The popular and detailed Life of Muhammad (saw) audio series in English by Imam Anwar Al Awlaki rahimullah has been transcribed. This series was in two parts, the Makkan Period in 16 CDs and the Madinan Period in 18 CDs. The transcribed text is available to download from the below links.
Makkan Period
Madinan Period
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Video: Tafsir of Surah Al Fatiha
A three part in depth explanation of the opening Surah of the Quran al Kareem, Surah Al Fatiha, delivered by Ustadh Abu Luqman.
An Open Letter to Rashid al Ghannouchi
Sheikh Rashid,
On the 23rd of October 2011, during the first “free”[1] elections in Tunisia following the departure of the tyrant dictator Ben Ali, the 60% of Tunisians eligible to vote that actually turned up at the polling stations across the country handed your party Hizb an Nahdha a clear victory[2].
It is generally accepted that the primary reason for your party’s success was its campaign-platform of “revival based on Islam”. So when I learned of the election result I wondered how your party would work to achieve this, since I knew from an interview you gave on France’s state-funded news channel France24 that you considered transforming Tunisia into an Islamic State out of the question[3].
It was with great interest, therefore, that I read the transcript of your recent speech at the “Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy”, with the title “Secularism and Relation between Religion and the State from the Perspective of the Nahdha Party”[4]. I was hoping to find in it an explanation of your views around the methodology to achieve “revival based on Islam”. But unfortunately, while it did indeed clarify for me some aspects of your thinking, in the end it raised only more questions.
You said in your speech:
“(…) It is not the duty of religion to teach us agricultural, industrial or even governing techniques, because reason is qualified to reach these truths through the accumulation of experiences.”
“The role of religion (…) is to answer the big question for us, those relating to our existence, origins, destiny, and the purpose for which we were created, and to provide us with a system of values and principles that would guide our thinking, behaviour, and the regulations of the state to which we aspire.”
“When we need to legislate (…) we are in need of a mechanism, and the best mechanism that mankind has come up with is the electoral and democratic one which produces representatives of the nation and makes these interpretations a collective as opposed to an individual effort.”
The meaning of these statements is clear. According to you Islam should define the goals, while the human mind should define the laws and systems that lead to achieving these goals. And you feel it should be mandated representatives of the people who apply their minds to define the laws and systems that lead to achieving these goals set by Islam, rather than a single individual or a group of individuals acting without a power-of-attorney from the people.
Things became less clear to me when you presented your arguments for your vision. You said:
“Islam, since its inception, has always combined religion with politics, religion and state. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was the founder of the religion as well as the state. The first pledge of allegiance made by the group of Madina who came to Mecca was a religious pledge to believe in Allah and his Messenger. But the second pledge was to protect the Muslims, even by sword, should al-Madina be attacked.”
“The Prophet (pbuh) was an imam in the religious sense as he lead prayers in mosques, and at the same time a political imam that arbitrated people’s disputes, lead armies, and signed various accords and treaties. Of relevance to us is the fact that upon his arrival to Medina he established a mosque and put in place a constitution that was called Al-Sahifah.”
“The distinction between that which is political and that which is religious is clear in the Sahifah in that Muslims are a religious nation (ummah) and the Jews another, but the combination of the two plus other polytheists made up a nation in the political sense. (…) Whereas the religious is the sphere of observance and obligation, the political is the sphere of reason and Ijtihad. At times when the ambiguity confused the companions, they would ask the Prophet (pbuh) whether this is divine revelation (wahy) or a mere opinion. In the case of the former they would obey, and when it is the latter they may differ and offer alternatives. On more than one occasion did the companions differ with the Prophet (pbuh) in his capacity as the head of state (…). One day the Prophet (pbuh) passed by a group in Medina cross-pollinating palm trees and said: ‘I do not see the benefit of doing so’. The Medinan people thought that that was divine revelation and stopped treating their trees which made their harvest of that year of a lesser quality. They asked him why he ordered them to do so, and he replied: ‘You are best placed to know what is beneficial for you in your worldly affaires’.”
Clearly this is a religious argument, for you say that the human mind should define the laws and systems of a state because this is what the Prophet (saw) taught. Hence also your referencing of Islamic scholars from the past, who – according to you – understood the Islamic law regarding the state in the same manner:
“It is mentioned that al-Mansour had become concerned with the multitude of religious views and interpretations emanating from the same religion and feared their divisive effect on the state. So he sent for Imam Malik and asked him to amalgamate all these in one to unify people’s outlooks. Imam Malik produced his famous book al-Muwatta’, with which al-Mansour was greatly pleased and wanted it to become a law that binds all Muslims. This horrified Imam Malik and asked for it not to be made so.”
“When al-Ma’moun (Abbassid Caliph) wanted to impose one interpretation of the Quran and one particular understanding of Islamic creed (that of the Mu’tazili school), Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal revolted and refused the state’s attempt to dominate religion.”
To me, this could not be more confusing. Because when you say that your vision regarding the state is what Islam prescribes, you effectively say that you want the Islamic State – how else could one define “Islamic State” but “the state prescribed by Islam”? But as mentioned earlier, we have you on the record also as saying you are against an Islamic State!
Through this letter I wish to bring this to your attention, sheikh Rashid, since I suspect other people share my confusion.
I wish to remind you also of the required intellectual premise that lies at the heart of this confusion, which is that if you are really against the Islamic State, you can not use religious arguments; but if you insist on using Islamic religious arguments when debating the state, then you can not be against the Islamic State as then the topic of the discussion is the characteristics of the Islamic State.
And I wish to urge you to remove this confusion and make your fundamental position on this issue clear. If you want the state as defined by Islam, then say you want the Islamic State. And then we as an Ummah can have a debate about the characteristics this state should have, based on religious evidences. (I am, by the way, pretty certain there will be quite a few people with quite a lot to say about the daleels you presented in your speech. For instance, how can you say the al-Sahifah is an indication that “the political is the sphere of reason” when one of its articles says “When you differ on anything the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (pbuh)”? Or how can you say the hadith on cross-pollination, whose topic is science and technology, has implications also for the completely different topic of governance, laws and systems? Or how can you say the Khilafah is not the correct form of the Islamic State, when the best of the companions of the Prophet, Abu Bakr (ra), ‘Umar bin al Khattab (ra), ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan and ‘Ali bin Abu Taalib (ra), all filled the post of Khalifah with complete consent of all the other companions?). Or, if you do not want the state as defined by Islam, then say so also – but which Muslim could say he does not want what Islam has prescribed for him?
To bring this clarity to the debate would not only be good for Islam and the Ummah, by laying a clear foundation for the most of urgent of discussions, the discussion about the path forward for the Muslim who wish to live according to Islam. It would also be good for yourself, sheikh Rashid. For as long as you continue to hover in between the two possible positions in this matter, you leave the door open for the cursed Shaytaan to whisper in the ears of the people: “Sheikh Rashid is just a hypocrite. He is against the state prescribed by Islam, the Islamic State, and only tries to hide that fact through religious reasonings”
Idries de Vries is an economist who writes on economics and geopolitics for various publications. As a management professional he has lived and worked in Europe, America and Asia.
Source
On the 23rd of October 2011, during the first “free”[1] elections in Tunisia following the departure of the tyrant dictator Ben Ali, the 60% of Tunisians eligible to vote that actually turned up at the polling stations across the country handed your party Hizb an Nahdha a clear victory[2].
It is generally accepted that the primary reason for your party’s success was its campaign-platform of “revival based on Islam”. So when I learned of the election result I wondered how your party would work to achieve this, since I knew from an interview you gave on France’s state-funded news channel France24 that you considered transforming Tunisia into an Islamic State out of the question[3].
It was with great interest, therefore, that I read the transcript of your recent speech at the “Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy”, with the title “Secularism and Relation between Religion and the State from the Perspective of the Nahdha Party”[4]. I was hoping to find in it an explanation of your views around the methodology to achieve “revival based on Islam”. But unfortunately, while it did indeed clarify for me some aspects of your thinking, in the end it raised only more questions.
You said in your speech:
“(…) It is not the duty of religion to teach us agricultural, industrial or even governing techniques, because reason is qualified to reach these truths through the accumulation of experiences.”
“The role of religion (…) is to answer the big question for us, those relating to our existence, origins, destiny, and the purpose for which we were created, and to provide us with a system of values and principles that would guide our thinking, behaviour, and the regulations of the state to which we aspire.”
“When we need to legislate (…) we are in need of a mechanism, and the best mechanism that mankind has come up with is the electoral and democratic one which produces representatives of the nation and makes these interpretations a collective as opposed to an individual effort.”
The meaning of these statements is clear. According to you Islam should define the goals, while the human mind should define the laws and systems that lead to achieving these goals. And you feel it should be mandated representatives of the people who apply their minds to define the laws and systems that lead to achieving these goals set by Islam, rather than a single individual or a group of individuals acting without a power-of-attorney from the people.
Things became less clear to me when you presented your arguments for your vision. You said:
“Islam, since its inception, has always combined religion with politics, religion and state. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was the founder of the religion as well as the state. The first pledge of allegiance made by the group of Madina who came to Mecca was a religious pledge to believe in Allah and his Messenger. But the second pledge was to protect the Muslims, even by sword, should al-Madina be attacked.”
“The Prophet (pbuh) was an imam in the religious sense as he lead prayers in mosques, and at the same time a political imam that arbitrated people’s disputes, lead armies, and signed various accords and treaties. Of relevance to us is the fact that upon his arrival to Medina he established a mosque and put in place a constitution that was called Al-Sahifah.”
“The distinction between that which is political and that which is religious is clear in the Sahifah in that Muslims are a religious nation (ummah) and the Jews another, but the combination of the two plus other polytheists made up a nation in the political sense. (…) Whereas the religious is the sphere of observance and obligation, the political is the sphere of reason and Ijtihad. At times when the ambiguity confused the companions, they would ask the Prophet (pbuh) whether this is divine revelation (wahy) or a mere opinion. In the case of the former they would obey, and when it is the latter they may differ and offer alternatives. On more than one occasion did the companions differ with the Prophet (pbuh) in his capacity as the head of state (…). One day the Prophet (pbuh) passed by a group in Medina cross-pollinating palm trees and said: ‘I do not see the benefit of doing so’. The Medinan people thought that that was divine revelation and stopped treating their trees which made their harvest of that year of a lesser quality. They asked him why he ordered them to do so, and he replied: ‘You are best placed to know what is beneficial for you in your worldly affaires’.”
Clearly this is a religious argument, for you say that the human mind should define the laws and systems of a state because this is what the Prophet (saw) taught. Hence also your referencing of Islamic scholars from the past, who – according to you – understood the Islamic law regarding the state in the same manner:
“It is mentioned that al-Mansour had become concerned with the multitude of religious views and interpretations emanating from the same religion and feared their divisive effect on the state. So he sent for Imam Malik and asked him to amalgamate all these in one to unify people’s outlooks. Imam Malik produced his famous book al-Muwatta’, with which al-Mansour was greatly pleased and wanted it to become a law that binds all Muslims. This horrified Imam Malik and asked for it not to be made so.”
“When al-Ma’moun (Abbassid Caliph) wanted to impose one interpretation of the Quran and one particular understanding of Islamic creed (that of the Mu’tazili school), Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal revolted and refused the state’s attempt to dominate religion.”
To me, this could not be more confusing. Because when you say that your vision regarding the state is what Islam prescribes, you effectively say that you want the Islamic State – how else could one define “Islamic State” but “the state prescribed by Islam”? But as mentioned earlier, we have you on the record also as saying you are against an Islamic State!
Through this letter I wish to bring this to your attention, sheikh Rashid, since I suspect other people share my confusion.
I wish to remind you also of the required intellectual premise that lies at the heart of this confusion, which is that if you are really against the Islamic State, you can not use religious arguments; but if you insist on using Islamic religious arguments when debating the state, then you can not be against the Islamic State as then the topic of the discussion is the characteristics of the Islamic State.
And I wish to urge you to remove this confusion and make your fundamental position on this issue clear. If you want the state as defined by Islam, then say you want the Islamic State. And then we as an Ummah can have a debate about the characteristics this state should have, based on religious evidences. (I am, by the way, pretty certain there will be quite a few people with quite a lot to say about the daleels you presented in your speech. For instance, how can you say the al-Sahifah is an indication that “the political is the sphere of reason” when one of its articles says “When you differ on anything the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (pbuh)”? Or how can you say the hadith on cross-pollination, whose topic is science and technology, has implications also for the completely different topic of governance, laws and systems? Or how can you say the Khilafah is not the correct form of the Islamic State, when the best of the companions of the Prophet, Abu Bakr (ra), ‘Umar bin al Khattab (ra), ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan and ‘Ali bin Abu Taalib (ra), all filled the post of Khalifah with complete consent of all the other companions?). Or, if you do not want the state as defined by Islam, then say so also – but which Muslim could say he does not want what Islam has prescribed for him?
To bring this clarity to the debate would not only be good for Islam and the Ummah, by laying a clear foundation for the most of urgent of discussions, the discussion about the path forward for the Muslim who wish to live according to Islam. It would also be good for yourself, sheikh Rashid. For as long as you continue to hover in between the two possible positions in this matter, you leave the door open for the cursed Shaytaan to whisper in the ears of the people: “Sheikh Rashid is just a hypocrite. He is against the state prescribed by Islam, the Islamic State, and only tries to hide that fact through religious reasonings”
Idries de Vries is an economist who writes on economics and geopolitics for various publications. As a management professional he has lived and worked in Europe, America and Asia.
[1]
I have written “free” on purpose, since Ben Ali’s law regarding
political party continued to be used to bar some political views from
organizing themselves in political parties: www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/10/201110614579390256.html
[4] www.csidonline.org, through www.islamopediaonline.org/news/tunisias-rached-ghannouchis-secularismSource
Refuting the incorrect understanding of Taqiyyah
The following is from the draft translation of the Fiqh masterpiece 'The Islamic Personality, Volume 2' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
The Supreme (swt) said:
لا يتخذ المؤمنون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين ومن يفعل ذلك فليس من الله
في شيء إلاّ أن تَتّقوا منهم تُقاة ويحذّركم الله نفسه وإلى الله المصير
“Let not the believers
take the disbelievers as friends instead of believers, and whoever does that is
not of Allah in anything except if you fear from them something to be feared.
And Allah warns you against Himself and to Allah is the return”
[Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 3:28].
Ya’qub and Sahl recite it as (taqiyyah) which is the recitation
of Al-Hasan and Mujahid, while the rest (recite it) as (tuqat). It is
said in Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: ‘(At-tawqiyya) is (al-kalau)
and protection. I do (taqa) something and I did (taqa) it and do
(taqi) it (taqa) and he (taqi) it (tiqa) like (kisa)
is I feared it.’ This text in the ayah specifies its subject and this
linguistic meaning of the word (taqiyyah) specifies what this word means
in this ayah in meaning since no Shari’ah meaning was established for
it. So it specifies interpreting it with its linguistic meaning. Upon this
basis alone is the ayah understood in its generality and details. As for
what came in the ahadith of the circumstances of its revelation, if
authenticated, guides to the details of what came in the ayah but would
not change its subject neither the meaning of its sentences according to the
language and Shar’a. The subject of the ayah is clear in its sentence
which is believers befriending the disbelievers i.e. treating them as friends.
The text is:
لا يتخذ المؤمنون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين
“Let not the believers
take the disbelievers as friends instead of believers” [Translation of the
meaning of the Qur'an 3:28].
If the ayah or ahadith came about a specific subject,
then it is specific to this subject and does not include anything else. The
issue is the issue of believers befriending disbelievers for which came the ayah
decisively prohibiting it. Nor is this the only ayah upon this subject;
there have come numerous ayahs like the Supreme’s statement:
بشِّر المنافقين بأن لهم عذاباً أليماً. الذين يتخذون الكافرين أولياء من دون
المؤمنين
“Give tidings to the
hypocrites that for them is a painful punishment. Those who take the
disbelievers as (awliya) instead of believers” [Translation of the meaning
of the Qur'an 4:138-139].
And the Supreme’s statement:
يا أيها الذين
آمنوا لا تتخذوا الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين
“O you who believe, do not take the disbelievers as (awliya) instead
of disbelievers” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 4:144]
And His (swt) statement:
لا تجد قوماً يؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخِر يوادّون من حادّ الله ورسوله
“You will not find a
people who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement loving those who oppose
Allah and His Messenger” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 58:22]
And His (swt) statement:
لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصارى أولياء
“Do not take the Jews and
Christians as (awliya)” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 5:51]
And His statement:
لا تتخذوا عدوي وعدوكم أولياء
“Do not take my enemy and
your enemy as (awliya)” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 60:1]
The subject is the subject of believers befriending disbelievers and
the rest of the ayah is detailing the subject. This is because Allah
(swt) prohibited the believers from taking the disbelievers as friends, and
linked this prohibition with a definite decisiveness that the one who does that
and takes the disbelievers as friends then Allah is absolved from him. The he
excluded from this decisive prohibition one situation which is the believer
fearing harm from the disbeliever, wherein it is allowed for him to befriend
the disbelievers to prevent this harm. This is if the Muslim were under the
disbelievers’ authority defeated in his affair i.e. the fear of the disbeliever
permits his befriending. If the fear disappears then the befriending is
forbidden. Accordingly the situation is not displaying befriending and hiding
something else, but the issue is excluding the situation of the believer’s fear
of the disbeliever when the Muslim is defeated in his affair from the
generality of forbidding his befriending him. The meaning of the ayah is
the decisive prohibition for the believers from taking the disbelievers as
friends for them, and that they seek their assistance and depend upon them, and
that they befriend them and there be love between them. So it forbade the
believers from befriending disbelievers instead of believers then excluded one
situation from this, which is in the situation where there exists fear from
them when they are under their authority. Then it is allowed to display love
for them and to befriend them to prevent their evil and harm. That is, it is
allowed to take them as i.e. friends in the situation where there exists fear
from them when they are under their rule. Apart from that, it is absolutely not
allowed. This is for the disbelievers only in relation with the believers as
the ayah was revealed in the affair of the believers who had relations
friendship with the polytheists in Makkah. It prohibited those in Madinah from
befriending the polytheists in Makkah and it prohibited all believers but
excluded from that the believers who were in Makkah who were defeated in their
affair. So it excluded them due to the existence of fear of the harm of the
disbelievers near to them. This is the subject of the ayah and this is
its meaning, and this is the Shari’ah rule deduced from it which is the
forbidding of the believers befriending the disbelievers in all types of
befriending, for support, friendship, assistance etc as the word (awliya)
came general in the ayah covering all its meanings, and the permission
of befriending them in the situation of fearing them i.e. fearing their
violence and harm when the disbelievers are victorious over Muslims and the
Muslims are defeated in their affair exactly like the situation of the Muslims
in Makkah with the polytheists. There does not exist any other meaning in the ayah
nor any rule other than this rule deducted from it. As for what some say that “taqiyyah”
is that a Muslim displays opposite to what is hidden before any person from whom
he fears harm or fears his knowing his reality and what is in his soul whether
that person is a disbeliever or believer, this statement is pure error. The ayah
does not indicate anything of this since the meaning of: “Except if you fear
from them (tuqat)” i.e. except if you fear from them something to be
frightened of as the meaning of “atqaytu” something “taqiyyah” is
I feared it, and (tuqat) and (taqiyyah) are of one meaning. This
is excluded from the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers instead
of believers so it is specific to what is excluded of it.
Accordingly displaying affection for the Muslim ruler due to fearing
his harm when he is an oppressor, a transgressor, ruling by disbelief is haram.
Similarly displaying affection for the Muslim contradicting you in the opinion
while hiding hate for him is haram, and to show lack in restriction by Islam or
not caring for it in front of the disbeliever or transgressor is not permitted.
All of that and what is similar to that is hypocrisy which the Shar’a made
haram upon Muslims since the subject of “Except if you fear from them
something to fear (tuqat)” is restricted to the reality of Muslims
who were in Makkah between polytheists i.e. restricted to the situation of the
existence of Muslims under the authority of disbelievers and there is no
capability for them to remove their authority i.e. defeated in their affair.
Then it is allowed for them to befriend the disbelievers in fear over what is
feared from them whether over their lives, wealth, honour or interests. In this
situation alone it is allowed to take disbelievers as friends instead of
believers. Everything that enters under this situation allows taking
disbelievers as friends instead of believers. The issue is clarifying the
situation wherein it is allowed for believers to befriend disbelievers which is
where Muslims are defeated in their affair before disbelievers like where they
are under their authority or rule; it is absolutely nothing else.
Muhammad bin Jareer At-Tabari said in his tafseer: “The view in
interpreting His statement: ‘Let not the believers take the disbelievers as
friends instead of believers’ until His statement ‘except if you fear
from them something to be feared (tuqat).’ Abu Ja’far said: This is a
prohibition from Allah (swt) for the believers not to take disbelievers as
helpers and supporters and assisters. Accordingly He made (kasr) for “yatakhidhu”
(to take) in the position of making the prohibition decisive but He made (kasr)
for the “dhal” together with it due to the “sakina” which meets a
“sakina”. The meaning of this is "Do no take, O you believers, the
disbelievers as assisters and supporters befriending them, instead of Muslims,
upon their religion and assist them against Muslims and direct them to their
(Muslims’) weaknesses. For whoever does that then he is not from Allah (swt) in
anything which means that he has been absolved from Allah (swt) and Allah (swt)
is absolved from him by his apostasy from His deen and his entering into kufr ‘except
if you fear from them something to be feared (tuqat)’ (i.e.) except if you
are in their authority and fear them for your lives then show friendship by
your tongues and hide your enmity from them but do not be partisans for what
they are upon of kufr and do not help them against a Muslim by action"
just as:
Al-Muthni narrated to me: Abdullah bin Sahr said: Mu’awiyya bin Salih
informed me from Ali (ra) from ibn Abbas (ra) that His (swt) statement: “Let
not the believers take disbelievers as friends instead of believers” except
if the disbelievers become victorious so they shown them kindness but
contradict them in their deen and that His (swt) statement: ‘except if you
fear from them something to be feared (tuqat)’ until he said:
Al-Hasan bin Yahya narrated to
me that Abdurraziq informed us that Mu’ammar informed us from His (swt)
statement: ‘Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends’ that
Qatadah said: It is not allowed for a believer to take a disbeliever as a
friend in his deen. And His (swt) statement: ‘Except if you fear from them
something to be feared’: that there is between you and him kinship so you
befriend him for that. Abu Ja’far said: That which was said by Qatadah in his
interpretation is for him alone nor is it the direction which the clear apparent
meaning of the ayah indicates except if you fear from the disbelievers
something to be feared. The stronger of the meanings of these words is except
if you fear from them something to be feared. The (taqiyyah) which Allah
(swt) mentioned in this ayah is the (taqiyyah) from the
disbelievers not others and Qatadah took it to mean except if you fear Allah
(swt) because of the kinship between you and them something to be feared so you
united its blood-relationship which is not stronger in relation to the meaning
of the speech. The interpretation in the Qur’an is upon the stronger apparent
(meaning) of the known speech of the Arabs as was used among them” (At-Tabari’s
words ends).
And Abu Ali Al-Fadhl bin Al-Hasn At-Tabarsi said in his ‘Majmu
Al-Bayan fi tafseer Al-Qur’an’ that the Supreme’s statement: ‘Let not
the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of believers, and
whoever does that is not of Allah in anything except if you fear from them
something to be feared (tuqat). And Allah warns you against Himself and to
Allah is the return’ that Yaqub and Sahl recited it as (taqiyyah)
which is the recitation of Al-Hasan and Mujahid with the rest as (tuqat)…When
the Supreme clarifies that He is the King of the world and Hereafter, and
All-Capable (Al-Qadir) to honour and humble, He prohibited believers
from befriending those who have no honour nor humiliation from His enemies so
that the eagerness becomes for what is with Him and His friends, the believers,
not His enemies i.e the disbelievers. So He said: ‘Let not the believers
take the disbelievers as friends/supporters (awliya)’ i.e. it does not suit
the believers to take disbelievers as friends for themselves, seek assistance
from them, seek refuge with them and show love for them like He (swt) said in
numerous places of the Qur’an like His (swt) statement:
لا تجد قوماً
يؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر يوادّون من حادّ الله ورسوله
‘You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day
loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger’ [Translation of the meaning of the Quran 58:22]
And His (swt) statement:
لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصارى أولياء
‘Do
not take the Jews and Christians as friends’ [Translation of the meaning of the Quran 5:51]
And His (swt) statement:
لا تتخذوا عدوي وعدوكم أولياء
‘Do not take my enemy and
your enemy as friends.’ [Translation of the meaning of the Quran 60:1]
His (swt) statement:
من دون المؤمنين
‘Instead of believers’
[Translation of the meaning
of the Quran 28:53]
Means that friendship is obliged with believers, and this is a
prohibition from befriending disbelievers and assisting them against believers.
And it is said (that it is) a prohibition of treating the disbelievers with
kindness and friendliness. It is narrated from ibn Abbas: "friends" (awliya)
is the plural of "friend (waliyy) who is the one who commands the
one pleased with his action with assistance and support, and it occurs in two
ways. Firstly, the designated supporter with support and the other who is the
supported. So His (swt) statement:
الله ولي الذين آمنوا
‘Allah is the friend of
those who believe’ [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 2:257]
Means their helpers and supporters by His support, and it is said that
the believer is the friend of Allah i.e. one assisted by His support. His
statement: ‘whoever does that’ means whoever takes disbelievers as
friends instead of believers ‘then he is not of Allah in anything’ i.e.
he is not from the friends of Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) is absolved of him,
and it is said he is not from the friendship (wilayah) of Allah in
anything. Then He excluded and said: ‘except if you fear from them something
to be feared’ means except that if the disbelievers are victorious and the
believers defeated so the believer fears them if he does not show his agreement
with them or make good his companionship with them. At that time, it is allowed
for him to show his affection for them with his tongue and (فعند ذلك يجوز له إظهار مودّتهم بلسانه ومداراتهم تقية منه
ودفعاً عن نفسه من غير أن يعتقد ذلك mudarat) of them as a
precaution (taqiyyah) from them and protection for himself without
believing that. In this ayah there is an indication that (taqiyyah)
is permitted in the deen when there is fear over oneself and our companions say
it is permitted in all matter at times of necessity and often it becomes
obligatory for the variety of kindness and reconciliation, but it is not
permitted from the actions in killing a believer or what is known or he
considers most probable that it is spoiling (istifsad) in the deen.
Al-Mufid said that it is obligatory at times and becomes fard, and it is
permitted at times and becomes recommended. And it is permitted at time without
obligation and it becomes at times better than leaving it; and it could at
times be better to leave it even though its performer is excused and forgiven
over it by leaving the blame over it. Sheikh Abu Ja’far At-Tusi said that the
apparent meaning of the narrations indicate that it is obligatory during fear
of one’s life, and it has been narrated that a dispensation in allowing
speaking clearly the truth thereupon. Al-Hasan narrated
أن مسيلمة الكذاب أخذ رجلينمن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فقال
لأحدهما: أتشهد بأن محمداً رسول الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: أفتشهد إني رسول الله؟ قال:
نعم. ثم دعا بالآخر فقال: أتشهد بأن محمداً رسول الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: أفتشهد إني
رسول الله؟ فقال: إني أصم. قالها ثلاثاً كل ذلك يجيبه بمثل الأول، فضرب عنقه. فبلغ
ذلك رسول الله فقال: أمّا ذلك المقتول فمضى على صدقه ويقينه وأخذ بفضله فهنيئاً
له، وأمّا الآخر فقَبِل رخصة الله فلا تبعة عليه
‘That Musaylimah the liar took two men of the Sahabah of the
Messenger of Allah (saw) and said to one of them: Do you bear witness that
Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. He said: Then do you bear
witness that I am a Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. Then he called for the
other and said: Do you bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah? He
said: Yes. Then he said: Then do you bear witness that I am a Messenger of
Allah? He said: I am deaf (to that). He said it thrice each time answering him
like the first so he struck off his neck. This was conveyed to the Messenger of
Allah who said: As for the one killed, he executed his truth and conviction,
and he took his virtue so may it be good for him. As for the other, he accepted
the dispensation of Allah so there is no (tab’a) for him.’
Accordingly (taqiyyah) is a dispensation and speaking clearly
the truth is a virtue” (At-Tabarsi’s speech ends).
Accordingly it is shown from the words of the two mufasireen,
At-Tabari and At-Tabarsi, who are of two different schools of thought, their
agreement upon explaining the meaning of the ayah as it came in that it
is a prohibition for believers befriending disbelievers and excluding the
situation of believers fearing the harm of the disbelievers from this
prohibition. Look at the words of At-Tabari: “except if you fear from them
something to be feared (tuqat)’ (i.e.) except if you are in their authority
and you fear them over your lives so you show them friendship with your
tongues.” And look at the words of At-Tabarisi: “Then He excluded and said: ‘except
if you fear from them something to be feared’ and the meaning is except if
the disbelievers are victorious and believers defeated so the believer fears
them if he does not show his agreement with them and does not make good his
friendship with them. At that time it is allowed for him to show his love for
them by his tongue and (mudarat) them as a precaution and in protection
of his soul.” The two mufasireen agree that the subject is excluding the
prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers and that it is limited to
that. Except that At-Tabarisi followed upon that which is outside the subject
and made the ayah an evidence that (taqiyyah) is permitted in the
deen during for one’s life which is not present in the ayah since its
subject is the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers and excluding
the situation of fear of the disbelievers when they defeat the Muslims in
allowing their friendship in this situation. It is not (taqiyyah) in the
deen nor is it specified to fear over life because the exclusion is general “except
if you fear from them something to be feared” (i.e.) except if you fear
from them what is to be feared from. Az-Zamakhshari said in Al-Kashaf:
“Except if you fear from them a matter which requires protection from” so any
matter which must be protected from permits befriending it i.e. all that you
fear them which is general covering fear over life, wealth, honour and
interests. Accordingly making the ayah an evidence for (taqiyyah)
in the deen outside the subject, and making it specific in the situation of
fear over life is specification without a specifying (evidence). This is
besides it being another subject relating to kufr and iman only which is
related to another ayah and it is not related to this ayah. As
for the statement of At-Tabarisi: “Our companions said (it is) permitted in all
matters during necessity” then what he quotes from Al-Mufid of its being
obligatory or not obligatory to the last of what he mentioned is abstract
speech of any evidence. The ayah does not indicate this in any way even
according to At-Tabarisi’s own tafsir, nor did he come with any other evidence
neither from the Book or Sunnah or Ijma'a of the Sahabah, hence it is rejected
and falls from the rank of consideration. Nor is it said that if befriending
disbelievers in the situation of fear of them is allowed then (mudarat)
the unjust or transgressor ruler with power is of greater precedent. This is
not said because that which is of greater precedent is the sense of the speech
and this is not from it nor is ولا يَمُت له
بصلة، (yamut)
any connection (sillat) with it. It is not of the (qabeel) of the
Supreme’s statement:
ومنهم من إن تأمنه
بدينار لا يؤدّه إليك
“Among them is one whom if you entrust him with a Dinar would not
return it to you” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 3:75]
Nor is it of the (qabeel) of the Supreme’s statement:
ومن أهل الكتاب من
إن تأمنه بقنطار يؤدّه إليك
“And of the People of the Book is one whom if you entrusted with a
qintar will return it to you” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an
3:75].
This is because the transgressor is not from the category of the
disbeliever or from their class, and because the friendship prohibited in this ayah
is befriending instead of the believers. The unjust and transgressor ruler with
power is among the believers injustice occurring from him or the transgression
covering him does not negate the description of iman from him. Hence this
subject does not enter in the research of greater precedent, so accordingly the
greater precedent does not come into it such that it is used as a witness.
Moreover the befriending of the unjust and transgressor ruler with
power is allowed in the situation of security and the situation of fear equally
because he is a believer and befriending believers is definitely allowed
because the word “believers” in His statement: “instead of believers” is
general covering all believers. There did not come any text prohibiting
befriending the unjust or transgressor ruler or befriending transgressors and
the wicked (fujjar); rather the texts are specific in prohibiting the
befriending of disbelievers. More than that, the obedience to the unjust ruler
is obliged in other than sin and jihad is obliged under his banner and it is
allowed to pray behind the Imam in prayer if he is a transgressor which are of
the greatest indication regarding permitting their friendship. What is
prohibited is the pleasure with the injustice of the ruler and the
transgression of the transgressor. Accordingly (taqiyyah) is rejected
when it is a believer showing opposite to what he hides in front of powerful
unjust or transgressor ruler or opponent in the opinion or similar, and doing
it is haram as it is hypocrisy and all hypocrisy is forbidden.
Above all that, the accounting of the unjust ruler over his injustice
is obligatory and it is not allowed to leave it for fear of the ruler over
money or interests or harm, nor is (taqiyyah) allowed therein.
Announcing war against him if clear disbelief (kufr bawah) is seen from
him after he was ruling by Islam is obligatory and it is haram to refrain from
performing it. And commanding the good and forbidding the evil before the ruler
or others from the people of transgression or injustice has been obliged by
Allah (swt) upon the Muslims. This negates the view of (taqiyyah) and
contradicts it completely as He (swt) decisively forbade keeping silent over
the unjust ruler and the transgressor, whereas (taqiyyah) obliges
silence over that at certain times and makes it recommended at other times and
allows it at other times which contradicts the ayah of commanding good
and forbidding evil and contradicts the authentic ahadith which came
about rejecting upon the leaders and rulers if they are unjust or transgressors
and the authentic ahadith which came regarding the obligation of
accounting them over their actions an opposes the obligation of exposing the
truth without taking into account, for the sake of Allah (swt), the complaint
of a plaintiff. Accordingly, with regard to the (taqiyyah) of the unjust
and transgressor ruler, or the strong usurper (mutasallit) among the
wicked (fujjar) or the one opposing you in the opinion, there came ayat
and authenticated ahadith texts contradicting that and encouraging the
obligation of acting contrary to that, which emphasizes that it is haram, on
top of its being hypocrisy which is not allowed for the Muslims.
There remains the question of the ayah:
إلاّ من أُكره
وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان
“Except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman”
[Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 16:106].
Some mufasireen link it with the ayah: “except if you fear
from them something to be feared” and deduce from it the entering of
showing kufr and hiding iman in the category of friendship and making it to
enter what they call (taqiyyah), with some deducing from it that
friendship is allowed in the situation of fearing for one’s life only but not
in other (situations). This is pure error because the ayah: “except
the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman” has a
different situation and a different subject as its subject is apostasy from
Islam in the situation where there exists fear of definite, confirmed killing
not probable and the subject of the ayah: “except if you fear from
them something to be feared” is prohibiting befriending disbelievers in all
its types and excluding the permissibility of this befriending in the situation
of there existing what is feared from whether it was fear over life, wealth,
interest or any harm. It distinguishes between the two situations and two
subjects such that one does not enter into the other nor are they linked with
it due to the difference in situation and subject. When the Muslim is under the
authority of disbelievers defeated over his matter before them, it is not
permitted for him to apostatise from Islam as a show of (mudara) to
them; rather it is obligatory upon him to emigrate if he is unable to perform
the rules of his deen contrary to befriending them which is allowed. However if
the Muslims fear over his life a confirmed death and he is forced upon kufr
then it is permitted for him to show kufr and hide iman, and other than that it
is not permitted because of the text of the ayah:
من كفر بالله من بعد إيمانه إلاّ من أُكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان
“Whoever disbelieves in
Allah after his iman except the one who is compelled and his heart is content
upon iman.” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 16:106].
So the subject is the subject of kufr after iman i.e. the subject of
apostasy from Islam, and the situation is the situation of fearing death. This
is what the fuqaha term as الإكراه المُلجِئ (muljiu)
which is the only compulsion considered by the Shar’a in all situations in
which the rule is lifted from the one compelled. The compulsion which the
Shar’a excluded is the (muljiu) compulsion i.e. the situation of fearing
definite death. This is strengthened in the ayah that was revealed about
Muslims who apostatised fearing death. It was narrated that this ayah
was revealed about Ammar bin Yasir. At-Tabari said: “Muhammad bin S’aad related
to me and said: My paternal uncle related to me and said: My father related to
me from his father from ibn Abbas that His statement: ‘Whoever disbelieves
in Allah after his belief except the one who is compelled and his heart is
content upon iman’ to the end of the ayah. This was because the
polytheists struck Ammar bin Yasir and punished him then left him. So he returned
to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and informed him about what he met with from
Quraysh and what he said. So Allah (swt) revealed his mention of his excuse: ‘Whoever
disbelieves in Allah after his iman’ until His statement ‘great
punishment.’ Bashr related to us and said: Yazid related to us and said:
Saeed related to us from Qatadah: ‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his
belief except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman’
and said: It was mentioned to us that it was revealed about Ammar bin Yasir
whom Banu Al-Mughira captured and covered him in the well of Maymun and said:
Disbelieve in Allah, so he followed them in that and his heart was compelled.
So Allah (swt) revealed His statement: ‘except the one who is compelled and
his heart is content upon iman.’ And At-Tabari said: Ibn Abd al-‘Ala
related to us and said: Muhammad bin Thawr related to us from Mu’ammar from
Abdulkareem Al-Juzri from Abu Ubayd bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir who said:
أخذ المشركون عمار بن ياسر فعذبوه حتى باراهم في بعض ما أرادوا، فذكر ذلك إلى
النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: كيف تجد قلبك؟ قال:
مطمئناً بالإيمان. قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (فإن عادوا فعُد).
The polytheists took Ammar bin Yasir and punished him until he (bara)
them in some of what they wished. He mentioned that to the Prophet (saw) and
the Prophet (saw) said: How did you find your heart? He said: Secured upon
iman. The Prophet (saw) said: If they repeat, then you repeat.”
These ahadith indicate that the circumstance of revelation of
the ayah is the incident of Ammar and its subject is apostasy from
Islam. The situation specific to it is the definite fear of killing which alone
is sufficient to strengthen that it has no relationship with the ayah: “except
if you fear from them something to be feared.” The ayah: “except
the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman” was revealed
in Makkah on the subject of iman, and the ayah: “except if you fear
from them something to be feared” is Madinan revealed on the subject of
excluding the situation of fearing what is to be feared from the prohibition of
believers befriending disbelievers. Accordingly this ayah is not applicable on that subject.
There remains the rule regarding the one threatened with confirmed killing:
Is it more virtuous to show kufr and hide iman so as to be safe from death or
is it better to persevere upon his iman even if it leads to death? The answer
is that persevering to iman even if it leads to death is better because the
permissibility of showing kufr is a dispensation and lifts difficulty, and
preserving the iman is (‘azeemah) which is the principle therefore it is
better. It is narrated
أن مسيلمة أخذ رجلين فقال لأحدهما: ما تقول في محمد؟ قال: رسول الله. قال: فما
تقول فيّ؟ قال: أنت أيضاً، فخلاّه. وقال للآخر: ما تقول في محمد؟ قال: رسول الله.
قال: فما تقول فيّ؟ قال: أنا أصم، فأعاد عليه ثلاثاً، فأعاد جوابه، فقتله. فبلغ
ذلك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: أمّا الأول فقد أخذ برخصة الله، وأمّا
الثاني فقد صدع بالحق فهنيئاً له
“That Musaylimah took two
men and said to one of them: What do you say about Muhammad? He said: A
Messenger of Allah. He said: Then what do you say of me? You as well. So he
left him free. He said to the other: What do you say of Muhammad? He said: A
Messenger of Allah. He said: Then what do you say of me? He said: I am dumb. He
repeated it thrice and he repeated his answer, so he killed him. That reached
the Messenger of Allah (saw) so he said: As for the first, he took the
dispensation of Allah. As for the second, he exposed the truth so blessed be he.”
This is explicit in preferring the one who was patient and stuck to
iman over the one who took the dispensation of Allah (swt) and showed kufr
fearing for his life from a confirmed killing.
This is requiring the one from whom kufr is required. As for the one
from whom is sought less than that like leaving the Islamic da’wah or
performing a sin or something similar; permissibility is not taken from this ayah.
Accordingly it is not said that if Allah permitted the Muslim to show kufr,
then what is lesser than kufr is of greater precedent. This is not said because
disobedience is not from the species of kufr, so it does not enter the research
by greater precedent. Similarly an analogy between kufr and sin is not
performed since there does not exist a reason until analogy occurs. However as
for the one who fears for his life over confirmed killing and it is sought from
him sin or doing less than kufr, it is permitted for him to do so to save his
life and there is no sin upon him. This is due to his (saw) statement:
رُفع عن أمّتي الخطأ والنسيان وما استُكرهوا عليه
“Lifted from my Ummah is the
mistake, forgetfulness and what is compelled upon it”
I.e. the blame and sin is lifted, and the rule is lifted, which means
the permissibility of doing it. However (this is) only in one situation which
is the situation of definite, confirmed killing which is what the fuqaha
called (muljiu) compulsion which is the only compulsion considered by
the Shar’a in all conditions in which there is lifted from the one compelled
like divorce, marriage, trade and other actions and contracts. His statement “and
what is forced upon it” which is (muljiu) compulsion.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Tawakkul on Allah (swt): Key to making change
Since December 2010, we have witnessed a turbulent change in the Muslim world.
Millions have taken to the streets to oust the vicious tyrants who have ruled
the Ummah with decades of brutality. In the process, thousands were martyred in
what is now referred to as the “Arab Spring.” Such sacrifice has led the many
shuhada to a glorious appointment with their Rabb, in the beautiful gardens of
the Hereafter, insha'Allah. During these difficult times many people may have pondered
on whether they should go out and challenge the regimes or simply conform to
the status quo.
In Syria, the Muslim Ummah has witnessed children and women martyred by the Syrian regime’s forces. Towns and cities have been showered upon by bombs, women have been dishonoured, and the respect of the elderly has been violated. These scenes broadcasted over the internet have shaken even the strongest amongst us, creating a sense of desperation as to how our brothers and sisters will escape such a catastrophe. Given the gravity of this trial, it is a good time to reflect on the importance of having Tawakkul in Allah (swt).
Tawakkul
The chants of Allahu Akbar reverberating from Tahrir Square to Homs by our brothers and sisters have clearly demonstrated that their belief in Allah (swt), Tawakkul in Him and confidence in His Plans has been a cornerstone in keeping the masses motivated to resist the regimes. Allah (swt) revealed:
The scenes we have witnessed in Syria and other countries remind us of how Tawakkul has aided the believers in the past in the midst of such bleak situations. Allah (swt) revealed:
“Those (i.e.
believers) unto whom the people (hypocrites) said, ‘Verily, the people (pagans)
have gathered against you (a great army), therefore, fear them.’ But it (only)
increased them in
Faith, and they said: ‘Allah (Alone) is
“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.” [TMQ 9:51]
Absence of Tawakkul: Not an Option
It is not an option to let go of Tawakkul: failure to apply Tawakkul could take one into the grave territory of shirk. We simply have no right to ask questions like “Why us?” or “Why is this calamity happening to us?” Such questions may even take one out of Islam. The reality is that Allah (swt) is
Our Creator and we are His servants. We owe Allah Azza wa Jal everything and He owes us nothing. Having Tawakkul in Him is part of us fulfilling our covenant with Him.
In addition, we must analyze whether our behaviour actually reflects this concept of Tawakkul. This includes the issue of politics; i.e. implementing shariah and re-establishing the Khilafah in the Muslim lands. We must not compromise on our deen out of fear that we may be harmed or killed by the enemies of Allah (swt). For example, the political parties that have been recently elected in Tunisia and Egypt claim that the reason they are not implementing the shariah is because they are fearful of reprisals from the Capitalist countries. Such a stance is completely opposite to how RasulAllah (saw) and the Sahabah (ra) approached Islam. We must have Tawakkul in Allah (swt) for precisely these situations where there is perceived danger for standing up for the deen of Allah (swt). Therefore, the sincere politician who takes power must not fear the US, just as the Sahabah (ra) did not fear the Romans – even though the Romans were greater in number and military might. In other words, what made the Sahabah (ra) brave was their Tawakkul in Allah (swt): they feared Him and realized that no one can harm them unless Allah (swt) Wills.
Glad tidings for those who have Tawakkul
Abdu’llah ibn Mas’ud (ra) narrates that RasulAllah (saw) said:
On hearing this, ‘Ukasha ibn Mihsan al-Asadi (ra) stood up and said: “O Messenger of Allah, appeal to Allah that He may include me among them!” So Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, let him be included among them!” Then someone else jumped up and said: “Appeal to Allah that He may include me among them!” To this he responded (saw) by saying: “‘Ukasha has arrived there ahead of you!” [Bukhari]
This concept of tawakkul is also found in the stances taken by the leadership of some Islamic movements. For example, Hassan Al-Bana (rh), one of the leaders of the Islamic revival in Egypt, cautioned the Ummah that they should not be afraid to speak the truth out of fear of the Capitalist nations. He said: "It might be said that speaking publicly about going back to the system of Islam will scare the west, so they will unite against us, and we are no match to them. This is the ultimate weakness, a very corrupt assessment and short sightedness."
Consequently, we should draw strength from our trust in Allah (swt) and be confident when we stand for Islam – be it refusing a job that involves haram money or standing up to a tyrant ruler. In both of these situations, recognizing that Allah (swt) controls our rizq (provision) and our ajal (life span) will help us control our fear that refusing the job will deprive us or that standing up to the tyrant ruler will cause us to die.
The Prophetic example
Our beloved Prophet (saw) clearly showed us how believers must place their complete trust in their Lord. Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) stood to pray tahajjud he said: “O Allah, to You I submit, in You I believe and on You I put my trust.” [Agreed Upon]
On the journey for hijrah made by the Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr (ra), death loomed over them in the desert as they took steps to establish Islamic authority in Madinah. The Quraysh sent out patrols to find and kill our Beloved Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr (ra). When they found refuge in a cave, Abu Bakr (ra) said, “I saw the feet of the Mushriks while we were in the cave and they (the Kuffar) were above our heads. I said, ‘Messenger of Allah, they will see us if they just look down towards their feet.’ The Prophet (saw) said, ‘O Abu Bakr, what do you think about the two with whom the third is Allah?’” [Agreed Upon]
This incident illustrates how RasulAllah (saw) had Tawakkul on Allah (swt) – even though the danger was immediately in front of him.
Today, we see many of our brothers and sisters on the streets of Syria continue to challenge the regime with only their voices and protests. In a video taken in Homs (www.youtube.com/ watch?v=y4STPzb2IDQ) we see our brothers and sisters, demonstrating their Tawakkul with the following chants:
"The Arab Leagues, the observers, the Syrian regime, America, Obama, Sarkozy...everyone is listening...Victory comes from whom? [Crowd responds] Allah!
Glory to Allah (swt)! Glory to Him who has allowed us to witness such an amazing sight of Tawakkul and an example for us to follow! Indeed, the Muslim political parties that fear the might of the Capitalist countries should reflect on this firm stance that our brothers and sisters have taken in Homs. If the Muslims of Homs can proclaim the truth to a tyrant – in the face of death, torture and rape – then what is the excuse of other Muslims who compromise the deen out of fear of these things? By Allah (swt), there is no excuse.
Do not lose hope
Tawakkul on Allah (swt) is part of the Islamic Aqeedah and must be followed in thought and deed. This means observing the Shariah rules and placing our trust in Allah’s (swt) plans.
We make dua for the Muslims of Syria that Allah (swt) shower His Mercy on the Mu’mineen and destroy the evil plans of the Assad regime who wish to extinguish the light of Allah (swt). Indeed, it is only Allah (swt) Who can grant them an exit from their trial. Allah (swt) revealed:
“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.” [TMQ 3:160]
We pray that our brothers and sisters who are in trial remain strong in these dark days and have istiqamah (steadfastness) on Islam. Anas (ra) narrated that RasulAllah (saw) said:
“The one who leaves the world upon sincerity to Allah only without associating partners with Him, establishes the Salah, gives Zakah, then he will have left the world while Allah is pleased with him.” [Ibn Majah]
May Allah (swt) plant our feet firmly in His Deen and make us among those who rely only upon Him (swt).
In Syria, the Muslim Ummah has witnessed children and women martyred by the Syrian regime’s forces. Towns and cities have been showered upon by bombs, women have been dishonoured, and the respect of the elderly has been violated. These scenes broadcasted over the internet have shaken even the strongest amongst us, creating a sense of desperation as to how our brothers and sisters will escape such a catastrophe. Given the gravity of this trial, it is a good time to reflect on the importance of having Tawakkul in Allah (swt).
Tawakkul
The chants of Allahu Akbar reverberating from Tahrir Square to Homs by our brothers and sisters have clearly demonstrated that their belief in Allah (swt), Tawakkul in Him and confidence in His Plans has been a cornerstone in keeping the masses motivated to resist the regimes. Allah (swt) revealed:
“So
when you have made your decision, then put your trust in Allah.” [TMQ 3:159]
The scenes we have witnessed in Syria and other countries remind us of how Tawakkul has aided the believers in the past in the midst of such bleak situations. Allah (swt) revealed:
“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.” [TMQ 9:51]
Sufficient
for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us).’” [TMQ 3:173]
Absence of Tawakkul: Not an Option
It is not an option to let go of Tawakkul: failure to apply Tawakkul could take one into the grave territory of shirk. We simply have no right to ask questions like “Why us?” or “Why is this calamity happening to us?” Such questions may even take one out of Islam. The reality is that Allah (swt) is
Our Creator and we are His servants. We owe Allah Azza wa Jal everything and He owes us nothing. Having Tawakkul in Him is part of us fulfilling our covenant with Him.
In addition, we must analyze whether our behaviour actually reflects this concept of Tawakkul. This includes the issue of politics; i.e. implementing shariah and re-establishing the Khilafah in the Muslim lands. We must not compromise on our deen out of fear that we may be harmed or killed by the enemies of Allah (swt). For example, the political parties that have been recently elected in Tunisia and Egypt claim that the reason they are not implementing the shariah is because they are fearful of reprisals from the Capitalist countries. Such a stance is completely opposite to how RasulAllah (saw) and the Sahabah (ra) approached Islam. We must have Tawakkul in Allah (swt) for precisely these situations where there is perceived danger for standing up for the deen of Allah (swt). Therefore, the sincere politician who takes power must not fear the US, just as the Sahabah (ra) did not fear the Romans – even though the Romans were greater in number and military might. In other words, what made the Sahabah (ra) brave was their Tawakkul in Allah (swt): they feared Him and realized that no one can harm them unless Allah (swt) Wills.
Glad tidings for those who have Tawakkul
Abdu’llah ibn Mas’ud (ra) narrates that RasulAllah (saw) said:
“I
saw the religious communities [umam] at the gathering place [mawsim], and I
noticed that my Ummah filled both the plain and the mountainside, so I was
astonished at their number and their condition. I was asked: “Are you well
pleased?” “Yes,” said I. Then I was told: “Together with these, seventy
thousand will enter the Garden of Paradise without undergoing any reckoning.
They do not play with fire. They do not look for bad omens. They do not
practice subterfuge. They put all their trust in their Lord.”
On hearing this, ‘Ukasha ibn Mihsan al-Asadi (ra) stood up and said: “O Messenger of Allah, appeal to Allah that He may include me among them!” So Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, let him be included among them!” Then someone else jumped up and said: “Appeal to Allah that He may include me among them!” To this he responded (saw) by saying: “‘Ukasha has arrived there ahead of you!” [Bukhari]
How the Ulama Discussed Tawakkul
Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jillani (rh) in his book “Al-Ghunya li-Talibin” (Sufficient Provision
for Seekers of the Path of Truth) says: “The
real meaning [haqiqa] of absolute trust [tawakkul] is delegating all one’s
affairs to Allah (swt), making a clean escape from the murky darkness and gloom
of personal choice and self-management, and advancing to the arenas where the
[divine] decrees [ahkam] and foreordainment [taqdir] are experienced directly. The
servant [of the Lord] must be convinced that there is no possibility of
changing the allotment of destiny which means that whatever has been allotted
to him cannot pass him by, and that he can never obtain what has not been
allotted to him. His heart will then become reconciled to this, and he will
feel confident in relying on the promise [wa'd] of his Master [Mawla]”.
This concept of tawakkul is also found in the stances taken by the leadership of some Islamic movements. For example, Hassan Al-Bana (rh), one of the leaders of the Islamic revival in Egypt, cautioned the Ummah that they should not be afraid to speak the truth out of fear of the Capitalist nations. He said: "It might be said that speaking publicly about going back to the system of Islam will scare the west, so they will unite against us, and we are no match to them. This is the ultimate weakness, a very corrupt assessment and short sightedness."
Consequently, we should draw strength from our trust in Allah (swt) and be confident when we stand for Islam – be it refusing a job that involves haram money or standing up to a tyrant ruler. In both of these situations, recognizing that Allah (swt) controls our rizq (provision) and our ajal (life span) will help us control our fear that refusing the job will deprive us or that standing up to the tyrant ruler will cause us to die.
The Prophetic example
Our beloved Prophet (saw) clearly showed us how believers must place their complete trust in their Lord. Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) stood to pray tahajjud he said: “O Allah, to You I submit, in You I believe and on You I put my trust.” [Agreed Upon]
On the journey for hijrah made by the Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr (ra), death loomed over them in the desert as they took steps to establish Islamic authority in Madinah. The Quraysh sent out patrols to find and kill our Beloved Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr (ra). When they found refuge in a cave, Abu Bakr (ra) said, “I saw the feet of the Mushriks while we were in the cave and they (the Kuffar) were above our heads. I said, ‘Messenger of Allah, they will see us if they just look down towards their feet.’ The Prophet (saw) said, ‘O Abu Bakr, what do you think about the two with whom the third is Allah?’” [Agreed Upon]
This incident illustrates how RasulAllah (saw) had Tawakkul on Allah (swt) – even though the danger was immediately in front of him.
Today, we see many of our brothers and sisters on the streets of Syria continue to challenge the regime with only their voices and protests. In a video taken in Homs (www.youtube.com/ watch?v=y4STPzb2IDQ) we see our brothers and sisters, demonstrating their Tawakkul with the following chants:
"The Arab Leagues, the observers, the Syrian regime, America, Obama, Sarkozy...everyone is listening...Victory comes from whom? [Crowd responds] Allah!
O Youth, I just spoke with al-Jazeera...the whole world will see
you...[tell them] is anyone waiting for victory from Obama? [Crowd responds] No!
Is anyone waiting for victory from Erdogan? [Response] No!
If any of you is waiting for victory from any person or any council or
the Arab league, he can leave...
Victory comes from where? [Crowd
responds] From Allah!
Victory comes from where? [Crowd
responds] From Allah!
Victory comes from where? [Crowd
responds] From Allah!
[Crowd Recites Surat
al-Nasr three times and proclaims three times:]
.
O Allah! We have none other
than you...”
Glory to Allah (swt)! Glory to Him who has allowed us to witness such an amazing sight of Tawakkul and an example for us to follow! Indeed, the Muslim political parties that fear the might of the Capitalist countries should reflect on this firm stance that our brothers and sisters have taken in Homs. If the Muslims of Homs can proclaim the truth to a tyrant – in the face of death, torture and rape – then what is the excuse of other Muslims who compromise the deen out of fear of these things? By Allah (swt), there is no excuse.
Do not lose hope
Tawakkul on Allah (swt) is part of the Islamic Aqeedah and must be followed in thought and deed. This means observing the Shariah rules and placing our trust in Allah’s (swt) plans.
We make dua for the Muslims of Syria that Allah (swt) shower His Mercy on the Mu’mineen and destroy the evil plans of the Assad regime who wish to extinguish the light of Allah (swt). Indeed, it is only Allah (swt) Who can grant them an exit from their trial. Allah (swt) revealed:
“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.” [TMQ 3:160]
We pray that our brothers and sisters who are in trial remain strong in these dark days and have istiqamah (steadfastness) on Islam. Anas (ra) narrated that RasulAllah (saw) said:
“The one who leaves the world upon sincerity to Allah only without associating partners with Him, establishes the Salah, gives Zakah, then he will have left the world while Allah is pleased with him.” [Ibn Majah]
May Allah (swt) plant our feet firmly in His Deen and make us among those who rely only upon Him (swt).
Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?
The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him). Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings.
Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in
singing or listening to songs? What is
the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you
to answer in detail with the evidences?
Answer: The Imams (Mujtahids) and the jurists have
differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam
(prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who
have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of
singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted
from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who
disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a
similar opinion has been transmitted from Shafi’i' and Al-Qadhi also. And from
those who allowed (permitted) it are Ibn Hazam and Abu Bakr al Khalaal and Abu
Bakr Abdul Aziz and Saad Ibn Ibrahim and Anbari and many others from the People
of Medina. They took Nasheeds in a different category and removed them from the
Hukm and allowed (permitted) it. Ibn Qudama mentioned about it in his book Almughni.
And so that the correct opinion is put
forth in this subject let us study the texts (Ayat/ahadith/ijmaa) which are
concerned with this subject:
A. The texts used as daleel by the ones who prohibit singing:
1.
عن أنس بن
مالك قال: قال رسول الله r "من جلس إلى قَيْنَةٍ فسمع منها، صبَّ الله
في أذنيه الآنُكَ يوم القيامة" رواه عبد الله بن المبارك. والقينة هي
الجارية. والآنُك هو الرصاص.
It is narrated
by Anas bin Malik who said that the prophet (saw) said “Whoever listens
to a female singer, molten lead will he poured into his ears on the day of
judgement." Reported by
Abdullah ibn Mubarak.
2.
عن أبي
مالك الأشعري رضي الله تعالى عنه قال: قال رسول الله r"ليشربَنَّ ناسٌ من
أمتي الخمرَ يسمونها بغير اسمها فيُعزَفُ على رؤوسهم بالمعازف والمغنِّيات يَخْسِف
الله بهم الأرضَ، ويجعل منهم القردة والخنازير " رواه ابن ماجة.
Abu Malik alashari
(ra) narrated that he heard the prophet (saw) say: “Indeed, people will
change the name of wine to consume it and play with musical instruments, Allah
will cause the earth to swallow them and change them into monkeys and swines.” (Narrated by Ibn
Majah in his sunan)
3.
عن أبي
أُمامة قال " نهى رسول الله r عن بيع المغنيات وعن شرائهن وعن كسبهن وعن أكل
أثمانهن " رواه ابن ماجة.
It is narrated from Abu Umama who said "Do not sell, buy or
teach singing-girls, and the price paid for them is unlawful.” (Narrated by
Ibn Majah & Tirmidhi)
4.
عن أبي
أُمامة t قال: قال رسول الله r " إن الله بعثني رحمة
للعالمين، وهدى للعالمين، وأمرني ربي عزَّ وجلَّ بمحق المعازفِ والمزاميِر
والأوثانِ والصُّلُبِ وأمرِ الجاهلية... ولا يحل بيعُهن ولاشراؤُهن، ولا تعليمهن،
ولا تجارةٌفيهن، وثمنهنَّ حرامٌ، يعني الضاربات. وفي رواية المغنيات " رواه
أحمد.والصُّلُب جمع صليب.
Abu Umamah narrates that the prophet (saw) has
said:
“Verily Allah azza wa jall has sent me with
guidance and as a mercy to mankind and (in spite of this) he ordered me to
obliterate musical instruments, idols, the cross and things of ignorance...and
their selling is not allowed and neither is their buying, nor its teaching, nor
the trade in it, and its price is haram, meaning the beaters (drum beaters) and
in another riwayah – the female singers.” (Narrated by Ahmad)
5.
عن ابن
عباس t عن رسول الله r قال " والذي نفسي
بيده لَيبيتَنَّ ناسٌ من أمتي على أَشَرٍ وبَطَرٍ ولعبٍ ولهوٍ، فيصبحوا قردةً
وخنازير باستحلالهم المحارم والقَيْنات وشربهم الخمر وأكلهم الربا، ولبسهم الحرير
" رواه عبد الله بن أحمد في زوائد المسند.
Ibn Abbas narrates that he prophet (saw) said “By the lord in
whose hands lies my soul a group of my Ummah will spend a night in food, drinks and party, they
would wake up the next morning deformed into swines and monkeys for making
halal as haraam and the music and for their drinking of wine and eating of
interest and wearing silk” (narrated by Abdullah Ibn Ahmad in Zawaid alMusnad)
6.
عن عبيد
الله بن زَحْر عن علي بن يزيد عن القاسم عن أبي أُمامة t عن رسول الله r قال " لا تبيعوا
القَيْنات ولا تشتروهن ولا تُعلِّموهنَّ، ولا خير في تجارةٍ فيهن، وثمنُهنَّ حرام،
في مثل هذا أُنزلت هذه الآية {ومِنَ الناسِ مَنْ يشتري لهوَ الحديثِ ليُضِلَّ عن
سبيلِ اللهِ } إلى آخر الآية ". رواه الترمذي وأحمد وابن ماجة والبيهقي.
Abu Umama narrates
that prophet (saw) said: “Never trade female slave singers nor train them in
singing as well. It is no good to trade them, and [for you], their price is
forbidden, and for this the ayah was revealed: {ومِنَ
الناسِ مَنْ يشتري لهوَ الحديثِ ليُضِلَّ عن سبيلِ اللهِ }
(From amongst
men there are those who purchase ‘lahw al hadith’ without knowledge, to mislead
from the Path of Allah and they ridicule it. For them there is a humiliating
punishment)). [Luqmân: 6] (Narrated
by Tirmidhi and Ahmad and Ibn Majah and al Bayhaqi)
7.
عن شيخٍ
شهد أبا وائلٍ في وليمة، فجعلوا يتلَعَّبون ويُغنُّون، فحلَّ أبو وائلٍ حبوتَه،
وقال: سمعت عبد الله يقول: سمعت رسول الله r يقول "الغناء يُنبتُ
النفاقَ في القلب " رواه أبو داود. والحبوة
(بفتح الحاء وضمها وكسرها) هي الجلوس على الإِليتين مع ضم الفخذين والساقين
إلى البطن بالذراعين.
A sheikh who saw Abu
Wa’il in a waleema where there was singing and playing going on, so Abu Wa’il
sat in an upright manner and said I heard Abdulla say that he heard the prophet
(saw) say: "Singing makes hypocrisy to grow in the heart like water
makes herbs grow.” (narrated by Abu Dawud)
8.
عن أبي الصَّهباء "أنه سأل ابن مسعود عن قول الله
{ومن الناس من يشتري لهو الحديث } قال: الغناء". رواه ابن جرير الطبري في
تفسيره.
Abu suhaba says
that he asked Ibn Masud (ra) about the ayah “from amongst men
there are those who purchase ‘lahw al hadith” he replied that it was singing. (narrated by Ibn Jarir and by Tabari in his
tafseer)
9.
جاء في صحيح البخاري ما يلي (وقال هشام بن عمَّار حدثنا صَدَقة بن خالد
حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر حدثنا عطية بن قيس الكلابي حدثني عبد الرحمن بن
غَنْمٍ الأشعري قال: حدثني أبو عامر أو أبو مالك الأشعري، والله ما كذبني، سمع
النبي r يقول "
ليكونَنَّ من أمتي أقوامٌ يستحلون الحِرَّ والحرير، والخمرَ والمعازفَ،
ولَينـزِلنَّ أقوامٌ إلى جنب عَلَم يروح عليهم بسارحةٍ لهم يأتيهم لحاجة فيقولون:
إرجع إلينا غداً، فيُبَيِّتُهم الله ويضع العَلَم، ويمسخ آخرين قردةً وخنازيرَ إلى
يوم القيامة ") ورواه الطبراني. والسارحة هي الماشية. والعَلََم هو الجبل.
It has been reported in the Saheeh Al Bukhari (And ibn
Hisham ibn Ammar that Sadaqa Ibn Khalid narrated to him from AbdulRehman Ibn Yazid
Ibn Jabir that he heard from Atiya Ibn Qays al Kilabi that he heard from Abdul Rehman
Ibn Ghanam al Ashari who said: that Abu Amir narrated to us or Abu Malik al Ashari
narrated to us, and by Allah he did not lie to me, that he heard the prophet
(saw) say : "There will be from my nation a people who will deem
fornication, silk (for men), alcohol, and music to be permissible; and there
will be a people who will camp beside a high mountain, when a poor man passes
by them and asks for a need, they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' In
the morning Allah will make the mountain fall upon them and the others (who are
saved) are transformed into apes and pigs, until the Day of Judgement." (narrated
by Tabarani)
B. The texts which are depended upon by the ones who permit singing
or dislike it.
1.
عن عامر بن
سعد قال " دخلتُ على قُرَظةَ بنِ كعبٍ وأبي مسعود الأنصاري في عرسٍ، وإذا
جَوارٍ يُغنِّين، فقلت: أنتما صاحبا رسول الله r، ومِن أهل بدرٍ يُفعل هذا
عندكم ؟ فقالا: إجلس إن شئت فاسمع معنا، وإن شئتَ فاذهب، قد رُخِّص لنا في اللهو
عند العرس" رواه النَّسائي والحاكم وصححه.
‘Aamir Ibn Sa’ad narrates: I approached Qarazah Ibn Ka’ab & Abi
Mas’oud Al-Ansari (ra) during a marriage ceremony when there was singing going
on around and said to them: “You are the companions of the Prophet (saw) as
well as you participated in the battle of Badr, and yet this (singing) is going
on around you? They said: If you like sit and listen to it with us, and if you
like, go away. This vain act is permitted for us during marriage ceremonies.”
[Narrated in Nasa’i and authenticated by Hakim].
2.
عن السائب
بن يزيد t " أن امرأة جاءت إلى
رسول الله r فقال: يا عائشة أتعرفين هذه ؟ قالت: لا يا نبي
الله فقال: هذه قَيْنةُ بني فلان، تحبين أن تغنيَكِ ؟ قالت: نعم، فأعطاها طَبَقاً
فغنَّتها، فقال النبي r: قد نفخ الشيطان في مِنْخريها " رواه أحمد
بسند صحيح، ورواه الطبراني. والطبق هو الإناء.
Narrates Sa’ib Ibn Yazid: A woman came
to the Holy Prophet (saw). He asked ‘A’ishah (ra): ‘Do you know her?’ ‘No, O
Prophet (saw) of Allah’ she replied. He (saw) said:”This is the female
professional singer of such and such tribe. Do you want her to sing to you?” Aishah
said:”Yes”, so the woman sang for her, then the Prophet (saw) said “the devil
blew in her nostrils.” (narrated by Ahmad and Tabarani)
3.
عن جابر
رضي الله تعالى عنه قال: قال رسول الله r لعائشة " أهديتم
الجارية إلى بيتها ؟ قالت: نعم، قال: فهلا بعثتم معهم من يُغَنِّيهم يقول: أتيناكم
فحيُّونا نُحَيِّيكم، فإن الأنصار قومٌ فيهم غَزَل " رواه أحمد بسند صحيح،
ورواه البخاري من طريق عائشة بلفظ" أنها زَفَّت امرأةً إِلى رجلٍ من الأنصار،
فقال نبي الله r: ياعائشة، ما كان معكم لهوٌ ؟ فإنَّ الأنصار
يُعجبهم اللهو " ورواه الحاكم وصححه، ووافقه الذهبي.
Narrates Jabir (ra): The Holy Prophet
(saw) asked A’ishah:”Have you sent the bride to her house?’ ‘Yes’, she
replied. He (saw) asked:”Did you send any singer with them who could sing for
them?” ‘A’ishah (ra) replied in the negative. The Holy Prophet (saw) then
remarked: It would have been better if you had sent a singer with them who
would sing that we have come to you so welcome us, because the Ansar are a
people who love singing.” (narrated by Ahmad with a Sahih chain, and by
Bukhari on the authority of A’ishah with the words) “that she sent a
bride for marriage to one of the men of the Ansar, the prophet asked her “O A’ishah”
don’t you have lahw? the Ansar love Lahw” (narrated by Hakim and Dhahabi
has approved it).
4. عن عائشة رضي الله عنها " أن أبا بكر الصديق دخل عليها وعندها
جاريتان في أيام مِنى تُغَنِّينان وتَضْرِبان، ورسول الله r مسجَّى بثوبه، فانتهرهما
أبو بكر، فكشف رسول الله r عنه، وقال: دعهما يا أبا بكر، فإِنها أيام
عيد... " رواه مسلم.
Narrates ‘A’ishah (ra): Abu Bakr as
Siddiq (ra) came to her residence while two female singers were singing and
beating (instruments). The
Holy Prophet (saw) had covered his face with his dress. Meanwhile Abu Bakr (ra)
entered and [seeing the singers] rebuked me thus: ‘Satanic musical
instruments in the presence of the Holy Prophet (saw)?’ On hearing this God’s
Messenger (saw) turned towards him and said: ‘Leave them, these are days of the
Eid.” (narrated by Muslim)
5.
عن عبد الله بن بُريدة قال: سمعت بُريدة يقول "
خرج رسول الله r
في بعض مغازيه، فلما انصرف جاءت جاريةٌ سوداءُ فقالت: يا رسول الله، إني كنتُ
نذرتُ إِنْ ردَّك الله سالماً أن أضرب بين يديك بالدُّفِّ وأَتغنَّى، فقال لها
رسول الله r:
إن كنتِ نذرتِ فاضربي وإلا فلا، فجعلت تضرب، فدخل أبو بكر وهي تضرب ثم دخل علي وهي
تضرب ثم دخل عثمان وهي تضرب ثم دخل عمر فألقت الدُّف تحت إِستها ثم قعدت عليه،
فقال رسول الله r:
إن الشيطان ليخاف منك يا عمر، إني كنت جالساً وهي تضرب فدخل أبو بكر وهي تضرب ثم
دخل علي وهي تضرب ثم دخل عثمان وهي تضرب، فلما دخلتَ أنت يا عمر ألقت الدُّفَّ
" رواه الترمذي وقال: هذا حديث حسنٌ صحيحٌ غريبٌ، ورواه أحمد بسند صحيح،
ورواه أبو داود والبيهقي.
Abdullah Ibn Buraidah narrates on the
authority of his father: The Holy Prophet (saw) returned from some of his
military expeditions. A black slave girl approached him and said: ‘I had vowed
to beat the Daff before you if Allah brought you back safe and unhurt’.
The Holy Prophet (saw) replied: ‘If you had vowed, then proceed, otherwise do
not’. She started beating the Daff. Meanwhile Abu Bakr (ra) came while she was
beating the Daff. Then ‘Usman (ra) and ‘Ali (ra) came and she continued
beating the Daff. Then came ‘Omar (ra) and she covered her instrument
under herself and sat over it as soon as she saw him. At this the Holy Prophet
(saw) commented: ‘Omar, even Satan fears you, I was sitting and she was beating
the Daff, and then Abu Bakr entered and she continued beating and then Ali
entered and she continued beating and the Uthman entered and she continued
beating but when you entered O ‘Omar she stopped the Daff’ (narrated by Tirmidhi
and he said this is a Hasan Ghareeb hadith and Ahmad narrated it with a Saheeh
chain and Abu Dawud & Al Bayhaqi also narrated it.)
6.
عن يحيى بن
سليم قال: قلتُ لمحمد بن حاطب: تزوجتُ امرأتين ما كان في واحدةٍ منهما صوت، يعني
دُفَّاً، فقال محمد t: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم"
فصْلُ ما بين الحلال والحرام الصوتُ بالدُّفُّ " رواه الحاكم وصححه ووافقه
الذهبي. ورواه أحمد بسند صحيح. ورواه ابن ماجة والنَّسائي، والترمذي وحسَّنه.
Yahya bin Salim said that I said to Muhammad
Ibn Hatib “I married two women and there was no voice, i.e. there was no Daff
in the marriage, so Mohammad Ibn Hatib said: the holy Prophet (saw) said: ‘the
thing that distinguishes the allowable act (i.e. Nikah) from the forbidden one
(fornication) is the beat of the tambourine and open declaration of the Nikah.’”
(Al Hakim narrated and Dhahabi approved it, Ahmad also reported it with a
Saheeh chain, and Ibn Majah narrated and Nasai as well did, and Tirmidhi
narrated it and graded it as Hasan).
7.
عن
الرُّبيِّع بنتِ مُعَوّذ رضي الله عنها قالت " دخل عليَّ رسول الله r صبيحة عُرسي وعندي جاريتان
تغنيان وتُندبان آبائي الذين قُتلوا يوم بدرٍ، وتقولان فيما تقولان: وفينا نبيٌّ
يعلم ما في غدٍ، فقال: أمَّا هذا فلا تقولوه، ما يعلم ما في غدٍ إلا الله "
رواه ابن ماجة، ورواه أبو داود بمعناه
ورواه الترمذي وقال: هذا حديث حسن صحيح وجاء في روايته " وجُوَيْراتٌ
لنا يضربن بدُفُوفِهِن ".
Narrates Rabi‘, daughter of Mu‘wwadh
(ra): On the morning of my marriage, the holy Prophet (saw) came to visit us while
two slave girls were beating the Daff and singing in lamentation of my
forefathers who had been killed during the battle of Badr. The girls were
singing: “Among us is the Prophet (saw) who knows what will happen tomorrow”,
he (saw) said: ‘Do not say this, as no one knows what will happen tomorrow
other than Allah (swt).” (narrated by Ibn Majah, and Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi
also narrated it and said that this hadith is Hasan Saheeh”
8.
عن عائشة
رضي الله عنها قالت " دخل عليَّ أبو بكر وعندي جاريتان من جواري الأنصار
تُغنيان بما تقاولت به الأنصار في يوم بُعاث، قالت: وليستا بمغنيتين فقال أبو بكر:
أبمزمور الشيطان في بيت النبي r ؟ وذلك في يوم عيد الفطر، فقال النبي r: يا أبا بكر، إن لكل قومٍ
عيداً، وهذا عيدُنا " رواه ابن ماجة.
Narrates ‘A’ishah (ra): Abu Bakr as
Siddiq (ra) came to her residence while two female Ansari singers were singing
and beating (instruments) the songs of Bu‘ath. Meanwhile Abu Bakr (ra) entered and
[seeing the singers] rebuked me thus: ‘Satanic musical instruments in the
presence of the Holy Prophet (saw)?’ On hearing this Allah’s Messenger (saw)
turned towards him and said: ‘O Abu Bakr, for all people there is a Eid, and
this is our Eid” (narrated by Ibn Majah)
9.
عن أنس بن
مالك t" أن النبي r مرَّ ببعض المدينة، فإذا
بجوارٍ يضربن بدُفِّهنَّ ويتغنَّين ويقلن:
نحـن جَـوَارٍ مـن بني النجـارِ
|
يـا
حبـذا محمـدٌ من جـارِ
|
فقال
النبي r: اللهُ أعلم إِني
لأُحِبُّكُنَّ " رواه ابن ماجة بسند صحيح.
Anas Ibn Malik (ra) narrates that the Prophet (saw) passed through
Madeenah and saw in a certain locality that some people were beating their Daff
and singing: “We are the people of the Bani Najjar; We welcome Muhammad as
our neighbour.”
The Prophet (saw) said: “Know that I love you all.” (Ibn
Majah narrated through authentic chain).
10.
عن نافع
مولى ابن عمر t" أن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما سمع صوتَ
زَمَّارةِ راعٍ، فوضع أُصبعيه في أُذُنيه وعَدَل راحلته عن الطريق وهو يقول: يا
نافع أتسمع ؟ فأقول: نعم، فيمضي حتى قلتُ: لا، فوضع يديه وأعاد راحلته إلى الطريق
وقال: رأيتُ رسول الله r، وسمع صوتَ زَمارةِ راعٍ، فصنع مثل هذا "
رواه أحمد بإسناد صحيح.ورواه ابن ماجة والخلاَّل.
Nafe’ (ra), the servant of Ibn ‘Omar (ra)
narrates that Ibn Omar (ra) heard the sound of flute and pushed his fingers
into his ears and diverted his path while saying: “O Nafe’!” Do you hear? So I
said to him: “Yes” and he kept on repeating this until I told “No”. Only then
he removed his fingers from his ears and reverted to the earlier path, and
said: “I saw the Prophet (saw) who heard the flute sound and did similarly.”
[Narrated in Musnad Ahmad with an authentic chain, also narrated by Ibn Majah
and al-Khallal].
11.
عن عُقبة
بنِ عامر رضي الله تعالى عنه قال: قال رسول الله r " تعلموا كتاب الله
وتعاهدوه وتغنَّوا به، فوالذي نفسي بيده لهو أشدُّ تفلُّتاً من المخاض في العُقُل
" رواه أحمد والدَّارمي والنَّسائي، ورواه النَّسائي أيضاً في السُّنن
الكبرى، بلفظ "...والذي نفس محمدٍ بيده لهو أشدُّ تَفلُّتاً من العِشَارِ في
العُقُل " والعِشار والمخاض هي النياق الحوامل، جمع ناقة. والعُقُل جمع عِقال
وهو الحبل الذي يُربطُ به.
‘Uqbah Ibn ‘Aamir (ra) says that the Prophet (saw) said: “Learn
the book of Allah and abide by it and recite it well, by the One in whose hand
is my soul, it (meaning, the Quran) is easier to lose (from memory) than a
camel from its rope.” Narrated in
Musnad Ahmad, al-Darimi, al-Nasai, and in Sunan al Kubrah with a different
wording and identical meaning.
12.
عن سعد بن أبي
وقاص t أن رسول الله r قال " ليس منَّا مَنْ
لم يتغنَّ بالقرآن " رواه الدَّارمي وابن ماجة.
Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas (ra) narrates that the Prophet (saw) said, “he
is not from us who does not sing in the Quran” (narrated by al-darami and Ibn
Majah)
We now examine the Isnad of the Ahadeeth narrated
under the first opinion in order to conclude whether these are conclusive to
rely upon or not?
The first hadith which was narrated by Abdullah ibn Mubarak from
Anas bin Malik has a broken Isnad (chain), as four of its narrators are
weak or unknown, and they are Ibrahim ibn Uthman, Ahmad Ibn Ghamar, Yazid Ibn AbduSamad
and ‘Obaid Ibn Hisham alHalabi, therefore the hadith cannot be relied upon as
evidence.
The second hadith was narrated by Ibn Majah from Abu Malik al-Ash’ari
and in this chain is Malik Ibn Abi Mariyam and Dhahabi said about him: he is
unknown, and therefore is a unknown narrator, in addition to the narrator Mu’awiyah
Ibn Saleh, who was unaccepted by many of the scholars of Hadeeth because
of his weakness, therefore the hadith is very weak and is abandoned.
The third Hadith which is narrated by Ibn Majah from Abu Umama
in its chain exist Abu Muhallab Mutrah ibn Yazid who has been weakened by Abu Zar-al-Razi
and Abu Hatim al-Razi. And Ibn Mu’in said: he is nobody, and Bukhari said: he
is a refuser of hadith, and also in the chain is ‘Obaidulla al-Afriqi who has
been classified as a weak narrator by Ahmad and Darimi and Darqutni. And ibn
muin said: he is nobody. And ibn Madeeni said: he is a refuser of hadith. And Abu
Mish’ar said: he is a companion of every problem. The hadith therefore is very
weak and is not accepted.
The fourth hadith which has been narrated
by Ahmad from Abu Umamah , in its chain exists Ali Ibn Yazid al-Alhani and he
is weak. And similarly Qasim is also weak and therefore the hadith is
very weak and is hence not accepted.
The fifth hadith which has been narrated Abdulla Ibn Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal in Zawaid al-Musnad, in this chain exists Farqad as Sabakhi, Haithami in
Majmu’a azzawaid said: Farqad is weak; al-Munziri also said that the hadith
is weak. This hadith was also narrated by Saeed Ibn Mansur and in his chain
there are three weak narrators, therefore the hadith is weak and hence
is not accepted.
The sixth hadith which has been narrated by Tirmidhi from Abdullah
Ibn Zahr from Ali Ibn Yazid from Qasim ibn abu Umama, from Ali Ibn Yazid, Tirmidhi
said (some of the scholars of knowledge spoke against Ali Ibn Yazid and they
claimed he was weak) and Bukhari said that he was a refuser of hadith
and Nasaee said: is not trustworthy. Darqutni unaccepted it. And Shawkani
claimed ‘Obaidulla Ibn Zahr and Qasim to be weak. Therefore the hadith
is very weak and hence is not accepted.
The seventh hadith has been narrated by Abu Dawud from a sheikh whom
Abu Wail had seen and it is clear that there is a unknown narrator who has not
been named and he is the sheikh whom Abu Wail had seen, therefore the hadith is
weak and is not accepted.
The eighth hadith which has been narrated by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari in
his tafsir is a qawl (saying) of ibn Mas’ood and is not a marfoo’
hadith, and the sayings of Sahaba are not evidence (daleel), and
they are ahkam shari’a for them and for those who do taqleed
to them from the Muslims, and it is not obligatory for all the Muslims to do taqleed
to it, and this is the saying of Ibn Mas’ood (ra) and his understanding from
the ayah, in fact it is the sharh of (lahw) and it is a correct
understanding as the has been quoted in the first hadith in the second
section which says: “This vain act is permitted for us during marriage
ceremonies.” i.e. singing is permitted during marriage ceremonies. As for the
Prophet (saw)’s saying in the third hadith, when
he (saw) asked ‘Aishah (ra): “Did you send any singer with them who could sing
for them, because the Ansar like it”, i.e. they like singing. An observer in
this would easily notice that singing is dispraised or censured because of its
linkage (Qareenah) to being distractive from Allah (swt)’s path. If it
were not so, there would be no censure. Any linkage to distraction from Allah
(swt)’s path in any saying renders it to be dispraised while the act itself
remains permissible. Singing is similar, it is permissible like any other
permissible act unless linked to being distractive from Allah (swt)’s path.
Hence this interpretation is not an evidence of its prohibition.
There is one hadith remaining which was
reported in Sahih al-Bukhari which is a mu’allaq hadith, and this
is one of the evidences for the ones who say that music and musical instruments
are not allowed, we shall look into this hadith in some detail:
This hadith although narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, it would be not
correct to say that Bukhari narrated this hadith since Bukhari does not say (he
informed us) or (he told us) or something of the similar words, he reports in a
mu’allaq manner in the format (and Hisham ibn ‘Ammar said) and the mu’allaq
Ahadeeth in Sahih al-Bukhari are not obliged to be taken as evidence
although they can be referred to. The Ahadeeth mua’llaqa means
that one narrator or more are not mentioned in the chain, and thereby the
hadith is Munqat’i (unconnected), and I question: why did not Bukhari
mention the one who narrated this hadith to him? Does this not indicate
Imam Bukhari’s suspicion on the narration and the narrator, and therefore this
hadith falls down from the level of being Saheeh.
Hisham bin ‘Ammar is a man of trust but when he became old his
condition changed, his sayings could not be taken doubtlessly, Abu Hatim arRazi
says (when Hisham became old he changed, he would read whatever was given to
him and whatever was dictated to him, he would accept) and Abu Dawud from whom
Al-’Ajari narrated (Hisham narrated four hundred Ahadeeth but his chains
do not have a base), and he also said
that Hisham would take the Ahadeeth from Abu Mish’ar and then narrate
them, and after this he i.e. Abu Dawud said (I was afraid he would create
doubts in the matter of Islam itself). Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: “He was
somewhat fickle” and also said: “If you happen to pray behind him, repeat your
prayers.” It is not correct to take Ahadeeth from such a narrator,
moreover, Sahih Ahadeeth refute what he narrated.
Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan with a
good chain, starting with Hisham bin ‘Ammaar: (Abdul Wahab bin Najdah narrated
to us, that Bashar bin Bakr narrated to us, from Abdul Rahman Ibn Yazid Ibn Jabir,
that ‘Atiyah Ibn Qays narrated to us: I heard Abdul Rahman Ibn Ghanam al’Ash’ari
say: Abu Amir narrated to us or Abu Malik, I swear by Allah another oath that
he did not believe me that he heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)
say: There will be among my community people who will make lawful (the use of) khazz
and silk. Some of them will be transformed into apes and swine till the day of
judgement”. And this has a strong chain with out any doubt but there is no
mention of musical instruments and female singers, so it is obvious as to which
of these narrations is preferred?
The Shari’a
came inline with the innate nature of man and there is no proof to say that it is
in conflict with the nature of man, and the singing as all of us know, is from
the nature which I cannot comprehend that a man who lives for four years or
more and does not listen to songs, our children from a very young age tend to
sing and dance, so has Islam come to prohibit what is part of our nature?
In the end I say, if this was a hadith,
with no contradiction with the other Saheeh Ahadeeth which we have
presented, we would have relied upon it over weaker Ahadeeth. But the issue
here is different, that there are many Ahadeeth which are Saheeh
and Hasan and contradictory to this hadith, so how do we take it?
For these 5 reasons I do not take this hadith as an evidence
for prohibiting singing and musical instruments.
And after we have finished discussing the Ahadeeth from the
first section and we have demonstrated their weakness, let us now look at the Ahadeeth
in the second section, and all of which are Sahih to take into consideration as
evidence, from these we will derive the hukm for singing.
The first hadith permits singing in marriage ceremonies.
The second hadith permits the singing in other than marriage
with musical instruments.
The third hadith permits singing and this occurred during a
marriage ceremony.
The fourth hadith permits singing with a beating instrument
and that can be the Duff and that happened at the day of Eid al Adha.
The fifth hadith permits singing with a Daff by a
woman in the presence of men. It cannot be said that this does not amount to
permission to sing; rather it allows compliance with one’s vow (nadhar),
since if there was no vow, there would be no singing. This view is not correct because
if the vow (nadhar) were to be for a sinful act, its compliance would
not be permitted at all. If singing were to be sinful, the Prophet (saw) would
not have permitted, for it is reported by ‘Aishah (ra) that he (saw) said: “Whoever
vows that he will obey Allah, he must obey Him, and whoever vows that he will
disobey Allah, he should not disobey Him.” This is reported by Bukhari, Abu
Dawud and Nasai. Also since the Prophet (saw) is reported by ‘Imran Ibn Hussain
(ra) that he (saw) said: “There is no compliance of a vow (nadhar) for a
sin.” This is reported by Muslim. Thus since singing is permissible, the
Prophet (saw) allowed the woman to comply with her vow because the Prophet
(saw) had returned safely from the battle.
The sixth hadith indicates that singing combined with the Duff
is mustahab in a marriage, and not only permissible (mubah), so
singing is mandub (recommended) in the marriage and not permissible
only.
The seventh hadith gives daleel for the permissibility of
singing with the acceptance of the Prophet (saw) on the condition of not uttering
haram things, the singing occurred during a marriage.
The eighth hadith gives daleel of permissibility of women
singing in front of the Prophet (saw) and that happened on the day of Eid.
The ninth hadith makes singing with good word mustahab
with the evidence that the Prophet (saw) permitted the singers and beaters (of Duff)
when he said “by Allah I love you” and that is for motivating the singers and
he did not restrict this time of singing to marriages or other occasions only.
The tenth hadith permits singing with a flute with the
evidence the Prophet (saw) did not prevent the shepherd to sing with the flute,
although he plugged his ears as a choice of his and not as an obligation,
similar to the incident where he was presented with the meat of locust but he
did not eat from and let the others eat form it. The people understand from
this act of the Prophet (saw) to indicate that singing is makruh
(disliked), but although they happen to have a (doubt) shubhah in this,
they have erred. Singing was not specifically permitted for marriage ceremonies
or Eid days, rather the permission is general.
The eleventh hadith gives daleel that the singing the book of
Allah is Mustahab (preferred), and had singing been haram it
would not have been recommended to be performed for the book of Allah.
The twelfth hadith urges singing in the book of Allah (swt).
From these discussions we come to a conclusion which does not have
any shubhah (doubt), that singing is mubah (permissible), and is mandub
(recommended) in marriage, and it perhaps is obligatory (fard) in Quran.
After presenting these Sahih and Hasan Ahadeeth, is it
correct to say that singing or listening to songs is prohibited?
The correct shari hukm is that singing is allowed and not haram
in marriages and in the eids and on all occasions whether it is sung or
listened to, and whether musical instruments are accompanied with it or not.
As for singing in a mixed gathering, or girls dance showing their
charms, then this is haram and it is not permitted; not because of the
prohibition of the singing, but rather because of what is combined with singing
i.e. free mixing and dancing and display of their charms (tabarruj). And
I say this in respect of singing which leads to sin or evil talk and kufr
ideas, like the songs which Abdul Haleem Hafiz sang (قَدَرٌ أحمقُ الخُطا). Such singing there is no doubt in its prohibition, but as for
the ones other than this, they are permissible generally, and recommended in
marriages, and could be obligatory for Quran, but it is absolutely incorrect to
say that it is haram.
Translated by Maulana Abu Khalid al-Hejazi
Arabic Source: مسائل فقهية مختارة
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)