Free Muslim Matrimonial doshiza.com: February 2011

Sunday, 27 February 2011

The Fall of the Family

The Fall of the Family
By Abdal Hakim Murad

Abdal Wadod Shalabi has remarked that a society only becomes truly decadent when "decadence" as a principle is never referred to in public debate. Prior generations of Muslims and Christians were forever fretting about their own unworthiness when measured against past golden ages of goodness and sanctity. But in our self-satisfied era, to invoke the idea of decadence is to invite accusations of a retrograde romanticism: it is itself perceived, perversely enough, as a decadence.

Muslims looking at the West with a critical but compassionate eye are often disturbed by this absence of old-fashioned self-scrutiny. We note that no longer does the dominant culture avert complacency through reference to past moral and cultural excellence; rather, the paradigm to which conformity is now required is that of the ever-shifting liberal consensus. In this ambitiously inverted world, it is the future that is to serve as the model, never anything in the past. In fact, no truly outrageous ("blasphemous") discourse remains possible in modern societies, except that which violates the totalising liberalism supposedly generated by autonomous popular consent, but which is often in reality manufactured by the small, often personally immoral but nonetheless ideologised elites who dominate the media and sculpt public opinion into increasingly bizarre and unprecedented shapes.

The debate over the status of the family lies at the heart of the present ideological collision between the bloated but "decadent" North and the progressively impoverished South, a collision in the midst of which our community is attempting to define itself and to survive. This culture clash is so vital to the self-perception of each side that it is now all but inescapable. It seems that each time we switch on our televisions and sit back, we must observe northern prejudice and insecurity being massaged by an endless, earnest-humane diet of documentaries about the ills of the rigidly family-centred Third World, and the wicked reluctance of its peoples to conform to the social doctrines of the liberal democracies. To the average Westerner this one-way polemic seems satisfying and unarguable, confirming as it does assumptions of superiority which allay his nervousness about problems in his own society. It shapes the public opinion that goes on to acquiesce in the liquidation of Palestinians, Bosnians or Chechens with only the mildest (but self-righteously proclaimed) twinges of guilt. In fact, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the social doctrines of the modern West have been forged into the imperial ideologies of the closing years of the century, as polemicists use orthodox feminism and homosexualism as the perfect sticks with which to beat the Third World. A hundred years ago, white Christians interfered with everyone else for the sake of theological dogma and commerce; now they do so for reasons of social dogma and commerce. But the underlying attitude of contempt has remained essentially unchanged.

Muslims living in the West are perched in an interesting vantage point on this question. While many Islamic theologians have written on the "westernisation process" in the Muslim world and its nefarious effects on family life, the reality, as some of them have noted, is that this process is being championed by obsolete secular elites whose cultural formation was the achievement of the old imperial powers. The family lifestyle of the average secular Syrian or Turk is not that of a modern European, despite his outraged claims to the contrary. His clothes, furnishings, marriage rituals, and most details of life are more redolent of the 1940s and 1950s than of the present realities of Western existence. And so the mainstream Muslim debate on changes in the family, led by such thinkers as Anwar al-Jindi and Rasim Ozdenoren, tends to be of only slight relevance to our situation here in the heartlands of the "liberated" West.

As we attempt to theorise about our own condition, we are at once confronted by the irony that the country to which many of us migrated no longer exists. Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, British family values were still recognisably derived from a great religious tradition rooted in the family-nurturing Abrahamic soil. While the doctrinal debates between Islam and Christianity remained sharp, the moral and social assumptions of the "guest-workers" and their "hosts" were in most respects reassuringly and productively similar.

That overlap has now almost gone. Even the Churches no longer claim to be the coherent and convincing voices of absolute moral truths, as an increasingly spongelike rock of ages finds itself scoured and reshaped by the libertarian sandstorm. Cardinal Hume, the usually clear-headed spokesman of Britain's Catholics, has recently made conciliatory remarks about homophilia; while an Anglican bishop, resplendent in tight jeans and leather jacket, has openly announced his relationship with another man. So far from representing family values to their flock, 200 out of 900 London priests are said to subscribe to homosexual tendencies. The number of Christian and Jewish organisations and individuals eloquently singing the virtues of Sodom seems set to rise and rise, cheered on by the secularists, until the remaining voices of tradition are finally shouted down.

All this means that the Muslim community, already marginalised in terms of class, race, and economics, is now having to confront a further and potentially far more drastic form of alienation. As newcomers who are the sole defenders of values which would be recognised as legitimate by earlier generations of Britons, we are in a disorienting position. The temptation to panic, to retreat into factions and cults which excoriate the wider world as impure and evil, will claim many of us. Already such movements are making headway on the campuses. But such a sterile and facile temptation should be resisted, and, if our faith is really as strong as we and our detractors like to believe, it can be resisted easily and in favour of a far more mature and fruitful grasp of our relationship with the "host community".

But a strategy for the articulation of such a stance must be grounded in the knowledge that Muslim traditionalism does not appeal to the sort of comforting essentialist "metanarrative" whose claims to objective truth are less important than its status as a definer of cultural identity. Such has been the emergent error of the twentieth-century's rival essentialisms, particularly nationalism and fascism; and it is all too often the error of Muslim activists whose alertness to spiritual realities is subordinated to, or even replaced by, the quest for the pseudo-spiritual solace of authenticity. The narrative of Muslim civilisation, inspirational for the Muslim Brotherhood and neo-Ottoman revivalists until the 1970s, has suddenly given way to the utopian narrative of "the Salaf", on the problematic claim that the Salaf followed a consistent school of thought; but among the adherents of neither position do we find an immediate and responsive type of faith that yields, as true faith must, an ethic rooted in compassion and concern rather than a chronic obsession with purity.

What this means is that unless Muslims in Britain can counteract the impoverishing and exclusivist "ideologising" of Islam that has taken place in some Muslim countries, and return to an image of the faith as rooted in immediate and sincere concern for human welfare under a compassionate God, we will continue to fail to contribute to the national debate on this or any other question of real moment. It is not enough for the exclusivists to shrug, "But who cares what the unbelievers think". For Muslims are directed by the Quran to be an example to others. We cannot be an example, or successfully convey the message that God has revealed, if we hide in cultural ghettoes and act abrasively and arrogantly towards those we take such exquisite pleasure in considering beyond the pale. Instead, we must take the more difficult path of understanding the real dilemmas of this society, and then the even more difficult one of gently suggesting a remedy that may be of real assistance.

The time for such an advocacy is now. In recent weeks, several religious figures in Britain have offered their thoughts, often anguished, generally cogent, on the tragedy of the progressive decay of the family. The Bishop of Liverpool and the Chief Rabbi have both summarised the process with the usual statistics: 34% of British children are now born outside wedlock; a similar proportion of adults suffer the heartbreak of divorce; within twenty years fewer than half of the nation's children will be brought up by their own two parents; and so on. Few doubt the practical catastrophes which ensue: in the United States, it is said that over half of prison inmates are from broken homes, while men and women are known to suffer deep psychological harm from parental divorce even in middle life or old age. Sheppard and Sacks lament together that in a rapidly-changing world where the family haven has never been more needed by children and adults alike, it should have been wrecked by that most basic of all sins: selfishness. Nobody likes making a sacrifice: bowing at the idol of personal freedom we all shout for our rights and chafe under our duties. The lesson is irritating but clear: the Thatcherite egocentrism which posed as the apotheosis of Adam Smith's advocacy of competitive self-interest as the key to collective social advancement is claiming so many casualties as to endanger the whole undertaking. Greed creates rich men and happy Chancellors, but it now appears to come at a long-term price. Gigantic social and economic bills are now rolling in for extra policing, prisons, social workers and a growing blizzard of DHSS cheques. The socialist revolution has already failed; it seems that capitalism too may ultimately choke on its own contradictions.

