The Red Scarf

A strange and interesting hadith about a red leather scarf and how that led a black girl to Islam:

Narrated 'Aisha: "There was a black slave girl belonging to an Arab tribe and they manumitted her but she remained with them. The slave girl said, 'Once one of their girls (of that tribe) came out wearing a red leather scarf decorated with precious stones. It fell from her or she placed it somewhere. A kite passed by that place, saw it lying there and mistaking it for a piece of meat, flew away with it. Those people searched for it but they did not find it. So they accused me of stealing it and started searching me and even searched my private parts.' The slave girl further said, 'By Allah! While I was standing (in that state) with those people, the same kite passed by them and dropped the red scarf and it fell amongst them. I told them, "This is what you accused me of and I was innocent and now this is it."' 'Aisha added: 'That slave girl came to Allah's Apostle and embraced Islam. She had a tent or a small room with a low roof in the mosque. Whenever she called on me, she had a talk with me and whenever she sat with me, she would recite the following: "The day of the scarf (band) was one of the wonders of our Lord, verily He rescued me from the disbelievers' town."' 'Aisha added: 'Once I asked her, "What is the matter with you? Whenever you sit with me, you always recite these poetic verses." On that she told me the whole story.'"
- Sahih Bukhari, Book 8, Number 430

Taqwa

Karmakin, on the About "magic underwear" diary, wrote:

A good example is our cultural use of "god-fearing" as meaning a upstanding individual. (Ugly term really if you think about it)...

Now my purpose in writing this essay is not to call Karmakin out, but to give my reasons as to why "God-fearing" is, at least to me, a beautiful term.

One of the problems with the English language is that, although it is an extremely flexible language, it occasionally suffers from a blurriness of expression. The classic example is that of "hot." For example, your friend is eating Mexican food and he or she says the food is "hot." "Hot hot or spicy hot?" you might ask. But if you spoke Bahasa Melayu, the Malay language, the friend would have originally said that the food was either panas (of a hot temperature) or padas (spicy hot). There would have been no linguistic confusion to begin with.

Arabic has a similar differentiation with regard to the word "fear." In Arabic, the word for what could be considered normal "fear," the "emotion caused by [an] actual or perceived danger or threat" (per Wiktionary), comes from the root خ و ف (khā wāw fā). The word for "fear" that comes from this root is "khawf." (The only other primary word that comes from this root that is used in the Qur'an is "threaten.") An example of a Qur'anic verse that uses "khawf" is 2:62:

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

The Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sabians and any others who meet the conditions listed in this verse would not fear the potential physical torment of hell because, insha'allah, they would be going to jannah (heaven) instead.

However, when the Qur'an talks about "fearing Allah (swt)," the root normally used is و ق ي (wāw qāf yā). The most prominent word that comes from this root is taqwa; however, the meaning of taqwa is somewhat more complex than simply "fear" in the sense of "extreme veneration or awe." According to the Quranic Arabic Corpus, a fantastic concordance of the Qur'an produced by the University of Leeds (UK), taqwa has a number of meanings, including "protect," "righteous" and "righteousness," "save," "piety," "God-conscious" and, of course, "fear."

But the word taqwa, even among Muslims, can be difficult to fully comprehend. A number of people over the centuries have tried to define or describe taqwa. Yusuf Ali (1872-1953), an Indian translator of the Qur'an into English, wrote that the fear with regard to the fear of Allah (swt) should be "the reverence which is akin to love, for it fears to do anything which is not pleasing to the object of love" (footnote 427 to verse 3:102).

Ali ibn Abi Talib (c. 598 - 661 CE), the fourth Caliph of the Muslim empire, defined taqwa as being "the fear of Jaleel (Allah), acting upon the tanzeel (Quran), being content with qaleel (little), and preparing for the day of raheel (journeying from this world)."

The Sufi Shaykh Hafiz Ghulam Habib (1904-1989) defined taqwa as "the shunning of everything and anything that causes a deficiency in one’s relationship with Allah."

However, the description I like the best comes from the following hadith:

Hadrat Umar ibn Khattab (R.A) once asked Hadrat Ibn Ka’ab (R.A) the definition of taqwa. In reply Hadrat Ibn Ka’ab asked, “Have you ever had to traverse a thorny path?” Hadrat Umar replied in the affirmative and Hadrat Ka’ab continued, “How do you do so?”

Hadrat Umar said that he would carefully walk through after first having collected all loose and flowing clothing in his hands so nothing gets caught in the thorns hence injuring him. Hadrat Ka’ab said, “This is the definition of taqwa, to protect oneself from sin through life’s dangerous journey so that one can successfully complete the journey unscathed by sin.”

So, for me, a God-fearing person is truly an upstanding individual. And there's nothing "ugly" about that.

When Giving Charity is the Right Thing to Do

Giving charity to the "wrong" person is still the right thing to do. Remember this hadith the next time you fear your saudaqah will be spent only on things like alcohol or cigarettes:

Abu Hurayrah reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: ‘A man expressed his intention to give charity, so he came out with charity and placed it in the hand of an adulteress. In the morning, the people were talking and saying: “Charity was given to an adulteress last night.” He (the giver of Sadaqa) said: “O Allah, to Thee be the praise – to an adulteress.” He then again expressed his intention to give charity; so he went out with the charity and placed it in the hand of a rich person. In the morning the people were talking and saying: “Charity was given to a rich person.” He (the giver of charity) said: “O Allah, to Thee be the praise – to a well-to-do person.” He then expressed his intention to give charity, so he went out with charity and placed it in the hand of a thief. In the morning, the people were talking and saying: “Charity was given to a thief.” So (one of the persons) said: “O Allah, to Thee be the praise (what a misfortune it is that charity has been given to) the adulteress, to a rich person, to a thief!” There came (the angel to him [the giver of charity]) and he was told: “Your charity has been accepted. As for the adulteress (the charity might become the means) whereby she might restrain herself from fornication. The rich man might perhaps learn a lesson and spend from what Allah has given him, and the thief might thereby refrain from committing theft.”’
-- Found in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

On Envy

Photo source.

Narrated Abu Hurayrah: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Avoid envy, for envy devours good deeds just as fire devours fuel or (he said) grass.'"
(Sunan Abu Dawud)

Salim narrated on the authority of his father (Ibn 'Umar) that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: "Envy is not justified but in case of two persons only: one who, having been given (knowledge of) the Qur'an by Allah, recites it during the night and day (and also acts upon it) and a man who, having been given wealth by God, spends it during the night and the day (for the welfare of others. seeking the pleasure of the Lord)."
(Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)

Cafeteria Muslim

This is the second post in a series on several questions asked by the husband of one of my readers. The first post was "Human-Made" Rules in Islam. This post will focus on the husband's next comment: "Some [rules in Islam] are not necessary in this modern world."

To which I would first say that much of the next-to-last paragraph in my previous post is just as applicable here as it was before:

All these men over the centuries - the scholars, jurists and imams - who created the rules that Muslims follow, the vast majority of them have significant credentials in terms of their ability to render a judgment. To which I would ask you, what are your qualifications? Why should I trust your judgment? What do you bring to the table?

Who are you to decide which rules in Islam are necessary today and which aren't? But rather than rehash previous arguments, let's move on to some other concerns. First, we cannot just pick and choose which parts of the Qur'an and of Islam we're willing to accept and which parts we want to reject. The Qur'an says in verse 3:7:

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

The Qur'an is an all-or-nothing proposition: take all of it or you might as well not take any of it. The whole of the Qur'an comes from Allah (swt); if a person is truly a Muslim, he or she will reject nothing of the Qur'an, not one verse, not one word! Muslims believe that the Qur'an is for all mankind and for all time. The human condition has not changed significantly enough to justify creating innovations (bid’ah) in Islam. In fact, bid’ah is to be avoided at all costs; the Prophet (pbuh) said,

So if anyone makes an innovation or accommodates an innovator, the curse of Allah, the angels, and all persons will fall upon him, and Allah will not accept any obligatory or supererogatory act as recompense from them. (Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud)

The Qur'an strongly chastised the Arab polytheists who created their own religious innovations. The Arabs had declared some foods to be halal when they were haram, and other foods haram when they were halal (see verses 6:40, 6: 138-39, 6:142-44, and 10:59). (The Arab polytheists then compounded the error by attributing the innovations to Allah (swt); that, at least, does not seem to be the case here.) But when the Qur'an says, This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (5:4), how can any Muslim possibly justify the notion that "Some [rules in Islam] are not necessary in this modern world"? Our religion has been perfected; there is no need for superfluous changes.

Modern society may be very different from Arabian society at the time of Muhammad (pbuh), but that does not justify the rejection of various rules within Islam that may seem inconvenient to the lifestyle you want to live. The most important thing one must do, if one truly desires to be a Muslim, is to embrace Islam to the fullest extent possible:

O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy. (2:208)

Whoever submits his whole self to God, and is a doer of good, has grasped indeed the most trustworthy hand-hold: and with God rests the End and Decision of (all) affairs. (31:22)

The best way to do that is to put aside egotistical wants and desires as much as possible and to strive to be a better Muslim. This is not easy, but it's the most important thing one can do for one's self. Remember, we all face the Day of Judgment.

To be continued, insha'allah.

Update: Several posts by other writers have come out recently that touch on the topic of this post, the false notion that "Some [rules in Islam] are not necessary in this modern world." Yursil in particular has written two very interesting posts about what he terms "Suburban Capitalist Islam," which is the notion that Islam is watered down through its use as a filter of Western culture:

The situation with Muslims today is that the West defines principles (inputs), and we get a culture out of it (western culture), and then Muslims attempt to filter the result through ‘Islam’. The problem with this approach is that Islam is not just a filter of culture. It contains within it the seeds of creating new culture. ... But if Islam remains a filter, that’s all we’ll ever get. A slightly adjusted version of a culture based on un-Islamic principles.

After reading Yursil's two posts (“Suburban Capitalist Islam” – List of Beliefs and “Suburban Capitalist Islam” – Islam is not a Filter of Western Culture) it seems to me that he and I are touching on a similar issue. In both of our posts, I think we are writing about the notion of Muslims modifying Islam to suit their secular lifestyle. Yursil's case seems to be less extreme than the situation I was presented with: in the American Islam he describes, the Muslims are not necessarily rejecting parts of the Qur'an or Islam, whereas the husband of my reader apparently is. Yursil's recommendation, to move away from Western (and Eastern) culture in favor of Islamic culture, is a step in the right direction.

I would also encourage my readers to check out Naeem's Scourge of Secular Capitalist Islam - Part 1, which was written as a response to Yursil's posts.

"Human-Made" Rules in Islam

Recently, one of my readers has asked me to answer some questions her husband has asked of her. Based on the questions she submitted and several other e-mails she has sent to me, her husband, a European convert to Islam, appears to be a lukewarm Muslim at best. (I do realize that I'm only hearing from one-half of this couple; in fact, this woman has asked me to meet her husband face-to-face, but my schedule in the evenings and on the weekends at this time makes such a meeting very difficult to arrange.) She has asked me, instead, if I would post my answers to her questions on my blog, so I'm going to address each question separately as time permits, insha'allah.

Here is her e-mail:

Here are among the questions my husband always ask me
1) He said some of the rules in Islam are actually human-made. Some are not necessary in this modern world. For instance: the hijab for ladies, abolution before prayers, prayers with the necessary standing rules.. (sometimes I adapt the prayer accordingly like when we were on traveling). Also the importance to eat halal food ( for him only pork is haram, but all others should be halal like chicken, meat eventho it is not slaughtered by muslim)

"He said some of the rules in Islam are actually human-made."

My answer: Of course; so what? My initial thought was, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) created a number of "rules" that we Muslims follow; he was a man, like us. Thus, yes, some of the rules in Islam were created by a man. "But," my wife says, "the Prophet (pbuh) was also guided directly by Allah (swt) and the angel Jibril; in that regard, he wasn't like other men." To which I most wholeheartedly agree. However, even if we set the Prophet (pbuh) aside as a special case (which, obviously, he was), many men - scholars, jurists, imams - over the centuries have defined and refined "the rules in Islam" (regardless of whether one classifies them under fiqh or shari'ah) that Muslims live under.

However, just because these rules are made by men doesn't invalidate them. There are several reasons for this. First, the vast majority of men who have created rules have done so based upon the guidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah. In order for any rule in Islam to be valid, there has to be justification for the rule; that justification almost always comes from the appropriate Qur'anic ayat and/or ahadith from the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah. Secondly, even though individual men may have different opinions regarding a specific issue, the rules Muslims follow are based upon a consensus (ijma) of opinions. Extreme opinions are noted but rejected in favor of the majority opinion; likewise, as the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, "My community will never agree upon an error." So a human-made rule in Islam is not necessarily invalid simply because it came from a man or men.

Two other points I'd like to raise: All these men over the centuries - the scholars, jurists and imams - who created the rules that Muslims follow, the vast majority of them have significant credentials in terms of their ability to render a judgment. To which I would ask you, what are your qualifications? Why should I trust your judgment? What do you bring to the table?

And secondly, don't you see the hypocrisy inherent in your own statement? You apparently think that something is wrong if the rules in Islam are human-made, but then you go ahead and make up your own rules! Ridiculous!

To be continued, insha'allah.

The Thorn

Photo Source.

Whatever hardship a Muslim faces - even if it as minor as the prick of a thorn - Allah (swt) makes it an atonement for his sins. (Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, and Malik's Muwatta)

On Zakat

The following is a comment I wrote at Street Prophets in response to a diary on voluntary vs. "forced" charity:

In Islam there is a difference between voluntary charity and what I would call obligatory charity (as opposed to "forced"). Voluntary charity is either known as sadaqa (alms) or infaq fi sabilillah (spending in the service of Allah (swt)), whereas obligatory charity is zakat, the third of the five pillars. For most Muslims, the thought of not paying zakat is looked on with distaste because the voluntary nonpayment of zakat when one is obligated to and has the means to do so is tantamount to disbelief. Likewise, in the past, zakat was equivalent to a national tax, obligatory on all Muslim subjects of the realm, so the classical notion of zakat vs. modern income taxes is not that far off.

The thing is, Muslims were and are encouraged to pay both the obligatory and voluntary charities. It's not a question of suggesting that voluntary charity is good, obligatory charity is bad. Both are good. Paying zakat is not only for the benefit of the poor and others who are eligible to receive the money, it's actually as much for the benefit of the payer's soul. Zakat literally means "purification and growth" because the payment of zakat leads to both the purification and growth of one's soul. The act of giving zakat helps to dampen the soul's love and lust for material wealth. A hadith from Tirmidhi's collection has the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) saying:

The trial for my ummah is wealth.

By paying zakat we both fulfill our obligation upon the rights of men (just as prayer fulfills our obligation upon the rights of Allah (swt)) and increase our concern for our fellow man.

Ramadan Reminders

The following came from the Surah Yasin group at Facebook. This is a very nice set of reminders for us Muslims to act upon as we enter the final days of this month of Ramadan:

Rasullulah (pbuh) said, "The dua of a fasting person is not rejected" (Bayhaqi).

He also stated, "The dua of a fasting person at the time of Iftaar is accepted." (Abu Dawood).

Rasullulah (pbuh) said, "Do four things abundantly, two to please your Lord, and two you need for yourselves.

"Things to please your lord:

1. Say La illaha ill Allah abundantly
2. Do Istigfar (seek repentance)

"Things you need for yourself:

1. Ask Allah for Jannah (heaven)
2. Ask Allah to protect you from Janhannam (hell)"

Many individuals see no benefit in asking for the protection from Jahannam if they already ask for Jannah. It is our aqeeda (creed) and belief that an individual may have to spend time in Jahannam in order to be purified from his sins so he may enter Jannah. Jannah is pure and only the pure are allowed to enter.

There is a hadith narrated by Rajab al-Hambali's in Lata'if al-Ma'arif: "A person who does dhikr (the remembrance of Allah (swt)) during Ramadan is forgiven. And a person who asks Allah (swt) in Ramadan will not fail [Allah will give him what he wants]." Therefore do as much dhikr as one can.

Reference:
Shaykh Abdur Raheem ibn Dawood Limbada

The Most Trustworthy Handhold

Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6068:

Qais b. 'Ubada reported: "I was in the company of some persons, amongst whom some were the Companions of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) in Medina, that there came a person whose face depicted the fear (of Allah). Some people said: 'He is a person from amongst the people of Paradise; he is a person from amongst the people of Paradise.' He observed two short rak'ahs of prayer and then went out. I followed him and he got into his house and I also got in and we began to converse with each other. And when he became familiar (with me) I said to Him: 'When you entered (the mosque) before (your entrance in the house) a person said so and so (that you are amongst the people of Paradise),' whereupon he said: 'It is not meet for anyone to say anything which he does not know. I shall (now) tell you why they (say) this. I saw a dream during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and narrated it to him. I seemed to be in a garden [he described its vastness, its rich fructification and its verdure]; in the midst of it, there stood an iron pillar, with its base in the earth and its summit in the sky: and upon its summit there was a handhold. It was said to me: "Climb up this (pillar)." I said to him (visitant in the dream): "I am unable to do it." Thereupon a helper came to me, and he (supported) me (by catching hold of my) garment from behind and thus helped me with his hand and so I climbed up till I was at the summit of the pillar, and grasped the handhold. It was said to me: "Hold it tightly." It was at this that I woke up when (the handhold) was in the grip) of my hand. I narrated it (the dream) to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), whereupon he said: "That garden implies al-Islam and that pillar implies the pillar of Islam. And that handhold is the firmest faith (as referred to in the Qur'an). And you will remain attached to Islam until you shall die."' And that man was 'Abdullah b. Salim."

What is Riba?

This post is primarily based upon a comment I wrote over at Jay Solomon's blog, The Zen of South Park:

This is one of the trickier questions in Islamic finance. As Jeffrey Harding pointed out in his recent article, The Money That Prays, the definition of riba is problematic, especially for non-Muslims:

After a long study of Islamic finance, the anthropologist Bill Maurer couldn’t settle on ‘interest’ as the perfect translation: it seemed clear at first but became streaky as he looked closer. ‘Usury’ is the obvious alternative, but are we to rely on the older sense of the term – any charge, however small, for the use of borrowed money – or on the way it’s understood today, as extortionate interest only? Wilson, a professor in the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham who is intrigued by ‘the influences of religious belief on economic behavior’, holds that riba is usury in the first sense. That’s the view of most practicing Muslims; it seems to echo the meaning of the word in Deuteronomy, where Moses instructs the people of Israel not to lend to their own kith and kin at a rate: ‘Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.’ Very close to ‘interest’ after all then. Yet if, like Melanie Phillips, you believe Islamic banking in the UK merely hastens the day when a green flag is raised over Westminster, it’s important to think of ‘usury’ in the later sense, in order to insist that Muslim law is either deluded or deceitful: ‘The whole issue of sharia finance,’ Phillips wrote last year, ‘is based on a fabrication . . . sharia does not proscribe interest. It proscribes usury.’

Phillips, a known Islamophobe, would obviously want riba to be "usury" in the modern sense, an excessive interest rate. However, Phillips is not an Islamic scholar by any stretch of the imagination. Riba, in my opinion, is any amount of interest, even one cent above the amount of principal. Consider the following ahadith:

Narrated Abu Salih Az-Zaiyat: I heard Abu Said Al-Khudri saying, "The selling of a Dinar for a Dinar [gold], and a Dirham for a Dirham [silver] (is permissible)." I said to him, "Ibn 'Abbas does not say the same." Abu Said replied, "I asked Ibn 'Abbas whether he had heard it from the Prophet s or seen it in the Holy Book. Ibn 'Abbas replied, "I do not claim that, and you know Allah's Apostle better than I, but Usama informed me that the Prophet had said, 'There is no riba (in money exchange) except when it is not done from hand to hand (i.e., when there is a delay in payment).' " (Bukhari: 3.34.386)

Abu Salih reported: I heard Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) said: Dinar (gold) for gold and dirham for dirham can be (exchanged) with equal for equal; but he who gives more or demands more in fact deals in interest. I sald to him: Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) says otherwise, whereupon he said: I met Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) and said: Do you see what you say; have you heard it from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), or found it in the Book of Allah, the Glorious and Majestic? He said: I did not hear it from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). and I did not find it in the Book of Allah (Glorious and Majestic), but Usama b. Zaid narrated it to me that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: There can be an element of interest in credit. (Muslim: 10.3876)

Ubaidullah b. Abu Yazid heard Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) as saying: Usama b. Zaid reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: There can be an element of interest in credit (when the payment is not equal). (Muslim: 10.3877)

Ibn 'Abbas; (Allah be pleased with them) reported on the authority of Usama b. Zaid Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as having said this: There is no element of interest when the money or commodity is exchanged hand to hand. (Muslim: 10.3878) [In other words, what is known as a spot transaction.]

What I find interesting is that riba applies even to material goods. Consider:

Abd Sa'id reported: Bilal (Allah be pleased with him) came with fine quality of dates. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: From where (you have brought them)? Bilal said: We had inferior quality of dates and I exchanged two sa's (of inferior quality) with one sa (of fine quality) as food for Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Woe! it is in fact usury; therefore, don't do that. But when you intend to buy dates (of superior quality), sell (the inferior quality) in a separate bargain and then buy (the superior quality). And in the hadith transmitted by Ibn Sahl there is no mention of" whereupon". (Muslim: 10.3871)

Narrated Abu Burda: When I came to Medina. I met Abdullah bin Salam. He said, "Will you come to me so that I may serve you with sawiq (i.e. powdered barley) and dates, and let you enter a (blessed) house that in which the Prophet entered?" Then he added, "You are In a country where the practice of riba (i.e. usury) is prevalent; so if somebody owes you something and he sends you a present of a load of chopped straw or a load of barley or a load of provender then do not take it, as it is riba." (Bukhari: 5.58.159)

In the first hadith, the excess quantity of dates traded (the inferior quality dates) was riba and therefore haram; even an equal trade of inferior for superior dates would be haram as the quality of the two sets of dates would not have been equal. Thus, a halal transaction is two sided, the sale of the inferior dates for cash first, the purchase of the superior dates for cash second.

The second hadith is even more interesting for how commonplace this custom is. "I owe you, and I'm repaying my debt to you, but let me also give you this gift to make up for the fact that I owed you the repayment (and maybe I was late in making payment)." Sound familiar? That's riba, too.

Shaitan as the Wolf

I came across this one hadith I was unfamiliar with, and found it of interest:

Transmitted Ahmad. Narrated Mu'adh bin Jabal (r.a.): "Allah's Messnger (s.a.w.) said: 'Verily Satan is the wolf of a man just as the wolf is (the enemy) of a flock. He seizes the solitary sheep going astray from the flock or going aside from the flock. So avoid the branching paths; it is essential for you to remain along with the community.'" (Mishkat [1/184])

The Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) warn us against the dangers of bida and internal division (forming sects and denominations). Those who complain that the "gates of ijtihad" need reopening should reconsider their beliefs. To continue the analogy of the hadith, it is better to be alive, even if one is a "herd animal," than dead, being feasted upon by Shaitan.

Wa Allahu 'alim.

The Hadith of the Whale

I was doing some research tonight on various foods that are halal, and came across some ahadith I was unfamiliar with. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had sent out a military expedition of three hundred men, led by Abu Ubaida, that came across a dead whale on a sea coast. While land animals that are already dead (maitah, not having been slaughtered) are haraam, animals from the water that happen to be dead are still considered halal. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said of the sea, "Its water is pure and its dead are permissible." Below is the most complete of the three ahadith:

Sahih Muslim, Book 021, Number 4756:

Jabir reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) sent us (on an expedition) and appointed Abu 'Ubaida our chief that we might intercept a caravan of the Quraish and provided us with a bag of dates. And he found for us nothing besides it. Abu Ubaida gave each of us one date (everyday). I (Abu Zubair, one of the narrators) said: "What did you do with that?" He said: "We sucked that just as a baby sucks and then drank water over that, and it sufficed us for the day until night. We beat off leaves with the help of our staffs, then drenched them with water and ate them. We then went to the coast of the sea, and there rose before us on the coast of the sea something like a big mound. We came near that and we found that it was a beast, called al-'Anbar (spermaceti whale). Abu 'Ubaida said, 'It is dead.' He then said: 'No (but it does not matter), we have been sent by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) in the path of Allah and you are hard pressed (on account of the scarcity of food), so you eat that.' We three hundred in number stayed there for a month, until we grew bulky. He (Jabir) said: 'I saw how we extracted pitcher after pitcher full of fat from the cavity of its eye, and sliced from it compact piece of meat equal to a bull or like a bull.' Abu 'Ubaida called forth thirteen men from us and he made them sit in the cavity of its eye, and he took hold of one of the ribs of its chest and made it stand and then saddled the biggest of the camels we had with us and it passed under it (the arched rib), and we provided ourselves with pieces of boiled meat (especially for use in our journey). When we came back to Medina, we went to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and made a mention of that to him, whereupon he said: 'That was a provision which Allah had brought forth for you. Is there any piece of meat (left) with you, so that you give to us that?' He (Jabir) said: 'We sent to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) some of that (a piece of meat) and he ate it.'"

Update: After I posted this hadith last night, it occurred to me that the story might appear in The Sealed Nectar. It is, on p. 289:

The invasion of Al-Khabat took place in the eighth year of Al-Hijra, i.e., before Al-Hudaibiyah Treaty. Abu 'Ubaidah bin Al-Jarrah led three hundred horsemen to observe a caravan belonging to Quraish.

Because of the lack of food supplies, they began to starve so much that they had to eat Khabat (leaves of trees), hence the appellation "The Army of Al-Khabat." One of the men slaughtered nine camels on three occasions, three each time at different stages of the mission. Abu 'Ubaidah, the leader of the campaign prohibited him from doing so. The sea presented them with a whale rich in fat and they subsisted on it for half a month.

When they came back home, they narrated the story to the Prophet (pbuh), who commented that it was provision granted by Allah (swt), and asked them to share [with] him some of its meat.

Chronologically this occurred before the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyah, after which the Muslims stopped intercepting Quraishi caravans.

The whale in question is most likely that of a sperm whale, which is known for its large quantities (up to three tons) of spermaceti, a white, semi-liquid, waxy substance that is found in the sperm whale's head.

Response to BamBam

Once again, I've decided to take a response to a comment on my blog and make it its own post due to the length of the reply.


It is really interesting to me that you would choose (6:25) since you read in it that god veils the hearts of non believers against believing, basically condemning them to his hell without any chance of reprise theoretically, the exegesis for this aya is also revealing.

Actually, I hate to say, I never chose this verse (or 8:31) for the reason you ascribe; I chose both verses because of the similarities of language between what the polytheists in Makkah said ("These are nothing but tales of the ancients.") and what Nizar said ("...you still worship the same ancient myths..."). No more, no less.

However, since you bring up the topic ("basically condemning them to his hell without any chance of reprise theoretically"), I disagree with your assertion; I believe Muhammad Asad's exegesis is more on the mark:

Since it is God who has instituted all laws of nature - which, in their aggregate, are called sunnat Allah ("the way of God") - this "sealing" is attributed to Him: but it is obviously a consequence of man's free choice and not an act of "predestination". Similarly, the suffering which, in the life to come, is in store for those who during their life in this world have wilfully remained deaf and blind to the truth, is a natural consequence of their free choice -just as happiness in the life to come is the natural consequence of man's endeavour to attain to righteousness and inner illumination. Note 7 (Quran Ref: 2:7)

...that is to say, man's "going astray" is a consequence of his own attitudes and inclinations and not a result of an arbitrary "predestination" in the popular sense of this word ... In his commentary on the above verse, Zamakhshari stresses this aspect of free choice on the part of man and points out that "God does not cause anyone to go astray except one who, as He knows, will never attain to faith; and He does not guide anyone aright except one who, as He knows, will attain to faith. Hence, the [expression] 'causing to go astray' denotes [God's] leaving [one] alone (takhliyah) and depriving [him] of all favour, whereas [the expression] 'guidance' denotes [His] grant of fulfilment (tawfiq) and favour .... Thus, He does not forsake anyone except those who deserve to be forsaken, and does not bestow His favour upon anyone except those who deserve to be favoured." Commenting on the identical phrase occurring in 16:93, Zamakhshari states: "[God] forsakes him who, as He knows, will [consciously] choose to deny the truth and will persevere in this [denial]; and ... He bestows His favour upon him who, as He knows, will choose faith: which means that He makes the issue dependent on [man's] free choice (al-ikhtiyar), and thus on his deserving either [God's] favour or the withdrawal of [His] aid ... and does not make it dependent on compulsion [i.e., predestination], which would rule out [man's] deserving anything of the above." Note 4 (Quran Ref: 14:4)

In other words, non-believers are not "condemned to hell without any chance of reprise." They all have the chance throughout their lives to mend their ways if they will only take the opportunity. The question is, will they? The further they go down the path of unbelief the more likely they will not do so. As they follow along that false path their hearts become more and more veiled. And yet there is still hope (IMO). We are all tested, believer and non-believer; insha'allah, we may recognize the errors of our ways prior to death.


IT is not always the imitation in us that drives us to move further away from religion, sometimes it's knowledge that does that. History is full of examples where people of highly regarded religious knowledge move away from religion because of moral conflicts.

In which case I'd say that people are failing their tests. Knowledge doesn't equal conviction. Knowledge isn't the most important criterion. Perhaps you're familiar with this part of a hadith qudsi (#6)?

[Another] will be a man who has studied [religious] knowledge and has taught it and who used to recite the Quran. He will be brought and Allah will make known to his His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I studied [religious] knowledge and I taught it and I recited the Quran for Your sake. He will say: You have lied - you did but study [religious] knowledge that it might be said [of you]: He is learned. And you recited the Quran that it might be said [of you]: He is a reciter. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

Don't just rely upon your nafs to say, "Well, I'm smart enough in my knowledge of religion to say that this apparent conflict goes against my principles; therefore, religion is wrong and I'll become a non-believer." If your principles were in line with your religious knowledge you'd work your way through the moral conflict:

Whoever among you witnesses a bad thing, it is necessary for him to bring that to a halt with his hands, and if he does not have the potential for that; then he should stop him through his tongue, And if he does not have the ability to stop that with his tongue, then by his heart; he should think bad of this sin and that is the lowest level of Iman.

The reality that religion (abrahamic and otherwise with few exception) creates moral conflict in our current society and doesn't allow the space for it to be more encompassing of growing trends or realities. So the result is that people either create new sects with encompassing understand of their own religion or drop it all together into the ritualistic sphere ... others adhere strictly (usually causing conflict) and they should all co-exist.

The details of human life change over time; the nature of humanity hasn't. As I commented on a friend's blog:

Have we really changed? No.

You have left, O Hector, sorrow unutterable to your parents, and my own grief is greatest of all, for you did not stretch forth your arms and embrace me as you lay dying, nor say to me any words that might have lived with me in my tears night and day for evermore.” (Andromache, the wife of Hector, grieving over his death in The Iliad)

The Iliad is perhaps the world’s first novel-length story, with the text being written down - at the latest - by the 6th century BCE. I’ve always thought that if you can understand the grief of Andromache, then humanity hasn’t changed in at least the past 2500 years.

The Qur'an and Islam (indeed, one could argue all religions) are concerned about human nature. "Growing trends and realities" are irrelevant. Nothing has really changed except that people would rather follow their nafs by either creating sects or going into unbelief.


I leave you all with one question, would a person who leads a moral life and does his fair share of goodwill and is religious deserve to be incarcerated and tortured for an eternity in a place called hell because he picked the wrong god?

Allahu alim. Who are we to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't? Are you trying to set yourself up as judge of humanity? You've certainly made a start, setting up your own standards; the problem is, you don't know if your standards match His standards. Best I think to follow His, considering that yours is pure conjecture and He is all powerful.

Response 2a to Nizar

Because Nizar has been waiting so very patiently for my response to his comment, and I'm going to be tied up through this Friday at the very least, insha'allah, with PhD application matters, I thought I'd post what I had written so far; insha'allah, I'll get to his other questions later.

Second, I wouldn't really call my self slipping, because my actions are not the result of what you might call an accident caused by carelessness, lake [sic] of attention or self occupation in life but rather a conscious choice taken that based on logical thinking.

I think your so-called "conscious choice ... based on logical thinking" is partly rationalization (led on by your nafs). I do think, to a degree, that your decision is based in part on a carelessness in studying your religion. (When was the last time you read the Qur'an? When was the last time you read the Qur'an very carefully, including reading someone's exegesis?) I suspect that your case is somewhat monkey-see, monkey-do. A lemming-like desire to follow the path of other scientiests. "If they are so smart and yet they became atheists, then maybe I should be like them in that regard too."

Third, I doubt that you understand me simply because all the switching that you have done is just from a religion to another, which doesn't make a lot of difference because you still worship the same ancient myths that hasn't been proven to exist in any way just in a different method.

First, I don't think you read what I wrote very clearly (just as in your next point). Secondly, you not knowing me, I only told you part of my religious background; you're probably assuming that I'm only familiar with Abrahamic religions; in fact that's not the case at all. As for proof, we'll discuss that below. BTW, do you know how much you sound like the pagans of the Prophet's (pbuh) time?

Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (6:25)

When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: "We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients." (8:31, and so on)

Fourth, Rationality is not a trap!

I didn't say rationality is a trap; I said that the Cult of Rationality is a trap. There's nothing wrong with rationality per se; in fact it's encouraged by Allah (swt) in the Qur'an. What's a problem is when people begin a form of "worship" for rationality. Dhikr, the remembrance of Allah (swt), gets pushed back by the cultists in favor of a reliance upon rationality, thinking that rationality is the panacea for mankind's problems. Not all problems can be solved by science, logic or technology.

Fifth, Science and logic are no replacement product for morals and ethics.

Unfortunately, the Cult of Rationality believes that the opposite is true.

Morals and ethics are not a product of religions although religions have contributed a lot in developing human morals to the point that it is at today.

Don't begin to contradict yourself. Morals and ethics are indeed a product of both religions and philosophy, with religion probably contributing much more to the development of both morals and ethics than philosophy.

...nor is it [technology] vital for human existence because it is more of a luxury than a necessity.

Riiight. So do you eat your food raw with your hands? Or do you use kitchen utensils, stoves, microwaves, etc., and dine on plates, bowls, and so on? When are you moving out of your home to live in the forest? Be sure not to build a lean-to or use any knife or axe; that's technology too, you know. (I point this out, even though it's a tangential issue, to show that you're not fully reasoning through some of your arguments.)

