Intimacy With Multiple Wives In One Day Or Night

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 

Among the many fiqh related affairs in which there is differing is the subject related to the ruling on a husband, with multiple wives, being intimate with all his wives in one day (or night). This differing mainly stems from a narration found in the two authentic collections, and the text of the narration is as follows:

Anas ibn Malik said: The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- would make his rounds to each of his wives (i.e. for intimacy) in one hour amid the night and or the day and they were eleven (the actual number being nine as Saeed narrated from Qatadah).

Al-Bukhari: 268

The variation in number 284, 5068, and 5215, mentions “in one night” as opposed to one hour, and that the number of wives were nine and not eleven.

The variation in Muslim (309) is:

The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- would make rounds to all his wives (and purify himself) with one bath.

Typically in affairs of fiqh jurisprudence the scholars may differ and, along with their differing, may have more than two opposite and contradictory positions in an issue. This specific issue is no different as there are several positions attributed to the scholars as relates to this affair. They are as follows:

First: Division between his wives was not made binding upon him and this lack of obligation was specific to him aside from the rest of his nation.

Al-Imam ibn al-Mulaqqin said: Al-Mawardi and a community (of scholars) said that it wasn’t obligatory, but that he only voluntarily implemented it and al-Ghazali deemed the opinion as valid in Al Khilasah. (غاية السول في خصائص الرسول)

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin said: What is apparent to me -and Allah knows best- is that the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- for him specifically Allah made a concession as pertains to abandoning division between spouses; however, due to his nobility and good character he acted equitably in all of what he was capable.
(شرح بلوغ المرام)

Second: Division among his wives was obligatory upon him like the rest of his nation.

Al Hafidh ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani said: The most known (i.e. of opinions) with them (i.e. the Shafi’ee madhhab) and the majority (of scholars) is the obligation of division, but that requires from whoever says that a response to this narration. (فتح الباري)

And this is where several opinions spring forth in response to the narration and why the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- had intimacy with his wives in one night, in contrast to being with the one whose turn it was. These opinions are as follows:

A. He did that with permission from the wife whose night it was.
Al Hafidh ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani said: It is said that was done with the pleasure of the one whose turn it was just as he sought permission from them to be nursed at the house of Aisha.
(فتح الباري)
B. It was allowed after returning from a journey (i.e. traveling).
Abul-Ali Muhammad Abdur Rahman al-Mubaarakfuri said: ibn Abdul Barr mentioned the meaning of the narration is that he did that after returning from a journey and similar to that during a time in which there was not for one among them a known and specified day (i.e. on account of a cut in rotating due to traveling). So he had relations with them and returned to dividing the time afterwards.
(تحفة الأحوذي شرح جامع الترمذي)
C. He was given an hour to himself in a day which none of his wives had a right to.
Al Imam ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki said: Allah, as pertains to marriage, made specific to him certain things that were not given to others besides him. Among these things were nine wives. Likewise he was given an hour that was not for his wives insomuch that it was a deduction for him from his time (allotted to them). During the hour he would enter upon all his wives and enjoy them sexually or some of them. Afterwards he would go to her whose turn it was.
(عارضة الأحوذي بشرح صحيح الترمذي)
D. Sexual relations doesn’t enter into the division of time, rather lodging himself at the wife’s home who is due time that evening is.
Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin said: It is definitely possible to be said that the division between wives; the husband mostly divides between them except in sexual relations, as the pillar of division pertains to the night (where the husband is lodged), as pertains to the day then the husband is freed up.
(شرح بلوغ المرام)

These conclusions are based on passages within the Quran or authentic narrations; however, there is differing as relates to how this text is understood resulting in the differences as relates to the conclusions drawn. We’ll, with Allah’s permission, examine the source material from which this difference emanates to further elucidate the matter in order to arrive at the correct position.

Evidence: The Division is not Binding Upon Him

O Prophet! Undoubtedly We have made your wives lawful to you, those whom you have given a dowry, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you. Likewise the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts (i.e. 1st cousins), and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts that migrated with you. Additionally the believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet and the Prophet (in turn) desires to marry her; a privilege to you specifically and not for the rest of the believers. Surely We know what We have imposed upon them as pertains to their wives and that which their right hands possess, so that there should be no difficulty on you. As Allah is Oft-Forgiving and Most Mercifully Acting. {50} Withdraw from whomever of them you will, or receive whomever you will. And whomever you desire from those set aside, there is no sin upon you (i.e. to receive them) as that is better that they may be comforted and not grieved, and may they be pleased with what you give them. Allah knows what is in your hearts and Allah is All-Knowing and Most Forbearing. {51}

The point of reference used to support this opinion is in the initial portion of verse 51 from surah al-ahzab, where it is stated “Withdraw from whomever you will of them, or receive whomever you will.” Although the erudite scholars of exegesis differ on its intent, it is interpreted by some to mean the Prophet’s -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- wives. In other words, here Allah relieves him of the responsibility of division of time between his wives, thus whomever’s home he decides to reside, there is no sin upon him as relates to his choice. The following are the differing opinions, as relates to interpretation, held by the scholars:

  • The verse was revealed on account of women offering themselves to the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam.
  • The verse was revealed on account of division of time between the wives of the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- illustrating its lack of obligation.
  • It refers to the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- divorcing his wives.
  • The verse is inclusive of all meanings.

Although some scholars interpret this verse as illustrating lack of obligation as pertains to division of time, this opinion is not the soundest when examining the evidence. There is an authentic narration that clearly illustrates the reason behind the revealing of the verse. The mother of the believers, Aisha states:

I would be jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- and would say, “A woman offers herself?!” Then Allah revealed:

“Withdraw from whomever of them you will, or receive whomever you will. And whomever you desire from those set aside, there is no sin upon you..”

Consequently I said, “I see your Lord hastens as pertains to your cravings/desires.”
Bukhari: 4788

Al Hafidh ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani said: In this narration Aisha makes explicitly clear the reason for the revealing of the Exalted’s statement “Withdraw from whomever of them” she alludes to the Exalted’s statement “the believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet.”
(فتح الباري)

Despite this clear evidence some scholars utilize the verses as evidence to substantiate their argument of lack of obligation as pertains to the division of time between his -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- wives. Consequently the proponents of this argument oppose the guidelines as relates to declaring something to be specific to the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- as is elucidated by some of the people of knowledge.

Sheikh-ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said: Undoubtedly his -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- actions that are unequivocally established (to be his practice) are proof, especially if he ordered us to comply with them. For example his statement “Pray as you see me pray” or his statement “Adopt your ritual acts of Hajj from me” etc. Additionally whatever Allah made permissible for him is also permissible for his nation as long as there is no evidence that illustrates particularization (i.e. to him). This is the reason for Allah’s speech:

So when Zaid accomplished his objective with her, We gave her to you in marriage so that there would be no objections with the believers with regards to the wives of their adopted sons if and when they have no desire to keep them. {37}
Al-Ahzab

Likewise when he made lawful for him the women who offered themselves in marriage (which clearly indicates particularization), He says:

Additionally the believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet and the Prophet (in turn) desires to marry her; a privilege to you specifically and not for the rest of the believers. {50} Al-Ahzab
(مجموعة الفتاوى 18/9)

 

Evidence: The Division of Time is Binding

Imam Muslim collects an authentic narration in which the source of the chain is Aisha, where she said:

Should I not inform you about myself and Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam? We replied: Of course. She said, when it was my night in which the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- was with me he turned, put down his upper garment, and took off his sandals and placed them by his feet. He then laid his izar (i.e. lower garment wrapped around his waist) over his bed and laid down. He remained until he assumed that I dozed off, then he put on his upper garment and sandals slowly/leisurely and then opened the door, stepped out and closed the door behind him lightly. So I placed my scarf over my head and wrapped it, disguised myself using my izar and followed his footsteps until he reached al-Baqee. He then stood for a long time raising his hands three times, then left. So I left after him. He sped up so I sped up. Ho jogged so I jogged. He (eventually) came within proximity of the house and I did as well; however, I preceded him and entered and then laid down. He entered and said, “What is with you Aisha being out of breath?” I replied, there’s nothing (i.e. wrong). He said, “Either you inform me or the Subtle and Well Acquainted will inform me!” Thus I replied, O Messenger of Allah, and informed him of what happened. He then said, “You were that black/shadowy figure I saw in front of me?” I said yes, so he struck me in the chest which hurt me (emotionally), and then said, “Did you think Allah and His Messenger would act unfairly with you ?!” I said whatever the people conceal Allah knows of it. He then said, “Jibreel came to me when you saw me, and summoned me, this he concealed from you. I responded to him concealing that from you as well as he was not going to enter upon you while you were undressed. I thought you dozed off and disliked waking you fearing that you may be frightened. He said to me, “Your Lord commands you to go to al-Baqee to seek forgiveness for its buried.” to the end of the narration.

The point of reference that substantiates the opinion of obligation is the statement, “Did you think Allah and His Messenger would act unfairly with you?!” In a variation collected by Tirmidhi, Aisha is reported to have said, “O Messenger of Allah, I assumed you were going to some of your wives.” which brings more emphasis to the proponents of this opinion.

