Exposing the mistakes of some writers
In the Name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful
This reply was written in 1385 A.H. and published in a book entitled “Al-Adillah Al-Kashifah li Akhtaa Ba’d Al-Kuttab”.
All praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family and Companions. To proceed :
I have perused the article published in Al-Bilad magazine, issue no. (1909), dated 12 Muharram, 1385 A.H. Entitled, “Beware of Immoderation”.
Unjustified Accusation
I found that the writer (may Allah pardon him) thought ill of the volunteering people managing Da’wah (the call to the Way of Allah), enjoining good and forbidding evil. He accused them of being deceived, extremists, and opponents to new matters, and mistakenly hurled other accusations at them.
Thus, I deemed it necessary to point out, in this comment, the serious mistakes in the published article to advise the writer and the whole Ummah and defend our fellow brothers against accusations of which, we are quite sure, they are innocent. It also implies an attempt to urge the writer and other writers to make sure of what they say, observe moderation in judging (others), and guard themselves against baseless mistrust. Here is a detailed elaboration on the mistakes committed by the writer in the article mentioned above. Such mistakes should be highlighted while the one who claims them should be condemned. Hence, seeking the Help of Allah and depending on Him - as there is no might or power except with Him - we present the following argument:
Showing that Shari’ah is perfectly moderate
As for what the writer mentioned about the disadvantages of immoderation and excessiveness, it is quite right.
Undoubtedly, Shari’ah (Islamic law) warns against extremism in religion, and ordained the call for the way of truth with wisdom, fair preaching, and argument in a way that is best. However, it has not ruled out the use of toughness and strictness in their due place where leniency and constructive arguments are of no avail, as Allah (Exalted be He) says: “O Prophet (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them” [Al-Tawbah: 73]
He (Exalted be He) also says: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you; and know that Allâh is with those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - See V.2:2).” [Al-Tawbah: 123]
Allah (Glorified be He) also says: “And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islâmic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong” [Al-Ankabut: 46] Thus, He made it lawful for His believing slaves to be hard against the disbelievers and hypocrites when Da’wah with wisdom and leniency fails to affect them.
Although the Ayahs (Qur’anic verses) are about dealing with disbelievers and hypocrites, they indicate that the Shari’ah admits leniency in its due place when it is hoped to bear fruit. Yet, if it brings about no benefit and people persist in injustice, disbelief, or transgression and refuse preaching and advice, they should be restrained and treated hardly. Hence, they should be subjected to the due measures of Hudud (ordained punishment for violating Allah’s Law), Ta’zir (discretionary punishment), deterring actions, or reprimand until they observe the limits and refrain from falsehood.
The writer concerned - and other writers - should not forget the religious texts mentioned in this regard and the occurrences from the time the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent until the present time. In this context, how eloquent are the words of the poet who said:
Unanswered, the Prophet remained to preach in Makkah in a mild manner and a soft speech for long With a sword unsheathed, his words reached And stubborn hearts humbly surrendered
Shari’ah gathers between strictness and leniency, each in its proper place
Conclusion: The Shari’ah (Islamic law) advises leniency in its proper place and also advises strictness in its proper place. Thus, the Muslims should not ignore that or be lenient when should be strict or vice versa. Besides, they should not claim that the Shari’ah acknowledges leniency only or strictness only, for it is a wise code of law that is suitable for every place and time and is capable of reforming the whole Ummah (nation based on one creed). That is why it uses both leniency and strictness. It is marked for justice, wisdom, and tolerance. Hence, it is a tolerant Shari’ah in its rulings and it does not burden anyone beyond his scope. It is also tolerant, because it begins by calling people with leniency, wisdom and clemency; but when this does not influence people and they overstep the limits and tyrannize, it powerfully and harshly restricts them and treats them in a way that deters them and that enlightens them about their wrongdoings.
Whoever meditates on the biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Rightly-guided Caliphs, his well-pleased Companions, and the succeeding Imams of guidance would perceive the correctness of what we are saying
Texts that order leniency in its proper place
Among the Ayahs (Qur’anic verses) revealed on leniency, Allah (Exalted be He) says: “And by the Mercy of Allâh, you dealt with them gently. And had you been severe and harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about you; so pass over (their faults), and ask (Allâh’s) Forgiveness for them; and consult them in the affairs.” [Aal Imran: 159]
Allah (Exalted be He) says regarding the story of Musa (Moses) and Harun when He sent them to Pharaoh: “And speak to him mildly, perhaps he may accept admonition or fear (Allâh).” [TaHa: 44]
Allah (Exalted be He) also says: “Invite (mankind, O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islâm) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Revelation and the Qur’ân) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.” [Al-Nahl: 125]
Texts that order strictness in its proper place
On the other hand, the Ayahs quoted above also include reference to strictness (See the article, p. 2)
As regards the Hadith related to this issue, they include the Hadith related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud and others from Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him): “that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said after reciting Allah’s (Exalted be He) saying, “Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dâwûd (David) and ‘Isâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allâh and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used not to forbid one another from Al-Munkar (wrong, evil-doing, sins, polytheism, disbelief) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do.” [Al-Maidah: 78-79] By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, either you enjoin good, forbid evil, and restrain the fools…” 1
According to another narration: “…restrain the wrongdoer, bend him into conformity with what is right, and restrict him to what is right, or else Allah will mingle the hearts of some of you with the hearts of others and will curse you as He had cursed them.” 2
It is also related in the Two Sahih [Books] from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I was going to order that the Salah (prayer) be commenced, then order a man to lead the people in Salah, then I would go with some men having with them bundles of wood to a people not attending the Salah and burn their houses on them with fire.” 3
Moreover, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was reported to have said: “If it were not for the women and children in the houses, I would have burned them down on them (i.e. men who do not attend congregational prayers in the mosque).” 4
Again, it is related in Sahih Muslim on the authority of Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Never had Allah sent a Prophet to an Ummah before me except that he had disciples and companions who would adopt his Sunnah (way) and embrace his guidance. Then, a group following them lagged behind; they would preach what they do not practice and act contrary to what they are ordained to do. Thus, whoever struggles against them with his hand is a believer, whoever struggles against them with his tongue is a believer, and whoever struggles against them with his heart (by abhorring them) is a believer. Beyond that there is no faith even to the extent of a mustard seed.” 5
In addition, the story of the three Companions, who stayed home during the Battle of Tabuk with no excuse, is well known to scholars. Then, the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) deserted them for fifty nights until they repented and Allah forgave them. In this regard, Allah (Exalted be He) revealed His Saying: “Allâh has forgiven the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), the Muhâjirûn (Muslim emigrants who left their homes and came to Al-Madinah) and the Ansâr (Muslims of Al-Madinah)” [Al-Tawbah: 117] until His Saying: “And (He did forgive also) the three [who did not join the Tabûk expedition whose case was deferred (by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم)] (for Allâh’s Decision).” [A-Tawbah: 118]
According to the preceding Ayahs and Hadiths, the author of the article and the readers should know that Shari’ah, being a perfect code of law, adopts leniency in its due place and harshness and strictness in their due place, and that a caller to Allah’s Way should be lenient, clement, forbearing and patient. This is more beneficial for his Da’wah (calling people to Islam) and makes preaching more effective. Besides, it is in line with Allah’s Commands and His Messenger’s guidance. He should also be endowed with knowledge and insight as regards what he calls to and what he warns against, as Allah (Exalted be He) says: “Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم): “This is my way; I invite unto Allâh (i.e. to the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) with sure knowledge.”” [Yusuf: 108]
On the other hand, the Da’i (caller to Islam) should not resort to harshness and strictness except when necessary and when the objective is not achieved through the first approach (leniency). In this way, the Da’i will have assumed the two approaches in their due places and applied the guidance of Shari’ah as regards both. May Allah guide us to success.
Refuting the author’s allegations and guiding him to the right path
In this context, we do not accept what the writer attributed to Al-Ikhwan (the Muslim Brotherhood) of excessiveness, for what we know about them contradicts his saying. Praise be to Allah, they are on clear proof and insight. They treat people in a kind way and guide them according to the instructions of scholars and officials of the country.
Supposing that some members of Al-Ikhwan made certain mistakes or unduly adopted strictness, they are not infallible. It is obligatory that we admonish them about it and warn them about potential mistakes so that they could avoid them in the future.
Moreover, the writer - when informed about such mistakes that he believes to be contrary to the Shari’ah - was more entitled to speak to the leaders of the group, orally or in writing, or advise them about their mistakes. He could even contact His Excellency, the Mufty or the leaders of institutions and inform them about the points of criticism that you have against those members, so that the Shaykhs could guide them to the straight path.
However, publishing such criticism in a newspapers is a form of vilification and underestimation of them, and attributing to them things of which they are innocent. This is impermissible for the believer who fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, for it involves weakening the truth, discouraging the call to it, confusing the readers, and supporting the foolish people and transgressors in their falsehood and in their attack against the callers to truth. We ask Allah to forgive us and him and to guide us all to sincere repentance, adherence to the truth and support of the callers to it, as He is the Best of those asked.
The fallacies of the writer
The writer’s claim that he does not deny that every Muslim should guide to what is right, teach righteousness, repudiate evil, and attract others through (his observation of) the morality of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, namely gracefulness, leniency, and forbearance. Yet, a Muslim is not allowed to assume rigor or strictness in his words or deeds, since he is not authorized or entrusted by the authority to do so. All that he can do is to repudiate what he sees as an evil from his heart, which is the least form of faith for the one who is not in authority. However, adoption of harshness and rigor could only be acceptable in a community or an Ummah that lacks governmental bodies assigned for undertaking this duty. Yet, if such bodies are available, then it is neither permissible nor acceptable on the part of the individuals to assume such a duty, since it is then already assumed by established governmental authorities.
Exposing fallacies
Such a claim involves truths, falsehoods, and delusions. The following is an elaborated explanation of that point:
His claim that “he does not deny that every Muslim should guide to what is right, teach righteousness, and so on”, is true and it is the duty of every one endowed with insight to undertake, for it is the way of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and of those who followed him with sure knowledge.
Allah (Exalted be He) says: “Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم): “This is my way; I invite unto Allâh (i.e. to the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me (also must invite others to Allâh i.e. to the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism with sure knowledge).” [Yusuf: 108]
This noble Ayah indicates that the true followers of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are those who follow him with sure knowledge and who call to the truth. Besides, Allah (Exalted be He) says: “Invite (mankind, O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islâm) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Revelation and the Qur’ân) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.” [Al-nahl: 125]
Though the Ayah addresses the Prophet (peace be upon him), it generally applies to the whole Ummah, as Allah shows in it the way and levels of Da’wah. Thus, the Du’ah (callers to Islam, sing. Da’i) should undertake the call to Allah’s Way strictly in the way outlined by Allah, whether the invited person is a believer or a disbeliever, with the exception of stubborn and wrongdoing ones (since proofs have already been indicated above about the permissibility of assuming harshness and strictness when treating such persons, within the limits of Shari’ah).
However, the writer claims that “A Muslim is not allowed to assume rigor or strictness in his words or deeds, since he is not authorized or entrusted by the authority entitled to do so. All that he can do is to repudiate what he sees as an evil from his heart, which is the least (form) of faith for the one who is not in authority.”
However, this is a superficial generalization and a manifest error as exposed through the preceding point, since all callers to Allah’s Way, whether they are government officials or volunteers, are required to follow the Shar’i way in their Da’wah and they should avoid harshness and rigor in words and deeds, except when necessary as was indicated above.
The writer’s words, however, give the impression that the opposite is true.
Guiding the writer to the means of Da’wah as prescribed by the Shari’ah
Again, his claim that “All that he can do is to repudiate …” is a clear mistake.
The correct stance is that the three stages of repudiation are permissible for authorized as well as non-authorized persons. They only differ in their capacity, for the one authorized by the government is more capable than others. Besides, repudiation by the heart is the least form of faith for the one incapable of repudiation by either hand or tongue, be he an (authorized) official or a volunteer. This is in line with the noble Hadith and with the prerequisites of Shar’i rules.
In addition, his claim that “adoption of harshness and rigor could only be admissible and acceptable in a community or an Ummah where no government bodies undertake such a duty. Yet, if such bodies are available, then the individuals are not allowed to assume such a duty, since it is then already assumed by established government authorities”, is unequivocally disputable too. Moreover, the approach adopted by the writer is not scientific and does not conform to Shar’i evidence because calling to Allah’s Way and teaching people that which they know not of His Shari’ah should not be introduced in such a way. Rather, it should be introduced through exhortation and inducement, especially among nations and communities in need of it, for calling and inviting such people to what they are required to embrace of Allah’s Law, including things assigned for rulers and scholars is limited to what lies within their scope. Thus, how can such a great thing be expressed in the words of the writer, namely, that it could be admissible and acceptable?
** Refutation of the writer’s claim and elaboration on the rules of enjoining good and forbidding evil**
As for his claim that “Yet, if such bodies are available, then it is neither inevitable nor acceptable on the part of the individuals to assume such a rule, since if government authorities and bodies have performed the task of Da’wah and enjoinment of good and disavowal of evil, then the volunteers’ participation with it in performing such a task is highly commendable and legally inevitable. Such participation is in line with the rule of cooperation in good and righteousness and is a form of Shar’i Jihad and worthy guidance.
In short, governmental authorities and bodies would have performed the collective obligation, and thus, participation of others in performing such an obligation becomes a form of supererogatory and voluntary acts, which is one of the best acts of worship and the most cherished by Allah (Exalted be He).
Yet, if governmental authorities and bodies fail to perform the obligation in the best way, others’ participation with them in such an obligation becomes compulsory, since the collective obligation is not fulfilled by the authority.
Besides, legal proofs affirm that the call for Allah’s (Exalted be He) Way, and enjoinment of good and forbidding of evil are among the collective obligations which, if performed by a certain group, the rest of the community are exempted from the obligation, and then participation of the rest of the community becomes a supererogatory act. However, if it is not performed by a sufficient group, the whole community becomes sinful.
Enjoinment of good and forbidding of evil are obligatory on individuals
Enjoinment of good and disavowal of evil could be an individual obligation for the one who witnesses the evil, if no one else disavows it and if he is capable of doing so. In such a case, he is obliged to disavow it according to many proofs, the most direct of which is the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) saying: “Whoever, among you, sees something abominable should rectify it with his hand; and if he has not enough strength to do it, then he should do it with his tongue; and if he has not enough strength to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.” (Related by Muslim in his Sahih) 6
Rejecting of evil acts by the heart is obligatory on every Muslim since it is possible for all, through renunciation of abomination, abhorrence of it and separation from its people upon inability to rectify it with the hand or the tongue. Allah (Exalted be He) says: “And when you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Qur’ân) by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Shaitân (Satan) causes you to forget, then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers).” [Al-An’am: 68]
He (Exalted be He) also says in Surah Al-Nisa’: “And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur’ân) that when you hear the Verses of Allâh being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them.” [Al-Nisa: 140]
Allah (Exalted be He) also says: “And those who do not bear witness to falsehood, and if they pass by some evil play or evil talk, they pass by it with dignity.” [Al-Furqan: 72] The meaning of “do not bear witness to falsehood” implies not attending it.
Demonstrating the meaning of Zur (Falsehood) and the religious ruling on the one calling to it
Zur (falsehood) includes all kinds of abomination, including polytheism, disbelief, festivities of polytheists, congregations for drinking wine and smoking, listening to songs and musical instruments, watching movies and such kinds of abominations. This meaning is stated by Al-Hafizh Ibn Kathir within his explanation of the verse quoted above.
Besides, Al-Baghawy (may Allah be merciful to him) mentioned a similar explanation when explaining the same verse. He said that the origin of Zur is varnishing things and attributing false qualities to them. Thus, it is a cover-up of falsehood in a way that makes it seem to be a truth. Hence, they embellish abominations by giving them false descriptions so that people would not resist but rather desire them. Thus, the one who does so bears the sin of his act and the sin of calling to it. Still a more sinful act than this is to call to it through words.
It is authentically reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: “If anyone calls others to follow right guidance, his reward will be equivalent to those who follow him (in righteousness) without their reward being diminished in any respect, and if anyone invites others to follow error, the sin, will be equivalent to that of the people who follow him (in sinfulness) without their punishment being diminished in any respect.” 7 This meaning is supported by numerous proofs.
The writer’s fabrications about Allah
As for the writer’s claim, “I was pleased that our reverend scholars renounced such trespassing on those people’s part, and forbade them to do so, etc.”, is disputable. It is already acknowledged that the Muslim Brotherhood - in their Da’wah and disavowal of abomination - would ascertain the legal way and treat people with leniency and wisdom. We do not know that they assumed of harshness and rigor that which obliges scholars to condemn them for it. Thus, I do not know from where the writer derived this report.
It is also quite known that the reporter of any news should make sure of the authenticity of what he cites and spreads among people. Moreover, if he is sure of its authenticity, he is still required to examine whether it is of a better consequence to declare it or it is better to leave it. Even if the present report was true, it is undoubtedly not to the benefit of the people to spread it among them or to publish it in newspapers, since this implies underestimation of the callers to the truth, discouraging them, encouraging immoral people in the face of the callers to truth at a time in which the callers to falsehood and destructive ideologies support one another in circulating their falsehood and declaring their ideologies. Thus, it is the Help of Allah (alone) that we seek.
Cheap interpolation belied by the reality of the Muslim Brotherhood
As for the writer’s statements about the ordeal that took place in the early stages of Islam and which resulted in the murdering of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), and about the consequent difference between the people of the Levant (the region covering Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine) and the people of Iraq, and so on, such matters are examined in the field of history and are known to Muslim scholars and others. Besides, the enemies of Islam and the ignorant undoubtedly play an effective role in such falsification. Again, the opinion of Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah (adherents to the Sunnah and the Muslim mainstream) about the ordeal is well-known, namely to refrain from (elaborating on) what occurred among the Companions (of disputes), to ask Allah to be pleased with them all, and to believe that they practiced Ijtihad (juristic effort to infer expert legal rulings) in what they did and that they were seeking the truth.
Hence, the one who was in the right among them would be twice rewarded, while the mistaken one would be rewarded once, as is indicated in the noble authentic Hadith.
What matter for us here are the following two points:
The first point is the writer’s fear that it could be that the members of the Muslim Brotherhood did what they did under the influence of a secret criminal group.
Indeed, the one who knows the Muslim Brotherhood and who is well acquainted with their condition, would certainly realize that they are far from such heinous accusation and mistrust. Besides, it is obligatory on the Muslim to think well of his fellow Muslims and to redress any mistakes that occur (on their part) through the legal ways that construct, not destroy, encourage the right, not suppress it, maintain the truth and refute falsehood. Thus, he should not mistrust them, help in smothering their Da’wah, calumniate them, encourage the followers of falsehood (in their struggle) against them, and instigate the rulers to stop their movement in conformity with Allah’s (Exalted be He) saying, “O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion; indeed some suspicions are sins.” [Al-Hujurat: 12]
Moreover, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the falsest of speech.” 8
A grave mistake because of blind imitation
The second point is his description of Ka’ab Al-Ahbar - in imitation of some of late critics - as being a Jew who feigned Islam to (freely) conspire against it and to corrupt its followers.
This disagrees with the well-known information reported by Muslim scholars and transmitters of reports. For the scholars of Hadith reported from him, while Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and many righteous Salaf praised him.
Moreover, Muslim related from him in his “Sahih”, while Al-Bukhari mentioned him in his book, “Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih” without raising any suspicion about him. Also, Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar referred to him in “Al-Isabah and in Al-Tahdhib”, and Ibn Al-Athir referred to him in “Usd Al-Ghabah” without hurling any accusations at him.
In addition, Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar stated in “Taqrib Al-Tahdhib” “Ka’ab ibn Mati’ Al-Himyari, Abu Ishaq - known as Ka’ab Al-Ahbar - was a Thiqah (trustworthy) narrator from Yemenites who dwelled in the Levant (the region covering Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine). He lived through paganism and Islam, and died during the caliphate of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him).” So, how can anyone who fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him accuse a person, who declared Islam, called to it and took part in what the Companions did, of being a Jew, with no warrant or argument supporting such a claim?
It is authentically reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned the Muslims against vilifying each other, and informed us that the one who falsely accuses his fellow brother of something, the reviler would then be worthier of the hurled offensive trait than the one reviled.
Moreover, the fact that he reported some strange Israelite narrations (from the Jews) does not justify accusing him of being a Jew or of plotting against Islam, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Relate traditions from the Children of Israel, and you bear no sin.” 9
On the other hand, Muslim scholars have scrutinized the reports of the Children of Israel and disproved and refuted of it whatever opposed the truth. Thus, Ka’ab in this regard resembles ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, ‘Abdullah ibn Salam, Wahb, and others of those who transmitted the reports of the Children of Israel.
Just as it is impermissible to accuse ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-‘As (may Allah be pleased with them) of being a Jew because he transmitted much from the reports of the Children of Israel that were in the two loads he seized on the day of Al-Yarmuk of their (Jews’) books, thus it is impermissible to accuse Ka’b of being a Jew or of plotting against Islam due to the same reason.
It is also impermissible to set him side by side with ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ and the likes of well-known disbelievers, atheists, and plotters against Islam.
It is narrated in the Two Sahih Books (i.e. Al-Bukhari and Muslim) from Abu Dhar (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “He who brands another as disbeliever or says to him “O enemy of Allah”, while in fact he is not so, it certainly rebounds on him.” 10
This Hadith and others with the same meaning make it an obligation that the Muslim ascertain in judging people and be careful not to slander his fellow Muslims on the mere grounds of suspicion or the blind imitation of unreliable persons. Indeed, it is Allah (alone) Whose Help we seek.
A grave fabrication, ridicule of the Du’ah, and denunciation of fulfillment of obligations
Then, the writer went on, “I believe that man is an enemy of that which he knows not (a famous proverb). So, preceding our new consciousness and enlightenment on the reality of new scientific innovations, we would shrink from and condemn the application of them.” Then, he referred to the employment of cars, planes, and rockets, and added, “Since, we have come to know, perceive, make sure of the benefits of all these (things), and that they do not involve disagreement with the religion, why do such naive and deceived people oppose it? Why do they then travel from one country to another (by such means of transportations), since they condemn and try to avoid utilizing them?”
Undoubtedly, those who read and analyze such words will perceive that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom the writer aimed at criticizing, in no way condemn such modern innovations, of cars, planes, wireless technology, and the likes. It is also quite known that the Muslim Brotherhood members in no way reject or find fault with any of these. Rather, they themselves utilize such means; they travel by car and plane and use wireless telephones. So, what is it that drove the writer to weave such a grave fabrication and fall into such a heinous pitfall?
Thus, I leave it to the reader to answer this question, and I ask Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) to safeguard us against personal vain desires and against the steps of Satan.
Regarding their travel to different countries for Da’wah and guidance, it is a worthy task, for which they should be praised and thanked. It is not a cause of wonderment and condemnation. It only raises wonder since almost all people have neglected this noble mission, which is the way of the messengers and their followers. Yet, it is not a cause of wonderment that results in condemnation, vituperation, or mistrust.
On the other hand, the writer’s description of them as “deceived” is improper, since they are indeed far above such a description, while it is the writer who is worthier of it, since the Muslim Brothers - thanks to Allah - are neither deceived nor influenced by a destructive movement. Moreover, they are not working for a vile purpose, as their purpose is noble, their work is praiseworthy, and their motivation is the (quest for the) truth, zeal for it, fear for the Muslims against the consequence of spreading of abominations and failure to redress them. Indeed, the deceived person is he who (out of mistrust) thinks them to be the contrary.
However, I hope his description of the Muslim Brothers and his preceding description of the Companions as “naive” - within his discussion about the prejudiced and greedy enemies of Islam, does not imply depreciation. For, this is indicated by the context in which he juxtaposed the description of them as “naive” with his description of them as “deceived”, in a way that denotes that “naive” implies negligence, dim-wittedness, and heedlessness about the consequences of matters. Such is the famous approach of some modern writers. I hope the present writer does not intend the same meaning, even though his words hint at it. We ask Allah to pardon us and him, and to grant us all sincere repentance of our mistakes and sins. He is indeed the Best of all those asked.
Overt contradiction
The writer then added, “Of course, I am not entitled to give Fatwa, and I am not qualified to do so, for this is the specialization of our reverend scholars who condemned the work of those deceived and naive (persons)”.
Well, we say to him, “Since you know that you are not competent to give Fatwa, why then do you issue Fatwas all the way through? Surely, if you ponder on your words, you would realize that you issued several misguided Fatwas.
Indeed, it is one of the mortal sins to give Fatwa with no knowledge. For such Fatwas lead many people astray and result in the ruin of many others, especially when they are publicly declared and when this is done by a person about whom people are deceived. This could result in serious danger and evil consequences. Besides, the one who gives Fatwa with no knowledge incurs the sins of those who follow him (i.e. his Fatwas), as it is reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: “He who issues Fatwas without having sound religious knowledge will bear the burden (guilt) of the one to whom he issued a Fatwa.” 11
It is also authentically reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “He who invites others to follow an aberration, he will incur sins equivalent to those of the people who follow him (in sinfulness), without their sins being diminished in any respect.” 12
On the other hand, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) regarded as grave the issuing of Fatwas which is not grounded on sound religious knowledge, and warned His Slaves against it, showing that it is an act of Satan. He (Exalted be He) says: “Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): “(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are Al-Fawâhish (great evil sins and every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse) whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allâh for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allâh of which you have no knowledge.”” [Al-A’raf: 33]
He (Exalted be He) also says: “O mankind! Eat of that which is lawful and good on the earth, and follow not the footsteps of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is to you an open enemy. He [Shaitân (Satan)] commands you only what is evil and Fahshâ (sinful), and that you should say against Allâh what you know not.” [Al-Baqarah: 168-169]
Second, we ask the writer, “Who among revered scholars condemned the work of the Muslim Brothers?”
We have already stated in the beginning of the present statement that - as far as we know - none of the scholars known for their (religious) zeal and meticulousness condemned their work. Rather, it is known that revered scholars maintain and assist them, thank them for their good work and ask Allah to grant them success and guidance. Besides, how could revered scholars condemn calling to Allah’s Way, guiding people to obey Him, and exhorting them to perform prayer in congregation, or condemn disapproving of those who neglect this. Such splendid deeds could never be denounced by anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day and who has knowledge about the call to Allah’s Way and the enjoinment of good and rejection of evil, not to mention a revered scholar. So, we seek refuge with Allah against saying something about Him or about His slaves with no knowledge. We seek refuge with Him against slips of the tongue and evil deeds.
For how grave is the sin incurred by the writer upon himself and upon those who could be misled by his words! How heinous is such an offense!
Acknowledgment of truth and subsequent deviation (from it)
Next, the writer added, “Yet, I say that the religion prohibits solid statues and the likes with the aim of Sadd-ul-Dhara’i (blocking the means leading to sins) and in fear of the return to worship of idols, as was the case in early Jahiliyyah and as is the case with idolatrous nations today. Besides, if it is our duty as a conservative Muslim Ummah to fight lewd and obscene pictures for fear that they could taint our traditions and morality, what is the argument of those who renounce reflexive shadowy pictures (photos) that in no way differ from the reflection of the mirror? Again, what is the difference between these reflexive shadowy, mirror-like photos employed in newspapers, magazines, exhibitions, homes, and cinemas, and between similar pictures wirelessly transmitted through TV? As I said in a preceding article that TV displays only what is transmitted of good or bad matter, and we - in these sacred countries - are capable of choosing what is good and beneficial to broadcast, such as pure educational, historical, and entertaining matter through which we can preserve society against the evils of leisure, gossip, and trivial sayings and deeds.” (End of quote)
Our reply to such an argument is that the writer did well when he admitted that Islam prohibits solid statues and the likes with the aim of Sadd-ul-Dhara’i and in fear of the return to worship of idols, as was the case in early Jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic time of ignorance) and as is the case with idolatrous nations today. There are many authentic Hadith corroborating the meaning referred to by the writer that were reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him), on the prohibition and prevention of statues, cursing sculptors, and declaring them the ones receiving the severest punishment on the Day of Judgment; they would be punished on that day, and it would be said to them “Give life to what you created.”
It is proven through Ayahs, Hadiths, and reports that the reason of aberration on the part of the People of Nuh was statues, as Allah (Exalted be He) says: “And they have said: ‘You shall not leave your gods: nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwâ‘, nor Yaghûth, nor Ya‘ûq nor Nasr’ (these are the names of their idols). “And indeed they have led many astray. And (O Allâh): ‘Grant no increase to the Zâlimûn (polytheists, wrong-doers, and disbelievers) save error.’” Because of their sins they were drowned, then were made to enter the Fire. And they found none to help them instead of Allâh.” [Nuh: 23-25]
It is also authentically reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that one of his wives made a mention before him of a church which she had seen in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and which had pictures in it. He then said, “When a pious person amongst them (among the religious groups) died they would build a place of worship on his grave, and would then decorate it with such pictures. They would be the worst of creatures in the Sight of Allah.” 13
Indeed, there are numerous Hadiths on this meaning.
Thus, it becomes clear that leniency towards selling them in the markets, setting them in offices and departments, and the like, are among the major causes of polytheism, of the acts of Jahiliyyah, and a characteristic of the worst of creatures in the Sight of Allah.
Therefore, it is obligatory on all officials in Islamic countries to eliminate such statues, drive (people) away from them, prevent importing them, and demolish whatever exists of them in any place in obedience to Allah (Exalted be He) and His Messenger (peace be upon him) and out of warding off their evil consequences.
The writer also did well when he said, “If it is our duty as a conservative Muslim Ummah to fight lewd and obscene pictures for fear that they could taint our traditions and morality …”
Sure, he did well by Allah, and it is indeed obligatory on us and on officials in all Islamic governments to fight such obscene pictures that have invaded the Islamic countries from everywhere and become widespread among our young men and women in every place, except for the places which Allah willed to preserve. Hence, it is the duty of the rulers to fight them and to ban the newspapers and books that advertise them among the people. Likewise, all newspapers and books conveying all kinds of atheism, subversion, and calls for dissociation from morality, and virtue should be banned. In addition, the rulers should charge administrative governors and security officials - in cooperation with the committees for the propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice (CPVPV) - with elimination of such destructive tools and lethal methods that threaten our religion and morality. May Allah guide them to maintain His Religion, protect His Shari`ah, and support whoever undertakes such a task; He is indeed Able to do everything.
Issuing Fatwas about pictures with no knowledge
As for the writer saying: “What is the argument of those who renounce reflexive shadowy pictures (photos) that in no way differ from the reflection of the mirror? …”
This is a Fatwa given by the writer himself which compares a photograph to the reflection of pictures in the mirror. Undoubtedly, the Fatwa indicates lack of knowledge about Shar`y evidence; the point which is admitted by the writer himself as he said that he is neither entitled to give fatwa nor is qualified to do so. Why then does he - may Allah guide him - give Fatwa and enact a conclusive ruling with no (sound religious) knowledge?
He also made a mistake in equating (the two kinds of pictures) and in drawing the analogy from two perspectives; one of which is that the photograph does not resemble the image reflected in the mirror, since the former keeps a (solid) form and remains to be tempting.
The image reflected in the mirror, however, is temporary and it disappears when the main object moves away from the compass of the mirror. Such is indeed an undisputed fact.
The second perspective, however, is that the Hadith reported from the infallible (i.e. The Prophet, peace be upon him) absolutely prohibited pictures, and stated that anything similar to a photograph is prohibited, such as the pictures on clothes and walls.
It is also authentically reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in many Hadiths that when he saw at Aishah’s room a curtain on which statues were drawn, he - getting angry - tore it and said: “The people who will receive the severest punishment from Allah on the Day of Judgment will be the picture makers.” 14
According to another Hadith, he said: “The makers of these pictures …” 15 - referring to the pictures on clothes - “…will be tortured on the Day of Judgment. It will be said to them, ‘Give life to what you created.’” 16
It is proven that he (peace be upon him) wiped out the pictures that were on the walls of the Ka’bah on the Day of the Liberation of Makkah. 17 Their religious ruling is similar to that applying to photographs. Even if we assume that the photograph is similar to the image reflected in the mirror, the analogy is still invalid, since it is established in the purified Shari’ah that no analogy is allowed if there is a religious text giving a ruling about it. Rather, analogy is admissible only when the text is lacking, as is quite known for scholars of Usul (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) and for all scholars in general.
The Hadith quoted by those who view the use of pictures allowable and the answer to it
As for what was reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: “The angels do not enter a house wherein there is a picture, except the marks (or stripes) on clothes.” 18 This Hadith is indisputably authentic. It is quoted by those who view as allowable (the use of) photographs.
The answer to such a claim involves different perspectives that run as follows:
First: The Hadith on prohibition of making pictures, the curse on the picture makers, and the statement that they will receive the severest punishment on the Judgment Day are categorical. They involve no restriction or exception. Thus, they should be adopted and their generalization should be acknowledged.
They also include the narration that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw pictures similar to photographs, namely those printed on curtains and walls, he flushed with anger, commanded them to be torn, and wiped out the pictures that were on the walls. Rather, he himself undertook the task of wiping them out when he saw them on the walls of the Ka’bah as is referred to above.
A different perspective is that the mentioned exception came only within the context of verses indicating the Angels’ abstinence from entering the house wherein there are pictures, while it was not mentioned within the context of the Hadith prohibiting making pictures. How great is the difference between both cases!
Moreover, his saying: “…except the marks (or stripes) on clothes.” 18 Should be taken to refer to designs that are not pictures, or to pictures of bodies with heads disfigured or omitted, or pictures on cloth wore out in common service, such as that used in making pillows, mats, and the like, which is not hung or raised like curtains by doors and walls, and on clothes. Surely, authentic Hadiths are explicit as regards the prohibition of all this and as regards the angels’ abstinence from entering the houses wherein they are as indicated in the Hadith narrated by ‘Aishah, Abu Hurayrah and other Companions.
Accordingly, reconciliation between the Hadiths becomes clear. We come to know that the exception is introduced within the context of Hadith indicating Angels’ abstinence from entering the houses in which there are pictures. Thus, we realize that it denotes the marks drawn on pillows, sheets and the like that are trodden upon, or pictures of headless bodies. May Allah grant us success.
Scholars’ reconciliation between Hadiths on pictures in a way that removes ambiguity
Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar (may Allah be merciful to him) reconciled in “Al-Fath”, and Al-Nawawy in “Sharh Muslim” between the related Hadiths in the way just elaborated above. Here are quotes from them and from other scholars on the issue that clarify the truth and remove ambiguity. Indeed, Allah is the Guide to the Straight Path. He (Alone) is Sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us).
Al-Hafizh reported in “Al-Fath” that Al-Khattaby said, “The picture that prevents the angels from entering a home where it is found is that which is forbidden to be acquired. They are the images of beings with a soul, whose heads are not removed, or are not walked on and are treated in a respectful manner.”
Al-Khattaby (may Allah be merciful to him) also said, “The punishment of the picture maker is aggravated because pictures were worshipped besides Allah; looking at a picture is alluring and some souls are inclined to it.”
Al-Nawawy (may Allah be merciful to him) said in Sharh Muslim, “Prohibition of pictures is restricted to animals and pictures which are not walked on, such as those on things used as mats and the like. Angels do not enter a house in which there is a picture or a dog.” Our fellow scholars as well as other scholars said, “Pictures of animals are quite forbidden. This is one of the major sins because it incurs severe punishment as mentioned in Hadiths. It is by all means prohibited, whether it is made on things that are walked on or not, and whether it is made on clothing, mats, coins, urns, walls or the like because it imitates the creation of Allah. As for pictures of trees, camel saddlebags and similar items that are not animals, they are not prohibited. This is the ruling on pictures themselves. However, using things on which the pictures of animals are drawn requires further elaboration. If they are hung on walls or drawn on clothes or a turban or the like, they are not considered to be walked on, and in turn this is prohibited. Yet, if it is woven on floor coverings, pillows, cushions, and similar things that are stepped on, this is not prohibited.”
The discussion goes on until he says, “There is no difference in all this between things that have a shadow and things that have no shadow. Such is the summary of our Madh-hab (opinion) on the issue.” Words to the same effect were given by the majority of scholars from among the Companions, the Tabi’un (Followers, the generation after the Companions of the Prophet), and those who followed them. It is also the opinion of Al-Thawry, Malik, Abu Hanifah and others. Moreover, some Salaf (righteous predecessors) prohibited (acquisition of) images that have a shadow while they deemed permissible the images that have no shadow. Indeed, this is an invalid opinion, since the pictures on the curtain which the Prophet (peace be upon him) denounced are undoubtedly disapproved though they produce no shadow, not to mention other Hadiths about the categorical prohibition of pictures.”
Al-Hafizh, after summing up the opinion of Al-Nawawy, said, “The generalization covering pictures that have a shadow and those that do not have shadows is corroborated by the Hadith narrated by Ahmad from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Who of you would (like to) head for Al-Madinah, and leave no idol in it except that he breaks it, nor an image except that he blots it out?” 19
The narration includes the following addition: “Whoever returns to making any of these things (idols) has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him).” 20 It remains for me to add that it is already mentioned above that the Prophet (peace be upon him) blotted out the images that had been on the walls of the Ka’bah though they had no shadow.
Furthermore, Muslim narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him: “Do not leave any image without erasing it or any raised grave without leveling it.” 21 This applies to all pictures, whether or not they have a shadow.
This ruling is unequivocally unobjectionable. After all, it is Allah (alone) Whose Help we seek and in Whom we trust. There is no might or power except with Allah, and we ask Him (Exalted be He) to grant us and all the Muslims success in that which pleases Him and to preserve us against the means of His Wrath. He is indeed All-Hearer of invocation.
As for television, it is a dangerous instrument whose harmful influence is as serious as that of the cinema, or even more. We already know from the works discussing it and from the words of knowledgeable people (of its effect) in Arabian countries and others that it is dangerous and that it negatively influences creed and morals, and disturbs the conditions of society. This occurs through enactment of loose morals, displaying nudity, giving voice to destructive irreligious sermons and articles, urging imitation of disbelievers in their manners and costume, aggrandizement of their chiefs and leaders, indifference to the morals of the Muslims and to their style of dress, and contempt of Muslim scholars and heroes.
It involves representation of Muslim scholars and heroes in repulsive images that entail despising them and driving away from their biographies, and also representation of the ways of cunningness, deception, plundering, theft, brewing conspiracies and aggression against people.
Undoubtedly, such an instrument that entails all ways of corruption mentioned above should be proscribed, and the means leading to it should be blocked. Thus, if the volunteering Muslim Brothers renounce it and warn against it, they cannot be blamed for it, since what they do is a form of advice for the sake of Allah and His Slaves.
However, he who thinks that this instrument - if censored - could be free of such evils or could broadcast only what promotes public good, he would be seeking a deferred hope and committing a serious mistake because the censor sometimes becomes heedless and because people today mostly imitate westerners and follow their footsteps as regards employment of this instrument. This is also because censors scarcely perform their duties, especially in the present era in which most people have inclined towards diversion and trifles and towards all that deters from guidance. Besides, reality testifies to such negligence, as is the case with radio and television stations in some countries, for both could not apply enough censorship to preclude the harmful influence of such instruments. We ask Allah to guide our governments to that which leads to good, salvation and happiness of our Ummah in this world and in the Hereafter. We also ask Him to provide upright retinue for these governments and to help them control such instruments, so that they would broadcast only what benefits people in their religion and worldly life. He is indeed the Most Bountiful and Most Generous.
Hence, we come to the end of our discussion regarding the mistakes of the writer in an attempt to give advice for the sake of Allah and for His Salves. We ask Allah (Exalted be He) to guide us, the writer, and the rest of the Muslims to understanding of the religion and of all that benefits our religion and worldly life. He is indeed able to do everything. May the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon His Slave and Messenger, Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on Tafsir, no. 3047; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on battles, no. 4336; and Ibn Majah, Sunan, Book on trials, no. 4006. ↩
Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on Tafsir, no. 3047; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on battles, no. 4336; and Ibn Majah, Sunan, Book on trials, no. 4006. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on Adhan, no. 644; Muslim, Sahih, Book on Masjids and places for Book on Salah, no. 651; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on Salah, no. 217; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on Imamate no. 848; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on Salah, no. 548; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Book on Masjids and congregations, no. 791; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 537; Malik, Al-Muwatta, Book on call to Prayer, no. 292; and Al-Darimy, Sunan, Book on Salah, no. 1274. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on Adhan, no. 644; Muslim, Sahih, Book on Masjids and places for on Salah, no. 651; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on Salah, no. 217; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on Imamate, no. 848; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on Salah, no. 548; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Book on Masjids and congregations, no. 791; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 367; Malik, Al-Muwatta, Book on call to Prayer, no. 292; and Al-Darimy, Sunan, Book on Salah, no. 1212. ↩
Muslim, Sahih, Book on faith, no. 50; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 458. ↩
Muslim, Sahih, Book on faith, no. 49; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on trials, no. 2172; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on faith and its laws, no. 5008; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on Salah, no. 1140; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Book on performing Prayer and its Sunan, no. 1275; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 10. ↩
Muslim, Sahih, Book on Knowledge, no. 2674; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on Knowledge, no. 2674; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on Sunnah, no. 4609; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 397; and Al-Darimy, Sunan, Introduction, no. 513. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on marriage, no. 5144; Muslim, Sahih, righteousness, upholding ties of kinship, and good manners, no. 2563; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on righteousness and upholding ties of kinship, no. 1988; Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 465; and Malik, Al-Muwatta, Book on miscellaneous matters, no. 1684. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on Prophets, no. 3461; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on knowledge, no. 2669; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 159; and Al-Darimy, Sunan, Introduction, no. 542. ↩
Al-Bukhari [Fath-ul-Bari], no. 6045; Muslim, no. 61; and Abu Dawud, no. 4687. ↩
Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on knowledge, no. 3657; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Introduction, no. 530; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 321; and Al-Darimy, Sunan, Introduction, no. 159. ↩
Muslim, Sahih, Book on Knowledge, no. 2674; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on Knowledge, no. 2674; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on Sunnah, no. 4609; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 397; and Al-Darimy, Sunan, Introduction, no. 513. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on Salah, no. 434; Muslim, Sahih, Book on Masjids and places for Salah, no. 528; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on Masjids, no. 704; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 6, p. 51. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on clothing, no. 5950; Muslim, Sahih, Book on clothing and adornment, no. 2109; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on adornment, no. 5364; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 375. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on transactions, no. 2105; Muslim, Sahih, Book on clothing and adornment, no. 2107; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 6, p. 246; and Malik, Al-Muwatta, Book on miscellaneous matters, no. 1803. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on marriage, no. 5181; Muslim, Sahih, Book on clothing and adornment, no. 2107; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 6, p. 246; and Malik, Al-Muwatta, Book on miscellaneous matters, no. 1803. ↩
Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book on the beginning of creation, no. 3226; Muslim, Sahih, Book on clothing and adornment, no. 2106; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on clothing, no. 1750; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on adornment, no. 5350; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on clothing, no. 4155; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Book on clothing, no. 3653; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 4, p. 29; and Malik, Al-Muwatta, Book on miscellaneous matters, no. 1802. ↩ ↩2
Muslim, Sahih, Book on funerals, no. 969; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on funerals, no. 1049; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on funerals, no. 2031; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on funerals, no. 3218; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 87 ↩
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 87. ↩
Muslim, Sahih, Book on funerals, no. 969; Al-Tirmidhy, Sunan, Book on funerals, no. 1049; Al-Nasa’i, Sunan, Book on funerals, no. 2031; Abu Dawud, Sunan, Book on funerals, no. 3218; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 96 ↩
-
- Estimated Reading Time56 min read
- Source :Majmu' Fatawa vol 3
- Refutals
- Last modified