Dought & clear, - Their saying “O Allaah, send blessings upon Muhammad as much as the perfection of Allaah”

Share

There is a custom in the mosque, where after praying in congregation and straight after reciting tasbeeh (“Subhaan-Allaah”), tahmeed (“al-hamdu Lillaah”) and takbeer (“Allaahu akbar”), they repeat salawaat (blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) following the muezzin, in three different forms, as follows:
1- “O Allaah, send blessings and peace and bless our master Muhammad and his family, as much as the perfection of Allaah and as befits His perfection.”
2- “O Allaah, send blessings and peace and bless our master Muhammad and his family, as much as the names of Allaah and as befits His perfection.”
3- And they recite al-Salawaat al-Ibraaheemiyyah which is well known.
Please note that there are those who say that the phrase “as much as the perfection of Allaah” is not permissible, as mentioned in the first version, on the grounds that it is limiting the perfection of Allaah, but they regard the phrase “as much as the names of Allaah” as permissible, as in the second version. What is your opinion of all these versions? May Allaah reward you with good.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Among the adhkaar that are prescribed after prayer are: tasbeeh (“Subhaan-Allaah”), tahmeed (“al-hamdu Lillaah”), takbeer (“Allaahu akbar”) and tahleel (“laa ilaaha ill-Allaah”), because of the report narrated by Muslim (596) from Ka’b ibn ‘Ujrah , that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Dhikrs after the prayer, the one who says them or does them will not be disappointed: thirty-three tasbeehahs, thirty-three tahmeedahs and thirty-four takbeerahs after every prayer.”
Muslim also narrated (597) from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever glorifies Allaah thirty-three times after every prayer, and praises Allaah thirty-three times, and magnifies Allaah thirty-three times, making ninety-nine, and completes it by saying, ‘There is no god but Allaah alone, with no partner or associate; His is the Dominion, to Him be praise, and He is Able to do all things,’ his sins will be forgiven even if they are like the foam of the sea.”
Inal-Saheehaynit is narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the poor among the Muhaajireen came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: The people of great wealth have taken the highest ranks and eternal bliss. He said: “Why is that?” They said: They pray as we pray and they fast as we fast, but they give in charity and we do not, and they free slaves and we do not. The Messenger of Allaah (S) said: “Shall I not teach you something by means of which you may catch up with those who have gone ahead of you and go ahead of those who come after you, and there will be no one who is better than you except those who do as you do?” They said: Yes, O Messenger of Allaah. He said: “Glorify Allaah, magnify Him and praise Him at the end of every prayer, thirty-three times.” Abu Saalih said: The poor Muhaajreen went back to the Messenger of Allaah (S) and said: Our wealthy brothers have heard what we did and they did likewise. The Messenger of Allaah (S) said: “That is a bounty from Allaah; He gives it to whomever He wills.”
Al-Bukhaari (843) and Muslim (595).
This great dhikr should be recited by each person individually. Reciting it in unison, led by the muezzin or imam or anyone else is a bid’ah (innovation), because it is a manner that is not narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and the scholars have drawn attention to that.
Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: I think that the imam and the person praying behind him should remember Allaah after they finish the prayer and they should recite the dhikr quietly, unless he is the imam who should be learned from, in which case he may recite it out loud until he thinks that they have learned from him, then he should recite it quietly. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And offer your Salaah (prayer) neither aloud nor in a low voice”
[al-Isra’ 17:110]
This refers – and Allaah knows best – to du’aa’ (supplication), which should be recited “neither aloud” in a loud voice nor “in a low voice” such that you cannot hear yourself.
The evidence for that is what Ibn al-Zubayr narrated about the tahleel of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and what Ibn ‘Abbaas narrated about his takbeer, as we have quoted above. Al-Shaafa’i said:
I think that he may raise his voice a little in order for the people to learn from him, because most of the reports that we have written here and elsewhere do not mention reciting tahleel or takbeer after the salaam. End quote fromal-Umm(1/127).
Al-Shaatibi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Bid’ah (innovation) refers to something that is newly invented in matters of religion that appears similar to that which is prescribed, by which people intend to go to extremes in worshipping Allaah, may He be glorified. That includes adhering to certain forms of worship, such as reciting dhikr in a group, in unison, or taking the day of the Prophet’s birth as a festival, and so on.
That also includes adhering to certain acts of worship at certain times, for which there is no evidence in sharee’ah, such as always fasting on the fifteenth of Sha’baan (al-nusf min Sha’baan) and spending that night in prayer. End quote fromal-I’tisaam(1/37-39).
Shaykh Jamaal al-Deen al-Qaasimi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: In some mosques, when the imam says the salaam at the end of the obligatory prayer of ‘Asr, the muezzin shouts ameen and recites a du’aa’ loudly after that, and in some mosques when the imam says the salaam, the followers start to recite blessings on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with “al-salaah al-kamaaliyyah” [the format referred to in the question] out loud. This is contrary to sharee’ah, because the Sunnah is, immediately after the prayer, to recite silently the du’aa’s that have been narrated, each worshipper reciting by himself. Similarly, the etiquette of du’aa’ is to keep the voice low. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Invoke your Lord with humility and in secret”
[al-A’raaf 7:55]
These people are turning away from humility and secrecy by means of their shouting and yelling. End quote fromIslaah al-Masaajid min al-Bida’ wa’l-‘Awaa’id, p. 154.
Shaykh ‘Ali Mahfooz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: A kind of reprehensible bid’ah is ending the prayer in the well known manner, raising the voice with the du’aa’ in the mosque, reciting it in unison and doing it regularly, to the extent that a lot of people think that this is part of praying properly, and that it is Sunnah and is essential, although it is mustahabb to recite du’aa’ individually and quietly.
This format is innovated, and it is not known from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or from the Sahaabah. The people have taken it as a part of the obligatory prayer, to be done after praying in congregation.
How can it be permissible to raise one's voice in reciting it, when Allaah, may He be exalted, says in His wise Book (interpretation of the meaning):
“Invoke your Lord with humility and in secret. He likes not the aggressors”
[al-A’raaf 7:55]?
Reciting quietly is closer to sincerely and further-removed from showing off. End quote fromal-Ibdaa’ fi Madaar al-Ibtidaa’, p. 283.
InFataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah(7/98) it says:
Question: The people differed with regard to reciting du’aa’ in unison after the regular Sunnah prayers. One group says that there is no report concerning that from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or from the Sahaabah, and if it was good they would have done it before us, because they were the keenest of people to follow the truth. Another group says that reciting du’aa’ in unison after the regular Sunnah prayers is mustahabb and even Sunnah because it is dhikr and worship and no dhikr or worship can be anything less than mustahabb and Sunnah. They criticize those who do not wait for the du’aa’ and get up straight after praying.
Answer: Du’aa’ is an act of worship, and acts of worship are based on tawqeef (adhering only to that which is mentioned in Qur’aan and Sunnah). So it is not permissible to say that an act of worship is prescribed – with regard to its principle, number, form or place except with proper shar’i evidence. We do not know of any Sunnah concerning that which was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), whether in word or deed, or his approval, which would point to the claim made by the second group. All goodness is in following the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and his guidance with regard to this matter is proven with evidence of what he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to do after prayer, and what his successors (the caliphs) and companions and the Taabi’een and those who followed them in goodness also used to do. Whoever introduces anything that goes against the guidance of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) will have it rejected. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever does any deed that is not in accordance with this matter of ours will have it rejected.” The imam who says du’aa’ after the prayer and the congregation says ameen to his du’aa’, all of them raising their hands, should be asked for evidence to support his action, otherwise it is to be rejected, The same applies to one who does that after naafil prayers; he should be asked for evidence as Allaah says concerning such things (interpretation of the meaning):
“Say (O Muhammad), Produce your proof if you are truthful”
[al-Baqarah 2:111]
We do not know of any evidence from the Qur’aan or Sunnah which suggests that what the second group claims is prescribed in Islam, namely reciting du’aa’ together and reciting dhikr in the manner mentioned in the question. End quote.
Conclusion: Reciting dhikr in unison, whether it is tasbeeh or blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – in any form – is not Sunnah, rather it is a bid’ah and innovation.
Secondly:
Al-salaah al-kamaaliyyah, which is “O Allaah, send blessing and peace and bless our master Muhammad and his family, as much as the perfection of Allaah and as befits His perfection” is not narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or from any of his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them), and it is not the best form of sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as some people think. Rather the best form of sending blessings is that which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught to his companions, which is al-salaah al-Ibraaheemiyyah.
al-Bukhaari (6357) and Muslim (406) narrated that ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Abi Layla said: Ka’b ibn ‘Ujrah met me and said: Shall I not give you a gift? The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came out to us and we said, We know what it means to send salaam upon you, but what does it mean to send blessings upon you? He said: “Say:Allaahumma salli ‘ala Muhammadin wa ‘ala aali Muhammadin kama salayta ‘ala aali Ibraaheem, innaka hameedun majeed; Allaahumma baarik ‘ala Muhammadin wa ‘ala aali Muhammadin kama baarakta ‘ala aali Ibraaheem, innaka hameedun majeed(O Allaah, send Yoursalaah(grace, honour and mercy) upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, as You sent Yoursalaahupon the family of Ibraaheem, You are indeed Praiseworthy, Most Glorious. O Allaah, send Your blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your blessings upon the family of Ibraaheem, You are indeed Praiseworthy, Most Glorious).”
Al-Bukhaari (3369) and Muslim (407) narrated from Abu Humayd al-Saa’idi (may Allaah be pleased with him) that they said: O Messenger of Allaah, how should we send blessings upon you? He said: “Say:Allaahumma salli ‘ala Muhammadin wa ‘ala azwaajihi wa dhurriyyatihi kama salayta ‘ala Ibraaheem, wa baarik ‘ala Muhammadin wa ‘ala azwaajihi wa dhurriyyatihi kama baarakta ‘ala aali Ibraaheem, innaka hameedun majeed(O Allaah, send Yoursalaah(grace, honour and mercy) upon Muhammad and upon his wives and offspring, as You sent Yoursalaahupon Ibraaheem, and send Your blessings upon Muhammad and upon his wives and offspring, as You sent Your blessings upon the family of Ibraaheem. You are indeed Praiseworthy, Most Glorious).”
Al-Suyooti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said inal-Haraz al-Manee’: I read inal-Tabaqaatby al-Taaj al-Subki a quotation from his father that said: The best manner of sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is the way that is mentioned in the Tashahhud.
He said: Whoever says this has definitely sent blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but whoever says any other version, there is some doubt as to whether he has recited the blessings as required, because they said: “How should we send blessings upon you?” and he said: “Say…” so he stated that blessings upon him should be sent by saying that.
Al-Suyooti said: When I grew old, when I sent blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) I would say: O Allaah, send blessings and peace upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad as You sent blessings and peace upon Ibraaheem and upon the family of Ibraaheem. You are indeed Praiseworthy, Most Glorious. It was said to me in a dream: Are you more knowledgeable of the meaning of words and more eloquent than the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? If there was not some extra meaning in the version spoken by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) he would not have preferred that? So I asked Allaah for forgiveness for that, and I went back to the preferred version at times when it is obligatory and mustahabb.
And he said: If a person has sworn to send blessings upon him in the best manner, then the best thing is to do that. End quote fromal-Sunan wa’l-Mutada’aatby Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salaam al-Shuqayri, p. 232. The words of al-Taaj al-Subki appear inTabaqaat al-Shaafa’iyyah al-Kubra(1/185).
Thirdly:
Al-salaah al-kamaaliyyah contains something that goes against sharee’ah, when it says “as much as the perfection of Allaah”. The apparent meaning of the phrase (in Arabic, ‘adada kamal Allaah) is that the perfection of Allaah, may He be exalted, is limited by number. Hence some of the scholars stated that this prayer is not allowed, as we shall see below. The same applies to their saying “the number of the names of Allaah”, because the names of Allaah are not limited to a specific number, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I ask You by every name by which You have called Yourself or You have taught to anyone of Your creation or You have revealed in Your Book or You have kept secret in the knowledge of the Unseen which is with You.” Narrated by Ahmad (3704).
Ibn ‘Aabideen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in hisHaashiyah(6/396): You should avoid using such phrases as “O Allaah, send blessings upon Muhammad as much as Your knowledge and forbearance, to the extent of Your mercy, as many as Your Words, and much as the perfection of Allaah,” and so on, because this may suggest than a divine attribute has many forms or that there is a limit to His knowledge, especially phrases such as “as much as Your knowledge, as much as You can hear,as much as Your words”, because there is no limit to His knowledge or mercy, or to His words. The word ‘adad (translated as “as much as” or “as many as”) etc suggests something other than that. I read the commentary by al-‘Allaamah al-Fasi on the book Dalaa’il al-Khayraat, where he discussed this issue. He said: The scholars differed as to whether it is permissible to use phrases that may be misinterpreted for those who will not misinterpret them, or to use phrases that may be easily interpreted in the proper manner. A number of scholars selected certain ways of sending blessings on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said that they are the best ways of sending blessing, such as Shaykh ‘Afeef al-Deen al-Yaafa’i, al-Sharaf al-Baarazi and al-Baha’ ibn al-Qattaan, and it was narrated from him by his student al-Maqdisi. End quote. I say: the words of our imams imply that that is not allowed, except in the words narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), according to the view favoured by the faqeeh. And Allaah knows best. End quote.
As stated above, the manner of sending blessing that you mentioned is not Sunnah, even if it is reciting al-salaah al-Ibraaheemiyyah.
May Allaah help us and you to do that which He loves and which pleases Him.
And Allaah knows best.

Share

NajimudeeN M sent you an invitation

NajimudeeN M has invited you to join Twitter!     Accept invitation           You can stop getting these emails with people you may know (PYMK) suggestions at anytime. Learn more about PYMK suggestions or find other answers at Twitter's Help Center. Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market St., Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103

Welcome to Islam, - Response to Pope Benedict XVI -II

Share

The Quranic arguments against God being a father are based on this essential attribute of Him. These arguments can be paraphrased as follows:
1. Firstly, if God is the creator of every thing He must be the creator of the person called His son. A father does not however, create his child, he begets it. One cannot be a father of someone whom He creates.
2. Secondly, a father can have a son only if he has a wife,“How can He have a child seeing that He has no spouse?”says the Quran. Muslims agree with the Christians that Mary is Jesus’ mother. But Mary is not God’s spouse; she is one of His creation.
3. Thirdly, If God is the creator of everything, He is necessarily self-sufficient. But if He is self-sufficient, He is not in need of having a child.“They say that God has a child. Exalted above that be He. He is the Self-sufficient,”says the Quran.
4. Fourthly, This problem is further aggravated by the belief that Jesus is coeternal with God the Father. How can someone who is coeternal with another be his child? A child must necessarily come after its father.
5. Fifthly, Christians also believe that Jesus died and was resurrected. How can someone who is eternal, who has no beginning, die? Muslim intellectuals have long ago pointed to the logical truth that eternity )having no beginning( logically implies everlastingness )having no end(. Why? Because a being that has no beginning is necessarily self-sufficient; that it does not depend for its existence on something outside itself. It cannot therefore cease to exist, because a thing ceases to exist only when it lacks some of the external conditions of its existence. But if it is itself the cause of its existence, it cannot cease to exist.
When faced with such rational arguments, some Christians retort by saying, “but you are taking the word “son” literally” OK, we say, we will not quarrel with you over words. Give us the non-literal meaning of ’son’ that is immune from those contradictions. That non-literal meaning has never been forthcoming.
Sixth. In Islam we do not have to resort to any source outside God’s Book to prove that faith is compatible with reason because this compatibility is demanded by faith itself. The Quran acknowledges the testimony of rational principles, of empirical evidence and of sound moral values, and uses them to prove that it is the word of God.
The Quran says about itself in 4:82 that,“had it been from other than God they would have found therein much discrepancy”
It censures those who deny the testimony of the senses, in 6:7“If We had sent down to you a written )message( on parchment, so that they could touch it with their hands, the Unbelievers would have been sure to say: “This is nothing but obvious magic!”
It stresses the fact that God enjoins good and never does he enjoin shameful deeds. In 16:90, it reads,“God commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that you may receive admonition”
Biblical scholars tell us however that there are many contradictions in the New Testament and that there are factual mistakes in it. The Old Testament imputes to prophets likeLotand David the sort of immoral behavior that only the most deviant of human beings would commit. It is partly because of this that many people, including some Christians and Jews, no longer believe that every thing in the Bible is the word of God.
Seventh, the Pope quotes professor Khoury as saying, “But for Muslim teaching God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” God is indeed absolutely transcendent, and cannot therefore be bound by any thing external to himself. He is the creator of everything including our categories. But being absolutely free from any external influence does not mean that His actions are haphazard, that he says or does something that is contrary to the reason with which He endowed us. God is absolutely free, but His actions are governed by His attributes of perfection. He does not therefore contradict himself; he does not enjoin something that is immoral, he does not say something that is belied by the empirical facts which He himself created. Can He do otherwise? Of course He can, and He is praised because He can, and because He chose not to behave in ways that are contrary to reason or moral principles. This has to be so. You do not praise someone for not doing an evil that he is incapable of doing anyway.
Eighth, true religion is a religion based on a message from God conveyed to us by His chosen Messengers. Our task is to endeavor to understand this message and to act according to its dictates. We may make mistakes in doing so, but we should not intentionally make any changes in it by additions or subtractions, because once you do this you will not be following a divinely revealed message but a message of your own making.“O Messenger, convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord; if you do not you will not be conveying His Message.”]Quran, 5:67[
A religion that is tampered with becomes a man-made religion, an ideology like any other secular ideology. But this tampering is what Jews and Christians have always been accustomed to doing. And this is exactly what the Pope is now doing with what has remained of Christianity. He wants to mould it into a Eurocentric ideology of which Greek philosophy and the renaissance are inseparable elements. What about Christians in other parts of the world whose cultures have no affinity to European thought? Would they now be obliged to study this thought and make it part of a religion which they know had its origin in the East?
It might be said that some Muslims are now doing the same with their religion. Indeed they are. But the consolation is that their attempts are futile. Islam is a religion that God promised to preserve and make available for truth seekers until the end of this world.“It is we who sent down the message and it is we who will preserve it.”]Quran, 15: 9[The original text of the Quran will always be available; the Sunnah of the Prophet that explains it will always be preserved. And there will always be honest learned people who would present this religion as it truly is. There will be deviations from this truth, and there will be many people who would believe in and follow them; but those deviations will never replace a truth that God has promised to preserve. He has preserved it for fourteen hundred years, and is sure to continue preserving it for the rest of time on this earth.

Share

Welcome to Islam, - Response to Pope Benedict XVI -I

Share

Benedict XIV, delivered a lecture at theUniversityofRegensburg. The lecture was in German but was later translated into English by theVaticanunder the title, The Three Stages in the Program of Dehellenization. My reply is based on that translation.
The main theme of the Papal speech was the relationship between faith and reason, and it was mainly about the development of Western thought on this issue, especially in relation to Christianity. But for some obscure reason the Pope started off with something that does not at all seem relevant to his central topic. He began by quoting something which the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus of the fourteenth century said about Islam.
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” the emperor is reported to have said to his educated Persian interlocutor. He is also reported to have explained this by saying, “God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably )”syn logo“( is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats…. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….”
To persuade his audience that the emperor whom the Pope describes as ‘erudite’ did not say what he said out of ignorance of the Islamic religion, the Pope goes on to say, “The emperor must have known that Sura )chapter( 2:256 reads:“There is no compulsion in religion.”It is one of the suras of the early period, when Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, was still powerless and under ]threat[. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.”
These statements are full of mistakes, inaccuracies, misconceptions as well as misrepresentations of the Islamic religion.
First, to deny that Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, came with something new and of great value, is a sign either of ignorance of his message or of blind prejudice. That Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, came with something new and important, especially for the people of the Book, is stated in many places in the Quran.
"O people of the Book! There has come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much in the Book that you used to hide, and passing over much )that is now unnecessary(. There has come to you from God a )new( light and a perspicuous Book."]Quran, 5:16[
"Say: 'O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God, that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.'"]Quran, 3: 64[
Second, the Pope says, “the decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature”. He then quotes the comments on the emperor’s words of Theodore Khoury who published and edited that dialogue, “For the emperor,” says Khoury “as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.”
A person doesn’t have to be shaped by Greek philosophy to know that violent conversion and not acting in accordance to reason is something that God does not approve of. Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, says,“Never has violence entered into something that it did not make ugly, and never has gentleness entered into something that it did not make beautiful.”It is because of this that a Muslim is enjoined to:
"Invite )all( to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who )deserve( to be guided."]Quran, 16:125[
Third, the verse alluded to is not of the early period as the Pope says, on the authority of his experts. It is a verse in Surat al Baqara which was revealed after the Prophet had migrated to Madeenah and found the support of its people, and started to engage in war against his Makkan enemies. Even the occasion on which the verse was revealed, as mentioned by authorities like Ibn Katheer, proves this. Some Madeenan people who had accepted Islam, but whose sons chose to remain Jewish, thought of forcing them to join them in the new faith, but were told not to do so. Further, why would someone who is “powerless and under threat” advise his followers not to resort to force to convert people? Why would he tell them not to do something that they are not in a position to do anyway?
Fourth, this often quoted verse, is not an isolated one as the words of the Pope intimate. It emphasizes a fact that is stated in many other verses, and that constitute a fundamental Islamic teaching. This teaching is that faith resides in the heart, and that no created beings, neither Prophets nor devils, have any control over the human heart. No one except God has the power to instill faith in a person’s heart or deprive him or her of it. Prophets like Noah, Moses, Jesus, may Allaah exalt their mention, and Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, are repeatedly reminded that their role is only to convey the message in the best of ways. They guide people to the truth only by conveying it to them, and by attempting to persuade them in the best of ways to accept it; they do not and cannot guide them by forcing them to accept it. Many verses in the Quran state and emphasize this fact. Here are some examples:
"Remind them, for you are but a remembrance. You are not at all a warder over them."]Quran, 88:21-22[
"Is it you who can compel people until they are believers?"]Quran, 10:99[
"You do not guide whom you love )to guide(, but Allah guides whom He wills."]Quran, 28: 56[
"However much you are keen )on them(, most people will not believe."]Quran, 12:103[
Would a person who is told this by the God who sent him try to force people to become believers? One might say that the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, did, however, engage in war with some people and did encourage Muslims to fight wars similar to his, and that these wars are called jihad. Indeed he did, but it must be clear now that he could not have done so in contravention to those clear Divine instructions. Those wars must have therefore been engaged in for reasons other than forcing people to accept the Islamic faith. This is not the place to go into the details of the circumstances that led to them or the conditions for waging war. Suffice it to say that they were waged against aggression, against all kinds of aggression: against those who attacked Muslims because of their faith; against those who used their power to try to prevent people from accepting that faith; and against those who breached the covenants they had made with Muslims. All other non-Muslims who did not fall into those categories, including Jews and Christians, did live in peace with and among Muslims from the time of the Prophet until now. Being non-Muslim has never been considered by itself a reason for killing someone. Even organizations like al-Qaida give other justifications for their attacks on those whom they attacked.
Fifth, in his attempt to make the Christian faith compatible with reason, the Pope had to fall back on the interpretations of those, like the emperor, who attempted to marry Christianity with Greek philosophy.
A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature
This means that the nature of God becomes contrary to unreasonableness only if, with the help of Greek philosophy, God is identified with Logos, Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the ‘logos’ “.
In the beginning was the Logos, and Logos is God, says the Evangelist
This means that the God whose nature is compatible with reason is not the traditional God of Christianity. It is not God the Father, or God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost, or a combination of the three. The Pope must have had to resort to this understanding of God that identifies Him with reason because he cannot say about the traditional God of Christianity that unreasonableness is contrary to His nature. He cannot say so because he knows that unreasonableness characterizes the traditional conception of the nature of that God. This has always been Islam’s main objection to Christianity. The Quran tells them that the claim that God has a son is not compatible with reason and cannot therefore be compatible with God’s true nature. To explain this let us start with a preliminary understanding of God, an understanding that is shared by almost all those who believe in His existence. The minimum that they say about Him is that He is the Creator.

Share

Welcome to Islam, - What they say about the Quran

Share

Without necessarily agreeing with all that they said, we furnish here some opinions of important non-Muslim scholars about the Quran.
1- ''However often we turn to it )the Quran( at first disgusting us each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence... Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand, terrible - ever and anon truly sublime - thus this book will go an exercising through all ages a most potent influence.”
- Goethe
Quoted in T.P. Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p-526.
2- ''The Koran admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though the youngest of the epoch-making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced on large masses of men. It has created an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian Peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organisations of the “Muhammadan” world which are one of the great forces with whichEuropeand the East have to reckon today. ”
G Margoliouth
Introduction to J.M. Rodwell's The Koran,New York: Everyman's Library, 1977, p. VII
3- ''A work, then, which calls forth so powerful and seemingly incompatible emotions even in the distant reader - distant as to time, and still more so as mental development - a work which not only conquers the repugnance which he may begin its perusal, but changes this adverse feeling into astonishment and admiration, such a work must be a wonderful production of the human mind (Editor's note: The Quran is not the production of the human mind, but a revelation from Allaah Almighty( indeed and a problem of the highest interest to every thoughtful observer of the destinies of mankind. ”
-Dr. Steingass, quoted in T.P. Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, pp. 526-7.
4- ''The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Quran untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important “author”, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject? ”
-Maurice Bucaille,
The Bible, the Quran and Science, 1978, p. 125.
5- ''Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be measured by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen. If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well organised body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilised nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history. ”
-Dr. Steingass, quoted in Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 528.
6- ''In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself- constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greater literary masterpieces of mankind. This very characteristic feature - that inimitable symphony', as the believing Pickthall described his Holy Book -- 'the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy' -- has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original. ”
-Arthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted,London:OxfordUniversityPress, 1964, p. X.
7- ''A totally objective examination of it )the Quran( in the light of modern knowledge, leads us to recognise the agreement between the two, as has been already noted on repeated occasions. It makes us deem it quite unthinkable for a man of Muhammad's time to have been the author of such statements, on account of the state of knowledge in his day. Such considerations are part of what gives the Quranic Revelation its unique place, and forces the impartial scientist to admit his inability to provide an explanation which calls solely upon materialistic reasoning. ”
-Maurice Bucaille,
The Quran and Modern Science, 1981. p. 18.

Share

Dought & clear, - She was given some vessels on which there is some gold. What should she do with them?

Share

I was recently given some wedding gifts, but in some cases I do not know what the shar’i ruling is on them. They are gold-plated vessels but they are not made entirely of gold. Is it permissible for me to use them or to just keep them? Or should I get rid of them?.
Praise be to Allaah.
If the vessels are made of gold or plated with gold, it is not permissible to keep or use them for eating or drinking, etc, even if the gold is only on the edges, because of the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (5633) and Muslim (2067) from Hudhayfah (may Allaah be pleased with him), according to which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not drink from vessels of gold and silver, for they are for them in this world and for you in the Hereafter.”
And al-Bukhaari (5634) and Muslim (2065) narrated from Umm Salamah the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever drinks from a vessel of gold or silver is only gulping fire from Hell into his belly.”
The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked: What is the ruling on selling men’s watches and glasses if they are plated with real gold, and housewares and bathroom fixtures that are plated with gold, for men and women?
They replied: If the matter is as described, it is not permissible to sell housewares and bathroom fixtures if they are plated with gold or silver, to either men or women, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not drink from vessels of gold and silver, or eat from plates of the same. They are for them in this world and for you in the Hereafter.” Saheeh – agreed upon. And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever drinks from a vessel of gold or silver is only gulping fire from Hell into his belly.” Saheeh – agreed upon; this version was narrated by Muslim. And it is haraam to use them in other ways that have to do with eating and drinking, because of the general meaning of the reason and so as to ward off means that lead to haraam.
The same applies to watches and glasses that are plated with gold or silver – it is not permissible to sell them to men. May Allaah help us and you to do all that is good. End quote.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah(22/156).
The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were also asked (22/158): What is the ruling on using cups whose rims are plated with gold? We bought a box of cups and when we opened the box, we found written on it “rims plated with gold”. The part that is plated is a thin line that can hardly be seen, and they were very cheap.
They replied:
It is not permissible to use vessels that are made of gold or silver, or vessels that are plated or partially plated with gold or silver, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever drinks from a vessel of gold or silver is only gulping fire from Hell into his belly.” Narrated by Muslim. And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not drink from vessels of gold and silver, or eat from plates of the same. They are for them in this world and for you in the Hereafter.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim. That which is plated with gold or silver is included in this, because it is using gold and silver for eating and drinking, and if it is proven that the cups mentioned are plated with gold, it is not permissible to use them. End quote.
See also question no. 13733for more information.
Based on this, it is not permissible for you to keep or use these vessels that were given to you. You may get rid of them in two ways: either return them to the seller, if possible, or remove the gold that is on them even if that is by breaking the vessel, and use the gold to make jewellery or sell it.
And Allaah knows best.

Share

Dought & clear, - Is it better to say inour prayer Sayyiduna Muhammad (our master Muhammad)?

Share

Which is better to say in the tashahhud whilst praying: “Ashhadu anna sayyidana Muhammadan Rasool Allaah (I bear witness that our master Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah)” and “Allaahumma salli ‘ala sayyidina Muhammad (O Allaah, send blessing upon our master Muhammad)”, or should we just say “Muhammad” without saying “sayyiduna (our master)”?.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Undoubtedly referring to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as “sayyid (master)” is quite valid, for he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is our master, and indeed the master of all of mankind. Muslim (2278) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I will be the master (or leader) of he sons of Adam on the Day of Resurrection.” And al-Tirmidhi (3615) narrated that Abu Sa’eed (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I will be the master (or leader) of the sons of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I am not boasting. In my hand will be a banner of praise and I am not boasting. There will be no Prophet that day, Adam or anyone else, but he will be beneath my banner. I am the first one for whom the earth will be split open and I am not boasting.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani inSaheeh al-Tirmidhi.
Secondly:
It must be noted that acts of worship are based on following, and nothing can be added to any act of worship as it was prescribed by the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is one of the signs of a person’s love for Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted. Allaah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to mankind): ‘If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Qur’aan and the Sunnah), Allaah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful’”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:31]
Following means doing it as he did it, and saying it as he said it, refraining from that which he refrained from, and not adding anything to it or subtracting anything from what he did.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever does an action that is not part of this matter of ours (Islam) will have it rejected.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2697) and Muslim (1718).
What is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in the tashahhud in prayer is: “Wa ashhadu anna Muhammadan ‘abduhu wa rasooluhu(and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger)”. And what is narrated with regard to sending blessings on him is: “Allaahumma salli ‘ala Muhammadin … Allaahumma baarik ‘ala Muhammadin(O Allaah, send blessings upon Muhammad … O Allaah, bless Muhammad).” It is not narrated at all that he taught us to say “Sayyidana”, so we should not add to what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) enjoined us to say and taught us. This is undoubtedly better. How can it be better to go against the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to say every Friday in his khutbah, and announce it from the minbar: “The best of speech is the Book of Allaah and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” Narrated by Muslim (867).
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: Is it better to say, when sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “sayyidana” because it is an apt description of him, or not to say that because it is not narrated in the reports?
He replied:
Following the phrases that have been narrated is better, and it should not be said that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) refrained from saying that out of humility but his ummah is recommended to say that every time he is mentioned, because we say: If that was correct, it would have been narrated from the Sahaabah then from the Taabi’een, and we have not found anything in the reports from any of the Sahaabah or Taabi’een to suggest that he said that, even though there are so many reports on this topic.
Then he quoted some reports from some of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, and from Imam al-Shaafa’i, in which the word “Sayyidana” is not mentioned … Then he said:
This issue is well known in the books of fiqh. The point is that none of the fuqaha’ who discussed this issue used the word “sayyidana”. If this addition had been recommended, it would not have been unknown to them and they would not have ignored it. All goodness is in following and Allaah knows best. End quote.
Quoted from him by al-Albaani in his bookSifat al-Salaah(The Prophet’s Prayer Described), p. 153-155.
The scholars of the Standing Committee were asked: Is it permissible for us to say when speaking of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Sayyiduna Muhammad (our master Muhammad)” in contexts other than those which are narrated in texts such asal-salaah al-Ibraheemiyyah(sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in the prayer) etc?
They replied:
With regard to sending blessings on the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in the tashahhud, there is no report – as far as we know – in which the word “sayyiduna” is mentioned, i.e., “Allaahumma salli ‘ala sayyidina Muhammad(O Allaah, send blessing upon our master Muhammad)” etc. The same applies to the adhaan and iqaamah, in which the word “sayyiduna” is not used because it is not mentioned in the saheeh ahaadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught his companions how to send blessings upon him, and how to say the adhaan and iqaamah. Acts of worship are tawqeefi (i.e., they are to be done exactly as described in the texts) and nothing is to be added to them that has not been prescribed by Allaah. As for saying this word in other contexts, there is nothing wrong with it, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I will be the master of the sons of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I am not boasting.” End quote.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah(7/65).

