Innocence of Muslims and the West's aggression towards islam a history of bigotry, vilification and slander :

Over the past few days, we have witnessed yet another act of uncalled provocation and repulsive assault on what Muslims hold dear – the final Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (saw). The reaction from Muslims, as expected, has been one of utter disgust, anger and frustration. From Indonesia and Bangladesh, North Africa and Middle East to Europe, Muslims have protested against this latest caricature and distasteful depiction of Muhammad (saw). The film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’, essentially depicts Islam as a religion of violence and hate and Prophet Muhammad (saw) as sexually perverse, a blood thirsty and power hungry man. It dishonours Khadija (ra) and further depicts the beloved Companions of Muhammad (saw) as savage killers, hungry for wealth and bent on killing women and children. Such repulsive portrayal of Muhammad (saw) and his Companions has outraged even many non-Muslims, who condemned this film.

There are, ironically, a minority of Muslims who, predominantly due to vested interests and infatuation with their liberal masters, have chosen to condemn the protesters for protesting against this film. One such comment said, “How can we expect non-Muslims to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, when Muslim mobs around the world make liars of us all, Muhammad included?” Such self-hating Muslims fail to address the real issues at hand and instead turn the table against the victims rather than the perpetrators.

This article explores the real motives behind this type of gratuitous attacks on Islam and its sensitivities. It examines the historic context of Western cultural aggression against Islam and how it has evolved into the 21^st century. Finally, it concludes by explaining what practical actions Muslims should undertake in the face of such provocation, which has become all too common these days.

The ‘War on Terror’ (aka War against Islam)

This film should not be viewed in isolation to the West’s war against Islam, which has manifested in the past decade differently across the world, namely, as military invasion, e.g. in Iraq and Afghanistan; as proxy war, e.g. in Somalia and Sudan; as diplomatic and economic aggression, e.g. in Iran and as intellectual and cultural aggression, e.g. in the West against their own populations.

Although the history of Western attacks did not begin with 9/11, the intellectual and cultural aggression has intensified in the past decade and the West’s bigotry against Islam has become ever more apparent, as though there is now a competition amongst the ‘Islam-bashers’ about who could win the trophy for being most daring and vociferous in their hateful anti-Islamic inventions.

Just to name a few, the Danish cartoon caricatures of Muhammad (saw) were published in 2006, followed in 2010 by a Florida preacher, Terry Jones, who called for the burning of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, and in February 2012, US soldiers at Bagram prison in Afghanistan burned 315 copies of the Quran and other religious materials. All of these had similarly outraged Muslims around the globe.

Western sponsored demonization 

Since the release of Innocence of Muslims, American politicians have made token gestures, supposedly condemning the filmmakers. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the film which gave rise to the protests as “disgusting” and “reprehensible”. As though the US was granting a favour towards Muslims, the White House merely “asked” YouTube to “consider” whether the film breaches its own guidelines but Google, which owns YouTube, said in a statement that the video was “clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube”. Yet, Muslims perceive such hollow statements as meaningless, especially when viewed in the context of the West’s aggressive history vis-à-vis Islam.

Whether or not directly sponsored by Western states, such provocative misadventures by Western groups or individuals are far from autonomous acts. Clearly, such perpetrators receive tacit support and ideological encouragement to carry out these provocative deeds. Bred on a daily diet of hatred and propaganda that seek to malign Islam and Muslims, there is no doubt in the minds of Muslims that these perpetrators are sponsored by the West directly or indirectly. Allah (swt) says, “Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse”. [Surah Ale-Imran: 118]

The West’s history of bigotry and vilification

A cursory examination of the history of the West demonstrates that hatred towards Islam has been propagated for centuries. Although historically the Anglo-French colonialists had spearheaded the West’s attacks against Islam, this agenda was adopted by the US since the Second World War and today the US acts towards Islam just as her colonial predecessors did.

Much of today’s discourse in the West vis-à-vis Islam has been shaped by the Orientalist tradition. Professor Edward Said (deceased) explored the depth of Western hatred towards the East, and Islam in particular, in some of his renowned books. This Orientalist tradition perceives and portrays Islam as a primitive and barbaric civilisation, which required subjugation and control. “Orientalism was itself a product of certain political forces and activities. Orientalism is a school of interpretation whose material happens to be the Orient [i.e. the East] its Civilisations, peoples, and localities”. [Edward Said, Orientalism, 2003, Penguin Books, p-203]

The West’s vilification is partly motivated by Islam’s formidable challenge to the West’s capitalist hegemony and partly by Islam’s non-Christian roots. Hence, the West is trigger happy to depict Islam as the villain. In the context of the Orientalist intellectual discourse, “It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist and most totally ethnocentric… As a cultural apparatus Orientalism is all aggression, activity, judgment, will-to-truth and knowledge”. [Said, Orientalism, p-204]

Insofar as the West was concerned, the East, and the Muslim world in particular, was a place of barbarity and backwardness. The Whiteman had a sense of duty and mission to civilise such people and in the case of the Ottoman state, the Whiteman had a civilising program. “Since the Oriental was a member of a subject race, he had to be subjected: it was that simple”. [Said, Orientalism, p-207]

In much of Western academic and intellectual discourse, there was a consensus that certain types of biased views, statements and comments regarding the East were correct and acceptable.  As Said stated, “For most of the Middle Ages and during the early part of the Renaissance in Europe, Islam was believed to be a demonic religion of apostasy, blasphemy and obscurity … Muhammad was a false prophet, a sower of discord, a sensualist, a hypocrite, an agent of devil”. [Edward Said, Covering Islam, 1997, Vintage, p-5]

Islam’s challenge to the West meant that the West, instead of understanding Islam and its message, consistently demonised it. As far as the West is concerned, “Other civilisations of the East – India and China among them – could be thought of as defeated and distant and hence not a constant worry. Only Islam seemed never to have submitted completely to the West”. [Said, Covering Islam, p-5]

Such perceptions, coupled with the West’s relentless search for external threats, make Islam the perfect enemy. The West has been facing socio-political and economic crises in the recent past, as exemplified by the current financial meltdown. Professor Noam Chomsky asserts that in the face of such domestic calamities, “You’ve got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they start noticing this, they may not like it, since they are the ones suffering from it. Just having them watch the Superbowl and the sitcoms may not be enough … Over the last ten years, every year or two, some major monster is constructed that we have to defend ourselves against. There used to be one that was always readily available”. [Noam Chomsky, Media Control, 2002, Seven Stories Press, p-43]

Therefore, observers of today’s Western vilification ought to take into account the above historical context to appreciate why the West demonises Islam. The West cannot deal with Islam intellectually and hence resorts to slander and vilification. Demonising Islam today helps the West to perpetuate its age-old enmity towards Islam whilst deflecting attention from its domestic woes and systemic breakdown.

Freedom of speech – a familiar tale of duplicity

The oft repeated mantra of free speech has been deployed to explain why Westerners are free to abuse and insult what others may hold dear. Just as liberals have become accustomed to ridiculing Christian symbols and characters, which Christianity now silently endures, such fanatic secularists expect the same response from Muslims when they abuse Islam. However, the West does not apply the same standard of free speech when it comes to its own sensitivities. Let us examine two contemporary examples, which occurred this week.

Topless pictures of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, have been printed in a number of European magazines and newspapers. The British Royal family adopted a hard-line stance, condemning such publishers and threatening them with legal action. On this occasion, freedom of expression vanished into thin air! No doubt, the publisher will be pursued in the courts shortly.

Similarly, it was reported by the BBC that a Muslim teenager from West Yorkshire, Azhar Ahmed, was convicted this week for making “offensive remarks” about British soldiers in Afghanistan. The judge said his comments were “derogatory” and “inflammatory”. Once again, free speech could not protect Ahmed and the prosecutors did not afford Ahmed the same right to free speech.

Both of these examples demonstrate that freedom of expression is a convenient instrument the West deploys as and when necessary to achieve political aims. It is clear that every nation has sensitivities and redlines, upon which limits are imposed to protect such redlines. Alas, the West preaches to Muslims that which it does not practise at home!

The collusion of the rulers of the Muslim world

Whenever there is an unprovoked aggression against Islam and the Muslims, it is now an established practice that there is a stark contrast in reactions between the Muslim masses and their rulers, whether democrats or dictators. Whilst Muslims protest tirelessly, their rulers continue to wine and dine with Western leaders in a ‘business as usual’ like manner.

In this present uproar, not a single ruler has sincerely taken any steps to repel the current wave of aggression against Muhammad (saw). The president of Egypt, Muhammad Mursi, the so-called ‘Islamist revolutionary’, merely paid leap service by condemning this film. His prime minister, Hisham Qandil, said it was “unacceptable to insult our Prophet”. However, far from taking any positive action or severing diplomatic relations, Hisham Qandil said, the link between the US and Egypt was “a relationship that we need to make stronger based on mutual interests and respect for sovereignty”. Such comments from the rulers highlight the spineless nature of these rulers whose stance towards their colonial masters is a stark contrast to the masses who demand positive action. Little wonder that Muslims the world over feel that nobody represents their opinions.

