Your Questions Answered (volume 5)

Q. 50: If a Wife Doesn't Pray

My wife doesn't want to perform daily prayers although she is a daughter of the Imam of a nearby mosque. My impression is that she was not in the habit of performing prayers even before. In order to instill the fear of Allah in her, I translated the whole book of Day of Judgement for her but she wasn 't moved! I realized that whoever is not moved by that book of yours, must be having a harder heart than rocks. I have therefore decided to leave it like that. But I must be sure of my responsibility on this matter; hence the following questions.

a) Am I going to be answerable to Allah for her negligence of five prayers?

b) Am I required to take any steps against her by the Shari'ah?

A.

a) No, if you have tried your best but failed.

b) Put as much moral pressure on her as you can. But if she persists in her behaviour, you are not to be blamed. However, make sure that the children are brought up as practising Muslims.

Q. 51: FUNERAL PRAYER FOR A NON-PRACTISING SHI'A

If there is an Ithna- 'asheri who does not pray and also drinks alcohol, and I know about him. Now when he dies a prayer is held, how can I declare before God that I know nothing bad about him when I actually do know? Is it not that I will be telling lies before God? A. The declaration, "We do not know about him except good", mainly refers to the Iman and faith of the deceased.

Even if it were purely related to his deeds, there should be no cause to worry. We know that Allah's mercy has no limits; Allah is in fact pleased to find an excuse for showering His mercy on a deceased believer. My father (May Allah raise his rank in the Paradise!) had narrated to me the following event: Once a most pious teacher of him was leading the funeral prayer of a person whose evil deeds were known to him.

Reaching to the above mentioned sentence, he hesitated for a moment, but eventually uttered the words. At night he saw in dream that someone was telling him: "Why were you reluctant in saying that you did not know anything about him except good? Do you think that Allah does not know man's true condition?

The Creator surely knows even His creatures' hidden secrets. But Allah is pleased when someone offers Him a reason to bestow His mercy on a believer. If forty believers say during the funeral prayer of a believer that they did not know about him any thing but good, Allah says to His angels: 'So many of My creatures knew the deceased person's wrong-doings, and yet they have covered it up. Therefore, I too should cover his sins up with My mercy and forgive his wrong-doings.'"

Q. 52: IF A MUSLIM DIES IN UNBELIEVERS' COUNTRY

1. In his Ruling 317 of Minhajus-Saleheen, our present Marja' says: "It is not lawful to bury Muslim in the graveyard of unbelievers or to bury an unbeliever in the graveyard of Muslims". What is the judgement of our Marja' regarding a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country where there are no Muslim grave-yards? Where should he be buried?

2. What is the judgement of our Marja' regarding a Muslim deceased in a non-Muslim country where there is nobody to carry out the obligatory bathing and then to offer the prayer ofJanaza? Will the soul of the deceased have to suffer on account of that?

A. I had written you once that the shari'ah recognises the difference between Darul Islam and Darul kufr, because not all the rules can be enforced in a place dominated by unbelievers. Therefore, a Muslim who dies in such a country will be buried in the place reserved by the town authorities for burial.

As for the second question, please remember that "No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another." (Qur'an, ch. 53, v. 38; ch. 35.V.18).

So in both cases, there will be no trouble for the dead Muslim at all. A man gets reward or punishment for what he has done; not for what others have done or not done to his dead body.

Q.53: DOLLS KEPT IN A ROOM

Can we keep statues or dolls in our homes, if we do not pray in that room? A. According to Ayatullah al-Khoui, it is allowed.

Q.54: ZAKAT MONEY

Regarding Zakat money should I pay it to Shi'a brothers only or to any poor in the town? A. It is only for the Shi'a Ithna-'asheri poor.

Q. 55: ABOUT SAHM-E-IMAM

Am I allowed by shari'ah to pay my Khumus Sahm-e-lmam (a.s.) to those Zakirs who come to Zanzibar for reciting majlis of Imam Husain (a. s.) whether they be Sadat or not? Or should I pay to those Zakirs only who are Sadat?

A. Khums Sahm-e-lmam must be handed over to the Mujtahid or his authorised agent. It is used by the Mujtahid for religious, education and missionary work.

If you have any specific project of this type, for which you want to use the Sahm-e-lmam (a.s.), you will have to write to Ayatullah al-'uzma al-Khoui (with full details) for his permission, it means you cannot give it to any one without the said permission.

Q.56: PHILOSOPHY OF JIHAD

You have counted jihad as a branch of religion. How can you justify war as a desirable thing?

A.I am glad that you asked this question. Let us look at this matter in a dispassionate way. Islam does not like to exterminate wrong-doers, it wants to remove the wrong. Evil deeds are like diseases. They need treatment and every doctor wants to cure the ailments with medicines as far as possible.

But sometimes the ailment reaches a stage where no medicine can do any good; he feels that surgical operation is necessary if the life of the patient is to be saved. Then he decides, not happily but reluctantly, to ampute one or more limbs of the patient. It may cause hardest pain for the time being; but it is not torture, it is mercy.

Likewise, suppose that this humanity is a compact body; some of its parts become infected with spiritual disease and every medicine of sympathetic persuasion and rational pleading has failed. And there is a danger that their infection is causing harm to, and inflicting hardships upon, other parts;

and the spiritual doctor, I mean the Prophet or Imam who is guided by Allah,is confident that now the surgical operation is essential to save other parts of mankind from trouble. Then, and only then, he will order a Holy-War; and then also it will be limited to that part which is most necessary to remove.

But even if you feel that there is necessity of a surgical operation you will never entrust this most dangerous task to an unauthorized person. It will be a very foolish and irresponsible action. You can never be satisfied that the operation is essential unless a qualified doctor tells you so.

Therefore, according to Shi'a-lthna'ashari law, a war cannot be started unless specifically authorized by the Prophet or Imam himself, and that also to the limits prescribed by that Representative of Allah. After all, life is a creation of God and it should not be destroyed unless it has been authorized to do so by a Representative of God.

Accordingly, the Holy-War is forbidden for the Shi'a Ithna-'asheris during the period when our Imam is hidden from us. The Prophet himself never started any war unless it was thrust upon him by the enemies. A study of the map of Arabia will show the actual facts. When the Prophet took refuge in Medina, the Meccans became infuriated because they could not satisfy their anger against him. So they made repeated attacks on him.

The battle places of three important wars will tell the story. The first war 'Badr' was fought at Badr in the second year of Hijra. Badr is 80 miles frorh Medina and 170 miles from Mecca. Is there any doubt that the Meccans were the aggressors? The second war named 'Uhud' was fought next year at Uhud.

Uhud is 3 miles from Medina and 247 miles from Mecca. Two years after Uhud, Medina was surrounded by Meccans and Jews for about one month. They had come 250 miles from Mecca to attack Medina. Is there anybody who can say that the Prophet should not have fought in self-defence? The first Ayat of 'Qur'an permitting the war, after 14 years of continual oppressions, speaks for itself. Qur'an says: "Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war has been thrust, because they are oppressed."

Q57: WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY SWORD?

But we were told that Islam was spread by sword. Is it not correct?

A. Absolutely wrong. It is a propaganda started by enemies of Islam which has no basis at all. You have just seen that the Muslims had to fight in self-defence, the Holy Prophet of Islam did not start any war; and no war was fought "to spread Islam", it was done to defend the Muslims.

And all the wars were fought with minimum required force and always keeping the love of humanity in heart. A good proof may be found in the fact that in all the wars fought during the life of the Holy Prophet, the total loss of life (on both sides) was less than seven hundred

Q. 58: PURPOSE OF IMAM HUSAYN'S MARTYRDOM

A Sunni scholar delivered a very eloquent lecture in Husein Day at our town. He said: "Hazrat Amir Mo'awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him!) destroyed the Islamic system of government, by changing it from democratic Khilafat to hereditary monarchy; and that was why Imam Husayn (a.s.) had to stand up against Yazid. Islam does not recognise monarchy. The Imam willingly endured unprecedented sufferings and sacrificed his all in order to protect the Islamic democratic system of leadership against hereditary monarchy." Any Comment?

A. Yes. A book may be written about these premises; but obviously a letter has its limitations. Yet a few points should be clarified here:-

FIRST: Is monarchy or hereditary monarchy really not acceptable to Islam? What will they say about Talut whom Allah had appointed as the "King" of Israel? (Qur'an, ch. 2, verses 246-248). The Kingdom was his to bestow on whomever he pleased. When Dawud killed Jalut (Goliath) in the battle, Talut appointed Dawud as his heir-designate. When Dawud died, Sulayman "inherited" the kingdom. (Qur'an, ch. 27, verse 16).

So here you find hereditary monarchy with all its ramifications. Second: No system of government is inherently good or bad. It is as good or bad as the person holding the power in his hands. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had all powers concentrated in his hands; in modern terminology he could be called a "dictator".

But it was a "dictatorship" for which thousands of democracies could be sacrificed. It follows that no form of government provides a panacea for mankind's troubles unless it is headed by a sinless (Ma'sum) ruler.

Third: What democracy they are talking about? Abu Bakr was chosen by a handful of people. No body had known that there was going to be any "election"; nor was the place, date, time, or method of election announced. Even the prospective candidates were neither aware of, nor present at, the so-called "election". 'Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr, and people were ordered to do bai'at for the person whose name was inside a sealed cover.

'Uthman was chosen, supposedly by a committee of six, but in practice by one person. If all this was democratic, then what does the word, "undemocratic", mean? Fourth: Coming to our own side, we know that Imam Hassan (a.s.) was appointed by Allah as the second Imam to succeed his father, 'Ali (a.s.), the first Imam. But for those who believe in 'Ali (a.s.) as the fourth Caliph, there is a real problem here. If hereditary succession to caliphate was wrong, then why do they count Imam Hassan (a.s.) as the fifth "Rightly guided caliph"?

Now let me explain, in simple words, why in recent times many Sunni thinkers have started offering this justification for the stand of Imam Husayn (a.s.):-

In Karbala, there were two forces facing each other: Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Yazid. For the Shi'as, there was no problem. They believed that the Imamate belonged to Husayn by divine appointment and any one fighting him was wrong. But the majority of the Sunnis faced a dilemma. Yazid was appointed by the preceding Caliph, Mo'awiyah, just as 'Umar was by Abu Bakr. He was firmly holding the rein of political and military power in his hand; that was the same method by which Mo'awiyah is said to acquire the legal caliphate.

Thus Yazid was a doubly-qualified Caliph, while all the previous caliphs had only one qualification each. Logic demanded that Yazid should be accepted a legally-appointed caliph, and any body standing against him should be called a "rebel". In fact a great Sunni scholar, Qazi Abu Bakr Muhyiddin Ibn al-'Arabi (died in 543 A.H.)A frankly had said: "Husayn was not killed but with the sword of his grandfather (the Prophet) because Yazid's bai'at had already taken place and Husayn had rebelled against him."

But for the majority of the Sunnis, this was not a palatable idea. They knew that, according to the Qur'an and prophetic traditions, Imam Husayn was son of the Prophet and his flower; he was purified by Allah and could not commit sin; his love and obedience was obligatory for Muslims; and he, together with his elder brother, was the chief of the youths of paradise. How could such a sinless chief of the paradise's youths be called a rebel?

This tug-of-war between the teachings of Qur'an and hadith on one side, and the logic of their religious creed on the other, was fortunately resolved by the change of wind in the modern world when people started singing praise of democracy. Then intelligent thinkers, like Maulana Abul A'la Maududi, began saying that Amir Mo'awiya had tried to pervert and destroy the Islamic democracy, and that it was to protect that democracy that Imam A Not the well-known Sufi of the same name who came later and died in 638 A.H.

Husayn (a.s.) had accepted martyrdom..

This propaganda has been going on for a very long time, and with such zeal and fervour that even some Shi'a scholars have been hypnotized by it. It is really distressing to hear those Shi'a scholars parrot-like repeating this falacy without understanding its implications.

Q. 59: DEMONSTRATION AT MECCA

The obligatory pillars of Hajj are to be preserved. Allah says: 'Show us our place for the celebration of rites'. (Qur'an 2:128).To take out processions during Hajj season to condemn America / lsrael / Monarchies etc., is not an essential part of a Hajj.

A. Well, the Qur'an says, concerning the days of Hajj: "There is no blame on you in seeking bounty from your Lord." (Qur'an, ch. 2, verse 198). The bounty is accepted by all to mean trade and business. Also, He says about the Hajj-. "That they may witness advantages for them..." (22:28).

Now if business and personal advantageous deals are not against the sanctity of Hajj, how can we claim that matters affecting the welfare of the World Muslim Ummah cannot be discussed in the Hajj? Or that, identifying the enemies of Ummah is against the ummah's interest?

Of course, it is debatable whether it was "essential" or not But none can say that it is "disallowed" in Hajj.