“Your Salafi Da’wah splits” | Imam al-Albani

Scholar: Imâm Muhammad Nâsir-ud-Dîn al-Albânî
Source: Silsilat-ul-Hudâ wan-Nûr (280)
aFatwa.com

Question:

What do you think of Salafiyyûn going out with Jamâ’at-ut-Tablîgh in order to improve their way of thinking and to teach Tawhîd and spread the Sunnah among them. Especially since they have noticed that they have changed when they have gone out with them.

Shaykh al-Albânî:

That which I know about this group via some of our brothers who have been with them on their trips and outings, is that they do not accept their call towards the Qur’ân and the Sunnah. They are just as all other groups in this matter, as I have earlier indicated. They say, and awful is what they say:

“Your Da’wah splits the people.”

We agree. Our call is a true call and it differentiates between truth, falsehood, the one who is right and the one who is wrong. That is why it is no wonder that one of the names of the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is “al-Mufarriq” (the divider). This is something these so-called Islamic ‘callers’ are ignorant about. If these people (were to) hear this name, they would be confused. This is because they do not understand Islâm. The only purpose of the prophets and messengers and scriptures is to distinguish the truth from falsehood so that the Muslims are with the truth against the falsehood.

As a result thereof it is completely natural that the various Da’wahs (calls) today, which do not agree with this true methodology, do not accept an individual’s call since it will mislead them from their methodology and call that are based upon something other than the Qur’ân, Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Sâlih (pious predecessors). This is what we know of them or at least knew of them. It is possible that they have progressed a bit, which was implied in the question, when they realised that they go out for Allâh’s sake entirely confused. They are as the jews and christians who merely understand a little bit of their religion.

If these people are aware of their ignorance in the religion and that there is a group of Muslims who are called as Salafiyyûn, Ansâr-us-Sunnah, or Ahl-ul-Hadîth, depending upon the country even if they all have the same belief, who can teach them, then it is possible [I.e. to go out with them]. If they agree to discard their former negative methodology and accept that some Salafiyyûn participate in their trips and outings and allow them to call these confused people to the Qur’ân and Sunnah, then I deem it to be obligatory upon individual Salafiyyûn to go out with them. This however, provided that they are the ones who maintain the call and that it is a Salafî-Islâmic call and not a Salafî-Sûfî-Tablîghî-call, which has been mentioned earlier. It should namely be pure Salafiyyah. If then Jamâ’at-ut-Tablîgh, al-Ikhwân al-Muslimûn, Hizb-ut-Tahrîr and any other group accepts that Salafiyyûn call to their methodology in a clear and explicit way without any limitations or conditions, then I deem it to be obligatory upon individual Salafiyyûn to mingle with them. However, they should first remind them that they will not agree to go out with them for three days, forty days or in accordance with some other arrangement they have invented and which lacks basis in the Qur’ân and Sunnah.

Salafiyun ignore the Tawaghit and Hakimiyyah while they focus on Aqidah and Tawhid – Shaykh Al Albaani

Scholar: Imâm Muhammad Nâsir-ud-Dîn al-Albânî
Source: Silsilat-ul-Hudâ wan-Nûr (320)
Reference: Darulhadith.com

Question:

They say that the call of Salafiyyah is based upon speech about the creed and Tawhîd and (it) forgets, or ignores, theoretically or practically, governance (Hâkimiyyah) and human Tawâghît who constitute their own laws next to Allâh. What do you say about this?

Shaykh al-Albânî:

We agree with this to some extent. However, we do not agree with them on removing the Tawâghît, as they call them, without first having removed the Tawâghît of their souls.

This type of speech springs from the methodology of this group. They accuse us with this accusation. We deem that it is not time for this action (I.e. to overthrow rulers). We do not deny that it is obligatory to condemn each and every one who rules by something other than that which Allâh revealed. Is there some Islâmic group today that is ready to confront the rulers who do not rule by that which Allâh revealed without having prepared with the preparation we always speak about, namely spiritual and material preparation? They are in a hurry. They think that raising the voice against these rulers is enough in order to support Islâm. However, true victory is to make them understand true Islâm and practice it as good as they can.

I consider that history repeats itself. The first Muslims only cared about understanding the call of Islâm from its source, namely Allah’s messenger (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). They didn’t care about confronting the disbelievers and polytheists. The only exception is perhaps occasional, individual cases. But collectively, it first took place after the emigration of the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) from Makah to al-Madînah. This type of speech is thusly known to us from far back. We have experienced this in several Islâmic countries when they declared war against the disbelieving leader who does not rule by that which Allâh revealed. This was done without the spiritual and material preparation. It only ended with setbacks in the Islâmic call in several Islâmic countries.

Palestinian stones vs jewish machine guns – Shaykh al-Albani

Scholar: Imâm Muhammad Nâsir-ud-Dîn al-Albânî
Source: Silsilat-ul-Hudâ wan-Nûr (233), Reference: Maktabah Darulhadith.com
Audio and translation courtesy of aFatwa.com

Question: The Palestinian Intifada has now been going on for 1 ½ years. We throw stones at the jews that either hits them on the head or not. What do you say about throwing stones at the jews or continuing the Intifada in this way at all?

Shaykh al-Albânî: We have honored the intifada from the entire beginning. It deserves to be honored given its courage and heroism. However, it goes about the wrong way. If we firstly consider the Sharî’ah-based texts and thereafter the biography of the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), we see that this matter is in need of preparation. This preparation addresses two matters;

1. the spiritual
2. and the militaristic.

We already know that the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and his companions were subjected to hardships by the polytheists in Makkah until Allâh (tabârak wa ta’âlâ) allowed some of them to emigrate even if it be to Abyssinia. Allâh thereafter allowed the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to emigrate from Makkah to al-Madînah. He was followed by those who were able to follow, and others stayed. The believers are up until today subjected to the worst punishments [by the Kuffâr etc], which history is a witness to.

What I want to say is, the Muslims of the world (should not) rush it. They should rather prepare themselves to fight against the disbelievers (Kuffâr) and expel them from the Muslim countries to the disbelieving countries. That is why Allâh (ta’âlâ) said in the Qur’ân:

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy”

(8:60, interpretation of the meanings)

The intifada is undoubtedly just as (it was) before though even more evident. It has not been prepared at all in order to be able to fight against the disbelievers who have occupied this country (I.e. Palestine). Both spiritual and militaristic preparations are missing.

Secondly, we see that it is useless and worthless to confront various types of machine guns by way of stones. That is why I do not see any results from this intifada. It has now been going on for two entire years and they still stand on the same spot. Especially since the Arabic countries, who after all have a fairly [acceptable] military force, doesn’t help our brothers militaristically.

The Kursi of Allah – Shaykh al-Albani

Abu Dharr al-Ghifārī said that the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:

“The seven heavens in comparison to the Kursī is nothing but like a ring thrown in a desert, and the excellence of the ʽArsh (Throne of Allāh) over the Kursī is like the excellence of that desert over that ring.”

Shaykh al-Albānī comments:

“The hadīth comes forth as an explanation of (Allāh’s) statement, the Most High: ‘His Kursī extends over the heavens and the earth,’[1] and it is clear with regard to the existence of the Kursī being the greatest of creations after the Throne (of Allāh), and that it is an independent, physical entity and not something abstract. Therefore, there is a refutation in (this hadīth) against the one who interprets (the Kursī) to mean ‘dominion’ and ‘extent of rule,’ as mentioned in some explanations of the Qur’ān. And it was not narrated from Ibn Abbās that (the Kursī) is ‘knowledge,’ so it is not correct to attribute it to him because it is from the narration of Jaʽfar bin Abi l-Mughīra from Saʽīd bin Jubayr from (Ibn ʽAbbās). Ibn Jarīr reported it. Ibn Mandah said: ‘Ibn Abi l-Mughīra is not strong with regard to (narrating from) Ibn Jubayr.’

And know that it is not correct to describe the Kursī…as in some narrations that…four angels carry it, each angel having four faces, and their feet are upon the rock that is under the seventh earth, etc. So all of this is not correct in being attributed to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and some of (these narrations) are more severe in weakness than others.”

Translator’s Note: Shaykh Al-Albānī after this however, did grade the following narration as authentic:
Abu Mūsā al-Ashʽarī said: “The Kursī is the place of the two Feet and it has a groaning like that of a camel saddle.”[2]

~ asaheeha translations ~

[1] Sūrat ul-Baqarah, 2:255
[2] Mukhtasar ul-ʽUlū #85, graded Sahīh Mawqūf (attributed to a Companion) by Shaykh al-Albānī

Source: silsilat ul-ahādīth us-sahīha ~ the series of authentic narrations ~ hadīth no. 109

Description of Woman Passing the Hands over the Head whilst Performing Wudu – Shaykh al Albaani

By Shaykh Muhammad Nasir uddeen al-Albaani
Translated by Umm Yahya

 Muhammad Nasir- Deen Al-Albaani (d.1420A.H) -Rahimullaah- was asked:

Questioner:

I hear that some of the people of knowledge say that a woman who has long hair and makes Wudhu and wants to pass her wet hands over her head must begin from the front and pass her hands over her head until she reaches her neck. She then moves her hands back to the front (of her forehead) and it is not obligatory for her to pass her hands over all of her hair, even if her hair reaches the middle of her back. So what is the description of a woman with long hair when making Wudhu with relation to her passing her hands over her hair?

May Allah reward you with good.

Shaykh Al-Albaani answered:

‘The case is as mentioned in the question, we know from some of the people of knowledge, that a woman must begin wiping her head from her forehead to the back where the hairline finishes at the back of the head, and this is regardless of whether it is a man or a woman, she then moves the palms of her hands back to her forehead.

This is what is obligatory upon her, without doing anything extra.

