The Ruling on the one who abandons Prayer – Shaykh al-Albaani

Part 1

source: silsilat ul-hudā wa nnūr ~ the series of guidance and light ~ tape no. 8

Question #5: “What is the ruling on the one who abandons the prayer? And what is the difference between al-kufr ul-ʽamalī [1] (the disbelief related to actions) and al-kufr ul-ʽitiqādī [2] (the disbelief related to faith)?”

Shaykh al-Albānī answers:

“The one who abandons the prayer has two states: either he believes in its legislation, or he denies its legislation. So regarding this second state, he is a disbeliever by the consensus of the Muslims. And likewise, whoever denies a matter from the religion that a Muslim cannot be ignorant about – for example, whoever denies (the legislation of) fasting, Hajj and whatever else there is of matters known by all the Muslims to be necessities of the religion – then he is a disbeliever. So there is no difference of opinion about this: whoever denies the legislation of the prayer is a disbeliever.

But if there is a man who does not deny (the legislation) of the prayer and who acknowledges its legislation, but with respect to action, he does not perform it, he does not pray – maybe he does not pray at all and maybe he prays sometimes – so in this case, if we said that this man has disbelieved, this statement would not apply to him at all, because kufr (disbelief) is denial, and he is not denying the legislation of the prayer, as (Allāh), the Most High, said with regard

to the disbelievers: {And they denied them (those Āyāt)…, though their ownselves were convinced thereof}. [3]
So if we take as an example so-and-so from the people who does not pray, but when he is asked ‘Why don’t you pray O my brother?’, he says to you, ‘Allāh will forgive me, by Allāh the worldly life has kept me busy, these children have kept me busy,’ and this type of talk. Of course, this talk is not an excuse for him at all, but he presents us a benefit which we didn’t know because we can’t know what is in his heart. He presents us a benefit that the man believes in the legislation of the prayer, as opposed to if the answer was, may Allāh forbid: ‘O my brother, the time for this prayer is gone; this was during a time when the people were not educated, they were unclean, they were in need of a specific nature of cleanliness, purity and exercise, and now the time for this has gone; now there are new means that free us of prayer’ – this (man) has disbelieved and thus (goes) to {Hell, and worst indeed is that destination}. [4]  As for if the answer is the first (example): ‘Why don’t you pray?’ (and he says,) ‘Allāh will forgive us, may Allāh curse the shaytān,’ and this type of talk that informs us that the man is not denying the legislation of the prayer, then if we said that this man is a disbeliever, we would be contradicting the reality, because this man is a believer, a believer in the legislation of the prayer and a believer in all of Islām, so how can we declare him a disbeliever?

Therefore, we say that there is no difference between the one who abandons the prayer and the one who abandons fasting and the one who abandons Hajj and the one who abandons anything from the acts of worship related to actions – (there is no difference) with regard to (judging whether) he is to be declared a disbeliever or not. When is he declared a disbeliever? If he denies. When is he not declared a disbeliever? If he believes. So it is not allowed – by consensus – to declare the believer to be a disbeliever. And many narrations have come in accordance with this…: ‘(Allāh will say:) Make whoever (sincerely) said lā ilāha illAllāh (none has the right to be worshiped but Allāh) enter Paradise,’ while he does not have a (good) deed equal to the weight of an atom, but he has the weight of an atom of īmān (faith), so this īmān is what prevents him from dwelling in the Fire forever, and he enters Paradise even if it is after he becomes a black coal. [5] However, this is the one who bears witness that none has the right to be worshiped but Allāh and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh, and he believes in all that has come from Allāh and His Messenger ; but he does not pray, or does not fast or does not perform Hajj or the like, or he steals or fornicates – there is no difference with regard to all these affairs when placed on the scales of disbelief related to actions and disbelief related to faith [because since he has faith, these impermissible actions do not fall under disbelief related to faith / major kufr].

For instance, a man commits fornication; do we declare him a disbeliever? You will say, no. I say, no. Don’t be hasty. We have to see, does he say that zinā (fornication) is prohibited? Does he say as some of the ignorant ones say: ‘there is no harām and there is no halāl’? If he says to me (such a) statement, he has disbelieved. Likewise, the one who steals and any (other) sin – for example, the man who backbites people, and we say to him: ‘Fear Allāh, the Messenger (of Allāh) said: ‘Backbiting is you mentioning about

your brother that which he dislikes,’6 and he says: ‘There is no ‘the Messenger said’ and such-and-such,’ (then) he has disbelieved. In this manner, (the same applies to) all the Islamically legislated rulings, whether it is a positive ruling, i.e., one of the obligatory duties, or a negative ruling, i.e., the prohibitions that he must keep away from. So, if he regards any of these prohibitions to be permissible in his heart, he has disbelieved. But if he falls into it by way of action while believing that he is disobeying (Allāh), he has not disbelieved.

So there is no difference with regard to this between all the Islamically legislated rulings, whether they are from the obligatory duties or prohibitions. The obligatory duties must be carried out and it is not permissible to leave them off, but whoever leaves them out of laziness, it is not allowed to declare him a disbeliever. Whoever leaves them out of denial has disbelieved; whoever regards any of the forbidden things to be permissible has likewise disbelieved. There is no difference with regard to this at all between the obligations and prohibitions.”

1 i.e., minor kufr
2 i.e., major kufr
3 Sūrat un-Naml, 27:14
4 Sūrah Āl ʽImrān, 3:162
5 Sahīh al-Bukhārī #7439, #7510, #6560; Sahīh at-Targhīb #3639, #3641
6 Sahīh Muslim #2589

Part 2

source: silsilat ul-ahaadeeth is-saheeha – the series of authentic narrations – hadeeth no. 87


Hudhaifa bin al-Yamaan (radiAllaahu ‘anhu) said that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Islaam will be erased just as the decoration of a garment is (worn out and) erased, until it will not be known what is fasting, nor prayer, nor the rituals of Hajj, nor charity; and the Book of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, (i.e., the Qur’aan) will be taken away (from the mus-hafs[1] and breasts of the people)[2] in one night such that not (even) an aayah from it will remain on earth. And groups of people will remain – the old people – saying: ‘We saw our forefathers upon this statement: ‘laa ilaaha illAllaah (none has the right to worshiped but Allaah),’ so we also say it.’”

(Then), Silah bin Zufar said to Hudhaifa: ‘What will ‘laa ilaaha illAllaah’ benefit them when they don’t know what is prayer, nor fasting, nor the rituals of Hajj, nor charity?’ Hudhaifa turned away from him. Then (Silah) repeated it to (Hudhaifa) three times, and every time Hudhaifa would turn away from him. Then he turned toward him on the third time and said three times: ‘O Silah! It will save them from the Fire.’”[3]


Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) comments:

“There is an important benefit of fiqh in the hadeeth, which is that bearing witness that laa ilaaha illAllaah (none has the right to be worshiped but Allaah) saves the one who says it (sincerely) from dwelling forever in the Fire on the Day of Resurrection, even if he didn’t use to perform any of the other pillars of Islaam at all, such as prayer and so on. And it is known that the scholars have differed about the ruling on the one who abandons the prayer especially while believing in its legislation. So the majority was of the opinion that he has not disbelievedby that, but rather disobeyed Allaah; and Ahmad – in a report – was of the opinion that he has disbelieved, and that he is to be killed due to apostasy, not as a prescribed punishment. And it is has been authentically narrated from the Companions that they did not consider leaving any of the actions to be disbelief except the prayer; at-Tirmithee and al-Haakim reported it.[4]

And I believe that that which is correct is the view of the majority, and that what was mentioned from the Companions does not clearly state that they meant by ‘disbelief’ here to be the disbelief which will make its possessor dwell forever in the Fire and for which it is not possible that Allaah will forgive him. How can that be when this is Hudhaifa bin al-Yamaan – who is one of the foremost of those Companions – responding to Silah bin Zufar, who was about to understand the affair as Ahmad’s understanding of it. So (Silah) said: ‘What will ‘laa ilaaha illAllaah’ benefit them when they don’t know what is prayer. . .,’ then Hudhaifa replied to him after his turning away from him, saying three times: ‘O Silah! It will save them from the Fire.’ Therefore, this is a clear statement from Hudhaifa (radiAllaahu ‘anhu) that the one who abandons the prayer is not a disbeliever [if he believes in its legislation], but rather a Muslim who will be saved from dwelling forever in the Fire on the Day of Resurrection. So be mindful of this, for indeed you may not find it in other than this place.”

[1] the actually plural word in Arabic for mus-haf is masaahif, i.e., copies of the Qur’aan
[2] this explanation and detail in the parentheses was mentioned by Shaykh ‘Abd ul-Muhsin al-‘Abbaad in Sharh Sunan ibn Maajah, tape #293
[3] also refer to Saheeh ibn Maajah #3289
[4] Saheeh at-Tirmithee #2622

Part 3

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light tape no. 81


Question #10: “What about the hadeeth: ‘whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved’?”[1]

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

This is not the first hadeeth in which it is said that whoever does such-and-such has disbelieved. You have the famous hadeeth ‘whoever swears by other than Allaah has disbelieved,’[2] but we don’t say that whoever says ‘by the life of my father’ has apostatized from his religion.[3] And you know, for example, thehadeeth of ‘Umar bin al-Khattaab in Saheeh al-Bukhaari when the Messenger (of Allaah) (‘alayhi ssalaam) heard him swearing by his father, so he (‘alayhi ssalaam) said: ‘Don’t swear by your fathers; whoever of you swears, then let him swear by Allaah or keep silent.’[4] And in the hadeeth of (‘Umar’s) son ‘Abdullaah bin ‘Umar, he said that the Messenger (of Allaah) (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Whoever swears by other than Allaah has associated partners with Him,’[5] and in another narration, ‘he has disbelieved.’

So it is not necessary for the occurrence of the expression ‘whoever does such-and-such has disbelieved’ to mean that he has disbelieved with the disbelief of apostasy. Rather, it can have many meanings, such as for example: ‘he has disbelieved’ can mean that he is close to disbelieving, that he has disbelieved with the disbelief related to (only) actions (i.e., minor kufr), and such meanings that the people of knowledge were obliged to (apply) in order to reconcile between the texts.

‘Whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved.’ (But also) we say, ‘whoever sayslaa ilaaha illAllaah[6] (sincerely) will enter Paradise;’[7] ‘whoever says laa ilaaha illAllaah (sincerely), it will benefit him some day,’[8] [9] as mentioned in thehadeeth of al-Bazzaar and others. (Another hadeeth mentions that) ‘whichever slave runs away from his master has disbelieved.’[10] These expressions are very numerous: ‘he has disbelieved, he has disbelieved.’ And there isn’t any hadeeththat is interpreted like this upon its apparent meaning if it comes with the expression: ‘he has disbelieved.’ This hadeeth – ‘whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved’ – is treated the same way as the other narrations which share the saying ‘he has disbelieved’ with the hadeeth about prayer. So here, many interpretations can occur for this text as for many (other) narrations. For example, ‘the tale-carrier[11] will not enter Paradise,’[12] (but) does that mean that he has disbelieved because of his tale-carrying? The answer is: if he considers that to be permissible by his heart, then Paradise has been forbidden for him. And if he acknowledges the forbiddance of that, and admits that he is wrong, a sinner and an evildoer, then his affair is with Allaah, as He, the Mighty and Majestic, said: ‘Verily, Allaah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him (in worship), but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He wills.’[13] So abandoning the prayer is an action that leads its doer to die upon other thaneemaan (faith) – and Allaah’s protection is sought. And abandoning the prayer is from the characteristics of the disbelievers who don’t pray and don’t give thezakaah (obligatory charity). Hence, if the Muslim does not pray, he has resembled the disbelievers. So his disbelief here is the disbelief related to actions [as long as he believes in the legislation of the prayer]. And the narrations which must be explained (with regard to their true meanings) are very numerous.

For instance, during the farewell pilgrimage, (the Prophet) (‘alayhi ssalaat was salaam) ordered Jareer bin ‘Abdillaah al-Bajalee to quiet the people down and make them listen, and he (‘alayhi ssalaam) said while addressing them: ‘Do not return to being disbelievers after me by striking the necks of one another.’[14]And he (‘alayhi ssalaat was salaam) said: ‘Insulting a Muslim is disobedience (to Allaah), and fighting him is disbelief.’[15] But if a Muslim kills or fights another Muslim, has this (person) apostatized from his religion? The answer is: no, because Allaah said: {And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both. But if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which outrages till it complies with the Command of Allah}.[16] He considered each of the two groups – the one outraging and the one being outraged – to be from the believers, although the Messenger (of Allaah) said in the previous hadeeth that ‘insulting a Muslim is disobedience (to Allaah) and fighting him is disbelief.’ So how is disbelief interpreted here? It is minor disbelief; it is disbelief related to actions. And the narrations about prayer – which declare that the one who abandons the prayer has disbelieved – are also (interpreted) likewise: either it is said that he is close to the disbelief related to faith (i.e., major kufr), that he is close to dying upon other than the religion of Islaam, or (it is said) that he has disbelieved with the disbelief related to actions. This interpretation is necessary so that we don’t contradict the narrations of the Messenger (of Allaah) (‘alayhi ssalaam) with one another.”

