Your Questions Answered

 

Queries

 

 

Praying with Hands Reclining on the Sides

 

     Question: I have read the following Hadith and commentary on it on a website:

 

It has been forbidden (by the Prophet) that one prays while reclining his hand on his sides. (Bukhari No: 1162)

 

According to the commentary given, there are two sides of everyone, the left and the right. Since keeping hands on one of them is a sign of arrogance, this is prohibited in Salah. The commentator has also quoted Al-Bayhaqi as reporting that the Holy Prophet (sws) said that the one who places his hands on the said places is actually the dweller of the fire.

The source mentions that the narrative appears in the Sahih of Bukhariand the Sahih of Muslim. I want to know, is this Hadith sound? Would you please explain it?

     Answer: Yes, the Hadith is sound. The wording of the Hadith as it appears in the Sahih of Bukhari follows:

 

The Prophet (sws) has forbidden that one prays while reclining his hand on his sides. (Bukhari, No: 1162)

 

The meaning of the word mukhtasiran has been subject to difference of opinion. Most commentators take this to mean ‘placing one’s hands on sides for support’. It does not simply mean that you leave your hands unfolded (as the Shiite Muslims do).

Prayer is nothing but an expression of our humility and submission and the confession of the greatness and might of God. Obviously a worshipper is supposed to pray in a very humble way and one must not show that he is tired and disinterested in the prayer. That is why the Prophet (sws) stopped Muslims from standing in the styles expressive of disinterest, tiredness and arrogance. As pointed out by the commentator, this style shows arrogance on the part of the worshipper. Based on this prophetic saying the Muslim scholars have deemed that one must avoid praying this way.

 

Imam Nawwawi explains:

 

Scholars have differed over the meaning of the word mukhtasiran. The accurate meaning of the word that has been upheld by researchers, linguistics, experts of the rarely used words and scholars of the science ofHadith and which our scholars hold too is that mukhtasir is the one who prays while placing his hands on his sides. Harwi says that he (i.e., a Mukhtasir) is the one who keeps a stick in his hands to lean on. It is also said that the word stands for a man who does not recite the full Surahs and only recites last one or two verses. It has also been said that it connotes an individual who does not offer the full prayer leaving the Qiyam, (ie standing straight) Ruku‘ (i.e. bowing) and prostrations. The first view is the correct one. It has been held that this practice has been forbidden because the Jews would do this. Another view is that it is the practice of Satan.  Yet another group said that it is because Satan descended from heaven in this state. It is also held that this has been forbidden for it is the practice of the arrogant.1

 

A similar explanation has been offered by Ibn Hajar in his commentary on Bukhari.

There is no denying the fact that the act in its very nature seems to be against the etiquette of worship. However, the warning issued in the narrative recorded by Bayhaqi seems to be severer as understood by the commentator you quote. I think there is some misunderstanding for the words in Bayhaqi are:

 

Ikhtisar in the prayer is rahah (comfort) for the people of fire. (Bayhaqi,No: 3380)

 

This does not mean that the one who does this would join the dwellers of the fire. It means that this act is one symbol of the people who will go to hell. Now, to adopt a symbol negligently by itself does not entail severe punishment in the hellfire. In simple words, on the basis of this only act, punishment is not deserved. Those who deserve punishment because of their other sins will be found, more often than not, reclining their hands on their sides in their prayers too.

‘A%’ishahand Ibn Abbas have been reported to have said that the act is undesirable in the prayer and not haram or punishable by casting into Fire:

 

It has been reported to us that ‘A’ishahand Ibn Abbas (rta) disliked this act in (the prayer). (Bayhaqi, No: 3383)

 

 

Regarding Husband’s Acquiesce to the Parents

 

     Question: I am aware of the great importance our religion places on being mindful of our duties towards the parents and that one is discouraged from even saying even ‘uff’ (expression of being disappointed in some burdensome task or painful experience) to them. But could you please let me know as to what is our religion’s stance in the following situation.

I live in a joint family and my mother in law and father in law are extremely unreasonable, interfering and hurtful towards me. My husband is extremely obedient towards his parents and never argues or talks back to his parents always saying that it’s not allowed in our religion. I complain about my in-laws treatment to my husband but he always shrugs it off as my being too sensitive. The siblings of my husband talk back to their parents and so they are cautious in the way they treat them but with my husband since they know that he will never retaliate, they always make him the scapegoat of venting out whatever anger and frustrations they possess. They also mete out a similar treatment to me. What is even more hurting is that they would talk like that to me in front of my husband and still my husband wouldn’t say anything to defend me because of which they have become all the more gutsy. To add to my dilemma when I tell my husband about it in private he denies hearing or seeing the way they behaved with me. I am at a total loss. I tell my husband that the least he can do is talk to them and tell them to behave properly with me but he says that he cannot be rude to his parents. I tell him that he does not need to be rude but explain gently to them but he says he knows his parents and that they wouldn’t understand without becoming emotional and his talking loudly to them. I tell him then he should at least show his disapproval of the way they treat me and should be reserved with them but he does not even do that and keeps behaving normally and very lovingly with them.

Please advise what I should do and what are the rights of wives on the husbands when placed in such a situation by parents. I would also like to mention that my husband doesn’t yet have enough means to keep me separately and so we are staying in the joint family.

     Answer: Islam very emphatically exhorts its adherents to treating their wives with all justice and requires them to offer them physical, financial, moral and psychological support. One must not side with any party on the expense of justice and equality. If your in-laws are not treating you properly, your husband needs to talk to them very humbly and politely and ask them to adopt a reasonable approach. You are supposed to remain obedient to your husband and respectful to your in-laws, nonetheless. Your husband has to consider that he has taken the responsibility of fulfilling your rights, and as such has the duty to not let you suffer at the hands of any person. He needs to provide you with an independent residence if it is not agreeable to you to live in a joint family system. But if he does not have any way out despite his working real hard to achieve this target then you may think of other ways to tackle the situation. That would mean your cooperation and help to your husband in getting out of this difficult situation.

You may try to explain to yourself that if they are harsh with him, he is their son and if they are unreasonable with you, let them feel that it does not bother you. To continue to complain would perhaps not bring the matter to a desirable solution. You can only ask your husband not to respond to them when they are in anger but talk to them in a very polite manner when their anger has subsided. The best approach is that of compliance and forbearance. Keeping the family relationship should be our top most priority and for this we should go as far as we can. It would be better if you continued behaving nicely with them.

All efforts and all plans and calculated behavior are prone to failure if we do not pray to the Almighty and ask for His approval and beseech Him for His mercy. All matters are in His hands and we can file our petitions with Him through supplications and prayers. With all trust and confidence in our Lord we should turn to Him. Therefore, turn to your God and seek His reassurance, ask for His pleasure and beg for His mercy.

 

 

Is the Prayer invalidated by a Passing Woman?

 

     Question: Please explain the following narrative regarding a woman passing in front of the one who is praying. Does it really nullify one’s prayer if a woman passes before them?

 

‘Abdullah Ibn Samitreports on the authority of Abu Dharr that the Prophet (sws) said: ‘When any one of you stands for prayer he is covered [from the passers by] if there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle. In case there is no such thing before him, his prayer would be nullified if a menstruating woman, a donkey or a black dog [passes in front of him]. (Muslim, No: 510)

 

     Answer: This Hadith has been rejected by the learned among the companions of the Prophet (sws). The reason is that it offends common sense and does not conform to basic religious teachings. I will only mention the following comments of ‘A%’ishah (rta)in this regard:

 

Do you make us [women] equal to dogs and donkeys? (She is referring to the saying ascribed to the Prophet quoted above). While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not good to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my quilt. (Bukhari, No: 486)

 

The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said: ‘The prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman [if they pass in front of the praying people].’ I said, ‘You have rendered us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qiblah. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away for I disliked facing him’.  (Bukhari, No: 489)

 

I used to sleep in front of Allah’s Apostle with my legs opposite his Qiblah [facing him]; and whenever he prostrated, he pushed my feet and I withdrew them and whenever he stood, I stretched them. She added, ‘In those days there were no lamps in the houses’. (Bukhari, No: 491)

 

The above Ahadith evidently proves that the issue was raised before the Companions of the Prophet (sws) and the learned among them have opined that it does not hold water.

 

 

Ignoring Responsibilities towards Children

 

     Question: What is the consequence of ignoring my responsibilities as a mother and abandoning looking after my children?

     Answer: Islam does not deal directly with the cases of deviation from the norms and principles, regarding which human beings do not normally err. Say, for example, you may not find any specific direction that one should eat food and fulfill the physical needs. Obviously normal human beings would not abandon fulfilling their basic needs. In fact, love for the children has been so deeply rooted in all the creatures that they find themselves compelled to provide them with their needs and are naturally inclined to look after them. In an Islamic society, parents are also supposed to give special care to the spiritual needs of the children. Our responsibilities include teaching and guiding them regarding their moral and religious obligations as well.

Since it seldom happens that parents do not look after their own children and ignore the basic responsibilities in this regard, Islam has neither given expressive directives regarding chidren’s upbringing nor explained the consequences of non-compliance; but it is obvious that fulfilling duties arising out of tacit agreements is a binding obligation on us. The Qur’an says:

 

…who attend to their Salah and pay the Zakah; who, when they enter into an agreement, fulfill it; especially those who remain steadfast in privation, affliction and in times of war. (2:177)

 

 The directive of keeping up promises covers all kinds of duties both to fellow human beings and to the Creator, whether they emanate from written agreements or tacit ones.  Thus it includes all these responsibilities which are taken to be granted as binding for one. Therefore, the Almighty will of course take the people to account for their negligence in this regard.

 

 

Hands amputated by the Prophet (sws)

 

     Question: In the incident in which the Holy Prophet (sws) ordered the amputation of the rich woman’s hand, was she a habitual thief or just a first time offender. Was she given warnings before or was she spreading much nuisance in the land. Also, when people asked for clemency, the Prophet (sws) is recorded to have mentioned about his daughter Fatimah on that occasion. My question is: Was the crime of the lady grave so grave as to deserve this punishment?

     Answer:  Before looking into the case you have referred to we must consider the following points, which are based on the research work of Mr Javed Ahmed Ghamidi:

The Almighty has used the terms ‘assariq’ and ‘assariqah’ for the male and female thief who have to be punished thus. It has not simply said ‘if someone steals something, cut his limbs off.’ The Qur’an has used the adjective form to connote the ultimate nature of the theft. According to linguistic principles, in the Arabic language, the adjective form is used to denote that the doer of any act has performed it in its ultimate form. Thus these terms would only be applied to a person whose act may justly be called the crime of theft. The Holy Prophet (sws) himself has explained this subtle linguistic principle and made it clear that the punishment for theft is to be administered when someone commits the crime in the ultimate form in that he steals something of value, and that he takes things after they have been kept secured. None would be punished if they just take away the fruit hanging down from a tree or take a strayed goat found in an open field.

Keeping the above information in perspective, we can understand that the Prophet (sws), who was a symbol of mercy and justice, would not have punished the criminal had there been some allowance due to her as per the God’s directives. We need to know that the Hadith literature does not give full details of every such incident; therefore, we may remain ignorant of some of the aspects of the actual incidents. However one thing is sure that the Prophet (sws) cannot be imagined to have punished someone when they deserved lenience.

As for the record of the criminal we do not have any information whether the woman was a habitual criminal or if it was her first offence. Needless to say, that the Qur’an or the Prophet (sws) has given no lenience to those who commit the crime in its ultimate nature even for the first time. The nature of the crime and the circumstances in which someone commits such a crime would definitely have been considered first by the Holy Prophet (sws) as they should be by everyone.