Can we perform Eid Salat (prayers) at home?
Yes, and furthermore, I believe we should!
Here I’d like to distinguish between two things:
- The communal Eid prayer
offered in an open space (or mosque) with the subsequent sermon, - Offering two units of
prayer for the special occasion of Eid.
Now of course, for those living under lockdown, unfortunately
the first is unfeasible. But this does not preclude the second, and I believe it
is virtuous to perform two units of prayer for the special occasion of Eid, and
it is what God wants from believers.
How so?
Has God forbidden a faded haircut?
I have been asked this question profusely over the past couple of years, and so I have written these few points to provide some clarity to the confusion caused by laymen who have taken it upon themselves to circulate uncontextualised/mistranslated hadith, and anonymous rudimentary responses (fatwas). It is offensive to God and such responses consistently demonstrate an absence of competency in the law. Even beyond this issue, I advise believers to take their faith consistently from those they trust and pay no attention to what floats about on the internet, irrespective of whether a verse or hadith is quoted, or an ancient scholar cited. If it was that easy, there would be no need for anyone to actually study.
Can we hold a mushaf and perform tarāwīh/qiyām?
Yes, certainly.
I strongly believe it is perfectly permissible to do so.
Al-Bukhārī relates that A’ishah b. Abī Bakr, the wife of the
Prophet, would have her servant Dhakwān lead her in prayer from the mushaf.
There also doesn’t seem to be any explicit prohibition from doing so.
Is there one or two calls to prayer for Jumu'ah?
It's a widespread practice to perform two adhāns (calls to prayer) along with an iqāmah (call to stand), but many take two adhāns to be an obligation.
This is incorrect and the following briefly outlines why:
Amidst the noise
Today, everything is porous and transient. For many, everything is understood as being subjective, and resultantly this has led to major instability - not only within communities and amongst them, but also with individuals themselves. What is truth, and what is falsehood? A lot of the time, what we intuitively know to be inconsequential issues (such as the unfrutiful debates on the nature of God, or traditionally sectarian topics) still manages to take up much of our time, and that's in between the bouts of mild depression or deep frustration evoked by our presence on social media.
Shaking hands, hugs and kisses
I was asked by some people about the culture of Muslims hugging every time they meet, both men and women. Although I’m not sure exactly how frequent it is amongst women, in some circles Muslim men will hug when greeting one another on every occasion, even where they see each other every few days. To a large extent, even where it is unsaid, many assume it is either religious or the ‘Muslim’ thing to do.
Here I’m not trying to explicate the entire fiqh issue, but simply raise some basic conclusions that need considering.
So what’s the story?
Saying ‘Assalamu alaikum’ is explicitly mentioned in revelation, along with the advantages in doing so (such as spreading sentiments of peace in communal living). God says, "When you are offered a greeting respond with a better one, or at least return it." (4:86) Ibn al-Qayyim, the Hanbali sage, wrote that this goes for all those who greet you with sincere wishes, including both Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus if someone greets you with ‘good morning’ it is a moral duty (according to Quranic sentiments) to respond with the same or better. Similarly, Ibn Muflih in his work Adab al-Shar’iyyah stated that it was prophetic practice to say (what today’s equivalent would probably be) “Good morning” instead of salam.
Is touching upon greeting and meeting merely a cultural expression, or religious?
Imam Malik disliked shaking hands or hugging as related by Ibn Wahb and Ibn Abdil Barr, and a position taken by Suhnun et al. Qadi Ibn al-Arabi wrote that this was because Malik didn’t view it as a general stipulation nor decisively from revelation like the saying of salam, for if it were, Malik would have regarded them saying salam and shaking hands the same. However, al-Qurtubi seems to have disagreed with Malik, quoting the hadith of Bara b. Aazib (al-Tabarani) where Bara said to the Prophet who shook his hand, "I thought shaking the hands was something foreigners do?!’ He replied: "We are worthier of doing so; if two Muslims shake hands with one taking the hand of another out of love and sincerity between them, their sins are shed." (The foreigners he was referring to was probably the Yemenites.) What we might note from this narration is:
Firstly, that shaking hands is between two people who know one another. Secondly, that the reward (and concomitantly the encouragement, or nadb) is based on doing it out of love and sincerity between two people - the reward is for the heartfelt sentiment and not from the mere act of hand-shaking, since it wasn’t widespread amongst the Companions previously (as intimated by Bara). Perhaps it was for this reason that Qatadah enquired from Anas b. Malik whether the Companions would shake hands. Whilst other hadiths also speak of how hand-shaking removes sins, the hadith of Bara contextualises the reasons behind it. Other hadith such us "shake hands for it removes enmity" (al-Muwatta') should also be contextualised by the above, and this is probably where Imam Malik was coming from in his antipathy towards establishing shaking hands and hugging as a religious practice.
