09 October 2011


Banu Mustaliq and Abdullah ibn Ubai, No Harming nor Reciprocating Harm and Some Etiquettes of Visiting the Graves

Seerah of Muhammed*

*: May the Peace, Blessings and Mercy of Allah be upon him

TMQ: Translation to the nearest meaning of the Qur’an

Seerah: Banu Mustaliq and Abdullah ibn Ubai (Leader of the Hypocrites)

The Quraish now stirred up their own Red Sea coast allies, the Bani l-Mustaliq, a clan of Khuza'ah, to make a raid on Medina, hoping no doubt that the raiders might gather support from other coastal tribes, and thus open up the way once more for themselves. But the other clans of Khuza'ah were more favourably disposed to the Prophet* than the Meccans realised, and news of this project reached him in good time. He was thus given the opportunity to demonstrate his undiminished and even increased power along the western route also, to within a few marches from Mecca itself. After eight days, considerably before the Bani l-Mustaliq were prepared to set out, he was already encamped on their territory at one of their watering places. From there he advanced and by a quick manoeuvre was able to close in upon the tent-dwellers, who surrendered without much resistance. Only one Muslim was killed, and of the enemy no more than ten. About two hundred families were made captive, and the booty included some two thousand camels and five thousand sheep and goats.

Tribalism (nationalism) leading to the argument and in-fighting

The army camped there for a few more days, but its stay was cut short by an untoward incident. A quarrel broke out at one of the wells between two coastal tribesmen, from Ghifar and Juhaynah, as to which bucket belonged to which, and they fell to fighting. The Ghifarite, whom 'Umar had hired to lead his horse, shouted for help -"O Quraish", while the juhaynite called on his traditional allies of Khazraj, and the more hotheaded of both Emigrants and Helpers rushed to the scene. Swords were drawn and blood might have been shed had not some of the closer Companions intervened on both sides. This would normally have been the end of the matter. But it so happened that more of the hypocrites than usual had taken part in this expedition; it was in familiar and well-watered territory, and from the outset there had been hope of an easy victory and spoils well worth the effort.

Ibn Ubai was sitting apart with a group of his intimates when the sound of the quarrel came to their ears, and one of them went to see what was the matter. He returned to report, quite truly, that 'Umar's man had been entirely to blame, and that it was he who had struck the first blow. This served to fan afresh the embers of bitterness which were still smouldering from the ordeal of the Trench. For the last five years the tension had gradually mounted until the presence of Muhammad and the other Emigrants had brought the whole of Arabia against them. Added to this, the rich and hospitable Jewish tribes which had played so important a part in the community had been rooted out -two of them exiled and the third killed. The civil wars of the oasis had indeed called for a solution, but Ibn Ubai was convinced that if he had been made king he would have known how to put an end to the discord without involving his people in more dangerous hostilities. And now these impoverished refugees had had the effrontry to obstruct the passage of their benefactors to the well! "Have they gone so far as this?" said Ibn Ubai. "They seek to take precedence over us, they crowd us out of our own country, and naught will fit us and these rags of Quraish but the old saying 'Feed fat thy dog and it will feed on thee.' By God, when we return to Medina, the higher and the mightier of us will drive out the lower and the weaker."

A boy of Khazraj named Zayd, who was sitting at the edge of the circle, went straight to the Prophet* and told him what Ibn Ubai had said. The Prophet* changed colour, and 'Umar, who was with him, suggested that he should forthwith have the traitor beheaded, but he said: "What if men should say, O 'Umar, that Muhammad kills his companions?" Meantime one of the Helpers had gone to Ibn Ubai and asked him if he had in fact said what the boy had reported, and Ibn Ubai came straight to the Prophet* and swore that he had said no such thing. Some of the men of Khazraj who were present also spoke in his defence, anxious to avoid trouble. The Prophet* let it seem as if the incident were closed; but a surer way of avoiding trouble was to busy men's minds with something else and he gave the order to break camp immediately. Never before had he been known to move off at that hour: it was not long after midday; and with brief halts at the times of prayer they were kept on the march through the heat of the afternoon, then all through the night and from dawn until the heat of the next day became oppressive. When they were finally told to pitch camp, the men were too tired to do anything but sleep. During the march the Prophet* confided to Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah, who for the Muslims had been gradually replacing Ibn Ubai as the chief man of Khazraj, that he believed young Zayd to have spoken the truth. "O Messenger of God," said Sa'd, "You, if you will, shall drive out him, for he is the lower and the weaker and thou are the higher and the mightier." He asked him none the less to deal gently with Ibn Ubai as ibn Ubai felt that his kingship was robbed by the Prophet, nor was the Prophet* intending to mention the incident again; but soon after his talk with Sa'd the matter was taken out of his hands, for the Revelation descended upon him and that chapter was revealed which is named the Surah of the Hypocrites, one of whom it quotes, though not by name, as having said the very words spoken by Zayd. The Prophet* did not however give out this chapter until they had returned to Medina. But he rode up to Zayd and leaning towards him took hold of his ear. "Boy," he said, "Your ear heard truly, and God has confirmed your speech."

In the meantime 'Abdullah, the son of Ibn Ubai, was deeply distressed for he knew that his father had spoken those words. He had also been told that 'Umar had wanted the Prophet* to put his father to death, and he was afraid that the sentence might be passed and the order given at any moment. So he went to the Prophet* and said: "O Messenger of God, I am told that thou art minded to kill Abdullah ibn Ubai. If  you must do it, then give me the order, and I will bring you his head. Khazraj know full well that there is no man amongst them of more filial piety unto his father than myself, and I fear that if thou should give the order to another my soul would not suffer me to look upon the slayer of my father walking amongst men, but I would slay him, and having thus slain a believer on behalf of a disbeliever I would enter the fire of Hell." But the Prophet* said: "No, but let us deal gently with him and make the best of his companionship so long as he be with us.'"

Almost a month later, the Messenger of Allah* and Umer bin Al-Khattab were engaged in the following talk: "Don’t you see Umer if I had had him (Abdullah bin Ubai) killed, a large number of dignitaries would have furiously hastened to fight for him. Now, on the contrary, if I ask them to kill him, they will do so out of their own free will." Umer replied "I swear by Allah that the Prophet’s judgement is much more sound than mine."

Tayammum
During the journey, there was not one well within reach, and the men had used up all the water they carried with them, intending to fill their skins and bottles at the well watered camp they had been aiming for. It would not be possible to pray at dawn, for they had no means of making their ablutions. But in the last hours of the night the verse of earth-purification (Tayammum) was revealed to the Prophet* - an event of untold importance for the practical life of the community: If ye find not water then purify yourselves with clean earth, wiping therewith your faces and your hands.'

Hadith: Nawawi’s 40 Hadith

Hadith 32 : No Harming nor Reciprocating Harm

It was related on the authority of Abu Sa'id Sa'd bin Malik bin Sinan al-Khudri, that the Messenger of Allah*, said:  "There should be neither harming [darar] nor reciprocating harm [diraar]" [Ibn Majah, Al-Daraqutni and others]

Know that he who harms his brother has oppressed him, and oppression is Prohibited [Haraam], as has preceded in the hadith of Abu Dharr : "O My servants ! I have forbidden dhulm (oppression) for Myself, and I have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another", and the Prophet* has said: "Verily your blood [ie lives] and your property and your honour are all Sacred/Prohibited". And he said this on many occasions, including the Sermon he gave at the Farewell Hajj.

Some scholars have said : "ad-darar is that by which you attain benefit, but in it is harm for your neighbour". And other scholars have said ad-darar is that you harm one who has not harmed you, while ad-diraar is that you harm one who also harms you in a way that is not responding equally or taking revenge rightfully", and this is similar to his* statement "Return the Trusts given to you, to those who entrusted them to you, and do not betray the one who betrays you".

And what is correct from an examination of all the evidences is that it is not correct for someone to harm his brother, whether he has harmed him or not, except if he avenges himself to the extent that Justice allows him to [ie equally], and this is not considered to be oppression nor harm, as long at is in a fashion that the Sunnah makes permissible for him.

There is another version on the hadith in which the Prophet*, says: "No harm or harming in Islam". There is the additional phrase "in Islam". In a third version, the hadith states: "It is cursed whoever harms a mu'min (believer)."

The text of this hadith becomes one of the most important maxims. Later on other maxims were derived from the text of this hadith. Some of them are as follows:

1. Harm is to be prevented from appearing as much as possible.
2. Harm is to be eradicated.
3. Harm is not to be removed by a similar harm.
4. Preventing harm takes precedence over gaining or attaining benefits.
5. If there is a conflict between factors permitting something and others prohibiting something, the prohibition takes precedence; that is, it is going to be given the priority.
6. Something harmful is not given precedence just because it was pre-existing. In other words, the pre-existence of something does not allow it to continue to exist and be the cause of harm.
7. Another maxim is if there is a conflict between individual harm and public harm, the prohibition of public harm will take precedence.

There is a real story related to maxim number 6. This story took place in Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain) where the people built a mosque. After several years or decades, many houses had been built around the mosque and at that time when the mu'zin wanted to make the call for prayer (Adhan), he used to climb up to the minaret. The fuqaha (jurists) ruled that the mu'zin should stop going up to the minaret in order not to cause any harm (from the minaret, one was able to see into other people's homes and thus invade their privacy). This is similar to the introduction of double decker buses in the Muslim world a century ago – causing uproar!

The above are some of the maxims that are derived from the text of this present hadith.

When scholars talk about doing things right from the first time either based on experience or anticipation that certain things will cause harm, they urge people to take precautions to prevent any kind of harm. When we look at these maxims, we see that they are very great where we have to anticipate the harm and not to allow it to take place. If it takes place, efforts should be done in order to bring it to an end or to remove it. If it cannot be removed, we should try our best to minimize the harm.

Two interpretations of "harm/harming"

Regarding the interpretation of the text, scholars point out that what is stated in the hadith (i.e. the usage of the word "harm") is not a matter of emphasis. It is more sound because the two statements have different meanings. These scholars have given two interpretations of "harm/harming":

1. The first part of the hadith is the noun "no harm" and then the second part is the verb "harming". Harm is not allowed in shari'ah and causing harm without valid reasons is rejected and not accepted.
2. The second interpretation says that the first part of hadith (harm) means that the person causes harm to someone else by doing something which is beneficial to the doer. This kind of act is not allowed in Islam. The second part of hadith (harming) means that the person causes harm to someone else which is not even beneficial for him.

For example, suppose a person builds another floor (story) on top of his house and this results in his house being higher than his neighbours. This is beneficial to him but it causes harm to his neighbours as it invades their privacy. However, in the punishment of a criminal, there would be harm but the reason is valid. The aim here is to bring justice. In bringing justice, if there is any harm to an unjust person or criminal, then this harm is legal and allowed.

Causing harm without a valid or good reason

1. Ibn Rajab says the Prophet*, said that if the main objective is to actually cause the harm, then this is totally prohibited. There are many types of harms that are mentioned in the Qur'an:

• Wasiyyah (will) - if a person has some money and he wants to give it to someone who is no related to him. He is allowed but he must not exceed the limits (one third). If he exceeds the limits, he will cause harm to the immediate inheritors. Another situation is to give someone more than he deserves, as stated in the Qur'an. To favour any one of the inheritors is harm. Ibn Abbas considers this as a major sin. Some Muslims practice this because of ignorance or self-interest. [See Surah An-Nisa' : Ayah 12]
• Marriage and relationship between husband and wife. In al-raj'ah (returning), as stated in Surah Al-Baqarah Ayah 231 - someone divorces his wife and then he reconciles with her, but his intention in reconciliation is so that he can cause her harm. This is not allowed in Islam. Another point is aleyla' (disassociating with one's wife).
• Traveling or being away from the family for a long time and without a good reason - this can cause harm to the wife and family.
• Breastfeeding - in the case of divorce, the husband tries to take the baby away from the mother and not allow her to feed him. This is prohibited. [See Surah Al-Baqarah : Ayah 233]
• Selling and trading - when someone is in great need of something, the seller (who knows this) sells him at a very high price - this is not allowed. Some scholars consider this as a form of riba' (profit) which is prohibited in Islam.
• Somene who wants to buy is not good at bargaining, and because of this the seller sells at a very high price, more than it is worth. This is prohibited. According to Imam Malik if the price exceeds a third of what it is worth, it is considered harm.

2. Someone may do something for a beneficial reason and with a good intention. But he overdoes it, and consequently causes harm to others. Examples of this scenario are as follows:

• Burning rubbish on your property on a windy day. This will cause harm to your neighbours. It may cause harm to the environment and the people in the neighbouring countries. This kind of harm should be brought to an end.
• Building a high building, as mentioned above. Building a high building where it will obstruct air, sunlight, and moonlight, is not allowed because it will cause harm.
• Digging a well that will cause damage to the well of one's neighbour. If one needs to dig a well, he should position it a little further away from his neighbour's.
• Behaving on one's property in a way that will harm his neighbours.
• Causing bad smell to spread from one's property to his neighbours'.

There are also some other types of actions which imply that Allah did not ask His servants to do anything that will cause us harm. He said that whatever Allah commands us to do is beneficial in this world and the Hereafter. And whatever Allah prohibits is harmful to us whether it is in this world or in the Hereafter. Examples of these actions include:

• Tayammum (ablution without using water) - this is permissible for sick people or when there is no water.
• The traveler or the sick does not have to fast - they can make up for it in the future.
• Another example is taken from the biography of Prophet*, where he saw someone walking and asked about him. The companions told him that this man made a vow or commitment that he will perform pilgrimage walking. The Prophet*, said Allah is not in need for this one to torture himself. He asked his companions to tell the man to look for a ride, that is, to use an easier way or means to go for his pilgrimage.
• The person who has debt. If you lend someone money and he is indeed in a very bad financial situation, then you should give him time for him to get the money and pay you back.

Feedback:

Allah: 10 things about Allah that we need to know (followed by a short quiz)

Jannah-Jahannum: Things that are important to know about Paradise and Hellfire (followed by a short quiz)

News: 

Vandalism of Graves in Israel/Palestine

Below is an article which convers some of the background to the topic

Israeli Settlers Continue ‘Price-Tag’ Rampage

by Pierre Klochendler, October 11, 2011

http://original.antiwar.com/klochendler/2011/10/10/israeli-settlers-continue-price-tag-rampage/

“On Saturday, we as a nation atoned for our sins. I as a Jew feel ashamed of myself. I’m asking for forgiveness,” declared Ron Hulday, mayor of this mixed city, immediately at the closing of the Day of Atonement. As Jews fasted and prayed to amend for their past behavior, vandals, presumably Jewish, desecrated tombstones in two cemeteries of the Jewish-Arab city, one Muslim, another Christian, with slanderous tags against Arabs and “Russians,” the country’s largest minorities.

One in five Israelis is an Arab; there are more than one-and-a-half million citizens from the former Soviet Union. Yom Kippur is the most solemn day of the Jewish calendar. According to tradition, God “seals” the Book of Life into which each person’s fate is inscribed for the coming year in accordance to his or her past deeds. “The perpetrators are weak-kneed terrorists,” fumed former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, “for the dead cannot defend their name.” Sheikh Ahme Abu Ajwa, president of the Islamic Movement in Jaffa, joined the chorus of unanimous condemnations: “This is an attempt by extremists to incite the Arabs.”

The desecrations weren’t just isolated incidents. They share a common modus operandi. What’s been labeled by settlers as a “price tag” for “eye-for-eye” retribution against Palestinians collectively accused by them of violent actions perpetrated by isolated Palestinians against Israelis, has become not merely the “plague” of the day, but “policy.” In just the past fortnight, there were numerous such attacks. In the West Bank, according to police sources, young extreme right-wing settler activists attempted to torch a Palestinian village mosque and sprayed its walls with injurious “death to Arabs” and “price tag” graffiti, their signature. Alarmingly, the outbreak of assaults has known no respite and no border, national or physical. The door of a left-wing Israeli activist living in Israel proper was sprayed with menacing paint.

But the gravest incident occurred last week in the Bedouin Israeli village Tuba-Zanghariya. A mosque was torched and severely damaged. Copies of the Quran were destroyed in the blaze. The blackened walls were sprayed with “price tag” graffiti in revenge for the alleged murder, a week earlier, of two settlers, father and son, who were driving on a West Bank road at the time of the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations. Police investigators had concluded — hastily it seems — that the deaths were the result of a traffic accident. But evidence showed that Palestinian youths had thrown rocks at the car which caused it to overturn. Last week, the suspected rock-throwers were arrested.

Other recent vengeful actions included the defacement of the Tomb of Joseph, a shrine revered by Jews but also by Muslims, located near the West Bank town Nablus. All politicians and religious figures have stood up united in their condemnation and reprobation: “Jews do not desecrate holy sites, period,” is the mantra. “Israel … will show no tolerance for those who oppose it,” stated Netanyahu at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday. The statement was wide open to interpretation — as in “when” Israel “will show no tolerance.” For beyond the veneer of moral indignation and making, appropriately, good Kippur resolutions, what’s striking is the double-standard policy with regard to rule of law enforcement against “price tag” assailants. Police are responsible for law and order — including in the settlements. Whereas a suspected arsonist of the Israeli mosque was quickly apprehended, no one was ever detained, let alone tried, for “price tag” arsons and defacements of Palestinian mosques and for other acts of vandalism against Palestinian property, such as uprooting olive trees, a common settler practice.

When a military jeep was destroyed and tagged two weeks ago in response to the forced evacuation and demolition by police units — the army usually provides only peripheral security to the operation — of an “unauthorized settlement outpost” “illegally” built on “Palestinian-owned” land in the occupied West Bank, the perpetrators were quickly arrested. But the army is sacrosanct, so it would seem. Other such “outposts” are slated for evacuation at the end of the High Holiday season. Tension between the Israeli military and police and settlers is on the rise. Wednesday, settlers blocked an army vehicle and assaulted its soldiers. “A Jewish authority has taken shape in the West Bank,” warned political commentator Zvi Barel in the daily Haaretz. “Its goal is to replace the state as sovereign authority, and eventually also supplant the military authority.” Hence, the ominous warning issued last month by Bar-Ilan University Prof. Hillel Weiss at a settlers’ event marking the creation of a new “Jewish Authority” (as counterweight to the Palestinian Authority) labeled “the rescue of the Jewish people and the land of Israel.”

The notorious far right-wing speaker said: “Instead of a governmental authority which gleefully cracks the skulls of Jewish youths, instead of what the state calls ‘the rule of law,’ there are Jews who stand up. … We Jewish citizens to be abandoned to the authority of an artificial enemy state [a future Palestine] declare that this will never happen.” Yom Kippur seals the Days of Awe. This holy day presaged more such days to come. In the land ostensibly cursed by its own holiness, each parcel of it is replete with shrines, pilgrimage sites, houses of prayers, places of worship, and cemeteries. “Price tag” militants not only target places of elemental religious tolerance, which all too often have been misrepresented as ferment of political intolerance.

As the land — who controls it, what stands on it, and who lives in it — is slated for division (at least nominally under U.N. auspices), the “price taggers” also risk turning to ashes any prospect of a two-state solution.  (Inter Press Service)

Comment - Some Etiquettes of Visiting the Graves
It is wrong to desecrate graves. We then discussed some of the etiquettes about visiting the grave and burials, including:

- Do not walk on a grave as the dead body can feel it

- The visitor benefits from remembering death and the dead, remembering that their destiny will be either Paradise or Hell. This is the primary purpose of the visit

- The deceased also benefits and is treated kindly by the visitor greeting him with salaams

- At the beginning of Islam, visiting graves was not allowed for men and women alike, because the Muslims were new in Islam and came from a background where grave-worship and attachment to the dead were widespread. So they were forbidden to visit graves. But once Islam was well-established and they understood Islam, Allah prescribed visiting the graves because of the lessons and reminders of death and the Hereafter involved in that, and so that they could make du’aa’ for the deceased and pray for mercy for them. The Prophet* said: “I had prohibited you from visiting the graves, but now I encourage you to visit them, because they are a reminder of the Hereafter.” [Abu Dawud]

- The Prophet said: " Surah Ya Seen is the heart of the Qur'an, no man reads it desiring Allah and the afterlife except he is forgiven. Read it over your dying/deceased."

- Some of the Surahs you can recite are: Surat al-Fatiha, Surat al-Baqara, beginning, Ayat al-Kursi, and amana al-rasul, Surat Ya Seen, Surat al-Mulk, Surat al-Takathur and Surat al-Ikhlas 12 or 11 or 7 or 3 times

- Weeping for the dead is permissible, whereas crying and wailing are not

- Women are allowed to visit the graves but not during the funeral / burial