Originally posted in September 2010.

I begin in the name of Allah, the most kind and merciful:

Summarized Answer

Scholars, past and present, have differed over this issue, so it should not be turned into a matter of dispute. It appears to me that Muslims should pray both the ʿĪd and Friday prayer. However, whoever decides to follow the other opinion must pray Ẓuhr and will not incur any sin, since this is a legitimate opinion based on proper reasoning and evidence as well. Mosques must organize the Friday prayer for those people who would like to attend.

Reason for the Difference of Opinion

Pieces of Evidence

A: The verse of the Qur’an stipulates that Friday prayer is an obligation: “O you who have believed, when [the adhan] is called for the prayer on the day of Jumu`ah [Friday], then proceed toward the remembrance of Allah and leave trade. That is better for you, if only you knew.” ((Qur’an 62:9))

B: There is a report that the third khalīfah (caliph), Uthmān ibn ʿAffān, gave permission for some people to skip the prayer: “…then I witnessed the ʿĪd with Uthmān ibn ʿAffān, and that was on Friday. He prayed before the sermon [khutbah], then gave a speech and said: ‘People. This is a day where two ʿĪds have fallen on the same day. So whoever from amongst the people of the outskirts ((The word used is “al-ʿawālī” which refers to people living about one or two miles from the mosque in Madinah. See al-Laknawī, ʿAbdul Ḥayy, al-Taʿlīq al-Mumajjad)) of Madinah wants to wait for the Friday Prayer, they may; and whoever wants to return [home], I have given them permission.” ((Bukhārī 7:103 #5572, Muwaṭṭa’ 2:249 #613))

C: There are reports that the Prophet ﷺ (peace be upon him) allowed people to skip the ʿĪd prayer.

Zayd ibn Arqam reported that the Prophet ﷺ performed the ʿĪd prayers early in the day but then offered an exemption for Friday prayer and said, “Whoever wants to may pray it.” ((Abū Dāwūd 1:281 #1070, Al-Nasā`ī 3:194 #1591. Scholars differed over the authenticity of this report))

“Two ʿĪds were on the same day during the time of Ibn al-Zubayr [a Companion]. He delayed people from coming out until the daylight had spread. When he came out and gave a sermon, he made it long. Then he descended and prayed but the people did not pray the Friday Prayer on that day. This was then mentioned to Ibn ʿAbbās who said: ‘He has acted according to the Sunnah [the way of the Prophet].’” ((Al-Nasā`ī 3:194 #1592))

Abū Hurayrah reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, “Two ʿĪds have synchronized together on this day, so whoever prefers, it may suffice for Friday prayer. We will soon gather.” ((Abū Dā`ūd 1:281 #1073. Scholars differed over the authenticity of this report))

D: There is a report that the Prophet ﷺ himself performed the Friday prayer on ʿĪd day: “The Prophet used to read surah al-Aʿlā and al-Ghāshiyah in the two ʿĪd Prayers and the Friday Prayer. When the day of ʿĪd and Friday would come together on the same day he would still read both of them in both prayers.” ((Muslim 2:598 #878, Nasā`ī 3:112 #1424))

First Opinion

Only people living in isolated areas [who are normally exempted from attending the Friday prayer] coming from out of town to attend the ʿĪd prayer are exempted from the Friday Prayer. This is the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah ((Al-Shaybānī, Muḥammad, al-Muwatta’)) , Mālik ((Ḥāshiyah al-Dassūqī 1:391)) , and al-Shāfiʿī ((Nawawi, al-Majmūʿ)) .

Reasoning Behind the First Opinion

Verse A cannot be overridden by any report that indicates something different unless it is of the highest authenticity. It must also be reported by several different people because this is not something that would only be heard/observed by one or two people only.

There doesn’t seem to be any rational reason why one obligation should be dropped due to another being performed. This is similar to the way people must still pray Ẓuhr after praying ʿĪd. ((Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī 2:265))

Report B indicates that the leader of the Muslims exempted only a specific group of people [who normally don’t need to pray the Friday prayer because they don’t live in a city] and none of the Companions objected to his decision. This implies they understood that it was in line with the practice of the Prophet ﷺ.

Evidence C may be general in wording but should be understood as being confined to a specific group of people based on the other evidence.

Much of evidence C is of doubtful authenticity.

Report D indicates that the Prophet ﷺ himself prayed it and he obviously had other people with him.

Second Opinion

Whoever performed the ʿĪd prayer is exempted from the Friday prayer ((With the exception of the imām, unless no one shows up)) , but must still pray Ẓuhr. This is the opinion of Aḥmad ((Ibn Qudāmah, al-Kāfī fī Fiqh al-Imām Aḥmad 1:338, Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī 2:265)) . It is also the opinion of later scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah ((Majmū’ Fatāwā Ibn Taymiyyah 24:211-213)) , al-Shawkānī, Ibn Bāz ((Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn Bāz 13:13. His opinion is that it is preferable to pray the Friday prayer.)) , and Sayyid Sābiq.

Reasoning Behind the Second Opinion

Evidence C is sufficiently authentic to prove that the Prophet ﷺ made an exception to the rule in order to make life easier for the Muslims.

The sermon for Friday prayer is an addition to the prayer of Ẓuhr. Since one set of sermons was already heard, there is no need for another set later in the day.

Friday prayer is a type of ʿĪd and there is no need for two of them in one day. When two acts of worship of the same genre combine together, one of them drops, the way wuḍū’ (ablution) is not needed when taking a bath [ghusl]. ((Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn Taymiyyah 24:211))

Conclusion

There is clearly a legitimate difference of opinion due to both the clarity and authenticity of the two reports in question.

UPDATE 8-22-2013: My initial article on Inglot’s breathable nail polish was welcomed by many and severely critiqued by others. One of the main criticisms was that the experiment conducted by one of my students was inaccurate and could not be repeated with success. There were many people who reported successful results while several others who documented failure. Obviously, there are several variables that could lead to the experiment not working as it should. Therefore, I have been pressuring Inglot cosmetics to perform a professional experiment which is well documented, and they finally responded. The results should clear up most misconceptions that people may have had. Keep in mind, this only applies to only one coat of polish and has not been tested with base or top coats. Inglot is continuing experimentation and will be releasing more results soon. The results of the latest experiment is below.

