Softest of Tongues

q:

I have to travel a lot for work and the like, and so i’m wondering: can I pray sitting in the car?

a:
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate, Praise is for Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His last Messenger and his followers.

Jazak Allahu khairan for the question: some people ask this because of work, others because they’re out shopping and the time for, say, mughrib comes in and they find it convenient to pray in their car, and so on. I’ve found many people to be confused on this, because they have read hadith in which the Prophet, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam was mentioned to have prayed on his camel.
However, these hadith are understood by the scholars, as related through the companions, to refer to nafl prayers – i.e. sunna and the like. Following is one such narration:

Jaabir narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) “used to pray voluntary prayers when he was riding without facing the qiblah.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1094)

With regards to Fard prayers, if one is physically able to stand up and pray then you must do so – if you don’t, then the prayer isn’t considered valid, even if all of the other conditions are fulfilled. This is because of many other hadith that indicate that it is essential to pray standing, facing the qiblah during salat.

For instance this hadith, found in Bukhari, in which ‘Imraan ibn Husayn, said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told him:

“Pray standing; if you are unable, then sitting; and if you are unable then lying on your side.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1117).

Note that the Prophet, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, said that “IF you are unable, THEN pray sitting…” this was taken to mean that one must be physically unable to pray standing in order to pray the fard prayer sitting.
So to sum things up, one must pray standing, facing the qiblah for the duration of the prayer, if it is an obligatory salat that they intend to perform. If it’s a nafl salat then you can pray sitting, not facing the qiblah (if on a journey)… Do turn the stereo off if you decide to do so (:

w’Allahu a’lam – and Allah knows best.

q: 

something that has been running through my head for a while now … the question is about ethics. sometimes you are caught in a tough spot, between say being brutally honest and losing the ‘greater purpose’ if you decide to be honest… to put in a context of ‘honesty’- lets say you decide to do business, since you think its good and all … and you decide not to tell your parents, and if they ask (about it) you lie saying you are working … the reason you don’t tell is because they are going to get really upset “because you are not settled” … i think you get the picture … i am sure other examples could be used in other contexts

a: 

This is a tight line – firstly, in deciding on the case, and whether it requires this type of action, and secondly, deciding how much ’twisting’ of the truth one needs to do in order to prevent a worse situation from arising.

Basically, there is no hard and fast rule for these types of things, and as one of my teachers said, “There are certain situations in which the only person who can give the individual a proper answer is the individual themself” – because firstly they are the only one who knows the situation well enough, and secondly because they are the only one who can properly foresee the consequences. In such situations, it’s important to have a very good connection and reliance upon Allah, and to pray sincerely for His guidance.

As the Prophet, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, said:

Allah subhana wa ta’ala says: “My servants! All of you are lost, except whom I guide, so ask me, and I will guide you!”

***

Of course, lying is generally haram (see below), so one shouldn’t do so if possible. Here is an excerpt from Imam Nawawi’s al Adhkar, which discusses the matter and mentions an alternative:

Chapter on Permissible Lying

Um Kulthum, may Allah be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, said: “The one who settles disagreements between people by carrying tales from one to another or saying good things is not a liar”. This hadith is narrated in Bukhari and Muslim, with the version in Muslim having the following addition by Um Kulthum;

“I did not hear him permit untruth in what people say except in three things: war, setlling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (i.e. in smoothing over differences).”

This is an explicit statement mentioning that lying is permissible for a given interest, scholars having established what types of it are unlawful. The best analysis that I (Imam Nawawi) have seen was by Abu Hamid al Ghazali, who said:

Speaking is a means of achieving objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable by telling the truth and lying, it is impermissible (haram) to accomplish it through lying because there is no need. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying, but not by telling the truth, then lying is permissible if the aim itself is permissible, and obligatory if the aim is obligatory.

When, for instance, one is concealing a Muslim from an oppressor, it is obligatory to conceal him if the oppressor asks where he is, if necessary by lying.

However, it is religiously more precautionary to employ words that give a misleading impression… “ 

…

Chapter: Giving a Misleading Impression

(Imam Nawawi:) Giving a misleading impression is among the most important topics, being frequently met with and often abused. It befits us to examine the matter closely… what follows below is a safe alternative [to lying].

Giving a misleading impression means to utter a phrase that ostensibly implies one meaning, but to intend thereby another meaning that the phrase can also carry. It is a kind of deception.

(note: It often takes the form of the speaker intending a specific referent while the listener understands a specific one, such as when someone asks “Is so and so here?” to which the householder replies ”No, he is not here” intending thereby the specific space between him and the questioner, rather than the space inside the house.)

Scholars mention that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if it is required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law that is more important than not misleading the person addressed, or if there is a pressing need that cannot be otherwise fulfilled.

When neither of these is the case, using misleading speech is offensive (lit. makruh, meaning something hated) though not impermissible (haram) unless used for a haram purpose such as wrongful gain or suppressing other’s rights, in which case it is unlawful. …

As for the hadith evidence, some of which permits it and some of which does not, it is to be understood in light of the aforementioned rule.

(parts of 2 sections copied w/ changes fr. Reliance of the Traveller, Sh. Nuh Keller, p744-746, 748)

***

(commentary by z: basically this is a matter that falls under the legal principle that ‘Matters will be judged according to their ends’. (Note that this principle only applies to matters that do not have a clear legal ruling in The Qur’an and Sunnah, lest someone go and try to make the illegal legal because of their good intentions.) That is, if something is done for a good reason (‘good’ being something that the Sacred Law considers good, not necessarily something that an individual holds to be good) then it becomes permissible, if done for no reason it is offensive, and if done for an unlawful reason it is unlawful).

w’Allahu a’lam

was-salam

 Kerry, Ellison, and Baird visit Gaza (Reuters)

“The highest-ranking U.S. delegation to visit the Gaza Strip in years toured bomb-damaged buildings on Thursday and blamed the enclave’s Hamas rulers for provoking Israel’s wrath with cross-border rocket attacks.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry and two members of the House of Representatives, Brian Baird and Keith Ellison, shunned Hamas during tours one month after Israel ended its 22-day Gaza offensive.

It was the highest-level visit by U.S. legislators to the Gaza Strip since a Palestinian uprising against Israel erupted in 2000, U.S. officials in the region said. Kerry, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for president in 2004, earlier toured the Israeli border town of Sderot, a frequent target of rockets.”

***

Recall Shelby’s comment: this is like walking into a battered women’s shelter and giving a lecture about how the victims are really to blame: why didn’t they listen? Why did they resist or try to put up any sort of self defense?

“Do not think that God is heedless of what is being done by the oppressors – He is only granting them respite until a Day when their eyes will be fixated in terror,  as they come hurrying on in fear, their heads upraised, their gaze returning not to them, and their hearts as air.” (14: 42-43) 

***

3 acquitted in brazen slaying of Russian reporter

(AP)

“…

In her articles, Politkovskaya had attacked some of Russia’s most powerful political leaders. She was a ferocious critic of former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, on whose birthday the 48-year-old journalist was slain. In one book, she accused him of crushing dissent and leading a “failing democracy.”

She had also accused the regime of Ramzan Kadyrov, a former militia leader and now president of the Russian region of Chechnya, of torture and corruption, charges that he has denied.”

***

I remember reading about Ms. Politkovskaya when she was murdered, which got me interested in her life and work. She was a very brave woman, and strikes me as a female Russian Robert Fisk. She wrote a lot about Chechnya.

said Imam al-Shafi’i: 

فقيها و صوفيا فكن ليس واحدا                    فاني و حق الله اياك انصح

فذلك قاص لم يذق قلبه تقى         و هذا جهول فكيف ذو الجهل يصلح

***

Faqeehan wa Sufiyyan fakun laysa wahidan 

    Fa innee wa haqqillahee iyyaka ansahu

Fa dhalika qasun lam yadhuk qalbuhu tuqa

   wa hadha jahulun fa kayfa dhul jahli yasluhu? 

***

” A Jurist and a Sufi – do not be (just) one of them! - 

                Truly, by the right of Allah, I advise you!

For the first is harsh – his heart has not tasted taqwa -

               And the second ignorant, so how can the ignorant rectify?” 

I’ve been thinking about Hiroshima today. I’m not sure what prompted this, but i remember that in grade 7 we read a book about it…

if anyone has good links/books they can put them up. i remember being really disturbed as a youth when i read about this incident, and still am.

“Support for democracy implies opposition to concepts of the Islamic
state—particularly those that imply the exercise of political power by
a self-appointed clerical elite, as in the case of Iran. Muslim moderates
hold the view that no one can speak for God. Rather, it is the consensus
of the community (ijma), as reflected in freely expressed public opinion, that determines what God’s will is in any particular case.“

(fr. most recent RAND report… if someone has the link they can post it.) 

Very clever, this.

so, to summarize the faith of a Rand Usuli: 

1) democracy is defined negatively with respect to Islam – “implies opposition to the concept of an Islamic state”. 

2) no ONE (or two or three) can speak on behalf of God (a more mu’addab way of putting things) but everyone does, by voting. So what happens when half the people vote one way and the other half vote the other way ? Or even when it’s a 60-40 vote? or an 80-20? etc.

So, in cases such as the above, the majority decision is the will of God. So that would mean the minority can just be thrown out the window, right? Since the result of the vote has proven that they have gone against the will of the Divine.

as for who had more faith, or who was better than who, that’s something for Allah. from what i see, the point of the story is to teach us a number of lessons:

Imam Razi believed that the woman was better than him, whether because he recognized truth in what she said or because at the least he recognized that her faith was such that she had no need of any of his proofs. How many people would take a criticism of the sort the old woman said and believe her to be better than oneself? 

Moreover, he recognized that knowledge itself didn’t raise him above her – because one can have an intellectual grasp of a concept, but it may not have touched the heart, while another may not have fancy words, but their heart might be filled with faith. Imam Razi obviously felt this was the state of the old woman, and humbly believed himself to not be at her level. 

“Perhaps a dusty, wild haired person (has a high status with his Lord, such that) if he were to swear an oath by Allah, He would fulfill it.” 

So we need to remind ourselves that our intellect & education is a gift from God, and some have more powerful minds than others, but ultimately such faculties entail responsibilities, and the greater the endowment the greater the responsibility. A very simple person may be fulfilling their responsibility based on their ability while an intelligent one may not;  ”Truly, the most noble of you with Allah is he most conscious of Him”.  

Finally –  

During a logic class, the teacher ended on a very beautiful point, which I will paraphrase: 

“The study of logic,” he said, “will help you to sharpen your thinking, and to not fall into errors in analysis… but ultimately, we have to remember something: that mere smarts does not enter one into Paradise. A person might be brilliant, but unless they understand that their mind is a gift from their Creator and submit to Him, and use that gift to benefit themself and others, that mind will be a source of tribulation rather than benefit.” 

w’Allahu a’lam, wa huwa hasbuna wa n’im al wakeel.

(part 4)

Imam Nawawi says in his intro to al Majmu: Sharh al Muhadhab (The Compendium, an Exegesis of ‘The Refinement’) the following in this regard: 

“As for the basic obligations of Islam, and what relates to the tenets of faith, it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and to credit it with conviction free from any doubt. Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidences of the scholastic theologians (by which he means rational proofs). The Prophet, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, did not require from anyone anything other than what we have just mentioned, nor did the first four caliphs, nor the other companions, nor others of the early Muslim community. 

Rather, what befits the common folk and the vast majority of those learning or possessing Sacred Knowledge is to refrain from (delving into and) discussing the subtleties of scholastic theology, lest corruption that is difficult to eliminate find its way into their basic religious convictions. 

…

But if someone has doubts – may Allah protect us from such – about any tenet of faith in which belief is obligatory, and his doubt cannot be eliminated save by studying theological proofs, then it is obligatory for him to learn it so as to remove the doubt and acquire (certainty) in his belief.” 

(copied with changes fr. Shaykh Nuh Keller’s translation in the beginning of Reliance of the Traveller.)

(part 3)

in reality, the main function of the Muslim philosophical texts and proofs that were written was to respond to the attacks of speculative philosophers and rationalists who sought to tear down the foundations of Islam. These books were weapons used on the intellectual battlefield, and whoever developed the more sophisticated and convincing argument ultimately won. They weren’t meant for winning over the general people, but for slicing the intellectual opponent to pieces. Clarification: their primary purpose was to slice the intellectual opponent to pieces, and thereby convince whoever read them. So it’s a question of primary function.

As any debater will tell you, the point of debate is not (usually) to convince your adversary, but to crush them in front of everyone. This is why debating people of other faiths publicly is a very poor da’wah tactic if your goal is to convince the adversary themself, though sometimes necessary to prevent them from spreading falsehoods or corrupting other people’s understanding of an issue.

Put another way: if you’re trying to win the heart of an opponent, a fist fight is not the way to go. Gifts, smiles, and other niceties are more appropriate. However, sometimes one is forced to fight, to defend themself for instance, to prevent injustices, and so on, but it’s highly unlikely, even when one wins, that their opponent will look favorably upon them. For more on this read The Art of War, and also what I translated from Imam al Ghazali a few posts back.

Many of the classical books of Aqeeda are the brass knuckles used in the metaphorical fistfights. Even if you beat a Christian in a rational debate about Trinity or whatever they’re not likely to thank you and express their ardent desire to join you as a Muslim. Granted, sometimes this is because of the way many people debate, but it’s also because of the very nature of the act. The best one can hope for is to plant some questions in an individual’s mind that put in them a desire to seek out Truth themselves.

One of my teachers said something important: Our main book of aqeeda is… The Qur’an. (as in, not the Tahawia, not Umm al Baraheen, etc etc). These were texts that suited a particular marhala of Islamic history, and there’s no problem going through them obviously, but we don’t need to get caught up in the same debates they were caught up in, because our time is different and our need are different.

As Imam Suhaib Webb said (that a brother told him): “I have a secretary that looks like Beyonce – I need a theology that’s going to protect me from that!” Studying rational proofs are going to hit a brick wall here.

If you look into The Qur’an with insight, it’s really all that most people need right now, and always has been. As the Sufis say: “Lays al murida murid, hatta yajida fil Qur’an kullama yureed.” The seeker is not a seeker until they find all that they are looking for in The Qur’an.

Moreover, looking into The Qur’an, one finds the above rationale reflected in the means Allah takes to engaging His creation. Rational arguments are scant compared with the number of verses that appeal to the heart – meaning they speak to the person at the level of reflection and contemplation rather than cold intellectual refutation, though of course one will find both.

There certainly is need for some people to specialize in Aqeeda and deeply study the field so as to be able to address some new ideas floating or flying about, but it certainly isn’t something for every Ahmed and Aisha – first, they probably aren’t too interested in immersing themselves in such things, and will say they don’t have time, and second, it’s likely to do more harm than good.