Connect with us

Aqeedah and Fiqh

UPDATED! The Permissibility of Zakat for Islamic Dawah Organizations: A Detailed Analysis

Avatar

Published

on

zakah.gif*The conclusion or answer to the question of permissibility can be found towards the bottom of this article, after an analysis of the many opinions on this issue. Ultimately, the author believes that in light of the evidences, it is permissible to give Zakah to Islamic Dawah organizations. Please take the time to read the discussion here carefully before taking a position one way or the other. JazakumAllah khair*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of the proofs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The preferred opinion:

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

And Allah knows best.

Written by

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

PDF Version for Distribution & Dissemination:

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

Sh. Tawfique Chowdhury is the founder of AlKauthar Institute, the unrelated Australian twin of AlMaghrib. A graduate of Islamic University of Madinah, he has also excelled in secular fields: An IT Project Manager, and soon to be a doctor as well (he is completing his medicine degree). He is very active in working with many Islamic organizations around the world and is also an international media contributor appearing on numerous TV and radio stations. The most notable are his appearances on ABC Asia Pacific, AlMajd Channel and the Islam Channel in the UK, where his lectures are frequently shown.

36 Comments

36 Comments

  1. Amad

    Amad

    October 24, 2007 at 8:22 AM

    jazakAllahkhair Shaykh Tawfique…

    I really believe that this analysis is of great significance to the Muslim communities in the West. Everyday is a struggle for our institutions, our schools, our dawah organizations, etc. to just survive financially. Historically, by earmarking most of our Zakat for needy causes outside America (and no doubt they are needy), we do miss out on building what we need to sustain the future generations of Muslims in the West.

    I hope inshallah that Shaykh Tawfique’s message is spread far and wide so that it may help sustain the next generation of activities and institutions for the protection and betterment of Muslims in the West.

  2. Avatar

    MR

    October 24, 2007 at 10:00 AM

    Wow. You had the daleel on lock, mashaAllah!

    So now what organizations qualifies as an “Islamic Dawah Organization”?

  3. Avatar

    Alex

    October 24, 2007 at 10:53 AM

    Salaam ‘alaikum,

    Assuming that one accepts the legitimacy of the third opinion, there is a lot that has to be worked out in order to actualize such a ruling.

    -Since Zakat is an act of worship and some Muslim organizations are not all that they should be- how much research into the organization should the individual Muslim do in order to insure that their ibadah is accepted?

    -What sort of organizations fall under the definition of fisabilillah? And perhaps more importantly, is that a decision that can be left up to the individual Muslim?

    -What organizations would definitely not qualify?

    -Would it be better to have an oversight committee made up of Ulema and financial professionals to certify organizations that wish to receive zakat funds?

    And I’m sure there’s a lot that I’ve missed.

  4. Avatar

    Comments of Muhammad al Jibaly

    October 24, 2007 at 11:52 AM

    The following is from Muhammad Jibaly’s mailing list ..I have only quoted what is relevant ..

    Jibaly said:
    The author brings many examples where the Prophet (S) considered hajj expenses as legitimate “fee sabeel-illaah” zakaah expenditure. There is little difference among the `ulamaa that hajj counts as “fee sabeel-illaah”, and bringing all those hadeeths serves only to diffuse the issue and make it appear as though there are so many violations to the understanding that “fee safeel-illaah” refers only to the physical struggle for Allaah’s cause.

    The author then brings a lone example other than hajj: The Prophet (S) gave from the sadaqah camels as blood-money to a family whose family-head was killed and his killer was not known. None of the reports I saw in al-Bukhaaree and Muslim indicate that these “sadaqah” camels were “zakaah” camels. And even if they were, this incident can be explained so as not to conflict with the established shar’ee rule regarding “fee sabeel-illaah”: that the deceased’s family was eligible for zakaah under the “mu’allafati quloobuhum” (those who need to be fortified in Islaam) category or the “needy” category. The author waves off the latter possibility as mere conjecture! And why is that? Is he only seeking a conclusion that serves his organization’s needs? The correct fiqhee rule is that an established legislation cannot be overridden by doubts, not that doubts can override the legislation! Since there are doubts in this case as to why the Prophet (S) used the zakaah fund (if it was zakaah), we cannot use this example to override the shar’ee rule regarding “fee sabeel-illaah”.

    Just before his conclusion, the author cites a long quotation from Sayyid Qutub which, in essence, cancels the eight categories mentioned in the aayah of soorat at-Tawbah, making “fee sabeel-illaah” inclusve to most of them! Is Sayyid then, to our friend the author, the final word and “Hujjat ul-Islaam” in this and other issues of Islaam? We seek Allaah’s protection from misguidance.

    A very important note that our Shaykh al-Albani (r) often emphasized is that those who try to widen the scope of “fee sabeel-illaah” provide a great “service” to wealthy Muslims who are reluctant to give any sadaqah besides the required zakaah (if they give it at all). They essentially tell them: “You only need to pay your zakaah, and we will apply it to all paths of good. You do not have to pay anything extra for building schools and masjids, paving roads, different forms of da’wah, etc.” This is far from being true. The welathy Muslimd have a great obligation: to spend much more than the required zakaah for supporting various Islamic projects. Otherwise, Allaah (T) would deprive them of their wealth like He deprived the farmers mentioned in Soorat Noon.

  5. Avatar

    Islam Blog

    October 24, 2007 at 12:58 PM

    Salaamualaykum,

    Here are some additional fataawa relevant to the issue:

    Giving zakaat to a primary school which is in need of funds
    http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=6977&ln=eng

    Printing the Qur’aan is not one of the things that zakaah should be spent on
    http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=21797&ln=eng

    Building mosques from zakaah funds
    http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=13734&ln=eng

    Jazakallah for post. It was very educative

  6. Avatar

    Abu Bakr

    October 24, 2007 at 10:38 PM

    Assalamu Alaykum

    Firstly, I must say that I respect Sh. Tawfique and he has made a good case for his view.

    However, with all due respect, although I feel the words of Sh. Jibaly were a bit harsh I agree with his conclusion. In particular, for some time, I have also felt as Sh. Jibaly mentions:

    ((A very important note that our Shaykh al-Albani (r) often emphasized is that those who try to widen the scope of “fee sabeel-illaah” provide a great “service” to wealthy Muslims who are reluctant to give any sadaqah besides the required zakaah (if they give it at all). They essentially tell them: “You only need to pay your zakaah, and we will apply it to all paths of good. You do not have to pay anything extra for building schools and masjids, paving roads, different forms of da’wah, etc.” This is far from being true. The welathy Muslimd have a great obligation…))

  7. Avatar

    Ardit

    October 25, 2007 at 1:06 AM

    As far as i know the mufti of Saudi Arabia, al-Shaykh, has given a similar fatwa, permitting the zakah per the purpose of dawa or islamic institution.

  8. Avatar

    Tawfique

    October 25, 2007 at 1:07 AM

    Assalamualiakum all

    I will try and answer most of the comments inshaAllah, however let me start off with the arguments and aspersions raised on the article.

    Let me start off which the attempt at refuting the content of the article by Sh Md AlJibaly. With all due respect to the Sheikh, he is a friend of mine, however the arguments he provides are not strong in the least bit and some of them are plainly argumentative without any point being made. Let me take each argument step by step:

    Our beloved Sheikh hafidahullah says: “The author brings many examples where the Prophet (S) considered hajj expenses as legitimate “fee sabeel-illaah” zakaah expenditure. There is little difference among the `ulamaa that hajj counts as “fee sabeel-illaah”, and bringing all those hadeeths serves only to diffuse the issue and make it appear as though there are so many violations to the understanding that “fee safeel-illaah” refers only to the physical struggle for Allaah’s cause.”

    This is incorrect. Rather, there is a huge amount of difference amongst the scholars that Hajj is included in the ‘fi-sabeelillah’ category. Infact the vast majority of the madhabs and including as Ibn Qudamah rahimahullah says, the hanbali madhab as well, as he leaves the established narration from Imam Ahmed about including Hajj in the fi-sabelillah category and chooses the opinion that it is not included. Even a cursory look at the books of fiqh of each madhab will show that. So how can it therefore be said that “there is little difference among the `ulamaa that hajj counts as fee sabeel-illah”? Similarly, I quoted in the article the statement of Imam Abu Ubaid in his book AlAmwaal pg 723 wherein he says: “And the ulema are not upon this, and I do not know of anyone who has given the fatwa that Zakat should be given to those going for Hajj.” So again, how can it be said that there is little difference amongst the ulema that fi-sabeelillah includes Hajj? Rather, there is a lot of difference and it is precisely this reason why I mentioned all the proofs that exist out and all the existing hadeeths and narrations to show that hajj is indeed from the fi-sabeelillah category – and not as you state – “to diffuse the issue”!

