Recent Posts

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Ahmad Rida Khan's Takfir of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Dec 1, 2021 19:21:50 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Dec 1, 2021 19:21:50 GMT

How Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī Used a Fabricated Fatwā to Make Takfīr on Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s Allegation

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān (1856 – 1921) alleged in Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn (written in: 1906) that Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905) had written a fatwā stating that a person that believes Allāh has actually spoken a lie does not become a disbeliever. He claimed the fatwā is available in the handwriting of Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī and with his seal. The following is from a recent edition of Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn:

Based on this alleged fatwā, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān issued a definitive verdict of takfīr against Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī, even claiming that anyone who doubts the takfīr is himself a disbeliever!

Response

In al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad (written in: 1907), ‘Allāmah Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī explained that this is a fabrication, and goes against what Maulānā Gangohī had written in his published Fatāwā.

Maulānā Ganoghī’s Published Fatwā

In a published fatwā written in both Urdu and Arabic, Maulānā Gangohī had written that anyone that says Allāh has actually spoken a lie is a disbeliever and is accursed. (Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah; from Ta’līfāt Rasḥidiyyah, p96, 97)

This well-known and established fatwā of Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī thus states the complete opposite of the alleged fatwā.

Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Doubling Down in Tamhīd e Īmān

In Tamhīd e Īmān (written in: 1908), Aḥmad Riḍā Khān then presented some reasons why he believes it is correct to attribute this fatwā to Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, 30:349-50):

His argument can be summarised as follows:

1. The fatwā was published several times with refutations of it, starting from 1308 H (1890 CE)

2. Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohi lived for some 15 years thereafter

3. The allegation is not something trivial that it can be ignored

4. His nondenial of it is thus proof it is his

Regardless of the weaknesses of this argument, it hinges primarily on the claim that Maulānā Gangohī did not deny the attribution.

Maulānā Gangohī’s Denial of the Fabricated Fatwā

However, Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī did deny the fatwā as documented by his student Maulānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī (1868 – 1951) in a treatise called Tazkiyat al-Khawāṭir (Majmū‘ah Rasā’il Chāndpūrī, 1:106), a copy of which was sent to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī.

The Fabricated Fatwā is not Recognised by Students and Associates of Maulānā Gangohī

Maulānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī (1879 – 1957), another student of Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī, points out further that this alleged fatwā is not known to any of the students of Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, p259):

Summary

In short, the fatwā that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī alleged was authored by Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī and based on which he issued a definitive verdict of takfīr:

1. Opposes what he has explicitly written in a published, well-known fatwā

2. Was denied by Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī himself

3. Is not recognised by his students and associates

4. Has consistently been rejected as a forgery by the students of Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī

For any fair-minded and objective person, a piece of writing can never be legitimately attributed to the alleged author based on such flimsy “evidence”, let alone passing a definitive verdict of takfīr based on it!

Mukhtaṣar Kitāb al-Tawḥīd: A Case Study on Fabrication

It is not hard to believe that this fatwā was fabricated given the above evidence, and given that the alleged fatwā – by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s own admission – was circulated only amongst opponents of Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī.

A few decades prior to this fabrication, another fabrication was offered as evidence by a predecessor to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān: Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī (1798 – 1872). The latter alleged in a work called Sayf al-Jabbār that Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb had authored a summary of his Kitāb al-Tawḥīd in Arabic, which was then translated and commented on by Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī as Taqwiyat al-Īmān. This entire tale is false. For details, see here.

Barelwīs, including Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself, repeat this fabricated evidence of Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī. Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī presents lengthy quotations from the supposed summary of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. The reality is that this “summary of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd” was manufactured by fabricators who “translated” sections from Taqwiyat al-Īmān into Arabic but giving them the worst possible interpretations. Hence, the “summary of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd” that Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī presents bears no resemblance with the actual Kitāb al-Tawḥīd of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, while it does bear some resemblance with Taqwiyat al-Īmān. Based on this fabrication, Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān and others allege that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is literally based on Kitāb al-Tawḥīd of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb.

[Note: Taqwiyat al-Īmān is indeed based on an earlier work, but one authored by Shāh Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī himself in Arabic, called Radd al-Ishrāk. Based on the testimony of experts, Shāh Ismā‘īl al-Dehlawī’s definition of Tawḥīd and Shirk in the introduction to Radd al-Ishrāk is completely different from, and opposed to, the definition of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. See here for details.]

Since a whole book was fabricated to defame Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, and was presented as evidence by a predecessor to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, is it hard to believe a fatwā was invented to defame Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī and was then presented as evidence by Aḥmad Riḍā Khān to make a definitive verdict of takfīr against him?

Update

An individual writing online has claimed that the handwriting in the manuscript of the fatwā that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān ascribed to Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī and used to make takfīr on him (as shown above) resembles Maulānā Gangohī’s actual handwriting – as though this is enough to prove the attribution!

It should be noted Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī himself said handwriting is not considered to be proof. (Malfūẓāt A‘lā Ḥaḍrat, p235)

It is also common sense that if a fatwā was going to be fabricated in the name of someone to defame him, the fabricators would ensure the handwriting is similar.

Moreover, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān says in his treatise Ḥajb al-‘Awār: “[Merely] on account of a book or treatise being ascribed to the name of a buzurg, definitive authenticity is not entailed. Many treatises are attributed particularly in the name of the seniors of Chisht which are not established at all.” (Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, 15:556)

He explains that people had made insertions, interpolations and fabrications in the writings of others. Hence, one must base the attribution of a work or piece of writing to an author on solid, reliable evidence.

Just the “handwriting being similar” or “it having a name and seal on it” are not sufficient evidence that it belongs to the person being claimed to be the author, especially when it opposes what he clearly stated in a well-established statement, he himself denies the attribution, it is not recognised by any of his students and associates and has consistently been rejected by them as a forgery – as is the case here.

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Dec 1, 2021 19:23:55 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Answering Modernist Objections to Punishment for Apostasy Nov 28, 2021 15:25:33 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 28, 2021 15:25:33 GMT

Answering Modernist Objections to the Punishment for Apostasy

Muftī Muḥammad Taqī Usmani

Since the matter of executing an apostate is amongst the issues on which there is a lot of commotion in our time from the Westerners and those who agree with them, we wanted to explain this issue in some detail. Allāh grants ability and assistance.

The issue of executing the apostate is a matter of consensus amongst Muslims from the time of the Ṣaḥābah up until today. The jurists agree that apostasy in the Islāmic Territory (Dār al-Islām) is a capital crime. We know of no one who disagreed with this from the jurists and the scholars of the Ummah. This was until the fourteenth century arrived, and the Westerners attacked this ruling, claiming it opposes free thought and freedom of belief, and then some who are infatuated with Western ideas from those who subscribe to Islām tried to ward off this attack by denying that in Islām the punishment of an apostate is execution, as if this rule is a blemish on the forehead of Islām which these people want to eradicate – and refuge is taken from Allāh, the Great! They composed articles on account of this, claiming in them that Islām did not stipulate execution as a punishment for apostasy but, rather, assigned it as a punishment for banditry and rebellion.

All of what these people take as support condenses into a few issues: one, the statement of Allāh (Exalted is He):

“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256),

requires that just as a disbeliever is not compelled to accept Islām, it is not permissible to compel him to remain upon Islām as well; second, the ḥadīths reported about executing the apostate only mean the apostate that terrorises and rebels as opposed to the apostate that does not terrorise the Muslims; third, apostasy is not a crime in the law of this world but, rather, is a major sin that will be punished in the Next Life, because Allāh has not mentioned a punishment for them in this world, and has only mentioned that they will be punished in the Next Life. He said:

“Whoever amongst you turns back from his religion, and then dies a disbeliever, their deeds will go to waste in this life and the next. Those are companions of the Fire. Therein they will reside forever.” (2:218)

As for their arguing from the statement of Allāh (Exalted is He):

“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256),

the answer is that the verse only explains the ruling of an original disbeliever: he will not be compelled to Islām. It has no connection at all to it being permissible to apostatise. Hence, Allāh (Glorified is He) followed it up with:

“Thus whoever rejects false deities and believes in Allāh has held onto the trustworthy handle that does not break. Allāh is Hearing and Knowing.” (2:256)

Hence, He mentioned the ruling of one who entered Islām after having been a disbeliever. He did not mention the ruling of those who turned back from Islām – and refuge is taken from Allāh, the Great! This shows that the context of the verse is about an original disbeliever becoming Muslim: he will not be compelled to do so. If he becomes Muslim with free choice, he would have held onto the trustworthy handle.

All narrations that have been reported on the context of the revelation of this verse and its applicability demonstrate that what we said is true.

From them is that which Abū Dāwūd reported from Ibn ‘Abbās. He said:

“This was revealed about the Anṣār. [In Jāhiliyyah], when a woman’s children would not survive, she would take it upon herself that if a child of hers survived she would convert him to Judaism. [After Islām came], when [the Jewish tribe of] Banu ‘l-Naḍīr were expelled, many of the children of Anṣār were amongst them. So the Anṣār said:

‘We will not leave our sons (i.e. we will not let them remain Jewish, rather we will force them into Islām).’

So, Allāh (Exalted is He) revealed:

‘There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become clear from deviation.’”

In one variant, they said:

“We only did what we did when we considered their religion superior to what we were upon. Now that Allāh has brought us Islām, we will force them into it.”

Then it was revealed:

“There is no compulsion in religion.”

That is, whoever wants can join them and whoever wants can enter Islām. Al-Naḥḥās said:

Ibn ‘Abbās’s statement about this verse is the best statement given its chain is authentic, and such a thing is not based on reason.

This is from Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (3:280).

From them is that which Ibn Jarīr narrated in his Tafsīr (3:9) via Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbās. He said:

“It was revealed about a man from the Anṣār of Banū Sālim ibn ‘Awf, called al-Ḥusayn. He had two Christian sons. He was a Muslim man. He said to the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):

‘Should I not compel them? They refuse anything but Christianity.’

So Allāh revealed this about him.”

From them is that which Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated from Asbaq. He said:

“I was a Christian slave belonging to ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. He offered Islām to me and I refused. He said:

‘There is no compulsion in religion.’

And said:

‘Oh Asbaq, had you become Muslim we would have taken your assistance in some administrative matters of the Muslims.’”

This is from Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (1:311).

Furthermore, this verse is not taken in its general sense by consensus, because nothing besides Islām or the sword was accepted from the idolaters and Zoroastrians of the Arabian peninsula. Had the verse been taken in its general sense, it would not have been permissible to compel them to Islām in the Arabian peninsula. Based on this, some exegetes have mentioned that this verse is abrogated by His (Exalted is He) statement:

“Oh Prophet, combat the disbelievers and hypocrites.” (9:73)

and His (Exalted is He) statement:

“Fight them until there is no more temptation.” (2:193)

This was narrated from Ibn Mas‘ūd and many of the exegetes, as found in Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (3:280). Perhaps what they mean by it being abrogated is that its general sense is restricted by the [rule of] fighting the idolaters in the Arabian peninsula. So, just as the general sense of the verse is restricted by the [rule of] fighting the idolaters in the Arabian peninsula, as has been clarified by the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), so too has the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) clarified that it does not include apostates.

The ḥadīths on this are many, some of which we will cite.

Ḥadīths Proving the Execution of the Apostate

1. Al-Bukhārī related in Kitāb Istitābat al-Murtaddīn, Bāb Ḥukm al-Murtadd (no. 6922) via ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās, quoting the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):

“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”

2. Mālik related in al-Aqḍiyah of his Muwaṭṭa’ from Zayd ibn Aslam, as a disconnected report, that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:

“Whoever alters his religion, strike his neck.”

3. It is reported from Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said:

“Mu‘ādh came to me while I was in Yemen. There was a man who was Jewish and had embraced Islām and then apostatised from Islām. When Mu‘ādh arrived, he said:

‘I will not dismount from my conveyance until he is executed.’

He had been asked to repent before this.”

This is the wording of Abū Dāwūd.

In the report of al-Bukhārī in Istitābat al-Murtaddīn and the report of the author (Muslim) in Kitāb al-Imārah:

“When Mu‘ādh came to Abū Mūsā, he said:

‘Dismount.’

And he put down a cushion for him. It happened that a man was tied up besides him. He said:

‘What is this?’

He said:

‘He was Jewish and then embraced Islām and then went back to his evil religion and became Jewish.’

He said:

‘I will not sit until he is executed: the decree of Allāh and His Messenger.’

He said:

‘Sit, indeed [he will be executed].’

He said:

‘I will not sit until he is executed: the decree of Allāh and His Messenger.’

He said this three times. Hence, the command was given for him to be executed.”

4. It is reported from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (Allāh be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:

“The blood of a Muslim man that gives witness that there is no deity but Allāh and that I am Allāh’s Messenger is not licit except on the basis of three things: the adulterer, a life for a life and the one that left his religion and parted from the community.”

The Group (al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhī, Nasa’ī, Ibn Mājah) related it. It is to come from the narration of the author (Muslim) in Bāb Mā Yubāḥu bihī Dam al-Muslim.

5. It is reported from Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl ibn Ḥunayf from ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān that he was looking over [the people] on the day his house [was besieged], and said:

“I ask you by Allāh! Do you know that Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:

‘The blood of a Muslim man is not licit except on the basis of three things: fornication after a consummated marriage, disbelief after being Muslim or killing a person without right for which he is executed’?!

By Allāh, I have not fornicated neither in pre-Islāmic Ignorance nor in Islām. I did not apostatise since I pledged myself to the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Nor have I killed a person that Allāh has made inviolable.”

Al-Tirmidhī related it in al-Fitan, Bāb Mā Jā’a Lā Yaḥillu Dam Imri’in Illā bi Iḥdā Thalāth (no. 2159), al-Nasa’ī in Taḥrīm al-Dam, Bāb Mā Yaḥillu bihī Dam al-Muslim and Abū Dāwūd in al-Diyāt, Bāb al-Imām ya’muru bi ‘l-Afw fi ‘l-Dam (no. 4502). Its chain is authentic.

6. It is reported from Jarīr (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said: I heard the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) say:

“When a slave flees towards idolatry, his blood is licit.”

Abū Dāwūd related it in Kitāb al-Ḥudūd, Bāb al-Ḥukm fīman Irtadda (no. 4360). He did not comment on it, nor did al-Mundhirī in his Talkhīṣ.

7. It is reported from Mu‘āwiyah ibn Ḥaydah (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said:

The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:

“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”

Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it. Its narrators are trustworthy as stated by al-Haythamī in Majma‘ al-Zawā’id (2:261).

8. It is reported from Abū Hurayrah (Allāh be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:

“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”

Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in al-Awsaṭ and its chain is good as found in Majma‘ al-Zawā’id (2:261).

9. It is reported from ‘Iṣmah that he said:

The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:

“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”

Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it and it contains al-Faḍl ibn al-Mukhtār who is weak as found in Majma‘ al-Zawā’id, but it is supported by the ḥadīths we have cited.

10. It is reported from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Thawbān that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said in his sermon:

“Indeed two qiblahs are not suitable for this city”,

namely Madīnah,

“so any Christian that becomes Muslim and then turns to Christianity, strike his neck.”

Al-Haythamī said:

“Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it and it contains [narrators] I do not recognise”,

but its meaning is supported by the ḥadīths we cited.

11. It is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said:

“‘Abdullāh ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Sarḥ would write for the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Satan caused him to slip and he joined the disbelievers. The Messenger of Allāh (Allāḥ bless him and grant him peace) ordered his execution on the Day of the Conquest of Makkah. ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān sought sanctuary for him, so the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) granted him sanctuary.”

Abū Dāwūd related it (no. 4357). Al-Mundhirī said in his Talkhīṣ:

“‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Wāqid is in its chain, about whom there is criticism. ‘Ali ībn al-Ḥusayn ibn Shaqīq followed him up, and he is amongst the trustworthy narrators.”

The cause of his seeking sanctuary is that he repented from his apostasy and returned to Islām, as is stated in what Abū Dāwūd himself related from Sa‘d that he said:

“When it was the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, ‘Abdullāh ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Sarḥ hid with ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān. He brought him until he made him stand at the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). He said:

‘Oh Messenger of Allāh, accept ‘Abdullāh’s pledge [of Islām].’

He lifted his head and looked at him thrice, refusing each time. Then he accepted his pledge after the third. Then he turned to his companions and said:

‘Was there not a smart man amongst you that would come to him when he saw that I am holding back my hand from accepting his pledge and execute him?’

They said:

‘We did not know Oh Messenger of Allāh what was in your heart. Why did you not signal to us with your eye?’

He said:

‘It is not fitting for a prophet to have a deceptive eye.’”

Al-Mundhirī said:

“Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Suddī is in its chain. Muslim narrated his ḥadīths and Imām Aḥmad declared him trustworthy, but several have criticised him.”

This is from Talkhīṣ Abī Dāwūd of al-Mundhirī (2:198; no. 4193).

12. It is reported from Ḥārithah ibn Muḍarrib (Allāh be pleased with him) that he came to ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd in Kufah and said:

“There is no enmity between me and any of the Arabs. I passed by a Masjid of Banū Ḥanīfah, and it turned out they believe in Musaylimah!”

‘Abdullāh called for them. They were brought. He asked them to repent [so they all repented] besides Ibn al-Nawwāḥah. He said to him:

“I heard Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) say to you:

‘Had you not been a messenger I would have struck your neck.’

Today you are not a messenger.”

He ordered Qaraẓah ibn Ka‘b, the commander in Kufah, to strike his neck in the market. Then he said:

“Whoever wishes to see Ibn al-Nawwāḥah, let him see him dead in the market.”

Abū Dāwūd related it in al-Jihād, Bāb fi l-‘Rusul (no. 2762). Its chain is good. Abū Dāwūd and al-Mundhirī made no comment on it. Al-Nasa’ī also related it.

13. It is reported from ‘Ikrimah that he said:

“Renegades were brought to ‘Alī and he burned them. This reached Ibn ‘Abbās. He said:

‘If it were me, I would not have burned them given the prohibition of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). He said:

Do not punish using Allāh’s punishment.

I would indeed have executed them [however], given the statement of Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):

Whoever alters his religion, execute him.’”

Al-Bukhārī related it in Istitābat al-Murtaddīn, Bāb Ḥukm al-Murtadd wa ‘l-Murtaddah, and in al-Jihād, Bāb Lā Yu‘adhdhabu bi ‘Adhābillāh. Al-Tirmidhī related it in al-Ḥudūd, Bāb mā Jā’a fi ‘l-Murtadd (no. 1458), and Abū Dāwūd in al-Ḥudūd, Bāb al-Ḥukm fīman Irtadda (no. 4351) and al-Nasa’ī in Taḥrim al-Dam, Bāb al-Ḥukm fi ‘l-Murtadd and Aḥmad in his Musnad (1:282).

14. It is reported from Anas ibn Mālik (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said:

“Indeed the Messenger of Allāh entered [Makkah] in the year of Conquest with a helmet on his head. When he removed it, a man came and said:

‘Ibn Khaṭal is clinging to the sheets of the Ka‘bah.’

He said:

‘Execute him.’”

The two shaykhs related it as did others. This is the wording of al-Bukhārī in Jazā’ al-Ṣayd.

The reason for executing him is what Ibn Isḥāq mentioned. He said:

“‘Abdullāh ibn Khaṭal is a man from Banū Tamīm ibn Ghālib. His execution was ordered because he used to be Muslim and the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) appointed him as a Zakāt-collector and appointed another man from the Anṣār with him. He had a Muslim freed-slave with him to serve him. They dismounted at a stop. He ordered the freed-slave to slaughter a goat for him and prepare food for him. He slept and woke up and he did not prepare anything. So he ravaged him and killed him, and then he apostatised and became an idolater. He had two slave girls: Fartanā and another. They would sing invectives against Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) ordered for them to be killed with him.”

This is from Sīrah Ibn Hishām with al-Rawḍ al-Unf by al-Suhaylī (2:273).

It is not possible that the execution of Ibn Khaṭal was as qiṣāṣ for the one he killed, given what Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl (p. 136):

“The one that was murdered was from Khuzā‘ah. He had his ex-owners. [Ibn Khaṭal’s] status, if he had killed in a manner requiring qiṣāṣ, would be that he be handed over to the ex-owners of the murdered [freed-slave], who will either execute him or forgive him or take blood-money.”

Then Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) mentioned he was not executed for mere apostasy because the apostate is asked to repent. Rather, he was killed based on insulting the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and for invectives against him. But Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqālānī objected to this in Fatḥ al-Bārī (4:62) given Ibn Khaṭāl was a Ḥarbī, and the punishment of insulting the Prophet is only carried out upon a Muslim or Dhimmī. Hence, it must be that his execution was on account of his apostasy.

As for not asking him to repent, then the obligation of asking the apostate to repent is differed upon. It appears to me that asking the apostate to repent, although obligatory, if combined with insulting the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and invectives against him, the obligation falls away. Hence, Ibn Khaṭal was not given respite and nor was he asked to repent before he was executed. Hence, Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) said in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl (p. 136):

“The truth of it is that he was an apostate without disagreement amongst the experts in the knowledge of campaigns. It was ordered he be executed without asking him to repent despite him being subjugated and having surrendered like a prisoner of war. Thus, it is realised that whoever apostatised and insulted will be executed without asking him to repent, as opposed to one who only apostatised.”

15. It is reported from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather that he said:

“‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ wrote to ‘Umar asking him about a man that became Muslim and then disbelieved and then became Muslim and then disbelieved, and did this several times, will Islām be accepted from him? ‘Umar wrote to him:

‘Accept from him as long as Allāh accepts from him. Offer Islām to him. If he accepts (that is good and well). Otherwise, strike his neck.’”

Musaddad related it. This is from al-Maṭālib al-‘Āliyah (2:112; no. 1801).

16. It is reported from Qābūs ibn al-Mukhāriq from his father that he said:

“Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr wrote to ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib asking him about two Muslims that turned renegade and about a Muslim that fornicated with a Christian woman and about a Mukātab slave that died and left behind a balance in his payment as well as free children. ‘Alī wrote to him:

‘As for the two Muslims that turned renegade, if they repent (that’s good and well). If they do not, then strike their necks.’”

To the end of the report. Ibn Ḥazm related it in al-Muḥallā (11:158) via ‘Abd al-Razzāq from al-Thawrī from Simāk ibn Ḥarb from Qābūs. Ibn Ḥazm considered it defective because of Simāk and claimed that Qābūs ibn al-Mukhāriq is unknown, but both are from the narrators of Muslim. See al-Tahdhīb (4:340, 7:306). Hence, the ḥadīth is authentic according to the criterion of Muslim as stated by our teacher in I‘lā’ al-Sunan (11:554).

17. It is reported from Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī from ‘Alī that he said:

“A group of people from the inhabitants of Shām drank wine. Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān ruled over them at that time. They said: It is ḥalāl. They argued this based on the verse:

‘There is no blame on those who believe and do righteous actions for what they had consumed.’ (5:93)

‘Umar wrote:

‘Send them to me before they corrupt those around you.’

When they came to ‘Umar, he consulted the people concerning them. They said:

‘Oh Commander of the Believers, we believe that they have lied upon Allāh and legislated in their religion what Allāh has not permitted, so strike their necks.’

‘Alī was silent. He said:

‘What do you say Abu ‘l-Ḥasan?’

He said:

‘I believe you should ask them to repent. If they repent then you whip them with eighty lashes each for drinking wine, and if they don’t repent then you strike their necks as they have lied upon Allāh and have legislated into their religion what Allāh has not permitted.’

So he asked them to repent and they repented, and then he struck them with eighty lashes each.”

Al-Ṭaḥāwī related it in Sharḥ Ma‘ānī al-Āthār (2:76)

Can these Ḥadīths be Referring to a Rebel?

Some people interpret these ḥadīths as referring to the warring rebel, so apostasy on its own does not necessitate capital punishment. It will only necessitate that when it is combined with rebellion and terrorism. But this interpretation is false for two reasons:

1. We have cited the ḥadīths that show the apostate’s blood is licit. There is nothing in any of them which limits the licitness of his blood to rebellion and terrorism. The clearest ḥadīth on this is the first ḥadīth:

“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”

There isn’t the slightest indication in it of rebellion or terrorism. How can the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) keep quiet about the true cause of execution and mention something that has no part in necessitating this ultimate punishment? It is established in its place that whenever a person gives a ruling on a derived noun, the root of its derivation will be the cause for that ruling and the rule will revolve around it. This is like in His (Exalted is He) statement:

“Cut the hands of the male and female thief.” (5:38)

Allāh has ruled cutting the hands of the male and female thief. These are two derived nouns. The root of their derivation, namely theft, is what the ruling of amputation revolves around and is its cause. Can someone sane say: the cause of cutting his hands is something besides theft? So how can a sane person say the cause of execution in the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):

“Whoever alters his religion, execute him”,

is something besides the alteration of religion?

Further, you have seen in the third ḥadīth, the ḥadīth of Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī (Allāh be pleased with him), that Abū Mūsā did not mention a crime of the apostate man besides him having become a Jew after being Muslim. Had he been a rebel, he would have mentioned it. How can a man be a rebel on his own without power and military strength? Hence, the truth which there is no scope to reject is that he did not commit rebellion. Rather, he committed the crime of apostasy. Further, when Mu‘ādh (Allāh be pleased with him) was informed of his apostasy, he did not ask Abū Mūsā (Allāh be pleased with him) about anything further, and whether he had committed rebellion along with apostasy or not. Rather, he ruled he be executed merely upon becoming aware of his apostasy and he said the execution of an apostate is the judgement of Allāh and His Messenger, from which it is evident that the obligation of executing an apostate was something widely known amongst the Ṣaḥābah without any reservation.

2. Rebellion and terrorism are a separate crime that necessitates the loss of inviolability of life, whether it is accompanied by apostasy or not. So if apostasy on its own does not cause life to lose its inviolability, there is no sense to mentioning it in the context of something that necessitates execution.

The greatest of what these people argue from is the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) in the fourth ḥadīth, the ḥadīth of Ibn Mas‘ūd (Allāh be pleased with him):

“the one that left his religion and parted from the community.”

They said: This ḥadīth does not treat apostasy alone as something that makes the blood of a person licit, unless it is accompanied by parting from the community, i.e. rebellion and terrorism.

But this argument is null and void. Had the meaning of parting from the community in this ḥadīth been rebellion and terrorism, it would have been sufficient to mention it amongst those things that cause life to lose its inviolability. Then there would be no sense to mentioning apostasy, because there is no need for rebellion to be accompanied by apostasy for it to be a cause of execution being licit. It is on its own sufficient as a cause of losing the inviolability of life. Since he mentioned apostasy along with it, it is recognised that that is the intended cause of making execution licit .

As for “parting from the community”, what is meant by it is not rebellion or terrorism. Rather, what is meant is parting from the community of Muslims in their creed. Hence, the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace): “and parted from the community” is an attribute that gives further clarity or emphasis to the statement: “the one that left his religion.”

Rebellion and terrorism were not mentioned in this ḥadīth in the list of things that necessitate execution because the aim of this ḥadīth is to list the capital crimes that a man commits on his own, in the state of peace. As for rebellion, it has no connection with the rules of the times of security and peace, and it relates only to war and jihād. Furthermore, a criminal does not commit it on his own, but commits it with a group that have power and military strength. Hence, it was not mentioned in this ḥadīth. Allāh knows best.

As for their argument that apostasy is not a punishment in the law of this world because Allāh (Exalted is He) did not mention a worldly punishment for it but only mentioned a punishment in the Next Life, this is obviously void, because no worldly punishment has been mentioned for drinking wine in the Qur’ān, but this does not entail that it is not a crime in the law, because the Messenger of Allāḥ (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) established ḥadd for the drinker of wine and ordered he be lashed. The same applies to apostasy. The Qur’ān has not mentioned a punishment for it in the world but it is established from the statements and actions of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace).

The truth is that all sins, once established that it is a sin, it is permissible for the Ruler to establish a punishment for it in the world. There is no doubt that apostasy is from the greatest of enormities. Hence, there is nothing stopping it being a crime in the law so long as a text does not oppose it. We have already shown that let alone opposing it, the texts affirm that it is a crime in the law.

As for their argument that executing an apostate goes against the principle of freedom of thought, then the principle of freedom of thought is not at all from the proofs of Sharī‘ah. Islām does not acknowledge absolute freedom of thought. Rather, it limits it with the limits of Sharī‘ah that may not be trespassed. Had this freedom been absolute, it would have been fine for the one who believed in fornication being permissible to not be punished for it, and for someone wealthy who believes it is permissible to steal to not have his hand cut off.

What is strange about these people is that they acknowledge that rebellion is something that makes executing the rebel licit even though that too opposes the principle of freedom of thought, because many rebels secede against their Ruler based on ideological reasons and believe warring against him to be their religious obligation and claim following the Ruler is a sin; hence, forcing them to obey the Ruler opposes freedom of thought.

The truth is that freedom of thought must have limits. Otherwise every abomination and corruption on the earth would be allowed, and the matter would turn to chaos. This is something accepted by the mind which no one can deny. The discussion on the specification of those limits remains. We either leave them to our minds alone or we defer their specification to divine revelation. There is no doubt that the first method is subject to errors and misjudgements and oppression and injustice. The human mind is not able to bring together all people on one foundation, given the variation in people’s minds. Hence, it is necessary we defer it to divine revelation. The Sunnah of the Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) has limited freedom of thought by banning apostasy, and has treated it as a crime that makes the blood of a person licit. Hence, this must be relied upon, not ambiguous principles that are not founded on anything. And Allāh (Glorified and Exalted is He) knows best.

Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim, 2:272-80

Last Edit: May 16, 2024 16:49:38 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Answering Modernist Objections to Hudud Nov 23, 2021 16:03:18 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 23, 2021 16:03:18 GMT

Answering Modernist Objections to Ḥudūd

Muftī Muḥammad Taqī Usmani

Westerners of these latter times have made much noise in opposition to Islāmic criminal law, claiming its laws are extremely harsh – refuge is from Allāh! – given it necessitates stoning a living person until he dies, cutting off his hand and foot and impaling him on wood. Some who are affiliated to Islām have been influenced by this commotion, thus they have begun to distort the eternal rules of Sharī‘ah, offering weak interpretations to the textual evidences that have come in this regard, which a sound academic temperament will reject. It is as though the criminal laws are a blemish on the forehead of Islām that these individuals want to wash away or obliterate with these weak interpretations. Refuge is from Allāh, the Mighty!

