Archive for October, 2008

Obligations are according to Ability

Posted: October 31, 2008 by millatibraheem in Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth

Obligations are according to Ability

On the authority of Abu Hurairah ‘Abd-ur-Rahmaan ibn Sakhr (ra) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayi wa sallam) say:

“What I have forbidden for you, avoid. What I have ordered you (to do), do as much of it as you can. For verily, it was only the excessive questioning and their disagreeing with their Prophets that destroyed (the nations) who were before you”. [Related by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim]

Explanation of Hadeeth
The wording of this hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim, from Abu Hurairah (ra), states: The Messenger of Allaah sallAllaahu alayi wa sallam addressed us and said:

“O People! Hajj has been made obligatory upon you, so perform the Hajj.” So a man asked: “Is that every year, O Messenger of Allaah?” So the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam remained silent until the man repeated his question three times. Then he said: “If I had said ‘yes’ then it would have become obligatory upon you (i.e. every year), and you would not have been able to do so. Do not ask me about that which I have left (unspecified), for verily the nations before you were destroyed by their excessive questioning and their disagreeing with their Prophets. So if I order you with something then do as much of it as you are able, and if I forbid you from something then keep away from it.”

And the Scholars of Usool (i.e. in Fiqh) have differed over the issue of the Command to perform an action – does it imply repetition? That is, if we are ordered to do something then does that automatically imply that we must do it repeatedly? Or does it mean that doing it once is sufficient unless otherwise specified? For example, we are commanded with Hajj but that is just once in a lifetime, but we are also commanded with Salaah and that is every day. So most of the Fuqahaa (jurists) have decided that a command does not automatically imply repetition. Others have said that we do not rule that it implies repetition nor do we rule that it does not imply repetition, except with a further evidence that indicates one or the other. And this hadeeth is a proof for those who have the latter opinion. For if there were an automatically implied ruling of either repetition or no repetition then the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam would not have replied “If I had said yes then it would have become obligatory, and you would not have been able to do that.” Rather, if there had been an automatic implication of repetition or otherwise, then the man would not have asked the question in the first place.

And as for his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement “Do not ask me about that which I have left (unspecified)” then this apparently indicates that a command does not imply repetition, and also that the origin of all affairs is that they are not waajib, until the Sharee’ah specifies them as being waajib. And this is the correct position according to the majority of the Scholars of Usool.

And his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “If I had said yes it would have become obligatory upon you” is an evidence that he (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) would make ijtihaad in rulings, and that it was not binding upon him that all rulings be made by Revelation.

And his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “What I have ordered you, do as much of it as you can” is an important Principle of Islaam, and is from his Concise speech. And based upon this principle are countless other rulings – such as the Prayer of one who is unable to complete some of its pillars or conditions, then he performs what he is able to from that which remains. And the one who cannot wash all the necessary limbs of wudoo’, washes that which he is able to. And in the case of removing evil, then if one is not able to remove it entirely then one removes what one is able to. And many other affairs like these, as are well known from the Books of Fiqh. And this hadeeth is similar to the statement of Allaah ta’aalaa:

“And have taqwaa of Allaah, as much as you are able” [at-Taghaabun, 16]

And as for His statement

“O you who believe! Fear Allaah as He should be feared” [aal ‘Imraan, 102]

then it has been said that this is abrogated by the aayah “And have taqwaa of Allaah, as much as you are able”. However, what is correct is that it is not abrogated, but rather the first aayah is an explanation of this aayah, and makes clear what is intended by it. And it has been said that “fearing Allaah as He should be feared” means obeying Him all in that He has commanded, and staying away from all that He has forbidden, and Allaah subhaanahu does not order us except with that which we are able to do, as verily Allaah has said:

“Allaah does not burden a soul more than it can bear” [al-Baqarah, 286]

“and (Allaah) has not laid upon you in religion any hardship” [al-Hajj, 78]

And as for his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “and what I have forbidden you from then avoid it” then this is to be taken to apply generally in all situations, except if one has a necessity, such as eating meat from an animal which has not been correctly slaughtered if one’s life is in danger or what is similar to that, then that is not considered to be forbidden. However, in all conditions other than that of necessity the individual is not considered to have fulfilled this forbiddance of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam until he leaves all those things which the Sharee’ah forbids. So he does not fulfill the forbiddance if he continues to practice even one of the forbidden things. This is in opposition to what has been commanded to do, for in terms of the commands we must do whatever we are able.

And in his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “verily the nations before you were destroyed due to their excessive questioning and disagreeing with their Prophets”, then this was mentioned after his saying “Do not ask me about that which I have left (unspecified)”. And this implies that we should not be excessive in questioning, as then we would be similar to the Banu Israa’eel when it was said to them: “Sacrifice a cow”. So if they had taken these words upon their apparent meaning and sacrificed any cow they would have fulfilled the command. But because they insisted on asking many questions regarding its color, its appearance, its work etc, the matter became difficult for them, until they were able to find a suitable cow only after a great search and paying a large sum of money. So they were blameworthy for this, and our Prophet Muhammad sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam feared the same for his Ummah.

Summary
* That what is Haraam must be avoided
* That one must make sure that one has a satisfactory plea to present to Allaah for not doing what the Messenger sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam has ordered
* That one must not ask too many questions. Ideally, one only wants to know what Islaam says [about a thing] and do that
* That asking too many questions and disagreeing with the Messenger sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam can cause our destruction. If it happened to the people before us it can happen to us too

CONCERNING THE TAFSEER ATTRIBUTED TO IBN ‘ABBAS

“And whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”
Is The Kufr In This Ayah, Kufr Akbar Or Kufr Asghar

A beginning note, most of the following is taken from Abu Ayoob bin Noor al-Burqa’ee/Abu Marwaan as-Sudaani’s refutation of ‘Ali al-Halabi in his takhrij of the athaar of Ibn ‘Abbaas. I will quote the athar, then quote al-Burqa’ees reply, insha’Allaah.

Athar One and Two
Ibn Jareer reported, “Narrated to me, Hunaad and narrated to me, Ibn Wakee’ah who said, ‘Narrated to me, my father from Sufyaan from Mu’amr Ibn Rashaad from Ibn Tawoos from his father from Ibn ‘Abbas, “and whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”. [He said] ‘In it there is Kufr, but not like Kufr in His Angels and His Books and His Messengers’ [Tafseer Ibn Jareer, Vol. 6/256]

Comment: I say this isnaad is saheeh, and what it apparent is that all the statement is from Ibn ‘Abbas rahimahullah. And many people have fallen for this athar due to its isnaad and have not noticed the idraaj (interpolation) which is made clear by the narration found in the collection of Imaam ‘Abdurazzaaq (who said): “We were informed by Mu’amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked about His saying: “and whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, [so] he said: “In it there is kufr” (hiya bihi kufrun). Ibn Tawoos said: “But not like kufr in His angels, and His books and His messengers”‘

And idraaj, as can be read in the small booklet on science in hadeeth in English, by Shaykh Suhayb Hasan, is: “If an expression or statement is proved to be an addition by a reporter to the text, it is declared as mudraj (interpolated).” al-Burqa’ee quotes the definition of ath-Thahabi, which adds that ‘and later a hadeeth may be found that splits the additional expression of the reporter, from the original statement. [al-Muwqitha fi ‘Ilm il-Hadeeth, page 53-54]

[al-Burqa’ees words:] Add to that, that ‘Abdurrazaaq is more reliable (athbat) and more better (atqan) than Mu’amar, and the saying is for him if differing occurs: Ya’qoob bin Shaybah says: “‘Abdurazzaaq is more reliable than Mu’amar, and better”

And Ibn ‘Asaakir said: “I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal say, ‘If you see the companions of Mu’amar differ, then the hadeeth is for ‘Abdurazzaq’”. [See: Sharh ‘Ilal at-Tirmithi for Ibn Rajab, volume 2/607] [In addition, one should note that Ibn Katheer does not mention the athar found in Ibn Jareer with its idraaj].

Athar Three
al-Haafith Ibn Nasr al-Marwazee said: “Narrated to us Muhammed bin Yahya, narrated to us ‘Abdurazaaq, narrated to us from Sufyaan, from a man, from Tawoos from Ibn ‘Abbas, in His saying: “…such are the disbelievers”. He said: ‘Kufr which does not expel one out of the millah.’”. [See Ta’theem Qadr is-Salaah, number 573] And the isnaad is da’eef due to the unknown man.

Athar Four
al-Haafith Ibn Nasr said: “Narrated to us Yahya bin Yahya, Sufyaan bin ‘Uyaynah informed us, from Hishaam (bin Hujayr), from Tawoos that Ibn ‘Abbas said concerning His saying, “…such are the disbelievers”, he said ‘It is not the kufr which you are going to’.

Comment: And this sanad, its people are trustworthy except Hishaam bin Hujayr al-Makki, for he has been weakened by the great a`immah: Such as ‘Ali bin al-Madeenee, Yahya bin Sa’eed. [see: al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, volume 9/54] ‘Abdullaah bin Ahmad said: “I asked Yahya about Hishaam bin Hujayr and he weakened him very much”. [See al-‘Ilal wa ma’rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/30]

And he also said: “I heard my father [Imaam Ahmad] say: ‘Hishaam bin Hujayr is a Makki, and he is weak in hadeeth’” [See: Ibid, volume 1/204] And also, al-’Uqayli recalled him in ad-Du’afaa’.

Athar Five
al-Haakim narrated, from the way of ‘Ali bin Harb, from Sufyaan bin ‘Uyaynah from Hishaam bin Hujayr from Tawoos, that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “It is not the kufr which you tend to, ‘Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers’ is kufr lesser than [greater] kufr”. [-See al-Mustadrak, volume 2/313]

And this athar, despite its popularity, is also from the path of Hishaam bin Hujayr and he has been declared weak by the mountains of knowledge from amongst the Salaf.

Athar Six
Ibn Jareer at-Tabari said, narrated to us al-Muthanna, ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh said, Mu’awiyah bin Saaleh told us, that ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, from Ibn ‘Abbas that he said concerning His saying: “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, ‘Whoever rejects what [He] revealed then he has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it, and does not rule by it, then he is a thaalim and faasiq’” [See Ibn Jareer’s tafseer, volume 4/256]

And ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh is: Ibn Muhammed bin Muslim al-Juhni al-Misree, al-Layth bin Sa’d scribe, and he is weak.

‘Abdullaah bin Ahmad said: I asked my father about ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, the scribe of al-Layth bin Sa’d, so he said: “He was at first firm, then he became corrupt, and he is nothing.”

Ibn al-Madeenee said: “I do not narrate from him anything”. [See al-‘Ilal wa Ma’rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/213]

an-Nisaa`ee said: “He is not trustworthy”

Ahmad bin Saaleh said: “He is accused, and is nothing”

Saaleh Jazarah said: “Ibn Mu’een used to consider him trustworthy, and he is to me a liar in hadeeth”

Abu Zur’ah said: “To me he wasn’t a person who intentionally lied, and he was acceptable in hadeeth”. [See, al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 4/441]

Abu Haatim said: “Trustworthy, truthful, I never knew him as such” And much has been said about ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, but the summary is as follows, as Ibn Hibbaan mentions: He was righteous within himself, but many false ahadeeth were given to him by his neighbour, and I heard Ibn Khuzaymah say, ‘He had a neighbour, with whom there was much enemity, and he [the neighbour] would narrate the false ahadeeth upon the Shaykh of Abu Saaleh, and write it in a handwriting similar to ‘Abdullaah and he would throw it in his house amongst his books, so ‘Abdullaah would imagine that that was his own handwriting, and so he would end up narrating it. [See al-Majrooheen for Ibn Hibbaan]

And in the isnaad is ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, and his full name was Saalem bin al-Makhaariq al-Haashimi.

Ahmad bin Hanbal said: “‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, has many criticisms upon him.” [See ad-Du’afaa`, volume 3/234]

an-Nisaa`ee said: “There is no problem with him.” [See al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 3/134]

al-’Ajali said: “He is trustworthy.” [See Tareekh al-Thiqaat, page 283]

Ibn Hibban considered him from the trustworthy reliable narrators, as can be seen in ath-Thiqaat, volume 7/211.

Ya’qoob narrated from Sufyaan that he is weak, and not reliable. And he also said: He is a Shaami, he is not avoided nor taken as evidence. As for his narration from Ibn ‘Abbas, then is it munqati’ah (not connected), for he did not hear from him.  Ibn Abi Haatim said: I heard my father say, I heard Daheem saying: ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear tafseer from Ibn ‘Abbas. [See al-Maraseel, page 117]

Ibn Hibban said: “He narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas and never saw him”. [See, ath-Thiqaat, 7/211][And al-Burqa’ee quotes many more statements, and ends by saying:] al-Manwaawi quotes, in Fayd al-Qadeer, volume 2/397, Ibn Abi Haatim saying regarding ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh: “He is really bad in hadeeth when narrating from Mu’awiyah bin Saaleh”.

And as any student of this art knows, whoever this kind of statement is said of, then he cannot be used as a witness to anything. Furthermore, I found a refutation for al-Albaani – the Shaykh of al-Halabi – were he criticised Ahmad Shaakir for classifying this hadeeth, “‘Abdullaah bin ‘Amr narrates, ‘The angels said, ‘Oh our Lord, you gave the children of Aadam the dunya letting them eat and drink in it….’”, so he [al-Albaani] said: “And it is not correct to me, to declare this hadeeth as strong, relying upon that, with the statement of ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, due to the latter being from those who have been criticised (dakhala ‘alayh)” And then he mentioned Ibn Hibaan’s statement as can be found above. [See his commentary on the explanation of at-Tahawiyyah, page 308] So we see that al-Halabi’s shaykh is in agreement with us.

And so, we conclude by saying that the only authentic narration concerning the tafseer of this ayah, from Ibn ‘Abbas is the following: We were informed by Mu’amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked about His saying: “and whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, [so] he said: “In it there is kufr”(hiya bihi kufrun). As for the rest, they are all weak, and Allaah knows best what is correct. Written by Abu Ayoob al-Burqa’ee. [End]

In addition, Hasan bin Abir-Rabee’ al-Jurjaani said, that ‘Abdurazzaq informed him that Mu’ammar narrated from Ibn Tawoos from his father, the statement of Ibn ‘Abbas, “It is enough kufr for him” (kafaa bihi kufruh), as can be seen in Akhbaar al-Qadaa`, volume 1/40 and onwards for Imaam Muhammed bin Khalaf bin Hayyan, known as Wakee’. And from the contemporaries who have made tad’eef of the athaar that are attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas, is al-Muhaddith, al-Haafith, ash-Shaykh Sulaymaan al-’Alwaan, hafithahullah, as is in at-Tibyaan Sharh Nawaaqid al-Islaam.

Statements by other companions and tab’ieen
1. ‘Abdullaah bin Mas’ood said, as mentioned by Ibn Katheer in his tafseer, that he was asked about bribery in judgement, so he said: “That is the very kufr (thaak alkufr)”, and then he quoted the ayah, this is also mentioned by Ibn Jareer, who has numerous quotes for this, one of which is from the path of Masrooq who said: “I asked Ibn Mas’ood about as-suht (ill gotten wealth), is it [like] bribery in judgment?” So he said: “No, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a kaafir, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a thaalim, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a faasiq, but as-suht is when you help someone to do something oppressive, so he gives you a gift, so you accept it” [See Tafseer of at-Tabari, 6/240].

And at-Tabaraani collected, with a saheeh isnaad, from Ibn Mas’ood that he said: “Bribery in judgement is kufr, and it is amongst the people ill gotten wealth” [Ibn Hajr al-Makki collected it in az-Zawaajir, volume 2/189, Daar al-Ma’rifah print 1402 AH]

2. And similar to this was said by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and ‘Ali bin Abi Taalib, radiAllaahu ‘anhum, as has been collected by al-Aloosee al-Baghdaadi in his tafseer; he said: “And Ibn al-Munthir collected from Masrooq that he said: “I said to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, radiAllaahu ta’ala ‘anh, “What do you think of bribery in judging, is it from the ill-gotten wealth? He said ‘No, rather it is kufr, ill-gotten wealth is when a man has a position and rank in the view of a ruler, and the man seeks something from this ruler, he cannot achieve this thing, unless he gives the ruler a gift [and this is ill-gotten wealth].’

And ‘Abd bin Humayd collected from ‘Ali, radiAllaahu ta’ala ‘anh, that he was asked about as-suht (ill-gotten wealth), he said: “It is bribery”, so he was asked, “In rulership”, he replied: “That is the very kufr” (thaak al-kufr)”. And al-Bayhaqi collected from Ibn Mas’ood similar to this statement”. [See, Tafseer Rooh al-Ma’ani, for al-Aloosee, volume 3, part 6, page 140]

3. And similar to this has been said by the tabi’een, from them: al-Hasan al-Basri, Sa’eed bin Jubayr, Ibraheem an-Nakh’ee, as-Suddi, Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali said: “Allaah ta’ala said: “Akaloona lis-suht” (Takers of ill-gotten wealth), al-Hasan and Sa’eed bin Jubayr explained it to be, “It is bribery”, and said: “If the judge takes bribes, then it reaches alkufr”. [al-Mughni ma’ ash-Sharh al-Kabeer, volume 11/437-438]

al-Qaasimi said regarding its tafseer, as has been mentioned in al-Lubaab, that Ibn Mas’ood, al-Hasan and an-Nakh’iee said: “These ayaat are general regarding the Jews, and regarding this ummah, so whoever takes bribes, and replaces the judgement of Allaah, so he ruled by other than what Allaah has revealed, then he has disbelieved, and oppressed and become evil, and to it went as-Suddi [And this statement of as-Suddi, was recalled by Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Jareer collected with his sanad: “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revaled”, he [as-Suddi] said: “Whoever does not rule by what I revealed, so he left it intentionally, and trangressed whilst knowing, then he is from the disbelievers”. See Tafseer at-Tabari, volume 6/257.], and it is the apparent meaning of the statement [i.e. the ayah, See Mahaasin at-Ta`weel, for al-Qaasimi, volume 6/215, Daar al-Fikr print, 1398 AH]

Permissibility of Jihaad without an Imaam

Posted: October 27, 2008 by millatibraheem in Laa ilaha illAllaah

The presence of a ruler is not a condition for the validity of Jihaad, neither for “Offensive Jihaad” nor for “Defensive type of Jihaad”. Thus absence of the ruler cannot be an excuse to refrain from Jihaad.

We don’t know any scholar from Salaf who said that it’s a condition in the sense that the absence makes Jihaad invalid. Rather they said that it’s from maslahat, which means that Jihaad should be waged under a commander and a banner. But absence does not invalidate Jihaad. What is more dangerous than this saying, is the major form of disbelief that it entails behind such saying, due to its rejection of the truthfulness of Rasoolullaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam when he spoke about a group or party that will never cease to exist, fighting in the Cause of Allaah until the Day of Judgment.

But we know that some scholars deemed it haraam to initiate combat without the rulers permission.  We will discuss here the specific case, when the ruler is absent…

FIRSTLY, we need to explain the issue of individual decision about going to Jihaad. Like if some Muslim decides to fight for the sake of Allaah and he does not seek permission from the authority! What do the scholars say about it?

Imaam al-Qurtubi said:
“A group of scholars allowed to fight a duel with enemy and they did not stipulate it weather with the permission of Imaam or without his permission. It’s opinion of Malik. Malik was asked about a man who stood between two troops (i.e. between Muslims and enemies) and asked (the enemy): “Who wants to fight?” Malik said: “it depends on his intention, if he intends with it to please Allaah, then I hope there is nothing wrong! People did it before” Shafi’ said: “There is nothing wrong with fighting a duel.” Ibn al-Mundhir said: “Fighting a duel with permission of Imaam is good, but there is no sin upon one who does it without his permission! It’s not makruh, because I do not know any narration forbidding it!” [“Jami li Ahkam al-Qur’aan”, 4/249 Muassasa ar-Risala]

And Imaam Abdur Rahman al-Hattab al-Maliki said:
“Abdullaah bin Wahb was asked about a group which attacks the enemy, is it permissible to fight a duel without permission of Imaam?

He said: “If Imaam is present there, it’s not allowed for him to fight a duel, but with his permission and if he is not rightful (i.e. fasiq), let him fight a duel and they all may fight against the enemy without his permission.”

I (Zuwnan Abdul Malik bin Hasan) said to him: “Mubarazah (fighting a duel) and qital (fighting) has the same ruling according to you?” he said: “Yes!” Ibn Rush said: it’s as he said: If Imaam is not rightful, then neither for dueling, nor fighting his permission is not necessary for them, because he would have forbidden them to attack and it should be examined in his case because he is not rightful in his affairs. But he should be obeyed in any way. Because there is difference between “being rightful” and “being unfair” when it concerns “permission”. There is not such difference in obedience when he orders such or forbids such, because obedience to Imaam is from the obligations of battle and it’s wajib upon people to obey Imaam in everything that he likes or dislikes and even if he is not rightful he should be obeyed in matters which is not disobedience to Allaah…” [“Mawahib al-Jalil“, 3/34]

Is presence of Imaam a condition for Jihaad?

Scholars of Shafi madhhab say that it’s makruh without Imaams permission and it’s about the aggressive type of Jihaad, not when muslims are attacked.

Imaam Nawawi said:
“Fighting without permission from Imaam and his deputy is makruh!” [“Minhaj at-Talibin“, Kitab as-Siyar, pg: 519]

And great scholar of Shafi madhhab Khatib al-Shirbini in his commentary on Imaam Nawawi’s “Minhaj at-Talibin” said about these words:

“Fighting without permission from Imaam and his deputy is makruh!”

Because his status should be respected and because he is more knowledgeable than others in matters of Jihaad. But it’s not haraam (to fight without his permission), because there is nothing more than exposing yourself to danger and it’s permissable in Jihaad.

It should be – as al-Adhrai’ said – limited only for volunteers. As for a professional army (those who are payed for their service) it’s not allowed for them, because they are allocated in the strategic places around the country to defend Islaam and Imaam is in charge of them and they are like hired workers.

NOTICE: al-Balqini exempted following cases from “karaha”:
First: If seeking permission would delay it so that the benefit of fighting would be lost.
Second: If the Imaam neglects Jihaad and he and his soldiers are attached to this world. As we observe it happening today.
Third: If they have well-grounded suspicion that if the permission is sought it would not be granted.” [“Mughni al-Muhtaj“, 4/220]

Imaam Jalal ud-Din al-Mahalli said in his book “Kanz ar-Raghibin Sharh Minhaj at-Talibin” (a commentary on “Minhaj at-Talibin“):

“Fighting without permission from Imaam and his deputy is makruh” because the ruler knows more about what is beneficial.”

Imaam Shihab ud-Din al-Qalyubi and Imaam Shihab ud-Din Ahmad al-Birlisi (‘Umeyra) write in their commentaries on “Kanz ar-Raghibin“:

“al-Qalyubi:
His word: “it’s makruh”, i.e for volunteers, but it’s haram for professionals without permission, yes, if there is benefit in fighting. But if Imaam and his troops forsook Jihaad for their love to this world or he insists on denial for permission or when seeking permission would delay it so that the benefit of fighting would be lost, in these cases it’s not makruh to fight without his permission.”

‘Umeyra:
“His word: “in what is beneficial”; It’s said: It’s not about fighters other than professional soldiers. Otherwise it is forbidden for them, because they guard the religions sanctity when it’s under attack and they may not fight without Imaams permission.” [“Hashiyatan Qalyubi wa ‘Umeyra“, 4/217]

Another shafi’i scholar Imaam Ahmad bin Ibrahim bin Muhammad Abu Zakariyya ad-Dimashqi, known as Ibn Nuhhas said in his famous book on this subject:

“Jihaad without permission from Imaam or his deputy is makruh, but not haraam.” [“Mashari al-Ashwaq ila Masari al-Ushaq“, 315]

Scholars of Maliki madhhab said,

Imaam Abdur Rahman al-Hattab al-Maliki said:
“Then Ibn Habib said: “I heard the scholars saying: If the ruler forbids fighting for a certain benefit, then it’s haram to oppose him, but it’s not haram when the enemy attacks them suddenly.” Ashhab heard that Malik was asked about people who went out to the Roman territory with an army and they need forage for their horses and a group of them goes to a village and another goup to another village in order to feed the horses without Imaams permission. May be the enemy trapped them into it. If the enemy sees them they attack suddenly, fight and kill them or take them prisoners or may be they escape but if we leave our horses they die. He said: I think they should seek Imaams permission and I dont think that they may fight the enemy when they are not so many and ill-equipped. Malik was asked that “if the enemy takes over a shore which belongs to Muslims, should then fight against the enemy without an order from the ruler?” He said: “In my opinion if the ruler is not away from them, they should ask permission before fighting them. And if the ruler is far away from them, then they should not leave the enemy, and should attack them.” They mentioned that the ruler is away from them. Malik said: “So how should they act? Should they wait until the ruler orders them to attack?! In my opinion they should fight them. Ibn Rush said: All this is as he said: It’s not allowed to them to fight on their own in order to feed the horses, what is good for them is that they seek Imaams permission if they can. It should be done if the ruler is rightful according to the saying of Ibn Wahb via Zuwnans narration and he is Abdul Malik bin Hasan and that fighting enemy without Imaams permission is not permissible, except if they ara suddenly attacked and they are not able to ask Imaam for permission. End of the quote from Zuwnans narration…In the narration if Asbagh: I heard Ibn al-Qasim: he was asked about a group that is in the border with enemy and if it is permissible for that group to use advantage to attack the enemy suddenly without Imaams permission and Imaam is several days away from them? He said: If they are sure that this attack can be victorious and if they are not afraid to endanger themselves, then I dont see any problem in that. And if they are afraid that they are not able to cope with it, then I dislike it for them. Ibn Rushd said:It’s allowed for them to attack without Imaams permission if they are sure to win because Imaam is many days away from them. If Imaam is with them and if Imaam is rightful, then it’s not allowed to fight without his permission.” [“Mawahib al-Jalil“, 3/349]

Imaam Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Muhammad ‘Illish al-Maliki said in his fatawas:
“from Ibn al-Qasim: If muslims want to use the advantage against the enemy and they are afraid that Imaam would forbid it if he had known their plans, then they may go out against the enemy, but in my opinion it’s better to ask for permission.” Ibn Habib said: “I heard the scholars saying that if Imaam forbids fighting for some certain benefits, then it’s haraam to oppose him, except if the enemy threaten them. Ibn Rush said: It’s wajib to obey Imaam even if he is unjust in matter where he doesn’t order to disobey Allah and from disobediences is forbidding muslims from fard al-‘ayn Jihaad.” [“Fath Aliyyil-Malik fi al-Fatwa ala Madhhabil Imaam Malik“, 1/390]

Imaam Muhammad bin Ja’far al-Kattani said:
“Fuqaha and ulama said: If enemy attacks a Muslim country or gathers it’s army to the border in order to enter into a muslim country, then Jihaad becomes fardul-ayn upon its inhabitants and leader. It’s obligatory upon every old and young, every free man and slave and even upon women it they have strenght to combat. And fighting against the enemy should not be stop for consultation with Imaam or for a permission from Imaam, especially if Imaam is far away from them.” [an-Nasiha, p: 77]

Imaam Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-‘Arabi al-Fasi al-Maliki said:

“Amongst what is clearly known is that the reason of attribution of Jihaad to the authority is that in most cases the perfection of Jihaad can only be achieved with the help of Imaam, but if it’s possible to achieve it without him, there is no need to wait for an Imaam.” [“al-Mi’yar al-Jadid“, 3/7]

The Hanbali scholars said,

Imaam Ibn Muflih said:
“It’s haraam (To battle enemy) without Imaams permission, except when there is a need for that. It was narrated from Ahmad. And in “al-Mughni” (is related from Imaam Ahmad that) if there is risk of giving away an opportunity (then they may battle without Imaams permission) and in “ar-Rawdah” narrations differ from Ahmad about this issue, it’s narrated from him that it’s not allowed, also narrated that he gave permission in any case, openly or secretly, individually or in groups, with a big army or a small batallion.” [“al-Furu fi fiqh al-Hanbali“, 4/127]

Imaam Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali said:
“If enemy attacks then Jihaad becomes fard al-ayn and it’s obligatory upon everyone and it’s not allowed to anyone to abandon it. If it’s clear, then they may not go out to Jihaad, but with a permission of a ruler, because the art of war is his specialty, he knows better about how big or small is enemy army, and their places and tactics. They should turn to his opinion. Because he is better for protection of Muslims, except if it’s not possible to ask his permission because a surprise attack from the enemy side, then it was not obligatory for them to ask his permission. because in this case the benefit is in fighting and attacking the enemy. Thats why when disbelievers attacked camels of the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – “Salmah bin Akwah” chased them outside the Madinah city and killed them without a permission from the prophet, and the prophet -sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – praised him and said: “Our best fighter, Salmah bin akwah!” and gave him bow and arrow” [“al-Mughni“, 9/174]

and Imaam Ibn Qudamah stated again:
“Absence of Imaam can not delay Jihaad, because the benefit of Jihaad is lost if it’s delayed. It they gather booty, they should divide it according to Sharia rulings.” [“al-Mughni“; 8/353]

and again Imaam Ibn Muflih said:
“al-Qadi was asked: “Is it allowed to fight “bughat” (people of mischief, rioters) when there is no Imaam?” He said: “Yes, because if it’s allowed to Imaam to fight in order to prevent mischief and oppression, then these things (i.e. mischief, oppression) exist even when there is no Imaam” [“al-Furu’“, 6/154]

So if it’s allowed to fight without a permission from the ruler against Muslims who spread mischief in Muslims lands, then it’s utter necessary to fight against kafir invaders,even if Muslims do not have institution of Islaamic governance.

Imaam Ahmad that he said:
“It they are afraid for themselves and their children, there is nothing wrong for them to fight before asking permission from the ruler. But they should not fight if they are not afraid, except with a permission from Imaam.” [“Masail Imaam Ahmad“, narration of his son Abdullah, (286)]

Imaam ibn Taymia said:
“As for fighting to protect the sanctity of the religion, then it’s obligatory with a consensus of scholars. There is nothing more important after Iman than to fight back the enemy that destroys the religion and the worldly life and no condition is mentioned for it. They should defend as long as they can.” [“Fatawa al-Misriyya”, 4/508]

Imaam Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi said:
“Allahu Ta’ala said:
“O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allaah is with those who fear Him.”
And Allah did not make it specific to the order from Imaam or without his order and if Imaam forbids fighting against the enemy, it necessitates disobedience to Allah, people should not listen to him and should not obey him, because he orders disobedience
And Allahu Ta’ala said:
“Then fight in Allaah’s cause – Thou art held responsible only for thyself!”
This statement addresses every single muslim and every single soul is ordered with Jihaad, even if he had to fight alone! [“al-Muhalla bil-Asar“, 7/351 (issue: 964) Idara at-Tiba’a al-Muniriyya, Kairo 1352 (1933) Tahqiq: Ahmad Muhammad Shakir]

Imaam al-Mawardi al-Shafi’i, who had written many beneficial works about Islaamic governance, the author of “Ahkam as-Sultaniyya” said:
“Jihaad that is fard al-kifaya should be (i.e obligatory) lead by an Imaam, but not if Jihaad becomes fard al-‘ayn” [“al-Iqna’ “, p: 175]

Imaam Siddiq Hasan Khan said:
“This obligation is one of the many obligations of religion that Allaah imposed on His muslim servants without binding it to certain time or place or persons or justice or oppression (i.e it’s allowed every time, in every place, with leaders or withour them or with just leaders or with unjust leaders, no such conditioned was mentioned)” [“Rawda an-Nadiyya” 333]

Imaam Abdur Rahman bin Hasan said in his refutation of Ibn Nabhan :
“As for your saying that “You have no right to use this verse against us as an evidence,because this ayah concerning Jihaad is about Jihaad with a Imaam who should be followed and he is Allahs Messenger – sallallahu aleyhi wa sallam – and if we had such Imaam we would know it and may be we would obey him.”
I say: Your statement in your words “the ayah concerning Jihaad…” show us that this is speaking about Allah and His book without knowledge. Allahu Ta’ala said: “Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allaah of which ye have no knowledge.”

And we say: Which book or which proof says that Jihaad is not wajib except with a legitime Imaam? This is ascribing falsehoo to the religion and deviating from the path of the believers. The evidences prooving the invalidity of this saying are too famous to be mentioned. Amongst them is the generality of the order to fight and encouragement to it and threat against those who abandon it. Allahu Ta’ala said: “And did not Allah Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief.” And in the surah al-Hajj: ” Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure.”

Every person who makes Jihaad for Allaah’s sake has obeyed Allah and performed what was obliged by Allaah. And an Imaam becomes Imaam only with Jihaad, not that there can not be Jihaad without an Imaam. O Man! The truth is the opposite of what you mentioned. Allahu Ta’ala said: Say: “I do admonish you on one point: that ye do stand up before Allaah in pairs, or singly,” and He said: “And if any strive they do so for their own souls:”

And in a hadith: “There will allways be a group…” and praise be to Allaah, there is a group upon the truth and they fight for Allaahs sake and they are not afraid of reproaches of those who blame people. Allaah Ta’ala said: “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allaah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allaah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allaah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allaah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.” i.e. abundant in grace and offering, He knows those who are competent for Jihaad.

The quotes and evidences prooving the invalidity of what you have written are abundant in the Quran, Sunnah, Siyar, narrations and the words of people of knowledge based on evidences and narrations. It would be clear even for the mentally defective people, if they read Abu Basirs story: “When he came as a refugee, Quraish demanded from Allaahs Messenger – sallallahu aleyhi wa sallam – to return him to them according to the terms of Hudaybiyya agreement. He killed those mushriks who came after him and fled to the coastal area and when Allaahs Messenger heard what happened he said: “Wayl Ummihi! provocateur of war! I wish he had others with him!” He attacked caravans of Quraish that come from Sham, took from them and killed them and he fought them on his own without the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – because pagans had peace treaty with theprophet…(and this stroy is long)” and did Allaah’s Messenger said to them: “You made mistake fighting Quraish, because you are not with Imaam”?!?!?! Subhanallah! Is there something more harmful than ignorance?! I seek refuge in Allah from opposing the truth with ignorance and falsehood. Allahu Ta’ala said: “The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah – the which We have sent by inspiration to thee…”

“ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fi Ajwibatin-Najdiyya”, 8/199-201
sixth edition, 1417 (1996)

Nubuwwa (Prophethood) of Women

Posted: October 27, 2008 by millatibraheem in al-Imaan, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals

Nubuwwa (Prophethood) of Women

Volume V, pp 17-19
al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa-al-Ahwa’i wa-al-Nihal
By Abu Muhammad Ali Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi

(Abu Muhammad said) This is an issue we know of no debate about it except here in Cordoba and in our time. A group of people went on and denied that Prophet- hood could not be for women and made everyone that claims as such an innovator (Mubtadi’). Another group said that Prophethood is possible for women.  A third group abstained from discussing this issue.

(Abu Muhammad said) We find no proof for those who claim that Prophethood is impossible for women other than that some of them denied it based on the Koranic verse:

” (O Muhammad!) Whenever we sent before you Messengers to whom we have revealed Our messages, they were but men.” (1)

(Abu Muhammad said) This is a verse none can deny as nobody claimed that Allaah (SWT) sent women Messengers. The issue here is about Prophethood (Nubuwwa) and not Messengership. Henceforth the need to understand the meaning of the word ‘Prophethood’ in the language in which Allaah (SWT) spoke to us (i.e. Arabic).

We find that this word is taken from Inba’ (prophecy) which means I’lam (revelation). So whomever Allaah (SWT) tells him about what will be before it comes to pass, or reveals to him informing him about a certain matter, then he is a Nabi (prophet) without any doubt.

This (Prophethood) should not be understood as Ilham (inspiration) which is natural as Allaah said in Surah al-Nahl:

” And behold! Your Lord has inspired the bees with this: ‘Build thy hives in the mountains, and the trees and the creepers over trellis, then drink nectar from every kind of fruit, and follow the ways made smooth by your Lord.’ From its belly comes out a fluid of varying hues wherein is healing for mankind. Here is indeed a sign for those who ponder over it.” (2)

It should neither be understood as doubt (Zann) or illusion which none would assure its truthfulness except an insane person (i.e. a crazy person would think illusion or Zann as part of what we commonly label as ‘truth’).

It neither should be understood as Kahana (sorcery) which is part of what the evil spirits (shayatin) try to get by listening to the heavens and as such get stricken by shooting stars. As Allaah (SWT) says:

” And We have always set against every prophet enemies from among satans of men and satans of jinns who have been inspiring one another with charming things in order to delude the minds. But had your Lord willed, they would never have done so. So leave them alone to continue false allegations.”(3)

Such sorcery was ended with the advent of the messenger of Allaah (SWT), Muhammad (SAAW) (4).

It is not part of Nujum (fortune telling), which can be learned. Nor is it part of dreams which none can assure their truthfulness or lies.

Revelation which is Nubuwwa (Prophethood) is meant from Allaah (SWT) to inform that to whom it was revealed of what Allaah wants to tell him. This should be understood differently from all the previous cases.

Allaah makes to whom it was revealed fully aware and fully knowledgeable of the truthfulness of what was revealed to him – (Exactly) like his knowledge of what he can sense and the (obvious) deductions of his brain – with no doubt in them.

(This revelation) can be transmitted by one of either ways: through an angel that comes to him or through a message directly revealed to him and this is a knowledge from Allaah (SWT) to whom He gives, with no transmitter or teacher.

If they deny that this is the meaning of Prophethood then let them teach us its meaning for they will not bring any single proof.

Allaah revealed in the Koran that He sent angels to women to deliver to them truthful revelations from Allaah (SWT). They gave glad tidings to the mother of Isaac (Sarah) of Isaac. Allaah says:

“…And his wife was standing by; hearing this, she laughed. Then we gave her the good news of Isaac, and after Isaac of Jacob. She said,’ Woe be me! Shall I bear a child now when I have grown extremely old, and this husband of mine has also become old? This is indeed a strange thing.’ The angels said,’ What! Are you surprised at Allaah’s decree? O people of Abraham’s household! Allaah’s mercy and blessing are upon you. Indeed, Allaah is worthy of all praise and glory.'” (5)

This is a direct address from the angels to the mother of Isaac about the blessing Allaah will bless her with -Isaac, then after Isaac Jacob – then their testimony about the power of Allaah and her astonishment of the matter of how Allaah (SWT) makes things possible.

This could not be an address from an angel except to a prophet – in one way or another – we find also that Allaah (SWT) sent Gabriel to Mary mother of ‘Isa – Jesus – (AS) with a message and told her:

“…I am a mere messenger from your Lord and have been sent to give you a pure son.” (6)

This is a true Nubuwwa with a true revelation and a (clear) message from Allaah (SWT). Zacharias (AS) used to find with her Rizq (food) for this he asked Allaah (SWT) to grant him a trustworthy son (7). We found also that Allaah re- vealed to (Yukabid) mother of Moses that she shall throw her son into the Yam (river) and she shall neither worry or have grief and promised her He shall return Moses to her and make him a prophet and a messenger. With no doubt this is a true Nubuwwa (revelation) and a logical consequence of our premises.

If she was not sure of the revelation that Allaah would return her son to her, either that this was a mere vision or a feeling she had, she would be – by throwing her son in the Yam – committing a crazy act and a heinous crime against herself. If one of us did such an act he would be an extreme transgressor or a crazy person that deserves the agony and the (psychological) consequences he has to go through – (probably) in a bimaristan (a mental institution).

Such logical analysis none could deny. Therefore it becomes – with assuredness – true that that which came to (Yukabid) – of throwing her son in the Yam – was a revelation, like that which was revealed to Ibrahim (AS) in his dream. He was ordered to slaughter his son. If Ibrahim (AS) was not a true prophet, and had he slaughtered his son for a dream he saw or a doubt he had in himself, it would be true that whoever does such an action would not be of the Prophets but an insane person. This nobody would doubt.

Hence their (the women’s) Prophethood becomes obviously true. We find that Allaah (SWT) while mentioning the prophets in Surah Mariam, He mentioned Mariam amongst them and then said:

” These are the Prophets on whom Allaah bestowed His favors. They were from the descendants of Adam, and from the seed of those whom we carried in the Ark with Noah, and from the seed of Abraham and of Israel. They were from those whom we guided aright and made our chosen ones. They were tenderhearted that whenever the Revelations of the Merciful were recited to them, they would fall down prostrate, weeping.” (8)

This is a description of all of them. One should not single her out as a special case, to be treated separately.

Now the saying ‘and his mother a Siddiqa’ (Koran) does not deny her the right to be a prophet as Allaah said: ‘Joseph, O Siddiq!'(9). and as is known he is a true prophet and a messenger; and this becomes now clear. From Allaah only one seeks guidance. We can also include along with them (Yukabid and Mariam) the wife of Pharaoh, as the prophet (SAAW) said:

” There are many persons amongst men who are quite perfect but there are not perfect amongst women except Mary, daughter of ‘Imran, and Asiya, wife of Pharaoh.” (10) or as the Messenger of Allaah (SAAW) said.

Now perfectness (kamal) for men can only be for some messengers -for those who are ‘less than them’ are not perfect-. His (the Prophet’s) particularization to Mariam and Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh) was a privilege for both of them over all those to whom Prophethood was given from amongst women – with no doubt -, as those who are a degree less than them are not perfect.

Henceforth it is clear that these two women became perfect more than any other women and even if these women were prophets. From Koranic texts we find that Allaah says:

” (O Muhammad) , most surely you are of those who have been sent as Messengers. Of these Messengers, We have raised some above others in rank.” (11) So the perfect of his gender is the one who excels in his perfection and none of his gender can reach him. They are the messengers from amongst men, of whom we find our prophet Muhammad and Ibrahim (ASWS).

On the authority of Abu ‘Abdullaah an-Nu’maan the son of Basheer (ra), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) say:

“That which is Halaal is clear and that which is Haraam is clear, and between the two of them are ambiguous (mutashabihat) matters about which many people do not know. Thus he who avoids ambiguous matters clears himself in regard to his religion and his honour, but he who falls into ambiguous matters (eventually) falls into that which is Haraam, like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary, all but grazing therein. Truly every king has a sanctuary, and truly Allaah’s sanctuary is His prohibitions. Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh, which, if it be whole, all the body is whole, and which, if it is diseased, all of (the body) is diseased. Truly, it is the heart.” [Related by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.]
Explanation of Hadeeth

The statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “That which is Halaal is clear and that which is Haraam is clear, and between the two of them are ambiguous matters” implies that matters are of three types.

Whatever Allaah has established to be permissible in a text, then it is the ‘clear’ Halaal, such as the statement of Allaah ta’ala:

“This day [all] good foods have been made Halaal, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is Halaal for you and your food is Halaal for them.” [al-Maa’idah 5:5]

And whatever Allaah has established to be forbidden in a text, then that is the ‘clear’ Haraam, such as the statement of Allaah ta’ala:

“Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters …” [an-Nisaa 4:23]

And also such as the forbiddance of fawaahish (evil lusts and desires), that which is apparent of it and also that which is hidden of it. And every matter concerning which Allaah has established upon it a limit or associated with it a punishment or a threat, then that matter is also included amongst the ‘clear’ haraam.

As for the the ‘ambiguous matters’ then they are those issues in which there appears (to the layman) to be opposing evidences from the Book and the Sunnah, and so in this case restraint from them is from piety.

And the scholars have differed regarding the ruling upon the ambiguous matters mentioned by the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam in this hadeeth.

So one opinion is that they are all Haraam, due the saying of the Messenger sallAllaahu alayhi wa salaam “[he] clears himself in regard to his religion and his honour”, as whoever does safeguard his religion and his honour has definitely fallen into the Haraam.

Another opinion is that they are Halaal, due the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary”, so this indicates that these actions are permissible, but leaving them is from piety.

And a third opinion is that we make no ruling regarding the ambiguous matters, and do not say that they are Halaal nor that they are Haraam, as the Prophet sallAllaahu alayi wa salaam placed them between the clear Halaal and the clear Haraam. Hence it is required that we refrain from passing judgement and this too is from piety.

And in the hadeeth from ‘Adiyy ibn Haatim that he said to the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa salaam:

“O Messenger of Allaah! [Sometimes] I send my hunting dog after game, after pronouncing ‘bismillaah’ upon it, but when I reach the catch I find another dog there too (upon which I had not pronounced the name of Allaah).” So the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam replied: “Do not eat from it (the catch), for verily you pronounced the name of Allaah upon your dog, but not upon the other dog.”

So the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam gave a verdict based upon a doubt, fearing that the dog which killed the game was the other dog upon which the name of Allaah had not been pronounced, hence making the kill slaughtered for other than Allaah. And Allaah has said about this:

“Eat not of that (meat) on which Allaah’s Name has not been pronounced, for surely it is Fisq.” [al-An’aam 6:121]

So this verdict contains evidence for taking care regarding those actions or events that involve some judgment regarding what is Halaal or Haraam, due to the similarity between the different situations. And this is encompassed in the meaning of the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam: “Leave that which causes you doubt, for that which does not cause you doubt.” [narrated by an-Nasaa’ee]

And some of the scholars have said the ambiguous matters can be divided into three types:

1) That affair which a person knows to be Haraam, but which he then doubts as to whether its forbiddance still continues or not. For example, a person cannot eat from an animal until he is sure that is has been slaughtered Islaamically, and so if he has doubts about this then the forbiddance to eat continues until certainty of the correct slaughtering is achieved. And the origin of this is in the hadeeth of ‘Adiyy mentioned above.

2) The opposite of this, where the affair is originally Halaal, and the person has doubts regarding whether it has become Haraam. And whatever is of this type then it is considered permissible until its forbiddance is clearly established. And the origin of this is the hadeeth of Abdullaah bin Zayd, regarding the doubt in ones wudoo’ if one is sure that previously he had made wudoo’. [i.e. one continues upon the assumption of being with wudoo’ until it becomes clear that the wudoo’ has broken]

3) The third type is where one has doubts about a matter and one does not know whether it is Halaal or Haraam, and the matter could be of either of the two, and there is no clear evidence to establish either ruling. Then in this situation the best course of action is restraint. For example, once the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam found a date in his house, but did not eat it for he feared that it may have been from that given as sadaqah (as the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam was forbidden from taking of sadaqah).

However, if a person chooses the opposite of what is clearly apparent due to an imaginary doubt which has no evidence, then restraint in such a situation is foolishness, and is from the whisperings of shaytaan. For example, a person may restrain from praying in a place which has no visible traces of filth, simply out of a fear that maybe some urine had fallen there and since dried. Or a person may wash a dress simply out of a fear that some filth (najaasah) came upon it but which he did not actually see upon it. So in all such situations where there is no ‘real’ doubt then it is required that one does not leave the action.

And the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “about which many people do not know” means that many people do not know the shar’ee ruling upon these matters. However, the People of Knowledge may be able to associate such matters with other principles that they must follow, and thus achieve a ruling upon them as to whether they are Halaal or Haraam, and thus they cease to be ambiguous matters.

As for the statement “but he who falls into ambiguous matters [eventually] falls into that which is Haraam” then this is from two angles:

1) The one who does not fear Allaah and indulges in ambiguous matters, eventually begins to practise the Forbidden actions too, and becomes lenient in these affairs. And this is as some of the ‘ulemaa have said that minor sins lead to major sins and major sins lead to kufr.

2) The one who often indulges in ambiguous matters oppresses himself as his heart is deprived of the Light of Knowledge and the Light of Piety, so he ends up falling into the Haraam and does not realise it.

And just as a King has a sanctuary, which the shepherds must keep their sheep away from, so too has Allaah specified certain things as Forbidden for his slaves, which they must refrain from – such as murder, interest (ribaa), theft, drinking alcohol, backbiting and tale-carrying, and other such things, all of which we should keep well away from for fear of falling into them.

As for the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh, which, if it be whole, all the body is whole … “:

Allaah ta’ala has blessed only man and the animals with this special organ – the heart – and through it we find that even the animals recognize that which benefits them and that which harms them. Then, Allaah has singled out al-Insaan from amongst all the animals with the faculty of the intellect, and additional faculties within the heart. Allah says:

“Have they not travelled through the land, and have they hearts wherewith to understand and ears wherewith to hear?” [al-Hajj 22:46]

And the various limbs of the body are subservient to the heart, so whatever the heart decides upon, that action appears upon the limbs. So if the heart is good then the actions of the limbs are good, and if the heart is corrupt then the actions of the limbs are also corrupt. And if this fact is understood then the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “if it be whole, all the body is whole, and if it is diseased, all of [the body] is diseased” becomes clear.

We ask Allaah the Majestic to cleanse the corruption of our hearts. O Changer of Hearts, establish our hearts upon Your Deen! O Controller of Hearts, turn our hearts towards Your obedience!

Summary

* That those things which are Haraam are clear and need clear evidence.
* That one who does ambiguous things may well be doing what is Haraam.
* That it is difficult to live honorably when doing the ambiguous.
* That Allaah is the King; The King of kings.
* That it is understandable that Allaah should have things prohibited for us.
* That the sanctuary of Allaah which we must not enter is all those things which He has made Haraam for us. Thus we must know what is Haraam and definitely avoid them.
* That doing the ambiguous or what is forbidden adversely affects the heart.
* That it is important to make and keep the heart pure, since it affects the rest of us. Thus we should look for ways to purify and preserve our hearts from being stained.

In ‘Kitab al-Milaal’ Vol 1, Imaam ibn Hazm states:

“If we were asked: ‘You do state Allaah azza wajal is Living, but not in the sense in which it is said about living creatures; that He is Knowing, but not in the sense in which it is said about knowing creatures; Powerful, but not in the sense in which it is understood about the mighty ones,’ why, then, do you prohibit saying the following:  ‘Allaah azza wajal is body, but not the sense as created bodies are?’  To this, we would reply as follows:  ‘If the text of the Qur’aan had not attributed to Allaah azza wajal the names the Living, the Knowing and the Powerful, we would not use a single one of them when referring to Him.  It is also a religious duty to adhere to whatever is explicitly stated in the text.  But nowhere in the holy texts do we find that Allaah azza wajal is called “body,” and no argument exists to give Him this name; rather, the only valid argument forbids us to apply this name to Him.  If a textual passage could be found in which it is said of Allaah azza wajal that He is a body, then it would be our irremissable duty to follow the text and say:  Allaah azza wajal is body, but not like other bodies.”

 

The distance one must travel before shortening the prayer

Posted: October 19, 2008 by millatibraheem in Fiqh

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.