HONOUR KILLING is an extra-legal murder by the family of a person, usually a woman, who is suspected of disobedience, usually a sexual indiscretion or marriage against the family’s wishes, which is perceived to have brought shame on the family.

The Quran categorically prohibits all murders including Honour Killing

The Quran condemns all murders in the strongest possible terms (5:32, 6:151, 17:33). It categorically prohibits all homicides except for self-defence and to fight back oppression and horrendous/bloody crimes (2:11, 2:60, 2:190, 5:2, 5:32, 7:33, 7:56, 7: 74, 13:25, 16:90, 17:33, 26:151-152, 26:183, 27:48-49, 28:77, 42:42, 47:22 -23). In line with this spirit, it emphatically highlights the instruction “Do not kill” as one of the most important divine commandments (6:151-152). Thus the Quranic code of penalty is based always on an attempt to save lives, not to waste lives: You shall not kill any person – for God has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give the defender of his rights authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped. 17:33

A famous verse equates the unjust, intentional murder of a human with the murder of the whole mankind (5:32), since disregard for a single human life is disregard for human life in general as it violates the basic principle of the oneness of humanity, which is based on the oneness of God (note: “Be upright with equity, as witnesses to God’s oneness.” 5:8; cf. 5:2).

Clearly, honour killings are horrific atrocities that are instigated by family pride and tribal laws, often based on hadiths and hadith-based scholars’ opinions, though with no basis whatsoever in Islam (peace-seeking). Punishment for these killers will follow the same general rules in the Quran and would not get a lighter sentence because they are family members.

In contrast, Hadith allows and even instigates Honour Killing

Thus there is no such thing as Honour Killing in the Quran. In contrast, there are many hadiths and hadith-based scholars’ opinions¹ that give approval to Honour Killing, through the following thought process:

1. According to Hadith, a marriage remains invalid without approval of the female’s guardians

2. Thus, a woman who arranges her own marriage without her guardians’ approval commits adultery

3. But Hadith insists that adultery is a serious crime that is punishable by stoning to death

4. Then Hadith orders people to carry out legal punishments on relatives and says that no fear of blame should stop this

5. Hadith commands vigilantism against apostates and sinners and blatantly declares that such vigilantism is not punishable

Here we will quote a few examples to demonstrate how Hadith allows and even instigates Honour Killing:

1. According to Hadith, a marriage remains invalid without approval of the female’s guardians

In the Quran, ‘marriage’, or nikah, is no more than the promise of two people to stay together with love and care. Thus the only requirement for a Quran-instituted marriage is mutually respectful agreement or consent between a couple (4:19, 4:21, 4:24, 30:21), and nothing else (see What is nikah). There is no indication in the Quran whatsoever that a free, adult woman cannot marry without permission from her parents or guardians (for details, see Note 3 of Child marriage violates the Quran).

Contrary to this Quranic position, Hadith and many hadith-based scholars insist that a woman marrying without approval from her wali (guardian) does not have a valid marriage:

It was narrated from Aishah that: the Messenger of Allah said: “Any woman whose marriage is not arranged by her guardian, her marriage is invalid, her marriage is invalid, her marriage is invalid. If (the man) has had intercourse with her, then the Mahr belongs to her in return for his intimacy with her. And if there is any dispute then the ruler is the guardian of the one who does not have a guardian.” (Sahih) Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:1879 https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1879

Nevertheless, the requirement for approval from the wali of the woman in order for her marriage to be valid greatly increases the potential for shame to be cast by the community on her and her male family members if she defies their wishes.

2. Thus, a woman who arranges her own marriage without her guardians’ approval commits adultery

It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that: the Messenger of Allah said: “No woman should arrange the marriage of another woman, and no woman should arrange her own marriage. The adulteress is the one who arranges her own marriage.” Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:1882 https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1882

Evidently, such description of a relationship not approved by the guardians as ZINA or unlawful sexual intercourse fuels the risks of honour killings committed by the involved family members.

3. But Hadith insists that adultery is a serious crime that is punishable by stoning to death

Many people incorrectly believe that stoning of adulterers to death as a punishment is a Quranic requirement. In fact, it is NOT. We can find it in the Bible (Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22), though most certainly not in the Quran. Stoning of adulterers is one of those visible examples of extra-Quranic intrusions to Islam in the earlier centuries, through the backdoor of hadith hearsays, which deeply penetrated Islam in the guise of Islam and remained there unscrutinized till modern days. Here are a few related hadiths:

Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. Bukhari 5:58:188 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3849

Abu Huraira reports that a man from Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.” On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.” The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, “Are you insane?” He replied, “No.” The Prophet then said (to his companions), “Go and stone him to death.” The man was a married one. Jabir bin ‘Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla (‘Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died. Bukhari, V 7, B 63, #196 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5271

Ibn Abbas reports that ‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” Bukhari, Vol, 8, Book 82, #816; also see #817 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6829

Narrated ‘Aisha: Sad bin Abi Waqqas and ‘Abu bin Zam’a quarreled over a boy. Sad said, “O Allah’s Apostle! This boy is the son of my brother (‘Utba bin Abi Waqqas) who took a promise from me that I would take him as he was his (illegal) son. Look at him and see whom he resembles.” ‘Abu bin Zam’a said, “O Allah’s Apostle! This is my brother and was born on my father’s bed from his slave-girl.” Allah’s Apostle cast a look at the boy and found definite resemblance to ‘Utba and then said, “The boy is for you, O ‘Abu bin Zam’a. The child goes to the owner of the bed and the adulterer gets nothing but the stones (despair, i.e. to be stoned to death). Then the Prophet said, “O Sauda bint Zama! Screen yourself from this boy.” So, Sauda never saw him again. Sahih Bukhari 3:34:421 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2218

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A bedouin came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah’s Laws.” His opponent got up and said, “He is right. Judge between us according to Allah’s Laws.” The bedouin said, “My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, “Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year.” The Prophet said, “No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah’s Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile.” He then addressed somebody, “O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death” So, Unais went and stoned her to death. Sahih Bukhari 3:49:860 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2695

Aisha reports, “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5). Ibn Majah, Vol. 3, Book 9, #1944 https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1944

4. Then Hadith orders people to carry out legal punishments on relatives and says that no fear of blame should stop this

It was narrated from `Ubadah bin Samit that the Messenger of Allah said: “Carry out the legal punishments on relatives and strangers, and do not let the fear of blame stop you from carrying out the command of Allah (SWT).” (Hasan) Sunan Ibn Majah 3:20:2540 https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:2540

This hadith doesn’t even say that a judge is required to rule on the matter first.

5. Hadith commands vigilantism against apostates and sinners and blatantly declares that such vigilantism is not punishable

Vigilantism is law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people. Hadith allows and even instigates vigilantism against apostates and sinners:

Narrated ‘Ali: Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.” Sahih Bukhari 9:84:64 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6930

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4349 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4362

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace be upon him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4348 https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4361

How hadiths instigate Honour Killing 2

***********************************

Note 1

According to some hadith-inspired scholars, there should be no retaliation against parents for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring. “Who is Subject to Retaliation for Injurious Crimes. o1.1 Retaliation: Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.). o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation: 1. A child or insane person, under any circumstances; 2. A Muslim for killing a non-Muslim; 3. A Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences); 4. A father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (p. 508, o1.1-2)”.

There are hadith-inspired scholars who encourage vigilantism if there is no judge to carry out Allah’s punishments. “Defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a kind of kufr. If that is done by a Muslim then it is apostasy on his part, and the authorities have to defend the cause of Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by executing the one who defamed him. If the one who defamed him repents openly and is sincere, that will benefit him before Allaah, although his repentance does not waive the punishment for defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which is execution. If the person who defames him is a non-Muslim living under a treaty with the Muslim state, then this is a violation of the treaty and he must be executed, but that should be left to the authorities. If a Muslim hears a Christian or anyone else defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) he has to denounce him in strong terms. It is permissible to insult that person because he is the one who started it. How can we not stand up the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? It is also obligatory to report him to the authorities who can carry out the punishment on him. If there is no one who can carry out the hadd punishment of Allaah and stand up for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then the Muslim has to do whatever he can, so long as that will not lead to further mischief and harm against other people. “It is essential to respond to those who defame the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)” (archived) Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 14305.”

Siraj Islam 5:09 am on February 15, 2023

Questions and answers on Shahada

Isn’t the traditional shahada – i.e., declaration of God’s oneness and Muhammad’s messengership – the focal point of Islam?

No. The focal point of Islam is the message of ONENESS. As the formulation ‘There is no god but God’ and its equivalents, it is stated throughout the Quran most clearly and constantly, and NEVER in conjunction with another name. The first commandment of Islam has no name in it except God’s

Why do you think that shahada should contain no name other than God’s?

Shahada is simply bearing witness about God’s absolute oneness, which, by definition, cannot have any name in it except God’s. ‘La ilaha illa Allah’ is the only shahada found in the Quran; also: 22 serious reasons shahada should contain no name except God’s

But where does God prohibit adding names of humans with His name?

God has never authorized names of ‘others’ to be associated with His name. So God was not unmindful when He persistently excluded all others’ names from shahada. The Quran doesn’t authorize any added name in shahada

Yet, in matters of religion, one can show their devotion to both God and His messenger by joining them in shahada. What’s the problem in that?

Since the whole system of Islam is for God alone, and because shahada, or witnessing the Oneness, is the core of Islam, it also should be devoted to God alone. Islam revolves around Oneness and so should shahada

Why shouldn’t our declaration of faith continuously remind us of the person who reminded us of the ever-living God?

Our faith remains inconsistent and self-contradictory if, in our declaration, a dead human is constantly named and remembered along with the ever-living God as God’s human counterpart. In all service we should remember only the ever-living One who never dies

Isn’t the traditional shahada a beautiful way of showing special reverence to Muhammad, who is the leader of the messengers and also the Seal of the prophets?

It is important to remember that accepting all messengers as equal without making any distinction is one of the fundamentals of Islam. We should never favour one messenger over another. We are not allowed to make distinction between the messengers

But do we not need to bear witness about Muhammad’s messengership?

No. We are asked not to bear witness about Muhammad or any other messenger. God is enough as witness about them. God is enough as witness that Muhammad was God’s messenger

Then how do you explain that the Quran itself somewhere mentions some people witnessing Muhammad’s messengership?

The only instance in the Quran where Muhammad appears in ‘shahada’ is, ironically, a speech uttered by the hypocrites. The Quran relates this additional testimony to hypocrisy. The Quran relates the testimony ‘Muhammadur rasulullah’ to hypocrisy

Then why have we always been told that the extended shahada is an expression of your faith?

Rather than considering the added shahada as an expression of faith, the Quran describes any such extension as rejection, i.e., a deviation from the acknowledgement of God’s absolute oneness. The Quran links the added shahada to rejection

Doesn’t joining God with the messenger, who made us aware of God, increase our God-consciousness?

In reality, by associating Muhammad with God in shahada, Muhammadans somehow perceive God + Muhammad as two reciprocal halves of a divine pair and so violate the holistic awareness about God. Pairing God with Muhammad violates holistic logic

So, a true Muslim shouldn’t mention others alongside God?

Quran 39:45 presents as a CRITERION for distinguishing true Muslims from idolaters as it identifies the mentioning of OTHERS alongside God as a sign of idolatry. The Quran condemns those who mention ‘others’ with God

In your opinion, why should mentioning others alongside God be a sign of idolatry?

Associating other authorities with God creates polytheistic splitting of thoughts. This disjointed mindset or shirk is the toxic root of all evil acts and so the gravest offense in Islam. Associating sanctified creatures with God is idolatry, the gravest offense in Islam

But isn’t full shahada still important, since accepting Muhammad’s messengership is an absolute requirement to be or become a Muslim?

No. In fact, the traditional understanding that the so-called full shahada is a requirement to be or become a Muslim, seriously contradicts the central messages of the Quran. Extended shahada is not a requirement to be or become a Muslim

Yet, isn’t the traditional shahada still important, since accepting Muhammad’s messengership is essential for salvation?

No. The traditional shahada is not essential for salvation. Rather, as an act of potential association with God, it may itself become a serious obstacle to salvation. Extended shahada is not a requirement for salvation

But how can we imagine the faith system of Islam without highlighting Prophet Muhammad in its core?

Islam is peace-seeking through a continuous journeying along the path of knowledge and justice. Its faith system is not centred on the highlighting or glorification of a human. Islam is not about any particular messenger

If the extension of shahada was a deviation, why didn’t the Quran presage or warn against it?

Associating Muhammad with God in shahada, a deviation from the divine path, was something that the Quran recurrently presaged and warned against. The Quran presaged the extended shahada as deviation

In what way is the extended shahada a deviation from the divine path?

The extended shahada, with ongoing repetitions, turns Muhammad the human into a divine associate and so into a secondary authority in divine legislation, which creates false religions. Extended shahada creates false religions by inventing secondary authorities

But doesn’t the extended shahada have its basis in the Quran after all?

No. The extended shahada, not found in the Quran, has its sole basis only in baseless hadiths, or lahwaal hadeeth (31:6), as the Quran calls them. Sectarian shahada is based on baseless hadiths

What is the problem if we accept the extended shahada as found in the hadith reports?

We need to decide whether we should accept the Quranic shahada of one God or the extended shahada/s of contradictory hadiths that set up idols besides God. ‘Shahada hadiths’ are contradictory and confused

How does the extended shahada violate the monotheistic message of Islam?

As we noted, the Quran doesn’t authorize any name in shahada except God’s. Then the extended shahada evolved as a violation to this monotheistic concept. Sectarian shahada was a later invention

Didn’t the shahada, with Muhammad’s name in it, appear in the earliest Muslim records?

No. Muhammad’s name, and so the sectarian shahada, did not appear in any of these physical records any earlier than the time of 5^th Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik. Earliest ‘dated Muslim texts’ constantly remember God but never Muhammad

How do you know that the shahada as we know it today is not the same shahada known to Muslims from the earliest days of Islam?

Dated Muslim texts and coins from the earlier Islamic decades expose the devolution of the original shahada of Unity into the present day shahadatan of Duality. The dual shahada evolved in line with an increasing idolization of Muhammad

Is there any information in the Quran as to how people showed their allegiance to the Prophet during his ministry?

Yes. The Quran informs that people showed their allegiance to Muhammad by simply saying “Obedience” and then following his instructions (4:79-81). This oath of allegiance was not shahada – because those, including Jews, who pledged allegiance to Muhammad did so not as a matter of faith, but for taking sides in a time of war.

How will we announce our allegiance to Islam if we do not bear witness about Muhammad the messenger?

As Islam is a universal message for all humanity and is not a club, it doesn’t require announcing any allegiance to it. Also, since intentions are just as essential as actions (2:158), what is important is sincerity of mind, not a lip service (35:10, 29:2-3, 59:22). Moreover, because bearing witness to something without really having it witnessed is hypocrisy (61:2) – bearing witness about Muhammad is obliquely discouraged by the Quran as a sign of hypocrisy (63:1).

How do we know that, during the time of the Prophet, bearing witness about his messengership was not part of Islam?

Since the Quran confirms that hypocrites could be recognized by their bearing witness about Muhammad’s messengership, this must have differentiated them from the true Muslims who evidently felt no necessity to do it (4:79).

If the Prophet’s name is not in the shahada, how do we know who conveyed shahada to us?

The original shahada, i.e. the message of God’s oneness, was conveyed to us by all messengers.

Full shahada combines God’s oneness with Muhammad’s messengership. This combination of two sentences prevents people from idolizing Muhammad. What do you think?

If this combination was important, then why is this combination found only in hadith hearsays but altogether absent in earlier dated Muslim texts as well as in the Quran? Did God somehow forget to mention Muhammad’s name together with His name? Interestingly, the Quran effectively deals even with this particular issue as it maintains that God – who never forgets (19:64, 20:52) – is not forgetful when He repeatedly excludes Muhammad’s name from shahada: Unto Him belongs all that lies open before us and all that is hidden-from us and all that is in-between. And never does thy Sustainer forget./ The Sustainer of the Heavens and the Earth and all that is between them! Serve, then, Him alone, and remain steadfast in His service! Do you know any who can be named along with Him? 19:64-65

Without even using the word shahada, we can say that these two statements of fact – that God is the only Living Sustainer and that Muhammad is His messenger – together make another statement of fact. Do you agree?

We cannot avoid using the word ‘shahada’, because La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammadur rasulullah is simply a shorter form of Ashhadu an la Ilaha Illa Allah, ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah. Also, are you aware of the danger that in logic a combination of two statements of fact creates an association and thereby creates a qualitatively new statement which may sometimes state a lie?

Some people claim that Muhammad’s name in shahada reminds us of all previous messengers and thereby makes all messengers equal. Any thought?

This claim is dishonest and makes little sense. In fact, Muhammad was gradually added to shahada NOT to make all messengers equal, but just the opposite. This was prompted by a particular religious-political sentiment during the Umayyad period of Arab expansion, when Muhammadans were insisting on making their messenger greater than all other messengers, partly as a reaction and a propaganda effort against their Christian-Byzantine challengers.

It is sometimes argued that Muhammad’s name in the full shahada effectively covers all his previous messengers. Do you agree?

No. It is rather the opposite. Do we really remember or care about any of those poor messengers, other than Muhammad, when we recite the so-called ‘full shahada’? Evidently, when we do this special ‘favour’ to Muhammad by distinctly attaching him with God, we do detach him from all other messengers and thereby subconsciously ignore and disregard them all, though they all equally brought the same message of serving one God alone.

By extended shahada Muslims do not seclude Muhammad from other messengers. Rather it is the Jews, Christians and Munafeqeen who actually seclude him from the group of messengers. Any comment?

Sectarian shahada does seclude Muhammad from the group of Messengers, a potential reason why people who recite this shahada are idiosyncratically described by the Quran as Munafeqeen (63:1). So your third category, Munafeqeen, is interesting as it may include sectarians who base their religion on this extended shahada. If we make no discrimination (or seclusion) between messengers, then either “La Ilaha Illa Allah” alone is enough to cover witnessing all messengers or our declaration must simultaneously mention all their names, which is impossible. The Quran constantly insists that people shouldn’t bear witness about Muhammad or any other messenger, since God (“La Ilaha Illa Allah”) is enough as witness about them.

Doesn’t the special status of Muhammad among the messengers deserve special respect and remembering, which we can do through extended shahada?