Comments:

Amr bin AbdulMuna’im Saleem adds some notes to this answer:

‘As is verified in the hadeeth pertaining to the description of Wudhu of the Messenger of Allaah sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim. From the hadeeth of Abdullaah Bin Zaid Radi Allaahu anhu  ‘…then he sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam   passed his hands over his head from the front of the head to the back with his hands, he began at the forehead and then took them until the beginning of the neck, he then returned his hands to the place that they began from.’

[From: Jamia’ Masail an-Nisa’ p. 35 collected by ‘Amr bin AbdulMuna’im Saleem]

The Intention for the Prayer – Shaykh Al-Albaani

The Intention for the Prayer
Taken from the  ‘Original Sifat as-Salah’By Shaykh Muhadith Muhammad Nasir- Deen Al-Albaani
Translated by Abbas Abu Yahya

At-Takbeer
Then the Messenger – sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – used to begin the prayer by saying: ‘Allaahu Akbar.’
__________________________________
In this is an indication that the Messenger – sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – never used to say anything before the Takbeer, like pronouncing the Niyyah (intention).

Like some people say: ‘I have intended to pray for Allaah Ta’ala so many Rakat facing the Qiblah……..’ to the end of what is well-known amongst many of the people! All of that is Bida’; it has no foundation in the Sunnah.  This is something which the scholars are in agreement about.

It was not narrated on anyone of the Companions, nor did one of the Tabieen regard it as appropriate. Nor did any of the four Mujtahid Imaams.  But rather it was mentioned by some of the companions of Imaam Shafi’ee, when he said about the Hajj:

‘It is not necessary for the one who enters into the state of Ihraam and makes his intention with his heart, that he mentions it with his tongue.  Not like the prayer which is not correct except by an utterance.’

Ar-Raafi’ee said in ‘Sharh al-Wajeez’ (3/263):

‘The majority – i.e. From the scholars of the Shafi’eeyah – said: that Imaam Shafi’ee – may Allaah have mercy on him- did not intend by his statement the pronunciation of the intention with an utterance, rather he intended pronouncing the Takbeer; since the prayer is begun by this, and in the Hajj a person can become Muhrim without pronouncing the intention.’ It is similarly mentioned in ‘al-Majmoo’ 3/276-277

Indeed he has indicated this in ‘al-Muhadhib’ by saying: ‘And from amongst our companions there are those who say: Make an intention with the heart, and an utterance with the tongue. This is nothing since the Niyyah is the intent with the heart.’

‘Allaama Shaykh muwafiq ad-Deen Ibn Qudamaah al-Maqdasee said in his book ‘Dhum al-Moowasweseen’ p.7:

‘Know, may Allaah have mercy on you, that the Niyyah is the intent and decision to do an action and its place is the heart.  It has no connection with the tongue.

It has not been narrated on the authority of the Prophet – sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam – nor his Companions that they uttered the Niyyah in any situation.

These types of worship are ones which have been innovated at the beginning of purification and prayer, are not derived from the principles of worship.

So, the Niyyah is the intent of performing an action. Therefore, everyone who is decided on performing an action, then he has an intention.  And everyone who aims to perform an action, then he has an intention.  It is inconceivable to separate the intent from the Niyyah, because that is its true nature. So, the absence of the Niyyah is inconceivable when it is present.

Therefore, the one who sits to perform Wudu, then he has indeed intended to perform Wudu.  The one who stands to pray, then he has indeed intended the prayer.  An intelligent person will not perform an action from his worship or any other action without an intention (Niyyah).  So, the Niyyah is a matter which is inherent in actions which a person intends, and the Niyyah is not something that needs to tire a person out, nor does he need to acquire it since it is inherent.’ summarised.

So, if you know that it was not from the guidance of the Salaf as-Salih to pronounce the Niyyah; then it is obligatory upon you to follow them; since they are the example:
All good is in following the Salaf
And all evil is in the innovating of the Khalaf

Taken from the Original Sifat as-Salah vol 1 p.175-176

Separate Rooms For The Women In The Mosques – Shaykh al Albaani

[‘Silsilatul-Hudaa wan-Noor’ tape series of Shaikh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee – rahimahullaah.]
TAPE NO. 329 (00:25:39), [ repeated on tape no.351 (00:44:16)] :

Q. “ O Shaikh, the hadeeth which occurs in Saheeh Muslim, where the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, with the meaning: <<The worst of the rows of the women is the first one, and the best of them is the last one.>> So now, is that ruling, as is indicated by what is apparent from the hadeeth, the same in the closed rooms which are set up for that. Meaning in this closed places, for the women are now totally apart from the men; and it is well known that when (the scholars) spoke in explanation of the hadeeth they mentioned that the underlying reason for the first rows being the worst of them is that they are the closest ones to the men, as mentioned by an-Nawawee..”

A. ( “Yes?”)

Q. “So does what is apparent from the hadeeth apply to these closed places now?”

A. “Upon my belief I am not able to answer this question, because I think that the questioner consents to this closing off being something legislated, whereas I do not hold that.”

Q. “Yes.”

A. “Because this is an innovation (bid`ah). Locking the women away, or enclosing them (in rooms) in the mosques, especially in spacious mosques, on account of the corruption in society; and confining them to a room where the movements of the imaam will be hidden from them, so that they are sometimes liable to render their Prayer deficient, to the extent of its being null and void.

So in my belief locking the women away, in rooms specific to them in the mosques, is just the same as the row being cut by having an elongated minbar. Both of these are newly introduced affairs. So it is obligatory upon us to return to what the first Salaf were upon.

(We discussed this matter at length yesterday. Yes, the brother was present with us..the brother was with us..)

So it is said: The women today are different to the women of yesterday, and there can be added to that : this is something witnessed. So this saying results in the conclusion that it is therefore befitting that we should confine the women to these rooms, so that the men do not come across anything from that which should remain hidden from the women. So I gave a relatively long answer, and time was short, so I said, as part of a long discussion: that confining the women to these rooms is not a case of legislated masaalihul-mursalah (matters established for the welfare of the Muslims), since the reason for this confinement is a failing of the Islamic society- and it includes the women- to carry out legislated obligations. So if the women entered the mosques wearing the legislated jilbaab, then those who build these rooms would not have the idea entering their minds of confining the women to them. However when they witnessed, unfortunately, some women entering, some perhaps wearing a coat/jacket, or a ‘tunic’, or what they call a ‘jilbaab’ today, and it is not a jilbaab, down to their mid calves, or sometimes wearing transparent flesh coloured tights, and so on. so the gaze of the men was liable to see something that should be hidden. So therefore they said: We will screen the women away from the men in the mosque.

So I say: No! It is rather upon us to implement Islaam, and that we return the Islamic society as a whole, not sections of it, to what was the practice in the initial time. So we contend with the society today. We want the Muslims to return: with their scholars, their students, and their common folk, to that which the Salaf were upon; not to (blind) following of madhhabs, but rather to ‘Allaah said.., His Messenger said…’

There will not be a prevention of having differenct views, just as there was at the beginning, but we do not want there to be restrictive (blind) following of madhhabs. We want the societies, the elite and the general folk, to return to what the Salaf were upon.

As with the case of the mosques. We do not want there to be elongated minbars. We do not want there to be extended minbars in the form of trickery to escape legislated prohibitions (al- Hiyal ash-Shar`iyyah). They realized that the older minbars sever the rows (for the Prayer), so now they come out to us from a minbar which he enters via the mihraab, and he ascends and then appears to the people upon a little raised platform. Why all this twisting and turning? (All that is needed) is three steps, and Allaah has sufficed the Believers so that they have no need to fight. The best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. How many dirhams and deenaars does it cost to enable the khateeb to ascend to this platform? Based upon the claim: ‘We do not want to sever the rows.’ This claim is a good one. This is the case. However it can be attained without all of this unnecessary effort: take a minbar comprising three steps, and the problem is at an end. Likewise we do not want there to be all this decoration.

And lastly we do not want these rooms for the women. We want for the women what we want for the men: that which was previously present: that the women enter wearing hijaab, and the men move forward to the front rows.

Then in that case the previous hadeeth will apply: <<The best of the rows of the women is the last one, and the worst of them is the first one.>>

We do not want to reverse the indication of the hadeeth on account of the aberration that has appeared with the building of these rooms in the mosques.”

[Compiled by Aboo Talhah Daawood ibn Ronald Burbank]

http://alitisaambissunnah.wordpress.com

The Ascendancy of Allaah & A Refutation of Wahdatul Wujood & Hulool – Shaykh Albaanee

Shaykh Muhammad Nasir ud-deen al-Albaanee discusses the the Ascendancy of Allaah the Most High and a Critique of the Belief that He is Present in all That Exists.

Audio Source: Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 741-742.

Get close to Sutrah so that Shaytaan cannot break prayer – Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee

“He (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) used to stand near to the sutrah, so that there was (a distance of) three cubits between him and the wall” [37] and “between the place of his prostration and the wall, (there was) enough space for a sheep to pass.” [38]

He used to say:

«Do not pray except towards a sutrah, and do not let anyone pass in front of you, but if someone continues (to try to pass) then fight him, for he has a companion (i.e. a shaytaan) with him.»[39]

He would also say:

«When one of you prays towards a sutrah, he should get close to it so that Shaytaan cannot break his prayer.»[40]

Sometimes “he would seek to pray at the pillar which was in his mosque.” [41]

When he prayed [in an open space where there was nothing to use as sutrah he would plant a spear in the ground in front of him and pray towards it with the people behind him” [42];

Sometimes “he would to set his mount sideways and pray towards it” [43] but this is not the same as prayer in the resting-place of camels [44], which “he forbade” [45], and sometimes “he would take his saddle; set it lengthways and pray towards its end.” [46]

He would say:

«When one of you places in front of him something such as the stick on the end of a saddle, he should pray and not mind anyone who passes beyond it.»[47]

Once “he prayed towards a tree” [48] and sometimes “he would pray towards the bed on which ‘Aa.ishah (radhi-yAllaahu ‘anhaa) was lying [under her sheet].” [49]

He (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam), would not let anything pass between him and his sutrah, hence once “he was praying, when a sheep came running in front of him, so he raced it until he pressed his belly against the wall [and it passed behind him].” [50]

Also, once “while praying an obligatory prayer, he clenched his fist (during it), so when he had finished, the people said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, did something happen during the prayer?’ He said:

«No, except that the devil wanted to pass in front of me, so I strangled him until I could feel the coldness of his tongue on my hand By Allaah! Had my brother Sulaymaan not beaten me to it[51], I would have tied him (the devil) to one of the pillars of the mosque so that the children of Madeenah could walk round him. [So whoever can prevent something intervening between him and the qiblah, he must do so].»[52]

He also used to say:

«When one of you prays towards something which is a sutrah between him and the people and someone intends to cross in front of him, then he should push him in the throat [and repel, as much as he can], (in one narration: he should stop him, twice) but if he refuses (to not pass) then he should fight him, for verily he is a devil.»[53]

He also used to say:

«If the person who passed in front of someone praying knew (the sin) on him, it would be better for him to wait forty than to pass in front. (Abu an-Nadr said: “I do not remember exactly whether he said forty days, months or years.”).»[54]

What Breaks The Prayer

He used to say:

«A man’s prayer is cut off when there is nothing such as the end of a saddle in front of him, by: a [menstruating][55] woman, a donkey or a black dog.» Abu Dharr said: ‘I said: “O Messenger of Allaah, why the black dog rather than the red one?” He said:

«The black dog is a shaytaan.»[56]

Footnotes :

[36] lit., “screen, cover”; in the context of prayer, it refers to an object just beyond the place of prostration, within which nothing should pass, as is detailed in this section.

[37] al-Bukhaaree and Ahmad.

[38] al-Bukhaaree and Muslim.

[39] Ibn Khuzaymah in his Saheeh (1/93/1) with a sound isnaad.

[40] Abu Daawood, Bazzaar (p. 54 – az-Zawaa.id) and al-Haakim, who declared it saheeh and adh-Dhahabee and an-Nawawee agreed.

[41] al-Bukhaaree. The sutrah is a must for the Imaam or a person praying alone, even in a large mosque. Ibn Haanee said in his Masaa.il from Imaam Ahmad (1/66): “Abu `Abdullaah (i.e. Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal) saw me one day when I was praying without a sutrah in front of me, and I was in a (large) congregational mosque, so he said to me: `Take something as a sutrah’, so I took a man as a sutrah.” This contains an indication that Imaam Ahmad did not differentiate between big or small mosques in taking a sutrah – and that is surely correct, but this is something neglected by most people, including imaams of mosques, in every land that I have visited, including Arabia which I was able to tour in Rajab of this year (1410), so the `ulamaa should tell the people and advise them of this, explaining its ruling and that it is also required in the Two Sacred Mosques.

[42] al-Bukhaaree, Muslim and Ibn Maajah

[43] al-Bukhaaree and Ahmad.

[44] i.e., their kneeling place.

[45] al-Bukhaaree and Ahmad.

[46] Muslim, Ibn Khuzaymah (92/2) and Ahmad.

[47] Muslim and Abu Daawood.

[48] an-Nasaa.ee and Ahmad with a saheeh isnaad.

[49] al-Bukhaaree, Muslim and Abu Ya`laa (3/1107).

[50] Ibn Khuzaymah in his Saheeh (1/95/1), at-Tabaraanee (3/140/3) and al-Haakim who declared it saheeh and adh-Dhahabee agreed.

[51] Referring to the following prayer of the Prophet Sulaymaan (‘alayhis-salaam) which was answered by Allaah, as described in the Qur.aan:

{My Lord! Forgive me, and grant me sovereignty not allowed to anyone after me, for You are indeed the Granter of Bounties. So we subjected to his power: the Wind, gently flowing to his order, wherever he wished; and the devils, every kind of builder and diver, and also others bound together in fetters.} (Soorah as-Saad 38: 35-38)

[52] Ahmad, ad-Daaraqutnee and Tabaree with a saheeh isnaad, and similar in meaning to this hadeeth is found in al-Bukhaaree and Muslim and others on the authority of several Companions. It is one of the many ahaadeeth which the Qadiani group disbelieve, for they do not believe in the world of the jinn which is mentioned in the Qur.aan and the Sunnah. Their method of discarding the texts is well-known: if it is from the Qur.aan, they change its meaning e.g. the saying of the Exalted:

{Say, it has been revealed to me that a group of jinns listened} (72:1); they say “i.e. a group of humans”! making the word “jinn” synonymous with “human”! Hence they play with the language and the religion; if it is from the Sunnah, then if it is possible for them to change it with a false interpretation they do so, otherwise they find it easy to declare it to be false, even if all the Imaams of Hadeeth and the whole ummah behind them are agreed on its authenticity, nay its being mutawaatir. May Allaah guide them.

[53] al-Bukhaaree and Muslim, and the additional narration is from Ibn Khuzaymah (1/94/1).

[54] ibid.

[55] i.e. mature, and what is meant by `cut off’ is `rendered futile’. As regards the hadeeth: “Nothing cuts off the prayer”, then it is a weak hadeeth as I have shown in Tamaam al-Minnah (p. 306).

[56] Muslim, Abu Daawood and Ibn Khuzaymah (1/95/2).

Source:  Excerpted from the Book “The Prophet’s Prayer Described – from the beginning to the end as though you see it”, by Shaykh al-Albaanee

The Jilbaab and what Garments can Substitute It – Shaykh al-Albaani

AUTHOR:     Imaam Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee
SOURCE:     Masaa’il Nisaa’iyyah Mukhtaarah (pg. 125-131)
PRODUCED BY:     Al-Ibaanah.com

The following excerpt was taken from the book “Masaa’il Nisaa’iyyah Mukhtaarah min Fiqh al-‘Alaamah Al-Albaanee” [Selected Women’s Issues from the Fiqh of Imaam Al-Albaanee] compiled by Umm Ayoob Ghaawee. This book contains a collection of Al-Albaanee’s opinions on various issues related to women transcribed from his books, recorded lessons and lectures.

Shaikh Al-Albaanee was asked the following question in a recorded talk: “We would like more details on the definition of a jilbaab, since you have stated that your view on the jilbaab is that it is a garment that covers the body from the head to the feet. However, we have come across a rather large difference of opinion in the language books concerning this. Amongst the linguists are those who say it is a large gown, while others say it is a khimaar. And others hold the same view you mentioned, Shaikh. So we would like a further elaboration, may Allaah reward you, as well as which one is the strongest opinion.”

The Shaikh responded to the questioner: “I’m sorry but I’m having difficulty understanding the part where you said that some people hold the jilbaab to be the khimaar. What is the khimaar that you are referring to when you say that they consider it to be the jilbaab? This is because it is well-known that the khimaar is a head-covering and not an ample garment that covers a woman’s entire body from her head to her feet. So who is it that claims that the jilbaab is a khimaar from what you know, according to what I mentioned? This is truly a very strange thing. Who said this?!”

The questioner said: “This is mentioned in the book Lisaan-ul-‘Arab, where it states that such a definition for it is held by some people.”

The Shaikh said: “It states that the jilbaab is a khimaar?”

The questioner said: “Yes.”

So the Shaikh replied: “It is not possible to say this because as you know there are two ayahs in the Qur’aan – one ayah that orders women to wear the jilbaab while the other orders them to put on the khimaar. It is not possible to say that both ayahs contain a repetition of the same meaning, thus the jilbaab would be the khimaar, while the khimaar would be the jilbaab. Rather, both of these terms – the jillbaab and the khimaar – have their own respective meanings that are distinct from one another.

You know, for example, that when a woman is at home and she gets up to pray her obligatory prayers, for the most part, she is normally at home with her hair uncovered. So she just places her khimaar over her head. The Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Allaah does not accept the prayer of a mature woman unless she has a khimaar.’

What is meant here is not the jilbaab at all, but rather what is meant is the head-covering. From the evidences that indicate this is that the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) ordered us to wipe over the turban or the khimaar or the socks.

My objective behind this hadeeth is to show that it indicates that the khimaar is a garment that both men and women – males and females – share in wearing.

It cannot be understood from this, for those who understand the Arabic language, that a man can place a jilbaab over himself! Rather, it means that he can place a khimaar (head-covering) over himself.

So it is permissible for a person that places a khimaar over his head to wipe over it (when performing ablution), regardless of whether it is a man or a woman. My objective behind this discussion is to firstly confirm the quote according to the Arabic language, and secondly if it is finally confirmed that the quote is indeed found in Lisaan-ul-‘Arab and that it states that the meaning of a jilbaab is held to be a khimaar, then it is sufficient proof, from what you quoted, that such a statement is weak because of the fact that the author said: ‘It is held to mean such and such.’ (i.e. uncertainty)

Furthermore, if we study the texts from the Book and the Sunnah, of which we already mentioned some of them, we would derive with certainty that the khimaar is not a jilbaab and nor is the jilbaab a khimaar.

In brief, a khimaar covers less that a jilbaab while a jilbaab has a more ample range in terms of the parts that it covers. Also, a jilbaab is specific for only women. They were the ones who were ordered to wear it and not men. But as for the khimaar, then that is a garment that both men and women share in wearing. Even though a man is not obligated to wear it, regardless, it is a garment that both men and women partake in wearing, just like a shirt. In the same manner that a man wears a shirt to cover his ‘awrah – which is different from the ‘awrah of a woman – so does a woman. But her ‘awrah is ampler than the ‘awrah of a man.

