated on page 236 of his book that this statement was only narrated in ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth. Even though he has seen with his own eyes on pages 57-9 of my book two other chains: one of which is from Asmaa bint ‘Umays and the other from Qataadah in the abbreviated (mursal) format with an authentic chain of narration. Many of the blind followers followed him, including some female authors as in Hijaabuki ukhtee al-muslimah [Your veil, my sister Muslim], page 33.
They also pretend to be ignorant of the leading hadeeth scholars and others who strengthened it, like al-Munthiree, az-Zayla‘ee, al-‘Asqlaanee and ash-Shawkaanee. Some of those who promote themselves as being among the well versed in this noble science – in their forefront Shaykh as-Sindee – claim that some of its narrations are extremely weak and unreliable in order to escape from the hadeeth science rule that ‘unreliable narrations are strengthened by narrations similar to them’. In doing that, they delude their readers into thinking that no one ruled the weak narrators, like ‘Abdullaah ibn Lahee‘ah, trustworthy and that they cannot be used as supportive evidence. In doing that, they contradict the methodology of the hadeeth scholars in using supportive evidence. Among them is Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allaah have mercy on them. Likewise, they all feign ignorance that the scholars – among them Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee –confirm the hadeeth mursal if most scholars use it as evidence, as is the case of ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth.
Other strengthening factors may be added to the above.
(a) The hadeeth has been narrated by Qataadah from ‘Aa’ishah.
(b) It has been narrated in another chain from Asmaa.
(c) All three narrators of the hadeeth ruled according to it.
Qataadah stated in his interpretation of the verse on draping, “Allaah has placed on them the requirement to cover the eyebrows,” That is, “and not on their faces” as stated by at-Tabaree. ‘Aa’ishah said, regarding the female in ihraam, “She may drape the garment on her face, if she wishes.” This was narrated by al-Bayhaqee in an authentic chain of narrators. There is clear evidence in ‘Aa’ishah’s giving the female pilgrim a choice in draping that in her opinion the face was not ‘awrah. Otherwise she would have made it obligatory on them as those who contradict it do. Because of their position, most of the extremist authors, with at-Tuwaijree in the forefront, hid this statement of Umm al-Mu’mineen, ‘Aa’ishah from their readers. The author of Faslul-khitaab [The Definitive Statement] deliberately deleted this portion of al-Bayhaqee’s narration in his book. This being only one of a number of similar disreputable acts which I have exposed in my book. The supportive evidence is that this authentic narration from her strengthens her hadeeth from the Prophet. This is among the facts that people are unaware of or they pretend ignorance of, either choice is bitter to swallow.
As for Asmaa, it has been authentically reported from Qays ibn Abee Haazim that he saw her as a woman of white complexion with tatoos on her hands.
(d) The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas earlier mentioned, “She should pull the jilbaab (cloak) close to her face without putting it on her face.” His interpretation of the verse of adornment “…except what appears from it” as referring to“the face and hands” was similar. There is also a similar narration from Ibn ‘Umar to the same effect.
At this point, a bitter reality must be noted due to the lessons which may be gained from it, the knowledge which it contains and is service as a reminder of the wise saying: “The truth is not know by people, know the truth and you will know people.”
At the same time that Shaykh at-Tuwaijree insists on rejecting the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and its supporting evidences, among them Qaatadah’s mursal narration, he willingly accepts another inauthentic hadeeth from her with mursal support. In that hadeeth it is mentioned “…that she wore a niqaab (face veil)…” and that she was supposed to have described the Prophet’s wife Safiyyah and the Ansaar women as “… a jewess among jewesses…” which is considered by scholars to be a very erroneous statement (munkar jiddan). The Shaykh argues on page 181, “It has mursal supportive evidence,” and quotes one of the mursal hadeeths of ‘Ataa containing a known liar in its chain of narration.
One should reflect on the great difference between this fabricated supportive evidence and the authentic supportive evidence of Qataadah further supported by other evidences, then ask, “Why did at-Tuwaijree accept the second hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and not the first?” The obvious answer is that the accepted one contains reference to wearing the niqaab – even though it does not indicate obligation – while the rejected one denies it. Thus, in this regard, the Shaykh did not base his position on Islaamic legal principles, but on something similar to the Jewish principle: The ends justify the means. May Allaah help us.
8. Placing unreasonable conditions
Among the amazing practices of some latter day blind following hanafite scholars and others is that on one hand they agree with us regarding the permissibility of women exposing their faces, because that was the position of their Imaams, but on the other hand they agree with the extremists in opposition to their Imaams. They make ijtihaad (while claiming taqleed) by adding the condition that the society be safe from fitnah to the position of the Imaams. This refers to the fitnah caused by women to men. Then one of the ignorant contemporary blind followers went to the extreme of actually attributing this “condition” to the Imaams themselves. Among some of those having no knowledge, this resulted in their concluding that there is essentially no difference between the position of the Imaams and the extremists.
It is obvious to jurists that this condition is invalid because it implies that humans know something which the Lord missed knowing. That is, the temptation of women did not exist during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) thus we had to create a special ruling for it which did not exist previously. In fact, the fitnah did exist during the era of divine legislation and the story of al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas’ trial with the Khath‘amiyyah woman and his repeated looking at her is not far from the readers’ memories.
It is well known that when Allaah Most High instructed men and women to lower their gazes and instructed women to veil themselves in front of men, He did that to block the road to corruption and prevent temptation. In spite of that, He – Most Great and Glorious – did not command that they cover their faces and hands in front of them. The Prophet (pbuh) further emphasized that in the story of al-Fadl by not commanding the woman to cover her face. And Allaah was truthful when He said, “And your Lord is not forgetful.”
The reality is that the condition of there not being fitnah was only mentioned by scholars regarding the man’s looking at the woman’s face, as in al-Fiqh ‘alaa al-mathaahib al-arba‘ah, page 12. They said, “That [the woman’s face may be uncovered] is permissible on condition that there is safety from temptation,” and that is true, contrary to what the blind followers practice. They conclude from it that the woman is obliged to cover her face, when in fact it is not a necessary consequence. They know that the condition of safety from temptation also applies to women. For it is not permissible for them to stare at a man’s face except where there is safety from temptation. Is it then a necessary consequence that men also veil their faces from women to prevent temptation as some tribes called the Tawareg do.
They would have a basis in fiqh of the Quraan and Sunnah if they said that a woman veiled in correct jilbaab who fears being harmed by some corrupt individuals due to her face being exposed is obliged to cover her face to prevent harm and temptation. In fact, it could even be said that it is obligatory on her not to leave her home if she feared that some evil authorities supported by a leader who does not rule by what Allaah revealed, as exists in some Arab countries since a few years ago, would pull her jilbaab from her head. As to making this obligation a compulsory law for all women everywhere and in all eras, even if there did not exist any harm for veiled women, No. Absolutely not. Allaah was truthful when He said, “Do they have partners who legislated for them in the religion what Allaah did not permit?”
These are the most significant of the extremist opposition’s mistakes which I thought needed brief mention due their strong link to the contents of this book. I then closed ar-Radd al-Mufhim with a reminder that extremism in the religion – considering that the Wise Legislator forbade it will not bring any good. And it is not possible for it to produce a generation of young Muslim women carrying Islaamic knowledge and practice moderately balanced, with neither excesses nor deficiencies. Not like what I have heard about some young female adherents in Arab countries when they heard the Prophet’s statement, “The woman in ihraam should neither wear a niqaab nor gloves,” they did not accept it saying instead, “We will wear our niqaabs and gloves!” No doubt, this was a direct result of the extremist views which they heard regarding the obligation of covering their faces.
I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and this is only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for us salafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf.
Written by Dr. Bilal Philips
The following text is an edited translation of a summary of ar-Radd al-Mufhim by Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee found in pages 5-20 of the introduction of his book Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, 3rd edition, 1996, al-Maktabah al-Islaamiyyah. The main errors of those who make the face veil obligatory
1. The interpretation of al-idnaa’ in the verse of the Jilbaab to mean “covering the face”.
This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of the word in Arabic which is “to come close”, as is mentioned in authoritative dictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghib al-Asbahaanee. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation of the leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbaas, who explained the verse saying, “She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it.” It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradict this interpretation are authentic.
2. The interpretation of jilbaab as “a garment which covers the face.”
Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has no basis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leading scholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which women drape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himself narrated this interpretation from Ibn Mas‘ood and other Salafee scholars. Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3, p. 518) saying, “It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn above the dress (dir ‘) and the headscarf.” Ibn Hazm also said, “The jilbaab in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) spoke to us is what covers the whole body and not just a part of it.” (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubee declared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, “It is the cloak worn above the headscarf.” (vol. 3, p. 518)
3. The claim that the khimaar (headscarf) covers the head and the face.
In doing so “the face” has been arbitrarily added to its meaning in order to make the verse: “Let them drape their headscarves over their busoms” appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended. For example in the hadeeths on wiping (mas-h) on the khimaar and the prophetic statement, “The salaah of a woman past puberty will not be accepted without a khimaar.” This hadeeth confirms the invalidity of their misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves – much less the scholars – use it as evidence that the covering of a woman's face in salaah is a condition for its validity. They only use it as proof for covering the head. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa‘id “… to remove their clothing” to mean “jilbaab” further confirms it. They hold that it is permissible for old women to appear before marriagealbe males in her headscarf with her face exposed. One of their noteable scholars openly stated that. As for Shaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it.
After checking the opinions of the early and later scholars in all the specializations, I found that they unanimously hold that the khimaar is a head covering. I have mentioned the names of more than twenty scholars, among them some of the great Imaams and hadeeth scholars. For example, Abul-Waleed al-Baajee (d. 474 AH) who further added in his explanation, “Nothing should be seen of her besides the circle of her face.”
4. The claim of a consensus (Ijmaa‘) on the face being considered ‘awrah.
Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held that the woman's face was ‘awrah and many who have no knowledge, including some Ph.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false claim, which no one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which he learned from, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of its falsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example, Ibn Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the face is not considered ‘awrah in the three main schools of Islaamic law and he added, “It is also a narrated position of Imaam Ahmad.” Many Hambalite scholars preferred this narration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference saying, “Because necessity demands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands be uncovered for taking and giving.”
Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih al-Hambalee about whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, “There is no one under the dome of the sky more knowledgeable about the school of Imaam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.” And his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, “You aren't Ibn Muflih, you are Muflih!”
It is incumbent on me to convey Ibn Muflih’s statements for the readers because of the knowledge and many benefits contained in them. Included in them is further confirmation of the falsehood of Shaykh at-Tuwaijree’s claim and support for the correctness of my position on the issue of uncovering the face. Ibn Muflih stated the following in his valuable work al-Aadaab ash-Shar‘iyyah – which is among the references cited by Shaykh at-Tuwaijree (something which indicates that he is aware of it, but has deliberately hidden these crucial facts from his readers while claiming the contrary):
“Is it correct to chastise marriageable women if they uncover their faces in the street?
The answer depends on whether it is compulsory for women to cover their faces or whether it is compulsory for men to lower their gaze from her. There are two positions on this issue.
Regarding the hadeeth of Jareer in which he said, “I asked Allaah’s Messenger about the sudden inadvertent glance and he instructed me to look away.” Al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad commented, “The scholars, May Allaah Most High have mercy on them, have said that there is proof in this hadeeth that it is not compulsory for a woman to cover her face in the street. Instead, it is a recommended sunnah for her to do so and it is compulsory for the man to lower his gaze from her at all times, except for a legislated purpose. Shaykh Muhyud-deen an-Nawawee mentioned that without further explanation.”
Then al-Muflih mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement which at-Tuwaijree relies on in his book (page 170), while feigning ignorance of the statements of the majority of scholars. Statements like those of al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and an-Nawawee’s agreement with it.
Then al-Muflih said, “On the basis of that, is chastisement legal? Chastisement is not allowed in issues in where there is a difference of opinion, and the difference has already been mentioned. As regards our opinion and that of a group of Shaafi‘ite scholars and others, looking at a marriageable woman without desire or in a secluded circumstance is permissible. Therefore, chastisement is not proper.”
This answer is in complete agreement with Imaam Ahmad’s statement, “It is not proper that a jurist oblige people to follow his opinion (math-hab).” And this is if the truth were on his side. What of the case where the jurist proudly, dishonestly misleads people and declares other Muslims to be disbelievers as at-Tuwaijree did on page 249 of his book saying,
“… Whoever permits women to expose their faces and uses the proofs of al-Albaanee has flung open the door for women to publicly flaunt their beauty and emboldened them to commit the reprehensible acts done by women who uncover their faces today.” And on page 233 he said, “… and to disbelief in the verses of Allaah.”
Those are his words – May Allaah reform him and guide him. What would he say about Ibn Muflih, an-Nawawee, al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad and other Palestinian scholars, as well as the majority of scholars who preceded them and who are my salaf regarding my opinion on this matter?
5. The agreement of at-Tuwaijree and the extremists with him to explain away the authentic hadeeths which contradict their opinion.
