The Albaani Site

Translation from the Works of the Reviver of this Century

Tag: albani

Shaikh al-Albaani’s Daughter asking her Father about Devoting Oneself to Reciting the Quraan to the Exclusion of other Acts of Worship in Ramadaan


 

Sukainah the daughter of Shaikh al-Albaani said, “I asked my father, may Allaah have mercy on him, [a question] the summary of which is: I read that when Ramadaan would begin some of the scholars would devote themselves to reciting the Quraan, even though they were people of knowledge who would issue religious verdicts for the masses.  So they would even stop giving religious verdicts.  Is this correct?  Should I single out this month for the Quraan and leave reading hadiths, their explanation and lessons in the dialects of the Quraan and other than that?

So in answer to this he said, “This particularisation has no basis in the Sunnah–but that which is in the Sunnah and is known [from a hadith] reported in the two Sahihs[1] is to increase in the recitation of the Quraan in Ramadaan. As for particularising the month of Ramadaan solely for the recitation of the Quraan to the exclusion of any other act of worship like seeking knowledge, teaching hadith, and explaining them–then that has no basis. Likewise that which is included in this topic is giving in charity, giving sadaqah, being good to the people and … and … etc.

Devoting oneself to recitation has no basis. That which does have a basis is only to increase in it.

[1] From Ibn Abbaas, may Allaah be pleased with them both, who said, “Allaah’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ was the most generous of all the people. And he used to reach the peak in generosity in the month of Ramadaan when Jibreel met him. Jibreel used to meet him every night of Ramadaan to teach him the Quraan. Allaah’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ was the most generous person, even more generous than the fair winds [sent (by Allaah) with glad tidings (rain), in readiness and haste to do charitable deeds]. [Bukhaari, no. 6.]

Imaam an-Nawawi, may Allaah have mercy on him, said, “Our companions said, ‘The Sunnah is to recite the Quraan in abundance in Ramadaan and to study it with someone–that he recites it to someone and someone recites it to him due to the aforementioned hadith from Ibn Abbaas.’” Al-Majmooh Sharh al-Muhaddhab (6/274). And al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab, may Allaah have mercy on him, said about this hadith, “And in it is evidence for the desirability/recommendation to increase in the recitation of the Quraan in the month of Ramadaan.” Lataa’iful-Ma’aarif, p. 169.

Taken from her blog at:

Sukainah bint Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaani’s Blog

And here’s the Youtube video:

A Rooster Whose Neck is Under the Throne of Allaah


إِنَّ اللهَ أَذِنَ لِي أَنْ أُحَدِّثَ عَنْ دِيْكٍ قَدْ مَرَقَتْ رِجْلَاهُ الْأَرْضَ، وَعُنُقُهُ مُنْثَنٍ تَحْتَ الْعَرْشِ وَهُوَ يَقُوْلُ: سُبْحَانَكَ مَا أَعْظَمَكَ رَبُّنَا، فَيَرُدُّ عَلَيْهِ
مَا يَعْلَمُ ذَلِكَ مَنْ حَلَفَ بِي كَاذِبًا

From Abu Hurairah in marfoo form:

“Indeed Allaah has given me permission to inform you about a rooster whose legs have penetrated the earth and whose neck is bent under the Throne and he says, ‘Glory be to You! How great You are, Our Lord!’ So He answers him [saying], ‘The one who takes a false oath in My Name does not know that.’”

Shaikh Al-Albaani said in Silsilah:

“Reported by al-Tabaraani in Al-Awsat (1/156/1), and Abu Shaikh in Al-Udhmah (3/1003-1004) who both said, ‘Muhammad ibn al-Abbaas ibn al-Akhram reported to us [saying]: Al-Fadl ibn Sahl al-A’raj reported to us [saying]:Ishaaq ibn Mansoor reported to us [saying]: Israail reported to us from Mu’aawiyah ibn Ishaaq from Sa’eed ibn Abi Sa’eed from Abu Hurairah in marfoo form, and he said, ‘No one reported it from Mu’aawiyah except Israail, Ishaaq being alone in narrating it.’

I [Al-Albaani] say: And he is trustworthy [thiqah] from the men who the two Shaikhs [Bukhaari and Muslim] narrated from, and the same goes for all of the narrators, they are all trustworthy from the men of Bukhaari except for Ibn al-Akhram, who is from the precise preservers of hadith, and Fuqahaa, as is mentioned in Lisaanul-Meezaan.

So the chain of narration of the hadith is authentic.

And al-Haithami said in Al-Majma (4/180-181), “Reported by al-Tabaraani in Al-Awsat and its men are those of the Saheeh.” And in this declaration there is a mistake as will not be hidden, especially when in another place he said, (8/134), “Reported by al-Tabaraani in Al-Awsat, and its men are those of the Saheeh except that I do not know the Shaikh of al-Tabaraani, Muhammad ibn al-Abbaas from Fadl ibn Sahl al-A’raj.”

I [Al-Albaani] say: And we know him, and all praise is due to Allaah, and he is trustworthy, so the hadith is authentic, and Allaah is the One Who grants success.

And in Al-Majma’ there occurs, “Suhail,” and this is a printing error, ‘Sahl,’ is correct, as has preceded in the chain of narration, and as occurs in the books of narrators.

Bearing in mind that he was not the only one to narrate it, for Abu Ya’laa (1/309) reported it through another chain of narration from Mu’aawiyah from Ishaaq with a wording similar to it, “And the Throne is on his shoulders, and he is saying, ‘Glory be to You! Where were You? And where will You be?’

Thereafter, there is a point to be had in al-Tabaraani’s saying that, ‘Ishaaq is the only one who reported it.’ For Ubaidullaah ibn Moosaa narrated it [saying] that Israail informed us of it. Reported by al-Haakim (4/297) and he said, ‘It’s chain of narration is authentic,’ and adh-Dhahabi agreed with him.

And al-Mundhiri said (3/48), ‘Reported by al-Tabaraani with an authentic chain of narration, and al-Haakim said, ‘Its chain of narration is authentic.’’”End of Shaikh al-Albaani’s words.

Silsilah, vol. 1, pp. 281-282.

The Ruling Concerning the One who Mocks the Religion


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Questioner: Mocking the religion which has been mentioned in His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, “Say, ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Aayat that you were mocking?  Make no excuse, you have disbelieved after you had believed …'” [Tawbah 9:66] is it kufr in belief [kufr i’tiqaadi] or disbelief in actions [kufr amali]?

Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that this is kufr in belief–infact, this is disbelief with two horns.  Because it is not possible for a believer no matter how weak his faith is to mock the Signs [aayaat] of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic.  And this type of disbelief is what comes under our previous statement where we would say, “It is not permissible to declare a Muslim to be outside the fold of Islaam except if something emanates from his tongue which shows us what has settled in his heart.”  So here, his mockery of the Signs of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, is the biggest confirmation from him that he does not believe in that which he is mocking.  So thus he is a disbeliever who has performed kufr in belief [i’tiqaadi].

Mawsoo’atul-Allaamah, al-Imaam, Mujaddidil-Asr, Muhammad Naasirid-Deen al-Albaani, of Shaikh Shady Noaman, vol. 5, p. 522.

Authenticity of the Hadith Stating that Surah Yaa Seen is the Heart of the Quraan


إِنَّ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَلْبًا، وَقَلْبُ القُرْآنِ يس، وَمَنْ قَرَأَ يس كَتَبَ اللهُ لَهُ بِقِرَاءَتِهَا قِرَاءَةَ القُرْآنِ عَشْرَ مَرَّاتٍ

From Anas who said that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Indeed everything has a heart and the heart of the Quraan is Yaa Seen. Whoever recites Yaa Seen, then Allaah will write for his recitation that he recited the Quraan ten times.”

Reported in Sunan at-Tirmidhee, no., 2887, and Shaikh al-Albaani declared it to be fabricated [mawdoo]. See ad-Da’eefah, no. 169.

From the Amazing Signs of the Hour


وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تُكَلِّمَ السِّبَاعُ الإِنْسَ، وَحَتَّى تُكَلِّمَ الرَّجُلَ عَذَبَةُ سَوْطِهِ وَشِرَاكُ نَعْلِهِ وَتُخْبِرَهُ فَخِذُهُ بِمَا حَدَّثَ أَهْلُهُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ

From Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “By Him in whose Hands is my soul! The Hour will not be established until the beasts of prey talk to people. And the tip of a man’s whip and the straps on his sandals speak to him. And his thigh informs him of what his family did after him.”

