Ramadan Plan : Know, Worship, Strive

Suggested action points for a successful Ramadan.

Not in God's Name

Human history, one might conclude from the Bible and Quran, is an ongoing struggle against the human tendencies towards evil and polytheism. The late Hebrew Prophet Jeremiah censures his people for (among other transgressions) sacrificing their children to the Ammonite god Molekh. Much earlier, such child sacrifices are already condemned in the Pentateuch, and Leviticus 20:3 describes this ritual as profaning (חַלֵּל) God’s holy name. The Hebrew root for ‘profaning’ H-L-L, has an Arabic cognate, which is found in a Quranic verse (5:2) warning believers not to profane (تحلوا) God’s religious symbols, days, rituals and devotees. A famous Biblical prohibition against taking God’s name in vain (although it uses different wording) has been interpreted in various ways, many of which prohibit associating God’s name with sinful acts (be they lies, idolatrous rituals or anything else sinful). So, God’s name can be profaned by both explicit and implicit association with evil.

A famous hadith says that, “Any matter of importance that is not begun with God’s name is defective,” and observant Muslims are in the habit of reciting God’s name at the beginning of prayer, before eating, and when about to undertake any major action – provided of course the act is something religiously lawful. The hadith’s specification that the teaching applies to matters of importance implies that trivial matters should not be started with God’s name, in order to preserve the sanctity of the Name by not taking it in vain. Clearly, then, the name of God should not be recited before sinful actions, and in fact to do so is considered an act of blasphemy and apostasy by Muslim legal scholars. (They make an exception for someone who says it out of habit, without presence of mind, because he did not consciously intend to associate the name of God with the sin. In Shakespeare’s poem, The Rape of Lucrece, Tarquin stops at Lucrece’s door to pray before entering to rape her, “As if the heavens should countenance his sin.” “But in the midst of his unfruitful prayer,“ Tarquin realizes:

The powers to whom I pray abhor this fact;

How can they then assist me in the act? )

If the Hebrew prophets of yore were to witness our times, they would likely inveigh against the many social and ethical ills of today. And while child sacrifice is (thankfully) no longer prominent, there is a bane of our times that is evocative of its horrific disdain for the sacredness of life. Of course, I am referring to the acts of wanton killing and terrorism that (sadly) appear to be increasingly common. Major sins, like rape and murder, are certainly an act of implicit profanation of God’s name, and if someone (God forbid) explicitly utters God’s name upon it, the profanation becomes even greater.


When Caliph `Ali heard the Kharijites chanting the slogan, “Judgment is only God’s,” he is reported to have said, “It is a statement of truth by which falsehood is intended.” So, if a murderer shouts “Allahu Akbar” / “God is Great” / “Elohim Gadol” over his murder, those who truly understand God’s teachings might well shake their heads, and respond much as Caliph `Ali did. Yes God is indeed greater; greater than to defile His name by your profane sin of murder; greater than to not hold murderers responsible. We will not allow criminals to appropriate our sacred language. God is truly Great.

Islamic Regulations regarding Acknowledgment (of Obligation or Responsibility)



PARTIAL TRANSLATION by Suheil Laher from

Kitab al-Iqrar in Mukhtasar al-Quduri

(a summary-text of Hanafi law).

Rulings presented are as inferred from Qur’an and Sunnah by scholars of the Hanafi school.


  1. If a free, adult, sane [person] confesses to a right [due] upon him, his acknowledgment is binding upon him, whether what he confesses to is unknown or know, and he is instructed, “Clarify the unknown.
  1. If he says, “I owe him,” or “I am liable to him (lahu qibali),” then he has confessed to a debt, whereas if he says, “I have….”, or “There is with me….” then it is an acknowledgment of a wadi`a (item deposited with him for safekeeping) in his custody.
  2. If a man says to him, “You owe me a thousand,” and he says, “Take it by weight, “ or “Take it in cash,” or “Give me an extension,” or, “I will pay it back to you, “ then it is an acknowledgment.