Abul Hasan Muhammad as-Sindi said: Act unfairly means to oppress insomuch that the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- enters upon other than you during your night. Allah is mentioned in order to magnify the (status of) the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- and is signification that it is not possible that the Messenger does anything without the authority of Allah the Exalted. So if there was oppression from him it would not be except with Allah’s allowance in that regard; however, that (i.e. commiting oppression) is not possible. Additionally in his statement is evidence for division of time being obligatory for him, as abandonment of it is not oppression unless it is deemed obligatory to carry out. (حاشية السندي لسنن النسائى)

What brings more validity to this position is the fact that the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- would seek permission or permission would be given to him to break his routine of dividing his time equally amongst his wives. The following are the narrations that the proponents of this argument use to illustrate this fact:

Aisha narrated: Whenever the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- embarked upon a journey he would choose by lot among his wives, and would leave with whoever’s name was drawn. He would divide between each of them as relates to day and night except with Sauda bint Zam’a as she offered her days and nights to Aisha the wife of the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- desiring by that his pleasure.
Bukhari: 2593 and Muslim 1463

Aisha also narrated: When the Messenger of Allah’s -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- burden became heavy and his pain intensified, he sought permission from his wives to be nursed at my house. Consequently they gave him permission…
Bukhari: 5714 and Muslim: 418

These narrations are also used as proof to show that relations with multiple wives can be done with the permission of the one who has right to that night. As for the opinion that the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- had an hour specific to him and during that time he came to all his wives, they use the portion of the narration “in one hour amid the night and or the day” to substantiate this position; however, this is weak due to the phrase not definitively indicating such, additionally there are -to my knowledge- no other explicit and authentic narrations that support such a claim. Furthermore, I don’t know of any evidence restricting this practice of the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- to when he returned from a journey. Thus what is the soundest of opinions, as far as I’m concerned, is that sexual relations with multiple wives is one thing and dividing time between each wife is another. In other words, the division of time, what is meant by it is spending the night at the wife’s home, i.e. lodging oneself at her home for the night rightfully hers. Sexual relations doesn’t enter into that right, and for this reason he -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- was able to come to them in one night; however he had to lodge himself (for the night) at the one whose turn it was as relates to time, and Allah knows best.

If this wasn’t the case then how could the Muslim implement the statement of our Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- from the following narration?

“If a woman tickles the fancy (on account of her beauty) of anyone of you resulting in something entering his heart, then he should head to his wife in order to fulfill his desire, certainly that will repel what is within him (of lust for what he saw).” Muslim: 1403

If a man has two wives and experiences a similar situation, how can he protect himself if the wife whose turn it may be is menstruating? Or she lives 40 minutes away whereas the other wife lives closer in proximity? And other scenarios that prevent the husband from approaching the wife whose turn it may be.

The reality is there is no definitive evidence that states sexual relations as being inclusive in the division of time. Likewise there is no definitive prohibition from doing such. Additionally when the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- sought permission from his wives, it was not exclusively for permitting him to have relations with others among them; on the contrary it was for lodging exclusively. Allah did not put in the hands of the woman the authority to grant permission for her husband to fulfill his desire with another during her time, just as He did not grant her authority over her husband as pertains to marrying another woman as many women would NEVER grant such, despite the man’s dire need for such, especially modern women of today. Thus to say otherwise must be followed up with definitive evidence, instead there is deduction based on the ijtihaad of scholars and Allah knows best.

For this reason, I agree with the following speech of Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani from a verdict related to this issue. The following is the question and his response:

Q: One of the brothers presents this question, “A man is married to more than one woman and he makes his rounds to all of them in one night” so he asks, “What is the ruling concerning this?” Should he seek her opinion?

Sheikh al-Albani: He means from her whose turn it is?

Q: He means from her whose turn it may be.

Sheikh: As relates to division?

Q: Yes.

Sheikh al-Albani: Then I say; if he is able to come to all his wives then in that is good. As for seeking her opinion then he is not in need due to the intent being that when he comes to all of his wives (for intimacy), he (eventually) lodges himself at the home of the one whose turn it is. As for seeking permission; although he came to all his nine wives in one night, he acted justly as pertains to division (i.e. of time) just like what is reported in Sunan Abi Dawud even though the chain of transmission is weak. The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam would say, “O Allah this is my division from what I am capable of, so please do not take me to account for that which I am unable to fulfill.” Therefore the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- acted equitably; however, when he came to his wives (for intimacy) in one night he did not seek permission from the wife whose turn it was. On account of that there is no objection to it as it is a permissible matter.

Q: Okay, the one directing the question often says that this is from the actions made particular to the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Sheikh al-Albani: He who would respond to that will say what is the proof? Particularizations alleged to be for the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- are not permissible arbitrarily. On the contrary, there is a must for evidence and if there is no evidence it nullifies him being an example where the fundamental ruling concerning him is emulation. All of the scholars state that the fundamental ruling in whatsoever emanates from him -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- is that it is followed unless the evidence is established indicating particularization to him.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في الفقه)

Sheikh-ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah elaborates on the point about particularization, he states: The previous verse -We gave her to you in marriage- indicates that his -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- actions necessitate permission for his nation (to also do) with the qualification that the action in itself does not have a (reported) generalization as relates to verbal expression or overall circumstance (i.e. it doesn’t infer inclusiveness for everyone else), on the contrary its inclusivity emanates for what is invariable as relates to the fundamental principle which consists of collaborative effect and emulation. Additionally Allah’s speech in al-Ahzab illustrates this:

Undoubtedly there is, for you, in Allah’s Messenger the best example…{21}

Certainly it consists of emulation as pertains to what is imposed on him, and whenever a ruling is firmly established as pertains to emulation of him with respect to what is imposed on him, then similarly it is applied to his actions as well. The imposed upon him consist of obligatory and prohibited actions, thus the verse indicates the fundamental ruling being participation with him (in the ruling being inclusive of his nation) as relates to the obligatory and prohibited acts, just as it indicates this foundation of participation (of his nation in ruling) in what is made lawful. (مجموعة الفتاوى 15/447)
And Allah knows best.

Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf ibn Walter Charlot Sr; al-Anjelesi

Leave a Comment

Filed under Marriage

Benefits From The Narration About The Man Who Never Enacted Any Good

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abu Huraira narrated Allah’s Messenger as saying:

“A man who had never done any good said to his family that if he died that they should cremate his body then spread half of it on land and the other half in the ocean. (He said) ‘I swear by Allah, if He had the ability He would punish me with a punishment that He has not inflicted upon anyone from existence.’ Thus when the man died they implemented what he ordered. Consequently Allah ordered the earth and it gathered what was within it. He ordered the sea and it gathered what was within it. Allah then said, ‘Why did you do that?’ He replied, ‘On account of fearing you O Lord and you are well aware of this.’ So Allah forgave him.”

Al-Bukhari: 7506, Muslim: 2756.

This narration found in the two authentic collections originates from Imam Malik with him being in their chains of transmission. It is also found in his work “Al-Muwatta” which was compiled prior to the two authentic collections. Likewise the chain with Malik is also found in Al-Khateeb’s work “At-Tarikh” and ibn Abdil Barr’s work “At-Tamheed.” The narration is also found, with a slight variation in wording, within Imam Ahmad’s book “Al-Musnad” and in At-Tabaraani’s “Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabeer.” It’s also found within other collections by leading specialists of hadith from scholars of the past and without doubt is authentic. A noteworthy mention, there are only two people between Imam Malik and Abu Huraira. Abu Zinad (whom Malik heard from directly) and A’araj (who heard it from Abu Huraira and narrated it to Abu Zinad) both of which are highly reliable in the science of prophetic narration (Hadith).

The selecting of this narration is motivated by the actions of some claimants to the Sunnah who act in contrary to what this prophetic narration indicates, specifically as relates to takfir (judging a Muslim to be a disbeliever) and tabdi (judging a Sunni to be an innovator). Derived from this narration and others are the very precepts, principles, and guidelines required to validate such a judgment that is either ignored or unknown to those that recklessly indulge in the subject. Hence what is desired is that all those who read this article will benefit from its contents and act accordingly in order to produce the overwhelming benefit, in situations of this nature, that the Islamic Legislation demands and Allah knows best.
The Analysis of Imam An-Nawawi on The Meaning of the Narration

The scholars differ concerning this narration as relates to its interpretation. Thus a group (of scholars) assert that it’s not correct to consider it to be that he desired the negating of Allah’s ability, as the one who doubts in Allah’s ability is a disbeliever. Undoubtedly it is stated in the last portion of the narration that he only ordered such due to fear of Allah whereas a disbeliever does not fear Him and there is no forgiveness for him. Thus these scholars say there are two interpretations for his statement (translated as “if He had the ability He would punish me”). The first being; ‘if He were to inflict upon me punishment’ i.e. impose it. The second, the word qadara – here takes the meaning straiten/limit like Allah’s statement:

“…by consequently straitening his provisions..” Al Fajr: 16

Likewise it is one of the interpretations which pertains to the Exalted’s statement:

“…and he presumed that We would never restrict/limit him..” Al Anbiya: 87

Additionally a faction (amid the scholars) state that the verbal expression is upon its apparent meaning; however, this man made the statement while not being in total control of his speech and its actual meaning he did not intend. On the contrary he said it while in a state of overwhelming bewilderment, fear, and severe anxiety insomuch that his alertness and reflection on what he said vanished. Thus he became, as relates to meaning, (of the) heedless and forgetful and this circumstance one is not taken into account for, on the contrary he is like another person who said, while overwhelmed with happiness when he found his riding beast, “you are my servant and I am your lord.” Thus he didn’t disbelieve on account of that due to bewilderment, and absentmindedness. It is reported about this narration in other than Muslim (the phrase) which means “in order for me to vanish/disappear from him;” this indicates the apparent nature of his statement “If He had the ability.”

Furthermore, a(nother) faction said that this is from allegorical speech of the Arab and its splendid usage dubbed the intermingling of doubt with certainty, like His speech:

“…and undoubtedly either us or you are rightly guided..” As-Saba: 24

So its composition illustrates doubt but its intent is certainty.

Moreover, a faction (of scholars) stated that the man was ignorant as relates to an attribute from Allah’s attributes, accordingly the scholars differed as relates to passing the ruling of disbelief upon the one ignorant to such. Al-Qadi said, “Among those that pass the ruling of disbelief on account of that is ibn Jarir At-Tabari and Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari said it initially.” Others said that the one ignorant to an attribute is not deemed a disbeliever, and is not excluded from faith due to it, in contrast to he who denies it; this is what Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari returned to and his speech was firmly established upon this, on account that he didn’t believe that (the other statement) with -unequivocal- belief declaring positively its validity and deeming it as religion and legislation. On the contrary, the only one who disbelieves is he who believes the speech to be true. Hence some said, “If you were to ask the people about the attributes (of Allah) surely you would find a scholar as relates to them being few.”

Also a faction said that this man lived during a time between prophethood when only monotheism benefitted as there is no accountability prior to the appearance of the legislation according to the correct opinion. This is due to the Exalted’s statement:

“..and We did not inflict punishment until We (first) sent a messenger.” Al Israa: 15

Lastly a faction said that he was in a time in which their legislation allowed the pardoning of a disbeliever, in contrast to our legislation, as that is from the acceptability of rationale with Ahlus Sunnah and it was only deemed out of the question in our legislation by way of the legislation. The Exalted says:

Undoubtedly Allah does not forgive whomever associates a partner in worship with Him..” An-Nisa: 48

And other similar proofs and Allah knows best. [Explanation of Sahih Muslim]

Undoubtedly the speech is understood according to the apparent meaning, as this is the foundation related to speech within the Quran and authentic Sunnah. Sheikh Salih as-Sadlan said: The meaning of the principle “The Foundation as pertains to Speech is the Apparent Meaning” is the utilization of a speaker’s speech regardless if it’s from a legislator, or a contractor, or one making an oath, etc; is that it is obligatory to (logically) affirm (i.e. predicate) its verbal expressions on their apparent meanings when free from semantic and syntactic context that makes preponderant an allegorical intent. For instance, if a man said to another “I gift this item to you” and as a result the man takes it, then the speaker alleges that he meant by gift “sell” allegorically, and consequently demands an amount for it, his statement -in this instance- is not accepted, due to the foundation with regards to speech being its apparent meaning. (القواعد الفقهية الكبرى)

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin said: The apparent meaning of speech is categorized into three;
1. A linguistic related meaning.
2. An Islamic Legislative meaning.
3. A culturally related meaning.

The linguistically related meaning is the employed verbal expression as pertains to what is established of it within the language. Consequently, what is excluded from our speech, “within the language” the apparent meaning that is either Islamically Legislative related and culturally related.

The Sheikh also said: The foundation is the linguistically related meaning, there is no deviating from that except with evidence. Thus we don’t affirm that a verbal expression is upon the apparent meaning as relates to the Islamically Legislative context unless it comes by conveyance of the Legislator, nor do we affirm it to be the apparent meaning as relates to the cultural usage unless it comes by conveyance of the people of the culture (i.e. who common speak using local usages or slang). Therefore the foundation is the apparent linguistic related meaning. (شرح الأصول من علم الأصول)

And this is what I hold to be correct as relates to the interpretation of the narration, as the Quran was revealed in clear Arabic, given to a Messenger who spoke in clear Arabic, and initially conveyed to a people who understood and communicated in plain Arabic. Additionally the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- explained, detailed, and elucidated to the people the intent of the legislation in plain Arabic, and Allah knows best.

Benefits Derived From The Narration:

Aqeedah Mistakes in Some Cases Can Be Overlooked

A mistake in aqeedah doesn’t necessarily mean the destruction of the one who made the mistake. On the contrary, based on the circumstance of the one who erred, destruction for him in the next life may not be applied. This is something the narration clearly indicates and has been elucidated by erudite scholars of past and modern times.

Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said: So Allah forgave this person whilst he had fallen into disbelief and polytheism on account of this directive of his to which there probably isn’t anything similar to it from what I know. In terms of its oppression and wrong we are well aware, yet Allah did not hold it against him, on the contrary He forgave him because He knew that the man did not give this order except on account of fear for Him.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/263)

The Sheikh -may Allah have mercy on him- also said: Thus this man included within these instructions (the implication) that Allah is not capable of returning him back to the state he was as a man; however, Allah brought him back to life as He said “be a man” and then conversed with him. Allah, He who is All Knower of what is within the hearts, knew that this man didn’t do his action while denying resurrection, on the contrary it was only fear from the amassed punishment for him which he acknowledged and (felt) he deserved, thus he gave this oppressive order.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/151)

This narration is one of many that the Sheikh used to support the statement “Every person that falls into disbelief doesn’t necessitate that disbelief falls upon him (i.e. is applied to him in ruling)” on account of the existence of something that obstructs such a ruling from being valid. Hence the prerequisites for the validity of a ruling of disbelief -or innovation- must be gathered, and whatsoever will prevent the ruling from being valid must be removed.

People Are Not Taken Into Account Due To Mistakes, They’re Taken Into Account Due to Being Deliberate

This is illustrated within this narration by way of undoubtable deduction, and in other authentic narrations in clear and explicit terms. Among them is the statement of Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam-:

“Surely Allah, for me, has overlooked from my nation (their) mistakes, forgetfulness, and when they’re coerced (into doing something).” [Sunan ibn Majah: 2043]

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali said: Mistakes are when a person intends something particular by his action, but his action unexpectedly achieves something other than what he intends. For example, a man intends to kill an enemy combatant but inadvertently kills a Muslim. Forgetfulness is to be mindful of a thing, yet forgets it at the time of implementation. Both of the two are overlooked, i.e. there is no sin against him. (جامع العلوم والحكم)

And this is the case with the man in the narration, he didn’t intend disbelief in Allah nor was he deliberate in that regard, on the contrary he made a mistake which usually stems from ignorance. Either complete ignorance of a thing or improper comprehension of a thing while unbeknownst to its true reality.

Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said: If a Muslim desires Allah’s Face in all of what he adheres to as worship to Allah and what he believes in, yet he makes a mistake then there is no doubt that Allah will forgive him for his mistake. Additionally he is rewarded with one reward, this is what we adhere to as worship to Allah and accordingly we issue religious verdicts. So the essence of that (i.e. the claim that mistakes in the subsidiary issues are pardoned but the mistakes in the fundamental issues are not) is that it opposes the foundations and principles; that being that Allah will not take into account a person for his mistake, in contrast he will only take into account what was deliberate.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/263)

Note:

A related benefit to the subject is that all errors in creed are not deemed equal. In other words there are aspects of the creed in which a mistake therein is graver in magnitude than in another. Additionally there may even be an error in a ruling that carries graver ramifications on an individual than his error in creed.

Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said: First; the differentiation in one aspect of creed and in another is an issue that has occurred and there is no doubt in that regard as the scholars of the Salaf made the differentiation. For instance, they passed the ruling of disbelief upon the Jahmiyyah and firmly believed in their disbelief, and issued verdicts for the killing of their leader. However, they did not pass the same ruling against the Ibaadiyyah, those who deny the gazing at Allah in the next life. They acted identically with the Mu’tazilah, those who similarly held this misguided idea. Instead they were content with declaring them as misguided as opposed to declaring them as disbelievers. Thus this is an issue that is creed related that is not befitting to debate as relates to the division of creed being “important” and (that which is) “more important.”

Take as an example the presentation we discussed yesterday, perhaps this is correct in being an example to the aforementioned speech, as I mentioned that every ruling must be coupled with creed. So what do we say about those who oppose the speech of the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- “Every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire”? They say that the issue is not like this, and that there are good and bad innovations like I explained yesterday concerning the narration “Whoever introduces into Islam a good sunnah.” Nonetheless they believed in contrast to this narration, so do we judge them to be disbelievers? No, we do not pass the ruling that they are disbelievers.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/146)

Sheikh al-Albani also said: Therefore the differentiation between the foundational issues (usool) and the subsidiary/branch issues (furoo) is a deviation from the Book and the Sunnah (i.e. errors in the usool are not pardoned whereas errors in the furoo are -when they emanate from one’s ijtihaad). On account of that I say that this righteous brother, if Allah wills, it is obligatory that he correct his knowledge with regards to this oppressive verdict at the very least. This is because the virtuous scholar being astray as pertains to any issue of creed e.g. the names and attributes, etc; from what some of the Ash’aris and Maaturidis fell into, then perhaps this is a result of their ijtihaad and not from evil intent. Hence it is not permissible to apply this statement except with restriction, i.e. whoever knows the truth then deviates then he is such and such.

Furthermore he doesn’t differentiate between whomever deviates in the issue of the names and attributes and what is connected to creed, and between he who deviates in an Islamic ruling. For instance a man knows that the truth is that bleeding doesn’t nullify wudhu; however, he strays and persists acting arrogantly with regards to the evidence. And how many of the subsidiary issues in which the scholars differ were some of their effect is more plentiful negatively upon the society than some affairs connected to creed? So you see he who denies, like some of the modern sects throughout the lands of the Muslims, he who denies the punishment of the grave; is his harm more plentiful or the fiqh related opinion that says the young Muslim woman who reaches the age of puberty is allowed to give herself away in marriage without permission from her guardian i.e. in contradiction to the authentic narration? Which of the two opinions is more severe upon the society in terms of corruption, the first one that denies the punishment of the grave or the one who denies the prerequisite of the guardian’s permission? There’s no doubt that the last is more severe in corruption.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/152)

And Allah knows best.

Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf ibn Walter Charlot Sr; al-Anjelesi

Leave a Comment

Filed under Hadith, Manhaj

Demolishing The Excessives’ Plotting With Commentary On Ibn Taymiyya’s Verdict On Boycotting

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The current circumstance of those affirming compliance to the Prophetic Methodology, in the west generally and in the US specifically, stands in stark contrast to the intent of the Islamic Legislation in some affairs connected to the rectification of individuals and communities. This opposition was virtually unseen and unheard of to the first virtuous generation of Muslims, a point that Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab alluded to around 230 years ago, as relates to varying affairs in the religion. He stated, “Among the most remarkable of wonders and the greatest of signs indicating the ability of the Triumphant King are six principles that Allah elucidated with a blatantly obvious clarification for the general masses, being far above the suspicions of the naysayers/skeptics. Thereafter -i.e. this clarification- many among the intellectuals of this world and the erudite thinkers among the descendants of Adam erred with regards to them except a small number among a minority.”
The last point concerning those who erred in that which Allah made explicitly clear is reiterated in the second principle pertaining to unity. He stated, “Thereafter, division within the fundamentals of the religion and its subsidiary issues became knowledge and comprehension of the religion, whereas unity in the religion became that which no one spoke about except a heretic or one mentally challenged.” Hence unity, what it is, how it’s maintained, how to reinstate it after tension and turmoil, and how to rectify individuals that err in that regard; the aspects of this fundamental and that which is directly connected to it are adversely misunderstood by many who ascribe themselves to adherence to the Prophetic Methodology in the US. From the most simplistic of explanations as to why this has occurred, is summed up in speech from the firmly grounded scholar and specialist Ibn Qayyim where he basically stated that people have confused the way of the criminals with the way of the believers. He states the following:
“Whoever does not know the path of the criminals, i.e. it not being made clear to him; he assumes that some of its path is actually the path of the believers similar to that which is occurring within the Islamic Nation as relates to many affairs pertaining to creed, knowledge, and action. He who is unaware that it is the path of the criminals, disbelievers, and enemies of the messengers insert it into the path of the believers consequently calling to it, passing the ruling of disbelief upon whomever opposes it, and makes permissible that which Allah and His Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- prohibit. Inevitably they resemble what occurs among the people of innovation e.g. The Jahmiyyah, The Qadariyyah, The Khawaarij, The Shiite, and whomever else is like them from those who innovate (an action into the religion), invite to it, and judge to be a disbeliever whomever opposes it.” 
Likewise among those that resemble the aforementioned sects are the Haddadiyyah, those that deem themselves as defenders of the Sunnah, and preservers of the religion in contemporary times; however, their true reality is that they are a confused people, they have confusion with them as pertains to the path of the believers. They believe excessiveness in matters of boycotting, declaring one to be an innovator, refutations, and weighing the pros and cons is the middle course and path of the believers, when in reality it is not. They claim they are upon Salafiyyah with regards to their haphazard approach, but in reality are upon Haddadiyyah in that regard. Thus the following is a verdict from the world renown scholar Ibn Taimiyyah which pertains to some of the affairs about which these individuals are confused. Following that will be commentary to further elucidate very important points mentioned by the scholar of Islam within his verdict. 
Sheikh-ul-Islam ibn Taimiyya was asked the following:
To whom which is it obligatory to hate or boycott, or both for Allah’s sake? Likewise what is made conditional upon he who hates or boycotts for Allah’s sake of prerequisites? Is abandonment of the greetings included within the boycott or not? Additionally, if the boycotted initiates the greeting is it binding upon the boycotter to return it or not? Is the hatred and boycott for Allah’s sake continued until the goal of removing the qualities (of opposition) which legitimize his hatred and boycott are actualized or does it persist for a known duration? If it is for a known duration what is its limit?
His response: The Islamic Legislative Boycott is of two types:
The First; abandonment of evil deeds.
The second; punishment on account of evil deeds.
Thus the first is mentioned in the Exalted’s statement
و إذا رأيتَ الذين يخوضون في آياتنا فأعرضْ عنهم حتّى يخوضوا في حديث غيره و إمّا يُنْسينَّك الشيطان فلا تقعد بعد الذكرى مع القوم الظالمين
“And if you see those who engage in negative conversation as pertains to Our Verses, then shun them until they change the topic of the conversation. If the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit with an oppressive people after remembering.” Al-An’am: 68
و قد نزّل عليكم في الكتاب أن إذا سمعْتم آياتِ الله يُكْفَر بها و يُسْتهزأ بها فلا تقعدوا معهم حتّى يخوضوا في حديثٍ غيره إنّكم إذا مثلهم
“Undoubtedly it has been revealed within the Book that if you hear Allah’s Verses being denied and mocked, then do not sit with them until they change the topic of conversation; otherwise you would be like them..” An-Nisaa: 140
The intent of this is that one does not witness evil without a need, e.g. a people drinking alcohol i.e. sitting among them, or accepting the invitation of a people who invite you to a banquet that has therein intoxicants and wind instruments, etc. In contrast to one who attends in order to reprimand them, or he who attends without choice. On account of this (circumstance where one attends and witnesses evil without a need) it is said, “The attendee of evil is like its doer” as the narration states: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day do not sit at a table spread where alcohol is consumed.” This is the boycott related to the category of a man, himself, committing evil; just as he -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, “The migrator is he who migrates from whatever Allah forbids.” From this perspective is the migration from the lands of disbelief and sin to the lands of Islam and faith, since it is certainly abandonment of residing among the disbelievers and hypocrites who do not enable him to execute what Allah commands.
Allah the Exalted says:
والرجز فاهْجُر
“And boycott idols.” Al-Muddathir: 5
The second type; the boycott from the perspective of a disciplinary punishment, which is to abandon whomever makes apparent corruption. Hence he is boycotted until he repents from it. As an illustration the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- and the Muslims boycotted the three individuals who lagged behind (i.e. Ka’b ibn Malik and his companions), consequently leaving off jihad made binding upon each of them without an excuse until Allah revealed their repentance. On the other hand he didn’t boycott whoever outwardly displayed good, although he may have been a hypocrite. Therefore the boycott here is on the level of admonishment, it is held for whomever overtly abandons obligatory deeds and or commits the prohibited, e.g. the one who abandons prayer and annual charity, assists oppression and immorality, aids the caller to innovation that opposes the Book; the Sunnah; and the ijmaa of the Salaf that make apparent his actions of being innovation.
This is the reality of the statement from whomever among the Salaf and the specialists of knowledge that say, “Undoubtedly the callers to innovation’s testimonies are not accepted, they are not prayed behind, knowledge is not taken from them, and they are not given (the hand of a woman) in marriage.” This is a punishment for them until they cease. On account of this they distinguished between the caller and non caller due to the caller manifesting evil that results in the meriting of punishment. In contrast to the one who conceals such, since he is not worse than the hypocrites, those whose outward actions the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- accepted while entrusting their private affairs to Allah whilst knowing the condition of many among them. Accordingly there is reported within the hadith, “Indeed sins if they are concealed it does not harm anyone except its committer; however, if it is public yet not rebuked it can consequently harm the masses.” That is chiefly due to the speech of the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- “The people if they see an evil yet do not change it, Allah will cover all of them with punishment from Him.” Hence manifest evil, disapproval of it is compulsory in contrast to hidden evil, its punishment is made particular to its committer.
Therefore the boycott differs in accordance to those who implement it as relates to their strength and weakness, and their scarcity (i.e. in numbers) and abundance, since the purpose of it is admonishment of the boycotted, disciplinary punishment, and reverting the masses from the similarities of his condition. Hence if the maslaha (advantage/benefit/pro), as pertains to the boycott is overwhelming to the point that boycotting him leads to weakening the evil and or lessening it, then it is legislated. However, if the boycotted and others besides him are not obstructed, the evil increases, and the boycotter is weak to the point that the mafsada (disadvantage/corruption) is more dominant than the maslaha, then -in this circumstance- it is not legislated, on the contrary, being harmonious with the people is more beneficial than boycotting, just as -in some circumstances- boycotting certain people is more beneficial than harmony.
For this reason, the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- would incline towards some yet boycott others, specifically the three that lagged behind. They were better than many who were inclined toward; however, there was a religious based maslaha attached to inclination towards them on account of who they were, as they were obeyed chiefs of their clans. The three boycotted were believers and the believers besides them were many, thus boycotting them was honoring the religion and purifying them from sin. Similar to fighting the enemy; at times it’s legislated, yet at other times there’s a treaty and acceptance of tribute. All of this is in accordance with the circumstances and the overall benefit.
In addition, the response of the firmly grounded specialists in knowledge, e.g. Ahmad (bin Hanbal), and others, is based on this foundation. Consequently he would differentiate between places in which innovation was plentiful, e.g. Al-Qadr (i.e. the Qadariyyah) in Basra, or At-Tanjim in Khurasan, or Shiism in Kufa, etc, and between places that were not similar in that regard. Similarly he would differentiate between obeyed leaders and others besides them. Thus if one knows the purpose/underlined goal of the Islamic Legislation, he traverses on the most leading of paths towards it as pertains to achieving it.
If this is understood, then (we know) the legislated boycott is from the actions Allah and His Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- command. So obedience necessitates that it is solely done for Allah’s sake along with being in accordance with His command. Consequently, whoever boycotts due to desires, or implements a boycott not sanctioned has exited from this, and how plentiful are the souls that act according to its desires assuming it to be done as obedience to Allah.
Furthermore, the boycott for the purpose of inflicting misfortune on an individual is not permissible for more than three days on account of what’s reported from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- within the two authentic collections where he said, “It is not lawful for a Muslim to boycott his brother for more than three days, each one shunning the other when they meet, and the best of the two is he who initiates the greetings.” Therefore this boycott is not authorized for more than three days, just as it is not permitted for it to be restricted to other than the wife for more than three days. Reported within the two authentic collections from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- is his speech, “The gates of paradise are opened every second and fifth day of the week, and He forgives every servant that hasn’t associated a partner in worship with Him, except a man that has between him and his brother rancor. So it will be said: Observe both of them until reconciliation is reached.” Hence this boycott related to the right of a person is forbidden (fundamentally) and is only permitted in certain cases, similar to the husband being permitted to boycott his wife as pertains to the bed if she falls into disobedience, or similar to the boycott for three days.
Therefore it is incumbent to differentiate between the boycott on account of Allah’s right and that which is implemented for the right of one’s self. The first is commanded whereas the second is prohibited due to the believers being brothers. The Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, “Do not cut one another off, don’t turn your backs on one another, don’t loathe one another, and don’t be envious of one another. Be servants of Allah; brothers! The Muslim is a brother of a Muslim.” He -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- also said, “Should I not inform you of what is more virtuous than the status of prayer, fasting, charity, enjoining good, and forbidding evil?” They replied, “Of course O Messenger of Allah” So he said, “Reconciliation between two disputants, in contrast, corruption between two is the shaver, not shaving the hair, on the contrary shaving (i.e. removing/destroying) the religion.” Additionally his statement, “The similitude of the believers with regards to their mutual love, mercifulness, and affection for one another is like one body. When a part of it complaints the remainder due such -as well- by way of fever and sleeplessness.” This is due to the fact that boycotting is from the perspective of legislated punishment. It is among the classifications of Jihad in the path of Allah that is done in order for Allah’s speech to be uppermost, and for the religion, all of it, to be strictly for Allah.
Hence, upon the believer is to hold hostility for Allah’s sake and to ally for Allah’s sake, insomuch that if there is a believer then upon him is to ally with him although he may have oppressed him. Undoubtedly oppression does not severe the faith based allegiance. Allah says:
و إن طائفتان من المؤمنين اقتتلوا فأصلِحوا بينهما فإن بغت إحداهما على الأخرى فقاتلوا التي تَبْغي حتّى تفئ إلى أمر الله فإن فاءت فأصلحوا بينهما بالعدل و أقسطوا إنّ الله يحبّ المقسطين ـ إنّما المؤمنون إخوة
“And if two parties from the believers clash with one another, then make peace between them; however, if one of the two transgresses against the other, then you all fight them until they comply with the command of Allah. If they comply thereafter, then make reconciliation between them justly and equitably, indeed Allah loves those who are equitable. The believers are nothing more than brothers…” Al-Hujuraat 9-10
So he made them brothers ordering reconciliation between them, despite the existence of infighting and aggression. Consequently, the believer contemplates on the difference between these two types (i.e. of boycotts). How plentiful is each from the two misconstrued to be the other. So have knowledge that the believer his allegiance is compulsory although he may have oppressed you. Moreover, the disbeliever his disloyalty is compulsory although he may have given to you and treated you well. Allah sent the Messenger and revealed the Book in order for the religion in its entirety to be for Him, as a result; love, respect, and reward are for His allies whereas hate, lack of respect, and punishment are for His enemies.
Subsequently, if there is gathered within a person good and bad, obedience and disobedience, sin, sunnah and innovation; he merits love/allegiance and reward according to what is within him of good. Likewise he merits hostility and punishment in accordance to what is within him of evil. Thus united within a person are what makes obligatory -both- respect and revilement, like the poor thief whose hand is severed on account of him stealing; on the other hand, he is given from the Bait-ul-Maal that which suffices his needs (i.e. combating his poverty). This a foundation which Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’aah agree upon; however, it is opposed by the Khawaarij and the Mutazilah and whomever else is in agreement with them. They do not view the people meriting anything except reward alone, and if not then he merits punishment alone. Nevertheless, Ahlus Sunnah state that Allah punishes with the Fire whomever He so punishes from the committers of major sins, afterwards He will extract them from it by way of intercession from whomever He gives the permission for intercession by virtue of His Mercy, just as is detailed within the Sunnah being -authentically- transmitted from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- and Allah knows best. May Allah’s lofty commendation be upon Muhammad, his family, and all of his companions.
مجموعة الفتاوى 210-203\28
All praises are due to Allah alone, this verdict of Sheikh-ul-Islam clarifies the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah as pertains to boycotting, that which produces overwhelming and widespread benefit for the Muslim Community, in contrast to the haphazard way of the Haddadi that may resemble the path of the believers, but in reality it blatantly opposes it, a reality well known to the intelligent whom Allah blessed with comprehension of these affairs. Thus it is of paramount importance to highlight and expound on some points made within this verdict that the Haddadi, or those affected by their way, overtly miscomprehend.
First: Differentiation Between A Theoretical Ruling On A Thing (i.e. speech or action) And Its Application When Applied To A Specific Individual   
Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “The intent of this is that one does not witness evil without a need, e.g. a people drinking alcohol, i.e. sitting among them, or accepting the invitation of a people who invite you to a banquet that has therein intoxicants and wind instruments, etc. In contrast to one who attends in order to reprimand them, or he who attends without choice.”
Undoubtedly the prohibition on being in gatherings in which sinful activity is displayed and enacted is clearly known. A Muslim is not to participate -in any shape, form, or fashion,- in a gathering of this nature consequently being a witness to sin. If so, he consequently becomes like -in ruling- the committers of the evil that he witnesses, as verse 140 in An-Nisaa mentions. This is a theoretical ruling on that action; however, notice how Ibn Taimiyyah makes a distinction between a person’s circumstance who may be outwardly falling into this prohibition. One person may witness it being pleased with what’s taking place, whereas another may witness it without choice and with total hatred for what he’s witnessing. On the apparent, they are falling into the same action, but each person’s circumstance is different, thus making the ruling on each different. This is what is meant by differentiating between a theoretical ruling on a thing and when that ruling is applied to a specific individual. 
Sheikh Sulaiman Abaal-Khayl said: “Among the people is he who doesn’t differentiate between the theoretical ruling on carriers of innovation with sin, or immorality, or disbelief; and between the ruling applied to a specific individual -whose Islam is established with certainty- that a type of innovation emanates from deeming him as a sinner, or immoral, or an infidel. The correct way is to not pass a ruling on him with (any of) such until it is made clear to him his opposition to the Sunnah, and that is by establishing the proof (against him) and removing the doubts (that he has causing him to implement the wrong).” السلفية-
Establishing the proof and removal of one’s doubt are from the guidelines and principles applied prior to passing a ruling on a specific person of being an innovator, or a disbeliever, or immorally sinful. It is among the prerequisites that must be present and the obstructions (from the ruling being applicable) that must be removed. To simplify the affair, among that which must be in place along with its opposite removed are the following:
  • Knowledge/Awareness which is not compatible with ignorance.
  • Intention/Deliberateness which is not compatible with an unintentional mistake.
  • Choice/Voluntarily which is not compatible with being coerced.

These are affairs oft-repeated by the scholars as relates to this matter and are always assessed prior to applying a ruling on a specific person. Moreover these important points are derived from the prophetic text and simplified to the masses by the people of knowledge and wisdom.

Evidence

  1. Abu Huraira narrates the Prophet’s -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- statement: “A man who never performed any good deed said to his family that when he died they should cremate him and subsequently place half of him (i.e. his ashes) on land and half in the sea. (He said) I swear by Allah if He had the ability -to regather his body- He would punish me with a punishment that He has not inflicted on anyone from mankind. So when he passed away his family carried out his orders. Hence Allah ordered the land to gather what was within it, and commanded the sea to gather what was within it -consequently reforming the man- thereafter He said, “Why did you do this?” The man replied, “O my Lord! On account of fear of You and You are All-Knowing. Thus Allah forgave him.”  Collected by Muslim.
  2. Anas ibn Malik narrates the Prophet’s -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- speech: “Allah is more severe in happiness due to the repentance of His servant when he repents than anyone of you who happened to be on his riding beast in the open desert. Then his riding beast wanders away from him while having his food and drink (packed on it). Thus he falls into despair (fearing death) until he comes to a tree and lays under its shade in a state of despair as relates to his riding beast. So while he is in this state he -eventually- finds his riding beast standing near him. As a result he seizes it by its reigns and says, on account of extreme happiness, ‘O Allah! you are my servant and I am your lord.’ He erred on account of extreme happiness.” Collected by Bukhari and Muslim.
  3. Ali ibn Abi Talib narrated the following:
    Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- sent me, Az-Zubair, and Miqdad ; he said to us, ‘Depart until you come to Rawda Khakh for surely there will be a woman and with her will be a letter, so confiscate it from her.’  So we departed, while are horses moved swiftly until we reached Rawda. I said to the woman, ‘produce the letter!’ She responded, ‘I have no letter.’ We responded with, ‘You most certainly will bring forth this letter or we will cast aside your garments (i.e. presumably in search for the letter), as a result she removed the letter from her braids. We brought it to Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- and found that it was from Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah to a group among the idolaters of Mecca informing them about some of the Messenger of Allah’s plans. So Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, ‘What is this O Hatib?’ He replied, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Please do not be hasty with me. Indeed I was a man closely connected to the Quraish, yet I was not from this tribe, in contrast to those with you from the emigrates as they have relatives there who will safeguard their families and wealth. Since that was lost I wanted to gain favor with them and they -in turn- would protect my relatives. I did not do it as disbelief and or apostasy from, nor due to being pleased with disbelief after Islam. Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, ‘You have spoken the truth.’ So Umar interjected, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Leave me so I can smite the neck of that hypocrite? He -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- replied, ‘He participated in Badr, and you do not know that perhaps Allah looked at the participants of Badr and said ” ‘Do as you will surely I forgive you.’ ” Collected by Al-Bukhari and others.

Within these authentic narrations (and in others) are examples of this point manifested within the speech and actions of our Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam. For example, the first narration indicates that the man had doubt in Allah’s ability to reform/recreate him, and doubt in Allah’s ability is disbelief, thus the one who doubts in the ability of Allah is a disbeliever, this is a theoretical ruling. The second narration the man attributed lordship to himself and servitude to Allah, and there is no doubt that this is disbelief, thus it is said that one who falls into such is a disbeliever, this is a theoretical ruling. The last narration the companion conspired against the Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- in a way that is tantamount to assisting the idolaters against the believers which is disbelief, thus anyone who does so is deemed a disbeliever. However, these examples although the actions theoretically are disbelief, these specific individuals’ circumstances cannot and did not justify legislatively the ruling of disbelief being applied to them, and this is the intent of the statement of the scholars when they say, “Every person that commits an act of disbelief does not necessitate that the ruling of disbelief is applied to him” and that is the case with innovation as well. 

Sheikh-ul-Islam said in another verdict in Majmu’a-tul-fataawa (10/372): “Indeed the passages of text concerning threats found within the Quran and Sunnah, and the literal wording of scholars passing the ruling of disbelief or fisq (i.e. moral depravity and extreme sinfulness) etc, does not necessitate the solidification of its obligation upon the right of a specific person unless the prerequisites are obtained and the obstructions (to the ruling being valid) are removed. There is no differentiation between the fundamental and subsidiary matters in this regard.”

Second: Boycotting is From the Religion with Explicit Goals

Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “Therefore the boycott here is on the level of admonishment, it is held for whomever overtly abandons obligatory deeds and or commits the prohibited, e.g. the one who abandons prayer and annual charity, assists oppression and immorality, aids the caller to innovation that opposes the Book; the Sunnah; and the ijmaa of the Salaf that make apparent his actions of being innovation.”

Often times it is said that the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- loved all the Muslims and would never boycott anyone among them. An incorrect statement that severely conflicts with those acting haphazardly with regards to boycotting; however, it is not a balanced approach nor is it speaking truthfully about the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam. Factually speaking the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- did boycott for praiseworthy objectives that would not have been achieved without boycotting, a reality observed within the annals of history.

Sheikh Bakr ibn Abdullah Abu Zayd said: “The proliferated narrations with regards to the Prophet’s -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- boycotts of the sinful are established by numerous occurrences. A large portion of companions narrated such from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- e.g. K’ab ibn Malik, ibn Amru, Aisha, Anas, Ammar, Ali, Abu Saeed Al-Khudri and others, may Allah be pleased with them. So the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- boycotted K’ab ibn Malik and his two associates when they lagged behind failing to participate in the war expedition of Tabuk. He continued boycotting them for fifty nights until Allah’s Messenger announced Allah’s acceptance of their repentance.

Moreover, he boycotted Zainab bint Jahsh -may Allah be pleased with her- for nearly two months due to her saying “Me give to that Jewish woman” intending by that Safiyyah -may Allah be pleased with her- as Abu Dawud transmits from the narration of Aisha (4602). Likewise he boycotted the owner of the dome structure by shunning him until he destroyed it as Abu Dawud transmitted from the narration of Anas (5237, graded weak by Al-Albani). He also boycotted Ammar by leaving off returning the greetings to him on account of being covered with saffron (i.e. his hands) until he washed it off as is transmitted by Abu Dawud in his sunan (4601) and At-Tayalisi with both being transmitted from Ammar. Additionally he boycotted a man by shunning him due to being dyed with saffron as Al-Bukhari transmitted in Al-Adab-ul-Mufrad from the narration of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Furthermore he boycotted a man who he saw wearing a gold ring until he discarded it. His boycotting of him was by shunning him…” He said, after all examples, “These narrations and their intent  are literal text related to the legislation of boycotting the publicly sinful person until he ceases and repents.” -هجر المبتدع-

 

Third: Consideration And or Attention To The Consequences or Outcomes of Actions to Ascertain If it Produces Benefit And Repels Harm

Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “Therefore the boycott differs in accordance to those who implement it as relates to their strength and weakness, and their scarcity (i.e. in numbers) and abundance, since the purpose of it is admonishment of the boycotted, disciplinary punishment, and reverting the masses from the similarities of his condition. Hence if the maslaha (advantage/benefit/pro), as pertains to the boycott is overwhelming to the point that boycotting him leads to weakening the evil and or lessening it, then it is legislated. However, if the boycotted and others besides him are not obstructed, the evil increases, and the boycotter is weak to the point that the mafsada (disadvantage/corruption) is more dominant than the maslaha, then -in this circumstance- it is not legislated, on the contrary, being harmonious with the people is more beneficial than boycotting, just as -in some circumstances- boycotting certain people is more beneficial than harmony.” 

This point is very beneficial and exemplifies the intent and underlined goals of the perfect Islamic Legislation, that being to achieve overall benefit, advantages, and general wellbeing; and to repel harms, corruption, and overall disadvantages. As a result the consequences of actions are weighed prior to undertaking the action with heavy scrutiny in order to ascertain if it produces good and repels harm, or if it produces harm and repels good, or if it produces both good and bad. Unfortunately this concept seems to be foreign to the haphazard as relates to boycotting consequently producing rifts and splits between the Muslims, persistence of corrupt thoughts and ideas within the hearts of the Muslims, the Sunnah and Salafiyyah being marred within the eyes of the general Muslims, and other evils that adversely affect a person’s deen.

Sheikh Muhammad Al Imam said in his book “The Beautiful Speech as pertains to Awareness of Strife” -القول الحسن في معرفة الفتن- : “O Muslim! Upon you is to give attention to the consequences when you speak in any matter. Undoubtedly Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, ‘Indeed the servant speaks a word which causes him to descend into the Fire farther than the distance between the east and the west.’

He also said in his book -تمام المنة في فقه قتال الفتنة- : “Examination as pertains to the consequences of things is a quality of the intellect and an inoculator for it, thus had those who marched forth, as relates to the strife of infighting, examined what they would achieve of harms upon themselves in this worldly life and in the next, they would not have proceeded with that.”

Sheikh Abdur Rahman ibn Nasir As-Sa’idi said: “If several beneficial things compete with one another, give preference to what is higher (in benefit) than the others. Hence preference is given to the obligatory over the recommended, also to the more preponderate in benefit than to the least. Additionally, if harmful matters compete and one is forced to do one of these acts, give preference to what is less in harm from them.” The sheikh also said while further elucidating this point: “The story of Khidr as relates to killing the boy and puncturing the boat make evident the second foundation. The circumstance surrounding the killing of the boy, which is an evil/harm, and his overburdening (i.e. oppressively) of his parents along with corrupting their deen, which was a greater evil/harm, eventuated in him perpetrating the least harmful. Furthermore, damaging the boat was an evil/harm; however, seizure of the boat forcibly by the king was a greater evil/harm, so he perpetrated the least of them (in terms of harm). The issues of jurisprudence and or ijtihaad enter into this from that which is innumerable.”
-القواعد والأصول الجامعة-

Indeed the story of Khidr is an excellent example of weighing the consequences of action in order to achieve the most beneficial outcome; however, this will never be achieved by someone ignorant to the goals and intent of the Islamic Legislation and its guidelines, principles, and precepts applied to make manifest its goals. Thus those who act haphazardly as pertains to boycotting, warning, criticizing, hating, and so forth; the biggest proof illustrating their ignorance to these principles is the adverse and negative condition that results from their actions, and Allah’s aid is sought from their stupidity.

Related Principles

لا ضرر و لا ضرار

“Neither Harm Nor Reciprocate Harm”

This is a principle from the major principles in Al-Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah in which a method of approach in achieving benefit is ramified. Additionally it is a foundational principle from which an abundant of principles branch forth whose implications illustrate the suitability of Islam in every time and place.

Sheikh Salih As-Sadlan said: “This tremendous principle is labeled in many of the books of Al Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah as ‘The harm is abated’ the authors placed it therein in accordance to what we mentioned (of its articulated phrase or expression) as evidence and a foundation for it; however, its uttered expression is -actually- the noble wordings of a prophetic narration that is counted among his extensive (i.e. in meaning) speech made a criterion for the entire path related to Al Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah.” -القواعد الفقهية الكبرى و ما تفرع عنها- 

Sheikh Abdul Ghani Al-Mujaddadi Ad-Dahlawi said: “The apparent of the narration prohibits every type of harm unless there is evidence, on account that the indefinite article within a negative clause envelopes all (of what the indefinite article suggests within the Arabic language).”
-إنجاح الحاجه شرح سنن ابن ماجة- 

إذا تعارضت المصلحة و المفسدة قدّم أرجحها

“If A Benefit And Harm Are Mutually Clashing Give Priority To The More Preponderate”

Sheikh Sulaiman Ar-Ruhaili stated while expounding on this principle: “If mutual clashing occurs between a good and an evil in which it is not possibly to separate the two (due to them being coupled); on the contrary, if the good is enacted it (consequently) makes necessary the occurrence of the evil, or abandonment of evil makes necessary the abandonment of good, then in this case the preponderate as relates to the benefit of the good and or the harm of the evil is enacted. Hence the evil is tolerated if it results in a benefit far greater than it and there is no achieving the good except by way of it. Likewise abandonment of good, (if and) when that good necessitates for an evil circumstance the increase of harm greater than it.” -قواعد تعارض المصالح والمفاسد-

This is very important as some circumstances -in which good is attempted- can result in harm; however, it doesn’t mean that it is dismissed or left off. If one does an action that produces both good and bad, then both are examined as relates to what is more plentiful. If evil is more plentiful then the action is left off; but if good is more plentiful then the action is enacted despite the fact that evil is coupled with it. Thus the examined is that which is more plentiful from (comparison to) what is minimal, what is more widespread from (comparison to) what is restricted, etc.
  

يتحمل الضرر الخاص لدفع ضرر عام

“Tolerating A Particularized Harm In Order To Repel A Widespread Harm”

This principle is as it suggests, allowance of a harm to befall in a restrictive and particularized sense in order to repel a harm that is widespread, all encompassing, and significant in nature.

Sheikh Salih As-Sadlan said: “Examples of that are: severing the hand of the thief, embargo on a criminal enterprise (i.e. its members) and executing them, the (varying types of) scolding and punishments, criticism of witnesses in front of the judge, and similar to that from what holds greater magnitude as pertains to the widespread advantage and alienation of harm from the community, and Allah knows best.”
-القواعد الفقهية الكبرى و ما تفرع عنها-

اختيار أهون الشرين أو أخف الضررين 

“Choosing The Lesser Of Two Evils And The Lighter Of Two Harms”

This principle has different variations as relates to its wording. Among them are “The More Severe Harm Is Quailed By The Least Harm” and “If Two Harmful Matters Compete Commit What Is Least In Harm” and others similar to these two, and although the wordings differ the meanings are the same. This Principle is best explained by a verse that clearly illustrates its intent, in fact this verse and those similar to it are that from which the principle is derived, thus you find it oft-repeated in the books of Al-Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah whenever this principle is discussed. Allah says:

يسألونك عن الشهر الحرام قتال فيه قل قتال فيه كبير و صد عن سبيل الله و كفر به والمسجد الحرام و إخراج أهله منه أكبر عند الله والفتنة أكبر من القتل

“They ask you about the prohibited months and fighting therein; say ‘Fighting therein is a great transgression, but greater than that with Allah is hindrance from Allah’s path, disbelief in Him, blockage from access to the Al Masjid Al Haram, and expelling its people. So strife/calamity is more worse than killing…” Al-Baqarah: 217

Sheikh Sulaiman Ar-Ruhaili said concerning the verse and its implication as relates to this principle: “There is an elucidation within it concerning the disbelievers and their vindictiveness towards the believers as relates to battling during the prohibited months. Although this is corruption, that which the infidels were upon of disbelief in Allah, hindrance from His path, trying the believers on the basis of their religion, and attempts at reverting them back to polytheism are a worser and graver corruption than fighting during the prohibited months. Therefore Allah says even though taking lives therein is evil, The occurring calamity of disbelief coupled with its perpetrators ostentation is greater in magnitude than that. Hence the greater of the two corruptions/evil is repelled by implementation of the least of the two.”
-قواعد تعارض المصالح والمفاسد-           

May Allah bless us with comprehension of these and other principles that are crucial when attempting to achieve benefit and repel harm.

Fourth: Boycotting Is A Legislated Act Of Worship Implemented Solely To Please Allah And Be Brought Close To Him

Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “If this is understood, then (we know) the legislated boycott is from the actions Allah and His Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- command. So obedience necessitates that it is solely done for Allah’s sake along with being in accordance with His command. Consequently, whoever boycotts due to desires, or implements a boycott not sanctioned has exited from this, and how plentiful are the souls that act according to its desires assuming it to be done as obedience to Allah.”

From the rudimentary affairs of Al-Islam is no act of worship and obedience is accepted by Allah unless it is done sincerely for His sake and seeking reward from Him. This is a clear prerequisite for the validity and acceptance of the action. If it is absent, quite simply put, the act of worship is absent i.e. not accepted by Allah.

Sheikh Hafidh ibn Ahmad Al-Hakami said: “So understand -May Allah be merciful with you- that there is no benefit, success, salvation, goodly life, happiness within the two abodes, and salvation from disgrace in this worldly life nor punishment in the next life except with knowing the first obligation upon human beings and enactment of it. It is the very affair for which Allah created them, and made with them a covenant. He sent to them messengers on account of this affair, revealed the scriptures, created this worldly life and the next, and created paradise and hell. On account of it the inevitable will be actualized and the event will befall (i.e. the day of resurrection), the scales will be erected, the scrolls will be spread open, (true) wretchedness and blissfulness will be, and on account of this affair the light will be divided. Hence whomever Allah does not make for him light, then there will be no light for him. This affair is knowing Allah, and His divinity, lordship, names and attributes coupled with singling Him out alone with respect to that. Additionally it is to know what nullifies it or some of it from polytheism…” -معارج القبول-

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih Al Uthaymin said: “Sincerity to Allah is that a man intends by his acts of worship the being brought close to Allah and arrival at His abode of honor (i.e. Paradise), insomuch that the servant is one who is sincere to Him with respect to his intent, love, and exaltation of Him. He is sincere to Allah inwardly and outwardly, he doesn’t desire by way of his worship anyone or thing except Allah and arrival at Paradise.” -شرح أصول الستة-

This is the case with all acts of worship generally, and included within that is the legislated boycott. If implemented, it should be in the manner that Allah intents consequently being done to please Allah, requesting by it reward from Allah.

Bakr ibn Abdullah Abu Zaid stated: “The legislated boycott of the corrupt from the innovators and the immensely sinful is worship, and worship necessitates its two pillars. The first is sincerity and it is the scale for actions inwardly. The second is conformity to the Sunnah and it is the scale for actions outwardly. Thus it is incumbent for the boycott to be done sincerely along with compliance (to the Sunnah), as boycotts on account of the self’s desires nullifies sincerity. Likewise boycotting in a manner contradicting commands nullifies conformity (to the Sunnah).” -هجر المبتدع-

Although it is impossible to determine the intent of others, there are some boycotts that are done for reasons so ridiculous and totally devoid of any principles today that it is difficult to fathom it being for Allah’s sake, and Allah is He who is well acquainted with the innermost core of a thing. 

Lastly, there are more points of benefit within this verdict that could be further clarified; however, it’s not my desire to prolong this article especially considering the fact that what has been reviewed is tremendous in magnitude, thus it is hoped that the reader internalizes what was presented making it apart of his essential understanding with regards to these affairs in order for benefit to be achieved when applying it, and Allah knows best. May Allah send His peace and lofty commendations upon our Prophet, his family, and all of his companions.

 

Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi.
Published on the 7th of Safar 1444AH/ the 3rd of Sept 2022.
  

Leave a Comment

Filed under Manhaj

Raising The Hands In Du’aa And Wiping The Face Thereafter: Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Baaz

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Q: What’s the ruling on raising the hands after the prayer in order to supplicate? Also what’s the ruling on wiping the face after finishing the supplication?

Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Baaz: Raising the hands for supplication is from the means of it being answered. However, the situations where the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam did not raise them, then we don’t raise them. Outside of that the raising of the hands -while supplicating- is from the means of (it) being answered. The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said, “Indeed your Lord is Ever Living and Most Generous. He is shy, with regards to His servant, when he raises his hands towards Him that they (i.e. the servants hands) should return empty.” Thus if he supplicates during the last part of the night or at any time and he raises his hands, this -action of his- is from the means of response (i.e. from Allah).

However, do not raise them after the obligatory prayers, because the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- did not raise them. So if one supplicates after the obligatory prayers, i.e. Thuhr, Asr, Maghrib, Ishaa, Fajr, or Jumu’ah, he does not raise his hands, because the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- did not raise his hands. Likewise with the Jumu’ah sermon, and the Eid sermon, he -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- did not raise his hands except when supplicating for rain. When he would supplicate requesting rain he would raise them, even as it relates to the Jumu’ah sermon, or any place, when he supplicated for rain he would raise his hands and make requests. 

In addition, if he was not in prayer and he supplicated, he would raise his hands and that is not problem. He would raise his hands and supplicate. Likewise after voluntary prayers, if a person raises his hands every now and then and supplicates, then this is not an issue. However, he should not be consistent/continuous (i.e. in raising his hands while supplicating) because it is not recorded that the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- was continuous in raising the hands after voluntary prayers. Therefore, if he raises his hands and supplicates every now and then, there is no issue with that.

As for wiping the face with the hands, the scholars differ regarding it. Among them are those who held the opinion that it was recommended. Others among them did not view it to be recommended due to the authentic narrations not mentioning wiping the face. Within the authentic and well known narrations from the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- there is no mention within them, wiping the face after supplication. Wiping the face is reported in weak narrations. So if one does it there is no objection, but if one leaves it this is better, if Allah wills. (Again) if one abandons it this is best, yet if one does it there is no objection. That’s because some of the people of knowledge deem it to be good, they deem the narrations that have within them wiping the face to be assisting and supporting (i.e. each other strengthening their credibility), and they deem these narrations to be from the category “Hasan” and (consequently) recommend wiping the face. Among them is Al-Haafidh ibn Hajr (i.e. Al-Aqalaani), in (his book) Buloogh Al Maraam, he mentions that they strengthen one another (i.e. the chains to each narration), while others say it is not recommended because these narrations are weak.

Thus the gist is that this matter is extensive (in how it’s viewed and approached) if Allah wills. Hence whoever wipes his face (i.e. after supplication) there is no objection; however, he who abandons it perhaps this is best and more appropriate, due to the authentic narrations not mentioning wiping the face.

Translated by Najeeb Al Anjelesi.
Source: https://binbaz.org.sa/fatwas/12337/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AD-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%BA?fbclid=IwAR2gwycgSPjWIR2nOCnXTec68z4_1gL0pwSaEGhqerevQHbyZMyODTednOE       

Leave a Comment

Filed under Supplications and Remembrance

Having Disapproval For One Who Takes More Than One Wife: Sheikh Saalih Alish-Sheikh

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

This is from the calamities that the enemies of the Islamic Legislation have made apparent, as the allowance of polygyny (i.e. multiple wives) is legislatively prescribed. Whatever is similar to that is met with submission, willful compliance, and acceptance. As for having disapproval for he who acquires two wives or more, this does not emanate from anyone except an ignoramus or one who is affected by a doubt hurled into his heart by followers of desires through their different means. Allah says:

فانْكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء مثنى و ثلاث و رباع فإنْ خفتم ألاّ تعدلوا فواحدة

“Then marry whatever you desire from women, two (women), three (women), or four (women if you so choose and desire that), and if you fear that you cannot be just, then (marry) one…”

Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- married more than one, likewise a large number of Companions. Therefore, polygyny is lawful and allowed, and perhaps it is recommended in a case of he who is not sufficed with one wife and craves multiple wives.

Source: المنظار في بيان كثير من الأخطاء الشائعة
Translated by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Marriage

Sheikh Al Fawzan Does Not Allow His Works To Be Translated/Published

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Clarification Concerning Translating The Works Of Shaykh Saalih Al Fawzan

 

By the permission of Allah, we were able to visit our father and teacher Shaykh Saalih Al Fawzan, may Allah preserve him, today in his office at Dar al-Iftaa and put forward a couple of questions. From those questions asked was one concerning translating the works of the Shaykh. It is not hidden from any of his students here in Riyadh or elsewhere, that the Shaykh does not permit translating his works (books, treatises, lessons, etc) nor transcribing them, except with his permission and a thorough checking under his authority. And I testify that I’ve heard this a number of times from him throughout my years of sitting with him, may Allah preserve the Shaykh.

So, we asked the Shaykh for some clarification concerning this as some fatwas are specifically directed/connected to affairs of other countries, so do those fall under the prohibition he has regarding his works? The Shaykh answered: It is true that I do not allow any of my works to be translated except with my permission. This is regarding the works that have been published (i.e. the Shaykh’s written work in book form or what is similar), anything other than that does not require permission.”

By the will of Allah, the Shaykh made the issue clear for those who wish to translate his works without his permission. As for those who wish to gain permission to translate some of his published work and spread them, the situation is easy, all praise is to Allah, he has to simply put it together and officially present it to the Shaykh to gain his permission.

Abdul-Hameed Aboo Zaynab
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
8th of Ramadan 1440 After Hijrah. 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contemporary Issues

Everyone Who Met The Prophet Is A Companion Even Other Prophets: Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Q: An author quoted Imam Adh-Dhahabi -from his book “Uncovering the Names Of The Companions- saying that Eesa the son of Mary was a companion and a prophet. Him being a companion because he met the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- and greeted him. So are all prophets that met the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- considered to have the term companion applied to them, and also the believers among the Jinn?

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin: I see that to be burdensome as counting Eesa the son of Mary among the companions is burdensome, due to all of the prophets seeing the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- and conveying their greetings upon him, i.e. an abundance from them saw him during the night ascension. The Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- ascended with his (actual) body and saw them factually. He spoke to them, and they to him. He greeted them and they greeted him, so do we now say that Adam is a companion? Yahya is a companion? Eesa is a companion? Musa is a companion? Ibrahim is a companion?

In addition, describing Eesa as being a prophet and messenger among those with firm resolve is more virtuous than describing him as a companion, as he is not in need of being described as a companion, and I have no idea of where such a plot has arisen. This is because it necessitates that we abandon saying Abu Bakr is the best of this nation. Undoubtedly this is beloved to the Shiite. They love that Abu Bakr is not -described as- being the best of this nation. Hence we say that the best of this nation is Abu Bakr, as for Eesa the son of Mary he is like the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- in status/rank. Although the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- is the best of the messengers, the rank of messenger is more superior and better than the rank of companionship.

So if we desired, we could easily say all that met the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- during the night of ascension is a companion; however, I consider that to be excessively particular and overbearing. Ali ibn Abi Talib and others among the companions stated, “The best of this nation after its Prophet is Abu Bakr.” Ali ibn Abi Talib would address the people on the pulpit and say, “The best of this nation is Abu Bakr” likewise Ibn Umar as it is authentically relied from him that they -i.e. the companions- during the time of the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- would choose and say, “The best of this nation is Abu Bakr.”

Source: لقاءات الباب المفتوح
Translated by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi   

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ruling On Dying The Beard And Hair Of The Head Black: Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Q: Is dying the beard and the hair of the head permissible, even if the intent is for beautification?

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin: Dying the beard and the head black, I say that all of this is forbidden, due to the Prophet’s -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- statement, “Change this (i.e. white and or grey hair) with something, but avoid black.” Also there is a narration within the sunan, reported therein is a threat upon whomsoever dyes there white hairs with black. As for your statement, “even if the intent is for beautification” most likely the one who dyes his hair black intends beautification, in that his face remains to appear like that of the youth, and if not -i.e. for this reason- then what is the benefit in doing this? Otherwise he just wastes time, money, and actions.

Source: لقاءات الباب المفتوح
Translated by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Taking Knowledge From Sheikh Ali Ar-Rumli: Sheikh Abdur Rahman Muhyiddin

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Q: Are you aware of Sheikh Ali Ar-Ramli Al-Urduni, and is he to be benefited from? May Allah reward you with good and bless you.

Sheikh Abdur Rahman Muhyiddin: Yes, in him is good. He is benefited from (i.e. knowledge is taken from him).

Leave a Comment

Filed under People Of Knowledge

A Double Portion Of Reward: Sheikh Muhammad Bazmool

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Sheikh Muhammad Bazmool said about Allah’s statement:

يأيها الذين آمنوا اتقوا الله و آمِنوا بِرسوله يؤتكم كفلَين من رحمته ويجعل لكم نورًا تمشُون به و يغفر لكم والله غفور رحيم
“O you who believe fear Allah and believe in His messenger. He will give you a double portion from His mercy and will make a light with which to walk and will forgive you, and Allah is Oft Forgiving and Merciful.” [Al-Hadid: 28]

Allah said -He will give you a double portion of mercy- meaning He will give two tremendous rewards, so what are they? Allah spoke vaguely about the two in magnification of this reward. As it is a reward that you are unable to outline by way of your speech nor by way of your perception. It is a reward from Allah for whoever adopts the religion and clings to it.

Source: شرح فضل الإسلام

Translated by Najeeb Al Anjelesi

Leave a Comment

Filed under Tafsir