    Then the sheikh argues: “The author then brings a lone example other than hajj: The Prophet (S) gave from the sadaqah camels as blood-money to a family whose family-head was killed and his killer was not known. None of the reports I saw in al-Bukhaaree and Muslim indicate that these “sadaqah” camels were “zakaah” camels. And even if they were, this incident can be explained so as not to conflict with the established shar’ee rule regarding “fee sabeel-illaah”: that the deceased’s family was eligible for zakaah under the “mu’allafati quloobuhum” (those who need to be fortified in Islaam) category or the “needy” category. The author waves off the latter possibility as mere conjecture! And why is that? Is he only seeking a conclusion that serves his organization’s needs? The correct fiqhee rule is that an established legislation cannot be overridden by doubts, not that doubts can override the legislation! Since there are doubts in this case as to why the Prophet (S) used the zakaah fund (if it was zakaah), we cannot use this example to override the shar’ee rule regarding “fee sabeel-illaah”.”

    With all due respect, to recollect the fiqhi arguments that were presented by that point, it may have been a single incident from the hadeeth that I reported, but it was by no means the only proof that was presented by that point. By that point, I had already shown that:
    a. There is no authentic hadeeth that fi-sabeelillah is only restricted to physical jihad.
    b. That nothing authentic is established from the Prophetic guidance on this matter.
    c. That even in the Quran, fi-sabeelillah has been used in over 8 different verse for general good and not just for physical warfare.
    d. That the ijmaa of the companions is that hajj is included in the category of fi-sabeelillah showing that it is not just as simple as physical struggle only.

    Also, as for the fact that the camels were camels of Zakat and not of any other charity, is that in the Urf of the shariah, when sadaqah is mentioned in the the ma’rifah form – al-sadaqah – it usually and almost always means the obligatory sadaqah i.e. Zakat. Examples of this is: in the verse of surah tawbah, verse 60 wherein Allah starts the verse by saying: Innama alsadaqaatulil fuqaraa… and others. Also I personally myself have yet to find a narration where in Ibilus-Sadaqah is mentioned and it does not mean the camels of obligatory charity (i.e. Zakat). Also the discussion presented by ibn Hajr in FathulBari for that hadeeth as in alFath (12/235) and by alQurtubi in alMufhim (5/15-16) shows that the ulema understood the hadeeth to mean that the camels were from Zakat.

    Secondly, why did I dismiss the argument that the camels were given to the family of the dead by way of mu’allafati qulubihim or being from the faqeer category – because of the following reasons:
    1. Ibn Hajr mentions in AlFath (12/235) that a number of ulema and fuqaha who did indeed reject the arguments since there is no proof to limit the understanding of the hadeeth to the zakat being given for being poor or mua’llafati quloobihim.
    2. There is little justification for giving 100 camels (!) to the poor. Yes if a family is poor – give him 2, 3, 5, or even 10 camels if you so wish. But 100 camels? Does this not seem even slightly farfetched that Rasulullah sallallahu aliahi wa sallam would give so many camels by way of zakat to a family for being poor? Rather, it as AlQurtubi states in alMufhim (12/15-16) when he comments on this hadeeth saying: “Truly he did this on account of his noble nature, perfect governance, in order to achieve the good and ward off all harm, to quell any argument and to rein in the emotions and upon the inability to establish the truth (i.e. the punishment of manslaughter) due to lack of clarity in the matter (i.e. not knowing who the killer was).”
    3. Another reason that it is clear that the 100 camels from Zakat was not given because of being poor or for being mu’allafi qulubihim and that this is a very weak argument and essentially conjecture and speculation, is what Imam Nawawi rahimahullah mentions in Sharh Sahih muslim in the explanation of this hadeeth and he clearly says: “And the saying of some of them that the guardians of the dead were in need (poor), from those deserving of Zakat, then this is a futile argument since this (100 camels) is a huge amount that is not given to a singular beneficiary of Zakat as against the noblemen of a tribe and also because, he (the narrator) called it Dee’ah (blood money). And also the ta’weel of some of them that he (the Prophet sallallahu aliahi wa sallam) gave it to them from the portion of the Mua’llafati quloobihim from Zakat to soften their hearts perhaps that they may accept Islam, then this is weak! This is because it is not permissible to give the zakat to the disbeliever [Translator’s comment: This is the opinion of the vast majority of the ulema] so the chosen argument is what we have mentioned from the majority, that he purchased it from the camels of (obligatory) charity [Translator: Imam Nawawi mentions this as his preferred opinion since he is upon the opinion of the Shafiyyah that Zakat is not to be given to all worthy causes].” [Sharh Sahih Muslim (11/150)]
    4. What we are arguing with is with the dhahir [Tr. clear, apparent] wording of the hadeeth and our argument is dhahir whereas your argument is an extension upon the nass [Ar. Text] and upon the qaaidah that says: A’yee amr dakhala fihi-ihtimaal batala bihi al-istidlal – which every argument that enters upon it uncertainty, then to use it as a proof is false. So the argument of Sh Muhammad here is not dhaahir and is ziyaadah (extra and extension) of the text and that is muhtamal (speculative) and thus weak in argument.
    5. As for what Sh Muhammad says: “The correct fiqhee rule is that an established legislation cannot be overridden by doubts, not that doubts can override the legislation! Since there are doubts in this case as to why the Prophet (S) used the zakaah fund (if it was zakaah), we cannot use this example to override the shar’ee rule regarding “fee sabeel-illaah” then this argument is absolutely unbelievable! Here you are doing istidlal bi ma’rad alKhilaaf (using the point of difference as if it is an established proof in and of itself)! This is plainly incorrect. Since when has it been an issue of ‘established legislation’? The whole argument of my article is that this is NOT established legislation – so how can someone use the point of difference that I am showing and clarifying in the article to argue that I am wrong?? My argument from the hadeeth is not ‘doubts’, it is holding on to the dhaahir of the text of the hadeeth which is an established point of proof in usul-ul-fiqh and not ‘doubt’.
    6. As for what Sh Muhammad says: “The author waves off the latter possibility as mere conjecture! And why is that? Is he only seeking a conclusion that serves his organization’s needs?” – With all due respect, this is a low blow! I would urge that the Sheikh keeps his arguments on the fiqh dimensions of the article and not speculate on intentions and amaanah behind writing this article. This not a place that anyone should attempt to go to and throws aspersions on people’s characters. This is just not on!

    Then the Sheikh says: “Just before his conclusion, the author cites a long quotation from Sayyid Qutub which, in essence, cancels the eight categories mentioned in the aayah of soorat at-Tawbah, making “fee sabeel-illaah” inclusve to most of them! Is Sayyid then, to our friend the author, the final word and “Hujjat ul-Islaam” in this and other issues of Islaam? We seek Allaah’s protection from misguidance.”

    This is argumentative and raising hue and cry for what? Just because I mentioned Sayyid Qutb? By that time, I had already spent 8 pages making my point already and I only mentioned him since his comment was in agreement with the point I was trying to make and he phrased it in an emphatic manner, not for any non-reason. Since when have I said he is hujjah and or hujjatul-islam?? Sheikh Muhammad, this is quite clearly inappropriate and not required and frankly I expected more from a refuation. I never used Sayyid Qutb’s argument to prove my case, I merely stated it in the context of showing how the earlier commentators would understand the verse from the perspective of their own situation and the later ones – from there’s. Please read my last paragraph and you will see the context. Ultimately, I ended my argument with the narration from Ibn Umar and not from Sayyid Qutb – and there in that is the clarity. So please, there is no need to taint the article with speculation and raising hue and cry and as if I have misled people just simply because of quoting Sayyid Qutb! Out of 9 pages of proofs and adillah, and one quote from Sayyid Qutb and this becomes a point of interest? This is simply amazing!

    Lastly, the sheikh says: “A very important note that our Shaykh al-Albani (r) often emphasized is that those who try to widen the scope of “fee sabeel-illaah” provide a great “service” to wealthy Muslims who are reluctant to give any sadaqah besides the required zakaah (if they give it at all). They essentially tell them: “You only need to pay your zakaah, and we will apply it to all paths of good. You do not have to pay anything extra for building schools and masjids, paving roads, different forms of da’wah, etc.” This is far from being true. The welathy Muslimd have a great obligation: to spend much more than the required zakaah for supporting various Islamic projects. Otherwise, Allaah (T) would deprive them of their wealth like He deprived the farmers mentioned in Soorat Noon.”

    Again, this is simply not a point to disprove an opinion of fiqh. What the sheikh is mentioning is relevant to those ill informed zakat agents who when collecting the zakat from the rich, do not clarify the truth to them, that the zakat is not enough, rather more is required. So they should be corrected in their advice to the rich when taking money from them, not that, this point itself is an argument to disprove the validity of the opinion itself.

    Wallahu alim. I am not on the Sheikh’s list, so pls send this to the list. Jzk.

    Tawfique

    • Avatar

      Islam Blog

      February 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM

      Why there are too many “�” in your comment?

  9. Avatar

    aarij

    October 25, 2007 at 1:50 AM

    argh, my comment got caught in Akismet’s faulty spam filter!

    I suggested for the MM crew to please have these articles by the Shuyookh available as PDFs so it’s easy to print them out and read them. Reading a looong entry on a blog is mind-numbing at times :(

    e.g. http://trueword.wordpress.com/downloads/

  10. Avatar

    Tawfique

    October 25, 2007 at 2:31 AM

    Well done Alex, your questions are very pertinent mashaAllah.

    – You asked: “Since Zakat is an act of worship and some Muslim organizations are not all that they should be- how much research into the organization should the individual Muslim do in order to insure that their ibadah is accepted?” Well, a person is required by the shariah to ascertain that the recipient is genuine. This means to look into the needs of the person and that which is clear and apparent from the recipient. There is no requirement to open up people’s hearts and look into their chests, or to ask for detailed analysis of their accounts. So, as long as a person is reasonably sure that a person is poor and needy, then the zakat can be given to him in reasonable amounts. Same should be the case with dawah organizations. So saying, I encourage all dawah organizations in general to lift their level of transparency and accountability by having annual reports or AGMs or other sources and means that clarify to the public that they are collecting zakat and sadaqah from. I am aware that this is being done by many organizations already.

    – You asked: “What sort of organizations fall under the definition of fisabilillah? And perhaps more importantly, is that a decision that can be left up to the individual Muslim?” This is an important issue. Generally the zakat is not left upon individuals to decide on who is or isn’t needy. It is the responsibility of the muslim government and amir. If there is no muslim government, then the responsbilty is on each community to come together and have central zakat collection points to enforce the maslahah of zakat. Lastly, failing this, then nothing is left except for each individual to exercise his or her best judgement. If this can be done regarding the poor and who the poor are, then so too it can be done regarding dawah organizations as well.

    – You asked: “What organizations would definitely not qualify?” those organizations that are clearly misusing funds, or have enough already or are not doing enough for the money with them. I am sure Allah will show those that are more worthy from the less worthy and thus make it clear in time which organizations are more worthy than others. Wallahu alim.

    -you asked: “Would it be better to have an oversight committee made up of Ulema and financial professionals to certify organizations that wish to receive zakat funds?” Yes definitely. This definitely what is required – a central zakat collection and distribution agency in each community consisting of ulema and professionals for zakat auditing of individuals and businesses and then delivery of these funds to all suitable recipients.

    Wallahu alim.

    Abu yusuf

  11. Amad

    Amad

    October 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM

    ((A very important note that our Shaykh al-Albani (r) often emphasized is that those who try to widen the scope of “fee sabeel-illaah” provide a great “service” to wealthy Muslims who are reluctant to give any sadaqah besides the required zakaah (if they give it at all). They essentially tell them: “You only need to pay your zakaah, and we will apply it to all paths of good. You do not have to pay anything extra for building schools and masjids, paving roads, different forms of da’wah, etc.” This is far from being true. The welathy Muslimd have a great obligation…))

    With all due respect, Shaykh Abu Bakr, and Sh. Jibaly as well, the above-quoted contains an emotional appeal of sort, it is not a point of fiqh or a refutation of an evidence. This is merely a distraction from the info. presented.

    And even from a non-fiqhi perspective, this line of reasoning is faulty. We have to first try to make the wealthy Muslims to just pay the obligatory Zakah, before being concerned about a reduction in Sadaqah. We all know that the percent of Muslims who keep up with Zakah, esp. the rich guys, is small. And even if we can “sell” the organizational support idea and make them complete their obligation, that will be a victory for them and for the Muslims. Because otherwise they may have had not paid anything– in sadaqah or Zakah. That is the unfortunate reality of the situation.

  12. ibnabeeomar

    ibnabeeomar

    October 25, 2007 at 1:32 PM

    this may be too specific of a question for the topic at hand, but it came to my mind when reading this, what about how the actual dawah organization uses the funds? for example, someone may be starting a dawah project and they have various expenses like print materials, website, etc. if they choose to say pay extra for a fancy website, would something like that make a difference in their accepting of zakaat for the organization?

    jazakallahu khayr

  13. Amad

    Amad

    October 25, 2007 at 1:46 PM

    Aarij, the PDF file for the article has been added now (see bottom of article)

  14. Tawfique

    Tawfique

    October 25, 2007 at 10:38 PM

    Article updated with crucial additional quote from imam nawawi refuting those who use the hadeeth of abdullah bin sahal’s blood money. Jzk

  15. Avatar

    Abu Adam

    October 26, 2007 at 9:44 AM

    Assalaamu Alaykum,

    I have a question about this:

    Da’wah organisations (in the form we know today) have existed for decades. Other Islamic organisations have existed for hundreds of years.
    Zakah has existed for 1400 years.

    So why do we have a student give a fatwa on this subject only now?
    Where are the fatwas from the scholars (i mean real scholars – in the proper sense of the word) on the subject??

    I don’t understand this….

    Thanks,

    Wasalaam

    Abu Adam

  16. Avatar

    Tawfique

    October 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM

    Jazakallahulkhair Abu Adam, but it seems you havn’t read the article properly.

    Please read the article carefully and you will find all the details of all the real scholars who have given tens of fatwas on this including full references. I believe its on page 3.

    Jzk.

    Tawfique

  17. Avatar

    Tawfique

    October 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM

    Ibnabeeomar you made a very valid question there. Generally it goes back to the one running the organisation and the person giving it to be careful to not misuse funds.

    Remember my friend: Ultimately there is something called fatwa and before all of that, there is taqwa!

    Tawfique

  18. Amad

    Amad

    October 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM

    salam… I love all the catch phrases coming out on MM:

    -Taqwa before Fatwa
    -Sending a Knee-Mail to Allah (Sajdah)

  19. ibnabeeomar

    ibnabeeomar

    October 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM

    jazakallahu khayr!

  20. AnonyMouse

    AnonyMouse

    October 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM

    We should have a “Catchy Islamic phrases” post (or page!) :p

  21. Avatar

    Mahdi Bray

    October 28, 2007 at 9:59 PM

    Very interesting read

    Thanks for posting this

  22. Amad

    Amad

    October 28, 2007 at 10:39 PM

    Welcome Imam Mahdi to MM. JazakAllahkhair for stopping by. You are doing a wonderful service for the Muslims… may Allah assist you in all your endeavors. I hope everyone visits your blog and keeps up with the efforts inshallah:

    http://mahdibray.wordpress.com/

  23. Avatar

    Mahdi Bray

    October 30, 2007 at 3:50 PM

    Thank you Brother Amad. I encourage you all to continue the good work that you all have been doing as well

  24. Pingback: muslimmatters.org » And One Year Ago, MM was Born

  25. Avatar

    IF

    May 29, 2008 at 6:04 AM

    salaams,

    i would love to hear the opinion of shaykh yasir on this topic – as in one of his talks he clearly stated that he was against this opinion and that can be heard on the below talk.

    http://www.audioislam.com/index.php?subcategory=Zakat

    i don’t know if the shaykh has changed his mind as he has changed alot of his opinions recently.

  26. AbdulHasib

    AbdulHasib

    May 29, 2008 at 9:01 AM

    @ brother ‘IF”

    ‘alaikum as-salam wa rahmatullah,

    If you ARE from madeenah.com please pass on a message to those brothers to have some adab and learn some manners in asking a question, and learning some adab ul ikhtilaaf.

    Secondly, your ‘inquiry’ certainly does not come off as intending to seek knowledge but rather try to make some kind of ‘point.’

    I urge you and the brothers in Madeenah.com that If you have honest disagreements that is alhamdulillah MORE than fine, but when one can’t even show respect in expressing those disagreements with people who call to the ‘Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah wal Athaar, and in advising them with HIKMAH. (hikmah means to put something in it’s proper place, to say the right thing to the right person at the right time in the right context in the right way, intending good).

    May Allah bless you and those brothers, i urge you to truly Fear Allah and exercise hikmah when attempting to give ‘nasiha’ – whose root even MEANS Sincerity.

    MORE so with regards to speakers and students of knowledge, and i’m sure the teachers of the students at Madinah.com would vouch in ardently calling the students to give these type of nasiha in private with such person.

    Thirdly, if we disagree with someone in the realms of fiqh and, other areas, it does not mean an all inclusive pass for us to bring a critize-fest in all of their opinions. We are human beings in need of nasiha – even if the nasiha comes from a person of less knowledge than us, we are all in need of it.

    And lastly, as students or lay, we need to know our role. We can’t but utter a few sentences in Arabic, have some basic fiqh and usool, read some books of hadith, and listened to a whole ton of lectures, and attend ‘forums of benefit’ online… It’s simple. Know your Role.

    As Ibnul Jawzi rahimahullah mentioned in Talbees Iblees – The Devil’s Deception, of the ways that shaytan deceives the son of Adam is that he busies himself with something that is good where as in reality he could be doing something that is BETTER.

    May Allah forgive us and grant us blessing in our affairs. Ameen.

    WAllahu ‘Alam

  27. Pingback: Retread: Zakat-ul-Fitr in Money | Zakat-ul-Maal to Islamic Organizations | MuslimMatters.org

  28. Avatar

    MR

    October 30, 2008 at 12:22 AM

    Salams
    The main issue of our time is there is no Islamic government, hence the state funding by bait-ul-maal doesn’t exists anymore to support Islamic projects and initiatives, and the rich Muslims are not doing enough to support them..

    It’s important to mention that Zakat is not the only charity in Shariah, rather its one specific kind of charity. Hence, we can divide Charity in two types:
    ■ Obligatory or Special Type Charities, e.g. Zakat (زكاة), Zakat-ul-Fitr (زكاة الفطر)
    ■ Voluntary or General Charities, e.g. Sadaqat (صدقات)
    There are differences in applications between these two types of charities. The Prophet (pbuh) gave money in charity to variety of reason, and number of them fell into Sadaqat. Zakat has rather very specific purpose. Sadaqa is very general in nature as the Prophet (pbuh) said: كلُّ معروفٍ صدقهٌ – “Every good thing is Sadaqa” [Sahih Bukhari/Muslim].

    Then, whatever is not covered under these two types of charities is to be provided by Bait-ul-Maal for general public welfare.

    Unfortunately, the bail-ul-maal is occupied by people like Zardari, so it seems some people who are trying to do good deeds are expanding scope of Zakat to get their funding, which should otherwise be covered from bait-ul-maal.

    Hence, it creates this paradox where contemporary scholars are trying to find means to support Islamic dawah and education and other activities. And I don’t blame em. However, we don’t see same level of intensity to collect zakat for jihad, which is the main purpose of zakat fi-sabeel-allah.. Why is that.. don’t we need it for that..

    Let say we can agree that because in current times, when all Muslim wealth and bait-ul-maal is occupied by agents of Taghoot, then Muslims can pool their Zakat money to do jihad fi-sableel-allah with his expended scope but with sincere and honest intention to spread or defend Islam with right methodology

    However, if we need to pay zakat fi-sabeel-allah, then should we sent it to mujahideen or give it to give to Islamic Centres of americas.. which is closer in meaning?

    and if ‘today’s circumstances’ are the basis, then whose circumstances are worse? mujahideens or islamic cetres of america..

    just a thought..

    and Allah knows best.

  29. Avatar

    Da'wah Organisations?

    July 28, 2009 at 6:55 PM

    I wonder what constitutes a da’wah organisation, are institutes such as al-Maghrib and al-Kauthar included under such an umbrella or would they come under the banner of businesses?

  30. Avatar

    AbuAbdullah

    September 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM

    Jazak Allahu kheirun, very informative article

  31. Avatar

    Johnny

    August 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM

    I am an American seeking more knowledge into Islam. I read the above analysis and find myself somewhat lost. I have two simple questions and would enjoy reading simplistic answers to these questions.

    Question # 1: Is it the opinion of the author that Islam is a “beautiful and perfect religion” or a widely held belief of Muslims from around the world? I am not questioning the “beauty” of Islam, but the “perfect” aspect of this comment.

    Question #2: Can the “fi-sabeelillah” aspect of Zakat donations include organizations or individuals that directly or indirectly fund, support, or participate in violent jihad?

  32. Avatar

    Islam Blog

    February 28, 2011 at 12:28 AM

    Assalamualaikum,

    It’s a very big article, I do not have any intermet connection and thats why I am browsing this website from a cyber cafe, can I make a PDF of this post for reading this full post on my home?

    Jazak

  33. Avatar

    Q8231171

    February 25, 2012 at 5:48 PM

    I think this is an important issue that needs to be discussed in detail especially by those Involved in public finance. In a society of Muslims Zakat would play a vital role in public finance as it would be one of the main sources of income of the state. I do not see why we tend to narrow the meaning of fi sabillah to just a physical fight. In my humble view any public expenditure that leads to the betterment of the society would fall into this category. Perhaps we need to consider the fact that social fulfillment leads to harmony and help people accept a given system of governance. Hence, if Zakat plays the vital role of fulfilling the needs of the society then it gives Muslims a reason to hold on to their belief while compelling the non-Muslims to think about Islam as a comprehensive solution to life both in this world and the hereafter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

#Islam

A Word On Muslim Attitudes Toward Abortion

Dr Abdullah bin Hamid Ali

Published

on

The Qur’an describes Muslims committed to its mores as “a moderate nation,” and that sense of balance qualifies them to stand as “witnesses over humanity” (Q 2:143). Contemporary Muslims revel in this assertion, especially when it seems that “Islam” proposes a via media solution to a highly polarizing subject as abortion. What currently constitutes “Islam” on a given topic, however, often reflects the personal prerogative apparently offered to the average Muslim by a list of diverse legal perspectives. In other words, the mere fact that multiple legal opinions exist on one or more topics is now taken as license to appropriate any one of them, without any deep ethical reflection on the implications of the opinion, however anomalous it may be.

“Islam is the golden mean between all ethical extremes” is what certain Muslims would assert. So if one extreme bars abortion under all circumstances and the other seeks to allow it throughout the duration of the pregnancy, one would assume that Islam must land somewhere in the middle, both forbidding and allowing abortion in certain circumstances. This moral assumption isn’t far from the truth. However, the mere existence of multiple opinions on a topic does not mean that each opinion has equal validity, nor does it mean that every opinion is valid for one to adopt. Similarly, “Islam” or “Islamic law” cannot be summed up into a simple formula like “majority rules” or “when in doubt about prohibition or allowance, the action is, therefore, merely disliked.”

Legal positivism plagues both religious and secular-minded people. Just as an act does not acquire its moral strength simply because it is legal, morally appropriate opinions are not always codified into law. If it is true that any unjust law is no law at all, where is the injustice and to whom is it being perpetrated against in the debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers? Is it deemed unjust to prevent a pregnant woman from disposing of an “insignificant lifeless part of her body” that no one other than herself should be able to decide what to do with? Or is one “depriving a helpless growing person” of the opportunity and right to exist after its Creator initiated its journey into the world? Does a law that prevents a woman impregnated by a family member or rapist from an abortion oppress her? Or does such a law protect the life of a vulnerable fetus, who, like other weak members of society, is expected to be protected by the strong? Does it do both or neither? And if one is taking the “life” of this fetus, what proof is there that it is a living creature?

While these are all extremely important questions, this missive is neither intended necessarily to answer them nor to resolve today’s raging political debate. The main goal here is to offer ideas that should be on the minds of Muslims when deciding to join such debates or promoting the idea that their “religion” provides the best solution to social polarization, when by “religion” we mean the opinion of a small minority of scholars in some place and time in Muslim history.

Islamic law is very sophisticated; the legislative process is not facile, nor is it a place where any Muslim is entitled to pragmatically select the opinions that he/she finds attractive and accommodating. It demands knowledge of particular aims, the ability to properly realize those aims in the lives of people, and understanding the epistemic and metaphysical foundations that ensure that judgments conform to coherent rationale. In other words, the laws of Islam and the opinions of jurists cannot be divorced from their philosophical and evidentiary underpinnings. Otherwise, the thread holding the moral tapestry of Islam together falls apart completely at its seams.

Is Abortion Lawful in Islam?

Many past and present have written about the Islamic view of abortion. The ancient scholars prohibited it at all stages of the pregnancy and made practically no exception. Some would later allow for it only if the mother’s life was in danger. That notwithstanding, six popular legal opinions exist regarding abortion:

  • Unlawful (haram), in all stages of the pregnancy.
  • Permitted (ja’iz), during the first 40 days but unlawful (haram) afterwards.
  • Disliked (makruh), before the passage of 40 days but unlawful (haram) afterwards.
  • Permitted (ja’iz), if it is from illicit intercourse (zina).
  • Permitted (ja’iz) without conditions, before 120 days.
  • Permitted only for a legitimate excuse.

The late mufti of Fez, Morocco, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Ta’wil (d. 2015) said,

The first opinion forbidding that during the [first] 40 [days] and beyond, regardless of whether or not it is due to an excuse, even if from illicit intercourse, is the view of the supermajority [of jurists].[1]

The Qur’an is a Book of Ethical Teaching

The reasons for the cavalier attitude among contemporary Muslims about abortion are multiple. The most significant reason may be that at times Islam is seen as a synonym for shariah. The truth, however, is that the shariah is only part of Islam. Islam covers law (fiqh), creed (aqidah), and ethics (akhlaq). Even though the Qur’an consists of laws, it is not a book of law. It is a book of ethical teachings. Merely 10%–12% of the Qur’an relates to legal injunctions. It is not characteristic of the Qur’an to enjoin upon Muslims to command what is “compulsory” or “recommended” and to forbid what is “unlawful” and “disliked.” What is common though is for it to command us to do what is “ma’ruf” and to avoid what is “munkar.”

“Ma’ruf” and “munkar” can be translated respectively as “what is socially commendable” and “what is socially condemnatory.” This is in spite of the fact that social acceptability and unacceptability are often subjective. This does not mean that the Qur’an is morally relativistic. It is quite the contrary. What this means, however, is that the Qur’an’s aim is not merely to teach Muslims what one can and cannot do. It means, rather, that the Qur’an has a greater concern with what Muslims “should” and “should not” do. For this very reason, the companions of the Prophet seldom differentiated between his encouragement and discouragement of acts by the juristic values of disliked, unlawful, recommended, and compulsory. Rather, if the Prophet encouraged something beneficial, they complied. And, if he discouraged from something potentially harmful, they refrained.

The Qur’an permits many actions. However, to permit an act is not equivalent to encouraging it. It permits polygyny (Q 4:3), the enslavement of non-Muslim war captives (Q 8:70), and marrying the sister of one’s ex-wife (Q 4:23). Similarly, some Muslim jurists validate marriage agreements wherein the man secretly intends to divorce the woman after a certain period of time known only to him.[2] This is the case, even though the average Muslim man is monogamous; practically no Muslim today believes it is moral to enslave a person; the vast majority of Muslims find the marriage of one’s sister-in-law upon the death of one’s wife to be taboo; and they chide men who marry with a temporary intention of marriage. If the mere existence of permission or legal opinion permitting a socially condemnable act is a legitimate reason to adopt it, why would Muslims be uneasy about these cases but inclined to take a different stance when it comes to abortion?

The proper Islamic position on any given issue of public or private concern should not only consider what the law or jurists have to say about the topic. Rather, one should also consider how theology and ethics connect with those laws or opinions. That is to say, one should ask, “What wisdom does God seek to realize from this injunction or opinion?” assuming that such a wisdom can be identified. Secondly, one need ask,

“Who and how many will be helped or harmed if this action is undertaken?”

The Qur’an is the primary source of Islam’s ethics. And, one often observes a major difference between its morality and the morality validated by certain jurists, often lacking a clear connection to Qur’anic and prophetic precepts. That notwithstanding, a juristic opinion can sometimes masquerade as one that is authentically Islamic, especially when it aims to appease or assuage a social or political concern. Consequently, one finds some contemporary scholars championing opinions simply­ because they exist, like that of mainstream Shafi’is who traditionally argued that the reason for jihad was to rid the world of unIslamic doctrines (kufr); or certain contemporaries who validated taking of the lives of innocent women, children, and other non-combatants in suicide bombings; those who endorsed the execution of Jews for converting to Christianity and vice versa;[3] or others who classified slaves as animals rather than human beings?[4] For, surely, there are Muslim jurists who validate each one of these opinions, despite their evidentiary weakness. Hence, simply because there is an opinion allowing for abortions does not necessarily mean that it is something Islam allows, even in cases of rape and incest.

When Does Life Begin?

Medieval Muslim scholars, naturally, lacked the scientific tools that we have today to determine whether or not the fetus growing in its mother’s womb was actually a viable creation and a living creature from conception. Other than when the fetus first showed signs of movement in its mother’s belly, scholars took their cues from the Qur’an and prophetic tradition on when the fetus possessed a soul or if it did so at all. For this reason, very few scholars have offered clear answers to the question of when human life begins, while they agreed that upon 120 days, the child is definitely a living person.

According to the Andalusian scholar of Seville, Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1148),

The child has three states: 1) one state prior to coming into [material] existence …, 2) a state after the womb takes hold of the sperm …, and 3) a state after its formation and before the soul is breathed into it …, and when the soul is breathed into it, it is the taking of a life. [5]

Al-Ghazzali (d. 1111) said,

Coitus interruptus (‘azl) is not like abortion and infanticide (wa’d) because it [abortion] is a crime against an actualized existence (mawjud hasil). And, it has stages, the first being the stage of the sperm entering into the womb, then mixing with the woman’s fluid, and then preparing for the acceptance of life. To disturb that is a crime. Then, if it becomes a clot (‘alaqah) or a lump (mudghah), the crime is more severe. Then, if the soul is breathed into it and the physical form is established, the crime increases in gravity. [6]

These are some of the most explicit statements from Medieval Muslim scholars; they deemed that life begins at inception. The Qur’an states, “Does man think that he will be left for naught (sudan)? Was he not a sperm-drop ejected from sexual fluid?” (75:36-37). In other words, the “sperm-drop” phase is the start of human existence, and existence is the basis for human dignity, as with other living creatures. The human being was a “sperm-drop.” If that is so, this strongly suggests that meddling with this fluid, even before the fetus begins to grow and develop limbs and organs, would be to violate the sanctity of a protected creature. The Qur’an further says, “Did We not create you from a despicable fluid? And then, We placed you in a firm resting place, until a defined scope” (Q 77:20-22). The use of the second person plural pronoun (you) in these verses strongly suggests that the start of human life begins at inception. This is not to mention the multiple verses forbidding one from killing one’s children due to poverty, fear of poverty, or out of shame or folly.

The Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) similarly offers sufficient indication that even though the fetus is not fully formed, it is still an actualized existence and living creature. The Prophet reportedly said, “The miscarried fetus will remain humbly lying with its face down at the gates of heaven saying, ‘I will only enter when my parents do.’”[7] Similarly, it is reported that when the second caliph ‘Umar b. al-Khattab ordered that an adulteress discovered to be pregnant be stoned to death, the companion, Mu’adh b. Jabal, said to him, “Even if you have a right to punish her, you do not have a right to punish what is in her belly.”[8] The Prophet and his followers after him never executed a pregnant woman guilty of a capital crime until she gave birth and someone had taken on the care of the child. In addition, they imposed a hefty fine on those who were directly responsible for a woman’s miscarriage.[9] All of this indicates that the fetus is to be respected from the time the male’s sperm reaches the ovum of the woman.

Imam Al-Razi’s Ethical Reflection on the Qur’anic Verse, 6:140

God says in the Qur’an, “Ruined are those who murder their children foolishly without knowledge and forbid what God has provided them with while inventing falsehoods against God. They have strayed and are not guided aright” (6:140).

About this verse, Imam Fakr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1210) comments,

Many issues relate to the verse: the first issue is that God mentioned, in the preceding verse, their murder of their children while depriving themselves of the sustenance that God provided them with. Then, God brings these two matters together in this verse while clarifying to them all that is a logical consequence of this judgment, such as ruin, folly, lack of knowledge, the deprivation of what God has provided them, false statements against God, straying, and the privation of guidance. So these are seven characteristics, each of which is an independent cause for censure. The first is ruin (khusran), and that is because a child is an immense blessing from God upon a person, so when one strives to terminate its existence, he/she suffers great ruin and especially deserves great censure in life and a severe punishment in the hereafter due to terminating its existence. Censure in life is warranted because people say one has murdered one’s child out of fear of it eating one’s food. And there is no censure in life greater than such. Punishment in the hereafter is warranted because the closeness resulting from childbirth is one of the greatest sources of love. Then, upon achieving it, one sets out to deliver the greatest of harms to it [the child], thereby committing one of the gravest sins. As a consequence, one of the greatest punishments is warranted. The second is folly (safahah), which is an expression of condemnable frivolousness. That is because the murder of the child is only committed in light of the fear of poverty. And, even though poverty is itself a harm, murder is a much graver harm. Additionally, this murder is actualized, while the poverty [feared] is merely potential (mawhum). So enforcing the maximum harm in anticipation of a potential minimal harm is, without doubt, folly. The third regards God’s saying, “without knowledge.” The intent is that this folly was only born of the absence of knowledge. And there is no doubt that ignorance is one of the most objectionable and despicable of things. The fourth regards depriving one’s self of what God has made lawful. It is also one of the worst kinds of stupidity, because one denies one’s self those benefits and good things, becoming entitled by reason of that deprivation of the severest torment and chastisement. The fifth is blaspheming God. And it is known that boldness against God and blaspheming Him is one of the cardinal sins. The sixth is straying from prudence (rushd) with relation to the interests of the faith (din) and the benefits found in the world. The seventh is that they are not guided aright. The benefit of it is that a person might stray from the truth but may return to proper guidance. So God clarifies that they have strayed without ever obtaining proper direction. So it is established that God has censured those described as having murdered children and denied what God has made lawful for them, with these seven characteristics necessitating the worse types of censure. And that is the ultimate hyperbole.[10]

The Ethical Contentions of a Moroccan Mufti

We have already quoted Shaykh Muhammad Al-Ta’wil of Morocco. Like the medieval scholars, he maintained a very conservative opinion on abortion, allowing it only if the mother’s life was at risk. The following is a list of his nine ethical contentions against abortion and those scholarly opinions allowing it. The bulk of what follows is a literal translation of his views. Regarding why abortion is immoral, he says:

  • Firstly, it is a transgression against a vulnerable creature who has committed neither sin nor crime, a denial of it from its right to existence and life that God has given it and Islam has guaranteed as well as the taking of a life in some situations.
  • Secondly, it is a clear challenge to God’s will and a demonstratively defiant act meant to stubbornly contend with God’s action, creative will, and judgment. And that manifests itself in the murder of what God has created, the voiding of its existence, and a commission of what He deems unlawful.
  • Thirdly, it a decisively demonstrative proof of hard-heartedness, the absence of mercy, and the loss of motherly and fatherly affection or rather the loss of humanity from the hearts of those who daringly undertake the act of abortion with dead hearts and wicked dark souls.
  • Fourthly, it is the epitome of self-centeredness, selfishness, narcissism, and sacrifice of what is most precious¾one’s own flesh and blood, sons and daughters¾to gratify the self and enjoy life and its attractions far away from the screams of infants, the troubles of children, and the fatigue resulting from them.
  • Fifthly, it is a practical expression of one’s bad opinion of God, the lack of trust in His promise to which He decisively bounded Himself to guarantee the sustenance of His creation and servants. It also shows ignorance of His saying, “And, there is not a single creature on earth except that God is responsible for its sustenance, just as He knows its resting place and place from which it departs. Every thing is in a manifest record (Q 11:6); as well as His saying, “And do not kill your children due to poverty. We will provide for you as well as for them” (Q 6:151); in addition to His saying, “And, do not kill your children out of fear of poverty. We will provide for them and for you” (Q 17:31). This is in addition to other verses and prophetic traditions that indicate that all provisions are in God’s control and that no soul will die until it exacts its sustenance in full as the Prophet said.
  • Sixthly, it is a bloody war against the Islamic goal, introduced by the Prophet and to which he called and strongly encouraged, of population growth and increase in posterity.
  • Seventhly, it undermines the aims of the Islamic moral code that considers the preservation of offspring to be one of the five essentials upon which the sanctified revealed moral code is built.
  • Eighthly, it goes against the nature to which God has disposed both animals and human beings to of love of children, childbearing, and the survival of progeny….
  • Ninthly, it is the grossest display of bad manners towards God and the epitome of ingratitude towards a blessing and the rejection of it. And that is because both pregnancy and children are among God’s favors upon His servants and among His gifts to the expectant mother and her husband.

These are some important matters of consideration. Every Muslim, woman, and man, will ultimately need to decide what burdens he/she is prepared to meet God with. While abortion is an emotionally charged matter, especially in Western politics, emotions play no role in the right or wrong of legislation. Although our laws currently may not consider a fetus aborted before its survival outside of the womb to be viable, the Muslim who understands that legal positivism does not trump objective or moral truths should be more conscientious and less cavalier in his/her attitude about the taking of life and removing the viability of life.


[1] Al-Ta’wil, Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Qasim. Shadharat al-Dhahab fi ma jadda fi Qadaya al-Nikah wa al-Talaq wa al-Nasab. Hollad: Sunni Pubs, 2010, p. 148.

[2] Muhammad b. ‘Abd Al-Baqi Al-Zurqani quotes Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr as saying,

They unanimously agreed that anyone who marries without mention of a particular condition while having the intention to remain with her for a period that he has in mind is permitted (ja’iz), and it is not a temporary marriage. However, Malik said this is not an attractive thing to do (laysi hadha min al-jamil). Nor is it part the conduct of moral people (la min akhlaq al-nas). Al-‘Awza’i took a solitary view saying that it is a temporary marriage. And, there is no good in it (la khayra fihi). ‘Ayyad stated it.

Al-Zurqani, Muhammad b. ‘Abd Al-Baqi b. Yusuf. Sharh al-Zurqani ‘ala Muwatta’ al-Imam Malik. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, (no date), 3/201.

[3] Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said about the prophetic tradition, “Kill whoever changes his lifepath”, “Some Shafi’i jurists clung to it concerning the killing of anyone who changes from one non-Islamic faith to another non-Islamic faith (din kufr)…”

Al-‘Asqalani, Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar. Fath Al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abd Al-Baqi Edition. Riyadh: Al-Maktabah Al-Salafiyyah, (no date), 12/272.

[4] Al-Ra’ini, Muhammad al-Hattab. Qurrah al-‘Ayn bi Sharh Waraqat al-Imam al-Haramayn. Beirut: Mu’assassah al-Kutub al-Thaqafiyyah, 2013, p. 78.

[5] Al-Wazzani, Abu ‘Isa Sidi al-Mahdi. Al-Nawazil Al-Jadidah Al-Kubra fi ma li Ahl Fas wa ghayrihim min al-Badw wa al-Qura al-Musammah bi Al-Mi’yar Al-Jadid Al-Jami’ Al-Mu’rib ‘an Fatawa al-Muta’akhkhirin min ‘Ulama al-Maghrib. Rabat: Wizarah al-Awqaf wa al-Shu’un al-Islamiyyah, 1997, 3/376.

[6] Al-Ghazali, Muhammad Abu Hamid. Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din. Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, p. 491.

[7] This is how Qadi Abu Bakr b. al-‘Arabi relates the report as related by Al-Wazzani in his Nawazil 3/376. In the Musnad of Abu Hanifah, however, the Prophet reportedly said, “You will see the miscarried fetus filled with rage.” When it is asked, “Enter Paradise”, it will respond, “Not until my parents come in [too].” Al-Hanafi, Mulla ‘Ali Al-Qari. Sharh Musnad Abi Hanifah. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1985, p. 252.

[8] Ibn ‘Asakir, Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan. Tarikh Madinah Dimashq wa Dhikr Fadliha wa Tasmiyah man hallaha min al-Amathil aw ijtaza bi Nawahiha min Waridiha wa Ahliha. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1997, p. 342.

[9] Among the fines due for causing the miscarriage of a fetus are: 1) prison or flogging; 2) the penance for murder (kaffarah), which is the freeing of a slave, fasting two consecutive months which is compulsory for Shafi’is and recommended for Malikis; and 3) the gifting of a slave to the woman who lost her child.

[10] Al-Razi, Fakr al-Dina. Tafsir al-Fakr al-Razi al-Mushtahir bi Al-Tafsir Al-Kabir wa Mafatih al-Ghayb. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1981, pp. 220-221

Continue Reading

#Islam

What Does Sharia Really Say About Abortion in Islam

Abortion is not a simple option of being pro-life or pro-choice, Islam recognizes the nuance.

Reem Shaikh

Published

on

The following article on abortion is based on a research paper titled ‘The Rights of the Fetus in Islam’, at the Department of Sharia at Qatar University. My team and I presented it to multiple members of the faculty. It was approved by the Dean of the Islamic Studies College, an experienced and reputed Islamic authority.

In one swoop, liberal comedian Deven Green posing as her satirical character, Mrs. Betty Brown, “America’s best Christian”, demonized both Sharia law as well as how Islamic law treats abortion. Even in a debate about a law that has no Muslim protagonist in the middle of it, Islam is vilified because apparently, no problem in the world can occur without Islam being dragged into it.

It is important to clarify what Sharia is before discussing abortion. Sharia law is the set of rules and guidelines that Allah establishes as a way of life for Muslims. It is derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, which is interpreted and compiled by scholars based on their understandings (fiqh). Sharia takes into account what is in the best interest for individuals and society as a whole, and creates a system of life for Muslims, covering every aspect, such as worship, beliefs, ethics, transactions, etc.

Muslim life is governed by Sharia – a very personal imperative. For a Muslim living in secular lands, that is what Sharia is limited to – prayers, fasting, charity and private transactions such as not dealing with interest, marriage and divorce issues, etc. Criminal statutes are one small part of the larger Sharia but are subject to interpretation, and strictly in the realm of a Muslim country that governs by it.

With respect to abortion, the first question asked is:

“Do women have rights over their bodies or does the government have rights over women’s bodies?”

The answer to this question comes from a different perspective for Muslims. Part of Islamic faith is the belief that our bodies are an amanah from God. The Arabic word amanah literally means fulfilling or upholding trusts. When you add “al” as a prefix, or al-amanah, trust becomes “The Trust”, which has a broader Islamic meaning. It is the moral responsibility of fulfilling one’s obligations due to Allah and fulfilling one’s obligations due to other humans.

The body is one such amanah. Part of that amanah includes the rights that our bodies have over us, such as taking care of ourselves physically, emotionally and mentally – these are part of a Muslim’s duty that is incumbent upon each individual.

While the Georgia and Alabama laws in the United States that make abortion illegal after the 6-week mark of pregnancy are being mockingly referred to as “Sharia Law” abortion, the fact is that the real Sharia allows much more leniency in the matter than these laws do.

First of all, it is important to be unambiguous about one general ruling: It is unanimously agreed by the scholars of Islam that abortion without a valid excuse after the soul has entered the fetus is prohibited entirely. The question then becomes, when exactly does the soul enter the fetus? Is it when there is a heartbeat? Is it related to simple timing? Most scholars rely on the timing factor because connecting a soul to a heartbeat itself is a question of opinion.

Web MD

The timing then is also a matter of ikhtilaf, or scholarly difference of opinion:

One Hundred and Twenty Days:

The majority of the traditional scholars, including the four madhahib, are united upon the view that the soul certainly is within the fetus after 120 days of pregnancy, or after the first trimester.

This view is shaped by  the following hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Masood raḍyAllāhu 'anhu (may Allāh be pleased with him):

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إن أحدكم يجمع خلقه في بطن أمه أربعين يوما ثم يكون في ذلك علقة مثل ذلك ثم يكون في ذلك مضغة مثل ذلك ثم يرسل الملك فينفخ فيه الروح..

“For every one of you, the components of his creation are gathered together in the mother’s womb for a period of forty days. Then he will remain for two more periods of the same length, after which the angel is sent and insufflates the spirit into him.”

Forty Days:

The exception to the above is that some scholars believe that the soul enters the fetus earlier, that is after the formation phase, which is around the 40 days mark of pregnancy.

This view is based on another hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Masood raḍyAllāhu 'anhu (may Allāh be pleased with him):

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إذا مر بالنطفة إثنتان وأربعون ليلة بعث الله إليها ملكاً، فصوره، وخلق سمعها وبصرها وجلدها ولحمها وعظمها…

“If a drop of semen spent in the womb forty-two nights, Allah sends an angel to it who depicts it and creates its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones.”

Between the two views, the more widespread and popular opinion is the former, which is that the soul enters the fetus at the 120 days (or 4 months) mark, as the second hadith implies the end of the formation period of the fetus rather than the soul entering it.

Even if one accepts that the soul enters the fetus at a certain timing mark, it does not mean that the soul-less fetus can be aborted at any time or for any reason. Here again, like most matters of Islamic jurisprudence, there is ikhtilaf of scholarly difference of opinion.

No Excuse Required:

The Hanafi madhhab is the most lenient, allowing abortion during the first trimester, even without an excuse.

Some of the later scholars from the Hanafi school consider it makruh or disliked if done without a valid reason, but the majority ruled it as allowed.

Only Under Extreme Risks:

The Malikis are the most strict in this matter; they do not allow abortion even if it is done in the first month of pregnancy unless there is an extreme risk to the mother’s health.

Other Views:

As for the Shafi’i and Hanbali schools of thought, there are multiple opinions within the schools themselves, some allowing abortion, some only allowing it in the presence of a valid excuse.

Valid excuses differ from scholar to scholar, but with a strong and clear reason, permissibility becomes more lenient. Such cases include forced pregnancy (caused by rape), reasons of health and other pressing reasons.

For example, consider a rape victim who becomes pregnant. There is hardly a more compelling reason (other than the health of the mother) where abortion should be permitted. A child born as a result in such circumstances will certainly be a reminder of pain and discomfort to the mother. Every time the woman sees this child, she will be reminded of the trauma of rape that she underwent, a trauma that is generally unmatched for a woman. Leaving aside the mother, the child himself or herself will lead a life of suffering and potentially neglect. He or she may be blamed for being born– certainly unjust but possible with his or her mother’s mindset. The woman may transfer her pain to the child, psychologically or physically because he or she is a reminder of her trauma. One of the principles of Sharia is to ward off the greater of two evils. One can certainly argue that in such a case where both mother and child are at risk of trauma and more injustice, then abortion may indeed be the lesser of the two.

The only case even more pressing than rape would be when a woman’s physical health is at risk due to the pregnancy. Where the risk is clear and sufficiently severe (that is can lead to some permanent serious health damage or even death) if the fetus remained in her uterus, then it is unanimously agreed that abortion is allowed no matter what the stage of pregnancy. This is because of the Islamic principle that necessities allow prohibitions. In this case, the necessity to save the life of the mother allows abortion, which may be otherwise prohibited.

This is the mercy of Sharia, as opposed to the popular culture image about it.

Furthermore, the principle of preventing the greater of two harms applies in this case, as the mother’s life is definite and secure, while the fetus’ is not.

Absolutely Unacceptable Reason for Abortion:

Another area of unanimous agreement is that abortion cannot be undertaken due to fear of poverty. The reason for this is that this mindset collides with having faith and trust in Allah. Allah reminds us in the Quran:

((وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ خَشْيَةَ إِمْلَاقٍ ۖ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُهُمْ وَإِيَّاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ قَتْلَهُمْ كَانَ خِطْئًا كَبِيرًا))

“And do not kill your children for fear of poverty, We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin.” (Al-Israa, 31)

Ignorance is not an excuse, but it is an acceptable excuse when it comes to mocking Islam in today’s world. Islam is a balanced religion and aims to draw ease for its adherents. Most rulings concerning fiqh are not completely cut out black and white. Rather, Islamic rulings are reasonable and consider all possible factors and circumstances, and in many cases vary from person to person.

Abortion is not a simple option of being pro-life or pro-choice. These terms have become political tools rather than sensitive choices for women who ultimately suffer the consequences either way.

Life means a lot more than just having a heartbeat. Islam completely recognizes this. Thus, Islamic rulings pertaing to abortion are detailed and varied.

As a proud Muslim, I want my fellow Muslims to be confident of their religion particularly over sensitive issues such as abortion and women’s rights to choose for themselves keeping the Creator of Life in focus at all times.

Continue Reading

#Islam

Should I Pray Taraweeh Or Make Up Prayers?

Danish Qasim

Published

on

Every Ramadan I’m asked by Muslims whether they should pray Taraweeh or make up missed prayers. They have the guilt of missed prayers but the desire to pray Taraweeh. They do not want to miss out on the special Taraweeh prayer but know that they have to make up obligatory prayers.

I find Muslims bogged down by not only the number of prayers to make up but by the fact that they have to make up prayers that they missed, sometimes too many to count. They emotionally want to move past the memory of missing prayers. While one should not dwell on the sin of missed prayer, at the same time, they should also realize that the prayers remain a debt that needs to be addressed.

Many of us feel a shame associated with past sins. This connection is a sign of true repentance. Shame due to sins, however, becomes problematic when it serves as an impediment for our religious progress. When the guilt reaches this level, one should seek refuge in Allah from Shaytaan and ignore all negative thoughts.

We, as Muslims, should believe that Allah has forgiven our sins, including missed prayers. Forgiveness is done through our repentance. Therefore, we should see makeup prayers as an opportunity to draw closer to Allah, rather than a punishment. Allah tells us in a Hadith Qudsi that

“My servant does not draw nearer to Me with anything more beloved to Me than what I have ordained upon him. He continues to draw near to me with nafl (non-obligatory) actions until I love him” (Bukhari).

Each time we perform a make-up prayer, we are doing what Allah loves us to do the most- an obligatory action. We are drawing nearer to Allah and should feel grateful for being able to do so.

In the Hanafi school of thought, one can pray makeup prayers as non-emphasized sunnahs, which include the prayer of greeting the mosque[1] and Tahajjud prayer. Many Muslims feel more spiritual praying these types of nafl prayers, and they will take their time to pray with the presence of heart. However, when they pray makeup prayers, they rush, praying quickly to get past it as soon as possible. The dreadful feeling of makeup prayers is due to a negative association for the initial neglect, but we must see makeup prayers as not only more critical than nafl prayers, but as something that can be done as nafl prayers.

Taraweeh is an emphasized Sunnah[2] and for Hanafis that means one does not neglect taraweeh[3] due to previously missed prayers[4]. One should have a regiment of making up prayers, such as praying one makeup of Zuhur after praying Zuhur for the day and manage that along with Taraweeh.

For Malikis[5] and Shafis[6] however, one is not supposed to pray Taraweeh if he has prayers to make up. For those following this view, I would advise them to still go to the masjid if that is their habit during the Taraweeh time and pray those due prayers in a space outside of the congregation so they can still enjoy the Ramadan atmosphere in the masjid. Also, it’s worth noting that in the Shafi school, one can have the intention of a makeup prayer even if the imam is praying a different prayer[7]. Hence, twenty rakah of Taraweeh in units of two can be prayed by a follower as ten makeup prayers for Fajr.

Ramadan is a great time to form positive habits. If you do not already have a routine of making up missed prayers, establish one this Ramadan. Make your routine something that you can be consistent with throughout the year, not just when you have the Ramadan energy. We are advised in a hadith to only take on the amount of good actions that we are able to bear because the best actions are those in which we can be persistent, even if they are minor (Ibn Majah 4240).

Lastly, as Ramadan is here, I urge everyone to remember that praying Isha in congregation is more important than praying Taraweeh in congregation. Taraweeh is more alluring due to its uniqueness, and you will see latecomers quickly praying Isha so they can join the Taraweeh prayer. Each prayer is worship, but the priorities of worship are based on its status. Obligatory prayer is more important than a non-obligatory prayer, although every prayer is important. We must prioritize what God prioritizes.

[1]  “ويسن تحية ) رب ( المسجد ، وهي ركعتان ، وأداء الفرض ) أو غيره ، وكذا دخوله بنية فرض أو اقتداء ( ينوب عنها ) بلا نية)”
(رد المحتار على الدر المختار)

[2]  (التراويح سنة  مؤكدة لمواظبة الخلفاء الراشدين  للرجال والنساء إجماعا ” ( رد المحتار على الدر المختار

[3] (والسنة نوعان : سنة الهدي ، وتركها يوجب إساءة وكراهية…”  (رد المحتار على الدر المختار”

[4] وأما النفل فقال في المضمرات : الاشتغال بقضاء الفوائت أولى وأهم من النوافل إلا سنن…”
المفروضة وصلاة الضحى وصلاة التسبيح والصلاة التي رويت فيها الأخبار . ا هـ . ط أي كتحية المسجد ، والأربع قبل العصر والست بعد المغرب” (رد المحتار على الدر المختار،باب قضاء الفوائت)

[5]   (ولا يتنفل من عليه القضاء، ولا يصلي الضحى، ولا قيام رمضان…”  (لأخضري”

[6]   “وَإِنْ كَانَتْ فَاتَتْ بِغَيْرِ عُذْرٍ لَمْ يَجُزْ لَهُ فِعْلُ شَيْءٍ مِنْ النَّوَافِلِ قَبْلَ قَضَائِهَا”
(الفتاوى الكبرى الفقهية على مذهب الإمام الشافعي ,فتاوى ابن حجر الهيتمي)

[7]

تنبيه : تصح قدوة المؤدي بالقاضي ، والمفترض بالمتنفل ، وفي الظهر بالعصر ، وكذلك القاضي بالمؤدي ، والمتنفل بالمفترض ، وفي العصر بالظهر ؛ نظراً لاتفاق الفعل في الصلاتين وإن تخالفت النية ، والانفراد هنا أفضل ؛ خروجاً من الخلاف ، وعلى أن الخلاف في هذا الاقتداء ضعيف جداً فلم يقتض تفويت فضيلة الجماعة ، وإن كان الانفراد أفضل . ( تحفة المحتاج مع حاشية الشر واني ۲ / ۳۳۲ – ۳۳۳ )

وذكر في ( إعانة الطالبين ۲ / ۷ ) : وإن لم تتفق مقضيتها شخصاً . . فهي خلاف الأولى ولا تكره

. وذكر في « البجيرمي على المنهج ۱ / ۳۳۳ ) : قوله ( ويصح الاقتداء لمؤد بقاض ومفترض بمتنفل . . . ) : أي ويحصل له فضل الجماعة في جميع هذه الصور على ما اعتمده الرملي .

————————————————————

– قول متن المنهاج ( وتصح قدوة المؤدي بالقاضي ، والمفترض بالمتنفل . . . ) قضية كلام المصنف – أي النووي – كالشارح الرملي أن هذا مما لا خلاف فيه ، وعبارة الزيادي وابن حجر : ( والانفراد هنا أفضل ؛ خروجاً من الخلاف( فيحتمل أنه خلاف لبعض الأئمة وأنه خلاف مذهبي لم يذكره المصنف ، لكن قول ابن حجر بعد على أن الخلاف في هذا الاقتداء ضعيف جداً . . ظاهر في أن الخلاف مذهبي . ( الشبراملسي ) . ( حاشية الشرواني ۲ / ۳۳۲ )

وهذا لا يجوز في المذهب  الحنفي  “…يشترط أن يكون حال الإمام أقوى من حال المؤتم أو مساويا”  (رد المحتار على الدر المختار(

Continue Reading

Trending