Monday, September 9, 2019

What Prophet Muhammad ﷺ changed in society (socio-political reforms):

What Prophet Muhammad ﷺ changed in society (socio-political reforms):

1.Equality. Made rulers & common man, rich & poor, slaves & masters stand as equals.

2.Made it lawful for slave masters to marry slaves. Something that USA only achieved in 1967.

3.Banned interest based exploitation. India banned bonded labour in 1976.

4.Successful ban on female infanticide. Something that India is still not able to achieve.

5.Inheritance, ownership & business rights for women. 

6.Marriage based on consent & mutually agreed socio-legal contract, with dowry compulsorily given by the man to the woman.

7.Divorce. A step by step way of dealing with failed marriages including provision for divorce, which is not present in any other religion.

8.Removed priests from power. Before the Islamic revolution in Arabia the idols of the Kaaba held the power. The priests who held the keys to Kaaba controlled the population. Islam connected the People with God directly without any need for intermediaries.

9.Made charity compulsory on all Muslims except the poor.

10.Made justice equal for all races, castes, classes & tribes. This is a relatively new concept as there were always different scales of justice for nobles and slaves, Brahmans and non Brahmans.
Made judiciary independent of the rulers and even the legislative power is in the hands of independent jurists and legal experts who have the power to interpret the Shariat laws. Even the parliament or supreme court cannot take away the rights given to the people in the Shariat laws. This is unique from even the modern democratic systems where any party with brute majority in parliament can amend the constitution and take away the guaranteed rights as they please even against the will of the affected people.

11.No dictatorship. Rulers to be chosen by free selection process based on pure merit.

12.Autonomy to religious minorities. Non-muslims are free to manage their Cultural, Social and Religious affairs according to their own beliefs and to choose their own representatives. This concept was unique in history, till recently.

13.Promoted universal education for all men and women, including the poor and the slaves.

14.End to all superstitions, which freed people from getting exploited by priests, fake clergy, babas & gurus.

15.Promoted a simple and natural way of life and strongly discouraged lavish and luxurious living and prohibited wastage of resources.

16.Taught responsible usage of natural resources and prohibited polluting them.

17.Prohibition of alcohol. Many countries have tried and failed, including USA.

18.Humanised the battlefield by prohibiting killing of non-combatants, forbade destruction of trees and crops and other strict code of conduct. In all the battles fought by the prophet ﷺ in his entire life when he conquered the entire Arabia, only a few hundreds were killed in wars from both sides!

If anyone in today's world can achieve even one of the above reforms that person will be seen as a great reformer worthy of all the praise and awards in this world. 

Lamartine, the renowned historian speaking on the essentials of human greatness wonders:

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?"
"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is MUHAMMAD. As regards all the standards by which Human Greatness may be measured, we may well ask, IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?" (Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp 276-277)

MICHAEL H. HART in his recently published book on ratings of men who contributed towards the benefit and upliftment of mankind writes:
"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels." (M.H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York, 1978, p. 33)

Wednesday, September 4, 2019


Some Muslims, who insist on calling themselves “feminists”, often complain that when other Muslims criticise the values and concepts behind the Feminism, this is only the mainstream (and origin) of Feminism, “Western Feminism”, and they say this is a different feminism from “their” feminism.

This is because they have taken the word Feminism (from the West) and then amongst themselves re-defined it their way, and called it “Muslim Feminism”, which they claim doesn’t take the same values as “Western Feminism”. These “Muslim Feminists” then complain that those criticising Feminism shouldn’t generalise feminism! ( #NotAllFeminists …)

“Muslim Feminists” then claim that despite its origins, original meanings, mainstream Western understandings, large preponderance of Western scholars, activists and philosophers, that “Muslim Feminism”, as their small coterie of followers have chosen to define, doesn’t contradict Islam and therefore shouldn’t be resisted by Muslims.

Muslims hearing this then wonder what’s the point of taking a Western term, with a mainstream global following, intellectuals and activists, and pre-existing understanding, and superimposing it on Islam, when Islam is accepted by all Muslims to be self-sufficient? Indeed, wouldn’t it act only to provide confusion?

Unfortunately, when Muslims point out all these issues, “Muslim Feminists” react angrily and use defensive tactics like responding “Why are you against rights for Muslim women?!” Which is as fallacious an accusation as being told “why are you against the rights of poor people and the working class?!” just because you criticise Communism…

Furthermore, using unIslamic ideologically loaded labels, could possibly provide an entry for unIslamic ideas, as Muslims calling themselves “Feminists” then bump into the mainstream (Western) understanding, which also labels itself as Feminism (and as vastly more literature and history).

On the other side of the coin, another problem so-called “Muslim Feminists” encounter, is that in the West, Westerners don’t call Feminism as “Western Feminism”, they simply call it “Feminism”. And why not? They invented it. They defined it. And ALL schools of thought within Feminism agree with the minimal definition of the Secular liberal (and also Communist) formula that Feminism means “equal rights for women” – by which they mean gender identicality under law. However, while Islam believes that the souls of men and women have equal value in the eyes of God, Islamic law doesn’t posit identical gender roles or obligations.

The difference between Islam and mainstream Feminism become highlighted when these so-called “Muslim feminists” appear on TV, or hold talks and conferences where mainstream “Western” feminists turn up and challenge them on Islam’s contradictions with mainstream (original) Feminism. Points raised by Feminists include the idea of head of the family, inheritance, lack of identical rights, and the gender roles of women and men in families, as well as gender differences in political/military responsibilities – leading to “Muslim Feminists” being put on the spot and desperately obfuscating at best, or obsequiously placating “Western” Feminists with “reinterpretations” of Islam at worst.

In order to avoid scrutiny from Western mainstream society into the details of “Muslim Feminism”, some “Muslim Feminists” use diversion tactics, like complaining that they’re having their “definition” of “feminism” being imposed upon by “Western Feminism” advocated by “white people” and “colonialists”.

Sadly, the irony is that it is actually the “Muslim Feminists” who have been already colonialised in thought, as evidences by the fact they desperately sought to borrow Western terms and ideological labels like “Feminism” to make themselves look respectable and gain currency for themselves in the first place!

These Muslims cling with all their might to the term “feminism”, because they wish to use Western language in their causes in order to gain currency for then – regardless of whether or not these terms carry pre-existing and well known unIslamic connotations and ideological baggage!

But as everybody knows, if you use the currency of a country, you surrender to them the right to determine its value – and eventually, you end up paying for it.

As famously (allegedly) narrated of Jesus in the New Testament, when in the Holy Temple, He (SAAW) was (allegedly) asked by his opponents about whether devout Jews should pay taxes to the pagan emperor in Rome, whose Empire was occupying the lands of the Jews:

‘Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him’ [Mark 12:15-17].

An amazing response indeed, because the people had gladly accepted the coin and currency of their dominator (even in their holy Temple), but hypocritically quibbled on paying taxes to him to make themselves look good.

Falsehood belongs to humans, and anything taken from them should be returned, but to God belongs everything in the heavens and the earth – including human affairs, law, rights and duties.

Therefore in response, we must hold up the proverbial Roman denarius and ask “Muslim Feminists”:

 “Who coined the term Feminism, stamped their image upon it, and originated it – which you use for currency?

They’ll sheepishly admit: “The West”

Say: “Give back to the West, what belongs to the West, and give unto God what belongs to God”

‘Do they then seek the judgement of [those in] Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm Faith’
[QURAN, al-Maa’idah 5:49-50]


Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Women's rights through Islam & not feminism:

Women's rights with out feminism:
-Ustadha Fatima Barkatulla (UK)

I care about the rights of women (and men). I also care about the responsibilities of women (and men).
Had a discussion yesterday with someone about why I choose not to use the language of feminism to discuss women's rights. Feminism is an ideology: a system of ideas and ideals. Feminism has its architects, ideologues and its own language. Words such as 'patriarchy', 'misogyny', 'toxic masculinity', etc are ideological words and are loaded.

Some Muslim women use them and add their own meanings to them, but they are part of an ideology outside of Islam.

Psychoanalyst Carl Jung said something along the lines of: "People don’t have ideas; ideas have people."

Question is: which set of ideas do you as a Muslim belong to? Which ideals? What is the source of our ideals and our values? It is Islam and the sources of Islam.

Islam has its own framework for correcting oppression, it has its own ideals regarding men and women and the best way for them to live in this world. And therefore Islam contains within it, all that we need to correct any oppression that exists within the Muslim community.

Feminism - on the other hand is a set of ideals that originated in the minds of a few human ideologues. Many of those ideologues ended up regretting/changing their minds about things they held as facts and truths. They were/are fallible and limited and frankly make mistakes.

Feminism will never be happy with the fact that God chose male prophets, that the majority of the most influential scholars of Islam were men, that the man is the head of the family, that a woman requires a Wali to get married...because it is intrinsically suspicious of men. It cannot accept that men and women are different and not the same. God doesn't come into the picture when it comes to feminism.

For the Muslim, God is everything. God is the source of our understanding regarding the rights and responsibilities of men and women.

So as my friend Zara Faris points out: Feminism is one response out of many, to the question of women's rights, just as capitalism or communism are responses to the question of the economy.

Islam is our response to the question of women's rights.

So even when we see injustice in our communities, as Muslims we need not invoke feminism and its idols to fight that injustice.

We need to invoke the Qur'an and Sunnah. We need to be knowledgeable and win arguments through correct thinking, educating and reasoning with others.

When women are prevented from mosques, we need to understand that social and cultural reasons have led to this becoming the norm in some cultures.
We tell them that Allah's messenger s.said:
"Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from the Houses of Allah" (Bukhari & Muslim)

This is what the sahabiyat - the female disciples did! When Umar was trying to limit dowries a lady stood up and quoted the Quran to him - that he had no right to limit dowries...

As Muslims we rectify each other via the authority of the Qur’an and Sunnah, not via mere social pressures & attitudes dictated to us by ideologies outside of the guidance of Islam.

Issues with feminist terms like 'patriarchy': Its definition according to Oxford Dictionary: "A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line."

By that definition Feminists would regard Islam as patriarchal.
As Muslims we do not accept the premise that 'patriarchal' or men being in charge or in positions of leadership and power is intrinsically bad. Prophets who were chosen by God as leaders and guides for humanity were men. Men are the protectors of women, guardians of women.

The Prophets came to establish the guidance of Allah and justice in society. not to remove so-called 'patriarchy' per se. Some or much of that guidance would never be accepted by feminist ideologues as being in line with feminism.

Sunday, September 1, 2019

Attending Gatherings where sinful acts are being done:

Attending Gatherings where sinful acts are being done:

Having been invited to a Walima feast, Abdullah bin Masud رضى الله عنه went to attend it. When he reached there and saw the acts of disobedience and absurdities being committed he instantly turned back. On being asked the reason, he narrated the following saying of the Holy Prophet:
من كثرسوادقوم فھومنھم, ومن رضى عمل قوم كان
شريكاً من عمل به- 
“He who increased the number of a people shall be counted from among them. And if a person is pleased with an act of a people he shall be regarded as their partner in that act. 
(Reported by Abu Yala (in his Musnad), Nasbur Rayah vol. 4 p.346, Kanzul Ummal vol. 9 p.22 No24735, Jamiul-Masanid wal Sunan vol. 27p.308)

Abdullah Ibn Mubarak mentioned a similar incident of Hazrat Abu Dhar Ghaffari رضي الله ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ عنه in his book al-Zuhd wal- Riqaq almost in the same words. 

These narrations establish it well that taking part in the gatherings assembled for committing sins, bidaat and disbelief amounts to inviting the wrath from Allah. This is a general rule which doubtlessly includes the religious functions and festivities of the disbelieving people.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Is the Shariah law impractical as even the Muslim countries don't apply them?

Is the Shariah law impractical as even the Muslim countries don't apply them?

One common argument given is that since most of the Muslim countries themselves do not apply shariah laws, it must be due to it's being impractical and unsuitable for the modern world.

But the question to be asked is why is Shariah not applied in most of the Muslim countries? The truth is that the Shariah laws were the only laws practiced in the Muslim world, which comprised of half of the known world of that time, almost for 13 centuries, before the European countries invaded and colonized them. In fact the ottoman empire, which ruled over large parts of eastern Europe, middle East and North Africa for many centuries and officially applied Shariah laws, lasted till the end of the first world war.

The European colonisers after conquering the Muslim world, forcibly removed the Islamic laws from public sphere and government courts, and changed their education systems. These western education systems produced an elite class of name-sake Muslims who were only taught to copy the West in every aspect of life. After these countries became 'free', the West installed these western educated puppets in the government who continue to apply the western laws on the Muslims by force, as most of them are dictators.

However, the fact is that the vast Majority of world's Muslims want Shariah law implementation in their countries.

A Pew research titled 'THE WORLD’S MUSLIMS: RELIGION, POLITICS AND SOCIETY' published on 30-4-2013 on their website confirmed this. This study mentioned:

"In countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region most favor making sharia their country’s official legal code.
In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia).
In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%).
Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%)."

The only countries where the support for Shariah was less in the above survey were those that were previously under the Communist dictators for many decades- the Central Asian and Balkan countries, as Islam was almost completely wiped out from these countries by brute force.

Moreover, where ever the Muslims were allowed to freely elect their government, the Islamic parties that propose to apply Shariah won but were not allowed to rule by the West and their puppets- whether in Algeria or Egypt or Somalia or Afghanistan or Libya or Palestine, etc.
More recently, when Brunei tried to apply aspects of Shariah law, the Western countries threatened it with sanctions.

In conclusion, the Muslim world has followed the Shariah laws for most of its history until the Shariah was forcibly removed from the public sphere by the European colonisers and even in the modern era, the Muslim countries have voted for Islamic parties to implement the Shariah but every time they were denied that by the West and it's local puppets.

The reason is that once the Shariah laws are successfully applied in a country, it will be totally transformed and will provide an example for the whole world to follow. It will mean that the current powerful people and nations who control the world will loose their benefits and undue advantages. That's the reason they have been trying their best to prevent such a thing from happening.

Saturday, July 6, 2019

Speakers, Daiees vs True Scholars

Speakers vs True Scholars:

 The Prophet ﷺ stated: ‘Today, you are in an age in which its scholars are many and its speakers few: whoever leaves a tenth of what he knows has followed his desires. Later there shall come an age in which its speakers are many and its scholars few: whoever clings to a tenth of what he knows will be saved.’ (Al-Harawi, Dhamm al-Kalam, 1:14-15. Shaikh Albani declared it as sahih).

Ours has become an age wherein an ever increasing number of speakers and da‘is sell themselves to the public as if they are seasoned scholars or well-grounded students of the sacred sciences; when most of them are clearly not.
Such speakers and da‘is tend not to have the dignity, gravitas nor decorum of the scholars, let alone their learning or wisdom.
And like toddlers trying to wear daddy’s or mummy’s shoes which are way too big for them, any attempt to take more than a few steps or walk at an adult pace is likely to result in a stumble or fall.

Fitna of taking the Deen from non-Ulama:

Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, Allah does not withhold knowledge by snatching it away from his servants, but rather he withholds knowledge by taking the souls scholars, until no scholar remains and people follow ignorant leaders. They are asked and they issue Deeni judgments (fatwas) without knowledge. Thus, they are astray and lead others astray.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 100, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2673
Senior Ulema are to be followed:

"Indeed from the signs of the Hour is that knowledge will be taken
from the younger/lesser ones." [Reported by at-Tabaraanee in al-Kabeer (22/362), and declared authentic by al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (695)
and Saheeh al-Jaami' (2207)].

The respected Sahabi, Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu ‘anhu) said:
“The people will remain upon goodness so long as they take knowledge from their Scholars, their greater ones and their elders. When they take knowledge from their young ones and their foolish ones, they will be destroyed.”

This is recorded in the introduction of Al-Kamil of Ibn ‘Adiy, vol.1 pg.260-261 & other sources.

This golden advice of a prominent Sahabi (radiyallahu’anhu) is extremely pertinent in our era of confusion and academic disarray!
May Allah Ta’ala grant us the ability to abide by it. Ameen.

Ignorant Young Speakers:

Narrated Ali رضي الله عنه:
I heard the Prophet  ﷺ saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats.

So the ability to give an inspiring talk or strong admonition is not from the signs of knowledge or from the signs of faith, far less does it indicate that that person's way is correct.

Friday, June 14, 2019

Benefits of Religious upbringing of children: Harvard study

Benefits of Religious upbringing of children: Harvard study

A recent Harvard study reveals that children who had a religious upbringing are likely to be healthier and have a higher degree of well-being in early adulthood than those who did not.

The Harvard study, “Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

The study, conducted by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health shows a link between a religious upbringing and better physical and mental health in young adults.

Researchers found that people who attended religious services weekly or who practiced prayer or meditation daily in their youth reported having a higher life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s.

Individuals were found less likely to smoke, have symptoms of depression, use illicit drugs, or have sexually transmitted infections than people who engaged in less regular spiritual practices.

The researchers followed 5,000 young people for between eight to 14 years, controlling for variables such as maternal health, socioeconomic status, and histories of substance abuse or symptoms of depression.

Results show that those who went to religious services at least once a week as children were about 18 percent more likely to report higher levels of happiness as young adults between the ages of 23 and 30 than those who didn’t. They were also shown to be 29 percent more likely to volunteer in their local communities and 33 percent less likely to engage in the use of illicit drugs.

Those who prayed or meditated at least once a day in their youth were shown to be 16 percent more likely to report higher levels of happiness as young adults and were 30 percent less likely to have become sexually active in their adolescence. These individuals were also 40 percent less likely to have contracted a sexually transmitted infection than those who never prayed or meditated.

Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis

Ying Chen Tyler J VanderWeele

American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 187, Issue 11, November 2018, Pages 2355–2364,
Published: 10 September 2018