“So woe to those who pray yet are unmindful of their prayers.” (Qur’an 107: 104-105)
﷽
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported:
We came to the Prophet (saw) while we were young men, and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them, and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them.” Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.
Shaykh Uthman REFUTES Shia lies on Folding Hands in Prayer [MUST WATCH]
It is refreshing to see that those who claim to be following the early generations are starting to relax their position on this matter. Al hamdulillah.
For example, Salafi preacher, Assim Al Hakeem mentions that one can pray with their arms to the side with no problem.
If you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable -Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq.
Shaykh Uthman says @0:46 “If you feel that you want to pray with your hands to your side ,and you feel that’s the correct opinion based on the evidence that you have seen, it’s up to you. No problem. That’s between you and Allah. I believe with the evidences from the Qur’an itself and from the authentic hadith of the Prophet (saw) and the sahabam, ahl bayt and others that the sunnah is to fold the hands.”
Shaykh Uthman says @1:09 “But I’m not pushing that opinion. I don’t believe in dividing the ummah based on this. I believe even if you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable.”
Shaykh Uthman says @3:24 “Now when, whether you fold your hands or don’t fold your hands, personally I’m not going to argue with you on this issue. If you feel this is the way of the Prophet (saw), then that’s between you and Allah.”
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq: Misquotes the Shi’a man.
@7:14 “This man is saying there’s not a single narration that shows among the Ahl Sunnah to fold the hands. That’s hwat he’s saying. Listen to him again.”
Actually, that is not what the man said.
The Shi’a man: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proventradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”
Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.
Something to be mindful of. The idea that something is more established than it truly is. In fact, throughout the video, Shaykh Uthman makes this claim about the Sh’ia man several times.
If one person narrates something to 50 students and those 50 students copy this narration into their books and a person quotes those 50 students, the one listening may get the false impression that the evidence is overwhelming. They may reason to themselves. “Look how many people narrate this.” However, in reality they all quote the one channel.
This is not necessarily dishonest, however, it can give the false impression that something is stronger than what it actually is.
@12:06 “But he mentioned that Ibn Mundhir has mentioned from Ibn Zubayr, from Hassan Al Basri from Nakha’i, about leaving the hands on the side. That not folding the right on the left and this was reported by an-Nawawi, upon the authority of Layth ibn Sa’ad.” (Shaykh Uthman stops reading..)
@12:26 “Now, the honesty that we believe in we quote this. We’re not going to hide anything from you.” (NOTICE THE VIDEO EDIT).
Notice, dear reader, and in this case, dear viewer, that at the point where Shaykh Uthman says, ‘We’re not going to hide anything from you.” The video skips. Which shows that part was cut. Does this mean that nothing was hidden or revealed? Allah knows best. However, it is worth taking note of.
@12:31 “Now what does he say? He says Ibn Al Qassim has mentioned this from Imam Malik one of the great a’immah of Medina that is also reported from him Ibn Al Qassim, but he says he was opposed (@12:47 the video is cut) by Ibn Al Hikim who said that Imam Malik believed in folding the hands as well.
Prima Qur’an:Why can’t Shaykh Uthman simply quote the narration that Imam Malik regarded praying with the hands at side? The way the video is sliced and spliced is done in such a way that it skips over it.
Where did these knowledgeablesalaaf get their view from about placing the hands at the side in prayer?
Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr Al Hassan al-Basri Ibrahim al-Nakha’i Imam Malik
Shaykh Uthman says: @13:49 “20 authentic narrations leading back to 18 different sahaba from the Prophet (saw).”
You have to wonder if that is what Shaykh Uthman believes himself? Are all those narrations authentic? Because it is important to note what Shaykh Uthman is doing is talking about narrations concerning folding the hands in prayer.
Shayky Uthman Ibn Farooq is caught lying.
Shaykh Uthman, while reading from a text, says: @15:04 “We were ordered in the time of the Prophet (saw), as Abu Hazim has clarified, to fold the hands, right on left in the prayer.”
Which Arabic in the text below is he rendering as: ‘In the time of the Prophet’ ?
Often Shaykh Uthman makes mistakes in his Arabic.
@16:03 “Ali radianhu” ???
Insh’Allah we will come back to this hadith. This hadith they feel is their ultimate trump card. Suffice it to say that the text does not say: “were orderedin the time of the Prophet.”
They wish it said that!
We remind Shaykh Uthman the seriousness about lying on the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated `Ali:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.”
Does this really need any comment? Does one really see anything in this text about the placement of hands in the prayer?
Shaykhk Uthman says: @17:12 “Imam Malik himself and I’m going to put a link to the Muwatta Imam Malik in the description. He has an entire chapter in his Muwatta about folding the hands in prayer; from the people of Medina. Not a single hadith in the Muwatta, not a single chapter that says, ‘dangle the hands in prayer’. And Imam Malik style of writing if he saw the people of Madina doing something opposite to that which was narrated, then in the Muwatta he would write, ‘This is what is narrated, but the people of Madina did opposite. But he did not say that about folding the hands.”
There are a few points to take note of.
The Muwatta is not the only work attributed to Imam Malik. The following are also attributed to him.
al-Mudawwanah al-Kubrā
Risālat Mālik ilā al-Layth ibn Saʿd
al-ʿUtibiyyah
2. @12:31 Shaykh Uthman didn’t actually give us the quote that is from Malik on his stance.
3. As we mentioned in our other article. Just because someone narrated something doesn’t mean they acted upon what was narrated. Narrating a hadith shows awareness of its existence.
4. Fiqh is stronger than hadith. Hadith is a narration and fiqh is understanding of the narration.
We mentioned that we would come back to this: “were orderedin the time of the Prophet.”
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”
Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”
Effectively, the hadith they think is a trump card actually is an athar. It doesn’t describe something that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did. It describes actions that people did that were attributed to the Prophet (saw).
A note about Sahl ibn Sa’d he lived to see the Umayyad imperium.
Al-Bukhari’s hadith comes through two chains: one from ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama and the other from Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, both narrating from Imam Malik ibn Anas, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa‘d, who said: “The people used to be commanded…”
• In the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama, Abu Hazim said: “I do not know it except that he attributes it (yanmī dhālika) to the Blessed Prophet (saw).”
• In the narration of Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, it says: “I do not know it except that it is attributed (yunmā dhālika) to him.”
Based on this, the hadith is defective (ma‘lūl), weak, and cannot be used as evidence, because it is merely Abu Hazim’s supposition, and it is also inconsistent (muḍṭarib).
20 different chains from 18 different sahabah?
A Sunni, Maliki scholar Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali translated a work that showed the problems in these chains.
So when the Shi’a man says: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proventradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”
Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.
This is correct.
As the article by Shaykh Abdullah states:
“True or not, there exists sufficient doubt about every single report that exists to this effect that weakens the “popular” claim and understanding that it is well established that the Prophet prayed while placing one hand over the other.”
You may also be interested in reading the following:
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq, his first point, lands hard. That was quite embarrassing for the Shi’a to quote that as a reference. Also, something Shi’a has to contend with is the idea of women praying with their hands folded.
However, Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq himself blatantly lied and misled his audience concerning what the Arabic text said.
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans,then marry other women those that please you, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline to injustice.“(Qur’an 4:3)
﷽
The above-mentioned verses have been used by self-proclaimed spokespersons for Islam past and present, albeit unwittingly, to regulate these verses to redundancy.
So it is disheartening to see Muslims with a ‘modernist‘ bent turn certain verses of the Qur’an to redundancy.
Also, we all need to be very careful not to prohibit that which Allah (swt) has made permissible.
“O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”(Qur’an 5:87)
Redundant Revelation: The Question of Polygyny.
The example we will discuss today is the following verse:
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry other women, those that please you, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one of those whom your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline to injustice.” (Qur’an 4:3)
We would also have to rank this particular verse of the Qur’an as the one most used and abused.
We would have to say those who ‘use and abuse’ it the most are those who follow under three broad categories.
Category A)
‘Modernists’ or ‘reformers’.
Category B)
The next group most likely to abuse these verses are those Muslims who consider themselves ‘traditionalists’. Often they are trying to find favour with post-modern liberalism.
Category C)
The last group that we would say that are most likely to abuse these verses are those who follow the ‘Hafs Qur’an only’ Religion.
What do we mean by abuse of the text?
Flat lies concerning the Asbab Al-Nuzul?
By this we mean those who are usually not favorable towards traditionalist interpretation will tell you how this verse was ‘revealed during the context of a war’. They will mention how there was a ‘surplus of all these widows’ and ‘men just rushed out to marry them all.’ This is to elicit the ‘Oh, so very noble‘ response from you.
The reality of this verse is that it does no such thing. It doesn’t tell me to marry widows. In fact, the next time someone tells you that this verse was revealed in the context of war, ask them:
“Can you kindly show me the source for this information?”
This is not in the Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al Wahidi.
“(And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans…) [4:3]. Abu Bakr al-Tamimi informed us> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad> Abu Yahya> Sahl ibn ‘Uthman> Yahya ibn Za’idah> Hisham ibn ‘Urwah> his father> ‘A’ishah who said, regarding the words of Allah (And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans): “This was revealed about any custodian under whose care is a female orphan who possesses some wealth and does not have anyone to defend her rights. The custodian refuses to give this orphan in marriage out of greed for her money, harms her, and treats her badly. And so Allah, exalted is He, says (And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans marry of the women, who seem good to you…) as long as they are lawful to you and leave this one”. This was narrated by Muslim> Abu Kurayb> Abu Usamah> Hisham. Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, Qatadah, al-Rabi‘, al-Dahhak and al-Suddi said: “People used to be wary of the wealth of orphans but took liberty with women and married whoever they liked. And sometimes they were fair to them and sometimes they were not. So when they asked about the orphans and the verse (Give unto orphans their wealth), regarding the orphans, was revealed, Allah, exalted is He, also revealed (And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans). He says here: ‘Just as you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphan, so should you fear that you do not deal fairly by women. Therefore, marry only as many as you can fulfill their rights, for women, are like orphans as far as weakness and incapacity are concerned’. This is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas according to the narration of al-Walibi”.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tanwir al-Miqbas of Tafsir Ibn Abbas.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tafsir of Al Jalalayn.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tafsir of Al Qushairi.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir.
Not limited to asbab al-nuzul.
Now, even if we were to imagine that the order to marry only orphans or up to four women came during the context of war (which we still await evidence of), even then it would not be limited to that context. Asbab al-nuzul is the timing that Allah (swt) feels is appropriate to deliver a specific revelation.
It would be very strange if the Blessed Prophet (saw) and his companions were having a meal together and suddenly a revelation came saying, “Marry women of your choosing, 2, 3 or 4...” It makes sense that certain rulings are revealed in a certain context. However, it does not mean they are limited only to that context. If that was the case, we would have real problems in the implementation of the Qur’an 2:256.
Masruq said: “A man from the Helpers, from among the Banu Salim Banu ‘Awf, had two sons who had converted to Christianity before the advent of the Prophet, (saw). After the migration of the Prophet,(saw), these two sons came to Medina along a group of Christians to trade in food. Their father went to them and refused to leave them, saying: ‘By Allah! I will not leave you until you become Muslim’. They refused to become Muslim and they all went to the Messenger of Allah, (saw), to settle their dispute. The father said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! How can I leave a part of me to enter hell fire while I just sit and look?’ Allah, glorious and majestic is He, then revealed (There is no compulsion in religion…) after which he let them go”.
If we are to follow the logic of modernists, who say that the Qur’an 4:3 only applies to the context of orphans and/or to women after the war, it would mean that the Qur’an 2:256 only applies to sons. Or it only applies to those who convert to Christianity. So, this means if they were daughters they could be compelled. This means if they converted to a religion other than Christianity, they could be compelled to. Would anyone reason like this?
What is the context of the Qur’an 4:3?
The whole context of the Qur’an 4:1-12 is the distribution of wealth and property.
Quite a number of conflicts in tribal society would erupt over this. It happens until this very day. We find people fighting over the distribution of property and wealth even in our times.
So let us look at the verse in question again.
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, THEN marry other women those that please you, TWO or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline to injustice.“(Qur’an 4:3)
Note three interesting points.
POINT 1)
The verse starts off with ‘And if you fear that you will not deal justly with orphans, then.….”
So let us look at the verse before this one.
“And give to the orphans their properties and do not substitute the defective [of your own] for the good [of theirs]. And do not consume their properties into your own. Indeed, that is ever a great sin. (Qur’an 4:2)
This is in context with a verse that comes later:
“Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming into their bellies fire. And they will be burned in a Blaze.” (Qur’an 4:10)
POINT 2)
After orphans, it addresses marrying women who are neither orphans nor slaves.
Notice that it starts off by saying, “Marry 2, or 3 or 4. It is interesting that it does not start off by saying, ” marry 1.”
Now if one wanted to manipulate the Qur’an in the way that Muslims who pander to post-modern liberalism do, you could make the argument that marrying 2 was imperative!
You could also make the argument that 2 is actually optimal followed by more; as 1 was simply offered up as a ‘better than nothing’ solution.
So the fact that it starts off by saying “marry 2” is interesting and flat out neglected (ignored?) by post-modern liberal interpretations.
However, we have also noted that those given to post-modern- liberal interpretations will say, “2 or 3 or 4 but if you cannot deal justly with them, then only one.“
Yet the text does not stop there. There is a conjunctive.
The Arabic word ‘aw’ which means ‘or’
There is a flow that I feel is ignored by the three categories (mentioned above).
So then the verses pick back up by saying, “but if you fear that you will not deal justly, then marry those whom your right hand possesses.”
This is addressed here:
“And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slaves. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free women. This is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:25)
So, if we are to follow the approach that some people take, and we are to be consistent, we should understand Qur’an 4:2-3 as this.
1) You should marry orphans first and foremost.
2) Failing to do justice to them, you should marry free-believing women.
3) Failing to deal with them justly, you should marry those whom your right hand possesses.’
However, notice it stops here. Why does it not continue and say, failing to do justly with them…. etc.?
1) How the translators have used the conjunction ‘aw‘.
2) How they have translated ‘Thus it is more likely that you will not do injustice.’
The whole thrust of Qur’an 4:3 if one looks at it in light of the overall context of the distribution of wealth and property is what is a man looking at getting married for?
What may he find beneficial for him? In fact, the verse itself is obviously directed towards men.
It tells us that men may find the idea of marrying an orphan appealing, as some may want to usurp their property, wealth, and/or belongings, as we are told in the Qur’an 4:10.
“Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming into their bellies fire. And they will be burned in a blaze.” (Qur’an 4:10)
It then goes into the idea of marrying free-believing women. Nowhere does the verse say that we are to marry one woman. Interestingly enough, it starts off with the number two.
However, a man may find that he still has financial constraints in trying to marry free-believing women.
Thus, it is simultaneously brought to his attention to marry his slave women.
This is dealt with in more detail in Qur’an 4:25.
“And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free women. This is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:25)
So let us look at the other verse that is brought in to say that Muslim men can only marry one woman.
“And you will never be able to be equal between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allah – then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. (Qur’an 4:129)
This verse is nowhere telling men that, because they cannot deal justly with more than one wife that they should marry only one. The context itself tells us this. The following sentence reminds the man not to incline towards one wife, letting the other feel neglected.
What we feel many of us neglect when reading the Qur’an 4:129 is that not only do men read this verse, but women do too! Thus, women are reminded that men won’t be able to be totally equal in all respects. Some women may have more needs than others. You may have a wife who has a mental or physical handicap. So this verse is also a reminder to women to keep the larger picture in mind.
Hafs Only Qur’an Religion begin their manipulation of the translation.
In fact, you will see that the post-modern ‘free minds translation’ of the Qur’an is being manipulated right here:
“And you will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort; so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. And if you reconcile and do right, then God is Forgiver, Merciful.”.
Wouldn’t be surprised if they ‘clean up’ this translation later. Notice the verse is obviously addressing women (plural) and then suddenly the theme is switched to one woman (the wife)?
Manipulation of the text at its best!
There is no text in the Qur’an that tells men they are restricted to marrying only one wife.
If Allah (swt) wanted Muslim men to marry only one woman, he would have told us this in very clear terms.
If we are to believe the view of modernists, this means that when the Qur’an mentions 2 or 3 or 4 and then says, well, in reality it only means one is to say the Qur’an is not only couched in obfuscation but that it contains redundant language.
Surely, as Allah (swt) says, if the oceans were ink to write his words, the oceans would deplete before Allah (swt) would run out of things to say.
Say: “If the ocean were ink to write the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it for its aid.” (Qur’an 18:109)
Surely, Allah (swt) would say simply marry only one. Simple.
Now one thing I want to clear up is that the Qur’an is not saying that it is mandatory for a man to marry more than one woman.
However, to say that the Qur’an does not allow men to marry more than one wife is simply pandering to a post-modern liberal world view.
Mind you, there are also those who say, well, if a man marries another woman, she should be absolutely destitute, having been divorced and so forth.
The Qur’an also does not say those marrying women who are destitute or divorced are a priority. Again, these are people who seek to impose their own criteria on whom a man may or may not marry. Did these very people go and seek to marry the handicapped, the most destitute, those considered ‘undesirable’ by society?
To marry such people is a choice. The irony is that many men and women who claim that the verse in Qur’an 4:3 is only in regard to women who are destitute and down and out not only ignore the verse itself but gives the impression that women are weak and powerless.
Note the following part of the verse again,
THEN marry other women those that please you, TWO or three or four.
These “other women” are not slaves nor orphans. There are women in a society that are socially upwardly mobile. Women in society that are wealthy or have careers. These women want husbands because they have any number of needs.
They might want children. They could simply want affection and male companionship. They could want sexual gratification. They might feel more secure being in a relationship with a man that has already proven he can be a good Imam for his children and household than to risk a marriage with someone who is unproven.
The point is that if a woman or any woman who marries a man of their own free will and volition are in agreement with such an arrangement, then who are we to impose post-modern liberal values upon them?
It is also interesting to note that verse 4:129 does not say “You will not be able to love them equally.” The theme is justice.
Allah (swt) is admonishing the husband by taking the perspective of one of the wives. Allah (swt) is also reassuring a husband who may be having doubts about his ability to be a good husband that He (Allah) is forgiving and merciful.
In the end, perfect justice is the purview of the divine; and complete and perfect justice belongs only to Allah (swt).
“Have you not turned your vision to those who claim sanctity for themselves? Nay-but Allah Does sanctify whom He pleases. But never will they fail to receive justice in the least little thing.” (Qur’an 4:49)
Muslim men can marry an unrestricted number of women according to modernist, liberal interpretations!
You read that correctly! If we are to believe, even for a moment, the modernist interpretations of the Qur’an, then it means that Muslim men can not only marry 4 wives but possibly 5,6, 7 unlimited! Why? Because, according to them, Qur’an 4:3 is an example of takhsees—the specification of a general ruling.
1) The Qur’an nowhere tells us to marry only one woman. It obviously has no such verse if it does indeed tell men they can marry more than one orphan (as modernists agree it says).
2) If Qur’an 4:3 is only restricted to orphans, and it does not mean women in general, then this means it is laying down no rules concerning women other than orphans. So the marry-up to 4 rule is only applicable to orphans. This means that for modernists, the Qur’an gave no principle in regard to women who are not orphans, therefore allowing a man to marry an unrestricted number of women!
Conclusion:
The Qur’an nowhere restricts men from marrying only one wife. Even those people who say that marrying more than one wife is only concerning orphans are the same people who would say that polygyny is not applicable today! Even though there are certainly orphans in Yemen, Syria, Palestine. Anyone who leaves their ivory tower in Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines knows there are plenty of orphan women.
The people who restrict polygyny to only orphans have actually unwittingly given license for men to marry an unlimited number of women! Those who are dead set against polygyny claim that the Qur’an 4:3 was revealed in the context of war, and yet they do not furnish proof of this. It is clear there is no verse in the Qur’an that tells men not to marry more than one woman.
If there was such a verse, the opponents of polygyny would produce it. Obviously, no verse can exist as it would contradict even by their own standards concerning Qur’an 4:3. As regards saying that no man can deal justly with more than one woman, therefore, they are to marry one, Allah (swt) himself said that a man would not be able to deal justly but admonished a man not to incline towards one wife and neglect the other.
You may be interested in reading the following entries:
And they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves if they only knew.” (Quran 2:102-103)
﷽
Is it not curious that, out of all the things that people learned concerning magic that an emphasis is put on causing separation between a man and his wife? That there are extremely dark forces at play working against the foundations of a family should be something that we really think about.
In Islam, marriage completes half of one’s faith. 60% of Shari’ah law is focused on the family.
There is a significant gap between the holistic guidance of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the often-mechanistic application of certain legal rulings, particularly concerning marriage and divorce.
The Reality of Supra-Natural Forces and Their Target.
The Qur’an explicitly confirms the existence of magic and the efforts of Shaitan to sow discord, especially within the most sacred of institutions: the family.
“The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer.” (Qur’an 5:91)
“If an evil impulse from Shaitan provokes you, seek refuge with Allah; He is All-hearing and all-knowing.” (Qur’an 7:200)
“And march forth in the way of forgiveness from your Lord, and for Paradise as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious. Those who spend in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon the people; verily, Allah loves the good-doers.”(Qur’an 3:133-134)
“So whatever you have been given is but enjoyment for this worldly life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. And those who avoid the greater sins, and illegal sexual intercourse, and when they are angry, they forgive.” (Qur’an 42:36)
It can be seen from the aforementioned verses that enmity, anger, hate are things that Shaitan provokes us with. We also see that tempering our anger and forgiveness are more wholesome.
“Say: ‘I seek refuge with the Lord of Daybreak, from the evil of duality, and from the evil of the darkness as it gathers and from the evil of those who blow on knots (l-‘uqadi) and from the evil of an envier when he envies.'” (Qur’an 113:1-5)
From those who ‘blow on knots‘. The term ‘l-uqadi’ .
This term is used in the following instances of the Qur’an:
“There is no blame upon you for that to which you indirectly allude concerning a proposal to women or for what you conceal within yourselves. Allah knows that you will have them in mind. But do not promise them secretly except for saying a proper saying. And do not determine to undertake a (uq’data l-nikahi)marriage contract until the decreed period reaches its end. And know that Allah knows what is within yourselves, so beware of Him. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 2:235)
“And in case you divorce them even before you have touched them, and you have already ordained for them a marriage-portion, then give her one half of what you have ordained except in case the women remit, or he in whose hand is the (uq’datu l-nikahi) knot of marriage remits; that you remit is nearer to piety. And do not forget the virtue of grace among yourselves; surely Allah is Ever-Beholding of whatever you do.” (Qur’an 2;237)
When you look at those instances of the word, it becomes apparent that ‘blow on knots‘ means ‘blow on marriages’. “Devise plots against marriages.”
The phrase “those who blow on knots” (an-naffathati fil ‘uqad) has a primary meaning referring to sorceresses who literally tie knots and blow spells upon them. However, the linguistic drawn to the “knot of marriage” (‘uqdat an-nikah) in verses 2:235 and 2:237 is a powerful and valid tafsir (interpretation). It highlights that one of the primary objectives of these dark forces is to unravel the sacred bond (‘aqd) between spouses. This is not a minor issue; it is a direct assault on half of a Muslim’s faith.
Aqad literally means to ‘tie’ or to ‘bind’. In English, we have the interesting idiom of ‘tying the knot‘ as a reference to getting married.
The Arabic word Khul means to ‘untie or to disrobe’.
Whereas the word Talaq means to abandon or rid oneself of something.
“Definition of “divorce” (talaq) Literally, the word “divorce” (talaq) means to abandon a thing or get rid of a thing. When an animal tied with a string is untied it is called talaq. If the tied with a string she-camel is untied, the Arabs mention this state as: “talaqa al-naqata talaqan” 23 (The she-camel has been released).”
Source: (Pg 15. Islamic Law of Marriage and Divorce by Shehza Sham)
So, if the term Talaq means to untie, to abandon or to get rid of something, it makes no sense to say to someone “I abandon you” thrice, because in order to be abandoned the second time or the third time just like saying ‘I untie you thrice’. In order to be ‘untied’ a second or third time, you would need to be tied or in a state of ‘aqad’ for a second or third time.
If we take into account that supra-natural forces are at work in bringing about discord in Muslim marriages, why is it not taken into the calculation by certain Muslim jurists and especially those influenced by ‘tassawuf’ when deciding the fate of Muslim marriages?
Here is something that those of our brothers of the Ahl Sunnah need to take on board. If you believe the following haidth, we have a question for you.
Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah’s Messenger (saw) so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)…….the hadith is longer.
If you believe the best of creation, the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), could be affected by magic to the extent that it created a false reality in his personal life, then it is a form of arrogance for any scholar or jurist to dismiss the possibility that ordinary Muslim couples could be acting under similar influences of anger, hatred, miscommunication, and irrational behavior provoked by Shaitan.
Until today, there has been no meaningful engagement in regard to this question.
We also need to keep the following verses in mind:
“O Prophet! When any of you divorce women, divorce them during their period of purity and calculate their ‘idda carefully. And have fear of Allah, your Lord. Do not evict them from their homes, nor should they leave, unless they commit an outright indecency. Those are Allah´s limits, and anyone who oversteps Allah´s limits has wronged himself. You never know, it may well be that after that Allah will cause a new situation to develop.” (Qur’an 65:1)
Even though this is what the Qur’an clearly states, the jurist will allow couples’ marriages to be dissolved without asking questions like:
“Did you intend to divorce your wife while she was in menses?”
If the answer is yes, then you cannot intend to divorce your wife while she is in her menses.
If the answer is “I don’t know”, then again, you cannot intend to divorce your wife on an “I don’t know.”
Yet, we, unfortunately, know of many Muslims who have gone through the divorce process, and they have informed us that the judge, the counselor, didn’t even bother to ask this question. Most unfortunate.
Another aspect of the revelation that unfortunately gets ignored is the following:
“Then, when they have reached their term (3 months), take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness, and call to witness two just men among you, and keep your testimony upright for Allah. Whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day is exhorted to act thus. And whosoever keeps his duty to Allah, Allah will appoint a way out for him…” (Qur’an 65:2)
People do not realize it, but it is very possible for people to part amicably. Sometimes a woman cannot produce children, and she has the option to be a co-wife. Whereas, if a man cannot produce children, he does not have the option to be the co-husband.
People can decide to amicably part if having biological children is an absolute deal-breaker in a relationship. They may find, for various other reasons, that they are not suitable as partners.
Yet, unfortunately, once again, the judges or the counselors do not ask about the emotional state of the man/wife when words are uttered? The answer is no.
“If any men among you divorce their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers: None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact, they use words (both) iniquitous and false: but truly Allah is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again).” (Qur’an)
This verse clearly repudiates those men who would use an idiom or simply a verbal expression to divorce women. This verse is also clear when coupled with other verses about having just two witnesses present, and consultation that it repudiates instant divorce simply through pronunciation.
“They are invited to the book of Allah to settle their dispute”. (Qur’an 3:23)
“And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing, so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy”. (Qur’an 6:155).
“Lo! this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright”. (Qur’an 17:9)
The Juristic (Fiqh) Response vs. The Holistic (Tazkiyah) Approach
The Problem: In many contemporary contexts, these two streams have become separated. A judge in a civil or family court, or even an imam acting in an advisory capacity, often wears only the hat of the jurist. They apply the law as a set of rules without the accompanying spiritual and pastoral context that is essential for dealing with something as sensitive as divorce.
The Qur’anic procedure for divorce is not a mere utterance but a process designed for contemplation and reconciliation.
Divorce during Menses (Tuhr): The ruling in (65:1) to divorce women during their period of purity is precisely to prevent a rash decision made in a state of emotional turmoil (which can sometimes coincide with a wife’s menses). A man who says “I divorce you” in a fit of rage during her menses has transgressed Allah’s law. The juristic consensus is that such a divorce is still legally effective but is considered bid’ah (reprehensible innovation) and a sin.
The practical consequence is that the marriage is often considered dissolved, and the crucial pastoral step of questioning the validity of the intention and context is skipped.
The Role of Witnesses and Kindness: Verse (65:2) emphasize kindness, witnesses, and a measured process. This stands in stark contrast to the instantaneous, often unilateral, and highly emotional divorces that occur. The Qur’anic ideal is a mediated separation, not a sudden outburst.
Before any divorce is finalized, a mandatory mediation process should be instituted that involves:
Questioning the emotional state and intention at the time of the utterance.
Investigating possible external factors (family interference, financial stress, etc.).
Recommending ruqyah (Qur’anic healing) if there is a legitimate suspicion of magic or evil eye.
Exhausting all avenues for reconciliation, as the Qur’an commands.
May Allah (swt) sanctify and bless all of your marriages. May Allah (swt) protect you all from the evil eye. May you and your spouse work out your differences. May Allah (swt) make your wife or wives appear as the most loving and beautiful of women. May Allah (swt) make your husband appear to you as the most kind, generous, understanding and handsome of men.
You might be interested in reading the following articles:
“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowers, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)
“O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 5:87)
﷽
This entry will give the position of the Muslims, otherwise known as (Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama) or the Ibadi school. It will give our justifications from the Qur’an and Sunnah for marrying the people of the book (Jews and Christians).
Companions such as Ibn Abbas, Saad bin al-Musayyab, Said bin Jubair, Uthman, Talha, Tawus, Mujahid are all known to have married people of the book. The Blessed Messenger (saw) himself is known to have married from among the Ahl Kitab.
So, yes, in the Ibadi school, a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman if certain conditions are met.
Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.
This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage & preservation of religion.
Among our brothers from the Ahl Sunnah, there are two positions. The position of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa is that Muslim men can marry Christian and Jewish women and until today there are no restrictions put on this.
The position of Imam Ahmad and Imam Shafi’i is that Muslim men cannot marry Christian or Jewish women.
The position of the Ibadi school is in between these two camps. It is very clear that we cannot make impermissible what Allah (swt) made permissible.
That being said, there is a context to these verses and conditions that must be met.
Conditions placed on marrying the Ahl Kitab.
1st condition is that this takes place under Muslim governance, where there is full compliance of the shariah law.
The 2nd Condition is that the interest of the Muslims dominates. The children, for example, are to be raised as Muslims.
The 3rd condition is that the Muslim man actually is a practicing Muslim.
The 4th Condition is that the Jewish or Christian woman actually be practicing Judaism or Christianity.
The 5th condition is that she did not ever commit fornication or have an extramarital affair.
Understanding the first condition.
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best way and best in result.” (Qur’an 4:59)
What happens today in North Africa and in Turkey is that many of these men who are exposed to the Maliki and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence will marry women from the United States, Europe, Russia. Often the children of these marriages are split between nationalities. The inheritance laws are not decided by the laws of Islam they are decided by secular institutions. The fate of the children will be decided by the laws of those lands. More often than not, the court awards the custody of the children to the mother. The children are brought up without a Muslim father, an Imam leading the prayers and teaching the deen of Islam. This is totally unacceptable.
Understanding the second condition.
“Our Lord, and make us Muslims that submit to You, and from our descendants a community that submits to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are Ever-Accepting of our repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:128)
“O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your own families from a Fire whose fuel is mankind and stones, (and) over which are harsh, severe Angels, who do not disobey Allah in whatever He commands them and who perform whatever they are commanded to.” (Qur’an 66:6)
Anyone who loves their children does not want to expose them to the dangers of hellfire. The best and clearest way to help ensure this is to raise them as Muslims. To instill in them the articles of faith. The love and fear of Allah (swt). The love of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and following his noble example. Muslims cannot give blessings to their children to be raised by other religions because they were all abrogated with the coming of Islam. Qur’an 2:106 establishes this.
“Men are in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them, guard. But those wives from whom you fear ill/strange conduct advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; then if they persist strike them. But if they obey you once more, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Qu’ran 4:34)
It is difficult enough to get Muslim-majority nations to want to establish the Imamate. Does anyone think that non-Muslim majority nations have a vested interest in doing so? They have different world views and different principles upon which they base their concepts of justice. Many of them promote egalitarianism. Too many times, Muslim men are taken by the charms and beauty of non-Muslim women. Non-Muslim women may make promises to them. However, none of those promises are legally binding. This will lead us to understand the third condition.
Understanding the third and fourth conditions.
“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men to your women until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
This verse is ‘Aam. There is an exception or allowance to marry the mush’rikati women. That exception is given in Qur’an 5:5
Many of these Muslim men who want to marry Christian or Jewish women are themselves not practicing Islam. That is not a good foundation to start a marriage with a Muslim woman, let alone a non-Muslim woman. The children are likely to be swayed by the parent who shows more conviction and practice of their faith tradition than the parent that does not show conviction or practice their faith tradition. That is why Allah (swt) says that marrying someone who is a slave is better than marrying a free, non-believing woman, even though her /his looks may please you.
Allah (swt) also said you can marry Christian and Jewish women.
Understanding fourth and fifth conditions.
“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowry, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)
That Christian or Jewish woman has to be a practicing Jewish or Christian woman. She has to follow the tenets and edicts of her faith tradition. She cannot be a ‘nominal’ Jew or a ‘nominal’ Christian. If the Christian or Jew converts to Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, New Age spirituality, or anything of the kind, the marriage can become null and void.
Also, Allah (swt) says, ‘chaste women’—muhsanatu. This means if these women have committed fornication or adultery, you cannot marry them. So this only leaves you with the option of marrying someone who is a virgin or a divorcee.
These Muslim men should be aware of one of the very strong positions in the Ibadi school in regard to themselves (the Muslim men) being chaste.
The same rule applies to Muslims as well. Muslims who have committed fornication for adultery can only marry other Muslims who have done similar. They cannot marry chaste believers, nor can they marry those people they have done fornication/adultery with.
This is not an example of abrogation. This is an example of a specification. Now you ask yourself are these conditions met today?
The Ibadi school is priority to Muslim Women First.
What happens in places where the Maliki and Hanafi schools reign supreme? You do see Muslim men often marry “Christian” or “Jewish” women, many of whom are actually agnostic or even atheist. They do so while many hundreds of thousands of Muslim women go unmarried. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslim women who are widows, divorcees, orphans, single people, or simply never been married before.
Shouldn’t our priority be the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)? Remember the wisdom of Allah (swt)
“And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you.”
What happens in those places where the Shafi’i school is dominant? For example: places like Indonesia or Malaysia? What happens is that Muslim men or Muslim women will tell non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and then they will marry them. At least these approaches are more sensible. Bringing people to Islam. That, of course, is acceptable by Islamic law. However, every action is judged by intention and so too will be the fruit of that intention.
There are thousands of Muslim men and women who convert to Islam every year of their own free will and volition. Not under any social pressure to convert because of love. Would it not be wise to give preference to these people for marriage?
May Allah (swt) continue to guide the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)!
You may be interested in reading the following articles:
“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men [to your women] until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
﷽
“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
This verse is known as ‘Aam. It is general. The ruling applies in all situations unless there is an exception made.
The exception to this ruling is the following verse:
“This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith – his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:5)
This above verse is khaas — It is specific. Notice the words: “This day” meaning before that it was not the case. This often happens in the Qur’an. There is a general ruling and there is either further restriction on a certain aspect or an allowance to the general ruling.
This specific verse also has a further specification in that this allowance is only given to Muslim men to marry the mushrik women from among the People of the Book. Whereas a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry the mushrik men from among the People of the Book.
Why this specific allowance? The Qur’an mentions the Torah and the Injeel. There are shared histories, prophets and beliefs about angels and so forth. The thinking is that the mushrik women from among the People of the Book will be moved by the compassion, love, protection, warmth and guidance given by the Muslim husband. Also, considering that in the situation where such a marriage would be allowed, the children would be Muslim by default, there should be little barrier for these mushrik from the Ahl Kitab to embrace Islam.
For example: Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah (May Allah be pleased with her) was a Christian whom, after marrying the Blessed Prophet (saw), converted to Islam, and she died upon the haqq!
However, note the warning by Allah (swt).
“And whoever denies the faith — his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” An understanding that this could go the other way. The mushrik woman may convince the man to leave his faith.
This is why it becomes all the more clear under which situations and circumstances the Ibadi school allows such marriages to take place.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who were kafara (ungrateful disbelievers [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate (yush’rikuna) with Him. They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the (ungrateful disbelievers) dislike it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions, although those who associate others (l-mush’rikuna) with Allah dislike it. (Qur’an 9:29-33)
“Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly become ungrateful disbelievers. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates (yush’rik) others with Allah ˹in worship˺ will surely be forbidden Paradise by Allah. Their home will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers. Those who say, “Allah is one in a Trinity,” have certainly become ungrateful disbelievers.There is only One God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 5:72-73)
Those slippery followers of Perennialism and Qur’an 5:5
“This day [all] good food have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith – his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:5)
Now, the slippery among those who follow perennialism have three choices here.
Tell us the sect/denomination of Christians today that would meet the acceptable criteria of “believers” and those upon true understanding of Allah, that would be acceptable in accordance with declarations made by the Qur’an. Those that would not meet with damnation because of their theological positions? Would they be Orthodox Christians? Catholic Christians? Protestant Christians? Perhaps Jehovah’s’ Witness and/or Unitarian Christians?
Admit that such Christians from Ahl Kitab are no longer existent and thus, this verse, as much as it applies to such Christians, is no longer operational.
Concede the point to the correct understanding that the Ibadi school has of the verses.
“And to warn those who claim, Allah has taken to Himself a son, a thing about which they have no knowledge, neither they nor their ancestors. Dreadful is the word that comes out of their mouths. What they utter is merely a lie.” (Qur’an 18:4-5)
Why warn those who claim this?
Because anyone who makes false claims about Allah (swt) will be brought for punishment.
“Allah has children. They are simply liars. Has He chosen daughters over sons? What is the matter with you? How do you judge? Will you not then be mindful? Or do you have any compelling proof? Then bring us your scripture, if what you say is true! They have also established a relationship between Him and the jinn. Yet, the jinn themselves know well that such people will certainly be brought for punishment. Glorified is Allah far above what they claim!” (Qur’an 37: 152-159)
Furthermore, as we explained in our article about the correct understanding if Allah (swt) forgives shirk or not we have shown the text that is relied upon is a reference to the Ahl Kitab.
“Surely Allah does not forgive associating (yush’raka)˹others˺ with Him ˹in worship˺, but forgives anything else of whoever He wills. Indeed, whoever (yush’rik) associates ˹others˺ with Allah has clearly gone far astray.” (Qur’an 4:116)
“Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating (yush’raka) others with Him ˹in worship˺, but forgives anything else of whoever He wills. And whoever (yush’rik) associates others with Allah has indeed committed a grave sin.” (Qur’an 4:48)
“O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down, confirming that which is with you, before We obliterate faces and turn them toward their backs or curse them as We cursed the sabbath-breakers. And ever is the decree of Allah accomplished. Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. Have you not seen those who claim themselves to be pure? Rather, Allah purifies whom He wills, and injustice is not done to them, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed]. Look how they invent about Allah untruth, and sufficient is that as a manifest sin. Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture,who believe in superstition and false objects of worship and say about the disbelievers, “These are better guided than the believers as to the way”? (Qur’an 4:47-4:51)
This particular issue is one in which an orientalist and western academic made a mistake in regard to the jurisprudence of the Ibadi school. You can see our comment on that error here:
“The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers.” (Qur’an 24:3)
﷽
One of the known positions in the Ibadi schoolis that one cannot marry a person whom they have committed fornication or adultery with. Rather, those people who have done so are to be punished, banished and then only to marry among those who have committed similar acts.
Those who associate partners with Allah or worship other than Allah are to be married among themselves. Those Muslims who have committed adultery/fornication are to only marry those Muslims who have similarly committed acts of adultery/fornication. They are forbidden to marry the ones they have committed fornication/adultery with.
Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.
This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage.
The following is a presentation put forward by our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui. -May Allah continue to bless him and benefit us by him.
If you notice, many English translations of this text seem convoluted. It gives the impression that if a Muslim man or woman committed fornication that they could marry an idol worshiper. Nothing can be further from the truth.
We do want to comment that we personally feel that all translations and translators of the Qur’an have failed to convey what Qur’an 24:3 means and we have yet to see a translation that translates the meaning accurately. We put this right up there with Qur’an 4:157 as the worst translated text that translations and translators have failed to convey.
One may see for themselves the disparate translations of Qur’an 24:3 here:
The major reason why we loath all translations of Qur’an 24:3 is that when you look at it:
“The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” It gives the impression that a Muslim male or female or committed fornication has two options for his/her future.
a) marry a believer who has done a similar offense.
b) marry a mushrik who has done a similar offense.
We would translate it as: “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress.” The reason that the mushirk is put in this context is to show the level of disdain that Allah (swt) has for people who commit fornication.
Looking at the verse itself:
“T”The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers” (Qur’an 24:3)
The believer does not marry the mushrik
The believer who commits fornication marries only a believer that similarly has committed fornication.
What becomes very strange is how some will agree to point 1. They will say yes, a believer can never marry a mushrik. Yet, those same people will say, but a believer who has committed fornication can marry a believer who has not done such an act!
This is clearly inconsistent.
We wanted to comment on two sections of this article. The first is the following paragraph.
“There are cases where some men pursuing an illegal sexual relationship, trick and deceive women that resist their sexual advances. The most commonly deceptive trick used by these men is to entice women into fake marriage proposals in order to coerce an unlawful relationship with them. Many women, especially younger women, are duped by these men, so they accept and yield to their seduction only to realize later that it was an utter lie.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
“It is logically conceivable, therefore, that the legalization of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been an open invitation for committing adultery among young Muslim men and women. The permissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been the reason for moral corruption and carefree attitude among young people when it comes to sexual relationships. In such societies, men see no consequences for their conduct; and a gullible woman thinks she will be rewarded with marriage by succumbing to a pre-marriage sexual relationship. She will have no reason not to believe, since the society she lives in has accepted such marriages. Had the idea of the impermissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages prevailed in Muslim societies and been entrenched in their culture, a Muslim woman would not have been taken advantage of: she could recognize a lie when she heard it. She could respond to it by saying that post-fornication and post-adultery marriages are not allowed in the Islamic religion. So the fact is that there will be no marriage between us after we engage in an illegal sexual relationship.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
The above paragraph are very sound in reasoning. Our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui has made a very forceful argument.
“That is because each of the two partners, in such marriages, is most likely to doubt the other to be an adulterer, since as adulterers they found each other prior to their marriage. The fact that one spouse knows what mischief the other spouse is capable of doing can be utterly destructive to their mutual trust and mutual respect, and eventually to the marriage itself. Thus, it can be conclusively said that mutual trust and mutual respect lead to happiness and tranquility in any marriage. Conversely, the lack of trust and respect between spouses, which could be very much the result of their premarital mating, nourishes the meltdown of love and increases tension in the marriage.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
Here we disagree with our respected teacher because the reasoning is not sound.
It is not explained how a person who has committed fornication/adultery and then marries another person who has similarly committed fornication/adultery would not suspect their spouse of mischief. After all, the reason they know they are able to marry each other is because of the very fact that both are equal for doing the same sin.
Meaning the only reason I have access to you for marriage is because you have been guilty of committing the exact same thing that I have been found guilty of.
Note — this is not an argument against the fiqh position; this is an argument against the use of rai’ (reason) that does not seem to follow through.
By limiting those who have committed fornication/adultery to marrying only those who have similarly done such things, it is one possible safety measure to stop the spread of sexual infectious diseases. Or, perhaps, to allow those who may have contracted an infectious sexual disease to enjoy the fruits of marriage and companionship among themselves.
The position is strong the practical implimentation is wanting.
This particular position in our school is very strong. We do not dispute this point. However, our school would struggle with practical implimentation of this ruling.
No one is saying that a person who committed fornication can never get married, but if the ruling is that they can only marry someone who has similarly committed fornication (not the one they did the deed with), how does this work?
Those in our school who hold this position there is a real disconnect here between the ruling and the practicality. This is especially true when we consider the following.
Islam does not encourage one to broadcast the sins that Allah (swt) has covered.
Islam allows for and encourages the safeguard of one’s honour.
A brother or sister does not necessarily approach friends or respected elders and say: “Excuse me, I have committed fornication. Do you have anyone among your friends or relatives that has committed fornication that is looking to get married?”
There is an encounter that was mentioned to me concerning Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h). He was in the middle of Oman and approached by a man from the Hanafi school. The man said, “Oh Shaykh, I have committed Zina and I really love this woman and I want her to be the mother of our children.” The Shaykh replied to the man: “May Allah give you better than her.”
Though it is not polite to say to the man’s face, we imagine that the Shaykh also thought: “May Allah give her better than you.”
Jabir reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
There is a remedy for every malady, and when the remedy is applied to the disease it is cured with the permission of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
Do note that this is a widely known position in the school. There are other voices in the Ibadi school that do not agree with the above position. If you are thinking of adopting the school or have questions on this matter, kindly consult a scholar of the school.
“And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart – about all those [one] will be questioned.” (Qur’an 17:36)
It was recently brought to our attention that a youtuber who goes by the name of “Mufti Muhammed Ibn Muneer” made a video in an attempt to address his students, those in attendance, about praying with their arms to the side.
If we had to retitle this entry it would be: ‘Trick ’em with Hadith. Ignore the Athar.’
We listened to the video and informed the brother that the video has an innocence to it for the most part. The speaker is simple. The statements he puts forward are simple. This is to be expected because those who claim they are upon the way of the early companion are often not well researched on matters.
However, there are other rather alarming statements put forward by the speaker that border on tafkir (excommunication) of other Muslims, which is most unfortunate.
The very simple approach used by Mufti Ibn Muneer had no depth or nuance to it. We do not blame him because it is clear from the matter in which he approached the subject with a naivety and innocence and that he has not really looked into the matter. Let us take a look at the video and comment on some of the comments Mufti Muhammad Ibn Muneer says.
@1:58 “I’ve heard people say this before, Maliki scholars. Uuhh, and that’s a whole long issue of madhabs, is it permissible in maliki etc. That’s a long issue in itself. The concept of their argument, many of their arguments not all of them they say there is nothing wrong with making sadl in the salah. And there is no specific text stating that you have to do it. Put your hand on top of the other hand. And some of the ulemah of the past said it was o.k and the mujtahideen said it was o.k and perhaps Imam Malik did it and Amal al Madinah etc. etc. etc… and most people unfortunately they argue and they fight over these points. We don’t have to argue over those points and fight over those points. Where did the Nabi Kareem (saw) pray like this? Mandatory or not. Where did he pray like this? What narration states that the Prophet had his hands to the side from the takbir to the taslim? If you can bring a hadith sahih or daif. Bring it, bring it to the table and we can see what’s the proper understanding what’s the strongest view. But if you can’t even bring that and you are basing it off of what’s permissible and what an Imam allowed raksafi, fulan fulan and this one and that one debated but the Nabi Kareem, your example, your uswa, the one you are to emanate, emulate, imitate and be like did he do it yes or no? If he did it than we can look at the other hadith what’s the correct whatchyou do all of the time. If he didn’t do it and your basing the second pillar of Islam the most important physical act of worship off of something that an Imam allowed and differed over you have serious problems with your Islam. Serious problems with your Islam. If the most important physical act of worship a big part of it is based off of the view and the fatwa of a later scholar that’s a problem. And I don’t think any intellectual Muslim is gonna differ on this point. I don’t think any intellectual Muslim is gonna differ on this point. Were not gonna get into it being haram or not. Everybody understand this? The concept did the Nabi Kareem do it? How did he pray? Everybody understand this? Regardless of where he put his hands but did he have his hands to the side? If you can’t prove that then you need to look at the statement ash hadu an la ilaha illallah wa ashhadu anna muhammed rasulullah what does that mean? For you to continue to do something in the salaah the second pillar of Islam that the prophet never did and that an Imam allowed, and that an Imam did. That’s a mushkila. Thats’ a big, huge, mushkila. That’s in brief. The argument o.k on this point you can find in the books of shurul hadith, the books of fiqh, classical four schools. The other non orthodox four schools. They dealt with this issue in detail; of is it permissible to put your hands at the side. When you do fold your hands where do they go, chest, navel, belly etc… Our Muhim is that the Nabi Kareem (saw) he said in Sahih Bukhari (after reciting the text in Arabic) He said, ‘we the prophets, the assembly of the prophets we have been commanded and ordered to place our right hands over our left hands in the salaah’. We have been commanded and ordered to put our right over our left in the salaah. There’s another narration that the people were commanded to place their hands the right hand on the left hand in the salaah. And many other narrations which the prophet put his hand on his left hand in the salaah, regardless of where. That is a whole different issue. Here, here, here, like this, like that. Those are secondary issues. What is important is that the Nabi Kareem (saw) he didn’t pray like that. His companions didn’t pray like that. And if there is a narration here or there they do not stand up to the light of the numerous narrations. So this has nothing to do with Maliki or Hanafi or Shafi’i. First and foremost you have to be Muhamadi. Muhamadi. How did Imam Malik understand, How did Imam Abu Hanifa understand, How did Imam Shafi’i understand and the do’s and the extract. That’s fine and that’s peachy. But when the daleel comes to you clear and pristine what Muhammed (saw) did or didn’t do. That is your stance as a Muslim, as a Muhamadi. The madhab of Muhammed ibn Abdullah. Something that is unclear something that is detailed something that you don’t understand that’s a different story. You blindly follow a scholar that you trust. You study this traditional school; but when the daleel is in front of your face your nothing more than Muhamadi Dhahiri. You take the apparent text. Every Muslim initially is dhahiri. Has to take that which is apparent from the text. Everybody understand this? Initially. Therefore it depends upon the person’s level of knowledge. If you can study and research you have to follow what you study and what you research. If you are a blind follower then take what I just said. Put your right hand on your left hand. That’s what the Prophet (saw) did. That’s my advise. No Muslim should make sadl. Allah knows best. Next question says: Many say that those who pray sadl are not upon the sunnah. We’ve explained this many times. If it’s an issue of ijtihad that’s one thing. Is it correct to say someone is not on the sunnah over one issue that they do? Or, because the sadl is so apparent and so outward and a major part of the salah perhaps it does take you away from quote unquote “being on the sunnah.” It’s not a hidden thing. You’re doing it five times a day at least. Not doing what the Nabi Kareem did over and over and over again. But in general, in general ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ hadith, we do not love and hate, we do not show wala and bara based off of maseel ijtihadi faqiya. That’s not from our way. This is what’s correct, what we believe, what we teach, what we understand. We don’t base our love and our hate off of these maeel ijtihad. Everybody understand this? Which there is room for more than one view. Even if the second view is incorrect.”
Our response:
Where to begin? That was quite a mouthful!
We believe the first question to address would be the question of methodology. What is the methodology of Mufti Ibn Muhammad Muneer? What tools does he limit himself to in order to ascertain truth? What is admissible as evidence?
If he identifies himself as a follower of the ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’, then does he understand that that evidence is not restricted to the Qur’an and Sunnah? For ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’, the consensus (‘Ijma’) is legal proof. Analogy (Qiyas) is legal proof. The amal of Madinah (mass practiced Sunnah) of the people of Madinah is a proof of the Maliki school.
The second question is:
Are we to be “Muhmadi” as he claimed or “Muhamadi Dhahiri”? Because, on the one hand, he seems to indicate that it is wrong to follow the juristic conclusions of great scholars of Islam, while on the other hand, he flatly contradicts himself by being an advocate for the Dhahiri Madhab.
If every Muslim was to be ‘Dhahiri’, how would he answer the question: Can we eat pig fat/lard?
Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me anything forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be that slaughtered in disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced by necessity, neither desiring it nor transgressing the limit, then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 6:145)
What do the Qur’an and the Sunnah say? The verse is clear that only the flesh of swine is prohibited.
Third question: By saying every Muslim should be Muhamadi, is he suggesting that Malik, Abu Hanifa and Shafi’i were not ‘Muhamadi’?
Fourth question: If it can be established that Sa’id b. Al-Musayyib, Sa’id b. Jubayr, Al-Hasan Al-Basari, Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i, Muhammed b. Sirin, and the Companion, ‘Abd Allah ibn Al-Zubayr as well as Imam Layth b. S’ad all prayed sadl (arms to the side). Would he say that they ‘have serious problems with their Islam’?’
Fifth question: When you say, “If you are a blind follower, then take what I just said.” Wouldn’t that make a person ‘Muhamedi Muneeri’? Thus, again another contradiction in your statements?
Sixth question: Would he even accept the evidence? “His companions didn’t pray like that (Oops, he catches himself) AND IF THERE IS A NARRATION HERE OR THERE, they do not stand up to the light of the numerous narrations.”
Looks as if, even when presented with evidence, he would reject it. Hopefully, he, as well as the readers, can understand that when he speaks of ‘one or two narrations up against numerous’ that one brick is stronger than 10 pieces of straw even when combined.
Final comments/thoughts. The rest of Mufti Muhammed Ibn Muneer’s comments were sensible in the sense that he says that all of us are negligent of the Sunnah in one way or another. Notice that Mufti Muhammrd Ibn Muneer said the following: “regardless of where.” That is a whole different issue. Here, here, here, like this, like that. Those are secondary issues. In other words, they do not know where the hands are supposed to go. They just know that they should be in opposition to those who place them on the side! May Allah (swt) increase our ability to follow the example of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
“Which there is room for more than one view. Even if the second view is incorrect.”
Ditto!
All Muslims are reliant upon narrations from the early period of Muslims. People like Mufti Muhammed Ibn Muneer are reliant upon the hadith. So, for those like him, they want a statement of the hadith. They know full well that bringing a hadith does not end the discussion. Hadiths have gradings, they have chains of narrators. In this case, they would not be able to bring a single authentic hadith that states that the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed with one hand over the other hand in the prayer.
The only thing they can bring is
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”
Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”
Effectively, the hadith they think is a trump card actually is an athar. It doesn’t describe something that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did. It describes actions that people did that were attributed to the Prophet (saw).
When we go into the deep water where the Salafis do not like to go to the Athar, the reports of the actions of the companions, the information and data points overwhelm the opposition.
“Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
﷽
Why do Ibadis not have Qunut in the prayer?
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported: We came to the Prophet, (saw), while we were young men and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them. Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.”
We acknowledge that the Blessed Prophet (saw) used to do Qunut for the companions in time of crisis. However, this was something abrogated. That is our position.
Imam Malik and Imam Al Shafi’i considered Qunut in Fajr a confirmed Sunnah. Imam Ahmad considers it recommended during times of crisis. They do it during the witr prayers. Although they are not doing it currently for Palestine. Even if they think Hamas is a calamity, then still let them pray for their brothers! The Hanafi school believes that the Qunut is not done in any of the five daily prayers. However, they believe it is for the witr prayer. Zahiris do not do Qunut unless in times of crisis.
It was narrated from Abu Malik Al-Ashja’i that his father said:
“I prayed behind the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Abu Bakr and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Umar and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Uthman and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Ali and he did not say the Qunut.” Then he said: “O my son, this is an innovation.”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said the Qunut for a month.”- (One of the narrators) Shu’bah said: “He cursed some men.” Hisham said: “He supplicated against some of the tribes of Arabs.”-“Then he stopped doing that after bowing.” This is what Hisham said. Shu’bah said, narrating from Qatadah, from Anas that the Prophet (saw) said the Qunut for a month, cursing Ri’l, Dhawkan and Lihyan.
Please know, dear reader, that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence have their proofs and justifications for why they do as they do. We follow what we believe is the correct sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
We also believe that the Blessed Prophet (saw) abolished raising the hands altogether.
“The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
“And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.” (Qur’an 2:43)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)
﷽
It has been attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) in the following hadith:
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported: We came to the Prophet, (saw), while we were young men and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them. Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.” Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6008)
Listen carefully to what our brother is saying here.
“Take what the Messenger gives you, and do without what he forbids you from.” (Qur’an 59:7)
﷽
This entry will show the manipulation and changing of the ‘matn’ text in the chains of transmission to advocate various positions for the prayer.
Hopefully, in writing this in the process we will be able to defend the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) as was the practice of the people of Madinah in his time, namely the practice of laying hands at the side. This practice is continued among those who follow the Jafari and Zaydi School of jurisprudence as well as the oldest living school of jurisprudence which the people of Oman are upon, the Ibadi school.
This blog entry will also show that Imam Malik only prayed that way (sadl) because it is what he saw as the practice of the people of Madinah, and it’s not because he was beaten, which is a lie that has been circulated by a certain group whom have invented their own methodology of doing the prayer.
MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 1 Imam Malik only prayed like that (arms to the side) because he was beaten so badly that he couldn’t pray with one hand over the other.
“He was severely beaten in the year 764 CE by the order of the Ameer of Madeenah, because he made a legal ruling that forced divorce was invalid. This ruling opposed the ‘Abbaasid rulers’ practice of adding in the oath of allegiance given to them by the masses the clause that whoever broke the oath was automatically divorced. Malik was tied and beaten until his arms became severely damaged to such a degree that he became unable to clasp them on his chest in Salaah and thus he began the practice of praying with his hands at his sides according to some reports.”
Source: (pg 78. The Evolution of Fiqh Islamic Law & The Madh-habs) By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips International Islamic Publishing House.)
“Some reports” such as? Doesn’t Abu Ammenah Bilal Philips have to give his evidence or are we just supposed to accept what he said?
Can such a claim be verified by and in any of the traditionally relied upon books of Islamic history? One will be hard-pressed to find any evidence substantiating this argument.
Remember what Allah said:
“Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidence, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse.” (Qur’an: 2:159)
So where is the proof?
Secondly, how could Imam Malik not have enough strength to clasp his hands on his chest but still be able to do the tabkir—, go into ruku, and go into sajdah and to push his hands up from sujuud, since Imam Malik’s view is that the knees go up than the hands after sajdah? What about all the other Tabieen who prayed the way Imam Malik did? Did each one of them have their arms broken as well?
MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 2 The Malikis get their prayer from the Shi’a in Iran!
Now let us ask you, dear reader, something why would Sunni Muslims go and ask the Shi’a about how to pray? That’s just absurd! The second point is this: Why don’t the Malikis follow the Shi’a in everything in prayer, like raising the hands in ruku and when going into sujud? Or making sujud on a stone? Or placing the knees before the hands? Or saying the whole prayer out loud? Or include the basmallah before Al Fatiha like the Shi’a do. Also, a very good question would be where did the Shi’a get their prayer from? Do the Shi’a follow some guy who got his arms broken too?!?
The Shi’a don’t follow Imam Malik because they don’t accept him as one of their Imams in jurisprudence. This whole point, again, is another flat lie. If such a claim were true, then you should give the evidence. You have to have tangible evidence of it.
“And of mankind is he who purchases idle talk (lahwal hadeeth) to mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge (ilm), and takes it by way of mockery. For such there will be a humiliating torment.” (Qur’an 31:6)
We see this ayat as applying directly to those people who will take the Hadith (reports) over the Sunnah (practice). Those who have no ilm (no fiqh). In this instance, those who will take the Hadith over the mass transmitted Sunnah of the blessed Messenger (saw). We have to understand and this cannot be stressed enough. The Sunnah is a ‘living tradition’ that is organically passed down from one generation to the next. The hadith WERE fragments and snippets of the sunnah, which at times became a mechanism to convince people of controversial issues.
“Pray as you see me pray”.
Qur’an and Sunnah not Qur’an and Hadith.
We would like to remind our readers that the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said,” I leave you two things. “The Qur’an and my Sunnah.” He (saw) did not say “I leave you the Qur’an and Hadith.” And with all due respect, We ask anyone reading this to find a single statement where The Blessed Messenger (saw) said I leave you “Qur’an and Hadith”.
People who say that the prophet (saw) said “Qur’an and Hadith” are trying to use Hanbali and Shaf’i usuli methods and impose these methodological principles on the rest of the Muslim ummah.
The so-called ‘Salafiyyah’ today cherry-pick their usuli methods.
The Blessed Messenger (saw) never handed to his followers a Mushaf of the Qur’an or a Sahih Bukhari volumes 1–4 etc. What he gave was a living, breathing revelation from Allah preserved foremost as an oral tradition, and then his living, breathing organic practice, deeds, and ways of living that collectively we call the Sunnah; again, which was orally transmitted.
The living breathing practice is witnessed and transmitted as a living breathing, organic practice. The hadith is transmitted on the basis of one from one and can be corrupted, added to, mistakenly transmitted, leave out important details, have hidden defects, and so on.
The problem today is that people who graduate from Madinah University are using Shaf’i and Hanbali Usuli principles to judge the rest of the Muslim ummah on the Qur’an and Sunnah, and it doesn’t work like that.
The point being Imam Malik saw the living sunnah around him every day. For the Malikis, the ‘Amal’ or practice of the people of Madinah is a mass-established sunnah. They did not need to split hairs trying to find documented sunnah evidence in the form of hadith for everything they do.
In fact, a principle of the Maliki madhab is that even if there is a Sahih hadith, if it clashes with the Sunnah of Madinah, Imam Malik drops it.
Why?
Because, again, you need to understand that Muhammed (saw) said, “I leave you the Qur’an and Sunnah.” If we are talking in terms of what has more weight, Rabia, one of Imam Malik’s teachers said to him, “I would rather take 1000 from 1000 because that 1 from 1 can strip the sunnah right out from your hands!”
The vast majority of Hadith are, which means narrations one from one. Imam Malik is basically saying, “Look people, I live in the city where the 10,000 sahabah are buried and where the Blessed Himself (saw) is buried. If there ever was a sunnah established or practiced, we know about it because we live it every day.
The following examples show corruption in the Hadith traditions that try and promote grasping of the hands in prayer.
Now we will give what we believe to be the original accounts of Sadl, and the transformation of it into Qabd, and for whatever reason, someone found it important to try and undermine the way we understand the Blessed Prophet’s prayer, which Al hamdulillah is being followed by the people of Oman today.
Remember Islam began as a stranger, and it will return to the world as a stranger. Reflect upon that!
An original orally transmitted report.
In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah, the following can be found:
Yahyaa Ibn Sa’eed declared to us: On the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Al- ‘Eezaar. He said: “I used to accompany Sa’eed ibn Jubair: So, he saw a man praying while placing one of his hands on the other. This one on this one, and this one on this one. So, he went, separated them, and then returned (to me).” The Musannaf is one of the earliest hadith canons in Islamic history.
Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr in his book al-Tamheed narrates that (20:76):
‘Abd Allah ibn al-Izar said, ‘I used to make tawaf around the Kaba with Said ibn
al-Jubayr. Once, he saw a man placing one hand over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned to me.
The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.
The Hadith of Ibn Masud
Actually reported in Abu Dawud and Sunan of Nasai
“The Prophet saw me placing my left hand on my right hand in Salat. So he took my right hand, and then placed it over my left hand.”
Abu Dawud’s chain is: Muhammed ibn Bakkar from Hushaym ibn Bashir from
Al-Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi-Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.
Nasa’is chain is: Hushaym ibn Bashir from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi
‘Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.
In the chain is Hushaym ibn Bashir
Dhahabi states in Al Mizan [5/431], and Ibn Hajar states in
Taqrib al-Tahdhib [2/269] that he: “Often used trickery in his reports to convince others to accept unacceptable chains of narration in addition to being guilty of conveying subtly distinguishable incomplete chains of narration.” (kathir at-tadlis wa al-irsal al-khafi).
The Hadith of Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah Reported by Ahmad and Daraqutni
“The Messenger of Allah passed by a man who was praying while placing
his left hand on the right hand. So he snatched it and placed the right on the left.”
But this is reported by way of Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab -from Abu Sufyan-from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah.
Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab has been declared to be weak by ‘Ali ibn Al-Madini, Nasa’i, Ahmad, and Daraqutni as stated by Dhahabi in Al Mizan [1/462].
Our comments after using reasoning logic and deduction:
Now in the original report, we see that someone was praying with hands folded (qabd) to which offense was taken and so their hands were separated during the prayer. Now what happens is that, in order to support the practice of folding one hand over the other (qabd), the highest authority in the land, the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself is invoked in the story. To make the argument more insiduous, the issue is not even the releasing of the hands but ‘how the hands were folded‘. So the person who hears the narration would assume that folding hands leaving at the sides is not an issue at all, but would learn that the person in the narration simply folded it the wrong way! Then Ibn Hajar gives sweeping condemnation of Hushaym ibn Bashir in his commentary. It’s interesting to see that Hushaym Ibn Bashir, in all three reports, gets his information from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab, who does not fare any better when he is critically examined.
What was added: The prophet was seen doing it to make it more authoritative.
What was changed: The issue was with how to fold the hands properly (sadl: laying of the hands at the side) was taken out completely!
An original orally transmitted report.
Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”
The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.
The Hadith of ‘Aisha bint Abu Bakr Reported by Daraqutni and Bayhaqi
Aisha said: “Three things are from prophecy: making haste for breakfast, delaying the predawn meal, and placing the right over the left during Salat.”
Point 1) Ibn Hazm related it in Al-Muhalla [4/113] as a statement of ‘Aisha but without a chain.
Point 2) There is a break in the chain. So it can even be ascribed to ‘Aisha.
Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Talkhis al-Habir [1/223]: “Daraqutni and Bayaqi related it as a statement of ‘Aisha.” And it has a break in its chain.
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Now we do not even apparently have the complete chain of this. Now we do not expect devilry at work at every corner. But if you compare the statement in the Muwatta to that of Imam Malik, then look at the following: It is word for word with two very huge changes.
The change is now some unknown comes along and either intentionally or maliciously invokes Aisha (ra) to make it authoritative. After all, she’s the prophet’s wife and spent so much time with him, so she would be an authority, right?
Or the reporter, relying upon memory, makes a mistake. We believe the former that the change is intentional due to what was actually changed.
So this is a very obvious question.
What is from the prophecy (or from the prophet)?
Did He (saw) say to place the right hand over the left? Or did He (saw) say that doing such indicates that a person really has no shame?
Two original orally transmitted reports
In the following, we will give you two original reports of the hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik and then the attempt to combine the two hadiths into one due to oral corruption in the transmission.
Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”
Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sa’d said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.” Abu Hazim added, “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”
The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.
Hadith of Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, reported by Daraqutni.
“Verily we — the assembly of Prophets—have been ordered to hold our right hands over our left hands.“
Weakness #1 One of the transmitters, Talha ibn ‘Amr, has been classified as being an unreliable narrator. The author of Awjaz al-Masalik says, “And in its chain is Talha ibn ‘Amr, who has been relinquished (matruk).
Likewise, it is mentioned in Al-‘Ayni (Sharh of) Al-Bukhari.
Dhahabi said in Al-Mizan (3/54): “Ahmad and Nasai’i said (about Talha)” “(He is) relinquished in hadith. And Bukhari and Ibn Al-Madini said: “He is insignificant” (Laysa bi shayin).”
Prima Qur’an comments:
It can be seen that the original hadith statement in the Muwatta of Imam Malik slowly evolved into a statement that supposedly the Prophets were ‘ordered’ to place one hand over the other.
Finally, the two hadiths were joined together to get the following ‘Sahih’ narration.
(Ibn Hibban relates it in his sahih, (13-14/3 #1767)
“The prophets were ordered to delay the suhoor and expedite the breaking of the fast and hold with our right hands our left hands in our prayer.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
So here you have the finished product. What were two distinct hadiths in the Muwatta of Imam Malik that were transformed into one hadith that combined elements of both?
In this new hadith, we find that it wasn’t the people who were ordered, it was the Prophets who were ordered and, of course, the only one to give orders to the prophets is Allah (swt) himself!
So if we can’t ascribe it to Aisha (ra), let’s ascribe it to the Prophet (saw), and if that doesn’t work, let’s ascribe it as an order to all the Prophets — which only comes from Allah!
So what this Hadith effectively does is eliminate any doubt about where such an order would come from. Also, as in the “Aisha Hadith” quoted above, the original hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik was changed so that instead of folding the hands in the fard prayer being an act of shame, it becomes meritorious, and not only that, but something directed by the divine himself!
And this is also supported by the fact that ibn Turkamaanee, the Shaykh of al-Haafidh az-Zayla’i mentioned in his ‘al-Jawhar’ two weak hadith to support his madhab where he said, ‘Ibn Hazm said, “it is reported to us from Abu Hurayra who said, ‘place the hand upon the hand below the navel.’ And from Anas who said, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophethood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’”’
The hadith that ibn Hazm mentions in ‘al-Muhalla’ in ta’leeq form from Anas with the wording, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophet-hood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’
Ash-Shaikh Haashim as-Sindee said in his letter, ‘Diraahim as-Surra’, ‘and from them is what az-Zaahidee mentioned in his ‘Sharh al-Qudooree’, and ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem mentioned in ‘al-Bahr ar-Raa’iq’, that it is reported from the Prophet (saw), “three are from the habit of the Messengers: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in prayer.”
He said: “I have not come across the sanad to this hadeeth except that az-Zaahidee added that it is reported by Ali bin Abu Taalib {3} from the Prophet (saw). But ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem said, “that the reporters of hadeeth do not know the wording, ‘below the navel’ from a marfoo or mawqoof narration.”’
Anas reports that there are three aspects from the character of Nubuwwa [Prophethood]: to open fast early, to delay the suhur [pre-dawn meal], and to position the right hand over the left one beneath the navel while in salat. [al-Jawharal-naqiyy 2:31]
Since the graduates of Madinah University cherry-pick Shafi’i and Hanbali usuli principles to establish daleel (namely that a person has to have documented sunnah in the form of hadith), then let us entertain them.
The hadith of Sahl ibn Sa’ad — PEOPLE WERE ORDERED TO PLACE THE RIGHT OVER THE LEFT IN PRAYER
“Abdullah ibn Maslama related to us from Malik from Abu hazim from Sahl ibn Sa’d. He said:
“The people were ordered that a person is to place the right hand over his left forearm during Salat.” Abu Hazim said: “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said: “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika). And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi).
Source:(Bukhari, 224/2)
The weakness of this hadith
In spite of being in both the Muwatta of Imam Malik and the Sahih of Bukhari, it is not definitive proof that the Prophet’s sunnah was to pray while holding his left hand with his right hand. What weakens such an assumption made from this hadith are the following:
This is not an explicit statement, report, or action of the Prophet.
Sahl does not say that the prophet gave the order, so it’s possible someone else gave the order.
The saying, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet” is not the statement of Sahl. Rather it is the statement of the Tab’i, Abu Hazim. So there is no certainty that Sahl actually attributed this to the Prophet, since Abu Hazim is merely conjecturing about what he remembers.
The statement of Ismail that, “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).” And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi)” further emphasizes the belief that Abu Hazim didn’t actually hear Sahl attribute that order to the Prophet.
The above-mentioned Hadith further corroborates with what is in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaiba.
In fact do you want to see how the Salafis and Wahabbis deceive the masses?
The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”
What a juciy dishonest lie! In plain sight!
The whole of the Arabic text actually says:
Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”
“Ibn ‘Ulayyah declared to us: On the authority of Ibn ‘Aun about Ibn Seereen that he was asked about the man who holds his right hand with his left. He said: “That was merely done because of the Romans’ (influence).”
Also, people who claim that Imam Malik only prayed sadl because his arms were broken need to look at the above hadith if the people were indeed ‘ordered‘ to pray one hand over the other means that they didn’t always do that!
The proof is out there for anyone to see we know who fabricated the hadith chains. We know claims are inconsistent and who wish to attack the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and bring in place of it lahwal hadeeth (Qur’an 31:6)
Prima Quran 