The Validity of the Marriage of a Woman Who Converts

QUESTION: There is a lady who has reverted, but her husband is still without religion, though he believes in God. I told her that she would have to leave him immediately. There was some discussion and I gave some evidences. Then somebody came with a fatwa from Shaikh Qaradawi, in which he has said that she can stay with her ex-husband for a period (may be the iddat), but not as his wife. I questioned this so he wrote to Shaikh Qaradawi, who has responded with two instances: one from Omar and the other from Ali (radhi Allaho anhum). ANSWER: Walaikum assalam wa rahmatullah, The position of Sunni scholarship is that, based on explicit Qur’anic verses, the marriage of a woman who converts but whose husband remains non-Muslim is annulled. The only difference on the matter concerns when the annulment occurs:

In the Hanafi school, the marriage is annulled after 3 menstrual periods (during which time she cannot have intimate physical relations with him). [This is explained in detailed in the answer below.]

As for Shaykh Qaradawi, he is a respected scholar, but he is noted by scholars to frequently diverge from sound Sunni scholarship. The importance of following sound scholarship is explained very clearly by Sh. Nuh Keller and Sh. Abdal Hakim Murad in their articles at Sidi Mas’ud Khan’s excellent site: www.masud.co.uk

In particular cases where leaving her husband may lead a woman to choose to leaving Islam, not emphasizing this point initially may be from applying the principle of, “Falling into lesser harm in order to avoid greater harm.” However, such cases should be referred to learned scholars of understanding, in order to seek their case-specific guidance because counseling and support is often an effective alternative option.

And Allah alone gives success.

Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani

When a Woman Converts Whilst Married to a Non-Muslim Man

[Source: SunniPath]

Is it Permissible to Show Hair to, Not Just Any Suitor, but Your Future Spouse?

QUESTION: I have heard from my Hanafi teachers that it is impermissible for a woman to show her hair to a suitor, that those who say it is permissible are using a very weak opinion. My husband, however, says that the mashaikh only say this to the 'aam people who may misuse the ruling (to see the hair of every girl that they are not even serious about). His family is mashaAllah very pious, and his brother is becoming a mufti under the tutelage of Mufti Taqi Uthmani. His brother actually told my cousin that it would be permissible to request to see a girl's hair. Also, another one of my husband's brothers saw the hair of his future wife beforehand (when he was reasonably convinced he would be marrying her), and my husband's sister showed her hair (only once) to her future husband (though normally she is in niqab). (Note: they did not do these things with any one else they were considering; only the people they *actually* eventually married). I am very confused. Do people like our respected Mufti Taqi Uthmani allow for this? Perhaps Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam or someone else familiar with him could reply? ANSWER: In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, Looking at someone one intends to marry is not merely something that is permissible, rather it has been encouraged by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace).

Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) narrates: I was in the company of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) when a man came and informed him that he had contracted to marry a woman of the Ansar. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to him: “Did you cast a glance at her? He said: No. He said: “Go and look at her, for there is something in the eyes of the Ansar”. (Sahih Muslim, no. 1423)

Sayyiduna Mughira ibn Shu’bah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that he proposed to a woman for marriage. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to him: “Look at her, for it may produce love between you.” (Sunan Tirmidhi, no. 1087, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Nasa’i & Sunan Ibn Majah)

Sayyiduna Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “When one of you proposes to a woman for marriage, then if he is able to look at what will induce him to marry her, he should do so.” (Sunan Abu Dawud and Musnad Ahmad)

The great Hadith and Shafi’i Fiqh scholar, Imam al-Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“…In the Hadith (of Abu Hurayra mentioned first) there is recommendation of looking at the face of the woman one is intending to marry. This is the opinion of our (Shafi’i) School, the School of Malik, Abu Hanifa, all the scholars of Kufa, Ahmad and the majority of the Ulama. Qadhi (Iyadh) has narrated from a group (of scholars) that it is disliked but that is incorrect and contrary to the clear text of this Hadith, and contrary to the consensus (ijma’) of the Ummah…Then, it is permitted for him to look at her palms and face only, for they are not considered to be part of the nakedness (awra), and also because by looking at the face, one is able to determine her beauty or otherwise and by looking at her hands one is able to determine the chubbiness of the body or otherwise. This is the opinion of our School and the view of most others.” (al-Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim, p. 1068)

Mulla Ali al-Qari, the great Muhaddith and Hanafi Imam, states in his renowned Mirqat al-Mafatih, quoting from Allama Teebi that the meaning of the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him & give him peace) statement “if he is able to look at what will induce him to marry her, he should do so” (in the Hadith of Jabir recorded by Imam Abu Dawud, quoted earlier) is either wealth, status, beauty and religion (deen).” (Mirqat al-Mafatih, 6/198)

Thus the above explanation by Mulla Ali al-Qari quite clearly refutes the interpretation some people make with regards to the Hadith of Jabir, in that one may look at whatever may induce one into marrying. If such general permission is given, people will demand to see all sorts of body parts.

Thus, the above is quite clear in determining that, it is only permitted for one to see the hands and face of the woman one is intending to marry. This permission is also subject to certain conditions.

Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“It is recommended ……to look at the woman before marriage.”

Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains the above by stating:

“Meaning, even if there is desire (shahwa) but this is when one genuinely believes it is possible to get married to her.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 3/8, Kitab al-Nikah)

Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states in another place:

“If one fears desire (shahwa) or has a doubt (m: in attaining desire), then one will be prevented from looking at the face of a non-Mahram woman. Thus, the permissibility of looking is restricted to not having desire otherwise it will be unlawful (haram). This ruling was in their times, in our times however, one will be prevented from looking at a young woman (m: regardless of whether one fears desire or otherwise). The exception for looking and not touching is when there is a need, such as for the judge, witness in the court…and for the one who intends to marry, even with desire but only if one’s intention is to implement the Sunnah (m: and fulfil one’s objective of marriage) not to fulfil one’s desires (m: by looking without really wanting to marry).”

Allama Ibn Abidin, the commentator of al-Haskafi’s Durr al-Mukhtar, mentions the following points in his commentary of the above text:

1) There is nothing wrong in looking at someone one is intending to marry even with desire (shahwa) due to the Hadith of Mughira ibn Shu’ba (Allah be pleased with him) where the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Look at her, for it may produce love between you” and because the aim is to fulfil the Sunnah of marriage and not desire.

2) It is not permitted to touch the face and hands of the woman even when one does not fear desire, for there is no real need for that.

3) The need is only in looking at the woman once, thus more than once would not be allowed, for cases of need are restricted to the actual need. (m: However, if one was uncertain and undecided by looking at her once due to some reason, such as not looking at her properly, etc, then one may look again. This, however, should not be merely having another go at the whip; rather one should genuinely think that marriage is highly likely)

4) Permissibility of looking is only to the hands and face

5) If it is not possible to look at the woman or one wants descriptions of parts of the body that are other than the hands and the face, then one may send a female relative (such as a mother or sister) to look at her and then describe her to him.

6) A woman may also look at the man whom she intends to marry even if there is a fear of desire, rather this is more important. The reason being is that the husband will be able to divorce her whenever he wants if he dislikes her, but the wife cannot do that. Thus, it is very important that she looks and is content with him. (See: Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar, ‘Bab al-Mass wa’l Nadhar fi Kitab al-Hadhr wa’l Ibaha, 6/370)

Thus, to sum up, it is not only permitted but recommended to look at someone one is intending to marry. This, however, is only when one is seriously contemplating marriage with her, and that marriage is possible and likely. This permission is even in the case where one (the man or the woman) fears desire (shahwa), if the right intention is there. Merely fulfilling the desire to look will be unlawful.

It will not be permitted for the man and woman to remain alone in seclusion (khalwa), for there is no need for that. Being alone with a non-Mahram is unlawful (haram) or at the least prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman) and must be avoided.

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “A man must not remain alone in the company of a woman, and a woman must not travel except that her Mahram is accompanying her.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2488)

If one decides to marry someone, it is for the man permitted to look at the woman’s face and hands only. This is the opinion of the majority of the scholars (jumhur), including the Hanafis, as mentioned earlier. Some individual scholars (such as Imam al-Awza’i, Ibn Hazam and Dawud Zahiri) did permit looking at other than the hands and face but this is not the mainstream opinion.

As far as the opinion of Mufti Taqi Usmani (Allah preserve him) is concerned, I have not heard anything directly from him, but it is clearly mentioned in his Dars Tirmidhi (3/351) that one is only permitted to look at the hands and face.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari

Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

[Source: SunniPath]

Sinned During Engagement, Families Want Them to Wait... Can They Just Marry in Secret Now Before the Public Marriage Later?

QUESTION: If a guy and girl committed sins during their engagement such as talking to each other on the phone and committing acts that were very close to zinaa, does this mean that their marriage will fail? Also both families don't want them to get married, they want to do nikah and make it halal to talk and see each other but its not possible to do so because of their families. They have tried to limit talking and make it so that they aren't in places where they could commit sins close to zinaa but every time they have asked for forgiveness and tried to avoid it, it still happened. What can they do now to make their marriage successful even after all that they have done? ANSWER:In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, Allah Mighty and Majestic is Most Compassionate and Most Merciful. He accepts the repentance of his sinful servants and is Most Forgiving. He Himself says:

“Say: “O my servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, for Allah forgives all sins. He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful”. (Surah al-Zumar, 53).

The best of humanity, our beloved Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“The one who repents from sin is like the one who has no sins”. (Sunan ibn Majah & Mu’jam al-Kabir of Tabarani).

In light of the above and other texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah, it becomes clear that when a servant sincerely repents to Allah, it is certainly accepted. However, there are three conditions for the repentance to be accepted:

a) to desist from the sin

b) to regret having done it

c) and to resolve never to commit it again (Nawawi, Riyad al-Salihin, 1/88)

Therefore, if the girl and boy in question sincerely repent from the sins they committed during engagement and make a firm resolution never to commit the sin again; there is no reason why there should be no Baraka in their marriage. It certainly does not mean that their marriage will fail due to the sins carried out during engagement. However, they must abstain from any informal interaction prior to the Nikah, as they are considered (according to Shariah) strangers.

Regarding the second aspect to your question, it seems from your question that the couple are engaged, but their families refuse them to get married at present. If this is the case, then first of all, the respective parents should be convinced that there is a possibility of the couple being involved in a sin, thus they should not be prevented from getting married, for there is great Baraka in acquiring the pleasure and consent of the parents. If, however, all avenues in convincing them fail, then the couple may marry in secret provided all the conditions for a valid marriage are met, for which they should consult a reliable scholar, and then later carry out a formal ceremony.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, UK
www.daruliftaa.co.uk

[Source: SunniPath]

Doesn't the woman need her guardian's approval to marry?

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, It is certainly the sunna and proper way to get one’s guardian’s permission. The danger of going against one’s parents (in normal cases) is that it could well entail ‘being bad’ to one’s parents, which is one of the most serious of major sins. According to the understanding of the Hanafi Madhhab, if a mature woman contracted her marriage without the approval of her guardian to someone who is considered legally suitable (kuf'u), then the marriage is valid. However, if she is marrying someone that is not considered legally suitable or compatible, then this will need the approval of the father (or, in his absence, the nearest fit guardian).

The relied-upon opinion is that in the absence of this approval from the guardian, a woman's marriage to a non-suitable man is not valid. If they live together, they are living together unlawfully. As such, if such situations come up, both parties must consult a scholar of recognized knowledge and taqwa for guidance, and to determine what their status is.

This has also been explained in many earlier posts.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

[Source: SunniPath]

Gifts given During Engagement

QUESTION: I was going to marry someone, but it did not happen. This man gave me money many times. He also gave me a lot of gifts. Now our relationship has been cut. I want to know, should I pay him this money back or not? It’s a big amount by the way for me not for him. ANSWER: In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, The renowned Hanafi jurist (faqih), Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) sheds light on this very issue in his Durr al-Mukhtar. He states: “One proposed (and got engaged) to the daughter of a man and then sent her things, but the girl’s father did not marry her off (to him), then in such a case, whatever he sent as dowry (mahr) he may take back, but only the actual items (m: which he sent) even if they had changed due to them being used, or he may take back their value if they no longer exist.

Breastfeeding During Pregnancy

QUESTION: A woman who is six weeks pregnant and who also has an eight month old baby girl, is she allowed to feed her baby her milk? What is the ruling in the shari’ah regarding this? ANSWER: In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful It is perfectly permissible for a woman to breastfeed her child while she is pregnant. In a Hadith related by Imam Muslim in his Sahih, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:

“I considered prohibiting Gayla (Breastfeeding whilst pregnant), but I observed the Byzantines and Persians that they breastfeed their children during pregnancy and their children are not harmed.” (Sahih Muslim)

Therefore, it will be permissible for the sister who is pregnant to breastfeed her eight month old baby.

And Allah knows best

(Mufti) Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester, UK

[Source: Darul Iftaa]

Understanding Islam and the Muslims

This information is taken from a fairly popular brochure entitled Understanding Islam and the Muslims.

List of Questions

What is Islam? Who are the Muslims? What do Muslims believe? How does someone become a Muslim? What does 'Islam' mean? Why does Islam often seem strange? Do Islam and Christianity have different origins? What is the Ka'bah? Who is Muhammad? How did he become a prophet and a messenger of God? How did the spread of Islam affect the world? What is the Qur'an? What is the Qur'an about? Are there any other sacred sources?

What are the 'Five Pillars' of Islam? Does Islam tolerate other beliefs? What do Muslims think about Jesus? Why is the family so important to Muslims? What about Muslim women? Can a Muslim have more than one wife? Is an Islamic marriage like a Christian marriage? How do Muslims treat the elderly? How do Muslims view death? What does Islam say about war? What about food? What is Islam's presence in the United States? How does Islam guarantee human rights? What is the makeup of The Muslim World?

---

Muslims say they do not worship idols. When they go to Mecca, why do they kiss a black stone?

Isn't that like worshipping an idol?

Muslims do not worship the black stone. They regard the stone as a created thing. The most fundamental principle of Islam is that nothing or no one is to be worshipped except Allah, the one true God.

Muslims who can afford the journey are required once in their lifetime to visit the House of Worship in Makkah. This was the first house built for the worship of the one true God. It was constructed by Abraham and his son Ishmael, peace be upon them. The black stone was brought to them from heaven by the angel Gabriel to function as a corner stone. It was thus affixed in one corner.

Because Muslims kiss that stone, some observers hastily conclude that Muslims worship it. A kiss, however, is not an act of worship unless it is accompanied by an intention to worship. If you kiss your child, for instance, that does not mean you worship your child.

Some may find it strange that Muslims should treat a stone with respect. But this is not just any old stone. It is an item out of paradise.

The act of fixing a stone to mark a place of worship is as old as history. In the Bible we are told that Jacob, on whom be peace, had fixed a stone at a place where he saw a vision. He poured oil on it and called it Bethel meaning 'house of God' (see Genesis 28:18). He did this again upon God's instruction (see Genesis 35:1, 14, 15). No one should understand from this that God instructed Jacob to worship the stone.