Often there is no sharp borderline between reverence and veneration. Sectarian shahada positively isolates/secludes an idolized messenger from the rest of the messengers. We are not allowed to this sort of bias or extra favour, since it creates human idols. While human idols are a root cause of all conflicts and divisions – the true shahada, devoted to one God alone, helps all humanity to unify under the banner of their one Creator.

How can messengers be idols when they were sent to tell people to give up their idols?

Messengers are not idols, but they are often venerated as idols – a deviation that the Quran persistently presaged and warned against. This is an important topic in the Quran, which allegorically maintains that, on the day of judgment, the idolized messengers (witnesses) including the idolized Muhammad will be blaming their own communities about association and idolatry (2:166, 10:28-36, 11:18-21, 16:89, 19:81-82, 25:30-31, 28:62, 28:74-75, 35:13-14, 39:23-32, 41:47-48, 46:5-6).

Are you saying that traditional shahada demonstrates a common trend that associates God with human idol/s?

Yes. It has never been easy for humans to declare God’s oneness without associating with idol/s: For when it was said to them, ‘La ilaha illa Allah’, they revealed arrogance./ And said: What! Shall we give up our idols for the sake of a poet possessed? 37:35-36

Siraj Islam 8:57 am on February 6, 2023

Interfaith marriage: the Quranic position

Interfaith marriage the Quranic position

1. I would like to know your thoughts on interfaith marriage. Is it prohibited in the Quran?

Not really. There is nothing in the Quran that makes any such prohibition. This prohibition solely comes from hearsay-based consensus (ijma) of historical scholars.

2. Does the Quran prohibit a Muslim woman to marry a Christian/non-Muslim man?

No. The Quran NEVER prohibits a Muslim woman to marry a Christian or a non-Muslim man. Only a traditional, hadith-based understanding does. The Quranic position in this regard becomes obvious when we note that it clearly and unreservedly allows believers to marry “the people of the Book” (5:5). While this approval is structured in a way that addresses male listeners – which reflects the then patriarchal social reality – the fact that men can and women are not prohibited is the key which means women also can. It is because the principle of law is, everything is permissible until it is clearly forbidden. The Quran forbids forbidding anything that is not stated as forbidden. Here “the people of the Book” include Jews, Christians and, in a wider sense, all religious groups with scriptures, like Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians, as well as secular groups with inner script of conscience and scientific guidance, like agnostics and atheists. Many religious and secular communities today have books and understandings that uphold the same universal values of Deen; we should consider them all as “people of the Book”. Then we just have to trust individuals to make the best decisions for themselves.

3. But how can a Muslim be allowed to marry a non-Muslim when the latter is found to be involved in shirk and therefore is technically a mushrik?

It is important to understand that “the people of the Book” – whom believers are allowed to marry (5:5) – precisely include also the associationist Jews (9:30) and the Trinitarian Christians (note: “O People of the Book”, 4:171, cf. 9:30), though both are allegedly involved in shirk and therefore both fall into the category of mushrikeen (not al-mushrikeen of 2:221).

4. Is there any example in the Quran that a Muslim woman was married to a non-Muslim or even to a kafir?

Yes. Pharoah’s wife was a muslim who was married to a non-Muslim and at the same time also a kafir. Yet God never commanded her to divorce him. So there is no such general rule in the Quran that a muslim cannot marry, or cannot remain married to, a non-Muslim or a disbeliever. This also proves the time-bound nature of the specific war-time instructions in 60:10 when believing women refugees who left their kafir husbands were no longer lawful for one another and when believing men were asked not keep the kafir wives due to their likely association with the enemy.

5. So, can a Muslim marry a non-Muslim who is not willing to become a Muslim?

The traditional terms ‘Muslims’ and ‘non-Muslims’ are labels only. It is impossible to imagine that an infinitely just, all-wise God would descend so low to judge small humans on the basis of these small earthly labels. On the other hand, the term muslim in the Quran is not a label, but related to one’s actual, peace-making deeds. Thus, anyone from any religious or non-religious background – Hindu, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Confucian, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Agnostic and so on – whoever seeks peace by seeking knowledge and doing good work, while upholding the permanent values, is a muslim by definition and can equally attain divine grace and salvation.

6. But doesn’t the Quran prohibit interfaith marriage when 2:221 asks believers not to marry mushrikeen?

No. In this verse, the word ‘al-mushrikeen’ – whom the ‘believers’ should not marry¹ – clearly refers to a special group of polytheists, i.e., those Meccan pagans aggressively hostile to the Prophet during his ministry (2:221; cf. 2:191, 60:7-9). In addition, those specific pagans were more than mere idolaters as they had certain abhorrent, inhuman practices that they considered as requirements to worship their idols (4:119, 5:103, 24:3, 25:68, 60:12). No doubt, this time-bound definition, when considered in its correct context, cannot apply to any other group of people in any other time, including ours. In respect of today’s world situation, there is nothing in the Quran that restricts a good ‘Muslim’ to marry a good ‘non-Muslim’.

7. How do we know that mushrikeen in 2:221 refers to a special group of polytheists of that time?

Here the defining prefix ‘al’ (the) makes the word ‘al-mushrikeen’ specific, thereby referring only to a specific category of ‘mushriks’ – NOT to all mushriks. The time-bound nature of this instruction (and similar instructions, e.g. in 60:10) becomes further clear when we observe that the prohibition involves only al-mushrikeen, but not other ‘non-Muslims’ such as the People of the Book.

8. Why cannot mushrikeen here include all people of all times who are involved in shirk?

From a broader Quranic perspective, shirk is a far more complex term and most people on Earth, including those born in ‘Muslim’ families, are ‘mushrikeen’ in one way or other (12:106; cf. 39:43-45, 40:12, 39:36). So, if ‘Muslims’ are to follow the interfaith marriage rules of traditional Islam and then look for a deeper or even a general meaning of the word² ‘mushrikeen’, I doubt how many of them will be able to marry in their life.

9. What was the rationale behind this prohibition? Also, why does the verse say “Do not marry them until they believe”? Doesn’t it mean that believers in any case can only marry believers, i.e., those who openly believe in the fundamentals of Islam?

During those difficult, infantile days of Islam, the related verses were addressing some of the issues involving the camp of ‘believers’ who were fighting for self-defense in the face of relentless persecution and aggression by the camp of ‘idolaters’. In a special wartime situation like that, it was important for the sake of both security and military strategy not to marry someone from the enemy camp “until they believe”, i.e., until they openly share the same ideological cause the believers were fighting for (such as principles of oneness and social justice). While we can definitely derive some general message out of this time-bound instruction by placing it in its historical context, it will make no sense if we now try to mechanically implement it in our today’s transformed reality (by telling the non-Muslim to embrace the traditional Arab cultural religion, often by reciting the extra-Quranic shahada and, if a guy, also by circumcising!).

10. Are you saying that the Quran prohibits unsafe marriage rather than interfaith marriage?

Yes. In fact, the Quran prohibits nothing except that which may be harmful for you. At the time with all the war and persecution, believers were told to restrict themselves from marrying or befriending only those who were at war against them (60:9) – NOT those pagans who were not in any active enmity (60:8). So the sole purpose of this restriction was to improve security and to facilitate victory³. Then again, while asking the believers to remain kind to those who were not persecuting them (60:8), the Quran reassures about the strong possibility that, with changing circumstances, even the enemies too may become friends one day, when there will be LOVE between them (60:7; the same LOVE/mawadda that God ordains between spouses, 30:21; cf. 19:96). So there’s no ambiguity. We’ve taken it all out of context and placed unnecessary burdens upon ourselves. Love who you want, marry who you want, be good, be fair, be just. The Quran was brought to people by the messenger to unfetter them from blind illogical nonsensical beliefs. Anyone can marry anyone they can find happiness with. Related studies: The Quran promotes religious pluralism and When a reading of the Quran can misguide.

11. Is there any verse that says that, in peace time, a believer can marry a polytheist?

As we noted, the exact reason behind the instruction not to marry or befriend those specific Meccan pagans is precisely mentioned in the Quran as their hostility and aggression (note: Those invite to the Inferno, when God invites to the Garden. 2:221; cf. 60:9). Obviously, this prohibition ceases to exist when there is no more hostility and aggression (60:7-8). We do not require any verse for further clarification.

12. So you mean a verse like 2:221 is not applicable to us today in the same way as it was applicable to its direct listeners of the 7th century Hijaz?

No, not in the same way. We must apply our critical thinking and reasoning rather than reading a text mechanically detaching it from its context. The Quran itself confirms that its messages, as delivered by Prophet Muhammad, were primarily addressed to his contemporary Arabs (10:47, 14:4, 16:36, 36:3-7, 42:7, 43:3-5, 43:44, 45:28,31). Because the related messages were very specifically dealing with the issues of that particular community at that particular time, we need to understand them in their temporal settings and not as something timeless. If we are going to take a detached message literally to apply to us today, of course it is not going to make any real sense. But if we read it in the context of time, place and issues, it makes perfect sense. It was revolutionary for that time. A lot of people and their established practices which were downright oppressive were threatened by it. But it was to establish justice and rid the community of these oppressive and unjust practices.

13. Is it possible for non-Muslims to take the same kind of precaution – just like believers took in the past as per that verse – during a war against Islamist terrorists or extremists, without being labelled as Islamophobic?

During those tough days of nascent Islam, it was absolutely essential for its followers to take this sort of precaution for the very sake of survival in the face of persecution and aggression. There is no reason why ‘non-Muslims’ should be labelled as Islamophobic if they take similar precaution due to similar reason.

14. In other words, non-Muslims shouldn’t marry Muslims when the latter behave badly?

The point for not marrying certain transgressors in the Prophet’s time was that they invited “to the Inferno”. Unfortunately, like those transgressors, many ignorant ‘Muslims’ in our time also may invite “to the Inferno”. In this counter-scenario, a ‘non-Muslim’ should avoid marrying or befriending this sort of ‘Muslims’.

15. In a group discussion I noticed how this instruction “Do not marry polytheists” created so much debate with so many opinions. Could a better advice be “Do not marry bad people”, instead?

It must be interesting to see how a single and apparently simple verse like this can generate so much discussion and so diverse interpretations, probably widening our mental horizon through its multiple layers of potential understandings. Evidently, the more you discuss it the more you find deeper wisdom in it. In contrast, a mere advice like “Do not marry bad people” would be too simplistic.

The Quran promotes religious pluralism

When a reading of the Quran can misguide

Are all “O you who believe” verses applicable to us?

********************

Note 1

And do not marry the associationist women until they acknowledge: for an acknowledging bondwoman (of God) is better than an associationist woman even if she pleases you. And do not marry the associationist men until they acknowledge: for an acknowledging bondman (of God) is better than an associationist man even if he pleases you. Those invite to the Inferno, when God invites to the Garden and to forgiveness by His leave; and He clarifies His messages unto mankind that they may be mindful. 2:221

Note 2

Besides the meaning of a specific group of pagans (2:221), the word ‘mushrikeen’ in the Quran also has a general meaning: those who worship false deities besides God. The Quran presents examples of numerous false deities idolized by people (19:81): they include other names besides God’s (19:65, 39:45, 40:12), pagan gods and goddesses (53:19-20, 71:23), statues for veneration (7:138-139), astronomical objects like sun and moon (27:24, 41:37), natural forces and extra-terrestrials (3:80, 17:55-57), dead prophets and saints (2:135-136, 3:64-65, 79-80, 16:20-21, 35:14, 46:5-6), celebrities, cult figures, spiritual leaders and religious scholars (9:31), secondary authorities like hadiths (6:106-115, 7:2-3, 9:31), sects (30:31-32, 42:13-21), ancient images, icons and shrines (35:13-14, 7:194), the Scripture (6:19), golden calf (7:148-150), money, wealth and children (18:42, 7:190), own ego and selfish desire (25:43), uncontrolled libido (24:3), wishful thinking (45:23), destructive urges in psyche (14:22) and so on. Idol-worshippers, however, generally fail to admit their polytheism (6:23; 6:148; 16:35).

Note 3

Note the temporal nature of the following verses that clarify that, while that time believers had to fight their enemies to protect themselves, it may be that in future they would have LOVE for each other, ordained by God Himself:

Perhaps God will ordain LOVE between you and those you consider enemies; and God is Capable; and God is Forgiving, Merciful./ God does not forbid you from those who have not fought you because of your system, nor drove you out of your homes, that you deal kindly and equitably with them. For God loves the equitable./ But God forbids you befriending only those who fought you because of your system, and drove you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out. You shall not ally with them. Those who ally with them, then such are the transgressors. 60:7-9

Siraj Islam 12:19 pm on January 7, 2023

About the earliest hadith collections

Question:

I recently came across an Islamic Awareness article claiming that there was already a compilation of hadiths in the first century after the Prophet Muhammad’s demise. This is roughly what I get from it:

“It is frequently claimed by the Christian missionaries that there are no hadith collections from the first century of hijra. According to them, the first hadith collections were written around 250 years after hijra.

The following books prove the existence of hadith collections from first century AH: Sahifa al-Sahihiyya of Hammam: This is perhaps one of the earliest known hadith collections. Hammam was a student of Abu Hurrairah and well-known among the scholars of the hadith to be trustworthy. Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq: Harald Motzki, who mentioned it as a source of authentic ahadith of the first century AH, concludes: “While studying it, I came to the conclusion that the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht, and in their footsteps, many others – myself included – which in general, reject hadith literature as a historically reliable sources for the first century AH, deprives the historical study of early Islam of an important and a useful type of source.”

Important hadith collections from second century AH include: Muwatta of Malik: Malik bin Anas (d. 179 AH) was the founder of Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Muwatta’ of Malik was compiled in mid-second century AH. It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah. Also Musannaf of Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH) and Musannaf of Ma’mar bin Rashid (d. 153 AH).” Source: https://www.islamic-awareness.org/hadith/hadith.html.

I am sorry to bother you, but could you please tell me your thoughts on that article?

Answer:

First, it’s a bit surprising how the above article can claim Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq as a work of the first century AH, while Abd al-Razzaq lived in the 2nd/3rd century AH (126–211 AH/ 744-827 CE). Notably, he was younger than even Malik ibn Anas (93–179 AH/ 711–795 CE), the author of Muatta.

Now, as we know, it is even traditionally accepted that the earliest criticism of Hadith goes back to the Prophet himself as he allegedly prohibited recording of hadiths. Also, reportedly, his immediate successors, the first four Caliphs, banned and burnt all hadith materials as they tried to prevent creation of secondary authorities next to the Quran. Then, along with these successors, many prominent sahaba, tabieen and tabe tabieen allegedly held this same vociferous opposition to the narration or writing of the Hadith. As suggested by further reports, this same negative attitude towards hadiths continued to be DOMINANT among earlier generations of Muslims in general.

Thus there is a general consensus among the hadith scholars that it was in accordance with the forbiddance by early Islam not to write down any hadith that we do not get any authoritative hadith book during the first two centuries of Islam.

Apparently, with gradual violation of this strict prohibition, hadiths slowly surfaced, though mainly through the process of unreliable oral transmission and fabrication, and then endlessly mushroomed in an almost endless number over a course of time.

In the above context, on one hand, we can reasonably accept the possibility that some compilation of hadith hearsays already started probably as early as the end of the first century of hijra and in the second century in the form of unauthoritative hadith book/s. On the other hand, when we go through the reports about these alleged collections, including Sahifa al-Sahihiyya, Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq and Muwatta of Malik, we find that none of their originals survived and that everything we know about them is based on hearsays of the later time.

Moreover, apart from the issues with their unreliable, unverifiable isnad (chain of narrators), further problems with their authenticity arise when we look into their matn (content). Can we seriously take or rely on the veracity of a source like Muwatta (the most renowned of all these books), when it contains, for example, hadiths such as the following?:

Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger as saying that a non-Muslim eats in seven intestines whereas a Muslim eats in one intestine. Muwatta 49:9 and 49:10 https://sunnah.com/urn/516610

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: The Messenger of Allah said: When a jew greets you, and says ‘Death to you’ (as-samu alaykum), say, ‘And to you.’ https://sunnah.com/malik/53/3

Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr reported that in a letter which the Messenger of Allah sent to Amr ibn Hazm about blood-money he wrote that it was one hundred camels for a life, one hundred camels for a nose if completely removed, a third of the blood-money for a wound in the brain, the same as that for a belly wound, fifty for an eye, fifty for a hand, fifty for a foot, ten camels for each finger, and five for teeth, and five for a head wound which laid bare the bone. Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.1.1. https://sunnah.com/malik/43

Elsewhere, the blood-money for cutting the fingers of a woman is to pay her: 10 camels for one finger; 20 camels for two fingers; 30 camels for three fingers, and 20 (twenty) camels for four fingers. Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.11.6d https://sunnah.com/urn/515780

Reported Urwa ibn az-Zubayr: The Messenger of Allah entered the house of Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet. There was a child weeping in the house, and they told him that it was from the evil eye. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Why do you not find someone to make an incantation to protect it from the evil eye?’ ” https://sunnah.com/malik/50/4

Abu Hurayra reported the Messenger of Allah said, “The earth eats all of the son of Adam except the coccyx. He was created from it, and on it he is built.” Muwatta Book 16, Hadith 49 https://sunnah.com/malik/16

To sum up: With no originals, no reliable isnad (chain of narrators) and no sound matn (content), we cannot verify and so cannot seriously take any of these alleged earliest hadith collections.

Siraj Islam 6:42 am on December 23, 2022

Why Friday Prayer is an unquranic invention

Why Friday Prayer is an unquranic innovation

Friday Prayer and the sanctification of Friday are unquranic and postquranic

As noted elsewhere, during the time of the Quranic revelation, people used to receive its messages via direct communication (salat) with the messenger at regular meetings. These salat sessions were usually held twice a day – at dawn and nightfall. In addition, in an emergency, a salat session could also be held exceptionally during business hours of the day, which is now widely ritualised as the so-called Jummah or Friday Prayer.

This special significance and specific ritual prayer attached to Friday, as a sacrosanct day, is the Muslim substitution of the holy days of the week in Judaism and Christianity.

Contrary to this mainstream Muslim sanctification of Friday, however, the Quran never inaugurated such a special congregational day of prayer, as all prophetic salat sessions were by default congregational.

Also, the Quran never mandated or fixed Friday or another day as a weekly holy day for special ritual prayer. It is simply because salat in the Quran is NOT ritual prayer. Since the prophetic salat sessions were for delivery of the message, which required thinking and understanding, they differed from today’s mindless ritual prayer.

The case for the Friday Prayer is unfounded

Below we will go through the verses that are usually presented for the case of the Friday Prayer:

O you who acknowledge, if/when/whenever is called for the salat/communication (cf. 5:58) on a day/moment/time of gathering (yawm al-jumu’ah), hasten towards the remembrance of God and cease all trade. This is better for you, if you only knew./ Then, once the salat/communication is complete, you disperse through the land and seek the provisions of God and remember God frequently that you may succeed./ And if/when/whenever they come across any trade or some entertainment, they rush to it and leave you standing! Say: “What God possesses is far better than entertainment or trade. And God is the best Provider.” 62:9-11

Clearly, the above narration is not about any ritual prayer or about any fixed weekly day like Friday. Rather it is mainly to emphasize the importance of remaining constantly ready for salat/communication, whenever there is a call for it, even during a time of trade or entertainment. Please read the following related verses that shed light on 62:9-11. Also compare the highlighted words above (if/when/whenever, call, salat, day/moment/time, trade, remembrance of God, entertainment, etc) with the highlighted words below:

O you who acknowledge, do not take as allies those who have taken your system as ridicule and fun from among those who have been given the book before you and the ingrates. Be aware of God if you are those who acknowledge./ And if/when/whenever you call (plural, cf. 62:9) to the salat/communication, they take it in ridicule and fun. That is because they are a people who do not understand. 5:57-58. Cf. People whom neither trade nor sale can divert from the remembrance of God, and from establishing the salat/communication and contributing towards betterment. They fear a day/moment/time when the minds and the sights will be overturned. 24:37

Traditionally ‘yawm al-jumu’ah’ is mistranslated as Friday¹, the 6th day of the Arabic week. However, yawm in Arabic may imply any length of time – from a moment to an eon, and not necessarily a day (cf. yaum al-jamaai, 64:9) – and jumu’ah didn’t mean Friday in the 7^th century Hijaz¹. Thus ‘yawm al-jumu’ah’ originally could be a description of any day or a period of time chosen by a group of people for market or for a public gathering with social, political or cultural purposes. If this was about a fixed prayer on an already known weekday and time, such as Friday noon, this special reminder for heeding such a sudden call for salat would make no sense². Thus the reminder can apply to any day or time a community happens to choose for a public gathering – be it Saturday, Sunday, Monday or any other day or time.

Meaning of call for salat

Please note that there is a ‘call’ for this ‘non-regular’ salat – unlike the regular twice daily salat sessions that could go without call as were held in known hours of dawn and nightfall. There is no indication, however, that this call is necessarily meant to be understood as literal. Also, there is no indication that this call is for a ritual salat or for a congregational prayer or that the event needs to be led by a leader. Neither is there any suggestion that the calling here is necessarily external, by an authority or agent. It can simply be an internal calling by our inner voice which needs to be immediately followed, while abandoning all other activities.

When do we get an emergency call from God for salat? When someone somewhere is in danger; when a starving person seeks food; when a helpless orphan needs shelter; when there is an injustice that needs addressing; when there is a natural disaster like earthquake, storm or flood; when the neighbour’s house is on fire; when a child has suddenly fallen into water; when a poor relative needs help for an emergency surgery or a bag of blood; and so forth. In all these occasions, one should immediately leave all other activities and hasten towards addressing the call – irrespective of whether the call is external or internal, even during a time of trade or entertainment (‘yawm al-jumu’ah’). A divine call is not anything otherworldly or mystical or outside our life.

Final thoughts

Contrary to the mainstream Muslim sanctification of Friday, the Quran never inaugurated such a special congregational day of prayer, as all prophetic salat sessions were by default congregational. Also, it never fixed Friday or another day as a weekly holy day for special ritual prayer, simply because salat in the Quran is NOT ritual prayer.

While ‘yawm al-jumu’ah’ in 62:9 may refer to daily business hours or a specific market day or a public event, which may or may not be weekly, the related verses simply emphasize the importance of remaining constantly ready for salat/communication, whenever there is a call for it, even during a time of trade or entertainment. This divine call can be external, by an authority or agent, or internal, by our inner voice – e.g., to help someone who is in a desperate situation and needs our urgent attention.

Besides, contrary to the concept of Friday as a holy day of complete rest – which was innovated to parallel the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday – the Quran never promotes Friday or another day as a holy day or a day of complete rest. In fact, ‘yawm al-jumu’ah’ manifestly refers to a busy day or time of trade and entertainment.

Notably, ‘Friday’ is a forced, deliberate mistranslation¹ of ‘yawm al-jumu’ah’ in 62:9, which was originally adopted to suit some purpose of the earlier Muslim communities.

Thus one may question the legitimacy of the interpretation of these verses to suggest that Friday is a congregational prayer day fixed by God for Muslims as a holy day.

Clearly, since the Jews and the Christians had their holy days, the sectarians felt a need for “A Day” for themselves, the need that transformed Friday into a day hallowed and blessed. Thus ‘Friday’ is yet another symbol of rivalry and identity politics within the sectarian scene (cf. 3:19).

***********************************

Note 1

JUMU’AH IS MISTRANSLATED AS FRIDAY. An interesting example of how languages evolve with evolving traditions is the observation that the word jumu’ah in 62:9 is now used by the native Arabic speakers to mean Friday, though there was no such name for Friday during the time of the Quranic revelation. The latter becomes evident by looking into the contrast with the names of the other days of the Arabic week: Sunday yaum al-ahad, day ONE. Monday yaum al-ithnayn, day TWO. Tuesday yaum ath-thalatha, day THREE. Wednesday yaum al-arbia’a, day FOUR. Thursday yaum al-khamis, day FIVE. Friday yaum al-jumu`a, day of GATHERING. Saturday yaum as-sabt, day SEVEN. Strangely all the days of the week are named by numbers except Friday. Can it be a mere coincidence? Please observe how al-jumu`a – which has evidently replaced as-saadis, i.e., day six – occurs as an afterthought and an intruder that breaks the pattern. Here Sunday is the first day of the week, probably because people are coming out of Sabbath to start a new week. It is important to understand that the number of days in a week is arbitrary: if there was a culture which was detached from others and which, for example, counted 5 days in a week and 6 weeks in a month, it would have a 5th day, but no “Friday”.

Note 2

A FEW POINTS TO PONDER in relation to the verses quoted above: ● People are distracted from salat because of trade and entertainment that are expected to be happening in a ‘time/day of public gathering’ (yawm al-jumu’ah, 62:9-11, 24:37). ● “Cease all trade” seems to define the purpose of this gathering as trade. ● New revelations were occasionally delivered by the messenger to a wider audience – exceptionally in a time like business hours (62:9-11) – with good response from his dedicated followers (24:37), though with limited success among some of the Jews and the disbelievers (5:57-58). ● If 62:9 was about a regular known fixed time salat, like dawn salat, then why would it ask to “cease all trade” when there no equivalent verse for dawn salat to remind people to leave “all sleep”? ● Thus, unlike the regular twice daily prophetic communications, the salat on discussion here is an exceptional communication, which is called as per the need of a given situation, with no other qualification attached to it other than to stop trade momentarily. ● Apart from this, there is no mention of any daytime salat in the Quran, simply because the daytime is “made for livelihood” (78:11, 17:12) and is “hard pressed with a long schedule of occupations” (73:7). ● Yawm al-jumu’ah doesn’t mean salat al-jumu’ah. ● There is no evidence whatsoever that the phrase “they rush to it and leave you standing” in 62:11 is about the so-called Friday Sermon. We need to read the verse by itself without any added colouring and additives from cultural books. The absence of not even a single surviving Friday Sermon puts that notion to rest. ● Rather the phrase “they rush to it and leave you standing” exposes what the people were actually doing: it doesn’t look like they were praying. ● Religions have divided mankind by innovating holy days and sacred rituals. Since Islam is deen, not religion, it doesn’t need to imitate religions or compete with them by innovating its own DAY and own communal worship. Islam is here to unite people rather than dividing them. As Eb Jay says, “I will throw a possible conspiracy into the mix- the Jews had the Sabbath on Saturday, the Christians broke away from them and took Sunday (saying God had to rest), the Muslims came and agreed to take Friday- these are not holy days appointed by Allah, but agreed to by the clergy- every day is a holy day.”

Siraj Islam 5:16 pm on December 15, 2022

Is surrogacy haram?

Is surrogacy haram

Could you please address the mainstream thoughts amongst Muslims scholars regarding surrogate motherhood?

Here I will use the term surrogacy in the sense of gestational surrogacy. This is an arrangement, often supported by a legal agreement, whereby a woman agrees to delivery/labour for another person or couple, who will become the child’s parent/s after birth.

Most Sunni scholars do not permit surrogate motherhood, since it involves introducing the sperm of a man into the womb of a woman to whom he is not married. They consider this as akin to adultery, since the surrogate is carrying the fertilized egg of someone who is not her legal husband. The child produced therefore, according to them, has no lineage through legal marriage and will have to be considered as illegitimate. These scholars thus seem to view the question of the permissibility of gestational surrogacy as one of fiqh and base their findings on legal analogies and considerations.

Most Shiite scholars, on the other hand, have issued jurisprudential decrees that allow surrogate motherhood as a treatment for infertility, though only for legal couples. They regard this practice as transferring an embryo or foetus from one womb to another, which is not forbidden in Shiite jurisprudence. Consequently, gestational surrogacy, as a treatment for infertility, is being practiced in some well-known medical institutions in Tehran and some other cities in Iran. Nevertheless, as expected, there are some controversies concerning a few issues related to surrogacy such as kinship and inheritance. The main ethical concern of Shiite Muslims’ experience with gestational surrogacy is the monetary relationship between the intended couple and the surrogate mother. While monetary remuneration is practiced and allowed by religious authorities, it still seems to suffer from some possible ethical issues.

What is the line of reasoning of Muslim scholars who support surrogacy?

Pro-surrogacy scholars base their support for surrogacy on secondary considerations. While viewing it as a God-given method of treatment for infertility, they claim that Islamic law recognizes the preservation of the human species as one of its primary objectives (maqasid). It follows that allowing married couples to pursue conceiving children is also part of this primary objective. Therefore, if a married couple is not able to conceive children themselves, they should be allowed to use means that override their inability to do so. If surrogacy is one such method, it should also be allowed on the principle of maslaha (public interest). The fact that the surrogate mother is not carrying her own child can be overridden by saying that she is merely renting her womb as an incubator and she is not actually engaged in any act of adultery. Besides, there is no fear of confusing the lineage of the child as the biological parents are already confirmed. This could be made analogous – as some say – to hiring a woman to breast feed someone else’s child which is an acceptable practice.

But isn’t surrogacy akin to adultery, since the surrogate is carrying the sperm of someone who is not her legal husband?

Not really. In contrast to zina or adultery, which involves infidelity that violates the mutual trust of a married couple, surrogacy is based on mutual consents of all the parties involved.

Again, isn’t surrogacy a form of sexual misconduct after all, since the relationship involves a third party?

In surrogacy, the third party is not really involved in the conjugal relationship itself. Also, it is important to remember that, from a Quranic perspective, no sexuality or sexual act in itself is a vice unless it transgresses its divine limits, i.e., unless it violates human rights by involving oppression or injustice (e.g. infidelity committed by married people, 4:19, 4:25, 4:34, 4:128, 12:24, 17:32, 24:6, or, e.g. rape/gang rape, as in the story of Lot) or unless it becomes a serious public health risk or a public indecency (e.g. incestuous sex, 4:22, or, e.g. organised prostitution/open lewdness, 24:2-4, 4:15-16). The Quran specifies these limits and only condemns the transgression.

What are your thoughts on surrogacy in view of the overall wisdom of the Quran?

The Quran is silent on surrogacy. And definitely doesn’t prohibit it. The principle of law is everything is permissible until it’s clearly forbidden, not the other way around. The need for surrogacy is one of those human issues that modern man has to go through by finding rational ways. If a married couple is permanently unable to conceive children themselves, there is no reason they cannot be allowed to use in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy as a treatment for infertility to override their inability – provided it is regulated by laws to deal with ethical issues and to prevent exploitation and commodification of women’s bodies. It is important to observe that God in the Quran is all about HUMAN RIGHTS. He cannot be concerned about a couple’s mutual decision to solve their infertility issue, if it harms none.

Siraj Islam 3:58 am on December 7, 2022

Does the word ‘Muhammad’ in the Quran refer to a real person?

Does the word ‘Muhammad’

Considering the word ‘Muhammad’ in the Quran as an adjective, some Muslims have recently questioned the existence of any historical Muhammad. What do you think about it?

There are people who feel that the word Muhammad in the Quran doesn’t refer to a person’s name but refers to an attribute, i.e. praiseworthiness. And this is allegedly because what they think they get in the Quran are the adjectives ‘muhammadun’, ‘muhammadin’ and ‘ahmadu’, but not the proper noun ‘muhammad’. Taking this further, while suspecting that much of the Islamic traditions on Muhammad were in fact oral and unreliable, a few Muslims in recent years have questioned even the existence of Muhammad. So there is a hypothesis doing the rounds that Muhammad is only a character invented by hadith literature and that outside it there is no evidence of him being a real, historical person.

However, as we will note below, this sort of grammatical consideration is not helpful in deciding whether Muhammad was a real person or not, though a more holistic reading of the related verses may help.

In addition, in response to the question about the existence of historical Muhammad, independent of the Quran and Islamic traditions, one may find various physical and archaeological evidences relevant, as quoted e.g. in Dated texts mentioning Prophet Muhammad from 1-100 AH.

So do you think that the word Muhammad in the Quran refers to a real person?

Yes. In four verses, the Quran mentions Muhammad as being the messenger who is with his contemporary adherents. If that messenger was otherwise named, these adherents would have found the verses distinctly odd. So we can be certain that Muhammad indeed was the person who so frequently is addressed or mentioned in the Quran as the messenger present with his contemporary adherents.

Hence, in my personal reading, the word Muhammad in the Quran does refer to a real person, a human messenger, whose ongoing experience is recorded in the Quran during his prophetic mission to the Arabs and the world (cf. Muhammad is but a messenger, like many messengers that have passed before him. If he dies or gets killed, will you turn back on your heels? 3:144). While we may not be sure whether the word Muhammad (or even ahmad, which has a similar meaning) was originally used by the Quran and the people around this real person as his proper name, or whether it was used as a title to highlight his status or as an attribute to denote his widely appreciated moral character, the word apparently referred to the real, historical person, whom we know as Muhammad. Likewise, the verse 61:6 (“whose name will be Ahmad/ ‘even more praised’”) may not imply originally a proper name, though, once again, it refers to a real person. Please note that, translated here as name, the word ‘ism’ in Arabic may also refer to attribute.

But if the word Muhammad was a name of a person, then why does it appear in the Quran as muhammadun and muhammadin, and never as Muhammad? Why are these addendums?

Here we come across the issue of tanween, or nunation, which is doubling the short vowel at the end of a word. As I understand, some words in Arabic are in the category of diptote (mamnu’ min as-sarf), i.e. noun that has only two cases and therefore its nunation, or change in endings, is restricted. All female names (e.g. Maryam) and foreign names tend to be diptotes. Examples include names of non-Arab prophets, such as Ibrahim, which occurs in the Quran either as ibrahimu or as ibrahima, depending on its grammatical state in the sentence: In nominative cases, the word ends with ‘u’, and in non-nominative cases (accusative and genitive cases) it ends with ‘a’. The name Isa, on the other hand, always occurs as Isa, irrespective of the case.

In contrast, some Arabic words are in the category of triptote, i.e. noun that has three cases and therefore its change in endings is less restricted. It is said that names of Arab prophets are triptotes. An example is Salih, which occurs in the Quran as salihan (7:73, accusative proper noun), salihun (26:142, nominative proper noun) and salihin (11:89, of Salih, genitive proper noun; cf. hudin, i.e. of Hud).

Now, the word Muhammad occurs in the Quran in four instances. Out of these, in three instances it appears as muhammadun (3:144; 33:40; 48:29; nominative proper noun; cf. Ahmadu, 61:6, nominative proper noun) and only once as muhammadin (47:2, to/unto Muhammad, genitive proper noun), which actually follows the same triptote pattern of Arab prophets.

However, this rule of tanween for Arab and non-Arab prophets doesn’t always seem to work. For example, 11:89, where Salih appears as salihin, also mentions Nuh and Lut as nuhin (of Nuh) and lutiin (of Lut), i.e. as similar genitive proper nouns that make them triptotes – instead of diptotes – though these names are clearly Pentateuchal and non-Arab in origin.

So the finding that the word Muhammad in the Quran changes with cases doesn’t necessarily prove that it is not a name?

No. The fact that the above-quoted words like Nuh, Hud, Salih, Lut, Ibrahim, Maryam or Muhammad in classical Arabic changed with cases doesn’t necessarily mean they are adjectives and not proper nouns. Moreover, an adjective can sometimes function as a noun. For instance, the word ‘pretty’ is an adjective. But when represents a girl’s name, it becomes a proper noun. Any proper noun, even when it is structurally an adjective but refers to a person, followed the related rules of tanween.

But, in Arabic I know, a name shouldn’t change with case. Why does the Quran call Muhammad muhammadun, when Arabs do not call King Faisal faisalum, King Fahad fahadun or King Khalid khalidun?

This is due to a difference between classical Arabic and modern Arabic. In classical Arabic, tanween was not primarily a marker of indefiniteness (a; an) which explains why it is found on proper names. Instead, it simply marked the absence of the definite article (the). See Nunation in Arabic.

This difference of nunation in classical and modern Arabic can be better understood through similar case studies of other languages. For example, in Russian, which retains the old case patterns of Proto-Slavic language, the proper names change their forms and get different endings with change of cases (e.g. with genitive case, Lenin becomes Lenina), as in classical Arabic. But this doesn’t occur, e.g., in modern Bulgarian, which, though a Slavic cousin of Russian, resembles modern Arabic in this regard.

What about the historicity of the other Quranic figures? If their names are proper nouns, instead of adjectives, does it prove that they were historical characters?

Not necessarily. A proper noun/name itself doesn’t automatically mean it refers to a real person or real object. A proper name (even if it is structurally an adjective), when occurs in a parable, metaphor or allegory, can simply mean an abstract idea, attribute or character, where it only plays a specific role and conveys a message. For example, the name Iblees in the Quran.

Would you please summarize your comments on the above grammatical queries?

To sum up, grammatical consideration of the Quran is not helpful in deciding whether Muhammad was a real person or not. It also doesn’t help in deciding whether the names of the other prophets mentioned in the Quran are the names of specific persons or revelations, though a more holistic reading of the related verses may help. All our understandings on these matters largely depend on the perspectives of how we read the Quran.

Now, going through numerous verses, it appears that the word Muhammad (whether adjective or noun) in the Quran does refer to a real person, a human messenger, whose ongoing experience of his prophetic mission is recorded in the Quran (3:144). While we may not be certain whether the word Muhammad (or even ahmad) was originally used by the people around this real person as his proper name, or whether it was used as a title to highlight his status, it apparently referred to the real, historical person, whom we know as Muhammad.

Siraj Islam 7:19 am on November 25, 2022

Forbidden is polluted meat, not pork

What do you think about the word khinzir in the Quran? Does it mean pig, as commonly thought, or it refers to something else, as some scholars argue?

As observed below, although the word khinzir generally means pig, the Quran NEVER uses it in reference to the animal itself, but ALWAYS in reference to its attribute khanajiri (corrupted, polluted; please see Note 1)¹.

Then what does the word mean when it is used as a prohibited animal for consumption?

The word khinzir in all its Quranic occurrences except 5:60 (2:173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:115) appears within a list of prohibited food categories. Since khinzir in these instances occurs along with categories that are exclusively generic, it is unlikely to mean a specific animal, but rather seems to have a generic connotation too, such as polluted, infested or rotten, akin to meanings of the identical words khanajir (scrofula, scrofulosis, LL, same word is plural of khinzir) and khanajiri (scrofulous, LL, i.e., corrupted, morally degenerated, degraded) as well as the potential root word Kha-Nun-Zay² (stinking, maggoty, altered in odour (e.g. flesh-meat, date, walnut), pride, self-magnification; LL, V2, p: 451, 452 http://ejtaal.net/aa/#q=xnz).

But what about 5:60? Do you agree that khanazeer in this verse specifically refers to pigs, since here it is lumped together with qirada, a word traditionally translated as apes?

If we carefully follow the root meanings of the plural nouns qirada (qrd) and khanazeer (xnz) – without being misled by extra-Quranic sources like Ibn Kathir and their fabricated stories that infected the traditional tafsirs – we can construe, in this context, qirada as ‘degraded ones’ and khanazeer as ‘corrupted ones’. Both these meanings signify a “persistent transgressor’s (7:166)” lowly states of moral degeneration: And He made some of them degraded ones (qirada; cf. 2:65, 7:166) and corrupted ones (khanazeer) and worshippers of evil forces. These are worse in state and farther astray from the right path. 5:60. So the verse itself, at the end, clearly depicts these words as STATES OF MISGUIDANCE rather than specific creatures. And this depiction is reinforced by the parallel annexe ‘and worshippers of evil forces’, which contradicts any physical transformation.

Are you saying that qirada and khanazeer in 5:60 originally meant ‘degraded ones’ and ‘corrupted ones’, and then became literalized as apes and pigs under the influence of extra-Quranic sources?

As observed above, the approximate intended meanings of qirada and khanazeer here are ‘degraded ones’ and ‘corrupted ones’ – i.e., metaphorically people with some of the attributes of apes and pigs – rather than literally the animals themselves. The traditional, literalist understanding of these words as apes and pigs in this context was later consolidated by extra-Quranic sources like Ibn Kathir and their fabricated stories about Jews who were allegedly transformed into monkeys and swines.

Then what is your understanding of lahm khinzir, which is usually translated as ‘swine meat’?

In view of the above, the expression lahm khinzir, though traditionally translated as ‘swine meat’, seems to mean polluted meat³, an inference that is supported by the Quranic phrase “fa-innahu rijsun” (“for it is impure/tainted/contaminated, 6:145”). Like Hebrew, the Arabic language is not just a convention to name objects; in Arabic, the name of the object often refers to the essence of the object. This is how the word khinzir here refers to the condition khanajiri (corrupted, polluted; cf. chazerei, a Yiddish word for junk) – an attribute of pig’s meat in those days – rather than the pig itself. This is in line with the reasoning of some researchers who have argued that lahm khinzir means rotten meat, as opposed to fresh meat which is encouraged per 16:14. It is difficult to imagine that the all-wise God, who has created swine and thereafter allowed humans to domesticate it, would prohibit its meat, even when it is clean, which would then remain the most commonly consumed red meat worldwide as a main source of protein. What is more likely is that the Quran is concerned about the quality and effect of the food itself, rather than any particular species of animal. Thus my understanding of 5:3 (part) is: “Forbidden to you are dead meat, running blood (cf. 6:145), polluted meat (lahm khinzir) and what was dedicated to other than God …”.

So you think the translation “Forbidden to you are dead meat, running blood, swine flesh and what was dedicated to other than God …” is flawed, linguistically?

Yes. Leaving aside the other reasons – if the Quran is perfected linguistically, then the traditional translation of swine meat introduces an anomaly by placing a specific animal amongst types of things. It is like saying, “You can go from London to Edinburgh by plane, by train, by a BMW car, or by bus.” Clearly, the BMW is out of place, and the sentence is linguistically deficient. A better sentence is “You can go from London to Edinburgh by plane, by train, by car, or by bus.” Likewise, a sentence like “Avoid reading foreign literature, theology and the Collins Dictionary” doesn’t make enough sense.

What do you think about the view that lahm khinzir doesn’t actually mean meat and the related verses are not about food at all?

Considering the use of the word lahm (lahman tariyyan, fresh meat) in 16:14, it appears to me that lahm khinzir in 16:115, and so in other related verses, is referring to meat, and therefore these verses are about food⁴.

If lahm khinzir originally meant ‘polluted meat’, then why is it understood traditionally as pig’s meat?

As pig in those days was a symbol of unclean creature, one can expect that lahm khinzir was originally a generic expression to mean any meat that was polluted (pig-like, or khanajiri). And that – under possible factors such as influence of earlier Jewish converts to Islam (cf. Leviticus 11) – the traditional, literalist reading later restricted the expression to mean ‘pig’s meat’ only, presumably based on prior knowledge that swine meat was prohibited for Jews⁵.

What’s the Quranic rationale behind the prohibition of lahm khinzir

Importantly, the Quran acknowledges no other reason to avoid lahm khinzir, apart from the only simple reason that it was polluted (6:145). In other words, the Quran is solely concerned about the harm related to the pollution itself, rather than about any particular species of animal. So, one may ask: What happens if a meat is not polluted? Does it still remain prohibited? And what happens if a meat is polluted, e.g. a beef infected with mad cow disease? Does it still remain permitted? Clearly, this isolated prohibition of only a specific animal’s meat (EVEN when it is not polluted) makes no sense, since this can be easily misinterpreted as non-prohibition of meats (EVEN when they are polluted) of all other omnivorous or carnivorous animals consumed by nations, such as dogs, cats, bats, snakes or hawks.

But if it means ‘polluted meat’, how can it be allowed when you are hungry? Isn’t it dangerous to eat polluted food, which can even kill you with diseases, especially when you are starving?

But this applies not only to polluted meat. I note that the Quran allows all prohibited food items in case of hunger or need, including carrion and running blood (2:173, 6:145, 5:3, 16:115), despite the additional health risks like infection they may pose to a starving person. However, the fact that the Quran immediately waives all the food prohibitions in case of hunger or need simply shows that the issue is flexible.

Again, does God need to send a messenger to tell us not to eat polluted meat, or is that just common sense?

I am also wondering why then God needs to remind us about carrion. Doesn’t our common sense already tell us to avoid it too? And, if the Quran is a reminder for all times and places, then why would it specifically prohibit only pork – even when it is clean and harmless, produced in hygienic environment – but not meats of other omnivorous/carnivorous animals consumed by nations?

Many people see “Made lawful for you are all grazing livestock … 5:1” to suggest that only grazing animals that chew on cud are permissible. What do you think?

Their interpretation is extra-quranic as it is affected by Jewish sources where animals like cows, sheep, and deer that have divided hooves and chew their cud may be consumed, but pigs should not be eaten because they don’t chew their cud (Leviticus 11, Deut 14). I think the expression baheematu al-anAAam in 5:1 simply means ‘grazing animals’ and thus refers to quadrupeds/beasts that feed on plants, instead of being predators. If the detailed Quran really intended to specify grazing animals that chew on cud as the only permissible ones, it would clearly mention this detail in one way or other and would unequivocally prohibit grazing animals that do not chew on cud but are consumed by nations, such as horses, donkeys, mules and rabbits⁵.

Is it possible that 5:1 is merely ‘reminding’ that all grazing animals are permissible to be eaten, without meaning to prohibit other animals?

Yes, 5:1 may merely be confirming that all grazing animals are permissible to be eaten. And this is to refute the superstitious beliefs of the idolatrous Arabs concerning the lawfulness of some cattle (an`am) and the unlawfulness of some others (6:136, 6:138, 6:139, 6:143). This understanding is further reinforced by the refutation elsewhere of idolatrous prohibitions of some cattle (note “avoid the uncleanness of the idols”): The livestock is made lawful for you except what is recited to you, therefore avoid the uncleanness of the idols and avoid false words, 22:30.

You quoted 22:30. I note in its immediate context, in 22:36, sacrificing cows and camels during Hajj is discussed. Is there any relevance of this verse on the permissibility or prohibition of food?

Often translated as cattle, cows, camels, plump livestock, bulky animals etc, the word ‘budn’ in 22:36 derives from the root Ba-Dal-Nun and essentially refers to torso/trunk/carcass (cf. 10:92), which can be understood in this context as the body of the sacrificed animal. Since the word doesn’t connote any particular species of animal, I do not see here any relevance to the subject of prohibition or permissibility of food: And (the awareness of) the sacrificed animal’s body, We have made it for you among God’s wayfinders, wherein there is good for you. So remember God’s attribute (of mercy) upon it, in ranks; when it is down on its sides, eat from it and feed the needy and the asker. Thus We have subjected it to you that you may be grateful. 22:36. However, seasonal prohibition of animal hunting and, as we noted, removal of idolatrous prohibitions of some cattle are mentioned in the context, in 22:30.

Can this permissibility of all grazing animals in 5:1 also mean prohibition of all non-grazing animals, as allegedly exemplified by the traditionally perceived prohibition of pigs?

If the permissibility of grazing animals was really meant to prohibit all other animals, including pigs, then one may ask: Why would only pigs, and no other animal, be exceptionally mentioned for further prohibition (allegedly, e.g., in 2:173), singling it out from so many other omnivorous or carnivorous animals that are consumed by nations, such as dogs, cats, bats, snakes or hawks?

So, even if all animals that feed on plants are allowed, doesn’t it still mean that pigs are prohibited, because they are omnivorous?

Since domestic pigs nowadays are fed feed that is exclusively made from plant products like corn, wheat, soy or barley, they are now in the category of plant-eating quadrupeds. Countries with massive pig farms actually applied laws regulating the food and the environment of pig. With these regulations, we can see that pork-induced diseases have dropped to nearly zero in these countries. Thus if pigs are reared as herbivorous quadrupeds, i.e. if their feed is exclusively made of clean plants, they become qualitatively as good as grazing animals. The Quran allows consuming all foods that are wholesome and harmless (2:168, 5:4) and explicitly urges not to declare any good thing unlawful (5:87-88, 10:59, 16:35, 16:116). Nothing is ‘sin’ unless it hurts the self by violating God’s natural laws. For further info, see: Facts about pork.

But shouldn’t we literally follow the words so that we are not questioned by God?

No. We should think with our own minds and follow the spirit behind the letter¹ rather than following blindly (Remember: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”. 2 Corinthians 3:6). It is our personal way of thinking that we will be questioned about.

Answering anti-pork arguments

The Quran against the traditional pork taboo

Facts about pork

***********************************

Note 1

The intended meaning of a Quranic word is not necessarily what it appears on a literal or conventional reading. For example, the word ‘drunk’ in “And they had drunk the calf inside their hearts by their rejection … 2:93”. Throughout this article and our other related studies, we were looking for the Quran’s intended meaning of the expression lahm khinzir – the meaning that doesn’t create contradictions with other verses of the Quran and scientific facts. Here we are not looking for the meaning of khinzir as an isolated word. Now, in Arabic, as we know, the name of the object often refers to the essence of the object. So, although the word khinzir generally means pig, the Quran still can use it in a specific context to mean some essence of pig, instead of the animal itself. For example, due to the reason mentioned above, the approximate intended meanings of qirada (qrd) and khanazeer (xnz) in 5:60 seem ‘degraded ones’ and ‘corrupted ones’ – i.e., metaphorically people with some of the attributes of apes and pigs – rather than literally the animals themselves. The traditional, literalist understanding of these words as apes and pigs in this context makes no sense, though was later consolidated by extra-Quranic sources like Ibn Kathir and their fabricated stories about Jews who were allegedly transformed into monkeys and swines. Likewise, in our understanding, in lahm khinzir, the word khinzir refers to the condition khanajiri (corrupted, polluted) – an attribute of pig’s meat in those days – rather than the pig itself. This understanding of the intended meaning of lahm khinzir in Quranic Arabic as ‘polluted meat’ is strongly supported by the Quran’s own depiction of lahm khinzir as ‘polluted meat’ (6:145) and also by the profound association of khinzir with khanajir (scrofula), khanajiri (scrofulous, corrupted, degraded) and Kha-Nun-Zay (stinking, maggoty, altered in odour) as well as with related terms of other Semitic languages, like the Hebrew/Yiddish words chazzerai (junk, junk food, trash) and chazzer (pig, corrupted police). This rendering of lahm khinzir as ‘polluted (khanajiri) meat’, thus based on linguistic consideration, is also in full harmony with all the related verses and scientific facts and thus makes perfect sense. Let us consider this analogy: The Yiddish expression “Chazer Shtahl”, which literally means “pigsty”, is used to describe a dirty or very untidy place, such as the bedroom of a careless teenager. The Hebrew/Yiddish word chazer (pig) in this context stands for not the animal itself, but its attributes. We can further consider similar examples of how the word chazer (pig) changes its literal meaning when combined with other words/endings. So, there is no point of arguing that, due to Biblical reference and comparative linguistic evidence, khinzir always necessarily means pig and therefore can only refer to pig and not any of its attributes irrespective of the context. The law of parsimony, which follows the rule of Ockham’s razor, requires us to adopt the simplest assumption that creates least contradictions. That’s the only way to do a rigorous and unbiased analysis of a term’s intended meaning and avoid conflating personal preferences influenced by traditional, unverified interpretations. In the case of lahm khinzir, this is possible only if we render the expression as ‘polluted meat’. Then the prohibition will include all polluted (khanajiri) meats of all animals, including pig’s, and thus will make full sense, without creating any contradiction. In contrast, its traditional rendering as pork-only (polluted or not) makes little sense and creates too many contradictions with other verses and scientific facts, as observed, and thereby violates the law of parsimony. We believe the Quran cannot have contradictions.

Note 2

Question: If we were to take kh-n-z as the root of khinzir, then how do we go about explaining away the letter R at the end of khinzir? Answer: When we compare the meanings of khanajir (scrofula, scrofulosis, LL, same word is plural of khinzir) and khanajiri (scrofulous, LL, i.e., corrupted, morally degenerated, degraded) with those of the word Kha-Nun-Zay (stinking, maggoty, altered in odour, e.g. flesh-meat, date, walnut etc), we find some profound similarity. Thus, while lexicons do not seem to give any clear indication about the root word of khinzir, we can seriously consider kh-n-z as a potential candidate, though we need more information to explain away the letter R at the end of khinzir. Then again, with or without kh-n-z, one can consistently translate khinzir in lahm khinzir as scrofulous/polluted/corrupted, as noted above.

Note 3

Question: Since ‘khinzir’ in lahm khinzir is a genitive noun, shouldn’t it be translated as ‘polluted one’, instead of ‘polluted’, which is an adjective? Answer: Yes. Understanding the noun ‘khinzir’ as ‘polluted one’, we can still translate lahm al-khinzir as ‘polluted meat’. For example: 5:3 laḥmu (flesh) l-khinzīri (the polluted; genitive masculine noun). For similar grammatical pattern, see 16:102 rūḥu (the Spirit) l-qudusi (the Holy, genitive masculine noun); cf. 5:110 birūḥi (with the Spirit) l-qudusi (the Holy, genitive masculine noun).

Note 4

Question: What are your thoughts on this translation of 5:3: “Prohibited for you is to become dead by losing your intellect (al-Mayitatah); or smear your account with human blood; or to get close to the ill-natured, cunning ones … ” (Aurangzaib Yousufzai: Halaal and haram food)? Answer: I respect the author of this site and his interpretations. As expected, the multi-layered meanings of the Quranic verses are sometimes perceived differently by different readers, depending on their perspectives. His translation of 5:3 makes sense to me to some extent, though I am still struggling to make full sense of it. For example, in the phrase “or smear your account with human blood; or to get close to the ill-natured, cunning ones”, how do we know that ‘dam’ refers to human blood, and not any blood? Or, that lahm khinzir refers to “the ill-natured, cunning ones”, and not some sort of flesh? Anyway, I still find his works very stimulating academically, and I will keep learning from them.

Note 5

Question: Since both the Hebrew chazir and the Arabic khinzir mean pig, shouldn’t the Quran use lahm khinzir to mean pig’s meat, rather than polluted meat, and thereby parallel the Jewish prohibition of pork? Answer: A Quranic term, seemingly identical with a Biblical one, doesn’t necessarily carry a similar Jewish connotation. Numerous studies of comparative theology have demonstrated this point. For example, as-sabt, the Arabic word for Saturday, is related to subātan (25:47, 78:9), or rest, as well as sabʿat, or seven, and therefore reveals evolutionary pathway similar to that of the Hebrew word Sabbath. Despite this linguistic similarity, however, the Arabic as-sabt doesn’t mean the Jewish Sabbath from a theological perspective. Now, the religious prohibition of pork first started in Judaism as found in the Old Testament, in Leviticus 11 (Clean and Unclean Food) and Deut 14, which detail the reasons for swine meat being prohibited, among a host of other animals, including rabbits, reptiles, amphibians, and shellfish. However, while the Quran acknowledges NONE of these details, it clearly confirms that originally there was no dietary prohibition at all for the Children of Israel except those self-inflicted by themselves, imposed through their clerics (3:93; cf. 2:286, 7:157, 64:16, 5:15, 5:87).