Answer:

Praise by to Allah!

The only criteria for appointing a person to lead the Salah (prayer) is the one who has memorized Quran more. If there are more than one haafiz present , then anyone can lead the prayer. Injury. illness or physical disability does not degrade a person’s ability to be an imaam.

If an Imaam has an injury or is ill due to which he is unable to lead the prayer whilst standing, then it is permissible for him to lead the people in prayer whilst sitting down, according to the view of Imaam Abu Haneefah, al-Shaafa’i and imaam Ahmad.

But how should the worshipers behind him pray? Should they sit or should they stand during the prayer? This depends on the situation which can be divided into two:

1) If the imam starts praying sitting down, then the people behind him should pray sitting down. 

The evidence for this is the hadith of Al Bukhari, from the chapter of Al-Adhaan, hadith no. 648:

It was narrated from Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallahu alahi wasallam) rode a horse and fell, and the right side (of his body) was injured. He offered one of the prayers sitting down, and we prayed behind him sitting down.  When he finished (the prayer) he said, ‘The imam has been appointed to be followed. If he prays standing up, then pray standing up; when he bows, bow; when he raises his head, raise your heads. When he says Sami’ Allaahu liman hamidah(Allaah hears the one who praises Him), say Rabbanaa wa laka’l-hamd (Our Lord, to You be praise). If he prays standing, then pray standing, and if he prays sitting, then pray sitting, all of you.’”

2) If the imam starts the prayer in standing position and due to some reason he sits down inbetween, then those praying behind him should complete the prayer standing. 

The evidence for this is the hadith of Al Bukhari, from the chapter of Al-Adhaan, hadith no. 655::

It was narrated that Aaishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “The Prophet (sallallahu alahi wasallam) became seriously ill and asked, ‘Have the people prayed?’ We replied, ‘No, they are waiting for you.’ He said, ‘Put some water in a tub for me.’ We did that and he took a bath and tried to get up, but he fainted. Then he (sallallahu alahi wasallam) recovered, and again asked, ‘Have the people prayed?’ We said, ‘No, they are waiting for you, O Messenger of Allaah.’ He again said, ‘Put some water in a tub for me.’ He sat down and took a bath and tried to get up but fainted again. Then he recovered and said, ‘Have the people prayed?’ We said, ‘No, they are waiting for you, O Messenger of Allaah.’ He again said, ‘Put some water in a tub for me.’ He sat down and took a bath and tried to get up but fainted again. Then he recovered and said, ‘Have the people prayed?’ We said, ‘No, they are waiting for you, O Messenger of Allaah.’ The people were in the mosque, waiting for the Prophet to lead them in ‘Isha prayer. The Prophet sent word to Abu Bakr that he should lead the people in prayer. The messenger went to him and said, ‘The Messenger of Allaah (sallallahu alahi wasallam) is telling you to lead the people in prayer.’ Abu Bakr, who was a soft-hearted man, said: ‘O ‘Umar, lead the people in prayer.’ But ‘Umar answered, you have more right to do that.’ So Abu Bakr led the prayers during those days. Then when the Prophet felt a little better, he came out supported by two men, one of whom was al-‘Abbaas, for the Zuhr prayer. Abu Bakr was leading the people in prayer, but when Abu Bakr saw him, he wanted to step back [to let the Prophet lead the prayer]. But the Prophet gestured to him that he should not step back. He said, ‘Sit me down beside him,’ so they sat him down beside Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr continued praying, but he followed the Prophet (sallallahu alahi wasallam) in prayer, and the people were following Abu Bakr in the prayer, and the Prophet was sitting down.”

The relevant point in this hadeeth is that Abu Bakr started to lead them in prayer standing up, then the Prophet (sallallahu alahi wasallam) came and led them from where Abu Bakr had reached, and he prayed sitting down, and the Sahaabah prayed behind him standing up. This indicates that if the imam starts the prayer standing, then he becomes unable to carry on standing, then the people praying behind him should still pray standing.

Wallahualam!

Answer:

Praise by to Allah!

The claim that Sahaabah never ever stepped or stamped where our Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) walked is nothing more than a lie and exaggeration. Many indulge in Ghulu (exaggeration) in loving the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) which is prohibited. Even the love for Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) should be within the limits of Shariah and the real love is by obeying him.

One should note that this exaggeration comes from the waswaas or whispers of the Shaytaan, who intends thereby to make worship difficult for the Muslim so that he will give it up or his life difficult and make him fall into distress and grief. One must limit himself to that which is mentioned in sharee’ah without adding or taking away anything.

Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) commanded us not to exaggerate about him as the Christians had exaggerated about Jesus. He said: “Do not exaggerate about me as the Christians exaggerated about the son of Maryam. I am only a slave, so say, ‘The slave of Allaah and His Messenger.’” (Reported by al-Bukhaari)

[highlight] This was never reported by Salaf [/highlight]

Moreover, we know that the Sahaabah were the people who loved the Prophet most. Was it reported that Abu Bakr, who was the closest of people to him and the one who loved him the most, did this? Was it reported that Umar, who ruled for twelve years, or Uthmaan, did this? Was it reported that Ali, his relative and foster son, jumped around trying to avoid stamping where Prophet walked? Was it reported that any of the Sahaabah did this? No, by Allaah! Is it because they were not aware of its importance, or did they not truly love the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam)? No one would say such a thing except one who has gone astray and is leading others astray.

Did any of the imaams – Abu Haneefah, Maalik, al-Shaafi’i, Ahmad, al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibn Seereen – do this or command others to do it or say that it was good? By Allaah, no! It was not even mentioned during the first and best three centuries. The Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) said in a saheeh hadeeth: “The best of mankind are my generation (or my century), then those who come after them, then those who come after them. Then there will come a people who will not care if their testimony comes before their oath or vice versa (i.e., they will not take such matter seriously).” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, Muslim and al-Tirmidhi).

How can it be that Sahaabah never ever stepped or stamped where our Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) walked?

[highlight] This goes against commonsense & Logic [/highlight]

This claim is also repelled by human mind because it is impossible to avoid stamping the areas where Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) walked. He lived in Madinah for several years and he must have walked in nearly every area of his Masjid as well as areas close to his Masjid. Then how is it possible for Sahaabah to walk in those areas without stamping those areas? The only way to do this is never to visit Masjid-un-Nabawi or come close to Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam)’s masjid or home.

