Q) My father has made an oath to a relative not to tell his secret, but two days later we were shocked to know that my father broke his oath and told the secret. So now he has to expiate for this broken oath.
My question is: Can I fast 3 days on behalf of my father, as he is diabetic and says he will not be able to fast due to the hot weather and his illness, although he fasted the entire previous month of Ramadan?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
The expiation for breaking an oath (kafaarat yameen) is, as Allaah says, freeing a slave or feeding or clothing ten poor persons. If that is not possible then it is fasting for three days.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah will not punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masaakeen (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families, or clothe them or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths (i.e. do not swear much). Thus Allaah makes clear to you His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) that you may be grateful”
[al-Maa'idah 5:89]
Thus it is known that it is not valid to offer expiation by fasting, except for one who cannot afford to feed or clothe ten poor persons, or to free a slave.
See the answer to question no. 45676 for details on expiation for breaking an oath.
Secondly:
If your father is not able to feed or clothe ten poor persons or to free a slave, but he is able to fast, then he must fast, and it is not valid for you to fast on his behalf. The one who has fasted all of Ramadan is not incapable of fasting for three days, whether consecutively or separately.
If he is unable to fast, then the expiation is waived in his case.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: If a person has to offer expiation for breaking an oath and he cannot afford to feed (ten poor persons) and he is not able to fast, then it is waived in his case because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“So keep your duty to Allaah and fear Him as much as you can”
[al-Taghaabun 64:16]
“Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope”
[al-Baqarah 2:286]
and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If I order you to do a thing, do as much of it as you can.” And he does not have to do anything else, because one of the established principles of Islam is that duties are waived if a person is unable to do them and he may do the alternative if an alternative exists, or something else if there is no alternative. If he is unable to do the alternative then it is waived altogether. End quote from Fataawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb.
Whatever the case, your fasting on his behalf is not valid, because he is the one who has to offer expiation for breaking his oath.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Friday, July 25, 2008
Ruling on keeping pictures and children’s toys
Q) We know from Hadith that the Angels do not enter into a house where pictures/phograhps of living things (humans or animals )are displased.
What is the ruling for keeping the photographs of family relatives and pictures appearing in magazines/news papers etc. and toys like dolls and sruptures of animals.
Your kind reply based on teaching of Quran and Hadith is most kindly requested. May Allah bless you for this act of kindness.
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Image-making is of two types: one by hand and the other by means of machines.
Image-making by hand is haraam, and is in fact a major sin, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the one who does it. He did not differentiate between images that have a shadow (i.e., three-dimensional) or those that are simply drawn (two-dimensional), according to the more correct scholarly opinion, because of the general meaning of the hadeeth.
With regard to image-making by means of machines, i.e. cameras, there is a difference of opinion among the later scholars on this matter. Some of them forbid it and some of them allow it.
In order to be on the safe side, it is better to avoid that, because it is one of the doubtful areas. And whoever is careful with regard to doubtful matters will protect his religious commitment and his honour. But if he needs to do that for a specific purpose such as proving his identity, there is nothing wrong with that because if there is a need, the matter is no longer doubtful.
Secondly:
With regard to keeping pictures, this is also of two types:
The first type is keeping images that are three-dimensional. Keeping them is haraam. Ibn al-‘Arabi narrated that there is consensus on this point. See Fath al-Baari, p. 388, vol. 10). He said: This consensus has to do with things other than girls’ dolls.
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had friends who would play with me. When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered they would hide themselves and he would call them to come and play with me. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 5779; Muslim, no. 2440.
The second type is images that are not three-dimensional. These are of different types:
1- Those that are hung up to be venerated and respected, as in the case of pictures of kings, presidents, ministers, scholars etc. This is haraam because it involves exaggeration about a created being.
2- Those that are hung up for the sake of memory, such as hanging up pictures of one's friends. This is also haraam, because of the hadeeth narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari from Abu Talhah (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said: “I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: ‘The angels do not enter any house in which there is a dog or an image.’” Narrated by Muslim, no. 2104).
3- Those that are hung up for the purpose of adornment. These are also haraam because of the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came back from a journey and I had hung a patterned curtain on which there were images over (the door of) a room of mine. When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw it, he tore it and said, ‘The most severely punished of the people on the Day of Resurrection will be those who tried to imitate the creation of Allaah.’” She said: “So I made it into one or two cushions.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 5610; Muslim, no. 2107.
4- Those that are treated with disrespect, such as images in carpets and pillows. Al-Nawawi narrated from the majority of scholars among the Sahaabah and Taabi’een that these are permissible.
5- Those that have unfortunately become widespread and are difficult to avoid, such as images engraved on coins etc which have become a problem for the Muslim ummah. It seems to me that there is no sin on the one who acquires these without wanting to acquire images.
Thirdly:
With regard to dolls that children play with:
An exception is made in the case of children’s toys, which are not regarded as haraam or makrooh. But what are the toys which are exempted? We know that the toys of the past did not have eyes and lips and noses as they do nowadays. I think it is better to avoid these toys and limit oneself to those the kind of toys that were known previously.
See Fataawa al-‘Aqeedah by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, p. 66, 663, 679
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
What is the ruling for keeping the photographs of family relatives and pictures appearing in magazines/news papers etc. and toys like dolls and sruptures of animals.
Your kind reply based on teaching of Quran and Hadith is most kindly requested. May Allah bless you for this act of kindness.
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Image-making is of two types: one by hand and the other by means of machines.
Image-making by hand is haraam, and is in fact a major sin, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the one who does it. He did not differentiate between images that have a shadow (i.e., three-dimensional) or those that are simply drawn (two-dimensional), according to the more correct scholarly opinion, because of the general meaning of the hadeeth.
With regard to image-making by means of machines, i.e. cameras, there is a difference of opinion among the later scholars on this matter. Some of them forbid it and some of them allow it.
In order to be on the safe side, it is better to avoid that, because it is one of the doubtful areas. And whoever is careful with regard to doubtful matters will protect his religious commitment and his honour. But if he needs to do that for a specific purpose such as proving his identity, there is nothing wrong with that because if there is a need, the matter is no longer doubtful.
Secondly:
With regard to keeping pictures, this is also of two types:
The first type is keeping images that are three-dimensional. Keeping them is haraam. Ibn al-‘Arabi narrated that there is consensus on this point. See Fath al-Baari, p. 388, vol. 10). He said: This consensus has to do with things other than girls’ dolls.
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had friends who would play with me. When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered they would hide themselves and he would call them to come and play with me. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 5779; Muslim, no. 2440.
The second type is images that are not three-dimensional. These are of different types:
1- Those that are hung up to be venerated and respected, as in the case of pictures of kings, presidents, ministers, scholars etc. This is haraam because it involves exaggeration about a created being.
2- Those that are hung up for the sake of memory, such as hanging up pictures of one's friends. This is also haraam, because of the hadeeth narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari from Abu Talhah (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said: “I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: ‘The angels do not enter any house in which there is a dog or an image.’” Narrated by Muslim, no. 2104).
3- Those that are hung up for the purpose of adornment. These are also haraam because of the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came back from a journey and I had hung a patterned curtain on which there were images over (the door of) a room of mine. When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw it, he tore it and said, ‘The most severely punished of the people on the Day of Resurrection will be those who tried to imitate the creation of Allaah.’” She said: “So I made it into one or two cushions.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 5610; Muslim, no. 2107.
4- Those that are treated with disrespect, such as images in carpets and pillows. Al-Nawawi narrated from the majority of scholars among the Sahaabah and Taabi’een that these are permissible.
5- Those that have unfortunately become widespread and are difficult to avoid, such as images engraved on coins etc which have become a problem for the Muslim ummah. It seems to me that there is no sin on the one who acquires these without wanting to acquire images.
Thirdly:
With regard to dolls that children play with:
An exception is made in the case of children’s toys, which are not regarded as haraam or makrooh. But what are the toys which are exempted? We know that the toys of the past did not have eyes and lips and noses as they do nowadays. I think it is better to avoid these toys and limit oneself to those the kind of toys that were known previously.
See Fataawa al-‘Aqeedah by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, p. 66, 663, 679
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Replacing entrusted property
Q) When a person is travelling from a place to another and someone gives him cash/goods to give it to someone but before the person travelling reaches his destination lost the cash/goods due to theft or some other unavoidable reason is he resposible to give back or payback the cash/goods given to him to the person who gave him to carry on his behalf ? please kindly advise.
A) Praise be to Allaah.
When property is entrusted to a person he is responsible for it, and if that is the case then he is obliged to protect it, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, Allaah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due”
[al-Nisa’ 4:58]
Part of rendering back the trust is taking care of it; he must take care of it by putting it away in a suitable place.
If he takes care of it by putting it away in a suitable place, and he is not negligent by either doing things that are not permitted or failing to do what he should, in this case he is not obliged to do anything.
But if he is negligent and does not take care of it by putting it away in a suitable place, or he is negligent by putting it in a place where it will not be safe when he is able to put it in a safe place, or he disposes of it, or he uses it himself and so on, then after that it is stolen, then he is responsible for it. The guideline concerning that is negligence; if he is not negligent (and it is lost) then he is not responsible for it.
Shaykh Dr. Khaalid al-Mushayqih.
A) Praise be to Allaah.
When property is entrusted to a person he is responsible for it, and if that is the case then he is obliged to protect it, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, Allaah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due”
[al-Nisa’ 4:58]
Part of rendering back the trust is taking care of it; he must take care of it by putting it away in a suitable place.
If he takes care of it by putting it away in a suitable place, and he is not negligent by either doing things that are not permitted or failing to do what he should, in this case he is not obliged to do anything.
But if he is negligent and does not take care of it by putting it away in a suitable place, or he is negligent by putting it in a place where it will not be safe when he is able to put it in a safe place, or he disposes of it, or he uses it himself and so on, then after that it is stolen, then he is responsible for it. The guideline concerning that is negligence; if he is not negligent (and it is lost) then he is not responsible for it.
Shaykh Dr. Khaalid al-Mushayqih.
He has invested money in the investment fund; how should he pay zakaah?
Q) I have investment funds in a bank. Do I have to pay Zakah on this amount? How much must I pay if yes? Should I calculate Zakah on the whole amount or only on the profit?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Zakaah on investments varies according to the intention of the owner.
If he invested in the company with the aim of benefiting from the annual profit on the shares, and not with the intention of dealing in them, then no zakaah is due on the shares themselves, rather he must pay zakaah on the yield, at a rate of one quarter of one tenth after one full hijri year has passed since he took possession of the yield.
But if the shareholder bought the shares with the intention of dealing in them, then the zakaah is the same as zakaah on trade goods. When the hijri year has passed since the shares came into his possession, he must pay zakaah on their market value, at a rate of 2.5% of that value and of the profit if the shares have made any profit.
End quote from Majallat Majma’ al-Fiqh al-Islami (1/879).
Secondly:
If you bought shares with the aim of making profit only, and you paid 2.5% of the profits with the intention of paying zakaah, and you gave it to an organization to distribute it on your behalf, that is sufficient, but you should make sure that this organization has paid the zakaah. If you had taken the money and distributed your zakaah yourself, that would have been better.
But if you bought shares with the intention of trading in them, then you must work out their value at the end of the year and pay zakaah on it at a rate of 2.5% of their value.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Zakaah on investments varies according to the intention of the owner.
If he invested in the company with the aim of benefiting from the annual profit on the shares, and not with the intention of dealing in them, then no zakaah is due on the shares themselves, rather he must pay zakaah on the yield, at a rate of one quarter of one tenth after one full hijri year has passed since he took possession of the yield.
But if the shareholder bought the shares with the intention of dealing in them, then the zakaah is the same as zakaah on trade goods. When the hijri year has passed since the shares came into his possession, he must pay zakaah on their market value, at a rate of 2.5% of that value and of the profit if the shares have made any profit.
End quote from Majallat Majma’ al-Fiqh al-Islami (1/879).
Secondly:
If you bought shares with the aim of making profit only, and you paid 2.5% of the profits with the intention of paying zakaah, and you gave it to an organization to distribute it on your behalf, that is sufficient, but you should make sure that this organization has paid the zakaah. If you had taken the money and distributed your zakaah yourself, that would have been better.
But if you bought shares with the intention of trading in them, then you must work out their value at the end of the year and pay zakaah on it at a rate of 2.5% of their value.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
The Shi’ah claim that the Sahaabah did not attend the funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
Q) The shais claim that the companions were not at the funeral of the prophet? is this true? and if its not where was they? are they hadiths to support this?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).
None of the groups that claim to belong to the ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is known to tell lies more than the Shi’ah. This is something that has been well known about them from ancient times. The imams referred to that in their books hundreds of years ago, and they still have this hateful charcateristic.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are agreed, on the basis of reports and chains of narrators, that the Raafidah (the Shi’ah) are the most mendacious of groups and that the lies among them are ancient. Hence the imams defined them as being distinguished by the fact that they are liars.
Imam Maalik was asked about the Raafidah and he said: Do not talk to them and do not narrate from them, because they tell lies.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said: I have never seen anyone who bears false witness more than the Raafidis.
Yazeed ibn Haroon said: You can narrate from any man of innovation (bid’ah), provided that he is not active in calling others to his innovation, except al-Raafidah, because they are liars.
Shareek al-Qaadi said: Acquire knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidah, for they fabricate hadeeth and take that as their religion.
This Shareek is Shareek ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Qaadi, the qaadi of Kufah, one of the peers of al-Thawri and Abu Haneefah. He is one of the Shi’ah who said with his own tongue: I am one of the Shi’ah, and this was his testimony concerning them.
These reports are proven; they were narrated by Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra by him and others. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (1/26-27).
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died on 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH, after the sun had passed its zenith, and he was buried on the Tuesday night, after all the people of Madeenah had offered the funeral prayer for him, as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Some people came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left; then others came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left, until all the people had come in. Narrated by al-Tirmidhi in al-Shamaa’il (p. 338) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in his review.
None of these Sahaabah who offered the funeral prayer for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and were in Madeenah on that day should be thought of as having done anything but attend the funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is something so obvious as to need no proof or evidence. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was dearer to them than their spouses, fathers, mothers and children; he was even dearer to them than their own selves, as Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: No person was dearer to them than the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2754) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
But some people’s hearts are filled with hate and resentment against Islam and its people, so they fabricate lies against them and slander them falsely, although they (the Sahaabah) are the best of people after the Prophets and Messengers of Allaah, according to the testimony of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said: “The best of people are my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2652) and Muslim (2532).
The one who slanders, denigrates and reviles them is in fact slandering the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), for they are his companions, students and supporters, and they are the dearest of people to him.
There are reports which show that they attended his funeral, and the matter is too clear to need any evidence, as stated above.
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The day that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered Madeenah was the brightest of all, and the day on which he died was the darkest of all, and as soon as we had finished burying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), we felt that our hearts had changed.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3618) and classed as saheeh by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (5/239).
Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said, when the people came back from burying her father (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): O Anas, how could you bear to cover the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with earth? Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4462).
So where did these people get this fabrication?
But it is no wonder that they denied something that is well known and that no Muslim should be unaware of, and they denied that the Qur'aan is preserved, and they claimed that it was distorted and that something was taken away from it, and they impugned the honour of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they reviled his Companions in the worst manner, even though their virtue is mentioned in the Holy Qur’aan and the mutawaatir ahaadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), on which the ummah is unanimously agreed. It is no wonder that those who denied these things would come up with a fabrication like this. “And Allaah encompasses them from behind! (i.e. all their deeds are within His Knowledge, and He will requite them for their deeds)” [al-Burooj 85:20]; “And those who do wrong will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned” [al-Shu’ara’ 26:227].
We ask Allaah to support His religion and cause His Word to prevail, and to defeat falsehood and its people.
May Allaah send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
A) Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).
None of the groups that claim to belong to the ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is known to tell lies more than the Shi’ah. This is something that has been well known about them from ancient times. The imams referred to that in their books hundreds of years ago, and they still have this hateful charcateristic.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are agreed, on the basis of reports and chains of narrators, that the Raafidah (the Shi’ah) are the most mendacious of groups and that the lies among them are ancient. Hence the imams defined them as being distinguished by the fact that they are liars.
Imam Maalik was asked about the Raafidah and he said: Do not talk to them and do not narrate from them, because they tell lies.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said: I have never seen anyone who bears false witness more than the Raafidis.
Yazeed ibn Haroon said: You can narrate from any man of innovation (bid’ah), provided that he is not active in calling others to his innovation, except al-Raafidah, because they are liars.
Shareek al-Qaadi said: Acquire knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidah, for they fabricate hadeeth and take that as their religion.
This Shareek is Shareek ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Qaadi, the qaadi of Kufah, one of the peers of al-Thawri and Abu Haneefah. He is one of the Shi’ah who said with his own tongue: I am one of the Shi’ah, and this was his testimony concerning them.
These reports are proven; they were narrated by Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra by him and others. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (1/26-27).
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died on 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH, after the sun had passed its zenith, and he was buried on the Tuesday night, after all the people of Madeenah had offered the funeral prayer for him, as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Some people came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left; then others came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left, until all the people had come in. Narrated by al-Tirmidhi in al-Shamaa’il (p. 338) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in his review.
None of these Sahaabah who offered the funeral prayer for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and were in Madeenah on that day should be thought of as having done anything but attend the funeral of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is something so obvious as to need no proof or evidence. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was dearer to them than their spouses, fathers, mothers and children; he was even dearer to them than their own selves, as Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: No person was dearer to them than the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2754) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
But some people’s hearts are filled with hate and resentment against Islam and its people, so they fabricate lies against them and slander them falsely, although they (the Sahaabah) are the best of people after the Prophets and Messengers of Allaah, according to the testimony of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said: “The best of people are my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2652) and Muslim (2532).
The one who slanders, denigrates and reviles them is in fact slandering the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), for they are his companions, students and supporters, and they are the dearest of people to him.
There are reports which show that they attended his funeral, and the matter is too clear to need any evidence, as stated above.
It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The day that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered Madeenah was the brightest of all, and the day on which he died was the darkest of all, and as soon as we had finished burying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), we felt that our hearts had changed.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3618) and classed as saheeh by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (5/239).
Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said, when the people came back from burying her father (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): O Anas, how could you bear to cover the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with earth? Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4462).
So where did these people get this fabrication?
But it is no wonder that they denied something that is well known and that no Muslim should be unaware of, and they denied that the Qur'aan is preserved, and they claimed that it was distorted and that something was taken away from it, and they impugned the honour of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they reviled his Companions in the worst manner, even though their virtue is mentioned in the Holy Qur’aan and the mutawaatir ahaadeeth from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), on which the ummah is unanimously agreed. It is no wonder that those who denied these things would come up with a fabrication like this. “And Allaah encompasses them from behind! (i.e. all their deeds are within His Knowledge, and He will requite them for their deeds)” [al-Burooj 85:20]; “And those who do wrong will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned” [al-Shu’ara’ 26:227].
We ask Allaah to support His religion and cause His Word to prevail, and to defeat falsehood and its people.
May Allaah send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Islamic financial system
Q) I would like to know,althought the islamic finance way is known no element of riba.But i after i studied the way how the islamic finance been use,i see that still have the element of riba.So can u explain is there still any element of riba in the islamic finance system?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Riba is emphatically forbidden in Islam. Allaah has condemned the one who does that and has declared war on him, and spoken of his bad end on the Day of Resurrection. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Those who eat Ribaa will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaytaan (Satan) leading him to insanity. That is because they say: ‘Trading is only like Ribaa,’ whereas Allaah has permitted trading and forbidden Ribaa. So whosoever receives an admonition from his Lord and stops eating Ribaa, shall not be punished for the past; his case is for Allaah (to judge); but whoever returns (to Ribaa), such are the dwellers of the Fire — they will abide therein.
Allaah will destroy Ribaa and will give increase for Sadaqaat (deeds of charity, alms). And Allaah likes not the disbelievers, sinners”
[al-Baqarah 2:275, 276]
“O you who believe! Fear Allaah and give up what remains (due to you) from Ribaa (from now onward) if you are (really) believers.
And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allaah and His Messenger but if you repent, you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly (by asking more than your capital sums), and you shall not be dealt with unjustly (by receiving less than your capital sums)”
[al-Baraqah 2:278, 279]
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the one who consumes riba, the one who pays it, the one who writes it down and the two who witness it, and he said, “They are all the same.” Narrated by Muslim, 1598, from the hadeeth of Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him).
And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “A dirham of riba consumed knowingly by a man is worse before Allaah than committing zina thirty-six times.” Narrated by Ahmad and al-Tabaraani, classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, no. 3375.
And there are other texts which point to the enormity and abhorrent nature of this crime.
The Islamic financial system does not approve of any transaction that includes riba, rather the sharee’ah forbids certain transactions so as to prevent the means that lead to riba.
Secondly:
The banks that exist nowadays are all riba based banks, with a few rare exceptions. Just because a bank is located in a Muslim country does not mean that it is an Islamic bank. Most of these banks are connected to Jewish and Crusader banks overseas. It is most regrettable that in the Muslim lands which are home to more than a billion Muslims there is no Islamic bank that is free from riba, apart from a few institutions.
So the decision makers among the Muslims have to pay due attention to this matter and establish an independent Islamic banking system. There are scholars and people who are able to work in this field, and there is a great deal of capital, praise be to Allaah.
Thirdly:
The true Islamic financial system is a system that is free of riba, because it is a system that is derived from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Your saying in your question that you have noticed riba in financial transactions in the Islamic banks needs further explanation. Perhaps you think that some of these transactions involve riba when they do not.
We ask Allaah to set the Muslims’ affairs straight and to help those in authority to do what is right and proper. Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Riba is emphatically forbidden in Islam. Allaah has condemned the one who does that and has declared war on him, and spoken of his bad end on the Day of Resurrection. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Those who eat Ribaa will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaytaan (Satan) leading him to insanity. That is because they say: ‘Trading is only like Ribaa,’ whereas Allaah has permitted trading and forbidden Ribaa. So whosoever receives an admonition from his Lord and stops eating Ribaa, shall not be punished for the past; his case is for Allaah (to judge); but whoever returns (to Ribaa), such are the dwellers of the Fire — they will abide therein.
Allaah will destroy Ribaa and will give increase for Sadaqaat (deeds of charity, alms). And Allaah likes not the disbelievers, sinners”
[al-Baqarah 2:275, 276]
“O you who believe! Fear Allaah and give up what remains (due to you) from Ribaa (from now onward) if you are (really) believers.
And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allaah and His Messenger but if you repent, you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly (by asking more than your capital sums), and you shall not be dealt with unjustly (by receiving less than your capital sums)”
[al-Baraqah 2:278, 279]
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the one who consumes riba, the one who pays it, the one who writes it down and the two who witness it, and he said, “They are all the same.” Narrated by Muslim, 1598, from the hadeeth of Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him).
And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “A dirham of riba consumed knowingly by a man is worse before Allaah than committing zina thirty-six times.” Narrated by Ahmad and al-Tabaraani, classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, no. 3375.
And there are other texts which point to the enormity and abhorrent nature of this crime.
The Islamic financial system does not approve of any transaction that includes riba, rather the sharee’ah forbids certain transactions so as to prevent the means that lead to riba.
Secondly:
The banks that exist nowadays are all riba based banks, with a few rare exceptions. Just because a bank is located in a Muslim country does not mean that it is an Islamic bank. Most of these banks are connected to Jewish and Crusader banks overseas. It is most regrettable that in the Muslim lands which are home to more than a billion Muslims there is no Islamic bank that is free from riba, apart from a few institutions.
So the decision makers among the Muslims have to pay due attention to this matter and establish an independent Islamic banking system. There are scholars and people who are able to work in this field, and there is a great deal of capital, praise be to Allaah.
Thirdly:
The true Islamic financial system is a system that is free of riba, because it is a system that is derived from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Your saying in your question that you have noticed riba in financial transactions in the Islamic banks needs further explanation. Perhaps you think that some of these transactions involve riba when they do not.
We ask Allaah to set the Muslims’ affairs straight and to help those in authority to do what is right and proper. Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Ruling on one who is killed in the fight against drugs
Q) Drugs have become widespread in the Muslim countries. If a man who is employed in the fight against drugs is killed during a drugs raid, is he considered to be a shaheed (martyr)? And what is the ruling on those who give information and help the law-enforcement officers to find the drug dens?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Undoubtedly the fight against intoxicants and drugs is one of the greatest forms of jihad for the sake of Allaah. One of the most important duties is for all members of society to cooperate in fighting that, because fighting it is in the interests of everyone, and because its spread harms everyone. Whoever is killed in the fight against this evil and has a good intention is one of the martyrs. Whoever helps to expose drug dens and tells the law-enforcement officers where they are will be rewarded for that and is also regarded as a mujaahid fighting for the sake of the truth, in the interests of the Muslims and to protect their society against something harmful. We ask Allaah to guide those who deal in drugs and to bring them back to their senses and grant them refuge from the evil of their own selves and the traps of their enemy the Shaytaan. May He help those who are fighting against them to do a good job. May He help them to do their duty, guide them aright and grant them victory over the Shaytaan, for He is the best to be asked.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah by Shaykh ibn Baaz, vol. 4, p. 410
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Undoubtedly the fight against intoxicants and drugs is one of the greatest forms of jihad for the sake of Allaah. One of the most important duties is for all members of society to cooperate in fighting that, because fighting it is in the interests of everyone, and because its spread harms everyone. Whoever is killed in the fight against this evil and has a good intention is one of the martyrs. Whoever helps to expose drug dens and tells the law-enforcement officers where they are will be rewarded for that and is also regarded as a mujaahid fighting for the sake of the truth, in the interests of the Muslims and to protect their society against something harmful. We ask Allaah to guide those who deal in drugs and to bring them back to their senses and grant them refuge from the evil of their own selves and the traps of their enemy the Shaytaan. May He help those who are fighting against them to do a good job. May He help them to do their duty, guide them aright and grant them victory over the Shaytaan, for He is the best to be asked.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah by Shaykh ibn Baaz, vol. 4, p. 410
Obligation of treating co-wives fairly and some of the rules on travel for men with more than one wife
Q) I would like to know if it is allowed for a man, when he is married to two wives to take the second wife every time if he will travel, even if the first wife cannot go because of her children. What can she do if she feels that he do not want to divide his time equally between them. Please advice a good website with answers on polygamy.
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Allaah has enjoined justice and fairness in all things. He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah commands justice [and] the doing of good”
[al-Nahl 16:90]
Ibn Jareer al-Tabari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
In this Book that He revealed to you, O Muhammad, Allaah enjoins justice, which is fairness.
Tafseer al-Tabari (17/279).
Allaah has forbidden injustice and wrongdoing (zulm) to His slaves, and He warns those who are unjust or do wrong of punishment in this world and in the Hereafter.
It was narrated from Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, narrating from Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted: “ ‘O My slaves, I have forbidden zulm to Myself and I have made it haraam among you, so do not wrong one another.” Narrated by Muslim (2577).
Allaah has enjoined justice and fairness between co-wives, and there is a warning against wronging one of them at the expense of another. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”
[al-Nisa’ 4:3]
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
i.e., the one who wants to take two or three or four wives may do so, but no more than that, because the context of the verse reminds people of the blessings of Allaah, so it is not permissible to add anything to the number that Allaah has defined, according to scholarly consensus. That is because a man’s desire may not be fulfilled by one wife, so it is permitted for him to take more, up to four, because four is sufficient for anyone, except in rare cases. However, that is only permitted to him if he is confident that he will not be unfair and unjust, and that he will be able to give them their rights.
If he is afraid that any of this applies to him, then he should limit himself to one, or to slaves that his right hand possesses, because he is not obliged to divide his time equally when it comes to slave women.
“That”, i.e., limiting yourself to one or to what your right hand possesses (slave women)
“is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice” i.e., being unfair or unjust.
Limiting it to one applies in the case where a person fears he may be unjust or unfair, and may fail to do what is required, so he should err on the side of caution and not put himself in that position.
Tafseer al-Sa’di (p. 163).
It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever has two wives and favours one of them over the other, will come on the Day of Resurrection with one of his sides leaning.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1141), Abu Dawood (2133), al-Nasaa’i (3942) and Ibn Majaah (1969). Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Targheeb wa’l-Tarheeb (no. 1949).
Shaykh al-Mubaarakfoori (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Al-Teebi said in his commentary on the words “with one of his sides leaning”, i.e., tilting. And it was said that this will be in such a way that all the people on the Day of Resurrection will see him, so this will increase his punishment.
Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (4/248).
If a wife sees that her husband is favouring her co-wife at her expense, or is being unjust to her with regard to her rights, she should hasten to advise her husband in the way that is best, and remind him of what Allaah has enjoined of justice, and what Allaah has forbidden of injustice. She should also hasten to advise her co-wife not to accept this injustice, and not to take anything that is not rightfully hers. Perhaps Allaah will guide him to be just and to give each one her due rights.
Secondly:
One aspect of justice between co-wives is for the husband to draw lots if he wants to travel with one wife and not the other(s). This is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did with his wives.
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) wanted to go out on a journey, he would cast lots between his wives and the one whose name was drawn, he would take her with him.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2454) and Muslim (2770).
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: This shows that if a man wants to travel with one of his wives, he should cast lots between them. In our view this casting lots is obligatory.
Sharh Muslim (15/210).
Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
It is not permissible for him to choose one of his wives to travel with him except by drawing lots.
Al-Muhalla (9/212).
Something similar was said by al-Shawkaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) in al-Sayl al-Jiraar (2/304).
When he comes back from his trip, he should not count the period of his trip for the wife who travelled with him as the result of drawing lots.
‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
When he comes back from his journey, he should resume the division of his time among them, and he should not count the days of the one with whom he travelled. The hardship that the wife who accompanied him went through as the result of travelling is in return for the time she got to spend with him.
Al-Tamheed (19/266).
Thirdly:
If it is assumed that one of his wives was not able to travel with him, it is pointless to include her in drawing lots, when she is unable to travel with him. In that case, lots should be drawn among those whose circumstances allow them to travel, and lots should not be drawn between those who are able and those who are not. But this is based on the assumption that this is the truth and not just an illusion or based on mistreatment of her, such as if she is sick or she has children and cannot leave them without someone to look after them, or she is not allowed to travel, and other such reasons, and it is not because he wants the other wife to travel with him and not the first one. Otherwise he is being unjust.
In this case he has to try to please both wives, even if it means making it up to the one who is not travelling by spending extra time with her when he comes back from his trip.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Al-Qurtubi said: That varies according to women’s situations, and the prescription of drawing lots applies only if their situations are the same, lest one of them go out with him without a reason to make him take her and not the other(s).
Fath al-Baari (9/311).
Dr. Ahmad al-Rayyaan said:
If the wives’ situations are the same in all aspects, then drawing lots is a must. But if his wives differ in that, there is nothing wrong with choosing, so long as he pays attention to the principles of not favouring one of them and not aiming to cause harm.
Ta’addud al-Zawjaat (p. 71).
We do not know of any site that deals specifically with issues of plural marriage. You can look at our site, and at other trustworthy fatwa sites which deal with a lot of questions about plural marriage.
We have compiled a separate section on our site dealing with issues and rulings on plural marriage, and you can find it at this link:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/cat/355
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Allaah has enjoined justice and fairness in all things. He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah commands justice [and] the doing of good”
[al-Nahl 16:90]
Ibn Jareer al-Tabari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
In this Book that He revealed to you, O Muhammad, Allaah enjoins justice, which is fairness.
Tafseer al-Tabari (17/279).
Allaah has forbidden injustice and wrongdoing (zulm) to His slaves, and He warns those who are unjust or do wrong of punishment in this world and in the Hereafter.
It was narrated from Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, narrating from Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted: “ ‘O My slaves, I have forbidden zulm to Myself and I have made it haraam among you, so do not wrong one another.” Narrated by Muslim (2577).
Allaah has enjoined justice and fairness between co-wives, and there is a warning against wronging one of them at the expense of another. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”
[al-Nisa’ 4:3]
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
i.e., the one who wants to take two or three or four wives may do so, but no more than that, because the context of the verse reminds people of the blessings of Allaah, so it is not permissible to add anything to the number that Allaah has defined, according to scholarly consensus. That is because a man’s desire may not be fulfilled by one wife, so it is permitted for him to take more, up to four, because four is sufficient for anyone, except in rare cases. However, that is only permitted to him if he is confident that he will not be unfair and unjust, and that he will be able to give them their rights.
If he is afraid that any of this applies to him, then he should limit himself to one, or to slaves that his right hand possesses, because he is not obliged to divide his time equally when it comes to slave women.
“That”, i.e., limiting yourself to one or to what your right hand possesses (slave women)
“is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice” i.e., being unfair or unjust.
Limiting it to one applies in the case where a person fears he may be unjust or unfair, and may fail to do what is required, so he should err on the side of caution and not put himself in that position.
Tafseer al-Sa’di (p. 163).
It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever has two wives and favours one of them over the other, will come on the Day of Resurrection with one of his sides leaning.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1141), Abu Dawood (2133), al-Nasaa’i (3942) and Ibn Majaah (1969). Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Targheeb wa’l-Tarheeb (no. 1949).
Shaykh al-Mubaarakfoori (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Al-Teebi said in his commentary on the words “with one of his sides leaning”, i.e., tilting. And it was said that this will be in such a way that all the people on the Day of Resurrection will see him, so this will increase his punishment.
Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (4/248).
If a wife sees that her husband is favouring her co-wife at her expense, or is being unjust to her with regard to her rights, she should hasten to advise her husband in the way that is best, and remind him of what Allaah has enjoined of justice, and what Allaah has forbidden of injustice. She should also hasten to advise her co-wife not to accept this injustice, and not to take anything that is not rightfully hers. Perhaps Allaah will guide him to be just and to give each one her due rights.
Secondly:
One aspect of justice between co-wives is for the husband to draw lots if he wants to travel with one wife and not the other(s). This is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did with his wives.
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) wanted to go out on a journey, he would cast lots between his wives and the one whose name was drawn, he would take her with him.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2454) and Muslim (2770).
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: This shows that if a man wants to travel with one of his wives, he should cast lots between them. In our view this casting lots is obligatory.
Sharh Muslim (15/210).
Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
It is not permissible for him to choose one of his wives to travel with him except by drawing lots.
Al-Muhalla (9/212).
Something similar was said by al-Shawkaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) in al-Sayl al-Jiraar (2/304).
When he comes back from his trip, he should not count the period of his trip for the wife who travelled with him as the result of drawing lots.
‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
When he comes back from his journey, he should resume the division of his time among them, and he should not count the days of the one with whom he travelled. The hardship that the wife who accompanied him went through as the result of travelling is in return for the time she got to spend with him.
Al-Tamheed (19/266).
Thirdly:
If it is assumed that one of his wives was not able to travel with him, it is pointless to include her in drawing lots, when she is unable to travel with him. In that case, lots should be drawn among those whose circumstances allow them to travel, and lots should not be drawn between those who are able and those who are not. But this is based on the assumption that this is the truth and not just an illusion or based on mistreatment of her, such as if she is sick or she has children and cannot leave them without someone to look after them, or she is not allowed to travel, and other such reasons, and it is not because he wants the other wife to travel with him and not the first one. Otherwise he is being unjust.
In this case he has to try to please both wives, even if it means making it up to the one who is not travelling by spending extra time with her when he comes back from his trip.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Al-Qurtubi said: That varies according to women’s situations, and the prescription of drawing lots applies only if their situations are the same, lest one of them go out with him without a reason to make him take her and not the other(s).
Fath al-Baari (9/311).
Dr. Ahmad al-Rayyaan said:
If the wives’ situations are the same in all aspects, then drawing lots is a must. But if his wives differ in that, there is nothing wrong with choosing, so long as he pays attention to the principles of not favouring one of them and not aiming to cause harm.
Ta’addud al-Zawjaat (p. 71).
We do not know of any site that deals specifically with issues of plural marriage. You can look at our site, and at other trustworthy fatwa sites which deal with a lot of questions about plural marriage.
We have compiled a separate section on our site dealing with issues and rulings on plural marriage, and you can find it at this link:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/cat/355
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
He is confused about Yoosuf saying “Mention me to your master”
Q) Does Allah punish his prophets? In the story of Yusuf (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), was he left in prison for a number of years as a punishment from Allah because he asked one of his prison mates to mention him to his master, while only Allah should be called Master.
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
We have previously discussed the fact that the Prophets (may be the blessings and peace of Allaah be upon them all) are infallible and protected against major sins, bad attitudes and vile actions that are contrary to chivalry.
See the answers to questions no. 7208 and 42216.
Secondly:
With regard to the story of Yoosuf, the more correct of the two opinions in the commentary thereon is that the one who forgot to mention him to his lord (master) in this verse was not Yoosuf (peace be upon him) but the other prisoner, whom Yoosuf asked to mention him to his lord (master or king). Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: “Mention me to your lord (i.e. your king, so as to get me out of the prison).” But Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord. So [Yoosuf (Joseph)] stayed in prison a few (more) years”
[Yoosuf 12:42]
As the apparent meaning of the commentary on the verse is that the one who forgot was the one who was supposed to convey the message from Yoosuf to the ruler of Egypt, there is nothing in the content of this message – to remind the ruler about Yoosuf – that undermines the position of Prophethood or is contrary to the idea of putting one’s trust in Allaah and referring one’s needs to Him.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: Allaah said: “But Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord”. It was said that he caused Yoosuf to forget to remember his Lord, when he said, “Mention me to your lord.” And it was said that the shaytaan caused the one who was saved (from person) to forget to mention him to his lord. This is the correct view, because it follows on from the words “Mention me to your lord”. Allaah said: “But Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord”. The pronoun refers to the nearest person if there is no evidence to the contrary, and because Yoosuf would not forget to remember his Lord, for he was always remembering his Lord. Before interpreting the dream he had called them both [his two fellow prisoners] to believe in his Lord, and said to them:
“O two companions of the prison! Are many different lords (gods) better or Allaah, the One, the Irresistible?
40. “You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”
[Yoosuf 12:39-40]
And before that he had said to them:
“No food will come to you (in wakefulness or in dream) as your provision, but I will inform (in wakefulness) its interpretation before it (the food) comes. This is of that which my Lord has taught me. Verily, I have abandoned the religion of a people that believe not in Allaah and are disbelievers in the Hereafter (i.e. the Kan‘aanyyoon of Egypt who were polytheists and used to worship sun and other false deities).
38. “And I have followed the religion of my fathers, — Ibraaheem (Abraham), Ishaaq (Isaac) and Ya‘qoob (Jacob) [عليهم السلام ], and never could we attribute any partners whatsoever to Allaah. This is from the Grace of Allaah to us and to mankind, but most men thank not (i.e. they neither believe in Allaah, nor worship Him)”
[Yoosuf 12:37-38]
Thus he mentioned his Lord, and this is what his Lord had taught him, because he left the religion of mushrik people who did not believe in Allaah even though they acknowledged the existence of a Creator, and they did not believe in the Hereafter, and he followed the religion of his forefathers, the leaders of the believers, whom Allaah has made leaders calling people to Him – Ibraaheem, Ishaaq and Ya’qoob. He mentioned his Lord, then he called them to believe in his Lord, then after that he interpreted the dream and said:
“O two companions of the prison! As for one of you, he (as a servant) will pour out wine for his lord (king or master) to drink” [v. 41]
Then when he had finished interpreting the dream, “he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: ‘Mention me to your lord (i.e. your king’)”, so how could the shaytaan have caused Yoosuf to forget to mention his Lord?
Rather the shaytaan caused the one who was saved (from prison) to forget to mention Yoosuf to his lord (or master, the king).
Those who were of this opinion said: It would have been better to put his trust in Allaah and not say, Mention me to your lord; when he forgot to put his trust in his Lord, he was punished by staying a few years more in prison.
It may be said that there is nothing in his saying “Mention me to your lord” that is contrary to putting one’s trust in Allaah (tawakkul), rather Yoosuf said: “The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah” [v. 40], just as his father’s words, “Do not enter by one gate, but enter by different gates” [v. 67], were not contrary to putting one’s trust in Allaah, rather he said: “I cannot avail you against Allaah at all. Verily, the decision rests only with Allaah. In Him, I put my trust and let all those that trust, put their trust in Him” [v. 67].
Moreover, Allaah has testified that Yoosuf is one of His sincere slaves, and the sincere person cannot be sincere if he puts his trust in anything other than Allaah, because that is shirk, and Yoosuf was not a mushrik, either in worship or trust. Rather he put his trust in his Lord with regard to his own actions, as he said: “Unless You turn away their plot from me, I will feel inclined towards them and be one (of those who commit sin and deserve blame or those who do deeds) of the ignorant” [v. 33]. How could he not put his trust in Him with regard to the actions of His slaves?
His saying “Mention me to your lord” is like his saying to his master, “Set me over the store‑houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge” (as a minister of finance in Egypt)” [v. 55]. When he asked to be appointed as governor for a religious purpose, that was not contrary to putting one's trust in Allaah, and it was not the kind of seeking high position that is forbidden. So how could his saying to the boy, “Mention me to your lord” be contrary to putting one’s trust in Allaah, when all it involved was telling the king about him so that he would know about his situation and the truth would become clear, and Yoosuf was one of the most steadfast of people.
Hence after this request – “And the king said: ‘Bring him to me’” [v. 50] – was made, Yoosuf said: “Return to your lord and ask him, ‘What happened to the women who cut their hands? Surely, my Lord (Allaah) is Well‑Aware of their plot” [v. 50]. So here Yoosuf referred to the “lord” (master) of that man, as he mentioned him before. And he said: “Return to your lord and ask him, ‘What happened to the women…” In saying “Mention me to your lord”, he did not fail to do something that was obligatory and he did not do something that was haraam, such that Allaah would punish him by leaving him in prison for a few more years.
What is meant is that Yoosuf did not commit a sin that was referred to in the Qur’aan, and Allaah does not tell us of any sin that any of the Prophets committed but He also tells us that he asked for forgiveness for it. But Allaah does not tell us that Yoosuf asked for forgiveness for these words.
End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (15/112-118).
Thirdly:
With regard to Yoosuf (peace be upon him) saying when he was in prison, “Mention me to your lord”, this is not the lordship of worship, rather it is the lordship of kingship and control. Al-Fayroozabaadi said: The lord of anything is its owner or the one who is entitled to it or to whom it belongs. But no one can be called the Lord in a general sense except Allaah, may He be exalted, who is looking after all creatures. But when it is mentioned in conjunction with something else in the possessive, then it may be said of Allaah and of others, such as Rabb al-‘Aalameen (Lord of the worlds), rabb al-daar (owner of the house). End quote.
Basaa’ir Dhuwi’l-Tamyeez (3/29).
Al-Raaghib al-Asfahaani said: It may be said; rabb al-daar (lit. lord of the house), rabb al-faras (lord of the horse) meaning the owner thereof. It is on this basis that Allaah tells us that Yoosuf said “Mention me to your lord”. End quote,
Al-Mufradaat fi Ghareeb al-Qur’aan (186).
What al-Raaghib (may Allaah have mercy on him) meant was that the usage of the word rabb (lord) in this verse is permissible, because lord here refers to his master or ruler, not a lord in an absolute sense; that may only be said of Allaah, may He be exalted.
But he may be confused and think that this is not allowed, as in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “None of you should say, Give food to your lord (rabb), help your lord with wudoo’, give water to your lord. Let him say sayyidi or mawlaaya (my master). And no one of you should say my ‘abd or my amah (referring to his slave); let him say my fataa or my fataah, or my ghulaam.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2552) and Muslim (2249).
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The scholars said: The word al-Rabb, with the definite article al-, cannot be applied to anyone except Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted. But it may be used in conjunction with something else, in the genitive, e.g., rabb al-maal (the owner of the wealth), rabb al-daar (the owner of the house) and so on. An example of this is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, in the saheeh hadeeth about the lost camel, “Let it be until its owner (rabbuha) finds it, and in another saheeh hadeeth, “until the one who has wealth (rabb al-maal) will be worried about finding someone to accept his wealth (zakaah).” (It also appears) in the words of ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) in al-Saheeh, “… the owner (rabb) of the herd of camels and flock of sheep…” And there are many other well-known examples in the hadeeth.
The scholars said: It is only makrooh for a slave to say to his master “rabbiy (my lord)” because by saying this he is making someone a partner with Allaah in lordship.
With regard to the ahaadeeth “until its owner (rabbuha) finds it” and “owner (rabb) of the herd of camels” and so on, the word is only used here because it refers to things that are not accountable. They are like houses and wealth. Undoubtedly it is not makrooh to say rabb al-daar (owner of the house) or rabb al-maal (owner of the wealth).
With regard to the words of Yoosuf, “mention me to your lord”, there are two answers:
1 – That he was addressing him in terms that he was accustomed to; such usage is permissible in cases of necessity, as Moosa (peace be upon him) said to al-Saamiri: “And look at your ilaah (god)” [Ta-Ha 20:97], i.e., look at that which you have taken as a god.
2 – This was the law of those who came before us, and the law of those who came before us is not a law for us if our law tells us something different. There is no difference of scholarly opinion concerning this point.
The scholars of usool only differed concerning the laws of those who came before us if there is no narration stating that our law is either in agreement with it or differs from it – is it a law that is prescribed for us too, or not? End quote.
Al-Adhkaar by al-Nawawi (1/363).
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for the prohibition is that that the right of Lordship belongs to Allaah alone, because the lord is the owner, the one who is maintaining a thing, and that is true only of Allaah, may He be exalted.
Al-Khattaabi said: The reason why it is not allowed to call another person one’s rabb (lord) is that man is under the care of al-Rabb (the Lord, Allaah), and he is required to show sincere belief in the Oneness of Allaah (Tawheed) and avoid associating anything with Him (shirk), so it is makrooh for him to use the same name lest it come under the heading of shirk. There is no differentiation in this case between the free man and the slave. As for other things, animals and inanimate objects, which are not obliged to do acts of worship, it is not makrooh to use this word in the genitive with reference to them, such as saying rabb al-daar (owner of the house) or rabb al-thawr (owner of the bull).
Ibn Battaal said: It is not permissible to call anyone except Allaah rabb (lord), just as it is not permissible to call anyone else ilaah (god). What is to be used exclusively for Allaah is the word al-Rabb (the Lord) with the definite article, without mentioning anything in conjunction with it. But when it is used in conjunction with another word, in the genitive, it is it permissible to use it, such as when Allaah tells us that Yoosuf (peace be upon him) said: “Mention me to your Lord” and he said: “Return to your lord” [Yoosuf 12:50], and when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, describing the portents of the Hour, “When the slave woman gives birth to her lord (i.e., master, rabbaha).” This indicates that the prohibition on using this word applies only to its use with the definite article (al-Rabb), and it is possible that the prohibition is aimed at avoiding usage with reference to human beings of words that are befitting only for Allaah. Reports which indicate otherwise may be taken as meaning that it is permitted. Or it may be that it is not allowed to do that a great deal and take that usage as a habit, and it does not mean that it is forbidden in all cases. End quote.
Fath al-Baari (5/179).
To sum up:
The word al-Rabb (the Lord) which applies only to Allaah is that which appears with the definite article, but when the word is used in conjunction with something else, especially if it is something that has no power of rational thought and is not obliged to worship Allaah, then it is permissible. That includes this verse.
It may also be said that the interpretation is that he was addressing them in their language that they knew, or that this was permissible for them.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
We have previously discussed the fact that the Prophets (may be the blessings and peace of Allaah be upon them all) are infallible and protected against major sins, bad attitudes and vile actions that are contrary to chivalry.
See the answers to questions no. 7208 and 42216.
Secondly:
With regard to the story of Yoosuf, the more correct of the two opinions in the commentary thereon is that the one who forgot to mention him to his lord (master) in this verse was not Yoosuf (peace be upon him) but the other prisoner, whom Yoosuf asked to mention him to his lord (master or king). Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: “Mention me to your lord (i.e. your king, so as to get me out of the prison).” But Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord. So [Yoosuf (Joseph)] stayed in prison a few (more) years”
[Yoosuf 12:42]
As the apparent meaning of the commentary on the verse is that the one who forgot was the one who was supposed to convey the message from Yoosuf to the ruler of Egypt, there is nothing in the content of this message – to remind the ruler about Yoosuf – that undermines the position of Prophethood or is contrary to the idea of putting one’s trust in Allaah and referring one’s needs to Him.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: Allaah said: “But Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord”. It was said that he caused Yoosuf to forget to remember his Lord, when he said, “Mention me to your lord.” And it was said that the shaytaan caused the one who was saved (from person) to forget to mention him to his lord. This is the correct view, because it follows on from the words “Mention me to your lord”. Allaah said: “But Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord”. The pronoun refers to the nearest person if there is no evidence to the contrary, and because Yoosuf would not forget to remember his Lord, for he was always remembering his Lord. Before interpreting the dream he had called them both [his two fellow prisoners] to believe in his Lord, and said to them:
“O two companions of the prison! Are many different lords (gods) better or Allaah, the One, the Irresistible?
40. “You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”
[Yoosuf 12:39-40]
And before that he had said to them:
“No food will come to you (in wakefulness or in dream) as your provision, but I will inform (in wakefulness) its interpretation before it (the food) comes. This is of that which my Lord has taught me. Verily, I have abandoned the religion of a people that believe not in Allaah and are disbelievers in the Hereafter (i.e. the Kan‘aanyyoon of Egypt who were polytheists and used to worship sun and other false deities).
38. “And I have followed the religion of my fathers, — Ibraaheem (Abraham), Ishaaq (Isaac) and Ya‘qoob (Jacob) [عليهم السلام ], and never could we attribute any partners whatsoever to Allaah. This is from the Grace of Allaah to us and to mankind, but most men thank not (i.e. they neither believe in Allaah, nor worship Him)”
[Yoosuf 12:37-38]
Thus he mentioned his Lord, and this is what his Lord had taught him, because he left the religion of mushrik people who did not believe in Allaah even though they acknowledged the existence of a Creator, and they did not believe in the Hereafter, and he followed the religion of his forefathers, the leaders of the believers, whom Allaah has made leaders calling people to Him – Ibraaheem, Ishaaq and Ya’qoob. He mentioned his Lord, then he called them to believe in his Lord, then after that he interpreted the dream and said:
“O two companions of the prison! As for one of you, he (as a servant) will pour out wine for his lord (king or master) to drink” [v. 41]
Then when he had finished interpreting the dream, “he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: ‘Mention me to your lord (i.e. your king’)”, so how could the shaytaan have caused Yoosuf to forget to mention his Lord?
Rather the shaytaan caused the one who was saved (from prison) to forget to mention Yoosuf to his lord (or master, the king).
Those who were of this opinion said: It would have been better to put his trust in Allaah and not say, Mention me to your lord; when he forgot to put his trust in his Lord, he was punished by staying a few years more in prison.
It may be said that there is nothing in his saying “Mention me to your lord” that is contrary to putting one’s trust in Allaah (tawakkul), rather Yoosuf said: “The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah” [v. 40], just as his father’s words, “Do not enter by one gate, but enter by different gates” [v. 67], were not contrary to putting one’s trust in Allaah, rather he said: “I cannot avail you against Allaah at all. Verily, the decision rests only with Allaah. In Him, I put my trust and let all those that trust, put their trust in Him” [v. 67].
Moreover, Allaah has testified that Yoosuf is one of His sincere slaves, and the sincere person cannot be sincere if he puts his trust in anything other than Allaah, because that is shirk, and Yoosuf was not a mushrik, either in worship or trust. Rather he put his trust in his Lord with regard to his own actions, as he said: “Unless You turn away their plot from me, I will feel inclined towards them and be one (of those who commit sin and deserve blame or those who do deeds) of the ignorant” [v. 33]. How could he not put his trust in Him with regard to the actions of His slaves?
His saying “Mention me to your lord” is like his saying to his master, “Set me over the store‑houses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge” (as a minister of finance in Egypt)” [v. 55]. When he asked to be appointed as governor for a religious purpose, that was not contrary to putting one's trust in Allaah, and it was not the kind of seeking high position that is forbidden. So how could his saying to the boy, “Mention me to your lord” be contrary to putting one’s trust in Allaah, when all it involved was telling the king about him so that he would know about his situation and the truth would become clear, and Yoosuf was one of the most steadfast of people.
Hence after this request – “And the king said: ‘Bring him to me’” [v. 50] – was made, Yoosuf said: “Return to your lord and ask him, ‘What happened to the women who cut their hands? Surely, my Lord (Allaah) is Well‑Aware of their plot” [v. 50]. So here Yoosuf referred to the “lord” (master) of that man, as he mentioned him before. And he said: “Return to your lord and ask him, ‘What happened to the women…” In saying “Mention me to your lord”, he did not fail to do something that was obligatory and he did not do something that was haraam, such that Allaah would punish him by leaving him in prison for a few more years.
What is meant is that Yoosuf did not commit a sin that was referred to in the Qur’aan, and Allaah does not tell us of any sin that any of the Prophets committed but He also tells us that he asked for forgiveness for it. But Allaah does not tell us that Yoosuf asked for forgiveness for these words.
End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (15/112-118).
Thirdly:
With regard to Yoosuf (peace be upon him) saying when he was in prison, “Mention me to your lord”, this is not the lordship of worship, rather it is the lordship of kingship and control. Al-Fayroozabaadi said: The lord of anything is its owner or the one who is entitled to it or to whom it belongs. But no one can be called the Lord in a general sense except Allaah, may He be exalted, who is looking after all creatures. But when it is mentioned in conjunction with something else in the possessive, then it may be said of Allaah and of others, such as Rabb al-‘Aalameen (Lord of the worlds), rabb al-daar (owner of the house). End quote.
Basaa’ir Dhuwi’l-Tamyeez (3/29).
Al-Raaghib al-Asfahaani said: It may be said; rabb al-daar (lit. lord of the house), rabb al-faras (lord of the horse) meaning the owner thereof. It is on this basis that Allaah tells us that Yoosuf said “Mention me to your lord”. End quote,
Al-Mufradaat fi Ghareeb al-Qur’aan (186).
What al-Raaghib (may Allaah have mercy on him) meant was that the usage of the word rabb (lord) in this verse is permissible, because lord here refers to his master or ruler, not a lord in an absolute sense; that may only be said of Allaah, may He be exalted.
But he may be confused and think that this is not allowed, as in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “None of you should say, Give food to your lord (rabb), help your lord with wudoo’, give water to your lord. Let him say sayyidi or mawlaaya (my master). And no one of you should say my ‘abd or my amah (referring to his slave); let him say my fataa or my fataah, or my ghulaam.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2552) and Muslim (2249).
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The scholars said: The word al-Rabb, with the definite article al-, cannot be applied to anyone except Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted. But it may be used in conjunction with something else, in the genitive, e.g., rabb al-maal (the owner of the wealth), rabb al-daar (the owner of the house) and so on. An example of this is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, in the saheeh hadeeth about the lost camel, “Let it be until its owner (rabbuha) finds it, and in another saheeh hadeeth, “until the one who has wealth (rabb al-maal) will be worried about finding someone to accept his wealth (zakaah).” (It also appears) in the words of ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) in al-Saheeh, “… the owner (rabb) of the herd of camels and flock of sheep…” And there are many other well-known examples in the hadeeth.
The scholars said: It is only makrooh for a slave to say to his master “rabbiy (my lord)” because by saying this he is making someone a partner with Allaah in lordship.
With regard to the ahaadeeth “until its owner (rabbuha) finds it” and “owner (rabb) of the herd of camels” and so on, the word is only used here because it refers to things that are not accountable. They are like houses and wealth. Undoubtedly it is not makrooh to say rabb al-daar (owner of the house) or rabb al-maal (owner of the wealth).
With regard to the words of Yoosuf, “mention me to your lord”, there are two answers:
1 – That he was addressing him in terms that he was accustomed to; such usage is permissible in cases of necessity, as Moosa (peace be upon him) said to al-Saamiri: “And look at your ilaah (god)” [Ta-Ha 20:97], i.e., look at that which you have taken as a god.
2 – This was the law of those who came before us, and the law of those who came before us is not a law for us if our law tells us something different. There is no difference of scholarly opinion concerning this point.
The scholars of usool only differed concerning the laws of those who came before us if there is no narration stating that our law is either in agreement with it or differs from it – is it a law that is prescribed for us too, or not? End quote.
Al-Adhkaar by al-Nawawi (1/363).
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for the prohibition is that that the right of Lordship belongs to Allaah alone, because the lord is the owner, the one who is maintaining a thing, and that is true only of Allaah, may He be exalted.
Al-Khattaabi said: The reason why it is not allowed to call another person one’s rabb (lord) is that man is under the care of al-Rabb (the Lord, Allaah), and he is required to show sincere belief in the Oneness of Allaah (Tawheed) and avoid associating anything with Him (shirk), so it is makrooh for him to use the same name lest it come under the heading of shirk. There is no differentiation in this case between the free man and the slave. As for other things, animals and inanimate objects, which are not obliged to do acts of worship, it is not makrooh to use this word in the genitive with reference to them, such as saying rabb al-daar (owner of the house) or rabb al-thawr (owner of the bull).
Ibn Battaal said: It is not permissible to call anyone except Allaah rabb (lord), just as it is not permissible to call anyone else ilaah (god). What is to be used exclusively for Allaah is the word al-Rabb (the Lord) with the definite article, without mentioning anything in conjunction with it. But when it is used in conjunction with another word, in the genitive, it is it permissible to use it, such as when Allaah tells us that Yoosuf (peace be upon him) said: “Mention me to your Lord” and he said: “Return to your lord” [Yoosuf 12:50], and when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, describing the portents of the Hour, “When the slave woman gives birth to her lord (i.e., master, rabbaha).” This indicates that the prohibition on using this word applies only to its use with the definite article (al-Rabb), and it is possible that the prohibition is aimed at avoiding usage with reference to human beings of words that are befitting only for Allaah. Reports which indicate otherwise may be taken as meaning that it is permitted. Or it may be that it is not allowed to do that a great deal and take that usage as a habit, and it does not mean that it is forbidden in all cases. End quote.
Fath al-Baari (5/179).
To sum up:
The word al-Rabb (the Lord) which applies only to Allaah is that which appears with the definite article, but when the word is used in conjunction with something else, especially if it is something that has no power of rational thought and is not obliged to worship Allaah, then it is permissible. That includes this verse.
It may also be said that the interpretation is that he was addressing them in their language that they knew, or that this was permissible for them.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)