Q) Is praying Taraaweeh in congregation considered to be a bid’ah (innovation), because it was not done at the time of the Prophet and the first one who established that was ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him)?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
The view that Taraaweeh prayer is a bid’ah is not valid. Rather we should ask whether it was one of the Sunnahs of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, because it was not done at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) but it was done in ‘Umar’s time, or was it one of the Sunnahs of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?
Some people claim that it was one of the Sunnahs of ‘Umar, and they base that on the fact that ‘Umar “commanded Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tameem al-Daari to lead the people in praying eleven rak’ahs.” He went out the same night and saw the people praying, and he said, “What a good innovation this is.” This indicates that it had not previously been prescribed…
But this opinion is da’eef (weak), and those who say this are ignoring the reports proven in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) “led his companions in praying for three nights, and on the third or fourth night he did not lead them, and he said: ‘I am afraid that it may be made obligatory upon you.’” This was narrated by al-Bukhaari (872). According to a version narrated by Muslim, “But I was afraid that prayer at night may be made obligatory upon you, and you would not be able to do it.” (1271). So it is proven that Taraaweeh is part of the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) referred to the reason why he did not persist in it, which was the fear that it might become obligatory; he did not say that it is not prescribed. This fear no longer applied following the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), because when he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, the revelation ceased and there was no longer any concern that it might become obligatory. Once the fear that it might become obligatory was no longer present, because the revelation had ceased, then the reason for not doing it was also removed, and so it was restored to its position of being Sunnah.
See al-Sharh al-Mumti’ by Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, vol. 4, p. 78.
It was narrated in al-Saheehayn from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would forgo doing something that he liked to do lest the people do it and it become obligatory upon them. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1060; Muslim, Salaat al-Musaafireen, 1174).
Al-Nawawi said: This shows how kind he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was and how compassionate towards his ummah.
So there is no basis for saying that Taraaweeh prayer is not part of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), rather it is part of the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but he forsook it for fear that it may be made obligatory upon his ummah. When he died, this concern no longer applied. Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) was distracted by the wars against the apostates and his reign was short, lasting only two years. When the reign of ‘Umar came and the Muslims became secure and victorious, he commanded the people to gather together for Taraaweeh prayers in Ramadaan, as they used to gather with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). All that ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) did was to go back to that Sunnah and revive it. And Allaah is the Source of strength.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Amniotic fluid leaking during Ramadaan
Q) There is a woman who was in her ninth month of pregnancy when Ramadaan came, and at the beginning of the month she was leaking water (i.e., amniotic fluid), but not blood. She was fasting whilst that water was leaking. This happened ten years ago. My question is: does this woman have to make up the fast, noting that she fasted on those days when this water was leaking?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
If the situation was as you described, then her fast is valid and she does not have to make it up.
Fatwa of the Standing Committee, from the book Fataawa al-Jaami’ah, vol. 1, p. 355.
A) Praise be to Allaah.
If the situation was as you described, then her fast is valid and she does not have to make it up.
Fatwa of the Standing Committee, from the book Fataawa al-Jaami’ah, vol. 1, p. 355.
He needs to have an injection into a vein – will that affect his fast?
Q) One of my friends has been stricken with the onset of cancer and has to take a course of treatment in Ramadaan, consisting of a number of medicines dissolved in liquids which are to be administered intravenously. Is his fasting valid?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Two scenarios may apply to having injections during the day in Ramadaan:
1 – Where the injection provides nourishment that takes the place of food and drink; this kind of injection invalidates the fast because it is like eating and drinking.
2 – Where what is injected is not a kind of nourishment; this does not break the fast or affect it. In this case it makes no difference whether the injection is into a vein or a muscle.
But if it is possible to have these injections at night, that is better and more on the safe side with regard to the fast.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (15/257) was asked about the ruling on a person who had intravenous and intramuscular injections during the day in Ramadaan when he was fasting and completed his fast – was his fast invalidated and does he have to make it up, or not?
He replied:
His fast is valid, because an injection into a vein is not like eating or drinking; this applies more so in the case on an intramuscular injection. But if he makes it up in order to be on the safe side, that is better. If it can be delayed until nighttime, if he needs to have it, that is better too, so as to avoid an area of scholarly dispute.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen was asked in Fataawa al-Siyaam (p. 220) about the ruling on having injections into a vein, muscle or the buttock.
He replied:
There is nothing wrong with having injections into a vein, muscle or buttock, and that does not break the fast, because this is not one of the things that break the fast; it is not food or drink, and it is not like eating or drinking. We have already explained that this does not have any effect on the fast. What does affect the fast is when a sick person is given an injection of something that takes the place of food and drink.
The Standing Committee (10/252) was asked about the ruling on administering medicine via injection during the day in Ramadaan, whether that is nourishment or medication.
They replied: it is permissible to administer medicine by needle into a muscle or vein to a fasting person during the day in Ramadaan, but it is not permissible for the fasting person to be given a nourishing injection during the day in Ramadaan, because that comes under the ruling on eating or drinking, so that injection is regarded as a means of breaking the fast in Ramadaan. If the injection can be given into a muscle or vein at night, that is better.
Islam Q&A
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Two scenarios may apply to having injections during the day in Ramadaan:
1 – Where the injection provides nourishment that takes the place of food and drink; this kind of injection invalidates the fast because it is like eating and drinking.
2 – Where what is injected is not a kind of nourishment; this does not break the fast or affect it. In this case it makes no difference whether the injection is into a vein or a muscle.
But if it is possible to have these injections at night, that is better and more on the safe side with regard to the fast.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (15/257) was asked about the ruling on a person who had intravenous and intramuscular injections during the day in Ramadaan when he was fasting and completed his fast – was his fast invalidated and does he have to make it up, or not?
He replied:
His fast is valid, because an injection into a vein is not like eating or drinking; this applies more so in the case on an intramuscular injection. But if he makes it up in order to be on the safe side, that is better. If it can be delayed until nighttime, if he needs to have it, that is better too, so as to avoid an area of scholarly dispute.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen was asked in Fataawa al-Siyaam (p. 220) about the ruling on having injections into a vein, muscle or the buttock.
He replied:
There is nothing wrong with having injections into a vein, muscle or buttock, and that does not break the fast, because this is not one of the things that break the fast; it is not food or drink, and it is not like eating or drinking. We have already explained that this does not have any effect on the fast. What does affect the fast is when a sick person is given an injection of something that takes the place of food and drink.
The Standing Committee (10/252) was asked about the ruling on administering medicine via injection during the day in Ramadaan, whether that is nourishment or medication.
They replied: it is permissible to administer medicine by needle into a muscle or vein to a fasting person during the day in Ramadaan, but it is not permissible for the fasting person to be given a nourishing injection during the day in Ramadaan, because that comes under the ruling on eating or drinking, so that injection is regarded as a means of breaking the fast in Ramadaan. If the injection can be given into a muscle or vein at night, that is better.
Islam Q&A
If a slanderer repents, can his testimony be accepted?
Q) If a slanderer repents from his slander and mends his ways, can his testimony be accepted or not?
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Allaah has stipulated three punishments for slander. They are: the hadd punishment; rejection of testimony; and describing the slanderer as an evildoer (Faasiq).
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah).
5. Except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds; (for such) verily, Allaah is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Noor 24:4-5].
With regard to the hadd punishment, the fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that the hadd punishment for slander is eighty lashes if the slanderer is a free person [i.e., not a slave], man or woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“flog them with eighty stripes”
[al-Noor 24:4].
As for his testimony not being accepted, the scholars are unanimously agreed that the testimony of the slanderer should not be accepted so long as he has not repented, because he has committed a major sin, namely slander, and has not repented from it, so he cannot be described as being of good character, and good character is a condition of testimony being accepted; and because he is a liar and an evildoer according to the text of the verse: “They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah).”
“Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they (the slanderers) have not produced witnesses! Then with Allaah they are the liars”
[al-Noor 24:13].
The testimony of the evildoer and liar cannot be accepted, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And take as witness two just persons from among you (Muslims)” [al-Talaaq 65:2]. So it is stipulated that the witness should be of good character, and the evildoer and liar are not of good character.
If he repents from slander and admits that he was lying, then the majority of scholars (Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad) are of the view that his testimony may be accepted. They said:
1. Because repentance erases the sins that came before it, so if he repents his sin and its effects are erased completely, and non-acceptance of testimony is one of the effects of that sin.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said in al-Umm (7/94):
If he admits that he lied, his testimony may then be accepted, but if he does not do that then his testimony cannot be accepted, until he does that, because the sin for which his testimony is rejected is slander, but if he admits that he was lying then he has repented. End quote.
2. Because the expression “forever” in the verse applies so long as he persists in evildoing. Hence after that the verse mentions after the ruling that he is an evildoer: “and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah).” If the description of evildoer ceases to apply to him, then the reason for rejecting his testimony also ceases to exist.
3. It was narrated from ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he said to those who had slandered al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah, after he had carried out the hadd punishment of flogging on them: “Whoever repents, his testimony will be accepted.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari in a mu’allaq majzoom report.
His repentance means that he admits that he was lying about the slandered person whom he accused of zina. Hence the words of ‘Umar according to Ibn Jareer were, “Whoever admits that he was lying, his testimony will be accepted.”
If the slanderer repents and mends his ways, his testimony will be accepted, like any other Muslim of good character.
Al-Mughni (12/386); al-Majmoo’ (22/98-101).
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
A) Praise be to Allaah.
Allaah has stipulated three punishments for slander. They are: the hadd punishment; rejection of testimony; and describing the slanderer as an evildoer (Faasiq).
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah).
5. Except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds; (for such) verily, Allaah is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Noor 24:4-5].
With regard to the hadd punishment, the fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that the hadd punishment for slander is eighty lashes if the slanderer is a free person [i.e., not a slave], man or woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“flog them with eighty stripes”
[al-Noor 24:4].
As for his testimony not being accepted, the scholars are unanimously agreed that the testimony of the slanderer should not be accepted so long as he has not repented, because he has committed a major sin, namely slander, and has not repented from it, so he cannot be described as being of good character, and good character is a condition of testimony being accepted; and because he is a liar and an evildoer according to the text of the verse: “They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah).”
“Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they (the slanderers) have not produced witnesses! Then with Allaah they are the liars”
[al-Noor 24:13].
The testimony of the evildoer and liar cannot be accepted, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And take as witness two just persons from among you (Muslims)” [al-Talaaq 65:2]. So it is stipulated that the witness should be of good character, and the evildoer and liar are not of good character.
If he repents from slander and admits that he was lying, then the majority of scholars (Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad) are of the view that his testimony may be accepted. They said:
1. Because repentance erases the sins that came before it, so if he repents his sin and its effects are erased completely, and non-acceptance of testimony is one of the effects of that sin.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said in al-Umm (7/94):
If he admits that he lied, his testimony may then be accepted, but if he does not do that then his testimony cannot be accepted, until he does that, because the sin for which his testimony is rejected is slander, but if he admits that he was lying then he has repented. End quote.
2. Because the expression “forever” in the verse applies so long as he persists in evildoing. Hence after that the verse mentions after the ruling that he is an evildoer: “and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah).” If the description of evildoer ceases to apply to him, then the reason for rejecting his testimony also ceases to exist.
3. It was narrated from ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he said to those who had slandered al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah, after he had carried out the hadd punishment of flogging on them: “Whoever repents, his testimony will be accepted.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari in a mu’allaq majzoom report.
His repentance means that he admits that he was lying about the slandered person whom he accused of zina. Hence the words of ‘Umar according to Ibn Jareer were, “Whoever admits that he was lying, his testimony will be accepted.”
If the slanderer repents and mends his ways, his testimony will be accepted, like any other Muslim of good character.
Al-Mughni (12/386); al-Majmoo’ (22/98-101).
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)