—————–

Brothers and sisters: The world is in a state of peril:

Peril, because:

• Of its failure to answer the pressing challenges of our times – such as war and poverty
• Of its failure to uphold basic civil rights and liberties in the face of the problems of terrorism.
• Of its failure to implement justice in Guantanamo and Palestine.
• Of its failure to recognise its spiritual demise in the face of atheism and irreligiousness.
• Of its financial crisis that has crippled economies and tamed giants
• Because of its failure to answer the real need of mankind – to answer the question of who we are and why we were created. What a shame, that the greatest of questions: Who we are and why are we here – is the same question that is the most unclear in mind of humanity today.

All of this, because the world has dismissed Islam. They have dismissed Islam from being the answer to their problems and the solution for their dilemmas.

Humans beings have forgotten their creator and so they have forgotten who they are and what their identity is!

ولا تكونوا كالذين نسوا الله فأنساهم أنفسهم أولئك هم الفاسقون
Do not be like those who forgot Allah so Allah caused them to forget themselves. They are the wrong doers.

In the face of challenges such as this, the onus is on the Muslims to rise up to the cause. Rise up of sons of Umar, sisters of Aishah and students of Ibn Abbas. Arise, the sons and daughters of Islam to answer the call that Allah has placed on you.

Arise my people and realise your destiny.
Reach out and grab it. It is yours!!

Brothers and sisters:

• We were not created:
  • To be slaves and beggars
  • To be followers and fans and admirers of others
• We were created:
  • To be leaders and lords
  • To be the pioneers and challengers
  • To be to be the ones who are admired and praised and followed
  • We were created to guide mankind and liberate them and free them from the shackles of this world.

“From the worship of slaves, to the worship of the Lord of Slaves, From the injustice of religions to the Justice of Islam, and from the contractedness of this world to the vastness of the hereafter!”

كنتم خير أمة أخرجت للناس
You are the best of people, made for the benefit of Mankind!

However, the question arises:

How can we call others to the truth when we don’t have a unified solution to present to them. Our religion is one and God is one and Prophet is one, our destiny is one – but our hearts are not one!

Our situation, reminds me of a period in history known as the period of the Three kingdoms. Have you heard of the history of the three kingdoms:

• It is a part of Chinese history from 220 of the Christian era.
• It is a part of the past history of China that followed the Han dynasty which used to be a period of stability and unification.
• In the time of the three kingdoms which was a period of disunity – the great country of China was divided into three smaller kingdoms, each of which developed with own laws, values, customs and way of life.
• But, for 300 years approximately, the three kingdoms fought each other, even though there were periods in that time when China was unified, this quickly fell apart.

It is interesting to note, that the tension between the three kingdoms created many good things:

• Beautiful art
• Strong local communities
• Romantic heroes and great valour and battles from which developed stories of Chinese mythology.

The negatives however, is that:

• This period embodied countless battles and loss of life
• The citizens of each kingdom made the kingdom more important than overall China.
• People lost sight of the bigger picture, of the greater vision, or the bigger identity.
• They created a mythology around the heroes who did battle against their fellow Chinese and they rallied behind them against their fellow countrymen.
• China lost its unity and power and failed to grow into its true potential. Now take a look – a unified China – the next world power and the power balance in the world changing from the west to the east! All of this because with unity, China is realising its full potential.

Muslims today we are living the legacy of the period of the three kingdoms:

• Instead of kingdoms, we have our own sects and organisations – that are like pseudo-kingdoms that have become more important to us than our unity, our religion and faith. The problem is not the presence of organisations themselves. The problem is that instead of using them as vehicles and means to the noble end of calling to Allah, our disunity shows that we are actually more focused on calling to the organisations themselves! We have forgotten what Allah says in the Quran: قل هذه سبيلي أدعو إلى الله
• My friends, just like in the time of the three kingdoms, we too have set up kings and heroes for these sects and organisations – and have develop stories of their respective greatness.
• We support this scholar over that, and rally behind this imam over that and we have forgotten our combined greatness and glory.
• Yes, these disunited groups, sects and organisations have helped Islam – by adding to its projects, values, culture and achievements, but…. At what cost?
• At the cost of:
  • the ummah failing to achieve its true potential!
  • At the cost of defeat at the hands of its enemies!
  • At a cost of the ummah losing its leadership and resigning itself to physical, intellectual and cultural slavery.

The antidote:
So what is the antidote to this poison that flows in our veins? To this devil that rides the waves of our passion?
It is to work on a methodology towards achieving a unity that will not waver and quiver.

There are two parts to this methodology.

THE FIRST PART

Is a remedy that is clearly mentioned to us in the Quran when the Angels asked Allah about the divine wisdom in sending down to the earth – human beings – a creation that would destroy it and become disunited and spill blood!

“أتجعل فيها من يفسد فيها ويسفق الدماء؟”
Will you send to this earth a creation that will ruin it and spill blood?

The angels were right that indeed human beings were endowed with those traits that only serve to harm itself. Allah says:

خلق الإنسان ضعيفاً Mankind was created weak
وكان الإنسان عجولا Mankind is hasty
وكان الإنسان قتوراً Mankind is miserly
وكان الإنسان أكثر شيء جدلاً Mankind is ever given unto arguing

So Allah explained to them His divine plan:

وعلÙ'Ù… آدم الأسماء كله
And He taught Adam the names of all things!

This was the divine plan! Through knowledge Allah would save humanity. This was the way that Allah would join our hearts together and save us from fighting each other.

Why? Because knowledge does that to a person. When you gain knowledge:

• You gain wisdom and learn to appreciate the wisdom and goodness that others have – ensuring that you don’t divide over petty matters.
• You remove ignorance from yourself which is the prime cause of arguments and problems
• The more you gain knowledge, the more you realise your ignorance and this humbles you and removes pride – the same pride that causes you to see yourself above others and thus incapable of uniting with them.
• The more knowledgeable you are, the more God fearing you are – the more you love others that are also God fearing and all of this leading on to further unity.

So the first step towards unity and the first part of the methodology:
Gain knowledge as much as you can!
Both: religious and non-religious knowledge.

THE SECOND PART OF THE METHODOLOGY
The second remedy – is to act upon that knowledge which you have gained.

• To struggle and strive to implement that knowledge in yourself and in your family and friends.
• To develop a strong sense of selfless social service
• To become contributing citizens of your state
• To cultivate that love and mercy for humanity
• To feel responsible for the problems of the world and to strive with your wealth and time for its remedy

There are many things that show the importance of knowledge with action.

• The first of these, is that the Arabs used the same three letters for knowledge and action. Knowledge is علم and action is عمل
• Allah says tens of times in the Quran: إن الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات
• AlHasan used to say: The concern of the scholars is action and the concern of the ignorant is narration
• Some of the pious predecessors used to say: We used to safeguard our knowledge by acting upon it.
  One of the scholars of the past used to say: If a person goes out to seek knowledge itself, then he never benefits from it, however if a person goes out to seek action through that knowledge, then he benefits even from a little bit of it.

My friends, when you act on your knowledge:

• You appreciate the value of it and appreciate all those who are acting upon it. You are filled with love and admiration for those who are struggling for Allah’s cause and thus your hearts come together and you become united.
• When you act upon the knowledge, you fill that void that other people’s actions leave and thus you support the rest – and preserve unity in that way.
• When you act upon that knowledge, then you bring on the blessings of Allah and He increases you in further knowledge – that only serves to strengthen your unity.

So the methodology for achieving unity and the methodology of our revival is very simple:

Knowledge and action
Be the most knowledgeable you can about the truth and be the most merciful that you can be to mankind!

OUR SMALL EFFORT AT UNIFYING THE UMMAH IS THROUGH THESE TWIN PEAKS OF FAITH: KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION

One of them for knowledge, the other for action:

Firstly: AlKauthar institute – is our attempt at pushing out knowledge to the world:

• Intensive weekend seminars in 5 continents with a combined base of over 5000 regular students and with our courses spanning the world – Australia, South Africa, India, UK and Canada.
  For the past few years, we have been the largest provider of intensive Islamic weekend courses in the UK.
• Find out more at: www.alkauthar.org

The second vehicle for action: Mercy Mission – a professional project based community development organisation:

• An organization that uses the students of AlKauthar and other than AlKauthar – and involves them in projects that benefit their society. Mercy Mission is active in the UK and in Australia and is being launched in the other regions of South Africa, Canada and India early next year inshaAllah. Our vision is to: Achieve a world wherein every Muslim can live faithfully to their belief acting as true ambassadors of their faith and where by their virtuous example, humanity can appreciate the beauty of Islam.
• Find out more at www.mercymission.org.uk

I invite you to:

Believe as I believe – that responsibility for rectifying the problems of the world rests with the Muslims. And in order for Muslims to live up to our responsibility, we need to be united. And To achieve unity, then we need to seek a robust methodology that is simple yet profound in its impact – that methodology being knowledge and action.

And our final call is that all praise is for Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Editor's Note: Please note that the Shaykh has requested a tight control of comments. Criticism is always acceptable on these pages, but if it turns into rude or derogatory comments, it will be immediately removed.

