London for study
"London remains best city in the world to study in new rankings"
Besides one under-graduate degree, my entire western education was received in London. In fact, a significant part of my shar'i learning also took place in London, and it was mainly in London where all my thoughts/ideas/learning came together and matured. I would say that it was only the lack of shar'i tutors back in the day that compelled me to spend time studying in the Middle East. Were such tutors here now (which I believe are growingly), I wouldn't have had a reason to travel. Some people say it's 'easier' to study abroad where they're mainly referring to cost of study and living, and lack of distraction. To those two points of contention I would say:
Muslims and racist portrayals
(In comment to: 'Deporting ‘foreign criminals’ in the middle of the night doesn’t make us safer')
“Look at modern British history, and you’ll find that the “criminal” and the “immigrant” blur into one another in popular and official thinking. In Victorian England, crime was often blamed on Irish immigrants (“dangerous classes” were labelled with the Irish-derived name “hooligans”), and then on Jews from eastern Europe. These narratives neatly anticipated the way the spectre of “black criminality” was peddled by the press in postwar Britain, as well as contemporary narratives about Muslims and sexual abuse.”
Now the sexual abuse story, in as much as it was inaccurate and absolutely racist, was largely a south Asian story and particularly Pakistani/Kashmiri (please note I’m not legitimising the racist reporting on the issue and the demonisation of an entire ethnicity I neither accept nor condone) but yet somehow it became a Muslim one. How disgusting that sexual abuse and Muslim share the same sentence? And yes whilst I deplore both, for me sexual abuse and Muslim sharing the same sentence is far worse. Yet in the legitimate protest against such framing, there was little demarcation made. Muslim and Pakistani were treated synonymous by both non-Muslims and Asian Muslims.
“Football is shirk (polytheism)”
Yes, only if you have a very warped view of what polytheism is, and what offends God. This is the type of absurdity that becomes widespread when God is not part of the conversation.
So let’s bring the Most High back in: Does God eternally condemn a soul to the blazing fire for playing football according to rules? Is the Most High, Lord of all the realms and their inhabitants, deeply offended by paltry rules of a mundane sport such as football?! Does the Lord who sustains the cosmos take it offensively that you decided to give a yellow/red card for a handball or a tackle, and take it as you trying to compete with Him in His kingship?! God the Supreme is far above seeing a yellow/red card as a challenge to His divine station, or as seeking equality to Him. And any such silly representation of an ilah is certainly not Al-lah (a definite clause).
Some clarity on the Abaya
An abaya is a common term many British Muslims use to denote a particular form of covering. Typically, it is worn by women in the Arabian Gulf from where it originates, and is synonymous with a robe or long dress. Men in the Arabian Gulf also wear an abaya (also a robe). It is not an Islamic garment in as much as there is no such thing as "Islamic clothing" - all clothing is cultural and either meet shar’i requirements or do not.
An abayah is usually thought of as the Quranic reference to a jilbab. Strictly speaking they’re separate things. In the shari’ah, jilbab has become a conceptual form of covering (in the Prophet's era they associated it with something specific, but certainly not an abaya), so it can include an abayah but also many other forms of covering as well. So they are not the same thing.
Now my point isn’t to discourage people from wearing the abayah, please do as you wish and whatever makes you happy. I’m simply addressing a point on God’s Law that people tend to misunderstand due to conflating two separate things, and then haphazardly impose Arabian Gulf culture on the rest of the world as if it’s a moral virtue. It really isn't. God the Most High neither wanted nor ordained that the world dress like Arabians, nor is it “the better thing to do” or “mustahab” - and any such assertion is silly both from a scriptural perspective and common sense. That’s not to mention that the abaya can also be worn in a way that contravenes shar’i codes on appropriate covering, such as figure-hugging manifestations, and on many occasions it is.
God’s Law outlines the amount both men and women are expected to cover and its nature, and He left it with humans and their diverse cultures to decide what fashionable form that would take. If one has an inclination to a particular cultural aesthetic then that’s fine, but there is absolutely no moral virtue in one cultural method over another (unless there are secondary factors to consider).
Different Generations
There’s an observation I’d like to impart and somewhat tongue in cheek(!), that an anecdotal analysis of various generations has led me to conclude that the oldest group of millennials (34-39) are the soundest cohort. Now I know what you’re going to say: “mmm…convenient they you’re from amongst them” but hear me out on this one:
From one perspective we’re old skool, but incorporate important stuff of the new skool. From another we’re new skool, but incorporate some of the old skool. Because we’re in the middle we take the best of other generations. As a result:
Neglecting God for the Prophet
Now one would think that the title, at least to a monotheist, would be pretty problematic. Yet to many Muslims (let alone Christians) it’s not the case. And even where they do not openly oppose such a sentiment, it still leaves them uncomfortable. Why? Because they’re told that to elevate God above all else is fine, but there’s an underlying sentiment that if their Prophet is not up there with Him then that’s plain blasphemy. Yet is it God alone who occupies the highest station, both in our practices and in our hearts, “Exalted be God, the true King, there is no God but Him, the Lord of the glorious throne.” (Quran 23:116)
Maturity and dialogue through debate
In the past, I’ve spent many years debating various issues with a range of people. The petulance of youth meant that I would passionately argue believing I was correct, and over-investing myself in ‘correcting’ my interlocutor. Back and forth for hours with confrontational retorts and a highly opinionated view of one’s own deductions often leads to such behaviour, as I came to realise.
Maturity and experience changes all such foolish ways. But how so?
There are many hadith where the Prophet speaks of the traits of the young, who out of inexperience and haste, make errors and behave in ignorant ways. Patience is no virtue here, and experience has yet to mature their thinking and demonstrate how time itself is a resource - over time realisations take place and views alter. Time allows for variables to reveal themselves leading to more informed conclusions. Furthermore, it is due to immaturity that some have a high opinion of their viewpoints; those who have spent a considerable time in the realm of thinking have been privy to the experience of their staunchest views and assumptions being strongly challenged which is why maturity tends to temper self-certainty.
Upon studying with actual scholars who combine knowledge with upright conduct, I found civilised engagement to be highly beneficial. A polite debate would leave me with more rather than less, and ultimately it would open up various avenues of thinking and completely decimate any sense of parochialism. Now my intent wasn’t to prove my teachers wrong but to gain deeper insight into issues, to fill in the blanks, and cognitively evaluate systems of reasoning, highlighting what I found to be inconsistent but only to identify what I might be missing. I would then go away and think deeply about the entire affair without the need to draw hasty conclusions - thoughts left to simmer for a while resulted in far deeper insights and stronger ideas than those reached hastily. I would still be left with a heavy head, but the type that helps muscles grow and not the one that you leaves you merely fatigued with little to show.
The type of learning I have expectedly benefited from most as a Muslim isn’t the puzzle-solving cerebral type, but where I would witness the cogency and wisdom of an ayah or Hadith through experience. One such was the Prophetic caution against contentiously debating scholars, arguing with the foolish, and seeking knowledge for social capital. (Ibn Majah, al-Tirmidhi)
I also found that if shar’i knowledge didn’t make you a better person in all spheres, then either you were learning the wrong thing, or you weren’t learning much at all.
“But when the righteous are asked, ‘What has your Lord sent down?’ they will say, ‘All that is good.’”
Qur'an 16:30
The Prophet (in a mursal Hadith from al-Hasan) spoke of the virtue of a person who offers the obligatory prayers and then sits to teach people goodness over the one who fasts all day and prays all night. It is here also that social media can be a challenging phenomenon - we must accept that people can easily be understood, or fail to articulate themselves accurately, and such cognisance should logically lead to a charitable reading and interpreting things in the best possible light. But what can’t be misinterpreted is acting like a miscreant - demonstrating delinquency on social media cannot be excused by misunderstandings.
Over time I also noticed a pattern in conduct: scholars very rarely engaged idiocy (unless strongly rebuking the type directly leads to public harm) and would literally meet it with a blank expression, often simply walking off. At first I couldn’t make sense of it, it seemed rude; but they were simply safeguarding their own sanity and reputation, as well as denying the foolish any significance. Abu al-Ah’was stated that it used to be said: “If you argue with an idiot then you shall become like him, and if you remain silent then you are saved from him.”
So soon I came to substantially engage with the civilised type, and the benchmark should not be as low as to merely interpret civility here as someone who can communicate without explicit insults, but those who can disagree in a mature fashion without name-calling (which tends to be the method of those who don’t actually have a point), who want to learn something from the engagement open to the idea that there might be opinion-altering variables that they, or I, haven’t yet considered. It’s the Socratic method, ‘a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.’ A cooperative exercise in the spirit of rational enquiry is where one tends to learn the most.
Muhammad b. Sirin said: “they viewed it that good/meaningful questions increase the intellect of a man.”
Now it’s also about engaging with a sense of disinvestment - there is rarely anything as important or game-changing so as to incite zealous fervour. And this realisation is why older people tend to be, and sometimes amusingly, extremely chilled out and nonchalant! There are certain types, especially in the context of scholarly enquiry and problem-solving, that you learn not to spend time engaging or answering at all. The first is the questioner who already feels they have a decisive answer, so what’s the actual point? The second are those who desire a quick fix or binary reasoning - if someone isn’t committed to a holistic or meaningful understanding then I'd rather not participate in dialogue nor is binary reasoning of any value. And thirdly, those who have already decided what you mean: there really is no point in explaining yourself to those who are committed to misinterpreting or misunderstanding everything you have to say - usually due to extremely superficial or absurd reasons.
There are cohorts of wonderful people out there, I meet them everyday. We engage, discuss, agree and disagree, see things in a new light, or are left with food for thought. The experience is edifying, uplifting and positively challenging. If we find that not happening with our current circles, then maybe some change of scenery is in order.
Washing hair after sex
I have been repeatedly asked by numbers of believing women as to the laws of bathing (ghusl) to remove sexual impurity (janabah), with the concerns around frequent ghusl and the impact it can have on hair health. Problems are exacerbated in hard water areas, not only to hair but to skin, and often skin is irritated either to frequent exposure, or the elongated periods spent in the shower detangling hair under running water. For some hair types (such as particularly curly hair) repeated showers can be quite costly having to saturate hair with conditioning products to provide enough slip to reduce hair breakage.
Even after having a bath, there are persistent issues. Certain hair types can take a significant period of time to dry, and if there is a frequent need to bath due to an active sex-life or recurrent nocturnal emission, persistent wet hair can lead to illness.
These concerns are in no way modern, approximately 1400 years ago it reached A’ishah that Abdullah b. Umar advised women to untie their hair if they bathed. Her response was the same as we might hear today: “How surprising of Ibn Umar! He directs women to untie their hair if they bath, he might as well direct them to shave their heads!" (Muslim)
To be sure, God has said concerning standing for salah, "And if you are junub (sexually impure), then cleanse yourselves." (Quran 5:6), and to not come near salah "if you are junub (sexually impure) - though you may pass through the mosque - not until you have bathed." (Quran 4:43)
However, what does bathe constitute in regards to washing the hair in this context, that is, the bathing of sexual impurity (ghusl al-janabah)? The Prophet's wife Umm Salamah, asked: "Messenger of God, I am a woman who plaits my hair, must I untie it to bathe from sexual impurity?" He said: "No, it merely suffices you that you apply three handfuls on your head then pour water over you (i.e the rest of your body) to purify.” (Muslims and Ahmad)
According to the hadith, the following suffices for purification from janabah:
- Three handfuls of water poured over the head, and then the rest of the body saturated with water;
- Plaited hair may remain plaited; hair does not need to be untied;
- There is neither a requirement to rub water into the hair (or its roots) nor saturate the length of the hair.
[Explanation]
Now before explaining the bulleted points above, a preliminary point must be made especially for those who might have multiple baths within a very short space of time. Ghusl is not obligatory immediately after intercourse; it is a condition for those who wish to engage in certain actions such as salah, tawaf and dealing with the Quran. It is not necessitated merely to talk to another person or to sleep, nor is ritual impurity transferred from one human to another by touch; the Prophet said: “the believer does not pollute (others).” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim; narrated by Abu Hurairah)
Many of the aforementioned issues typically occur due to idea that the entire head must be saturated with water and rubbed, or that the length of the hair (to the tips) must be washed. To note, some of the assumptions are understandable given the hadith of Ali b. Abi Talib: “I heard the Messenger of God say: whoever leaves a spot of hair from sexual impurity which water does not reach, then God shall do such and such with him from the fire.” (Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Tayalisi, and al-Bazzar.) Furthermore, the hadith of A’ishah offers us a general description: “If the Prophet bathed due to ritual impurity he would begin by washing his hands, then he would pour with his right hand over his left and wash his private parts. Then he would perform ablution for prayer. Then he would take water and enter his fingers into the roots of his hair, until he believed he had poured over his head with three handfuls. Then he poured water over his entire body, and then washed both feet.” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
However, the hadith of Jubair b. Mut’im offers another perspective: “We were discussing the bath of janabah with the Messenger of God and he said: As for me, I take two handfuls of water and pour it over my head, thereafter I pour (water) over my entire body.” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) The chief Hanbali jurist Majd al-Din b. Taymiyyah wrote in al-Muntaqa, ‘It is evidence for those (jurists) who neither necessitate massaging, nor gargling, nor sniffing.’
But must the general hadiths of Ali and A’ishah apply? A key hadith used by jurists to argue that they do not is the narration of Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet, who said, “I said: Messenger of God, I am a woman who plaits my hair, must I untie it to bathe from sexual impurity? He said: No, it merely suffices you that you apply three handfuls on your head then pour water over you (i.e the rest of your body) to purify.” (Muslim and Ahmad)
Based on this hadith, Ahmad b. Hanbal conclusively opined, as narrated by way of Muhanna, that a woman need not untie her hair if bathing from sexual impurity (but should do so for her menses). The hadith of Umm Salamah relates to janabah whilst the Prophet said to Lady A’ishah who was menstruating: “untie your hair and comb it (through).” (Al-Bukhari)
Generally, it is the asl (default position) to untie the hair so as to ascertain water reaching that which is obligatory to wash but there are clearly allowances made for bathing from sexual impurity since it occurs often and causes both difficulty and harm. (See Ibn Abi Umar's al-Sharh al-Kabir) To reflect this, we find that ‘it reached A’ishah that Abdullah b. Umar was directing women to untie their hair if they bathed. She said: “How surprising of Ibn Umar! He directs women to untie their hair if they bath, he might as well direct them to shave their heads! The Messenger of God and I would bath together and I would not pour over my head more than three handfuls.’ (Muslim) The notion of ‘shaving their heads’ is predicated on the fact that frequent washing can lead to hair loss from breakage and tangling.
A similar point of view was also considered for washing the length of the hair to the roots. Whilst some Hanbalis (and the school of al-Shafi’i) viewed it as obligatory relying on the hadith “beneath every hair is janabah, so wet the hair and cleanse the skin” (Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi), it was the opinion of leading Hanbali jurists such as Ibn Qudamah, and before him intimated by al-Khiraqi, that it is not obligatory to wash all of the hair given the response of the Prophet to the concern of having hair in plaits, “It suffices you that you apply three handfuls on your head”. As Ibn Qudamah pointed out, ‘This does not usually soak plaited hair, for if saturation were obligatory, it would then (also) be obligatory to untie the hair so as to know that saturation had been achieved.’ (Ibn Qudamah, al-Mughni)
An interesting point of consideration specific to janabah is whether there is a requirement to wash the hair at all. Ibn Qudamah emphatically questioned the assumption arguing the analogy that in the shari’ah, the hair is not considered a part of the animal (with humans considered articulate animals – hayawan natiq) given that hair does not become impure by death, nor is there life in it, nor is ablution negated by a man touching a (non-mahram) woman’s hair, nor is a woman divorced by her hair (i.e. “I divorce your hair!”). Given the shar’i division between the two, it is not obligatory to wash it just as it wouldn’t be obligatory to wash her clothes merely for having worn them during sex. (See: al-Mughni) Ibn Qudamah’s response to the hadith used by interlocutors “drench the hair” is persuasive: al-Harith b. Wajih alone narrates the hadith, and his narrations are weak when narrating from Malik b. Dinar.
Alternatively, it may be argued that the eyebrows and eyelashes must be washed so why not the hair on the head? I assert that eyebrows and eyelashes are washed by necessity in order to reach the skin underneath which constitutes the face for which there is no concession for partial saturation; those parts of the face is only reached by washing the hair that sits on top. It essentially goes back to the legal maxim: that which is necessarily required to fulfill an obligation also becomes obligatory.
To be clear, the hadith of Umm Salamah is pivotal for an overview for it proposes the following:
- the prophet took into consideration the circumstances of women on this matter;
- that three handfuls of water over plaited hair suffices although it neither saturates the entire head nor the length of the hair.
As indicated from the prophetic directives, God desires that believing women purify themselves but without harm or injury to person nor obstructing the needs of intimacy. A divine wisdom that becomes clear is that the purpose for frequent baths (i.e. intercourse) should not become the cause of subsequent troubles: the loss of desire in the husband due to the hair loss of his wife. Additionally, God has limited the possibility of deen being used as the excuse to impede the rights of spouses. In order to maintain sexual attraction but also ensure purity, God lightened the burden on a woman and offered her a normative approach that beautifully balances the maslahah (benefit) of intimacy with corporeal purification to devotionally worship the Most High.
All praise is for the Most Wise, and we defer full knowledge to Him alone.
Enrol on Module 1: The Great Overview | Context and Purpose
We're very excited to present the very first module of the key curriculum that every believer must know. We bring together everything we know today, providing a holistic framework and grounding narrative to understand what God wants of us today. This module is a revelation-based overview of the human story in order to contextualise existence, purpose, and the Law from God. We explore what God told us and why, and how it fits in with everything else we know.
- The module begins on Sunday 20th December 2020 (until the first week of April)
- Lectures are pre-recorded and posted weekly before the seminar (first lecture Friday 18th December)
- Live interactive seminars are delivered online every Sunday (beginning around 6 or 7pm, considering prayer times)
- Other resources provided
- One login per booking (household sharing permitted)
To enrol, visit the course page here.
We cover:
Section 1: A Time Before Time
1. Time before time: what was there?
Seminar: The time before time
2. Who's there? The Great Entity
Seminar: Who and what is 'God'?
3. The creation of the realms
Seminar: Creating the realms
Section 2: Earth and Life
4. Life on Earth
Seminar: Life, hominids and evolution
5. Who is Adam?
Seminar: What makes Adam special?
6. The sanctuary and the expulsion
Seminar: Jannah, the devil and earthly living
Section 3: Humanity and Civilisation
7. The children of Adam
Seminar: Cain and Able, Seth and Enoch
8. Noah
Seminar: Noah and the Great Flood
9. Ancient Mesopotamia and Avram
Seminar: Who is Avram?
10. Abraham and the new lands
Seminar: Emigration, citizenship and settling down
11. The religion of Abraham
Seminar: Millat Ibrahim and Hanifiyyah
Section 4: To the Present Day
12. The covenant with God through Isaac
Seminar: The descendants of Isaac and the Jews
Seminar: Christ and the Christians
13. Ishmael and the Arabs
Seminar: Muhammad and the religion of Abraham
14. The religion of Abraham today
Seminar: What happened to the religion of Abraham?
To enrol, visit the course page here.
#MuslimFails
In thinking about #MuslimFails, something I find to be super consistent on a communal level – of course as individuals they can be highly talented and civilised - I've been wondering why #MuslimFails are the norm, with a hope to identify solutions. Across the board Muslims don't do well, and there's always some external excuse: "He did this…she did that…they don't like me."
Whether we like it or not, nothing important is an easy ride and there are always hurdles. God tells us to suck it up, look inwards and take ownership, achieving as much as we can in the constrained environment. Yes, external variables might mean you can only achieve 70% of an objective. But Muslims will achieve 20% (instead of the 70%) and put down the rest to impediments from others. And then they expect the help of God. It is a credal belief of mine that when believers achieve the 70% (or whatever the maximum % possible in a constraining environment) God literally does the rest - do you to your fullest extent and then leave the rest to God: the definition of tawakkul (trust) in practical terms.
The current complaint and reactionary culture is inspired by the devil. How so?
Well, the drive to be productive: being tolerant (flexible and easy to work with), commanding what is right (focusing on positivity), and paying no attention to foolish people (being coldly focused on getting that 70%) is something righteous that the devil despises (Qur'an 7:199). So, he prompts you to emotional reactions and to behave recklessly, to forget the bigger picture and what your own responsibilities are (Qur'an 7:200). You will be asked about what you do, not what they did. So God tells you to seek refuge in Him, not only because God is the supreme helper and protector, but because seeking refuge also reminds you of your priorities and responsibilities to God.
Now Muslims are easily tempted. They’re triggered by the most mundane issues. There are two reasons: 1) lack of cultivation, and more nefariously 2) being riled up and emotionally spiked by their leaders - always in a defensive stance with a village pitchfork mentality. They’re made to believe that everything revolves around them, yet God consistently reminds them of their insignificance, and wider society cares less for what they have to say or complain about. Maybe it’s me, but I find that consistently putting yourself in a situation to be undermined and belittled is quite embarrassing (I’d rather punch myself repeatedly in the face). So rather than look inwards when things clearly aren’t panning out well, they blame ‘outsiders’ even more. The more they fail, the more they blame. Clearly, it’s not a very productive response.
A relatively recent example of this was a debate on social media about the eschatological event on Jesus’ return. Some people erroneously advocated that he certainly won’t be, and many went berserk. Now usually social media tends to stay virtual, but this time I was left fielding questions about it in mosques and after my Friday sermon. It consumed conversation for months, especially when we had far more important things to resolve, and where in reality it’s an insignificant debate. So why were people so crazed?
- Because people are bored. With little going on it provided good religious entertainment and dinner table conversation.
- Because people are obsessed with everyone else - they got to police who’s ‘in’ and ‘out’.
- Because they were told it was disbelief and they worried about a (dis)belief they don’t even have.
Now interestingly, there weren’t many scholars that got involved. It was all bluster between personalities. Scholars (in the context) saw it generally for what it was - the next pitchfork hype. Why isn’t it important? Because righteous action cannot be built on it, and as such it is a talking point. But then the theology police came out and sounding like medieval Catholics they made out like the world would crumble and the masses would deny Jesus and his return if this wasn’t addressed right away. Given that the normative view has lasted around 2000 years, a reasonable person recognises that a couple of personalities on Facebook wouldn’t be a serious challenge. But the amount of energy people put into reading about it, discussing it and arguing (not to mention misunderstanding, mischaracterising, and speaking without knowledge) they could’ve completed a degree in physics. Or learnt Arabic and memorised a third of the Quran.
Another example: Offensive cartoons that intend to represent the final Prophet (obviously they’re not really him).
So, the disbelievers say: “Let’s rile up Muslims so that they’ll do something stupid or behave in a way that undermines their standing even more amongst wider society.”
Muslims openly acknowledging that they’ve realised that this is the intention: “Let’s react recklessly and give the disbelievers what they are after. And yes, we’ll win!” Does anybody on God’s green earth play into the hands of the opposition, fall for their game, and assume that’s a winning strategy?! Can the inanity get anymore surreal?
“But…but…but…it’s the people of kufr who hate us!” Well then why are you acting so surprised? Do you expect anything less nefarious?! Do you expect your antagonists to stroke you and sing songs about how wonderful you are? And if you logically conclude that they’ll repeatedly try to provoke and undermine, where’s your strategy to gain the upper hand in such situations so it backfires for them each and every time?
The saga around the Return debate (and there are many other case studies) exemplifies the uncivilised ways in which impoverished impulses, childishness, and ignorance drives a lot of Muslim public culture. And like kids, when people are easily triggered, they don’t question their own juvenile impulse, they blame what's often an innocuous trigger. When people are told about their behaviour, they blame someone or something else (and often through mischaracterisation). In politics it’s usually the Tories or the right, in society it’s the racists/Islamophobes/kuffar, and on Christ’s return it was the ‘deviants’.
Please.
Believers do not afford anyone but God such levels of power, and they take proactive ownership:
“Those who responded to God and the Messenger after suffering defeat, who do good and remain conscious of God, will have a great reward. Those whose faith only increased when people said, ‘Fear your enemy: they have amassed a great army against you,’ and who replied, ‘God is enough for us: He is the best protector,’ returned with grace and bounty from God; no harm befell them. They pursued God’s good pleasure. God’s favour is great indeed. It is Satan who urges you to fear his followers; do not fear them, but fear Me, if you are true believers.”
Qur'an 3:172-175