Should every country be obliged to follow a particular madhhab (school of thought)?

Should every country be obliged with a specific school of thought? Should it be the only school of thought to be taught in this country, not any other madh-hab? I mean to teach the rulings prescribed by a specific school of thought regardless the other opinions? May Allah reward you!.

Praise be to Allaah.

With regard to ijtihaad and taqleed, people in a country fall into two categories:

1 – The scholars and mujtahids who have reached a level of shar’i knowledge where they have the tools of ijtihaad and instinbaat, whereby they are able to derive rulings. Their duty is to follow the truth wherever they see it, on the basis of evidence.

2 – The vast majority of people – those who have not specialized in study of shar’i sciences or have not reached the level of being able to engage in ijtihaad and being qualified to issue fatwas. These are the majority of people, or those who are educated and specialized in other fields of knowledge.

Their duty – in both shar’i and natural terms – is to ask the people of knowledge and take from them. We see this in the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

“So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not”

[al-Nahl 16:43]

So the people of each country are obliged to ask the scholars and follow their fatwas, but they are not to follow absolutely in the sense that they regard the one whom they follow as infallible and sacred, with the right to legislate and decide religious issues on the basis of their own ideas– as happened among the Jews, Christians, Raafidis, extreme Sufis and Baatinis – because that is going beyond the bounds of religion and taking rivals and gods besides Allaah, and Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allaah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship none but One Ilaah (God — Allaah) Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)”

[al-Tawbah 9:31]

The idea behind obliging people to follow the fatwas of the scholars is to enable them to learn the rulings of sharee’ah via the specialists who have studied the principles and usool of sharee’ah and have reached the stage of being qualified in that field of knowledge based on evidence, not sanctity given in the name of the Lord or in the name of “sainthood” and other such false notions.

Ibn Taymiyah said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (20/211):

Allaah has enjoined upon mankind to obey Him and obey His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but He has not enjoined upon this ummah to obey anyone in particular in all that he enjoins or forbids, apart from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Even the Siddeeq of this ummah and the best of them after its Prophet (i.e., Abu Bakr) said: “Obey me so long as I obey Allaah, but if I disobey Allaah, then you are not obliged to obey me.” They are all unanimously agreed that there is no one who is infallible in all that he enjoins or forbids except the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Hence more than one of the imams said: The words of any person may be adopted or abandoned except the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). End quote.

Secondly:

There remains the question of defining the scholars or scholarly references who are to be relied upon.

We may say that there are two scholarly sources to whom reference should be made at an ummah-wide level and at an individual level. They are:

1. Contemporary resources, represented by fiqh councils and sharee’ah committees which are established by trustworthy religious scholars; individual scholars who are qualified and specialized in shar’i sciences, from whom the people should learn and benefit from their guidance, especially with regard to issues in people’s daily lives and in novel, contemporary issues, and also with regard to matters which need to be reviewed and thoroughly re-examined in the light of shar’i and rational evidence, paying attention to people’s interests and warding off evils, alleviating difficulty and avoiding hardship, in cases where following one of the four madhhabs may cause difficulty and hardship, because one of the basic aims of sharee’ah is to make things easy, not cause hardship.

2. Classical resources, namely the four well known madhhabs, the Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafa’i and Hanbali. These resources are more deserving of being followed and their teachings adhered to, because the laws that people agree to refer to and use to judge between themselves; the curriculum that is decided for seekers of knowledge in halaqahs and schools and at different academic stages that those who specialize in sharee’ah and fiqhi knowledge go through; the legacy which should be well established in people’s minds, and form their fiqhi culture; the source that everyone who does not have the opportunities that the mujtahideen have to study many issues and reach a conclusion concerning it; and the discipline that puts an end to conflicts and disputes in society and blocks the door to whims and desires and weird opinions – all of that is represented in the four madhhabs, which is the greatest reason why they should be followed.

Al-Haafiz ibn Rajab says in his essay entitled al-Radd ‘ala man attaba’a ghayra al-Madhaahib al-Arba’ah (2/624) (which was published in a collection of his essays):

The wisdom of Allaah dictated that this religion and its guidelines should be protected by means of appointing leaders of the people concerning whom the ummah is unanimously on their knowledge and understanding, and that they reached the highest level of knowledge of rulings and fatwas among ahl al-ra’y wa’l-hadeeth. So the people became dependent on them for fatwas, and referred to them to understand rulings. So Allaah guided them to set guidelines for their madhhabs and explain foundations and principles, so that the madhhab of each imam has its own guidelines, principles and categories, in the light of which rulings and issues of halaal and haraam are to be understood.

This is by the mercy of Allaah towards His slaves, and it is one of the ways in which He preserves this religion.

Were it not for that, people would have seen strange things, whereby every fool who was filled with self-admiration could have tried to mislead the people; so you would have seen such fools claiming to be great imams, saying that they were the guide of this ummah and the only ones to whom people should refer and rely on, to the exclusion of all others.

But by the mercy and grace of Allaah, this door, which could have lead to grave danger, has been blocked and these great evils have been kept away. That is a sign of His great mercy and kindness towards His slaves.

Despite this, there are still those who claim to have reached the level of ijtihaad and talk about issues of knowledge without following any of these four imams.

The claims of some of them may be accepted because of evidence which proves their claims, and others may be rejected. As for those who did not reach this level, they have no choice but to follow those imams and join in what all the ummah joined in. End quote.

He also said (2/628):

If it is asked: What do you say about the fact that Imam Ahmad and other imams forbade imitating or following them, or writing their words, as Imam Ahmad said: Do not write down my words or the words of So and so; learn as we learned? This appears often in their words.

We say: No doubt Imam Ahmad (may Allaah be pleased with him) told them not to study the opinions of the fuqaha’ and spending time on memorizing them and writing them down, and he enjoined instead: spending time on studying the Qur’aan and Sunnah, seeking to memorize and understand and write and study them; writing down the reports of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een rather than the words of those who came after them; determining which reports were sound and which were unsound, what may be followed and what is odd and should be rejected. No doubt this is what one should pay attention to and spend one’s time learning, before anything else.

Whoever studies that and attains a high level of knowledge – as Imam Ahmad enjoined people to do – his knowledge will become close to that of Ahmad. For this person there are no restrictions, and we are not speaking about him here. Rather what we are speaking about is restraining those who have not reached this pinnacle, who understand only a little, as is the case with people nowadays, and as has been the case for a long time; even though many claim to have reached this pinnacle, most of them have not progressed beyond a beginner level.

The one who studies the history of fiqh and legislation will realize that throughout all stages it was built on the efforts of some scholars who became known among people for their knowledge, and news of their virtue and piety spread far and wide, then people began taking religious rulings from them, in most cases referring to their statements and fatwas.

Ibn al-Qayyim said in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een (1/17):

Religion, fiqh and knowledge became widespread in the ummah, narrated from the companions of Ibn Mas’ood, the companions of Zayd ibn Thaabit, the companions of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar and the companions of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas. Most of the knowledge that the people have comes from the companions of these four. For the people of Madeenah, their knowledge came from the companions of Zayd ibn Thaabit and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar. For the people of Makkah, their knowledge came from the companions of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas. For the people of Iraq, their knowledge came from the companions of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood. End quote.

The scholar and commentator Ahmad Pasha Taymoor (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Madhaahib al-Fiqhiyyah al-Arba’ah (16-17): Before the emergence of these madhhabs, at the time of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, fatwas were taken from the qurra’s among them, who were the bearers of the Book of Allaah and understood its meanings. When their era finished and the generation of the Taabi’een came after them, the people of each country followed the fatwas of the Sahaabah who had been among them, and they did not go beyond that except in a few matters that reached them from others. So the people of Madeenah for the most part followed the fatwas of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar; the people of Kufah followed the fatwas of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood; the people of Makkah followed the fatwas of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas; and the people of Egypt followed the fatwas of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas.