So far, so good. It is unarguable, and not just to religious people, that greed has been a culprit. And yet the pleas for a return to selflessness have been heard so often in past ages, and with so little manifest effect, that they cannot be seen as holding out a believably sufficient solution. If religions are truly to have the capacity to overcome the worst consequences of human sinfulness then they must acknowledge that simple appeals to "be good" rarely have much impact, and must be accompanied by a practicable paradigm for reform. Neither the bishop nor the rabbi seem to have much to offer that is practical and concrete; which is perhaps why they have been tolerated and even platformed by politicians and the liberal media. But as Muslims, possessed of a religious dispensation granted through an intermediary whose status as "a mercy to the nations" was manifested in a concrete social as well as moral programme, we know that the present plight of society will never be reformed through homiletics. Structural changes are called for as well: and, given the gravity of the problem, we should not be surprised to learn that they can be painful.

Hardly less obvious than the causes of family decline are the reasons why establishment ideologues refuse to recognise them. The politicians are the most flagrant instance: last week's sorry resignation by Social Charter minister Robert Hughes in order to "repair his marriage" after an illicit fling is simply the latest in a string of by now frankly boring incidents which show the political establishment (and not even the moralising Mr Ashdown, the leader of the UK Liberal Democrat Party, has been immune) as largely incapable of leading a moral life. And yet tucked away in the office of every MP are all the clues we need. There before his desk, adding spice to his every tedious letterwriting moment, is that anarchic presence which unless he is very buttoned up indeed may prove his undoing. The number of MPs who have secretaries as second wives is second only to the number with surreptitious concubines. Only aberrant idiocy - or complaisance - can ignore the fact that if a politician, charged with that eroticism which power seems to generate, works late hours with a member of the opposite sex, a conflagration is probable rather than possible. Under such conditions the system offers no protection whatsoever for suffering children and spouses, who will be traumatised even to the point of suicide. Again, the disastrous notion that individual rights take precedence over the rights of the family has resulted in degradation for both.

But politics is merely the most notorious example of an environment in which, as the Iranians say, "fire dwelleth with cotton". As the current anguished debate over sexual harrassment reveals, there remains hardly a public space into which private desires do not obtrude. Never before has there been a society in which men and women mingle so casually, and where the radically increased opportunity for temptation and unfaithfulness is so patent that even the most anti-moralising journalist, politician or social strategist must see it.

In Tom Wolfe's popular novel Bonfire of the Vanities, a young financier commits adultery, destroying his wife and daughter, simply because New York is a city "drowning in concupiscence" and he is its child. It is not simply the routine mixing of the sexes that brings about his downfall. Everywhere his eyes wander he sees advertising, pornography, news stories and squeezy fashions that grasp at him and shout aloud the charm of duty-free sex. Wolfe's adulterer is an ordinary, not a fundamentally evil man: he is simply living in a world in which most human beings cannot behave responsibly.

New York is not yet London - but the Atlantic grows narrower all the time, and the eroticising of the public space has become part of our culture. Middle-aged men with middle-aged wives once had little to tempt them, short of an unhealthy adventure with a Piccadilly tart. Now, with a superabundance of flesh reminding them painfully at every turn of what they are missing, they are unlikely to remain loyal unless they are either stupid, or belong to that category of powerfully moral human beings which always has been and always will be a minority.

A radical diagnosis, although obvious enough: but is there a cure? Islam recognises as a major misdemeanour a crime unimaginable in the West: khalwa, or "illegitimate seclusion". Moral disasters always have preludes; Islam seeks to reduce the social matrix in which such preludes can occur. Thus our commitment to single-sex education. Not for us the absurd desperation of the Clackmannan headmaster who last month introduced the rule that boy and girl pupils may not be closer than six inches from each other, because 'spring is in the air." But schools are the merest starting-point. The workplace, too, while not obstructing female advancement, should ensure that the rights of spouses are protected by denying all possibility of illegitimate seclusion in the office. Politicians and business people who insist on employing a personal assistant of the opposite sex should explain their reasons. Pornography and sub-pornographic advertising should be carefully censored as intolerably demeaning and as an incitement to marital infidelity, the task of censorship being entrusted to those feminists who so rightly object to such portrayals of their sex.

The tragedy for Britain is, of course, that this remedy, while as self-evidently worth implementing as the sex drive itself, will be brushed aside with amazement and scorn by passing journalists and politicians. Convinced that Islam implies discrimination by its policy of gender separation, and privately depressed by the prospect of diminished sexual interest at work, the same liberal establishment which bewails the fragility of modern relationships will continue to encourage and live in the public environment which is at the root of the problem. But Islam by its very nature takes the long view, and we should not be disheartened. The process of family collapse is proving so radical in its economic and human consequences that the time must ultimately come when the decadence will be recognised for what it is and radical solutions will be considered. Then, quite possibly, the principled Muslim conservatism that is so derided today will come into its own.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The secular mind may be too witless to notice, but to religious people the New Social Doctrines are fast acquiring the look of a new religion. The twentieth century's great liberationisms often feel like powerful sublimations of the religious drive, as the innate yearning for freedom from worldly ties and the straitjacket of the self becomes strangely transmuted into a great convulsion against restrictions on personal freedom.

In this sense, the politically-correct West is an intensely religious society. It has its dogmas and theologians, its saints, martyrs and missionaries, and, with the arrival of speech-codes on American campuses, a well-developed theory of the suppression of blasphemy.

Some have mused that all this is necessary, and that human beings need certainties and causes, and that without an orthodoxy to hold itself together the West would rapidly unravel and turn to lawlessness. But the trouble is that the new doctrines, which are now enshrined in legislation, school curricula and broadcasting guidelines, do not make up either an authentic new religion, or even a sustainable substitute for one. For religious morality, whether Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Eskimo, holds society together with the idea that personal fulfilment is attained through the honourable discharge of duties. The West's new religion, in absolute contrast, teaches that it comes about through the enjoyment of rights.

Given the extremism of this inversion, it is not surprising that the societies which it affects should be running into difficulties. To paraphrase Conor Cruise O"Brien, the trouble with secular social medicines is that the more they are applied, the sicker the patient seems to become. It is certainly a blasphemy today to suggest that the new orthodoxies have worsened our social ills rather than bringing us into a shining and liberated utopia - but this is what has happened. And yet the pseudo-religion is still powerful enough to ensure that the notions which have presided over such destruction may not be subject to criticism in polite society. Muslims are perhaps the only people left who do not care for such politeness.

One of the most characteristic liberationisms of this century has been feminism. Divided into a myriad tendencies, some cautious and reasoned, others wandering into unimaginable territories of witchcraft and lesbianism, this is a movement about which few generalisations can be made. But perhaps a good place to start is the observation that women were the major though unintended victims of both Victorian pre-feminist and late twentieth-century feminist values. The disabilities suffered by wives in traditional Christian cultures, which denied that they even existed as financial or legal entities distinct from their husbands, may have been accepted without demur by most of them; but real injustice and suffering was caused to those for whom the social supports were cut away, and who found themselves in need of an independent existence. The feminism of the suffragettes was thus a real quest for justice. It moved Western society away from Christian tradition, and towards the Islamic norm in which a woman is always a separate legal entity even after marriage, retaining her property, surname, inheritance rights, and the right to initiate legal proceedings.

What Muslims are less happy about is the new feminism of the past three decades, the militantly ideologised world-view of Friedan, Greer and Daly. These thinkers initiated a new phase by attacking not only structural unfairnesses in society, but the most fundamental assumptions about male and female identity. "Until the myth of the maternal instinct is abolished, women will continue to be subjugated", wrote Simone de Beauvoir; and similar noises could be heard from the new feminists everywhere. In this view, the traditional association of femaleness with feminity and maleness with manhood was biologically and morally meaningless, and was to be attacked as the underpinning of the whole traditional edifice of "patriarchy".

At this point, people of Muslim faith have to jump ship. The Quran and our entire theological tradition are rooted in the awareness that the two sexes are part of the inherent polarity of the cosmos. Everything in creation has been set up in pairs, we believe; and it is this magnetic relationship between alternate principles which brings movement and value into the world. Like the ancient Chinese, with their division of the 1,001 Things into Yin and Yang, the Muslims, naming phenomena with the gender-specific Arabic of revelation, know that gender is not convention but principle, not simple biology - but metaphysics.

Allah has ninety-nine names. Some are Names of Majesty: such as the Compeller, the Overwhelming, the Avenger. Others are Names of Beauty: the Gentle, the Forgiving, the Loving-Kind. The former category are broadly associated with male virtues, and the latter with female ones. But as all are God's perfect Names, and equally manifest the divine perfection, neither set is superior. And the Divine Essence to which they all resolve transcends gender. Islam has no truck with the hazardous Christian notion that God is male (the "Father"), an assumption that has been invoked to justify traditional Western notions of the objective superiority of the male principle.

Islam's position is thus a nuanced one. Metaphysically, the male and female principles are equal. It is through their interaction that phenomena appear: all creation is thus in a sense procreation. But justice is not necessarily served by attempting to establish a simple parity between the principles in society "here-below". The divine names have distinct vocations; and human gender differentiation was created for more than simple genetic convenience. Both man and woman are God's khalifas on earth; but in manifesting complementary aspects of the divine perfection their "ministries" differ in key respects.

Islam's awareness that when human nature (fitra) is cultivated rather than suppressed, men and women will incline to different spheres of activity is of course one which provokes howls of protest from liberals: for them it is a classic case of blasphemy. But even in the primitive biological and utilitarian terms which are the liberals" reference, the case for absolute identity of vocation is highly problematic. However heavily society may brainwash women into seeking absolute parity, it cannot ignore the reality that they have babies, and have a tendency to enjoy looking after them. Those courageous enough to leave their careers while their children are small increasingly have to put up with accusations of blasphemy and heresy from society; but they persist in their belief, outrageous to the secular mind, that mothers bring up children better than childminders, that breastmilk is better than formula milk, and even - this as the ultimate heresy - that bringing up a child can be more satisfying than trading bonds or driving buses.

There are already signs that women are rebelling against the feminist orthodoxy that demands an absolute parity of function with men, and that "dropping out" to look after a child is less outrageous in the minds of many educated women than the media might suggest. But much real damage has been done. The campaign to turn fathers into nurturers and house-husbands shows little sign of success; and many houses have become more like dormitories than homes. Mealtimes are desultory, tin-opening affairs; both parents are too exhausted to spend "quality time" with active children; and the sense of belonging to the house and to each other is sadly attenuated. By the time children leave home, they feel they are not leaving very much.

In such a dismal context, dissolution is almost logical. The stress of the two-career family is greater than many normal people can manage. Increased income and (for some) pleasure at work are poor compensations for the increased scope for fatigue and dispute. Deprived of the woman's gift for warming a house, both husband and children are made less secure. The overlap in functions provides endless room for argument. And when the dissolution comes, it is almost always the woman who suffers most. As an ageing lone parent, she finds that society has little interest in her. She has joined the new class of "wives of the state".

The state, luckily, can afford to be a polygamist. The social unravelment of modern Britain has coincided with a massive augmentation of tax revenue. As long as the rate of social collapse does not outstrip the annual growth in GDP there is little for politicians to worry about. And yet the fate of literally millions of single families is a harsh one. The case for traditional single-income families, in which women are permitted to celebrate rather than suppress their nurturing genius, is increasingly looking more moral than the liberals have guessed.

But the feminists are not the only moths to have been gnawing the social fabric. There are others, some of them even more radical. The most strident are the homosexualists, the curious but always repulsive ideologues who are forcing on the population a dogma whose consequences for the family are already proving lethal.

As with feminism, the theological case against homosexuality is related to our understanding of the "dyadic" nature of creation. Human sexuality is an incarnation of the divinely-willed polarity of the cosmos. Male and female are complementary principles, and sexuality is their sacramental and fecund reconciliation. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is therefore the most extreme of all possible violations of the natural order. Its biological sterility is the sign of its metaphysical failure to honour the basic duality which God has used as the warp and woof of the world.

It is true, nonetheless, that the homosexual drive remains poorly understood. It appears as the definitive argument against Darwinism's hypothesis of the systematic elimination over time of anti-reproductive traits. In some cultures it is extremely rare: Wilfred Thesiger records that in the course of his long wanderings with the Arabian bedouins he never encountered the slightest indication of the practice. In other societies, particularly modern urban cultures, it is very widespread. Theories abound as to why this should be so: some researchers speculate that in overpopulated communities the tendency represents Nature's own technique of population control. Laboratory rats, we are told, will remain resolutely heterosexual until disturbed by bright lights, loud noises, and extreme overcrowding. Other scientists have speculated about the effects of "hormone pollution" from the thousands of tonnes of estrogen released into the water supply by users of contraceptive pills. Again, this remains without proof.

But what is increasingly suggested by recent research is that homosexual tendencies are not always acquired, and that some individuals are born with them as an identifiable irregularity in the chromosomes. The implications of this for moral theology are clear: given the Quran's insistence that human beings are responsible only for actions they have voluntarily acquired, homosexuality as an innate disposition cannot be a sin.

It does not follow from this, of course, that acting in accordance with such a tendency is justifiable. Similar research has indicated that many human tendencies, including forms of criminal behaviour, are also on occasion traceable to genetic disorders; and yet nobody would conclude that the behaviour was therefore legitimate. Instead, we are learning that just as God has given people differing physical and intellectual gifts, He tests some of us by implanting moral tendencies which we must struggle to overcome as part of our self-reform and discipline. A mental patient with an obsessive desire to set fire to houses has been given a particular hurdle to overcome. A man or woman with strong homosexual urges faces the same challenge.

To the religious believer, it is unarguable that homosexual acts are a metaphysical as well as a moral crime. Heterosexuality, with its association with conception, is the astonishing union which leads to new life, to children, grandchildren, and an endless progeny: it is a door to infinity. Sodomy, by absolute contrast, leads nowhere. As always, the most extreme vice comes about when a virtue is inverted.

None of this is of interest to the secular mind, of course, which detects no meaning in existence and hence cannot imagine why maximum pleasure and gratification should not be the goal of human life. The notion that we are here on earth in order to purify our souls and experience the incomparable bliss of the divine presence is utterly alien to most of our compatriots. And yet there is a purely secular argument against homophilia which we can attempt to deploy.

Homosexualism represents a radical challenge to the institution of marriage. Its propagandists will not concede the fact, but it attacks the most vital norm of our species, which is the union of male and female for which we are manifestly designed and which is the natural context for the raising of children. In times such as ours, when nature is no longer regarded as authoritative, and lifestyles are in all other respects an abnormal departure from the way in which human beings have lived for countless millennia, society cannot afford to believe that male-female unions are of only relative worth. The more the alternatives proliferate, the less the norm will be seen as sacred. Every victory for the homosexualist lobby is thus a blow struck against that normality without which society cannot survive.

It is in the context of the struggle to protect the family that the campaign against homosexualism becomes most universally accessible. The screaming fanatics who "out" bishops and demand a lowering of the "gay" age of consent are among the most bitter enemies of the fitra, that primordial norm which, for all the diversity of the human race, has consistently expressed itself in marriage as the natural context for the nurturing of the new generation. That which is against the fitra is by definition destructive: it is against humanity and against God. This awareness needs to be reflected in legislation, which for too long has sought to relativise the family as merely one of a range of lifestyle options.

Muslims sometimes hold that the collapse of family values in the West will serve the interests of wider humanity. Decadence, they say, is what it has chosen and deserves; and the inevitable implosion of its society will leave the field open for morally-strong Islam to regain its place as the world's dominant civilisation. The trouble with this theory is that the implosion shows no sign of leading to total collapse. Technology and wealth allow the creation of surveillance and social-security systems which can deal with the growing number of casualties. There is certainly an irony in a New World Order policed by a state which cannot keep order in Central Park after nightfall. But unless we are foolishly optimistic, or hope for absolute totalitarianism, we cannot but be anxious about social trends in the West. The survival of the Western family is a question of immediate Muslim concern, and we must offer our views until the time comes when our friends and neighbours, their doctrines broken on the anvil of reality, are humbled enough to listen.

Role of the Family in the Spread of Islam

Role of the Family in the Spread of Islam
By Professor Ismail Faruqi

The family, is indeed, the best tool for Islamic Da'wah in the West. There is no institution, there is no mechanism that I know of, that can convey Islam as well as the living example of an Islamic family in the West. The Islamic family, if it is rightly Islamic, is the very ideal to which Western people today aspire. In other words, the reality of Western people today stands diametrically opposite; if they can say that they can stand at the bottom of human, social and ethical development, because of what we see happening around us in their midst, the Islamic family with its ideals, with its norms and standards, stands at the opposite highest, and therefore, there can be no better way of convincing Western man, the non-Muslim man or woman, of the value of Islam, of the greatness of Islam, than to invite them to visit a Muslim family. But then, the Muslim family must be a good one. In other words, it must be truly Islamic and it must live up to the standards expected of an Islamic family. And now as to the dialectic of this relationship.

PRINCIPLES OF MUSLIM FAMILY LIFE

The Question of Pre-marital Sex

First of all, before a family is made or before a family is born, is it possible to engage in the kind of family relationship, in the very same kind of relationship that the family blesses and legitimises, before marriage? In plain English, what about pre- marital sex? Certainly our daughters do not practise pre-marital sex. They keep their chastity and their purity and for us sex is legitimate only within the bounds of marriage, only in the family, and this very restriction upon our sexual lives saves us from the evils of sexual promiscuity, the sexual libertine that is taking place today in all Western societies. The consequences of this sexual promiscuity are clear for everyone to see. The spread of venereal diseases, the disappointment of the newly-weds in the first week after marriage because everything has been deja vu as, we say in French. Having been accustomed to having more than one sexual partner, this becomes a habit which is continued even after marriage and, therefore, there is no fidelity in the Western home. The children are illegitimate in the eyes of the father because he is not their father and all this brings about emotional ruin.

The leaders of the women 's liberation movement in the West, practically all of them are now retracting what they had been advocating by way of sexual liberty in the 50's, the 60's and the early 70's because they say to themselves now and to their own people: That is not what we have been dreaming of by way of liberty for women. It looks as if we have given birth to a monster that is eating up our stand in society and ruining it. You have also all heard about the teenage pregnancies and the unmarried mothers. You have heard about infanticide, about how people throw their babies into garbage bins and leave them at the doors of others. There is an extremely active business of buying and selling babies which is without parallel in the history of the West and also that despite all this, the so-called ideal of women's liberation, namely that women may have a career, a career which may give them dignity and self-respect, has failed. Despite all the work that has been done in this field, women are still looked upon as sex toys or sex objects. They are still under-paid and their legal personalities are incomplete. In other words, there are still many legal rights which women do not enjoy on par with men and so, this whole movement which liberated women in order to improve her situation has brought ruin upon itself, upon women, as well as upon the family. However, the Islamic family, by upholding the Islamic ideal of sexual purity, of sexual legitimacy only in and within marriage and married life, has saved itself from all these evils. In New York, where at the entrance to the public library stand two big lions made out of stone, the common saying is that these two lions roar whenever a virgin passes by them. Well, now the saying is that the two lions roar whenever a sane woman, whenever a woman who has preserved her mental health, passes by them. All these evils, Alhamdulillah, we are saved from by virtue of our upholding the Islamic ideals of sexual chastity and purity.

The Patriarchal Family

Secondly, the family in Islam is a patriarchal family and the patriarch, that is to say, the head of the family, carries a tremendous burden of responsibility. Along with this responsibility he carries the burden of leadership. He acts as a fulcrum around which the life of the family revolves and all the talk about the superiority of men over women is nonsense unless it refers to this leadership role and the responsibility role. It is absolutely essential. Even in the case of the universe, of the cosmos, Allah, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, has said to us in His Holy Book: "But if there were more than two Lords in the universe, one of these Lords would have contested the power of the other and fought to ride over him." In other words, it is impossible to have a management, to have an organisation, to have a going concern such as the family without somebody assuming the role of leadership and responsibility. And this is really all that Allah, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, has meant us to achieve and to understand when he established for us the leadership, the family as a patriarchal institution because our Shari'ah, without apology does regard the family as a patriarchal institution. The ship without a captain cannot run for long, nor does the ship without a rudder. Allah has blessed us by imposing this leadership, by vesting the patriarch of the family with it and demanding its fulfilment, in fact, making the question of fulfilment a question of law. A father who is not fulfilling his role as a responsible leader is a father that can be sued under the law, under the Shari'ah, and he can be sued by any member of the Islamic Ummah because the Ummah and the Shari'ah regard this role as constitutive, it is a public role.

The Social Features

A third advantage which the Islamic family has over the Western family is the fact that the family is made out of a cement which is social and therefore begins long before the marriage, but the special relationship that we refer to as the love relationship is supposed to begin and to grow only after marriage and not before. Before marriage, there is social affinity between the two families of the couple. After marriage, one enters upon this relationship with a determination to make it grow and, therefore the chances of a love relationship between husband and wife growing and becoming more secure and stronger are better under the Islamic system than they are under the Western system. Under the Western system, as you know, it is supposed to grow as a result of courtship, but because of illicit fornication which may take place between the couple before they become husband and wife, marriage is looked upon as a confirmation of that which has already been developing for a year or two or three or ten or whatever. In our society, marriage is regarded as the beginning not the consummation; it is not something that is practically finished on the wedding day. It is something that begins on the wedding day, and has all the future in which to flower and become greater. The determination with which this is entered into by the Muslim spouses allows ample room for adjustment because the commitment has already been made and therefore a Muslim who enters into marriage is determined to make that marriage work, determined to make the love relationship between the two spouses grow, and is therefore more ready for the adjustment that family life demands. It is the other way round in Western society. If this relationship has grown to its apex before marriage and marriage is looked upon as a consummation of that movement, then the consequence is that the desire to adjust, the preparation to make the necessary sacrifices and adjustments, would be all the more because the interest in it would be on the wane rather than on the increase.

Arranged Marriages

A fourth advantage is the advantage that we talk about in arranged marriages. Arranged marriages are really the coming together of two families. Of course, the individuals are involved, and as we said earlier it is possible for such a marriage to succeed because from the standpoint of the marriage the love relationship begins after and not before the wedding. But then, the relationship between the two families is something that has been cultivated for some time, and so we speak of the Muslim marriage not as a marriage of two individuals but as a marriage of two families. And the two families with all their resources, their human resources, their economic resources, their wisdom resources are at the service of the newly-married couple and there is no doubt that nobody in the world needs more advice, more economic assistance and more support than the newly-married couple and this is provided for them from both sides of the marriage if it is truly a Muslim marriage, that is to say a marriage of the two families. Compare and contrast this with the situation of the Western young men and women who meet under all kinds of circumstances on their own and having met and fallen in love, decide to enter into marriage. They are literally alone and this is why the greatest overwhelming majority of these marriages are contracted outside even the knowledge of their parents and their relatives.

Marriage: A Civil Contract

A fifth point is that our marriage is by contract; it is a civil contract between two equal parties, between two equal families, not just between two individuals. It is a civil contract that requires the consent of the two parties. The two parties may include outside of the Shari'ah requirements, anything that may lead to their happiness and mutually agreeable to both of them. Once the marriage has taken place and the contract has been signed and agreed upon, witnessed not only by the individual spouses, but also by their guardians and their elders, then it becomes a legal and binding document. Now, this creates a constitution for the marriage. Now consider its fate, and the home as a state. It has internal affairs and it has external affairs, it has public security affairs and it has police affairs and jail affairs, sometimes. It has educational affairs and it has propaganda affairs, and public information. All the ministries of government, all the functions of the ministries of government are there to be per- formed in the family, in the home unit. Can you imagine all these activities being carried out with- out a constitution in the state? But such is the Western marriage. The Western marriage has no constitution. It is a state without a constitution.

They say it is a sacrament and a sacrament is an equal act; it is a mysterious cement which has created, a cadre or framework that has been vested upon that couple outside of their family and it is not spelled out, that is to say, nobody knows its terms and this is why when there is dispute, when there is trouble, when the marriage is on the rocks, they have to refer to custom, to common law, to what- ever the arbitrary wisdom of the judge may happen to hit upon by way of solution. Therefore, we can say that the Western marriage is a chaotic marriage, it is the founding of an institution without a constitution, whereas our Islamic marriage, being built upon the constitution, its terms being spelled out in the constitution which is the contract of marriage, is an orderly, a societal institution, that is to say it is an institution very much in society. And Allah, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, has commanded us in the Holy Book that if we agree on anything, to write it down, and writing down the contract of marriage is a blessed act which saves the marriage as well as a great deal of unhappiness and suffering.

Marriage - Settles Life and Relations

Likewise, this contract of marriage, and this is my sixth point, settles life and relations should the marriage for any reason come to an end, whether this is by death or separation by divorce. The consequences are all or should all be spelled out in the contract of marriage and in this way the life of the spouses after marriage are also regulated. I remember a case which I read about in the American press not too long ago, a case in California. California is the state which is most liberal in man- woman relations and now they recognise that a man and a woman coming together and living together without marriage, without the sacrament, still entitles the woman to some kind of settlement, some kind of compensation. I remember one very famous American woman sued the man who was her paramour, with whom she had been living for many years without marriage, without bond, neither civil nor religious nor anything. She pleaded her case to the judge that "after all, I have given this man the flower of my youth, I have given this man all the service and all the company and so on and so forth, now he is telling me to get out of here, and no settlement, nothing, and he is a man of means. Am I not entitled to something, despite the fact that I have no marriage and we have been living in sin?" So the judge pronounced his verdict that because there had been no contract, no marriage agreement, and at least the sacrament is a kind of agreement that is recognised by society, you the woman are not entitled to anything. So this famous woman went out and met the press and she began cursing the judicial system of America for this atrocious piece of injustice and she was saying: "all fellow women of America, do not ever enter into marriage, do not allow your men even to kiss you unless you agree with them on the consequences of termination of that relationship, and put it down in writing for only then will the judicial system operate."

And when I read that, I said that here, finally, these American women, after running away from the Islamic value of pinning down and spelling out the relationship and the consequences of the relationship in a contract which has been available to everyone for fourteen centuries, finally they are coming to realise its value. How much education and how much safeguarding of the future for our Western neighbours, our non-Muslim neighbours it would provide if we were to invite them to our homes and show them our contracts of marriage and tell them that life within marriage, or should the marriage be terminated outside the marriage, are all here, written down and spelled out, agreed upon not only by the two individuals concerned, but also by the two families. What a tremendous source of relief this could give them if they were capable of practising it and, of course, this would be an introduction to them to enter the fold of Islam because only Islam gives them that assurance and that guarantee.

Women's Personality

The seventh point that I want to make concerns woman's personality. I have already mentioned women's liberation and you are aware, I am sure, how much has been done since the days of universal suffrage; the right to vote, to elect officers of the government, or a right to all property or what you have, but the West still has a great deal to learn from Islam on this question of legal status, regardless of the relationship that marriage has brought about. In the West, only very recently and only a few women are beginning to carry their maiden name and then only those that have achieved a reputation and a career before marriage. It has become something of a business value, like the name of the business world, therefore they want to keep the name, but very few among them believe that they are total and complete personalities and of course, the law does not allow them to be. There is no faith in the union, in America, that would allow a married woman, or a married man for that matter, to sell a property without consideration for the other spouse. And so it looks that, as far as buying and selling property is concerned, women are half persons, not fully legal persons, and in the continent in Europe, there are still many states which do not recognise at all such rights of married women or of unmarried women for that matter.

The Extended Family

Then our family, and this is my eighth point, our Muslim family is an extended family, it is not a nuclear family though the nuclear family is quite fashionable . We said that the nuclear family, forgive me for using this term and playing on the term nuclear and fission, the nuclear family consisting only of husband, wife and children does not have the resources, the human resources, the wisdom resources, the friendly resources that the extended family brings to the scene. This tendency, unfortunately is gripping the whole Muslim world and I would not be surprised to see it gripping the Muslim population of England, Europe and America as well, that every person who gets married wants to go and live in a flat of his own, avoiding his relatives, immediate or distant. This is a terrible development, this is the Westernisation and the corruption that we are subjected to, that we are undergoing in our lives in the West, and we should resist it. We should resist it for several reasons. The Shari'ah has prescribed for us who is our dependent and who is not our dependant, who is our heir and who is not our heir and therefore, to the extent that the Shari'ah has done this, then those people who inherit from us and who are our dependants must live together. We must eat together from the same kitchen and live as far as possible in the same home. We, our brothers, our sisters, our parents, our grandparents, our cousins, uncles, nephews, nieces and so forth, because these constitute the extended family of Islam. Now the extended family of Islam is the noblest, the greatest, the most valuable social institution that the world has ever seen. By going nuclear, that is to say by going individualistic, Western society has lost all these values and they are suffering terribly.

Let me point out to you a few of those consequences. Because we live with our parents and our elders, we love them, they have brought us up, they have played with us when we were young, they have told us stories, they were patient with us and they have educated us, guided us, advised us, so we love them because we are in constant communion with them. However, in the Western case, there is alienation and a strangeness because as soon as the youth period is past, the children strike out on their own and the result is that when the parents become old, there is no respect for them; they end their days pining for their children in old folks' homes or the nursing homes for old people. There could not be a more cruel death for anyone than that of being taken to the old folks' home to die slowly, away from his own progeny, from his own dependants and there could not be a worse fate for any man or woman than to be deprived of the relationship and affection of their own children. But you see, respect for elders has to be cultivated and it will not be cultivated by separation, hence this is the great benefit of the Muslim extended family. Secondly, the extended family permits no generation gap among Muslims. In the same family there are babies, teenagers, adults and elders, maybe elders of the first level and elders even of the second level and, since they live together, they are in constant communion with one another; this is precisely the socialisation, the acculturation that the sociologists are talking about and are pleading for, and yet the nuclear family makes it impossible. This is why acculturation and socialisation have to be obtained in the drug store, through the television screen or through one's peers in the schools, but then this is not acculturation, this is not socialisation. This is demagogisation, if the term can be used. Acculturation and socialisation means the passing on from one generation to another of norms, of social norms, of social values. It does not mean a group of people coming together Ad hoc in order to have fun. That is not socialisation, that is not acculturation, and where in the Western society can this process take place anyway?

This is why Western society today is so radically different from Western society of yesterday, and this is why the old values of Western society do not obtain today and why there is no continuity. On the Islamic side, because of the extended family, there is no such generation gap. Thirdly, a great consequence of the extended family is the fact that considering that human beings are social animals, as the philosophers used to say, they need company, they need solace. I need somebody with whom to love sometime and I need somebody with whom to play sometime. I need somebody with whom to complain sometime and I need somebody with whom to cry sometime. Now where else but in the extended family can I find that somebody? Now if I do not have the extended family, if I do not give vent to these pent-up emotions, these emotions will build up in me and make me insane, make me crazy, they will make me take to drugs, to alcohol, to running after other women outside the home.

A nuclear family endangers that sanity and opens the door to all kinds of maladjustments. Another consequence of the extended family is that we learn to be loyal to a group, we learn to be altruistic, we learn to give our emotions, our love, loyalty and fidelity to a group that is, of course, the microcosm of the Ummah, in other words, to defeat our individualism. All of us are individualists, this is something inside us, it is an instinct. We are all advocates, everybody wants to promote himself and fill his own tummy and so on and so forth. This is natural, Allah has put that inside us, but Allah has also planted us in an extended family in order to curb those instincts, to discipline them. In fact, to make something good come out of them instead of the egotistic pursuit which brings ruin. Without the extended family there can be no Ummah because there can be no Ummatic feeling bred in the members and the result would be dissolution, and this is exactly what we are seeing in the Western family and in Western society. Western society today is built upon individuals and upon egotism, everybody wants his own thing, his own pleasure, to pursue his own interests, and nobody is willing to adjust and sacrifice and co-operate with another and this is why the society is falling apart. And to bring a Western person into an extended family and to let him experience what we experience in the extended family situation is undoubtedly, if he or she has any measure of sensitivity, to convert them to Islam, to make them one to that kind of relaxation, that kind of thirst that is enjoyed by the Muslim who is living in an extended family.

The Benefits of an Extended Family

Another point, the ninth point, can be regarded as a consequence of the extended family. We have heard about women going out to work and having a career, but for a woman to go out to work and have a career in the West, in the nuclear family, must always be and can only be done at the cost of the home and the children. Either there are no children, deliberately, in order to pursue the career or, if there are children, they are abandoned to the television set or to the baby-sitter or to the street corner if they cannot afford the baby-sitter. Sometimes they even bum themselves or burn the house down by playing with fire without a supervisor. Or the woman comes home from work, exhausted to the point of being uninterested in the spouse or another person, and then tempers fly, because everybody is exhausted and so family life is ruined. I want to tell you that only in the Muslim family can the woman have a career outside the home. Why? Because she can absent herself, if she has a talent; if she has the talent to invent things or produce things that would benefit the whole Ummah, a woman can do that without losing either home or children. Why? Because there are so many other women in the home, because there are so many other people in the home carrying on the business of the family and so preventing damage to the career or the home. Of course, the first career of a Muslim woman is her family. There can be no doubt about that, and that comes before driving shuttles to the moon or whatever or inventing robots. It is her duty, it is her function, it is her prime function, the function for which Allah has created her is, indeed, to be the pillar, the main pillar of the family and the mother. But this may not exhaust all her years or all her energies. And therefore, if it is possible for her to serve the Ummah additionally, besides being a mother, this could be done only in the case of the extended family and the Muslim family. And it is also the condition for the preservation of her femininity because the tensions under which women work outside of the home are dissipated when she comes home and the same femininity, the same feminine touch never leaves the home. This is always available.

And, in conclusion, I should remind you of all the other values that our Muslim family enjoys by virtue of adhering to the prescriptions of the Shari'ah. The fact that we do not drink alcohol or take drugs is a tremendous source of strength for the family. The fact that gambling is Haraam and that the resources of the family ought to have one kitty in which to put their incomes and from that kitty should come all the expenses of everyone according to a system of priorities established by the responsible leader or father. All these are tremendous props which the Western peoples do not enjoy at all.

The Last Word

And now a last word. We are here to stay, we are here to plant Islam in this part of the world and we must utilise everything in our power to make the word of Allah supreme. If we go and merely talk to our neighbours, our talk is talk and talk my brothers and sisters, does not have the convincing power of facts. Facts and deeds are far more eloquent and they tell their stories far stronger than any words, even if the words are sheer poetry. Now it is in the realm of the family that these values of Islam are exemplified. You must make it a rule to invite a non-Muslim to visit your family once a week. Devote every Friday evening to your Da'wah effort. Invite your neighbour, whether your friend is a colleague from the factory, office, the shop where you work or your geographic neighbour next door. Let him come in with his wife or with his girlfriend or whatever, let them come in and see for themselves these Islamic values implemented in the real life of the family. You do not have to be rich; you have to be clean, you have to be disciplined, you have to be thinking in terms of Da'wah, of putting forth these excellent values of Islam and talking about them, and not only talking about them, but practising them, and that would be your best argument. And remember that it is Allah that converts them to Islam, not you, but may you all and your poor brother, Ismail Faruqi, be instruments in the hands of Allah, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, to spread His faith.

"The family is a divinely inspired institution that came into existence with the creation of man. The human race is a product of this institution and not the other way around."

Role of the Family in the Spread of Islam

BLOG DIRECTORY, Submit blog free, Promote Blog, Best directory

Dealing With Hurtful Relatives
Question and Answer by Sheikh al-Munajjid
First Published Saturday, October 30th 1999 (as-Sahar al-Islamiyah)

Question:

I have a maternal uncle who creates a lot of trouble for my family. His wife and children have even taken my mother to court and falsely testified that she physically assaulted them and threatened to kill them.

There are numerous other bad things they do, but my uncle after a few months comes back and asks my mother for forgiveness. She forgives him, and he starts pretending he is a maskeen. But, he continues to support his children and wife who hurt my mother many times.

Anyway, I asked my mother not to talk to him anymore. She claims we have to forget and forgive. But surely there are limitations. Is it wrong to ask my mother not to associate with him anymore? Is it wrong for me to continue to refuse to have anything to do with him or his family? I do not wish to forget or forgive, especially when there is no change in his behavior.

Answer:

Praise be to Allah.

If you want to deal with him on the basis of justice, then it is permissible for you to respond in like to his unkind words, as Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"And if you punish (your enemy), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted." [al-Nahl 16:126].

But if you bear it with patience, that will be better for you, as Allah says at the end of the same aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

"But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for al-saabireen (the patient ones)." [al-Nahl 16:126]

If you want to turn enmity into love, then treat him well, even if he treats you badly, as Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal. Repel (the evil) with one which is better, then verily! He between whom and you there was enmity, (will become) as though he was a close friend." [Fussilat 41:34]

The words, "The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal" mean that there is a huge difference between the two. "Repel (the evil) with one which is better," means that when someone treats you badly, answer back with something better, as 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "There is no better punishment for the person who sinned by being bad to you, than your obeying Allah by being good to him in return." (Tafseer Ibn Katheer).

A man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: "O Messenger of Allah, I have relatives with whom I try to keep in touch, but they cut me off. I treat them well, but they treat me badly. I try to be kind to them, but they are cruel to me." He said: "If you are as you say, it is as if you are putting hot ashes in their mouths. You will continue to have support from Allah against them so long as you continue doing that." (Reported by Muslim, no. 2558)

Our advice to you, our sister, is to be tolerant and forgiving. Follow your mother's advice. It is clear from your question that this man has room to regret and retract his bad actions. Allah tells us (interpretation of the meaning):

"whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah" [al-Shoora 42:40]

However, all of this does not prevent us from protecting ourselves from the evil and harm that such relatives may cause. If going to their houses, for example, will cause some kind of offence or harm, then the relationship can be limited to telephone calls, kind words, the occasional gift and so on. The relationship can be maintained at a distance, if being too close will cause problems.

We ask Allah to guide us all, to help us not to bear any grudges towards anyone, and to treat one another properly. May Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Mother: My Best Friend!

Mother: My Best Friend!
By Muhammad ash-Shareef
Reprinted from As-Sahwah.com

Aseer ibn Jaabir narrates: Whenever people would come from Yemen, Umar would ask them, "Is Uways Al-Qaranee amongst you?" until, one year, he met Uways. He said, "Are you Uways Al-Qaranee?" He said, "Yes." Umar continued, "From Muraad, then Qaran?" He said, "Yes." Umar then asked, "Were you once afflicted with leprosy and your skin healed except for a dirham's area?" Uways said, "Yes." Umar finally asked, "Do you have a mother (that is alive)?" He said, "Yes." Umar then said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - say, "Uways ibn Aamir will come to you with the delegations from Yemen, from Muraad, then from Qaran. He was once afflicted with leprosy and his skin healed except for a dirham's area. He has a mother, and he treats her kindly. If he was to ever swear by Allah (for something) Allah would fulfill his oath. If you can, request that he ask forgiveness for you." Umar then requested from Uways, "Ask forgiveness for me." And Uways Al-Qaranee did.

Allah - Ta'ala - commanded us,

And your Lord decreed that you should worship none but Him and that you be dutiful to your Parents. If one of them or both attain old age in your life, then do not say to them uff (a word of disrespect), nor shout at them, rather address them in terms of honour / And lower for them the wing of submission and humility through mercy. And say, "My Lord! Grant them Your Mercy as they brought me up when I was small." Al-Israa' 17/23-24

Ad-Daylami collected from Al-Husayn ibn Ali, that the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "If Allah knew any smaller than uff (tsk) to be disrespectful to parents, He would have decreed it to be Haram!" In Bukhari, a man came to the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - seeking permission to go for Jihad. The Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - asked him, "Are your Parents alive?" He said, "Yes." He - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "Perform Jihad (in you kind treatment) of them."

If someone came to you today and offered you a free lunch, what would be your response? No doubt you would smile, speak kindly to them, and reserve a special place in your heart for their memory. Why is it then that our parents receive only cold stares, harsh words and bitter treatment and they are who they are in our lives? For twenty or thirty years they fed us, clothed us, washed us, and showered their mercy on our soft skin. Their love for us never dies even if we do. Theirs is a love that goes even beyond us, to our children and even our children's children.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, we all have parents whether they are with us or not. Many have not understood the importance of our parents' position in our lives and their right to be respected and revered. Today I want to remind you and I of the true position of our parents, may Allah have mercy on them all.

Birr Al-Waalidayn is a characteristic of the Mu'min. Al-Hasan Al Basree defined it saying, "Al-Birr is to obey the parents in everything that they ask so long as it is not to disobey Allah. Uqooq is to disown your parents, denying them all of your goodness." By the Ijma' of the Ulamaa', being respectful and obedient to ones parents is Fard! Ibn Hazm said, "(Obeying ones parents) is Fard!" and he quoted the verse: And your Lord decreed that you should worship none but Him and that you be dutiful to your Parents.

To better understand what is meant by Birr Al-Walidayn (kindness to parents), the scholars set the following conditions:

He should place the pleasure of his parents above the pleasure of anyone else, including himself and his wife and kids. Everyone.
He should obey them in everything they command or forbid, whether it agrees with his desires or not, so long as they do not command the disobedience of Allah.
He should present them with everything he feels they desire, whether they ask for it or not. He should present it with kindness and mercy, understanding no matter what he does his shortcomings in fulfilling the true kindness that his parents deserve.
Allah's love comes when our parents love us. And Allah's anger comes when our parents are angry with us. Ibn Abbas raa said, "There are three things that will not be accepted if their mates are not fulfilled. (And he mentioned), Thank Me (Allah) and your Parents.. Luqmaan 31/14.

Ibn Abbaas continued, "Thus whoever thanks Allah and is not thankful to his parents, Allah will not accept from him."

The Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "The Pleasure of Allah is from the pleasure of the parents, and the anger of Allah is from the anger of the parents."

Let us think about how many of us treat our parents. We shy away from them when they may need something. We never visit if we are away from them. In fact, many people dispose of their parents in retirement homes. And when an argument ignites between our parents and us, many of us shout at them as if we were arguing with our worst enemy, May Allah protect us all.

Compare this to those that came before us. Dhibyaan ibn Ali ath-Thowree (ra) used to travel with his mother to Makkah. There in the scorching heat he would dig a little pool and fill it with cool water. Then he would turn to his mother and say, "Ummi, sit in this water to cool yourself."

For many of us, our friends are more precious to us than our mother and father. We are forgetful of the time a man came to the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - and asked him who is more worthy of his dear companionship. He - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "your mother!" The man asked again and again, and the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - replied, "Your mother! Your mother!" Until on the fourth time he - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "Your father." Today, when the common question is asked, "Who is your best friend?" How many people would say, "My mother!" But this is how the question should be answered and implemented.

What pleases our parents comes before everything, so long as it is not in disobedience of Allah. The scholars understood this and set the example for us. Haywah bin Shurayh (ra), one of the Imams of our Ummah, used to give classes in front of his home. During the class, his mother would call him to feed the chickens. He would stand up, leave the Halaqah, and go feed the chickens.

We all want Allah to accept from us, we would all like to enter Paradise. Look down dear brothers and sisters - and you will find paradise at the feet of your mother. Narrated Ahmad and An-Nasaa'ee, from Mu'aawiyah ibn Jaahimah As-Sulamee: My father, Jaahimah (raa) went to the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - and asked, "O Messenger of Allah, I would like to go out and fight for the sake of Allah, and I have come to you for advice." The Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - asked him, "Is your Mother alive?" He said, "Yes." "Then stay near her," advised the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, "For at her feet is Jannah!"

On the other side, making our parents sad or even making them cry is one of the many ways to earn Allah's anger. Imam Ahmad narrates, from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Al-Aas (raa): A man came to the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - to give him his pledge of Allegiance. He said, "I have come to pledge allegiance to you for hijrah! And I have left both my parents behind crying." The Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - commanded him, "Go back, and the same way that you made them cry, make them laugh." Ibn Umar (raa) said, "Making ones parents cry is amongst the Uqooq, a major sin!" Shaykh al-Qaasim once said, "Subhaan Allah! How can we leave our parents sobbing, tears that the throne of Allah shakes for, tears that unsettle the Angels in the heavens, and then we claim that we want to go for jihad so that Allah will be pleased with us? Go back and make them happy with your visit as you made them sad by your departure. If they laugh and are pleased with you, Allah will be pleased."

During the funeral of his mother, Al-Haarith Al-Aklee (ra) weeped. When asked for the reason of his tears he said, "Why should I not cry when one of my doors to Paradise has now closed?"

Part II: We reap what we Plant; Raising Good Muslim Children

In a far away land, a long time ago, a boy was born blind. His widowed mother, the good Muslimah that she was, did not lose hope in her du'aa and she prayed continuously. A few years later, the boy's sight returned. Al-Hamdu lillaah. The mother realized that her village was not befitting for her son to excel in Islamic education, so with her son in hand they migrated to Makkah. There she saw to it that he was instructed in Quran and Hadith, the latter becoming the young man's focus. He went out far and wide collecting Hadith and ultimately he compiled a Hadith book that sits next to the Quran in authenticity, forgetting not his mother that had raised him well. His mother named him Muhammad ibn Isma'il, and many of us know him today as: Al-Imam Al-Bukhari!

Dear brothers and sisters, how often is it that a farmer plants wheat and it comes out as a sunflower? You may say, never! For how can someone farm the seed of one plant and expect some other plant to grow. It just does not happen. Similarly, some parents leave their children waddling in the mud of television, music, movies, and disbelieving friends. Then when the child reaches grade twelve and asks to go to the final dance with a girlfriend, or when he enters University and stops praying, or when he gets married to a kaafir and himself becomes one, then the parents say, "What happened?"

Brothers and sisters, it is the harvest of what we planted. If we do not raise our children to be obedient, where do we expect them to learn? If we do not practice Islam ourselves, who will be our children's example? How do you teach a child to wake up for Fajr, when he sees his own father and mother sleeping in, day after day? You may ask, how do I raise my children to be good Muslims, obedient to their parents? Consider the following:

Firstly: Parentes should discipline their children throughout their youth. Hisham ibn Abd Al-Malik missed a son of his during Jumu'ah one week. When he met him later, he asked him, "Why did you miss Jumu'ah?" He son replied, "My donkey couldn't make the trip." His father then said, "Couldn't you have walked!" For an entire year after that, Hisham ibn Abd Al-Malik made his son walk to Jumu'ah.

Secondly: The piety of the father and mother reaches the children. In the Qur'an, Allah recalls for us the story of Khidr, and how he rebuilt a wall for two orphans: [And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the town. Under it was a treasure belonging to them and their father was a righteous man] Al-Kahf 18/82. Look at how Allah protected these orphans because of the piety of their father. In tafseer, it is said that it was their grandfather seven generations back! Sa'eed ibn Jubayr said, "I often lengthen my Salah for the sake of my son, perhaps Allah may protect him (because of it)."

In conclusion, let us reflect on the virtue of respecting our parents:

* It is one of the greatest things that we can do. In Bukhari and Muslim, from Abd Allah ibn Mas'ood (raa), a man asked the Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam, "What deed is most beloved by Allah?" He - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "Salah on time." The man asked, "And then?" He - SalAllahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "Respecting and revering ones parents." He said, "And then?" "Jihad for the sake of Allah."

* It is a means by which our sins are forgiven. When Allah commanded in the Qur'an [And We enjoined on man to be dutiful and kind to his parents..] The next verse tells us: [They are those from whom We shall accept the best of their deeds and overlook their evil deeds, (they shall be) amongst the dwellers of Paradise.] Al-ahqaaf 46/15-16

* Respecting our parents will lead us to Jannah! In Muslim, from Abu Hurayrah (raa): I heard the Messenger of Allah - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - say, "May he perish! May he perish! May he perish!" It was asked, "Who, O Messenger of Allah?" The Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "He whose parents attain old age in his life, one or both of them, and he does not enter Paradise (because of his lack of goodness towards them)."

And when our parents are gone, the goodness towards them does not end.

Malik ibn Rabi'ah Al-Sa'idi narrated: We were sitting with the Messenger of Allah - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - when an Ansari man came and asked, "O Messenger of Allah, is there anything left from my birr (righteousness) to my parents that I should present to them after their death?" The Prophet - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - said, "Yes, four things: Pray and ask forgiveness for them. Fulfill their pledges. Be kind to their friends. And maintain the ties of kinship that come from only their direction. That is what is left from your Birr to them after their death."

Ahmad, Abu Dawood, and Ibn Maajah. Aamir ibn Abd Allah ibn Az-Zubayr (ra) said, "My father died, and for an entire year I did not ask Allah for anything except that He forgive my Father."

Remember dear brothers and sisters as you meet your parents today, the words of Rasul Allah - Sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam - "Fa feehima fa Jaahid! Do Jihad in (your kind treatment of) your parents."

O Allah, forgive us and our parents, and reward them with the finest reward.

O Allah, elevate their position in the hereafter and this Dunya; make that which befalls them an expiation for their sins. O Allah, grant them residence in Firdows, the highest level of Jannah, with the Prophets, the Siddeeqeen, and the Martyrs.