Our response

It is evident that there is a historical context in which the present assault against Muhammad (saw) is taking place. It is further evident that the West applies duplicitous standards when it comes to their own sensitivities. However, we need to respond intellectually to these attacks whilst bearing in mind the following:

1. Islam is the truth and its intellectual strength has endured for centuries and will continue to do so. All manmade values are based on falsehood, destined to vanish. Allah (swt) says, “Nay, We fling (send down) the truth (this Quran) against the falsehood (disbelief), so it destroys it, and behold, it (falsehood) is vanished”. [Surah Anbiya: 18]
2. We must not compromise in our deen, as Allah (swt) warns us. “They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another)”. [Surah Nisa: 89]
3. Islam does not permit the destruction of property. We must continue to uphold the truth of Islam and promote its sublime values and message. However, our approach has to be candid, uncompromising and intelligent, just as Allah (swt) ordained for us, “Invite (mankind) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Quran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better”. [Surah An-Nahl: 125]
4. Western gratuitous aggression fuelled by malice against Islam, our Prophet (saw), his family members and Companions and the Quran is not tolerable. Whilst Muslims welcome sincere debate on all aspects of Islam, insincere assaults cannot be tolerated.
5. The West continues to prosecute wars in the Muslim world in the name of freedom and democracy. We need to absolutely reject such disgusting values which permit assaults on people’s sensitivities. Moreover, we must reject those values which allow double standards.
6. The real criminals are the rulers of the Muslim world who are in collusion with their Western colonial masters. These rulers have sold Allah and His Prophet (saw) decades ago and have no desire in upholding the deen of Islam. Moreover, they do not share the sentiments of the Muslim masses and only represent the Westernised elites.
7. As long as manmade systems prevail in the Muslim world, whether in the guise of “Islamic” democrats or secular dictators, Allah and His Prophet (saw) would not be protected and Muslims and Islam will continue to be violated.
8. It is only a sincere Islamic leadership manifested through the Khilafah that can protect Islam and Muslims against repeated military and cultural aggression by the West. We must work for this cause and re-establish the Khilafah in the Muslim world.

Author: Wakil Abu Mujahid

Imam al-Qadi `Iyad: The judgements concerning those who think the Prophet imperfect or curse him :

From Kitab al-Shifa bi-Ta‘rif Huquq al-Mustafa 

by

al-Qadi al-‘Iyad (d.476)

Translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley

Note: The Qadi wrote this under an Islamic state which implemented the hudud punishments and the other Islamic laws. 

Section One: The Judgement of the Shari'a regarding someone who curses or disparages the Prophet

Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or jies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the 'ularna' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.

Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses the Prophet is killed. These include Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the position of the Shafi'i school. Qadi Abu'l-Fadl said that it is based on the statement of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. His repentance is not accepted. Something similar was stated by Abu Hanifa and his people, ath-Thawri and the people of Kufa and al-Awza'i about the Muslims. However, they said that it constitutes apostasy.

At-Tabari related something similar from Abu Hanifa and his companions about anyone who disparages the Prophet, proclaims himself quit of him or calls him a liar.

Sahnun said about those who curse the Prophet, "This is apostasy in exactly the same way as heresy (zandaqa) is. Therefore there is some dispute about whether such a person should be called to repent (as a Muslim) or whether he is an unbeliever. Is he to be killed by a hadd-punishment (as a Muslim) or for disbelief?" We will make this clear in Chapter Two. We do not know of any dispute among the'ulama' of the community and the Salaf regarding the permissibility of shedding his blood.

Several people have mentioned that the consensus is that he is to be killed and considered an unbeliever. One of the Dhahirites, Abu Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Farisi, however, indicated that there is some disagreement about whether to consider someone who belittles the Prophet as an unbeliever. The best-known position has already been stated.

Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that the 'ulama' agree that anyone who reviles the Prophet and disparages him is an unbeliever and the threat of Allah's punishment is on him. The community's judgement on him is that he be killed. Anyone who has any doubts about such a person's disbelief and punishment is also an unbeliever. For a proof of this, Ibrahim ibn Husayn ibn Khalid, the faqih, uses the instance of Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayra for referring to the Prophet as "your companion."'[3]

Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said, "I do not know of any Muslim who disagrees about the necessity of killing such a person if he is a Muslim."

Ibn al-Qasim reports from Malik in the book of Ibn Sahnun, the Mabsut, and the'Utibiyya and Ibn Mutarrif relates the same from Malik in the book of Ibn Habib, "Any Muslim who curses the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent."

Ibn al-Qasim said in the 'Utibiyya, "Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed. The community say that he should be killed just like the dualist. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him."

In the Mabsut from 'Uthman ibn Kinana we find, "Any Muslim who reviles the Prophet is killed or crucified without being asked to repent. The Imam can choose between crucifying him or killing him." In the variant of Abu'l-Mus'ab and Ibn Abi Uways, they heard Malik say, "Anyone who curses the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed, be he Muslim or unbeliever, without being asked to repent."

Asbagh said, "He is killed in every case, whether he conceals it or makes it public, without being asked to repent because his repentance is not recognised." 'Abdullah ibn 'Abdu'l-Hakam said that and at-Tabari related something similar from Malik Ibn Wahb related that Malik said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet's cloak (or button) was dirty, thereby intending to find fault with him, should be killed."

One of our 'ulama says that people agree that anyone who curses any of the Prophets using the expression "Woe to him" or anything disliked is to be killed without being asked to repent.

Abu'l-Hasan al-Qabisi gave a fatwa that a man who called the Prophet "the porter, the orphan of Abu Talib" should be killed.

Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Zayd gave a fatwa to kill a man who was listening to some people discussing what the Prophet looked like. When a man with an ugly face and beard walked by, he said to them, "You want to know what he looked like? He looked like this passer-by in physique and beard." Abu Muhammad said, "His repentance is not accepted. He lied, may Allah curse him. That could not come out of a heart with sound belief."

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."

He was told about a man to whom someone said, "No, by the right of the Messenger of Allah," and he replied, "Allah did such a thing to the Messenger of Allah," mentioning some ugly words. People said to him, "What are you saying, enemy of Allah?" Then he said some even harsher things and added, "I wish for a scorpion for the Messenger of Allah." When someone asked him for fatwa about this man, lbn Abi Sulayman said, "Testify against him and I will be your partner," i.e. in killing him and getting the reward. Habib ibn ar-Rabi' said that is because trying to explain away the literal expression is not accepted because it is clear contempt and lack of respect for the Messenger of Allah. His blood is permitted.

Abu 'Abdullah ibn 'Attab gave a fatwa about a tax-collector who said to a man, "Pay and complain to the Prophet. If I ask or am ignorant, the Prophet was ignorant and asked," to the effect that he be killed.

The fuqaha' of Andalusia gave a fatwa that Ibn Ha tim, the scholar of Toledo, be killed and crucified because there was testimony that he made light of what is due to the Prophet. In the course of a debate, he called him "the orphan" and the in-law of the lion (i.e. 'Ali)," and claimed that his doing-without (zuhd) las not intentional. He alleged that if he had been able to have good things, he would have eaten them. He said other similar things.

The fuqaha' of the Qayrawan[4] and the companions of Sahnun gave a fatwa for the killing of Ibrahim al-Ghazari, a poet and master of many sciences. He was one of those who attended the assembly of Qadi Abu'l-'Abbas ibn Talib for debate. He was accused of objectionable things like mocking Allah, His Prophets and our Prophet. Qadi Yahya ibn 'Umar and other fuqaha' summoned him and commanded that he be killed and crucified. He was stabbed and crucified upside down. Then he was brought down and burned. One of the historians related that when the post to which he was tied was lifted up, the body turned around away from qibja. It was a sign to all and the people said, "Allah is greater!" Then a dog came and licked his blood. Yahya ibn 'Umar said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, spoke the truth," and he mentioned a hadith in which the Prophet said, "A dog will not lick a Muslim's blood."[5]

Qadi Abu 'Abdullah ibn al-Murabit said, "Whoever says that the Prophet was defeated is asked to repent. If he repents, it is all right. If not, he is killed because it detracts from the Prophet. Such a disparaging remark could not be said about the Prophet by anyone with understanding of his affair and certainty about his inviolability."

Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says anything disparaging about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.

Ibn 'Attab said that the Book and Sunna require that someone who intends to even slightly harm or disparage the Prophet, either by allusion or clear statement, must be killed.

Anything like this which is something that the 'ulama' consider to be a curse or disparagement necessitates that the one who says it be killed. Neither the early or later people disagree about that, but they disagree about the basis for killing him as we have indicated. We will make this clear later.

This is also my position regarding the judgment of anyone who belittles him or insults him about having been a shepherd, oversight, forgetfulness, sorcery, any wound he received, the defeat of one of his armies, injury by an enemy, the intensity of his illness or his being attracted to his wives. The judgement of all this is that the one who intends to disparage him by it is killed. The position of the'ulama' is as we have already stated and it will be proved by what follows.  

The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.

Allah says, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment." (33:57). He said something similar about those who kill the believers. Part of the curse on them in this world is that they are killed. Allah says, "Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain." (33: 61) He mentions the punishment of those who fight, "That is humiliation in this world for them." (5:45) "Killing" (qatl) can have the meaning of "curse".[6] Allah says, "May the conjecturers be killed!" (51:11) and "May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!" (9:30) i.e. may Allah curse them.

This is because there is a difference between their harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe - the death penalty.

Allah says, "No, by your Lord, they will not believe until they have you judge between them in what they disagree about." (4:65) He removes the badge of belief from those who find an impediment in themselves against accepting the Prophet’s judgement and do not submit to him. Anyone who disparages him is opposing his judgement.

Allah says, "O you who believe, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet and be not loud in your speech to him as you are loud to one another lest your actions fail." (49:3). Such an action only comes about through disbelief and the unbeliever is killed.

Allah says, "When they come to you, they greet you with a greeting which Allah never greeted you with." Then He says, "Jahannam is enough for them, an evil homecoming." (58:9)

Allah says, "Among them are those who harm the Prophet and say that he is all ear,"

(9:61) and, "Those who harm the Messenger of Allah have a painful punishment." (9:63)

Allah says, "If you ask them, they will say, 'We were only plunging and playing.' Say, 'What, were you then mocking Allah, His signs and His Messenger? Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after your belief."' (9:67-68) The commentators say, "You have disbelieved" refers to what they have said about the Messenger of Allah.

We have already mentioned the consensus. As for the traditions, al-Husayn ibn 'Ali related from his father that the Messenger of Allah said in respect of this matter, "Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him."[7]

In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, "Who will deal with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger." He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than idol-worship. It was for causing harm. Abu Rafi,' who used to harm the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.

Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.

In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid said, "I will," so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.

