Let me open this by saying quite candidly, that it is my belief that the proposed French ban on the Hijab (the burka is simply a version of the hijab) has little to do with so-called French values and everything to do with good ‘ole French imperialism.
Ever since the French revolution, there has been a strong antipathy toward perceived religious encroachments into French public life. During the French colonial enterprises, France brought this extremist interpretation of secularism to its colonies, which unfortunately included a number of Muslim lands and one of their favourite torturous acts against Muslim women was to strip them naked and cover their heads. In this way, what the women denied them by covering was now on display, and the tables turned – the women couldn’t see the men. It is against this perverse backdrop that the French ban must be questioned.
When a liberal democratic state legislates against women covering, but has little to say about how much is removed – then it’s fair to ask whose interests the state is working for. Where does it stop?
European Muslim women have demonstrated quite visibly that they have the ability to engage in everyday activities without adorning themselves or removing essential items of clothing. They are very clear about why they go into the public domain and make a conscious effort to not be alluring or light entertainment for the opposite sex. But this wouldn’t be enough for the French because of their view of the Muslim woman in general. They feel denied the freedom of lusting after the female form and like many of their European counterparts insist that they remove their covers so that they might view and enjoy what non-Muslim women contentedly show off freely.
Unfortunately European women have learned that in order to obtain the pick of the crop, be it the best housing, careers or men, that something has to be removed, shortened or decorated with rouge and lipstick. In a recent educational article one professional pointed out that she managed to obtain her position because of her ‘looks’, knowing all along that the other candidates were far more experienced and qualified than herself.
But back to France, who is to police the numerous women who choose not to comply, Les Francais Taliban, no doubt! Their menfolk shunted of to prisons for aiding and abetting women in burqas. Imagine that, it’ll be a criminal offence to overdress! It does sound utterly ridiculous that a group of grown men and women would give way to such rampant emotions surrounding their own insecurities and identity crises. And what of the increasing number of indigenous Muslims, are they not French anymore because of their choice of religion? My only advice at this point – get a grip! What is distinctly French today will almost certainly evolve over time, as it has done so already. From where I’m standing the future looks decidedly Muslim – Vive la France.
You can read the very telling YNet report here, and the Haa’retz accusations here.
Israel's bigwigs attacked at dawn on a wide front. The president in Germany, the prime minister with a giant entourage in Poland, the foreign minister in Hungary, his deputy in Slovakia, the culture minister in France, the information minister at the United Nations, and even the Likud party's Druze Knesset member, Ayoob Kara, in Italy. They were all out there to make florid speeches about the Holocaust.
CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”
Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”
But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).
"Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database"
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.
Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American has no image of his head of any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!
The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terroristy religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.
The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)
The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but no more so than the acts of terrorism committed by people of other faiths. So calm the bleep down, and continue living your life.
The FBI Terrorism Report shows:318 incidents 1980-2005 which averages out to one a month. The highest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. by region (90) took place in Puerto Rico. The total number of deaths due to terrorism incidents in the U.S. is 3,178 which means that aside from 9/11 and the OKC bombing the total number of terrorism deaths from 1980-2005 is 33. In 12 of the 26 years covered by the report there were no deaths or injuries from terrorist attacks in the U.S.
MPAC.ie Comment: We have our own nutjobs here in Ireland, those who regurgitate the tired ole shrieks and screams of of drama queens, Geller and Spencer ad nauseum. On Politics.ie, hatemongers speak of the threat of Islamic terrorism in Ireland, conveniently overlooking the fact that the only terrorism that has been perpetrated on this island has been at the hands of non-Muslim Irish men and women. You could include members of the Jewish community in that they have actively supported the terrorist entity wrongly called ‘Israel’ in their ongoing genocide of the Palestinians and acts of terrorism against neighbouring states such as Lebanon.
A similar study on the British mainland concluded that the biggest terrorist threat remained Irish Republicans.
With regards to the meaning of ‘kufr’ (disbelief), the meaning of ‘kufr’ linguistically means, originally, ‘to cover’ and ‘to hide’ and within the Arabic language the night is ascribed as being a ‘kaafir’ , which does not mean here that it is expelled from the religion of Islaam, rather linguistically the ‘kaafir’ here means ‘that which covers’. For the night covers the day entirely like when someone walks during the night he does not see everything as there are many things that are covered by the darkness of the night.
Thus, from this angle the night was called a ‘kaafir’. The ‘kaafir’ was named so as he covers the truth and does not accept it, refusing the truth and covering it up and not answering the truth and for this reason was termed a ‘kaafir’. Some of the people of Islamic knowledge have said that such is known as a ‘kaafir’ because he covers with his disbelief that which is incumbent upon him to have from eemaan (faith), however his kufr covers his eemaan and thus does not answer or respond to it (i.e. eemaan).
