Category Archives: Bid’ah

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say…(Part 2)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold) that: Continue reading

100 Observations on Al Hajoori – 3 (31 – 106)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaatu ‘alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

A word on these observations

It should be known that this small series was not intended to be a detailed ‘rebuttal’ of Al Hajoori, rather the intent of the series was merely to enumerate some of the many issues the people of knowledge and students of knowledge have against him, hence the title ‘Observations’. Continue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – 2 (21-30)

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Sallaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Continue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – Point 13

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasooliillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in the beginning of this post the intent behind this post is only to mention the issues and not to discuss the issues with any detail

It has reached me that one of the Hajoori fanatics has criticized part one of this post (which, of course was what I was expecting!) saying that in point 13 you mentioned:

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

The individual states:


Abu Hakeem has falsely accused Shaikh Yahya (may Allaah preserve him) of having the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees. Abu Hakeem said,
“13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees…”

Here B. Davis makes a terrible mistake. Why is this such a huge mistake? Because the meaning of the speech of Shaikh Yahya comes in a hadeeth which Shaikh Muqbil brings in his Al-Jaamee As-Saheeh.

وقال الإمام أحمد رحمه الله أيضا(5/185)
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سِنَانٍ يُحَدِّثُعَنْ وَهْبِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْحِمْصِيِّ عَنِ ابْنِ الدَّيْلَمِيِّ قَالَ وَقَعَ فِي نَفْسِي شَيْءٌمِنْ الْقَدَرِ فَأَتَيْتُ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ فَسَأَلْتُهُ فَقَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِوَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ لَوْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَذَّبَ أَهْلَ سَمَاوَاتِهِ وَأَهْلَأَرْضِهِ لَعَذَّبَهُمْ غَيْرَ ظَالِمٍ لَهُمْ وَلَوْرَحِمَهُمْ كَانَتْ رَحْمَتُهُ لَهُمْ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَعْمَالِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَلَكَ جَبَلُ أُحُدٍ أَوْ مِثْلُ جَبَلِ أُحُدٍ ذَهَبًا أَنْفَقْتَهُ فِي سَبِيلِاللَّهِ مَا قَبِلَهُ اللَّهُ مِنْكَ حَتَّى تُؤْمِنَ بِالْقَدَرِ وَتَعْلَمَأَنَّ مَا أَصَابَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيُخْطِئَكَ وَأَنَّ مَا أَخْطَأَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْلِيُصِيبَكَ وَأَنَّكَ إِنْ مِتَّ عَلَى غَيْرِ هَذَا دَخَلْتَ النَّارَ.

“So he (Zaid ibn Thaabit) said, I heard the Messenger of the Allaah (praise and peace be upon him) say, “If verily Allaah punished the companions of His heavens and the companions of His earth, He would punish them and would not be an Oppressor to them…” (Al-Hadeeth)

So we see that Shaikh Yahya did not add anything to the hadeeth. So we ask B. Davis, “Do you accuse the Prophet (praise and peace be upon him) of being Jahmee or Ash’aree?” Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..”

Here we see a typical example of the problem at hand, the tarbiyah Ilmiyah they recieve, and the smug attitude of one pleased with himself and his skanty understanding. Not forgetting the close to humourous ‘confidence’ many of their ignorant chests are filled with!

His statement: “..Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..” is actually an invitation to play ‘Ping-Pong’ with them which is something i refuse to do! But i will say this..

He accuses me of ignorance in the affairs of the adeedah as is their normal practice (though i have been aquainted with this hadeeth for more than 15 years since studying the explanation of Al Aqeedatut Tahaawiyah of Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi with our Shaikh Ali Naasir Al faqeehi in Madina in the mid ninties!)

But this ‘Defense’ of theirs is nothing but more evidence of their Jahl!

For your information, this hadeeth has been discussed and used by three sets of people. It has been discussed by the Qadariyah, it has been used by the Jabariyah and it has been used ‘correctly’ by Ahlus Sunnah. Each of them UNDERSTAND the hadeeth in accordance with their belief.

Al Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions in ‘Fathul Baari (18/284)

“قَالَ وَهَذَا فَصْل الْخِطَاب مَعَ الْجَبْرِيَّة الَّذِينَ أَنْكَرُوا أَنْ تَكُون الْأَعْمَال سَبَبًا فِي دُخُول الْجَنَّة مِنْ كُلّ وَجْه ، وَالْقَدَرِيَّة الَّذِينَ زَعَمُوا أَنَّ الْجَنَّة عِوَضُ الْعَمَل وَأَنَّهَا ثَمَنه وَأَنَّ دُخُولهَا بِمَحْضِ الْأَعْمَال ، وَالْحَدِيث يُبْطِل دَعْوَى الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ وَاَللَّه أَعْلَم

This is the determining factor between the belief of the Jabariyah those who reject the fact that ones actions may be a cause for an individual entering Jannah, and between the Qadariyah who claim that Jannah is granted to a person in exchange for his actions, but this hadeeth (actually) nullifies the claim of both parties..”

The Jabariyah then, hold that ones actions are not a cause for one entering jannah (since they believe that we are taken by predecree like feathers are taken by wind and our actions have no effect upon our final destination).

Since this is their belief they use the hadeeth in question to establish that Allah does with us that which he wills (i.e. without our actions coming into play and having any effect upon our outcome) therefore this hadeeth is from the strongest of that which they use to substantiate their belief.

Particularly the statement of the Messenger Saw “If Allah were to punish the inhabitants of the heaven and the inhabitants of earth he would punish them without oppressing them..”

They hold that this hadeeth establishes their belief that we are like feathers in the wind

After mentioning the Hadeeth Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi mentions in his explanation of Al Aqeedah At Tahaawiyah

This Hadeeth is from that which the Jabariyyah use as evidence (i.e. for their belief)..”

As for the Qadariyah then it is not relevant to their false principles so they either receive it with rejection or interpretation. The best of the people in its regard are Ahlus Sunnah..”

(Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyah)

So do we now say as Al Hajooris defenders say “Oh the Jabariyah were only quoting the hadeeth!!”

Ibnil Qayyim Mentions concerning the Hadeeth in ‘Miftaahu Daaris Sa’aadah:

“Thus his mercy is not an exchange for their actions, neither is it a fruit of their actions, rather it is greater than their actions as occurs in the same hadeeth “If he were to be merciful to them then his mercy would be better for them than their actions..”

So he gathered between both affairs in the hadeeth that is (the clarification of the fact that) if he punished them he would punish them DUE TO THEM BEING DESERVED OF THAT and he would not have oppressed them. And if he had mercy upon them then that would be purely due to virtue from him and benevolence not because of their actions..”

Thus Ahlus Sunnah understand that the hadeeth is held to mean that if Allah were to punish all of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth he would do so because THEY WERE DESERVED OF PUNISHMENT hence he would not have wronged them.

The problem with the speech of Al Hajoori is that his speech is connected to an earlier statement (as we mentioned in the beginning of the article these were merely bullet points and was not meant to be a breakdown of the issues)

Al Hajoori mentions in ‘Al Minnatul Ilaahiyah bi Sharhil Aqeedatus Safaareeniyah P153) quoting one of the mistakes of Imaam Safaareeni who said in some lines of poetry:

And it is possible for our patron (Allah) to punish his creation * WITHOUT THEM HAVING SINNED OR COMMITED ANY CRIME!”

This statement of Safaareeni is the exact statement of the Jabariyah those who say that Allah does with us as he wills and our actions play no part in our outcome! Instead of doing that which all of the scholars who explain it do which is to hasten to highlight the error of this statement. And that it is in accordance to the belief of the Jabariyyah and that Ahlus Sunnah hold such and such.

Instead he says:

“What is EVEN BETTER(!) (Ahsan Min Haadhaa) than this, is the statement of Imaam At Tahaawi:

He guides who he wills and he protects and pardons from his virtue. He misguides who he wills and he forsakes them and tests them from his justice, all of them revolve around his will, between his virtue and his justice

then he says:

Allah says: “ He will not be asked about what he does but they will be asked”(Suratul Anbiyaa 23)

Allah pardons and is benevolent.

He says: “If it were not for the virtue of Allah upon you then none of you would be purified ever but indeed Allah purifies whosoever he wills” (Suratun Noor Vs 21)

Then he quotes: “So Virtue is for Allah before and after if Allah were to punish All of his worshippers he would not have oppressed them, and if he is merciful to them then it would be due to his virtue, his favour and his generosity..”

So as you can see the statement is devoid of the necessary explanation of the correct position of Ahlus Sunnah. And even though the statement of Imaam Tahaawi that he quotes is correct it does not sufficiently clarify the error or clarify the position of Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Justice of Allah.

So I ask you, what will the reader walk away with?

Would he walk away correctly understanding the aqeedah of Ahlis Sunnah in relation to the justice of Allah and being clear about the error of As Safaarini or will he walk away with the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah (who are Jabariyah in regards to Qadr)?

Where is the clarification that we would expect from a small student of knowledge much less ‘An Naasihul Ameen!!

So the issue is not an issue of quotation of Hadeeth alone! If that were the case then the people of bid’ah would be correct in that which they say or hold since many of them just ‘quote the hadeeth!’