After the Taabi’een came the fuqaha’ of the various regions, such as Abu Haneefah, Maalik and others whom we have mentioned and whom we have not mentioned. So the people of each region followed the madhhab of the faqeeh for the most part. There are reasons why some of these madhhabs spread in other lands and some became extinct… End quote.

That does not mean that one should blindly adhere to one madhhab or opinion, in the sense of obliging people to follow it to the letter without any ijtihaad or effort to correct it. Rather the point is that the school of fiqhi thought that people, seekers of knowledge and scholars should study should be taken from one of the four madhhabs. Then, if it becomes clear to one who is qualified to engage in ijtihaad that the madhhab is mistaken on a specific issue, he should reject that fatwa and follow the view that he thinks is correct from the other madhhabs.

Thus people may adhere to the academic way which was followed by the salaf and imams, and they may rid themselves of some of the negatives that resulted from ignorance and blind following.

It says in Fataawa al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem (2/10, tape 2):

Following one of the four madhhabs is correct, rather it is like consensus, and there are no reservations about that, such as saying that one follows one of the four, because they are qualified imams according to consensus.

People have two extremes and a moderate way with regard to that:

Some people do not think that we should follow any madhhab at all. This is wrong.

Some follow their madhhab to the letter without paying any attention to study or research.

Some people think that following a madhhab is correct and there are no reservations about it, so wherever they find stronger evidence with one of the four or with someone else, they follow it. In cases where the issue is supported by a text or is clear, no attention should be paid to the madhhabs, but if there is an issue concerning which there is no text or it is not clear, but there are some views concerning it in these madhhabs, and you see stronger evidence with a scholar who differs from these four madhhabs, then you may follow that. End quote.

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (5/28):

What is the ruling on restricting oneself to the four madhhabs and following their opinions in all circumstances and at all times?

Answer:

- The one who is able to derive rulings directly from the Qur’aan and Sunnah should derive them as those who came before him did. There is no justification for him to follow a view when he believes that the correct view is something opposite. Rather he should follow what he believes is true. It is permissible for him to follow (another scholar) with regard to that which he is not able to work out himself and he needs an answer concerning it.

- It is permissible for one who is not able to derive rulings to follow one whom he feels comfortable following. But if he feels any sense of unease he should ask until he feels comfortable.

- From the above it is clear that their views should not be followed in all situations and at all times, because they may be wrong; rather the truth of what they say, for which there is evidence, should be followed. End quote.

It also says (5/54-55):

All of these came after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and were among the best people of their time (may Allaah be pleased with them). They strove hard to base their rulings on the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). That on which the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) were unanimously agreed and which they explained to the people is the truth. Their views have been transmitted to us and have spread among Muslims in all lands. Many of the scholars who came after them followed them because they trusted them and felt comfortable entrusting their religious commitment to them, because they agreed on the general principles that they followed and spread their views among the people. Those who followed them of the ordinary people and acted according to what they learned of their views may be attributed to the ones they followed. Yet (the ordinary Muslim) has to ask those whom he trusts of the scholars of his own era and cooperate with them in order to understand the correct view on the basis of evidence.

From the above it is clear that they are followers of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and the Messenger is not a follower of them. Rather what he brought from Allaah of the laws of Islam is the basis to which all these imams and others referred. Any Muslim may be called haneefi because he follows the easy haneefi way which is the way of Ibraaheem and the way of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

See also questions no. 5523, 5459, 23280 and 26269.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/103339

PS. So it's time for MUIS not to be restricted to the Shafi'ee madhhab..

Specifying a prayer rug for the Imam in the mosque

In reference to an earlier entry (http://ibnshamsuddeen.multiply.com/journal/item/541/Praying_on_rugs):

I'd like to mention the habit or custom of specifying a prayer rug for the imam in the mosque, referring specifically to Singapore's context.

The question is, does the imam need a prayer rug when the whole mosque is already carpeted? And quite often we find that he has a large rug, and a smaller rug on top of it..

Subhanallah.. how many rugs does he need? What's so special about the imam that he needs more than a rug, even if he is in need of a rug? Isn't it sufficient that the mosque is already carpetted and that he is already standing in front of the congregation, indicating that he's an imam?

Let's not forget the Prophet sallAllahu 'alayhi wa sallam used to pray in mud and water, even in the qiyaam of Ramadan.. and he did not ask for anything to be placed on the ground..

So i shall extract from the earlier entry for us to contemplate on:

6- The same applies to the practice in many mosques of having a rug that is just for the imam, which is set out for him to pray on, even though the mosque is carpeted. Why is he distinguished from the other worshippers??

This is not appropriate because there is no need for it, and because that may make him feel somewhat superior to the people.

The point is that putting down rugs in a carpeted mosque is a bid’ah unless there is a reason for that, such as it being very cold, or the floor being rough or the first carpet being naajis (impure) or filthy, and so on.

And Allaah knows best.

PS. How many of us pray without using a rug, especially at home?

Discussion: Wearing track pants can cause heat injury?

It is "amazing" how i was told that wearing track pants can cause heat injury as it traps heat in the legs especially for long-distance run..

If that's the case, why do army trainees wear Long 4 for route march? It has much higher risk of heat injury, right?

Is the person who told me about the "danger" of wearing track pants forgetting the fact that the key to avoiding heat injury is proper hydration? And isn't that why they have water points along the route for the long-distance run?

Haiz.. as for now, i'm compelled to wear shorts for morning runs.. already we are wearing singlets.. i feel naked..

Wallaahu al-Musta'an.

Ruling on wearing trousers and a suit and tie

What is the ruling on wearing trousers if they are tight and stick to one’s body, or if they are baggy in order to imitate the westerners, what if a person wears a different style from what the westerners wear?
What is the ruling on wearing suit and tie and other clothes usually used by the unbelievers? Is it acceptable because it became of Muslims’ habits and that an average Muslim will not think that they are worn to resemble the unbelievers? What should a Muslim wear nowadays?.

Praise be to Allaah.

The basic principle with regard to clothes is that they are permissible, except those which Islam has definitely excluded, such as gold and silk for men, except in the case of scabies and the like. Wearing trousers is not something that is unique to the kuffaar, but wearing tight trousers which show the shape of the body, even the ‘awrah, is not permissible. Loose pants are permissible, unless the wearer intends to resemble those of the kuffaar who wear them. The same applies to wearing a suit and tie. These are not garments that are unique to the kuffaar, so they are permissible, unless the wearer intends to imitate them.

To sum up, the basic principle with regard to clothes is that they are permissible, unless there is shar’i evidence to show that they are not allowed, as stated above.

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. End quote.

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq al-‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah li’l-Buhooth al-‘Ilmiyyah wa’l-Ifta (24/40).

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/105412

The Ruling of the Dome Built upon the Grave of the Messenger of Allaah - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam

Shaykh Muqbil ibn Haadee al-Waadi'ee

Reference: The Ruling of the Dome Built upon the Grave of the Messenger of Allaah - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam - Research Paper prepared by Abu `Abdur-Rahmaan Muqbil ibn Haadee al-Waadi`ee (Faculty of Sharee`ah, Islaamic University of Madeenah)

Category: General

When was the grave of the Messenger - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam - first entered into his masjid?

Hafidh ibn katheer -may Allaah have mercy on him - said in his book `al-Bidayyah` (9/74) regarding incidents in the year 88 A.H.

"Ibn Jareer mentioned that in the month of Rabi al-Awwal from that year, al-Waleed wrote to Umar bin Abdul Azeez, commanding him to demolish the Prophet`s masjid, and to rebuild it incorporating the Messenger of Allaah`s house into it, and extending it from the direction of the Qibla and all its other sides until they reach two hundred cubits.

Whoever sells his property to you, then buy it from him, otherwise give him a good price for it. After that, demolish it and pay them for their houses, since you have truthful Salaf who did this: Umar and Uthman -radiAllaah anhuma.

Umar bin AbdulAzeez gathered the people, the ten scholars and the people of Madina. He read the letter of the Ameer -ul-Mumineen, and the matter was difficult for them.

They said: the rooms of the Prophet - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – have low ceilings, the ceilings were made with date palm leaves, the walls are made of un-burnt bricks (like clay), the doors are covered with sack cloth. Leaving it as it is, is better so that the hujaaj and the visitors and travelers to the houses of the Prophet - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – can benefit from them and learn a lesson from them. This will be more effective for Zuhud in this world.

They never used to build except for their needs, and that which would shelter them and cover them. They knew that tall buildings were what the Pharaohs and Caesars used to build. Those who hoped to live long, those who desired the Duniya for staying in it.

Consequently, Umar bin AbdulAzeez wrote to al-Waleed with what the ten scholars, who were previously mentioned, had agreed upon.

Al-Waleed sent him a message ordering him to demolish it and to rebuild the masjid as he had mentioned and to raise the ceiling high.

Umar could not find it in himself to start demolishing it. When the project of demolishing it began the Ashraaf screamed out, and the people from Banu Hashim and others, opposed this, and they cried like on the day the Prophet - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – passed away.

Those who had property close to the masjid for sale responded to him, and he bought it from them. The project for building the masjid began, and he worked extremely hard in doing so. Al-Waleed also sent many laborers to him.

The Prophet`s room which was the room of Ayesha -radiAllaah anha - was entered into the Masjid, so the grave was entered in to the masjid.

Its span from the east side was like al-Waleed had ordered, like the rest of the rooms of the mothers of the believers.

It was narrated to us that when they dug up the eastern wall from Ayesha`s room, a foot became uncovered; they feared that it could be the Prophet`s foot, but they came to know that it was Umar bin al-Khattab`s -radiAllaah anhu -foot.

It was told that Sa`eed bin al-Musayyib rejected that Ayesha`s room was entered into the masjid; it`s as if he feared that his grave would be taken as a masjid and Allah knows best."

Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymeeyah -may Allaah have mercy on him - in his book `al-Jawaab al-Baahir`(p.71):

The Messenger - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – was buried in Ayesha`s -radiAllaah anha - room. Her room and the rooms of the rest of his wives were in the easterly direction of the masjid.

The place were the Messenger used to pray in his room was not his masjid, rather he would leave his room to go into the masjid, but in the Khalafa of al-Waleed the masjid was extended. He loved building masajid. He served the masjid al-Haram, the masjid in Damascus and other masajid.

He ordered his deputy Umar bin AbdulAzeez to buy the rooms from those who inherited them, from the wives of the Prophet - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – and extended them on to the masjid.

So, since that time the rooms were entered into the masjid, and after the death of the companions, after the death of Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, Abu Sa`eed al-Khudree, after the death of Ayesha, in fact after the death of the general Companions -radiAllaah anhum. None of them remained in Madina. It has been narrated that Sa`eed ibn Musayib disliked it, and many of the Companions and Tabieen disliked it with what `Uthmaan bin `Affan - radiAllaah anhu - built the masjid with rocks, mahogany and teak.

When al-Waleed did what he did the people disliked it. As for Umar bin al-Khattab - radiAllaah anhu - then he extended the masjid, however he built it using dry bricks as it was built before. Its pillars were trunks of the date tree, and its ceiling was made from the leaves of the date tree. It has not been reported that anyone disliked what Umar did, whereas the disagreement fell upon what `Uthmaan - radiAllaah anhu - did."

Ibn Taymeeyah later continues by saying: "al-Waleed ibn Abdul Malik took over the rule after the death of his father Abdul Malik in the year eighty something after Hijra, and that these Companions had all died by then.

The Companions had generally all died, in different countries, except a small number of them like: Anas bin Maalik in Basra, who died during the Khalafah of al-Waleed in the year ninety something. Jaabir bin Abdullaah died in the year 78 in Madina, and he was the last Companion to die in Madina. Al-Waleed entered the room of the Prophet into the masjid a long time after that, nearly ten years later, and he had built the masjid after the death of Jaabir, therefore there was no-one in Madina from amongst the Companions."

Shaykh ul-Islaam also mentions something similar to this in his book: `ar-Radd `ala al-Iknaaiee` (p.118), and in `Iqtidaa Siraat-ul-Mustaqeem` (p.367). The historians have mentioned something similar to this as is mentioned in the book `Umdat-ul-ahkbaar`(p.108) and in `Tahqeeq an-Nasraatu bi Talkhees Mu`aalim dar al-Hijra` by al-Muragee (p.49), also in `Wafa al-Wafa` by as-Samoodee in one volume (p.513).

So, what becomes clear to us is that al-Waleed -may Allaah have mercy on him - made a mistake in entering the rooms into the Prophet`s Masjid, and he fell into exactly what the Prophet - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – had prohibited from, using graves as masajid and praying in them.

Those who pray in the place where the ahl-ul-Suffa were, face the grave as is evident to see. Likewise the women face the grave in their prayer.

What is obligatory upon the Muslims is to return the room of the Prophet towards the easterly direction of the masjid like it was at the time of the Prophet - sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam. The best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad- sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam.

* leave every saying for the saying of Muhammad*
*Since the one who is secure in his religion is not like the one who takes chances*

Translator: Farhat Abbaas, Abu Yahya

Date Published: Thursday, 29 May 2008

This article has been read 912 times

	Print this article
	This article has been published with the permission of the translator, who affirms the accuracy of his translation of this article as well as the authenticity of the original Arabic source. Should you have any comment(s) and/or correction(s) to suggest, please write to us at: ...and your email will be passed on to him, inshaa.-Allaah.

http://www.madeenah.com/article.cfm?id=1259

Menjawab salam orang bukan Islam

Masalah:
Apakah boleh menjawab salam yang diucapkan oleh selain orang Islam dengan "Wa 'alaikum as-Salam"?

Pendapat Syaikh al-Albani:
Saya jawab: "Boleh, dengan syarat salamnya harus fasih dan jelas, tidak salah pengucapannya, sebagaimana yang dilakukan oleh kaum Yahudi kepada Nabi shallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallamdan para sahabatnya. Mereka mengucapkan: 'as-Saamu 'alaikum' (semoga kebinasaan atas kalian). Maka Nabi shallAllahu 'alaihi wa sallam menjawab mereka dengan ucapan: 'Wa 'alaikum' (dan juga kepada kalian) saja. Sesuatu yang tidak diragukan lagi, bahwa bila salah satu di antara mereka mengucapkan salam denan ucapan yang jelas: 'as-Salamu 'alaikum' dan kita membalasnya cukup dengan: 'Wa 'alaik', maka hal tersebut tidak ada keadilan dan kebaikan. Sebab dalam hal sikap seperti ini, kita menyamakan antara dia dan orang yang mengucapkan 'as-Saamu 'alaikum' . Ini merupakan kezhaliman yang nyata. Wallahu a'lam.

ash-Shahihah (II/320-322)

[Ditukil dan diadaptasi dari kitab "Ensiklopedia Fatwa Syaikh Albani" susunan Mahmud bin Ahmad Rasyid, terjemahan Rudi Hartono, Lc., terbitan Pustaka as-Sunnah, Jakarta. Judul asli: Taujihu as-Saari likhtiyaraat al-Fiqhiyyah li as-Syaikh al-Albani. Adaptasi hanya dilakukan dari segi bentuk perenggan dan format yang tidak membawa kepada perubahan makna.]

Memberi ucapan kepada selain orang Islam dengan ucapan seperti "Apa Khabar?"

Masalah:
Apakah boleh mengucapkan salam kepada selain orang Islam dengan selain ucapan "as-Salamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh" seperti: "bagaimana kabarmu pagi ini, bagaimana kabarmu sore ini, atau apa kabar?

Pendapat Syaikh al-Albani:
Yang nampak bagi saya - wallahu a'lam - hal tersebut adalah boleh. Sebab larangan yang tercantum dalam hadits adalah mengucapkan salam. Hal ini dikuatkan oleh ucapan 'Alqomah:

"Sesungguhnya ucapan salamnya Abdullah (yaitu Ibnu Mas'ud) kepada para pedagang adalah dengan isyarat." [HR Bukhari (1104)] yang dijadikan judul bab.

Adapun Ibnu Mas'ud membolehkan memulai salam kepada mereka dengan isyarat, karena itu bukanlah salam yang khusus diucapkan kepada kaum muslimin. Demikian juga memulai salam dengan ucapan salam selain salam yang khusus diucapkan kepada kaum muslimin.

ash-Shahihah (II/321)


[Ditukil dan diadaptasi dari kitab "Ensiklopedia Fatwa Syaikh Albani" susunan Mahmud bin Ahmad Rasyid, terjemahan Rudi Hartono, Lc., terbitan Pustaka as-Sunnah, Jakarta. Judul asli: Taujihu as-Saari likhtiyaraat al-Fiqhiyyah li as-Syaikh al-Albani. Adaptasi hanya dilakukan dari segi bentuk perenggan dan format yang tidak membawa kepada perubahan makna.]

If he wiped over his khufoof again then took them off, he can put them on again and wipe over them

If a person performed washing wudhu at the time of zuhar prayer then he puts on his khuffs, Then for asr prayer he renewed his wudhu by just wiping over his khuffs. After asr he removed his khuffs, but while going out he puts on his khuff again. So the question is: Can he wipe over for maghrib prayer? Also provide evidence(daleel).

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

Taking off the khufoof does not invalidate wudoo’ according to the more correct view, so the one who takes off his khufoof may pray with his previous wudoo’.

See the answer to question no. 100112.

Secondly:

One of the conditions of wiping over the khufoof or socks is that they should have been put on when in a state of purity. This has been explained in the answer to question no. 9640.

The one who renews his wudoo’ and wipes over his socks, then takes them off, then puts them on again before breaking his wudoo’, can be said to have put them on in a state of purity, so he may wipe over them.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: We said that if he takes off the khufoof he does not break his wudoo’, and this was also said by others. But none of those who said that wudoo’ is not broken said that it is permissible to put them back and wipe over them. We tried hard but we did not find anyone who was of this opinion, otherwise it would be a sound view.

Questioner: Even if he is wiping over them to renew his wudoo?

Shaykh: No. If the wiping is to renew wudoo’, what that means is that the first wudoo’ was not invalidated, so it is permissible to wipe over them after taking them off. Similarly if we assume that he did not wipe over them then he took them off when still in a state of purity, before wiping over them, then he put them on again, there is nothing wrong with that. End quote from Sharh al-Kaafi.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/116409

The Beard: A Crime? Or merely strange and uncommon?

7 years on.. I dunno about the rest of the world.. but here, it seems like a crime to be having a beard..

Especially when MSK just escaped.. i get the stares as though i am him.. i get teens calling out "Mas Selamat!"

When the police raided Bukit Batok Nature Park, i happen to be cycling and jogging there earlier that evening.. Hmm.. Don't tell me someone mistook me for MSK?

But people.. teens especially.. no joke, security is not something that can be taken for granted.. you can't shout out "MSK!" for fun.. security is no joke.. look at what happened to those officers held responsible for his escape..

Well.. things have toned down.. don't really get much of the stares anymore.. hopefully, people realise that having a beard doesn't equate to being a terrorist..

Still adjusting to fact that people expect you to be clean-shaven if you're in the Army..

I shall just comfort myself with the hadith, "Islam came as something strange and will leave as something strange, therefore blessings be to the Strangers (Ghurabaa')."

As well as the hadith that mentions that near the end of time, one who adheres to the Sunnah is like holding onto a burning coal..

Wallaahu al-Musta'aan.

Having a Beard = "Osama"/ "Baa baa"

7 yrs on (since Sept 11), we still have people associating the beard with Osama Bin Laden/terrorists..

Or people with beard/goatee like mine would be teased with "Baa baa" (reference to goat)..

Sometimes i feel offended.. at times.. i pity these people.. can't they tell the difference between a human goatee and that of a goat?? Pity their parents who took great effort in giving them good education.. But what if even the parents make the same mistake? Hmm...

Ignorance, ignorance.. what more can i say? People refuse to read.. refuse to learn more.. always relying on statements of others without verifying its truth..

This is the same, whether in worldly or religious matters..

Time for reflection..

[PS.. i suppose some readers might finally go, "Aha.. finally something more personal from Farhan.."]

Praying on rugs

Question:
What is the ruling on praying on rugs? What is the ruling on putting a rug in the mosque for the imam to pray on? Is this bid’ah? May Allaah reward you with good.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Praying on rugs is permissible in principle. Al-Bukhaari (379) and Muslim (513) narrated that Maymoonah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray on a khumrah.

A khumrah is a small mat made of palm leaves that is big enough for the face, on which a worshipper may prostrate to protect himself from the heat or coldness of the ground.

Al-Khattaabi favoured the view that the khumrah may be bigger than that, and he quoted as evidence the report narrated by Abu Dawood (5247) from Ibn ‘Abbaas, who said: A mouse came and started dragging the wick of the lamp and threw it in front of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), on the khumrah on which he was sitting, and it burned an area the size of a dirham… This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 4369.

It says in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood: This clearly shows that the word khumrah may apply to a large mat. This was also stated in al-Nihaayah.

See Fath al-Baari, 333.

Al-Shawkaani said:

This hadeeth indicates that there is nothing wrong with praying on a mat, regardless of whether it is made of rags, palm leaves or anything else, whether it is small or big, like a mat or carpet, because it is proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed on mats, carpets and animal pelts.

But there may be some reasons why it is not permissible to pray on carpets and similar things.

For example:

1- If the carpet contains images of animate beings; in which case it is haraam to keep them and the images must be blotted out. See question no. 12422.

2- If the carpet has decorations and patterns that attract the attention of the worshipper and distract him from his prayer; praying on such carpets is makrooh.

The Standing Committee said:

With regard to pictures of inanimate objects such as mountains, rivers, lakes, plants, trees, houses and so on, so long as there are no images of living beings in or around them, these are permissible, but praying on them is makrooh because they distract the worshipper and detract from his proper focus and humility (khushoo’) in prayer, but his prayer is still valid.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 6/180

They also said:

The mosques are the houses of Allaah, built for the establishment of prayer and the glorification of Allaah and the fear of Allaah.

Patterns and decorations in the furnishings and on the walls of the mosques are things that distract the heart from the remembrance of Allaah and take away much of the worshippers’ proper focus and humility. Hence they were regarded as makrooh by many of the salaf. So the Muslims should avoid that in their mosques and strive to make their worship perfect by keeping distractions away from the places in which they seek to draw close to Allaah the Lord of the Worlds, hoping to increase their reward. But with regard to praying (on carpets decorated with such patterns), it is valid.

3- If praying on the rug is done in order to avoid praying on the ground.

Al-Bukhaari (2036) narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: We observed i’tikaaf with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) during the middle ten days of Ramadaan, and we came out on the morning of the twentieth. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) addressed us on the morning of the twentieth and said: “I was shown Laylat al-Qadr but then I was made to forget it, so seek it in the last ten nights, on the odd-numbered nights. I saw that I was prostrating in water and mud. Whoever was observing i’tikaaf with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), let him go back.” So the people went back to the mosque, and we did not see any trace of a cloud in the sky. Then a cloud came and it rained, and the iqaamah for prayer was given, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prostrated in mud and water until we saw the marks of mud on the tip of his nose and his face.

According to a report narrated by Muslim (1167): “And his forehead was covered with mud and water.”

This hadeeth points to the humility of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as he prostrated on water and mud, and he did not order that something be brought for him to prostrate on.

4- If praying on the rug is done to avoid praying on the carpets that are spread for all the people in the mosque, or if a person does that to be on the safe side because there may be some impurity (najaasah) in the ground.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

With regard to those who suffer from extreme waswasah (whispers from the Shaytaan), they do not pray on the ground or on the carpets spread out for everyone on the ground, rather they pray on a rug or something similar…

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 22/177

5- If a man seeks to pray on the rug because he thinks that it is essential to have a rug just for prayer and that he has to pray on something whether he is at home or in the mosque. Many people only ever pray on the rug even if the house is carpeted.

Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Praying on rugs, in the sense that the worshipper insists on that – this was not the way of the salaf, the Muhaajireen and Ansaar and those who followed them in truth at the time of the Messenger of Allaah. Rather they used to pray on the ground in his mosque, and none of them had a rug that was used just for prayer. It was narrated that when ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi came to Madeenah he spread out a rug, and Maalik ordered that it be taken away. It was said to him, “He is ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi.” Maalik said, “Do you not know that spreading a rug in our mosque is bid’ah (an innovation)?”

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 22/163

6- The same applies to the practice in many mosques of having a rug that is just for the imam, which is set out for him to pray on, even though the mosque is carpeted. Why is he distinguished from the other worshippers??

This is not appropriate because there is no need for it, and because that may make him feel somewhat superior to the people.

The point is that putting down rugs in a carpeted mosque is a bid’ah unless there is a reason for that, such as it being very cold, or the floor being rough or the first carpet being naajis (impure) or filthy, and so on.

And Allaah knows best.

Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=27000&ln=eng

"Smoking Is Not Haram!"

Is it acceptable to use tissue only when cleaning oneself after defecating?

Question:
Is it sufficient to use tissue only when cleaning oneself after defecating, or is it essential to use water?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

After relieving oneself, it is obligatory to remove whatever najaasah (impurity) there is in that place, whether it is removed with water or something else, such as stones or paper or tissues, but using water is best.

The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked: In Britain we use tissues and paper to clean ourselves in the bathroom; is it obligatory to use water after using tissues, or not?

They replied:

Praise be to Allaah alone, and blessings and peace be upon His Messenger and his family and companions.

It is permissible to use tissues and papers and the like to clean oneself, and that is sufficient if it is done properly and the place is cleaned, from front or back. But it is better if what is used for cleaning is odd-numbered, and it should not be less than three wipes. It is not essential to use water after that, but it is Sunnah. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad. End quote.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (5/125).

Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: It is acceptable to use tissues to clean oneself after defecating?

He replied:

Yes, it is sufficient to use tissues to clean oneself after defecating, and there is nothing wrong with it, because the purpose of cleaning oneself is to remove the impurity, whether it is done with tissues, cloth, dust or stones. But it is not permissible for a person to clean himself with things that are forbidden in sharee’ah, such as bones and dung, because bones are the food of the jinn, if they are from animals that were slaughtered properly; if they are from animals that were not slaughtered properly, then they are naajis (impure), and that which is impure cannot purify. As for dung, if it is naajis then it cannot purify, and if it is taahir (pure), then it is food for the animals of the jinn, because when the jinn came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and believed in him, he gave them some food which will not stop until the Day of Resurrection. He said to them: “For you is every bone on which the name of Allaah is mentioned, and you will find it with plenty of meat on it.” This is one of the matters of the unseen that we cannot see, but we are obliged to believe in it. Similarly, dung is food for their animals. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (4/112).

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=111813&ln=eng

Selling posters and frames of Qur’aanic verses

Question:
what is the view on people who take parts/quotes from the Qu'ran and sell them in frames/posters/books for profit? Where the profit obtained goes towards aiding an Islamic event/organisation/school/society?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

We thank you for your keenness to learn and for asking about matters of calling people to Allaah (da’wah), for calling people without knowledge of sharee’ah may do more harm than good.

With regard to selling these frames and posters, we will explain the ruling on selling them after we discuss the ruling on hanging up such items.

Hanging up plaques and cloths containing aayaat of the Qur’aan in homes, schools, social clubs and places of business, involves a number of actions which are reprehensible and forbidden according to Islam, such as the following:

1 – In most cases, hanging such things on the wall is done for purposes of decoration and adornment, as the aayaat etc. are written in calligraphy and colourful brocade. This is a deviation from the purpose for which the Qur’aan was revealed, as it was revealed to guide people, teach them in a good manner and to be read regularly, etc. The Qur’aan was not revealed to decorate walls, but to guide mankind and jinn.

2 – Many people hang up such things to seek “blessing” from them, which is a form of bid‘ah (innovation). The blessing as described in Islam comes from reading or reciting the Qur’aan, not from hanging it up or placing it on shelves or turning it into artwork and three-dimensional images.

3 – This is contrary to the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the Rightly-Guided Khaleefahs (al-Khulafaa’ al-Raashidoon), may Allaah be pleased with them, who never did such a thing. The best way is to follow them, not to introduce innovations. History tells us that in places such as Andalusia, Turkey, etc., the adornment of houses and mosques with ornate carvings of aayaat only happened at times when the Muslims were weak and humiliated.

4 – Hanging up such pictures or plaques is a means that may lead to shirk, because some people think that these plaques and hangings are amulets that will protect the house and its people from evil and disease. This belief is shirk and is haraam, because the One Who really offers protection is Allaah, may He be glorified, and one of the means of gaining His protection is to recite the Qur’an and du‘aa’s taught in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, with humility and certain faith.

5 – By writing such things, it means that the Qur’aan may be taken as a means of promoting one’s business or increasing one’s earnings. The Qur’aan should be protected from being used for such purposes. It is well-known that the production and sale of these pictures and plaques involves a great deal of extravagance and wasting money.

6 – Many of these plaques are painted with real gold, which makes using them and hanging them up even more haraam.

7 – Many of these plaques clearly involve a kind of frivolity, because the letters are twisted into complex designs that are of no benefit to anyone because they are barely legible. Sometimes words are fashioned into the shape of a bird or a man prostrating, and similarly forbidden pictures of animate beings.

8 – Ayaat and soorahs of the Qur’aan are exposed to misuse and abuse by this practice. For example, when moving house, they are piled up with the rest of the furniture and belongings, and other objects may be placed on top of them. This also happens when they are taken down so that the wall may be painted or cleaned. This is in addition to the fact that they may be hung up in places where Allaah is disobeyed and the sanctity of the Qur’aan is not respected.

9 – Some Muslims whose observance of Islam is lacking put these plaques up so that they can feel that they are doing something religious, in order to reduce their feelings of guilt – in spite of the fact that this practice does not help them in any way.

All in all, we must close the doors of evil and follow the leaders of guidance of the early centuries of Islam, whose people the Prophet (peace be upon him) testified were the best of the Muslims in belief and in all rulings of their religion.

Moreover, if someone were to say, “We are not going to abuse it or make it a decoration or exaggerate about it, we just want to remind people (about their religion) in our gatherings”, our response would be: if we look at real life, will we find that this is what actually happens? Do people really remember Allah? Do they even read these aayaat when they raise their heads?

What really happens is the opposite: people go against the words hanging over their heads, they still tell lies, engage in gossip, make fun of others and do and say evil things. Even if we assume that there are some who do benefit from these plaques etc., the fact is that they are very few, and this does not change the hukm (Islamic ruling) on the matter.

The Muslims must turn to the Book of Allaah, read it and recite it, and act in accordance with it. We ask Allaah to make the Qur’aan a light of guidance for us, and a means of removing our grief and anxiety.

What we have said to you here is a summary of the fatwas issued by the senior scholars of our times, such as Shaykh Ibn Baaz and the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas in the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia), and Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthyameen, as in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah bi Ri’aasat al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, fatwas # 2078 and 17659.

Based on the above, you should not sell these frames because by doing so you may be committing some of the haraam actions mentioned by the scholars, and you may be the cause of others committing those actions.

We ask Allaah to guide us and you to the straight path.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=13648&ln=eng

How To Move Your Finger In The Prayer During ''Tashahudd''

For the benefit of those who read my blog in blogger, here is the video in which Abi Ishaq al-Howainy (a student of Shaykh al-Albaanee) explained and demonstrated how to move the finger in Tashhahud in accordance to the Sunnah.

My final entry...

Perhaps.. this is my final entry.. before I report to camp to serve my NS..

I'll be MIA (missing in action) for a while..

Misyaar Marriage: definition and rulings

This issue was quite a hot topic here in the Malay newspaper about a year ago.. but it is sad to see 2 ustazs who each wrote an article on it, both of them permitting it.. I'm not saying that i'm against their views on the matter, but i was disappointed by the one-sided argument that they presented in their article..

Whereas readers deserve to know that the permissibility of Misyaar is an issue of khilaaf among the scholars, and thus i present an article from: http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=82390&ln=eng

Question:
Misyaar marriage was mentioned on your website. What is this marriage? Is it halaal or haraam?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

Misyaar marriage is where a man does a shar’i marriage contract with a woman, meeting the conditions of marriage, but the woman gives up some of her rights such as accommodation, maintenance or the husband’s staying overnight with her.

The reasons that have led to the emergence of this kind of marriage are many, such as:

1.

Increase in the number of single women who are unable to get married, because young men are put off marriage due to the high cost of dowries and the costs of marriage, or because there is a high divorce rate. In such circumstances, some women will agree to be a second or third wife and to give up some of their rights.

2.

Some women need to stay in their family home, either because they are the only care-givers for family members, or because the woman has a handicap and her family do not want the husband to be burdened with something he cannot bear, and he stays in touch with her without having to put too great a burden on himself, or because she has children and cannot move with them to her husband’s house, and other reasons.

3.

Some married men want to keep some women chaste because they need that, or because they need variety and halaal pleasure, without that affecting the first wife and her children.

4.

In some cases a husband may want to conceal his second marriage from his first wife, for fear of the consequences that may result and affect their relationship.

5.

The man travels often to a certain place and stays there for lengthy periods. Undoubtedly staying there with a wife is safer for him than not doing so.

These are the most prominent reasons for the emergence of this kind of marriage.

Secondly:

The scholars differed concerning the ruling on this type of marriage, and there are several opinions, ranging from the view that it is permissible, to the view that it is permitted but makrooh, or that it is not allowed. Here we should point out several things.

1.

None of the scholars have said that it is invalid or is not correct; rather they disallowed it because of the consequences that adversely affect the woman, as it is demeaning to her, and that affects the society as this marriage contract is taken advantage of by bad people, because a woman could claim that a boyfriend is a husband. It also affects the children whose upbringing will be affected by their father’s absence.

2.

Some of those who said that it was permissible have retracted that view. Among the most prominent scholars who said that it was permissible were Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz and Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez Aal al-Shaykh; and among the most prominent scholars who said that it was permissible and then retracted it was Shaykh al-‘Uthaymeen; among the most prominent scholars who said that it is not allowed at all was Shaykh al-Albaani.

3.

Those who said that it is permissible did not say that a time limit should be set as in the case of mut’ah. And they did not say that it is permissible without a wali (guardian), because marriage without a wali is invalid. And they did not say that the marriage contract may be done without witnesses or without being announced, rather it is essential to do one of the two.

Thirdly:

Opinion of the scholars concerning this type of marriage:

1.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about Misyaar marriage; this kind of marriage is where the man marries a second, third or fourth wife, and the wife is in a situation that compels her to stay with her parents or one of them in her own house, and the husband goes to her at various times depending on the circumstances of both. What is the Islamic ruling on this type of marriage?

He replied:

There is nothing wrong with that if the marriage contract fulfils all the conditions set out by sharee’ah, which is the presence of the wali and the consent of both partners, and the presence of two witnesses of good character to the drawing up of the contract, and both partners being free of any impediments, because of the general meaning of the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “The conditions that are most deserving of being fulfilled are those by means of which intimacy becomes permissible for you” and “The Muslims are bound by their conditions.” If the partners agree that the woman will stay with her family or that her share of the husband’s time will be during the day and not during the night, or on certain days or certain nights, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as the marriage is announced and not hidden. End quote.

Fataawa ‘Ulama’ al-Balad al-Haraam (p. 450, 451) and Jareedah al-Jazeerah issue no. 8768, Monday 18 Jumaada al-Oola 1417 AH.

However, some students of the Shaykh said that he later retracted the view that it is permissible, but we could not find anything in writing to prove that.

2.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez Aal al-Shaykh (may Allaah preserve him) was asked:

There is a lot of talk about misyaar marriage being haraam or halaal. We would like a definitive statement about this matter from you, with a description of its conditions and obligations, if it is permissible.

He replied:

The conditions of marriage are that the two partners should be identified and give their consent, and there should be a wali (guardian) and two witnesses. If the conditions are met and the marriage is announced, and they do not agree to conceal it, either the husband, the wife or their guardians, and he offered a waleemah or wedding feast, then this marriage is valid, and you can call it whatever you want after that. End quote.

Jareedah al-Jazeerah, Friday 15 Rabee’ al-Thaani 1422 AH, issue no. 10508.

3.

Shaykh al-Albaani was asked about Misyaar marriage and he disallowed it for two reasons:

(i)

That the purpose of marriage is repose as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And among His Signs is this, that He created for you wives from among yourselves, that you may find repose in them, and He has put between you affection and mercy. Verily, in that are indeed signs for a people who reflect” [al-Room 30:21]. But this is not achieved in this kind of marriage.

(ii)

It may be decreed that the husband has children with this woman, but because he is far away from her and rarely comes to her, that will be negatively reflected in his children’s upbringing and attitude.

See: Ahkaam al-Ta’addud fi Daw’ al-Kitaab wa’l-Sunnah (p. 28, 29).

4.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) used to say that it was permissible, then he stopped saying that because of the negative effects, as it was poorly applied by some wrongdoers.

Finally, what we think is:

That if Misyaar marriage fulfils the conditions of a valid marriage, namely the proposal and acceptance, the consent of the wali and witnesses or announcement of the marriage, then it is a valid marriage contract, and it is good for some categories of men and women whose circumstances call for this type of marriage. But this may be taken advantage of by some whose religious commitment is weak, hence this permissibility should not be described as general in application in a fatwa, rather the situation of each couple should be examined, and if this kind of marriage is good for them then it should be permitted, otherwise they should not be allowed to do it. That is to prevent marriage for the sake of mere pleasure whilst losing the other benefits of marriage, and to prevent the marriage of two people whose marriage we may be certain is likely to fail and in which the wife will be neglected, such as one who will be away from his wife for many months, and will leave her on her own in an apartment, watching TV and visiting chat rooms and going on the internet. How can such a weak woman spend her time? This is different from one who lives with her family or children and has enough religious commitment, obedience, chastity and modesty to help her be patient during her husband’s absence.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

The green dome in Madeenah: its history and the ruling on its construction and on leaving it as it is

Question:
The green dome in Madeenah: its history and the ruling on its construction and on leaving it as it is.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

The history of the green dome

The dome over the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) dates back to the seventh century AH. It was built during the reign of Sultan Qalawoon, and at first it was the colour of wood, then it became white, then blue, then green, and it has remained green until the present.

Professor ‘Ali Haafiz (may Allaah preserve him) said:

There was no dome over the sacred chamber. There was in the roof of the mosque above the chamber a waist-high enclosure of brick to distinguish the location of the chamber from the rest of the mosque’s roof.

Sultaan Qalawoon al-Saalihi was the first one to build a dome over the chamber. He did that in 678 AH. It was square at the bottom and octagonal at the top, made of wood, and built on top of the pillars that surrounded the chamber. Planks of wood were nailed to it, over which plates of lead were placed, and the brick enclosure was replaced with one made of wood.

The dome was refurbished at the time of al-Naasir Hasan ibn Muhammad Qalawoon, then the leaden plates slipped, but they were fixed and refurbished at the time of al-Ashraf Sha’baan ibn Husayn ibn Muhammad in 765 AH. It fell into disrepair and was renovated at the time of Sultaan Qayit Bey in 881 AH.

The chamber and dome were burned in the fire that swept through the Prophet’s mosque in 886 AH. During the reign of Sultaan Qayit Bey the dome was rebuilt, in 887 AH, and strong pillars to support it were built in the floor of the mosque, and they were built of bricks to the correct height. After the dome had been built in the manner described above, cracks appeared in its upper part. When it proved impossible to refurbish it, the Sultaan Qayit Bey ordered that the upper part be demolished and rebuilt strongly using white plaster. So it was built solidly in 892 AH.

In 1253 AH, an order was issued by the Ottoman Sultan ‘Abd al-Hameed to paint the dome green. He was the first one to colour it green, and the colour has been renewed whenever necessary until the present.

It became known as the green dome after it was painted green. It was previously known as the white dome or the fragrant dome or the blue dome. End quote.

Fusool min Tareekh al-Madeenah al-Munawwarah by ‘Ali Haafiz (p. 127, 128).

Secondly:

Rulings thereon

The scholars, both in the past and in modern times, criticized the building of this dome and its being given a colour. All of that is because of what they know of sharee’ah closing many doors for fear of falling into shirk.

These scholars include the following:

1 – al-San’aani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Ta-theer al-I’tiqaad:

If you say: A great dome has been built over the grave of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), costing a great deal of money, I say: This is in fact great ignorance of the situation, because this dome was not built by him (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or by his Sahaabah or by those who followed them, or by those who followed the Taabi’een, or by the scholars and imams of the ummah. Rather this dome was built over his grave (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the orders of one of the later kings of Egypt, namely the Sultan Qalawoon al-Saalihi who is known as King Mansoor, in 678 AH, and was mentioned in Tahqeeq al-Nasrah bi Talkhees Ma’aalim Dar al-Hijrah. These are things that were done on the orders of the state and not on the basis of shar’i evidence. End quote.

2 – The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked:

There are those who take the building of the green dome over the Prophet’s grave in the Prophet’s Mosque as evidence that it is permissible to build domes over other graves, such as those of the righteous and others. Is this argument correct or what should our response to them be?

They replied:

It is not correct to quote the fact that people built a dome over the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as evidence that it is permissible to build domes over the graves of the righteous dead and others, because those people’s building a dome over his grave (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was haraam and those who did it sinned thereby, because they went against what is proven in a report from Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi who said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to me: Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? Do not leave any image without erasing it or any high grave without levelling it.

And it was narrated that Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade plastering over graves, or sitting on them or building over them. Both reports were narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh. So it is not correct for anyone to quote the haraam action of some people as evidence that it is permissible to do similar haraam actions, because it is not permissible to go against the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by citing the words or actions of anyone else. And because he is the one who conveyed the command from Allaah, and he is the one who is to be obeyed, and we must beware of going against his commands, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it)” [al-Hashr 59:7].

And there are other verses which enjoin obedience to Allaah and to His Messenger. And because building up graves and erecting domes over them are means that lead to associating their occupants with Allaah, and the means that lead to shirk must be blocked. End quote.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (9/83, 84)

3 – The scholars of the Standing Committee also said:

There is no proof in the fact that a dome was set up over the Prophet’s grave for those who take it as an excuse for building domes of the graves of the awliya’ (“saints”) and righteous people, because the building of a dome over his grave was not done on his instructions and was not done by any of his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them), or by the Taabi’een, or by any of the imams of guidance in the early generations whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) testified were good. Rather it was done by people of bid’ah (innovation). It was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever introduces anything into this matter of ours that is not part of it will have it rejected.” And it was proven that ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to Abu’l-Hayaaj: Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? Do not leave any image without erasing it or any high grave without levelling it. Narrated by Muslim. As it is not proven that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) built a dome over his grave, and it is not proven from any of the leading imams; rather what is proven shows that to be an invalid action, and no Muslim should feel any attachment to the action of innovators who built a dome over the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). End quote.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azzez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (2/264, 265).

4 – Shaykh Shams al-Deen al-Afghaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

al-‘Allaamah al-Khajandi (1379 AH) said, discussing the history of the green dome that was built over the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and explaining that it is an innovation that was done by some sultans and ignorant persons who erred and made a mistake, and that it is contrary to the clear saheeh ahaadeeth and reflects ignorance of the Sunnah, and that they went to extremes and imitated the Christians who are confused and misguided:

It should be noted that until the year 678 AH, there was no dome over the chamber which contains the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), rather it was built by the king al-Zaahir al-Mansoor Qalawoon al-Saalihi in that year (678 AH), when this dome was built.

I say: He did that because he had seen in Egypt and Syria the adorned churches of the Christians, so he imitated them out of ignorance of the command and Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as al-Waleed imitated them by adorning the mosque, as was mentioned in Wafa’ al-Wafa’.

It should be noted that undoubtedly this action of Qalawoon was contrary to the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but ignorance is a great calamity and exaggeration in love and veneration is a real disaster, and imitation of foreigners is a fatal disease. We seek refuge with Allaah from ignorance and exaggeration and imitation of foreigners. End quote.

Juhood ‘Ulama’ al-Hanafiyyah fi Ibtaal ‘Aqaa’id al-Qubooriyyah (3/1660-1662).

Thirdly:

The reason why it has not been demolished:

The scholars have explained the shar’i rulings concerning the building of this dome and its obvious effects on the followers of bid’ah’ who have developed an attachment to this structure and its colour, and they praise and venerate it a great deal in their poetry and writings. Now it is up to the authorities to implement these fatwas, and this is nothing to do with the scholars.

The reason why it is not demolished is so as to ward off fitnah and for fear that it may lead to chaos among the ordinary people and the ignorant. Unfortunately the ordinary people have only reached this level of veneration towards this dome because of the leadership of misguided scholars and imams of innovation. They are the ones who incite the ordinary people against the land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries and its ‘aqeedah and its manhaj. They are very upset about many actions that are in accordance with sharee’ah in our view and contrary to innovation in their view.

Whatever the case, the shar’i ruling is quite clear, and the fact that this dome has not been demolished does not mean that it is permissible to build it or any dome over any grave, no matter what grave it is.

Shaykh Saalih al-‘Usaymi (may Allaah preserve him) said:

The fact that this dome has remained for eight centuries does not mean that it has become permissible, and being silent about it does not indicate approval of it or that it is permissible. Rather the Muslim authorities should remove it and put it back as it was at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). They should remove the dome and the adornments and engravings that are found in the mosques, above all the Prophet’s Mosque, so long as that will not lead to an even greater fitnah. If it would lead to an even greater fitnah, then the ruler should postpone the matter until he finds an opportunity for that. End quote.

Bida’ al-Quboor, Anwaa’uha wa ahkaamuha (p. 253).

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=110061&ln=eng

Jahiliyyah of the Twentieth Century?

Is it permissible to use the word Jaahiliyyah to refer to societies after the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?

Hence, it is not permissible to apply the term "Jaahiliyyah" to the societies of our time, even though the people may be ignorant..

And let us not fall into the idea (as well as trap) of Qutbiyyah.

Wallahu a'lam wa al-Musta'an.

Ruling on shaving the moustache

Question:
Some Brothers of mine growing the beard but there are shaving there mustaches. There are saying, that Omar, may Allah be pleased with him, did this and so it is good to do it. I read some answers on your website regarding the trimming of the mustaches, but it is permissible to shave it.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars differed concerning the mustahabb Sunnah regarding the moustache, and there are two views:

1-

The first view is that it is Sunnah to shave it off altogether. This is the view of the Hanafis and Hanbalis. They quoted as evidence the apparent meaning of the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that were narrated concerning this, such as “Trim the moustache” [narrated by al-Bukhaari (5892) and Muslim (259)] and other similar reports in al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

Al-Tahhaawi said in Sharh Ma’aani al-Athaar (4/230):

Shaving is better than trimming. This is the view of Abu Haneefah, Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad (may Allaah have mercy on them). End quote.

Ibn ‘Aabideen narrated in Radd al-Muhtaar (2/550) that later scholars preferred to trim it and said:

The (Hanafi) view according to some later scholars among our Shaykhs is that it should be trimmed. It says in al-Badaa’i’: This is the correct view. End quote.

2-

The second view is that the Sunnah is to trim the moustache, and that shaving it is makrooh. This is the view of the Maalikis and Shaafa’is. Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) was very strict concerning that.

They quoted the following as evidence:

(i)

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: "The fitrah is five things: circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, trimming the nails and plucking the armpit hairs." Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5891) and Muslim (257).

(ii)

It was narrated that al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: My moustache grew too long and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) trimmed it for me on a siwaak.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (188); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

Al-Bayhaqi narrated in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1/151) with his isnaad that ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Uwaysi said: Maalik ibn Anas mentioned that some people shave their moustaches, and he said: The one who does that should be beaten. The hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about the moustache does not speak of shaving, rather it should be trimmed just enough to let the edge of the lips and the mouth show.

Maalik ibn Anas said: Shaving the moustache is a bid’ah (innovation) that has appeared among the people. End quote.

Abu’l-Waleed al-Baaji said in al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta’ (7/266):

Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam narrated from Maalik: Trimming the moustache does not mean shaving it. I think that the one who shaves his moustache should be disciplined. Ashhab ibn Maalik narrated: Shaving it is a bid’ah (innovation).

Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: It was narrated from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) that when he was upset by something, he would twist his moustache. If it was shaved off, there would be nothing to twist. End quote. See al-Tamheed (21/62-68).

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’ (1/34-341):

The guideline on trimming the moustache is that it should be trimmed so that the edge of the lip can be seen, but it should not be shaved off completely. This is our view. End quote.

In Nihaayat al-Muhtaaj by al-Ramli (8/148), who is one of the Shaafa’i imams, it says: It is makrooh to shave the moustache. End quote.

This opinion was also narrated from a number of the salaf.

Al-Bayhaqi narrated in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1/151) with his isnaad that Shurahbeel ibn Muslim al-Khawlaani said: I saw five of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) trimming their moustaches and letting their beards grow and dyeing them with saffron: Abu Umaamah al-Baahili, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Bisr, ‘Utbah ibn ‘Abd al-Sulami, al-Hajjaaj ibn ‘Aamir al-Thamaali and al-Miqdaam ibn Ma’di Yakrib al-Kindi. They used to trim their moustaches to the edge of the lip.

They responded to the evidence quoted in favour of the first view in two ways:

1 – What is meant by trimming is trimming the edge of the hair which grows over the lip, not shaving off the hair completely, based on the evidence of the reports which mention trimming only.

Abu’l-Waleed al-Baaji said in al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta’ (7/266):

Ibn al-Qaasim narrated from Maalik that the explanation of the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about trimming the moustache is that it is to be trimmed enough to let the red part of the lips show and the edges of the mouth. end quote.

Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’ (1/340):

These reports – i.e. the reports which speak of trimming the moustache – are understood by us to mean trimming it to the edge of the lips, not shaving it off completely. End quote.

2 – Trimming does not mean removing it altogether, rather it means removing part of it.

The more correct view – and Allaah knows best – is the second one, which is that the Sunnah is to trim the moustache and not to shave it.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (11/Baab al-Siwaak wa Sunan al-Fitrah/question no. 54):

The best is to trim the moustache as is the Sunnah. As for shaving it, that is not Sunnah. The analogy drawn by some of them, that it is prescribed to shave it as the head is shaved in Hajj is an analogy when a clear text states something else, so this analogy does not carry any weight. Hence Maalik said concerning shaving the moustache: It is an innovation that has appeared among the people, but we should not turn away from what is mentioned in the Sunnah, because following it is guidance, righteousness, happiness and success. End quote.

The Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas was asked: In a number of ahaadeeth it says “trim the moustache”. Is shaving different from trimming? Some people trim the first part of the moustache that is closest to the upper lip, and they leave the hair of the moustache, so they trim nearly half of the moustache and leave the rest. Is this what is meant? Or does trimming the moustache mean shaving off all of it? Please advise me of the manner in which the moustache should be trimmed.

They replied:

The saheeh ahaadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) indicate that it is prescribed to trim the moustache. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Trim the moustache and let the beard grow; be different from the mushrikeen.” (Agreed upon). And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Trim the moustache and let the beard grow; be different from the Magians,” and in some versions it says: “Trim the moustache.” Trimming means cutting it very short. The one who cuts his moustache very short so that the upper lip is visible or trims it is not to blame, because the ahaadeeth mention two things, but it is not permissible to leave the edges of the moustache, rather the whole moustache should be trimmed or cut, in accordance with the Sunnah. End quote.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (5/149).

Al-Tabari and al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad favoured the view that both are permissible: shaving and trimming; al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar also inclined towards this view in Fath al-Baari (10/347).

See: al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (25/320).

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=103623&ln=eng