Similarly the Prophet commanded that a group of unbelievers who used to injure and curse him, like an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt, be killed. He promised that a group of them would be killed before and after the conquest. They were all killed except for those who hurried to become Muslim before they were overpowered. Al-Bazzar related from Ibn 'Abbas that 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt cried out, "O company of Quraysh, why is it that I alone among you am to be killed without war?" The Prophet said, "For your disbelief and your forging lies against the Messenger of Allah."

'Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.

It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.

It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.

Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not distress the Prophet.

Al-Mujahir ibn Abi Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of the Ridda[8]chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others."

Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma[9] satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."[10]

Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity.[11]

In the hadith of Abu Barza as-Aslami it says, "One day I was sitting with Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and he became angry at one of the Muslim men." Qadi Isma'il and other Imams said that the man had cursed Abu Bakr. An-Nasa'i related it as, "I came to Abu Bakr and a man had been rude and answered him back. I said, 'Khalif of Allah, let me strike off his head!' He said, 'Sit down. That is not for anyone except the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.'

Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr said, "No one disagreed with him." So the Imams take this, as a proof that anyone who does anything that might anger, harm or curse the Prophet in any way should be killed.

There is also the letter of 'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l-'Aziz to his governor in Kufa. He had asked his advice about killing a man who had cursed 'Umar. 'Umar wrote back to him, "It is not lawful to kill a Muslim for cursing anyone except the Messenger of Allah. Whoever curses him, his blood is lawful."

Harun ar-Rashid asked Malik about a man who had reviled the Prophet and he mentioned to him that the fuqaha' of Iraq had given a fatwa that he be flogged. Malik became angry and said, "Amir al-Mu'minin! There is no continuation for a community after it curses its Prophet! Whoever curses the Companions of the Prophet is to be flogged."

I do not know which of those Iraqi fuqaha' gave Harun ar-Rashid that fatwa. We have already mentioned that the school of the people of Iraq[12] is that he be killed. Perhaps they were among those who were not known for knowledge or those whose fatwas were unreliable or idiosyncratic, or it is possible that what the man said was not taken to be a curse and there was a dispute as to whether or not it was a curse or he had retracted it and repented of it. None of these things were mentioned to Malik at all. However, the consensus is that anyone who curses him is to be killed as we have already stated.

That he is to be killed can be deduced by reflection and consideration. Anyone who curses or disparages the Prophet has shown clear symptoms of the sickness of his heart and proof of his real convictions and belief. That is why most of the 'ulama'judge him to be an apostate. This is what is transmitted by the people of Syria from Malik, al-Awza'i, ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and the people of Kufa.

The other position is that it is not a proof of disbelief, and so the person in question is killed by the hadd-punishment but he is not adjudged to be an unbeliever unless he persists in his words, not denying them nor refraining from them. To be judged an unbeliever, his statement must either be a clear statement of disbelief, like calling the Prophet a liar, or originate from mocking words and censure. His open avowal of what he said and lack of repentance for it is an indication that he finds it lawful and this constitutes disbelief, so there is no disagreement that he is an unbeliever. Allah says about people like this, "They swear by Allah that they did not speak. They said the words of disbelief. They disbelieved after their Islam." (9:76)

The commentators said that this refers to the statement, "If what is said by Muhammad is true,[13] we are worse than monkeys."

It is said that it refers to what one of them[14] said, "Our likeness with respect to that of Muhammad is only as the words of the one who says, 'Feed your dog and it will devour you.' When we return to Madina, the mighty will drive out the weaker."

It is said that even if the one who says this conceals it, the same judgement applies to him as to the heretic and he is killed because he has changed his deen.The Prophet said, "Strike off the heads of all who change their deen."

Because upholding the Prophet's honour is an obligation owed by his entire community and anyone who curses a free man of his community is given a hadd-punishment, the punishment of someone who curses the Prophet is that he is to be is killed because of the immensity of the worth of the Prophet and his elevation over others. 

The reasons why the Prophet pardoned some of those who harmed him It might be asked why the Prophet did not kill the Jew who said to him, "Death be upon you" when this is a curse,[15] and why he did not kill the other man[16] who said in this respect, "This is a dividing out by which the face of Allah is not intended." When he annoyed the Prophet by saying that, the Prophet said, "Musa was harmed by worse than this,"[17] and was patient. And why he did not kill the hypocrites who used to harm him often.

Know that at the beginning of Islam the Prophet used to court people's friendship and he made their hearts incline to him. He made them love belief and adorned it in their hearts and he treated them gently to encourage them. He said to his Companions; "You are sent to make things easy. You were not sent to scare people away." He said, "Make things easy and do not make them hard. Soothe and do not scare away."[18]

He said, "Let it not be said that Muhammad killed his Companions."[19] The Prophet cajoled the hypocrites and unbelievers, was cheerful in their company and lenient to them and endured their harm. He was patient when they were coarse. But it is not permitted for us to be patient with them in such cases. Allah says, "You will continue to come upon some act of treachery on their part, except for a few of them, so pardon them and overlook." (5:15) Allah says, "Repel with that which is better and the one between whom and you there is enmity will be as if he were a close friend." (41:35) That was because people at the beginning of Islam needed to be brought close. People are unanimous about that.

Once Islam was firmly established and Allah had given it victory over all otherdeens, any such detractor that the Muslims had power over and whose affair was well-known was put to death. A case in point is that of Ibn Khatal and others whom the Prophet said should be should killed on the Day of the Conquest and those among the Jews and others whom it was possible to kill by assassination. There were others who were captured but rectified their behaviour before they came into the Prophet's company and joined the group of those who manifested belief in him. Among such people who had harmed him were Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf,[20] Abu Rafi',[21] an-Nadr ibn al-Harith[22] and 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt.

The same applied to another group who could have been killed with impunity like Ka'b ibn Zuhayr[23] and Ibn az-Zaba'ra[24] and others who harmed the Prophet but then surrendered and met him as Muslims.

The inward parts of the hypocrites were veiled and the Prophet judged according to the outward. Most of these things were uttered by them in secret and among people of their own sort. Then they swore by Allah that they had not said them and uttered words of belief.

In spite of this, the Prophet desired to make them return to Islam. The Prophet was patient with their faults and their coarseness as all the Resolute Prophets[25] were patient until many of these people returned both inwardly and outwardly to Islam and were as sincere in secret as they appeared openly. Then Allah helped many of them and some of them established the deen as wazirs, helpers, defenders and Ansar as the traditions attest.

Because of this, some of our Imams have questioned whether their statements[26] were confirmed enough with the Prophet to raise a complaint. A single person who did not have the rank of testimony might have transmitted them -such as a child, a slave or a woman. Taking life is only permitted when there are two just witnesses. This can be applied to the affair of the Jews' greeting.[27] They twisted it with their tongues and did not make it clear.

Don't you see how attention was drawn to this matter by A'isha. If the Jew had clearly enunciated it, she would not have been the only person to recognise it. That is why the Prophet informed his Companions about what the Jews were doing and the lack of sincerity in their greeting and the deceit it contained through the twisting of their tongues and how they were really attacking the deen. He said, "When a Jew greets one of you, he says, 'Death be upon you,' so say 'and upon you'."

Similarly, one of our companions in Baghdad[28] said "The Prophet did not kill the hypocrites in spite of what he knew about them. It has not been related that a clear proof was established regarding their hypocrisy. That is why the Prophet left them alone. Furthermore, the matter was secret and inward while their outward was Islam and belief and they were among the people of the dhimma and treaty and proximity. People were also new to Islam and could not distinguish the bad from the good. It is known that some of the Arabs who are mentioned as being suspected of hypocrisy are among the group of believers and the Companions of the Messenger and the helpers of the deen according to outward judgement of them. If the Prophet had killed them for their hypocrisy when it had not emerged from them because he knew what they concealed in themselves, those who were hostile would have found something to go on about, fugitives would have been suspicious and the impetuous would have spread lies. More than one person would have been alarmed and feared the company of the Prophet and coming into Islam. The claimant would have made false claims and the wrong-acting enemy would have thought that he was killed out of enmity and desire for revenge." Malik ibn Anas also said something to this effect.

That is why the Prophet said, "Let it not be said that Muhammad killed his Companions." The Prophet said, "Those are the ones whom Allah has forbidden me to kill." This is not the same as applying the outward judgements to the Companions - such as the hadd-punishments for fornication, killing and similar things when the crimes were evident and people in general knew about them.

Muhammad ibn al-Mawwaz said, "If the hypocrites had openly shown their hypocrisy, then the Prophet would have killed them."

Qadi Abu'l-Hasan ibn al-Qassar and Qatada spoke regarding the commentary of Allah's words, "If the hypocrites do not stop and those in whose hearts is illness and those that make havoc in the city, We will urge you against them and then they will only be your neighbours a little. Cursed they will be wherever they are found, they will be seized and all killed. The sunna of Allah..." (33:60-62) and said that it means when they openly display hypocrisy.

Muhammad ibn Maslama related in the Mabsut from Zayd ibn Aslam that Allah's words, "O Prophet, strive against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh to them," (9:75) abrogates what came before it.

One of our shaykhs said that perhaps the words of the bedouin who said, "This is a dividing out by which the face of Allah is not intended," and "Be just!" were not understood by the Prophet as an attack or suspicion. He saw them as an error of opinion regarding the matters of this world and as striving for the best interests of people. He did not think anything of them and saw them as belonging to the kind of harm which should be forgiven and endured. That is why he did not punish him.

Something similar is said about the Jews for saying, "Death be upon you." There was no clear curse in it nor supplication except for death which all men must meet. It was said that what they meant was, "May you dislike your religion," "death" meaning boredom and disgust. This is a supplication for the deen to become boring which is not a clear curse. Therefore al-Bukhari has a section called, "The Chapter on when the dhimma or other people curse the Prophet by allusion." One scholar has said that the allusion is not a curse, but rather to cause harm. We have already stated that cursing and harm are the same in respect of him.

Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr deals with this hadith[29] by quoting some of what has already been mentioned. It is not mentioned in this hadith whether this Jew was one of the people of the dhimma and those subject to treaty or from those with whom the Muslims were at war. Things established by proof are not abandoned in favour of mere probability. The most suitable and evident reasons for the Prophet not punishing him was the intention to seek friendship and trying to bring such people around to the deen - perhaps they would believe. That is why al-Bukhari puts the hadith of "The Sharing-out and the Khawarij"under the title "Chapter: Whoever gave up fighting the Khawarij in order to create friendship and so that people might not harbour an aversion to him."

The Prophet forebore what the Jews had done when he was bewitched and poisoned, which is more terrible than being cursed, until Allah helped him and gave him permission to kill those Jews who had acted against him and to drive them out of their fortresses and to cast terror into their hearts. He prescribed emigration for those of them he wished, removed them from their houses and demolished their homes at their own hands and the hands of the believers. He openly cursed them and said, "Brothers of pigs and monkeys." He said that the swords of the Muslims could be used against them[30]and removed them from their neighbourhood and caused their land, homes and property to be inherited by others[31] so that the word of Allah would be uppermost and the word of those who rejected underneath.

People might say that it has come in the sound hadith[32] from 'A'isha that the Prophet never took revenge on his own behalf for anything that happened to him unless the respect of Allah was violated, then he took revenge for the sake of Allah. Know that this does not necessarily mean that he did not take revenge against those who cursed him or harmed him or called him a liar. These actions contravene some of the inviolable things of Allah and so the Prophet took revenge for them. What he did not take revenge for was those things which were connected to bad behaviour in word or action toward himself or his property which were not intended to harm him, but were merely part of the natural coarse and ignorant disposition of the bedouins or the insolent nature of man in general, such as the bedouin pulling his cloak until it made a mark on his neck or the man raising his voice in his presence or the bedouin arguing about the Prophet buying his horse to which Khuzayma testified. Another example was when two of his wives supported one other against him and other such things which it is best to overlook.

One of our 'ulama' has said that it is haram to harm the Prophet by any action, even if it is an allowable (mubah) action. In respect of men other than the Prophet, permitted actions are allowed, even if they harm someone. A proof is found in the general statement, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the Next." (33:58)

In the hadith about Fatima, the Prophet said, "She is part of me. What harms her harms me. I do not make haram what Allah has made halal, but the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the daughter of the enemy of Allah[33] can never be together with the same man. "[34]

Another example of his forbearance might have been something said by an unbeliever to harm him at a time when the Prophet still hoped that he would later become Muslim, such as when he forgave the Jew who had bewitched him, the bedouin who wanted to kill him and the Jewess who poisoned him -although it is also said that he killed her.

He forgave this sort of harm to himself from the People of the Book and the hypocrites, desiring to bring about their friendship and that of others as we have already confirmed. Success is by Allah. 

[1] al-Bukhari and Muslim

[2] Al-Hakim, al-Bazzar and Abu Ya'la.

[3] This took place during the Ridda [see note 8 below] war. Malik ibn Nuwayra was one of those who refused to pay zakat.

[4] The great mosque and early centre of Islamic learning located south of Tunis.

[5] The source of this hadith is not known.

[6] "Qatalahu Allah"(May Allah kill him) or "qutila" (May he be killed) are curses.

[7] At-Tabarani and ad-Daraqutni. 

[8] Apostasy or defection of the Arab tribes after the death of the Prophet.

[9] A tribe allied to the Aws. She was 'Usma bint Marwan.

[10] An expression meaning there will be no disagreement about the matter.

[11] Abu Dawud, al-Hakim and al-Bayhaqi.

[12] i.e. the Hanafis.

[13] About the conquest of the fortresses of Syria. This was spoken by al-Jallas ibn Suwayd who later repented of what he had said.

[14] 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy, known as the leader of the hypocrites in Madina.

[15] Al-Bukhari and elsewhere.

[16] Dhu'l-Khusawsira.

[17] Al-Bukhari.

[18] Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari and Muslim, and an-Nasa'i from Anas.

[19] To 'Umar in the story of Ubayy ibn Salul.

[20] A Jewish enemy who was assassinated.

[21] A Jew from Khaybar.

[22] Captured at Badr and put to death.

[23] A poet who later wrote a famous poem for the Prophet.

[24] Another poet who became Muslim when Makka was conquered.

[25] The Resolute Prophets are said to be five: Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, 'Isa and Muhammad, or those mentioned in Suas 7 and 26 who are Nuh, Hud, SaIih, Sulayman, Lut and Nuh, or the eighteen Prophets mentioned in Sura 6, or all the Messengers except for Ayyub.

[26] When the Jews said, "Death be upon you."

[27] i.e. only one person reported what the Jews had said.

[28] Perhaps Qadi 'Abdu'l-Wahhab al-Baghdadi al-Maliki.

[29] About what the Jew said.

[30] The Banu Qurayza.

[31] The Banu ’n-Nadir.

[32] In al-Bukhari and elsewhere.

[33] Referring to Juwayriyya, the daughter of Abu Jahl, who had been offered in marriage to 'Ali.

[34] Al-Bukhari.

[35] Muslim and al-Bukhari from 'Ali.

[36] A member of the clan of the Prophet.

[37] i.e. the time of the author, Qadi 'lyad.

[38] Al-Harun ar-Rashid's son.

[39] The chief qadi there at that time.

[40] In what he said about the Mu'tazilites in his Kitab ar-Ri'aya.

[41] A sect originating in Khorasan who followed Jahm ibn Safwan. He said that the Garden and the Fire were not eternal and that belief was gnosis, not affirmation. He also believed in total predestination and that man was totally compelled in all he did with no choice whatsoever.

[42] Or that man creates his actions, which is the position of the Mu'tazilites and the Qadariyya.

[43] Muslim and aI-Bukhari from Jabir.

[44] Probably Jeremiah.

[45] Malik, Jbn Hanbal, al-Bukhari, Abu Dawud and at-Tirmidhi from Jbn 'Umar.

Failure of the Politics of Pragmatism and compromise and lessons for the Ummah :

The Arab uprising kindled hope for a new dawn and a break from tyranny and dictatorship. Whilst opinions on the ground reflect the various political shades and colours, the desire predominantly amongst the masses for Islamic rule is overwhelming. This rise in “Islamist” tendency in the region has been a source of tension in Western capitals as well as amongst the supporters of the old guards in the region. Egypt represents the epicentre of this struggle between the supporters of change based on an Islamic outlook and those who seek to ensure that Western domination and secularism subsist.
Following much tension in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, it was finally announced on 24^th June that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi won Egypt’s presidential election through a narrow victory with just over 51% of the votes.
This article explores some pertinent questions in the face of this election “victory”. Will Egypt now witness an Islamic dawn under a new president? What is the real cost of this presidential triumph in Egypt? How should such political engagement be perceived in light of the Shari’ah? Indeed, are the actions of the “Islamists” in line with Islam?
The reality behind the election “victory”
Although Hosni Mubarak has been removed, it is common ground amongst observers that Mubarak’s regime remains intact. Since Mubarak’s departure, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, has been the de facto ruler of Egypt. Although the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, together with the Al-Nour Party (Hizb Al-Nour), won the 2011 parliamentary elections, on 15^th June the Scaf issued a decree that dissolved Egypt’s parliament in line with an earlier Supreme Constitutional Court ruling. This effectively nullified the powers of the Egyptian parliament and sent the “Islamist” parties back to square one.
What followed was similarly shocking for the Muslim Brotherhood, as the Scaf announced the re-establishment of a National Defence Council, formally putting the generals in charge of Egypt’s national security policy. The army and the infamous intelligence service (mukhabarat) now retain the powers to arrest, detain, torture and prosecute civilians without judicial warrants. The military’s overall powers in executive decisions as well as the detainment of Egyptians render the civilian rulers little more than symbolic figures.
In addition, the Scaf has formally announced that it will be in charge of drafting a new constitution for Egypt. With a dissolved parliament and the military effectively in charge of running the Egyptian state, the “Islamist” camp will very soon realise that despite their early hopes, the Mubarak regime is in reality still in charge. Little wonder that commentators have regarded the latest moves by the Scaf as a coup against the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies. Thus, Mohammed Mursi’s presidency will be nothing more than a toothless executive post subservient to the dictates of the Scaf with his powers severely curtailed before he even takes office.
This bleak reality was aptly summarised by Anthony Cordesman, a former American intelligence official and now at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, “This is more an episode in an ongoing power struggle than a real election. It is unclear who will rule, who the real leaders will be, and who – if anyone – represents the people. What is clear is that Egypt is no closer to stability and a predictable path to the future than before”.
Some commentators have already likened this scenario to that of Algeria in 1992 when the military, with the blessings of France, dissolved parliament after the Islamic party had won the election. Only time will tell how the current quagmire will take shape. However, one point is very clear: the West is unwilling and unlikely to permit any Islamic rule so long as democracy and manmade politics rules the roost. Nor will America and Israel, so long as the status quo remains, allow Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel to be shred to pieces.
In fact, Mursi has already indicated that he would honour international treaties, which is a codeword to mean the treaty with Israel. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Israel perceives business as usual despite Mursi’s victory. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We expect to work together with the new administration on the basis of our peace treaty”.
Installing a toothless president is the military’s insurance policy against the Muslim Brotherhood’s “victory” and rule over Egypt. The events of the past few days demonstrate that the Scaf (no doubt with America’s blessing) has systematically removed the carpet beneath the feet of the “Islamist” camp. Therefore, little change, if any, to the old regime can be expected from the Muslim Brotherhood’s president.
The real cost of compromise and playing in the democratic game
The so-called “Islamists” vying for power through the democratic manmade system do so at the cost of compromising the well-established values and principles of Shari’ah. Moreover, these parties have repeatedly and publically sought to distance themselves from their Islamic roots since the Arab uprising begun. Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt or Ennahda party in Tunisia, appeasement of the West has been the principal goal in their political engagement. To placate the West, Mursi has already indicated the possibility of appointing the former chief of IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei, in a role within Mursi’s government. El-Baradei enjoys a cosy relationship with the Europeans and was previously paraded with tacit European support to replace Mubarak in 2011.
We can find similar examples in Tunisia. Demonstrating the art of compromise and pragmatic political attitude, Rachid Ghannouchi, one of Ennahda’s main leaders told the media recently, “We believe that all Tunisian people can survive peacefully within a moderate vision of Islam which can be compatible with democracy. Our vision of Islam is a moderate one and since 1981… we have declared that we accept democracy without any restrictions and we accept the decision of the people whether they come with us or against us. We accept the notion of citizenship as the basis of rights, so all citizens are equal whether they are Islamist or not Islamist”.
It is therefore evident that these parties are far from keen to implement the Shari’ah; rather, their principal aim is to reach the throne, by hook or by crook, and placating the West occupies a major part of their political discourse. Moreover, their pragmatic democratic politics leaves the Shari’ah at the mercy of the electorate and the West. Thus, it is not Allah (swt) but the West that would ultimately determine what, if any, elements of the Shari’ah is implemented.
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss about the Shari’ah position towards democracy. Suffice to say that democracy is a manmade system that originated in Europe, and any system that makes man sovereign over the Creator, is a non-Islamic system, as Allah (swt) says, “The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the (true) straight deen, but most men know not” [Surah Yusuf: 40].
As demonstrated in this article, the politics of pragmatism and compromise has not led to success in Egypt. In fact, the cost of participation in democracy far outweighed the gains. Notwithstanding the Muslim Brotherhood’s compromise of the Islamic principles, it has made very little practical gains from the political process. And in any event, so long as democracy survives, Islam will not be allowed to call the shots because the rules of the game are rigged by Western colonial powers. One cannot play football but expect to play by the rules of rugby.
Arguably, the Islamic parties have catastrophically failed on two fronts. Firstly, they failed to make any significant political gains for Islam, and secondly, by compromising Islam, they have distorted the pure political method of Islam and Islamic politics that is well-established by the sunnah of the Prophet (saw), namely, the Khilafah.
The lessons for the Ummah

Although many of the verses in the Qur’an narrate to us about the Jews and Christians, these are not mere fairytales! Indeed, Allah (swt) with His infinite mercy narrated these stories so that this final Ummah could avoid the same errors and pitfalls. If, however, we imitate the Jews and Christians, we would fall into the same errors and earn the wrath of Allah (swt).
Allah (swt) repeatedly orders the Ummah to preserve the purity of His deen and not to compromise. Allah says, “Therefore fear not men but fear Me and sell not My Verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun” [Surah Al-Ma'idah: 44].
Although the above verse was revealed after a dispute between two Jewish tribes in Medina, Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraydah, and referred to the Jews, it would be a grave error to assume that such verses are devoid of any application upon the Muslims. In fact, Imam Al-Hasan Al-Basri maintained that this verse also applies to the Muslims.
Regarding “whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun”, Ibn Abbas (ra) said, “Whoever rejects what Allah has revealed, will have committed kufr, and whoever accepts what Allah has revealed, but did not rule by it, is a zalim and a fasiq and a sinner” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol-3).  Therefore, we cannot simply disregard this verse under the false pretext that it does not apply to us.
Allah also says, “…and buy not with My Verses a small price, and fear Me and Me Alone. And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth” [Surah Al-Baqarah: 41-42]. These two verses were revealed in the context of the Jews but are by no means restricted to them. The essential message is clear: Allah’s deen and His Kitab must not be sold in return for paltry worldly gains where such “gains” are at the mercy of the West and are bound to end.
Allah (swt) warns the Ummah about the trap of compromise and orders us against it. He (swt) says, “They wish that you should compromise with them, so they (too) would compromise with you” [Surah Al-Qalam: 9].
Imam At-Tabari reports that Ibn Abbas (ra) said regarding this verse, “That you would permit them (their idolatry) and they would also permit you (to practice your deen)”. Moreover, the great mufassir, Mujahid, commented on this verse, “This means that you should be quiet about their gods and abandon the truth that you are upon” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol-10).
The salient lesson in the above verse is that the disbelievers would constantly seek to derail the Ummah from implementing the deen of Allah and would desire the Ummah to compromise because such concession is at the cost of disobedience to Allah (swt).
The abovementioned verses clearly command us not to compromise, nor sell the deen of Allah for petty gains, as is the case in Egypt presently (or Tunisia for that matter). The Ummah will not progress, nor make any gains through pragmatic political approach by surrendering Allah’s deen; rather, it will delay the revival of the Ummah and further entrench non-Islamic values and systems in the minds of the Muslims. If the Ummah treads on a non-Islamic democratic trajectory, the ultimate winner will be the West because they will have succeeded in their attempts to force us to capitulate our deen of truth.
The way forward for the Ummah
The demise of the tyrants across the region offers the ideal opportunity to the Islamic movements to build the Ummah at grass roots level. Society is composed of collective thoughts, emotions, practices, values and systems that shape every individual. This is true today as it was true at the time the revelation was sent to Prophet Muhammad (saw).
If we are to elevate and revive this Ummah, the focus must be to change society, its common thoughts, emotions, practices, values and the capitalist systems by which the Ummah is ruled. However, this revival must occur outside the non-Islamic democratic political process; otherwise the reformers will have to compromise.
The collective objective must be to implement the Shari’ah in society and state. This can only occur if the Ummah re-establishes the Khilafah. However, the Khilafah will not emerge through democracy because a Shari’ah obligation cannot be achieved through compromise and pragmatism. In the process of dawah to revive the Ummah, reliance on Allah (swt) (tawaqqul), patience and steadfastness (sabr) are essential. When the victory of Allah (swt) will come is indeed within His infinite knowledge. The Islamic movements must not compromise nor bend the Shari’ah rules to reach an objective which in origin is fard and noble. Essentially, the process and the destination must both be permissible under the Shari’ah because the former is no less important than the latter.
If the Ummah perseveres steadfastly in this righteous path, the victory of Allah will certainly come. Allah says, “Allah has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me” [Surah An-Nur: 55].
Wakil Abu Mujahid

Raising Children to be Islamic Personalities

1) Western Society and the Child's upbringing.

It is painfully obvious to all that there is a wayward youth culture here in the West. As people working to build an alternative society, we need to ensure that our children are not sucked in by it and that we have put thought into how to avoid developing such a culture in the future khilafah.

Western children are not innocent little angels who get corrupted as soon as they start going to school, rather they have often been corrupted by their parents long before. How many daddy’s little princesses become manipulative self obsessed spoilt brats? How many angry children hit mum as a toddler, then grow to have no respect for her as an adolescent? How many new behavioural diseases, like ADHD, will Western society discover next year?

Parenting mistakes made early establish trends that are hard to break, leading to disastrous problems for the child’s development.

Western parents are amazed at Super Nanny’s powers. She can do what no other parent can do – and all she uses is a naughty step! Drunk on freedom, and their right to party – many young parents prefer to see their children as future friends, drastically underestimating the need for discipline. Many are just too tired after work to put in the effort and attention that raising children requires.

Muslim families do not always do much better. Mum is often too exhausted after cooking, cleaning, washing and ironing her husbands clothes. She gets no help from him, as raising the kids is her job alone. She is to blame if his kids are rude or have not learnt enough Quran. Most of this attitude comes from cultural traditions and not Islam.

In some inner city London schools arguably the worst parenting is practiced, raising generation after generation of damaged children. The children have been criticised and shouted at so much, that they lack all self confidence and are convinced that “I am just like that”, unable to make any positive changes to their behaviour.

2) Parental Responsibility of the Muslim

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ

Allah (swt) commands believing mothers and fathers, “Oh you who believe! Protect yourselves and your families against a fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones…” [at-Tahreem 6]

The Messenger of Allah (saw) emphasised the duty of care of a father to his family when he said, “Each of you is a guardian and is responsible for those whom he is in charge of…a man is the guardian of his family and is responsible for those under his care…So each one of you is a guardian and is responsible for what he is entrusted with.”

Parents need to take the lead in ensuring their children are brought up with Islamic values. We cannot complain about their behaviour unless we have questioned how we have discharged our responsibility as parents.

3) Role of Parents

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: رحم الله والدا اعان ولده على بره

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said “Allah have mercy on the parent who helped his son with being devoted to him”

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كل مولود يولد على الفطرة فأبواه يهوادنه أو ينصرانه أو يمجسانه

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said “Everyone born is born on al-fitrah, his parents make him into a Jew, a Christian or a Magian”

Parents are their child’s first teachers. They have a responsibility to the child, to Allah and to the society. If they are neglectful in this, then the child will adopt the society’s ways and values, and be burden upon it, rather than a positive member of it.

In a Western society, we are keenly aware of its corrupting effect, as are many of the Muslim community. However, this awareness has not stopped many parents underestimating their role, particularly in the early years. Anyone who spends even a short time with children in a state primary school will be shocked at their rudeness, aggressiveness, selfishness and lack of respect – even from the Muslim children. No Muslim could want their child to become like them, hence we send our children to after school madrassahs or Islamic primary schools. However, many children who attend Islamic primary schools also display many of the same bad characteristics, although generally they are less intense.

Upon examination, one observes that the children with the best characteristics live in homes where parents are aware of Islamic values, serious about establishing them and attentive to protecting them from the dangerous influences of the Western culture. It appears, that those children who are worst, live in homes where parents are neglectful in any of these aspects, often expecting the Islamic nature of school’s curriculum to make their children into Islamic personalities. Sadly, such children generally adopt the personalities of their parents and the people they mix with from the Western society.

This is an important topic for us, as parents, as Da’awah carriers and as people looking to build a new Islamic society which embodies the Islamic culture. While we are living without an Islamic state, wherever we are, we must build strong Islamic personalities from an early age that can resist the influences of kufr around them, even work to change it themselves. Even were we to live in an Islamic state, we and the Muslims whom we are attempting to lead, must still pay attention to the early raising of our children, as we should not expect the whole society to embody pure Islamic values from the word go. Corruption can still exist, even in a Khilafah that implements a strict Islamic education policy. If our children are not those positive members of the society from the beginning of their education, it is unlikely that the state’s education will entirely reform them; rather they may well bring weakness into the society as a result of poor parenting.

In the Education system book is written “Among the most important guarantees of preservation of the ummah’s culture is that its culture be memorised in hearts of its children and preserved in books, together with the ummah having a State ruling over it and taking care of its affairs according to the rules and canons emanating from the intellectual doctrine of this culture.”

With regards to the State’s adopted education policy, Article 166 of the constitution states: “The purpose of education is to form the Islamic personality in thought and behaviour. Therefore all subjects in the curriculum must be chosen on this basis.”

The State is not a replacement for good parenting, rather it is an essential aid. Only together can a lasting Islamic society be built, producing outstanding Islamic personalities.

Also, in the Education system it is written “Education is the method to preserve the Ummah’s culture in the hearts of its children and the pages of its books, whether it is the prescribed or non-prescribed education curriculum. The education curriculum means education regulated by State adopted systems and canons, with the State responsible for implementing it e.g. setting the starting age, subjects of study and education method. Whereas non-prescribed education is left to Muslims to teach in homes, mosques, clubs, via media, periodical publications etc without being subjected to the organisation and canons of the education curriculum. In both cases, however, the State is responsible to ensure that the thoughts and knowledge (being taught) either emanate from the Islamic intellectual doctrine or are built upon it.”

-          Without the state, even if parents are good at what they do, there are no guarantees, as the society has a corrupting effect… the societies influence is greater than that of the individual.

-          The state will make sure the public life is free from anything that can corrupt the children

-          The state will assist the parents, not work against them, nor blame them, if they are struggling.

-          The state will structure the economy such that mothers can stay at home to be mothers, instead of pressurising them to go to work, as is the case in the West

In our da’wah with parents we need to explain the indispensability of the state and their personal duty in rearing of the children. What follows is a highly summarised look at some of the factors that must be considered by Muslim parents raising young children, whether here in the West, or in the khilafah state.

4) The home environment

There must be agreement between the parents to determine what the good and bad behaviour is. E.g.

1)      The father saw that lots of problems with the neighbour’s children is evidence of strength and manliness while the mother believes otherwise.

2)      The mother tried to impose on the children a certain pattern of food and drink, the father breaks it.

3)      Maybe the father believes that his small daughter playing with boys in the street is shameful and contrary to the customs and traditions, while the mother believes that playing is necessary for the building of her body.

Such differences among parents affect the children negatively and it is injustice to be punished and rewarded for the same conduct. The children suffer as they witness the conflict in their home and they will then tend to be aggressive and quarrelsome. This in turn fuels the tension between parents and the home atmosphere becomes heavy because of the problems that occur. Resentment and hatred between the children of the family will accumulate, especially when each of them insists on his position that he is used to.

When the mother says something and father says something else, the child needs to receive approval from both, and if he tried to break away from one of them to move closer to the other, then he feels loss and disruption due to the distance from one of his parents. The agreement between the parents in the methods of treatment of the child, and how to identify bad behaviour and good behaviour protects the child from developing a dual personality and later tension and anxiety which is wholly unnecessary.

5) Establishing a positive relationship early:

The early development of a child will define much of their character for the future. The family relationship between a child and their mother and father, should start off positively, else it will forever get worse, soon becoming too late to rectify. A poem that is popular among school teachers starts:

If a child lives with criticism, He learns to condemn.

If a child lives with hostility, He learns to fight.

If a child lives with ridicule, He learns to be shy.

If there are unrealistic expectations of a child, then they will be confused. If they are told off when they don’t know why, then they will be confused. The parent becomes a frustrated person as the child appears to play-up more and more. The atmosphere of conflict starts to engulf the whole family. Ultimately the loving and trusting relationship between parent and child is damaged, so the child grows into an adult never fully respecting their parents, and hence may not turn to them when in trouble as an adult.

The rules of behaviour for the children agreed between the mother and father must take into account the child’s age, as what we expect from the child before seven is not what we expect from the child after seven.

A young child does not distinguish between work and play. He does not sense meal times and cannot control his desires if he is excited. The child has an inclination to research and identify the environment, and should be encouraged to do so to the farthest extent, and should not be prevented except in two cases:

1 – If he was about to do something dangerous, or what would upset himself or others

2 – If he was about to damage other people’s property.

In these cases must be stopped immediately and decisively.

The best way to stop dangerous work at the age of less than a year is distracting his attention and drawing his attention to something else or an alternative activity. If he tried to touch something forbidden, to withdraw his hand gently and say something that he’ll understand that this would harm him or others.

However, if the child was in the second year or third year and was about to endanger himself or others, then the parent must bring his attention to this and try to deter him with various means, such as the use of facial expressions and tone of voice. If his behaviour continued, then he is to be taken to another place. In all cases calmness must be maintained with no resort to beating. The best way to deal with it is to exclude him for a short time in a place devoid of anything interesting to him.

خاطب الناس على قدر عقولهم

The Prophet (saw) said: “Address the people according to the capabilities of their minds”

At the beginning of the second year the child is suffering from severe bouts of tantrums. He can not be compelled to carry out exactly what you want, because he does not understand the concept of behavioural rules, so he that must be dealt on this basis. For example, he does not understand his mother saying “be nice to the kitten”. He does not understand the meaning of bad behaviour, acting spontaneously without being aware of the consequences of things.

This situation may last for years, and all the parent has to do is steer the child, who must not be deprived of love and affection at any moment, particularly their mother’s. The love and respect for the parents and particularly the mother to her child is the source from which is derived the love and respect for themselves and others.

Abu Hurairah tells of the following event: The Prophet went to Fatima’s house and called three times: “Where is the naughty one?” calling Hasan. When Hasan came the Prophet opened his arms wide, Hasan opened his and he hugged and kissed him. And then he said “Allah, truly I love this (child). May You love him too and those who love him!”

al-Akra bin Habis saw Prophet Muhammad kiss Hasan and said: “Truly, I have 10 children, but I have never kissed any of them!” Prophet Muhammad replied: “One who does not show mercy cannot be shown mercy.”

Tantrums are natural, and cannot be avoided. The child starts to feel independence, so starts to exercise their freedom, at the same time that the parents want to instil good behaviour, thus resulting in a conflict. He may scream or hit the floor, as he feels that he is the centre of the universe and that his mother is there to satisfy his interests, yet she stops him from some things that he wants, so he turns to crying and screaming.

To reduce the occurrence of such conflict the parent must ask in the best way, very sweetly, always praising when he does what is asked. The child must not be asked to do what he cannot do, nor understand. When the child says “No”, the parent must not react angrily imagining that their child is becoming disobedient, as this is just an automatic response from the child. The parent should instead remain calm, but repeat the request as an instruction. The parent must also choose their battles carefully. Ignore the non-important disobediences, to focus on those that are important, such as refusing to sleep at the proper time, or refusing to go to the bathroom when he needs to. However, maybe choosing what game to play or what clothes to wear may be suitable to allow the child a choice, to encourage compliance. No reward should be given to make him comply after he has refused, as this is rewarding his refusal. If it possible to avoid taking the child to a place that raises the chances of tantrums, then the child should not be taken, for example to the market, if he always has a tantrum there. If a tantrum does occur in a public place, then it must not be met with a violent or angry reaction from the parent, as this will only increase the tantrum. Rather, take the child to a quiet place to comfort and address him calmly to find out what is making him angry.

Any good behaviour or obedience needs plenty of praise and rewards.

Such mechanisms for managing behaviour are not restricted to toddler’s tantrums, but this is the first time that it becomes necessary. Such methods can be used effectively until adolescence. Maintaining calmness achieves far more that Anger. By controlling your anger, only revealing it occasionally, then returning to calmness instantly, allows the child to know that you are in control. Whereas, actually losing control in front of them rewards their bad behaviour, so does not help the situation. It has far more negative consequences than remaining calm does.

The parents should be realistic in their expectations of conduct. It is not reasonable to insist on a long period in a their room, or to be restricted to a high chair, because it is contrary to the nature of his curiosity, so he will be more likely to increase in resistance, stubbornness and frustration. The rules that the child must observe should be as little as possible. Only in situations that pose a threat to the child, harm others or their property, as mentioned previously.

The child should be encouraged to use words to express his feelings, not react angrily or use any other naughtiness. If he is not able to express his feelings, then he should be helped to do so.

Children learn in many ways, including experience, so they must be allowed to do things to the maximum possible extent, with as few restrictions as possible. Only that which endangers his or other’s safety should be prevented. However, parents should check that there is a real danger before preventing the child from an activity. Many parents say to their child, without thinking “don’t run so as not to fall on the ground”, yet there is no real harm or danger. If it had happened on the grass or soft ground they will not get hurt, so it is not correct to stop a child from that.

In the fifth year of the child’s life the child begins to participate in games, which are subject to certain rules, so he begins to understand how the rules benefit himself and others, and so the child of this age wishes to observe the rules of conduct accepted by the adults. This is why it is OK to expand the restrictions on the behaviour of the child, so attempting to address some of the conduct that is reprehensible to a Muslim.

Firstly, the parents should focus mainly on the prevention of falling into the Haram such as the prohibition of lying, theft, assault and abuse of others.

Secondly, training the child to give Salam, praying, cooperating with others and doing homework.

Thirdly, discipline in dealing with others, such that if the child reaches puberty,  four values must be achieved in their behaviour: humanitarian, spiritual, moral and material.

Parents should know the developmental stages of children. A young child has a short attention, forgets quickly and loses control of himself easily, so parents should focus on the child’s completion of a task, showing joy and excitement at the child’s ability to control himself, his increasing of his knowledge and his mixing with others. The older he gets, the more attention is given to perfection and achieving.

A young child should not be prevented from a lot of behaviours all at once, as it will confuse the child. Priority should be given to the restrictions that contribute to the safety of the child and others. Next we give priority to the restrictions that prevent them from damaging the property of others. When the child has adopted these characteristics, then we can move to other types of bad behaviour, such as screaming in a public place or throwing food. Then after that teaching of more subtle behaviours, such as cooperation with and respect for others.

Consideration must be given to the child’s daily routine. If the child is tense, then pressure on him should be relaxed. For example, if he is taken out of the house at sleeping time, or before eating food while hungry, the parents should expect the strange behaviour they will see, and not discipline the child for it.

Parents should not expect children to learn the behavioural norms and instructions from one or two incidents, as they have a short memory, so it must be repeated and repeated, so as to prevent him from doing what is forbidden. These are the repeating years, and parents must get used to that fact, being patient with their children, not becoming frustrated with them. It is only shaytan’s whispers that make us sometimes imagine malicious intent when children make mistakes.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: رحم الله والدا اعان ولده على بره

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said “Allah have mercy on the parent who helped his son with being devoted to him”

Parents must be sure to have consistency when dealing with the child. If the rules are to be changed at all, then the child must be informed, even consulted in the matter. A small child may pull on his mother’s jilbab to attract her attention, but a four year old should be taught to find a better way of doing so, explaining to him the reason for that and suggesting new ways.

Finally, all those who have responsibility to look after the child, whether relatives or neighbours, should be made aware of the child’s behavioural rules. They should be encouraged to be consistent, as discrepancy in the child’s treatment causes confusion in the child such that he cannot distinguish between right and wrong, developing in him a dual-personality.

It should be remembered that parents need to be a role model for the child and an embodiment of the values that the child is expected to adopt.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كل مولود يولد على الفطرة فأبواه يهوادنه أو ينصرانه أو يمجسانه

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said “Everyone born is born on al-fitrah, his parents make him into a Jew, a Christian or a Magian”

7) Beating

Debate rages as to whether corporal punishment is right or wrong for a child, however the Shariah position on this matter is the following:

ألا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ

Allah says “Should not He who has created know? He is the most kind, all aware” [al-Mulk 14]

He is the one who should define for us our values and behaviour, not whether we perceive a benefit or harm using our own minds. In origin, harming other Muslims, whether adult or child is forbidden.

The Prophet (saw) said, “A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands.”

Allah knows that humans sometimes need corporal punishment to purify themselves and to help abandon bad behaviour. Therefore, Allah legislated the hudud and Qisas. Also, the same applies to raising children on the good conduct and preventing the bad.

The use of beating was authorised in the hadith of the Prophet (saw):

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: مروا صبيانكم بالصلاة لسبع سنين واضربوهم عليها لعشر سنين وفرقوا بينهم في المضاجع

“Tell your children to perform the prayer when they are seven years of age and beat them if they neglect to do so when they are ten years of age, and separate between them in beds.”

However, this beating is not unrestricted. It has conditions mentioned in the fiqh books.

The hadith established a time period of three years between ordering and encouraging the child to pray and actually hitting them if they left the prayer. Beating is not to be used all the time and for any disobedience, and it must be preceded by the use of styles and means before using beating as a last resort.

Teaching the child to pray should follow the following steps:

1)      Teaching the main pillars of the prayer to the child.

2)      Praying in front of the child, then asking him to pray to correct his mistakes.

3)      Rewarding with praise, sweets, toys or money for a seven year old when he prays.

4)      Gradually moving from material rewards to praise when the child is alone and among others

5)      Starting with the smallest punishments before moving to the more serious. E.g. start showing displeasure on the face, to telling off, to preventing him from something he enjoys.

6)      At nine years, replace the sanctions and rewards with reminders about Allah’s pleasure, jannah and jahannam

7)      If he leaves the prayer, then there should be a calm investigation into why, to find a solution. If he persists in neglecting it, then he should be warned of a beating when he is ten.

8)      If he is still neglectful at ten, after all of the above attempts, then his beating should be light. The fuqahaa placed the condition that the beating must not leave a mark, and that it should not be on the face or head. The hands and legs are enough, while the chest, back and backside should not be beaten.
The hadith of the Prophet (saw) states: ‘When one of you beats anyone, he should avoid striking the face’

9)      Also, torturous and vengeful beating must not occur. A severe beating is a type of torture which is not allowed in the shariah.

The educators of the past used to say that resorting to corporal punishment is not allowed unless absolutely necessary, and only then after warnings have been given

Ibn Khaldun wrote in his Muqaddamah: “Cruelty to children leads them to become cowards, escaping from the responsibilities of life.” He also said “A harsh and violent upbringing, whether of pupils, slaves or servants, has as its consequence that violence dominates the soul and prevents the development of the personality. Energy gives way to indolence, and wickedness, deceit, cunning and trickery are developed by fear of physical violence. These tendencies soon become ingrained habits, corrupting the human quality which men acquire through social intercourse and which consists of manliness and the ability to defend oneself and one’s household. Such men become dependent on others for protection; their souls even become too lazy to acquire virtue or moral beauty.”

6) Establishing Islamic Values

Western parents often experience a severe rejection from their children as they become teenagers. Its so common that it is labelled the generation gap, where the traditions and behaviour of the parents is rebelled against in favour of the new. However, this is not a worldwide phenomenon, as it is rarely seen in Muslim countries, except in the most Westernised families. It is important to note that the traditions and morals of Muslims are built upon the Islamic aqeeda, therefore, as the parent adopts them on that basis, then so does the child. Even if the link is not clear from the beginning, it is made by the rest of Muslims in the society. However, if the society became weaker in making the link, then the child is at risk of viewing them as mere parental habits, and reject them in favour of something newer.

When raising children, it is values that we must emphasise, not just behaviours, although the values are manifest in behaviour. The child must be taught to love all that Islam came with.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يؤمن احدكم حتى يكون هواه تبعا لما جئت به

The Prophet (saw) said “none of you will be true believers until his desires follow what I came with”

Parents must remember that they are the exemplification of the values for the child. If their concepts were in one valley and their inclinations were in another, then the child will be a reflection of this contradiction and will develop a non-distinguished personality, confused with the reactions of his parents. Parents, especially dawah carriers, need to be good role models themselves if they are to expect their children to have good Islamic personalities and grow up do be da’awa carriers. If they see a double standard at home then it does not matter how many Islamic schools they are sent to….

The spiritual value is achieved in the behaviour of children by linking them to the Islamic aqeedah from a young age, and teaching them the shariah rules of life.

They should be taught to say duas when eating and drinking and throughout the day. Parents should teach children to love Allah and to love the Prophet by mentioning stories from the seerah. Children should be raised knowing that Allah is present, and all knowing. They should fear him and obey him.

They should be taught some of the Quran in order to be able to perform prayers at the age of seven because the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said “Tell your children to perform the prayer when they are seven years of age and beat them if they neglect to do so when they are ten years of age, and separate between them in beds.”

It is important that parents use ways that are loved by the children to get them used to praying and fasting from a young age. The Sahabah used to encourage their children to get used to fasting, but if they cried, they would give them a toy to play with to distract them from the hunger.

It should be noted here that some parents force their children to follow some shariah rules that they are not required to. The young girl may wear a jilbab, for example, which then gets in the way of running and play. The reason given is so that she gets used to wearing it, but this is ijtihad with the mind. Rather, the hadith of the Prophet makes it clear that hijab is not required except after puberty.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لاسماء عندما رآها تلبس ملابس غير ساترة وقد بلغت: يا اسماء اذا بلغت المرأة المحيض فلا يجوز ان يظهر منها الا هذا وهذا، واشار الى الوجه والكفين

The Prophet (saw) said to Asmaa’ “When a girl reaches puberty it is not allowed for her to reveal any part of her body except this and this (and he pointed at the face and hands)”.

No text tells parents to enforce hijab on children, as there is for prayer and fasting. Children need sun rays to grow and play to build their bodies and their confidence, yet the hijab prevents all of that, as opposed to fasting and prayer.

The value of humanity is established as Allah created mankind with an instinct to ensure the survival of humankind. Among its manifestations are the love between parents and children. Parent must take care to establish this value within their children, so that they learn empathy with others. Their concern for their children, teaching them and looking after them when unwell, all set the example for their children when they become parents themselves. Allah asked the children to love their parents, know their rights, be good to them and serve them when they become old.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ” رضى الله في رضى الوالدين، وسخط الله في سخط الوالدين”

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The pleasure of Allah lies in the pleasure of the parents, and the wrath of Allah lies in the wrath of the parents”

Also from the human value is to be good to neighbours, friends and the general public, assisting and helping them.

Children must be brought up from childhood on honesty, truthfulness, integrity, loyalty, and the purification of the tongue from curses, insults and profanity. Doing this establishes in them themoral value. Parents should raise their children to rise above all that degrades and learn how to control the themselves and their feelings be separating between the sensation and direct reaction with thinking.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ليس الشديد بالصرعة انما الشديد الذي يملك نفسه عند الغضب

The prophet (saw) said “He is not strong and powerful who throws people down, but he is strong who controls himself from anger.”

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: اربع من كن فيه كان منافقا خالصا، ومن كان فيه خصلة منهن كان فيه خصلة من النفاق حتى يدعها، اذا اؤتمن خان واذا حدث كذب واذا عاهد غدر واذا خاصم فجر

He (saw) said “Four traits whoever possesses them is a total hypocrite and whoever possesses some of them has an element of hypocrisy until he leaves it: the one who when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise, when he disputes he transgresses and when he makes an agreement he violates it.”

Parents must pay particular attention to monitoring their child’s respect for other’s property. If the child was not raised on fearing Allah and awareness of His presence, and was not trained to look after trusts and giving people their rights, then he would grow up to steal, betray and be fraudulent.

Stories like the girl who refused to water down the milk and the like are excellent ways to establish such values.

Children should be taught to shun bad language.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ليس المؤمن بالطعان ولا اللعان ولا الفاحش ولا البذيء

The Prophet (saw) said “The believer is not a slanderer, nor a curser, nor obscene nor indecent”

They should be taught that insulting others is out of arrogance and that arrogance will deny them Allah’s pleasure and jannah.

Children must be taught that morals and ethics are shariah rules and not adopted due to any inherent good or bad in them. In order to form an ideological basis they must be taught to shun the ethics of expediency as it is in the West, dealing with different morals for themselves and for others.

فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: اكمل المؤمنين ايمانا احسنهم خلقا

The Prophet (saw) said “The most complete believer in his iman is the best of them in his morality”

In Surah Luqman, Luqman (ra) preached to his son in a way that influenced what was inside of him. Such influence comes from linking the thought to an instinct or biological need. In his advice he establishes all four values which are necessary for a person to grow up with a balanced Islamic personality.

The first advice Luqman gave to his son was to warn against shirk, and considering it zulm.

وَإِذْ قَالَ لُقْمَانُ لِابْنِهِ وَهُوَ يَعِظُهُ يَا بُنَيَّ لَا تُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ ۖ إِنَّ الشِّرْكَ لَظُلْمٌ عَظِيمٌ

And (remember) when Luqmân said to his son when he was advising him: “O my son! Join not in worship others with Allah. Verily joining others in worship with Allah is a great Zûlm (wrong) indeed.

Zulm threatens the survival instinct as it takes the zalim to the fire. If a person knew that shirk is dangerous to their eternal afterlife, then he leaves it and believes in his Lord. This way Luqman achieved building a spiritual value.

He also warned him to be good to his parents, by reminding him that they carried him in his weakness to incite in him an affection for his parents. This way Luqman achieved building a humanitarian value.

وَوَصَّيْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ حَمَلَتْهُ أُمُّهُ وَهْنًا عَلَىٰ وَهْنٍ وَفِصَالُهُ فِي عَامَيْنِ أَنِ اشْكُرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيْكَ إِلَيَّ الْمَصِيرُ
وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَىٰ أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا ۖ وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا مَعْرُوفًا ۖ وَاتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ مَنْ أَنَابَ إِلَيَّ ۚ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ

And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two years – give thanks to Me and to your parents. Unto Me is the final destination. But if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not; but behave with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience. Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do.

Here he warned his son to give thanks to Allah and his parents. Being grateful means obedience. He linked all that to the procreation instinct, just as he made that same instinct in his parents, so they hurried to care for him. The exception to obeying his parents, is if they tried to force him to commit shirk. In this situation he must give priority to the spiritual instinct over the procreation one, yet even so, he should still treat them well in this life.

He also encouraged his son to bond with the believers who follow Allah’s way. Hence, the basis of bonds is the Islamic aqeedah.

Luqman also gave attention to his son’s beliefs, so told him that he will return to Allah, who nothing escapes him, however small. Allah has unlimited capability.

يَا بُنَيَّ إِنَّهَا إِنْ تَكُ مِثْقَالَ حَبَّةٍ مِنْ خَرْدَلٍ فَتَكُنْ فِي صَخْرَةٍ أَوْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ أَوْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يَأْتِ بِهَا اللَّهُ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَطِيفٌ خَبِيرٌ

“O my son! If it be (anything) equal to the weight of a grain of mustard seed, and though it be in a rock, or in the heavens or in the earth, Allah will bring it forth. Verily, Allah is Subtle, Well-Aware.

He also told him to establish prayer as it is the pillar of the deen, establishing the spiritual value.

يَا بُنَيَّ أَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ وَأْمُرْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَانْهَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَاصْبِرْ عَلَىٰ مَا أَصَابَكَ ۖ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ عَزْمِ الْأُمُورِ

“O my son! perform prayer, enjoin (on people) Al-Ma’rûf , and forbid from Al-Munkar, and bear with patience whatever befalls you. Verily, these are some of the important commandments.

In his advising him to enjoin good and forbid evil, and having sabr with what comes to him as a result of doing his Fard, he is preparing his son and strengthening his resolve. He is thus establishing a moral and a spiritual value.

Finally, he warned his son against having bad manners with people, as these are shariah rules, hence he achieved building a moral value.

وَلَا تُصَعِّرْ خَدَّكَ لِلنَّاسِ وَلَا تَمْشِ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَحًا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ كُلَّ مُخْتَالٍ فَخُورٍ
وَاقْصِدْ فِي مَشْيِكَ وَاغْضُضْ مِنْ صَوْتِكَ ۚ إِنَّ أَنْكَرَ الْأَصْوَاتِ لَصَوْتُ الْحَمِيرِ

“And turn not your face away from men with pride, nor walk in insolence through the earth. Verily, Allah likes not any arrogant boaster. And show no arrogance in your walking, and lower your voice. Verily, the harshest of all voices is the braying of the ass.”

Children pick up these values from a variety of sources, according to the following stages:

1)      During the first seven years the source of the values is the family, as was explained by the Prophet (saw)

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: كل مولود يولد على الفطرة فأبواه يهوادنه أو ينصرانه أو يمجسانه

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said “Everyone born is born on al-fitrah, his parents make him into a Jew, a Christian or a Magian”

During these years, the family has a great impact on the child, so if we did our job well then we give the society a good person, but if we are neglectful in any aspect, then we burden the society with another corrupted personality.

It is necessary during this stage that the child is brought up with a lot of positive comments, and no negativity. The child should not hear from the father “you are lazy”, “you are disorganised”, “you don’t understand”. If there is a need to condemn a behaviour, then it is only the action that should be blamed, not the child. “That was a bad action”, not “you are bad”. Child psychologists have observed that a child hears “no” nearly 150,000 times during our youth, but positive messages often do not reach 500.

2)      During the ages 7 to 14, more of the values are taken from the school and friends, hence the parents must remain constantly aware of the thoughts that their children are adopting from outside, challenging every dangerous idea or inclination. This may even include using the teachers and friends to help them address any matter that may need changing. Naturally during this stage, a boy will start to want more independence from the mother and the father will be a particularly important role model for him. It is essential that the parents do not see that their role has ended at this stage, now that the school takes over. Rather, they must continue all of their efforts to establish their child’s values on an Islamic basis. This is the stage for training and discipline and establishing prayer, fasting and making firm the aqeedah.

If they were at all neglectful in that, then they have become sinful

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” كلكم راع وكلكم مسؤول عن رعيته والمرأة راعية في بيت زوجها وهي مسؤولة عن رعيتها…

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said “Each of you is a guardian and is responsible for those whom he is in charge of…a man is the guardian of his family and is responsible for those under his care…”

ويقول علي رضي الله عنه: لاعب ابنك سبعا وادبه سبعا وصاحبه سبعا ثم اتركه بعد ذلك

Ali (ra) said “Play with you children for seven (years), discipline him for seven (years), and be his companion for seven (years), then leave him after that”

So the first seven years are where the child learns the values through playing, the next seven are where he learns the values, concepts and beliefs through teaching and discipline.

3)      The last stage, from 14 to 21, is where they take their values mostly from the society. Sadly, many youth spend hours in front of the television, so end up adopting the values of their favourite actors or musicians. During this period, young adolescent male wants to be in the company of men. He desperately needs male role models to look up to, so parents must make sure that they influence his choice of companion, such that they are a positive influence and the father remains relevant in his son’s life.

These are some of the important matters that the father and mother should have discussion about and agreement on, in order to do justice to their child. Whenever possible, parents should encourage children to participate in making rules because it helps the child to obey his parents and encourages him not to resist.

In a narration that epitomises the duty of a father to his child. a man once came to ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra), the second Khalifah of Islam, complaining of his sons’ disobedience to him. ‘Umar summoned the boy and spoke of his disobedience to his father and his neglect of his rights. The boy replied:

“O Amir al-Mu’minin! Hasn’t a child rights over his father?”
“Certainly”, replied ‘Umar.
“What are they, Amir al-Mu’minin?”
“That he should choose his mother, give him a good name and teach him the Book (the Qur’an).”
“O Amir al-Mu’minin! My father did nothing of this. My mother was a Magian (fire worshipper). He gave me the name of Ju’alaan (meaning dung beetle or scarab) and he did not teach me a single letter of the Qur’an.”
Turning to the father, ‘Umar said:
“You have come to me to complain about the disobedience of your son. You have failed in your duty to him before he has failed in his duty to you; you have done wrong to him before he has wronged you.”

7. Conclusion

The tarbiyah and upbringing of children is the duty and concern of every Muslim, not least the one who carries da’wah. This is a natural subject for the da’wah carrier, as the ummah feels for the plight of their children. We need to highlight the role of the state, the need to work for it, but not leave it there. We must give guidance on how to practically bring up kids in the West such that the new generation hold onto their Islamic identity. The West realises that many of the current youth are been lost to Islam and what they call extremism, hence they are focusing on corrupting our children at even younger ages in schools and mosques. The ummah needs to realise that the struggle to save our kids and the struggle for khilafah are interlinked, just as the West itself sees them as interlinked. We should not look at this subject solely from an individual perspective; rather this is a practical subject for ourselves and for our da’awah.

If we do well in raising our children, then we have produced distinguished Islamic personalities, applying Islam and carrying it to the world to gain the honour in this life and return as we were, the leading ummah in the world. We do not raise our children for the dunya alone, but to prepare them for the next life that contains their eternal abode and happiness. Just as we are careful to ensure our children’s happy future in the dunya, we must be more careful to divert them from the hellfire to the happiness of the next life.

Ustadh Yahya Abu Yousuf

Source