Heart Talks

Here are a few scientific facts related to the heart:

  1. The heart begins beating at four weeks after conception and does not stop until death.
  2. Every day, the heart creates enough energy to drive a truck 20 miles. In a lifetime, that is equivalent to driving to the moon and back.
  3. Because the heart has its own electrical impulse, it can continue to beat even when separated from the body, as long as it has an adequate supply of oxygen.
  4. Grab a tennis ball and squeeze it tightly: that’s how hard the beating heart works to pump blood.
  5. Dr Andrew Armour, a neurologist from Montreal, Canada, discovered a small but complex network of neurons in the heart, which he has dubbed ‘the little brain in the heart’. These neurons seem to be capable of both short and long-term memory.
  6. The heart’s brain is composed of an elaborate network of neurons, 

View original post 49 more words

The kind of people ALLAH loves.

Did you know the kind of people ALLAH loves as per Quran? No perhaps.
1) Patience:
ﻭَﭐﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻳُﺤِﺐُّ ﭐﻟﺼَّـٰﺒِﺮِﻳﻦَ
“And Allah loves as-Sâbirun (the
patient).” (Surah Imran 3:146)

2) Putting Trust in Allah:
ﺇِﻥَّ ﭐﻟﻠَّﻪَ ﻳُﺤِﺐُّ ﭐﻟۡﻤُﺘَﻮَﻛِّﻠِﻴﻦَ
“Certainly, Allah loves those who
put their trust (in Him).” (Surah
Imran 3:159)

3) Repentance:
ﺇِﻥَّ ﭐﻟﻠَّﻪَ ﻳُﺤِﺐُّ ﭐﻟﺘَّﻮَّٲﺑِﻴﻦَ
“Truly, Allah loves those who turn
unto him in repentance.” (Surah
Baqarah 2:222)
4) Piety:
ﻓَﺈِﻥَّ ﭐﻟﻠَّﻪَ ﻳُﺤِﺐُّ ﭐﻟۡﻤُﺘَّﻘِﻴﻦَ
“Verily, then Allah loves those
who are al-Muttaqun (the pious)
.” (Surah Imran 3:76)
5) Good-doing:
ﺇِﻥَّ ﭐﻟﻠَّﻪَ ﻳُﺤِﺐُّ ﭐﻟۡﻤُﺤۡﺴِﻨِﻴﻦَ
“Truly, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun
(the good-doers).” (Surah
Baqarah 2:195)
6) Purification:
ﻭَﭐﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻳُﺤِﺐُّ ﭐﻟۡﻤُﻄَّﻬِّﺮِﻳﻦَ
“And Allah loves those who make
themselves clean and pure.”

Story of messenger of ALLAH Zakriya A.S father of Yahyah A.S

Story of Prophet Zakariyah/
Zechariah and Yahya/John (pbut)
Ibn Kathir
The years had taken their toll on
the Prophet Zakariyah (pbuh). He
was now old and bent with age,
in his nineties. Despite his
feebleness, he went to the
temple daily to deliver his
sermons.
Zakariyah was not a rich man,
but he was always ready to help
those in need. His one
disappointment in life was that
he had no children, for his wife
was barren. This worried him,
for he feared there was no one
after him to carry out his work.
The people needed a strong
leader, for it they were left on
their own, they would move
away from Allah’s teachings and
change the Holy Laws to suit
themselves.
During one of his visits to the
temple, he went to check on
Mary, who was living in a
secluded room of the temple. He
was surprised to find fresh out
of season fruit in her room.
Besides him, no one had entry to
her room. When he inquired, she
told him that the fruit was from
Allah. She found it every morning.
But why was he so surprised,
she asked him. Did he not know
that Allah provides without
measure for whom He wills?
This noble girl had opened this
eyes to a startling idea. Could he
not ask his Lord to bless him
with a child in his old age? Even
if his wife was past childbearing
age, nothing was impossible for
his Gracious Lord!
Allah the Almighty revealed: ‘Kaf,
Ha, Ya, Ain, Sad, (These letters are
one of the miracles of the Quran,
and none but Allah Alone knows
their meanings). This is a
mention of the Mercy of your
Lord to His slave Zakariyah. When
he called out his Lord (Allah) – a
call in secret, saying: “My Lord!
Indeed my bones have grown
feeble, and gray hair has spread
on my head, and I have never
been unblest in my invocation to
You, O my Lord! And Verily! I fear
my relatives after me, since my
wife is barren. So give me from
Yourself an heir, – who shall
inherit me, and inherit also the
posterity of Jacob (inheritance of
the religious knowledge and
Prophethood, not the wealth,
etc.) And make him, my Lord, one
with whom You are Well-
pleased!”
Allah said: “O Zakariyah! Verily,
We give you the glad tidings of a
son. His name will be Yahya
(John). We have given that name
to none before him.”
He said: “My Lord! How can I
have a son, when my wife is
barren, and I have reached the
extreme old age.”
He said: “So (it will be). Your Lord
says, It is easy for Me. Certainly I
have created you before, when
you had been nothing.”
Zakariyah said: “My Lord! Appoint
for me a sign.”
He said: “Your sign is that you
shall not speak unto mankind for
three nights, though having no
bodily defect.”
Then he came out to his people
from Al Mihrab (a praying place
or a private room, etc.), he told
them by signs to glorify Allah’s
Praises in the morning and in the
afternoon.
It was said to his son: “O John!
Hold fast to the Scripture (The
Torah).” And We gave him
wisdom while yet a child, and
made him sympathetic to men as
a mercy or a grant from Us, and
pure from sins (John) and he
was righteous, and dutiful
towards his parents, and he was
neither an arrogant nor
disobedient (to Allah or to his
parents). And Salamun (peace) on
him the day he was born, the day
he dies, and the day he will be
raised up to life again! (Ch
19:1-15 Quran)
Almighty Allah also said: At that
time Zakariyah invoked his Lord,
saying: “O my Lord! Grant me
from You, a good offspring. You
are indeed the All-Hearer of
invocation.”
Then the angels called him, while
he was standing in prayer in Al-
Mihrab ( a praying place or a
private room), saying: “Allah
gives you glad tidings of John
confirming (believing in) the
Word from Allah (“Be!” – and he
was! (i.e. the creation of Isa
(Jesus), son of Mariam (Mary),
noble keeping away from sexual
relations with women, a Prophet,
from among the righteous.”
He said: “O my Lord! How can I
have a son when I am very old,
and my wife is barren?”
Allah said: “Thus Allah does what
He wills.” He said: “O my Lord!
Make a sign for me.” Allah said:
“Your sign is that you shall not
speak to mankind for three days
except with signals. And
remember your Lord much (by
praising Him again and again),
and glorify Him in the afternoon
and in the morning.” (Ch 3:38-41
Quran).
John (pbuh) was born a stranger
to the world of children who
used to amuse themselves, as he
was serious all the time. Most
children took delight in torturing
animals whereas, he was
merciful to them. He fed the
animals from his food until there
was nothing left for him, and he
just ate fruit or leaves of trees.
John loved reading since
childhood. When he grew up,
Allah the Exalted called upon him:
“O John! Hold fast to the
Scripture (The Torah).” And We
gave him wisdom while yet a
child. (Ch 19:12 Quran).
Allah guided him to read the
Book of Jurisprudence closely;
thus, he became the wisest and
most knowledgeable man of that
time. Therefore, Allah the
Almighty endowed him with the
faculties of passing judgments
on people’s affairs, interpreting
the secrets of religion, guiding
people to the right path, and
warning them against the wrong
one.
John reached maturity. His
compassion for his parents, as
well as for all people and all
creatures, increased greatly. He
called people to repent their sins.
There are quite a number of
traditions told about John. Ibn
Asaker related that one time his
parents were looking for him
and found him at the Jordan
River. When they met him, they
wept sorely, seeing his great
devotion to Allah, Great and
Majestic.
Ibn Wahb said that, according to
Malik, grass was the food of John
Ibn Zakariyah, and he wept
sorely in fear of Allah. A chain of
narrators reported that Idris Al
Khawlawi said: “Shall I not tell
you he who had the best food? It
is John Ibn Zakariyah, who joined
the beasts at dinner, fearing to
mix with men.”
Ibn Mubarak stated that Wahb
Ibn Al-Ward narrated that
Zakariayah did not see his son
for three days. He found him
weeping inside a grave which he
had dug and in which he
resided. “My son, I have been
searching for you, and you are
dwelling in this grave weeping!”
“O father, did you not tell me that
between Paradise and Hell is only
a span, and it will not be crossed
except by tears of weepers?” He
said to him: “Weep then, my son.”
Then they wept together.
Other narrations say that John
(pbuh) said: “The dwellers of
Paradise are sleepless out of the
sweetness of Allah’s bounty; that
is why the faithful must be
sleepless because of Allah’s love
in their hearts. How far between
the two luxuries, how far
between them?”
They say John wept so much that
tears marked his cheeks. He
found comfort in the open and
never cared about food. He ate
leaves, herbs, and sometimes
locusts. He slept anywhere in the
mountains or in holes in the
ground. He sometimes would
find a lion or a bear as he
entered a cave, but being deeply
absorbed in praising Allah, he
never heeded them. The beasts
easily recognized John as the
prophet who cared for all the
creatures, so they would leave
the cave, bowing their heads.
John sometimes fed those
beasts, out of mercy, from his
food and was satisfied with
prayers as food for his soul. He
would spend the night crying
and praising Allah for His
blessings.
When John called people to
worship Allah, he made them cry
out of love and submission,
arresting their hearts with the
truthfulness of his words.
A conflict took place between
John and the authorities at that
time. A tyrant king, Herod
Antipas, the ruler of Palestine,
was in love with Salome, his
brother’s daughter. He was
planning to marry his beautiful
niece. The marriage was
encouraged by her mother and
by some of the learned men of
Zion, either out of fear or to gain
favor with the ruler.
On hearing the ruler’s plan, John
pronounced that such a
marriage would be incestuous.
He would not approve it under
any circumstance, as it was
against the Law of the Torah.
John’s pronouncement spread
like wildfire. Salome was angry,
for it was her ambition to rule
the kingdom with her uncle. She
plotted to achieve her aim.
Dressing attractively, she sang
and danced before her uncle. Her
arousing Herod’s lust. Embracing
her, he offered to fulfill whatever
she desired. At once she told hi:
“I would love to have the head of
John, because he has defiled
your honor and mine throughout
the land. If you grant me this
wish, I shall be very happy and
will offer myself to you.”
Bewitched by her charm, he
submitted to her monstrous
request. John was executed and
his head was brought to Salome.
The cruel woman gloated with
delight. But the death of Allah’s
beloved prophet was avenged.
Not only she, but all the children
of Israel were severely punished
by invading armies which
destroyed their kingdom.

Tomb of Yahyah A.S in Umayyad Mosque, Damascus, Syria

Messenger oF ALLAH: Shu’eb alaih slaam


Most of the people of Madain adopted trade and earned a lot of money by fair or foul means. They hankered after wealth from dawn to dusk. They used to give short measures and weights, were dishonest and deceitful in their dealings & indulged in theft, debauchery etc.
They seized the belongings of messenger of Allah Shu’aib alaihslaam and his followers, then drove them out of the city. The Messenger turned to his Lord for help, and his plea was answered. Allah sent down on them scorching heat and they suffered terribly. On seeing a cloud gathering in the sky, they thought it would bring cool, refreshing rain, and rushed outside in the hope of enjoying the rainfall. Instead the cloud burst, hurling thunderbolts and fire. They heard a thunderous sound from above which caused the earth under their feet to tremble. The evil doers perished in this state of horror. Read complete story

The tomb of messenger of Allah Shoeb alaih slaam

Messenger of ALLAH: Iliyas alaih slaam

Prophet Ilyas (peace be on him)
After the death of Prophet
Sulaiman (Solomon) (peace be
upon him) his kingdom was
dismembered. There was virtually
the rule of Satan all around. The
religious people were mocked at.
The ruler of Somaria killed a large
number of learned people. When
the evil reached the saturation
point, God sent the Prophet Ilyas
(peace be upon him) to reform
mankind during the reign of the
king Ahab of Israel. He tried his
best to save the people from
polytheism. He forbade them to
worship the Tyrian Bal. He
advised the people to ward off
evil and worship One God. When
his efforts bore no fruit he
suddenly appeared before the
king and foretold him that severe
draught and famine would
overtake his kingdom. He added
that the Tyrian Bal would be
powerless to avert it. The people
paid no heed to his warnings
and did not mend their ways.
The prophecy of the Prophet
Ilyas (peace de upon him) turned
out to be true and whole of the
kingdom came under the sway
of famine. The people began to
starve. After three years the
Prophet Ilyas (peace be upon
him) supplicated to show mercy
to the famine stricken people.
They acknowledged the authority
of God and felt penitence. Soon
after the rain ended the draught
and God lifted his curses After
this he was directed by God to
call upon al-Yasa to be his
successor. The Prophet Ilyas
(peace be upon him) did so in
obedience to His command and
disappeared mysteriously. The
Holy Qur’an makes mention of
Prophet Ilyas (peace be upon
him) in the following Verses:
And Zachariah and John and
Jesus and Ilyas all in the ranks of
the righteous; and Ismail and
Elisha (Al-Yasa) and Jonas and
Lot; each have We preferred
above the nations. (To them) and
their fathers and progeny and
brethren, We chose them and We
guided them to a straight way.
(6: 85-87)

Messenger of ALLAH: Hezekiel alaih slaam

Story of Prophet Hizqeel/Ezekiel
(pbuh)
Ibn Kathir
Almighty Allah said: Did you (O
Muhammad) not think of those
who went forth from their
homes in thousands, fearing
death? Allah said to them, “Die.”
And then He restored them to
life. Truly, Allah is full of Bounty to
mankind, but most men think
not. (Ch 2:243 Quran).
Mohammad Ibn Ishaaq stated of
Wahb Ibn Munbah said that
when Allah took Kalih Ibn Yofra
(Jephtha) after Joshua, Ezekiel
Ibn Buzi succeeded him as the
prophet to the Israelites. The
people had fled from Palestine
for fear of the plague and settled
on a plateau. Allah said to them:
“Die you all,” and they all
perished. A few centuries passed,
and then Ezekiel, passing by,
stopped over them, wondering.
There came a voice: “Do you
want Allah to resurrect them
while you watch?” He said: “Yes.”
Then he was commanded to call
those bones to join one to the
other and to be covered with
flesh. So he called them by the
power of Allah, and the people
arose and glorified Allah in the
voice of one man.
According to Ibn Abbas, this
place was called “Damardan.” Its
people were inflicted with
plague, so they fled, while a
group of them who remained in
the village perished. The Angel of
Death called to the survivors: “Die
you all,” and they perished. After
a long time a prophet called
Ezekiel passed by them and
stood wondering over them,
twisting his jaws and fingers.
Allah revealed to him: “Do you
want Me to show you how I
bring them back to life? He said:
“Yes.” His idea was to marvel at
the power of Allah over them. A
voice said to him: “Call: ‘O you
bones, Allah commands you to
gather up.'” The bones began to
fly one to the other until they
became skeletons. Then Allah
revealed to him to say; “Call: ‘O
you bones, Allah commands you
to put on flesh and blood and the
clothes in which they had died.'”
And a voice said: “Allah
commands you to call the bodies
to rise.” And they rose. When
they returned to life they said:
“Blessed are You, O Lord, and all
praises is Yours.” Ibn ‘Abbas
reported that the dead who
were resurrected were four
thousand, while Ibn Salih said
they were nine thousand.
Regarding plague, Abu Ubaidah
Ibn Al-Jarrah related that ‘Umar
Ibn Al-Khattab was on his way to
Syria and had reached Sarg when
the leader of the Muslim army,
Abu Ubaidah Ibn Al-Jarrah, and
his companions met him and told
him of a pestilence that had
broken out in Syria. ‘Umar
remember the Prophet’s (pbuh)
saying: “If it (plague) be in a
country where you are staying,
do not go out fleeing it, and if
you hear it is in a country, do not
enter it.” Umar praised Allah and
then went off.
Muhammad Ibn Ishaaq stated
that we do not know how long
Ezekiel (pbuh) stayed among the
Israelites before Allah took him
away. After him, the Israelites
deviated from the right way of
life, as they usually did, and
deserted Allah’s covenant with
them. They worshipped many
idols, among them Ba’al, so Allah
sent to them the Prophet Elijah
(pbuh).

Grave of Hezekiel alslm in Kiffi, South Baghdad. The shrine is a bone of contention between vying in love Muslims and Jews.

Messenger of ALLAH: Salih alaih salaam

Read story of messenger of ALLAH Salih alaih slaam and his people Thamud

Distinguishing features:Hanafi school.

Shafi’i does not consider delivery
of possession necessary for a
gift, does not recognise a
neighbour’s right of preemption,
regards the testimony of
unknown persons as
inadmissible in transactions,
requires witnesses to marriage
to be reliable and just and rules
out as invalid the testimony of
dhimmis in their transactions
inter se. These things may be
practicable in countries still in a
primitive state, where
transactions are simple and of an
elementary nature, but not in
civilised countries, where
transactions are variegated and
complex and cannot be
conducted without a proper
determination of the rights of
the parties and the nature of the
subject matter. Abu Hanifah,
realising this, holds views
different from those of Shafi’i,
and it was Malik’s failure to
realise it that evoked from Ibn
Khaldun the well-founded remark
about his madhhab, namely, that
it gained currency only in
countries which had not made
much progress in civilisation.
The sagacity and clear
sightedness that Abu Hanifah
brought to bear upon his
formulation of rules relating to
secular transactions can properly
be gauged only by a detailed
examination of some of the
chapters into which these rules
are divided. But there is no room
for that in this short book. I
therefore content myself with
discussing the rules on marriage,
which pertain to both the
religious sphere and the secular.
The jurists have included
marriage among religious duties,
but this is only a technical
convention. Because of its
intimate connection with the life
of the community, marriage is
largely a social transaction. One
reason why I have selected the
rules about marriage, by way of
illustration, is that some
European writers have described
the Hanafi law of marriage as
barbarious and inhuman. But I
hope to prove that not even the
most civilised countries of the
world today have fairer and
more humane marriage laws
than those laid down in Hanafi
Fiqh. Bentham characterises the
Roman law of marriage as a
collection of unjust rules,
whereas the Hanafi law of
marriage, as I hope to show, is
the very antithesis of an unjust
dispensation. This may also,
incidentally, correct the
misconception that Hanafi Fiqh is
derived from Roman law.
Marriage forms a large part of
social life. According to a
philosopher, it is the binding
force of communities, the root of
civilisation and the foundation of
culture. It can, therefore, well be
said that a lawmaker who makes
a good exposition of marriage
laws has a good insight into the
laws that govern civilisation.
Although Abu Hanifah was not
the author of the marriage laws
he expounded, these having
been laid down in principle by
the Lawgiver Himself, yet the
perspicacity with which he
expounded them and deduced
detailed rules from them is the
hallmark of a great lawmaker.
The Lawgiver’s pronouncements
were at times mere aphorisms, at
times ambiguous statements, at
times broad hints, spelling out no
details. As a consequence, wide
differences arose among the
mujtahids about their
interpretation and application.
The way in which Abu Hanifah
worked out the details of general
statements, removed the
ambiguities, clarified the hints,
and framed specific rules was a
performance which only his
unique gift of ijtihad was equal
to. No other mujtahid is his rival
in this field.
The following are the broad
headings under which he deals
with marriage laws:
1) The persons between whom
marriage is permissible.
2) Guardianship for purposes of
marriage.
3) Stability of the marriage
contract.
4) The rights of the parties to a
marriage contract.
5) The ritual of marriage.
Restrictions on marriage exist in
all religions with slight
differences. All religions
prescribe certain prohibited
degrees, which are more or less
the same in all of them and all of
which are based on rational
considerations. Shah Wali-Allah in
the Hujjat-Allah al-Balighah and
Bentham in Utility, advance the
same arguments to justify the
prohibited degrees. As these are
in accord with nature and reason
and are clearly stated in the
Qur’an, all the mujtahids are
agreed on the principle
underlying them, but they
disagree on the details not
mentioned in the Qur’anic text.
One of the latter is the question
whether the prohibition is
created by illicit sexual
intercourse, which is the subject
matter of much controversy
between Abu Hanifah and Shafi’i.
Shafi’i holds that it is not. For
example, a man is not prohibited
from marrying a woman with
whom his father has had sexual
intercourse. In fact, Shafi’i
stretches this to the point of
saying that a man may even
marry his illegitimate daughter.
The argument he advances is
that, since illicit intercourse is an
illegal act, it cannot turn what is
lawful into what is unlawful. Abu
Hanifah holds the opposite view.
According to him, the natural
effect of blood-relationship on
the relations between men and
women is not confined to
marriage, and this is the correct
view. The principle underlying
forbidden degrees does not
come into operation specially as
a consequence of marriage. It is
patently contrary to the laws of
Nature to permit marital relations
between a man and his own
daughter, even if born out of
wedlock. This is also true of the
concubine of one’s father. There
are hints about this in the
Qur’an, but as I am not
concerned with a textual debate,
I refrain from citing them.
The second broad question
concerns the competence to
enter into a marriage contract.
This is a very important question,
on the decision of which
depends the goodness or
badness of the institution of
marriage to a large extent.
According to Shafi’i and Ahmad
b. Hanbal, a woman even if she
has attained to puberty and
maturity is not competent to
contract marriage independently
and needs a guardian to consent
to her doing so. On the one
hand, they thus restrict a
woman’s legal powers to the
guardian that he can give her in
marriage even against her will.
According to Abu Hanifah, a
woman who is a major is
competent to contract marriage
of her own will and can, in fact,
on attaining puberty, refuse to
be bound by a marriage
contracted for her by her
guardian during her minority.
(Unless the marriage was
contracted by her father or
grandfather. She cannot annul a
marriage contracted by them –
Suzy)
This divergence of views stems
from a difference of outlook on
women’s rights. In all religions
other than Islam, women have
been assigned a low social status
and granted rights in a niggardly
manner. Among the Hindus and
Christians, they have no right of
inheritance, which was the case
in Arabia itself before Islam. In
many other matters they are
treated as men’s inferiors, but
Islam gave men and women
equal rights, declaring: “Men are
entitled to what they earn by
their deeds, and women to what
they earn by theirs.” Abu Hanifah
kept this equality in view in all
matters, which is a distinctive
feature of his Fiqh. For example,
according to him, in matters like
marriage, divorce and release
from the marital bond, women’s
testimony is of equal value to
men’s, whereas the other imams
regard it as unreliable. Even
where the latter consider
women’s testimony as
admissible, they impose the
condition that two women
should corroborate each other,
Shafi’i raising the number to
four. With Abu Hanifah, a
woman’s evidence is as reliable
as a man’s. Abu Hanifah
considers women as fit to be
appointed qadis, whereas the
other imams do not. As in these
matters, so in marriage, Abu
Hanifah concedes to women an
independent legal status equal to
men’s.
Apart from the principle of the
equality of the sexes, marriage is
a transaction which cannot be
dealt with on the analogy of
other secular transactions, since
it is a relationship which is many-
faceted and intended to be
lifelong. It is extremely unfair to
grant one of the parties to such a
relationship no rights at all.
Shafi’i relies on literalist
arguments to justify his stand,
but Abu Hanifah counters them
with stronger arguments of the
same kind. If Shafi’i quotes:
“There is no marriage without a
guardian,” Abu Hanifah rejoins
with: “A woman is entitled to
contract marriage herself rather
than through her guardian; the
consent of a woman who has
come of age is to be obtained.”
However, this is not the place to
go further into the debate.
The third broad question is
about the extent to which it is
necessary to make the marriage
contract stable and enduring.
Marriage can be the foundation
of civilised life and the binding
force of communities only if it is
a firm and lasting relationship;
otherwise it is only a means of
gratifying an animal appetite.
Abu Hanifah has kept this clearly
in view in laying down rules
about the method of performing
marriage, fixing the dower,
enforcing divorce and giving
effect to khal’ (divorce by the
wife). (But unlike other jurists,
Abu Hanifa does not permit a
woman to seek judicial divorce
on any grounds except ONE: if
her husband is missing and 99
(!) years have passed since his
birth. – Suzy)
Abu Hanifah’s most important
pronouncement in this
connection is that so long as the
relations between husband and
wife are good, divorce is
prohibited. Even where he
considers it permissible – that is,
when there are compelling
reasons for it – he prescribes a
procedure which leaves room for
rectification and revocation.
According to this procedure,
there must be three divorces at
intervals of one month, so that
the husband gets ample time to
reconsider his decision and, if he
so wishes, rescind it, which
indeed is mustahabb (desirable).
If there is no reconciliation
during this period, and it is
established that none is possible,
then there has of necessity to be
a divorce. After the divorce, the
husband has to pay the wife’s
dower and her maintenance
expenses for three months. The
idea behind this is that the wife
should have means of
subsistence until she can find a
new husband. I give below a
table showing Abu Hanifah’s
rules on this subject and those of
other imams. How important Abu
Hanifah considers the marriage
contract to be and how solicitous
he is to ensure that it remains
inviolate under any
circumstances will be clear from
the table.

Distinguishing features: Hanafi maslak

The second distinguishing
feature of Hanafi Fiqh is that it
is easier to understand and
act upon than the other
systems of Fiqh.
The Qur’an says repeatedly: “God
wishes to be gentle, and not
strict with you.” The Prophet
declared: “I come to you with a
gentle and easy Shariah.” It is
Islam’s special pride in
comparison with other religions
that it is far removed from
monasticism, that its ritual is not
rigorous, that its enjoinments are
easy to understand and act upon.
Hanafi Fiqh is superior to its
rivals on similar grounds.
So well known is the fact that
Hanafi Fiqh is easy and liberal
that poets and writers often
employ it as a proverb. A rather
curious example of this is a
simile used by Anwari, an
obscene and unbridled poet, in
which he speaks of “the liberties
allowed by Abu Hanifah.” The
simile occurs in an improper
context, but the point it makes is
clear. On any question, whether
pertaining to the duties of
worship or to worldly
transactions, one finds Abu
Hanifah’s precepts easy and
gentle and those of the other
imams difficult and harsh. Let me
by way of illustration take the
rules regarding theft, laid down
in the Kitab al-Jinayat (the
Criminal Code) and the Kitab al-
Hudud (the Penal Code).
It is agreed by all authorities that
the punishment for theft is
cutting off the right hand, but
the mujtahids in defining theft
have laid down certain
conditions without the fulfilment
of which this punishment cannot
be awarded. What effect these
conditions have on the rules
relating to theft will be clear from
the following comparative table,
which will also show how easy
and consistent with civilised
living is Abu Hanifah’s madhhab
as compared with the other
madhhabs.
A large part of Fiqh deals with
prohibitions and permissions. In
this connection, there are many
precepts of the other imams
which, if they were to be acted
upon, would make life unlivable,
while Abu Hanifah’s precepts are
easy to follow. For example,
according to Shafi’i, the following
acts are impermissible: bathing
or performing ablution with
water heated on dung-fire;
eating out of clay vessels baked
on dung-fire; using vessels made
of tin, glass, crystal and agate;
wearing garments made of wool,
sable fur and leather (in which
prayer cannot be offered);
vessels, chairs and saddles with
silver work on them; common
sales in which there is no
declaration of selling and buying.
Abu Hanifah considers all these
acts permissible.
An important sector of Fiqh
connected with the requirements
of society is that which deals
with transactions between
individuals, and it is here that the
practical wisdom of the various
mujtahids can best be judged. Up
to Abu Hanifah’s time, the legal
directions regarding transactions
were too primitive to fulfil the
needs of a developed society.
There were no rules governing
contracts, no written documents,
no procedure laid down for the
adjudication of disputes and the
adducing of evidence. Abu
Hanifah was the first to
introduce all these. Unfortunately,
mujtahids who came after him,
instead of adding to what he had
accomplished, reverted to the
old-time rough and ready
practices, motivated as they were
by a deep-rooted bias for
unworldliness. A famous
traditionist taunts jurists in the
following words: “These people
think that when a suit is filed
regarding a piece of land, it is
necessary to state in the plaint its
situation, boundaries and legal
position, although in the
Prophet’s time there was no
question of furnishing these
particulars.” For the traditionist,
this is a matter for reproach, but
if he had lived in a civilised
country and had had something
to do with business transactions,
he would have known that the
things he considers
reprehensible are essential to
civilised living.

The distinguishing features of Hanafi maslak

The first and foremost
distinguishing mark of Hanafi
Fiqh is that it bases laws upon
expediency and beneficialness.
There have been two schools of
thought in Islam from the very
beginning in regard to
prescriptions of the Shariah.
According to one of them, they
are purely devotional, that is to
say, there is no expediency or
benefit implied in them. For
instance, wine drinking and
debauchery are reprehensible
simply because the Shariah has
prohibited them, while charity
and almsgiving are praiseworthy
simply because the Lawgiver has
enjoined them – intrinsically none
of these acts is either good or
bad. Shafi’i is inclined to
subscribed to this school of
thought, and perhaps that is the
reason why Abu’l-Hasan Ash’ari,
the founder of kalam among the
Shafi’ites, based his system upon
it.
According to the second school
of thought, all rules of the
Shariah have their origin in
expediency, even though the
common people do not
understand this in the case of
some of them. This doctrine has
been the subject of much
controversy because of
prominent authorities ranging
themselves on opposite sides in
regard to it. The controversy,
however, was not justified, since
the expediency and purpose of
all important enjoinments have
been stated in the Qur’an itself.
In rejoinders to the unbelievers,
the Qur’an always explains the
rationale of its directives. For
example, it says about prayer
that it saves one from immoral
and forbidden acts; about fasting
that it leads to piety; about jehad,
that it is intended to end
disruption. There are similar
explanations and hints here and
there in the Qur’an about other
acts commanded by it.
Abu Hanifah subscribed to the
doctrine of the rationality and
beneficence of the rules of the
Shariah and made it a postulate
of all his Fiqh propositions. It is
owing to this that of all the
systems of Fiqh, the Hanafi
system is most in accord with
rational principles. Tahawi, who
was both a muhaddith and a
mujtahid, has written a book on
this subject under the title of
Sharh Ma’ani al-Athat, in which
he stresses the necessity of
proving Fiqh propositions with
the aid of both Qur’anic text and
rational argument. He deals with
every aspect of Fiqh and,
although exhibiting a creditable
impartiality, [and even though]
he disagrees with Abu Hanifah
on some questions, he proves by
arguments worthy of a mujtahid
that on most questions, Abu
Hanifah’s stand was in accord
with both Traditions and reason.
Muhammad b. al-Hasan also has
employed rational argument on
most questions in his Kitab al-
Hujaj. Both these books have
been published and are available
for anyone interested to consult.
Even Shafi’ites and others do not
deny that Abu Hanifah’s
madhhab is in conformity with
reason. Indeed, it was not to be
expected that they would deny
this, maintaining as they do that
the further the prescriptions of
the Shariah are removed from
reason, the better. Thus Razi,
discussing Zakat, says that
Shafi’i’s standpoint on it is more
correct than Abu Hanifah’s
because it is far removed from
reason and analogy, Zakat being
a purely devotional duty needing
no rational justification.
The fact that, unlike his
contemporaries, Abu Hanifah
favoured the principle of
rationality was due to a special
reason. The other doctors who
applied themselves to the
systematisation of Fiqh began
their education with that subject.
Abu Hanifah, on the other hand,
began his education with Kalam,
application to which sharpened
his intellect and increased his
power of reasoning. As the
Mu’tazilah and others with
whom he engaged in debates
followed the principle of
rationality, he had to do the same
in contending with them. This
exercise made him realise that
every prescription of the Shariah
was consonant with reason.
When he turned to Fiqh later on,
he brought the same approach
to bear on its problems. A
comparison of the formulations
of the Hanafi system of Fiqh with
those of other systems clearly
shows this approach as the
distinguishing feature of the
former. Not to speak of mundane
matters, even in matters
pertaining to worship, which in
the view of literal-minded people
have nothing to do with reason,
the rules framed by Abu Hanifah
are eminently rational.
If one tries to determine the
benefits aimed at by the Shariah
in prescribing prayer, fasting,
Hajj and Zakat as obligatory
duties and what in the light of
the benefits should be the modes
of performing these duties, one
finds that only the modes
established by the Hanafi Fiqh
are appropriate. Prayer, for
example, is the name given to a
combination of acts, having
different degrees of importance
in relation to the real object of
prayer (namely, the cultivation of
humility, expression of devotion,
affirmation of God’s greatness,
invocation of God’s grace) and in
proportion to the extent to
which they are respectively
effective in achieving that object.
Some of the acts are obligatory
and indispensable because in
their absence, the object of
prayer is defeated. Each of such
acts is called a fard in the
language of the Shariah. The
other acts only add grace and
beauty to the ritual of prayer and
their omission does not defeat
the object of prayer. Such acts
rank lower than acts of the first
kind and are called sunnat or
mustahab.
The Prophet did not specify
which acts were fard and wajib
and which were sunnat. There
can, however, be no doubt that
all the acts involved in prayer are
not of equal importance. That is
why the mujtahids thought it
necessary to grade them and
give them separate names. Abu
Hanifah did the same, but his
grading is superior to that of the
other imams in that it is more
realistic. For example, take the
question as to what are the
essential ingredients of prayer,
that is to say, the acts without
which prayer cannot be
performed. Now, since in reality
prayer consists in the affirmation
of submission to God and in
humbling oneself before Him,
therefore all the imams are
agreed that niyyat (expression of
the intention to pray), takbir
(saying: “God is great”), qira’at
(reciting Qur’anic passages),
ruku’ (bending down with hands
on knees), sujud (bowing the
head on the ground), etc., which
are the best outward forms of
submission to God and humbling
oneself before Him, are
obligatory, and the Lawgiver
himself has hinted at that and, in
fact, clearly stated it in some
places. But some of the imams
went beyond that and declared
even a particular manner of
performing these acts or making
these utterances to be de
rigueur, although it was not
intended to be so. Abu Hanifah
does not consider the manner to
have been prescribed strictly. For
example, he thinks that the
takbir-i-tahrimah (the formula of
glorification of God = Allahu
Akbar) can be uttered in words
other than Allahu Akbar which
have the same meaning, e.g.,
Allahu A’zam or Allahu Ajall.
Shafi’i thinks that it cannot. Abu
Hanifah even maintains that it is
permissible to say the takbir in
Persian. Shafi’i on the other
hand, holds that this invalidates
the prayer. According to Abu
Hanifah, the duty of qira’at can
be performed by reciting any
ayat of the Qur’an, while
according to Shafi’i, it can be
performed only by reciting the
Surat al-Fatihah. In Abu Hanifah’s
opinion, a person incapable of
reciting the Qur’an in Arabic may
recite it in some other language,
but Shafi’i rules that out as
impermissible.
It should not be concluded from
this that Abu Hanifah or any
other mujtahid fixed the
essential element of prayer
purely on the basis of reason and
analogy. The imams have, on the
contrary, adduced
pronouncements and hints from
Traditions in support of these
elements, and their arguments
are set forth at length in books
of Fiqh. All that I mean to say is
that Abu Hanifah’s enunciations
are supported both by
pronouncements and hints
derived from Traditions by
rational arguments, which shows
what an insight he had into the
inner purpose and justification
of Shariah prescriptions.
These remarks apply equally to
questions relating to Zakat. The
real motive behind Zakat is
human sympathy and help of the
needy. That is why those who
most need and deserve sympathy
and help, such as beggars, the
indigent, officers administering
Zakat, the grief-stricken, debtors,
travellers, soldiers and self-
ransomed slaves, have been
declared to be special objects of
it. But differences arose on the
question of dispensation. Shafi’i
thinks that it is obligatory to give
Zakat to all these categories of
recipients at the same time or
that, in other words, if even a
single category is left out, the
duty of Zakat is not fulfilled. Abu
Hanifah, on the other hand, holds
that although Zakat cannot be
given to anybody outside these
categories, the question whether
it must be given to all the
categories together or may be
given to some of them has to be
decided with reference to the
circumstances. Thus, according
to him, the imam or ruler may
select some of the categories and
leave out the others.
Another question on which Abu
Hanifah and the other imams
disagree is that of the mode of
giving Zakat on domestic
animals. According to Abu
Hanifah, Zakat on domestic
animals may be given either in
kind or in cash. Shafi’i maintains
that it must be given in kind and
that, if given in cash, it does not
discharge the obligation. This
ruling ignores the fact that so far
as the object of Zakat is
concerned, it is immaterial
whether an animal or its prices is
given away: the Lawgiver Himself
made no clear distinction
between the two.
Besides these propositions, there
are hundreds of questions
relating to ritual duties (‘ibadat)
on which Abu Hanifah’s
enunciations show that he gave
special consideration to the inner
purpose and the benefits likely to
accrue. I, however, refrain from
setting them forth for want of
space. This characteristic is more
manifest in Abu Hanifah’s
treatment of secular matters.

In praise of Hanafi Maslak

Edited by Syed Mumtaz Ali
Part I:
The Supreme
Sunni
Way of Life
and the Honourable Hanafi
School of Law
Among the Muslims the framing
of laws has always been the
preserve of the religious leaders,
men distinguished for their
extreme devoutness and piety.
The qualities prized most in
religious people are detachment
from worldly matters, aloofness,
strictness in the performance of
duties, unawareness of public
affairs and dislike of the
followers of other religions. All
these are qualities adverse to
social progress. People
characterized by an excess of
these qualities, especially if they
are inborn in them, are unable to
understand the requirements of
a developing civilization. For all
the veneration such people
rightfully enjoy because of their
holiness and purity, they can
offer little guidance to men and
women in the conduct of their
mundane affairs. Who can deny
the exalted rank of godly men
like Junaid Baghdadi, Ma’ruf
Karkhi, Shibli, and Dawud Ta’i;
but one cannot imagine them in
the role of legislators. Even the
mujtahids who framed personal
and public laws under the title of
Fiqh, although no anchorites like
these holy men, did not know
enough about mundane matters
to legislate about them. That
explains why some of their laws
are so rigid and unimaginative as
to be difficult of enforcement. For
example, Shafi’i and some other
mujtahids maintain that no one
but a reliable man can be a
witness to a marriage, that a
neighbour has no right of
preemption, that it is
impermissible to sell gifts, that
the testimony of dhimmis is not
admissible in any circumstances,
and that if a Muslim kills hundred
of innocent dhimmis, he is not
punishable for this. Laws of this
kind are simply not workable.
Abu Hanifah was alone among
his contemporaries in combining
religious piety with an
understanding of worldly needs,
and especially the needs of a
growing society. Because of the
legal references constantly made
to him, he had become
acquainted with thousands of
complicated questions
concerning human relations. His
consultative council was to all
intents and purposes a supreme
court, which had decided
hundreds of thousands of cases.
It virtually had an official status
and was consulted by State
functionaries. Most of his
disciples and associates, who
numbered hundreds, were
people holding judicial posts. To
crown all, he was a born jurist
with a flair for the finer points of
law and an intuitive appreciation
of its operation in human affairs.
A good illustration of this is
provided by the following
incident narrated by most of the
historians who have written
about him.
One day Abu Hanifah called on
Qadi Abi Laila and found him
engaged in hearing a case. The
plaintiff alleged that the
defendant had defamed him by
calling his mother an adulteress.
The Qadi inquired of the
defendant, who also was present
in court, what he had to say in
his defence. Abu Hanifah,
intervening, said to the Qadi that
the suit was not yet ready for
being heard and advised him to
ask the plaintiff if his mother was
alive, because, if she was, she
should also join the suit and be
either personally present or
authorise the plaintiff in writing
to represent her. On the Qadi
questioning him accordingly, the
plaintiff stated that his mother
was dead. The Qadi thereupon
wished to proceed with the
hearing. Abu Hanifah intervened
again and suggested that the
plaintiff be asked whether he
had any brothers and sisters,
because if he did, they should
also be joined to the suit. There
were a number of further
questions which Abu Hanifah
caused the Qadi to put to the
plaintiff. After these questions
had been answered, Abu Hanifah
declared that the case was ripe
for hearing and advised the Qadi
to proceed with the examination
of the plaintiff. It is clear from
this account that, but for Abu
Hanifah’s intervention, the Qadi
would have proceeded with the
case in a manner no better than
the rough-and-ready manner in
which the common people settle
their disputes. Abu Hanifah
desired the case to be heard in
accordance with the proper
judicial procedure, an essential
requirement which was that all
the persons who could claim to
be aggrieved by the cause of
action should be parties to the
suit so that it should not be
necessary for the court to
adjudicate severally upon a
number of claims arising from
the same facts.

at-Tazkirah: التذكرة

In Volume V of his autobiography “Aap Beti” Qutbul Aqtab Shaikhul Hadith Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Zakariya Kandhlawi (r.a.) himself writes:

[…] In both Deoband and Saharanpur, there were many Ahlul-Hadith students, but they never disclosed their adherence to the Ahlul-Hadith.

I told them not to hide their mazhab from me. They could come to my house at any time to discuss their problems. Some students (may Allah reward them) came to me to be connected in bay’at.

Some of them even suggested that I should demand of them, they would stop ‘raf-ul-yadayn’, ‘ameen-bil-jahr’ etc., but I told them: “You people are doing those thing in your earnest desire to implement Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s commands and practices. How can I ever prohibit you from doing so?”

Subhan’Allah, our Akabirs in general were so moderate and didn’t condemn people for interpreting Islam a different way. Indeed as long as someone is…

View original post 308 more words

A refutation of Shia Cult

In the Holy Quran, we read explicit verses in the virtues of the companions of the Prophet (S)

محمد رسول الله والذين معه اشداء على الكفار رحماء بينهم تراهم ركعا سجدا يبتغون فضلا من الله ورضوانا سيماهم في وجوههم من اثر السجود ذلك مثلهم في التوراة ومثلهم في الانجيل كزرع اخرج شطأه فازره فاستغلظ فاستوى على سوقه يعجب الزراع ليغيظ بهم الكفار وعد الله الذين امنوا وعملوا الصالحات منهم مغفرة واجرا عظيما

[048:029] Muhammad, (SAW), is the messenger of Allah. He and his followers are tough on the unbelievers; but they are kind to each other. You see them bowing, and falling down prostrate (before Allah) seeking His favors and His acceptance. The distinctive effect of prostrating (before their Creator) is apparent on their faces. Such is their description in the Torah. About them, the Gospel quotes the parable, “It is as if the seed is sown in the field…

View original post 2,494 more words

Biography:Ibn Qayyim R.A

Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (alsoknown as Ibn Qayyim (“The son of the principal”) or Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (“Son of the principal of the (school of)
Jawziyyah”)) (1292–1350 CE /691 AH–751 AH) was a SunniIslamic jurist, commentator on the Qur’an and theologian.
Although he is sometimes
referred to as “the scholar of the heart” given his extensive works pertaining to human
behavior and ethics, Ibn Qayyim’s scholarship was focused on the sciences of Hadith and Fiqh. Continue reading at Wiki

Imam Tayimiah R.A: Brief biography

Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn
Taymiyyah (January 22, 1263–1328 CE), full name: Taqī ad-Dīn Abu ‘l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdal-Ḥalīm ibn ʿAbd as-Salām IbnTaymiya al-Ḥarrānī (Arabic: ﺗﻘﻲ
ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺱ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ
ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺗﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﻧﻲ ), was
an Islamic scholar (alim),
theologian and logician born in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol
invasions. He was a member of the school founded by Ahmad
ibn Hanbal and sought the returof Islam to what he viewed as earlier interpretations of the
Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Continue reading at Wikipedia