Question
Could you please explain how you classify the following directives of the Prophet (pbuh) mentioned in the Hadith?
-
Forbiddance of giving punishment by burning in fire.
-
Forbiddance to recite Qur’an in Ruku during prayer.
-
Forbiddance to keep dog in house except for hunting, guarding and forbiddance for selling it for price.
-
Forbiddance for inheriting the Prophet (pbuh)’s property by his progeny.
-
Breaking of fast is allowed for nafl fasts at any time during fasting but not for compulsory fasts.
-
Allowance for shortening and combining the obligatory prayers during journey even in safety & mental rest and while staying in place after journey for 19 days. The Quranic directive allows shortening the prayer during journey while in fear.
-
Allowance for pregnant women to miss their fast during Ramadan and they need not keep the missed fast again.
-
Allowance to eat the flesh of wild asses, lizards, locusts.
-
Forbiddance to kill any life in Medina.
-
Allowance for kissing one’s wife during fasting and disallowance during Aitikaf. The Qur’anic directive relating to fasting seems to suggest absolute sexual restraint.
-
Forbiddance to cut hand of thief unless the thing stolen is worth a fourth of a Dinar or more.
Thanks.
Regards
Answer
Before answering your specific questions, I would like you to keep in mind that the prophet of God is not merely the deliverer of the Shari`ah and the teacher of the laws of God. In addition to this aspect of the prophet’s position, he is also a model and an epitome of moral behavior and attitudes. Furthermore, these prophets of God are also normal human beings with human tastes, likes, dislikes, concepts and preferences, all of which develop under the influence of their specific backgrounds. Of these various aspects of the life of a prophet of God, only the first and the second aspect – where the prophet is a teacher of the Shari`ah and an epitome of moral and ethical behavior – with slightly varying degrees of the required obedience, command submission, compliance and following on the part of the believers. Nevertheless, while recording and narrating the respective histories and sayings of these prophets, sayings and events related to all aspects of the prophet’s life are reported, without distinguishing between the aspects which require strict compliance on the part of the particular prophet’s followers and those which do not.
Keeping the above clarification in mind, let us now turn to the particular issues that you have cited:
-
The Prophet (pbuh) has expressed his dislike for burning a person to death, as it seems to be an overly harsh punishment for one human being to implement upon another. This is clearly a moral teaching and recommendation of the Prophet (pbuh) and should not be construed as a directive of the Shari`ah. In fact, there can be instances – especially in the case of Qisas – where a criminal, as a requirement of the Shari`ah, should be sentenced to death by burning.
-
If a person truly appreciates the significance and meaning of Ruku and also understands the spirit of reciting the Qur’an, he can then easily understand why the Prophet (pbuh) has expressed his dislike in reciting the Qur’an while in the state of Ruku. The two actions – that is reciting the Qur’an and being in a state of Ruku – are not coherent with each other. While in a state of Ruku, a person should express the reverence of God and offer supplications, rather than communicate with God as is signified in the recitation of the Qur’an. This ‘forbiddance’, as you prefer to call it, is only a clarification of the spirit of the Ruku1.
-
The ‘forbiddance’ to keep dogs seems to be a temporary directive relating to a possible clean-up operation carried-out by the community. Under these circumstances, while cleaning up the society of stray and dangerous dogs, it seems that it was directed that only dogs that are kept as pets for a reasonable purpose should be spared from the cleaning-up operation. As for selling dogs for a price, it seems to relate to a moral aspect of selling worthless things for a price, as there is generally no evidence of breeding high quality dogs among the pre-Islamic Arabs.
-
‘Forbiddance’ of inheriting the Prophet’s wealth relates to the particular aspect of the life of a prophet of God. According to this aspect of the life of these prophets of God, these prophets are not meant to make and leave wealth behind them. God is directly responsible for providing for all the provisions for the prophet and his dependents2. It is, in fact, this aspect of a prophet’s life due to which no prophet of God undertakes any regular economic activity after the initiation of their ministry. As a result of this aspect of the life of a prophet, these prophets do not consider themselves as true owners of anything that belongs to them and, consequently, whatever they leave behind is transferred to the community as a whole, rather than to their respective families.
-
I do not ascribe to the opinion expressed in point no. 5.
-
I do not ascribe to the opinion expressed in point no. 6.
-
I do not ascribe to the opinion expressed in point no. 7.
-
The flesh of onager, iguana and locust were generally eaten by the Arabs and none of these items were expressly prohibited by the Shari`ah. Thus, these items were considered Halaal.
-
The Prophet (pbuh) prayed to God for granting Medinah the same status of ‘peace’ as was granted to Mekkah. However, there is no evidence that such a status was granted to Medinah. Muslims, however, respect life in Medinah as a show of regard to the Prophet’s desire.
-
The Qur’an has clearly prohibited sexual intercourse while in a state of fasting. Kissing one’s spouse can by no means be considered as sexual intercourse and can, therefore, neither be termed as prohibited nor as against ‘absolute sexual restraint’.
-
The Qur’an has prescribed the punishment of severing off the hands of a thief. The words “السارق“ (the male thief) and “السارقة“ (the female thief), as used in the Qur’an are not used for people, who stealthily pocket worthless items or items of insignificant value. Such acts undoubtedly are immoral and may lead to greater sins, yet such acts do not qualify a person to be legally termed as a ‘thief’.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Moiz Amjad
August 20, 2002
- This is the same kind of ‘forbiddance’ as directing a trainee cadet to remain absolutely silent and still while offering salute. If one truly understands the spirit of the salute, one can appreciate that the stated ‘forbiddance’ is inherent to the very concept of the salute. [↩]
- This aspect of the Prophet’s life is briefly referred in Ta Ha 20: 131 – 132. [↩]