Is hijamah (cupping) sunnah?
5 min read
This brief post deals with the idea that hijamah (cupping) is mustahab (encouraged in the shari'ah). The point I make here is that it is not.
Cupping is an ancient medical practice that was practiced long before the Arabs, such as by the ancient Persians, Chinese and Egyptians, and something the Arabs widely practiced before the advent of prophethood. It wasn’t particular to the Prophet, nor was it a treatment that was specially 'revealed’ to him (I deal with the hadith on angels later on). The vast majority of classical jurists held that cupping was a form of treatment for those in need and not an habitual practice, and as such, viewed it (a) as scientifically the best medical treatment available (and so, mustahab in that sense), and (b) neither a metaphysical nor ritual phenomenon.
Voting is polytheism?
I've been meaning to put something down that discusses democracy, shirk, the political engagement of Muslims in the UK, and so on. Given that the British General Elections are around the corner (12th December), once again anything I do now will be somewhat reductive. However, this is an ongoing and broad topic, and one I hope to fully address at some point. (The problem is that there doesn't seem to exist, as far as I'm aware, an entire narrative offering complete education on this topic, so everything always comes across in scattered tidbits that continues the confusion).
However, some have felt that there is some benefit in making the following brief points about the voting-is-shirk rhetoric, so here it is:
The idea that voting is shirk/kufr is theologically absurd. Some will say, “I respect the view but…/You have a right to that view but...” however there's nothing to respect from an ignorant position: it is devoid of shar’i knowledge, context, the Qur'an, the sunnah, and the insights of a thousand years of theological enquiry - let alone the nefarious implications of mass takfir. As a friend pointed out recently, the biggest problem with all the debates surrounding voting and engaging with people who think they have a shar'i argument is that they tend to premise their arguments on ideas that are used without clear parameters, like 'man-made law', hakimiyyah (God's sovereignty), al hukm bi ghair ma anzallallah (judgement by other than revelation), al Islam yaʿlu wa la yuʿla (Islam overcomes), etc. "Its just sloganeering, and how can one have a meaningful uṣūli discussion with someone who sloganeers??"
“You can’t vote for man-made law.”
Aside from the fact that the substance of this statement is paradigmatically nonsensical, it isn’t empirically correct (and the fact that dissenters fail to recognise this basic premise makes most discussions on voting very difficult to have). Even if we accept simplistic jargon like 'man-made law’, those who vote in upcoming elections won’t be voting for ‘man-made law’, it’s simply not an option on the table. Nobody is asking “which would you like, man-made law or God-law?” This ‘man-made law’ is already a given; instead you're being asked: “Of the representatives standing in your area, which one would you prefer and think would best serve your needs, given that there needs to be one, whether you participate or not?” To vote in these elections is to express a preference between unavoidable outcomes (one of the candidates is going to be elected). It's not the free choice of appointing someone.
Now as for whether, then, voicing your needs is shirk (an act of polytheism), please consider the following which is presented in six simplified steps for the sake of a structured and coherent presentation of the situation:
- We choose to live in a plural society made up of diverse people, those of different faiths and those of none, those of various cultures and backgrounds, people of differing ideas and ideological inclinations.
- Living together, there are collective decisions that need to be made affecting all citizens, and those decisions should be in the best interests of the people. We believe the shari'ah speaks to human interests, others have their own views. We live tolerantly, with basic civil rights in place that allow all citizens to pursue their conception of good in a way that doesn't impose on others. We seek to engage others constructively to convince them of a better way (shar'i values).
- Given the plural setting (which we’ve chosen to live in), decisions should rationally maintain everyone's economic and social welfare, and allow us to pursue a godly conception of the good life, without forcing it on others.
- Given that decisions have to be made, and will be made, all citizens are asked to voice who they would think would most represent their general interests.
- This bureaucracy is a form of decision-making for diverse groups of people who choose to live together (with a set of common values/interests that binds them together, alongside tolerance and respect.)
- Those who don't like it: Are they saying not to make decisions, or that we ought to allow decisions be made on our behalf and tacitly accept it by continuing to live by those decisions?
Now, if you don’t like the idea that in a plural society people get involved in collective decision making, where diverse voices will be heard, and the majority will take precedence (without curtailing key rights of the minority), then you've clearly decided to live in the wrong place. If you somehow hold this to be shirk, then you must necessarily conclude that you too are a mushrik for consciously continuing to be a member of such a decision making system. If you believe it is morally correct to impose the entirety of your views on the majority, and by force if needs be, then you are an extremist and have missed key parts of the Qur'an. And if you’d like to get on a plane destined for the “Muslim lands”, then bon voyage and I sincerely hope you the very best, although I doubt you’ll find it anywhere as good as you currently have it, all things considered.
Some argue that political engagement is disbelief in God and that we should stay away from voting until "God's laws" are implemented. They tend to be those with very little knowledge about God's laws, and how Islamic law, legal theory and political philosophy works, both in theory and practice. But let us, for the sake of argument, entertain this assertion. So what do we do in the interim? Sit on our hands and let others decide what should and shouldn’t happen to us/affect us? Consider this point (as one of many):
The Christian Negus of Abyssinia, to whom the early Sahabah fled, later on accepted the prophethood and mission of the prophet Muhammad. The Negus accepted Islam and called his people to it, but they rejected. So now, as a Muslim king of a non-Muslim country what did he do? Did he coerce everyone like some genocidal maniac? Did he simply stop ruling, and stop all decision making for his land? Did he simply renounce the throne and say ‘this is shirk and kufr’? Between his conversion and death there wasn’t a legislative vacuum - he continued to rule over the people as he had been doing and remained doing as much good as he could within the system that existed. (For those who disagree I'd advise reading Ibn Taymiyyah - a scholar they tend hold as authoritative - on al-Najashi). When the Negus died the Prophet said: “Go out and pray for a brother of yours who died in another land.” (al-Bukhari) In fact, the only people that had something negative to say about the Negus were the hypocrites who said of the Prophet, “Look at that man! He prays for a Christian Ethiopian infidel whom he has never seen before nor follows his religion.”
For many, much of this is common sense, and I commend you all for using it. The conversation on voting and shirk has many avenues that can be addressed in order to shut it down (this post being a very very simple one) and far more than a short article could suitably explore. But I'd like to point out that the knowledge is there, the revelatory guidance is there, and the historical accounts are there. The Prophet warned us about being fooled by the ruwaybidah: foolish, imbecilic, contemptible juveniles who speak ignorantly on the affairs of the people (as the Prophet put it). The Andalusian scholar Ibn Hazm said quite insightfully, in light of this hadith, that "there is nothing more harmful to knowledge and its people than those who enter into it, yet are not from it. They are ignorant, but think they are knowledgeable. They cause corruption assuming they are rectifying matters."
Across the board, you will find that those who hark on with such theological inaccuracies and mistruths, completely disregarding implicit and explicit ayat and hadith, who think that being a (social or otherwise) media personality stands in for years of study, research and scholarly engagement, and tend to be those who do little for Islam. Their religious identity isn’t about God, but a political identity and a facile show of machismo and sloganeering. Their entire narrative, even far beyond politics and voting, is usually premised on doing nothing and they consistently call on all others to be the same.
The interests of ubudiyyah and all those things that facilitate it is what we must be committed to. Whilst there are certainly sincere but mistaken individuals (those whom I will always have time for), beware of the sectarian self-interested:
There are people whose views on the life of this world may please you, he even calls on God to witness what is in his heart, yet he is the bitterest of opponents.
Qur'an 2:204
If you plan to vote, then you may do so confidently. If you're in doubt about its permissibility, there isn't a reason to be - may God guide us all to what is true and benefits godly interests.