In regards to Muslims taking kuffaar as ‘friends’ then this relates to taking non-Muslims as close confides as whom to refer back to on issues related to Islaam. It also includes the fact that of course a Muslim should only take those as close friends those who share their beliefs as they will refer each other back to the sources for Islaam for guidance. Does a Sikh refer to a Jew in regards to issues about their religion or vice versa? The injunction in Islaam about not taking kuffaar as friends also does not negate the fact that Muslims have to be ‘friendly’, neighbourly, well-mannered, respectful, hospitable and helpful to non-Muslims in matters not related to having an adverse affect on the Muslims. In fact, the superb community relations, engagement and interaction that Muslims have had in many societies has been a reason for people to embrace Islaam! Therefore, the statements of the likes of Dr Taj Hargey of the obscure Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford (a Qur’aaniyoon organization!) that the term ‘kuffaar’ is “a very pejorative, negative, disparaging term and when you call someone a ‘kaafir’ they’re not worthy to be associated with, this kind of intolerance gives rise to extremists”1 is absolutely incorrect, as one of the senior scholars of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan ibn ’Abdullaah al-Fawzaan (hafidhahullaah) stated:
These are things like buying from and selling to the kuffaar, giving and receiving presents from the kuffaar and the like are all permissible and not allegiance to the kuffaar. Rather, these things are from worldly interaction and beneficial exchanges, such as also hiring a disbeliever for work. These are like the beneficial exchanges of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) when he hired ‘Abdullaah bin Urayqit al-Laythee to guide him on the way to hijra, while Abdullaah was a disbeliever, in order to help due to his experience on the tracks, so that is permissible. It is also permissible for a Muslim to hire out his services for kuffaar to use if necessary as this is from the door of beneficial exchanges and not from the door of love. To the extent that a disbelieving father must be righteous to him and this is not from the door of love. Allaah says,
“You will not find a people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, having affection for those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred. For such He has written eemaan in their hearts, and strengthened them with spirit1 from Him. And He will admit them to Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever. Allaah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allaah, indeed, it is the Party of Allaah that will be successful.” {al-Mujaadilah (58): 22}
However, he (who has a disbelieving father) has to be righteous and good to him, this is from worldly goodness. There are aspects of interaction with the kuffaar such as peace treaties, covenants and trusts with the kuffaar which are all allowed and is not ‘allegiance’ (to the kuffaar). There are some things which some ignoramuses think are allegiance when in reality, are not allegiance. There are situations when the Muslims are in danger and the kuffaar avert such a danger from the Muslims, then this is not mudaahanah (compromising) this is mudaarah (being amicable and harmonious).2
So there is a difference between being amicable and harmonious (mudaarah) and compromising (mudaahanah), as compromising is not permissible however mudaarah is. So when the Muslims are in danger they obtain mudaarah (harmony) of the kuffaar in order to avert such danger and this is not allegiance. The matters need to be understood and understood yet as for explaining every act of interaction with the kuffaar to be allegiance to them then this is ignorance and error, or deceiving the people. So such a person should not enter into such issues except the fuquhaa and the people of knowledge. It is neither for the students nor for the school teachers to enter into such issues and analyse, prohibit and criticize the people saying “this is allegiance to the kuffaar and they (scholars) do not know the Divinely Legislated rulings” this is dangerous on the one who says such things as he is speaking about Allaah without knowledge.3
The other issue here is that all religions have terms by which they refer to others who do not share their belief and these words are verified within their religious books. In Judaism for example, non-Jews are referred to as ‘the Goyim’, yet this is rarely translated as ‘infidels’ or as ‘expressing contempt and hatred’ for non-Jews. It is only in Islaam that everything has been simplistically assessed as expressing ‘hatred and intolerance’ of non-Muslims.
Another example of this in practice can be seen on a certain internet encyclopedia engine which has only a brief entry on what the term ‘Goyim’ means yet has a huge section on ‘kaafir’ and its meaning and usage!! This is not only unfair but is also simplistic to claim that the mere use of these terms in some way contributes to extremism and terrorism, let alone being damaging to community cohesion in the UK! If this is the case, then the other communities also have to be condemned for referral to terms of describing non-believers in their faiths. According to Jewish tradition, non-Jewish women are “Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah (impure, slaves, heathens, whores)”!! Along with also being “Shiksah (unbridled whores)” Even in the medieval period (for the West) Jewish Rabbis considered non-Jewish women as being “b’hezkat zenat (prostitutes)” as admitted by Rabbi Perry R. Rank, the ‘cyber Rav’.4
On Purim, February 25 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane, who told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are “dogs” is merely “derived from the Talmud”!!?5 University of Jerusalem Professor Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein’s philosophy: “They believe it’s God’s will that they commit violence against goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews.”6 An American Hassidic Rabbi, Yitzhak Ginsburg, a Jewish scholar (‘Lubavitcher’) from Kever Yossev Yeshiva (School of Talmud) in the West Bank city of Nablus declared, “We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing.”7 Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”5 In the Talmud it states: “All Israelites will have a part in the future world . . . The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell.”8
Also:
“Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”9 Furthermore: “Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings.”10
In Hinduism, non-Hindus are referred to as “mlechhas (unholy and uncivilised)” due to not following the teachings of the Vedas! These views are held by Hindu groups such as the VHP, Arya Samaj Movement3, the RSS, the Shiv Sena, the ABVP (Indian Universities Council) and others. As for statements that Muslim scholars and graduates of Islamic universities may make about Islaam and related to Islaam and its regulations, then these can be broken down
into two:
1. Is there evidence for it? If so, then there are bits and pieces in all religions that people like or don’t like. If a person does apply it, what can you one do?
2. As for a person stating their own opinion based upon the texts of their religion, then if one says that it is not a valid opinion based on the texts, they have the right to say this. In the same way, we also have the right to say that it is not a valid opinion based upon the texts. For example, like the punishments in Islaam, no matter how abhorrent it may be for some, it is still a valid opinion in the deen for crimes against the Islamic state.
1 He stated this on the Channel 4 (UK) documentary entitled ‘Undercover Mosques’ for the programme Dispatches on 15 January 2007. 2 i.e. “that which gives life”, explained as the guidance of the Qur’aan or victory over their opponents.
1 Mudaarah literally means to be amicable, affable and harmonious and in the context of the Sharee’ah the scholars have noted that it is given away some of your dunya for the preservation of the deen. As Shaykh Saalih is emphasizing here it is known by the scholars that mudaarah is different from mudaahanah (to compromise). Imaams Bukhaaree and Muslim (raheemahumullaah) in their saheehs within their sections on manners then include chapters on mudaarah. Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar stated: “…the intent of it is to ward off via kindness.” In al-Qaamoos al-Muheet it is stated about the definition of daraa’: “To make
something a deterrent, and to deter is to rebut, i.e. they rebutted each other in the argument.” Examples of mudaarah in the Qur’aan are in Soorah al-An’aam (6: 108) and in al-Qasas (28:54). Evidences from the sunnah for this are the hadeeth from Abi’l-Dardaa’ that “We smile in the faces of people yet our hearts are cursing them.” (Fath al-Baaree, vol.10, p.527, Kitaab al-Adab, Baab al-Mudaarah ma’a’n-Naas). Also when ’Urwah ibn al-Zubayr reported that ‘Aa’ishah told him: “A man sought permission to enter upon the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam), and he said, “Let him in, what a bad son of his tribe (or bad brother of his tribe) he is!” When the man came in, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) spoke to him kindly and gently. I said: “O Messenger of Allaah, you said what you said, then you spoke to him kindly.” He said, “O ‘Aa’ishah, the worst of the people in the sight of Allaah is the one who is shunned by others or whom people treat nicely because they fear his sharp tongue.” (Fath al-Baaree, vol.10, p.528, Kitaab al-Adab, Baab al-Mudaarah ma’a’n-Naas). Ibn Hajar said about these two hadeeth: Ibn Battaal said: Mudaarah is from the good character of the believers, to be responsive to people, even with a word, without being coarse with them in speech, this is one of the strongest causes of harmony. Some people think that mudaarah is mudahaanah and this is an error, as mudaarah is regrettable and mudaahanah is prohibited. The difference is: mudaahanah is taken from the word ad-Dahhaan (the painter) who glosses over something and covers what is actually there. The scholars have explained it as lying with a sinner and openly displaying happiness with what he is doing without forbidding him at all. Mudaarah is being kind with the ignorant in order to teach him, being kind with the sinner in order to forbid him from what he is doing, without being harsh with him so that he does not expose what he does, and forbidding him with gentle speech and action, especially if his comradeship is needed and the likes of that. Fath ul-Baaree (Daar ur-Rayyaan), vol.10, p.545.
Imaam al-Qurtubee stated: The difference between mudaarah and mudaahanah is that mudaarah is to surrender the dunya for the benefit of the deen and it is permissible and even recommended. Mudaahanah is leaving the deen for the dunya. Fath ul-Baaree (Daar ur-Rayyaan), vol.10, p.469. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (raheemahullaah):Thus mudaarah is praiseworthy and mudaahanah is censured , so there is a differenece between the two. The one who is mudaaree uses kindness with a person in order for the truth to manifest from the person or make him retract from falsehood. The mudaahin (compromiser) uses kindness in order for the person to remain established upon falsehood and leaves him upon his desires. Mudaarah is for the people of eemaan while mudaahanah is for the hypocrites. ar-Rooh, p.231. 3Shaykh, Dr Saalih bin Fawzaan al-Fawzaan, Muhammad bin Fadh al-Husayn (editor and compiler), al- Ajabaat ak-Muhimmah fi’l-Mashaakil al-Mumilah (Riyadh: Mataabi’ al-Humaydee, 1425 AH/2004 CE, Second Edition), pp.54-56 4 http://www.jewishpost.com/jp1003/jpcy1003f.htm 5 CBS 60 Minutes, “Kahane” 6 NY Daily News, 26February 1994 CE, p. 5 7 NY Times, 6 June 1989 CE, p.5 8 NY Daily News, 28 February 1994 CE, p.6 9 Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha 10 Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L 11 Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 14, 20, 32, 33, 39 13 This group was founded in 1875 CE by Dayanand Sarasvati, a Hindu scholar and bigoted anti-Muslim. He was a leading figure in the 19th century Hindu revival that placed exclusive authority in the Vedas. The Arya Samaj Movement establishes Anglo Vaidic schools to raise Hindu militants. Ironically, given its present links with Ammo Singh and the BNP, the group has been violently hostile to Sikhs.Many of its members go on to become active in the hardcore Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the ABVP, the (Indian Universities Council). ABVP members have been involved in campus disturbances against Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.
Say, “Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason.” And do not approach the orphan’s property except in a way that is best until he reaches maturity. And give full measure and weight in justice. We do not charge any soul except [with that within] its capacity. And when you testify, be just, even if [it concerns] a near relative. And the covenant of Allah fulfill. This has He instructed you that you may remember. And, [moreover], this is My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not follow [other] ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may become righteous. (Surah Anaam 151-153)
The typical kneejerk reaction of the west to demonise a religion and Muslim nations in the wake of the Dec. 25th terrorist attempt is one in a long line of monumental mistakes that refuses to consider the cause and reason for radicalization.
Common sense dictates that we investigate the cause of such actions but there seems to be an unwillingness to do so, why?
From 9/11 until the present day, those who have tried and those who have been successful in their retributive attempts upon the west have given their reasons; support for unjust occupations, wars and invasion of Muslim lands and political interference.
What has been the response? Lies and deceit. The Bush mantra of ‘they hate our freedom’ was only swallowed and regurgitated by the most gullible and base in society, the lies simply didn’t wash with most sensible individuals for they knew there was something instinctively wrong with entering a foreign land based on lies and deception, subjugating the people of that land and then deriding opposition to the occupation as terrorism.
Sugarcoating occupation, invasions and war doesn’t hide the facts, the truth eventually gets told. But until they end, until Muslim blood is valued as much as the blood of anyone else and until there are just and equitable reparations, there will inevitably be many more young men and women who will rise up against injustice, radicalized by the oppression of the west.
Western leaders know what needs to be done to bring an end to all our suffering, they just need the political will to do so.
One year has passed since the savage Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip, but for the people there time might as well have stood still. Since Palestinians in Gaza buried their loved ones — more than 1,400 persons, almost 400 of them children — there has been little healing and virtually no reconstruction.
According to international aid agencies, only 41 trucks of building supplies have been allowed into Gaza during the year.
Promises of billions made at a donors’ conference in Egypt last March attended by luminaries of the so-called “international community” and the Middle East peace process industry are unfulfilled, and the Israeli siege, supported by the US, the European Union, Arab states, and tacitly by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah, continues.
Amid the endless, horrifying statistics a few stand out: of Gaza’s 640 schools, 18 were completely destroyed and 280 damaged in Israeli attacks. Two-hundred-and-fifty students and 15 teachers were killed.
Of 122 health facilities assessed by the World Health Organization, 48 percent were damaged or destroyed.
Ninety percent of households in Gaza still experience power cuts for four to eight hours per day due to Israeli attacks on the power grid and degradation caused by the blockade.
Forty-six percent of Gaza’s once productive agricultural land is out of use due to Israeli damage to farms and Israeli-declared free fire zones. Gaza’s exports of more than 130,000 tons per year of tomatoes, flowers, strawberries and other fruit have fallen to zero.
That “much of Gaza still lies in ruins,” a coalition of international aid agencies stated recently, “is not an accident; it is a matter of policy.”
This policy has been clear all along and it has nothing to do with Israeli “security.”
From 19 June 2008, to 4 November 2008, calm prevailed between Israel and Gaza, as Hamas adhered strictly — as even Israel has acknowledged — to a negotiated ceasefire.
That ceasefire collapsed when Israel launched a surprise attack on Gaza killing six persons, after which Hamas and other resistance factions retaliated.
Even so, Palestinian factions were still willing to renew the ceasefire, but it was Israel that refused, choosing instead to launch a premeditated, systematic attack on the foundations of civilized life in the Gaza Strip.
Operation Cast Lead, as Israel dubbed it, was an attempt to destroy once and for all Palestinian resistance in general, and Hamas in particular, which had won the 2006 election and survived the blockade and numerous US-sponsored attempts to undermine and overthrow it in cooperation with US-backed Palestinian militias.
Like the murderous sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s, the blockade of Gaza was calculated to deprive civilians of basic necessities, rights and dignity in the hope that their suffering might force their leadership to surrender or collapse.
In many respects things may seem more dire than a year ago.
Barack Obama, the US president, whom many hoped would change the vicious anti-Palestinian policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, has instead entrenched them as even the pretense of a serious peace effort has vanished.
According to media reports, the US Army Corps of Engineers is assisting Egypt in building an underground wall on its border with Gaza to block the tunnels which act as a lifeline for the besieged territory (resources and efforts that ought to go into rebuilding still hurricane-devastated New Orleans), and American weapons continue to flow to West Bank militias engaged in a US- and Israeli-sponsored civil war against Hamas and anyone else who might resist Israeli occupation and colonization.
These facts are inescapable and bleak.
However, to focus on them alone would be to miss a much more dynamic situation that suggests Israel’s power and impunity are not as invulnerable as they appear from this snapshot.
A year after Israel’s attack and after more than two-and-a-half years of blockade, the Palestinian people in Gaza have not surrendered. Instead they have offered the world lessons in steadfastness and dignity, even at an appalling, unimaginable cost.
It is true that the European Union leaders who came to occupied Jerusalem last January to publicly embrace Ehud Olmert, the then Israeli prime minister — while white phosphorus seared the flesh of Gazan children and bodies lay under the rubble — still cower before their respective Israel lobbies, as do American and Canadian politicians.
But the shift in public opinion is palpable as Israel’s own actions transform it into a pariah whose driving forces are not the liberal democratic values with which it claims to identify, but ultra-nationalism, racism, religious fanaticism, settler-colonialism and a Jewish supremacist order maintained by frequent massacres.
The universalist cause of justice and liberation for Palestinians is gaining adherents and momentum especially among the young. I witnessed it, for example, among Malaysian students I met at a Palestine solidarity conference held by the Union of NGOs of The Islamic World in Istanbul last May, and again in November as hundreds of student organizers from across the US and Canada converged to plan their participation in the global Palestinian-led campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions modeled on the successful struggle against South African apartheid in the 1980s.
This week, thousands of people from dozens of countries are attempting to reach Gaza to break the siege and march alongside Palestinians who have been organizing inside the territory.
Each of the individuals traveling with the Gaza Freedom March, Viva Palestina, or other delegations represents perhaps hundreds of others who could not make the journey in person, and who are marking the event with demonstrations and commemorations, visits to their elected officials and media campaigns.
Against this flowering of activism, Zionism is struggling to rejuvenate its dwindling base of support. Multi-million dollar programs aimed at recruiting and Zionizing young American Jews are struggling to compete against organizations like the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, which run not on money but principled commitment to human equality.
Increasingly, we see that Israel’s hasbara (propaganda) efforts have no positive message, offer no plausible case for maintaining a status quo of unspeakable repression and violence, and rely instead on racist demonization and dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims to justify Israel’s actions and even its very existence.
Faced with growing global recognition and support for the courageous nonviolent struggle against continued land theft in the West Bank, Israel is escalating its violence and kidnapping of leaders of the movement in Bilin and other villages (Mohammad Othman, Jamal Juma’ and Abdallah Abu Rahmeh are among the leaders of this movement recently arrested).
In acting this way, Israel increasingly resembles a bankrupt failed state, not a regime confident about its legitimacy and longevity.
And despite the failed peace process industry’s efforts to ridicule, suppress and marginalize it, there is a growing debate among Palestinians and even among Israelis about a shared future in Palestine/Israel based on equality and decolonization, rather than ethno-national segregation and forced repartition.
Last, but certainly not least, in the shadow of the Goldstone report, Israeli leaders travel around the world fearing arrest for their crimes.
For now, they can rely on the impunity that high-level international complicity and their inertial power and influence still afford them. But the question for the real international community — made up of people and movements — is whether we want to continue to see the still very incomplete system of international law and justice painstakingly built since the horrors of the Second World War and the Nazi holocaust dismantled and corrupted all for the sake of one rogue state.
What we have done in solidarity with the Palestinian people in Gaza and the rest of Palestine is not yet enough. But our movement is growing, it cannot be stopped, and we will reach our destination.
Under Islaamic Law, the woman receives half the inheritance of that of her male counterpart. However a number of ‘Muslim’ feminists and modernists claim that this law should be revised particularly in light of the current situation in which both men and women are working. This article will explain why, under Islaamic Law, the women receive half the inheritance of a man. It will then critically examine the arguments used by those who call for equality in inheritance.
The verse: “Judgement belongs to Allaah alone” [Al-An'aam (6):57] establishes a fundamental rule of Islaam that the prerogative of law making belongs to Allaah alone. A Muslim is obliged to obey Allaah over and above any other source of legislation. The one who refuses to judge his affairs by the laws of Allaah, believing that it is permissible to judge by other than the laws of Allaah, leaves the fold of Islaam according to the consensus of the scholars. Hence any law that is established in the Qur’aan or the authentic Sunnah is binding upon the Muslim. By virtue of being a Muslim, he or she has no choice
but to obey the laws that Allaah has laid down upon him or her. As Allaah says: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allaah and His Messenger
have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.” And whoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger, he has
indeed strayed in a plain error.” [Al-Ahzaab (33):36]
Hence the reason why a woman receives half the inheritance of her male counterpart is that Allaah has legislated this in the Qur’aan. The evidence is the
verse: “Allaah commands you as regards your children’s (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females..” [An-Nisaa’ (4):11]. This verse is qat’ee dalaalah (definitive in meaning), i.e. it is a verse that has a single meaning and has no room for another interpretation.
Once we have fully accepted the rule that the woman inherits half that of the man, then it is permissible for us to look into the wisdom behind this ruling. The
laws of Allaah are fully in harmony with sound reason; hence in many cases we can use our reason to discern the wisdom behind the laws. This rule does not
apply to the laws regulating ritual worship.
To understand the wisdom behind the woman receiving less inheritance, we need first to understand the rights and duties of men and women in Islaam in the
economic sphere. The laws of inheritance must be examined in this context, and not in isolation. The man is responsible for providing for himself, his children, his wife, his parents and his unmarried sisters. So from the share of the man’s inheritance, a number of female relatives have a right over this wealth.
However, in the case of a woman who inherits, she need not spend it on anyone; in fact she has a right to be financially maintained by one of her male relatives. Hence due to the additional obligations placed on the man, Allaah has given him a larger share of the inheritance. This is based upon the Sharee’ah principle: benefits are in accordance with the scale of responsibility.
One of the advocates of revising the laws of inheritance is Michael Mumisa. He brings the principle that ‘the hukm is attached to the ”illah.1 If the ‘illah no
longer exists, the hukm ceases to exist’. Hence if the ‘illah for women receiving less inheritance ceases to exist, then so does the law. (Mumisa, 2002: 104).
Mumisa’s argument is based upon his interpretation of ‘Umar’s decision not to give zakaat to the category of people called ‘al-mu’allafat qulubuhu’ (those who
hearts are to be reconciled to Islaam). He claims that the ‘illah of giving zakaat to this category of people was to win their moral support and hence strengthen Islaam. Given that this ‘illah no longer existed, the hukm of the ‘illah was also abolished. Mumisa claims that this principle applies to all laws including inheritance law (Mumisa, 2002: 104-5).
Based upon the principle postulated by Mumisa, some may argue that when the law of inheritance was revealed, it was the case that men bore the financial
responsibility; hence the law was relevant to that time. In today’s society, the financial burden is often borne equally by both men and women. Given that the ‘illah of the law is no longer present, the law regarding inheritance should be revised to take this new situation into account
However, the argument of Mumisa is seriously flawed. He has incorrectly associated a valid principle, with the narration regarding ‘Umar. Second, although the principle is correct, he has misunderstood it and hence applied it to cases that are not covered by it. The logical conclusion of his misunderstanding
is the abrogation of many rules of the sharee’ah. Thirdly he has confused ‘illah with hikmah. We will take each point in turn.
Firstly, ‘Umar chose not to give zakaat for al-mu’allafah quloobuhum (those who hearts are to be reconciled to Islaam), as he judged that such a category of
people did not exist at that particular time. This did not preclude zakaat being given to this category at a later time. Hence ‘Umar’s decision was based upon
the non existence of a category of zakaat recipients and not the absence of the ‘illah. To further illustrate this point we can look at the example of travellers (in need) who are entitled to zakaat. However, if travellers in need cannot be found, it does not mean the hukm of zakaat to travellers is no longer present or valid, rather this category of zakaat recipients do not exist at this moment in time.
