ummtaalib

The Obligation of Adhering to a Single Madhhab in all its Rulings Zameelur Rahman بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله رب العلمين، والعاقبة للمتقين، وصلى الله وسلم على محمد خاتم النبيين وعلى جميع الأنبياء والمرسلين The prevalent Deobandī and Subcontinent position on the obligation of adhering to one school of jurisprudence (madhhab) in all its juristic rulings (masā’il) has recently come under increasing scrutiny. We will argue in this paper that this position is not only more sound in our context, but is also supported by strong positions from within each of the four madhhabs and the stronger position of the Hanafī madhhab, with some of the early scholars having quoted consensus. As the discussion is relatively lengthy, readers who wish to avoid the details may skip the technical discussion and read the brief summary presented at the end. The view that we will support can be summarised in the following points: It is necessary for laypeople and scholars who are not mujtahids to make taqlīd of mujtahids.[2] Moreover, following from the third century of Hijrah, the number of mujtahids of all degrees became very few and far between.[3] Hence, the vast majority of people from that era onwards fall into this category. After the codification of the madhhabsin approximately the fourth century of Hijrah, it was necessary for laypeople to adhere to a single madhhab in all its rulings. There are two principle reasons for this: If a layperson was given the option to adopt any position he likes from the various madhhabs, it would lead to freeing him from religious obligation (taklīf), which forms the very foundation of a Muslim’s relationship to the Sharī‘ah.The reason for this is that the codified madhhabs generally address all small and major issues. On any particular issue, therefore, a muqallid would be exposed to multiple differing viewpoints. Hence,if given the option to choose between them, he will be at liberty to select an opinion based on his desires. Hemay even consider something harām at one point and halāl at another. In other words, dīn becomes a thing of play, and religious obligation (taklīf) becomes bereft of any meaning. This dangerous implicationhas been expressly mentioned or alluded to by a number of major early authorities, including the early Shāfi‘ī mujtahids known as the “Ashāb al-Wujūh,” al-Juwaynī (419 – 478 H), al-Ghazālī (450 – 505 H), Ilkiyā al-Harrāsī (450 – 504), al-Arsābandī al-Hanafī (d. 512 H), al-Jīlī (470 – 541 H), al-Māzirī (453 – 536 H) and Ibn al-Munayyir al-Mālikī (620 – 683 H).Their statements or the opinions transmitted from them will be quoted below. Furthermore, if given the option of selecting any opinion one likes, a personmay unknowingly fall into talfīq[4] which is invalid by consensus.[5] Moreover, it may open the door to selecting opinions outside of the established madhhabs, leading to following shādhdh[6] opinions, something that has been strongly condemned by the ‘ulamā’.[7] These further implications have been alluded to, in particular, by al-Māzirī. Hence, the obligation of following a single madhhab is a precautionary measure against these negative repercussions. If given the option of following any madhhab one wished on different issues, a major inconsistency will arise in a layperson’s juristic methodology. Each Imām and his madhhab has a distinct methodology and distinct points of reference to earlier proto-madhhabs. If a layperson followed different madhhabs on different issues, it would lead to contradictions in the basic principles on which the rulings are based. For example, if someone followed the Hanafī madhhab in one rulingwhich is based on a particular principle and the Shāfi‘ī madhhab on another ruling which is based on a contradictory principle, a contradiction will arise in the legal methodology, even though both issues may apparently seem distinct.[8]‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī explained this point in his Fayd al-Bārī. A translation of this passage can be found in the appendix below. Qādī ‘Iyād (476 – 544 H) also mentions this and al-Juwaynī may have alluded to it, as will be discussed below. It is important to note here that when we speak aboutthe necessity of restricting oneself to a single madhhab, we do not mean the views of only the founder of the madhhab, but the collective input of all the mujtahid scholars of that madhhab. The reason is that the developed madhhab represents the conclusions of one unified pattern or school of juristic thought. The prohibition of taking from multiple mujtahids in the later period, therefore, applies onlyto inter-madhhab disagreements and not necessarily intra-madhhab divergence. See the statements of Abu l-‘Abbās al-Nātifī (d. 446) and Ibn Hamdān al-Hanbalī(603 – 695 H) quotedbelow.[9]Furthermore, the ruling under discussion applies to normal circumstances. In exceptional cases, where there is extreme difficulty in acting on the dictates of one madhhab, the ruling may change. In the first few centuries of Islām, before the codification of the major madhhabs, a common person was permitted to adopt the views of different mujtahids on different issues. In this period, non-mujtahids were generally limited in the number of mujtahids they had access to and limited in the resources at their disposal for attaining firm knowledge of the view of a particular mujtahid on a certain issue of jurisprudence. As a result, the laypeople of this time were not able to seek out the opinions of scholars who held the easiest opinions on different issues.[10]In other words, unlike the situation in the later period, a layperson of this time would not generally be aware that there are multiple differing opinions on a particular issue. On the contrary, when he receives a verdict, that may be the first and only opinion he finds on that issue. Furthermore,a layperson would normally refer to the mujtahids of a particular town, like Makkah, Madīnah or Kūfah.[11] Scholars belonging to a particular town were generally unified in the broad contours of their juristic methodology. As a consequence, a layman would not be subject to a great degree of inconsistency in legal opinions and methodology even if he were to ask multiple mujtahids. The permissibility of adopting the views of multiple mujtahids was, moreover, based on necessity. Laypeople generally lacked access to a single mujtahid or school for verdicts on all issues of jurisprudence. Hence, to restrict them to a single mujtahid would not have been possible. Imām al-Juwaynī and others have made reference to this point. In the present time too, if it is extremely difficult to follow one madhhab due to lack of access to all positions of the school or extreme ignorance, the same rule will apply. After the codification of madhhabs, it became necessary for a non-mujtahid to adopt one madhhab, and follow it in all its rulings. The layperson in this time in most places of the Muslim world would be exposed to the known opinions of the different madhhabs. Hence, giving legitimacy to adopt the view of any madhhab on any issue would lead to great inconsistency in the juristic methodology of a muqallid. The potential for selecting the easier opinions and playing with dīn became much more real. At this stage, a muqallid was exposed to multiple opinions in single issues, as opposed to the earlier period when the laypeople were generally not exposed to multiple opinions on single issues. Hence, giving him the option to choose between them will free him of religious obligation (taklīf), and allow him to select opinions based on his desires. Moreover, a muqallid is only qualified to assess which madhhab he feels is in general superior. He does not have the ability to adjudicate between them in individual issues. Hence, as al-Ghazālī explicitly mentions, and others have suggested, the only reason why a muqallid would follow multiple mujtahids in the later period is in following his desires (tashahhī), even if he does not realise it. Finally, it is necessary to have conviction that the madhhab one follows is correct, as stated by Fakhr al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Mahmūd al-Hanafī(d. ca. 570 H) and others. This is achieved by acceptingthe words of trusted scholars or based on widespread recognition of the madhhab or other such indications, as mentioned in the statement of Imām al-Ghazālī quoted below. The reason for this obligation is that the rules of Sharī‘ah depend on one’s belief in their veracity. If one is in doubt or does not have conviction that what he is following is correct, the rules of Sharī‘ah cannot correctlybe implemented. According to the scholars of juristic theory, the correct view in a point of ijtihādī difference isin reality only one, although all mujtahids are on a right path and are rewarded for their ijtihād; and they, as well as their followers, will be excused for any error in ijtihād that falls within the parameters of legitimate disagreement. Hence, one must feel confident that the path he has chosen, i.e. his madhhab, is correct in relation to the others, which he believes are incorrect on the points where they differ with his madhhab, while acknowledging the possibility that the reversemay be true. Statements from the Early Scholars of the Hanafī School One of the principles of fatwa in the Hanafī school is that, in the absence of a clear ruling from the founders of the madhhab, i.e. Imām Abū Hanīfah and his direct disciples, the fatwa of the early mujtahids in the school[12] is binding[13]. On the issue at hand, the ruling only became applicable after the codification of the madhhabs, when a new situation presented itself to the common Muslims, i.e. access to the conclusions of multiple recognised mujtahids following distinct legal methodologies on most issues of jurisprudence. The early mujtahids of the Hanafī madhhab from this period clearly obligated adherence to a single madhhab in all its rulings. Hence, the views of later scholars of the madhhab like Ibn al-Humām (d. 861 H) and Ibn Nujaym (d. 969) will be disregarded. The following are some of these statements: Fakhr al-Qudāt Muhammad ibn al-Husayn Abū Bakr Arsabandi (d. 512)[14] said: “If the truth was multiple, it would be allowed for a muqallid to make taqlīd of this mujtahid once and taqlīd of another at another time, so this would be premising the religion on desire, which is ugly…And those who say the truth is one, consider it necessary for the layperson to follow one Imām –whose position according to him is that he is the most learned based on the evidence of inspection – and he does not oppose him in anything based on his personal whim.” (Taqwīm Usūl al-Fiqh, Dār al-Nu‘mān lil ‘Ulūm, 2:868)[15] In this statement,al-Arsābandī is refuting the Mu‘tazilī belief that the truth in an issue open to differences of ijtihād is multiple. He says that this would entail the layperson is allowed to follow different mujtahids which would be basing religion on desire(and not on religious obligation). Hence, there is a clear indication in this passage that the reason why one must adhere to a single madhhab is that to do otherwise would entail basing religion on desire.The reason why giving such an option to a muqallid entails basing the religion on desire has been articulated by al-Arsābandī’s Shāfi‘ī contemporary, Imām al-Ghazālī, in the passage that will be quoted from him further below. In brief, the limit of a muqallid’s ijtihād is to determine that one madhhab appears superior to the other. Beyond that, the muqallid does not have the capacity to adjudicate between the madhhabs on individual points of difference. Hence, the only reason he would follow one madhhab in some rulings and another in other rulings is in following his desires (even if he does not realise it or believe so). Thereafter, al-Arsābandī asserts the scholars who hold thatthe truth is one – meaning, the scholars whose view we subscribe to – believe that it is necessary for the layperson to follow one Imām. The process by which the layperson selects which Imām he will follow is to apply his mind and choose the one he feels is most learned. The reason he is to do this is precisely because the truth in an issue of disagreement is one. If one did not have confidence that his madhhab is superior, he would not have belief in its injunctions being correct, and in order for the laws of Sharī‘ah to properly function, it is necessary that a person believes they are correct. Hence, al-Arsābandī clearly advocates the obligation of adherence to a single madhhab on the basis that giving the layperson the option to choose from different madhhabs on different occasions entails basing the religion on personal whim. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Umar Abu l-‘Abbās al-Nātifī (d. 446)[16] said, commenting on a statement of Imām al-Hasan ibn Ziyād (d. 204) regarding the options available to a person “ignorant of knowledge” (al-jāhil bi l-‘ilm) when presented with multiple different fatwas: “This is when the questioner is on the madhhab of the people of ‘Irāq, and one scholar issues fatwa on the view of Abū Hanīfah and another scholar issues fatwa on the view of Abū Yūsuf and another scholar issues fatwa on the view of Muhammad or the view of Zufar, for he may not opt for the view of al-Shāfi‘ī nor the view of Mālik.” (Mu‘īn al-Hukkām, p. 27)[17] This statement illustrates that in the fourth century, the Hanafī scholars spoke in a context of laypeople (who are “ignorant of knowledge”) adhering to a single madhhab. Moreover, such people were not allowed to step outside of the madhhab. It also illustrates “adherence to a madhhab” refers to the madhhab as a wholeand notto a single person, i.e. a body of scholars belonging to the same juristic school. It is important to note here that the view of those scholars who spoke about the layperson having a choice to select from multiple different fatwas presented to him does not contradict this paradigm, precisely because, as al-Nātifī mentioned, a layperson is restricted to follow the scholars of his school and is not necessarily restricted to any particular scholarwithin the school. Hence, this “choice” refers to the scholars within one’s school and not outside of it. Imām Muhammad ibn Mahmūd ibn al-Husayn al-Asrūshanī (d. 632)[18]said: “It is permissible for a man and woman to switch from the Shāfi‘ī madhhab to the Hanafī madhhab and, likewise, vice versa, but in totality. As far as a single issue is concerned, he will not be allowed [to do that]; such that if blood was to come out from a person of the Hanafī madhhab and it flowed, it will not be permissible for him to pray before performing wudū’, imitating the madhhab of al-Shāfi‘ī in this issue, and if he prayed before performing wudū’, he will be punished.”[19] Fakhr al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Mahmūd (d. ca. 570 H)[20] said: “The slaves are ordered to act on the evidences of Sharī‘ah…As far as the generality of the Muslims are concerned, it is not in the capacity of everyone to give preference to evidences and exercise ijtihād, but he must give preference to an Imām he considers, and he will be a follower of him. When he contemplates and gives preference to an Imām over an Imām, and he considers his path true and right, the view of others becomes invalid for him, so it is not permissible for him to act on their madhhab, just like a mujtahid when an evidence is authentic according to him, he does not act on the remaining [evidences]. It is only such because all people are ordered to act on the command of Allah, whether they are scholars or non-scholars, but the scholars are ordered [to do so] with evidences and precedents and giving preference to one of the evidences, and the commoners are ordered to give preference to the scholars as it is not in their capacity [to do] other than that, in order that everyone will be observant of the command of Allāh (Exalted is He).”[21] Although he does not state it explicitly, the reason why a non-scholar must select one scholar (i.e. mujtahid) he believes is superior – although this was not the rule in the earlier period – is because, as alluded to in this passage, to not do so would negate him being “observant of the command of Allāh” and acting on the “evidences of Sharī‘ah”. The only reason this would be so isthat if the layperson is free to select whatever opinion he pleases, religious compulsion or obligation would be lifted, and he will become a follower of his personal whim as opposed to the Sharī‘ah. Fakhr al-Dīn also said: “Rigidity in the madhhab is wājib, and fanaticism is impermissible. Rigidity is to act on what is [the of view] his madhhab and he believes it is true and correct, and fanaticism is imprudence and rudeness with respect to the founder of another madhhab, and all that stems from his denigration. That is not permissible, because the Imāms of the Muslims are in search of what is right and they are on the truth”[22] ‘Ubayd Allāh ibn ‘Umar ibn ‘Īsā,Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (368 – 430 H)[23]said: “The one who regards the truth as multiple [like the Mu‘tazilah] establishes choice for the layperson to select [from them] based on his personal whim. And the one who says the truth is one, he makes it necessary for the layperson to follow one Imām, whose position according to him is that he is the most learned based on the evidence of inspection, and he does not oppose him in anything based on his personal whim.” (Taqwīm al-Adillah,p. 410)[24] Al-Arsābandī’s statement quoted earlier is a rephrasing of this passage of al-Dabūsī. Hence, the same explanation applies. Zahīr al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī al-Kabīr ‘Alī ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (d. 506) said: “A layperson of the Hanafī madhhab bleeds and did not repeat purification, imitating al-Shāfi‘ī with respect to this ruling, that is not permissible for him.”[25] Shaykh al-Islām Burhān al-Dīn ‘Alī ibn Abī Bakr al-Marghīnānī (511 – 593 H)[26] said: “A [Hanafī] man suspends divorce of marriage and then he marries a woman and seeks fatwa from [a person belonging to] the Shāfi‘ī madhhab, and he issues fatwa according to his madhhab that the divorce has not occurred, it will not be a proof with respect to him.”[27] If a man were to say, “Every woman I marry is divorced,” the suspended divorce takes effect in the Hanafī madhhab but not in the Shāfi‘ī madhhab. According to this fatwa of Imām al-Marghīnānī, a Hanafī may not accept the fatwa of a Shāfi‘ī who tells him the divorce has not occurred. In explaining why the early Hanafī scholars obligated the layman to stick to one madhhab, Ibn al-Humām (788 – 861 H) said: “Most probably the compulsions [of adhering to a single madhhab] such as these from them [i.e. the earlier scholars of the school] was to prevent them [i.e. the laypeople] from seeking out the easiest opinions (tatabbu‘ al rukhas), for otherwise the layperson will select the view of a mujtahid whose opinion is least burdensome on him.” (Fath al-Qadīr)[28] Unfortunately, Ibn al-Humām did not agree with this established view and even allowed seeking out the easiest opinions of the madhhabs (tatabbu‘ al-rukhas)!Tatabbu‘ al-rukhas is forbidden by consensus, as stated by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr.[29] The personal opinion of later scholars cannot override the established consensus of the early scholars. In discussing the position attributed to ‘Izz al-Dīn ibn ‘Abd al-Salām on the permission of tatabbu‘ al rukhas, Imām al-Wanshirīsī al-Mālikī (d. 914 H) said: “Ibn Hazm and Abu ‘Umar [ibn ‘Abd al-Barr] have related consensus [on the prohibition of tatabbu‘al-rukhas], and its basis is transmission, while ‘Izz al-Dīn did not clarify any basis for his fatwa, so it may be an opinion that he held and was isolated in, or a consequence of [his] opinion which is what is apparent from the force of his speech. Whatever it may be, it is an innovated view after an earlier consensus, so it is rejected (bātil) due to its implication of imputing error on the ummah, and imputing error on them is prohibited as established in the principles of Fiqh.”[30] We will also see from some of the statements of early Imāms that following the codification of the madhhabs, there was consensus that a layperson must adhere to a single madhhab. Hence, this early consensus too may not be superseded by the view of some later scholars. From these quotes from the early authorities of the madhhab, we learn that the official Hanafī position is that a layperson must stick to a single madhhab, believing all its rulings are correct, and he may not switch madhhabs on single issues. The view of Ibn al-Humām and subsequent scholars in opposition to this cannot override the established position of the madhhab. ‘Allāmah Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā (802 – 879 H) said: “The researches of our teacher [ibn al-Humām] which are contrary to the madhhab will not be acted upon.” (Sharh ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī, p. 35) One final point we will mention here is that in the early Hanafī school, some scholars mentioned an exception to this rule, which is that a Hanafī muqallid may accept the fatwa of a Shāfi‘ī mufti in the case of the suspended divorce. However, ‘Allāmah Ibrāhīm ibn Husayn Bīrī al-Makkī (d. 1099), the Hanafī mufti of Makkah, has explained in a treatise on this subject, called Ghāyat al-Tahqīq fī ‘Adami Jawāz al-Talfīq fi l-Taqlīd – in which he addresses a number of other such doubts –, thatthis is not an example of leaving the madhhab nor is it an exception to the rule.This is because al-Zāhidī (d. 658 H) reported that the “Shāfi‘ī view” in this example is an opinion transmitted from Imām Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī, and many of the early mujtahids from Khawārizm would issue fatwa on it. In brief, there is nothing in the recorded views of the early mujtahid scholars of the madhhab that upsets the paradigm we have presented. Statements from the Early Scholars of the Shāfi‘ī School Imām al-Haramayn, Abu l-Ma‘āli ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abī Muhammad al- Juwaynī (417 – 478 H)[31] said: “If it is said: Is it permissible for a layperson to subscribe in some juristic rulings to the madhhab of al-Shāfi‘ī and in some of them to the madhhab of Abū Hanīfah, and likewise the madhhab of all the Imāms in this fashion? If you say: That is permissible, and it is not necessary for anyone to adhere to the founder of a specific madhhab, then there is no need in that case to author this book, because he has no need to recognise the “more correct” and follow what is right and true [according to him], but he does whatever he wishes according to the madhhab of whomsoever he desires. “The answer is: We say: It is not permissible forthe layperson [to do] what you mentioned. Rather,it is definitely necessary for him to specify a madhhab from these madhhabs, either the madhhab of Al-Shafi‘ī – may Allāh be pleased with him – in all cases and subsidiaries, or the madhhab of Mālik or the madhhab of Abū Hanīfah or other than them– the pleasure of Allāh be upon them. He may not subscribe to the madhhab of al-Shāfi‘ī in some of what he desires and the madhhab of Abū Hanīfah in the remainder of what he approves, because if we allowed it, that will lead to immense confusion and lack of regulation. Its outcome will bethe negation of [religious] obligations and there would be no benefit to the [religious] obligation established on him, since if the madhhab of al-Shāfi‘ī necessitates the impermissibility of something and themadhhab of Abū Hanīfah necessitates the permissibility of that very thing or vice versa, if he wishes he may incline towards permissibility and if he wishes he may incline towards impermissibility, so neither permissibility nor impermissibility would be realised. In this is the negation of obligation and nullification of its benefit and uprooting of its foundation. And that is rejected (bātil). “If it is said: Was it not that in the era of the Sahābah, a person was given the option between selecting, in some cases, the madhhab of al-Siddīq, and in some, the madhhab of al-Fārūq, and likewise with respect to all the Sahābah in all cases, and they did not prevent him from that? So since this is permissible amongst the Sahābah, why is it not allowed in our time? “The answer is that this was only so because the juristic principles of the Sahābah were not adequate for all cases, comprehensive of all rulings, encompassing all subsidiaries, covering all details, because they laid the groundwork, founded principles, paved the foundations and did not dedicate themselves to deriving subsidiaries and elaborating the details. Hence, the madhhab of Abū Bakr was not adequate for all cases, and likewise the madhhab of all Sahābah, so because of necessity, it was permitted for muqallids to follow Abū Bakr in some cases and in that which his opinion was not found, to follow al-Fārūq. As for this era of ours, the madhhabs of the Imāms are adequate and encompassing of all, because there is no case that occurs except that you find it in the madhhab of al-Shāfi‘ī or in the madhhab of other than him, either explicitly or by derivation, so there is no necessity to follow two Imāms together.” (Mughīth al-Khalq, 13-16)[32] This is a very explicit passage showing the reason for the difference between pre and post codification of the madhhabs. Al-Juwaynī mentions that, if allowed to follow more than one madhhab, it will lead to two things: one is immenseconfusion and the other is lack of regulation. It is possible that by “immense confusion” there could be an allusion to the inconsistency in juristic methodology that would arise if a layperson followed multiple madhhabs. This is supported by his reference to the “principles” of the Sahābah which he states were insufficient for all juristic issues. On the other hand, the principles of the codified madhhabs were complete and applied to more or less all juristic issues. It is because of the insufficiency of the methodologiesof the Sahābah that, out of necessity, the layperson was permitted to accept rulings from multiple mujtahids. “Lack of regulation” refers to, as al-Juwaynī elaborated, the removal of religious obligation, by giving the legally obligated individual the option to choose between different legal rulings on the same issue. Moreover, al-Juwaynī is emphatic in this ruling, saying it is “definitely” (hatman) obligatory on the layperson to adopt a single madhhab, and the repercussions of saying otherwise is something that is outright rejected (bātil). Scholars who in the present time hold the same strict stance, therefore, are fully justified in doing so. Recording the position of Shams al-Islām Abu l-Hasan ‘Alī ibn Muhammad Ilkiyā al-Harrāsī (450 – 504 H)[33],Imām al-Nawawī said: “If [a layperson] is not ascribed [to a madhhab], it is premised on two views, which Ibn Barhān related, in that: Is it necessary for the layperson to adopt a particular madhhab, adopting its dispensations and strictures?...The second [view] is it is necessary for him. Abu l-Hasan al-Ilkiyā positively asserted it, and this applies to all who have not reached the level of ijtihād from the jurists and the adherents of all sciences. Its basis is that if following any madhhab he wished was permissible, it will lead to collecting the dispensations of the madhhabs,in following his desire, and choosing between permission and prohibition, obligation and permissibility, and that will lead to relinquishing the burden of responsibility; as distinguished from the first period [of Islām] because the madhhabs incorporating laws related to all outcomes were not refined. Based on this, it is necessary for one to strive to choose a specific madhhab he will follow. We will pave for him a simple path he should follow when striving to do so. Thus, we say:Firstly, he may not follow in this mere desire and inclination towards what he found his forefathers upon; and he may not adopt the madhhab of any of the Imāms of the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them) and others from the early ones, even though they were more learned and higher in rank than those who came after them because they did not devote themselves entirely to compiling knowledge and outlining its principles and its branches, so none of them had a refined, codified and approved madhhab, and only those who came after them from the Imāms who were affiliated to the madhhabs of the Sahābah and the Tābi‘in took up this task, undertaking the responsibility of laying down the laws pertaining to all happenings before they occurred, and attempting to clarify their principles and branches, like Mālik, Abū Hanīfah and others.” (Al-Majmū‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:93)[34] The position of Ilkiyā al-Harrāsī presented here is similar to that of his teacher, al-Juwaynī. However, here there is the addition that the layperson is obligated to select the madhhab he will follow based on a personal examination of which madhhab he feels is superior. As mentioned earlier, the reason for this obligation is the necessity to have firm belief in the correctness of the legal injunctions one is following. Hujjat al-Islām al-Ghazālī, Abū Hāmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad (450 – 505 H)[35] said while discussing the conditions for condemning a wrong (munkar): “The fourth condition is that its being munkar is known without ijtihād. So all that is in a place of ijtihād, there is no accountability therein. Hence, a Hanafī may not condemn a Shāfi‘ī for eating a lizard and hyena and [the animal over which] saying bismillāh was left out, and a Shāfi‘ī may not condemn a Hanafī for drinking non-intoxicating nabīdh and taking inheritance of distant relatives and residing in a house which he acquired by [the right of] pre-emption of a neighbour,and other such [examples] from the places of ijtihād. “Yes, if a Shāfi‘ī sees a Shāfi‘ī drinking nabīdh and marrying without a guardian and [thereafter] engaging in intercourse with his wife, then this is in a place of consideration. The most apparent [view] is that he has [the right of] taking him to task and rebuking [him]; since none of the scholars have opined that it is permissible for a mujtahid to act on the dictates of the ijtihād of other than him; nor that the one whose judgement in taqlīd led him to a man he considers the best of the scholars that it is permissible for him to select the madhhab of other than him, choosing from the madhhabs the most pleasing of them to him. Rather, it is incumbent on every muqallid to follow his Imām in every detail. Thus, his opposition to [his] Imām is by agreement of the scholars a munkar, and he is sinful in opposing [him].” (Ihyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, 2:321)[36] In this passage, al-Ghazālī has quoted consensus that a muqallid must follow his Imām who he believes is superior to the other Imāms. Moreover, by mentioning that he may not “choose from the madhhabs the most pleasing of them to him,” there is an indication that the reason for this restriction is that it would lead to tatabbu‘ al-rukhas and following desires. Al-Ghazālī further said in the same passage, rejecting the contrary view: “The view of the one who opines that it is permissible for every muqallid to choose from the madhhabs whatever he wishes is not given consideration. Probably it is not authentic that any opiner opined it at all. So this is a view that is not established, and if established, it is given no consideration.” (Ihyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, 1:322)[37] In this passage, it is clear that what al-Ghazālī meant by the muqallid’s “Imām” in the previous passage is his madhhab, and not the individual Imām per se. Furthermore, al-Ghazālī knows of no disagreementon the impermissibility of selecting from all the madhhabs as one wishes. Rather, it is necessary to restrict oneself to a single madhhab. And finally, he says, even if anyone were to have disagreed, his opinion is rejected. In a letter to Qādī Abū Bakr al-Mālikī (d. 543 H), Imām al-Ghazālī said: “It is not permissible for the muqallid of a scholar to choose the most pleasing of the madhhabs to him and the most agreeable to his temperament. He must make taqlīd of his Imām who he believes to have the correct and right madhhab in relation to other than him, and follow him in all that comes and goes. Hence, it is not permissible for a Mālikī to switch to the madhhab of al-Shāfi‘ī unless it overpowers his mind that its opinions are more correct. In that case, it is necessary to make taqlīd of him in all juristic rulings. If it is not that, then there is no motive for him to oppose [his madhhab] except whim, just as it is not permissible for a mujtahid to oppose the conclusions that his ijtihād reached… “It is necessary for every Muslim to follow what overwhelms his mind that it is the most correct in acts of devotion. This condition in the muqallid is achieved by considering what his Imām – whose opinion being sound has overwhelmed his mind – is upon as correct; just as knowledge of the best of doctors in the lands is achieved by the one who is ignorant of it. This is either through hearing from the mouths [of people] or observing most people [going to] a particular person, or his hearing two people or one person whose assessment is good [according to him] and his heart feels comfortable with him; like if he were to hear from his parents the excellence of Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī, and he assents to it and his heart feels comfortable with it. Hence,it is not permissible [for him] to oppose his assessment. “If hewere to say: ‘My assessment in other than this legal case is that the one I made taqlīd of is wrong,’ muqallids are not entitled to this. His ijtihād in individual issues is an error and it is as though in his mind he knows that which his Imām does not know in other than this issue [in which he made taqlīd of him], and this is ignorance! As for following al-Shāfi‘ī in an issue in which he opposed a Sahābī, it is necessary to have the assumption of al-Shāfi‘ī that he did not oppose him except for an evidence stronger than the madhhab of the Sahābī. If this was not assumed, he would ascribe to al-Shāfi‘ī ignorance of the position of the Sahābī, and this is impossible. This is the reason for giving preference to the madhhab of the later ones [i.e. the four Imāms] over the earlier ones [i.e. the Sahābah], despite knowledge of the superiority of their knowledge over theirs;as the earlier ones heard hadīths solitarily and dispersed in the lands and their fatwas and decrees differed in the lands, and sometimes hadīths reached them and they withheld from what they opined and decreed. In the first era, they did not get involved in collecting hadiths due to their occupation with jihād and laying down[the foundations of] the religion. Then when the people reached [the time of] the successors of the Tābi‘īn, they found Islām settled and established, so they diverted their attention towards collecting hadīths from the furthest lands and places by means of journeys and travels. Thus, the later ones inspected after encompassing all the proofs of the laws, and they did not contravene what was opined in the earlier [period] except for an evidence stronger than it...”(Al-Mi‘yār al-Mu‘rib, 11:164-5)[38] This is an explicit passage that according to al-Ghazālī, a muqallid must make taqlīd of the madhhab of his Imām in all rulings. He may not follow one madhhab in some rulings and another in other rulings, and al-Ghazālī is clear that the only reason that a muqallid would do this isin following his desires. The limit of a muqallid’s ijtihād is to determine that one madhhab appears superior to the other. Beyond that, the muqallid does not have the capacity to adjudicate between the madhhabs on individual points of difference. Hence, he must choose one madhhab he feels is superior and adhere to it completely, as the only reason for shifting in individual rulings would be vain desire (even if the muqallid does not realise it). Shāfi‘ ibn ‘Abd al-Rashīd Abū ‘Abdillāh al-Jīlī (470 – 541 H)[39] is referred to in the following passage of al-Zarkashī: “If [a muqallid] adhered to a specific madhhab, like [the madhhab of] Mālik or al-Shāfi‘ī, and he believed in its superiority in general, is it permissible to oppose his Imām in some juristic rulings and select the opinion of another mujtahid besides him? In this are [the following] views: First, prohibition. Al-Jīlī positively asserted this in al-I‘jāz, because the view of every Imām is independent in individual cases, so there is no need to shift except following desires, and due to what is in it of following dispensations and playing with religion.”[40] There is a clear indication in this statement that the only reason the earlier generations did not restrict themselves to a single mujtahid is because there was a need: the rulings of each mujtahid on all juristic issues were not known, making it necessaryto refer to multiple mujtahids. Al-Juwaynī was quoted earlier making the same point. Furthermore, the reason for restricting oneself to a single madhhab, i.e. the potential of following desires, is also alluded to in this statement. Although al-Jīlī does not say that a layperson must at the outset select a madhhab, but since his reasoning is that to have the option to select from multiple madhhabs bears the consequence of following desires and playing with the dīn, it would entail that his opinion is it is necessary for a layperson to choose one madhhab he will follow in all its rulings. Safī al-Dīn al-Hindī (644 – 715 H) said after mentioning this very reasoning: “This evidence demands that it is necessary for the layperson to subscribe to a specific madhhabat the outset.”[41] Moreover, it is also clear from this passage that al-Jīlī saw no reason why a muqallid would shift from one madhhab to another – when there was no dire need as in the early period – besides following vain desire (tashahhī). Al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, Abū Bakr ‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad’s (327 – 417 H)[42] opinion is mentioned in the following passage from al-Nawawī’s Sharh al-Muhadhdhab: “Shaykh [Abū Muhammad al-Juwaynī] said: It will be considered if he [i.e. the layperson] is ascribed to a madhhab, we will premise it on two views which al-Qādī Husayn related in that the layperson does he have a madhhab or not?...The second, and this is the most authentic according to al-Qaffāl, is that he does have a madhhab, so it is not permissible for him to oppose it.” (al-Majmū‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:93)[43] In explaining al-Qaffāl’s view, Ibn al-Salāh states: “Because he believes that the madhhab which he is ascribed to is the truth and he gave it preference over other than it, so he must follow through with the demand of this belief of his. Hence, if he is a Shāfi‘ī he may not seek fatwa from a Hanafī, nor oppose his Imām.”[44] This proves that according to al-Qaffāl once a muqallid has selected a madhhab, he must adhere to it in all its rulings. The “Ashāb al-Wujūh” were major early mujtahids in the Shāfi‘ī madhhab, generally having lived between thethird and fifth centuries. Al-Nawawī describes them as follows: “A mujtahid restricted to the madhhab of his Imām, independent in establishing his viewpoints with evidence, although he does not go beyond the foundations of his Imām and his principles in his evidences. His condition is knowledge of jurisprudence and its principles and the detailed evidences of laws, and insight into the methodology of [drawing] legal analogies and [determining] the ratio legis. [He is] fully trained in extraction and derivation, capable of linking what is not explicitly mentioned by his Imām to his principles.” Al-Nawawī then said: “This is a description of our Ashāb, the Ashāb al-Wujūh.” (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, p. 76)Some examples of Ashāb al-Wujūh are: Abū ‘Alī al-Husayn ibn Sālih ibn Khayrān (d. 320 H), Abū Yahyā Zakariyyā ibn Ahmad al-Balkhī (d. 330 H), Zāhir ibn Ahmad al-Sarakhsī (d. 389 H) andAbū Bakr al-Awdanī (d. 385 H). Al-Nawawī said: “If [a layperson] is not ascribed [to a madhhab], it is premised on two views, which Ibn Barhān related from our Ashāb, in that: Is it necessary for the layperson to adopt a particular madhhab?...The second it is necessary for him. Abu l-Hasan al-Ilkiyā positively asserted it, and this applies to all who have not reached the level of ijtihād from the jurists and the adherents of all sciences. [This is so] in order that he does not collect the dispensations of the madhhabs; as distinguished from the first era when the madhhabs were not codified such that their dispensations may be collected. Based on this, it is necessary for one to strive to choose a specific madhhab he will follow in everything. He may not adopt a madhhab based merely on whim, nor with what he found his forefathers upon. This is the statement of the Ashāb.” (Rawdat al-Tālibīn, 8:101)[45] In explaining the view of the Ashāb, al-Nawawī clearly mentions that in the early period the laypeople were not able to seek out the easiest opinions of the mujtahids, precisely because their madhhabs were not codified. In short, there is very strong support from within the early Shāfi‘ī school for the paradigm of taqlīdwe have proposed in the introduction. Furthermore, Imām al-Ghazālī effectively quoted consensus on this ruling, and as mentioned earlier, the disagreement of later scholars cannot override the binding consensus of the earlier jurists. Statements from the Early Scholars of the Mālikī School Shaykh al-Islām Qādī Abu l-Fadl‘Iyād ibn Mūsā (476 – 544 H)[46]said: “Know – may Allāh give us and you success – that the ruling of the one devoted to the orders of Allāh (Exalted is He) and His prohibitions, obedient to the Sharī‘ah of His Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), is to seek acquaintance of this and that with which he will render devotion [to Allāh] and that which he will perform and will omit, and [that which] is necessary for him and forbidden, and [that which] is permissible for him and encouraged, from the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Prophet, for they are the two foundations which the Sharī‘ah is known only by means of and Allāh is rendered devotion only by knowledge of. “Furthermore, the consensus of the Muslims is built upon them, and dependent on them. Thus it cannot be found nor convened, except [based] on them, either from a text which they knew and then did not transmit or from a deduction based on them – based on the view that a consensus via the route of ijtihād is valid. “All of this will not be complete except after making knowledge of them, and the means and tools allowing him to reach it, a reality, in terms of transmission and reason,and pursuit of it, collection and retention, and knowledge of what is sound from the traditions and famous, and acquaintance of how to gain understanding, and that by which he will gain understanding, in terms of knowledge of the outward of the words, which is knowledge of Arabic and language, and knowledge of their meanings and the meanings of the intent of Sharī‘ah and its objectives, and the clear directive of speech, its outward and its purport and all its angles, which is termed “knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence”, most of which is connected to knowledge of Arabic and the objectives of speech and conversation, and then [knowledge of] the source of making a [legal] analogy of what has not been explicitly stated on what has been explicitly stated, drawing attention to the presence of the legal reason in it or its resemblance to it. “All of this requires time, while devotion [to Allāh and Sharī‘ah] is necessary immediately. Moreover, those who have reached this road, which is the road of ijtihād and ruling by it in the Sharī‘ah, are few and fewer than few after the first era and the righteous Salaf and the praiseworthy three generations. “Since this is so, it is necessary for the one who has not reached this position from the legally responsibility individuals (muakkallafīn) to receive what he will render devotion with and which he was legally obligated with, in terms of the tasks of Sharī‘ah, from those who transmit it to him, and make him aware of it, and [who] he depends on in his transmission, knowledge and assessment. This is taqlīd, and the rank of the common people, nay most of them [i.e. people], is this! “Since this is so, it is necessary to make taqlīd of a scholar that is dependable upon in that, and when the scholars become abundant, then the most learned. “This is the share of the muqallid in terms of ijtihād (exercising judgement) for his religion. The muqallid will not abandon the most learned and go towards other than him, even if he [too] is engaged in knowledge. Thus, he will ask about that of which he does not have knowledge until he knows, just as Allāh (Exalted is He) said: ‘Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.’And the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) ordered imitation of the caliphs after him and his companions, and indeed the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) dispatched his companions amongst the people to teach them the understanding of religion, and teach them what is prescribed upon them, and Allāh (Exalted is He) encouraged all of them, that from each group a party of them go forth in order to gain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return tothem. (Qur’ān, 9:122) “Since this matter is necessary and inevitable, and the most worthy and deserving of those who the ignorant layperson and the novice worshipper and the student seeking guidance and the one seeking understanding in the religion of Allāh make taqlīd of are the jurists of the companions of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), who took knowledge from him and knew the reasons for the revelation of the commands and prohibitions, and the functions of the laws, and the contexts of his (upon him peace) speech, and they witnessed the indications of it, and they spoke directly in most of them with the Prophet (upon him peace), and they asked him about them, along with what they were upon of vast knowledge and acquaintance with the meanings of speech and illumination of hearts and expansion of breasts, so they were indisputably the most learned of the Imāms, and the worthiest of them to make taqlīd of, but they did not speak about the legal cases except in the small number [of them] that arose, nor were juristic rulings derived by them, and they did not speak about the Sharī‘ah except of principles and events, and most of their occupation was in acting on what they knew, and defence of the territory of religion, and consolidating the Sharī‘ah of the Muslims. Moreover, there is disagreement amongst them in some of what they spoke of, which will leave the muqallid in confusion, and will force him to contemplate and have reservation. “Derivation [of subsidiary rulings], drawing results and elaborating the [points of] discussion in that which is expected to occur only came after them. Thus, the Tābi‘ūn came, and they analysed their disagreement and they built on their foundations, and then after them scholars arose from the successors of the Tābi‘ūn, and events became numerous, legal cases took place, and the fatwas on them became diverse, so they gathered the views of all [scholars], and they preserved their jurisprudence, and they researched their disagreement and their agreement, and they were cautious of the matter becoming dispersed and the disagreement going out of control, so they exercised their reasoning in collecting the traditions and regulating the principles, and they were asked and they answered, and they founded principles and paved foundations and derived legal rulings based on them, and they authored for the people works on this and arranged them into chapters, and each of them acted in accordance with what was inspired to him and he was granted accordance to [do], so the knowledge of principles and subsidiaries, disagreement and agreement,reached its peak with them, and they drew analogy on what reached them of what it indicates to or it resembles. May Allāh be pleased with them all and give them the full reward for their efforts. “Thus, it is stipulated for the lay muqallid and the novice seeker of knowledge to refer in [his] taqlīd to these [mujtahids] for the texts of his legal cases, and refer to them in what is unclear [to him] therefrom, due to the encompassment of the science of Sharī‘ah and its revolving around them, and their excellence in analysing the madhhabs of those who came before them, and their sufficing of that for those who came after them. “However, taqlīd of all of them will not be possible in most legal cases and the majority of rulings, due to their disagreement based on the different principles on which they built [the rulings]. And it is not correct for a muqallid to make taqlīd of whosoever he wishes from them based on whim and chance, or based on what he finds the people of his vicinity and his family upon. “Thus, his share here of ijtihād is analysing the most learned of them, and gaining recognition of the worthiest of the totality of them for taqlīd, so that the layperson will incline in his deeds to his fatwas, and will rely in his acts of piety on what he opined...It is not permissible for him to trespass in consulting those whose madhhab he does not adhere to for fatwa, since some of the elders said: ‘The Imām for the one who adopts his madhhab is like the Prophet (upon him peace) with his ummah – it is not permissible for him to oppose him.’ This is correct in terms of reasoning, and in what we elaborated, its soundness is manifest to the people of insight. “…Once this introduction is established, we say: The consensus of the Muslims in all places of earth has occurred on taqlīd in this fashion, and adherence of them, and studying their madhhabs and not those before them, while acknowledging the excellence of those before them and their priority and their superior knowledge, but the problems [in following them] are as we described and the sufficiency of what they selected from them is as we mentioned earlier. “…The people today in all the lands of the world have evolved into five madhhabs: Mālikīs, Hanafīs, Shāfi‘īs, Hanbalīs and Dāwūdīs – and they are known as Zāhirīs. Thus, it is incumbent on a student of knowledge and the one wishing to gain acquaintance of what is true and correct to recognise the most worthy of them of taqlīd, in order to depend on his madhhab and tread his path in seeking jurisprudential knowledge.” (59 – 67)[47] The important points to note from this lengthy passage of Qādī ‘Iyād are, firstly, that he notes most people in his time were muqallids; secondly, the reason it is not possible to follow the madhhab of a single Sahābī is that no Sahābī has a unified madhhab relating to all issues of jurisprudence; thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Qādī ‘Iyād identifies the reason why it is necessary to adhere to one madhhab as the different principles of each madhhab on which they based their rulings – following all of them, therefore, will result in a contradiction in the outcome; finally, he relates consensus on this type of taqlīd i.e. the obligation of adhering to a single madhhab one believes to be superior to the others. Imām al-Māzirī, Abū ‘Abdillāh Muhammad ibn ‘Alī al-Tamīmī (453 – 536 H)[48]said: “When a question came to me from Tūnis – Allāh protect it – when a man who a long time ago had studied part of the science of Usūl under me had married a woman and divorced her thrice, and then considered her permissible [for him], after a man solemnised [the marriage] with her and did not have intercourse with her, so a question about him came to me from the judge and the jurists of the city, I reprimanded him excessively, and I went into excess, until he thought I gave them permission to punish him! I mentioned thatthis is a door, if opened, repercussions would occur in terms of religion and consequences in terms of adherence to the laws [of Sharī‘ah]. “…That which I believe of the resolute religion is that it is prohibited to exit the madhhab of Mālik and his companions as a protection against the path [towards the negative repercussions]. If this was legalised, a man would say: I will sell one dinar for two dinars due to what was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās and then someone will come who will say: I marry a woman and I make her private part lawful without a guardian nor witnesses in imitation of Abū Hanīfah with respect to the guardian and of Mālik with respect to witnesses, and I will marry her for a meagre price in imitation of al-Shāfi‘ī. This is the greatest opportunity for disaster. This practice would be severed in the earlier times, despite the scrupulousness of its people and their fear of their honour and their religion. So what of when the matter has reached a time wherein its people have fallen short of the conditions of those who came before in such a way that is not hidden to the intelligent. This is a time when it is more suitable to cut off the substances of laxity in religious matters. …You see our imams who would fear Allāh (Great and Glorious is He) exaggerate in condemning laxity in the matter of religion and leaving one madhhab for another madhhab, due to what it will lead to in terms of corruption.” (Fatāwa l-Māzirī, al-Dār al-Tūnisiyyah, 151-3) In this passage, al-Māzirī explains the importance of regulatory measures to keep laypeople in check from falling into unwanted consequences. Two such consequences he refers to in this passage are: adopting shadhdh opinions, such as Ibn ‘Abbās’s opinion of allowing the sale of one dirham for two dirhams on spot; and talfīq as in the example of the marriage that he described made up of the opinions of three different madhhabs. Al-Māzirī also mentions in this passage that scholars had put these measures before his time also. There is in fact a reference to Mālikī scholars restricting the muftis to giving fatwa only on the madhhab of Imām Mālik as far back as the early third century. Wanshirīsī reports from al-Hārith ibn Miskīn (d. 250 H) and Sahnūn (d. 240 H) that they forbade the muftis of their areas from issuing fatwa on other than the madhhab of Mālik (al-Mi‘yār al-Mu‘rib, 12:26). And as mentioned earlier, quoting from Safī al-Dīn al-Hindī, “This evidence demands that it is necessary for the layperson to subscribe to a specific madhhabat the outset.” Statements from the Hanbalī School Najm al-Dīn Ahmad ibn Hamdān ibn Shabīb al-Harrānī al-Misrī al-Faqīh (603 – 695 H)[49] said: “It is necessary for every muqallid to adhere to a specific madhhab in the most famous [view] and not make taqlīd of other than its adherents.” (al-Insāf, 11:194)[50] With the final clause, “and not make taqlīd of other than its adherents,” Ibn Hamdān clarifies that the obligation is to restrict oneself to the body of scholars represented by the madhhab, and not only the founder of the madhhab. Ibn Hamdān also reproduces the statement of al-Nawawī quoting from the Ashāb in his famous work on the protocols of fatwaSifat al-Fatwāwa l-Muftī wa l-Mustaftī (al-Maktab al-Islāmī, p 72) “The Layperson has no Madhhab”? The statement “the layman has no madhhab” (al-‘āmmī lā madhhaba lahū) was mentioned by some scholars[51]. This rule applies only to the situation before the codification of madhhabs, as expressed by al-Juwaynīamongst others. Nāsir al-Dīn Abu l-‘Abbās Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Munayyir al-Mālikī(620 – 683 H)[52] said: “Proof dictates [the necessity of] adherence to a specific madhhab after [the codification of the madhhabs of] the four Imāms not before them. The difference is that the people before the four Imāms did not codify their madhhabs, nor did the legal cases arise in large numbers upon them, such that the madhhab of each of them may be known in all cases or in most of them. The one who asks fatwa of al-Shāfi‘ī, for example, had no knowledge of what the mufti will say because his madhhab was not well-known in that case, or it did not arise before that so it is inconceivable that [anyone] supported it besides the mind of a specific [mufti]. As for after the madhhabs were understood, codified and became famous, and the dispensation was known from the strictures in every case, then a questioner will not alternate – when the condition is such – from madhhab to madhhab except due to an inclination to break away [from responsibility] and seeking ease.”[53] In this very clear passage, Ibn al-Munayyir explains that before the codification of madhhabs there was little scope to seek out the easiest opinions of the scholars. However, after the codification of the madhhabs, it would be easy to find the easiest opinion on each issue. Thus, at this time, restricting oneself to a single madhhab became necessary,as a regulatory measure. Hence, the rule, “The layperson has no madhhab” is applicable to the period before the codification of madhhabs. Stating this explicitly, Ibn Hajar al-Haytamī from the late Shāfi‘ī school said: “The claim that the layperson has no madhhab is rejected. Rather, taqlīd of a recognised madhhab is necessary for him. That [i.e. the layperson having no madhhab] was before the codification of madhhabs and their settlement.”[54] The rule “the layperson has no madhhab” also applies to those situations, times and places where it would be very difficult or even impossible to obligate a layperson to adhere to a single madhhab, due to complete ignorance or lack of access to all the positions of one madhhab. Some of the later scholars have mentioned this.[55] However, in normal circumstances, due to the reasons that have been explained, a layperson must adhere to a single madhhab in all its rulings. Conclusion There are strong positions in all four madhhabs on the obligation to restrict oneself to a single madhhab. Major scholars from the fifth century of Hijrah quoted consensus on this ruling. The reasons for the ruling have been explained in detail above, and will be summarised below. The scholars who in the present time strictly uphold this view are, therefore, completely justified in doing so. There were certainly a number of latter-day scholars that tended towards the view of unrestricted taqlīd. The primary reason for this is that some influential scholars supported this opinion after the earlier consensus in opposition to it. Examples include al-Nawawī, al-Qarāfī, Ibn al-Humām and Ibn Taymiyyah. However, as mentioned earlier in the brief discussion on tatabbu‘ al-rukhas, the personal opinions of later scholars cannot supersede an earlier consensus, nor can they form the basis of the official position of the respective schools when the situation under question has remained unchanged. Moreover, the scholars who give permission for unrestricted taqlīd generally accept the consensus on the prohibitions of tatabbu‘ al-rukhas, following desires and talfīq. Since it is almostimpossible to keep the common people from falling into these patterns, the scholars of the present time who support this view should, based on the principle of closing the avenues to impermissible ends (sadd al-dharā’i‘), put effective measures to avoid these unwanted outcomes. This can only be achieved by limiting them to choose the opinions of a single madhhab. Summary of Main Points Before the codification of the madhhabs, in approximately the first three centuries of Islām, the common Muslim was permitted to accept the opinions of multiple mujtahids. The reason for this is that the common Muslim did not have access to a complete codified set of laws from any single person or school at this time, so it was not generally possible to follow a single mujtahid or school. Because different madhhabs with detailed ruleson all chapters of jurisprudence were not yet codified or well-known,an opinion the common Muslim was exposed to was probably the only opinion on that issuehe would know. Hence, he would rarely have the option to select between different viewpoints on single issues, making it nearly impossible for him to seek out the easiest opinions from amongst the available views of mujtahid scholars and follow his desires. After the codification of the madhhabs in approximately the fourth century of Hijrah, it became necessary for a common Muslim to restrict himself to a single madhhab which he believes to be more correct in relation to the other madhhabs The reasons for this is that: Firstly, each madhhab was comprehensive and complete, dealing with all the subsidiaries of Islāmic law, so unlike the early period, there was no need to refer to multiple mujtahids or madhhabs Secondly, if given the option to select from the different madhhabs in single issues, the common Muslim would be freed of religious obligation (taklīf) and will be free to base his decisions on his whims and desires, by seeking out the easiest opinion from each school. Thirdly, if a layperson follows multiple madhhabs in different rulings, the consequence will be a hotchpotch of legal rulings, many of which are based on conflicting juristic principles, resulting in a methodological contradiction in the outcome, even if not obviously apparent Fourthly, a muqallid’s reasoning is limited to investigating which madhhab or mujtahid he feels is superior, and he does not have the right or ability to adjudicate between them on individual issues; thus, if he were to choose from different madhhabs without necessity, it would be based on following desires, even if the muqallid does not realise it or believe so Fifthly, given this option, a muqallid may be led to select opinions outside of the established madhhabs that are shadhdh Sixthly, a muqallid may not be able to observe the conditions of the different madhhabs he is following in a single case, resulting in talfīq Major early scholars across all madhhabs before the sixth century of Hijrah have corroborated each of these points, with Qādī ‘Iyād and al-Ghazālī having quoted consensus on the obligation of adhering to a single madhhab The opinion of some later scholars in contravention to this, when the situation has remained the same since the consensus of the early scholars, is rejected Since there is no need to follow multiple madhhabs in this period, and there is a potential for major repercussions– prohibited by consensus – if it is permitted, it behooves all scholars to give the verdict of the obligation of restricting one’s taqlīd to a single madhhab, on the basis of prudence and practicality, and closing the avenues to unwanted ends When some early scholars spoke of a layperson “having choice” (which was stated even by some of those scholars who obligated restricted taqlīd) or “having no madhhab”, they refer to the times and scenarios where these are applicable, such as: If a muqallid has not yet selected a madhhab, or is in such a position that he does not have full access to any single madhhab, he may take fatwa from a scholar of any madhhab A muqallid of a particular madhhab in some situations has the choice of accepting different fatwa positions within his school The layperson in the era before the codification of madhhabs had no madhhab for the reasons outlined earlier سبحنك اللهم وبحمدك، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت، أستغفرك وأتوب إليك Continued in the next post...

The modern day concept dubbed "gender equality" Q: Can the learned Mufti Saheb kindly provide references from the Qur'an and Hadith, for living expenses in a marriage. Which spouse is responsible for paying specific monthly commitments? A: Islam is second to none in advocating fairness and justice. In every dimension of a person's life, one will find Islam advocating the highest degree of justice. As a result of Islam's unparalleled justice, we see that each spouse is allocated their own responsibilities and duties in their marital life. It is recorded in the Mubaarak Hadith that when Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) married Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha), Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) advised them regarding the manner in which they should conduct themselves in the nikaah. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) outlined the duties and responsibilities of each spouse, instructing Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) to attend to the duties within the home and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to fulfil the responsibilities out of the home. From this Hadith we understand that each spouse has been allocated their specific duties and responsibilities. The husband’s duty and responsibility is to fulfil the needs and requirements of his wife and family, such as providing them with food, clothing, shelter, etc. He is thus required to leave the home in order to generate an income through which he will be able to fulfil his responsibilities. On the other hand, the wife has been commanded to remain within the confines of the home and not to leave the home except at the time of need, as she has been allocated the duty of tending to the internal affairs of the home. Hence, she should serve her husband, take care of the children and manage the affairs of the home such as cooking, keeping the home tidy, etc. If each spouse acts responsibly and fulfils their respective duties and responsibilities, the home will run smoothly and they will prosper as a happy family. Each spouse will be able to fulfil the rights they owe to Allah Ta'ala and the rights they owe to each other. Furthermore, both parents will be able to focus on instilling Islamic values into the children and giving them the correct upbringing which they require. Islam does not recognize the modern day concept dubbed "gender equality". In this alien and unnatural system, undue advantage is taken of the wife in the guise of gender equality. The wife, despite being from the weaker sex, is shamelessly exploited and expected to shoulder both her own responsibilities and the responsibilities of her husband by supplementing his income and contributing to the running expenses of the home. Hence, apart from her own duties, she is burdened with the added responsibility of earning an income to assist the husband in fulfilling his duties. It is generally witnessed that when the spouses do not fulfil their respective roles which have been stipulated for them by the Shari'ah, then problems, complications, misunderstandings, quarrels and disputes arise in the nikaah. True respect, honour, dignity and happiness in our marital and social lives can only be attained by following the pure and pristine teachings of Islam and the Mubaarak Sunnah of Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam). If we seek honour and respect elsewhere, we will bring nothing but disgrace and humiliation to ourselves. Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu Anhu) has emphasized: إنا كنا أذل قوم فأعزنا الله بالإسلام فمهما نطلب العز بغير ما أعزنا الله به أذلنا الله (حاكم #207) "We were the most disgraced of people. Allah Ta'ala then gave us honour through Islam. If we ever seek honour in something besides that through which Allah Ta'ala has honoured us (Islam), Allah Ta'ala will disgrace us." May Allah Ta'ala bless us with the ability to uphold every command of Shari'ah and adhere to the Mubaarak Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) in every facet of our lives. Aameen. And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best. وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَىٰ وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّـهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا ﴿الأحزاب:٣٣﴾ عن ضمرة بن حبيب قال قضى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على ابنته فاطمة بخدمة البيت وقضى على علي بما كان خارجا من البيت من الخدمة (مصنف ابن أبي شيبة رقم 29677) عن أبي أمامة عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أنه كان يقول ما استفاد المؤمن بعد تقوى الله خيرا له من زوجة صالحة إن أمرها أطاعته وإن نظر إليها سرته وإن أقسم عليها أبرته وإن غاب عنها نصحته في نفسها وماله (ابن ماجة رقم 1857) عن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إذا صلت المرأة خمسها وصامت شهرها وحفظت فرجها وأطاعت زوجها قيل لها ادخلي من أي أبواب الجنة شئت (مجمع الزوائد رقم 7634) فروع استأجر امرأته لتخبز له خبزا للأكل لم يجز قال الشامي: قوله ( لم يجز ) لأن هذا العمل من الواجب عليها ديانة لأن النبي قسم الأعمال بين فاطمة وعلي فجعل عمل الداخل على فاطمة وعمل الخارج على علي (رد المحتار 6/62) Answered by: Mufti Zakaria Makada Checked & Approved: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Asking from Allah Ta’ala Hazrat Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Daamat Barakaatuhu) mentioned: The hadeeth says that the most honourable of gifts is the gift of du‘aa. In this world, when you ask from a person this is one of the most humiliating acts, but in the presence of Allah Ta‘ala this is among the most honourable actions. Why is this? Because through du‘aa one acknowledges in whose hands is the button of all things. It is His touch, he just says ‘kun’ (Be) and it is as He wills. So we should have this in mind that everything is under His decree, but we also beg of Him showing that we are dependent on Him. At no time should we show that we are independent. This is what Allah Ta‘ala dislikes. Who allows you to see and grants you good health? Who is sustaining your body and restraining the cells in your body from contracting cancer or any other sickness? That is why the hadeeth says that du‘aa is the essence of all ‘ibaadat. (Ihyaauddeen.co.za)

Du‘ā – A Great Gift By Hadrat Mawlānā Muhammad Saleem Dhorat hafizahullāh As believers, we all have a deep yearning to attach ourselves to our Merciful and Gracious Creator. Even the sinful aspire to do something that will please their Master and bring them closer to Him. Out of His sheer Grace and Mercy, Allāh ta‘ālā has created many ways for us to acquire this closeness. One of these is du‘ā. Du‘ā holds special significance among the many important and spiritually uplifting forms of worship we have been bestowed with. It is an act extremely liked by Allāh ta‘ālā as it represents the height of humbleness and submission to the Creator. It is for this reason it has been termed the ‘essence of ‘ibādah’ and even simply ‘‘ibādah’. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam states: Du‘ā is so important that Allāh ta‘ālā becomes displeased when His bondsman neglects it. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam states: Du‘ā is the essence of ‘ibādah. (At-Tirmidhī) Du‘ā is ‘ibādah. (At-Tirmidhī) Allāh becomes angry with the person who does not ask from Him. (At-Tirmidhī) By making du‘ā, we create a special connection with Allāh ta‘ālā whereby love for Him increases, faith in Him strengthens and the doors of boundless mercy are opened for us. If we do not ask from our Creator, we will never be able to create that special relationship. Take the example of two people, one who is poor and needy and the other who is wealthy and eager to find opportunities to assist the needy. If the poor man were never to ask the rich man for assistance, he would never develop any relationship with him. However, by asking for assistance, a degree of recognition is created. If, at every time of need, he asked the rich person for help, and the rich person gave, then this would surely create love for the rich man in the poor man’s heart. Similarly, witnessing the helplessness and neediness of the poor man, mercy would increase in the heart of the rich man, and he would regard this needy person instrumental in gaining the Pleasure of the Creator. He would advise the poor man not to be hesitant in asking him for help whenever the need arises. Soon the relationship would become such that the rich man would not wait for the poor man to ask, but would bestow his generosity upon him even before that. This is just an example of how mere mortals would behave; the Mercy and Grace of Allāh ta‘ālā are beyond imagination! Remember, du‘ā is the weapon of the believer. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam said: Verily, du‘ā is beneficial against that (affliction) which has descended as well as that which has not [yet] descended; so hold fast, O bondsmen of Allāh, to du‘ā. (At-Tirmidhī) So we should always remain steadfast with du‘ā. Holding fast to the following points will inshā’allāh help in this regard: 1. We need to create a habit of asking Allāh ta‘ālā for all our needs in every situation. Whether a matter is big or small, difficult or easy, we should turn to Allāh ta‘ālā. Our attitude should be that even in circumstances where we are fully confident of success, du‘ā is still our first step. Even for trivial everyday needs we need to adopt the habit of turning to Allāh ta‘ālā. Our first recourse should be du‘ā and thereafter asbāb (means). Unfortunately, our approach is to turn to asbāb first and then to du‘ā, or more precisely, when the asbāb do not deliver the desired result we turn to du‘ā. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam has advised us that even if the strap of a sandal breaks, we should ask Allāh ta‘ālā first before going about getting it repaired. (At-Tirmidhī) 2. Make it a practice to say a short du‘ā after every good deed, whether you are in need or not. In reality we are always in need, but sometimes we get the impression that we have no needs. Our circumstances all look favourable; we are healthy, we have sufficient finances, we have security, our children are obedient, etc. The question is: Can we be sure that these circumstances will remain same? We also need to think a little deeper: is my death on Īmān guaranteed? What about the stages of the grave? How will I fare on the Day of Resurrection? In reality, we are always in need and so should always adopt the habit of making du‘ā, even for a short while, after every good deed. If we are short of time, then there are some very concise yet comprehensive supplications which we can make at such moments, e.g. 3. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam has taught us many beautiful supplications for various occasions that are amazing in their precision, conciseness, depth of meaning and appropriateness to the occasion. Contemplating their meanings increases one’s faith and love for Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam. This is such a great favour of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam upon us that we can never repay even if we were to spend our entire lives sending salutations upon him. Prior to my recent operation, I thought it opportune to request my akābir (elders) to make du‘ā for me. Amongst those who are especially affectionate to me is my respected Shaykh, Hadrat Mawlānā Qamaruz-zamān sāhib hafizahullāh. During our conversation, only moments before the operation, Hadrat advised me to recite one of the supplications of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam that Hadrat Shāh Wasīyullāh sāhib rahimahullāh used to frequently read. O Allāh, I ask You for a pure life and a peaceful death and a return that is neither disgraceful nor dishonourable. Although, this supplication is of a general nature and not stipulated for this particular situation, however, whilst pondering over the meaning of this du‘ā, I felt as if it was especially devised for the very situation I was in. All supplications of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam are priceless gems, if only we were to value them. We should learn them and make them part of our daily lives. This will also help us maintain the remembrance of Allāh ta‘ālā throughout the day. 4. There are also many supplications of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam that are not specific to any occasion. Our mashāyikh have gone to great lengths to compile these in book form so that we can benefit from them. We should make it a practice to read these compilations so that we can reap their benefits in both worlds. Two famous compilations are Al-Hizb Al-A‘zam and Munājāt-e-Maqbūl. It is best if we can read both daily, otherwise at least one. If this is also difficult then at the least the abridged version of Al-Hizb Al-A‘zam should be read. Similarly, Allāh ta‘ālā granted me the tawfīq to compile those supplications in which Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam sought refuge from certain things. This compilation, called Al-Mu‘awwadhāt, will also bring great benefit if included in one’s daily practices. Istighfār is also a form du‘ā. I was also granted the tawfīq to compile the phrases of istighfār from the Qur’ān in a small booklet, and this will also be of great benefit as part of one’s daily practices. Let us hold fast to du‘ā. It is a priceless gift and powerful tool granted to us by Allāh ta‘ālā and we should recognise it as such. We should not regard the great gift of du‘ā as a burdensome ritual carried out without any real interest or understanding of its importance. © Riyādul Jannah (Volume 23 Issue 11 – November 2014)

The Birmingham Qur’an fragments: Are they really that old?! 10 Feb, 2016 In July 2015, when a PhD researcher looked more closely at some fragments inside a more recent copy of the Holy Book (Qur’an), it was decided to carry out a radiocarbon dating test. The tests were carried out by the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. These tests provide a range of dates. Hence, they showed that the parchment (sheep or goat skin) was from the period between 568 and 645 CE. Based on these results, researchers concluded that the manuscript was among the earliest written textual evidence of the Islamic Holy Book known to survive. These pages of the Qur’an had remained unrecognised in the Birmingham University Library for almost a century. The manuscript is part of the University’s Mingana Collection of more than 3,000 Middle Eastern documents gathered in the 1920s by Alphonse Mingana, a Chaldean priest born near Mosul in modern-day Iraq. He was sponsored to take collecting trips to the Middle East by Edward Cadbury, who was part of the chocolate-making dynasty. These four pages of the Qur’an, in early Arabic script, sparked fierce debate among scholars. The assertion that the document, kept at Birmingham University, is part of one of the world’s oldest copies of the Qur’an is strongly disputed by many scholars in the field of codicology and palaeography, who point out that the science of carbon dating is contradicted by other evidence. Among these scholars is Qasim al-Samarrai, Professor Emeritus of Palaeography and Codicology (Leiden – Holland), who, in relation to this subject says: “The fragments of the Qur’an folios that were found at Birmingham are not at all what they are claimed to be. They in fact belong to the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century AH (after Hijrah), if not later. All the features in them: the script, dotting, using golden and red ink as well as the separation of verses (Ayat) and chapters (Suwar)…etc., indicate that they might have been written on parchments older than the script. Therefore, they are not as early as is thought. Surprisingly enough, Berlin and Tubingen claim the same with their own fragments.” Furthermore, Professor Al-Samarrai highlights five important facts in this respect: 1) Fact one: We possess no dated Qur’an copy belonging to the first three centuries of Hijrah. 2) Fact two: We possess almost 250 thousand – if not more – fragments and various leaves of the Qur’an, written on either parchments or papyrus, scattered all over the world, but not a single one bears a date. Thus, from this platform, I strongly challenge any scholar, working with the Qur’an palaeography, and in particular those “revisionists”, to produce one dated folio belonging to the span of time that lies between the year 40 AH (660 CE) and 300 AH (912 CE). 3) Fact three: C14 test is doubtful due to the pollution in the sphere and the craft of manufacturing parchments in the East. 4) Fact four: The text of the Qur’an depended from the beginning of the revelation on memory, not writing; as one orientalist says: “The transmission of the Qur’an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material could be taken out nor could anything be put in.” Or, as one of the contemporary revisionists likes to put it: ‘’The Qur’an was revealed in actual language, not in scriptural form. The script available at the time of revelation was highly defective(sic), so that it constituted not more than an aid for those who knew the text by heart already… being well aware that the oral tradition is the more important and valid one.’’ The oral tradition of the Qur’an is a phenomenon very unique to Islam, in memorising the whole Book (Qur’an); though we know that some Buddhist monks recite some of their holy text in their sermons. There were, and still are, many millions of people who have memorised the Qur’an, and millions of these have learnt the Qur’an via a direct transmission, starting from the Prophet himself. They are enumerated with the chain of transmitters (isnads) in the reciters’ (qurra’) biographical sources; published or unpublished. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that, in some parts of the world, long religious texts are still memorised and transmitted from generation to generation, as it is in Islam. 5) Fact five: In spite of all the information we gleaned from many sources at our disposal in connection with Uthmans’ copies, no copy belonging to Uthman time ever survived; though many existing copies have been attributed falsely to him or to any individual contemporary with him. Professional background of Professor Qasim al-Samarrai: 1958: BA (Hon) in Arabic Literature and History from the Faculty of Education, University of Baghdad. 1965: PhD in comparative mysticism (Ascension in Mystical Writings) from the University of Cambridge, UK under the supervision of Prof A.J. Arbery. At the same time, he held the post of lecturer at the Department of Oriental Studies, Cambridge University, UK. 1966 – 1969: Assistant professor at the Faculty of Shari’ah and at the Faculty of Arts – Department of Philosophy of the University of Baghdad, as well as at al-Mustansiriyya University in Baghdad. 1970 – 1976: Held the post of lecturer of Arabic literature and Islamic History at the Department of Arabic & Islamic Studies of the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. 1977 – 1980: Affiliated Professor to the Department of Islamic Studies, the Faculty of Theology of the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. 1980 – 1981: Held the post of Professor of Islamic Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Qâr Yunus, Banghâzi, Libya. 1981 – 1983: Held the post of Professor of Islamic Civilisation and Islamic Education in the Faculty of Arabic Studies and at the Research Centre, both of the University of Muhammad bin Saud in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 1983 – 1986: Held the post of Professor of Arabic & Islamic Palaeography and Codicology in the Department of Libraries & Information at the Faculty of Social Studies of the University of Muhammed bin Saud in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 1987- 2003: Affiliated Professor to the Department of Studies of Comparative Religions, the Faculty of Theology of the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. Professor Al-Samarrai has published more than 60 books, the last of which is a critical edition of Al-Badr al-Safir by Al-Udfawi, in 3 vols. (together with Tariq Tatami); published by Al-Rabita al-Muhammadiyya lil-‘Ulama’, Rabat 2015. He has supervised a few MA and PhD dissertations in Palaeography and Codicology in the Department of Libraries & Information at the Faculty of Social Studies of the University of Muhammed bin Saud in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Also, he has participated extensively in national and international congresses, as well as many training courses on handling and cataloguing Islamic Manuscripts, organised by Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation (such as the courses held in Istanbul, London, Kuala Lampur, Cairo, Casablanca and Rabat), as well as in Jum’a al- Majid Center in Dubai, King Faisal Centre for Islamic Studies in Riyadh, the King Fahd National Library in Riyadh, the Department of Libraries of King Saud University in Riyadh and King Abdul Aziz Library in Riyadh. To see the images of the Birmingham Qur’an fragment and the public viewing of it held in October 2015 click – HERE Source

Stepfather a Mahram to his stepdaughters? Q. I was divorced and I remarried. I have one son from my second wife. My second wife has two daughters from her previous marriage. One is 18 and the other is 22. Am I a Mahram to my second wife’s two daughters? A. Yes, you are a Mahram (non-stranger) to your stepdaughters. This ruling is conditional on the stepfather consummating his marriage with the mother of his stepchildren. If the marriage was not consummated, then he will not be a Mahram to his stepdaughters as per the Law of the Quran. Allah Ta’ala states:“Prohibited (in marriage) for you are…your step-daughters from women with whom you have had intercourse. If you have not had intercourse with them, there is no sin on you (your step-daughters would not be prohibited for you). [surah Nisa 4/24] And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best Mufti Ismaeel Bassa Confirmation: Mufti Ebrahim Desai Fatwa Department Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians

Since when has sunnah become such that it requires a model? Since when has libaasut taqwa (clothing of piety) become such that it is now a label on ones clothing? How time has evolved, that the sunnah libaas was once a way to recognise the believers. But now it has become such that can be adorned by anyone . Every time I hear or read the narration when hijab/niqab was made compulsory, sahabiya didn't delay but immediately covered themselves with sheets. My heart aches with love and admiration for them . But today, 1437 years later this so called ruling of niqab/hijaab has become a fashion statement. When I dress with my jilbaab, it is as if it's something so foreign. That I am asked why do you wear this? And suddenly slim fit cloaks aren't slim fit anymore. There was a time when men who wore a simple kurta with a simple turban etc was admired. But today even the dress of men has become fashionable. Beard was once a sign of the strength of a believing man, men who were companions of the Messenger ﷺ, now muslim men only wear it because it is a fashion. But what can one do besides pray and hope that soon sunnah will be a statement on its own and not a fashion statement. May Allah grant us all guidance and sincerity in our actions. Aameen.

On which finger should a women wear a ring Q: In Shari'ah, is there any specific finger for a female to wear a ring? A: Women can wear a ring on any finger. And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best. باب الخاتم للنساء وكان على عائشة خواتيم ذهب - عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما شهدت العيد مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فصلى قبل الخطبة قال أبو عبد الله وزاد ابن وهب عن ابن جريج فأتى النساء فجعلن يلقين الفتخ والخواتيم في ثوب بلال (صحيح البخاري رقم 5880) وعن علي رضي الله عنه قال نهاني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن أتختم في إصبعي هذه أو هذه قال فأومأ إلى الوسطى والتي تليها . رواه مسلم ( إلى الوسطى والتي تليها ) أي المسبحة ولم يثبت في الإبهام والبنصر رواية عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الصحابة والتابعين فيثبت ندبه في الخنصر وإليه جنح الشافعية والحنفية ذكره ميرك وظاهر القياس أن لبسه في الإبهام والبنصر منهي بالنسبة إلى الرجال دون النساء وقال النووي يكره للرجل جعل الخاتم في الوسطى والتي تليها كراهة تنزيه وأما المرأة فلها التختم في الأصابع كلها رواه مسلم (مرقاة 8/ 186) Answered by: Mufti Zakaria Makada Checked & Approved: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Having the Conviction that there is no one for me but Allah Ta’ala Hazrat Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Daamat Barakaatuhu) mentioned: ‘Allamah ‘Ataa Iskandari (rahmatullahi ‘alaih) says that this must be the constant feature and mindset of a believer that he is always in need of Allah Ta‘ala. Can there be anyone you need more than Allah Ta‘ala? Sometimes at a crucial moment everyone leaves you. When you are at your advanced age and you need the help and moral support of your children, they all desert you. What life teaches us is that at some point or the other, everybody will desert us, if not during our lives, then at the time of our death. So your mindset should be that Allah Ta‘ala will never desert you at any moment; He will take care of you at all times. This is the essence of du‘aa. When a person makes duaa, then he should turn his heart away from everybody but Allah Ta’ala and he should have the conviction that there is no one for me but Allah Ta’ala. Ihyaauddeen.co.za

Questioning in the Grave Question When is a deceased person who has to undergo a post-mortem examination questioned by the angels of the grave? Answer: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. The questioning in the grave is from the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā’ah. Imam al-Ṭaḥāwī raḥimahullah states in his renowned work on Islamic Doctrine titled al-‘Aqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah: “We believe in the punishment in the grave for those who deserve it, and in the questioning in the grave by Munkar and Nakir about one’s Lord, one’s religion and one’s prophet, as has come down in the hadiths from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and in reports from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them all.” The Prophet ﷺ described the nature of the interrogation in the grave in a lengthy report narrated by Sayyiduna al-Barā’ raḍhiallahu anhu. He narrates: “We went out with the Prophet ﷺ for the funeral of a man from among the Ansar. We came to the grave and when (the deceased) was placed in the grave, the Prophet ﷺ sat down and we sat around him, as if there were birds on our head. In his hand he had a stick with which he was scratching the ground. Then he raised his head and said, “Seek refuge with Allah from the torment of the grave”, two or three times. Then he said, “When the believing slave is about to depart this world and enter the Hereafter, there come down to him from heaven angels with white faces like the sun, and they sit around him as far as the eye can see. They bring with them shrouds from Paradise and perfumes from Paradise. Then the Angel of Death comes and sits by his head, and he says, ‘O good soul, come forth to forgiveness from Allah and His pleasure.’ Then it comes out easily like a drop of water from the mouth of a water skin. When he seizes it, they do not leave it in his hand for an instant before they take it and put it in that shroud with that perfume, and there comes from it a fragrance like the finest musk on the face of the earth. Then they ascend and they do not pass by any group of angels but they say, ‘Who is this good soul?’ and they say, ‘It is So and so the son of So and so, calling him by the best names by which he was known in this world, until they reach the lowest heaven. They ask for it to be opened to them and it is opened, and (the soul) is welcomed and accompanied to the next heaven by those who are closest to Allah, until they reach the seventh heaven. Then Allah says: ‘Record the book of My slave in ‘Illiyoon in the seventh heaven, and return him to the earth, for from it I created them, to it I will return them and from it I will bring them forth once again.’ So his soul is returned to his body and there come to him two angels who make him sit up and they say to him, ‘Who is your Lord?’ He says, ‘Allah.’ They say, ‘What is your religion?’ He says, ‘My religion is Islam.’ They say, ‘Who is this man who was sent among you?’ He says, ‘He is the Prophet ﷺ.’ They say, ‘What did you do?’ He says, ‘I read the Book of Allah and I believed in it.’ Then a voice calls out from heaven, ‘My slave has spoken the truth, so prepare for him a bed from Paradise and clothe him from Paradise, and open for him a gate to Paradise.’ Then there comes to him some of its fragrance, and his grave is made wide, as far as he can see. Then there comes to him a man with a handsome face and handsome clothes, and a good fragrance, who says, ‘Receive the glad tidings that will bring you joy this day.’ He says, ‘Who are you? Your face is a face which brings glad tidings.’ He says, ‘I am your righteous deeds.’ He says, ‘O Lord, hasten the Hour so that I may return to my family and my wealth.’ But when the disbelieving slave is about to depart this world and enter the Hereafter, there come down to him from heaven angels with black faces, bringing sackcloth, and they sit around him as far as the eye can see. Then the Angel of Death comes and sits by his head, and he says, ‘O evil soul, come forth to the wrath of Allah and His anger.’ Then his soul disperses inside his body, then comes out cutting the veins and nerves, like a skewer passing through wet wool. When he seizes it, they do not leave it in his hand for an instant before they take it and put it in that sackcloth, and there comes from it a stench like the foulest stench of a dead body on the face of the earth. Then they ascend and they do not pass by any group of angels but they say, ‘Who is this evil soul?’ and they say, ‘It is So and so the son of So and so, calling him by the worst names by which he was known in this world, until they reach the lowest heaven. They ask for it to be opened to them and it is not opened.” Then the Prophet ﷺ recited (interpretation of the meaning): “For them the gates of heaven will not be opened, and they will not enter Paradise until the camel goes through the eye of the needle” He said: “Then Allah says, ‘Record the book of My slave in Sijjeen in the lowest earth, and return him to the earth, for from it I created them, to it I will return them and from it I will bring them forth once again.’ So his soul is cast down.” Then the Prophet ﷺ recited the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “And whoever assigns partners to Allah, it is as if he had fallen from the sky, and the birds had snatched him, or the wind had thrown him to a far off place” He said: “Then his soul is returned to his body, and there come to him two angels who make him sit up and they say to him, ‘Who is your Lord?’ He says, ‘Oh, oh, I don’t know.’ They say, ‘What is your religion?’ He says, ‘Oh, oh, I don’t know.’ Then a voice calls out from heaven, ‘Prepare for him a bed from Hell and clothe him from Hell, and open for him a gate to Hell.’ Then there comes to him some of its heat and hot winds, and his grave is constricted and compresses him until his ribs interlock. Then there comes to him a man with an ugly face and ugly clothes, and a foul stench, who says, ‘Receive the bad news, this is the day that you were promised.’ He says, ‘Who are you? Your face is a face which forebodes evil.’ He says, ‘I am your evil deeds.’ He says, ‘O Lord, do not let the Hour come, do not let the Hour come.’” (Musnad Aḥmad) By default, all humans will be questioned in the grave regardless if they passed away as Muslims or not. However, the questioning of a Muslim in the grave will be to honour him and manifest his Imān, whereas, the questioning of those who died without Imān will be to disgrace them and manifest their Kufr. Based on different narrations, the Ahl al-Sunnah have enumerated those who will not be questioned in the grave. They involve the Prophets, the martyrs, those who died in a plague, those who die from a stomach illness, those who pass away on Jumu`ah, those who recite Surah al-Mulk every night and the students of knowledge. Conversely, children will be questioned in the grave but an angel will dictate the answers to the children. With respect to when the questioning occurs, the famous Ḥanafī jurist Imām Muḥammad al-Bazzāzī raḥimahullah states his renowned Fatwa work ‘al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah’: “The questioning will take place wherever the deceased permanently settles, to the extent, if a person is devoured by a predator, the questioning takes place in the stomach of the predator. Thus, if a person is preserved in a coffin/box for a number days in order to be transferred to another location, he will not be questioned until he is buried.” Imām al-Ṭaḥṭāwī raḥimahullah further adds: “The questioning in the grave takes place in the final physical worldly abode for the corpse.” In another place he writes: “The most common opinion on when the questioning takes place is when the deceased is finally buried…Questioning is assured even if it occurs in the stomach of a predator or on the seabed (in the event of somebody drowning)” Mullā `Alī al-Qārī raḥimahullah answers a common objection as to why the ‘Aḥādīth only mention questioning in the physical grave in a graveyard; He states that the graves have been specified in the ‘Aḥādith as because they are the customary place where a person ends up. He further argues that the word ‘Qabr’ translated commonly as the grave/pit in a graveyard need not refer to the actual pit, rather, a person’s Qabr is his final physical abode in the world wherever it may be. Therefore, it is clear from the above that a person is not questioned until their body reaches its final and permanent physical abode in the world, wherever that maybe. Thus, a person who has to undergo a post-mortem will not be questioned until their body is buried in the ground even if that takes a number of weeks. And Allah Ta’ālā Alone Knows Best Mufti Faraz Adam al-Mahmudi, www.darulfiqh.com

Making Abundant Duaa at the Time of Ease and Comfort عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من سره أن يستجيب الله له عند الشدائد والكرب فليكثر الدعاء في الرخاء (ترمذي رقم 3382) Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) reports that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “Whoever wishes that Allah Ta’ala answers his duaas during times of difficulty and hardship, should make abundant duaa at times of ease and comfort.” Ihyaauddeen.co.za

Valentines of Heartbreak & Lies! Every February, the media goes into overdrive promoting love and affection in the form of Valentines. Valentines, like other events that are hyped up by the media, are money-making tools, clever marketing that manipulates your emotions to get into your wallet. Yet with all this supposed romance in the air, statistics show that instead of Valentines being the day of love, there are more break-ups and divorces at this time in the western world than at any other time of the year. The media thrives on peddling fantasy as reality and if we buy into their hype, we feel quite bitter when these fantasies do not materialise. For the many whose Valentine’s fantasy are not realized or who do not receive a valentines, this period can be one of the most depressing times in the year. This does not affect adults only, kids in school are more affected due to their relatively fragile emotions. We need to take a hard look at our lives and see the direction that we are heading into and the challenges that face our children. Take notice of your own feelings and special notice of your children on the 14th of February and gauge the affect this day has in our lives. It is impossible to embrace a un-Islamic lifestyle and not be affected by its highs and lows. If we truly wish happiness in our lives, then it will only come when we put Allah and His Rasool Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam first and choose Islam as our way of life. Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians

Valentine's Day Is Haraam...love Itself Is Not Haraam http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8zGg8De54-w Ink Of Scholars: "The way Shaykh talks about love of Allah, no Valentines Day is comparable. With the 14th approaching people are being encouraged towards haraam, however love in itself is not Haraam by nature. It's like a knife, it can be used for cutting fruit or killing people, it depends how it is being used. Allah has given us marriage to fulfil our desires in a permissible way, as for love for Allah it transcends mortality and lust. Those who are fortunate enough to experience it will tell you of its ecstasy, yet for us listening to the Shaykh will Insha Allah inspire us to also traverse that path to him. So let us take this time to reflect and plan our journey to our beloved Allah." .htmlhttp://www.muftisays.com/forums/sharing-portal/3720/islam-valentines-day-.html

What’s Wrong with Valentine’s § Originally a Pagan ritual which then evolved into a Christian practice. § Clever marketing to fleece you of your money by emotional manipulation. § Opens doors to fornication and adultery. § Introduced to children from primary school (even preschool) thus encouraging immoral behaviour in the child’s developing years. For these reasons and for the protection of our Islamic identity it is imperative that we shun this evil. When what appears to be harmless fun, later becomes the loss of chastity, unwanted pregnancies, abortions and at times marriage to non-Muslims, then it will be too late to lament and wring our hands in sorrow. At times, one day spent in pleasing the devil often leads to years of heartbreak, misery and grief. May Allah Ta’ala protect us all from every avenue that leads to Zina. Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians 223 Alpine Road, Overport, Durban

Repeating an aayat of sajdah whilst travelling in a car Q: If a person reads a sajdah aayat many times whilst travelling in a car, does he have to make one sajdah-e-tilawaat or many? A: If the car is stationary and he repeats the same aayah of sajdah, he will only have to make one sajdah. However, if the car was moving and he repeats the same aayah of sajdah, then he will have to make sajdah according to the number of times he had recited the aayah of sajdah. And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best. والمجلس واحد وإن طال أو أكل لقمة أو شرب شربة أو قام أو مشى خطوة أو خطوتين أو انتقل من زاوية البيت أو المسجد إلى زاوية إلا إذا كانت الدار كبيرة كدار السلطان وإن انتقل في المسجد الجامع من زاوية إلى زاوية لا يتكرر الوجوب وإن انتقل فيه من دار إلى دار ففي كل موضع يصح الاقتداء يجعل كمكان واحد وسير السفينة لا يقطع المجلس بخلاف سير الدابة إذا لم يكن راكبها في الصلاة كذا في فتاوى قاضي خان وإن اشتغل بالتسبيح أو التهليل أو القراءة لا ينقطع حكم المجلس ولو قرأها ثم ركب على الدابة ثم نزل قبل السير لم ينقطع أيضا ولو قرأها فسجد ثم قرأ القرآن بعد ذلك طويلا ثم أعاد تلك السجدة لا تجب عليه أخرى ولو قرأها في مكان ثم قام فركب الدابة ثم قرأها مرة أخرى قبل أن تسير فعليه سجدة واحدة يسجدها على الأرض ولو سارت ثم تلاها يلزمه سجدتان وكذا إذا قرأها راكبا ثم نزل قبل أن تسير فقرأها فعليه سجدة واحدة يسجدها على الأرض كذا في الجوهرة النيرة واعتبر تبدل المجلس دون الإعراض حتى لو قال لا أقرأ ثانيا ثم قرأ في مجلسه كفته سجدة ويتكرر في تسدية الثوب والدياسة وكرب الأرض هكذا في الكافي وفي الانتقال من غصن إلى غصن في أصح الأقوال هكذا في المضمرات ولو قرأها وهو ماش يلزمه بكل قراءة سجدة (الفتاوى الهندية 1/ 134) Answered by: Mufti Zakaria Makada Checked & Approved: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Reformation – The Basis of Allah Ta’ala’s Mercy Hazrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahmatullahi ‘alaih) once mentioned: How can the advice of a spiritual mentor benefit the one who has no interest or desire to change his life? The people who paid the most attention to the reformation of the people were the Ambiyaa’ (‘alaihimus salaam). However, despite receiving the attention and advice of the Nabi, those who had no desire to change remained unaffected. The basis for Allah Ta‘ala blessing a person is the level of desire and thirst within the person to change and reform his ways. Without this desire, absolutely nothing can be achieved. This is the system of Allah Ta‘ala. (Malfoozaat Hakeemul Ummat 7/272) Ihyaauddeen.co.za

Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) – Part Two Du‘aa for the Guidance of Quraish: Hazrat ‘Urwah bin Zubair (rahimahullah) narrates that a woman of the Banu Najjaar clan (radhiyallahu ‘anha) said, “My house was one of the highest houses around the Musjid (i.e. Musjidun Nabawi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam). Hadhrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) would call out the azaan of Fajr from the top of my house. He would arrive at the time of Sehri and sit on the roof, looking at the horizon and waiting for the time of Fajr to set in. When he would see the time set in, he would stretch (due to sitting for a long time, waiting to see the time of Fajr set in) and make the following du‘aa: ‘O Allah, I praise You (for allowing me to call out the azaan) and I seek Your assistance and beseech You to guide the Quraish (i.e. the family of Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam) who had not yet embraced Islam) to Islam so that they may uphold and establish Your Deen (in the world).’” The woman further said, “He would then call out the azaan. I take a qasm by the name of Allah Ta‘ala, I cannot remember him leaving out this du‘aa for even a single day (i.e. his du‘aa for the Quraish before calling out the azaan).” (Abu Dawood #519) Footsteps in Jannah: Hazrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) narrates that Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) once asked Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) at the time of fajr salaah, “O Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu)! After embracing Islam, which action do you hope will greatly benefit you from the actions you carry out? Verily I heard your footsteps before me in Jannah (in a dream) last night.” Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) replied, “The action I carry out, which I hope will greatly benefit me, is that whenever I make wudhu, at any time of the day or night, I perform salaah after making wudhu (I perform the salaah of Tahiyyatul Wudhu).” (Muslim #2458) The honor awarded to Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) on account of this action (tahiyyatul wudhu) was the honor of walking before Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) in Jannah, as a khaadim (servant) walks in front of his master in order to serve him. Mu’aakhaat (the Bond of Brotherhood) The Sahaabah (radhiyallahu ‘anhum) who made hijrah (migrated) from Makkah Mukarramah to Madinah Munawwarah would be paired with the Sahaabah of the Ansaar (radhiyallahu ‘anhum). The Sahaabah of the Ansaar (radhiyallahu ‘anhum) would then assist and aid the Sahaabah of the Muhaajireen (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) with whom they had been paired. This special bond shared by these Sahaabah (radhiyallahu ‘anhum) was known as “Mu’aakhaat” (the bond of brotherhood). There are three views regarding who Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu)’s partner of Mu’aakhaat was after migrating to Madinah Munawwarah. ‘Allaamah Qurtubi (rahimahullah) has mentioned two views. The first is that Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) had been paired with ‘Ubaidah bin Haarith bin Muttalib (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and the second is that he was paired with Abu Ruwaihah Al-Khath‘ami (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). (Istee‘aab 1/258) Haafiz ibnul Hajar ‘Asqalaani (rahimahullah) has mentioned that Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) had been paired with Hazrat Abu ‘Ubaidah bin Jarraah (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). (Isaabah 1/455) First of the Abyssinians to Accept Islam Hazrat Anas (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) narrates that Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, “Those who preceded (in Islam) are four; I was the first from the Arabs through which Islam became known, Hazrat Salmaan (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) has preceded the Persians in embracing Islam, Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) has preceded the Abyssinians in embracing Islam and Hazrat Suhaib (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) has preceded the Romans in embracing Islam.” (Siyar A‘laam Nubalaa’ 3/217) Bearing the Spear on the Day of Eid The King of Abyssinia (Najaashi (rahimahullah)) once sent three spears to Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) as a gift. When Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) received the spears, he gave one to Hazrat ‘Ali (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), one to Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and kept the one which remained. On the occasions of Eid, Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) would walk before Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), bearing this spear, until they reached the Eid-Gah. On arriving at the Eid-Gah, Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) would insert the spear into the ground before Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam). Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) would then perform the Eid salaah with the spear as his sutrah. (Siyar A‘laam Nubalaa’ 3/221) Source: Whatisislam.co.za

Madrasah: An Asset for Us All By Shaykh-ul-Hadīth, Hadrat Mawlānā Muhammad Saleem Dhorat hafizahullāh Islamic Da'wah Academy The UK’s Muslim community is no different from other communities in that they too desire peace, security and harmony in our country. When appropriate measures are put in place to achieve this they also welcome them, so that people of all communities can live together in peace and harmony without fear and suspicion. A recent Government initiative calls for the regulation of all supplementary schools that offer intensive courses, which is likely to significantly impact Muslim supplementary schools known as madāris (plural of madrasah). A natural reaction is to consider whether the proposed measures are justified. Any violence in the name of religion and the advocacy of such actions, is something which no doubt needs to be tackled. Any individual institute where activities threatening the security and social cohesion of our country are taking place should be held accountable. However, in the absence of clear evidence a wholesale attempt to accuse the madāris of being the issue and to propose remedies to address a perceived systemic problem, has the potential to lead to adverse outcomes. It may marginalise the very community the Government is seeking to engage. Therefore, it is imperative that the institution of madrasah in the UK is properly understood on the basis of evidence and facts, and not hearsay, suspicion or by adopting sweeping generalisations. Many fellow citizens will have heard the term ‘madrasah’ for the first time in their lives in the context of the Prime Minister’s recent speech, and so regrettably may have formed a negative impression of this core institution of the Muslim community. The truth is that the madrasah in the UK is not an alarming new trend, but is as old as the Muslim community itself. It has been a strong positive influence on the moral, educational and social development of young British Muslims for decades, long before the modern phenomenon of extremism became an issue. If madāris were breeding grounds of hate and intolerance, surely the negative outcomes would have manifested in our society a long time ago. On the contrary, the authentic religious education and sound guidance of the madrasah have always helped young Muslims to understand their peace loving religion and so reject every type of hate and extremism. Furthermore, the key Prophetic teachings of sidq (truth) and amānah (trust) form the basis of how Muslims must interact with others, and this teaching takes on even greater significance in a religious setting like the management of madāris. Where there is sidq there will surely be transparency, and where there is amānah, the law of the land will definitely be respected. Therefore, it is difficult to envisage madāris violating the law or being anything but transparent. The benefits madāris bring to Muslims and the wider society cannot be overemphasised. They are a priceless treasure worth preserving, not a threat that needs curtailing. Below is an extract from a previous article entitled The Legacy of the Madrasah (Dec 2006), in which I attempted to highlight some of the ways in which the madrasah is a blessing for us all: The madrasah is not an insignificant institute. The flame of Īmān (faith) is first kindled in the madrasah. The light of Īmān first permeates the heart of a Muslim child in this environment. It teaches our young children moral values. It is in the madrasah where we learned that to lie is a very great evil and that we should always speak the truth. It warned us against the use of bad language and that stealing, cheating and oppressing people are wrong. The madrasah taught us not to be a thorn in the side of our parents and to care for the elderly, orphans and widows. It was in the madrasah that we learned that we should be kind to our neighbours, be they Muslim or non-Muslim. The madrasah even taught us things that we do as adults without paying attention to them, like the simple yet rewarding act of removing an obstacle from a path. The good morals and character we take credit for as adults were acquired through the madrasah. All the teachings we are familiar with and today practice in our lives spring from there. By taking stock of every good deed we are performing and every evil that we detest and avoid, we will be witnessing the legacy of the period of our lives between the age of four or five up to thirteen or fourteen: the years spent in the madrasah. Madāris Benefit the Nation The madrasah not only brings our children benefits in relation to the hereafter, it also provides them goodness in this world. Parents too, receive worldly gain: a child that spent its time well at madrasah will become a means of comfort and joy for its parents. The madrasah is a boon for the country as well because it produces good citizens, regardless of whether it operates in an Islamic country or a secular state. At madrasah, children are taught to respect the rights of all people and are warned against involvement in drugs, alcohol, theft, vandalism and all types of antisocial behaviour. It contributes towards a socially cohesive society and is a great blessing for humanity as a whole. Prophet Muhammad sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam came into this world as a mercy and all his teachings are full of mercy. What is taught in the madrasah is what the Prophet Muhammad s taught. His life, his character, his dealings – they all form the basis of what our children learn. Every child who attends a madrasah becomes familiar with these Prophetic teachings and is equipped to go on to embody them and serve humanity and work for its betterment. During these times it is even more important that madāris are safeguarded and this precious institution is not lost due to misunderstanding or negligence. I also wish to draw the attention of madāris towards some beneficial suggestions: 1. Focus on the maqsad (objective) of the establishment of the madrasah, which is ta‘līm (religious education) and tarbiyah (spiritual and religious nurturing / character building). Every institute should endeavour to continually improve standards to the best of their ability. Careful consideration should be given to both, the content of the syllabus and wholehearted effort on tarbiyah. 2. Ensure compliance with all statutory requirements and that no regulation is overlooked. Negligence in this regard will not only make the institute accountable to the law, but will also render the institute as acting contrary to the very teachings it seeks to impart. 3. Liaise, interact, engage and share ideas and good practices with other madāris to benefit from each other. If a meeting forum for madāris is set up in every area, it would bring many benefits such as: Madāris will be able to compliment and support each other; The Principals and Head-teachers understand the purpose, goal and the function of the madrasah more than anyone else and are sentimentally attached to the madrasah. Therefore, a forum will strengthen their efforts and striving for the safeguarding and promotion of these institutions; and The authorities will also benefit as they will get direct exposure to those running the madāris, which will help to bridge gaps. Those running madāris will be able to directly explain their concerns and desires without third parties getting involved, resulting in more transparency and better understanding. In future these forums can create a national network and as a result every madrasah will be able to benefit and enhance itself on all levels of ta‘līm, tarbiyah and general standards of quality and practice Inshā’allāh. May Allāh ta‘ālā safeguard the institution of the madrasah and bless it with continued acceptance, as a means of cultivating young Muslims into becoming assets for their parents, communities and our country. Āmīn. © Riyādul Jannah (Vol. 25 No. 1, Jan 2016)

Is applying mehndi sunnah for women Q: Is it sunnah for women to wear mehndi? On both skin and nails? A: Yes it is sunnah. And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best. عن عائشة رضى الله عنها قالت أومت امرأة من وراء ستر بيدها كتاب إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقبض النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم يده فقال ما أدرى أيد رجل أم يد امرأة قالت بل امرأة قال لو كنت امرأة لغيرت أظفارك يعنى بالحناء (سنن أبي داود رقم 4168) يستحب للرجل خضاب شعره ولحيته ولو في غير حرب في الأصح والأصح أنه عليه الصلاة والسلام لم يفعله ويكره بالسواد وقيل لا مجمع الفتاوى والكل من منح المصنف قال الشامي : قوله ( خضاب شعره ولحيته ) لا يديه ورجليه فإنه مكروه للتشبه بالنساء (رد المحتار 6/ 422) ولا ينبغي أن يخضب يدي الصبي الذكر ورجله إلا عند الحاجة ويجوز ذلك للنساء كذا في الينابيع (الفتاوى الهندية 5/ 359) Answered by: Mufti Zakaria Makada Checked & Approved: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Muraqabah Meditation, An Ultimate Cure for Depression An incident by Shaykh Zulfiqar Ahmad Naqshbandi (May Almighty Allah elevate him) in his book “Sukoon ki Talaash / Searching for Serenity” In 1985 this humble servant had the opportunity to deliver a lecture to the cream of erudite people in Washington. Amongst these talented people were qualified medical doctors and professors. The lecture was followed by Muraqabah (meditation) and Du’aa (supplication). After the Du’aa a man accompanied by a few other men approached me. The companions introduced him to me saying that, he is from amongst the top twenty significant doctors of the country. It was such a pleasure to find out that Allah had granted a Muslim such an honour. After a brief introduction, he asked me about the exercise I had carried out after the lecture. When I told him it was meditation, he asked me where I had learnt it from. I told him that I learnt it from my elders. “Did you learn it in Europe or Asia?” He asked curiously. “Asia, of course! This has been a tried and tested practice of our elders” I replied. He thought for a while and then said, “Verily Islam is the true religion!” He then explained: “Due to the increase in the number of people totally dependent on sleeping pills for peace of mind and a good night’s sleep, the government experienced a great predicament. Either the production of these pills had to be increased immensely to meet the requirement of the people or else a way had to be found so that people could do without them. Hence the government summoned the top heart specialists from all around the country for a meeting and I was amongst them. In this meeting we were assigned to research on the causes of depression. It was hard to understand why in a country where individuals had freedom to do everything in life, there were so many people who were dejected and miserable. This was a nation who ate, drank and slept when, where and how they liked. Furthermore, the government issued orders to all medical and scientific departments that our group was working under the governments command and therefore we should be given access to all libraries, information and research files. We began our research and investigations. We experimented on people who were content and satisfied and on people who were depressed and miserable. The experiment was done using a brain scan saving the results on the computer. Through the aid of the computer and after delving into the depths of the matter within a space of three months we figured that a certain area of the brain is linked to ‘contentment’ and a certain area is connected to ‘sorrow’. The computer had encircled a cell showing the area that when charged causes feelings of depression and sorrow. When this cell is not charged or stimulated, one experiences feelings of tranquillity and peace. Once this research was completed, we thought of testing it again before handing in our report to the government. Hence, we summoned a group of depressed people and put them on the machine. By means of the computerised machine we slowly reduced the charge on the affected cell until it was thoroughly uncharged. After this experiment, the depressed individuals came out of their miserable mood and seemed happy and serene. Similarly, we conducted the test on a group of happy people by charging this cell. As was expected, these people experienced feelings of anger and irritation. We finally breathed a sigh of relief and handed our results to the government who congratulated us on a job half done. They disputed that such a major portion of the population could not be placed on the machine and so an alternate method of eliminating the charge from the affected cell needs to be found in order to meet the requisite of a troubled nation. We again convened meetings to discuss the issue. After considerable deliberation, the group came to the conclusion that if a depressed person gets a peaceful sleep of approximately four hours, he will then feel refreshed. We once again conducted the experiment with a depressed person putting him on the machine before sleeping and again after two hours of sleep. We discovered that after sleeping, the intensity of the affected cell reduced to a great extent leaving the person light and refreshed as a result. In other words the mind offloads the tension when one is asleep. We then realised that if the charge disintegrates so swiftly by sleeping, then why not find an alternative that will equally expire the charge. We made a decision to offload the mind of a depressed person by asking him to close his eyes, relax and shut out the outside world from his mind. Within 15 – 30 minutes the charge disintegrated rapidly. We conducted several kinds of similar exercises and notified the government of our successful results. Subsequently the government established meditation centres all across the country for the benefit of the public. People now go to the meditation centres straight after work to offload the tension of the day and go home with calm and composed minds.” After saying all of this, the doctor commented: “I asked you where you had learnt this technique because whatever research is made here only reaches the east after a significant number of years….” I took this opportunity to explain to the doctor: “ “This muraqabah / meditation (that we do) is in effect the remembrance of Allah. It is not a result of our own efforts and research but the blessings of the Name of Allah. It is clearly stated in the Holy Qur`aan: “Wathkur Rabbaka Fi Nafsika Remember your Lord within yourself…”” Upon hearing this he remarked, “Without a shred of doubt, I admit once again that Islam is the true religion. What modern day science discovered after years of thorough research had already been ascertained by Islam over 1400 years ago regarding the remembrance of Allah within oneself and this form of meditation being a source of peace and serenity.” Almighty Allah says: “Alaa bi dhikrillahi Tat’ma’innul Quloob” “Indeed in the remembrance of Allah do the hearts find contentment!” Source

Reward and sin for intentions Question Correct me if my understanding is wrong or clarify if I am right in both scenarios. If someone performs a good with the intention of doing to impress others, and not for Allah then he/she has committed minor shirk, and the deed is rejected? If someone performs a good for the sake of Allah, but after a while slips by showing off and showing off then they will be sinful, but their good will not be void because it was done before-hand and with the right intention? Answer In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. Your understanding is correct. This is understood from the following Hadith: The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: قَالَ اللهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى أَنَا أَغْنَى الشُّرَكَاءِ عَنِ الشِّرْكِ مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلًا أَشْرَكَ فِيْهِ مَعِيْ غَيْرِيْ تَرَكْتُهُ وَشِرْكَهُ “I am the One Who is most free from partners. He who does a thing for the sake of someone else beside Me, I discard him and his partnering with me” The good deed will be salvaged if he makes tawbah and istighfar for showing off. If one does a good deed sincerely and later on shows off and he does not make tawbah for his insincerity, there is a fear if him losing his efforts. And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best Maaz Chati Student Darul Iftaa Blackburn, England, UK Checked and Approved by, Mufti Ebrahim Desai. askimam

On which finger should a male wear his ring Q: In Shariah, is there any specific finger for a male to wear his silver ring? A: If a male wears a silver ring, he should wear it on the small finger of the right or left hand and it should not exceed one mithqaal (4.374 grams). And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best. عن ابن بريدة عن أبيه قال جاء رجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم وعليه خاتم من حديد فقال ما لي أرى عليك حلية أهل النار ثم جاءه وعليه خاتم من صفر فقال ما لي أجد منك ريح الأصنام ثم أتاه وعليه خاتم من ذهب فقال ارم عنك حلية أهل الجنة قال من أي شيء اتخذه قال من ورق ولا تتمه مثقالا (جامع الترمذي رقم 1785) وفي الكوكب الدري : قوله ( من أي شيء اتخذه ) إلا أن جميع ذلك يجوز للنسوة ويجوز للرجل لبس تلك الخواتيم إذا فضضها قوله ( في هذه وهذه ) هذا ليس إجازة للبسه في الباقية بل التختم إنما هو في الخنصر لا غير (الكوكب الدري 2/ 452) ( ولا يتختم ) إلا بالفضة لحصول الاستغناء بها فيحرم ( بغيرها كحجر ) الخ ( الدر المختار 6/ 359) ويجعله لبطن كفه في يده اليسرى وقيل اليمنى إلا أنه من شعار الروافض فيجب التحرز عنه قهستاني وغيره قال الشامي : قوله ( ويجعله ) أي الفص لبطن كفه بخلاف النسوان لأنه تزين في حقهن هداية قوله ( في يده اليسرى ) وينبغي أن يكون في خنصرها دون سائر أصابعه ودون اليمنى ذخيرة قوله ( فيجب التحرز عنه ) عبارة القهستاني عن المحيط جاز أن يجعله في اليمنى إلا أنه شعار الروافض اه ونحوه في الذخيرة تأمل (رد المحتار 6/ 361) أوزان شرعية ص11 Answered by: Mufti Zakaria Makada Checked & Approved: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Age of Maturity (Buloogh) Q. Salaah is compulsory on a person from the time of maturity. But how does one determine maturity? A. The maturity (Buloogh) of a male is determined by him experiencing a wet dream (Ihtilaam) or ejaculation (Inzaal). The maturity (Buloogh) of a female is determined by her experiencing a wet dream (Ihtilaam) or menstruation (Haidh). If a male or female does not experience the signs of maturity (Buloogh) stated above, they would automatically be classified as mature (Baaligh) at the age of fifteen lunar years (approximately 14.7 solar years). (Shaami 6/153) And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best Mufti Ismaeel Bassa onfirmation:Mufti Ebrahim Desai Fatwa Department Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians

Performing Ghusal on Friday Q: I wanted to ask regarding a woman having a bath on Friday but not attending the Jumuah Salaah. As far as I know the Friday bath is mustahab for those attending Jumuah Salaah only, but it's commonly thought that women who pray at home should still have a bath on Fridays as it is regarded as a Sunnah. Is this true? Please could you let me know the exact ruling for women. A: It is sunnah for women to also take a bath on a Friday. And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best. عن أبي هريرة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال من فطرة الإسلام الغسل يوم الجمعة والاستنان وأخذ الشارب وإعفاء اللحى فإن المجوس تعفي شواربها وتحفي لحاها فخالفوهم فحفوا شواربكم واعفوا لحاكم (موارد الظمآن إلى زوائد ابن حبان رقم 560) عن عائشة رضي الله عنها أنها حدثته أن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يغتسل من أربع من الجنابة ويوم الجمعة ومن الحجامة ومن غسل الميت (سنن أبي داود رقم 348) وسن لصلاة جمعة ( و ) لصلاة ( عيد ) هو الصحيح كما في غرر الأذكار وغيره وفي الخانية لو اغتسل بعد صلاة الجمعة لا يعتبر إجماعا ويكفي غسل واحد لعيد وجمعة اجتمعا مع جنابة كما لفرضي جنابة وحيض قال الشامي : قوله ( هو الصحيح ) أي كونه للصلاة هو الصحيح وهو ظاهر الرواية ابن كمال وهو قول أبي يوسف وقال الحسن بن زياد إنه لليوم ونسب إلى محمد والخلاف المذكور جار في غسل العيد أيضا كما في القهستاني عن التحفة وأثر الخلاف فيمن لا جمعة عليه لو اغتسل وفيمن أحدث بعد الغسل وصلى بالوضوء نال الفضل عند الحسن لا عند الثاني قال في الكافي وكذا فيمن اغتسل قبل الفجر وصلى به ينال عند الثاني لا عند الحسن لأنه اشترط إيقاعه فيه إظهارا لشرفة ومزيد اختصاصه عن غيره كما في النهر قيل وفيمن اغتسل قبل الغروب واستظهر في البحر ما ذكره الشارح عن الخانية من أنه لا يعتبر إجماعا لأن سبب مشروعيته دفع حصول الأذى من الرائحة عند الاجتماع والحسن وإن قال هو لليوم لكن بشرط تقدمه على الصلاة ولا يضر تخلل الحدث بينه وبين الغسل عنده وعند أبي يوسف يضر اه ولسيدي عبد الغني النابلسي هنا بحث نفيس ذكره في شرح هداية ابن العماد حاصله أنهم صرحوا بأن هذه الاغتسالات الأربعة للنظافة لا للطهارة مع أنه لو تخلل الحدث تزداد النظافة بالوضوء ثانيا ولئن كانت للطهارة أيضا فهي حاصلة بالوضوء ثانيا مع بقاء النظافة فالأولى عندي الإجزاء وإن تخلل الحدث لأن مقتضى الأحاديث الواردة في ذلك طلب حصول النظافة فقط اه أقول ويؤيده طلب التبكير للصلاة وهو في الساعة الأولى أفضل وهي إلى طلوع الشمس فربما يعسر مع ذلك بقاء الوضوء إلى وقت الصلاة ولا سيما في أطول الأيام وإعادة الغسل أعسر وما جعل عليكم في الدين من حرج وربما أداه ذلك إلى أن يصلي حاقنا وهو حرام ويؤيده أيضا ما في المعراج لو اغتسل يوم الخميس أو ليلة الجمعة استن بالسنة لحصول المقصود وهو قطع الرائحة (رد المحتار 1/ 169) Answered by: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) – Part One Name: Bilaal bin Rabaah (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) Mother’s Name: Hamaamah (Isaabah 1/455) Steadfastness on Islam: Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) had been born from the slaves of the Banu Jumah tribe. When the heat would peak at midday, Umayyah bin Khalaf would take him out of Makkah Mukarramah to the scorching sands of the desert and make him lie on his back on the burning sand. He would then have a huge boulder placed on the chest of Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and would declare, “He will remain (in punishment) like this until he either dies or renounces his belief in Muhammed (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam).” Even in that tortured state, Hazrat Bilal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) would continue to say “Ahad! Ahad!” (“One! One!” – referring to his belief in the oneness of Allah Ta‘ala). (Isaabah 1/456) Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam)’s desire for Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) to be freed: Hazrat Sa‘eed bin Musayyib (rahimahullah), while mentioning Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), once said, “The desire to practice Islam was extremely great in the heart of Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). He would be subjected to continuous torture and persecution at the hands of the disbelievers. Whenever the disbelievers would try to force him to renounce Islam, he would staunchly refuse and declare “Allah! Allah!” Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) then met Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and expressed his desire saying, “If only we had some wealth by which we would be able to purchase (and free) Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu)!” Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) therefore went to Hazrat ‘Abbaas (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and asked him to purchase Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) for him. Accordingly, Hazrat ‘Abbaas (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) approached the owner of Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), who was a woman, and said, “Would you like to sell me this slave of yours before you lose all the good that you can currently derive from him?” The woman was surprised and exclaimed, “What will you do with him?” after which she went on to complain about him saying, “There is no good in him! He is like this and like that!” Hazrat ‘Abbaas (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) eventually purchased Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) from her and sent him to Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). (Usdul Ghaabah 1/237) Eagerness of Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) to purchase and free Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu): Hazrat Qays (rahimahullah) mentions that Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) had purchased Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) for five ooqiyah of gold while he was buried and trapped under a boulder. The disbelievers were so frustrated at how staunch Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) was on Islam that they mentioned to Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), “We would have sold him to you even if you insisted on paying only one ooqiyah.” Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) replied, “I would have purchased him even if you demanded one hundred ooqiyah!” (Siyar A‘laam Nubalaa’ 3/219) Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam)’s wish to share in the reward of freeing Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu): After Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) purchased Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), he came to Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) and informed him of the purchase. Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) asked Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) if he would make him a partner in the ownership of Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) through allowing him to purchase a share in him. (Nabi (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) desired to share in the ownership of Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) so that he would also have a share in the reward when they freed him). Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), however, replied that he had already freed Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). (Siyar A‘laam Nubalaa’ 3/219) Amount paid to purchase Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu): Different amounts have been narrated regarding the price Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) paid for Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). Ibnul Atheer (rahimahullah) has mentioned five ooqiyah, seven ooqiyah and nine ooqiyah. (Usdul Ghaabah 1/237) ‘Allaamah Zahabi (rahimahullah) has quoted a narration of Sha‘bee (rahimahullah) which mentions that Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) had paid forty ooqiyah. (Siyar A‘laam Nubalaa’ 3/219) Haafiz ibn Hajar ‘Asqalaani (rahimahullah) has mentioned that Hazrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) had paid for Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) with his own black slave. (Isaabah 1/456) Killing Umayyah bin Khalaf: Umayyah bin Khalaf was one of the chief people responsible for torturing Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). Allah Ta‘ala made it such that Hazrat Bilaal (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) himself killed him in the Battle of Badr.(Usdul Ghaabah 1/237) Source: Whatisislam.co.za