My wife, a Muslim woman, is doing a university degree that includes conducting seminars on topics such as reproduction and the function of the different parts of the body involved in reproduction, etc. There are men students and lecturers taking part in such seminars. Normally, she skips such topics, but that involves losing marks. Please advise.
The degree that your wife is doing is certainly needed in the community and when she is qualified she should be able to help many women in your community. Most of these women will be more at ease discussing their cases and situations with a woman like your wife than if they had to discuss these with a man who has the same qualifications. This means that there is social need for ladies to have that degree. It is not only a social need, but a religious one as well.
When the Muslim community needs personnel who are qualified in certain areas, then meeting that need is a collective duty of the community. If there is only one person who can acquire the necessary education to meet that need, then doing it becomes obligatory to that person.
There is certainly no harm in discussing the process of reproduction and the functions of each part of the reproductive system in a university classroom, even though there is a mixed company in that classroom. If the university finds it feasible to make such classes separate for men and women, then it should do so. If Muslim women students are in a minority and the only way to acquire that qualification is by attending such mixed classes, then they should do so.
It is wrong of a Muslim woman student to deliberately miss certain classes, not only because she loses certain marks, but also because her education will not be as good as of her male or non-Muslim colleagues. She should try to acquire the best standard possible, in line with other students.
• Commemorating the great in the Islamic manner
Is it not an expression of a people's loyalty to the memory of its heroes, whose great deeds are recorded in the annals of history, to erect statues in their honor as a reminder to future generations of their achievements and greatness? People's memories are short, and the passage of time will make them forget the past.
Islam abhors excessive glorification of people, no matter how "great" they may be, whether they are living or dead. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Do not glorify me in the same manner as the Christians glorify Jesus, son of Mary, but say, He is a slave of Allah and His Messenger." When his companions wanted to stand up to greet him out of respect, he forbade them, saying: "Do not stand up as the Persians do, some people honoring the others." (Reported by Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah). The Prophet warned his followers against praising him excessively after his death, saying: "Do not make of my grave a site for festivals," (Related by Abu Dawood) and he prayed to his Lord "O my Lord, do not let my grave be made into an idol to be worshipped."
The believers aspire only to that true immortality which can be bestowed by Allah alone, Who knows the secret and the hidden, Who neither misleads nor forgets. In His register of immortality, there is the name of many a person whose greatness has remained unrecognized by the people. Indeed, the Most High loves those God-fearing and religious souls who remember Him in the secrecy of their hearts and minds by speaking about their good deeds, ideas and achievements. The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, the caliphs, the leaders, and imams of Islam were never immortalized in figure or statues.
I quote here part of a lecture entitled "Toward a New Understanding of Islam," by Professor Muhammad al-Mubarak, Dean of the College of Sharee’ah, University of Damascus, delivered at al-Azhar University. The section quoted here contains an incisive analysis of the whole question of how to perpetuate the memory of the great. Quote :
"We are faced with the situation that many new modes, systems and habits which are inconsistent with our correct beliefs and established moral principles have found their way into our social life. Among these is the manner in which Europeans and Americans commemorate their heroes by erecting statues for them. If we examine this matter with an open mind, free of subservience to whatever comes from the West, and reflect our ways of commemorating the lofty achievements of the great, we find the Arabs, in particular, memorialized nothing of their great personages except their noble deeds and good qualities such as fidelity, generosity, and courage. Their manner of perpetuating their memories was to recount tales of their heroes, passing them down from one generation to another, and to compose and recite eulogies in the form of poetry. In this manner, the generosity of Hatim and the bravery of Antarah became proverbial in the days before Islam.
When Islam came, it emphasized the meaning underlying this method. It declared that the best of Allah's creation and the last of His Messengers, peace be upon him, was but a mortal man: "Say: Indeed, I am a mortal like you; my Lord inspires me." (18:111) it emphasized that the worth of human beings lies in their deeds and not in their physical forms; it made the Messenger, peace be upon him, an example for all mankind to follow; and it forbade such sanctions and exaggerated respect for men which resembles adoration and which, by implication, signifies the denigration of the rest of mankind.
