Masaa'il al-Jaahiliyyah Question and Answer Session
Question 1: My mother would like to know if its known at what point did Paul begin to distort the creed of the Prophet 'Eesa after Allaah raised 'Eesaa?
Answer: I don't know. Some of our brothers were studious in Christianity before Islam. Maybe if you find some people like that they can answer that question for you. But again the history and the narrations of the Christians are all suspects, even the people who studied. They don't have chains for their narrations. So when we talk about things that happened in the time of 'Eesa or shortly after it, we need a chain of 2000 years and they don't have one chain for their book. And they don't have one chain for their Message that's authentic, that can be criticised, that can be put on the scale of Jarh at Ta'deel and put on the scale of academic criticism. So, with that its all a bunch of claims and the best you are going to get with the answer to that question from the most learned person is 'they say this...' and we really would not be able to verify that. Unless we have an ayaah from the Quran or revelation in another form given to Muhammad salalaa' hualayhi wasalām that we learned about that from and Allah knows best.
Question 2: I have read that The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) later learned to read later in his life. Is this true or not and what is the evidence?
Answer: I think people, theyve undermined some of the miracles of The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam). That our Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam), in a hadith in Sahih Bukhari where it says that The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) 'كتب' that he wrote something in the Sulh Hudaybiyah, so people have taken this. And they have taken another story where The Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) was asked about stoning the adulterer by a Jew. And he asked the Jew to bring the Taurat or what they had from the Taurat (the Torah). And they brought it and he pointed to the verse of stoning and they even tried to hide it. They tried to make it so that he wouldn't be able to point to it but he pointed to it. So some people have said and adding to these two points, a third point that they feel that its kind of a disgrace for their Prophet to be illiterate. That it is not befitting that the best of humanity could not read and write. Perhaps because of their 'Ghuloo' in going overboard and their misunderstanding of the religion of Allah in saying that the first order in Islam was for literacy. 'أقرا', Read! The first command of Allah was to read. So then we are the nation of read, we are the the nation of literacy. When people go over board with these new kinds of explanations, what happens in the end is Muslims start to say "O yes, we are the nation, we are the people of literacy. We believe that a foundational point in our religion that you have to be literate. And without literacy you could not accomplish anything".
Then you would have to blame The Messenger of Allaah (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) for going on for 23 years after that revelation and he did not learn to read or write. So then you would say that our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam), if our deen obliges us to be literate and read and write and its from the most important aspects of our deen the our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) failed to fulfill the very first order in the Quran which some people explain it is the order for literacy. Obviously, the very first order in the Quran was not for literacy. Our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) implemented every order that came down to him from Allaah at the instant he was ordered. So when he was told 'أقرا' and he became able by having Jibreel read the ayah to him so he read the ayah. Not that he read them from something in a book or that he was given ability to read and be literate at the point. So these three things have led some people to say that:
'No, there's something in Islam that points to The Messenger of Allah being able to read.'
We say that this is undermining the miracle of The Quran. One of the aspects of the miracle of the Book of Allah, is the Allaahu ta ala sent this amazing book to a man who could not have brought it to the people from himself. Allahu ta ala sent the Quran by the way of a man who was not known to read or write and did not know in reality. He was called by Allaah with the description 'al Umme', that he was illiterate.
So if he became literate we would have narrations that are very clear and as you have (the questioner) has said: 'Whats the evidence?'
Thats what we would ask anyone who claims that The Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) became literate.
What about the Suhl Hudaybiyah? When the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) wrote something. It says that he wrote 'Bismillahir' Rahmanir' Raheem'.
And they said' No, we do not believe in Rahman. Write 'bismik, Allahuma (In your name O Allah).' And so he allowed them to make this adjustment. And then in the narration in Sahih Bukhari, it says that he then wrote 'Muhammad, The Messenger of Allaah' or he mentioned himself as The Messenger of Allah.
They said: 'No! If we believed that you are The Messenger of Allaah we wouldn't need this Suhl and there would be nothing between us and you.'
So he allowed them to change it to Muhammad ibn Abdillaah.
Now, does this mean that The Messenger of Allaah (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) was writing? This is only understood by the people who have not learned their religion from the scholars, from Ahlul Ilm. They just take a book of hadith and read it and go "there's proof right there that he was writing by the time of Hudaybiyah. That was near the end of his Messenger and he was writing. So obviously, he learned to read and write by that time."
Detailed narrations of that same event show us clearly that it was Ali ibn Abū Taalib who was doing the writing. And that The Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) wrote something is how we talk about people of authority and when they order something to be done. (For Example, The king wrote a book which means he dictated it to some scribes.) Abū Bakr As Sideeq gathered the Quran in one mushaf, meaning that he ordered Zayd ibn Thabit to sit in the masjid and collect the pages and the pieces of wood and pieces of leaves and so on and put it into one book. Not that Abū Bakr as Sideeq himself did it but we say at the end of the day like Ali (radhiyallahu anh) said, which is collected by Imam Ahmed in his Fudal as Sahaba,
"May Allah have mercy on Abū Bakr. He is the first one who gathered the Quran between the two covers."
Abū Bakr as Sideeq ordered it to be done and was done under his authority. So we consider this in Arabic, (Nisaabtul Amr illa Amir) ascribing the action which was done to the one who ordered it to be done. And this is even in the Quran were Allaahu ta ala has ordered things and action comes as an ascription to Himself, but he ordered it to be done. An example of that is the reading of the Quran from Jibreel to Muhammad (salalaa' hualayhi wasalām) and Allahu ta ala says in Surah Qiyamah:
(Explanation of the verse) ' And when We read it upon you, the follow after its recitation'
The scholars of tafsir said unanimously that Allaah has referred to Himself as the reader. Saying ' when We read it to you'. However, the meaning is when we ordered Jibreel to read it upon you. As is known that the Quran was read by Jibreel to The Messenger (salalaa' hualayhi wasalām). We do not have scholars from Ahlul Sunnah saying that we affirm now a 'Qira'a' for Allah, a recitation of Allah.1
That's the issue of Hudaybiyah, what is the other issue? The Jew and the Taurat and The Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) pointing to it. That does not prove in anyway that he could read or write. That is another miracle from the miracles of our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam). His finger was guided by who? Allaah. Allahu ta ala placed his finger at the verse. The Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) was upon revelation. He wasnt guessing nor was he able to read and write. If we say that he was able to read and write using this as evidence, your seriously self contradictory because now you have made him multi-lingual! Now you have made him able to read Arabic and Hebrew! So now you have gone way outside of what the people of the Sunnah have understood about our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam). He did not read the Torah, he pointed to the verse in the Torah. He did not write something himself in the Suhl Hudaybiyah but he ordered Ali ibn Abū Taalib to write. 2
There is no blame and no shame on our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) for being illiterate because Allaahu ta ala chose him above all of the people, above everyone on earth. And out of all the Messengers, Allahu ta ala disguished our Messenger among all of them as the best and finest of the creation and the best and finest of mankind.
The Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) conveyed this distinction to us as is found in Sahih Muslim in the hadith he said:
' I am the chief of all of the children of Aadam and I do not say this out of arrogance (or Bragging)'
Our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) was the very best of mankind. So then him being illiterate is absolutely no shame and blame involved and is in fact related to the miracle that he conveyed this book without being able to read or write. The people who try and undermine that, then it becomes much less of a miracle for them. That there is actually read or write or it came out that later that he could read or write. So then, the people who want to doubt in Islam have won more angle to doubt about. They go 'well he may have written the book himself.'
Of course with proper contemplation that will be be rejected however, the people of doubts are always looking for one reason to bring a new doubt about and ALLAH KNOWS BEST!
1. One of the many points against Yusuf Estes.
2. Mentioned in Fath al Baari if you want to read the explanation of the hadith in Sahih Bukhari.
Masaa'il al-Jaahiliyyah Question and Answer Session
Question 1: Some people when referring to their past when they weren't practicing the deen they say "in my Jaahiliyyah'. Is this a correct description if one was a Muslim in that period of their life?
Answer: if one was a Muslim, then as we mentioned there is no general description of Jaahiliyyah. They can say " when i had some actions from Jaahiliyyah". But they shouldn't say in my Jaahiliyyah if they were Muslims because Jaahiliyyah is the opposite to Islam. So if a person is in Jaahiliyyah, he's not from Islām and if a person is in Islām, then he is not from Jaahiliyyah. As explained by our Shaykh in today's lesson. (See Lesson 2)
Question 2: Can you just briefly explain what 'seeking rain from the stars' means? Excuse me for asking as you mentioned that it has been explained in the previous class but I don;t understand. BarakaAllahu Feek
Answer: Review the appropriate chapter in Kitaab At Tawḥīd.
Question 3: Will the power point be available and also are you teaching from the longer version, the explanation?
Answer: (Power point was not available at the time but should be up now Inshaa Allaahu ta'ala). Regarding the explantion, I am actually reading from Sharḥ Al Masaa'il Al Jaahiliyyah, the explanation of Masaa'il Al Jaahiliyyah. The text is by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab at Timeemi, Shaykh ul Islam the author. The Sharḥ I am reading from is from Salih Al Fawzan. The Allamah, the premier scholars of our time. You will also hear me separating the speech of the author here and there from the comments on a passage i may give to bring some clarity. The translation of the book, The Explanation of the aspects of Ignorance is published by Al Ibaanah Publishing, authentic publishing and can be found from any good store. I have the translation with me, however it is not suited to the style I am using to teach this lesson. Please note to us any decrepicies in the forum dedicated to this class and ALLAH KNOWS BEST.
Masaa'il al-Jaahiliyyah Question and Answer Session
Question 1: If a person shows off regarding worldly things, such as having a nice car but not in acts of worship, is that still a form of shirk?
Answer: The act of showing off ones worldly possessions, could be that it's a person who has been blessed by Allaahu ta ala to have something nice and this happens a lot actually. Some one has something nice, Allaah has blessed and opened up the doors of rizq for a person who has a nice car or a nice house and a lot of people, because of their bad thoughts of their Muslim brothers and sisters, they assume that he is looking down on people and that he is showing off and this may not be the case. Such a person may simply have a nice car and it's from the blessings of Allaahu ta ala and he is generous and he helps his brothers and he is not looking down on anyone nor is he showing off. But he likes his nice car and he likes his nice belongings and that is possible without any harm to a person's Tawḥīd or any harm to his hereafter. And I say that because the second case is related to that which would be a person who has a nice car and this car or this worldly possession leads him into looking down on the people and the same kind of person looks down on people now because of this. He begins to look down on people because of his possessions. As a result, he has arrogance and this is the very definition of arrogance. From this hadith, which is in the Ṣaḥīha of Imam Muslim the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam said "The one who has the smallest amount of arrogance, he will not enter Paradise." The companions said: " O Messenger of Allah, a person likes to have nice thowb and good shoes. So the Messenger ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam approved of this and did not say this is arrogance, (by having nice things). He said: " Verily Allah is All Beautiful in every aspect of the word beauty, He possesses the most beautiful characteristics in every aspect of the word beauty."
Meaning that it is allowed for you to have something nice and appreciate it and Allahu ta ala loves this things of beauty. What is it that the Messenger of Allah ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam was warning against? Arrogance is rejecting the truth and looking down on the people. So if a person has a nice car, lets understand that there are people with nice cars who are humble and not arrogant. Be careful not to fall into that trap and this someone is arrogant because he has a nice car. That is not proof that he is arrogant. Arrogance is rejecting the truth and looking down on the people. If he has rejected the truth then he is arrogant. Has he looked down on the people by saying for example 'people don't have a nice car like mine. The people are poor and they don't have anything and I'm the one who stuff.' When he speaks like this he has arrogance. So do not assume because someone has something nice that he must be arrogant. Rather, make excuses for someone who has a history of goodness. These are the two issues. The third issue is of acts of worship. He has a nice car and he is showing off. If its true that he's showing off, is he showing off meaning he's letting the people see the blessing of Allaah and that when they look at his nice car, he says ' this is from the bounties of my Lord' and he reminds them that this is not from his own work then this is not a show off or this is not an arrogant person. This is a righteous servant of Allaahu ta ala. If the people look at his car and he begins to behave arrogantly then he is arrogant. An action of arrogance like that is something that he is threatened with punishment in deprivement in the hereafter because of it. It is not something that takes him outside the fold of Islām unless his arrogance reaches the level were he does not worship Allaah or he looks down upon the worship of Allaah even if he performs acts of worship to Allaah. That level of arrogance is the level were the person will not enter Paradise forever. However, the acts of arrogance of a worshiper of Allaah upon Tawḥīd that are less than that, meaning they look down on the people here and there, then in this case he can be forgiven, he is under the will of Allaah. If He (Allaah) chooses to punish him He will and if He chooses too excuse him then He will, that's His right and He is not asked about His right to deal with His servants however he chooses and Allaah knows best.
Question 2: If someone committed shirk and repented thereafter are his actions still void?
Answer: If someone committed shirk and repented thereafter like the majority of the companions, who were raised in Jaahiliyyah in the worship of other than Allaah. Of course they are the best of this Ummah and their actions are accepted and they are beloved to Allaah. So not only can a person have his deeds accepted after making tawbah from shirk, he can become from the very best of the people. And are his actions still void? No, his actions are not void after tawbah. Allaahu ta ala forgives all sins with tawbah. The meaning of the negation of not forgiving shirk is without tawbah. Allaahu ta ala does not forgive that shirk is made with Him for those who do not repent, however if someone repents then Allaahu ta ala forgives all sins even major shirk if a persons tawbah is complete.
Question 3: These people worshiping graves, they have committed shirk but they do this in ignorance. Does one still get punished for doing an act of shirk without knowledge?
Answer: Naam, Allaahu ta ala sent messengers to the people to be proofs upon them or in their favor on the Day of Judgment. The people who read the Quran and the proofs have reached them, then even if they're ignorant or have a high level of ignorance, the proofs have reached them and they turn away from them. And it is not for us to say that everything is excused because of ignorance. Because we know from the hadith of 'A'daab al Qabar' (punishment of the grave) that the kafir and the munafiq that will be in the grave, the angel will sit him up and ask him 'who is your lord?' he will say 'I do not know, I do not know'. In one narration he will say 'I heard the people say something and I just said what they said.' So he is ignorant and he was just following what the people of his time said. The angel will reply 'You did not know nor did you ask anyone who knew.' The proof here is established against you. You didn't know fine, you didn't read nor did you ask someone who read. Nor did you get knowledge from someone else and you had the opportunity. So now once the Message has reached the people then they are not excused because of ignorance especially with acts which are known regarding the religion by necessity. The first and foremost was the very core Message of every messenger sent to earth which is 'THAT NONE BESIDES ALLAH ARE TO BE WORSHIPPED/THAT HE IS TO BE WORSHIPPED AND NONE ALONG WITH HIM ARE TO BE WORSHIPPED.'
That is the most essential piece of information from all the messages of every prophet that was ever sent to the people. So how can a person be excused because of ignorance? In this case when the message has reached him and his people. With the exception that the Messenger ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam did inform us of 'Ahlul intihaam', the people who will have a special test on the Day of Judgment. And these categories are of people based on the narrations are the old man who could not understand anything when the message reached him, the child who dies before he could understand and do anything (meaning an infant or a very young child who dies in his early years before he has a chance to have an opinion on anything), the people who die in the period between Messengers ( the people who die and no message has reached them), deaf people who could not hear anything and a few other categories are mentioned when you gather the narrations of hadith of the special test. Some of them say there are three who will have a proof on the Day of Judgment and others just mention some people will have a proof on the Day of Judgment. When you gather them you will find these are their descriptions. They are the people who did not hear, understand or have access to the message of Tawḥīd and Allaahu ta ala is the All Just and All Fair.
As a reference for you, if you want to read about the hadith of the special test that Allaahu ta ala has for them it is that they will be brought on the Day of Judgment with their proofs. For example, the deaf person will say your messenger came to me but I could not hear a word he said and the person whose intellect has gone from him will say your messenger came to me but I could not understand anything and so on the people will present their proofs on the Day of Judgment and Allah will order a part of the hell fire to rise up and be in front of them. He will order them to enter into the fire. As the narration mentions whoever was meant to be from the people of the Paradise and he was going to be a good person then he shall go into the fire and shall find it cool and Allaahu ta ala will enter him into the Paradise. And those who have eternal misery written upon them and will not be guided, those will refuse and say 'How could we enter the fire when we used to flee from it? (in the worldly life). As a reference for this hadith because this is a hadith which has many narrations you should review the book Silsilatu ḥadīth as Ṣaḥīha. The book by the famous Shaykh of ḥadīth, the hafidh, the reviver of ḥadīth sciences in our century, Muhammad Nasir ul deen Al Albaanee rahimahullahu ta ala. It may be number 1468 or 2468.
Question 4: Is refusing to do a good action in fear of what the people will say about it because they hold this good to be an act of evil. Is this a form of shirk?
Answer: Na'am. The meaning of Al Ikhlaas as stated by some of our early Salaf,: 'That you don't consider the people at all. When you worship Allaah, whoever praises you praises you and whoever dispraises you dispraises you.' Some of them said: 'That a person who is upon Ikhlaas is the one who when the people praise him is the same to him as if they blamed him or dispraised him.' Meaning he does not care about the people in anyway what so ever. And the narration by Fudayl ibn Iyaḍ rahimahullahu ta ala 'Doing an action for the sake of the people is riyaa (shirk) and leaving an action for the sake of the people is a form of shirk, riyaa'
Question 5: Did the people of Nuh take the righteous persons as intermediaries or did they worship them instead of Allaah?
Answer: The people of Nuh worshiped them. What seems to be the case from the narration of Abdullah ibn Abbas (which there is some disputes surrounding the authenticity of it.) The narration mentions that they were convinced by the Shaytaan to worship them directly. So yes, they were worshiped directly as objects of worship. It seems that the original worshipers of Wadd, Suwaa', Yaghooth, Ya`ooq, and Nasr is that they worshiped them directly and Allah knows best. As the Shaytaan came to them after some time had passed and the knowledge had been forgotten and they told them after tricking them in previous generations, to build these statues and replicas of these great people to remind them of how great the worshipers of Allaah should be and to remind them of sincerity and the worship of Allaah. After convincing them to build those images as the narration of Abdullah ibn Abbas goes in Saah al Khabar, they were tricked into building these images and then moving them to the place were they worshiped Allaah. Then when the knowledge was forgotten they were whispered to again by the Shaytaan who told them that 'your forefathers used to worship these idols so why are you not worhsipping them?' That is the first appearance of shirk or the worship of other than Allaahu ta ala and Allaahu ta ala knows best.
Question 6: How about babies born to Muslim parents what is going to be their case?
Answer: We say about them that the Muslims and their children are in the Paradise.
Side note - there is a topic that the brother addressed many years ago on Troid. It was the ruling on the children of the mushrikeen. You can refer to that which should still be available on Troid.
Question 7: What is the Islamic ruling of Shirk Asgaar? And is swearing in something other than Allah shirk asgaar?
Answer: Shirk Asgaar is lesser shirk and its probably better for us to say lesser or less severe. A shirk of lesser severity maybe. We do not want to say minor shirk because minor shirk has a belittling kind of feel to it. When you say something is minor, you tend to not give it much importance. This applies to the arabic word 'asgaar' something which is not very big. Shirk Asgaar is a major sin in Islām. It's a kabeeran, and its worse than the generality of the major sins. It nullifies the action. Minor shirk is unacceptable. The deed is nullified and some of the scholars have said that a person who commits minor shirk will have to face punishment in the hereafter and cannot be forgiven by Allaahu tala, or will not be forgiven by Allaahu ta ala. Why? Because Allaahu ta ala says he will not forgive shirk. Meaning the person who commits minor shirk and does not make repentance from it must be punished in the hereafter according to some of the scholars and I believe that Ibn Al Qayyim held this position and others.
So minor shirk is not minor in any sense of the word. Let's call it shirk of lesser severity or a lesser form of polytheism. What is the ruling on it? Its haraam, if you mean the hukum then its not allowed. It negates and causes the action to be unacceptable to Allaah. However, it is not something which negates or nullifies all of a persons deeds. That is the ruling of Shirk Akbar, the major form of shirk.
The second part of the question can be Shirk Asgaar or Shirk Akbar. If a person swears by other than Allaah meaning, if he doesn't intend to exonerate that thing he's swearing by and he does it because of bad habit or he does it because of a custom before Islām or something like that then its impermissible and its Shirk Asgaar. But if it is combined with considering the person to be great and considering the person to be worthy of being sworn by or that his name should be used in the oath which is an act of ibaadah, and he intends ibaadah through it or he feels that this person is just as worthy or even more worthy to be sworn by other than Allaah the he's is a disbeliever because of the exoneration involved besides Allah and Allaah knows best.
Masaa'il al-Jaahiliyyah Question and Answer Session
Question one: How do we deal with people who have this aspect? Meaning that they use as a proof what their fathers/forefathers did or didn't do?
Answer: You quote the Quran that we have mentioned today to them and remind them of what Allahu ta ala said. That is the benefit of attending these kinds of lessons.
Question two: Is it obligatory to keep tied with a family member who shows enmity towards Islam?
Answer: Yes it is obligatory to keep ties with family members who show enmity towards Islam. Even when they insult Islām more than enmity. What if they abuse Islām and ridicule Islām and insult you because of your religion, you are still required to keep ties with them especially your parents.
Question 3: Many of us have been brought up in communities were we have acquaintance and friendship with people of other beliefs and religions. Is it permissible for us to keep acquaintances relationship on things other than belief?
Answer: You may keep relationships with people. Just a sole friendship, your friendship are for Allah's sake. The word friend here means wali, the person you have allegiance with. Your friend, the person that you trust, the person that you rely on, those are the Muslims. And your contacts, your network of people, that you keep in touch with for various reasons, for business, some of them may be for studies, some of them may be for dawah, to call them to Islām and so on. Those people you can keep ties with them, you do well with your interactions with them, dealing with them honestly and frankly. Those are fine for you to keep. Friendship, that are just friendships, they are for the Muslims and for the sake of Allahu ta ala and nothing else.
Masaa'il al-Jaahiliyyah Question and Answer Session
Question One: Following desires, meaning they took their desires as Gods besides Allah.
Answer: Anyone who takes his desires as that which is worshiped ultimately besides Allaah has committed shirk.
Question Two: Some Muslims are saying that you can't say that the Jews or Christians are Kuffar or in the Hell Fire when they die because you don't know how much they knew about Islām and if the proof was established on them or not. Is this correct? Can you please clarify
Answer: the proof has been established through the sending of the Messengers and Allaahu ta ala has made it so that the majority of the people have heard the message of tawḥīd through one way or another. However, Allaahu ta ala is most just and Allaahu ta ala is not going to oppress any soul in the hereafter. So anyone, case by case, we don't want to say that all the kuffar are in the hellfire. We say the kuffar are in the hellfire, in general but we don't specify individuals to be in the hellfire. Just like we say that the believers are in Paradise, but we don't specify any believer to be in Paradise. The only specification that we can use or that we can perform is one that is found in the Book and the Sunnah. So we can say for example, that Fir'oun is in the the fire. We can say for example that Abū Bakr radhi'yallahu' anhu is in Paradise. We can say for example, that so and so from the companions are in Paradise. We can also say that so and so from the enemies of The Messenger ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam is in the hellfire as there is a testimony from Allaah and His Messenger ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam.
Back to the question as for the proof; it is possible that the proof is not established on some people and I believe in our previous meeting (Class 3) I mentioned to you the ḥadīth of 'Al Intihaan'.
Side note: (you can review this in the audio from Class 3 and the mentioning of it and its sources).
The ḥadīth of the people who had not had the proof established on them in this life. They are rare exceptions, they are not the majority of the people, they are a rare exceptions. That they should be tested with a special test on The Day on Judgment and there is I believe, an audio that has been available recently by our brothers at Troid on the topic.
Question Three: Authubillaah, many people follow their desires over Allaah's command without realizing that it is actually shirk
Answer: Perhaps you have misunderstood. Of course when a person sins, this is the logic of the Khawarij and the logic of those people is that they declare Muslims to be outside the fold of Islām because of their sins. For example, they say anytime you drink alcohol or any time you commit a clear violation or a clear haraam thing then necessarily you have disbelieved in Allaah because you have taken your desires as an object of worship besides Allaah. If you really believed in Allaah you would have obeyed Him and so on. They have this kind of logic that major sins take people outside of the Islām according to this theory. This is a theory of a deviant group of Muslims that are not within the realm of Ahlul Sunnah in any way and even the scholars have differed about them being considered as Muslims or not and Allaahu ta ala knows best. We do not want to have this kind of understanding or approach. The people who follow their desires and sin, as long as they have not worshiped their desires by taking them as deities besides Allaah or having them to legislate for them halal or haraam. For example, the one who follows his desires and drinks alcohol. If he says that alcohol is now halal he is a person who has committed shirk. He has legislated, he has allowed his desires to legislate for him. The person who follows his desires to such a decree that he loves the things his desires crave more than he loves Allaah, then he has disbelieved. As Allaah says: " And the people who have eeman (faith), they are more devout in their loved of Allaah...."
Question four: Sins are committed by following desires, so how we differentiate when its shirk or not?
Answer: Refer to the previous answer
Question Five: How can someone complete their tawḥīd of Allahu ta ala?
Answer: Someone can complete their tawḥīd of Allahu ta ala by worshiping Him Alone and by not ever committing an act of shirk. The last verse of Surah Al Kahf ' And whoever hopes with their meeting with their Lord, let him work righteous deeds and not commit any act of shirk in their worship with Allah at all'. So how can one complete their tawḥīd of Allaah? In this case we will use the word eeman as a synonym for tawḥīd. Eeman is worshiping Allaah with our tongues, with our bodies, with out hearts, with our statements, with our actions. Worshiping Him alone with the actions that He likes. That is eeman and that is tawḥīd and this relates directly to a very essential element in our Religion that ignorant people today stand up against as a foundational principle in our Religion. Would you believe that there are people today who say ' no! I don't want anything to do with that' and its the basic rule of Islām. This basic rule is loving for Allaah's sake. Loving Allaah Himself, loving His book, loving His messengers, loving the Paradise, loving the angels, loving the good deeds and the people who do them, loving the masaajid and the Sha'air of Allah, the symbols of Allaah, loving the Hajj, loving the fasting, loving the ṣalāh, loving everything that Allaahu ta ala is legislated and loving the people who perform them. That a person loves another man and he loves him for the sake of Allaah. The opposite meaning is must and is a necessary requirement of that love. You can not love someone truly unless you have hatred for his sake aswell. That's the balance of true love and that is a necessary requirement of true love. You say you love Allaah, then you are required to hate those who slander Allaah, you are required to hate disbelief, disobedience, negligence, heedlessness, sinful behaviour, apostasy. You are required to hate magic and magians. You are required to hate sins like fornication, like drinking alcohol and the people who do them to the level of the action that they do them. You are required by your religion to hate those things and the people who do them. And as the Messenger ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam said:
"The person who loves for Allaah and he hates for Allaah, he gives for Allaah (zakaah and optional charity), and he with holds for Allaah, and he marries for Allah (in one narration), then he has completed his eeman."
So since its asked this question and there could be many answers and the whole deen of Allaah and practicing it in it entirety is the real answer for that, the comprehensive answer. That you enter into Islām with your entire selves and don't pick and choose what you want to do but you fulfill all of the obligations that Allaah asks from you and then you continue to draw closer to Him with optional acts of worship. That's the completion of the whole deen.
Since this question was asked, we have amongst us in the english language a foolish ignorant person who tells people openly that he gave up hating people when he accepted Islām. He says that anybody who wants from me to hate a Christian then i don't want that and anyone who wants from me to hate a Jew then i don't want that, meaning i don't want that religion. We say to the person who says this that if they understood what you saying you have just rejected the religion of Islām. Allaah has requested from you love and hatred for His sake. Allaahu ta ala has informed you in the Surah called Surah Al Fatihah that we read each and everyday in our Salah that there are people whom He hates. We ask Allah to guide us to the path which is straight, the path of those whom You have favoured not the path of those who have caused Your anger, Your 'ghadab'.. Allah is angry with some people. We know from the book of Allaah that Allaahu ta ala is angry with the Jews. He has cursed them for their horrible statements against Allaah and for their attempted murder of the messengers and the prophets of Allaah. Their jealousy of the final prophet and the last prophet before that, Eesa Ibnu Maryam. Allaah curses them and hates them and you say I love Allaah but don't have to hate anyone to be a Muslim. That's a statement of total misrepresentation of the religion of the Muslims from the very foundations. You don't have to hate anyone or anything to become a Muslims? Who lied to you? Who taught you the wrong deen? Perhaps the person came from Christianity and he wants to carry his Christian beliefs over into Islām. So Christians love everyone and they don't hate anyone. Their religion teaches them to love and overlook and not hate anyone. Even if the people have killed their people, the people who rape them, conquer them they love them and turn the other cheek and so on. They believe these are the teachings of Jesus, The Messiah. However, this is a political game taught by their Christian leaders to keep the people passive and obedient. To keep them like sheep so they can be herded up together without having any emotions other than love of everything. We are not Christians, we are not followers of misguidance. We are not the 'dhaaloon' walhemdulliah, we are not those who are astray. We are a people who have a religion from Allaah. We are people who have been guided and blessed to be better than this. We are people who love and hate for the sake of Allaah. Every person on earth loves and hates. There's no person except that he loves things and he hates things and whenever he truly loves something or someone, he will always truly hate that which stands against it which is natural. Love and hate are natural opposites and must be practiced in this way. There's no on who hates something except that he loves those who hate it and he loves those who would want to eradicate it and so on. Theres no one who loves something except that he will love the people who would want to spread it and the people who want to have it, the people who want to defend it. Muslims love and hate in a balanced system. Because we hate a disbeliever it doesn't mean we transgress, it doesn't mean we take the law into our own hands, it doesn't mean we wage an individual jihad on someone. We love and hate with balance, with a system, with order with a religion that is complete. We don't hate people randomly and hate people chaotically and i might kill you because i hate you, no. Islam our requires us to honor our contracts and honor our agreements and deal with people fairly. Now because you deal with someone fairly doesn't mean you love them and your not required to love someone that you deal with. You are required to love the people for Allaah's sake Alone and your required to hate people for Allaah's sake Alone and Allaahu ta ala knows best.
There is something relative for the modern day callers. His name is Yusuf Estes the one who says those things that we don't have to hate anyone to be a Muslim.
Question Six: Can we use any online text when you read the book of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ Al Fawzān rather than owning the book but only to improve Arabic?
Answer: Any online text that's permissible to download without a copyright violation then yes. Is you want to follow along to improve your Arabic then you need to get the book we mentioned in the beginning of the class from Dar Al Aa'simaah, Sharḥ Al Masaail Al Jaahiliyyah if you want to follow along. I think it is a good opportinity and Allaah knows best for the students who are working on their Arabic to follow along. If you've noticed, i give attention to whats called ir'baa and the qir'a is mu'ribah. The reading of the book you will see it is with ir'baa meaning that it reads the book with all of the harikat and some times there is a discussion of an angle or more than one angle of how to read it based on the grammatical structure in arabic. So if your studying arabic, you would have notied and got the benefit of the correction of 'anya kuna deenu hum wahid' which should have read ' anya kuna deenu hum waahidun' because ' deenu hum' is Ismukaan and Khabarukan is wahid and it should be waahidun because khabarukan is mansoob. So follow along if you can and you should be able to test your understanding of the Arabic grammar rules based on our reading. I would appreciate (brother Moosa) anyone who is studying Arabic and has sensed a mistake to ask about the reading or to correct me if I've made a mistake.
Question Seven: I am a none believer and i supposed you guys will hate me so I'm just going out of here.
Answer: Have you left Rishaab (questioner)? Okay your here. You more than welcome to be with us. Rishaab the religion that we are talking about is the religion of the prophets. Its the religion that invites mankind to give the right to their Creator that He deserves and to single Him out with that right that He alone deserves to be worshiped and that the religion is a complete one. Becuase The power of this message and because of the strength it has by its corrected chain from every person in this room. From myself and every Muslim there is a chain back to the prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallama, back to the angel Gabreil, back to Allah azawajul Himself. This religion is from the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Just like the previous prophets and messengers that were sent by our Creator, we are required to worship our Lord alone and required to live our lives accordance to his rules. And from those rules and from those guideline that every person is required to live by is that allegiance is to be given to the believers and those who give Allaah their Lord His right. If you give your Lord this right, then you are fulfilling your purpose as a human being. You deserved to be praised and you deserved to be loved and cherished and honored. If you turn away after knowing that this has been the message of every prophet sent to earth to remind the people that they have been created for a purpose. If you choose to turn away after knowing that, the you are a disgraced person, you deserved to be dishonored, you deserve to be hated, you deserve to be despised. You have been given a body, you have been given eyes and ears, you have been given so much from your Creator and all He has asked you to do is not worship anyone else, worship Him without any partners. Listen to the message that He has sent through the greatest of mankind from the prophets and messengers. This is your invitation tonight Rishaab (questioner), all of the people in this room are your brothers and sisters in Islām who welcome you to Islām and will love you for Allaah's sake if you accept Islām and worship your Lord as He has commanded you to do. You would deserve that love. While sadly for your case, we can not honor people who intentionally turn away from the worship of their Lord. Those who do not worship anyone else, your love, your trust that you have placed in your Lord, the formal prayers that offer, the fasting, the ritual worship and the worship of your heart and the phrases of remembrance as acts of worship on your tongue. These are for your Creator and they are not the right of anyone else. The messengers that were sent are not worshiped, Jesus is not to be worshiped, Moses was not to be worshiped, Muhammad is not to be worshiped, the angels made of light, pure worshipers of the All Mighty Creator, they are not deserving of worship and no one less than them in status deserves any worships because no one gave you the blessings you have. No one gave you everything you have other than your Creator and no one is going to bring you back and hold you accountable for what you did in this life other than your Creator. Thus, he alone deserves your worship. That's our invitation. Rishaab (questioner) your welcome to join the many people all over the world who have found the best life for the human beings. We wish you the best and we wish you guidance from your Creator.
Question and Answer Class 6 - Masaa'il Al Jaahiliyyah
Question One: Can you give one example of each of the following scenarios of differing?
Answer: First type where difference is not allowed in deen, ibaadah or aqīdah. Magic is permissible for instance. Where the scholars have differed over certain types of magic, for someone to come and say now 'its permissible'.
The scholars differ on illusionary magic, some consider it to be outside of Islam and some consider it to be a major sin because of deception and trickery. Then someone comes and says ;its halal'. This is impermissible differing. For some one to say 'I believe that Allah is like His creation some how' this is not allowed, not permissible ever as this is differing with the basic aqīdah.
Second type which is difference in fiqh.
You have two categories: difference, but one supported by evidence so you have take it and abandon the rest. An example of this is the issue of making wudoo for every Salah. Some scholars say you have to make wudoo for every Salah and is a position. Meaning that you can not use the wudoo that you already had that was not violated but you have to make a fresh wudoo for every Salah and they base it on the 'dhaahir', the most apparent understanding of the verse 'when you stand up for ṣalāh then you have to wash your hands' and so on. This is rejected as we have clear aḥadīth from the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) were he made Ṣalāh with the wudoo from the previous wudoo that he had already without renewing his wudoo. And we know from the Sunnah of The Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is to renew the wudoo without it being an obligation. So scholars have differed over whether renewing the wudoo for each and every Ṣalāh is an obligation or a recommendation and its clear based on the evidences that it is not an obligation but simply a recommendation. Therefore we stick to that because there is no evidence for us to stick to the other position except a misunderstanding based on the verse and Allaahu ta ala knows best.
Raising the hands after ruku should be considered from the last category. Where you have the ḥadīth of Wa'il ibn Hujar, where is is not entirely clear that he raised his hands up and put them back on his chest after he made ruku or did he not and leave them to his sides. We do not have any clear evidence from The Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) that is undisputed, telling us that he put his hands back on his chest or that he left his hands to the sides. So we look to the statements of the companions and the early imams and you find them aswell differing about this and in this case we say since the evidence doesn't have clarity, the kind of evidence where you can say this issue is closed because The Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has spoken or shown us what to do then it is an issue of understandable differing and its the kind of issue our Shaykh, Rabee bin Hadee al Madhkalee did not like us to get into because he said that in this case, we're pitting the scholars against each other and drawing lines of battle amongst each other and people going out on each other with no real benefit.
Its an old issue of differing, its not about Ibn Bāz or Al Albaanee, the issue is very old. Ṣalāh is not a new issue that came about this century and the scholars now just started differing and before they were united upon one position. Its a very old issue, and is not a clear issue for someone to go in and say 'I've made tahkeek, I have understood the issue and I have an argument that is hands down convincing and everyone must follow it, packed with evidence.' That's just not the case in this issue, so we have to be easy and understand that our brother who opposes us in that position has some ground and we don't have clear cut evidence that disapproves his position so we just have to be reasonable and we have to be lenient and we have to be kind and we have to deal with this issue with what our scholars have advised us with which is to be lenient, easy and forbearing in the issues of differing and Allahu ta ala knows best.
Question One: What do you say to those who argue that you can rebel the ruler, meaning against the ruler because they are not following Shari Allaah and are following man made laws.
Answer: We say that our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) has advised us about rulers who would not rule by Islām in certain matters when he said that you listen and obey the ruler even if he beats your back and takes your money. The Meseenger of Allaah (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) is the one who said this. Not the Ulema (scholars of Islām), not the agents of the government as some people like to call the scholars of Islām. The Messenger of Allaah (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said this, and the hadith is in Sahih Muslim. The one who beats your back and takes your wealth, is he in that case ruling by Islām? Is he implementing the Shariah by beating your back and taking your money? Obviously not. This is a case of disobedience so in that case he is not ruling by the Shariah Law yet you are obliged for the better benefit of the Muslims to continue in obedience to him and not rebel. As what some people do, is try to collect the various acts of disobedience of the rulers and they try to produce a result, a proof that they are outside of Islām. Then we say our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) has drawn the line for us to know exactly when we are no longer obliged to hear and obey and that is that we see Kufr Ba'waah (open disbelief), that we see outright blatant Kufr (disbelief). That we have a clear proof for, meaning its not that you have to put this with that and connect the dots like these people do today, rather clear blatant disbelief from the rulers, in that case they do not have the right of the Muslim ruler to be heard and obeyed in all situations, And Allaah knows best.
Be careful of this speech about following man made laws because the khawarij of today want to take every mistake, every sin, every act of disobedience from the rulers and say that these are proofs that they are ruling by other than the Shariah. Of course every time you sin as a person, as a human being, you are not ruling by Islām but are we Khawaarij? Are we people who take the Muslims outside the fold of Islām because of sins? Or we are Salafiyoon, are we the people of Ahlul Sunnah, are we people of athaar, are we people of ḥadīth who follow the teachings of our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) who taught us to be patient and to listen and obey and not to obey them in ma'siyaa. In that hadith we have discussed today you see clearly that we have been ordered to obey the Imām of the Muslims but not in ma'siyaa. Meaning the Messenger of Allaah (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) already told us that we will be confronted with an order from our Imām to disobey Allah and he told us what to do. He said hear and obey only in permissible affairs. He told us not to obey in disobedience to Allaah. 'There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience to Allaah.' So we have been told what to , we have been told not to rebel, we have not been told to be renegades. We have been told to be patient and obey and when there is transgression, oppression, disobedience from the ruler to not obey them, in the rest of the affairs. This is for the people who wish to follow the guidance of The Messenger of Allaah (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) and for those who wish to follow the misguidance of the dogs of the Hellfire then you see what it is doing to the world around you and Allaah knows best.
Question two: Some people will say that obeying the ruler is a specific issue to an individual.
Answer: I don't understand the doubt entirely. Was it specific to them and not for the ummah or on a personal level and we can rise up like as a person, as an individual you cannot renegade or rebel but as groups you can rebel. That doesn't sound like a logical understanding. (Brother Moosa ended with sending peace and blessing upon our Messenger (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam )