Your Questions Answered (volume 6)

Q. 110: in the Ayat 102 of Sura 20 (taha), It Says:

"On the day when the trumpet shall be blown, and We will gather the guilty ones, blue eyed, on that day." Can you explain the word(which is translated here as "blue eyed"), because a lot of people of African origin in U.S.A. have split into sects over this issue. They think it is talking about the people from Europe.

A: This word, zurq, has two meanings in dictionaries:

(1) blue colour and (2) glaucoma (eye disease causing gradual loss of sight). Although many translators of the Qur'an have translated it as "blue eyed", a lot of exegetes (particularly Shi'as) have taken it to mean, "dim-eyed" or "blind with horror". And this explanation is more appropriate and more conforming with the general tenor of Islam and other Qur'anic teachings.

First of all: The interpretation mentioned by you is unmitigated racialism which Islam abhors. Islam does not say that black people are burdened with Noah's curse to remain white people's slaves - to serve as the hewers of wood and carriers of water - as the Genesis says. Nor does it say that whites are bad and blacks are superior to them.

Second: All human beings are created by Allah; and Allah says: "Certainly We created man in the best make." (Qur'an, 95:4) This includes all people of all races.

Third: Of course, Allah has created human beings in different colours and various facial features. But as mentioned above, all are "in the best make". None is superior; none is inferior. The reason for the prevailing differences is clearly given in the verse 13 of Surah 29 (al-Hujurat):

"O you people! We have created you of a male and a female and made you clans and tribes, that you may recognise each other; surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the one among you who is most pious (i.e. guards himself most against evil); Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware."

Please note that belonging to a certain race or tribe is not a criterion of superiority or inferiority; the criterion is piety only.

Fourth: Coming to the practical side, not all Kafirs are "blue eyed" nor are all blue eyed people Kafir. A lot of Europeans belong to Islam, for which they are paying the price, e.g., in Bosnia and other places.

In short, colour of eyes has nothing to do with one's success or failure on the day of Judgement. The only true explanation is "dim-eyed" or "blind with horror". It is supported by the statement in the same surah, which says: "... and We will raise him, on the day of resurrection, blind. He shall say: My Lord! Why hast Thou raised me blind, and I was a seeing one indeed? (Allah) will say: Even so; Our signs came to you, but you forgot them; even thus shall you be forsaken this day." (Surah Ta-ha, verse 124-126).

Q. 111: TALKING WITH A DEAD PERSON:

This concerns the tradition in Day of Judgement, describing the talk of Salman al-Farsi (R.A) with a dead person; Out of my understanding of hadith and al-Qur 'an, Allah (S. W.T) says in 35:22: And you cannot make those hear who are in the graves.

A: At present, I leave the question of authenticity or otherwise of the said tradition aside, because I do not have necessary books here in Toronto. Here only the meaning of the said 'ayah will be explained:

(a) Theverseisapartofaspeechwhichsays:

"And the blind and the seeing are not alike; nor the darkness and the light; nor the shade and the heat; neither are the living and the dead alike. Surely Allah makes whom He pleases hear, and you cannot make those hear who are in the graves.

You are naught but a Warner......" (35:19-23) All these similitudes have been brought for Mu 'min (the seeing, the light, the shade, the living) and Kafir (the blind, the darkness, the heat, the dead) and last sentence emphasizes it by saying that Allah makes whom He pleases hear. Suppose a Mu'min was first a mayyit (dead) i.e. unbeliever; Allah gave him life (i.e. Iman) and made him hear the word of truth.

As He says in 6:122, "Is he who was dead then we raised him to life and made for him a light by which he walks among the people, like him whose likeness is that of one in utter darkness..." The Prophet (S.A.W) is a medium of the guidance but the guidance is of Allah alone.

Then He Says pointing to the opposite group: you cannot make those hear who are Kafirs, (are in the graves), whose hearts are sealed. Your responsibility is only to warn them.

So you see that this statement has no relevance to our subject.

(b) Even if it were not a similitude, it does not go against the said hadith. The hadith does not claim that it was Salman (R.A) who made the dead body talk. It was Allah who knew when Salman (R. A) was going to die and it was Allah who made the mayyit talk.

"Abu Talha narrated: On the day of Badr, the Prophet (S.A. W) ordered that the corpses of twenty four leaders of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badr.So on the third day after the battle of Badr, he ordered that his she- camel be saddled........When he halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraishite infidels by their names and their father's names, "O so- and-so, son of so-and-so, and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Messenger? We have found true what our Lord had promised us.

Have you too found true what your Lord had promised you?" 'Umar said: O Messenger of Allah! You are speaking to the bodies that have no souls! The Messenger of Allah (S. A. W) said: By Him in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, you do not hear what I say better than they do. (Qatada said: Allah brought them to life again to let them hear him, to reprimand them, and slight them and take revenge over them, and cause men to feel remorse and regret.) (al- Bukhari with Eng. Translation, Vol.5, pp. 209-210)

Strangely enough, another hadith is given in Tafsir ad-Durru 'l-manthur, that Ibn 'Abbas says: "The Messenger of Allah (S. A. W) was standing over the dead badies of those killed on the day of Badr and saying: 'Did you find true what your Lord had promised? O so-and- so son of so-and-so, did not you disbelieve in your Lord? Did not you reject your Prophet? Did not you cut the ties of relationship?'

They (the companions) said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Do they hear what you are saying?' He said: 'You do not hear what I say better than they do.' Then Allah revealed the verse: Surely you cannot make the dead to hear and you cannot make those hear who are in the graves."

And Bukhari too, after giving the clear and well-accepted hadith (quoted earlier) gives two traditions from 'Aisha which more or less confirm the above-quoted hadith of Ibn 'Abbas with the same "verse". Now let us look critically at these later three ahadith:

The first tradition is narrated by Abu Talha. The one of ad-Durru 'l-manthur, is narrated by Ibn 'Abbas, and the later two of Bukhari by 'A'isha. Now Ibn 'Abbas was a small child in Mecca at that time; and 'A'isha was in Medina, not in Badr; while Abu Talha was in Badr. Whose report should be relied upon?
The "verse" which Ibn 'Abbas claims to have been revealed concerning this episode of Badr is a mix-up of two sentences from 3 verses: The sentence, Surely you cannot make the dead to hear,is a part of Surah 30. (The Romans) verse 52, and Surah 27 (The Ants) verse 80; while the next sentence is found in 35:22, as described earlier.
All three Surahs were revealed in Mecca, long before Hijra and the Battle of Badr (2 A.H). How can it be imagined that the sentences were revealed at Badr?
That is why' Allamah Tabataba'i in his Tafsir Al-Mizan, vol. 17, p.38 says: "The signs of forgery are quite clear in this tradition. The status of the Prophet (S.A.W) is too high to say something without getting its knowledge from Allah beforehand. How could he say such a thing which made it necessary for Allah to reveal a verse to refute his claim and give him correct information."

The fact is that such traditions were forged in the name of well-known companions, to implement the Umayyads agenda. They have filled the books with such traditions showing that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) indulged in meaningless actions, (God Forbid); that often 'Umar tried to put him right and that whenever such things happened, Allah sent down verses, which invariably always confirmed 'Umar's views and opinions.

112: ON THE BOOK "HUSAIN, THE SAVIOUR OF ISLAM":

Please give me your opinion concerning the book, Husain the Saviour of Islam, written by Mir Ahmad Ali, published by T.T.Q. I seem to have found several historical inaccuracies in it Also he hardly cites any sources. It seems to have been written in a Zakiri style, not factual, historical. When I realized that this is the same author who penned the commentary and translation ofQur 'an, I began to doubt its correctness as well. Should I rely on his Tafseer?.

A: Your comments about the book, "Husain the Saviour of Islam" are correct. But there is a difference between this book and his Translation of the Qur'an. The Translation and the Commentary were checked by late 'Allamah Agha Pooya, who had himself added many things in the Commentary which appear with his initials (A.P.) therein. Therefore, we may really on it.

Q. 113: ON TAFSIR-AL-MIZAN

I read your translation and notes of "Al-Mizan" volume VII about Surah Al-Nisa, verse 1. I was under the impression that Al-Mizan was the best tafseer available. What is your opinion? What is the best tafseer in Arabic that you know of? Approximately what percentage of 'Allamah Tabatabai's views as expressed in Al-Mizan do you agree with? Are there other views of his that I should be cautious about?

A: First of all, it should be clearly stated here that we do not believe that any book written by any non-Ma'sum can be 100% free of errors or misjudgements. The question is only of the proportion. Keeping this in mind, Tafsir Al-Mizan is fine, although at a few places his ideas are influenced by his inclination to Sufism.

For example, he believed that Mi'rajs journey was physical upto and from there it was only a spiritual ascension. But for the most part Allamah Tabatabai's commentary is correct and few blemishes here and there do not affect its importance.

Personally I think that if late Ayatullah al-Khoui would have completed his Tafseer Al- Bayan, it would have been marvellous. Unfortunately he could not write more than one volume containing the Introduction and the Tafseer of Surah Al-Fatihah.

Q.114: ON BLACK AND WHITE TURBANS:

What is the difference between an Aalim with white turban and an Aalim with black? Can I become a Sayyid? If not, why?

A: Legally there is no difference. But in practice, Sayyids wear black or green 'amamah, while the non-Sayyids use white.

Sayyids are those who are descended from the Prophet (S. A. W) through Bibi Fatimah Zahra (A.S). This title is not earned through knowledge, wealth or any other way. Obviously, one who is not descended from the Prophet (S.A.W) cannot "become Sayyid".

Q. 115: WANT TO WEAR BLACK TURBAN

I want to wear black turban and robe like the ones some Shi 'a 'ulama' use, because I want to follow the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S.A. W)

A: the sunnah is the white dress. All books of our fiqh and hadith say that it is mustahabb (commendable; more rewarding) for the one who prays salah to wear white dress. Also, it is clearly written that it is makruh (disliked) to wear black dress in prayer, except 'amamah (turban), Kisa or rida (robe) and socks. These may be black.

As for the Holy Prophet (S.A.W), he had not adopted any particular colour for his dress - lest the Muslims think that only that colour was permissible. He used white turban, but some times wore other colours too; during the conquest of Mecca he was wearing black turban.

Try to obtain about 4.5 yard of thin cotton cloth (black or white) and use it for your turban.

But if, by grace of Allah, you are freed and happen to visit a country or society where black turban, in public eyes, is reserved for Sayyids, then I strongly advise you to use the white one only. Otherwise, people might think that you were claiming to be a Sayyid. The Holy Prophet (S.A.W) has said: Beware of the places or situations where you might be blamed for something you had not done.

As for the robe, somebody will have to bring it for you from Iran, Iraq or Syria. The colour is usually brown or black. The ones sold in Saudia Arabia have golden embroidery, which is not good for prayer.

Q.116: ABOUT BLACK SHOES:

How does one reconcile the narratives attributed to Imam Ja'far Sadiq (A.S) in Section 11 of Hilyatul Muttaqeen one of which says "Do not wear black shoes "while the other says that the best colour of shoes in one s home town is black. ?

A: I do not have Hilyatul Muttaqeen here in Toronto. However, the wording of the latter statement indicates that the talk was addressed to someone residing in a town dominated by extremely bigoted enemies of the Shi'as who could have known by avoidance of black shoes that the man concerned was a Shi'a and thus could have harmed him.

The Karahat (being disliked) of black shoes and black dress (except 'amamah, rida' and socks) is well-known and accepted. Even so, we should not put too much emphasis in these days on mustahab and makruh things, because new generation does not pay due attention to wajib and haram things. We should endeavour to make them truly concerned with wajibat and muharramat. If they come back within that circle, then mustahabbat and makruhat could easily be taught.

There is a hadith from Imam Ja'far Sadiq (A.S) at the end of which he says:

"Make your heart bright and wear whatever you want." This gives a gist of the principle involved in this matter.

Q. 117: ABOUT SOME MARAJI'-E-TAQLEED

Can you give me the address to where I can contact the following Maraji 'ut-Taqlid?

Ayatullah al-Haj Aqa Nasir Makarim Shirazi
Ayatullah al- 'Uzma al-Haj Aqa Shahabuddin Mar 'ashi
Ayatullah al- 'Uzma Syed Muhammad Raza Gulpayegani
Ayatullah al- 'Uzma SyedAbul Qasim al-Khoui
Ayatullah al- 'Uzma Syed Ali Husaini Sistani

A: You will be sorry to learn that Ayatullah al-'Uzma as-Sayyid Shahabuddin al-Mar'ashi left this world on 29th August 1991; and Ayatullah al-'Uzma as-Sayyid Al-Khoui expired on 8th August, 1992, while Ayatullah al-'Uzma as-Sayyid Muhammad Raza Gulpayegani expired in December, 1993.

May Allah enhance their prestige in the presence of the 14 Ma'sumeen (A.S). The addresses of the remaining two maraji', as asked by you, are as follows:- Ayatullah al-'Uzma Aqa-e-Nasir Makarim Shirazi Madrasah Amirul Mu'mineen (A.S), Khayaban Safaiya, QUM/IRAN Ayatullah al-'Uzma Aqa-e-Sayyid 'Ali Sistani, Shari' Al-Rasul,NAJAF/IRAQ

Q. 118: EATING CHUNA (BURNT LIMESTONE)

Many people in the Indian sub-continent eat pan (betel leaf) in which chuna (burnt lime- stone) is added among other spices. It is a centuries old custom and even 'ulama' and mujtahideen use it. Recently an 'alim has said that the burnt lime-stone should not be eaten because it is haram to eat earth. Will you please guide us in this matter.

A: There is no doubt about its lawfulness. Perhaps the misunderstanding has arisen because that 'alim has confused the burnt lime-stone with earth or clay. In fact, it is unlawful to eat clay (i.e. earth mixed with water which may be shaped as pots etc.).

Late Ayatullah Al-Khoui says: "It is haram to eat najasat like stool or a piece cut from a living animal. Likewise, it is haram to eat clay (except a small piece of the turbah of Husayn (A.S), not bigger than a chick-pea, eaten for cure). But minerals, stones and trees are not haram." (Minhaju s-Saliheen vol. 2, p.347).

Also late Ayatullah Al-Khumayni says: "To eat clay is haram, and it is the earth mixed with water, when it is wet, and also the dried clay. (It is ahwat to include dust too in this rule, although its non-inclusion is not without strong proof.) Obviously sand, stones and minerals are not included in the above rule governing the clay. All of them are lawful to eat if they cause no harm." (Tahrirul 7-wasilah, 2nd edition, no date, vol. 2, p. 164).

Also Ayatullah Al-Sistani says the same about clay in his Tawzihu 'l-masa'il (1st ed., 1413 A.H., Qum,p.554, Mas'alah 2637).

As clearly mentioned by Al-Khoui and Al-Khumayni, this rule does not include stones (e.g. burnt lime-stone) or minerals (e.g. beaten silver and gold which are put on sweets for decoration or mixed in medicines).

It will not be out of place to quote here two questions asked specifically about the chuna (made of burnt lime-stone and of burnt shells) from late Ayatullah Shaykh Zaynul 'Abideen Mazinadarani of Karbala, who was marja'-i-taqleed of the Shi* as of the Indian sub- continent some 125 years ago. We find two questions in his book, Dhakhiratul Ma 'ad, pp.494, which are as follows:-

"The 'ulama' (religious scholars) of India say that eating the burnt lime-stone is allowed; and they eat it with betel-leaf (Paw). What is your honour's ruling? Is it lawful to eat it?" He replied: "It is lawful, provided it is not harmful.'' (Page 494).

In those days the wealthy people burned sea-shells and used it (in place of the burnt lime- stone) with betel leaf. There was a controversy whether the said shell was a part of the body of the animal inside or was just its covering. Those animals are not halal, and if the shells were part of their body, the shells too would apparently be haram (unlawful) to eat. The following question was asked keeping this problem in mind.

"They burn sea-shell to make lime; and (some) people in India eat it with betel leaf. Is it allowed or not?"

He replied: "Bismillah, wa lahul hamd. It is halal. Even if it is taken to be a part of an inedible animal, that problem ends with its burning. The burnt sea-shell is not "earth"; and even if one believes it to be "earth", it is a mixed earth, not pure. Even if it were pure earth, eating it would not be haram, because what is haram is the eating of clay (not of earth). And Allah is the knowing." (Pp.494-495).