  1. If someone admits to a deferred debt, and the one to whom he acknowledges [the debt] affirms him in the [existence of] the debt, but claims he is lying about the deferral,  then he is obliged to pay the debt immediately, [but] the plaintiff is made to swear an oath concerning the deferral.
  2. If someone admits [to an amount] but without delay he excepts some [amount] from his admission, is obliged to pay the remainder, regardless of whether he excepted a small or large amount. But if he excepted the entire amount, he is obliged to pay the entire amount, and his exception is void.
  3. If he says, “I owe him 200 dirhams, less one dinar” or “less a qafiz of wheat,” then he is obliged to pay 200 dirhams less the value of the dinar or the qafiz. But if he says, “I owe him one hundred and a dirham,” then the 100 are all [taken to be] dirhams. If he says, “ I owe him 100 and a garment” then he is asked to clarify what the 100 are.
  4. If someone acknowledges a debt but adds, “if God wills,” without delay, then his acknowledgment is not considered binding upon him.
  5. If someone acknowledges [a debt] but stipulates his having a choice [“I owe you, if I want”], then his acknowledgment is  binding, and his stipulation of choice is void.
  6. If someone acknowledges [owing] a home, but makes an exception for its building for himself. Then the one to whom he acknowledges [the debt] is entitled to the home and the building, but if he says, “the building of this property is mine, but the lot belongs to so-and-so,” then it is [considered to be] as he described.
  7. If someone acknowledges dates in a straw container (qawsarra) is liable for the dates and the straw container. But if someone acknowledges an animal in a stable, he is liable only for the animal.
  8. If he says, “I took a garment in a cloth,” he is liable for both, and [similarly] if he says, “a garment in a garment.” But if he says, “I took a garment in 10 garments,” then he is liable for only one garment according to Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf. Muhammad said: he is liable for 11 garments.



  1. If someone says, “I owe 1,000 to the unborn child with whom so-and-so is pregnant,” then if he says, “So-and-so left it as a bequest for him,” or “His father died, so he inherits it,” then the acknowledgment is valid, but if he did not specify then it is not valid according to Abu Yusuf. But if he declares that a man is entitled to the unborn fetus of a ewe, the declaration is valid and binding
  2. If a man in his terminal illness admits to debts, and he [already] has [known] debts incurred during his healthy days, as well as debts incurred for known causes during his illness, then the debts from his healthy days and the known debts from his illness are given priority over others. If those are paid, and there remains something [of his money] then it goes towards the debt he admitted to. But if he did not have prior debts, then the admission is binding, and the creditor has more right to the money than the heirs.
  3. A man’s acknowledgment of a debt to his heir is void, unless the other heirs all confirm it.
  4. If someone in his [last] illness acknowledges a debt to [someone thought to be] a non-relative, then says, “He is my son.” Then his lineage is established but the acknowledgment of debt is void. But if he acknowledges a debt to an unrelated woman, then marries her, the acknowledgment of debt is not voided.
  5. If someone in his [last] illness divorces his wife thrice [or less]  [at her request] then acknowledges a debt to her and dies while she is in the waiting-period] then she is entitled to the lesser amount of the debt and her inheritance [because they might have colluded to use the divorce as a means to validate the acknowledgment].


  1. If someone acknowledges [paternity] of a boy, the like of whom could be born to the like of him, and [the boy] has no known lineage, his paternity is established even if [the man] is sick, and [the boy] shares in the inheritance with the [other] heirs.
  2. A man’s acknowledgment of someone as his parent, child, wife or freed-slave is valid.
  3. A woman’s acknowledgment of someone as her parent, husband, or freed-slave is valid, but [if she is married or in her waiting period then] her acknowledgment of someone as her child is not valid unless the husband affirms her or a midwife testifies to the birth [in which case the paternity is ascribed to her husband].

Islamic Regulations of Hunting and Slaughtering (Food)


Translated by Suheil Laher from

Kitab al-Sayd wal-Dhaba’ih in Mukhtasar al-Quduri

(a summary-text of Hanafi law), with some re-arrangement and editing.

Rulings presented are as inferred from Qur’an and Sunnah by scholars of the Hanafi school.

DISCLAIMER: Information presented here is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a call to perform or abstain from any specific action mentioned in the text. Religious decisions should be taken with due care and thought, after reading and investigating, but also after consulting with reliable people of knowledge – who are aware of one’s particular circumstances – and then pondering and exercising one’s conscience.







1.1 Permissibility

1. The hunting of a Zoroastrian, apostate or idolater may not be eaten.

2. It is permissible to hunt those animals whose meat may be eaten [for the purpose of acquiring food],
and also those which may not be eaten [for the purpose of non-food benefits and/or prevention of harm].

1.2 Use of Animals

1. It is permissible to hunt with a trained dog, panther, falcon, or any other trained predatory animal or bird.

2. So, if one sends his trained dog, or falcon, or hawk, and mentions the name of Allah, the Exalted upon it at the time of sending, and then [the animal] seizes the prey and wounds it such that it dies, it is permissible to eat it.

3. If the sender reaches the prey alive, it is obligatory upon him to slaughter it, and so if he refrains from slaughtering it until it died, then it may not be eaten.

1.3 Shooting

1. If a man shoots an arrow at prey, and mentions the name of Allah at the time of shooting, he may eat what he strikes provided the arrow wounded it so that it died [as a result]. But, if he reaches it alive, he [must] slaughter it, and so if he refrains from slaughtering it until it died, then it may not be eaten.

2. That which a featherless arrow strikes with its breadth may not be eaten, but if it wounds [the quarry] it may be eaten.

3. If one shoots at quarry and severs a piece from it, [the animal] may be eaten, but the piece may not be eaten. But, if he cuts it in thirds, and the major portion is adjacent to the rump, then it may [all]be eaten. If the major portion is adjacent ot the head, the larger portion may be eaten, but the lesser one may not.


2.1 Conditions for Slaughtering

1. The slaughter of a Muslim or a Kitabi is permissible [to eat].

2. If the slaughterer omitted the pronouncment of the name [of Allah] deliberately, then the slaughter is carrion which may not be eaten. But, if he left it out forgetfully, it may be eaten.

3. The vessels which must be severed in slaughtering are four : the trachea, the oesophagus and the two jugular veins. So, if he cut [all] these, eating [from the animal] is permissible. If he cut most of them, then similarly [it is valid] according to Abu Hanifah. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said : it is essential to cut the trachea, the oesophagus and one of the two jugular veins.

4. It is permissible to slaughter with a sharp reed or stone, or anything that causes the blood to flow out, except for an intact tooth or an intact nail.

It is recommended that the slaughterer sharpen his blade.

2.2 The Sacrifical Animal

1. An animal with severed ears or [severed] tail does not suffice, nor one from which the major part of the ear has gone. But, if the major portion of the ear or tail remains, it is permissible.

2. It is valid to sacrifice a hornless animal, a castrated animal, a mangy animal [provided it is plump], or an insane
animal [provided it is plump].

3. Animal-sacrifice is [only] from amongst camels, cows and sheep [or goats].

A thaniyy [two-year old cow/buffalo or five-year old camel, or one-year old sheep/goat], or better, of [any of] these suffices, except for the sheep, of which a jadha` [well-built six-month old] suffices.

4. If one performs nahr on a camel, or slaughters a cow or sheep, and then finds in its belly a dead fetus, it may not be eaten, [egardless of] whether its features are discernible or not.

2.3 Methods of Slaughter

1. Domesticated game must be slaughtered, and wild livestock may be wounded [as in hunting].

2. The recommended [technique] for camels is nahr [thrusting the knife into the base of the neck], but if one slaughters them, it is valid but disliked.

3. The recommended [technique] for cows and sheep is slaughtering, but if one performs nahr on them, it is valid but disliked.


1. It is not permissible to eat any canine-toothed beast of prey, nor any taloned [predatory] bird.

2. [It is repugnant to eat the] lizard and all vermin.

3. It is not permissible to eat the flesh of the domesticated donkey or mule.

4. There is no objection to eating the rabbit.

5. Nothing may be eaten of the animals of the water except fish.

6. It is repugnant to eat floating [fish that died on their own].

7. There is no harm in eating the jirrith and eel

8. It is permissible to eat locusts, and there is no slaughter [needed] for them.


Lawful and Prohibited : Miscellaneous Islamic Regulations


Translated by Suheil Laher from

Kitab al-Hazr wal-Ibaha in Mukhtasar al-Quduri

(a summary-text of Hanafi law), with some re-arrangement and editing.

Rulings presented are as inferred from Qur’an and Sunnah by scholars of the Hanafi school.

DISCLAIMER: Information presented here is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a call to perform or abstain from any specific action mentioned in the text. Religious decisions should be taken with due care and thought, after reading and investigating, but also after consulting with reliable people of knowledge – who are aware of one’s particular circumstances – and then pondering and exercising one’s conscience.

1.0 SILK

1. It is not permissible for men to wear silk, but it is permissible for women.

2. There is no objection to wearing pure silk in war according to the two of them, but it is repugnant according to Abu Hanifah.

3. There is objection to wearing [clothing made of] a blended fabric if its warp is silk and its weft is cotton.


‘Blended fabric’ here refers to an interlaced or interwoven fabric, with warp and weft not of the same material.

Warp” is the set of threads held in tension on a loom.

Weft” is the set of threads interlaced with the warp.



2.1 Jewelry and Decorations

1. It is not permissible for men to use jewelry of gold,

2. Nor [may they wear jewelry of] silver excepting:

3. It is permissible for women to use jewelry of gold and silver.

4. It is repugnant to make a [minor] boy wear gold and silk.

5. It is disliked to mark verses in tens in the mushaf, and [also] to add diacritical dots [when
not needed for correct reading].

6. There is no objection to decorating the mushaf, [nor to] engraving mosques and decorating them [on
the outside] with gold-water.

2.2 Vessels

1. It is not permissible to eat, drink, use oil or perfume from vessels of gold or silver, neither for men nor for women.

2. There is no objection to using vessels of glass, crystal or cornelian.

[“Cornelian” is a reddish-white variety of quartz.]


3.1 Looking at Women

1. It is not permissible for a man to look at a stranger-woman, except at her face and hands. But, if he
did not consider himself safe from lust, he may not look at her face except out of need.

to look at her face, even if he fears he may experience lust.

2. A man may look at his mahram’s (i.e. permanently umarriageable female relatives’) face, head, chest,
shins and arms, but he may not look at their back or belly. There is objection to touching what it is permissible to look at [of the mahrams] [for a legitimate reason, i.e. provided there is no fear of lust or other inappropriate consequences].

3. A man may look at his wife [entirely] including [even] her genitals.

4. A woman may look at that [much] of another woman that a man may look at of another man.

3.2 Looking at Men

1. A man may look at all of the body of another man except for what is between his navel to his knee.

2. It is permissible for a woman to look at that [part] of a man which another man may look at.

3. It is repugnant to employ the service of eunuchs [if that involves perpetuation of the
practice of castration, which is a prohibited act of mutilation]


2. It is permissible to accept, in [the matter of] a gift or permission, the word of a child or servant.

3. The word of a transgressor is acceptable in transactions [and other mundane matters]

4. Only the word of a morally upright (`adl) person is acceptable in religious matters.


1. Hoarding of staple-foods of humans and cattle is repugnant, if that is in a land in which hoarding harms
the inhabitants.

2. One who hoards the produce of his [own] estate, or what he has imported from another land, is not [termed] a hoarder.

3. It is not appropriate for the ruler to regulate prices for people [as long as they do not reach the level
of exploitation, which is harmful to the public interest]

4. It is repugnant to sell weapons in times of fitna [i.e. turmoil (in which the side of truth is unclear) or sedition (in which there is unjustified rebellion against a legitimate ruler and one is selling weapons to the rebels)]

5. There is no [judicial] objection to selling juice to someone whom it is known will produce wine from it [but notwithstanding the absence of worldly prosecution, the seller might still be sinful in the spiritual domain].

Chivalric Glory and Extremist Ignominy

By Suheil Laher

Chivalry and bravery have long been valued as noble human qualities. I remember a picture book in the library of my Kindergarten 2 class (at St Margaret’s Kindergarten School) about King Arthur’s knights, who are often regarded as emblematic of such ideals in the West. Jihad in Islam includes not only an inner dimension of spiritual struggle, but also an external dimension of helping the weak and striving against injustice. Extremist jihadi groups like ISIS appeal to Muslim youth (and others) on the basis of the latter, but by selective, decontextualized citations from an amalgam of history, medieval law and Islamic sacred texts, they bypass the honorable chivalrous teachings, higher objectives and profound vision of sacred law that are held to by mainstream Muslim scholars.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 drew widespread international condemnation, including a resolution by the UN General Assembly. In accordance with both the UN Charter[1] and the Islamic understanding of self-defence against aggression, Afghans as well as many non-Afghan Muslims rallied against the Soviet intervention. The liberation effort was widely recognized in the Muslim world as a glorious jihad, and the United States government (among other Western and Eastern non-Muslim nations) was openly and actively providing financial, material, and moral support to the mujahideen. Naturally, many American Muslims also either supported the Afghan jihad or looked upon it favorably.

It was a euphoric time, but it was not to last. After the departure of the Soviets from Afghanistan in 1989, and the toppling of the Soviet-backed president in 1992, things took  a darker turn. Civil war broke out among the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and some of the foreign mujahideen were left grappling with post-war trauma, along with the difficulty of reintegration into civilian life, compounded by their being unwelcome in some of their home countries due to fears that they would harness popular grievances to foment revolution against those Middle Eastern governments.

It was in such circumstances that some of the former mujahideen began to move in a new direction: away from the honorable chivalry of true jihad towards an ignominous extremist ideology. Al-Qaeda, and eventually ISIS were born. Extremists might capitalize on the acclaimedly glorious status of the Afghan jihad, to present themselves as its heirs and perpetuators. But in Islam, actions are validated by sacred texts, not by appeals to charismatic lineage. A religious rhetoric, similar to that which was once used to enthuse Muslims with the noble spirit of just resistance against Soviets, has now been subverted and perverted to call towards extremism and terrorism. The rhetoric is similar, and might appeal to some of the same principles (such as resisting oppression) and sacred texts, but the big difference is that it is now out of touch with the noble chivalry of true jihad that we find in the Qur’an and Sunna.

I advise Muslims (including, but not limited to, Muslim youth) not to be duped by half-baked religious rhetoric. To realize that while injustices exist in the world, and jihad continues until the day of Judgment, nevertheless true jihad must be carried out through legitimate and honorable means. Radical ISIS-style extremism is a crude and dangerous caricature of jihad. Exercise caution in your charitable giving, and don’t be deceived into thinking that you are helping Islam by supporting groups that are actually hurting the cause of Islam and Muslims. Do not capitulate to a cult mentality, where you take religious teaching from a limited set of scholars, who use emotions to make you feel that you would be betraying faith and justice if you listen to those who condemn terrorist acts. If you are not willing to listen to the other side, how can you be so sure you are correct? Did not the Prophet (peace be upon him) warn of people who would recite the Qur’an, and zealously worship and strive, and yet be a liability to Islam because of their lack of deeper understanding? Truth prevails, and Allah has given you a conscience and a mind that allow you to think for yourself. Islam is a profound religion that seeks to actualize lofty and noble objectives in both individual and society. If you refuse to think about and to see the bigger picture, and content yourself with a narrow tunnel-vision of Islam, I think you are short-changing yourself.

أما الخيام فإنها كخيامهم ** وأرى نساء الحي غير نساءها
(A poet describing with anguish how, in desparate search of the nomadic tribe of his fiancee, he discovers tents that look like their tents, only to discover that the people inhabiting them are different people.)

[1] “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” Chapter VII, Article 51.

Non-Muslim Minorities and Religious Tolerance

The arrival of Islamic rule marked an end to the persecution to which non-Zoroastrian minorities had been subjected in pre-Islamic Persia.[1] It is sadly strange then, that fourteen centuries later, Islam is now being invoked and interpreted in an attempt to exterminate such populations, and moreover to do so in grisly and inhumane ways that are themselves incongruous with Islam’s central values of kindness and compassion.

I was incredulous when I first read recent reports of members of the non-Muslim Yazidi minority in Iraq being killed and enslaved in the name of Islam. The reported actions troubled my conscience, and furthermore, for historical and theological reasons, did not sit right with my understanding of Islam. Yet, I was aware of statements in medieval books of Islamic law that might be produced as partial justification of the actions, and so I felt the need to articulate a coherent response to questions such as the following: As a Muslim, am I required to agree with such killing and enslavement? If they are correct, then how can it be that these religious minorities have survived fourteen centuries in the heart of the Islamic lands without yet having been exterminated?

The majority opinion among Muslim jurists, and the dominant operative view across Muslim history has been that of tolerance to all non-Muslim religious communities.  After explaining this to be the case, I will show how this view is also in line with a general Qur’anic principle backed by common sense.

Muslim scholars, across sects and the various legal schools, are in agreement that Jews and Christians, being People of Scripture, can live as subjects of the Islamic state, and are not forced to convert to Islam (although they are welcome and encouraged to do so). They are subject to a tax called the jizyah, which was paid, as British Orientalist Thomas Arnold Walker explains, “by those whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the armies of the Musulmans.”[2] Muslim scholars are further agreed that Zoroastrians can similarly live as subjects of the Islamic state, even though they are not decisively People of Scripture, because the Prophet Muhammad himself afforded them such treatment. Jurists of the Maliki school (which dominates North and West Africa), and the Zaydi Shi`ite school, along with Imam al-Awza`i (whose school was widely followed in the Levant and across North Africa before being displaced by the Malikis and Shafi`is), generalized from this to conclude that the same courtesy is extended to people of all religions. The Hanafi school (geographically and historically the school with the widest following among the public and the most implemented by rulers) concluded similarly, making an exception only for idolators of Arabia which is actually a moot point given that idolatry did not survive there following the large-scale conversions to Islam during the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime. When the Muslims ruled Mogul India, the (idolatrous) Hindus remained tolerated under Hanafi legal doctrine.[3]

Reframing the preceding breakdown of views, we realize that the earliest schools of Islamic law and the most widely followed (Hanafi, Maliki and Awza`i), allow and tolerate non-Muslim minorities of any religion within the Islamic lands (i.e. the “Islamic state”). Given the status of these schools and their adoption by Muslim governments across the centuries (until the Muslim world was largely secularized in early modernity), this view has also been the operative view across the overwhelming bulk of Muslim history. The dissenting view (of the (later) Shafi`is and Hanbalis, along with the Imamis), for practical purposes, persisted as little more than hypothetical juristic cogitations, and perhaps as reminders of the more stark era of war in the Hebrew Bible, where for example we read that the city of Jericho (including even the women, children and beasts) was put to the sword apparently for idolatry.[4] That tolerance of all religious groups was the norm in Muslim history is reflected in the fact that the Mandaeans, Yazidis and others have survived and maintained a presence in Islamic lands to this day.

It is worthwhile to note that the dominant Islamic view, of tolerance towards other religious communities, is also backed by general Qur’anic principle, and by common sense. The Qur’anic principle is that, “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of the] religion” (Qur’an, 2:256), and common sense confirms that a forced conversion is unlikely to be genuine. How can it be reasonable to suddenly expect Yazidis, who have been raised in their own religion all their lives, to suddenly give it up at the point of a sword or rifle? Thomas Jefferson wrote, “that if there be but one right [religion], and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged.”[5] The Qur’an foreshadows these wise words of Jefferson’s:

“Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers? And it is not for a soul to believe except by permission of Allah , and He will place defilement upon those who will not use reason.” (Qur’an, 10:99-100)

“[U]pon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account.” (Qur’an, 13:40)

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.” [Qur’an, 16:125]

Further Considerations

So far, we have established that the majority and operative position across history has been tolerance of all non-Muslim religious communities. This is sufficient to refute the notion that the killing and enslavement of non-Muslims represents the majority of Muslims, and to dispel the idea that those actions are a clear and immutable Islamic teaching. But what if a Muslim claims that he wants to follow a minority position on religious tolerance, and to revive the practices of enslavement and concubinage? In what follows, I explain how such actions are actually inconsistent with several broader Islamic principles:

(i) The Qur’anic principle (backed by common-sense) of non-coercion in faith, already mentioned earlier (above).

(ii) The importance of priorities. Even if someone truly believes it justified to target the non-Muslim minorities, they should ask themselves: If these minorities were not exterminated by the Prophet, nor by the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, then how can a Muslim group today consider it their prerogative and priority to undertake such a genocide?

(iii) Categorical imperative: If we as Muslims are to exterminate or expel indigenous non-Muslims who have been living in a country for centuries, how are we better than the Zionists who attempt to do the same to indigenous Palestinians?

(iv) The use of inhumane techniques (such as attempting to inflict forced starvation on people because of their religion) contradict the Prophet Muhammad’s code of ethics in war and peace. When Thumama ibn Athal, a South Arabian chief, imposed a wheat embargo on the idolatrous Makkans to punish them for their mistreatment of the Muslims, Prophet Muhammad asked him to lift the embargo to prevent the starvation of the Makkan idolators and especially of their women and children.[6]

(v) The Prophetic paradigm calls for wisdom, which includes recognition of people’s sensibilities and thinking. The Prophet Muhammad once remarked to his wife that he would have liked to demolish the Ka`bah[7], and then to rebuild it according to the original pattern on which Prophet Abraham had built it. However, he refrained from this, citing as a reason the fact that people had only recently come out the state of idolatrous ignorance (and would therefore misconstrue his action as sacrilegous).[8] The fourth Caliph, the Prophet’s son-in-law `Ali, drawing attention to the importance of sensitivity in engaging people, said, “Speak to people with what they can relate to. Would you like for God and His Messenger to be considered liars?”[9] The renowned 19th century Hanafi Muslim jurist Ibn `Abidin wrote, in his didactic poem Rasm al-Mufti, “Customary norms are to be given consideration in the Sacred Law, and hence the legal determination may hinge upon it.” Actions such as forced conversions and enslavement surely have a bigger impact on the public than mere words, and taking a human life is clearly more drastic than demolishing a brick-structure. Even if (hypothetically) someone’s conscience is genuinely not troubled in the least by such actions as enslavement, they should ponder deeply the consequences of their actions on the image and perception of Islam among non-Muslims, and remind themselves that Islam’s mission is to be a source of blessing to all.

“We have not sent you [Muhammad], except as a blessing to all creatures.” [Qur’an, 21:107]

[1] “The followers of all those varied forms of faith could breathe again under a rule that granted them religious freedom and exemption from military service, on payment of a light tribute.” Thomas Arnold Walker, The Preaching of Islam: a history of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, (Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., 1896), 177.

[2] Walker, The Preaching of Islam, 55-57.

[3] See, for example, the following medieval references of Islamic law: Ibn `Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar; al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami` li-Ahkam al-Qur’an; Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Murtada, al-Azhar fi FIqh al-A’immahal-Athar.

[4] See: Joshua, 6:21.

[5] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1982) 160.

[6] See: Ibn Hisham, Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah.

[7] The building, in Makkah, that Muslims believe was the first house of pure monotheistic worship on earth, built by Prophet Abraham.

[8] Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim.

[9] Narrated by Bukhari.

Lost in Translation: Friendships with Non-Muslims

A closer analysis of Qur’an, 5:51

By Suheil Laher

Are Muslims allowed have non-Muslim friends? If not, then what should be our stance towards others?! Anyone who thinks that Muslims must take all non-Muslims as enemies is ignorant of the Qur’an and the life and teachings of Prophet Muhammad, and ignorant of the centuries of friendly co-existence between Muslims and others across history, not mention that such a person is blind to the decency and goodness to be found and appreciated in many other human beings. The Prophet’s own example clearly illustrates that the attitude of the Muslim toward the non-Muslim is not one of bigotry or unconditional animosity. For example, “when Makkah was in the grip of famine, [the Prophet Muhammad] personally went out to help his enemies. When non-Muslim prisoners of war were presented before him, he treated them with such tenderness [as] many cannot even claim to have done in respect to their children. A delegation from Banu Thaqif who had not yet embraced Islam upto that time came to visit him. They were given the honor of staying in the Mosque of the Prophet. Umar [the second Caliph] gave allowances to needy dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects) [rather than obliging them to pay the jizyah tax.” [see: Muhammad Shafi`’s (erstwhile Grand-Mufti of Pakistan) Ma`ariful-Qur’an, 2/57-58.]

Nor can it be that Muslims are supposed to just pretend to be nice to others while hating and cursing them among themselves in private, for the Prophet has denounced duplicity:

You will find the worst person to be the two-faced one, who comes to [one people] with one face, and to [another people] with another face.” [Bukhari]

In the Qur’an, the common origin (and hence essential oneness) of the human race is stressed:

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” [Qur’an, 49:13]

And basic values and decency are not to be reserved only for fellow Muslims:

God does not prohibit you from being kind and just to those who have not fought you on account of religion, nor expelled you from your homes. Allah loves those who are just.” Q[60:8]

We may note that the word used in the verse for ‘kindness’ (al-birr) is the same word used in some hadiths for loving, kind treatment of one’s parents.

Read more

Perverted Priorities : Who Is and Isn't a Muslim?

concepts,courts,decisions,gavels,government,judgment,law,metaphors,silhouettesBy Suheil Laher


“If you don’t convert to (my sect) you might as well not convert to Islam!” exclaimed the ‘uncle’ to the young Christian lady. The lady’s husband, a Muslim, had requested his elder friend (despite his different school of thought in Islam) to come and help explain to her why Islam is so important to her husband, and why he’d like her, too, to share in its joy. The husband was startled by this narrow-minded bombshell. The shocking words of the ‘uncle’ highlight a lack of priorities plaguing some of those who profess themselves to be Muslim.


More specifically, some Muslims are sometimes (and any frequency is too often for something this important) too quick to declare someone to be outside the fold of Islam due to (i) imperfect practice, or (ii) disagreement on a non-core belief (e.g. whether and when capital punishment is mandated for apostasy, or stoning for adultery)

Read full article on MuslimMatters.orgMuslimmatters.org

Actions for Laylatul-Qadr

Islamic man praying at night

These are nights for increasing one’s worship to Allah, and seeking closeness to Him.

“The Messenger of Allah, when the [Last] Ten [Nights of Ramadan] entered, kept the night alive, awoke his family, and tightened his belt.” [Bukhari and others]
Ibn Rajab said, “The optimal worship (`ibadah) is to combine prayer (salah), recitation [of Qur’an], supplication (du`a) and meditation.”

The specific deeds listed (below) can be observed. But make a plan for yourself, whereby you:

1. Supplicate using these words:

اللَهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عَفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ العَفوَ فاعفُ عَنّي

“O Allah You are pardoning, and love to pardon, so pardon me.” [Narrated by Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Nasa’I, Ibn Majah]

2. Pray `Isha’, as well as Maghrib and Fajr, in congregation.

Sa`id ibn al-Musayyib said: “Whoever caught `isha’ [in jama`ah] on Laylatul-Qadr has taken his share of [the night].” [Malik]

“One who performs `Isha’ prayer in congregation, is as if he has performed Salat for half of the night. And one who performs the Fajr prayer in congregation, is as if he has performed Salat the whole night.” [Muslim]

3. Pray Tarawih

“Whoever stands [in prayer] on Laylatul-Qadr, with faith and expectation [of reward], his previous sins are forgiven him.” [Bukhari, Muslim]

4. Pray Tahajjud

The last part of the night is especially valuable for supplicating for forgiveness, and for your needs (of this world and the Hereafter), as is indicated by numerous sayings of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his Household and grant them peace).

5. Do I`tikaf – for the entire 10 days, or for one or more nights

Spending the night in the mosque, is a way to earn credit even during the time you sleep.

6. Wash yourself, and wear good clothes.

The early Muslims (salaf ) used to consider it recommended to perform ghusl for this night and to wear good clothes for it. [Ibn Jareer].

Thabit al-Bunani and Humayd al-Taweel used to dress up, apply perfume, and perfume the mosques. Tameem al-Dari had a costly (1,000 dirham) garment only worn on this night, and similar was the case with Anas ibn Malik. [Ghumari, Ghayat al-Ihsan]

And Allah knows best.

Next Page →