When the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, passed away to meet his Lord, the first caliph drew people's attention to this fact, saying, "If anyone worshipped Muhammad, then (know that) Muhammad is dead, but if anyone worshipped Allah, then Allah is living and does not die." He then recited the words of Allah Ta'ala: "Muhammad is but a messenger; messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. If, then, he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heel?" (3:144)
Islam immortalizes the memories of people because of their good and beneficent deeds; the remembrance of them remains in the hearts of Muslims. Thus, the literate and the illiterate, the young and the old, know about the justice of Umar, the firmness and wisdom of Abu Bakr, and the piety and courage of Ali. No statue made of stone was needed to commemorate any of them because their deeds and qualities are inscribed in peoples' hearts.
Commemoration by means of erecting statues is in reality a regression to the remote past, a descent from a higher plane; it was the method of the Greeks and Romans which was adopted by Europeans...
With respect to their concept of the nature of man and his true worth, they are far inferior to the Muslims, even to the pre-Islamic Arabs, since because of their inability to grasp the true stature of man and his potentialities, they are able only to conceive of great men as gods, and their gods as men incarnate. What we are pointing out is that it does not befit us to imitate this alien practice which is inferior to our own, and we must not deviate from the ruling from the Sharee’ah that making statues is haram and is harmful to human psychology and morals."
In Islam, when the greatness of some noble soul is recognized by people, its perpetuation for coming generations is not achieved by erecting statues for them. The correct Islamic method of commemoration is to keep their memory alive in the hearts and minds by speaking about their good deeds, ideas and achievements.
• Compulsion in religion and the standard alternatives
The Qur'an states very clearly that there is no compulsion with regard to faith. On the other hand, the Prophet, peace be upon him, offered the people of Najran that they should either accept Islam, or pay the jizyah, or else they should be ready to fight the Muslims. How is this to be reconciled with the Qur'anic statement?
The three alternatives offered by the Prophet, peace be upon him, to the people of Najran are the standard ones which Muslim states and rulers have always offered when they fought against any people who stood on a war footing with them. Whenever the Muslim armies were facing an enemy who had prepared to fight them, they offered that army, or the authority that were in control, those three alternatives: 1) To accept Islam and they would be part of the Muslim state, having all the rights and obligations of all Muslims without any discrimination; 2) To pay the jizyah; which is a tax that guaranteed them protection by Muslim state against any enemy in return for their being law-abiding citizens. They would also enjoy their religious freedom. If neither of these two options was accepted, then they would have to face the might of the Muslim army in battle.
This situation cannot be understood without looking at the events that brought those people face to face with the Muslim state. As you are aware, Islam is a message from God to all mankind. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was a messenger sent to all mankind. He is described in the Qur'an as having been sent as a "mercy to all worlds." Hence, it is his duty, and the duty of the advocates of Islam in all generations, and in all communities, to make Islam, God's message, known to all people, and to invite them to accept it as a faith. No pressure is to be brought on anyone to accept Islam. It is a matter for the individual to choose. However, Islam does not accept that any pressure be brought to bear on anyone to reject Islam, be that by a political or religious authority, or by social tradition. People must be free to choose. The advocates of Islam must have the freedom to address the people and to explain God's message to them.
The people of Najran were a Christian community, and authority among them belonged to their priest, who was helped by two influential people, known as As-Sayyid and Al-Aaqib. The Prophet, peace be upon him, addressed the three and advised them to accept God's message. He wanted them to give their people the freedom of choice and wanted to have access to the ordinary people in order to explain the message of Islam to them. They sent a delegation to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and there was a great deal of discussion between them. They did not wish to accept Islam. At one stage, after the delegation went back carrying a message from the Prophet to the priest, who wielded real power among them, the priest admitted that Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a messenger of God. His brother was furious with him for concealing the fact, and he immediately left for Madinah to meet the Prophet. Nevertheless, he did not accept Islam. The Prophet, peace be upon him, did not put any pressure on him to do so.
This is only one example showing us how authority, whether religious or secular, stood as a barrier preventing people from learning about Islam and believing in it, if they chose to do so. It is not acceptable to Islam that such a barrier should prevent people from following God's guidance. Hence, it makes its standard warning. If those in power would accept Islam and let their people accept it if they choose to do so, they would continue to be in power, under the overall authority of the Muslim state. This would ensure religious freedom for all, and make the new Muslims equal citizens. If not, then as a token of submission to the authority of the Muslim state, they would pay the jizyah, or the protection tax, and they would enjoy peace and safety, and their people would be free to join the Muslim ranks without any pressure.
When neither option is accepted, then that authority which stands as a barrier preventing people from choosing Islam must be destroyed. It is an authority that suppresses religious freedom. Therefore, it should be removed, and by war if necessary.
| Back | Contents | Next |