[1] Saheeh at-Tirmithee #2621
[2] Saheeh at-Tirmithee #1535
[3] swearing by other than Allaah can become major disbelief when the one swearing believes that the one whom he falsely swears by has the ability to avert harm from him and the like; refer to The Methodology of the Saved Sect by Shaykh Muhammad bin Jameel Zaynoo, p. 101
[4] Saheeh an-Nasaa’ee #3775, Saheeh aj-Jaami’ #1923
[5] Saheeh at-Tirmithee #1535
[6] none has the right to be worshiped but Allaah
[7] Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth is-Saheeha #2355
[8] i.e., even if he first enters the Fire to be punished therein
[9] Saheeh aj-Jaami’ #6434
[10] Saheeh Muslim #68
[11] the tale-carrier is the one who spreads the speech of the people among one another with the intention of causing corruption, such as you going to someone and saying: ‘such-and-such person insulted you, and he said such-and-such thing about you, etc’ so that you separate between them; refer to Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen in Noorun ‘alaa ddarb tape #48a and Silsilatu Liqaa il-Baab il-Maftooh tape #93a
[12] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #6056, Saheeh Muslim #105
[13] Surat un-Nisaa, 4:48
[14] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #4405
[15] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #6044
[16] Surat ul-Hujuraat, 49:9

Part 4

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light tape no. 323


Question #23: “Our Shaykh, I am asking you about the issue of proofs with regard to the ruling on the one who abandons the prayer. In the treatise ‘The ruling on the one who abandons prayer’ by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, he is of the opinion that the one who abandons the prayer is a disbeliever, and he has many proofs, such as Allaah’s statement about the mushrikoon:[1] {But if they repent, perform salaah (the prayer), and give zakaah (obligatory charity), then they are your brethren in religion}.[2] So he says that what is understood from the aayah is that if they don’t do that, they are not our brethren; and the religious brotherhood isn’t negated by sins even if they are great, but it is negated when one leaves Islaam”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“Yet he is not saying that if the person prays but doesn’t give the zakaah that he is (likewise) not a Muslim and that he has disbelieved by that. May Allaah guide you, you are bringing his proof but I would like to turn your attention to (the fact) thatthere is no proof in it because he is not saying about the one who abandons thezakaah the same as he is saying about the one who abandons the prayer. You didn’t just narrate his opinion, rather you narrated (both) his opinion and his proof, but I would like to turn your attention to (the fact) that this is not a proof for him, because the aayah includes zakaah along with the prayer, [yet he is differentiating between the one who abandons the former and the one who abandons the latter].”

Question #23 (continued): “What is the ruling on this man who has abandoned the prayer, not out of denying (its legislation) but out of laziness? And what is thedaleel (evidence)?”

Shaykh al-Albaani answers:

“This (man) is one who is rebellious and disobedient (to Allaah), and not a disbeliever. The daleel is that ‘Whoever says laa ilaaha illAllaah[3] (sincerely) will enter Paradise,’[4] and the daleel is that ‘Allaah has prescribed five prayers upon (His) slaves, so whoever performs them and does them well, and completes theirrukoo’ (bowing), sujood (prostration) and khushoo’ (submissive humility and attentiveness), then he has a covenant with Allaah that He will enter him into Paradise, and whoever does not perform them and does not complete their rukoo’,sujood and khushoo’, then he does not have a covenant with Allaah; If He wills, He will punish him and if He wills, He will forgive him,’[5] and if he was a disbeliever, He would not forgive him because Allaah says: ‘Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him (in worship), but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He wills.’”[6]

[1] those who associate partners with Allaah
[2] Surat ut-Tawbah, 9:11
[3] none has the right to be worshiped but Allaah
[4] Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth is-Saheeha #2355
[5] Saheeh ibn Maajah #1158, Saheeh at-Targheeb #400, Hukm Taarik is-Salaah p. 46
[6] Surat un-Nisaa, 4:48


asaheeha translations

The Istikhaara Prayer – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 206 (a), tape no. 664 (b), tape no. 426 (c)


*Question #10: (a) “What should the one making istikhaara[1] prayer say if he has two affairs on the same level and does not have an inclination toward either one, meaning 50-50?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers: “What I understand from your question is that he does not have an intention (to do something),[2] therefore there is no istikhaara prayer upon him.”

*Question #10: (a) “Is the istikhaara prayer legislated for one who is confused about doing something or is it legislated for one who has made up his mind to do so?”

Shaykh al-Albaani answers: “No, the istikhaara prayer does not remove confusion. Istikhaara prayer is (done) after a person has made up his mind to do something; so here, istikhaara is performed. Istikhaara prayer is not legislated for removing doubt and uncertainty regarding a matter which the Muslim has not made up his mind about.”

*Question #5: (b) “Is the du’aa (supplication) of istikhaara prayer before thetasleem or after it?”

Shaykh al-Albaani answers: “After the tasleem.

*Question #12: (c) “Is it allowed to repeat the istikhaara prayer?”

Shaykh al-Albaani answers: “It is allowed if his istikhaara prayer was not (performed in the way in which it is) legislated, and it is enough for it to be not legislated if he makes istikhaara to his Lord by (merely) his words, and not by his heart. And he himself is aware of this inattentiveness, so then he is forced to repeat (the istikhaara prayer). As for if he himself did not feel any of that, then he has innovated (if he repeats it).”

[1] istikhaara means to seek (from Allaah) that which is best regarding something
[2] this is in reference to the actual wording of the hadeeth in which the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “If one of you intends to do something, then let him pray two ra’kah, then say [the du’aa of istikhaara]“; Saheeh al-Bukhaari #6382


asaheeha translations

Watch Video Here

Zamzam Water and the Answered Supplication – Shaykh al-Albaani

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 814


Question #13: “The du’aa (supplication) is answered when drinking zamzamwater, so is this particularly in Makkah or in any place?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“The first one (i.e., particularly in Makkah) is that which I consider to be correct.”


asaheeha translations

The Place of Looking in Rukoo – Shaykh al-Albaani

We don’t have to look at a certain spot during rukoo`

Q: “Where does the one praying look during rukoo` (bowing)?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

He is not obliged to look at a certain spot like he should when he is standing and when he is sitting for the tashahhud. So when he is standing, he looks at the place of his prostration; and when he is sitting during the tashahhud, he looks at his (right index) finger. But during rukoo`, there isn’t a specific spot toward which we were commanded to look, so the matter is unrestricted.”

[mutafarriqaat 1/8 / asaheeha translations]

Loving Allaah and gaining His Love – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: bidaayat us-sool fi tafdheel ir-rasool – …the superiority of the Messenger (of Allaah) (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) – page no. 5-7


Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) says in his introduction:

“Know, O Muslim brother, that it is not possible for anyone to rise to this station of loving Allaah and His Messenger [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] except bytawheed (singling out) of Allaah, the Most High, alone in His worship, and by singling out the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) alone for following from among the servants of Allaah, due to (Allaah’s) statement: ‘He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)) has indeed obeyed Allaah’[1] and His statement ‘Say (O Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)to mankind): ‘If you (really) love Allaah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Qur’aan and the Sunnah), Allaah will love you.’’[2] And (the Prophet) (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam) said: ‘No, by the One in whose Hand my soul is, if Moosaa was alive, he would have no choice but to follow me.’[3]

I say: so if someone like Moosaa, the one who Allaah spoke to (directly), cannot follow other than the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), then can anyone else do that? Hence, this is one of the definite evidences of the obligation of singling out the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) in following, which is one of the requirements of the shahaada (testimony): ‘anna muhammad ar-rasoolullaah (that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah)’ [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam]. Therefore, Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, in the before-mentioned aayah, made following him (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) alone to be a proof of Allaah’s love for (the follower). And there is no doubt that whoever Allaah loves, Allaah is with him in everything, as occurs in the authentichadeeth al-Qudsi:[4] ‘(Allaah says), ‘My slave does not come near to me with anything more beloved to me than that which I have made obligatory upon him, and My slave continues to come near me with supererogatory deeds until I love him; and when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he grasps and his leg with which he walks.[5]And if he asks me, I will surely give him, and if he seeks refuge in Me, I will surely protect him . . .’[6]

And if this divine care is only for the beloved slave of Allaah, it is obligatory upon every Muslim to take the means which will make him beloved to Allaah, namely following the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) alone; and just by that, he will attain special care from his Mawlaa[7], the Blessed and Most High. Don’t you see that it is not possible to know the obligatory duties and distinguish them from the supererogatory acts except by following him (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) alone? And indeed there is no doubt that the more the Muslim learns about the biography of the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and knows of his pleasant nature and virtues, the more his love for him [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] will be and the more extensive and comprehensive his following of him [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] will be.”

[1] Surat un-Nisaa, 4:80
[2] Surah Aal ‘Imraan, 3:31
[3] Shaykh al-Albaani adds the following footnote: “Ad-Daaramee, Ahmad andAbu Nu’aym narrated it from the hadeeth of Jaabir bin ‘Abdillaah, and it is ahasan (good) hadeeth as I clarified in ‘Al-Mishkaah’ and others”
[4] a hadeeth in which the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) narrates Allaah’s Speech from Him
[5] i.e., Allaah directs his hearing, sight, actions with his hand and his walking to only that which is good; refer to Explanatory Notes on Imaam an-Nawawee’sForty Ahaadeeth (Revisited) by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen(rahimahullaah), p. 250-251
[6] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #6502
[7] Lord, Helper, Protector, etc.; refer to Translation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’aan in the English Language by al-Hilaali/Khaan


asaheeha translations

Saying “wa maghfiratuh” – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 253


Question #2: “What is the authenticity of adding wa maghfiratuh[1] in offering thesalaam and responding to it?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“There is no addition (of wa maghfiratuh) in the hadeeth with respect to offering the salaam; i.e., if a person starts with offering the salaam, he ends at wa barakaatuh: asalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh. And thehadeeth that has come – or in more precise words, (the hadeeth) that was narrated – (stating) that at the fourth time, the fourth of them said, asalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh wa maghfiratuh, then this is a weak narration. As for the addition (of wa maghfiratuh) in the response to wa barakaatuh, then it is established; i.e., a man says, asalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh, then we add wa maghfiratuh in the response…

It is in agreement with the noble Qur’aan (with) the saying ‘When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or (at least) return it equally.’[2] So if the greeter gives the salaam, saying asalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh, the aayah that stated ‘greet in return with what is better than it’ is not invalidated; this command still exists, which is (followed by saying) wa maghfiratuh. This addition (with respect to responding) has also been mentioned in…narrations established from some of the Companions.

So we have brought out a conclusion whose summary is that adding wa maghfiratuh in the response is allowed and starting (the salaam with it) is not allowed.”

[1] saying ‘and His Forgiveness’ after the greeting ‘may Peace, Mercy and Blessings of Allaah be upon you’
[2] Surat un-Nisaa, 4:86


asaheeha translations

The Permissible Lying – Shaykh al-Albaani

source: silsilat ul-ahaadeeth is-saheeha – the series of authentic narrations –hadeeth no. 545


Umm Kulthum bint ‘Uqbah (radi Allaahu ‘anhaa) said: “the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) allowed lying in three (situations): during war, in reconciling between people, and the speech of a man to his wife. {In another narration:} the speech of a man to his wife and the speech of a woman to her husband.”


Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) comments:[1]

“I say, it is not part of the permissible lying that (the man) promises (his wife) something that he does not intend to fulfill for her, or he tells her that he bought such and such thing for her with such and such price – i.e., more than the real (price) – for the purpose of pleasing her, because that may be revealed to her; then it will be a reason for her to think badly of her husband, and that is part of corruption, not rectification.”

[1] this commentary was taken from Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth is-Saheeha #498


asaheeha translations

Deeds Multiplying in Ramadhaan – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 693

Question #11: “Are good deeds multiplied in general during Ramadhaan and likewise evil deeds?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“This question is also often brought up regarding Makkah and the one residing in Makkah, whether he is a foreigner or a Makkan; are good deeds and evil deeds multiplied over there? The answer: there isn’t any text in the Islamic legislation clearly (stating) that good deeds are multiplied, and likewise evil deeds, due to the excellence of a (certain) place or the excellence of a (certain) time; excellence of a place like Makkah and Madinah for example (and) excellence of a time like this month of ours, the month of Ramadhaan. There isn’t any clear text about good deeds or evil deeds being multiplied (in such cases). But some of the scholars, by way of deduction, say that they are multiplied – by way of deduction, i.e., not based on a text but rather by way of ijtihaad.[1] So if someone says that good deeds are multiplied, there is no harm in that because it is the saying of some of the scholars. But it is not allowed to be absolutely certain about that due to the nonexistence of (relevant evidence mentioned in) the holy text which ‘falsehood cannot come to from before it or behind it.’”[2]

[1] independent reasoning
[2] Surah Fussilat, 41:42


asaheeha translations

Rulings on the Prostrations of Forgetfulness – Shaykh al-Albaani

Q: “What is the criterion for this forgetting (due to which we must perform the two prostrations of forgetfulness)? Is it any forgetting in prayer even if he, for example, adds something, omits something…?”

Shaikh al-Albaani: “Anything, if one forgets.”

Q: “Even if it is a sunnah?”

Shaikh al-Albaani: “Even if it is a sunnah.”

* * *

Q: “Are the prostrations of forgetfulness before the tasleem or after the tasleem?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“For all prostrations of forgetfulness, one has the choice between prostratingbefore the tasleem or after the tasleem. And the detailed explanation mentioned in some, especially Hanbali, books that it is before the tasleem for additions and after the tasleem for omissions – this is baseless. Those who say so saw some cases to which such an explanation can be applied, however there are also cases that nullify this explanation. Therefore, one has the choice between performing the tasleem then prostrating, or prostrating then performing the tasleem of exiting the prayer.”

 * *

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“…When all the hadeeths are gathered together, it becomes clear that one who forgets in prayer has a choice: if he wants, he (first) performs the tasleem and that is absolutely better; or if he wants, he does not perform the tasleem except after completing the two prostrations of forgetfulness.”

* * *

Q: “During the prostrations of forgetfulness and the sitting between the two prostrations, is there any particular dhikr or is it the same as…?”

Shaikh al-Albaani: “The same as these (usual ones).”

Q: “The same as these i.e. tasbeeh and rabb-ighfir lee.”

Shaikh: “Yes, there isn’t anything special.”

* * *

Q: “Does one’s prayer become invalid if one intentionally leaves out the prostrations of forgetfulness?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“If he intentionally leaves them out, the prayer does not become invalid; however he will be a sinner because of his leaving out the two prostrations of forgetfulness that the Messenger ﷺ  ordered (us) to perform.”

[silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor 183/6, 133/12, 259/7, 406/10 & 81/3 / asaheeha translations]

Praying at Graves – Shaykh al-Albaani

source: fataawaa jeddah, tape no. 13/4
asaheeha translations

Question: “How do we reconcile between the Prophet’s (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) prohibition of praying in the graveyard and his praying over the grave of the woman who used to sweep the mosque?”

Shaikh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah):

“There is no contradiction between the two hadeeths, and all praise is due to Allaah. The first hadeeth with the prohibition of praying in the graveyard is as his  (‘alayhi ssalaam) saying in Saheeh Muslim: ‘Don’t sit on graves and don’t pray towards them.’[1] So the prohibition of praying in the graveyard, i.e. praying towards the graves, is because prayer must be sincerely for the Face of Allaah (tabaarak wa ta’aala) without any glorification for other than Allaah corrupting it or being mixed with it,  as that is one type of shirk.[2] So if a Muslim begins to pray to Allaah while facing the grave, there is an obvious suspicion that this person at least intends – as many of the ignorant people do in this era – to seek blessing from this dead person by means of his prayer and by means of his seeking nearness to Allaah (‘azza wa jal) with his prayer. Thus, he has fallen into some shirk,  and he may go too far into it such that his situation reaches the point where it would expel him from the circle of Islaam, and refuge is sought in Allaah. This meaning is what should be considered with regard to the Messenger’s (‘alayhi ssalaam) prohibition of praying in the graveyard or praying towards the grave.

As for praying over the dead person while he is in his grave, then this is something else. It has no connection with (the previous situation of) praying to Allaah – Who is alone with no partner – while facing the grave of the dead person, the intention of which is not so that Allaah forgives him, has mercy on him, as is the implied purpose when supplicating over the dead person.

Therefore, praying over the dead person while he is in his grave is one thing, and praying to Allaah (‘azza wa jal) while facing the grave is another thing. This (the latter) is what is prohibited and that (the former) is what is allowed, so there is no contradiction between this and that.”

[1] Saheeh Muslim #972
[2] associating partners with Allaah

Allaah is the Creator of both Good and Evil – Shaykh al-Albaani

The Prophet ﷺ said: “If you marry a woman or buy a slave, place your hand on her forehead, say ‘bismillaah’ and supplicate for blessing and say:

اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ مِنْ خَيْرِهَا وَخَيْرِ مَا جَبَلْتَهَا عَلَيْهِ وَأَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ شَرِّهَا وَشَرِّ مَا جَبَلْتَهَا عَلَيْهِ

(O Allaah, indeed I ask You for the good in her and the good characteristics that You created in her, and I seek refuge in You from the evil in her and the evil characteristics that You created in her)

And if you buy a camel, place your hand on top of its hump and say the same.”[1]

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“This hadeeth has evidence that Allaah is the Creator of good and evil, contrary to those – such as the Mu`tazilah and others – who hold that evil is not from His creation تبارك وتعالى. There is nothing in Allaah’s being Creator of evil that contradicts His Perfection تعالى, rather it is from His Perfection تبارك وتعالى. Details of that are present in comprehensive volumes, one of the best being the bookShifaa ul-`aleel fi l-qadhaa.i wa l-qadari wa tta`leel by Ibn ul-Qayyim, so look through it if you wish.

And is this supplication legislated when buying something like a car? My answer is: yes, due to the good that is hoped from it and the evil that is feared from it.”

[1] Saheeh Abu Daawood 2160, Saheeh al-Jaami` 360 and others

[aadaab uz-zifaaf 20-21 / asaheeha translations]

~ asaheeha translation

Women Using Makeup – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 697


Question #3: “Is it allowed for the woman to put on make-up if she leaves her house wearing the hijaab?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

It is not permissible for the woman who does not wear hijaab, let alone who wears hijaab, to use the makeup of the disbeliever, the make-up of the rebellious and disobedient (to Allaah). When were you aware of some women’s adornment called by a name for which Allaah did not send down an authority: ‘make-up’? This is a word that we don’t know, not us nor your forefathers from before. Rather, it is a foreign word expressing an adornment for the rebellious and disobedient women of Europe; and our women – except those of them whom Allaah protects – unfortunately imitate decorating themselves with this adornment which the Islamic society is being affected by, namely make-up. So it is not permissible for the woman. And this reality is one of the strange ironies: in the road we see a woman wearing a decent hijaab (but) I don’t say the Islamically legislated hijaab; she ties what they call the ‘ishaarb’ – or khimaar which is the (correct) Arabic word – covering her hair, her neck and so on, but she has face powder and lipstick on. This (wearing the hijaab) is against this (wearing make-up): two contradictory, conflicting matters that do not go together. What is the reason (for this type of occurrence)? It is one of two things: either ignorance and heedlessness of the Islamically legislated ruling or it is due to the women’s following of the whisperings of shaytaan.

Therefore, we firstly remind the women who suffer from this make-up. Then secondly, we remind the guardians of women such as a father or a husband or a brother, due to the fact that (the Prophet) (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam) said: ‘Everyone of you is a shepherd and everyone of you is responsible for his flock. So the man is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock-’[1] to the end of thehadeeth. Thus, the Arabic or general proverb states: ‘The horse is from the horseman.’ So you, the husband of the woman, it is not permissible for you to allow her to go out in this manner which puts to trial the middle-aged men, let alone the young men! And you, O man, O father, O brother, are supposed to be very jealous. Why? Because the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) used to say: ‘A duyyooth will not enter Paradise.’[2] Why? Who is a duyyooth? He is the one who does not guard his womenfolk jealously.”

[1] Saheeh al-Bukhaari # 893
[2] Saheeh at-Targheeb # 2071


asaheeha translations

Eating While Standing – Shaykh al-Albaani

We should not eat while standing

Q: “Is it allowed to eat while standing?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“I say, there is no text about the prohibition of eating while standing like there occurs the text prohibiting drinking while standing. But there is a narration from Anas bin Maalik رضي الله عنه that when he narrated to those around him in a gathering that the Prophet ﷺ prohibited drinking while standing, someone said to him: ‘What about eating (while standing)?’ He replied: ‘It is worse.’

I say here, we should follow this Companion because we don’t have anything with which we can contradict him. But what is the distinction between eating while standing and eating while walking? Eating while walking is allowed, because there is text clearly stating that they used to eat while walking during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. As for eating while standing, there is no text regarding it from the Prophet ﷺ, neither negative nor positive. All we have is this authentic narration from Anas bin Maalik and this is what we act upon.

Moreover, maybe some of you noticed in these times that it has become a fashion for the disbelievers to eat while standing although chairs are present; but they don’t sit on them out of pride. So then, the previous ruling is further strengthened. I say, we are with the narration of Anas, because Anas knew what we don’t know, and because the disbelievers nowadays and the Muslims who imitate them eat while standing, so we differ from them.”

[silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor 246/7 / asaheeha translations]

Remembering Allaah Morning and Evening – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 192


Question #6: “When is the time for the adhkaar[1] of the morning and evening?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“The adhkaar of the evening are (made) after ‘asr, and the adhkaar of themorning are (made) after fajr.”

[1] words of remembrance of Allaah


asaheeha translations

Eating with Three Fingers – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 692


Question #6: “Is it sunnah to eat with three fingers generally with respect to all food or specifically with thareed[1] only?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“There isn’t, in the Sunnah mentioned from the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam), that which will help us to answer this question. All there is, is that the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) used to eat with three fingers; but that which is necessary for us to say about this hadeeth with regard to its fiqh (understanding) is that:

Firstly, this hadeeth does not mean to determine that it is not permissible for the Muslim to eat by other means like the well-known spoons today. Rather, it only means that if the Muslim eats a food that can be eaten with three fingers, then he (should) not show that he is greedy with the food such that he eats with the whole handful while he is able to eat like the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) used to eat, with three fingers. Secondly, it is known that gravy of meat, for example, cannot be eaten with three fingers; so there it is necessary (to use) other means to eat it. And this is from the worldly affairs and not from the affairs of the religion, which the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) was assigned that he conveys all the rulings of the religion to the people. He (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam) has said (regarding) worldly affairs: ‘You are more knowledgeable about your worldly affairs than me.’”[2]

[1] a dish of bread, meat and broth
[2] Saheeh aj-Jaami’ #1488


asaheeha translations

A resident may combine prayers to avoid difficulties – Shaykh al Albaani

Q: “Is it allowed for a resident to combine Dhuhr and `Asr prayers without any excuse?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“Imaam Muslim reported in his Saheeh the hadeeth from Ibn `Abbaas who said: ‘The Messenger of Allaah ﷺ combined Dhuhr with `Asr and Maghrib with`Ishaa in Madeenah without being in a state of traveling or the presence of rain.’ They said: ‘Why did he do that O Abu l-`Abbaas?’[1] This was `Abdullaah bin `Abbaas’s kunyah. He replied: ‘So he would not put his ummah to difficulty.’’[2]

So what is apparent from the hadeeth is that it is permissible to combine two prayers while being a resident and without the excuse of rain, as rain is a Legislated excuse that allows the combining of two prayers. And here Ibn `Abbaas says that the Prophet ﷺ combined while he was a resident and combined without the excuse of rain, and he confirmed that when he was asked the previous question ‘Why did he do that?’ by saying: ‘So he would not put hisummah to difficulty.’ This is the hadeeth and it is in Saheeh Muslim, not al-Bukhaari. The same meaning is found in al-Bukhaari: that he combined prayers in Madeenah as eight rak`ahs,[3] but it does not have this detail that Imaam Muslim reported from Ibn `Abbaas which contains this important subtlety – i.e. his رضي الله عنه statement ‘So he would not put his ummah to difficulty’ in answer to that question.

So some scholars of both old and recent times hold that this combining is permissible for a resident without any excuse, and I don’t consider this correct because the narrator of the hadeeth justifies the Messenger’s ﷺ combining without an excuse with another excuse: which is to legislate and explain to the people, as Ibn `Abbaas said, ‘So he ﷺ would not put his ummah to difficulty.’This means that the ruling of combining as a resident is restricted to the presence of difficulty if one were to not combine. So when there is difficulty in performing the prayers in their known appointed times, it is permissible to combine to avoid the difficulty, which Allaah عز وجل negated in the likes of His Statement: {He has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty}.[4] But if there is no difficulty, it is obligatory to maintain performing the five prayers, each prayer in its time, because there is no difficulty.

For example, I am sitting here and I hear the adhaan there in the nearby mosque and I am able to go out without any difficulty, then it is not permissible for me to combine. And vice versa: when I came on this trip I found that this electric elevator wasn’t working, and it is very difficult for me as you see because of a pain in my knees to go down or up by way of stairs. So some prayers went by and I didn’t go out to the mosque. But when the electric elevator was fixed and saved me the difficulty of going up and down, it became obligatory upon me to pray every prayer in the mosque because I did not find this difficulty that I had found when I just settled here. Therefore combining is only allowed to avoid difficulty; and when there is no difficulty, there is no combining. They are two inseparable matters: when there is no difficulty, there is no combining; when there isdifficulty, there is combining. And this is the best that can be said to reconcile between this authentic hadeeth and the hadeeths clearly stating that every prayer is to be prayed in its appointed time and that it is not allowed to distract oneself from it – especially since in most circumstances, combining necessitates leaving prayer with the congregation, as I described to you my previous situation.”

[1] the addition of “O Abu l-`Abbaas” is found in Musnad Ahmad 4/192
[2] Saheeh Muslim 705
[3] Saheeh al-Bukhaari 543
[4] Surat ul-Hajj 22:78

[fataawaa jeddah 13/5 / asaheeha translations]

The Foundations of Kabah : Shaykh al-Albanee

source: Silsilat ul-ahaadeeth us-saheeha – the series of authentic narrations – hadeeth no. 43
assaheeha translations.

The Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “O ‘Aaisha, if your people had not recently been polytheists (and new converts to Islaam), and if I had enough means to reconstruct it, I would have spent the treasure of the Ka’bah in the way of Allaah, and I would have demolished the Ka’bah and made it at a level with the ground. Then I would have rebuilt it on its original foundations laid by Ibraaheem (Abraham) and made two doors for it – a door facing the east, for the people to enter, and a door facing the west, for their exit… And I would expand (the Ka’bah) by six cubits (around three meters) of area from al-Hijr (the unroofed portion of the Ka’bah which is at present in the form of a semi-circular, wall-surrounded area in the north side of the Ka’bah); (in [another] narration: I would have included the space of al-Hijr in it ), for when the Quraish had rebuilt the Ka’bah, they reduced its (area). And if your people would take initiative after me in rebuilding it, then come along with me so that I could show you what they have left out of it.” He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] showed her about seven cubits (three and a half meters) of area (from the side of al-Hijr).

In [another] narration from her (‘Aaisha), she said: “I asked the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) about the wall (i.e., al-Hijr): ‘Is it regarded as part of the House (the Ka’bah)?’ He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] replied, ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Then why did they not include it in the House?’ He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said, ‘Your people ran short of the means/money (to do so).’ I said: ‘Why is it that the level of its door is raised high?’ He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said, ‘Your people did it to admit whomever they liked, and prevent whomever they disliked; (in [another] narration: (They did it) out of vanity so that (they might be in a position) to grant admittance to only whom they wished. So when a person intended to enter it, they called him to climb (the stairs), and when he was about to enter, they pushed him and he fell down). Were your people not close to the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance (i.e. they have recently embraced Islaam) and were I not afraid that their hearts might deny (my action), then surely I would have included the (area of the) wall inside (the building of) the House and I would have made its gate touch the ground.’”

Then, when Ibn uz-Zubayr ruled, he demolished it and made two doors for it. (In [another] narration: That was what urged Ibn uz-Zubayr to demolish (the Ka’bah). Yazeed bin Rumaan said: ‘I saw Ibn uz-Zubayr when he demolished it, rebuilt it and included al-Hijr in it. And I saw the original foundations of Ibraaheem (‘alayhi ssalaam) which were of stones joined together resembling the humps of camels.’)

*the translation of the above hadeeth, for the most part, was taken directly from the already translated text of saheeh al-bukhaari and saheeh muslim*

shaykh al-albaani (rahimahullaah) summarizes a number of benefits from the above narration:

“This hadeeth indicates two things:

First: that it is obligatory to delay carrying out rectification, if an evil greater than [its good] results from it. And from it, the scholars of fiqh took their famous principle: ‘Repelling the evil [comes] before bringing the good.’

Second: that the honorable Ka’bah is now in need of the reconstructions that the hadeeth includes, due to the disappearance of the reason for the sake of which the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) left that – and (the reason) is that the hearts of those who were recently polytheists in his time (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would have a dislike [for it]. And Ibn Battaal has reported from some of the scholars that: ‘the dislike that he (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) feared was that they would accuse him of boasting by himself over them.’

It is possible to list those reconstructions in what follows:

  • 1- Expanding the Ka’bah and building it upon the foundation of Ibraaheem (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam), and that is by adding approximately six cubits (three meters) of al-Hijr
  • 2- Leveling its ground with the surface of the Haram (Al-Masjid ul-Haraam)
  • 3- Opening another door for it from the Western side
  • 4 – Making the two doors low with the ground to organize and facilitate entering it and exiting from it for everyone who wishes

And indeed, ‘Abdullaah bin uz-Zubayr (radi Allaahu ‘anhumaa) had carried out the fulfillment of this reconstruction completely during his rule in Makkah, but the unjust political administration returned the Ka’bah after him to its previous state!”

the shaykh then mentions the following hadeeth as narrated by Muslim and Abu Nu’aym on the authority of ‘Ataa who said:

“The House was burnt during the time of Yazeed bin Mu’aawiya when the people of Shaam had fought (in Makkah), and it happened with it (the Ka’bah) what was (in store for it). Ibn uz-Zubayr left it (in the same state) until the people came in the season (of Hajj) – he wanted to encourage them or urge them on (to war) against the people of Shaam. When the people had arrived, he said to them, ‘O people, advise me about the Ka’bah. Should I demolish it and then build it from its very foundation, or should I repair whatever has been damaged of it?’ Ibn ‘Abbaas [radi Allaahu ‘anhu] said, ‘An idea has occurred to me, according to which I think that you should only repair whatever has been damaged for it, and leave the House (in the same state) in which people embraced Islaam, (and leave) the stones (in the same state) in which people embraced Islaam and upon which the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was sent.’ So, Ibn uz-Zubayr said, ‘If the house of any one of you was burnt, he would not be pleased until he had reconstructed it, then how about the House of your Lord (which is far more important than your house)?! Indeed, I will seek good advice from my Lord thrice and then I will make up my mind about this affair.’

After seeking good advice thrice, he made up his mind to demolish it. The people were suspicious and fearful that calamity might fall from heaven on those persons who would be first to climb over it (for the purpose of demolishing it), until a man climbed it and threw down one of its stones. When the people saw no calamity befalling him, they followed him and demolished it until they leveled it to the ground. Then, Ibn uz-Zubayr erected pillars and hung curtains on them until the walls were raised. And Ibn uz-Zubayr said, ‘Indeed I heard ‘Aaisha say that the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: (he then mentioned the first portion of the hadeeth [mentioned in the beginning], then he said) – I today have the means to spend and I don’t fear the people (that they would protest against this change).’ So he expanded it by five cubits (around two and a half meters) of area from the side of al-Hijr until it appeared as the original foundation (upon which Ibraaheem had built the Ka’bah), and the people saw it; and it was upon this foundation that he raised the wall. The length of the Ka’bah was eighteen cubits (around nine meters), and when he had expanded it, he found it to be short (since the addition was made to its width, so naturally the length appeared to be small compared to its width). Therefore, he expanded its length by ten cubits (around five meters). He also constructed two doors, one of which (was meant) for entrance and the other one for exit.

Then, when Ibn uz-Zubayr was killed, al-Hajjaaj wrote to ‘Abd ul-Malik bin Marwaan informing him about it, and telling him that Ibn uz-Zubayr had built (the Ka’bah) on the very foundation (which was laid by Ibraaheem) and which reliable persons among the people of Makkah had seen. Then, ‘Abd ul-Malik wrote to him: ‘Indeed, we are not concerned with disgracing Ibn uz-Zubayr in anything. As for what he added in the side of its length, keep it intact; and as for what he added from the side of al-Hijr, return it to its (previous) foundation, and close up the door which he opened.’ Thus, he (al-Hajjaaj) demolished it (that portion) and rebuilt it on its (previous) foundation.”

*the translation of the above hadeeth, for the most part, was taken directly from the already translated text of saheeh muslim*

shaykh al-albaani continues:

“That is what al-Hajjaaj the oppressor did by the command of ‘Abd ul-Malik the mistaken one, and I don’t think that his regret later on clears him of his mistake. Muslim and Abu Na’eem have also narrated from ‘Abdullaah bin ‘Ubayd who said: Al-Haarith bin ‘Abdillaah came to ‘Abd ul-Malik bin Marwaan as an envoy during his Khilaafa (Caliphate), and ‘Abd ul-Malik said, ‘I don’t think that Abu Habeeb (i.e., Ibn uz-Zubayr) heard from ‘Aaisha that which he claimed to hear from her.’ Al-Haarith said: ‘But yes, I [myself] heard it from her.’ He (‘Abd ul-Malik) said, ‘You heard her saying what?’ He (Al-Haarith) said, ‘She said: the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: (he then mentioned the hadeeth).’ ‘Abd ul-Malik said to Al-Haarith, ‘You heard her saying this?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ Then, he (‘Abd ul-Malik) scratched the ground with his staff for a while and then said, ‘I wish that I had left it and not changed [the reconstructions carried out by Ibn uz-Zubayr].’

And there is in [another] narration from them both (Muslim and Abu Na’eem) from Abu Qaz’ah that: While ‘Abd ul-Malik bin Marwaan was going around the House, he at that time said, ‘May Allaah fight Ibn uz-Zubayr since he uttered a lie upon the mother of the believers, saying: I heard her say: (he then mentioned the hadeeth).’ So, Al-Haarith bin ‘Abdillaah bin Rabee’ah said, ‘Don’t say this O leader of the believers, for I [myself] heard the mother of the believers saying this.’ He (‘Abd ul-Malik) said, ‘If I had heard it before I demolished it (the Ka’bah), I would have left it upon what Ibn uz-Zubayr had built.’

I (Shaykh al-Albaani) say: it was (obligatory) upon him, before the demolition, to verify and to ask the people of knowledge about that, whether it was allowed for him to criticize ‘Abdullaah bin uz-Zubayr and accuse him of uttering a lie upon the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). And his truthfulness (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) became clear to ‘Abd ul-Malik by Al-Haarith‘s agreeing with it, as many a group from ‘Aaisha (radi Allaahu ‘anhaa) agreed with it. And I have collected their narrations…in this hadeeth, and the hadeeth is detailed from ‘Aaisha. Therefore, I indeed fear that ‘Abd ul-Malik had prior knowledge about the hadeeth before he demolished the House, but he pretended that he did not hear about it except through Ibn uz-Zubayr. So when Al-Haarith bin ‘Abdillaah opposed him, that he also had heard it (the hadeeth) from ‘Aaisha, he (‘Abd ul-Malik) showed regret at what he had done, [but] it was too late for regrets.

On the other hand, it has reached us that there is an idea or plan to expand the area of tawaaf (circumambulation) around  the Ka’bah and transfer the Maqaam Ibraaheem (the Standing Place of Ibraaheem) (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam) to another place. So in relation to this, I suggest to those responsible (for the Ka’bah) that they hasten to expand the Ka’bah before everything (else) and rebuilt it upon the foundation of Ibraaheem (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam), fulfilling the noble, honorable Prophetic wish in this hadeeth, and saving the people from the problems of crowding at the door of the Ka’bah which is witnessed every year, and from the domination of the guard over the door who prevents whoever he wishes from entering and allows whoever he wishes, for the sake of a few dirhams!”

Sujood ash-Shukr: The Prostration of Thankfulness – Shaykh al-Albaani

Sujood ash-Shukr: The Prostration of Thankfulness
Shaykh al-Albaani
source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor, 97/6
asaheeha translations

Q: “How does one perform sujood ash-shukr (the prostration of thankfulness)?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah):

“It comprises of one prostration, and none of the preconditions needed for prayer are stipulated for it. So it is like sujood at-tilaawah, they both have the same ruling. Neither of them have a precondition such as being in a state of purification, facing the qiblah, making the takbeer, making the tasleem, and so on. Rather, if he is surprised by some blessing, he prostrates immediately the way he is and praises Allaah with whatever (words) he can for that blessing that He gave him, out of thanks to Him. Likewise if he recites a verse of prostration from the Book of Allaah (‘azza wa jal), he prostrates immediately, whether he haswudhoo or not, whether he is facing the qiblah or not, without making takbeer al-ihraam and without making any tashahhud or salaam.”

Video Uploaded by adam ibn zuber

It is not permissible for a woman to pray with her feet uncovered – Shaikh al-Albaani

Q: “Should a woman cover her feet when she prays?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

It is not permissible for her to pray with her feet uncovered, indeed it is not permissible for her to walk in the streets with her feet uncovered, because the feet are part of a woman’s `awrah based on Allaah’s عز وجل Statement: {And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment}.[1] The woman during the Days of Ignorance used to wear what is known in the Arabic language as khalkhaal (anklet), meaning a bracelet with small bells. So when the woman walked, she – in order to turn the men’s attention to her – would strike the ground with her feet so the anklet would make a noise and the men would hear that; and such was due to shaitaan’s whisperings to her.

This means that the feet used to be covered. Because of what? Because of thejilbaab that the women were commanded to cast down from over their heads, according to Allaah’s Statement: {O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments  (jilbaabs) close upon themselves}.[2] And it is mentioned in the authentic hadeeth that the Prophet ﷺ said one day during a gathering in which there were also women: ‘Whoever drags his garment out of pride, Allaah عز وجل will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.’ One of the women said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, then our feet will be exposed.’ He ﷺ said: ‘let the women lengthen (their garments) by a hand-span.’ She said: ‘Then a wind will come and uncover (their feet).’ He ﷺ said: ‘let them add another hand-span, i.e. (a total of) one cubit, and not go beyond that.’[3] [4]

In this manner, the jilbaab of the Muslim woman – at the time of the revelation of the above-mentioned verse: {to draw their outer garments (jilbaabs) close upon themselves} – used to cover the feet since the socks that are widespread nowadays among both women and men were not widespread at that time. The woman used to cover her shins and feet with the long jilbaab that resembles the `abaa.ah. Therefore it is not permissible for a Muslim woman to uncover her feet while she is on the street, and it is even more impermissible for her to pray with her feet uncovered.”

[1] Surat un-Noor 24:31
[2] Surat ul-Ahzaab 33:59
[3] the Shaikh mentioned the general meaning, not the exact wording, of the woman’s speech
[4] Saheeh at-Tirmidhi 1731, Saheeh Abi Daawood 4119

[silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor 697/3-4 / asaheeha translations]

"Yaa akhi, by Allaah, my intention is good" – Shaikh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah)

The Meaning Of ‘Actions Are Only Judged By Intentions’
sources: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor, 340/8 & nudhum al-fawaaid, 21
asaheeha translations

~ Explanation of the hadeeth: ‘Actions are only judged by intentions’ [Saheeh al-Bukhaari #1] ~

Shaikh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah):

“This hadeeth means that righteous actions are only (sound/accepted/rewarded) by sincere intentions, not that actions opposing the Legislation turn into righteous legislated actions due to coupling them with righteous intentions. No one will say that except someone ignorant or pursuing his own interests!

Many people know this hadeeth in wording but don’t understand its meaning. Why? Because oftentimes we turn (to some people) and say: ‘Yaa akhi, this action that you are doing, or this statement that you are uttering, is not a righteous action.’ What is the answer? ‘Yaa akhi, the Messenger (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Actions are only judged by intentions’ and my intention is good! My intention is righteous!’

So what is the meaning of the hadeeth? Does the hadeeth mean that evil actions are only (sound/accepted/rewarded) by righteous intentions? Or does it mean that righteous actions are only (sound/accepted/rewarded) by righteous intentions? This latter statement is the meaning. As for if one’s actions are not righteous but intention is righteous – this is not enough. Likewise it is also not enough if it is vice versa: i.e. if one’s actions are righteous but intention is not righteous. So the hadeeth gives us two opposites: just like it is a condition for righteous action that there be righteous intention, it is likewise a condition for righteous intention that there be righteous action. So either one is not enough without the other.

You hear many people nowadays swearing by their fathers for example, saying: ‘.’ Sometimes you may find a person coming to a grave and praying there – a grave of a prophet or righteous person or the like – then when they are prohibited from that, he tells you: ‘My intention is not to worship him, my intention is to seek nearness to Allaah (tawassul) through him.’ Ok, your coming to this grave – granted that the intention is righteous – is an action, so is this a righteous action? The answer is no, because the Messenger (‘alayhi ssalaam) used to say: ‘Don’t sit on the graves nor pray toward them.’ And du’aa is part of prayer, in fact du’aa is worship as he (‘alayhi ssalaam) said. Hence turning to the grave with du’aa is like turning to it with prayer: it is an action that is not righteous, and this unrighteous action is not justified by the intention being righteous, if we grant that the intention is righteous.

Thus, for our actions to be righteous, they must be in agreement with the Legislation. This is what our Lord (‘azza wa jal) pointed to with His Statement in the Noble Qur’aan: {whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work and not associate any partner in the worship of his Lord}.”

%d bloggers like this: