http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=117989&d=14&m=1&y=2009
Friday 9 January 2009 (12 Muharram 1430)
Ruling on Yoga
Adil Salahi | Arab News
A ruling issued by a learned scholar in Malaysia says that Yoga is
forbidden for Muslims to practice. The scholar urges the government to make
clear that Muslims must not practice Yoga. Please comment.
(T.K.T Abdullah)
The ruling states that Yoga is traced back to Hinduism, and that it has
religious and philosophical aspects. If this is the case, then the ruling is
sound and religious scholars everywhere can only endorse it. However, many
people practice Yoga today without being aware of any religious or
philosophical overtones. They merely take up its aspects of physical exercise
and contemplation. While these may be proper and beneficial to many people, the
problem remains that as people advance in these practices, their teachers may
lead them on to the philosophical or religious aspects.
Physical and breathing exercises, as well as contemplation, may help many
people, training them to be relaxed. This is certainly beneficial, particularly
because life today involves much stress. Islam encourages both methods. Many
are the Qur'anic Verses that invite people to contemplate on God's creation and
what we see in the world around us of miraculous aspects. The Prophet lays much
stress on ensuring that a Muslim should try to be strong. He tells us to teach
our children to practice such sports as horse riding, swimming and archery.
All this shows that a Muslim does not need to resort to the traditions of
any other religion. What we need is to be free of all restrictions imposed by
such traditions and to follow Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) advice. We
will be able then to overcome much of the stress that life presents.
My father died eight years ago leaving behind his wife, two sons, three
daughters, one brother and two sisters. Both his parents died long time ago.
His estate is mainly a house valued today at around 1.8 million rupees. How is
his property to be shared out? If the two sons want to have the house, how much
should they pay to each of the other heirs? May I also point out that the
eldest son used to maintain the house and receive the income from the rooms
rented. (Anisa)
What I am saying about the sharing out of your father's inheritance
applies to the house and to everything else he left behind, including any cash
amount, payment from his work, furniture, etc. Because he had children of his
own, including two sons, his brother and two sisters are blocked from
inheriting him. In other words, they get nothing. Siblings inherit only when
the deceased has neither sons nor parents surviving him.
The only one of your father's heirs that has a fixed share is his wife,
who inherits one eighth of all his property. The remainder, which is seven
eighths, is divided into seven shares, one for each of the three daughters and
two each for the two sons.
Thus, in this particular case, each of the daughters inherits an amount
equal to that of the man's wife. This does not apply in other cases. If you
want the shares to be determined in figures, then each of the four women takes
225,000 rupees, and each of the two sons takes 450,000, assuming that the value
of the house is 1.8 million. The same proportion applies to other items of your
father's estate.
The complication arises from the eldest son's work in the house and
income from it. You say that this was the case for several years during your
father's lifetime. It all depends on the arrangements your father and brother
had. If it was agreed between them that the rent was in compensation for the
work your brother put in, then it belongs to him. If no such agreement was
made, you and your brothers and sisters need to agree some arrangement. If
there was such an arrangement, you are recommended to consider that it has
continued for the years that followed your father's death. If not, you need to
look into the matter carefully.
The only thing I want to say is that you should sort it out amicably.
Unless there is clear and unwarranted favoritism to one party, it is better to
let things as they are. You make the division now and everyone takes their dues