Dr. Robert Morey proves in his book that Allah is the name of the moon god worshipped in Arabia before Islam. Is he right?

The book you refer to is entitled The Islamic Invasion:
Confronting the World's Fastest Growing Religion, published by Harvest House Publishers, Oregon, US, 1992. The author, Dr. Robert Morey, sees Islam as an invasion into North America and a threat to his religious heritage. 

Unfortunately, Dr. Morey has resorted to dishonest tactics in combating Islam. To prove his contention that Allah is not the God of Christians and Jews, he quoted from several books in such a dishonest fashion that the quotations say the opposite of what we find in those books (see quotations on pages 47-53 of Dr. Morey's book).

Dr. Morey quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica to support his case. But in fact the Encyclopedia says:
Allah is the standard Arabic word for "God" and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims (Britannica, 1990 Edition, vol.1, p.276).

Dr. Morey also quoted from H.A.R Gibb to support his case. But Gibb actually says the opposite. In his book Mohammedanism, Gibb says on page 26 that both Muhammad and his opponents believed in "the existence of a supreme God Allah." Gibb further explained this on pages 37-38 (see Mohammedanism by H.A.R. Gibb, Oxford University Press, 1969). Dr. Morey should have checked his references more carefully before his book went into print.

Dr. Morey said that Alfred Guillaume agrees with him, and he refers to page 7 of Alfred Guillaume's book entitled Islam. But here is what Alfred Guillaume actually says on page 7 of his book:

In Arabia Allah was known from Christian and Jewish sources as the one God, and there can be no doubt whatever that he was known to the pagan Arabs of Mecca as the supreme being (Islam by Alfred Guillaume, Penguin, 1956, p.7).

How could Dr. Morey misquote like this? Furthermore, Dr. Morey quoted from page 28 of a book by another non-Muslim writer Caesar Farah. But when we refer to that book we find that Dr. Morey gave only a partial quotation which leaves out the main discussion. The book actually says that the God who was called Il by the Babylonians and El by the Israelites was called ilah, al- ilah, and eventually Allah in Arabia (see Islam: beliefs and Observances, by Caesar Farah, Barron's Educational Series, 4th Edition, p.28). Farah says further on page 31 that before Islam the pagans had already believed that Allah is the supreme deity. Of course they had 360 idols, but, contrary to Dr. Morey's assertion, Allah was never one of the 360 idols. As Caesar Farah points out on page 56, the prophet Muhammad, on whom be peace, personally destroyed those idols.

Dr. Morey also quoted from William Montgomery Watt. But Watt says on page 26 of his book that the Arabic word Allah is similar to the Greek term ho theos which we know is the way God is referred to in the New Testament (see Muhammad; Prophet and Statesman by William Montgomery Watt, Oxford University Press, 1964, p.26).

Dr. Morey also quoted from Kenneth Cragg's book entitled The Call of the Minaret. However, on page 36 of Kenneth Cragg's book we find the following:

Since both Christian and Muslim faiths believe in One supreme sovereign Creator-God, they are obviously referring when they speak of Him, under whatever terms, to the same Being. (The Call of the Minaret by Kenneth Cragg, Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 36). Further on the same page, Cragg explains that the One whom the Muslims call Allah is the same One whom the Christians call 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ', although the two faiths understand Him differently.

Dr. Morey should know that as a scholar he has the academic obligation to quote honestly. He should also know that as a follower of Jesus, on whom be peace, he has an obligation to speak the truth.

How can you say that death is not the consequence for sin whereas the Bible clearly teaches that it is?

The best way to understand this would be to study the story found in the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Let us begin with a brief outline of the story. We are told that God warned Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die. This was communicated also to Eve. The serpent, however, being deceptive, promised Eve that they will not die from eating it. So she ate the fruit, and gave also to her husband. As a result of eating the fruit, they realized for the first time that they were naked, so they covered themselves with fig leaves. When they heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from Him among the trees. He called out to them asking where they were and asked whether they had eaten from the forbidden tree. Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God then cursed all three of them. The serpent shall henceforth crawl on its belly and eat dust. The woman shall suffer in childbearing and remain under the domination of her husband. The man shall have to sweat for his living until he returns to dust. God then said: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So God banished him from the garden and placed a flaming sword to prevent access to the tree of life (Condensed from Genesis 2:17 - 3:22).

Many people misunderstand this story to mean that physical death is a consequence for sin. But the biblical scholars who are aware of all its implications explain otherwise. The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible explains that death here means separation from God, the giver of "life" (p.6).

The reason for this other explanation is the obvious fact that in the story Adam did not die. He lived on for 930 years (see Genesis 5:5). And when God spoke of his eventual death, He mentioned it not as a consequence of sin, but as a natural outcome of the fact that Adam was created from dust - and to dust he must return (see Genesis 3:19).

When a few verses later it is stated that God deprived Adam in access to the tree of life many people again conclude that because of sin Adam was deprived of everlasting life. But this too is not what the book of Genesis says. The story goes that once Adam gained knowledge of good and evil, God was concerned that he may now gain eternal life also (see Genesis 3:22). The Abingdon Bible Commentary explains that Adam was deprived of eternal life because he had already acquired some power, namely knowledge, and God was concerned lest Adam should acquire more, namely eternal life, and become a threat to God (see the Abingdon Bible Commentary, p.223).

It is clear from the story that even if Adam was promised death he was given a lesser penalty, and death must be taken as the maximum possible penalty - that, obviously, was not given. Elsewhere in the book of Genesis, when God killed certain men for their wickedness, it meant instant death (see Genesis 38: 7, 10). But the death that comes as the natural end to physical life is not a penalty for sin. It is better to understand that God in His mercy gave a lesser penalty to Adam than to suppose that God in His anger gave more penalties in addition to what He stated initially. This is why Reverend W. K. Lowther Clarke explained in his Bible commentary that God relented and gave Adam a lesser penalty (see the Concise Bible Commentary 1952, p.343). For the Qur'anic perspective on the Genesis story, see question 17

If there is no original sin, then why does everyone have to die? Isn't death the consequence of sin?

Muslims have a very positive view of life and death. Life on earth is temporary. Death is the door through which one enters into everlasting life. Muslims do not see death as something scary or frightful. Death is the way one returns to Allah. God says in the Qur'an:
Say: The angel of death, who has been given charge of you, will carry off your souls. Then to your Lord you shall all return (Qur'an 32:11).

Muslims hopeful of God's mercy look forward to the day when God will address them as stated in the Qur'an:
O peaceful and fully satisfied soul, return to your Lord: you are well-pleased (with your good end) and well-pleasing (in the sight of your Lord). Join My (righteous) servants and enter my Paradise (Qur'an 89: 27-30).

Viewed in this way, death becomes a joy for the true believer. This view of death was further explained in a saying of the Prophet, on whom be peace. He said:
Allah loves to meet whoever loves to meet Him.

It is true that no one likes to die. But the prophet, on whom be peace, said:
When death comes to a believer, he is given good news of the pleasure of Allah and his gifts. There is then nothing dearer to him than what is ahead of him. So he loves to meet Allah, and Allah loves to meet him (This was reported by Bukhari and Muslim).

This positive view of death should not imply a negative view of life. Life should be lived to its fullest, and believers should not wish for an end to their lives. The prophet said; no believer should wish for death, for, as long as there is life in you, if you are righteous, perhaps you may increase your good deeds, and if you are sinful, perhaps given time you may repent (reported by Bukhari).

God in His plan devised this earthly life as a temporary life. The earth is a testing ground. Those who accept God's guidance in this life will be given the abundance of God's grace in the next, the everlasting life. When God decreed for humans to live on the earth, He declared:
Henceforth there shall come to you guidance from Me now and again; whoever will follow it shall have neither fear nor sorrow, and whoever will refuse to accept it and defy Our Revelation, they shall be doomed to the Fire wherein they shall remain forever (Qur'an 2:38-39).

Again, God says that He "created life and death so that He may try you, which of you is best in conduct" (Qur'an67:2).
God says further:
Indeed We created man from a mixed drop to try him and therefore We made him capable of hearing and seeing. We showed him the way, whether to be grateful or disbelieving (Qur'an 76:2-3; see also 90;8- 10).

In this life we should use our God-given faculties to learn and follow God's message. The Qur'an says that those who end up being punished for their sins will regret that they neither listened nor used their brains when God's message had reached them (see Qur'an 67:10).

Incidentally, in the Qur'an it is not said that God warned Adam and Eve of death if they ate from the forbidden tree. What God actually said to them was that if they ate from the tree they would become wrongdoers (see Qur'an 2:35). Given the Qur'anic viewpoint, there is no reason to consider death as a consequence for sin.

You said that every child of Adam is a sinner. Does that mean we are born with sin?

No. Muslims believe that every child is born in a pure, natural state. Left to their own, children will grow up instinctively seeking the one true God, Allah. However, environmental influences and parents turn a child away from the pure, natural state. A saying of the prophet, on whom be peace and the blessings of God, confirms this. It says that each child is born in a natural state just as, for example a baby animal is born without any brand on its body; then the owner brands it with his own mark. Similarly, parents too would give a newborn their own religious identity (see Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, vol.8, no.597 and Sahib Muslim, Eng. Trans. vol 4, no. 6423).

The saying "every child of Adam is a sinner" means that every human being is a sinner, sin being an inevitable outcome of a fallible human nature. No matter how righteous a person is, he or she may at times disobey God through ignorance or forgetfulness. The prophet, on whom be peace, meant to emphasize that the best person is the one who seeks forgiveness for his or her sins. Furthermore, he said that one who repents from sin is like one without sin. God says in the Qur'an that He will replace the evil deeds with good for those who repent, believe, and do righteous deeds (see Qur'an 25:70).

Another saying of the prophet indicates that God actually intended that humans will be a species that commit sins so they can turn to Him and He would forgive them (see Sahih Muslim, Eng. Trans., vol.4, nos. 6620-2). This is a much better explanation than the popular conception according to which God at first sees that humans are good, then God discovers that they are wicked and so, being sorry that He made them in the first place, God eventually decides to wipe them off the face of the earth; but then he changes His mind again and lets them eventually procreate and fill the earth although they are still sinful as ever. The better explanation is that God knew in advance that we would sin, and we turned out just the way God planned. God does not discover new things - He knows everything always.

So, simply put, the Islamic belief is that people are not born in sin but they will eventually commit sins for which they should sincerely repent, and God will wipe out their sins. People do not inherit sins. Sin is something you do wrong. You couldn't have done anything before you were born, therefore you were born without sin. The Qur'an teaches that God does not hold us responsible for what others did before we were born, and no innocent person would carry the guilt of another (see Qur'an 4:111; 6:164). This coincides with our own sense of justice. No one considers it right to blame children for the sins of their ancestors, or to punish the innocent so that the guilty may go free.

Why is it that Muslims do not accept the doctrine of original sin?

The reason Muslims do not accept this doctrine is that the word of God, the Qur'an, does not agree with it. The Qur'an teaches that God is ever willing to forgive anyone who turns to him in sincere repentance. We find in the Qur'an that God taught Adam and Eve how to seek His forgiveness. When they did as God taught them, God forgave them (see Qur'an 20:122).

Adam and Eve were created with the potential to do either good or evil. They had a free choice either to obey God or disobey Him. They did not realize how deceptive the devil was, and so prompted by him, they made the wrong choice. Will God remain forever angry with them over that one mistake? No! Instead, God taught them how to repair their relationship with Him by praying for forgiveness. Muslims still often recite the same prayer, as follows:
Our Lord, we have wronged our souls. If you do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then surely we are lost (Qur'an 7:23).

What we obtain from that incident is not original sin, but original forgiveness, and an original lesson on how to seek that forgiveness. God set the precedent that He will forgive those who turn to Him in sincere repentance. We will all find ourselves in a similar situation as Adam and Eve. The prophet, on whom be peace, said that every child of Adam is a sinner, and the best of them are those who turn back to God in sincere repentance.

This shows that God does not demand absolute perfection from us humans. That would be an impossible demand, since God alone is absolutely perfect. To err is human. God wants us to know that he will accept us as we are, shortcomings and all, as long as we are trying our best to obey Him. Even in our human situations, it is well understood that absolute perfection is not to be demanded from anyone. Suppose teachers were to demand that all students must score 100% on all their tests, and that if they make even one mistake they will not pass. No one of sound mind will demand this, for it is clearly beyond human capacity. Similarly, God does not demand from people what is beyond their capacity (see Qur'an 2:226).

Some will say that Adam was created perfect and that when he sinned he ruined that perfection. This suggestion makes no sense. If perfection meant that Adam had no ability to choose between good and evil, then how did he exercise that choice which he supposedly did not have? And if he had the ability to choose, as Muslims believe, then why would God remain forever angry with him for his first mistake? Humankind was then in its infancy. We needed someone to pick us up when we fall, not someone to bulldoze us with a tremendous burden of sin and guilt.

Some will say that God could not forgive Adam even if He wanted to do so, since God is Just and He must exact justice. This is as if to say that justice is contrary to mercy, and that God is so fenced in by His own law that He has no freedom to do what He wants to do. How silly! The truth is that God warns us of His punishment, but He also promises forgiveness for those who sincerely repent. If He decides to save sinners, who is there to say He cannot do what He wishes?

If God is loving, kind, and merciful, why would He punish anyone in Hell?

Due to a slight misunderstanding, many people see this as an unresolvable contradiction. This question has troubled them to the point of driving them away from religion altogether. The misunderstanding begins with the assumption that God loves everyone, even sinners. Then it becomes difficult to explain why God would punish sinners. Some people attempt to explain their way around this by saying that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. This explanation would have been good enough if God would punish the sin and save the sinner. Instead, God will punish the sinner, so the problem remains.

To survey the problem a little further, consider the following quote from Matthew's Gospel: You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies . . . (Matthew 5:43-44).
Now, this passage indicates that it is a good thing to love one's enemies. It follows, then, that God, being infinitely good, must love His enemies too. But then, why would He punish them? Why, for example, would God torment some of His creatures day and night for ever and ever in a lake of burning sulphur if He loves them? (see Revelation 20:10)

The Qur'an resolves this problem by indicating quite clearly that although God is full of loving kindness He does not love sinners who refuse to change. We know from the Qur'an that Allah does not like the following categories of people:
� mischief makers
� treacherous ingrates
� proud people
� prodigals
� rejecters of God's message.

It presents, therefore, no difficulty in the mind of a Muslim if God punishes such people. On the other hand, it makes more sense that God will not treat the good and bad in the same manner. Therefore we must all try our best to do what pleases God, and seek His forgiveness for our failings. The Qur'an tells us that Allah loves the following categories of people:
� those who do good
� those who repent for their sins
� those who keep themselves clean
� those who fulfil their pledges and are conscious of Allah
� those who are steadfast on the right path
� those who trust in Allah.
Let us therefore ask God to make us deserving of His infinite love.

The Bible says in Revelation 22:18, 19 that nothing Is to be added to It. In view of this, how can a believer in the Bible accept the Qur'an?

The Christian scholar William Barclay in his commentary on Revelation quotes another Christian scholar R.H. Charles as saying that the above mentioned passage in Revelation "may not be part of the original book at all" (Revised 1976, volume 2, p. 232). After mentioning the reasons for this, Barclay agrees with Charles by saying:
It is, therefore, by no means impossible that these words are not the words of John but of a later scribe anxious that none should alter the book in the days to come (vol.2, p.232).

But even if that passage is genuine, it does not prohibit a believer from believing also in the Qur'an. Many people misunderstand the passage if they are unaware of the history of the Bible and how it came to be written. They assume that because the book entitled Revelation is the last book in the Bible it must have been the last book from God, and that every later book should be rejected. However, according to many Bible Commentaries such an understanding is wrong. The Abingdon Bible Commentary explains as follows:

Does the Qur'an teach Muslims to believe in the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel?

If so, why don't Muslims accept the Bible?

The Qur'an commands Muslims to believe in the revelations given to all of God's prophets. These prophets include Moses, David, and Jesus (peace be upon them). Muslims must believe in the revelations received by such prophets. Books associated with them are called by the names Torah, Psalms, and Gospel. Muslims, therefore believe in the original Torah, Psalms and Gospel.

The Bible contains books by the same names and other books besides. Muslims are not commanded to believe in the other books. To be more specific, the Bible contains 66 books in the Protestant version, and 73 in the Catholic version. In the Bible, consisting 66 or 73 books, the Torah is represented as 5 books, the Psalms as 1, and the Gospel in 4 versions. This makes a total of 10 books within the Bible. Muslims are not required to believe in any more than the ten books. But that assumes that the 10 books referred to are the same as what the Qur'an refers to when the Qur'an speaks of the Torah, Psalms and Gospel.

A further check proves that these books changed contents over time although their names remained the same. To understand this concept, consider that a book like the Encyclopedia Britannica changes its contents and size several times throughout its history, yet is called by the same name. Obviously the Encyclopedia Britannica is not the same as it used to be. A closer check shows that something similar occurred with the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel.

For a long time many people believed that Moses wrote the five books called Torah in the Bible. But now it is widely known that Moses could not have written those books in their entirety. One evidence for this is that Chapter 34 of the book of Deuteronomy describes the death and burial of Moses, and how the people mourned for him after his death. Obviously, Moses did not write that passage. Biblical scholars also acknowledge that the present composition of the Psalms cannot in its entirety be traced back to David.

The Gospels is a more complex matter because the Bible contains not one but four. There is only one true Gospel which Jesus preached, but these are represented in four versions each according to a different author. The Qur'an requires Muslims to believe in the original Gospel that Jesus preached before the four versions were written. Everyone agrees that the four versions were written long after Jesus.

Why does the Qur'an agree with the Bible in some things and disagree in other things?

The Bible is an important means by which people had access to God's message for thousands of years. It contains many truths from God. Throughout history many prophets were sent by God to guide humankind. The Qur'an teaches that prophets were sent to every people to call them to shun false gods and worship only the one true God. Some of the truths which those prophets taught are recorded in the Bible. A seeker of truth cannot deny those truths.

The Bible has had more impact on western civilization than any other book. The Bible's emphasis on the belief in the one and only God has helped millions of people to turn away from worshipping idols and other false gods. Famous commandments like 'you shall not murder' have become universal principles. Many of the Bible's moral principles have helped to convert some of the worst people into compassionate, good citizens.

Obviously, if the Qur'an were to disagree with these moral and theological truths the Qur'an would have to teach the opposite of truth. This the Qur'an does not do. Where the Bible is true the Qur'an is also true, since they agree on many fundamental truths. This agreement, however, does not mean that one book copied out of another as some individuals are quick to conclude. This we have already demonstrated in our answer to Question 6. The reason the Qur'an agrees with the truths in the Bible is that those truths and the Qur'anic passages all come from the same source, namely God. Since He alone revealed the Qur'an and all the truths of the Bible, it is only logical that the truth will be one, regardless in which book it is found.

When the Qur'an disagrees with the Bible it is also for a reason. The Qur'an was revealed at a time when people knew the art of writing, and so designated scribes were able to write down the revelation immediately to ensure its preservation in written form. At the time people were also accustomed to memorizing eloquent compositions. With God's help they began a practice of memorizing the Qur'an, thus ensuring its preservation also in the hearts of millions of believers throughout history. Due to these two preservation methods, the Qur'an available all over the world today is the same in its original language whether you buy a copy in Canada, Australia, or China.

Therefore the Qur'an can be trusted in its entirety, and a believer can confidently say, "All of it is from our Lord" as the Qur'an states in 3:7. God has promised that He will safeguard the book (Qur'an 15:9). He further says that no falsehood can get into the Qur'an (Qur'an 41:42). He tells us that He sent the Qur'an to confirm the truth of what is in the previous scriptures and also to expose the errors that crept into those scriptures (Qur'an 5:48). So one reason the Qur'an differs from the Bible can be understood best in light of the transmission history of the two books.

Another type of difference between the two books pertains to the specific instructions that God gave. God always gives instructions which are suitable for the varying conditions of human life. Some of the instructions in the Bible, were meant for a particular historical circumstance, and are therefore no longer applicable. Since the Qur'an is newer, it contains God's latest instructions which are still applicable to our present conditions, and which provide the best solution for some of life's most pressing problems today.

Does the Qur'an have the story of the Fall of Man as told in the Bible? Are the stories similar or different?

They are similar in a basic outline, but different on a few important points.

First, let us consider the basic outline. Adam and Eve were placed in a garden in a state of happiness. God instructed them to eat from any tree except one tree. Eventually, they were deceived into eating from the forbidden tree and their nakedness became apparent to them. God then expelled them from the garden.

Now, the disagreements.
1. Neither book names the fruit, but the Bible alone calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Qur'an does not call it such, but teaches that humans are already inspired with the knowledge of good and evil at creation in order to enable them to exercise choice between good and evil. This knowledge did not come as a result of eating from a forbidden tree.

2. The Bible says the deceiver was a serpent, but the Qur'an says it was Satan.

3. The Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but only Eve was deceived; it says that Eve then gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. On the other hand, more than one Qur'anic passages mention that they were both deceived. One passage specifically says that Satan approached Adam and deceived him. The Qur'an does not single out Eve for blame in any passage.

4. The Bible says that when the couple heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from him among the trees. So God called out to Adam asking where he was, and asking if he ate from the forbidden tree. On the other hand the Qur'an does not depict God in limited human form. The Qur'an and the Bible both teach that God knows everything always.

5. According to the Bible, when the couple was confronted with their mistake, they blamed each other, and Adam even blamed God because God gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. According to the Qur'an they did not pass the blame. Instead, both repented.

6. According to the Bible, God cursed them. According to the Qur'an, God forgave them and guided them.

7. According to the Bible, they were driven out of the garden because God was afraid that they may eat from the tree of life and live forever. According to the Qur'an, God's plan was to educate our first parents in paradise, then send them into the world for a limited time to resist Satan, the enemy. They were sent to earth as part of God's plan for them; not as a way of preventing them access to the tree of life, but as a test to distinguish those deserving of everlasting enjoyment in God's paradise.

8. According to the Bible, God had said that when Adam eats from the tree he would surely die, and the serpent said they will not surely die. The serpent was right - they did not die. Contrary to this, in the Qur'an, God said that if Adam and Eve eat from the tree they will become wrongdoers, then they will have to leave the garden and come out to where they will have to labour. Satan, however, promised them that if they eat from the tree they will live forever. Satan was wrong - they did not live forever.

9. According to the Bible, because of God's curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. According to the Qur'an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise.

Isn't it true that the Qur'an is copied from the Bible?

No. This is not true. All evidence show that the Qur'an could not have been copied from the Bible.

Take for example the story of the flood that occurred in the days of the prophet Noah, on whom be peace. This event is narrated in both the Bible and the Qur'an. A careful examination of the two versions will show that the Qur'anic version could have come from no other source but God alone. One important difference between the two accounts is that whereas the Bible describes the flood as a worldwide flood (see Genesis ch. 7) the Qur'an mentions it as a local flood affecting the people of Noah (see Qur'an 7:59-64). Today it is acknowledged that no record exists of a worldwide flood occurring at the time specified in the Bible. How did the author of the Qur'an avoid this mistake unless the author was God Himself?

The closest thing in history to a flood like the one described in the Bible and the Qur'an, is a discovery made by Archaeologist Sir Charles Leonard Wooley. In 1929 he discovered remains from a flood which occurred around 4000 B.C. His findings are described in the book entitled The Bible as History by Werner Keller. Keller tells us:
The incredible discovery at Ur made headline news in the United States and in Britain (The Bible as History, 2nd Revised Edition, Bantam Books, 1980, p. 27).

But was this a worldwide flood? After describing the extent of the flood, Keller explains:
Looking at the map we should call it today 'a local occurrence' (p.28).
"In other words," writes Keller, that flood was "obviously not of sufficient magnitude for the Biblical Flood" (p.29). Furthermore, he says: "A flood of the unimaginable extent described in the Bible still remains 'archaeologically not demonstrated"' (pp.29-3O).

Another comparison will again demonstrate that the Qur'an was not copied from the Bible. In the Bible we are told that God drowned the Pharaoh and his army when they pursued Moses, on whom be peace, and his people (see Exodus 14:28). The clear indication in that description is that the body of the Pharaoh perished in the sea. However, the Qur'an dared to differ and prove true. In the Qur'an we find that God promised to preserve the body of the Pharaoh as a sign for later generations (see Qur'an 10:90-92).

True to the Qur'anic promise, the mummified body of the Pharaoh was discovered by Loret in 1898 at Thebes in the Kings' Valley (see The Bible, the Qur'an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, p.238). From there it was transported to Cairo. Elliot Smith removed its wrappings on July 8, 1907 and gave a detailed description in his book entitled the Royal Mummies (1912).

From which source did the author of the Qur'an derive this information? How did the author of the Qur'an know that the Pharaoh's body was preserved whereas the knowledge that the ancient Egyptians mummified their dead was not discovered until recently? And how could the author of the Qur'an predict that the body of the Pharaoh will be discovered later, unless the author was God Himself?