|
Post by Abu Zaid on Aug 25, 2017 14:33:21 GMT
Here is a Book review of "On Taqlīd: Ibn al Qayyim’s Critique of Authority in Islamic Law" by Abdul-Rahman Mustafa, New York, Oxford University Press, 2013, 256 pp.
Amazon linkMy intention of posting this review on here is to draw the attention of the 'Ulama over this Book. ----------------- “But if there was a boat around I couldn’t see it, for stars and shadows ain’t good to see by…” says Huck Finn. If ever there were a personality that this could apply to it would be Muḥammad b. Abu Bakr al-Zuraʿī (d. 1328), better known as Ibn al-Qayyim. A Ḥanbali theologian, jurist and legal theorist from Damascus, he was popular for his spiritual slant, yet much of his other work have long has been viewed only in light of his teacher Ibn Taymiyah’s works and thought.
More than a parrot for his teacher’s opinions Ibn al-Qayyim was a masterful author in his own right and his corpus of work is testament to this. “On Taqlīd” produces a faithful rendition of Ibn al-Qayyim's treatment coupled with a deft introduction to this topic. Citing the lack of any substantial coverage of Ibn al-Qayyim's works in any Western language, along with the ubiquity of his works in the Islamic world, Mustafa’s main catalyst in the production of this volume is to present Ibn al-Qayyim as the influential legal jurist and theologian he is in his own right.
The progress of any legal system can be directly correlated to the freedom that its jurists enjoy to exercise independent reasoning. Because of this ijtihād and taqlīd in Islamic Law have taken the lion's share of Western academic discussion. Ijtihād, a jurist’s independent interpretation of law, was to be the hallmark of the Islamic legal system. Taqlīd on the other hand was criticized for limiting the law and its applicability.
Taqlīd, translated by Mustafa as “imitation,” operationalizes legal precedent by obliging those unable to interpret the law to "imitate" the decisions of the scholars before him. This created a hierarchy of legal interpretation and a level of standardization of how the law is applied. Muftis, qāḍis, and other scholars transitioned from engaging with the sources of Islamic thought directly to engaging solely with the opinions and standard texts of their respective schools. It is here that the criticism of Taqlīd is most relevant and which Ibn alQayyim laments the most in this work.
“On Taqlīd” is a work in three parts. The first is an introduction to Taqlīd and Ibn alQayyim's positions on the topic. Part two is entitled “An exposition on Imitation” and lays out Ibn Al-Qayyim’s arguments against imitation. Part three consists of a dialogue between Ibn al-Qayyim and an unidentified interlocutor promoting a pro-Taqlīd stance. Was Ibn alQayyim merely collating arguments made by numerous proponents of Taqlīd, or was he answering one specific person or group of persons famous for these arguments? As has been shown in new research of earlier works such as al-Shāfiʿī’s Risālah, these interlocutors do at times have actual historic basis.
In the introduction, the author succeeds in showing the depth needed on this topic. He weaves the arguments used by Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned in the second and third parts into a narrative that spans the length of Islamic history from the modern period, reaching back to the period of the great Imams like Al-Shafiʿī. Mustafa first frames the discussion of Taqlīd in the modern debates of Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadis scholars of South Asia, showing the applicability of these arguments even today. He then presents the topic’s main arguments through the opinions of select scholarly figures throughout Islamic history. Pro and AntiTaqlīd opinions are surveyed, interspersed with connections back to Ibn al-Qayyim’s work “A Note to Those Who Sign in the Name of the Lord of the Worlds” [Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīnʿan Rabb ʾl-ʿAlamīn] from which the translated chapters of “On Taqlīd” are drawn from. The incoherence and at times inanity of Pro-Taqlīd positions is exemplified well, with the bulk of examples coming from pro-Taqlīd Hanafi jurisprudents. While this coverage does gives readers a glance at the breadth of this topic and its reach, for the uninitiated this may be a confusing tour through random opinions expressed throughout Islamic history.
The introduction ends with Mustafa summarizing Ibn al-Qayyim’s tripartite system for contextualizing the use of Taqlīd. This system sets the boundaries for its use, and when crossed would exhibit the type of Taqlīd that is inexcusable in Ibn al-Qayyim’s opinion. First of these is the supremacy and sufficiency of scripture for solving legal and theological problems. To exemplify problems that arise when this boundary is crossed, Mustafa draws on the opinions of two epistemologically opposite camps: The Ahl al Raʾy, who uphold intellect as the referee of acceptable scripture, and the Ahl al-Ẓāhir who uphold scripture as the embodiment of all necessary answers. These two approaches had polarizing effects. The latter left the public with an impression of a restrictive faith unable to engage with the world around them. The former with a faith devoid of scriptural illumination and entrenched in the opinions of men, to the point that those opinions gained ascendancy to the Quran and Sunnah themselves. The second principle of this system draws directly on the assumptions of the parties rebuked in the first. The Ahl al-Raʾy and the Ahl al-Ẓāhir limited the applicability of scripture in different ways, but both for primarily the same reason: the assumption that there is an inherent contradiction between scripture and human reason. The second principle then is that revelation and reason are never contradictory, a principle championed by Ibn Taymiyah in his voluminous work “A Defense Against the Contradiction of Reason and Revelation" [Darʾ Taʿārud al-ʿAql waʾl-Naql]. To make Ibn Al-Qayyim stand out on his own as a legal theorist, the seasoned reader would expect a reference to those before Ibn Taymiyah but this is not the case.
The third principle is the primacy of the opinions of the Salaf. Through this principle Ibn alQayyim reiterates the boundaries for the use of reason which does not contradict revelation. Taqlīd is an elastic term meaning different things to different people. When using it, ProTaqlīdscholars advocate for a mimetic normative tradition of Islamic thought, one predicated on uniformity and unbroken continuity. Anti-Taqlīd scholars advocate for an open ended, primary access to and application of the sacred texts of Islam. Ibn Al-Qayyim argues for a middle ground wherein the Mufti attempts to reach a conclusion on par with, or surpassing that of, those that preceded him. Here Mustafa aligns Ibn al-Qayyim with other legal heavy weights such as Shihāb al-Din al-Qarāfi (died. 1285) and Muhammad b. Idris al-Shāfiʿī (died. 820), showing that they advocated for a systematized analysis of scripture, one in which life was not limited by scriptural historicism (ala ahl al-Ẓāhir) nor was is secondary to or viewed as equal with the very fallible faculty of human reason (ala Ahl al-Raʾy). Ibn al-Qayyim frames this distinction as the difference between Taqlīd (imitation) and Ittibāʾ (following), but then continues to use the term Taqlīd interchangeably with concepts that border on Ittibāʾ. It is however apparent that while Mustafa places Ibn al-Qayyim in the center of the fray, he later shows him leaning heavily to the right of the center, if to the right is in direction Anti-Taqlīd advocates.
The summary of arguments found in the introduction succinctly creates a backdrop for reading Mustafa’s translation. This translation relies on Mashhūr Ḥasan Salmān’s critical edition and annotation of Ibn al-Qayyim’s Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn.[1] While Mustafa does leave out parts of the original work that pertain to Taqlīd, they are for the most part superfluous to the arguments presented in the translated sections and are for the most part anecdotal. The translation is adept and accurate.
Missing in this work is a clear delineation of Ibn al-Qayyim’s arguments as they apply to the legal hierarchies of the Mamluk era Islamic world in which he lived. With Taqlīd spanning a number of disciplines and official positions, there must be a difference between its use by acolytes in religious institutions, judges presiding over lower courts, and Muftis dealing with questions pertaining to everyday life. All of these have different circumstances and would necessitate different responses to the same question posed. While Ibn al-Qayyim does take the time to differentiate between imitation and following another in prayer, and imitation and narration of ḥadīth, he himself does not deal with this compartmentalization of the topic as would be apparent in the civil and religious institutions around him, nor does Mustafa touch on this oversight or explore the reasons why Ibn al-Qayyim would want to emphasis fatwa over all else.
This volume is a much needed addition to the body of work on Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn alQayyim, Mamluk era Islamic law, Hanbalism, and Islamic studies. The translator’s laudable effort will hopefully be the catalyst needed to encourage further study of these often neglected areas in the intellectual history of Islam and the Middle East.
Joe Bradford
Prairie View A&M University
Texas USA
__________________
[1] - Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya. 2002. Iʿlām al-muwaqqiʿīn ʿan Rabb ʾl-ʿālamīn, Edited and annotated by Mashhūr Hasan Salmān. Riyadh: Dār Ibn al-Jawzi.
Source
|
|
|
Post by Abu Zaid on Jul 9, 2017 9:37:17 GMT
Consumption of Camel Urine and Clarification from the Islamic Tradition By Mawlana Abu Asim Badrul Islam
Introduction
In some countries of the Muslim world, camel urine is believed to contain extraordinary medicinal value. It is drunk and used in various ways. Companies have come into existence, which produce camel urine drinks and other products from camel urine. Although, this practice is found amongst a tiny minority of – almost insignificant – Muslim populations confined to a few cultures, it is nevertheless causing some confusion and raising questions (not to speak of the derision by some non-Muslims, who have their own multiple other questionable practices). Some are drawing a parallel between this practice by some Muslims and the consumption of, and supposed blessings derived from, cow urine by some Hindus.
Scientific Research As far as we are aware, there is no conclusive scientific research available yet on the benefits or harms of camel urine. Some laboratory research seems to indicate that camel urine may contain anti-cancer properties[1]. Following the outbreak of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS‐CoV), the World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently (2017) issued warnings about the consumption of raw camel milk or camel urine by those who are at high risk of contracting the virus[2].
Why Are Muslims Drinking Camel Urine?
The question arises as to why Muslims, who have always been known for their extraordinary diligence in cleanliness and purity, which is at the very core of the teachings of their faith, are drinking camel urine. As surprising as it may sound, those minority of Muslims who are drinking camel urine, are doing so out of religious conviction. That conviction stems from their understanding of an incident during the blessed lifetime of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. This incident has been reported in several places by Imām al-Bukhāri in his Ṣaḥῑḥ (ḥadῑth 233)[3] and Imām Muslim in his Ṣaḥῑḥ (ḥadῑth 1671)[4]. It has also been reported by various other imams of ḥadῑth in their respective collections. The Ḥadῑth of Camel Urine The ḥadῑth is narrated by Anas ibn Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him). He describes how a group of people from the tribe of ῾Ukl or ῾Uraynah[5] arrived in Madῑnah. In the commentary of the ḥadῑth, Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, in his monumental Fatḥ al-Bāri, states that they embraced Islām[6], but fell very ill due to the climate, food and flu of Madῑnah. Ibn Ḥajar mentions that there is indication that when they arrived in Madῑnah, they were already ill. Their illness was extreme malnutrition and weakness. Their colour had turned pale. They came to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and complained about their critical condition. He told them to go to a herd of milch camels that were kept in the plains outside Madῑnah and drink their urine and milk. In his commentary on Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni mentions various narrations that state that the camels belonged to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, or that amongst the camels were some that belonged to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. Some narrations of the ḥadῑth state that the camels were of ṣadaqah[7]. When these individuals went, and drank the urine and milk of the camels, they regained good health. They then killed the shepherd of the Messenger of Allāh [8] and stole the camels. According to some narrations, they put on weight and regained strength.Verdicts of the Legal Schools
Imām Badr al-Dῑn al-῾Ayni, in his commentary on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, states that, based on this ḥadῑth, Imām Mālik maintains purity (ṭahārah) of the urine of all animals whose flesh is ḥalāl. This view is also shared by Imāms Aḥmad, al-Sha῾bi, ῾Aṭā̕, al-Nakha῾i, al-Zuhri, Ibn Sῑrῑn, al-Ḥakam, al-Thawri[9]. From amongst the imams of the ḥanafi school of sacred law, Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni also holds this view[10]. When asked about it, he argues with this ḥadῑth in his pivotal work, Kitāb al-Aṣl. Imām Abu Yūsuf, the other main student of Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah, maintains the permissibility of drinking the urine of animals whose flesh is ḥalāl (like camels), but states that the same will render water impure, even if a small quantity mixes with water[11]. However, the established view in the ḥanafi school, upon which fatwa is given, is that all urine is filth (najis)[12], although a small amount, which has been deemed negligible,[13] is excused in prayer. Imāms Abu Ḥanῑfah, al-Shāfi῾i, Abu Yūsuf, Abu Thawr and many others maintain the impurity or filth of all urine[14] (irrespective of whether it is the urine of a human – baby or adult, ḥalāl animal or ḥarām animal).
Explanations for the Ḥadῑth of Camel Urine
As for the ḥadῑth of the people of ῾Uraynah, from which this disagreement stems, imāms Abu Ḥanῑfah, al-Shāfi῾i, Abu Yūsuf, Abu Thawr and many others argue that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ permitted them to drink the urine of camels due to necessity (at the time, and for those particular individuals). Therefore, this incident cannot be taken as evidence where such a necessity does not exist. There are many other instances in the Sharῑ῾ah when, due to necessity, an impermissible thing is allowed. For example, the wearing of silk is unlawful for men. It is permitted in the battlefield, due to certain skin conditions and extreme cold, when an alternative cannot be found.
The most satisfactory explanation for the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah is that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ knew through revelation that their cure lay in the drinking of camel urine. Using ḥarām substance as medical remedy is permissible when there is certainty of cure[15], in the absence of a ḥalāl alternative[16]. For example, eating of a carcass when one fears death due to extreme hunger; drinking of wine due to extreme thirst or in order to clear food that is stuck in the throat, in the absence of anything else. Allāh Most High says,
وَمَا لَكُمۡ أَلَّا تَأۡكُلُواْ مِمَّا ذُكِرَ ٱسۡمُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡهِ وَقَدۡ فَصَّلَ لَكُم مَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ إِلَّا مَا ٱضۡطُرِرۡتُمۡ إِلَيۡهِۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرٗا لَّيُضِلُّونَ بِأَهۡوَآئِهِم بِغَيۡرِ عِلۡمٍۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعۡلَمُ بِٱلۡمُعۡتَدِينَ ١١٩ Why should you not eat of (meats) on which Allah’s name has been pronounced, when He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – except under compulsion of extreme necessity? (Al-An῾ām: 119)
Shams al-A̕immah al-Sarakhsi states :“The ḥadῑth of Anas (may Allāh be pleased with him) has been narrated from him by Qatādah, in which he reports that they were permitted to drink the milk of camels. He did not mention urine. Only in the narration of Ḥumayd al-Ṭawῑl is there mention of urine[17]. When the evidence of a ḥadῑth in any matter is questionable, it no longer remains an evidence. Moreover, we say, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ granted them exclusive permission to drink camel urine, as he knew through revelation that their cure lay in its drinking. The same cannot be found in our age. This is similar to his granting Al-Zubayr exclusive permission to wear silk due to the rash on his skin or presence of parasitic insects. [We further say,] they were granted permission to drink camel urine, as they were disbelievers in the knowledge of Allāh and His Messengerﷺ [18]. He knew through revelation that they would all die apostates. It is not unimaginable that the cure of a disbeliever be found in filth.”[19] Imām Badr al-Dῑn al-῾Ayni further presents the generality of the ḥadῑth reported by imams al-Ḥākim, Aḥmad, Ibn Mājah, al-Dāra Quṭni and al-Ṭabarāni: استنزهوا من البول ، فإن عامة عذاب القبر منه. “Cleanse yourselves from urine. For, most punishment of the grave is due to [carelessness in this regard].”
A similar ḥadῑth, warning that punishment of the grave is often due to carelessness in properly cleansing oneself from urine, has also been reported by imāms al-Bukhāri and Muslim in the Ṣaḥῑḥ. Imām Shams al-A̕immah Al-Sarakhsi also presents this ḥadῑth and another narration in his Al-Mabsūṭ[20] to prove the impurity of urine in general. He points out that when the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ warned against negligence in regard to keeping oneself clean from urine, he did not limit it to just human urine, as he did not specify the type of urine.
῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni argues that the ḥadῑth of the people of ῾Uraynah was abrogated by later ḥadῑths, which established the filthiness of urine. He states:
“Even though, in the absence of certainty of dates, abrogation cannot be proven by mere possibility, it can[21] be sufficient to prevent the ḥadῑth from being used as an evidence (for the alleged purity of camel urine) in direct contradiction to general [established] principles and popular reports of ḥadῑth, when such a possibility is corroborated by various other strong indicative evidences. In this matter, there exist some strong indicative evidences, which corroborate the possibility of abrogation. These evidences include the fact that the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah occurred during the 6th year of the hijrah and the ḥadῑth of the filthiness of urine was narrated by Abu Hurayrah, who embraced Islām during the 7th year of the hijrah. When the Islām of a narrator occurs at a later date, even though it does not always definitively imply the lateness of what he has narrated, it is[22], nevertheless, indicative evidence of lateness. This is especially so, if we consider the fact that had the filthiness of urine been abrogated in the 7th year of the hijrah, none of the Companions would have related the ḥadῑth of its filthiness to Abu Hurayrah without pointing out that it had been abrogated. It is obvious that the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah occurred in clear view of the Companions and it was popularly known to people. Had the incident been abrogative of the filthiness of urine, it would not have remained hidden from the Companions. The issue is one that is faced by the general populace – especially, in the case of the Companions, many of whom herded camels and milked them.
It is well-known in the science of ḥadῑth that commandments in the matter of filth were gradually escalated from leniency to strictness. There are examples of many things, which, during the early days of Islām, were considered clean (or pure) and not affecting the validity of ṣalāh. Later, commandments relating to these very things were escalated to that of filth[23]. An instance of this is the ḥadῑth of Ibn Mas῾ūd, reported by al-Bukhāri, regarding the dumping by Abu Jahl of entrails and intestines of a camel on the back of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ while he was in prostration, praying. He did not interrupt his ṣalāh due to this. Rather, he continued praying, as al-Ḥāfiẓ[24] has mentioned in Fatḥ al-Bāri. Ibn Ḥazm has claimed that this ḥadῑth has been abrogated by the ḥadῑth of faeces and blood.
Thus, the above indicative evidences corroborate the possibility of abrogation. In the existence of such a strong possibility, it is not correct to infer from the ḥadῑth under discussion the purity of urine – regarding the filthiness of which there are many ḥadῑths.
A third explanation for the ḥadῑth under discussion is that the command was to drink camel milk and snuff[25] camel urine, while urine has been put in conjunction with milk by way of inclusion in expression [only]. […] This has been elaborated by Ibn Hishām[26] in Mughni ‘l-Labῑb (2:193, 2:169, 1:32) in the beginning of the fifth chapter of the second volume.[27]
[What I have stated above] is proven by other variant transmissions of this ḥadῑth. For instance, in the Sunan of al-Nasā̕ i, there is no mention of urine. The precise wording is:
فبعث بهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى لقاح ليشربوا من ألبانها ، فكانوا فيها … إلخ “The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ sent them to some milch camels so that they may drink their milk. They did this […]”
Similarly, the word ‘urine’ has not been mentioned in the narration of Anas [ibn Mālik] that has been reported by al-Ṭaḥāwi through the transmission of ῾Abd Allāh ibn Bakr, from Ḥumayd, from Anas. This has been mentioned by our shaykh, al-Binnori[28], in his Ma῾ārif al-Sunan (1:275). He then says:
“Based on this, it is very likely that the mention of urine with milk in the context of the command of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ was the handiwork of one of the transmitters of the ḥadῑth. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ may have commanded them to drink camel milk and to wash their nostrils with camel urine, but they may have also drank the urine. Thus, they were both mentioned together [by a transmitter] in the context of drinking of milk, in view of what actually happened – and not because the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had commanded them to drink camel urine.
In summary, it is not correct to use the ḥadῑth under discussion to prove the purity of camel urine, in the presence of these strong possibilities.
As for the proofs for the filth of all urine, they are very many. [We shall mention a few here.]
Al-Tirmidhi has reported the ḥadῑth of Ibn ῾Umar:
نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل الجلالة وألبانها. “The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited the eating of the flesh, and drinking of milk, of animals that eat animal faeces.”
The reason for the prohibition is its eating of animal faeces. Thus, we know that the flesh of such an animal is impure, as the filth [from the consumed faeces] would have spread to its flesh.
The ḥadῑth of Abu Hurayrah that has been mentioned by Ibn Mājah, al-Dāra Quṭni, al-Ḥākim in his Mustadrak – and he said: [it is] authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhāri and Muslim). Al-Dhahabi has concurred with this:
استنزهوا من البول ، فإن عامة عذاب القبر منه.
“Cleanse yourselves from urine. For, most punishment of the grave is due to [carelessness in this regard].” […]”[29]
Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri in his Arabic transcribed commentary lectures on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, entitled Fayḍ al-Bāri (1:429), questions how, when the context of the ḥadῑth and the precise words used by the transmitters is so clear in that the permission to drink camel urine was for medical purposes, it can be used to prove general or absolute purity of urine. There is absolutely no indication in the wording of the ḥadῑth that it is referring to purity of urine.
Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri in his Arabic transcribed commentary lectures on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, entitled Fayḍ al-Bāri (1:429), questions how, when the context of the ḥadῑth and the precise words used by the transmitters is so clear in that the permission to drink camel urine was for medical purposes, it can be used to prove general or absolute purity of urine. There is absolutely no indication in the wording of the ḥadῑth that it is referring to purity of urine.
Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri then questions the assumption that the medicinal application of camel urine was through oral administration. Rather, he argues that it was actually through nasal administration, without drinking it. This is inferred from variant narrations of the ḥadῑth reported by imāms al-Ṭaḥāwi and al-Nasā̕ i. The transcriber-editor of Fayḍ al-Bāri, ῾Allāmah Muḥammad Badr ῾Ālam Miruthi[30], in a footnote, adds another ḥadῑth from the Sunan of Imām Abu Dawūd, which has been reported in a most unlikely chapter, in which the narrator, the Companion Abu Dharr, states that he is unsure as to whether the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ also instructed him to drink camel urine when he instructed him to drink its milk due to illness. He says that Imām Abu Dawūd declares it unauthentic.[31] In the report of Imām al-Nasā̕ i, in the narration that has been transmitted through Sa῾ῑd ibn al-Musayyib[32], there is mention of drinking camel milk, but no mention of urine. There is also another narration that has been reported by Imām al-Nasā̕ i, wherein drinking of milk and urine is mentioned, but there is no mention of whether they drank the urine upon instruction from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ or of their own accord.[33] The matter is further blurred by the fact that the narration found in the Muṣannaf ῾Abd al-Razzāq mentions nasal administration, instead of drinking.[34]
As for the proof of the filthiness of urine, Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri argues that it can be inferred from the Noble Qur̕ān. Allāh Most High states:
وَإِنَّ لَكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَنۡعَٰمِ لَعِبۡرَةٗۖ نُّسۡقِيكُم مِّمَّا فِي بُطُونِهِۦ مِنۢ بَيۡنِ فَرۡثٖ وَدَمٖ لَّبَنًا خَالِصٗا سَآئِغٗا لِّلشَّٰرِبِينَ ٦٦
Indeed, there is a lesson for you in the cattle. We provide you, out of what lies in their bellies, between faeces and blood, the (drink of) milk, pure and pleasant for those who drink. (Al-Naḥl: 66) He has mentioned, in this verse, faeces with blood. A ḥadῑth states:
نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل الجلالة وألبانها. “The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited the eating of the flesh, and drinking of milk, of animals that eat animal faeces.”
The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ commanded in a ḥadῑth:
من دخل المسجد ، فليمط الأذى عن نعليه.
“He who enters the masjid, should remove from his shoes that which causes discomfort (i.e. faeces and urine).”
To limit the definition of faeces, mentioned in the above ḥadῑth, to human faeces is far-fetched. Also, another ḥadῑth states:
وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن الصلاة في المزبلة. “The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited praying at landfill sites (i.e. where refuse is dumped).“ وأنه ألقى الروث وقال: إنها ركس. “The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ threw dung and said, ‘Indeed, this is filth’.”[35]
Conclusion Had camel urine been permissible to consume or indeed a cure, it would have been widely used by the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and his Companions and all the generations thereafter to our time. It would have been a very popular method of medication, regarding which every Muslim community in the world, in every age, would have known – almost like the way all Muslims know about Zamzam water and its virtues. In fact, Muslims throughout history would not have let a single drop of urine from their camels go to waste. However, the reality is quite contrary. To most Muslims, the drinking of camel urine is unheard of and, when told, they find even the thought of it abhorrent and distasteful.
Abu Asim Badrul Islam Northampton, ENGLAND Bibliography: - ῾Abd Allāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Mawṣili, Al-Ikhtiyār li Ta῾lῑl al-Mukhtār (Beirut: Al-Risālah al-῾Ālamiyyah, 1430/2009).
- ῾Abd al-Ghani al-Ghunaymi al-Maydāni al-Dimashqi, Al-Lubāb fi Sharḥ al-Kitāb (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā̕ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1431/2010).
- Abu Bakr Muḥammad ibn Abī Sahl ‘Shams al-Aʾimmah’ al-Sarakhsī, Al-Mabsūṭ (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, no date).
- Abu Ja῾far Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Salāmah al-Ṭaḥāwi, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār (Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartῑb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār) (Riyadh: Dār Balansiyyah, 1420/1999).
- Abu ‘l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Qudūri, Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūri (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā̕ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1431/2010).
Abu ‘l-Ḥusayn Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj ibn Muslim al-Qushayri al-Nῑsāpūri, Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Imām Muslim (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj (1433/2013).
- Badr al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, no date).
- Fakhr al-Dῑn Khān Abu ‘l-Maḥāsin al-Ḥasan ibn Manṣūr al-Auzjandi al-Farghāni, Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān (Al-Fatāwā al-Khāniyyah) (Damascus: Dār al-Nawādir, 1434/2013).
- Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni, Al-Aṣl (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2012/1433).
- Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni, Al-Jāmi῾ Al-Ṣaghῑr (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2011/1432).
- Muḥammad Taqi al-῾Uthmāni, Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim (Damascus/Beirut: Dār al-Qalam, 1427/2006).
- Muḥammad ibn Ismā῾ῑl ibn Ibrāhῑm ibn al-Mughῑrah al-Bukhāri, Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaḥῑḥ (Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri) (Beirut: al-Risālah al-῾Ālamiyyah, 1432/2011).
- Muḥammad ibn Ismā῾ῑl ibn Ibrāhῑm ibn al-Mughῑrah al-Bukhāri, Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaḥῑḥ (Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri) (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 1429).
- Sayyid Anwar Shāh ibn Muʿaẓẓam Shāh al-Kashmīrī, Fayḍ al-Bārī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2005).
- Shihāb al-Dῑn Aḥmad ibn ῾Ali ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, Fatḥ al-Bāri bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Riyadh: Dār Ṭaybah, 1426/2005).
- Shihāb al-Dῑn Aḥmad ibn ῾Ali ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, Taqrῑb al-Tahdhῑb (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 1433/2012).
Footnotes: [1] For instance, the National Center for Biotechnology Information in the United States of America has published the findings of one such research (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22922085 – accessed 06 June 2017). See also: www.scidev.net/global/disease/news/trials-needed-to-test-camel-urine-cancer-drug-claims.html (accessed 06 June 2017). [2] www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/faq/en/ (accessed 06 June 2017). [3] باب أبوال الإبل والدواب والغنم ومرابضها [4] باب حكم المحاربين والمرتدين [5] Ḥammād – one of the transmitters of the ḥadῑth – is unsure which of the two mentioned tribes it was. Some narrations state that there were four individuals from ῾Uraynah and three from ῾Ukl, while others give other numbers (Fatḥ al-Bāri, 1:574). [6] وفي رواية أبي رجاء قبل هذا : بايعوه على الإسلام [7] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:177. [8] Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, quoting from Ibn Isḥāq in his Maghāzῑ and Al-Ṭabarāni, names this shepherd as Yasār. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had received him as booty after the battle of the Banu Tha῾labah, which took place in the year 6AH. He set him free after seeing how well he prayed and sent him to herd his camels outside Madῑnah, in Ḥarrah. (Fatḥ al-Bāri, 1:578) [9] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:225. [10] Kitāb al-Aṣl, 1:57, 1:24; Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaghῑr, p. 64. [11] Kitāb al-Aṣl, 1:24. [12] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:230. Also, see: Al-Mukhtār li ‘l-Fatwā with its commentary by the author, Al-Ikhtiyār li Ta῾lῑl al-Mukhtār, 1:117; Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūri with its commentary, Al-Lubāb fi Sharḥ al-Kitāb, 2:105; Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān, 1:19. [13] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:177. The verdicts of the three imams of the ḥanafi school regarding urine of animals whose flesh is ḥalāl are as follows: Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah and Imām Abu Yūsuf – light filth (najāsah mukhaffafah); Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni – pure (ṭāhir) (Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān, 1:19). [14] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:230. For the opinion of Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah, see Al-Mabsūṭ, 1:54. [15] Ibid. [16] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:180. [17] It ought to be pointed out here that the mention of urine can actually be found in the narrations of several narrators from Anas ibn Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him). Imām Abu Ja῾far Ṭaḥāwi, in his amazing Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, transmits ḥadῑths with the mention of urine from the following narrators from Anas ibn Mālik: Yaḥya ibn Sa῾ῑd (3223), Abu Qilābah al-Jarmi (2340), Qatādah (3243), Thābit (3243) and ῾Abd al-῾Azῑz ibn Ṣuhayb (3245) (Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartῑb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 5:135-). The same ḥadῑths have also been reported by the authors of the most popular six books of ḥadῑth and others. [18] That is, although, they feigned faith, Allāh and His Messenger ﷺ knew that they were actually disbelievers. [19] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:231. [20] 1:54. [21] My italics. [22] My italics. [23] That is, what was previously deemed clean was now unclean and filth. [24] Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni. [25] This is based on a variant of the ḥadῑth, in which they were commanded to drink camel milk and rinse or wash their nostrils with camel urine. This is also explored by Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri in his superb Arabic transcribed commentary lectures on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, entitled Fayḍ al-Bāri (1:429). [26] The grammarian. [27] I have omitted much of this point made by ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni, due to its grammatical technicality of Arabic. Scholars may refer to the original Arabic work. This and some other points may have been taken from Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri’s Fayḍ al-Bāri ῾alā Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri (1:429), wherein the points are elucidated in more detail. It is worth pointing out here that ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori was the student of Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri, and ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni is a student of ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori. [28] That is, ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori. It is worth mentioning here that it is equally correct to call the shaykh ‘al-Binnori’ or ‘al-Banūri’. The book being referred to is his famous 6-volume Arabic commentary on the ῾ibādāt portion of the Sunan of Imām al-Tirmidhi. [29] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:178. In view of brevity, I have omitted the remainder of the discussion on ḥadῑth evidences by ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori. [30] Student of Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri. [31] قال العلامة بدر عالم الميرتهي: قلت: ورأيت عند أبي داود رواية في باب الجنب يتيمم ، وفيها: فقال أبو ذر: إني اجتويت المدينة ، فأمر لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بذود وبغنم ، فقال لي: اشرب من ألبانها – وأشك في أبوالها – … إلخ: وحكم عليه أبو داود بعدم الصحة ، وقال: ذكر البول فيه ليس بصحيح ، وليست زيادة في (أبوالها) في حديث أنس رضي الله عنه ، تفرد به أهل البصرة ، فهذه أيضا مهمة ، وإنما نبهت عليها لأنها في غير بابها ، ربما تضلها عند الحاجة. (فيض الباري على صحيح البخاري – 1\429) –- يقول كاتب هذه المقالة: قال الإمام العلامة خليل أحمد السهارنفوري في كتابه النافع العظيم (بذل المجهود في حل سنن أبي داود – 2\521) عند شرح قوله (وأشك في أبوالها): والشاك حماد بن سلمة أو موسى بن إسماعيل ، فإنه شك هل قال شيخه لفظ ابوالها أو لا؟ [32] ‘Musayyib’ or ‘Musayyab’ – both are correct (see the ḍabṭ in Taqrῑb al-Tahdhῑb, 2396, p.275). [33] Fayḍ al-Bāri, 1:429. [34] Ibid, 1:430. [35] Fayḍ al-Bāri, 1:433.
|
|
|
Post by Abu Zaid on May 10, 2017 18:06:59 GMT
Virtues of Shab-e-Barāt and the verdict of Salaf from 10 centuries
The Night of 15th Sha'bān commonly known as Shab-e-Barāt is well known for its virtues amongst the salaf, but in the recent times few scholars have rejected this stating that all the ahādith pertaining to Shab-e-Barāt are either weak or fabricated, hence any type of worship on this night is a Bidāh (reprehensible innovation) and based on this people have become void of this virtous night and that they even belittle those who are engaged in ibādah on this night. In this article, first we'll examine the ahādith pertaining to the Virtues of Shab-e-Barāt, next the verdicts of the scholars from 1st to 10th century of Islām will be provided, and lastly the opinions of Salafi/Ahle-Hadīth Scholars will be provided along with Page scans wherever possible which can be retrieved by clicking the reference title. Insha'Allāh, this article will serve as a refutation to the opinions of those scholars who reject the Virtue of this night and also to those who adhere to this opinion.Ahādith pertaining to the Virtue of Shab-e-Barāt
Hadīth 1:
