Islamic Radio Stations

Q : Nowadays there are a number of Islamic radio stations and satellite channels. What is the ruling in Islam of listening to these broadcasts?

A: Radio has to be understood on the following principle: ‘Its good is good and its bad is bad’. In other words, it has good and it has bad. The good comprises Deeni programs from qualified Ulema, news on Muslims around the world, investigative journalism on issues affecting the Muslim World, announcements that are important to the general public, etc. The evil side of radio is in the form of programs that are un-Islamic or that have un-Islamic content, promotion of views or beliefs that are contrary to Quran and Sunnah, violation of hijaab, etc. The ruling for all this is that the good may be listened to, but the evil must be shunned. Such a choice is up to the user or listener of the Radio.

Culling of Elephants

Q: Is the culling of elephants allowed?

A: Culling is a refined termed for murdering innocent animals in the name of biodiversity or wildlife preservation. Scientists use refined and high-sounding words for sometimes gruesome acts of torture. According to Islam, it is not permissible to kill an animal except for two reasons: a) for eating purposes; and such killing should be done through the humane method of thabah; b) when an animal poses a threat to one’s life or property. The culling of elephants is done by game reserves and farmers merely to protect the so-called environment. That is no reason for murdering these innocent creatures. There is no threat to our lives or our property, and the Creator of the environment will take care of it. Allah has created a balance in His environment which He Himself will maintain. When poachers kill these elephants for money, which is also a haraam act, then the environmentalists are aghast. But when they do the same thing under the protection of the state and in the name of scientific advancement, then they do not even bat an eyelid. These are the double standards of the West. Even the culling process is a huge money making scheme, for the thousands of elephants that are slain do not go to waste. Instead the meat and other expensive items of the animal are sold. In our pure Shariah, all this is not allowed. Rasoolullah taught kindness to even animals and prohibited the use of animals for target practice.

Government Land Reparations

Q: In the apartheid times the government forcefully took away many properties from our parents and grandparents and gave them meagre sums of money as a form of compensation. The government is now compensating people who were affected by giving applicants claiming that their parents/grandparents properties had been expropriated, by giving them properties in lieu of the injustice done. My question is that would the properties now given form part of the estate of the deceased to be distributed amongst the heirs or will they be the sole right and ownership of the applicant.

A: It is a principle of Islamic Law that when a non Muslim state usurps the land or property of a Muslim, that state or government becomes its owner, as stated in the famous Hanafi law book Al-Hedayah. This means that such a property has left the possession of the Muslim and has entered the ownership of the non Muslim state. Upon the occurrence of such a transfer of ownership, the Muslim has lost all rights to that property. Consequently when that Muslim dies, the property usurped from him by the state does not form part of his estate. His heirs will have no claim to such a property at any stage. The same law applies to properties acquired by the State through forced sales. The owners forfeited all rights over those properties to the state the moment they signed the deeds of sale. Years later, when the new government decides to compensate the former owners by giving them the same properties back, or other properties in its place, this must not be considered a retrieval of a past right, or a type of refund. In Shar'ee terms restitution of land is actually a gift or grant by the government to compensate the former owners for their losses. Hence, whoever the authorities decide to give these lands to, will become the owners. As stated earlier, lands lost to the apartheid government no longer belonged to the former owners, so such lands were never inherited by the heirs. On this basis, when today lands are given to people who lost theirs during the apartheid regime, it will be regarded as government grants. The recipients are the owners, not the heirs of the former owners. So these lands and properties will not form part of the deceased estate and does not need to be distributed among surviving heirs. The one who receives such a land from the state will own it unconditionally.

The Amman Message

Q: What is your view on the Amman Message?

A: The Amman message is a document prepared and compiled after a meeting in Amman, upon the instigation of King Abdullah of Jordan. For all intents and purposes, that document appears to be politically motivated, for the content itself violates every principle of Islamic belief. One cannot read anything into this document except political machinations. The Amman Message has been supposedly designed to foster better inter-faith relations among Muslims, and to unite the fragmented Ummat. It is purported to convey the true aqaai-id or Beliefs of Islam. However, it contains everything to the contrary. It recognises certain sects that are outside the Pale of Islam, such as Shias, and it gives credibility to baatil or deviant groups such as the Ibaadiiyah and Salafi sects. The document precludes Ulema from declaring false sects as false, and issuing fatwa of kufr on those groups that have reneged on Islam. It is claimed that 500 scholars world-wide attached their signatures of approval to this document. What a farce! The 500 so-called scholars comprise male and female journalists, male and female business people, professors, medical doctors, rich land owners, etc. Surely such people cannot be termed Islamic Scholars. There are some Ulema from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and South Africa whose names appear on the list. However, one serious discrepancy that has come to light in the Amman message is the supposed ‘signature’ of Hazrat Mufti Taqi Uthmani, of Pakistan. We have a written statement in our possession from Hazrat Mufti sahib wherein he categorically denied signing the Amman message. His signature was probably copied from a fatwa on one particular issue that he had sent to the Amman group. If this is the case, how can we believe that the other signatures are authentic?