Letters to the Editor

So long as a Muslim male and female are married to each other, and the marriage was performed according to Islamic rules, there is no point in conducting another marriage ceremony. But, if there is pressure on them to go through the marriage ceremony once again, for whatever reason, they might oblige those pressurizing them. This second ceremony however, will be considered as “laghw” (futile) and will have no legal worth in the Islamic law. That is, if fresh contracts are made, such as those concerning the “mahr”, or any other, the first Shara`ee marriage will hold the legality.

As regards the second marriage, a point to be noted is that it should not involve any religious ritual that has the stamp of another religion. Depending on the nature and significance of the ritual of another religious set-up, some rituals could as well be “haraam.” Therefore, although technically speaking there should be no harm, it is best to avoid getting married following another religious tradition. Let them, if the pressure persists, accept a ceremony involving no more than “offer and acceptance,” close to a court marriage which involves no more than acceptance of a few terms and signing of a few papers.

If they decide to leave the area of present residence, to escape persecution, they may do so, but might yet remember that the rights of their parents remain (which are pretty many in Islam), wherever they choose to move, despite their parents remaining non-Muslims.

No, this is not permissible.

Your Arab Muslim friends or Africans or others, must not identify themselves with the countries of which they hold the nationality. This sort of identity is useful for the purposes of secular administrative affairs, such as voting rights, collection of taxes etc. But, from the Islamic point of view, these individuals do not belong to the countries of which they hold the citizenship and passports. They belong to the Ummah created by the Prophet.

There is no difference in opinion among the scholars of Islam that for all practical purposes, Muslims of a region – no matter what their origins – must necessarily follow their local “ameer” in all those affairs where the Shari`ah has not declared its rule, but has left it to the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd” to act on its behalf. In the absence of a local “ameer” individuals should remain with the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd.”

Who are the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd”? They are the leaders of the community. Individuals who, primarily, combine three qualities in their persons: piety, knowledge and influence. In the absence of the combination, those who hold power, are influential, have a say in community affairs, are respected for their opinions, and can, to some measure, get their opinions implemented, are those who get into this circle. (In Arabic the definition for “ahl al-hall wa `aqd” is:

ذوو الشوكة والسطوة والرأي والتدبير في البلاد)

They need not be a party. Anyone who qualifies as a leader in the above qualities belongs to the group. Groups for instance, among the Muslims, formed on a variety of basis (e.g., reformation groups [Tableeghi, Jama`ati, etc.] or Fiqhi groups: [Hanafiyy, Salafi, etc.], or Sufi groups, or others) are not the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd.” Some of the individuals of these various groups may belong to the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd,” but not all, and not as a group.

Thus, the Moroccan Muslims in India, the Syrians and the Javanese, must remain close to and follow the opinions of the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd” of the local Muslims.

What happens if the Muslims are divided over one of the issues? The answer is, every individual Muslim should try to be with the most pious and knowledgeable around him, no matter to which group those pious and knowledgeable ones belong. The most pious and the knowledgeable are the closest to Allah, and hence, individuals should seek to be with them in community affairs and religious matters.

This is in general. In particular, with reference to determination of the `Eid or beginning of Ramadan, they must necessarily follow the local consensus. The Prophet’s instruction is very clear: “Start the fast by its (moon’s) sighting; and break the fast with its sighting (to determine the `Eid).” If the “ameer” of an area decides on a day as the day of `Eid, everyone should obey him. In his absence, such as in a non-Muslim state, the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd” take over his functions. If they decide on a day as the day of `Eid, then they should be obeyed. If the “ahl al-hall wa `aqd” are also absent, then, the opinion and practice of the majority of mainstream Muslims must be followed. Says a hadith of Abu Da`ud and others:

« الصوم يوم تصومون والإفطار يوم تفطرون والأضحى يوم تضحون »

The Prophet said, “The fast is of that day in which you fast, the day of `Eid that day in which you observe the `Eid, and the day of Ad-haa the day in which you sacrifice.”

In the above hadith, the Prophet alluded to the mainstream Muslims by saying “you.” What he meant is that if you, the mainstream community of Muslims, have decided on a day that you will fast therein, or a day wherein you will celebrate `Eid, or a day on which you will sacrifice the `Eid al-Ad-haa animal, then those are the days when the rest of the Ummah of your area should be doing the same things.

Your Arab friends therefore, should be following the mainstream Muslims of the geographical area they live in to decide on the day of fast, `Eid of Fitr, or of Ad-haa.

They belong to the Muslim Ummah first and last. This is not our opinion. It is the Islamic requirement. Wherever they go, for a short or long while, they must remain with the Jama`ah. Allah’s Hand is with the Jama`ah: the community of believers. He who left the Jama`ah, exposed himself to perils. His Islam is suspect. And the Jama`ah is the group of Muslims nearest to a Muslim. So, the Jama`ah of an Indian in Jordan, is the Muslims around him there, in that country, and the Jama`ah of a Jordanian in India is the Muslims around him here, in India.

Until the Prophet came, mankind was in a state of ignorance: not knowing who God is, and how He can be worshipped. The revelation to the Prophet – the Qur’an – taught humanity who and what God is, and how He can be addressed, solicited, worshipped, and communed with.

The “salah” was ordered by Allah, and explained by the Prophet: both in words as well as in action. It is a unique way of worshipping Allah. No other religious system offers its equivalent. It is the pride of a Muslim, and envy of the non-Muslim.

Understandably, no other topic occupies as much space in fiqh and hadith books as Salah does. Every action of the Prophet during the salah is thoroughly recorded and discussed. Consequently, it happens to be the most closely imitated acts of the Prophet. To add anything to this profound way of worship is to corrupt it and loose the originality. It is also an unforgivable crime since no one knew how to Pray until the Prophet was taught by Jibril by Allah’s command. But after it has been taught, if someone adds, he is being audacious against Allah.

Prayers begin with Takbeer Tahreemah and end with Salam. To add a Du`a to it, as a necessary part of Salah, is an innovation. But, if the matters remained at this point, it was forgivable: not because it becomes part of Salah, but simply because of the acceptance of the practice by a great majority of Muslims throughout the ages. Now, to go further on, and add “Fatiha” to the Du`a, is to be crossing the grey area, and entering into the red area.

Further, if it is not prevented, something else may follow. It has in fact begun to be added. In some mosques there is a second “Al-Faithah” at the end of the Sunan. In a few others, this “Al-Fatihah” is being ceremonized in the open-yard of the mosque, in congregation and while standing. So, there can be no end.

Finally, addition of “Al-Fatihah” in the Du`a seems to have pervaded into every kind of Du`a, so that there can be no congregational supplication, at any time, without ending with “Al-Fatiha.” Was this the practice of the Prophet, or generations that followed him? No, it was not.

According to the Hanafiyyah, “Raf`u al-Yadayn” is not “Wajib”. Indeed, it is not “wajib” according to any school of law. The author of Hanbaliyy Fiqh work “Al-Mughni” states that there is no difference among the Fuqahaa (the four as well as others) that “raf`u al-yadayn” is “mustahab.”

Exchanging `Eid cards has little or no meaning. By the time the card arrives by post, the `Eid is behind by several days. At best it is a symbol of love and regard for a dear one away in another part of the globe. Hence, if it has to be sent, it must remain as simple and inexpensive as possible, otherwise it enters into the category of “Israaf” and hence, questionable. Money spent on expensive cards is more deserved by the poor of the area, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

Further, the sentiments expressed within the cards should match with the reality, otherwise, it will be a kind of lie to say in the `Eid card, what one does not really feel about the person the card is sent to. A believer is honest to the last degree.

It is allowed to wear rings. They need not necessarily mean that one is engaged or married. A bachelor can also wear rings.

Chatting over the Net is no different from chatting over telephone. Both are allowed. However, if the chat is between boy and girl, then parents should be aware of the chat and the topics should remain educational and never romantic. At best the conversation could be on cultural topics, but not about how each feels about cultural norms and ethos. In short, it should not get personal, expressing likes and dislike, which leads to intimacy between two “ghayr mahrams.”

If the contention is “we are just being friendly,” then the answer is, “what is wrong in a female being friendly with a female, and a male being friendly with a male?” Preference of a male for a female, and of a female for a female for internet chatting indicates unclean intentions.

So long as obscenity is not involved, there is nothing wrong in emoticons. They are not full human figures to be treated as pictures.

The justification for using “Hair Removing Lotions” is that one may have a pocket fat enough to buy them. The popular brands cost more than an average man’s daily wage in India. And a side-effect is that they empty your pocket faster than you can fill it.

You might have missed the several detailed discussions that have taken place in this column. In sum, a cap is not part of the prayer costume because there happens to be no prayer costume.

A Muslim is required to wear the best kind of clothes during the five-time prayers of the day. He must remain physically neat and clean, wear neat and clean clothes, and use perfume if possible, at the time of appearance before his Lord, whether alone or in congregation.

What exactly has he to wear has not been defined but rather what parts of the body should a male cover has been defined: from above the navel to below the knee: this being absolutely essential. He can wear whatever he wishes over and above this minimum. For the female, the minimum is from head (i.e., the hair), to foot, excluding hands and feet but covering the ankles. The face may or may not be covered depending on the situation: if assured of non-Mahram’s absence, she may uncover her face, otherwise cover the face also.

Humankind, both male as well as female, have generally covered their heads throughout history to save their hair from getting dirty from the dust, and thus, removing their headgear when in the safety of a home or office. It also provided for a soft pad for carrying weights. With the practice came fashion and numerous kinds of headgears, almost dozens, came into being. Cap is just one of them. It is now more of a fashionable object rather than with any other function, religion being not at all its reason for adoption. If at all, it is the cheapest and simplest way of covering the head.

Caps are worn by a variety of people, Muslim and non-Muslim, and, with the passage of time, has come to acquire religious significance in the sense that particular designs seem to be specially meant for the Muslims, and thus, it has become a means of identification.

But today’s Muslims wear the cap for entirely opposite reasons. It is worn in the mosques, where religious identification is not necessary, (everybody there being Muslim), but taken off outside the mosque, (where everybody is not Muslim), thus concealing the identity of a Muslim among the non-Muslim populace.

Functionally also, a cap has no purpose within the mosque, while it serves as a cover against dust outside of it.

It may be noted that if someone considers a headgear (cap, turban, monkey-cap, ghutra, etc.) as an article of ornament, he must not specifically remove it during the prayers. But if he feels it a matter of pride to be wearing it, or as a means of national identity (like some Arabs who take pride in their ghutra), then he must remove it during the Prayers. One must stand humble before his Lord, equal to all, and must remove from his body any sign of pride or national identity: “And the attire of piety, that is better”: the Qur’an.

In principle, we do not see anything Islamically wrong in someone getting himself medically checked for fertility. To check and get medically treated cannot be considered as interfering in natural laws. Any sexual abnormality is no different from any other abnormality and it is as common as many other physical diseases. It is in the routine to seek help against them, and receive treatment. After all, many diseases, for instance cancer, asthma, etc., are naturally induced. In fact, in many cases delaying medical treatment can lead to worsening of the problem.

Nonetheless, considering your case in particular, a year is not too long a delay. For some people it takes several years before they can have children.

Finally, the problem could as well be on the other side, i.e., your wife. But you have to allow time.

You have of course our permission to place our publications on the Net. Our concerned department will send you the texts in “Word” format.

We are publishing your request in order for others to similarly provide you with their publications.

We do not know what the source of your information is, and the dictionaries that you have referred to; but we do not find any basis for the meanings and interpretations offered by you for mosque, mecca and mohd.

In reply to an earlier letter to this column, we have clarified that the common conception about the origin of the word “mosquito” – now circulating through the Net – is incorrect.

A quick reference to several dictionaries yields the following results for the word mosque:

1. The Encarta:

Mosque: A central or popular place:a place that is an important center for a particular activity or that is visited by a great many people.

2. The American Heritage Dictionary:

Mosque: mosque (mosk) n. A Moslem house of worship. [French mosquée, from Old French mousquaie, from Old Italian moschea, from moscheta, from Old Spanish mezquita, from Arabic masjid, from sajada, to worship.]

3. The Oxford Concise Dictionary:

Mosque: n. a Muslim place of worship.

– ORIGIN ME: from Fr. mosquée, via Ital. and Sp. from Egyptian Arab. masgid.

4. The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary

mosque (mosk, môsk), n.

a Muslim temple or place of public worship.

[1600–10; earlier mosquee < MF < It moschea Î Ar masjid, deriv. of sajada to worship, lit., prostrate oneself; the -ee seems to have been taken as dim. suffix and dropped]

As against the above, the following is the word origin given for the word “mosquito” in the American Heritage Dictionary:

[Spanish and Portuguese, from diminutive of mosca, fly, from Latin musca.]

In other words, the word “mosquito” developed from the word for fly viz., “mosca”. It is a diminutive form of the word “mosca” since, the insect mosquito itself is a diminutive form of the fly.

The above reveals that the term “mosque” is not related to the term “mosquito” in its origin. Both have different origins.

In contrast, The American Heritage Dictionary offers an interesting write-up on mosquitoes. It says:

WORD HISTORY: Flies will never be popular creatures, in spite or because of their omnipresence. Two examples of the fly’s influence on our lives can be found in the etymologies of the words mosquito and musket, both of which can be traced back to musca, the Latin word for fly. This Latin word became mosca in Spanish and Portuguese, Romance languages that developed from Vulgar Latin. Mosquito, the diminutive of mosca, was borrowed into English (first recorded around 1583) with the same sense “mosquito” that it had in Spanish and Portuguese. The Romance language French was the source of our word musket (first recorded around 1587), which came from French mousquet, but this word entered French from yet another Romance language, Italian. From the descendant of Latin musca, Italian mosca, was formed the diminutive moschetta with the senses “bolt for a catapult” and “small artillery piece.” From moschetta came moschetto, “musket,” the source of French mousquet. The use of moschetta, literally “little fly,” to mean “bolt from a crossbow” can be ascribed to the fact that both bolt and insect fly, buzz, and sting.

Similarly, looking into the meaning of the word “mecca” in the English language reveals that in no dictionary does it stand for “bar or pub.” In fact, the Arabic noun “Makkah” modified by the tongues incapable of producing subtle sounds, into “mecca,” has had an entirely good influence on the English language. So that, the first meaning stated by the dictionaries for “mecca” is as follows:

1. The American Heritage Dictionary:

mec·ca (mµk“…) n. 1.a. A place that is regarded as the center of an activity or interest. b. A goal to which adherents of a religious faith or practice fervently aspire. 2. A place visited by many people: a mecca for tourists. [After Mecca (from its being a place of pilgrimage).]

2. The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary:

This lexicon gives the following as the second meaning.

 2.       (often l.c.) any place that many people visit or hope to visit: The president’s birthplace is a mecca for his admirers.

Similar meanings are given in other dictionaries. In other words, the first meaning that the word “mecca” has in the English language, is, (because of Islamic influence), that of “a center of activities,” with some sort of sacredness attached to it.

Finally, the word “mohd.” Strangely, this word does not appear as an entry in any of the four dictionaries mentioned above. Indeed, there is no such entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta or Wikipedia either.

We have presented the above because Islam differs from every other religion in that it does not consider those who do not subscribe to its views as automatically its enemies. This is the way of the Christians. For example, it is being said in the Western press that the decision to invade Iraq was taken by Bush and Blair because both are born-again Christians. They are said to be supported by the Rightist Christians. That for someone to be a born-again Christian automatically means he should be anti-Muslim, is a specialty of Christians. For us Muslims, being a Muslim does not mean that Christians automatically become our enemies.

Our religion does not allow for this kind of attitude. It should not be assumed, therefore, that the words that refer to us in their language, or to our religious symbols, have been designed to give a hidden sinister meaning.

Without the willingness to work against those few who are against us, since comfort comes first to us, the Ummah has become super-sensitive and sees an enemy where only a shadow exists. Raising concrete and cultural walls against us is the style of life of the West: the Berlin Wall, the Jerusalem Wall, the Iraq Wall, etc. We Muslims bring down barriers. We should not take for granted some of the propaganda working against the West, and attribute to them crimes they did not commit. Further, in recent times, the effort by the Western media is to divide the world into Muslim and non-Muslim. We should not fall prey to this conspiracy and make things worse by making our own contributions.

If the popularity of a historical personality is enough of a reason to declare him a Nabiyy, then, in a few centuries, a few more dozens of personalities of our times are likely to become Prophets. This in fact is how the number of deities has been increased over the centuries.

No one knows the Prophets of the past but Allah. He has named them in His revelations: the Tawrah, the Zabur, the New Testament and the Final revelation: the Qur’an. If He did not name any in these Scriptures, then he cannot be declared so now, neither because of his reported qualities, nor by how holy he is thought to have been.

To attribute Prophethood to someone not named in the holy scriptures, is to be informing Allah – or perhaps reminding Him – of a slip.

In this particular case, those who declare Krishna as a Prophet might keep their opinions to themselves because they might be hurting the sentiments of millions of people by making a human out of him while his followers believe in his divinity.

In simpler words, while those devoted to Krishna believe that he was supreme God, and worship him as one, others might be hurting the feelings of these devotees by saying, indirectly, that he was no God, but a human. Have these people consulted the devotees? Have they their approval? If common sense is to prevail, should they not first convince the devotees before being themselves convinced that Krishna was a human being?

Herewith anyway, two accounts of Krishna, one secular and another from the devotees themselves. The Encyclopedia Britannica says about him:

“Sanskrit  Kṛṣṇa one of the most widely revered and most popular of all Indian divinities, worshipped as the eighth incarnation (avatar, or avatāra) of the Hindu god Vishnu and also as a supreme god in his own right. Krishna became the focus of numerous bhakti (devotional) cults, which over the centuries have produced a wealth of religious poetry, music, and painting. The basic sources of Krishna’s mythology are the epic Mahābhārata and its 5th-century-AD appendix, the Harivaṃśa, and the Purāṇas, particularly Books 10 and 11 of the Bhāgavata-Purāṇa. They relate how Krishna (literally “black,” or “dark as a cloud”) was born into the Yādava clan, the son of Vasudeva and Devakī, sister of Kaṃsa, the wicked king of Mathura (in modern Uttar Pradesh). Kaṃsa, hearing a prophecy that he should be destroyed by Devakī’s child, tried to slay her children; but Krishna was smuggled across the Yamuna River to Gokula (or Vraja, modern Gokul), where he was raised by the leader of the cowherds, Nanda, and his wife Yaśodā.

The child Krishna was adored for his mischievous pranks; he also performed many miracles and slew demons. As a youth, the cowherd Krishna became renowned as a lover, the sound of his flute prompting the gopīs (wives and daughters of the cowherds) to leave their homes to dance ecstatically with him in the forests. His favourite among them was the beautiful Rādhā. At length Krishna and his brother Balarāma returned to Mathura to slay the wicked Kaṃsa. Afterward, finding the kingdom unsafe, he led the Yādavas to the western coast of Kāthiāwār and established his court at Dvāraka (modern Dwārkā, Gujarāt). He married the princess Rukmiṇī and took other wives as well.

Krishna refused to bear arms in the great war between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas but offered a choice of his personal attendance to one side and the loan of his army to the other. The Pāṇḍavas chose the former, and Krishna thus served as charioteer for Arjuna. On his return to Dvāraka, a brawl broke out one day among the Yādava chiefs in which Krishna’s brother and son were slain. As the god sat in the forest lamenting, a huntsman, mistaking him for a deer, shot him in his one vulnerable spot, the heel, killing him.”

A second account from the site: http://krishna.avatara.org/

“Lord Krishna appeared over five thousand years ago in Mathura, India to Devaki and Vasudeva in the jail cell of the tyrant Kamsa. The place of His birth is known as Sri Krishna Janmasthana. He appeared with His brother Balarama in response to the demigods’ prayers for protection from the widespread influence of demonic administration on earth.

Previously, the demigods and demons had been at war in the heavens. When the demons were defeated by the demigods, they decided to instead attack this planet earth. Thus, they invaded the earth by discretely taking birth as princes in powerful royal families of the time.

And as the earth became overrun by militaristic activities of these kingly demons, the demigods including the Earth goddess earnestly sought Lord Visnu’s protection. Seeing the deteriorating social and political conditions and hearing the prayers of the demigods, the all-compassionate Supreme Lord Sri Krishna decided to descend for the benefit of all.

Historically, Lord Krishna appeared on the midnight of the 8th day of the dark half of the month of Sravana. This corresponds to July 19th 3228 BC. He exhibited His pastimes for a little over 125 years and disappeared on February 18th 3102 BC on the new moon night of Phalguna.”

(Source: http://krishna.avatara.org/)

Although there are contradictions between the two reports, one being objective and the other subjective, none of the two mentions that he was a Prophet of God. What then is the basis of those who refer to him as one?