BELIEF THAT THE PROPHET ATTENDS MAWLID GATHERINGS?

BY MAWLANA KHALIL AHMAD SAHARANPURI

Translated by Ismaeel Nakhuda

An Excerpt from Al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah[1]

Translator’s Preface: Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahranpuri (1852-1927) was a leading hadith master and the teacher of perhaps one of the world’s leading hadith authorities of the last century, Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalwi (1898-1082).

The Reality of Tasawwuf (Part One)

An original Deoband.org article
By Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyya Kandhlawi
Translated by Ismaeel Nakhuda

An Excerpt from Shari’ah wa Tariqah ka Talazum[1]

TRANSLATOR’S FOREWORD

Questions surrounding the reality of Tasawwuf are plentiful. In this excellent treatise, one of the greatest Sufi shaykhs and hadith masters of the last century, Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalwi, writes at length how authentic Tasawwuf is firmly rooted in the fundamentals of Islam, sitting between two extremes — the way of those who reject it on the one hand and the way of those who practise it independent of Shari’ah on the other.

Joining Shoulders and Feet in Prayer Rows

By Shaykh Abu Asim Badrul Islam

There has been a growing tendency in recent times within some quarters of the Muslim Ummah to attempt to understand the hadiths of the beloved Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) without the proper prerequisite knowledge of fiqh and its principles. Movements have emerged, a fundamental part of whose methodology it is to take hadiths in their apparent and literal meanings, without attempting to understand the actual purpose of any hadith. The issue of how those in congregational prayer should stand is no exception. They have looked at the chapter in Sahih al-Bukhari entitled Bab ilsaqi ‘l-mankibi bi ‘l-mankibi wa ‘l-qadami bi ‘l-qadami fi ‘l-Saff (Chapter regarding the joining of shoulders to shoulders, and feet to feet in prayer rows) and the athar of Sayyiduna Nu’man ibn Bashir and that of Sayyiduna Anas (may Allah be pleased with them) (hadith: 725) and without even attempting to use their intellect to explore the various interpretations to which the wording is open, they seek to enforce on the Muslims the physical joining of shoulders and feet with one another when standing in the prayer row. The ‘ulama of the madhhabs (that is, the four established schools of Islamic law) have always maintained that this is not how these athar are to be understood.

Imam ‘Allamah Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri (may Allah mercy him) has discussed this issue at some length in his commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, Fayd al-Bari (2:301-302). He explains how it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for people to physically join their shoulders and feet when standing in the prayer row. Those who seek the physical joining of feet and shoulders argue their case pointing at the letter ‘ba’ used in the abovementioned athar. The rule in grammar that ‘al-ba li ‘l-ilsaq’ (the letter ba is used to denote physical contact) is not to be understood in this context as a full physical contact or ilsaq. For, if this were the case, how would they explain the sentence Marartu bi Zayd? Does this mean that the subject (fa’il) of the verb passed by, or with, Zayd whilst physically sticking to him?

When any verse, hadith or athar is ambiguous or open to interpretation, we must look at the practice of the Companions (Sahabah) and the Salaf (those illustrious Muslims who succeeded the Sahabah). It would appear that neither the Companions nor the Salaf were in the habit of physically joining their shoulders and feet in the way that some Muslims so painstakingly do today. Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri states that this interpretation has not been adopted by any of the madhhabs but by the abovementioned Muslims only.

The intention of the athar, with its ambiguous wording, is that the shoulders and feet should be straight and parallel, that there should be no gap for Shaytan between any two people standing in a row, and that the rows should be straight. It does not mean shoulders and feet should be in physical contact. This interpretation is also given by Imam ‘Allamah Badr al-Din al-’Ayni in his monumental ‘Umdat al-Qari (commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari - 5:377) and Imam Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in his unparalleled Fath al-Bari (2:611).

Another explanation given by Imam Kashmiri is that the specific wording could have been not of the noble Companions to whom they are attributed, but of the narrators. This practice is well known in the science of hadith.

In his Lami’ al-Darari ‘ala Jami’ al-Bukhari (1:279), the great shaykh Imam Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi has mentioned some very logical arguments supporting the above interpretations. He writes that physically joining shoulders and feet would only be possible when the shoulders of all those standing in the row are at the same height and their feet are of the same length. Moreover, to do this, all the people standing in the row would have to spend some time before saying the takbir and entering their prayer to get their shoulders and feet in the right place. Clearly, this would be contrary to khushu’, the desired calmness and the spirit of Salah.

After providing similar explanations as the ones mentioned above, ‘Allamah Mawlana Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani in his Imdad al-Ahkam (1:290) states: “Even if [for argument's sake] it is accepted that physical contact of ankles is required by the Shari’ah, the question arises as to whether this is so in every part (rukn) of Salah or just some [parts]. If it is said that it is required in every part, one must ask how this is possible in the sitting posture. If, on the other hand, it is said that physical contact is only required in some parts of Salah, the question would follow as to what evidence has specified these parts of Salah while others are excluded? If it said that the physical contact of ankles is difficult in the sitting posture and therefore it is exempted in such a posture, then we will say the same regarding the standing posture; those standing in the prayer row find this very difficult. One may try doing this and see for themselves…

“The words of the Companion Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) have been reported in Fath al-Bari from Ma’mar: ‘Had I done this with any of them today, he would have fled like a wild ass’ (2:612). This clearly indicates that after the demise of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) Sayyiduna Anas did not join his ankles with people standing next to him in prayer. This is proof that the joining of ankles is not a desired Sunnah act. For, had it been so, none of the Companions would have forsaken it for the fear of others disliking it. People would also dislike a practice only when it is not normally done in Salah. If a practice is normally done in Salah, then there is no reason for people to dislike it. Thus, if the joining of ankles were to be a desired Sunnah, it would have been a general practice of all of the Companions, and the Followers (Tabi’un) would have taken this as a Sunnah element of Salah. Hence, there would have been no reason for anyone to dislike the joining of ankles. Just as it can be understood from the above statement of Sayyiduna Anas that he would avoid joining his ankles with those of others standing next to him fearing they would dislike it, it can be inferred that this practice [of joining ankles] was not the general practice of the Companions or the Followers. This is evidence of its not being a desired Sunnah. This is the reason why [to the best of my knowledge] there is no command to join ankles in the hadith of the beloved Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).”

Bibliography

Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 17 vols (Riyadh: Dar Tayyibah, 2005).

Badr al-Din Abu Muhammad Mahmud ibn Ahmad al-’Ayni, ‘Umdat al-Qari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 25 volumes (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 2001).

Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi, Lami’ al-Darari ‘ala Jami’ al-Bukhari, 3 volumes (Karachi: H M Sa’id, no date).

Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Fayd al-Bari ‘ala Sahih al-Bukhari, 6 volumes (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 2005).



Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani, Imdad al-Ahkam, 4 volumes (Karachi: Maktabah Dar al-’Ulum Karachi, 1421 AH).

Source : Deoband.org

Folding One’s Clothes for Salah

By Shaykh Tameem Ahmadi

Question
A person saw an Islamic program in which it was mentioned that the folding of trousers or shalwar is not permitted due to a hadith stating that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) prohibited the folding of clothes. It was also mentioned in the program that folding trousers from either the bottom or top is not permitted. This is the first time I have heard this. Can the ‘ulama shed some light on this issue?

Answer
In regards to folding one’s clothes while praying and the issue of isbal (wearing one’s garment below the ankles), Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Lami’ al-Darari[1] (vol. 1, pg. 327-28):

“Qadi ‘Iyad considers the tying back of the hair and folding of the clothes undesirable for the person performing salah, this is regardless of whether he does it outside or inside salah, and he mentions that the scholars are unanimous that this does not invalidate the prayer.

“‘Allama ‘Ayni writes in Al-Talwih: ‘The ‘ulama are in consensus that it is makruh (disliked) to pray with the clothes/sleeves folded up, or hair tied up in a bundle, or tucked into the turban. But this is only makruh tanzihi (against the preferred manner; undesirable), so if he does pray in this manner, he has done a wrong, but his prayer will be regarded valid.’

“Mawlana Gangohi says: ‘A person should not pray in such a condition (as mentioned above) because the desired method is that a person prays in the most presentable manner as possible. And the manner in which a person ties his hair back, etc. is against the normal habit of the Arabs; rather their usual habit is that they leave the hair open.’

“Qastallani says: ‘He should not hold his garments with both hands while going into ruku‘ (bowing) and sujud (prostration) because the hair and clothes prostrate along with the worshipper. Also, if a person holds back his hair and clothes from touching the ground, he resembles the arrogant people (who regard it below their dignity to let their clothes touch the ground, even when in worship).’”

From these statements we have understood the following points: [1] To pray with the hair tied back and the clothes folded does not invalidate the salah; [2] to pray in such a manner is makruh tanzihi (against etiquette); [3] One should perform the salah in the most presentable manner; [4] the clothes and hair also prostrate before Allah Most High, thus they should not be held back from doing so; [5] it resembles the action of arrogant and proud people.

Whatever the case may be, all of these statements indicate that to perform salah with folded clothes is against the preferred mode of worship.

As for praying in a condition where the garments are dragging on the ground or are below the ankles, Imam Abu Dawud narrates in his Sunan from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) that there was a person praying in a condition in which his lower garment was hanging below his ankles. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) commanded him to perform wudu’ (ablution) twice and then the Companions inquired from him, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Why did you command him to perform wudu’ and then remained silent?’ The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied: ‘He was praying whilst wearing his lower garment below his ankles, and verily Allah Most High does not accept the salah of a person who hangs his izar (lower garment) below his ankles.’

The following points are to be understood from this hadith:
[1] To hang the garments below the ankles is a major sin; it is for this reason the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) commanded the person to repeat his prayer and ablution as penalization (zajr) and reprimand (tawbikh) as is mentioned by ‘Allamah Tibi and Ibn Qayyim Jawziyya in his Tahdhib al-Sunan.

[2] The hadith is clear and explicit in the fact that the impermissibility of isbal is not conditional to pride and arrogance alone. Rather there are other narrations which clearly state that isbal in itself is a sin and an indication of pride and arrogance is its perpetrator. This is mentioned in the hadith, ‘Beware of hanging the garment below the ankles for indeed, this action in itself is an action of pride and arrogance…’ Narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi from Abu Juray Jabir ibn Sulaym (Allah be pleased with him).

[3] The gravity of the sin of isbal, in which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) commanded the worshiper to repeat his prayer and wudu’, cannot be compared to folding up of the garments which the fuqaha (Islamic jurists) have clearly mentioned to be against etiquette. Rather it will be necessary to fold those garments which are hanging below one’s ankles to abstain from a major sin despite the fact that one might be doing what is against etiquette. For example, if one’s prayer cap falls off the head in prayer, the Islamic jurists have stated that one should put it back on the head with one hand if possible. This action (despite being little) is better than praying bareheaded which is more undesirable than the minimal movement in salah (‘amal qalil).

[4] Isbal (whether done with or without pride) is also against the normal mode of dress of the believers; rather the sign of a believer is that he wears his garment to the middle of the shin, and if not to the middle then he is allowed up to above the ankles. This means that when a person is engaging in isbal he is simultaneously involved in sadl as well, which is wearing the garment in a mode it is not normally to be worn in. He is thus combining many undesirable acts in one.

In regards to this issue our Akabir ‘Ulama have chosen the stance that corresponds to the riwaya (hadith narration with sanad) and diraya (meaning and commentary of hadiths). For further reading, refer to Imdad al-Fatawa (vol. 4, p. 121) and Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyya’s discussion on this in Awjaz al-Masalik.

And Allah Most High knows best.

1. “Written in Arabic, a collection of the unique remarks and observations on Sahih al-Bukhari presented by Shaykh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi . These life-long acquired wisdoms were recorded by his student Shaykh Yahya Kandhlawi (Shaykh Zakariyya’s father) during their lessons. Shaykh Zakariyya edited, arranged, and commented on his father’s compilation, clarifying the text and adding a comprehensive introduction at the beginning.” (White Thread Press, “Shaykh al-Hadith Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi”, http://whitethreadpress.com/authors/shaykh_zakariyya.htm)

Source : Deoband.org

Do Not Despise The Sinners

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Translated by Shaykh Yusuf Laher

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“That person who taunts and ridicules his Muslim brother over a sin from which he has repented, will not die until he himself commits that same sin.”

For example, you come to know that a certain person committed or was involved in a particular sin and you also know that this person has repented from it. To think low of him or to taunt or ridicule him because of that sin, by saying something like: “You are the one who was involved in certain evil actions”, is in itself a sin.

Do Not Despise The Sinners

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Translated by Shaykh Yusuf Laher

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“That person who taunts and ridicules his Muslim brother over a sin from which he has repented, will not die until he himself commits that same sin.”

For example, you come to know that a certain person committed or was involved in a particular sin and you also know that this person has repented from it. To think low of him or to taunt or ridicule him because of that sin, by saying something like: “You are the one who was involved in certain evil actions”, is in itself a sin.

Through repentance a person has corrected his relationship with Allah Most High. Through repentance not only has the sin been forgiven, it has also been erased from his book of deeds! Allah Most High has erased it from his book of deeds but you, because of that sin, are thinking low of him and treating him with contempt. You are taunting and ridiculing him. This action is extremely despised by Allah Most High.

This is regarding a person whom you know has repented. If you don’t know whether he has repented or not, then there is always this possibility that he, being a mu’min (believer), has repented or will repent in the future. Therefore, if someone has committed a sin and you do not know whether he has repented or not, you still do not have the right to hold him in contempt. It is possible that he has repented. Remember! Abhorrence should be for the sin and not the sinner! Hatred should be for sins. Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not teach us to despise those who sin.

On the other hand, the sinner is worthy of pity and compassion, for this distressed person has been overtaken by a sickness. If a person is overtaken by a physical sickness, do you abhor his sickness or the person who is sick? Does the sick person become the target of your hatred? Obviously, the sick person is not deserving of your hatred. Yes, despise his sickness. Concern yourself with removing his sickness, so make du’a. The sick person should not be the target of hatred. He should be pitied for the reason that this poor person is caught up in a difficulty.

If someone is a kafir (disbeliever) then despise his kufr (disbelief), do not despise him. Make du’a for him that Allah Most High grants him guidance. Amin. How much did the kuffar (disbelievers) not persecute the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)? They shot at him with arrows, they pelted stones at him, and his body bled from various places, but the words that flowed from his mouth were the following:

“O Allah! Grant my people guidance, for they do not know the reality” (of this din).

Take note that that he did not despise them because of their kufr, shirk (associating partners with Allah), oppression and transgressions. Rather, while expressing pity and affection, he made du’a for them that ‘O Allah! These people are ignorant. They are unaware of the reality; therefore they are treating me in this manner. O Allah! Grant them guidance’.

So when seeing someone involved in sin, have pity on him and make du’a for him and try to steer him away from sin. Advise and counsel him but do not think low of him. Perhaps Allah accepts his repentance and he surpasses you in the sight of Allah.

I have heard the following words of advice of Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi from my respected father, Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ and ‘Arif Billah Dr. Abdul Hayy ‘Arifi (may Allah have mercy on them): “I consider every current Muslim and every non Muslim, as far as the future is concerned to be superior to me.” “As far as the future is concerned” means that although the person is presently in the condition of kufr, maybe Allah Most High grants him the tawfiq (guidance) of repenting and he is freed from the burden of kufr. Thereafter, Allah Most High raises his status so high that he surpasses me!

“Every current Muslim” means that a person who is a Muslim, a person of iman (true faith), one whom Allah Most High has granted the wealth of iman. What do I know regarding his connection and status with Allah Most High? Every person’s relationship with Allah Most High is unique. How can we judge anyone? Therefore, I consider every Muslim to be superior to me.

In this statement of Hakim al-Ummah, “I consider every Muslim to be superior to me”, there is obviously no possibility of lies and deception, or that he just said it out of moral courtesy. He said it because he firmly believed it. Anyway, to think low of someone, even though it is due to his committing of sin, is not permissible.

