Shari’ah

Nail Polish and Ablution: a colourful conversation

The validity of ablution (wudhu) for women wearing nail polish has been a persistent question posed to jurists in the modern era given that nail polish is a relatively new phenomenon. My aim here isn’t to negate variant views - nothing significant is lost by not wearing nail polish all the time and I feel both sides of the debate have reasonable positions. 

This is not a fatwa but a brief informative article, primarily for members on the Digital Learning Hub, to offer some clarity around the issue. I’m cursorily providing both sides of the debate with two different hats as any scholar ought to be able to do. It’s also important to keep in mind that jurists have differed on issues far greater than nail polish without resorting to juvenile polemics. 

Read more

by Admin

Music: Some facts of the matter

Over a decade, I've been asked about music so frequently that I've finally written this. I hadn't done so until now because I didn't want to engage the cacophony of polemics. However, I hold it that believers deserve better than the one-sided narrative they’ve been presented with, especially when we're speaking on behalf of God as to what He holds to be offensive, and as millennials (and younger) become the dominant generations, we need to be far better informed. I am not advocating what people should or shouldn’t do - things affect them differently so each moral agent ought to decide what's best for them. Also note that this brief post is not a juristic presentation but just a brief clarification for those who've asked.

From the get-go it's important that we distinguish between two things people tend to conflate:

• A range of cultures/behaviours associated (rightly or not) with types/genres of music,
• Music as melodious sounds, and instruments.

Here I am solely dealing with music as melodious sounds (including instruments) and not speaking to certain types of music that might inspire negative behaviour in some. Since I'm dealing with melodious sounds (including instruments), I don't distinguish between sounds from singing (ghina’) and sounds from instruments (aalaat) in this shar'i discussion - and most early jurists didn't.

Read more

by Admin

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).

by Admin

Believers and the ‘black experience’

Before moving on to discussing the 'black experience' in private communal contexts (mosques, Muslim spaces etc), it is important to differentiate between two different things:

• a black identity - internal representation of an individual based on colour
• the ‘black experience’ - external (shared) treatment of an individual based on the perception of others. It comes from being racialised as ‘black’ which then becomes the basis of prejudice, inequality and marginalisation.

As I’ve made clear, I’m coming from a shar’ī Abrahamic perspective. As for those seeking a lens or a sense of self-determination from other sources, then as always one is free to do as they see fit. But I share with those believers targeted with the black experience an entire outlook on how to view (and identify) ourselves, the world around us, and the best ways we proceed in any given situation - all deeply informed by God’s account of reality gleaned from revelation. What I write in these posts relate to this.

Please note, I’m trying to keep these posts
extremely brief and I acknowledge that they do not address many of the possible
contentions that may be raised. Hopefully, I’ll follow up and clarify elsewhere
for those interested.

A black identity

A ‘race’ is a social group based on arbitrary characteristics. A black identity is a political one, it is not a positive one: calling someone ‘black’ (or identifying as such) doesn’t tell us anything about a person’s language, culture, values, norms, outlook, or relationship with God (and yes this also goes for a ‘white’ identity although this identity was created to denote something positive in juxtaposition to being black). It denotes an experience rooted in marginalisation, being subjected to prejudice and discrimination, and racialised brutality. The assumptions behind the racialisation are fallacious: those racialised aren’t homogeneous: skin tones and hair types vary, so too do languages, faiths and cultures. If one says it’s based on those who look ‘African’ then what’s being missed is that Africa is a colossal continent with thousands of groups and languages, and people who look entirely different across it. If one asserts that it’s about people of African heritage, then *newsflash* we ALL have that heritage somewhere up the line, no matter how straight your hair or light your complexion. What’s interesting is that most people in Africa do not identify as ‘black’ nor internalise 'blackness'. Before European colonialism diverse sets of people usually identified with their tribe or nation (a common language and culture). Those from the African continent who do so in more recent times have done so as a reaction to being invaded by white supremacists and being designated black by those supremacists. It is a nefarious pigmentation-based designation meant as a defining value of the human being.

So how do believers relate to this imposed identity? Well given that it comes from a disbelieving (kufri) mentality that groups all of these independent and diverse humans into one category (initially for the purposes of maltreatment which still informs its use) then to use it as a pervasive means of reference, or internalise this kufr-inspired proposition as a means of realising a self-identity, seems flawed.

