For children, - Worth and Significance of Bismillah: Ring in the Stomach of the Fish

There was once a lady who always said Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (In the name of Allah, the beneficent the merciful) before she did anything. She knew that Allah would then always be with her. One day, she put her ring in the cupboard and as usual she said Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (In the name of Allah, the beneficent the merciful) before she put it away. She knew that it would be safe.
Her husband took the ring and threw it in the river. He wanted to prove to her that only saying Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (In the name of Allah, the beneficent the merciful) would not keep it safe. He thought that in the evening he would ask her where the ring was and it would not be there.
Later that morning, the lady went to the market to buy some fish. When she was cleaning the fish at home she found her ring inside the stomach of the fish. She wondered how it got there but then put it back in its place in the cupboard saying Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (In the name of Allah, the beneficent the merciful).
When her husband came back from work, he asked her where the ring was. She brought it from the cupboard. He was so surprised!
He told her what he had done and apologized to her. He also truly believed that Allah is with the person who says Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (In the name of Allah, the beneficent the merciful) before he/she does anything.

Share
Follow Us

↓TRANSLATE THIS BLOG↓

* {first choose your language, and then} *Paste the "Above URL" - in the "search box"

family Articles, - Allah is not helping me

Four years ago a guy proposed me, but I refused him as I did not want a haram relationship. Many times he asked me for marriage, and I said I would talk to my parents about it. He said after he completed his studies he would ask my parents for marriage. We were in the same university, so we were in contact.
As time passed I fell in love with him. I started liking everything about him. He used to take care of me and protect me. After a year, he again asked me to marry him, and this time I said yes. I saw tears in his eyes. He told his family about me, and his sister start talking to me. She said she would come to my house to talk to my parents.
In these 4 years we both became very close to each other. But I made one big mistake, so during this time we both got physically attracted to each other. I knew it was sin, so I asked Allah for forgiveness every time. We both knew it was wrong. we tried to avoid sitting alone. Now 4 years have passed, and my parents want me to get married now. They are finding a boy for me.
He had a fight with his parents. Whenever he talked to them for marriage, they said no, and he was tensed. One day we had a fight, and he left me. He said our marriage is not looking possible to him, and he’s fed up with our fights.
I prayed to Allah that he comes back to me and gets married to me. For 3 months, all night I keep praying. I pray regularly 5 times. I read Qur’an daily. I’m a good Muslim, and the only sin I have done is getting physical with him. A thousand times I have asked Allah for forgiveness, but Allah never listens to me.
I don’t want to to get married to anyone else. I don’t want any other guy to touch me. I always imagined him as my husband, and always prayed to Allah that I get married to that guy. I had trust in Allah; I knew Allah would never do this to me. But Allah did this. Now I don’t feel like praying or reading Qur’an. I’m shattered and broken. I feel like Allah is not with me. I have wished for something, and this is the first time I asked Allah for something this desperately. I pray and cry all night in sajood, but Allah is not listening to me. I was so attached to Allah and used to love Allah so much, but now I feel disconnected with Allah and I don’t love Him. I don’t want to say this, but yes I don’t love Him anymore.

family Articles, - Male seeking advice regarding marriage without parents’ consent

Assalamualaikum…brothers and sisters,
I have been in love with a woman from another country (Turkey) for the past three years. We have met each other twice in these years.We understand that what we have done is a great sin, and should not be taken lightly so we ask for Allah’s forgiveness everyday. I have promised to marry her and have been introduced to her parents online.
I had told my parents about her and have told them about my decision to marry her, but my parents are not at all willing to accept my decision because nobody has ever married anyone from outside our community. They fear that by doing so, they will be insulted in their society.They also reason that since she and her family are from another region of the world (Europe), their family and moral values won’t be on par with ours.
I feel these reasons are not true to our Islamic values, since no group among us must feel superior to another particular group, and only Allah knows who is truly righteous. I really want to honor my promise and exercise my freedom to marry whoever I want to marry as a Muslim male, and by doing so I will be more at peace with myself and my deen. The only thing stopping me from doing so right now is the fear of how my community will treat my parents. I am really confused, and I seek sincere advice from all my brothers and sisters.
I pray that Allah gives all those who might advise me the right intellect, sensitivity and guidance required for this task.

family Articles, - wazifa for the approval of a marriage proposal

My sister is 26 years old. She is getting marriage proposals, but due to some reason they are getting rejected. Recently we got one proposal which everyone liked, even the boy and the girl and their parents. Then the boy was not getting holidays, so the proposal got cancelled.
It would be helpful if you can give us something to recite so that we can get that proposal back and her marriage can get fixed.
Jazak Allah qaer, Allah Hafiz.

Discover Islam, - Evolutionist claims and the facts

In this article, we will address a number of biological phenomena and concepts presented as theoretical evidence by evolutionists. These topics are particularly important for they show that there is no scientific finding that supports evolution, instead they reveal the extent of the distortion employed by evolutionists.
Variations and Species
Variation is a term used in genetics to refer to a genetic event that causes individuals or groups of a certain species to harbor different characteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, or some are short or tall depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.
Evolutionists predict the variations within a species as evidence of the theory. However, variation does not constitute evidence for evolution, because variations are merely the outcomes of different combinations of the already existing genetic information and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information.
Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of genetics, this limit is called the “gene pool”. All the characteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come into view in various ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation in a reptile species, there may appear varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs, since the information for both long and short legs already exists in the gene pool. However, these variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is by no means possible in variations.
Darwinwas not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article written in 1844 CE he had stated: “That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this belief is grounded”. InThe Origin of Specieshe cited different examples of variations as the most important evidence for his theory.
For instance, according toDarwin, animal breeders who mated different varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different species.Darwin’s notion of “unlimited variation” is best seen in the following sentence fromThe Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
The reasonDarwincited such a far-fetched example was the primitive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20thcentury CE, Science has posited the principle of “genetic stability” )genetic homeostasis( based on the result of experiments conducted on living things. This principle holds that all mating attempts carried out to produce new variations were inconclusive and that there are strict barriers among different species of living things. This meant that it was absolutely impossible for animal breeders to convert cattle into a different species by mating different variations of them asDarwinhad postulated.
Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his bookDarwin Retired, states: “The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent…The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black tulip.”
Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time, expressed this fact when he said that: “there are limits to the development possible and these limits follow a law.” In addressing this subject the Danish scientist W.L. Johannsen commented:
“The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of indefinite departure.”
It is time that evolutionists were honest with themselves and realized that Science has its limits; it can only be a means of understanding the complex design underlying all Creation, it can never be a Creator itself.

Discover Islam, - The water cycle and the seas in the Quran

When the verses of the Quran concerning the role of water in man’s existence are read in succession today, they appear to express ideas that are obvious. The reason for this is simple: in our day and age, we all know about the water cycle in nature to a greater or lesser extent.
However, if we consider the various ancient concepts on this subject, it becomes clear that the data in the Quran does not embody the mythical concepts prevalent at the time of Revelation, that had developed more according to philosophical speculation than observed phenomena. Although it was empirically possible to acquire the useful practical knowledge necessary to improve irrigation, the concepts held on the water cycle in general would hardly be acceptable today.
Thus, it would have been easy to imagine that underground water could have come from the infiltration of precipitation in the soil. In ancient times however, this idea, held by Virtuvius Polio Marcus inRome, 1stcentury CE, was cited as an exception. Thereafter, for many centuries )and the Quranic Revelation occurred during this period( man held completely inaccurate views on the water cycle.
Two specialists on this subject, G. Gastany and B. Blavoux, in their entry in the Encyclopedia Universalis under the heading ‘Hydrogeology’, give an edifying history of this problem.
“In the 7thcentury CE, Thales of Miletus held the theory whereby the waters of the oceans, under the effect of winds, were thrust towards the interior of the continents; so the water fell upon the earth and penetrated into the soil. Plato shared these views and thought that the return of the waters to the oceans was via a great abyss, the ‘Tartarus’. Until the 18thcentury CE, this theory had many supporters, one of whom was Descartes. Aristotle imagined that the water vapour from the soil condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. He was followed by Seneca )1stcentury CE( and many others, until 1877 CE, among them O. Volger …”
The first clear formulation of the water cycle must be attributed to Bernard Palissy in 1580 CE. He claimed that underground water came from rainwater infiltrating into the soil. This theory was confirmed by E. Mariotte and P. Perrault in the 17thcentury CE.
In the following passages from the Quran, there is no trace of the mistaken ideas that were current at the time of Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, )may Allaah exalt his mention(.
The Quran says )what means(:“We sent down water from the sky, blessed water whereby We caused to grow gardens, grains for harvest, tall palm-trees with their spathes, piled one above the other – sustenance for )Our( servants. Therewith We gave )new( life to a dead land. So will be the emergence )from the tombs(.”]Quran 50:9-11[
And )what means(:“We sent down water from the sky in measure and lodged it in the ground. And We certainly are able to withdraw it. Therewith for you We gave rise to gardens of palm-trees and vineyards where for you are abundant fruits and of them you eat.”]Quran 23: 18-19[
And )what means(:“We sent forth the winds that fecundate. We cause the water to descend from the sky. We provide you with the water – you )could( not be the guardians of its reserves.”]Quran 15:22[
There are two possible interpretations of this last verse. The fecundating winds may be taken to be the fertilizers of plants because they carry pollen. However, this may be a figurative expression referring by analogy to the role the wind plays in the process, whereby a non-raincarrying cloud is turned into one that produces a shower of rain.
The Quran says )what means(:“Allaah is the One Who sends forth the winds which raised up the clouds. He spreads them in the sky as He wills and breaks them into fragments. Then thou seest raindrops issuing from within them. He makes them reach such of His servants as He wills. And they are rejoicing.”]Quran 30:48[
And )what means(:“)Allaah( is the One Who sends forth the winds like heralds of His Mercy. When they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a dead land. Then We cause water to descend and thereby bring forth fruits of every kind. Thus We will bring forth the dead. Maybe you will remember.”]Quran 7:57[
And )what means(:“Hast thou not seen that Allaah sent water down from the sky and led it through sources into the ground? Then He caused sown fields of different colors to grow.”]Quran 39:21[
And )what means(:“Therein We placed gardens of palm-trees and vineyards and We caused water springs to gush forth.”]Quran 36:34[
The importance of springs and the way they are fed by rainwater conducted into them is stressed in the last three verses. It is worth pausing to examine this fact and call to mind the predominance in the Middle Ages of views such as those held by Aristotle, according to whom springs were fed by underground lakes. In his entry on Hydrology in the Encyclopedia Universalis, M.R. Remenieras, a teacher at the French National School of Agronomy )Ecole nationale du Genie rural, des Eaux et Forets(, describes the main stages of hydrology and refers to the magnificent irrigation works of the ancients, particularly in the Middle East. However, he notes that an empirical outlook ruled over everything, since the ideas of the time proceeded from mistaken concepts. He continues as follows:
“It was not until the Renaissance )between circa 1400 and 1600 CE( that purely philosophical concepts gave way to research based on the objective observation of hydrologic phenomena. Leonardo da Vinci )1452-1519 CE( rebelled against Aristotle’s statements. Bernard Palissy, in his Wonderful Discourse on the Nature of Waters and Fountains both Natural and Artificial )Discours admirable de la nature des eaux et fontaines tant naturelles qu’artificielles; Paris, 1570( gives a correct interpretation of the water cycle and especially of the way springs are fed by rainwater.”
This last statement is surely exactly what is mentioned in the Quran )chapter 39, verse 21( describing the way rainwater is conducted into sources in the ground.
The subject of chapter 24, verse 43, is rain and hail )which means(:
“Hast thou not seen that God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them a heap. And thou seest raindrops issuing from within it. He sends down from the sky mountains of hail, He strikes therewith whom He wills and He turns it away from whom He wills. The flashing of its lightning almost snatches away the sight.”
The following passage requires some comment )which means(:
“Have you observed the water you drink? Do you bring it down from the rainclouds?Or do We? If it were Our will, We could make it salty. Then why are you not thankful?”]Quran 56: 68-70[
This reference to the fact that God could have made fresh water salty is a way of expressing Divine Omnipotence. Another means of reminding us of the same Omnipotence is the challenge to man to make rainfall from the clouds. In modern times however, technology has surely made it possible to create rain artificially. Can one therefore oppose the statement in the Quran to man’s ability to produce precipitations?
The answer is no, because it seems clear that one must take account of man’s limitations in this field. M.A. Facy, an expert at the French Meteorological Office, wrote the following in the Encyclopedia Universalis under the heading Precipitations: “It will never be possible to make rain fall from a cloud that does not have the suitable characteristics of a raincloud or one that has not yet reached the appropriate stage of evolution )maturity(.” Therefore, man can never hasten the precipitation process by technical means, when the natural conditions for it are not present. If this were not the case, droughts would never occur in practice – which they obviously do. Thus, to have control over rain and fine weather still remains a dream.
Man cannot willfully break the established cycle that maintains the circulation of water in nature. This cycle may be outlined as follows, according to modern ideas on hydrology:
The heat from the sun’s rays causes the water from the sea and other water surfaces on Earth to evaporate. The water vapour that is given off rises into the atmosphere and, by condensation, forms clouds. The winds then intervene and move the clouds thus formed over varying distances. The clouds can then either disperse without producing rain, or combine their mass with others to create even greater condensation, or they can fragment and produce rain at some stages in their evolution. When rain reaches the sea )70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water(, the cycle is soon repeated. When rain falls on the land, it may be absorbed by vegetation aid its growth; the vegetation in its turn gives off water and thus returns some water to the atmosphere. The rest, to a lesser or greater extent, infiltrates into the soil, from where it is either conducted through channels into the sea, or comes back to the Earth’s surface network through springs or resurgences.
When one compares the modern data of hydrology to what is contained in the numerous verses of the Quran quoted in this paragraph, one has to admit that there is a remarkable degree of agreement between them.

Discover Islam, - A figment of Darwin’s imagination

If Darwin himself realized the "difficulties" in proving his theory, why are evolution scientists adamant on propagating his hypothesis as natural law?
The person, who put forward the theory of evolution in the form that is propagated and defended today, was an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin.
Darwinhad never undergone a formal education in biology. He took only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things. His interest spurred him to voluntarily join an expedition on board a ship named H.M.S. Beagle that set out fromEnglandin 1832 CE and traveled around different regions of the world for five years. Young Darwin was greatly impressed by various living species, especially by certain finches that he saw in theGalapagos Islands. He thought that the variations in their beaks were caused by their adaptation to their habitat. With this idea in mind, he supposed that the origin of life and species lay in the concept of “adaptation to the environment”. According toDarwin, different living species were not created separately by Allaah, but rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions.
Darwin’s hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or experiment; in time however he turned it into a pretentious theory with the support and encouragement he received from the famous materialist biologists of his time. The idea was that the individuals that adapted to the habitat in the best way transferred their qualities to subsequent generations; these advantageous qualities accumulated in time and transformed the individual into a species totally different from its ancestors. )The origin of these “advantageous qualities” was unknown at the time(. According toDarwin, man was the most developed outcome of this mechanism.
Darwincalled this process “evolution by natural selection”. He thought he had found the “origin of species”: the origin of one species was another species. He published these views in his book titledThe Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selectionin 1859 CE.
Darwinwas well aware that his theory faced lots of problems. He confessed these in his book in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”. These difficulties primarily consisted of the fossil record, complex organs of living things that could not possibly be explained by coincidence )e.g. the eye(, and instincts of living beings.Darwinhoped that these difficulties would be overcome by new discoveries; yet this did not stop him from coming up with a number of very inadequate explanations for some. The American physicist Lipson made the following comment on the “difficulties” ofDarwin: "On readingThe Origin of Species, I found thatDarwinwas much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled “Difficulties of the Theory” for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen."
While developing his theory,Darwinwas impressed by many evolutionist biologists preceding him, and primarily by the French biologist, Lamarck. According to Lamarck, living creatures passed the traits they acquired during their lifetime from one generation to the next and thus evolved. For instance, giraffes evolved from antelope-like animals by extending their necks further and further from generation to generation as they tried to reach higher and higher branches for food.Darwinthus employed the thesis of “passing the acquired traits” proposed by Lamarck as the factor that made living beings evolve.
But both Darwin and Lamarck were mistaken, because in their time life could only be studied with very primitive technology and at a very inadequate level. Scientific fields such as genetics and biochemistry did not exist even in name. Their theories therefore had to depend entirely on their powers of imagination.
While the echoes ofDarwin’s book reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865 CE. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel’s discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s. This was the birth of the science of the genes and the chromosomes were discovered.Thediscovery of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information in the 1950s threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis. The reason was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed byDarwin.
These developments ought to have resulted inDarwin’s theory being banished to the dustbin of history. However, this was not to be, because certain circles insisted on revising, renewing and elevating the theory to a scientific platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the theory lay ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.
Darwinwas a human being, fallible in his judgment and prone to error. It is worth pondering over, why do evolutionists insist upon elevating his theory to the level of gospel truth and the person who proposed it to the status of demi-god?
Are they interested in serving Science, by insisting on following an obviously flawed theory? Or are they interested in serving their own interests and sinister agendas, by propagating a theory that denies that Allaah is the Creator of all things?
╠▓╣ • • • • • • • ╠▓╣

Dought & clear, - Buying a dialysis machine for a hospital from zakaah funds

Is it permissible to buy a dialysis machine for a hospital from zakaah funds? That is because the patients who need kidney dialysis in this city are forced to wait for a long time, hours or days, to get their turn, which has a negative effect on them, their health and their lives, because there are not enough resources for the patients in the city.
Praise be to Allah.
Allah, may He be exalted, has limited spending of zakaah funds to the eight categories mentioned in the verse in which He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“As-Sadaqat (here it means Zakat) are only for the Fuqara (poor), and Al-Masakin (the poor) and those employed to collect (the funds); and for to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and for Allah’s Cause (i.e. for Mujahidoon - those fighting in the holy wars), and for the wayfarer (a traveller who is cut off from everything)”
[at-Tawbah 9:60].
Based on that, it is not permissible to use zakaah funds to purchase dialysis equipment, because this is not one of the categories mentioned, and because the benefit of such equipment is not only for the poor; rather all patients will benefit from it, poor and rich alike.
But if a poor person needs treatment in a local hospital in order to undergo dialysis or other kinds of treatment, because it is not possible to do it in a free hospital, then it is permissible to give him zakaah for this purpose.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked:
What is the ruling on giving zakaah to some charitable organisations for the purchase of dialysis equipment?
He replied:
That is not valid; it must be given to the poor person to keep as his property on the basis that he is poor, apart from the view of those who expand the meaning of “for Allah’s cause” to include all kinds of charity, which is a less strong view.
End quote fromThamaraat at-Tadween, no. 236, 7/2/1420 AH
However, the matter of spending to buy this equipment should not be connected only to the obligatory zakaah for which there are very specific categories of recipients; there are also funds from charitable donations that Muslims are encouraged to give, and there are also charitable endowments (awqaaf, sing. waqf) that the founders should devote to such beneficial causes.
And Allah knows best.Dought & clear, -

Dought & clear, - Ruling on divorce (talaaq) by one who is drunk

There is a man who used to get drunk and beat his wife, and he divorced her several times verbally; for example, he used to say to her “You are thrice divorced (talaaq)” when he was not sober, then after that he used to make up with her. But now he has repented to his Lord; he has started to pray and he regrets what he used to do. What is the Islamic ruling in this case?
Praise be to Allah
The scholars differed concerning the divorce issued by one who is drunk, if he became drunk by consuming that which Allah has forbidden of all types of intoxicants (khamr): does it count as a divorce or not? There are two views:
The first view
The first view is that the divorce does count as such. This is the view of Abu Haneefah and Maalik, and it is one of the two views narrated from ash-Shaafa‘i and Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on them).
They said: That is because his reason has diminished because of sin, so the divorce counts as such, as a punishment to him and as a deterrent to committing the sin.
See:al-Mughniby Ibn Qudaamah, 7/289. They quoted evidence to support their view.
The second view
The second view is that his divorce does not count as such. This is the view of the literalists and is the second view narrated from ash-Shafaa‘i and Ahmad. This is the view that Imam Ahmad finally settled on. They quoted several things as evidence, including the following:
1.
The words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning):“O you who believe! Approach not As-Salat (the prayer) when you are in a drunken state until you know (the meaning) of what you utter” [an-Nisa’ 4:43]. Here Allah, may He be glorified, states that the word of one who is drunk does not count for anything, because he does not know what he is saying.
2.
It is narrated in a saheeh report from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that a man came to him and confessed to zina (fornication or adultery) and he said: “Has he been drinking wine?” A man got up and smelt his mouth, and did not detect any smell of wine. Narrated by Muslim (1695). This indicates that if he had drunk wine, then his confession would not be acceptable. By the same token, divorce issued by someone in this state does not count as such.
3.
Because this is the view of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan and Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with them), and no one among the Sahaabah differed with them.
Imam al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
‘Uthmaan said: The one who is insane or drunk cannot issue a divorce. Ibn ‘Abbaas said: Divorce issued by one who is drunk or one who is compelled does not count as such.
Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This is proven from ‘Uthmaan, and we do not know of anyone among the Sahaabah who disagreed with him.
4.
Because he has lost control of his will, he is like one who is compelled.
5.
Because he has lost his mind or his reason, he is like one who is insane or asleep.
6.
Because being of sound mind is a condition of accountability, and there is no accountability for one who does not understand the religious teachings.
See:Majallat al-Buhooth al-Islamiyyah, 32/252;al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 29/18;al-Insaaf, 8/433
The second view was regarded as more correct by a number of scholars, such as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim; fatwas were issued on this basis by Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on them).
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: Does divorce issued by one who is drunk count as such? If it does count as such, then will he be brought to account for other transgressions he may commit, such as zina, murder and stealing? If that is the case, then what is the difference between the two?
He replied: The scholars differed as to whether divorce issued by one who is drunk counts as such. The majority of scholars are of the view that his divorce does count as such, and he is also accountable for his actions; his sins are not an excuse for waiving his divorce, just as they are not an excuse for waiving accountability for his actions such as murder, stealing or zina, and so on.
Some of the scholars are of the view that divorce issued by one who is drunk does not count as such; this is what is narrated from the Rightly-Guided Caliph ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him), because he is not in his right mind at that time, so he is not accountable for things he says that harm others, and divorce harms him and others. So he is not accountable for it, because the punishment for drunkenness is flogging; making his divorce count as such is not part of his punishment. The same applies if he manumits a slave or engages in other transactions, such as selling, buying, giving gifts and so on – they are all invalid.
With regard to his deeds and actions, he is accountable for them, and his being drunk is not an excuse for him in the case of zina, stealing, murder or anything else, because a person is accountable for his actions whether he was sober or not. He may have taken drunkenness as a means of doing things that Allah has forbidden of reprehensible actions, and he may be using it as an excuse so as to evade the rulings on these sins. Hence the scholars are unanimously agreed that he is accountable for his actions.
However the correct view is that he is not accountable for it. If it is known that he issued the divorce in a state of drunkenness when he was not of sound mind, then the divorce does not count as such. By the same token, if he manumitted his slave or disposed of his wealth when he was in a drunken state, then he is not accountable for that (and it is not valid). The same applies if he sold or bought anything, and the same applies to all other conduct in which being of sound mind is necessary; they are not valid or binding, because this comes under the heading of verbal conduct, as explained above. This is the correct view, on the basis of which we issue our fatwa, which is that his divorce does not count as such when it is proven that he was drunk at the time of issuing the divorce and was not sober at that time.
But if he was not sinning, in the sense that he was given a drink and did not know that it was an intoxicant, or he was forced to drink it, and he consumed the drink because he was compelled to do so, then he is not sinning, and the divorce issued in this case does not count as such, according to all scholars, because his state of drunkenness did not result from deliberate actions, so he is not accountable for it; rather he was wronged or deceived.
End quote fromFataawa at-Talaaq, p. 29
See:ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘, 10/433, al-Maktabah at-Tawfeeqiyyah edn.
Based on that, the divorce mentioned does not count as such. We praise Allah, may He be exalted, for having enabled him to repent and having guided him to the right way, and we ask Allah to make us and him steadfast.
And Allah knows best.
╠▓╣ • • • • • • • ╠▓╣

Dought & clear, - Riba is haraam for the one who takes it and the one who pays it, and it is haraam to help with it in any waywhatsoever

In one of the questions on your website you stated that working in an auditing office that deals with customers who are involved in some riba-based transactions is not permissible, and you quoted the hadeeth of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in which he cursed four categories of people, including the two who witness riba and the one who writes it down. But some commentators on the hadeeth, such as al-Haafiz ibn Hajar, said: This only applies to the one who helps the one who is engaging in riba; as for the one who writes it down or witnesses what happens so as to ensure the rights of both parties, his intentions are good and he is not subject to the warning mentioned; rather it applies only to the one who helps the one who engages in riba by writing it down and witnessing it. In the commentary of al-Abi on Saheeh Muslim, it says: What is meant by the one who writes it down is the one who writes the document, and what is meant by the one who witnesses it is the one who witnesses it and supports the deal. They are equally subject to the curse because the contract cannot be done except with all of them.
What is the evidence for the view of the scholars (apart from Ibn Baaz) that the hadeeth is general in meaning and applies to all of them, those who help and those who do not?
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
Auditing the accounts of customers who deal with riba is haraam work, because it involves approving of riba, writing it down, and keeping quiet about it and not denouncing it.
Please see the answers to questions no. 108105, 118189and 175492.
Secondly:
Muslim (1598) narrated that Jaabir said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursed the one who consumes riba and the one who pays it, the one who writes it down and the two who witness it, and he said: they are all the same.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
That is, (they are all the same) in terms of being cursed, because they co-operated in that.
End quote fromFataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb, 16/2
Imam al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) referred to this hadeeth that was narrated by Imam Muslim in the title which he gave to a chapter of hisSaheeh, which he called: Chapter on the one who consumes riba, the one who witnesses it and the one who writes it down.
Then he quoted two hadeeths in this chapter, one of which was the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah: When the last part of al-Baqarah was revealed, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) recited it, then he forbade trade in alcohol. The second hadeeth is the hadeeth of Samurah, according to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Last night, I dreamt that two men came to me and took me out to a sacred land, then we set out until we came to a river of blood in which a man was standing, and on the bank of the river there was another man in front of whom were some rocks. The man who was in the river came, and when he wanted to get out, the (other) man threw a rock in his mouth, and sent him back to where he had been. Every time he came and wanted to get out, he threw a rock into his mouth and sent him back to where he had been. I said: ‘What is this?’ He said: ‘The one who you saw in the river is the one who consumed riba.’
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Ibn at-Teen said: There is no mention in these two hadeeths of the one who writes down riba and the one who witnesses it. My response is that he mentioned them by implication because they help the one who consumes it to do so. This only applies to the one who helps the one who is engaging in riba. As for the one who writes it down or who witnesses the deal in order to tell exactly what happened, this is a good intention and is not included in the warning mentioned. Rather what is included is the one who helps the one who is engaging in riba by writing it down and witnessing it; his status is the same as that of the one who says“Trading is only like Riba (usury)” [al-Baqarah 2:275]. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The one who helps another to commit sin will incur a burden of sin as much as he deserves. It is proven that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursed the one who consumes riba, the one who pays it, the two who witness it and the one who writes it down, because the two witnesses and the one who writes it down are helping to confirm this transaction, so they incur whatever they deserve of the curse.
End quote fromal-Liqa’ ash-Shahri, 35/24
In fact what we have previously affirmed on our website does not differ in the slightest from what we have quoted here and what the questioner has quoted from al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar or from al-Abi (may Allah have mercy on them both).
Auditing bank accounts or the accounts of riba-based companies comes under the heading of helping in the haraam riba transaction and participating in it; it is not possible to complete riba-based deals without the help of accountants.
But there remain these two forms that are not included in haraam writing down or witnessing:
1.
Where one witnesses or writes down the deal in order to document it and testify to the involvement of the people who are party to it, as was mentioned by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him). This is like one who sees a crime such as murder or theft taking place, so he takes pictures, or he writes down what happened, so that he may give testimony concerning it before the judge and help to catch the perpetrator and help justice. This person has nothing to do with the criminal act and therefore has nothing to do with the perpetrator. And he is not helping with the sin or crime in any way whatsoever; rathe, in fact he was striving to change evil and establish justice to the best of his ability.
This is what al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) was referring to, and in our previous answers we were not suggesting that this kind of action is haraam; rather it is something that is Islamically prescribed and is necessary.
2.
Where a person or company or accounts department enters into a transaction with another person or company or firm that deals with riba or other haraam transactions, but the first party has nothing to do with its haraam actions; rather he or they are dealing with them within the limits of permissible transactions and contracts.
For example, the company may be dealing with riba-based transactions, but my job is supervising a permissible project that does not involve any riba-based transactions, or their riba-based transactions are between them and the bank, and someone else takes care of dealing with customers, buying and selling and so on, which has nothing to do with the riba-based transactions. In such cases, there is no blame on the one who deals with the company or plays any part in it. We have never disallowed this type of involvement before; rather we stated clearly that this is permissible
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:
It is permissible for a person to deal with someone who deals with riba, but his interactions with him are done in a sound manner. For example, it is permissible to buy goods from this man who deals in riba, and it is permissible to borrow money from him, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to interact with the Jews, even though they used to consume haraam wealth; he used to accept their gifts and invitations, and he bought and sold with them too.
To sum up: if a person earns money from haraam sources but you deal with him in a permissible transaction, there is no blame on you for doing so.
Fataawa from Noor ‘ala ad-Darb, 16/2
And Allah knows best.
╠▓╣ • • • • • • • ╠▓╣