Silsilah | 122 | Saheeh

A Discussion Concerning the Difference of the Companions in Creed [Aqidah] | 2


 

Continuing from the first post.

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “And a group called the mufowwidah can be found which is between these two.

They [incorrectly] do not believe or accept the apparent meaning of the proofs from the Book and the Sunnah which are connected to the Attributes [of Allaah] while declaring Him free of any likeness to His creation and not ascribing the qualities of the creation to Him [tanzeeh]. They do not perform ta’weel as the Khalaf do about whom we spoke earlier and who are the ones who say, ‘Indeed the madhhab of the Salaf is safer, but the madhhab of the Khalaf has more knowledge and is more precise.’

So the disagreement [with these groups] is not in the [subsidiary] parts, it is not possible to escape that, but rather in the foundational principle.

What is the rule that the Salaf go by?

It is to have that faith in everything reported from Allaah and His Messenger which includes believing in the apparent, clear, linguistic meanings [of the words reported] in the texts while declaring Him free of any likeness to His creation and not ascribing the qualities of the creation to Him [tanzeeh], as occurs in the Most High’s Saying–and this is a proof which is often used, “There is nothing like Him. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.” [Shooraa 42:12]

So in this sentence our Lord the Mighty and Majestic firstly mentioned, “There is nothing like Him …” declaring Himself free from having any likeness to His creation and then He followed this negation of likeness with an affirmation, which is His Saying, “… And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.”

So now, when we want to tread upon the path of the Salaf, [we find that] they did not differ whatsoever in understanding [the meaning] of “… the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.” For the belief they held was that the attribute of Hearing is not like that of Seeing and that [in addition to this] both of the attributes are just like the rest of the Divine Attributes: we affirm them as they have been reported while differentiating between each one and while declaring Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, to be free of any likeness to anything from His creation [tanzeeh].

What is the stance of the Mu’tazilah, the ones who negate the Attributes? They take the first part of the aayah, “There is nothing like Him …” [believing in it] declaring Allaah to be free of any likeness to His creation and not ascribing the qualities of the creation to Him [tanzeeh]–but they went to extremes in this tanzeeh and they [ended up] negating the meaning. So they said the meaning of, “… And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer,” is ‘The All-Knowledgeable.’

Thus they negated these two Attributes, because humans can hear and see and so they thought [that by affirming this it would mean that] they were the same [as Allaah]. And they thought that by fleeing from affirming these two Attributes they were performing tanzeeh without ta’teel [negation of the Attribute], but they didn’t notice that the thing which they thought they were fleeing from is what they fell into …

So there is, as the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy on him, said, an association in the wording but no such real association [between Allaah and the creation] in the meaning.

The Attributes of Hearing and Seeing and the Eye, are three Attributes which our Lord, the Blessed and Most High, has been described with in the Quraan just like [He has been described with] the other Attributes mentioned in the Quraan.

But that does not mean that a person’s hearing, seeing and knowledge is like the Hearing, Seeing and Knowledge of Allaah.

For this reason, when the Mu’tazilah fled to this incorrect interpretation of the Hearing, Seeing and Knowledge [of Allaah], it is said to them that they negated two true and real Attributes from the Attributes of Allaah, the Blessed and Most High.”

A Discussion concerning the Difference of the Companions in Creed [Aqidah] | 1


باب الكلام حول خلاف الصحابة في العقيدة

Chapter Being a Discussion of the Difference of the Companions in the Islamic Creed [Aqidah]

Questioner: In the Name of Allaah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. [All] praise is [due] to Allaah, Lord of the worlds and may the peace and praise of Allaah be upon the Messenger of Allaah.

As for what follows:

The questioner says, ‘Noble Shaikh! You claim that creed is a matter which the Righteous Predecessors were united upon, yet along with that we find that there is difference between them in affirming an Eye or two Eyes.

Al-Albaani: Firstly, [what did you say], ‘You …’ what?

Questioner: You claim.

Al-Albaani: Claim, ok. Would that he worded it slightly more softly.

Questioner: … that creed is a matter which the Salaf were united upon yet along with that we find that there is a difference [of opinion] amongst them in affirming an Eye, or two Eyes, and the Shin. For it has been reported from Ibn Abbaas, may Allaah be pleased with them both, that he interpreted the Saying of Allaah the Most High, “The Day when the Shin shall be laid bare.” [Al-Qalam 68:42] to mean hardship and the suffering [of that Day].

The same is said about the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم seeing his Lord, the Majestic and Most High. Whoever affirms it then it is obligatory upon him to believe that, and whoever negates it then it is obligatory upon him to believe that which the negation means.

So what should our stance be, may Allaah reward you with good?

Al-Albaani: It was befitting that the question [be posed] without this warning, since I don’t think the questioner was relating my opinion and [thus] building the direction of his question upon that. That is because we are the ones who hold it to be religion that there is no difference between what is called usool and between what … [part of the recording is lost here]

… that they should be in agreement and united when they are able to. As for when it is possible that that may not be the case in the usool let alone the furoo [subsidiary issues] then the affair goes back to the mujtahid: if he had striven to come to the Truth and was correct he has two rewards, and if he made a mistake then he has one. As we said there is no difference in that between the usool and the furoo.

As for the claim that there is unity in all of the usool in contrast to the subsidiary issues [furoo] then I do not believe that this is something which a scholar would say with absolute certainty.

The most we can say is that the Salaf agreed that the foundation regarding the Attributes of Allaah which occur in the Book or the Sunnah is that they be taken as they are without any ta’weel–this is what it is possible to say they were united upon … but this does not negate the fact that some difference can occur in some of the issues connected to this methodology.

And it is true that difference occurred concerning the example which the questioner mentioned regarding the interpretation of the Shin.

But is there difference amongst these [people from the Salaf] who may have differed in some of those parts connected to creed or tawheed, is there difference amongst them in the principle foundation [al-asl] of the rule?  The answer is no.

And this is the difference between the followers of the Salaf and the followers of those who came later [the Khalaf]. For this is the rule with the Salaf, i.e., to believe in everything that has been reported from Allaah and His Prophet without making ta’weel and without ta’teel.

As for the Khalaf, then the rule with them is ta’weel which is not submission/or the rule with them is not submission.

Click forherethe second part.

 

On Hizbut-Tahrir | End


 

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “And I will finish my talk by mentioning a discussion that took place between one of the Salafees and another person who would call to the Book and the Sunnah but was not mindful of this addition, i.e., ‘following the path of the believers.’  And the call of the Islamic groups will not become correct except by adopting it as [their] ideology firstly, and secondly, by implementing it through action.

I said to him: This is a deficient answer.

He said: Why?

I said: Because every Muslim no matter how deviated he is or how upright says, ‘I am a Muslim.’ For example, we’ll start with the easiest first. When a hanafi is asked what his madhhab is and he doesn’t want to get himself into a debate, he will say, ‘My madhhab is Islaam,’ and the shaafi’ee will say the same, ‘I am a Muslim …’ and so on.

But the Hanafis say that faith [eemaan] does not increase or decrease, and the Shaafi’ees says that faith [eemaan] increases but does not decrease and so on. So your answer that you are a Muslim and that [person’s] answer that he is a Muslim does not specify your madhhab fully. So he understood and said, ‘Then I say that I am a Muslim upon the Book and the Sunnah.”

So I said to him: Likewise, all of the Muslims [say the same] even [the people mentioned] in the examples I just showed you, is there a Hanafi who says, ‘I am a Muslim [but] not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ Is there a Shaafi’ee who says, ‘I am not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ [Indeed] I say to you is there an Ibaadee from the Khawaarij present today in the land of the Muslims who says, ‘I am not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ Rather, is there a Shi’ite, is there a Raafidee who says, ‘I am not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ This is what was just explained.

All of the Muslims no matter how severe and numerous the differences between them, all of them say, “Upon the Book and the Sunnah.” But none of them say, “And upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih,” except those who affiliate themselves to the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih. And we say when we are asked, “I am a Salafi,” end of matter. Because the meaning of Salafi is: upon the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.

When I explained this to him I said to him that it is not enough for you to say that I am a Muslim upon the Book and the Sunnah, because all of the groups and Jamaa’ahs say: upon the Book and the Sunnah.

