Chapter 2: Repentance

16. Abu Mūsa Al-Ash'ari (may Allāh be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: “All, the Exalted, will continue to stretch out His Hand in the night so that the sinners of the day may repent, and continue to stretch His Hand in the daytime so that the sinners of the night may repent, until the sun rises from the west”. [Muslim].

17.  Abu Hurayrah  (raḍyAllāhu 'anhu) narrated: Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, “He who repents before the sun rises from the west, Allāh will forgive him”. [Muslim].

18. 'Abdullāh bin 'Umar bin Al-Khattab  (raḍyAllāhu 'anhu) reported that: The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, “Allāh accepts a slave's repentance as long as the latter is not on his death bed (that is, before the soul of the dying person reaches the throat)”. [Al-Tirmidhi, who categorized it as ḥadīth Hasan].

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen may Allāh have mercy on him says in his explanation of these aḥadīth:

These three aḥadīth which the author had mentioned, may Allāh have mercy on him, are all related to repentance.

As for the ḥadīth of Abu Mūsa, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: “Allāh, the Exalted, will continue to stretch out His Hand in the night so that the sinners of the day may repent, and continue to stretch His Hand in the daytime so that the sinners of the night may repent, until the sun rises from the west”.

It is from the Generosity of Allāh, Glorified and Exalted, that He accepts (one's) repentance even if it is late.  So if the person commits a sin during the day, then Allāh ta'āla accepts his repentance even if he repents at night.  Similarly, if the person sins at night and then repents during the day then Allāh ta'āla accepts his repentance. In fact, He, Almighty, stretches His Hand to receive this repentance from His believing servant.

In this ḥadīth there is evidence that Allāh, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, loves repentance, and we have already mentioned in the previous ḥadīth -the story of the man who lost his camel and then found it- that Allāh is more happy with the repentance of His believing servant when he repents to Him than the man who had found his lost camel.

From the benefits of the ḥadīth of Abu Mūsa is the affirmation that Allāh ta'āla has a Hand.  Rather, He has two Hands, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, as He said:

“The Jews say: “Allāh's hand is tied up.” Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His Hands are widely outstretched.” [Sūrat'l-Mā'idah 5:64]. This Hand which Allāh has affirmed for Himself- rather, the two Hands- we are required believe in them, and the fact that they are affirmed for Allāh.
However, it is not permissible for us to imagine that they are like our hands, because Allāh says in His Book:

There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the Hearer, the Seer [Al-Shu'arā' 42:11], Hence, everything you come across from the attributes of Allāh then affirm it for Allāh, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, without comparing it to the attributes of the creation, because there is nothing like Allāh, neither in relation to His essence nor to His attributes, subḥānahu wa ta'āla.
From the benefits of this ḥadīth: is that Allāh, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, accepts the repentance of the servant even if it is late. However, hastening to repent is obligatory, since a person does not know, for death may surprise him and he dies before repenting. So the obligation is to hasten (to repent), but even if it is delayed, Allāh will accept the repentance of His servant.

In this ḥadīth (of Abu Hurayrah) there is evidence that once the sun rises from the west, the (time for) acceptance of repentance is over. But, a questioner may ask, 'does the sun rise from the west? It is known that the sun rises from the east!'
To this we say: Yes, this (the sun rising from the East) is what is known, and this has been the case ever since Allāh created it until this day of ours.  However, towards the end of times Allāh will command the sun to go back from where it came so (its) cycle will be inverted and it will rise from the West, and when the people see it they will all believe, even the disbelievers (such as) the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Communists, and others, they will all believe.  However, the one who did not believe before the sun rises from the West then his belief will not benefit him.
Everyone will repents as well, but the repentance of one who did not repent before the sun rises from the West will not be accepted, because this Sign will be witnessed by everyone, and once the Warning Signs arrive then neither repentance nor belief shall be of any benefit!

As for the ḥadīth of 'Abdullāh bin Umar: “Allāh accepts a slave's repentance as long as the latter is not on his death bed”, meaning: as long as the soul has not reached the throat. But if the soul has reached the throat then there is no repentance, as per His saying:

(And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent) [Sūrat'l-Nisā' 4:18].

So upon you, O my fellow Muslim, is to hasten to repent to Allāh 'azza wa jal from your sins, and to desist from what you have been entangled with from disobedience, and to perform what you have been neglecting from the obligations, and to ask Allāh to accept your repentance.

And Allāh is the source of success.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Indeed all praise is due to Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) and we ask Him to send His peace and blessings to the universe, the final messenger Muḥammad and to everybody who follows his way with righteousness until the last day.

The topic I have chosen to discuss today is the issues related to entertainment in Islam.  This topic is one that comes up with many of the young Muslims.  They seem to have this understanding that having fun is not permitted for the believer, and this understanding is something which drives them away from practicing Islam as they begin to find Islam constraining and difficult upon themselves.

What we will be looking at in this short video is some of the proofs as to what is the Islamic position towards entertainment which is ḥalāl, which is ḥarām, and what is recommended.

Attitude of People Towards Entertainment

We need to begin by first examining the attitude of people towards entertainment.  Among those who live a worldly life without any attachment to the religion, their understanding of entertainment is that this is what life is all about.  Many people live their lives for entertainment.  They want to have fun even though they work and earn money.  The money is used to purchase more means of entertainment.  If they have a television, they are working harder to buy a bigger television.  If they have a car with a radio in it, they want to buy a radio with an MP3 player.  If it has an MP3 player, they want to buy a DVD player for the car.  If they have PlayStation 2, they want to buy PlayStation 3.  It is always about more and getting more entertainment and enjoying life more.

This is the attitude of those who are caught up in the dunya among the Muslims and the non-Muslims.  This is a very destructive attitude as it distracts us from the purpose of life.  Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) created us to primarily worship and obey Him.  If we are distracted too many hours by making money and then using that money to have fun, what happens is that we now do not have time to worship Allāh.  You find people who when you tell them to join you for an Islamic project, the first excuse is “we don't have time.”  They have time to watch 3 hours of movies every day and play four hours of video games every day, but they don't have one hour to devote to Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla).  This is a very dangerous position to be in.

It is these types of people who Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) speaks about in the Qur'ān in Sūrat'l-Takāthur when He says, “The competition to gather the nice things in this world has distracted you until you visit the graves (meaning until you die).  Then only will you come to know the reality.  Definitely then only will you come to know the reality.”  Allāh continues in the surah and says that these people who spend their entire lives chasing after the dunya when they die “they will see the hellfire with their own eyes, and on that Day, Allāh will ask them about the good things He gave them in this world and what they did with them.”  It is very important for us that while we as humans want to have fun, we should not allow this to distract us from our purpose in life.  We need to prioritize and realize that the purpose why Allāh created us is to worship Him.  This should always be a priority.

The idea of just having fun and enjoying life and making money is not an Islamic understanding of the world.  The Islamic understanding, however, is not the opposite extreme.  There are Muslims who go to the opposite extreme and say that we are here only to worship Allāh so there is no such thing as entertainment and there is no such thing as having fun, but this is a misunderstanding.  This is a wrong understanding of Islam.

The correct attitude of a Muslim is that Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) created us upon the fiṭrah.  He created us with natural inclinations towards good or evil.  There is nothing in this religion which is against our fiṭrah.  Anything that is part of human nature is accommodated for in Islam, and so to the human need for recreation is also accommodated.

We find that Islam allows people to enjoy themselves but in ways that are wholesome, pure and ḥalāl.  If you look at the principles of fiqh, one of the principles of fiqh when it comes to things of this world is that everything is permissible unless you have proof that it is prohibited.  This applies to forms of entertainment as well.  Those forms of entertainment which are clearly prohibited in the Qur'ān or in the Sunnah or by analogy are the prohibited forms, but everything else is permissible as long as they fulfill basic criteria.

There is a narration that some people bring forth, and they say that this narration prohibits all forms of entertainment except three.  There are two versions, and one says three and one says four.  The narration is that all of the recreational things of this world are bāṭil (void) and a waste of time except for three (another narration says four).  The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) described them as archery, horseback riding, and swimming.  In the other narration the fourth one added is wrestling.

Some scholars based on this narration say that these four are the only permissible types of entertainment.  In his Iḥyā' 'Ulum'l-Dīn, Imām al-Ghazāli (raḥimahullāh) gives a very good response to this.  Imām al-Ghazāli mentions that, “Just because these few are mentioned in one ḥadīth does not necessarily mean that other forms are all ḥarām because there are many other narrations that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) and the ṣaḥābah entertained themselves in other ways not mentioned in this ḥadīth.”  The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) used to race with his wife on foot and used to watch people play with swords in the masjid.  They used to have competitions with watermelon seeds, and they used to do many other things.  Some of the children used to play with toys, and it goes on and on.  There were many other things they used to do.

This ḥadīth is not limiting what is ḥalāl.  Furthermore, the word in the ḥadīth is not ḥarām.  The word in the ḥadīth is “bāṭil,” meaning that there is no reward in it.  If there is no reward in something, it does not make it ḥarām.  It is still ḥalāl unless you have proof for it to be prohibited.  The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) is telling us that these forms of entertainment are rewarding.  If you ride a horse, train with archery, or are swimming, these are types [of entertainment] that are rewarding because they keep you physically fit and energized and this is something which is good in Islam.  It does not necessarily mean that others are prohibited.

We need to understand the primary principle is that when it comes to entertainment, everything is permissible unless we have proof for it being prohibited.

Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) tells us in the Qur'ān, “Allāh wants things to be easy for you.  He does not want to make things difficult for you.”  Allāh says, “There is nothing in this religion which is a burden.”

Conditions that Make the ḥalāl ḥarām

From among the other principles which cover the issue of entertainment, besides the rule that everything is ḥalāl unless proven ḥarām, there are certain things if they are found in the aspect of entertainment, they become ḥarām.  These things include:

1.  Including any element of ḥarām.

Something might be ḥalāl in itself, but the minute elements of ḥarām get involved, a person should stay away from it.  For example, playing sports like cricket, football, soccer, or these types of things, in itself is ḥalāl, but if playing is going to make a person vulgar and abusive to his friends, then it is not permissible for such a person to play it even though it is permissible for others.  The first thing is that it should not lead to what is ḥarām.

2.  It should not consume too much of our time.

If one is playing video games for ten hours a day or one is watching two or three movies a day or one is watching cricket for five days in a row for six hours a day, then this can become ḥarām as you allow wasting time.  To waste our time is not permissible in Islam.  We should have entertainment in ways which refresh us without consuming all our time.  Two hours a day or three hours a day is ok if you are spending the rest of the day in what is good in issues of 'ibādah and work and family time.  To let it consume your time is not permissible.

3.  It should not consume your resources.

Somebody who is spending all of his money on entertainment, this is not permissible.  We are responsible for not only how we earn money but also how we spend it, so again, we need to balance our lifestyle and not be from those whom Allāh calls the musrifūn, those who are wasteful when it comes to spending their money.

These are some of the conditions that could make something which is ḥalāl ḥarām.

Prohibited Forms of Entertainment

There are certain forms of entertainment which are completely prohibited in Islam from the Qur'ān and Sunnah.  Anything involving intoxication, whether it is alcohol or drugs, is prohibited.  Anything involving or leading to zina is prohibited.  Any such a place where people go to entertain themselves which is again of alcohol or zina or drugs or nowadays you get places where you can find all of these things together, such places are prohibited for us to attend.

Likewise, gambling is completely prohibited.  Any form of entertainment which involves shirk is also prohibited.  Many times Muslims don't realize when they are doing something for fun that it actually involves shirk.  You will hear Muslims playing a game and one Muslim will tell his friend, “My character is omnipresent” or “My character is lives for eternity.”  This is shirk.  Only Allāh has these qualities.  Even to give these qualities to characters in a game is not permissible.

Likewise, any form of entertainment which involves fortune telling is not permissible.  There are various other things.  For example, when it comes to the issue of joking and comedy, there are many rules which regulate this in Islam.  Islam is not against joking in itself, but the content needs to be clean and free from shirk and must not be mocking Islam or the Muslims.  Anything which is part of Islam cannot be mocked.  If there is something that Muslims do which is not Islamic and you are mocking them to show them that this is not Islamic, that is ok.  But when you are mocking Islam, this is kufr.  It is very important for those Muslims involved in the field of entertainment known as comedy to be very careful what they say and to study deeper the fiqh of joking and to use this fiqh accordingly and to make the jokes accordingly so that they do not step onto this dangerous territory.

Recommended Forms of Entertainment

There are other forms of entertainment which are recommended, as we mentioned in the ḥadīth: swimming, archery, horse riding and wrestling and other forms of physical martial arts.  These types of things are recommended because they help keep the body fit.  Likewise, spending time with your wife and your children is all recommended in Islam and in fact it sometimes even becomes obligatory on a person to spend at least a minimal amount of time with their family members.  Having fun together with your children and with your wife are things which Islam recommends.  Take them out.  Go to a park.  Go and eat out together.  These things are very much recommended as it helps to strengthen the unity of the family.

Likewise, dealing with nature brings you closer to Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla), so if you enjoy visiting zoos and parks and places where there is a lot of nature and animals, alḥamdulillāh this is something which is good.  Islamic songs are also something which is recommended according to some and permissible according to others.  In my view, it is something good which will take people away from the prohibited forms of music.  Likewise there are many other things when you study the Qur'ān and Sunnah.  You will find in the sīrah of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) many ways in which he and his companions used to have fun which are completely ḥalāl.  If the Prophet (peace be upon him) recommended it, then it becomes something which is recommended as well.

When it comes to the issues of entertainment, there are two main areas where we have a lot of questions.  The first is in the issue of animations and drawings and the second is the issue of music and musical instruments.  I want to focus primarily on these two topics for the remainder of the session.

Animation and Drawings

When it comes to animation, there are various opinions from the scholars.  As 'Ā'ishah (raḍyAllāhu 'anha) narrates a ḥadīth, the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited the drawing of living creatures. 'Ā'ishah (raḍyAllāhu 'anha) herself also narrates that she used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam).  One of these dolls was a horse with wings, and the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not see anything wrong with her playing with these dolls.

So the scholars have differed on this issue.  Some scholars looking only at the first ḥadīth have said that the drawing of living creatures is completely prohibited.  Other scholars, trying to reconcile between both ḥadīths, have come to various opinions.  The two most common opinions are that either drawings are permissible unless they lead to glorification or shirk or the more common, and the stronger opinion, is that drawings are prohibited unless they are for entertainment and education of children.  Any form of drawing or depiction of living creatures which is for the entertainment of children or for the educational purposes, many of the scholars have ruled that these are permissible.  So children's toys, animated movies, and these sorts of things based on this will be permissible.

Obviously then the issue comes about content.  When it comes to animation, even these days many of the animated movies produced by non-Muslims have content which is questionable for Muslims to watch, so parents need to screen the type of animation they allow their children to watch, something they themselves have gone through first to make sure that there is nothing in it which will take the children away from Islam and that the content is clean and then allow them to watch it.

While this is going on, it is very important for Muslims who have access to making media and producing videos, such Muslims should focus on making animated movies for Muslim children, which have Islamic content.  Alḥamdulillāh this is something which is happening nowadays and it is something where there is a lot of room for growth and expansion.  This will become an alternative for the children so that they do not get involved in the types of movies and entertainment which are prohibited.

Some people might say that television in itself is prohibited, but this is not the correct opinion.  The correct opinion is that it depends on the content.  If somebody is watching this video, there is absolutely nothing wrong with watching such a video as the content is Islamic.  If somebody is watching a video that has ḥarām elements in it, then that is not permissible.  One has to look at the content of the specific video to declare if it is permissible or not.  The television and videos are in themselves tools, and the tools are ḥalāl.  What they are used for and what is viewed on them is what makes them ḥalāl or ḥarām.  The same ruling applies to animated movies.

From the ḥadīth of 'Ā'ishah (raḍyAllāhu 'anha), scholars have deduced that children's toys are permissible, animated movies for children are permissible, animated books for children are permissible.  This is one of opinion of scholars.  Some scholars do disagree with this, there is no doubt about it.  This is the opinion that I follow, and Allāh knows best.

Music and Musical Instruments

The other issue which crops up most often when it comes to entertainment is the issue of music.  We have one group of Muslims who are saying that music is completely prohibited and there is no two ways about it.  We have another group of Muslims saying that music is completely permissible and those who are saying it is prohibited are extremists.  Both of these groups have not understood the nature of fiqh when it comes to the issue of music.  Imām al-Shakwāni (raḥimahullāh) has written a very good book on this topic called Ibṭālu Da'wa'l-ijmā' 'Ala Taḥrīm Muṭluq'l-Samā'.  This book is available in Arabic and has not been translated into English yet.  In this book, Imām al-Shawkāni mentions something very interesting and a very different approach to this debate that many of us have today.

He says, “I have never listened to music in my life.  I believe that musical instruments are prohibited, but I am writing this book and showing all the different viewpoints with their arguments so people can understand that there is difference of opinion on this issue and so that we can tolerate each others' opinions and not accuse our Muslim brother of kufr and deviation.”

This is a very important point when it comes to this issue.  There is a difference of opinion here, and if somebody is convinced of a different opinion than you, it does not make them a disbeliever and it does not make them a deviant, rather this is an issue of fiqh which the scholars have differed over.

If you look at the madh-habs, the Ḥanafi madh-hab ruled that all musical instruments are prohibited.  Even the tapping of your finger on the table or the desk to make noise is prohibited according to the Ḥanafi madh-hab.  The Ḥanbali madh-hab is of the view that the hand drum, the duff, is permissible.  They differ over whether it is only permissible for women and only for special occasions and whether it is permissible for everyone.  The Māliki madh-hab, if you study it carefully, is of the view that drums are permissible.  In the Māliki book of fiqh which I have read, whenever it talks about the prohibition of music, it only mentions wind instruments, and from there scholars have mentioned that drums are permissible according to that madh-hab.  The opinion of the Ẓāhiri madh-hab, the madh-hab of Ibn Ḥazm (raḥimahullāh), is that all musical instruments are permissible.

These views all exist among the madh-habs, and nobody can deny that they have existed among the madh-habs.  It is for the scholars to study the different evidences and to follow that which their study has led them to believe is the most correct conclusion.  If that conclusion is different from yours or mine, we must tolerate it and accept it as a difference of opinion.

Nonetheless, for the average Muslim who does not have knowledge of fiqh and the principles of fiqh and the ability to decide between the madh-habs, in these issues it is always better to stay on the safe side and to follow the majority opinion and to follow the strongest opinion.  When it comes to the prohibition of musical instruments, the majority of madh-habs agree that wind instruments are prohibited even though Ibn Ḥazm and Imām Ghazāli and a few others disagreed with them.  The majority said that it is prohibited.  To be on the safe side, the average Muslim who has not been able to research this issue should stay away from such instruments and songs which include such instruments for their own safety as this is now a grey area.

The other issue of the drums and the duff is something where there is a lot more difference of opinions among the scholars.  There is a much bigger difference of opinion amongst them.  As a result, on such issues there is a lot more room for differences.  This is an area of difference of opinion amongst the scholars – musical instruments and whether they are prohibited or permissible – and accordingly every scholar and those who follow a specific scholar have the right to follow what their ijtihād has led them to even if it is a different conclusion from you or me.

Linking this to the issue of animation and movies:  Somebody will ask, “I believe and follow the opinion that musical instruments are prohibited, but the animated movies and other movies have a lot of background music in them.  Can I watch these movies while ignoring the music?”  We go back to a fatwa of Shaykh'l-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who mentioned that just like hearing the Qur'ān is not rewarding (you have to listen to the Qur'ān to receive the reward), similarly hearing music is not sinful and you have to listen to the music for it to be sinful.  If you are in a place where there is music being played in the background and you are not paying attention to it, you are not sinful for it.  Likewise, if you are watching a program on television where there is music in the background and you are not paying attention to the music, then – and Allāh knows best – that would be in my opinion permissible.

For those Muslims who are involved in media and in producing animated movies or documentaries or any other type of Islamic media, my recommendation to you is that even if you are of the opinion that instruments are permissible, you should not include them in your videos.  The reason for this is that you are trying to reach out to the Muslims.  When you include music in your videos, the majority of Muslims or at least 50% of the Muslims are not going to watch that video because there is music in it, so you are now alienating a portion of the ummah from receiving your message.  If your purpose of making the video was as many Muslims as possible watch and benefit from it, it will be better to avoid those instruments which most Muslims regard as prohibited even if your personal opinion is that it is permissible.  For the sake of benefiting the ummah in general, it is better even for those who view it as permissible to stay away from it.

These are some of the issues of entertainment which crop up.  The issues of music and animation are perhaps two of the more common areas in which we have questions.

Games

Another area where there are a lot of questions is when it comes to games and two types of games:  board games and video games.  The ruling for both is the same.  The ruling for both is that the content would make it permissible or prohibited.  Those board games which are generally for gambling will not be permissible.  If you are playing those same games without any gambling involved, then too the scholars have ruled it to be makrūh (disliked) as it is one of those things that leads to gambling, so it is better to stay away from such games.

One of the games that crops up often is playing the game of chess.  Many scholars have ruled chess to be ḥarām while others have ruled it to be permissible.  From my study of the evidences and arguments used, I honestly believe that the playing of chess is permissible with the conditions I mentioned earlier that it does not constitute too much of your time and it does not lead to other prohibited things, etc. and whatever I mentioned earlier as being the conditions for a form of entertainment to be permissible.  In my view, this applies to chess as well.  In itself, it seems to be a harmless game to me.  The evidences I have seen against it are either weak or mistranslated or even at times misunderstood.

For example, in one of the books of fiqh, one of the scholars of the madh-habs said, “There is no good in chess,” so some scholars took this as a prohibition of chess.  The wording of this statement is not saying it is ḥarām, but it is just saying that there is no reward in it.  It doesn't necessarily make it ḥarām, it is just saying there is no reward and no good in it.  Allāh knows best.  My opinion is that the game of chess is permissible.

When it comes to video games, again the content is what matters.  It should not be addictive and should not consume too much of your time or too much of your wealth and resources or lead you to do anything ḥarām.  All of this needs to apply.  Such a video game which fulfills these conditions, and again which has clean content and you yourself do not play too much of so that it does not consume your time and you are not spending too much of your money on it, then Allāh knows best, but such games would be permissible with these conditions.  And Allāh knows best.

Advice

I would like to conclude this short discussion by mentioning that the times we are living in entertainment is everywhere, and we as Muslims if we want our children and the young Muslims to be safe from the various forms of vulgar and sexually provocative entertainment that is out there, then we need to start producing alternatives for them.  We need to start producing Islamic media.  We need more Islamic songs, Islamic movies, Islamic animations, Islamic games.  All of this needs to be produced as a wholesome alternative for the young Muslims, so that they do not have to turn to other people and other resources when they want to have fun.  They have good and wholesome fun available to them.

Likewise, the masjids need to open up for youngsters to have fun at the masjids and build sports centers at the masjid or in the sisters section allowing room where they can sit and talk about things which are permissible and have some fun.  Maybe build a swimming pool.  Whatever is within the budget of the masjid.  Create these recreational facilities for the Muslims because if we don't provide alternatives, they by their nature, especially those who are young, want to have fun.  If the alternatives are not there, then people will turn to the ḥarām sources for fun.

It is very, very important that we as an ummah start working towards producing these ḥalāl forms of entertainment.  It is very important that we make this a priority to produce alternative ḥalāl media for the Muslim youth and ḥalāl forms of recreation for them.  I ask Allāh to make it easy for us to practice our religion, to understand our religion correctly, and to enjoy what Allāh has made ḥalāl in this world in a way that does not cause us to forget Him and to forget our purpose in life.

Anything I said that is wrong is from my own self and from Shayṭān.  Everything I said which is correct is from Allāh.  I ask Allāh to make this an addition to our scale of good deeds on the Last Day.

In our previous parts, we discussed the travel distance required to be considered a traveler. In this article,
we shall discuss the time duration that one remains a traveler.

ṣalāh.jpg">ṣalāh" src="http://muslimmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/desert-ṣalāh.jpg" alt="" width="180" height="180" />

2. For How Long Does One Remain a Traveler?

The final issue that we need to discuss is the time duration for which one is allowed to shorten the prayer while one remains a ‘traveler’. In other words, once one has arrived at one’s initial destination and intends to remain there for a duration before returning home, for how long can s/he shorten and combine? Once again, we face a myriad of opinions on this issue (I have come across at least eighteen different opinions, and there are more); for the purposes of this article, we shall restrict ourselves to the more common ones.

2.1 The State of ‘Travel’ Ceases after 15 days

The Ḥanafīs considered a ‘traveler’ to be someone who intends to reside at a place for fifteen days or less (inclusive of the day that he intends to travel). They based this on qiyas, or analogy, with the longest possible days of a woman’s period. At first glance, this analogy does seem rather bizarre. However, they reasoned that both a traveler and a woman in her menses must ‘return’ to a more permanent state of worship (the menstruating woman returns to her prayers after desisting from them, and the traveler returns to the full prayer after ceasing to be a ‘traveler’), hence there is a commonality between these two scenarios that would allow us (or so the Ḥanafīs felt) to extrapolate the same ruling to these two scenarios.

They also use as evidence a tradition of Ibn ʿAbbās in which he stated that the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam stayed in Makkah for fifteen days, praying qaṣr (Reported by Abu Dawud; most scholars of hadith consider this version to be inauthentic for a number of reasons, one of which is that more authentic versions of this hadith mention even higher numbers.)

The Ḥanafis also attributed this position to Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn ʿUmar,[1] and it is also one opinion of Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib.

2.2 The State of  ‘Travel’ Ceases after 4 days

The Mālikīs, Shāfiʿīs, and Ḥanbalīs claimed that the time that makes a traveler into a resident is four days.

Note that the Ḥanbalīs have qualified this as ‘twenty prayers’ and not four days; also there is some difference of opinion between the Mālikīs and the Shāfiʿīs over when this time frame should start and end and whether the day that one arrives and leaves counts or not. For the purposes of this article, all of these differences will be ignored. What is important to note is that these three schools have a similar time frame of ‘four days’.

Their main evidence is the command of the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam that the Emigrants (Muhajirūn) who were performing Hajj with him should not stay in Makkah for more than three days [Reported by Muslim].

In order to understand the reasoning of these three schools with respect to this tradition, an important fact must be understood. The Emigrants who had left Makkah for Madinah during the hijra were prohibited from returning to Makkah as ‘residents’, since they had given up that land for the sake of Allāh. The point derived by the majority, therefore, is that the reason the Prophet á¹£alla Allahu Ê¿alayhÄ« wa sallam prohibited them to stay more than three days is that it is the staying of four days or more that converts a traveler into a resident. To buttress this point, these schools also mention that the Prophet á¹£alla Allahu Ê¿alayhÄ« wa sallam himself prayed qaá¹£r when he remained in Makkah for three days, after performing Ê¿Umrah.

Another evidence that is used is the travel restrictions that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb placed on non-Muslim traders who wished to conduct business in Makkah or Madinah: he only allowed them permission to remain for three days.[2] Once again, the interpretation given is that it is four days or more that converts a traveler to a resident, hence he forbade them from remaining for more than three days.

And it is also reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib (d. 95), who said, “If you want to stay for four, then pray four!”[3] This is also the opinion of the Permanent Committee of Scholars, the fatwa of Shaykh Ibn Bāz, and the opinion of our Shaykh Muḥammad al-Mukhtār al-Shanqīṭī.

2.3 The Opinion of Ibn Taymiyya

Ibn Taymiyya, extrapolating from many of the same premises as his earlier position on the distance of travel, felt that there exists no explicit evidence or reasoning that would specify a particular time period that effectively converts a traveler into a resident. Therefore, he felt that a traveler would remain a traveler even if he stayed at a specific location for a longer period of time, as long as his lifestyle was that of a ‘traveler’.

As part of his evidences, Ibn Taymiyya also pointed out that there are authentic narrations that indicate the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam would pray qaṣr for more than fifteen days. Of them is the hadith of Jābir that the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam camped at Tabuk praying qaṣr for twenty days (Reported by Abu Dawud). Another is the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās in which he reported that the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam stayed in Makkah nineteen days, praying qaṣr (Reported by al-Bukhārī). The four schools all re-interpreted these evidences (by claiming, for example, that the Prophet did not know how long he would camp at Tabuk during that expedition, so he did not intend to stay for more than ‘x’ number of days; and so forth). However, Ibn Taymiyya clearly takes an unbiased and apparent reading of these evidences to suggest that there is no specific number that the Prophet  ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam suggested and that at times he prayed qaṣr for more than four or fifteen days.

Nonetheless, perhaps understanding that this open-ended response also had potential problems, Ibn Taymiyya did feel that the majority opinion of four days was safer to follow.

In one fatwa, Ibn Taymiyya was asked about a traveler who intends to remain for one month in a city: is he permitted to shorten? He replied that it was safer for him not to shorten but to pray in full.[4] In another fatwa that he was asked, he explicitly permitted a person in a similar situation to shorten the prayer for this longer period, even while saying that it is ‘safer’ to pray the full amount.[5]

In other words, Ibn Taymiyya himself did not unequivocally allow such a person to pray qaá¹£r for a limitless number of days. Even though he said that it is permitted and that one should not rebuke those who do this, he also said that it was better to pray full.

However, a modern follower of Ibn Taymiyya, Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, took this fatwa to a possible logical conclusion. According to Ibn ʿUthaymīn, as long as a person did not intend to remain permanently in a city, such a person would be considered a traveler, even if he remained in that city for years on end. Based on this fatwa, numerous Saudi students (some of whom I personally met) would pray qaṣr for years while students overseas. They reasoned that since they had the full intention of returning to Saudi Arabia after their four or five years of study, they were, in fact, in the state of ‘travel’, even if they purchased houses and cars, and put their kids in a local school. When Ibn ʿUthaymīn was asked about this scenario, he agreed with this interpretation and reasoned that since there was no actual time limit, even the duration of ten years would constitute ‘travel’ as long as one wished to return to a place called ‘home’.

2.4 The Strongest Opinion

Before mentioning what appears to be the ‘strongest’ opinion, it should be mentioned that there are many other opinions on this issue as well. For example, some have said that the time duration is twenty days; Isḥāq b. Rāhwayh said this period was nineteen days; others said seventeen; yet others thirteen; al-Awzāʿī said twelve; al-Ḥasan b. Ṣāliḥ said ten; Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said three; and Rabīʿa al-Raʾy said a stay of one day converts one from a traveler to a resident. However, for the purposes of our discussion, we will limit the opinions to these famous and mashhūr ones.

Also note that the issue of one who is not certain about the time that he is remaining in a land is a separate one, and even within these schools, the majority would allow qaṣr for much longer periods in this case. The classic example mentioned in legal books is that of the soldiers of the army guarding the borders; they could be called for duty at any time, and they are most certainly not ‘residents’ considering the harsh conditions they live in. There are authentic reports that some of the Companions prayed qaṣr for months on end (perhaps even for years). It is reported that Ibn ʿUmar prayed qaṣr for six months while in Azerbaijan.[6] However, this was done in a state of war, and therefore when one is in such a state that one can leave at any time, obviously this would take a separate ruling from the one who intends a particular number of days.