On the contrary, there are endless evidences in the seerah & Ahadeeth that show sahabah walking around without worrying about disrepecting or violating the honor of Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam). Abdullah ibn Umar was famous for copying Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) as it is. He used to sit where Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) sit, he walked where Prophet used to walk. Another example is during salah, Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) moved back and asked Abu Bakr to lead the prayer. So Abu Bakr stood in the place where Prophet stood. Another example could be that of Tawwaf during Umrah and Hajj where Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) must have walked nearly all areas. Does that mean we don’t do Tawwaf? There are numerous such examples.

[highlight]Real love & respect is in obeying Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam)[/highlight]

“Say (O Muhammad): ‘If you (really) love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Say: ‘Obey Allah and the Messenger.’ But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers.” [Aal Imraan 3:31-32]

The first aayah explains that love is just a claim, but the proof of sincerity is following what the Prophet brought. The second aayah reaffirms the importance and necessity of obeying Allah and His Messenger. Hence Allah ended the aayah with a very stern warning in which those who refuse to obey are described as kaafirs, and Allah does not love the disbelievers. We ask Allaah to keep us safe from that. The Prophet Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) told us of the danger of not obeying him, and the danger of adding to what he brought.

We ask Allah to protect us from such bid’ah! Ameen

Wallahualam!

Answer:

Praise by to Allah!

We have seen many Muslims rejecting the idea of precaution or spread of virus or spread of disease etc, claiming that diseases are not contagious and that they only spread if Allah wills. They quote the following hadeeth from Al-Bukhaari (5316):

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : ” لا عَدْوَى وَلا طِيَرَةَ وَلا هَامَةَ وَلا صَفَرَ “

Narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) said: “There is no ‘adwaa [contagion, transmission of infectious disease without the permission of Allaah], no tiyarah [superstitious belief in bird omens], no haamah [refers to a Jaahili Arab tradition described variously as: a worm which infests the grave of a murder victim until he is avenged; an owl; or the bones of a dead person turned into a bird that could fly], and no Safar [the month of Safar was regarded as “unlucky” during the Jaahiliyyah]”. Based on this they say that one does not have to take precaution from diseases like flu etc and that the disease will not affect other person unless Allah wills.

[highlight] Explanation of this Hadeeth: [/highlight]

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The words of the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) “There is no ‘adwa” are general in meaning, thus the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) states that there is no contagion (without the permission of Allaah). ‘Adwa (contagion) refers to the spread of a disease from a sick person to a healthy one. What happens in the case of physical diseases may also happen in the case of psychological diseases. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that a bad companion is the like one who operates the bellows: Either he will burn your clothes, or you will notice a bad smell from him.

The words “there is no ‘adwa” include both physical and psychological diseases, even though it is more apparent with regard to physical disease. The words “no tiyarah (lit. superstitious belief in bird omens)” refers to feeling superstitious because of something that you see, hear or know.

With regard to the words “no haamah”, haamah is interpreted in two ways:

1) That it is a bird similar to an owl, or an owl. The Arabs believed that if a person was killed, his bones became a haamah that could fly and shriek until he was avenged. Some of them believed that the haamah was the soul of the slain person.

2) Some of the Arabs said that the haamah was a particular bird, which they regarded as a bad omen. If it landed on the house of one of them and made a sound, they said that it was predicting a death. They believed that this was a sign that that person would die soon. All of these are undoubtedly false beliefs.

The words “No Safar” refers to the month of Safar, which the Arabs used to regard as inauspicious, especially for marriage. And it was said that it was a stomach disease that affected camels and was transmitted from one camel to another; based on this, mentioning it after ‘adwa (contagion) comes under the heading of mentioning something specific after something general. It is more likely that what is meant by Safar here is the month, and that what is meant by saying “No Safar” is that it is not to be regarded as inauspicious, rather it is like any other time, during which good or bad things may be decreed.

[highlight] Contagion is something that happens, as is indicated by the words of the Prophet: [/highlight]

Prophet said, “Do not put a sick one with a healthy one” i.e., the owner of a sick camel should not bring it to the owner of a healthy camel, lest the contagion be transmitted.

And the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) said: “Flee from the leper as you would flee from a lion.” Leprosy is a serious disease that is transmitted quickly and kills the one who catches it. It was even said that it is a plague. Hence the command to flee from the leper so that the disease will not be transmitted from him to you. This is an affirmation of the effect of contagion, but its effect is not inevitable in such a way that it affects people by itself. The command of the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) to flee and not to bring sick camels to where healthy camels are comes under the heading of avoiding the means (that lead to sickness), not attributing the effect to the means themselves. The means do not affect anything themselves, but we should avoid the things that may be a cause of calamity, because Allaah says: “and do not throw yourselves into destruction” [al-Baqarah 2:195]

We cannot say that the Messenger was denying the effect of contagion, because contagion is something that is proven to exist in real life and is mentioned in other ahaadeeth.

When the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) said “there is no ‘adwa”, a man said: “O Messenger of Allaah, the camels may be healthy like deer, then a mangy camel comes and mixes with them and they all get the mange.” The Prophet said: “And who infected the first one?” meaning that the disease came to the first one with no contagion, rather it came from Allaah. By the same token, if it was transmitted by contagion, then it was transmitted by the command of Allaah. A thing may have a known cause or it may not have a known cause. The mange of the first one does not have a known cause, apart from the fact that it happened by the will and decree of Allaah, and the mange that came after it does have a known cause. But if Allaah wills the camel will not become mangy. Hence sometimes a camel may get the mange but then it recovers and does not die. The same happens with the plague and cholera; they may enter a house and some may get sick and die, while others are not affected at all.

We have to put our trust in Allaah and depend on Him. It was narrated that a leper came to the Prophet (Sallalahu alahi wasalam) and he took him by the hand and said, “Eat,” i.e., eat of the food that the Messenger was eating– because of the strength of his trust in Allaah. This trust counteracts the causes of contagion.

What we have referred to above is the best way of reconciling between the ahaadeeth. (End quote from Sharh Kitaab al-Tawheed, 2/80)

Based on the above explanation by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), what is meant by the words of the Prophet “no ‘adwa (contagion)” is that disease is not transmitted from a sick person to a healthy one by itself, rather it is transmitted by the will and decree of Allaah. If a sick person mixes with healthy ones this is one of the causes of the transmission of disease. But this does not mean that it will inevitably happen, rather it only happens if Allaah wills it. Hence we often see a sick mother give birth to a healthy child, but the disease is not transmitted to the infant.

Therefore, it is important to take precaution from proven contagious diseases like chickenpox, flu, etc so that the disease does not spread to others. One may use any means necessary to stop this spread which may include quarantining the sick person from the healthy ones.

Walahualam!

 Answer:

Praise be to Allah.

Honoring your mother-in-law is something that is to be appreciated, and no one can deny that. Rather what you are doing is in accordance with Islam and common sense. By doing that you are earning the pleasure of your husband and contributing to the success of your marriage and protecting it against things that may spoil it.

But it should also be noted that a daughter-in-law is not obliged to serve her husband’s family or take care of them in the sense of it being an Islamic obligation. If she does it, it is something that is mustahabb and is liked in Islam, and it is also kindness towards her husband. Perhaps if she realizes that her daughter in law is doing something that is not obligatory upon her in sharee’ah, and her husband realizes that also, this will elevate her status in their eyes.

The following are some of the rights and duties of daughter-in-law in Islam:

1) The daughter-in-law does not have to obey anyone among her in-laws, whether that is her husband’s father, mother, brothers or sisters, in any matter, major or minor, unless they tell her to do something which is obligatory according to Islam, or forbid her to do something that is haraam. In such matters she has to obey, whether that comes from a relative or a stranger, an in-law or anyone else.

2) They do not have the right to force her to do any thing like, how to cook, how to dress or other things such as working and teaching etc, unless that is by way of advice and kind treatment, not by way of compulsion.

3) It is not permissible for them to interfere in her and her husband’s private affairs, but if they convince her husband not to go out on trips and he tells you to stay in the house, then obey your husband, and be patient and seek reward.

4) Daughter-in-law does not have to ask permission from any of them to visit her family; that is not their right. She needs to ask her husband’s permission, and if he gives her permission then she does not have to ask permission from any of them.

5) They do not have the right to know the details of her life (she and her husband), and it is not permissible for her husband to tell them of any private or intimate matters between the two of them.

6) She has every right to have a separate house in which she lives with her husband and children, and she has the right to privacy, if her husband wants her to live with his family, and he will not be disobeying his mother if he allows you that. The wise and intelligent man weighs things against the standards of sharee’ah, and gives each person who is entitled to rights his or her due, and he does not take away from one in order to give to another.

7) Her husband has to honor his parents, and she should help him in that. She should not be the cause of a split between him and them. She will see the consequences of that in her children in sha Allah.

8) Her husband’s visits to his parents should be on the basis of need. Something may happen to his parents which requires their son to visit them a great deal, such as sickness and the like. Her husband has to pay attention to that. In such scenario, she must cooperate well with him and assit him in taking care of his parents.

9) With regard to her serving them and doing housework, she is not obliged to do that, but if she does it as an act of kindness towards them, or to please her husband, that will be good and you will have the reward for that in sha Allaah. This is something that will raise her status in the eyes of her husband and his family in this world, and will raise her in status in the Hereafter too, in sha Allah.

10) With regard to her living separately, her husband has to ensure that she has a place where she can live separately, but there is nothing wrong with his parents living in the same place with her if the house is big enough, and if that will not cause her any harm.

11) With regard to her life being under scrutiny, his parents have no right to dominate her life. She must try to communicate in a proper manner with her husband and reach an understanding. If he can resolve the matter, all well and good, otherwise there is nothing wrong with her speaking to his family in a wise and mature manner. If they do not respond and the situation continues as it is, then be patient and seek reward from Allah.

12) With regard to her shaking hands with men who are not your mahrams amongst the husband’s family or coming out in front of them without proper hijab, this is haraam. There is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator. So she must not come out in front of the men who are not mahrams.

13) It is not permissible for her husband’s family to force her to go to wedding parties or so in which there is sin. She has the right to reject it.

14) Lastly, she must ensure that she builds up the house and not break it. She must do everything possible to keep everyone happy. A woman who keeps her husband happy, gets Jannah as the reward. Husband’s happiness is also in the happiness and well being of his parents. So understand this and be supportive. Sometimes it may so happen that in the initial years of your married life, you might have to be very patient and on doing so, the later part of the married life becomes very beautiful.

The above are some of the rights and duties of Daugther in law with regards to her husband’s family.

A Daughter-in-law must understand that differences are human nature; human beings are not all the same in terms of attitude, religious commitment, reasoning and behavior. She should also pay attention to the fact that when a person grows older, their reasoning diminishes and they become childlike in many ways. She should also remember that she is dealing with her husband’s mother, and usually mothers-in-law feel as jealous of their sons’ wives as they would of a co-wife.

So she must bear with patience whatever she sees and hears from her husband’s family, and be wise in her dealings with them, especially with her husband’s mother, for by means of her wisdom she will be able to avoid many problems and she will earn their approval or at least put a stop to their ill will towards her; and she will also win her husband’s heart and please him.

Wisdom in dealings with husband’s mother means that she must speak nicely to her, praise her, pray for her, respond to her requests and be more concerned about her than she is herself, if she takes medicine, for example, or she has an appointment to visit a doctor. Gifts also play a major role in softening her heart and changing the way she deals with her.

We should be tolerant and be patient with one another, and we should not forget to be kind to one another. We should speak to one another in kindness and be patient, and ward off evil with that which is better. We should speak well to the slaves of Allah until we meet Allah.

Walahualam!

Answer:

It is permissible to marry a young girl (before she reaches the age of adolescence) whose menses (menstruation) has not yet started, according to the Shariah (Islamic law). There is an Ijma’ (consensus) of Scholars on this matter as was narrated. The following are the evidences for the same:

1) Evidence from Quran:

A clear Proof of this can be found in the words of Allah in Quran. Allah says in Surah Al Talaaq 65:4:

وَاللَّائِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ الْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَائِكُمْ إِنِ ارْ‌تَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَاثَةُ أَشْهُرٍ‌ وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ۚ  وَأُولَاتُ الْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ ۚ وَمَن يَتَّقِ اللَّـهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُ مِنْ أَمْرِ‌هِ يُسْرً‌ا

“And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him of his matter ease.” [Al Talaaq 65:4]

Here Allah says “...وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ…” …that is “and those who have not menstruated…” which means he is mentioning about the divorce of those girls who are into a marriage contract and are very young so much so that their menses have not yet started. This proves that a girl can marry even if her menses have not yet started.

Al-Tabari (ra) in explanation of this ayah said: “The same applies to the ‘idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them”. [Tafseer al-Tabari, 14/142 ]

Al-Sa‘di (ra) in explanation of this ayah said: “along with those who have it [menses] not” means minors, those who have not yet started to menstruate. Adult women who have never menstruated at all are like those who “despair of menstruation” (i.e., have passed menopause); their ‘iddah is three months. End quote. [Tafseer al-Sa‘di, p. 870 ]

2) Evidence from Hadith:

We know very well that the mother of believers, Aisha (ra) narrates that she got married to the Prophet (pbuh) when she was 6 years old and the marriage got consummated when she was 9 years old.

It was narrated from Aisha (ra) that the Prophet (pbuh) married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine, and she stayed with him for nine years. [Narrated by Bukhari, 4840; Muslim, 1422]

3) Evidence from Scholars:

Ibn Qudaamah (ra) said: “With regard to females, the father may give his minor, virgin daughter who has not yet reached the age of nine in marriage, and there is no difference of opinion concerning that, if he gives her in marriage to someone who is compatible. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All of those scholars from whom we acquired knowledge unanimously agreed that it is permissible for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage if he arranges her to someone who is compatible, and it is permissible for him to do that even if she is reluctant”. End quote. [al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 7/386]

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “The scholars are unanimously agreed that a father may marry off his young daughter without consulting her. The Messenger of Allaah married ‘Aa’ishah bint Abi Bakr when she was young, six or seven years old, when her father married her to him”. [Al-Istidhkaar, 16/49-50]

No one may give a minor daughter in marriage except her father according to the view of Maalik (ra) and Ahmad (ra). This was also the view of al-Shaafa‘i, but he regarded the grandfather as being like the father in that regard. Abu Haneefah (ra) said – and it was also narrated from Ahmad – that it is permissible for a guardian other than the father to give (the minor girl) in marriage, but the more correct view is the former one. [al-Mughni, 7/33]

The father should not give a minor daughter in marriage except in a case where he thinks it is in her best interests. Just as he may only dispose of her wealth in that which is in her best interests, the same applies with regard to arranging her marriage. Islam only permits that to the Muslim father who is pious and pays proper attention to the best interests of his children, and who understands very well that he is a shepherd and that he is responsible for his flock.

Ibn Wahb narrated that Maalik (ra) said with regard to a man arranging a marriage for an orphan girl under his care: If he thinks that (the husband) is a man of virtue, righteousness and wisdom, it is permissible for him to do that. [Ahkaam al-Qur’aan by al-Jassaas, 2/342]

An important caution in this ruling:

[highlight] The fact that it is permissible to marry a young girl does not mean that it is permissible to have intercourse with her; rather that should not be done until she is able for it. [/highlight] For that reason the Prophet (pbuh) delayed the consummation of his marriage to Aisha.

Al-Nawawi said: “With regard to the wedding-party of a young married girl at the time of consummating the marriage, if the husband and the guardian of the girl agree upon something that will not cause harm to the young girl, then that may be done. If they disagree, then Ahmad and Abu ‘Ubayd say that one a girl reaches the age of nine then the marriage may be consummated even without her consent, but that does not apply in the case of who is younger.

Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Abu Haneefah said: the marriage may be consummated when the girl is able for intercourse, which varies from one girl to another, so no age limit can be set. This is the correct view. There is nothing in the hadeeth of Aisha to set an age limit, or to forbid that in the case of a girl who is able for it before the age of nine, or to allow it in the case of a girl who is not able for it and has reached the age of nine. Al-Dawoodi said: Aisha (ra) had reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated)”. [Sharh Muslim, 9/206]

Final Advise:

Finally, [highlight] the advise on this matter to anyone would be that it is preferable not to marry off his young daughter unless there is a valid reason to do so. There is a difference between what is permissible and what is obligatory. Permissibility of something does not mean that you have to do it at any cost. [/highlight]

Al-Nawawi said: “It should be noted that al-Shaafa’i and his companions said: It is preferable for fathers and grandfathers not to marry off a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission, lest she end up in a marriage that she dislikes. What they said does not go against the hadeeth of Aisha, because what they meant is that they should not marry her off before she reaches puberty if there is no obvious interest to be served that they fear will be missed out on if they delay it, as in the hadeeth of Aisha. In that case it is preferable to go ahead with the marriage because the father is enjoined to take care of his child’s interests and not to let a good opportunity slip away”. [Sharh Muslim, 9/206].

And Allah knows best.

 Answer:

Praise be to Allah.

This is a very common question asked by many these days and is a result of the continuous effort of some to defame and destroy the image of Saudi Arabia in the eyes of Muslims around the World. The haters of this “Land of Tawheed” have constantly spread rumors and misconceptions related to it. Among these is the issue of whether the meat that is imported in Saudi Arabia halaal or haram. Here is an excellent effort made by Brother Ariff bin Abee Bakr Olla in refuting these false claims:

From the basic principles in the religion is that one must verify the information that may come to him, if not, it could result in a calamity that affects the masses and confusion or discord to prevail.

Allaah, the Most High, said: “O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with news verify it…” [al-Hujuraat 49:6].

Imaam al-Baghawee [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said about this Aayah: Verify the information that comes to you … so that you will be prevented from falling into mistakes. [Ma’aalim at-Tanzeel (7/340)]

It has reached me through various sources that people have taken to modern social-networking websites to reinforce an old claim; that the meat that is imported into Saudi Arabia is Haram. In this response, I am to discuss the issues mention by the claimant – May Allaah Guide him – and lay down some foundations which all the scholars (schools of thought) are in agreement on.

Firstly, Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country which has built its constitution on ruling by the Quraan and the Sunnah. Despite this honourable effort, no sane person can claim that there will be no mistakes. However, the rulers are the ones who rule the Muslim countries and not the general folk, and about this Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said:

“If a ruler or a judge passes a ruling to the best of his ability and knowledge and gets it right, he will have two rewards. If he passes a ruling to the best of his ability and knowledge but gets it wrong, he will have one reward.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaaree (7352) and Muslim (1716)]

Reviling the Muslim is a major sin. I’m sure the evidences for the severity of the sin of Gheebah (backbiting) or Buhtaan (slander) is not hidden from you, my dear reader, so then how about those who are free from sins in their decision making (i.e. the Muslims rulers and scholars)?

So from this, not only should we realise that the talking about other Muslims, especially without any real proof, is a major sin. We should also realise that the issue of Halal and Haram meat falls under the category of Fiqh. As a result, there will be differences and people will be governed over them, so it can’t possibly be correct to claim that the Saudi government are totally incorrect and that most of their imported meat is Haraam.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah[1] (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The correct view, which is that held by the imams, is that issues of ijtihaad are those for which there is no evidence that must clearly be followed, such as a saheeh hadeeth which is not contradicted by a hadeeth of similar strength. In the absence of such evidence, ijtihaad is valid because there is contradictory evidence or the evidence is not clear at all. End quote. Bayaan al-Daleel ‘ala Batlaan al-Tahleel (p. 210-211)

This is especially the case when these are people who Allaah, the Most High, has chosen to be custodians of the Two Holy Masjids and have benefitted Muslims all over the world with the spreading of Mushafs, Islaamic literature and callers to the religion.

“And why should not Allah punish them while they stop (men) from Al-Masjid-al-Haram, and they are not its guardians? None can be its guardian except Al-Muttaqun (the pious – see V.2:2), but most of them know not.” [al-Anfaal 8:34]

Once we can understand this, we come to another extremely important principle in al-Islaam, which is that the information received from those who are unknown is not accepted. An extension of this, the information received by the minority that conflicts the majority is considered as being odd, until detailed proof is established to prove the majority wrong.

This is the view of Balqeenee and others; we take the view of the bigger scholar. They argue that the knowledge of a narrator or one who transmits knowledge is not the same for all scholars, some scholars have more knowledge than others so we follow the view of the scholars who are more experienced, like Yahya bin Ma’een and Aboo Haatim. These two, for example talked about men more than the likes of Maalik and Shu’bah, and they talked more about men than Sufyaan ath-Thawree and Shaafi’ee. They probably talked about men more often than others because they had more knowledge and experience than the others.

[See: Kifaayah (Pg. 175-177); Fath al-Mugeeth (1/307-308);’Uloom al-Hadeeth of Ibn Salaah (Pg. 224); Jarh wa Ta’deel (Pg. 158)]

Therefore, if we have a person who has taken to Twitter to correct the Muslim nations thinking himself to be right above those more qualified than him, then there is perhaps a mistake somewhere with this.

Furthermore, most of those who claim that imported meat is Haraam are those who are not from the people of Ijtihaad. Ijtihaad or the Mujtahid (the one who derives rulings from the texts to apply it to new issues) are of types, however, those who are bound by a Madhab and make Taqleed (TN: blind following without being able to do Ijtihaad of the texts and statements of the scholars) of that Madhab are not from the people Fatwaa.

Ibn al-Qayyim, the student of Ibn Taymiyyah, [May Allaah have Mercy on them] said:

The first view is that it is not permissible to give a fatwa based on Taqleed because that is not knowledge, and giving a fatwa without knowledge is haraam. There is no dispute among people that taqleed is not the same as knowledge and that the Muqallid (the one who imitates or repeats the views of others) cannot be given the name of ‘aalim (scholar). This is the view of most of our companions and the view of the majority of Shaafa’is.

[I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een (1/37, 38)]

Yes, Ibn al-Qayyim further on the book does reinforce the opinion that issuing Fatwaa based on Taqleed is permissible but that is only in the case of necessity. However, today, were we have numerous senior scholars and councils that they cooperate with one another and are able to make Ijtihaad, we see the applicability of this necessity being lifted.

It is important to note, that all Muslims are bound by following what is the truth. Whether it be a Mujathid who is able to derive his own rulings or it be a layman who depends on the scholars to explain the rulings of al-Islaam to him.

Imam al-Sarkhasi al-Hanafee (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Not following a saheeh hadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is haraam, just as doing what is contrary to it is haraam. End quote.

Usool al-Sarkhasi (2/7).

So now we have established some very important principles in al-Islaam: the rulers are to be obeyed because they are from the people of Ijithaad, we tolerate differences of opinion in Fiqh especially if we being governed by them, the information we receive must be verified with detail if it conflicts those who have more knowledge than him, and that we are all laymen because we make Taqleed.

As this response has already extended in its length, I aim to complete the rest of my points – may Allaah give me Strength and Success – on the core issues at hand.

Firstly, the claim that the meat coming into Saudi Arabia, and the other Muslim lands is doubtful, holds no weight until proof is presented, and the principle for this has already been mentioned. Moreover, Shaykh Muhammad Taqee al-Uthmaanee, who the claimant refers to when making his claims, has set down another important principle. On page 400 of his report which was taken from a book called, ‘Buhooth fi Qadaayaa Fiqhiyyah Mu’aasarah’, which he presented to the World Fiqh Council in Jeddah who also have members from the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia, stated:

If a Muslim presents to you meat or food, and it appears to be Halaal and slaughtered in the correct way, then we act upon what is apparent. We are not allowed to have bad thoughts about others Muslims and it is not obligatory for us to seek to find the methods they used to slaughter, as long as there is no reason to doubt him. End quote.

Based on this, we realise the mistake the writer of these claims has fallen into -May Allaah grant him success to enter Jannah-. He states that this could be part of a conspiracy, and our intentions are only Known to Allaah, if he means by this that the Muslims governments and especially that of Saudi Arabia are trying to deceive the Muslims, then this is a very grave statement and it is not least for a regular Muslim to abstain from, let alone a Mufti.

The Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah of Allaah be upon him] said, “Do not accuse a man of committing sin or Kufr, by doing so, such a label will be returned to the accuser if what he said isn’t true.” [al-Bukhaaree (6045) and Muslim (61)]

Added to this, I would like to add the following link. It is in Arabic and it explains the procedure and the conditions set by the Saudi government in order to make sure that the process of slaughtering for imported meat is Halaal.  It is link taken from the official Saudi al-Iftaa website, and in it are letters and reports and responses by ministers and those responsible for the slaughter houses abroad.

In a nutshell, this transparent report shows the procedures they have, pieces of advice from the scholars and interestingly enough, declares Sadia as being Halaal and has been authenticated by more than one Sharee’ah panel. Please bear in mind that the information below is some thirty years old and the regulations of importing meat into Saudi has got a lot stricter since then.

http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/fatawaChapters.aspx?View=Page&PageID=237&PageNo=1&BookID=1

Furthermore, as a resident in Saudi Arabia for nearly four years now, we witness on many occasions new laws and news reports reinforcing the governments’ procedures. Here is a recent example:

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20131207188800

As for the second point raised by the writer – May Allaah Guide him – then he asserted that doubtful meat should be avoided. Yet, it is unclear what is meant by meat that is doubtful. The scholars have split what is doubtful into two types: that which has doubt and we are unable to find a resolution to the doubt, this meat is Haraam. However, if there is doubt but the doubt can be dispelled, then we go by what is most likely.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5485) and Muslim (1929) from ‘Adiyy ibn Haatim (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) who said: “If you release your (hunting) dog and say the name of Allah, and (the dog) catches (the game) and kills it, then eat, but if (the dog) ate (some of it), then do not eat, because he only caught it for himself. If another dog joins him over whom the name of Allah was not mentioned, and they caught it and ate from it, do not eat, for you do not know which of them killed it. If you shoot an arrow and you find (the game) after one or two days with nothing but the mark of your arrow on it, then eat, but if it fell into water, do not eat it.”

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari: The words “if it fell into the water, do not eat it” – the reason for the prohibition on eating it is to be taken from the phrase above, because in that case there is doubt as to whether it was killed by the arrow or by drowning in water. If it is established that the arrow struck it and it died, and it did not fall into the water until after it was killed by the arrow, then it is permissible to eat it.

Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim: If the game is found in the water, drowned (i.e. there is a strong doubt or is almost certain), it is haraam according to consensus. End quote.

Not only do we see that there is a difference between what is Haraam and doubtful, Shaykh Muhammad Taqee al-‘Uthmaanee repeated the correct opinion in such a given situation in his report. He states on page 417 that the Muslim is required to follow what is customary or most likely. So if the meat in the country is being eaten by Muslims who believe that the meat is Halaal, he should say ‘Bismillah’ and eat, because the principle in this case is that the meat is Halaal.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2057) from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), according to which some people said: O Messenger of Allah, some people bring meat to us and we do not know whether they mentioned the name of Allah over it or not. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Mention the name of Allah over it and eat it.”

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

We learn from this that everything that is found in the markets of the Muslims may be taken as legitimate.

End quote from Fath al-Baari (9/635).

Of course, if one is doubt then he must refrain and the evidence for this has proceeded, however with the principles we have discussed above and the proof that has come and about to come – with the Permission of Allaah – we can establish that the meat remains Halaal in Saudi Arabia until extensive proof can disprove this.

Thirdly, the claimant – May Allaah Give him the ability to follow what is correct- states that the body of senior scholars have, ‘formally issued a 50 –age fatwa that all imported meat is haram.’ Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only have we posted a link above showing the transparency of the Board of Senior Scholars and the ministries involved in Saudi Arabia, but the document that the claimant was referring to was a quotation taken from the works of Shaykh Muhammad Taqee al-‘Uthmaanee. Shaykh Muhammad in his report did not once assert that the meat imported into Saudi Arabia or other Muslims lands as being Haraam. Rather, he casts doubt over it and sets down a principle that the certificates that a slaughterhouse may receive doesn’t necessarily give them credibility. The document I have sourced this from is the original Arabic document and Shaykh Muhammad quotes the Fatwaa on pages 435-440.

In summary, the Fatwaa encourages the ministry to reinforce its rules as some of the information that it has received casted doubt into the meat in Saudi Arabia. Despite this doubt, the dossier doesn’t place the ruling of the meat being impermissible, rather the Fatwaa encourages those who are responsible to edit some of the procedures they have. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the Panel of Senior Scholars or Shaykh Muhammad hold the view that the meat coming into Saudi Arabia is Haram.

Fourthly, connected to this, nowhere in this document, or the HMC report or releases from official Saudi government authorities is the statistic 90% affirmed. The claimant makes a bold claim in assuring his readers that 90% of imported meat used by restaurants, is indeed Haraam.

In reference to the HMC report where it states they have ‘confidential findings from our man from his trip through the wild west of Brazil….’, then we have already laid down an important principle above, which is that knowledge must be taken from reliable sources that are based on evidence. The fact that this man remains unnamed and therefore his trustworthiness unclassifiable, added to the fact that his report conflicts that which those who are larger number and perhaps greater in knowledge than him, this information must be rejected. Furthermore, his reservation seems to be based on a Fiqhee issue, and the stance of the Muslim living under a Muslim ruler has already been discussed. But to shed some light on the issue, he states that the meat coming from these slaughter houses is Haraam because the animals are placed on a conveyor belt and slaughtered mechanically.

Shaykh Muhammad himself withholds from issuing a Fatwaa on this practice in his report. He states on pages 421-425 that this practice should be avoided as there is no need for it however narrates the view of some of the scholars that have allowed this practice because of the need of slaughtering large quantities of animals without having the sufficient manpower.

This is his stance and we can see in his report that he doesn’t see at an easy matter so that he can’t place a ruling on it. However, the World Islaamic (Fiqh) Council issued the following Fatwaa:

8. The basic principle is that slaughter of poultry and other animals is to be done by hand, but there is nothing wrong with using mechanical devices to slaughter poultry so long as the conditions of shar‘i slaughter mentioned above in paragraph 2 are met. And it is acceptable to say “Bismillah” once for each batch that is to be slaughtered in a continuous session, but if there was an interruption then saying “Bismillah” must be repeated. End quote.

But the statement of the Council did not specify that saying “Bismillah” must come from the one who is operating the machine.

Dr. Muhammad Sulaymaan al-Ashqar said: Saying “Bismillah” in the case of a large number, if they are to be slaughtered by hand in the Islamic manner, may be exhausting for the slaughterman. For example, if a person has the task of slaughtering 1200 chickens per hour at a rate of one chicken every three seconds, then he would have to say “Bismillah wa Allahu akbar” 1200 times in an hour which would be exhausting and very difficult, and such burdensome difficulty is to be avoided in Islam because Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship” [al-Hajj 22:78].

Hence the Fatwa Council in Kuwait, of which I was a member at the time this fatwa was issued, stated that when slaughtering a large number of poultry it is sufficient to say “Bismillah” over them once, at the beginning, if the task is to proceed continuously without stopping. If there is a pause for some reason, then the slaughterman has to say “Bismillah” again for the remainder.

End quote from Majallat Majma‘ al-Fiqh al-Islami, issue no. 10, vol. 1, p. 346.

This Fatwaa also reoccurs in the Fatwaas issued by the Permanent Committee of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia and other contemporaries like Shaykh Muhammad bin Saaleh al-‘Uthaymeen [May Allaah have Mercy on him].

Perhaps the evidence for this is the fact that the Messenger of Allaah [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] slaughtered sixty three camels on the Day of Nahr and it is only reported that he said Takbeer once [Narrated by Muslim (1967)]. Furthermore, others from the Fuqaha have stated that it is permissible for the hunter to mention the name of Allaah over the animal he is using as a predator for the animals he is hunting just once, because of the hardship it would contain in repeatedly mentioning the name of Allaah over the various animals. This was mentioned by Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughnee (11/33-34) and also quoted by Shaykh Muhammmad Taqee.

So we can see it is not a simple issue for layman like us to place a ruling (Hukm) on, and the correct opinion of its permissibility appears to be the correct one and as a result the meat imported from Brazil has no reservations to it – Praise be to Allaah -.

We also learn from all of this that those who give statistics without proof or quote the Fataawaa of the scholars incorrectly should not be taken knowledge from. Either they are ignorant and thus not qualified or they are lying out-rightly – May Allaah Protect us from speaking without knowledge and rectify the affairs of those who do-.

From here, we also learn another important principle, which is that despite people having titles or organisations appointing themselves as being the authority for the Muslims, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they say is automatically correct or that they are precise in the knowledge they possess. As a result, it is extremely important that Fatwaas must be taken from those who are precise in their knowledge of the Quraan and the Sunnah and the statements of the scholars or at least, taking Fatwaas which explain the correct stance.

Ibn Battah records that Imaam Ahmad (May Allaah have mercy on him) said:

No man should appoint himself to issue verdicts (fatwa) until and unless he fulfills five characteristics:

• First, he should have a [firm and good] intention; for if he does not, he will have no light upon him, and nor will his words.
• Second, he should be forbearing, tranquil and serene.
• Third, he should be strong upon what he is involved in, strong in its knowledge (of the texts).
• Fourth, he should have sufficient means (wealth), otherwise the people will chew him up.
• Fifth, he should know people and their ways.

[Ibtaal Al-Hiyal (p.24)]

This is what I have to say, all goodness in it is from Allaah and any mistakes are from my feeble self and the plots of Shaytaan.

I apologise- my dear reader – for its length and I asked to be excused if I have missed to address something. My intention was to cover this matter in greater detail, however time and the fear of tiring the reader doesn’t permit.

I ask to rectify our affairs and the affairs of the Ummah, that He Helps us to return back to our religion and that everything we do is for His Sake Alone, so that at-Tayyib will make us from the Tayyib because he only accepts that which is Tayyib.

Your brother,

Ariff bin Abee Bakr Olla

Ar-Riyaadh, 28^th Safar 1435 – 1^st January 2014

ahledhikr.blogspot.com

In another narration of Muslim: “the curse of Allah be upon he who curses his parents”.

Shaykh Saalih Bin Fawzaan Al-Fawzaan said, concerning this great hadeeth:

“And in some narrations it said (the curse of Allah be upon he who shelters a muhdath (an innovation (i.e. a bidah)) with fat-hah on the daal.

And the muhdath means the innovation.

And the meaning of sheltering the innovation: being content with it.

So whoever is content with the bidah (innovation) and did not forbid it he has sheltered it.

And this means: whoever sees the innovation and keeps quiet and did not speak out clarifying to people that it is an innovation he has sheltered it by keeping quiet about it and he will-consequently- deserve cursing.

So how about the person who calls to innovation and defends it?

The refuge is sought from Allah.”

(Source: Extracted from I’aantul-Mustafeed bi Sharhi Kitaabit-Tawheed by Shaykh Saalih bin Fawzaan Al-Fawzaan hafithahul-llah, pages 235-236.)

Footnote:

Shaykh Saalih bin Fawzaan Al-Fawzaan also said “His saying in the above hadeeth: (the curse of Allah be upon he who shelters a muhdith (wrong doer)) shelters means protected, so sheltering means shielding and protecting.

And the Muhdith (with kasrah on the daal) is the person who commits a crime that is punishable by Islamic law.

So if someone came and stood in the way of carrying out the corporal punishment on this culprit using his influence or his power or his soldiers to do so then this is the person whom the prophet peace is upon him cursed.

So shielding and protecting those who perpetrated crimes that deserve corporal punishments and preventing these punishments from being carried out is a major sin because the prophet peace is upon him cursed the doer of such (an) act.”

(Source: Shaykh Saalih bin Fawzaan Al-Fawzaans explanation of Kitaabut-Tawheed)

It has a broad scope, although in brief format, making it an ideal introductory text for students of knowledge who wish to learn sciences of hadith. This matn is generally memorized because it contains the essential hadith terminologies like ghareeb, sahih, mursal, marfoo and so on. Its rhythmic nature makes it easy to memorize the entire matn.

This Matn Al-Bayquniyyah is learned by students of knowledge prior to moving to much detailed texts such as Ikhtisaar Uloom al-hadith by Ibn Kathir or Nukhbatul al-fikr by Ibn Hajar. It is vital for everyone irrespective of which faculty one may want to excel in like fiqh, tafseer, aqeedah etc.

It is also known as “Manzum Al Bayquniyyah” (منظومة البيقوني)

Here we have the PDF form of the book “Matn Al-Bayquniyyah” with original manuscript. We also have it without the manuscript for those who want to have a smaller sized file on their devices.

To download, click on the Image or below links:

Matn Al-Bayquniyyah with Original Manuscript (size: 2.13 MB)

Matn Al-Bayquniyyah without Manuscript (size: 876 KB)

Listen to it here:

Download Audio file in MP3 format: (To download, right click and select “Save link as”)

Original MP3 file (MP3 format, Size: 1.88 MB, Duration: 4:07 Mins) | Download Now

Customized MP3 file – Repeats 10 times (MP3 format, Size: 34.3 MB, Duration: 37:27 Mins) | Download Now

We are nothing but one single creation of Allah, the almighty creator. Therefore, ridiculing a person’s race or color is same as ridiculing their creator. This has been explained by Shaykh Al Albaani in one of his lectures of “Silsilatul hada wan noor”. He said:

“Thus we say this thing is repulsive, while we know it is the creation of Allah. And we know the person who is a created being does not possess in his hand any choice in the matter. Thus how can we find him repulsive?

Thus a white man—and this occurs amongst the disbelievers—will deem a black man to be repulsive; his appearance, his statue, his nose, his lips and the like. And in contrast perhaps you will find a black man, who deems a white man to be repulsive, declaring him to be a leper; while he is not a leper but rather he is extremely white.

Whether it is the white man laughing at and mocking the black man, or the black man laughing at and mocking the white man; in reality the ridicule shifts from them to the One who created them and created their appearance.

And this is indicated in the statement of the Prophet peace be upon him: لاَ تَسُبُّوا الدَّهْرَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الدَّهْرُ

Do not insult the time, for it is Allah Who is the time

Why do we not insult the time? Because Allah is the One who arranges the time, so if you insulted the time, what is this time? Does the time do as it wants? Or is it designed without having a choice? According to the believer it is decided and planned without having a choice. Decided by whom? It is decided by the Creator who does as He wills, the One who does what He intends. Thus when you insult the time, this insult returns to the Creator of the time. For this reason the Prophet peace be upon him said: Do not insult the time, for it is Allah who is the time; meaning the Creator of time.

This is exactly like what comes in the authentic narration: إِنَّ مِنْ أَكْبَرِ الْكَبَائِرِ أَنْ يَسُبَّ الرَّجُلُ أَبَاهُ

Verily it is from the greatest of sins for a man to insult his father.

قَالُوا : وَكَيْفَ يَسُبُّ أَبَاهُ ؟ قَالَ : “يَسُبُّ أَبَا الرَّجُلِ فَيَسُبُّ أَبَاهُ

 They said: And how does a man insult his father? He replied: He insults the father of another man who in turn insults his father.

This means it is from the greatest of sins for a Muslim man to be the reason that his father is insulted. It is from the greatest of sins for a Muslim to be the reason his father is insulted. Is it not from the greatest of sins for a Muslim to be the cause of Allah being insulted? Yes, this is even more so the case.

Thus it is not permissible for us to deem anything from Allah’s creation to be repulsive; because He created it with His will and choice. As Allah the Blessed and Exalted said in the Quran: وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ

And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses (Soorah Al Al-Qasas 28:68)

The creation does not have a choice. Allah is free from the partners they associate with Him.”

(To hear this lecture in its entirety refer to: سلسلة الهدى والنور-024      Translated by Rasheed ibn Estes Barbee)

The following are the comments of the scholars on the interpretation of the Hadeeth:

1) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The Muslim is commanded either to speak good or to keep silent. If he turns away from the silence that is enjoined upon him and speaks in a unnecessary manner that is not good, then this is counted against him. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Part of a person’s being a good Muslim is his leaving alone that which does not concern him.” If a person indulges in something that does not concern him, that detracts from his being a good Muslim. [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 7/49, 50]

2) Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) summed up all of piety in one sentence, when he said: “Part of a person’s being a.good Muslim is his leaving alone that which does not concern him.” This includes not speaking about, looking at, listening to, striking a blow, walking towards or thinking about anything for no purpose, and keeping away from all outward and inward actions that have to do with things that do not concern you. This sentence is sufficient concerning piety.

3) Ibraaheem ibn Aadham (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Piety means leaving alone all doubtful things and leaving alone that which does not concern you means leaving alone all that is superfluous.

In al-Tirmidhi, there is a marfoo’ report according to which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O Abu Hurayrah, be pious and you will be the most devoted of people (to Allaah).” [Madaarij al-Saalikeen, 2/21]

4) Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: This means giving up haraam things, doubtful things, makrooh things, and excessive permissible things that are unnecessary, because all of these things do not concern the Muslim if his Islam is perfect and he has attained the level of ihsaan. The most important aspect of leaving alone that which does not concern you is guarding your tongue against idle speech. [Jaami’ al-‘Uloom wa’l-Hukam,.1/309-310]

5) al-Zarqaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Some of them said that what comes under the heading of leaving alone that which does not concern you is learning branches of knowledge that are not important and ignoring those that are more important, such as one who neglects to acquire knowledge that is in his own interests and occupies himself with learning something that does not benefit anyone else, such as philosophical debate, and says as an excuse, ‘My intention is to benefit people.’ If he were sincere he would have started by learning the type of knowledge that would help him to be guided and cleanse himself of all blameworthy characteristics such as destructive envy (hasad), showing off, arrogance, self-admiration, rivalry with one’s peers, trying to put people down and other characteristics and actions that may doom a person to Hell.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: this hadeeth is an example of concise speech which includes many noble meanings in a few words, and it is one of the things that were said by no one before him. [Sharh al-Zarqaani, 4/317]

6) al-Mubaarakfoori (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Al-Qaari said – concerning the meaning of leaving alone that which does not concern him – this means that which is not his business and which it does not befit him to say, do, look at or think about. And he said: what is meant by that which does not concern him is that which he has no need of and is not essential to his spiritual or worldly affairs, and will not help him to earn the pleasure of his Lord, because he is able to live without it, and he can put his affairs straight without it. This includes all superfluous deeds and words. [Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, 6/500]

Therefore it is best to leave the matters that does not concern you. This shall ensure safety of your Akhirah as well as Duniya.

Allah knows best!