The truth is that in a neutral (and thus normative) setting, people would NEVER identify as black if such racialisation wasn’t imposed on them by the disbelievers and would find it quite bizarre. What we ought to keep in mind is:

• As believers, we should NEVER allow disbelievers to dictate or shape how we view ourselves.
• To assume that we shall find ultimate emancipation in the very same label and associated identity used for our subjugation (i.e. blackness) is strange. And taking on the term but with an eye to alter the negative connotations seems misplaced, since (a) we still end up reducing ourselves to pigmentation which no one else does, (b) we remove ourselves from the context of a profoundly meaningful and greater human history God places us in, and (c) the linguistic baggage around ‘black’ is profoundly entrenched.
• It is offensive to God that skin complexion affords us any understanding of a human, let alone end up being a totalising one. This overwhelming delusion doesn’t just underly many societies, but as a reactive measure has become embraced by those dehumanised by the entire racialisation project. No other groups of humans self-identify by their pigmentation other than those disbelievers who gave 'blacks' such a designation (white supremacists) and locate a sense of supremacy in the entire project.

The black experience

So am I saying that calling someone (or yourself) ‘black’ is ultimately wrong or inaccurate? Not necessarily so (and it’s a tangent to be unpacked and discussed elsewhere), but *before* we progress to discussing the use of terms and what we mean by them, we FIRST have to recognise what it is we’re talking about or attempting to internalise. (I acknowledge that there is a difference between something being a limited physical description and an identity.) My only point at this juncture is to question the idea that believers either confer or internalise an identity based on ‘blackness’.

However, this is not to deny the black experience - that some of us are racialised as ‘black’ by others (since we did not choose this designation for ourselves) and face negative treatment as a result, some of which I detailed in the previous post. And I think that it is reasonable that those of us who share this experience might be drawn to some sense of likeness as a result.

So what does the shar’ī Abrahamic lens mean?

Well in this context, it means rejecting the characterisations of supremacist disbelievers, not internalising them - the Prophet of God would never allow the leaders of disbelief (a’immat al-kufr) like Abu Jahl or Abu Lahab negatively define the believers (whether it was by their pigmentation or anything else), and yes, they actually tried to do so with respect to Bilal b. Abi Rabah, Ammar b. Yasir, and other notable prophetic companions (ṣahābah). But avoiding the internalisation of an identity in no way means negating an experience, and as believers we are committed to dismantling the structures that create the black experience (as well as any other form of jāhilīyah). And rightly, this moment is about the 'black experience', just as there are other moments where the injustices others face are raised. Bringing up every other cause in this moment, or attempting to generalise this specific struggle with "all lives matter" is simply a nefarious attempt to undermine this one.

In our view, where are we ultimately going?

The activism God calls us to, is to work towards an environment that is conducive to tawhīd and hanīfīyah (monotheism and Abrahamic values) – the higher objective of any shar’ī activist. What mustn’t be lost on the believers is that anti-racism is not merely a goal in and of itself: racism (and colourism) are symptoms of shirk and jāhilīyah (shirk inspired culture) which are the foundations from which this problem has arisen. My point in this post is not to undermine work towards achieving greater equality in our society, but to point out to believers that our mission is twofold: that we seek to weaken what creates the 'black experience' in our society whilst keeping in mind that its ultimate cause is a jāhilī mentality which can only be holistically remedied by an Abrahamic outlook. This is how we plan to meet God in the afterlife.

For those with a godly outlook, since the age of the ancient Mesopotamians (and even before), alongside our respective tribes or peoples we have identified as those who have submitted to the one true God: “Strive hard for God as is His due: He has chosen you and placed no hardship in your faith, the religion of your forefather Abraham. God has called you submitters (to Him) both in the past and in this (message)...” (22:78)

Now some will understandably say: “Well Muslims can be racists, so religion doesn’t work here.” Some points in response:

1. I’m not calling to ‘Muslimness’, I advocate the religion of Abraham as Muhammad the final messenger of God did. This is not a 'religion' but a totalising lens with which to view oneself and the world around us. The response is based on a faulty understanding of subservience to God (with which I can sympathise due to religious illiteracy) which views deen through an anthropological lens and boils deen down to what people do, not what God says. It’s also a racialised perspective where your faith is what you inherit rather than what you are compelled by, and it usually comes from those who feel that they cannot compel others from a shar’ī perspective. But this then says more about them than the strength or weakness of an approach.
2. For some, this response is motivated by a stronger belief in the efficacy of secular approaches (whether liberal or post-colonial) than the sunan (ways) of the Prophets. It’s not that they don’t believe in shar’ī constructs, but they either engage with them as mere theory, or they think that people won’t accept them. But perhaps if they put in *as much effort* into learning shar’ī outlooks and educating others with it as they do reading books on anti-racism activism and working with it they’d see the difference they’re dubious about. (Please note that there’s a lot of good work out there on anti-blackness and how its perpetuated which ought to inform our work.)
3. People who call themselves Muslims do not represent the values of God’s Law and Way unless they internalise and live by them. As for those who demonstrate or internalise racism, the term Muslim doesn’t make them any less jāhilī (paganistic), and they require education and confrontation just like anyone else. We have the choice of confronting them with either secular informed or shar’ī-informed anti-racism activism. Ultimately, the former uses social pressures whereas the latter employs these along with a remedying account of reality from God which is far more transformative across the board, whilst resolving inevitable challenges that arise in the process.

by Admin

Shar’ī-inspired anti-racism activism

Given current events in the US and how it’s galvanising
people here in the UK, I’ll be sharing some shar’ī inspired thoughts on race,
prejudice, and political activism.

As ever, I speak to a British context not an American one,
and I’m fully aware that what I may say about things in the UK will probably be
inadequate for an American context, not to mention the unique struggles of
African Americans.

For brevity, I won't be unpacking everything I post into
bullet point form although I will try to be as clear as possible. Please try to
understand that there’s a lot behind these posts, and just because I’m making
one point, it doesn’t mean I’m being binary or negating other things on the
spectrum.

Now, there are various perspectives to approach and deal
with anti-racism:

1. Secular liberal
2. Post-colonial
3. Shar’ī (Abrahamic)

The nature of these posts is to expound on a shar’ī and
Abrahamic perspective.

I acknowledge that even within the shar’ī perspective, there
are competing and divergent modes and interpretations of the prophetic way.
Some are reductive, some misinformed, and some heavily concentrated on specific
points/prophetic events, missing the bigger picture. I acknowledge everyone’s
trying their best, and the intent behind my posts is the hope to develop the
nature of the conversation.

Some might respond with the customary: “Well you have no right to do that, just listen!” But such a response is misguided for those committed to the shar’ī (Abrahamic) perspective and speaking to one of their own, and whilst perfectly legitimate for liberal and post-colonial approaches, it overlooks our attitude that frames it as a group of believers mutually working together to constructively address the experience faced by some of them.

For a simplified characterisation between (1) the liberal and post-colonial approaches and (2) the shar’ī (Abrahamic) one, the following puts both approaches in a grievance and response formula:

1. “Look what they do to us.”…“That’s injustice, just tell us what to do to help your community/people.”
2. “Brethren, look what they did to some of us (believers).”…“Glory is only for God (Subhanallah)! What they have done offends God and takes the ways of pagans (jāhilīyah) whom the messengers of God were sent to guide or resist, so we too shall do the same. What they have done is done to us all - let’s strategise the best way to proceed.”

Now the point isn’t to silence raw emotions nor negate how subjected people might feel but we must realise that there are variant exercises depending on the objectives of the conversation. There is the initial listening exercise to hear the grievance and condition of those being offended, and then there's the strategy as to how we all (the believers) can collectively deal with the affront and reinforce one another like “a well-compacted structure” as God puts it.

I’m cognisant that there have developed so-called “correct” ways of talking about things. On one side we have those who police what ‘black’ expression and protest should be like according to what makes such monitors comfortable, and on the other there are approaches by specific (Black) groups who demand compliance to their narrative, as if to homogenise all racialised blacks and the approaches they take on these issues. Of course, liberal and post-colonial approaches have a great deal of valuable insights we ought to consider, but everything that we might take on board is framed within an Abrahamic context and God’s account of reality, since God’s guidance is the only true guidance.

I understand that many will still find what I’m saying here
to be somewhat ambiguous: “What does he mean and what’s he saying?” And with
that comes the hesitancy to engage with me in a neutral fashion. Hopefully, the
following posts will begin to illustrate where I’m coming from. In these posts,
I may challenge some of the approaches believers have instinctively adopted,
but it’s to do with constructively moving forward as believers. Again, my first
principles to such issues are taken from the sharī’ah, so whilst there might be
an ‘anti blackness solidarity framework’ from which to discuss things or
approach them, believers are not morally obliged to adopt it, nor acquiesce to
it. And yes, I’ve used the term “we” because I do not differentiate between
believers - if they’re targeted and mistreated, then it’s our concern.
Whilst believers ought to support anti-Jāhilīyah (regressive ideas that
ultimately source from paganism and superstition) movements irrespective of
faith, our fraternal bonds with true believers are naturally stronger with
those who are subservient to God in the way He wills it, and the more in-sync
that outlook the closer those bonds will naturally be.

Please note that these posts do NOT discount wider
solidarity with non-believers who experience immoral prejudice, I’m simply
focusing on what a wider shar’ī agenda compels us to consider. Whether it’s an
Abrahamic framework or it comes to wider solidarity, whatever we do is focused
from, and tempered by, the Abrahamic ways and a godly outlook to which we invite
all. That’s our fundamental basis in all things.

by Admin

Understanding the six fasts of Shawwal

This is a short post which seeks to help people understand the six fasts of Shawwal. They are not meant in and of themselves as stand-alone fasts but are intrinsically connected to Ramadan and meant to be performed in a particular way. The following is a brief explanation:

1. Ramadan has a number of purposes and has done from primordial times when the lunar month was called by another name in an earlier language and culture (such as Noah's or Abraham's). Amongst them is to familiarise one’s self with refraining to indulge core impulses and base desires – it’s not merely about feeling hungry and thirsty. The final Prophet lamented, “Perhaps a person fasts and achieves nothing from his fast except hunger and thirst...” (al-Nasā’ī)

2. Shawwal is the 10th Arabic month of the Hijri calendar. The first day of Shawwal represents the end of Ramadan, and so God appointed it as a 'Festival for the end of fasting' (Eid al-Fiṭr) - to glorify God and celebrate His guidance. It is related by Abu Ayyub al-Ansari that the Prophet said: "Whoever fasts Ramadan and then follows it up with six fasts in Shawwal, it's as if he fasted a lifetime (al-dahr)." (Muslim) Jurists also took al-dahr to mean “a year” based on the hadith of Thawbān.

3. What do the six fasts of Shawwal speak to? Well if we hold that fasting Ramadan is to temper the sway of base desires, then it makes sense that rather than abruptly ending an ongoing exercise and diminishing it's institution, there's a pause to allow the body to recuperate but then a follow up with six fasts to reinforce the newly learned behaviour for longer and sustained effect, at least for the rest of the year until the next Ramadan. This might speak to the point the Prophet made, “it's as if he fasted a lifetime/a year” as in it would help to restrain his nafs (base self) in the long term by cementing important constricting habits. Fasting the three middle days of a lunar month (ayām al-bīdh) seems to also serve a similar purpose.

4. From this we learn that:

• these fasts are a follow on after a month of fasting. They're not meant in and of themselves (لذاتها) as stand-alone six fasts. Without following Ramadan, they do not serve the purpose for which they are intended.
• it is the Ramadan fasts that are the ultimate mechanism that God instituted for human benefit, and fundamental to the Abrahamic way. Nothing comes close to them in sanctity or value. It something else did, God would’ve obligated those as well. This goes for all obligatory acts - there's a reason they're obligatory.

So (hopefully) having made this clear, the following ought to be taken into consideration:

1. These six fasts are optional. They're not simply highly encouraged as some make out and then pressure others into, but they are virtuous for the reasons outlined above. Those hesitant to fast because they need a break, or having found Ramadan particularly difficult, should not feel pressured to fast out of social conformity or the fear that they'll be socially disparaged. (If you are disparaged by your cohort, then it's a sign that you really need to check your social circle and their religious literacy level.)

2. In general, these fasts should be performed towards the end of Shawwal, and in brief, for two reasons: so that we strongly differentiate between the key fasts of Ramadan and these six add-ons; and so that reinforcing advantageous constricting habits takes place in an optimum way. Imam Malik b. Anas discouraged people from fasting in Shawwal for the first reason, and Imam Abu Hanifah discouraged fasting straight after the festivities. Malik added that the the early Muslims (salaf) wouldn’t fast the six, nor the learned and righteous of Madinah, fearing that it was a blameworthy innovation (bid'ah). Given the hadith of Abu Ayyub, what he perhaps meant (as innovation) was that people would take the six as being comparable to the Ramadan fasts or overstate its significance. Furthermore, it may be the case that there wasn't a culture of fasting the six in Madinah either because it was deemed that Ramadan sufficed, or because of the nominal reporting of the hadith suggests that it was said to specific persons for specific reasons which many felt didn’t apply to all.

3. If we except that these fasts are a follow on after a month of fasting, it makes sense that those who have to make up Ramadanic fasts (out of travel, sickness, menses, etc) do so before fasting six days, and that's not to mention the explicit wording of the hadith: "Whoever fasts Ramadan *and then follows it up..." Furthermore, making up the Ramadanic fasts in Shawwal serves a similar purpose to the six in that they follow up Ramadan and similarly reinforce the nafs-constricting proclivities, so in such situations where one might run out of time to perform the six Shawwal fasts due to making up the Ramadanic ones, it isn't necessarily a loss.

4. As for those who boil it all down to ritualistic acts and ajr (reward) seeking, I sincerely commend the simple and sincere desire to please God, but the main point of the six fasts might be getting lost. This deen is one of insight, intelligence, and meaningful purpose.

And God knows all things as they are in reality.

by Admin