He said, “Then I say, ‘I am upon the Book and the Sunnah …’ because after this lecture, or lectures he believed along with me … [so] he said, ‘I am upon the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.”

So I said to him knowing that he was a writer and author, ‘Do you not find in your Arabic language that you have learnt, spoken with and authored in, words that will summarise this answer of yours: ‘I am a Muslim upon the Book and the Sunnah and upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih?’

So he became silent. I said to him that when we say, ‘I am a Salafi,’ doesn’t this convey [the same meaning as] your long definition, ‘I am upon the Book and the Sunnah and ….?’

So he replied in the affirmative.

This is the reality of the Salafi call, and those are the mistakes of Hizb al-Tahrir, and all of the other groups … and it is only our circle that is wider than that of any such adopted by any group on the face of the earth.

I know that the system of Hizb al-Tahrir is that when an individual from their members adopts an opinion that opposes its opinion, i.e., opposes the stance taken by Hizb [al-Tahrir as a group] then he will be expelled and it will be said to him, ‘You are not from us.’

We do not say this.

I know for example, that from Hizb al-Tahrir’s ideology is that a woman has the right to vote and be voted for, so you will not find a Tahriri from their writers saying that it a woman’s field is not to enter into such affairs, which today are called politics, [but that] she has the right to learn that which befits her femininity, that which befits her delicacy, gentleness and so on.

As for her voting and being voted for, if a person from Hizb al-Tahrir adopted an opinion in which he opposed Hizb al-Tahrir then he will be expelled. As for us, then we accept Hizb al-Tahrir, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Tablighi Jamaa’ah, but upon the basis of: Say, “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah.” [Aali-Imraan 3:64].

So we call every Muslim to adopt this foundation, and there are many subdivions which branch off from it, many indeed. [And if they do so] then they will be with us, maybe they will differ with us in its implementation, because the implementation requires knowledge.

We say that very regrettably the Islamic groups do not give importance to the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah yet along with that they want to establish an Islamic state while being ignorant of Islaam.

So we say, “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” [Al-Ahzaab 33:21].

The Messenger of Allaah started by teaching the people, by calling them to aqidah [creed] first, then to [the matters of] worship and improving their manners secondly, and this is how it is befitting that history repeats itself.

And in this much there is sufficiency, and all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of all worlds.”

Mawsoo’atul-Allaamah, al-Imaam, Mujaddidil-Asr, Muhammad Naasirid-Deen al-Albaani, of Shaikh Shady Noaman, vol. 1, pp. 230-254.

The Gates of Paradise and Hell


اَلْجَنَّةُ لَهَا ثَمَانِيَةُ أَبْوَابٍ، وَالْنَّارُ لَهَا سَبْعَةُ أَبْوَابٍ

From Utbah ibn Abd as-Sulami who said that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Paradise has eight gates and the Fire has seven gates.”

Silsilah | 1812 | Authentic.

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 7


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “A question has come to me now and I wanted to delay it for later since it might cut off my train of thought yet even so I will not forestall the questioner, and will answer the question which is: there is a narration which says that when the Prophet was asked about the Saved Sect he replied by saying it was the Jamaa’ah.

Yes, this narration is authentic and we believe in it, but this narration [with the wording] “Jamaa’ah” is explained by the one we mentioned, because if we mention the word, “Jamaa’ah,” i.e., [as occurs in] this narration the question is about, then we must explain it with the explanation that has just passed.

So we will end this sitting by answering the last question. And I say: there are two narrations, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about the Saved Sect, he answered with two narrations.

The first is the one I mentioned just now, “That which I and my Companions are upon.” The other is the one the question is about, “It is the Jamaa’ah.”

But I feel as though the questioner thinks that based upon what she has read from the writings of Hizb at-Tahrir that this narration, i.e., that which mentions the Jamaa’ah goes against the narration which I spoke about.

So I say to her and to bring this answer which is in the negative closer to home: there is no disparity between the two narrations. Suppose now that the first narration, i.e., “That which I and my Companions are upon,” has no basis whatsoever and that the narration is, “The Jamaa’ah.” So we will say, “Who is the Jamaa’ah? Who is the Jamaa’ah today? Is it Hizb at-Tahrir? The Muslim Brotherhood? The Tableeghee Jamaa’ah?”

The answer is:

And everyone claims the love of Laylaa but Laylaa does not acknowledge it for them

The Jamaa’ah is, as has authentically been reported from Ibn Mas’ood, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, “Whoever is upon the Truth even if it is only one person.”

When Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent the Messengers and the Prophets as givers of good tidings and warners, they were individuals, [but] they were the Jamaa’ah. 

Ibrahim was an Ummah on his own.

So whoever follows this Ummah, i.e., the Jamaa’ah, and in reality he was only one person in and of himself but he was the Jamaa’ah in his call, and whoever follows his way, traversing upon his path, then he is the Jamaa’ah even if he is only a single individual.

So now, [for argument’s sake and] upon the supposition that the first narration which described the Saved Sect did not exist at all, this Jamaa’ah is the path of the believers, the Jamaa’ah is the Jamaa’ah of the rightly-guided Caliphs.

So the hadith of al-Irbaad ibn Saariyah is not two narrations [as is the case here] such that it can be said or there can be doubt about it, as it is possible someone might want to doubt/distrust the narration, “That which I and my Companions are upon.” The Jamaa’ah is the Path of the Believers which I have just explained from the Book and the hadiths. So how does it harm us to explain the Jamaa’ah here with the first narration, “That which I and my Companions are upon?”

Because his Companions, his Companions (صلى الله عليه وسلم) are the believers whose opposers have been threatened with Hell in the aayah which I first cited as a proof [where I mentioned] that it is not enough to rely solely on the Book and the Sunnah, but that the path of the believers mentioned in the noble aayah must be added to that.

So whoever explains the Jamaa’ah mentioned in the hadith about the Saved Sect to mean that it is his group only without bringing any proof from the Book and the Sunnah for that: [proving] that he is upon what the first believers were upon, then he would have given it an interpretation other than the correct one, and would thus have explained this hadith incorrectly.”

Wearing out the Devils


إِنَّ الْمُؤْمِنَ لَيُنْضِي شَيَاْطِيْنَهُ؛ كَمَا يُنْضِي أَحَدُكُمْ بَعِيْرَه فِي الْسَّفَرِ

From Abu Hurairah in marfoo form, “Indeed the believer wears out his devils just like one of you wears out his camel on a journey.”

Silisilah | 3586 | Hasan

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 6


Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “From which is that the Muslims know–and I am referring here to the students of knowledge, and I hope that those [sisters] listening to this lecture are from them–that in Sahih al-Bukhaari in the hadith of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “When one of you sits for the final tashhahud then let him seek refuge with Allaah from four: …”

This is an aahaad hadith, but it is from those wonderful and strange hadiths in relation to the philosophising of Hizb at-Tahrir–because on one hand it includes a legislated ruling [i.e., the legislated ruling being the Prophet’s actual order to say this supplication in the last tashhahud in the prayer, and this order is not something connected to creed], and in the eyes of Hizb at-Tahrir, legislated rulings can be taken from aahaad hadith.  So when looking at this hadith from that angle, [they hold] that it is obligatory to act upon it, because it is [like we just said] a legislated ruling, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “Then let him seek refuge from four things in the final tashhahud.”

And from another angle it includes [a point of] creed which is that in the grave there is punishment and that there is the trial of Dajjaal, but they [i.e., Hizb at-Tahrir] do not believe in the punishment of the grave and they do not believe in the trial of the greatest Dajjaal which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) spoke about in many hadiths, from them is his saying (صلى الله عليه وسلم), “There is no fitnah from [the time of] the creation of Aadam until the Hour more harmful to my Ummah than the fitnah of the Maseeh ad-Dajjaal.”

They do not believe in this Dajjaal, because according to them the hadith [about him] is not mutawaatir.

So we now say to them: what will you do with the hadith of Abu Hurairah [about saying that supplication in the last tashahhud]? [Since] from one angle it includes a legislated ruling [which is that] at the end of the prayer you have to say, “And I seek refuge with You from the punishment of the grave,” but will you seek refuge from the punishment in the grave when you don’t believe in it?

Two opposites that cannot come together.

So they came to us with a way out, a trick from the tricks that Allaah has forbidden the Muslims from.

How so?

They said, “We hold that the punishment in the grave is true, but we do not believe in it.  We hold that the punishment of the grave is true, but we do not believe in it.”

A strange and unusual philosophising.  What is it that made them do this?  They came with [that] first philosophising and it led them to many other types, such that it took them away from the sound path which the Companions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) were upon.

Now I will continue and this topic, as you said, is a long one … to explain that the call of Hizb at-Tahrir which they always talk about is that they want to establish the rule of Allaah on the earth. I firstly point out that they are not the only ones with this call, all of the Islamic groups and sects end with this purpose, i.e., they want to establish the rule of Allaah on earth, so they are not the only ones …”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 5


 

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “Here the discussion will now take us away from what we were in the middle of explaining concerning what we know about Hizb at-Tahrir, because discussing this rule and clarifying the objections to it [shows us] that it is established on proof which is like a mirage in the desert, the thirsty one thinks it to be water [until he comes up to it and finds it to be nothing].

For this reason we will now suffice in clarifying this rule [of theirs], i.e., that it is not permissible for a Muslim to adopt a [point of] creed from an authentic hadith–but one which [still has not reached the level of being] ‘unequivocally established’ [according to their] philosophising [which is that it is only a single authentic narration and not mutawaatir]–even though the hadith is unequivocal in the point it is proving.  So where did they get this from?

There is no proof for it. Not from the Book, neither from the Sunnah and nor from that which the Salaf were upon. Rather, that which the Salaf were upon contradicts that which some of these who came later have adopted, from the Mu’tazilah of old, and their followers today in this creed, Hizb at-Tahrir.

I will say something now and perhaps we will make a quick mention of it so that we can carry on with our topic. All of us know that when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic sent the Messenger as a giver of glad-tidings and a warner and said, “O Messenger! Proclaim that which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message,” [Maa’idah 5:67] [all of us know that] his صلى الله عليه وسلم proclamation of the Message to the people at times was through himself, whereby he would go to their council meetings and gatherings, speaking to them directly. At other times he would send a messenger from his side calling the polytheists to follow his call, at other times he would send a letter, as was known from his biographical account, to Heraclius, the King of Rome, and to Khosroe the King of Persia and to … and so on, to the chiefs of the Arabs as has been explained in the books of his biography.

From these [messengers] that he sent [was] Mu’aadh ibn Jabal, Abu Moosaa al-Ash’ari and Alee ibn Abee Taalib to Yemen, and to Rome he sent Dihya al-Kalbi and … etc.  These were all individuals who, or whose reports did not represent an unequivocally established report [according to Hizbut-Tahrir’s rule] because they were all individuals, so Mu’aadh was in a certain place, Abu Moosaa in another, and Alee in another place [i.e., this is not mutawaatir], and the time also differed, just as the place did.

And there is a hadith in the two Sahihs with an authentic chain of narration from Anas ibn Maalik, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, that when the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم sent Mu’aadh to Yemen he said to him, “Let the first thing you call them to be the testification that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah.” So who from the Muslims doubts that this testification is the first pillar of Islaam? i.e. that it is the first [point of] creed upon which faith in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers is built, so when Mu’aadh, may Allaah be pleased with him, went alone delivering and calling the Muslims, sorry, the polytheists to believe in the religion of Islaam … what do you think? Was the proof established against them when Mu’aadh ibn Jabal called them to Islaam, and said to them that the Prophet orders you to pray the five daily prayers, and that this prayer is [made up of] two rak’ahs, and that one three, and the remaining ones four, to the last of the details well-known to us know, and all praise is for Allaah? And when he ordered them with zakaah,mentioning to them the details of the rulings concerning zakaah, what is connected to silver, gold, what is connected to fruit, vegetables, what is connected to cows, camels and so on?

Was the proof of Islaam established against these polytheists through Mu’aadh alone? According to Hizb at-Tahrir, unfortunately, the proof was not established against them–because he was an individual who it was possible, as they say, may lie; and we say that no, lying is far removed from them [i.e., the Companions].  Then [they say] the least that can be said is that it is possible that they make mistakes and forget.

So they came with this philosophizing: that we cannot take the correct Islamic creed from authentic hadiths.

Thus when Mu’aadh called the Yemenis to Islaam, and without doubt the first thing that he called them to was creed [aqidah], thus [according to them] the proof of Allaah was not established against the Yemenis amongst whom were the idol worshippers, Christians, the Magians–the proof of Allaah was not established against them in [the affairs of] creed.

[But] as for rulings [ahkaam] Hizb at-Tahrir say as the generality of Muslims do, that yes, legislated rulings are established through the aahaad hadith, but as for [the affairs of] creed then they are not established by the aahaad hadith. This is Mu’aadh representing the ‘creed of aahaad’ in all of Islaam [i.e., that he was alone in calling to all of the issues of Islaam in Yemen], in its fundamentals, subsidiary issues, creed and rulings, so where did they get this particularisation [i.e., their aforementioned division] from? “They are but [mere] names which you have named them [with], you and your forefathers, for which Allaah has sent down no authority.” [Najm 53:23].

And I will end what is being said in connection to the [principle which they made up concerning] aahaad hadith, [and] which they used to disregard tens of authentic sayings of the Prophet based upon [their saying] that a point of proof in creed is not established through the aahaad hadith.

Someone mentioned the following quip, they allege that one of the callers from Hizb at-Tahrir went to Japan and gave them some lessons one of which was [on], ‘The Path of Faith,’ and [mentioned] in this path was that creed is not established through an aahaad hadith.

So there was an intelligent, astute and sharp youth there who said to him, “O teacher, you came to us as a caller here in Japan, a country of disbelief and polytheism as you say, calling them to Islaam, and you say, “Creed cannot be established through aahaad hadith.” And you say, “It is from [the correct] creed that you do not take creed from a single individual.” Now [here you are] calling us to Islaam now and you are alone [a single individual]. So you should, based upon this your own philosophy, retrace your steps to your country and come back with tens of people like you from the Muslims who say the same thing as you do, and then your narrations will have become unanimous [mutawaatir, and so we will be able to accept creed form you then!].”

So he was at a total loss.

So this is an example from one of the many which show the evil ending of opposing the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 4


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “Here we will stop for a short while [to consider the following]: who are the scholars? Are they the scholars of the disbelievers? No, we give them no weight, due to what we just mentioned that they are not intellectuals, the reality is that they are clever/smart because they have invented and innovated and so on, and have advanced in material civilisation well-known amongst all [but they are not intellectuals].

Likewise the intellect of the Muslims, this intellect [found] in each individual amongst them differs, so the intellect of the scholar is not the same as that of the ignorant one.

And I will say something else: the intellect of the scholar who acts upon his knowledge is not equal to the intellect of the scholar who does not. They will never be equal, ever.

For this [reason] the Mu’tazilah deviated in many of the fundamental principles which they laid down and by which they opposed the way of the Legislation: in relation to the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors. This is the first point: the reliance of Hizb at-Tahrir upon the intellect more than should be the case.

The second point, and it branches off from the first one in my view, is that they divided the texts of the Book and the Sunnah into two, as regards their chain of narration and the proof taken/derived from them. [Namely, regarding] the chain of narration they said, “[It is possible that] a narration can be unequivocally established and it may also be [the case] that it is hypothetically established. [And in the same way] the point proven by a narration can be unequivocal [but others] can be hypothetical.”

We’re not debating this terminology [now], since the situation is as is said, every nation can use the terminology they wish, but what we are discussing is what [happens] when other things are added to this terminology which oppose what the first Muslims were upon.

And from this the importance of the Path of the Believers will become clear to you. Because the Muslim scholar, let alone the ignorant Muslim, was restricted from turning away from the text of the Book and the Sunnah by using terminologies like these. And as a result of the terminology of ‘unequivocal’ and ‘hypothetic’, whether concerning the chain of narration of the meaning taken from the text, the following resulted:

They said: when a text comes in the Noble Quraan–and it, without doubt, according to the previous terminology would be regarded as ‘unequivocal in its [textual authenticity] being established–[they said] when a text comes in the Quraan which is not unequivocal in the point being established [or the meaning being conveyed] then it is not obligatory on the Muslim to take the meaning that it contains, because it is something which can only be established hypothetically, so it is not permissible for him to adopt a point of creed on a text which is unequivocally established [as being true and from Allaah, i.e., the Quraan] but is suppositional in whichever point it is that is trying to be proven.

And likewise the total opposite is also true with them: that when a proof comes which is unequivocal in the meaning it is conveying but is suppositional [according to them] in its being established [as a correct and true text] then in the same way they will not take a point of creed from it.

And so [it is based upon this that] they came with a creed not known to the Pious Predecessors. And they laid down for themselves a new set of terminology, and their books are well-known, and [when I say] their books, it is the old ones I am referring to, because they have made changes therein, and I am from the most well-acquainted of people with those changes, but in reality it is only [change] in form. And [even] if it is conceded [that changes were made] then it only proves that even in their creed they were confused, since they said, “Creed is not established except by way of a proof which is [1] unequivocally established, [2] unequivocal in the point being proven.”

And so it was upon this that they established their creed: that creed is not taken from a hadith unequivocal in the proof it is conveying [but only, according to them,] authentic in its chain of narration [i.e., they do not regard a saheeh/authentic hadith as being unequivocal even though the meaning that it may contain is absolutely clear].

So we said to them in the debates and arguments we had with them, “Where did you get this principle from? And it is a principle which includes issues of creed, so where did you get this creed from? What is the proof that it is not allowed for a Muslim to base his creed on an authentic [saheeh] hadith but which is not reported in mutawaatir form which [according to them is the only form which] qualifies absolute certainty in the proof it is establishing? Where did you get this from?”

So here they became confused in their answer. And the discussion on this topic is lengthy, very lengthy, and as proof they used [texts] such as His Saying, the Most High, “They follow nothing but assumption/a guess, and indeed, assumption avails not against the Truth at all.” [An-Najm 53:28].”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 3


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

“This is a reality which, very regrettably, all of the Islamic sects are ignorant of, especially Hizb at-Tahrir, which is unique among Islamic groups in giving the human intellect a station greater than that given to it by Islaam.

We know with certainty that when Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, addresses the people with His Speech He is only addressing the intellectuals, He is addressing the scholars, He is addressing those who think and reflect, but we [also] know that the human intellect differs. The intellect is of two types: the Muslim intellect and that of the disbeliever.

This intellect of the disbeliever is not intellect, it may be smartness/cleverness but it is not intellect. Because the [term] intellect in the Arabic language [refers to] that which shackles somebody, binds him and restricts him from going to the right or left. And it is not possible for the intellect not to [incorrectly] turn to the right or left except by following the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

For this reason Allaah, the Mighty and the Majestic, related that when the disbelievers and the polytheists acknowledge the reality of their situation … that when they are described as Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, said in the Noble Quraan, “They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware …” [Room 30:7] … they will acknowledge that although they were acquainted with worldly matters they were not intellectuals, [which is seen in] their saying which our Lord relates concerning them, “And they will say, ‘Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the companions of the Blaze.” [Al-Mulk 67:10]. Thus, there are two intellects: the true/real intellect and the figurative/metaphorical one.

The true intellect is that of the Muslim who believes in Allaah and His Messenger. As for the figurative one, then it is that of the disbeliever. For this reason, He, the Most High, said in the Quraan as you just heard, “And they will say, ‘Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the companions of the Blaze.” And He said about the disbelievers generally, “They have hearts wherewith they understand not.” [Al-A’raaf 7:179].

Thus, they do have hearts, but they do not understand [the Truth] through them, they do not comprehend the Truth with them.

When we have understood this reality, and it is a reality which I do not think any two will differ over, or any two rams will clash horns over, because it is explicitly in the Quraan and in the sayings of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم but I want to move from this reality to another which is the [actual] point I am trying to make at this time.

So when the intellect of the disbeliever is not [in fact] intellect, then [in the same way] the intellect of the Muslim is also of two types: that of the scholar and that of the ignorant person.

The intellect of the ignorant Muslim cannot be equal to the intellect and understanding of the scholar, they can never be equal when compared. That is why Allaah, the Most High, said, “… but none will understand them except those who have knowledge …” [Ankaboot 29:43].

Thus, it is not permissible for the true Muslim, the one who truly believes in Allah and His Messenger to invest his intellect with the authority to judge, but he should rather make his intellect submit to what Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said.

It is from here that I make a point regarding Hizb at-Tahrir: that they were affected by the Mu’tazilah in their starting point in the path of faith, and the path of faith is a title they have given in some of the books written by their head, Tadiyud-Deen an-Nabahaani, may Allaah have mercy on him. I met him a number of times and am fully acquainted with him. And I am very well-versed and acquainted with what Hizb at-Tahrir are upon. For this, I speak with knowledge, inshaa Allaah, about that which their call stands upon. So this is the first point made against them: that they gave the intellect an excellence greater than it deserves.

I repeat to you what I just said earlier: I do not deny that the intellect has its importance as has preceded, but it is not for the intellect to judge the Book and the Sunnah, rather all that is upon it is to understand what has been reported in the Book and the Sunnah.

It is from here that the Mu’tazilah went astray in the past, they denied many, very many, legislated realities, due to the fact that they empowered their intellects over the texts of the Book and the Sunnah which, as a result, they distorted, altered and changed, and in the expression of the scholars of the Pious Predecessors, “They dispensed with the texts of the Book and the Sunnah.”

I want to draw your attention to this point, which is: that it is befitting that the Muslim intellect submit to the text of the Book and the Sunnah after having understood the Book and the Sunnah.

So the judge is [the saying of] Allaah and the Messenger of Allaah. It is not the human intellect due to [the reason] we have stated that the intellect of humans differs, the intellect of the Muslim and non-Muslim differs [from each other]; the intellect of the Muslim differs, that of the ignorant Muslim differs from that of the Muslim who understands, for the understanding of the Muslim scholar is not like that of the ignorant Muslim.

That is why He, the Most High, said, and there is no harm in repeating [what we said earlier], because I know that this topic is something which millions and millions of Muslims men, let alone the women, do not hear. For this reason I am obliged to repeat these points and these proofs, “… but none will understand them except those who have knowledge …””

Is it incorrect to Worship Allaah out of Hope for His Paradise and Fear of His Fire?


 

Our Shaikh, without any objection [to the question I am going to ask], sorry [but]: Why do we worship Allaah, do we worship him out of the desire for Paradise and fear of the Fire? Or is there something else? I.e., something which is [connected to] the natural disposition of man?

Al-Albaani: i.e., your question centres around what has been reported from Raabi’ah al-Adawiyyah that she used to say when calling upon Allaah … “I don’t worship You out of hope for Your Paradise and nor out of the fear of Your Fire, rather I only worship You because You deserve to be worshipped.”

The reality is that this issue which has been reported in this sentence from Raabi’ah–and it does not concern me whether it has been authentically attributed to her or not, because I look at what is said and not at the one who is saying it–this sentence goes against the natural state of man, goes against what I assume is the natural disposition [fitrah], i.e., which is that a person worships Allaah according to other than the madhhab of Raabi’ah if it [i.e., that saying] has been correctly attributed to her.

[A person] worships Allaah out of hope and fear and this is something which Allaah described His servants with in the Noble Quraan, and it is not possible for a person to be divested of fear from something which is [so] colossal, horrendous, and terrifying. It is not possible except if he is taken out of the state of being human–and we are talking about humankind [here].

So look, for example, at Musa, the one whom Allaah the Blessed and Most High spoke to, when Allaah gathered him and Pharaoh’s magicians together and they came with their magic which took hold of the reasoning of those present, included among them was Musa about whom the Lord of all Creation said in the clear text of the Noble Quran, And he sensed within himself fear, did Moses. We said, “Fear not. Indeed, it is you who are superior.” [Taa Haa 20:67-68]

So Musa felt fear from the magic of those magicians, [magic] which was falsehood, but fear is from man’s nature.

For this reason when a person can be afraid of a wild animal, a lion, a hyena, the magic of a magician and so on, then how can he not be afraid of the punishment of the Lord of all Creation? And how can he not hope for the everlasting bliss which is with Allaah?

It is not possible for a person to free himself of this at all. So he worships Allaah in the hope of gaining His Paradise and fearing His Fire.

For this reason the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم when describing himself, he mentioned something to them which I don’t recall now …, [he said], “By Allaah! I am the one who fears Allaah the most from all of you and the most pious of you.” So he صلى الله عليه وسلم feared Allaah.

So how can it be possible to imagine a person who worships Allaah and does not fear Him, this is impossible.

Al-Huda wan-Noor, 261.

Musa alaihis-salaam and the Angel of Death | End


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

How was it possible for Musa alaihis-salaam to hit an angel?  And the Angel of Death at that?  And knock his eye out too?

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “As for the difficulty described in the question asking how Musa عليه السلام could hit the Angel of Death, then the answer is–and in this is an indication of what I had said earlier about these people not studying the Sunnah–the answer is found in a narration present in the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad with an authentic chain of narration that, “The Angel of Death used to come to people in the form of a man.”

So when the Angel of Death came to Musa and said to him, “Answer your Lord,” he didn’t come with a sign which made Musa عليه السلام note the fact that this person who just told him to submit his soul to Allaah was sent by Allaah, for he came in the form of a man.

And if someone were to come to any one of us and say to him, “Give me your soul.” What would ones stance be towards him? It would be just like that of Musa عليه السلام, because he would have transgressed into the [area of] duty of a noble angel which no other angels share in with him.

So how can a man go to another like him and say, ‘Submit your soul.’ So his reaction was but to strike him and knock his eye out, this is something natural. Thus every aspect of doubt disappears when we remember this other narration [which states] that the Angel of Death used to come to people in plain view and in the form of a man.

For this reason you can see that at the end of the hadith when the Angel of Death complained about his situation to Allaah saying, “You sent me to a servant who hates death.” Allaah gave him a sign, saying, “Go back to Musa and say to him, ‘Indeed your Lord orders you to place your hand on …” to the end of the hadith, “… on the back of a bull and you will have life for every hair under your hand …’” when the Angel went back to Musa عليه السلام with this clear proof he said, “And what is after that?” He said, “Death.” He replied, “So then let it be now,” and so he took his soul at that time.

Why did he submit the second time and not the first? The answer is now clear. The first thing is that the request was from one man to another … and Musa did not know that he was an angel sent from Allaah and so he hit him. So when the angel came back with a sign from Allaah the Mighty and Majestic he said, “Then let it be now.”

Thus, Musa didn’t hate death but he struck that man’s eye out based on his assumption that he was a man.

When we look at the hadith in light of the explanation of the narration of Imaam Ahmad in his Musnad, the doubt disappears and the saying of those people that this hadith is possibly from the Israaeeli narrations is nullified–which is a futile statement.

For when it is said that a certain narration or hadith is from the Israaeleyat it means that it is something which the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, used to speak about which they received from their predecessors. Some contain truth and others falsehood, for this reason he عليه السلام said, “When the People of the Book narrate to you do not believe or reject them.” This is what something being from the Israaeleyat means.

But there is some detail which must be mentioned due to the fact that I know that this explanation is very rarely read in the books of the scholars. Israaeleyat are [called Israaeleyat due to them being] attributed to the narrating of stories connected to the Children of Israa’eel.

And they are of two categories: the first category, and it is the one which is narrated more and is more common, is that which is reported, as we have just mentioned, from the People of the Book.

And these narrations are very many in number. Like the story, for example, of [the two angels] Harut and Marut and that they were two who were brought close to Allaah the Blessed and Most High, and that when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, said to the angels, And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority.” They said, “Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?” He said, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know.” [Baqarah 2:30].

He said: Allaah wanted to test these angels who said, “Will You place upon it …” He said: Choose two angels from among you who I will send down to earth to test them. So He chose Harut and Marut … a long story the summary of which is: that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic clothed them in the garments of human beings and they were put to trial by a woman so they seduced her but she resisted saying she would not do anything until they killed a boy. But they did not since they knew it was forbidden.

So she presented alcohol to them and they drank it, became drunk, killed the boy and committed fornication with the woman. So Allaah the Blessed and Most High punished them in this world by casting them into a well, upside down, their heads at the bottom and their legs towards the top, and smoke was coming out from the bottom of the well and entered their nostrils and came out from their posterior.

This story is reported in the exegesis of this aayah, and it is from the Israaeleyat and is something which negates the saying of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic about the angels where He said, “…over which are [appointed] angels, harsh and severe; they do not disobey Allaah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded.” [Tahreem 66:6]

So the above story contradicts aayahs like this which openly state that the angels are free from sin and that it is not possible to [even] imagine that they would fornicate or kill a soul without just reason [or do any of the other sins that have] been reported in those Israaeleyat narrations.

There is another type [of Israaeleyat narrations] even if it is less common but it cannot be treated in the same way as the first. This other type is that which the Prophet of Allaah spoke about concerning the Children of Israaeel, such Israaeleyat are correct–because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم spoke about them and [so] it is not from the type reported by the People of the Book.

The examples of this are many and there is no problem in reminding [ourselves] by making mention of one hadith which he عليه السلام said.

That there was a man from the people before you walking in the desert when he heard a voice from the clouds saying, “Water the land of so and so.” The man was amazed and so turned towards the cloud, following it until he saw it emptying its load of water on a [particular] garden.

He approached the garden until he saw its owner who was working there. He gave the greeting of salaam to him and it is as though he called him with the name that he had heard from the sky, so the owner was astounded and said, ‘How do you know?’

He related the story to him, that he heard an angel mention it, ordering the cloud to move to this piece of land which you are working in, so why is that? [He said] I do not know of anything for which I deserve this honour from Allaah except for the fact that I own this land and when I sow the seeds and harvest the crop I divide it into three. I return a third of it to the earth, another third is for me and my family and I give the last third in charity to the poor people around me. So the man said to him, ‘It is because of this,’ i.e., by performing these obligatory duties you deserved this divine care where the cloud was made subservient for you. [Reported by Muslim, no. 7664].

This is a hadith speaking about the Children of Israaeel but who is the one who said it? The Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم who has been described in the Quraan as the one who does not speak out of desire, “It is only a Revelation revealed.” [Najm 53:4].

So since this hadith has been reported in the two Saheehs and is from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم it is not permissible for us to say, ‘It is from the Israaeleyat in meaning,’ and if it must be said that it is then the answer is that it is from the Israaeleyat which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said …”

Mowsu’atul-Allaamah, vol. 8, pp. 172-179.

Musa alaihis-salaam and the Angel of Death | 2


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Is the Hadith about Musa alaihis-salaam knocking out the eye
of the Angel of Death authentic?

The hadith about Musa’s عليه السلام striking the Angel of Death has been reported by Imaam Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs from Abu Hurairah, may Allaah be pleased with him, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “ The Angel of Death came to Musa عليه الصلاة والسلام and said, ‘Answer your Lord …’” i.e., give me yourself and your soul.

So Musa’s عليه السلام response was nothing but to strike him with that hit which took his eye out. The Angel returned, the Angel of Death, returned to his Lord and said, “O Lord! You sent me to a servant who hates death.”

Allaah said to him, “Go back to him and say, ‘Indeed your Lord says to you, ‘Place your hand on the skin of a bull, and you will have as many years [to live] as come under your fingers.’’’”

The Angel of Death went back to Musa عليه السلام and said what he had been ordered to say by his Lord. So Musa said, ‘And what is there after that?’ He replied, ‘Death.’ Thus he said, ‘So let it be now then.’ At that time the Angel of Death took Musa’s soul عليه السلام.

Our Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه said, “If I were there …” i.e., the place where the Angel of Death took the soul of Musa, “I would have shown you his grave near the red sandhill.” This is the text of the hadith in the two Sahihs.

Now the answer requires that I speak about more than one matter. The first is that it is [now] clear after having related this hadith [and seeing that it is] in the two Sahihs that the one who declared it to be weak is [in fact] weak [himself].

That is because he has spoken without knowledge and is from those numerous people who give authority to their intellects, if not their desires, in passing judgement over authentic hadiths [declaring them] to be weak, maybe even saying they are fabricated.

What is their proof for the weakness or fabrication which they have alleged exists? It is the fact that they have set up their intellects as judge, and followed their desires.

“But if the Truth had followed their inclinations, the heavens and the earth and whoever is in them would have been ruined.” [Mu’minoon 23:71]

And that is because faith is weak in the breasts of many people even if they be from those who associate themselves with knowledge. This is from one angle.

From another angle [we can say] that they have not studied the Sunnah in a conscious manner which takes the paths of narration of the hadith into consideration and which removes some of the difficulties that may occur with some people.

So we have clarified that the one who said the hadith is weak is in fact [himself] the one who is weak because he, firstly, opposed the two Imaams who produced the two books which they called The Sahihs and which are, by the unanimous agreement of the Imaams of the Sunnah, the most authentic books after the Book of Allaah, the Blessed and Most High: Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

And not only that, but the Ummah also met them with acceptance, and for this reason no one from the scholars of hadith who were from the ranks of Bukhari and Muslim spoke with any criticism of the hadiths which have come in the two Sahihs. So all of these hadith are established with certainty from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, thus, we do not give any weight to whoever declares a hadith such as this to be weak whatever his status may be or whatever the people may think of his knowledge.

A Midday Nap Forty Years Long


أَتَعْلَمُ أَوَّلُ زُمْرَةٍ تَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ مِنْ أُمَّتِي؟ قُلْتُ: اللهُ وَرَسُوْلُهُ أَعْلَمُ، فَقَالَ: اَلْمُهَاْجِرُوْنَ يَأْتُوْنَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَاْمَةِ إِلَى بَابِ الْجَنَّةِ وَيَسْتَفْتِحُوْنَ، فَيَقُوْلُ لَهُمُ الْخَزَنَةُ: أَوَ قَدْ حُوْسِبْتُمْ؟ فَيَقُوْلَوْنَ: بِأَيِّ شَيْءٍ نُحَاسَبُ وَإِنَّمَا كَانَتْ أَسْيَافُنَا عَلَى عَوَاتِقِنَا فِي سَبِيْلِ اللهِ حَتَّى مِتْنَا عَلَى ذَلِكَ؟ قَالَ: فَيُفْتَحُ لَهُمْ، فَيَقِيْلُوْنَ فِيْهِ أَرْبَعِيْنَ عَامًا قَبْلَ أَنْ يَدْخُلَهَا الْنَّاسُ


From ʿAbdullah ibn ʿAmr that the Prophet of Allaah ﷺ said, “Do you know the first group of people to enter Paradise from my nation?” I said, “Allaah and His Prophet know best.” So he said, “The muhaajiroon. On the Day of Resurrection they will come to the gate of Paradise and ask for it to be opened. So the keepers will say to them, ‘Have your accounts been settled?’ So they will say, ‘And what will we be called to account over when verily our swords were on our shoulders in the Path of Allaah until we died upon that?’ So it will opened for them. So they will have a midday nap[1] therein for forty years before the [other] people enter it.”

[1]  Siesta, Arabic: qailoolah.

Silsilah | 853 | Authentic

The Hour has Drawn Close …


اِقْتَرَبَتِ الْسَّاعَةُ، وَلَا يَزْدَادُ الْنَّاسُ عَلَى الْدُّنْيَا إِلَّا حِرْصًا
وَلَا يَزْدَادُوْنَ مِنَ اللهِ إِلَّا بُعْدًا

From Ibn Mas’ood in marfoo form, “The Hour has drawn close. And the people do not increase except in [their] craving for the world. And they do not increase except in distance from Allaah.”

Silislah | 1510 | Authentic

Musa alaihis-salaam and the Angel of Death | 1


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

The Impermissibility of Speaking without Knowledge

The questioner says, “From Abu Hurairah who said, ‘The Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ‘Musa عليه السلام struck out the eye of the Angel of Death.’ I have heard one of the scholars declaring the hadith to be weak, saying, ‘This hadith exudes the scent of Israaeeliyat narrations.’ So how do we answer them? And is it permissible for us to call the Angel of Death Izraaeel? Is there an authentic narration naming him as Izraaeel? And how is it permissible for a Messenger to hit an angel, bearing in mind that the Angel of Death is powerful? And did Allaah, the One free and far removed from all defects and the Most High, permit Musa عليه السلام to do that?

Al-Albaani:This question has two parts, the first being connected to the hadith of Musa عليه السلام striking the angel until he knocked his eye out. And the second is whether the Angel of Death is called Izraaeel as is widespread among the people. We will answer this second part [first] since its answer is short so that we can turn to answering the first part.

Nothing has been authentically reported from the Prophet whatsoever صلى الله عليه وسلم naming the Angel of Death as Izraaeel. The names Jibreel, Meekaa’eel and Israafeel have come in many hadiths, this is established, but naming the Angel of Death as Izraaeel has no basis in the Sunnah let alone the Noble Quraan.

We return to the first part of the question about the hadith of the Angel of Death and the declaration of whoever declared it to be weak from the scholars.

Before answering the question I want to remind you of a principle accepted by those who are not Muslims too: that it is not permissible for someone who is ignorant of [a particular field of] knowledge to speak about it, because doing so goes against texts from the Book and the Sunnah, from them is the saying of our Lord, the Blessed and Most High, And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heartabout all those [one] will be questioned.” [Israa 17:36].

So for example it is not permissible for the one who wants to speak about medicine to do so if he is a scholar of Quranic exegesis [mufassir], since medicine is not his field. Just as it is not permissible for a doctor who is a specialist in his field to speak about Quranic exegesis or Islamic jurisprudence or other than that, because if both of these people talk about fields which are not their expertise then they have pursued that of which they have no knowledge, and would thus have opposed the previously quoted Quranic text.

I think this is a matter concerning which it is correct to quote the old Arabic parable: this is something about which no two will differ and over which no two rams will clash horns, i.e., it is not permissible for anyone to speak about a certain [field of] knowledge except for the specialists in it.

So when [it is agreed that] this is something accepted we can turn back to the hadith [in question] and other [such hadith]. Who can speak about them? The doctor, for example? The answer, naturally, is no. Can the chemist? [Again] the answer is no. Many, many questions bringing us closer to the reality. Can the mufassir? No. The scholar of Islamic jurisprudence [faqeeh]? The answer is no.

So, who is the one who can speak [about hadith like this]? Indeed it is only the scholar of hadith. And as was said the scholars of hadith, “… were few when counted … so today they have become the fewest of the few.”

So for this reason it is not permissible for the students of knowledge to embroil themselves in something reported from a scholar who does not know what this knowledge entails or its intricacies when he says, “Such and such a hadith is weak.” This is a principle which we must always stick to.

And one of the amazing things about the calamities which have befallen the ummah in terms of their heedlessness of these knowledge-based, established principles in the Book and the Sunnah is that they are very far removed from [understanding/implementing] it. [But] when the turn comes for something which is connected to themselves [personally] you will [indeed] find them implementing that Quranic text which obligates the Muslims to refer back to the specialists [in each field].

For example, when we or someone who concerns us is taken ill, he will not [just] go to any doctor, but rather before everything else he will inquire about a specialist in that [particular] illness, then he will follow up by asking, researching and verifying [details] about a skilled, specialist doctor, [only] then will he go and present himself or his loved ones to him.

As for what is connected to the religion, then the affair has become anarchic without any order. And that is because today every time the people see a person talking about some matters of fiqh or some Quranic verses or prophetic sayings they assume that such a person is the scholar of the age and so they turn [to him] in asking questions and thus fall into that which has been warned against and mentioned in the hadith, “May Allaah kill them! Couldn’t they have asked–i.e., the people of knowledge–for the cure to ignorance is to ask.”

After this I come back to saying that it is not permissible for any person to speak about that which is not his specialism–particularly when it is clear that his speech in the field about which he has spoken without knowledge opposes that of those who are specialists in it …”

Mowsu’atul-Allaamah, vol. 8, pp. 172-179.

A Question on Sayyid Qutb and Qutubis


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

In some Arab countries a group has appeared which claims that they are followers of Sayyid Qutb and that they are the true Salafis, what is your opinion?

Al-Albaani: My opinion is that the problem is just the same and my answer is, “If claims are not supported by proofs then those who make them are only [merely] claimants.”

We believe that Sayyid Qutb, may Allaah have mercy on him, was not Salafi in his methodology for the most part of his life but near the end of his life in prison a strong inclination to the Salafi methodology became apparent from him.

Salafiyyah is not just a claim, Salafiyyah demands acquaintance with the Book and the authentic Sunnah and the Salafi narrations. We know that these people and their likes who claim that their call is established upon the Book and the Sunnah do not know, firstly, the principles of understanding the Book, principles which are well-known from the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah in his book on the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, and [also known from] the words of the Imaams of Quranic exegesis like Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir and other than them: that the Quraan is interpreted with the Quraan and if that cannot be found then with the hadiths and if that cannot be done then with the sayings of the Companions and other than them from the Pious Predecessors.

So those who [merely] claim Salafiyyah do not tread in their exegesis of the Quraan upon this knowledge-based path agreed upon by the scholars of the Muslims.

Questioner: Is this present with the Qutubis?

Al-Albaani: Yes it is. And because of that you will find in Sayyid Qutb’s tafseer some quranic exegesis which takes the course of those who came later and who oppose the Pious Predecessors. Thereafter I want to say that these people do not pay heed to distinguishing the authentic Sunnah from that which is weak, let alone the fact that they do not pay heed to pursuing the narrations from the Companions and the Pious Predecessors. Because it is those narrations that help the scholar in understanding the Book and the Sunnah as we have just explained.

From where will Salafiyyah come to them when they are far removed from understanding the first foundation of Islaam which is the Quraan, [understanding it] upon knowledge-based, correct principles; and they are far-removed from distinguishing the authentic from the weak; and further than both of these is [the fact that they are] far removed from pursuing the narrations of the Pious Predecessors until they are guided by their light and seek illumination through it?

So, the issue is not one of mere claims.

And why do these people claim that they are Salafis? Due to the reason that I have mentioned in some of my past answers, that the Salafi call, due to Allaah’s Grace, now almost covers the Islamic sphere and it has become apparent to those who had enmity towards it, even if only in general, that this call is the true call, and for this reason they ascribe themselves to it even if in their actions they are far removed from it.

Al-Fatwaawaa al-Kuwaitiyyah, 27-28, of Amr Abdul-Mun’im Saleem.

The time Sayyidah Aaishah laughed such that her head fell into the lap of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم


 

From Urwah that Aaishah said, “When I saw that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was in a pleasant mood I said, ‘O Prophet of Allaah! Supplicate to Allaah for me.’

He said, ‘O Allaah! Forgive Aaishah her sins of the past and the future and [any sins] she has kept hidden and what she has made public.’

So Aaishah laughed until her head fell into the lap of the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم due to her laughter.

So he said, ‘Does my supplication please you?’

So she replied, ‘And why shouldn’t your supplication please me?’

So he said, ‘By Allaah! It is my supplication [which I make] for my nation in every prayer.’”

Silsilah | 2254 | Hasan

How many Angels are on earth on the Night of Decree [Lailatul-Qadar]?


لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ لَيْلَةُ سَابِعَةٍ أَوْ تَاْسِعَةٍ وَعِشْرِيْنَ،
إِنَّ الْمَلَائِكَةَ تِلْكَ الْلَّيْلَةَ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَكْثَرُ مِنْ عَدَدِ الْحَصَى

From Abu Hurairah in marfoo’ form, “The Night of Decree [Lailatul-Qadr] is the twenty-seventh or twenty-ninth night. Indeed on that night the [number of] angels on earth is more than the number of pebbles.”

Silsilah | 2205 | Hasan

Do you want Allaah to respond to you in times of hardship and distress?


مَنْ سَرَّهُ أَنْ يَسْتَجِيْبَ اللهُ لَهُ عِنْدَ الشَّدَائِدِ وَالْكَرْبِ فَلْيُكْثِرِ
الدُّعَاءَ فِي الْرَّخَاْءِ

From Abu Hurairah that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Whoever would be delighted by Allaah responding to him in times of hardship and distress, then let him supplicate abundantly when at ease.”

And from Aaishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم would remember Allaah, the Most High, at all times.

Silsilah | 593 &  406

The Importance of the Supplications of the Righteous


From Anas, “When he صلى الله عليه وسلم would strive in supplicating for someone he would say:

جَعَلَ اللهُ عَلَيْكُمْ صَلَاةَ قَوْمٍ أَبْرَار، يَقُوْمُوْنَ الْلَّيْلَ وَيَصُوْمُوْنَ الْنَّهَارَ، لَيْسُوْا بِأَثَمَةٍ وَلَا فُجَّارٍ

Jaʿalallāhu ʿalaikum ṣalāta qowmin abrār, yaqūmūnal-laila wa yaṣūmūna-nahāra laisū bi athamatin wa lā fujjār

‘May Allaah cause to be over you the prayers of a righteous people who stand [in prayer] at night and fast during the day, and who are neither sinners nor wicked evil-doers.’”

Silsilah | 1810 | Saheeh

Sitting Closely in the Gatherings of Knowledge and not Being Distant


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Shaikh al-Albaani said, “It is obligatory upon the students of knowledge to come close in the circles [of knowledge] and not to be distant.  For this outward coming together affects [a person] inwardly.  And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم encouraged this in many hadiths.  For he صلى الله عليه وسلم would order the people to come together and sit closely in the gatherings of knowledge, because this bodily closeness has an affect in bringing the hearts together and [bringing about] mutual love and harmony, which must be realised in the heart of every Muslim.”

Silsilatul-Hudaa wan-Noor, Adabul-Majaalis.

Adding the words, “ونَسْتَهْدِيْهِ And we seek His Guidance,” or “… وَنَتُوْبُ إِلَيْهِ … we turn to Him in repentance,” to the Khutbatul-Haajah


 

“Our Shaikh, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in Silsilah al-Ahadith as-Saheehah (5/6), “I have heard more than one person from the preachers increasing upon this by saying, ‘ ونَسْتَهْدِيْهِ … and we seek His Guidance …’! And while we thank them for reviving this sermon [of need], [using it] in their sermons and lectures, [at the same time] we see it incumbent upon us to remind them that this addition has no basis reported in any of the paths of narration through which this sermon is reported–the Sermon of Need–which I had gathered in a well-known treatise specifically about it, ‘And remind, for reminding profits the believers.’” [Dhaariyaat 51:55].

And in [his book] ‘The Advice’ on page 77 he said, “And the wording, ‘ونَسْتَهْدِيْهِ … and we seek His Guidance …’ is an addition which has no basis in any of the paths of narration of the hadith. And I hear this addition, ‘… and we seek His Guidance …’ many times from some of the notable preachers in some of the Arab countries, and for this reason it is necessary to point it out because the words of remembrance with Ahlus-Sunnah are bound by a religious text and not amenable to personal opinion [tawqi̱fi̱yah], as is known from the Sunnah.”

And he said in, ‘The Decisive Refutation,’ on page 5, “Some of the preachers, and other than them, add [the wording], ‘ونَسْتَهْدِيْهِ … and we seek His Guidance …’ or other than it like, ‘وَنَتُوْبُ إِلَيْهِ … and we turn to Him in repentance …,’ so it should be noted that that has not been reported and it is not permissible to increase upon the teaching of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, as is known.”

As-Saheeh al-Mustakhraj, p. 5.

Striving in Supplicating and what has Been Reported Concerning that


From Abu Hurairah that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Would you love to strive in making supplication [to Allaah]? Say:

اَللَّهُمَّ أَعِنَّا عَلَى شُكْرِكَ وَذِكْرِكَ وَحُسْنِ عِبَادَتِكَ

Al̲lāhumma Aʿinnā ʿalā shukrika wa dhikrika wa ḥusni ʿibādatika

‘O Allaah! Aid us in thanking You, remembering You
and performing well our worship of You.’”

Silsilah | 844 | Saheeh

Whoever memorises the Quraan for the Face of Allaah will not be touched by the Fire inshaa Allaah


 

لَوْ جُعِلَ الْقُرْآنُ فِي إِهَابٍ، ثُمَّ أُلْقِيَ فِي النَّارِ؛ مَا احْتَرَقَ

From Uqbah ibn Aamir, may Allaah be pleased with him, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “If the Quraan were to be placed in leather and then thrown into the Fire, it would not burn.”

Silsilah | 3562 | Hasan

Shaikh al-Albaani said, “… that what is meant is what the Imaams of Hadith have said, from them al-Baihaqi who said in ash-Shu’ab from Abu Abdullaah, ‘i.e., that whoever carries [i.e., memorises] the Quran and recites it will not be touched by the Fire.’” Abu Abdullaah is al-Bushanji. And in al-Asmaa he reported similar to it from Imaam Ahmad.

And there is no doubt that what is intended is one who carries the Quraan, has memorized it and recites it for the Face of Allaah the Blessed and Most High, not seeking any reward or thanks for that from anyone except Allaah the Mighty and Majestic.  For if not, then he will be like the one spoken about by Abu Abdur-Rahmaan, i.e., Abdullaah ibn Yazeed al-Muqri, as occurs in Musnad Abu Ya’laa who said, ‘Its explanation is that whoever gathers the Quraan and then enters the Fire, then he is worse than a pig.’”