When asked about the use of the coffee filter resembling the flexibility of the human nail, Inglot stated the following:

“We are working on finding a different testing surface, other than a coffee filter,  that would resemble a surface of human nail. For the purpose of future experiments we have invested in purchasing more advance testing equipment. Additionally we have already discussed a cooperation with one of universities to conduct more tests checking the following factors: time, pressure, temperature and a number of layers. We will be working closely to find a different testing surface. We have already taken that issue into consideration during the last experiment. Look at the 1:10 minute of the film when the metal stand is being completed and the filter is being placed. The bottom part, on which the filter is placed, has a metal screen built in, which has the flexibility similar to the human nail. It was intentionally used to prevent from extensive or unnatural bending while rubbing which would cause damage to the filter and let the water penetrate easily.”

UPDATE 07-16-13:  For those who are skeptical about using the Inglot polish because of the variance in experiments conducted by various people, I recommend checking out the Tuesday in Love brand of water permeable polish: http://www.tuesdayinlove.com/how-it-works

UPDATE 04-03-13: I have been contacted by quite a few people from different parts of the world who are claiming that they attempted their own experiments on the nail polish and it isn’t working for them. Here are links to two well-documented experiments performed by others: one and two. Here is a video of another experiment that worked. I am open to feedback and appreciate comments, but please: if you are going to criticize my article, make sure to actually read it first and then specify which part you don’t agree with and why.

UPDATE 03-25-13: Inglot has conducted tests which may reveal that not only water vapor but even a droplet can permeate a single layer of O2M polish. The results are unofficial and will be finalized soon. In the meantime, here is some information which explains how and why the polish works: download here

UPDATE 02-25-13: Mr. Inglot, the founder of the company, just passed away on Feb 23. We were scheduled to meet this week and he was going to share his research on some tests being performed on the O2M polish. The tests will now be delayed for a while. You may download his preliminary findings here.

UPDATE 02-07-13: The permeability may be affected by wearing more than one layer [e.g. a base coat, top coat, etc.] so make sure to either test permeability or wait until Inglot releases the tests that they are currently conducting before using multiple layers.

One of the most common questions asked by Muslim sisters is whether or not they are allowed to wear nail polish. The frequent query about whether nail polish is ḥalāl (lawful) or ḥarām (prohibited) is worded incorrectly. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wearing nail polish. ((This is according to the widely-held opinion by several Muslim scholars that cosmetics containing alcohol are allowed to be worn. Also, cosmetics should not be tested in a cruel manner on animals or contain any pork products such as gelatin. The Inglot brand discussed in this article is free from these deficiencies. See http://veggiebeauty.com/cruelty-free-statement-inglot)) The real issue is that this substance forms an impermeable barrier over the nails preventing water from getting underneath. So when a sister needs to perform wuḍū’ (ablution) in order to pray, it cannot be completed without first removing the nail polish.

Many Muslim women have found a solution: wear the nail polish during their period since they don’t need to pray during those days. Yet many sisters will admit that they wish it would be somehow possible to wear nail polish at any time of the month. First, it is highly fashionable nowadays. Second, wearing nail polish usually indicates to another person that a sister is undergoing her period, which can be very embarrassing for others to know.

Now there is a solution. No, I’m not talking about wearing henna. Most scholars advise it as a substitute while failing to realize just how different henna is from nail polish in the world of fashion and beauty. The urge to wear nail polish on a regular basis has even led some sisters to wear a ‘peelable’ variety, which can be scraped off without any chemicals. But what if there was a nail polish that allowed the water to seep through?

Good news. Inglot Cosmetics, a company from Poland, has released a new line of polish called O2M that it has labeled “breathable nail enamel”. ((http://inglotcosmetics.com/o2m.nail.enamel/products/141/565)) It borrows a polymer used in some contact lenses that allows oxygen and moisture to penetrate to the nail. ((http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/fashion/22SkinOne.html?_r=3&)) One sister wisely decided to call the company and was told that water vapor reaches the nail but not water in its liquid form. ((http://www.reveilingyourself.com/2012/04/halal-nail-polish.html)) The question then arises about whether water vapor reaching the nail suffices for wuḍū’. Let’s look at the issue in detail.

Reasoning Behind the Necessity of Washing

There are several sisters who don’t know that nail polish prevents wuḍū’, and probably just as many who don’t care and will wear it anyways. But for those who do care, this analysis might help clarify things.

Muslim scholars have analyzed the issue of impermeable substances in the following manner. This verse of the Qur’an prescribes the wuḍū’, “…wash your faces and your arms…” (Qur’an, 5:6). The points that require investigation are: what is meant by ‘arms’ and what is meant by ‘wash’. Mention of the word ‘arms’ (which includes the hands linguistically in Arabic) indicates that every part must be washed and not a single spot should be left dry. Scholars arrived at this conclusion both through linguistic analysis as well as by analyzing reports from the Prophet ﷺ (peace be upon him), which emphasize that the body parts must be washed thoroughly. From this they concluded that anything that prevents water from reaching any of these parts must be removed. For example, if someone had dried paint, dough, or wax on their hand while performing wuḍū’, the water would not permeate that substance and the hand would not have been properly washed. The same is true with nail polish which, when dried, forms a solid impermeable layer on the nails. This is why women are instructed to remove their nail polish when performing wuḍū’. Other substances that do not form an impermeable solid layer such as henna, oil, ink, and lotion are allowed due to the ability of water to penetrate through, especially when rubbing over the wet area. ((It is interesting to note that Ibn ʿĀbidīn [ḥanafī] argues this is not the real reason but substances like henna are allowed due to necessity. See Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār, 1:154.))

As to the definition of ‘washing’, it means that water flows over the surface of every body part which must be washed during wuḍū’. ((Al-Samarqandī, ʿAlā’ al-Dīn, Tuḥfah al-Fuqahā’, 1:8.)) The bare minimum amount of water that must be used in order to suffice has been a matter of contention among scholars. Some stated that the part being washed must drip off at least one drop of water. ((Ibn al-Humām, Kamāl, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1:15.)) Other scholars held that water must have reached every area of that body part, but dripping off is not necessary. ((Ibid. This is the opinion of Imām Abū Yūsuf.))