So you claim that science and logic are not the right tools to pick if I want to understand life, but instead I should choose morality?

No, I'm saying you use the right tools for the job. Science, logic and technology are fine for the purposes they were designed for, which you stated in your definitions. To live a good life you're going to use tools like morality, ethics and philosophy. However, even living a "good, moral life" is not requisite enough to get into heaven (jannah), even if you do believe in an afterlife. (Allahu alim.) According to the Qur'an, the three minimum requirements are belief in Allah (swt) and the Last Day, and to work righteousness (which I would take to mean living a "good, moral life"); this is per 2:62. Based on other readings I believe the worship of Allah (swt) is also extremely important. (Certainly prayers will be counted first above all other actions on the Day of Judgment, as per Ahadith Qudsi (#9).) As Naeem pointed out the other day, you can gamble: if you don't believe in an afterlife and there is none, then nothing is lost (nothing is gained, either). However, if there is an afterlife and you've gambled the wrong way, then the penalty may be very severe; likewise, the reward for having gambled the right way may turn out to be better than the penalty (although you may then face a charge of hypocrisy and face the same penalty as an unbeliever would). Ideally, you live your life as a pious, true believer. Islam, as you know, provides the basis for both belief in Allah (swt) and the tools for living a good life (morality, ethics, philosophy). Living a good, moral life is only one-third of the equation.

...but what if I tell you that non-believer behave better morally than believers and I can prove to you that with statistics.

I already know the "statistical" argument, and it's quite weak. You're going to want to say that the percentage of atheists/agnostics in prison is much lower than the percentage of atheists/agnostics in the general public. Here are three reasons why that argument is weak:

• You're trying to define "moral behavior" in terms of who goes to jail and who doesn't. However, going to prison is not always equivalent to "immoral behavior." A person can behave immorally and yet not go to prison. One could, for example, lie, commit adultery, be mean (stingy, miserly), be a party to abortions, dishonor one's parents, and so on, and none of those would necessarily land you in jail. Yet the person is still behaving immorally. Your "statistics" don't capture that data. Immoral behavior is a far broader category than just those people who go to prison.
  
• Not all criminal behavior requires a jail term. People might be charged with crimes for immoral behavior and receive other forms of punishment (fines, community service, probation, house arrest, restitution, etc.) while never actually stepping inside a jail cell. Neither side of your equation takes into account both sets of data.
  
• Going back to the idea that "going to prison is not always equivalent to 'immoral behavior,'" one does not necessarily need to commit immoral behavior with the intention to do wrong and still end up in jail. For example, manslaughter. "A" hits and kills "B" with his car while "B" was crossing the street legally. "A" did not intend to kill "B" as the incident was purely an accident. Even so, almost all states in the U.S., for example, have vehicular homicide statutes on their books and people like "A" may find themselves in jail for a very long time.

These are three reasons off the top of my head; if I spent more time, I might be able to think of a few more. The surprise for me is that atheists and agnostics, who pride themselves on their "rationality," fail to take into consideration these flaws.

Sixth, How do you know that God exists outside the universe?

I'm actually working on that post; however, it's been pushed to the back burner as I have several other higher priorities to do right now.

Jihad

This is such a broad topic that it's difficult to do it justice in a relatively short answer. First and foremost, as I suspect most of you know, jihad does not mean "holy war." Literally, it means "struggle." I think this becomes apparent in a related word, ijtihad or "reasoning." As we all know from school, working through a problem can be a struggle. Those of you who are musicians should understand jihad very well as practicing music can often be a struggle. From a Muslim perspective, virtually any aspect of life can be a jihad. And this is why Muslims get rather upset when non-Muslims mistranslate jihad, because jihad is a concept far broader than many non-Muslims understand and is very highly regarded among Muslims. Fighting back against those who oppress, in Arabic, is qital, which is a completely different term (see below). Qital is part of jihad, but it is far from being the whole of the concept.

Sunni Muslims have developed a hierarchy for jihad. There is:
* Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) - an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid (the oneness of Allah (swt)).
* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) - a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), khutbas (sermons), etc.
* Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/lim) - a struggle for good against evil through the scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through the sciences.
* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) - a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, or political activity for furthering the cause of Islam.
* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) - this refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God).

Despite the hierarchy, most Muslims think of jihad in two forms: the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad. This comes from a hadith, one variation of which reads:

"Some troops came back from an expedition and went to see the Messenger of Allah Muhammad (pbuh). He said: "You have come for the best, from the smaller jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." Someone said, "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The servant's struggle against his lust" (mujahadat al-`abdi hawah).

The lesser jihad then is the physical fighting in the cause of Allah (swt). The greater jihad is the jihad an-nafs, the struggle against our own desires, our ego. This greater jihad gets into the very heart of the concept of "struggle," because that struggle permeates our lives. As my wife is fond of saying, "We strive to be better Muslims." And that striving is jihad.

Cross-posted at Street Prophets, Daily Kos, and Dunner's Learn About Islam.