Returning to our discussion, once again, Ibn Taymiyya’s points resonate strongly with the open-minded researcher. The ‘four-day rule’ seems derived, and not intended. There are numerous authentic traditions in which the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam stayed at a location for more than four days while shortening the prayers. Therefore, even though the majority of the schools of law did stipulate four days, there really seems no evidence whatsoever to limit such a ruling to a specific time period. In our times, it is extremely common for office workers (in particular, consultants) to travel for five days of the week to an on-site location, and such workers are travelers in every sense of the word, despite the fact that they are remaining in the same location for more than four days.

Yet, to allow no limit whatsoever (as our respected Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn did) really does not seem to be either in the spirit or the intent of the Shariah. Yes, it is true that a traveler cannot be defined by a particular time-frame, but surely s/he can be defined as a resident by actions that s/he undertakes. A traveler does not buy a house, or ‘settle down’, or take care of his children’s long-term education. Therefore, a person who comes to a town, knowing that he will stay for a few years, is clearly not a ‘traveler’ anymore, since he must take care of all of these matters and more. Owning or renting a house is not the same as living in a motel.

No doubt, such a distinction is not a black-and-white one, and there are many shades of grey in between. It is precisely because of such grey areas that most legal scholars are prone to give solid numbers (‘48 miles’, or ‘4 days’) rather than the more ambiguous yardsticks of Ibn Taymiyya. And therefore, should someone prefer to follow one of these standard opinions mentioned in our classical schools, this is something that should be encouraged and not looked down upon. Nonetheless, if someone were to follow the more academic position of Ibn Taymiyya, this (in my humble opinion) would be closer to the intent of the laws of the Shariah.

And in the end, it is indeed Allāh alone who knows best.

NOTES:

This article did not discuss the following issues in detail; for the sake of completeness, they will be mentioned in passing:

Firstly, the legal status of shortening the prayer (qaṣr). The Ḥanafīs deemed it to be obligatory for the traveler and stated that if the traveler prays the regular prayer, he will in fact be sinful. The majority said that shortening the prayer was preferred, but not obligatory.

Secondly, the legal status of joining between two prayers (jamÊ¿), specifically of course, áº'uhr and Ê¿Aá¹£r, and Maghrib and Ê¿Ishā. [No school of law allowed jamÊ¿ for any other two combinations of prayers].

The Ḥanafīs did not allow any joining of the prayers except for the pilgrims during the days of Hajj. They did not view joining as one of the concessions granted to the traveler and claimed that the joining together during the days of ʿArafat and Mina are related to the rites of Hajj and not to the issue of traveling.

The vast majority of other scholars allowed áº'uhr and Ê¿Aá¹£r to be joined, and Maghrib and Ê¿Ishā to be joined, based on explicit, authentic traditions on this matter. Additionally, they said that this should preferably be done only during the actual travel. Once a traveler arrives at his temporary destination, it is preferred (but not obligatory) to pray each prayer at its proper time.

Ibn Taymiyya writes, after mentioning some traditions that describe the Prophet’s prayer during travel,[7]

So all of this shows that combining the prayers (jamʿ) is not from the sunnahs of traveling, unlike shortening them (qaṣr) – rather, combining the prayers is only done where there is a need to do so, regardless of whether one is traveling or not, for it is also permissible for the resident to combine. Therefore, if a traveler needs to combine, he may do so, for example: if he will be engaged in the act of travel during the first or second prayer time, or he needs to sleep or rest… However, as for someone who stops for a few days in a village or city, then his ruling is the same as that of the people of that village. So such a person, even though he should pray qaṣr as a traveler, should not combine, just like he should not pray on an animal, or resort to tayammum, or eat a dead animal. All of these matters are only allowed when there is a need to do so, unlike shortening the prayer, for this is a sunnah for all travelers.

Note that this is contrary to what most travelers do: they assume that combining the prayers takes the same ruling as shortening does and regularly combine for the entire duration of the travel.

Thirdly, when precisely is it allowed for a traveler to begin shortening and combining the prayers? A small minority said that he may do so as soon as he commences the travel, even if he still be in his house (i.e., immediately before he leaves). However, the majority said that he may only begin shortening and combining once he has left the city walls (or, in our times, when he has exited the last settlements that are still considered a part of his city).

Continued from Part 1

1.5 The Distance in Modern Measurements

So what exactly does a ‘day’s journey’ mean? Not surprisingly, there is no easy method of converting classical measurements into modern ones. It appears that many researchers (classical and modern) did not pay due attention to scientifically converting such measurements into modern ones. What follows is my brief attempt to illustrate the hurdles that one faces.

The standard units of measurement for travel during early Islam were the farsakh and the barīd. However, the Prophetic traditions use the term ‘day’s travel’. So the first issue at hand is to convert the Prophetic ‘day’s travel’ into the classical terms of farsakh and barīd. Before we even begin that, let us first define these terms and establish a relationship between them.

A barīd was a distance that a messenger could travel before he needed to stop to allow his animal to rest. If the message was urgent, then at the end of every barīd there would be a fresh animal waitingfor him. Eventually, the term began to be applied to the ‘messenger’ himself and then to the actual ‘message’, hence modern Arabs still call the postal service ‘barīd’.[1]

A farsakh appears to be a Persian measurement that the Arabs adopted (it was also adopted by the British and called a ‘league’). Most early works mention that four farsakhs make up one barīd.[2] So it can be said that each barīd is divided into four smaller units of a farsakh (plural is farāsikh).

1 barīd = 4 farāsikh

So far, so good. Now the real confusion begins.

The first real issue is: How many barīds can be traversed in a 24-hour period? Unfortunately, this is not something that is unanimously agreed upon, and it is this difference of conversion that results in one difference of opinion over the number of days required to consider someone a ‘traveler’.

Collectively, the Ḥanbalīs, Shāfʿīs and Mālikīs all agreed that the distance of ‘travel’ was four barīds. However, they disagreed amongst themselves as to what exactly this meant in terms of ‘days of travel’. Some within these schools said that in any 24-hour period, a maximum of two barīds could be traversed; other scholars within these same schools, however, said that four barīds could be traversed in one 24-hour period. It is because of this conversion difference that these three schools of law had opinions of both one-day and two-days as being the minimal amount of ‘travel’.

One day’s travel = EITHER two barīds OR four barīds [both opinions held]

What is important for us to note is that these three schools were in agreement with the limit as being ‘four barīds’.

Therefore, for the ‘three schools’,

Sharʿī distance of travel = 4 barīds = 16 farāsikh [For the ‘3 schools’]

This is the opinion of the schools of law other than the Ḥanafī school. As for the Ḥanafīs, they also disagreed regarding how many farsakhs can be traversed in a day [and there is significant disagreement amongst their own scholars as well].

In order to simplify matters, the majority opinion within the Ḥanafī school appears to be that five farāsikh can be traveled in a 24-hour period [note that some Ḥanafī scholars said six, some said seven].[3]

Thus, for this school:

Sharʿī distance of travel = 3-day journey = 3 days x 5 farāsikh/day = 15 farāsikh [Ḥanafī school]

Ironically, even though the Ḥanafīs have a larger quantity in terms of travel days, because the actual journey traveled per day is shorter, the net difference was not of great significance.

Therefore, in the end, all four schools of law are relatively close to one another in terms of farāsikh (16 or 15).

The second dilemma that we face is: How exactly does one translate a farsakh into the modern measurements of miles and kilometers? Obviously, depending on one’s estimate of a farsakh, the distance of a day’s journey will vary accordingly.

Here is where we encounter our first serious problem.

We begin by pointing out that many medieval texts define a farsakh as being ‘3 mīls’. Mīl is, of course, how the Arabs pronounce the word ‘mile’. This would be absolutely perfect, until we understand that this mīl is not the equivalent of the modern ‘mile’! It appears that the Arabs got this word (as did the Romance languages) from the Roman mīllia, which they (i.e., the Romans) measured as a thousand paces by foot.  A ‘pace’ was defined to be a full stride of a Roman soldier (in our understanding, that would be two steps, one with each foot). It has been estimated that this ‘Roman mile’ was actually around five-thousand feet (in our current understanding of ‘feet’). It was only centuries later that the English Parliament standardized the exact length of miles and feet, and decreed that 1 mile = 5280 feet (around 1.6 km). [Why and how they came up with number is really beyond the scope of this article – our readers are already confused by now, and those who are interested may look this tidbit up in any encyclopedia].

While the Arabs took the name from the Romans, they did not take the same measurement. It is also claimed that the Roman soldier’s step was considerably larger than the average step of other ethnicities, especially those who had shorter statures.

The Roman mīllia was adopted by many different cultures. Therefore, to distinguish this Arab version of the mile from other adopted versions,  it was called the ‘Hashemite mile’. Other versions of the mile were the Russian, the Danish, the Portuguese, and the German (not to mention the Nautical Mile, which is different from land equivalents).

Our scholars did attempt to define this Hashemite mile (a.k.a. a mīl); however, in the days before scientific measurements and  international treaties that governed such matters, they could not come up with a unified definition. Some classical texts mention that a mīl consists of twelve-thousand steps; others claimed that a mīl was as far as the eye can see; yet others claimed that it was the distance where one could recognize a figure of a human in the distance but could not tell whether it was a male or female.[4]

What is clear from all of this is that not only is a mīl undefined, even if one of these definitions were to be taken, it would not be scientifically precise. The bottom line is that the Arab mīl, a.k.a. ‘Hashemite mile’, had never been scientifically defined. How could it, in an era before the Newtonian scientific revolution that we are all familiar with and upon whose standards we conduct experiments?

In the 16^th century, the British parliament offered a precise definition that has stuck to this day: that 1 mile = 5280 feet (around 1.6 km).  Remember that this conversion factor was a relatively recent one, offered by the British. However, when some of our modern scholars attempted to then translate these ancient distances of farāsikh and barīd into modern units, they appeared to have read in the British conversion units into the ancient terms. Hence, they simply ‘chugged and plugged’ away, using the ancient definition of one farsakh being three medieval Hashemite mīls, and every ‘mile’ (sic.) being 5280 feet. Thus, they moved from an ancient term (farsakh) to a medieval one (mīl) to a British definition of another (mile).

This was not the only attempt to translate the farsakh into a recognizable unit. The famous scholar Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) stated that a farsakh is roughly 10,500 ‘arm-lengths’ (dhirāʾ).[5] Very well, but what does that mean for us in our units of measurement? An average arm-length has been estimated in our times to be around 48 centimeters (i.e., 0.48 meters).[6] It appears that a large group of later scholars accepted Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s conversion factor and based modern calculations on it.

Other scholars, such as al-Nawawī, al-Ramlī, and al-Ḥajjāwī all held the position that a farsakh is in fact eighteen-thousand dhirāʾ.[7]

Hence, plugging and chugging away:

- With the conversion factor of one farsakh = 3 mīl = 3 ‘standard’ miles

Four barīds = 16 farsakhs x 3 mīl/farsakh = 48 mīl = 48 miles = 77.25 km

- With the conversion factor of Ibn Ê¿Abd al-Barr:

Four barīds = 16 farsakhs x  10,500 dhirāʾ/farsakh x 0.48 meters/dhirāʾ = 80.64 km (50.4 miles)

- With the conversion factor of al-Nawawī:

Four barīds = 16 farsakhs x 18,000 dhirāʾ/ farsakh x 0.48 meters/dhirāʾ = 138.24 km (86.4 miles)

For reasons that I could not understand, the modern Ḥanafi position typically calculates a distance of 15 farsakhs to be 77 km (or 48 miles).

It can be seen that the conversion factor of al-Nawawī actually yields almost double the distance of the first conversion factor. It can also be seen that all of these conversions are rather tenuous; none of them could have been known or measured with such precision during the time of the first generations of Islam.

Now that we have successfully (?) translated these ancient units into three possible distances (and note that there are even more possibilities if we were to discuss other conversion factors), let us return to the issue of the distance required for one to be considered a ‘traveler’.

1.6 The strongest opinion

Now that we have discussed the actual distance of these measurements, let us return to the original question: which of these opinions appears to be correct?

The strongest opinion – and Allāh knows best – appears to be the last one (viz., that a traveler is one who customarily understands his situation to be one of ‘travel’), for a number of reasons:

1) Ibn Taymiyya’s point that the Prophet did not specify any distance is a very poignant one. He neither ordered that the earth be measured, nor did most of the travelers of the time calculate the distance that they traveled. It does not make sense, therefore, that the Shariah would place a numerical value when such unit-definitions were not known or followed by the majority of that generation.

2) Even in the hadiths that the majority use (about a woman traveling without a maḥram), there are discrepancies between ‘one-day’, ‘two-days’ and ‘three-days’ – all three wordings are reported in one or both of the Saḥīḥ works. So which one should be resorted to?

Additionally, all three hadiths use the word ‘travel’; would it not, therefore, be safe to assume that the Prophet was not trying to link the word ‘travel’ to any distance, but rather simply discussing the issue of a woman traveling without a maḥram? Furthermore, the tradition about permitting wiping over the socks has nothing to do with setting a limit for ‘traveling’ – it merely sets a time-limit for allowing someone to wipe over one’s socks.

Therefore, there is nothing in the hadith literature that one can safely use as a defining distance for travel.

3) As can be clearly seen, there is no precise and agreed upon conversion factor for translating a ‘day’s journey’ into a tangible and precise measure. There are a number of ‘grey areas’ in this calculation.  What exactly is a ‘day’s journey’? How many barīds are in such a journey? How many farsakhs can be traveled in a day? How long is a farsakh? What exactly is a mīl? And so forth.

If this is the case, it does not make sense that our Shariah would have obligated us to measure ‘travel’ in units that to this day remain undefined and ambiguous.

4) To place a precise measurement on ‘travel’ seems to contravene the purpose of the law and hence the maqāṣid of the Shariah. The purpose of this ruling is to ease the burden upon the traveler by allowing him to shorten and join the prayer. If a traveler is engrossed in figuring out how far he has traveled (imagine in the days before car odometers gave this information), it is as if the Shariah is placing a bigger burden on him by asking him to calculate a distance that he is, in all likelihood, not capable of doing.

5) This distance really makes very little sense in modern times. A distance of 80 km is more akin to a picnic than to a travel – and according to Ibn Taymiyya’s definition, if one were to go to a park outside of one’s city with the express intention of returning in a short period of time, this would not constitute travel. If we look at the frame of mind of a family who is going on a day-trip to a park outside the city versus going on a journey, there is a significant difference. When one goes on a day-trip, the house is left as is, the neighbors are not told, life ‘at home’ is not assumed to be interrupted, and so forth. On the other hand, when one goes on a ‘travel’, miscellaneous factors must be taken care of before embarking on a ‘journey’. All of this is known to and experienced by the people of our time.

6) Before even beginning to ‘convert’ such ancient units into modern ones, an even more profound dilemma can and should be discussed. For those who follow one of the ‘standard’ opinions, the issue must be raised: is it not too literalistic to measure a ‘day’s- journey’ by the means and methods of eras gone by? In other words, if the primary means of travel of the time were horses and camels, and based on that one extrapolates a day’s journey, would it be permissible (in fact, would it not be more in line with the goals of the Shariah) to measure a modern day’s journey in car-travel time?

Personally, if I were to follow this opinion (meaning, if I were to follow a ‘two-day journey’ opinion), it would make more rational sense to me to measure a ‘day’s journey’ in the standard travel-means of our times, namely: a car. This then raises a further question: Does this mean we can eventually extrapolate to a passenger plane? How about a private jet? Questions abound; answers, on the other hand, are not so easy to bring forth.

