Muslims believe in freedom of speech. But we also believe in freedom from insults and humiliation. It should come as no surprise that we are as willing to fight and die for our rights as the West is for its.
Sorry for responding to the issue so late. I have sporadic- or erratic- internet access these days.
It’s simple really:
We Muslims believe in freedom of speech, too. We also believe in freedom from humiliation and indignity. So there is a balance in our concept.
The bottom line though, is that we are just as willing to die and kill- and everything less than those- for the rights we believe in as Americans are for the freedom of speech. If you think about it, we aren’t attacking and occupying countries (though we have the power to) for our beliefs, so we are not the extremists.
Now, why isn’t it that people are burning the Gitas, or mocking Buddha or Confucius, making cartoons about Lao-Tzu, or accusing Jesus of crimes? Why is it mostly the Qur-aan and Muhammad (Salla-llaahu ’alayhi wa sallam)?
I think that Buddhists would be up in arms if Pali texts were being burnt, and Asian Buddhists are not as peace-loving as the fetishistic Western concept of Buddhism. The atrocity-filled 30-year civil war in Sri Lanka was waged by Buddhists. And the atrocities committed by Buddhists in Myanmar (which Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung Sun Suu Kyi watches silently) are unspeakable. The willingness of Buddhist laymen, laywomen, monks and nuns to set themselves on fire in protest against China’s colonization of Tibet and suppression of Thai Buddhism is commendable in some respects, but is far from the smile-at-everything image Westerners imagine of Buddhism. I wonder why they don’t speak out against this?
And don’t think for a minute that Hindus would sit meditating in Himalayan caves if their gods and texts were being insulted. They probably wouldn’t even allow the graphic violence and grotesque sexuality of their texts to be read aloud.
Christians are generally more tolerant to insults aimed at Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), but that is actually disappointing. Would you believe that someone made a picture of Jesus and Mary (peace be upon them) out of elephant dung? It’s true. And the Christians did nothing. This isn’t tolerance, it’s humiliation. If I believed that Christ was God, the son of God, my lord and my savior, and the person who would judge me on Judgement Day, I would die before I let them do that.
The jewish version of the Torah that the Christians follow, and the Talmud that the Jews follow, are both genocidal, and so are today’s Zionists. Yet the only genocide we can talk about is the World War II holocaust, which we were taught about at a susceptible age and can’t question. The same Western countries that die and kill for the freedom of speech would throw you in jail for saying the “wrong” thing about the World War II holocaust; where’s the freedom of speech there? Even principled scientific inquiry is not allowed. Can we not demand the same thing about whom there are no historical doubts?
Wait…
That’s it!
Finally, it can be put in words the West seems to understand: Muhammad and the Qur-aan are our holocaust.
Put it in your lawbooks and be done with it. Lock up the subject of insults and throw away the key. Because we come from a people who would sooner part with their mother or their father, or their mother and their father, than to see harm come toa single hair on Muhammad’s head. Our forefathers and mothers stood between him and arrows and swords, and so we stand, rank upon rank, ready to defend our Prophet from any harm at any cost, with no thought of our selves.
Like it or not, that’s the reality, and we ain’t goin’ nowhere. We are the rock that will not break ’til you break yourself against us.
All that aside, a man who is the founder of the fastest-growing ideology on this planet, that flowers in every clime and circumstance, automatically deserves respect. So, maybe, just maybe, instead of taunting us with a lighter held under our holy book, more people should open it.
Let them call us extremists. We don’t mind. We know that they are hypocrites who know neither pride nor shame.
Fundamentalists? Fine. Because of those same fundamentals we know not to eat with the same hand we wipe feces with.
Terrorists? Please. Western civilization’s greatest achievement is wiping out entire races and languages all over the globe.
Backwards? Yeah, right. They are as brutal as the cavemen they claim to descend from, as savage as the beasts they claim are their distant cousins.
That said, we Muslims too should be wary of violating Islam by contradicting it. The greatest insult to the Prophet is disobedience. The innocent should never be harmed. The religion and gods of others should never be insulted, lest we be the cause of insults and attacks against Muslims and Islam. If any Muslim seeks to hurt the life, honor or property of an innocent, I stand in spirit and body against that, and so should we all.
Wa Salla-llaahu ’alaa Muhammad wa ‘alaa aalihi wa azwajatihi was sahbihi ajma’een, wa man ittabi’ahum bi-lIhsan
Is Islam the source of our problems, or their long-lost solution?
To go secular or not to go secular? North Africans fight for the soul of their revolutions. ”Western” Muslims are struggling to forge an identity. Turkey continues its decades old constitutional struggles. In all of these and more, the question of secularism vs. Islam-”ism” (defined here) is central. To be or not to be, Shakespeare wrote…
Its most famous test case was and is western Europe, which it awakened from a millenium of human darkness. Many other countries have followed suit in an effort to “modernize” and catch up to the “West”.
Many Muslims, whether they are in Muslim majority countries, the diasporas thereof, or reverts, are routing their degrees towards this effort, and not without reason. Muslim-majority nations have been dominated for centuries, and still are, and many suffer from a variety of sub-standard conditions.
Secularism is the answer many Muslims turn to because of these and similar questions:
Why do we, who invented hospitals in Baghdad, suffer from high infant mortality and diseases that have been eradicated in the “West”?
Why are we so disorganized after implementing bureaucracy to unprecedented detail and precision in the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate)?
Why, with all the ayat and ahadith stressing cleanliness and hygiene, are our lands so filthy?
How can we, when we innovated weapon-making for centuries, be so easily dominated?
Why, when we are united by a book, and the first revelation was the command to read, do many of us suffer from illiteracy?
How can Muslim-majority countries trail the world in math in our lands when one of us founded algebra?
Why are we unable to implement solutions to our social problems when one of us founded the social sciences?
Why do we leave so many of our women to suffer after all the rights and protections accorded to them in the Qur’an and ahadith?
Why, when moderation, collaboration, negotiation and communication are integral to our deen and its history, are we unable to unite and counter the assaults against us?
Brother, Sister, Shaykh, ‘Alima, do you know the answer?
For many, secularism seems to be it. The problems we face were largely tackled ages ago by secularism in other countries, so by logic, the same will work for us. An even more encouraging sign is that countries we used to dominate in turn came to dominate us after secularizing. There’s no need for an opinion here, there’s not a historian who’ll dispute secularism as a factor, as a cause for the shift in global paradigms.
Why shouldn’t it work for Muslims if it worked for non-Muslims? The pre-secular non-Islamic world was rife with superstition. Unfounded, irrational and counter-scientific beliefs were the foundation for political, legal and social interaction. Science, what little of it there was, and medicine were also subjugated and contradicted by these foul-conceived notions. Royal/political scandals continued to emerge and chip away at the concept of the divine basis and status of rule. Scientific recoveries of ancient knowledge in western Europe, threw long-held beliefs and practices into mockery, from which they could never emerge. This and other factors turned people away from religion, and, predictably, especially considering the circumstances, it worked.
Why shouldn’t it have? Science is better in direction and potential than fairytale. A person, or people, will walk more successfully towards the future by seeing with their own eyes, rather than blindly, with misconceived notions of what surrounds them.
Islam- my Sisters, Brothers and Elders- is not like the religions other nations have left behind. Islam is not based on superstition. Science is consistent with it and we use scientific principles to learn and apply it. Anyone with a Qur-an can read over the scientific signs that it points to and explains, and afterwards go personally and objectively observe them. If they are not filled with faith, they’ll at least be impressed or amazed. The social and legal code of Islam, not to mention it’s hygienic and dietary stipulations, upgrade the way of life of yesterday and today. Through its code, people are enabled to update their cultures and avoid their pitfalls, while keeping their identity and pride intact. The diplomacy, international and inter-religious code of conduct has the potential to soothe the world’s growing rage. In Islam is provided a framework of inquiry, deduction, and conclusion that enables- and encourages- Muslims to benefit from the world, while safeguarding themselves from its evils.
Reason, logic and science and human advancement are integral to Islam. At the same time, it is not bound by them. It surpasses them by incorporating them into a holistic worldview and lifestyle. Science, logic and reason are made use of in the Qur-an to appeal to people’s higher instincts, and the message is just as real and relevant now, over a thousand years after its revelation. Secularism freed many parts of the world to their senses, but it also bound them to their senses. Without the anchor of guidance, we can reason ourselves in and out of anything. If you look around, you will see how secular societies and governments are using rational arguments, logic and science to lead ourselves into social, economic and environmental destruction.
What do Muslims really stand to benefit from that?
If you think and read deeply, you will recognize that it isn’t Islam that Muslims are seeking to abandon. Many Muslims wake up every day to a stagnant, backward, shackled reality. Culture, superstition, and tyranny have taken root and grown dominant in the Muslim-world. People have ignorantly or cunningly instituted practices and agendas that contradict or even negate Islam. For all the lofty ideals implied by our title- Muslim- we are living with too few of Islam’s benefits.
Secularism is the abandonment of ignorance, unquestioned tradition, and thoughtless action. It is the effort to replace them with information, rational principles, and science-verified processes. Islam goes even further than that by adding knowledge and wisdom, exceptional morals and values, and a complete, coherent lifestyle.
The “West” revived their societies through Renaissance, or ‘rebirth’ of old knowledge and sciences (much of which was transmitted to them by Muslims, by the way). Muslim populations did that a long time ago, but have admittedly come full circle. So we don’t need to try something different that we already see not working in societies around us. We need to repeat the process of self-purification and dedication to revelation that is a proven success.
If you’re still not ready to consider the Islam side of the coin, take a look at what secularism has already “achieved”:
Consider the monstrosities of depleted uranium and other chemical warfare, weapons of mass destruction, pollution, and global warming, all examples of the imbalance of pure science that lacks a stable moral basis.
Look at and ponder the suicide, rape, murder and drug addiction figures of the “First World”
As the seat of the Khilafah (“Caliphate”/“Ottoman Empire), Turkey once brought Europe to its knees. Now secular Turkey is on its knees begging to join the European Union.
The huge secular Arab regimes surrounding Israel all failed in their attempts to protect the rights and lands of their Christian and Muslim brethren.
What prosperity and upliftment have the secular governments of North Africa brought to their people? They are actually in worse condition than they were during the Khilafah. In the Khilafah, Syria had gold in its treasury. Now it has paper currency.
Muslims have the same standard of living as the people they live around, if not other places in the world.
Now ask yourself, are you comparing Muslim-majority Senegal to secular France, for example, or are you comparing West Africa to Western Europe? If you look at the world by region, you will find that Muslim-majority nations are basically at the same standard as the countries that they are around. The issues are not Islamic, they are regional. To take the West Africa example again, Muslim-majority Senegal is not much better or worse off than its non-Muslim neighbors. The same goes wherever you look. No Asian or African country can be compared to the “West” regardless of the religion of its inhabitants, with very few exceptions. Different parts of the world are at different standards of living. Islam is not to blame. It isn’t even a factor.
Well there is one exception. Muslims living in “Western” countries often enjoy higher rates of income and education. It would seem then, that Islam is an advantage.
The calculus behind the call for secularism goes like this:
Given: We are Muslims.
Given: We are facing problems.
Conclusion: We are facing problems because we are Muslims.
This line of thinking- and I admit to have oversimplified it- is an affront to the same logic that we claim to want to implement. We are not only Muslims. We are a lot of things. We are also Africans, Americans, Australians, and Eurasians. How come we don’t look to that as a cause? How come we don’t look at our traditions and culture and see if the cause is there? Why are our own personal and collective shortcomings held beyond suspicion?
Mustafa Kemal joined European colonialists in banning Muslims from using Arabic-based scripts.
Speaking of suspicion, don’t you find it suspicious that with all the identities we carry, we only isolate Islam as the cause of our problems? On the one hand, many of use admit to ourselves that we are Muslim in name only, but on the other hand, we blame the same Islam we admit is absent from our lives as the cause of the problems in our lives? Where does this come from?
Final thought: secularists within Muslim-majority countries often have the same agenda as kaafir colonialists. Russia banned the Arabic-based script in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, etc.) and forced them to use their Cyrillic script. England banned the Arabic-based script used in East Africa (Swahili), Malaysia, and Indonesia (along with the Dutch) at least. What did Mustafa Kemal “Ataturk” do? Ban the Arabic-based Ottoman script in favor of the Roman alphabet. Coincidence? England, via Lawrence of Arabia, stoked feelings of Arab ethnocentrism and Arab nationalism to weaken the Ottoman Empire which united much of the Muslim world. Later, what was the sentiment common to the countries that were carved out of the Ottoman Empire? Secular nationalism. Coincidence? And to this day, liberal secular regimes get anything they want, from weapons to NATO invasions to media cover, from the same countries that used to colonize them. Coincidence?
Before I answer, I want to ask you a question: Don’t you hate when you ask something and people don’t give you a straight answer?
Now here are the answers: I don’t have the answers.
I am only a seeker. You can come along, but don’t follow me.
I sit with knowledgeable people, I listen to lectures, I travel the world and read widely. I don’t consider my opinions to be binding, anymore than I take others to be so when I have a reason not to. In Part I, I’m going to summarize the sources of the shariah/sharee’a, and offer a definition. In Part II, I’m going to summarize what those sources say about sexuality and gender. Then, in Part III, I’ll offer my personal commentary.
He told me he is often asked who his shuyuukh (teachers) are. He said he answers with the name of his teachers from this school and that, but he always includes a drug addict. He had given a talk once in Egypt about Islaam, and afterwards he was approached by a drug addict with tears in his eyes who said, “The way you talk about Islaam, it is as if it is in the clouds. But what about us? You didn’t say anything for us?” That man, who brought his mentality back down from the clouds, is the only teacher he described in detail, because, after everything, he was the one who made his Islaam real.
I go to Jumu’a (Friday) prayers and watch the imaam read badly from a paper with a government stamp. With the fancy, old-fashioned árabic, all in the 3rd person, I wonder “Who is he talking to?” It’s always ‘it’, ‘this’, etc., never ‘I’ or ‘you’, as if the listeners, and even the speaker, aren’t really there.
I talk to Islamic Studies students who sound confused to everyone but themselves.
I talk to Talaabu-l’Ilm (students of knowledge) and hear and read the statements of ‘ulamaa. Sometimes I cringe at how out of touch they seem with reality, especially at the ones who were not that way before they studied.
I read books that compare Islamic ideals to “Western” realities, as if people are going to look around and actually see them.
This isn’t for me.
I’m real.
Islam is real.
We are here.
Islam is simple because it is wise. It is wise because it is simple. It starts and ends with laa ilaaha illa-llaah, Muhammadu-rRasuulu-llaah, there is no god but Allaah, Muhammad is Allaah’s Messenger, sA’aws.
Those who question Allaah’s existence may add these to their questions:
“ Is it that their faculties of understanding urge them to this, or are they but a people transgressing beyond bounds?
Or do they say: He has forged it. Nay! they do not believe.
Then let them produce speech the like thereof, if they are truthful.
Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.
Or have they the treasures of your Lord with them? Or have they been set in absolute authority?
(Qur-aan 52.32-7)
There being no god but Allaah goes far beyond worship. It implies authority and judgment, as indicated in Suuratu-lKahf (Qur-aan 18): 26: “…and he does not make anyone a partner in his ‘hukm’ (sovereignty, judgement)” http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/018-qmt.php
Allaah alone is the rightful lawgiver. All authority is his alone. Law is inseparable from life. The life and the law are Islam. “Verily the only acceptable deen to Allaah is Islaam.” (Qur-aan 3.19). The only acceptable law and lifestyle is Islaam, entrusting one’s wellbeing wholly to Allaah. Mixing another life or law with it, religious or legal syncretism, is giving others a share in his sovereignty.
Muhammad, as his Messenger, did more than teach rituals. He came to establish Allaah’s right on this earth. This lengthy passage illustrates the point:
“They say, “We believe in Allah and in the messenger, and we obey”: but even after that, some of them turn away: they are not (really) Believers. When they are summoned to Allah and His messenger, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline. But if the right is on their side, they come to him with all submission. Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? or do they doubt, or are they in fear, that Allah and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? Nay, it is they themselves who do wrong. The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, “We hear and we obey”: it is such as these that will prosper. He who obeyeth Allah and His messenger, and feareth Allah, and keepeth duty (unto Him): such indeed are the victorious. They swear their strongest oaths by Allah that, if only thou wouldst command them, they would leave (their homes). Say: “Swear ye not; Obedience is (more) reasonable; verily, Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do.” Say: “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message). Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion – the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: ‘They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. ‘If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked. So establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and obey the Messenger; that ye may receive mercy. Never think thou that the Unbelievers are going to frustrate (Allah’s Plan) on earth: their abode is the Fire,- and it is indeed an evil refuge!”
Qur-aan 24.47-57 http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/024-qmt.php
This establishes, in my mind, Allaah and Rasuulu-llaah as the sole legitimate sources of law (Deen, sharee’a, fiqh, etc.). Importantly- and no redundancy intended- it negates everything else.
These sources include:
1) Allaah’s word
A) the Qur-aan
As for the Qur-aan’s validity, that is dealt with here: “And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. And if ye do it not – and ye can never do it – then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.” (Qur-aan 2.23-4)
B) Ahadeeth Qudsi- Allaah’s direct statements not included in the Qur-aan, but narrated by Muhammad)
2) Allaah’s Creation- He insistently refers to His Creation as his aayaat, which is the same word used to refer to verses of the Qur-aan. Therefore, we are required to have sound knowledge of it (science, history, etc.)
- “And on the Earth there are Signs for those who are certain, and also in your selves; will you not then see?” (Qur-aan 52.20-1)
- “And he hath constrained the night and the day and the sun and the moon to be of service unto you, and the stars are made subservient by His command. Lo! herein indeed are portents for people who have sense. And whatsoever He hath created for you in the earth of divers hues, lo! therein is indeed a portent for people who take heed.” (Qur-aan 16.12-3)
3) The actions of Muhammad, as reported by his companions and later recorded.
“Verily you have, in the Messenger, an excellent example…” (Qur-aan 33.21)
4) The statements of Muhammad, as reported by his companions and later recorded
“nor does he speak out of his desire.” (Qur-aan 53.3)
5) The permissions or prohibitions of Muhammad, as reported by his companions and later recorded
“Whoever obeys the (Prophetic) Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah; and whoever turns away, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.” (Qur-aan 4:80)
“and whatever the (Prophetic) Messenger gives you, take it and whatever he forbids you, abstain (from it), and be in reverential awe of Allah; surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil)”. (59:7)
6) The things about which Muhammad was silent when they were brought to his attention, as reported by his companions and later recorded
There are entire sciences devoted to the narrations of (3-6), dedicated to determining authenticity, checking the credibility of the narrators, choosing what takes precedence over what and methods of reconciling seeming contradictions.
Importantly, Number (3) authorizes the following as a source of law:
7) The Khulafaa (Caliphs)
This is established by the following statements, among other sources: “I advise you to fear Allaah, and to listen and obey, even if (the ruler is) an Ethiopian slave. Whosoever among you lives long after me will see a lot of differences and disagreements. Therefore, follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Khaleefah (Caliphs) who are divinely guided (al-mahdiyeen) and are rightly guided (al-raashideen). Adhere to IT and cling stubbornly to IT. Beware of the innovations in the (religious) affairs, for every innovation is a Bid’ah, and every Bid’ah is misguidance.” (al-Albaanee (d. 1420 H) Irwaa al-Ghaleel, vol. 8, p. 107, #2455)
Most Muslims consider this to be Abuu Bakr, ‘Umr, ‘Uthmaan, and ‘Alii, due to the following hadeeth:
“The Khilaafa (Caliphate) of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.” (Bukhari, Book 40, Number 4629)
I have personally been convinced that it would have to also include Hasan (ibn Ali) as well at least.
Shee’a also believe that the Khulafaa (Caliphs) are a source of Deen, but differ over their identity: “Narrated Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree: Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said: “I have left among you that which if you hold fast to it you will NEVER go astray after me: the two weighty things (al-thaqalayn). One of them is greater than the other: the Book of Allaah, a rope stretching from the heaven to the earth, AND my ‘itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, both shall NEVER separate until they return to me at the Lake-font.” ( Imaam AHmad, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat al-Qurtuba) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaoot], vol. 3, p. 59, #11578)
“Narrated Masrooq: We were sitting with ‘Abd Allaah bin Mas’ood and he was reciting the Qur’aan to us. Then a man said to him: “O Aboo ‘Abd al-RaHmaan! Did you (Sahaabah) ask Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, the number of Khaleefahs that will rule this Ummah?” ‘Abd Allaah bin Mas’ood replied: “None before you has ever asked me concerning this since I arrived Iraaq. Verily, we asked Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, and he said: ‘Twelve, like the captains of Banoo Israaeel.” (Imaam Ahmad, Musnad (Egypt: Muasassat al-Qurtubah), vol. 1, p. p. 398, #3781 and p. 406, # 3859)
“My Ummah (people) will not unite upon error.” (atTirmidhee and Haakim – Sahiih)
9) Ijtihaad: the striving for a correct ruling.
Scholars narrate a hadith that the Prophet (S), while sending Mu’adh to Yemen, asked him as to on what he would base his judgement. “In accordance with the Book of Allah”, replied Mu’adh, “But what if you don’t find it there?” inquired the Prophet (S). “According to the Sunnah of the Apostle of Allah”, replied Mu’adh. “But what if you don’t find it there too?” asked the Prophet (S) again. ‘I will exert my own opinion’, replied Mu’adh.
Ijtihaad, in turn, either is, or involves:
10) Qiyaas: literally ‘measurement’, or taking into account similar cases, and deriving rulings.
In Ijtihaad and Qiyaas, some scholars take into account:
11) ‘Urf, or custom, as an issue’s relative function or meaning may have some role on its legality. For example, while a ponytail is permissible for men, in a place where ponytails are strictly associated with a certain religion, or with females, they may fall under the prohibitions against imitating non-Muslims or imitating women (see Part II).
Ijtihaad involves other mechanisms, like taqleed, etc., but these are very nuanced so we won’t discuss them here.
Some Muslims only consider the Qur-aan to be valid. But as you can see, the Qur-aan necessitates the authority of all the others.
The majority of Muslims consider all of these to be valid or at least eligible sources of Deen, with a key difference being that Shee’a consider the Khulafaa to mean Imaams from ahlu-lBayt (The House of Muhammad, and specifically not Abuu Bakr, ‘Umar or ‘Uthmaan), and there are Tareeqas (orders) add their shaykhs in the Khulafaa. Ibaadi Muslims (prominent in Oman and small pockets of Africa) generally choose their Imam (political & religious leader) by giving a pledge, but I am not clear who they see as having legitimate theological authority beyond the Qur-aan and Sunna.
(8) Ijma’/Consensus, is hard to define. Does it mean unanimity or majority, and how is such a thing to be ascertained? Does it mean every Muslim, or only certain ones? There is debate about this, but I won’t go into it here.
(9-11) are essential due to issues on which (1-7) are silent, ambiguous, or seemingly contradictory.
It is important to note that there can be more than one right “answer” in sharee’a:
“The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to his Companions on the day of [the expedition to] Banu Quraydhah: “Let none of you pray ‘Asr except when you reach Bonu Quraydhah.” So the time for the ‘Asr Prayer came during the journey, so one group amongst them said: We will not pray until we reach Banu Quraydhah; so they missed the actual time for ‘Asr. The other group said: We will not miss it by delaying the Prayer; so they prayed along the way. And the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not criticise any of the two groups.” (al-Bukhaaree and Muslim)
Prophet Muhammad said “when a judge judges and strives and is correct, then he has two rewards. If he judges and strives and errs, then he has a single reward.”
Importantly, scholars CAN be mistaken. They should know it. Even if they don’t we sure should. They could be right, but only within their knowledge, from which vital information on a matter may be absent. He or she may or may not be at fault for this, but WE would definitely be at fault for doing anything about the fact that we know better.
As you can see, sharee’a is far more than a list of “Do’s & Don’ts”. Some Muslims mistakenly see it that way.
Nor is there any indication that Deen (Sharee’a (the right way), or fiqh (understanding, jurisprudence) would calcify or petrify at some point, after which nothing new or different can emerge. Some Muslims mistakenly see it that way.
Rather, it is a foundation, a set of precepts and methodological principles (ways of thinking) upon which we can, and MUST build. It is not the whole of the law. It is more like an inviolable constitution, with which all laws must be consistent.
Everyone nation considers its constitution inviolable.
In keeping with the example of the constitution, not everyone is qualified to interpret it. And even the laws (in this case fataawaa (fatwas, edicts)) established by those considered qualified are invalidated if they are found to be inconsistent.
There is nothing peculiar about this.
Islaam does not petrify, but rather defines the intellectual processes circumstances necessitate. It is not rules and regulations so much as the rule of revelation. Everything refers back to Allaah. “And is Allaah not the best of the Judges?” (Qur-aan 95.8) http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/095-qmt.php
Some people look at it like a place that we always have to be. I see it as beacon that shows us where we are no matter where we go. ”Allaah is the Light of the heavens and Earth.” (Qur-aan 24.35). The sharee’a, and indeed Islam, are simply, referring all matters to Allaah.
Before exploring what the Islamic sources say about gender and sexuality, what are gender and sexuality? Luckily for you, if not for me, I studied them at Columbia. Sex is biological- it’s basically what genitals you have. Gender is social- it’s how you or others identify you. Sexuality is sexual- it’s who, what, when, where, why and how you have sex, if at all. Here are a couple of charts to get you up to speed:
-
Sexual Orientation Chart
-
-
Now let us survey what the sources of sharee’a reveal about sexuality and gender:
(1) Allaah (a) The Qur-aan
- “We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: “Do ye commit abomination such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!” But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!” (Qur-aan 7.80-4, see also 11.77-83, 15.57-77, 26.170-5, 37.133-8, 51.31-7, 54.33-9)
- The believers have succeeded…and who guard their private parts, except from their spouses or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable. But those whoever seeks beyond that, then they are transgressors” (Qur-aan 23.1, 5-7)
- “And that He created pairs, the male and the female, from a drop (of seed) when it is lodged… (Qur-aan 53.45-6)
- “Does man think that he will be left aimless? Was he not a drop of sperm which gushed forth? Then he became a leech-like clot; then (Allaah) made and fashioned in due proportion. Then He made of him two kinds- the male and the female.” (Qur-aan 75.36-9)
- “…and the male is not like the female.” (Qur-aan 3.36)
- “Verily those who love that abomination should spread among the believers deserve a painful chastisement in the world and the Hereafter. Allaah knows, but you do not know. (Qur-aan 24.19)
- “…and do not throw yourselves, by your own hands, into destruction…” (Qur-aan 2.195)
- “…and do not kill one another…” (Qur-aan 4.29)
- “ Do not force your slave-girls into prostitution, when they themselves wish to remain honourable, in your quest for the short-term gains of this world, authough, if they are forced, God will be forgiving and merciful to them.” (Qur-aan 24.33- see discussion here.)
(b) Ahadeeth Qudsi- NO REFERENCES FOUND
(2) Allaah’s Creation (i.e. Scientific knowledge)
- Homosexuality was considered a clinical disorder until recently
When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered [raped] her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: “That [man] did such and such to me”. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: “That man did such and such to me”. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: “Yes, this is he”. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah.When he [the Prophet] was about to pass sentence, the man who [actually] had assaulted her stood up and said: “Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her”. He [the Prophet] said to her: “Go away, for Allah has forgiven you”. But he told the man some good words [Abu Dawud said: "meaning the man who was seized"], and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: “Stone him to death.” Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4366
(4) The statements of Muhammad
- “May Allah curse him who does that Lot’s people did.” (Ibn Hibban, sahih (authentic))
- “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.” (Tabarani, sahih)”
- “Allah curses men who imitate women and women who imitate men.” (Bukhari)
- “May Allah curse the effeminate man and the masculine woman.” (Bukhari)
- “Allah curses a woman who wears a men’s clothing and a man who wears a woman’s dress.” (Abu Dawud)
- “Never does indecency emerge within a people to the extent that they publicize it except plague and torments spread within them, the likes of which have not passed in their predecessors who have passed away.” (Ibn Majah, Baihaqi)
- “O Muhajirun, (emigrants from Makkah to al-Madinah) you may be afflicted by five things; God forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication should become widespread, you should realize that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forebears never suffered.” (Ibn Majah – Kitab Al-Fitan – Hadith 4019 – 2/1332 – cited in: Ibn Kathir – The Signs Before The Day Of Judgement – Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. 1991 – Pages 16-17)
- “Whenever unlawful sexual intercourse becomes widespread in a society – so much so that they start doing it in the open – plagues and various types of sicknesses will spread amongst them which weren’t present in previous generations.” (Classed as Sahih by Al-Hakim – Vol. 4)
-“…fornication does not spread in a people but that there is much death among them…” (Muwatta Malik, Book 21, Number 16)
(5) The commands or prohibitions of Muhammad
- “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets if be done to him.” (Tirmidhi, a sahih (authentic) hadith)
- “A man should not look at the private parts of another man, and a woman should not look at the private parts of another woman. A man should not lie with another man without wearing lower garment under one cover; and a woman should not be lie with another woman without wearing lower garment under one cover.” (Abu Dawood)
(6) Thethings about which Muhammad was silent when brought to his attention- NO REFERENCES FOUND
(7) The pattern of the Khulafaa - Abuu Bakr:It is narrated from Khaalid ibn al-Waleed that he found a man among one of the Arab tribes with whom men would have intercourse as with a woman. He wrote to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) and Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq consulted the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib had the strongest opinion of all of them, and he said: “No one did that but one of the nations, and you know what Allaah did to them. I think that he should be burned with fire.” So Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid and he had him burned. (ibnu-lQayyim, al-Jawaab al-Kaafi, p. 260-263) http://islamqa.info/en/ref/38622
- ‘Umr: NO REFERENCES FOUND
- ‘Uthmaan: NO REFERENCES FOUND
- ‘Alii: see Abuu Bakr
- Hasan ibn ‘Alii: NO REFERENCE FOUND
- Husayn ibn ‘Alii: NO REFERENCE FOUND
- ‘Umr ibn ‘Abdu-l’Azeez: NO REFERENCE FOUND
(8) Ijma’: Consensus of the Muslims
- “The Sahaabah were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed.” (Saleh al-Munajjid) http://islamqa.info/en/ref/38622
- “Those who favoured the first view, who are the majority of the ummah – and more than one scholar narrated that there was consensus among the Sahaabah on this point – said that there is no sin that brings worse consequences than homosexuality, and they are second only to the evil consequences of kufr, and they may be worse than the consequences of murder, as we shall see below in sha Allaah.” (ibnu-lQayyim, al-Jawaab al-Kaafi)http://islamqa.info/en/ref/38622
(9) Ijtihaad
- “Al-Shaafa’i, according to the well-known view of his madhhab, and Imam Ahmad according to the other report narrated from him, were of the view that the punishment for the homosexual should be the same as the punishment for the adulterer. Imam Abu Haneefah was of the view that the punishment for the homosexual should be less severe than the punishment for the adulterer, and it is a punishment to be determined by the judge (ta’zeer).” (ibnulQayyim, al-Jawaab al-Kaafi) http://islamqa.info/en/ref/38622
- There have been many, many scholars over the last 1400 millenia, so it would take a long time to give even a sampling.
(10 & 11) The Qiyaas and ‘Urf used in the Ijtihaad of the ‘ulamaa would be found in the fatwas of their Ijtihaad (see above)
In the matter of ‘Urf (customs), we all know that a diversity of sexual orientations and genders have been practiced and patternized in many places of the world throughout history. Additionally, violent hatred of homosexuals and genders besides male and female have also been common throughout history.
It’s not as simple as it seems. The first generation of Muslims alone found themselves in a plethora of socio-political situations, and the law was not always the same in all of them:
1) Oppressed minorities- Muslims in Makka
2) Recognized minorities- Muslim merchants, travelers, and missionaries
3) Protected minorities- Muslim refugees in Ethiopia
4) Autonomous minorities- Refugees/Helpers in Madina (in charter with Jews and pagan Arabs)
5) Recognized state- Treaty of Hudaybia with widely-known Quraysh
6) Defensive war- Badr
7) Offensive war- Conquest of Makka
8) Victorious army- Battle of Badr
9) Defeated army- Battle of Uhud
10) Ruling majority- after Conquest of Makka
These were all in Muhammad’s lifetime. After his death, his generation also found themselves in the following:
11) Civil War- Wars of Apostasy, War after assassination of ‘Uthmaan
12) Ruling Minority- Persia (Iran/Iraq), etc.
13) Oppressed majority
A) Ruled by dictators/dynasties hostile to Islam and/or Muslims- Yazeed
B) Colonized by non-Muslims- Mongol invasion
C) Republican governments hostile to Islamic law in sum or part
The last 2 are the only situations that came after the first generation of Muslims. Imagining a uniform set of rules for all of these situations is naive at best.
The proof for the evolution of the sharee’a according to the socio-political state of the Muslims is in the Qur-aan itself. Look at the three aayaat (verses) regarding intoxicants:
They ask you concerning intoxicants and gambling. Say: “In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit…” (Qur-aan 2.219)
This earlier revelation is a discouragement from alcohol, but not a prohibition. Coming directly from Allaah through his Messenger, though, makes it something someone seeking Allaah’s pleasure (which “sin” would not bring) would most likely stay away from.
“O People who Believe! Do not approach the prayer when you are intoxicated until you have the sense to understand what you say…” (Qur-aan 4.43)
This later revelation is a severe restriction, but not a prohibition. Considering the closeness in timings between prayers, especially in the shorter days of winter, and the fact that intoxication can last well into the next day, a believer would find him or herself able to intoxicate very little, and would probably avoid it altogether.
“Shaitân (Satan) wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allaah and from As-Salaat (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain?” (Qur-aan 5.91)
This finally prohibits intoxication, associating it with Shaitaan’s agenda, forgetfulness of Allaah, and abandonment of prayer.
The proof for the evolution of sharee’a according to the status of the people is in the following hadeeth:
From ‘Aa-isha:”…(Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: ‘Do not drink alcoholic drinks.’ people would have said, ‘We will never leave alcoholic drinks,’ and if there had been revealed, ‘Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, ‘they would have said, ‘We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.’… “(Bukhaari 61 (Virtues of the Qur-aan).515)
The wisdom behind it is essentially a democratic principle: once enough people ascribe to an ideology, they begin living by its principles. That isn’t to say that all laws retract (the prohibition of alcohol is clearly final, for example). Rather, the punishments associated with punishable acts are only valid in certain socio-political situations. Requirements and prohibitions are generally always in effect, but enforcement and punishment vary according to what is best for the people and their religion.
Any verse of Qur-aan, prophetic narration, or reference to companions of scholars above occurred in one or more of these situations, but certainly not all of them. Sometimes a source is specific to its situation, sometimes it is not. Therefore, simply picking out an aaya (verse) of the Qur-aan, a hadeeth, or a scholarly statement is not enough.
That said, here is my analysis and opinion of the sharee’a and sex, gender and sexuality.
-
1: Sex
It is clear from the proofs that Allaah is the sole Creator, and that he only created two sexes: male and female. There are only 2 physical sexes. The genetic disorders and birth defects that confuse what physical sex a person is are exceedingly rare, and even then the choice is only between male and female. Surgery or therapy are almost always enough to resolve these issues.
-
2: Gender
Allaah, the Creator, has only assigned two genders to the two sexes: physical males should live and act as males, and likewise for females. Sex and gender are inseparable. A male should not resemble a female in appearance, dress, or behavior, and a female should not resemble a male in appearance, dress or behavior. Violating this code is punishable (expulsion from the home), and I don’t see any stage of Islamic society in which this punishment is not valid.
Ruhollah Khomeini’s fatwaa allowing sex changes is not founded on any Islamic evidence. And it should be said that he was only recognized as a religious authority by some Shi’a in Iran, and not everyone in Iran is Shi’a.
-
3: Sexuality
The sexual act is only allowed between males and females. Females cannot have sex with females. Males cannot have sex with males. Anal sex is an abomination. Science has shown it to be a disease-prone activity, and this is only one of the wisdoms (for lack of better word) behind the prohibition. Homosexual sex is punishable. I have not seen whether four credible witnesses to the actual sexual act are required, as with fornication and adultery (zina), or not. The punishment is obviously harsh, but the diseases and social disorder (lack of people to marry, which induces more homosexuality, fornication and zina, etc.) that unchecked homosexuality brings to a society is much worse. Therefore, the sharee’a objectives of protecting life, religion, property, lineage and honor are more important than a person’s desires.
Some people argue that the Qur-aan is not explicit about homosexuality, lesbianism, anal sex, etc. Even so, the Qur-aan authorizes Muhammad, and Muhammad’s ahaadeeth are explicit. Even if they do not accept this, homosexual sex is clearly associated with deadly, debilitating and disfiguring diseases that can affect innocent people. So it would still fall under the prohibitions of destructive and deadly behavior.
Some may argue that homosexuals do not all carry and/or spread diseases. This is obviously true, but it does not negate Allaah’s right as sovereign.
As for punishing homosexuality, until Muslims have established the word of Allaah as the basis of law, the punishment is not in effect and people are left to their conscience (taqwaa). In these stages, the task of the Muslims is to establish Allaah’s word as uppermost through da’wa (invitation to Islaam), commanding good and forbidding evil by example, hijra and/or jihaad.
That is the sexual act. As for sexual attraction, not even Allaah judges a person by what they feel like doing. Only intentions and actions are taken into account:
“It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: Allah, the Great and Glorious, said: Whenever my bondsman intends to do good, but does not do it, I write one good act for him, but if he puts it into practice I wrote from ten to seven hundred good deeds in favour of him. When he intends to commit an evil, but does not actually do it, do not record it. But if he does it, I write only one evil.” (Muslim I.60.233)
So feeling inclined to do wrong is never even taken into account. In fact, intending to do wrong doesn’t even count, to Allaah. Some people are tempted to steal or take advantage of others. Others may have temper problems. Others may feel like or intend to murder. Some battle with drug or alcohol addiction. But the inclination, the desire, the weakness, is not wrong. Only the act that is wrong. So a person, male or female, who desires the same sex is not to blame. It is only one of Allaah’s tests. If they do not indulge in this act, or imitate the opposite sex, then Allaah does not blame them.
If someone is raped by a homosexual, they are not to blame. If someone is forced into prostitution, they are also not to blame.
-
4. Living in gender/sexuality-plural situations
If someone is not born with the characteristics normally associated with their sex and gender (e.g. male with high voice, woman with deep voice or manly figure, etc.), then the people should not mock them, or backbite them, or be suspicious of them. If their gender is inappropriate, meaning if they behave or look in some ways like the opposite sex, then it is their guardians who should punish them, not the general public. If people think they are homosexual, bisexual or lesbian- even if they know it- they should be silent until their is proof and even then, punishments are to be carried out according to a legal process, if Islaam has been established as the law in that locality.
It is clear that crossing gender and homosexual sex are clearly never allowed. Neither is homophobia- persecuting or dehumanizing confirmed or suspected homosexuals:
-“O ye who believe! Let not some men among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former): Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed: And those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong. O ye who believe! Shun much suspicion; for lo! some suspicion is a crime. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Ye abhor that! And keep your duty (to Allah). Lo! Allah is Relenting, Merciful.”
(Qur-aan 49.11-2)
-”Why did they not produce four witnesses of it (fornication)? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah.” (Qur-aan 24.13)
-“When you received it with your tongues and spoke with your mouths what you had no knowledge of, and you deemed it an easy matter while with Allah it was grievous.” (Qur-aan 24.15)
-On the authority of Jundub (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) related:A man said: By Allah, Allah will not forgive So-and-so. At this Allah the Almighty said: Who is he who swears by Me that I will not forgive So-and-so? Verily I have forgiven So-and-so and have nullified your [own good] deeds (1) (or as he said [it]). A similar Hadith, which is given by Abu Dawud, indicates that the person referred to was a godly man whose previous good deeds were brought to nought through presuming to declare that Allah would not forgive someone’s bad deeds. (Hadeeth Qudsi, Muslim)
“…someone said to [a man], ‘May Allah disgrace you!’ On that the Prophet said, ‘Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.’ ” (Bukhari 8:768)
-
Conclusion (Finally!)
Islaam is not a religion: it is a deen (law and lifestyle). It is valid in every time and place, but it can only be applied with knowledge. Every Muslim, everywhere, should strive to know, check their sincerity, and perfect their actions.
“Are those who know equal to those who know not?” (Qur-aan 39.9)
“…so ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.” (Qur-aan 16.43, 21.7)
“The search of knowledge is an obligation laid on every Muslim.” (Ibn Majah, Baihaqi)
There is a lot to talk about regarding the spiritual side of modesty, so I’ll try to keep it brief.
1. Modesty is an expression for one’s love for Allah and seeking his forgiveness.
In the Quran, 3.31, Allah instructs the Prophet to tell us “If you love Allah then follow me and Allah will love you and forgive your sins.”
One of the greatest traits of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was his remarkable level of modesty. By following his example, we establish our love for Allah and open ourselves to receiving His love and forgiveness.
2. We draw nearer to Allah through ascending through levels of modesty.
When we talk about modesty, we must understand that there are levels.
A. There is the obligatory level, which is the most beloved to Allah, because all of the other levels build upon that level.
Allah says in a hadith Qudsi: “The most beloved thing to Me that a person can do to draw nearer to me is doing that which I have made obligatory upon him.” (Hadeeth Qudsi 25)
The obligatory level consists of being modest in public by concealing one’s ‘Awra (the legally-defined private areas of the body) and refraining from all forms of sexual deviance.
B. One higher level of modesty consists of being modest in private, in your own household with your family and even with yourself.
The Prophet’s modesty at home was at such a high level that, although they had healthy marital relationships, his wives didn’t look at his private parts. nor did he expose himself in such a way. This is narrated in a hadith of ‘Aisha: “I never looked at the Prophet’s private parts and never saw them.”
C. Then, the levels of modesty continue to strengthen until we become modest with the Jinn and the angels.
This modesty can strengthen so much that, as one scholar said, “the unseen will become like the seen,” such that you become so aware of the angels’ presence that it will be as if you see them plainly.
A person can become so conscious of his modesty with the angels that the angels will become shy of him! This is a level the companion Uthman b. ‘Affan reached.
The Prophet encourages us to observe this level of modesty in a hadith: The Prophet said, “Didn’t I forbid you from nakedness? Didn’t I forbid you from nakedness? There are beings [angels] that never leave you in the day or night, except when you are engaged with your spouse or when you are using the bathroom, so lo, be modest with them, and lo, be honorable with them.”
We are even advised to be modest with the jinn as well, even though we generally don’t see them. This is achieved by creating a spiritual veil between us and them when taking our clothes off by saying, “bismillah aladhi la ilaha illa hu”, as indicated in hadith. The translation of it is: “In the Name of whom there is no god other than Him.”
D. And finally, and most importantly, the highest level is being in a constant station of modesty with Allah at all times, even when we are asleep, and even in our dreams.
This level is affirmed in a hadith, when, one day, the Prophet told the people to cover their ‘Awrah (legally-defined private areas of the body) from everyone except their spouses, they asked, “what if we are alone, o Messenger?” He replied, ‘Allah is more deserving of your modesty than the people.”
3. The more modesty and shyness we have with Allah, the more shyness Allah will have with us.
He will refrain from punishing us because of this. We know this because the Prophet mentioned a man who was shy with Allah, and hence Allah was shy with him. And Allah’s shyness is manifested by saving us from his punishment and answering dua.
4. Hence, modesty and faith are linked.
As believers, we cannot increase our faith without increasing our modesty. If one increases the other increases.
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Modesty and faith are linked, if one of them increases the other will increase.”
Similarly, if our modesty decreases our faith will decrease. Hence the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Modesty and faith are linked, once one of them is taken away, the other will follow.”
Modesty is such an important part of Islam that Islam is almost defined by it. Hence, the hadith, “Every religion has a outstanding attribute, and the attribute of Islam is modesty.”
5. In light of this, it must be said that the hijab is only one part of the multi-dimentional state of modesty.
Moreover, hijab is only a partial, yet fundamental, part of the spiritual station of modesty. In a broad sense, modesty encompasses our speech, our eyes, our movements, even our thoughts, as well as our dress. Yet, we must note here that without practicing physical modesty, spiritual modesty can not increase. Hence, outward modesty is vital to one’s spiritual growth.
This is why the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Whoever doesn’t have modesty with Allah in public will not have modesty with Allah in private.”
And regarding the topic of the hijab, it is said that the Prophet said, “A woman that removes her veil outside of her home has removed the veil [of modesty] between her and Allah.”
6. Conclusion
So the hijab, in all of its components, is a vital part of a woman’s relationship with Allah. It serves as a doorway that leads to many spiritual openings and secrets. In fact, it plays such a profound role in a woman’s relationship with Allah that Allah explicitly mentions that the Virgin Mary’s adorning of the hijab was a prelude for the immediate arrival of Prophet Jesus, peace and blessings be upon them both:
Mary, Mother of Jesus (Maryam, Umm ‘Eesaa)
Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
She took up a Hijab (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God.”
He said: “Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
These are just some of the spiritual aspects of modesty. As with all spiritual stations, they can only truly be realized by experience. Words can’t do justice to these realities.
-
Wow! thank you so much for this much needed clarification! This is one of the best explanations of hijab that I have received since taking my shahadah. I now seek to increase my understanding of spiritual modesty. Allah knows best!
(Hadeeth references were not provided, but are familiar to the blogger.)
What are dreadlocks? Are they only for Rastafarians? Is it true that you can only grow them by never washing your hair?
Can Muslims wear their hair in locks?
This question is all over the internet. The answer focuses on four established sharee’a issues:
Appearance
Cleanliness
Combing & Unbraiding Hair
Imitating Other Religions
This post doesn’t claim to have the answers. All we’ve done here is present our research into the Qur-aan, ahaadeeth, and statements of the scholars. Your comments and contributions are welcome.
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Ata ibn Yasar told him that the Messenger of Allah (sAaws) was in the mosque when a man came in with dishevelled hair and beard. The Messenger of Allah motioned with his hand that he should be sent out to groom his hair and beard. The man did so and then returned. The Messenger of Allah said, “Isn’t this better than that one of you should come with his head dishevelled, as if he were a shaytan?” (Hadith Muwatta 51.7)
1. The dreadlocks of the past that many remember from the 70′s are those started by neglecting the hair. These are often unsanitary and can range from messy to downright scary. …
Organic Locks
The other two types are natural dreadlocks and chemically assisted dreadlocks. Both of these are started purposefully, either at home or in a salon. The real difference between the two is in the products chosen to create them.
2. Natural dreads are started without perming or processing the hair. The hair is usually combed backwards to start knots and then products can be used to create an environment that helps the knots tighten into attractive dreads.
3. Chemically assisted dreads are permed using a perming solution before or after the initial knots are created.
Both of these types of dreads are maintained regularly and the end goal is to have groomed, mature, dreadlocks.
Groomed Locks
Discussion
Al-Qãhırıï : So locks can be, and often are clean and orderly.
Umm Islaam: Although water can reach the scalp, dirt and debris for the most part will never come out of the lock. Many people who have kempt locks attest to the fact that dirt and debris are the very things that hold the lock together. Keeping dirt and debris in the hair is completely against the sunnah.
Al-Qãhırıï: It seems that residues prevent the hair from locking, rather than being essential to locking. Typical African hair types, and very curly hair types will lock even when completely clean with the help of gel and/or wax.
I actually have locks now. I can assure that the hair and scalp are very clean because I shampoo regularly, followed by an immediate, thorough drying. In my case, it is the hair texture, assisted by manual twisting, in the absence of dirt and debris, that causes the locking of the hair.
Umm Islaam: The hair will lock without debris? Firsthand info lol… But dirt and debris hold the hair moreso than if it is left without product. When I used to braid people’s hair with extensions, dirt and lint collected at the base of the braid, whether hair was added or if it was a client’s own hair. This caused the hair to be almost impossible to take out. In many cases it had to be cut out. But this isn’t the case for hair that is braided on its own without continually adding product.
Umm Islaam: The fact that the hair can’t be taken out to be combed- which is a sunna- is one reason why they have been called impermissible.
Research
Narrated Umm Salamah (rAa): I said: Messenger of Allah (sAaws), I am a woman who has closely plaited hair on my head; should I undo it for taking a bath, because of sexual intercourse? He (the Prophet) said: No, it is enough for you to throw three handfuls of water on your head and then pour water over yourself, and you shall be purified. (Saheeh Muslim)
Ibn Abbas (rAa) saw Abdullah ibn al-Harith (rAa) observing the prayer and (his hair) was plaited behind his head. He (Abdullah ibn Abbas) stood up and unfolded them. While going back (from the prayer) he met Ibn Abbas and said to him: why is it that you touched my head? He (Ibn Abbas) replied: (The man who observes prayer with plaited hair) is like one who prays with his hands tied behind. (Saheeh Muslim)
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mughaffal (rAa): The Apostle of Allah forbade combing the hair except every second day. (Sunan Abuu Dawuud)
I am looking for a fatwa on women having dreadlocks. Dreadlocks can be neat and clean. They can be wet daily for wudu and lathered with shampoo for ghusl, the parts are neat so that water can reach the scalp at all times. The only difference is that each lock cannot be combed out although they can be washed like unlocked strands of hair, so in essence each lock functions as a strait of hair. I am asking what the Islamic ruling on having them is, is it okay since I can wash them with water and shampoo after my menses or janaba, and what about at the time of my janaza (funeral) they can be washed then also, even though each lock is taken out and the locks can be braided into three braids.
Answer
In a situation of Wudu there is no need to unlock the dreads and blocks of hair. All that is required is that you wipe over the hairs of the dread locks. But in the case of Ghusul (process of purifying the entire body via a bath) from Janabah and Menses, the hairs need to be done and washed so that all of the hairs are completely wet and the water reached your skull. The same goes for Ghusl of Janaza (funeral). If these conditions can be met, then having dreadlocks is not Haram (a sin)”
- Dr. Yusuf Ziya Kavakci, Sunni Islamic lawyer- Turkiye, Libya and Saudi Arabia
Discussion
Al-Qãhırıï: Obviously, in regards to Ghusl, the hairs in a lock can become completely wet, as well as the scalp (I think the scholar intended “scalp” when he wrote “skull”).
IF locks are equal to braids, legally speaking, it would seem that a time-limit for how long once can wear braids would have to be established by the Qur-aan, Sunna, or ijtihaad of ulamaa. But I haven’t seen that:
locks are definitely equivalent to braids in the sharee’a, or that
there is a limit for how long braids can be worn.
I look forward to finding more definitive information on these two points, in shaa-a-llaah.
Umm Islaam: I don’t see locks as equal to braids. Braids CAN be taken loose without much difficulty, but it requires some time. Locks can NOT be taken out without much difficulty and more time, making it the case that most people who wear them do NOT take them out periodically.
Allaahu A’lam, but it seems like nail polish, which CAN be worn, (no prohibition from doing so) but it’s not likely that women will remove it 5 times a day in order to pray. The same with make-up in some cases.
And as far as sunnah is concerned, I’ve heard that Prophet Muhammad pbuh did not wear braids for that long. He wore them after putting a paste into his hair to keep it together. But it wasn’t meant as a hairstyle to my understanding, but instead because it was convenient for whatever he was doing at the time. Also they weren’t little braids all over: they were few braids & ALLAHU ALIM.
Umm Islam: The shuyukh said locks were impermissible because of being presented with evidence from the students of knowledge who asked that it is the hairstyle of the Rastafarians. Although in reality the hairstyle existed far before Rastafarians appeared on the scene.
One performs an action with the resolve to be like the non-Muslims, or
One performs an action that is directly linked to their religion or is uniquely from among their signs.
Therefore, to keep a hairstyle with the intention of being like the non-Muslims, or a hairstyle which is uniquely a distinguishing feature of them – such that an onlooker would consider you from among them – is impermissible.
However, to keep a hairstyle that is general and widespread, without it falling into “imitation”, is not interdicted.
—
Locks have existed long before the Rastafarians
“The first known examples of dreadlocks date back to East Africa and some parts of North Africa. Maasai men found in the regions of northern Tanzania and southern Kenya have been wearing dreadlocks for as long as they have survived. There hasn’t been official date of the “start” of Maasai dreadlocks, but it is a tradition that has been going on for thousands of years.”
“Baye Fall is a sub Sufi order from the Qadiriyya Sufi School. The Baye Fall Sufi movement was born in Senegal in the later 1800’s. The founder of the Baye Fall movement was Cheikh Ibrahima Fall. Cheikh Ibrahima taught his students that Islamic religious obligations were not enough to reform and sublimate ones soul. Instead one also needed to do work with in his community. It is from this tradition the Baye Fall have come to be known for their various communal endeavors such as groundnut and peanut cultivation as well as garment manufacturing. Generally the proceeds from these works go back into helping the community at large for which they serve. Another characteristic they are known for is their long Dread Locks which is called ndiange or ‘strong hair’ in the Wolof language. According to them ndiange symbolizes modesty and a conscious reservation from the material world. …
…It is important to note that while the Baye Fall have their roots in the later part of the 1800’s, the Rastafarian movement didn’t start to take shape until the 1930’s.”
—
Locks are not specific to any religion or ethnicity.
Al-Qãhırıï: In my obervation, locks are “general and widespread” these days. They are not seen as being particular to any religion, culture or ethnicity, as people of all walks of life have them..
Rastafari Insignia
Rastafarian (American Press)
Hindu Sadhu
As locks are not specific to a religious group or ethnicity, people don’t generally identify dreadlocks as belonging to one religion or ethnicity when they see them. It is a hairstyle.
Only when those locks are combined with religious insignia, such as pictures of the Lion of Judah, or Ras Tafari/Haile Selassie- in the case of Rastafarianism- or orange robes, nakedness, and certain face-paint- in the case of of sadhu Hinduisim- would they be taken as identifiers of a certain religion. So, it is really the clothes
and accessories, not the hair, which identifies one as a follower of this or that.
Obviously, if someone dons locks intending to imitate, that’s a different story, but that’s often not the case, as the research showed.
Umm Islaam: My thoughts are that because of the unique nature of black hair in its natural state that if locks are kept clean it would be nice to have that option as a hairstyle. But…. my opinion is obviously less than the people who know. So like you, until more info can be had from the senior scholars as to whether or not new info about locks makes the ruling on them different than what we already have I’ll have to take the evidence from the scholars and avoid telling people it’s allowed.
Al-Qãhırıï: I have read fataawaa from different ‘ulamaa’ about this matter, but I personally saw that they dealt with:
1. Unsightly hair, but many locks are well-groomed, and their attractiveness may be a question of culture,
2. Unclean hair, which can easily be avoided,
3. Combing, but I have yet to see an aaya, hadeeth, or fatwaa that necessitates combing as a part of tihaara (wuduu/ghusl), or in general, and/or
4. Unbraiding the hair, but locks have not been established as identical to braids in the sharee’a, and even then, I have not seen where unbraiding is a necessary element of tihaara (wuduu/ghusl) in the Qur-aan, ahaadeeth, or fataawaa.
So in my own personal investigation of daleel (evidence) and fataawaa (rulings), I don’t see how clean, kempt locks are impermissible. (I do see how unclean, unkempt locks are.) This is only what I’ve found. I don’t recommend taking my opinion as binding.
Umm Islaam: I suppose it falls under the ruling about doubtful things. And whoever guards against falling into doubtful things safegaurds their religion. May ALLAH guides us all o clarity.
al-Qãhırıï: Right, I may be (relatively or sufficiently) convinced about a given matter based on my own research of the Qur-aan, Sunna, and statements of ulamaa, but that only means I’m going to tell others to do the same thing: do their research, check their heart, and decide. I’m not going to tell them to be like me, though I gotta say: me works…
Here follows a discussion between “Brave Power”- a Buddhist male, “Hari”- a Muslim male, “Safety”- a Muslim female, and myself. It starts with an article about Islam, sexuality and Islam’s relevancy in the modern age. As usual there’s something to shock and intrigue everyone, but no voice is ever silenced.
Qahirii, every angle, every side…
_______
SAFETY: the threat within……………. may ALLAH rectify them and guide them back.
At first, the devout Muslims who gathered in a Washington, D.C., conference center seemed like they could have come from any mosque…
-
HARI: I would be interested to hear their arguments. Imam Malik said women could serve as judge – in any type of court. Abu Hanifa said they could too – but in civil, not criminal courts. The way we are told things have to be and not always the only way they could be.
-
SAFETY: Agreed on the last part of the statement, however in terms of what they are doing, women leading men/ women shoulder to foot with men/ and favorable reception of homosexuality as a norm doesn’t fit into the first part of the statement. truth is relative in some situations- Not these though. whatever their argument may be, it wont jive along side of sunni tradition/ sharia law. at best it’s a way liberal exceedance
-
BRAVE POWER: I am grateful for my gay friends, their partners, and their husbands and wives. They are good, ethical, generous people (though I am sure that there are others who are not.) They are solid members of out community who are as worthy of love, acceptance, and celebration as anyone. If a holy book instructs us to judge and revile a huge group of people who we have never met – it is time to question its validity and holiness. If tradition causes one to harm those who are harming no one, it is a tradition to be abandoned or replaces with a tradition of kindness. If a tradition cannot be questioned, it is just another form of oppression.
-
SAFETY:
Dr. Sherman Jackson responds to an audience question regarding Gay Muslims and homosexuality in Islam.
-
SAFETY: Brave Power, you wrongly assume that religious instruction as to the way’s certain aspect’s of life are carried out (by some ppl) instructs other ppl to leave off love and compassion. Not the case @ all…. also homosexuality isnt THE necessary aim of address here, in this particular article it’s homosexuality, mixed ranks, and a woman leading a mixed prayer. this article aside though, islam aims to address all of the behavioral short comings of mankind. the persuit of real success would have mankind bend himself to fit religion. and ask ones self candidly how much good there can be in a religion that bends to fit the whims of it’s followers? islam does address human need, but it can’t be confused with new wave norm/ everything goes ideology.that established, the point you’re arguing seems to be whether homosexuality is a behavioral short coming or not. for that matter the same questioning can be applied regarding strange men and women praying side by side and or being led by a female imam in mixed company, to which i’d say there will always be limit pushers, but that (i.e. limit pushing) doesn’t create a new standard. religion put’s an acountability on human behavior and condition in all aspects of life. public and personal. inner AND outer the same. the blueprint is no more in need of being laid. a working on the self is more in need so that the human being is malleable enough to adjust his/her actions according to what’s divinely expected of him/her. and again this standard addresses all aspects of the inner/ outer being. Not just homosexuality. lying, stealing, envy jealousy, greed, ect ect ect…. are also encompassed in this struggle to fix up the self.