At-Tuwaijree did this with the Khath‘amiyyah hadeeth. They developed a number of comical methods to nullify its implications. I have refuted them all in ar-Radd and one of them in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah. Some reputable scholars have said that the hadeeth doesn’t contain a clear statement that her face was exposed. This is among the farthest opinions from the truth. For, if her face wasn’t exposed, where did the narrator or the viewer get the idea that she was beautiful? And what was al-Fadl repeatedly looking at? The truth is that this is among the strongest and most clear proofs that a woman’s face is not ‘awrah. In spite of that, there remains a group that insists that she was in ihraam while knowing that her ihraam does not prevent her from draping some of her clothing over her face. At-Tuwaijree does accept sometimes that her face was uncovered but he cancels its implication by saying, “There is no evidence in it that she continuously exposed her face!” He means that the wind must have exposed her face and at that instant al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas saw it. Is it possible for an Arab to say that after reading in the hadeeth “al-Fadl began to stare while turning towards her,” and in another narration “… so he began to look at her and her beauty amazed him.” Isn’t this pride with two protruding horns? At other times at-Tuwaijree interprets it as al-Fadl looking at her size and stature.
6. The frequent use of inauthentic hadeeths and unreliable narrations.
For example, the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas about exposing only one eye is commonly used by those who insist that women are obliged to cover their faces in spite of their knowledge of its inauthenticity. In fact, one among them also declared it inauthentic. Perhaps the most important of these unreliable hadeeth commonly used as evidence is the one in which the Prophet is reported to have said, “Are you both blind?” They blindly followed at-Tuwaijree and the others in claiming that this inauthentic narration was strengthened by other supportive narrations and that it was evidence for the prohibition of women from looking at men, even if they are blind. They took this position in spite of the fact that the narration was classified inauthentic by the leading verification experts among the hadeeth scholars like, Imaam Ahmad, al-Bayhaqee and Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr. Al-Qurtubee related that the narration was not considered authentic among the scholars of hadeeth. Consequently, many Palestinian hambalite scholars made their rulings on that basis. Furthermore, that is what the science of hadeeth and its methodology requires as was clearly stated in al-Irwaa. However, in spite of all that evidence to the contrary, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir as-Sindee had the nerve to go along with Shaykh at-Tuwaijree and others and claim that its chain of narration was authentic. By doing that he exposed himself and his ignorance or feigned ignorance. It is unfortunate that he took this position, because the hadeeth’s chain contains an unknown narrator from whom only one person narrated along with its contradiction to what leading scholars have narrated. Contrary to the level of scholarship that we are used to from Shaykh as-Sindee, he has brought in support of his claim the most amazing things. He arguments unexpectedly contain deception, misguidance, blind following, hiding knowledge and turning away from his own fundamental principles. Among the amazing positions is Shaykh as-Sindee’s feigned ignorance that the narration contradicts the hadeeth of Faatimah bint Qays which contains the Prophet’s permission for her to stay at the home of the blind companion, Ibn Umm al-Maktoom, whom she would be able see. The Prophet gave the reason for that instruction in his statement to her, “For if you take off your head scarf, he won’t see you.” In at-Tabaraanee’s narration from Faatimah, she said, “He instructed me to be at Ibn Umm Maktoom’s home because he couldn’t see me whenever I took my head scarf off.”
There are also a number of other unreliable hadeeths gathered by at-Tuwaijree in his book. I mentioned ten of them in my response, and among them are some fabricated traditions.
7. The classification of some authentic hadeeths and confirmed narrations from the Companions as inauthentic.
The extremists have declared well-established reliable narrations as unreliable and feigned ignorance of strengthening narrations. They have further declared some narrations extremely inauthentic, like the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah concerning the woman who reaches puberty, “Nothing should be seen of her besides her face and hands.” They have persistently declared it inauthentic – the ignorant among them blindly following others devoid of knowledge. In so doing, they contradict those among the leading scholars of hadeeth who strengthen it like al-Bayhaqee and ath-Thahabee. Most of them, including some prominent scholars, feign ignorance of its various chains of narration. In fact, at-Tuwaijree openly stated on page 236 of his book that this statement was only narrated in ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth. Even though he has seen with his own eyes on pages 57-9 of my book two other chains: one of which is from Asmaa bint ‘Umays and the other from Qataadah in the abbreviated (mursal) format with an authentic chain of narration. Many of the blind followers followed him, including some female authors as in Hijaabuki ukhtee al-muslimah [Your veil, my sister Muslim], page 33.
They also pretend to be ignorant of the leading hadeeth scholars and others who strengthened it, like al-Munthiree, az-Zayla‘ee, al-‘Asqlaanee and ash-Shawkaanee. Some of those who promote themselves as being among the well versed in this noble science – in their forefront Shaykh as-Sindee – claim that some of its narrations are extremely weak and unreliable in order to escape from the hadeeth science rule that ‘unreliable narrations are strengthened by narrations similar to them’. In doing that, they delude their readers into thinking that no one ruled the weak narrators, like ‘Abdullaah ibn Lahee‘ah, trustworthy and that they cannot be used as supportive evidence. In doing that, they contradict the methodology of the hadeeth scholars in using supportive evidence. Among them is Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allaah have mercy on them. Likewise, they all feign ignorance that the scholars – among them Imaam ash-Shaafi‘ee –confirm the hadeeth mursal if most scholars use it as evidence, as is the case of ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth.
Other strengthening factors may be added to the above.
(a) The hadeeth has been narrated by Qataadah from ‘Aa’ishah.
(b) It has been narrated in another chain from Asmaa.
(c) All three narrators of the hadeeth ruled according to it.
Qataadah stated in his interpretation of the verse on draping, “Allaah has placed on them the requirement to cover the eyebrows,” That is, “and not on their faces” as stated by at-Tabaree. ‘Aa’ishah said, regarding the female in ihraam, “She may drape the garment on her face, if she wishes.” This was narrated by al-Bayhaqee in an authentic chain of narrators. There is clear evidence in ‘Aa’ishah’s giving the female pilgrim a choice in draping that in her opinion the face was not ‘awrah. Otherwise she would have made it obligatory on them as those who contradict it do. Because of their position, most of the extremist authors, with at-Tuwaijree in the forefront, hid this statement of Umm al-Mu’mineen, ‘Aa’ishah from their readers. The author of Faslul-khitaab [The Definitive Statement] deliberately deleted this portion of al-Bayhaqee’s narration in his book. This being only one of a number of similar disreputable acts which I have exposed in my book. The supportive evidence is that this authentic narration from her strengthens her hadeeth from the Prophet. This is among the facts that people are unaware of or they pretend ignorance of, either choice is bitter to swallow.
As for Asmaa, it has been authentically reported from Qays ibn Abee Haazim that he saw her as a woman of white complexion with tatoos on her hands.