All of this lends further credence to the position of Ibn Taymiyya: that a ‘traveler’ is one who is customarily considered one. An average Muslim does not need to resort to a scholar, or to a map, in order to find out if s/he is a traveler or not: you know it by what you do to prepare for a trip and your psychological frame of mind.

To be continued…

In our next and final installment, we will discuss how long one remains a traveler at a non-resident location.

One of the five main principles upon which Islamic law is based (i.e., the Legal Maxims, or al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyya) is: “Difficulty begets ease” (al-mashaqqa tajlib al-taysīr). This principle is manifested throughout all of the rules of fiqh, and in particular that of travel (safar). A traveler may shorten the prayers (qasr), combine them (jamʿ), and be legally permitted to break the fast of Ramadan (fiṭr).

There are explicit evidences from the Quran, the Sunnah, and unanimous consensus of the scholars of Islam that allow a traveler to shorten his or her prayers.

The Quran says, “And if you travel in the land, there is no sin on you that you shorten your prayers (taqṣurū min al-ṣalāt) if you fear that the unbelievers may harm you.” [Sūra al-Nisāʾ:101].

The verse seems to suggest that ‘fear’ is a necessary condition, along with travel, in order to shorten the prayer. However, even though the verse mentions ‘fear’ as a condition, it is no longer a requirement.  ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was asked how it was still permissible to shorten prayers even though there was no ‘fear’ remaining. He replied, “I asked the Prophet salla Allahu Ê¿alayhÄ« wa sallam the exact same question, and he said, ‘This is a charity that Allāh has given to you, so accept His charity’” [Reported by Muslim]. In other words, Allāh has graciously lifted the condition mentioned and allowed Muslims to shorten even if there is no fear of impending attack by enemy forces.

It is narrated in numerous traditions that the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam would shorten every four-unit prayer to two-units whenever he was traveling – in fact, he never prayed any four-unit prayer while in a state of travel.[1]

Hence, there is unanimous consensus amongst all the scholars of Islam that a traveler who is undertaking a legitimate journey may shorten the four-unit prayers to two.[2] [Note that the issue of combining (jamʿ) is a separate one, and there is a difference of opinion regarding the permissibility of combining prayers while traveling].

The question that arises, however, is: when does one legally become a ‘traveler’? And for how long may one continue to shorten the prayer?

To answer this question, we will divide this article into two sections. Firstly, we shall discuss the opinions of scholars regarding the distance that constitutes ‘travel’. This will also require us to go into a tangent and convert the distances narrated in the classical and medieval textbooks into modern measurements. Secondly, we shall discuss the opinions of the scholars regarding the time-duration that is required for the status of a traveler to change into a resident once he arrives at some destination.

1. The Distance that Constitutes ‘Travel’

The distance that constitutes ‘travel’ is one of the most highly contested issues amongst the early scholars of Islamic law, so much so that Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 310/922) mentioned close to twenty opinions on this matter. For the purposes of our article, we shall concentrate on the four most famous opinions.

1.1 First Opinion: A three-day journey

What is meant by a ‘three-day journey’ is the distance that a traveler on a camel of average speed would traverse in three complete days.

This is the position of the Companion Ibn Masʿūd, some of the famous scholars of Kufa such as al-Shaʿbī (d. 105/723) and al-Nakhaʿī (d. 96/714), and the standard position of the Ḥanafī school of law.

They based this figure on the famous hadith in which the Prophet salla Allahu Ê¿alayhÄ« wa sallam said, “It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allāh and the Last Day that she travel for a distance of three days without her father, son, husband, brother or any maḥram ” [Reported by Muslim]. They reasoned from this hadith that the Prophet called the distance of ‘three days’ a ‘travel’, hence this can be taken as a definition for what constitutes traveling.

Another evidence that they used was the hadith pertaining to wiping over the socks, in which the Prophet “…allowed a traveler to wipe over his socks for a period of three days and nights” [Reported by Muslim]. The Ḥanafīs reasoned that since the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam set a particular time limit in place, this demonstrates that anyone traveling a distance less than a three-day journey would not be allowed to wipe over his socks, which would then imply that he would not be a traveler.

1.2 Second Opinion: A two-day journey

This is the famous opinion of the Ḥanbalīs, Shāfʿīs and Mālikīs (note that even within these schools there are other opinions as well, as shall be pointed out in the next section). This opinion has also been reported from Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 129/746), and others. From amongst the modern scholars, this is the opinion of Ibn Baz (d. 1999) and the fatwa of the Permanent Committee of Scholars of Saudi Arabia. It is claimed that this is the majority opinion of the classical scholars of Islam.

Their evidence is the fact that the Prophet salla Allahu Ê¿alayhÄ« wa sallam said, “It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allāh and the Last Day that she travels for a distance of two days without a maḥram” [Reported by Muslim]. They also used the action of Ibn Ê¿Umar as an evidence, for it is reported that he would shorten his prayers if he traveled the distance of four barÄ«ds (i.e., two days, as we shall discuss later in this article) [Reported by Imam Malik in his Muwaá¹­á¹­a].

1.3 Third Opinion: A one-day journey

This was the opinion of Imam al-Bukharī (d. 256/869) which he explicitly mentions in his Ṣaḥīḥ. It has also been attributed as a second opinion within the three schools of the last opinion (viz., the Ḥanbalīs, Shāfʿīs and Mālikīs). [It will be explained later why this second opinion for these three schools is not in essence different from their first one].

The famous scholar of Syria, al-Awzāʿī (d. 151/768), said, “This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, and we hold it as well.” Amongst the modern scholars, this is the opinion of our teacher Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Mukhtār al-Shanqīṭī.

Their evidence for this is the fact that the Prophet salla Allahu Ê¿alayhÄ« wa sallam said, “It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allāh and the Last Day that she travels for a distance of one day without a maḥram” [Reported by al-BukhārÄ«]. Al-BukhārÄ« commented on this hadith by saying, “So it is clear that the Prophet called [the traveling of] one day and night a ‘travel.’”

They also use as evidence the statement of Ibn ʿAbbās, when he was asked by a person residing in Makkah, “Should I shorten when I go to Mina or Arafat?” He said, “No! But if you go to Taif, or Jeddah, or travel an entire day’s journey, then do so. But if you travel less than that, then do not shorten.”[3] Therefore, he expressed ‘an entire day’s journey’ as being the minimal limit for shortening the prayers.

1.4 Fourth Opinion: It is not defined by distance but by experience

What is meant by this opinion is that a journey is not defined by how much one has traveled but by what one does and how one prepares for it. According to this opinion, a ‘journey’ is not a particular distance as much as it is a physical and psychological experience.

This is the opinion of Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064) (although he placed a minimum of ‘one mile’), Ibn Qudama (d. 610/1213), Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1327), Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 756/1355), al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 1182/1768), al-Shawkanī (d. 1250/1834), and others. It has been interpreted to be the opinion of Ibn Masʿūd, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and Ibn Sirīn. In fact, there is an explicit statement from Ibn Sirīn which shows that this opinion might have been more prevalent in the past, for he states, “They used to say that a travel in which one may shorten the prayer is a journey in which one takes provisions and baggage.”[4] Amongst the modern scholars, it is the opinion of Ibn ʿUthaymīn (d. 2000) and Ibn Jibrīn (d. 2010).

Their evidence is the lack of any Scriptural evidence that defines ‘travel’, and hence the necessity of resorting to what is culturally understood to be ‘travel’.

Ibn Taymiyya was perhaps the most vocal proponent of this opinion. He disagreed with any specific distance that other scholars sought to derive. According to him, there is no explicit evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, language or custom of that generation that would be binding on later Muslims. He views the distances that the legal schools and other scholars adopted as having been resorted to because these scholars did not find anything more explicit to demarcate the distance required to be considered a ‘traveler’. In fact, all three of the previous opinions use the same basic hadith that prevents women from traveling without a male companion – yet, as is obvious, each hadith uses a different limit. This in itself shows that the intention of the hadith is not to define the distance of what constitutes 'travel'.

Ibn Taymiyya writes,[5]

So demarcating a specific distance does not have any basis in the Shariah, or in the language, or in the intellect. Most people, in fact, do not know the distance of the earth, so it is not allowed to link something that the average Muslim is in need of (i.e., when to shorten the prayer) with something that he does not know (i.e., how much he has traveled). No one measured the earth during the time of the Prophet, nor did the Prophet himself put limits, neither in mīls nor in farāsikh (units of measurement). And a person might leave his village to go to the desert in order to collect wood, and he leaves for two or three days, and he will be a traveler, even though the distance might be less than a mile! In contrast to this, another person might go [a longer distance] and come back the same day, and he will not be a traveler. This is because the first person will take provision for the journey, and bags [with his necessities], whereas the second person will not. Therefore, even a near distance can be considered a ‘travel’ if someone stays for a period of time, and a longer distance will not be considered a travel if a person stays for a short period. A ‘travel’ is therefore defined by the actions that are required in order for that journey to be called ‘traveling’… and this is a matter that people recognize by their own customs.

Ibn Taymiyya did, however, place a condition that such a travel be considered a travel according to one’s custom, such that a person would prepare for a journey and travel into the wilderness (meaning, an uninhabited area). Hence, if a person visited an outlying district of a city (in Ibn Taymiyya’s explicit example, if a person living in Damascus visited a small population outside of Damascus), even if this distance was considered large, this would not constitute travel, as this is not considered ‘traveling’ for a person in this situation.

Therefore, according to Ibn Taymiyya, a ‘travel’ is not merely a distance but also a frame of mind. Someone who leaves his house, intending to return the same evening, is not a traveler, even if (as in our times) he travels to another country and then returns. Ibn ʿUthaymīn also holds the same position.[6]

Ibn Taymiyya also pointed out that this interpretation was in accordance with the very word safar in Arabic, because this word indicates ‘exposure’. Thus, a woman who exposes her face is called sāfira. Therefore, a safar’ would be a journey in which a person ‘exposes’ himself/herself to the wilderness by abandoning the cities and towns and journeying into an uninhabited area.

To be continued…

Part Two deals with converting these measurements into modern units.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Reading the highly charged words exchanged between Muslims in the past two weeks over the issue of Tunisia, and now Egypt, I felt sad to see a number of people taking very extreme stances and forgetting the middle path of Islam that we have been guided to by Allāh.

Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against mankind, and that the Messenger may be a witness against you. [2:143]

There is no doubt that this is an issue that has presented many challenging questions, and that we should all be reminded that when clarity is not present that it is better for us to remain silent and protect ourselves from the evil of both harming others with our words, and worse, speaking about Allāh without knowledge. May Allāh protect us all from these evils and imbue our words with wisdom.

I myself spent a great deal of time both reflecting on the events as they unfolded, as well as reviewing the various stances of our noble scholars on matters of this nature. Initially, despite my excitement and du’a for the safety and success of the people of Tunis, I was nonetheless very concerned by the number of people who turned away from Allāh and instead to major sins like self-immolation to solve their problems.

Yet there is no doubt that there is an indescribable degree of desperation that has taken hold of so many people in these countries, a desperation that may very well have led to outright madness in many of our brothers and sisters. Hence, it is my sincere du’a that Allāh, the All-Merciful and All-Forgiving, will overlook their actions done in these dire moments and that He reward them with success against their oppressors and with His pleasure and Mercy – āmīn.

On the matter of suicide, let us briefly take the time to remember this important hadith from Sahih Muslim. When the Prophet (saas) made hijrah to Madinah, Tufayl ibn 'Amr came as well, along with a man from his tribe.  This man became ill when he first reached Madinah and his illness became so severe that he took a knife and slit his wrist, and the blood spilled out until he died.  Tufayl then saw him in a dream, in a good vision, except that his hands were wrapped up.

So he asked him, 'What has your Lord done with you?'

He replied, 'He has forgiven me because of my hijrah to His Prophet (saas).' The he asked, 'Why are your hands wrapped up?'.

He said, 'It was said to me: We shall not fix something you have corrupted yourself!'

So Tufayl relayed this to the Messenger of Allāh (saas), so he said: 'O Allāh! And forgive his hands (too)!'

From this hadith we understand that suicide does not expel a person from Islam, but rather it is a major sin that can lead to punishment in the Hereafter.

Al-Qaadi 'Iyadh said in Ikmaal al-Mu'lim:

“In this hadith is proof for Ahlus-Sunnah for what they say, that Allāh may forgive the sins of whomever He wants, and it explains the ahadith before it that might seem to give the false impression that someone who commits suicide faces the eternal threat of remaining (in the Fire) forever.”

Yet as the events continued to unfold, I witnessed the images of people being sprayed with water cannons while in sujud, the commitment of the overwhelming majority of the people to keep the protests free of the use of weapons and killing and the selfless acts of the brave and courageous Egyptian youth who set up neighborhood watches to protect their neighbors’ homes and shops. It was then that I realized the goodness of this effort and that the people had continued to remain close to Allāh in these difficult days. This point was also mentioned by Shaykh Muhammad Hassan in Egypt, who called the efforts of the people, particularly the youth, “a blessed and good act.”

I then decided to write this article to demonstrate the expansiveness of Islam on the issues relevant to these events because I noticed that the people had turned away from Islam and from the scholars. There is the idea that some people have mistakenly spread, that these events are against Islam – and whereas this may be in fact the opinion of some scholars, it is by far not the only opinion on this issue. To illustrate this point, in having this article reviewed before publication, I had three PhD’s in Islamic Studies as well as a holder of a Master’s degree comment to me on it and I received four completely different opinions subhan'Allāh. So let us not by hasty in declaring the issue to be black and white, and let us move past this question to tackle the real issues at hand of how to make an impact.

Scholars and the Knowledge of the Condition

The scholars of Egypt have been divided in their opinions on this matter as it is a very controversial one. There are some who have praised it, others who have been silent and those who have recommended that people not participate in it. Yet, the scholars of Egypt are best aware of the circumstances on their streets and the scholars outside of Egypt have refrained to speak much on the matter since this case is particular to every nation in its own way depending upon several factors.

This reminds us of an important principle in fiqh, that there are some rulings which are universal for time, place and condition; and there are other rulings which will vary to some extent based upon certain factors or circumstances. Ibn al-Qayyim, in his book ‘Ilaam al-Muwaqiyeen, has written that the one who gives fatwa must first have specific practical knowledge of the issue that he is speaking about, and secondly have the religious knowledge of the fiqh of that matter before he issues a ruling.

Many times, people have asked specific questions on this website, at times even demanded answers from the people of knowledge in the West regarding certain matters in the East. Yet, this guiding principle has caused many to rightly remain silent and leave certain matters to the people who know them best, those who are living them and seeing the reality with their own eyes and can thus judge them the best.

Understanding Khurooj Against the Ruler

The concept of khurooj against the leader has been understood by various scholars in different ways, but generally it refers to taking up arms against the ruler in order to forcibly remove him from power. Speaking out against the leader has also been considered by some to also be a form of prohibited khurooj. As Muslims, we must understand that this is a very detailed and elaborate matter and beyond the scope of this simple article to explore in its fullness. I only wish to provide a foundation for those who are unfamiliar with it here. With that in mind, let us now briefly consider the evidences for this important principle.

Allāh has said in the Quran what means,

“O you who believe! Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger, and those who are in authority over you. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and in the Last Day.” [4:59]

And the Prophet (saas) also stated,

“The best of your leaders are those whom you love and who love you, who pray for you and you pray for them. The worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and who hate you, and you send curses on them and they send curses on you.” He was asked, ““O Messenger of Allāh (saas) should we not fight them by the sword?” He said, “Not as long as they are establishing prayer amongst you. And if you see from those in authority over you something that you hate then hate his action and do not remove your hand from obedience” (Muslim)

Imam an-Nawawi said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim:

And as for rebelling against the rulers and fighting them, then it is prohibited by unanimous agreement (ijmā') of the Muslims, even if they are sinful oppressors. And the ahadith are many with the meaning that I have mentioned. And Ahlus-Sunnah are united that the ruler is not to be removed on account of his sinfulness … And the scholars have said, that the reason for prohibiting his removal (by these means) and the forbidding of revolting against him is due to what accompanies such acts from that of tribulations, shedding of blood, and corruption. Hence, the harm from his removal is greater than from him remaining in place.

From Imam an-Nawawi’s explanation we derive an important point that has been used by some scholars, and that is the prohibition of fighting the Imam stems from the great chaos that accompanies it and most often outweighs the evil of the ruler himself. Those scholars today who have been opposed to the protests racing across the Muslim world have not been opposed to them because they love the tyrants in those countries or because they are pleased with their oppressive and dictatorial policies. No. They are opposed to them because they are afraid of the harm that may come from them when things get out of control. Unfortunately, most of the revolutions in our history have not had positive results and this is something we must keep in mind.

Controversy as Regards the Extent of Obeying the Ruler

The fact that Muslims must listen to and obey their rulers is not a matter of disagreement in Islam, but to what extent they do so, and when do they abandon this obedience is an area of varying opinion among the scholars. The obedience to the ruler is always contingent upon the command of the ruler not being in defiance to Allāh and His Messenger (saas) as has been established by a number of ahadith:

“The Muslim is required to hear and obey in that which he likes and dislikes, unless he was commanded to sin. When he is commanded with sin, then there is no hearing or obeying.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

and

“… Obedience is only in righteousness.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

Yet, do the Muslims continue to obey when the ruler judges by other than Islam? This specific matter is something relatively new in our time (ruling by other than Shari’ah) and was not experienced by the earliest generations. It is authentically narrated from the Prophet (saas) that he said,

“Even if a slave was appointed over you, and he rules you with Allāh's Book, then listen to him and obey him.” (Muslim)

This same stream of thought is found in the noble words of Abu Bakr when he said upon assuming the khilafah,

O people! I have been put in charge over you, but I am not the best of you. If I act well, then help me, and if I act badly, then put me right. Truthfulness is a trust and lying is treachery … Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Messenger. If I disobey Allāh and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience. (Sirat Ibn Hisham)

Do these above ahadith specifically give Muslims the permission to revolt? Upon this, the scholars have differed. Some argue that non-compliance with the leader’s command is not equal to rebelling against him, and others say that when they violate their agreement with their people – the agreement to rule them by the Book of Allāh – that the people owe them no allegiance and can act to replace them.

Acting to Replace a Tyrannical Ruler

Allāh states in the Quran what means,

“And cooperate with one another in righteousness and obedience to Allāh, and do not cooperate with one another in sin and transgression, and obey Allāh.” [5:2]

In the very important hadith of Umm Salamah (ra), the Messenger of Allāh (saas) said:

“You shall have leaders over you, some of their actions you will accept and other things you will reject; whoever rejects with his tongue will be safe from sin, and whoever hates with his heart he will at least have escaped blame, but whoever follows and accepts (he shall be guilty)!” It was said, “Should we not fight them?” The Messenger of Allāh (saas) said, “No, as long as they pray.” (Abu Dawud)

This hadith of Umm Salamah has other ahadith which support its meaning. For example, the Prophet (saas) also said,

“Whoever from amongst you sees an evil should change it by his hand, if he is unable to do so then he should change it by his tongue (by speaking against it), and if he is unable to do so then he should reject it in his heart – and this is the weakest of Iman.” (Muslim)

He (saas) also said,

“The best Jihad is the word of Justice in front of the oppressive Sultan.” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Majah)

And the Prophet (saas) also said,

“If the people witness an oppressor and they do not take him by his hands (to prevent him) then they are close to Allāh covering them all with punishment.” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Majah)

These very important ahadith on this issue provide some options in the Islamic approach towards rulers who transgress. The greater action, which is among the highest forms of Jihad, is to reject with the tongue by speaking out against their crimes and thus be safe from sin. Yet, there are conditions in which speaking out or acting may bring greater harm to both the person and the society and in these cases one must be patient and refrain from speech as it is the lesser of the two evils. In this case, he hates in his heart, and he will still have escaped blame.

The case for being patient and hating in the heart was evidenced by one of the statements of the great tabi’ee al-Hasan al-Basri. A group of Muslims came to him seeking a ruling for rebelling against al-Hajjaj. So they said: “O Abaa Sa'eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt the blood, and unlawfully taken wealth, and did this, and did that?” So al-Hasan said:

“I say not to fight him. If this is a punishment from Allāh, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allāh, then be patient until Allāh's Judgment comes, and He is the Best of Judges.” (Tabaqat ibn Sa’d)

Here al-Hasan recognized the relative impotence of the people before the strength and ruthlessness of al-Hajjaj and thus he recommended patience. Notice that he did not tell them that this act was forbidden, only that he advised them against it for practical reasons. Had the people been greater in number or greater in strength, then the situation may well have been different.

Furthermore, Ibn Hajar records in his commentary to Sahih al-Bukhari:

Imam Nawawi said: “…one should not object to the actions of the rulers unless they carry out clear and open transgression, and that which is contrary to the general principles of Islam.”

Ibn Teen narrates from al-Dawudi: ‘The scholars have stated that if one is able to remove a transgressing ruler, without causing any Fitnah and oppression, then he should be removed, otherwise it is necessary to be patient.”

The real question that remains then, a question that can only be assessed by each population in its own land, “will our efforts to remove this tyrant create a greater fitnah and oppression than that which he has exacted upon us?”

Thus, if a leader or ruler becomes corrupt he should first be advised, in private if possible, or in public if his evil deeds were done in public. [This unfortunately is an act which is limited to a select group of people in our time and is not a practical point for the majority of the Ummah.] If he does not turn away from his evil deeds, he should be overthrown or removed from position if this can be done without creating further upheaval in the society. However, in the process of removing him from position, he should not be physically fought, such as waging war with weapons. And Allāh knows best.

The Position of Some Contemporary Scholars Who Uphold the Legality of Protests

Shaykh Salman al-‘Awdah in Saudi Arabia has previously expressed that he sees no harm in gathering for protests so long as they remain for the most part peaceful and civil. He states that the foundation of matters such as this (peaceful protests) is that it is permissible and doesn’t require any specific evidence to support it. It suffices us that there is no evidence that forbids this type of action unless it is accompanied by obvious harm or sin.

In this valuable statement, we understand that some scholars see protests as a worldly act and not a religious one. Among the principles of Islam is that all religious actions are by default forbidden and can only be done when one has a clear evidence from the Quran or Sunnah. On the other hand, worldly actions are by default permissible and can only be forbidden by clear evidence against them from Quran or Sunnah.  Some other scholars disagree and see protests as a religious action wherein Muslims aim to command good and forbid evil and thus say that an evidence is required (despite the fact that the gathering is simply a means and not a religious act itself). Again, a matter of controversy.

This same position voiced by Sh. Salman has also been taken by Shaykh AbdulRahman Abd al-Khaliq who used a similar reasoning, and added that the concept of Muslims going out in large numbers to demonstrate their strength is well established in Islam by such things as the Jumu’ah prayer, the two 'Īd prayers and so forth.

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi has also supported these protests and supported the removal of Mubarak from his office as can be read elsewhere on this website. And from within Egypt, Shaykh Muhammad Hassan as already alluded to has voiced support for the act of the youth and said in a televised statement, “I am not blaming you for what you have done.” And he also emphasized the peaceful nature of this protest that calls for the rights of the people and for goodness in praising it.

Concluding Remarks

From these various ahadith and statements of our scholars across the width of Islamic history, we can find evidence to support the protests in the Muslim nations today. They have gathered together to reject with their tongues the evils in their respective governments after having been patient for many years and restraining themselves. They have furthermore kept their efforts relatively peaceful and free from much harm and they have avoided the greater harm, and potential sin, of raising weapons against their leaders. As an Egyptian myself who knows what many of these people have experienced of fear, oppressive policies, illegal detainments, police brutality and so forth; I believe that their efforts thus far have been the lesser evil – and Allāh knows best.

It is also important for us to remember that these protests are far from reaching any real gains. Yes, the people have thrown aside the shackles of fear, but what awaits them tomorrow and the next day? For those who equated Mubarak with Pharaoh, then the appointment of Omar Sulaiman as the next leader is equivalent to Pharaoh taking Haman as his confidant. Sulaiman, in his role as head of the murky Egyptian Intelligence, has been the supervisor of numerous evils not limited to the torture of the citizenry (including the scholars), the illegal rendition programs, and of course a key player in walling off the people of Gaza. To have him take over the helm in Egypt is a nightmare that I ask Allāh to protect all the Muslims from.

Will there be those among the scholars and thinkers that disagree with the actions of the Tunisians, Egyptians and those who follow this path? There is no doubt that such disagreement has already occurred, as it is very controversial and always has been.  But as Muslims we must live in the real world and recognize that there will be differences of opinion on such controversial issues. The reality at hand is that these protests have already begun and we need to do more for our brothers and sisters in these lands than argue the legitimacy of their efforts. They have begun and they have a valid Islamic case for their actions, alhamdulillah.

My humble recommendation to readers is that they spend their efforts wisely in helping these noble causes by turning to Allāh. Gathering to show support in our own cities is wonderful and gives us a sense of unity, alhamdulillah, but what is needed now more than anything is calling upon Allāh to accept these efforts and overlook whatever wrong may be in them. To show our sincerity in our love to them by waking up in the night to cry out to Allāh to aid them and make their feet firm, and to bring about good from their efforts and rid them of the tyrants. āmīn!

I believe that there is a problem in how aqidah is presented to Western Muslim youth in (some) Salafi circles today. I am speaking from personal experience. My first encounter with a more in-depth study of aqidah was through various halaqat where I, as a teenager, got to learn about the way a Muslim should understand the Names and Attributes of Allāh 'azza wa jall. The result was that I became somewhat confused. And this situation was completely unnecessary and totally avoidable.

The problem is that books written in certain times and places, in order to address certain issues and controversies relevant to a certain context, are being used to teach aqidah to young Muslims who simply cannot relate to those issues and controversies, and so they end up getting confused (or at least I was). The particular controversies surrounding Allāh's Names and Attributes – those about His Hands, His Face, etc. – were discussed by scholars who understood the Qur'an in Arabic and knew about its overall message and who, after already possessing this knowledge of the general content of the Qur'an, began discussing details about aqidah after having come into contact with philosophical arguments about Allāh. Many young Western Muslims don't know much (if any) Arabic, and they usually don't know much about philosophy (nor do they care). So controversial issues that were relevant in, say, the 3rd century hijrah simply aren't relevant to today's Western Muslim youth. Due to these realities, the wrong impression is given of the correct Islamic belief if aqidah lessons simply consist of someone reading you a list of apparently antropomorphic attributes that you are told to believe in literally. When this is de-contextualised from the rest of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and from the historical circumstances that led to the scholars emphasizing these particular attributes (and it almost inevitably does become historically de-contextualised since today's Muslim youth cannot relate to it properly), then it leads to confusion.

I believe that an emphasis should instead be put on learning Qur'anic Arabic. Islamic education should be focused on giving you an understanding of what “qul“, “huwa“, “ahad“, “al-Samad“, and so on, means. And when you, in the process of this type of learning, encounter âyât that speak of Allāh's Names and Attributes, then you learn the correct way to understand these type of passages (no tamthil, no ta'wil, no takyif, etc.), and perhaps you get some information about how people have gone astray when it comes to this, historically. The reason I say this is because before I attended various aqidah lessons, I didn't even think about the Attributes of Allāh, such as His Hands, in an antropomorphic nor a figurative way. I simply noted that the Qur'an described Allāh in that way, I knew the meaning of the word itself, and I understood that Allāh isn't like His creation, and I left it at that. It was when I was repeatedly presented with the controversy – that I didn't even know was a controversy – and had these attributes all collected and listed in one place as if the essence of belief in Allāh was to know this list by heart while neglecting other âyât that speak about Him, that I began to get confused.

For those who exhibit an intellectual curisoity and want to delve deeper into these types of issues, then there needs to be a proper historical study of why Sunni scholars needed to emphasize certain things when teaching aqidah. It was through learning about the mihna of Imam Ahmad and other such historical considerations that I first began to understand why the aqidah lessons that I had attended growing up consisted of what they did. Of course, a brief overview of the Jahmiyah, the Qadariyah, the Jabariyah, the Mu'tazilah, etc., was presented during those lessons, but it was too simplified and de-contextualized from the broader historical circumstances that led to these groups popping up (and simply irrelevant to our situation in the West) to lead to anything more than, frankly, a kind of “us vs. them” mentality in regards to “those deviants”, without a real understanding of why. And when one fully understands this historical background, then one can truly appreciate the principles developed by our Sunni scholars that were needed to address the issues of their time, and begin to apply them properly to our situation here and today. Because let's face it, the intellectual challenges of today are different from the challenges that were faced by our Sunni scholars of the past. And as a side note, even if the Asharis and Maturidis of today believe that the Mutakallimoon were succesfull in defending Islam and refuting the philosophers of the past, a claim I don't necessarily accept, there cannot be much doubt that the discourse of the past is now very much outdated and irrelevant to us in the West. So no matter how you see it, there is a need for making Islamic education relevant to our time and place.

It is through a proper understanding of the Sunni principles when it comes to aqidah, as opposed to a mere list of examples of how they were applied to resolve controversial issues of the past, that we can begin to address those issues that are relevant today. It is through understanding that our job is to defend the concept of fitrah and wahy (left to speak for itself) against the claim that we must accept the rules and premises of the naturalistic philosophers that we can develop the right way to respond to the pressing intellectual challenges confronting the modern world without compromising the correct understanding of the texts of Qur'an and Sunnah. And again, this isn't necessarily needed for everyone. Most people don't go around and think about deep philosophical issues.

These are some conclusions that I have come to after having lived through my own experience. Of course, if there is a place where people are doing ilhad when it comes to Allāh's Names and Attributes and this becomes a fitna in that particular place, then what I wrote is not to be taken into consideration. So there will obviously be exceptions. And perhaps my conclusions are wrong. I am not claiming that what I wrote must be right; if someone disagrees then I don't mind being proven wrong. Or maybe I'm the only one that sees a problem with the way aqidah is presented in some Salafi circles and I am off target with this slight criticism. So, I do welcome feedback.

I ask Allāh that He illuminate our hearts with that which brings benefit to us and to the rest of humanity, and to increase our knowledge. I ask Allāh that as He has beautified our outward appearance that He also beautify our manners. I ask Allāh for help to do good, protection from wrong and love for the weak; and that He forgives us and has Mercy upon us. I also seek His protection from division, trial and those who stir up enmity between us. Āmīn.

There was sadly some confusion that arose from my last post, Saving Our Youth from the Disease of Radicalism, which has prompted me to write this post in clarifiaction. My goal in this post is to elaborate further on some points that were grossly misunderstood in the first post and to re-emphasize the main points that I believe were lost on many people due to the slew of comments. I ask sincere people to please try to read all the way through before jumping to make conclusions that have been already addressed in other parts of the post. Some of my points require a level of reflection and Allāh is the best of Helpers.

Is America at War with Islam – Why this is a Central Question?

The main issue of confusion, of course, was not surprisingly the discussion of American involvement in Muslim international affairs. Before elaborating on my comments, I wish to clarify why this subject ever needed to be discussed in the first place.

There is a movement within some violent extremist groups that believes that our covenant of citizenship, legal residence or visa status is invalidated by America declaring war on Islam. They therefore suppose that since this covenant of security is null and void that this gives them “license” to retaliate and attack Americans in return. If we are going to be serious about our attempts to protect Muslims from violent extremism then we need to address this issue clearly, despite its rarity (all it takes is one nut who thinks this way to create a disaster) and refute it solidly. In my desire to be concise, I did not discuss this premise in the earlier post assuming it to be understood.

So the question that has to be answered then is, “Is America truly at war with Islam, or are they at war with only some Muslims and not others?”  From this standpoint, I think that many of my comments will now make more sense to some of you. For those that still don’t understand the issue clearly, I will further clarify insha’Allāh.

In order to prove beyond doubt – as circumstantial evidence is not sufficient – that America is at war with Islam itself, this would mean that America, like the Crusader nations of Europe in the Middle Ages, is out to uproot Islam entirely from the face of the earth. This means that America has abandoned its policy of secularism, and instead, has become a nation whose policy is based primarily upon religious zeal.  A more current example would be the policies of many of the communist regimes that seek to erase all religion. The reality, of course, is far from this.

America, like virtually all other nations on earth today, makes decisions based on national interests, period. True some of their policy makers may hate Islam, but policy is in general created on the basis of interests. This is nothing new in the history of empires. For example, American policy states that it values human rights, and there is no doubt that there are numerous people in the American government who work very hard for human rights. Yet, at the end of the day, they base decisions on their national interests. As a result, they maintain a healthy financial relationship with nations like China, who also happen to be major human rights violators. For many policy-makers, human rights are a nice idea, but certain issues – like trade – trump human rights any day. So where do Muslims come into the picture?

There are times when American national interests coincide with that which is beneficial to Islam and Muslims, and there are other times when their interests create harm to Muslims. Yet, in each case America is only acting in its own interests so as to provide the best life possible for its citizens; whoever is harmed or benefited by these national interest decisions is irrelevant. To understand this better, let us ask ourselves how, for example, the war in Iraq benefits the average American.

In order to better understand this, we have to understand that there is a real concern among many world governments right now, that global oil reserves will run out in the near future. Whenever they do run out, the last place on earth most likely to have oil will be the Arabian Peninsula and its surrounding territories. Far more pressing than that, is the fact that America, in its present state, cannot survive – politically or financially – the shock of an oil shortage. Factor in the reality that this area of the world is very unstable, and without adequate security, could quickly fall into turmoil thereby preventing oil production and resulting in exactly such an oil shortage shock. Thus America has facilitated geopolitical circumstances to ensure it maintains a strong military presence in that area, to ensure the security of its national interests.

So with their occupation of Iraq, why turn the control of the nation back over to Iraqis – Iraqis who are loyal to American concerns for sure, but Iraqis nonetheless? Why not, for example, force the population into Christianity the way Spanish explorers did to the Native Americans? Why not convert all masajid to churches? Why not burn the Qurans as Crusaders had done before? Why not abolish Arabic and make the national language English? Because Islam is not the issue they are concerned about. When I discussed American military personnel converting to Islam, this demonstrates further the fact that American policy cares not about religion as they left the door open for their personnel to listen to those who wished to call them to Islam. My point is that they don't care about any religion just as long as you stay out of the way of their perceived interests.

So no one can use American actions as a basis for killing people in America. What citizens of Muslim nations do in their respective countries around the world is beyond the scope of this discussion, and I leave that to their scholars who are more aware of what is happening in their localities to advise their youth. What we are focusing primarily on, is preventing Western youth from rising up and killing their neighbors and countrymen by using such a baseless argument.

Is this my political opinion that I wish to force upon you? No, this is my political analysis, which also happens to be shared by a large number of Muslim scholars – east and west – as well as intellectual non-Muslim scholars. You can agree or disagree and I don’t mind. But if you want to paint America as being at war with Islam then you must also understand that such an analysis is not without consequences, and can result in blood on your hands as people will repeat your analysis as their “evidence” that they have no covenant with anyone and are “just defending their people.” I remain acutely aware of the consequences of this analysis, and I believe that Muslims of wisdom will understand the heaviness of these statements and be wary of giving anyone something with which to harm others.

What about Taxes and the Issue of America Being a Democratic Nation?

An important aside that also frequently comes up, is the argument that some violent extremists have forwarded that since Americans pay taxes and those taxes go to support the American war machine that they are in effect not innocents, but indeed direct contributors to the death of many around the world.

Another variation of this argument, proposed in fact by a Saudi scholar who has never left his region of Saudi Arabia much less traveled to the West, is that America is a democratic nation where the government is elected to represent the people’s wishes, and that voters – as a whole – are thus directly responsible for the acts of their leaders. Thus, they conclude that since America’s leaders have approved the use of deadly force in many Muslim countries, that the people who voted them into office are also guilty by proxy. Again, this argument, representing no understanding whatsoever of reality, results in classifying your average soccer-mom as an evil killer of Muslim children, and that she should be fought.

Deconstructing either of these arguments is not difficult alhamdulillah.  As for the payment of taxes, did not the Prophet (saas) forbid the killing of non-combatants, even though he also predicted the Muslims would fight the Romans, and the Romans paid taxes as is well known? Furthermore, most people hate paying taxes, so in the overwhelming majority of cases, taxes are taken forcibly. He even forbade the killing of women, even though women would at times accompany the armies and sing to the men to motivate them to be brave in battle – an act that some may consider aiding the enemy. It is clear from the ayaat and the authentic hadith on this subject though that fighting is restricted to organized armies on the battlefield. We should not forget the authentic athar of Abu Bakr on this issue as well:

وروى مالك أن أبا بكر الصديق بعث جيوشا إلى الشام، فخرج يمشي مع يزيد بن أبي سفيان وكان أمير ربع من تلك الأرباع، ثم قال له : (إنك ستجد قوما زعموا أنهم حبسوا أنفسهم لله فذرهم وما زعموا أنهم حبسوا أنفسهم له، وإني موصيك بعشر : لا تقتلن امرأة، ولا صبيا، ولا كبيرا هرما، ولا تقطعن شجرا مثمرا، ولا تخربن عامرا، ولا تعقرن شاة ولا بعيرا إلا لمأكله، ولا تحرقن نخلا ولا تغرقنه، ولا تغللن، ولا تجبن

Malik narrates that Abu Bakr as-Sideeq sent forth some armies to fight the Romans in Greater Syria. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, “You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allāh. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves and all others who make such a claim. I advise you ten things: Do not kill a woman or a child or an elderly person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except if you must for food. Do not burn bees and do not drown them. Do not steal from the spoils, and do not be cowardly.”  (Muwatta)

As for the argument about democratic societies voting in leadership that represents them, this requires no evidence other than an awareness of reality. How many people vote on the basis of foreign policy and military involvement? As we have already mentioned, many people supported Obama because he was going to get them out of those battlefields. But at the end of the day, people vote with an eye on issues like jobs, healthcare and education (CBS News Poll. Nov. 7-10, 2010). As Bill Clinton's chief campaign strategist once said, “It’s the economy stupid.” And even after voting for someone, like George W. Bush for example, who entered the nation into two dubious wars, there is still a significant anti-war movement. So just because a nation votes and maintains some semblance of democratic representation, that doesn’t consign everyone to be a replica of the next in terms of opinions and priorities. Of course, it also helps to be familiar with such societies before passing a fatwa.

The Matter of American Foreign Policy – When does it Help to Discuss It?

So now we come to the issue that enraged some people – the issue of my perspective on American foreign policy. Those that have read my other posts – particularly on Gaza – already know that I have sharp disagreement with American foreign policy decisions. Guess what? So does almost everyone else in America. Yes, there are the Sarah Palins out there who believe that America can do no wrong – every decision is blessed by God in their view. But the past few elections – presidential and congressional – have demonstrated a great degree of frustration with American governmental decision-making, both foreign and domestic. In fact, one of the campaign promises with which Obama scored many votes was the promise to get American troops out of Iraq. No surprise, as the anti-war movement is very strong both in the US and the UK. So there are many that disagree with foreign policy, and I am one of them, but that is NOT the issue that should be concerning us here.

So does this mean that I don’t care if Muslims get hurt? That the suffering they are experiencing is not important to me? That I imagine America to be selflessly helping Muslims? No, it only means that I am striving to understand the way the system works, which is a necessity for us if we wish to achieve progress. The reality of my love for this Ummah is nothing that I feel the need to prove to anyone, it is something which is between me and Allāh, something I don’t need to express in order to be praised or recognized. The result of my concern for this Ummah, though, is that I will not let their suffering and their deaths happen in vain.

Many of my Islamic teachers have lamented how we have become an Ummah of complainers and complacency. Yet, one of the chief characteristics of the Companions and Tabi’een which allowed them to change the world for centuries to come was that they were people of beneficial action. They did sometimes fall prey to that natural human weakness of complaining at times though, but let us see how the Prophet (saas) responded to that:

Narrated Khabab ibnul Arrat: ‘I approached the Prophet when he was reclining in the shade of the Ka‘bah one day. This was in the days when we had received some harm from the pagans (tortured by them). I said to him: ‘O Messenger of Allāh, will you not ask Allāh to help us? Will you not pray for our relief from this persecution?” He sat up red in the face and said: “Among the followers of Allāh before you were those who were thrown in a ditch and then sawed in half. Yet this did not make them turn away from the worship of Allāh. And others had their skin combed with iron combs to the point that the flesh was lifted from the bones yet they too were not swayed from the worship of Allāh. For there is no doubt that Allāh will cause Islam to spread until a person can ride from San’a to Hadramaut (two distant cities in Yemen) and he will not fear anything except God and the wolf regarding his sheep. Yet you are a people who are too hasty!” (Ahmad – Sahih)

Here we see Khabab, one of the earliest and noblest of the Companions, complaining to the Prophet (saas). If we could translate his concerns into the modern day language of so many angry youth, it would be, “Why won’t you do anything!”  Yes, there are a lot of people suffering today. Yes, there are a lot of Muslims getting abused by security agencies. Yes, there is a lot of death and misery at the hands of non-Muslims. But Allāh has promised that Islam will be superior, but we want it too soon. We want it without working for it. We want immediate gratification and we’re not ready to be patient for anything.

How does this relate back to the foreign policy issue that some people went ballistic on? I can’t think of a better way to say it, then how I answered one of the comments. Okay, foreign policy has serious flaws. We all agree, in fact even a lot of non-Muslims even agree. So now what? Dead silence ….

One of the scholars in Egypt asked us this question, and by Allāh I wish that you would answer this question yourself. We burn hours every day getting enraged at news and reading stories of suffering, and then we burn even more time arguing on forums and discussing these problems with our friends and family. How much time do we spend reading Qur’an or making du’a though? Tell me by Allāh, is the problem going to be solved by arguing with some stranger online or by pleading with Allāh for His Mercy. We stay awake until the late hours of the night with these forums but we wouldn’t spend thirty minutes in tahajjud crying to Allāh for help. Is the message getting through yet? In case you missed it, listen to what Allāh states:

وَعَدَ اللÙ'َهُ الÙ'َذِينَ ءامَنُواÙ' مِنÙ'كُمÙ' وَعَمِلُواÙ' الصÙ'َـلِحَاتِ لَيَسÙ'تَخÙ'لِفَنÙ'َهُمÙ' فِى الاÙ'رÙ'ضِ كَمَا اسÙ'تَخÙ'لَفَ الÙ'َذِينَ مِن قَبÙ'لِهِمÙ' وَلَيُمَكÙ'Ù†ÙŽÙ†Ù'ÙŽ لَهُمÙ' دِينَهُمُ الÙ'َذِى ارÙ'تَضَى لَهُمÙ' وَلَيُبَدÙ'Ù„ÙŽÙ†Ù'َهُمÙ' Ù…Ù'Ù† بَعÙ'دِ خَوÙ'فِهِمÙ' Ø£ÙŽÙ…Ù'ناً

Allāh has promised those among you who believe and do good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practice their religion which He has chosen for them. And He will surely give them in exchange security after their fear if they worship Me and do not associate anything with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the rebellious. [24:55]

Ibn Kathir states in his tafsir of this ayah,

“This is a promise from Allāh to His Messenger that He would cause his Ummah to become successors on earth, i.e., they would become the leaders and rulers of mankind, through whom He would reform the world and to whom people would submit, so that they would have in exchange a safe security after their fear. This is what Allāh did indeed do, may He be glorified and exalted, and to Him be praise ….

Ar-Rabi` bin Anas narrated that Abu Al-`Aliyah said, “The Prophet and his Companions were in Makkah for nearly ten years, calling people in secret to worship Allāh Alone with no partner or associate. They were in a state of fear and were not instructed to fight until after they were commanded to migrate to Al-Madinah. When they came to Al-Madinah, then Allāh instructed them to fight. In Al-Madinah they were afraid and they carried their weapons morning and evening. This is how they remained for as long as Allāh willed…” Then Allāh revealed this ayah. He caused His Prophet to prevail over the Arabian Peninsula, and then they felt safe and put down their weapons. Then Allāh took His Prophet and they remained safe throughout the time of Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman, until what happened happened, and fear again prevailed over them, so they instituted a police force and guards. They changed, so their situation changed.”

Ahh, they changed, so their situation changed – that is the point we don’t want to understand. Ibn Kathir continues in his tafsir:

(But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the rebellious) means, `whoever then stops obeying Me after that, has stopped obeying the command of his Lord, and that is a great sin.' The Companions — may Allāh be pleased with them — were the most committed of people after the Prophet to the commands of Allāh and the most obedient to Allāh. Their victories were in accordance with their level of commitment. They caused the Word of Allāh to prevail in the east and the west, and Allāh supported them so much that they governed all the people and all the lands. When the people subsequently fell short in their commitment to some of the commandments, their strength and victory fell short accordingly ….

Why do I believe that foreign policy – unjust as it may often be – is not the issue? Because foreign policy doesn’t affect your personal approach to worshipping and obeying Allāh, and our worship is one of the main elements in our weakness and humiliation by the decree of Allāh. Is foreign policy and governmental corruption worldwide the source of the rage and frustration of the youth and those who set out on the path of violent extremism? Absolutely, there is no doubt about that. Does that excuse their violent outbursts or their killing of people on subways or airplanes? No.

Should foreign policy concerns then be the focus of our writing? I believe that for the vast majority of Muslims it should not and it is for this reason, on a Muslim blog, that I am focused on what I understand from the Qur’an and Sunnah – as presented previously and today – to be the chief source of our misery; our abandonment of our religion on both a personal and societal level. No amount of killing is going to change that and on this point we have to achieve a consensus.

Where do foreign policy concerns actually have value in discussion? They are valuable to those Muslims who have the ability to impact that policy through their political efforts. Some have falsely accused me and other Al-Maghrib teachers as following the idea of, “give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's,” yet it was a group of Al-Maghrib instructors who only last month met in Washington D.C. with representatives of DHS and NCTC (National Counter-Terrorism Center) to relay Muslim community concerns that affect us all – both here in the US and abroad. There are also other Muslims who have a passion and skill for the political scene and have succeeded in benefitting the Muslim Ummah in a variety of cases and policies. This is what we speak of when we say beneficial action. The brothers and sisters who are involved in these efforts limit their talk to what is beneficial and practical, and they act upon that in a way that is legal both Islamically and societally. But again, this applies to a small group of people and they are not complainers, but solution-minded individuals.

Answering the Common Question – What Can We Do?

So the answer to, “what can we do?” depends on your skill set. If you are passionate about helping the Muslims of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine – and we should all be passionate about helping the Ummah – there are a variety of beneficial things that you can do. Some have excellent jobs and they can work extra to donate large sums of money to help rebuild broken lives; others have excellent organizational skills and they can be on the ground helping people face-to-face in many Muslim countries with organizations like Islamic Relief, ICNA Helping Hands, Doctors without Borders. These are experiences that will change your life and you will definitely be “doing something.” Others are wonderful speakers and writers and can work to educate people about what is happening because many Americans do care about how their money is being spent and they do care about justice. This can result in policy changes. I have written a post on a similar issue in the past. Lastly, let us not forget about the very real needs in our own communities. We sometimes focus so much on distant lands and forget our own needy.

But the thing that we all need to do, and not enough of us are doing, is going back to our deen to understand it properly and to implement it correctly. This is a big “something,” but because it takes too long to achieve results, many impatient people, particularly youth, have no interest in hearing about it or doing it.

The thing that some of them do pursue, that has absolutely no benefit, is violent extremism. This extremism has been something that some misguided Muslims have been working at now for literally decades, and it has not resulted in anything but further harm. It is not jihad to kill your countrymen whether it be in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, America, Germany or England. These are nations that have a covenant with us. Thus to hurt their citizens in their lands, even if the nation has caused some harm or difficulty for Muslims, carries the great possibility of forfeiting Jannah:

من قتل معاهدا لم يرح رائحة الجنة ، وإن ريحها توجد من مسيرة أربعين عاما

On the authority of Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibnal ‘Aas who states that the Messenger of Allāh said, “Whoever kills someone who is protected under a covenant then he shall not even smell the scent of Paradise, even though its scent may be appreciated from a distance of over forty years.” (Bukhari)  And in another narration, “Allāh has forbidden him Paradise.” (Albani – Saheeh al-Jaami’)

ألا من ظلم معاهدا ، أو انتقصه حقه ، أو كلفه فوق طاقته ، أو أخذ منه شيئا بغير طيب نفس منه ، فأنا حجيجه يوم القيامة

And it has been narrated from some of the Companions and their children that the Prophet (saas) said, “I will argue on the Day of Judgment against the one who: does injustice to one of the people of the covenant, give him less than his right, ask him to do what he cannot bear, or takes anything from him without his permission.” (Abu Dawood, others – Sahih)

No doubt, a serious concern of today is that young people have become deceived into believing that it is jihad to kill their fellow countrymen. Yet, if they survive this period of youth without dying, they often repent as did many of the leaders of jihadi movements overseas, like Sayyid Imam al-Sharif of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad group, previously a partner with al-Qaeda. In his now famous refutation of al-Qaeda and its methodology, al-Sharif warns,

Oh, you young people, do not be deceived by the heroes of the internet, the leaders of the microphones, who are launching statements inciting the youth while living under the protection of intelligence services, or of a tribe, or in a distant cave or under political asylum in an infidel country. They have thrown many others before you into the infernos, graves, and prisons.

To Muslims living in non-Islamic countries eager to wage “jihad,” he advises:

I say it is not honorable to reside with people – even if they were non-believers and not part of a covenant, if they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum with a decent life and other acts of kindness – and then betray them, through killing and destruction. This was not in the manners and practices of the Prophet (saas).

His age cooled many of his raging emotions that many of our youth suffer from today. It also allowed him to apply wisdom in evaluating the consequences of actions. This is what we are saying now – agree or disagree about the evidences from Quran and Sunnah, you cannot ignore the consequences of your actions:

[Many] people hate America, and the Islamist movements feel their hatred and their impotence. Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?

The Etiquette of Disagreement

Lastly, when we disagree as Muslims we cannot use emotion and anger as evidences for anything. Our evidences as Muslims are the words of Allāh and His Messenger, as they were understood by the generations whom Allāh praised. Abandoning these and replacing them with misguided emotion and stories does nothing but lead many people astray, and there is no doubt that too many Muslims have gone down the road of violent extremism because of emotion combined with a superficial understanding of the religion.

There is a wisdom that the people of knowledge have gained in their studies over many years that will be hidden from you if you cannot be patient enough to hear them out. As ibn Abbaas once said, two types of people who will never gain knowledge, “the shy and the arrogant.” Too many comments on these forums demonstrate a great arrogance towards the people of knowledge and dispelling their words without giving them even the chance to explain or to elaborate. May Allāh give us manners so that we may benefit from that knowledge before it leaves this world.

I also wish to remind everyone that we are all Muslim and I have no doubt that if you read this article carefully, hoping to benefit from it that you have the good intention to benefit your Ummah. As your brother, I have certain rights and one of those is that you give me the benefit of the doubt and speak to me with the politeness due to any Muslim. I have not given any indication to being an innovator or a corrupt Muslim, and it is only disobedience to Allāh that you speak to me this way. I do not claim any right beyond that which any other Muslim commands. I say this for myself and for the other authors who spend a great deal of time working to help this Ummah.

I have not spoken ill of anyone else, and even in regards to Anwar al-Awlaki, I have not insulted him or called him disrespectful names. I have only described him as one who has subscribed to the path of violent extremism and I had enough respect to call him to repent with the best way that I could, reminding him of all the good he has done and saying that we all believe him to be an intelligent Muslim who no doubt wants good for the Muslims but has lost his way in this path. It benefits no one to use rude language and insulting names, and certainly the one who is sincere is his desire that his fellow Muslim turn away from sin would never use this manner. Do not allow Shaytan to come between us for indeed he has already come between us far too much and created too much enmity between us.

In conclusion, I ask Allāh to make this article and the one that preceded it of benefit to the Muslims and that whatever mistakes I have made therein will be shown to me in a good manner so that I may improve upon them. I ask Allāh to secure this Ummah from destroying itself from within and to protect us from attacking one another like wild animals, spilling each other’s blood and violating one another’s honor. I ask Him that He protect our youth from rage, anger and misguidance of all forms. I ask Him to give us the wisdom to educate them and to guide them to actions that are of benefit to them and to the rest of humanity. And lastly, I seek Allāh’s protection from being a source of fitnah to anyone else. Āmīn.

Words cannot describe the sadness and horror so many Muslims felt this weekend – a weekend when they, like other Americans, gathered with their families to give thanks – when they heard the news that a 19 year-old Muslim from Oregon tried to detonate a van filled with explosives among a crowd of innocent Americans celebrating the holidays. This event comes on the heels of another video recording by the extremist terror leader Anwar al-Awlaki encouraging the killing of Americans.

As an American Muslim educator, who has been actively working against violent extremism in the Muslim community for the past 7 years, I am thankful that it was someone from the Muslim community who initially alerted law enforcement to this individual when they saw signs of concern. This follows an excellent pattern of cooperation between Muslim congregations in the US and law enforcement officials wherein at least one-third of potential incidents were averted through active Muslim vigilance and self-patrol.

At the same time, this incident demonstrates that we have more work to do in the Muslim community to root out the attraction to the violent extremist ideology among some Muslims. Although, it would be impossible to root it out 100%, I believe we have to do more both locally and in the online world to destroy the roots of this disease of extremist radicalism. With this audio – and its written transcript – I hope to encourage other Muslim intellectuals, callers and scholars to take a stronger online presence to counteract those whom we have no access to in our local communities.

In this targeted audio, I wish to address those young Muslims out there who are either sympathizers or supporters of radical extremist Muslim figures. Of course, such individuals would disagree with this characterization and instead imagine these people to somehow be freedom fighters or courageous heroes who stand up to the oppressors of today. I fully intend to show you that you are wrong in this belief.

Firstly, Ibn Taymiyyah has correctly said, “One of the fundamental principles of Islam is to bring benefit (maslahah) to society, or at least to increase it if it cannot be complete – and to reduce harm to the greatest degree possible.” Amongst the many evidences for this principle are:

يُرِيدُ اللÙ'َهُ بِكُمُ الÙ'يُسÙ'رَ وَلَا يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الÙ'عُسÙ'رَ

Allāh intends every facility for you; He does not want to put you to difficulties.  [2:185]

عن أبي سـعـيـد الخدري رضي الله عنه ، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : لا ضرر ولا ضرار

Narrated Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allāh (saas) said, “[In Islam] There should be neither harming nor returning harm.” [Ibn Majah]

And also from the Seerah, we see the Prophet (saas) considering the consequences of his decisions such as in the treaty of al-Hudaybiyyah. Despite being upon the right and despite his capability to fight, some of the Companions asked why they should accept the humiliation of the conditions of the treaty, yet Allāh called it a manifest victory (فَتÙ'حًا مُبِينًا).

Yet we can see that the consequences of the extremist plots today are far from bringing any benefit or goodness either to the Muslim society or the general human society as a whole.  Let us consider just some of the consequences of each and every plot since 9-11. They have led to 2 destructive wars, the enactment of several governmental policies that have created both civil and legal hardships upon Muslim and non-Muslim alike, the imprisonment of countless young men and women and a general rise in anti-Islamic sentiment and actions in this country and in other Western nations that has even led to the abuse and burning of the Quran.  Someone even attempted to burn down the Islamic center in Oregon where the alleged young Somali extremist sometimes prayed. Can anyone in their right mind consider this to be for the good of anyone? How many people have left Islam or come to doubt it as a result of these acts?

Next, to characterize the conflicts of today – or the statements of their leaders – as a war against Islam is not a fair accusation. Among the reasons that this is a very unfair accusation are that firstly, though some of their leaders have made statements against the Islamic religion, others have not, and in fact some have gone out of their way to say they are not against Islam. President George Bush may have made several questionable remarks in his time, but he was also the first president to go to a mosque to deliver a speech in which he praised Islam. President Obama has followed suit by speaking to entire Muslim societies when he delivered speeches in Egypt and Indonesia.  Leaders in both the FBI and DHS have worked cooperatively with Muslims in this country to address concerns and sensitivities.

Secondly, these countries that are sometimes characterized as warring against Islam see themselves only as helping one group of Muslims against another group of Muslims, but not fighting all Muslims in total.  For example, how could we characterize the US as fighting Islam when they were the ones that helped to establish a shariah court system in Afghanistan and also  helped to liberate that same country from the clutches of communism?

Thirdly, America has not made religious hardships in the practice of Islam upon Muslims living within its boundaries, nor the Muslims in lands in which they have a dominant military presence. Examples include the acceptance of Islam by large numbers of servicemen in the Iraq wars, the sensitivity courses run by American agencies to educate their personnel on Islam, and that over half of US foreign aid goes to Muslim nations. Many Muslim preachers have rightly said that one can practice Islam more freely in the US than you can in a number of “Muslim” countries.

The real issue here is that America – as other countries and empires have done from time immemorial – is acting internationally upon its strategic interests.

As far as America is concerned, some are confused as to whether or not they are bound by the laws of the land. Yet there is no doubt that the Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by non-Muslims.  Muslim scholars consider citizenship, or an entry visa, to be a covenant (‘aqd) held between the citizen, or visa holder, and the state; an agreement which guarantees security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations such as obeying the laws of the land. We must remember that covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam.  Allāh commands us in the Quran:

يَا Ø£ÙŽÙŠÙ'ُهَا الÙ'َذِينَ آمَنُوا Ø£ÙŽÙˆÙ'فُوا بِالÙ'عُقُودِ

O you who believe! Fulfill your obligations. [5:1]

Ibn Kathir mentions in his tafsir of this ayah, “Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said that `obligations' here means treaties. Ibn Jarir mentioned that there is a consensus for this view. Ibn Jarir also said that it means treaties, such as the alliances that they used to conduct.”

And later in the same surah Allāh states:

وَلَا يَجÙ'رِمَنÙ'َكُمÙ' شَنَآنُ Ù‚ÙŽÙˆÙ'مٍ عَلَىٰ Ø£ÙŽÙ„Ù'َا تَعÙ'دِلُوا Ûš اعÙ'دِلُوا هُوَ Ø£ÙŽÙ‚Ù'رَبُ لِلتÙ'ÙŽÙ‚Ù'وَىٰ Û– وَاتÙ'َقُوا اللÙ'ÙŽÙ‡ÙŽ Ûš إِنÙ'ÙŽ اللÙ'ÙŽÙ‡ÙŽ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعÙ'مَلُونَ

And let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allāh. For Allāh is well-acquainted with all that you do. [5:8]

Ibn Kathir states the following in regards to this ayah, “… do not be driven by your hatred for some people into abandoning justice, for justice is ordained for everyone, in all situations. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Zayd bin Aslam said, “The Messenger of Allāh and his Companions were in the area of Al-Hudaybiyyah when the idolators prevented them from visiting the House, and that was especially hard on them. Later on, some idolators passed by them from the east intending to perform `Umrah. So the Companions of the Prophet said, `Let us prevent those (from `Umrah) just as their fellow idolators prevented us.' Thereafter, Allāh sent down this ayah.”

This issue is of critical importance in two predominant circumstances today: 1) where someone considers terrorizing or making war against their fellow citizens, and 2) when an American citizen or legal resident goes overseas to join a foreign army.  This second case has happened in three distinct places in the most recent past; Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan.  Yet some Muslims have been deluded into thinking that they “need” to do this in order to “help” their fellow Muslims. First, let us consider the following hadith:

حَدÙ'َثَنَا حُذَيÙ'فَةُ بÙ'نُ الÙ'يَمَانِ قَالَ

مَا مَنَعَنِي Ø£ÙŽÙ†Ù' Ø£ÙŽØ´Ù'هَدَ بَدÙ'رًا إِلÙ'َا Ø£ÙŽÙ†Ù'ِي خَرَجÙ'تُ أَنَا وَأَبِي حُسَيÙ'Ù„ÙŒ قَالَ فَأَخَذَنَا كُفÙ'َارُ قُرَيÙ'شٍ قَالُوا إِنÙ'َكُمÙ' تُرِيدُونَ مُحَمÙ'َدًا فَقُلÙ'نَا مَا نُرِيدُهُ مَا نُرِيدُ إِلÙ'َا الÙ'مَدِينَةَ فَأَخَذُوا مِنÙ'َا عَهÙ'دَ اللÙ'َهِ وَمِيثَاقَهُ Ù„ÙŽÙ†ÙŽÙ†Ù'صَرِفَنÙ'ÙŽ إِلَى الÙ'مَدِينَةِ وَلَا نُقَاتِلُ مَعَهُ فَأَتَيÙ'نَا رَسُولَ اللÙ'َهِ صَلÙ'ÙŽÙ‰ اللÙ'َهُ عَلَيÙ'هِ وَسَلÙ'ÙŽÙ…ÙŽ فَأَخÙ'بَرÙ'نَاهُ الÙ'خَبَرَ فَقَالَ انÙ'صَرِفَا نَفِي لَهُمÙ' بِعَهÙ'دِهِمÙ' وَنَسÙ'تَعِينُ اللÙ'ÙŽÙ‡ÙŽ عَلَيÙ'هِمÙ'

It has been reported on the authority of Hudhaifa ibnul-Yaman who said: Nothing prevented me from being present at the Battle of Badr except this incident. I came out with my father Husail (to participate in the Battle), but we were caught by the pagans of Quraish. They said: “(Do) you intend to go to Muhammad?”  We said: “We do not intend to go to him, but we wish to go (back) to Medina.”  So they took from us a covenant in the name of God that we would turn back to Medina and would not fight on the side of Muhammad (saas). So, we came to the Messenger of Allāh (saas) and related the incident to him. He said: “Both, of you proceed (to Medina); we will fulfill the covenant made with them and seek God's help against them.” (Muslim)

Here the Prophet (saas) prevented Hudhaifa and his father from participating with him so that they wouldn’t violate their promise that they gave to the pagans of Quraish. How much more are we then obligated to fulfill our trusts in the convoluted times of today? Secondly, we must also understand that each of these battles today is not a battle to raise up the banner of religion, but a civil war in which the true purpose is unclear – and we are forbidden from entering into civil wars where Muslim kills Muslim which is the overwhelming outcome in each of these three war zones.

عَنÙ' أَبِي هُرَيÙ'رَةَ

عَنÙ' النÙ'َبِيÙ'ِ صَلÙ'ÙŽÙ‰ اللÙ'َهُ عَلَيÙ'هِ وَسَلÙ'ÙŽÙ…ÙŽ Ø£ÙŽÙ†Ù'َهُ قَالَ Ù…ÙŽÙ†Ù' خَرَجَ مِنÙ' الطÙ'َاعَةِ وَفَارَقَ الÙ'جَمَاعَةَ فَمَاتَ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيÙ'َةً ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ†Ù' قَاتَلَ تَحÙ'تَ رَايَةٍ عِمÙ'ِيÙ'َةٍ يَغÙ'ضَبُ لِعَصَبَةٍ Ø£ÙŽÙˆÙ' يَدÙ'عُو إِلَى عَصَبَةٍ Ø£ÙŽÙˆÙ' ÙŠÙŽÙ†Ù'صُرُ عَصَبَةً فَقُتِلَ فَقِتÙ'Ù„ÙŽØ©ÙŒ جَاهِلِيÙ'ÙŽØ©ÙŒ ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ†Ù' خَرَجَ عَلَى أُمÙ'َتِي يَضÙ'رِبُ بَرÙ'َهَا وَفَاجِرَهَا وَلَا يَتَحَاشَى مِنÙ' مُؤÙ'مِنِهَا وَلَا يَفِي لِذِي عَهÙ'دٍ عَهÙ'دَهُ فَلَيÙ'سَ مِنÙ'ِي وَلَسÙ'تُ مِنÙ'هُ

On the authority of Abu Hurairah that he heard the Prophet (saas) say, “One who defected from the obedience to the ruler and separated from the main body of the Muslims – if he died in that state – would die the death of one belonging to the days of pre-Islamic ignorance (would not die as a Muslim). One who fights under the banner of a people who are blind to the cause for which they are fighting, or one who gets angered for a sectarian cause, or calls people to a sectarian cause, or fights for a sectarian cause – if he is killed in this manner, he dies as one belonging to the days of pre-Islamic ignorance. Whosoever attacks my community indiscriminately killing the righteous and the wicked among them, not refraining from hurting the believers due to their faith and one who does not fulfill the covenant made with those who have been given a pledge of security – he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.  (Muslim)

How do we help the oppressed and downtrodden in these times you might then wonder? We help them by calling upon Allāh with our sincere du’a remembering the authentic hadith:

عَنÙ' مُصÙ'عَبِ بÙ'نِ سَعÙ'دٍ عَنÙ' أَبِيهِ

Ø£ÙŽÙ†Ù'َهُ ظَنÙ'ÙŽ Ø£ÙŽÙ†Ù'ÙŽ لَهُ فَضÙ'لًا عَلَى Ù…ÙŽÙ†Ù' دُونَهُ مِنÙ' أَصÙ'حَابِ النÙ'َبِيÙ'ِ صَلÙ'ÙŽÙ‰ اللÙ'َهُ عَلَيÙ'هِ وَسَلÙ'ÙŽÙ…ÙŽ فَقَالَ نَبِيÙ'ُ اللÙ'َهِ صَلÙ'ÙŽÙ‰ اللÙ'َهُ عَلَيÙ'هِ وَسَلÙ'ÙŽÙ…ÙŽ إِنÙ'َمَا ÙŠÙŽÙ†Ù'صُرُ اللÙ'َهُ هَذِهِ الÙ'أُمÙ'ÙŽØ©ÙŽ بِضَعِيفِهَا بِدَعÙ'وَتِهِمÙ' وَصَلَاتِهِمÙ' وَإِخÙ'لَاصِهِمÙ'

Narrated Abu Mus’ab ibn Sa’d that he at one time believed he was more honorable than some of the other Companions of the Prophet (saas) whereupon the Prophet (saas) said, “Indeed, Allāh aids this community (Ummah) by the supplication, prayer and sincerity of its weak ones.” (Nasaa’i – Saheeh)

How will this happen you might wonder? When we ourselves return to the obedience of our Creator by calling to that which is good.

إِنÙ'ÙŽ اللÙ'ÙŽÙ‡ÙŽ لَا يُغَيÙ'ِرُ مَا بِقَوÙ'مٍ حَتÙ'َىٰ يُغَيÙ'ِرُوا مَا بِأَنÙ'فُسِهِمÙ'

Allāh does not change a people's condition unless they change what is in their hearts. [13:11]

Instead of neglecting Allāh’s command and fighting against the rulers, have we not turned to consider our own sins and our own distance from Him? If these people who fought against their rulers and who attack innocent and unaware civilians in such a cowardly manner by sneaking up on them to detonate hidden weapons – if these people were upon the truth then where is the victory? Where is the help of Allāh? Instead we only see more difficulties following their actions – and this is nothing but the result of sin and disobedience to the rule of Allāh. In the noble hadith we read,

قَالَ حُذَيÙ'فَةُ بÙ'نُ الÙ'يَمَانِ

قُلÙ'تُ يَا رَسُولَ اللÙ'َهِ إِنÙ'َا كُنÙ'َا بِشَرÙ'ٍ فَجَاءَ اللÙ'َهُ بِخَيÙ'رٍ فَنَحÙ'نُ فِيهِ فَهَلÙ' مِنÙ' وَرَاءِ هَذَا الÙ'خَيÙ'رِ شَرÙ'ÙŒ قَالَ نَعَمÙ' قُلÙ'تُ Ù‡ÙŽÙ„Ù' وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ الشÙ'َرÙ'ِ خَيÙ'رٌ قَالَ نَعَمÙ' قُلÙ'تُ فَهَلÙ' وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ الÙ'خَيÙ'رِ شَرÙ'ÙŒ قَالَ نَعَمÙ' قُلÙ'تُ ÙƒÙŽÙŠÙ'فَ قَالَ يَكُونُ بَعÙ'دِي أَئِمÙ'ÙŽØ©ÙŒ لَا ÙŠÙŽÙ‡Ù'تَدُونَ بِهُدَايَ وَلَا يَسÙ'تَنÙ'ُونَ بِسُنÙ'َتِي وَسَيَقُومُ فِيهِمÙ' رِجَالٌ قُلُوبُهُمÙ' قُلُوبُ الشÙ'َيَاطِينِ فِي جُثÙ'مَانِ إِنÙ'سٍ قَالَ قُلÙ'تُ ÙƒÙŽÙŠÙ'فَ أَصÙ'نَعُ يَا رَسُولَ اللÙ'َهِ إِنÙ' أَدÙ'رَكÙ'تُ ذَلِكَ قَالَ تَسÙ'مَعُ وَتُطِيعُ لِلÙ'أَمِيرِ وَإِنÙ' ضُرِبَ ظَهÙ'رُكَ وَأُخِذَ مَالُكَ فَاسÙ'مَعÙ' وَأَطِعÙ'

Narrated Hudhaifa ibnul Yaman, I asked the Messenger of Allāh (saas), “no doubt, we had an evil time (the days of Jahiliyya or pre-Islamic ignorance) and God brought us a good time (the Islamic period) through which we are now living. Will there be a bad time after this good time?” He (the Prophet) said: “Yes.”  I said: “Will there be a good time after this bad time?” He said: “Yes.”  I said: “Will there be a bad time after good time?” He said: “Yes.”  I asked: “How?”  Whereupon he said: “There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways. There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings.”  I asked: “What should I do if I should live to see that time O’ Messenger of Allāh?”  He replied: “You must listen to the ruler and carry out his orders, even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you must still listen and obey.” (Muslim)

قال شارح الطحاوية : ” أما لزوم طاعتهم وإن جاروا ، فلأنــه يترتب على الخروج عن طاعتهم من المفاســـد أضعاف ما يحصل من جورهــم ، بل في الصبر على جورهم تكفير السيئات ، ومضاعفة الأجور ، فإن الله تعالى ما سلطهــم علينا إلا لفساد أعمالنا ، والجزاء من جنس العمل

Ibn Abil-‘Izz al-Hanafi states on this issue: “And as for obeying the Rulers, even if they commit oppression, then this is because the evils and harms that arise on account of rebelling against them are numerous times more than that which occurs as a result of the oppression of the Rulers themselves. Rather, in having patience over their oppression there is expiation of sins, and a multiplication of the reward. For Allāh did not empower them over us, except due to the corruption in our actions, and the recompense for an action is its like (al-jazaa'u min jins al-'amal).” Thus if we don’t like our rulers, then we should look into the mirror to see what we don’t like in our own selves!

Hence, it is upon us to strive in seeking forgiveness, repenting and purifying our actions. Indeed, Allāh (swt) has said,

وَمَا أَصَابَكُمÙ' مِنÙ' مُصِيبَةٍ فَبِمَا كَسَبَتÙ' Ø£ÙŽÙŠÙ'دِيكُمÙ' وَيَعÙ'فُو عَنÙ' كَثِيرٍ

And whatever affliction befalls you, then it is from what your hands have earned, yet He pardons much. [42:30]

And His (swt) statement:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ نُوَلÙ'ِي بَعÙ'ضَ الظÙ'َالِمِينَ بَعÙ'ضًا بِمَا كَانُوا ÙŠÙŽÙƒÙ'سِبُونَ

And thus do we turn some of the oppressors against others on account of what they used to earn. [6:129]

Ibn Kathir quotes in regards to this ayah, “A poet once said, ‘There is no hand, but Allāh's Hand is above it, and no wrongdoer but will be tested by another wrongdoer’.”

Hence, if the subjects (of a state) wish to save themselves from the oppression of the tyrannical ruler, then let them abandon oppression themselves. And from Malik bin Dinar (who said) that it has come in some of the (previous revealed) Books of Allāh:

I am the King of the dominion, the hearts of the kings are in my Hand. So whoever obeyed me, I made them (the kings) a mercy over him, and whoever disobeyed me, I made them a vengeance upon him. So do not occupy yourselves with reviling the kings, but rather repent and I will make them compassionate upon you.

So our condition today as an Ummah is deplorable – we have abandoned tawhid on the greater societal scale, we are politically impotent, morally corrupt, devoid of manners, backward in the fields of science and technology – and this is the fault of each and every one of us. We have no other road to salvation except to turn back in repentance to Allāh and strive harder to be on the character of our beloved Messenger (saas). Killing innocent people and espousing extremist ideology is only distancing us further from Our Lord and from His Mercy.

As for Anwar al-Awlaki and those who spread his ideology of terror and extremism, I call them sincerely back to the path of cooperation upon good and piety. I ask you by Allāh to remember all the good that you did while you were here in America – your lectures on the Prophets, the Companions and the Hereafter resulted in the repentance and rectification of many people. You met many good people here in America – some who accepted Islam, and others who supported our causes even though they may not have followed our beliefs. How can you justify killing such innocent people who have done no wrong? I implore you by Allāh to consider what you had accomplished in the past and compare it to the record of death, destruction, humiliation and misery you have led people to since you have gone on the path you are currently on. We believe that you are a person of intelligence and that if you consider this you will certainly repent for what you have been saying and return to the true path of moderation and righteousness. If not then you shall be guilty on the Day of Judgment for grievous sins and for misleading many by your words. I further warn people from listening to your words and being influenced by you until you repent.

I close by reminding all my brothers and sisters of some words that are worth their weight in diamonds, words that one cannot ignore and ideas that must be considered carefully. I begin with the words of our beloved Messenger (saas):

عَنÙ' طَرِيفٍ أَبِي تَمِيمَةَ قَالَ

شَهِدÙ'تُ صَفÙ'وَانَ وَجُنÙ'دَبًا وَأَصÙ'حَابَهُ وَهُوَ يُوصِيهِمÙ' فَقَالُوا Ù‡ÙŽÙ„Ù' سَمِعÙ'تَ مِنÙ' رَسُولِ اللÙ'َهِ صَلÙ'ÙŽÙ‰ اللÙ'َهُ عَلَيÙ'هِ وَسَلÙ'ÙŽÙ…ÙŽ Ø´ÙŽÙŠÙ'ئًا قَالَ سَمِعÙ'تُهُ يَقُولُ Ù…ÙŽÙ†Ù' سَمÙ'َعَ سَمÙ'َعَ اللÙ'َهُ بِهِ ÙŠÙŽÙˆÙ'Ù…ÙŽ الÙ'قِيَامَةِ قَالَ ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ†Ù' يُشَاقِقÙ' ÙŠÙŽØ´Ù'قُقÙ' اللÙ'َهُ عَلَيÙ'هِ ÙŠÙŽÙˆÙ'Ù…ÙŽ الÙ'قِيَامَةِ فَقَالُوا Ø£ÙŽÙˆÙ'صِنَا فَقَالَ إِنÙ'ÙŽ Ø£ÙŽÙˆÙ'ÙŽÙ„ÙŽ مَا يُنÙ'تِنُ مِنÙ' الÙ'إِنÙ'سَانِ بَطÙ'نُهُ فَمَنÙ' اسÙ'تَطَاعَ Ø£ÙŽÙ†Ù' لَا ÙŠÙŽØ£Ù'كُلَ إِلÙ'َا Ø·ÙŽÙŠÙ'ِبًا فَلÙ'يَفÙ'عَلÙ' ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ†Ù' اسÙ'تَطَاعَ Ø£ÙŽÙ†Ù' لَا يُحَالَ بَيÙ'نَهُ وَبَيÙ'Ù†ÙŽ الÙ'جَنÙ'َةِ بِمِلÙ'ءِ كَفÙ'ِهِ مِنÙ' دَمٍ Ø£ÙŽÙ‡Ù'رَاقَهُ فَلÙ'يَفÙ'عَلÙ'

Narrated Tareef Abi Tamima: I saw Safwan and Jundub and his companions when Jundab was advising them. They said, “Did you hear something from Allāh's Messenger (saas)?” He said, “I heard him saying, 'Whoever does a good deed in order to show off, Allāh will expose his intentions on the Day of Resurrection (before the people), and whoever puts the people into difficulties, Allāh will put him into difficulties on the Day of Resurrection.'” The people said (to Jundab), “Advise us.” He said, “The first part of the human body to rot (after death) is the stomach, so he who can eat nothing but pure food (Halal and earned lawfully) should do so, and he who does as much as he can that nothing intervene between him and Paradise by not shedding even a handful of blood, (murdering) should do so.” (Bukhari)

So ask yourselves – do you really expect that Allāh will reward you for creating so many difficulties for so many people? Are you safe from the Hellfire when you have not only attempted to shed a handful of blood, but indeed barrels of blood? Consider the wise words of the great Tabi’ee Mutarrif ibn Abdillah who was asked by the Khawarij why he didn’t join them in their battle and he replied:

لأن يسألني الله تعالى يوم القيامة فيقول: يا مطرف ألا فعلت، أحب إلي من أن يقول لم فعلت

“For Allāh to ask me on the Day of Judgment, why didn’t you kill someone is far more beloved to me than for Him to ask me why I killed someone.”

And Allāh knows best.

****************************

Credit: I would personally like to thank my dear teacher and friend Sh. Waleed Basyouni for his time, mentoring and assistance in developing much of this post, yet I have no doubt that it could be better. Whatever among these points could have been said better, more concisely or more fluidly is through no fault of anyone but myself and for this I seek Allāh's forgiveness and ask His help to make me better and more useful to His creation.

Request: I encourage and freely give my permission that the text and accompanying audio be used – without modification – by any Islamic school or center to be distributed among their members for the benefit of protecting our young and old, our new Muslims and those who have grown old in Islam, from the threat of violent extremism. To download, please click here.