-
Interfaith dialogue
This is a chapter from the book “Dangerous Concepts”
Inviting non-Muslims to Islam is a matter that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has made obligatory on the Muslims. The Muslims have been doing this for fourteen centuries, and continue call others to Islam whether they are from the People of the Book or not. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Invite (O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with Hikma (clear proof) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.” [Al-Nahl: 125]
And he Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said in his letter to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor: “Verily, I invite you with the call of Islam. Embrace Islam and you shall be safe and Allah will grant you the reward twice. If you turn away then upon you will bear the sin of the people under your rule.”
Thus, our call to the non-Muslims is an invitation to have conviction in Islam and to abandon Kufr.
As for the idea of interfaith dialogue that is being circulated nowadays, it is a foreign, evil and Western idea that has no basis in Islam. This is because it calls for mutual relationships between different religions. It calls for a new fabricated religion which the Kuffar want the Muslims to embrace instead of Islam, because the advocates and followers of this idea are the Kuffar themselves.
Internationally, this idea started in 1932 when France sent representatives to confer with the scholars of al-Azhar University about the idea of uniting the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. This was then followed by the Paris Conference of 1933 attended by orientalists and missionaries from every university in France, England, Switzerland, America, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey and others. The Conference of world religions in 1936 was the last conference of religions before the Second World War, which distracted the Europeans from these conferences.
In 1964 Pope Paolo VI sent a letter in which he called for dialogue between the religions. The Vatican then published a book in 1969 with the title: ‘Guide to dialogue between the Muslims and Christians.’
During the 1970’s and 1980’s more than thirteen interfaith and intercultural meetings and conferences were held, the most prominent of which was the Second World Conference of Religion and Peace held in Belgium attended by 400 delegates from various world religions. Another conference was held in Cordoba in Spain attended by Muslim and Christian representatives from 23 countries. These two conferences were held in 1974 followed by the Christian-Muslim assembly in Qurtaj, Tunis in 1979.
It was in the 1990s that those calling for interfaith dialogue became most active. Thus they held the Arab-European Conference in 1993 in Jordan, followed in 1994 by the Khartoum Conference for interfaith dialogue. In 1995 two dialogue conferences were held, one in Stockholm and the other in Amman, both of which were followed by the Conference “Islam and Europe” at the University of Ahl al-Bayt in Jordan in 1996.
Justifications for dialogue:
One of the most significant justifications presented by delegates at the interfaith conferences is standing firm in the face of the disbelief and atheism represented by the Soviet Union before its collapse. Communism was depicted as a danger to the divine religions, which would threaten their cultural achievements. Then they pretended to weep for humanity and to fight for the defence of all believers in the world. They sought to define truth in relative terms, emphasising that no individual and no religion could claim sole ownership of the truth, but it should be subject to the democratic process where the majority opinion is closest to the truth.
Recommendations of conference participants:
The following were the most important recommendations of the conferences held in the name of interfaith and intercultural dialogue and between Islam and Europe:
1. Devising and adopting new meanings and provisions for words such as disbelief, atheism, polytheism, belief, Islam, moderation, extremism and fundamentalism to ensure that these words would not become factors of division between people of different religions.
2. Identifying shared elements in the three religions, which would include creed, morals and culture, and to place emphasis on positive cooperation between the religions and cultures, since all the people of the Book were accepted as believers, and worshippers of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
3. The formation of a joint document on human rights to permit peace and co-existence between the followers of different religions. This would be achieved by eliminating the feeling of barriers of blood between the religions and by removing the concept of the cultures of different peoples and policies of different states.
4. A comprehensive review of the history and education curricula, so that they become free of any incitement or hatred. Religious education would be considered part of basic humanitarian studies that aim to create personalities open to human cultures and with mutual understanding of others. Therefore, the study of certain beliefs and worships had to be disqualified.
5. Raising interest in studying the following subjects and formulating unified concepts for them: justice, peace, women rights, human rights, democracy, work morals, pluralism, freedom, world peace, peaceful co-existence, cultural openness, civil society etc.
The means and styles of interfaith dialogue:
After the failure of the Western Kuffar in distancing the Muslims from their Aqeedah via the missionaries, orientalists, cultural works, the media, intellectual and political deception, they resorted to government authorities in their countries and in the countries of their agents. They began to hold conferences and seminars, formed joint work teams and established centres of study in their countries and in the Muslim lands, such as the Oxford Centre for Islamic studies, the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Durham University, the American college of the Holy Cross, the Muslim League, the Royal Academy for the study of Islamic Culture, the University of Ahl al-Bayt and the World Council of Churches etc.
They deliberately used terminologies and pretentious general expressions with undefined meanings to create deception and delusion. For example, terms such as renovation, openness to the world, human civilisation, universal sciences, the need for peaceful co-existence, renunciation of partisanship and extremism, globalisation etc., were all examples of this.
They mixed the concepts of science and culture, and the concepts of Hadharah (civilisation) and Madaniyya (material progression) to justify attacking those who hold to their specific way of life. They claimed that such people opposed science and technology and the civilisation arising from them, and accused them of being reactionary and backward, even though this is not the case in Islam. Islam opens its gates to science and to the technology that is derived from this science, but closes them in the face of any Thaqafa (culture) or Madaniyya from other than the Thaqafa and Hadharah of Islam. This is because these thoughts and concepts are related to the behaviour of the human being, which has to be controlled by the Islamic concepts about life.
They painted certain capitalist thoughts in glowing tones to the Muslims and promoted them by claiming that they do not contradict Islam to such an extent that some Muslims considered them as part of Islam, such as democracy, freedom, pluralism, socialism and others. On the other hand, they denounced certain Islamic thoughts and described them as uncivilised and out of date, such as Jihad, the Hudood, polygyny and other Shara’i rules.
They subjected the study of the Islamic texts to the Capitalist way of thinking, which makes the reality the source of the rule and not the subject of the thought. It makes benefit the criterion in adopting or leaving the rule rather than the Halal and the Haram. This incited some Muslims to invent certain principles, which did not rely on the Shara’i texts to understand Islam. This is like the Fiqh of reality, the Fiqh of balances, necessity permits the prohibited things and others. This resulted in the dilution of certain rules of Islam and non-differentiation of the foreign rule from the original rule, and even between what constitutes Kufr and what constitutes Islam. For example, Riba (usury) has become acceptable and martyrdom is now portrayed as suicide.
The Kuffar who initiated this dialogue are now generalising and widening its scope. It will no longer remain restricted to the few who participate in conferences and seminars. Rather it will include all sections of society from men, women, the educated and labourers. This is done via the universities, institutes of study, parties and associations. It is, as some conference delegates have described, joining the western Hadharah in economics, social relations, politics, education etc. Thus, Capitalism – according to their claim – is humanity, rationalism, freedom and democracy. It is the new and successful Hadharah. As for Islam, it is seen as blind faith, despotism and heritage and depicted as the sovereignty of religion, slavery and polygyny. It is thus an uncivilised religion!
One of the styles used to blind the Muslims to the real objective of these conferences is to invite those belonging to certain beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism to attend alongside the Muslims, Christians and Jews. This happened at the World Conference for Religion and Peace in Japan and in a seminar in Beirut in 1970, to ensure that Muslims would not suspect they were the only targets of the dialogue. How could so-called Muslim scholars allow Islam to be placed on an equal stage with Buddhism and other religions?!
The true viewpoint of the West towards Islam:
The West, which calls for dialogue with the Muslims and heads conferences of dialogue, views Islam as the enemy. This viewpoint is the motive for such dialogue and governs and directs this dialogue. For example, the encyclopaedia of French culture, which is a renowned point of reference, states that the Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) is: ‘a killer, the Antichrist, kidnaps women and the greatest enemy to the human mind.’ Likewise most of the textbooks in Western Europe describe the Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islam and the Muslims with the most ugliest of descriptions. Recently, the following has been mentioned in the book ‘The End of History’ written by the American thinker Fukuyama: “The Capitalist system is the eternal salvation for man on earth. Islam, despite its weakness and disintegration, threatens this new victorious way of life (i.e. capitalism).” The former General Secretary of NATO, Javier Solana, said: ‘Fundamentalist Islam is the danger which threatens the geopolitics of the future.’ The orientalist Barnard Lewis said about Islam and Capitalism: ‘They are contradictory. There is no scope for dialogue.’ And Samuel Huntington, professor of political science at Harvard University and the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies said: “The clash between civilisations (Hadharah) will dominate foreign policy. The dividing lines between the civilisations (Hadharah) will be the battle lines in the future.” Then he says: “Religion vehemently distinguishes itself and it is clear to the people. A person can be half French and half Arab…but it is difficult for a man to be half Catholic and half Muslim…”
Where is the dialogue they call us for from this enmity?
When these statements are compared with the hostile actions which have come from the West against Islam and the Muslims, such as the Crusades, the extermination of Muslims in Spain, the destruction of the Khilaafah State and afterwards the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, and the portrayal of Islam and the Islamic movements as
terrorist and extremist. When we compare these statements, we realise the meaning and the aims of the dialogue that the Kafir West is conducting with the Muslims.The aims of the Dialogue:
The primary aim that the capitalists are working to achieve from the dialogue between religions and Hadharah is to prevent the return of Islam to life’s affairs as a comprehensive system. This is because it threatens the survival of their ideology and Hadharah and will destroy their interests and influence.
As for other partial aims that serve their primary aim, these are various. Thus the West aims to paint the world according to the colour of the Capitalist civilisation, especially in the Muslim lands, in order to replace the Islamic Hadharah. This will make it easy for them to remove the Islamic Thaqafa (culture) from the minds of the people. They aim to achieve that by shaking the confidence of Muslims in the Islamic Thaqafa (culture) and in its sources and principles. They aim to neutralise Islam in the clash of civilisations by stripping it of its most important characteristics which distinguish it from other religions, namely the political aspect with which the Khilafah would be established to look after the affairs of the people according to the rules of Islam and carry it to the whole of mankind.
The Capitalists also aim to reshape the personality of the Muslim anew such that he finds no shame in leaving the duty (Wajib) and doing the prohibited (Haram). Then they aim to corrupt the Islamic desires and values and destroy in the Muslim the zeal for Islam such that he no longer hates Kufr and the Kafireen, and he no longer enjoins good and forbids evil. With this they will remove the cultural immunity of the Islamic Ummah with which she resisted all external elements, and will remove the emotional and intellectual barriers that threatened the presence of Capitalist civilisation in Muslim lands. Thus, preserving their influence and interests becomes easier and they guarantee their survival and continuance.
The intention behind this dialogue, which the Kuffar and their agent rulers guard in the Muslim countries with an entourage of scholars and thinkers, is to create a new religion for the Muslims. It is based upon the creed of separating religion from life, and in which man is the Legislator instead of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, the Creator of mankind. They are as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala describes them:
“And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your Deen.” [Al-Baqarah: 217]
And as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion.” [Al-Baqarah: 120]
Since the basis of the Islamic civilisation is the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and the basis of Western civilisation is the Capitalist ‘Aqeedah, then merging them is impossible. So the intention behind the dialogue led by the Kafir West is to make the Muslims abandon their Islamic concepts to the advantage of the Capitalist concepts. This is because they realise that the combination of two contradictory beliefs is impossible.
Thus the dialogue between religions and civilisations for establishing common factors and manufacturing a new human civilisation is unrealistic. There must be an intellectual struggle between religions and civilisations to know truth from falsehood, ugly from pretty, and good from evil. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Then, as for the foam it passes away as scum upon the banks, while that which is good for mankind remains in the earth.” [Ar-Rad: 17]
As for the dialogue they call to, it is a dialogue represented by the enemies of Islam with the aim of destroying Islam, the Islamic civilisation and the Islamic Ummah. Therefore the Muslims must adopt and perfect the necessary tools of struggle, which are manifested in the re-establishment of the Khilafah State that will embark on an intellectual and material struggle to spread the sublime Islamic Hadharah and remove the false and corrupt Hadharahs.
The statement regarding the sons of Abraham:
This viewpoint has come to strengthen the dialogue between the three religions because these three divine religions were brought by the Prophets Muhammad, Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them). They all derive their ancestry to one father and he is Abraham (peace be upon him). Therefore, it is incumbent on the followers of these religions to live together in peace because they are descendants from one origin in lineage and religion.
This is from one angle. From the other angle this viewpoint supports the so-called peace process in the Middle East and the normalisation of relations with the Jews. This is to accept one part of the Jewish and Western conspiracy against Islam and the Muslims by usurping Palestine and al-Masjid al-Aqsa; and by implanting a poisoned dagger in the heart of the Islamic Ummah. This also justifies the participation of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in their guardianship over Jerusalem (Al-Quds), which contains the holy sites, in their capacity as Muslims who all belong to one religion – the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him), the father of the Prophets.
To highlight the error of this viewpoint and to refute it we need to clarify three issues:
(1) The linguistic issue
The word ‘Aslama’ in its linguistic meaning means ‘Inqaada’ (i.e. to submit). The Noble Qur’an has used it with this meaning in the stories of the Prophets and in describing their followers who submitted to the Order of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala. He said on the tongue of Nuh (peace be upon him and he came before Ibraheem):
“My reward is only from Allah, and I have been commanded to be one of those who submit (Muslimeen).” [Yunus: 72]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said on the tongue of Ibraheem and Isma’eel (peace be upon them):
“Our Lord! And make us submissive (two Muslims) unto You and of our offspring a nation submissive (Muslimatan) unto You.” [Al-Baqarah: 128]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said regarding the people of Lut (peace be upon him):
“But We found not there any household of those who submitted (muslimeen) except one (i.e. of Lut and his two daughters).” [Az-Zariyat: 36]
And on the tongue of Musa (peace be upon him):
“Then in Him put your trust if you are those who have submitted (to Allah’s will [Muslimeen]).” [Yunus: 84]
And on the tongue of the Hawariyyoon, the followers of ‘Isa (peace be upon him):
“We believe in Allah, and bear witness that we are those who have submitted (muslimoon).” [Al-Imran: 52]
So the word ‘Muslimoon’ found in the Ayats means ‘those who have submitted’ (Munqaadoon). It does not mean that they professed one Deen, which is Islam as revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam was not known to them and they were not addressed with it. Rather, each people had a particular Messenger who called them to a specific Shari’ah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari’ah) and a clear way (Minhaaj).” [Al-Ma’ida: 48]
After the revelation (Wahy) came down to Muhammad (peace be upon him), the revelation took up certain Arabic words and transferred them from their conventional linguistic meanings to Shara’i meanings. The Shari’ah texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah have clarified this. One of these transferred expressions is the word ‘Islam’ which linguistically used to mean ‘submission’ (Inqiyaad), and became a Shara’i meaning – the Deen revealed by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala to His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said, addressing the whole of mankind until the Day of Judgement:
“I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.” [Al-Ma’ida: 3]
And Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And whosoever seeks a Deen other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.” [Al-Imran: 85]
And the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Islam has been built on five.” Other religions are not based on these five.
After the divine transference of the meaning of the word ‘Islam’, the words derived from it, such as the verb and active participle (Aslama and Muslim), if used without a Qareena (context), indicate the Shara’i meaning only. If the conventional linguistic meaning is intended this would then require a Qareena to change it from the Shara’i meaning.
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala for example says:
“Ibraheem was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one who truly submitted (Musliman) (to Allah’s will).” [Al-Imran: 67]
This does not mean that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) was on the Deen that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather it means that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) had submitted to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala regarding that which Allah revealed to him, unlike the Jews and Christians who fabricated the Deen of their Prophets.
As for the statement that Muhammad (peace be upon him), ‘Isa and Musa (peace be upon them) were on the Deen of Ibraheem (peace be upon him), it means that they believed in the same ‘Aqeedah, which is the foundation of every Deen revealed from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
This is what is meant from His Subhanahu wa Ta’ala saying:
“He (Allah) has ordained for you the same Deen which He ordained for Nuh, and that which We have inspired to you (O Muhammad), and that which We ordained for Ibraheem, Musa and ‘Isa saying you should establish the Deen and do not become divided over it.” [Ash-Shura: 13]
So the word ‘Deen’ in the Ayah means the foundation of the Deen, which is the ‘Aqeedah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala specified this when He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari’ah) and a clear way (Minhaaj).” [Al-Ma’ida: 48]
(2) The Shar’i issue
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the seal of the Prophets and the Messengers to the whole of mankind. He ordered them to leave whatever religion they were following, whether divine or not, and called on them to embrace Islam as a Deen. Whoever responded to the call became a Muslim and whoever rejected committed Kufr. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And say to those who were given the Book (the Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): ‘Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?’ If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His) slaves.” [Al-Imran: 20]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and among the Mushrikeen (polytheists), were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence, a Messenger (Muhammad) from Allah.” [Al-Baiyinah:1-2]
They are not separated from the Kufr except by their embracing of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “By the one in whose Hand lies Muhammad’s soul! No one from this Ummah, whether Jew or Christian, who hears about me and then dies without believing in what I have been sent with, except that he will be from the inhabitants of the Fire.” So the people are all called to gain conviction in Islam, and whoever does not profess Islam after the matter has been proven to him, then he is definitely a Kafir. After Muhammad was charged with prophethood, if the Jews and Christians continued to hold to their religion, they are considered Kafir according to the Quranic text. It is forbidden to describe them as Muslims, and whosoever believes that they or others are Muslims, he is a Kafir. This is because with this belief of his he has rejected clear Shara’i texts that are definite in meaning and authenticity. If they die on this belief then they will be from among the inhabitants of the Fire.
(3) The issue concerning the sons of Ibraheem (Peace be upon them)
This is a call to the bond of nationalism. It is a bond arising from the survival instinct and is shallow and emotional in nature. It is not suitable for man because it cannot bind one human being with another if they differ in lineage.
The bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) has been negated by time. It does not exist today because the descendants of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) and his offspring have mixed with other peoples through marriage, social intercourse, migration and wars. Today it is impossible to separate them from other peoples. Since the followers of the three religions can be found among all peoples and tribes of the world, they have mixed on the basis of religion and not on the basis of ethnicity. Therefore, applying the claim regarding the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) on the Muslims, Jews and Christians and on those who live around al-Masjid al-Aqsa or any others is a pointless exercise and is incorrect. The intention is to fight Islam, justify the peace process and normalise relations with the Jewish entity of Israel that exists on the usurped land of the Muslims; all of this to give legitimacy to the terrible crimes committed by the treacherous rulers of the Islamic lands under the orders of their masters, the Kuffar of the West.
The family or nationalist bond is like the bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him). It is rejected by the Shari’’ah as a basis to organise the relationships of the people. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear decline, and the dwellings in which you delight…are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His Path, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision (torment). And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqoon (disobedient).” [At-Tauba: 24]
Thus, the order of Allah is above every nationalistic, family or benefit bond. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala clarified the shallowness of this bond to the previous Messengers. He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And Nuh called upon his Lord and said: ‘O my Lord! Verily, my son is of my family! And certainly your promise is true, and You are the most just of the judges’. And He said: ‘O Nuh! Surely, he is not of your family, indeed his work is unrighteous.’” [Hud: 45-46]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said about Ibraheem:
“He said to him: ‘Verily, I am going to make you a leader of mankind’, (Ibraheem) said: ‘And of my offspring (to make leaders).’ (Allah) said: ‘My covenant includes not the Zalimeen (wrongdoers).’” [Al-Baqarah: 124]
Thus, the son of Nuh (peace be upon him) according to the Shara’i criterion is not from his family, because he did not believe in what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to his father. And the Zalimeen (wrongdoers) from the offspring of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) are exempt from the covenant of leadership made by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala since they did not follow what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to their father Ibraheem (peace be upon him). So the call to the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) today is Jahil (ignorant) and a politically motivated call. It is forbidden to call for it and invite eople to it. This is because the intention is to fight Islam, divert the Muslims from their Deen, justify the treacherous peace treaty with the Jews and concede to them what they usurped from the blessed land of Palestine, so that relations with them may be normalised and Israel can be accepted as a state in the Middle East.
-
Tawakkul (التوكل على الله) upon Allah
Reliance upon Allah
As regards the issue of putting trust on (at-tawakkul ‘ala) Allah (swt), the first Muslims understood that very well, and they put their full trust on Allah (swt). Therefore, they performed the great tasks, and plunged themselves in the severest difficulties. This is different to the Muslims who came after them, particularly when the material dominated the souls, and the Muslims were afflicted with the short vision and weak understanding. So, they became alienated from the true tawakkul, which became futile words that has no reality in their life and nor in their mind. What encouraged on that is that the thought of the scholars focused on explaining the tawakkul as being taking the means. So, once the word of tawakkul was mentioned it immediately meant the noble hadeeth: ‘tie it and make tawakkul’ (narrated by at-Tirmidhi). Thus, the hadeeth started to be used for weakening the meaning of tawakkul in the souls, and not for refuting what might be thought that tawakkul means neglecting the means. In other words, they made the hadeeth part of the tawakkul, and not a way detached from it. Consequently, the zeal waned, the will weakened, and the horizon of the outlook to life narrowed. So, they started to feel with inability, believe their power is limited, and they can’t achieve more than they did. Therefore, Muslims will not return to take the seat of glory, and plunge in life to achieve superiority unless they fully understood the meaning of tawakkul on Allah, and they fully made tawakkul on Allah. This is because men can’t realise the great missions if they limited their power with their human power only. If man looked at these human powers only, and he acted according to that outlook, he felt impotent from realising even the ordinary tasks, not to mention the extraordinary ones. However, if man believed there are powers beyond the human power that help him in realising his ambitions, then he would undoubtedly rush to what is more greater than his power, by depending on those powers.
If we look at the powers of man alone, we find them limited; so, man would restrict his actions according to that outlook. However, if he had wider view to his powers, he finds no limit to them. He would then be able to realise the great tasks, and undertake what he thought before he would not be able to do. Thus, the power of man has no limit if he believed there is a power beyond his power that helps him to achieve what he endeavours to do. Even those who do not believe in Allah, and nor have tawakkul on Him; they believe in a power beyond their power, which they call the nature or other names; and they undertake great tasks. How is the Muslim then, who believes in Allah (swt) with definite evidence, and has decisive trust in the existence of Allah (swt) that agrees with reality and based on evidence? Without doubt, he can realise, by his tawakkul on Allah, very much more than other than Muslims can achieve. Hence, tawakkul on Allah is one of the most important elements of the Islamic Ummah, and of the most important thoughts of Islam.
Tawakkul on Allah is proved by the definite (qat’ee) text of Quran. Allah (swt) says:
“If Allah helps you, none can overcome you. If He forsakes you, who is there, after that, that can help you? In Allah, then, let believers put their trust.” [Aali ‘Imran: 160]
“Then, when you had taken a decision, put your trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (on Him).” [Aali ‘Imran: 159]
“Say: ‘Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us. He is our protector.’ And on Allah let the believers put their trust.” [At-Tawbah: 51]
“Allah! There is no god but He, and on Allah, therefore, let the believers put their trust.” [At-Taghaabun: 13]
“But if they turn away, say: ‘Allah is sufficient to me. There is no god but He. On Him is my trust. He is the Lord of the Supreme Throne.’” [At-Tawbah: 129]
“Say: ‘Sufficient is Allah for me. In Him trust those who put their trust’” [Az-Zumar: 38]
“But if any trust on Allah, behold! Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.” [Al-Anfaal: 49]
“Indeed, the believers are those who, when Allah is mentioned, fell a tremor in their hearts; and when they hear His revelations rehearsed, find their faith strengthened, and they put (all) their trust on their Lord.” [Al-Anfaal: 2]
“To Allah do belong the unseen (secrets) of the heavens and the earth, and to Him goes back every affair (for decision). So, worship him, and put your trust on Him. And your lord is not unmindful of what you do.” [Hud: 123]
“And put your trust on Him Who is alive and does not die; and celebrate His praise.” [Al-Furqaan: 58]
“And lower your wing to the believers who follow you. Then, if they disobey you, say: ‘I am free (of responsibility) from what you do.’ And put your trust on the Exalted in might, the Merciful.” [Ash-Shu’araa’: 215-217]
All of these aayaat are definite in their meaning that tawakkul on Allah is obligatory. They are explicit in commanding tawakkul on Allah; and the command has been linked with an indication of decisiveness (jazm), which is the praise of Allah (swt) to those who make tawakkul, by loving them.There are also many ahaadeeth that are explicit in indicating tawakkul. Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas that the prophet (saw) said: “Seventy-thousands of my Ummah enter jannah without being accounted; they are those who do not use magic, do not see evil omen (in things) and put trust on their Lord.” In another narration to Al-Buhkari also: “They are those who do not use magic, do not see evil omen (in things), do not burn their skins and put their trust on their Lord.” Ahmad and At-Tirmidhi also narrated that the prophet (saw) said: “If you truly put your trust on Allah, he would provide you (sustenance) as He provides the birds; where they leave in the morning with empty stomach and return back with full stomach.” These evidences do not leave any space to a Muslim to be reluctant, for a moment, regarding the tawakkul, because they are explicit evidences, particularly the aayaat of the Quran are definite evidences, and the one who rejects them would be kafir. This makes the tawakkul on Allah one of the greatest obligations on Muslims.
Commanding the tawakkul on Allah in all these evidences is not linked with any condition, and nor any action of it came stipulated. Rather, the evidences came absolute (not restricted) in commanding the tawakkul. Thus, the obligation is the tawakkul on Allah without nay restriction, and in every matter. So, we must make tawakkul on Allah in every action.
The evidences indicate that, when we decide on a matter, or carry an action, we must make tawakkul on Allah; and they do not indicate anything else. There is no any evidence that restricts these evidences; they are rather absolute (unrestricted). Therefore, tawakkul on Allah is obligatory on every Muslim, without any constraint or condition. As for the hadeeth: “Tie it and make tawakkul”, [At-Tirmidhi] it is not a constraint to these aayaat and ahaadeeth, and nor even elaboration to them, for they are not ambivalent (mujmal) that requires elaboration. It is rather in another subject, which is taking the means. It is education to the Bedouin, when he understood tawakkul meant neglecting the means. So, the messenger (saw) instructed him tawakkul does not mean neglecting the means. The hadeeth did not come to abrogate the evidences of taking the means; it is rather something else. Thus, the prophet ordered him to take the means together with the tawakkul. The hadeeth is from Anas bin Malik, who said: “A man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, should I tie it and make tawakkul, or let it go free and make tawakkul?’ He (saw) said: “Tie it and make tawakkul.’” [At-Tirmidhi] Thus, the hadeeth is teaching to the Bedouin to tie his she-camel i.e. to take the means, explaining to him that tawakkul does not negate taking the means, and commanding him to take the means and make tawakkul. Thus, the hadeeth is not, by any means, a constraint to the evidences of the tawakkul. Therefore, tawakkul on Allah is obligatory, regardless of the means. The means are not a constraint to the tawakkul, and nor an elaboration to its Hukm. This is because the evidences of the tawakkul came as absolute and not restricted by any text. Its evidences are also not ambivalent that requires elaboration. The issue of taking the means is different to the issue of tawakkul. It is another issue, and its evidences are different to the evidences of the tawakkul. So, it is not correct to squeeze it into the tawakkul, or make it a constraint to it. The Muslims are obliged to take the means, as the shar’ee evidences prove it. They are, similarly, obliged to make tawakkul on Allah (swt), as the shar’ee evidences established it. Any one of these two issues is not a constraint to the other, and nor a condition to it.
Therefore, Muslims must make absolute tawakkul on Allah. Whoever does not make tawakkul on Allah is sinful, and whoever denies tawakkul on Allah is kafir. This is because the definitely proved evidence proves tawakkul on Allah, which is of definite meaning. Though there are no Muslims who believe in Islam that deny tawakkul, however their masses understand tawakkul wrongly. They understand it as act and make tawakkul; but it is truly different to that. It is to make trust and act. There is a great difference between the two meanings. The meaning of ‘act and make tawakkul’ makes the tawakkul just formal. Therefore, this understanding does not have an effect in the soul of the one who claims he made tawakkul. However, the meaning of ‘make tawakkul and act’ makes the tawakkul fundamental; so, it would have great effect in the soul, and make in it outstanding power capable to assuming the great tasks.
-
The Personality (الشخصية)
This is the chapter one from the book “Islamic Personality”
The human personality in every man consists of his Aqliyyah (mentality) and his Nafsiyyah (disposition). His physical characteristics and all other aspects have no bearing on his personality – these are only superficial. It would be pointless for anyone to think that such aspects have any relevance or bearing upon the makeup of the human personality. This is because man has a discerning mind, and it is his behaviour that indicates his progression or decline in life’s affairs. As man’s conduct in this life is driven by the concepts he holds, thus his behaviour is closely linked with his concepts. Human conduct relates to those actions performed by man to satisfy his instincts and organic needs. He therefore acts in accordance with the inclinations (moyool) that he holds towards satisfaction of these instincts. Consequently his concepts (mafaheem) and inclinations (moyool) are the backbone of his personality. One may ask questions such as “What are these concepts? What makes them? What are their results? What are these inclinations? What causes them, and what effect do they have?” These can be answered as follows.
Concepts are the meanings of thoughts, and not of statements. A statement denotes a meaning that may or may not exist in reality. For example when the poet says, “there is amongst men some who, when attacked, are found to be robust and sturdy, but when you throw a truthful argument at one of them, he instantly flees the fight worn out.”
The meaning conveyed by the poet does exist in reality and can be understood through sensory perception, though understanding this meaning requires enlightened thought. However when the poet says, “they wondered, does he indeed penetrate two horsemen with one strike of his spear and find this not a grand act?” and he answered by saying, “if his spear was one mile long, the same length of horsemen he would penetrate with his strike.”
The denotation of these lines is non-existent in reality. The warrior praised in this verse never penetrated two horsemen with his spear in one strike, no one asked the question answered by the poet, and the warrior is incapable of penetrating a mile of horsemen with a single strike of his spear. The meaning of these sentences and their component words are explained. On the other hand, the meaning of thought is as follows: if the meaning denoted by the statement exists in reality and can be deduced through sensory perception or if perceived by the mind as something sensed and thus believed in, then we can say this meaning is a concept for the person who senses it or the person who visualises it and believes in it. It is not a concept for anyone who does not sense or visualise this meaning, although such a person may understand the meaning of the sentence that has been said. Accordingly, a person must perceive discourse in an intellectual manner, whether it be written or spoken word. That is, he must understand the meaning of sentences just as those sentences express that meaning, not as the producer of these sentences or what he wants the sentences to mean. At the same time, the person must comprehend the reality of that meaning in such a manner that he can readily identify this reality so that the meaning becomes a concept. Concepts are those meanings whose reality can be understood by the mind, whether it be a tangible reality existing beyond the limits of the mind or a reality accepted as existing outside the mind, provided this acceptance is based on tangible reality. Apart from these ideas, the meanings of words and sentences are not called concepts; they are mere information.
Concepts are formed by the association of reality with information or vice-versa, and as a result of the crystallisation of this formation according to the criterion against which information and reality are measured when this association occurs. So concepts are formed according to the person’s understanding of the reality and the information when he links them together, i.e. according to his comprehension of them. Thus a person acquires the mentality for understanding words and sentences, comprehends the meanings and their reality, and then makes a judgement on this reality. The mentality is the tool used for understanding things; meaning it is the mode for linking reality with information; this being done by measuring it against one standard or a number of specific standards. From this stem different types of mentalities, such as the Islamic mentality, the Communist mentality, the Capitalist mentality, the anarchist mentality or a monotonous mentality. Thus it can be said these concepts determine the conduct of man towards the comprehended reality. They also determine his position in terms of inclining towards the reality or turning away from it. In addition they provide him with a particular inclination and a specific taste.
The inclinations are the desires that motivate man to seek satisfaction alongside the concepts he holds about those objects he believes that will provide satisfaction of his desires. These inclinations are borne out of the vital energy that pushes man to satisfy his instincts and organic needs, and the link between this energy and his concepts. It is these inclinations that constitute man’s Nafsiyyah (disposition or behaviour). The Nafsiyyah is the method for satisfying man’s instincts and organic needs i.e. the manner in which the desire or drive to satisfy these needs are combined with the concepts. It is a combination of the relationship (inside each human being) between his desires and his concepts about life, and the concepts he holds about those material objects that will satisfy his instincts and organic needs.
The Shaksiyyah (personality) is composed of the Aqliyyah (mentality) and Nafsiyyah (behaviour). Although the capacity for comprehension is innate and definitely existent within every human being, the development of the Aqliyyah and the Nafsiyyah comes from man himself. The existence of a standard against which information and reality are evaluated before being linked is what clarifies the meaning so that it becomes a concept; and the combination that occurs between man’s desires or drives and the concepts he holds about these is what crystallises the desire so that it becomes an inclination. Thus the criterion against which man measures information and reality before being linked is the most important factor that affects the development of the Shaksiyyah. If the criterion according to which the Aqliyyah is formed is the same as that according to which the Nafsiyyah is formed, then man will hold a particular Shaksiyyah. However if the criterion for Aqliyyah differs from the criterion for the Nafsiyyah, it follows that this man’s mentality will be different from his disposition or behaviour. This man would then measure his inclinations against deep-rooted criteria that he holds, thus linking his desires with concepts other than those which have formed his Aqliyyah. The result is that he develops a Shaksiyyah that lacks distinctiveness, is full of contradiction and discrepancy, and is a human being whose thoughts are different from his inclinations. He understands words and sentences, and comprehends events in a manner different from his inclination towards things.
Consequently, the formation and treatment of the Shaksiyyah can only be achieved through establishing a single standard for both the Aqliyyah and the Nafsiyyah. The standard against which man measures information and reality when he links them together should be the same standard basis according to which his drives and concepts are associated. The result of this is the formation of a unique and distinctive Shaksiyyah.
-
Fundamentalism
For Audio version of this chapter click here
This chapter is taken from the book “Dangerous Concepts”
The first time the term fundamentalism appeared was in Europe towards the end of the 19th Century. It was used to indicate the position of the Church regarding the new sciences and philosophies and the strict adherence to the Christian faith.
The Protestant movement is considered the basis of fundamentalism. It set out its fundamental principles in the Conference of Niagara in 1878, and in the General Presbyterian Conference of 1910, where the basic principles of fundamentalism were crystallised. They were established on principles of Christian beliefs that contradicted the scientific progress being made by the Capitalist ideology, established on the creed of separating religion from life.
Though this movement disappeared with the Second World War, it was implanted in the minds of Europeans that fundamentalism was an enemy to progress and science. It was considered intellectual backwardness not compatible with the age of awakening, and it had to be fought until its effects were removed from society and life.
Thus, fundamentalism emerged in Europe as a reaction to scientific and industrial progress that came after the separation of Christianity from life’s affairs. It emerged because of the inability of Christianity to respond to the new systems of life, which are derived from the Capitalist creed, the creed of separating religion from life. This pushed the believers in the Christian faith to adopt a stance rejecting the various forms of material progress and Capitalist culture. However, this movement, fundamentalism, failed and disappeared due to its inability to present practical solutions for life’s problems, and because of the reason for its establishment, i.e. the resistance to scientific progress, and those disciplines and thoughts which the Christians did not agree with or believe in.
Hence the source of describing certain Christian and Jewish movements as fundamentalist is the West. It is a reference to religious movements that oppose the technological, industrial and scientific progress that occurred after the application of the Capitalist ideology. In western view fundamentalism means backwardness and reactionism, and it means opposing scientific and industrial advancement.
Simply describing a specific group as fundamentalist is sufficient to consider such a movement a danger to the modern materialist Hadharah and to people’s lives. This justifies taking necessary measures, however harsh, to oppose it. When a state, like Egypt or Algeria, executes Muslims for being fundamentalists, this action is greeted with the support of the Western public opinion. No human rights organizations rise against that because those executed people -according to their claimare fundamentalists. They are seen as enemies of humanity, especially when all of the ugliest acts are attributed to them, such as the mass slaughter of innocent people in Algeria and the killing of tourists and Copts in Egypt.
The description of fundamentalism exceeded its original term to include every movement and party that works to change the current terrible lives of the Muslims to an Islamic life by re-estabilising the Khilafah and ruling by Islam. It also includes every movement that opposes the aggressors and usurpers of Islamic land and their rights such as the Jews, Serbs, Americans and others. So, the Muslim Mujahids who fight their enemies who usurp their land are fundamentalists and terrorists. Those who also die as martyrs by striking the aggressor foreign forces are suicidal and criminals!
This description is dangerous to every Muslim and every movement fighting injustice and occupation. It is dangerous to every party working according to the Shari’ah methodology to resume the Islamic way of life. This is because the aim of this description is to create legal justifications to attack anyone calling for the re-establishment of Islam in life’s affairs, under the pretext that Islam is a fundamentalist movement, like Jewish and Christian fundamentalist movements who fought industrial and scientific progress in the age of the Capitalist revival. The selection of this term to brand the Islamic movements with is because of its historical relevance to Western public opinion, so that the people of the West stand behind their rulers in the face of the return of political Islam as a state and system of life.
It should not occur to the mind of any Muslim that the description of Islamic movements as fundamentalist is taken from their connection with the foundation of the Deen or the foundations of jurisprudence (Fiqh). The foundation of the Islamic ‘Aqeedah is belief in Allah, His Angels, Books, Messengers, the Day of Judgement and al-Qadar. The foundations of jurisprudence are the principles on which jurisprudence is based, which the Mujtahid uses to derive practical Shara’i rules from their detailed evidences.
Fundamentalism, according to Western terminology, which the Christian Protestant movement brought together with the aim for which the movement was founded, has no connection with Islamic concepts and Islamic movements whether contemporary or historical. In Islamic history, political movements, intellectual schools and jurisprudence schools have appeared. However, they do not resemble the Christian fundamentalist movements in any way whatsoever. Even those who called for the closing of the door of Ijtihad in the seventh Century Hijrah did so not because they wanted to preserve the old and oppose the new. Rather because they thought that the Islamic Fiqh generated by the predecessors (Salaf) contained all the issues that the later scholars (Khalaf) might possibly face.
Islam is a unique Deen that differs from other divine religions, in that it is the final message and abrogates the ones that came before. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has taken the responsibility of preserving it as it was revealed until the Day of Judgement.
He (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) said:
“Verily It is We Who have sent down the Zikr (Qur’an) and surely, We will guard it.” [Al-Hijr: 9]
It is a complete and comprehensive ideology established on a creed based on the human mind, from which emanates a comprehensive system that solves all man’s affairs until the Day of Judgement. It cannot be imagined this ideology is unable to give a Shara’i rule to any problem faced by man. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And We have sent down to you this Book (the Qur’an) as an exposition of everything.” [An-Nahl: 89]
The scientific and industrial progress experienced by the Islamic world in the past was a result of the total application of Islam and not of separating Islam from life. Much of the scientific and industrial progress being experienced by the world today is due to those Muslim scholars who set out many of its theories and basic laws in the shade of Islamic life and the Islamic State.
Therefore, to describe Islam and Islamic movements as fundamentalist, in the manner in which Christian movements were described, is erroneous and a biased description. It does not apply to the reality of Islam, or on anyone who works for the return of Islam to life. This is because he is striving to change the miserable reality in which the Muslims live, which has come about from the rule of man-made systems in life’s affairs. This is contrary to the work of Christian fundamentalist movements, which came to preserve the reality in which the Christians lived before Capitalism, in form and content.
So, the West’s description of Islamic movements as being fundamentalist is nothing but a war against the return of Islam as a comprehensive system. It is a strategic, even a vital issue for the West. They are intent on keeping the Third World, especially the Islamic world, backward and distant from any true revival. This is to prevent the reestablishment of the Khilaafah that will uproot their system and put an end to their ambitions and greed.
Listen to the testimony of one of these people; he is a visiting scholar at the Harvard University for Middle Eastern studies. He submitted a report to the US Congress in which he said: ‘Fundamentalists take the view that the Shari’ah should be applied in all its details and that the orders and prohibitions of God must be implemented completely, and that it is binding on all Muslims. Islam is the basic source of their strength and the Shari’ah is suitable for application today as it was suitable for application in the past.’ He also said: ‘Fundamentalists deeply hate Western civilisation, they see it as the greatest obstacle in the face of the application of Islamic Law.’ The American scholar John Esposito, in a report submitted also to the American Congress stated: ‘Those who most threaten American interests are the Muslim fundamentalists.’
So, the fundamentalism attacked by the Kuffar is the reapplication of Islamic Shari’ah in life. If this is fundamentalism then the Muslims, in their view, are all fundamentalists. This is because with yearning and zeal, the Muslims wait for the total application of all the Islamic rules under the shadow of the Khilaafah, to save them and the world from the misery of Capitalism and take them to the glory of Islam. Allah said:
“And who does more wrong than the one who invents a lie against Allah, while he is being invited to Islam? And Allah guides not the people who are unjust (Zalimoon). They wish to put out the Light of Allah (Islam) with their mouths. But Allah will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate it.” [As-Saff: 7-8]
-
The Islamic Method of Acquiring Knowledge
For Audio version of this chapter click here
This is chapter one from the book “Way of Thinking” by Hasan Abdullah
The method by which the Muslim acquires knowledge and thought is critical in determining the impact of the Islamic thoughts upon the individual. If the method of acquiring knowledge was correct and based upon research, profound thinking, and analysis (as Allah (swt) ordered) then it will produce effective results, and such a person will turn into an ideological person who thinks in a distinct manner. Allah (swt) orders the human being to think about many aspects of His Creation in a profound and enlightened manner:
“Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding.” [TMQ 3:190]
“Do they not then consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found within it many contradictions.” [TMQ 4:82]
“Tell Me! The water that you drink — is it you who causes it to come down from the rain clouds, or are We the Cause for it to come down?” [TMQ 56:68-69]
“He is created from a fluid poured forth — proceeding from between the back bone and the ribs.” [TMQ 86:6-7]
“Do they not look at the camels, how they are created? And at the heaven, how it is raised? And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm? And at the earth, how it is spread out?” [TMQ 88:17-20]
In all of these ayahs, Allah directs the human being to think and analyze in order to build the Aqeedah of Islam within him through a definite conviction.
Thus, the method that Islam encourages in pursuing knowledge is based upon the intellect and entails thinking, research, and analysis. It is not built upon blind faith, emotional belief, or submission without any discussion. Such methods will not produce a dynamic Iman and cannot serve either as a foundation for a point of view of life or as a foundation to build other thoughts upon. A person who adopts Islam through these methods will remain a hostage to the concepts that he carried from his previous background. Although such a person may turn to Islam in a limited scope for such aspects as his ibadat, he will continue in his thinking to refer to other concepts. He will constantly shift between a superficial Iman that is not built upon a correct thinking process and indulging in discussion without a specific frame of mind, which will lead him either to diverging or straying from Islam altogether.
And he will not escape this spiral except by either compromising between what he adopted from Islam and whatever erroneous concepts he already possesses in order to bridge the gap, or by separating Islam from his thinking by restricting Islam to his rituals and thinking in a secular or pragmatic manner, or by deciding not to think at all except in his livelihood in order to save himself from diverting. All of these options are incorrect and, in reality, will not get the person out of this spiral. Eventually, this cycle with drain the person’s power, particularly his intellectual capacity,
-
Islam is a Specific Way of Living
For Audio version of this chapter click here
This is chapter 1 from the book “Islamic Thought”
Islam is a specific mode of living that is completely distinguished from everything else. It obliges upon Muslims a certain living that has a specific and constant course that does not change or transform. It dictates upon them to comply by this specific mode in such a way that they do not feel tranquillity, both intellectually (fikriyyan) and emotionally (nafsiyyun), and nor they feel with happiness except with this mode.
Islam came as a collection of concepts (mafaheem) about life. It came as general guidelines (khutoot ‘areedah), ie general imports that treat all man’s problems in life, where the solution of every problem that occurs to man is actually derived from them. It made all of that based on an intellectual basis (qaa’idah fikriyyah); under which all the thoughts about life enter; and it is used as a criterion (miqyaas) upon which every detailed thought is measured. It also made the rules, in terms of solutions, thought and opinions, emanate from the ‘aqeedah and derived from the general guidelines.
It determined the thoughts for man, but it did not restrict his mind; it rather freed it.
It restricted his behaviour in life with particular thoughts, but it did not restrict man; it rather freed him.
Thus, the view of the Muslim towards the worldly life became that of promising hope, a realistic seriousness and a view that values life with its (true) measure, in terms that it must be earned and that it is not an objective, nor it is proper to be an objective. So the Muslim strives in the walks of life, earns of the providence (rizq) of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, and enjoys the ornaments of Allah that He provided to His servants and also the good forms of rizq. However, he realises that the dunya is temporary, while the akhirah is the abode of eternity.
Rules of Islam came to treat for man the matters of trade as well as the matters of prayers, in a particular way. They also treat the problems of marriage as well as the matters of charity, in a specific way. They demonstrate the matter of property ownership and the matter of its expense, in a certain way. They also detail the supplications (du’as) and worships, and explain the legal punishments (hudood), capital offences (jinaayaat) and the various punishments (‘uqoobaat); as well as they explain the chastiment of hell (jahannum) and the felicity of paradise (jannah). They guide him to the form of government (Hukum) and its method, in a specific fashion. They also direct him to the personal/self-acting aspiration to apply the rules in quest of the pleasure of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala. They direct him to the relationship of the state with the rest of the states, peoples and nations, as they direct him to carry the da’wah for mankind. They oblige him to acquire the elevated attributes, as rules (ahkaam) coming from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, and not as good attributes among people.
Thus Islam came to regulate all man’s relationships with himself and with people the same way it regulates his relationship with Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala); all of that in the same system of thought and treatment. Man, thus, became obliged to proceed in this worldly life by a specific motivation, in a specific and determined path and for a defined and designated goal.
Islam obliges people to restrict themselves to this path alone exclusively. It warned them of painful chastisement in the akhirah, as well as of strict punishment in the dunya; where one of these two will inevitably fall on them if they deviated from this path, even a hair breadth.
Accordingly, the Muslim comes to proceed in this life in a particular way, and live in a certain way, within a specific mode by virtue of his embracement of the ‘aqeedah of Islam, and the obligation of his obedience to the commands and prohibitions of Allah that restrict him with the rules of Islam.
This specific type of living within a particular understanding of life and specific conduct in a defined path, is inevitably imposed upon every Muslim and all Muslims.
Hence Islam is not a spiritual deen (religion) only, and nor theological or priestly concepts. It is rather a particular way of life, which every Muslim and all Muslims must have their life be in accordance with this way alone.
-
Q&A: Rizq (sustenance) is all that is supported by
Question:
Dear Sheikh and Eminent Scholar:
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahamtullah Wa Barakatuh,
If you would be kind enough to answer a question for me that I did not get a satisfactory answer for, I ask Allah that I get the answer from you. Is sustenance limited to money only, meaning everything that can be owned for a Shariah reason? Or is the money of money, transferable or untransferable money part of the rizq, and does not contain all types of rizq (sustenance)? For example, is a good wife rizq (sustenance)? Is health, success and righteous offspring rizq (sustenance) as well?May Allah reward you on our behalf
Mohammad Al Harithy.Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
Rizq (sustenance) is all that is supported by:
1- In “Lisan Al-Arab”: [And the Rizq of provision, which is the source of your saying, “Allah provided for him” … Rain may be called rizq, this is in the saying of Allah:
“…and [in] what Allah sends down from the sky of provision and gives life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness…” [Al-Jathiya: 5]
Allah (swt) says:
“And on the earth are signs for the certain [in faith]” [Adh-Dhariyat: 20]
Mujahid said it is the rain and this is the expansion of the language … and the rizq of the soldiers are their ambitions, they have sought provision (irtazaqu), Al-Razqa (with fatha) is for the singular and the plural is Al-Razaqat, and it is the
ambitions of soldiers…Irtazaq is when the soldiers gain their rizq.The meaning of Allah’s saying:
“And make [the thanks for] your provision that you deny [the Provider]?” [Al Waqi’a: 82]
Is to be thankful of one’s riziq, like their saying “we were sent down heavy rain like. It is like His saying:
“And ask the city” [Yusuf: 82] meaning its people. The Amir provided his soldiers, so they were provided (irtazaqu irtizaqan), and it is said that the soldiers were provided with one razqa only, and they were provided with two razqatain, i.e., twice. Ibn Barri…]2- In Al Muheet Dictionary it states: [Rizq (by kasra) means what is benefited by it, such as the mercenary, and the rain, and the plural is arzaq, and (by fatha) the real source, and the only one with the letter -Ha, its plural is razaqat, it is (Mutaharrik), it refers to the ambitions of the soldiers. Allah razaqahu means He (swt) provided him with a provision), and so-and-so thanked him, is provision (azdiya), and from this the verse:
“And make [the thanks for] your provision that you deny [the Provider]?” [Al-Waqi’a: 82]
3- In Al-Sihah in the language:
[Al-Rizq: what one benefits from, and the plural is Al-Arzaq. And rizq (sustenance) is giving, and it is the source of your saying: “Allah has provided for him”.
Al-Razqa is by fatha, for the singular, the plural is Al-Razaqat, which are the ambitions of the soldiers. Irtazaqa the soldiers means the that the soldiers took their provisions. Allah’s saying:
“And make [the thanks for] your provision that you deny [the Provider]?” [Al-Waqi’a: 82] i.e. the gratitude of your sustenance.
This is like his saying,
“And ask the city” [Yusuf: 82] meaning its people. And rain may be called rizq, and that is the saying of Allah (swt):
“…and [in] what Allah sends down from the sky of provision and gives life thereby to the earth …” [Al-Jathiya: 5].
Allah (swt) says:
“And on the earth are signs for the certain [in faith]” [Adh-Dhariyat: 20].
This is the expansion of the language.]
4- Al-Kurassa says about rizq (sustenance):
[As for the issue of rizq (sustenance), the numerous verses are definitive and leave no room for the one who believes in the Qur’an unless he believes that sustenance is in the hands of Allah (swt), He gives it to whomever He wills. The issue of rizq (sustenance) is not the issue of Al-Qadar. Al-Qadar is that Allah knows that a certain matter will happen before the occurrence of that matter, so it has been written and has been ordained.
As for rizq (sustenance) it is not only that Allah knows that so-and-so will have provision, so He has written and ordained it, but rather in addition to that, He ordained provision, for the Provider (Ar-Raziq) is Allah and not the servant.
This is what the verses indicate:
“We ask you not for provision; We provide for you, and the [best] outcome is for [those of] righteousness” [Ta-Ha: 132]
“Allah is Subtle with His servants; He gives provisions to whom He wills. And He is the Powerful, the Exalted in Might” [Ash-Shura: 19].
5- As for what you mentioned other than what is provided, such as: good offspring, health and wellness, and everything that falls within the sphere that controls you, i.e., it is not your voluntary work, it is in Qada, and this includes sustenance (rizq) and all the actions that occur from you or against you without your choice… It was stated in Al-Kurrasa on the subject of Al-Qada Wa Al-Qadar under the title: “The Right Opinion on the Issue of the Actions of People,” the following:
[The correct opinion on this issue with regard to the actions of people is that man lives in two spheres: one of them he controls, which is the sphere that in it falls his actions and within it is the scope of the actions that he performs of his own free will occur. The other sphere dominates him and it is the sphere in which he falls within it. Actions in it have nothing to do with him, whether they occurred from him or him. In this sphere falls the actions that he is not in control of, whether they fall from him or upon him. The actions that occur in the sphere that dominates him has nothing to do with him and their presence do not concern him.
They are of two types: a section that is required by the law of the universe, and a section in which the actions that are not within his power and which he cannot repel and are not required by the law of the universe. As for what is required by the law of the universe, he is subject to it and therefore proceeds according to it with no choice, because he lives within the universe and moves with life according to a specific system that does not lag behind.
Thus, the actions fall in this sphere outside of his control, and he has not forced nor has a choice in them.
All these actions that took place in the sphere that dominates man are what is called Qada, because only Allah (swt) is the One who has decreed them.
Therefore, the slave of Allah is not held accountable for these actions, no matter how good or bad they hold, or loved or hated by man. I.e., no matter how good or bad they hold according to man’s interpretation to them, because man has no effect on them and does not know about them, nor about how to find them, and he does not have the power to stop them or bringing them at all, and man must believe in this decree that it is from Allah (swt)].
I hope this is sufficient and Allah Knows Best, He is Most Wise.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
11 Safar Al-Khair 1444 AH
7/9/2022 CE -
Q&A: What is Considered Hujja (Definite Proof) from the Qur’an is What Has Been Transmitted to us by Mutawatir
Answer to Question
What is Considered Hujja (Definite Proof) from the Qur’an is What Has Been Transmitted to us by Mutawatir
To: Tariq MahmoudQuestion:
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
My honourable Sheikh, may Allah bless you continuously with good health and support you with the strong and pious Muslims and grant victory by your hands, Amen, O Lord of the worlds.
My honourable Sheikh, as I read in the books of scholars, I skimmed through texts narrated by some of the companions such as Abdullah bin Masoud or the Mother of the Believers, Aisha, may Allah be pleased with them, on the grounds that these texts are Qur’anic verses, but they were not taken or considered from the Qur’an because they were mentioned as Ahad (single chain) narrations. It is known that the Qur’an is not proven by Ahad narrations because they are indefinite texts.
But how do we deal with these texts, since they are authentic and came on the tongue of someone who is trustworthy, just and upright, even if they were not proven by mutawatir (multiple chains narrations), but they were proven by the least amount of doubt. So, are these texts considered by jurists and mujtahids, in terms of implementation as legal texts (Shari’) from which legal rulings (Ahkam Shariah) can be derived, or are they not considered as such, and it is as if they were not reported?
May Allah bless you and forgive me for the long post.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
May Allah bless you for your good prayers for me, and I pray for you with the good.
As for your question about the Noble Qur’an, before answering, I would like to quote from our books to you the following:
1- In the book, The Islamic Personality Volume III, chapter “What is considered a Hujja (Definite Proof) from the Qur’an” it says the following:
[What has been transmitted to us from the Qur’an by Tawatur (multiple chains of narrations), and we know that it is from the Qur’an, is only that is taken as Huja (defininte proof). As for what has been transmitted to us by Ahad (single chain narrations), such as the Mushaf of Ibn Masoud and others, it is not a Huja (definite proof). End Quote. And that is because the Prophet (saw) was assigned to recite what was revealed to him of the Qur’an to a group, whose statements are taken as definite proof, and those whose statement are a definite proof, it is inconceivable that they agree on not transmitting what they heard. If there is something from the Qur’an that was not transmitted by those whose statements are definite, but rather it was reported as Ahad (single) narration, then it is not considered. Because it came contrary to what the Messenger (saw) was mandated to transmit; to one person alone, and it is contrary to what was required of reciting the Qur’an from the Messenger to a number of Muslims who would memorize it, and they would be among those whose sayings are a proof, in addition to his command to them to write it. Therefore, it is not correct, in this case that the single transmission or the transmission by a number whose statements do not establish a proof, to transmit anything from the Qur’an; Therefore, what has been transmitted from the Qur’an by Ahad (single) narration is not an absolute proof].
– The same source stated the following:
[And as for the different copies of the Qur’an, those of them that are transmitted through Ahad (single chain narration), it is not from the Qur’an, and it is not a definite proof. But the mutawatir (multiple chains of narrations), they are from the Qur’an, and are a definite proof. The issue is not related to the Mus’haf (Book), but rather to the verses contained in the Mus’haf. If the verse was transmitted by tawatur (multiple chains of narrations) from the Prophet (saw), i.e., the number of narrations received from the Prophet (saw) reached the level of tawatur. I.e., their statement becomes an established proof, then it is considered from the Qur’an; and is a definite proof. Otherwise, it is not considered from the Qur’an. That is why the entire Mus’haf of Othman is the Qur’an; because all the verses that it contains have been transmitted by tawatur (multiple chains of narrations), and were transmitted by those whose statement is a definitive proof. However, the Mus’haf of Ibn Masoud is looked into it, so what it contains of the verses that were transmitted by tawatur (multiple chains of narrations) is considered from the Qur’an, and what it contains of verses that were transmitted by Ahad (single chain of narration), such as the verse “Fasting for three consecutive days” It is not considered from the Qur’an, nor is it a definite proof.]
Accordingly, the objection that was made regarding the memorizers of the Qur’an, and regarding the companions’ Mus’haf, is rejected, and it proves that the Qur’an is what has been transmitted by tawatur (multiple chains of narration), and what has been transmitted by Ahad (single chain of narration) is not from the Qur’an. It should be noted that the Qur’an was transmitted by witnessing the Prophet (saw) receive the revelation when it was revealed, and it was recorded in writing along with its memorization. The Companions, may Allah (swt) be pleased with them, did not narrate the Qur’an as a narration from the Messenger, rather they transmitted exactly what was revealed by the Wahi (divine revelation). The Messenger’s (saw) command to write it, is contrary to the Hadith, it was narrated from the Messenger (saw) and it was not recorded when it was said, nor when it was narrated. It was codified and recorded in the era of the followers of the followers (tabi’ at tabi’een). As for the Qur’an, it was written down and recorded when the revelation was revealed, and the Companions transmitted the exact same thing that was revealed by the revelation. That is why it is said: The Companions transmitted the Qur’an to us by transmission.
2- And it was stated in the book, The Islamic Personality, Volume III, under the chapter of “The Abrogator and the Abrogated”:
[The second is that what is intended is abrogating the ruling of the verse, not abrogating its recitation. This is the accepted statement by the majority (scholars) and what is adopted. It is supported by the fact that all verses of the Qur’an were proven by definite evidence. And verses that were not proven by definite evidence are not considered Qur’an. The abrogation of a recitation of a verse of the verses of the Qur’an was not proven by definite evidence. What was reported from the indefinite evidence on the existence of abrogation of the recitation has no value in considering the abrogation; because the definite is not abrogated by indefinite, and it is not abrogated except by definitive, like it or above it, and there is no definitive evidence for the abrogation of the recitation, this supports that what is intended is the abrogation of the ruling and not the abrogation of the recitation.] End Quote
The same source also stated the following:
[As for the abrogation of the recitation of the Qur’an, it is prohibited and not permissible, and its occurrence has not been proven by definitive evidence. The evidence for this prohibition is the verse that is the evidence for the permissibility of abrogation, which is: نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا “We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it” [Al-Baqara: 106]. And the entire Qur’an is good, there is not any discrepancy in it. If what was meant by abrogation of the verse is to remove it from Al-Lawh Al-Mahfouz (Preserved Tablet), and to write a different one to replace it, the description of good would not have been fulfilled, therefore the intention is not the verse but its ruling. Also, the Qur’an has been proven to have been revealed, memorized, and written by way of tawatur (multiple chains of narrations), and believing in it in this way is a creed, it is only taken from the definite evidence of text and meaning. This did not happen since there is no definite evidence that it is permissible to abrogate the Qur’an by recitation. It is not permissible to abrogate it by recitation. As for the fact that the Qur’an was not abrogated by recitation, its evidence is that no definitive evidence came to prove that any of its verses established by definitive evidence had been abrogated. As for what was narrated on the authority of Zaid bin Thabit, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةَ. فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: لَمَّا أُنْزِلَتْ هَذِهِ أَتَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ فَقُلْتُ: أَكْتِبْنِيهَا»
“The old man and the woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively” Umar (ra) said: When this verse was revealed, I came to the Prophet (saw) and said: “Write it for me”. [Extracted by Ahmad]. And what was narrated that Aisha (ra) said:
«كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ، ثمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ»
“From what was revealed in the Qur’an, ten known breastfeeds are prohibited, then it was abrogated to five known ones.” [Extracted by Muslim]. What was narrated on the authority of Ubai bin Kaab and Ibn Masoud, that they recited: «فصيام ثلاثة أيام متتابعات» “So fasting three consecutive days.” And what was narrated that Surat Al-Ahzab was equivalent to Surat Al-Baqarah, etc., all of them are Ahad (single chain narrations) which has no proof of abrogating the definite; because they are indefinite narrations, and the definitive is not abrogated by the indefinite, only the definite abrogates it, so it must be proven with the definitive evidence that this verse was revealed so that it is believed to be from the Qur’an, then it is should be proven by the definite evidence that it was abrogated, and this has never happened, and therefore the abrogation of the Qur’an by recitation did not happen.”
3- Accordingly, here are the answers to your questions:
a- The Noble Qur’an is defined as follows: (It is the word of Allah revealed to His Messenger Muhammad (saw), through the revelation Jibreel peace be upon him, in word and meaning, the miraculous, the worshiped by its recitation and transmitted to us by mutawatir). It is the Qur’an that was revealed to our master Muhammad (saw), and it is what has been transmitted to us between the two covers of the Mus’haf with Mutawatir (multiple chains of narrations) transmission. This definition is fully applicable to the Mus’haf of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, that is, to the Qur’an that was copied at the time of the rightly-guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan in several copies of the papers compiled by Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, from what was written in front of the Messenger (saw), and what Uthman (ra) copied was sent to Muslim capitals, and the companions of the Messenger (saw) unanimously agreed upon it, as detailed in our books.
b- This means that what has been transmitted to us from the Qur’an from Ahad (single chain of narration), such as the Qur’an of Ibn Masoud and others, is not Qur’an and is not a proof. Likewise, it is not from the Sunnah, because it was narrated as the Qur’an, and it was not narrated to be from the Hadith of the Prophet (saw) and as long as it is not a Sunnah, then it is not permissible to refer to it in the Shariah rulings and other matters that should be deduced from the Shariah evidences.
c- Reciting the Qur’an with such narrations and odd readings is not correct, and we have mentioned what indicates this in the answer to a question dated 18 Dhul-Qi’dah 1434 AH – 24/9/2013 CE, and it says:
[As for reciting the Qur’an with non-mutawatir readings, whether they agree with the handwriting of the Ottoman Qur’an or not, it is not permissible to recite with them, for it is not Qur’an, rather the Qur’an is what was transmitted by mutawatir from the Messenger of Allah (saw)]
d- As long as these texts that are narrated through Ahad (single chain of narrations) as the Qur’an, has not been proven that they are from the Qur’an, and likewise they are not considered a Sunnah from the Prophet (saw) because they were not narrated as being a Sunnah. Therefore, the best assumption of this is to consider it as the interpretation and clarification of the Qur’an by a companion, that is, it is considered as a saying of the companion who narrated it when explaining the meaning of the verse to which this addition or recitation was attached. That is, he read the verse, then gave its explanation without separating between the verse and his interpretation, so they were narrated together, and the listener thought it was from the Qur’an. It is not from the Qur’an, but rather an interpretation of the Companion according to his opinion. This is what it can be interpreted as, and it cannot go beyond that in any way. So the recitation of Ibn Masoud, for example: «فصيام ثلاثة أيام متتابعات»، “Then fasting three consecutive days”, by adding «متتابعات» “…consecutive days” a statement by Ibn Masoud that shows the necessity of successive fasting for kaffara (expiation) of breaking an oath, meaning that the addition is an explanation of the rule of succession of days according to the opinion of Ibn Masoud (ra) and this does not go beyond the fact that it is Ijtihad and understanding. Of a companion, and does not take the rule of Shariah evidence from the Sunnah.
e- Accordingly, every Ahad (single chain of narration) text of the Holy Qur’an that contradicts the definite text is examined:
– If its chain of transmission is weak, it will be rejected due to its weakness
– And if its chain of transmission is authentic, it will be rejected in terms of meaning due to contradicting definite (meaning).
4- I will mention what was mentioned in some books of Muslim jurists on such matters, for information:
a – It was stated in the Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia (p11908) the following:
[The Qur’an is what has been transmitted to us between the two covers of the Mushaf (Qur’an book) with mutawatir transmission, and is bound by the Mushafs (Qur’an books); because the Companions, may Allah (swt) be pleased with them, exaggerated in transferring it and filtering it of everything else, to the extent that they hated the tithes and dots so that it would not be mixed with other, so we know that what is written in the agreed-upon Mus’haf (Qur’an book) is the Qur’an, and that what is outside of it is not from it, as it is impossible in custom and tradition with the availability of reasons for memorizing the Qur’an that part of it be neglected, and it does not get transmitted, or is mixed with what is not from it.]
The Encyclopedia of Fiqh continues: [There is no dispute that everything that is from the Qur’an must be mutawatir in its origin and parts, and it is similar in: place, status and arrangement, according to the scholars of the Sunnah. That is, it must be mutawatir. It is stated in “Musallam Athuboot Wa Sharhihi Fawatih al-Rahmut”: What was transmitted by Ahad is not definitely a Qur’an, and no disagreement was known about it by one of the people of school of thoughts. And it inferred that the Qur’an is one of the things that have reasons for its transmission for including the challenge; And because it is the origin of the rulings, considering the meaning and the systems all together, until many rulings are attached to its systems. And because it is the source of blessing in every age by reading and writing, and therefore the effort of the Companions to memorize it is known by definitive mutawatir, and everything that is available for its transmission is transmitted usually by mutawatir, for its existence is required for mutawatir for everyone usually, if the necessary is negated, which is mutawatir, the required is negated definitely, and what is transmitted by Ahad is not mutawatir, so it is not Qur’an …] End.
b- The following is stated in the book, Al-Itqan Fi Uloom Al-Qur’an 1/279 by As-Siyooti: [And Abu Ubaid said about the virtues of Qur’an: The intention of odd recitation is the interpretation of the famous recitation and to show their meanings, like the recitation of Aisha and Hafsa: “والصلاة الوسطى صَلَاةِ الْعَصْرِ” “And the middle prayer is Asr prayer” And the recitation of Ibn Masood: “فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْمَانَهُمَا” “So cut off their rights” And the recitation of Jabir: “فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ لَهُنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ” “So Allah after the coercion to them is forgiving and merciful” He said: These letters and the like have become tools to explain the Qur’an. The same was used to be narrated about the Tabi’een regarding the tafseer and it was praised, so how then if it is from the companions….]
I hope that this answer is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah22 Dhul Hijjah 1443 AH
21/7/2022 CEThe link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page
-
Q&A: The Hadiths of the Work of Magic (Sihr) on the Prophet (saw) is Rejected in terms of Meaning (diraya) because it Contradicts the Concept of Infallibility (I’sma) of Prophethood
Answer to Question
The Hadiths of the Work of Magic (Sihr) on the Prophet (saw) is Rejected in terms of Meaning (diraya) because it Contradicts the Concept of Infallibility (I’sma) of Prophethood
To: Rabi’ Al-Rabi’
(Translated)Question:
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
My dear brother, my question is about the Hadith of Labid bin Al-A’sam and the magic (sihr) performed on the Prophet, does the Hadith undermine the infallibility (I’sma) of Prophethood?
Allah (swt) says:
(وما ينطق عن الهوى * إن هو إلا وحي يوحى) “Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination * It is not but a revelation revealed” [An-Najm: 3-4].
He (swt) says:
(يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ وَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ)
“O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people” [Al-Ma’ida: 67]. And He (swt) says:
(إِذْ يَقُولُ الظَّالِمُونَ إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلا رَجُلا مَسْحُوراً) “When the wrongdoers say, “You follow not but a man affected by magic.” [Al-Isra: 47]. So, is the Hadith narrated by Aisha that Labid bin Al-A’sam performed magic on the Prophet rejected in meaning (diraya) because it contradicts infallibility (I’sma)?
May Allah (swt) guide you to what is good and to establishing the Khilafah (Caliphate), and that you will be gathered on the Day of Resurrection with the Prophets, the truthful ones, the righteous and the martyrs, may Allah (swt) protect you, our Sheikh.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
First: Yes, the Hadith is rejected in meaning. To be rejected in meaning (diraya), means the following:
It is mentioned in The Islamic Personality Volume 1, p. 188:
(… Rather, the matter is that if a Hadith contradicts what came in the Qur’an, which is definite in meaning, then the Hadith will be rejected in meaning (diraya) i.e., the text, because its meaning contradicts the Qur’an…)
In The Islamic Personality Volume 3, page 93 under the heading “Conditions for Accepting Khabar Ahad”, mentions:
(Khabar Ahad is accepted if it fulfills its conditions; in narration (riwaya) and meaning (diraya) … As for the conditions for accepting Khabar Ahad in terms of meaning (diraya), it means that it must not contradict what is stronger than it, like a verse or a mutawaatir Hadith or well-known Hadith…)Second: To further clarify the issue, I will mention the following points:
1- The Messenger (saw) is infallible (ma’soom) from carrying out any forbidden (Haram) and disliked (Makrooh) actions, and the evidence for that is definitive. Everything that the Messenger (saw) does is a revelation from Allah (swt), whether it is obligatory (fardh), recommended (mandoub) or permitted (mubah). Allah (swt) says:
(إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَى إِلَيَّ) “I only follow that which is revealed to me” [Al-Ahqaf: 9]. And He (swt) says:
(قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَتَّبِعُ مَا يُوحَى إِلَيَّ مِنْ رَبِّي) “Say, “I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord” [Al-A’raf: 203]. In addition, he (saw) is an example to Muslims, and He (swt) says:
(وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا) “And whatever the Messenger has given you – take; and what he has forbidden you – refrain from. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty” [Al-Hashr: 7]. And He (swt) says:
(قُلْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّهُ) “Say, [O Muhammad], “If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you” [Aal-i-Imran: 31]. Likewise, everything that the Messenger (saw) says, whether it is a command or a prohibition, it is a revelation from Allah (swt).
2- Yes, as you mentioned in your question, they accused the Messenger, of being subject to the work of magic, and the Qur’an replied to them with what indicates that the Messenger (saw) is neither bewitched nor becomes affected by magic (sihr). In Surat Al-Isra, Allah (swt) says:
(نَحْنُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يَسْتَمِعُونَ بِهِ إِذْ يَسْتَمِعُونَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِذْ هُمْ نَجْوَى إِذْ يَقُولُ الظَّالِمُونَ إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلاً مَسْحُوراً)
“We are most knowing of how they listen to it when they listen to you and [of] when they are in private conversation, when the wrongdoers say, “You follow not but a man affected by magic.” [Al-Isra: 47]. Al-Qurtubi says in his interpretation of this noble verse: (… they listened to the Prophet recite the Qur’an. And they get repulsed away and say: He is a magician and is affected by magic (sihr), as Allah (swt) mentioned about them. Qatada and others narrated it. (وَإِذْ هُمْ نَجْوى) “…when they are in private conversation” [Al-Isra: 47] that is, they discuss privately your affair. Qatada said: Their private conversation (najwa) was their saying that he (saw) is insane, that he (saw) is a sorcerer, and that he (saw) relates legends of the previous people, among other things. And it was said that it was revealed: when he (saw) invited the notables of Quraysh to the food that he (saw) made for them, and the Prophet entered to them, and he (saw) recited Qur’an to them and called them to Allah. They spoke privately and said that he (saw) is a magician and is insane.
It is said: The Prophet (saw) ordered Ali to prepare food and invite the notables of Quraysh from the polytheists. Ali did that, the Prophet (saw) came to them and recited Qur’an to them and called them to Tawheed, He (saw) said:
«قُولُوا لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لِتُطِيعَكُمُ الْعَرَبُ وَتَدِينَ لَكُمُ الْعَجَمُ» “Say: There is no god but Allah, the Arabs will obey you and the non-Arabs will follow your Deen.” They refused. They used to listen (Qur’an) from the Prophet (saw), and say among themselves, he is a sorcerer, and he is bewitched. Thus, the verse was revealed. Al-Zajjaj said: An-Najwa (private talk) is a name for the source (masdar), that is, while they hold private (najwa) talks, meaning secrets (إِذْ يَقُولُ الظَّالِمُونَ) “When the wrongdoers say” [Al-Isra: 47] that is, Abu Jahl and al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah and their likes.
(إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلاً مَسْحُوراً) “You follow not but a man affected by magic.” [Al-Furqan: 8]. That is to say, a person who has been affected by magic, so he is confused about things. They said that in order to drive people away from him (saw).) End
The wording of the text (mantouq) of the noble verse is a response to what they used to say about the Messenger (saw), that He is affected by magic, and the meaning of the verse (mafhoum) is that the Messenger (saw), is not bewitched and does not get bewitched.
This is mentioned also in Surat Al-Furqan, in Allah’s (swt) saying:
(وَقَالُوا مَالِ هَذَا الرَّسُولِ يَأْكُلُ الطَّعَامَ وَيَمْشِي فِي الْأَسْوَاقِ لَوْلَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ فَيَكُونَ مَعَهُ نَذِيراً * أَوْ يُلْقَى إِلَيْهِ كَنْزٌ أَوْ تَكُونُ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ يَأْكُلُ مِنْهَا وَقَالَ الظَّالِمُونَ إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلاً مَسْحُوراً * انْظُرْ كَيْفَ ضَرَبُوا لَكَ الْأَمْثَالَ فَضَلُّوا فَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ سَبِيلاً)
“And they say, “What is this messenger that eats food and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he would be with him a warner? * Or [why is not] a treasure presented to him [from heaven], or does he [not] have a garden from which he eats?” And the wrongdoers say, “You follow not but a man affected by magic.” * Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so they cannot [find] a way” [Al-Furqan:7-9]. The wording of the text (mantouq) of the noble verse is also a response to what they used to say about the Messenger (saw), that he is bewitched, and the meaning of the verse is that the Messenger (saw) is not bewitched and does not get affected by magic.
3- The punishment for a sorcerer in Islam is death, and the evidences for this are numerous and are well-known.
– Al-Hakim narrated in Al-Mustadrak from the two Sahihs, and he said this is a Hadith with a sahih chain of narrators (sanad): On the authority of Jundub Al-Khair, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«حَدُّ السَّاحِرِ ضَرْبَةٌ بِالسَّيْفِ»
“The punishment given to a magician is a stroke with the sword.”
– It was stated in Musnad Al -Shafi’i: Sufian informed us, on the authority of Amr ibn Dinar, that he heard of his condition. He said: Omar (ra) wrote, “kill every magician, male or female.” He said: we killed three magicians”. He told us that Hafsah (ra), the Prophet’s wife killed a slave-girl who performed black magic on her.
Thus, the punishment of the sorcerer in the well-known sense of magic, is this punishment of death.
Third: Now we answer your question about the Hadith which says that Labid bin Al-A’sam bewitched the Messenger (saw), the Hadith is:
Muslim narrated from Aisha (ra) that she said: Magic was placed on Allah’s Messenger by a Jew from the Jews of Bani Zuraiq, he was called: Labid bin Al-A’sam. so that he began to imagine that he had done something although he had not. One day, or one night, while he was with me, he invoked Allah and invoked for a long period and then said,
«يَا عَائِشَةُ أَشَعَرْتِ أَنَّ اللهَ أَفْتَانِي فِيمَا اسْتَفْتَيْتُهُ فِيهِ؟ جَاءَنِي رَجُلَانِ فَقَعَدَ أَحَدُهُمَا عِنْدَ رَأْسِي وَالْآخَرُ عِنْدَ رِجْلَيَّ، فَقَالَ الَّذِي عِنْدَ رَأْسِي لِلَّذِي عِنْدَ رِجْلَيَّ، أَوِ الَّذِي عِنْدَ رِجْلَيَّ لِلَّذِي عِنْدَ رَأْسِي: مَا وَجَعُ الرَّجُلِ؟ قَالَ: مَطْبُوبٌ، قَالَ: مَنْ طَبَّهُ؟ قَالَ: لَبِيدُ بْنُ الْأَعْصَمِ، قَالَ: فِي أَيِّ شَيْءٍ؟ قَالَ: فِي مُشْطٍ وَمُشَاطَةٍ، قَالَ: وَجُفِّ طَلْعَةِ ذَكَرٍ، قَالَ: فَأَيْنَ هُوَ؟ قَالَ: فِي بِئْرِ ذِي أَرْوَانَ» قَالَتْ: فَأَتَاهَا رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ فِي أُنَاسٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: «يَا عَائِشَةُ وَاللهِ لَكَأَنَّ مَاءَهَا نُقَاعَةُ الْحِنَّاءِ، وَلَكَأَنَّ نَخْلَهَا رُءُوسُ الشَّيَاطِين» قَالَتْ فَقُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ أَفَلَا أَحْرَقْتَهُ؟ قَالَ: «لَا أَمَّا أَنَا فَقَدْ عَافَانِي اللهُ، وَكَرِهْتُ أَنْ أُثِيرَ عَلَى النَّاسِ شَرّاً، فَأَمَرْتُ بِهَا فَدُفِنَتْ»
“O ‘Aisha! Do you know that Allah has instructed me regarding the matter I asked Him about? “Two men came to me; one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one by my head said to the one by my feet, or the opposite, ‘What is the disease of this man?’ The other replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The first one asked, ‘Who has worked magic on him?” The other replied, ‘Labid bin Al-A’sam, a Jew from the tribe of Bani Zuraiq.’ The (first one asked), ‘With what has it been done?’ The other replied, ‘With a comb and the hair stuck to it and a skin of the pollen of a male datepalm tree.’ The first one asked, ‘Where is it?’ The other replied, ‘In the well of Dharwan.’ Then the Prophet went along with some of his companions. Then he returned to me and said, ‘By Allah the water of that well was (red) like the infusion of Henna leaves and its date-palms were like the heads of devils” I said, O Allah’s Messenger: Did you burn it?” He said, ‘No! As for me Allah has cured me and I was afraid that (by Showing that to the people) I would spread evil among them when he ordered that the well be filled up with earth, and it was filled up with earth.”
Looking at this Hadith, it becomes clear that it contradicts the following matters: 1- It contradicts the infallibility (I’sma) of the Messenger (saw). This Hadith shows that the Messenger (saw) was bewitched, and he imagined that he did something that he did not do, or that he performs a specific action, for example, if he prayed Zuhur prayer, for example, but he did not pray it, or the like. Of course, this results in the Messenger performing certain actions that are not from revelation. And all of this contradicts the fact that the Messenger (saw), was infallible in his actions and sayings because of revelation.
2- This is in addition to the fact that the Messenger (saw), did not kill the magician, Labid bin Al-A’sam, and he was a hypocrite as it came in Al-Bukhari, meaning that the rules of Islam should be applied to him. The jurists, although they differed over the killing of a dhimmi magician, but there had no disagreement about killing a Muslim magician, on their terms. Labid was a Muslim in appearance, so the rules of Islam are applicable to him. However, he was not killed according to the narrations on that.
3- The contradiction with the meaning of the noble verses.
In Surat Al-Isra, Allah (swt) says:
(نَحْنُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يَسْتَمِعُونَ بِهِ إِذْ يَسْتَمِعُونَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِذْ هُمْ نَجْوَى إِذْ يَقُولُ الظَّالِمُونَ إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلاً مَسْحُوراً)
“We are most knowing of how they listen to it when they listen to you and [of] when they are in private conversation, when the wrongdoers say, “You follow not but a man affected by magic.” [Al-Isra: 47]. And His (swt) saying in Surat Al-Furqan:
(وَقَالُوا مَالِ هَذَا الرَّسُولِ يَأْكُلُ الطَّعَامَ وَيَمْشِي فِي الْأَسْوَاقِ لَوْلَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ فَيَكُونَ مَعَهُ نَذِيراً * أَوْ يُلْقَى إِلَيْهِ كَنْزٌ أَوْ تَكُونُ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ يَأْكُلُ مِنْهَا وَقَالَ الظَّالِمُونَ إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلاً مَسْحُوراً * انْظُرْ كَيْفَ ضَرَبُوا لَكَ الْأَمْثَالَ فَضَلُّوا فَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ سَبِيلاً)
“And they say, “What is this messenger that eats food and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he would be with him a warner? * Or [why is not] a treasure presented to him [from heaven], or does he [not] have a garden from which he eats?” And the wrongdoers say, “You follow not but a man affected by magic.” * Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so they cannot [find] a way” [Al-Furqan:7-9]. As we clarified above in the point “Second-2”.
Accordingly, this Hadith and every Hadith with a Sahih chain of narrators that states that the Messenger (saw), was affected by magic (sihr), is rejected in meaning (diraya) i.e. he was not bewitched… This is because if the Hadith has a valid chain of transmission, but it contradicts the definite verse, it will be rejected in meaning (diraya).
I hope that this is sufficient, and Allah is All-Knowing and Most Wise.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah16 Dhul Qi’dah 1443 AH
15/6/2022 CEThe link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page
-
Q&A: The Sighting of the Crescent and the Astronomical Calculation
Answer to Question
The Sighting of the Crescent and the Astronomical Calculation
(Translated)Praise be to Allah and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, companions and those who are loyal to him, and so…
To the brothers and sisters who sent to our webpage asking about the sighting of the crescent and the astronomical calculation…
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
I have read your questions about the sighting and astronomical calculations, we have repeatedly issued answers on this subject, but never mind, I will add to it in clarification and confirmation, hoping that the brothers and sisters will reflect on it carefully and with scrutiny, so I say, and Allah grants success:
1- We, brothers and sisters, do not include the astronomical calculation in the subject, for the text depends only on sighting, and we fast and break our fast based on it. If we do not see it (the new moon) on the evening of the 29th of Ramadan, we must complete the thirty days, even if the new moon is present by astronomical calculation, but it is obscured by clouds or weather conditions. Sighting is what is relied on because the text is regarding the sighting and not the cosmic phenomenon. Look at the Hadith of the Messenger (saw) which was extracted by Al-Bukhari: He said: I heard Abu Huraira (ra) say: The Prophet (saw) or Abul-Qasim (saw) said: «صُومُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ وَأَفْطِرُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ فَإِنْ غُبِّيَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَأَكْمِلُوا عِدَّةَ شَعْبَانَ ثَلَاثِينَ» “Start fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon] (of Ramadan), and give up fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon] (of Shawwal), and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha’ban.” And the Hadith extracted by Ahmad: He said, I heard Abu Huraira say: the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «لَا تَصُومُوا حَتَّى تَرَوْا الْهِلَالَ وَلَا تُفْطِرُوا حَتَّى تَرَوْا الْهِلَالَ، وَقَالَ: صُومُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ وَأَفْطِرُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ فَإِنْ غَبِيَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَعُدُّوا ثَلَاثِينَ»“Do not fast unless you see the crescent [new moon] and do not break your fast unless you see the crescent [new moon]. Start fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon] (of Ramadan), and give up fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon] (of Shawwal), and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), count thirty days.”
If the clouds obscured it, for example, and the Muslims did not see it even though it is present behind the clouds by astronomical calculation, then we do not break the fast accordingly, but we must fast on the thirtieth day because we did not see it.
I reiterate, review the Hadith: فَإِنْ غُبِّيَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَأَكْمِلُوا عِدَّةَ شَعْبَانَ ثَلَاثِينَ»« “…and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha’ban”.
Although it is present according to the astronomical calculations.
2- We realize that the astronomical calculation can show the conjunction by the second, and can show when the new moon is born, and when it will disappear and how many minutes it remains after the sunset… But the Shariah text did not stipulate the cosmic phenomenon but rather the sighting. Look, for example, at prayer times, and you will find that the text mentioned the cosmic phenomenon and was not limited to the sighting.
]أَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ[“Establish prayer at the decline of the sun [from its meridian]” [Al-Isra’: 78] «إِذَا زَالَتِ الشَّمْسُ فَصَلُّوا» “Pray when the sun passed the meridian.”
The prayer is dependent on the time, so you pray as soon as you verify the time by whatever means. If you looked at the sun at the time of passing the meridian (zawal) or if you observe the shadow and see that all objects have the same size of their shadow or like it, as stated in the Hadiths of prayer times, if you did that and verified the time, the prayer is valid. If you do not do that, but calculated it astronomically, and you find out that time of the sun passing the meridian is such-and-such, and you look at your watch without going out to see the sun or the shade, your prayer is valid. i.e., that you verify the time using any means. Why? Because Allah (swt), asked you to pray when the time enters, and left you to verify its entry without specifying how to verify it.
As you can see, if you looked at the sun at the time of passing the meridian (zawal), you pray, and if you calculate it on your watch, you pray, i.e. here (by sighting and calculation) you pray because the text does not rely on the sighting but on the cosmic phenomenon… And this is contrary to the Shariah text of fasting and breaking the fast that stipulates sighting.
3- As for the witness who may be mixed up on the matter, he may testify that he saw the new moon while he did not see it, but rather he saw something else. This is the task of the judge or the person with the authority to announce the beginning and end of the month. He checks the witnesses and their number, the higher the number, the closer to reassurance. He checks how good is the witness’s eyesight, the direction of the crescent arc. He verifies the length of time the new moon stays after sunset, the place in which it was seen and if the witness is a Muslim and if he is an immoral person (fasiq), etc. Muhammad ibn Abd al -Aziz told us, Ibn Abi Razmah said: Al-Fadhl Ibn Musa from Sufyan from Simak from I’krima from Ibn Abbas said: A Bedouin came to the Prophet (saw) and said: «فَقَالَ رَأَيْتُ الْهِلَالَ فَقَالَ أَتَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّداً عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ قَالَ نَعَمْ فَنَادَى النَّبِيُّ ﷺ أَنْ صُومُوا» ‘I have sighted the crescent [new moon].’ He said: ‘Do you bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ So, the Prophet gave the call saying: ‘Fast.”[Sunnan An-Nasa’i]
This is how you verify the witness, but without bringing the astronomical calculation into the subject, that is, not to mention to him that the astronomical calculation determined that new moon is located behind the clouds, or that they decided that it does not exist, because the introduction of the astronomical calculation into the issue is contrary to what was mentioned in the Hadith of the Messenger (saw): «صُومُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ، وَأَفْطِرُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ، فَإِنْ غُبِيَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَعُدُّوا ثَلَاثِينَ» “Start fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon](of Ramadan), and give up fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon] (of Shawwal), and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha’ban.”
The text is clear, and it is that the month should complete thirty, even though if it is (the new moon) behind the clouds, but it is not seen.
4- As for the question: (the Prophet (saw) said: «إِنَّا أُمَّةٌ أُمِّيَّةٌ، لاَ نَكْتُبُ وَلاَ نَحْسُبُ، الشَّهْرُ هَكَذَا وَهَكَذَا يَعْنِي مَرَّةً تِسْعَةً وَعِشْرِينَ وَمَرَّةً ثَلَاثِينَ» “We are an illiterate nation; we neither write, nor know accounts. The month is like this and this, i.e., sometimes of 29 days and sometimes of thirty days.” [Bukhari]. “Should it not be understood in contradiction to the fact that we take sighting, because we do not write and calculate, so if we learn arithmetic, then we take astronomical calculations).
This understanding is incorrect and it is rejected as it is known in the Usul, as this concept is disrupted (mu’atal), because the description of Umiyyah (illiterate) describes the majority (al-Ghalib), so the Arabs were in the most general illiterate, in addition to that this concept has been disrupted by the wording of other texts, including the Hadith: «فَإِنْ غُمَّ عَلَيْكُمْ فَأَكْمِلُوا الْعِدَّةَ ثَلَاثِينَ» “…and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha’ban.” [Bukhari]
No restriction was mentioned with it, i.e. if the sighting of the new moon is not possible due to clouds or rain or any reason that prevents sighting, the Shariah ruling has been determined by completing the month thirty days, even if the new moon was present, but the clouds obscured it. Accordingly, the wording (mantooq) of the Hadith is used and the concept of contradiction (mukhalafa) is disrupted. That is, the concept of contradiction (mukhalafa) here is disrupted by two things: it describes the majority, and because there is a wording of another text that contradicts this concept.
This is true in the conditions of working with the concept in more than one case. It is disrupted if it describes the majority, or if another text disrupts it with its wording, such as:
[وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ خَشْيَةَ إِمْلَاقٍ]
“And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin” [Al-Isra’: 31].
“Fear of poverty” is a defining description, i.e., fear of poverty. Likewise, it is describing the majority, for they used to kill their children for fear of poverty, then this concept has been disrupted by a text:
[وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُتَعَمِّداً فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ]
“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally” [An-Nisa: 93].
Therefore, this concept is disrupted, so it is not said that what is forbidden is killing children for fear of poverty, and it is permissible to kill them if parents are rich! Rather, it is forbidden in both cases, whether out of poverty or richness, and the same is true for the verse,
[لَا تَأْكُلُوا الرِّبَا أَضْعَافاً مُضَاعَفَةً
[“O you who have believed, do not consume usury, doubled and multiplied” [Aal-i-Imran: 130].
So “multiple times” is an understandable description, and it describes the majority. They took usuary in multiple times.
This concept was disrupted by the text:
]وَأَحَلَّ اللَّهُ الْبَيْعَ وَحَرَّمَ الرِّبَا]
“But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest” [Al-Baqara: 275].Therefore, this concept is disrupted, so it is not said that what is forbidden is multiple usury, and as for little usury, it is permissible. Rather, usury, regardless of its amount, is forbidden because the concept of “multiple times” is disrupted, as we said.
Thus, the concept of the word “Umiyyah” (illiterate) is disrupted, as we have explained, meaning that if sighting was not possible due to clouds or rain, the month should be completed thirty days, whether we know the calculation or not.
5- Regarding Eid ul-Fitr this year, if you noticed, we were late in announcing it this time, and the reason was to verify this matter. There were different testimonies of the sighting:
a- Afghanistan, Mali and Niger announced the sighting after sunset on Saturday 30/4/2022 and then Eid was announced on Sunday, first of Shawwal 1443 AH corresponding to 1/5/2022 CE.
b- About 21 Arab countries announced that sightings were not confirmed after the sunset of Saturday, so they considered Sunday to be the completion of the month of Ramadan, and that Eid is Monday, 2/5/2022.
c- Four countries on their calendar marked Saturday as the 28th of Ramadan, so the sighting was not investigated on Saturday evening, but on the next day, Sunday, and they did not see the new moon, so they considered Monday as the completion of Ramadan and Eid is on Tuesday 3/5/2022, and these countries are India, Bangladesh, Iran and Pakistan
6- Therefore it was necessary to follow the one who saw, because the one who sees has the stronger case against the one who does not see, and the verification of the sighting is as it is in the Shariah texts without introducing the astronomical calculation into the subject because the Hadith of the Messenger (saw) is clear in the Hadith:
فَإِنْ غَبِيَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَعُدُّوا ثَلَاثِينَ»
« “…and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha’ban.”
And because Mali and Niger are west of Afghanistan, i.e. if the sighting is established in Afghanistan, it is with greater reason that it is established in Mali and Niger, and accordingly we have begun to investigate Afghanistan, and the announced sighting were in these three countries:
a- Niger announced that the sighting of the new moon of the month of Shawwal was confirmed, after sunset on Saturday in the regions of Diffa, Tahoua and Maradi, as well as in the city of Zinder.
b- The Supreme Court of Afghanistan announced, on Saturday evening, that Sunday 1/5/2022, will be the first day of blessed Eid ul-Fitr 2022 in the country. And as it was mentioned about those countries, the sighting took place in the states: Ghor, Ghazni, Kandahar, Farah, and 27 valid testimonies were confirmed by the regional committees.
c- Mali also announced that the Shawwal new moon was sighted on Saturday evening in two locations by 8 witnesses.
In other words, the sighting was from about 39 witnesses in different locations… and we made every effort to verify this, especially from Afghanistan, because Mali and Niger are to the west. If sighting is valid in Afghanistan, then with greater reason it is correct in Mali and Niger. We were not sufficed with what we got from the Media and with what we received from the Mu’tamids in the Wilayahs, we even added to that… So, we contacted the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Afghanistan, as well as some Afghan brothers in Europe to contact some relatives in Afghanistan to verify the matter until we were reassured that the sighting was confirmed, so we announced it around 12 at night, Medina time.
7- As for the question, why do Muslims differ in sighting? The answer is simple and easy, and it is as follows:
a- The disagreement is due to the non-following of the Shariah ruling, although it is clear! The Messenger of Allah (saw) explained to us the obligation to follow the sighting (method), and he (saw) emphasized that by saying: فَإِنْ غَبِيَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَعُدُّوا ثَلَاثِينَ» « “…and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), complete thirty days of Sha’ban.”
It is clear from this that the astronomical calculation should be disregarded, because the text required the completion of the month, thirty days, if the new moon was not seen, because the clouds obscured it from sighting; even if it was located behind the clouds and the astronomical calculation proved its presence behind the clouds. Even then, it is not correct to use them (the astronomical calculations), rather we complete the month thirty (days) as stated in the Hadiths Messenger of Allah (saw): «صُومُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ، وَأَفْطِرُوا لِرُؤْيَتِهِ، فَإِنْ غُبيَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَعُدُّوا ثَلَاثِينَ» “Start fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon] (of Ramadan), and give up fasting on seeing the crescent [new moon] (of Shawwal), and if the sky is overcast (and you cannot see it), count thirty days of Sha’ban.” And he (saw) said:«لَا تُقَدِّمُوا الشَّهْرَ حَتَّى تَرَوْا الْهِلَالَ أَوْ تُكْمِلُوا الْعِدَّةَ ثُمَّ صُومُوا حَتَّى تَرَوْا الْهِلَالَ أَوْ تُكْمِلُوا الْعِدَّةَ» “Do not anticipate the month until you see the crescent [new moon]before it, or you complete the number of days. Then fast until you see the new moon, or you complete the number of days.” [Narrated by Abu Dawud]. He (saw) said:«إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ الْهِلَالَ فَصُومُوا وَإِذَا رَأَيْتُمُوهُ فَأَفْطِرُوا فَإِنْ غُمَّ عَلَيْكُمْ فَصُومُوا ثَلَاثِينَ يَوْماً» “When you see the crescent [new moon] (of the month of Ramadan), start fasting, and when you see the crescent [new moon] (of the month of Shawwal), stop fasting; and if the sky is overcast (and you can’t see it) then fast 30 days.” [Narrated by Muslim].
There are many Hadiths regarding this, and they indicate that what counts in this is sighting of the new moon or completing the month thirty days. The purpose of these Hadiths is not for each one to see the new moon himself, rather what is meant is the just testimony as evidence, for it was authenticated on the authority of Ibn Umar – may Allah be pleased with them, he said: “The people tried to see the new moon and he informed Allah’s messenger that he had seen it, so he fasted and commanded the people to observe the fast.” [Narrated by Abu Dawud].
b- As for the second reason, the Muslims are united by a Khilafah (Caliphate), they have no one ruler that removes the dispute without division. By studying the Hadith of the Messenger (saw) this is clear.
Ahmad extracted in his Musnad, he said, Hushaim told us, Abu Bishr told us, from Abi Umair ibn Anas, uncles of mine from the Ansar told me and from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw):«غُمَّ عَلَيْنَا هِلَالُ شَوَّالٍ فَأَصْبَحْنَا صِيَاماً فَجَاءَ رَكْبٌ مِنْ آخِرِ النَّهَارِ فَشَهِدُوا عِنْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ﷺ أَنَّهُمْ رَأَوْا الْهِلَالَ بِالْأَمْسِ فَأَمَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ أَنْ يُفْطِرُوا مِنْ يَوْمِهِمْ وَأَنْ يَخْرُجُوا لِعِيدِهِمْ مِنَ الْغَدِ» “The crescent [new moon] of Shawwal was hidden from us (by clouds) so we arose the next morning fasting. Then a caravan from outside Madinah arrived towards the end of the day and the people init witnessed to the Prophet (saw) that they had seen the crescent [new moon] yesterday, so he (saw) commanded us to break our fast and to gather for Eid the following morning.” [Musnad of Ahmad]
Despite the difficulty of communication between villages and cities at that time, the problem was resolved by the Messenger (saw), when he (saw) commanded Muslims in Medina to break the fast because the new moon was seen in the Badiya desert, then he (saw) commanded Muslims to pray Eid the next day, because the Badiya delegation arrived in Medina after the time for the Eid prayer had passed that day. This is at the time when communication of news from one country to another took a long time. So how is it today, when the news is transmitted at rapid speed? If the Muslims had a caliph and one state, they would be the servants of Allah as brothers, especially since adoption in everything that unites Muslims and their unity is commanded by Islam for the state, the party and the individual according to the Shariah. So, adopting the Shariah opinion that unites Muslims is a matter of great status in Islam.
It is these two matters that remove the dispute, and it is the duty of the Muslims to make every effort to achieve them so that the Muslims return to being the best nation brought to humankind as Allah (swt) revealed in His Noble Book.
]كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ]
“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient” [Aal-i Imran: 110].
In conclusion, I ask Allah (swt), to guide all Muslims to the best in their affairs, to make them honoured with the honour of Islam, and to establish their state after a long absence, and then they do not differ in obedience to their Lord, but rather be as Allah (swt) says:
[فَانْقَلَبُوا بِنِعْمَةٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَفَضْلٍ لَمْ يَمْسَسْهُمْ سُوءٌ وَاتَّبَعُوا رِضْوَانَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ ذُو فَضْلٍ عَظِيمٍ]
“So, they returned with favor from Allah and bounty, no harm having touched them. And they pursued the pleasure of Allah, and Allah is the possessor of great bounty” [Aal-i Imran: 174].
May Allah accept your worships, Wassalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah10 Shawwal 1443 AH
10/5//2022 CEThe link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page.