Wallahu A’lam

On hajoori: https://ah-sp.com/2013/03/15/oh-yahyaa-hold-onto-the-book-with-firm-strength-i-e-hold-fast-to-it-suratul-maryam-vs-13/

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 3

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

Under Point 2 The Document mentions:

02: THERE IN NO SUCH THING AS MODERATE OR RADICAL OR EXTREME ISLAM

Under this point he begins with the statement:

“The terms extremist, moderate, terrorist, radical etc… have no place in Islam whatsoever.”

He also claims: “..These terms have been introduced into the vocabulary by the British regime and the media in order to isolate Muslims who practice their deen and thereafter to demonize them and eventually to bring in laws to silence them hoping that the other Muslims will not speak up in their defence..”

This statement of his is again either one of ignorance concerning the statements of Allah and his Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him), or a continuation of the ongoing fabrications we see coming from this man and his group.

Regardless of how these terms are used by the Non-Muslims, it is falsehood to reject the fact that these concepts have been mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah. If Anjem is ignorant of the presence of these affairs in the book and Sunnah, then he has no place speaking on behalf of any Muslim until he learns the religion (or perhaps he is working with the previous principle of his ‘anyone of them (the Muslims) may represent them all!’) or he knows of them, and he intentionally hides that which is in the book and the Sunnah, which is a worse calamity!

Allah mentions in the Qur’aan

Thus have we make you a balanced nation (i.e. moderate) that you may be witnesses over mankind
(Suratul Baqarah Vs 143)

The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:

“Be aware of extremism (Al Ghuloo) for indeed those who came before you were destroyed by extremism
(Sunan An Nasaa’ie Hadeeth No. 3057)

Thus we clearly have references to extremism and moderation in Islamic text. We have the encouragement with one, and a warning against the other.

As far as the term ‘Terrorist’ then, while the issue of striking terror in the heart of the enemy during ‘legislated’ and ‘legitimate’ warfare is a desired affair among all nations, to use murder, kidnapping and other such methods as a means for change, political or otherwise, is the evil path of the first of the innovators who appeared within this Ummah, those who assassinated Ali Radhiyallahu Anhu, the khawaarij. Thus the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah consider the terms ‘Irhaab/Irhaabi’ (Terrorism/Terrorist) as accepted terms referring to a well known group of individuals.

Shaikh Abdul Azeez Ibn Baaz mentions: “At-Tattarruf (Extremism) is (a methodology based upon) taking (innovated) allowances that have no legitimate substantiation and no evidence supporting them. Terrorism is that one attacks or kills individuals without right or evidence, in fact upon ignorance and devoid of insight. They then, are referred to as ‘Terrorists’ (Irhaabiyoon), those who kill people without right and without shariah proof. They affect the security of the people and cause problems between then and within their country, they are Terrorists.

(From the tape: Verdicts of the scholars concerning Jihaad and Suicide missions and terrorism)

In this section we see other examples of Choudhurys ignorant generalisations. He states:

“The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) Muhammad (saw) said: “Whatever is not based upon my teachings will be rejected

Again here we see an example of his untrustworthiness in narration, if he cannot be trusted when narrating from the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) then he undoubtedly will be even less trustworthy with the speech of anyone else!

The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) said in the hadeeth of Aisha:

Whoever brings about in this affair of ours that which is not from it then it will be rejected

(Collected by Bukhaari and Muslim) And in a variant narration:

Whoever carries out an action in this affair of ours that is not from it will have it rejected
(Collected by Muslim)

These two narrations are the closest authentic hadeeths carrying that which resembles the meaning of the text that Choudhury has quoted. No doubt though, we observe that the meanings of the authentic narrations revolve around innovations ‘in the religion’ while the wording Choudhury sites is broader and encompasses much more than the actual hadeeth.

The authentic hadeeth mentions specifies the issues of religion, while his version would appear to carry the meaning that there is nothing that may be carried out by the Muslim at all, unless there is text to substantiate it. While this is true as it relates to acts of worship and issues of belief, it does not hold true in relation to worldly affairs. The principle that our scholars mention regularly is that the worldly affairs are all permissible unless there are clear-cut texts prohibiting a particular action. This principle they base upon the statement of Allah the most high:

It is he who has created for you all that is on the earth” (Suratul Baqarah Vs 29)

And other such texts which indicate that Allah has given us these things to enjoy as we will, as long as we do not partake in prohibited matters.

It is important then that we observe well, the inaccuracies we observe in this document, since they form the basis of much of their warped view and extreme methodology as we will go on to see inshallah.

Abu Hakeem

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in part 1, Anjem and his group have produced a document entitled ‘Islamic Prevent’ He mentions the main title, then follows it with an explanatory subtitle that states ‘Preventing Secular Fundamentalism and the Occupation of Muslim Land’ it is clear then that the document represents the blueprint for his organisations approach, ideology and methodology.

It is presented with an introductory passage which is followed by an 18 point ‘Action Plan’ for every Muslim living in the U.K. It is then sealed with a conclusion and a reference to his (now inactive) website. In the introductory passage he states: “The pamphlet you are reading is intended to open the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims to the responsibility of Muslims living in the UK..” Thus the intent is to ‘open the eyes’ of Muslims living in the U.K to their responsibility and (he states) to highlight the dangers of this UK government led campaign against them (I.e the ‘Prevent’ agenda). In this discussion I will not quote the whole document but address some if its issues hoping this will shed light upon Anjem and his group.

    Point 1: THE ONLY IDENTITY FOR MUSLIMS IS ISLAM

Under this point he states: “A Muslim cannot have any other identity than that of Al-Islam. He is a Muslim first and last. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) taught us that (he then mentions the following in bold to give the impression that it is a hadeeth of the Messenger -Sallallahu Alahi Was Salam) the Muslims are one community among the whole of mankind, their land is one, their war is one, their peace is one, their honour is one and any one of them can represent them all.” So the question then to Anjem is where are these ‘Teachings’ of the messenger – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam recorded? Is this statement recorded in one of the well known collections of hadeeth? If so which one? Where are they in the Sunan, or the Masaaneed or the musanafaat or the Jawaami’ Or are these a collection of ‘teachings’ taken from individual Ahaadeeth? If that is the intent, then in which narration did the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi was salam teach that their land is one? In which hadeeth did he teach that anyone of them may represent them all!? or is this just your way of trying to make your own statements pass as the statement of the Messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam?

He further states: “..A Muslim cannot have any bond with other Muslims other than that of Al-Islam.

No doubt Allah has mentioned in the Qur‟an:

Cling to the rope of Allah together and do not be divided…” (Surah Aali Imraan Vs 103)

This verse no doubt commands us with unity to the best of our ability in accordance with that which is upright, correct and most apt depending upon our situation.

There is no proponent of any belief, except that he would love that the followers of his faith are united in every affair from their affairs, their reality though is very different.
While the ideal is that they strive for unity as much as possible, it has been decreed that this is something that will never occur.

Allah the most high says:

And they will never cease to disagree except him on whom your lord has bestowed his mercy…”
(Suratul Hud Vs118-119)

This then, is a decreed reality we must try and comprehend

And the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:

The Jews split into seventy one sects, seventy in the hell fire, one in paradise, the Christians split into seventy two sects, seventy one in the fire one in paradise and this nation will split into seventy three sects seventy two in the hell fire one in paradise. So the companions asked who is that one oh Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) ? So he responded “The one who is upon what I and my companions are upon today

(Just as correct guidance at the period after Moses was in following him and correctness after Jesus was in following him. Muslim belief is that the those groups that have veered away from the path of the prophet, if they are not forgiven prior to punishment, then they will be purified for their transgressions and deviations and then will ultimately enter paradise)

Thus the reality is that this absolute unity will not occur, but the Muslims have been commanded to make the best of all situations and strive to unify their ranks as best as possible.

In more than one narration the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) has commanded with this:

He said in the hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira:

Strive to do that which is right, come as close as possible to correctness and give glad tidings if you do so..” (Saheeh bukhaari)

As far as Choudhurys statement: “their land is one…”

Then this has never been the case even at the time of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him). Though the Islamic empire had one ruler, the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him), it has always been comprised of well-known countries, having known borders and having established boundaries. The Caliphs of Muhammad after his death established governors over those regions who governed in accordance with Islamic law, much like the well-known British empire of our time. Why did the caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) not abolish these known countries with their boundaries and make one united colony without borders and names?. Shaam (a region comprising of present day Syria, Jordan and Palestine) remained sham, the Yemen remained the Yemen, Hijaaz remained Hijaaz and the Najd remained the Najd.

In addition to retaining these names the caliphs of Muhammad also appointed governors for those regions

In order to attempt to establish this concept of a borderless Muslim empire, Choudhury fabricates a prophetic narration, the correct version of which is actually a refutation of him.

He mentions: “The division of Muslim land or placing of borders is also condemned, the Prophet said: “Whoever puts a border to land has been cursed

Nowhere in the well-known collections of prophetic traditions do we find this statement attributed to the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) with an authentic chain of transmission.

What we do find though, is the authentic narration:

Cursed indeed is he who changes the borders of the land
The narration was collected in the mustadrak of Haakim 4/366, and likewise Sunanul Kubraa of Baihaqi 8/231 with an authentic chain of transmission

The classical commenters of hadeeth have mentioned that the hadeeth refers to an individual who owns land bordering the land of another, who then secretly changes the boundaries of his land in order to usurp land from his neighbour.

Thus the narration is in actuality a refutation of his claim, that division of Muslim land is condemned.

Here we see the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) condemning someone who tries to claim land that isn’t theirs, so what of Choudhurys claim that Muslims lands are one or that whoever puts a border to land is cursed??

As far as the hadeeth that he quotes from the well-known hadeeth compilation Sunan Abi Daawood concerning Asabiyah (Nationalism, tribalism):

He is not one of us he who calls for`Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for`Asabiyyah.”
Then it is a weak narration. It is weak due to there being a break in its chain between the companion of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) who narrated it, namely Jubair ibn Mut‟im (Radhiyallahu „anhu) and the narrator in the chain of transmission who took it from the companion, a narrator known as Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan.

The compiler of this collection Imaam Abu Dawood himself said about the hadeeth:

قال أبو داود : هذا مُرْسَلٌ ، عَبْد اللهِ بن أَبي سُلَيْمَان لم يَسْمع من جُبَيْر

This is Mursal (meaning that the chain of transmission is broken) Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan didn’t hear from JubairYes, there is a version of the Hadeeth that is authentic but it is a version that carries a slightly different meaning, the wording of which is:

Whosoever fights under a banner of bigotry, he becomes angry due to tribalism, he supports and aids it and calls to it and then he is killed (i.e. in that path) then his death is like the death of the pre-Islamic era (Jahilliyah)”

Clearly the authentic version of the narration differs in meaning and is less general than the version used by Choudhury, since it refers to one who engages in battle for that cause and dies. No doubt tribalism, racism etc is still considered a sin and unrighteous but the point here is that this text doesn‟t support the claim that the Muslim can have no bond with another Muslim other than Islaam. Neither does it support that which Anjem alludes to.

The prophet named the Muslims who migrated with him from Makka to Madina as Muhaajiroon and those who welcomed him to Madina from its Muslim inhabitants Ansaar (as Allah does in the Qur’aan). Similarly attributing oneself to ones tribe was not abolished.

The companions continued to attribute themselves to their tribes which were for the most part pagan tribes, until the conquest of Makka which was close to the death of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him).

For example we had the well-known four caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) all well known by their attributions to their tribes:

Abu Bakr As Sideeq (whose full name was Abdullah ibn abi Quhaafah At Taymee) attributed to the taymee tribe

Umar ibn Al Khataab Al Adawi (attributed to the Adawi tribe)

Uthmaan ibn „Affaan Al Amawi (attributed to the Amawi tribe)

Ali Ibn Abi Taalib Al Haashimi (attributed to the Haashimi tribe)

Abu Dharr Al Ghifaari (An attribution to the Ghifaari tribe)

Abu Huraira, also known as Abdur Rahmaan ibn sakhr Ad-Dausi (an attribution to the Dausi tribe)

And the list is endless,

From them were those who were attributed to their countries of origin for example,

Suhaib Ar Roomi (i.e. Suhaib the Roman)

Salmaan Al Faarisi (Salmaan the Persian)

Abu Raafi Al Qibti (Abu Raafi the Coptic)

Thus the attribution of a people to a tribe or place is not dispraised In Islaam, unless it leads to, or causes some form of discrimination.

Allah the most high states:
Oh Mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, an made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honourable of you with Allah is he who has most Taqwa (piety) Verily Allah is All-knowing All Aware” (Suratul Hujaraat Vs 13)

He then states towards the end of point one:

“..This will mean that nationalistic flags, clothes, emblems, anthems etc… or to support regional or national football teams are completely prohibited, let alone to join the non-Muslim armies and to protect or defend land for the sake of nationalism.

Anyone aquainted with the rhetoric of these people will know that what Anjem is attempting to do here is make you join their ‘Rally against the Rulers” Since (according to them) they put borders to your lands, they dont support and defend you when you are attacked, they prevent you from representing the Ummaah (regardless of whether you are an illiterate bedouin or an uneducated immature adolecent with a violent background) since any one of us can do so. They (the rulers) also call Non-Muslim Troops to a nationalistic war and will have you saluting the National anthem. Thus we have this Rabble-Rousing begining from this very first point…Allahul Musta’aan

Will Abu Usaama and followers not reflect upon these words of Shaikh Rabee’?

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

One of our noble brothers recently posted this introduction to the book ‘Fasaad Bayaanil Mi’yaar’ of the Waalid, our Shaikh and teacher, Rabee’ Ibnu Haadi Al Madkhalee – Hafidhahullah. It discusses quite aptly, some of the false and deceptive methods employed by the likes of Abu Usaama Adhahabee and those who share his orientation, whose war isn’t, in actuality against ‘Salafi publications’ per se, but rather the Salafi methodology upheld by the scholars of this manhaj in our time. Since ‘Salafi Publications’ is a vehicle disseminating that methodology in the English language, it feels the brunt of their attacks, their ‘true’ goal though, be clear, is other than Salafi Publications.

Thus I mention his words here for reflection, but is there any that will take admonition?

Shaikh Rabee Bin Haadee Al-Madkhalee (may Allaah preserve him) stated:

Indeed, from the severest of afflictions and trials upon Islaam and the Muslims in this era, is the appearance of a group claiming to be upon the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jamaa-ah, but unfortunately this group does not act except in opposition to this methodology and its people, openly at times and behind veils at other times.

And indeed this group has placed a heavy burden upon its (own) shoulders, and that is its defence of the people of innovation and misguidance. They author books in this regard and decorate articles due to it, and they spread their defence around the world under the banner of ‘justice and equity’ or (under) the methodology of Al Muwaazanaat (a methodology that revolves around the belief that justice is in mentioning the good characteristics of the one being refuted alongside the refutation, which is a methodology in opposition to the true methodology of Ahlus Sunnah).

They exceed the limits in the affair of Fiqul Waaqi (knowledge of current affairs) and speak ill of the scholars of the Salafi Methodology as a result of that; In fact they belittle and discredit the methodology of the scholars due to this, and (further) increase in ill speech against the Salafi Methodology and its people. Yet one sees no effect of their methodology of ‘justice and equity’ when they debate the people of the Salafi methodology!. Nor (is it seen) in their praises and exaltations for the people of innovation (i.e they are not just or balanced in that regard).

Additionally, although one sees them concealing themselves under the banner of the  ‘Salafi Methodology’, you will not see them giving it any importance, except with respect to what they utilize to deceive those who are deceived by them and their (false) garment, in order that they may bring them over to their corrupt partisanship organization, and so as to kill off their love for the (true) Salafi Methodology, the call to it, defence of it, traversing on it upon the methodology of the pious predecessors with the (correct) love and hate (for the sake of Allaah), and warning against the people of innovation.

So they divert a generation of individuals from the true methodology and having true allegiance to it; and they (direct them) towards a ‘heated’ allegiance to the people of innovation and defence of them and their innovations and falsehoods. Or they trivialise the affair of their innovations to the extent that it leads them to the station of the extreme murji-a (i.e those who held that sinful actions have no effect upon Imaan) with regards to how they view the major innovations and these great oppositions to the true religion of Allaah.

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the spectrum, their hatred for the carriers of the Sunnah and the (true) Salafi Methodology has led them to blow their minor errors out of proportion, errors the likes of which a Sunni or (even) an innovator amongst those who ascribe themselves to Islaam should not be criticised for. They present these mistakes as mighty affairs of blunder and destruction; in fact they (go as far as to) make the virtues and merits of Ahlus Sunnah (i.e such as their praiseworthy position regarding the people of innovation) to be repugnant and disdainful. Not to mention the many fabrications they accuse them (the people of sunnah) of.

So they are, due to these lowly, despicable acts perpetrated by them, from the worst and most severe of the people waging war against the Salafi Methodology and its people, the severest in preventing and blocking people from them both (i.e the salafi methodology and its people); and the most intense in their defence of the groups of innovation and fitan, their claimants and their methodologies. And they have authorships in this regard, and from them are the many authorships of Shaikh Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul Khaaliq who carries the responsibility for this destructive orientation…”

And we ask Allah the most high to cause the ‘Just Aaqil’ (person of intelligence) to reflect upon this!

Wallahu a’lam

Abu Hakeem

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

From the rulings of Fasting – 1

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d

The following are some basic rulings related to fasting.

The Pillars of Fasting

1. The Niyyah

From the issues related to all acts of worship, that which if it is absent then the act of worship is null and void, the Niyyah (intention)

Fasting like all other acts of worship must have the Niyyah of the worshipper to perform the action for the sake of Allah. As is the case with all other acts of worship the place of the niyaah is the heart, in no act of worship is the niyyah uttered.

Allah the most high mentions (the meaning of which):

Say: Do you inform Allah concerning your religion? While Allah knows all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is All-aware of everything

(Suratul Hujuraat Vs 16)

The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam also said:

Whosoever does not have the intention (to fast) before fajr, then he has no fast

(Collected by Abu Dawood upon the authority of Hafsah – Radiyallahu ‘Anhaa) 7/122 and it is declared ‘Saheeh’ by shaikh Al Albaani in Saheehul Jaami’ (6538)

One should have the niyyah to fast the whole of ramadhaan and not just certain days.

2. That one avoids the Muftiraat (things that break ones fast) from the beginning of the true fajr until sunset.

Allah the most high Mentions (the meaning of which):

“..And eat and drink until the white thread (of dawn) appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night).Then complete your fast until nightfall..”

(Suratul Baqarah Vs 187)

By ‘true fajr’ I mean the beginings of the light of dawn that spreads across the horizon and not the false fajr which is light that stretches up into the sky

The Muftiraat (Things that break the fast)

There are six main things that break ones fast:

1 and 2. Eating and drinking

Except that a person does so out of forgetfulness in which case there is no expiation upon him.

The Messenger – Sallallahu ‘alaihi Was Salam Said:

Whoever forgets while he is fasting and eats or drinks then let him complete his fast for indeed it was Allah who fed him or gave him drink

(Collected by Muslim 1155)

It is permissable though to complete ones suhoor meal, even if completing it takes one past the time of fajr, on the basis of the statement of the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam:

If one of you hears the call (to prayer) and the vessel is in his hand, then he should not put it down until he has taken his need from it

(Collected by Abu Dawood and authenticated by Sh Al Albaani in ‘Saheeh Abi Dawood 2/447)

3. Intentional vomitting

Though if he is overcome by vommiting there is nothing upon him

The Messenger _ Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam said:

Whosoever is overcome by vomitting then there is no need to make the fast up, and he who makes himself vomit intentionally must make it up

(Collected by Tirmidhi 716 and declared ‘Saheeh’ By Shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Saheehul Jaami’)

4 and 5. Menses and Post-Natal bleeding

6. Sexual Relations (specifically intercourse)

The expiation of which is a heavy expiation and that is two months consecutive fasting

Upon the authority of Abu Hurairah Indeed we were sitting with the Prophet when a man came to him and said: “Oh Messenger of Allah I am destroyed! He said “What is wrong with you?” He responded: “I have had relations with my wife while fasting! So the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu alaihi was Salam said to him: “Are you able to free a slave?” He said: “No” He said: “Are you able to fast for two consecutive months?” he said: ” No” he said “Then are you able to feed sixty poor people?” he said “No” then while we were there someone came and gave a weight of dates to the messenger – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam so he said: “Where is the questioner?” So he said: “Here I am” He said take these and give them in charity” He said: “Should it be upon a family that is poorer than mine Oh Messenger of Allah? For there is not between the two areas of volcanic rock (referring to the two boundaries of Madinah) a household that is poorer than mine!” At which point the Messenger laughed until his incisors could be seen then he said: “Feed your family with it

(Agreed Upon)

In one version collected by Abu Dawood (2376 and declared ‘Saheeh’ By Shk Albaani in ‘Saheeh Abi Daawood (2096)) It mentions that the weight of dates was fifteen Saa’ and the Messenger mentioned “You and your family may consume it and fast a day and seek forgiveness from Allah

It should be known that what is commonly practiced by many, known as the fifteen minute precaution, where they consider the end of suhoor time fifteen minutes before its true end, the suhoor meal is consequently ended fifteen or so minutes before fajr, and at which point fasting ultimately begins for them, is an innovation.

Al Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions: (after discussing the narration of ‘Amr ibn Maymoon collected by Abdur Razaaq As San’aani in his Musanaf ‘The companions of the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam were the quickest of the people to break the fast and the slowest in taking their Suhoor meal’)

From the evil innovations, is that which has been brought about in this time, from the second adhan of fajr being called some twenty minutes before fajr during ramadhaan, and putting the lanterns out as a sign that eating and drinking is not permissable for those who wish to fast. Claiming that this is for the purpose of taking precaution with this act of worship. This practice has lead them to delay calling the adhaan of maghrib by good a measure to ‘ensure the time has entered’. Thus they have delayed breaking the fast and finished the dawn meal before its time, and in doing so, have opposed the sunnah. For this reason we see little good coming from them and much evil among them. Wallahul Musta’aan

(Fathul Baari 4/199)

Wallahu a’lam

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

Ahaadeeth that are popular, widespread and weak (Part 3)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

In continuing with this series concerning popular weak ahaadeeth:

16. Upon the authority of Ibn Umar who made wudhu and wiped his neck then said (attributing his statement to the messenger – Sallallahu alaihi Wa Sallam

Whoever makes wudhu and wipes his neck will not be bound with collars on the day of judgement

Ruling: Fabricated – Collected by Abu Nu’aym in akhbaar Asbahaan 2/115 and declared ‘Fabricated by Shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah 2/167 Number 744

17.Wiping the eyes with ones index fingers when hearing ‘Ash hadu an Laa ilaaha ilallah…and the that one who does so will have the right to the intercession of the messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Sallam

Ruling: Not Authentic

(Collected by Ad Dailami In ‘Musnadul Firdous upon the authority of ibn Umar and it is declared: ‘Not Authentic by shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Ad Dha’eefah’ 72)

18. “Salaah in a turban is equivalent to 10,000 good deeds

Ruling: Fabricated

(it was mentioned by As Suyooti in ‘Dhail Al Ahaadeeth Al Maudoo’ah’ (111) and declared ‘Fabricated’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Ad Dha’eefah 129)

19. “Be plentiful in saying ‘Laa ilaaha illallah’ during funerals

Ruling: Da’eef  (weak)

(Collected by Ad Dailami (1/1/32) upon the authority of Ibn Umar and declared ‘Dha’eef’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in Adh’Dha’eefah 2881)

20. “Whoever visits the grave of his parents or one of them every friday will have his sins forgiven and will be written as one who was dutiful to his parents

Ruling: Fabricated

(Collected by At Tabaraani in ‘As Sagheer’ (199) upon the authority of Abu Hurairah and declared ‘Fabricated’ By Shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah (49)

21. “Be plentiful in the rememberance of Allah until it is said about you ‘Majnoon! (Deranged!)

Ruling: Dha’eef

(Collected by Haakim 1/499) and declared ‘Dha’eef’ By shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah 517)

22. “Whenever he – Sallallahu alaihi Was Sallam – would cut his hair, trim his nails or blood cup he would have it sent to the baqee’ (graveyard in Madina) and have it buried

Ruling: Baatil (False)

(Mentioned by Ibn Abi Haatim (2/337) and declared ‘False’ by shaikh Al Albaani in Ad dha’eefah 713)

23. “He – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Sallam – used to eat with the whole of his palm

Ruling: Munkar (Conflicting). (‘Munkar’ is hadeeth terminology for a hadeeth that opposes an authentic hadeeth and has in its chain of transmission, a weak narrator)

(Collected by Al Uqaili in Ad Dhu’afaah 4/90 and declared ‘Munkar By Shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah (6225) he also mentioned it in number 1202 and declared it ‘Fabricated’)

24. “The Messenger of Allah did not used to raise his hands until he finished from Salaah (i.e. other than the initial Takbeer)

Ruling: Dha’eef (Weak)

(Collected by At Tabaraani in ‘Mu’jamul Kabeer 3/211/1 who mentions his chain going back to Abdullah ibn Zubair who saw a man raising his hands in Salaah before finishing his Salaah, then when he finished praying he said “The Messenger of Allah did not used to…” Shaikh AlAlbaani declared it weak in Ad Dha’eefah 2544 due to the presence of Fudhail Ibn Sulaimaan An Numairi who the majority of he Imaams of hadeeth declare a weak narrator)

25. The Messenger raised his hands after giving salaam (from Salaah) and while (still) facing the qibla and made dua that Allah frees Waleed Ibnil Waleed, ‘Iyaash ibn abi Rabee’ah, Salamah Ibn Hishaam and the (other) weak defenseless muslims from the Mushrikeen. Those who are unable to devise a plot or direct their way, from the hands of the mushrikeen

Ruling: Munkar

(Collected by Bazaar (3172) Shaikh Al Albaani after mentioning the hadeeth in ‘Ad Dha’eefah and discusses the presence of the weak narrator Ali Ibn Zaid ibn Jud’aan in its chain then he mentions:

The conclusive statement then is that nothing is established upon the messenger – Sallallahu Alahi was sallam – regarding him raising his hands after Salaah. As far as the affair of the Imaam making Du’a and those behind him saying ameen! after the prayer as is customary practice today in many Islamic countries then it is a bid’ah (innovation ) having no origin..” (See ‘Ad Dha’eefah 6/57-60)

Wallahu a’lam

Was Sallallahu ‘alaa Nabiyinaa Muhammad

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

Is it from the manhaj of the Salaf to gather the mistakes of a person? – Shaikh Rabee’ – Hafidhahullah

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was salaamu ‘alaa rasoolillahi

Ammaa ba’d:

Question:

Is it from the manhaj of the salaf to gather the mistakes of an individual and then make them apparent in an authorship for people to read?

Answer:

Subhaanallah! This is a statement made by the people of innovation for the purpose of protecting their bid’ah, protecting their books, protecting their methodology and protecting the people they venerate.

Yes! Allah and his messenger have mentioned much of their (affairs) of misguidance, and have gathered the statements of the Jews and the Christians and have critisised them in many Qur’anic verses.

Similarly Ahlus Sunnah, from the dawn of their history to this day have spoken about Jahm ibn Safwaan and Bishr Al Mirreesi and have enumerated their innovations and misguidance. They have (likewise) gathered the statements of the people of the (deviant) sects and have critisised them, so who has made this haram?

This is from the compulsory affairs if the people may be misguided by his many innovations and you were to gather them in one place and warned against them and named him, then may Allah reward you with good!

You, in doing so, would have carried out a great good for Islaam and the Muslims

Taken from: Ajwibatu Fadheelatish Shaikh rabee’ Ibni Haadi Al Madkhali As Salafiyah ‘alaa as’ilati Abi Rawaaha Al Manhajiyah (The salafi responses of The noble shaikh Rabee’ Ibn Haadi Al Madkhali to the manhaji questions of Abi Rawaaha As Salafi)

%d bloggers like this: