Here’s the first episode of the podcast, The Red Umbrella: Seeking the Divine Shade. It’s a welcome episode, explaining what the podcast intends to discuss, as well as why. Please do benefit, subscribe and also share.
Here’s the first episode of the podcast, The Red Umbrella: Seeking the Divine Shade. It’s a welcome episode, explaining what the podcast intends to discuss, as well as why. Please do benefit, subscribe and also share.
1. Marriage (nikah), the shared life of man and woman, is commended in Islam as being honourable and good. It was the way of God’s prophets and messengers, with the notable exception of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. The Qur’an says: وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلاً مِنْ قَبْلِكَ وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُمْ أَزْوَاجًا وَذُرِّيَّةً – We sent Messengers before you, and appointed for them wives and children. [13:38]
2. The Qur’an describes marriage as: مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا – a solemn covenant [4:21] Given the sacred and solemn nature of marriage, it mustn’t be entered into hastily or unadvisedly, but rather, honourably, reverently and soberly; and with trust in God.
3. The causes for marriage must be contemplated upon before embarking on this quest of intimacy. In Islam’s legal literature, we find the causes for which marriage was ordained are said to be: [i] That the natural instincts of love and intimacy implanted by God can be given blessed expression. [ii] For the increase of humankind and for children to be raised in God’s remembrance and in reverant thanks of Him. [iii] For the benefit of society at large: for family is the foundation of a just and caring society; it is the realm where love, duty, commitment and sacrifice are first encountered and learnt.
To state the above in the more clinical language of today’s anthropologists, the function of marriage is to ensure: [i] social reproduction, [ii] socializing of children and [iii] the passing on of social capital.
4. Speaking about the greater goal of marriage, it’s actual spirit, the Qur’an says: وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُمْ مَوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لآياتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ – And of His signs is that He created for you wives from yourselves that you might find tranquility in them, and He set between you love and affection. In this are signs for people who reflect. [30:21] Thus, let spouses seek to be loving companions on a sacred journey.
5. The Qur’an wants marriage life to be a life of mutual kindness and companionship. It says, while primarily addressing men: وَعَاشِرُوهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ – Live with them in kindness. [4:19] And it insists: وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ – Give them their dowry in kindness. [4:25] And if it be the case: فَإمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ – Keep them honourably, or release them in kindness. [2:229] Allah also warns men: أَسْكِنُوهُنَّ مِنْ حَيْثُ سَكَنتُمْ مِنْ وُجْدِكُمْ وَلاَ تُضَارُّوهُنَّ لِتُضَيِّقُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ – House them in your own homes, according to your means. And do not harass them, so as to make life intolerable for them. [65:6]
So the affair, whether marriage or divorce, is to be one of kindness. The mark of a real Muslim man is nothing less; all else just isn’t manliness in any real sense of the word.
6. As for a Muslim women’s role in nurturing marital harmony, Allah says: فَالصَّالِحَاتُ قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللَّه – So virtuous women are humbly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. [4:34]
7. The Qur’an depicts how it wishes spouses to be with each other, using this beautiful and intimate imagery: هُنَّ لِبَاسٌ لَكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ لِبَاسٌ لَهُنَّ – They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. [2:187]
To conclude: The entire issue of marriage in Islam revolves around mutual love, compassion, kindness, understanding and companionship. Whenever spouses enter the marital home, let them each hang their egos up on the coat peg. For marital becomes martial when the “i” is pushed foreword!
Wa’Llahu wali al-tawfiq.
A. Yes it’s true, but with conditions and caveats. Let me explain:
The Holy Qur’an says: يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ بِكُمْ الْيُسْرَ وَلاَ يُرِيدُ بِكُمْ الْعُسْرَ – ‘Allah desires ease for you; He does not desire for you hardship.’ [2:185]
One celebrated hadith says: يَسِّروا وَلا تُعَسِّرُوا وَبَشِّروا وَلا تُنَفِّروا – ‘Make things easy for people and do not make things difficult; give them glad tidings, do not drive them away.’1
Thus while the principle of ease (taysir) is rooted in revealed texts, we must ensure it does not turn into one of adulteration; especially in today’s egotistical and desacralised world.
From the earliest days of Islam, a core aspect of a mufti’s remit was not only to inform the unqualified masses of the Islamic ruling on any given issue, so as to help them keep their feet firmly upon the path of piety and worship of God. It was also to extend a lifeline in extenuating circumstances; especially to those weak in faith cast adrift in the stormy seas of sin and disobedience. Sufyan al-Thawri said: ‘In our view, knowledge entails [issuing] legal concessions (rukhsah). As for being strict, anyone can do that.’2
‘Azimah refers to a “strict” religious ruling – a ruling in its original form, without any attendant reason or circumstance that could soften its original force. By contrast, rukhsah is a “concession” in the law; an exception to the rule. It is a concessionary ruling brought about by mitigating circumstances, so as to bring about ease in difficult situations.3
The Prophet ﷺ said: إِنَّ اللهَ يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى رُخَصُهُ كَمَا يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى عَزَائِمُهُ – ‘Allah loves that His concessions are taken, just as He loves His stringent rulings are obeyed.’4
Thus ‘azimahs are norms: rukhsahs are exceptions when there are justifiable needs to warrant them. Moreover, a shari‘ah-legislated rukhsah, or relaxation of the law, is based on strictly following certain obligatory guidelines; which include:5
[i] The opinion that brings about the ease must be a valid fiqh opinion; not an anamolous (shadhdh) one.
[ii] The rukhsah should ward of a genuine hardship, be it to the individual or society.
[iii] Deciding if a rukhsah needs taking must be determined by one known to be juristically qualified as well as known for their religious piety, integrity and adherence to revealed truths.
[iv] Following rukhsahs must not become a habitual practice; a device to skirt around the usually legislated ‘azimah or more ‘stringent’ normative ruling.
[v] Such a rukhsah must never lead to the forbidden type of talfiq (lit. ‘piecing together’), where the picking and choosing; the mixing and matching, of madhhabs contravenes an established ijma‘, or leads to innovating a totally new ruling that is neither confirmed by any madhhab or mujtahid.
Legalistic aspects aside, there is also the spirit of the law to consider when dealing with rukhsahs. For a rukhsah is there to facilitate ease and allow obedience to flourish under exceptionally difficult circumstances. Its goal is to make things easier in order for faith to still thrive; not for piety to spiral downwards or slackness towards sins normalised. An individual must, therefore, balance between their spiritual growth, which arises as a result of battling against one’s ego or desires in order to obey Allah; and between being overwhelmed with hardship due to not taking a shari‘ah-sanctioned concession. As Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad has contended: ‘The truly-taken rukhsa makes you grow a little; the falsely-taken rukhsa makes you shrink rapidly.’6
Let’s conclude with these words of sayyiduna ‘Ali, radia’Llahu ‘anhu: الْفَقِيهُ مَنْ لَمْ يُقَنِّطِ النَّاسَ مِنْ رَحْمَةِ اللهِ وَلَمْ يُرَخِّصْ لَهُمْ فِي مَعَاصِي اللهِ – ‘The faqih is not the one to cause people to despair of Allah’s mercy, nor the one to give them licence to sin.’7
1. Al-Bukhari, no.69; Muslim, no.1734.
2. Cited in Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlihi (Saudi Arabia: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 1994), no.1467.
3. Consult: Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2006), 436-38.
4. Ahmad, Musnad, no.5866. It was graded sahih in al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1979), 3:13, no.564.
5. See: al-Bassam, Tawdih al-Ahkam (Riyadh: Dar al-Mayman, 1430H), 2:571-72.
6. Contentions, 14/9 at: http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/contentions14.htm
7. Cited in al-Qurtubi, Kitab al-Tadhkirah (Riyadh: Maktabah Dar al-Minhaj, 1425H), 800.
Speaking about his personal hopes and endeavours, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah once shared these following remarks:
وَالنَّاسُ يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ بَيْنَ الْحَنْبَلِيَّةِ وَالْأَشْعَرِيَّةِ وَحْشَةٌ وَمُنَافَرَةٌ. وَأَنَا كُنْت مِنْ أَعْظَمِ النَّاسِ تَأْلِيفًا لِقُلُوبِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَطَلَبًا لِاتِّفَاقِ كَلِمَتِهِمْ وَاتِّبَاعًا لِمَا أُمِرْنَا بِهِ مِنْ الِاعْتِصَامِ بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ وَأَزَلْت عَامَّةَ مَا كَانَ فِي النُّفُوسِ مِنْ الْوَحْشَةِ، وَبَيَّنْت لَهُمْ أَنَّ الْأَشْعَرِيَّ كَانَ مِنْ أَجَلِّ الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ الْمُنْتَسِبِينَ إلَى الْإِمَامِ أَحْمَدَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ وَنَحْوِهِ الْمُنْتَصِرِينَ لِطَرِيقِهِ كَمَا يَذْكُرُ الْأَشْعَرِيُّ ذَلِكَ فِي كُتُبِه
‘People know that there has been, between the Hanbalis and Ash‘aris, much alienation and animosity. I was of those who strove my utmost to reconcile the hearts of the Muslims and sought to unify their ranks, in emulation of the [divine] command to hold fast to the Rope of Allah. I removed much of the alienation which existed in the hearts and clarified that al-Ash‘ari was one of the noblest of the discursive theologians (mutakallimun) to have ascribed themselves to Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, as well as those like him who supported his way – as al-Ash‘ari himself mentioned in his works.’1
Those who know something of the historical context in which Ibn Taymiyyah was writing the above sentiment will not fail to see something of an irony in this. For although, for a variety of reasons (including his scathing rebuttals against some of his Ash’ari opponents) Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t bring about the outcome he perhaps hoped for, the spirit of uniting hearts and lessening the schisms between Muslims must be the concern of us all.
Those who are qualified and versed to thoroughly and meticulously investigate the Athari-Ash‘ari [Salafi-Ash’ari] theological controversies should follow whatever conclusions their research necessitates – regardless of whether that makes them uncompromising or not. What is also required of such people is that they be wise about how and how much they push such abstruse, theoretical controversies into the public domain, thus sowing further divisions, discord or enmity among this already vulnerable yet blessed ummah. It should also be expected of such seasoned theologians that although they may be fiercely critical of theological positions which contravene their own; and even take it upon themselves to write scathing rebuttals of beliefs they see to be unorthodox, yet let them be respectful as possible to their Salafi or Ash‘ari opponents and not attack or insult actual personalities; many of whom might well be known for their great piety, sincerity, devotional worship, worldly detachment, long service to knowledge, and love for the prophetic Sunnah and the sahabah – regardless of theological mistakes or blunders.
As for those who simply do not have the necessary theological grounding or intellectual prowess to justly and thoroughly evaluate both sides of the highly complex polemics, with what right – and with what knowledge – do they feel they can be unyielding or dogmatic about such matters? For they have no real grasp of these issues. They are just followers of their scholars; many of them bigoted, blind followers at that.
So let repentance be made and schism-mongering be stayed; and perhaps the Generous Lord will look kindly upon us so that we may all be saved.
Of course, one needs to ask how relevant many of these classical theological conundrums are to the current Muslim predicament? How useful are these matters in respect of helping Muslims grapple with perhaps more pressing contemporary theological concerns? While it would be a fool’s errand to imagine we could formulate robust critiques or responses to such challenges by ignoring the principles and insights classical Muslim theology has to offer, there is a growing sense that we are stuck in a phase of fossilised theology. These classical insights haven’t significantly engaged the theological, philosophical and ethical challenges of our time; they have yet to meaningfully deconstruct modernity’s wholesale reinvention of the human story. And whilst some headway is being made by a few Muslim theologians and public intellectuals, we are far from offering any robust responsa to the theological challenges of modernity or the post-modern world.
What are some of these challenges? Well they include, amongst other questions, issues of theology as they relate to science: Does science point towards atheism or theism, is one such question? Another is whether science is intrinsically naturalistic, or is naturalism a philosophy imposed upon the scientific method? Then there is the question of Quantum physics with its principle of indeterminacy and how that bears upon the understanding of causality or occasionalism. Quantum theory also makes itself felt in the question on the actual nature of time, and even the ideas of the soul and [Quantum] consciousness. And then, of course, there is Islam’s evolution question: less about fossils and palaeontology, and more about genetics and genomes. Does, for instance, the idea of ‘Theistic Evolution’ actually square with the Adamic saga or God’s omnipotence, as taught in the Qur’an? And how do we square the evolving fossil records of bipeds over two hundred-thousand years old that, for all intents and purposes, look very similar to us in terms of skeletal structure and cranium capacity, and who seem to be the very first hominids to hunt; use fire; make complex tools; look after their weak and frail; as well as ritually bury their dead, with the explicit Quranic passages speaking about Adam as being the very first Man, and not born of any creature or parent?
As for theology when it is compelled to rub-up against philosophy, there is the question of epistemology: What is knowledge and its nature, and how do they relate to concepts like religious [or revealed] truths, beliefs and justifications? Or to put it in simpler terms: How do we know Islam is the truth? Theodicy; the question of evil, desperately needs stating in a more coherent and convincing manner for modern minds, as does the status of reason or rationality in religious doctrine. Also, secularism’s alleged neutrality towards religious freedom needs to be interrogated, not only in light of its own claims, but also in regards to whether it helps religious practitioners deepen their awareness of the Divine Presence or weaken their sense of it?
Theology as it engages the question of ethics and ultimate values raises all sorts of issues (some which may be better dealt with by our fiqh tradition than our theology one). There are issues starting to grow around AI: Artificial Intelligence, and its benefits to mankind. Theological ethics in this regard will have to focus on matters such as robot rights (which is not an issue if robots are little more than advanced washing machines or dish-washers; but not so clear if they are able to have, or to mimic, emotions and feelings). It will have to work hard to avoid discrimination and bias when developing algorithms for AI. It needs to address the concerns of AI as military robots, or as autonomous weapons without human intervention, in order to avoid the spectre of an AI global arms race or war. It must also confront the existential dilemma posed by AI as superintelligence: where robots begin to recursively self-improve themselves, to the point where they surpass human intelligence by leaps and bounds. We may also discern the growing relevancy of such inquiries if we recall that in 2017, Saudi Arabia became the first ever country to grant actual citizenship to a robot! The robot, called Sophia, now has more rights and entitlements – or at least, on paper – than many foreign workers or expats working in the oil-rich kingdom?
Muslim theological ethics also has more immediate concerns: the issue of gender fluidity, currently being championed by liquid modernity, and how it tallies with Quranic norms of celebrating gender in a gendered created cosmos? Then there are the strident demands of feminism (perhaps one of the greatest challenges to normative scriptural reading in our time). Not in the sense of whether women should be empowered, or accorded their rights and entitlements. Rather, in terms of comparing feminism’s narrative of equality and of its central belief of dismantling all forms of patriarchy, with the Qur‘an’s language of justice (and not equality) and honouring gender distinctions (prescriptively, not descriptively). In fact, ethics must ask an even more fundamental question: By what ethical standard does Western feminism; in particular, or Western liberalism; in general, have a unilateral right to impose its values on other peoples and societies? The crux of such an imposition is the belief in a secular modern trinity: autonomy, equality and rights. To claim, as Islam does, that there are obligations which could constrain our choices, or duties that puts a limit on our desires, is to utter nothing less than a monsterous modern blasphemy!
Theology as it refracts the concept of shari‘ah governance is an area inadequately handled over the past century or more. Here we must ask if the modern nation state, in its secular-liberal matrix, can accept religion in other than a ‘protestant’ mould? Can ‘catholic’ forms of religion – religions that do not separate the sacred from the secular; ones that claim a right, indeed the duty, to order their affairs so that the teachings of faith are reflected in every aspect of life: from the personal to the political – continue to function and flourish without being spiritually emaciated and made into toothless tigers, or swiftly branded as extremists and enemies of the civic order?
A more foundational question is: Can shari‘ah governance and the modern nation-state actually go hand in hand? For a modern ‘Islamic’ ‘state’ is something of a contradiction in terms. For while an all-invasive modern state monopolises legislation, a classical Muslim state doesn’t legislate at all. Traditionally, legislation belongs to Allah; as understood and deciphered by the ‘ulema. How that may be squared with the modern state – in which to practice law making; to be part of the legislature, is to be an agent of the state – has not been adequately tackled by Muslim theologians or Islamists. For there is no modern state sovereignty without state-manufactured law, which the state alone then wields so as to reengineer the social order. To make the state ‘Islamic’, then, we need to search for ways where law is not contaminated by state involvement. Yet ever since the Ottoman reforms of 1856, when the modern Muslim ‘state’ began to become sole master and legitimiser of legislation, the shari‘ah and its fiqh became subjected to a great deal of aberration and to a huge process of politicisation. The question then is, can Islamic governance – whose moral, legal, social, political and metaphysical foundations are radically different to that of the modern state; and whose law is primarily a set of theological principles and moral precepts underscored by legal principles – function independently of the state? Can there be a model of a modern state which divests itself of legislation? Is such an arrangement even possible as an integral facet in the modern patchwork of nation states? Such are the questions that need serious depth of thought – beyond the usual clichés; and beyond our current Western-inspired Islamist or state totalitarianism solutions.
The above, then, are some of the pressing issues Islam’s orthodox theological tradition[s] needs to engage if it is to reflect its truth-claims of being God’s final revelation, and if it wishes to retain its relevancy and vocation as being guide and healer to humanity. For a while now, our post-modern world has been in a crisis. Whatever good the Enlightenment birthed continues to be devoured by a hedonistic consumerism, eating away at the core of its civilisational values like cancer. Human fulfilment is unlikely to come from predatory capitalism; and its Christian heritage seems long incapable of supplying the nourishment needed for the age. Islam, more than ever, seems called upon to be the West’s intellectual and spiritual deliverance. But its monotheistic message of hope, healing and happiness through God’s oneness can only truly illuminate times if its theological concerns are in tune with the needs of the time; when it is able to offer a worldview that helps make sense of the time; and is successful in delivering liveable guidance to navigate the stormy seas of the time. Between now and then there is much to deliberate over, and much work to be done. Here’s to rolling up our spiritual and intellectual sleeves.
Wa’Llahu wali al-tawfiq.
1. Majmu‘ Fatawa (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 3:227-8.
Over the years, I’ve had a number of requests and suggestions about making a list of the Q&A content on the blog, so as to make it more user friendly. Finally, here is that list of Questions & Answers that have been directly or indirectly responded to on this site. And whilst, over the years, I have answered a number of queries sent to me, the blog is by no means meant to be a fatwa site, and I am far from being a qualified mufti. That said, when I do respond to a question or issue of concern, it tends to be a fairly thorough response, as opposed to a short, sharp reply.
The Q&A’s listing now has its separate page on the blog, and can be accessed at the top of the home page in between the “About” and “Videos” link.
I do hope the listing helps readers better navigate through the blog, and that it highlights questions and concerns that are of specific interest to them.
Now that Ramadan has come to an end; and now that the spiritual energy and barakah we’ve been surfing on for the past month is subsiding, there is always that conundrum of letting ourselves spiritually unravel and allowing our material concerns to eclipse our spiritual ones.
And whilst we are not expected to be in fifth gear (or overdrive, even) as so many people were during Ramadan, our striving should still continue and our greater focus should still be al-tahabbub ila’Llah bi ma yarda – ‘seeking to become beloved to Allah by doing what pleases Him.’
It would be truly tragic if we only made it a point to strive to draw closer to Allah only in Ramadan, and to then abandon this commitment once the month was over. It was once said to the reknowned pietist, Bishr al-Hafi, that there are some people who only strive and devote themselves to Allah’s obedience and worship just in Ramadan. So he said: بِئْسَ الْقَوْمِ لا يَعْرِفُوْنَ للهَ حَقّاً إِلاَّ فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَان – “What a wretched folk, who don’t really know Allah except in the month of Ramadan!”1
That said, here are a few suggestions to help keep the Ramadan spirit alive and well, and to answer the question, “What now after Ramadan?”:
: Remember that the reward of fasting; that is to say, the rewards of denying ourselves certain worldly delights only for the sake of Allah, does not stop with Ramadan. No, the greatest reward for those who fast is yet to come – as we learn from the following hadith: لِلصَّائِمِ فَرْحَتَانِ يَفْرَحُهُمَا: إِذَا أَفْطَرَ فَرِحَ بِفِطْرِهِ، وإِذَا لَقِيَ رَبَّهُ فَرِحَ بِصَوْمِهِ. – ‘For the fasting person there are two joys: a joy when breaking the fast, and a joy when meet their Lord due to having fasted.’2 And it is for this Meeting; this Tryst, that lovers yearn and seekers seek.
: Realise that pursuing the path of becoming beloved to Allah begins by fulfilling the obligatory deeds, or fara’id. One hadith qudsi states that Allah says: وَمَا تَقَرَّبَ إِلَيَّ عَبْدِي بِشَيْءٍ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِمَّا افْتَرَضْتُ عَلَيْهِ – ‘My servant doesn’t draw closer to Me with anything more beloved to Me than the obligatory duties I have enjoined on him.’3 Obligations aren’t limited to just the acts of worship such as prayer, fasting or pilgrimage. They also include: fulfilling promises, pledges or contracts; doing justice and being fair; not cheating or defrauding people; and fulfilling the rights and responsibilities we owe others.
: Ramadan teaches us the importance of sacred time. It teaches us that we can – with some effort, planning and tawfiq – make our lives revolve around Allah; and that where there’s a will (a desire to seek God), there’s always a way. The Qur’an tells us that key to this is mujahadah – “spiritual striving”: وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا – Those Who strive in Us, We shall guide them to Our ways. [29:69] One hadith states: الْمُجَاهِدُ مَنْ جَاهَدَ نَفْسَهُ فِي طَاعَةِ اللهِ – ‘The warrior in Allah’s path is he who strives against his ego/lower soul in obedience to Allah.’4
: A core part of this struggle is to reinstate the neglected practice of zuhd, of “worldly detachment”. One hadith states: ازْهَدْ فِي الدُّنْيَا يُحِبَّكَ اللَّهُ – “Detach yourself from the world and Allah will love you.”5 This detachment has degrees or levels, the first of which is working to eliminate the haram from our lives – haram not just in terms of what we eat and drink, but in terms of what we see and hear; what we wear and say; how we earn and spend; and the way we behave and interact with others. It states in one hadith: اِتَّقِ الْمَحَارِمَ تَكُنْ أَعْبَدَ النَّاسِ – ‘Guard against the forbidden and you will be the most devout of people.’6
: An excellent way to help keep the Ramadan spirit ticking along is by: keeping the six recommended fasts of Shawwal. One hadith has this to say: مَنْ صَامَ رَمَضَانَ ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَهُ سِتًّا مِنْ شَوَّالٍ كَانَ كَصِيَامِ الدَّهْرِ – ‘Whoever fasts Ramadan, then follows it up with fasting six days in Shawwal, it shall be as if he has fasted the whole year.’7
: Let’s end with what Ibn al-Jawzi said about the types of Ramadan fasts, which serves as our final lesson: الصَّوْمُ ثَلاثَةٌ: صَوْمُ الرُّوحِ وَهُو قِصَرُ الْأَمَلِ، وَصَوْمُ الْعَقْل وَهُو مُخالفَةُ الهَوى، وَصَوْمُ الْجَوارِح وُهُو الإمْساكُ عَن الطَّعام وَالشَّراب وَالْجِماع – ‘Fasting is of three types: the fast of the soul, which is not to have prolonged hopes [about the world]; the fast of the intellect, which is to oppose one’s false desires; and the fast of the limbs, which is to refrain from food, drink and sexual intimacy.’8
May Allah make us of those who are successful and whose deeds meet with His approval and pleasure.
1. Cited in Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Lata’if al-Ma‘arif (Riyadh: Dar Ibn Khuzaymah, 2007), 496.
2. Al-Bukhari, no.1805; Muslim, no.1151.
3. Al-Bukhari, no.6502.
4. Ahmad, Musnad, no.23958; al-Tirmidhi, Sunan, no.1671, not including the words: ‘… in obedience to Allah.’ Ibn Taymiyyah declared its chain to be jayyid, or excellent, in Majmu‘ Fatawa (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 7:7.
5. Ibn Majah, Sunan, no.4102. After analysis, it was graded sahih in al-Albani, Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1985), no.944.
6. Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan, no.2305. it was declared as hasan in al-Albani, Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, no.930.
7. Muslim, no.2614.
8. Bustan al-Wa‘idhin (Egypt: Dar al-Rayyan, 1984), 316-17.
A man once came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and asked: ‘What of a man who fights in a battle seeking the spoils of war and renown?’ The Prophet replied: ‘There is no [reward] for him [in the Afterlife.’ The man reiterated the question three times, each time he got the same reply: ‘There is no [reward] for him [in the Afterlife].’ The Prophet, peace be upon him, then added:
.إِنَّ الله عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لَا يَقْبَلُ مِنْ الْعَمَلِ إِلَّا مَا كَانَ لَهُ خَالِصاً وَبْتُغِي َبِهِ وَجْهُـهُ
‘Indeed, Allah does not accept a deed, unless it is done sincerely seeking only His face.’1
There are a few crucial points that may be gleaned from this hadith which, in our time, have either been misunderstood and muddled, or denied by a misguided sense of Muslim humanism. Such points include:
1 – This hadith, and others like it, demonstrates that the righteous deed of a Muslim will not be acceptable to Allah, unless the deed is done solely intending the pleasure of Allah. This is what is meant by Allah’s words: فَمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُوا لِقَاءَ رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلاً صَالِحًا وَلاَ يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا – Whoever hopes to meet his Lord, let him do righteous deeds, and let him not associate anyone with Him in worship. [18:110]
2 – If such is the case for a believer, what of a non-Muslim; a disbeliever, who does not do good deeds sincerely for Allah? The answer comes to us in this Quranic verse: وَقَدِمْنَا إِلَى مَا عَمِلُوا مِنْ عَمَلٍ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ هَبَاءً مَنْثُورًا – We shall turn to the deeds they have done, and We shall make them as scattered dust. [25:23] And: وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَعْمَالُهُمْ كَسَرَابٍ – As for those who disbelieve, their deeds are like a mirage. [24:39]
3 – But what of those non-Muslims who do perform good deeds solely for God’s sake and for intending His good pleasure? We have these explicit words of the Prophet, upon whom be peace, that speak to this very point:
إِنَّ اللهَ لَا يَظْلِمُ الْمُؤْمِنَ حَسَنَةً، يُثَابُ عَلَيْهَا الرِّزْقَ فِي الدُّنْيَا، وَيُجْزَى بِهَا فِي الْآخِرَةِ، وَأَمَّا الكَافِرُ فَيُطْعَمُ بِحَسَنَاتِ مَا عَمِلَ للهِ تَعَالَى في الدُّنْيَا، حَتَّى إِذَا أفْضَى إِلَى الآخرَةِ، لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ حَسَنَةٌ يُجْزَى بِهَا
‘Allah does not wrong the believer in terms of good deeds, for he shall be rewarded for it by provisions in this worldly life and [also] be recompensed for it in the Hereafter. As for the disbeliever, he will taste [the rewards] of his good deeds he did for Allah’s sake in this life, but in the Hereafter, he shall have no good deeds to be rewarded for.’2
4 – In other words, righteous deeds of disbelievers that were done sincerely for Allah will be rewarded in this present life; there will be no reward for them in the life to come. To this end, Allah, exalted is He, reveals in the Holy Qur’an: وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ – Whosoever denies faith, his work shall be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. [5:5]
In fact, Imam al-Nawawi states: ‘The scholars have a consensus that there is no reward in the Afterlife for a non-Muslim who dies in a state of unbelief.’3
5 – Some of the more informed may, at this point, ask about the Prophet’s beloved uncle, Abu Talib: won’t his punishment in the Hellfire be lightened because of his good deeds in aiding the Prophet, peace be upon him, and protecting him against harm and persecution in Makkah? The response to this objection is found in the following hadith:
لَعَلَّهُ تَنْفَعُهُ شَفَاعَتِي يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ، فَيُجْعَلُ فِي ضَحْضَاحٍ مِنْ نَارٍ يَبْلُغُ كَعْبَيْهِ، يَغْلِي مِنْهُ دِمَاغُهُ
‘Perhaps my intercession will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection such that he will be placed in a shallow part of the Fire that reaches up to his ankles, but by which it causes his brain to boil.’4
Thus, rather than being rewarded for his actual good deeds, Abu Talib’s punishment is lightened due to the Prophet’s intercession (shafa‘ah) for him. If, for argument’s sake, we admit that this intercession for him was due to his good deeds of defending the Prophet, peace be upon him, then this would be an exception to the rule that there is no reward in the Afterlife for non-Muslims who did good on earth but who died in a state of kufr.
6 – A final point: as for those non-Muslims who did good and who subsequently became Muslim and died upon Islam, Allah will reward them for each and every good deed they did even in their state of disbelief. About this, our Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
إِذَا أَسْلَمَ الْعَبْدُ فَحَسُنَ إِسْلَامُهُ كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَهُ كُلَّ حَسَنَةٍ كَانَ أَزْلَفَهَا وَمُحِيَتْ عَنْهُ كُلُّ سَيِّئَةٍ كَانَ أَزْلَفَهَا
‘When a person becomes a Muslim and makes his Islam good, Allah writes for him every good deed he did in the past and erases from him any wrong deed he did in the past.’5
Wa’Llahu wali al-tawfiq.
1. Al-Nasa’i, no.3142. Its chain was graded as hasan by al-‘Iraqi, al-Mughni ‘ani’l-Haml al-Asfar (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Tabariyyah, 1995), 1177; no.4269.
2. Muslim, no.2808.
3. Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1995), 17:124.
4. Al-Bukhari, no.1408; Muslim, no.360.
5. Al-Bukhari, no.41, in mu‘allaq form; al-Nasa‘i, no.4998.