Readers often come up with questions on which they have had widely different rulings, or they may cite different practices in different Muslim countries, or draw analogies that lead to confusion. They always want a clear-cut ruling on all these. Here are some examples:
Q.1. Must a person flying into Jeddah wear his ihraam at home before boarding the plane, or can he wear his normal clothes and stay a night in Jeddah before starting his Umrah?
Q.2. Please give us a clear ruling on singing and music.
D.A. Siddiqui, Karachi
Q. Why is celebrating the Prophet’s birthday illegal in Saudi Arabia, but not in other Muslim countries including the Gulf states? What about celebrating the centenary of the Kingdom? Why is it considered an act of polytheism, or shirk, to visit the graves of religious scholars in Saudi Arabia, when it is not so in other countries?
A.N. Khan
A.1. Ever since the Prophet’s departure from this life, scholars had to look for rulings on issues that face the Muslim community. To do so they have to resort to the Qur’an and the Prophet’s statements for guidance, because a ruling on any matter must primarily refer to these sources. Yet people’s understanding of a particular statement may differ, particularly if the wording of the statement renders itself to more than one interpretation. Sometimes, we have more than one Hadith that are relevant to one issue, but they point in different directions due to the circumstances leading to each one. What is agreed by all scholars is that when we have a definitive statement, with a clear ruling that admits only one interpretation, then there can be no controversy and no room for a different ruling based on any other evidence.
Where the texts we have admit more than one interpretation, or where we do not have a definitive ruling, then we have to look at all the relevant statements in order to arrive at a suitable ruling. This process can be carried out in different ways by different scholars to arrive at different rulings. This is the process known as ijtihad. Sometimes rulings arrived at through ijtihad vary in grade, as in the case of a ruling saying that a certain action is discouraged, while the other says that it is forbidden. What is more, there is the possibility of issuing rulings that are in direct conflict. What are we to do in this case? The answer is that we have to try to choose the one that is supported by stronger evidence. This is normally done by scholars and they have clear criteria to guide them in such endeavors. In the meantime, an ordinary person, should at least make clear that the view he is given is well supported by evidence from the Qur’an and the Hadith.
What we need to make clear is that prohibition is a serious matter. Therefore, the authority to forbid anything belongs only to God. This means that a verdict of prohibition must rely on a clear statement in the Qur’an or the authentic Sunnah. Without such evidence, no ruling of prohibition can be made. A correlative of this point is that some scholars tend to be too strict while others are moderate. It is always better to follow the moderate scholars, because these are closer to the drift of clear Qur’anic and Hadith statements.
Let us now look at the cited examples. With regard to the start of ihraam, or consecration, no scholar has ever suggested that a person coming for Umrah or pilgrimage must start his ihraam before boarding the plane. All scholars agree that ihraam starts at the point of meeqat, but there is a difference of opinion with regard to where exactly the point of meeqat is for air travelers. Most scholars say that it is at the point when the plane flies over the meeqat on land, which is around half an hour before landing. However, a number of scholars, some of whom are of very high standing, are of the view that air and sea travelers need not start their consecration, or ihraam, before landing in Jeddah. Should we have some sort of authority that will determine which view should be followed? Islam does not allow for such an authority because it has no clerical order. People may choose the view that they are convinced to be more valid on the balance of evidence supporting each view, or if they cannot do so, they may choose the view that is more suitable to them in their particular circumstances. This has been practiced in all Muslim generations. We should remember that the aim of all religious teachings is to help people achieve what benefits them and their community.
A.2. On the question of singing, there is little difference, with the majority view making singing permissible unless it includes some obscenity or something clearly contrary to Islamic teachings. What more evidence do we need in support of its permissibility than the Hadith that mentions the presence of two maids singing in the Prophet’s home on a day of Eid? When Abu Bakr tried to stop them, the Prophet told him to leave them alone for the day was an Eid day.
Music, on the other hand, has always been subject to sharp controversy, with distinguished scholars supporting both views of permissibility and prohibition. The fact that such controversy has lingered for so long tells us that we do not have a definitive statement clearly pointing in either direction. Had there been one, the controversy would have ended long time ago. What we can say is that music which encourages un-Islamic practices is forbidden for that reason. Music that is relaxing and has a healthy effect on the listener is permissible.
A. We cannot equate the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday with the marking of national days. No one has ever suggested that the marking of the national day, or the centenary of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has any religious significance. No one imagines that he will be rewarded by God for marking such days. But people celebrate the Prophet’s birthday thinking that it is part of the religion of Islam, and that they will be rewarded for observing it. This is the point at issue. When we remember that neither the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor any of his companions or their successors marked the day with any celebration, or called for its marking, we realize that marking it is not part of Islamic worship.
Anyone who calls for it to be considered in such light is grossly mistaken. Scholars are unanimous that visiting graves and graveyards is a Sunnah, and its purpose is to remind us of the Day of Resurrection.
But such a visit should either be general, i.e. visiting the graveyard, or personal with each person visiting the graves of their relatives. But to visit the graves of people who are often elevated to the rank of saints is wrong and could be a form of polytheism. What happens on such visits is that people think that the dead person has a special rank that enables him to bring benefit to his visitors, or that he has a position of favor with God and he can intercede with God on our behalf. Such a belief is totally unacceptable. To start with, we do not know how God will judge that dead person. Moreover, dead people cannot do anything for themselves, let alone on behalf of other people. In fact the living can do some good for the dead by praying for them and appealing to God to forgive them.