English Explanation of ibn Hazm’s “al-Muhalla” March 10, 2012
Posted by Admin in Arabic, Books, Fiqh, History.add a comment
‘Authubillaahi min ash-Shaytaani rajeem
Bismillaahi ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem, as-Salaatu was-Salaam ‘ala Rasulullaah
Alhumdulillaah, a brother has started posting series of lectures in English on Imaam ibn Hazm’s al-Kitaab al-Muhallaa bi’l Athaar. This book is probably the best work on Fiqh ever written in history of Islaamic scholarship. Please spread the word!
Leaderless Jihad by Ibn Hazm March 8, 2012
Posted by Admin in al-Kufr bit-Taghout, Fiqh, Hijrah & Jihaad, Rebuttals.add a comment
واعلموا أنما غنمتم من شيء فإن لله خمسه
And know that whatever you have taken as booty of anything then to Allāh belongs a fifth of it. (8:41)
And He taʿālā said:
فكلوا مما غنمتم
So consume from what you have taken as booty. (8:69)
Abū Ḥanīfah said, “There is no khums (fifth) except for what has been attained by a group.” Abū Yūsuf said, “(The group is) nine or more.”
(Abū Muḥammad said:) These are opinions of extreme invalidity, as they are in opposition to the Quran, the Sunna, and the intellect. Allāh taʿālā has said:
قاتلوا الذين يلونكم من الكفار وليجدوا فيكم الغلظة
Fight those who border you of the kuffār and let them find harshness in you. (9:123)
He did not specify the command of the imām (as being necessary) nor otherwise, and if an imām forbade fighting against ahl al-ḥarb then it is obligatory to disobey him, as he ordered disobedience to Allāh and there is no listening nor obeying for such. Allāh taʿālā said:
فقاتل في سبيل الله لا تكلف إلا نفسك
So fight in the path of Allāh: you are only accountable for yourself. (4:84)
This address is directed to every Muslim, so everyone is commanded with Jihad even if he is by himself. Allāh taʿālā said:
انفروا خفافا وثقالا
March forth light and heavy. (9:41)
And He taʿālā said:
فانفروا ثبات أو انفروا جميعا
So march forth in detachments or march forth altogether. (4:71)
(al-Muḥallā, Ibn Ḥazm, 7/351 no. 964)
Usool of the Mu’minoon Summarised in One Verse July 2, 2011
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Fiqh, Methodology, Morals & Manners.add a comment
Bismillaah, as-salaatu was-salaam ‘ala rasoolullaah
Allaah has already provided us the tools of following the Deen properly and deriving rulings from the Quraan. While describing the Mu’minoon in Surah al-Baqarah, Allaah says:
وَقَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا
“…And they say, “We hear and we obey…”
This part of the verse is sufficient enough evidence for a believer to follow Islaam successfully. It is the Usool ul-Fiqh of the Mu’minoon:
* Whatever Allaah has commanded us to do, “we hear and we obey”
* Whatever Allaah has forbidden upon us, “we hear and we obey”
* Whatever Allaah has kept silent upon, it is permissible
In al-Saheehayn, it is collected from Abu Hurayrah ‘Abd ur-Rahmaan bin Sakhr that Rasoolullaah said:
مَا نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْهُ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ، وَمَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِهِ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ، فَإِنَّمَا أَهْلَكَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ كَثْرَةُ مَسَائِلِهِمْ وَاخْتِلاَفُهُمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ
“Avoid that which I forbid you to do and do that which I command you to do to the best of your capacity. Indeed, the people before you were destroyed only because of their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their Prophets”
Islaam is as easy as that, pure and simple!
Alhumdulillaah
The Zahiris: Their Docrine and Their History April 9, 2009
Posted by Admin in Books, Fiqh, History.add a comment
This is a treatise on the Zahiri school of thought and their history. One of the greatest and famous scholars of all time, Imaam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm of Al-Andalus, was a follower of this Mathhab. Another title for this school and its followers is Dawudis, or Ahl az-Zahir, named after Imaam Dawud az-Zahiri.