(d) The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas earlier mentioned, “She should pull the jilbaab (cloak) close to her face without putting it on her face.” His interpretation of the verse of adornment “…except what appears from it” as referring to“the face and hands” was similar. There is also a similar narration from Ibn ‘Umar to the same effect.
At this point, a bitter reality must be noted due to the lessons which may be gained from it, the knowledge which it contains and is service as a reminder of the wise saying: “The truth is not know by people, know the truth and you will know people.”
At the same time that Shaykh at-Tuwaijree insists on rejecting the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and its supporting evidences, among them Qaatadah’s mursal narration, he willingly accepts another inauthentic hadeeth from her with mursal support. In that hadeeth it is mentioned “…that she wore a niqaab (face veil)…” and that she was supposed to have described the Prophet’s wife Safiyyah and the Ansaar women as “… a jewess among jewesses…” which is considered by scholars to be a very erroneous statement (munkar jiddan). The Shaykh argues on page 181, “It has mursal supportive evidence,” and quotes one of the mursal hadeeths of ‘Ataa containing a known liar in its chain of narration.
One should reflect on the great difference between this fabricated supportive evidence and the authentic supportive evidence of Qataadah further supported by other evidences, then ask, “Why did at-Tuwaijree accept the second hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah and not the first?” The obvious answer is that the accepted one contains reference to wearing the niqaab – even though it does not indicate obligation – while the rejected one denies it. Thus, in this regard, the Shaykh did not base his position on Islaamic legal principles, but on something similar to the Jewish principle: The ends justify the means. May Allaah help us.
8. Placing unreasonable conditions
Among the amazing practices of some latter day blind following hanafite scholars and others is that on one hand they agree with us regarding the permissibility of women exposing their faces, because that was the position of their Imaams, but on the other hand they agree with the extremists in opposition to their Imaams. They make ijtihaad (while claiming taqleed) by adding the condition that the society be safe from fitnah to the position of the Imaams. This refers to the fitnah caused by women to men. Then one of the ignorant contemporary blind followers went to the extreme of actually attributing this “condition” to the Imaams themselves. Among some of those having no knowledge, this resulted in their concluding that there is essentially no difference between the position of the Imaams and the extremists.
It is obvious to jurists that this condition is invalid because it implies that humans know something which the Lord missed knowing. That is, the temptation of women did not exist during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) thus we had to create a special ruling for it which did not exist previously. In fact, the fitnah did exist during the era of divine legislation and the story of al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas’ trial with the Khath‘amiyyah woman and his repeated looking at her is not far from the readers’ memories.
It is well known that when Allaah Most High instructed men and women to lower their gazes and instructed women to veil themselves in front of men, He did that to block the road to corruption and prevent temptation. In spite of that, He – Most Great and Glorious – did not command that they cover their faces and hands in front of them. The Prophet (pbuh) further emphasized that in the story of al-Fadl by not commanding the woman to cover her face. And Allaah was truthful when He said, “And your Lord is not forgetful.”
The reality is that the condition of there not being fitnah was only mentioned by scholars regarding the man’s looking at the woman’s face, as in al-Fiqh ‘alaa al-mathaahib al-arba‘ah, page 12. They said, “That [the woman’s face may be uncovered] is permissible on condition that there is safety from temptation,” and that is true, contrary to what the blind followers practice. They conclude from it that the woman is obliged to cover her face, when in fact it is not a necessary consequence. They know that the condition of safety from temptation also applies to women. For it is not permissible for them to stare at a man’s face except where there is safety from temptation. Is it then a necessary consequence that men also veil their faces from women to prevent temptation as some tribes called the Tawareg do.
They would have a basis in fiqh of the Quraan and Sunnah if they said that a woman veiled in correct jilbaab who fears being harmed by some corrupt individuals due to her face being exposed is obliged to cover her face to prevent harm and temptation. In fact, it could even be said that it is obligatory on her not to leave her home if she feared that some evil authorities supported by a leader who does not rule by what Allaah revealed, as exists in some Arab countries since a few years ago, would pull her jilbaab from her head. As to making this obligation a compulsory law for all women everywhere and in all eras, even if there did not exist any harm for veiled women, No. Absolutely not. Allaah was truthful when He said, “Do they have partners who legislated for them in the religion what Allaah did not permit?”
These are the most significant of the extremist opposition’s mistakes which I thought needed brief mention due their strong link to the contents of this book. I then closed ar-Radd al-Mufhim with a reminder that extremism in the religion – considering that the Wise Legislator forbade it will not bring any good. And it is not possible for it to produce a generation of young Muslim women carrying Islaamic knowledge and practice moderately balanced, with neither excesses nor deficiencies. Not like what I have heard about some young female adherents in Arab countries when they heard the Prophet’s statement, “The woman in ihraam should neither wear a niqaab nor gloves,” they did not accept it saying instead, “We will wear our niqaabs and gloves!” No doubt, this was a direct result of the extremist views which they heard regarding the obligation of covering their faces.
I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism – and this is only one example from many which I have – can possibly produce for us salafee women able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way similar to the righteous women of the Salaf.
COMMON QUESTIONS ASKED BY HINDUS
COMMON QUESTIONS
ASKED BY HINDUS
ABOUT ISLAM
by
Dr. Zakir Naik
1.
IDOL USED FOR CONCENTRATION
Question:
The Hindu Pundits and Scholars agree that the Vedas and other Hindu religious scriptures prohibit idol worship, but initially because the mind may not be matured, an idol is required for concentration while worshipping. After the mind reaches higher consciousness, the idol is not required for concentration.
Answer :
1. Muslims have reached the higher level of consciousness
Muslims have reached the higher level of consciousness. If an idol is required for concentration only in the initial stages and not later on when the mind reaches higher consciousness then I would like to say the Muslims have already reached the state of higher consciousness because when we worship Allah (swt) we do not require any idol or statue.
2. Child asks why does it thunder?
When I was discussing with a Swami in IRF. He said that when our child asks us, "Why does the sky thunder?", we reply that "aaee ma chakki pees rahi hai", the grandmother is grinding flour in the heaven; because he is too young to understand. Similarly in the initial stages people require an idol for concentration.
In Islam we don’t believe in telling a lie, even if it’s a white lie. I will never give such a wrong answer to my child because later on when he goes to school and learns that the thundering sound after lightning is due to the expansion of rapidly heated air, he will either think that the teacher is lying or later on when he understands the fact he will conclude that the father is a liar. If you feel that the child may not understand certain difficult things you should simplify the answer rather than give a wrong fictitious reply. If you, yourself do not know the answer, you should have the guts to be truthful and say ‘I don’t know’. But many children nowadays will not be satisfied with this answer. If this answer was given to my son, he would say "Abba (father), why don’t you know?’ This will compel you to do your homework and thus educate yourself as well as your child.
3. Those in standard one require idol for concentration – (2 + 2 = 4 will remain same in standard one and ten)
Some pundits while trying to convince me regarding idol worship said that in standard one the student is initially taught to worship God by concentrating with the help of an idol but later on when he graduates he no longer requires the idol to concentrate while worshipping the God.
A very important fact to be noted is that only if the fundamentals of any particular subject is strong, then only will he be able to excel in future for e.g. A teacher of mathematics in standard one teaches the students that 2 + 2 = 4 irrespective whether the student passes school or does graduation or does a Ph. D. in mathematics, the basics of 2 + 2 = 4 will yet remain the same, it will not change to 5 or 6. In higher standards the student, besides addition may learn about Algebra, Trigonometry, Logarithm, etc. but the fundamental of addition will yet remain the same. If the teacher in standard one itself teaches the fundamentals wrong, how can you expect the student to excel in future?
It is the fundamental principal of the Vedas regarding the concept of God that He has got no image, so how can the Scholars even after knowing this fact keep silent at the wrong practice being done by people.
Will you tell your son who is in standard one that 2 plus 2 is not equal to 4 but 5 or 6 and only confirm the truth after he passes school? Never. In fact if he makes a mistake you will correct him and say it is 4 and not wait till he graduates; and if you don’t correct him initially you will ruin his future
2. WATER IS CALLED BY DIFFERENT NAMES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES – GOD IS CALLED BY DIFFERENT NAMES AS ALLAH, RAM OR JESUS
Question:
Water is called by different names in different languages: in English as water, in Hindi as paani, in Tamil as tanni. Similarly if God is called either Allah, Ram or Jesus, is it not one and the same?
Answer:
1. To Allah belongs the Most Beautiful Names
The Glorious Qur’an says in Surah Isra chapter 17 verse 110
"Say: ‘Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names.‘"
[Al-Qur’an 17:110]
You can call Allah by any name, but it should be a beautiful name,should not conjure up a mental picture, and should have qualities that only Allah possesses.
2. Water can be called by differnt names in different languages but something else besides water cannot be called water in another language.
You can call water by various names in different languages, like water in English, paani in Hindi, tanni in Tamil, mai in Arabic, apah in Sanskrit, jal in Shudh Hindi, jal or paani in Gujrati, pandi in Marathi, neer in Kannad, neeru in Telugu, vellam in Malayalam, etc. If a person tells me that his friend has advised that everyday early in the morning he should have one glass of paani, but he is unable to drink it because when he drinks it, he feels like vomiting. On enquiry he says that the paani stinks and it is yellowish in colour. Later I realise that what he is referring to as paani is not water but urine. Thus you can call water by different names having the same meaning but you cannot call other things as water or paani.
People may think that the example is not realistic and I agree with them because even an ignorant person knows the difference between water and urine. He will have to be a fool to call urine ‘water’. Similarly when any person who knows the correct concept of God, sees people worshipping false gods, he naturally wonders how a person cannot differentiate between a true God and false gods.
3. Purity of Gold is not verified by calling it by different names in different languages but rubbing it against a Touchstone.
In the same way, gold can be called sona in Hindi, gold in English, dhahaba in Arabic. Inspite of knowing all these different names for gold, if a person wants to sell you his gold jewellery and says this is 24 carat pure sona, you will not blindly believe, without verifying it with a goldsmith. The goldsmith confirms whether it is gold or not with the help of a touchstone. The yellow glittering jewellery may not be gold, because all that glitters is not gold.
4. Surah Ikhlas is the Touchstone of Theology.
Similarly, any person or candidate who is called God cannot be accepted as the true God without verifying him with the touchstone. The touchstone of theology, that is study of God, is Surah Ikhlas chapter 112 of the Holy Qur’an which says:
"Say, ‘He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not Nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.’’’
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]
5. Any candidate who passes the Acid test can be called God.
Any candidate who claims to be God and fits in this four line definition, passes the Acid test, is entitled to be called God and worshipped as God.
Suppose a lunatic says that Muhammad (pbuh) is God, (God forbid). Let’s put him to the test of Surah Ikhlas.
i. "Kul hu allah hu ahad" – Say He is Allah, The One and Only;
Is Muhammad (pbuh) one and only? No! he was not the only messenger. There were many other messengers.
ii. "Allah hus Samad" – Allah, The Eternal, Absolute;
We know that Muhammad (pbuh) had to undergo many hardships. Though he was the mightiest messenger of God, he died at the age of 63 and was buried in Madeenah.
iii. "Lam ya lid wa lam yulad" – He begetteth not Nor is He begotten;
We know that he was born in Makkah and his parents were Abdullah and Aaminah. He even had several children e.g. Fatimah, Ibrahim (may Allah be pleased with them), etc.
iv. "Wa lam ya kullahu kufuwan ahad" – And there is none like unto Him.
Though all the Muslims love and revere the Prophet (pbuh) and are supposed to follow each and every of his commandments, yet you will not find a single Muslim in the whole world, who in his senses will ever say that Muhammad (pbuh) is God. The Islamic Creed is, "La illaha illallah Muhammadur Rasoolullah", which means that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of Allah. This is repeated five times a day during the call for prayer, so that the Muslims are reminded daily that although they respect and obey him, he is only a Messenger and servant of God, and not God Himself.
6. Verify the Gods you worship.
Now that we have explained to you how to use the touchstone of theology it is the duty of everyone to verify with this touchstone, whether the gods that they worship are true or false.
3. HINDUISM IS NOT THE OLDEST AND BEST RELIGION
Question
Hinduism is the oldest of all the religions and thus the, most pure, authentic and best of all the religions of the world.
Answer:
1. Islam is the oldest religion
Hinduism is not the oldest of all the religions. It is Islam which is the first and the oldest of all religions. People have a misconception that Islam is 1400 years old and that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of this religion. Islam existed since time immemorial, ever since man first set foot on this earth. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was not the founder of Islam. He was the last and final Messenger of Almighty God.
2. The oldest religion need not be the purest and the most authentic religion
A religion cannot be claimed to be most pure and authentic, only on the criterion that it is the oldest. It is similar to a person saying that the water he has kept in an open glass, in his house, outside the refrigerator, for three months is purer than the water which has just been collected in a clean glass, immediately after it has been purified.
3. The latest religion need not be the purest and the most authentic religion
On the other hand a religion cannot be claimed to be the purest or authentic, only on the criterion that the religion is new or the latest. A bottle of distilled water which is sealed, packed and kept in the refrigerator for three months is much purer than a bottle of water freshly collected from the sea.
4. For religion to be pure and authentic, it should not have interpolations, changes and revisions in its scriptures revealed from God
For any religion to be pure and authentic, its scriptures should not contain any interpolation, addition, deletion or revision. Moreover the religion’s source of inspiration and direction should be Almighty God. The Qur’an is the only religious scripture on the face of the earth which has been maintained it its original form. All the other religious scriptures, of all the other religions have interpolations, additions, deletions or revisions. The Qur’an has been in the memory of a multitude of people, intact in its original form ever since its revelation, and now there are hundreds of thousands of people who have preserved it in their memory. Moreover, if you compare the copies made by Caliph Uthman from the original Qur’an which is yet present in the museum in Tashkent and in Koptaki museum in Turkey, they are the same as the ones we possess today.
Allah (swt) promises in the Qur’an, in Surah Al Hijr, chapter 15 verse 9
"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."
5. The oldest religion need not be best religion
A religion cannot be claimed to be the best religion only on the criterion that it is the oldest. It is similar to a person saying, that my 19th century car is better than a Toyota car manufactured in 1998, because it is older. He would be considered to be a fool to say that his 19th century car which required a rod to be turned in circles to start it, is better than a key-start 1998 Toyota car, just because it is older.
6. The latest religion need not be the best religion
On the other hand a religion cannot be called as the best religion only on the criterion that the religion is new or that it came later. It is similar to a person who says that my 800 cc Suzuki car manufactured in 1999 is better than a 5000 cc Mercedes 500 SEL manufactured in 1997. To judge which car is better, a person should compare the specifications of the car e.g. the power of the car, safety measures, the capacity of the cylinders, the pickup, the speed, the comfort, etc. 5000 cc Mercedes, 500 SEL car manufactured in 1997, is far superior and better than a 800 cc Suzuki (Maruti Suzuki 800) manufactured in 1999.
7. A religion is best, if it has the solutions to the problems of mankind
For a religion to be considered the best, it should have the solution to all the problems of mankind. It should be the religion of truth, and should be applicable to all ages. Islam is the only religion which has the solution to all the problems of mankind. e.g. the problem of alcoholism, surplus women, rape and molestation, robbery, racism, casteism, etc.
Islam is the religion of truth, and its laws and solutions are applicable to all the ages. The Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth, which has maintained its purity and authenticity proving itself to be the word of God in all the ages. i.e. previously, when it was the age of miracles, literature and poetry and in present times when it is the age of science and technology. Moreover, Islam is not a man-made religion, but a religion revealed and inspired by Almighty God. It is the only religion acceptable in His Sight.
4. IS ALLAH MENTIONED IN OTHER SCRIPTURES
Question:
"Allah" is the most appropriate name for God in the Qur’an. Is this name "Allah" mentioned in other religious scriptures besides the Qur’an?
Answer:
Almost all the major religious scriptures of the world contain the word "Allah" as one of the names of God.
a. Elohim El, Elah, Alah
In the Bible, God is very often referred to as ‘Elohim’ in the Hebrew language. The ‘im’ in the ending is a plural of honour and God is referred to as ‘El’ or ‘Elah’ in the English Bible with commentary, edited by reverend C. I. Scofield. ‘Elah’ is alternatively spelled as ‘Alah’. The difference in spelling is only of a single ‘L’. Muslims spell Allah as ‘Allah’ while the Reverend has spelled it as Alah and they pronounce it as ‘Elah’. Muslims pronounce it as Allah. Hebrew and Arabic are sister languages therefore we say it should be pronounced as ‘Allah’ and not as ‘Elah’.
When I was in school, I was taught ‘D, O’ is do, ‘T, O’ is to. What is ‘G, O’ It is ‘go’ and not ‘gu’. ‘N, U, T’ is nut, ‘C, U, T’ cut; ‘B, U, T’ is but, what is ‘P, U, T’? Not ‘pat’ but it is ‘put’. If you ask "Why?" The answer is "It is their language". If I have to pass I have to say ‘P, U, T’ is ‘put’ and not ‘pat’. Similarly the right pronunciation for A, L, L, A, H, is Allah.
b. Jesus (pbuh) cried out Allah Allah when he was put on the cross
It is mentioned in the New Testament in the Gospel of Mathew, chapter 27 verse 46 as well as Gospel of Mark, chapter 15 verse 34 when Jesus (pbuh) was put on the cross.
Jesus cried with a loud voice saying "E’-Li, E’-Li la’-ma sa-bach’-tha-ni?" that is to say, ‘My God, My God why hast Thou Forsaken Me?’ Does this sound like Jehovah! Jehovah! why has thou forsaken me? Does it sound like Abba Abba? The answer is ‘No’. Hebrew and Arabic are sister languages and if you translate "E’-Li, E’-Li la’-ma sa-bach’-tha-ni" into Arabic it is ‘Allah Allah lama tarak tani’ does it sound similar?
This statement of Jesus (pbuh), "E’-Li, E’-Li la’-ma sa-bach’-tha-ni" is preserved in its original Hebrew in each and every of its translation which is available in more than 2000 different languages of the world and in each and every of them, "Allah" is present.
2. "Allah" in Sikhism
One of the names by which Gurunanak Sahib referred to God is "Allah".
3a. "Allah" in Rigveda Book 2 Hymn I verse II
Even in the Rigveda which is the most sacred scripture of the Hindus, one of the attributes given to God Almighty in Book no 2 Hymn no I verse II, is ‘Ila’ which if pronounced properly is the same as Allah.
3b. Allo Upanishad:
Amongst the various Upanishads one of the Upanishad is named as ‘Allo’ Upanishad in which God is referred to as "Allah" several times.
5. BURYING BETTER THAN CREMATING DEAD BODIES
Question:
Why do Muslims bury dead bodies instead of cremating them, i.e. burning them?
Answer:
1. Components of human body present in the soil
Elements that are present in the human body are present in lesser or greater quantity in the soil. Hence it is more scientific to bury a dead body, as it easily gets decomposed and mixed in the soil.
2. No Pollution
Cremating (burning) the dead body leads to pollution of the atmosphere which is detrimental to health and harmful for the environment. There is no such pollution caused by burying a dead body.
3. Surrounding land becomes fertile
To cremate a dead body several trees have to be chopped, which reduces the greenery and harms the environment and the ecology. When dead bodies are buried, besides the trees being saved, the surrounding land becomes fertile and it improves the environment.
4. Economical
It is expensive to cremate a dead body when tons of wood have to be burned. Annually there is a loss of crores of rupees, only because dead bodies are cremated in India. Burying dead bodies is very cheap. It hardly costs any money.
5. Same land can be utilised for burying another body
The wood used for cremating a dead body cannot be reutilised for cremating another dead body since it gets converted to ashes. The land used for burying a dead body can be reutilised for burying another body after a few years since the human body gets decomposed and mixed in the soil.
6. BINDI AND MANGALSUTRA
Why do the Muslim married women not put bindi or tika on the forehead and wear Mangalsutra, like Hindu married women?
1. Bindi or tika
Bindi is derived from the sanskrit word bindu, which means a ‘dot’. It is usually a red dot made with vermilion powder and is worn by the Hindu women between their eyebrows on their forehead.
Bindi is considered a symbol of ‘Parvati’ and signifies female energy which is believed by Hindus to protect women and their husbands. It is traditionally a symbol of marriage and is worn by the Hindu married women. It is also called as tika.
2. Bindi has become a fashion
Nowadays, wearing bindi has become a fashion and is even worn by unmarried girls and women. The shape of the bindi is no longer restricted to a dot and is available in various shapes, including oval, star, heart shaped, etc. It is even available in different bright colours like blue, green, yellow, orange, etc. The material of the bindi is no longer restricted to vermilion powder, but is made of coloured felt and other material. It is also available in a variety of designs in combination with coloured glass, glitter, etc.
3. Mangalsutra
Mangalsutra means a thread of good-will. It is a necklace worn specially by Hindu married women as a symbol of their marriage. It consists of two strings of black beads with a pendant usually of gold. The black beads are believed to act as a protection against evil. It is believed to protect the women’s marriage and the life of her husband. In southern India, mangalsutra is called tali, which is a small gold ornament string on a cotton cord or a gold chain.
Hindu Married women are never supposed to remove their mangalsutra. It is only cut off when a Hindu lady becomes a widow.
4. Allah Is the Protector
Allah (swt), our Creator, is the best to protect human beings. We do not require any red dot or black thread to protect us from evil. It is mentioned in the Glorius Qur’an in Surah Anam Chapter 6 verse 14
"Say: Shall I take for my protector any other than Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth?"
[Al-Qur’an 6:14]
It is mentioned in several places in the Glorius Qur’an including
Surah Ali Imran Chapter 3 Verse 150 and Surah Alhajj Chapter 22 Verse 78
"Allah is your Protector, and He is the best of helpers."
Wearing a bindi or mangalsutra signifies a lack of faith in Almighty God, our Creator, who is the best to protect.
5. Against the Islamic Dress Code
Wearing a bindi or mangalsutra is a sign of Hindu women. The Islamic dress code does not permit a Muslim to wear any sign, symbol or mark which is specially significant of a non-Muslim.
6. In Islam, Both Married and Unmarried women should not be Teased
Once, a Hindu friend of mine, while mentioning the benefits of mangalsutra said that it easily identifies a married women, and thus prevents them from being teased and molested. According to Islam, each and every woman, whether married or unmarried, Muslim or Non-Muslim, should neither be teased nor molested.
7.
TAKING NAME OF EMPEROR AKBAR IN ADHAAN
Question:
Why do Muslims take the name of Emperor Akbar while calling people to pray?
Answer:
1. Non Muslim misunderstand that Emperor Akbar’s name is taken in Adhaan
Once, when I attended a conference in Kerala, a non-Muslim minister spoke just before my speech. He was highlighting the achievements of the Indian Muslims and their role in the progress of India. He said that amongst the Indian kings, the greatest was Emperor Akbar. No wonder the Muslims take his name five times a day, while calling people to pray. During my speech however, I clarified this misconception.
2. The ‘Akbar’ word of the Adhaan has nothing to do with Emperor Akbar
The word ‘Akbar’ mentioned in the Adhaan which is given to call people to pray has nothing to do with Emperor Akbar of India.The words in the Adhaan were used centuries before the birth of Emperor Akbar.
3. ‘Akbar’ means ‘Great’
The Arabic word ‘Akbar’ means ‘great’. When we say ‘Allahu Akbar’ in the Adhaan we proclaim that ‘Allah is Great’ or ‘Allah is the Greatest’ and we call people to worship the one and only Allah who is the Greatest.
8. WHY DON’T MUSLIMS IN INDIA FOLLOW THE ISLAMIC CRIMINAL LAW?
Question
When Muslims in India insist on having a separate Muslim Personal Law for themselves, why don’t they also insist on implementing the Islamic Criminal Law for the Muslims; for example implementing the rule that the robber’s hands should be chopped off if a Muslim robs?
Answer:
1. Muslim Personal Law
Personal Law is a law concerning an individual person and the persons closely related to him, e.g. laws relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. It includes laws which are mutually agreed upon by a group of people. This law does not include any crime or an act that will harm the society directly.
2. India is Secular And Democratic
In any country, the Personal Law may differ for different groups of people and for different communities. Since India is a secular and democratic country it allows different groups of people to follow their own personal law if they wish.
3. Islamic Personal Law is the Best
Muslims believe that compared to all the different types of personal laws available in the world, the best and the most result oriented is the Islamic Personal Law. Muslims of India prefer following the Muslim personal law also because of their own belief in Islam.
4. Criminal Law
Criminal law is that law which is associated with a crime or an act which directly affects the society e.g. robbing, raping, murdering, etc.
5. The Criminal Law should be the same for all people
In any country, the criminal law unlike the Personal Law cannot be different for different groups of people. It has to be same for all people of different groups and different religions e.g. In Islam if a person robs, his hands are chopped off. This punishment is not prescribed in Hinduism. If a Hindu robs a Muslim, what would be the robber’s punishment? The Muslim would want the hands of the robber to be chopped, while the Hindu Law would not agree.
6. The Muslims in India alone cannot separately follow the Islamic Criminal Law without involving the Non-Muslims
Even if a Muslim agrees, that as far as he commits a crime he should be given the punishment according to Islamic Criminal Law, it would not be practical. In case an allegation is made against a Muslim for robbery and if the witnesses are Non-Muslims, and if each one follows his own Criminal Law, the punishment in Islam for bearing false witness is 80 lashes, whereas in the Indian Crimial Law, a person giving false witness can easily escape. Thus, for a non-Muslim to falsely accuse a Muslim of any crime is very easy, if both follow their own criminal law. However, if both follow the Indian Law where the punishment is lenient for false witnesses and robbers, it will encourage both the robber to rob as well as encourage the witnesses to give false witness for their own benefit.
7. The Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic Criminal Law to be implemented on all Indians
We Muslims would prefer that in India the Islamic Criminal Law be implemented on all the Indians, since, chopping the hands of a thief will surely reduce the rate of robbery in India. Similarly, 80 lashes for giving false testimony will prevent a person from giving false witness.