However, most jurists were of the view that it is a religiously encouraged act based on numerous reports. Whatever the case, there is no problem with shaking hands and it is certainly a decent thing to do between people who know one another. Bara is also quoted in Adab al-Mufrad as saying: "a complete greeting is to shake the hands of your brother" which is also narrated by Ibn Mas'ud elsewhere.
As for those who don’t know one another well, the lowest common denominator between all jurists is that they may do if they wish, but it isn’t a must, and if someone doesn’t seem inclined to do so, no offence should be taken nor should they be taken to task out of a misplaced sense of religiosity. However, we must also consider that in certain circumstances, normal societal customs will dictate the thing to do, just because there is no explicit shar'i declaration doesn't mean it's not rude, and it does not befit the believer to come across as such. I guess there has to be a balance between a cognisance of pervading social norms and the right to bodily autonomy.
To be clear, what I'm saying is that the actual physical contact is inconsequential in itself - the reward is in the expression of the heartfelt sentiment (which can be achieved without actually touching). Shaking hands is not a ritual act but a means by which the sentiment is expressed. Shaking hands on its own is a cultural gesture, and merely for being the cultural ‘thing to do’ doesn’t accrue the rewards mentioned the hadiths.
As for repeated hugging, it is narrated by Anas b. Malik that a man asked the Prophet whether people should hug and kiss when they meet. The prophet said "no". But when he was asked about shaking hands the Prophet replied in the affirmative. (al Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah) However, there is some nuance to be had here. al-Sha’bi relates that the Companions would shake hands when they would meet, and hug when they returned from a journey. (al-Tahawi) It is also reported that the Prophet hugged Ja’far b. Abi Talib when he returned from East Africa. What this tells us is that hugging is a cultural practice, and general appropriateness in the Prophet’s time used to limit it to significant occasions (such as journeying) or a notable circumstance, but not as a general norm of greeting.
This is particularly important in our (British) context. I believe general appropriateness still limits it to specific occasions, and in particular contexts such as a viral pandemic (like SARS or the coronavirus) it is something that we need to avoid. But even beyond this, many who do not ascribe to certain cultural norms (converts or otherwise) do not hug so frequently nor feel very comfortable with such frequent bodily contact. With a culturally plural religious community there must be some acknowledgement that we’re not all the same, and thus, it is wise to demarcate between what is religious and cultural, so as not to impose such norms on others or unnecessarily put them in an uncomfortable situation.
And God alone has complete knowledge.
Women dancing at celebrations
This brief article is motivated by a frequent notion I've heard over many years, particularly when people ask me about, or comment on, women dancing at gender-segregated weddings. The idea that dancing is forbidden in God's Law is somewhat of a widespread notion, and whilst it can be held as a view that relates to both men and women, there seems to be a particular disapproval of women dancing, irrespective of the context. This isn’t simply a matter of misogyny; women are often the most trenchant in their criticism of other woman.
So here I unpick much of the conversation around the issue and shed light on the basis of erroneous misgivings, that they namely come from incorrect understanding, conflations, and/or the imposition of one's cultural norms on others. The point I’m making in this brief article is that to regard dancing as intrinsically offensive to God and hence impermissible is not only incorrect, but that the antipathy tends to be cultural and not moral. Of course, if an individual doesn’t like dancing then that's fine. But as long as the context of dancing doesn't exceed the boundaries set by God, some of which I'll explain, then there's no legitimate basis to make claims of impermissibility, let alone condemn others for it.
Can we wish a "Happy New Year"?
5 min read
I've written this post in anticipation of the most absurd arguments that are used every year, with a brief comment for each. What I hope to show is how a skewed outlook, identity politics on steroids, and ignorance about the shari’ah can all combine to crystallise inane opinions. I’m using this mas’alah (shar’i issue) simply as a case study.
Accepting Christmas presents
3 min read
Some scholars, from various denominations, are of the view that it is not permitted to accept Christmas cards or presents. However, many medieval Islamic jurists - those often cited by such scholars, held no such qualms with accepting presents on Christmas (or its like).
1. In general, there exists no impediment in accepting presents from
non-Muslims. Imam al-Bukhari relates, at the beginning of the chapter:
"Accepting gifts from pagans", that the Prophet Abraham and his wife
Sara were presented with Hagar by the Egyptian king; and the Prophet Muhammad
accepted gifts from: the King of Ailah, al-Muqawqis the Patriarch of Alexandria,
and a Jewish woman.
2. Of course, the above refers to gifts, but as with Christmas, accepting
presents is not about receiving something, but how accepting it will be
perceived. The attitudes engendered by the Prophet’s companions strongly
suggest that receiving a Christmas gift is not deemed to be consenting to
unbelief or aiding the cause of shirk. Unlike the typical way in which he is
portrayed, the famed Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah stressed its permissibility
in Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim relating the opinion to Imam Ahmad b.
Hanbal and offering the following points:
"That's changing the deen!"
Whenever a question about motive or meaning is asked concerning the sharī’ah which sits uncomfortably with the cultural preachers who don't have a reasoned position, they holler "so and so is trying to change the deen!" Many then mindlessly adopt this rhetoric, erroneously railing against legitimate rectification and exploration. Now had religious literacy amongst the masses not have been so low there might be some basis for this claim, but it is essentially ignorance that becomes the criterion of truth. Of course, there ought to be some balance: on the one hand the laity must be careful not to follow every claimant in their fanciful views: "There are some who, with no knowledge, argue about God, who follow every devilish rebel" (22:3), but at the same time they must be able to transcend irrational, spurious or irrelevant traditions: "But when it is said to them, ‘Follow the message that God has sent down,’ they answer, ‘We follow the ways of our fathers.’ What! Even though their fathers understood nothing and were not guided?" (2:170)
I'm continuously asked: "How are the laity meant to know?" Well, to put it simplistically, having some general literacy of the Quran is a good place to start so that you can take what you hear and judge whether it resonates with the general nature (and entirety) of the divine message. And once lay people start to actually pay attention to what advocates are saying along with the depth of their arguments (rather than relying on sectarian rhetoric or cultural conformity) then I believe they'll start to recognise the range of standards and abilities out there, and discern the real from the pretenders.
In our context today, religious opinion is largely uninformed, social opinion judgemental, and political opinion either baseless or grievance driven. Most are led to believe there has only been ONE mainstream opinion on everything for a millennium. Yet there is nothing mainstream and traditional about contemporary religious rhetoric, in fact it’s very new and reactionary (mostly as a post-colonial force). One of our aims should be to revive the traditional realm of religious opinion that we so staunchly claim a commitment to, and challenge the provincial attitude that has become the status quo.
Those who position themselves as gatekeepers of the Qur'an and sunnah are no such thing; more than often they distort verses with mistranslations or misinterpretations, and as much as they claim the tradition of the past's ulama, they intend that you only follow their way, reducing the entire edifice of intellectual shar’ī thinking over a thousand years to the specific 3-4 people they've chosen to take as interpretative authorities. All sects and denominations do this, it's intrinsic to their nature. It's nothing new. Many hundreds of years ago, Ibn Taymiyyah addressed the same issue:
ومن الناس من يكون نشأ على مذهب إمام معين، أو استفتى فقهيًا معينًا، أو سمع حكاية عن بعض الشيوخ، فيريد أن يجعل المسلمين كلهم على ذلك
And there are some who develop (their views) according to the school of a particular Imam, or only seek answers from a particular jurist, or hear from some shuyukh, expecting ALL Muslims to be just like that.
Note that the problem isn't with seeking a simple approach - it can actually be praiseworthy, but it's with imposing one's own personal choices on others as matter of fact. And this becomes particularly heinous when religious leaders/personalities do so, since irshad (religious guidance) requires from them wider learning, deeper understanding, and consideration of the variables that affect the context. We might sympathise with the parochialism of the unlearned, but when religious personalities advocate it, then they establish for us that they're pretenders.
Some general thoughts:
1. What God has revealed is known: "We have sent down the Quran Ourself, and We Ourself will guard it." (15:9) None can change that. What the righteous endeavour to do is challenge how it is misunderstood and how some want us to parochially understand what God wants from us, or the fact that some don't want us to understand God at all and instead want us to opt for irrational religion/faith as an extension of an ethnic identity, religio-cultural practices, or their fear-driven 'orthopraxy'.
2. It's not something the learned are at liberty to overlook (no matter how much they might want to and instead opt for a simple life). It is their duty and their responsibility. Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of God said, “This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy of every successive generation, refuting the corruption of extremists, the distortions of falsifiers, and the interpretations of the ignorant.” (al-Tabarānī)
3. Seeking meaning and guidance from God and His messenger is something both progressives and the cultural preachers abhor. For the former, it absolutely undermines their superficial claims, and for the latter it divests them of the positions they occupy in their communities and places it back with God. They no longer get to control the masses, since it is through raising educational standards that the masses are empowered with some evaluative tools, at least to separate the wheat from the chaff. The motives of such preachers reflect those of the earlier Church which positioned priests as middlemen between God and humanity. How else can we explain the inane idea "If you read the Qur'an to understand it, or in a language you understand, you'll be misguided!"
4. The majority of our established practices are valid, but because we have lost much of their meaning, the substance of what we do and believe is insipid. Speaking about the why informs the how. Take the tarawih as an example, a perfectly valid and meaningful form of worship, yet being superficially committed to 20 rakat (units) as a doctrinal code means that many mosques offer prayers with such haste and empty movements that the entire 20 rakat are rendered meaningless and offensive. Had what God wanted from Ramadan night prayers been understood and explored appropriately, I doubt most (who do) would behave this way.