I have been working here as a salesman, although my education qualifies me for a better job. I am, however, happy with the salary I receive. Yet many of my colleagues at work argue that the money we get is far less than what it should be, so they claim that it is only right that they should get something more if they can. Hence, they sell merchandise at prices higher than those set by the proprietor, and take the extra for themselves. When I objected saying that the money they take is unlawful, they said that the Qur'an makes it clear that one must take one's right. Is what they are doing correct? Is the Qur'anic evidence they quote applicable?
What you are looking at here is a case of trying to disguise self-interest with a religious appearance. These people are practically trying to interpret a religious text in a way which suits their designs in order to show that they have support for what they are doing.
In so doing, they are prepared to twist the meaning of Qur'anic verses and quote them out of context. This is not the proper attitude of Muslims who are certain of having to account for their deeds when they meet their Lord on the day of judgment.
Your colleagues may be unhappy with the salaries they receive. Their education may qualify them to do better jobs than what they do as salesmen in a department or a showroom. But they have come here to do this job and not the one which suits their education. Had they been able to secure a job which required their particular qualifications, they might have had jobs which could have paid them twice or three times their present salaries. But the fact remains that the job they are employed to do is that of a salesman which earns the salary agreed between them and their employers. They signed contracts or agreements and the other party is honoring his obligations under that agreement.
If it were possible for them to secure better paid jobs, they would not have accepted the ones they are now doing. Their employer must have explained to them the nature of the jobs they would be doing and the salary they would receive. He cannot be accused of exploitation, because he seeks the best educated employees he can get. In Egypt, for example, you find university graduates working as limousine drivers because they are financially better off as a result than they would have been if they were to take up government jobs. The proprietor of the limousine company cannot be blamed for wasting university qualifications in a job which anyone can do. He knows that when he employs such graduates, they would treat his customers in a civilized manner.
If one of these start to compare what the owner receives with what salary he gets and decides that the pay is not adequate, he may think of doing a couple of rounds without declaring the intake to the employer as he is required to do under his employment agreement. He may argue, like your friends are doing, that he is doing the actual work and that if he redresses the imbalance of income he would only be taking what is fair. But he is certainly in the wrong. The money he would be taking is unlawful, because it came through using the facility given to him for a purpose other than the one agreed to by the owner. He is only doing it for his own benefit.
Your friends are doing the same thing. They are using facilities that do not belong to them for their own benefit, without permission of the owner. They are making use of the shop itself and the capital which goes into providing the goods to be sold, when the owner is totally unaware of the fact. If they argue that they are causing him no harm, they are in the wrong. They may be driving his customers away, because the customers are bound to realize soon that the shop is more expensive than other shops. He may thus lose business which would eventually affect his profit.
Moreover, the whole thing is profoundly dishonest. No one of those employees would dare to tell the owner about what they are doing. Nor would they tell any outsider.
They will even be quicker to deny it if they are questioned about it. The Prophet, peace be upon him, defines sin as "that which causes you to be uneasy deep down and which you hate to be disclosed to other people." Let your colleagues ask themselves whether or not this description applies to their practice. I believe there is just one answer to this question. It simply makes their action sinful and forbidden.
My advice to you is not to join them in their practice, no matter how much pressure they may bring to bear on you. At the same time, you should try to counsel them, gently but emphatically, to quit this practice, because although it brings them some immediate gain, they end up as losers, because it earns them a punishment that God may inflict on them in the Hereafter.
• Guidance: From beyond the Qur’an and the Sunnah
You have mentioned on several occasions that God has not placed hardship on us in matters of religion. I believe that if we follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah we will find our life to be much easier. Rigidity comes from following others. I have written to you on several occasions pointing out the responsibility you bear when you answer readers’ questions, but these seem never to reach you hands. My advice to you has always been that you should follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah in your answers, and take nobody else’s views, so that you do not copy other people’s errors or fall into error yourself.
I am grateful to you for your advice and your letters, which I have read with interest. I have not included a reply in the paper, because I thought they were meant as advice to me, which I certainly value. May I assure you that no letter to me is disregarded without careful examination. We sometimes take the liberty of not publishing a letter when the same question has only recently been answered. We believe we could not repeat questions too often. Therefore, we wait for a while before we publish the question again, particularly if it is of the type that people frequently ask.
It is certainly the best option for any person to follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah, because that is the guidance that God wants us to follow. Moreover, it is the light, which gives us the ability to make the best choices in life. Furthermore, it is the path of ease, because God has not placed any hardship on us with regard to the practice of our faith, or what He requires from us. It is people who make things difficult for themselves and for their communities.
The best example to quote in this regard is that of Mo’adh ibn Jabal, the Prophet’s companion whom the Prophet, peace be upon him, appointed as governor of Yemen. As Mo’adh set on his first journey to Yemen to take up his post, the Prophet, peace be upon him, walked by his side and asked him how he would judge in matters or disputes put to him. Mo’adh told him that he would base his judgment on what is in God’s book, i.e. Qur’an. The Prophet, peace be upon him, asked him what he would do if he found nothing in the Qur’an applicable to the question in hand. Mo’adh said that he would rely on the Prophet’s Sunnah. The Prophet put the same question again, and Mo’adh said that he would strive hard to make an enlightened judgment. The Prophet said: "Praise be to God Who has guided the emissary of God’s messenger to what pleased God and His messenger."
This conversation provides very important guidance to all Muslim generations. It recognizes that there are issues and disputes for which we may not find ready answers in God’s book and the Sunnah. This is indeed what Muslim scholars have done ever since the early days of Islam. When the Prophet, peace be upon him, was alive, they could put to him any question, and he would give them the ultimate solution. After had had passed away, we no longer have that ready source of final judgment. We have to rely on what he has left for us of his guidance, knowing that God has perfected our religion and made it complete, as He says in Verse 3 of Surah 5.
In this area the role of the scholar is of vital importance. He has to show the way of how to relate the texts to present-day problems and identify practical solutions. That is what scholars have done throughout the fourteen centuries of Islamic history. That is how schools of thought have been enriched with every new generation of scholars. That is why we find within the same school of thought varying opinions on very similar issues. Imam Al-Shaf’ie himself gave numerous new opinions on many issues when he moved from Iraq to Egypt, because the change of situation and community give him new insight into many questions. This should remain a source of light motivating scholars to deal with new problems.
Sometimes we find well-meaning people calling us to reject every thing which is not clearly stated in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. They overlook the fact that by so doing; they abandon some of the Prophet’s guidance of flexibility and making things easy as long as that does not contravene any clear order by God. Their attitude brings an element of rigidity, because they take every Hadith as final, without relating one Hadith to another which also speaks of the same problem, or looking at the historical context in which the Prophet, peace be upon him, made his statement.
My reader gives me one example, insisting that women must cover their faces when they go out. In this he dismisses the ruling I have explained more than once that women need not cover their faces or their hands up to their wrists. I have discussed this question on several occasions, pointing out all four schools of thought have the same view, as do other scholars of high repute.
The view is supported by the Prophet’s own action and by incidents reported as taking place in his presence, without him providing any clear statement to suggest that what was practiced was wrong. My reader mentions a report attributed to Aisha to the effect that she and other Muslim women used to draw their veils down when men passed by them, and lifted them again when men had passed. This cannot be considered a convincing evidence to support his view.
To start with, this is not a Hadith; it is a statement attributed to Aisha. Secondly, it is an action which is not required, because it mentions that they did this when they were in consecration, and a woman is required to leave her face and hands uncovered when she is in the state of consecration, or ihraam. Thirdly, and more importantly, the report is classified as very weak by scholars of Hadith. Hence, it cannot be taken as evidence. But most important of all is that it is in conflict with Prophet’s guidance.
Since all divine books have been available for the last three thousand years, it has been easy to answer any question with reference to these books. But what about the period preceding Judaism when there was no actual source of divine book to provide the truth for millions of people over countless generations. Is it possible that people were left to act freely for such a long period without any guidance? Moreover, all four divine books seem to have been revealed in the Arabian land. What about the rest of the world? Does any other book require people to become Muslims? May I also ask whether it is possible through Ijtihad [or the use of scholarly discretion] to introduce improvements in Islamic law for the benefit of the Muslim community? This can always be considered well justified. It will be based on all previous beneficial experience and will suit the needs of the age. Please comment.
It is not true to say that all human history that predates Judaism lacked divine guidance. Indeed, divine guidance was provided for mankind ever since Adam was placed on earth as vicegerent. Adam himself was a prophet who received the faith of monotheism to his children who conducted their lives in accordance with the divine guidance.
Thereafter, God has sent prophets and messengers to all communities. He states in the Qur'an that "there has been no community without having a Warner". That Warner must have been a prophet or a messenger or a person endowed with the knowledge of the guidance provided by earlier prophets. Besides, the Qur'an mentions the names of several prophets sent to different communities long before the appearance of the Prophet Moses.
These include Prophets Noah, Hood, Saleh and Idris. God tells Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in the Qur'an that there were many other messengers about whom He has chosen not to tell him. "We have certainly sent messengers before your time: Some of these We have mentioned to you, and some We have not mentioned." (40;78) So, God has not left people without guidance. It is they who have chosen to turn their backs on His guidance. They went even further than that and distorted messages conveyed to them by their prophets.
God also tells us in the Qur'an that He made a covenant with all prophets that should His final messenger appear during their lifetimes, they would certainly follow him and give him all the support they can. All prophets and messengers conveyed that same message to their peoples. They told them that they should follow Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, whenever he begins to convey his message. Indeed, there are references in all divine scriptures to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, indicating how he may be recognized and where he will appear. The Jewish tribes that settled in Madinah in pre-Islamic days went there only because they recognized Madinah as the place to which the last messenger would emigrate. They wanted to follow him to ensure their salvation.
However, when the grandchildren of those Jews realized that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not an Israelite, and his appearance signified the transfer of the line of prophet-hood from them to the Ishmaelite branch of Ibrahim's seed, they rebelled and put a stiff opposition to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his message. That opposition continues today with a most determined fight against Islam led by the Zionists everywhere.
Moreover, all prophets and messengers conveyed basically the same message of submission to God and associating no partners with Him.
Since this principle takes its fullness and its most perfect form in the message of the Qur'an, it is imperative that followers of previous guidance should embrace Islam because it endorses what they have and improves on it.
In your question you refer to religions as though they were philosophical creeds put forward by philosophers and men of knowledge. You may expect a philosopher or an economist to come up with a new doctrine that takes into account the results of human experience with previous creeds and doctrines. You may say, for example, that socialism was devised in order to overcome the social disadvantages of capitalism, in the same way as the latter was an improvement on feudalism. But that does not apply to religions revealed by God, the Almighty.
When you consider God's attributes, you will find among them His perfect knowledge. What you have to understand is that God's knowledge is not liable to increase as a result of events that may take place at present or in the future. God knows these events long before they take place. Indeed, the notion of time adding to knowledge does not apply to God whose knowledge is absolute and perfect.
Therefore, it cannot be said that a later religion is an improvement on a previous one, benefiting by the human experience with the earlier religion. God does not need that experience in order to reveal a perfect religion. Indeed, Islam is a faith that remains applicable to all human generations until the day of judgment. Moreover, Islam, in its broadest sense which signifies of all divine faith, has been applicable right from the moment when Adam and Eve were created and placed first in heaven, before they fell to earth.
Nor can there be any "unsuccessful" parts in the divine faith. People's application of certain parts may be improper, but that is their own failure, not the failure of the faith itself. Improvements may be achieved in their approach to religion, but not in the teachings of religion themselves. Human maturity will not add to the truth of religion, but it can draw better advantages from the implementation of the divine faith. Ijtihad, or the use of scholarly discretion, has certainly a wide area in the context of implementing the divine faith. But Ijtihad cannot be extended to the area of changing what God has revealed or what He requires of His servants. There are people who call for such amendment to religion, particularly among some politicians in some Muslim countries. Such politicians do not have any strong faith. They want to follow their own line of action, but they try to appear in a guise that satisfies the Muslim masses. Therefore, they speak of "modernized" or "liberalized" or "enlightened" Islam.
Some want socialism to be Islamic and others want Western democracy to be given an Islamic color, etc. Let us be clear about one thing: Islam is a faith and a code of living revealed by God. It does not need to borrow any guise or appearance. People either take Islam as it is or leave it. Let them not try to give it a guise other than God has imparted to it.
If they want to follow a line which is different from Islam, let them go and do what they want. But they must not try to give their practices or philosophies an Islamic appearance, when they have none. Islam will never be Socialist or Western Capitalist. It will always be Islamic.
| Back | Contents | Next |