This is why we said in the book ‘The Muslim Woman’s Hijaab’ that when a Muslim woman leaves from her home, she is obligated to do two things:

(1) To place a khimaar over her head, and (2) then to apply a jilbaab over that, thus going out dressed with the khimaar and the jilbaab. So when a woman goes out of her home, one garment does not suffice without the other – a woman must combine between both the khimaar and the jilbaab. You are aware of the Qur’anic verse related to the khimaar in which Allaah says: ‘And (tell them) to draw their khumur (veils) over their bosoms.’ [Surah An-Noor: 31]

Drawing a garment close to the bosom cannot be achieved with a jilbaab. This can only be achieved with a khimaar, since it is possible to wrap it. But as for the jilbaab, you know that it cannot be wrapped around the chest or on the neck. You can see here how the men wrap their khimaars and how they affix them to their necks. So due to this, what has been particularized here is the khimaar and not the jilaab. When a woman goes out from her house, she is obligated to place a khimaar over her head and to wrap it over her neck and her chest. This is since a jilbaab does not correspond in her attempt to achieve this comprehensive covering since it is ample and long whereas the khimaar is ample and short. So each of these garments has its own specific effect in fulfilling what a woman is obligated to cover. This is my response to what you have asked. If there is anything left that I have not covered in my discussion, then remind me of it.”

The questioner asked: “So then I understand from this that the jilbaab is not the wide gown that women wear today, here (in this country) for example, from the neck to the feet?”

The Shaikh responded: “No, not at all. This is not a jilbaab. However, this leads us to elaborate further on discussing what is related to the jilbaab. As we stated before, according to the language, a jilbaab is not a garment like that which is known as the balto. So what needs to be clarified now is:

The command directed towards women, particularly with regard to wearing the jilbaab, is not an obligatory act of worship which has a meaning that we can’t comprehend. Rather, on the contrary, it does have a meaning we can understand. And the meaning that is derived from it, which we indicated previously, is to achieve the covering that a woman must abide by.

So if, for example, a woman wears two garments or she makes the jilbaab into two pieces – one upper piece and one lower piece – and both of these pieces fulfill the objective of the jilbaab, which has been mentioned in the Qur’aan, at this point, even though we don’t refer to these two pieces as a jilbaab from a linguistic standpoint, we hold that it still fulfills the desired objective of the command to wear the jilbaab from a religious perspective.

There used to be found in Syria up to recently, and there still continues to be found in some practicing women that stick to the Religion, a garment called Malaa’at-uz-Zamm. Have you heard anything about this during your lifetime?”

The questioner replied: “We have something called a Malaa’ah (cloak).”

The Shaikh said: “No, I said Malaa’at-uz-Zamm.”

The questioner replied: “No, not with this term. We say Malaa’ah.”

The Shaikh said: “This is an Arabic term. The point is that this garment which we have with us in Syria consists of two pieces. The first piece is a skirt known as a tannoorah – are you familiar with this word?”

The questioner said: Yes.”

The Shaikh said: “A tannoorah is a skirt that is affixed to the waist with an elastic strap. So naturally it is wide and ample.

A woman wears this from here, thus covering the entire lower part of her body. Then over this tannoorah, which is called a kharraatah (skirt) in Syria, is placed the upper part of the garment, which is placed over the head and which a woman uses to cover her head, shoulders, sides, hips and even the belt strap that is tightened around the waist by this tannoorah or this kharraatah. No part of this skirt’s waist-strap is visible since it goes under it. Is the image clear?”

The questioner replied: “Yes.”

The Shaikh continued: “Amongst us here, they call this garment Malaayat-uz-Zamm (or Malaa’at-uz-Zamm), since the skirt is strapped at the waist with a plastic waistband. So if you have grasped a perception of this dress with us, then the point that I am trying to make is that even though this cloak-like garment is not a jilbaab (linguistically), it still fulfills the obligation of a jilbaab, which consists of covering the body completely. Is this clear to you?”

The questioner said: “Yes.”

The Shaikh said: “If the matter is clear, then we see that we are not obligated to adhere to the literal wording of the jilbaab, but rather to its end-result, objective and goal. Now I will go back to this ‘balto’ which I talked about previously, which the Muslim women wear today and which is of various types. It may be produced in long sizes for some of the practicing women reaching up to their feet. However, this is not a jilbaab. In spite of this, it is still not like the Malaa’at-uz-Zamm since it does not cover the head and what it consist of, for example. But what does the woman do today? She wraps a garment known as the esharp around her head – is this term known to you?”

The questioner answered: “Yes.”

The Shaikh said: “A small khimaar (i.e. the esharp) that is fastened to the head but which exposes parts of the forehead and temple and which also exposes parts of the neck since it is small in size, naturally does not fulfill the objective of a jilbaab according to its proper definition. The objective of a jilbaab is as we have discussed concerning the Malaayat-uz-Zamm. Is this clear? So let’s take the example of this woman who is wearing this balto – what would you call this?”

The questioner[1] said: “We call it a Hijaab.”

The Shaikh said: “No, this is wrong. The point is that if a woman wears this type of ‘Hijaab’ then places a khimaar over her head, then there must be a Hijaab, i.e. jilbaab placed over this khimaar. We have stated that there are two verses in the Qur’aan. This jilbaab may be divided into parts as we stated before when we discussed the Malaayat-uz-Zamm.

So therefore, if a woman wears that garment which you call a Hijaab and then places a valid khimaar over her head and not that which is known as the ‘esharp’, then places over this khimaar a partial garment that covers half of her body, such as one that covers her shoulders and hands, at this point, this becomes valid and acceptable according to the Religion.” [2]

Footnotes:

[1] The questioner was from Algeria.

[2] Silsilat-ul-Hudaa wan-Noor (tape no. 232)

Published: June 6, 2006

The Arab Race – Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah)

sourcesilsilat ul-ahaadeeth idh-dha’eefa – the series of weak narrations – hadeeth no. 163

~

“If the Arabs are humiliated, Islaam is also humiliated” – grading of hadeeth: mawdoo’ (fabricated)

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) comments:

“The glory of Islaam is not connected with Arabs only; rather Allaah may give it glory by other than them from the believers, as that happened during the time of the Ottoman Empire especially in its beginning. So Allaah had given glory to Islaam through them until its authority spread to the middle of Europe. Then, when they started to abandon the Sharee’ah (Islamic Legislation) and incline toward the European laws – taking that which is lower in exchange for that which is better – their authority diminished from those countries and others until it had disappeared from their (own) countries as well! Hence, only something little remained there of the manifestations that could indicate their Islaam! So by that, all of the Muslims were humiliated after their glory, and the disbelievers entered most of their countries and concentrated on humiliating them. And even if these (countries) were apparently freed from (the disbelievers’) colonization, they colonize them in secret under the screen of many projects such as the economy and the like! Therefore, it is established that Islaam is given glory and humiliated by the glory and humiliation of its people whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs, and ‘there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab except by taqwaa.’[1] So O Allaah! Give glory to the Muslims and inspire them to return to Your Book and the Sunnah of Your Prophet [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] until You give glory to Islaam by them.

However, that does not negate the Arab race being better than the race of the rest of the nations; rather, this is what I believe in – even though I am Albanian but indeed I am Muslim, all praises and thanks are to Allaah – because the precedence of the Arab race that I have mentioned is that which ahl us-sunnah wal jamaa’ah[2] are upon, and a group of mentioned narrations about this matter indicates (this), such as (the Prophet’s) (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) statement: ‘…Indeed Allaah chose Bani Kinaanah from the offspring of Ismaa’eel, and chose Quraysh from Bani Kinaanah, and chose Bani Haashim from Quraysh, and chose me from Bani Haashim.’[3]

But this should not cause the Arab to boast of his race – because it is from the affairs of jaahiliyyah which our Prophet Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), the Arab, had abolished, as clarified earlier – just as we should not be ignorant of the reason why the Arabs deserve precedence, which is what they were distinguished with in regard to their understanding, language, manners and works, and that qualified them to be the carriers of the Islamic da’wah to the other nations. So indeed if the Arab knows this and follows it, it will enable him to be – like his predecessors – a righteous member in carrying the Islamic da’wah. As for if he gives that up, then he doesn’t have any excellence at all; rather, the non-Arab who possesses the Islaamic manners is better than him no doubt, since true excellence is only following the eemaan (faith) and knowledge with which Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was sent. So whoever is stronger in it, he is better. And excellence is only by defined names in the Book and the Sunnah, such as Islaam, eemaan (faith), birr (righteousness), taqwaa, knowledge, righteous deeds, ihsaan and the like, and (it is) not by a person merely being an Arab or non-Arab, as Shaykh ul-Islaam ibn Taimiyah (rahimahullaah) said, and this is what (the Prophet) (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) pointed out with his saying: ‘Whoever’s deeds slow him down, his lineage will not make him go faster.’ Muslim narrated it.

In summary: Indeed the excellence of the Arabs is only due to virtues that are realized amongst them, but if (these virtues) disappear because of their negligence of their Islaam, their excellence will also disappear, and whoever from the non-Arabs adheres to (these virtues) will be better than them; ‘there is no superiority of the Arab over the non-Arab except by taqwaa.’ Therefore, the going astray of the one who calls to Arabism becomes clear, (who calls to it) while he does not possess any of its excellent characteristics at all; rather, he is a European inwardly and outwardly!”


[1] piety and fear of Allaah
[2] those who adhere to that which the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and his Companions were upon with regard to ‘aqeedah (belief), manhaj (methodology) and all other matters of the religion
[3] Saheeh at-Tirmithee #3606

Source : asaheeha translations

The difference between a mushrik and a kaafir – Shaykh Albanee

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 727

~

Question #7: “Is every mushrik (one who associates partners with Allaah) a kaafir(disbeliever), but not every kaafir is a mushrik? Or are they the same?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“This is the established understanding in people’s minds, except few of them. I will explain that with an example: a man bears witness that none has the right to be worshiped but Allaah and that Muhammad [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] is the Messenger of Allaah, and he prays, fasts and so on, but he rejects an aayahfrom the Qur’aan. This (man) has disbelieved or not disbelieved? He has disbelieved. Has he associated partners with Allaah? That which is correct is that he has associated partners with Allaah. Every kaafir is a mushrik and everymushrik is a kaafir; there is absolutely no difference between the two words…

Whoever disbelieves has associated partners with Allaah, and whoever associates partners with Allaah has disbelieved; there is no confusion about that. The evidence for this is if we remember the conversation of the believer and the disbeliever in Surat ul-Kahf: {And put forward to them the example of two men: unto one of them We had given two gardens of grapes, and We had surrounded both with date-palms; and had put between them green crops (cultivated fields) / Each of those two gardens brought forth its produce, and failed not in the least therein, and We caused a river to gush forth in the midst of them / And he had property (or fruit) and he said to his companion, in the course of mutual talk: ‘I am more than you in wealth and stronger in respect of men’}[1] – pay attention now – {And he went into his garden while in a state (of pride and disbelief) unjust to himself. He said: ‘I think not that this will ever perish / And I think not the Hour will ever come-}.[2] According to your wrong understanding, this (man) has disbelieved but not associated partners with Allaah and he (only) denied the Resurrection. He (then) said: {-and if indeed I am brought back to my Lord, (on the Day of Resurrection), I surely shall find better than this when I return to Him’ / His companion said to him during the talk with him:-}[3] {-‘If you see me less than you in wealth, and children, / It may be that my Lord will give me something better than your garden, and will send on it Husbaan (torment, bolt) from the sky, then it will be a barren slippery earth / Or the water thereof (of the gardens) becomes deep-sunken (underground) so that you will never be able to seek it’ / So his fruits were encircled (with ruin). And he remained clapping his hands (with sorrow) over what he had spent upon it, while it was all destroyed on its trellises, and he could only say: ‘Would that I had ascribed no partners to my Lord!’}[4]

Therefore, when he denied the Resurrection, he associated partners with Allaah. So, whoever disbelieves in something that has come in the Book (Qur’aan) or the Sunnah, then he is (also) a mushrik during his state of disbelief; this is with respect to the Qur’aanic text. So what is the intellectual reason (for this)? The answer is that (Allaah), the Most High, said: {Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilah (god)?}[5] Therefore, whoever disbelieves with any type of disbelief is (also) a mushrik, because he himself made his logic to be a partner with His Lord, the Blessed and Most High. Thus, do not differentiate between kufr (disbelief) and shirk (associating partners with Allaah)…

Likewise, another hadeeth (mentions): ‘Whoever swears by other than Allaah hasdisbelieved’ and ‘whoever swears by other than Allaah has associated partners with Him.’[6] He has committed kufr, he has committed shirk. He has committedshirk, he has committed kufr. There is no difference between the two words with regard to terminology in the Islamic legislation. With regard to linguistic terminology, there is a difference no doubt, but the Islamic legislation opens our insight, thinking and understanding. Why is everyone who disbelieves in Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, with any type of disbelief (also) a mushrik? Because he has made his logic to be a partner with His Lord, the Mighty and Majestic.”

[1] Surat ul-Kahf, 18:32-34
[2] Surat ul-Kahf, 18:35-36
[3] Surat ul-Kahf, 18:36-37
[4] Surat ul-Kahf, 18:39-42
[5] Surat ul-Jaathiyah, 45:23
[6] Saheeh at-Tirmithee #1535

~

asaheeha translations

Regarding what is obligatory upon men and women to cover of their bodies

A woman is commanded to cover her hair with a veil when she prays by herself in her house, whereby she is allowed to expose it outside the salât. Therefore, it is the Right of Allâh on us to take an adornment when praying.

No one has the right to circumambulate the Ka’bah nakedly[1] even if he is alone in darkness where no one can see him. Likewise, it is not permissible for him to pray nakedly even if he is by himself.

It is from this point that we understand that, taking of an adornment in salât, is not for the purpose of veiling from people. Doing that is one thing and veiling from people is another thing. Also, it is understood that, an individual may cover in salât that which is permissible for him to expose outside the salât, and a woman may expose in salât that which she covers from the sight of men.

The example of the first issue is like that of the shoulders. For verily the Prophet (Sallalaahu Alaihi wa Sallam), has forbidden one of us to pray in one cloth that covers not his shoulders this is because it is the right of salât that one covers his shoulders when he prays though it is permissible for him to expose his shoulders to men outside the salât.

Likewise the free woman,[2] it is a must on her to put on a head-covering when praying as the Prophet (Sallalaahu Alaihi wa Sallam),  said:

“لاَ يَقْبَلُ اللهُ صَلاَةَ حَاءِضٍ إِلاّ بِخِمَارٍ”

Allâh the Almighty will not accept the prayer of the woman who reached puberty except with a head-covering” though it is not upon her to put on Khimâr [i.e., head-covering] whenever she is with her husband or her family members. That is because it is permissible for her to expose the hidden adornment to them, but it is not permissible for her to expose her head when praying, neither to her family members nor other than them.

And the opposite of that are the face, the hands and the feet. It is impermissible for her to expose these parts to foreign men according to the most correct opinion. Contrary to what was before the abrogation of that rule, as a matter of fact, she is only allowed to expose her garment. But as for covering those parts [face, hands and feet] in salât, it is not obligatory according to the consensus of the scholars though they are from the hidden adornment. But as for the ruling of the hands, the majority of the scholars like Abu Haneefah, Shafi’ee and others, have agreed upon the permissibility of exposing them in salât. And this is one of the narrations of Imam Ahmad. Also, according to Abu Haneefah it is permissible to expose the feet when praying, and this is the strongest opinion; because Ayesha has considered it from the apparent adornment.

[1] It is agreed upon. And it is emanated in “Sahih Abi Dawud” [637] and “Ir’waa Al-Ghalil” [275].

[2] I said: Particularization of Khimâr to the free woman is of the issues that has no proof for it. Rather, the generality of the following Hadith negates that. And look in the previous comment.

Taken from “The Veil of The Muslim Women and Her Dress in Salat” – by Sheikh-ul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah which has its verification by the Muhaddith of our times Sheikh Muhammad Nasrideen Al-Albaani may Allâh have mercy on them both. 

Buy the book here http://www.authenticstatements.com/bk-00052/

The inheritance of Paradise – Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah)

source: alkhawf wa rrajaa – fear and hope (of Allaah) – tape no. 1

~

Abu Huraira (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) said that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Whoever fears (Allaah) sets out at nightfall,[1] and whoever sets out at nightfall will reach the goal. Indeed, the goods of Allaah are expensive; indeed, the goods of Allaah is Paradise.”[2]

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) comments:

“The meaning of this is that there is a price for entering Paradise and that entering it does not happen by feeling safe (from the plan of Allaah) and at-tawaakul (not taking any means and saying ‘Allaah will provide for me’), but rather it happens by (doing) righteous deeds and at-tawakkul (taking the means and putting one’s trust) in Allaah, the Blessed and Most High; as Allaah, the Might and Majestic, said: ‘And say (O Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)) ‘Do deeds! Allaah will see your deeds, and (so will) His Messenger [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam].’’[3]

And in this hadeeth, there is an indication of the noble aayah that says: ‘This is the Paradise which you have been made to inherit because of your deeds which you used to do (in the life of the world),’[4] and in the other aayah: ‘Enter you Paradise because of that (the good) which you used to do (in the world).’[5] And here, it occurs to many students who have some participation in studying theSunnah, as they read or at least hear the statement of the Messenger (of Allaah) (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam) which is established in the saheehayn[6] that he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said:  “‘None of you will enter Paradise by his (good) deeds, but rather by the Favor of Allaah and His Mercy.’ They said, ‘Not even you O Messenger of Allaah?’ He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said, ‘Not even myself, unless Allaah encompasses me with His Favor and His Mercy.’”[7] So it seems that there is a contradiction between this hadeeth and the previousaayah along with our hadeeth in this book of ours where (the Prophet) (‘alayhi ssalaam) said: ‘Indeed, the goods of Allaah are expensive; indeed, the goods of Allaah is Paradise.’ Hence, there is a price (that one must pay) for Paradise and the two previous aayaat indicate that the price of Paradise is righteous deeds, and there is no doubt that good deeds do not benefit the one who does them at all except if he is truly a believer in Allaah and His Messenger [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam]. So therefore, the price of Paradise is eemaan (faith) and righteous deeds. Then how does one reconcile between these three texts – this reality that we learned from our hadeeth tonight, ‘Indeed, the goods of Allaah are expensive’ and from the two previous aayaat – and between this hadeeth: ‘None of you will enter Paradise by his (good) deeds, but rather by the Favor of Allaah and His Mercy’?

The reconciliation between (these two) is that… that which is negated in the lasthadeeth ‘None of you will enter Paradise by his (good) deeds’ is one thing and that which is confirmed in the aayah ‘Enter you Paradise because of that (the good) which you used to do (in the world)’ is something else. That which is established in the aayah and the like is merely the entrance (into Paradise), i.e., the key to Paradise, as mentioned in some narrations from Wahb bin Munabbih in Saheeh al-Bukhaari: ‘…the key to Paradise is laa ilaaha illAllaah (none has the right to be worshiped but Allaah).’[8] So the key to Paradise is this eemaan (faith) and righteous deeds. But, if this Muslim enters Paradise and he enjoys in it, as mentioned in some authentic narrations, that which ‘no eye has seen, no ear has heard and (that which) has not come to the mind of a human being,’[9] then this type of enjoyment is not by means of a price that this enjoyer presented, but rather (it is) by the Favor of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, and His Mercy.

So the price of merely entering (into Paradise) is eemaan (faith) and righteous deeds. As for, part of the specific nature of enjoyment in Paradise which we pointed to previously – there is in it what ‘no eye has seen, no ear has heard and (what) has not come to the mind of a human being’ – then there is no price for this; it is impossible for a price to be determined for it. Why?

It has been mentioned in Saheeh Muslim from the hadeeth of ‘Abdullaah bin Mas’ood (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) that the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:[10] ‘Indeed, I know the last man to come out from the Fire and the last man to enter Paradise. A man will come out of the Fire crawling.’ The meaning of this is that he comes out of the Fire being the most punished in it from the Muslims,and he comes out destroyed, exhausted (and) fatigued. Therefore, he is not able to walk straight as Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, created him. But rather, he crawls until his life returns to him and his limbs are energetic and active. So he walks in this manner until Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, shows him a very great tree from far such that he is captivated by its beauty and splendor. And he wished for the Favor of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, and His Mercy after He saved him from the His severe punishment. Thus, he says: ‘O my Lord! Bring me to this tree so that I may be shaded by its shade, eat from its fruit[11] and drink from its water.’ Then Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, says, while having more knowledge of His slave: ‘Would you ask me for other than it?’ (The man) says: ‘No O Lord, I will not ask you for other than it.’ So Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, brings him to that tree such that he is shaded by its shade, eats from its fruit and drinks from its water. Then, he continues on his way toward Paradise. Meanwhile, another tree appears to him which is more radiant, more beautiful and greater than the first one. So he hopes again and wishes more and more for the Favor of Allaah, so he asks Him and says: ‘O my Lord! Bring me to this tree’- and repeats the previous saying, then he is shaded by its shade and so on. Then Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, says: ‘Would you ask me for other than it?’ (The man) says: ‘I will not ask you for other than it,’ while (Allaah) is more knowledgeable of him; our Lord knows that he will wish and wish until he enters Paradise. So He brings him to that tree such that he is shaded by its shade, eats from its fruit[12] and drinks from its water. Then, he continues on his way until he comes near the door of Paradise such that part of its refreshment, scent and joy come to him and he hears the voices of the people of Paradise. Thus, he says: ‘O my Lord! Let me enter Paradise,’ and maybe he says ‘Let me enter past the door of Paradise.’ So Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, says: ‘Enter Paradise, and there is for you the like of the world and ten times as much.’ So, the slave – almost not believing in the like of this divine favor when (Allaah) says to him ‘there is for you in Paradise the like of the world and ten times as much’ – says: ‘Are you mocking me while you are the Lord?’ And here, the narrator of the hadeeth laughed, who was ‘Abdullaah bin Mas’ood as we mentioned. So he was asked by the one to whom he was narrating this hadeeth: ‘Why did you laugh?’ He said: ‘Because when the Messenger (of Allaah) (‘alayhi ssalaam) narrated the statement of the slave to His Lord ‘Are you mocking me while you are the Lord,’ he (‘alayhi ssalaat was salaam) had also laughed.’ They had asked the Messenger (of Allaah) (‘alayhi ssalaam) himself (about his reason for laughing), so he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] said: ‘Because Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, laughed at His slave when he said ‘Are you mocking me while you are the Lord.’

What is clear from the hadeeth is that this person is the last to come out from the Fire and the last to enter Paradise, and he will have the like of the world and ten times as much. So does this destroyed person, who was the last to come out of the Fire, deserve this vast dominion in Paradise for his (good) deeds? No, this is by the Favor of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, and His Mercy…

Thus, if we regard this detailed explanation, the contradiction disappears between this hadeeth and the two aayaat. And this is one of the many examples in which some contradiction appears to some people, even the sincere ones amongst them, between some texts, whether from the Qur’aan and Sunnah or from each of them individually. So, the Muslim must not be hasty and he must reflect on both texts, and if the way for reconciling between the two is not possible for him, he (should) ask the one who is above him, as our Lord, the Blessed and Most High, said: ‘So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.’”[13]


[1] Shaykh al-Albaani explains: “i.e., he is headed for good and righteous deeds early, and he hastens to do them.”
[2] Saheeh at-Tirmidhee #2450
[3] Surat ut-Tawbah, 9:105
[4] Surat uz-Zukhruf, 43:72
[5] Surat un-Nahl, 16:32
[6] the two saheehs, i.e. Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim
[7] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #5673, Saheeh Muslim #2816
[8] Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Book 23, Chapter 1
[9] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #4779
[10] the following includes the narrations of Saheeh Muslim #186 and #187, in addition to the shaykh’s commentary
[11] the wording, “eats from its fruit,” is found in Saheeh aj-Jaami’ #1557 and attributed to the second tree
[12] the wording, “eats from its fruit,” is found in Saheeh aj-Jaami’ #1557
[13] Surat ul-Ambiyaa, 21:7

~

asaheeha translations

The Traveler, Traveling and Its Conditions – Shaykh Albanee

[Click Here to Watch the Video with English Subtitles]

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 247

~

Question #2: Why did you complete (your prayer)? [The shaykh was led in prayer during his journey, then the imaam shortened but the shaykh did not shorten (the prayer), so he was asked about that]

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“The matter of being considered a traveler, in my understanding, does not depend on crossing a fixed distance as much as it depends on two things, the foundation of which is the intention, and the other is leaving the city/country. So if there is the intention to travel, and he leaves the city/country, the rulings of traveling are applicable (to him); and after that, the distance that he crosses is not regarded, whether long or short. As for (if) the fundamental principle is not present, which is the intention, then this (person) who left (the city/country) is not a traveler even if he crossed a long distance or less or more, because traveling is one of the rulings that are linked with this hadeeth, about which some of the scholars of Islaam have said that it is a third of Islaam: ‘Actions are only by (their) intentions and every person will have only that which he intended.’[1] And the truth is that this is a very sensitive issue about which the views of the scholars have differed and they did not agree on something completely clear such that it would be possible for someone to say: ‘This is the truth, it is quite obvious, so leave the side issues off of me.’ No one can say this, but all that he can say is: ‘I chose such and such.’

So I chose – what I understood from the treatise of Ibn Taimiyah (rahimahullaah) regarding this matter. He has a special treatise about the rulings of traveling. Indeed he struck a very wonderful example, from which the researcher and student of knowledge understand that traveling has nothing to do with crossing a long distance over a short distance. As for (saying) that it has nothing to do with crossing a short distance, then I think this is not an area of debate, because it is established from the Messenger (of Allaah) (‘alayhi ssalaat wa ssalaam) that he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] used to leave from Madinah to al-Baqee’(graveyard); then he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] would greet them (the dead) with the salaam, then return. He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] used to go out to the martyrs, to Uhud; he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] would greet them with the salaam, then return. He [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] did not consider himself a traveler although he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] left the city. And the opposite of that as well – if he crossed a long distance, that does not mean that he became a traveler merely because of crossing this distance.

The example that (Ibn Taimiyah) struck is as the following. He was from Damascus like me, and there are well-known towns around Damascus, so he struck an example with a city known up to this time as Duma. He said, if a man seeking game[2] left from Damascus to Duma (which is) 15 kilometers (away) – there is no doubt that (crossing) this distance is (considered) traveling according to our custom if the fundamental condition exists, which is the intention to travel – (Ibn Taimiyah) says that this man is not considered a traveler because he had left for hunting then for returning. But what happened was that he did not find the game that he was looking for, so he continued on the journey, and continued and continued, and kept going on until he reached where? – Aleppo; and there are approximately 400 kilometers between Aleppo and Damascus today by car. (Ibn Taimiyah) says this (man) is not a traveler – although he had crossed (many) distances of the traveler, not just one distance – because the first condition, which is the intention to travel, was not there in this person. Thus, we can say that a car driver leaves early in the morning from ‘Ammaan for instance to reach Ma’aan(then) to al-‘Aqabah,[3] returning by evening; this (person) is not a traveler because he, due to his work, does not intend to travel; rather he intends to carry out this work to make a living.

Therefore, regarding the subject of traveling, we must take into consideration the fundamental condition, which is the intention. And by us taking into consideration this intention, the ruling differs for two persons who cross one and the same distance, but one of them is a traveler and the other is not considered a traveler because of the difference in their intentions. And in this manner, there also occur rulings related to the ruling of residency, i.e. residency that is planned for a specific time. (For example), two men left a city, both as travelers; they landed in another city. The staying of one of them is that of a traveler (but) the other one is a resident. Why? Because (this second man) has another wife there, so he (goes) from one wife to another wife. Thus, because of there being a wife for him who causes him to be chaste, gives him a home and arranges his accommodations for him, he takes a ruling other than that of his companion because the situation differed in some ways.

Therefore, we learn of a very important conclusion, which is that the exact rulings of traveling differ from one person to another. So, we don’t assign to a person the ruling of another (person), and also the opposite likewise.”


[1] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #1
[2] animals hunted for food
[3] these are all cities in Jordan

~

asaheeha translations

Wives Preventing Polygyny (having more than one wife at one time) – Shaykh al-Albaani

Source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light – tape no. 787

Polygyny : The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time.

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor, tape no. 787/3
asaheeha translations

Question: “Is it allowed for a woman to come between her husband and polygyny?”

Shaikh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah):

“Of course, I believe that this is not allowed for her because of two reasons: 1) she is hindering (her husband) from the (lawful) path of Allaah, and 2) she is opposing the command of her husband. Because you know that the obedience of a woman to her husband is obligatory as is the case with the obedience of a member of a nation to the Muslim ruler – I don’t say blind obedience, but rather complete obedience – except that which the Legislation has made an exception, i.e. except if it is in disobedience to Allaah. And based on this there are Legislated rulings: that if the Muslim ruler commands something that is fundamentally allowed, this command becomes obligatory upon the one who is commanded with it to carry out, because it is the command of the Walee ul-Amr (Muslim ruler). Exactly likewise is the affair with respect to the wife with her husband.

So if a husband commands his wife to do something which is fundamentally allowed in the Legislation and which the woman is able to carry out, then it is obligatory upon her to obey him. And if she does not obey him, she has disobeyed Allaah and His Messenger (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Therefore when a woman sets up obstacles that may come between her husband and the thing he wants to attain which Allaah (‘azza wa jal) has allowed, let alone if the allowed matter is something desired and legislated, then no doubt she will be disobedient two times: 1) as I mentioned previously, she is hindering (her husband) from the (lawful) path, and 2) she is opposing her husband in something that is not for her to oppose because she is able (to carry it out) and he is not wanting to do an act of disobedience to Allaah.”

PS : Webster’s New World Dictionary defines Polygamy as “the practice of having two or more wives or husbands at the same time.”  Since Muslim women are not allowed to have two or more husbands at the same time, let’s find a better word:  Polygyny.  The same dictionary defines polygyny as “a practice of having two or more wives at the same time.” Polyandry (Greek: poly- many, andros- man) refers to a form of marriage in which a woman has two or more husbands at the same time

A woman invalidating a woman’s prayer – Shaykh al-Albaani

silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor 93/7
asaheeha translations

Q: “If a woman passes in front of someone praying she invalidates the prayer, so does she also invalidate the prayer of a woman?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

Yes, a woman invalidates the prayer of another woman (if she passes in front of her) under the condition mentioned in some established narrations: if she has reached puberty. And there is no difference in rulings of the Legislation between men and women unless there is a text excepting women from the men; and there is no (such) text here. Rather the text is general: ‘one’s prayer is invalidated if a woman (who has reached puberty), a donkey or a black dog passes in front of him, if there isn’t something like the rear part of a camel saddle in front of him.’[1] So there is no difference in the ruling.”

[1] Saheeh Muslim 511, Saheeh Ibn Maajah 786

Warning mankind about the issue of standing up (for others) – Shaikh Al-Albaanee

Source: Fataawaa of Shaikh Al-Albaanee [Al-Asaalah, Issue #20]

The Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said: “Whoever loves that the people appear before him standing (up for him), then let him find his seat in the Hellfire.” Reported by Al-Bukhaaree in Al-Adab-ul-Mufrad (977) and others

It occurs from the path of Habeeb Ibn Ash-Shaheed on the authority of Abu Mujliz, who said: “Mu’awiyah entered a house in which was ‘Abdullaah Ibn Az-Zubair and ‘Abdullaah Ibn ‘Aamir. So Ibn ‘Aamir stood up while Ibn Az-Zubair remained seated – and he was the one with the most experience of the two. So Mu’awiyah, radyAllaahu ‘anhumaa, said: “Sit O Ibn ‘Aamir for I heard the Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, say: [and he mentioned the hadeeth]. At-Tirmidhee said: “It is a hasan hadeeth.” I say: Rather, it is a saheeh hadeeth.

Al-Mukhlis said in (his book) Al-Fawaa’id:
‘Abdullaah narrated to us: Dawood reported to us: Marwaan reported to us, Mugheerah Ibn Muslim As-Siraaj reported on the authority of ‘Abdullaah Ibn Buraidah that he said: “Mu’awiyah went outside (one day) and saw that they were standing up because he was going out. So he said to them: Sit for the Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said: ‘Whoever is pleased that the Children of Adam (mankind) stand up for him, Hellfire becomes binding upon him.'”

This hadeeth has an authentic chain of narration.
Shabaaba Ibn Siwaar followed up the same hadeeth except that he reported “Whoever loves that men gather around him standing (up for him)…” and the rest is the same.

Reported by At-Tahaawee (2/38/39) and Al-Khateeb in Taareekh Baghdaad (13/193). And the hadeeth has another supporting evidence with Al-Khateeb (11/361) in mursal form concerning a road story. He reported it from ‘Abd-ur-Razzaaq Ibn Sulaimaan Ibn ‘Alee Ibn Al-Ja’ad who said: I heard my father say:

“Once Al-Ma’moon (the Khaleefah at that time) went to visit the jewelers in the market place. So he haggled with them on the price of an object that they had. Then Al-Ma’moon embarked on completing some of his needs. Then he left, so everyone that was in that gathering stood up for him except for Ibn Al-Ja’ad, for he did not stand. So Al-Ma’moon looked at him with an expression of anger. Then he took him to the side and said: ‘O Shaikh, what prevented you from standing up for me as your companions stand up for me?’ So he (‘Alee Ibn Al-Ja’ad) said: ‘I honor the Ameer Al-Mu’mineen too much (to stand up for him) because of the hadeeth that we report from the Prophet, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.’ He said: ‘What is it?’ “Alee Ibn Al-Ja’ad said: ‘I heard Al-Mubaraak Ibn Fudaalah say: I heard Al-Hasan say: the Prophet, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said…[then he mentioned the hadeeth with the first wording]. So Al-Ma’moon lowered his head pondering over the hadeeth. Then he raised his head and said: ‘No one should buy except from this Shaikh.’ So the people bought only from that Shaikh on that day till he had the amount of thirty thousand deenaars.”

So Allaah’s saying:
“And whoever fears Allaah, he will make a way out for him (i.e. from difficulty), and he will provide for him from places he never imagined” became a reality for ‘Alee Ibn Al-Ja’ad, the reliable and trustworthy reporter.

Ad-Dainooree reported a similar story to this in Al-Muntaqaa min Al-Majaalisah: Ahmad Ibn ‘Alee Al-Basree narrated to us saying:

“Al-Mutawakkil (the Khaleefah at that time) turned his attention to Ahmad Ibn Al-Mu’adhal and other scholars and so he gathered them in his home. Then he came out to them, so all of the people there stood up for him except Ahmad Ibn Al-Mu’adhal. So Al-Mutawakkil said to ‘Ubaidullaah. ‘This man does not agree with swearing allegiance to us (bay’ah).’ So he (‘Ubaidullaah) said to him: ‘Yes O Ameer Al-Mu’mineen, but he appears to have bad eyesight.’ So Ahmad Ibn Al-Mu’adhal said: ‘O Ameer Al-Mu’mineen, I do not have any defect in my eyesight. But rather I removed you from the punishment of Allaah, the Most Exalted, for the Prophet, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said: ‘Whosoever loves that men present themselves to him standing (up for him), then let him find his seat in the Hellfire.’ So Al-Mutawakkil went to sit down beside him.”

Ibn ‘Asaakir reported in Taareekh Dimashq (19/170/2) with his chain of narration to Al-Awzaa’ee:
Some of the guards of ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd-il-‘Azeez (the Khaleefah) narrated to me saying:

“‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd-il-‘Azeez came out one day while we were waiting for him on the day of Jumu’ah. So when we saw him, we stood up. So he said: ‘When you see me do not stand up but instead spread out (to make way for passing).'”

The Fiqh (understanding) of the Hadeeth: This hadeeth indicates two matters to us:

First: The prohibition of someone loving that people stand up for him when he enters. And this evidence is clear such that there is no need for it to be clarified.

Second: The disapproval of those sitting to stand up for the one who is entering, even if he doesn’t have a love for people standing up for him. This falls under the aspect of helping one another in goodness and avoiding opening the door to evil. And that is an accurate understanding that has been indicated to us by the narrator of the hadeeth, Mu’awiyah, radyAllaahu ‘anhumaa, when he refused that ‘Abdullaah Ibn ‘Aamir stand up for him, and he used this hadeeth as evidence for what he said. He did this because of his understanding and knowledge of the Religion and it’s legal principles, which include “preventing the means”, and because of his awareness of the natural dispositions of humans and their reactions to good and evil factors.

And if you were to imagine a community like the community of the first predecessors, they never practiced the custom of standing up for one another. It would be very rare that you find among them anyone that loved this kind of standing, which can throw someone into the Hellfire. And this was due to the lack of there being present that thing which would remind one about it – and it is the standing itself. On the other hand, if you were to look at a society like our society today, they have taken this particular type of standing as a normal custom. Indeed, this practice, particularly when done repeatedly, constantly reminds the person. So then the person’s soul desires it and finds pleasure in it until he ends up loving it. So when he loves it, he becomes ruined. So it becomes from the aspect of helping one another towards righteousness and Taqwaa to abandon doing this standing, even to those whom we feel don’t have a love for it, out of fear that our standing up for him will bring him to love it, for then we would be assisting him in bringing destruction to his soul and this is not permissible. Among the proofs that bear witness to this is when you see some of the people of knowledge of whom it is thought have good manners, their souls change when their eyes fall upon an individual that does not stand up for them. This is if they don’t become angry with him and attribute him with having little manners and give him the tidings of being prevented form the blessing of knowledge due to his lack of showing respect for its people, according to their claim.

Rather, there is even among them he who calls others to stand, deceiving them with such sayings as “You do not stand up for me for the sake of a body of flesh and bones, but rather you only stand up for the knowledge that is contained in my chest!!” As if the Prophet, sallAllaahu ‘ alayhi wa sallam, did not have knowledge in his!! For the Companions did not used to stand up for him. Or is it that the Companions did not used to give him the respect that was befitting of him! So can a Muslim honestly say this or the other?!

And due to this hadeeth and others beside it, a group of scholars have taken the opinion that it is prohibited to stand up for another person, as is stated in Al-Fath (4/14). Then he (Ibn Hajr) said: “The outcome of what has been reported on Maalik is the forbiddance of standing for the length of time that the one who is being stood up for doesn’t sit., even if he is busy serving himself. For he (Maalik) was asked about the woman who goes to great extents in hosting her husband, by receiving him, taking off his (outer) garments and standing until he sits? So he responded: ‘As for her receiving him, then there is nothing wrong with this. But as for her standing until he sits down, then no, for this is from the acts of the tyrants. And ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd-il-‘Azeez forbade this.”

I say: There is nothing in this subject that presents a contradiction to the evidence found in this hadeeth at all. And those who oppose and hold the opinion that it is permissible to stand, rather that it is recommended, they use as evidence ahaadeeth, some of which are authentic and some of which are weak. But all of them, when one reflects on their chains of narration and texts do not present a contradiction to the evidences for that (prohibition).

And what further confirms and clarifies this is the Prophet’s dislike of people standing up for him:

“There was no individual in the world that was more beloved to them than the Messenger of Allaah, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. And when they would see him, they would not stand up for him due to what they knew of his dislike for that.”

Reported by Al-Bukhaaree in Al-Adab-ul-Mufrad (946), At-Tirmidhee (2/125), At-Tahaawee in Mushkil-ul-Athaar (2/39), Ahmad (3/132), and Abu Ya’laa in his Musnad (2/183) and the wording is from him. It is from the path of Humaid on Anas, radyAllaahu ‘anhu. And At-Tirmidhee said: “It is a hasan saheeh hadeeth, ghareeb from this perspective.” I say its chain of narration is authentic according to the standards of Muslim.

This hadeeth strengthens what the previous hadeeth has indicated from the forbiddance of standing out of respect and honor. This is since if standing up were a legislated form of showing respect, it would not be permitted for him sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to make it disliked for his Companions. And he, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is the most deserving of people to be shown respect and honor. And they, radyAllaahu ‘anhum, were the most aware of people of what he, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, deserved.

Also, the Prophet, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, hated this standing up for him to be done by his Companions. So therefore, it is upon the Muslims – especially if they are from the people of knowledge and exemplary figures – that they should hate that for themselves, in accordance with following his, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, way. And they should hate that for those Muslims beside themselves due to his saying: “None of you truly believes untill he loves for his brother what he loves for himself from good.” So no one should stand up for him nor should he stand up for anyone. Rather their hatred for this standing should be greater than that of the Prophet’s hatred (for it). This is since if they do not hate it, it will become a normal practice for some of them to stand up for others. And that will lead them to hold a love for it, which then will serve as a cause for which they will be deserving of the Hellfire, as is stated in the previous hadeeth. And Allaah’s Messenger sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not like this, for he was free and protected from having any love for this act of disobedience. So if he also hated it along with that, it becomes clear that it is more fitting that the Muslim hate it. [30]

The Prophet, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, has gathered the comprehensive and abundant good manners in his saying: “He is not from us who doesn’t have mercy for our young, and respects our old and knows the right of our scholar.” [31]

So knowing the right of the scholar requires having good manners with him in his presence as well as in his absence. However, this does not require that one should worship him, as is the case with some of the Sufis and the extremists among the shaikhs. An example of this is standing up for the scholar when he enters the gathering. This act is not befitting for the pure and uncorrupted Islaamic society. So the main concern of the true Islaamic callers is to bring back as close as possible the first Islaamic society, in which it was not possible to adopt a practice any way they felt like. So indeed the matter is only as the famous saying goes: “So imitate them if you are not like them, Verily, imitation of the righteous is success.”

So we are trying to imitate those righteous and good individuals (from the Salaf), and we are attempting to bring forth a society that resembles that first luminous society that existed in that radiant time. So our attention must always be directed towards doing what they used to do, as much as we are able to, for the reality is as his, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, saying indicates: “Whatever I command you to do, then do as much of it as you are able. And what I forbid you from, then stay away from it.”32 So the matters related to actions are restricted and thus additions to them are not accepted. An example of that is being kind to the scholar by outward gestures, such as by standing up for him or others when they enter one of the gatherings. And I do not say the gatherings of knowledge, for this is very clear – that the students in that situation should not stand up for this scholar. However, if he enters a gathering that is not a gathering of knowledge, is it from the beneficial knowledge and from the righteous deeds that the people of that gathering stand up for that scholar who has entered the gathering?

Answer: “So imitate them if you are not like them.” Who is the only single individual that we should imitate apart from others? He is, as we all know, Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah. And the people of knowledge know, and this is something that they do not differ about.

Nowadays, the whole Islaamic world – except for those whom Allaah has mercy on – is in opposition to the Prophet’s guidance of the past concerning this matter. So the people of knowledge do not forbid their companions nor the general people when one of them enters a gathering and they stand up for him. And those who stand up for him out of kindness and respect, they deem that this is how the first society (of the Companions) were. Therefore, it is upon us to constantly direct the attention towards physically imitating the (way of this) first society.

These are from the matters of which it is obligatory upon the scholars, rather upon the students of knowledge, to take concern of. This is since if you are truthful in your imitation of the Messenger, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then spread amongst your companions the fact that you hate this outward expression. This means to humble yourself as the Messenger, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, used to humble himself. The Messenger, sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, used to hate this standing and so the people accepted it, for in reality he hated this thing. So if the scholar is following the example of the Messenger then let him spread that amongst his companions. This comes first.

Second, it falls into the realm of “preventing the means.” For instance, if the scholar makes it a normal habit for the people to stand up for him, his soul will yearn for this standing. Then there will come a time when he will see his student who loves him and is devoted to him. He used to stand up for him then all of a sudden he stopped standing up for him. So there will occur disputes, then blaming, then perhaps more than that between the scholar and the student. This is because this scholar made it a normal habit for himself to love this standing. So what brought him to fall into this hated and forbidden love was the people’s accustoming him to it. I also wanted to remind the scholar and the students of knowledge to not adapt the societies because this adapting (and conforming) has no fixed limits today, for an innovation may appear and we will say: “There is something more important than it.” And then tomorrow there will be another innovation and we will say what we said in the first instance, until the society has gone far away from acting in accordance with what Islaam has brought, due to these distortions and false justifications.

[30] Silsilat Al-Ahadeeth As-Saheehah (no. 358)
[31] Saheeh Al-Jaami’-us-Sagheer (no. 5443)
[32] Agreed upon

[Al-Asaalah, Issue #20]

Women Wearing Hijab And Make-up In Public: Two Conflicting Contradictions In Islam – Shaykh Albanee

Women Wearing Hijab And Make-up In Public: Two Conflicting Contradictions In Islam – Shaykh Albanee 

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

maa shaa Allaah this is truly a much needed clarification of the ruling on makeup, about which many are unaware. shaykh al-albaani (rahimahullaah) advises both women and men in this regard.

~

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 temptations 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 the hadeeth. 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

~

Source : A Series of Benefits from Shaykh al-Albaani

The do’s and don’ts of shaking hands – Shaykh Albanee

Source: silsilat ul-ahaadeeth is-saheeha – the series of authentic narrations –hadeeth no. 16

~

On the authority of Abu Huraira: “when the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) used to say farewell to someone, he [sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] would say:

أَسْتَوْدِعُ اللهَ دِينَكَ وَأَمَانَتَكَ وَخَوَاتِيمَ عَمَلِكَ
(I entrust your religion, your family and belongings (that you are leaving behind), and the last of your deeds to Allaah).”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) comments:

“A number of benefits are gained from this authentic hadeeth. First: the permissibility of saying farewell with the mentioned saying in it:

أَسْتَوْدِعُ اللهَ دِينَكَ وَأَمَانَتَكَ وَخَوَاتِيمَ عَمَلِكَ,’ and the traveler responds to him and says:‘أَسْتَوْدِعُكُمُ اللهَ الَّذِي لاَ تَضِيعُ وَدَائِعُهُ’ (I entrust you to Allaah, whose trusts are not lost).[1]Refer to ‘Al-Kalim At-Tayyib.’[2]

Second: (the permissibility of) taking hold of one hand during handshaking, which has been mentioned in many narrations, and this hadeeth indicates the derivation of this word (‘handshaking’) in the (Arabic) language. According toLisaan ul-‘Arab:[3] ‘al-musaafaha (handshaking) is taking hold of the hand, the same as at-tasaafuh. A man handshakes another man when he places the side of his palm in the side of the other’s palm, and the sides of their palms are the front of them – like the hadeeth of handshaking upon meeting, which is done with one another by joining the side of a palm with another palm and turning face-to-face.’ I (Shaykh al-Albaani) say: there is that which reports this meaning as well in some of the previously mentioned narrations, such as the marfoo’ hadeeth[4] ofHudhaifa: ‘Indeed, if the believer meets another believer, then gives him thesalaam and takes hold of his hand and handshakes him, their sins fall off as the leaves of trees fall off.’[5] Al-Mundhuri said: ‘At-Tabaraani narrated it in ‘Al-Awsat’ and I don’t know of anyone who was criticized among its narrators.’ I (Shaykh al-Albaani) say: it has evidences by which it rises to the rank of being authentic, such as (that which was reported) on the authority of Anas by Ad-Dhiyaa Al-Maqdisee in ‘Al-Mukhtaara,’ which al-Mundhuri attributed to Ahmadand others. So all these narrations indicate that the sunnah in handshaking is taking hold of one hand; therefore, the handshaking with both hands that some of the scholars do is against the Sunnah, so let this be known.

The third benefit: that handshaking is legislated at the time of parting as well… The reason for inferring, rather quoting (this) becomes clear by remembering the permissibility of (giving) the salaam when parting as well due to his (the Prophet’s) saying (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam): ‘If one of you enters the gathering then let him give the salaam, and if he leaves then let him give thesalaam, as the first one is not more deserving (to be said) than the other one,’[6]Abu Daawood, at-Tirmidhi and others narrated it with a hasan (good) chain of narration. So the saying of some (people) is that handshaking at the time of parting is an innovation which has no truth. Yes, indeed the one who reads the mentioned narrations about handshaking when meeting will find them to be more in number and stronger than the mentioned narrations about handshaking when parting; and the one who is intelligent will conclude from that, that the permissibility of the second handshaking is not like that of the first (handshaking) in rank. Therefore, the first one is sunnah and the second one is recommended. As for (the latter) being an innovation, then no (this is not true) due to the evidence that we mentioned.

And as for handshaking immediately after the prayers, then it is undoubtedly an innovation, except if (the handshaking) takes place between two persons who have not met before that, then it is sunnah as you learned.”


[1] Saheeh Al-Kalim at-Tayyib #133
[2] The Goodly Words by Shaykh Ibn Taimiya
[3] The Arab Tongue; one of the well-known Arabic dictionaries
[4] a narration attributed to the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)
[5] Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth is-Saheeha #526
[6] Saheeh Abi Daawood #5208, Saheeh at-Tirmidhi #2706

~

asaheeha translations

%d bloggers like this: