Your Questions Answered (volume 7)
Q. 70: Friday Prayers
In reference to all books of masaail which I have so far gone through, I found that one who leads Jamaat prayers (of course under certain qualifications as listed therein) can also lead Friday prayers provided he fulfills the conditions of Friday prayers as mentioned therein too. However there are speculations that one who leads Friday prayers is obliged to seek permission from the Marjaa to do so although he does lead daily prayers.
A: Any Imam who leads in daily prayers may lead in the Friday prayers. Even according to Tahrirul-wasilah of Late Ayatullah Khomayni (r.a.), there is no additional qualification required for Friday prayer's Imam.
However, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, an Imam of Friday prayer has been given the authority and privilages of a member of parliament. As such, their appointment is in the hands of the Waliye Faqih. It is an administrative matter which obviously should not apply outside Iran.
Q. 71: SHI'A IMAM & MALIKI CONREGATION:
I was leading in prayers, and all the congregation follows the Maliki school of Fiqh while I am Shi 'a. Am I allowed to do Taqiyyah? If yes, then in which parts of the prayer? A: It is a very complicated question. Basically, Taqiyyah is allowed to avoid any harm or possible harm to life, honour or property.
Apparently there is no such danger in your case. But if you think that if people come to know about your change of madh-hab, your social standing, or family relations or your livelihood will be harmed to an unbearable extent, then you should resort to Taqiyyah, and pray exactly as the Malikis do.
Also, if you think that by observing Taqiyyah you may be able to spread the True Islam (Shi'ism) among your people, you can do so without hesitation.
Q. 72: PRAYING FURADA WHEN JAMA'AT IS IN PROGRESS:
a) Can an individual offer a Furada (separate) prayer at the same time when congregation prayer is being conducted in the same hall of the same mosque?
A: Ayatullah al-'uzma as-Sistani has not written anything about this matter in his book; but some previous mujtahideen have written that praying furada prayer at the same time and place where and when congregational prayer is being conducted is tantamount to gheebat of the Imam of that congregational prayer. Needless to say that gheebat is a most serious major sin which will not be forgiven by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala unless the victim of the gheebat forgives that person.
Late Ayatullah Khomayni has written in reply to a question that praying furada in a place where congregational prayer is being conducted is not Ja'ez (lawful), although the prayer is valid." (See Istifata'at, Vol.1, p. 164).
b) If an individual (reasons best known to himselj) doesn't want to pray in congregational prayers due to any particular Imam (leader), is he permitted to pray everyday a furada namaaz (separately) during the same time and at the same mosque when congregational prayers are being conducted?
A: Late Ayatullah al-Khoui was asked by two persons separately about this problem; one of them wrote:
"Zayd (who is respected by people) enters a mosque when a congregational prayer is going to be held behind an Imam whom Zayd thinks is not qualified for it, because he is not 'Adil' or his makhraj is not correct or because of some other reason.
People rely on Zayd's opinion and respect it; if he prays behind him because of taqiyah or just pretends to join the congregation (while having niyyat of Furada), the mu'mineen will surely take it as a confirmation of that Imam's qualifications and think that it is lawful to pray behind him. Now what should Zayd do? Should he pray behind that Imam? Or should he go out (of the mosque)? Or should he pray furada (separately) which would be an insult to the Imam?"
Late Ayatullah al-Khoui replied: "In the situation mentioned in the question, his only option is to go out. And Allah is Knowing." (See Masa'il wa Rudud, Qum, Vol.1, pages 33-34).
Another person asked about the same problem with a slight difference: He was in a gathering and when time of prayer came, congregational prayer was arranged behind someone who, in his views, was not fit for it. If he goes out, it will reflect badly on the said Imam, and if he joins the prayer with niyyat of furada, others will take.it as a confirmation of the qualifications of that Imam.
Late Ayatullah al-Khoui replied: "In this situation he may get out by pretending that his nose had started beleeding, or that he had got sovere stomach-pain or something like that." (See Munyatus-sa'il. 3rd cd., 1412, Qum. p. 39).
c) Is it permissible for an individual (praying furada) to recite the two suras loudly at the same time and place where congregational prayers are being conducted and performed?
A: A man has to recite al-Hamd and the other Surah in an audible voice in Fajr, Maghrib and 'Isha prayers. The voice should be audible to another person standing with him. It may be even louder, but it should not reach shouting level.
As is clear from late Ayatullah Khomayni's fatwa, praying fiirada when and where congregational prayer is being conducted is not lawful. Likewise, late Ayatullah al-Khoui tells such a man to go out of that place. If in spite of these fatwas somebody prays furada at the same time and place where Jama'at prayer is being conducted he commits a sin, but his prayer will not be invalid. However he should keep the level of his voice to the minimum as explained above
d) When the voice of an individual in the above question is to such an extent which disturbs the Imame-Jamaat or Mamums in the congregational prayers, what the Islamic Law says about such disturbance?
A: Distrubing a prayer, be it Jamaat or furada is an unlawful act, which Islam does not approve, as was clearly written by late Ayatullah al-Hakim and late Ayatullah al-Khoui in their fatwas.
Q. 73: TWO ADHANS BEFORE FRIDAY PRAYER?
Why calling two adhans before Friday prayer is not accepted by all Muslims? Who started the 2nd adhan before it?
A: Adhan is said when the time of prayer begins. It is wrong to say it before time. On Fridays, since Prophet's time to 'Uthman's early days, the'Imam used to sit on minbar (pulpit) when prayer time came, and then adhan was called. After the two khutbas, iqamah was recited and the prayer started. This adhan and iqamah together were called two adhans. 'Uthman added one adhan before the time. It is bid'ah. See for reference Tarikhu 'l-Khulafa'. Imam as-Suyuti, Delhi ed., no date, p. 154.
Q. 74: WHY DO WE KEEP OUR HANDS OPEN IN PRAYERS?
I would like to know if there is some tradition on the prayers, as the Shi'a and the Malikis hold their hands to the side.
A: Keeping hands unfolded (while standing) is the natural posture, and those who follow it do not need any hadith to justify their action. Has any one asked you to quote a hadith that you should keep your eyes open during prayer? It is those who deviate from natural way who should justify their behaviour from Qur'an and/or hadith.
And when we look at their systems, an interesting picture comes before our eyes. It appears from some reports that when Iranian prisoners were brought before 'Umar, they stood before him with folded hands. On being asked the reason, they said that it was their custom to stand before the eleders with folded hands. 'Umar said: Then we too should do the same when we stand before Allah in prayers.
That was the beginning. But as I will explain later the idea was not accepted in Medina. There are some pointers which show that it had caught up in the early days of Mu'awiyah's governorship in Damascus. When Anas ibn Malik, a companion of the Prophet (s.a.w.), went to Syria, he wept and said: "I do not see here anything which I used to see in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.), except this prayer and that too is disfigured." (Sahih al- Bukhari).
Then there are these four Imams of the Sunnis. Look at their fatwas concerning this matter; and you will see the truth yourself.
Imam Malik ibn Anas (died 179) lived in Medina. He orders his followers (the Malikiyah) to keep their hands open, saying that it is the way the people of Medina pray, and they must have learnt it from the Prophet (saw).
Imam Abu Hanifah (died 150 A.H.) and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (died 241 AH.) lived in Iraq and they ordered their followers to keep the hands folded.
Imam Shafi'i (died 204 A.H.) was born in Mecca, studied in Medina and then shifted to Iraq and finally to Egypt. He gives his followers choice of folding the hands or keeping them open.
Have you noted the connection between their places of residence and their fatwas? The man who lived in Medina kept the hands open; those who lived far from Medina folded their hands; and the one who lived in both places allows both customs. It makes us believe that the custom of folding the hands in prayer was invented far from the city of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)..
One more interesting fact: The Shi'as, the Malikis and the Ibadhis keep their hands unfolded; the Hanafis and the Hanbalis keep them folded; and the Shafi'is allow both. So, out of six sects three and a half keep their hands open, and two and a half keep them folded. Looking from this angle, those who pray with open hands are in majority!!
Q. 75: TARAWIH AND NAWAFIL OF RAMADAN:
What is the position of tarawih in Islamic shari'ah?
A: It is bid'ah (innovation), because praying a non-obligatory salah with congregation is not allowed in Islam. (The only exception is Salatu 'l-istisqa' - the prayer to seek rain.) Tarawih was invented by the 2nd caliph, 'Umar, who himself admitted that it was a bid'ah, when he said: "A good bid'ah it is". (See Your Questions Answered, vol.6, Q.No.81).
The Shi'a shari'ah exhorts the believers to pray individually 1000 rak'ah sunnat prayers during 30 nights of the month of Ramadhan, details of which may be seen in Your Questions Answered, vol. 6, Q.82.
Q.76; FORBIDDEN MONTHS:
Why is it that the months of Rajab, Zulqa'dah, Zulhijjah and Muharram are called forbidden months?
A: "Haram" means forbidden, holy, sanctuary. Haram month means holy months in which fighting is forbidden and people feel they are secure and safe. The pre-Islam Arabs used to stop fighting from Dhulqa'dah to Muharram to enable themselves to perform hajj safely without any fear.In Rajab they held the famous fair at 'Ukaz and stopped fighting to enable people to make deals peacefully.
Islam, being the religion of peace, confirmed this custom in order to let people refrain from war and fights at least 4 months in a year.
Q. 77: ON HUMAN BOMB:
Just recently I met a young Palestinian who fled his country due to the fact he was asked by his leader to place a bomb on himself in defense against the Israelis. He opposed this, and he is now confined in the prison system here. He asked me my position as it relates to this, but I was at a loss. Could you shed some light on this practice for me? Does this practice has anything to do with Islam?
A: I could not understand why that young man is in prison in the U.S.A.; because according to what you have written he has not committed any crime in or against your country. However, coming to your question, such practices are not approved by Islam.
Turning oneself into a human bomb is suicide which is unlawful in Islam. The Prophet (s.a.w.) used to instruct his army groups not to attack the civilians, not to harm old people, children and women; in short, they were not to attack anyone who had not come out to fight them. The same instructions were given by his caliphs.
But whom do these human bombs (or car bombs etc.) make their target? Unarmed civilians, children, women, young and old who have gathered in a market or school or other such places. It is unmitigated terrorism and nothing else. It is not a defence against the Israelis; it is in fact an offence against the humanity.
The only situation when such action could be justified is if it is ordered by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) or the present Imam (a.s.). But the Prophet is not alive and the present Imam is hidden from our eyes. And we are sure that they would not order such a thing. Q. 78: EMANCIPATION OF UMMU-WALAD;
I have seen an article, Islam and Woman, a few sentences of which are copied here for your comment:
"As far as the women were concerned, Islam respected them even in their captivity. ...They were no longer to be treated as a common property of all with every man having free access to them to gratify his animal passions. They were hence-forth to belong to theijr masters alone.
None else could establish sexual relations with them. Moreover, they were, like men, granted the right to work out their freedom through Mukatabah, besides providing that a slave-maid would be free the moment she gave birth to a child by her master. Besides the mother, the child would also be deemed free."
My question is:
Women war prisoners, not warriors but accompanied the enemy soldiers in war, when captured were sexually exploited by their Muslim masters without nikah. The question is why when these women concieved they were set free instead of the masters getting married to them to sustain the offsprings. Is it not unethical by any human code? Please explain with your enlarged Islamic wisdom.
A: I do not know who the writer of that article is, which religion or sect he belongs to, and whose fatwas he describes. However, let us look at your queries.
a) Sexual Relation without nikah: The formula of nikah is not a magic mantra to make the sexual intercourse lawful. It is Allah's command which, after nikah, makes the man and the woman lawful for each other and creates mutual rights and duties between them. Likewise, it is Allah's'command that the previous marriage of the infidel women (when they are captured in Islamic war), is automatically dissolved, and they, after expiry of the prescribed waiting period, become lawful to their masters. Allah says:
"And (forbidden to you are) all married women except those whom your right hands possess; (this is) Allah's ordinance to you... (4:24) The same authority which has made your wife lawful to you, has made the captive girls lawful to their masters.
b) Ummu Walad: A slave girl who gives birth to her master's child, is called ummu walad (mother of the child) in shari'ah. (In Swahili language a wife is called, mama mtoto.) And there are special rules governing her life. In Shi'a shari'ah: i. she cannot be sold to another person;
ii. she cannot be separated from her child;
iii. on master's death, she will be included in the inheritance share of her child, which will make her automatically free at once - because one cannot possess either of one's parents or children etc.
In this way, she will continue to live with her child. (As for the child, he/she, being the master's offspring, is born free, and has all the rights on him which the other children have.)
c) A Comment On your quotation: The rule mentioned in the quotation that she "would be free the moment she gave birth to a child by her master", is a news to me. And you have added to its abusurdity by saying, "why when these women conceived they were set free."
However, I have told you that that "law" is not according to our shari'ah. But even looking from its perspective I do not see any reason for objection.
I do not understand from where did you get the notion that emancipation of the master's child's mother means leaving her and her child on their own without sustaining the offspring. Maintainence of his child is wajib on the father, no matter whether he/she was born from a free woman or a slave girl.
Her emancipation frees her from the bond of slavery, restoring to her the original dignity of freedom. How could Islam order the master to marry her after freedom? After freedom, it is for her to decide whom she wants to marry; and not for the ex-master to force her to marry him.
I am really surprised that instead of appreciating how Islam has looked for excuses to bestow freedom on the slaves (this being only one of the many cases) you have raised objection on it.
Q. 79: WHY KHUMUS SAHM-E-SADAT?
The Qur'an says: "And know you that whatever you acquire, a 1/5 of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near relatives and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if you be believers in Allah... (8:41). Also I have read a copy of the booklet titled Khums and it had very strong arguments with facts.
Regarding the various meanings of Ghanimtum or Ghanimah I have no problem with that. The part I do not understand is Sahmi Sadat. I have no problem with Sahmi Imam which is supposed to be handed over to the Mujtahid. I just cant grasp the part about the sadat receiving hard earned individuals' finances.
I notice it says in Al-Qur'an (17:26): "And give to the near of kin his due and to the needy and the wayfarer and squander not thy earnings wastefully." I read in the Tafsir of this Ayah that Ibn Jarir reports that the fourth holy Imam Ali ibnul Husain Zainul 'Abideen (a.s.) asked a Syrian: "Have you then read in the Sura Bani Israel in the Qur'an: Give the near of kin his due?" He said: "Yes". Then the Imam said: We are the near of kin meant by this verse. Also when this verse was revealed the Prophet gifted Fatima az-Zahra Fadak. I'm aware of this.
But when the Imam says: "We are meant by the verse", I know he means the 12 Imams of Ahl'ul Bait which are his near relatives and descendants. But now that thousands of years have lapsed between the Prophet and hundreds of years between the Ghaibat Kubra of Imam Sahib-uz-Zaman, Al-Qaim, how can the descendants of the Imams lay claim to Khums Sahmi Sadat? I was under the impression that after the 12th Imam Al-Qaim went into Ghaibat that Sahmi Sadat is nullified until he returns by the will of Allah.
But nowadays people lay claim on a certain part of Khums just because of their lineage to the Imams of Ahl'ul Bayt (a.s.). To me that's getting into nepotism and class distinction among people because I notice that most of the Sayeds are Iranis, Arabs, Indians etc.
Is there a Hadith narrated by one of the Imams that says: "After Al-Mahdi goes into Ghaibat you the Shias should give a certain part of Khums to our descendants?" What I want to know is: Did a Mujtahid come up with this through consultation with the clergy? The Usooli Muhammad Baqir Behbahani defeated the Akhbaris' ideology and now we have Usuli thought being propagated amongst the Shia because of his great efforts. What I mean by this is: Have certain changes been made by fallible men whether they are Mujtahids or not?
A: Looking at your question, it appears that the confusion arises from your assumption that the Sahm-e-Sadat comes under the clause, "and for the near relatives". It is not so. The verse divides the ghanimah in six shares: for
(1) Allah, (2) the Messenger, (3) the near relatives, (4) the orphans, (5) the needy and (6) the way-farer.
The first three shares were taken by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and after him they belong to the Imam (a.s.); that is why they are called Sahm-e-Imam (a.s.) i.e. the Imam's share. So "the near relatives" in this verse refers to the Imams, as you have rightly thought, not to other descendants of the Imams.
The remaining three shares (the poor orphans, the other needy persons and the stranded travellers), which constitute the other half and are called Sahm-e-Sadat i.e. Sadat's share, are restricted to Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib since the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
When the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) gave Khumus to the Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib, Jubair ibn Mut'im and 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, (descendants of Nawfil and 'Abdu 'sh-Shams, brothers of Hashim, respectively) complained to him: "O Messenger of Allah! You have given (the Khumus) to Banu Muttalib, although we and they are equally related to you." The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said: "The Banu Muttalib and Banu Hashim are one and the same." (Sahih al- Bukhari, vol.4, p.240; vol.v, p.375; Tafsir at-Tabari, vol.13 p.556, Cairo, 1958).
As for the Shi'a sources, the 4th Imam, Zainu 'I-'Abidin (a.s.) was asked about the Khumus share belonging to "the orphans and for the needy and the wayfarer". He said: "(It is for) our orphans and our needy and our way farers." That is: from the Hashimtes. (Tafsir Al-'Ayyashi, vol.2, p 63).
The obligatoriness of paying this part of Khumus to the Sadat has nothing to do with the presence or occuhation of the 12th Imam (a.s.) or with the difference of the Akhbari and Usuli schools of thought.
If there was any difference at all between the Akhbaris and the Usulis, it was about the Sahm-e-lmam (a.s.) (whether it was wajib during the occupation); but both groups were and are unanimous about the Sahm-e-Sadat that it must be given to the poor etc. from the descendants of Hashim and preferably those descended from Fatimah (as).
According to our ahadith, the reason why the Sadat have been allotted this share, returns to the preservation of the dignity of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself. All Muslims agree that Zakah and Sadaqah were forbidden to the Prophet (s.a.w.a) and to the Hashimites. It is an unanimous law and there are countless ahadith (both from Shi'a and Sunni sources) making it clear.
Why this prohibition?It is because Zakah and Sadaqah are termed in the shari'ah as "the filth of people's hands." As Imam 'Ali Ar-Rida (a.s.) said, inter alia, in a talk with Ma'mun Ar-Rashid: "Sadaqah is haram on Muhammad and his descendants, and it is the filth of the people's hands, which is not lawful for them to use." (Uyun Akhbar Ar-Rida, vol. 1 p.238) Probably it is for this reason that Zakah has been given this name. Az-Zakah means purity; and as long as this tax is not separated from the wealth, the whole wealth remains impure, filthy and unlawful to be used.
When this tax is taken out, it is as though the remaining wealth becomes clean. In other words, the amount given in Zakah was the filth which, when removed, left the balance clean, pure and lawful for one's use. And Allah deems His Messenger too dignified to be tainted or sullied with this dirt. And it is for this reason that the Sadat too have been forbidden to touch any item of Sadaqah or Zakah, because their shame or disgrace will ultimately affect the dignity and respect of their progenitor, i.e. the Prophet (s.aw.a).
It is not nepotism; nor is there any class consideration in Islam. Never the less, Allah in His Mercy and Wisdom makes the believers' offspring share in the glory of their progenitors, as He says:
"And (as for) those who believe and their offspring follow them in faith, We will unite with them their offspring and We will not diminish to them aught of their work... (52:21).
And He in His Wisdom and Mercy protects, and looks after the interests of, the offspring just for the sake of their believing and virtuous parents. Look in the ch. of the Cave (18:77) where Khidr (a.s.) found in a village "a wall which was on the point of falling, so he set it up right", and later explained to Musa (a.s.) its reason in these words. "And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father was a righteous man; so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure, a mercy from your Lord... (18:82).
On the other hand, the offspring's disgrace often puts a stigma on the progenitors-even when the latter are totally innocent and blameless. The Prophet Nuh (a.s.) was sinless and ma'sum; but one of his sons was evil-doer. Now the phrase, son of Nuh, has become synonymous with 'a bad man in a good family.' Because of that son's misconduct, the sacred name of the Prophet Nuh (a.s.) is always bandied about!
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has bestowed on our Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) the highest status possible. And He did not desire any of his descendants - no matter how many generations have passed in between - to eat from "the filth of the people's hands". So He forbade to them the zakah and sadaqah. At the same time, there should have been some way of alleviating their hardships, when recessary; so He allotted to them the three of the six shares of khumus (which is called Sahm-e-Sadat).
It is this philosophy of protecting the Prophet's name from disrepute that Allah says to his wives in the Qur'an: "O wives of the prophet! whoever of you commits an open indecency, the punishment shall be increased to her doubly; and this is easy to Allah. And whoever of you is obedient to Allah and His Messenger and does good, We will give to her reward doubly. .(33:30-31)
And ash-Shaykh as-Saduq (R.A.) says in his Kitab al-I'tiqadat in the ch. On 'Ali's descendants, that "they are the progeny of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.),... and sadaqah is haram for them because it is the filth of the people's hands... and it is our belief that the evil-doer among them shall be given double punishment and the good-doer among them shall get double reward..."
Here it should be pointed out that the double reward emanates from Allah's mercy and grace, and no one can question it. However the double punishment apparently seems against justice; but it is not so. One punishement would be for the sin committed; and the other would be for sullying the Prophet's name.
So, you see, it is not nepotism; it is protecting the honour of our beloved Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the eyes of the public.
Also, I must make it clear that on the whole non-Sadat's share in public money far exceeds the money reserved for the Sadat. There is a chart in the 3rd ed. of the book, KHUMS, by my son, Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, (a copy of which is being sent to you by air mail).
The chart gives the "Overall Distribution of Islamic Tax", which is self explanatory: Before ending this letter, I would like to remind you that Allah is the Absolute Owner of our body and soul, as well as of all that apparently belongs to us. Whatever we earn is actually His property.
It is His Grace that he demands only a small part of that earning in His name and then says that now the major part is lawful for you to use. When we pay zakah, sadaqah or Khums, it should bring joy to our hearts, as one feels happy when he takes bath and removes dirt and filth from his body or clothes. These are not "charity" monies, they are obligatory dues.
Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: "I do take a dirham from one of you (while I am a rich man of Medina); my only intention in taking it is that you should be cleansed." (ash-Shaykh as-Saduq, llahu 'sh-Shara'i', vol.2, p.65).
Also you should realize that a poor mu'min, be he a Sayyid or non-Sayyid, can be paid from zakah or khumus only to that extent which would be sufficient to meet his annual domestic expenses. Let us say, a Sayyid's family expenses come to US$ 15,000/- annually, and his regular earning is $ 10,000/-; so he can be given the balance of US$ 5,000/- from Khumus Sahm-e-Sadat. But not a single cent more. Khumus or zakah are not meant for luxuries or investments. As Zayd son of Imam Zaynul 'l-'Abidin (a.s.) said:
"Khumus is for us as long as we need it; when we do not need it, then it is not for us to build palaces." (Tafsir Fur at ibn Ibrahim, p. 49).
Now you must have understood that the allocation of 3 shares of Khumus to Banu Hashim was made and enforced by the prophet (s.a.w.a.), and was explained by the Imams. It is not a decision made by any fallible alim on his own.