Could you please explain the Hadith that says “were it not for the Children of Israel, meat would not have rotten, and were it not for Eve, no woman would have betrayed her husband.” (Z. Abu Bakr)
This statement contradicts basic Islamic principles. The first is that “no one will bear the burden of another.” This is stated four times in the Qur’an, stressing the principle of individual responsibility.
How can we imagine that the action of one woman, in this case Eve, would be carried down the generations so as to influence every woman who betrays her husband? How come that it does not influence other women? Another principle the statement contradicts is that of the operation of the laws of nature. Meat goes rotten when exposed to the elements for a long period. This is how God wanted things to be. To suggest that this took place in consequence of some action the Jews did at one point in time means that prior to their action, meat stayed fresh all the time, which is untrue.
It also suggests that as a result of their action, all future generations had to suffer. This is totally wrong.
What does Islam say about obeying our governments? Is this applicable only in Muslim countries, or does it apply to Muslims living as minorities in predominantly non-Muslim countries? (Name and address withheld)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) says: “Listen and obey, even though your ruler is a black slave whose head looks like a ball.” By giving this graphic description, the Prophet means to ensure that his order applies to rulers, regardless of the origin or the color or looks of the said ruler. As long as the ruler is chosen by fair means, and is ruling according to the authority assigned to him by Islamic law, then he should be obeyed.
Two major principles apply in this context. The first is that the particular order issued by the ruler must not be in conflict with Islamic law.
The Prophet clearly states: “No creature may be obeyed in what constitutes disobedience of the Creator.” Thus, if any authority, be it a Parliament, a government, a judge or an employer, issues an edict requiring those under its jurisdiction to do something forbidden in Islam, a Muslim must not obey that edict. If he does, he leaves himself accountable to God for it, with all that such accountability may involve including any punishment God may inflict on him. Some years ago, a ruler in a Muslim country decreed that people should not fast in Ramadan, because the country needed everyone to put their maximum effort to increase productivity.
Anyone who obeyed that ruler would be accountable to God for placing the ruler’s order above that of God.
The other principle is that the government must aim to achieve the common good of the community in all its orders.
This means that when a government issues an order, aiming to serve the common interests of the people, and contravening no Islamic rule, the order must be obeyed by Muslims. Thus, when the municipal authorities decide that a certain street is one way, driving in the opposite direction does not only constitute an offense of traffic regulations, it also constitutes an offense against Islamic law. This is because such an order is meant to serve the community, and it does not contravene any principle of Islamic law.
