Drīzumā tulkošu šo rakstu latviski un tad ievietošu šeit tulkojumu, inša Allāh.
Did you know that school is optional? Yes, indeed it is, although this might sound bizarre to our minds, which have been pre-programmed to think the opposite. As soon as our child has learned to walk and talk, we see sending him off to school as the logical next step for his development. Being well-meaning parents aware of the responsibilities conferred upon us by Allah, we look around for that special Alma Mater, to which we feel safe to entrust our offspring. And that’s the way the society works nowadays, isn’t it?
Or is it really? Do we really have to feel ‘fine’ about sending that two-and-a-half-year-old child out on a cold winter morning without long pants, just because shorts is the only acceptable uniform in that particular Karachi school? And what about the over-crowded classrooms, often incompetent teachers, and skyrocketing school fees? Of course, not always the scenario is so grave, and is not my intention to talk about the badness of the schooling system or to undermine the validity of education as such. My aim is to invite you, as parents, to consider the benefits your children and you might reap by opening your minds to a possible alternative – home-based education or, in other words, homeschooling.
In his book “How Children Learn,” John Holt (1927-1985), a leading American educational and social critic, offers meaningful insights into the delicate and unique ways young children acquire knowledge about the surrounding world:
“The child is curious. He wants to make sense out of things, find out how things work, gain competence and control over himself and his environment, and do what he can see other people doing. He is open, perceptive, and experimental. He does not merely observe the world around him. He does not shut himself off from the strange, complicated world around him, but tastes it, touches it, hefts it, bends it, breaks it. To find out how reality works, he works on it. He is bold. He is not afraid of making mistakes. And he is patient. He can tolerate an extraordinary amount of uncertainty, confusion, ignorance, and suspense… School is not a place that gives much time or opportunity, or reward for this kind of thinking and learning.”
“It is before they get to school that children are likely to do their best learning. (…) I believe, and try to show here, that in most situations our minds work best, when we use them in a certain way, and that young children tend to learn better than grownups (and better than they themselves will when they are older), because they use their minds in a special way. In short, children have a style of learning that fits their condition, and which they use naturally and well until we train them out of it. We like to say that we send children to school to teach them to think. What we do, all too often, is to teach them to think badly, to give up a natural and powerful way of thinking in favor of a method that does not work well for them and that we rarely use ourselves.”
If we have felt confident enough about teaching to our child such essential skills as walking and talking, then why all of a sudden is it that we feel obliged to hand over our offspring to the schooling system for his further education? Aren’t we, as parents, more aware about the abilities and learning style of our child than the class-teacher, who has to attend to the needs of more than a dozen at once? Will Allah question us or that class-teacher about the upbringing of this child?
Every child is special in his very own way, and often the schooling system tends to become a melting-pot stripping him of his natural inquisitiveness and love for learning, in order to force down his throat over-seasoned with facts textbooks prepared by wise grownups, who claim to know best, how he should develop into a socially-responsible individual with a well-rounded personality. Why don’t we, as parents, claim our right of being the most important people in the life of our child?
Allah has ordained us to seek knowledge throughout our lives but has not put on us any restrictions regarding the ways and means it should be done (with the exception of getting involved in Haram, of course). However, Islam does single out parents, especially the mother, as the responsible for good upbringing of the child.
Home-based education and caring family involvement give the child numerous benefits. Parents have the opportunity to create a unique curriculum for their child, focusing on the areas of his interests and emphasizing the Islamic aspect of every subject. Lessons can easily be adapted to the learning speed of the child, slowing down or speeding up, when necessary. No classroom stress, no bullying, no peer-pressure. If the child ‘calls in sick’ some morning, the day can quickly turn into a crafts project or any other activity your child particularly enjoys.
The time children spend with us, parents, is very short, if we compare it to the years they will spend on their own in the world of grownups. This short time is our opportunity to give them our best for enabling them to make the right choices in their further lives.
It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (saw) said: “Beware, every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock. (…) A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shall be questioned about them (as to how he looked after their physical and moral well-being). A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them (as to how she managed the household and brought up the children). (…) Beware, every one of you is a guardian and every one of you shall be questioned with regard to his trust.” (Muslim: Book 20 #4496)
“What we want to see is the child in pursuit of knowledge, not knowledge in pursuit of the child.” (George Bernard Shaw)
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=309&Itemid=125
ceturtdiena, 2010. gada 29. aprīlis
Happy Valentine's Day?
Drīzumā tulkošu šo rakstu latviski un tad ievietošu šeit latvisko versiju, inša Allāh.
Up till my late teens, Valentine’s Day was a stranger to me – I had never seen it, never heard of it. Growing up under the Soviet regime, I was ‘programmed’ to know only the Soviet holidays, see only the Soviet cartoons and learn history only from the Soviet perspective. Although this locked-in environment of communism had disadvantages, through years I’ve come to appreciate its strictness and sober moral norms, as they saved a good portion of my childhood innocence.
I came to know the Valentine’s Day through the several times I went for studies to America. Coming from a country, which had just shaken off the chains of the communist regime, I found America with its pompous culture of exaggerated celebrations as quite alien to me. I felt somewhat lost in the dating culture tension of high school life and the many high school dances, in which only ‘couples’ were allowed. “Sweethearts Dance” for celebrating the Valentine’s Day was pretty much about showing off to the rest of the school that your ‘special person’, who was your date for the evening. All the talks of celebrating the beauty of love faded into the background of plain and straight-forward propaganda of teenage dating culture.
Later, during the years of my university studies, I learned yet new angles of what Valentine’s Day means for common Americans. Living in Minneapolis, which has “The Mall of America” (the biggest shopping mall in the country), I could very clearly see, how businesses are cashing in big time on people’s romantic feelings of love. Sasha, my exchange student friend from Russia, who was working at “The Mall”, honestly admitted that the holiday seasons are a nightmare for her. Be it Easter, Christmas or Valentine’s Day, the whole mall was transforming into a money sucking machine, mesmerizing the unaware customers with Christmas trees, eggs, bunnies, hearts and the music of the season into opening their wallets for the sake of… spending money, of course! If for customers the red hearts and love songs added a pleasant touch to their Valentine’s Day’s shopping spree, then in Sasha such daily diet created a clear aversion.
My American roommate Sarah, a graduate student of sociology, quite shocked me with her perception of what Valentine’s Day could be about. One day, as we were sitting and talking in our living-room, she showed me some booklets on ‘safe’ sex and said that she would mail them as the Valentine’s Day present to her niece, who had just entered her teens. “Nobody else is going to tell her about this anyway, so I thought I should help her out,” was Sarah’s rationale behind this her intention. I found it hard to believe my own ears. So I learned that Valentine’s Day can also be about promoting the responsibility and commitment free partnerships.
However, the hardest I was hit by the reality of this partnership culture through my other roommate Cathy, a Ph.D. student of geophysics. Cathy was a very bright student, but she had some psychological issues and was on daily anti-depressant drugs. For most of the January university vocation that year, I was out of the country, so I was unaware of what was going on in her life. One evening, just a few days after I returned, Cathy came to me with a bottle of medicines in her hand and asked me to count, how many pills were left in there. After I counted, she realized that about thirty pills were missing. She told me that her boy-friend had left her and she felt so depressed that she just kept on taking these pills in attempt to calm down her emotions. Thanks God I had a driver’s license and could drive her in her own car to the nearest hospital emergency room, from where she was transferred for a few days to the psychiatric ward, because doctors had diagnosed her as attempting to commit suicide… With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, I was not ready to buy into talks of spreading love in humanity, because with my own eyes I had seen the reality of the dating culture this celebration stands for.
May be my angle on Valentine’s Day is quite an unusual one, but it is the one that I have come to experience. So whenever I hear ‘Happy Valentine’s Day!’ I feel like this sentence should end with a question mark.
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=571&Itemid=125
Up till my late teens, Valentine’s Day was a stranger to me – I had never seen it, never heard of it. Growing up under the Soviet regime, I was ‘programmed’ to know only the Soviet holidays, see only the Soviet cartoons and learn history only from the Soviet perspective. Although this locked-in environment of communism had disadvantages, through years I’ve come to appreciate its strictness and sober moral norms, as they saved a good portion of my childhood innocence.
I came to know the Valentine’s Day through the several times I went for studies to America. Coming from a country, which had just shaken off the chains of the communist regime, I found America with its pompous culture of exaggerated celebrations as quite alien to me. I felt somewhat lost in the dating culture tension of high school life and the many high school dances, in which only ‘couples’ were allowed. “Sweethearts Dance” for celebrating the Valentine’s Day was pretty much about showing off to the rest of the school that your ‘special person’, who was your date for the evening. All the talks of celebrating the beauty of love faded into the background of plain and straight-forward propaganda of teenage dating culture.
Later, during the years of my university studies, I learned yet new angles of what Valentine’s Day means for common Americans. Living in Minneapolis, which has “The Mall of America” (the biggest shopping mall in the country), I could very clearly see, how businesses are cashing in big time on people’s romantic feelings of love. Sasha, my exchange student friend from Russia, who was working at “The Mall”, honestly admitted that the holiday seasons are a nightmare for her. Be it Easter, Christmas or Valentine’s Day, the whole mall was transforming into a money sucking machine, mesmerizing the unaware customers with Christmas trees, eggs, bunnies, hearts and the music of the season into opening their wallets for the sake of… spending money, of course! If for customers the red hearts and love songs added a pleasant touch to their Valentine’s Day’s shopping spree, then in Sasha such daily diet created a clear aversion.
My American roommate Sarah, a graduate student of sociology, quite shocked me with her perception of what Valentine’s Day could be about. One day, as we were sitting and talking in our living-room, she showed me some booklets on ‘safe’ sex and said that she would mail them as the Valentine’s Day present to her niece, who had just entered her teens. “Nobody else is going to tell her about this anyway, so I thought I should help her out,” was Sarah’s rationale behind this her intention. I found it hard to believe my own ears. So I learned that Valentine’s Day can also be about promoting the responsibility and commitment free partnerships.
However, the hardest I was hit by the reality of this partnership culture through my other roommate Cathy, a Ph.D. student of geophysics. Cathy was a very bright student, but she had some psychological issues and was on daily anti-depressant drugs. For most of the January university vocation that year, I was out of the country, so I was unaware of what was going on in her life. One evening, just a few days after I returned, Cathy came to me with a bottle of medicines in her hand and asked me to count, how many pills were left in there. After I counted, she realized that about thirty pills were missing. She told me that her boy-friend had left her and she felt so depressed that she just kept on taking these pills in attempt to calm down her emotions. Thanks God I had a driver’s license and could drive her in her own car to the nearest hospital emergency room, from where she was transferred for a few days to the psychiatric ward, because doctors had diagnosed her as attempting to commit suicide… With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, I was not ready to buy into talks of spreading love in humanity, because with my own eyes I had seen the reality of the dating culture this celebration stands for.
May be my angle on Valentine’s Day is quite an unusual one, but it is the one that I have come to experience. So whenever I hear ‘Happy Valentine’s Day!’ I feel like this sentence should end with a question mark.
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=571&Itemid=125
Modernity for Young Muslim Women
Drīzumā šo rakstu tulkošu latviski un tad šo aizvietošu ar latvisko versiju, inša Allāh.
The place of modernity in Islam is a controversial issue, which often divides Muslims into those, who condemn anything modern as incompatible with the ethos of Islam, and those, who claim that Muslims must embrace the modernity in order to survive and grow.
Being a Muslim woman, I am faced with the same question of modernity. However, for me, as a convert Muslim, this question takes on new dimensions, because I stepped into Islam right out of the same western modernity.
In order to address the dilemma of modernity for Muslim women, it is first necessary to define what modernity is. For society in general, modernity means progress, advancement of technology, raise of secularism, and emphasis on reason and free will. For women in particular, modernity holds liberation and equality.
For western women, liberation and equality essentially means exercising the same social, legal, and personal rights as men are enjoying. The history of the first modern western woman dates back to the 1920s in the US, when American women got their right to vote, asserted their presence in the society by stepping out of their homes, and gradually began breaking the taboos their mothers hardly dared to talk about. During these years, the American women (who were more advanced than their European counterparts) discovered their sexuality and began insisting on the same freedoms as men in choosing their personal habits, including smoking, drinking, dancing, and even wearing provocative for those times bathing suits.
What can modernity offer to a Muslim woman? Basically the same – liberation and equality. How so? Modernity doesn’t necessarily have to be defined from a single western perspective only. The truth is that women’s liberation movement didn’t begin at the end of the nineteenth century, as western historians claim. Its roots can be traced back to the seventh century – the time of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Many Muslim women don’t realize that Islam upgraded their status equal to that of men’s about 1400 years ago – the Quran clearly states that men and women are equal in whatever deeds they do. (An-Nahl 16:97, Al-Ahzab 33:35) It is important, however, to understand the distinctions that Islam makes between genders.