The truth is that the Islāmic Sharī‘ah is one of the most pliant legal systems on criminal law. It has not fixed punishments in the manner of eternal, everlasting laws except for some specific crimes, whose number does not exceed seven – namely, the crimes of murder, theft, banditry, fornication, slander, drinking wine and apostasy. It has left the specification for the punishments of other crimes, which are more than can be numbered, to the ruler of each era and region. It is allowed for the ruler, after inspecting the circumstances of the case presented before him, to let the criminal go after a stern look or a warning and caution. It is permissible for him to carry out another punishment upon him that is suitable for deterring him and pushing him away from committing the crime again. This is to the point that if it appears to the ruler that the criminal is someone whose betterment is not expected, and it is feared that his corruption will spread to other members of the community, it is permissible for him to rule that he be put to death and executed.

There is no pliability greater than leaving the specification of punishments to the rulers of each era and region, choosing punishments that are suitable to the criminals of their era and region. The Sharī‘ah has specified the punishment of the seven crimes that we mentioned. This is because these crimes are from the foundations of evil and corruption. The harm that arises from them encompasses the community and spreads to others. Hence, the Sharī‘ah has specified punishments for them so they are a deterrent to criminals and a lesson for others. Their specification has not been left to the judgement of the rulers, given they may be lenient on such matters which require severity. Imām Walīullāh al-Dihlawī (Allāh have mercy on him) said in Ḥujjatullāh al-Bālighah (2:158):

Recognise that Allāh has legislated ḥadd (fixed legal punishment) for some sins. These are every sin that combines multiple dimensions of harm: in that it causes corruption on earth, breaks the peace of the Muslims, and spurs the hearts of man and continues to foster in them, and has a hold that they are not able to resist after their hearts have become consumed by them, and has a harm that a victim is unable to avert from himself many a time, and occurs frequently amongst people. Such sins as these, warning about the punishment of the next life is not sufficient for them. Rather, it is necessary to institute severe censure against them and a punishment that takes place before the eyes of people so it deters them from what they intend.

For example, fornication, which flares up from base desire and a passion for the beauty of women. It has a severity to it, and causes great dishonour to the family of a woman. Men competing over a mate alters their human nature [to an animalistic one], and is a likely cause of infighting and battles. It normally occurs with the consent of the male and female fornicators and in closed spaces known only to a few. Hence, had a painful ḥadd not been legislated for it, deterrence would not be achieved.

Another example is theft. A human being often does not find a suitable job so falls into theft, which has a hold over their hearts. Theft occurs hiddenly in a manner that people don’t see the thief, as opposed to “usurpation” which occurs based on a weak evidence that is not supported by Sharī‘ah during transactions between two individuals and before the eyes of men. Hence, usurpation [as opposed to theft] is a transaction amongst other transactions.

Another example is highway robbery. A victim is unable to push him away from his life and wealth. It does not take place in the Muslim centres that are under the authority of Muslims where they can ward them off. Hence, the punishment for such a person must be increased.

Another example is drinking wine, which has a force to it, and causes corruption on the earth and takes away the hold of their minds, through which their afterlife and present life is kept sound.

Another example is slander because the one that is slandered bears great harm and is unable to ward it off by killing [the slanderer] or something similar, because if he killed, he will be executed in return, and if he struck, he will be struck in return, so a major deterrent is necessary for such a thing.

This is the wisdom in specifying the punishments for the ḥudūd and not specifying them for the discretionary punishment (ta‘zīr) of other crimes. There is no doubt that the specified punishments for most ḥudūd are very severe. But the crimes for which these punishments were legislated are greater in tribulation and graver in corruption and take people further away from their humanity. It is strange from these Western-minded people that they demand compassion for the criminals and have no compassion for the society whose peace, wellbeing and integrity these criminals want to strip away, and who transgress against the lives, properties and reputations of innocents.

Furthermore, Islām did not suffice with legislating these punishments alone. Rather, it produced through its various rulings an environment that opens the doors to good and shuts the doors to evil and corruption and drives man towards righteousness and pushes him away from evil, and strengthens the motivations for good and lessens the motivations towards wickedness and sin. This will become clear with an example:

Fornication figures in the list of crimes that are punished with ḥudūd. However, Islām did not suffice with legislating ḥudūd to eliminate this crime. Rather, it legislated rulings prior to it that become an obstacle to a person from perpetrating this obscenity. Hence, it commanded women to observe purdah and lower the gaze and remain glued to their homes except in the situations of need, and to not make a display in front of strange men and not reveal their fineries except in the presence of their maḥrams and not soften their voices towards strange men so that one in whose heart is an illness desires them and not come out from their homes except with their jilbābs; and it has obligated men to provide for them so they do not need to come out to earn.

It has ordered men to lower their gaze, and has encouraged them to marry and to rush to it after turning bāligh as marriage is from the most powerful of means towards chastity and preventing fornication, and it has made marriage a simple transaction with no expense besides that of the mahr and the provisions, and it has not required a Qāḍī for it, nor ceremonies, nor expensive preparations that prevent the guardians from giving their daughters in marriage until they have a lot of wealth to equip them with causing women to remain unmarried in the homes of their fathers and temptation and great corruption arising from them.

It has permitted men to marry in twos, threes or fours provided they are fair to them because the desires of many men will not be abated with one wife, who has long lapses of menstruation, pregnancy and post-partum bleeding, when she is not suited for men, so Islām has freed him of ḥarām through ḥalāl so that he does not desire strange women via fornication.

Furthermore, Islām has stipulated requirements for the implementation of punishments of ḥudūd which are hardly fulfilled except in rare cases. Hence, it is not permissible to establish the ḥadd of fornication unless the criminal himself confesses or via the testimony of four witnesses who saw this obscenity without any doubt or confusion and they testify in front of the Qāḍī that they saw the criminal perpetrating this obscenity just like a pencil inside the kohl-pot and a rope inside the well.

Whoever crosses all these limits and perpetrates fornication in such a way that four witnesses see him without any doubt, he has not violated the sanctity of only one ruling of Sharī‘ah but has violated all the sanctities that Islām has made as a prelude to close the door to fornication. He has opposed the rules of purdah and lowering the gaze and being in solitude with a strange woman and let himself be subdued by his desires and perpetrated this obscenity in view of four upright and free men, making him lose human dignity and reach the level of animals, and has made himself equivalent to a rotten, putrid part of the body of the Islāmic religious community, the rottenness of which it is feared will spread to the rest of the body. What is the fate of such a part besides it being amputated from the body so that the rest of the parts are secure from its rottenness? No one will censure a doctor or surgeon who cuts such a part and isolates it from the body, nor will they accuse him of oppression and harshness. This harshness is the very thing by which the life of the society remains sound. Were it not for this harshness, great corruption would manifest in the world.

It is strange that those who object to these ḥudūd, namely the Westerners, they are the very ones whose necks are weighed down by the blood of thousands of women and elderly men and children who were burned down by their nuclear bombs in Japan despite being guilty of no crime besides being born in the land of their enemy. Their “compassion” did not stop them from killing them and annihilating them and burning them down, even though they did not commit a crime against another’s life, wealth or reputation. Yet, they show “compassion” towards the transgressing criminals and object against those who wish to implement strong ḥudūd against them, as though no community more compassionate than them was created on the face of the earth! I swear by Allāh, these objections against ḥudūd are nothing but the product of blind fanaticism and hatred, and their bitterness against Islām and Muslims hidden within their hearts.

After this prelude, we will describe some merits and distinguishing features of Islāmic criminal law which is not found in any other law.

1. The Division of Punishments into Ḥadd and Ta‘zīr

The Islāmic Sharī‘ah divides punishments for crimes into two categories:

The first are those whose amount and nature the Sharī‘ah has specified based on laws from the Qur’ān or Sunnah, namely qiṣāṣ and ḥadd. It is an eternal, everlasting specification. It is not allowed for any of the rulers, judges or councils of representatives or anyone else to effect any change in it, either by adding or subtracting from them. These are the punishments for the seven crimes that we mentioned. We cited the wisdom of this from the tongue of Imām Walīullāh al-Dihlawī (Allāh have mercy on him).

The second are those that the Sharī‘ah has not specified an amount or nature, but has deferred its specification to the ruler of each era and region who will choose for the criminal whatever punishment he is inclined to that is suitable for deterring him. Deterrence in such crimes will differ based on the difference in the criminal and the difference in the circumstances of the crime and the difference in the environments in which the crime was perpetrated. It is part of the wisdom of Islāmic legislation to not specify a permanent, unalterable punishment for them so that the matter does not become restricted for the ruler and he is not compelled to be harsh in something that requires leniency nor leniency in something that requires harshness. Hence, the jurists have mentioned that ta‘zīr is not limited to hitting. Rather, it can be by hitting and can also be by slapping, pressing the ear, and can also be by harsh words, and by the Qāḍī looking at him sternly. See al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq (5:40).

Malik al-‘Ulamā’ al-Kāsānī (Allāh have mercy on him) said in Badā’i‘ al-Ṣanā’i‘ (6:64):

“Some of our elders arranged ta‘zīr according to the categories of people. They said: Ta‘zīrs are done to four categories of people: the nobles, namely chiefs and executors; the greater nobles, namely those of ‘Alawī heritage and religious scholars; those in the middle; the lower class; and the base. Ta‘zīr of the greater nobles is by merely informing them, that is, the Qāḍī sends his secretary to him to say: ‘It has reached me that you do such-and-such.’ Ta‘zīr of the nobles is by informing them and summoning them to the door of the Qāḍī and speaking to them face-to-face. Ta‘zīr of those in the middle is by informing them, bringing them to the court and imprisonment. Ta‘zīr of the lower class is by informing them, bringing them to the court, hitting them and imprisonment. The aim of ta‘zīr is to deter, and the degrees of people are according to these categories in terms of deterrence.”

This does not mean that these categories are specified and it is not permissible for the Qāḍī to go outside of them, so it is not permissible to punish the nobles by hitting them and imprisonment, as some people misunderstand. Rather, this is an illustration of the variation amongst people in terms of deterrence. The outcome is that each criminal is punished in a manner suited to his condition. Hence, if deterrence is achieved by a lesser punishment, a greater one will not be crossed into. However, if the Qāḍī believes that the criminal, despite being from the nobles, will not be deterred except by hitting and imprisonment, or will not take lesson except with a severer punishment, he can choose whatever punishment he decides upon. Is it permissible for him to punish using more than the strikes of ḥudūd? There is disagreement on this. A discussion on this will come in Kitāb al-Ḥudūd.

Is it Permissible to Specify the Ta‘zīr (Discretionary Punishment) by Law from the Government?

Furthermore, the specification and quantity of the punishment in ta‘zīr is left to the discretion of the Qāḍī. Practice has remained upon this throughout the centuries in the Islāmic lands. However, today the governments feel a need to specify the quantity of punishments for crimes of ta‘zīr, which is a result of the proliferation of corruption in this time and the change in the character of the Qāḍīs. This wide tolerance in the discretion of the Qāḍī may encourage him to take bribes, commit a crime, or be harsh where leniency is demanded or vice versa, and not maintain equality between the criminals of the same kind. So can the government restrict the scope of discretion of a Qāḍī, and specify from its side the punishments for crimes which do not have a specific limit? The views of the scholars of our time have differed regarding this.

Some scholars say the government has no power to bring about restrictions in the discretion of the Qāḍī in ta‘zīr or to specify by legislation from its side the punishments for crimes of ta‘zīr, because then there would remain no difference between ḥadd and ta‘zīr, and it will cause the benefit based on which ta‘zīr was left to the discretion of the Qāḍī to be lost.

However, what is preferred according to us is that there is nothing preventing the government from bringing restrictions to the discretion of the Qāḍī when it considers there to be benefit in this. It may specify punishments for crimes which do not have a specific limit in Sharī‘ah. It is best to leave a range within the boundaries of which the Qāḍī can implement his discretion. For example, he says: “Whoever enters the property of another without any prior or subsequent permission will be punished with imprisonment for a period that does not fall short of a month and does not exceed a year.” In such a case, the discretion of the Qāḍī will be narrowed, in that it will be necessary for him to punish the criminal with imprisonment for a period not less than a month nor more than a year. But he will have discretion between a month and a year, so he will punish criminals in between this range in accordance with the difference in the circumstances of the case and the difference in the gravity of the crime. The permissibility of this is indicated by several indications:

1. Specifying the punishment for ta‘zīr is left, in point of origin, to the discretion of the Ruler, not the Qāḍī, as stated by several jurists. See, for example, Fatḥ al-Bārī (12:73), Kitāb al-Ḥudūd, Bāb al-Ḍarb bi ‘l-Jarīd wa ‘l-Ni‘āl. It is only deferred to the Qāḍī in his capacity as representative of the Ruler. Since the original decision lies with the Ruler, and he is the one that delegates it to the Qāḍī, it is permissible for him to delegate a specified amount from that and hold back an amount.

2. It is established in some ḥadīths that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) specified punishments in some crimes that do not have a specified limit in Sharī‘ah. For example, al-Tirmidhī (no. 1487) related from Ibn ‘Abbās from the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) that he said:

“When a man says to another: ‘Oh Jew’, strike him twenty times, and when he says: ‘You effeminate’, strike him twenty times.”

Al-Tirmidhī faulted it based on the weakness of Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Ḥabībah, but Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Mājah also narrated his ḥadīths and Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-‘Ijlī, al-Ḥarbī and Ibn ‘Adī considered him trustworthy and Muḥammad ibn Sa‘d said:

“He was one who prayed ṣalāh, a worshipper, he fasted [continuously] for sixty years, and was not prolific in narrating ḥadīths.”

This is from al-Tahdhīb (1:104). Ibn Ma‘īn once said of him,

“acceptable in ḥadīth”,

as found in Mīzān al-I‘tidāl (1:19). Hence, the ḥadīth of such a person will not be totally discarded. None of the jurists said as far as we know that twenty strikes is a ḥadd for someone who says to another: “Oh Jew” or “You effeminate”. The scholars have reached consensus that it is ta‘zīr, and the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) specified it not in the capacity of communicating the Sharī‘ah, but in the capacity of Ruler. Thus, this proves it is permissible to specify other punishments for ta‘zīr as well.

Similarly, it is established in several ḥadīths that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) ordered the fornicator to be exiled. This exile is not ḥadd according to the Ḥanafīs but ta‘zīr, but it was a specified punishment via the Ruler for criminals of a certain kind. Similarly, it is established in the ḥadīth of ‘Ubādah ibn al-Ṣāmit (Allāh be pleased with him) that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) ordered lashing with stoning for an adulterer. Lashing for the adulterer is ta‘zīr according to some jurists and this is also a punishment specified via the Ruler.

3. It is established according to the Ḥanafīs that the punishment of a sodomite is not ḥadd, but despite this, they specified some punishments for him, for example: being thrown off a mountain, or imprisoned in a dark, smelly room until he dies. It is evident this is specifying the punishment for a crime that does not have a fixed ḥadd in Sharī‘ah according to them.

As for what some scholars have raised as an objection to this, namely that after specification there will remain no difference between ḥadd and ta‘zīr, this is not accepted, because specifying the punishment of ta‘zīr by government law does not transform ta‘zīr into ḥadd as it is not an eternal specification of Sharī‘ah, but rather is a specification by a specific country at a particular time. Freedom remains in the hand of every government to alter this specification whenever it wishes to whatever it wishes. This is distinguished from the ḥudūd of Sharī‘ah that are specified via the Lawgiver. These are eternal, everlasting specifications and there is no scope for a government to alter them by law from its side.

Based on this, what some have claimed that “the permissibility of specifying punishments via the government will lead to losing the benefit for which ta‘zīr was legislated” is repelled. This specification is not a specification of Sharī‘ah, but holds the position of a change for each period. It is permissible for every government to alter it when the interest changes. Hence, the benefit for which ta‘zīr was legislated is not lost.

This view that we discussed is the view that my father, ‘Allāmah Muftī Muḥammad Shafī‘ (Allāh have mercy on him), preferred in his Tafsīr, Ma‘ārif al-Qur’ān (3:116-7), under the explanation of Sūrah al-Mā’idah, at the statement of Allāh (Exalted is He):

“The punishment of those that war against Allāh and His Messenger is…” (5:33).

2. Punishments are a Deterrent

Furthermore, the punishments that Islām has legislated in ḥudūd and qiṣāṣ are not aimed at merely punishing the criminal, but is aimed also at being a lesson and deterrent for others. Allāh (Exalted is He) said: “Cut the hands of the male and female thief, as recompense for what they have earned and as a deterrent from Allāh.” (5:38) Based on this, the punishments of ḥudūd have been made severe so the skins of other criminals crawl and they are deterred from committing crimes and offenses. Based on this, the Islāmic Sharī‘ah has recommended the ḥudūd be carried out in full-view of people and in the presence of the public. Allāh (Exalted is He) said about the male and female fornicator: “Let a group of the believers witness their punishment.” (24:2)

Hence, the Islāmic Sharī‘ah does not like these punishments be carried out in prison cells out of sight from people as is done in the English system. Rather it wants the public to see them with their eyes so it becomes a lesson for them and a cause of crimes being reduced in society.

Similarly, the Islāmic Sharī‘ah does not like the punishment of imprisonment being increased, as is done in our time. Increasing in this punishment leads to other harms and transforms prisons into shelters for criminals where criminals learn from each other how to commit further crimes. The expenses of these prisons become a heavy burden on the Muslim treasury. Hence, imprisonment was not stipulated as the punishment for any of the crimes that are punished by ḥudūd.

The Islāmic Sharī‘ah rather prefers punishments being corporal, either for it to cause pain or to cause humiliation. Amputating the hands and feet and impaling are deterrents that cause pain.

The punishment of lashes in ḥudūd is humiliating, though it does not cause pain to the degree of amputating and stoning. Based on this, the jurists have required that the whip does not have knots and the lasher does not raise his hand above his head and distributes the beating over the whole body and avoids the face and private area and strikes him with moderate strength. All of this is because the actual purpose of this punishment is humiliating the criminal in front of people and for it to become a deterrence for those around him. Causing pain and torment is secondary to this primary objective. The Sharī‘ah does not aim at annihilating him with this punishment.

3. Ḥudūd are Warded Off Based on Doubts

Just as Islām has legislated severe punishments for ḥudūd, it has also ordained strict preconditions for its implementation. Ḥadd is not carried out on any person until his crime is established before the Qāḍī like the light of day without any strong or weak doubt. It is not permissible to carry out the ḥadd for as long as there is doubt, even if weak, on the crime being committed, so that this severe punishment does not befall someone undeserving. It is reported from ‘Ā’ishah (Allāh be pleased with her) from the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) that he said:

“Ward off ḥudūd from the Muslims as far as you are able. If there is a way out for him, release him. It is better the Ruler errs in pardoning than he errs in punishment.”

Al-Tirmidhī related it in al-Ḥudūd, Bāb Mā Jā’a fī Dar’ al-Ḥudūd (no. 1424). It is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said:

The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: “Ward off ḥudūd based on doubts.”

Abū Ḥanīfah narrated it as found in Jāmi‘ al-Masānīd (2:183). Our master, ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (Allāh be pleased with him) said:

“It is more beloved to me to neglect ḥudūd based on doubts than to carry them out based on doubts.”

Ibn Abī Shaybah related it in his Muṣannaf (9:566; no. 8542).

Indeed this is a great principle Islām has affirmed at a time in which punishments were ruled for people based merely on a lottery and other guesswork and at a time when the displeasure of the Ruler over a person was sufficient to rule he be executed and skinned and his limbs be amputated. Islām was probably the first to affirm the principle of warding off punishments based on a doubt in the location [of the crime] or in the action [itself]. This is not the place to go into detail. Its place is the books of Fiqh. Then, other legal systems adopted this principle, such that it is now enshrined in the law of every country that the benefit of doubt is credited to someone suspected of crime.

4. The Difference between Ḥadd and Ta‘zīr in Regard to Doubt

Some jurists have mentioned that a doubt causes the ḥadd to fall away, but not ta‘zīr. Ta‘zīr is established even with doubts. See for example: al-Ashbāh wa ‘l-Naẓā’ir by al-Suyūṭī (1:123), under the principle al-ḥudūd tandari’u bi l-shubuhāt and Sharḥ Adab al-Qāḍī by al-Ṣadr al-Shaḥid (2:180; 2:284)

Some people misunderstand what is meant by this and assume that ta‘zīr is permissible even if there is doubt over it being proven that the crime was committed. The matter is not so. The reality is that a doubt is of two types: the first is something that prevents an overpowering judgement that the suspect had carried out what is not lawful for him. The second is what does not prevent that. For the first category, ḥadd and ta‘zīr are equal. This type of doubt causes ḥadd and ta‘zīr both to fall away. For example, two witnesses testify against a man that he kissed a strange woman at a certain time in a certain location and two other witnesses testify that at that very time he was in another city such that it was not possible for him to have met that woman, and the truth of one of the two proofs over the other does not occur to the Qāḍī and both possibilities are equal to him, causing a strong doubt that the suspect committed this crime. Such doubt will cause the ta‘zīr to fall away, and it is not permissible for the Qāḍī in such a case to punish the suspect with a ta‘zīr punishment. Rather, he must release him until something that gives him an overpowering judgement that the suspect committed the crime appears to him.

As for the second category of doubt, it is a technical doubt over the definition of ḥadd being realised. This is the doubt that the jurists have termed “a doubt in the location” or “a doubt in the action”. For example, someone who has intercourse with the female slave of his son or the female slave of his wife based on the assumption that it is lawful for him, or he marries his maḥram on the assumption that it is lawful for him. Even though it is established definitively that he has perpetrated something not lawful for him, there is a technical doubt in the definition of “fornication” being met and necessitating ḥadd. Such a doubt will cause the ḥadd to fall away, but not ta‘zīr.

Similarly, if a man stole an item from another, and there is doubt over the item being secure, such a doubt will cause the ḥadd to fall away, but it will not cause ta‘zīr to fall away, as it is proven he committed something unlawful for him. Whenever the jurists say that a doubt does not cause ta‘zīr to fall away, what they mean is this type of doubt not the first, because the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):

“It is better the Ruler errs in pardoning than he errs in punishment”

is inclusive of both the punishment of ḥadd and ta‘zīr. Allāh (Glorified and Exalted is He) knows best.

Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim, 2:225-33

Last Edit: May 16, 2024 18:56:21 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen Moderator taymiyyun.wordpress.com Posts: 338	Will there be a Mahdi? Or do Each of us Qualify as the Mahdī Nov 15, 2021 13:55:15 GMT Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 15, 2021 13:55:15 GMT Related:
	taymiyyun.wordpress.com/ barelwism.wordpress.com/ studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Philosophy of Jihad & Responding to Modernist Distortions Nov 13, 2021 17:58:59 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 13, 2021 17:58:59 GMT

The Philosophy of Jihād in Islāmic Law
& Responding to Modernist Distortions

Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

The Meaning of Jihād

“Jihād” is derived from the root letters j-h-d. Al-Qasṭallāni said in Irshād al-Sārī (5:31):

“It is derived from jahd (with fatḥah on the jīm), meaning ‘toil’ and ‘difficulty’, given what is entailed in engaging in it, or from juhd (with dammah), meaning ‘energy’, because [in Jihād] each one expends his energy to repel his counterpart.”

Ibn Manẓūr said in Lisān al-‘Arab (3:135):

“Jihād is excessiveness and expending energy in terms of war or speech or any capacity one is able.”

As for its meaning in the terminology of Sharī‘ah, the ‘Ulamā’ have defined it using different expressions, most of which refer back to the same meaning. Al-Qasṭallānī said in Irshād al-Sārī (5:31):

“It is fighting the disbelievers to support Islām and elevate Allāh’s Word.”

Al-Kāsānī said in Badā’i‘ al-Ṣanā’i‘ (7:97):

“In the customary usage of Sharī‘ah, it is used for expending the effort and force of one’s person, property, speech or something else to kill in Allāh’s way (Glorified and Mighty is He).”

If we wish to condense these expressions, we can say: Jihād is not limited to the immediate act of killing. Rather, it is every effort that is expended in the path of elevating Allāh’s Word and breaking the supremacy of disbelief and the disbelievers, whether with a weapon, with wealth, work, writing or speech. However, when the word “Jihād” is used unconditionally, the effort expended in fighting the disbelievers is normally meant. It is not used unconditionally for something else without an indication that points to it.

Similarly, sometimes this word is used unconditionally for struggling with the inner self, as has occurred in ḥadīth: “The Mujāhid is the one who struggles with his inner self for the obedience of Allāh. The Muhājir is the one who flees from what Allāh forbade.” Aḥmad recorded it, as did al-Ḥākim, who graded it authentic and al-Dhahabī concurred. However, this usage is a metaphorical usage in relation to its known technical meaning, so is not considered without qualification.

Aims and Goals of Jihād

The ‘Ulamā’ have listed many localised aims and goals of Jihād, to which we can add other localised aims in accordance with the situation and circumstance. However, the foundational goal in legislating Jihād, as indicated by the texts of Sharī‘ah, is: strengthening Islām and elevating Allāh’s Word and destroying the supremacy of disbelief.

In the last century, Jews and Christians from amongst the Westerners have stirred up a ruckus in opposition to the laws of Jihād. They claimed that Jihād is a means of coercing people into accepting Islām. They claimed that Muslims spread their religion with sword and weapon, not with proof and argument, hence they attacked the lands of the disbelievers and coerced them at the tip of the sword to accept their religion, and the only call they made to Islām was by fighting and with the sword. This is all ignorance or feigning ignorance about the reality of Jihād in Sharī‘ah and its relationship with the call (da‘wah) to Islām.

The reality is that Jihād was not legislated to coerce people into accepting Islām. Rather, it was legislated only to establish Allāh’s rule in the land and to destroy the supremacy of disbelief and disbelievers which, throughout history, was the greatest cause for the spread of oppression, strife and corruption, and the greatest impediment to accepting the truth and listening to the call of Islām.

If the goal of Jihād was to force people to accept the religion, the Jizyah tax would not have been legislated to bring an end to war. Indeed, the legality of the Jizyah tax is one of the clearest proofs that Jihād is not for coercing people to accept the religion. It was not recorded in any of the wars of Jihād – despite their great frequency in the course of history – that any of the disbelievers was forced to accept Islām after the Muslims conquered a place. Rather, the disbelievers were left fully at ease with their religion. Then, the Islāmic call came, accompanied by proof and argument, and by noble lives, and beautiful characters, and charismatic works, so the disbelievers rushed to Islām after they were convinced of its truth, and certain of the beauty of its teachings, without anybody compelling them to do this. Jihād was legislated only for the elevation of Allāh’s Word on Allāh’s land, and for it to have glory and strength, and to destroy the supremacy of the tyrants who enslave Allāh’s slaves to their rules and their laws that derive from their minds, and refuse Allāh’s rule being established in His land, and they spread every oppression, evil and corruption using the strength of their dominion.

However, a group subscribing to Islām, impassioned by Western thought, infatuated by its principles and ideas, and always defeated by its objections that know no end, instead of understanding the reality of Jihād and that disbelievers will never be pleased with it, began making excuses to them using defeatist and fatuous excuses. As a result, they began distorting the texts, saying: “Jihād was not legislated except for defending the homeland of Islām against an enemy attack and it is not permissible to initiate an attack against a disbelieving nation that is not attacking the Islāmic lands.”

This is indeed an innovated opinion, with no basis in the Book and Sunnah, and no precedent in the history of Jihād, and no support in Islāmic Fiqh in the course of fourteen centuries. However, many people in our time have become deceived by it, so we wish to refute it in some detail. Allāh (Glorified is He) is sought for help.

Stages in the Legislation of Jihād

In order to understand the reality of Jihād and its rulings mentioned in the Book and Sunnah, it is necessary to recognise that Jihād, from the beginning of Islām, underwent several stages in its legislation & did not reach its final ruling except after some time; namely, four stages:

1. The first stage was: enduring the persecution of the idolaters while continuing to preach the religion of truth. The Prophet ﷺ and his companions were forbidden from fighting. This was the first stage in the call to Islām. These rules were repeated in the Noble Qur’ān during the period of his ﷺ stay in Makkah. Thus, He (Exalted is He) said:

“Proclaim that which you are commanded and turn away from the idolaters” (15:94),

and:

“Hold to forgiveness, enjoin goodness, and turn away from the ignorant” (7:199).

Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ said to his companions during this period:

“I was commanded to forgive, so do not fight”.

The ḥadīth was transmitted by al-Nasa’ī, al-Bayhaqī (9:11), al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak (2:307) who said it meets the criterion of al-Bukhārī and al-Dhahabī made no comment on it.

Imam al-Qurṭubī said in his Tafsīr (3:38):

“Fighting was not permitted for the Prophet ﷺ in the period of his stay at Makkah.”

2. The second stage is permission to fight, without it being made obligatory on the Muslims. Regarding this stage, His (Exalted is He) statement was revealed in Sūrah al-Ḥajj:

“[Fighting back] has been permitted for those who are fought against because they have been wronged. Allāh is indeed Able to grant them victory. Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: ‘Our Lord is Allāh’. Had it not been for Allāh’s repelling some men by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allāh is oft-mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Indeed Allāh helps those who help Him. Indeed, Allāh is Powerful and Mighty.” (22:39-40)

Ibn Kathīr said in commenting on this verse:

“Several predecessors said: ‘This was the first verse to be revealed about Jihād. Some have argued from this verse that the sūrah is Madīnan.” See Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (5:43).

3. The third stage is the obligation on the Muslims to fight only those who initiate fighting, without initiating it against their enemies. Regarding this stage, His (Exalted is He) statement in Sūrah al-Baqarah: 190 was revealed:

“Fight in the way of Allāh against those who fight against you, but transgress not. Indeed Allāh does not love aggressors” (2:190)

and His (Exalted is He) statement in Sūrah al-Nisā’: 90-1:

“Therefore, if they withdraw from you and fight you not, and send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allāh has opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto. If they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace nor restrain their hands, seize them and slay them wherever you get them. Against those, We have provided you with a clear argument.” (4:90-1)

4. The fourth stage is to initiate fighting against all disbelievers with their differences in religion and race, even if they do not initiate fighting with the Muslims, until they become Muslims or pay the Jizyah, in order to break the supremacy of disbelief and strengthen the religion and elevate Allāh’s Word. This stage began after the passage of four months after the Ḥajj in the ninth year of Hijrah, which was led by Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (Allāh be pleased with him). The declaration of this stage occurred in this Ḥajj upon the tongue of ‘Alī ibn Abi Ṭālib (Allāh be pleased with him). Allāh (Glorified his He) mentioned this in detail in Sūrah al-Tawbah. He (Exalted is He) said therein:

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush. If they repent and establish prayer and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Indeed, Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful.” (9:5)

In the same sūrah, He (Exalted is He) says:

“Fight against those from the people of the scripture who do not believe in Allāh or the Last Day, and forbid not what Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the Jizyah readily, being brought low.” (9:29)

He says in Sūrah al-Anfāl: 39:

“And fight them on until there is no more temptation & faith in Allāh altogether prevails.” (8:39).

Many of the ‘Ulamā’ from the predecessors mentioned these stages in the legislation of Jihād. We will cite some of these statements in the following:

Imam al-Shafi‘i said:

“Allāh (Glorified and Mighty is He) revealed to him amongst (the verses) that will give him strength when he felt constrained by their persecution:

‘Indeed We know how your heart is distressed at what they say. So glorify the praises of your Lord, and be of those who prostrate. Worship your Lord until certainty comes to you.’ (15:97-9)

Thus, He made preaching to them and worshipping Him obligatory, and He did not make fighting them obligatory on him. This is clear from other verses of His Book…Then Allāh (Glorified and Mighty is He) permitted them to engage in Jihād …Then He permitted them to initiate the fight against the idolaters. He (Glorified and Mighty is He) said:

‘[Fighting back] has been permitted for those who are fought against because they have been wronged. Allāh is indeed Able to grant them victory.’ (22:39)

He permitted them to fight in the manner He clarified in His Book. He said:

‘Fight in the way of Allāh against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allāh does not love aggressors.’ (2:190).

When a period had passed after Allāh’s Messenger’s ﷺ migration, Allāh blessed large masses of people with following him. Thus, they acquired the strength of numbers that they did not previously have, alongside Allāh’s help. Hence, Allāh (Most High) made Jihād obligatory on them when previously it was permissible and not obligatory. He (Glorified and High is He) said:

‘Fighting is prescribed for you’ (2:216).”

See Aḥkām al-Qur’ān by al-Shāfi‘i (2:9 to 19).

Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsī said in al-Mabsūṭ (10:2):

“Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ was told in the beginning to pardon and turn away from the idolaters. Allāh (Exalted is He) said:

‘Overlook with gracious forgiveness’ (15:85)

and He (Exalted is He) said:

‘Turn away from the idolaters’ (15:94).

Then He commanded fighting when they began aggressing. He (Exalted is He) said:

‘[Fighting back] has been permitted for those who are fought against because they have been wronged.’ (22:39)

That is, defence was permitted for them. He (Exalted is He) said:

‘If they fight you, slay them’ (2:191);

and He (Exalted is He) said:

‘If they incline to peace, incline towards it’ (8:61).

Then He commanded (the Muslims) to initiate fighting. He (Exalted is He) said:

‘Fight them on until there is no more temptation’ (8:39),

and He (Exalted is He) said:

‘Slay the idolaters wherever you find them’ (9:5).

Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ said:

‘I was commanded to fight the people until they say there is no deity besides Allāh. When they say that their blood and property will be secure from me except by its due, and their judgement will be to Allāh.’

The matter settled on the obligation of Jihād against the idolaters. This is an obligation that remains until the coming of the Hour.”

Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) says in his book al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ liman Baddala Din al-Masīḥ (1:74):

“The Prophet ﷺ was, at the beginning of his mission, told to push back against the disbelievers with his tongue, not with his hand; to call them and advise them, and argue with them with what is best… and he was told to hold back from fighting them due to his incapacity and the incapacity of the Muslims to do that. Then when he migrated to Madīnah, and he gained supporters, Jihād was permitted for him. Then when they became stronger, Allāh prescribed Jihād for them, and did not prescribe fighting those who were at peace with them because they were unable to fight all the disbelievers. When Allāh liberated Makkah, and fighting the Quraysh – the kings of the Arabs – came to an end, and delegations of the Arabs came to him with Islām, Allāh (Exalted is He) commanded him to fight all disbelievers besides those who had a temporary truce, and He commanded him to disavow all truces that were not temporary.”

Ibn Rushd said the same in Bidāyat al-Mujtahid (1:371, 372) and Ibn al-Qayyim in Zād al-Ma‘ād (3:160), as did other ‘Ulamā’ from the predecessors.

Are the First Stages Abrogated (Mansūkhah) or in Force (Muḥkam)?

The expressions of the ‘Ulamā’ differed in explaining the reality of these stages. Some of them claimed that every new stage abrogated the ruling that preceded it, so the first three stages are abrogated today, and the only one remaining today is the final stage i.e. the fourth stage. Others disagreed with them, and said: the first stages are not abrogated but are linked to specific conditions, and whenever they return, their rulings return. The foremost of those who said this is ‘Allāmah Badr al-Din al-Zarkashī (Allāh have mercy on him). He said there is no abrogation in the stages of Jihād. Rather, every stage is to be implemented in a situation that resembles the situation in which it was legislated.

Al-Zarkashī (Allāh have mercy on him) said in his book al-Burhān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān (2:41-2):

“Some categorised abrogation into three types from another angle…Third: what was commanded due to a cause, followed by the disappearance of the cause, like the command to be patient and forgive those (disbelievers) who do not hope to meet Allāh and the like, e.g. not obligating commanding the good and forbidding the evil, and Jihād, and their like, when weak and few; then it was abrogated and made obligatory. This, in reality, is not abrogation, but is postponement (nas’), as He (Exalted is He) said:

‘We cause it to be postponed.’

The thing postponed is the command to fight until the Muslims are strong. In the state of weakness, the rule is the obligation to be patient when persecuted. By this verification, it becomes clear that what many of the exegetes said about the verses commanding tolerance are abrogated by the verse of the sword (i.e. 9:5) is weak. It is not so. Rather, it is from what is postponed, in the sense that every command that is mentioned is obligatory to follow in whatever time the cause necessitates that ruling. Then it shifts to another ruling by the cause changing. This is not abrogation. Abrogation is elimination such that it is not permissible to follow it at all.”

The reality is that this disagreement does not stem from disagreement in practice. It is only a difference in phrasing. Everyone says these rules are conditional on specific conditions. Thus, the rules of patience and forgiveness will be in effect (muḥkamah) in the state of weakness and incapacity. Permission to fight will be in effect in a circumstance above the first. The obligation to fight to defend will be in effect in a circumstance above this. The obligation to initiate war will be in effect when the Muslims have attained power whereby they can do that. The first group calls this a type of abrogation. Al-Zarkashī (Allāh have mercy on him) called it postponement and did not like calling it abrogation.

The Difference between Defensive Jihād (Jihād al-Daf‘) and Offensive Jihād (Jihād al-Ibtidā’) in Terms of Ruling

Once it is established that both the categories of defensive Jihād and offensive Jihād are legislated and in force, it should be known that they differ in their legal ruling. Defensive Jihād is an individual obligation (farḍ ‘ayn) when the enemy attacks the frontiers of Muslim land, whereas offensive Jihād is a communal obligation (farḍ kifāyah) in the most correct of the two views.

As for defensive Jihād, Imam al-Jaṣṣāṣ says in Aḥkam al-Qur’ān (3:114):

“It is known in the belief of all Muslims that when the people at the frontiers fear the enemy, and they have no strength to resist them, so they fear for their lands, lives and children, it is obligatory on the whole Ummah to send to them those who will contain their offensive against the Muslims. There is no disagreement on this among the Ummah, since none of the Muslims say it is permissible to sit back from them so they can violate the blood of the Muslims & take their children captive.”

As for offensive Jihād, the majority say that it is a communal obligation provided there is capability to do so. When some Muslims execute it, the obligation drops from the rest (of the Ummah), unless they do so voluntarily. It was narrated from some of the Ṣaḥābah and Tābi‘īn that they believed this to be an individual obligation, as mentioned in Fatḥ al-Bārī (6:38) and Tafsīr ibn Kathīr (4:97).

Ḥāfiẓ (Ibn Ḥajar) says in Bāb Wujūb al-Nafīr in Fatḥ al-Bārī (6:37-8):

“After (Jihād) was legislated (in the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ), was it an individual obligation or a communal obligation? There are two famous views amongst the ‘Ulamā’. Both are found in the Shāfi‘ī madhhab. Al-Māwardī said: It was an individual obligation on the Muhājirīn and not others. The obligation to migrate for the support of Islām before the conquest of Makkah on everyone that became Muslim supports this. Al-Suhaylī said it was an individual obligation on the Anṣār and not others. This is supported by their pledge to the Prophet ﷺ at the night of ‘Aqabah to shelter the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and support him. Thus it is derived from the statement [of al-Māwardī and al-Suhaylī] that it was an individual obligation for the two groups [of Muhājirīn and Anṣār] and a communal obligation for others. Despite this, it is not an individual obligation with regard to the two groups in their entirety. Rather, it is an individual obligation with regard to the Anṣār when an attacker falls on Madīnah and with regard to the Muhājirīn when there is an intention to initiate an attack against the disbelievers. This is supported by what occurred in the event of Badr according to how Ibn Isḥāq narrated it. It is almost unequivocal about this. It has been said that it was an individual obligation for a battle in which the Prophet ﷺ himself participated but not other battles. But the truth is that it was an individual obligation on whoever the Prophet ﷺ specified, even if he did not himself participate.

“In the second state, after his ﷺ lifetime, it is a communal obligation according to the famous opinion except when a need calls for it like when the enemy descends upon them suddenly. It is an individual obligation for whoever the Ruler selects. The communal obligation is fulfilled by carrying out (offensive Jihād) once a year according to the majority. Among their proofs is that the Jizyah is obligatory in place of it, and (the Jizyah) is not obligatory more than once a year by agreement (of the ‘Ulamā’), thus what it substitutes [i.e. offensive Jihād] will be similar. It was said (it is an individual obligation) every time (the Ummah) is able, and this is a strong view…The conclusion upon verification is also that the general class of ‘Jihād against the disbelievers’ is an individual obligation on every Muslim, either with his hand, his tongue, his wealth or his pen. Allāh knows best.”

The Aim of Offensive Jihād

Once this has been established, it should be understood that offensive Jihād is not to compel people to accept the creed of Islām. Rather, it is a struggle to establish Allāh’s rule in His land. Islām does not only consist of beliefs and worship, as with other religions, but it is Allāh’s rule in all affairs of life. Its call is a transformative call, not only in beliefs, but also in the establishment of justice in the land which Allāh has legislated upon His servants. One of its goals is clearing the world of oppression, injustice and corruption, and establishing justice in the land by making Allāh’s Sharī‘ah the law.

The most that Islām tolerates from the disbelievers is that they remain on their belief if they insist on it. However, it will never be pleased with them enslaving the slaves of Allāh by enforcing their laws that proceed from their minds and corrupt desires, which makes oppression and injustice permissible, or spreads licentiousness and immorality, or corrupts the natures of people and blocks their ears from accepting truth and guidance. Thus, Islām made the goal of offensive Jihād one of two matters: either to convert the disbelieving lands to Islām or to impose the Jizyah, at which they will be left to their belief, but they will not be left to enforce their laws in the land over Allāh’s servants. The land will follow Allāh’s rule and the rules of Islām and then the disbelievers will be left with what they profess as their religion in their personal life, and they will pay the Jizyah –a small amount of wealth – because the Islāmic government protects their lives, properties and reputations.

Indeed this goal is what Allāh (Glorified and Exalted is He) clarified in His (Mighty and High is He) statement:

“And fight them on until there is no more temptation, and faith in Allāh altogether prevails.” (8:39).

Imam Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī says in the commentary of this verse (13:547):

“Fight them until there is no idolatry and none is worshipped besides Allāh alone with no partner, so this trial is removed from Allāh’s slaves in the land, which is the ‘temptation’.”

This goal is what Rib‘ī ibn ‘Āmir exclaimed in front of Rustum when the Muslims attacked Iran and Rustum asked:

“What made you come?”

He replied:

“Allāh sent us to remove whoever He wills from the worship of people to the worship of Allāh and from the restrictedness of the world to its expansion and from the injustice of religions to the justice of Islām.”

Ibn Kathir cited it in al-Bidāyah wa l-Nihāyah (7:39).

If the disbelievers accept the establishment of Allāh’s rule over people, and surrender to it by paying the Jizyah, the objective of Jihād would have been attained. They will not then be compelled to accept the creed of Islām at the tip of sword and weapon. Rather, they will be left to their belief until they are certain about the truth of Islām and want to, of their own accord, embrace it with open eyes. Allāh (Glorified and High is He) alludes to this when He says:

The Proofs of Those Who Limit Jihād to Defence Only and its Refutation

All of what we mentioned about the reality of Jihād, its rules and its goals, is derived from the Qur’ān, the Sunnah and the statements of the pious predecessors. This is what the Muslims have continued to believe about the matter of Jihād and have implemented for the course of thirteen centuries of their history. The legality of Jihād along with its types became a point of agreement. No two disagreed about it and two opinions about it did not emerge.

However, in the fourteenth century, men emerged who wanted to apply Islām by Western theories and ideas. They attempted to innovate opinions in Islāmic jurisprudence in many issues that agree with the desires of the Westerners, and force-feed them into the mouth of the texts (of Qur’ān and Sunnah) to please the Colonialists and Orientalists, while being oblivious of Allāh’s statement (Glorified and High is He):

“Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you until you follow their religion. Say: Indeed, the guidance of Allāh is the guidance.” (2:120)

So these people produced an innovation which has no precedent in the matter of Jihād, namely that Jihād in Islām is defensive only, and Muslims are not permitted to fight the disbelievers in order to subjugate them to the authority of Islām and to elevate Allāh’s Word over their word, unless the disbelievers begin hostilities against Muslims. The first time this innovated view emerged, as far as we know, is at the hands of the students of the modernist rationalist school, the most famous of whose members are Muftī Muḥammad ‘Abduh, Rashīd Riḍā and Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghāni from the Arab lands, and Sir Sayyid Aḥmad Khān and Chirāgh ‘Alī and their likes from India. Ustādh Shiblī Nu‘māni, author of Sīrat al-Nabī, also followed their example in this matter. Many contemporary authors in the Islāmic lands have been influenced by this view. But at the same time, excellent ‘Ulamā’ arose in every land and region to refute this theory with convincing proofs and clear evidences, there being no scope to deny them.

From the greatest of what they use to support this innovated opinion are the verses which permit the Muslims to make peace and enact a truce, or commands them to engage in Jihād when the disbelievers transgress, although we have explained about the history of the legislation of Jihād that these are verses from a particular period that teach the legality of Jihād in a particular circumstance and do not negate its legality in another circumstance.

So, for example, they argue from His (Exalted is He) statement:

“Fight in the way of Allāh against those who fight against you, but transgress not. Indeed Allāh does not love aggressors.’ (2:190),

although as we have mentioned previously these verses only teach the legality of the third stage at the beginning of Islām when the Islāmic nation was in a state of weakness, so Allāh made it obligatory on them to fight those who fight them, not those who do not initiate fighting. This was said by Imām al-Shāfi‘ī in the passage we quoted from his Aḥkām al-Qur’ān.

Some exegetes say it was revealed about women and children and it means:

“Fight only those capable of combat, namely adult men. As for women, children and monks, it is not permissible to fight them as they are not capable of combat.”

This is a strong exegesis supported by the Prophet’s ﷺ prohibition of killing women and children and people in monasteries. See Aḥkām al-Qur’ān by al-Jaṣṣāṣ (1:257).

As for His (Exalted is He) statement,

“but transgress not. Indeed Allāh does not love aggressors” (2:190),

“transgression” (i‘tidā’) here means, as the exegetes have said, to not fight for other than religion and to only fight those capable of combat, that is adult men, not women, children and monks, for this is indeed transgression. See Aḥkām al-Qur’ān by Ibn al-‘Arabī (1:104, 105).

Sometimes they argue from His (Exalted is He) statement:

“If they incline to peace, incline towards it” (8:61),

even though it too is in the context of clarifying the ruling in the state of the Muslims being weak. Ibn al-‘Arabī (Allāh have mercy on him) says in Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (4:864):

“If the enemy is strong, it is permissible to make a truce with them, as this verse shows. But when the Muslims are strong and powerful, there is no peace agreement. Allāh (Exalted is He) said:

‘Do not falter and cry out for peace when you are uppermost.’” (47:35)

Imam Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ said in Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (3:70):

“The circumstance in which we were commanded to have mutual peace is when the number of Muslims is small and the enemy is large; and the state in which we were commanded to fight the idolaters and to fight the Ahl al-Kitāb until they give Jizyah is the state in which the Muslims are numerous and have more power than their enemy. He (Exalted is He) said:

‘Do not falter and cry out for peace when you are the uppermost’ (47:35).

He forbade mutual peace when able to subjugate the enemy.”

There is another group of exegetes who interpret “peace” in the verse (8:61) as mutual agreement for the disbelievers to pay Jizyah. Al-Qurṭubī (Allāh have mercy on him) says:

“It was said: it was not abrogated, rather the acceptance of Jizyah from the people of Jizyah is meant. The companions of Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ in the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (Allāh be pleased with him), as well as those after him from the Rulers, reached a settlement of peace in many of the lands of the non-Arabs in exchange for what they took from them, and they left them to what they were upon, even though they were able to annihilate them.” See Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (8:40).

They may argue from His (Exalted is He) statement:

“Therefore if they withdraw from you and fight you not, and send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allāh has opened no way for you (to war against them).’ (4:90),

although this verse too is of a particular period and was revealed about a specific group. Some exegetes said it is abrogated by the verse of al-Barā’ah:

“When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters…” (9:5).

This was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with him) as found in Tafsīr ibn Kathīr (1:533) and Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī (5:111). Some said it is still in force with regard to individuals from the army of the disbelievers who avoided fighting. Ibn Kathīr said:

“Meaning, it is not for you to fight them so long as their state is such. They are like a group that came out on the Day of Badr from Banū Hāshim with the idolaters and were present at the battle while they detested it, like al-‘Abbās and his likes. The Prophet ﷺ thus forbade killing al-‘Abbās and he commanded them to capture him only.”

In sum, all the verses which they argue from pertain to circumstances specific to the beginning of Islām. Jihād eventually settled on what was revealed in Sūrah al-Tawbah in His (Exalted is He) statement:

“When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush. If they repent and establish prayer and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Indeed, Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful.” (9:5)

and His (Exalted is He) statement:

“O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you. Know that Allāh is with the Muttaqīn” (9;123).

All of these verses tell the Muslims to initiate fighting with the disbelievers. No mention is made of the reason to fight except their disbelief in Allāh and the Last Day and not forbidding what Allāh forbade and so on. They do not say that the reason for fighting them is their attacks against Muslims. These verses are from the last of what was revealed of the Noble Qur’ān. Thus, they are in force, and the rule remains till the coming of the Hour. Acting on these decisive verses, Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ said:

“I was commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity but Allāh, and believe in me and in what I have come with. When they do that their blood and property will be secure from me except by its due and their account is with Allāh.”

This is the wording Muslim transmitted from Abū Hurayrah in Kitāb al-Īmān, Bāb al-Amr bi Qitāl al-Nās ḥattā Yaqūlū Lā Ilāha Illa Llāh. This is a clear unequivocal text on the legality of offensive Jihād, which cannot be understood as defensive Jihād only.

This is a summary of what we wanted to present on this issue. A number of ‘Ulamā’ have written independent books on this, and whoever wants more detail should refer to them. From the best of what was written on this subject are two books:

First, Ahammiyat al-Jihād fi Nashr al-Da‘wat al-Islāmiyyah by Dr ‘Ali ibn Nufay‘ al-‘Alyānī.

Second, al-Sharī‘at al-Islāmiyyah wa ‘l-Qānūn al-Duwalī al-‘Āmm by Dr ‘Abd al-Karīm Zaydān. This article of his has been published in his book Majmū‘ah Buḥūth Fiqhiyyah.

I benefited much from these books when writing this piece. Allāh (Exalted is He) reward them greatly.

This much is sufficient for students of knowledge if Allāh (Exalted is He) wills.

Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim, Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī ed., vol 3 pp. 5-15; Dar al-Qalam ed., 3:5-12

Addendum

The following are some excerpts from a letter of Mufti Taqi Usmani written in 1971 in response to a questioner who claimed that Jihad is only for the purpose of facilitating missionary activity, and if missionary activity is lawful in non-Muslim lands, Jihad is no longer applicable:

“There are no legal restrictions in most countries today on preaching Islam, but since their grandeur and authority is established in the world, it has led to developing a universal feeling [of their superiority] which forms a greater obstacle than the greatest legal sanction on the way of free propagation of Islam. The most important purpose of Jihad is to break this grandeur [of disbelievers] so that the resulting psychological subordination should come to an end and the way of accepting the Truth becomes smooth. As long as this grandeur and domination persists, the hearts of people will remain subdued and will not be fully inclined to accept the Religion of Truth. Hence Jihad will continue…

“The obligation of Jizyah and along with it the mention of their subordination is a clear proof that the purpose [of Jihad] is to smash their grandeur, so that the veils of their domination should be lifted and people get a free chance to think over the blessings of Islam. Imam Razi has written the following commentary on this issue: ‘The purpose of Jizyah is not to let the unbelievers remain in their stubborn refusal of accepting Islam but to spare their lives and give them respite during which they may embrace it. When an unbeliever is given time, wherein he would be observing the respect and honour of Islam, hearing the arguments of its validity, and also observing the baselessness of disbelief, he would be convinced to turn towards Islam. This, in fact, is the real purpose of legalizing Jizyah.’…

“There has not been a single incident in the entire history of Islam where Muslims had shown their willingness to stop Jihad on the basis of just one condition - that they will be allowed to preach Islam freely. On the contrary, the aim of Muslims as declared by them in the battle of Qadisiyyah was, ‘To take out people from the rule of people and put them under the rule of Allah’…

“In short, my humble self is of the view that the purpose of Jihad is not just to get the right of missionary activities in any country, but it aims at breaking the grandeur of unbelievers and to establish that of Muslims. As a result no one will dare to show any evil intent against Muslims on the one hand, and on the other hand, people subdued under the grandeur of Islam will have an open mind to think over the blessings of Islam. Operationally, this aims at safeguarding Islam. The scholars who have called Jihad ‘a protection’ must be understood in the above context. The basic element of this ‘protection’ is to break the grandeur of unbelievers and establish the authority of Islam…

“The question arises as to how many people would be prepared to listen to the Muslims or give serious thought to their speeches and writings in an atmosphere where disbelief had established its grandeur and awe throughout? How can the efforts of Muslim missionaries be effective in an atmosphere where anti-Islamic doctrines are being spread on the strength of political power with full vigour, and their propagation carried out with means not possessed by Muslims?

“If, however, Islam and Muslims attain such power and grandeur against which the power and grandeur of disbelievers be subdued, or at least it may be unable to create the sedition and mischief mentioned above, then of course, mutual compromise through peace treaties with non-Muslim countries is not against injunctions of Jihad. Likewise, as long as the required capabilities for breaking the grandeur of disbelief are not possessed by Muslims, peace agreements with other countries, along with all efforts to accumulate the sources of power, are indeed lawful…

“Offensive Jihads were waged not because it was customary for that period of time but because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the Religion of Allah. There were other ‘attributes of kings’: in the excitement of victory, they never made any distinction between women, children and old people, and persecuting all equally. But Islam did not sanction these things despite them being customary. On the contrary, Islam not only established such military rules and regulations but also practically enforced them as could not even be imagined by the ‘kings’…

“Offensive Jihad is lawful even today for the purpose it was lawful in those days. Its justification cannot be veiled only because the ‘peace-loving’ inventors of Atom Bombs and Hydrogen Bombs label it as ‘expansionism’…With due apologies, I may point out that it seems to me the result of the grandeur of disbelief that people have fixed their standard of good and bad on the basis of the propaganda which produces a lie as truth and truth as lie, and then causes it to work into the minds of people to the extent that, to say nothing of non-Muslims, the Muslims themselves are overawed and inclined to adopt an apologetic attitude. If breaking such grandeur of falsehood and evil comes under the definition of ‘expansionism’, we should venerate this expansionism with complete self-confidence, rather than stand humble before them as though saying, ‘when you thought offensive Jihad was good we practiced it, but since you have started condemning it in your books - and only in books [not in practice] - we have also forbidden it upon ourselves.’ My humble self can never agree with this way of thinking.” (Islam and Modernism, p86-92)

Last Edit: Nov 13, 2021 18:16:47 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Questions Regarding a Wife's Obligations in Shari'ah Oct 4, 2021 17:15:06 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Oct 4, 2021 17:15:06 GMT

Questions Regarding a Wife's Obligations in Sharī'ah

Answered by Mufti Zameelur Rahman

Question

Are wives responsible for housework?

Answer

The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:

“Each of you is responsible and will be asked about his responsibility…The man is responsible for [maintaining] his household and the woman is responsible for [the upkeep of] the house and children of her husband.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 5200)

Imām al-Khaṭṭābī explains:

“As for a man’s responsibility over his family, it [means] supervising them, managing their affair and fulfilling their right of maintenance and [good] companionship. As for the woman’s responsibility over the house of her husband, it [means] good management in the upkeep of his house and minding those under her care like [his] dependents, guests and servants.” (A‘lām al-Ḥadīth, 1:580)[1]

It is reported that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) determined that Fāṭimah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), his daughter, is responsible for the work inside the house, while Alī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu), her husband, is responsible for the work outside the house. (Muṣannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 29677)[2] ‘Ᾱbid al-Sindī explains that work “outside the house” refers to things like “collecting firewood and water, and acquiring maintenance”, while work “inside the house” refers to activities like “grinding, baking and kneading”. (Ṭawāli‘ al-Anwār, 6:410)[3] The work was so difficult for Fāṭimah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) that she complained to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) of marks on her hands, and asked for a maidservant. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), however, told her that better than a maidservant is to recite tasbīḥ before going to sleep. (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 5361)

The author of al-Hidāyah, Imām al-Marghīnānī, thus explains:

“When a woman is from those who serve themselves, she must cook and bake [and do housework], because the Prophet (upon him peace) allocated the chores inside the house to Fātimah (Allāh be pleased with her).” (Mukhtārāt al-Nawāzil, 2:194)[4]

That is, wives who are able and do not come from a rich family which normally employs maidservants or workers must do housework. Imām al-Sarakhsī explains:

“That which is obligatory on her by virtue of marriage is handing herself over to the husband to derive [sexual] benefit. She is commanded to do chores apart from that as a religious [obligation] though she will not be juridically compelled – like sweeping the house, washing the clothes, cooking and baking; and likewise, nursing the child.” (al-Mabsūt, 5:209)[5]

In other words, just like breastfeeding the child is obligatory on the mother, it is obligatory on her to do the chores of the house.

In one version of the incident of Fāṭimah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), before exhorting her to make tasbīḥ before sleeping, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said to her:

“Be conscious of Allāh, Fāṭimah, fulfil the obligation of your Lord and do the work of your family.” (Sunan Abū Dāwūd, 2988)[6]

‘Ᾱbid al-Sindī comments that this ḥadīth proves that “every woman capable of chores must do them” (Ṭawāli‘ al-Anwār, 6:411) [7], explaining that “once the ruling about Fāṭimah is known, it would be more so [the case] with other women.” (ibid.)[8]

The following are some relevant narrations.

Asmā’ and Zubayr (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā)

Asmā’, the daughter of Abū Bakr (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā), says: “Zubayr married me when he had no wealth on the earth nor a slave, nor anything, besides a camel and horse. So, I used to feed his horse, draw water and patch up his leather bucket and knead [flour]. I wasn’t good at baking. Neighbours of mine from the Anṣār, who were women of integrity, would bake. I also used to transport date stones on my head from a land of Zubayr which the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) endowed to him. It was two miles from me. I came one day while the date stones were on my head and met the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) while a group of Anṣār were with him. He invited me saying, ‘Kneel, kneel’ [to the camel] to carry me behind him; I was embarrassed to travel with men and remembered Zubayr’s jealousy – he was the most jealous of people! The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) recognised that I was embarrassed so continued. I came to Zubayr and told him, ‘The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) met me while date stones were on my head and a group of his companions were with him, so he made the camel kneel for me to ride, but I was embarrassed and remembered your jealousy.’ He said: ‘By Allāh, the fact you carry date stones [on your head] is harder upon me than you riding with him.’ Eventually, Abū Bakr sent a servant to me thereafter, which took care of managing the horse, and it was like he emancipated me!” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 5224)[9]

Note, this was before the obligation of ḥijāb (purdah/separation between genders) (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11:675)[10], which is why the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) invited her to ride with him. In one version, Asmā’ says: “I used to do the housework for Zubayr…” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 5687)[11] Imām al-Ghazālī quotes this incident in his Iḥyā’ while exhorting wives to do housework. (Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, 3:232-3) Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ explains that the work Asmā’ (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) did outside the house, i.e. taking care of the horse and carrying the date stones, was not something necessary on her, but extra. (Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 7:75)

‘Ᾱ’isha and Rasūlullāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)

One of the Ahl al-Ṣuffah reports that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) invited him and a group of the Ahl al-Ṣuffah to his house, and said: “Feed us ‘Ᾱ’ishah”, upon which she brought something to eat, and then he said “Bring us more ‘Ᾱ’ishah,” so she brought a little more, and then he said: “Give us drink ‘Ᾱ’ishah”, and she brought a container of milk… (Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 20712, Musnad Ibn Abī Shaybah, 607, Sunan Abū Dāwūd, 5040) The Prophet would clean his teeth using a siwāk and then give it to ‘Ᾱ’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) to wash. (Sunan Abū Dāwūd, 52) On one occasion, he told her, “Bring the knife and sharpen it with a stone.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 5086) However, it was also part of the excellent and noble character of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he would assist in the housework. (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 676)

Umm Sulaym and Abū Ṭalḥah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā)

Anas (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) reports: “A son of [my stepfather] Abū Ṭalḥah from [my mother] Umm Sulaym died [in his absence]. She said to her family: ‘Do not tell Abū Ṭalḥah about his son until I am the one to tell him.’ He came, and she presented supper before him, so he ate and drank. She then did herself up for him in the most attractive manner she used to. He then engaged in intercourse with her. When she saw that he was satisfied and had had intercourse with her, she said: ‘Abū Ṭalḥah, what is your opinion if some people were to lend something to a family and then demand their loan back, can they withhold it from them?’ He said: ‘No.’ She said: ‘Then seek reward [by observing patience] at [the death of] your son!’ He became angry saying, ‘You left me to become soiled and then you inform me of [the death of] my son?!’ He then proceeded until he came to the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and informed him of what happened. The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Allāh has blessed the two of you last night.’ She then conceived…” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 6317)[12]

What these reports demonstrate is that the concern of the ṣaḥābah was how best to fulfil their obligations and reduce the burdens of their spouses. Their primary concern was not how best to gain from their marriage, but how best to give and contribute. Hence, we see in the example of Asmā’ and Zubayr (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) that Asmā’’s concern was for Zubayr and Zubayr’s concern was for Asmā’. And from the example of Umm Sulaym (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) we can see that such attitude shows great strength of character and is a cause of blessings.

Question

To what extent do wives have to listen to their husbands?

Answer

Allāh says in the Qur’ān that men are guardians of their wives (Qur’ān, 4:34). Al-Jaṣṣāṣ explains that this verse demonstrates that the wife “must obey [her husband] and accept his command as long as it is not a sin.” (Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, 3:149)[13] However, this obligation does not extend to every single permissible act. Rather, she has to obey him in every non-sinful act that is connected to the rights (ḥuqūq) that he has over her as a husband, namely in matters connected with sexual intimacy (jimā‘/istimtā‘) and household chores/serving him (khidmah).[14] Outside of these, it is not necessary on her to obey him. For example, if he told her to engage in tahajjud ṣalāh during the night, perform optional fasts or memorise the Qur’ān, it does not become an obligation on her to do these things. Similarly, if he was to tell her to sell her house, it would not become obligatory for her to do so.

Ibn Nujaym explains:

“It is not obligatory on the wife to obey her husband in all that he commands her. That [i.e. the obligation to obey] is only in relation to things that go back to the marriage and its connections. She especially [does not have to obey him] when his command entails harming her.” (al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq, 5:78)[15]

Muḥammad Qadrī Bāshā writes:

“Amongst the wife’s obligations towards the husband is to be obedient to him in everything he commands her from marital rights when it is permissible in Sharī‘ah.” (al-Aḥkām al-Shar‘iyyah fi l-Aḥwāl al-Shakhṣiyyah, p. 80)[16]

Women should keep in mind that there is great reward in doing housework and being dutiful and obedient to their husbands. Jābir (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) reported that once they were sitting with the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) when a woman came and said: “Assalāmu ‘alayka, Messenger of Allāh. I am a delegate of [some] women to you. Allāh is the Lord of men and the Lord of women, and Ᾱdam is the father of men and the father of women. Allāh has sent you to men and to women. Men, when they go out in Allāh’s cause and are killed, are living with their Lord being sustained, happy with what Allāh has given them. When they go out, they have such reward that they know. Yet, we are [occupied in] serving them, and remain [at home]. What reward do we have?” The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “Convey salām from me to the women and say to them: Being obedient to the husband equals all that, but only a few of you do so.” (al-‘Iyāl, 528)[17]

Question

Is it necessary for the wife to serve her mother-in-law?

Answer

It is rewarding and part of good character for a woman to serve her mother-in-law. However, it is not necessary, nor can her husband compel her, to do so.[18]

Note: The type of accommodation a wife is entitled to in Sharī‘ah depends on her background and her husband’s financial situation. If the wife comes from an affluent family and the husband is financially well-off, she is entitled to a fully separate lodging that is separate from her in-laws. If she is from an average background and he is financially capable, she is entitled only to a separate room with its own lock, together with a kitchen and bathroom that is not shared by any of his family members. If both spouses come from poor backgrounds, his obligation is only to provide a separate room, and it is not necessary to provide separate facilities like a bathroom and kitchen.[19]

[1]

أما رعاية الرجل أهله فالقيام عليهم والسياسة لأمرهم وتوفيتهم الحق في النفقة والعشرة، وأما رعاية المرأة في بيت زوجها فحسن التدبير في أمر بيته والتعهد لمن تحت يدها من عياله وأضيافه وخدمه

[2]

قضى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على ابنته فاطمة خدمة البيت وقضى على عليه بما كان خارج البيت

[3]

فجعل أعمال الخارج أي مما يتعلق بخارج البيت كإتيان الحطب والماء وتجصيل النفقة على علي رضي الله تعالى عنه وجعل أعمال الداخل كالطحن والخبز والعجن على فاطمة رضي الله تعالى عنها

[4]

إذا كانت المرأة ممن تخدم نفسها فعليها الطبخ والخبز لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم جعل خدمة داخل البيت على فاطمة رضي الله عنها

[5]

المستحق عليها بالنكاح تسليم النفس إلى الزوج للاستمتاع وما سوى ذلك من الأعمال تؤمر به تدينا ولا تجبر عليه في الحكم نحو كنس البيت وغسل الثياب والطبخ والخبز فكذلك إرضاع الولد

[6]

اتقى الله يا فاطمة وأدى فريضة ربك واعملي عمل أهلك

[7]

في قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: اتقى الله يا فاطمة واعملي عمل أهلك دليل على أن كل امرأة تطيق الخدمة يلزمها خدمة بيتها

[8]

إذا علم الحكم في فاطمة فهو في غيرها بالأولى

[9]

تزوجني الزبير، وما له في الأرض من مال ولا مملوك، ولا شيء غير ناضح وغير فرسه، فكنت أعلف فرسه وأستقي الماء، وأخرز غربه وأعجن، ولم أكن أحسن أخبز، وكان يخبز جارات لي من الأنصار، وكن نسوة صدق، وكنت أنقل النوى من أرض الزبير التي أقطعه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على رأسي، وهي مني على ثلثي فرسخ، فجئت يوما والنوى على رأسي، فلقيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومعه نفر من الأنصار، فدعاني ثم قال: «إخ إخ» ليحملني خلفه، فاستحييت أن أسير مع الرجال، وذكرت الزبير وغيرته وكان أغير الناس، فعرف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أني قد استحييت فمضى، فجئت الزبير فقلت: لقيني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وعلى رأسي النوى، ومعه نفر من أصحابه، فأناخ لأركب، فاستحييت منه وعرفت غيرتك، فقال: والله لحملك النوى كان أشد علي من ركوبك معه، قالت: حتى أرسل إلي أبو بكر بعد ذلك بخادم تكفيني سياسة الفرس، فكأنما أعتقني

[10]

والذي يظهر أن القصة كانت قبل نزول الحجاب ومشروعيته

[11]

كنت أخدم الزبير خدمة البيت

[12]

عن أنس قال: مات ابن لأبي طلحة من أم سليم، فقالت لأهلها: لا تحدثوا أبا طلحة بابنه حتى أكون أنا أحدثه، قال: فجاء فقربت إليه عشاء فأكل وشرب، فقال: ثم تصنعت له أحسن ما كان تتصنع قبل ذلك فوقع بها، فلما رأت أنه قد شبع وأصاب منها، قالت: يا أبا طلحة، أرأيت لو أن قوما أعاروا عاريتهم أهل بيت فطلبوا عاريتهم ألهم أن يمنعوهم؟ قال: لا، قالت: فاحتسب ابنك، قال فغضب وقال: تركتني حتى تلطخت ثم أخبرتني بابني؟ فانطلق حتى أتى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبره بما كان، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: بارك الله لكما في غابر ليلتكما، قال: فحملت إلخ

[13]

وهذا يدل على أن له إمساكها في بيته ومنعها من الخروج وأن عليها طاعته وقبول أمره ما لم تكن معصية ودلت على وجوب نفقتها عليه

[14]

إذا تزوجت [المرأة] اشتغلت بخدمة الزوج (النفقة للخصاف، ص١١)

المستحق عليها بالنكاح تسليم النفس إلى الزوج للاستمتاع وما سوى ذلك من الأعمال تؤمر به تدينا ولا تجبر عليه في الحكم نحو كنس البيت وغسل الثياب والطبخ والخبز فكذلك إرضاع الولد (المبسوط، ج٥ ص٢٠٩)

[15]

المرأة لا يجب عليها طاعة الزوج في كل ما يأمر به إنما ذلك فيما يرجع إلى النكاح وتوابعه خصوصا إذا كان في أمره إضرار

[16]

من الحقوق على المرأة لزوجها أن تكون مطيعة له فيما يأمرها به من حقوق الزوجية ويكون مباحا شرعا

[17]

عن جابر بن عبد الله قال: بينا نحن قعود عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذ أتته امرأة فقالت: السلام عليك يا رسول الله، أنا وافدة النساء إليك، الله رب الرجال ورب النساء، وآدم أبو الرجال وأبو النساء، بعثك الله إلى الرجال وإلى النساء، والرجال إذا خرجوا في سبيل الله فقتلوا فأحياء عند ربهم يرزقون فرحين بما آتاهم الله، وإذا خرجوا لهم من الأجر ما قد علموا، ونحن نخدمهم فما لنا من الأجر؟ قال لها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أقرئى النساء عني السلام، وقولي لهن: إن طاعة الزوج تعدل ما هناك، وقليل منكن تفعله

[18]

آپ کے مسائل اور ان كا حل، ج٦ ص٣٤٢-٤

[19]

أحسن الفتاوى (ج٥ ص٤٧٦) نقلا عن الشامي

Taken from HERE

Last Edit: Oct 4, 2021 18:01:38 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Al-Muhannad & The Deobandi Maslak - Mufti Zameelur Rahman Sept 15, 2021 12:20:54 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Sept 15, 2021 12:20:54 GMT

Al-Muhannad & The Deobandi Maslak

Taught by Mufti Zameelur Rahman

20 week course designed for advanced students of knowledge and graduates

‘Allamah Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (1852 – 1927), Allah have mercy on him, the celebrated commentator of Sunan Abi Dawud, authored a short work in 1907 CE in defence of the illustrious scholars of Deoband. In it, he articulated clearly the views that the ‘Ulama’ of Deoband hold on certain important and controversial matters. The verdicts in the book were endorsed by virtually all the major scholars of Deoband from that time. Several major scholars throughout the Arab and Muslim world had also confirmed that the beliefs articulated in the tract were in line with that of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama‘ah.

The verdicts together with the endorsements were published as “al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad”, also known as: al-Tasdiqat li Daf‘ al-Talbisat. The Urdu translation is known as: ‘Aqa’id ‘Ulama’ Ahl Sunnat Deoband (or just ‘Aqa’id ‘Ulama’ Deoband) and Madi al-Shafratayn ‘ala Khadi‘ Ahl al-Haramayn.

It has been described by Mawlana Muhammad ‘Ali Jalandhari (1895 – 1971), one of the major Deobandi scholars of Pakistan, as “the ‘official spokesperson’ (sarkari tarjuman) for the maslak (track) of Deoband, to accept which is to be Deobandi, and to deviate from which is to depart from the maslak of Deoband.” (Hidayat al-Hayran, Idarah Ta’lifat Ashrafiyyah, p. 76)

Another prominent Deobandī scholar from Pakistan, Mawlana Qadi Mazhar Husayn (1914 – 2004), said: “Al-Muhannad is, as it were, a unanimous historical document of the senior scholars (akabir) of Deoband that has preserved the maslak of Deoband in terms of its principles.” (al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad, Idarah Islamiyyat, p. 18)

The course will begin with a few introductory sessions on the Deobandi school, the history & background to al-Muhannad and a brief biography of its author, followed by a systematic study of the contents of the book.

The course will cover:

1. The importance of al-Muhannad in the Deobandi Tradition

2. History, “maslak” (track) and contributions of the ‘Ulama’ of Deoband

3. Background to al-Muhannad

4. The status of Barelwis/RidaKhanis

5. The author of al-Muhannad – brief biographical notes

6. Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama‘ah & the Ash‘ari/Maturidi schools of ‘Aqidah

7. The Sufi schools of spiritual reformation

8. Ziyarat al-Nabi ﷺ

9. Tawassul

10. Hayat al-Nabi ﷺ and the “Mamati” fitnah

11. Taqlid

12. The ashghal and adhkar of the Sufis

13. Taking spiritual benefit from the graves of awliya’ vs. istighathah

14. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi/Wahhabis vs. the Deobandi Maslak

15. The mutashabihat verses on Allah’s attributes

16. Khatm al-Nubuwwah & the view of Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi (Allah have mercy on him)

17. The knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ

18. Answering false Barelwi allegations against Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi and Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (Allah have mercy on them)

19. The Mawlid & Qiyam (and the issue of Bid‘ah)

20. Imkan al-Kidhb

21. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani and the Ahmadis

22. Signatories of al-Muhannad

23. Profiles of the personalities referred to in al-Muhannad

24. Information on the books referenced in al-Muhannad

25. Introduction to important related literature

Who this course is for

● For advanced students of knowledge and graduates

● Not suitable for beginners

● Those wishing to increase their knowledge about the Deobandi movement of Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah

● Those seeking to understand the stance of the illustrious scholars of Deoband on important questions of belief, methodology and practice

● Those wanting to gain an appreciation for the tajdid (renewal) carried out by the scholars of Deoband

● Those looking for answers to oft-repeated allegations and misconceptions about the scholars of Deoband

● Those wishing to gain a deeper insight into the contents of al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Muhannad

● Open to brothers and sisters

Teacher Bio: Mufti Zameelur Rahman

Mufti Zameel completed his memorisation of the Qur’an as a teenager. He later went on to complete the ‘Alimiyyah programme in the Islamic sciences at Darul Ulum Birmingham, UK. He then furthered his studies and completed an Ifta/Takhassus fi’ l-Fiqh (specialisation in fiqh and fatwa) course at Dar al-Ifta al-Mahmudiyyah in Durban, South Africa under renowned specialists Mufti Ebrahim Desai and Mufti Husain Kadodia.

Website: darulmaarif.com

Register here: assubah.com/courses/al-muhannad/

Last Edit: Feb 24, 2022 17:20:35 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

“Your Body Has a Right Over You” - Imam Ibn Kamal Pasha Aug 28, 2021 22:09:22 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Aug 28, 2021 22:09:22 GMT

“Your Body Has a Right Over You”

Explained by Imām Ibn Kamāl Pāshā[1][2]

Translated by Abu Dawud Mahbub ibn ʿAbd al-Karim

Regarding the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: “Surely your nafs (self/body) has a ḥaqq (right) over you”:

The ḥaqq of the nafs is what enables a person to fulfil the purpose for which they were created i.e. worship. One should be cognizant of the difference between the ḥaqq of the nafs and the hawā (desire/pleasure) of the nafs as they are antithetical to one another. To fulfil the ḥaqq of the nafs is obligatory, whereas to follow the hawā of the nafs is prohibited, either as a discouragement or outright prohibition.

The ḥaqq of the nafs with regard to food is a few small morsels that will keep the back straight, by which a person is able to perform worship and what is related to it; whereas the hawā of the nafs is indulging in various types of food and overeating which becomes a burden on the body and a hindrance to worship.

The ḥaqq of the body with regard to sleep is [that which is sufficient for] the removal of tiredness and lack of vitality which may cause a person who wishes to supplicate in favour of themselves to supplicate instead against themselves; whereas the hawā of the nafs is to become comfortable in the bed of laziness and luxury, and to remain asleep to the extent that tahajjud passes, and to waste valuable time.

Likewise the abovementioned principles will apply accordingly to the ḥaqq of the nafs and the hawā of the nafs with regard to dress, accommodation and marriage. Many who engross themselves in unnecessary permissible actions allege that they are fulfilling the rights of the nafs, whereas in reality they are unknowingly following their desires which they have been prohibited from doing.[3]

[1] Imām Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Sharḥ Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn: ed. Dār al-Nawādir vol.1 pp.603-4 - available to read/download (Arabic) HERE

[2] For a brief biography of Imām Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, see HERE

[3] Translator’s Note: During the time of the Prophet ﷺ people had a strong desire and drive to worship Allāh and perform additional acts of optional worship. In our time, however, we are witness to the opposite generally being the case. As such, true moderation in our time would be for us to push ourselves in the opposite direction and not to be complacent and content with fulfilling the bare minimum in terms of our religious obligations. And Allāh knows best.

Last Edit: Aug 29, 2021 8:59:09 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

The Poisoning of al-Hasan - Shaykh Muhammad Taha Karaan Aug 22, 2021 14:37:01 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Aug 22, 2021 14:37:01 GMT

The Poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan
(May Allah be well pleased with him)

By Shaykh Muhammad Taha Karaan
(May Allah have mercy on him)

Question

It has been alleged that either Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu or his son Yazid was involved in the poisoning of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is claimed that one of them persuaded one of Sayyidina Hassan’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu wives to administer poison to him. What is the truth of this claim?

Answer

Any claim of a historical nature must be substantiated with proof. An accusation made without providing proof is slanderous, and should accordingly be dismissed as such. But even the mere presentation of evidence is not sufficient to prove the claim. There is one very important condition that has to be met, and that is authenticity. The onus rests upon the claimant not only to provide evidence for his claim, but also to authenticate his evidence. For as long as he fails to prove its authenticity his claim is nothing more than an empty and worthless accusation. This is a general rule which applies to all historical claims, and not only those to do with alleged misdeeds of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Let us look, for example, at the issue of the “satanic verses” which was so maliciously taken advantage of by the notorious Salman Rushdie. Mr. Rushdie did not suck the incident out of his thumb; he found it in historical books. However, what he failed to do was to authenticate. Why? The reason is obvious. He had his own agenda and his own preconceived notions. Thus when someone accuses Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu or anybody else of poisoning Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and does not care to examine the authenticity of the evidence for his accusation for no reason other than the fact that he dislikes Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he is no less guilty than Salman Rushdie and his ilk. Let not your enmity for a person become your only motivation for finding him guilty.

And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is [fully] Aware of what you do. (al Ma’idah: 8)

It is authentically narrated that when Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu lay on his deathbed, dying from poisoning, his brother, Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu came to him and asked him: “Brother, tell me who is the one who poisoned you.” Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked: “Why? That you may kill him?” Sayyidina Hussain said: “Yes,” to which Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu responded: “I will not tell you anything. If it is the one I think it is, then Allah’s revenge is harsher. And if it is not he, then by Allah, no innocent person will be killed on account of me.”[1] This authentic narration shows that even Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not exactly sure of the identity of the poisoner. Over and above that, he refuses to tell his own brother who he suspects. It is strange that Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself displayed such great caution in the matter, fearing that he might be accusing an innocent person, but that people today can blurt out, without the blink of an eye, that “Muawiyah poisoned Hassan”. The greatest concern Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu had was the preservation of the ummah’s unity. It was on account of this concern that he made peace with Muawiyah in 41 A.H. It was also this outstanding accomplishment of his which was predicted by his grandfather, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, in the well-known hadith:

This son of mine is a Sayyid, and soon the time will come when through him Allah will reconcile two great masses of Muslims.

He had this concern of not causing strife in the ummah, right up to the time of his demise. It was his dearest wish to be buried with his grandfather, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, in the room of Sayyidah ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, but he instructed Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu not to resort to violence in the event Banu Umayyah tried to prevent his burial there, and to bury him with his mother in Jannah al Baqi’. Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu was prepared to sacrifice the things nearest and dearest to him in order to preserve the peace and unity of the ummah. Therefore, if it was Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu whom he suspected of having him poisoned he would rather have been expected to tell Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu something like “I fear that you will cause civil war if you try to revenge yourself upon the one I suspect”. In the fact that he does not allude to the prospect of disunity and sedition at all, but rather expresses fear at an innocent person being killed on account of him, we therefore have reason to see that the one whom Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu suspected of poisoning him was not Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu lived for ten more years after the passing of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In all that time the valiant and fearless Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu was alive, and so was his brother, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah rahimahu Llah, his cousins ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and numerous other members of the Ahlul Bayt. However, not a single one of them ever confronted Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the poisoning of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In fact, they maintained cordial relations with him, especially Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. They never uttered a word about Sayyidina Muawiyah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu alleged involvement in the death of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, neither in public nor to their closest followers. This gives us so much more reason to dismiss the allegation against Sayyidina Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as unfounded. Now let us look at the material in the books of history on the basis of which the allegation is made. The only report in which Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is implicated in the death of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu is narrated by the historian, Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi. This report appears as follows:

[Al Waqidi] says: I heard some people saying that Muawiyah secretly made one of his servants administer poison to him.[2]

As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally serious defects. The first is the universally recognised untrustworthiness of al Waqidi. Details of his unreliability as a narrator would probably fill several pages, but all of it may be suitably condensed into a statement by Imam al Shafi’i, who was his contemporary, and who knew him personally. Al Shafi’i has the following to say:

In Madinah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al Waqidi.[3]

The second defect is much more glaring. Note that al Waqidi does not mention the names of his informants, and that he merely says “I heard some people say”. This particular report comes after a number of other reports in which al Waqidi clearly mentions the names of his informants. When he comes to this one, he merely says “I heard some people say”. Is it on the basis of such flimsy evidence that people today are bold enough to level an accusation of murder? Indeed, this smacks of a total disregard for academic integrity for the sake of nothing but personal sentiments and prejudice. There is another report in which the wife of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, namely Ja’dah bint al Ash’ath, is implicated in his murder by poisoning. This report has it that it was Yazid ibn Muawiyah who set her up to do it, promising to marry her thereafter. This report is narrated by Muhammad ibn Salam al Jumahi. It is reproduced by al Mizzi in Tahdhib al Kamal as follows:

Muhammad ibn Salam al Jumahi narrates on the authority of Ibn Ju’dubah that Ja’dah, the daughter of Ash’ath ibn Qais, was the wife of Hassan ibn ‘Ali. A message was sent to her in secret by Yazid, telling her: “Poison Hassan and I will be your husband.” So she did it. When Hassan died she sent a message to Yazid asking him to fulfil his pledge. But he told her: “By Allah, we did not approve of you as Hassan’s wife. Shall we approve of you as our own wife?”[4]

This is the way the report is found in the history books. To the uncritical reader who has no knowledge of the criteria of authenticity and their application, it might well appear to be acceptable evidence. To the one whose emotions have already caused him to be favourably disposed towards Sayyidina Hassan, and unfavourably disposed towards Yazid, it is nothing less than incontrovertible evidence. But the true scholar never lets emotion make his decision for him. He first weighs the evidence, examines it and scrutinises it, and only if it merits approval and acceptance will he accept it. To the discerning scholar, emotions are shaped by evidence and not evidence by emotions. Now we return to the report under discussion. Ibn Ju’dubah, who is Muhammad ibn Salam’s source for this report, is properly known as Yazid ibn ‘Iyad ibn Ju’dubah. He lived in Madinah during the time of Imam Malik. Imam Malik’s student, ‘Abdur Rahman ibn al Qasim, once asked his opinion about a person called Ibn Sam’an. The Imam replied: “He is a liar.” Ibn al Qasim then asked: “And Ibn Ju’dubah?” Imam Malik replied: “An even bigger liar, an even bigger liar.”[5] All other rijal critics who ever expressed themselves on his status as a narrator have concurred with Imam Malik in some way or the other. Furthermore, Ibn Ju’dubah died in the days of the ‘Abbasid Khalifah, al Mahdi, whose reign came to an end in 169 A.H. If we assume that that he died in 165 A.H, and that he lived a life of 70 years, we could say he was born in about 95 A.H. In other words, by the time of his birth, almost a half a century had passed after the death of Sayyidina Hassan. The “Yazid-Ja’dah plot” therefore either came to his knowledge through sources whom he refrains to mention, or it was the product of his own mendacious and fertile imagination. In light of what his contemporaries thought of him (Ahmed ibn Salih al Misri, for example says of him “I think he used to invent hadith for the people.”[6]) one is inclined to believe that the whole plot was of his own invention. Looking at the times in which he lived — the early ‘Abbasid period—, we find more reason to believe that the report is a forgery by Ibn Ju’dubah. During the early ‘Abbasid times sentiments were running high against the recently ousted Umayyads, and a person like the notorious Yazid would have been the perfect scapegoat. To come back now to the alleged involvement of Ja’dah bint Ash’ath: There is one other report which implicates her in the poisoning of Sayyidina Hassan, but it does not mention anything about Yazid.[7] It is narrated from Umm Musa, who was a bondswoman of Sayyidina ‘Ali.[8] The chain of narration up to Umm Musa is reliable. However, we might pose a question here with regard to Umm Musa herself: Did she identify Ja’dah as the culprit out of knowledge of her guilt, or must her words here be construed as the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman who simply must find someone to blame for the cause of her bereavement? We do not pose this question out of unnecessary scepticism. There are two things which prompt us to ask it: Firstly, Sayyidina Hassan’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu own reluctance to name the person he suspected. Keep in mind also that he himself merely suspected, and did not know it for a fact. Secondly, if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Ja’dah bint Ash’ath, no man would readily marry her, especially a man of the Ahlul Bayt. But with Ja’dah we find that after the demise of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu she was married by his father’s cousin Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and that she bore him a son, Muhammad, and a daughter, Quraybah.[9] From the above discussion we may then draw the following conclusions:

The report implicating Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is narrated by an extremely unreliable narrator— al Waqidi— from unnamed people.
The report implicating Yazid and Ja’dah are narrated by a known liar— Ibn Ju’dubah— who was born almost 50 years after the incident and names no sources at all. His report comes into circulation during the early ‘Abbasid period in which anti-Umayyad sentiments, and more particularly anti-Yazid sentiments, are common.
The report from Umm Musa which implicates Ja’dah is more likely the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman than an allegation based on factual knowledge.
Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself refused to disclose the identity of the one he suspected. He restrained his brother Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu from taking any action.
After the death of Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu the Ahlul Bayt maintained good relations with Muawiyah in Damascus.

In light of the above we fully endorse the statement by Ibn Kathir that none of these reports are authentic.[10] We hope that this demonstration — of how the words of a bereaved woman, a report by unknown reporters, and a forgery by a known liar came to be regarded as factual history — will bring to light the need of critically examining historical sources before levelling accusations against anybody.

Notes and References

[1] See Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 7 p. 41 (Dar al Hadith, Cairo 1414/1994); al Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al Nubala’ vol. 3 p. 273 (7th ed., Mu’assasah al Risalah, Beirut 1410/1990); al Mizzi, Tahdhib al Kamal vol. 6 p. 251 (Mu’assasah al Risalah, Beirut 1413/1992); Ibn Hajar, al Isabah vol. 2 p. 13 (Dar al Kutub al ‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, n.d.); Ibn ‘Abdul Barr, al Isti’ab vol. 1 p. 390 (Dar al Jil, Beirut 1412/1992). The narration is authentic on account of the fact that all its narrators are well known for reliability and trustworthiness, and that the chain of narration is uninterrupted from beginning to end.

[2] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 7 p. 41; Tahdhib al Kamal vol. 6 p. 251

[3] Tahdhib al Kamal 26 p. 194, in a footnote.

[4] vol. 6 p. 253

[5] vol. 32 p. 223

[6] vol. 32 p. 224

[7] vol. 6 p. 253

[8] Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan 7 p. 543 (Dar al Fikr, Beirut 1407/1987)

[9] Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqah al Kubra’ 5 p. 241 (Dar al Kutub al ‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1410/1990)

[10] Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 7 p. 41

Last Edit: Aug 22, 2021 14:37:32 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

StudentOfTheDeen
Moderator

taymiyyun.wordpress.com

Posts: 338

Imitating The Prophet ﷺ in Ordinary Actions Such as Dress Aug 6, 2021 13:57:19 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Aug 6, 2021 13:57:19 GMT

The Recommendation of Imitating The Prophet ﷺ in his Ordinary Actions Such As Dress

By Mufti Zameelur Rahman

Imām Abū Shāmah (599 – 665 H), the distinguished teacher of al-Nawawī, wrote:

‘[‘Abdullāh] Ibn ‘Abdān (d. 433 H) said:

“The acts of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) which did not occur from him in the form of worship, it is desirable (mustaḥabb) to copy him in these in hopes of his blessing, like his eating, drinking, dress, taking, giving and companionship of women. All of his acts related to matters of the world, it is desirable to copy him in all of them.”

‘I say: This is why the transmitters have given care to transmitting the details of his states in all of these, and the people of piety and knowledge from the Salaf followed the course of his example in them, and in avoiding forced behaviour in their needs that occurred to them. Thus, if it were to be said to one of them, “Don’t ride a donkey”, “don’t milk the goat, “don’t skin it”, “don’t lift the garment”, “don’t make the sandal layered” or “don’t plaster the camel”, he would reply:

“How can I not do these, when I saw the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) doing them?!” or “when it has been transmitted from him that he did them?!”’

(al-Muḥaqqaq fī ‘Ilm al-Uṣūl, p. 270-1)

Imām al-Ghāzālī said:

"Know that the key to happiness is following the Sunnah and taking Allāh's Messenger as an example in all of his comings, goings, movements and stillness - even the way he ate, stood, slept and spoke. I do not say this in reference to matters of worship only; for indeed, there is no room for neglecting the narrated sunan for them. Rather, I am referring to all habitual matters - by this, absolute following is achieved. Allāh said: 'If you love Allāah, the follow me - Allāh will love you," And: 'Whatever the Messenger gives you take it; and whatever he forbids you from, desist.'...Indeed Muḥammad ibn Aslam (d. 242 H) would not eat watermelon because the way Allāh's Messenger ate it was never transmitted...A person should therefore not slack regarding such things and say, 'This is something related to habits, so following it is not important in respect of it,' for truly, that closes on you one of the great doors of happiness." (The Forty Principles of the Religion, Turath Publishing, 104-5)

The Ḥanafī imām, Abu l-Ḥasan al-Sughdī (d. 461), has a section on “desirable (mustaḥabb)” clothing which he describes as that which is “in accordance with the sunnahs, and in accordance with what has been transmitted in ḥadīth.” (al-Nutaf fi l-Fatāwā, p. 251)

He gives some examples, amongst them to have the qamīṣ reaching the middle of the shin and there being an opening at the chest, explaining that “reports have been transmitted on all of that.” (ibid.) Hence, the dress of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not only regarded as a coincidental sunnah, but also as something praiseworthy and encouraged for others to follow.

The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would wear a qamīṣ, izār, hat, turban, ridā’ (shawl), sandals, jubba, cloak etc. Hence, one who wears these items of clothing in imitation of the Prophet would be rewarded for doing so.

In discussing which clothing should be worn in ṣalāh, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah said: “The ways of the People (i.e. the Salaf) is in [wearing] qamīṣ and ridā’, and that is best.” (al-Ajnās, 1:73)

The Ḥanafī jurist, al-Nasafī (d. 710 H), said: “The circumstantial [sunnahs of the Prophet], to adopt them is good, and there is no harm in leaving them, like the manner of the Prophet (upon him peace) in dress, standing and sitting.” (Kashf al-Asrar Sharḥ al-Manār, 1:457)

There are several examples from the lives of the ṣahābah which show they imitated the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in his habitual practices. For example, in relation to dress, it is reported: the ṣahābah wore a ring when the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) started wearing one (Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī); Ibn ‘Umar (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) wore a particular type of sandal because the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) wore them (Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī; Shamā’il al-Tirmidhī); and Mu‘āwiyah ibn Qurrah and his father (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) would leave their qamīṣ unbuttoned in heat and cold because they saw the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) dressing this way. (Saḥīḥ Ibn Hibbān)

Last Edit: Aug 6, 2021 14:03:57 GMT by StudentOfTheDeen

taymiyyun.wordpress.com/
barelwism.wordpress.com/
studentofthedeen.wordpress.com/

Recent Posts

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Dec 1, 2021 19:21:50 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 28, 2021 15:25:33 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 23, 2021 16:03:18 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 15, 2021 13:55:15 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 13, 2021 17:58:59 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Oct 4, 2021 17:15:06 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Sept 15, 2021 12:20:54 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Aug 28, 2021 22:09:22 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Aug 22, 2021 14:37:01 GMT

Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Aug 6, 2021 13:57:19 GMT

© Copyright Ahlus Sunnah, 2015. All rights reserved.