The Albaani Site

Allah have Mercy on Him

Category: YouTube Videos

Al-Albaani On Whether Long Fasting Hours Should Be Shortened

Questioner: The Muslims in Sweden, a European country, in Ramadaan they have only three hours to eat after opening their fast, i.e., the sun sets at ten o’clock and rises at one.

Al-Albaani: Where?

Questioner: In Sweden.

Al-Albaani: In Sweden, yes.

Questioner: Yes there are Muslims …

Al-Albaani: Yes … yes ma’roof.

Questioner: They only have three hours during which to eat, and they fast for twenty-one, so they find it difficult. One brother told me that some people gave them a fatwa that they can start and break the fast according to the time in Makkah, so this fatwa ya’ni

Al-Albaani: I don’t hold … I don’t hold this fatwa to be correct. Since we can flip the situation and say that a season will come where the situation will be the opposite, where they will fast for three hours or thereabouts and they will be able to eat for the remainder of those twenty four hours, clear?

Questioner: I don’t think …

Al-Albaani: Have you studied any geography?

Questioner: No, only a little.

Al-Abaani: Do you know that the sun, ya’ni, is hidden in the North Pole for half the year such that they don’t see it, and in the other half it’s the opposite of that totally, are you aware of that or not?

Questioner: My hold on geography [is weak], O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani:  So you don’t know that, it is something well-known.

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: And [then] between this and that [i.e., between the North and South poles] you have seasons in those countries, ya’ni, in the two poles you have night for half the year and day for half, [it is] in such a situation [that] the question as to what should be done is posed.

But those who are closer to us, [closer] to the equator, the closer they get to us the more uniform time becomes for them, you know that at the equator day and night are totally equal?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes, but it changes totally the higher or lower you go, so that you get a period in those countries where instead of the twenty or twenty-one hours they fast and the three hours they can eat, about half a year later it’s the total opposite of that.

That’s why I say to them your account is being accumulated in terms of what is coming [i.e., a time will come when your fast will be very short], and I do not give them a fatwa that they should fast according to [the timings of] their neighbouring countries, because the [following] aayahs apply to them: And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread [of night], [Baqarah 2:187] in contrast to those we told you about in the North Pole who do not see the sun at all, there is no morning, no ’ishaa, nothing, [it is] these people [who] estimate the value as has been clearly stated in the authentic hadith about the Dajjaal in which the Prophet ﷺ upon informing his Companions that the Dajjaal would be there for how many days? Thirty or forty?

Questioner: Forty.

Someone else: Forty days.

Al-Albaani: Forty days. One of his days will equal a year, the next a month, the third a week and the rest will be like these days of yours. The question arose as to how they should pray [during that time]? He said, “You must make an estimate of its extent.”

So, making an estimate in that long year, what will the Muslims want to base that estimate on? On what they were accustomed to.

Now with the presence of watches it is very easy for them to estimate … if we supposed that the Muslims had a year-long dark night such that day and night were combined [into one], which happens at the two poles as we mentioned, in such an instance they have to make an estimate.

As for every country in which the sun can be seen setting and rising, and what that results in in terms of fajr­—then these people have to fast even if the duration of the fast seems long to them, and our Lord عز وجل says in the Noble Quran: And if Allaah had willed, He could have put you in difficulty, [Baqarah: 2:220] [but] He didn’t will difficulty for us, alhamdulillaah.

If such a situation does occur in some countries then soon enough they will get copious amounts of ease in place of that increased discomfort [when the day becomes short and their fasting becomes easier].

This is my answer and it is correct, inshaa Allaah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 237.

See part two here.

In a Three or Four Rak’ah Prayer, When Does One Raise One’s Hands After Having Read the Tashahhud?



Questioner: In a three or four rak’ah prayer, does one raise one’s hands after the tashahhud when he intends to get up or after he [actually] gets up?

Al-Albaani: No, the first situation [that you mentioned is correct], when he is about to get up, not after it, before, when he intends to get up he says, “Allaahu Akbar,” and raises his hands.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 134.

Praying Behind a Row Alone


Questioner: The ruling about someone who prays alone behind a row?

Al-Albaani: If he prays behind the row [out of necessity] then he is excused and does not have to repeat the prayer, but if he prays behind it out of carelessness in implementing the legislation—which is to join the row in front of him when he is able to—but didn’t, then in this case his prayer is invalid and he has to repeat it.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 90.

Shaikh al-Albaani Reciting Surah Yusuf


Shaikh al-Albaani’s Adhaan


Al-Albaani’s Advice to Every Muslim on the Face of the Earth



The Imaam said, “My advice for every Muslim on the face of the earth, especially our brothers who share with us their affiliation to the blessed da’wah, that of the Book and the Sunnah on the methodology of the Pious Predecessors–I advise them and myself to fear Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, firstly, and then [advise them] to seek more beneficial knowledge as He the Most High said:

“And fear Allaah. And Allaah teaches you.” [Baqarah 2:282]

And [I advise them] to couple their meritorious knowledge which in our united opinion is that which does not digress from the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors, along with this knowledge of theirs and [along with] whatever increase in it they are able to seek–[I advise them] to couple that with action upon that knowledge, so that it will not be a proof against them but for them:

“The Day when there will not benefit [anyone] wealth or children. But only one who comes to Allaah with a sound heart.” [Shu’araa 26:88-89]

Thereafter I warn them from joining many of those who have left the path of the Salaf in many, numerous issues, something which can be termed as rebelling against the Muslims and their Jamaa’ahs [i.e., like the Khawaarij], rather we order them to be as the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said in an authentic hadith, “And be servants of Allaah, brothers,” as Allaah the Blessed and Most High ordered you, and we should, as I said in a previous sitting and which I repeat again [here], and there is benefit in repeating [such points]–in our da’wah we should be gentle with those who oppose it and we should always and forever stand in line with His Saying, the Blessed and Most High:

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best,” [Nahl 16:125] and the ones who have the most right for us to use [such] wisdom with them are those who are the most severe in their conflict/disagreement with us in our doctrine and our aqidah so that we do not bring together [both] the weightiness of the true call [itself which] Allaah عز وجل favoured us with and the burden of ill manners in calling to Allaah عز وجل.

So I hope that all of our brothers in all Islamic countries imitate these Islamic manners and seek, by doing so, Allaah’s Face عز وجل [i.e., to do so sincerely] and not to want any reward or thanks [from the people].”

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 900.

Is it Allowed to Perform Ruqya on Someone Possessed by a Jinn Through a Cassette Recording?


Questioner: Is it allowed to perform ruqya [reciting aayahs/supplications on someone who is poisoned/possessed by Jinn, etc.] through a cassette?

Al-Albaani: Is it allowed to perform ruqya what?

Questioner: … through a cassette?

Al-Albaani: … through a cassette?

Questioner: Cassette.

Al-Albaani: … cassette.

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Is the adhaan allowed? Is the iqaamah allowed [through a cassette]? If you are in doubt such that I should answer you [I will], and if you know that the answer is that it is not allowed [to call the adhaan or iqaamah using a cassette] then the answer is the same [concerning ruqya]–it is not allowed.

For this reason I said on some occasions that I think, and Allaah knows best if the report is true, that sometimes a single [unified] adhaan is played on tape–if this report is true [and people are actually doing that] then I say that I fear a day will come when the people will pray behind a cassette [recording].

Al-Huda wan-Noor, 616.

Listen to Al-Albaani Reciting Surah Faatihah and Ash-Shams

Listen to Al-Albaani Speaking Albanian

Al-Albaani Asked About How to Find Happiness



Questioner: People strive to attain happiness, their ways in achieving it being diverse, if our Shaikh would clarify for the people some milestones in their path to attain it?

Al-Albaani: I don’t think there is any differing in this except among the philosophers.

Amongst the Muslims who believe in Allaah and His Messenger and who believe that there is no path to happiness in this life or the next except by clinging to Islaam there is no multiplicity of answers–[the only answer] is to cling to Islaam.

And vice versa, whoever wants misery should turn away from Islaam, and this is very clear from many verses, like His Saying, the Most High, in the well-known aayah, And whoever turns away from My remembrance–indeed, he will have a depressed [i.e., difficult] life, and We will gather [i.e., raise] him on the Day of Resurrection blind. He will say, ‘My Lord! Why have you raised me blind while I was [once] seeing?’ He will say, ‘Thus did Our signs come to you, and you forgot [i.e., disregarded] them–and thus will you, this Day, be forgotten.’” [Taa Haa 20:124-126]

But the thing we must pay heed to, something which is a very big reality and painful from another angle due to many of the Muslims lacking it, many of them [lacking it] in terms of knowledge and some of them practically, is that Islaam with the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم upon the understanding of the Salaf as-Saalih is the cure for all diseases and psychological illnesses which have afflicted a people who have not tasted happiness.

Islaam derived from the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih is the cure.

