Milad an-Nabi: The Date of Milaad an-Nabee is Unproven and is Statistically Incorrect

Follow @AhleDhikr The scholars are agreed that the he [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] was born in Rabee’ al-Awwal, this matter is agreed upon however they differed on the date. The majority said he was born on the 12^th, born and passing away on the same day which was a Monday (as was narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, 1387) [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him]. Others disagreed and held the opinion it was later in the month, and there is a considerable number of scholars who argued this view as well.

As-Suhaaylee also found discrepancies with the view that he [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] passed away on 12^thRabee’ al-Awwal. He argued that it was impossible that 12^thRabee’ al-Awwal was a Monday. This is because the Day of ‘Arafah was on a Friday (as was narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, 8709) so this meant that Dhu al-Hijjah began on a Thursday. So if we count the days of the month then we will not find 12^thRabee’ al-Awwal landing on a Monday, it would be impossible. If we counted Dhu al-Hijjah, Muharam and Safar as being 30 days each then 12^th Rabee’ al-Awwal would not fall on a Monday (TN: and we know for certain that he died on a Monday, this is uncontested because of the narration in as-Saheeh). Even if were to count some of the months as being 29 and others being 30 days, it will still not consolidate Monday being 12^th Rabee’ al-Awwal. Had Dhu al-Hijjah began on a Friday it would then be possible for 12^th Rabee’ al-Awwal to fall on a Monday (TN: Again, the fact that Dhul al-Hijjah in that year started on a Thursday is uncontested because of the narration in as-Saheeh).

In fact it was this very discrepancy, the author of the book at-Tawfeeqaat al-Ilhaamiyyah Fee Muqaaranah al-Tawaareekh al-Hijriyyah bi as-Sineen al-Ifranjiyyah (TN: a book that documents all the main events in Islamic history, correlating Hijri dates with the Gregorian calendar), was troubled by the conflicting dates, a book authored in 1311AH where he researched and studied Islamic events from the beginning of the Islamic calendar until 1500 (Gregorian), the authors name was Muhammad Mukhtaar Baasha from Egypt. 

He states in his book;

The 10^th AH was the year of the final Hajj of the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him]. If we say that the month of Dhu al-Hijjah began on a Friday then it is possible that 12^thRabee’ al-Awwal fell on a Monday, however is it possible that Dhu al-Hijjah began on a Friday? If we say the month of Dhu al-Hijjah began on a Friday then that would mean that the Day of ‘Arafah would fall on a Saturday, and this is contradicts the narrations in as-Saheeh, and the scholars are agreed that the Day of ‘Arafah fell on a Friday. End Quote.

However, some scholars have tried to reconcile and say that Friday was the Day of ‘Arafah for the people of Makkah but the beginning of the month in Makkah differed to the beginning of the month in Madeenah and this how the majority of the scholars have defended their position, holding the view that the death of the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] was on 12^th Rabee al-Awwal.

Others from the scholars held the view that he [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] died on 2^nd of Rabee’ al-Awwal which would have been a Monday. 

Whatever the case, there is a difference of opinion between the scholars in regards to the date of the Prophet’s [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] birth and death although it is known that he [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] was born and he died on a Monday, as he said [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him], “That was the day I was born on (i.e. Monday).” [Narrated Muslim (1162)]

Some of the commentators stated that he [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] was born on the 8^th of Rabee’ al-Awwal as it can be statistically proven.

As for celebrating the birthday of the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] then this is an innovation, especially based on the fact that there is no concrete evidence to specify this date so how can they depend on this date? Even if we were to assume that he [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] was born on 12^th Rabee al-Awwal then having this day as an ‘Eid, and using this day to get closer to Allaah, the Exalted and the Glorified, has no proof in the Sharee’ah.

[Sharh Al-Fiyyah al-‘Iraaqee Fee Uloom al-Hadeeth by Shaykh Abdul-Kareem bin Abdullah al-Khudayr (May Allaah Preserve him), Tape 56; 15-20 minutes]

Milad an-Nabi: The Love for Allaah and His Messenger

Follow @AhleDhikr Shaykh Saaleh bin Fawzaan bin Abdullah al-Fawzaan [May Allaah Preserve him]
http://www.alfawzan.af.org.sa/node/13636

Question: Could you clarify on how we can gain the love of Allaah, the Glorified and the Most High, and the love of the Messenger [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] and the ways we can reap its rewards? 