Share

Dought & clear, - Remembering Allaah (dhikr) by saying His name by itself

Share

I heard a student of knowledge mentioning the bida’ (innovations) of the Sufiyyah (Sufism). Amongst them was the innovation of mentioning Allah by his one name. He said that the prophet did not do this, neither did his honoured companions. I am wondering, did not the prophet (PBUH) say a Hadeeth (I do not remember it very well) that means that the hour will not begin as long as there is a slave saying, ‘Allah’ ‘Allah’. This is considered mentioning Allah by His One Name, and the prophet praised, as mentioned, who does this, as he excluded him of the evildoers whom the hour will begin with?.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Remembering Allaah by saying His name by itself, whereby the worshipper says “Allaah, Allaah, Allaah,” is one of the bid’ahs (innovations) of dhikr which have been invented by the ignorant Sufis and those who follow them. It was not narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or from any of the Sahaabah.
We have discussed this matter in detail in the answer to questions no. 9389and 26867.
Secondly:
As for the reports quoted by some as evidence that this dhikr is prescribed, this is a specious argument which does not indicate that this kind of dhikr is prescribed at all. This evidence includes the following:
The report narrated from Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin so long as it is said on earth, ‘Allaah, Allaah.’”
This hadeeth does not indicate that dhikr means saying the name of Allaah on its own. That is for several reasons:
1 – In some reports it says: “The Hour will not begin so long as anyone says ‘Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah.’”
This version was narrated by Ahmad inal-Musnad(3/268) and by Ibn Hibbaan in hisSaheeh(15/262) and al-Haakim (4/540). It is also one of the versions narrated by Muslim, as was narrated by al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad from Ibn Abi Ja’far. See: al-Nawawi,Sharh Muslim(2/178).
This version explains the first version. What it means is: the Hour will not come upon those who believe in Tawheed and who sayLaa ilaaha ill-Allaah.
2 – The hadeeth cannot mean that the Hour will not come upon the one who mentions Allaah by His name on its own, and it will come upon those who mention Him by something other than that. The most that can be said is that it is mustahabb to mention the name of Allaah on its own, but it is not obligatory. How can the matter of salvation from the horror of the onset of the Hour depend on something that is mustahabb?
3 – The Arabic language does not help the one who wants to use this as evidence, because the name of Allaah on its own does not carry a complete meaning, and remembrance of Allaah (dhikr) must also convey a sense of praise of Him by mentioning some of His attributes.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said inMajmoo’ al-Fataawa(10/564):
The scholars of Arabic language and all other languages are unanimously agreed that it is not proper to pause after mentioning the name on its own and it is not a complete sentence and it does not convey any meaning. End quote.
4 – The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) and the Taabi’een who came after them did not understand from this hadeeth that it is mustahabb to say dhikr by saying the name of Allaah on its own, and it is not narrated that any of them derived this idea from this hadeeth. This is sufficient indication that this idea is invalid.
5 – There are numerous scholarly comments about the meaning of the hadeeth, but it is not narrated that any of them understood it as referring to dhikr by saying the name of Allaah on its own.
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said inSharh Muslim(2/178):
“says ‘Allaahu, Allaahu’” [i.e., nominative case] Some people make a mistake and do not add the vowel at the end. End quote.
Al-Teebi said, as mentioned inTuhfat al-Ahwadhi(6/375):
What is meant by “so long as it is said” is so long as the name of Allaah is mentioned and He is worshipped. End quote.
Al-Manaawi said inFayd al-Qadeer(6/417):
It does not mean that this word will not be spoken, rather it means that Allaah will not be remembered in a true sense, and it is as if the Hour will not begin when there is any perfect man on earth, or it is a metaphor for there being no denunciation in the heart of evil, because usually when a person denounces evil he says “Allaah, Allaah” in expression of his disgust. So what is meant is that the Hour will not come when there is still anyone who denounces evil. End quote.
Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said inFataawa Jeddah(tape no. 6/minute 60):
This does not mean that the Muslim should sit remembering Allaah by saying His name on its own, so he says one hundred times “Allaah, Allaah, Allaah,” as is done by many tareeqahs. Its explanation is given in the report narrated by Imam Ahmad inal-Musnad: “The Hour will not begin so long as there is anyone on the face of the earth who saysLaa ilaaha ill-Allaah.
The mention of the name on its own in the first report is a metaphor for Tawheed, and what that means is that the Hour will not begin whilst there is still anyone on the face of the earth who worships Allaah.
This is stated clearly in the hadeeth of Abu Sam’aan that is narrated inSaheeh Muslim, in which it says that when Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, wants the Hour to begin, He will send a good wind which will take the soul of every believer, and there will be no one left on the face of the earth except the most evil of mankind, and upon them the Hour will come.
This dhikr is no more than something that is mustahabb, and will the Hour come upon those who omit something mustahabb?! Do you mean that if the Muslims continue to do all their obligatory duties and adhere to sound belief, but they omit this mustahabb matter, the Hour will come upon them?! End quote.
And Allaah knows best.

Share