بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

الحمد الله

Al-Imām Ibn Qudāmaħ رحمه الله writes:

“All skins of dead animals, irrespective of whether they have been tanned or not, are najas. [1]

It is crucial to have a proper understanding of what is meant here by “dead animals.” What is intended are those animals that die in a situation other than the proper Islāmic method of slaughtering. This would include animals that are slaughtered by people of other religions who do not follow the Islāmic method of slaughtering animals. This would also include animals that die an accidental or natural death without being properly slaughtered. This does not include the tanned skins of animals that are ḥalāl for consumption and are slaughtered in the proper Islāmic method, since those animals are Ṭāhir by ijmā^c .

Along with a proper understanding of what is intended by “dead animals,” it also important to know what is meant by tanning. Tanning is the process of making leather from the skins of dead animals. From an Islāmic perspective, it is vital for one to know whether these tanned skins which are used to make leather goods are classified as Ṭāhir or najas. This ruling has an enormous impact on one’s daily life as everyone uses products made from leather in some form or another. Many of these leather goods (wallets, belts, jackets, shoes, etc.) are worn during Ṣalāh and affect the validity of .Ṣalāh

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

“DEAD ANIMALS” BEFORE BEING TANNED

The first issue in dealing with skins of “dead animals” is that of their ruling before they have been tanned. This is najas by ijmā^c based upon the following Ḥadīth:

Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما reported that the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said: “If the hide of an animal is tanned, it becomes pure.”[2]

Aḥādith such as the following: This opinion is further corroborated by many other

“Tanning removes its impurity.” [3]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

“DEAD ANIMALS” AFTER BEING TANNED

The next issue in dealing with skins of “dead animals” is that of their ruling after they have been tanned. There are four opinions in regarding this issue.

THE FIRST OPINION:

The first opinion is that of al-Imām Ibn Qudāmah رحمه الله. He is stating here that the hide of all dead animals can not be made Ṭāhir by way of tanning; regardless of what type of animal it is. This opinion has been attributed to both Imām Mālik and Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رحمهما الله.

The main piece of evidence supporting this opinion is the following Ḥadīth:

ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAkīm reported: “A statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم  was read to us: “Do not benefit from the hide or the sinew

of an animal that dies.”” [4]

The scholars who hold this opinion use this Ḥadīth to say that it abrogated other Aḥādith on this matter. The first issue with using this Ḥadīth as Dalīl is that ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAkīm never met Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم. There is a missing narrator, who is the one that ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAkīm heard this statement

from. This type of Ḥadīth is called a “mursal” Ḥadīth. The second issue is that the narrator who heard this Ḥadīth from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAkīm, whose name is Ibn Abī Lailā, was not known to the scholars of Ḥadīth to have heard Aḥadīth ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAkīm. Due to this, many scholars of Ḥadīth declared this Ḥadīth to be ḍaʿīf – weak, including the two Imāms of al-Jarḥ wa ‘t-Taʿdīl [5] Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn رحمهما الله.

Imām Bahā’ ad-Dīn al-Maqdisī رحمه الله explains this issue in al-ʿUddah Sharḥ al-ʿUmdah quoting Imām at-Tirmidhī رحمه الله, who reported that Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رحمه الله would rely on this Ḥadīth , but later retracted this opinion due to the manifestation of the weakness of this Ḥadīth [6]The Qāḍī of the Ḥanābilah , Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā رحمه الله also reported that Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رحمه الله left this opinion

after the weakness of this Ḥadīth was found.

THE SECOND OPINION:

The hide of all dead animals which are ḥalāl to eat had they been properly slaughtered, may be made Ṭāhir by way of tanning. This means that the hides of dead cows, sheep, camels, and other animals which are ḥalāl to consume can be purified by tanning them.

Yet those animals that are ḥarām  to eat, such as pigs, dogs, carnivores, etc.; their skins are not made Ṭāhirby the process of tanning. This is the view of the majority of the scholars of Islām, including: Al-Auzāʿī, ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak, and Isḥāq رحمهم الله; it was also narrated from Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رحمه الله, as his final verdict.[7]

This was also the view favoured by Imām Majd ad-Dīn ibn Taimīyah, al-Imām Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī[8], Ibn Ḥamdān al-Ḥanbalī, Ibn Razīn, Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā, Imām Bahā’ ad-Dīn al-Maqdisī, Shaikh al-Islām Taqī ad-Dīn ibn Taimīyah [9], and his student Ibn Qaiyim al-Jauzīyah رحمهم الله. This is also the preferred

opinion of Shaikh ʿAbd Al-ʿAzīz (ʿAbdulʿAzīz) ibn Bāz, Shaikh Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn ʿUthaimīn, and Shaikh Ṣāliḥ al-Fauzān رحمهم الله. [10]

Dalīl for this opinion is based upon the following Ḥadīth:

Salamah al-Muḥbiq رضي الله عنه reported that: “The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم asked a woman during the Battle of Tabūk for some water, and she replied that the only water that she had was in a water skin made from the hide of an animal that was not properly slaughtered. To this, the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said: “Didn’t you tan it?” When she replied that she had, he صلى الله عليه و سلم said: “Tanning, it is as slaughtering it.”” [11]

Since the Ḥadīth clearly states “Tanning, it is as slaughtering it.”, we see that the skin of pigs or dogs would not be purified due to tanning since they do not become ḥalāl  for consumption with slaughtering. This is also supported by the Ḥadīth:

It is reported by ʿĀ’ishah رضي الله عنها that: “The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم was asked about the hides of dead animals, to which he replied: “Tanning them purifies them.”” [12]

In the Ḥadīth mentioned above, it is clearly stated that tanning fulfills the same function as slaughtering with respect to purification. These Aḥādith and others like it are the Dalīl that tanning is a means of purifying, only applies to animals that are ḥalāl, since they connect tanning to slaughtering. Hence if an animal is not made ḥalāl by slaughtering it, then its skin is not made ḥalāl by tanning.

The proponents of this view also cite as Dalīl the numerous Aḥādith that prohibit the use of the hides of predatory animals. One of these Aḥādith is the following:

“All predatory animals with tusk and every bird with claw are forbidden for consumption.” [13]: This is also supported by the Ḥadīth : Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān رضي الله عنه reported that: “ Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم forbade tiger skins.” [14]

Furthermore:

Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān رضي الله عنه reported that Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلمsaid: “The angels do not accompany a group of people among whom there is a tiger skin.” [15]

THE THIRD OPINION:

The hide of all dead animals can be made Ṭāhir by way of tanning other than that of a pig or dog.

This is the well known opinion of the Shāfiʿī madhhab

Their Dalīl is that the skin of the pigs can not be made Ṭāhir, because Allāh سبحانه و تعالى describes the

animal itself as najas:

“ . . . the flesh of swine (pork); for that surely, is impure . . . ” (Sūrah al-Anʿām (6) : Āyah 145)

The skin is a part of the animal; consequently the impurity of a pig is a permanent attribute that can not be removed by tanning. As for the dog, the severity of its impurity is established by the fact that Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم ordered us to wash a dish seven times, once with dirt, if a dog drinks from it. Hence the Shāfiʿī scholars draw a connection between the filth of a dog and that of a pig.

THE FOURTH OPINION:

The hide of all dead animals can be made Ṭāhir by way of tanning other than that of a pig. This is the opinion of the Ḥanafī madhhab , as quoted by the great Ḥanafī scholar Imām al-Qudūrī رحمه الله:

“Any skin which has been tanned becomes pure, hence prayer is valid on it, and wuḍū’ from (water contained in) it, except the skin of a pig and human.” [16]

Their Dalīl is that the skin of the pigs can not be made Ṭāhir, because لله describes the

animal itself as najas:

“ . . . the flesh of swine (pork); for that surely, is impure . . . ” (Sūrah al-Anʿām (6) : Āyah 145)

CONCLUSION:

The strongest of all these opinions – and Allāh سبحانه و تعالى knows best – is the second opinion; tanning only purifies the hides of the animals that we would be allowed to eat had they been properly slaughtered. The Dalīl for this opinion is numerous and it is related from ṣaḥīḥ sources. It is a moderate opinion that does not raise any serious objections. It does not reject any of the Dalīl related by other opinions, when all other opinions struggle in attempting to reject its Dalīl . It coincides with the Ḥanafī opinion in prohibiting the use of pigskin and the Shāfiʿī opinion in prohibiting both pigskin and dog skin. So it does not reject their Dalīl , but rather it is supported by them. Hence a follower of any of  these madhāhib could follow this opinion without having left their madhhab It is the later and final opinion of Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رحمه الله as reported by both Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā and Imām Bahā ad-Dīn al-Maqdisī رحمهما الله. It also accommodates the various Aḥādith that prohibit using the hides of predatory animals. It puts forth the verdict without rejecting any Dalīl which are ṣaḥīḥ, while all the other opinions struggle to reject the Dalīl put forth by this opinion. Shaikh Ibn ʿUthaimīn رحمه الله provides a useful summary:

Animal skins may be divided into three types:

(1) Skins which are Ṭāhir whether they are tanned or not; these are the skins of animals that may be eaten and are slaughtered correctly

(2) Skins which can not be Ṭāhir either before or after tanning, because they are najas , these are the skins of animals whose meat we can not eat, like pigs

(3)    Skins which become Ṭāhir after tanning, but are not Ṭāhir before tanning; these are the skins of animals whose meat may be eaten if they are slaughtered properly but not if they die otherwise [17]

[2] Reported by Imām Muslim in his ṣaḥīḥ

[3] Reported by an-Nasā’ī, at-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah and al-Ḥākim in his ṣaḥīḥ

[4] Ḥadīth reported in Musnad Imām Aḥmad, Sunan at-Tirmidhī, Sunan an- Nasā’ī, Sunan Ibn Mājah, and other sources with chains of transmission from al- Ḥākim ibn ʿUtaibah from Ibn Abī Laylā from ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAkīm. Others have narrated it with unknown people between al- Ḥākim ibn ʿUtaibah and ʿ Abdullāh bin ʿAkīm or without mentioning any narrator between the two whatsoever. Hence the Ḥadīth is graded to be ḍa‘īf

[5] Al-Jarḥ (declaration of unreliability) and At-Taʿdīl (affirming someone’s integrity)

[6] Al-ʿUddah Sharḥ al-ʿUmdah Volume #1 – Page #20

[7] Imām an-Nawawī reports these in his Sharḥ of ṣaḥīḥ Muslim Volume #4 – Page #54; these opinions have also been reported by Imām Ibn Mufliḥ al-Ḥanbalī in al-Furūʿ Volume #1 – Page #102

[8] Al-Kāfī Volume #1 – Page #46

[9] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā Volume #21 – Page #95

[10] The opinion of Shaikh Ibn Bāz is reported in al-Fatāwā al-Jamīʿah li ’l-Marʿah al-Muslimah Volume #3 – Page #860; the opinion of Shaikh Ibn ʿUthaimīn is stated in his book Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ ʿAlā Zād al-Mustaqniʿ Volume #1 – Page #74; the opinion of Shaikh Ṣāliḥ al-Fauzān is recorded in his book al-Mulakhkhaṣ al-Fiqhī Volume #1 – Page #18

[11] Ḥadīth reported in Musnad Imām Aḥmad, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Sunan an- Nasā’ī, and other sources; Ibn Ḥibbān has reported it as ṣaḥīḥ ; Ibn Ḥajar al-Asqalānī also declared it to be ṣaḥīḥ in al-Talkhīṣ

[12] Reported by Ibn Ḥibbān as ṣaḥīḥ

[13] Reported by Imām Muslim in his ṣaḥīḥ

[14] Reported by Abū Dāwūd, 4239; classified as ṣaḥīḥ by al-Albānī in ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd, 3566

[15] Reported by Abū Dāwūd, 4130; classified as ḥasan by al- Albānī in ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd, 3478

[16] Al-Lubāb fī Sharḥ al-Kitāb Volume #1 – Page #47

[17] Liqāʿ al-Bāb al-Maftūḥ by Ibn ʿUthaimīn, 52/39

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

الحمد الله

KNOWLEDGE OF NASKH

Knowledge of naskh is of great importance to the scholars of fiqh (Islamic law) and tafsīr (explanation of the Qur’ān), in order that application of Islamic laws does not become confused. Someone who is ignorant of repealed laws may try to apply them and end up doing haraam acts and calling others to ḥarām. Thus, it was reported that once ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib رضي الله عنه, the fourth Caliph, passed by a judge and asked him if he knew in which laws naskh had occurred. The man replied, “No.” ‘Alee said to him, “You have perished and caused others to perish!”[1] However, it should be noted that the number of authentic cases of naskh are few and far between. There are only three reliable ways to identify these cases:

1. A clearly worded narration from Rasūl Allāh صلى الله عليه و سلم or one of his companions . For example, Rasūl Allāh صلى الله عليه و سلم was reported to have said,

“ I used to forbid you from visiting graves, but (now) you should visit them, as

surely they are reminders (of the next life).” [2]

One of the Ṣaḥābah by the name of Salamah ibn al-Akwa‘ رضي الله عنه reported that when the verse,

وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ

“And the redemption for those who have difficulty with (fasting) is the

feeding of a poor person,”[3]

was revealed, whoever wanted to stop fasting would redeem himself, until the verse after it [4] was revealed and replaced it:

فَمَن شَهِدَ مِنكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ

“Whoever among you who witnesses the (beginning of) the month

should fast (the month).”[5]

2. The unanimous agreement of early Muslim scholars on both the law which was replaced and the one which replaced it. That is, their recognition of the fact that an abrogation took place and not their agreement to abrogate a divine law. An example of this can be found in a ḥadīth wherein Rasūl Allāh صلى الله عليه و سلمsaid,

“Whip whoever takes intoxicants (each time he is caught) and on the fourth time

kill him.” [6]

The Ṣaḥābah رضي الله عنهمwere unanimous on the fact that the one who took intoxicants was no longer to be executed. They did not repeal the law by unanimous agreement (ijmā ‘), but the law was not applied because it was known to all of them that Rasūl Allāh صلى الله عليه و سلمrepealed it.[7]

3. Reliable historical knowledge of a law being put into practice during an earlier historical period, then a later law appears to clearly contradict it. For example, Shaddād ibn Aws رضي الله عنه reported that at the time of the conquest of Makkah (8AH/630 CE), Rasūl Allāh صلى الله عليه و سلمsaid,

“The cupper and the cupped[8]have both broken the fast.” [9]

On the other hand, Ibn ‘Abbās رضي الله عنهما reported that Rasūl Allāh صلى الله عليه و سلمwas cupped while fasting and while he was in iḥrām. [10]Some versions of this report also mentioned that it took place during the Farewell Pilgrimage (10 AH/632 CE).33 [11]

Naskh cannot be determined by ijtihād (reasoning in the absence of clear evidence), nor by the opinion of a Qur’ānic commentator, nor solely by the apparent contradiction of texts. And indeed, Allāh سبحانه و تعالى knows best.

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

الحمد الله

Divine laws were revealed by Allāh سبحانه و تعالى to His messengers عليهم صلواة و السلام for the purpose of correcting man’s beliefs about Allāh سبحانه و تعالى (‘aqīdah), his methods of worshipping Allāh سبحانه و تعالى (‘ibādah), and his social life or social conduct (mu’amalāt). Since there is only one correct belief about Allāh سبحانه و تعالى tawḥīd, whereby Allāh سبحانه و تعالى is considered as One, without partner in His essence, His attributes, His actions, and right of worship, all of the prophets invited mankind to that belief in exactly the same way.

However, in the case of methods of worship and social conduct, the same format was not used in all cases. Thus Allāh سبحانه و تعالى repealed Laws in certain conditions and this is known as Naskh. The proof of this is in the ayah,

مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا ۗ أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“Whatever verse I have abrogated or caused to be forgotten, I will bring another better than it or equal to it.”[1]

CONDITIONS FOR NASKH

For naskh to have taken place, the following three conditions must have been fulfilled:

1. The law which has been replaced has to have been a divine law. This means that the gradual prohibition of alcohol would not be classified as naskh, because each successive verse only expanded the prohibitive scope of the previous verse. The original behaviour of the people was to act as if alcohol was lawful. It was their assumption that alcohol was permissible that was gradually abolished by the three verses on this subject, not any previous statement by Allaah that liquor was permissible.

2. The proof used to replace the old law has to be a divine command which was revealed after the revelation of the old law.

3. The law which is to be replaced cannot have a specific time limit attached to it from the time of its revelation. If it has a limited time period, it simply becomes void when the time period ends, and such a process is not considered as naskh. For instance, fasting is required daily until sunset during Ramaḍān. The permission to eat at night during Ramaḍān or, after it is over, by day or night, doesn’t involve naskh.[2]

It should be noted that naskh only occurs to divine commands and prohibitions. Naskh cannot occur to statements of fact, because such statements are either true or false, so to say that a previous report has been abrogated really means it was either a deliberate lie or an error, both of which may not be attributed to Allāh سبحانه و تعالى.

Therefore, descriptions of Allāh سبحانه و تعالى’s attributes, the stories of the previous prophets and their peoples, parables and descriptions of the hereafter are all excluded from the category of naskh. Likewise, the divine promises and warnings are excluded, because Allāh سبحانه و تعالى doesn’t break His promises. Nor could one call it naskh if Allāh سبحانه و تعالى promises the believers gardens in paradise in an early verse and in a later verse promises them the pleasure of seeing Him. The promise of gardens has not been replaced by the promise of seeing Allāh سبحانه و تعالى; rather, both will happen.[3]

It should also be noted that the underlying principles of worship and moral behaviour have not changed through the ages. Ṣalāh, fasting, charity and pilgrim-age have been constant practices of Allāh سبحانه و تعالى’s religion—no matter which prophet was delivering the message—and lying, murder, adultery, cheating, etc. have been condemned by all the prophets. Therefore, the area in which naskh operates is in details of the format of a religious practice or a social law, not in the core principles.

Insha’Allah next post will discuss Knowledge of Naskh

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

الحمد الله

Last time we talked about wiping over jawraabayn and it has been made abundantly clear that wiping over the jawraabayn is allowed , an outline of the conditions and criteria of what constitutes a jawraab is appropriate:

The Aḥnāf stipulate the following conditions for the jawraab as mentioned in Al-Baḥr ar-Rā’iq:

(1) They should be طاهر and lawful

(2) They must be worn in a state of wudhu’

(3) They should cover both ankles entirely

(4) They should be durable enough that a person can walk wearing them for three miles without them being torn

(5) They should be independently free from holes to the extent of three small toes

(6) They should remain on the leg without it being tied or fastened

(7) They should be such that water is not able to seep through them

Having stated those conditions as the well known position of the Ḥanafī madhab , it is noteworthy to mention that many well-respected scholars within the Ḥanafī madhab disagreed with these conditions due to the lack of proof to support them. Amongst these scholars is the great Ḥanafī jurist, Imām al-Aṣr Muḥammad Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī (may لله have mercy upon him). The Aḥnāf called him the Imām of his era and he is frequently quoted in most of the major books of the Aḥnāf after his time. Imām al-Kashmīrī رحمه اللهwas of the opinion in his book Al-ʿArf ash-Shadhdhī Sharḥ Sunan at-Tirmidhī that the specification of 3 miles should not be set within the conditions. He held the opinion that a person should be able to continuously walk without the sock slipping-off, without specifying a distance.

The Shawāfiʿ stipulate the following conditions for the jawraab:

(1) They should be pure and lawful

(2) They must be worn in a state of wudhu’

(3) They should cover both ankles entirely

(4) They should be durable enough that a person can walk wearing them

(5) They should be independently free from holes

(6) The socks should remain on the leg

(7) They should be such that water is not able to seep through them

However, some of the Shāfiʿī scholars disagreed with their madhhab and allowed wiping over the jawraabayn without conditions. Such scholars were of the likes of Imām Yūsuf ibn Ḥusain al-Karkhī رحمه الله. Well-known and reputable scholars of the Shāfiʿī madhhab such as Imām Abū Isḥāq ash-Shirāzī, Imām al-Ghazālī, and Imām an-Nawawī رحمهم الله. all indicate that there is disagreement regarding the condition of the jawraabayn being waterproof within the Shāfiʿī madhhab in the book Al-Muhadhdhab.

The Ḥanabilah stipulate the following conditions for the jawraab:

(1) They should be pure and lawful

(2) They must be worn in a state of wudhu’

(3) They should cover both ankles entirely

(4) They should be durable enough that a person can walk wearing them

(5) The socks should remain on the leg

(6) They should be free from major holes that would expose the skin

Al-Imām Ibn Qudāmah رحمه اللهwrites in his masterpiece on Fiqh, Al-Mughnī Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar al-Khiraqī:

“It is only allowed to wipe over the jawraabayn if two conditions are met: the first is that they are thick to the point that nothing of the foot is visible; the second is that it is possible to walk in them for some length. This is the clear meaning of al-Khiraqī’s words.”

Imām Aḥmad رحمه اللهsaid regarding wiping over the jawraabayn without sandals:

“If he walks on them and they remain upon his feet, then there is nothing wrong with doing so.”

On another occasion, he said:

“He can wipe over them if they remain firm upon his heels.”

Yet another time he said:

“If he can walk in them without their falling down, then there is nothing wrong with his wiping over them. This is because if they fall down, the part (of the foot) that needs to be washed in wudhu’ becomes exposed.”

Imām Abū al-Faraj ʿAbd Ar-Raḥmān (ʿAbdurRaḥmān) ibn Qudāmah رحمه اللهwrites in Ash-Sharḥ al-Kabīr:

“A jawraab is equivalent to the khuff, because it is something worn that covers the area that needs to be washed and is something that can be walked in for some length. As for those who argue that it is not possible to walk at length while wearing a jawraab, we say it is only allowed to wipe over them if they hold their place on their own and it is possible to walk in them at length; otherwise it is not. As for the sheer socks, they do not provide cover.”

Imām at-Taghlabī رحمه اللهwrites in his well-known book of Ḥanbalī Fiqh, which is a commentary of Dalīl aṭ-Ṭālib, that the material does not need to be waterproof.

Hence those scholars who have claimed consensus that one of the conditions of the jawraabayn is that it needs to be waterproof are in plain error. Nor is there consensus that one must walk in them 3 miles, since the Ḥanabilah and others did not stipulate any distance. In-fact, within the Aḥnāf and Shawāfi’ there is not an consensus on these conditions.

Some of the Ḥanabilah stipulated that they be free from any holes, while others like Shaikh al-Islām Ibn Taimīyah and Ibn Qaiyim al-Jauzīyah (may لله have mercy upon them both) disagreed and allowed wiping over the socks with holes.One of the more moderate fatāwā on this issue was recently given by one of the highest authorities amongst the Ḥanabilah, al-Lajnah ad-Dā’imah. This is the senior most committee of scholars from Saʿūdīyah.

They recently issued a fatwā which is mentioned in Fatāwā al-Lajnah ad-Dā’imah regarding the jawraab stating:

“It is allowed to wipe over them instead of washing one’s feet when doing wudhu’ if they were put on when one was in a state of purification . (This is allowed ) Unless the holes are bigger than is ordinarily acceptable, or if the jawraabayn are so thin that the feet would be judged to be naked, because they show the color of the skin beneath them.”

In synopsis, it seems the scholars of the four Madhahib agree upon the following conditions:

(1) They should be purification and lawful

(2) They must be worn in a state of wudhu’

(3) They should cover both ankles entirely

(4) They should be durable enough that a person can walk wearing them

(5) The socks should remain on the leg

(6) They should be free from major holes that would expose the skin

These conditions are agreed upon by the scholars of the four madhahib , yet consensus of the Ummah can not be claimed, since some of the scholars of Islām such as Ibn Ḥazm رحمه اللهand others allowed wiping over thin socks.

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

الحمد الله

Almost everyone who knows the basic fiqh of Tahaarah knows the permissibility of wiping over ones khuffayn or the two leather socks. But then one might ask, “What about wiping over normal socks, is it permissible of not?” Then to answer this question, we first understand what the ‘ulamaa’ have described khuff and jawraab as.

Imām ash-Shawkānī رحمه الله explains in his famous commentary, Nail al-Awṭār:

“The khuff is the leather sock that covers the ankle bones.”

This is in accordance with what has been mentioned in classical Arabic dictionaries. Two of the best-known and well-respected classical Arabic dictionaries, Tahdhīb al-Lughah and al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ, describe the khuff as:

“That which is made from thin leather which is worn over the foot.”

The ruling on it is clear to everyone which is; that it is permitted to wipe over them thus I shall not be mentioning any proofs for it.

Shaykh Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ ibn ʿUthaymīn رحمه الله explains the meanings of both khuff and jawraab in Fatāwā Fī l-Masḥ ʿAlā l-Khuffayn:

“The meaning of khuff is that which is worn on the foot being made of leather and that which is like it. The meaning of jawraab is that which is worn on the foot being made of cotton and that which is like it; it is what is referred to commonly as shurrāb.”

The famous linguist Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī رحمه الله said:

“Jawraab means a thin cover for the feet made of wool, worn to keep the feet warm.”

Regarding the permissibility of wiping over the jawaarabayn, this is an issue that mandates some discussion. It would seem that all of the ‘ulamaa’ permitted wiping over the jawaarabayn , however they disagreed in regards to the conditions. These conditions will be discussed later, as the opinions of all the four well-known madhahib and other ‘ulamaa’ in regards to the permissibility are now mentioned:

The Ḥanafī Opinion: According to all the classic works of fiqh of the Aḥnāf, wiping over the jawaarabayn is permissible.

Imām al-Kasānī رحمه الله states that wiping over the jawaarabayn is not permissible according to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله; while it is permissible according to Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad ash-Shaibānī رحمهما الله. Later he mentions that it is narrated that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله changed his opinion during his last days and allowed wiping over the jawaarabayn

This is in-fact a strong narration as it was recorded by Imām at-Tirmidhī رحمه الله, who said:

“I heard Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad رحمه الله say that he heard from Abū Muqattil as-Samarqandī رحمه الله, who said that he visited Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله while he was in the illness from which he died. He called for water to be brought; he made wudhu’ while he was wearing jawaarabayn , and he wiped over them. He said: “I have done today something that I forbid before. I wiped over the jawaarabayn and they do not have leather soles.””

This is further clarified by the Ḥanafī ‘alim, Ibn ʿĀbidīn رحمه الله:

“It is related concerning him, Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله, that he returned to their position (meaning the position of his students Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad ash-Shaibānī رحمهما الله, and the fatwā is upon this.”

Hence allowing one to wipe over the jawaarabayn was the final opinion of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله as well as the opinion of both of his major students. According to the Ḥanafī muftī Ibn ʿĀbidīn رحمه الله, this is the most accepted opinion of the Ḥanafī madhhab

Mālikī Opinion: According to Imām Ibn al-Qāsim’s رحمه الله al-Mudauwanah, a classical work of فقه of the Mālikīyah, wiping over the jawaarabayn is permissible

Shāfiʿī Opinion: According to Imām an-Nawawī’s رحمه الله al-Majmūʿ, wiping over the jawaarabayn is permissible and that this is the most accepted position of the Shawāfiʿ; he went as far as to say that if the jawaarabayn were made out of glass while it being possible to walk in them, it would be permissible to wipe over them.

Ḥanbalī Opinion: Wiping over the jawaarabayn is permissible and is clearly the established, well-known, most accepted position of the Ḥanabilah.

The famous Ḥanbalī jurist Imām al-Khiraqī رحمه الله, writes in his Mukhtaṣar:

“Nothing can be wiped over except the خف and what serves the same purpose: like the maqṭūʿān (short leather socks) that come above the ankles and likewise the jawraabayn that are thick and do not fall down when they are walked in.”

Imām Bahā’ ad-Dīn al-Maqdisī رحمه الله explains that it is not necessary that they be made of leather. He quotes Imām Aḥmad رحمه الله in Al-ʿUddah Sharḥ al-ʿUmdah to have said:

“Wiping over the jawraabayn is related from seven or eight of the صحابة رضي الله عنهم of Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه و سلم”

Hence we see the ijmaa’of all four of the well-known madhahib on this issue. As for the proof, then he hadith in Sunan at-Tirmidhī:

Al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah (may لله be pleased with him) reported that the Rasul Allah (SAWS): “made wudhu’and wiped over his jawraabayn and naʿlain (sandals).”

Imām at-Tirmidhī رحمه الله said in regards to this hadith:

“It is hasan sahih , and this is the position of more than one of the people of knowledge; and it is adopted by Sufyān ath-Thaurī, Ibn al-Mubārak, ash-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq رحمهم الله, who all said: “One may wipe over the jawraabayn even if not wearing sandals, provided they are thick.”

Other Mauqūf ahadith reporting wiping over the jawraabayn are narrated from the following list of Sahabah رضي الله عنهم:

(1) ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib

(2) Ibn Masʿūd

(3) al-Barā’ ibn ʿĀzib

(4) Anas ibn Mālik

(5) Abū Umāmah

(6) Sahl ibn Saʿd

(7)ʿAmr ibn Ḥuraith

(8) ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb

(9) Ibn ʿAbbās

Imām ash-Shaukānī رحمه الله has related these in Nail al-Awṭār.

Imām Ibn Saiyid an-Nās رحمه الله continues the list in his Sharḥ al-Tirmidhi:

(10) ʿAbd لله (ʿAbdullāh) ibn ʿUmar

(11) Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ

(12) Abū Masʿūd al-Badrī

(13) ʿUqbah ibn ʿUmar

Yaḥyā al-Bakkā’ رحمه الله narrates that he heard Ibn ʿUmar (may لله be pleased with him) saying:

“Wiping over the jawraabayn is like wiping over the khuffayn.”

Ibn Ḥazm رحمه الله said in Al-Muḥallah:

“Wiping over anything that is worn on the feet – of things that are جائز to be worn and which come up above the ankles – is Sunnah ; whether they are khuffayn made of leather, felt, or wood; or if they are jawraabayn made of linen, wool, cotton, camel hair, or goat hair - whether leather is worn over them or not, or whether they are overshoes or slippers worn over slippers or socks worn over socks.”

Ibn al-Mundhir رحمه الله made a very valuable point when he said:

“Wiping over the jawraabayn is narrated from nine different Sahabah رضي الله عنهم, and there was none known to oppose them.”

الحمد الله

Cheese is great. So if you are a fan of cheese you might be asking yourself the question, is cheese made by non-Muslims allowed or not?

Well if it is cheese made from vegetarian rennet then there is no concern but the issue is with cheese made from natural rennet. Rennet is extracted from the stomachs of calves and contains enzymes that are used in the cheese making process. Bellow are quotes from scholars of the four schools:

Al Mabsoot, a Hanafi reference, states: “Cheese is halal even if it is made by Zoroastrians (polytheists of Persia who used to worship fire) because it is narrated that a servant of Salman al Farisi, when he was a governor of al Mada’in, brought him a basket full of cheese along with some bread and a knife. Salman (ra) would cut pieces of the cheese and hand it out to his companions and would explain to them how cheese is made.”

The Maliki book, Manh al Jaleel says that “Imam Malik disliked cheese because it was made by rennet of animals that are not slaughtered according to Sharia rules (maitah).” The author quotes another Maliki scholar, Abu Ishaaq al Tunusi as saying that “the cheese of the Zoroastrians is definitely haram but the cheese of the people of the book is halal.”

In Sharh al Bahja, a Shafi’i reference, cheese is allowed as long as the rennet is obtained from a properly slaughtered halal animal that is only feeding on milk otherwise the contents of its stomach are najis (impure).

Kashaaf al Qinaa’ in Hanbali fiqh states that the cheese of the Zoroastrians and other polytheists is allowed even if it is made from rennet of animals they slaughtered. Which means that the cheese made by the People of the Book is also allowed.

By far the most detailed in his discussion of the topic is Ibn Taymiyyah. He talks about it in the fatawa v4-p396, v5-p29, and v9-p218, 240 and 241.

He states that there are two opinions regarding the cheese of the animal that is not slaughtered according to sharia rules. According to Imam Abu Hanifa and one narration from Imam Ahmad it is halal (keep in mind that we are talking about the rennet and not the meat of the animal). The other opinion is that it is najis and that is according to Imam Malik, al Shafi’i, and the other narration from Imam Ahmad. The stronger opinion is that it is halal because when the Sahaba opened the land of Iraq they ate from the cheese of the Zoroastrians and this was common among them.

Ibn Taymiyyah was further asked about the cheese imported from the Ifranj. The Ifranj is Arabic of ‘the Franks’ and this was the name given to the people of Western Europe. Since the largest group among the early crusading armies where the French, the Arabs called all the peoples of Western Europe Ifranj.

The summary of Ibn Taymiyyah’s answer is that the reason some say their cheese is haram is because when they ship it by sea they seal it with lard and secondly because they do not slaughter their cows but they kill them by striking their heads. He responds to the first concern by saying that sealing the cheese with lard does not make it all impure but only the parts that touch the lard. If that part is removed the rest is halal. Rasulullah was asked about a rat that falls into butter and dies. He said remove the rat and the butter around it and eat the rest. If a rat does not contaminate the butter it falls into, how can we claim that all the cheese becomes impure when the lard is only on its surface?

His response to the second concern is that it is reported that they do not kill all their animals by striking the head but they only do that with cows, and even then, they would still slaughter the cow after it falls down and this does not make the animal haram. And even if we would consider this animal to be haram there are two opinions concerning the rennet extracted from it.

In conclusion it is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah that cheese is halal not only if it is made by the People of the Book but even if it is made by polytheists.

Obviously these quotations from the scholars are on cheese per se and do not take into account the economical boycott considerations that Muslims may have against certain nations.

Some of our historians mention that a barbaric polytheistic people would raid al Andalus every now and then. These where from the Scandinavian states. They were Danish, Swedish or Norwegian. They were men of the sea and would attack the Muslim coastal areas of the Iberian peninsula and kill and pillage before disappearing again into the seas. They once reached all the way up to Seville but where driven out back to the sea after a total stay of around forty days. Some of them stayed behind in al Andalus in a place called Shuraish and became Muslim and lived on raising cows. Since they were experts in dairy products, the cheese of Shuraish became famous and they would make a pastry from it called mujabinaat. Apparently this treat was so good there was a famous saying in al Andalus that “whoever visits Shuraish and does not have mujabinaat is deprived.” There are even lines of poetry talking about mujabinaat. Talk about fans of cheese!

By Imam Anwar Al ‘Awlaki حفظه الله

الحمد الله

Definition

The Arabic word for beard is lihyah. It derives from lahy (jaw) and lahyan (the two jaws). Thus, a beard is defined as the hair that grows on the cheeks and jaws- [Al-Qamus ul-Muhit by al-Fayruzabadi, and Lisan ul-Arab by Ibn Manzur]. It includes the hair that grows on the temples, underneath the lower lip, the hair of the chin, and the hair that grows on the lower side of the jaws.

Ruling

Growing the beard is wajib (mandatory) for all males who are capable of doing so. As will be presented below, there is ample evidence for this in the Sunnah, and it is the unanimous opinion of the ‘ulama’ of Islam.

Position of the Scholars

All the ‘ulama’ (scholars) of as-Salaf us-Salih (the Righteous early Muslims),including the Four Imams, agree that shaving the beard is haram (prohibited). They consider shaving it an impermissible mutilation, as has been reported from Umar Bin Abdul Aziz- [At-Tarikh by Ibn Asakir]. They considered the man who shaved his beard effeminate. Many of them would not accept his testimony or allow him to lead the prayers.

THE HANAFIS

According to the Hanafis: “It is prohibited for a man to cut his beard … as for cutting it shorter than a fist-length – as is done by some people from the west and by the effeminate men – no one permits this. And as for shaving it completely, it is the doing of the Indian Jews and the Persian Magians” [Persian Magians-Followers of an old religion, possibly the same as the "Zoroastrians"] [Ad-Durr ul-Mukhtar].

The author mentions the positions of all the 4 Imams and other scholars with detailed evidences

By Muhammad Al Jibaaly حفظه الله

Beard Between Salaf and Khalaf

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

الحمد الله

Imaam Muslim’s Position: That Weak Ahaadeeth Are To Be Discarded & That Authentic Ahaadeeth Are Only To Be Narrated :- He says in the introduction of his ‘saheeh’:

“To proceed, may Allaah have mercy upon you – if it were not for the evil practice that we have seen from many who take upon themselves the position of muhaddith in their leaving the obligation to discard the weak ahaadeeth and ‘munkar’ narration’s and to suffice with only the authentic ahaadeeth – well known and transmitted by the reliable narrators, well known for their truthfulness and trustworthiness after knowing and admitting with their tongues that much of what they fling at the ignorant people is to be rejected, and is transmitted by unsatisfactory narrators whose narration’s are censured by the scholars of hadeeth such as Maalik, Shu’bah, Yahya Ibn Sa’eed al Qattaan and others. So it has become easy for me to carry out what you ask regarding differentiating and gathering [ahaadeeth], because of what we have informed you of a people’s spreading ‘munkar’ narration’s with weak and unknown isnaads ~ and flinging them to the common people who are unaware of their weakness – then due to this – what you have asked has become easy upon my heart.

And know! May Allaah ta’ala grant you success – that what is obligatory upon everyone who is able to distinguish because authentic and weak narration’s, and between the reliable and suspect narrators is that he should not narrate there from except that known to be authentic and have trustworthy narrators, and that he should avoid there from that narrated by narrators accused of lying, or wilful innovators – and the proof that what we have said is an obligation, not something lesser than it is Allaah’s saying: [al-Hujuraat:6], and His saying:

[Suratul-Baqarah:282], and He said: [Suratut-Talaaq:2]

So the Ayaatayn that we have mentioned show that the report of the Fasiq is not acceptable and that the witness of any but the trustworthy is rejected. And the narration – even if its meaning is different to that of the witness in some respects, since the report of the Fasiq is unacceptable to the scholars just as his witness is rejected by everyone, and the Sunnah shows that the munkar narration’s are to be rejected – just as the Qur’an shows that the report of the

Fasiq is rejected. And it is the famous narration from Allaah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam):

“He who narrates from me a saying and thinks that it is a lie then he is one of the liars. “.

Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaibah narrated to us…

• He then quotes his isnaads from al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah from the Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). Then he quotes other marfoo’ ahaadeeth and mawqoof Aathaar warning against narrating that whose authenticity is unknown.

Then Imaam Muslim quotes the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah and the saying of Imaam Maalik and ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi – concerning not narrating everything which one hears:

• Abu Hurairah – radiAllaahu’anhu – reports that the Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

“It is sufficient falsehood for a person that he narrates everything which he hears.”

• Imaam Maalik said: “A man will not be safe if he narrates everything which he hears and will never be an Imaam if he quotes everything which he hears. “

• Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi said: “A man will never become an Imaam who is taken as an example until he withholds a part of what he heard.” [i.e. That which is not known to be authentic – since concealing authentic knowledge is forbidden]

• Ibn al ‘Arabi al-Maaliki said: “The weak hadeeth is not be acted upon at all.”

Conditions For Acting Upon A Weak Hadeeth (with those who hold that it may be acted upon) al-Haafiz as-Sakhawee says in ‘al-Qawlul-Badee’:

Read More

بسم الله الرحمان الحيم

الحمد الله

The benefits of the study of Usul al Fiqh are many. From a study of Usul, we come to know the methods of interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah, all the secondary sources of Islamic law, the views on Usul of major scholars of the past and present, the rules of Qiyas and other methods of Ijtihad, the history of development of Islamic law and legal theory. All these make anybody who studies Usul cautious in approach to Islamic law. He develops respect for the methodology of past masters and becomes aware of the need to follow rules in the matters of deduction of new rules of Islamic law. The principal objective of Usul is to regulate Ijtihad and guide the jurist in his effort at deducing the law from the sources. Primarily Usul al Fiqh deals with the sources or roots (Adillah) of Islamic law and the law itself. Usul al Fiqh (Usul is plural of Asl) the bases or roots of Islamic Law, expound the methods by which Fiqh (detail Islamic law) is derived from their sources. In this view, Usul is the methodology and the Fiqh is the product. Historically, there have been two dominant paradigms in approaching usul al-fiqh:

The first approach involves discovering an Imam’s principles by analyzing his legal decisions.The second approach involves setting down legal principles from which legal decisions are derived. Both approaches prove the preponderance of their principles using Qur’an; sunnah; precedence from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), his Companions (Allah be pleased with them) and the righteous forbears; linguistics; and logical.

The first approach is known as the way of the fuqaha, and it is an approach

popularized by the Hanafis. The second approach is known as the way of the mutakallimin, and it was first systematically formulated by Imam al-Shafi`i but is also followed by the Malikis and

Hanbalis. There is a third approach that follows a path between the preceding two approaches.

By Yahya Ibrahim حفظه الله

Read More

الحمد الله

Question:

If there is some issue and there is more than one shar’i fatwa concerning it, and a fatwa that says it is halaal (permissible) and a fatwa that says it is haraam (forbidden), and a fatwa that is in between, then which should the Muslim choose, especially with regard to modern issues in which qiyaas (analogy) and ijtihaad (studying an issue within the framework of the Qur’aan and Sunnah) may play a part, and concerning which there is no shar’i text, such as bank interest, or what we call investments or returns on investment, or any other new names that are given to it?

What do you say about people who say that this is the fatwa of a scholar, and that he is responsible for it, and that it is hung around his neck?

What is your view on one who follows the dispensations granted by the scholars or the easier options that they grant? They say that these are the people of knowledge and these are their fatwas, and they know better than we do about that? But their fatwa may go against the fatwas of other shaykhs and scholars in the same country or in other countries, so which of them should we follow? How can we know what is right and what is not? Please note that most people do not have sufficient knowledge to decide whether the fatwa issued by a scholar or mufti differs from those issued by other scholars.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Before answering this important question, we must first describe the conditions that must be met by the mufti so that he may be regarded as one of the people of knowledge whose words count and if he expresses a different view we may then say that there is indeed a difference of opinion among the scholars. There are many such conditions, which ultimately boil down to two:

1 – Knowledge, because the mufti will be telling people about the rulings of Allaah, and he cannot speak of the rulings of Allaah if he is ignorant of them.

2 – Soundness of character, i.e., he is righteous in all his affairs, he fears Allaah and he keeps away from anything that may undermine his credibility. The scholars are agreed that a fatwa cannot be accepted from one who is immoral, even if he is knowledgeable. This was clearly stated by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi.

Read More

]]> http://alshariah.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/our-attitude-towards-differences-among-the-scholars/feed/ 0 Ibn Abi Ukhti