This malady of regarding others with contempt is found mostly in people who have reformed and turned towards din (Islam). They were not concerned with din previously but now have changed and became steadfast on salah and fasting. They have made their dressing and appearance in conformity with the Shari’ah. They have started frequenting the masjid. They have become regular in performing salah with congregation.[1] Satan induces such a person with this thought that you are now on the straight path. These people who are involved in sin are ruined. The result of this thought is that he starts thinking low of them and treats them with contempt. He now starts criticizing them in a hurtful manner. This results in Satan involving such people in vanity, self-regard and pride. When a person suffers from self-regard and pride, all his good actions are destroyed.

When a person’s gaze falls on himself that he is pious and others are bad then he is caught up in vanity. Vanity causes all good actions to become worthless. Only that action is acceptable which is done with sincerity for Allah Most High alone. After performing the action the person makes shukr (gives thanks) unto Allah Most High that He granted me the tawfiq to perform this action (if He did not grant me the tawfiq, I would never have been able to carry out this action).

Therefore, do not treat anyone with contempt. Do not think low of any non-Muslim or any sinner.

It is mentioned in a hadith that when seeing a person afflicted with any sickness, recite the following du’a:

All praises are due unto Allah, who has granted me safety from that which he has afflicted you with, and granted me well-being over many of the creation. (Al-Hisn al-Hasin, p.349)

It is sunnah to recite this du’a when seeing an afflicted person. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) taught us this (Note: it should be recited softly lest the afflicted person is offended).

Shaykh Dr. Abdul Hayy ‘Arifi (may Allah have mercy on him) used to say: “Whenever I pass by a hospital, then, praises be to Allah, I always recite this du’a.” He would also make du’a that Allah grants the sick good health.

One of my teachers used to say that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) taught us to recite this du’a when seeing a sick person, but I also recite it when seeing someone involved in sin. Sometimes when walking on the road I see people lined up at the cinema houses purchasing tickets. I recite this du’a on seeing them. Then I make shukr unto Allah Most High that He has saved me from this sin.

The reason for reciting this du’a when seeing a person involved in sin is that just as a physically sick person is worthy of pity, so is the sinner worthy of pity and sympathy, for he is also caught up in a predicament. Also, make du’a for him that: “O Allah! Remove this difficulty from him.”

It should be known that those who are presently involved in sin and you consider them low and worthy of contempt may later on receive the tawfiq of repentance and surpass you! So for what reason are you boasting? If you have been granted the tawfiq of abstaining from sin then make shukr unto Allah Most High. If they haven’t as yet received the tawfiq, then make du’a for them that Allah Most High grants them guidance and grants them relief from their afflictions. Amin.

Anyway, despise kufr, despise sin and transgression, but do not despise the person. In fact, you should treat him with love and kindness. When you speak to him, speak with softness and affection. Speak with feeling and love so that it may have a good effect on him. This was always the method of all our pious elders.

I heard this story of Hadrat Junayd al-Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on him) from my respected father Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ (may Allah have mercy on him). While passing a certain place, Hadrat Junayd saw a person hanging from the gallows, whose hands and one leg was amputated. He inquired from the people regarding this person. The people informed him that this person was a habitual thief. His hand was cut when he was caught the first time. His leg was cut when caught the second time. Now on the third occasion he has been hanged. Hadrat Junayd went forward and kissed the dead man’s foot. People said to him: “This man was such a big and habitual thief, and you kissed his feet?” He replied: “Although he had committed such a big crime and sin for which he has been punished, but he had a wonderful quality in him, and that is steadfastness (istiqamah). Although he used this quality in a wrong way, however, he remained steadfast on the manner of his chosen occupation. His hand was amputated but he never left his choice. His leg was amputated yet he remained steadfast on theft. His other hand was amputated and still he did not give up his occupation. He remained steadfast on theft until finally his life has been taken. It is now apparent that he had the quality of steadfastness in him and I kissed his foot because of this quality.” May Allah Most High grant us this quality in our worship and obedience unto Him. Amin.

Anyway, the pious servants of Allah do not despise people but despise the evils perpetrated by them. They (the pious) go to the extent of saying that if an evil person has any good qualities in him then those good qualities should be striven for! Concern yourself with trying to remove the bad qualities in a person by speaking to him with love and affection. Speak only to him and do not speak to others about him.

It is mentioned in a hadith:

“A believer (mu’min) is a mirror to another believer”

[Abu Dawud]. If a person has a spot on his face and stands in front of a mirror, the mirror will reflect that spot on his face. The mirror is showing him his defects. In the same way, a believer is also a mirror to another believer. When a believer sees another with a defect, he should inform him with love and affection that you have this certain weakness in you, remove it.

It is just like when a person has a worm or any insect crawling on him, then out of concern you inform him that there is an insect crawling on him, so remove it. Similarly, if a Muslim brother has a dini defect in him, then with love and affection, inform him that he has this defect in him, because a believer is a mirror to another believer.

Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi says that this hadith teaches us that when you see a fault in another person, then inform only that person of this fault, do not tell it to others. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) compared a believer to a mirror. The mirror only exposes the spot on the face to the person standing in front of it and not to others. Thus, the duty of a believer is to inform the person involved that he has a certain weakness in him and not to inform others of his weakness. If a person also tells others then it implies that he has acted upon his own evil desires and this will not be an act of din anymore. If he only informs and advises the afflicted person with love and concern, then this is what iman (true faith) and brotherhood demands. But to despise or think low of him is not permissible under any circumstance.

May Allah Most High grant us the understanding and the guidance to practice on this. Amin.

1. Obviously this is not always the case. There are those among the reformed who are not like this. Also, there are those who have always been regular on their din but suffer from this malady. The respected author is saying that this malady is mostly found in such people, but not always. (Translator) ?

Source : Deoband.org

Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

By Shaykh Yusuf Mullan

The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern skeptic and atheist in mind. Drawing from the works of Imam al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) and others, each premise is accompanied with an explanation of the exact ‘manner of deduction’ (kayfiyyat al-wazn), so the reader may appreciate exactly what is being done.

Using only intuitively deductive modes of argument which have their origin in the Qur’an and which no sane human being can reject, the argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (ithbat al-wajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, Who created him? This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (musta’hilat).

Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

By Shaykh Yusuf Mullan

The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern skeptic and atheist in mind. Drawing from the works of Imam al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) and others, each premise is accompanied with an explanation of the exact ‘manner of deduction’ (kayfiyyat al-wazn), so the reader may appreciate exactly what is being done.

Using only intuitively deductive modes of argument which have their origin in the Qur’an and which no sane human being can reject, the argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (ithbat al-wajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, Who created him? This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (musta’hilat).

Certain areas where the doubt casters attempt to undermine our proof have been given extra attention. Most major objections have been dealt with in the main body of the article.

Premise 1: [I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say:] The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.

The purpose of the first premise is to prepare a subject and place it in a class based on a consideration relevant to our argument. Here the subject is the movement of my hand. Is this act something or is it nothing? Obviously, it is something. What do we call it? Let’s agree on a term. Given that prior to my initiating this movement, my hand was in my lap. It was stationary. When I lifted it, it began to move. The movement which was not there earlier, only now began to exist. Based on this obvious reality, we suggest that the predicate for the first premise should be ’something which began to exist’. We will ask our opponent, whether this is an accurate categorization or not. We maintain that this is simple conveyance of meaning based on clear use of language. In the first premise we are not ‘proving’ anything. We rely on one-time direct observation in validating this first premise. It does not involve any experiment, induction or deduction.

‘Beginning to exist’ is a simple meaning which is clear. What it contains is the simple notion of a previously non-existent act entering into the realm of extra-mental existence. What else do we intend by this phrase? Do we have any elaborate notions regarding this phrase? We say, this is an irrelevant question. Forget what we believe. Do you or do you not accept that the hand was stationary. Subsequent to that, it began moving. What problem can there then be, if we choose to call it exactly what it is.

If one needs to contrast the phrase with something which did not begin to exist, then this is very easy. Any imaginary movement can be used to illustrate the opposite of ‘beginning to exist’. We obviously believe in more than this which will be the ultimate conclusion of the entire argument. The point is, that our first premise does not in any way depend on this conclusion. In order to accept the idea of ‘beginning to exist’ one is not required to acknowledge at the very outset an extra-mentally existing Entity which never began to exist, i.e. eternally existent. This is not the only opposite to our phrase ’something which began to exist’. The more obvious and universally agreed upon opposite are those possible acts which have yet to begin. Any yet to exist possible act will suffice. We can now move to the second premise.[1]

Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

In this second premise we have taken the predicate of the previous premise (something which began to exist) and have made a universal judgment upon it. If we are successful in demonstrating the truth of this universal judgment, then by rational necessity whatever we say here regarding ‘things which begin to exist’ as a class will need to extend to the subject of our first proposition, i.e. the movement of my hand. This is an intuitively valid form of deduction. We call it the Great Rule of Equivalence. It involves 2 premises; a minor one which simply prepares a subject and makes it belong to a class, and a major premise which takes the class and makes a universal judgment on it. The purpose is to extend the judgment on the class to the particular contained within the minor premise.

The Great Rule is very powerful and, as mentioned, intuitively deductive. It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction. The brilliant example of this given by al-Ghazali in the Qistas is that of an animal with an inflated stomach. We see it in front of us and someone claims that it is pregnant. The animal happens to be a mule. In order to disprove the assertion of whoever claimed it was pregnant, you will have to do 2 things in a particular order. Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the animal is indeed a mule. Otherwise, whatever claim you make about mules, even if u can prove it, will be totally irrelevant. Hence the first step would be to observe the animal and determine that it is definitely a mule. Once done, you can now draw attention to the fact that all mules (as a class) are sterile. You will ask, Do you not know that this animal is a mule? The person will say, Yes… Do you not know that all mules as a class are sterile? He will reply, Yes… Now you know that the animal standing in front of us is not pregnant.[2]

How then do we demonstrate the truth of the proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’? Is it by accepting this to be a self-evident axiom not in need of being proven, or is it done by surveying the particulars of the principle, i.e. by way of induction, or by way of some other method? We say, it is indeed a self-evident truth. It is one of those things which are ingrained in our very nature. This knowledge is not ‘acquired’ through experience. Instead it is used in arguments to prove other less self-evidently true claims. Had it been inductive, an old person, 70 years of age would be more convinced of its veracity [because of having many more opportunities to have tested the principle] than say a child of 8 or 9 years. This however is definitely not the case. Children and old people share exactly the same degree of conviction regarding this principle. Furthermore, we draw attention to the fact that knowledge of real extra-mental things in the world is something we do not doubt. This knowledge however is based entirely on the causality principle. If you were to enter a room with your eyes closed, you would not know what is in the room. When you open your eyes, only then, knowledge of what is in the room will be gained for you. We say, if you do not have doubt regarding knowledge of the real existence of the things in the room, you should also not doubt the principle which was the basis for this knowledge. This is what we mean when we say that this principle is self-evidently true. Another example of something which is self-evidently true is the impossibility of contradiction.

As far as the truth of our second premise is concerned, many will be satisfied with what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some will naturally need more. Not a problem. We have a second method of demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is nothing more than taking one 1st principle (the causality principle) and returning it to another more clear 1st principle, namely the impossibility of contradiction. The questions to our opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be true? If these three obvious points are conceded, we may proceed:

The direct opposite of ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’. Anything which begins to exist by definition can not be necessarily existent [whether such a category actually exists or not is not the point currently. Our opponent is free to believe that it is purely hypothetical]. Otherwise it would have been existent since eternity past. Similarly, it can not be impossible because impossible things do not happen in which case it would not have begun to exist. Since such a thing can neither be necessary, nor impossible, it must be merely possible (another word for which is contingent). Therefore, with respect to the very nature of such a thing, both existence and non-existence are equal. That it is to say, there is nothing in its very nature which requires existence (since it is not necessary), nor is there anything in its very nature which requires non-existence (since it is also not impossible). Thus the two are indeed equal.

Whenever any contingent being [or attribute, act, event] leaves the realm of non-existence and becomes existent [such as the movement of my hand, subsequent to it being stationary in my lap] , it will necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over its non-existence. Otherwise, this is impossible on account of involving preponderance without a preferrer. This is a contradiction because it leads to non-equality in existence and non-existence of that wherein equality of the two was assumed [in the previous paragraph]. Since contradictions are impossible, our antithesis ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ is definitely false. Since both a thesis and its antithesis can not be false, our original proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is necessarily true.

The conclusion of the argument until this point is:

Premise 3: Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.

The above concludes the first leg of our argument. We will now take the conclusion arrived at from the above, namely ‘a cause’ and make it the subject of a new argument using another mode of argument called the Rule of Opposition. But before this, let us remind that in all of the above steps what we did not do is mention the word God. Not even once. Even the term ‘necessarily existent’ only occurred once, and that too in a hypothetical context. The phrase ‘eternally existent’ similarly occurred once in order to illustrate that the first premise did not rely on our adversary’s acceptance of eternal existence. This is an important point, namely that the above steps were clearly traversed without any reliance on our ultimate conclusion or anything entailed thereby. Therefore, it is accurate when we say, we did not expect our adversary to entertain any notion which he does not already believe to be true.

Having arrived at the conclusion in step 3, we are now ready to introduce the Rule of Opposition. This is another intuitively deductive mode of argument the veracity of which no sane human being can doubt. The example of it is that of a man whom we observe walking into a house through the door. The house has only two rooms and no windows. We then follow him through the door and look for him in one of the two rooms. We do not find him to be there. What is the conclusion? He must by rational necessity be in the other. He can not be in neither. So, sometimes our knowledge of him being in a particular room is by observing him there directly, and at other times it is by finding the other room empty of him.

In the previous argument we established with zero probability of the opposite alternative that the movement of my hand definitely has a cause. Now, we will restrict this conclusion of the previous argument within two exhaustive possibilities. One of these two will be based on what our adversary understands from causality and existence. We will tailor for him a very specific analogy in order to demonstrate that the cause for the movement of my hand can not be what he understands from both causality and existence. This will be because his side of the disjunction involves glaring absurdities which are universally accepted. Contradiction is impossible. Therefore his side of the disjunction is likewise impossible. This will force us to look into the other side of the disjunction. Naturally, this other side, by rational necessity, will need to contain whatever it takes to remove the absurdities inherent within the false side of the disjunction. Just as both of our positions can not be true at the same time, it is not possible for both to be false at the same time. One will necessarily need to be true, while the other will need to be false. This is the Rule of Opposition.

Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.

This has been thoroughly explained in the previous section. The B side of the disjunction is our true claim. It is yet to be proven. Do not worry. We will do that towards the end of the argument. Placing it right there in the premise for the world to see is totally valid, since we are now dealing with a disjunction. It will be our task to illustrate how side A involves glaring absurdities, and how these absurdities can not be removed in any way except by accepting what we will place on the B side of the disjunction. This is what the Rule of Opposition is supposed to do after all.

Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.

To claim that the cause which resulted in the movement of my hand was of the very same nature as the movement itself, namely something which itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this necessitates that the movement of my hand remain in the realm of non-existence, whereas in premise 1 we confirmed that the hand did move.

If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur.

At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of: Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime. Existence and causality can not occur independent of spacetime. Therefore, the journey stops at this event. If you want to continue the journey beyond this point, you must bring proof.

We will reply thus: Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite time in the past [based on whatever consideration] is itself unwarranted and unjustified based on your own principles. We do not entertain any of this. Our position is yet to be explained. Do not worry.

If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series.

In utter desperation, he or she will now ask, OK, you tell us, what happened? You will inadvertently say, there was an Entity in the background all along who pulled the trigger for the first soldier. Where did this Entity come from? He was never part of the equation. This is absurd. If you can entertain this absurdity, I can claim that the very first unit in the series occurred causelessly. What’s the difference?

We will respectfully remind them at this point that we are still discussing their side of the disjunction. There are no soldiers for us, as will become clear very shortly. Be patient. This whole analogy was carefully tailored to reflect only our adversary’s notions of existence and causality. This is why there is no such Entity as part of the equation. We are not being gratuitous. Not at all.

From the above, it is quite clear that the movement of my hand can absolutely not have been caused by something which is of the same nature as the movement itself, namely contingent.[3] This is because, for the cause to be contingent results in an infinite series of causes going back in the past which can never be traversed and concluded. Since the series can never be concluded, the movement of my hand can never have had a chance to exist, whereas we confirmed that the hand did move. Both the movement of my hand (Premise 1) and the non-existence of this movement (Premise 5) at the same time is a contradiction. Therefore, side A of the disjunction is clearly impossible.

Premise 6: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].

This brings us to the conclusion of our argument. There is not much left for us to do at this point! Everything has already been explained in sufficient detail. Having disproved the false side of the disjunction, naturally, the only way my hand could have moved, since that could not have happened causelessly (Premise 2), and it also could not have happened based on a contingent cause (Premise 5) — the true reason my hand moved must have been by the creation of a necessarily existent being, free of all of the properties which led to the glaring absurdities discussed above. This must be so. This Entity can not have a beginning for its existence. Otherwise He too would need a cause [or Creator], thus bringing us back to the soldiers.

This not having a beginning coupled with positing the non-existence of the Entity leading to absurdity is exactly what we mean by necessary existence. Nothing else. At this stage of the argument it is not a claim. It is not something we are respectfully asking our skeptic to entertain. No. It is the very conclusion proven through a compelling argument, with zero probability of the opposite alternative. The whole point behind this is my hand did move. There is no doubt about that. Making the movement dependent on any of the things discussed until now leads to its non-occurrence, which contradicts its beginning to exist. Therefore, we will have to entertain whatever it takes to remove the absurdities. There is no other way.

Part of this ‘whatever it takes to remove the absurdities’ is will, power and knowledge, constitutive of which is life. Will, power and knowledge can not occur without life. Along with the essence of this necessarily existent being [which we can not comprehend due to our limited intellects], we argue that there is something there on the B side of the disjunction which is specifying the time, place, quality, quantity etc. of all the bodies, attributes and events occurring in the universe. We will call this ’something’ will. So that by which the specification of the contingent beings occurs is will, and that by which they are brought into existence is power. Furthermore, a necessarily existent Being who creates based on specification, can not create what he does not know.

Finally, He must be one. Because if there were multiple such necessarily existent beings then the removal of the absurdities discussed above could have alternatively been attributed to either of the two, thus resulting in the other being dismissible. This contradicts the necessary existence of that other, whereas we assumed them both to be necessarily existent. This is a contradiction, and what led to it must be impossible, namely the positing of multiple necessarily existent being. Therefore, He must by rational necessity be one.

1. What this means is that the true division according to us is a three-way division: 1. Things which began to exist, 2. Possible things which are yet to actually begin. Instead they remain in the realm of imagination e.g. a hypothetical movement of my hand which could have occurred, but did not, 3. The necessarily existent Entity which exists in a real sense and has no beginning.

The opponent agrees with us on the first two types but denies this third one. According to him everything which exists [period] has a beginning. According to him, there is no such thing as an Entity which exists and yet has no beginning. In other words, our opponent maintains only a two-way division, instead of a three-way division like we do.

The point behind this paragraph in the article is to illustrate that in order for the phrase ’something which begins to exist’ to be meaningful, all we are requiring from our opponent is to accept the agreed upon two-way division. He is free to believe that everything which exists [without exception] has a beginning. We will force him to the third type (which is our ultimate conclusion) through the remaining steps of the argument.


2. Before moving on to demonstrate the truth of our second premise we need to clear up quickly one objection the doubt casters like to use to undermine our proof. They think very highly of what is to come. I think the objection is complete nonsense and doesn’t apply to begin with. For this reason, I’m placing it in the footnotes for anyone interested. They claim that the statement ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is a mere tautology, void of any real meaning. There is no room for this objection, but they like to keep repeating it. They are suggesting that our premise is a mere wordplay. According to them, ‘Everything which begins to exist’ [based on our elaborate understanding of it] already contains the idea of causality. Thus it is a redundant and repetitive statement similar to ‘All bachelors are unmarried’. Since that is the case, the premise does not even convey any new information.

We say, our adversary forgets that he or she already agreed with us, when we asked about the movement of my hand and whether it is accurate to call that movement something which began to exist. He or she forgets that it is this very term agreed upon between us in the earlier premise which is being carried forward to the second premise. Forget our own elaborate understanding. Concentrate on what the words actually mean. So, if the term already contains causality, then this is what we want from them in the first place. By agreeing to the term earlier, they have simply relieved us from one step in the argument. The truth is that this criticism is utter garbage. They know very well that causality is not constitutive of ‘beginning to exist’ just like the angles of a triangle totaling 180 degrees is not constitutive of the reality of a triangle. Meaning it is possible to conceive a triangle which is nothing more than a figure encompassed by three sides without being aware of the reality of the angles needing to total 180 degrees. In exactly the same way, beginning to exist is something, and having a cause is something else. Yes. The two are definitely concomitant and it is not possible for something to begin to exist and not have a cause [as we will demonstrate in the main proof], just like a triangle can not exist without its angles totaling 180 degrees. But does that mean causality is contained within the very meaning of beginning to exist? This is nonsense. This is an objection brought solely to undermine our proof with no other justification besides not wanting us to use the premise.


3. As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist. So, if one attributes the movement of my hand to immediately preceding organs, tissues and skeletal muscles, while attributing these earlier movements to the flow of blood and neurological phenomena– if one claims that these are the only reasons why things begin to exist, we will place the soldiers in front of them and ask for a reply. Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation. It is not causality in the sense that was established in the second premise. The Creator who created the movement of my hand through his will, power and knowledge and maintains my existence at each and every moment has chosen for the world to function in this way. He creates the earlier events and also creates the subsequent events. His habit is for these things to always co-exist. To those who are unaware of the true reality, this gives the impression of causality between these events. The rational mind, however, understands that incomplete induction is no proof which could lead to absolute certainty. Our repeated observations of fire burning does not necessarily entail that it is the fire that does the actual burning. This is because no matter how many times we make the observation, we will never be able to make complete induction. We can thus never claim that it will always be the case.

Every now and then, the Creator, Exalted be He, will do something which contradicts the normal pattern based on His infinite wisdom and in order to guide His creation to the truth. This is the basis of miracles. A miracle is an act of God done contrary to the normal pattern of observed cause and effect. In the case of a miracle, He will do this in order to strengthen a Prophet in his claim to prophethood. The act thus stands in the place of the Almighty Himself saying, ‘My servant has spoken the truth’.

Source : Deoband.org

The Concept of Bid’ah in the Shari’ah

By Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad 'Uthmani
Translated by Zameelur Rahman

Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated to me: ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn ‘Abd al-Majid narrated to us: from Ja’far ibn Muhammad: from his father: from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah, he said:

When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would deliver a sermon, his eyes became red, his voice rose, and his anger intensified, so it was as though he was warning against an army, saying, “The [enemy] has made a morning attack on you and an evening attack on you.” He would say: “The Hour and I have been sent like these two” and would join his forefinger and middle finger. And he would say: “As for what follows. The best of speech is the Book of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. And the most evil of affairs are their innovations; and every bid’ah is misguidance.”

Mawlid, Deoband and Hanafi fiqh

By Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Ashraf 'Ali Thanawi
Translated by Hamood Aleem

There are three types of mawlid gatherings and the ruling for each is different.

First Type

The first type of gathering is that which does not contain any of the prevalent and customary restrictions (quyud). Neither [does it contain] mubah (permissible) restrictions nor makruh (prohibitively disliked) ones, i.e., it is free from all [sorts of] restrictions. For instance, a few people gathered by coincidence, no one had invited them with any extraordinary effort; rather they were gathered for some other permissible event. In this gathering, either by reading from a book or by delivering a lecture, the blessed event of the birth and the characteristics, habits, miracles and virtues of our Radiant Master (Allah bless him and give him peace), the Lord of the Universe, the Source of Pride for the Prophet Adam (may Allah’s peace be upon him), were narrated based on sound sources.

During this narration, if the need was felt to enjoin good actions and discuss religious rulings and one proceeded in doing so without hesitation or this gathering was held to listen to a religious discourse and within it these blessed events and virtues were narrated, then this is the type [of mawlid] that is permissible without any objection. Moreover, it is sunnah and mustahabb (recommended).

The Honorable Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) narrated his personal events and virtues in a similar way and later his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated them, the chain of which continues through the hadith scholars of present with the blessings of Allah Most High and it will continue until the end of time.[1]

Second Type

The second type of gathering is that which contains unlawful restrictions, which in their essence are detestable and sinful. For instance, the relating of fabricated narrations that did not occur; the recitation of odes by charming and sweet-voiced young boys; the spending of unlawful money [earned] from bribes or usury on this [gathering]; exceeding what is necessary by extravagantly lighting, carpeting and decorating the venue; making an extraordinary effort to gather people, the likes of which is not even made for congregational salah or a lecture; insulting and dishonoring Allah Most High or the Prophets (may Allah’s peace be upon them) explicitly or implicitly in prose and poetry; missing salah in congregation or missing it altogether due to attending this gathering or if due to it little time for performing salah remains or a strong possibility of this happening exists; the chief organizer of the event is holding it to boast and gain popularity; considering the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) omnipresent (hadir wa nadir) in the gathering, or the existence of any other unlawful action of these types (above). This is the type [of mawlid] which is mostly rampant among the masses and the ignorant ones, and is considered completely impermissible and sinful in Shari’ah.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“Whoever tells lies about me, let him take his place in Hellfire.”

It was narrated that Sayyiduna Hafsa ibn ‘Asim (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

‘It is sufficient for a man to be considered a liar to speak of everything that he hears’”

[Muslim].

It is understood from these hadiths that great care should be practiced when relating narrations. To narrate hadiths without knowledge and research is a sin and it is especially a great misfortune when one wrongly attributes an action to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).

Sayyiduna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“Music grows hypocrisy in the heart as water grows herbage”

[Sunan al-Bayhaqi].

It is understood from this hadith that singing is blameworthy, especially where the possibility of fitna (temptation) exists such as the singing of an attractive woman.

Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give peace) said:

“Allah the Exalted is Pure and He only accepts that which is pure. Allah has indeed commanded the believers with what He has commanded the Messengers, He said, ‘O (you) Messengers! Eat of all things pure, and do righteous deeds,’ (Al-Mu'minuun 23:51) and, ‘O you who believe! Eat of the lawful things that We have provided you’ (Al-Baqarah 2:172). Then he mentioned a case of the man who sets out on a long journey, his hair becomes ruffled and his face is covered with dust and he raises his hand towards heaven and supplicates, ‘O Lord, O Lord’, while his food is unlawful and his drink is unlawful and his sustenance is unlawful, how would the supplication of such a person find acceptance?”

[Muslim].

From this hadith it is understood that no matter how sincere one is in worship, unlawful wealth renders it worthless. Moreover, the sin which remains upon this person for spending unlawful wealth is separate.

Allah Most High says in the Qur’an:

“Do not be extravagant”

[Al-A'raaf 7:31] and He says:

“Surely, squanderers are brothers of Satan, and Satan is very ungrateful to his Lord”

[Al-Isra' 17:27]. Any expenditure without a lawful objective is included in this (extravagance and squandering), regardless if it is [spent on] lighting or other formalities.

On the issue of dress and unlawful appearance, the hadiths which have been narrated are mentioned in the first chapter [of the book Islah al-Rusum]. There is no need to repeat them here.

Sayyiduna Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“By Him in Whose hands is my life (Allah the Almighty), necessarily you should enjoin good and forbid evil, or else Allah will certainly send chastisement upon you. And then you will pray but your supplications will not be accepted.”

[Al-Tirmidhi]

[Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) relates from] Sayyiduna Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: “‘Uthman ibn Abi al-’As (may Allah be pleased with him) was invited to a circumcision, but he declined the invitation. Asked why, he answered: ‘In the days of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) we did not go to circumcisions and we were not invited’” (Musnad Imam Ahmad, 4/217). It is understood from this narration that to invite individuals for an event which is not established from the Sunnah was something a Companion of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) disliked and refused to attend.

From this we can ascertain that invitation is proof of [making] extraordinary effort. If the Shari’ah does not place extraordinary importance on a matter, to make extraordinary effort for it is inventing in the religion. For this reason, when Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) saw people gathered for duha (forenoon) prayer in the mosque, he declared it an innovation (bid’ah). Based on this, the fuqaha (jurists) consider supererogatory (nafl) prayer in congregation makruh[2].

No explanation is needed on [the obviousness of] the kufr (disbelief) and blameworthiness of insulting Allah Most High, the Prophets or the Angels. Which Muslim denies this [act of kufr]? Despite this, many ignorant poets are involved in it. It is not permissible to compose such poetry nor is it permissible to read or listen to it.

Similarly, it is obvious that missing congregational prayer or wasting time is impermissible because the means (dhari’ah) to a sin is also a sin. It is because of this the prohibition for having conversations after ‘isha prayer is related in a hadith. The reason — mentioned in the hadith commentaries for this prohibition — is due to the hindrance it may cause in [waking up for] tahajjud or morning (fajr) prayers.

Similarly, everyone is aware of the prohibition of ostentation and vanity because that which leads to haram (a prohibited act) is also haram. It is mentioned in a hadith that [Sayyiduna 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:]

“He who wears the clothing of fame in this world will be dressed in humiliating clothes on the Day of Judgment”

[Abu Dawud]. In another hadith, Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“Verily, even a little ostentation (riya’) is shirk”

[Ibn Majah].

Omnipresence (being hadir wa nadir) is dependent on knowledge (‘ilm) and power (qudrah), since the knowledge and power of Allah Most High is Most Perfect (kamil), He is omnipresent at all times and in all places. If this belief about the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) or the anbiya’ (prophets) and awliya’ (saints) is based on the understanding that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has this knowledge and power in essence like the belief of some ignorant individuals then this is shirk. This is even if it (omnipresence of the Prophet) is considered to be less than that of Allah Most High because it is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an that the mushrikin (polytheists) of Arabia were engaged in shirk. It is also established by the Qur’an that they did not consider their demigods equal to Allah.

If it is believed that Allah Most High informs and gives permission [to the Prophet] then this will not be shirk although [such a belief] without having a basis in the Shar’iah is certainly a sin. This is because everyone knows that lying is prohibited. A lie, just as it is uttered by the tongue, is also present in the heart since that is where it originates. It reaches the tongue [from the heart] such that suspicion (or mistrust) is merely an action of the heart. In relation to this, Allah Most High says in the Qur’an,

“O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible), for suspicion in some cases is a sin.”

[Al-Hujuraat 49:12] and it comes in a hadith that Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“I warn you of suspicion, for suspicion is the most false form of talk.”

[Al-Bukhaari]

In short, due to these [above mentioned] unlawful actions this [mawlid] gathering also becomes unlawful. Participating in this gathering is not correct either. Nowadays most gatherings are of this sort. If all of the impermissible actions are not present in them, at least some of them are almost certainly present. A single unlawful action is enough for a gathering to be deemed unlawful, as it is obvious.

Third type

This is the gathering in which neither is there the sort of disengagement and informality that is found in the first type [of mawlid gathering] nor are there any unlawful restrictions like those found in the second type. Even though this gathering does contain restrictions, they are lawful (halal) and permissible (mubah) in their essence, such as [mentioning] authentic and reliable narrations [in the gathering]; the presence of a trustworthy and pious orator; the absence of opportunities to arouse illicit desires; the spending of lawful and pure (tayyib) wealth on the gathering; the decorations [at this place] do not reach the boundaries of wasteful spending (israf); the attendees of this gathering are dressed in accordance with the Shari’ah although if someone, by chance, does come dressed in violation of the Shari’ah then the speaker, if he has authority to do so, does not refrain from enjoining good and in a similar way, in accordance with the situation, he speaks about other important rulings; if there is recitation of poetry then it is not accompanied with music; the content [of the lecture] does not exceed the limits of the Shari’ah; no exaggeration is employed in informing and inviting people [to the gathering]; no hindrance is created in any compulsory form of worship due to attending this gathering; the intention of the person who organized the event is sincere, i.e., he does it merely to attain blessings and for the love of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace); and if the vocative case (sighah al-nida) is used, it is used with absolute assurance — backed by strong evidence — that the attendees are not deficient in their understanding that they will begin considering the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be Omnipresent (Hadir wa Nadir) and the Knower of Unseen (‘Alim al-Ghayb).

If the gathering is free from all other types of evils as well but it includes things such as sweets, standing up (qiyam), carpeting, pulpit, incenses and similar things, which in their essence are not unlawful, then this is the type of gathering of extremely cautious individuals which maybe rarely occurs. Thus, this type of gathering is neither absolutely permissible like the first type, nor is it absolutely impermissible like the second type.

On [the issue of] permissibility, there is some detail, which will be mentioned soon. Before these details are discussed, there are certain principles of Islamic law worth mentioning, which will be helpful in understanding the discussion [which follow the principles].

First Principle

To consider an unnecessary action necessary and emphatic in one’s ‘aqidah (belief) or to consistently act upon it with such persistence that it equals or exceeds the amount of effort put into obligatory (fard) or compulsory (wajib) acts — such that it is considered blameworthy to leave this action and the one who leaves it worthy of rebuke — then these two actions are prohibited. This is because this involves breaking the rulings of Shari’ah. Restricting (taqyid), stipulating (ta’yin), specifying (takhsis), making mandatory (iltizam), delimiting (tahdid), etc. are [all] from the variations of this principle and issue. Allah Most High has said in the Qur’an that whoever exceeds the limits set by Allah Most High is from the oppressors.

Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “You should not give away a part of your prayer to Satan by thinking that it is necessary to depart [after finishing the prayer] from one’s right side only; I have seen the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) often leave from the left side” [al-Bukhaari]. Al-Tibi, the commentator of Mishkat al-Masabih, said that it is learned from this hadith that whoever insists on a mustahabb (recommended) matter and is determined in strictly adhering to it (‘azimah) without ever making exception (rukhsah), i.e., acting upon its opposite, then Satan takes his part in misguiding this person. So, what can be said regarding that person who insists upon a bid’ah or an evil action (i.e., an unlawful belief or action)?

The author of Majma’ said that it is learned from this hadith that sometimes a mandub (recommended) action becomes makruh if it is thought that it will exceed in its rank. Based on this, Hanafi jurists have declared the specifying of surahs in prayer as makruh, regardless if the adherence is in belief or practice. This matter has been clearly mentioned in Fath al-Qadir. [Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that] the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“Do not single out the night [preceding] Friday among the nights for prayer and do not single out Friday among days for fasting but only when anyone among you is accustomed to fast [on dates] which coincide with this day (Friday).”

[Muslim]

Second Principle

A mubah action, in fact even a mustahabb one, becomes unlawful and prohibited due to the joining of an unlawful action with it. For example, going to a dinner party [which one is invited to] is mustahabb, rather it is a sunnah, but the presence of an unlawful action at this gathering will make it prohibited to go there. Similar to this has been mentioned in the hadiths and [books such as] Al-Hidayah, etc. Similarly, performing supererogatory (nafl) prayer is mustahabb, but during makruh times it is prohibited and sinful. It is understood from this that a lawful action becomes unlawful due to its association and affiliation with an unlawful action.

Third Principle

If an unnecessary action of the elect (khawas) causes a defect to be formed in the ‘aqidah of the masses (awam) then this action will become makruh and prohibited for them because saving fellow Muslims from harm is an obligation. It is [incumbent] upon the elect to abandon this action.

An incident is related in the noble hadith about when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made the intention to include the Hatim (round wall near Ka’ba) inside the Ka’ba.[3] Because the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) felt that those who had recently entered Islam might develop unsoundness in their belief or anxiety in their hearts and to include the Hatim in the structure was not something necessary, he [decided to] put off this matter and explicitly mentioned this reason [i.e., his concern about their reaction]. This is even though to include the Hatim inside the structure [of the Ka'ba] was mustahsan (commendable) but to avoid the possibility of causing any harm to the masses, he left a mustahsan act.

In Sunan Ibn Majah, a narration from Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah (may Allah have mercy on him) is mentioned that to provide food to the household of the deceased person on the first day was a sunnah but when people made it a custom, it was abandoned and prohibited. From this it can be observed that in order to preserve the faith of the masses, the elect also abandoned this act.

The act of doing the sajdah (prostration) of thankfulness is mubah according to the hadiths but Hanafi jurists, as mentioned by ‘Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami (may Allah have mercy on him), declared this act to be makruh in case the masses start considering it a desired sunnah. It is mentioned in ‘Alamgiri (Fatawa Hindiyyah) that people used to do this (sajdah) after prayers and it is makruh because ignorant people will begin considering it sunnah and wajib. Any mubah action which comes to this becomes makruh. Although if it is necessary in the Shari’ah, it will not be abandoned rather the corrupt traits which have crept in it will be rectified.

For instance, the act of accompanying the funeral [procession] will not be abandoned due to the association of a makruh action with it such as the presence of a wailing woman; rather the wailing will be prohibited. This is because this (funeral) is something necessary and it will not be abandoned because of a temporary karahah (reprehensibility). This is in contrast to accepting the dinner invitation, which should be refused after [one becomes aware of] the makruh action’s association with it because the dinner party [in itself] is not something necessary [in the religion]. ‘Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami has differentiated [between] these issues as well.

Fourth Principle

The ruling from the muftis could vary in regards to an action which contains temporary karahah due to differences in time and place or due to their experiences and observations. This means that it is possible for something to be deemed lawful at one time because at this time there was no reason for it to be considered makruh, while at another point in time, the [same] action was deemed unlawful because the reason for it to be now considered makruh had arisen. It is also possible that permission could be given in one country while in another country it is made prohibited due to the above-mentioned differences.

It is also possible that one mufti at a certain time or [in a certain] situation deems something lawful without knowing that the masses have introduced deficient beliefs and practices in it, while another mufti deems this [same] action unlawful because, given his experience and observation, he has knowledge of what the masses are involved in. In fact, this difference of opinion is in the outward sense, not in the real sense (haqiqi) … many examples of this can be found in the [books of] hadith and fiqh (jurisprudence).

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) had given women permission to enter the mosque to perform salah. At that time, the possibility of fitnah (temptation) did not exist but when the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) saw the changed condition [of the people], they prohibited this. Similarly, many of the differences between Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) and the Sahibayn[4] (may Allah have mercy on them both) are of this kind.

Fifth Principle

If an unlawful action yields benefits and to acquire them is not necessarily required from the perspective of the Shari’ah or there are other ways to obtain such benefits and [this action] is done with the intention of obtaining these benefits or after seeing these benefits the masses are not stopped [from performing this action], then this is not permissible. A mubah [action] performed with a good intention becomes worship (’ibadah) but sin (ma’siyah) is not mubah, even if it contains thousands of benefits. It is not lawful to commit such an act, nor is it allowed to remain silent on it. This principle is very much self-evident.

For instance, if someone usurps [the wealth of others] and oppresses [people] with the intention of collecting wealth so it can be distributed to the poor and needy. This type of force and oppression can never be considered lawful. This is even if it is hoped that hundreds of thousands of benefits will be obtained from doing this.

After these preliminary comments and principles have been understood, the details of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the third type [of mawlid gathering] should be heard.

Concluding remarks

Since these above-mentioned restrictions [of the third type of gathering] are in themselves mubah, there is no defect in their essence, nor will this gathering be considered unlawful and prohibited at any time due to these actions and occurrences. And these actions, in their usual state, will remain mubah if no type of defect arises [due to them]. This ruling is evident from the second principle.

Now, it is worth looking at the fact, whether in our times, if any defect is occurring due to this permissibility. If any defect is seen arising then this gathering should be considered unlawful and prohibited. Knowledge of this issue can be obtained without hindrance merely through experience and observation. There is no need for any argumentation in this [matter].

According to this writer’s experience of many years, it is worth mentioning that without a doubt the vast majority, rather nearly all of the masses (awam), recognize these restrictions (quyud) as necessary, emphasized and essential for the gathering. They act upon [these restrictions] similar to how they practice the requirements of the faith. In fact, they act upon them with much more emphasis. Thus, the amount of effort put into the Friday or congregational prayer is very little when compared to the extraordinary effort that is put into acting upon these restrictions. The amount of unpalatability caused by abandoning these restrictions is never equal to that caused by abandoning obligatory and compulsory acts [of worship]. On the contrary, for one [involved in these activities] to abandon [these restrictions] is inconceivable and putting aside the example of the person who refuses [to participate], even if someone abandons these restrictions, he is taunted and cursed beyond bounds. His opponents resort to causing more trouble and verbal abuse than what unbelievers, innovators or evil-doers would cause.

When the masses have brought the issue to this point, in belief and practice, such that they have elevated the rank [of these actions] beyond the rank of obligatory and compulsory acts, then, without a doubt, due to this persistence and necessitation, these actions become prohibited. This has been established by the first principle.

Since these actions are prohibited, if they are found in a gathering then that gathering also becomes prohibited and unlawful. This has been explained in the second principle. This is despite the fact that there is a learned individual [in this gathering] who does not hold these corrupted beliefs and does not consider these actions emphatically necessary or the person who abandons them blameworthy. Although, in our times, such a quality is rarely found in people, if for instance such a person does attend, then he is saved from the sin of having corrupted his beliefs and practice. However, if his actions gave support to and strengthened the activities of corrupt-minded (in belief and practice) individuals, then, how can this person not be blamed for supporting and propagating their makruh act? This has been discussed in the third principle.

To conclude, wherever the above-mentioned evil practices are not present, even though to expect this from the masses, given their condition, is an extremely remote possibility, but for instance if at any place or time this is the case, then permission will be given. At the same time, it will be necessary in this action to consider these restrictions unnecessary in practice just as they are understood to be unnecessary in belief by repeatedly making it apparent [in practice].

For instance, distributing sweets sometimes, secretly giving cash, produce, or clothes to the poor or sometimes, either due to lack of resources or to merely act upon the rukhsah given in the Shari’ah, nothing is given [to the attendees]. During the course of the lecture, when the blessed virtues and characteristics of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) are mentioned, if one is overcome with emotions and love [for the Prophet] then he could stand up. There is no reason to specify a particular moment for [doing] this. This would be done when one is in the state of being overcome [by emotions] whether this is at the beginning, middle, or end of the lecture and whether it is done once, twice, or four times during the lecture.

When this feeling of being overcome [with emotions] is not present, one should remain sitting. And at times, even though this feeling is present, one could restrain himself to remain sitting. This (standing up) should not be stipulated only for this mawlid gathering and if one is overcome with [similar] emotions at other times after the mention of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), one could occasionally stand up.

By analogy, if the rest of the mubah restrictions are similarly practiced, even though this type of gathering is not narrated from the pious predecessors (salaf), it would not be considered prohibited because it is not against the principles of the Shari’ah. This is the ruling for the third type of gathering with regards to the fatwa (legal verdict).

However, in the best interest of keeping order in the religion, it is necessary to abstain in this regard. This is because this is not from the necessary elements of faith nor is any necessary aspect of the faith dependent upon it. This type of mubah gathering has, in the past, led to [the development of] corrupt traits similar to what can be seen [occurring nowadays] as ignorance is gaining prominence on a daily basis. This is why the dignity of taqwa (piety) is in abstaining. And Allah Most High knows best, His knowledge is Most Perfect and He is Most Wise.

Islah al-Rusum, Section 3, Chapter 1, p. 107-118, Dar al-Isha’at, Karachi

1. This section (First type) is the original (edited) translation by the respected Shaykh Dr. Hanif Kamal, a khalifah of Shaykh al-Islam Mufti Taqi Usmani, which was initially published on the now defunct Basair blog. ?
2. The term makruh, throughout this article, is referring to makruh tahrimi (prohibitively disliked, highly reprehensible). In Hanafi fiqh, the ruling for makruh tahrimi and haram is the same, i.e., both are sinful. ?
3. Sayyiduna ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: “I asked the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) whether the round wall (near Ka’ba) was part of the Ka’ba. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied in the affirmative. I further said, ‘What is wrong with them, why have they not included it in the building of the Ka’ba?’ He said, ‘Don’t you see that your people (Quraysh) ran short of money (so they could not include it inside the building of Ka’ba)?’ I asked, ‘What about its gate? Why is it so high?’ He replied, ‘Your people did this so as to admit into it whomever they liked and prevent whomever they liked. Were your people not close to the pre-lslamic period of ignorance (i.e. they have recently embraced Islam) and were I not afraid that they would dislike it, surely I would have included the (area of the) wall inside the building of the Ka’ba and I would have lowered its gate to the level of the ground.’” (Al-Bukhari) ?
4. Imam Abu Yusuf (d.798 AH) and Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (d.805 AH) ?

Source : Deoband.org


Tags :

Abdullah ibn Umar, Abu Dawud, Abu Hurayrah, Al-A’raaf 7:31, Al-Baqarah 2:172, al-Bukhaari, Al-Hidayah, Al-Hujuraat 49:12, Al-Isra’ 17:27, Al-Mu’minuun 23:51, Al-Tibi, al-Tirmidhi, awliya’, bid’ah, blameworthy, bribes, commendable, customary restrictions, delimiting, Deoband.org, Dhuha, extravagance, Fatawa Hindiyyah, Fath al-Qadir, fitna, fitnah, forenoon prayer, Hafsa ibn ‘Asim, Hanafi jurists, Hasan, Hatim, Hudhayfah, hypocrisy, Ibn Majah, iltizam, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Ahmad, Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani, innovation, Islah al-Rusum, Jabir, Knower of Unseen, little ostentation, Majma’, making mandatory, makruh, Makruh Tahrimi, mandub, Maulid, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi, Mawlid, mawlid gatherings, Mishkat al-Masabih, mubah, Mufti Taqi Usmani, mushrikin, music, Muslim, Musnad Imam Ahmad 4/217, mustahabb, mustahsan, nafl prayer, permissible restrictions, poetry, polytheists, prohibitively disliked, quyud, recommended, Restricting, riya’, Sahibayn, saints, Sajdah, Shari’ah, Shaykh Dr. Hanif Kamal, Shirk, sighah al-nida, specifying, squandering, stipulating, Sunan al-Bayhaqi, Sunan Ibn Majah, Sunnah, supererogatory, tahajjud, tahdid, takhsis, taqyid, tayyib, ta’yin, temptation, unlawful restrictions, usury, vocative case, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Alamgiri, ‘Alim al-Ghayb, ‘Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami, ‘Uthman ibn Abi al-’As

Participating in Bid‘ah With the Intention of Reforming

By Mufti ‘Ashiq Ilahi al-Bulandshehri al-Madani
Translation and Introduction by Ismaeel Nakhuda

Introduction

Living in the vicinity of the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah, Mawlana Mufti ‘Ashiq Ilahi al-Bulandshehri (1925-1999)—a respected and acclaimed student of the North Indian hadith master Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandhalawi—was a prolific writer, a Hanafi mufti, and a hadith scholar of great magnitude.

Originally from Bulandshehr, India, Mufti ‘Ashiq Ilahi was a graduate of the world-acclaimed madrassah Mazahir ‘Ulum Sahranpur and spent years serving Islam by teaching at numerous Islamic seats of learning across north India, and also—on the request of Mufti Taqi Usmani’s father, Mufti Muhammad Shaf‘i Usmani—at Dar al-‘Ulum, Karachi, where among many other duties he was given the responsibility of the madrassah’s superb Dar al-Ifta.

The Concept of Bid’ah in the Shari’ah

By Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad 'Uthmani
Translated by Zameelur Rahman

Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated to me: ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn ‘Abd al-Majid narrated to us: from Ja’far ibn Muhammad: from his father: from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah, he said:

When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would deliver a sermon, his eyes became red, his voice rose, and his anger intensified, so it was as though he was warning against an army, saying, “The [enemy] has made a morning attack on you and an evening attack on you.” He would say: “The Hour and I have been sent like these two” and would join his forefinger and middle finger. And he would say: “As for what follows. The best of speech is the Book of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. And the most evil of affairs are their innovations; and every bid’ah is misguidance.” He would further say: “I am dearer to a Muslim than his self. And one who left behind property, that is for his family. And he who left a debt or children, that is [given] to me and [their responsibility] is on me.” (Sahih Muslim)