Archive

Archive for the ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ Category

Hijab (Niqab)- Why? — Dr. Bilal Philips


 

The covering of Muslim women has become one of the international symbols of female oppression in feminist circles.

 

1.

There are two major trends which have developed in the West over the past century. On one hand, the fashion industry has systematically unclothed women. From being fully clothed from head to toe at the turn of the century, she now wears virtually nothing when the weather permits.

 

On the other hand there has been a dramatic rise in the reported incidents of rape. In the USA in the early 90s the reported incidents of rape had crossed the 100,000 mark. And researchers estimated that the actual number was between 7 to 10 times that number since most women are shy to report rapes. The two trends are closely interrelated.

 

The woman in the West has become a sex-object with which to sell products thereby pumping up the sexual tension of the society. The Corvette is not sold based on its powerful engine or its special features, instead the car is displayed with a model in a bikini lying on it. Similarly, a new Gillette razor blade is not sold by giving details about its new titanium blades. Instead, a man is shown in ads shaving with a woman’s hand with long red fingernails coiled around hold his. The subliminal message being taught is: You buy the car, you get the girl. You buy the razor, you get the girl. 

 

2.

Islam prescribes the covering of females for two primary reasons stated in the Quran. God says in Soorah al-Ahzaab (33: 59):

Let them cast their outer garments over their bodies. That is best in order that they be known and not harmed.

 

3.

The hijab is to make the Muslim woman known in the society as a virtuous and honorable woman. Her hijab makes the statement that she is not available and not interested in any immorality. Many Muslim women who have emigrated to the West take of their scarves and outer garments because they claim it draws attention to themselves. If they expose their hair and dress in modest western dresses no one will look at them.

 

It is true that the hijab does provide a level of anonymity, as many of the woman’s physical details will be hidden. However, the intent is not to prevent men from looking. When men see a nun in her habit, fully covered like a Muslim woman in full hijab, they will turn their heads and stare at her. Similarly, when they see a woman walking in a bikini, they will also turn their heads and stare. However, the first stare is different from the second. The first is out of curiosity, having seen something unusual, while the second is out of lust and aroused sensuality. The consequence of the second is the molestation of women on a national scale while the first causes respect.

4.

The penalty in the Islamic state is very severe for rape in order to further guarantee protection for females. Where weapons of any type are used in the rape, the punishment is death. The death penalty has also been introduced in Philippines and it is being called for in India currently. However, to allow women to expose themselves and then kill those who react unduly is not practical. The law should be balanced. The circumstances, which might encourage rape, should first be removed from the society, then a severe penalty may be enacted.

 

5.

It may be said that even in societies where women are fully covered, they may still be approached and molested. However, if the vast majority of those who are molested are not properly covered, the principle of protection still applies. Even in the society of the Prophet, one thousand four hundred years ago, some women were molested and raped.

 

6.

Some people question the imposition of hijab by the Islamic state. Is it a personal choice of women or a legal obligation? It is the responsibility of the head of every family to insure that the women of his household leave the home in a legally acceptable state of dress. The state is further responsible to prevent any women who appear in public in a state of undress in order to protect public dignity and morality.

 

The West has set its own limits for dress which change according to the mood of society. At one point in time, strip joints were illegal. Now many bars have topless waitresses and dancers. In most states, a woman may not appear in public topless. However, a woman recently contested the law in Florida and won her case. Complete nudity remains public crime throughout the West, though nudist camps and nudist beaches have sprung up in different locations in Europe and America.

 

7.

There are conditions which must be fulfilled for the hijab to be acceptable. a) It should be wide and loose so as to not show the shape of the woman’s body; b) it should be made of thick material which will not reveal what is underneath; c) It should not be colorful and ornamented so as to attract sexual admiration.

 

8.

Where the hijab has become a cultural norm and women comply out of fear of embarrassment, it will not be worn properly. It may become transparent, or worn tight exposing the curves of the body, or it may become so ornamented as to be attractive by itself. It may be short so as to expose the dress underneath, or the face may be covered and the front of the hair exposed. Such practices are the result of women wearing hijab for the wrong reasons. They should be educated to realize that it is for their benefit and for the benefit of the society.

