Articles

Some Flaws of Religious Discourse in Mass Media
Author : Dr. Hassan Abu_Arqoub
Date Added : 11-10-2022

Some Flaws of Religious Discourse in Mass Media

 

Religious discourse is one of the most widespread discourses in mass media and aims to acquaint believers and others with the teachings of Islam to be a methodology for the believers and an invitation for the non-believers.

The follower of religious discourse hardly fails to notice a number of flaws that limit its actual success. This I say because this discourse may have succeeded in the sense that it has spread widely, but it lacks the true fruits desired from it. Some key flaws are:

 

First /Takfir and Tafsiq:

 

The proponents of this discourse consider themselves on the truth and whoever disagrees with them is an evil sinner who had gone astray. The amazing thing, here, is that they apply this to their fellow Muslims and about controversial issues. For example, tagging the Muslim who visited the grave of a saint as an apostate who went astray and abandoned the sound doctrine. Rather, whoever doesn`t consider such person an apostate is an apostate himself. This is extremely exclusive since it isn`t correct to judge someone`s belief in such a haphazard manner. First, we have to make sure that their belief is valid through dialogue. If they have done something wrong, we should teach them how to right that wrong. If they haven`t, then we may not agree with their view or not favor it. However, it is wrong to accuse them with innovation, deviating from the right path since this leads to introducing this exclusive culture in society, causes division, and afterwards yields terrorism, and extremism since, from their perspective, people are considered either apostates or misguided innovators.

 

Second/Fanaticism:

 

It is normal to have Madhabs (Schools of Islamic thought) along with the foundation of the religion. As for fanaticism, it is denounced in every time and place since it causes one to deviate from justice and equity, becomes magnanimous with his Madhab to the extent of recognizing no other, and thus impairs his mind and thought leading to freezing his reasoning and rejecting the other. Instead of using his time studying and seeking knowledge, a bigot engages in tracking the lapses of others and refuting their views. This is an endless cycle that increases enmity and hatred on steady basis, so the victims of fanatic discourse remain in the same cycle spreading the culture of hatred and rejection of the other throughout society yielding extremism and terrorism. Historically speaking, bigots have been practicing this for so long.

 

Third: Failure to distinguish between divine text and human Ijtihad (Independent reasoning), which is a serious drawback. This is because the divine text has its sanctity and respect and it isn`t permissible for the religious person to disagree with or ignore it for doing so renders his/her religiosity meaningless. As for Ijtihad in understanding a text, it remains a human effort that doesn`t enjoy the same sanctity although it is respected and appreciated. This human effort is amenable to give and take and disagreement since people perform acts of worship based on the injunctions of their Lord not fellow humans. Here, the problem lies in elevating the status of Ijtihad to the sanctity of the divine text, which bans minds from coming near or examining human Ijtihad although some may have better Ijtihad. 

 

Fourth/Being out of touch with reality:

 

This is noticed in some topics presented through the media. While most people are having hard times trying to survive, some presenters dwell on issues like the ruling on shaving beard or the obligation of having a Sutrah (An object used by a person performing Salah as a barrier between himself and one passing in front of him). These are examples of controversial issues for which one episode or book will not contribute to the renaissance of the Muslim nation. Rather, there is room for disagreement since they aren`t doctrinal issues testing someone`s faith.

 

Fifth/Employing myths and stories:

 

The divine religion is founded on divine text and it has to be delivered to the people. However, it can`t be conveyed through stories, myths and lies although these are sweet on the ear, numb the mind, and incite tears. Some advocates tell stories that have no origin nor chain of narrators and spread them amongst the people as divine text. They, for instance, would say that girl was paralyzed because she disobeyed her mother; that person got mad because he disobeyed his father; that person became poor because he didn`t make a donation to a certain party; that woman caught cancer because she didn`t wear Hijab, in addition to many other examples. The problem, here, is that these reinforce only the idea that Allah is there to punish His slaves, He isn`t merciful and doesn`t forgive sins and slips.

The above stated is the tip of the iceberg, but I wanted to quickly go over them as a reminder for my brothers and myself to avoid them as much as possible.

 

The published article reflects the opinion of its author

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Is it permissible for one who sacrifices on behalf of another, with the latter's permission, to eat from the sacrifice?

It is permissible for someone who sacrificed on behalf of another with their permission to eat from it with their permission, and they stand in their place (act as their representative) in distributing it.
 
It is stated in Nihayat al-Muhtaj ila Sharh al-Minhaj (Vol.8/P.141): "And he—meaning the one sacrificing on his own behalf, provided he has not apostatized—has the right to eat from a voluntary sacrifice and his sacrificial gift; rather, it is recommended. As for an obligatory sacrifice, it is forbidden for him to eat from it, whether it was designated as such initially or as a liability in his dhimmah. And excluded by what has preceded is if he sacrifices on behalf of another, or if he apostatized, then it is not permissible for him to eat from it, just as it is absolutely impermissible to feed a disbeliever from it."(The text I found indicates the impermissibility of eating) ???
 
And it is stated in Hashiyat al-Jamal ‘ala Sharh al-Manhaj (Vol.5/P.262): "If a person offers a sacrifice on behalf of a living person with their permission, does he act as their representative in distributing it—on the grounds that permission to sacrifice is permission to distribute it—or does it depend on their explicit permission? This requires consideration, but the first view is not far-fetched." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on purchasing sacrificial animals and authorizing their slaughter via telephone?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is preferable for the one offering a sacrifice (udhiyah) to slaughter the animal himself, in adherence to the Sunnah, or to be present at the slaughter if possible.
 
It is valid to authorize a butcher to purchase a sacrificial animal on his behalf and slaughter it, regardless of whether the animal is owned by the butcher or the butcher is acting as an agent in its sale—according to the Hanbali school—provided that the butcher specifically designates and purchases the animal for the person offering the sacrifice before slaughtering it. And Allah Almighty knows best.