Questions 44

Follow @AhleDhikr

Questions asked to Shaykh Sa’d ibn Naasir ibn Abdul-Azeez ash-Shithree [May Allaah Preserve him] in his Masjid after Salaat al-‘Asr
25/4/1434 – 8/3/2013

Question:  What is the ruling on electronic cigarettes?

Shaykh Sa’d: I was on a plane once and they said no smoking, including electronic cigarettes, I was wondering how is that possible?

Questioner : It is a cigarette that has water and nicotine and batteries and doesn’t have other chemicals. The questioner is asking that some doctors and researchers have said it is less harmful, so it is permissible to use and sell?

Answer: it is not permissible, because it is still doing something haram. Nicotine into the body is Haram as it is harmful.

Questioner: But if he says it is less harm and your helping people give up smoking?

Answer: Using that principle we can then say cigarettes are permissible for those who want to quit smoking weed!? It’s not permissible.

Question: Is there a difference between Batil and Faasid in all acts of worship. Meaning, the Hanafees pray without tranquillity, is this a matter where the scholars differed or do we say this is Faasid or Batil or just Baatil?

Answer: The Hanafees say that there is difference between Batil and Faasid. Meaning, if the act of worship has an origin in the Shar’eeah but the one who does it, does it in a wrong way, but it is still possible to make is better and correct it or they worship but they worship it in the in the wrong way, then the act of worship is Faasid and not Baatil. However the majority say that if the act of worship is done incorrectly then it would be Baatil. For example, fasting on ‘Eid. The Hanafees say this fast is correct but it is Faasid but the majority say it is Baatil. So they say about Salaah that the proofs used to prove that tranquillity is a pillar of your Salaaf are from narrations that are Ahaad, being extra to what has been  narrated via Mutawaatir sources which don’t mention tranquillity as a pillar, thus they reject it and they calls this principle Ziyaada ‘ala an-Nus. However, the majority say that the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] said, “Go back because you haven’t prayed” [al-Bukhaaree (793); Saheeh Muslim (397)] to the one who prayed without tranquillity, so the Salaah is Batil and the Hadeeth is accepted and acted upon.

Questioner: But what if we say this is a matter of Ijtihad and it is Faasid to them but Baatil to us? Therefore we can’t rule their Salaah to be invalid?

Answer: We can’t do this, we can only act upon the text and Ijithad is not considered because of the presence of the text. So if the text clearly says that the Salaah wasn’t acceptable, we give the same Hukm on anyone prays like this.

Question: What is the ruling on toilets today, is the whole thing considered a toilet or do we say that the bathrooms that have sections for washing, sections for Wudhoo, sections for reliving yourself all have different rulings. I ask this because the scholars have differed, I’ve heard that Shaykh al-Albaanee [May Allaah have Mercy on him] was of the view that the ruling changes from one part to the other but Shaykh Saaleh al-Fawzaan [May Allaah Preserve him] said says no and all of it have the same ruling (i.e. of being inside the toilet), so there is a difference in their Ijtihaad?

Answer: I think that the whole area is considered as a toilet and one should apply the rulings that apply to the toilet to the whole bathroom. Tasmiyyah (i.e. saying Bismillah at the start of Wudhoo) and replying to Salaam should be done quietly, but one should not initiate the Salaam but if one needs to respond then he should do so quietly.

Questioner: How about normal speech, oh Shaykh?

Answer: Normal speech is Makrooh when doing toilet but not afterwards, so this should be permissible in this place but mentioning Allaah’s name should not be done in this place. Let’s ask, if one was to read Quraan or bring a book of Hadeeth and read it in these places, would we say it is acceptable?

Questioner: No.

Shaykh Sa’d: No, why? Because it is not an appropriate place. Likewise Salaam and Dua’a and Tasmiyyah should not be given in these places.

Question: The Hadeeth that states that Shaytaan flees from a house in which Surah al-Baqarah is recited [Saheeh Muslim (780)], some said parts of the Surah is acceptable but what is their evidence, because the Hadeeth appears to be general?

Answer: Their explanation is not acceptable as it has no evidence. If we look at the Hadeeth, the wording used has ‘al-‘ so this means it remains in its generality, so the whole of Surah is intended here and we can’t specify except with evidence.

Question:  Is it compulsory for a translator to be Daabit (precision) and ‘Aadil (trustworthiness)?

Answer: Yes, of course. How can we accept his translation otherwise?

Questioner: But what if he was an expert in both languages, isn’t this suffice?

Answer: No it is not sufficient, how do you know he’s not misleading you? He must combine Dubt and ‘Adl.

Question: What is the evidence of the principle that you have mentioned Jarh wa Ta’deel, ‘Mention the Bid’ah but not the person’

Answer: The origin is that we don’t mention people’s names, as this is falling into Gheebah.

“Backbiting implies your talking about your brother in a manner which he does not like…” [Saheeh Muslim (2589)]

But we only mention names if there is a need to do so, but if there is no need, then we go back to the origin which is that we don’t mention names.

Questioner: But what if one says that it is the way of the Salaf that they mentioned names in Jarh and Ta’deel?

Answer: Yes, but if there was a need to do so. Don’t you see that Imam Ahmad for example wrote a whole book about the Jahmiyyah but didn’t mention any names. Imaam ad-Daarimee wrote a book about them as well but he didn’t mention any names, this is the principle. You refute the Bid’ah and people will be warned but only use names if it necessary.

Question: What is evidence for another principle in Jarh wa Ta’deel, if this is a principle, ‘If you mention something bad about someone then you must mention something good’?

Answer: This is Baatil, who said this?

Questioner: Some people have attributed to particular Da’ee on You tube.

Answer: I say this is false. If someone comes who has Bid’ah, you mention his faults and it is not compulsory to mention something good about him. If someone want so marry your daughter and he is known to mess around with women, do you say he messes around with women but he prays and give Zakaat?  No! You mention his mistakes and you advise against him marrying the persons’ daughter this is enough. This Qaaidah has no evidence and it’s not a Qaaidah at all.

Question: Socks that we wear today are thin, can we wipe over them?

Answer: Yes, the Hukm is the same as that of a Khuff, we do Qiyaas. If it fits around your foot and you wear it to cover your foot then you can wipe over it.

Questioner: Yes, but the scholars have stated that a see-through garment is not sufficient in covering the ‘Awrah and the one who wears a garment over his ‘Awrah but you can still see the colour of his skin then he hasn’t covered his ‘Awrah, so isn’t the same thing applied here?

Answer: They say it is not allowed because it is covering the ‘Awrah. For the ‘Awrah to be covered it must be covered even the skin colour can’t be made apparent, but this doesn’t apply to the sock, so there is no Qiyaas here.

Questioner: What is the meaning of the principle, ‘Mazeed Mutasil Asaaneed’?

Answer: If you have two Isnads, for example, one has four narrators and the other has five, this is Mazeed, meaning the second one.

For example, Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah narrated from Ibn Ishaaq

But in another chain:

Sufyaan from Hilaalee from Ibn Ishaq, the second chain has an extra narrator, this is Mazeed.

Questioner: What if the Mazeed is someone who is Da’eef or the other chain is Da’eef?

Answer: It doesn’t affect it, as long as we know one of them is connected and the men are acceptable then it doesn’t effect unless we have proof to suggest that the chain is interrupted.

Question: Can we say that there is more Barakah in our time in Riyadh then there was than our time in England or is this come under the prohibition of reviling time?

Answer: Look, you can say is that yes but you can’t generalise for everyone. You can say that out of your own opinion, yes there is more Barakah, in England you used to read three Juz a day but here you read eight Juz, but you can’t  generalise as someone else may have less Barakah here. How do we know if one has Barakah and is blessed? Either by the text or by our senses, so here we have no text to say England is more blessed that Riyadh or visa versa so we use our senses. But again, this is not evidence and it certainly doesn’t apply to everyone, it is only to say I sense there is more Barakah here.