Hence Mumisa is wrong to associate the example of ‘Umar with the principle that if the ‘illah of the hukm is not present, the hukm is not present. If one attributes a ruling to certain reasons, and those reasons cease to exist, that is not sufficient proof to negate the ruling, since a ruling does not require the
continuous presence of its reason. Thus there is always need for proof to indicate that a ruling is waived, even when the reason does not exist anymore.
Secondly, his application of this principle to the division of inheritance would entail the abrogation of the laws of inheritance. Scholars unanimously agree that
abrogation of a verse of the Qur’aan could only have taken place within the life time of the Prophet. Secondly, the abrogating text must be another verse or an authentic hCadith and not ijmaa‘, qiyaas or maslahah. Hence there is always need for proof to indicate that a ruling is waived and this proof is only found in nusoos (textual evidence).
Thirdly, Mumisa has confused the ‘illah of a hukm, with the hikmah behind the hukm. The ‘illah is as an attribute that is constant and evident, and bears a
proper relationship to the hukm. The hikmah on the other hand is not a constant attribute. For example, the hikmah behind breaking the fast due to a journey is hardship, whereas the ‘illah is the journey itself. But a journey may or may not result in hardship, i.e. the hikmah may or may not arise, and hence is not constant, unlike the ‘illah. The jumhoor hold that the presence of the ‘illah entails the presence of the hukm, even if the hikmah is not present, and the hukm is absent in the absence of the ‘illah even if the hikmah is present.
Now in the case of inheritance, the hikmah behind the woman receiving less than that of a man is due to the man having additional financial responsibilities. The hukm does not depend on this hikmah. If a man died, the ‘illah of his daughter receiving half that of his son, is the death of the father. This is different from the hikmah, which has been explained above.
In today’s society, it is true that the hikmah behind the division of inheritance is not always present, as women are sometimes the breadwinners. If we were to accept for the sake of argument that the ruling should change due to the absence of the hikmah (even though this argument has no basis in the sharee’ah) there would still be a problem. There may be many cases where the hikmah still does apply (i.e. the husband is the sole breadwinner, not the wife), in this case would we revert back to the original law? If not, this would be unfair on the man. And if yes, how would we practically revert back to the original law given that the husband and wife inherit from entirely different families. Alternatively we could judge it on a case by case basis. In this case the ruling would vary from family to family, and would led to endless disputes. What if one daughter is working and is contributing towards the maintenance of her household, and the other daughter remains at home and is supported entirely by the husband? Should the working daughter in this case get double the inheritance of the non-working daughter, and if not, what is the wisdom behind them receiving the same share when the former has financial responsibilities which the latter does not have. Equalising the shares of inheritance would oppose the sharee’ah and would lead to further injustices and chaos.
In conclusion, the rulings of ibaadaat and the sharee’ah are fixed and cannot be changed for considerations of public interest.2 Hence there is no sharee’ah basis for reconsidering the laws of inheritance.
Bibliography
Doi, ‘Abdur RahCman. I. (1997). Shari’ah: The Islamic Law. London: Ta-Ha Publishers.
Hasan, Abdul Ghaffar. (1992). The Rights and Duties of Women in Islam. London: Al-Qur’an Society.
Hasan, Ahmad. (1986). Analogical Reasoning in Islamic Jurisprudence. A study of the juridical principle of Qiyas. Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute.
Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. (2003). Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. (Third Edition). Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society.
Footnotes
1 the underlying cause of the hukm (ruling)
2 Every ruling in the Shar’iah is for the benefit of creation as stated in the legal maxim: The Lawgiver orders only that which is a purely beneficial or predominately beneficial. Allaah informs us in His Noble Book: “Verily, Allaah enjoins justice and goodness, and giving (help) to kith and kin and forbids shameful, indecent and evil deeds, and all kinds of oppression. He admonishes you, that you may take heed.” [Surah an-Nahl (16):90]
The criterion requires a level of knowledge as relates to the one who wishes to distinguish between a Sunnah that is worship and a Sunnah that is a custom. And it has been mentioned that there are actions of the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him, that came from him and he did them seeking to get closer to Allah the Blessed and Exalted; this category is the Sunnah that is worship.
Its opposite is another category that also mentions actions of the Prophet, peace and blessings are upon him; and the least we can say is these actions don’t have the ruling of worship, rather they have the ruling of customs or that the affair returns back to the desire of the person and they have no connection to worship. This category is clear that it has no connection to worship so it will be in the category of customs; and between these two are doubtful matters.
If we look at these doubtful matters from a particular angle then the person might lean towards connecting an action to worship, and if we look at these doubtful matters again we might lean towards connecting them to a Sunnah that is only a custom; according to the student of knowledge (who is investigating these issues). And it is sufficient for the student of knowledge to stop at the second category that is opposite the first category.
For example: The Prophet used to have sandals that had two straps , so what appears at first glance is that if the student of knowledge has sandals with one strap then they are opposing the Sunnah!! And the Sunnah is to have sandals with two straps!! It appears that this has a connection to worship, but it is only a custom of the Arabs, they used to wear this type of sandals. And they didn’t wear the type of footwear known today as ’shoes’ or what resembles that with the different names according to the different countries.
And what is left as relates to the student of knowledge is the category that can be linked to the first group or the second group, and this requires knowledge to distinguish or to determine that it is from the first group and not the second group or the opposite, such that it is from the second group and not the first group.
And with this we find the Scholars agreeing upon affairs that they are from the Sunnah of custom but differing upon the particulars of it, is it from the Sunnah of custom or from the Sunnah of worship.
An example of this is what is connected to the Hajj, and soon we shall be greeting the Hajj inshaALLAH. It is related that the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, descended at Al Batha so some of the companions said, and I think it was Aisha, ‘Staying at Al-Mahassab in not the Sunnah.’
And they only agree that he pitched a tent there and rested, but some of the people who arrive believe that resting at Al Batha is from the completeness of Hajj. And here there could be a difference of opinion because this affair requires something extremely clear in order to connect it to the first category or the second category.
Now we shall mention some current examples, because many of the youth and all praises belong to Allah, shorten their garments and don’t allow their garments to flow long and they intend by this to follow the Sunnah, so is this a Sunnah that is custom or a Sunnah that is worship?
If we looked at this action (shortening the garment) of the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, separately from some of his statements then perhaps we would waver between connecting this action to the Sunnah that is worship or the Sunnah that is custom. But when the hadith containing the statements of the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon, came such as the hadith where he said, ‘The izaar of the believer is to the midway point of the shin and if it is longer then let it go to the ankles and if it is longer then it is in the fire.’ This (hadith) cuts off the wavering between whether this action is a Sunnah of worship or a Sunnah of custom and it is certain that this is a Sunnah of worship because when he described the method of clothing as it relates to the believer he said it is to the midway point of the shin and if it is longer then it is no problem, if it goes to the ankle but as for what is longer than that then it is in the fire.
Opposite to this is a Sunnah that has been establish for the Prophet prayers and peace be upon him, and it is that he used to have long hair. Sometimes his hair would reach his earlobes and if it was longer then it would reach the top of his shoulders. Rather, it has been confirmed that when the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, entered Mecca he had his hair in four braids. Therefore is growing the hair long firstly, and then putting it into braids secondly, a Sunnah of worship or a Sunnah of custom? The answer as I see it, there is nothing here that calls to or justifies or can be construed to cause any wavering concerning this Sunnah of custom.
Why? Firstly, because the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, was not the one who started this Sunnah. Rather this was present before the Messenger was born, not to mention before he became a Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him!!! This was the custom of the Arabs; they used to grow their hair long. And some of the youth to this day, some of the youth in the deserts of Syria that we have witnessed, some of them bunch their hair and put it into braids.
So this is a custom that was not started by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, rather he just continued upon the customs of the Arabs, and he let his hair grow and when he entered Mecca he put it into four braids. There is nothing here that would hurt us if we considered this Sunnah a Sunnah of custom, as opposed to a Sunnah of worship.
Another example: The Prophet peace and blessings be upon him used to wear white; is this Sunnah of custom or a Sunnah of worship? If his statement had not been narrated, “The best clothes for you are white clothes, therefore dress your living in white clothes and bury your dead in white clothes;” if it were not for this statement we would have said this was his preference. And the Messenger used to love white clothes just as he used to love honey for example and he used to hate lizard meat, this was his preference. But when his statement came, ‘the best clothes for you are white’, and then he ordered with wearing it and at the least a command shows that it is recommended, so he said dress your living in white clothes and bury your dead in white clothes, then this left from being a Sunnah of custom and it became a Sunnah of worship.
And with this standard and with this criterion it is obligatory for us to weigh the actions of the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him. Therefore what he started and there is nothing in the context of it that can make us believe it is a Sunnah of custom then it is a Sunnah of worship. But as for his actions prayers and peace be upon him, which are consistent with the customs of the Arabs then these actions are from the Arab customs and it is no problem for the one who does them and it is no problem for the one who leaves them. And also his actions peace be upon him, that dealt with his disposition or his personal taste then this also has no connection to the affairs of worship.
And as for the aforementioned example, the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, used to love honey and it’s possible that we will find some people that hate honey, but we don’t say they have opposed the Sunnah!! Because eating honey in its origin is not worship. Therefore if it is not easy for a person to eat honey or if they have no desire to eat honey then we don’t say he has opposed the Sunnah, but he has opposed the disposition of the Prophet which was that he loved honey.
But from a different angle the Prophet peace and blessing be upon him, used to hate lizard meat and the Arabs used to find it pleasant. And when it was put on the table of the Prophet peace be upon him and it was said that it was lizard meat he didn’t touch it.
And in front of him was one of the famous companions, none other than Khalid ibn Walid. And Khalid ibn Walid used to eat with enormous desire such that it would cause people to look at him; he would eat and the juices would stream down his beard. So when saw that his Prophet was not eating he said, “Oh Messenger of Allah is this (lizard meat) haram? Because he felt a shock inside of himself, he’s eating ravenously and the Prophet is not reaching his hand towards the food; so he said, ‘is this haram’. The Prophet said, ‘No, but this was not in the land of my people so I find that I detest it.’ Therefore we don’t say to the person that loves lizard meat, ‘You have opposed the Sunnah’, because the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him, used to hate lizard meat and we also don’t say this to the one who does not like honey.
And you will find those who don’t like honey, and I have found that one of my sons does not like honey. I love honey and I love all sweets in general, but one of my sons hates honey; but I don’t say to him, ‘You have opposed the Sunnah’, because this has no connection to worship.
And like this, it is incumbent upon us to look at the actions of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, and many of the people especially the students of knowledge during this time period are heedless of these specifics and some of them go to extremes. So you find some of the youth intending to grow their hair long believing that this is the Sunnah of the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him. Yes I say this is from the actions of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, but there is no proof that this is better. Rather the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him, announced as is found in Sahih Muslim, ‘Shave it all or leave it all’.
Therefore if the hair is grown long then it is not a Sunnah of worship rather it is only a Sunnah of custom. So if a person continues to shave his head his entire life it can not be said that he is opposing the Sunnah of the Prophet because the Prophet grew his hair his entire life; with the exception being during the Hajj and Umra because he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to shave his head during this time.
And you know the hadith that appears in Sahih Bukari and Muslim where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘Oh Allah forgive those who shave their heads, oh Allah forgive those who shave their heads, oh Allah forgive those who shave their heads, they said and those who cut their hair short oh Messenger of Allah, and he said ‘and those who cut their hair short. But those who only cut their hair short receive a lesser reward, and to shave the head in more virtuous.
Therefore if the person grows their hair long out of habit or because this is just his natural disposition then there is nothing preventing this, but as for the one who intends by this to get closer to Allah because the Prophet, peace and blessings are upon him, grew his hair long then we say verily this is in opposition to the Sunnah of the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him.
And there is a detail that attention has to be given to, by the one who grows his hair long because the Prophet peace be upon him grew his hair long, so he believes that he is following the Prophet peace be upon him by growing his hair long. But I say with all frankness that he is opposing the Prophet. But his opposition is not apparent rather it is hidden on the inside. So from what is apparent it seems that he is following the Prophet by growing his hair long, so what is the opposition?
The opposition: It is obligatory upon us to pay attention to the statement of our Prophet peace and blessing be upon him, ‘Verily Actions are (judged) by intentions, so each man will have what he intended. Thus, he whose migration was to Allah and His Messenger, his migration is to Allah and His Messenger; but he whose migration was for some worldly thing he might gain, or for a wife he might marry, his migration is to that for which he migrated.’ So the one who goes out with the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him, as a mujahid then the apparent is what? The apparent is that he is a mujahid in the path of Allah; but in reality he went out for some worldly gain or to marry a woman therefore he opposed the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, in his intention. So will he be rewarded as a mujahid, when he opposed the best of the mujahids; opposed him in what, in his intention, the answer is no.
Now the one who grows the hair on his head long, emulating his Prophet, his example is like the example of the mujahid that went out with the Prophet as a mujahid, but his intention was opposed to the intention of the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him. (So the question may be) how is this related to the one who grows his hair long? We say to him: Do you know that when the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him, grew the hair on his head long that his intention with this was to get closer to his Lord? If you believe that then your action is a blessing and if you don’t believe this then you opposed the Messenger in his intention.
He did not seek to get closer to Allah by loving honey, and he did not seek to get closer to Allah by hating lizard meat, and also he did not seek to get closer to Allah the Mighty and Majestic by growing his hair long!! So you seek to get closer to Allah (by growing your hair long)? Then you have opposed the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him, in the strongest condition from the conditions of worship.
The first condition: The intention must be sincerely for the face of Allah the Blessed and Exalted.
The second condition: It must be in accordance with the action of the Prophet.
You are in accordance with him in his action, but you opposed him in his intention.
As relates to the Fajr prayer, both the Sunnah for Fajr and the Fajr prayer itself both are two rakats. So if a man prayed the two Sunnah rakat for Fajr with the intention that they were obligatory, was he in accordance with the Sunnah? The answer is no.
And from the misguidance of the Qadianis is that they believe the two Sunnah rakats for Fajr are obligatory. So when they pray these two rakats the appearance is as though they are in accordance with the Messenger peace and blessings are upon him. But their heart and their intention opposed the Messenger peace and blessings are upon him. So the one who prays the two Sunnah rakats of Fajr with the intention that they are obligatory, this one is like the one who opposed the Messenger in his intention but agreed with him in the appearance. And the appearance doesn’t have any value because the deeds are by the intentions. And the meaning of the hadith is the righteous deeds are only by righteous intentions.
Therefore if we don’t know that the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him, sought to get closer to Allah by growing his hair long then it’s not permissible for the Muslim to seek to get closer to Allah by something that the Prophet peace and blessings are upon him did not seek to get closer to Allah with; this is innovation in the religion.
As you all know the hadiths that warn with a severe warning against innovation in the religion. Whoever invents something into this affair of ours that is not from it then it is rejected. Therefore this is a newly invented matter because the person seeks to get closer to Allah by something that the Prophet did not seek to get closer to Allah with, peace and blessings are upon him. And this is the nature of the innovator, because they bring actions that the Prophet peace be upon him, did not seek to get closer to his Lord with.
And like that, we distinguish between the Sunnah of worship that which we emulate the Messenger in and between the Sunnah of custom, that which we have a choice to do it or to leave because it is only a Sunnah of habit.
Shaykh Albani continues, may Allah have mercy upon him.
This point, it is incumbent that we separate between this and that; meaning our following the Messenger peace be upon him, is in the affairs of the religion not in the affair of the worldly life. And in this there are mistakes, severe mistakes from some of the ignorant people, those who do not separate between the Sunnah of habit and the Sunnah of worship.
The Sunnah of worship does not accept anything extra and for this reason the Messenger peace be upon him said, ‘every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire’. The Sunnah of custom accepts an increase and it accepts a decrease and it accepts everything, because it’s a custom. I will strike for you one example from the Sunnah of custom, from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him.
He (the Prophet) entered Mecca with four braids, what do you all call them; Braids? (the Shaikh uses a specific Arabic term here)
Those present respond: Braids (with a different Arabic word)
Sheikh Albani: Braids , or braids
He entered Mecca, opening Mecca the day Allah helped him against the people of Mecca, and he had four braids. This is the Sunnah of the Arabs, to this day you find this Sunnah with some of the youth from the Bedouin. I have seen them in the desert; until today this custom is present with them.
You are free with regards to this, if you see that it is suitable for you then you do it, and if you want you can leave it, and you have not opposed the Sunnah of the Messenger with regards to this. Why, because it is a Sunnah of custom not a Sunnah of worship.
This categorization is from the completeness of comprehension and understanding in the religion where many of those beginners in calling to knowledge and they are not scholars.