-
BRAVE POWER: Safety, I am not certain that I understand all of your post. I seems that you take the position that one can simultaneously persecute, love, and have compassion for someone. Some fundamentalist Christians claim to love and have compassion for “confused” Muslims at the same time that they are willing to bomb them to get oil. I suspect that you do not believe their claims of love. Why is this different?You also seem to present the tired old false dichotomy that one must rigidly follow ancient religious texts OR act on whim (without wisdom) and accept that “anything goes”. How can intelligent people see this as the only choice? This is insulting to humankind, for it gives people no credit for ability to make wise choices without looking it up in a book. I also aspire to follow a blueprint found in texts that are millennia old. As with all such paths, it requires effort, discipline and wise behavior. This tradition has also been male-oriented because, like Islam, it arose at a time and in a culture that were that way. However, the founder of this tradition said that only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it. This is neither new age or implies that “anything goes”. It does allow me to see anti-homosexual prejudice for what it is – not “conducive to happiness”, “blameless”, or “praiseworthy”. Persecution of anyone – gays, blacks, Muslims, atheists (the list is huge) is not praised by the wise, but by the indoctrinated. And abandoning such behavior does not open the door for lying, stealing, jealousy and greed.
-
HARI: Safety, I am not disagreeing with you – but you know I was on an masjid executive committee years ago and quickly learned one thing- you have to be extremely cautious and defensive when speaking to the media, because they may print sonething totally against the spirit of what you meant, by choosing select comments without context – so I wonder if they are being represented accurately. And I am also curious how they came to the positions they have.
-
HARI: OK, I just read the article. This quote kinda says it all: “I think Shariah [law] is totally made up,” shot back Zonneveld. ” She either does not know our history or is just not that smart.
-
QAHIRII: We can argue back and forth about the acceptability of homosexuality, so let’s test both of these hypotheses:
Before you read further, make sure you’ve actually read the above links. At least browse them. It’s not what I want to believe, it’s what anyone can find online, from a variety of websites. This is science, well-sourced, well-researched biology, plain and simple.Whether we like it or not, homosexual SEX (not the identity or inclination), like other behaviors forbidden in Islam (adultery, fornication, promiscuity), exposes the individual, and the unsuspecting society, to physical harm. In fact, as the above cases indicate, such activities are the SOURCE of this harm. This is in keeping with the 1400-year-old prophecy that when promiscuity increased, we would see appearance of new diseases that never existed before. Modern science confirms this prophecy.So, if it is a question of tolerance, Islam does not judge a person for homosexual feelings, any more that it judges a person for the desire to steal, kill, commit fornication or commit adultery. A person cannot control what is in their heart, but they can control their actions. There is substantial material in the Qur-aan and ahaadeeth (prophetic narrations) dealing with the purification of the self and softening of the heart.In the case of forbidden sexual relations, whose effects are claiming millions of lives, orphaning children, infecting unsuspecting jilted spouses, victimizing innocent newborns and possibly being used as biological warfare, even still Islaam tolerates it. It is only the act which is so brazen, so shameless that four reliable people are witness to it, to the very act of penetration, that Islam does not tolerate. This is beyond the limit, a limit which must be upheld for corruption not to spread until it becomes a norm. This word, limits, in Arabic is “hudood”, often wrongly translated is punishment. There is indeed a punishment, a severe one, but no more severe, and in fact much less than the damaging effects of the activities it discourages.So homosexuality will never be a part of Islam. It is not a part of a guided way of life, nor of a peaceful way of life. But societies have taken such a turn that pleasure has become a way of life, and whole masses consider themselves enlightened, blind to the fact that they are grovelling slaves to gratification, a humiliating slavery that numbs the intellect, deadens the heart, and leave the soul susceptible to manipulation by whoever can control the means to pleasure. This lifestyle below even the instincts of animals, yet we consider it better because of the cave man’s logic that “newer is better”.“…But when there come unto you from Me a guidance, then whoso followeth My guidance, he will not go astray nor come to grief.
But whosoever turns away from My Reminder, verily for him is a life narrowed down…”
- Qur-aan 20.124-5
-
BRAVE POWER: Sexual promiscuity (as well as breast milk) is what transmits HIV. It (sexual promiscuity, not breast milk) is not wise in any group and is rejected by gays much as it is rejected by heterosexuals (check CDC data about promiscuity). You fail to mention that a huge proportion of all HIV-tainted relationships are heterosexual – many transmitted in heterosexual male-dominated cultures which vilify prostitutes and give the men who visit them a free ride. According to the World Health Organization, of the 34 million people with AIDS in 2010, over 20 million were women and children. Surely you’re not suggesting they got it from lesbians.One can only see HIV/AIDS as a “gay disease” by cherry-picking the statistics. It is just as wrong as saying that AIDS is a “black man’s disease”. The CDC data show that African Americans are more susceptible to HIV than other groups, and most of the world’s HIV transmission is by heterosexual men in Africa (UN data). How would you respond to having AIDS labeled a “black man’s disease”?What you say about the downsides of being “slaves to gratification” certainly has truth to it. But it is no different for gays than for anyone else. Why pick on gays when they in no way define the much larger problem? Does Islam reject wealthy people, too? If not, why not? Does Islam categorically reject people who play addicting video games, live in big houses, use air conditioning, and go shopping at the mall a bit too often? What about people who are addicted to their own self-concept of holiness – who are influential in their mosques (or other place of worship) but do not get the point?You are correct that there are many spiritual benefits of renunciation. However, renunciation is what a person chooses for himself/herself not what is chosen by someone else for him.
-
QAHIRII: Well I’ll never bite the hand that fed me knowledge.
-
BRAVE POWER: : ) You’re a good man, Qahirii. It’s OK when we do not agree.
-
QAHIRII: So please allow me to respectfully submit that I have mentioned promiscuity as one of the activities that is also banned in Islam. If the Islamic edicts regarding sex and intoxicants were upheld, then HIV/AIDS would not be infecting breastfeeding mothers, blood donors/recipients or any ethnic community. Further, going back to our original topic, there is significant research, of which I have presented only a sample, specifically linking certain diseases- and/or heightened risks to these diseases- to homosexual sexual activity.
As such, and as usual, the sharee’ah bans that which has a greater harm than benefit to individuals and communities. In the example of falling from a plane without a parachute, there will inevitably be someone who survives it. However, most people will die or be hurt, and there is little if any benefit to it. The same goes with smoking and alcohol. Similarly, while there are benefits we can debate, and exceptions that we can establish, fornication, adultery, homosexual sex, as well as other activities (including, as you wisely point out, inner states of being) are of a greater harm than benefit, to individuals and communities. So they are forbidden, but we, as commanded by Allaah, are not to go spying on or unduly suspecting each other. And while we continually strive to purify and uplift our selves and communities, we are free to enjoy the wide array of permissible alternatives, which are more numerous and plentiful than what is restricted to us.
-
HARI: I would be interested in any argument for accepting homosexuality as a legal practice from a sharia’ perspective – if any have heard of one, I would appreciate you posting a reference. I have never heard of one, but there is a chapter on the topic in a book I have – Ill take a look when I can.
But this is not the ‘peace’ of the “hippies”. Nor is this Peace the absence of war, conflict, or opposition. That is to say, it is not only these things. This Peace is As-Salaam: freedom from defect, harm, or deficiency. This Peace is freedom from ignorance, from filth, from foul intention, from immorality. As-Salaam, the Peace is the absence of all these things due to submission (‘Islaam) to ALLAAH, who is in fact AS-SALAAM.
ALLAAH Is THE PEACE. HE Is AS-SALAAM; this is 1 of HIS 99 Names. HE Is THE ONE free from all defects. HE Is free from all deficiency. ALLAAH, as such, Is the source of peace, to those of HIS Slaves who are dutiful through Al-‘Islaam.
Therefore, saying “As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum” is not a greeting. It is not the Arabic ‘hello’. It is an invocation (du’aa) to ALLAAH on behalf of the person being addressed. It is the best wish of those who are well-wishers.
When the Muslim tells their Brother or Sister “As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum” they are asking ALLAAH, The LORD of All Realms, to Protect, Bless, and Guide them, and to Bestow HIS Mercy and Forgiveness upon them.
When the Muslim tells their Sister or Brother “As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum”, they extend their respect towards them, “’Alaykum” is the plural form of “to you”, similar to the French “vous” & the Spanish “usted”. However, every Muslim refers to every other Muslim this way all the time, the dearly respected elder to the learned youth, the loving son to the beloved mother, and so on…
Interestingly, As-Salaam is also one of the titles of Heaven, known more commonly as Janna. For in Janna, there will be no lewd talk; our bodies will be perfected without mucus or waste, free from all the flaws we now face. GOD Willing (‘Inshaa’ALLAAH), when we arrive there we will be whole.
What then shall the addressee say in response to this marvelous salutation?