 

[From the book: Contemporary issues, pg. 12-14]

 

Is hadd punishment for apostasy or similar crimes to be implemented only by the sultan (ruler) or his deputy? Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah

January 11, 2015 4 comments

 

Regarding the query that hudood punishment can only be carried out by the ruler or his deputy. Then Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [rahimahullah] said:

 

1 – The master may carry out the hadd punishment on his slave, based on the evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“Carry out the hadd punishments on those whom your right hands possess.”

[Narrated by Ahmad (736) and others; classed as hasan by al-Arna’oot because of corroborating evidence. Al-Albaani was inclined to the view that these are the words of ‘Ali, as stated in al-Irwa’ (2325).]

 

And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“If the slave woman of one of you commits zina, let him carry out the hadd punishment on her.”

[Narrated by Abu Dawood (4470); there is a similar report in al-Saheehayn.]

 

I do not know of anyone among the fuqaha’ of hadeeth who disagreed with the view that he should carry out hadd punishments on her, such as the hadd punishments for zina, slander and drinking; there is no difference of opinion among the Muslims concerning the fact that he may carry out disciplinary punishments (ta’zeer) on him. But they differed as to whether he may carry out punishments of execution or amputation on him, such as executing him for apostasy or for reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or cutting off his hand for stealing.

 

Two reports were narrated from Imam Ahmad concerning this. The first says that it is permissible, which is the view narrated from al-Shaafa’i, and the second says that it is not permissible, like one of the two views of the companions of al-Shaafa’i. This is also the view of Maalik. And it was narrated in a saheeh report from Ibn ‘Umar that he cut off the hand of a slave of his who stole, and it is narrated in a saheeh report from Hafsah that she executed a slave woman of hers who admitted to practising witchcraft, and that was based on the opinion of Ibn ‘Umar. So the hadeeth is evidence for those who say that it is permissible for the master to carry out the hadd punishment on his slave on the basis of his knowledge, in all cases.

 

 

2 – The most that can be said about that is that he [one acting without the permission of ruler] is transgressing the position of the ruler, and the ruler may pardon the one who carried out a hadd punishment that must be carried out without referring the matter to him.

 

3 – Although this was a hadd punishment, it also comes under the heading of killing a harbi (a non-Muslim in a state of war against Islam), and it is permissible for anyone to kill a harbi.

 

4 – Similar things happened at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), such as:

#the hypocrite who was killed by ‘Umar without the permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the hypocrite did not agree with the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Then Qur’aan was revealed approving ‘Umar’s action.

 

# And there was the daughter of Marwaan who was killed by that man, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him the supporter of Allaah and His Messenger.

That is because the one whose execution becomes necessary because of his plot to corrupt the religion is not like one who is executed because of his sin of zina and the like.

End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool (285-286).

Taken from: Islamqa

 

Hijrah: Linguistic and Islāmic Definitions


 

As for its linguistic meaning, it is written in ‘Lisān al‐‘Arab,’ of Ibn Mandhūr, as well as ‘Tāj al‐‘Arūs,’ of az‐Zubaydī, that the root word ‘hajara’ is the opposite of ‘connection,’ and it means to severe ties with something, and the word ‘hijrah’ is in the hadīth:

Abandonment (hijrah) of someone beyond three days is not allowed.”

[Ahmad (8960) and Muslim (2562)]

 

 
As for it’s meaning in the Sharī’ah, then, in short: it is to leave Dār al‐Harb for Dār al‐Islām, as Ibn al‐‘Arabī (may Allāh have Mercy upon him) said in ‘Ahkām al‐ Qur’ān.’

 
In ‘al‐Mughnī,’ Ibn Qudāmah al‐Maqdisī said:

“It is to leave Dār al‐Kufr for Dār al‐ Islām.”

 
Sa’d bin ‘Atīq (may Allāh have Mercy upon him) said, in ‘ad‐Durar as‐Saniyyah’:

“It is to relocate oneself from the places of polytheism and disobedience to the places of Islām and obedience.”

 

 

Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 12/50

Hijrah (migration) for the sake of Allaah means moving from the land of shirk to the land of Islam, as the Muslims moved from Makkah – before its people became Muslim – to Madeenah, because it had become the city of Islam after its people had pledged their allegiance (bay’ah) to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and asked him to make hijrah to them.

 

So Hijrah means migrating to join other Muslims. Hijrah may also take the form of moving from one land of shirk to another land of shirk where evil is less prevalent and there is less danger to the Muslims, as when some of the Muslims migrated from Makkah, at the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), to Abyssinia (Ethiopia).

And Allaah is the Source of Strength. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions, and grant them peace.

Ali’s [radiAllahu anhu] treatment of the Kharijites.


 

Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (radiAllahu anhu) treated the Kharijites as Muslims, both before and after the battle. No sooner had the battle ended but he issued orders to his troops, saying:

“Do not pursue anyone who is fleeing, do not finish off anyone who is wounded, and do not mutilate anyone who has been killed.”

 

Shaqeeq ibn Salamah, who was known as Abu Wa’il, one of the jurists of the Tabi’oon who was present with ‘Ali during his battles, said: ”

‘Ali did not take any female prisoners either on the day of the Camel or on the day of Nahrawan.[1]

 

After the battle of Nahrawan, he took the property of the slain to Kufah and said: “Whoever recognizes anything, let him take it.” The people started taking things until there was one pot left, then a man came and took it.[2]  ‘Ali (radiAllahu anhu) did not divide anything among his troops except what the Kharijites had brought into battle with them: weapons and horses only.

 

Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (radiAllahu anhu) did not regard the Kharijites as disbelievers. Before the battle, he tried to bring them back to the main body of Muslims, and many of them did come back. He exhorted them and reminded them of the seriousness of fighting.

 

Ibn Qudamah said:

“He did this because his aim was to restrain them and fend off their evil, not to kill them. If it was possible to achieve this by talking, that should take precedence over fighting because of the harm that may be caused to both parties as a result of fighting. This indicates that the Kharijites were a group of Muslims, as was stated by many of the scholars.”[3]

khawarji

 

‘Ali (radiAllahu anhu) was asked whether they were disbelievers.

He said: “They have fled from disbelief.” He was asked: “Are they hypocrites?” He said: “The hypocrites only remember Allah a little.” He was asked: “What are they?” He said: “They are people who transgressed against us, so we fought them.” [4]

 

According to another report:

“They are people who transgressed against us, therefore we prevailed over them.” According to a third report: “They are people upon whom a fitnah came, and they became blind and deaf.”[5]

 

Ali (radiAllahu anhu) also offered this advice to his army and to the Muslim Ummah after him:

“If they go against a just ruler, then fight them, but if they go against an unjust ruler, do not fight them, because they have a reason.”[6]

 

It may be noted that ‘Ali (radiAllahu anhu) regretted and was grieved by the fighting in the Battle of the Camel and Siffeen, while he expressed satisfaction and contentment about fighting the Kharijites.

 

Ibn Taymiyyah [Rahimahullah]said:

“The texts and scholarly consensus differentiate between the two cases. He fought the Kharijites on the basis of a text from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and was happy about that, and none of the Companions objected to that. As for his fighting on the’ day of Siffeen, he showed a great deal of sorrow and regretted it.”[7]

 

Footnotes:

[1] Sunan al-Kubra/Baihaqi [8/182]

[2] Al-Talkhees ul Habeer [4/47]

[3] Fath ul Bari [12/300,301], Nayl al-Awtar [8/182]

[4] Musannaf Abdur Razzaq [10/150], Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah [10, 332]

[5] Musannab ibn Abi Shaybah [10/320,324], Al aitisaam/ Shaatibi[1/62]

[6] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah [10/320], Fath ul Bari [12/301]

[7] Majmoo al-Fatawa [28/514]

[Taken from: Rightly guided Caliphs by Dr. Ali Sallabi]

 

Download PDF[E-Book] The most correct opinion concerning the takfeer of Khawarij

Adhering to Quran and Sunnah must for Islamic awakening – Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen [rahimahullah]


 

My brothers, the Islamic awakening of today has pervaded all Islamic countries, and all praise is for Allah. It has to be understood, however, that this awakening must be established upon a solid foundation – in terms of Allah’s book and Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger [sallallahu alaihi wasallam]. If it is not established upon these primary sources, then it will be a reckless and unstable awakening, which will perhaps destroy more than it will build. But if it is built upon the principles and teaching of Allah’s Book and the authentic Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger [sallallahu alaihi wasallam], then it will have a very positive and effective influence on the Muslim Nation and on other Nations as well.

 

Perhaps all of us know the long story of Abu Sufyan’s visit to Sham [today Sham consists of Syria and surrounding area], where he met with its ruler, Harqal, the emperor of Rome. At that time, Abu Sufyan was still a disbeliever. During the course of their meeting, Abu Sufyan related to the emperor matters pertaining to the Prophet’s worship of Allah, to his rejection of Idols, to his good manners, to his truthfulness, to his trustworthiness, to his good dealings, and to other matters that pertain to the Shariah he came with. Harqal [the emperor] said to Abu Sufyan,

“If what you say is the truth, then he will rule over what is underneath these two feet of mine.” [1]

 

Who would imagine that, at the time, even the Arabs were not under his rule; in fact, the Prophet [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] has not even conquered Makkah; he was still considered to be an emigrant of Makkah? So who would imagine that a king such as Harqal, who ruled over so many people, would say such a statement: “If what you say is the truth, then he will rule over what is underneath these two feet of mine?” Did what Harqal predict actually occur or not? Did the Prophet [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] rule over what was underneath the feet of Harqal, i.e. Sham at the time, Rome ruled over those lands? Isn’t it true that Prophet [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] died before the Muslims conquered Sham?

 islamic-awakening

The Prophet [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] ruled over what was underneath the feet of Harqal with his Dawah [calling and message] and not with his person. The dawah of the Prophet [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] came upon this earth and swept away Idols and shirk [the association of partners with Allah in worship]. So when the rightly guided Khalifahs ruled over Sham after the Prophet’s death, they did so by his Dawah and Shariah [law of Islam].

 

 

What we are saying is that, if the rulers of the Muslim nations and those under them were to truly return to the religion of Allah, taking Muslims as their supporters, friends, and helpers, and taking the disbelievers as their enemies, then they would rule over the eastern and the western part of the earth. They would ruler over the earth not because they supported countries or personalities, not because they affiliated themselves to a specific tribe or group, but because they would establish the Religion of Allah Azza wa Jall [to Him belongs Might and Majesty].

 

And Allah guaranteed to make His Religion victorious over all other religions. Allah said:

It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it. [61:9]

 

An obvious concomitant of this Religion being victorious is that those who adhere to it will be victorious as well.

 

My brothers, if this consciousness that has pervaded the ranks of the Muslim youth today is not based on Allah’s book and the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger [sallallahu alaihi wasallam], then it will be reckless and misguided, and it is feared that it will destroy more than it will build.

 

[The Islamic Awakening, page no. 21-22]

Footnote:

[1] A portion of Hadith related by Al- Bukhari (7), which is narrated by Abdullah ibn Masud from Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb.

Eating food prepared for a Christian festival

December 22, 2013 4 comments

What is the ruling on eating food prepared for a Christian festival? What is the ruling on accepting their invitation to their celebrations of the birth of the Messiah (peace be upon him) [i.e., Christmas celebrations]?

 

Praise be to Allaah.

It is not permissible to celebrate innovated festivals such as the Christmas of the Christians, or Nowrooz (Persian New Year) or Mahrajaan (Persian festival), or festivals that have been innovated by Muslims such as the Prophet’s birthday in Rabee’ al-Awwal or the Israa’ in Rajab and so on.

It is not permissible to eat from that food which the Christians or Mushrikeen prepare on the occasion of their festivals.

It is also not permissible to accept their invitations to join them in their celebrations of those festivals, because this encourages them and is tantamount to approving of their bid’ah, which gives the wrong idea to ignorant people and makes them think that there is nothing wrong with that. And Allah knows best.

From Al-Lu’lu’ al-Makeen min Fataawaa Ibn Jibreen, p. 27.
Taken from Islamqa

I hate to be imitated in the disobedience of Allah!


 

Ibn Al-Mubarak (May Allah shower him with Mercy) said:

An oppressive [ruler] from among Banu Israel used to kill people for not eating the meat of swine. He remained upon this, until he got hold of a worshipper from among the people of piety from Banu Israel.

 

The people were greatly stressed by that.

 

The police commissioner told [that worshipper]: I shall slaughter for you a lamb, so that if that transgressor orders you to eat it, then eat [and do not worry].

 

When he was later ordered to eat, he refused, so the oppressor [ruler] said: Take him from here and cut his neck.

 

The police commissioner said to him: What prevented you from eating a roasted lamb?

 

So he answered: I am a man who is looked up to, and I hate to be imitated in  the disobedience of Allah!

Then he was killed.

Reference:

[1] Al-Bassaer wa Al-Zakhaaer p. 114

 

Related link:

® Umar and the Black Stone

 

 

%d bloggers like this: