Q. You mentioned on several occasions the verse that rejects compulsion in religion. However, I read that this applies to forcing people to change their religion and accept our faith. But within the Muslim community, people can be punished if they refuse to observe God’s law. Please comment.
M. Alias
A. The Qur’anic statement is very clear, and it has a general import. In literal translation we render it: “No compulsion in religion.” A more expressive rendering is: “No compulsion is admissible in matters of religion.” This certainly applies to beliefs, as belief can only be the result of personal conviction. Therefore, it is totally against Islam to force anyone to accept the Islamic faith. We invite people to accept it, but leave the decision to them, and do not punish them in any way if they choose to follow different faiths. This was the practice of the Islamic state throughout history. If this applies to the basic principle of accepting God’s oneness, it applies even more clearly to matters of lesser importance, such as the implementation of certain Islamic rules. People should obey God’s law because they believe in Him and hope to receive reward from Him.
Having said that, I hasten to add that this should not be confused with enforcing penalties for law violations. Islamic society is not an anarchist one. It lays down rules that must be obeyed, but this is part of maintaining law and order in society, which is universally accepted as necessary. Thus, no one follows a person into private places to check whether that person is fasting or not, but a Muslim society may introduce penalty for eating in public during the day in Ramadan. This penalty is not for non-fasting, but for not observing public decency at a time when an act of worship is observed by the whole community through fasting. Enforcing such penalties is not compulsion to follow Islam, but protecting the community against anarchy and disorder.
Political, Islamic Issues
Q.1. Is it true that nationalism is forbidden in Islam?
Q.2. Some people suggest that Muslims today are in such a miserable state because they have abandoned the caliphate system, and that they should go back to it. Please comment.
Q.3. Opinion has been given that it is not permitted for a Muslim to do the pilgrimage if one is treated like an enemy by the authorities; or one is required to pay taxes that are not used entirely for the benefit of the pilgrims.
Saleem
A.1. We cannot say anything in answer, unless a proper definition of nationalism is given first. If it is merely a sense of belonging to a certain community, then this is perfectly permissible. The companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) never abandoned their affiliation to their tribes or communities. They certainly did not put such affiliation ahead of their loyalty to Islam and the Muslim community, but they did not abandon them. Therefore, if one considers that his main allegiance is to a community or geopolitical entity, and that it takes precedence over his allegiance to Islam, then he is in the wrong, and must rectify this. But if his main allegiance is to Islam and the Muslim community then his belonging to a country or a race is merely a statement of fact. There is nothing wrong with this.
A.2. This idea that the re-establishment of the caliphate should be the primary cause of all Muslims, and that without it nothing is proper or right, is advanced by the organization known as Hizb Al-Tahrir. It is a shallow idea that does not rely on any clear evidence from the Sunnah. The Prophet never advocated any form of government, or the establishment of a political entity. It is true that he established a state once he had the foundations for it, but he did not establish a caliphate system. Nor did he advise on a particular form of government. This is the reason why the choice of the first five caliphs in Islam took five different procedures. All of them meet the general principle that Islamic government is consultative.
When you go into the ideas of Hizb Al-Tahrir, you find much fault with them. You also find them very argumentative, unwilling to look at any view or argument that differs with them. This is not the proper Islamic attitude. Their way does not lead to much good, although most of their members are honest, devout and sincere. Yet their approach is erroneous.
A.3. Whoever voiced such an opinion is ignorant. We know that the pilgrimage is a duty ordained by God, who does not specify any conditions for it other than that one should be able to undertake it. The ability is physical and financial. This means that he should be in good health to undertake the journey, and that there are no dangers to prevent his safe travel, and that he should have enough to pay for his travel, living expenses and the expenses of his dependants during his absence. To try to put other conditions is to impose one’s views on God’s law. This is not the proper attitude of a Muslim. Besides, no one is treated like an enemy by the authorities. All pilgrims are welcome in the country. The authorities do check passengers in order to ensure public safety, which is a responsibility of the government. As for taxes, these are small and within the prerogative of the government. The Prophet says clearly that a tax other than zakah may be rightfully imposed. The other objections the reader mentions are too trivial to merit a response. If one is given the ability to perform the pilgrimage but he refrains from doing so under the pretext the reader has mentioned, he will be held accountable for his failure. Will he say to God that he did not do the pilgrimage in order not to pay a certain tax? How would he answer God’s question: “Had I not given you enough money to pay it?”
Marital Problems
Q. When a certain person proposed marriage, he agreed under pressure to a dower, or mehr, of about $20.000, which remained unpaid. A few years after the marriage, and the birth of a daughter, problems arose. His wife took their daughter home and requested divorce, although she was aware that he was in no position to pay the dower. She threatened to apply for khula’ but she has not done so. Now he is unable to reach her as her family do not allow him access, even by letter. He is denied seeing his daughter. What solution Islam provides for such a problem.
(Name and address withheld)
A. People often abuse the dower system which is part of Islamic marriage intended as a gesture of honor to the wife. Sometimes, the woman is pressurized to forfeit her right to it. Instead, she pays a dowry to the husband, in line with un-Islamic practices. In other situations, the dower is set too high for the husband to pay. In such cases, the woman’s family defers its payment indefinitely, which means that it becomes payable if divorce takes place, or when the man dies. But in certain cases it becomes a source of hard feelings that linger on and on.
In this case, the problem between the couple might have been easy to solve without the threat of a payment that is beyond the husband’s means. He should have never accepted such an amount to be entered as owing from him, since he was aware that he would never be able to pay it. However, now that the situation is thus, he should inform his wife that she is in violation of her marital duties if she remains away. He should ask her to see him to sort out their problem. When they meet, or if he meets her parents, he should tell them that he wants to sort out the problem amicably. If they have to part company, then they should do so without either party ruining the life of the other. There are three options open to them: 1) a reconciliation and resumption of the marriage; 2) divorce, in which case they should agree to forgo a portion of the dower, so as accept an amount that he can pay without too much hardship; or 3) khula’, which means that the marriage is terminated at the wife’s request and she repays the entire amount of dower. In this third case, he will not have to pay her anything.
In such matters, it is always advisable to consider involving some wise people from the two families. These should be well placed as to look into the problem seeking an amicable solution. This is in fact required by Islam, as the Qur’an states: “If you have reason to fear that a breach may occur between a (married) couple, appoint an arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her people. If they both want to set things aright, God will bring about their reconciliation.” (4: 35) It is because we often forget to apply Islamic rules that we land ourselves in situations that are hard to solve. This procedure of arbitration is required as a way to prevent the break up of marriage. The reader may consider offering it to his in-laws, quoting this Qur’anic verse. If they are religious, they should accept it.
