بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

LIVE news updates
Jun 24 Transforming Your Reality Jun 17 A History of Muslim Americans’ Political Engagement Jun 17 My Brother is Gay: Navigating the Intersection of Religion and Family An interview with Imam Wesley Lebron Jun 10 Islam and the Romans: Early Muslim-Byzantine Interaction May 20 Reclaiming the Sunnah of Adoption and Foster Care: An Interview with Basmah Salam Apr 29 National Poetry Month: An Ode to Faith, Visibility, and the Conversations We Don’t Forget Apr 15 Beyond Ramadan: Taking Its Lessons Farther  Apr 15 The Power of Saying No: A Reflection on Boundaries

Author: bocapro

  • Social Media: A Tool for the Common Good

    Social Media: A Tool for the Common Good

    The concept of social media has undergone defining and evolutionary expansion over the past ten years, in ways that have reached the farthest corners of the earth and the most immediate facets of our personal lives. This era has seen the re-invention of all our most common gadgets such as cell phones and laptop computers into tools that connect each of us to the very nexus of the world.  Steve Jobs, who died of cancer in early October, was the individual most responsible for making technology so intuitive that a 3-year-old can figure out how to work an iPad.  Felix Salmon, a blogger, wrote, “It was Steve Jobs who, almost single-handedly, turned personal technology into personal technology.”  Jobs unrelenting individualism and willingness to work tirelessly to achieve his objectives, in concert with his creative genius, are noteworthy.

    Yet it seems that those who are inclined to individualism can easily slide into Ayn Randian perspectives.  These advocate a “morality of selfishness” and an unabashed egoism. Rejected is any notion of ethical altruism — the unselfish concern for and devotion to the welfare of others.  The mindset of individualism taken to the extreme explains audience members at the Republican debate who cheered  the idea of letting an uninsured man die or wildly applauded Texas governor Rick Perry’s record for greatest number of executions in any state.  Such hardheartedness also explains to great extent the growing protests to the banking oligarchy on Wall Street. 

    Combating greed and a heartless ultra-right-wing ideology and the policies they generate is made more possible with the use of the internet’s alternative media and social media networking. Steve Jobs has become a household name and it symbolizes this distinctive time of personal technology that gives each individual the opportunity to bring forward an entrepreneurial idea, a plan of action for a civic project, or a rallying call that champions a cause. And in every case there is potential for reaching a critical mass of minds and imaginations — in ways that can literally transform the political, social, and/or economic vista in one’s own city or around the world. President Obama once said, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”  His predecessor, John F. Kennedy, said along the same lines, “One person can make a difference and every person should try.”

    We can influence and be influenced as we ride the social media wave toward the shore

    We know that great social changes have always been identified with a name and a resolute character — the prophets sent by Allah SWT best typify these eminent souls. And in our contemporary times there have been those who ushered in great social changes like Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks. They were the pre-internet activists. Asmaa Mahfouz, whose YouTube video sparked a revolution in Egypt, and those like her, are the new activists, using social media to map out the way to positive change.

    This issue explores the varying forms of social media. It also focuses on how the youth are using their skills and the tools of technology to raise the volume of an ever-growing stream of voices that choose to share and nurture positive human experience — people collaborating for the common good.  While certain cautions are noted about the pervasive and often addictive power of social media, the focus is on the youth who are using their creativity and technological savvy  to create greater access to information, increase communication, and make available accurate material about Islam and Muslims.

    We can rightfully celebrate these not-superficial trends. Imagine the limitless possibilities, for example,  as more and more get involved, get creative, and get the word out that Muslims are the next-door neighbor, the colleague at work, the student in the next seat, the person sitting beside you on the bus. Lena Khan, a 23-year-old woman wanted to present Muslims as relatable, down-to-earth people and so she produced and  directed a short video, “A Land Called Paradise,” and placed it on YouTube. To date it has garnered over 500,000 hits and won a $20,000 prize in a contest to produce videos that challenge Muslim stereotypes.

    An example of an unexpected collaboration is the story of Suzy Ismail, a Visiting Professor at DeVry University and author of a number of books for Muslims. Her article in this issue, Blogging Our Way Towards Understanding,  describes her journey from a mindset of exclusion — “By secluding ourselves with only same-faith, like-minded individuals, we had unwittingly cut ourselves off from interacting with those people who we could ‘invite to all that is good,’ from engaging in any form of relationship that would allow for sincere and open dialogue and discourse about faith” — to one that does not shy away from differences, a mindset which gave birth to a blog with fellow author Suzi Ryan, a devout Christian. Their aim is to share their thoughts with others and plant seeds of understanding.

    We, as Muslims, can create expressions of outreach as varied as the individuals in “A Land Called Paradise.”  We can share our visions of a greater tomorrow, sowing tolerance and genuine caring about the welfare of others. We can influence and be influenced as we ride the social media wave toward the shore. There, walking beyond the popular culture’s shifting sands of style and celebrity and superficial trend, further on past demagoguery and wealth elitism, we find solid ground where we can be active builders of a common good. Social media networking is just one tool, but an important one, in that human project.

  • What Everyone Should Know About Shariah

    The newest buzzword these days is ‘Shariah.’ As several states scramble to pass legislation to outlaw Shariah, a hyped fear and persistent confusion surrounds this loaded term. Most people who speak passionately against Shariah do not, in reality, understand it and often reduce it to merely a penal code. This introduction describes the universal principles of Shariah and its holistic approach. It further highlights misconceptions about Shariah in order to address the concerns currently surrounding this topic.

    Shariah is an integral part of Islam. It is often defined as ‘Islamic law,’ causing one to assume that it consists mostly of criminal rulings and penalties. However, Shariah encompasses much more than the conventional understanding of law. While Shariah provides the legal framework for the foundation and functioning of a society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims at an individual and collective level.
    Islam is a faith that every prophet sent by God preached to his people, culminating in the message brought by the final prophet, Muhammad, peace be upon him (pbuh), in the 7th century in Arabia. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) called people towards the belief in one God and encouraged them to be just and compassionate to one another. In Islam’s holy book, the Quran (also spelled ‘Koran’), God explains that he sent Muhammad (pbuh) as a source of mercy for humanity: “And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.” (21: 107)

    His mandate for mercy is symbolic of the overall message of Islam. The Quran states, “O mankind! There hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts, and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.” (10:57)

    In the same spirit, the essence of Shariah is also characterized by mercy and compassion. The very purpose of Shariah is to facilitate the individual and the community to establish a relationship with God and one another. Its rules and regulations are designed to benefit and protect all members of the society. God declares in the Quran, “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin…” (4:135)

    According to Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350), one of the great scholars, “The Shariah in its entirety is justice, mercy and benefit. So any issue that leads from justice to injustice, or mercy to its opposite, or benefit to harm, then it is not from the Shariah, even if someone thought that it is.”

    Mercy and compassion are the essence of Shariah, which is designed to protect all members of society and to improve the condition of humanity. It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, “Show mercy to those on earth, so that He who is in the Heavens (God) will show mercy to you.”

    Shariah is an Arabic word that literally means a ‘vast road leading to an uninterrupted source of water.’ Figuratively, it refers to a clear, straight path, as mentioned in the following Quranic verse: “Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on a straight way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18) Hence, Shariah is the practical guidance Muslims live by. It is rooted in the divine teachings of Islam and relates to all aspects of life. Its collective aim is to facilitate justice and benefit for humanity in this life and the hereafter.

    Shariah is derived from the scholarly study of Islamic texts. These texts include the final revelation from God (Quran) and the recorded teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Sunnah) which are timeless and of divine origin. However, scholars derive specific rulings from the revealed texts by using human effort and interpretation, taking into account the surrounding context. As such, Shariah relies on scholarly consensus, legal analogy, and interpretive reasoning in deciding rulings. Hence, there are areas of Shariah where the scholars unanimously agree due to clearly defined evidence and areas where disagreements exist. This flexibility enables Shariah to maintain its applicability and relevance in the light of changing social, cultural, and historical circumstances, while remaining faithful to the guiding principles of Shariah and its core objectives.

    Objectives of Shariah

    To fulfill its intrinsic goal of achieving benefit and justice, Shariah sets forth certain timeless principles, which deal with the necessary, supplementary, and voluntary realms of human lived experience.

    Firstly, Shariah preserves basic human rights in order to maintain harmony in society. This necessary protection applies to all members of society, irrespective of their race, religion, or ethnicity. These rights are classified as faith, life, progeny, property, and intellect. These fundamental protections ensure freedom of religion, affirm the sanctity of life, validate the importance of family, guarantee the security of assets, and uphold the power of reasoning.
    As with any liberties, certain provisions in Shariah open avenues for advancement whereas some are designed to keep people from stepping over the rights of others. In his essay titled “The Objectives of Shariah,” Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, former professor of law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, explains that Shariah encourages work and trade so that individuals are able to earn a living. Similarly, Shariah urges the pursuit of knowledge and education to ensure the intellectual growth and development of people. On the other hand, theft is punishable because it threatens the inherent right of property. In addition, adultery and alcohol consumption are prohibited because the former violates the sanctity of the family unit and the latter has the potential to impair one’s intellectual capacity, leading to the abuse of other people’s rights.

    After securing these necessities, Shariah supplements them by removing hardships. God states in the Quran, “God wants ease for you, not hardship.” (Quran 2:185) He also says, “And He has imposed no difficulties on you in religion.” (Quran 22:78) The permissibility of hunting for food and profit sharing, for instance, are concessions which facilitate human life. Likewise, the prohibition of exploitative or doubtful contracts prevents harm.
    Furthermore, God assures, “… if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless, for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Quran 2:173) This has given rise to the Islamic legal principle, ‘Necessities make the prohibited permissible.’ For instance, fasting during Ramadan is obligatory. Yet, if someone cannot fast due to a medical reason, they may skip the fasts in that month and compensate for them through alternatives outlined in Shariah.

    Lastly, after protecting the essential rights of people and granting complementary concessions, Shariah focuses on additional and voluntary factors that enhance and refine life. For instance, fasting outside of Ramadan is added worship which falls under this category. Developing good habits and perfecting one’s interpersonal skills are also extra deeds. Similarly, desires and comforts which beautify life, such as fine clothing, nice furniture, and delicious food, are incorporated here, provided one does not indulge in them at the cost of their physical and spiritual health.

    The necessary, supplementary, and voluntary principles within Shariah all seek to promote its primary objective: to achieve benefit. In its broadest sense, benefit encompasses this life and the afterlife, the individual as well as the society, the present and the future. Human intellect requires the comprehensive knowledge and guiding wisdom of God to achieve this benefit in its entirety. Indeed, God has ordained Shariah for the benefit of His creatures and it exemplifies His Mercy.

    A Way of Life

    Shariah is much more than ‘Islamic law’ because it is not limited to legal issues. While it covers areas of contracts, family law, and international relations, it also includes a social system that encourages the just and generous treatment of neighbors, the preservation of the environment, and caring for the poor and oppressed, along with personal acts of worship such as prayer, fasting, and charity. In fact, Shariah contains a detailed code of conduct. Here are some examples from the Quran (final revelation of God) and Sunnah (teachings of Prophet Muhammad, pbuh):

    Following are some examples from the Quran that motivate and inspire to kindness, humbleness, justice, and self-restraint:

    • “And speak good words to all people.” (2:83)
    • “The servants of the Lord of Mercy are those who walk humbly on the earth, and who, when the foolish address them, reply, ‘Peace’.” (25:63)
    • “God loves those who seek to purify themselves.” (9:108)
    • “…whoever pardons and makes reconciliation – his reward is [due] from Allah. Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.” (42:40)
    • “… those who are patient and do righteous deeds; those will have forgiveness and great reward.” (11:11)

    And following are similar examples from the Sunnah:

    • “The believer does not defame, abuse, disparage, nor vilify.”
    • “You do not believe until you love for your brother (in faith and in humanity) what you love for yourself.”
    • “The world is green and delightful and God has put you in charge of it and is watching how you behave.”
    • “Show mercy to those on earth so that He Who is in Heaven (God) will show mercy on you.”
    • “Make things easy on people and do not make them difficult, and cheer people up and do not put them off (by your behavior).”

    In addition, Shariah seeks to protect all the vulnerable segments of society. The following is a brief list of these:

    Women have the right to education, to marry someone of their choice, to divorce, to work, to own and sell property, to vote as well as to participate in civic and political engagement, and to be protected by the law.
    Zakah, an obligatory charity, is collected from individuals who fall above a specific income bracket, amounting to 2.5% of their wealth. This money is redistributed to eight different groups of needy people and institutions, starting with the local needs first.

    Shariah safeguards essential rights such as acts of obligatory worship, instructs Muslims regarding their dietary restrictions, and encourages them to be pious, truthful, and tolerant individuals

    Children have rights that Shariah protects, including the right not to be abused. When parents get a divorce, custody is granted according to the child’s benefit.
    Caring for the poor, orphans, widows, and the elderly is a collective responsibility of the community.

    Animals are to be treated with kindness, and cruelty towards them is a grave sin.

    The primary theme in all of these examples is the individual and collective effort to achieve benefit in material, moral, and spiritual spheres of life through mercy and compassion.

    Misconceptions about Shariah

    Many people think Shariah forces Muslims in America to reject the U.S. Constitution while others openly assert that American Muslims want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah. In reality, this is not true. Shariah actually demands that Muslims follow the law of the land. This command is binding so long as they are not forced to commit an irreligious act or prevented from fulfilling their religious duties. Thankfully, this is not the case in the U.S. because the Constitution protects freedom of religion.

    In fact, the U.S. Constitution and Shariah have much in common. The Constitution begins with, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” These stipulations are very similar in nature to the objectives of Shariah, as described above. In addition, Shariah is comparable to the laws of other religious communities, such as Jewish customs in terms of dietary restrictions, aspects of ritual purity, and a detailed code of conduct.

    As any other faith-based community in America, Muslims may disagree with certain laws enacted by the majority, and may exercise their right to peaceful persuasion, in order to bring about a change. However, this free and peaceful expression of ideas can hardly be deemed a threat, given that the Constitution itself guarantees this right for every individual under the First Amendment. Indeed, a healthy attitude toward differences of opinion is a source of enrichment for our common culture.

    Peaceful coexistence, not violent overthrow, is the mandate of the Shariah. When a Muslim lives in the U.S., he or she agrees to follow the law of the land. This agreement is binding upon them according to the Shariah

    The aspects of Shariah related to a Muslim’s ability to practice Islam, such as prayer, fasting, and charity, do not conflict with Common Law. However, differences do arise in some matters. For instance, the laws of inheritance in Shariah are distinct from those in Common Law. In this case, Muslims have utilized means provided by the Common Law, such as writing wills in accordance with Shariah, in order to be faithful to their religion while following the law of the land.

    Peaceful coexistence is mandated by Shariah. When a Muslim lives in the U.S., they are doing so while agreeing to follow the law of the land and this agreement is binding upon them according to Shariah. In the Quran, God commands Muslims to fulfill their covenants: “O you who have believed, fulfill (all) contracts.” (5:1) God also commands Muslims, “Fulfill your agreement with them to the end of their term. God loves those who are mindful of Him.” (9:4)

    Therefore, attempts to outlaw Shariah are not only absurd, they can potentially alienate millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims currently living in America. After all, Shariah safeguards essential rights such as acts of obligatory worship, instructs Muslims regarding their dietary regulations, and encourages them to be pious, truthful, and tolerant individuals. Misguided efforts to outlaw Shariah would in fact impede Muslims from practicing the very basics of their religion, from praying and fasting to consuming food according to Islamic guidelines. Hence, these anti-Shariah bills are far from securing Americans from an impending threat and actually infringe upon the rights of the American Muslim community.

    Contrary to its distorted image, Shariah is a comprehensive social and legal system which is an integral part of a Muslim’s life. Its guiding principles are based on mercy and compassion and its core objectives are designed to achieve benefit and justice, on an individual as well as collective level.

    This article is based on the dawah brochures authored by the content department of 877-Why-Islam dawah project.  Please contact WhyIslam Content Department at content@whyislam.org or visit www.WhyIslam.org.

  • Understanding Shariah and Defending Our Religious Freedom

    Understanding Shariah and Defending Our Religious Freedom

    “Sharia is a threat to America,” “mosques are Trojan horses,” “radical Islam has infiltrated mainstream Muslim organizations,” “there is no such thing as moderate Islam — traditional Islam is radical,” “practicing Muslims cannot be loyal Americans.” These are some of the talking points (or, more correctly, propaganda points) of a newly-emerged extreme right-wing faction in the American body politic. Compared with the rising tide of Islamophobia in Europe, American society is still strikingly tolerant, pluralistic, and accommodating towards Islam and Muslims. However, that American broadmindedness is contracting all too quickly as the relatively small but well-connected anti-Muslim forces have taken their hate campaign to new heights in recent times. This xenophobic minority has put its agents in most key sectors of society. Even intelligence and law enforcement agencies are falling prey to the Islamophobia industry by inviting self-proclaimed “terrorism experts” to educate local officials and rank and file officers. These “experts” are, in fact, spreading fear and misinformation in the guise of training. They are brazen Islamophobes, actively promoting bigotry against the American Muslim community. Troubling indications of this trend are the three states have already passed anti-sharia laws and 18 others that are discussing similar bills. A Tennessee anti-sharia bill, which sought to make the observance of Islam a crime punishable by 15 years in prison, has been modified under pressure from civil liberties groups and the Muslim community, removing any direct reference to shariah but still posing significant threat to civil and religious liberty. A Texas bill would deny recognition of Muslim marriages. It is clear that the anti-sharia campaign targets everything related to Islam and Muslims, and in some of the most extreme cases, seeks to criminalize the very practice of Islam.

    So how does this antipathy impact America? Yale professor Eliyahu Stern has observed: “The crusade against shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority” (Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America, NY Times, September 2, 2011). Unfortunately, such voices of reason and moderation are too often drowned out by the raucous belligerents spreading their propaganda. So more and more might come to believe that practicing Muslims cannot be loyal Americans even though a recent Pew Research Center poll has found that Muslim Americans exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups. And, notably, Muslim respondents expressed a greater degree of tolerance toward people of other faiths than did Protestants, Catholics, or Jews.

    Who is feeding the Islamophobia in America? The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, conducted a six-month long study and has released a report entitled Fear Inc., The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America. Their research has found that the anti-shariah campaign is basically comprised of five interlocking elements. The first is the funding source: only seven contributors have given nearly $43million to anti-Muslim organizations and think tanks in the past decade. The second constituent part is played by five Islam-bashing scholars and policy experts and their organizations that act as the central nervous system responsible for producing and conveying the fictitious memes and fear-mongering talking points about Muslims and Islam. The Fear Inc. report says that Frank Gaffney’s neoconservative think tank, Center for Security Policy, has used its financial clout to misdefine shariah as the dominant totalitarian threat to America. Wajahat Ali, one of the Fear Inc. researchers, has rightly observed: “No religious Muslim scholar, let alone a practicing layman, would recognize this definition of Sharia, which, in reality, deals primarily with personal religious observances, including practices such as charitable giving, prayer, and honoring one’s parents, with precepts virtually identical to those of Christianity and Judaism.” The third interlocking element in the anti-shariah campaign is the religious right, and the fourth is comprised of the media enablers: “The mainstreaming of this fringe, extremist rhetoric is aided by media allies in network TV (Fox News), radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck), online magazines (World Net Daily, Front Page Magazine) and the Islamophobia blogosphere (Jihad Watch), which give Islamophobe talking-heads an influential pulpit to broadcast their misinformation,” explains Wajahat Ali. The fifth category involves political players like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and their ilk.

    While every individual is entitled to speak his/her mind, we do well to recognize that promoting the banning of shariah would be like promoting the banning of halakha (Jewish law) or cannon law (Christian law) observed by practicing American Jews and Christians respectively. More importantly, the anti-shariah campaign foments a hostile environment that can only stymie the growth of American Muslim inclination and readiness to integrate and contribute to a pluralistic and tolerant American narrative.

    Denying Muslims’ constitutionally-granted right to practice their religion prompts Tariq Ramadan to pose the salient question: “Why is it today that when the Muslims are asking the same rights as others, they are perceived as not truly Americans?” Indeed, the anti-shariah exponents don’t have any answer to this question.

    We must stand firm and speak out to counter the anti-shariah vitriol, remind its supporters to abide by the American constitution and promote the pluralistic values and vision of the American founding fathers.

  • Comfort and Contentment in Marital Relationship

    Comfort and Contentment in Marital Relationship

    Our marriages are what we make them—whether we make them a heaven or a hell depends on us. However, many people, especially those in troubled marriages, are prone to be pessimistic and prefer to blame everyone or everything except their own ill manners and misconduct. Some people are even more fatalistic by concluding that “a fulfilling marriage is simply a matter of luck.” However, is this really the case? Can we live in this world with such an attitude or philosophy? Is this not simply denying taking responsibility for our own actions? More importantly, is it not also disobeying the commandments of God and then putting blame on Him (God) for the outcome of our own actions and transgressions?

    In the Quran, Allah (SWT) reminds us, “And among His signs is this: He created for you spouses from among yourselves that you may find comfort and contentment in them, and He has put between you mawadah (love) and rahmah (mercy). Verily, in that are signs for those who reflect” (Al-Quran, 30:21). He also says, “O mankind, be conscious of your Lord, who created you from one soul and created (of like nature) from it its mate and dispersed from both of them multitudes of men and women. And remain conscious of God, in whose name you demand [your rights] from one another, and of the ties of kinship. Verily God is ever watchful over you” (Al-Quran, 4:1).

    While Islam does not ignore the material basis of ‘kufu’ (compatibility) between the couple as they tie their knot, nothing can protect or even promote the marital relationship if ‘mawadah’ and ‘rahmah’ (love, compassion, understanding, cooperation, leniency, and mercy) are missing in the relationship. It is also worth mentioning that a person (husband or wife) could be outwardly pious because of his/her performing religious rites and rituals, but if he or she is ignorant or negligent about the recipe and required rules of marriage, that relationship is destined to be in trouble.

    What makes the case worse is that, when faced with marital differences and disputes, some people not only break the sacred rules of marriage, but they fail to live up to minimum human decency and civility. More often than not, the disputing couple ends up in a relationship based on violence. However, they must remember that while differences and disputes in marriage are human, domestic violence displays a person’s devilish character only. This is not befitting for a believer.

    How can a couple ensure happiness in their marriage? Rida Beshir and Ekram Beshir, the renowned marriage counselors and best-selling authors of Blissful Marriage: A Practical Islamic Guide (Amana Publications, 2003) write, “There are tried and proven recipes for a successful marriage.” Very appropriately, they call them the “Seven Essential C’s” and the “Seven Magical S’s”. The Seven Essential C’s are commitment, courtesy, communication, care, contentment, contribution, and compromise, and the Seven Magical S’s are sensitivity, sincerity, security, support, satisfaction, sharing, and sexual gratification. According to the Beshirs, this list is not exhaustive, for there are “Five Wonderful A’s” which, if applied, can make a marriage more fulfilling. They are adaptation, accommodation, appreciation, anticipation, and acceptance.

    To conclude, marriage, a divinely planned institution, is highly valued in Islam. Those who undermine this noble and sacred institution actually defy God’s Commandments and devalue their own human dignity. Our peace and happiness in a marital relationship is contingent upon our mindfulness and molding our manners according to its rules and demands. Let us not forget that happiness is not a matter of ‘entitlement’ in marriage—to get it, we have to work for it.

  • Manufactured Misery and Global Suffering

    During the 1980s, longtime activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. popularized the expression “misery index” in response to President Ronald Reagan’s domestic fiscal philosophy of trickle-down economics and the resulting suffering and deprivation of America’s lower and middle classes. Economist Arthur Okun, an advisor to President Lyndon Johnson, is credited with coining the expression in the 1960s as a barometer of the nation’s economic well-being when its unemployment and inflation rates were added together. Whereas inflation and unemployment rates are undoubtedly critical indicators of the state of a country’s financial health, other equally significant factors must be considered in order to understand the degree to which global suffering is not just a byproduct of errant economic policies or predictable cycles, but a direct result of manufactured misery by governments and transnational corporations being ideologically driven by relatively anonymous, small groups of unfettered capitalist found in think tanks and other policy institutes.

    Former US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a memorandum in 1970 to the National Chamber of Commerce that said that “all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War” and that “we need to do something about it.” Powell advised that the Chamber of Commerce recruit wealthy conservatives for professorships and set up institutions on and off campus where intellectuals could write books from a conservative perspective. Although conservative think tanks like the Hoover Institute and the American Enterprise Institute existed before Powell’s and the Chamber’s initiatives, a virtual explosion of conservative policy institutes that influence government economic, military, and social policies have since come into existence. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers like the American Council for Capital Formation and the RAND Corporation along with privately funded think tanks, especially The Project for the New American Century, influence U.S. political leaders with not only neo-conservative formulated domestic and foreign policy, but provide personnel directly from their ranks to staff major Cabinet and Executive level positions who directly implement these groups’ “recommendations.”

    Identifying Poverty

    The United Nations World Summit on Social Development has defined poverty as, “A condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education, and information.” Poverty levels are usually set by individual nations, although Developing Nations generally agree that $1.00 a day is required in their countries to meet the necessary consumption amount for proper living. The World Bank sets its absolute poverty level for Developing Nations for $1.25 a day (U.S.) and $2.00 a day in relatively more developed nations. Various UN reports establish the estimated number of the world’s people living in absolute poverty, less than $1.25 (U.S.) a day, as more than three billion people, or almost half of the world’s population (6,800,000,000, United Nations, 2009). World Bank and United Nations statistics reveal that one of every two children in the world, one billion, lives in absolute poverty; 640 million children live without adequate shelter; 400 million children have no access to clean water; and 24,000 children a day die from preventable diseases.

    Help lower the
    misery index of our neighbors on this planet. Think globally,
    but act locally

    The reasons for the globalization and institutionalization of poverty have been camouflaged by the mass media and inserted into the public conscience with expressions such as “Corruption in the Developing World,” “Unmotivated Work Forces,” and “Failure to Democratize.” While government corruption, a disinterested labor pool, or an autocratic political system may contribute to a nation’s collective poverty, these factors provide no easy explanations why the wealthiest 20 percent of the world’s population account for 76 percent of private consumption, while the world’s poorest fifth account for 1.5 percent of private consumption. Neither does it explain why the GDP (gross national product) of 41 of the most heavily indebted nations in the world have less wealth than seven of the world’s richest people. Or why 45 percent of all meat and fish, 58 percent of total energy, and 74 percent of all telephone lines are consumed or used by the richest fifth of the population.

    Monopolistic Control

    Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of this late 20th and early 21st century globalization of poverty phenomenon is that it is occurring in post-colonial environments during a period of technological advance. Arguably, the prototype for Western corporations’ government-sanctioned pillage and rape of the natural and human resources of less developed nations and subsequent impoverishing of indigenous populations was the East India Company. The company was established in England in the 17th century as a joint-stock company formed to pursue trade with the East Indies, primarily the Indian sub-continent and China. Initially concentrating on the trading of cotton, silk, tea, and opium, the East India Company evolved over the next two centuries to exert monopolistic control over not only the trade, but governance of India. Eventually, the company would directly rule India, become one of the strongest lobbyist forces with the British Parliament in history, and turn the local populations into a servile class to the British Empire and its interest.

    UN reports establish the estimated number of the world’s people living in absolute poverty, less than $1.25 (U.S.) a day, as more than three billion people, or almost half of the world’s population

    In the 20th century, the United Fruit Company approximated the monopolistic dominance that the East India Company had over India through its near-absolute control over the fruit plantations and trade, and governments of Central America, Ecuador, the Caribbean coast of Columbia, and the Caribbean islands. By developing and controlling extensive transportation networks, maintaining an efficient, ruthless monopoly of the fruit trade including exploitation of workers in its countries of operation, United Fruit, currently operating as Chiquita Brands International, eventually became the largest employer of workers in the Western Southern Hemisphere running operations as diverse as the postal system in Guatemala in the 1930s.

    Capitalism as a Vulture

    El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, Malcolm X, one of the most analytical Muslim minds of the 20th century, addressed the issue of global economic disparities and what he saw as a root cause when he said in 1964, “It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it’s more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody’s blood whether they were strong or not. But, now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, capitalism has fewer victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It’s only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely.”
    Whether one agrees or disagrees with Malcolm’s analysis of the imminent demise of the global, vulture-like expressions of capitalism as manifested in the behaviors of some transnational corporations, the reality is that some European and American-owned corporations are major purveyors of misery in the nations where they operate. Witness the revelations of the exploitation of child labor by U.S.-owned companies in Developing Nations as children as young as five years old, sometimes with their mothers and fathers, are forced to toil for less than subsistence wages in wretched conditions for 12 to 16 hours a day so that company profits can be maximized. Often governments in Latin America, South America, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and Southeast Asia have their authority severely compromised due to the demands placed on them and their nations’ resources by these companies.

    The GDP (gross national product) of 41 of the most heavily indebted nations in the world have less wealth than seven of the world’s richest people.

    Throughout Africa and Latin and South America, transnational corporations support private armies, euphemistically called security teams, to defend their interests, including the wealth-producing natural resources that they are extrapolating through arrangements pressured from their host countries. Too often these private armies are able to impose their employers will onto the national agenda due to their superior organization, numbers, equipment, and political and even military support from their home countries.

    Bringing “Relief” to Distressed Nations

    Ironically, manufactured misery finds a home in Developing Nations through two agencies that were ostensibly designed to bring relief to financially distressed nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Both groups were formed in a meeting of delegates from 44 nations in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944. Confusion existed even in the minds of some of the founders of the organizations over the difference in their missions. The basic difference between the groups seems to be that the World Bank, or International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was designed as a “development institution that finances economic development in areas ravaged by the effects of natural disasters, wars, or catastrophic government actions.” The International Monetary Fund is charged with “maintaining cooperative relationships between global institutions and seeking to maintain an orderly system of payments and receipts between nations.” Due to its preeminent military and financial influence in the world, the United States is unsurprisingly the dominate influence over both groups. Even though the groups stated goals are laudable, the practical implementation of their mission has been disastrous for Developing Nations for at least the last two decades. The IMF boasts that it “negotiates” not imposes policy on a country before it can receive assistance.

    Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, an Economics professor at Columbia University and former chief economist of the World Bank said of the groups, “The World Bank talks of assistance strategies for every poor nation using careful country by country investigations. However, the Bank’s investigation involves little more than close inspection of five-star hotels. It concludes with a meeting with a begging finance minister, who is handed a ‘restructuring agreement’ pre-drafted for ‘voluntary signature.’ Officially, of course, the IMF doesn’t impose anything. It negotiates the conditions for receiving aid. But all the power in the negotiations is on one side—the IMF’s—and the fund rarely allows sufficient time for broad consensus-building or even widespread consultations with either parliaments or civil society. Sometimes the IMF dispenses with the pretense of openness altogether and negotiates secret covenants.”

    According to economist Robin Hanhel, “To receive assistance from the IMF or World Bank, all troubled Developing Nations must agree to the following austerity measures that guarantee that the nations will be worse off, especially in the area of social services, than before receiving the help:

    Monetary austerity. Tighten up the money supply to increase internal interest rates to whatever heights needed to stabilize the value of the local currency

    Fiscal austerity. Increase tax collections and reduce government spending dramatically
    Privatization. Sell off public enterprises to the private sector

    Financial Liberalization. Remove restrictions on the inflow and outflow of international capital as well as restrictions on what foreign businesses and banks are allowed to buy, own, and operate

    “Only when governments sign this “structural adjustment agreement” does the IMF agree to lend enough to prevent default on international loans that are about to come due and otherwise would be unpayable and arrange a restructuring of the country’s debt among private international lenders that includes a pledge of new loans.” The practical result of these stipulations for assistance has been that the poorer nations are getting even poorer, losing more control of their industry and resources, and permanently wedding themselves with exorbitant debt, payable to the very institutions that are supposed to help them.

    The Impact of War

    No single catastrophic event exponentially increases the cumulative misery index of a nation more than war. For example, the Gulf War of 1990 and the Iraq invasion and occupation of 2003 reduced the once-strong Iraqi economy to a shambles. Millions of once-proud Iraqis are refugees in other countries trying to subsist on primarily the largesse of their host countries. Many of those remaining in the country suffer from absolute poverty as defined by the United Nations. Yet, the devastation of the Iraqi economy provides a microcosm of the damning effects of war on a population. Afghanistan, Somalia, and Pakistan all serve as reminders of the sad commentary of the increase of a people’s misery because of war. However, as evidenced by the financial collapse of the former Soviet Union, developed nations are not immune from the deleterious effects of wars on the economies of even Developed Nations. Currently, the United States has spent more that $1.05 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. This tremendous sum has been allocated for the prosecution of wars at the expense of needed government cash infusions towards battling poverty, education, health care, affordable housing, and food distribution.

    Thousands of NGOs, non-governmental organizations, have responded to the challenges created by natural and human disasters. ICNA’s Helping Hand is a leader in the field of humanitarian assistance in such resource-starved regions as Kenya, Sierre Leone, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. Humanity’s misery index oftentimes has macro-level origins and micro-level, local, manifestations. Help lower the misery index of our neighbors on this planet. Think globally, but act locally. Local is anyone whose life we can positively impact by our actions.

  • Searching porn on internet

    What should a mother do when she finds out her son has been searching for pornography on the internet?

    A by Imam Jawad Ahmed: First of all, the mother should not confront the child head on because this will cause the child to become rebellious and do this evil act more in secrecy. Secondly, the mother needs to tackle this issue with love, affection and by understanding the cause of this problem. Therefore, she needs to sit down and have a very open, heart to heart talk with her son alone and not in front of anyone. She should ask him in a nice way why he did such an act, and make him realize the dangers and consequences of this act, including quotes of ayat from Quran about “fahishah” and ahadith of Prophet (saw) about the punishment of the eye for bad deeds.

    Next she should restrict Internet access for the son at home, or allow usage only under her supervision until he regains her trust. Of course, she should put parental control and filters on the Internet to block such sites, and at the same time monitor her son’s friends and weed out the bad ones who might have incited this act in her child.

    Finally, she needs to enroll her son in Islamic activities and classes in the masjid and local community, so her son does not have any “free” time to waste on Internet surfing. If all this does not help, then she can apply “grounding” rules or taking back certain privileges from her son until he shows improvement. Of course she should pray to Allah in tahajjud for saving her son from such evils, and also make sure her son is regular in prayers and recitation of the Quran on daily basis.
    May Allah protect our children from Satan and his tricks, Ameen!

  • Wife Responsibilities with In-Laws

    Wife Responsibilities with In-Laws

    Q What is a woman’s responsibility when it comes to her in-laws?

    A by Sh. Abdool Rahman Khan: The relationship with in-laws is nothing new in Islam. It is perhaps as old as human beings themselves. At the same time the Quran and Sunnah have defined for us our boundaries on human relations; what our responsibilities and duties to each other are, starting with parents and moving on to kith and kin. It should be noted that responsibility is not a one way street. While a child has to fulfill his duties towards his parents, for example, the parents also in return have duties towards their children. Too often we tend to ignore that relationships are two-way and we demand our rights without thinking about our own responsibilities.

    Another point to note is that we allow customs and culture to overtake what Islam requires of us. Many of these cultures have their root in other religions and beliefs. In some cultures the in-laws literally make the laws and the woman is often treated no more than a slave. In other or the same cultures the mother-in-law decides everything for her son and daughter-in-law to the point that permission must be sought even for breathing. There are numerous horror stories right here in the U.S. of the ill treatment by mothers-in-law of their daughters-in-law. At the same time, there are wonderful stories of the love and care between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law.

    Let me begin by saying that it is not obligatory for a woman in Islam to obey any one of her in-laws, whether it is her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law in anything, no matter how small or how big, except if it is a Shari’ah obligation that has to be carried out or a Shari’ah prohibition that should be stopped. As for her husband, obedience to him is necessary providing that his orders do not contain exploitation, injustice and deviation from the Shari’ah.

    Allah SWT says, “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.” (4:34)

    It is also not permissible for any of the in-laws to enter the bedroom except by permission, and in case the in-law is a male the presence of a mahram is required so that there is no room for suspicion or fitnah. Rasulullah (S) said: “Beware of entering upon women.” A man from the Ansar said, “O Messenger of Allah! What about Al-Hamu, or the wife’s in-law (the brother of her husband or his nephew, etc.)?” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, replied: “The in-law of the wife is death itself.” Commenting on this Hadith, Imam An-Nawawi, may Allah bless him, states:

    “Al-Layth Ibn Sa`d holds that the ‘the in-law’ refers to a relative of the husband (other than his father and sons) such as his brother, nephew, and cousin, etc., with whom marriage would be permissible for her, if she were to be divorced or widowed.“ Those who are described of death are the husband’s brother, cousin, uncle, and all those who are not Mahram for the wife. Hijab therefore must be worn in front of male in-laws except for the husband’s father or grandfather or the husband’s son (from another marriage) or grandsons.

    It is also not allowed for them (in-laws) to force the woman to cook for them or doing other house chores. It should be from her kindness that she does these things and not expectations and demands of the in-laws. Similarly in-laws should not interfere in husband and wife disputes. This is often is where things get a lot messier.

    Similarly a woman does not have to take in-laws permission to visit her relatives; her husband’s permission is sufficient. It is also not their right to know the secrets of what goes on between the husband and the wife. It should be noted here that a man must be kind and obedient to his parents and it is expected that the wife helps him to fulfill his kindness towards them. The woman should be very respectful and kind towards her in-laws.

    There is no harm to live with in-laws except that privacy for the wife is provided and again expectations are within the Shari’ah and not culture. If they live separately then visitations and kindness must be done accordingly.

    Before I close I wish to say that when it comes to defining relationship let the Shari’ah prevail in our lives. If we allow culture and customs to take precedence over Shari’ah problems will arise from day one, and on the Day of Judgment the questions are severe. On the other hand the wife should exercise patience and kindness towards her husband and his relatives, as she would like the same from him towards her parents and relatives. At weddings I always try to advise that if your son is getting married then think that you are blessed by having a daughter added to your family and if your daughter is getting married think of it that you are blessed with a son added to your family.

    May Allah SWT help us all in fulfilling our duties to one another.

  • The Case for the “Fiqh of Muslim Minorities”

    The Case for the “Fiqh of Muslim Minorities”

    Can a Muslim live a pious or just life in a society where Muslims are a minority? Some Muslims wonder. Some non-Muslims (especially some agenda-driven pundits and Islamophobes) also raise a question: Can Muslims be loyal citizens in the West? These questions may not be burning issues or the reflections of widely held views, but these are certainly present in our contemporary debates and discourses, and therefore, they deserve adequate attention and answer. Since the “Fiqh al-Aqalliyyat” or “Fiqh for the Muslim Minorities” deals with these issues, we have decided to make this subject the “cover story” for the current issue of The Message.
    It’s true that many medieval jurists viewed the world from a binary perspective—“Dar-ul-Islam” (Abode of Peace) and “Dar-ul-Harb” (Abode of War) and advised Muslims not to live in a non-Muslim land permanently. Their argument was that where Muslims are a minority, they live not only under non-Muslim political authority, but their environment also becomes surrounded by moral laxity and all sorts of transgressions. Therefore, Muslims have no choice, according to these jurists, but to migrate from a non-Muslim land to a Muslim land. Many scholars (both medieval and contemporary), however, contested and refuted this “fatwa” on the ground that in Islamic religious texts (i.e., the Quran and Sunnah), no clear divine prohibition on residence in non-Muslim land exists. As a matter of fact, sometimes the situation in the so-called “Muslim land” could be more hostile to the Islamic lifestyle than the “non-Muslim land.” The majority scholars thus view that if certain conditions are met, especially if the freedom to “manifest one’s religion” is present, residence anywhere is permissible.

    Fiqh Al-Aqalliyyat deals with the
    daily problems that arise for millions of Muslim individuals living in the West or in similar minority situations

    Sheikh Taha Jaber Al-Alwani has rightly pointed out that “the classical and medieval jurists ignored the need for a systematic formulation of the status of Muslims as minorities”. Today, among the 1.57 billion Muslims worldwide, at least one third of them—if not more—live as minorities, and many of them reside in the west. Among these western Muslims, many are actually native born and, therefore, there is no such place for them that they can “return” to. The challenge these Western Muslims (and the Muslim minorities elsewhere) are confronting today is how to ensure their integration in these societies without the loss of their religious identity. The good news is that Fiqh of Muslim Minorities seeks to provide that answer (or solution).

    Fiqh al-Aqalliyyat, to put it simply, deals with the daily problems that arise for millions of Muslim individuals living in the west or in similar minority situations. It tries to resolve conflicts with the culture and values of the host/native societies from within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence. According to Alwani, “It is not meant to give minorities’ privileges or concessions not available to Muslim majorities; on the contrary, it aims to project minorities as representative models or examples of Muslim society in the countries in which they live. It is the fiqh of model communities, elites, and a rigorous, rather than frivolous or concessionary, approach. Based on the rules and fundamentals of this fiqh, a number of parameters have been identified which may define our method in responding to questions from minority members” (Towards a Fiqh for Minorities: Some basic Reflections, IIIT: 2003, pp.3-4).
    This, however, is not to suggest that the ruling in two different situations will always remain the same. Since the ‘fiqh for the minorities’ as a discipline takes into account the relationship between the religious ruling and the conditions of the community and the location where it exists, obviously, the fuqaha take into consideration a ‘sensitive’ appreciation of the social context. While answering a question, the jurists carefully examine the wider social context in which this question arises, as well as the social implications of implementing the fatwa. Furthermore, “the fatwas should be guided not by a literalist reading of the sources of law, but, instead, should be shaped by the broader aims of the shariah (maqasid al-shariah), Islam’s missionary imperative as well as by the recognition of the fact that the shariah ‘permits all that is clean and wholesome and forbids what is harmful,’ and hence is ‘aimed at making life easier and more convenient.” After all, ‘the fulfillment of religious obligations is concomitant upon human ability’.

    At a time when the Muslim community (ummah) is passing through many challenges that require creative, sensitive, and sound answers, it’s a matter of great relief and hope that the Fiqh Al-Aqalliyyat is being applied to address some of those challenges. Fiqh of Minorities, therefore, could be considered not only as a legitimate and timely ijtihad for Muslims, but it’s indeed a window through which the rest of the world would be able to see the beauty of Islam as well.

  • Hunger: Our Responsibility and Ultimate Reality!

    Hunger: Our Responsibility and Ultimate Reality!

    For the first time in human history, the number of people suffering from chronic hunger has reached one billion! Today, one out of every six persons in the world is starving. According to a UN report, about 25,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes. More unfortunately, it is children who die most often. Even in America, 49 million people go hungry every night. The other picture, however, reveals that there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. Why then, is there such a sad scenario? Addressing the issue of hunger, therefore, is not only important—it’s imperative!

    Sure, there has hardly been a time in history when hunger has not touched humanity. The question is how we can and should deal with the current alarming situation—a situation that is no less than a calamity. Given that many factors cause and contribute to famine and hunger, dealing with them is undoubtedly a daunting task. The problem becomes even more insurmountable when the hungry are trapped in systemic, silent and severe poverty.

    Hunger is a ‘silent epidemic’ that is very seldom addressed in our society with utmost care, urgency or seriousness. It’s almost like a slow poisoning, where the symptoms don’t appear serious, but death is inevitable. In our society, when poor people don’t have any money or means to buy (or get) food, they are unable to nourish themselves. Persistent food insecurity thus causes tremendous health damage to both kids and adults. .As they are constantly malnourished, the adults become weaker and often sick and because of this they become unable to work which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. Studies show how this downward spiral often continues until death visits these ill-fated people.

    In the sight of God, harshness, carelessness or even insensitivity to the suffering of the poor, helpless and hungry is tantamount to denying the religion and the Day of Judgment

    Our war against hunger, therefore, needs to be not only stronger, but also humane, effective and comprehensive. We shouldn’t forget that the current hunger situation exposes the ugly face of our societal injustices and corrupt practices. While there is no denying that numerous organizations, agencies and individuals are working sincerely to address the challenge of hunger, it is also true that our sadist mentality of letting people suffer is much more dominant than our efforts to help people out of this hellhole. “Greed is good” is still the guiding mantra and obsession for many of us. Even when we want to take any new initiative to address hunger, we think repeating rhetoric will suffice. This is actually a sign of our insensitivity, if not insanity!

    It’s time that we look at our own lifestyles dispassionately and determine if we are positioned to perpetuate hunger or committed to eradicate it. We can’t deny the gravity of the situation, our responsibility and our ultimate reality. One may ask: what is that reality? The Qur’an tells us, as do almost all the religious scriptures in one way or another: Does the human being think that no one has power over him because he has at his disposal enormous amount of material wealth? Does the human being think that no one sees him?(90:5-7) In another place of the Qur’an, God Almighty warns us: But you prefer the life of this world, although the Hereafter is better and everlasting. (87:16-17)

    Sometimes people think that prayer and performance of certain religious duties will suffice for them to earn the pleasure of God. Some also believe that fighting hunger is the duty of the government alone, not theirs. But these are mistaken views, for in the sight of God, harshness, carelessness or even insensitivity to the suffering of the poor, helpless and hungry is tantamount to denying the religion and the Day of Judgment. In the Qur’an, Allah (SWT) says: “Have you observed the person who belies the religion and denies the Judgment? That is the person who repulses the orphan without care or consideration and does not concern himself nor encourages others to feed the hungry and help the needy.”(107:1-3) In Surah Al-Mudathir, a moving scene from the Day of Judgment has been presented in which the righteous people in their heavenly gardens ask the disbelievers and liars, who are encompassed by the fires of Hell, the reasons for their punishment. They are told that among the reasons are “neglecting the rights of the poor, letting the hapless people get afflicted by hunger, lack of clothing and suffering, and turning faces away from this suffering humanity.”

    Hunger is a test for those who are inflicted by this calamity, but it’s a bigger test for those who have wealth and yet they are not helping those who suffer. To attain the grace of God, we have to be God conscious, remember our accountability to Him and be compassionate to His creation. He is indeed our Lord and to Him is our return. That is our ultimate reality!

  • Human Suffering: Why We Must Care

    Human Suffering: Why We Must Care

    We all know very well that human life is ever vulnerable and unpredictable, and none is immune from this uncertainty. It’s also a fact of life that whatever misfortune—be it poverty, calamity, hunger, illness, or any kind of helplessness—that befalls people in this world is not always manmade or the result of their own deeds or misdeed(s). People can face misfortunes for varying reasons. Even when someone faces an unfortunate situation due to his or her own mistakes, it doesn’t justify that others would turn a blind eye to that person’s suffering. The reason for this is that when someone suffers from any calamity, it’s a test from God, not just for that individual, but it could very well be a bigger test for others—especially for those who are capable of alleviating the suffering of the afflicted person.

    In numerous places in the Quran, Allah (swt) has reminded us about our responsibility toward the less fortunate people: In Surah al Ma’un, Allah (swt) declares that harshness to the orphan and neglect of the poor are signs of disbelief and denial of the Day of Judgment. In Surah al Muddathir, one of the earliest revelations of the Quran, a moving scene from the Day of Judgment has been presented: The righteous people in their Heavenly Gardens ask the disbelievers and liars whom the fires of Hell encompass what were the reasons for the latter’s punishment. Among the reasons, they will be told, were neglecting the rights of the poor, letting these hapless people be afflicted by hunger, lack of clothing and suffering, and turning faces away from this suffering humanity. In Surah al Fajr, Allah (swt) calls the people of ignorance who claim to have a religion that brings them close to Allah: “No indeed! You do not treat the orphans with respect nor do you urge one another the feeding of the poor, and you devour the whole of inheritance greedily, and you love the wealth with all your hearts” (Al-Quran, 89:17-20).

    When someone suffers from any calamity, it’s a test from God not only for that individual, but also for others who are capable of alleviating the suffering of the afflicted person

    What these verses of the Quran inform us is that at the core of Islamic teaching is empathy and compassion towards those who are less fortunate. Piety and charity are actually two defining characteristics of an Islamic personality. While they are mentioned separately, they are not isolated from each other, but closely linked. More importantly, piety or righteousness, according to Islam, cannot be attained by ignoring charity: “You cannot attain to righteousness unless you spend (in charity) out of what you love” (Al-Quran, 3:92). In a Hadith Qudsi, the Prophet (pbuh) warned his followers that Allah (swt) will make people accountable for the suffering of the poor, unclothed, destitute, and the sick, especially if the former remain indifferent to the situation of the latter.

    According to another Hadith, the Prophet (pbuh) said, “The one who removes the suffering of a believer from the sufferings of this world, Allah will relieve him from his sufferings on the Day of Resurrection. And the one who paves way for someone who is insolvent, Allah will make things easy for him in the Hereafter…..” (Muslim: Hadith no. 38/2699).

    Indeed, the moral edifice of Islam is based upon two things: i) “Haququllah” (the rights of God) and ii) “Haququl Ibad” (the rights of God’s creation). The foremost Right of Allah (swt) upon His servants is that they will not worship anyone or anything but Allah (swt) who is their Creator, Master, and Sustainer. While elaborating the second point, Imam Ibn Rajab has said, “Human beings are obligated to give thanks to Allah every single day for His blessings on them by performing acts of virtue and charity on a daily basis. Among such acts that we ought to perform are those deeds or actions whose benefits extend to others. These include all acts of benevolence and compassion, helping those in distress or need, treating others compassionately, rendering acts of kindness towards them, protecting them against harm or injury, as well as any act of kindness towards each and every creature of God.” The Islamic guidance thus encourages Muslims to help people in need, be they good or bad, on the right path or not, Muslims or non-Muslims. It implies, apart from the removal of handicaps, the recognition of the right that every human being has to attain the fullness of life.

    We must reflect upon this guidance and develop a culture of compassion, mercy, fellow-feeling, love, and solidarity in our midst. Should we do this, we would be able to free our society from the shackle of greed, miserliness, hunger, helplessness, sorrow, and suffering. There is no denying that every conscientious mind envisions and longs for such a society.