Search the Community

Salam Alaykum, I am in a bit of a pickle. I currently need to buy a car, I went to the car dealership ( Skoda) and they gave me a quote , lets say the quote is 45760$. We agreed that I’ll pay the first half, and then on 39 months I’ll pay the other half. Thing is in their simulation , the monthly payment is rounded. So lets say its 345$ , when if we do the maths its 344.61$ , so they rounded it. is this permissible ? Is this a form of riba ? Thank you.

Aoa, I saw an interesting comment on an Instagram post today. The post is about Raffia Arshad, the first female judge in the UK who also wears a head scarf/covering/ hijab. The comment was: "Isn't ruling by something other than the law of Allah haram and constitutes kufr?" I dont want to get into the nitty grittys of the question, so lets take an example of something very common in the UK and publicly accepted: Zina. In the UK, the judge cannot punish any 2 people for committing Zina, however it is punishable in Islamic Law. Also, I am well aware that Muslim countries don't follow Sharia down to the dot. There are loopholes, and many of the laws are not publicly followed as well, such as in Pakistan, Malaysia, and others we dont have a law about hijab/head covering of any kind. However, Iran and Saudi Arabia does. But, then Iran and Saudi Arabia has loopholes and shisha lounges are very common there, mixed gatherings are allowed, etc. Not stating my opinion on it, not saying I'm pious and free of all sins, just saying these are things The Prophet SAW and therefore Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would never approve of. Henceforth, being a judge here is also the same as the West since it doesnt follow Sharia down the dot. But then, the world wouldn't work like that. I understand that atleast officially Iran and Saudi are following Sharia and it might be better than there, but since theres always loopholes, and the powerful/bribery gets away with it even in these countries, then is it okay to do the same in the UK? One last thing, I also know Prophet SAW during his time didn't put non Muslims under sharia Law, they were judged by their religious leaders and punished by their law (atleast what ive read) so if this is true, then Im asking about Muslims committing such sins and their families bringing them to court, if for example they came to her and she still can't pass the judgement by Sharia Law, then what? Is there no expense on her part on the Day of Judgement or is there? I thought of it like this too, if i work in the grocery store, and sell pork/wine, etc. to non muslims and muslims, will i be held accountable? this is how i relate it to my own life and why I want to know the answers. Just a few thoughts. All advice and guidance is welcomed!

For unmarried women and men, I am aware that it is 100 flogs. But in regard to the stoning for extra-marital adultery, I believe that Imam Khomeini changed it from stoning as he deemed it to be harmful to the image of Islam and a punishment of the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) time. What was it replaced by?

as salaam alakim!!! I know in hadiths it says when Imam Mahdi comes he will establish islam, but in certain hadiths it says he'll rule people by their books, but will he rule by islamic laws? i know in sunni hadiths it says him and Isa(عليه السلام) will establish islam, but in shia it syas he'll rule by the books of the people of the book and islam. So how will ImamMahdi(عليه السلام) rule according to Shia islam(i mean will hell rue also by the Sharia(shia)?

Salam aleykum, brothers and sisters How understand that in matters of usul din aql is essencial and even shiism has as characteristic the philosophical thought. but with sharia we don't have to use aql or we should say that we don't have to use qyias. maybe i can't understand the diference, but somehow they are related. i know there is the opinion that what we don't understand now will be revealed. but still there's a kind of incongruity to me. Could you help with commentaries ? Thank you