8. Islamic Criminal Law is Most Practical
Islam besides pointing out a crime, it also gives you a solution showing how to prevent the crime e.g. chopping the hands of a robber, death penalty for the rapist. The punishment is so severe that it is a deterrent for the criminal to commit the crime. He will think a hundred times before committing a crime.
Thus if crime has to be reduced or stopped in India the best solution is to implement ‘The Common Islamic Criminal Law’.
9. ARE RAM AND KRISHNA PROPHETS OF GOD?
Question:
If according to Islam, messengers or prophets were sent to each and every nation of the world, then which prophet was sent to India? Can we consider Ram and Krishna to be messengers of God?
Answer:
1. Prophets sent to every nation
a. The Glorious Qur’an mentions in Surah Fatir, chapter 35 verse 24
". . . And there never was a people, without a warner
having lived among them (in the past)."
[Al-Qur’an 35:24]
b. A similar message is repeated in Surah Rad, chapter 13 verse 7
". . . and to every people a guide."
[Al-Qur’an 13:7]
2. Stories only of some prophets narrated in the Qur’an
a. Allah (swt) says in Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 164
"Of some messengers We have already told thee the story; of others we have not."
[Al-Qur’an 4:164]
b. A similar message is repeated in Surah Ghafir chapter 40 verse 78
"We did aforetime send messengers before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. . ."
[Al’Qur’an 40:78]
3. 25 Prophets of God are mentioned by name in the Qur’an
By name, only 25 Prophets of God are mentioned in the Qur’an e.g. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed (pbut)
4. More than 1,24,000 prophets of God
According to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), there were more than 1,24,000 prophets sent to this world.
5. All previous prophets sent only for their people
All the prophets that came before Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were only sent for their own people and were to be followed only for a particular period of time.
Surah Ali Imran, chapter 3 verse 49
"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, . . ."
[Al-Qur’an 3:49]
6. Muhammad (pbuh), the last messenger of God
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the last and final messenger of Almighty God. It is mentioned in
Surah Ahzab, chapter 33 verse 40
"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things."
[Al-Qur’an 33:40]
7. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), sent for whole Humankind
Since Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the last and final messenger, he was not sent only for the Muslims or the Arabs, but he was sent for the whole of humankind.
a. It is mentioned in
Surah Anbiya, chapter 21 verse 107
"We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures."
[Al’Qur’an 21:107]
b. A similar message is repeated in
Surah Saba, chapter 34 verse 28
"We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."
[Al Qur’an 34:28]
c. It is mentioned in
Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, Book of Salaah, chapter 56 hadith no. 429
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said,
"Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind."
8. Which prophet was sent to India?
Regarding the question of which prophet of God was sent to India, and can we consider Ram or Krishna to be prophets of God, there is no text in the Qur’an or Sahih Hadith mentioning the name of the prophet that was sent to India. Since the names of Ram and Krishna are nowhere to be found in the Qur’an and Sahih Hadith, one cannot say for sure whether they were prophets of God or not. Some Muslims, especially certain Muslim politicians who try to appease the Hindus, say Ram Alai-his-salaam, i.e. Ram, may peace be on him. This is totally wrong, since there is no authentic proof from the Qur’an and Sahih Hadith that he was a prophet of God. However, a person may say that perhaps they may have been the prophets of God.
9. Even if Ram and Krishna were prophets, today we have to follow the last Prophet of God i.e. Muhammad (pbuh)
Even if Ram and Krishna were prophets of God, they were only meant for people of that time and were to be followed only for that particular period of time. Today, all the human beings throughout the world, including India should only follow the last and final prophet and Messenger of God – prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
10. ARE THE VEDAS A REVELATION OF GOD?
Question:
If Allah has sent His books and revelations in every period, then which revelation was sent to India? Can we consider the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures to be the word of God?
Answer:
1. Revelation sent in every period
The Glorious Qur’an mentions in Surah Rad, chapter 13 verse 38
"For each period is a book (revealed)."
[Al-Qur’an 13:38]
2. Four revelations of God mentioned by name in Qur’an
By name, only four revelations of God are mentioned in the Qur’an i.e. Torah, Zaboor, Injeel and the Qur’an
Torah is the revelation which was given to Moses (pbuh)
Zaboor is the revelation which was given to David (pbuh)
Injeel is the revelation which was given to Jesus (pbuh)
and Qur’an is the last and final revelation which was given to the last and final Messenger Muhammad (pbuh).
3. All the previous revelations sent only for their people
All the revelations that came before Qur’an were only sent for their own people and were to be followed only for a particular time period.
4. The Qur’an sent for whole humankind
Since the Qur’an is the last and final revelation, it was not sent only for the Muslims or the Arabs but it was sent for the whole of humankind. It is mentioned in:
a. Surah Ibrahim, chapter 14 verse 1
"Alif Lam Ra. A book which We have revealed unto thee, in order that thou mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness into light . . ."
[Al-Qur’an 14:1]
b. A similar message is repeated in Surah Ibrahim chapter 14 verse 52
"Here is a Message for mankind: let them take warning therefrom, and let them know that He is (no other than) One God: let men of understanding take heed."
[Al-Qur’an 14:52]
c. Qur’an mentions in Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 185
"Ramadan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur’an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (Signs) for guidance and judgement (between right and wrong)."
[Al-Qur’an 2:185]
d. A similar message is repeated in Surah Zumur chapter 39 verse 41
"Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for (instructing) mankind."
[Al-Qur’an 39:41]
5. Which revelation sent to India?
The question that arises is "which revelation of God was sent to India and whether we can consider the Vedas and the other Hindu Scriptures to be the revelations of God?" There is no text in the Qur’an or Sahih Hadith mentioning the name of the revelation that was sent to India. Since the names of the Vedas or other Hindu scriptures are no where to be found in Qur’an and Sahih Hadith, one cannot say for sure that they were the revelations of God. They may be the revelation of God or may not be the revelation of God.
6. Even if the Veda was the word of God today you have to follow the Qur’an
Even if the Vedas and the other scriptures were the revelations from God, they were only meant for people of that time and were to be followed only for that particular period of time. Today all human beings through out the world including India should only follow the last and final Revelation of God, i.e. the Qur’an. Moreover since all the previous revelations were not meant to be followed for eternity, Almighty God did not preserve them in their original form. There is not a single religious scripture of any of the major religions which claims to be the word of God and has maintained its pure original text and is free from alteration, adulteration and interpolation. Since the Glorious Qur’an is to be followed for eternity, Allah (swt) has taken upon Himself to maintain its original purity and guard it from corruption. Allah says in Glorious Qur’an.
Surah Hijr chapter 15 verse 9
"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)