Fiqh Council Law says Muslims MUST NOT attend a non-Muslim funeral, even of a relative

  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
  • Comment at end

    Or –

    6th January 2011

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’


    Question: “I am a new muslim and my parents and relatives are muslim. One of my relative has dies recently and i was very close to her. I like to know if i can attend her funeral in church? I wont say any words during prayer just sit there.

    Praise be to Allaah.”

    Answer: “It is not permissible for a Muslim to attend the funeral of a non-Muslim even if it is a relative, because attending a funeral is a right that one Muslim has over another and it is a kind of showing respect, honour and friendship that it is not permissible to show to a kaafir.”

    [Source here – Muslims must not attend the funeral of a non-Muslim relative or friend It is also answered here as forbidden because the service is an act of ‘ibadah and thus should be avoided.]

    Oh, FGS! Or even Allah’s!

    Next they’ll be telling  us that Scots mustn’t play the bagpipes in public because it’s mocking the call to prayer, or that Austrians can’t yodel in their own gardens! Oh, sorry, Austrians – they have already. We Scots will have to wait. A bit.

    Clearly multiculturalism is a concept also not accepted by many Muslims, unless of course, it serves Muslims. You can see (below here) more on this dichotomy – a word much used by some Muslim contributors to a recent BBC ‘Sunday’ programme, as I wrote about here. Clearly one religion’s dichotomy is another’s submission.

    I was actually researching something else the Fiqh Council is said to have said when I came across this interesting contribution to togetherness. The other information I was looking for will be in a later post.


    This banning Muslims from non-Muslim funerals of friends and yes even relatives, must be the tit-for-tat that comes from multiculturalism. We tit, they tat.

    It makes you wonder what excuse Baroness Warsi would have for being the only cabinet member not to attend the funeral of,  say, David Cameron, if the worst were to happen to our present prime minister. I imagine Lauren Booth would find this a toughy too if Cherie fell under the proverbial bus. Even though she is financially indebted to her sister, the newly Muslim Lauren would have to find something else more important to do on that day. Of course if it was only the hated brother-in-law making an early exit Lauren would likely be out there hoop-la-ing ‘Allahu Akbar’. She’d have plenty of fellow bellowers: those who hailed as a hero the caught-red-handed-murderer of the Punjab governor Salman Taseer, who was assassinated in Pakistan the other day; and those celebrating after the murder of 79 Christian Copts in Egypt last week. So she won’t be lonely in that company. Just as well, because when her own life is over there may be one or two surprises, and not just that the 72 virgins are all female.

    I wonder if Lauren realises that for the rest of her Muslim life she is forbidden, partly because she’s a woman and partly because it’s forbidden anyway to attend the funeral of ANY of her still Christian relatives.  So when her father, and Cherie’s, Tony Booth goes to that great refuge in the sky – the non-shariah side of course – Lauren will have to busy herself elsewhere. I have a feeling Tony Booth might prefer it that way, anyway.

    Just let’s hope in the meantime it is not a Christian she actually loves, or who loved her, whose funeral she’ll have to miss.

    In the fullness of time Lauren Booth personally will have to deal with all of this, of course.  But if, for instance, she chooses not to attend the funeral of her own Christian relatives, because it’s banned by Islam, I doubt if many of her Christian relatives will be keen to attend hers, even if that is permitted.

    How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

    Now who said that? Oh yes, the man referred to here

    There may well be occasions on which clued-up and moderate Muslims have attended non-Muslims funerals. I even thought for a moment that I could recall such a high-profile event recently. But sadly my google search proved fruitless.

    It is noteworthy that this Fiqh organisation lays down the Islamic code in such blatantly discriminatory terms. I suppose we can be grateful for their honesty. But where is the inclusivity that we in the non-Muslim world are expected to provide by the bucketful?

    I realise there are some in this crazy world of moral relativism who think that I am being selective at times at this blog. I’m not. Unless leaving out the worst bits is being ‘selective’. In my drafts I have several far more damning pieces of information on issues around Islam. Apart from having insufficient time, one of the reasons I do not publish them is that I do not want to infer that every Muslim believes everything they are told from on high – wherever and whoever that is. I realise that the lack of a hierarchical structure in Islam means that all sorts of oddities can set up and call themselves an “authority” on Islam, Muslims, sharia and the law as Islam sees it.

    But this FIQH organisation claims that it has plenty of authority. It says it deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam. Just so we don’t think that all Muslims are all boringly the same, like all non-Muslims, of course,  we are told that there are four prominent schools of fiqh, the Madh’hab, within Sunni practice and two schools within Shi’a practice. A person trained in fiqh is known as a Faqih (plural Fuqaha).[1]

    (Er, yes. Noted.)

    Do you think the freedom-loving peoples of this world give a FIQH?

    Fiqh – wikipedia





    Below is a list of questions/answers put here by Muslims who wish to do the right thing. Note the twisting and turning when it comes to that hated concept “democracy”. The advice – use it when it suits the Muslim cause,  otherwise ignore it. After all the caliphate won’t be long in arriving at democracy’s door – Number 10 and/or The White House, to name but a few.

    Islamic politics
    1 Muslim taking part in elections with non-Muslims. 111898
    2 Advice to the Muslims in Finland. 110455
    3 Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system . 107166
    4 Trying to avoid being appointed as a judge. 95366
    5 Is it permissible for Muslims to vote for kaafirs who seem to be less evil?. 3062
    6 Is it permissible to swear allegiance to a kaafir ruler?. 82681
    7 Is it permissible in Islamic sharee’ah for a woman to be a ruler? . 20677
    8 Should he shave off his beard if he travels to a country where those who have beards are persecuted? . 12565
    9 To whom should ba’yah (allegiance) be given? . 23320
    10 Role of the khaleefah of the Muslims? . 21509
    11 It is not permissible to forsake a Muslim because of differences in points of view . 21878
    12 The situation of the Muslims in Palestine . 31888
    13 Solution to the Palestinian issue . 21977
    14 The uprising of the Palestinian people. 21854
    15 Muslim attitudes towards violence and how to react to kaafir aggression against the Muslim community. 21757
    16 Proportional representation in Islamic centers. 361
    17 Appointing an ameer (leader). 1094
    18 Don’t be such a fanatic!. 11283
    19 Reconciling the fact that the khaleefah should be from Quraysh with the hadeeth about obeying an Abyssinian slave. 11747
    20 Is it permissible for sisters who are working in Da’wah to choose an Ameerah (leader) for themselves?. 42


    I have been to many Christian and Jewish funerals, and have met many Jewish friends at Christian funerals, and vice-versa. But I have never been invited to attend a Muslim funeral, although I do have Muslim friends.  Have you attended a Muslim funeral? If so perhaps you can tell us a little about it.

    Back to top

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’


    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    “All countries need a leader who isn’t afraid to fight terrorism. I believe Mr. Blair did a necessary job in helping his allies. Are we all just supposed to lie down and wait for them to come for us, I don’t think so.”

    And – “Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the privilege of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”

    AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.” <

    AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is an honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”

    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    9 Responses to “Fiqh Council Law says Muslims MUST NOT attend a non-Muslim funeral, even of a relative”

    1. Genie Says:

      “It is not permissible for a Muslim to attend the funeral of a non-Muslim even if it is a relative”

      That’s nonsense and there are other scholarly opinions on the matter. In fact I can remember who told me, it was Hamza Yousef who is a local. A non Muslim reads this answer and no wonder they think we’re batty!

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Thank you, Genie, for your comment.

        Perhaps you could point us to an AUTHORITATIVE source online confirming what you say here, in order to confirm that this statement is “nonsense”.

        Imho, you probably can’t.

        The reason for that? Simply that the koran and hadiths, are open to individual interpretation. Thus some Muslims honestly, and yes, I believe they think this honestly, think that Islamic holy books actually instruct them to kill “infidels”.

        The reason for that belief?

        Because the books actually do say this.

        The reason that this cannot be disowned or modernised as have Christian/Jewish holy books?

        Because it is not permitted to question the prophet. No matter how high an imam. He has no right to suggest any re-assessment of koranic instructions.

        So, if you manage to point me to any reference to support your assertion that it is nonsense that non-Muslims can attend Muslim funerals, I imagine another Muslim could just as quickly point me to a reference which says the opposite.

        The basic problem, imho, is that despite the flexibility of interpretation and so-called freedom to interpret Islamic holy books, they are in fact firmly inflexible in that they are not permitted to be updated or modernised. And/or Muslims are not discouraged from repeating certain versus as they worship. In fact it is my understanding that Muslims are actually expected daily to repeat intructions from the koran on killing the enemy. And the enmy is the “unbeliever”. Any and all unbelievers. Am I wrong on that?

        While you’re pointing us to koranic/hadith instructions re permitting non-Muslims to attend Muslim funerals can you also point us to koranic verses which tell Muslims NOT to kill the enemy. And let us know too if these verses are expected to be used and repeated in mosque worship? Just for the sake of clarification, please.

        And, please, not just the one, oft-quoted, regarding “to kill one is to kill all.” There must be more than that one out there which balances the dozens of others in the opposite vein.

        Can you undestand the issues here? Can you join these dots?

        There is no authority which has the power to lay down Islam’s modernised rules for today’s Muslims, and no-one has any more right than any other Muslim to impose, even suggest such rules.

        As regards the caliphate idea, for instance, I am still waiting for several webiste where I have asked the question to show me that Islam has no such ambitions.

        And answers came their none.

    2. saadaq Says:

      keeptonyblairforpm you are actually quite right but there is a flaw in your thoughts. The quran and hadith do not tell us to kill the unbeliever and could you present me with an “AUTHORITATIVE source” online confirming what you say here? Even if it is just on aya.Everything has a reason, Allah did not tell us to kill the infidels or whatsoever without a clear reason and i’m not saying that a there aren’t people who do it but the in the quran there is always a reason. Just to clear things up show me one verse where there is no reason and where Allah commands the believers to kill the unbeliever.

      And for the fact that a muslim can’t visit the funeral of a non-muslim.
      If you read this link( then you would have understood that :1.These website you call “AUTHORITATIVE” only use weak hadith as in hadith not confirmed by others.

      2.Islam is one religion but there are several “schools” and factions in it,who respectively have their own traditions so islam cannot be called “firmly inflexible”.

      I would also like to add that a muslim cannot doubt the prophet, but the hadith which is narrated by others can be doubted.

      As for the caliphate what would be wrong with it?
      It’s not like the quran says you have to be muslims,in the caliphates that existed long ago in the middle east muslims and non-muslims lived together.Democracy without rules equals anarchy.And islam is democracy everybody does what he wants unless it’s a crime and just like in the west you get punished if you commit a crime. So what’s wrong with that I’d just like to know what the opinion of an unbeliever would be as he sees the world differently.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Thanks for your comment. When I have time – busy right now – I’ll take a look for an aurhoritative source. But in many ways you make my point for me. What is authoratitive when there are so many “get-outs” – as you describe in your comment.

        A quick response to your last query – the west and democracy (as most of the west and free world knows it) was built over centuries and is based on Christianity, not Islam. Even those of us of no particular faith recognise this and appreciate it. So now developed nations have secular (non-religion-based) democracies. That’s the way it will stay, you can be sure of that. That’s progress.

        There is NO way – just no way that the west will succumb (backwards) to a medieval-based faith as a basis for legality. A faith which allows itself to extricate itself from difficult situations by saying “ah well, there are different strands of Islam” – and – “one can decide for oneself” – and “it is a most democratic faith”.

        That still means that any one strand in any one part of a “caliphate” could take a stand on legal issues like, say, stoning for homosexuality or capital punishment for adultery or limb chopping for theft and the nonsensical, illiberal, tyrannical Caliphate supporters could/would insist on it – “democratically” as it were!

        Hysterical, backward-looking nonsense.

    3. saadaq Says:

      First I’d like to say that an authoritive “get-out” would be one recognized by most of the muslim scholars now or one recognized by the main sunni schools. Most of these hadith come from the books of bukhari and muslim. I’d also like to say that no one likes extremists be they muslim, a pagan,a jew or whatsoever and these punishments you just named are punishments from a system used a long time ago these punishments also used to be common in Europe as well.But just as Tariq Ramadan says in this video( in Islam we have a big problem because we don’t have a central authority and those with the biggest audience tends to be seen as those with the biggest authority. Just as the kingdoms in the west evolved, the caliphates in the east-who stood still so long because the rulers tried to cover them from the outside world-will evolve and the revolution has finally started because they got rid of their tirans.

    4. keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      You quote – “in Islam we have a big problem because we don’t have a central authority and those with the biggest audience tends to be seen as those with the biggest authority. Just as the kingdoms in the west evolved, the caliphates in the east-who stood still so long because the rulers tried to cover them from the outside world-will evolve and the revolution has finally started because they got rid of their tirans.”

      Enough said. The “kingdoms” in the west “evolved” and they will continue to do so. And now the tyrannies in the Middle East are attempting to evolve towards a more liberal system. Like ours.

      There is no need to revert to something far less advanced than western democratic, legal and social systems. There is no support for a religious-inspired law (in the west anyway) and there simply never will.

      Thank goodness – and liberty and equality for that.

    5. saadaq Says:

      And why would a religious inspired system be less worth than a secular one?

    6. keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Several reasons.

      First looking at context of western law development and historical comparisons.

      Although it is clear that English law (and much of western law) developed with the influence of Christianity (& Judaism) there was not a “law” as such in Christianity which came as part of the package.

      There is in Islam. Sharia Law is the other side of the Religious coin. Part of the package.

      What happened with the influence of Christianity into our present legal system was that democracy developed alongside the legal system and was influenced by the Church (of England, which is the national “established” Church/religion)

      It took decades, even centuries, for the links to work out their relationship, and this power-basis is ongoing and evolving, sometimes for better somteimes for worse, but invariably with the religious element from the Church finding iself with a diminished role.

      The reasons for that are many but include the SECULAR desire to be inclusive (with, for instance, immigration from other cultures & religions.)

      Whilst appreciating the role of Christianity in helping establish democracy in Britain we are WAY past looking for an even stricter code of religiosity to help define or limit our moral perspectives.

      There is NO way today that ANY religion needs to stick its oar into advanced liberal democracy, which is what we have in Britain, with all its faults.

      Certainly not a relgion which actually aims to take us back to a less liberal era all in the name of a deity (which many do not accept even exists.)

      People may say they are “spiritual” today – whatever that means – but as for believing in a deified religion. Well, I think not.

      Thus the question arises – why should people accept an unbelievable religion’s doctrine of law imposed on our developed democracies?

      No chance.

    7. saadaq Says:

      Actually sharia is a system based on the quran and the hadith these punishments were mostly later on imposed by caiphs. Like the commandments in the bible or the jewish halakha that is based on the torah and the various jewish holybooks and draws no distinction in its laws between religious and ostensibly non-religious life.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s