Hadhrat Mu'ād bin Jabal (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) narrates from that: Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said "Allāh Almighty looks upon all those created by Him in the middle Night of Sha'bān and forgives all those created by Him, except the one who associates partners with Him or the one who has malice in his heart (against a Muslim).' [Mu'jjam al-Ausat : Vol.7 : Pg.36, No.6776 & Majmuaz Zawāid : Vol.8 : Pg. 77-78]1 – Imām Haithmi rahimahullāh states that Imām Tabrani in Mu'ajjam al'Kabir has graded the ahādith as thiqa(trustworthy) [Majmua Az Zawāid : Vol8 : Pg.78] 2 – Imām ibn Rajab rahimahullāh states that the Hadīth of Mu'ādh bin Jabal (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) is sahīh according to ibn Hibbān and this is sufficient to be relied upon. [Sharh Mawāhib Ad-Dīniya Liz Zurqāni : Vol.10 : Pg.561] 3 – Muhaqiq Adnān Abdur Rehman states that Imām Baihaqi rahimahullāh in his book Fadail auqāt has recorded this Hadīth and graded its sanad as Hasan. [Fazāil-e-Awqāt : Pg.118, Ba-Tehqīq Adnān Abdur Rehman]
4 – Allamā Albāni states this Hadīth is Hasan sahīh [Targhīb wat-Tarhīb Ba-Tehqīq Albāni : No.2676] Elsewhere states that this Hadīth is sahīh [Silsilatul Ahādith-us-sahīhiya : Vol.3 : Pg.135, No.1144] 5 – Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut rahimahullāh states this Hadīth is sahīh(sahīh bishawāhid)[Al Ihsan fi Taqrib sahīh Ibn Hibbān : Vol.12 : Pg. 481, No 5665] 6- Shaykh Abdul Majid Salafi states that this narration has trustworthy narrators. Furthermore he states that according to Shaykh Albāni this Hadīth is sahīh based on Shawāhid(supporting narrations) [Musnad-e-Shaminīn : Vol.1 : Pg.128 -129]Hadīth 2 :
Abū Bakr (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) narrated: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “Allāh the Most High, descends on the night of the middle of Sha’bān to the lowest heaven and forgives everyone except a person who in his heart harbours enmity or a person who associates partners with Allāh.” [Musnad Bazzār : Vol.1 : Pg.157, No. 80] 1 – Hafiz Zakiuddin Mundiri rahimahullāh states that this Hadīth is recorded by Bazzar and Bayhaqi stating the sanad is without defect (la Ba'sa bihi) [Targhīb Wat Tarhīb : Vol 3 : Pg. 283] 2 – Imām Haithmi rahimahullāh states that the hadīth recorded by Bazzār has Abdul Malik Bin Abdul Malik as one of the narrator and mentions Ibn abi haitham rahimahullāh's Jarah Wa Ta’adīl, that the narrator isn't weak and all other narrators are trustworthy. [Majmua Az Zawāid : Vol.8 : Pg.77] 3 – Imām Bazzār after his critical analysis of the hadīth states that this hadīth has been narrated by various other sahābis other than Abu Bakr(radiyAllāhu ‘anhu). Those ahādith have some defects but the Hadīth narrated by Abu Bakr (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) strenghtens the Hadīth( Due to enormous stature and status of Abu Bakr radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) [Musnad-e-Bazzār : Vol.1 : Pg.207] 4 – Imām Ibn Hajar Asqalāni rahimahullāh states it is sahīh [Al Amāliyul Mutalaqa Li Ibn Hajar : Pg. 122] 5 – Shaykh Basim Bin Faisal Al Jawābirah Sahāb states it is sahīh [Al Sunnah Li Ibn Abi āsim : Vol.1 : Pg. 354 , No. 521] 6 – Allama Albāni states it is sahīh [Silsilatul āhadīth Us Sahīhiya : Vol.3 : Pg. 135, No. 1144]Hadīth 3 : Sayyiduna Abdullāh bin 'Amr narrates that the Beloved Prophet ﷺ said: “Allāh looks at His creation during the night of Mid-Sha'bān {‘Nisf Sha’bān’, i.e. 15th Sha’bān} and He forgives His servants except two: One intent on Hatred {‘Mushanin’} and a Murderer {‘Qatilu Nafs’}.” [Targhīb Wat Tarhīb : Vol4 : Pg.239, Musnad-e-Ahmed : Vol.6 : Pg.197-198, No. 6642, Majmua Az Zawāid : Vol.8 : Pg. 78, No. 12961] The narrators of this hadīth have been graded as trustworthy by: 1 – Imām Mundhiri relying upon Imām Ahmad's opinion [Targhīb Wat Tarhīb : Vol.4 : Pg. 239] 2 – Imām Haithmi relying upon Imām Ahmad and other Muhadithīn's grading. [Majmua Az Zawāid : Vol.8 : Pg.78 , No. 12961], and 3 – Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut rahimahullāh states this hadīth is sahīh(sahīh bishawāhid)[Musnad-e-Ahmed : Vol.11 : Pg. 216, No.6642] 4 – Shaik Ibrahim Az-Zaibaq states it is sahīh(sahīh bishawāhid) [Musnad-e-Ahmed : Vol.11 : Pg.216, No. 6642] 5 – Shaykh Albāni states it is Hasan [Silsilatul ahādith ul Sahīhiya : Vol.3 : Pg.136]Other ahādith narrated by : ► Hadrat Bibi Aisha(radiyAllāhu ‘anhu)[Tirmidi, No. 739] is graded as Hasan, while a similar narration recorded by Tabrani [Pg. 1071 , No. 606] graded as Gharīb by Ibn Hajr [Al Amāli ul Mutlaqa : Pg. 121]. ► Hazrat Abu Musa Ashari (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) [Ibn Mājah :No. 1390] is graded as Hasan(on the basis of shawāhid) by Shaykh Shu'aib Al Arnāut, Shaik ādil Murshid, Shaik Saeed-ul-Lahām [Sunan Ibn Majah : Vol.2 : Pg.400, No. 1390] ► Hazrat Awf Bin Mālik (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu)[Majmua Az Zawaid : Vol.8 : Pg.77, No.12959], and 6 more ahādith (12 in total) whose collective strenght cannot be refuted. After quoting some of the above narrations, Imām Baihaqi rahimahullāh says: “…when they are combined they acquire some strength” [Da’watul Kabir; see: Is’aful Khullan, bima warada fi laylatin nisf min Sha’bān, of Shaykh Hammād Al-Ansari rahimahullāh pg.19]Verdicts of the Salaf1st Century (1-100 Al-Hijri): Hadrat Ali (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) narrates that: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: Allāh Ta’ala pours his mercy in abundance on four nights of the year, 2 nights of Eid, the night of Ashura (10th Muharram), and the night of 15th Sha'bān." [Mashikhatu Ibn Tāhir Ibn Abi Safar : Pg.127]
Khalifah ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul Aziz rahimahullāh wrote to his governor in Basrah: “Allāh Ta’ala pours his mercy in abundance on four nights of the year, so ensure that you benefit there from. One of them being the middle (15th) night of Sha’bān.” [Badr-ul-Munīr : Vol.5 : Pg.40, Talkhīs-ul-Habīr : Vol.2 : Pg.191, At-Targhīb wat-Tarhīb Lil Abul Qāsim Asbahāni : Vol.2 : Pg. 393]
According Ibn hajar and Imām Ibn-ul-Mulaqqan rahimahullāh the above narration is sahīh.2nd Century (101-200 Al-Hijri): Hazrat Khalid Bin Ma’ād rahimahullāh (d.103 AH), Luqmān Bin āmir rahimahullāh, Imām Auzāyi Rahimahullah (d.157 AH) have also supported the view that 15th of Sha'bān is Virtues according to Ahle-Hādith scholar Abu Zaid Zameer. [15 Sha'bān ki Haqiqat : Pg. 20-21]3rd Century (201-300 Al-Hijri): Imām Shafi’i states: " On 5 days the dua'a is accepted; the night of Jumu'a, the night of Eid al-adha, the night of Eid al-fitr, first night of rajab, and the night of 15th Sha'bān."[Kitāb Ul Umm : : Vol.2 : Pg.485, No.492] Imām Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Ishāq Bin Abbas Fākihi Makki (d.275AH) in his book “Akhbar-E-Makkah” gives a heading 'Ahl-e-Makka's amal on 15th Sha'bān and their Mujāhida on this night due its Virtues' ans states that on this night the Ahle-e-Makka would leave to Masjid-e-Haram and perform Salah then they would do tawaf (circumblate). They would engage whole night in Ibādah(worship) till morning in Masjid-e-haram, so much so that they would complete the entire Qur'an. [Akhbār-e-Makkah Fi Qadamin Dahri Wa Hadīsihi : Pg.84]4th Century (301-400 Al-Hijri):
Shaykh Abu Talib Al Makki rahimahullāh (d.386 AH) also approved of spending this night in worship. [Qootul Quloob : Vol.1 : Pg.189] 5th Century (401-500 Al-Hijri): Imām Bayhaqi quotes Imām Shafi’i rahimahullāh and supports his view on the virtue of 15th Sha'bān. [Sunan-e-Kubra Lil Bayhaqi : Vol3 : Pg.319, Marifatus Sunan Wal āsār Lil Bayhaqi: Vol.5 : Pg.118, No.7028, Shu'aib-ul-Imān : Vol.5 : Pg.287, No.3438] 6th Century (501-600 Al-Hijri): Shaykh Abdul Qādar Jilāni rahimahullāh (d.561 AH) mentions the virtue of Shab-e-bar'at in his Book. [Ghunayatut Talibīn Mutarjim : Pg.368] Imām Ghazāli rahimahullāh (d.505 AH) also approves the Virtue of this auspicious Night according Ahle-Hādith Scholar Abu Zaid Zameer. [15 Sha'bān ki Haqiqat : Pg.21]7th Century (601-700 Al-Hijri): Imām Ibn Salāh rahimahullāh (d.643 AH) approves that Individual Ibādah is mustahab (preffered) on Shab-e-Barāt.[Shab-e-Barāt ki Haqiqat : Pg.21] Imām Nawawi rahimahullāh provides proof for the Virtue of Shab-e-Barāt by quoting Imām Shafi’i's narration from Kitab-ul-Umm. [Al Majmu Lin Nawawi : Vol.5 : Pg.50]8th Century (701-800 Al-Hijri): Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullāh has said, "As for the middle night of Sha'bān, there are various narrations that have been narrated regarding its significance and it has been reported from a group of the Salaf (predecessors) that they performed salat in it individually, While ibādah in congegation is an Innovation. Hence, such a deed cannot be disputed." [Mustadrak Alā Majmua Al Fatawā : Vol.3 : Pg.112] Ibnul Hāj al Makki rahimahullāh (d.737 AH) comments on the view and practice of the Aslāf that: “ There's no Doubt that this night has great virtue and abundant good, our salaf would honour and prepare for this Night.” [Al Madkhal : Vol1 : Pg.299] Ibn Rajab al-Hambali rahimahullāh writes: “Every Muslim is recommended to avail himself for ‘ibādah on this night” [Lataif ul Ma’arif, pg.265]9th Century (801-900 Al-Hijri): Imām Abu Ishaq Ibn Muflih rahimahullāh (d.884 AH) states: "It is mustahab to engage in Ibādah between maghreb and isha according to the hādith..." then he mentions the wordings of the Hādith. [Al Mubdi : Vol.2 : Pg.33]
10th Century (901-1000 Al-Hijri): Imām Suyuti rahimahullāh(d.911 AH) also mention the virtue of Shab-e-Barāt. He says it is mustahab to engage in Ibādah on this night. [Haqiqatus Sunnah Wal Bid'āh : Pg.54]Salafi/Ahle-Hādith Scholars on the Virtue of Shab-e-Barāt
Muhadith Abdur Rahman Mubarakpoori rahimahullāh states in his sharh of Sahīh Muslim that: "Many ahādith are found on the virtue of The middle of Sha'bān which indicates its veracity" [tohfat-ul-ahwazi Vol.3 : Pg.441] He further refutes those who reject its virtue by stating that: "[These] Ahādith are Hujjah(Proof) against those who reject the virtue of 15th Sha'bān."[ tohfat-ul-ahwazi Vol.3 : Pg.441,442] Another Ahle-Hādith Scholar Allama Obaidullāh Mubārakpoori states in his Sharh of Mishkāt that: "All these ahādith are proof for the Virtue of mid of Sha'bān and also that this night is unlike other nights, and hence being void of this night is not right. In fact one should spend this night by engaging in dua'a and zikr." [Mirāt Sharah Mishkāt Vol.4 : Pg.341-342]
Conclusion
It is clear from the above that: 1) The virtue of the night is reported by more than ten Sahābah (radiyallāhu ‘anhum) and Tābi’un (rahimahumullāh) 2) There are verdicts of over ten ‘Ulamā (from the Tabi’un onwards) that support this. 3) To engage in worship on this night (in addition to other occasions) has been the practice of numerous ‘Ulamā. 4)That those who totally refute the merit of this night have been labelled as reckless and exaggerate. 5) That this night is actually considered as: “The second most auspicious night of the Islamic calendar”!All of the above sufficiently confirm the significance of the 15th night of Sha’bān. Final Cautionary Note
In addition to dua’a and istighfār (seeking forgiveness from Allāh Ta’ala), on this night one should engage in any act of worship that one feels comfortable with. (see here for some ideas). There are no specific types of Salāh etc. that are prescribed for the 15th night of Sha'bān. [Latāiful Ma’arif, pg.168, Islāmic Months by Mufti Taqi Uthmani, pgs.63 and 79). The Sahābah (radiyAllāhu ‘anum) and the Tabi’un (rahimahumullah) would increase their Quranic recital during these months (especially in Sha'bān), i.e. in preparation for Ramadhān. [Latāiful Ma’arif, pg. 192] Some people engage in acts of bid’āh (innovation) on this night. The ‘Ulamā of the past and present have always refuted these innovations. Some contemporaries use the statements of these Scholars to refute the significance of the night itself. This is incorrect and irrational. The negation of certain innovated practices on this night does not necessitate the denial of the virtue of the night itself!May Allāh Ta’ala guide us all, and may He allow us to maximise our benefit from the auspiciousness of this night.
And Allāh Ta’ala Knows Best.
|
|