In the Name of Allah, the most Merciful, the most Beneficient.
All praise is due to Allah, the focus of all true worship.
If I say something wrong, it is from my ego, and if I say something good, it is from Allah.
عن عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص أن النبي صلّى الله عليه وسلّم نهى عن التحلّق قبل الصلاة يوم الجمعة
صحيح أبي داود 991، صحيح الجامع 6885
From Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas that the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) forbade making circles [for knowledge or remembrance] before prayer on Friday. (Saheeh Abu Dawud #991, Saheeh al-Jami’ #6885)
I walk in the Islamic Center of Orlando on fridays, and it breaks my heart to see Imam speaking before the khutbah. It is a direct violation of the command of the Prophet (PBUH) above. After the english speech, Imam will sit down, thinking that a good message has been delivered, but the true message that was delivered is that it is more important for us to follow the culture then follow the Prophet (PBUH).
The whole day of Jumaa has become a joke which repeats like an old comedy film. Some come for Biryani that is sold outside. Some come to meet friends. Some come to add their name to the list of 1 billion Muslims. Some come to just hang out. Some come because other Muslims won't call them names. Some come to increase business contacts. Some come in a box, and have no say in it. Some come through a back door in a closed room thinking why are they second grade citizens. Some Come to remember how it was in their childhood to go to masjid once a week...
Even Angels are confused. Allah told them to write the names of every person who enters before Imam stands up. So, Angels are sitting outside writing the names, and all of a sudden they hear the Imam stood up and start making Zikr of Allah (speaking good). At that moment, they closed the books and came inside to listen the zikr. As they enter, they see only a few people in, and some are reclining to past time. Angels thought that it must be a tough town. After 20 minutes people streaming in, but everyone starts sitting at the back like women or like scared of coming close to Allah that may be he will ask about their deeds today.
Finally, Imam ends the zikr (english speech), and sits down, and the maudhin gives the adhan. After a few minutes, instead of starting the salah, Imam stands up and starts the Arabic zikr. At that moment Angels are completed caught off-gaurd, and rush to their books and start writing peole's names who are already in the masjid. They don't know what to do. What is happening? They don't know who should be counted as on time and who should be absent from the list. They sit down once agains for the zikr of Allah.
One thing for sure, they will ask for a re-assignment to another masjid where it is less confusing. However, they don't realize that this forbidden format has been adopted by many masajid, and now part of the culture.
After the Jumaa, people streaming out like christians stream out of church on Sundays. One thing for sure that most of them will not come back to the masjid until next Jumaa, and that is if there is no meeting conflict. Of course, they can see the boss so can't make the boss angry, but Allah is unseen, so "out of sight, out of mind" method is employed.
On Fridays, there are more than 600 people, but at Asar only a handful return. May be we need a permanent Biryani stall outside? Just a thought.
On top of all this, some are rude to the non-muslim cops who are helping with parking. One woman cursed the policeman and this grown man cried because of that. So much ignorance. So much pride. So much disobedience. If I didn't know that Islam is truth, I would have left Islam in a heartbeat.
Wallah! We deserve the leaders we got who opress us, and press us, and kill us, and then rape us, and then plunder our wealth. All the duas at the end is useless, because the inside of us have died. Jumaa is nothing but a tradition now, and in the next generations, these kids are learning from us will not know how the companions felt when Prophet (PBUH) would mount the pulpit once on Jumaa with the purpose of mentioning Allah's name and teaching people. How many of us can feel the tears during the khutbah, or start shaking, or so ashamed that heads touch the ground. This is Jumaa. Have the soul absorb the knowledge and blessing and ready for the whole week. Rust is removed for a week. This is how the companions felt. I am sorry but between an early english speech and same Arabic Khutbah, it is very hard to feel this way.
There is no hope until we have the courage to go against the traditions that defy Allah and his messenger.
I pray to Allah to destroy me if I am wrong, or destroy this tradition that branches out away from the Sirat ul Mustaqeem.
JazakAllah Khairin
An observer to the demise of Muslims
Abu Arman
Friday, May 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Family with two fathers
In the Name of Allah.
All praise is due to Allah, who is the owner of the day of judgement.
"O believers enter into Islam completely ..." (Quran 2:208)
I have been asked many times what I beleived to be the cause of the disunity in muslim Ummah today. We can articulate many reasons, but one reason is the root of this current situation. For example, muslims complain about western media comparing muslim countries to western countries in treatment of women. Their argument is that the media should compare Quran with Bible instead. I disagree, because the abuse of women is happening in real life and not in a book, so the accusation of western media is correct and we should accept the truth and deal with it, instead of denying it. We should put up (establish such community) or shut up (stop complaining).
Islam was established in Medina the first time as a system, where there was a single leader who was the secular authority as well as religous authority, and the qualification to become a leader included complete grasp on Islamic Sharia. Somewhere along the lines, muslim Ummah has degraded to a level where the political leaders have been chosen without any consideration of their Taqwa or Islamic knowledge. Also, the "religous" leaders like Mawlvis or Imams have accpeted this situation, and are enjoying their authority by avoiding secular issues. Some even claim that no one follows Islam in their life anymore, so it is impossible to show an example of a community to compare with US treatment of women.
If it is true, then the movement started with Muhammad bin Abdullah (PBUH) has died, and Islam is no more. Messenger of Allah (PBUH) never made that differentiation in his life nor did his companion. I do not recall any instance where any of them said that Islamic laws don't apply to a certain aspect of our life and we need a secular law to govern it. On the contrary, this was the mian argument that non-beleivers could not accept. They were willing to worship Allah every other year, as long as they can keep the laws of ignorance intact. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) refused to accept Islam as a ritual and insisted on applying it globally in every part of our lives. For this, he was rejected by the political leaders in Makkah, who did not want their authority to slip away.
I am not sure when this thinking seeped into Muslim Ummah, but muslims now see a separation of religion and state, and like to have a religious leader, and a secular leader. In essence, muslims want two fathers for themselves. One father will take them to masjid and teach them about Islam, and the other father will take them to school and play sports with them. Even in our local masjid, Imams avoid every political issue, and defer to Shura and Trustees who are uneducated in Quran and Sunnah. How can a person with no knowledge in Quran and Sunnah lead us politically? I say that no family can afford two fathers, and it is absurd to have two head of the family, and each pulling in the different direction.
In the battle of Yarmuk, Khalid bin Walid was the Ameer, and was fighting with Roman Army. Romans sent their bishop (religious leader) to give a proposals to muslims. Bishop came to the frontline, and asked to see his religous counterpart in muslim Army. Khalid came forward to meet bishop. Bishop asked to speak to religous leader instead like a Mawli or Maulana or Imam. Khalid told him that there is only one Ameer of muslims here, and it is him. Bishop had hard time understanding this new concept of one Ameer leading muslims militarily and spritually.
If Pope makes the same request today, I can assure you that political leaders will step aside and someone with white beard and white turban will go out to mee him. What a shame? Muslim Ummah is in disunity due to the separation of religious and secular laws. Quran is not a book to be read like a novel, and memorized like a poetry. It is to be followed. If we follow it, then there is no place for a separate law in Islam. Hence, any law that governs human life is comparable to Islam, and vice versa.
We should blame ourselves for the treatment of women under muslim authority, and not the western media, who is doing their job in identifying the faults in Muslims. If there is not a single community that is following Quran as it is to be followed, which we can put forth to Sean Hannity, then Quran is nothing but a pipe dream, but I know that is not be true.
If someone to be blamed for this, it is the scholars who are holding monoply on Islamic Sharia, and who does not allow open debate because of their Taqleed of four Imams even if their rulings are against the will of Allah and will of Muhammad bin Abdullah (PBUH).
Let us compare our practice of Islam to the implementation of US constitution, and see if Quran has any say whatsoover in our lives. If the women have more rights in USA then the most sacred city, Makkah, I don't see how Sean Hannity has to be blamed, rather we should hide our faces due to shame until death reaches us.
Oh Allah! provide us leaders who implements Quran and Sunnah as law, and protect us from the fitnah of two fathers who split laws in secular and religous parts.
JazakAllah Khairin
A person with one father
Abu Arman
All praise is due to Allah, who is the owner of the day of judgement.
"O believers enter into Islam completely ..." (Quran 2:208)
I have been asked many times what I beleived to be the cause of the disunity in muslim Ummah today. We can articulate many reasons, but one reason is the root of this current situation. For example, muslims complain about western media comparing muslim countries to western countries in treatment of women. Their argument is that the media should compare Quran with Bible instead. I disagree, because the abuse of women is happening in real life and not in a book, so the accusation of western media is correct and we should accept the truth and deal with it, instead of denying it. We should put up (establish such community) or shut up (stop complaining).
Islam was established in Medina the first time as a system, where there was a single leader who was the secular authority as well as religous authority, and the qualification to become a leader included complete grasp on Islamic Sharia. Somewhere along the lines, muslim Ummah has degraded to a level where the political leaders have been chosen without any consideration of their Taqwa or Islamic knowledge. Also, the "religous" leaders like Mawlvis or Imams have accpeted this situation, and are enjoying their authority by avoiding secular issues. Some even claim that no one follows Islam in their life anymore, so it is impossible to show an example of a community to compare with US treatment of women.
If it is true, then the movement started with Muhammad bin Abdullah (PBUH) has died, and Islam is no more. Messenger of Allah (PBUH) never made that differentiation in his life nor did his companion. I do not recall any instance where any of them said that Islamic laws don't apply to a certain aspect of our life and we need a secular law to govern it. On the contrary, this was the mian argument that non-beleivers could not accept. They were willing to worship Allah every other year, as long as they can keep the laws of ignorance intact. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) refused to accept Islam as a ritual and insisted on applying it globally in every part of our lives. For this, he was rejected by the political leaders in Makkah, who did not want their authority to slip away.
I am not sure when this thinking seeped into Muslim Ummah, but muslims now see a separation of religion and state, and like to have a religious leader, and a secular leader. In essence, muslims want two fathers for themselves. One father will take them to masjid and teach them about Islam, and the other father will take them to school and play sports with them. Even in our local masjid, Imams avoid every political issue, and defer to Shura and Trustees who are uneducated in Quran and Sunnah. How can a person with no knowledge in Quran and Sunnah lead us politically? I say that no family can afford two fathers, and it is absurd to have two head of the family, and each pulling in the different direction.
In the battle of Yarmuk, Khalid bin Walid was the Ameer, and was fighting with Roman Army. Romans sent their bishop (religious leader) to give a proposals to muslims. Bishop came to the frontline, and asked to see his religous counterpart in muslim Army. Khalid came forward to meet bishop. Bishop asked to speak to religous leader instead like a Mawli or Maulana or Imam. Khalid told him that there is only one Ameer of muslims here, and it is him. Bishop had hard time understanding this new concept of one Ameer leading muslims militarily and spritually.
If Pope makes the same request today, I can assure you that political leaders will step aside and someone with white beard and white turban will go out to mee him. What a shame? Muslim Ummah is in disunity due to the separation of religious and secular laws. Quran is not a book to be read like a novel, and memorized like a poetry. It is to be followed. If we follow it, then there is no place for a separate law in Islam. Hence, any law that governs human life is comparable to Islam, and vice versa.
We should blame ourselves for the treatment of women under muslim authority, and not the western media, who is doing their job in identifying the faults in Muslims. If there is not a single community that is following Quran as it is to be followed, which we can put forth to Sean Hannity, then Quran is nothing but a pipe dream, but I know that is not be true.
If someone to be blamed for this, it is the scholars who are holding monoply on Islamic Sharia, and who does not allow open debate because of their Taqleed of four Imams even if their rulings are against the will of Allah and will of Muhammad bin Abdullah (PBUH).
Let us compare our practice of Islam to the implementation of US constitution, and see if Quran has any say whatsoover in our lives. If the women have more rights in USA then the most sacred city, Makkah, I don't see how Sean Hannity has to be blamed, rather we should hide our faces due to shame until death reaches us.
Oh Allah! provide us leaders who implements Quran and Sunnah as law, and protect us from the fitnah of two fathers who split laws in secular and religous parts.
JazakAllah Khairin
A person with one father
Abu Arman
Friday, April 22, 2011
Wudu: Do we need to wash the feet?
In the Name of Allah,
All praise is due to Allah, the one whose hands is my life.
If I make a mistake, it is from my ego, and if I say something good it is from Allah.
After my last blog, I receive the following question. I will try to answer it with my limited knowledge. I know there are many readers who are more learned than I, so please correct me with evidence.
"Can you also read the aya of quran about the method of wudu and guide me if the word "wamsahu" is used for both feet and head, then why do we wash our feet. (please dont mention the bracket interpretation of the translator who have added the washing later. Please read the actual arabic language. I think whenever and for whatever reason hadeeth and quran conflict we have to go by quran. As authencity of quran is guaranteed by Allah but hadeets could be changed later by humans."
First, Quran has reached us through ahadith, so Quran is nothing but a hadith itself, because no one but Prophet (PBUH) received, and he conveyed. So, authentic ahadith that we have no doubt over it, are at the same level as Quran, except when there is a direct contradiction, which is very rare. If Allah wanted to provide just a 300 pages book to us, it was very easy to do without the trouble Prophet (PBUH) had to go through. In short, we cannot understand Quran without the explanation in the ahadith. It is true that some ahadith are weak or fabricated, which we should try to avoid, but an authentic hadith has the same binding on us as the Quran does.
يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ إِذَا قُمۡتُمۡ إِلَى ٱلصَّلَوٰةِ فَٱغۡسِلُواْ وُجُوهَكُمۡ وَأَيۡدِيَكُمۡ إِلَى ٱلۡمَرَافِقِ وَٱمۡسَحُواْ بِرُءُوسِكُمۡ وَأَرۡجُلَڪُمۡ إِلَى ٱلۡكَعۡبَيۡنِۚ وَإِن كُنتُمۡ جُنُبً۬ا فَٱطَّهَّرُواْۚ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرۡضَىٰٓ أَوۡ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوۡ جَآءَ أَحَدٌ۬ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلۡغَآٮِٕطِ أَوۡ لَـٰمَسۡتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ فَلَمۡ تَجِدُواْ مَآءً۬ فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدً۬ا طَيِّبً۬ا فَٱمۡسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِڪُمۡ وَأَيۡدِيكُم مِّنۡهُۚ مَا يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ لِيَجۡعَلَ عَلَيۡڪُم مِّنۡ حَرَجٍ۬ وَلَـٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعۡمَتَهُ ۥ عَلَيۡكُمۡ لَعَلَّڪُمۡ تَشۡكُرُونَ
O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles. And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it. Allah would not place a burden on you, but He would purify you and would perfect His grace upon you, that ye may give thanks.
I think the following explanation from Muhammad ibn Sâlih al-'Uthaymîn is the best
There are two correct ways of reciting the saying of Allaah (wa Arjulikum) ‘and your feet’ having reached us from the Messenger of Allaah (SAW):
- Reciting it as ‘wa Arjulakum’ with a fatha on the laam, hence linking it in meaning to ‘wa wujoohakum’ (and your faces), i.e. wash the feet.
- Reciting it as ‘wa Arjulikum’ with a kasra on the laam, hence linking it in meaning to ‘bi ru’oosikum’ (your heads), i.e. wipe the feet.
And that which explains when one should wipe the feet and when one should wash them is the sunnah, for the Messenger (SAW) used to wash his feet when they were uncovered, and wipe over them when they were covered by khuffs.
Quran was not revealed or written down with "fatha" or "kasra", and Uthman ibn Affan added these harakat to help non-Arabs to read properly. Similar to modern dictionary have pronunciation helpers. So, the fatha was selected for this word, and it attaches the feet to washing. If kasra would have been selected, it would have reflected the other meaning. We should accept the translation of "wash" and not wipe.
However, it does not make a big difference whether it was wiping or washing, because both are acceptable. What people consider washing nowadays is bathing the feet with running water. If the word "Faghsilu" means pouring running water over that body part, then please try doing that to your face at any wudu place. "Faghsilu" here menas clean thoroughly. In the following hadith companions were wiping/washing their feet.
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
Once the Prophet remained behind us in a journey. He joined us while we were performing ablution for the prayer which was over-due. We were just passing wet hands over our feet (and not washing them properly) so the Prophet addressed us in a loud voice and said twice or thrice: "Save your heels from the fire." (Bukhari Vol 1, 3:57)
Prophet (PBUH) did not say "wash your feet" or "save your foot from the fire". He said "save your HEELS from the fire", which means that companions were not wiping over heels and just wiping in the front of the foot in a hurry. What would make the wudu invalid is leaving any part dry on the foot up to the ankle.
Quran does not go into details of implementation of the rules, rather Prophet (PBUH) was charged with that task, and he clarified by his tongue and his action. Taking water in the hand and wiping the feet with water is enough, as long as there is no dry portion of the feet up to and including the ankle. Bathing the feet under running water is the best way to clean them, but not fardh.
Arabs didn't have enough water to bath the feet in running water like us, so we can't take washing the feet in that meaning. If there is someone who believes that Prophet (PBUH) used running water on his feet regularly for wudu, please contact me with evidences.
Moreover, face is washed by taking water in our palms and rubbing the surface, and not by spraying water on our face. It is hard to believe that the Prophet (PBUH) "washed" the feet with running water, because it would have been waste of water to try to bath the feet.
So, if one has running water, it is better to bath the feet in it, but it is not fardh to bath the feet. It is however fardh to make sure the feet is free of dirt and filth and everything is wet below ankle, and that could be easily done with taking water in the palm and rubbing vigorously over the feet all over.
I have stopped using sink for a while now, because it does not suite a civilized person to put their feet in the sink, unless it is below waist height. My feet are clean when I am done "washing" them (taking water in my hand and rubbing all over).
One brother got hurt recently washing his feet in the sink, and another had issue with his private parts for stretching the leg for years to wash in the sink.
If you think, it is necessary to bath the feet with running water, please go ahead and do it, and Allah will judge you for your intentions, but there is no Sunnah where Prophet (PBUH) bath his feet in running water.
Please do not make things difficult for yourself. Purity is the intention of the wudu and not water wash, because wudu is even allowed with dirt, if water is not available. So, if running water is not available at a lower height, do your best to clean your feet.
It is acceptable to wipe the feet with water, but it is forbidden to leave any portion of the feet dry. So, if one can remove the filth (not dirt) from the feet with several wipes, then washing is not necessary. However, if washing is not possible, why not wash (bath) the feet?
Narrated Humran
(The slave of 'Uthman) I saw 'Uthman bin 'Affan asking for a tumbler of water (and when it was brought) he poured water over his hands and washed them thrice and then put his right hand in the water container and rinsed his mouth, washed his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out. Then he washed his face and forearms up to the elbows thrice, passed his wet hands over his head and washed his feet up to the ankles thrice. Then he said, "Allah's Apostle
And Allah knows best.
JazakAllah Khairin
A person who clean the feet with any means necessary.
Abu Arman
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Wudu: Wiping over cotton socks.
In the Name of Allah,
All praise is due to Allah, the one whose hands is my life.
If I make a mistake, it is from my ego, and if I say something good it is from Allah.
A few days ago, a good friend of mine was making wudu with me, and pointed out that I was wiping over the cotton socks, which were not leather. I told him that it is permissible. He quoted me his Imam that only leather socks are allowed for this purpose. I would like to present the supporting evidence for what I said.
'God desires to lighten things for you, for the human being has been created weak' (Quran 94:28).
First, Prophet (PBUH) has asked us to make Islam easy for others, and we should always keep this command in mind, when analyzing any ruling.
Narrated Ja'far bin 'Amr: My father said, "I saw the Prophet passing wet hands over his turban and Khuffs (leather socks)." (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 204)
Ibn Mughira narrated it from his father: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) wiped over his socks and over his forehead and over his turban. (Muslim Book 002, Number 0532)
There are many ahadith like above, which clearly permits wiping over the socks during wudu, but some scholars will put a condition that the socks have to be leather and any other material would not be acceptable.
One reason given is that Prophet (PBUH) wore only leather socks. Of course, there were no cotton socks, because it was a desert, and they needed better protection. Another reason is given that leather doesn't allow dirt to pass, but cotton sock does. Why would dirt touching our feet would be an issue, since wudu is not affected by dirt?
There is no evidence for disallowing cotton socks for this permissibility. On the contrary, the evidence is for general permissibility, because there is no mention of a reason from the Prophet (PBUH).
In fact, he wiped over his turban in the hadith above, which was not made of leather, and that gives clear evidence that we are allowed to wipe over the cloth as well as leather in this case.
From, the above hadith, there is one condition that need to be met is that we were in the state of wudu when the socks were put on. Also, if we enter an state of major impurity, then we have to wash our feet.
Here is an ideal case. A Muslim man gets up and makes wudu, then put on cloths socks, and shoes, then visits the Masjid for Fajr, then put on the shoes and goes to work. He goes to the washroom at work to make wudu for Duhar salah, and remove feet from the shoe and wipe over it. It will be acceptable, because he had wudu before putting on the covering. On top of that, he was wearing shoe all the time, so the oppotunity for feet to get filth is almost none.
Now, I would like to bring attention to a tradition that I think is dangerous. Many muslims buy leather socks from the Islamic store and wear them to masjid with the sole intention to avoid washing their feet. Leather socks are not used in normal circumstances anymore, and this act of buying leather socks to create an artificial scenario where one can wipe instead of wash, is very strange. I would just leave at that.
So, Islam has been placed upside down in this ruling by the scholar, where practicing muslim men, who are working, are being discouraged from praying salah at work, but artificially dressed men are being encouraged to buy more leather socks, which no one uses in real life, to avoid washing their feet.
I urge every muslim with a little fear of Allah and a little common sense to re-evaluate this, and follow the correct path. If you are bound by the chains of slavery of Taqleed, there is no hope. Otherwise, please make wudu before putting on cotton socks, and wipe over them at work, so we don't repel non-muslims, if they see us washing our dirty feet in the sink.
And Allah knows best.
JazakAllah Khairin
A person with no fake socks. Alhamdulilah!
Abu Arman
All praise is due to Allah, the one whose hands is my life.
If I make a mistake, it is from my ego, and if I say something good it is from Allah.
A few days ago, a good friend of mine was making wudu with me, and pointed out that I was wiping over the cotton socks, which were not leather. I told him that it is permissible. He quoted me his Imam that only leather socks are allowed for this purpose. I would like to present the supporting evidence for what I said.
'God desires to lighten things for you, for the human being has been created weak' (Quran 94:28).
First, Prophet (PBUH) has asked us to make Islam easy for others, and we should always keep this command in mind, when analyzing any ruling.
Narrated Ja'far bin 'Amr: My father said, "I saw the Prophet passing wet hands over his turban and Khuffs (leather socks)." (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 204)
Ibn Mughira narrated it from his father: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) wiped over his socks and over his forehead and over his turban. (Muslim Book 002, Number 0532)
There are many ahadith like above, which clearly permits wiping over the socks during wudu, but some scholars will put a condition that the socks have to be leather and any other material would not be acceptable.
One reason given is that Prophet (PBUH) wore only leather socks. Of course, there were no cotton socks, because it was a desert, and they needed better protection. Another reason is given that leather doesn't allow dirt to pass, but cotton sock does. Why would dirt touching our feet would be an issue, since wudu is not affected by dirt?
There is no evidence for disallowing cotton socks for this permissibility. On the contrary, the evidence is for general permissibility, because there is no mention of a reason from the Prophet (PBUH).
In fact, he wiped over his turban in the hadith above, which was not made of leather, and that gives clear evidence that we are allowed to wipe over the cloth as well as leather in this case.
Narrated 'Urwa bin Al-Mughira: My father said, "Once I was in the company of the Prophet on a journey and I dashed to take off his Khuffs. He ordered me to leave them as he had put them after performing ablution. So he passed wet hands or them. (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 205)
From, the above hadith, there is one condition that need to be met is that we were in the state of wudu when the socks were put on. Also, if we enter an state of major impurity, then we have to wash our feet.
Here is an ideal case. A Muslim man gets up and makes wudu, then put on cloths socks, and shoes, then visits the Masjid for Fajr, then put on the shoes and goes to work. He goes to the washroom at work to make wudu for Duhar salah, and remove feet from the shoe and wipe over it. It will be acceptable, because he had wudu before putting on the covering. On top of that, he was wearing shoe all the time, so the oppotunity for feet to get filth is almost none.
Now, I would like to bring attention to a tradition that I think is dangerous. Many muslims buy leather socks from the Islamic store and wear them to masjid with the sole intention to avoid washing their feet. Leather socks are not used in normal circumstances anymore, and this act of buying leather socks to create an artificial scenario where one can wipe instead of wash, is very strange. I would just leave at that.
So, Islam has been placed upside down in this ruling by the scholar, where practicing muslim men, who are working, are being discouraged from praying salah at work, but artificially dressed men are being encouraged to buy more leather socks, which no one uses in real life, to avoid washing their feet.
I urge every muslim with a little fear of Allah and a little common sense to re-evaluate this, and follow the correct path. If you are bound by the chains of slavery of Taqleed, there is no hope. Otherwise, please make wudu before putting on cotton socks, and wipe over them at work, so we don't repel non-muslims, if they see us washing our dirty feet in the sink.
And Allah knows best.
JazakAllah Khairin
A person with no fake socks. Alhamdulilah!
Abu Arman
Monday, January 24, 2011
Who is allowed to do Ijtihad?
In the Name of Allah
All praise is due to Allah, to whom we all depend upon.
If I make a msitake it is from my ego, and if I say something good, it is from Allah.
Last night was the best setting for learning about din during the tafsir. It reminded me of the classes of Abu Hanfia where his students can bring up dissenting views, and are allowed to argue for them. I had two goals. First, to challenge the evidence for Taqleed, which is prohibited in Islam. Second, to spark interest in muslims towards learning their din.
Following is the definition of Taqleed from Mufti taqi Uthmani.
Alhamdulilah! both goals were achieved. Imam repeated the creed of Shah Waliullah, Abu Hanfia, Malik bin Anas, Ahmed bin Hanbal, and all the other scholars that is "If you know din follow it, if you don't know ask a knowledgable person, if evidences are clear against a fatwa, it is nullified, regardless of the school of thought either scholar belongs to. Hadith overrules Taqleed" which refutes the above statement.
Even if Taqleed wasn't clarified, there were twice as much brothers as usual, and the brothers who never been to tafsir class were present and active. Also, the brothers of local Jamaat were present and geniunly interested in the tafsir of the Quran. I hope they steadfast on this and attend tafsir regularly to benefit themselves, and benefit others from the blessing comes with their piety. This was a good start of building an Islamic community in Orlando.
One point that Imam made was very good that it requires ijtihad to overrule a fatwa or ruling of a madhab. I think no reasonable person can disagree with this. However, it is not clear who is qualified to do such analysis. There are many opinions but none have any evidence attached to it. Most of the opinions are personal reasoning without support of evidences. Following is what Mufti Taqi Uthmani says about a "lay person".
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/66-67.htm
So, a lay person can not do ijtihad. Why? If a person who is educated, and has good skillset of logic, and understand reading and writing, he or she can comprehend an explaination of the evidences for the ruling (may be not extract their own ruling). This may be a difference in the definition of the word ijtihad. For example, if a lay person asks why Masajid in Pakistan prohibit women from attending, a hanafi scholar should be able to provide the proofs, and if not, should surrender the opinion and open the Masjid for women.
Are you telling me that if I live in Pakistan, and my wife wants to go to masjid, I can't challenge the local masjid on this preposterous restriction that goes against the command of Allah which has a strong proof? If that is true, then this Taqleed of a lay person in of itself is an opression, and no opression can be part of Islam.
In the absence of evidence, default prevails. Any sane Muslim (scholar or not), can do ijtihad, because Allah has given him or her brain. In this definition of ijtihad we just look at facts or even fatwas of scholars, and follow it. Of course, no one is binded to follow anyone's opinion (scholar or not). If I don't trust the opinions of Ibn Baaz, I will not follow it. It doesn't mean that ibn Baaz has to be stopped from forming an opinion. In essence, no one is suggesting that we would create anarchy, but saying that we shouldn't create monarchy either. Both are extreme views and baseless in Islam.
Another point Imam made last night was that these four madhaib survived because they are the best opinions, and Allah helped preserved. This is not true. We know that these madhaib gained popularity because the Muslim Kings wanted to control lay person and the Islamic law and establishing a madhab was the best way.
Besides, there are more than four madhaibs. Basic claim in support of Taqleed is that there can only be four madhabs, and Hanafi is one of them. Deoband and barelvi do not agree on ijithad of each other's scholars. There is no such thing as hanafi madhab, because there is no single authority providing guidance. Within Shafiie madhab many sub schools of thought are present, and so on and so on.
So, when someone use the word Taqleed, they are not truly asking us to follow one of the four madhabs, but they are asking us to follow their narrow version of that schaool of thought, and it gets narrower and narrower as we go closer. It is called a Mirage, which looks like water from far away, but as you walk close there is nothing but sand. It is absurd to think that there is a single set of rules for hanafi madhab, because there are so many sects within Pakistan alone that are ready to cut each other's throat, and have issued fatwas of shirk against each others.
For example, one person approached another brother I know, and asked him, why he attended the Masjid where Shafii Imam lead the salat. He also pointed out that this brother's father was a hanafi, and he should follow the madhab of his father, and should not attend the certain masjid. This is where Taqleed becomes the danger to Islam, as it is applied to rein in everyone to a certain opinion, regardless of personal freedom to select madhab.
It is upto the people who follow the opinion to decide which opinion and scholar that they find it more knowledgable and trust worthy. No one should force someone to follow a certain madhab, because ther is no compulsionn in Islam.
Which madhab should I follow? One which prohibits women from masjid, or the one which worships graves, or the one which teaches only from Fazail-e-Amaal, or the one that calls for hatred towards peaceful non-muslims? Wait! they all belong to the same madhab (Imam Abu Hanifa).
Thanks, but no thanks. Let us learn din enough to select the correct scholars and follow them. If we chose fatwas to fit our desires, we will be the ones who will answer to Allah and not the scholars. We should be sincere and seek the truth, do ijtihad, and follow the scholar our ijtihad tells us to be trust worthy. Allah is asking a lay person to follow this method. Evidence is the tafsir of ibn Kathir where this verse was revealed to allow Muslims to go against a Companion leader's order, and the lay person took the case to the Prophet (PBUH).
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Apostle, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (Quran 4:59)
JazakAllah Khairin
A struggling Muslim
AbuArman (Adnan Jumani)
All praise is due to Allah, to whom we all depend upon.
If I make a msitake it is from my ego, and if I say something good, it is from Allah.
Last night was the best setting for learning about din during the tafsir. It reminded me of the classes of Abu Hanfia where his students can bring up dissenting views, and are allowed to argue for them. I had two goals. First, to challenge the evidence for Taqleed, which is prohibited in Islam. Second, to spark interest in muslims towards learning their din.
Following is the definition of Taqleed from Mufti taqi Uthmani.
Alhamdulilah! both goals were achieved. Imam repeated the creed of Shah Waliullah, Abu Hanfia, Malik bin Anas, Ahmed bin Hanbal, and all the other scholars that is "If you know din follow it, if you don't know ask a knowledgable person, if evidences are clear against a fatwa, it is nullified, regardless of the school of thought either scholar belongs to. Hadith overrules Taqleed" which refutes the above statement.Even if Taqleed wasn't clarified, there were twice as much brothers as usual, and the brothers who never been to tafsir class were present and active. Also, the brothers of local Jamaat were present and geniunly interested in the tafsir of the Quran. I hope they steadfast on this and attend tafsir regularly to benefit themselves, and benefit others from the blessing comes with their piety. This was a good start of building an Islamic community in Orlando.
One point that Imam made was very good that it requires ijtihad to overrule a fatwa or ruling of a madhab. I think no reasonable person can disagree with this. However, it is not clear who is qualified to do such analysis. There are many opinions but none have any evidence attached to it. Most of the opinions are personal reasoning without support of evidences. Following is what Mufti Taqi Uthmani says about a "lay person".
http://www.cometoislam.com/fiqh/legal/66-67.htm
So, a lay person can not do ijtihad. Why? If a person who is educated, and has good skillset of logic, and understand reading and writing, he or she can comprehend an explaination of the evidences for the ruling (may be not extract their own ruling). This may be a difference in the definition of the word ijtihad. For example, if a lay person asks why Masajid in Pakistan prohibit women from attending, a hanafi scholar should be able to provide the proofs, and if not, should surrender the opinion and open the Masjid for women.
Are you telling me that if I live in Pakistan, and my wife wants to go to masjid, I can't challenge the local masjid on this preposterous restriction that goes against the command of Allah which has a strong proof? If that is true, then this Taqleed of a lay person in of itself is an opression, and no opression can be part of Islam.
In the absence of evidence, default prevails. Any sane Muslim (scholar or not), can do ijtihad, because Allah has given him or her brain. In this definition of ijtihad we just look at facts or even fatwas of scholars, and follow it. Of course, no one is binded to follow anyone's opinion (scholar or not). If I don't trust the opinions of Ibn Baaz, I will not follow it. It doesn't mean that ibn Baaz has to be stopped from forming an opinion. In essence, no one is suggesting that we would create anarchy, but saying that we shouldn't create monarchy either. Both are extreme views and baseless in Islam.
Another point Imam made last night was that these four madhaib survived because they are the best opinions, and Allah helped preserved. This is not true. We know that these madhaib gained popularity because the Muslim Kings wanted to control lay person and the Islamic law and establishing a madhab was the best way.
Besides, there are more than four madhaibs. Basic claim in support of Taqleed is that there can only be four madhabs, and Hanafi is one of them. Deoband and barelvi do not agree on ijithad of each other's scholars. There is no such thing as hanafi madhab, because there is no single authority providing guidance. Within Shafiie madhab many sub schools of thought are present, and so on and so on.
So, when someone use the word Taqleed, they are not truly asking us to follow one of the four madhabs, but they are asking us to follow their narrow version of that schaool of thought, and it gets narrower and narrower as we go closer. It is called a Mirage, which looks like water from far away, but as you walk close there is nothing but sand. It is absurd to think that there is a single set of rules for hanafi madhab, because there are so many sects within Pakistan alone that are ready to cut each other's throat, and have issued fatwas of shirk against each others.
For example, one person approached another brother I know, and asked him, why he attended the Masjid where Shafii Imam lead the salat. He also pointed out that this brother's father was a hanafi, and he should follow the madhab of his father, and should not attend the certain masjid. This is where Taqleed becomes the danger to Islam, as it is applied to rein in everyone to a certain opinion, regardless of personal freedom to select madhab.
It is upto the people who follow the opinion to decide which opinion and scholar that they find it more knowledgable and trust worthy. No one should force someone to follow a certain madhab, because ther is no compulsionn in Islam.
Which madhab should I follow? One which prohibits women from masjid, or the one which worships graves, or the one which teaches only from Fazail-e-Amaal, or the one that calls for hatred towards peaceful non-muslims? Wait! they all belong to the same madhab (Imam Abu Hanifa).
Thanks, but no thanks. Let us learn din enough to select the correct scholars and follow them. If we chose fatwas to fit our desires, we will be the ones who will answer to Allah and not the scholars. We should be sincere and seek the truth, do ijtihad, and follow the scholar our ijtihad tells us to be trust worthy. Allah is asking a lay person to follow this method. Evidence is the tafsir of ibn Kathir where this verse was revealed to allow Muslims to go against a Companion leader's order, and the lay person took the case to the Prophet (PBUH).
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Apostle, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (Quran 4:59)
JazakAllah Khairin
A struggling Muslim
AbuArman (Adnan Jumani)
Monday, January 17, 2011
Is it possible to prove Taqleed?
In the Name of Allah,
All praise is due to Allah, the owner of the day of judgement.
If I make a mistake, it is from my ego, and if I say good, it is from Allah.
Last night, we had our tafsir of Quran class, and some of you took initiative to join it, and May Allah forgive the sins of who came for the sake of Allah, and enter them into Jannah without the accounting. "Wassabiqoon -as- Sabiqoon" (Surah Waqia) which means the foremost, the foremost was the way of the companion. They use to compete with each other to take intitiatives in the din of Allah. Second attribute that they had was to be consistent or "istiqamat". So, May Allah help us learn the meaning of Quran consistenly.
One of the most improtant verse of the Quran that we discussed was the verse below. Imam will InshAllah be spending more time next week on this subject, and we hope to learn more.
"And before thee also the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message. " (Quran 16:43)
This is the verse that is referenced by the supporters of Taqleed -as - Shaksi (Blind following of a single person other than the Prophet (PBUH)) to establish the proof from the Quran and Sunnah for blindly following a madhab or school of thought. However, true tafsir of this verse has nothing to do with Taqleed, as proven already from ibn khattir.
What if there are ahadith that we have not read, which can prove that we are being commanded by Allah to ask scholars if we don't know?
Of cource, it is possible. Since our knowledge on din is limited to what we have learnt so far, and it is certainly possible that we have got many things wrong, and will accept it if the proof is presented.
Again, if you pay attention to the verse above, if their claim is true about a second tafsir of this verse telling Muslims to ask a scholar when THEY DON'T KNOW. I think everyone knows that fact that it is a fardh upon muslims to ask someone with knowledge, if they themselves are not capable of knowing the answer of a question. If we know ourselves, this verse doesn't force us to ask the scholar, so this verse cannot be use to prove Taqleed.
For example, can we find out on our own, if Life Insurance is halal?
Of course not. It is a new situation that wasn't present at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) and Abu Hanifa (my favourite of all) dealt with new cases like these all day long. And, we should continue his work with these new cases. So, one sound opinion is that life Insurance is halal, because everything outside worship is halal, unless it is prohibted directly or indirectly. There is no prohibition regarding willing to provide for the family after death. As long as there is no interest or other prohibited clauses in the life insurance. Some find it prohibited, because one doesn't know the date of the profit disbursment (gharar). However, death is guaranteed, so gharar can not be applied here, and statistical models are used to ensure the increase in the profitibility, just like in any other business, where marketing analysis is used before product is sold.
Lets Assume that someone brings the ahadith and sayings of the companions to prove that this verse was not only referring to people of the book, but to Muslims also. If that happens, and someone proves that, they will be doing ijtihad, which is the opposite of taqleed. So, automatically, it will prove that taqleed is not binding on everyone.
Hence, any effort to prove Taqleed from the Quran and Sunnah will be only disproving Taqleed as defined by the most scholars today. In essence, it is impossible to prove Taqleed, because it requires one to follow without asking for proof, which is a violation of the condition of Taqleed-as-shaksi.
Does that mean every dick and harry can issue fatwas from their homes?
No, that will be following ones desire in the matter of din, and will be a sign of hypocrisy. We don't have to go to either extremes, but live in the practical world, where our Prophet (PBUH) asked us to live in.
Rule of thumb is if we don't know, ask someone who knows. If we don't trust the person, don't ask. If we have a little knowledge about Quran and hadith, ask for a proof from the person of knowledge. If there is a disagreement among the people with knowledge, revert to the most trusted opinion, if we can't decipher the proofs ourselves. If someone proves it to us with sound sources, accept the mistake, and follow the new opinion.
What is happening today is that muslims are being asked to surrender their wills to four Imams who have died a long time ago. People are asking us to blindly follow Imams who came within 100 years of Prophet's (PBUH) life, whereas they are asking us not to follow sound, clear, and easy to understand proofs that dates back a few years before these Imams. So, somehow these four Imams settle the fiqh for us 1300 years ago, and nothing need to be debated now, which Prophet (PBUH) himself couldn't do it 100 years before them. What a wonderful logic!
Most of the authentic ahadith compilation that scholars learn today were not present during the time of these four Imams, and they themselves ordered us to not follow them, if there was a contradictory evidence.
This is what I disagree with the most. They do not consider someone as a Muqallid (a follower of the Madhhabs) unless he adheres to the following conditions (as summarized from various books and articles on the subject):
1. Of all the exemplary scholars, the Muslim Ummah has been blessed with; Taqleed is restricted to just four scholars or Imams.
2. The follower of the Madhhab (way) of one Imam has to compulsorily follow the Madhhab in all matters of the religion.
3. The Muqallid does not need to know the proof from the texts, behind the ruling he is supposed to follow, and it is sufficient for him to know that Imam could never have said anything without proof. The saying of the Imam is itself proof for the Muqallid.
4. The Muqallid cannot follow the other three Madhhabs even in minor issues. To follow the other Madhhab is a punishable offence. Even if a Muqallid finds a verse of the Qur’aan or an authentic Hadeeth, which rules different from the ruling of his Madhhab, he still has to stick to his own Madhhab.
We cannot claim to follow the madhab of our forefathers, and reject the truth, because whoever did that in the past ended up in a very painful state. Mushrik of Makkah claimed to be following the madhab of Prophet Ismail, and they pressured Abu Talib to do Taqleed on his deathbed.
Messenger of Allah (PBUH) came to break to chains of submition to creation, and to teach us how to submit to the creator directly. No confessions on Sundays. No Popes making sharia. No Imams decreeing the absolute ruling that can never be challenged. Let us not start chaining ourselves to the creation of Allah, and look away from the commands of Allah that are CLEAR. Whole point of protecting Quran for us was that we can refer to it, if someone misinterprets, original knowledge is not lost. If we are not allowed to examine any rulings done 1300 years ago, then how are we different then Jews?
Following is what we should be following, which people of yemem followed with Muaath. Follow the scholars in the matter of things we don't know, but if something becomes clear for us, and our scholar will not accept, we should not follow the scholar in that matter.
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Apostle, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (Quran 4:59)
JazakAllah Khairin
A struggling Muslim
AbuArman (Adnan Jumani)
All praise is due to Allah, the owner of the day of judgement.
If I make a mistake, it is from my ego, and if I say good, it is from Allah.
Last night, we had our tafsir of Quran class, and some of you took initiative to join it, and May Allah forgive the sins of who came for the sake of Allah, and enter them into Jannah without the accounting. "Wassabiqoon -as- Sabiqoon" (Surah Waqia) which means the foremost, the foremost was the way of the companion. They use to compete with each other to take intitiatives in the din of Allah. Second attribute that they had was to be consistent or "istiqamat". So, May Allah help us learn the meaning of Quran consistenly.
One of the most improtant verse of the Quran that we discussed was the verse below. Imam will InshAllah be spending more time next week on this subject, and we hope to learn more.
"And before thee also the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message. " (Quran 16:43)
This is the verse that is referenced by the supporters of Taqleed -as - Shaksi (Blind following of a single person other than the Prophet (PBUH)) to establish the proof from the Quran and Sunnah for blindly following a madhab or school of thought. However, true tafsir of this verse has nothing to do with Taqleed, as proven already from ibn khattir.
What if there are ahadith that we have not read, which can prove that we are being commanded by Allah to ask scholars if we don't know?
Of cource, it is possible. Since our knowledge on din is limited to what we have learnt so far, and it is certainly possible that we have got many things wrong, and will accept it if the proof is presented.
Again, if you pay attention to the verse above, if their claim is true about a second tafsir of this verse telling Muslims to ask a scholar when THEY DON'T KNOW. I think everyone knows that fact that it is a fardh upon muslims to ask someone with knowledge, if they themselves are not capable of knowing the answer of a question. If we know ourselves, this verse doesn't force us to ask the scholar, so this verse cannot be use to prove Taqleed.
For example, can we find out on our own, if Life Insurance is halal?
Of course not. It is a new situation that wasn't present at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) and Abu Hanifa (my favourite of all) dealt with new cases like these all day long. And, we should continue his work with these new cases. So, one sound opinion is that life Insurance is halal, because everything outside worship is halal, unless it is prohibted directly or indirectly. There is no prohibition regarding willing to provide for the family after death. As long as there is no interest or other prohibited clauses in the life insurance. Some find it prohibited, because one doesn't know the date of the profit disbursment (gharar). However, death is guaranteed, so gharar can not be applied here, and statistical models are used to ensure the increase in the profitibility, just like in any other business, where marketing analysis is used before product is sold.
Lets Assume that someone brings the ahadith and sayings of the companions to prove that this verse was not only referring to people of the book, but to Muslims also. If that happens, and someone proves that, they will be doing ijtihad, which is the opposite of taqleed. So, automatically, it will prove that taqleed is not binding on everyone.
Hence, any effort to prove Taqleed from the Quran and Sunnah will be only disproving Taqleed as defined by the most scholars today. In essence, it is impossible to prove Taqleed, because it requires one to follow without asking for proof, which is a violation of the condition of Taqleed-as-shaksi.
Does that mean every dick and harry can issue fatwas from their homes?
No, that will be following ones desire in the matter of din, and will be a sign of hypocrisy. We don't have to go to either extremes, but live in the practical world, where our Prophet (PBUH) asked us to live in.
Rule of thumb is if we don't know, ask someone who knows. If we don't trust the person, don't ask. If we have a little knowledge about Quran and hadith, ask for a proof from the person of knowledge. If there is a disagreement among the people with knowledge, revert to the most trusted opinion, if we can't decipher the proofs ourselves. If someone proves it to us with sound sources, accept the mistake, and follow the new opinion.
What is happening today is that muslims are being asked to surrender their wills to four Imams who have died a long time ago. People are asking us to blindly follow Imams who came within 100 years of Prophet's (PBUH) life, whereas they are asking us not to follow sound, clear, and easy to understand proofs that dates back a few years before these Imams. So, somehow these four Imams settle the fiqh for us 1300 years ago, and nothing need to be debated now, which Prophet (PBUH) himself couldn't do it 100 years before them. What a wonderful logic!
Most of the authentic ahadith compilation that scholars learn today were not present during the time of these four Imams, and they themselves ordered us to not follow them, if there was a contradictory evidence.
This is what I disagree with the most. They do not consider someone as a Muqallid (a follower of the Madhhabs) unless he adheres to the following conditions (as summarized from various books and articles on the subject):
1. Of all the exemplary scholars, the Muslim Ummah has been blessed with; Taqleed is restricted to just four scholars or Imams.
2. The follower of the Madhhab (way) of one Imam has to compulsorily follow the Madhhab in all matters of the religion.
3. The Muqallid does not need to know the proof from the texts, behind the ruling he is supposed to follow, and it is sufficient for him to know that Imam could never have said anything without proof. The saying of the Imam is itself proof for the Muqallid.
4. The Muqallid cannot follow the other three Madhhabs even in minor issues. To follow the other Madhhab is a punishable offence. Even if a Muqallid finds a verse of the Qur’aan or an authentic Hadeeth, which rules different from the ruling of his Madhhab, he still has to stick to his own Madhhab.
We cannot claim to follow the madhab of our forefathers, and reject the truth, because whoever did that in the past ended up in a very painful state. Mushrik of Makkah claimed to be following the madhab of Prophet Ismail, and they pressured Abu Talib to do Taqleed on his deathbed.
Messenger of Allah (PBUH) came to break to chains of submition to creation, and to teach us how to submit to the creator directly. No confessions on Sundays. No Popes making sharia. No Imams decreeing the absolute ruling that can never be challenged. Let us not start chaining ourselves to the creation of Allah, and look away from the commands of Allah that are CLEAR. Whole point of protecting Quran for us was that we can refer to it, if someone misinterprets, original knowledge is not lost. If we are not allowed to examine any rulings done 1300 years ago, then how are we different then Jews?
Following is what we should be following, which people of yemem followed with Muaath. Follow the scholars in the matter of things we don't know, but if something becomes clear for us, and our scholar will not accept, we should not follow the scholar in that matter.
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Apostle, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (Quran 4:59)
JazakAllah Khairin
A struggling Muslim
AbuArman (Adnan Jumani)
Friday, January 14, 2011
Skipping Allah's speech.
In the Name of Allah,
All praise is due to Allah, one who holds my life in his hand.
“Have you considered those who were asked to accept judgement from Allah’s Book? When they are asked to accept judgement from Allah’s Book, some of them turn their backs and walk away!” (Qur’an 3:23)
Every week, I look forward to Sundays tafsir class after Maghrib in Islamic Center of Orlando. It saddens me to see 150 Muslims walk out after Maghrib without staying for 5 minutes of tafsir.
Some of them include Hafiz of Quran. Some are pillars of the community. Some are trustees of the community. Some are activists who gather people after Salat for hadith readings. Some are passionate muslims ready to fight. Some have beards reaching their chest. Some lives so close to the masjid that literally they can throw a stone to their homes. Some visit Muslims home, inviting them to Masjid, but walk out of the most important part of being in the Masjid LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORD OF ALLAH
Do they have so much knowledge that they do not require any more understanding of Quran? Do they despise the Imam so much that they can't tolerate him for 30 minutes? Do they find Quran as a chant that is read to cast spells on each others?
Honestly, I am confused, and I am sad to see that.
Some of them I have invited personally to stay back, but they will not stay back.
I think there is a misconception about Quran that is very common, and a reason for this behaviour. Many memorize the Quran literally assuming that this will give them the benefits promised by Prophet (PBUH). So, a memorizer of Quran will be given power of intercession? Lets look at that hadith.
Hazrat Ali relates that our holy Prophet said “Whoever recites the Qur'an, memorizes it, accepts its halal (lawful things) as halal and haram (forbidden things) as haram (i.e. his beliefs in these matters are correct), Allah, the Exalted, will enter him to Paradise and accept his intercession on behalf of ten such persons of his family upon whom entry into Hell has become incumbent (i.e. Allah will forgive them because of his intercession). (Tirmidhi, Fadailu'l-Quran, 13; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima, 17.)
If we look closely to the definition of the person mentioned in this hadith. One has to recite a part of Quran, memorize the part of Quran, and then live that part of the Quran. After fulfilling all three conditions, will he be given the honor that is mentioned.
Hafiz of Quran is not the person who memorize the letters of Quran, and read them in Taraweeh. If a person has memorized the whole quran, but doesn't understand what he has memorized, and doesn't follow in his life. He will not be given any such benefits. Islam is not a system of chants and magical spells, but a practical way of life. No benefit without practice. Even Salat includes actions.
My son is going to hifz program, and memorizing the Quran. I will not consider him Hafiz until he understand the meaning of what he memorized, and live according to that meaning. Solely memorizing the words doesn't benefit in anyway, unless there is an effort to follow those words.
Now, every Masjid in the Muslim communities have such programs of Tafsir of Quran, and so does the Masjid in my community. Imam will announce about the tafsir in the Friday sermon, where 500 people will be there, and there will be 150 people in the Maghrib on Sundays, but only 15 - 20 people present during the tafsir.
Wallah! tafsir class is the call towards speech of Allah, and we skip it, intentionally, every single week like a clock work. This is the value of Allah in our lives? Is this the answer we give to Allah, and his messenger, when he invited the humanity towards Islam?
Quran is the direct speech of Allah, not a paraphrased or summarized version. We are skipping the only chance provided to understand that speech. What is more important in our life that we have to rush towards? Is that the NFL game? Is that the sweet our wives are cooking? Is that the dinner you are invited to?
I urge all who gets this message to please attend the tafsir class or similar to learn about the verses of the Quran. If you are "Hafiz" of Quran, you are more resposible to understand what you memorized, and teach others. Short of that will strip of any benefits of the memorization, InshAllah.
I understand that you may have commitments, or may have some disagreement with Imam, but come for Allah, and come to learn his speech. If you have no excuse, please come and hear what Allah has to say to you. Lets make the masjid our center of learning, not our homes privately where only a few can benefit.
I invite everyone to the following, and will be witness on the day of judgement that this call was made to all of us.
Sisters are invited as well to attend these, since Islam is an equal opportunity system.
Speech of Allah with meaning (Tafsir - e - Quran)
Sundays After Maghrib
Islamic Center of Orlando,
11543 Ruby Lake Road Orlando, FL 32836-6159
JazakAllah Khairin
A struggling Muslim
AbuArman (Adnan Jumani)
All praise is due to Allah, one who holds my life in his hand.
“Have you considered those who were asked to accept judgement from Allah’s Book? When they are asked to accept judgement from Allah’s Book, some of them turn their backs and walk away!” (Qur’an 3:23)
Every week, I look forward to Sundays tafsir class after Maghrib in Islamic Center of Orlando. It saddens me to see 150 Muslims walk out after Maghrib without staying for 5 minutes of tafsir.
Some of them include Hafiz of Quran. Some are pillars of the community. Some are trustees of the community. Some are activists who gather people after Salat for hadith readings. Some are passionate muslims ready to fight. Some have beards reaching their chest. Some lives so close to the masjid that literally they can throw a stone to their homes. Some visit Muslims home, inviting them to Masjid, but walk out of the most important part of being in the Masjid LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORD OF ALLAH
Do they have so much knowledge that they do not require any more understanding of Quran? Do they despise the Imam so much that they can't tolerate him for 30 minutes? Do they find Quran as a chant that is read to cast spells on each others?
Honestly, I am confused, and I am sad to see that.
Some of them I have invited personally to stay back, but they will not stay back.
I think there is a misconception about Quran that is very common, and a reason for this behaviour. Many memorize the Quran literally assuming that this will give them the benefits promised by Prophet (PBUH). So, a memorizer of Quran will be given power of intercession? Lets look at that hadith.
Hazrat Ali relates that our holy Prophet said “Whoever recites the Qur'an, memorizes it, accepts its halal (lawful things) as halal and haram (forbidden things) as haram (i.e. his beliefs in these matters are correct), Allah, the Exalted, will enter him to Paradise and accept his intercession on behalf of ten such persons of his family upon whom entry into Hell has become incumbent (i.e. Allah will forgive them because of his intercession). (Tirmidhi, Fadailu'l-Quran, 13; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima, 17.)
If we look closely to the definition of the person mentioned in this hadith. One has to recite a part of Quran, memorize the part of Quran, and then live that part of the Quran. After fulfilling all three conditions, will he be given the honor that is mentioned.
Hafiz of Quran is not the person who memorize the letters of Quran, and read them in Taraweeh. If a person has memorized the whole quran, but doesn't understand what he has memorized, and doesn't follow in his life. He will not be given any such benefits. Islam is not a system of chants and magical spells, but a practical way of life. No benefit without practice. Even Salat includes actions.
My son is going to hifz program, and memorizing the Quran. I will not consider him Hafiz until he understand the meaning of what he memorized, and live according to that meaning. Solely memorizing the words doesn't benefit in anyway, unless there is an effort to follow those words.
Now, every Masjid in the Muslim communities have such programs of Tafsir of Quran, and so does the Masjid in my community. Imam will announce about the tafsir in the Friday sermon, where 500 people will be there, and there will be 150 people in the Maghrib on Sundays, but only 15 - 20 people present during the tafsir.
Wallah! tafsir class is the call towards speech of Allah, and we skip it, intentionally, every single week like a clock work. This is the value of Allah in our lives? Is this the answer we give to Allah, and his messenger, when he invited the humanity towards Islam?
Quran is the direct speech of Allah, not a paraphrased or summarized version. We are skipping the only chance provided to understand that speech. What is more important in our life that we have to rush towards? Is that the NFL game? Is that the sweet our wives are cooking? Is that the dinner you are invited to?
I urge all who gets this message to please attend the tafsir class or similar to learn about the verses of the Quran. If you are "Hafiz" of Quran, you are more resposible to understand what you memorized, and teach others. Short of that will strip of any benefits of the memorization, InshAllah.
I understand that you may have commitments, or may have some disagreement with Imam, but come for Allah, and come to learn his speech. If you have no excuse, please come and hear what Allah has to say to you. Lets make the masjid our center of learning, not our homes privately where only a few can benefit.
I invite everyone to the following, and will be witness on the day of judgement that this call was made to all of us.
Sisters are invited as well to attend these, since Islam is an equal opportunity system.
Speech of Allah with meaning (Tafsir - e - Quran)
Sundays After Maghrib
Islamic Center of Orlando,
11543 Ruby Lake Road Orlando, FL 32836-6159
JazakAllah Khairin
A struggling Muslim
AbuArman (Adnan Jumani)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)