The Question

The life and death of planet Earth byastrophysicist Donald Brownlee and paleontologist Peter Ward. Now these two men are saying that the world will end in 2012. Allah says in the Qur’an that only he knows when the world will end but these men are saying that there calculations are based on the Maya calendar, the calendar has been used to predict the future before and so far, it has only been 43 seconds off. Is there anything in the Qur’an that agrees with this matter?

The Answer

In the name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful

You have made a very wise decision in asking this question on two counts. First, because many young people nowadays have several questions and/or misgivings about their religion but keep them inside. As time goes by, these ideas pile up and then might trigger some day and lead to numerous doubts about their religion without anyone understanding what happened. Therefore, it is beneficial to express what you feel and to ask questions.

Second, you have asked the right people who grew up in an environment similar to yours and have knowledge of Islam. Many people end up asking the wrong people who either can’t relate to them or have no knowledge. This would only end up causing more problems.

The stance of the Qur’an on this issue is clear from the following verse: “They ask you [Prophet] about the end of the world, saying, ‘When will it be?’ How can you tell them that? Its time is known only to your Lord. You are only sent to warn those who fear it.” (Qur’an, 79:42-45)

The point is that when Allah says that something is “known only to your Lord,” it means that it is something that cannot be discovered by man, such as a person’s lifespan. Many people try to predict a number of things and we assume that, because of the advances in science and technology, we can also have knowledge similar to what Allah has. However, think about how many times the weather report has been wrong despite all the satellites and advanced equipment, how many people were supposed to die but lived, and how many people were supposed to have lived but died. All of these things remind us of how far we really are from Allah’s knowledge. As for using the Maya calendar, we need to stop and think about a number of things. First, how many predictions did they make? Second, what were their predictions about? Third, what was the rate of accuracy in all of their predictions and why they aren’t being used as mainstream evidence? Fourth, where did they get this knowledge from?

We must be very critical of people who claim to know the future. Most people who make such a claim are frauds while the others are merely guessing. It’s like horoscopes which are written in such a general way that people think they can actually tell the future when, in reality, they don’t. We shouldn’t be fooled by such things,even if they are packaged and presented in the name of science. Science is a very useful tool, but it is often misused and twisted to fit a certain agenda or just to sell a book. When all is said and done, remember that just because the sun has risen from the east for millions of years doesn’t mean that Allah can’t change it tomorrow and make it rise from the west.  We must remember that just as our own lives are in the hands of Allah, so is the life of the world, and He can end it whenever He likes. May Allah allow us to utilize our limited lives with what pleases Him before our time is up.

Am I allowed to cut my nails and hair during the first ten days of the month of Dhul Ḥijjah?

I begin in the name of Allah, the most kind and merciful:

Summarized Answer

Scholars, past and present, have differed over this issue, so it should not be turned into a matter of dispute. It appears to me that refraining from cutting/removing any hair or nails on the body is recommended for those who intend to sacrifice an animal, whether they will slaughter the animal themselves or are commissioning someone to do it for them. However, whoever decides to do so will not incur any sin. The person who will be slaughtering for another does not need to refrain from anything since they are not doing it for themselves.

The wisdom behind this could be that a person who is offering a sacrifice wants to resemble a person performing Hajj since it is about sacrifice, so they refrain from cutting the hair and nails to further the resemblance [since pilgrims to Makkah are also not allowed to cut]. ((Sharḥ al-Nawawī ʿalā Muslim 13:138-139. Al-Nawawī mentioned another possible reason as well which I prefer not to mention here.))

Reason for the Difference of Opinion

Pieces of Evidence

A: The prophetic report narrated by Umm Salamah states: “Whoever sights the crescent for the month of Dhul Ḥijjah and intends to sacrifice an animal should cut neither his hair nor his nails.” ((Muslim 3:1565, Abū Dā’ūd 3:94, Tirmidhī 4:102, Nasā’ī 7:211))

B: The prophetic report narrated by ʿĀ’ishah that: “…the Prophet sent a sacrificial animal to the Kaʿbah [while residing in Madīnah] but did not abstain from anything [that a person performing Ḥajj would abstain from]…” ((Bukhārī 7:102, Muslim 2:957))

First Opinion

Scholars who said it is forbidden for a person who intends to slaughter: Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib, Rabīʿah, Aḥmad ibn Ḥambal, Dāwūd, Ibn Ḥazm, Isḥāq, some Shāfiʿī scholars, and Ṭaḥāwī [of the Ḥanafī school]. ((al-Tirmidhī 4:102, Tuḥfah al-Aḥwadhī 5:99-100, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār 14:141-143))  Among the later scholars who upheld this opinion: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ibn Qudāmah, al-Shawkānī, Ibn Bāz, and Ibn al-Uthaymīn.

Reasoning Behind the First Opinion

Report A is authentic.

Report B is confined to only those who send a sacrificial animal, not those who sacrifice within their own city. ((`Awn al-Maʿbūd wa Ḥāshiyah ibn al-Qayyim ʿalā Sunan Abī Dāwūd 7:346, al-Istidhkār 4:84))

Report A must be taken literally because even if it was considered to be disliked and not prohibited, the Prophet would never do something which is disliked. ((Ibid.))

Second Opinion

Scholars who said it is disliked but not prohibited: al-Shāfiʿī and some of Aḥmad ibn Ḥambal’s students [such as Abū Yaʿlā]. ((Tuḥfah al-Aḥwadhī 5:99-100, `Awn al-Maʿbūd wa Ḥāshiyah ibn al-Qayyim ʿalā Sunan Abī Dāwūd 7:346))  Among the later scholars who upheld this opinion: al-Nawawī.

Reasoning Behind the Second Opinion

Both reports A and B are authentic and appear to be contradictory because they are speaking about the same issue.

It is best to reconcile both reports by saying that report A is not to be taken literally but rather as something disliked but not prohibited.

Third Opinion

Scholars who said that there is nothing wrong with cutting the hair or nails: Abū Ḥanīfah and his students, Mālik and his students, and Sufyān al-Thawrī. ((Tuḥfah al-Aḥwadhī 5:99-100, al-Istidhkār 4:84))

Reasoning Behind the Third Opinion

Report A has some weakness in it so report B takes precedence over it.

Report A doesn’t make sense because it is contrary to analogy. If a person was supposed to refrain from cutting their nails and hair, they should have also been instructed to refrain from certain clothing, perfume, and intimacy because that is what people who are performing Hajj must also do. ((`Awn al-Maʿbūd wa Ḥāshiyah ibn al-Qayyim ʿalā Sunan Abī Dāwūd 7:347))

Conclusion

There is clearly a legitimate difference of opinion due to both the clarity and authenticity of the two reports in question.

First of all, we must remember that our ability to digest food and drink is a great blessing from Allah. We would not be able to survive without a digestive system. However, with every blessing comes a responsibility. Since human waste is classified as impure, Islam teaches us a few rules about how to relieve ourselves with dignity.

So what’s the problem?

There are many Islamic guidelines about how to use the restroom. We will only focus on those that pertain to standing and urinating. This common practice has led to the following unethical practices:

1. Shamelessness. One bad habit that has resulted from using of public urinals is the loss of personal modesty in the restroom. It is very common to see two men using the bathroom while having a conversation at the same time. Had they peeked over just a little they would have be able to see one another’s private parts. This is abhorrent. The Prophet ﷺ (Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) said,

“Allah detests it when two people relieve themselves uncovered and have a conversation.”_¹

The Prophet ﷺ would take so much care to seclude himself that Al-Mughīrah ibn Shu’bah said, “I was travelling with the Prophet. When he needed to relieve himself, he went far away from me.”_²

2. Increase in impurity. How many urinals have you ever seen that provide wuḍū’ facilities, water fixtures or even toilet paper? Probably none. This results in people leaving the restroom without an appropriate level of cleanliness or washing their hands.  The Prophet ﷺ said,

“When you go to the restroom, take three stones with you to clean yourself. That will suffice.” _³

Salman al-Fārisī, the Companion from Persia, was told, “Your Prophet has taught you everything, even how to use the bathroom.” He responded, “That is right. He ﷺ told us not to…use our right hand when cleaning and to not use less than three stones to clean ourselves after we finish.”_⁴

‘Ā’ishah (ra), the Prophet’s ﷺ wife, said to a group of women, “Tell your husbands to clean themselves with water because I am embarrassed to tell them. This is what the Prophet ﷺ used to do regularly.”_⁵ Cleaning yourself, with either a solid substance or with water, is so important in Islam that once when the Prophet ﷺ passed by a man’s grave he told Ibn ‘Abbās (ra) that the deceased man is being tortured, but not for a major sin: “He didn’t used to clean himself after urinating.”_⁶

3. Disrespect for others. One of the common habits we find in people who regularly use urinals is that they also stand up while using a lavatory. This can result in an unsanitary seat covered with urine and germs. Very few people care to clean the seat, let alone the toilet area after leaving, so, the next person entering has to deal with that disgusting mess. In this regard, the Prophet ﷺ said,

“Beware of the cursed ones.” Some people asked, “Who are the cursed ones?” He replied, “People who relieve themselves in public pathways or in shaded areas.”_⁷

Public pathways and shaded areas are two areas where people would be offended from excrement and filth because they use them so often. The same curse would apply to those who leave filth behind for the next person. The curse, in this context, has two meanings: people are cursed by the one who has to deal with the dirt they left behind and they are cursed by Allah for their careless and disgusting habits.

Are there any exceptions?

The Prophet ﷺ always sat down to relieve himself. This is proven by ‘Ā’ishah (ra), who was constantly in his presence. She said, “Don’t believe anyone that tells you the Prophet ﷺ used to stand while urinating. He always used to sit down.”_⁸ The only person who ever contradicted her statement was Hudhayfah when he said, “The Prophet ﷺ [while traveling] approached a garbage dump and stood while urinating. Then, he called me to bring some water for him, so I did, and he performed wuḍū’.”_⁹ This is clearly an exception to the rule because the Prophet ﷺ was in a very dirty place. Hudhayfa’s description of the place being a garbage dump reveals to us the context and makes it clear that ‘Ā’isha’s (ra) challenge was referring to people who claimed the Prophet ﷺ did it often as a habit. Her challenge still stands today. When someone tries to misquote the statement of Hudhayfah in order to prove that the Prophet ﷺ used to stand and urinate just as people do today, we should correct it.

What should a Muslim do?

Muslims should try to combat this immorality in their own community by encouraging good standards of hygiene. We live in societies which claim to be clean and advanced, yet their toilets – the most basic of sanitary developments – are among the filthiest in the world. Visit any gas station, high school, theme park, etc. and experience what happens to the restrooms when there is no full time janitor to clean up afterwards.

People of the world still have much to learn from Islam’s frank information on cleanliness. Purity has an environmental impact and is strongly connected to worship; without a clean body, a Muslim cannot pray. It is such an important principle in Islam that the Prophet ﷺ said,

“Cleanliness is half of faith.” _¹⁰

The messenger of Allah ﷺ has taught us certain rules to observe which benefit both society and ourselves. It is up to us to be aware of this guidance, learn it and apply it.

First, the accusation was: “All Muslims are terrorists.” When the bigots who made this statement realized no one in their right mind would believe that all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world could be terrorists, they reversed their statement to sound more objective and fair: “All Muslims may not be terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.” Really?

Someone sympathetic to Islam might respond with an example or two about Timothy McVeigh and the KKK. Yet, the average American will continue to watch the mainstream media day in, day out and see pictures of “Muslim terrorists” flashed across the screen or spoken about for hours on the radio. Here are some hard facts to make it clear that every perception is not a reality.

The Facts

According to the FBI database, there have been 318 terrorist incidents in the US from 1980-2005. That includes 209 bombings and 43 arsons. Out of those incidents, 42% were committed by Latino groups, 24% by Extreme Left Wing groups, 7% by Jewish Extremists, 6% by Muslim Extremists, and 5% by Communists. ¹

A RAND Corporation [funded by the U.S. government] report titled “Would-be Warriors” reveals some very interesting facts:

1. Not a single U.S. civilian has been killed by Muslim extremists since Sept 11, 2001.
2. Only 3 out of 83 acts of terrorism between 9/11 and 2009 were done by Muslim extremists. Most were by animal rights and environmental activists.
3. There was more terrorism in the 1970s than the 21^st century. There were over 60 terrorist incidents per year on U.S. soil, most of them being bombings. That’s 15 – 20 times more terrorism than post 9/11.

Europol’s report titled “EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report” showed that 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006-2008 were committed by Muslim extremists. That means 99.6% of terrorist attacks were by non-Muslims, most of which were separatists and leftists.

U.S. Terrorist Organizations

If you were asked to name five major terrorist organizations in the US, how many could you name besides al-Qaeda? Most people couldn’t name more than one. So here are some to help you balance the distorted view that the media feeds you with:

• Animal Liberation Front: Is known for sabotaging animal testing facilities, etc. The FBI explicitly said that ALF is the “leading domestic terrorist threat.”
• Alpha 66 and Omega 7: Cuban exiles opposed to anyone who takes a moderate approach to Castro. They are responsible for many bombings.
• Army of God: Anti-abortion and anti-gay. Known for bombing at least two abortion clinics, a lesbian nightclub, and the Summer Olympics in 1996. They believe that Anglo-Saxons are the only true children of God.
• Aryan Nations: A white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and Christian Identity group. The RAND Corporation described it as the “first truly nationwide terrorist network.”
• Black Liberation Army: They carried out a series of bombings, robberies, and prison breaks.
• The Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord: Another Christian Identity organization.
• Earth Liberation Front: Eco-terrorist group. The FBI in March 2001 said that it is the number one domestic terrorist threat.
• Jewish Defense League: Founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, they executed at least 15 terrorist attacks in the U.S. [more than al-Qaeda] and are responsible for at least 60 bombings.
• Ku Klux Klan: A white supremacist, anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic group.
• Militia Movement: An anti-government movement. One common tactic is to explode pipe bombs at government facilities. They have about 20,000-60,000 members in the U.S.
• Phineas Priesthood: Another Christian Identity movement that is against interracial intercourse, homosexuality, abortion, and multiculturalism.
• Symbionese Liberation Army: A far left organization.
• United Freedom Front: A Marxist organization responsible for at least 20 bombings and 9 bank robberies.
• The Weather Underground: A far left organization responsible for at least 45 bombings between 1970 – 1977.
• Ejercito Popular Boricua [Boricua People’s Army]: They have been demanding independence of Puerto Rico from U.S. imperialism.
• New World Liberation Front: A far-left organization responsible for at least 70 bombings in the Bay Area alone.

International Terrorist Organizations

Of course, terrorism is not only an American phenomenon, but exists worldwide. Here are some examples abroad:

• Aum Shinrikyo: Japan. A new religious movement responsible for the 1995 Sarin Nerve Gas attacks in the Tokyo subway.
• All Tripura Tiger Force: India. Their goal is to expel all immigrants of Tripura. 90% of members are Hindu and 10% are Christian.
• Babbar Khalsa: India/Canada. A Sikh religious organization that blew up a 747 jet in 1985 killing 329 people [including 280 Canadian citizens].
• Communist Party of India (Maoist): Prime Minister Singh said that they are “the single biggest security challenge ever faced by our country”. They have killed over a thousand people.
• Provisional Irish Republican Army: Ireland. They have killed over 1800 people.
• ETA (Basque Homeland and Freedom): Spain/France. They have killed almost a thousand people.
• Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK): Turkey. A Socialist/Nationalist party demanding independence.
• New Peoples Army: Philippines. A Communist organization.
• National Liberation Front of Corsica: France. A separatist organization.
• Justice Commandos Against Armenian Genocide: They have been trying to force Turkey to admit to the historical Armenian genocide. Responsible for at least 23 terrorist attacks.

Notable U.S. Terrorist Attacks

The following is a very brief list of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to make it clear that American terrorism is as American as cherry pie.

• 1910: Bombing of the L.A. Times Building by James and John McNamara who wanted to unionize the paper.
• 1920: Wall Street bombing by followers of Luigi Galleani with 100 pounds of dynamite that killed 38 people and injured 400.
• 1927: Bath, Michigan Bombings by Andrew Kehoe who was angry over taxes. He set off three bombs killing 45 people [including 38 students].
• 1971: Bombing of the U.S. Capitol Building by the Weather Underground in protest against the U.S. invasion of Laos.
• 1972: Bombing of the Pentagon by the Weather Underground in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi.
• 1975: Bombing of the Department of State Building by the Weather Underground in response to war escalation in Vietnam.
• 1976: Hijacking of Cubana Flight 455 by CIA-linked Cuban exiles who killed all 73 people on board.
• 1978-1995: Unabomber Attacks by Ted Kaczynski who sent letterbombs to academics and other influential people.
• 1995: Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols who killed 168 people.
• 1996: Centennial Olympic Park Bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph for which President Clinton called “an evil act of terror”. This was the largest pipe bomb in U.S. history.
• 2001: Anthrax Attacks by Bruce Edwards Ivins.
• 2007: Virginia Tech Massacre by Seung-Hui Cho who killed 32 people. He likened himself to Jesus Christ and expressed his hatred of the rich.
• 2010: Austin IRS Attack by Andrew Joseph Stack who flew an airplane into the IRS building because he was mad at the government.
• 2011: Tucson Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords where Jared Lee Loughner shot nineteen people.

Image is Everything

The only statistics that are missing is the amount of media coverage per terrorist incident or group. It shouldn’t surprise anyone now that Muslims usually receive the most coverage despite the fact that they are near the bottom of the list when it comes to terrorist activity.

Now that the facts are clear, do you think anyone would dare to rephrase the statement and end with “almost all terrorists are…” Latinos, leftists, environmentalists, Christians, Sikhs or Jews? I doubt it. This twisted logic is only applied for Muslims, not anyone else.

So next time you hear of a “terrorist,” think of the facts behind the perceptions, not the images infiltrating your mind. If Muslim extremists attempted to copyright the term terrorist, they would be denied. The famous statement goes: “Image is everything.” Indeed, everything but the truth.

One of the most common, yet groundless, accusations being made against Islam is that it forces itself on others. The picture presented is that if someone does not stop Islam, it will forcefully convert everyone, even at gunpoint.

Here is one of the verses commonly quoted by those who make their living propagating this idea:

“…seize them and kill them wherever you find them…” (Qur’an, 4:91).

This verse is used as evidence that Muslims are required to kill anyone who does not accept Islam. That would mean that any Muslim who does not either forcefully convert or kill every non-Muslim he sees is not practicing Islam. This ridiculous idea is childishly easy to refute. But before we do that, let’s do a brief comparison.

A Comparison

Let’s see what the Bible has to say about violence:

In Deuteronomy 7:1-3: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land… and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them…”

In Deuteronomy 20:10-17: “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, then lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.

In Deuteronomy 20:16-17: “However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…”

In Numbers 31:17-18: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

Jesus is reported to have said in Luke 19:27: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

Again, Jesus supposedly said in Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

The verses in the Bible are much more violent than any of the verses that can be found in the Qur’an. Can you find a single verse in the Qur’an which says: “Show them no mercy!” or “Do not leave anything that breathes!” or “Kill all the non-virgin women!”? Yet, ironically, most of the people who quote verses from the Qur’an about violence consider themselves Christians and believe in the Bible. Why do they ignore their own Scripture and apply a double standard of hypocrisy?

However, the fair Christian will say: “These verses must be read in context.” I agree, and the same opportunity of contextualization should be given to the Qur’an as well.

Searching for Context

To understand the context of any verse in the Qur’an relating to violence, you only need to do two things:

1. Identify the pronouns
2. Read the verses before and after the verse in question

This simple technique is so blatantly obvious; it requires a very special “education” to forget to apply it.

Let’s identify the pronouns in the verse we quoted: “…seize them and kill them wherever you find them …” (Qur’an, 4:91). There is only one pronoun, “them,” used three times, and it’s pretty clear that it refers to the same group of people. This group of people referred to as “them” can only be identified if we look at the verses before and after.

Looking at the preceding verses we learn the following:

• Verse 88 tells us that the pronoun “them” is referring to hypocrites who pretend to be Muslim on the outside but are actually spies and informants.
• Verse 89 tells us that if these hypocrites turn and fight you, then you are allowed to fight them back.
• Verse 90 tells us that Muslims are not allowed to touch anyone who does not want to fight.

In this example, it becomes crystal clear that “them” is referring to a group of hypocrites who are trying to harm and kill the Muslims. It would have been sufficient in this case to simply quote more of the verse: “So if they neither withdraw, nor offer you peace, nor restrain themselves from fighting you, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them: We give you clear authority against these type of people.” (Qur’an, 4:91)

Proof from the Qur’an

There is not a single verse in the Qur’an which says to harm another person because of their not being a Muslim. On the contrary, there are several verses which talk about respecting non-Muslims.

To further clarify the matter about forced conversion to Islam, let’s look at these verses:

“ There is no compulsion in religion…” (Qur’an, 2:256)

“Had your Lord wanted, all the people on earth would have believed. So will you force people to believe?” (Qur’an, 10:99)

“So warn them: your only task is to warn, you’re not supposed to force them.” (Qur’an, 88:21-22)

“He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith and driven you out of your homes, God loves the just.” (Qur’an, 60:8)

Could the Qur’an be any clearer on this issue?

Proof from the Prophet of Islam

The second source in Islam, after the Qur’an, are the statements made by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Let’s see what he said about non-Muslims and how to force them to join Islam:

“Whoever kills an innocent non-Muslim will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise.” [Bukhārī]

How could this statement possibly be compatible with the ridiculous idea that Islam forces itself on others? Instead, it makes it clear that no non-Muslim is allowed to be harmed because of what they believe.

The Historical Evidence

Lastly, in the 1,400 years of Muslim history; from the living example of the Prophet ﷺ until now, when there are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, where do we find this forced conversion being practiced? Nowhere.

On the contrary, we find throughout history, Muslims being the targets of forced conversion, particularly to Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, and to Atheism during the Communist era of the 20^th century.

Conclusion

So the question about whether Islam forces itself on others has been addressed. Now the question remains, what can we do to prevent Muslims from being forced to leave their faith?

Let’s take a practical example in order to demonstrate the truth of this claim. If someone were to open up Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, which is one of the very famous early collections of narrations [Ahӑdith], they might come across the following:

Hannӑd and Mahmud ibn Ghaylӑn informed us that Waki’ informed us on the authority of Sufyӑn on the authority of Abi Qays on the authority of Huzayl ibn Sharhabil on the authority of Al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba who said: “The Prophet ﷺ made ablution [wudu] and wiped over his socks and sandals.” Abu Isa [At-Tirmidhi] said: “This narration is authentic [hasan sahih].”

Whether this was read in Arabic or in English you might conclude from it that you can wipe over your feet when making wudu without having to take off your socks or sandals. You might naturally go even further and consider it ridiculous that anyone could have a doubt about this since it is so clear. The Prophet ﷺ did it and the narration is authentic so we can do it too.

However, a major problem arises when we look into Islamic history. We realize that virtually none of the scholars of Islamic Law came to the same conclusion based upon this narration. This means two things:

1. No scholar worthy of the name opened up a book like Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, read this hadith, and then made a conclusion based upon what he read.
2. No scholar came to the conclusion that anyone can unconditionally wipe over their socks and sandals because the Prophet ﷺ did it and the narration is authentic.

The first point has to do with methodology. The Prophet ﷺ said, “When someone in authority makes ijtihad [decrees a ruling regarding Islamic Law] and is correct then he receives two rewards. However, if he is wrong he only receives one reward.” In Islam, anyone who makes ijtihad and is qualified to do so will be rewarded even if he is wrong.  The important thing is that he used the correct methodology. On the other hand, anyone who undertakes ijtihad without being qualified and knowing the correct methodology will get no reward. In fact, it is feared that he may even be held accountable for doing so. This is demonstrated by an incident where a group of people were asked a question and gave the wrong answer which resulted in the death of the questioner. Later, the Prophet ﷺ was informed about what had happened and he exclaimed in contempt, “They killed him! If they don’t know, why don’t they ask?! Asking is the cure for ignorance.”

The second point has to do with putting history into perspective. If most scholars didn’t come to the same conclusion as the one who read this hadith then it might be concluded that they have never come across this hadith before. Maybe they didn’t have a copy of Sunan Al-Tirmidhi. Maybe they didn’t read the part about it being authentic. This conclusion would result in a very negative view of Islamic history. Now that we use the printing press, books like Imam Tirmidhi’s can be printed and distributed for everyone to read in order to supposedly correct the mistakes of all of those scholars of the past.

Let us look at the issue in detail in order to clear up these misconceptions. First, we will look at the authenticity of the narration and then we will take up what it implies.

Authenticating a Narration

After the death of the Prophet ﷺ, Muslim scholars came up with the most rigorous and ingenious method of authenticating history ever known. This was in order to properly preserve the statements of the Prophet of Islam ﷺ.

The casual reader might notice that Abu Isa Al-Tirmidhi graded the narration in question as authentic. However, we must also see what other scholars had to say about the same narration since Al-Tirmidhi is not the only authority in the field of hadith criticism.

Imam Abu Daud said, “Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdi used to refrain from narrating this hadith because it is well known that Mughira reported that the Prophet ﷺ wiped over his leather socks [khuffayn].” One of the most knowledgeable early hadith scholars of his time, Imam ibn Mahdi, was very well aware of this hadith, and had it memorized as well, but refused to narrate it to others because he considered it to be unauthentic. The vast majority of scholars agreed with him, among them: Sufyan Al-Thawri, Yahya ibn Ma’in, Ali ibn Al-Madini, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud, Ahmad ibn Hambal, Al-Nasai, Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Al-Qaiyyim.

The question might arise then, on what basis did scholars like Al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Hibban as well as contemporary scholars like Al-Albani authenticate this hadith? In order to understand this phenomenon we must first understand that there are five tests that a hadith must go through before being declared authentic:

1. Ittisal – The chain of narration must be uninterrupted. For example, assume Imam Al-Bukhari is relating a statement of the Prophet ﷺ and there are three people between him and the Prophet ﷺ (i.e. I heard from X who heard from Y who heard from Z who heard the Prophet ﷺ say…). If Imam Bukhari happened to mention in his book person Y by his nickname which was unknown to other people then this hadith would automatically be deemed unauthentic because person Y would be considered as missing from the chain of narrators since we are unable to find out anything about him.
2. Adl – All of the narrators must be upright. This means that they must be good Muslims, honest, have good behavior [akhlaq], etc.
3. Dabt – All of the narrators must be precise. This means that they only narrate after knowing the general context and implication of the narration and are familiar with the various wording that was used.
4. Shudhudh – The narration should not contradict another narration about the same incident which is established. The narration in Sunan Al-Tirmidhi about wiping over socks suffers from this defect as will be shown.
5. Illa – The narration should be free from any other major defect that is usually found after researching all the narrations on the same topic.

Once we understand these principles we begin to understand why ibn Mahdi refused to narrate this hadith. He realized that Al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba saw the Prophet ﷺ wiping over his leather socks [khuffayn] and that this is established by several authentic narrations. However, the narrators Abu Qays and Huzayl made a mistake by narrating that Al-Mughira said “socks” [jawrabayn] instead of “leather socks” [khuffayn]. Since the difference between the two words makes a very significant difference, the narration of Abu Qays and Huzayl have been declared unacceptable.

The Implication of a Statement

Let us assume that the hadith in question is indeed authentic. Is the assumption that “anyone can wipe over their socks and sandals because the Prophet ﷺ did it” correct?

If we look at what the scholars had to say on the subject, we will not find even one that unconditionally allowed wiping over the unqualified term “socks.” Rather, they stipulated certain conditions which must be met and defined what types of socks are allowed to be wiped over.

Every scholar began by looking at the Qur’an, since that is the undisputed word of God. What does it have to say about this subject? “O you who believe, when you stand for prayer wash your faces, your arms up to the elbows, wipe a part of your heads, and wash your feet up to the ankles.” (5:6) This verse clearly states that you mush wash your feet up to the ankles when performing ablution. However, the Qur’an also says, “Take whatever the Messenger gives you and refrain from whatever he forbids you. (59:7)” Therefore, if it can be established that the Messenger ﷺ taught his followers any exception to the rule then it may be taken as a concession.

The scholar then looked at all of the narrations on the same topic. Imam Abu Hanifa’s statement clarifies this important principle, “I did not pass a judgment about wiping over socks until the overwhelming narrations proving its validity became manifest to me like daylight.” What he meant was that he did not consider wiping to be an established exception to the rule until he collected several authentic reports. His reasoning was this:

• the Qur’an is the word of God and its authenticity is undisputed;
• any single narration, even after passing the five tests of authentication, still has a possibility of being wrong due to the human element of the narration;
• no report should be allowed to be used as an exception to the rule until its authenticity is such that it leaves no room for any reasonable doubt.

After it became clear to him that several of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ had narrated regarding wiping over socks he went further and said, “I fear that whoever denies wiping over socks has almost left Islam because the narrations regarding it have almost reached the level of tawatur.” Ibn Hajar verifies this by saying, “The experts of hadith have confirmed that the narrations which establish the permissibility of wiping over socks have reached the status of tawatur.”

After checking all of the narrations on the topic the scholar noticed the following:

• The Prophet ﷺ was not only seen wiping over his socks but he also instructed some of his companions to do so as well;
• He set a time limit as to how long anyone may wipe over their socks before having to take them off;
• He set a prerequisite that they must be worn in a state of purity before they may be wiped over;
• He wiped over the top of the sock rather than the bottom.

None of the preceding points apply to the narration of Abu Qays and Huzayl mentioned by Al-Tirmidhi and all of the narrations are unanimous that the socks mentioned were khuffayn and not jawrabayn.

The purpose of this discussion was not to deny that wiping is only restricted to leather socks (it is definitely not) but rather to correct the false assumption that reading a single verse or a single narration can qualify as evidence for a ruling on any issue. From this example, we should learn the following lessons:

• Some texts of the Qur’an and the Prophetic narrations require more than just a casual reading in order to understand their context and true import.
• No one should assume that they have fully understood any Qur’anic verse or Prophetic statement and then make judgment upon others unless they are familiar with all of the evidence on the topic.
• To properly understand Islam one should study on an issue by issue basis rather than a text by text basis.
• Sincerity, without knowledge, does not justify ignorance.

Does this mean that we should not read the Qur’an or hadith? Absolutely not. In fact, this should be an encouragement to read even more. The more knowledge you acquire the more things will begin to fit into place. One of the beautiful things about Islam is that there are no Divinely appointed clergy or priests. Anyone can study, increase in knowledge, and understand the Qur’an and Sunnah for themselves. If you only read this article with the hope of knowing whether or not you can wipe over the socks that you are wearing then go ask your local scholar rather than reading a collection of hadith. If that idea bothers you, then set out on the path of knowledge, the Muslim community is in need of more knowledgeable people.

This was his advice in regards to the science of philosophy, particularly the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle which many Muslims took pride in studying. He was warning them of the dangers that could result from this study. But he didn’t stop there. He even warned people about studying mathematics and other sciences. Why?

So You Thought You Were Safe
“What’s wrong with math?” you might ask. “That has nothing to do with religion.” Here is what al-Ghazali had to say: “The mathematical sciences…nothing in them entails denial or affirmation of religious matters…from them, however, two evils have been caused…”

The First Danger: Blind Conformity
“One of these is that whoever takes up these mathematical sciences marvels at the fine precision of their details and the clarity of their proofs. Because of that, he forms a high opinion of the philosophers [who were the mathematicians at that time] and assumes that all their sciences have the same lucidity and rational solidarity as this science of mathematics. Moreover, he will have heard the talk of the town about their unbelief and their negative attitude. [They say]: ‘If religion were true, this would not have been unknown to these philosophers […]’”

Al-Ghazali then expresses his deep regret over this sad state of affairs: “How many a man have I seen who strayed from the path of truth on this pretext and for no other reason!”

The only thing that has changed in our time is that it is not the philosopher who holds such a position in the eyes of students, but rather the scientist. How many times have I heard a Muslim doubting something about his own religion while saying: “But scientists say…”? One thousand years and not much has changed.

Imam al-Ghazali goes on to say that a man skilled in one field is not necessarily skilled in every field. Also, the internal consistency of one subject does not necessarily relate to another subject. Today, we find that even psychiatrists need a shrink or some family counseling sometimes. Just because someone may have the ability to process mathematical equations quickly in their mind or to figure out how certain chemicals react with one another doesn’t mean they have all the answers to life.

The Second Danger: Rejecting the Good
There is another problem. When some well-meaning believers realize the first danger, they begin to form a hatred for the sciences themselves rather than differentiating between the subject and its adherents. The Imam said, “The second evil likely to follow from the study of the mathematical sciences derives from the case of an ignorant friend of Islam who supposed that our religion must be championed by the rejection of every science ascribed to the philosophers…”
This mentality, the rejection of scientific research, whether it be in the natural or social sciences, is also very dangerous. Islam teaches us to take what is good and leave what is bad.

What to Do
So what should a Muslim do in such circumstances? There is no easy answer to that question. The Muslim perception is that everyone ‘needs’ a good (secular) education nowadays and there will naturally be some risks. If we concede the correctness of that ‘need’, the real solution will have to be a long term one, where practicing Muslims end up teaching the sciences, thus cutting off both evils from the root.

In the meantime, we can follow the words of the son-in-law of the Prophet ﷺ: “Don’t know the truth by men. Rather, know the truth and you will know its adherents.”

In a world where politicians, talk show hosts, entertainers, and gossipers never seem to stop talking, Islam reminds us that the tongue is like a loaded weapon: the safety latch should always be on. Muslim scholars throughout time have warned us about the dangers of misfiring the tongue, something that almost everyone has been guilty of. The Prophet’s ﷺ concise statement should serve as sufficient evidence that the above is true: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should say something good, or keep quiet.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim] Speech has been tied to belief in this Prophetic statement in order to drive home the idea that what we speak is almost as important as what we believe.

With advancements in technology, weapons are able to inflict much more harm that anyone previously ever dreamt of. Whether it’s a nuke or a cluster bomb, the effects of modern assault is a phenomenon that every person of conscious looks at with regret. The tongue is no different: by means of mass media and satellite, the power of speech has the ability to wreak havoc upon entire communities through deception, propaganda, and instigation.

However, just as nuclear technology can be harnessed for immense good, the power of the tongue can also be amplified for positive things. The Prophet ﷺ said: “The greatest struggle [Jihād] is a word of truth² in front of a tyrant ruler.” [An-Nasā’ī] This statement should not fool anyone to think that the effect of prohibiting someone from doing wrong is confined only to the next world. One of the ways that ‘wrong’ is made ‘right’ is through the tongue. In fact, according to the Messenger ﷺ, this oral activism becomes a necessity when unable to physically correct something: “Whoever perceives something wrong must correct with their hand. If unable to, then with their tongue. If still unable, then with their heart, and that is the weakest level of faith.” [Muslim]

A detailed analysis of this command reveals a number of things:

• First, the perception that something is wrong must be correct and based upon knowledge, rather than suspicion or false accusation. Had the command been limited to what every ignorant person perceives to be wrong, it would lead to chaos.
• Next, correcting something with the heart means to hate it in your heart. You can only hate what you know. Therefore, the Prophetic wisdom is commanding people to know what evil is happening around them. Those people who live in an environment surrounded by injustice and oppression but are ignorant of what is taking place are just as guilty as those who know about it but don’t hate it.
• Lastly, the sequence that was mentioned deserves special attention. The first step is to acquire the knowledge of what is defined as ‘wrong.’ Islam rejects the idea of moral relativism, in its absolute sense. What is right and wrong has been defined by our Creator, not by the creation. The second step is to have the knowledge of what is taking place around you. If you do not know what is taking place, you cannot even attempt to hate it.

However, hatred is not the end goal. It is a means to an end, the same way that knowledge is a means towards action, rather than a goal in itself. The awareness and hatred for ‘wrong’ will manifest itself on the tongue when a person is in a position to do so. In turn, that oral struggle will manifest into action when the opportunity presents itself.

The tongue has so much power because of its ability to lead to action, whether it is the individual speaking, or others who are listening. It is because of this power that the safety on this weapon should remain on, but it is also because of this power that those who are in a position to do so should aim with it, and shoot.