We conclude today answering the questions raised by our non-Muslim
reader David J.B. who was motivated by the events of 9/11 to study Islamic law.
His studies made him raise several points that he feels should be amended in
Islamic law, and he wonders whether this could be achieved.
Q.1. It has been noticed that every year scores of pilgrims lose their lives as a result of overcrowding. Is it possible to extend the period of pilgrimage to one month, instead of the present few days? This will ease the congestion, prevent tragedy and benefit the local people.
A.1. The timing of the pilgrimage is set by God in the Qur’an, and shown in practice by the Prophet when he did his pilgrimage. God says: “Give glory to God during certain appointed days. Those who hasten their departure after two days incur no sin, and those who stay longer incur no sin, provided that they are truly God-fearing.” (2: 203) That this verse relates to the pilgrimage is clear from the context where it occurs, and from the reference to two or three days, which are the days the pilgrims stay in Mina. Note how the reference to the timing is phrased, “during certain appointed days.” Since they have been appointed by God, who can amend or change His ruling?
It is unfortunate that sometimes accidents occur. Because of the great crowding everywhere in the pilgrimage cites, when an accident occurs, it claims more casualties than it would have at other times or places. What is important is that facilities should be improved as should crowd movement and control. Certain rules allow room for relaxation, but have so far been applied strictly. These should be relaxed.
The Saudi government has been doing its best to ensure safety of the pilgrims while improving the facilities. Still more can be done, particularly with help from other governments, especially in countries from where large numbers of pilgrims come. There are calls for restricting the numbers of pilgrims, but this has been going on for many years now. The fact that travel has become so easy while the world population is still growing makes it inevitable that more and more Muslims would love to perform the pilgrimage. Therefore, we must look into ways and means of accommodating more pilgrims while ensuring their safety.
Q.2. A Hadith reported by Ali encourages a Muslim who meets a non-Muslim on the road not to give him way, but rather to force him to tight corners. This is uncivilized practice. Can it be suspended?
A.2. I tried to look up the Hadith you refer to in the past, but could not find it. I saw references to it in some writings, but unless we establish its status and know its degree of authenticity, we cannot argue for it. Most probably, it is not a Hadith but a view expressed by scholars. What we can say is that nothing in the Prophet’s practice or in his guidance suggests that such arrogant treatment of non-Muslims. In fact the reverse is true. Our role is to bring the light of Islam to others and tell them of the happiness Islam generates in human life. They will not listen to us if we deliberately humiliate them. How can we fulfill our role of advocates of Islam if we were to behave with arrogance? Moreover, had this been true, you would have seen it in areas where Muslims are in large majority, living with non-Muslims. But you do not see it in places like Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, etc. In fact, there is nothing in the social culture of Muslims in these areas to suggest that such treatment of others is encouraged in any way. The reverse is true: They are encouraged to be kind and good neighbors to non-Muslims. Therefore, you see the best of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. This in itself calls for suspecting the report you have mentioned as being less than authentic.
Q.3. Is it imperative that the punishment for criticizing the Prophet or Islam should be death? This is based on the Prophet sentencing a poet who lived in Makkah to death because of the abuse he hurled on Islam and the Prophet.
A.3. When the Prophet entered Makkah, and it fell to Islam, its people were extremely perturbed. For 20 years they had been fighting Islam: They persecuted its followers when they were among them; killed some of them; tried to assassinate the Prophet who had to leave the city at night when the assassins were at his doorstep; then they raised armies and forged alliances trying to suppress Islam and annihilate its adherents. God granted him victory and he marched into the city. Had he been anyone other than Muhammad, God’s messenger, he would have shown elation at his achievement. Conquerors at all times would ransack the capitals of their adversaries. Muhammad (peace be upon him) entered the city showing great humility before God. The only thing he destroyed was the images and statues the unbelievers claimed to be deities. By doing so, he practically showed the people who worshipped these statues and images that they were inanimate objects that do nothing.
Before his entry, he gave a pledge to the people of Makkah, telling them that whoever went into the mosque, or stayed indoors, or went to their leader’s home were safe. However, he named a group of people, totaling 19 in number, sentencing them to death. These were the ones who spared no effort in trying to bring Islam down and harm its people and prophet. In practice only four of them were executed. At the time, poetry was the most effective mode of propaganda, and a fine poet would be compared to a controller of a broadcasting service in our time. The poet you mention, Abdullah ibn Al-Zibaara, was for many years the mouthpiece of idolatry, doing his utmost to present Islam and the Prophet in bad colors. As the Muslim army approached Makkah, he fled to Najran in the south of Arabia. Hassan ibn Thabit, the Prophet’s companion who was a fine poet himself, attacked him with one line of poetry, and that was sufficient for Abdullah ibn Al-Zibaara to reflect on his position much more deeply. He realized that he had to succumb to Islam, the word of truth. He came back and met the Prophet, declaring his repentance in four lines of his best poetry. The Prophet, as usual, pardoned him.
The same was true of Kaab ibn Zuhayr, another fine poet who did his utmost to mar the image of Islam. His brother, Bujayr, also a fine poet, was a Muslim. Their father, Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulma, is still studied in schools and universities all over the Arab world as one of the finest poets of the pre-Islamic era. At the time of the fall of Makkah to Islam, Kaab went into hiding. Later, when the Prophet returned to Madinah, he went to see the Prophet after Fajr prayer in the mosque, where he delivered a fine poem declaring himself a Muslim. This poem, starting with a few lines about love, is still studied and widely quoted. Both Abdullah ibn Al-Zibaara and Kaab ibn Zuhayr are considered among the Prophet’s companions, not opponents.
I suppose I need say no more about the question, yet I want to ask: Why should anyone abuse the Prophet of Islam? No one asks them to believe in Islam. They have their own faith, but why abuse the man who brought us God’s guidance? Only malice and spite produce such an attitude. Salman Rushdie thought that by abusing the Prophet he would rise to fame and earn a great amount of money in royalties for his Satanic Verses. Such an attitude is neither civilized nor respectable. Why should we allow such a greedy person to get away with it? Such an attitude spoils relations between nations and perpetuates hatred. The recent cartoons published in European newspapers do not advocate free speech; they claim a right to ridicule and abuse others. This is totally unacceptable, even by Western standards.