Thinking about Halloween: considerations for parents (and others)
5 min read
As Halloween comes around, some Muslim parents will enquire once again into the shar’i permissibility of allowing their children to dress up in costumes and join in activities such as trick-or-treating. We could get into a long-winded and technical breakdown on what it means to participate in a festival that includes enthusiastically dressing up as Shaitan & Co (regardless of whether one’s child also does or does not) but I think most people, intuitively, can figure out what is appropriate for the people of imaan and followers of the Prophets.
So my point here isn’t to engage with Halloween, but with sentiments that are tangentially raised by some parents when asking me the question: “Is it permissible…because I don’t want the kids to feel left out and it’s good that they integrate/get involved…” So the two points parents reason with are: (1) Integration, and (2) feeling left out. Generally, it's very important that Muslims integrate rather than segregate for a number of shar’i and political reasons (better explored elsewhere), and fitting in as much as possible (and as much as is feasible in accordance with the shari'ah) normalises people of faith in wider society and helps young believers develop a sense of belonging to their people.
Is oral sex impermissible?
No, it is not.
There has been an ongoing conversation among British Muslims, literally for decades about oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) and the Victorian attitudes that inform certain cultures that make up the British Muslim population has meant that it is rarely dealt with decisively, pragmatically, and with some logic. It can be understandably frustrating when we have to deal with things repeatedly that should have been settled long ago. In my interactions I have found that even the critics of oral sex themselves do not recognise how they impose regressive attitudes on shar’ī discourse and the nature of the bizarre reasoning to justify it, nor the ambiguous nature of answers they give because they become prudish in a public setting.
Studying Īmān over Aqīdah
5 min read
The last post provides the perspective I intend when discussing the study of īmān over aqīdah here.
What aqīdah study largely denotes today is polemic debate about scholarly positions on abstract intellectual musings, usually centred around the nature of God and the unseen. It obsesses over “tradition” in a way that’s meaningless to the everyday emotional, cognitive and psychological stability all humans require. In most circles, aqīdah points are weaponised to become social markers and police batons rather than a means of inciting reverent awe of God, subservience to Him, and righteous actions for Him. Hence, it tends to inspire little more than argumentation, sectarianism, and quite ironically, a type of secularisation that places faith in the realm of the abstract rather than an inspiring, stabilising and productive lived experience.
So, (1) how does one study īmān and (2) what does exploring īmān do?
1. There are three particular aspects to studying īmān: (1) learning what īmān is, (2) exploring how to cultivate īmān, and (3) learning about the things God wants us to have īmān in.
This is NOT a linear process from 1-3, but an ongoing/perpetual process throughout life, with each point interlinked with the others. For example: God has ordained īmān in angels, but what are angels (3), what does it mean to have īmān in angels (1), and what does īmān in angels afford us (2)?
As you might recognise, aqīdah loosely fits into point (3) but because a more holistic īmānic approach is missing (points 1 and 2) the purpose of point 3 is lost and with an argumentative nature God speaks about (18:54) most fall into a mentality that induces juvenile bickering leading to a toxic state. The irony is that God cautions against this, informing us about earlier believers from the Children of Israel: “We gave them clear proof in matters [of religion]. They differed among themselves out of mutual rivalry, only after knowledge came to them…” (45:17) We often refer back to the sunnah and the early years of Islam, and everyone makes sophisticated claims. Yet their ‘aqidah’ was to simply to learn īmān and reverent subservience. As Jundub b. Abdullah reported, “We learned faith before we learned the Quran, then we learned the Quran and it strengthened our faith.” (Ibn Majah) In this way, ‘fiqh’ was practical - to seek optimum outcomes within an ethical framework, and ‘sunnah’ was Madinan social culture and civility fostered by the Prophet.
2. Īmān, first and foremost, provides humans with cognitive, emotional and psychological stability. It’s not merely what we think or affirm but something we deeply internalise that provides a lens with which to evaluate the world, and a compass guiding us in the right direction. It provides cognitive structures that helps you to intuitively evaluate everything you hear and see, builds resilience for a host of situations, and meaningfully connects you to your Creator.
“Well, surely the laity don’t have to do away with aqīdah – can’t they just do what they’re doing and incorporate īmān?”
The problem here is that:
a) Aqīdah is an aspect of the study of īmān and not the other way around - primacy lies with the latter, so to incorporate īmān into aqīdah instead of the other way around will inevitably lead to a misconceptualisation. Having an īmānic approach means you avoid being polemic and reactionary and opt for the inspirational, strengthening rabbāniyyah (godliness) and war’a (piety).
b) The aqīdah paradigm has become so entrenched that to expect change in any reasonable timeframe is simply unrealistic. For the sake of our salvation, we need to start again, differently, and at the beginning.
--------------------------------------
Please note:
- I acknowledge that some teach aqīdah in a way that might equate to what I mean about teaching īmān here.
- This discussion concerns the laity and everyday faith. As such, these are thoughts that do not intend the context of training to become a theologian, or the need to study theology for academic (in both shar’ī and non-shar’ī settings) purposes. I’m talking about the teaching and learning aqīdah to be a ‘good Muslim’.
Is it permissible to drink standing?
For many Muslims, the notion of drinking standing up is taboo, and many of us have been witness to those who, believing they have to sit down whilst drinking or think they’ll be looked down on if they don’t, awkwardly squat on the ground (often in the middle of a public space!) just to take a few sips. Is this awkward practice what the Prophet intended?
Not at all, and even besides a holistic reading of revelation (which I’ll present shortly) common-sense reasoning tells us that such a practice isn’t exactly becoming of a believer and noble behaviour which the Prophet upholds.
Now some will reductively relate the hadith in Sahih Muslim (by Anas, Abu Hurairah and Sa’eed al-Khudri) that the Prophet forbade drinking whilst standing. But this is the reductive approach I often refer to, since the analysis doesn’t quite end there.
Are women allowed to cut their hair 'short'?
It is perfectly legitimate for a Muslim woman to cut her hair short. Abu Salamah b. Abd al-Rahman narrates: “The wives of the Prophet used to cut their hair until it came just below their ears.” (Muslim) However, the Prophet forbade women from shaving their heads (al-Tirmidhi). Where the shar'i maxim goes that a thing is permitted unless there's a prohibition that states otherwise, cutting one's hair to varying lengths is fine as long as it is not shaved off.
The rest of this article summarily discusses some important points for consideration:
Are Muslims the chosen people?
There was a time when the Children of Israel were the chosen people of God (2:47) and the special status, beginning with Abraham, continued up until Christ (2:124). Thereafter, specific people/nations/ethnicities were favoured no more, and instead, divine favour fell upon those committed to revelation. The Prophet informed: “God has a cohort (like close family) from amongst mankind…They are the people of the Qur’an, they are God’s people and His elect.” (Ahmad, Ibn Majah)
God himself told us,
We gave the scripture as a heritage to Our chosen servants…
Qur'an 35:32
I understand that for many people, this sounds like one of those generic posts, ones that often tell us to simply utter a portion of the Qur'an (whilst not understanding it) and that somehow we’ll all then be special. As I’ve shown elsewhere, this is not true and neither revelation itself nor the intellect attests to this.
I also sympathise with the view, although rarely acknowledged, that many regard the Qur’an as just too simple to provide answers/guidance/solutions to most things in isolation, and thus they don’t derive much out of it because they subconsciously regard it as too simple or generic (as abstract theological statements). In their limited experiences, when they see the Qur'an discussed at some depth its overly academic and directly irrelevant to everyday life. The latter point is also why people then practice Islam (or see religious interpretation) in the abstract as well. And where things are more grassroots, preachers seek to get people to go through religious motions rather than meaningfully engage with God ritualising everything, and whilst intentions may be sincere, such an approach is clearly misinformed.
Again, whilst I sympathise, I’m saying that simply calling yourself a Muslim or affirming abstract theological sentiments doesn’t make you ‘chosen’ or special. Going through motions might keep you out of trouble, but that isn’t what God ultimately intended from his guidance (and it’s a very low bar to set). Subservience (the verbal noun of aslama) is a lived phenomenon and only God’s word describes how to live it. Many rely on perpetually changing currents to give their lives value and meaning. This is a grave mistake, and like the many (eventually) informed believers I meet inform me (many of them activists), a lot of time is wasted and little personally achieved.
Fads come and go, social/religious causes build traction and fade away, ideologies catch hold and are discarded, nations rise and fall. But the living God, Creator and Sustainer of all is ever-present and eternal, and so too are His words. No matter the state of a perpetually changing world, the Most High and His guidance shall remain relevant, and the same can be said of absolutely nothing else.
Debaters, social media personalities, religious celebrities, young sectarian zealots all have their moment - in the vast majority of cases, it all dies out and they grow older getting on with their personal lives. In the end it is those who never sought such things, but simply a commitment to decency, righteous conduct, and an engagement with revelation: living it, teaching it, and advocating it, that ultimately endure and prove their utility until the very end. Have you heard of anyone except advocates of what God has revealed still proving their utility to believers into their 70s, 80s or 90s? Be from those people, from their gatherings, their cohorts, their active supporters and their circles. Don’t wait to figure this out until years down the line. Think maturely and be an early bird.
Is it not time for believers to humble their hearts to the remembrance of God and the Truth that has been revealed, and not to be like those who received the Scripture before them, whose time was extended but whose hearts hardened and many of whom were disobedient?
Qur'an 57:16
May God guide us all and aid us to be inspired to be His elect.
“Good luck!” (Is saying it haram?)
I have been increasingly asked whether the widespread expression ‘good luck’ is impermissible to use, and whilst I was initially surprised that it was even a topic of debate, I could empathise that the godly might be anxious when told that it is impermissible, based on the notion that luck is based on chance, and that it is God who determines all things - things do not happen outside the decree of the Most High.
But does the term ‘good luck’ denote or even infer a rejection of God’s decree? And must God’s power of decree be made explicit in all linguistic expressions?
Not really.
A brief explanation:
‘Good luck’ is merely an expression in the English language which confers the hope of success and advantageous outcome. Any inference beyond these simply depends on who is saying it. To assume anything more from this expression would be linguistic incompetence and unfamiliarity with how phrases or expressions inherently work. To misappropriate the English to impose upon it Islamic theology is misplaced. Yes, the expression can be intended to mean the desire for success as a random consequence, but nobody uses it with this staunchly intended meaning. In fact it’s simply a shortened way to say: "I hope it goes well."
Expressions are not simply the literal meanings of words that have been put together, they usually take on a different meaning. "He’s the bomb!", "What’s up?", "bee in a bonnet", "whatever the weather" etc. are all expressions that move beyond any literal meaning of the individual words. Furthermore, like with any linguistic term, in any language, it is about the meaning and intent inherent within the phrase. And where a word or phrase can synonymously mean several things, context dictates how it is taken.
In Arabic, there are a number of expressions that intimate what a Muslim would mean by good luck, one that is widespread is "bil-tawfiq". Now the expression literally means: to bring together in agreement. Where a Muslim might say it as an empathetic expression, it suggests the desire for God to facilitate good, but without explicit mention of God. In explaining 11:88, Al-Qurtubi put it that Tawfiq is al-rushd, that is, to be advantageously subjected to God’s agency, which is inherently what believers mean when they say ‘good luck’ in English. Notably, the expression isn’t a supplication, and I have never met (nor heard of) a scholar who opined that rather than saying bil-tawfiq one ought to make an explicit supplication - in fact to make this point would probably be considered quite sanctimonious. But as we see with a number of (inflated) issues in the west, self-righteous indignation often becomes the norm.
Another word that might be loosely translated as luck (with cognisance of God’s agency) is hadzh الحظ which literally means share or lot. It means, where used to denote advantage, to get a good share or lot of good outcomes. This word, amongst other places, appears at the end of 28:79, where God tells us that ‘those whose aim was the life of this world said, “If only we had been given something like what Qarun has been given: he really is a very fortunate man.”’
Likewise, we use terms such as fortunately and unfortunately, all of which could as equally be argued to denote fortune, i.e. luck. Even where it might be argued that these are being used in the descriptive sense, that is in looking back at a situation and describing it, the notion of luck (or lack of it) remains. There are also prescriptive forms, such as "it would be fortunate if…" To my knowledge, no one seems to have qualms with such a statement because they intuitively understand what is meant, without the etymological pedantry that is unreflective of popular usage. Going even further, one could argue that we shouldn’t include the word pig in guinea pig because a pig is impure which isn’t true of a guinea pig, and so on. The point is very simple, and as the Hanbali usuli Sulaiman al-Tufi put it, ‘words are not intended for their own sake, but to manifest meanings.’
Beyond expressions or phrases, there are also words, such as coincidence, which holds a plethora of connotations, and could denote randomness although no Muslim seeks to negate God’s agency when using it. When a believer uses the term coincidence, he merely means that it seems human agency seemingly had little to do with something, whilst affirming all things to be determined by Allah. In fact, Muslim usage of the term might be held as an affirmation of qadr (divine decree) and an expression of its wondrous nature, that God’s will came to pass in a way that was entirely removed from human intent.
When a believer says ‘good luck’ they simply express a hope for success, fully aware that success or failure is determined by God. In essence, the sentiment is: ‘I hope for your success’ with the ellipsis that "may God make it happen".
But wouldn’t it simply be better to make a supplication, such as ‘May God give you success’?
Not necessarily. It is perfectly valid to express empathy (and well wishing) to someone in a linguistic form that isn’t supplicatory. For example, there are several hadith in which the Prophet expressed his hope that a sahabi would attain membership of a given successful cohort, saying: "and I hope you will be from amongst them" and evidently felt little linguistic need to make clear in that moment the he hoped that it was God who would decree such a thing. Given that it was the Prophet saying it, the godly sentiment would be obvious, just as when a believer says good luck, the same would be assumed to be true.
Another relevant case study might be the prophetic compellation (as related by Ibn Abbas) to the sickly, "Not to worry, a purification - if God wills it." (al-Bukhari) It might be argued that the ending here denotes that it must be ascribed to God. However, some points to consider:
- The statement "Not to worry, a purification" presents as descriptive and so would have been taken by the sahabi as informative. However, the Prophet wasn’t informing him that it had occurred but expressing a hope, so by including "if God wills it" the Prophet made clear that it was a hope (i.e. non-grammatically supplicative), and not an inevitable occurrence.
- It is also telling that "Not to worry, a purification" meant that Prophet did not need to spell out that Allah was the source of that purification, that through the illness it was God that forgave sin. Again, the sentiment coming from a believer, and especially the messenger of God, made that clear.
Is it better to stay away from saying ‘good luck’ out of caution? Well, only for the one in doubt. If one isn’t in doubt, then there is nothing to be cautious about. Thus, if a person prefers not to use the phrase then that is perfectly fine, but to pontificate to others or to inaccurately evangelise on its impermissibility is severely misplaced.
I'm aware that I've delved far too deeply into this, granting a trivial issue more than it is worth. However, I have done so to demonstrate how simple issues can spiral out of control when some get “a bee in their bonnet” (another non-literal expression!) over something that really isn’t that deep, and going over the top by making it great cause for debate. This issue is a good example of the Prophetic caution, "The most criminal of Muslims are those who enquire into those things that haven’t been made haram, but then become haram because of their excessive questioning." (al-Bukhari and Muslim)
To say or not to say ‘good luck’ really isn’t that deep. But if you would like some brain food, read up on meaning in the philosophy of language, and sections on الألفاظ والمعاني in usul al-fiqh.
And God knows all.
Convert or Revert?
In the English language, the noun convert refers to a person who has changed his/her faith. The word revert has no theological connotation; it isn't used as a noun and as a verb simply means to return to a previous state. Applying it to those who submit to God and accept the prophethood of His final messenger is not only a linguistic aberration, but also theologically incorrect. It is essentially an unsound understanding of shar’ī sources.
Here are a few brief reasons: