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

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.

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.

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

Imam Tayimiah R.A: Counter views – End

Ibn Taymiyyah:
Ibn Taymiyah (d. 728/1328) was
a theologian who was sent to
the jail by the
consensus (Ijma’a) of prominent
Sunni scholars of his time (in
Egypt and
Damascus) because of his
heretical beliefs. He was
considered an innovator
and a heretic and some Sunni
scholars went so far as to
declare his
writings as Kufr. Now he has
become a Muslim scholar for
Wahhabis! I don’t
want to go into the details of the
charges against Ibn Taymiyah
which was
raised by prominent Sunni
scholars about his heretical
beliefs such as his
idea that Allah has limbs and
these limbs are physical (Haqiqi)
and so on
since it needs thousands of lines
by itself. Among those Sunni
scholars who
denounced him, are Taqi al-Din
Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ibn
Hajar al-
Asqalani, al-Izz ibn Jama’a,
Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari,
Abu Hayyan al-
Andalusi, Shaykh Ahmad Ibn
Zayni dihlani, Shaykh Mohammad
Ouwayss from al-
Azhar, and many others. In their
fatwa, they called Ibn Taymiyah
as a
misguided person who was
deserting the Sunni tenets. I
refer Sunni brothers
to their authentic Fiqh book
called “The Reliance of the
Traveller” for a
biography of Ibn Taymiyah.
************************
Now, as for Ibn Taymiyyah: A
number of prominent Muslim
scholars of great repute -have-
in fact pronounced kufr on Ibn
Taymiyyah, although the
majority of scholars of ahl-al-
Sunnah
have not pronounced kufr on
him. Many have, however,
criticized
him for innovation (bid`ah).
Among those who criticized him
are
-Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani (FatH al-
Baaree, [Vol 12, p202], [V
13, p 410]),
-Ibn Hajar al-Haytami ([al-
Fataawaa al-Hadeethiyyah p116,
p203], [Haashiyah, p443, p489])
-Taqi al-Deen al-Subki ([al-sayf al-
Saqeel], [al-durrah al-
maDiyyah]
Others include Taj al-Deen al-
Subki, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, Ibn
Daqeeq al-`Eed and Zayn al-Deen
al-`Araaqee.
Firstly, we should realize that
those scholars who pronounced
kufr on him based their verdicts
on very real evidence from Ibn
Taymiyyah’s own books. One of
the
primary contentions of these
group of scholars was that Ibn
Taymiyyah believed in – eternity
of the
universe, which is that he said
that some kind of creation
always
existed. Also a
large number of scholars, of
both former and latter times,
have
criticized some of Ibn
Taymiyyah’s opinions as
innovations. It
cannot be denied that in some
issues, Ibn Taymiyyah (though he
may have had good intentions)
has contradicted the consensus
(ijmaa`) of the Muslim scholars.
Some of these issues are
doctrinal (e.g. he believed that
Allah can be described with
(limits), compare this to the
mainstream Sunni creed as
presented by Imam al-Shafi`ee,
for example in ,
p8, or Abu Haneefah (al-fiqh al-
akbar, p57), al-Tahawi (al-
`aqeeedah al-TaHaawiyyah), al-
Bayhaqi (al-Asmaa’ waS-Sifaat,
p410), etc),
others are related to fiqh
(jurisprudence) (e.g. his
opinion that three divorces
pronounced together do not all
take
effect – this fatwaa incidentally
was the reason that Ibn Rajab
al-Hanbali forsook Ibn
Taymiyyah).
*****************************
*****************************
****************
The following article is written
by a Sunni brother. This also
shows the
fact that ortodox Sunnis beleive
that Allah can be seen but we
don’t know
how? He talks but we don’t
know how? He is stablished on
the trone but
we don’t know how? On the
other hand Wahhabis attribute
physical entities
to it, while shia do not beleieve
Allah has hand at all. Shia also
beleive
he can not be seen at all, and so
on.
From: mas@Cadence.COM
(Masud Khan)
Subject: The Aqeedah of Ahl al-
Sunnah wa’l Jamma’ah
Date: 3 May 1994 23:13:19 GMT
THE AQEEDAH OF AHL AL-SUNNAH
WA’L JAMA’AH – in contrast with
the Aqueedah
of the “Salafi” sect.
What follows are some examples
of the anthropomorphic nature
of the neo-
‘Salafite’ Aqeedah, and how it
varies from the actual Aqeedah
transmitted
to
us by the earliest generations of
the Muslim Ummah. Today’s
‘Salafiyya’
claim to have the original and
pristine Aqeedah of the first
three pious
generations of Islam; but in
reality it is the Aqeedah of the
likes of Ibn
Taymiyya and his disciple Ibn al-
Qayyim al-Jawziyyah when it
comes to
describing Allah and His
attributes and so on. The
following four points
points have derived directly from
the works of the “Salafi” scholars
(al-
Harras and al-Uthaimin)
themselves. In comparison to
these points I have
also quoted from the Aqeedah
of Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi’s
[d. 321 AH;
Rahimullah] and others for you
to compare and contrast. Imam
Tahawi’s
Aqeedah represents the
Aqeedah as transmitted by the
scholars of his
Madhab (which represents in
the main the Aqeedah of the
Salaf-us-Salihin) –
Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifa, Imam
Abu Yusuf and Imam al-Shaybani
(Allah
mercy be upon them) – three of
the greatest Ahl al-Sunnah
scholars.
1 The Vision of Allah in the
Hereafter
Imam al-Tahawi (Rahimullah)
said with regard to this issue in
“al-Aqeedah
at-Tahaweeah” [English trans. by
I.A. A’zami, under the title ‘Islamic
Belief’], “Belief of a man in the
‘seeing of Allah by the people of
the
Garden’ is not correct if he
imagines what it is like, or
interprets it
according to his own
understanding, since the
interpretation of his
‘seeing’ or indeed, the meaning
of any subtle phenomena which
are in the
realm of Lordship, is by avoiding
its interpretation and strictly
adhering
to the submission. This is the din
of Muslims. Anyone who does
not guard
himself against negating the
attributes of Allah, or likening
Allah to
something else
(anthropomorphism), has gone
astray and has failed to
understand Allah’s glory,
because our Lord, the Glorified
and the Exhalted,
can only possibly be described in
terms of Oneness and Absolute
Singularity
and no creation is in anyway like
Him.”
In contrast, Muhammad Khalil
Harras (a ‘Salafi’ scholar) said in
his “Sharh-
ul-Aqeedat-il-Wasitiyyah (of Ibn
Taymiyya, pg. 73): “The Mutazila
deny the
vision. This denial is based on
refusing to accept Allah in any
direction
for it is necessary for a thing
being seen to be in the direction
of the
seer..” Thus, al- Harras claims
that for Allah to be seen in the
Hereafter,
He (Allah) must have a direction!!
In comparison, Imam al-
Shahrastani [d.
1153 CE; Rahimullah] said in his
“Kitab al-Milal wa’l Nihal (Muslim
Sects
and Division, trans. by A,K, Kazi
and J.G. Flynn, pg. 85): “Imam
Ash’ari
(Rahimullah) says, however, that
the vision of God does not entail
direction, place, form, or face to
face encounter either by
impingement of
rays or by impression, all of
which are impossible.”
2 The Speech of Allah
Imam al-Tahawi (Ramimullah)
said: “The Qur’an is the word of
Allah. It
came from Him as speech
without it being possible to say
how…(next
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^
paragraph): It is not created, as
is the speech of human beings,
and anyone
who hears it and claims that it is
human speech has become an
unbeliever.
Allah warns him and censures
him and threatens him with Fire
when He says,
Exalted is He: ‘I will burn him in
the Fire.’ [al-Muddaththir 74:26]
When
Allah threatens with the Fire
those who say ‘This is just
human speech’ [al-
Muddaththir 74:25] we know
for certain that it is speech of
the Creator of
mankind and it is totally unlike
the speech of mankind.”
In contrast al-Harras stated in
“Sharh-ul-aqeedat-il-wasitiyyah
of Ibn
Taymiyya” [pg. 87]: “His
statement, voice and speech
take place with
letters
and sounds. One to whom He (ie
Allah) speaks he hears. This
includes the
refutation of the stand taken by
the Ash’aria (e.g. Imam al-Ghazali,
Rahimullah, in his ‘Ihya ‘ulum al-
din’) that speech of Allah is
primeval
and is
without letter or sound.”
NB- Imam ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi
(d. 429/1037; Rahimullah) said
with regards
to this issue: “Another group (of
anthropomorphists) is
represented by
those who draw a resemblance
between God’s Word and the
word of His
creatures. They hold thatGod’s
speech consists of sounds and
letters
belonging to the same species
as the sounds and letters which
are ascribed
to mankind.” (vide: ‘al-Farq bayn
al-firaq’, English trans. by
A.Halkin: as
‘Moslem Schisms and Sects’, v2,
p35)
3 Allah’s Hands
al -Harras stated without any
definite proof (pg. 44, above
reference):
“How can ‘hand’ be interpreted
to mean power when the text
proves
mentioning of palm, fingers,
right and left, closing, opening,
etc. which
can happen only in the case of a
real hand.”
Imam al-Tahawi said [no.34 in
his above mentioned book]:
“Anyone who
describes Allah as being in
anyway the same as a human
being has become an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
unbeliever. All those who grasp
this will take heed and refrain
from saying
things such as unbelievers say,
and they will know that He, in His
attributes,
is not like human beings.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4 Allah’s establishment on the
Throne
Imam Malik (Rahimullah) was
asked about Allah’s
establishment on the
Throne; he said: “Establishment
(Istiwa) is known, the how of it
is
^^^^^^^^^^
unknown, belief in it is
obligatory, and questions about
it are
reprehensible innovation (bid’ah)
.” (see Reliance of the Traveller,
pg.
854). In contrast, Muhammad as-
Saleh al-‘Uthaimin (a leading
‘Saudi’
scholar) said in ‘The Muslim’s
Belief’ (pg.11, this work was
heard and
approved by the foremost
‘Saudi’ Mufti – Abd al-Aziz ibn
B’az, trans. M.H.
al-Johani): “‘His (Allah’s) settling
on the Throne’ means that He is
sitting in person on his Throne
in a way that is becoming His
majesty and
Greatness. Nobody except He
knows exactly how He is sitting.”
Imam al-
Shahrastani (Rahimullah) stated
that the leader of the heretical
sect
called the ‘Karramites – Abu
Abdullah Muhammad ibn Karram
declared: “God is
firmly seated on the Throne and
that he is sitting in person on
the upper
side of it…” (Muslim Sects and
Divisions, pg. 92 trans. A.Kazi and
J.Flynn).
The above are CLEAR proofs that
the ‘Salafi/Wahabi’
interpretation of Allah
(swt) is in essence
athropomorphic, the claim that
indivduals like Ibn
Taymiyya, Bin Ba’z and al-Albani
have the same Aqeedah as Ahl al-
Sunnah
wa’l Jama’ah is blatantly untrue
and misleading to Muslims in

Imam Tayimiah R.A: Counter views – I

From: dabbous@milou.inria.fr
(Walid Dabbous)
Subject: Re: Ahl al-Sunnah and
Ibn Taymiya
Dear brothers,
as-Salamou alykum wa
rahmatoullahi wa barakatouh,
I agree with brother Masud
when he says that we can NOT
rely
on ibn taymiyya in matters os
aqueedah in the end part of his
posting (I only pur the
beginning here above).
Someone was defending ibn
taymiyya a few weeks, so please
find a contribution on this
subject taken from the aqueedah
of Ahl-es-Sunna wal Jamaa
(ashaira wa maturidiyya).
In article , U58369@
uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|> Assalamo Alaikum Wa
Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu
|>
|> Concerning the accusation of
Ibn Taymiyyah that he attempted
to ascribe
human
|> qualities to Allah Subhana wa
Ta’ala: Some of the people who
lived in
the same
|> era as Ibn Taymiyyah accused
him of this and they had no
proof to back
up their
|> accusations whatsoever. The
people after them received this
information
from
|> what Ibn Batutah collected.
As most of us know, Ibn Batutah
was not a
scholar
|> either of hadith OR aquidah.
Besides, he never met nor heard
Ibn
Taymiyyah
|> speak. The biography of Ibn
Taymiyyah shows that he always
strongly
opposed
|> those people who attempted
to ascribe human qualities to
Allah Subhana
waTa’ala
|> (See Hayat Sheikh al-Islam Ibn
Taymiyyah by Muhammad al-
Baytar). You
can find
|> more proofs in Ibn
Taymiyyah’s book, Sharh Hadith
An-Nuzool (Commentary
on the
|> Hadith of Nuzool). There are
many proofs that Ibn Taymiyyah
had the
same be-
|> lief and aquidah as the
Sahabah and the scholars of As-
Salaf. To show
just one
|> example: Ibn Taymiyyah says
in his book, al-Aquidah al-
Wasitiya, pg. 9,
…and
|> >from the belief in Allah is the
belief in what Allah ascribed for
himself in
|> the Quran and in the Sunnah
without falsifying or denying or
“takeef”
(ie-to
|> question how his attributes
are). And he quotes this ayah
from the
Quran, Sur-
|> ah al-Shurah, Ayah 11:
|> …there is nothing
whatsoever like unto Him and He
is the one
|> that hears and sees.
|> And Ibn Taymiyyah explains
that the Muslims from Ahl al-
Sunnah wa
Jama’ah
|> don’t deny
|> what Allah ascribed to Himself
& don’t falsify His words. And
they
believe
|> in all His names and ayat. And
they don’t make comparisons
between
Allah and
|> his creatures because there is
nothing like Him. And Allah
knows best
about
|> everything and about Himself.
|> This is one of many examples
that proves that Ibn Taymiyyah
never
claimed
|> “tashbeeh” (ie-never
attempted to ascribe human
qualities to Allah).
|>
I read many of ibn taymiyya
books and the books wrote by
other
scholars to refute him. It is very
clear that ibn taymiyya was
refuted
by the majority of scholars. he
was accused not to belong to the
Salafi school. I showed this in a
previous message and I will
repost
this message soon in sha’a Allah.
The scholars of Ahl eSunna wal
Jamaa
from the 4 schools refuted his
opinions and ibn taymiyya
always tried
to escape from punishment by
saying the 2 shahadas.
ibn taymiyya and his disciple ibn
aljawziyya (different from the
great
hanbali scholar Ibn alJawzi) are
not considered to belong to the
salafi school. ibn taymiyya was
put in jail because of many of his
wrong teachings concerning the
aqeeda. He was not put in jail by
some
tyranic ruler. He was put in jail to
preserve the people from his
ideas. (See Rihlat Ibn Battoutah
where ibn battoutah said: when i
came to damascus there was a
man called ibn taymiyya
speaking about
religion science, but there was
something strange in his mind…
Once
he was doing “kutbat aljuma’a”
and he said yanzilou rabbuna ila
assam’a adunya, then he went
down two steps on the minbar
and he said
“kanuzuli hatha” (like my
descending). the people of
damascus jumped
on him and wanted to kill him.
al-‘imam al-mujtahid asSubkiy
wrote
many books to refute ibn
taymiya. This event of ibn
Taymiya is
registered by the bokks of
history and they are available
and may be
the Muslims need to read them
or some of their contents. Ibn
Taymiyah
was put in jail by the agreement
of the Muslim scholars of Egypt
and
ashSham. His imprisonment
came as a result of the ijma^ of
the
scholars of his age..
In addition, not only ibn
battouta spoke about ibn
taymiyya but a lot
of scholars wrote books and
letters to warn the people from
this man.
i have a long list of these Ulema
and their books. I have a lot of
their
books also.
Among the great Ulemas from
ahl es-Sunna wal jama’a who
refuted him and
decalred that his is out of the
right way of islam:
1) “aSubki” in his “aRasae’l
aSubkiyya firrad ala ibn
taymiyya”,
2) ibn hajar alhaytami, in al-
Fatawa al-Hadithiyya
3) Abou hayyan alandaloussi in
an-Nahr almaadd
4) ibn hajar alaskalani in fath
albari page 410 fascicle 13 kitab
atawhid.
from the 12th hegire century
5) Sheikh ahmad ibn Zayni
dihlane in finat alwahhabiyya,
6) sheikh Muhammad ibn
darwiche al-Hout from beirut in
his book
Rasail fi akidat ahl-esunna
waljamaa.
from the 20th century
7) sheikh muhammad Ouwayss
from alAzhar in his book ibn
taymiyya laysa
salafiyyan, and many others.
In fact, there are many sayings
of ibn taymiyya related to TAJSIM,
in
his own books. He pretended in
his fatawa, (al-asma’a was-sifat)
that
the ahl-esSunna wal Jamaa did
not refute Mujassima (those who
attributed body to Allah). He
even said that there isn’t any
single
text from the Salaf to refute
mujassima. While in fact,
al-‘imam Ahmad
said that the person commits
kufr if he says Allah is a body
(jism)
even if he says that Allah is a
body not like other bodies (jism
la
kalajsam). He was quoted saying
that “The terms are taken from
language and al-‘Islam and the
people of language have put this
term
(body) on something that has
length, width, thickness, image,
structure and components and it
was not narrated in ash-shari^ah
(Islamic law). Therefore, it is
invalid and cannot be used” (end
of
quotation of Imam Ahmad). al-
bayhaqiyy narrated that about
Ahmad in
his book manaqib Ahmad and
az-Zarkashiyy narrated the first
saying of
Ahmad. Notice that Ahmad did
not accept the term (body not
like other
bodies) because it does not befit
Allah and the language does not
accept that. I also quoted the
saying of al-Imam al-Ash^ary
from
Kitab An-Nawader:
“If someone belives that Allah is
a body then he ignores Allah
and he is a kafir”.
To be continued..
In sha’a Allah
Walid Dabbous
*****************************
*****************************
****************

Imam Tayimiah R.A: Pro views

From: mas@Cadence.COM
(Masud Khan)
Subject: Ahl al-Sunnah and Ibn
Taymiya
Ibn Taymiya and his writings
and those of his students have
recently
been used by “Wahabbis” and
“Reformists” to provide evidence
against
madhaib and the Aqueedah of
Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaat (The
Four Schools).
As can be seen from the
following brief biography, taken
from “The
Reliance of the Traveller” which
is an AUTHENTIC book of fiqh, Ibn
Taymiya (Rahim-ullah) was
considered an innovaitor and a
heretic and
some scholars went so far as to
declare his writings as Kufr.
—-
Ibn Taymiya is Ahmad Ibn Abd al-
Salaam ibn Abdullah, Abu al-
Abbas Taqi
al-Din ibn Taymiya al-Harrani,
born in Harran, east of
Damascus, in
661/1263. A famous Hanbali
scholar in Qur’anic exegesis
(tafsir),
hadith and jurisprudence, Ibn
Taymiya was a voracious reader
and
author of great personal
courage who was endowed
with a compelling
writing style and a keen
memory. Dhahabi wrote of him,
“I never saw
anyone faster at recalling the
Qur’anic verses dealing with
subjects
he was discussing, or anyone
who could remember hadith
texts more
vividly.” Dhahabi estimates that
his legal opinions on various
subjects amount to three-
hundred or more volumes.
He was imprisoned during much
of his life in Cairo, Alexandria,
and
Damascus for his writings,
scholars of his time accusing
him of
believing Allah to be a corporeal
entity because of what he
mentioned
in his al-aqida al-Hamawiyya and
al-Wasitiyya and other works,
such as
that Allah’s ‘hand’, ‘foot’, ‘shin’
and ‘face’ are literal (haqiqi)
attributes, and that He is upon
the Throne in person. The error
in
this is suggesting such
attributes are literal is an
innovation and
unjustifiable inferance from the
Qur’anic and hadith texts that
mention them, for the way of
early Muslims was mere
acceptance of such
expressions on faith without
saying how they are meant, and
without
additions, subtractions, or
substituting meanings imagined
to be
synonyms, while acknowledging
Allah’s absolute transcedence
beyond the
characteristics of created things,
in conformity with the Qur’anic
verse “There is nothing
whatsoever like unto
him” [Qur’an 42:11]. As
for figurative interpretations
that preserve the divine
transcendence,
scholars of tenents of faith have
only had recourse to them in
times
when men of reprehensible
innovation (bid’a), quoting
hadiths and
Qur’anic verses, have caused
confusion in the minds of
common Muslims
as to whether Allah has
attributes like those of His
creation or
whether He is transcendently
beyond any image conceivable
to the minds
of men. Scholars’ firmness in
condemning those who have
raised such
confusions has traditionally
been very uncompromising, and
this is no
doubt the reason that a number
of the Imams of the Shafi’i
school,
among them Taqi al-Din Subki,
Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz ibn
Jama’a,
gave formal legal opinions
(fatawa) that Ibn Taymiya was
misguided and
misguiding in tenents of faith,
and warned people from
accepting his
theories. The Hanafi scholar
Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari
has written
“Whoever thinks that all the
scholars of his time joined in a
single
conspiracy against him from
personal envy should rather
impugn their
own intelligence and
understanding, after studying
the repugnance of
his deviations in beliefs and
works, for which he was asked
to repent
time after time and moved from
prison to prison until he passed
on to
what he’d sent ahead.”
While few deny that Ibn Taymiya
was a copious and eloquent
writer and
hadith scholar, his career, like
that of others, demonstrates
that a
man may be outstanding in one
field and yet suffer from radical
deficiencies in another, the most
reliable index of which is how a
field’s Imams regard his work in
it. By this measure, indeed, by the
standards of all previous Ahl al-
Sunnah scholars, it is clear that
despite voluminous and
influential written legacy, Ibn
Taymiya cannot
be considered an authority on
tenents of faith (aqueeda), a
field in
which he made mistakes
profoundly incompatible with
the beliefs of
Islam, as also with a number of
his legal views that violated the
scholarly consensus (ijma) of
Sunni Muslims. It should be
remembered
that such matters are not the
province of personal reasoning
(ijtihad),
whether Ibn Taymiya considered
them to be so out of sincere
conviction,
or whether simply because, as
Imam Subki said, “his learning
exceeded
his intelligence.” He died in
Damascus in 728/1328.
Taken From:
English/Arabic Traditional
Sunni Manual of Shari`ah
_____________________________

Why must we follow. The importance of expert religous authorities and rulings

Question) Why do we need an
Imam ?? Isn’t Taqleed = Blind
Following ?? Please explain the
statements of Mujtahid Imams.
Answer)
Extracting Law and Taqleed:
There are certain
commandments in the Quran
and Sunnah which a lay person
can understand. For example:
“Do not back bite” (Surah al-
Hujaraat: 12)
There are some statements
which seem to contradict other
verses of the Quran or a Hadith.
For example, the Prophet S.A.W
said in a Hadith:
“Whoever has an Imam, then the
Imam’s recitation is his
recitation.”
This seems to indicate while the
Imam is reciting in Salaat, the
follower should remain silent.
However, another Hadith says:
“There is no salaat for he who
does not recite Surah Al-Fatiha.”
This seems to indicate that
everyone should recite Surah
Fatiha. The question arises
whether the first Hadith should
be taken as the primary sourch
referring to the Imam or the one
who offers salaat individually and
the second Hadith explained as a
corrobborating evidence; or
should we make the second
hadith the base and the first
Hadith refers to the Imam’s
recitation after he recites Surah
Fatiha.
Needless to say from the above
examples, the process of
extrapolating rules from the
Quran and Sunnah can be
complicated. One soultion is that
we exercise our understanding
and insight in such issues in
order to make our judgments
and rulings. Another solution
could be that instead of making
independent rulings ourselves,
we look into what the
predecessors ruled concering
these issues.
Visit this link for more details on
this: http://
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/
legal/8-9.htm
The concept of Taqleed in the
Quran:
“O you who believe! Follow Allah’
follow the Messenger and those
of authority (Amr) amongst you.”
“And when there comes to them
a matter concerning (public)
safety or fear, they relay it. If they
had only referred it to the
Messenger and to those of
authority (Amr), those who can
investigate and extract
(information) among them
would know (the rumor’s
validity)…”
Visit this link for more details on
this: http://
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/
legal/14-15.htm
Blind Following:
Ibn Hamam and Ibn Nujaim, both
define Taqleed thus:
“Taqleed is to follow the opinion
of a person – whose opinion is
not a proof in Islamic law –
without asking for his [the
person followed] proof.”
This statement has clarified the
fact that a person who practices
Taqleed (the Muqallid) does not
hold the opinion of the one
whom he follows (the Mujtahid)
as a source of Islamic law
because the source for Islamic
law are confined to the Quran
and Sunnah (both Ijma and Qiyas
[analogy] are derived from the
Quran and Sunnah). The only
reason why a Muqallid follows an
Imam is because of the
conviction that the Mujtahid has
inisights into the Quran and
Sunnah (which he, the follower,
does not posses) by which the
Mujtahid is able to understand
their meanings, in this regard the
follower has relied upon the
Imams’ opinion. Perceived in this
perspective Taqleed cannot in all
fairness, perceived be equaled
with shirk nor blind following.
Visit this link for more details on
this: http://
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/
legal/12-13.htm
The Statements of Mujtahid
Imams themselves:
Contentions that the Imams
themselves have prohibited the
following of their opinions until
they have discovered the proofs
and that if their opinions conflict
with any Hadith, they should
smite their opinions against the
wall and practice the Hadith, are
of course true. However, to do
justice to such statements, one
would have to conclude that they
are NOT addressed to people
who do not possess the faculty
of Ijtihad. Rather, they were
appealing to those scholars who
were capable of Ijtihad. Shah
Waliyyullah of Delhi has
summarized such statements
thus:
“These statements can be
assessed against those who have
some ability to exercise
Ijtihad…….”
Visit this link for more details on
this: http://
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/
legal/94-95.htm
Imam Abu Hanifa RUA:
Imam Abu Hanifa RUA was a
Tabi, who met 4 Sahaba RAU. He
was born in one of the Best
generations. His time was very
close to Prophet SAW. Opinions
of MODERN DAY scholars hold NO
weight against the rulings of the
people of “Khair ul Quroon” (the
best 3 generations).
Following an Imam:
Everyone has to do the Taqleed
of someone. There is not a single
person who doesn’t do the
Taqleed. As of those who deny
the Taqleed of four Imams, they
do the Taqleed of Ibn Tamiya. We
always need someone to guide
us.
The way of “Ahle-Sunnah Wal
Jamaat” is that we follow the
opinions and practices of the
Best of the Generations. Sahaba
RAU directly learned from
Prophet S.A.W and understood
the meaning far better than
anyone can understand now.
Conclusion:
I once began to believe that it
was not necessary to follow an
Imam. However, I only held this
view until I learned the other
side. After reading the books of
both Ahle-Hadees and Ahle-
Sunnah I, personally, came to the
conclusion that Ahle-sunnah wal
Jamaat is the way.
Therefore, I can only invite and
ask brothers and sisters to do
thorough research on this
subject. Read the books that
support and explain why we
should do Taqleed of one of the
Imams and answer all the
questions raised by Ahle-Hadees.
Well, at least look at both sides.
This link contains books that
explain the importance of
Taqleed:
http://www.cometoislam.com/
fiqh/fiqh.htm

Tombs of four imams

Image

Lets pay heed: Abdul Hakim Murad

O you who believe! Let not your
wealth nor your children distract
you from remembrance of Allah.
Those who do so, they are the
losers. ( 63:9)
This verse in the Qur’an is an
invitation for humanity to make a
relatively small effort in this
world, in return for the eternal
reward of the hereafter. It is a
call to save ourselves from
becoming fixated on our wealth
and on providing our children
with the latest gadget and
games, which ultimately are mere
distractions from our
remembrance of the creator.
But humans are short-termist;
we think primarily of our
pleasures now rather than the
harmony and serenity of the
world to come. Chapter 102 of
the Qur’an says that we are
distracted by competing in
worldly increase, until we finally
end up in our graves where we
will be questioned about our
excesses.
Does this mean that it is wrong
to own things? Of course not, as
money and offspring can be
positive things in the life of a
believer, and we do of course
have basic needs which need to
be met. But we must remember
that the pleasures of
consumption are quickly gone,
while lasting benefit comes only
from using our wealth to uphold
the rights of others; namely the
orphan, the traveller, and the
needy. Wealth is thus truly ours
only once it has been given away.
Those who are genuinely
distracted by worldly increase,
and who make it an end in and
of itself rather than as a means
towards something better are in
effect guilty of a form of idolatry.
Ours is an age that has made
idols of the great banks and
finance houses, driven to frenzy
by competition amongst
billionaires who are kept awake
at night by the thought that a
rival might make a business deal
more quickly than them. A
banker who can asset strip
companies and throw its
employees out onto the street is
someone who is in the grip of an
obsession that has thrown him
beyond of the normal frontiers of
humanity.
Neo-classical economics has
traditionally focused on four
things: land, labour, capital and
money, the first three of which
are finite, while the fourth,
money, is theoretically infinite,
and is therefore where human
greed has been particularly
focussed. Thus arose a system
where someone could, with
approval, set up a bank with only
£1, and then lend £100 using
property and other assets
promised by others as security.
The lender now has £100
including interest, which they
earned by just sitting there and
doing nothing. On the basis of
this £100, they can then lend
£1000, and on and on, until the
cancerous growth lubricated by
greed becomes so huge that it
leads to a fundamental
breakdown in the system. Such a
system based on usury, with
interest as the bizarre “price of
money” which itself becomes a
commodity, was once prohibited
by all faiths. People had a simple
and natural intuition that the
commoditisation of a
measurement of value would
open the door to trading in
unreal assets, and ultimately to a
model of finance that would
destroy natural restraints and
even, potentially, the planet.
In the classical Islamic system, by
contrast, money is the substance
of either gold or silver. With a
tangible and finite asset being
the only measure of value, there
is a great deal more certainty
about the value of assets and the
price of money. This basic
wisdom was though not just a
theoretical ideal; it succeeded.
Muslim society at its height was
mercantile, and it was successful.
Never was money assigned its
own value and never was it seen
as an end in and of itself.
Since the abolition of the gold
standard however, theoretical
limits on the price of money
were removed. Last year’s
meltdown, whose final
consequences were
unguessable, was a sign of the
inbuilt dangers of a usurious
world. Humans are naturally
short-termist but in times of
crisis we must take stock. As
with the related environmental
crisis, now is the time to be
smarter and more self-restrained.
The believer is in any case allergic
to the mad amassing of wealth,
since he or she expects true
happiness and peace only in the
remembering of God and in the
next world.
Now is the time to think seriously
about finding an economic
system to replace the one whose
dangers have just been revealed.
Upon the conquest of Mecca, a
verse of the Qur’an was revealed
commanding people to give up
what remained of their interest-
based transactions, upon which
a new system based on the value

Building trust in Allah

At some point in our lives, we
have all had our trust betrayed.
There exist few of us who trust
anyone implicitly. The same goes
for principles or philosophies.
We have trusted them, only to be
disappointed. In the same light,
we have followed religious
scholars, only to find that they
too have betrayed us – either by
being undereducated or
imperfect. Maybe that is why it is
so hard for us to let go of
ourselves and truly trust Allah .
When we start to analyze a
command, we find in it things
we can not explain or fully
understand, so we stop doing it
or do the thing which was
forbidden to us, because the
opposite does not make sense
to us. Let me put that in more
specific terms: We know that at
the 120th day of life, Allah writes
for us our sustenance (risq).
Narrated Anas bin Malik: The
Prophet said, “Allah puts an
angel in charge of the uterus
and the angel says, ‘O Lord, (it is)
semen! O Lord, (it is now ) a clot!
O Lord, (it is now) a piece of
flesh.’ And then, if Allah wishes
to complete its creation, the
angel asks, ‘O Lord, (will it be) a
male or a female? A wretched
(an evil doer) or a blessed (doer
of good)? How much will his
provisions be? What will his age
be?’ So all that is written while
the creature is still in the
mother’s womb.” Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 8, Book 77, Number 594
We know that Allah has planned
out our jobs and our income.
Yet, we may shave our beard or
take off the hijab when we go
for an interview because we are
afraid that we will not get a
particular job. There is a huge
contradiction in our beliefs here.
If we know that what is for us is
for us, then why are we going
against Allah’s orders to achieve
the objective. The reason is
simple. We are not trusting Allah
.
This is a sad fact. Even though
we know that Allah is our Lord
and Protector, we have a hard
time letting go and allowing
ourselves to trust that He will
protect us. I doubt we do this
intentionally, it is shaytan,
whispering to us, “The people
will not understand, so shave
the beard, maybe later you can
grow it again” or “There is no
way someone will hire you with
that thing on your head, take it
off.”
We make excuses, like, my deen
is in my heart, not what I show,
even though we have been told:
Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab:
People were (sometimes) judged
by the revealing of a Divine
Inspiration during the lifetime of
Allah’s Apostle but now there is
no longer any more (new
revelation). Now we judge you
by the deeds you practice
publicly, so we will trust and
favor the one who does good
deeds in front of us, and we will
not call him to account about
what he is really doing in secret,
for Allah will judge him for that;
but we will not trust or believe
the one who presents to us with
an evil deed even if he claims
that his intentions were good.
Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book
48, Number 809:
Even, we may leave our prayers
until after they have expired
because we fear being watched
or something happening to us
while we are praying. There is
no trust that Allah will protect us,
give us our risq or take care of
us. We have to learn to truly trust
Allah. Allah says,
When two parties from among
you had determined that they
should show cowardice and
Allah was the guardian of them
both, and in Allah should the
believers trust. 3:122
And
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. 3:160
It does not matter what you do,
obey or disobey, the result will
be that you will receive what
Allah has ordained for you. You
can not add to it or subtract
from it. What you do is either
benefit yourself with the
blessings of obedience or harm
yourself with the fruits of your
disobedience. We have been told
that what is for us can’t miss us
and what is not for us can’t hit
us.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn
al-‘As: I heard Allah’s Apostle as
saying: Allah ordained the
measures (of quality) of the
creation fifty thousand years
before He created the heavens
and the earth, as His Throne was
upon water. Sahih Muslim: Book
32, Number 6416:
We have to learn to trust that
Allah will take care of us when
we obey Him and that He will
withdrawal His Great Mercy
when we disobey. Every
morning the bird goes out to
seek the provision Allah has
given him, and every night he
comes home with it. Allah has
promised us our provision.
Umar Ibin Al Khattab narrated
that he heard Allah’s Messenger
say, “If you were to trust in Allah
genuinely, He would give you
provision as He does for the
birds which go out hungry in
the morning and come back full
in the evening. Tirmidhi and Ibin
Majah (sahih).
Also, we need to stop thinking
that having done a good where
things did not work out as we
expected would have turned out
differently if we had done the
wrong thing instead. Let us say
one of us goes to an interview
in hijab and then is denied the
job. To assume that it was
because of the hijab is wrong.
We have to remember that this
person can not keep Allah’s Qadr
from us. This interviewer can
not stop what Allah wants to
happen from happening.
Ibin Abass narrated that one day
he was riding behind Allah’s
Messenger and he said, “Young
man, if you are mindful of Allah,
He will be mindful of you, and if
you are mindful of Allah, you will
find Him before you. When you
ask for anything, ask it from
Allah, and if you seek help, seek
help in Allah. Know that if the
people were to unite to do you
some benefit, they could benefit
you only what Allah has
recorded for you, and if they
were to unite to do you some
injury, they could injure you only
with what Allah has recorded for
you. The pens are withdrawn
and the pages are dry. Ahmad
and Tirmidhi (sahih).
Also,
Narrated AbuHurayrah: Allah’s
Apostle said: A strong believer is
better and is more lovable to
Allah than a weak believer, and
there is good in everyone, (but)
cherish that which gives you
benefit (in the Hereafter) and
seek help from Allah and do not
lose heart, and if anything (in
the form of trouble) comes to
you, don’t say: If I had not done
that, it would not have
happened so and so, but say:
Allah did that what He had
ordained to do and your “if”
opens the (gate for the Satan.
Sahih Muslim: Book 32, Number
6441.
Also, we need to accept that not
getting the job was indeed best
for us.
Suhaib reported that Allah’s
Messenger said, “It is remarkable
that everything turns out well
for a believer while that applies
only to a believer. If happiness
befalls him, he gives thanks, and
it turns out well for him, and if
misfortune befalls him, he
shows endurance (patience) and
it turns out well for him. Sahih
Muslim
We need to stop thinking that
the key to the truth is only what
we can understand or what we
know. There is a point when we
have to submit, be Muslims and
say, labaik Allahuma Labaik. We
have to obey without fighting it
because we know that there is
Justice and Mercy in it, even
though we can not see it right
now. When the verse of hijab
was revealed, the ansar women
went and immediately covered
themselves.
Narrated Aisha, Ummul
Mu’minin: Safiyyah, daughter of
Shaybah, said that Aisha
mentioned the women of Ansar,
praised them and said good
words about them. She then
said: When Surat an-Nur came
down, they took the curtains,
tore them and made head
covers (veils) of them. Sunan Abu
Dawood: Book 32, Number 4089
They did not analyze it, or think
about how this is an oppression
for women or a humiliation or
anything of this sort, they
obeyed. When the verse
forbidding alcohol was revealed,
the companions literally spat it
out of their mouths. No arguing,
no questioning. They trusted
that Allah Knows Best. We need
to stop worshipping our minds
so much and start worshipping
Allah more. We need to stop
trusting our minds so much and
trust Allah more.
Trusting in Allah means that
when we hear a command, we
obey it. We recognize that we
are limited and that Allah has no
limits. He Knows what we do not
know. We do not try to explain
away the commands of Allah by
saying that it is for another time
or another people. We don not
say that what Allah has
commanded for us is
oppressive. We accept and obey.
This is faith and trust.
Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: The
Apostle of Allah said: Seventy
thousand people of my Ummah
would be admitted into Paradise
without rendering any account.
They (the companions) said:
Who would be those (fortunate
persons)? He (the Prophet) said:
Those who do not cauterise and
practise charm, but repose trust
in their Lord, Sahih Muslim: Book
1, Number 0422.
There is much reward in
trusting Allah , paradise. There is
sin in distrusting Him. We need
to stop relying on our desires
our minds our version of logic
and realize that Allah is the one
who Knows while we know not.
Allah is the Wise, and His
judgments are wise by default.
Allah is the Just and His verdicts
are Just by default. We can not
see everything in every issue as
Allah can, so why do we insist
on believing that our minds can
be trusted before or instead of
Allah?
I pray to You, O Allah , to make
us trust you and only you. May
you make us of the Trusting and
keep us from trusting or
worshipping our minds before
you. Ameen.
Source: The Message of Islam –
Shariffa Carlo