|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2016 10:26:48 GMT
Providing appropriate discipline to children, as part of their moral development, is one of the foremost responsibilities of parents towards their children. Adopting a complacent attitude in this regard is perhaps the biggest contributor to bad behaviour as the child grows, and in many cases, the effects of this complacency become somewhat irreversible and unmanageable as the child develops. In light of this, Islamic teachings are very particular to ensure children are nurtured in the most wholesome manner and that negative behaviour is not allowed to ferment in an unregulated environment, but rather corrected under the watchful eye of parents.
At the same time, Islam reminds parents that they are ultimately accountable to Allah and will thus be questioned by Him regarding their duties towards their children. Just as parents have rights over their children, children are just as entitled to their rights over parents. And as with any other duty, disciplining children also has parameters which must be adhered to. Parents do not have the right to trespass the clear bounds under the pretext that they are “disciplining” their child.
Amongst the restrictions which the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) clearly put in place was to forbid any form of hitting the child in the face. In fact, a closer look at the sayings of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) in this regard demonstrates that this is not something exclusively for children, but rather applies for all human beings, and even animals. However, very sadly, the prohibition of hitting the face or head is a concept which many parents and guardians totally disregard, and instead choose to exercise a parental “right” which Allah and the Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) never granted them in the first place.
We present hereunder a number of hadiths in this regard, followed by the statements of leading hadith masters:
HADITH ONE
عن جابر رضي الله عنه قال نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الضرب في الوجه وعن الوسم في الوجه
Jabir (radhiallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) forbade hitting the face and branding the face (Muslim, 2116).
COMMENTARY
In a variant hadith of Sunan Abu Dawud (2564), the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) passed by a donkey whose face had been branded. On seeing this, he said, “Has it not reached you that I have cursed the one who brands or (he said) hits an animal’s face?” Branding (wasm) is to make a mark by burning, to mark grade, type or ownership etc.
Nawawi comments that hitting the face is prohibited in all valued animals such as humans, donkeys, horses, camels, mules, sheep and others, but it is worse in the case of humans. He further explains that this is because the face is the assemblage of beauty, alongside being subtle; the effects of hitting become apparent therein and at times disfigure it; and it sometimes damages the faculties.
HADITH TWO
عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إذا قاتل أحدكم أخاه فليجتنب الوجه
Abu Hurairah (radhiallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said, “When one of you fights his brother, he should refrain from the face” (Muslim, 2616)
COMMENTARY
The same hadith has been narrated by Bukhari (2421) and similarly by Abu Dawud (2293) without the wording “his brother”. In variants of the same narration in Muslim, the word “hit” and “slap” have been used in place of “fight”. The purport of all these narrations is that under no circumstances is one allowed to hit the face.
Abu’l-Abbas al-Qurtubi states under the hadith of Muslim, “The meaning of fighting is to hit, and this is how it is narrated in some narrations. We say that the meaning of fighting is to defend oneself, and the meaning of brotherhood here – and Allah knows best – is human brotherhood, because all people are the children of Adam (alayhis salaam). This is proven by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying: ‘for Allah created Adam in his form’, i.e., the facial form of the person being hit. Hence, it is as though the person slapping the face of any of the children of Adam (alayhis salaam) actually slapped the face of his father Adam (alayhis salaam). Based on this, it is forbidden to slap the face of a Muslim or unbeliever.” (Al-Mufhim, 6/597)
Nawawi clearly states that hitting the face of a child is included in this. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states, “Nawawi has not stated the ruling of this prohibition. The apparent ruling is that it is forbidden (haram). This is supported by the narration of the companion, Suwayd ibn Muqarrin, who saw a person slapping his slave and said, ‘Do you not know that the face is forbidden [or sacred]?’”
Aside from the clear prohibition in the hadiths above, the psychological effects on the morale of the child are extremely negative, and in cases where hitting the face or head becomes the default practice to correct the child, it can lead to long-term effects on the development of the child’s brain.
We pray Allah gives us the understanding to comply with the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in this regard, and to be brave enough to shun such practices which go against the spirit of mercy which Islam came to spread. Amin ya Rabb al-Alameen.
وصلى الله على أفضل المعلمين والمربين نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 11, 2016 18:15:22 GMT
One of the biggest predicaments we are currently facing as an Ummah is the upsurge of people talking about matters they are unqualified to discuss. What exacerbates the problem is when, due to the extensive grip of social media, even people who wish to steer clear from such nonsense are exposed to the ridiculously off-target statements of such people without proper 'ilm. And to add insult to injury, these pseudo-scholars utter their erroneous statements with such deluded confidence, that you can't help but feel overcome by a suicidal cringe.
In the recent comical series of exchanges between Dawah Man - who has gradually evolved, or perhaps mutated into Expert-in-Every-Field Man - and Asim Hussain, on the topic of Mawlid and its permissibility, Dawah Man has made a colossal embarrassing mistake. Yes, every human is prone to error and mistakes; that's not an issue. Dawah Man could and should have been excused if it was just a slip of the tongue or a genuine error. But what's happened here is that he has launched an unrelenting attack on Asim Hussain on his "mistake" and ridiculed him, without realising he's stabbed himself in the foot, in fact taken his own foot off with one clean swipe.
Check the link below:
Dawah Man (and no, this isn't a fictional character from the X-Men) claims that: فليفرحوا in the verse of Surah Yunus is a fi'l mudaari' and tries to expose Asim Hussain for referring to it as an 'amr (command).
For anyone who has studied elementary Arabic, especially morphology (sarf), it is clear that the mudaari' يفرحون has been preceded by the Lam al-amr, which renders it an 'amr (imperative command). So to labour on about it being "present" tense (mudaari') - by the way mudaari is both present and future in case Dawah Man didn't know - is a point which loses its relevance totally. See Sharh Shudhoor al-Dhahab and Sharh ibn Aqeel under the jawaazim al-mudaari'. The point here is not to defend Asim Hussain's substantiation of his stance through the verse, but to note that he has not made the "silly mistake" Dawah Man has excitedly claimed.
Qazwini (d.739 AH) states in الايضاح:
ومن أنواع الإنشاء الأمر والاظهر أن صيغته - من المقترنة باللام نحو ليحضر زيد وغيرها نحو أكرم عمرا ورويد بكرا - موضوعة لطلب الفعل استعلاء
To cut a long story short, Dawah Man is a prime example of what happens when a person begins to speak without knowledge and starts to run before learning to crawl, let alone walk.
I'd advise him to study proper knowledge, coupled with a healthy serving of humility and the adab of the Salaf. How sad that people who don't even have a smattering of knowledge feel worthy of being able to write off the opinion of Sayyiduna Umar (radhiallahu anhu) under the false pretext of adherence to the Sunnah!!
When Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahi alayhi) was asked who is better, Alqamah or Aswad, his response was: We don't consider ourselves worthy of even mentioning them; how can we even compare between them?
This is in no way a defense of Asim Hussain or those who promote some crazy practices in the name of Mawlid and love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), so let that be clear too.
It is a call for both sides, and in particular Dawah Man, to stay within the ambit of their knowledge and not embarrass themselves further through glaring backfiring blunders, all in the vain hope of getting one over the other party.
And the fact that the author of this post chooses to remain anonymous should not be used as a convenient sidetracking technique to evade the objections raised. Perhaps I don't want to be entangled in a cheap attempt to fame by engaging in playground style polemics.
May Allah guide us all to the truth, allow us to accept our mistakes and to display humbleness where and when needed. Aameen.
Note: Imam Bukhari hasn't written an introduction to his Sahih, unless Dawah Man has unearthed a new manuscript or, a simpler explanation - confused the publisher's preface as Imam Bukhari's.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 5, 2015 19:47:21 GMT
Sheikh Sa'id Bakdash has done Tahqeeq on Al-Lubab, which is a commentary of the work, Mukhtasar al-Quduri. The last volume to his 6 volume work, is the book of Quduri on its own.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2015 20:00:20 GMT
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
The short and simple answer to your question is that: No, the Hanafi School does not, in any way, promote or encourage a marriage without the approval of one’s parents or a legal guardian (wali).
To elaborate: It is a common misconception that the Hanafi School unreservedly allows a marriage without the consent of the woman’s parents or her guardian (wali). However, the matter is not as simple as that, and one must understand the Hanafi position properly before coming to any sort of conclusion.
In contrast to the position of most other scholars including the three Sunni Schools of Islamic law, the Hanafi School indeed has some leeway in regards to the necessity of obtaining the consent of the woman’s guardian. The relied upon position within the School is that the marriage of a free, sane and adult woman without the approval of her guardian (wali) is valid if the person she is marrying is a “legal” and suitable match (kuf’) to her. Conversely, if the person she is marrying is not a legal match to her, then her marriage is considered invalid. (Radd al-Muhtar ala ‘l-Durr al-Mukhtar 3/56-57 & I’la al-Sunan 11/69. For more details and the relevant evidences, please refer to the answer previously posted on this website titled: “Divorced woman marrying without her guardian’s approval”).
However, this does not mean that such a marriage is encouraged or permitted without any blame. Disobeying one’s parents is one of the most serious of sins in Islam, and as such, no School would, and can, allow going against the wishes of one’s parents outright. Many Hanafi jurists (fuqaha) have pointed out that it is generally blameworthy and going against the Sunnah to marry without the consent of the Wali regardless of whether the spouse is a legal match or otherwise due to the many Hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) emphasising the importance of having the approval of one’s guardian such as: “Any woman who marries without the permission of her guardian, her marriage is invalid, invalid, invalid” (related by Ibn Hibban, Tirmidhi and others, and Tirmidhi considered it a sound/hasan Hadith) and: “There is no marriage without the [permission of a] guardian” (related by Hakim and Abu Dawud). (See: Imdad al-Muftin P: 527)
As such, this Hanafi position is merely a concession (rukhsa) which may be resorted to in situations of need, and a blessing for those sisters who fall victim to their parent’s mistreatment and abuse. In cases where parents force their daughters to marry against their wishes based purely on caste, wealth and other similar preferences, and not Islam, and they give importance to their personal gains over and above the interests of their daughters; this position of the Hanafi School can be an important haven. However, the Hanafi School, in no way, gives a green light for sisters to marry themselves without parental approval in all situations, and as such, this position must not be taken as a standard norm upon which marriage contracts are based.
Thus, a woman must first try and convince her parents or Wali to allow her to marry according to her wishes. She may use the intermediary of someone who may be able to influence her parents. Despite trying, if her parents are still being difficult, and her wish is to marry someone based on religious piety, she should present her case to a knowledge, wise and god-fearing scholar who may be able to advise whether she may marry without her guardian’s approval or not.
And Allah knows best
[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam Darul Iftaa Leicester , UK
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2015 15:10:45 GMT
Q: There is a tradition at Asian Weddings, where the brides side generally ask the groom for money before being allowed to enter the hall/take the girl after 'Rukhsati'. This is normally a very high amount and is insisted upon before he may enter/leave with her. Is this considered to be Bribery? Is it Permissible?
A: Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarkatuh
If the amount is taken as a form of loan due to the taker being in need of it and is given with happiness then there will no be issue, however it should be given with the intention of helping out a fellow muslim, not because of the Marriage taking place between the two families.
However if this is not taken as a loan, but rather due to the insistance from the Girls side (as you mentioned in your question) then this is Bribery and is Haram. If the money has been taken, it needs to be returned
It is mentiond in Durr al Mukhtar (a famous Hanafi reference):
لو أخذ اهل المرأة عند التسليم فللزوج أن يسترده، لأنه رشوة
وقال الشامي: قوله عند التسليم أي بأن أبى أن يسلمها أخوها أو نحو حتى يأخذ شيئا وكذا لو أبى أن يزوجها، فللزوج أن يسترده قائما أو هالكاً
If the girls side take (something) at the time of marriage, then it is for the groom to take it back as this is Bribery Shaami further says, at the time of marriage meaning, if the brides brother or a relative refuses to give her to the groom or refuses the whole marriage altogether, then the groom should still take back whatever is given (or not give it in the first place) regardless of whether the marriage goes on or not)
In conclusion, it is not allowed to ask for or take the money, and if taken it needs to be returned.
Wallahu A'lam Allah knows best
Muhammad Ammar (Mufti)
[1] - Fatawa Mahmoodiya - Vol. 11, Page. 186 [2] - Radd al-Muhtar - Vol. 3, Page. 170
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2015 15:09:46 GMT
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
This is an answer to a common question asked, What is the Awrah of a Man & Woman in-front of others?
1 - There is no awrah between a Husband and Wife, it is permissible for each to look at the others entire body
2 - A Males awrah is from his navel to just below his knees, infront of his Mahram & Non-Mahram
3 - A Females awrah is split into the following; - infront of Non-Mahram; from her Head to her Toe - infront of Mahram (males); her body except her Face, Head, Upper Chest, Arm & Calf (she will need to cover herself completely if she doesn't feel safe from the desires of her Mahrams also!) - infront of Muslim Women; from her navel to just below her knees - infront of Non-Muslim Women; her body except her Face, Hands & Feet
Muhammad Ammar (Mufti) al-Madinah al-Munawwarah
|
|
|
salam
Feb 20, 2015 18:11:29 GMT
Post by Admin on Feb 20, 2015 18:11:29 GMT
One of the Major Sunni Imams in Aqidah, in the time of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمه الله
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 5, 2015 23:07:12 GMT
Title: Why does Imām Abū Hanīfa not narrate from a Sahabī Author: Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood Translated by: Muhammad Ammar al-Madani Read more: click here
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 1, 2015 22:04:04 GMT
This book is called al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad (The Sword against the Disproved), and although it has become famous as ‘Aqa’id Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama‘ah (Beliefs of the People of the Sunnah and the Group) or as ‘Aqa’id ‘Ulama Deoband (Beliefs of the Scholars of Deoband) in some places in India, it is not in reality an independent book on creed. Nor did its author, the respected shaykh, the jurist, and hadith-scholar, Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri (Allah Exalted is He have mercy on him), write it as an independent book on creed. It is but a compilation of questions and answers which were asked by the Arab scholars at that [time], so the shaykh responded with these answers, and these questions and answers were compiled into a book and were printed with the name alMuhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad. Since most of these questions were related to beliefs, and in the correct jargon, were related to the branches which pertain to beliefs and the science of Kalam, it became famous as al-‘Aqa’id (The Beliefs). The truth is that most of it pertains to the peripherals of Kalam not with the fundamentals and the decisive creeds [of Islam]. For this [reason], if a Muslim does not know some or most of it, there will not be any defect in his submission and faith, like the issue of taking an intermediary while supplicating (question 3) or preoccupation in Sufi practices (question 11) or the ruling on Wahhabis (question 12) or the ruling of celebrating the Prophetic birth (on him be blessing and peace) (question 21) or the possibility of the occurrence of lying or reneging on a promise (questions 23, 24 and 25) and other peripheral issues that are mentioned in this chapter. For this [reason], it is best not to call this book ‘Aqa’id Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama‘ah and it would be more suitable to called it Maslak Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama‘ah (The Methodology of the People of the Sunnah and the Group). Secondly, although these issues mentioned in the book are undoubtedly sound, some of them are established by decisive texts and some of them are established by probabilistic texts and some of them are established by the statements of the great scholars using sound analogy while no decisive or probabilistic text mention them like the issue of the blessed piece of land [in which rests the body of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him)+ being superior to the Throne (‘arsh) and the Seat (kursi). View Book - click here
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 31, 2015 17:56:06 GMT
Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki (رحمه الله) Birth Sheikhul Mashaikh, Hiji Imdadullah was from the lineage of Syyedina Umar (ra). Haji lmdadullah was born in 1233 A.H. (1814) in Namtah, the district of Saharanpur, India. His father, Hafiz Muhammad Amin kept his name lmdad Husain. Shah Muhammad Ishaq Muhaddith Dehlwi (rh) changed this name to Imdadullah. His mother was deeply attached to him although he had three brothers and one sister. Due to this devotion, he was deprived of education. He was still only seven years old when his mother passed away. Although he began his hifz at home, he only completed it in Makkah in 1258 A.H.
continue reading - click here
|
|