Your Questions Answered
Queries
Separating from an Unattractive Fiancé
Question: Is it valid for me to end an engagement to a man who is of good character just because I cannot stand his physical appearance? He is shorter than I and that is very unattractive to me, but I feel that I am torn between my religion and my desires, since I will essentially be losing a man whose intention is to build a good Muslim family. What should I do?
Answer: The Almighty has blessed human beings with an aesthetic taste. So making decisions governed by such a taste cannot be primarily objected to. The Prophet (sws), consequently on this basis advised men and women to have a glimpse of one another before marriage. It is reported that in Madinah, he asked Muslim men to be careful about marrying women of the Ansar tribe since they generally had some kind of defect in their eyes.* Similarly, he even terminated the marriage of a lady on her request since she was much more beautiful than her husband .
So if you think that in spite of all the good mannerisms found in your fiance, it is difficult for you to stand your fiance’s physical appearance it is better to take this seemingly harsh step of terminating your engagement than to psychologically suffer all your life.
Jihad
Question: Does Islam allow offensive Jihad? Are Muslims required to conquer the world even when, for instance, other nations are desirous of peaceful and friendly coexistence? Also, is the existence of a strong Muslim state a necessary pre-requisite for carrying out Jihad? So is Jihad applicable only when Muslims are strong enough to pay back in the same coin?
Answer: Quite unfortunately, Jihad has become one of the most misunderstood directives of Islam. The following points about it may help in clarifying the stance of Islam:
First and foremost, only an Islamic state has the authority to launch Jihad. No group or organization has been given the right to start an armed struggle in any way.
Secondly, apart from self-defence (which is an entirely different matter) the only legitimate reason for an Islamic State to launch Jihad is to curb oppression and persecution in any other country -- whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
Thirdly, Jihad is or was never carried out for territorial aggrandizement or for forcibly converting people to Islam. People who erroneously justify either or both of these two bases draw their arguments from the Jihad carried out by the Prophet (sws) and his companions. It needs to be appreciated that the Jihad carried out by the Prophet (sws) and his companions after him was governed by a specific law meant only for the Prophets of Allah and their immediate addressees, and has nothing to do with us. A study of the Qur’an reveals that the purpose of their Jihad was neither territorial aggrandizement nor forcible conversion of people to Islam: contrary to both, it was Divine punishment meted out to people who had arrogantly denied the truth in spite of being convinced about it.**
Fourthly, Jihad against countries who are guilty of oppression and persecution too only becomes compulsory after all diplomatic level negotiations have failed and if the ratio of Muslim war heads to their opponents is 1:2. It seems that in the 1:2 situation, the Almighty would be providing the remaining support Himself for this noble cause of curbing oppression:
Now Allah has lightened your [task] for He knows that there is weakness among you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast person, they shall overcome two hundred, if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the leave of Allah and Allah is with the patient. (8:66)
In the light of these details, it is evident that Muslims today have no right to carry out Jihad to subjugate other countries or to forcible convert people to Islam.
A Clarification regarding the Friday Prayer
Question: I have read that the Islamic Shari‘ah does not legislate holding two Friday prayers in one locality. Yet, not only do I know of many places that do hold two Friday prayers but also I haven’t found any basis for this opinion. Do you know any justification for this ruling?
Answer: To answer your question, I’ll first elaborate upon a few points:
According to the Sunnah set by the Prophet (sws), the Friday sermon should be delivered by the head of state and his administrators in their appropriate units, and only they should lead the Friday prayers. However, in case of any legitimate plea on their part, other persons can address and lead the Friday prayers as their authorized representatives.
The implications of this Sunnah are very clear: In Islam, mosques are meant to be the fountainhead of authority. Also, there is a complete negation of theocracy. A person whom the Muslims choose as their leader shall also lead them in worship, eliminating once and for all the division between state and religion. After the Prophet (sws), his Companions solemnly adhered to this Sunnah in the Caliphate they established. However, in later times, when due to their own ill-ways the Muslim rulers could not stand face to face with the public, they themselves handed over the mosques to the ulema. This was one of the most tragic incidents of our history. The result was that religion lost its grace and the state its grandeur.
Now with this background, I come to your question:
Since only state representatives were authorized to deliver the Friday address and lead the Friday prayers, other mosques in the same locality were not given this permission because of the fact that there was no other state representative that was made available to those mosques; this was not by default but by planning. The whole territory was divided such that each locality was assigned an administrator or state representative; he would go the Jami‘ Masjid (Central Mosque) of his unit and people of other mosques would also gather in that mosque. Other mosques of the same locality, as a consequence, remained closed for Friday prayers.
Today, however, when we are not praying the Friday prayer in its real form, this condition obviously does not apply. Unless a Muslim state itself realizes this responsibility and deputes its representatives to the mosque, there is nothing wrong in holding Friday prayers in various mosques of the same locality or neighbourhood.
Status of Holding Hands in the Prayer
Question: Why do the Malikites pray with their arms to the side?
Answer:The prayer has two parts as far as its postures are concerned; one is the obligatory part and the other optional. Whether hands should be tied in front or kept by the sides is a question which belongs to the optional part of the prayer.
In my opinion, as long as a person is standing before the Lord, it does not matter if he holds his hands or not; this is a non-issue and should not be made a point of dissension as is unfortunately done in many Muslim countries these days.
Zakahto Non-Muslims
Question: Can Zakah be given to non-Muslims?
Answer: The following Qur’anic verse spells out the heads under which the Zakah fund can be expended:
Zakahis only for the poor and the needy, and for those who are ‘amils over it, and for those whose hearts are to be reconciled [to the truth], and for the emancipation of the slaves and for those who have been inflicted with losses and for the way of Allah and for the wayfarers. (9:60)
It is evident from the verse quoted above that the Qur’an does not discriminate between the recipients of Zakah on the basis of their beliefs or religion. In other words, Zakah money can be given to any needy person whatever his religion be. Consequently, the answer to your question is that you can give your Zakah money to Non-Muslims.
Which Son did Abraham (sws) offer for Sacrifice?
Question: I am Muslim and I have a friend who is a new Muslim. He wanted to know the name of Abraham’s sacrificed son. The Bible says it was Isaac (sws). Is this true ?
Answer: Without doubt, the son offered for sacrifice by Abraham (sws) was Ismael (sws). The Qur’an bears reference to this established historical fact in the following words:
And he [--Abraham—] said [after being saved from the fire]: ‘Verily, I am going to my Lord. He will guide me!’ ‘My Lord! Grant me (offspring) from the righteous.’ So We gave him glad tidings of a forbearing boy. And, when he [his son] was old enough to walk with him, he said: ‘O my son! I have been seeing in a dream that I am offering you in sacrifice [to Allah]. So look what you think!’ He said: ‘O my father! Do that which you are commanded, Insha Allah, you shall find me of the patient. Then, when they had both submitted themselves [to the will of Allah], and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead, We called out to him: ‘O Abraham! You have made the dream a reality.’ Verily, thus do We reward the good-doers. Verily, that indeed was a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice [a ram]; And We left for him [a goodly remembrance] among the later generations. Peace be upon Abraham! Thus indeed do We reward the good-doers. Verily, he was one of Our believing slaves. And We gave him the glad tidings of Isaac – a Prophet from the righteous. (37:99-112)
The underlined portion of the passage clearly shows that glad tidings of the birth of Isaac (sws) were given to Abraham (sws) after he had already offered his first born son for sacrifice. In other words, the italicized verse: ‘So We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing boy’, and all that narrated after this verse refer to Ismael (sws).
As far as the Bible is concerned, it, as your friend has pointed out, does mention a different story: In one of the most blatant examples of interpolation, the Jews have inserted the name of Isaac (sws) in place of Ismael (sws) to cut off the relationship of Muhammad (sws) with Arabia and his great ancestor Abraham (sws).
However, in spite of this tampering, the Bible contains passages which still point to Ismael (sws) as the son offered for sacrifice***. The passage which mentions the incident of sacrifice in the Bible reads:
Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’ ‘Here I am,’ he replied. Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.’ Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, ‘Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.’ Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, ‘Father?’ Yes, my son?’ Abraham replied. ‘The fire and wood are here,’ Isaac said, ‘but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?’ Abraham answered, ‘God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.’ And the two of them went on together. When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham! ‘Here I am, ‘he replied. ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’ Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, ‘On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.’ The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, ‘I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.’ (Genesis 22:1-18)
It follows from the underlined portion that Abraham (sws) was asked to sacrifice his only son which means that at that time he had no other son. The fact that this could only be Ismael (sws) is evident from the following two passages of the Bible:
Abraham was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ismael. (Genesis, 16:16)
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. (Genesis, 21:5)
It is evident from these verses that Ismael (sws) was fourteen years old at the birth of Isaac (sws), and must have been offered for sacrifice before Isaac (sws) was born because Abraham (sws) had been asked to sacrifice his only son; after Isaac’s birth of course the words ‘your only son’ would be totally inappropriate and against reality.
In the light of this evidence, it is obvious that the word Isaac mentioned in the passage above (indicated by italics) was inserted in place of Ismael.
Why did the Almighty ask for Ismael’s Sacrifice?
Question: Why did God ask Abraham (sws) to sacrifice his son? This seems pretty cruel on the face of it. True the sacrifice never took place but my question is: Why was is asked for?
Answer: The Almighty never commanded Abraham (sws) to sacrifice his son. It was Abraham (sws) who took this step thinking that the Almighty wanted this to happen. In this regard, the following points must remain in consideration:
1. Firstly, Abraham (sws) thought that he was directed to sacrifice his son by the Almighty in a dream shown to him. For the Prophets of Allah, such dreams are a source of contact with the Almighty, and in them they are shown certain images by Him for the purpose of their education and instruction. However, as a principle, they are not to be interpreted literally; they contain realities which are depicted in symbolic form. Symbolic representation is a very subtle and powerful way of expression: facts seem veiled, yet for one who pauses to ponder, they are most evident. So what needs to be understood is that dreams of the Prophets of Allah are symbolic too. They portray a fact in figurative form in order to make it more effective to understand. Let me give you an example. You must have read the dream of the Prophet Joseph (sws) mentioned in the Qur’an. It says that he saw the sun, the moon and eleven stars bowing down to him. The interpretation of the dream offered by the Qur’an itself at the end of Surah Yusuf shows that this bowing down was a symbolism to show that his eleven brothers and father and mother would submit to his authority as the king (12:100). Similarly, more examples can be given from the Qur’an.
2. The next point which arises is about the symbolism found in ‘human sacrifice’. In other words: ‘What does human sacrifice stand for?’. A knowledge of the ancient scriptures reveals that human sacrifice offered to God symbolizes consecrating a person in the service of Allah:
You are to bring the Levites before the Lord, and the Israelites are to lay their hand on them. Aaron is to present the Levites before the Lord as a wave offering from the Israelites, so that they may be ready to do the work of the Lord. ‘After the Levites lay their hands on the heads of the bulls, use the one for a sin offering to the Lord and the other for a burnt offering, to make atonement for the Levites. Have the Levites stand in front of Aaron and his sons and then present them as a wave offering to the Lord. In this way you are to set the Levites apart from the other Israelites, and the Levites will be mine. After you have purified the Levites and presented them as a wave offering, they are to come to do their work at the Tent of Meeting. They are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to me. I have taken them as my own in place of the firstborn, the first male offspring from every Israelite woman. Every firstborn male in Israel, whether man or animal, is mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set them apart for myself. And I have taken the Levites in place of all the firstborn sons in Israel. (Numbers 8:10-18)
As is evident from the underlined portion, the symbolism found in ‘human sacrifice’ is dedication of a person to the service of Allah. In other words, the Almighty actually wanted Abraham (sws) to devote Ismael (sws) for special tasks assigned by the Almighty.
3. Abraham (sws) in his spirit of submission to the will of God started to follow his dream in the literal sense instead of interpreting the dream; consequently, the Almighty told him that he had ‘made the dream a reality’, which of course was not required. However, this willingness to submit to a command of Allah as perceived by Abraham (sws) greatly pleased the Almighty since it was based on sincerity and a great will to do what he thought was Allah’s will.
The Daughter’s Share in Inheritance
Question: Why are women treated as inferior to men in Islam? Of the many things that have continued to bother my mind is the share daughters get in relation to their brothers. As a brother, I feel ashamed that I would be getting double my sister’s share. Please clarify.
Answer: Before I answer your question, I would like to allude to a few points as far as the issue of inheritance is concerned.
It is a universally acknowledged fact that the extent of help and co-operation which a person receives from his parents, children and other similar relations has little chances of being paralleled by any other association. Undoubtedly, the world has always considered the kith and kin of a deceased as the rightful beneficiaries of the wealth he has left behind. But certain issues in this regard have always remained unresolved; for example, who among the kindred is nearest with respect to the benefit he holds for the deceased? and how should the inherited shares be ascertained on this basis? In this matter, the extent to which the human mind has faltered and stumbled can be seen from the frequent history these blunders have continued to make. It is not that human endeavour in this regard has fallen prey to any lack of application, rather it is due to certain inherent limitations of the human mind which have made the task itself beyond its reach. Love, hatred, prejudice and other emotions have made it impossible for human intellect to come to grips with this challenge. Consequently, the Almighty Himself has guided mankind in this affair to relieve an Islamic society from the disorders which have originated on this account:
You know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of God. Indeed, God is Wise and all-Knowing. (4:11)
Two implications of the above verse are very clear:
Firstly, since the Almighty Himself has indicated who the heirs of a deceased should be, a more just law in this regard could not have been enacted. Hence, after this Divine Directive, no one has the right to bequeth his wealth in favour of the heirs designated by the Almighty Himself. The verse, in fact, admonishes all ill-advised elements, who on the basis of their own intellect or personal inclinations may desire to amend the law: A warning is being sounded to them that these shares have been apportioned by the immense knowledge and wisdom of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, which encompass all His directives. Man inspite of his formidable talents can neither acquire the vastness of His knowledge nor comprehend the profundity of His wisdom. If he is a true believer, he must submit to the Word of God.
Secondly, the law of inheritance as stated in the Qur’an is based on the underlying cause of ‘the benefit of kinship’, as indicated by the words la tadruna ayyuhum aqrabu lakum naf‘a (you know not who among your children and parents are nearest to you in benefit). Consequently, the directive in reality does not pertain to the relatives but is related to the underlying cause present in this relationship, which actually entitles them to become the heirs. All the relatives whose shares have been stated in the Qur’an will be considered eligible to be the recipients only in case the underlying cause of this directive ie, benefit can be proven in their relation to the deceased. This benefit is by nature present in parents, children, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives and other close relations. Hence, in normal circumstances, they will be considered the heirs to the legacy of a deceased. However, in certain unusual circumstances (for example in case of patricide), if an absence of benefit in any of these relationships is seen by sense and reason, the style and pattern of the verse demands that such a relative should not become an heir to the legacy. Therefore, in such cases, if someone is deprived from his share, it would be perfectly in accordance with the purport of the verse, to which its words so clearly testify.
After this background, I now come to your question. It is evident from the above analysis that the basic reason why the share of a son is more than that of a daughter is the fact that in the life of parents the son is usually more beneficial to them than the daughter. This is so simple a fact that it can be easily understood in societies where the institution of family is still very strong and has deep roots. In a family system, parents become dependent on the children as they grow old. The ease and comfort they feel in living with a son is much more than what they feel while living with a daughter. The simple reason is that a son is independent in taking decisions while a daughter, once she gets married, is actually more dependent on her own husband and is not so independent. The modern western mind feels averse to this distribution because the family system is dwindling in their society. Parents are generally more uncomfortable in living with either the son or the daughter, both of whom become independent at a very early age. So I would say that they can only understand (and marvel subsequently at this distribution) if they are first able to grasp the importance of the institution of family.
A thing which may be worth mentioning here is that there may be cases even in societies having a strong family system where a daughter may prove more beneficial to her parent(s) than the son; in this case, the provision is there in Islamic law whereby a parent in his lifetime can gift as much wealth as is deemed necessary to the daughter. Similarly, there may be the case that the daughter in her specific circumstances may need more money; here again wealth can be gifted to her. Parents, as discussed in the explanation of the verse, can also deprive a son(s) from inheritance if the son(s) becomes ‘non-beneficial’ to them in any way.
In short, the 2:1 ratio pertains to normal circumstances; in exceptional ones there are many remedies in Islamic law -- some of which I have tried to explain.
Lastly, this difference of share is among the children only since the difference in benefit exists. On the other hand, as far as receiving the inheritance of a child is concerned, in most cases stipulated by Islamic law, both the mother and the father receive an equal share (ie one sixth) because for a child the benefit from a mother and a father are equal.