But the thing I want to mention now is that many alien matters have entered this cure, which, if we don’t say have corrupted it completely then at the very least have prevented it from being an absolute one, [and I’m referring here to] those things which have come into Islaam which are not a part of it, whether they be in creed, worship, behaviour or manners, and due to these things which have afflicted it, this Islaam is turned inside out … its effect is not manifested in the community that practices it.

So the fault is not with Islaam but rather those things that have been added to it.

That is why we always and forever insist on saying that if we want this happiness, there is no way to it, as we already mentioned, except through Islaam–but not, if the expression be correct, Islaam with an ‘elastic’ understanding but with the special understanding based upon the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.

It is then that it, and nothing else, will be the spring of happiness.

Whatever the case, I hold that questions like this are studied in universities which do not specialize, in fact, do not give importance to studying Islaam, but are concerned with studying general culture whether that be Islaam, or philosophy, or secularism or things like it [i.e., they don’t know that happiness is found in following the true Islaam so they spend time trying to find other ways to achieve it].

Amongst the Muslims, the understanding is that there is no happiness except by clinging to Islaam–I just wanted to add [through this answer the point about] clinging to Islaam with its correct understanding …

Interjector: O Shaikh! I had taken a booklet from you which I photocopied, called, ‘Useful Ways of Leading a Happy Life,’ by Shaikh ’Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Naasir as-Sa’di [who was Shaikh Uthaimeen’s teacher, may Allaah have mercy on them both], even though it is only a few pages long, it’s a very great book, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Maa shaa Allaah.

Interjector: If a person was depressed, sad, ill at ease, overburdened with sorrow, and read it, subhaanallaah! Namely, if the expression is allowed, it’s as though it’s magic.

Al-Albaani: Maa shaa Allaah.

Interjector: Yes, by Allaah, ‘Useful Ways of Leading a Happy Life,’ truly amazing, O Shaikh. [Click here for the book]

Al-Albaani: You should read it.

Interjector: It is great, subhaanallaah! By Shaikh ’Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Naasir as-Sa’di. [Click here for his website]

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 311.

It is Not a Condition that The Reviver Sent Every 100 Years Be a Scholar Only, As Long as He is On the Methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih, He can Be a Specialist in Another Field Too



Questioner: There is an authentic hadith which states that at the start of every hundred years [Allaah will raise someone] who will revive this Ummah’s religion for it, is it a condition that these revivers [Mujaddids] be from Ahlus-Sunnah or not?

Al-Albaani: No doubt. It is a fundamental condition and this is the reality that I hold [to be the case]. In my opinion, this question is like if someone were to ask–and I hope that such a question does not actually emanate from a questioner—it’s like if someone were to ask, ‘Is it a condition that he be a Muslim?’ Naturally, such a question will not be asked, ‘Is it a condition that a reviver [mujaddid] be a Muslim?’ I think this will never occur to someone [to ask].

As for whether it is a condition that he be from Ahlus-Sunnah, then such a question may occur to some people, and for this reason it was raised just now.

The answer is that he definitely has to be from Ahlus-Sunnah, and [by saying that he has to be from] Ahlus-Sunnah, I don’t mean that he has to be from the scholars … but rather that he be upon the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah and not deviated from the path which has come to us from the Salaf as-Saalih, may Allaah be pleased with them, this is a must, but the reviver [mujaddid]—and even though this [point] is not connected to the question I still believe that there is a huge benefit in it—it is not a condition that the reviver be a reviver of the religion only, rather he can be a reviver in everything which benefits the Muslims. So he could, for example, be a reviver in history, a reviver in medicine—but within the aforementioned parameters, i.e., of being from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.

So based upon this, in the end we can picture that during one time there can be more than one reviver, when we take this wide meaning into consideration, it is possible for me to picture, at one period, a gathering of a number of revivers, each one in his own specialist field.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 313.

Forbidding the Evil Harshly and with Cruelty During Hajj and By Hitting Someone?


Questioner: During tawaaf for Umrah [as part of Hajj] someone tried to prevent an incorrect act, which was that someone else was touching and kissing the standing place of Ibraahim [Maqaam]–but the way he stopped this act was with harshness and he raised his voice and also hit [the other person]. Can the Hajj of this person be regarded as a correct and valid one [mabroor]? Bearing in mind that the person asking the question has repented to Allaah, and is ardently waiting for an answer? He hit the other person … it reached such an extent that he hit the other person …

Al-Albaani: Was the one who was performing Hajj the one who struck [the other person] or the one who was hit?

Questioner: Both of them … it was during tawaaf.

Al-Albaani: Namely, they were both performing Hajj?

Questioner: Yes. It was during the tawaaf of the Umrah [which is part of Hajj at-Tamattu], one of them disapproved of what the other was doing but he didn’t respond so he hit him.

Al-Albaani: Naturally, this is not compatible whatsoever with the Prophet’s عليه السلام saying … in fact, [it is not compatible whatsoever with] the verse, “So whoever has made Hajj obligatory upon himself therein there is [to be for him] no sexual relations and no disobedience and no disputing during Hajj,” [Baqarah 2:197] since firstly, enjoining the good and preventing the evil shouldn’t be done with cruelty or harshness, especially when most people do not know [the truth].

We should regard the people as being ill and that they are in need of being treated with kindness, sympathy and mercy and not with cruelty or harshness. This is as a general rule. So what is the situation when we are, firstly, talking about [such harshness occurring during] Hajj, and, secondly, [that it occurred] in the Masjid al-Haraam?

There is no doubt that this action of his has nothing at all to do with a correct Hajj [mabroor].

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 386.

Did the Messengers or Prophets Fall Into Minor Sins?


Questioner: Did the Messengers fall into minor sins?

Al-Albaani: Before answering this question right away, [I’d like to say that] I believe it is a non-issue as they say today, because it is not connected to methodology or to the rectification of our aqidah or actions. It is only something connected to those Messengers or Prophets who preceded the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, so I do not hold that questions like this should be given much notice, but [having said that] we have to answer it to disclose the knowledge we have regarding this issue.

We believe that the unequivocal infallibility of the Prophets and Messenger is, firstly, regarding conveying the da’wah, and, secondly, from knowingly falling into major sins.

As for falling into minor sins which do not result in anything except [to show] an absence of absolute perfection then there is no harm in some of that occurring by the Prophets and Messengers–and this is so that it remains established in the hearts of the believers that absolute perfection is for Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds, Alone, Who has no partner.

And there are many parts and proofs in the Quraan establishing this reality concerning more than one Prophet or Messenger. [For example] the story of Aadam عليه السلام when the Lord of the Worlds prohibited him from eating from the tree, and His Saying, And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred. [Taa Haa 20:121], and the Noble Quraan saying concerning our Prophet عليه السلام, “He frowned and turned away,” [Abasa 80:1] “May Allaah pardon you, [O Muhammad]. Why did you give them permission [to remain behind]?” [Tawbah 9:43]. All of this proves that it is possible that a Prophet may be susceptible to minor sins which do not befit the rank of Prophethood–but are they blemished by that? The answer is no, because these are human traits.

[For example]: is a Prophet or Messenger criticised for being susceptible to that which people in general are susceptible to, like making an unintentional mistake or forgetting? We say no, there is nothing preventing the fact that a Messenger or Prophet may be susceptible to such things, because such things do not affect the station of da’wah which the Messengers were sent to all mankind with.

So his saying عليه السلام reported by the two Shaikhs from Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood, may Allaah be pleased with them both, [in which he stated that] the Prophet prayed five rak’ahs for the midday prayer, so when he gave salaam they said, ‘You prayed five,’ so he performed two prostrations of forgetfulness and then said عليه السلام, ‘I am only a man like you, I forget as you do, so when I forget, remind me.’ [Bukhari and Muslim]

So it does not harm the status of Prophethood or that of being a Messenger that something should transpire from them which had it not would have been more perfect–but absolute perfection is for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.

It would be more perfect if the Messenger عليه السلام did not forget, but Allaah’s Wisdom necessitated that he did, but this forgetting does not affect the da’wah because he does not forget that which is connected to conveying the message [da’wah], and our Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, points to this reality by His Saying, the Most High, “We will make you recite and you will not forget, except what Allaah should will,” [A’laa 87:6-7] like [for example] an aayah which he had conveyed to the people which he might forget, i.e., he has conveyed the Message and fulfilled the trust [that was upon him] … it is possible that after performing this obligatory conveyance [of the Message] the Messenger عليه السلام may forget something which he had [previously] conveyed to them, as occurs in Sahih Bukhari where he entered the mosque one day and heard a person reciting the Quraan and so said, ‘May Allaah have mercy on so and so, he reminded me of an aayah I had been made to forget.’

So the Prophet’s forgetting عليه السلام an aayah like this does not harm that which is connected to conveying it–because he already has–and that is why that person was able to recite it, and when he did, the Messenger عليه السلام remembered it.

So such forgetfulness does not harm him.

Likewise, some of the Prophets and Messengers falling into some minor sins does not harm them, because it does not turn those who are being called away from their call in opposition to falling into major sins, and for this reason, they are too exalted from falling into major sins to the exclusion of minor sins.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 188.

Innovations | 1 | Whoever Approves Something in the Religion has Legislated it and a Mention of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Principle

Indeed all Praise is due to Allaah, we praise Him, and seek His help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allaah, the Most High, from the evils of our own selves and from our wicked deeds. Whomsoever has been guided by Allaah, none can misguide him, and whomsoever has been misguided by Allaah, none can guide him. I bear witness that there is no true god worthy of being worshipped except Allaah, Alone, without partner or associate. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His true slave and Messenger.

Indeed the best speech is the Speech of Allaah and the best guidance is that of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, the worst of affairs are the newly-invented matters, and every newly-invented matter is an innovation. And every innovation is misguidance.  And all misguidance is in the Fire.

Maybe all of the brothers present will know the meaning of this hadith and those like it which are established in the books of the Sunnah and have authentic chains of narration to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, the hadith of Aaishah, “Whoever introduces into this affair of ours something which is not from it, then it is rejected,” and like the hadith of al-Irbaad ibn Saariyah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, who said, “The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم gave us a sermon which frightened the hearts and caused the eyes to shed tears. So we said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! [it is as if it is a farewell sermon] so advise us.’ He said, ‘I advise you to fear Allaah and to hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave were to rule over you. For surely, he who lives from amongst you will see much differing, so it is upon you to be upon my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Bite on to it with your back molar teeth and beware of newly invented matters, for verily, every newly invented matter is an innovation, and all innovation is misguidance.’”

These hadiths confirm what I think you understand and believe that innovating in the religion–all of it is misguidance. And I mean, ‘in the religion,’ because the disparaged innovating is that particular to the religion.

As for [innovating] in worldly matters then some of it is praiseworthy and some blameworthy, [and that is judged] according to this newly-invented thing [itself]–if it goes against the Legislation then it is blameworthy and if it doesn’t then at the very least it is permissible.

From the best of what has been reported in this regard is the statement of the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy on him, in which he laid down a very important principle which he extracted from those hadiths in addition to other texts which show that the foundation regarding things is that they are permissible, and this is an Usool principle.

So he, may Allaah have mercy on him, said that the foundational principle in the religion is abstention except for those things that have a text [establishing them], and [conversely] the foundational principle regarding worldly affairs is that they are permissible except those that have a text [forbidding them]. And he means that every newly-invented thing in the religion is forbidden [and that] as for a newly-invented worldly matter then it is permissible except if it contradicts a text, as we mentioned.

Thereafter, that which should be given attention is that his statement عليه السلام, ‘Beware of newly-invented matters,’ means every act of worship that was introduced after the Prophet عليه السلام is misguidance even if in the eyes of many people it is seen as something good.

And Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattaab, may Allaah be pleased with them both, rightfully said, ‘All innovation is misguidance even if the people see it to be something good,’ and that is because approving something in the religion means that this person who approved that thing has paired himself up with the Lord of the Worlds, besides whom no one has the right to legislate [anything] except what Allaah the Mighty and Majestic wills.

For this reason Imaam ash-Shaafi’i, may Allaah have mercy on him, said, ‘Whoever approves something has legislated [into the Religion],’ because this person who approved something does not know if that which he approved using just his intellect and reasoning without obtaining it from the Book of his Lord or the Sunnah of His Prophet … how can he know whether it is something good?

For this reason it is obligatory that the stance of all of us regarding every newly-invented matter in the religion be to refrain from it due to the authentic hadiths whose mention has preceded.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 1.

Salafi-Ikhwaani, Ikhwaani-Salafi? Salafi Aqidah, Ikhwaani Manhaj?

Questioner: How correct is the saying that so and so is Salafi in aqidah but is on the manhaj of the Ikhwaan [al-Muslimoon]? Is manhaj not part of aqidah? And was this categorization known amongst the Salaf or was there a man who was Salafi in aqidah but not Salafi in manhaj?

Al-Albaani: They [i.e., aqidah and manhaj] are inseparable, Yaa akhi, and it is not possible that he can be an Ikhwaani Salafi. But he will be Salafi in some things and Ikhwaani in others, or Ikhwaani in some and Salafi in others. As for him being a Salafi in accordance with what the Companions of the Messenger عليه السلام were upon for example, then this is something it is impossible to bring together.

The Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon are callers … okay, what do they call to? Do they call to the da’wah of the Salaf as-Saalih? I.e., if we picture an Ikhwaani Salafi, will he be calling to the Salafi da’wah? The answer is no. Thus he is not a Salafi but in one aspect he might be and from another he won’t.

Questioner: [Asking a different question] what’s the difference between …

Shaikh Ubailaan: I called you on the phone…

Al-Albaani: Aah … [i.e., okay]

Shaikh Ubailaan: I asked you ….

Al-Albaani: Yes …

Shaikh Ubailaan: And you said to me, ‘Don’t let those who try to sew together the Salafi manhaj and the Ikhwaani manhaj worry you/be of interest to you.’

Al-Albaani: Yes, by Allaah.

Shaikh Ubailaan: So [in the end such people] never became Salafis or Ikhwaanis!

Al-Albaani: That’s right, Allaahu Akbar.

Questioner: What’s the difference between …

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 751.

Conditions for Establishing the Proof


Questioner: Some people or some of the callers say that establishing the proof is done with two conditions: one is to do with the person who has the proof and the second is presenting the proof; ‘the person who has the proof,’ i.e., that he should be accepted by the people, ‘presenting the proof,’ that the proof be clear and unmistakable, what does this mean?

Al-Albaani: The first statement is false because the Prophets and Messengers were not accepted by their people. As for the second condition then it without doubt [is correct], it must be clear.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 580.

The Sufis Using the Hadith of Ruqyah as a Proof for Wiping the Graves … | Using a General Proof for Something Specific and Vice Versa



Questioner: A hadith in Bukhari:

بِسْمِ اللهِ تُرْبَةُ أَرْضِنَا بِرِيْقَةِ بَعْضِنَا يُشْفَى سَقِيْمُنَا بِإِذْنِ رَبِّنَا

“In the Name of Allaah. The earth of our land with the spittle of some of us, our sick will be cured, with the permission of our Lord.”

Some of the Sufis use this as a proof for the permissibility of wiping [one’s hands on the graves etc.]?

Al-Albaani: Along with the clear invalidity of this deduction [let me add the following].

As you can see the scope of the wiping referred to in this hadith is very limited, and the occasion it is concerning is when one is seeking a cure through spittle, supplication and a little earth, [the amount] that would stick to your thumb or finger–so where is this in relation to wiping/rubbing the graves of the dead and not reciting the dhikr which has been reported from the Messenger عليه السلام?

And I say and I have said recently that if there is a general hadith–this one [mentioned in the question] is specific–and it has its restrictions as myself and you hear … [let me clarify further] if there was a general hadith but it was implemented in a specific way and was not implemented in a general manner then it is not permissible for us to implement it in a general manner. Because the one who narrated the hadith and those who directly received the hadith from the Messenger عليه السلام did not implement it in a manner which would include it amongst the general texts. I gave you an example which I will mention now in order to clarify what is meant by this statement.

His saying عليه السلام, “A man’s prayer with another is better than his prayer alone and the prayer of three [together] is better than that of two,” to the end of the hadith. So if a group of people prayed the Sunnah before the midday prayer [dhuhr] in congregation using this hadith as a proof such an argument would be rejected, why?

Because the one who said this hadith and those who heard it from his mouth عليه السلام fresh and new did not implement it with this general meaning which includes praying the Sunnahs in congregation.

So how can a hadith which is specific be used for a general topic when we reject using a general hadith as a proof for a specific topic which was not the practice of those in the first era?

And this is from the fiqh which it befits a student of knowledge to bite onto with his molar teeth because it opens a door to knowledge for them which maybe some of the major scholars do not take note of especially those who are rigid and people of blind following.

Fatawa Jeddah, 6.

The Elite of the Elite from the People of Knowledge are The Ones who can Deal Justly Between Two Disputants Those Students of Knowledge or Common Muslims Less Than Them Should Stay Out of It

Questioner: What do you advise us with Shaikh, what do you advise concerning this issue, i.e., [that] some of the brothers abroad regard books like these … they do not examine them closely, books will come out and they’ll start looking at the title only, and [then] they’ll try to judge some of their brothers from the title alone, without close examination. So what is your advice in terms of [explaining the correct] da’wah and in terms of help and so on, may Allaah bless you.

Al-Albaani: I think that along with the answer for the previous question, it is possible for us to get an answer for this one.

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Now, without doubt, we are living through a very big problem. Where, in recent times, disunity between the groups that affiliate themselves to the Book and the Sunnah has surfaced. So, from one angle, we advise the students of knowledge and especially the general masses of Muslims not to raise their heads towards such differences as these and from the other that they not be with one group against another.

Because firstly, it is not easy, ever, to distinguish what is correct from an error or the truth from falsehood. And secondly, and this is very important, not every person can judge with justice and fairness and stand by His Saying, the Most High, “… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just–that is nearer to righteousness. [Maa’idah 5:8]

Carrying out justice between two disputants, especially when a person’s desire is with one of the two, is very, very difficult. And from the authentic Sunnah we know that when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم sent Ali as a judge to Yemen he said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! You’re sending me to a people and I do not know how to judge?’ So he عليه السلام struck his chest and said to him, ‘Do not judge between two people until you have heard from both of them.’

Actualising this text in such differences which you referred to [in your question] and a part of which I have [already] explained, achieving justice, in fact, actualising the truth before justice—none except the most elite of the elite from the people of knowledge are capable of it.

Because they are the ones who have the capability to familiarise themselves with what these [disputants] say and what those others say and then compare the statement of this [group of people] with that, and then extract the correct from the two statements.

And sometimes there may be no [actual] difference between the two parties or statements except for, as the scholars say concerning some matters of dispute, that it is a, ‘Difference in wording.’

No one can do this except for a few individuals from the elite.

And [yet] there are people from the elite who cannot judge with justice–he knows where the truth is concerning the two parties, [he knows] whether there is a difference between them or not, [but still even] if there is a difference between them, the truth may be with the side which he does not feel affection for—and so he swerves away from justice, and for this reason He, the Most High, said, “… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just–that is nearer to righteousness.

For this reason, we advise the students of knowledge, let alone those less than them, not to delve into [such matters] in this way, and that they not take a stance except for the truth that they know before this problem occurs or before these differences appear.

Questioner: May Allaah bless you.

Al-Albaani: And you.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 674.

Emotional Youth Slandering Shaikhs

Shaikh, that which is connected to this topic is that many of the youth slander the Shaikhs.

Al-Albaani: Correct.

Questioner: So what is your advice to these people?

Al-Albaani: Our brothers have already heard the answer to questions like this one, and it is that it is not permissible for these youth to defame/malign the people of knowledge who have a sure precedence of honour in knowledge due to, in the opinion of these youth, these scholars having made a mistake—bearing in mind that when these youth accuse those scholars of having made a mistake it is not based upon knowledge but rather emotions.

And so if the fatwa of such and such a scholar impresses them, on the other side you will find those who are zealous for the scholars who differ from that scholar, in fact, they [i.e., those youth on the other side] will also take the same stance in relation to the Shaikh whose fatwa and opinion they are impressed with [and so on].

For this reason we advise the youth not to meddle in such issues and not to slander, or speak evil of, or find fault with the scholars who they think have made a mistake.

It has reached us that some of them have reached the level where they passed the judgement of disbelief, and refuge is sought with Allaah, on some of the scholars who we respect, regard as being great and honour totally.

The reason for all of this is that the people, whether they are right or wrong, set off, as we just said, based upon emotions and not knowledge or reasoning, but rather upon ungovernable emotions—these people will be fanatical for such and such a fatwa and those others will be fanatical for a different fatwa which opposes the first and so on, and that is a cause to increase the burning amongst the people and the differing amongst the Muslims.

For this reason, we rebuke these youth even if, for example, they hold the same opinion as us [in a certain issue] from slandering the other scholars who have their own opinions and ijtihaad.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 511.

Being Bigoted or Fanatical About One Person or Shaikh is A Violation of the Testimony that, ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah.’



Questioner: The fourth question: there are some people who are bigoted/fanatical about some Shaikhs, what do you say to them?

Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that it is not allowed for a Muslim to show bigotry/fanatacism for any person in the world except our Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم because he is the one who was sent as a mercy and guide for the worlds and he is the only one عليه الصلاة والسلام who we have been ordered to take as an excellent example to be followed.

And all of the scholars whose knowledge we benefit from, we only do so not because of them themselves or their persons but only because they are the guides who show us the light and guidance that our Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was upon.

So when a Muslim becomes bigoted for one of the Shaikhs, whether he is alive or dead, then the meaning of that is that he has forgotten the message of the Prophet عليه السلام and he has [instead] stuck/clung to this person who it is not allowed to couple with the Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in knowledge or manners or perfection—so there is nothing strange when I say that verily, a Muslim’s bigotry for one person or Shaikh is indeed a breach/violation on his part of his testimony that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah.

For this reason, when I explain the testimony that Allaah is One, having no partner, and that Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger I say that indeed the first [part of the] testimony necessitates that a Muslim not worship anything else with Allaah for if he does then it is pure shirk, and that likewise, regarding the second testimony, [i.e.,] that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, His Slave and Messenger—[I say that] whoever in this life takes an example or model to follow other than Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم as many of the bigots today do [then it is a breach/violation of this part of the testimony].

As is the madhhab of the Sufis who take their Shaikhs as examples and some of them have gone to extremes and laid out this major misguidance [I’m about to mention] for their followers: that they do not take another example to follow along with the Shaikh, so they said without any embarrassment or shame, ‘The example of the follower [mureed] who has two Shaikhs is like a woman who has two husbands.’ And so they enslaved the followers, making them their slaves such that we used to hear from some of them that they would not carry out any of their worldly affairs except after consulting with his Shaikh.

They have taken [the] Shaikhs as examples to be followed more than the Messenger’s Companions صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم—and that is [shown] because the Prophet’s Companions صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم used to ask him عليه السلام about things connected to their religion relating to selling, buying, business transactions, [as for whether] they should go [here or there], should they travel or not, [then] no, they were free, because from the completion of the Prophet’s call صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, and [the completion of] his conveyance of his Lord’s Sharee’ah was that he said to them, ‘Whatever I have ordered you to do concerning your religion then do as much of it as you can, and whatever I have ordered you with concerning your worldly affairs, then you know better about your worldly affairs.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم clarified to his Companions that he had not come to teach them about their worldly affairs, or about their striving and travel through the lands in search of sustenance, but on the contrary that he had come to teach them the acts of obedience and worship and avoidance of forbidden things which they could fear Allaah the Blessed and Most High with.

As for the Shaikhs of the Sufis, they have enslaved their followers [mureeds] completely and made them believe that they must consult with them in every issue related to their worldly affairs let alone their religious ones.

There were people we knew by name who would not get married except according to the Shaikh’s opinion, [people] who would not travel except under his counsel: if he told him to travel he would, if he told him not to, he wouldn’t—an enslavement which overtook any enslavement done by the disbelievers, however big. Because the disbelievers enslave the people from a monetary angle, as for these people, they do so from a psychological angle–and so they are more subservient than [normal] slaves are with their masters.

And I will tell you a story in which there is a lesson for whoever wants to take heed. One of the Shaikhs in a mosque in one of the most famous markets in Damascus, Syria, I don’t recall the name of the mosque right now, [it] was in the middle of the marketplace, maybe later its name will come to me, [the Shaikh there] mentioned the following story.

A Shaikh of a Sufi Path [Tariqah] said to his follower one day, ‘Go and bring me your father’s head.’ So he did, coming to the Shaikh happy and joyful at having carried out his order. Then the Shaikh but smiled at him, laughing, and said, ‘You think you really killed your father?’ He said, ‘Of course.’ To which he replied, ‘I’m [really] going to tell you to kill your father? I only ordered you to kill that man because he was your mother’s boyfriend. As for your father, he is absent, travelling.’

He related this story and the people were sitting down listening mesmerised as though they were under a spell. No one said a statement [like], ‘How is it possible to say this? The Shaikh tells his follower to go and kill his father and he carries out the order …’ no one said a word.

So he relates this story and then bases a legislative ruling upon it, saying, ‘From here we learn that when a Shaikh orders his follower with a ruling which apparently opposes the Legislation it is obligatory to obey him. Why? Because the Shaikh sees what the follower does not. Don’t you see in the story how he ordered the follower to kill his father but later it became clear to him that he was in fact his mother’s boyfriend, and based upon this, if one of you were to see a cross hanging on the Shaikh’s neck, it is not permissible for him to be reprimanded,’ because the Shaikh sees what the follower does not.

The lesson was concluded and in those days we used to pray taraweeh in a mosque that was upon the Sunnah and we would gather in a shop where I would repair watches, we would get together there every night in Ramadaan. A young man from our brothers came to me and told me the story, he had been present at the sitting [where it was told].

And [then] for a wisdom which Allaah wanted, a person passed by the shop who was a relative of [this] friend of mine. So he [i.e., the first youth who came to the shop and who was a friend of the Shaikh] went after him and called him saying, ‘O Abu Yusuf! Come here!’ So he came in and he [i.e., the first youth] opened up the topic about the Shaikh and his follower with him, [saying], ‘What do you think, Abu Yusuf, about today’s lesson?’

[These Sufis are] miskeens, he replied, ‘Maa shaa Allaah! …’ saying [in reply] such things which are normal over there [amongst such people]. So he [i.e., the first youth] started to debate with him, ‘How can the Shaikh order for him to kill his father?’ He replied, ‘You people reject the miracles [karaamaat] of the Allies of Allaah.’ He said some things until finally I entered the discussion with him … it’s a long story … if you were to explain an aayah or a hadith to a wall and it understands you, then that guy would’ve understood, he didn’t understand anything we said.

Finally I said to myself, let me touch a sensitive spot with this person who is not conscious of the Speech of Allaah nor a hadith of His Messenger, touch on a sensitive spot as they say nowadays, so I said—and here is the point of this story, ‘O Abu Yusuf! Let us be frank and open with each other. If your Shaikh ordered you to slaughter your father, would you?’

What do you think a person who has an atom’s weight of intellect or faith would say apart from, ‘I seek refuge with Allaah! No!’ [But] he didn’t say that, he said, ‘I haven’t reached that level yet.’

Look what they have done to these people, they have really made their intellects fizzle out, they have influenced their minds such that they cannot differentiate between the haraam and the halaal anymore, [or between] what is permissible and what is not.

In fact, they have reached that level where … he acknowledged that he hopes to reach that level where if the Shaikh told him to, ‘Kill your father,’ he would do it. When he [i.e., Abu Yusuf] said to me, ‘I haven’t reached that level yet,’ I said to him in the Syrian tongue, ‘Inshaa Allaah, you never will! You never will reach that level.’ [You can find another post where the Shaikh mentions this story and refutes the falsehood it contains in further detail here.]

So look at how breaching/violating the [testimony] that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, sincerity in following him alone and not associating partners with him in following him, [lead to] the people falling into shirk and misguidance because they committed shirk in following the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم by following someone else along with him.

For this reason, it is not allowed for someone in this world who believes in Allaah and the Last Day to take one Shaikh no matter how lofty and exalted he is, no matter how much of a scholar or how righteous and so on he thinks him to be, but rather he should be like a bee, which visits all the trees and flowers, taking from its stomach the honey which has been testified as being a cure for mankind.

This is how it is fitting for a Muslim to be, he takes from every scholar the knowledge that he has as the scholars of the Salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them, were, for in the biographies of many of the scholars they wrote that they had hundreds of Shaikhs, for example, they mentioned that Abu Hanifah, may Allaah have mercy on him, had a thousand Shaikhs, and it doesn’t concern/worry me whether this narration is authentic in its chain and riwaayah, but this [i.e., such a thing as someone having so many Shaikhs] was present.

For in the book, Ar-Rawdan-Nadhir fee Tarteeb wa Takhreej Mu’jam at-Tabaraani as-Sagheer … his method in it … and this method has [great] skill … in it is ingenuity … to memorise the names of his Shaikhs he arranged their names in alphabetical order, alif, baa … the letters of the alphabet, and he reported one hadith from each one of these Shaikhs, how many were his Shaikhs in number?

More than a thousand, this is recorded in his book called, Mu’jam at-Tabaraani as-Sagheer, more than a thousand Shaikhs, from each Shaikh mentioned in this book he reported one hadith only, he wanted to gather and memorise the names of his Shaikhs.

He has three books: Mu’jam at-Tabaraani as-Sagheer, Mu’jam at-Tabaraani al-Awsat and Mu’jam at-Tabaraani al-Kabeer. The first and second employ the same method where he arranged the names of the Shaikhs [in alphabetical order], but the second [does] differ from the first in that in it he mentions more than one hadith for one Shaikh, as for the first, he only mentions one hadith … so he has more than one thousand Shaikhs.

This is how the scholars of the past were, because in reality each scholar is set apart from another in terms of knowledge, or manners, or deen, or righteousness and so on.

As for Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir, the third one, then his method in it completely differs from the first and second books, and the summary of that is that it is done according to the method of the Musnad collections, those of you who know the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad and that of at-Tayaalisi and those Musnads like them which have now begun to become apparent in the printed world [will know what I mean in terms of the method employed].

So he arranged the Mu’jam at-Tabaraani al-Kabeer according to the names of the Companions, he started with the ten who were given the glad-tidings of Paradise and then he started with alif, baa, [mentioning, for example] Ubayy ibn Ka’b [whose name begins with an alif] and so on, and he mentions many hadith there for each Companion and all of their hadith cannot be taken in [due to their numerousness] … and in this much there is sufficiency, and all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Fataawaa Raabigh, 5.

A New Form of Extremism, Hizbiyyah, Hatred and Hostility



Questioner, reading out a written question: How correct is the statement that the present-day Islamic groups apart from the Salafi Jamaa’ah–[the questioner wrote], ‘the mother of the groups,’ and between brackets he put, ‘Salafiyyah’–are more harmful to Islaam than the Jews and the Christians, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, basing this analogy upon this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah’s [Trans. Note. which must have been mentioned in an earlier sitting] regarding the Raafidah?

Al-Albaani: No, I don’t believe except that this is a new form of extremism and a new form of partisanship and hatred and hostility.

In all of the Islamic Jamaa’ahs there is good and bad.

Passing judgement regarding the Jamaa’ahs, my brothers, is like passing judgement on individuals, passing judgement regarding the Jamaa’ahs is like passing judgement on individuals. There is no Muslim individual who has gathered all the qualities of perfection, only some and not others, maybe his good will be more than his bad, his bad more than his good–and even in the case where his bad is more than his good, it is not fitting that we deny the good which has come from him.

So the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizb at-Tahrir and the Tablighi Jamaa’ah have good in them but they are also distant from Islaam, either out of ignorance or because they have ignored it.

For this reason, this statement contains extreme gravity, it is not allowed to make such generalised statements, in fact, it is not permissible to declare them to be misguided. We said in some of our sittings … [I said that] I do not hold that we should say that every Shee’ee is a kaafir, but any Shee’ee who says that our Quraan is only a quarter of the missing one, [the one they call] the Mushaf of Faatimah, or he makes statements of disbelief such as that and believes in them and takes them as religion before Allaah, then such a person is the one we call a kaafir. As for saying that all of the Shee’ah are disbelievers, then this is an expression of extremism in the religion.

So it is more becoming, more fitting, that this statement [I just made above] is applied to [those less than the Shee’ah like] the Muslim Brotherhood or other Jamaa’ahs which are all gathered together by Islaam.

But some of them are closer to Islaam than others, some are further than others, so, in all of these Jamaa’ahs there is good and [also] smoke, as occurs in an authentic hadith.

So we in reality look at the Salafi da’wah as the one call which unites the Muslims, because it is the call of truth which the Pious Predecessors were upon, as for the other groups then they have this and that and such and such.

Thus it is not allowed to make such statements general, for they contain oppression and an opposition to His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, “… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, that is nearer to righteousness … [Al-Maa’idah 5:8]

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 752.

Writing off Scholars who Fall Into Mistakes in Aqidah And A Discussion of Other Important Issues


Questioner: O Shaikh! One more question, and it’s the last: there is someone who is vicious in speaking about the scholars, not concerned whether they are major or not, I’ll give you an example, whoever has been described as being Ash’ari or about whom it has been said that his aqidah is Ash’ari, then you will find that this person speaks about him in the most despicable manner, so we want you to advise him, especially since a lot of people have been deceived by him and they say that, ‘He has the characteristics of the righteous.’

So we want you to advise him, O Shaikh!

Al-Albaani: Yes. May Allaah reward you with good.

I believe that justice is that every Muslim is mentioned with the goodness and correctness that he has, and that he is mentioned with the mistakes that he has–and I [say ‘mistakes’ and] not, ‘evil’ because evil is more specific than a mistake.

I believe that this person mentioned in the question is not a faqeeh, it may be that he is righteous, but righteousness is something and understanding in the religion [fiqh] is something else.

And maybe it is pertinent [here] for me to remind you that the result of righteousness which is not coupled with knowledge is that such a righteous person will end up giving himself the death penalty.

As he عليه الصلاة والسلام narrated to us in an authentic hadith, agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, who said, “Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, ‘Amongst those before you was a man who killed ninety-nine people and he wanted to repent so he asked about the most knowledgeable people on the face of the earth? And so he was directed to a raahib …” i.e., a righteous slave who had secluded himself from the people to worship Allaah according to their way of monasticism in those times, “… so he came to him and said, ‘I have killed ninety-nine people, is there a chance for me to repent?’ He said, ‘You have killed ninety-nine people and now you’re asking if you can repent?’ There is no chance for you to repent,’–and so he killed him and completed a hundred …”

And it seems from the many versions of the story and its context that the man [i.e., the murderer] really was sincere in wanting to repent, but he wanted a scholar who could show him the path that he should undertake, “… so he carried on asking until he was directed to a scholar and so went to him and said, ‘I have killed one hundred people unlawfully, is there a chance for me to repent?’ So he replied, ‘And who can come between you and repentance? But you are in an evil land …’ this is the answer of a scholar, ‘… so leave it and go to such and such a place whose inhabitants are righteous.’”

So he left, walking, and on his way there his appointed time came and so the angels started to contend over him, the Angels of Mercy and the Angels of Punishment, each one claiming that the man was rightfully theirs to take. So Allaah sent an angel to them to judge between them, and so he said, ‘Measure the distance between him and both towns, the one he left and the one he was going to, and cause him to join the people of whichever of the two he is closest.’

So they measured and found him to be closer to the town he was going to and so the Angels of Mercy took his soul. [Transl. note: so the Shaikh was trying to show that even though the first person the murderer asked may have been righteous, he was not a scholar and gave the wrong answer, telling the murderer that there was no way for him to repent, and thus the result of his incorrect ruling was that he was also killed. Whereas the second person was a true scholar, someone who is righteous and has knowledge too, and based upon his knowledge did give the correct answer.]

The point is that this man [you mentioned in the question], if he is righteous, as we hope he is, then [we still say that] he is not a faqeeh.

He does not picture, and he is not alone in this–and I think this is a very important point–many people differentiate between mistakes in the subsidiary issues [furoo’] and those in the fundamentals [usool], saying, ‘Mistakes in the subsidiary issues are forgiven if they emanate from ijtihaad, but as for those which occur in the fundamentals then they are not forgiven,’–this is incorrect.

The first reason [for this being incorrect] is that there is no proof for this categorization, i.e., splitting the Sharee’ah into fundamentals and subsidiary issues and then basing judgements on this categorization has no basis.

The second is that the proofs, or some of them at the very least, confirm that even if a person makes a mistake in things connected to aqidah he is also excused.

The greatest proofs for that are the two hadiths which I will quote now. The first is the one of that man who gathered his children when he was about to die and said to them, ‘What kind of a father have I been to you?’ They said, ‘The best father.’ He said, ‘Verily, I have sinned against my Lord. After my death, burn me and then crush me, and scatter half the powder in the air and half in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah has control over me, He will give me such a punishment as He has never given to anyone else.’

So when he died they carried out his request, a request whose injustice and distance from the legislation may not have an equivalent, So Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said to his particles, ‘Be so and so.’ And then Allaah the Mighty and Majestic asked him, ‘My servant! What made you do that?’ He said, ‘My Lord! I was afraid of You.’ So He said, ‘Go, for I have forgiven you.’

So he disbelieved, there is no doubt that he disbelieved, because he made that unjust will thinking that he would be able to get away from his Lord, which reminds us of the Most High’s Saying, “And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, “Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?” [Yaa Seen 36:78]

So this man, [what] his will [contains] says that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic is unable to resurrect him to be the fully formed man that he was, but Allaah did, saying, ‘Be so and so,’ and then addressed him.

But Allaah the Mighty and Majestic who is the One who knows what man’s breast conceals, knew that this person in doing that action was not denying the Resurrection and that it was only the fear of the impending punishment [which made him do what he did], and he admitted that it would happen and that he would deserve it, [so it was these things] that blinded his insight and thus he left that unjust will.

The second hadith is his saying عليه السلام–and this is also very important and has a connection to the issue of the Ahlul-Fitrah, and many sittings concerning this topic have preceded–he عليه السلام said, “There is no man from this Ummah, whether Jew or Christian, who hears about me yet does not believe in me except that he will enter the Fire.”

So, these people who did not hear of the Prophet عليه السلام and died as disbelievers, as polytheists, will not be punished because of their shirk and misguidance–in fact I will go even further and, taking the understanding from his saying عليه السلام, “…who hears about me …” say that it means, ‘… [who hears about] me truly/my true reality …’ because if we picture some of these Europeans, like the British or the Germans and their like, those who have been affected by the call of the Qadiyanis and who have believed that there are other Prophets after the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم and that one of them was sent to Qadian [in India], the one who was initially well-known as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani, and who then changed his name to Ahmad for a reason well-known … so the point is that these Germans and British people who were led astray in the name of the call to Islaam, [being led to believe that] Islaam acknowledges the coming of messengers after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and that one of them was called Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiyani and that Islam denies the existence of a creation called the Jinn–which have well-known characteristics in the Book and the Sunnah–there is no doubt that these people have gone astray: but did they really hear about him عليه السلام truly? The answer is no.

Thus, this hadith teaches us that:

Firstly, those whom the message does not reach at all will not be punished. They will be dealt with in that well-known manner on the Day of Resurrection.

Secondly, if Islaam’s message reaches them in a distorted manner, altered, changed, and they believe in it, then they will also not be held to account over that.

So, differentiating between fundamentals [usool] and subsidiary issues [furoo] is a deviance from the Book and the Sunnah, for this reason I say that it is obligatory on this brother [you asked about in the question and] who is righteous inshaa Allaah, to rectify his knowledge, at the very least to rectify it in his unjust fatwa.

So the fact that a noble scholar erred in an Aqidah issue like [Allaah’s] Names and Attributes and other such things which some of the Ash’aris and Maaturidis fell into … then it is possible that that could have been based upon their ijtihaad and not because of any evil intent on their behalf–so it is not allowed to make such a statement [as the one mentioned in the question] unrestrictedly except with a restriction [like the following]: whoever comes to know the truth and then deviates from it then he is such and such.

[And following on from this] there is no difference between someone who deviates from what is right in the issue of [Allaah’s] Names and Attributes or anything [else] connected to aqidah and someone who deviates in a legislative ruling.

For example, someone who knows that the truth is that bleeding does not break one’s ablution but who still goes astray and insists [on the opposite] arrogantly [going against] the proofs [then the case is clear], and you can judge the rest based upon this [example].

And how many subsidiary issues there are which the scholars have differed in and whose effect on the community can be much worse than some issues which are only connected to aqidah.

I wonder, do you think those who deny the punishment of the grave like some of the groups found in the Islamic world today, would you say that the harm of denying the punishment of the grave is greater than that fiqh opinion which says that it is permissible for a Muslim girl who reaches the age of discernment to get married herself without her guardians consent, in opposition to the hadith?

Which of the two opinions has a greater effect in corrupting the community? Is it the first which denies the punishment of the grave or this one which denies the condition of the guardian’s consent?

There is no doubt that this [i.e., denying the guardian’s consent] causes more corruption, but this issue is a subsidiary one [furoo] and that other one [i.e., denying the punishment in the grave] is a fundamental [usool], “They are not but [mere] names you have named–you and your forefathers for which Allaah has sent down no authority.” [An-Najm 53:23]

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 635.

Asked About Spying on People who Want to Harm the Scholars


Questioner: Is it allowed to spy on people who want to harm the scholars or callers of the Ummah? In order to distance this harm from them, is it allowed to spy?

Al-Albaani: I think the question contradicts itself, how did this person who wants to spy come to know that there are people who want to harm the Ummah except by spying?

Questioner: [He and the others present start laughing].

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 674.

Is it Allowed to Praise the People of Innovation?

In this post, the Shaikh refers to a, ‘… long answer,’ he gave just before this one was asked, that answer can be found here.


Questioner: Is it allowed to praise the people of innovation even if they claim to be serving Islaam and [say] that they are striving for that, like at-Turaabi and those like him?

Al-Albaani: The answer differs according to the circumstance.

If what is meant by praising a Muslim who we assume is an innovator, and we do not say that he is an innovator [and you will have understood this] by that long answer [I just gave, where I said that] we differentiate between the two things inshaa Allaah–so if what is intended by praising him is to defend him in the face of the disbelievers then this is obligatory.

But if what is meant by praising him is to beautify his methodology and to call the people to it, then this is not permissible.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 666.

When Can a Person Say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so?’

Questioner: When can I say, ‘I have established the proof against a certain person?’

Al-Albaani: Firstly, it is obligatory here that both people are taken into consideration, the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against. If the one establishing the proof really is a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah, then this is the first condition.

The second is that he be eloquent and clear in what he says such that he is able to present the knowledge that he has to the people in a clear Arabic tongue, if he is an Arab, and if he is a non-Arab then similarly the situation does not go beyond what we mentioned of being capable of clarifying [what is required], as the Quraan indicated in His Saying, “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them …” [Ibraaheem 14:4] i.e., if the one establishing the proof has been granted eloquence and clarity in his language or in the language of his people and as we mentioned before has knowledge, it is then that he is able to say, ‘I have established the proof,’ [but] this is [only] regarding that which is in relation to him–the other side remains.

[Namely,] does the other person [against whom the proof is being established] have the understanding and perception and mental preparedness to accept–sorry, I made a mistake, [let me say this] so that you understand it clearly–is he mentally prepared to understand and not [just] accept, because the proof may be clear and plain, but is still not accepted by the one who turns away, or the mushrik, the kaafir.

But I want to repeat what I mean to say again, so: if he has the ability to understand the proof, then if the first condition is met in that person who is trying to establish/clarify the proof, and thereafter it becomes evident to this person that the one against whom the proof is being established has grasped the topic through his proofs and his clarification, at that time it is possible that he can say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so.’

I personally find it difficult to picture that the statement of a person that, ‘I have established the proof against so and so,’ is in agreement with reality, it is difficult for me to picture this situation. Because I don’t find–rather I can hardly imagine that the conditions [I mentioned earlier] be met in the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against, for the issue may be defective on one of the two sides, and thus it is not correct to say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so,’ this is from one aspect.

The other aspect is [to ask] what is the point of the saying of the one who claims that, ‘I have established the proof against so and so?’ Is it to declare him to be a disbeliever? Declaring him to be a disbeliever … nothing will be the decisive boundary between him and disbelief except the sword, so if he chooses disbelief over the sword then he is a kaafir without any doubt, but as for us where today we live in a state of confusion and freedom which has no bounds, and a person is free to say and do whatever he wants, so we say what is the purpose behind saying, ‘I have established the proof against someone?’ is it to declare him to be a disbeliever? You can’t say that, ‘I have established the proof against him and so he is a disbeliever,’ because what we just mentioned stands in the way of that.

Thus, nothing remains except to entrust this person’s affair to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, for He is the One who knows the reality of the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against, i.e., [He is the One who knows] whether the proof has been established against the person or not. And your Lord is the One who knows what is in the breast of man and so He is his judge.

As for us, then we go by what is apparent from any Muslim who declares that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His Messenger.

Only in an extremely rare case can I picture that [on one side] there is a real scholar of the Book and the Sunnah and that on the other there is the one who the proof is being established against and who has actually had the affair conveyed to him and has understood it but who then opposes it and disbelieves, such a person would be the one concerning whom it would be possible to say, ‘He has disbelieved.’  Even though in our society there is no major benefit which comes about through this, because the Sharee’ah laws are not implemented, this is what I have.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 24.

Fathers whose Children will Intercede for Them on the Day of Judgement

Questioner: What kind of intercession is it that a child will do for his father when his father was someone who had given an aqiqah on behalf of that child? [The Aqiqah being the Sunnah of sacrificing two sheep for the new-born boy and one for the girl]

Al-Albaani: It is known in many hadiths that on the Day of Resurrection there will be young children standing at the gate of Paradise, crying and asking for their fathers. So Allaah the Blessed and Most High will send Jibreel عليه السلام to ask them why they are crying–even though He the Blessed and Most High knows better about them–so Jibreel عليه السلام will ask them and they will reply, saying, ‘We will not enter Paradise except that our fathers are with us.’ So the Lord of the Worlds will give permission to them and their fathers to enter Paradise.

So this type of intercession, i.e., hastening entry into Paradise, is what those fathers who offered aqiqah’s on behalf of their children, i.e., sacrificed on their behalf when they were born, deserve.

Al-Huda wan-Noor, no. 16.

The video:

Are There People in Paradise or the Fire Now?


Questioner: O Utsaadh! Are there people who have now entered Paradise or people who have entered the Fire? Like the aayah in Surah Yaa Seen, “It was said to him, ‘Enter Paradise.’” [Yaa Seen 36:26]

Al-Albaani: This is about what will be. As for now, there is nothing but the life of al-Barzakh. Entering Paradise or the Fire is appointed at the Reckoning … [at] the resurrection on the Day of Resurrection.

Questioner: Even the martyrs and Prophets?

Al-Albaani: All of them. But their souls are in a specific state of bliss as he عليه السلام said, “The souls of the martyrs are in the crops of green birds, eating from the fruits of Paradise,” and likewise, “The souls of the believers are in the bellies of green birds, eating from the fruits of Paradise.” So this bliss is that of the souls, as for the bliss of the body and soul together and likewise the torment [of them both together], that will not be except after the resurrection.

Questioner: Okay, O Ustaadh! What we understood, according to our intellect, is that when a person is living, his soul and body are interconnected …, when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic says, “Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive …” [Aali-Imraan 3:169] what I mean is [i.e., what I understand from the aayah is], ‘Nay, they are alive …’ i.e., alive as in the soul is in the body, connected.

Al-Albaani: This is something well-known which does not need to be asked about, the Prophet explained it for you and gave you the answer and I mentioned it to you earlier … the souls of the martyrs are in the crops of green birds, what does this mean? That firstly, the life of a martyr is commensurate with his rank before Allaah and, secondly, [at the same time it is also commensurate] with his existence in barzakh.

Life differs.  Life in Barzakh differs from life in this world, and life in the Hereafter differs from both of those forms of life together, life in the Hereafter is different from life in al-Barzakh and life in this world too.

For this reason it is not permissible for a person to employ analogical reasoning [qiyas] … making an analogy of that which is Unseen based upon that which is, such that you say, ‘We don’t know life except in this manner!’

Don’t use this life which you are familiar with to make an analogy of that life which you are not acquainted with; especially when some texts have been related which totally clarify for you the fact that the life of martyrs which our Lord the Mighty and Majestic affirmed in the Quraan, saying, “Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, receiving provision …” … what is their provision?

It is not [various] dishes like those we have, their provision is that they eat by way of what that green bird eats, this is the provision [being referred to], the hadith explains the Quraan.

Questioner: When the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام saw Paradise and the Fire and found those who were being punished therein and those who were in bliss, how is that then?

Al-Albaani: Yes, the [differing] states that the Companions of Paradise and those of the Fire will be in [i.e., after Barzakh, on the Day of Judegement] was unveiled to him–this is the true unveiling [kashf] which the Sufis have stolen and attributed to themselves; it [i.e., such kashf] is only for the Prophets and Messengers.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 28.

The video:

Al-Albaani and the False Prophet

The Shaikh said, “Not too long ago I had a meeting with a man who claimed that he was the Mahdi. So we met and I put this frank question to him:

“Are you the Mahdi meaning a Muslim who is rightly guided, a righteous Muslim, or are you ‘the’ Mahdi about whose arrival we have been given glad tidings?”

He said, “No. I am the Mahdi about whose coming glad tidings have been mentioned in the hadiths.” Then he started to speak.

I wanted to know how best to tackle him, so I listened to him and then he said, “Some of the hadiths regarding the Mahdi are authentic and others are weak.” This was sound.

After he finished, I said, “Can I ask you a question?”

He said, “Please do [tafaddal].”

I said, “If you could please give us some of the authentic and weak hadiths you just alluded to.”

So the miskeen was at his wit’s end and did not know what to say. He twisted and turned, saying what he had said before, until finally he said, “Tonight, I will not speak about these hadiths.”

Interjector: Allaahu Akbar!

Al-Albaani: He didn’t want to speak. So I said, “Why? Do you think this discussion is going to be according to how you want it? I asked you a question, you have to answer. You claim to be the Mahdi … the one who is a guide for the people, amongst the people are scholars and ignorant folk, righteous people and sinners–the real [Imaam] Mahdi is supposed to bear [the responsibility of guiding] the people not the other way round, with the people bearing [the responsibility of guiding] him. Because the Mahdi is all good, he is full of knowledge and so on. For this reason, I ask that you present us with some of the authentic and weak hadiths [that you alluded to].”

He said, “Tomorrow, I will bring them.”

I said, “No. I will not continue until tomorrow, and who can guarantee for himself that he will live until tomorrow?”

[Again] he started to go this way and that.

At the end I said to him, “Okay! We will give up half of the request but not the other. I asked you to bring some authentic and weak hadiths, I will let you off regarding the weak: bring some of the authentic ones.”

But he had nothing, and if he had mentioned any, they would obviously have been a proof against him. He was a man from whose appearance you wouldn’t judge him to be a Muslim: clean-shaven, head uncovered, obese, and he couldn’t recite an aayah correctly as it had been revealed by Allaah.

And the strange thing was that this miskeen thought that he was a Messenger from Allaah.

Interjector: His brother followed him.

Al-Albaani: Sorry?

Interjector: The person who followed him was his brother.

Al-Albaani: Right, his brother followed him. So he said that he was a messenger from Allaah but not a prophet. Look at the miguidance?! He had made a plan so that he could deceive the people: you know the clear hadiths, “There is no prophet after me …” but because of his ignorance it seems as though he did not picture there to be a hadith which says, “There is no messenger after me,” and that is why he claimed to be a messenger but not a prophet.

So I said to him, “You say you are a messenger …” and he said that Allaah revealed the Quraan to him afresh yet along with that he couldn’t even read it properly, making clear mistakes when reading it, reading a dammah in the place of a fathah and a fathah in the place of a dammah and so on.

Interjector: Had he memorised the Quraan?

Al-Albaani: No … only some aayahs. He brought a mushaf, and the mushaf has all the diacritical marks yet along with that he still made mistakes. So I said to him, “How can revelation have come down upon you … if we were to read the Quraan and make a mistake there would be nothing strange about that because it was not revealed to us afresh: [but] how can you make mistakes when reading it [since you claim it was revealed to you all over again]?”

I asked him some questions to uncover his ignorance and misguidance, saying, “What do you believe, are the messengers infallible or not?”

He said, “Infallible in some things and not others.”

I said, “Clarify.”

He said, “Infallible in their delivery of the message and not infallible in what is besides that.”

I said, “Do you have anything else you want to add?”

He said, “No.”

So I said, “So [according to what you just said], it is possible that they can steal, it is possible that they can fornicate and so on.”

Naturally, this was a strong doubt [I raised concerning his futile definition, a definition which, once this doubt was raised] he did not apply to himself, but instead, as was his habit, he fled from it.

I asked him [moving the argument along since he couldn’t answer the previous one], “So a messenger is infallible in delivering the message?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Okay, but just an hour ago you [in fact] made it clear that you are not infallible: the Quraan has been sent down to you again [as you claim] but you couldn’t read it as it has been sent to you, afresh. So this is a proof that you are not infallible and following on from that, you are not a messenger as you claim.”

The debate continued like this between me and him until finally I said to him, “Is there a difference between a messenger and a prophet?” I wanted to see what the difference [in his eyes] was since he had confined himself to being a messenger and not a prophet.

He said, “There is a difference but no-one except Allaah knows it .”

I said, “Okay. You’re a messenger and not a prophet?”

He said, “Yes.”

So I said, “That is a proof that you know a messenger differs from a prophet: so how does this go with your statement that, ‘No-one knows the difference except Allaah?’”

In summary, the group of people present detected his misguidance and his ignorance of the Sharee’ah.

And subhaanallaah! His brother … in the end I admonished both of them, saying to his brother, “Fear Allaah. The least that can be said about your brother is that the issue has become obscure to him [such that he sees himself to be correct] and that he is a person imagining things and is deluded and so on. Don’t you see how he is asked questions but cannot answer them?”

And I challenged them, saying, “What do you know about the sharee’ah? Do you know how the Prophet used to pray? I challenge you now. Stand and pray.”

He said, “I don’t want to pray.”

… during the debate between me and him, this person, what was his name, Khaleel?

Interjector: Khaleel … Khaleel is his brother’s name.

Al-Albaani: When I was debating with the self-professed Mahdi, his brother would interrupt. [I would say to him], ‘Yaa akhi, this is not the way to debate. I’m speaking to your brother why are you interfering? If your brother allows you to speak I have no objection but I’m only one person and can only speak to either you or him …” because there was a chair here and there and his brother was next to me. “So I speak with him one time and the other with you … who am I supposed to talk to.” In order to defend his brother’s mistake [the claimant to prophethood] said, “I give him permission to speak.”

So I said, “Then we will leave you [i.e., the false Mahdi] now and speak to your brother. When we asked him [i.e., your brother, the false Mahdi] to get up and pray … who didn’t want to? [He didn’t], your brother, the ‘Mahdi.’ So we said okay.

[Now], you’re his brother–you stand and pray so we can see.’”

He said, “No. Not until he [my brother, the ‘Mahdi’] gives me permission.”

[I said], “He [already] has given you permission … didn’t he say that he gives you permission to say or do anything?”

In summary, their ignorance has blinded their hearts.

You know the [false] Mahdi whose name is Ghulaam Ahmad al-Qadiyani, he was a man who had knowledge, a complete Dajjaal with knowledge, but these miskeens are ignorant people who don’t know a thing from the Sharee’ah and don’t [even] know how to read the Quraan … they don’t know the language … they don’t know anything.”

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 28.

Are the Aayahs About Allaah’s Attributes Regarded as Being from the Precise or Unspecific Aayahs [Muhkamaat and Mutashaabihaat]?


Questioner: A questioner is asking whether the aayahs and hadiths that talk about Allaah’s Attributes are from the precise [muhkamaat] aayahs or hadiths] or the unspecific ones [mutashaabihaat, cf: Surah Aali-Imraan 3:7] … as the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said …

Al-Albaani: From one angle, namely in that which is connected to the exact nature [i.e., the ‘how?’] of those Attributes, they are from the unspecific aayahs [al-mutashaabihaat, but] from the other angle they are not [regarded as being from the unspecific ones but rather are from the precise [muhkamaat] aayahs] in that they have a clear meaning.

As we just said now that the saying of the Salaf, ‘Pass them on/relay them as they have come,’ i.e., as they are understood in the Arabic language and we mentioned the example of [Imaam] Maalik about that previously too. So in this sense they are not from the unspecific [aayahs], i.e., in that they have a [linguistic] meaning well-known in the Arabic language.

But as regards the exact nature [of those Attributes they talk about] then they are regarded as being from the unspecific aayahs [mutashaabihaat], because it is not possible for us to know the exact nature [i.e., the ‘how?’] of Allaah’s Dhaat, and following on from that it is not possible for us to know the exact nature of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic’s, Attributes either.

For this reason some of the Imaams of Hadith, like Abu Bakr al-Khateeb [al-Baghdaadi], author of the well-known [encyclopaedia], ‘The History of Baghdaad,’ [said that] the same is said concerning the Attributes as is said concerning [Allaah’s] Esssence/Dhaat, both in negating and affirming, that which is said concerning the Esssence/Dhaat is said concerning the Attributes.

So just as we affirm [Allaah’s] Essence/Dhaat [i.e., His very existence] and we do not deny it–for such a denial is total and utter rejection [of Allaah]–then we say the same about [Allaah’s] Attributes: we affirm them and do not negate them, but just as we do not ask exactly ‘how?’ His Essence/Dhaat is [but still affirm it], then in the same way we do not ask ‘how?’ His Attributes are [but still affirm them].

This is the answer to the question.

789 | Fatwaawaa Imaraat, 2.

The video:

Al-Albaani Destroys, “If You’re Not With Us, You’re Against Us.”

Here’s the PDF: IfYou’reNotWithUSYou’re AgainstUs.

Questioner: There are principles, O Shaikh, which some of the youth act upon, from these rules is, ‘Whoever does not declare a disbeliever to be a disbeliever then he is a disbeliever.  Whoever does not declare an innovator to be an innovator then he is an innovator,’ and another rule, ‘Whoever is not with us, then he is against us.’

What is your opinion about these rules, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: And where have these rules come from?! And who laid them down?!

This reminds me of a joke that is told in my motherland, Albania, my father, may Allaah have mercy on him, related it in a sitting. In the story he said that a scholar visited a friend of his at his house and then when he left he declared his friend to be a disbeliever.

He was asked why …

In our country we have a custom, and I think it is [something] uniform in the countries of non-Arabs, they glorify and respect, and revere the scholars with some customs and habits which differ from country to country. From these is that when a scholar enters a house, visiting someone, upon leaving his shoes are supposed to be turned around so that the scholar will not have to burden himself by turning around—he should just find the shoes are ready for him to slide his feet into.

So when this scholar visited his friend and then went to leave he found that his shoes were just as he had left them, i.e., the host had not respected the Shaikh and had just left them as they were.

So ‘the scholar’ said that this is disbelief.

Why? Because the host had not respected the scholar, and the one who has not respected a scholar has not respected knowledge, and the one who does not respect knowledge does not respect the one who brought the knowledge—and the one who brought the knowledge is Muhammad عليه السلام and he carried on in this way until he got to Jibreel and then the Lord of the Worlds, and thus the host is a kaafir.

This question [of yours], this rule [you mentioned], reminded me of this fable!

It is not a condition at all that someone who has declared a person to be a disbeliever or has established the proof against someone, that [as a result of that] all of the people have to be with him in that judgement of takfir, because he [i.e., the person’s situation] may be open to interpretation and [thus] another scholar may hold that it is not permissible to declare that individual to be a disbeliever, and the same goes for declaring someone to be a faasiq or an innovator.

This reality is from the trials of the present day, and from the hastiness of some youth who falsely claim knowledge. So the point is that this chain [of deduction] or making this binding is not incumbent at all.

This is an open/expansive issue, one scholar may hold something to be obligatory and the other may hold that it is not. And the scholars of before and those who came later never differed except due to the fact that the door of ijtihaad does not make it incumbent on others to take his opinion, ‘that others have to take his opinion.’ It is only the blind-follower [muqallid] who has no knowledge who has to blindly-follow [yuqallid].

The scholar, who sees another declare an individual to be a disbeliever, or a faasiq or an innovator, but does not agree with his opinion—it is not incumbent upon him at all to follow that [other] scholar.

And this is a calamity which, inshaa Allaah, has not spread from your country to others?

Questioner: By Allaah, O Shaikh, it is present in our country, the issue of declaring people to be innovators and declaring them to be disbelievers.

Al-Albaani: As for the Jamaa’atut-Takfeer then it is well-known that it is a group that started in Egypt and their fitnah was here in Ammaan before I settled here, i.e., about fourteen years ago. But Allaah the Mighty and Majestic guided them and they became upright on the Sunnah with us. Likewise some of them came to Damascus before I came here, and they tried to spread the fitnah of declaring other people to be disbelievers there, but again, our Lord did not give them success and they returned empty-handed. As for this misguidance, it is still present in Egypt and I fear that some of it may have reached the students of knowledge, and Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.

%d bloggers like this: