Saturday, August 4, 2012

Celebrating Any Yearly Festival Other than Two Eids

At first, we will see the following three narrations -

  • Our beloved Allah's Messenger Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) issued a stern warning: "Whoever imitates a nation is one of them!"
    - Abu Da'oud's Sunan
  • "Narrated by Anas bin malik (rd) when Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) came (to madina), they have two days for festival. He (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) asked what is the significance of these two days. They said - during the time of jahiliyya we celebrated on these two days (Nowruz & Mehregan). Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said - Allah has given you better than these- Eid ul Fitr & Eid ul Adha"
    - Abu Da'oud's Sunan
  • Narrated from 'Abdullaah bin 'Amr (rd) who said, "Whoever resides in the land of A'ajm [Non-arab (here, it meant non-muslims)] and enjoys/joins their (kuffar's) Nowruz (new year festival/1st day of spring), or Mehregan (harvest festival/1st day of Autumn) (neeruujhahum wa mihirjaanahum); and imitates them, (even) he(/she) remains (indulged in) similar (activities) till death; (then) on the resurrection ('Qiyaamah) day, his(/her) judgement ('Hashr) will be with them (non-muslims)." 
    [Bayha'qee; according to the verification of Sk Mu'hammad Ibraaheem its Sanad (chain) is Saheeh]
  • Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)  said, "I am disavowed from every Muslim who resides amongst the backs of the polytheists (Mushrikin). Their fires should not be seen." - Abu dawood's Sunan
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: it is not permissible for the Muslims to attend the festivals of the mushrikeen, according to the consensus of the scholars whose words carry weight. The fuqaha’ who follow the four schools of thought have stated this clearly in their books… Al-Bayhaqi narrated with a saheeh isnaad from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab that he said: “Do not enter upon the mushrikeen in their churches on the day of their festival, for divine wrath is descending upon them.” And ‘Umar also said: “Avoid the enemies of Allaah on their festivals.” Al-Bayhaqi narrated with a jayyid isnaad from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr that he said: (Same as 3rd narration) (Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah, 1/723-724). 

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Referring for judgement to courts of man-made law in cases of necessity

Question:
“Does the Kufr of taking the Hukm to the Taaghoot include the appeal process for one who has already been convicted by this Taaghoot in a situation where there is no possibility to take the Hukm to the Sharee’ah? And if the appeal process is still Kufr Akbar in this case, then what are the conditions for this person to be considered a compelled one, such that he would be permitted to undergo this process?”

Answer:
This issue has been discussed by some of the scholars of Najd, as well as Shaykh Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi, and some students of Shaykh Hamud ibn Uqla ash Shuaybi-rahimahullah.

The main issue is this- is it allowed for a Muslim to seek the Hukm of the Taghut when he is forced and being wronged- when he knows that the ruling that the judge will give will be in agreement with the Shariah?

The Ulama of Najd such as Shaykh Hamad ibn Atiq stated that a person should lose all of his Dunya and not go to the Taghut to seek his right. This is the view supported by Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi.

One of the students of Shaykh Hamud has a research on this exact issue somewhere on the net and the conclusion that he came to was that in worldy things such as some wrongdoing and wealth that has been taken unlawfully, one should not seek the ruling of the Taghut-acting on the Fatwa of Shaykh Hamad and Shayklh Abu Muhammad. In issues of life and death, i.e. imprisonment, torture, death, etc, one is allowed to go to the Taghut to get himself out of prison, to keep from being tortured, or being killed.

I suppose that the reason for the distinction is that long imprisonment, torture, and the threat of being killed is a form of Ikrah, whereas losing some money or getting back at someone is not from Ikrah.

On another issue related to this...

Some of the evil government scholars of Aal as-Salul such as Salih aal-Ash-Shaykh state that it is OK to seek judgement in the Taghut no matter what the issue is as long as you know that the Taghut will rule by what is the Shariah and what is your right. What he means is that, say someone cheated you out of your money- so because you cant take him to a Shari court, you take him to a Taghuti court, but because you were wronged and you have proof, you know that the judge will rule by what is in agreement with the Shariah therefore it is okay for you to do so.

This opinion is extremely false because as long as it is not considered Ikrah, it is still seeking judgement in the Taghut which is Kufr. The fact that the Taghut judge will rule by what is already in agreement with the Shari'ah means nothing at all because the Shari ruling is not simply the outward ruling that is handed down.

The pillars of the Shari ruling are four
1. The Hakim - the one who issues the Hukm- Allah the Most High
2. The one who is ordered with the ruling- the person or people
3. The thing in which the ruling applies to- wealth, lives, worship, ect
4. The Hukm itself.

So in order for something to be a Hukm Shari, it must be admitted that the source is the Shariah of Allah and not man made law. The fact that the outward ruling agrees with the Shari ruling has no effect until this is the case.

If suppose, the Kafir courts punished theft by cutting off the hand, would that mean that they have a portion of the Shariah in their law? No, it would not mean that. This is because they do not take it as the law of Allah. Their legislation of man made laws is Shirk as you know and it is considered as such whether the law that they legislated was in agreement with the Sharia or against it.

With this issue, we also see the falsehood of those who say that they will reach power and establish the Shariah thru the parliment in the Muslim lands such as Jordan. That is because whatever law that they pass that agrees with the Shariah will only be passed if it is in agreement with the desires of the king.

for more info on this, see Shaykh Abu Qatadahs Maqalat bain Manhajain number 45,46, and 47

Wallahu Alam

See also -
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/92650/

Monday, April 16, 2012

Refuting Quranites - 3 : Refuting The Argument That The Quran Is Complete; Therefore, We Don't Need Hadith

Please refer back to all the examples given to refute their other misconceptions and misguidances e.g. number of rakahs to pray, how many ruku and sujud in each rakah, percentage of zakah, nisab level of zakah etc. All these examples prove that the sentence "Quran is complete" cannot be taken in a literal sense. Rather, Quran provides the guidelines, principles and hadith explains them in finer details.
The Quranites usually point to the ayats of the Quran which state that the Quran is fully detailed and clear and that there is nothing left out of the Quran. Therefore, they ask the question, "Why do we need the Hadith?"
The Quran is clear in saying that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is here to explain and teach us the Glorious Quran as we have previously. So does that mean that the Quran is wrong when it says that it is clear and explains all things?  There is a fallacy in reasoning going on here. Let me give an example.
Professor X says to his students that in order to know everything for the exam they must read textbook A. The Professor says that textbook A is clear, fully detailed and enough to pass the test. However, you must do everything that textbook A commands you to do. When students read textbook A they find out that textbook A says that textbook B clarifies and explains in better detail textbook A. So what should the students do? They should read textbook B of course because text book A is CLEARLY stating that textbook B should be referred to. Textbook A clearly explains to the students that textbook B should be referred to.
Similarly the Quran, which is fully detailed and clear, clearly states that we should refer to the Prophet. How do we refer to the Prophet? Through the authentic hadith of course! The Quranites also use following ayats:
a.         And We have sent down unto you (O Prophet) the book explaining (tibyanan) everything and as a guidance, and mercy, and glad tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah) (16:89).
Here the words "explaining everything" are said to show that we need no source of guidance other than the Qur'an. . If we take "everything" literally, it is obviously impossible, since there are clearly things that the Qur'an does not explain; for example, the rules of Chinese grammar or the way to fix your computer. Thus common sense requires that we qualify "everything" as something like "everything that is relevant to religion, shariah, and morality etc". Reason further requires us to bring another element in the understanding of this ayat and that is that many statements in a text have a context both within the text as a whole and in the circumstances in which the statements were made. Now the Qur'an no doubt rises as far above its context as it is possible for a book written in a human language to do, but still it has both types of contexts. Hence the Qur'an explains everything only when its ayats are interpreted by taking into account both the context within the book as a whole as well as the context of circumstances, practices, and events that are assumed in those statements. Now this latter context is provided partly by the Hadith.
c.       There is no animal in the earth nor a flying creature with two wings but they form communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the book. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered (6:38)
The words "We have neglected nothing in the book (al-kitab)" are used by the Qur'an-only people to conclude that everything is found in the Qur'an and hence there is no need for the Hadith. But in the Qur'an the book is not always the Qur'an. Sometimes it is a heavenly book where everything that happens or exists is written down. Thus a little later in the same surah it is said:
"There is not a grain (buried) in the dark depths of the earth nor anything fresh or dry but is inscribed in a manifest book" (6:59).
In other ayats we read:
"And there is no moving (i.e. living) creature on earth but sustenance thereof is dependent on Allah. He knows its habitation and its repository. All is in a manifest book (kitab)" (11:6).
"And the book (al-kitab) will be displayed and you (O man or Prophet) see the sinful in great terror because of what is in it (the book) and they will say, Woe to us, what a book is this! It leaves nothing small or great, but takes account thereof" (18:6).

But even if we take the words "We have neglected nothing in the book" to refer to the Qur'an, they would have to be understood like the words "the book explaining (tibyanan) everything" in the ayat discussed earlier, not literally. Because, we dont find some information about how to make a car or the rules of cooking soups etc in the Quran and so on. So, the word nothing cannot be taken literally.
d.      And We have indeed coined for humanity every kind of similitude (mathal) in this Qur'an that they may reflect (39:27; see also 17:89, 18:54, 30:58).
Again, this statement should be understood in the same way as the statement that the Qur'an explains everything. Since, we dont find similtitude of everything around us in the holy Quran. So, the word "every kind" here is not to be taken literally.
Thus even the ayats most favorable to the Qur'an-only people do not support their contention, or at least do not oblige us to accept their position. But now we show that there are many passages in the Qur'an which clearly do oblige us to conclude the opposite.

To begin with, if it were just a matter of delivering a book, Allah could have used other ways to achieve this. The book could have fallen from heaven or an angel could have brought it to the people. Or, the Qur'an could have been miraculously written down on tablets of stone or tablets of gold and then carried by someone to the people (as said to be the case with the ten commandments and the Book of Mormons). The unbelievers actually raised such possibilities:
The people of the book ask you that you cause a book to descend from heaven ... (4:153)
Had we sent down to you writing upon parchment so that they could feel it with their hands, the unbelievers would have said, This is nothing but mere magic. They say, Why has an angel not been sent down unto him? ... (6:8-9, see also17:94-95)
But Allah did not follow any such mechanical method. Instead he revealed the Qur'an through the heart of the messenger, stressing that a messenger sent to human beings has to be a human being (2:97, 26:194, 42:24). Clearly, then it was not simply a question of delivering a book but the human heart and the person of the messenger also plays an important part in the process of delivery.

There are other ayats showing that the Prophet's involvement in his work as the messenger was much deeper than that of a mere deliveryman. The Qur'an says:
Have We not opened your breast (O Prophet). And lifted from you the burden that was weighing down your back (94:1-3).
From these ayats it becomes clear that a great deal happened within the soul of the Prophet before he embarked on his mission. Simply conveying a message as a postman need not have involved such inner back-breaking struggles