OUR DIALOGUE

Q. According to some Hadiths, the Prophet (Pbuh) described the Aqsa Mosque to the people of Makkah after his night journey that took him to Jerusalem and back. As it is historically known, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in the first century and was not rebuilt until the Islamic era. How authentic this Hadith is?

A. The Hadith that you refer to does not mention the Aqsa Mosque, except as the place where the Prophet led all former prophets in a congregational prayer on the site.
The Hadith mentions Bait Al-Maqdis, which was the name the Arabs used to refer to Jerusalem, the city, not the shrine. The Arabs were fully aware of the importance of the city as they passed by it during their travels to Syria for trade and business. Thus, when the Prophet told the unbelievers about his night journey, they in their disbelief asked him to describe the city, and it was the image of the city that was given to them by the Prophet. It is not to be imagined that, had the Aqsa Mosque been there, the Arabs would have given it much attention, as they would have had to compare it with their own shrine, the Kaaba, which they held in very high esteem.

Q. On arrival in the US, I started offering my prayers facing South Eastern direction, but recently I was with a group of people who offered their prayers facing the North East. They argued that it was the more accurate direction to the Kaaba. After some argument, it appeared that both views have some solid argument in support. Please comment.

A. This is a recent problem that started when some people in North America suggested that the shorter distance between their hometown and Makkah is to fly over the North Pole. This may be so, but it seems to be a route with a bend that changes direction. The question is whether we can draw a straight line that connects Makkah to an American city and passes by the North Pole. If such a line is shorter than a direct line southward, then it is the better direction. If this is not possible without a curve that changes direction, then the southward way is better. It needs to be looked into very carefully. An important point that needs to be considered is the route airlines take when they travel from, say, Canada to Jeddah. If they fly over the North Pole, then it could well be the better direction to face in prayer, but if they fly southward, then that is the right direction.

Q. When I got married, my wife tried to make me feel that my first obligation is towards her. Whatever she wants should take precedence over what my parents may require. This has created problems particularly because she wanted to live alone, when I cannot afford to look after my parents and my wife if we are to use two separate homes. This has led me to seek work in the Kingdom. As I was about to leave I promised my parents and my wife to call them for pilgrimage. However, I cannot afford doing that for all the three at the same time. Yet when I asked my wife to delay her pilgrimage, she refused. Her father wrote me a letter of insulting for breaking my promise. I replied in the same vein, but I have thought of borrowing money in order to pay for my wife’s pilgrimage. Please comment.

A: First of all I would like to reassure you that from the Islamic point of view, there is nothing wrong with what you have done, except perhaps in writing to your father-in law in the same abusive language he had used with you. This is certainly wrong on his part. You have been trying to discharge all your responsibilities to the best of your ability. That is all that Islam requires of anybody. If your efforts fall short of fulfilling your best expectations, no blame should be attached to you. What you promised your wife is to invite her to do the pilgrimage. If you cannot do that this year, then you may fulfill that promise next year. You can try to compensate for that by obtaining a visitor’s visa for her, and that will be more than adequate, because she will be able to spend longer time with you. If that can be extended until the pilgrimage season, she would get more than she bargained for. My feeling is that your wife has been trying to get the best deal for herself, thinking little of your other obligations. In doing so, she has been selfish. I must hasten to say that I am only saying this on the basis of your story. Therefore, I am not making a judgment in the matter. A judgment can only be made after hearing both sides and cross-examining each of them. What I am saying is only made on the assumption that what you have said is true. When your wife insists that you get her a separate home and you cannot afford that because you have to look after your parents also, she is making an unreasonable demand. She is entitled to be provided with a good standard of living, according to your means. She cannot simply ignore the fact that your parents need your help and that your earnings must pay for all your obligations.

What you should do now is to make your position clear to your wife. You should tell her frankly that you are not going abandon your parents for her sake in the same way, as you do not expect her to abandon her parents. You should tell her also that in the circumstances, she has to tolerate the fact that your income can only maintain a certain standard of living and she is expected to cooperate in maintaining that by reducing her demands to what is reasonable. If she cannot promise that, then you should leave her to stay with her parents for a while. She may soon get tired of that and become more willing to reach a compromise. If you maintain your stand showing her that you really care for her and want her to be with you, but you are only asking her to be practical and reasonable, then you may soon find her relenting, and may be her parents would appreciate your stand. You must not be critical of her parents or use any abusive language either to her or her parents. You should maintain a proper standard of decency. You should not borrow money in order to bring her for pilgrimage. God does not require that from anyone. You say that you have not had any communication with her or her family for several months. There is no harm in taking the initiative and writing to her a reassuring letter explaining your position in a reconciliatory way. Alternatively you may try to get some wise person from her family or a mutual friend to speak for you. You should explain to such a person that you cannot walk out on any of your responsibilities.
In an Islamic community people appreciate a person who takes care of his elderly parents. You should not despair, but you should act wisely. May God guide you to the best way, which ensures the happiness of your family.

Q. A fatwa was issued without any quotation from the Qur’an or the Hadith that the prayer of any Hanafi person behind an imam who belongs to Ahl Al-Hadith is null and void. Please comment.
A. This is a very serious question, because when we say that a prayer behind a certain imam is not valid, we are actually saying that this imam is not a Muslim. If we consider him a Muslim, then praying behind him is valid. When Muslims go into a mosque, they simply join the congregational prayer. They do not ask which school of thought the imam follows, or what particular view he adopts. Such matters are irrelevant. This means that whoever issued this fatwa considers all people who are called Ahl Al-Hadith to be non-Muslims.

A.In plain language, the term Ahl Al-Hadith means “the people of Hadith, or who follow Hadith”, and “Hadith” is anything the Prophet (Pbuh) said, did or approved. This means that by definition every Muslim belongs to the people of Hadith. When a person makes the essential declaration of Islam, i.e. the kalimah, stating his belief in God’s oneness and in Prophet Muhammad’s message, he accepts everything the Prophet said or did or approved as valid and applicable to him. Needless to say, all schools of thought can be called Ahl Al-Hadith in this wider sense. Indeed, the imams of all four schools have stated that they abide by the Hadith without hesitation.

However, the term is used in certain communities to refer to a particular group of people who refer to the Hadith directly, not through the schools of thought. Their scholars take from all schools of thought, and may even adopt a view that none of these schools approves, preferring to refer to the Hadith directly adopting a ruling on its basis. What is needed is an accommodating approach. People should always respect the other point of view. What we should remember is that we all seek God’s pleasure and hope to earn reward from Him. Our ways may be different, but if we all agree that we follow the guidance provided by Prophet Muhammad, through eminent scholars, then there is no difference between us.

As for this fatwa, it represents the extreme opposite of what I have just said. It takes a very rigid attitude and cannot be supported by any evidence. In fact, it betrays complete ignorance of Hadith, its role and status, as well as ignorance of the schools of thought and what they represent. It must be discounted altogether.

Q. At the institute where I study, I was told by one lecturer that the institute does not allow women to cover their faces. Therefore, I did not cover my face. Later I learned that it was only this lecturer who objects strongly to this practice. Could you please explain the position, citing evidence in support.

A. There is nothing in the Qur’an or the Sunnah to suggest that women must cover their faces in public. The most definitive Qur’anic statement in this regard is: “Let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms.” (24: 31) In fact, the statement refers to the opening at the top of a woman’s dress. It requires that the head covering should be drawn so as to cover the top opening of a woman’s dress. However, in translation we substitute the top of the dress by the part of the body it shows. There is no reference here to face, but to bosom. This means that the head covering should cover the bosom. This ensures that should the dress have a low cut, revealing part of the woman’s bosom, it is covered by her head scarf.

There are many Hadiths that speak of women talking to the Prophet or to his companions, with their faces uncovered. One Hadith mentions that on one Eid occasion, the Prophet went to the women to address them, realising that they could not have heard his sermon already given. The reporter of the Hadith mentions that ‘a woman with dark red cheeks’ put to him a certain question. How could the reporter of the Hadith describe her in such terms if her face was covered?

People who insist that women must cover their faces rely on a rigid interpretation of certain statements. Such interpretation cannot stand, if we were to take the statements as they ordinarily mean. Besides, we do not find in the Sunnah any clear evidence to suggest that the women companions of the Prophet covered their faces in public.

Having said that, I feel that the lecturer should not have said that it was a policy of the institute when it was not. He should have explained that in his lectures, he did not want women to cover their faces. If he insists on this, he is within his right. He needs to recognise his students and be able to assess their performances. How can he, if he cannot tell one from the other?

Q.1. Many Muslims use the word “holy” in reference to several nouns. Thus, they refer to Makkah as the holy city, and they say the holy Kaaba, the holy Qur’an, or the holy prophet. They even speak of the holy month of Ramadan. Is this correct, considering that the word “holy” is the translation of one of God’s attributes, Al-Quddoos.
Q.2. Please explain the Hadith that says: “Treat people according to grades.” It seems to suggest that inequality is acceptable.

A.1. What you say is largely true. Al-Quddoos is an attribute of God, and this adjective is not used in reference to anyone or anything other than Him. However, some derivatives of the same root, such as Muqaddas, which also means holy, are usable in connection with other things. Thus we have in Verse 21 of Surah 5 in the Qur’an, the reference to the “holy land”, which is Palestine. Yet in Islamic literature, the word is not used to refer to the Prophet, the Qur’an, any place, day, month or period of time. It has simply crept into Islamic speech as people began to be influenced by the use of second languages like English and French.

A.2. The Hadith does not speak of grades. It speaks of treating people in the way that is due to them. You thus do not address your teacher at university in the same way as you address a fellow student. The respect you show to your teacher is due to him or her because of their status. It does not mean that your friends and colleagues are of a lesser degree; they are in a different position. This applies at all levels and in all situations. All people are equal in as far as their status before God is concerned, but they have different positions in the social order, which should be respected. May I also point out that the translation of the Hadith is rather inaccurate. I would translate it as: “Assign to people what is due to them.” This reflects the sense of the Hadith better.

Q. Sometimes when I need to take a bath, I feel worried that I have not done everything properly. The other day, as I was drying myself after a shower, I thought that I had not properly washed my eyes, so I repeated my shower. Then on the second occasion I felt that I did not properly clean my nose. Such matters give me trouble and I am not sure how meticulous one should be. In a situation of this type, could I have washed my eyes or nose after I had finished and put on my clothes?

A: What you are experiencing is a case of obsessive thoughts, which is experienced by many people who are normally keen to do things right. When it comes to religious duties, they are extra careful. Hence, they develop such an attitude, which gives them much trouble.

What is important to realise is that in matters of worship, the intention is more important than the form. Thus, a person who knows very little of the Qur’an may use what he knows in all his prayers. His prayers are not in any way less valid than the one who knows the whole of the Qur’an by heart. Both have the same intention of doing their prayers in fulfillment of their duty outlined by God and clearly set out by the Prophet. When a person does his ablution, or wudhu, he is required to wash his face, arms and feet, and to wipe his head with his wet hand. Take the case of washing one’s face. All one must do is to have his cupped hands full of water and wash his face with that water. He is meant to wash all his face. Yet it may happen that a small part of it is missed. This does not affect the validity of the ablution. One of my teachers used to point out to us: “God says: wash your faces. Is there a single person in the world who does not know how to wash his or her face? However they do it is acceptable.” Likewise, in the case of grand ablution, or ghusl. If you stand under the shower and go over your body with your hands as the water is coming down, you have fulfilled your duty. You must not start thinking: have I done this, or was that done properly. If you do, there will be no end of such thoughts. Indeed the Prophet clearly indicated that such thoughts must be shunned.

Yet in many cases, shunning such obsessive thoughts is easier said than done. A person who has been giving in to such thoughts will find it difficult to escape from them. The only way is to go against them with determination. Take the example you have given me. When the thought that you have not washed your eyes properly occurs to you, you should say to yourself: “Of course I washed them. Most certainly I washed them well.” Then you should actually put on your clothes and perform your prayers. If thoughts that your prayer is invalid because of your improper shower occur to you, you do not listen to them. Rather, you should totally banish them. You must not in any case repeat that prayer. If you do this for a few days or a few times, you will rid yourself of such thoughts and you will find that your life is much easier. Remember always that God does not want to afflict us in any way.

Q: A pregnant woman has been advised by her doctor to have an operation to ensure that she does not get pregnant again. She had previously given birth twice, each time delivering by Caesarean section. The doctor’s advice is based on that three abdominal operations is the maximum that a woman can have. Otherwise, the risks to her health are considerable. Please advise whether such an operation is acceptable.

A: To start with, contraception to prevent pregnancy is permissible. The Prophet was told by some of his companions that they were resorting to it and he did not tell them to stop such practice. Needless to say, they resorted to the method known at the time. The fact that he did not ban it, realizing that it is meant to avoid pregnancy, means that it is permissible. One of the Prophet’s companions said: “We used to resort to contraception at the time when the Qur’an was being revealed.” What he meant is that if it was not permissible, the Qur’an would have clearly stated the prohibition. Since there is no such prohibition, it remains permissible.

When the method of contraception is not of the permanent type, such as the pill, the loop or the condom, the permissibility is clear. The case may be different when the method is permanent, as in the case of an operation of the type this lady is advised to have. Such an operation is permissible when there is a clear risk to the mother in any future pregnancy. The woman should have had clear advice by a competent doctor who is religious. When a case meets these conditions, then the permissibility is based on the principle that “necessities relax prohibitions”. It is not permissible for a healthy woman to have a sterilization operation when pregnancy represents no health risk to her or her children. She can resort to normal methods of contraception. In a case where there is serious health risk from any future pregnancy, sterilization may be permitted, provided expert advice strongly recommends it.

Q: In my home country, farmers are using organic manure, which includes cow dung. Is this permissible, considering that dung and animal excreta are impure? May I say that this method is effective in increasing production.

A: Organic manure using the excreta of animals such as horses, cows and similar domestic animals is perfectly permissible. Only the dung and urine of animals whose flesh we are forbidden to eat are impure. Those of animals that we eat, such as sheep, goats, chicken and cows are not classified as impure, or najis. Therefore, using it as fertilisers is perfectly appropriate.