Answer: Loving Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted, is from the greatest acts of worship of the heart. It is from the greatest acts of the worship that your heart can do. Allaah, the Most High, says; "But those who believe, love Allah more (than anything else)" [Al-Baqarah 2:165]

And the Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, "You will not believe until nothing is more beloved to you than Allaah and His Messenger and that you love another only for the sake of Allaah." [Muslim (43)]

Therefore, Loving Allaah is from the foundations of worship and it is not permissible to ultimately love other than Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted, for the sake of worshipping, submitting and total surrender. This is a sole right for Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted. Likewise, the love of the Messenger [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] is to follow him because of your love of Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted. Likewise, loving righteous people and the believers is also because of this. This is the meaning of the term, 'loving for the sake of Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted'. Thus all of this follows on from the love of Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted, and this is an act of worship in the heart. From the things that strengthen and articulate this for you is to thank Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted, for the favours upon you and to ponder on the signs of Allaah, the Most High, as these are causes for us to increase in our love for Allah, the Glorified and Exalted. If you have good given to you and are given from His favours, and from the best of this is to have good health, ample provision and security, then this will affect the love you have for Allaah, the Glorified and Exalted. End Quote.

'Umar ibn al-Khattab [May Allaah be Pleased with him] said, "Oh Messenger of Allaah! After myself, I love you more than anything."

The Messenger of Allaah [May Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, "By the One Whose Hands is my soul, until you love me more than yourself."

So 'Umar ibn al-Khattab [May Allaah be Pleased with him] said, "Now, by Allaah, I love you more than I love myself."

The Messenger of Allaah [May Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] replied, "Now, Oh 'Umar!" [Bukhaaree (6257)]

Imaam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaanee [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said:

Al-Khattaabee said, "A person loving himself is imprinted in himself as for loving others, then we love others out of choice or for a reason. So the Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] intended the type of love that we have a choice in. 

So I say: Therefore, at first, 'Umar attested to having the love of oneself, the imprinted one. However, after the evidence was presented to him by the [May Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] he loved him more than he loved himself because the reasoning was made clear; not loving him more than oneself could leave to destruction in the Dunya and the Akhira. Therefore, he told him you have a choice and once he chose, he replied by saying, 'Now, Oh 'Umar' meaning now you have understood and attested to what is obligatory for you to have."

[Fath al-Baaree (11/528)]

Loving of the Shariah

"But those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), for them is destruction, and (Allah) will make their deeds vain. That is because they hate that which Allah has sent down (this Qur'an and Islamic laws, etc.), so He has made their deeds fruitless." [Muhammad 47: 8-9]

Ibn Katheer says in his Tafseer about this Ayah:

"Meaning they don’t want it and they don’t love it." 

[Tafseer Quran al-'Atheem 7/308]

The Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, "My relaxation has been made in Salaah." 

[Narrated by Nasaaee (3939) from the hadeeth of Anas ibn Maalik (May Allaah be Pleased with him). It was classified Saheeh by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baaree (3/15) and (11/345) al-Haakim (2/174) and adh-Dhahabee agreed with him]

Shaykh Saaleh bin Fawzaan bin Abdullah al-Fawzaan [May Allaah Preserve him] said:

It is obligatory upon the person that he doesn’t obey anything before the obedience to the Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him]. So if the Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] commanded us with something and your parents or anyone else commanded us something that contradicted the command of the Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] then it would be obligatory for you not to disobey the command of the Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him]. This is a sign that you love the Prophet [May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him], that you don’t give anyone priority or precedence over him and that you don’t obey anyone before you obey him, you don’t practice anything that he hasn’t legislated by innovating in the religion. 

[Ai'aanah al-Mustafeed bi Sharh Kitaab at-Tawheed (2/41-43)]

Milaad an-Nabee is Even Against Hanafee Usool

Follow @AhleDhikr

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareen bin 'Abdallah al-Khudayr  [May Allaah Preserve him]

Member of Permanent Committee of Research and Fatwaa and Member of Council of Senior Scholars, Saudi Arabia

A process known as Istishaab (الاستصحاب) is another way within Shariah which helps us forms rules and rulings.

The point behind Istishaab is to seek to find what is relevant from the original ruling at the time it came down.

In Irshaad al-Fuhool, it gives Istishaab the definition of something that is affirmed in the time of revelation so it must be affirmed in the times that came after it.

Meaning, something was revealed and legislated in the time of revelation and the same ruling can be applied today without any changes occurring to the ruling. 

If a scholar sits down to look at the ruling of something and he finds no evidence to support a particular action, such as the virtues of Rajab or praying during the night of fifteenth Sha’baan…so if one wants to fast or pray during these times and there is no evidence for it, then in origin, the ruling is that they are not legislated.

For example, a person wants to create a sixth prayer during the day and he tries to seek evidence to support this, but he only finds that five prayers during the day are legislated, then in origin, there is no sixth prayer.

Ok, let’s take Salaat al-‘Eid or Salaat al-Witr – some stated that these are Waajib – and they have evidence. So you try and look for evidence, this is the process of Istishaab. Thus in its application it means that nothing is legislated except what Allaah, the Exalted and Glorified, has legislated in worship. So we cannot worship except with evidence.

So if a person says, ‘I want to fast Rajab and this is necessary for me to do so’ or ‘I must stand the fifteenth of Sha’baan in prayer’ we say to him, ‘bring your evidence.’ If you are trying to prove a ruling and you have no evidence then there is no Istishaab for you, so in origin we stop until there is evidence.

The scholars also differed on the following; is Istishaab a proof that we can rely on when there are no textual proofs?

Some said yes, Istishaab can be used as proof and others said no.

The Majority say it can be used as proof, from them are the Hanbalees, the 

Shafi’ees and the Maalikees as was stated by Ibn Haajib.

Others, like the Hanafees and some of the philosophers, stated that we need textual proof at all times. So if you have textual proof for doing something at the time of revelation then we also need proof to suggest that we can do it on our times today.

So what does this all mean? The Hanafees argue that if something was legislated at the time of the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] then we can’t assume that it can be applied today unless we have evidence to suggest that the ruling can be applied today, this means we can’t do Istishaab.

So for example, praying the fear prayer. The Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] prayed the fear prayer in seven different ways, so we say that we can use this and pray in this way if we are in a similar situation, and these rulings are upheld until the Last Day. This is because they are affirmed in the text, we have evidence for it and the fact the Companions [May Allaah be Pleased with them all] continued with this practice shows that it is still legislated.

However, Muhammad bin Hasan ash-Shaybaanee and Aboo Yoosuf would say that the rulings connected to fear prayer is specific to the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] and can only be applied today if we have proof. 

[Sharh al-Waraqaat Fee Usool al-Fiqh, tape 15]

Food and Gifts on the Days of Their Festivals

Follow @AhleDhikr

Question: Is it permissible for a Muslim to eat the food that is distributed by the Kuffaar or the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) on the days of their festivals? Also, is it permissible to accept gifts that may be distributed during their festivals?

Answer: It is not permissible for a Muslim to eat from what has been made by the Jews and Christians or the Mushriks on the days of their festivals. It is not permissible for a Muslim to accept gifts distributed by them. This is because if one does this, then they will be cooperating and honouring symbols and their false beliefs, and this cooperating is a sign that one is happy for them during these days.

It could also lead to the Muslims incorporating their festivals with our festivals (days of ‘Eid). Or at the very least, it could lead to the Muslims taking their days of celebration as well as ours as a day when we can exchange food and gifts between us and them.

All of this is Fitnah (discord) and an innovation into the religion. 

It is affirmed that the Messenger of Allaah [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, “Whoever innovates into our religion then it will be rejected.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaaree (2550) and Muslim (1718)]

Likewise, it is not permissible to give gifts to them in celebration of their festivals (i.e. gifts that which are specific to their festivals).

And Allaah is the Source of all Strength. May the Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and his companions.

Permanent Committee of Scholars for Research and Iftaa (Fatwaa No. 2882)

President: Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez bin Baas

Vice President: Shaykh ‘Abdur-Razaaq al-‘Afeefee

Member: ‘Abdullah bin Qa’ood

Impermissibilty of Using the Names of the Festivals of the Kuffaar

Follow @AhleDhikr

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah [May Allaah have Mercy on him]:

‘Alee bin Abee Taalib (May Allaah be Pleased with him) even forbade the Muslims from using the same names (i.e. that it is not permissible to use names like Christmas/Eve, Boxing Day, New Years' Day/Eve, Mother’s Day, April Fool’s Day etc.) that the Kuffaar do for their religious festivals (and special occasions), so how about those who participate on these days as they do?

[Iqtidaa’ as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem (1/516)]

So How Bad is the Parent Who Exposes his Children to this, Oh Muslim!?

Follow @AhleDhikr

Imaam adh-Dhahabee [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said:

Verily, Muslim children participating in such festivals are also effected. Love for these festivals is placed in their hearts because they find enjoyment in them, dressings up, eating nice food etc.

So how bad is the parent who exposes his children to this, Oh Muslim!? If you don’t forbid your children then you and they will be destroyed. They will gain a Kaafir identity (by partaking and gaining love for their religion).

So it is not permissible for us to partake in celebrating their festivals and this is something that the Shaytaan has instilled in many people through their ignorance, to the extent that even the scholars have become negligent even though they have knowledge, rather, their knowledge is something harmful to them (i.e. a sin).

[Adapted from Tashbeeh al-Khamees bi ahl al-Khamees (pg. 10-12)]

Tafseer: And Those Who Do Not Witness Falsehood

Follow @AhleDhikr

“And those who do not witness falsehood, and if they pass by some evil play or evil talk, they pass by it with dignity.” [al-Furqaan 25:72]

‘Umar bin al-Khattaab [May Allaah be Pleased with him] said, “Do not mix with the Mushriks in their places of worship on the days of their festivals, this is because define punishment is upon them.”

[Narrated by ‘Abdur-Razaaq in his al-Musannaf (1609); Bayhaqee in as-Sunan al-Kubraa (9/18640) and quoted by Ibn al-Qayyim in Ahkaam Ahl adh-Dhimmah (3/1247) and Ibn Muflih in Adaab ash-Sharee’ah (3/417)]

Ibn al-Qayyim [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said in Ahkaam Ahl adh-Dhimmah (3/1244):

(From the Salaf – May Allaah be Pleased with them all) Ibn ‘Abbaas and Ad-Dahaak said, “witness falsehood” means the festivals of the Mushriks. Sa’eed bin Jubayr said it refers to ‘Palm Sunday’.

Ibn Taymiyyah [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said:

The festivals of the Mushriks is a time when doubts (i.e. false ideas and beliefs), desires and falsehood is gathered. There is no benefit any of this because of the sweetness one may taste (because of the celebrations) will only be followed with punishment and pain. Therefore, it is has been described as ‘witnessing falsehood’ (cf. 25:72), meaning going to such place and witnessing them.

[Iqtidaa’ as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem (1/183)]

Imaam adh-Dhahabee [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said:

Whoever goes to the places of their festivals or witnesses their celebrations then this person is sinful and obnoxious. This is because the person is voluntarily going to witness sinful activities and he is in no position to forbid them.

The Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, “If any one of you see a sin then stop it with your hand (if you have the authority to do so) otherwise stop it with your speech (if you are able) and if you can’t, then  at least hate it in your heart, and that is the lowest form of Emaan (i.e. obligatory upon everyone who believes to hate what Allaah has Forbidden).” [Narrated by Muslim (78)]

So how great (of a sin) is it to witness the festivals of the Jews and the Christians? To do as they do? Buying the same products they buy in order to celebrate their festivals? This, in actuality, is giving life to the worship of the cross, innovating new festivals into our religion, and assisting and imitating the Mushriks in their festivals.

…

But a person may say, ‘But I don’t intend to imitate them in this celebration’.

I say: Being a part of their celebrations and imitating them is Haraam. The evidence for this is where the Messenger of Allaah [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said after forbidding the Muslims from praying at the time when the sunrises and sets, “Verily it rises in between the horns of the Shaytaan and a time when the Kuffaar prostrate at this time because of this.” [Narrated by Muslim (832)]

The praying person doesn’t have the same intention as they do, however he is still prohibited from praying because he will then be like them and be considered as cooperating with them, thus it is Haraam.

[Adapted from Tashbeeh al-Khamees bi ahl al-Khamees (pg. 10-12)]

Look How We Make the Ayaat Clear to Them, Yet Look How They are Deluded

Follow @AhleDhikr The Messiah ['Iesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam (Mary)] was a Siddiqah [i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books (see Verse 66:12)]. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth). [al-Maa’idah 5:75]

The Messiah ['Iesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary): the Aayah starts with informing us who he was, even though he was given miracles, he was only a man.

…was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him: meaning, he was a man like the messengers that came before him, they were all sent with the purpose of conveying a message - so if ‘Esaa was a god then we would be obligated to say that all the messengers were gods. Thus this refutes their false doctrine.

His mother [Maryam (Mary)] was a Siddiqah [i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books (see Verse 66:12)]: This is descriptive of Maryam, that she is a Siddiqeeqah [TN: i.e. that she was a servant that excepted (Sidq) the scriptures, and she was not divine].

They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat): meaning, they were both born and had to be given an upbringing, just like any other child. They both used to eat food, food that was created, therefore they were like the rest of creation none being able to survive without food and other necessities needed to exist. So how can it be that something that needs and upbringing and needs something created to exist be something that is divine and a deity?

They (the Christians) argue that ‘Esaa only ate because he was in human form but his essence remained divine. As a result, as long as he was in a human state he needed to operate like the rest of mankind. 

However this argument is false; a deity cannot be defined as being a deity if it mixes itself with what necessitates living for the creation. 

Furthermore, if we say this in relation to 'Eesaa, then what stops it being the case with other messengers?

Some of the Mufassireen explained their need to eat and drink to proves that they were also in need to defecate and urinate. This also adds proof to affirm that they were humans and thus created. 

Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth); meaning, look at the clear evidences that have been revealed and likewise look how they turn away from the truth after it has been explained. 

[Jaami al-Ahkaam al-Quraan by Imaam al-Qurtoobee 6/185-186]

The Heavens are Almost Torn, and the Earth is Split Asunder, and the Mountains Fall in Ruins

Follow @AhleDhikr 88. And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or children).
89. Indeed you have brought forth a terrible evil thing.
90. Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins,
91. That they ascribe a son (or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allaah).
92. But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent that He should beget a son (or children).
93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Beneficent as a slave. 

[Maryam 19:88-93]

88. And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or children)”: meaning the People of the Book believe this (i.e. the Jews taking Uzayr as a son with Allaah or the Christians with ‘Esaa) as well as those who believe that the Angels are the daughters of Allaah (some of the Mushriks of Makkah believed this).

89. Indeed you have brought forth a terrible evil thing: Ibn ‘Abbaas [May Allaah be Pleased with him] said that this means they have invented a terrible lie.

Qataadah, Mujaahid and Muqaatil [May Allaah have Mercy on them] said this means that they have said something which is extremely calamitous[1].

90. Where-by the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins: Naafi’ [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said that ‘almost’ means it is, i.e. that heavens ARE torn apart by their false attribution. This is similar to the account given when the Last Day will begin:

1. When the heaven is cleft asunder.
2. And when the stars have fallen and scattered;
3. And when the seas are burst forth;
4. And when the graves are turned upside down (and they bring out their contents)

[Surah al-Infitraar 82:1-4]

91. That they ascribe a son (or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allaah): meaning, these things happen (or almost happen based on the difference of opinion between the Mufasireen) because of what they have invented (in their false claims). The heavens, the earths, the mountains and everything within the creation, except for the man and the jinn, are almost torn apart because of this false statement.

92. But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent that He should beget a son (or children): meaning, it is not befitting for Him to have a son or even be attributed with one.

93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Beneficent as a slave: meaning, the creation in its entirety will be subdued and submissive on that Day, all of them being enslaved and nothing from their affairs will be hidden. They will be brought by themselves and none can avail them on that Day.

[Tafseer Ma’aalim at-Tanzeel by Imaam al-Baghawee (5/257-259)]

---

[1] A principle in Tafseer is that there may exist two different wordings to an interpretation but both are deemed as being correct.

Shaykh Sa’d bin Naasir ash-Shithree [may Allaah Preserve him] explained: “If there are multiple Tafseers for one word (such as a word that is known as a Mushtarak word) we explain the Aayah with all the possible meanings as long as they do not contradict each other, this is the opinion of the majority like Imaam Ahmad and others, opposing the view of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee who believed that the Tafseer can only have one meaning. (If they contradict, then this is subject to further discussion which will be discussed in a separate post, In Shaa Allaah).” [Adapted from Sharh Minhaaj al-Wusool, Tape 6 (107-19mins)]

Tenfold in Reward and Expiation

Follow @AhleDhikr

On the authority of Anas bin Maalik [may Allaah be Pleased with him] that the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said:

Whoever sends Peace and Blessings upon me just once, Allaah will send blessings upon the sender tenfold for each one, He will expiate ten sins and raise him ten ranks (in the Hereafter).

Reported by an-Nasaa’ee (1297) and classed as Saheeh by al-Albaanee in Saheeh an-Nasaa’ee.

Wiping Over Normal Socks (cotton, wool etc.)

Follow @AhleDhikr

It says in Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (Summarised from 39/282-283):

Issue: Wiping Over Normal Socks (cotton, wool etc.)

The majority of the scholars are of the view that wiping over normal socks is permitted in two cases:

a)   That the socks cover your foot properly up to the ankles and that they are like shoes in their use (i.e. one walks in them).

b)   That the skin cannot be seen from above them and that the water doesn’t seep through them (i.e. that they are thick enough).

Imaam Ahmad and Aboo Haneefah (i.e. they differed slightly to the majority above) were of the view that wiping over normal socks is permissible on two conditions:

a)   No part of the foot can be seen.

b)   One is able to walk in them.

The Hanbalees didn’t have the place the condition that socks must be like shoes in their use.  The evidence for this is the Hadeeth of Mughayrah bin Shu’bah [May Allaah be Pleased with him] who said, “Verily the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] wiped over his shoes and socks.”

This Hadeeth is proof that shoes and socks are two different things. They also deducted from this that wiping over normal socks was the practice of the Companions [May Allaah be Pleased with them] and none of them differed, thus there being Ijmaa (i.e. a consensus which means that is becomes binding legislative proof) on the issue.

Winter: Ruling on Covering Ones Mouth and Head in Prayer because of the Temperature

Follow @AhleDhikr

It says in Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (28/102):

It is narrated that Aboo Hurayrah [May Allaah be Pleased with him] that the Messenger of Allaah [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] forbade (i.e. it is disliked or Makrooh) people from covering their mouths during the prayer.

[Narrated by Aboo Dawood (643); at-Tirmidhee (378); al-Haakim (1/253) who classed it as Saheeh and adh-Dhahabee agreed with him. It was classed as Hasan by al-Albaanee in Saheeh al-Jaami’ (6883)]

The Maalikiyyah stated that the covering means that one covers his lower lip (and more).

The Shaafi’ees stated that it refers to covering the whole of ones’ mouth.

The Hanbalees stated that the covering of ones’ mouth means that it is disliked to cover ones mouth and nose at the same time. The woman is like the man in this regard (so for this reason it is disliked for a woman to cover her face during as-Salaat without reason). 

Covering ones mouth is disliked just like it is disliked for one to roll up the sleeves and to be distracted by it (during the prayer). 

The Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, “I have been Commanded to prostrate on seven bones and I do not tuck in my clothes or my hair.”

The Hanbalees are even stricter on the issue of one covering his head during the prayer; they stated that a man praying without a hat out of laziness is disliked but if one intends to uncover his head during his prayer to show humility, then this is permitted[1]. They opined that if the mans’ hat falls off during the prayer, then it is better that he puts it back on (during the prayer), unless if it keeps falling off then he should leave it because it will be a cause of distraction.

The Hanbalees said that is heavily disliked to pray in a garment that is inferior (to his other clothes) or in ones’ work clothes, if he is able to avoid praying in them.

The Hanbalees also stated that it is extremely disliked to wear a wrapping, like that of a handkerchief, over ones’ head. Likewise, it is heavily disliked for one to wear a wrapping around his head without anything covering the middle of his head (this is known as ‘Itijaar). They stated this because the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] forbade ‘Itijaar during the Salaah.

It is stated that ‘Itijaar also refers to one covering his head so that it falls over his face and covers his nose.

---

[1] Ibn al-Qayyim said in his poem al-Meemiyyah (verse 28):

They have exposed their heads out of humility

Out of humility for the One they are facing and submitting to

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saaleh al-‘Uthaymeen [May Allaah have Mercy on him] said in explanation, “They expose their heads during the Ihraam out of humility to Allaah, the Exalted and the Glorified. This is something well known until our times today; that a person, if he wants to show respect and humility towards another person, they take off their head-wear. Soldiers take off their head-wear when they are presented in front of someone they want to respect and honour. Likewise, the Soofees take of their head-wear when they are in front of their scholars, those who are presumed to be from the friends of Allaah. However, taking off ones head-wear to show respect to a person one may meet is from the customs of the people (thus it has no Islaamic ruling to it). The one who has humility to Allaah, the Glorified and the Exalted, means that they submit and are humble towards Him, as He, the Most High, says: “And (all) faces shall be humbled before (Allah), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. And he who carried (a burden of) wrongdoing (i.e. he who disbelieved in Allah, ascribed partners to Him, and did deeds of His disobedience), became indeed a complete failure (on that Day)” [Taa-haa 20:11]. It is almost impossible to find someone from those who have been prevented to have humility and submissiveness with Allaah, that they uncover their heads out of humility to Allaah, the Glorified and the Exalted (i.e. they find it difficult to show humility and submissiveness to Allaah). If it wasn't for the fact that the whole of the woman is sacred for one to look at (‘Awrah) then it would be upon her to uncover her head out of honour to Allaah as well, however she (totally) remains an ‘Awrah (covered) for men thus she must remain covered. End quote. [Sharh al-Qaseedah al-Meemiyyah (pg. 25)]

Extremism and Terrorism are forms of Hypocrisy in al-Islaam

Follow @AhleDhikr It was narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh (1063) on the authority of Jaabir bin ‘Abdullah [May Allaah be Pleased with him] that the Messenger of Allaah [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] was at Ja’raanah handing out the war booty after the battle of al-Hunayn. He rewarded Bilaal [May Allaah be Pleased with him] with some silver and the kept some for himself. A man (his name was Dhoo Khuwaysarah at-Tameemee) came and said, “Oh Muhammad! Be fair!” So he [May Allaah be Pleased with him] replied, “Woe to you! Who is just if I am not just? Everything will be lost and destroyed if I wasn’t being fair.” So ’Umar bin a-Khattaab [May Allaah be Pleased with him] said, “Permit me, Oh Messenger of Allaah! I will kill this hypocrite.” So he [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] said, “Allaah forbid, people will go around saying that I kill my own Companions. This person and his companions all recite the Quraan but it doesn't go below their throats (i.e. it doesn't affect their piety) and they take people out of al-Islaam just as spears that are thrown in battle.”

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Tamiyyah [May Allaah be Pleased with him] explained that the Khwaarij (a deviant sect that have views similar to extremists today) believe:

“The blood of those who are from Ahl al-Qiblah (i.e. Muslims, whether they are deviated in their sects or not) are apostates (i.e. disbelievers and no longer Muslim), because of their (false) beliefs and therefore their blood is lawful, even more so than that of the Kuffaar, because their crime of apostasy is worse than those who are disbelievers.” 

[Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa (28/497)]

He also said in describing them:

“From the essence of their deviation is that they hold that the scholars and the leaders of the Muslims, as well the Muslim community, are unjust and as a result, they are misguided. They have taken this idea, to leave the Sunnis and to oppose them, from the Rawaafidah (i.e. the Shi’ah). Added to this, they believe that those who sin are oppressors, and those who oppress are Kuffaar. As a consequence, they have applied Kufr to people and invented innovated principles in applying them and labelling people with Kufr. In every aspect of their belief they have left some fundamental aspects which make the basis of al-Islaam, until they are come to the position (that those who oppose them have left al-Islaam), exiting people like spears (when thrown during a battle) from al-Islaam.”

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Tamiyyah [May Allaah be Pleased with him] then expanded upon the Hadeeth above in describing this man as a hypocrite, he said:

This man has been described as a hypocrite, with the texts of the Quraan, by His Statement:

“And of them are some who accuse you (O Muhammad) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.” [at-Tawbah 9:58]

Meaning, if you don’t give to them then they will insult you. Just like the man who said to the Messenger of Allaah [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him], “Oh Muhammad! Be fair!” This is because he wasn’t given a share and accused the Messenger of Allaah [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be Upon him] of favouritism and that he didn't fear Allaah! So he responded by saying, “Is there no one on the earth that fears Allaah more than me? Are you accusing me whilst I am entrusted from the Heavens?”  

There is no doubt, if one was to utter such statements today then he deserves to be killed, however the Prophet didn't punish this man because he was apparently a Muslim and that he was one who would establish the prayer, but his hypocrisy was in causing Prophet harm.

[as-Saarim ar-Rasool (Pg. 228-229)]