As the Director-General of Mercy Mission and AlKauthar Institute, which now has over 14 instructors and over 50 courses running in 10 countries in 5 continents, the safety and travel convenience of the Institute’s instructors are serious considerations for me. We can prepare proficiently for the classes, market them, fill the class with hundreds of registered students, but a simple visa or entry issue into a country for an instructor can destroy all this good, and can destroy dawah organizations in the eyes of the unforgiving Muslim communities. Recently a couple of extremely well known speakers, very popular in the dawah scene around the world, were not allowed to come to Australia because they were accused of being ‘wahhabi’!

I am sure everyone realizes the systematic attempt by a variety of lobby groups these days to discredit Muslim speakers, daees and mashaikh in an attempt to close avenues of dawah by these people of knowledge. Scholars and speakers alike are being harmed and negatively portrayed in the media, wherein the underlying argument seems to be that Islam is the problem and so those who preach Islam are the main un-indicted co-conspirators in extremism and terrorism. Based on this, some categories of Muslims speakers and preachers are supported by anti-extremism programs and shown to be the more tolerant and acceptable versions of Islam and everyone else is portrayed as an aberrant wahhabi!

This dangerous escalation needs to be challenged.

An alternative argument that is the more logical and the more in conformity with reality must be presented, which is that Muslim scholars are natural allies of the West, specifically in fighting extremism and terrorism. Islam and its knowledge and education must be allowed to flourish if extremism is to be curtailed and removed.

Along these lines, I gave a talk at a dinner organized by the Muslim Council of Wales, which was attended by some of the nation’s top anti-terrorism chiefs and prevention of extremism experts. It was delivered in early December 2008 in the city of Cardiff, UK. My goal was to present the intellectual side of the argument that Muslim scholars should not be harmed in their work. Note that the lecture was delivered after the 26/11/08 incidents in Mumbai and before the recent Gaza events – so reference is only drawn to the Mumbai events.

As the Gaza events and decades of horror in Muslim lands have shown, terrorism is not an Islamic monopoly. However, what should be of concern to Muslims – is not that 'islamic terrorism' is a contradiction in terms, but rather that the term is and has been coined and is being used widely. So rather than use this opportunity to correct people's understanding as to how broad based terrorism really is, I chose to focus on an achievable outcome that was more important given the limited opportunity and time. So before you read the below, remember the audience, the desired outcome, and the gravity of the problem and the danger that lies ahead for Islamic speakers and instructors.

And before some self-righteous individual paints my actions as being done in fear, know this: I did not deliver this lecture with nifaq and hypocrisy in my heart, rather with absolute izzah and honour and passion and conviction and arguing for our right to preach our pristine and pure religion.

I acknowledge the help of my friends Amir Butler, Dr Salman Qureshi and a couple of other unnamed close friends from UK, who gave me invaluable advice in preparing for this lecture:

__________________

[Opening: for 2 minutes, speak in Bengali or another language that the audience doesn’t understand]

Ladies and Gentlemen,Did you understand that? No?

Now you can understand the ineffectiveness of our prevention strategies if we do not speak the language of extremism and use the right people and the right vehicles to address its perverted ideology.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the recent incidents in Mumbai only a few days ago, are a testament to the fact that we have not been successful in our war on terror. We cannot with any degree of certainty say that we are safer today than we were yesterday. Terrorism continues to draw fresh recruits, more determined and well trained than before and unleashing a wave of fear and uncertainty in the hearts of all humanity.

However, the greatest tragedy from this is not the loss of human life, but to the reality to which I wish to draw your attention to today. It is, that the war on terror has feathered the arrows of terrorists around the around, just like the eagle in Aesop’s Fables. Aesop, the slave and story teller of ancient Greece writes: An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whiz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. “Alas!” it cried, as it died, “We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is certainly true about the manner in which the west has waged its war on Terror. In the mistaken equation of terrorism with mainstream Islam and denigrating it with labels of radical or fundamental, the war on terror has sidelined and marginalized one of its greatest allies – Independent Islamic Scholarship. Worse still, the war on terror has failed to recognize that those that we have come to call fundamental Muslim scholars are precisely those that have long been fighting the war on terror – long before September 11 and long before the Gulf War. For example, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia was of the opinion that hijacking airplanes was “an extremely great crime” and that it was obligatory on governments and scholars alike “to exert themselves as much as possible in ending this evil.” The Grand Mufti also condemned the ‘Jamaa'atul-Jihaad’, a terrorist group, saying “they are to be cut off from, and the people are to be warned against their evil since they are a tribulation and are harmful to the Muslims, and they are the brothers of Satan.” The present Grand Mufti was quoted to have said about the September 11 incidents: “It is nothing but oppression and tyranny.” There are also numerous such quotes from the Grand Muftis of various countries. These are not sophisticated PR campaigns – rather, they are verdicts spoken in the language that the people would understand, in those media channels that the right group would tune into and understand.

I ask you the question: Why alienate the message of such people? Why not use these Muslim scholars that are credible in the eyes of the Muslim masses to achieve the common goal of prevention?

Ladies and Gentlemen, hundreds of years before the anti-terrorism policies of the West, approximately 1400 years ago, Muslims were fighting the intellectual battles that terrorism presented in the battle between the Khawarij of the past and companions of the Prophet. This continued throughout the ages – where independent Muslim scholars presented the best defense against distorted terrorist ideologies. Today, this is also seen in the manner in which Saudi Arabia has tackled their terrorism problems by putting independent credible Muslim scholars at the forefront in the intellectual battle for disproving terrorism. By equating these Muslim scholars representing orthodox Islam with religious extremism, the war on terror will lose its greatest ally in this long drawn saga.

If we make a search for the causes of extremism and terrorism, some suggestions come to light, such as social injustice or terrorist ideation or political disenfranchisement. But not all people who suffer from these disillusionments become terrorists. The stronger argument is that these conditions are merely the fertile plain, but the common pathway or the motivating context for raising terrorists is through ideological persuasion. It is this ideological distortion that is the cause of extremism and violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, and it is best tackled by those who are the most qualified to deal with it.

The best strategy for prevention is to dismantle terrorist ideologies using the same Quran and the same narrations of the prophet that are misunderstood by them. This is a task that can only be accomplished by established independent credible Muslim scholars. The war on terror therefore is as much a war on ignorance and misguidance, as much as it is a war against the terrorists themselves. Modern anti terrorism strategies need to do more to tackle the greatest draw card for extremism – that of the terrorist ideology. This is an intellectual academic war before it is a battle with bullets and bombs. Who better to fight the war than Muslim scholars who:

• Speak the language and refer to the same evidences and jurisprudential sources
• Those who understand the textual distortions that led to extremist ideology
• Those who can dismantle the misunderstanding and the deviated logic
• Who are themselves pinnacles of goodness and mercy to all men and women – whether Muslim or not.
• Those who uphold the common shared values that both the Islamic and Western civilizations agree to.
• Those who appreciate that we can all live together with understanding and tolerance.

To illustrate my point, allow me to share with you the example of 2 simple arguments frequently used by terrorists to justify their deviation:

• For example, how would you respond to a young man who says – how can I be a good citizen of a country that is one of the very nations committing acts of violence in Muslim lands? They continue: Rather, their participation in the wars on Muslim lands is a testament to the fact that we are in a situation of war with them.
  • So how could we address this?
  • What could we do to refute this mistaken argument?
  • Who better to argue this than Muslim scholars who can tackle this on the same grounds?

• Another example, how would you respond to an extremist that says – you want us to integrate, but how can I integrate with a society that has so many social ills?  Rather, the people of vices were destroyed by God, so should those of today.
  • So who better to address this argument than through Muslim scholars?
  • Who better to clarify the correct way to view this matter?

So who are these independent Muslim scholars?

They are scholars from the broad spectrum of Muslims possessing authentic religious credentials that support the prevention of terror and extremism. They are not adherents to one specific brand of Islam, belonging to this or that group – rather any scholar and every scholar that supports the prevention of terror and is working towards defusing any such tension. For America, 7 years of fighting terror around the world and conflating orthodox Islam with fundamentalism and terrorism – with little progress – truly demonstrates that alienation of key allies in the ideological battle ground is a costly mistake. It is imperative that we avoid this mistake as we look for a fresh strategy to tackling terrorism and its challenges into the future. There should be an active attempt to identify scholars from the broad spectrum of Muslim groups that support the cause.

The US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr in his address to the Pacific Council on International Diplomacy to the American Academy of Diplomacy on Oct 4, 2007 remarks in his speech entitled: “Diplomacy in the Age of Terror” says:

We must stop inadvertently undermining the efforts of mainstream Muslims to oppose our common enemies and to expose these enemies as the deranged and immoral fanatics they are. Our ignorant and blundering equation of terrorism with Islam has overshadowed and impeded their efforts to regain control of their own moral space. To help them do so, we must restore respectful relationships with Muslim scholars and the governments they advise. Only then can we work with them to discredit Al Qaeda's aberrant doctrines.

In our natural preoccupation with American suffering on 9/11 or on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, we often forget that Al Qaeda's aim is the overthrow of what it calls “the near enemy” – the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian government – and that its attacks on us – “the far enemy” – are merely a means to that end. The successful vilification of Saudi Arabia and newly disparaging attitudes toward Egypt as well as the rise of “Islamophobia” in our politics represent major victories for Al Qaeda. They are defeats for our natural allies against the novel and perverted interpretations of Islam that Al Qaeda purveys. They are therefore setbacks for us. We need to rebuild key alliances in the Arab and Muslim worlds that the diplomatic reductionism of “either with us or against us” has destroyed.

Fourth, we need to work with these allies to intercept and rehabilitate those tempted onto the road to terrorism and to help them to return to the straight path of Islam. Saudi Arabia has created a very successful program to do this; it is now helping the United Kingdom apply its program of religious rectification in British prisons. Enabling the misguided to reject the perverted and immoral religious interpretations they have mistakenly accepted is the key to preventing would-be recruits to terrorism from actually engaging in it. Islam is not the problem. In this context, it is the answer.

If this is clear, then I propose a more proactive, collaborative strategy for dealing with extremist ideology.

Firstly:

I propose that Muslim scholars that are credible in the eyes of mainstream Muslim populations – and not only those scholars who come from a particular viewpoint – be used to educate the masses. Our anti terrorism strategy should be to build – theological resilience within the Muslim youth. Such a clear focused program would develop the necessary firmness in susceptible sections of the community towards distorted ideology. There is therefore a deep need for establishing a concerted medium for education that aims to build this inner resilience in our people.

My own attempts at educating young Muslims worldwide in 5 continents, has been through an organization that I started called: AlKauthar Institute. AlKauthar provides tertiary level weekend courses in 5 countries and 10 cities with a combined base of over 6500 students. We provide professional intensive courses on a wide variety of Islamic topics. My main aim is to educate and enrich people’s lives through knowledge. Such a comprehensive application of Islamic knowledge will build resilience in these students, inoculating them and achieving natural herd immunity against extremism and terrorism.

Secondly:

I suggest the countering of media hostilities against mainstream Muslim organizations, since it plays directly into the hands of extremists and makes the moral position of these same organizations that are proactive in fighting terrorism – all the more difficult. I suggest the formation of a concerted marketing campaign to help push out the key messages of independent Muslim scholars to the vulnerable sections of society. Since the war on terror has been a very visual and digitally laid campaign, the best way to counter this is with a profile based marketing campaign that gets the right message to the right person at the right time. A mass media campaign to general Muslim public would not be very successful since 99% of the Muslim population is not interested in terrorism and not directly drawn to it. It should be targeted at the most vulnerable sections of society. With modern technology at our disposal these days, we can ensure that proactive positive messages can reach the right people.

Thirdly:

I suggest that a strategy be developed to engage the average Muslim towards becoming proactive participants in their community. This can be achieved through an emphasis on knowledge followed by a focus on engaging them in their local problems. A person that has ownership of their society and community will never act in contravention of that trust. I call for the support of grass roots Muslim organizations that are proactively working to build ownership of community issues.

My own attempts at establishing such a program is through a grass roots community development organization which I founded in Australia, UK and now in Canada and is hoping to open elsewhere. This organization is called Mercy Mission. The vision is to achieve a world whereby Muslims can live faithfully to their religion and where by their beautiful example, humanity appreciates the beauty of Islam. Our intention is to create Muslims that are pious, confident, self sufficient and self less back to their greater community. The strategy is to channel the thousands of students of AlKauthar worldwide, into a proactive program of helping develop their community. Our central projects are “MyNeighbours” project which aim to achieve social cohesion by energizing the average Muslim, Water conservation projects, Energy efficient Mosques projects, Health awareness projects, Islamic awareness programs for training police and security personnel in Muslim sensitivity training, Muslim scouts, Muslim community financial cooperatives – the aim being to engage Muslims in all walks of life into those projects that build ownership of their community – the aim being to defuse any attempts at disturbing the peace and harmony that such projects will create and turn the average Muslim into a contributing citizen of their religious fraternity as well as country.

Fourthly:

Muslims have a long history in Wales and Cardiff where Muslim migrants settled in previously. Utilizing the principles that we have put forward tonight, this is yet another opportunity to make Cardiff the centre of excellence in addressing the problems of extremism. Both London and Glasgow have experienced terrorist incidents – let us use every avenue and every opportunity to reduce any possibility of violent extremism in Cardiff.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Islam is a religion of peace and enough is history – world history over the past 1000 years a proof of this fact. Terrorism and extremism is not a result of attachment to Islam, rather it is entirely due to a long seated detachment from it! The earlier that we realize this point, the better we can all prepare to cooperate and collaborate in making this world a safer place for us and our children.

I thank God for this opportunity to share these words with you and my deepest regrets for any inconveniences for the delay in my arrival.

Tawfique Chowdhury
Director General
AlKauthar Institute and Mercy Mission
3rd December 2008

We all have habits that we may not like or that which may not be liked by Allah. As a result of this, we feel its negative effect in our lives. By its nature, a habit is basically something ingrained and hardwired in our mind. The best way to get over it, is not to try to stop the habit straight away, rather by starting and working on a counter habit. If you want to lose some weight for example – don't start by stopping to eat, rather start developing a habit of regular exercise and then slowly work on cutting down on the food. This is more effective, more lasting and will probably bring in the result you want. You see, it is difficult to overcome habits that are and have been long standing, but relatively easy to start new ones.

I wanted to share with you a process that I follow to work on starting a new habit that counters a bad habit that I have. It is the following 6 steps. These steps are essentially taken from the simple Islamic process of making repentance – firstly remembering the sin, regretting it by thinking about its implications, making a resolve to not repeat it, doing a good deed that will wipe out the sin, then surrounding yourself with ways of doing good and closing all doors to the bad and lastly being thankful to Allah for having guided you to the good and remembering that if you do the sin again, it is only going to be a new sin and not harm your previous repentance inshaAllah. In the context of habits, the steps are as follows:

1. Firstly, make yourself aware of that negative habit, when, where and how frequently do you happen to do it. How can you effectively make yourself aware of it? By telling others to spot it, by monitoring yourself as closely as possible, by jotting down every time that you remember that you did it. Example: Habit of missing the sunnah prayers.

2. Then, Ask yourself about what impact that habit has on yourself and on yours perception, personality and relationship with Allah. The more you focus on this, the more this becomes the lever of change. Example: Constantly missing the sunnah prayers makes a person a miser with his ibadah, not love the sunnah, legally removes his status as being just, removes the reward of having a new palace built for him/her in paradise daily – the more you focus on the problems of this bad habit, the more it will make you want to change it.

3. Next, focus on how willing and committed you are to making a change and on doing a counter habit. Think over the fence into the future – how it would be to not have the negative habit and to replace it with a positive one.

4. Then write a specific action that you will do to counter the habit and start the good habit. Be very specific and try to make it regular so that it actually becomes a habit. Remember – a habit is something that you do regularly! Example: specifically you will come to prayer 10mins early so you can do the sunnah prayer on time.

5. Next: Support yourself to develop that new good habit. How? Hang around good friends, put up reminders anywhere and everywhere, get your family and friends to support you by remind you about it.

6. Lastly: Reward yourself every time you do a good habit and don't be too hard on yourself if you end up doing the bad habit here and there. Remember: Habit happens!

Remember that Allah loves those simple deeds that are done regularly rather than the major ones done irregularly. I invite you to use the above to remove a negative habit that you may have and then to develop a new good habit in this month. So make this Ramadan special by starting a new habit of making dhikr constantly; reciting surah ikhlas 30 times a day so you get the reward of reciting the whole Quran 10 times a day; helping one poor person with a daily meal; sponsoring an orphan; getting up for qiyamul layl in the last third of the night every night of Ramadan; making dua only for Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa salam etc. Whatever habit you work on, believe me, you will certainly find tremendous barakah and become truly beloved to Allah, if you focus on making it less adhoc and more regular and constant – a true good habit!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Update:

Shaykh Abu Yusuf Tawfique Chowdhury’s view on the new Muslim Marriage contract:

Assalamualiakum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Finally after the people of the land have spoken about this contract do I feel it appropriate to speak about this contract in my own capacity. I also speak with reservation and althought I too disagree with it, I urge all the students to show due respect to the fact that some people of knowledge may have supported it, such as Mufti Barakatullah hafidahullah who I know him to be knowledgeable and not a follower of desires alhamdulillah. So I would urge everyone to discuss the contract objectively without giving a ruling on those who are behind it. Remember: Everyone’s statement is to be taken and rejected except that of Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. It is my sincere hope that if we speak with more clarity, strenght of proof and with some softness and kindness, that the better ones amongst them may recant and reject the contract and all good is from Allah.

As Sh Haitham hafidahullah pointed out, the contract is riddled with problems and in all truth, it plays on the concessions of scholars, goes against established rulings of fiqh, goes against the truth in many matter, goes against points of ijma sukuti in some, using daeef ahadeeth in quoting facts and in others there seems to be a blatant misunderstanding of the fiqh of some of the nikaah terms – such as in talaq at-tafweed.

I too hold this contract to be at odds with the goals and principles of the Shariah in marriage and do not consider the contract with its present conditions and wording to be valid. This is apart from the fact that the contract lowers the status and position of the husband treating him constantly from an angle of mistrust, whereas the position of the husband is one of highest importance and one of having tremendous right over the wife. There is no mention of this nor any alluding to this in the contract since it seems to have been designed to counter unscrupulous husbands. No only this, but if we were to put the rulings of halal and haram aside – is it not illogical to propose the disolution of the husband’s sole right to talaq, taking second wife etc.. and at the same time oblige a mahr on him?! If indeed, instead of equity you are after equality, then where is the equality in obliging a mahr on the man when so many of his rights are totally removed away from him?

I am however concerned that perhaps many points of what Sh Haitham is mentioning in his video may not be clearly understandable to those who listen to it, so I would suggest that people NOT miss the upcoming AlKauthar A-Z of love and mercy course in London 1st/2nd November where all the issues and more will be explained in great detail so that everyone will be easily able to find the faults with contracts like this in the future inshaAllah. I am also afraid that many of those who are pushing the contract don’t understand how they may have misunderstood the issues of fiqh themselves eg in matters of talaq tafweed.

I would summarize (very concisely without detailed explanations) the problems in the contract from my own reading of it, as the following 6 major issues:

1. To say that witness in Islam is gender/faith neutral: Is a poor and weak argument. Firstly as far as gender is concerned, if two muslims are getting married, no scholars have allowed except for 2 male muslims or 1 male and 2 female (as many have allowed) but never 4 female at all. Secondly regarding witnesses being faith neutral – If the authors are alluding to the opinion of Imam Malik rahimahullah that witnesses are not compulsory, but that the matter be known widely, then this is also incorrect, since the Maliki madhab requires it to be made known in Muslim areas, not ahlul-kitab and dhimmi areas. If the authors have based this opinion based on the fiqh issue of a muslim marrying a dhimmi, and some minority opinion allowing witnesses from the dhimmis non-muslims – this itself is a really weak opinion and the vast majority of the ulema require the witnesses to be muslim even if the wife is dhimmi and/or ahlul kitaab.

2. Misunderstanding of talaq tafweed: Whereby scholars have allowed the husband to give his agent (in this case, his own wife) the right to divorce – the right for her to pronounce the divorce is only for that instance and only for one pronunciation of divorce, not for more than that. The right thus transferred, expires right after and does not perpetually stay with her and so it is of no consequence if she came tomorrow and divorced herself from him – it would not be of any consequence. Thus – to propose that the talaq tafweed is perpetual for the length of the duration of the marriage is a new matter and this is directly against the verse where Allah specifically makes talaq from men to women only [2:231, 236 etc].

3. To negate the condition of the wali – or to propose as in the explanatory notes that guardianship stops at puberty – is a false statement as far as marriage is concerned. Even the Ahnaf agree that guardianship in marriage continues even after puberty in the case of a slave girl – which is how they understand the hadeeths where rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam obliged women to get married only with a wali (they said that he was referring to slave girls that must have their master or inother words, their wali’s permission for marriage whereas free women dont need walis according to them). However even the Ahnaf (i.e Hanafis) – although they dont oblige a wali for ennactment of marriage, however they disallow its establishment if the family of the girl disapproves and does not think that the man is kufu’/kafaa’ah (suitability and good comparision) for the bride. So for example, even if the wali is not obligatory in the hanafi madhab may Allah have mercy on them, still however, the father of an arabian sister may object to her daughter’s marriage to a non-Arab as in the hanafi madhab. So if the wali is not a condition in marriage, however the wali’s role can come in by way of kafa’ah. So practically speaking, the removal of stipulation of a wali does not remove the stipulation of kafa’ah and thus practically – the effect is still the same – the blessings of the wali is still required for the marriage to not be hindered. So this non-stipulation of the wali (even if we give the excuase that the hanafis dont stipulate it) gives the wrong message and in no case, is the sister free of needing her wali’s blessing for the continuation of the marriage.

4. The contract stipulates that a second wife not be taken formally or informally here or abroad since the laws of the land forbid it. This extending the law of the land into a moral territory and to make it a moral police and to extend its jurisdiction into other countries – is a matter in which the law simply does not extend its own jurisdiction to itself.

5. Some of the stipulations individually may have been acceptable on their own if they were individual stipulations (eg if a sister put the condition for her husband not to take a second wife – such as in the hanbali madhab), however when the whole spirit of the contract is based on achieving a whimsical equality and appeasement and gratification of so called modern muslim values; as a collection, the conditions go against the goals and purposes of Islam no doubt. I have little doubt that this contract will fail to achieve the goals for which it was designed. And Allah knows best.

6. I was surprised to find that the contract allowed mutual amendaments to the contract by both parties – something quite new to me. If what is intended is that the sister does not demand certain conditions anymore – such as allowing her husband to take on another wife, talaq tafweed condition etc.. then this wording of this condition permits this and more. If more is intended, then I would love to see the basis of the authors for allowing this sitpulation in the contract. This condition is against the clear injunctions of the sunnah of Rasulullah to carry out the conditions by which a person has made sexual intimacy with his spouse permissible. [AlBukhari]

[Also as a side point for benefit of the students]
There are some statements in the explanation of the contract based on daeef hadeeth: such as the statement that divorce is regarded by Allah as the most hated thing – is unauthentic as graded by Ibn Hajr rahimahullah in AlFath and AlAlbani rahimahullah in Daeef Sunan Abi Dawood.

I would say that if this contract is pushed out to people of UK without strong opposition – very soon the effect of it will be that the number of divorces would increase, the number of brothers seeking brides from their own countries back in the subcontinent would increase, the number of unmarried women will increase, the ages of sisters getting married will increase, the number of self styled islamic feminists will skyrocket, the number of sisters traumatised and hurt by fleeting marriages will skyrocket and for the first time we will surely see a trend wherein some woman get married only for the mahr then divorce soon after only to repeat this with other unsuspecting men – a phenomenon quite common in Iranian mutah marriages. Infact I have little doubt that this contract will actually result in the exact opposite of the noble aims that it set out to achieve. But as the saying goes: The road to jahannam is paved with good intentions!

I would appreciate if the students could post this post on various forums and on email lists so people can benefit and understand the points clearly inshaAllah.

Jazakallahulkhair.

Tawfique Chowdhury
Director
AlKauthar and Mercy Mission

Source: http://forums.alkauthar.org/showthread.php?t=4245&page=2

From one of the most important matters that face every caller to Islam and every organisation, taking on the noble task of calling to this beautiful and perfect religion, is the question of sources of finance. After the terrorist incidents around the world, the ensuing drama and scrutiny over Islamic organisations struggling to do good has worsened and along with it anyone who funds Islamic projects. This has further resulted in large numbers of the general Muslim population not being as charitable as they normally are. I remember a friend of mine from a large charitable Islamic organisation telling me that the charity levels from people go down to less than half, after any major incident around the world. It seems that people become weary of being linked to anyone that may later be found to use the funds inappropriately. This paranoia and fear has gripped many people and has lead to a serious lack of finances for Islamic projects everywhere. In times as difficult as these, it falls upon the Shariah to bring in ease and legislate in a manner that would allow for its rulings to mould and adapt to our time and circumstances, so that its goals and purposes can be realised in all times and circumstances.

Allah the Most High legislated Zakat as a major source of revenue for the Islamic ummah. It was legislated to cater for some of the neediest sections of the ummah. These days however, when Zakat is given, usually only the poor and miskeen are sought out despite the fact that the poor only comprise one fourth of the recipients of the Zakat described in verse 60 of Surah Tawbah – since they are only two categories out of the 8 mentioned in the verse. It was defined by Allah rigidly enough for there to be divine clarity on the recipients of Zakat, but wide enough to leave the exact definition of each of the types of recipients, upon the ijtihaad of the scholars.

At the beginning of this article it is important to mention an important argument posed by some scholars, may Allah have mercy on them all, that: Ultimately, the Zakat was not intended by the Shariah to be for every cause that is good. If this was the case, then there would be little wisdom in the Quran restricting the recipients of Zakat to the eight categories in Surah Tawbah, verse 60. Therefore, the seventh category: “Fi-sabeelillah” must not mean except a limited number of recipients that fall under the “Fi-sabeelillah” category. Imam Ibn Hazm rahimahullah says: “…And every act of good is ultimately from the path of Allah, the Most High, except that there is no difference of opinion that He did not intend every type of goodness in the division of the obligatory charity. As a result, it is not permissible for the Zakat to be given except where the verse has clearly restricted – and that is what we had mentioned before and Allah is the source of inspiration and clarity.” [AlMuhalla (6/151)] Although what the Imam mentions here “…that there is no difference amongst the scholars in this point” is not entirely accurate . However, it may be more accurate to say that Allah did not intend every act of goodness for giving Zakat to. However, what He did exactly intend, is a matter of difference amongst the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them. What exactly is the benefit of mentioning the other seven categories along with fi-sabeelillah? Is it to restrict the meaning of “fi-sabeelillah” to only a very small limited category, or was it to emphasise the importance of those other categories as the more worthy recipients of Zakat, whilst the Zakat itself being suitable for a larger category than these seven? This article will attempt to shed more light on this issue inshaAllah.

Firstly, all the scholars of Islam are of the agreement that the wording “in the path of Allah” in surah at-Tawbah, verse 60, includes physical struggle in the path of Allah. This is a matter about which there is no difference of opinion amongst the scholars of Islam. [Ahkamul-Quran of Ibnul-Arabi al-Maliki (1/396) reporting from Imam Malik, AlMughni (6/333), AlMubdi’ (2/424), Kasshaf al-Qana’ (2/283) and others]. This is based on the fact that Allah says “Fight in the path of Allah…” [2: 190], “Struggle in the path of Allah…” [5: 35], “Allah loves those who struggle in His path…” [61: 4]. However, this Ijma does not mean that this phrase is to be restricted to this meaning only, since there exists in the body of scholarly opinions – a number of important differences amongst the scholars regarding the exact boundary of the meaning of this phrase. Before I go into the main issue of difference that is the centre point of this article, below are two points of differences that the also differed on regarding adding or restricting from the meaning of “in the path of Allah” which we will allude to towards the end of this article inshaAllah:

· Some of the scholars of Islam were of the opinion that this verse only refers to the poor voluntary conscript Mujahideen and not the rich voluntary conscript Mujahideen. This is the opinion of Imam Abu Haneefah rahimahullah. As for the rest of the scholars, they were of the opinion that it refers to all voluntary conscript Mujahideen whether rich or poor, due to the hadeeth of Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam: “Verily, (obligatory) sadaqah is not permissible for any rich person except for five..” [Abu Dawud (No. 1635), Ibn Majah (No. 1841), AlMustadrak of AlHakim (1/566) and others] and amongst them the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam mentioned a mujahid. [For details of the difference, see AlMajmoo of An-Nawawi (6/211)] As for this phrase referring to “voluntary conscripts” and not to salaried army of a Muslim nation, then this is a point of general agreement amongst many of the scholars of Islam. [See Al-Insaaf (3/235), AlMajmoo (6/211) and others]

· Some of the scholars of Islam were of the opinion that the phrase “in the path of Allah” includes Muslims as well as non-Muslims struggling in the path of Allah – such as a non-Muslim who may be spying for Muslims, [Ash-Sharh al-Kabeer Hashiyyah ala ad-Dasooki (1/456)], or to those non-Muslims, if the Muslims require their defence. [Al-Umm of Ash-Shafi (2/60)]

Does the phrase “fi-sabeelillah” only mean those physically fighting in the cause of Allah?

The vast majority of the earlier scholars of Islam such as Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Abu Thawr, Imam Ibn Mundhir, as well as the official position of the three madhabs, including many Hanbali scholars such as Imam Ibn Qudamah who mentioned that it was the opinion of the Hanbali madhab as well; as well as Imam Ash-Shawkani and many of the earlier scholars of Ahlul-Hadeeth, may Allah have mercy on them all, were of the opinion that “in the path of Allah” is restricted to those voluntary conscripts that were physically battling in Allah’s cause only. Some of them also mentioned the purchasing of weaponry to be included in this meaning. In our time, this was the original and first fatwa of the Kibar-ulema o] Saudi Arabia that was passed in the year 21/08/1394A.H, No. 24 by agreement of the majority with 6 scholars opposing, and from those who consented to the fatwa from the Kibar-ulema, were the majority of the permanent committee for fatwa, such as Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz and others.

Other scholars of Islam were of the opinion that in addition to the voluntary conscripts in the path of Allah, it also included those who were doing Hajj. This is the opinion of a number of the esteemed companions of the Prophet sallallahualaihi wa sallam such as Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurairah, Abu Saeed al-Khudri radiallahu anhum and some of the Tabiuun and scholars such as Imam AlHasan AlBasri, Imam Bukhari, Imam Ahmed, Imam Ishaq bin Rahaweih and is the Hanbali madhab according to some of the scholars of the madhab, may Allah have mercy on all the ulema of Islam.

Yet others are of the third opinion that it includes many general acts of goodness, such as building mosques, defending Islam through Islamic dawah and so on and so forth. This opinion states that although those physically fighting in the cause of Allah are more worthy, nevertheless, there are others who are also struggling to uplift His religion, in other forms of struggle in the broader category of Jihad who are worthy as well. This is the opinion of some of the earlier scholars and a large number of the later scholars, such as Imam Ar-Razi [Tafsir Ar-Razi (16/113)], Imam Al-Qasimi [Mahasin a-Ta’weel (8/318)], AlAloosi [Rooh al-Ma’ani (10/123)], Imam Siddeeq Hasan Khan [Ar-Rawdahtun-Nadiyyah (1/206)], Imam As-San’ani [Subul as-Salam (2/198)], Sheikh Rashid Ridha [Tafsir al-Manar (10/585-587)], Sheikh Muhammad Shaltoot [Al-Islam Aqeedah was-Sharee’ah (pg: 97-98)], Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim Aalus-Sheikh the former grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia [Fatawa ash-Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim (4/132)]. This is also the later and final opinion of Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Baz the former grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdur-Razzaq al-Afifi professor of Azhar and the former vice grand Mufti to Saudi, and others [Fatwa Lajnah ad-Da’imah (No. 12627, dated 11/2/1410A.H.), also see (No. 7746)] may Allah have mercy on all the scholars of Islam. This is also the decree of the Fiqh council of Makkah consisting of a large number of the scholars of Saudi Arabia under the chairmanship of Sheikh Ibn Baz rahimahullah in its 8^th seating in the year 1405 A.H. which states: “The council agrees with total majority, that dawah to Allah and that which helps it and benefits it, is in the meaning of (in the path of Allah) as in the verse.” [AlQararat (pg. 173)]

The proofs of those who hold the first opinion, that “in the path of Allah” is restricted to those voluntary conscripts that were physically battling in Allah’s cause only, state that.:

1. “Fi-sabeelillah” is mentioned in the Quran more than 60 times and in the wording of the Shariah, it usually means Jihad as if the phrase is only always used for it. This is because in the Quran, “fi-sabeelillah” is only used a few times in the general sense, whilst referring to physical struggle in the path of Allah in the specific sense most of the time.

2. The hadeeth of Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam: “The [obligatory] charity is not permissible for any rich person, except for five: The fighter in the cause of Allah, or the [Zakat] collector, or the one in debt, or for a person who purchases an item given in Zakat from his own wealth, or for a person who has a neighbour that is poor to whom he gives his Zakat and then the poor neighbour gives the Zakat item as a gift to a rich man.” [Reported by Abu Dawud (2/119), Ibn Majah (1/590), Sunan Al-Baihaqi alKubra (7/15), and AlMustadrak (1/566). Sheikh AlAlbani graded it as authentic due to other reports (Saheeh lighay’rihi)]. So this authentic hadeeth explains the phrase “fi-sabeelillah” and so its meaning should be restricted to it.

3. If fi-sabeelillah were to have a general meaning, then there would be no benefit in mentioning the rest of the types of recipients of the Zakat such as faqeer and miskeen, since they would all be included in the meaning of fi-sabeelillah.

4. Linguistically, it has not been reported in the Quran for there to be a phrase that is general in meaning that occurs in a listing between two phrases that denote specific meaning. Rather what has been reported is that a specific may be mentioned after a general, such as “On that night [of Laylatul-Qadr], the angels and the Ruh descend by the command of their Lord with every decree.” [97: 4] Here, although “Ruh” meaning Jibraeel alaihis salam is from the species of angels, he is mentioned after the angels showing that in a listing, a specific may be named after a general. Similarly is the case in the verse: “Whosoever is an enemy to Allah, His angels, His messengers, to Jibreel and Meekal (Mikaeel), then indeed Allah is an enemy to such disbelievers.” [2: 98] As a result, linguistically, the phrase “fi-sabeelillah” cannot have a general meaning since it occurs between “gharimeen” (those in debt) and “ibnus-Sabeel” (the wayfarer) which are both terms that have specific meaning. This argument was mentioned in a lesson that I was attending in the Prophet’s mosque delivered by Sheikh Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Mukhtar as-Shanqeeti hafidahullah in his explanation of the chapter of Zakat from Umdatul-Fiqh of Imam Ibn Qudamah rahimahumullah.

The proofs of those who hold the second opinion, that in addition to the voluntary conscripts in the path of Allah, it also included those who were doing Hajj, state that:

1. It is authentically reported from the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam that he considered an item that was specifically kept for physical fighting,] to also be suitable for Hajj, with the reasoning that both were from the path of Allah. This is from the Hadeeth of Abu Taleek radiallahu anhu who said that his wife Umm Taleek radiallahu anha asked him: “Give me your camel so that I can perform Hajj upon it.” He (Abu Taleek) replied: “Do you not remember that I have kept it safeguarded only for the path of Allah (fi-sabeelillah)?” She replied: “Verily, Hajj is from the path of Allah – so give it to me, may Allah have mercy upon you.” So Abu Taleek said: So I went to Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam and I passed on her salam to him and I told him what Umm Taleek told me. So the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam replied: “Umm Taleek spoke the truth! If you were to give her the camel, then it would be in the path of Allah.” [Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Tabarani (22/324), Ad-Dulaabi in AlKuna wal-Asmaa (No. 249, 1/121) and AlHaithami reports this hadeeth from AlBazzar in Majma’ az-Zawaid (3/280), however I did not find it. This hadeeth was considered good by Ibn Hajr in AlIsaabah and authenticated by AlAlbani. See Irwa al-Ghaleel (3/376)]

2. Similar to the above is another incident that was reported from the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam from the story of Umm Ma’qal radiallahu anha. She said: “When the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam performed the final Hajj – at that time we used to have a camel that Abu Ma’qal had kept exclusively for the purpose of using it in the path of Allah. Thereafter, we became sick and Abu Ma’qal passed away and the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam set off for Hajj. So when he came back from his Hajj, I went to him, so he asked me: O Umm Ma’qal what prevented you from going out (to Hajj)? So I replied: Abu Ma’qal wanted to (but passed away), and he has a camel that I was going to do Hajj on however Abu Ma’qal willed that it be only for the path of Allah. So he said: So why did you not come out on it? Indeed Hajj is from the path of Allah!” [Reported by Ahmed (No. 27107), Abu Dawud (No. 1979) and others. Graded Hasan by AlAlbani in Al-Irwa (3/376)]

3. Ibn Abbas radiallahu anhuma said: He (the slave) should be freed from the Zakat of his (owners and others) wealth and given from it (Zakat) for Hajj. [Reported by AlBukhari in Ta’leeq form and connected by Ibn Abi Shaibah in his Musannaf (4/41) and declared Hasan by AlAlbani in Al-Irwa (3/377)] Similarly it has been reported by an acceptable chain from Ibn Abbas by Abu Dawud in his Sunan (No. 1990) that Ibn Abbas said: “Verily, Hajj is from the path of Allah.”

4. Ibn Umar radiallahu anhuma said when asked about using a camel for hajj that was originally kept for fighting in battle: Indeed Hajj is from the path of Allah. [Reported with a connected chain by Abu Ubaid in AlAmwal (No. 1976), Sunan Ad-Darimi (2/519) and authenticated by Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Bari (3/332)]

5. Ibn Abbas radiallahu anhuma said: We took Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam for Hajj upon a camel from the camels of (obligatory) charity. [Musnad Ahmed (4/221), AlMustadrak (1/611), Sahih Ibn Khuzaimah (4/73), Sunnan alBaihaqi alKubra (5/252) Also supporting evidence for the narration as mentioned by Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Bari (3/331) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah (3/180). This narration has Idtiraab in it, however it is most probably authentic up to Ibn Abbas. Also this narration was mentioned by AlBukhari in the introduction of this chapter in a mu’allaq form. Sheikh Shuaib Arnaut said in his checking of the hadeeth in Musnad Ahmed: Its isnad is Hasan (acceptable) See: Musnad Ahmed (4/221)]

6. There is no known difference to the opinions of the companions that they used to permit giving the Zakat for Hajj as well. It is for this reason, that some scholars use the absence of any authentic report of any difference from other companions as silent Ijma on this topic. Sheikh AlAlbani rahimahullah says after mentioning the statements of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar radiallahu anhum on this point: “And I say: In the two Abdullahs: Meaning (Abdullah) Ibn Abbas and (Abdullah) Ibn Umar is the best and superior guidance, especially given that there is no known difference to them from the companions, as well as what has preceded mention of from the hadeeths (that support their opinion).” [Irwa al-Ghaleel of AlAlbani (3/377)]

The proofs of those who hold the third opinion, that it includes many general acts of goodness, such as building mosques, defending Islam through Islamic dawah, etc, include the proofs of the second opinion, as well as the following additional proofs:

1. In addition to Hajj, the Sunnah also mentions other matters that are from the path of Allah showing that it is not restricted to physical struggle only. From that, is the hadeeth which is elevated [Ar. Marfu’] to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam: “Whoever leaves (his home) to seek knowledge then he is fi-sabilillah until he returns.” [Tabarani (8/66)] It is also for this reason that it is reported from Abu Dhar radiallahu anhu that he said: Whoever thinks that seeking knowledge is not Jihad, then there is a deficiency in his intelligence!

2. “Fi-sabeelillah” in the majority of the verses of the Quran means Jihad, however it does not necessarily have to mean the restricted definition of Jihad only – that of physical armed struggle. Rather, Jihad has a deeper and broader meaning.

a. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: “… And strive against them with it (the Quran), a greater struggle.” [25: 52] This verse very clearly shows that dawah is also a form of Jihad.

b. The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam explained that it has a more comprehensive meaning, when he said: “Fight the [transgressing] Mushrikeen with your money, your bodies, and your tongues.” [Musnad Ahmed (3/124, 153), Abu Dawud (3/10), Ad-Darimi (2/280), AlMustadrak (2/91). Shuaib Arnaut said in the checking of Musnad Ahmed: The hadeeth is authentic upon the condition of Muslim. AlAlbani graded the hadeeth as authentic in Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud]. Explaining the comprehensive meaning of Jihad, Sheikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says: “That is because the reality of Jihad is to expend effort in achieving that which is beloved to Allah from acts of emaan and righteous actions, and to repel that which is disliked by Allah from disbelief, transgression and disobedience.” [Majmoo al-Fatawa (10/191-192)]

3. From one of the most important proofs that show that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam used Zakat for that which is generally for the good of Muslims and removal of harm from them, is the incident wherein: The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam gave 100 camels from the camels of (obligatory) charity to the family of Abdullah bin Sahal, when he was killed and no one knew who had killed him. [Reported by AlBukhari (No. 6898) and Muslim (No.1669)] AlQurtubi says about this incident: “Truly he did this on account of his noble nature, perfect governance, in order to achieve the good and ward off all harm, to quell any argument and to rein in the emotions and upon the inability to establish the truth (i.e. the punishment of manslaughter) due to lack of clarity in the matter (i.e. not knowing who the killer was).” [AlMufhim Sharh Sahih Muslim of AlQurtubi (5/15,16)] The point of witness from this hadeeth is that blood money is not one of the places where Zakat can normally be spent, unless we categorise it under the fi-sabeelillah category under the broad meaning of that phrase. Some scholars tried to deny the apparent clarity of the hadeeth of using Zakat for general good by insisting on different arguments such as perhaps the narrator of the hadeeth made a mistake, or perhaps the family of Abdullah bin Sahal were poor and so they were given the 100 camels by way of being poor or by way of being from the category of Mu’allafati quloobihim so that their hearts may be inclined towards Islam – these arguments are not based on any clear evidence and are simply based on conjecture. Imam An-Nawawi rahimahullah says: And the saying of some of them that the guardians of the dead were in need (poor), from those deserving of Zakat, then this is a futile argument since this (100 camels) is a huge amount that is not given to a singular beneficiary of Zakat as against the noblemen of a tribe and also because, he (the narrator) called it Dee’ah (blood money). And also the ta’weel of some of them that he (the Prophet sallallahu aliahi wa sallam) gave it to them from the portion of the Mua’llafati quloobihim from Zakat to soften their hearts perhaps that they may accept Islam, then this is weak! This is because it is not permissible to give the zakat to the disbeliever [Translator’s comment: This is the opinion of the vast majority of the ulema] so the chosen argument is what we have mentioned from the majority, that he purchased it from the camels of (obligatory) charity [Translator: Imam Nawawi mentions this as his preferred opinion since he is upon the opinion of the Shafiyyah that Zakat is not to be given to all worthy causes].” [Sharh Sahih Muslim (11/150)] Therefore, what is clear is that this hadeeth shows that the camels of zakat were used for a matter of general good and forbidding general harm and evil. [See also Fathul-Bari (12/235)]

Discussion of the proofs:

From what is clear from the list of the proofs provided by each opinion, is that:

· There is no clear definitive proof about the explanation of the phrase “fi-sabeelillah” in the verse in surah Tawbah, verse 60 that has been directly reported from the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Although the phrase has been used to mean physical warfare in the Quran the majority of the times, this is not proof enough that it should also only mean physical warfare in this verse as well. Also, a large number of times it has also been used in the Quran to mean the general path of guidance and acts of goodness, such as in [31:6], [4:89], [6:116], [2:262], [38:26], [22:58], [16:125], [12:108], [9:34] (Ibn Hajr mentions this verse 9:34 refers to those that do not spend money in general acts of goodness). There are many other examples of such verses. As a result, to insist on restricting this phrase in the ayah of Zakat to only mean the fighters in Jihad – is not apparent. It is for this reason that Imam Siddeeq Hasan Khan says: “There is no clear proof to restrict the meaning of this portion to them (fighters) only, rather it is correct to give it in every cause that is in the path of Allah, glorified be He. This is the meaning of the phrase linguistically. It is obligatory to restrict oneself upon the linguistic meaning since nothing authentic (and clear) has been reported in this matter from the Shariah.” [Ar-Rawdatun-Nadiyyah (1/206)] Similarly, the hadeeth that mentions that Zakat can’t be given to the rich except 5 and that the rich mujahid is amongst them, cannot be used to restrict the meaning of the verse to fighters only. The hadeeth simply shows how the verse can refer to the Mujahideen, however this does not in any way restrict it to this meaning. Similarly, mentioning the numerous narrations, such as the narrations from the companions and tafsir of ayahs to show that fi-sabeelillah means Jihad – is of no consequence here, since the opposing views already agree that physical warfare is already included in the meaning of the verse and is from the more worthy recipient of the portion of fi-sabeelillah. The point of disagreement is whether it is only restricted to this meaning or whether it can include other acts of goodness as well.

· There are numerous ahadeeth that are authentic as mentioned by those who hold the second and third opinion – that show that fi-sabeelillah is not restricted only to fighters in the path of Allah. The authentic proofs show that Hajj, as well as blood money which were from general good and benefit for the community are also from the sources that deserve Zakat. There is also no known opposition to this understanding from the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam and had there be any opposing narration, then it would have been related to us.

· As for the argument that if “Fi-sabeelillah” were to mean all acts of goodness, then this would defy the purpose of mentioning the other recipients of Zakat in the verse, then this can be explained in the following way: That the mentioning of other recipients that can also be in the greater meaning of fi-sabeelillah is by way of increasing affirmation [Ar. Ta’keed] and not by way of division and separation [Ar.Tafreeq]. Singling out the other recipients who may also be from the general meaning of fi-sabeelillah, shows that the Zakat should not be simply put into the Baitul-Mal as from other sources of revenue, such as should be done with Kharaaj (produce of the land) and Jizyah, rather that is should specifically be used for these 8 types of recipients. Therefore, regarding fi-sabeelillah, the meaning would be that – the Zakat should be used for all those projects and matters that raise the word of Allah, defend it, protect it and sanctify it.

· It should be clear to the one that researches this topic closely, that the vast majority of the ulema of the past, simply reported the other opinions and proofs – and a large number of them did so without actively seeking to clarify which opinion is stronger than the other. [Dr Ahmed Awid Abu Shabab, Majallah alBuhooth alFiqhiyyah alMua’sarah (No. 68, dated 1/7/2005)] They simply reported the view of the majority and moved on from that. An example of this is what Abu Ubaid reports in his book AlAmwal, after authenticating the narration from Ibn Umar that people going for hajj can be given from Zakat: “And the ulema are not upon this, and I do not know of anyone who has given the fatwa that Zakat should be given to those going for Hajj.” [AlAmwal pg. 723] This is largely because of the fact that since physical warfare was regular and constant throughout the centuries of Islamic history, there were hardly any other causes that matched the worthiness and importance of having a capable Muslim army that was well equipped and trained. Thus, there was little need to expand the meaning of fi-sabeelillah. The reader will note that the trend to expand the meaning of fi-sabeelillah occurred more from the scholars of the later centuries and particularly in our time given the fact that our times and situation are so different.

· It is very evident that the scholars of the past would explain the verse of the Zakat upon their prevailing situations at that time. So even though the majority generally agreed that in the path of Allah means physical warfare – they still differed on its exact limits. As has preceded, some allowed Zakat for all types of fighters, other restricted it to only voluntary conscripts; some allowed Zakat only for those far away from their lands, others allowed it for those near and far; some restricted Zakat to the poor fighters, whereas others allowed it for all; some allowed the purchase of weaponry with Zakat money, whereas others disallowed it. This shows how the scholars were applying the verse of Zakat to their situations and times as their situation dictated and called for it. This is also what is noticeable from the opinions of a large number of scholars who have chosen to apply the broader meaning of fi-sabeelillah to the verse, given that in our time, many of the types of recipients of Zakat are difficult to find or limited in different parts of the world only, and there are other similarly worthy causes that fall under the broader meaning of fi-sabeelillah that are also in need in our time today. It is for this reason that interestingly, Syed Qutb rahimahullah says: “Fi-sabeelillah is a broad terms that encompasses every good that uplifts the word of Allah for the muslim community. From the most clear proofs of this is the preparations for battle and equipping and training voluntary conscripts and the sending of missionaries for calling to Islam and to clarify and spread its teachings to all people. Also to setup schools and universities that will teach and raise a generation upon the correct fundamentals, so that we do not leave them to the public schools that teach them everything but Islam, nor to the schools of the Christian missionaries who exploit their childhood and innocence with false teachings about religion – that which they are not able to defend against.” [Fi Dhilaal al-Quran (10/82)] It is also equally interesting to note that the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam – permitted giving the wealth kept for fi-sabeelillah – for hajj, when the times and situation had changed in one of the years – in which there were no wars going on in the Muslim empire, such as the incident reported by the student of Ibn Umar – Nafi rahimahullah who said that a man came to Ibn Umar and said: Verily a man (who passed away) gifted a camel to me in his will, to use in the path of Allah only, and this is not the time when there are any battles going on. Can I use the camel for doing Hajj? So Ibn Umar replied: “Hajj and umrah are both fi-sabeelillah!” [Ad-Darimi (2/519) and authenticated in AlFath (3/332)]

The preferred opinion:

From what has preceded mention, the broader meaning of fi-sabeelillah is the preferred opinion and Allah the most High knows best. In times like we are in today, it is imperative that the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them all, give their fatwas in a manner that caters for the needs of our society to defend against the intellectual onslaught against our values and way of life and aid us in fulfilling our obligation to show case to the world the beauty of our religion. This cannot be done except by appropriate funding for dawah and community development organisations, Islamic radio and media, Islamic institutes and universities, funding students of knowledge and supporting teachers of goodness – and any project or worthy cause that is directly involved in working in the broader meaning of the path of Allah. Such was the guidance of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam when he gave the blood money of Abdullah bin Sahal from the Zakat – that ultimately the Zakat is meant for the attainment of benefit and prevention of harm from the Muslim ummah.

And Allah knows best.

Written by

Tawfique Chowdhury
Director
Mercy Mission and AlKauthar Institute
8^th Shawwal 2007 A.H. corresponding to 20^th October 2007 C.E.

PDF Version for Distribution & Dissemination:

is-zakat-permissible-for-islamic-dawah-organisations.pdf

With religion playing such an important role in the life of its believer, it carries the potential to guide their behavior into ethical streams. In this regard, Islam has tremendous emphasis on achieving this ideal. Let me give you a few examples of how the value of peace is centrally engrained in Islamic theology and so comprehensively maintained by the Shariah:

1. It is authentically reported from the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that one of God’s numerous attributes is peace and one of His names is The Peace: “O Our Lord, you are The Peace and from you is peace.” Similarly every prayer ends by a supplication of peace for all those attending the prayer and every group or individual is greeted in Islam not with ‘Good morning’ or ‘Good afternoon’, rather with ‘Peace be upon you’ – a supplication for peace. Similarly, the greetings of the angels as well as the inhabitants of paradise – is also Peace. As well, the salutation or blessing from Allah to His creation is also peace. Also, the supplication of the Prophets for themselves or for creation is also that of peace – such as when the Quran quotes Jesus saying in the Chapter of Mary the mother of Jesus which is Chapter 19 in the Quran, verse 33 : “Peace be upon me the day that I was born, the day that I shall die and the day that I shall be raised up again.”

2. The notion of inner peace – within one’s self – that of not harboring ill feelings for any human being, that of having complete sincerity in worship and dealings, that of being at peace with God’s actions and destiny – are all concepts that are encouraged in Islam with the understanding that if the inner is rectified, then the outer follows.

3. The Shariah makes provisions for the institution of a section of the Islamic government and judicial body – to be dedicated to peace and joining between the hearts of people. This body has been given the power and authority to actively seek out disputes and restore peace and harmony.

4. Severe punishment is enshrined in the Shariah for those who disrupt peace and cause social chaos and upheaval – such as for drug trafikking. Similarly, someone who spills the blood of a non-Muslim under the protection of a Muslim state is one who would be prevented from paradise due to it.

5. From the principles of Islamic legislations in all matters of Human interactions, such as in matters of business and trade is – the prevention of disputes and oppression and maintenance of peace. Example: Prevention of dealing in prohibited business transactions, such as dealing in Usury or deceitful dealings even with the enemy or a warring party. Similarly, in marketing practices, any attempts to break the peace and harmony that should exist in a market amongst the traders with unethical marketing practices is strongly tackled in the Shariah.

6. Strong encouragement to spread the Salaams – the salutation of peace to all those who are known or un-known to you. Even though this may be seen has a simple exercise, however the effect of that on joining between the hearts is truly amazing, apart from the obvious positive effect on human behavior if a word such as ‘peace’ is constantly repeated.

7. Peace in the society is strongly preserved to the extent that in Islam, a neighbor is responsible over his neighbour’s wellbeing. The issue of societal harmony is so paramount that a neighbor is not permitted to sell his house, until he offers his neighbor the right of preemption in buying the house first – because when you choose your house, you also choose your neighbours. Incidently, the Prophet himself had neighbours from all different religions, as is authentically reported that he died whilst some of his possessions were still a collateral with a Jewish merchant in medinah who was his neighbour.

8. The ideal of harmony and peace between religions is also deeply promoted by Islam. Take the incident of Umar – the second Caliph after the Prophet – when Jerusalem was under the control of the Muslims, and he went there to visit the city – he refused to pray in a synagogue or church. When questioned by his followers, he replied: That if he had prayed in the church, then it may be that over zealous Muslims would come after him that would raze the church and replace it with a mosque – simply because it is a place where the leader of the believers had prayed. So he wished to preserve the church and so he did not pray in it.

In summary, Islam comprehensively promotes ethical responsibility in human conduct towards the ideal of peace. Political and vigilante violence that is performed in the name of a religion that promotes peace is not promotion of the religion, rather a perversion of it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, given the less than flattering media attention on Muslim affairs and Islamic topics, the Islamic stance on peace is frequently questioned. However, just as an atheist is not required to apologize for the atrocities of Pol Pot and that of Stalin and Chairman Mao, nor is the Christian asked to apologize for that of the Hutus and Tutsi who killed each other in the name of religion, or for the atrocities of the crusaders and their pillage and plunder; and since the average Hindu is not collectively guilty for ravaging the Babri mosque in India; in the same way, nor should an average Muslim who has nothing to do with extremist groups be required to apologize for every act of vigilante violence that hits the headlines or every act of aggression designed to make a political statement rather than an Islamic one.

Surely the comprehensive nature of each religion must contain within itself manners and ways of self preservation – even if that means to take up arms; however, that must not be extended to annihilation of the opposition – which is the essence of extremism and perversion of the teachings of a pristine religion.

In the time of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, when reading his biography – one may think that he was a warring prophet, however this conclusion is only due to a cursory glance at this life. In reality, he only fought either those that were tyrants, or oppressors that had oppressed people or those who actively fought against the peaceful propagation of the religion. As an example, the Muslims from the prophetic era, never warred in Yemen which was largely Christian at that time, nor in Ethiopia which was also wholly Christian at that time. If indeed peace is not the priority rather it is kingdom and glory that he wanted, then peaceful and weaker nations should have been the first to be overtaken. Yet we find in history that it was the powerful nations of the Romans and the Byzantine empire that was originally fought – since they posed a direct opposition to the peaceful propagation of the religion.

With religion playing such an important role in the life of its believer, it carries the potential to guide their behavior into ethical streams. In this regard, Islam has tremendous emphasis on achieving this ideal. Let me give you a few examples…To be continued next week… 

In the New York Times 10 best sellers list, the book entitled ‘The God Delusion’ by British ethologist Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University featured prominently. The author argues against other things – that Atheism is the true faith of a logical human being, that why almost certainly there is no God and why Atheism is able to answer mankind’s needs for morals and values.

Whilst, this is not the place to evaluate the author’s arguments on the existence of God and to exemplify his weak grasp of theology about which the London Review of Books says: “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”; There is however another argument that he makes that is of interest for our talk today. The author vehemently argues that religion is at the root of evil, intolerance and violence. Religion he argues, subverts science, fosters fanaticism, encourages bigotry, does not in reality support peace and influences society in other negative ways. Dawkins states that preachers in the southern portions of the United States used the Bible to justify slavery by claiming Africans were descendants of Abraham's sinful son. During the Crusades, “pagans” and “heretics” who would not convert to Christianity were murdered, and he cites numerous examples of what Islamic terrorists have done and are doing today. He argues that a good atheist would never fly planes into skyscrapers, nor commit such outrageous acts of violence and oppression. Well Prof Dawkins, neither would I – and I am a deeply and passionately religious human being.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure we all agree that religion can be used to generate violence. But it is not alone in this. The history of the twentieth century has given us a frightening awareness of how political extremism and unbridled fundamentalist atheism can equally cause violence and oppression. In Latin America, millions of people seem to have disappeared as a result of ruthless campaigns of violence by right wing politicians and their militias. Up to 20 million perished under the atheistic Stalin’s rule, up to 50 million under the irreligious Hitler’s wars and up to 70 million people perished under Chairman Mao’s oppression. In Cambodia, Pol Pot eliminated his millions and built his castles of skulls, in the name of socialism.

Even as we speak, millions are subdued and dwell in the dungeons and prisons of Muslim countries; they suffer that which no animal on this earth has ever endured – all in the name of measures designed to eliminate religious belief and identity. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and mosques during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda – the elimination of religion. So is religion the culprit in generating violence or does violence have its own religion – or have no religion at all? If religion is the ‘root of all evil’, then how is it that the 20th century saw the mass killing of humans in the name of state-sponsored atheism on a scale higher than the kind of numbers killed in the ‘religious wars’ of past centuries?

Religion must not be blamed for violence done in its name, nor for the fraud done in its justification. To blame a religion for that which a number of its followers may do which is not condoned in that religion itself, is injustice and unwise. Religion is not free from over zealous followers who go to extremes and neither is science or scientism free of it. To blame a religion for a group of its miscreants, would be like blaming all archeologists and evolutionists for something like the Piltdown man hoax which for 40 years rounded up support for evolutionism through the discovery of a skull and jaw bone that later on turned out to be a hoax – the jaw bone from a recent orangutan and skull from a modern man. Why blame religion for fanatics and vigilante violence perpetrated in its name? Why blame religion for that which it is innocent of? If by science we mean pure and authentic science, then by religion we must mean pure and authentic religion!

(to be continued)

We too in Islam are experiencing this lack of spirit and originality, brought on by our troubled times and uncertainty of where we are going and what we all should be doing. If you were to examine some of the PhD dissertations from numerous Islamic Universities, you would find that many of them are centered on rechecking of classical masterpieces or studying an opinion of a past scholar. If you were to visit the printing houses of Lebanon and Egypt where most of the Islamic books are printed today, or visit some of the book fairs in the Middle East, you will see how almost every publisher prints familiar books – with yet another checking or typeset. Originality is eroded in what seems to be an assertion that scholarship and deep research is limited to the past – even though we are the most in need of this originality. Their assertion is only based on our uncertainty and people's instant comfort with familiarity.

A cursory look at some of the most comprehensive books of Fiqh, show a lack of discussion of some of the most pressing questions of our times. This is not due to inability, rather due to the absence of these issues in those times. Many committees of scholars in different countries discuss numerous modern issues that pertain to them in matters of business and medicine, yet many others that matter to Muslims living in the West, such as judging and arbitration, political participation, citizenship, police and armed force participation, reconciling Western and Islamic inhertiance laws, Islamic curriculum for Western Muslim schools – issues that are rarely dealt with. Is there not a requirement for the able to look into these matters and work on original pieces and solutions to these problems? Or are we to rely on the lacking judgments of a few students of knowledge that visit the West in the summer from the Middle East, and only know our life and what we go through for a limited period of time?

About 2 years ago, I helped a student at one of the most prestigious Islamic Universities in the world with his PhD thesis on the Islamic position on tissue banks – everything from cornea banks to breast milk banks to DNA banks. It was interesting to note that neither the student nor the professors arguing the dissertation were medically qualified to understand the material. I had a difficult time translating untranslatable medical terms into Arabic such that laymen could understand and I question my efficacy in that. In any case, the brother did do well. He got his PhD with a distinction. However, I will have serious reservations from using his conclusions. How can I rely on the conclusions of some one not qualified to understand that which he is writing about? This is the sad state of affairs in some of our academic circles. Rarely are unfamiliar topics dealt with, and when they are, people not qualified to do so.

The most frustrating situation for me has been when I am forced to answer a question in two minutes that in reality will require two years for me to research. Should I answer based on general principles and general rules of fiqh, or shall I avoid answering and leave our questioner to the unscrupulous pseudo scholar that abound in our times? It is a dilemma that I continue to struggle with. If the able amongst our ummah do not take the academic challenge that should beacon to them like Mount Everest to every climber, then we in the West will continue to struggle for answers to our needs.

Personally, I will not tolerate another King Kong movie.

Is there a need to make abortion even more accessible to women, especially since the age of women asking for abortion is getting lower and lower?

I watched with amazement at the 60,000 signatures and hand prints collected to prevent the capital punishment in Singapore being applied on convicted Australian drug smuggler, Nguyen, arguing to save his life. 'Life is sacred' we are told, 'Life is the greatest gift' – amazing statements from a people arguing for every ease to end that very life! On one hand, remove the life of an innocent soul because of perceived inconvenience and on the other hand, save the life of one guilty of a crime that will destroy thousands of others!

This, I believe, is a testament to the perversion of logic in the minds of those who hold these views – those who, in their struggle to have the perfect lifestyle, crown convenience and 'choice' as king and queen. To make abortion even more accessible, is I believe, completely immoral. Such an act would put the monumental decision of termination of life to even younger women, and at a time when their judgment and wisdom is clouded by circumstance.

I do not believe that society can ever learn to forgive women who kill their living children. Considering the fact that 90% of abortions are performed in the first 90 days since inception, the problem seems to lie in people's interpretation as to when life truly starts.

The Carnegie stages of human development show that the development of all body organs are completed by 56 days. The heart starts beating at 25 days and the first impulses from the brain can be felt at 40 days. Islamically and medically, life ends with brain death so too it must start with it as well. If 90% of abortions are performed before 90 days, then it seems the vast majority of abortions are actually performed on a living soul. I believe, to not provide this information in counselling women who want to have an abortion, is moral and medical negligence and perversion, and not in accordance with medical ethics of beneficence and non-maleficence.

Islamically the doctor who performs abortion is obliged to pay 20% blood money since classical scholars of fiqh consider the baby in conception, to have the probability of life, but not fully alive as life in those times could only be proven on delivery. In our time, I believe modern technology has changed all that and abortion must carry 100% blood money – approximately AU$45,000 in 2006.

If morality and human ethics will be neglected for convenience and choice, then perhaps it is the blood money that will stop them. If that too fails then all that is left is the hadeeth of our beloved Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam: “If you have no shame, then do as you wish.”

“And when the infant buried alive with be questioned, for what reason she was killed.” [Quran 81:8-9]