Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi
The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold) that: Continue reading
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi
The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold) that: Continue reading
Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasooliillahi
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!’
Shaykh Aboo ‘Umar Usaamah al-‘Utaybee on the Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”
[Q]: O Shaykh Usaamah, perhaps you have heard about the statements of an individual named Muhammad Ibn Muneer, he has made some statements. And we would like your comments on his statements O Shaykh, if you would be so kind.
[A]: What are his important statements that he says?
[Q]: He differentiates between ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel O Shaykh. So he says for example yaa Shaykh, ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) is one thing and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is something else. Meaning, whosoever mixes between the two falls into problems and fumbles about…
[A]: Fine, we will begin with the first affair, may Allaah bless you. Then we will move on to the second affair. do not know this individual, but I will speak about these things that you are mentioning from the one who said them. So this statement, it is the differentiation between ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel as a complete differentiation, this indicates the ignorance of the one who spoke of it. And when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic mentioned Fir’awn with kufr (disbelief) and that he claimed Uloohiyyah (divinity) and he claimed Ruboobiyyah (Lordship) for himself, and He mentioned his disbelief in Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and his striving in that, in the aayah of Allaah,
“And they belied those aayaat wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof. So see what was the end of the mufsidoon (evil-doers).” [Sooratun-Naml 27:14]
Then is this not a Jarh upon Fir’awn? And is it not also from the radd (refutation) upon Fir’awn? The refutation upon his belief comprises al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel. So al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is an aspect of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and it is an aspect of refuting the statements of the opponent (ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif). So when he speaks about and claims that there is a difference between that and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, then this indicates his ignorance and his misguidance. because al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is a part of and cannot be separated from ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent). Yes, it is true that refuting the opponents and those who have erred does not necessitate at-tajreeh (disparagement). For example, when a Scholar of the Sunnah slips up and errs, then he is refuted with knowledge, but he is not disparaged (jarraha) due to that, especially when he is known for being upon the truth and striving to attain the truth, except that he has slipped up and erred in an issue. So this involves the occurrence of an error amongst the righteous and the trutfhul and refuting their error. This is to be mentioned and refuted.
However, when the opponent who is being refuted is an innovator or a disbeliever, then the refutation upon him is not excluded from al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, not from the Jarh upon this disbeliever, nor from the Jarh upon this innovator. This is because you are refuting his corrupt principles, which necessitate Jarh of him and expelling him from the Sunnah if he falsely and slanderously ascribes himself to it. If the opponent reaches the level of a disbeliever or an innovator or a faasiq who is criminal in his belief and his statement, there is no doubt that the refutation upon him includes tajreeh (disparagement) of him, because these errors that he has committed obligate that he be refuted.
As for when what is intended by mukhaalif (opponent) is an opponent in an issue of ijtihaad (independent reasoning), or when the opponent is someone from Ahlus-Sunnah who slips up and errs but he is generally upon the truth, then this does not necessitate tajreeh (disparagement) of him. Rather, his error is refuted. So this is the detailed explanation of the issue. The one who says that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has no connection to ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif or that there is a complete differentiation between the two of them, then such an individual is an ignorant liar. And Allaah knows best.
[Q]: May Allaah reward you with goodness yaa Shaykh! He also says, “Obedience to the rulers and the Scholars is not unconditional. Rather, it is restricted. If an individual says something that you do not agree with, then it is not permissible for someone to tell you, ‘It is obligatory upon you to accept his statement because he is a Shaykh, or because he is Shaykh so and so, or that Shaykh so and so said.’ This is not what the aayah said.” And, Shaykh Usamaah, he intends by this to reject what Shaykh Rabee’ said about Taahir Wyatt because made this statement during his defence of Taahir Wyatt.
[A]: Yes. This philosophy, with which some of the people philosophize, it is rejected from its proponents, because obedience to the Scholars and the rulers and obedience to the parents is obedience in that which is good. It is only obedience when they command with good. As for obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then it is an unrestricted obedience. And whoeover is obeyed outside of Allaah and His Messenger, then he is obeyed as part of obedience to Allaah and His Messenger. This is well known and understood from the aayah. No one says that the rulers must be obeyed in everything, even in disobedience to Allaah and no one says that it is obligatory to obey the Scholars when they err and slip up. No one says such a thing. However, the speech that is said to cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and which implies that the youth can make ijtihaad in affairs where they have no knowledge and that they can oppose the Scholars and say that it is not binding upon us to obey the Scholars; this is from ignorance.
So for example, when the ruler, or the father, or the husband when he orders his wife in a permissible affair, or an affair that the people consider from goodness, is it obligatory for him to be obeyed at that point? The commander, regardless of whether he is the husband with his wife, or the ruler with his constituents, or some the people with the Scholar, then it is necessary that these individuals be obeyed, whether it is the ruler or the husband or the likes of that, regardless of whether it is in the affairs of the worldly life, even if he does desire this worldly affair. So the person does not reply, ‘But my opinion is such and such,’ no! If the affair is permissible (mubaah), then it is obligatory to obey the ruler and the wife must obey her husband and the son must obey his mother an,d his father.
As for the Scholars, then the obedience that is due to them is an obedience in the Religion. Meaning, they clarify to the people what is halaal and what is haraam and they explain the ahkaam (religious rules and regulations) to the people and they clarify to them the rulings upon men, the rulings of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel. The Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets and it is necessary that they Scholars be revered and respected. Allaah the Sublime and Exalted says,
“So ask the people of the reminder (knowledge) if you do not know.”
So questioning them obligates and makes it binding to follow what they answer from the truth and the guidance. So if you have asked a Scholar about a man and the Scholar makes Jarh (disparagement) of him and warns you against him, it is binding upon you to listen to the speech of the Scholar, except if it becomes clear the Scholar has erred and opposed the truth, or if another Scholar has opposed him with proof, then the ruling is made with proof amongst the Scholars. However, if the affair is from a specialized field of knowledge that a Scholar knows and he has a specific study in al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, especially the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel in modern times, Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee, then his speech concerning the men is like pure honey. It is speech based upon sound proofs, clarification and evidence. So when he speaks with speech, it is obligatory upon the youth to listen to him and to obey him. This due to the command of Allaah the Sublime and Exalted to them in His statement,
“O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.”
So if Shaykh Rabee’ has clarified that affair, and he, may Allaah reward him with goodness, does not speak, except with knowledge and proof, then obedience to him is obligatory. And the one who says that obedience is not obligatory must clarify: why is it not obligatory? Why is he causing doubt in the rulings of Shaykh Rabee’? These people are diseased yaa Shaykh. These are people of disease and people of innovation and people of desire.
They cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and they make themselves equals to the Scholars. Meaning, they consider themselves as one of them has stated, ‘We are men and they are men.’ The truthful student of knowledge does not say such speech, it is only said by people who are unsteady and fickle and people of corruption. These people want to separate the youth from the Scholars and they want the youth to be attached to them. Meaning, the likes of this ignorant youth wants the people for himself, instead of connecting them to Shaykh Rabee’. And he may deceive the people with the affair of Shaykh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbaad, that he opposed Shaykh Rabee’ in such and such an issue… Where is the Salafee manhaj with these individuals? The Salafee manhaj says to follow the proof and follow the Scholar who is most knowledgeable if you do not have the proof or you do not know it. The Scholar with the most knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel and the knowledge of men in these times by agreement of the Scholars is Shaykh Rabee’. He is the one who is specialized in this and the Imaams of Ahlul-Hadeeth have testified to this, such as Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibnul-‘Uthaymeen.
Due to this, those who say that the obedience to the Scholars is not unconditional, and they desire by this to reject the rulings of the Scholars, they are bring about fitnah (trial, tribulation). However, they say that as long as obedience to them is in goodness and it is in obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then there is no problem in that. Indeed, this is truthful speech, but the intent should not be to nullify the speech of the Scholars. Rather, it is obligatory upon the youth to be with their Scholars and to stick to them, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “The blessing is with your elders.” Yes.
[Q]: Lastly, our Shaykh, he translated a lecture for the noble Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee – hafidhahullaah – when he commented upon three passages from Kitaabur-Rooh about the difference between naseehah (sincere advice) and gheebah (backbiting). So I reminded this individual, yaa Shaykh, about what he translated for the noble Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Haadee. So he replied on Youtube saying, “Since when is it a condition that the translator must agree with everything that the lecturer says? If I translate a book or a lecture, is it a condition that I take every letter said therein as my Religion in front of Allaah? If it is a condition that the translator must accept everything the lecturer is saying, then bring the proof if you please. And even if I did agree with everything that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee said (in that lecture) is this then to be applied in all situations? Undoubtedly there is a difference between naseehah and gheebah, there is no doubt. The Scholars have insight, however, the application! Is this speech to be applied in all situations? Respond please.” This is how he said it yaa Shaykh, so what are your comments upon this speech of his?
[A]: This speech, which is his statement that it is not binding upon the translator to agree with the speech of the one for whom he is translating, then one of two affairs could be intended by this. If he intends that he is not required to translate in a trustworthy manner and with truthfulness what the Scholar is saying, then such and individual is treacherous and he has made treachery permissible. This is a treacherous person who has made treachery permissible, because he is a translator and the translator only clarifies the speech of the one whose speech is being translated. So if his duty is merely to translate, then it is obligatory that it be trustworthy. And if this speech contains that which is false, according to his thought, then he must translate the speech of the Shaykh and then he comments upon it if he is capable of that. If we assume that there is a problem or an opposition in this speech, then he must clarify it in a translator’s note. As for translating falsehood and concealing the speech of a Scholar, then this action of his is like the action of Banee Israa`eel from the Jews who concealed parts of the Torah and were treacherous. So this treachery is not from the nature and the character of the Muslims. And the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Plotting and deception is in the Fire.” And the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “And do not deceive the one who deceives you.” And Allaah the Glorified and Exalted said,
“And do not be a pleader for the treacherous.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:105]
And Allaah the Exalted said,
“And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:107]
So deception is a matter that is ignonimous. So it is not permissible to be deceptive in translation. Rather, it is obligatory to be truthful in it, especially when he is translating the speech of a Salafee Scholar who is well known for the Sunnah such as the Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee. So playing around and being deceptive in translating his speech is not from the attributes of Ahlus-Sunnah. Rather, it is from the attributes of the people of desires.
And as for if the translator intended that it is not obligatory for him to be in agreement with what he is translating, then this is correct. Meaning, his opinion could be in opposition to the speech that he is translating. For example, he may translate a book of fiqh in which differing has occurred (between the Scholars). So the Scholar will determine the soundest position from these issues and this student of knowledge may follow another Scholar, or he may follow a statement that opposes this Scholar. There is no problem with this as long as it is done with proofs and evidence, and as long as this person is qualified to make this disagreement. There is no problem in this. Meaning, the translator is not required to agree with all of the speech that he translates, as long as he is trustworthy in conveying the information. Then after he has conveyed the information as it is, he can say, `This speech has been opposed by such and such a Scholar and I say such and such,’ with proof and evidence.
However, who is this individual who deceives the people by translating for Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee, then he says, ‘I oppose him and I do not agree with him.’ Who are you to say such speech? Is this from manners with the Scholars? And who has burdened you with translating this lecture if you do not agree? If you do not agree, then do not translate. Or at the very least, be trustworthy in conveying the information, and then mention what opposes this speech with proof and evidence. So the authority is with the proof. And it was the manhaj of the Salaf to take the proof. However, do not make these issues a means for reviling the Scholars and causing doubts in their rulings and playing around with the likes of these affairs. And it is not permissible for the Muslim to be treacherous. Yes.
[Q]: May Allaah reward you with good. We shall suffice with this, yaa Shaykhanaa. May Allaah reward you with good.
[A]: The important thing is to be cautious of these people of desires who are people of fitan (trials, tribulations) and people of unrest and those who do not stick to the objective of the Scholars and those who stir up these fitan. So Shaykh Rabee’ – hafidhahullaah – is familiar with what is going on in Masjid Rahmah and other than it from the mosques in America and he has given them an appropriate advice. And it is obligatory upon the youth to be cautious and to warn against those who are stirring up these fitan and to remain far away from them. These individuals are a disease like scabies, which is contagious and spreading amongst the people. And it cannot be passed on, except in accordance with the command of Allaah. However, these individuals are a people of fitnah, so be cautious of them and remain far away from them and warn the youth against them. And Allaah the Exalted knows best.
Here is the audio: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/audio/utaybimufti.mp3
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi
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”
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)
Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi
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”
(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”
(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!)‘
(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
(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)
Was Sallallahu ‘alaa Nabiyinaa Muhammad