Reconciling the fact that the khaleefah should be from Quraysh with the hadeeth about obeying an Abyssinian slave

 

What is the understanding pertaining to the statement in the "Aqeedah " that the Khalifat belongs to the Quraish, how does the Hadith pertain to "Obey the Amir even if he be an Abysinnian with a head like a raisin", could you pls help us to reconcile this and may Allah guide us to accept the truth?

Praise be to Allaah. 

The hadeeth about the rulers being
from Quraysh is a saheeh hadeeth which was narrated through many isnaads.
The basic principle is that the leader should be from Quraysh. But in
the case where the khaleefah has seized power by force and is ruling
the people by force, the people have to obey him and it is haraam to
rebel against him, even if he is an Abyssinian slave as it says in the
hadeeth. 

Don’t be such a fanatic!

 

What is the ruling on a person who, when he is advised with regard to an action which goes against sharee’ah, immediately says, “Don’t be such a fanatic and so extreme; be moderate.” We hope you can explain what moderation is.

Praise be to Allaah. 

Whoever
is advised concerning something that is haraam according to sharee’ah,
so that he can avoid it or give it up, or is told of an obligation so
that he can fulfil it, then he says something like this, is doing wrong.
What he should do, if he is advised, is to thank the person who has
offered the advice, then he should look at himself and if the advice
was justified, then he should avoid the haraam thing and do what is
obligatory. As far as his comment “you are a fanatic” is concerned,
fanaticism, laxity and moderation are all to be understood in reference
to sharee’ah. Whatever is in accordance with sharee’ah is moderate;
whatever exceeds that is extreme and whatever falls short of that is
laxity. The standard in all cases is sharee’ah and the meaning of moderation
is that which is in accordance with the sharee’ah. Whatever is in accordance
with sharee’ah is moderate.

Appointing an ameer (leader)

 

What is the ruling on appointing someone
as an ameer when not travelling, such as when a group of young men are sharing a flat or
in a camp that is held within the city or elsewhere?

Praise be to Allaah.

The reports that have been narrated concerning
appointing an ameer refer specifically to when people are travelling, because when people
are travelling they need to be able to refer their opinions to a leader or ameer. But when
people are not travelling, usually each individual is busy with his own affairs and they
do not need an ameer.

But they may appoint someone to be the head of their society or group,
so if for example they are living in a flat, they may say” we need someone to
organize our affairs in this flat, so we will appoint So and so to be our head or
ameer.” Then they can discuss with him the running of this household’s affairs,
such as what kind of food to have, setting times of rest, deciding what needs to be
bought, and so on, so they discuss these things with him and agree to accept what he says.
This is correct, in sha Allaah.

 

Proportional representation in Islamic centers

 

Is proportional representation in Islam alowable or not.The situation is thus, if there are say 10 Muslim organisations(each with a differant
number of members) and they all join together to form one mother organisation so that they can co-ordinate between the Islamic work between each other. Is it
permissible that we catogorise the organisation according to their membership.
That is if one organisation has 1-100 members they get one vote, 101-200
members they get two votes and so on, Is this permissible in Islam? I hope you can answer this thank you

Praise be to Allaah.



There is no problem with this because it is a way of organizing things in order to reach the right
or better opinion, by using points to represent groups according to their size or number of
members. But you should know that a "one man one vote" system may be unfair if the people
involved are not equal in trustworthiness, ability, knowledge and experience that are necessary
for the kind of decision-making that you want to undertake. If they are equal or close enough,
then "one man one vote" is fair and wise. The people of authority (ahl al-hall wa’l-’aqd) in this
ummah are those who have knowledge and virtue, who are rational and wise, and who are
prominent and distinguished. These, not the ignorant masses whose opinion is worthless, are
the ones who select the khaleefah. May Allaah help you to do that which will please Him.

Muslim attitudes towards violence and how to react to kaafir aggression against the Muslim community

 

In view of the critical situation which we Muslims are now facing in America, with aggression – which may reach the point of killing – shots being fired at mosques, women with hijaab being harassed in the streets, assaults against Muslim students in schools and universities, persecution of some Muslim employees in their workplaces, all because of the recent events in which some Muslim persons are being accused of causing explosions in the capital and elsewhere, we want to ask whether it is permissible for us to forego praying in jamaa’ah or praying Jumu’ah in the mosque? And what about our women’s hijaab? And what is the ruling on us foregoing Islamic dress?

Praise be to Allaah and blessings and peace be upon the
Messenger of Allaah. 

What we have heard about what our Muslim brothers are
going through in kaafir countries in the north and the south, where
they are being harassed and persecuted for something in which they did
not take part and in which they played no role, is not strange, given
the wrongdoing and hatred of the kuffaar, even though they claim to
be the people of justice, fairness and freedom. What is the crime of
a Muslim woman who walks down the street in her hijaab? What is the
crime of a Muslim who leaves his home to go and pray, not to spread
mischief in the land? What is the crime of a Muslim employee who goes
to his company or a student who goes to his university or a schoolgirl
who is walking to her school, not going out to bomb and destroy? If
the western man in the street was fair-minded – at least with himself
– he would go and take revenge on the people who plotted and took part
in harming him. But one who does not fear God could do anything, and
the very least that the Muslims will be faced with is curses and insults.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“and you shall certainly hear much that will grieve
you from those who received the Scripture before you (Jews and Christians)
and from those who ascribe partners to Allaah; but if you persevere
patiently, and become Al-Muttaqoon (the pious) then verily, that
will be a determining factor in all affairs”[Aal ‘Imraan 3:186] 

Our attitude must be clear; we must explain to the kuffaar
the ruling of Islamic sharee’ah concerning harming and killing others.
We should tell them that Islam forbids harming innocent people in any
way, whether that involves harming their bodies, their wealth or their
honour. The Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be neither
harming nor reciprocating harm.” It is not permissible to kill a kaafir
who is not hostile or who has a legitimate peace treaty with the Muslims;
rather treating a non-hostile kaafir with kindness is part of the Islamic
religion, especially if that is done to call him to Islam and soften
his heart (towards Islam). Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly
with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove
you out of your homes. Verily, Allaah loves those who deal with equity”[al-Mumtahinah
60:8] 

At times of war against the kuffaar, it is not permissible
for a Muslim to deliberately kill a kaafir child or woman who is not
bearing arms against the Muslims or helping in the fight. It was narrated
that the Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the Muslim army:
“Go out in the name of Allaah and by the help of Allaah, following the
way of the Messenger of Allaah. Do not kill any old man, infant, child
or woman… spread goodness and do good, for Allaah loves those who do
good.” (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2614; its isnaad includes Khaalid ibn
al-Faraz, of whom Ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb, he is maqbool
(acceptable) i.e., if there are corroborating reports) 

This is supported by the advice which Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq
(may Allaah be pleased with him) gave to the commander of his army:
“I advise you of ten things: do not kill a woman, or a child, or any
old person, or cut down any fruit trees…” (al-Muwatta’, 982,
Kitaab al-Jihaad). 

The kaafirs whom the Muslims fight and inflict harm and
loss upon are the kaafirs who fight the Muslims and drive them out of
their homes, or help to drive them out of their homes and punish and
mistreat them, and who stand in the way of calling people to Islam and
prevent people from following the path of Allaah, and prevent the spread
of Islam. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“It is only as regards those who fought against you
on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped
to drive you out, that Allaah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever
will befriend them, then such are the Zaalimoon (wrongdoers
those who disobey Allaah).”[al-Mumtahinah 60:9] 

Such people are to be fought against when [the Muslims]
have the power to do so, and when fighting them and declaring jihad
against them is more likely to serve a purpose. But when you can achieve
your purpose with gentleness and kindness, it is not right to resort
to violence and force. Muslims should only use force when they are compelled
to, and as a last resort. They should not initiate fighting, unless
there is some cause on the part of the kaafirs, such as their fighting
the Muslims, or helping other enemies of the Muslims, or preventing
them from following the path of Allaah and establishing the law of Allaah
in the land. 

We should also remind these kaafirs of the massacres
which have been carried out and are still being carried out against
Muslims in all parts of the world, in Bosnia, Kosova, Chechnya, Palestine
and Kashmir, which are being supported by Jews, Christians and others.
Is the blood of the Muslims cheaper than the blood of others? Should
there be mourners for non-Muslims who are killed and not for Muslims
who are killed? 

Moreover, when the Orthodox Christians carried out massacres
in Bosnia and Kosova, in which the numbers of those killed exceeded
200,000, apart from those who were wounded or raped, and the economic
losses that resulted, did the Muslims in the Arab and Islamic countries
launch attacks against the Orthodox Christians who live in their countries,
or kill any of them, or open fire against their churches and subject
them to terror?! What does this tell you? 

It is very important for Muslims to explain these things
to non-Muslims, in order to establish proof against the kuffaar. This
is something that Allaah wants. Secondly, among the kuffaar there are
intelligent and fair-minded people, and people who are receptive to
the guidance of Islam; perhaps they will be affected by a clear explanation.
Thirdly, no Muslim should permit himself to be accused without explaining
his innocence. The distorted image of Muslims is one of the things that
is keeping the kaafirs away from the truth and being affected by the
Muslims; indeed it may make them treat the Muslims like outcasts, resulting
in additional wrongdoing towards the Muslims. 

With regard to the question, it is permissible for a
Muslim at times of tribulation, when they cannot walk safely through
the streets or reach the mosque safe and sound, to pray at home and
not attend prayers in jamaa’ah. But we must examine the situation more
carefully before deciding not to attend Jumu’ah prayer because of its
extreme importance. So we should not stop praying in jamaa’ah or stop
attending Jumu’ah prayers on the grounds of mere speculation or an unlikely
possibility of aggression. Rather if a person is certain or believes
it to be most likely that he will be attacked if he goes to the mosque,
then it is permissible for him not to go.

Among the opinions of the scholars concerning the permissibility
of refraining from going to Jumu’ah prayers or prayers in jamaa’ah because
of fear is the comment of Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him)
who said: “The one who is sick and the one who is afraid is excused
from attending them – i.e., Jumu’ah and prayers in jamaa’ah – according
to the view of most of the scholars. Ibn ‘Abbaas narrated that the Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever hears the
call to prayer and is not prevented from responding by an excuse –’
They said, ‘What is the excuse, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, ‘Fear
or sickness, (otherwise) the prayer that he offers will not be accepted.’”
(narrated by Abu Dawood, 1/130. Shaykh al-Albaani classed this version
of the hadeeth as da’eef (weak), but he classed as saheeh (sound) the
version narrated by Ibn Maajah, 793, which says: “Whoever hears the
call and does not come, his prayer is not valid, except for one who
has an excuse.” Al-Irwaa’ 2/337). And Bilaal used to give the
call to prayer; one day the Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came when he was sick, and
said, ‘Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer.’” (al-Bukhaari, 633;
Muslim, 418) 

Fear is of three kinds: fear for oneself, fear for one’s
wealth, and fear for one’s family. The first kind means fearing capture
by an oppressive ruler, or an enemy, or a thief, or attack by wild animals,
or a flood, etc., which may cause harm to oneself.

 The second kind means fear for one’s wealth if
one leaves home, as we have mentioned, such as oppressive rulers, thieves
and the like, or fear that one’s house may be broken into or burned
down or something like that; in such cases one is excused from attending
Jumu’ah and prayers in jamaa’ah.  

The third kind means fear for one’s child and family.
In all such cases one is excused from attending Jumu’ah and prayers
in jamaa’ah. This was the view of ‘Ataa’, al-Hasan, al-Oozaa’i and al-Shaafa’i,
and we know of no difference of opinion concerning this matter.”

(summarized from al-Mughni, 2/376). 

In Fataawa al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz,
when a man asked him about refraining from attending prayers in jamaa’ah
because he was afraid for his wife, he said, “If there is some danger
to your wife (at home) and she is not safe, and she is surrounded by
things which give rise to fear, then he is excused for praying at home
because of his fear for his wife…” Then he said: “But if your wife is
not safe and the place is not safe, and danger is present, then it is
o.k. for you to pray at home; this is a legitimate excuse…” 

Majmoo’ Fataawa Samaahat al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz
(may Allaah have mercy on him), 12/42 

With regard to Muslim women, they should stay in their
homes and not go out – as much as they can – lest they be exposed to
harm. Their relatives and neighbours should help them to meet their
needs so that they will not be forced to go out. This is a means of
earning great reward by helping those who are in desperate need. 

With regard to Muslim men giving up distinctive Islamic
dress and wearing the clothes commonly found in the kaafir society in
which he lives, that is o.k., especially at times of persecution and
harassment. Imaam Ibn Taymiyah said: 

“The Muslim in a kaafir country that is at war with the
Muslims or otherwise is not commanded to differ from them in outward
appearance, because of the harm that may result from that. Rather it
is recommended or obligatory for men to resemble them sometimes in his
outward appearance, if that serves a religious purpose such as calling
them to Islam, or finding out about their true state of affairs in order
to inform the Muslims of that, or warding off their harm from the Muslims,
and other righteous goals.” (Iqtidaa’ al-Siraat al-Mustaqeem,
p. 176). 

The
words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah must be understood correctly.
He is speaking of special circumstances or cases of necessity; he does
not mean at all that Muslims should become assimilated with the kaafirs
and do evil things or drink alcohol with them or that Muslim children
should go to churches and lose their Islamic identity. Rather what is
meant is that it is permissible to forego distinctive Islamic dress
– for example – and wear clothing of the type prevalent in the kaafir
country, and to speak the language of the kaafirs, etc., in order to
ward off the harm of the kaafirs, especially in an atmosphere that is
charged with hostility, such as that mentioned in the question. 

Perhaps these events will give the Muslims who are living
in kaafir lands unnecessarily and for no shar’i purpose the opportunity
to review their situation and consider going back to the Muslim world
and making hijrah from the land of the kaafirs. 

We ask Allaah to protect us and all our Muslim brothers
from harm, wrongdoing and evil, and guide us to the right path. May
Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and grant him peace. 

 

 

Islam Question and Answer - Her husband is very bad-tempered and has divorced her three times

Her husband is very bad-tempered and has divorced her three times

I have been married for approximately nine years. My husband is a very very bad-tempered person, more than you can imagine. When he gets angry he loses his mind and does things that he does not mean. I am not giving excuses, but this is how it is and Allaah is witness to that. My problem is that on several such occasions he spoke the word of divorce (talaaq) and I want to know: does this count as a divorce or not? 


On the first occasion we were travelling abroad and there was a big problem. He said to me: “You are divorced when we go back to our country.” He says that this was intended as a threat, to scare me. In fact we came back to our country and he forgot about the matter, but I did not forget. I asked our Shaykh and he said that this did not count as a divorce and he explained that to me. 


On the second occasion, following a big problem he beat me then left the house. I did something foolish, and sent him nine messages on his cell phone, all of them insults and put-downs. He sent me a message saying “You are divorced.” That happened in the afternoon, and he came back at night and it was as if nothing had happened and we made up. On that occasion I also asked a Shaykh and he said that the divorce sent by message did not count. 


On the third occasion, there was another big problem and he got very angry, to such an extent that he did not know what he was doing. He divorced me and I went to my family’s home, but he went to the court and the qaadi ruled that the divorce did not count, so he took me back after the family got involved, and I went back to him. 


In all these cases he did not really mean to divorce me, and in fact the last of these incidents took place nearly two years ago. He has not repeated these words since, and his temper has calmed down in general. But my problem is that I always wonder whether I am living with him in haraam? Did the divorce count as such? I do no know if the shaytaan is whispering to me or not?.

 

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: we ask Allaah to make things easier for you and to
help you and guide you, and to set things straight between you and your
husband. 

Secondly:  

With regard to what you have asked about in these three
incidents, the answer is as follows: 

1 – In this case your husband said to you, “You are divorced
when we return to our country.” In this case the divorce took effect when
you returned to your country, because this was a clear statement of divorce,
i.e., it was not intended to encourage you to do something or prevent you
from doing something, or to confirm or deny something. 

If we assume that he said: “I meant that I would divorce you
after coming back,” this cannot be accepted from him either, because his
saying, “You are divorced” is clearly one of the words of divorce (talaaq),
so it cannot be accepted that he meant it as a threat of divorce. 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:  

An oath to divorce is a statement of divorce by means of
which the person intends to encourage (his wife) to do something, or to
prevent her from doing something, or to urge his listeners to believe him or
disbelieve him. This is the oath to divorce which is intended to encourage
or discourage something, or to confirm or deny something, unlike a statement
of divorce which is intended as such, which cannot be regarded as an oath,
such as saying, “When the sun rises, my wife is divorced,” or “When Ramadaan
comes, my wife is divorced.” This is not described as an oath (yameen),
rather it is simply a statement of divorce in which a condition is
stipulated, and when the stipulated event takes place, the divorce comes
into effect. 

End quote from Fataawa al-Talaaq, p. 129-131 

We have already answered a similar matter in question no.
43481 

2 – In this incident, he sent you a message by phone saying,
“You are divorced.” This depends on his intention at the time of writing it.
If he was determined to divorce you, then it counts as a divorce, but if he
wrote that but meant something other than divorce, such as to alarm his
family and scare them, then it does not count as a divorce because that was
not his intention.  

See the answer to question no.

72291. 

3 – In this incident, he got so angry that he did not know
what he was doing, and he divorced you, then he went to the court and the
qaadi ruled that the divorce did not count. What matters here is the ruling
passed by the qaadi, because there are some cases of anger in which divorce
does not count. From what your husband told him, the qaadi may have realized
that his anger was so intense that it means that the divorce does not count.
In the answer to question no.
45174 we have mentioned the ruling on a divorce given in a moment of
anger. 

Our advice to this husband is to fear Allaah and to control
his tongue and avoid uttering words of divorce, so that this will not led to
the break-up of his family. 

We ask Allaah to help and guide you both. 

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

 

Islam Question and Answer - Divorce at the time of menses

 

Divorce at the time of menses

On the first day of her menses she forgot to tell her husband, and asked him for a divorce, and the third talaaq was issued. Then she remembered that and told him. What is the shar’i response to that?.

 

Praise be to Allaah.

The fuqaha’ differed as to whether the divorce of a
menstruating woman counts as such or not. The majority are of the view that
it does count as such, but there is a group of ‘ulama’ who say that it does
not, and this is the view reflected in the fatwas of many contemporary
fuqaha’ such as Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) and Shaykh
Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him). 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Divorce
of a menstruating woman does not count as such according to the more sound
of the two scholarly opinions, which is contrary to the view of the
majority. The majority of scholars think that it does count as such, but the
correct scholarly view is that reflected in the fatwas of some of the
Taabi’een and in the fatwa of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him).
This is also the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his
student Ibn al-Qayyim and a number of scholars who said that this divorce
does not count as such, because it is contrary to the laws of Allaah. Allaah
decreed that a woman should be divorced when she is in a state of purity,
free from nifaas (postpartum bleeding) and menses, and during a time of
purity when her husband has not yet had intercourse with her. This is the
divorce that is prescribed according to sharee’ah. If he divorces her during
her menses or nifaas, or during a time of purity when he has had intercourse
with her, then his divorce is bid’ah (an innovation) and does not count as
such according to the more sound of the two scholarly views, because Allaah
says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“O Prophet! When you divorce women, divorce them at their
‘Iddah (prescribed periods) and count (accurately) their ‘Iddah ”

[al-Talaaq 65:1] 

What this means is when they are pure (not menstruating) and
you have not had intercourse with them. This is what the scholars have said
about divorcing them at their prescribed periods, they should be pure (not
menstruating) and you should not have had intercourse with them, or they
should be pregnant. This is what is meant by divorce at their prescribed
periods. End quote from Fataawa al-Talaaq, p. 44 

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (20/58):
There are several kinds of innovated divorce: where a man divorces his wife
during her menses or nifaas, or during a time of purity when he has had
intercourse with her. The correct view is that this does not count as a
divorce. End quote. 

Based on this, if the divorce was issued at the time of her
menses, it does not count and the woman is still married to her husband. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was
asked about a man who divorced his wife when she was menstruating but he did
not know that she was menstruating – does this divorce count as such? 

He replied: 

The scholars differed concerning a divorce that takes place
when a woman has her monthly period, and there was a lengthy discussion as
to whether the divorce counts or not. The majority of scholars are of the
view that it does count as such and is regarded as a divorce, but the man
should be told to take her back and keep her until she has become pure from
her menses, then menstruated a second time and become pure. Then if he
wishes he may keep her and if he wishes he may divorce her. This is the view
of the majority of scholars, include the four imams: Ahmad, al-Shaafa’i,
Maalik and Abu Haneefah. But the more correct view in our opinion is that
favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him),
that divorce at the time of menses does not count as such, because it goes
against the command of Allaah and His Messenger. The Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever does any action that is not
in accordance with this matter of ours will have it rejected.” The evidence
concerning this very issue is the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar, when he
divorced his wife at the time of her menses. He told the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about that and the Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) got very angry and said:
“Tell him to take her back, then keep her until she has become pure, then
menstruated, then become pure, then if he wishes he may keep her after that
and if he wishes he may divorce her.” Then the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “That is the prescribed period at
which Allaah has commanded men to divorce women.” The prescribed period at
which Allaah has commanded men to divorce women means that a man may only
divorce his wife when she is pure (not menstruating) and he has not had
intercourse with her. Based on this, if he divorces her when she is
menstruating, he has not divorced her in accordance with the command of
Allaah, so it is to be rejected. We think that the divorce that has been
issued to this woman does not count as such, and that the woman is still
married to her husband. It does not matter whether the husband knew that she
was menstruating or not menstruating when he issued the divorce. Yes, his
knowledge of her condition does not matter, but if he knew about that then
he has committed a sin, and the divorce does not count. If he did not know,
then the divorce still does not count, but there is no sin on the husband.
End quote. 

Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/268.

Islam Q&A