Download links:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=H02N1R4R
http://rapidshare.com/files/219494839/Zahiri_Doctorine.pdf.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/219507923/The_Zahiris.pdf.html
http://www.sendspace.com/file/483yon
Alhumdulillaah, someone also uploaded the book to Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14116513/The-Zahiris-Their-Doctrine-and-Their-History-by-Ignaz-Goldziher
Identifying Government Scholars and Clarifying Their Purpose and Ruling March 11, 2009
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Current Affairs, Fiqh, Methodology, Rebuttals.add a comment
Government scholars are the body established by the rulers containing the top scholars of the country, made and sponsored by him, to justify the following:
1. His authority over the country and its people, even though he legislates against what Allaah has revealed, which is a clear kufr, under the Islamic Shari’ah. This nullifies his position as a leader of Muslims.
2. Cloaking him with qualities and titles, which deceive the Muslims and hinder them from fulfilling their obligations to Allaah to keep the Sharia intact.
3. Calling those who challenge his authority after he commits such crimes as khawaarij and disobedient to the amir of the Muslims, i.e. him.
4. Then they approve the killing and torture of those righteous Muslims who demand adherence to Allaah’s Law, whom they deceitfully defined as Khawaarij.
5. Although they might match Islamic Law most of the time, in the particulars, their main function is to screen the leader from being harmed, challenged or ultimately removed.
Ruling Regarding These Types of Individuals
These government scholars are the greatest harm to Islaam and Muslims. This is with the stipulation that any such body of scholars in any country shouldn’t be judged for the label they carry, rather for their actions, i.e. their stance for Islaam and Muslims. Let us refer to what Allaah and His Rasool have said about them…
Collected by Imaam Ahmad in his Musnad and also reported in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb hadeeth #2241, that Abu Hurayrah narrated Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Whoever approaches the ruler’s gates becomes afflicted. Whenever a slave draws closer to the ruler, he only gains distance from Allaah.”
Collected by Ahmad, al-Bazzaar, and Ibn Hibbaan, also recorded in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb, hadeeth #2243 stating Jaabir Ibn ‘Abdullaah narrated that Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said to Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, “O Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, I seek Allaah’s protection for you from the leadership of fools. There shall be rulers, whoever enters upon them, then aids them in their oppression and validates their lies, then he is not from me nor I from him, and he shall not be admitted to the Hawd. Whoever does not enter upon them, and does not aid them in their oppression, nor validates their lies, then he is from me and I from him, and he shall be admitted to the Hawd.”
Recorded in Musnad Ahmad hadeeth # 20335 that Abu Dhar said, “I was in the presence of the Prophet one day and I heard him saying, ‘There is something more I fear for my Ummah than the Dajjaal.’ It was then that I became afraid, so I said, ‘O Rasoolullaah! Which thing is it that you fear for your Ummah more than the Dajjaal?’ He [the Prophet] said, ‘Misguided and astray scholars.’
It is related by Shidaad ibn Aws that the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Truly, I do not fear anything for my Ummah except astray scholars. Thus when the sword is raised against my Ummah, it will not be lifted until the Day of Judgment.” [Musnad of Ahmad, ahadeeth # 16493, 21360, 31359, 20334 and ad-Daarimi, ahadeeth # 211 and 216 and all of these collections are classed as authentic.]
Imaam Abu Abdullaah al-Qurtubi stated in ‘Jaami’ ul Ahkaam ul Fiqhiyyah’ Vol. 2, Pg. 227: “The ‘Ulama have said, ‘One who is an Imaam for an oppressive ruler, prayer is not to be made behind him unless he reveals his excuse or reason why (he is an Imaam for the oppressive ruler) or he repents from it.”
Imaam ibn Taymiya stated in ‘Majmua’ al-Fataawa‘ Vol. 20, Pg 200:
“The person who is obeyed in disobedience of Allaah or the person who is obeyed in following other than the guidance of the religion of truth; in either case, if what he orders mankind is in opposition to Allaah’s orders, then he is a Taghoot. For this reason, we call the people who rule by other than what Allaah revealed, a ‘Taghoot’.”
And he (ibn Taymiya) said in Majmu’a Fataawa vol 35. Page 373:
“Whenever the ‘aalim follows the hukm of the ruler, and leaves off his knowledge, in contradiction to the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, he is a kaafir (an unbeliever) and a murtadd (an apostate), who deserves to be punished in this life and the hereafter. This rule can also be applied with regard to the group of scholars who jumped and joined the Mongols due to fear of them and that they wanted to take benefit from them. These scholars made the excuse that some of the Mongols were speaking the Shahaada and that they were Muslims. Allaah has said,
‘Alif Laam Mim Saad. A Book sent down to you, so do not have any worry in your breast from it, so that you may warn and be a reminder to the believers. Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord and do not follow protectors and helpers besides Him. Little is it that you remember!’ [Surat al-A'raaf, ayaat 1-3]
“And even if this ‘aalim is captured, put behind bars and tortured to leave what Allaah has taught him from His Book, he should be patient with that. If he leaves all that and follows the ruler, then he is one of the people that are supposed to be doomed by Allaah Ta’ala. He should be patient even if he is harmed in the cause of Allaah Ta’ala. This is the Sunnah that Allaah Ta’ala has wanted and accepted from the Prophets and from the people who follow the Prophets. Allaah says,
‘Alif Laam Mim. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say, ‘We believe,’ and will not be tested? And We indeed tested those who were before them. Allaah will certainly make it known those who are true and will certainly make it known those who are liars. And He will make it known who the liars are.’ [Surat al-'Ankabut, ayaat 1-3]
COMMENT: Replace the Mongols and the scholars of the past with our current regimes and scholars that rule over Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Algeria etc.). Particularly the blind Muftis (both literal and figurative) that rule(d) Arabian Peninsula.
The distance one must travel before shortening the prayer October 19, 2008
Posted by Admin in Fiqh, Travelling.add a comment
The distance one must travel before shortening the prayer
Allaah ta’aala said:
“When you travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten your prayers, for fear the unbelievers may attack you: for the unbelievers are unto you open enemies. When you are with them, and stand to lead them in prayer, let one party of them stand up (in prayer) with you taking their arms with them; when they finish their prostrations, let them take their positions in the rear. And let the other party come up – which has not yet prayed – and let them pray with you, taking all precautions, and bearing arms: the Unbelievers wish, if you were careless of your arms and your baggage, to assault you in a single rush. But there is no blame on you if you put away your arms because of the inconvenience of rain or because you are ill; but take (every) precaution for yourselves. For the unbelievers Allaah has prepared a humiliating punishment.” [an-Nisaa' 4:101-102]
The conclusion from the Qur’anic verse is that any traveling, be it long or short, which falls within the linguistic definition of the word “travel” would suffice to shorten one’s salah, to combine them and to break the fast. There is nothing in the sunnah which confines this general term to any particular meaning. Ibn al-Munzhir and others have mentioned more than twenty reports on this point. Here we shall mention some of the more important reports.
Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and al-Baihaqi record that Yahya ibn Yazid said: “I asked Anas ibn Malik about shortening the prayer, and he said: ‘The Messenger of Allah would pray two rak’at if he had traveled a distance of three miles or farsakh.”‘ Ibn Hajar writes in Fath al-Bari: “This is the most authentic hadith which states and clarifies [that question].” The conflict between mile and farsakh is made clear in Abu Sa’id al-Khudri’s statement: “If the Prophet traveled a distance of one farsakh, he would shorten his prayer.” This was related by Sa’id ibn Mansur in his Sunan and by al-Hafiz ibn Hajar in at-Talkhis, and he implicitly accepted it by not making any further comments about it. It is well-known that a farsakh equals three miles and, therefore, Abu Sa’id’s hadith removes the confusion which arises from Anas’ hadith when he says that the shortest distance, due to which the Prophet shortened his prayer, was three miles. One farsakh is equivalent to 5,541 meters while one mile equals 1,748 meters. The shortest distance which has been mentioned with respect to the shortening of salah is one mile. This was recorded by Ibn abi Shaibah, with a sahih chain, on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar. Ibn Hazm follows this report, and argues that if the distance is less than one mile, one is not to shorten the salah, the Messenger of Allaah went to the graveyard of al-Baqi’ to bury the dead and (similarly) he went off to answer the call of nature and did not shorten his salah.
Concerning what some jurists say, namely, that the journey must be at least two days long or as some say three days, Imam Abu al-Qasim alKharqi’s refutation of their opinion is sufficient for us. In al-Mughni he says: ‘I do not find any proof for what those scholars say. The statements of the (sahabah) companions are contradictory, and they are not a (conclusive) proof if they differ. Something has been related from Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbas which differs from what these scholars use as proof. Even if that were not the case, their statements do not constitute a proof when a statement or action of the Prophet himself exists. Even if their statements were accepted, we would not be able to follow the distance they mentioned due to the following two reasons. One, they differ from the sunnah that has been related from the Prophet and from the clear meaning of the Qur’an, as the clear meaning of the verse allows one to shorten one’s salah if one makes any journey upon the earth. Allaah says: “If you journey on the earth, there is no blame upon you if you shorten your prayer.” The condition of there being fear has been deleted as can be seen in the hadith we recorded from Ya’la ibn Umayyah, and what remains is the clear meaning of the verse which covers every type of journey. The Prophet said: “The traveler may wipe over his socks for a period of three days.” This shows the length of time that one may wipe over the socks and it cannot be used as a proof for the question we are discussing here. One could argue that traveling is less than a three-day journey on the basis of the hadith: “It is not allowed for any woman who believes in Allaah and the last day to travel a journey of one day, save in the presence of a male relative.” Two, the question of the distance to be traveled is one that may only be answered by some sort of revelation from Allaah, the Exalted [the Qur' an or Sunnah]; it is not the type of issue which one may address on the basis of personal reasoning, nor is there any way to derive an analogy. The proofs which exist support the opinion that shortening the salah is permissible for every traveler, unless there is some consensus to the contrary.”
Similar to that is the traveling by planes, trains, and so forth, or a trip that is in obedience to Allaah, the Exalted, or otherwise. If there is someone whose occupation requires him to always be traveling, for instance, a pilot, a ship captain, truck driver, and so on, then he is permitted to shorten his salah or break his fast as he is truly traveling.
Is Guardianship a Condition for the Validity of a Marriage Contract? October 18, 2008
Posted by Admin in Difference of Opinion, Fiqh, Marriage.add a comment
Is Guardianship a Condition for the Validity of a Marriage Contract?
[Taken from Imaam ibn Rushd's "Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihayat al-Muqtasid" 'The Book of Nikah']
The jurists disagree whether guardianship is one of the conditions for the validity of marriage. Malik, Ashhab’s narration from him, said that there is no marriage without a guardian and that it is a condition of validity. ash-Shafi’i held the same opinion. Abu Hanifa, Zufar, al-Sha’bi and al-Zuhri said that if a woman contracts her marriage without a guardian, and with someone of equivalent status (kuf’), it is permitted. Dawood (ath-Thaahiri) distinguished between a virgin and a deflowered woman and stipulated the existence of a guardian as a condition in the case of a virgin, but did not stipulate it in the case of a deflowered woman. The fourth opinion is Malik’s, as derived from Ibn al-Qasim’s narration, that its stipulation as a demand is recommended (sunna), but not obligatory. This is because it is narrated from him that he used to view inheritance among parties married without a guardian (as valid), and permitted an unchaste woman to appoint a man as her guardian for her marriage, and he held as recommended that deflowered woman present a guardian who could contract on her behalf. Thus, guardianship for him is one of the complementary demands and not a condition for validity, as against the statement of Malik’s disciples from Baghdad, who consider it a condition of validity and not that of perfection. The reason for their disagreement is the absence of a verse or tradition that is apparent (thaahir) not to say explicit, about the stipulation of guardianship as a condition of marriage. In fact the verses and traditions that are quoted in practice, by those who stipulate it as a condition, are all subject to interpretation. Similarly, the verses and traditions that are quoted in support of its absence as a condition are also not so clear on the issue. The traditions, besides being unclear in meaning, are disputed as to their authenticity, except the tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas, which negates it, but it lacks persuasive force as the original rule requires freedom from all liability.
We will state the most prominent sources from among those cited for support by both parties and explain the aspects of probability in them. The most prominent sources used from the Qur’an, by those who lay down guardianship as a condition, are the words of the Exalted: “[When] they reach their term, place not difficulties in the way of their marrying their husbands” [al-Baqara 2:232] They said that this is addressed to the guardians. If they had no right of guardianship how is it that they were prohibited from prevention (of marriage)? About the words of the Exalted: “And do not marry idolaters till they believe” [al-Baqara 2:221] they said that this too is addressed to the guardians. The most prominent tradition used by them is narrated by al-Zuhri from ‘Urwa from ‘A’isha that she said, “The Messenger of Allaah (Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him) said: ‘Any woman who marries without the consent of her guardian, her marriage is void, void, void, and if the wedding takes place she is entitled to dower according to her status (mahr al-mithl). And if they should disagree, then, the sultan is the guardian of whoever is without a guardian’.” It is narrated by al-Tirmidhi who said it is a hasan tradition.
Among the verses from the Qur’an and the traditions, used by those who do not lay down guardianship as a condition, are the words of the Exalted: “Then there is no sin for you in aught that they (widowed women) may do with themselves in decency.” [al-Baqara 2:234] They maintain that this is proof of the permissibility of her entering into a contract for her marriage on her own. They said that in addition to this, the act (of marrying independently) is attributed to them in several other verses. Thus, the words, “In marrying their husbands” [al-Baqara 2:232] and “until she has wedded another husband” [al-Baqara 2:230]
In their reliance on traditions, they argued on the basis of a report by Ibn ‘Abbas, the authenticity of which is agreed upon. It is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that “the deflowered woman has a greater right over herself than her guardian, and the virgin is to be asked about herself, and her silence is her consent.” [Agreed upon] It is on the basis of this tradition that Dawud (ath-Thahiri) argued about the distinction he made between the deflowered woman and the virgin. These, then, are the best-known evidences put forward by both parties from the transmitted texts.
In the words of the Exalted: “And [when] they reach their term do not place difficulties in their way of marrying their husbands” [al-Baqara 2:232] there is nothing more than a proscription for the relatives and residuaries that they may not prevent her (the woman) from marrying, and from this proscription for non-prevention it is not understood, either in its metaphorical or actual meaning, that their (the guardian’s) consent is stipulated for the validity of the contract. I mean, from any aspect of the apparent or explicit indication of the communication (khitab). In fact, the opposite may be understood from it, which is that there is no way the guardians can prevent their wards (from marrying). Similarly, the words of the Exalted: “And do not marry idolaters till they believe” [al-Baqara 2:221] are better understood as a communication for the rulers (ulul amr) of the Muslims or for all the Muslims collectively rather than a communication for the guardians. On the whole, it vacillates between being a communication for the guardians or for the rulers. Thus, those who have argued on the basis of this verse are under the obligation to explain how the communication is addressed, through its apparent meaning, to the guardians not to the rulers.
If it is maintained that it has a general implication, and being general it includes both rulers and guardians, it will be said that this communication implies the denial of a right in which the guardians and others are equal, and their being addressed does not grant them exclusive authority for giving consent. If we say that it is a communication addressed to the guardians, making it obligatory that they stipulate their consent for the validity of marriage, it would nevertheless be an un-elaborated (mujmal) communication and acting according to it would be difficult as there is no indication in it about the kinds of guardians, their qualifications and their grades. The explanation (bayan) must not be delayed from the time of its need. Had there been a known law practiced on this issue it would have come down through a collective communal transmission or through a transmission close to it as this was a point of general need and it is known that there were those in Medina who had no guardians. In addition, it has not been related from the Prophet (Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he used to administer their marriage contracts or that he appointed someone who performed this function. Further, the purpose of the verse is not to expound the hukm of wilaya, but the (purpose is) to prohibit marriage with the polytheists, men and women. This is evident—Allaah knows best.
‘A’isha’s tradition is disputed with respect to the obligation of acting upon it. The preferred course is that a tradition disputed with respect to its soundness does not give rise to the obligation of acting upon it, and even if we concede the soundness of the tradition, there is nothing in it beyond the stipulation of seeking the permission of the guardian by one who has a guardian, I mean, the female ward. If we concede that it is general for all women, it does not contain the prohibition for a woman to contract her own marriage, that is, she cannot herself conclude the contract. In fact, it is evident from it that if the guardian grants her his permission, it is permitted to her to form her own contract without there being the stipulation of including the guardian among the witnesses for the validity of the contract.
The meaning of what is adduced as proof by the other party of the words of the Exalted, “There is no sin for you in that which they do of themselves within the recognized limits” [al-Baqara 2:240] indicates a prohibition of attributing blame to them for acting independently to the exclusion of the guardians, and there is no act through which a woman can go against the wishes of her guardian except the contract of marriage. The apparent meaning of the verse, then, Allaah knows best, is that a woman has the right to contract her own marriage and the guardians have a right to revoke it if it is not in conformity with her status. This is the manifest requirement of the law, but none of the jurists has expressed it. Arguing on the basis of a part of a verse and not arguing on the basis of the remaining part exhibits weakness (of method). There is no evidence of exclusivity in the verse in attributing the contract of marriage to them (the women), but the principle is that it is exclusive, unless an evidence to the contrary is adduced to contradict this.
The tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas is, upon my life, explicit in indicating the distinction between a deflowered woman and a virgin, for if permission from each one of them is to be sought and it is their guardian who supervises the contract, then, in what, I wish I knew, does the widow have a greater right over herself than her guardian? The tradition of al-Zuhri would be better (understood) if it is considered to be in conformity with this tradition rather than being in conflict with it. It is probable that the difference between the two is only to the extent of one being explicit and the other not being so, and silence is sufficient for the contract.
The proof in the words of the Exalted, “There is no sin for you in that which they do of themselves within their recognized limits” [al-Baqara 2:240] indicating that a woman has a right to form her own contract, is stronger than the implication of the words of the Exalted, “And do not marry idolaters till they believe” [al-Baqara 2:221] which are claimed to convey that the guardian has the right to conclude the contract.
The Hanafites deemed the tradition of ‘A’isha as weak for the reason that it is a tradition narrated by a group from Ibn Jurayj from al-Zuhri, and Ibn ‘Ulayya related from Ibn Jurayj that he (Ibn Jurayj) asked al-Zuhri about it, but he did not know of it. They added: “The evidence confirming this is that al-Zuhri did not make the stipulation of wilaya, nor is wilaya upheld in ‘A’isha’s opinion.”
They also argued on the basis of the tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “There is no marriage without a guardian and two ‘adl witnesses.” The completeness of its chain, however, is disputed. In the same manner, they differed about the tradition concerning the marriage of the Prophet (Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him) to Umm Salama and his ordering her (young) son to give her away himself in marriage.
The argument of the parties based on reason is equivocal, as it is possible to say that when discretion (rushd) is found in a woman, it is sufficient for purposes of the marriage contract, for it is deemed to be so in the case of financial transactions. It may be said, however, that a woman is inclined toward men more than she is inclined toward wealth, and it is for this reason that the Shari’ has been cautious in interdicting her permanently in this respect; the shame that may result from her casting herself in a place out of her status will most likely affect the guardians. It is, however, sufficient to say here that the guardians do have a right of revocation and inquiry. The issue is ambivalent, as you can see, but the point which forces itself upon the mind is that if the Lawgiver had intended the stipulation of guardianship, he would have elaborated the categories of the guardians, their types, and grades. Delay of the elaboration, beyond the time of its need, would be harmful. If delay in the needed explanation is not permitted to him (Allaah’s peace and blessings be upon him), especially when the general public need requires that the stipulation of guardianship be transmitted through a general communal transmission or in a manner close to it—and yet it is not transmitted—it makes it necessary to believe in one of two possibilities: that guardianship is not a condition for the validity of marriage, and that the guardians have only the right of inquiry in it, or that if guardianship is a condition, then, the explanation of qualifications, types, and grades of the guardians is not a condition for its validity, and it is for this reason that the opinion of those who nullify the contract by a remote guardian in the presence of an immediate guardian, is to be deemed as weak.
The distance one must travel before shortening one’s prayer October 5, 2008
Posted by Admin in Fiqh, Travel.add a comment
The conclusion from the Qur’anic verse is that any traveling, be it long or short, which falls within the linguistic definition of the word “travel” would suffice to shorten one’s salah, to combine them and to break the fast. There is nothing in the sunnah which confines this general term to any particular meaning. Ibn al-Munzhir and others have mentioned more than twenty reports on this point. Here we shall mention some of the more important reports.
Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and al-Baihaqi record that Yahya ibn Yazid said: “I asked Anas ibn Malik about shortening the prayer, and he said: ‘The Messenger of Allah would pray two rak’at if he had traveled a distance of three miles or farsakh.”‘ Ibn Hajar writes in Fath al-Bari: “This is the most authentic hadith which states and clarifies [that question].” The conflict between mile and farsakh is made clear in Abu Sa’id al-Khudri’s statement: “If the Prophet traveled a distance of one farsakh, he would shorten his prayer.” This was related by Sa’id ibn Mansur in his Sunan and by al-Hafiz ibn Hajar in at-Talkhis, and he implicitly accepted it by not making any further comments about it. It is well-known that a farsakh equals three miles and, therefore, Abu Sa’id’s hadith removes the confusion which arises from Anas’ hadith when he says that the shortest distance, due to which the Prophet shortened his prayer, was three miles. One farsakh is equivalent to 5,541 meters while one mile equals 1,748 meters. The shortest distance which has been mentioned with respect to the shortening of salah is one mile. This was recorded by Ibn abi Shaibah, with a sahih chain, on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar. Ibn Hazm follows this report, and argues that if the distance is less than one mile, one is not to shorten the salah, the Messenger of Allaah went to the graveyard of al-Baqi’ to bury the dead and (similarly) he went off to answer the call of nature and did not shorten his salah.
Concerning what some jurists say, namely, that the journey must be at least two days long or as some say three days, Imam Abu al-Qasim alKharqi’s refutation of their opinion is sufficient for us. In al-Mughni he says: ‘I do not find any proof for what those scholars say. The statements of the (sahabah) companions are contradictory, and they are not a (conclusive) proof if they differ. Something has been related from Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbas which differs from what these scholars use as proof. Even if that were not the case, their statements do not constitute a proof when a statement or action of the Prophet himself exists. Even if their statements were accepted, we would not be able to follow the distance they mentioned due to the following two reasons. One, they differ from the sunnah that has been related from the Prophet and from the clear meaning of the Qur’an, as the clear meaning of the verse allows one to shorten one’s salah if one makes any journey upon the earth. Allah says: “If you journey on the earth, there is no blame upon you if you shorten your prayer.” The condition of there being fear has been deleted as can be seen in the hadith we recorded from Ya’la ibn Umayyah, and what remains is the clear meaning of the verse which covers every type of journey. The Prophet said: “The traveler may wipe over his socks for a period of three days.” This shows the length of time that one may wipe over the socks and it cannot be used as a proof for the question we are discussing here. One could argue that traveling is less than a three-day journey on the basis of the hadith: “It is not allowed for any woman who believes in Allaah and the last day to travel a journey of one day, save in the presence of a male relative.” Two, the question of the distance to be traveled is one that may only be answered by some sort of revelation from Allaah, the Exalted [the Qur' an or Sunnah]; it is not the type of issue which one may address on the basis of personal reasoning, nor is there any way to derive an analogy. The proofs which exist support the opinion that shortening the salah is permissible for every traveler, unless there is some consensus to the contrary.”
Similar to that is the traveling by planes, trains, and so forth, or a trip that is in obedience to Allaah, the Exalted, or otherwise. If there is someone whose occupation requires him to always be traveling, for instance, a pilot, a ship captain, truck driver, and so on, then he is permitted to shorten his salah or break his fast as he is truly traveling.