Currently Social Media is awash with opinion for the new law in Brunei regarding the stoning of individuals being found guilty of homosexuality. My question is in regard to what is the proper Islamic Sharia Jurisprudence by which a person can be found guilty of it? I'm not debating the Islamic position on Homosexuality, but looking to raise awareness of the legal process by which actual guilt can be determined Islamically. What is the process by which a person can be accused? Valid eye witnesses required? If so, how many are required? How is their testimony deemed valid? What are the requirements for determining the honesty and character of those witnesses? How can a intentional lie be caught being made by a witness? What is the Appeal process, if any? Does the convicted have any recourse to plead their innocence after they have been found guilty? Which Fiqh is Brunei applying, if any at all? Does a Scholar have any involvement in the judicial process? Do we have any examples of this type of scenario involving the Ahle Bayt (عليه السلام) ? If so what was their guidance of how to go about determining guilty in this situation? What was their guidance on any Jurisprudential matter? Also, if you feel that there any other questions regarding the accusation, trial, judgment and appeal process please feel free to post them. I'm hoping to get the word out regarding how Islam and Fiqh calls for in the Legal Process and what it doesn't allow. Many Anti-Islam religionists are quick to post how Islam calls for the stoning of Homosexuals but they are intentionally leaving out the Islamic Legal Process in which actual guilt is determined. That's how we need to counter our enemies that want to paint as a barbarian religion that thinks only in absolutes. Again, this is a thread about how Homosexuality can be determined in a proper Islamic legal setting, not about Homosexuality itself.

My mom says its haram to have fish thats killed in the water, is that true,since i want to go bow fishing with my friends and I would be killing the fish in the water with my bow and arrow. Thank you.

Marriage in the Shariah is not a sacrament. Stripped of all the cultural accretions Muslims have added on, and minus the obviously crucial elements of love and companionship, marriage is nothing more than — literally — a contract between a man and a woman in which the man provides the woman with financial support in return for exclusive sexual access. It’s a contract that makes sex and reproduction legal in the eyes of God and legitimate in the eyes of society. -Jonathan AC Brown I would imagine many of you are uneasy with the idea that marriage in Islam is nothing more than a contract in which sex is exchanged for financial support. I am certainly uneasy with this idea, for it seems to belittle the institution of marriage on the one hand, and on the other, it is not how the Qur'an describes marriage. For instance, in Surah 30:21, Allah swt describes marriage as a union involving tranquility, love and mercy. In Surah 2:187 marriage is described in terms of reciprocity. To be fair to Jonathan Brown, he does refer to the 'crucial elements of love of companionship', however these seemingly aren't crucial enough to define what marriage is. According to the above quote, in reality marriage in Islam is nothing more than a contract. Additional elements including love and merely that - additional, non-essential elements. I don't agree with that. At least, I think it doesn't do justice to the Islamic conception of marriage. There are at least 3 approaches we can take to the Islamic definition marriage. 1. Legal definition vs Complete Islamic definition The first approach is to distinguish between 2 types of definition. The first is the Shar'i definition of marriage, and the second is the Complete/Qur'anic definition of marriage. Both of these are valid definitions, but they are different. The first is the legal definition, and the second is the true Islamic definition. So, on the legal definition, marriage is nothing more than a contract in which sex is traded for financial support. But on the true Islamic definition, marriage is more than this. Islamically, marriage is a contract which also involves tranquility, mercy, love, and reciprocity. This account makes the word 'marriage' equivocal, i.e. it means two different things depending on whether you are talking is a purely legal context, or giving the true Islamic definition. A culinary example would be the word 'jelly' which means two different things depending on whether you are in the UK or the US. Both definitions are valid, but you have to specify the context. Why would there be 2 types of definitions? Well the Sharia is concerned with practical matters. There is a societal benefit in giving a simple legal definition of marriage, so that some of most harmful sexual relationships can be readily identified, and healthy relationships can be encouraged. This practical concern requires a level of pragmatism, which is reflected in simplified definitions of important Islamic practices. 2. Essential vs Non-essential elements The second approach is to distinguish between essential and non-essential features of marriage. On this account, there is only 1 definition of marriage, and marriage is defined in terms of essential and non-essential (additional) elements. The essential element would be the contract. The additional elements would be love, compassion and so on. These additional elements are desirable, and they perfect marriage, but these aren't essential to make marriage what it is. The word 'marriage' on this account is univocal - it means only 1 thing, in contrast to the account above. An example would be the definition of cake. Essentially a cake is a sponge, but it can also have other additional elements that improve it, such as icing, decoration, other toppings and so on. 3. Inward vs Outward aspects The third approach is to distinguish between the inward and the outward aspect to marriage. Outwardly, marriage is nothing more than a contract. However it would be wrong to say that this is all there is to marriage. Inwardly, marriage involves such things as love, mercy and so on. On this account there is also only 1 definition of marriage, but it has 2 aspects. We deal with each other based on the outward aspect, and so describe a couple as married if they meet the outward aspect of marriage. However if there is no love or mercy or tranquility, then they are lacking the inward aspect of marriage, and so aren't truly married. *** To further understand the differences between these 3 accounts, I will answer two different questions. (i) What is marriage (ii) If there is an Aqd (contract) is there a marriage? Answers: 1 (i) Depends on whether you are asking for the legal or Qur'anic/complete definition. Legally marriage is a contract, but the Qur'anic conception of marriage is more than this, and involves elements such as love and mercy. (ii) Legally yes there is a marriage, but devoid of these other elements it isn't a Qur'anic or Complete Islamic marriage 2 (i) Marriage is a contract. (ii) Yes 3 (i) Marriage consists of a outward and inward elements. (ii) Outwardly there is marriage, but devoid of inward elements, in reality there is no marriage. *** You can apply a similar approach to other Islamic practices, e.g. prayer. Prayer can be defined in terms of the Arkan/pillars of prayer mentioned in books of fiqh. But is it really prayer if it doesnt forbid evil? (Surah 29:45). Legally prayer is the Arkan, but the Qur'anic/Complete Islamic definition includes the important elements of spirituality. You could view the Arkan as essential, and the other elements as non-essential. You could say prayer has an inward and outward, and without both there is no prayer.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/stoning-and-hand-cutting-understanding-the-hudud-and-the-shariah-in-islam He says a lot of insightful things here on punishment in general and hudud in particular. A few things in particular stood out (although there is much more that is worthy of reflection)- 1. Hudud punishments are harsh, and they need to be to function as a deterrent. As per Bentham, the deterrent effect of any threat of punishment depends on (i) the severity of the punishment, and (ii) the chance of being caught. It was much easier to get away with a crime 1400 years ago then it is today, so to achieve the same deterrent effect, the severity/harshness of the punishment needed to be greater. Today, on the other hand, with advances forensics, CCTV, police etc. its harder to get away with crime, so the chance of getting caught is greater. Therefore to achieve the same level of deterrence, the harshness of the punishment doesn't need to be as high. 2. Because hudud punishments are harsh, they are deemed to be cruel. But cruelty is relative to social and cultural norms. Is being flogged really worse than losing your freedom? 3. The costly nature of prisons, and the fact that they have failed at reform. Criminals are surrounded by other criminals, drug use is rampant, and sexual violence is widespread. 4. Many modern objections to hudud arent about the punishments themselves, but that acts such as fornication should be regarded as crimes in the first place. 5. Having said all that, historically many hudud were rarely implemented, eg for sarq and adultery. This is because of the stringent criteria required for them to be applicable. 6. What is the point of having hudud that are rarely, if ever, implemented? It's a message to people that certain actions are reprehensible and worthy of severe sanction. An example would be the threat of £1000 fine for littering - no one is ever fined this much (perhaps there are 1 or 2 cases, but the point is that it sends a message).

It seems a trend for many Muslims to easily labeling as haram on almost anything such as music, sports, driving, riding bicycles, movies, TV, INTERNET including youtube, etc. thus unnecessarily harming health, work and educational opportunities for many, especially for women. Such trend would be a catalyst for attacks on Islamic system as a whole from inside and out if left ignored. In going over how things are ruled as haram(prohibited), let us start with Quran as a source. Ayat can be muHkam or mutashabih. The muHkam /clear verse which can be ‘aam / general, khaas / specific, (amr and nahy)/(imperative and prohibitive), or mushtarak / collective. مشترك Amr(imperative) can be Fard (obligatory by clear textual dalil evidence) wajib(necessary by probable evidence), manduub(recommended), or mubaah(permissible/indifferent). Nahy can be haram or makruh(disliked). So haram ruling is derived from nahy type of MuHkam verse which is absolutely clear by its own. Thus, Quranic source of haram, makruh, mubaah, manduub, wajib or fard ruling is from muHkam verses. Since some of us are subjected to such rulings with real consequences with accompanying execution power of rewards or punishments by rulers, we all must understand the mechanism of the rulings. If the source of such ruling is only from hadith with vague wording with outdated situation, such as allowed traveling distance for women; is it OK to apply the lower standard in deriving hukum than from Quran? Please help me here by correcting me in any part, offering your knowledge in this area of Islamic jurisprudence. Thank you in advance.

Bismillah ar-Rahman ir-Raheem Assalaam Alaikum, My question is regarding male circumcision and performing tawaf around the Kaaba. I found no basis for it in al-Quran and numerous marjas have ruled circumcision is required of a man for his tawaf around Kaaba to be accepted yet don't explain why. Why is it wajib for a man to be circumcised to circumambulate the Kaaba? If answers could be provided with references to authentic ahadith it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Hi all, This poll from 2013 conducted in Iran by Pew Forum found that a staggering 83% of Iranians support Sharia in the country. Is this true? Wow! I am shocked that so many Iranians support Sharia in the country and only a mere 15% oppose it. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/06/11/iranians-views-mixed-on-political-role-for-religious-figures/ @magma @Ibn Sina @repenter @ChattingwithShias @Mohammad-Ali @kamyar @baradar_jackson What're your thoughts guys?

whats his view? what are the criteria to pursue the death penalty (if applicable)?

I'm thinking about when it would be morally acceptable to wage war. The obvious answer is that only in self-defense. The only war that is acceptable is one fought in self defense, that is to protect ones own country/people. As attractive as that sounds prima facie, I think most people would disagree on further reflection. It's also morally acceptable to fight a war to defend other people other than one's own, e.g. those threatened by the Nazis, eventhough they aren't in your country. Of course this isn't a sufficient condition for acceptability of war - lots of other factors are also relevant like chances of success, and consequences of fighting the war etc. So war can be acceptable to defend the lives of one's own people, as well as other people from other countries. But again, I think further reflection shows that there is something missing here. We can ask: Why is war acceptable to protect life? The answer may be that everyone has a right to life, and violation of this right is a grave crime. So war is acceptable to prevent the violation of such an important right. But arguably, there are rights which are more important that the right to life, such as the right to know one's purpose in life, to the know fundamental truth about the world, to live one's life in accordance with this purpose. A corollary of this is that misguiding someone is worse than killing someone, for when you misguide someone you cause eternal harm, whereas when you kill someone you cause potentially limited harm. And it is better to be killed young and on the truth, than to die a natural death old and evil. Imam Zaynul Abideen [a] in Dua Makarim alAkhlaq says: وَعَمِّرْنِي مَا كَانَ عُمْرِيْ بِذْلَةً فِي طَاعَتِكَ، فَإذَا كَانَ عُمْرِي مَرْتَعَاً لِلشَّيْطَانِ فَـاقْبِضْنِي إلَيْـكَ قَبْـلَ أَنْ يَسْبِقَ مَقْتُـكَ إلَيَّ، أَوْ يَسْتَحْكِمَ غَضَبُكَ عَلَيَّ Let me live as long as my life is a free gift in obeying Thee, but if my life should become a pasture for Satan, seize me to Thyself before Thy hatred overtakes me or Thy wrath against me becomes firm! http://www.duas.org/sajjadiya/s20.htm So if it is acceptable to fight to defend other people's lives, it should also be acceptable to fight to defend other people's access to the truth. If there was an empire at the time of the Prophet [a] or Imams [a] that prevented its people from knowing or practicing Islam, then this Empire was violating a very fundamental right of its people, and committing a grave crime, and this could be grounds for fighting. As I said before, lots of other factors should also be taken into account, and perhaps so many that the decision could only be made by a divinely guided Imam [a]. Interestingly this is the opinion of many fuqaha. There is a lot of room to misuse the above argument to fight unjust wars. One way it could be misused is to justify fighting non-muslim countries today. This would be completely unacceptable, for many reasons, one of which is that they allow freedom of religion, and don't ban people from practicing Islam.

Another reason for men to grow beards (other than it being wajib, and looking cool) ... Are beards good for your health? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35350886 ... In this study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, they swabbed the faces of 408 hospital staff with and without facial hair. They had good reasons for doing so. We know that hospital-acquired infections are a major cause of disease and death in hospitals, with many patients acquiring an infection they didn't have when they went in. Hands, white coats, ties and equipment have all been blamed, but what about beards? Well, the researchers were surprised to find that it was the clean-shaven staff, and not the beardies, who were more likely to be carrying something unpleasant on their faces. The beardless group were more than three times as likely to be harbouring a species known as methicillin-resistant staph aureus on their freshly shaven cheeks. MRSA is a particularly common and troublesome source of hospital-acquired infections because it is resistant to so many of our current antibiotics. Far more interesting, in a few of the petri dishes he noticed that something was clearly killing the other bacteria. The most obvious suspect was a fellow microbe. We see microbes as our enemy, but they clearly don't see us that way. Down at their level bacteria and fungi spend their time competing with each other. They fight for food, resources and space. By doing so, over millennia, they have evolved some of the most sophisticated weapons known to microbe-kind - antibiotics. Penicillin was originally extracted from Penicillium notatum, a species of fungus. The microbe-killing properties of this fungus were discovered by Alexander Fleming when he noticed that a fungus spore, which had accidently blown into his lab from researchers further down the corridor, had killed some bacteria he was growing on a petri dish. continues.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35350886

As-salamu alaykum, dear brothers and sisters. There is an age-old global stigmatisation surrounding lawyers as being deceptive, immorally corrupt and greedy. As insulting as it may sound, it is worth noting that, like any other fabrication, it is not without its share of truth and falsity. However, like any other profession, the legal profession has been given a bad name due to certain lamentable individuals and their equally lamentable practices. In my humble opinion, however, this profession remains to be amongst the noblest ones. On that note, let me ask you this: What practices are condemned, morally and legally (with sharia and teachings of the Ahlulbyt as the comparative standards ), by Islam for legal practitioners? I would really appreciate if lawyers, judges, academics and law students contribute to this discussion. If possible please share personal experiences. I thank you in advance for taking the trouble of contributing to this discourse. May infinite blessings of Allah shower upon you.

Dumb question, but I was curious.

(bismillah) (salam) Adam's children married each other. That was because the law for Adam's family was incredibly simple compared to the message of Rasoolallah (saw). As the human population culturally evolved, Rasools, prophets of high status, came at different times to improve upon the rules of the past prophets. Prophet Yaqoob (as) had two wives whom were sisters of one another. By today's standards, this is haram, as it is forbidden to marry two sisters at the same time according to Shariah Law. However, this law did not apply in the time of Prophet Yaqoob (as). I have a question. To my knowledge, in the (original) Torah, Allah gave Bani Israel a set of laws which are more strict than the ones we have today. Does that mean Allah abrogates his own laws? It is well established that Shariah Laws can never change. Are the laws of the original Torah given to the Muslims under the leadership of Musa (as) considered Shariah? To my knowledge, the Injeel removed some of the crippling restrictions given to the Jews. Is this true? If this is true, then why would Allah enjoin laws which are crippling to begin with? Is each set of divine laws an addendum to last ones, adding new ones, or a destroyer and editor of past ones, removing them and changing them all together?

KARACHI: Pakistan's national sharia court, which hears cases under the country's Islamic legislation, on Monday appointed a female judge for the first time in its 33-year history. http://www.dawn.com/news/1077328/pakistan-appoints-first-female-judge-to-sharia-court

Prophet Mohammad & Islamic Sharia`h By Imam Sayed Mustafa Alqazwini At California State University,Chico This letcture aims to distinguish between misconceptions and the true essence of Islam through the example of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). .:BEYOND|Events:report and interviwes: http://bit.ly/14B7rBs Please follow us to see the most resent update of our events and activities

The company which supplied halal food found to contain traces of pork DNA to prisons has been named. McColgan's Quality Foods Limited was the source of "the very small number of halal savuory beef pastry products," said food distributor 3663. The County Tyrone company said it was co-operating with The Food Standards Agency. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21312752

Newcastle United falls victim to sharia law Today’s Independent carries a report on Newcastle United’s decision to sign a sponsorship deal with the notorious short-term loan company Wonga, which will involve the team’s players wearing the company’s logo on their shirts. United’s decision has come in for strong criticism. Newcastle City Council leader Nick Forbes has stated: “I’m appalled and sickened that they would sign a deal with a legal loan shark. It’s a sad indictment of the profit-at-any-price culture at Newcastle United. We are fighting hard to tackle legal and illegal loan sharking and having a company like this right across the city on every football shirt that’s sold undermines all our work.” The Indy‘s intrepid reporter Martin Hardy obviously felt that this wasn’t sufficiently controversial – so, having spotted that four of Newcastle’s players are Muslims, he phoned up the Muslim Council of Britain and asked them whether advertising Wonga contravened the principles of sharia law. Probably the MCB should have steered well clear, given that they could have anticipated how anything they said on the subject would be twisted. However, MCB assistant general secretary Ibrahim Mogra gave Hardy a polite and thoughtful answer, which is quoted as follows: “There are two aspects to this. We have the rulings of the religious law and we have the individual’s choice and decision on how they want to follow or not follow that rule. The idea is to protect the vulnerable and the needy from exploitation by the rich and powerful. When they are lending and are charging large amounts of interest, it means the poor will have short-term benefit from the loan but long-term difficulty in paying it back because the rate of interest is not something they can keep up with. The Islamic system is based on a non-interest-based system of transaction.” Ibrahim Mogra pointed out that footballer Frédéric Kanouté had been given dispensation from wearing the logo of a gambling website when he played for Seville because of his religious beliefs: “Freddie was allowed to wear a top without the 888.com and that is a reasonable request to be made by the player. Assuming all four are on the pitch at the same time, if you have seven out of 11 [who have the advertising on their shirts] you have sufficient coverage. It is not asking too much, I believe.” You’ll note that Ibrahim Mogra makes no demands on the players that they should refuse to wear shirts advertising Wonga, saying rather that it is down to their individual consciences. And instead of basing his objections to Wonga on the sharia principle of rejecting interest on loans, he emphasises that the main issue here is the loan-sharking practices of this particular company. And how does the Independent report his words? The article is headlined “Newcastle’s Muslim stars told: Don’t play in new ‘Wonga’ tops” and begins: “Newcastle United’s £24m shirt sponsorship deal with Wonga was engulfed in fresh controversy last night when the club’s Muslim players were warned that wearing the new shirts would infringe Sharia law.” Predictably this distorted account was taken up by papers like the Sun (“Newcastle’s Muslim stars ‘breaking Sharia law’”) and the Telegraph (“Newcastle United’s Muslim players told wearing Wonga-sponsored shirts infringes Sharia law”), while sports sites went with “Muslim Newcastle players warned against wearing Wonga shirts” (Goal.com) and “Newcastle’s Muslim stars told not to play in new kit” (Eurosport). The Eurosport report prompted comments like these: “Whatever next! Someone should tell them we don’t have those stupid laws here and I hope we never will!”; “Sod their law this is britain we r christians and proud!”; “Newcastle is in England, I think British Law British people. According to Sharia Law shouild the players be getting paid all this money?”; “What a load of TOSH! In that case the Muslim footballers should be sacked and sent back to their country.”