“The rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two quite different things. This difference is understandable because man and woman are not identical but they are created equals. Equality is desirable, just, fair; but sameness is not. With this distinction in mind, there is no room to imagine that woman is inferior to man. There is no ground to assume that she is less important than he, just because her rights are not identically the same as his. Had her status been identical with his, she would have been simply a duplicate of him, which she is not. The fact that Islam gives her equal rights – but not identical – shows that it takes her into due consideration, acknowledges her, and recognizes her independent personality.” (Abdul-Ati)
I personally feel that the true liberation for Muslim women lies in recognizing the temporary nature of this world – we will meet Allah (swt) and face the actual reality of life only after our worldly death. This intellectual freedom raises Muslim women above the mundane ‘freedoms’ western women so persistently struggle for – we submit to nothing and none but Allah (swt) and His teachings. Thus, with a complete peace of mind we can enjoy the equality with men granted to us by Allah (swt), not worrying about being the same with them.
Have I betrayed the female sex by converting to Islam or have I become any less modern than other western women? My answer is a definite ‘no.’
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=125
The place of modernity in Islam is a controversial issue, which often divides Muslims into those, who condemn anything modern as incompatible with the ethos of Islam, and those, who claim that Muslims must embrace the modernity in order to survive and grow.
Being a Muslim woman, I am faced with the same question of modernity. However, for me, as a convert Muslim, this question takes on new dimensions, because I stepped into Islam right out of the same western modernity.
In order to address the dilemma of modernity for Muslim women, it is first necessary to define what modernity is. For society in general, modernity means progress, advancement of technology, raise of secularism, and emphasis on reason and free will. For women in particular, modernity holds liberation and equality.
For western women, liberation and equality essentially means exercising the same social, legal, and personal rights as men are enjoying. The history of the first modern western woman dates back to the 1920s in the US, when American women got their right to vote, asserted their presence in the society by stepping out of their homes, and gradually began breaking the taboos their mothers hardly dared to talk about. During these years, the American women (who were more advanced than their European counterparts) discovered their sexuality and began insisting on the same freedoms as men in choosing their personal habits, including smoking, drinking, dancing, and even wearing provocative for those times bathing suits.
What can modernity offer to a Muslim woman? Basically the same – liberation and equality. How so? Modernity doesn’t necessarily have to be defined from a single western perspective only. The truth is that women’s liberation movement didn’t begin at the end of the nineteenth century, as western historians claim. Its roots can be traced back to the seventh century – the time of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Many Muslim women don’t realize that Islam upgraded their status equal to that of men’s about 1400 years ago – the Quran clearly states that men and women are equal in whatever deeds they do. (An-Nahl 16:97, Al-Ahzab 33:35) It is important, however, to understand the distinctions that Islam makes between genders.
“The rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two quite different things. This difference is understandable because man and woman are not identical but they are created equals. Equality is desirable, just, fair; but sameness is not. With this distinction in mind, there is no room to imagine that woman is inferior to man. There is no ground to assume that she is less important than he, just because her rights are not identically the same as his. Had her status been identical with his, she would have been simply a duplicate of him, which she is not. The fact that Islam gives her equal rights – but not identical – shows that it takes her into due consideration, acknowledges her, and recognizes her independent personality.” (Abdul-Ati)
I personally feel that the true liberation for Muslim women lies in recognizing the temporary nature of this world – we will meet Allah (swt) and face the actual reality of life only after our worldly death. This intellectual freedom raises Muslim women above the mundane ‘freedoms’ western women so persistently struggle for – we submit to nothing and none but Allah (swt) and His teachings. Thus, with a complete peace of mind we can enjoy the equality with men granted to us by Allah (swt), not worrying about being the same with them.
Have I betrayed the female sex by converting to Islam or have I become any less modern than other western women? My answer is a definite ‘no.’
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=125
Death of a Non-Muslim Relative
Drīzumā tulkošu šo tekstu latviski un tad šo aizvietošu ar latviešu versiju, inša Allāh.
When my father, who was a non-Muslim, passed away a couple years ago, I was faced with the question of what I, as a Muslim, should and am allowed to do in such a situation. What are my responsibilities towards my deceased non-Muslim father? Can I attend his funeral? Can I pray for him? Can I visit his grave? Am I eligible to receive inheritance from him? Thoroughly researching the rulings regarding the burial and funerals of non-Muslims, I got my answers.
Responsibilities of a Muslim towards Non-Muslim Parents
Islam encourages Muslims to strengthen the ties of kinship with both Muslim and non-Muslim relatives. In fact, being dutiful to one’s parents, no matter what religion they belong to, is placed in the Quran right next after worshiping Allah (swt): “And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents...” (Al-Isra’, 17:23)
Since dutifulness to parents extends beyond their death, a Muslim is allowed to participate in the funeral and burial of non-Muslim parents / relatives.
Zakariya al-Ansaari said: “He may (i.e., it is allowed for a Muslim and is not Makrooh) attend the funeral of a Kaafir relative, because of the report narrated by Abu Dawood from Ali who said: ‘When Abu Taalib died, I came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: ‘Your uncle, the misguided old man, has died.’ He said: ‘Go and bury him.’” (Al-Nisaa’i, 190)
There are, however, certain restrictions on the involvement of a Muslim in the funeral and burial procedures.
Burying Non-Muslim Relatives
According to Sheikh Al-Albani, a Muslim is allowed to take care of the burial of his non-Muslim parents/ relatives; however, this does not cancel out the hatred a Muslim should feel towards their Shirk. Further, a disbeliever can neither be buried in a Muslim graveyard (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/10), nor prepared for the burial according to Islamic rites: he should not be washed or shrouded, and no prayer should be offered over him (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/14).
From the earlier mentioned Hadeeth, in which the Prophet (saw) permits Ali to go and burry Abu Taalib, Sheikh Al-Albani concludes that if it were permissible for a Muslim to burry a non-Muslim according to Islamic rites, then the Prophet (saw) would have told Ali to do so, “because it is well known that it is not permitted for the Prophet (saw) to delay explaining something at the time, when that information is needed.”
Although it is permitted for a Muslim to burry a non-Muslim relative, Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/10, suggests that, when possible, it is better to avoid doing it: “If there are people among the Kuffaar, who can bury their own dead, then the Muslims should not bury them, or join the Kuffaar and help them to bury them, or try to please the Kuffaar by joining the funeral procession, even if this is a political practice.”
Attending Funeral and Burial
According to Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, it is permissible for a Muslim to attend the funeral and burial of a non-Muslim relative. However, Muslims are restricted from participating in prayers or any other burial rites of other religions. Likewise, attending of the funeral should not involve anything Haram, such as listening to musical instruments and so on.
When attending the funeral and burial of a non-Muslim relative, the right intention for a Muslim to have is that of carrying out the duty of kindness to his deceased relative, sharing the misfortune with the family and strengthening the good relationships with the rest of the kin.
However, special restriction has been placed on attending the funeral of a hypocrite. The Quran directs the Prophet (saw) not to pray for the hypocrites and the rebellious against Islam and not to stand at their graves: “And never (O Muhammad (saw)) pray (funeral prayer) for any of them (hypocrites) who dies, nor stand at his grave. Certainly they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and died while they were Fasiqun (rebellious, — disobedient to Allah and His Messenger).” (At-Taubah, 9:84)
Praying for the Deceased and Visiting the Grave
Although in times of sorrow it might be extremely difficult and heart-wrecking to accept this, the Quran gives a straight forward order not to pray for the forgiveness of deceased disbelievers, even if they are close of kin:
“It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those how believe to ask Allah’s Forgiveness for the Mushrikin (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in a state of disbelief).” (At-Taubah, 9:113)
A Hadeeth shows that even the Prophet (saw) himself was not given permission to pray for forgiveness of his mother, although he was allowed to visit her grave. Abu Hurayrah (rtam) has reported: “The Prophet (saw) visited the grave of his mother, and he wept and those, who were with him, wept. Then he said: ‘I asked my Lord for permission to pray for forgiveness for her, and He did not grant me permission to do that, and I asked Him for permission to visit her grave, and He gave me permission. So visit the graves, for they are a reminder of death.’” (Narrated by Muslim, 3/65; Abu Dawood, 2/72; al-Nasaa’i, 1/286; also by Ibn Maajah, al-Haakim, al-Bayhaqi and Ahmad)
The above Hadeeth also indicates the reason for visiting graves – to be reminded of death. To this, Sheikh Al-Albani adds that visiting the graves of non-Muslims should be done with the purpose of learning a lesson. Al-Albani says that non-Muslim dwellers of the grave should not be greeted with Salam and should not be prayed for; instead, they should be given the tidings of Hell.
The evidence for that is the Hadeeth of Sad ibn Abi Waqqasm who said: “A Bedouin came to the Prophet (saw) and said: ‘My father used to uphold the ties of kinship, and so on and so forth - where is he now?’ He said: ‘In Hell.’ The Bedouin got upset and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, where is your father?’ He said: ‘Whenever you pass by the grave of a Kaafir, give him the tidings of Hell.’ The Bedouin later became a Muslim, and he said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave me a difficult commission. Whenever I pass by the grave of a Kaafir, I give him the tidings of Hell.’” (Narrated by al-Tabaraani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, 1/191; Ibn al-Sunni in ‘Aml al-Yawm wa’l-Laylah, 588; al-Diyaa’ al-Maqdisi in al-Ahaadeeth al-Mukhtaarah, with a Saheeh Isnaad. Al-Haythami (1/117-118) said: it was narrated by al-Bazzaar and by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, and the men of its Isnaad are sound.)
Inheriting from a Non-Muslim Relative
Another important matter to consider is the question of inheritance. The general rule is that a Muslim does not inherit from an unbeliever. Usamah bin Zayd related that the Prophet (saw) said: “The Muslim does not inherit from the unbeliever, and the unbeliever does not inherit from the Muslim.” (Bukhari, 6383; Muslim, 1614)
However, the Scientific Research Committee (IslamToday.net) has given a verdict that if a non-Muslim father has left a will, in which he specifies inheritance for his Muslim child, then the child is eligible to “receive up to one-third of the estate (33,3 %), since this is the amount of a person’s estate that he can bequeath to non-inheritors”. If, however, the percentage the non-Muslim father has specified in his will exceeds that, then the Muslim child “will not be permitted to accept this excess without the express permission of the other inheritors”.
The best we can do for our non-Muslim relatives is to share with them the teachings of Islam, before they reach the point of no return. One short sentence of Shahadah can make the difference for their entire eternity. We should earnestly pray to Allah (swt) to guide them to the Straight Path during their lifetime, for Allah (swt) Alone can guide a soul to the truth.
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=17&id=204&Itemid=307
When my father, who was a non-Muslim, passed away a couple years ago, I was faced with the question of what I, as a Muslim, should and am allowed to do in such a situation. What are my responsibilities towards my deceased non-Muslim father? Can I attend his funeral? Can I pray for him? Can I visit his grave? Am I eligible to receive inheritance from him? Thoroughly researching the rulings regarding the burial and funerals of non-Muslims, I got my answers.
Responsibilities of a Muslim towards Non-Muslim Parents
Islam encourages Muslims to strengthen the ties of kinship with both Muslim and non-Muslim relatives. In fact, being dutiful to one’s parents, no matter what religion they belong to, is placed in the Quran right next after worshiping Allah (swt): “And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents...” (Al-Isra’, 17:23)
Since dutifulness to parents extends beyond their death, a Muslim is allowed to participate in the funeral and burial of non-Muslim parents / relatives.
Zakariya al-Ansaari said: “He may (i.e., it is allowed for a Muslim and is not Makrooh) attend the funeral of a Kaafir relative, because of the report narrated by Abu Dawood from Ali who said: ‘When Abu Taalib died, I came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: ‘Your uncle, the misguided old man, has died.’ He said: ‘Go and bury him.’” (Al-Nisaa’i, 190)
There are, however, certain restrictions on the involvement of a Muslim in the funeral and burial procedures.
Burying Non-Muslim Relatives
According to Sheikh Al-Albani, a Muslim is allowed to take care of the burial of his non-Muslim parents/ relatives; however, this does not cancel out the hatred a Muslim should feel towards their Shirk. Further, a disbeliever can neither be buried in a Muslim graveyard (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/10), nor prepared for the burial according to Islamic rites: he should not be washed or shrouded, and no prayer should be offered over him (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/14).
From the earlier mentioned Hadeeth, in which the Prophet (saw) permits Ali to go and burry Abu Taalib, Sheikh Al-Albani concludes that if it were permissible for a Muslim to burry a non-Muslim according to Islamic rites, then the Prophet (saw) would have told Ali to do so, “because it is well known that it is not permitted for the Prophet (saw) to delay explaining something at the time, when that information is needed.”
Although it is permitted for a Muslim to burry a non-Muslim relative, Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/10, suggests that, when possible, it is better to avoid doing it: “If there are people among the Kuffaar, who can bury their own dead, then the Muslims should not bury them, or join the Kuffaar and help them to bury them, or try to please the Kuffaar by joining the funeral procession, even if this is a political practice.”
Attending Funeral and Burial
According to Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, it is permissible for a Muslim to attend the funeral and burial of a non-Muslim relative. However, Muslims are restricted from participating in prayers or any other burial rites of other religions. Likewise, attending of the funeral should not involve anything Haram, such as listening to musical instruments and so on.
When attending the funeral and burial of a non-Muslim relative, the right intention for a Muslim to have is that of carrying out the duty of kindness to his deceased relative, sharing the misfortune with the family and strengthening the good relationships with the rest of the kin.
However, special restriction has been placed on attending the funeral of a hypocrite. The Quran directs the Prophet (saw) not to pray for the hypocrites and the rebellious against Islam and not to stand at their graves: “And never (O Muhammad (saw)) pray (funeral prayer) for any of them (hypocrites) who dies, nor stand at his grave. Certainly they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and died while they were Fasiqun (rebellious, — disobedient to Allah and His Messenger).” (At-Taubah, 9:84)
Praying for the Deceased and Visiting the Grave
Although in times of sorrow it might be extremely difficult and heart-wrecking to accept this, the Quran gives a straight forward order not to pray for the forgiveness of deceased disbelievers, even if they are close of kin:
“It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those how believe to ask Allah’s Forgiveness for the Mushrikin (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in a state of disbelief).” (At-Taubah, 9:113)
A Hadeeth shows that even the Prophet (saw) himself was not given permission to pray for forgiveness of his mother, although he was allowed to visit her grave. Abu Hurayrah (rtam) has reported: “The Prophet (saw) visited the grave of his mother, and he wept and those, who were with him, wept. Then he said: ‘I asked my Lord for permission to pray for forgiveness for her, and He did not grant me permission to do that, and I asked Him for permission to visit her grave, and He gave me permission. So visit the graves, for they are a reminder of death.’” (Narrated by Muslim, 3/65; Abu Dawood, 2/72; al-Nasaa’i, 1/286; also by Ibn Maajah, al-Haakim, al-Bayhaqi and Ahmad)
The above Hadeeth also indicates the reason for visiting graves – to be reminded of death. To this, Sheikh Al-Albani adds that visiting the graves of non-Muslims should be done with the purpose of learning a lesson. Al-Albani says that non-Muslim dwellers of the grave should not be greeted with Salam and should not be prayed for; instead, they should be given the tidings of Hell.
The evidence for that is the Hadeeth of Sad ibn Abi Waqqasm who said: “A Bedouin came to the Prophet (saw) and said: ‘My father used to uphold the ties of kinship, and so on and so forth - where is he now?’ He said: ‘In Hell.’ The Bedouin got upset and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, where is your father?’ He said: ‘Whenever you pass by the grave of a Kaafir, give him the tidings of Hell.’ The Bedouin later became a Muslim, and he said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) gave me a difficult commission. Whenever I pass by the grave of a Kaafir, I give him the tidings of Hell.’” (Narrated by al-Tabaraani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, 1/191; Ibn al-Sunni in ‘Aml al-Yawm wa’l-Laylah, 588; al-Diyaa’ al-Maqdisi in al-Ahaadeeth al-Mukhtaarah, with a Saheeh Isnaad. Al-Haythami (1/117-118) said: it was narrated by al-Bazzaar and by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, and the men of its Isnaad are sound.)
Inheriting from a Non-Muslim Relative
Another important matter to consider is the question of inheritance. The general rule is that a Muslim does not inherit from an unbeliever. Usamah bin Zayd related that the Prophet (saw) said: “The Muslim does not inherit from the unbeliever, and the unbeliever does not inherit from the Muslim.” (Bukhari, 6383; Muslim, 1614)
However, the Scientific Research Committee (IslamToday.net) has given a verdict that if a non-Muslim father has left a will, in which he specifies inheritance for his Muslim child, then the child is eligible to “receive up to one-third of the estate (33,3 %), since this is the amount of a person’s estate that he can bequeath to non-inheritors”. If, however, the percentage the non-Muslim father has specified in his will exceeds that, then the Muslim child “will not be permitted to accept this excess without the express permission of the other inheritors”.
The best we can do for our non-Muslim relatives is to share with them the teachings of Islam, before they reach the point of no return. One short sentence of Shahadah can make the difference for their entire eternity. We should earnestly pray to Allah (swt) to guide them to the Straight Path during their lifetime, for Allah (swt) Alone can guide a soul to the truth.
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=17&id=204&Itemid=307
trešdiena, 2010. gada 28. aprīlis
Fitrah: Your Disposition Towards Virtue
Drīzumā šo rakstu iztulkošu un šī vietā ievietošu latviešu versiju, inša Allāh.
Your foot slipped and you ended up with another sin on your deeds account. “Can’t really help it,” you say, “I’m just a sinful human being – unable to resist temptations.” But is the case really as simple as it appears? Are we really doomed to stumble from sin to sin, writing it off to the weakness and imperfection of human nature and our inclination towards the sin?
At times even without being aware of it, many Muslims have unduly succumbed to the Christian idea of inherent sinfulness of human nature, the history of which reaches back to the Fall of Adam in Paradise. According to the Christian version of the story, Adam’s disobedience stripped him of the original perfection Allah (swt) had created him with, and along with Adam, the whole of the human race was plunged into ruin and has since been in bondage to sin. Thus, according to this doctrine of original sin, every child is born in sin and in an impure state – unable of himself to do good, please God or gain salvation. It is through the Christ’s obedience and his sacrifice on the cross (where he suffered and died for all the sins of the whole mankind) that Christians are restored to their original perfection. Salvation for Christians is based on the faith in this sacrifice of Christ.
In contrast, for Muslims it is inconceivable that any person should be punished for the sins committed by others. In Islam, every human being is responsible in front of Allah (swt) for his/her own deeds. Thus, salvation in Islam depends on both faith (Imaan) and good conduct (Ihsaan).
Christianity and Islam differ also on the notion of the inherent human nature. If Christians believe that every person is born in an impure state, then Islam advocates just the opposite – every child is born in a state of Fitrah – natural purity and original goodness, which inclines a person towards right actions and submission to Allah (swt). Fitrah is our inherent disposition towards virtue, which endows us with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
Abu Hurairah (rtam) has narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “Every child is born on Al-Fitrah [true faith of Islamic Monotheism (i.e., to worship none but Allah Alone)], but his parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity or Magianism, as an animal gives birth to a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?” (Bukhari)
Islam recognizes that all children, no matter if they are born to Muslim or non-Muslim parents, possess this original state of Fitrah, and if they die before attaining maturity, they go to Paradise. As the above Hadeeth states, it is the social circumstances after the birth that cause the child to diverge from Fitrah. Thus, if someone follows the wrong path, it is not because something is wrong with his/her innate nature, but because of the negative effects of social circumstances and the emergence of the person’s own Nafs (desires) after the birth.
Allah (swt) has not left us helpless in front of our Nafs. Tawbah or repentance has a very significant role in a Muslim’s life. Although we are born in a state of original goodness, all of us are subject to temptations. Allah (swt) has given us the ability and opportunity to repent from our sins, which means that we are able to admit our errors and turn away from them towards Allah (swt). Awareness of the divine mercy of Allah (swt) and our own predisposition towards virtue gives us hope of salvation and increases our confidence about our own potential to do right and resist wrong. Instead of complaining about the flaws in our nature, we should stand firm on our Fitrah, resist temptations of Shaitan and turn our faces towards Allah (swt).
“So set you (O Muhammad (saw)) your face towards the religion (of pure Islamic Monotheism) Hanif (worship none but Allah Alone). Allah’s Fitrah (i.e., Allah’s Islamic Monotheism) with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalq-illah (i.e., the religion of Allah – Islamic Monotheism); that is the straight religion, but most of men know not.” (Ar-Rum, 30:30)
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=600&Itemid=125
Your foot slipped and you ended up with another sin on your deeds account. “Can’t really help it,” you say, “I’m just a sinful human being – unable to resist temptations.” But is the case really as simple as it appears? Are we really doomed to stumble from sin to sin, writing it off to the weakness and imperfection of human nature and our inclination towards the sin?
At times even without being aware of it, many Muslims have unduly succumbed to the Christian idea of inherent sinfulness of human nature, the history of which reaches back to the Fall of Adam in Paradise. According to the Christian version of the story, Adam’s disobedience stripped him of the original perfection Allah (swt) had created him with, and along with Adam, the whole of the human race was plunged into ruin and has since been in bondage to sin. Thus, according to this doctrine of original sin, every child is born in sin and in an impure state – unable of himself to do good, please God or gain salvation. It is through the Christ’s obedience and his sacrifice on the cross (where he suffered and died for all the sins of the whole mankind) that Christians are restored to their original perfection. Salvation for Christians is based on the faith in this sacrifice of Christ.
In contrast, for Muslims it is inconceivable that any person should be punished for the sins committed by others. In Islam, every human being is responsible in front of Allah (swt) for his/her own deeds. Thus, salvation in Islam depends on both faith (Imaan) and good conduct (Ihsaan).
Christianity and Islam differ also on the notion of the inherent human nature. If Christians believe that every person is born in an impure state, then Islam advocates just the opposite – every child is born in a state of Fitrah – natural purity and original goodness, which inclines a person towards right actions and submission to Allah (swt). Fitrah is our inherent disposition towards virtue, which endows us with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
Abu Hurairah (rtam) has narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “Every child is born on Al-Fitrah [true faith of Islamic Monotheism (i.e., to worship none but Allah Alone)], but his parents convert him to Judaism or Christianity or Magianism, as an animal gives birth to a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?” (Bukhari)
Islam recognizes that all children, no matter if they are born to Muslim or non-Muslim parents, possess this original state of Fitrah, and if they die before attaining maturity, they go to Paradise. As the above Hadeeth states, it is the social circumstances after the birth that cause the child to diverge from Fitrah. Thus, if someone follows the wrong path, it is not because something is wrong with his/her innate nature, but because of the negative effects of social circumstances and the emergence of the person’s own Nafs (desires) after the birth.
Allah (swt) has not left us helpless in front of our Nafs. Tawbah or repentance has a very significant role in a Muslim’s life. Although we are born in a state of original goodness, all of us are subject to temptations. Allah (swt) has given us the ability and opportunity to repent from our sins, which means that we are able to admit our errors and turn away from them towards Allah (swt). Awareness of the divine mercy of Allah (swt) and our own predisposition towards virtue gives us hope of salvation and increases our confidence about our own potential to do right and resist wrong. Instead of complaining about the flaws in our nature, we should stand firm on our Fitrah, resist temptations of Shaitan and turn our faces towards Allah (swt).
“So set you (O Muhammad (saw)) your face towards the religion (of pure Islamic Monotheism) Hanif (worship none but Allah Alone). Allah’s Fitrah (i.e., Allah’s Islamic Monotheism) with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalq-illah (i.e., the religion of Allah – Islamic Monotheism); that is the straight religion, but most of men know not.” (Ar-Rum, 30:30)
Avots: http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=600&Itemid=125
War in Monotheistic Religions: Judaism
Drīzumā rakstu iztulkošu un tad šo nomainīšu ar latviešu versiju, inša Allāh.
Throughout history, many wars have been waged with religion being their stated cause and peace as their desired outcome. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the historically and theologically related monotheistic religions, all three are dedicated to love and benevolence and yet all three at some points of history have developed concepts of war. Let us delve into the history of Judaism in search of origins of war in this religion, as defined by Karen Armstrong, a renowned modern religion scholar.
In her attempt to identify the origins of war in Judaism, Armstrong looks back at the very beginnings of Judaism - the time of prophet Abraham. In about 1850 B.C.E., he left his home in Ur of the Chaldees to set out on a journey to the land of Canaan, the modern Israel. God commanded Abraham to enter into a special covenant with Him, in return for what God would bless him - his descendants would become a great people and would be given the land of Canaan.
Among the first words that God spoke to Abraham were: “To your descendants I will give this land.” (Genesis, 12:7) Armstrong maintains that this revelation has served as basis for numerous wars fought by Jews in order to make this promise come true. Also today many Jews see this Promised Land as essential to the integrity of Judaism.
In about 1700 B.C.E., the descendants of Abraham migrated to Egypt. By 1250, their position there deteriorated to such an extent that they became slaves. At that point, God intervened and commanded prophet Moses to save his people. Through series of miracles granted by God, Moses forced the Pharaoh to let the Israelites go and then led them towards the Promised Land of Canaan. However, instead of going directly to Canaan, the Jews lived for forty years as nomads in the Sinai Peninsula. In these forty years, they learned to depend on God in all their needs, including their daily provision of food. But, most importantly, during this time, on Mount Sinai God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments, which became the basis of the Torah.
One of the Ten Commandments given to Moses was: “Thou shalt not kill.” However, points out Armstrong, as Jews got ready to enter the Promised Land, God told them that they would have to engage in a ruthless war of extermination. Although Jews believed that the land of Canaan was theirs, it was not empty – there were other people living there, who had made it their home. Canaanites were in the way of the divine plan; they were enemies of the new Jewish self. Thus, according to Armstrong, the normal human rights the Jews were commanded to observe did not apply to the Canaanites, who had become the enemies of God. Canaanites had to be exterminated. “I shall exterminate these,” God told his people, “they must not live in your country.” (Exodus, 23:23, 33)
Since the order of conquest came directly from God, we can assume that this was the first holy war ever fought. In Jewish holy war, says Armstrong, there was no peaceful coexistence, mutual respect or peace treaties – their enemies were to be fought to the death. When Jews had to establish themselves in the Promised Land, the ordinary morality did not apply.
Since Moses died before reaching the Promised Land, it was Joshua who in about 1200 B.C.E. led the Israelites into Canaan and established them there by means of a long and ruthless military campaign. He acted according to Gods command (Deuteronomy, 7:1-6) – the conquered areas were put under ban, which meant total destruction and extermination:
“When Israel finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open ground and where they had followed them into the wilderness, and when all to a man had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and slaughtered all its people. The number of those that fell that day, men and women together, was twelve thousand, all people of Ai. (...) Then Joshua burned Ai, making it a ruin for evermore, a desolate place even to this day.” (Joshua, 8:24, 25, 28)
This holy war for conquering the Promised Land continued for two hundred years, until the time of King David. His conquest of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem (around 1000 B.C.E.) departed from the practice of his predecessors – he did not massacre the Jebusites. According to Armstrong, it seemed that he wanted to make them his personal followers, since their survival totally depended on him. It was King David, who made Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom and the center of Judaism. As the history would evolve, Jerusalem would gain special significance also for Christians and Muslims.
Since the time of early history of Judaism, rabbis, the Jewish religious teachers, have defined three types of permissible wars:
1) Obligatory wars: these are commanded by God. This category includes such wars as the biblical conquest of the Canaanites.
2) Defensive wars: if Jewish people are attacked, it is obligatory upon them to defend themselves. This category includes also pre-emptive strikes, which means attacking the enemy, who is about to attack you.
3) Optional wars: these are undertaken for a good reason in cases, when no other form of negotiation has been possible.
Distinct rules of warfare have also been developed. According to Jewish tradition, before declaring a war or starting a battle, attempts have to be made for negotiating peace. Non-combatants are not to be killed intentionally and should be given the chance to leave the area, before the battle starts. However, if non-combatants intentionally stay in the area of war, then they lose the previously mentioned protection and can be killed.
Today Jews often find themselves in a tight situation regarding the ethics of warfare. They are required to find the balance between the need to wage a war and the obligation to value the human life. Since modern political situation is very complicated, there is a great debate today among the Jews, as to how apply the warfare principles defined in Torah to the current situations.
Avots: www.hibamagazine.com
Throughout history, many wars have been waged with religion being their stated cause and peace as their desired outcome. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the historically and theologically related monotheistic religions, all three are dedicated to love and benevolence and yet all three at some points of history have developed concepts of war. Let us delve into the history of Judaism in search of origins of war in this religion, as defined by Karen Armstrong, a renowned modern religion scholar.
In her attempt to identify the origins of war in Judaism, Armstrong looks back at the very beginnings of Judaism - the time of prophet Abraham. In about 1850 B.C.E., he left his home in Ur of the Chaldees to set out on a journey to the land of Canaan, the modern Israel. God commanded Abraham to enter into a special covenant with Him, in return for what God would bless him - his descendants would become a great people and would be given the land of Canaan.
Among the first words that God spoke to Abraham were: “To your descendants I will give this land.” (Genesis, 12:7) Armstrong maintains that this revelation has served as basis for numerous wars fought by Jews in order to make this promise come true. Also today many Jews see this Promised Land as essential to the integrity of Judaism.
In about 1700 B.C.E., the descendants of Abraham migrated to Egypt. By 1250, their position there deteriorated to such an extent that they became slaves. At that point, God intervened and commanded prophet Moses to save his people. Through series of miracles granted by God, Moses forced the Pharaoh to let the Israelites go and then led them towards the Promised Land of Canaan. However, instead of going directly to Canaan, the Jews lived for forty years as nomads in the Sinai Peninsula. In these forty years, they learned to depend on God in all their needs, including their daily provision of food. But, most importantly, during this time, on Mount Sinai God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments, which became the basis of the Torah.
One of the Ten Commandments given to Moses was: “Thou shalt not kill.” However, points out Armstrong, as Jews got ready to enter the Promised Land, God told them that they would have to engage in a ruthless war of extermination. Although Jews believed that the land of Canaan was theirs, it was not empty – there were other people living there, who had made it their home. Canaanites were in the way of the divine plan; they were enemies of the new Jewish self. Thus, according to Armstrong, the normal human rights the Jews were commanded to observe did not apply to the Canaanites, who had become the enemies of God. Canaanites had to be exterminated. “I shall exterminate these,” God told his people, “they must not live in your country.” (Exodus, 23:23, 33)
Since the order of conquest came directly from God, we can assume that this was the first holy war ever fought. In Jewish holy war, says Armstrong, there was no peaceful coexistence, mutual respect or peace treaties – their enemies were to be fought to the death. When Jews had to establish themselves in the Promised Land, the ordinary morality did not apply.
Since Moses died before reaching the Promised Land, it was Joshua who in about 1200 B.C.E. led the Israelites into Canaan and established them there by means of a long and ruthless military campaign. He acted according to Gods command (Deuteronomy, 7:1-6) – the conquered areas were put under ban, which meant total destruction and extermination:
“When Israel finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open ground and where they had followed them into the wilderness, and when all to a man had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and slaughtered all its people. The number of those that fell that day, men and women together, was twelve thousand, all people of Ai. (...) Then Joshua burned Ai, making it a ruin for evermore, a desolate place even to this day.” (Joshua, 8:24, 25, 28)
This holy war for conquering the Promised Land continued for two hundred years, until the time of King David. His conquest of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem (around 1000 B.C.E.) departed from the practice of his predecessors – he did not massacre the Jebusites. According to Armstrong, it seemed that he wanted to make them his personal followers, since their survival totally depended on him. It was King David, who made Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom and the center of Judaism. As the history would evolve, Jerusalem would gain special significance also for Christians and Muslims.
Since the time of early history of Judaism, rabbis, the Jewish religious teachers, have defined three types of permissible wars:
1) Obligatory wars: these are commanded by God. This category includes such wars as the biblical conquest of the Canaanites.
2) Defensive wars: if Jewish people are attacked, it is obligatory upon them to defend themselves. This category includes also pre-emptive strikes, which means attacking the enemy, who is about to attack you.
3) Optional wars: these are undertaken for a good reason in cases, when no other form of negotiation has been possible.
Distinct rules of warfare have also been developed. According to Jewish tradition, before declaring a war or starting a battle, attempts have to be made for negotiating peace. Non-combatants are not to be killed intentionally and should be given the chance to leave the area, before the battle starts. However, if non-combatants intentionally stay in the area of war, then they lose the previously mentioned protection and can be killed.
Today Jews often find themselves in a tight situation regarding the ethics of warfare. They are required to find the balance between the need to wage a war and the obligation to value the human life. Since modern political situation is very complicated, there is a great debate today among the Jews, as to how apply the warfare principles defined in Torah to the current situations.
Avots: www.hibamagazine.com
trešdiena, 2010. gada 13. janvāris
Hanifa (2010)
Šorīt viņa kārtējo reizi atnāk ar krietnu novēlošanos. Atverot vārtus, saku, ka ir ļoti vēls, uz ko viņa atbild ar kārtējo aizbildināšanos, ka bērns esot slims. Skumji to atzīt, bet esmu iemācījusies pat nejautāt pēc iemesliem, jo melošana mājkalpotāju vidū šeit ir ļoti ierasta lieta, pret kuru nezinu kā cīnīties.
Anas bin Malik ir teicis: "Es kalpoju Pravietim (saw) desmit gadus, un viņš nekad neteica uz mani 'uff' [izsauksmes vārds, kas norāda uz nepacietību] un nekad nevainoja mani, sakot 'kāpēc tu to izdarīji?' vai 'kāpēc tu to neizdarīji?' " (Bukhari)
Hanifa mazgā mūsmājās traukus nu jau vairāk kā gadu. Savulaik pie mums ir stādājušas arī viņas māte un divas māsas. Mājkalpotāju algošana Karači ir ierasta lieta jebkurā vidusslāņa gimenē, jo cīņa ar putekļiem un netīro trauku kalniem lielās gimenēs nav joka lieta.
Vēroju Hanifas darbu jau pāris nedēļas, jo neesmu ar to mierā. Zinu, ka viņa var strādāt daudz labāk. Reizēm mēginu viņai norādīt, ka krūzītēs vēl var redzēt tējas nosēdumus vai ka katlam vēl joprojām ir taukani pleķi, tomēr man nepatīk pastāvīgi stāvēt viņai aiz muguras un komentēt izdarīto, kā to bravūrīgi skaļi ikdienas dara augšstāva sievietes. Reizēm mājkalpotājas šeit kļūst par mājas sieviešu dusmu izlādes objektiem, jo, lai arī kā viņas strādātu, viņu darbs nekad nav gana labs. Nevīžīga izturēšanās pret mājkalpotājām un pastāvīga viņu bāršana daudzās gimenēs ir kļuvusi par normu. Negribu to redzēt savās mājās. Prāts nespēj aptvert, kā muslimas var tā izturēties pret savām māsām Islāmā, kurām dzīve jau tā ir uzlikusi smagu pāŗbaudījumu nastu. Bieži šīs nabadzīgās sievietes par niecīgu samaksu strādā 4 līdz 5 mājās, ikdienas mazgājot grīdas, traukus un veļu, un, pārnākot mājās, aprūpē bērnus un vīru, kurš bieži vien visu dienu ir pavadījis, kaujoties ar mušām un odiem...
Hanifa sāk virtuvē mazgāt traukus, kamēŗ es gatavoju brokastu tēju. Vēroju ar acs kaktiņu viņas darbu un redzu, ka jau atkal trauki iet caur viņas rokām zibens ātrumā un pavirši... Gribu viņai atgādināt, ka, ziepējot traukus, nevajag tecināt ūdeni, bet tomēr to neizdaru - galīgi nepatīk būt vagaram viņai aiz muguras. Apvaldos, saņemos un tā vietā apjautājos, vai arī viņa negrib tasi tējas. Protams, ka viņa grib.
Pēc tases tējas un pāris šķēlēm maizes, Hanifa pagriežas pret mani ar klusu "paldies" un smaidu uz lūpām, kas krasi kontrastē ar to smagnējo izteiksmi, kuru manīju viņas sejā, ielaižot pa vārtiem. Izrādās, ka viņa šorīt nav ēdusi brokastis. Ne katru rītu viņa sanākot pabrokastot, lai gan zem sirds nēsā savu otro bērnu.
Lai arī Hanifas darbs ne vienmēr ir gana labs un ne vienmēr viņa runā patiesību, neviens no mums nav bez vainas - katram ir savi trūkumi. Kad manī uzbango dusmas un gribas pateikt viņai kādu stiprāku vārdu, es atceros par to, kā Pravietis Muhammads (saw) izturējās pret saviem mājkalpotājiem:Anas bin Malik ir teicis: "Es kalpoju Pravietim (saw) desmit gadus, un viņš nekad neteica uz mani 'uff' [izsauksmes vārds, kas norāda uz nepacietību] un nekad nevainoja mani, sakot 'kāpēc tu to izdarīji?' vai 'kāpēc tu to neizdarīji?' " (Bukhari)
Abonēt:
Ziņas (Atom)
.jpg)