When does the student of knowledge deserve the title Shaykh? (1)

Shaykh Yahyaa ibn ‘Ali Al-Hajoori (hafidhahullaah)

A Question: It became a widespread issue among the youth to use the word (shaykh), so when is it permissible to call someone with this title?

The Answer: First of all, Muslims should be careful from excessive flattering; it has been authenticated from Prophet (sallalaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) that he said:

«المدح هو الذبح»

"Flattering is the slaughtering"(2).

And he-the Prophet Muhammad (sallalaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said:

«من كان مادحًا أخاه فليقل: أحسبه كذلك، والله حسيبه»

"He who wants to flatter his brother then let him say: I think he is that [good] and Allah is his judge"(3).

Secondly, the word shaykh has many uses, such as the one who is senior in age, and the proof for this is the statement of Allah:

﴿قَالَتَا لا نَسْقِي حَتَّى يُصْدِرَ الرِّعَاءُ وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ﴾

{They said: "We cannot water (our flocks) until the shepherds take back (their flocks): And our father is a very old man.”} [Surah Qasas: 23]

It is also used for the narrators of hadeeth who are neither weak nor a hujjah [acceptable evidence]. Ad-Dahabi said in his book Muqatimaul-Meezaan, and I did not mention those who were called shaykh by others, such saying and it's like indicates that the person called shaykh is not very weak in narration. And it is possible that Ibnul-Qattan[from the scholars of hadeeth in the past] has used the word shaykh to describe someone who is not from the people of knowledge nor he is from the seekers of knowledge even if he narrated a hadeeth which [the scholars of hadeeth] have agreed upon. Ibnul-Qattan mentioned Taalib bin Hajeer in his book Bayaanul-Wahm wal Ehaam and said he was not a student of knowledge nor from those who are keen in it, rather was a man whose narrations were agreed upon [by the scholars of hadeeth]. Also, Ahmad bin Hanbal said concerning Zakariyyah bin Manthoor : He is a shaykh and soft [in terms of knowledge] , this was mentioned in the book Tarteebul-Madaarik for 'Ayaadh the Judge. And in the same source, he narrated from Ibn aby Haatim [from the scholars of hadeeth in the past] his verdict on 'Uthmaan bin Al-Hakam which is : he is a shaykh who is not keen.

Therefore, this can be summarised as the following: the word shaykh is the least stage of Ta'deel [ considering someone as trustworthy in narration], and the first stage by which jarh [considering to be weak or untrustworthy in narration].

As for calling the master of a tribe or a family as a shaykh then this was not known among the early men [al-mutaqaddimoon], rather the title that was given to the man who rules over his people at their time was sayyed, as it was said by the Prophet Muhammad (sallalaahu ‘alaihi wasallam)  in a hadeeth:

«من سيّدكم يا بني سلمة؟!» قالوا: الجد بن قيس غير أنا نبخله. قال: «وأي داء أدوأ من البخل؟! سيدكم عمرو بن الجموح»

“Oh the children of Salamah[a tribe] who is your sayyed? They replied: Aljidu bin Qays but we rather consider him as a miser. The Prophet (sallalaahu ‘alaihi wasallam)  said: and what illness is worse than the illness of miserliness?! Your sayyed is 'Amro bin Al-Jamooh"(4).

 And it was narrated in another hadeeth "then the sayyed of that hood was bitten. So they sought a remedy for him by every mean and nothing worked. So some of them said: maybe you should go and ask those people who were here earlier; perhaps they have some sort of a cure. So a group of the tribe approached the companions and said to them: our sayyed was bitten and we have tried to cure him but nothing worked, so does anyone of you have a remedy? Then someone said: By Allah I make ruqyah..." until the end of the hadeeth. It has been narrated from the sunnah too the word" 'Urafaa' " which is the plural of 'Areef, this is the title that is given to the leaders of tribes at the moment. And praise be to Allah.

Footnotes:

1-      Questions from the house of the jurist, on the night of Saturday, 6th of Safar 1423H. Dammaj, the house of Hadeeth.

2-       Narrated from Ibnu-Umar in the book of ibn aby shaybah,vol 6 page 206.

3-       Narrated by Al-bukhari no 2662 and Muslim no 3000 on the authority of Aby Bakrah.

4-       Reported by Al-bukhari in Al-adabul-mufrad page no 111, and in it is mentioned in As-saheehul-musnad no 226.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translated by our brother Aboo Bakr Ahmad Ad-Dhibyaanee (Jazaahullaah Khair)

Ramadan Page Added

Ramadan Page  -
رُكـــــن شـهـــــر رمـضـــــان المبـــــارك
Added!

A new page has been added to the blog to cater for the days of the blessed month of Ramadaan. We will be post links to articles and issues pertaining to Ramadaan from the well known Salafee sites, to provide a section where resources can be easily located.

The ruling of performing the Funeral Prayer in a mosque where there is a grave

                            Imaam Al-Albaani (rahimahullaah)

Q: Does the prohibition of the prayer in a mosque which includes a grave also extend to the funeral prayer conducted in such a mosque?

A: Is this not a prayer? No prayers must be performed in a mosque where there is a grave! It has been narrated by the multitudes (mutawaatir) that the Messenger (sallalaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) has prohibited this! We have gathered these narrations in the book ‘Tahdhir As-Saajid ‘An it-tihaadh Quboorul Masaajid’.

Q: We neither bow nor prostrate in the funeral prayer because there are some reasons ('ilal) for the prohibitions of bowing (ruku') and prostrations (sujud).

Some say that the Prophet (sallalaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) forbade the prayer in a mosque where there is a grave is because it would be said that the one who prays will bow and prostrate to the grave. So, is it correct to understand that if the reason ('illah) does not exist then the ruling on this prohibition would be void?

A: What is this reason ('illah)?

Q: Prostration to the one in the grave.

A: This 'illah is an 'illah 'aqliyyah (a reason based on one's intellect), this is not an 'illah naqliyyah (a reason based on textual evidence) so it is not permissible to base a shar'ee hukm (a legislative verdict) opposing the general texts.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Silsilah Huda Wa-Noor, Cassetter no. 385

To download the original audio please click here.

Public decry of the Times Square bomb incident

Ibrāhīm Husain Sharīf al-Māldīfī

Today, we are disheartened and disappointed with the newest heir to 9/11. Less than a week ago, one of the busiest junctions of New York City was shut down after a policeman discovered a crude bomb of propane and firecrackers inside a parked car. 

The US has no lack of violent White Supremacists, neo-Nazis, or eco-terrorists: yet in the early hours after the discovery the media rumour-mill did not hesitate to focus a great, unwavering spotlight on Muslims at large; "Islamic terrorism", rather. 

Such is how we are now seen.

 Two days later, the police arrest a Pakistani Muslim man named Faisal Shahzad. We don't know his motives, but if he had believed that this was jihad of some sort, then this would be no different from what was said by the ignorants before him. 

 Divorced from the scholars of the Sunnah, they are those who've hoped to find truth in the angry preaching of renegades. Some, in the West, have come to believe in the reward of inflicting destruction upon the populace; believing that to work for that aim would be a great jihad.

If one public denunciation were enough, this article would not be necessary. Our audience would suffice themselves with the warnings of the scholars, and would not revere the wild and ignorant youths of the pulpits.  

Though grossly overlooked and marginalized, the stance of the people of the Sunnah is clear. If the Sunni scholars did not speak out after 9/11; and they surely did; they spoke out after July 7; and if not after that, they surely spoke out after Fort Hood. As indeed, as the noble Prophet (salla Allah 'alaihi wassalam) said, as collected by Imam Muslim:

“Whoever among you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand [by taking action]; if he cannot, then with his tongue [by speaking out]; and if he cannot, then with his heart [by at least hating it and believing that it is wrong], and that is the weakest of faith.”

There is no just cause claimed here by the renegades, there is no jihad in the murder of women and children, no jihad in taking hostages and detonating bombs to inflict suffering on a populace. After 9/11, the Mufti of Saudi Arabia said,

 "Indeed, Allah, free from all imperfections has forbidden oppression on His own Self, and He has also forbidden it for His slaves, as He says in this hadith qudsi: 'O My Servants, indeed I have forbidden oppression upon Myself and I have made it forbidden among yourselves, hence to not oppress each other'...these events that have taken place in the United States, and whatever else like these: plane hijacking, hostage-taking, killing innocents, all without a just cause: this is nothing but a manifestation of injustice, oppression and tyranny which the Islamic Shari'ah neither sanctions nor accepts--rather, it is explicitly forbidden and is amongst the greatest of sins". 

Yet, the renegades prevail and the young; like the fifteen year old Ayman al-Zawahiri coming to revere the recently executed Syed Qutb, and like the youths on the streets of Luton and Brixton being recruited; follow.

Such is the error of the youth. 

"They are more like the Qaraamitah," says Sheikh al-Fawzaan regarding the renegades, "...Because the actions of the Qaraamitah are secret, based on secrecy and underhandedness and what these people do today is also based on secrecy."

[these renegades] are even more violent and extreme than the original Khawaarij. They did not destroy buildings and their residents...they used to fight on the battlefield despite their ignorance [of their cause]. But they did not collapse buildings on everyone inside them--women, children, the innocent, those at peace with Muslims, those who have a treaty with the Muslims, and others guaranteed safety... this is worse and more violent..."

Our stance is clear: as adherents of the pure understanding of the Quran and Sunnah, we decry and denounce terrorism of all forms. We are not the compromising "moderates", those darlings of the Western media, and we have no desire to conceal and twist the truth to appease anyone: We denounce and decry it because such acts of violence has been forbidden by the Quran and Sunnah. We denounce Faisal Shahzad's attempt on a civilian population as oppression and tyranny with the same anger with which we denounce the violent attacks on Moscow, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv; and with the same indignation with which we denounce and mourn the Zionist entity's tyrannical oppression of our Muslim brethren.