Shield of Taqwā

There are numerous authentic evidences including a sahīh Isnād to show Abū Hanīfah is the forefounder of the Ash’arī/Māturīdī school, although the Ash’arī school added an additional fourth innovation by rejecting Sifāt of actions, including their rejection of Allāh’s Sifāt of pleasure and anger, whilst Abū Hanīfah and Imām Ahmad opposed those who did such. These are the 3 points of Tabdī’ between Imāms of Hadīth and the school of Abū Hanīfah (Māturīdiyyah) in Sifāt. Based on careful observation of evidences, the position of Imām Ahmad has clear authentic Isnāds to Sahābah and Tābi’īn affirming speech being letters, a clear distance between Allāh & creation which implies affirming a spatial dimension (Al-Hadd). In saying that, Abū Hanīfah along with the Maturīdiyyah/Ash’ariyyah are only upon a minor bid’ah for opposing the Haqq in these 3 topics according to numerous Atharī Imāms, therefore Ash’aris/Maturidis/Atharis are all from Ahlus-Sunnah إن شاء الله although the pure Sunnī is the Hanbalī Atharī. Even though there are narrations from Imām Ahmad and others among Ahlul-Hadīth showing rejecting Allāh speaks with letters as being “Kufr”, based upon principles of Usūl al-Fiqh and the doubts surrounding the “7 letters” in Qirā’āt, the Hanafī school used Qiyās mistakenly thinking Ibn Mas’ūd was upon their ‘Aqīdah in rejecting Allāh speaks with letters, and this can be a major factor to consider when classifying their bid’ah as a “minor innovation”, since they still affirm Allāh is ascribed with speech (spoke the Qur’ān in His essence although without letters as Ahmad stated), unlike the Mu’tazilah who claim Allāh isn’t described with speech at all (which is clear Kufr). And Allāh knows best.

Tūfī explains the hadīth in Sahīh Muslim which states Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited the earning from selling cats. “The scholars differed regarding the permissibility of selling it. The one who prohibited it used this hadīth as evidence, while the one who permitted it argued that it is pure and beneficial, and that the Lawgiver likened it to those who make Tawāf around you, which are the servants. They also interpreted the prohibition in the hadīth as referring to an animal that cannot be possessed, or to a wild cat, because it is incapable of being controlled, like the run-away slave and the stray animal (which escaped – selling something like this is haram as you don’t have possession of it). Both of these interpretations are extremely far-fetched. The stronger view is to understand the prohibition as indicating dislike (karāhah), in light of the preceding evidence establishing permissibility. And Allāh knows best.” • Sharh Mukhtasar Sunan at-Tirmidhī (4/478). Benefit; Imām al-Buhūtī clarifies the official Hanbalī madhab permits selling cats in “Kashāf al-Qinā’” (3/153); "(And it is permissible to sell a cat) because of what is in the Ṣaḥīḥ: ‘A woman entered the Fire because of a cat that she confined.’ The basic principle regarding the lām (in لها, ‘belonging to her’) is that it denotes ownership. Also because it is an animal whose benefit and keeping are unconditionally permissible, so it is comparable to a mule.

“If they are poor, Allah will enrich them out of His bounty.” (24:32) “Yā Akhawāt, no woman dies from hunger because her husband is poor. But many hearts have been broken by living with a wealthy man who lacks faith, good character, and fear of Allah. Poverty may make life difficult at times, but a corrupt character can make life miserable every day. Wealth can provide comfort for the body, but religion, good character, and righteousness bring peace to the heart. So when choosing a husband, look first to his religion and character before his wealth. For a righteous man with little wealth is far better than a wealthy man who has no concern for Allah. Money can buy many things, but it can never buy piety, good character, or a peaceful home.” — Shared.

If you want to know the righteousness of a person, then look at how their wedding is as any righteousness goes out the window anytime a wedding is involved. This disease is not just widespread amongst disbelievers or those who are not practising Muslims, but for many years now, it is being spread among people who display themselves as practising. This issue must be thoroughly discussed before agreeing to marry someone but unfortunately it seems to be a matter that is overlooked. Do not marry anyone who wants to compromise on harām or even disliked matters when organising a wedding. They are not worth it no matter how much you think otherwise as they are making you commit harām as well. Only marry someone whose Islamic principles and values align exactly as yours, this is the path to a successful marriage. There is no such thing as making tawbah later. This is playing a dangerous game and insulting Allāh, as how will you know you will be alive to even make tawbah? How can you throw your principles out the window for a mere few hours? Do you care so little about your future marriage that doing a little harām doesn’t matter to you? This is what pleases the Shaytān, not Allāh. What is worse is when one of the parties, especially the man, knows deep in their heart what is being done is wrong Islamically but still allows the events to be planned. What kind of man are you if you can’t even tell the one you plan to marry that you do not want to waste money and do things contrary to the Sunnah on your wedding day? The females also need to fear Allāh even greater in their demands of having an extravagant wedding or following culture too much as a lot of the wedding planning, if not all, comes from the female side. Do not even consider marrying someone if they are willing to start their marriage in any sort of harām or any matter which is against the Sunnah. This person WILL become a problem later on, taking other Islamic matters lightly and this can lead to grave issues in the marriage. Even if the pressure comes from the family to have an extravagant wedding, there is absolutely no person worth marrying if they cannot speak up and stand up for their principles to their family. There is no need to spends tens of thousands of dollars and have 3 different wedding events, huge cakes, rings, fancy venues, nashīds imitating music just for a few hours. Even worse is allowing the bride and other female guests to parade in front of other men in their adornments. Many things done at weddings these days also come from imitating non-Muslims such as rings so these should be avoided completely. Ask yourself, if the Prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم) was here, would he attend your wedding? Unfortunately the answer in most cases would be no. In fact, the Prophet himself would probably warn and try to stop people going to your wedding. So if it doesn’t meet this criteria then you must reevaluate and organise a halāl wedding which is simple to do. Be very careful in disobeying Allāh the day of your marriage as you will pay for it later one way or another, either through problems in your actual marriage, health, wealth, having misguided children in the future, problems one after another generally or even worse, sometimes Allāh will give them everything they wish of the dunyā due to His displeasure upon them and they face the punishment in the Ākhirah! May Allāh protect us. Most trials are caused by our own hands as Allāh mentions several times in the Qur’ān, and if we look carefully, we know that the real cause of many calamities was because of our own actions. Follow the Sunnah, plan a simple walīmah and by Allāh you will have a happy marriage.

Most scholars say Qaza’ is disliked, while some said it’s harām — However, what is the definition of this disliked Qaza’ and what is the bare minimum one may shave off his head according to some scholars? Al-Qurṭubī said in “al-Mufhim” (5/441): " لا خلاف أنه إذا حلق من الرأس مواضع، وأبقيت مواضع أنه القزع المنهي عنه، لما عرف من اللغة كما نقلناه، ولتفسير نافع له بذلك، واختلف فيما إذا حلق جميع الرأس، وترك منه مواضع كشعر الناصية، أو فيما إذا حُلِق موضع وحده، وبقي أكثر الرأس، فمنع من ذلك مالك، ورآه من القزع المنهي عنه ". “There is no difference of opinion that if parts of the head are shaved while other parts are left, then that is the qaẓaʿ that is prohibited —based on what is known from the language, as we have related and due to Nāfiʿ’s explanation of it as such. Although there is a dispute regarding when the entire head is shaved but parts of it are left, such as the hair of the forelock, or when only one part is shaved while most of the head remains. Mālik forbade that and considered it to be from the prohibited qaẓaʿ.” Imām Ibn ‘Ābidīn al-Ḥanafī in his Ḥāshiyah writes; قَالَ ط: وَيُكْرَهُ الْقَزَعُ وَهُوَ أَنْ يَحْلِقَ الْبَعْضَ وَيَتْرُكَ الْبَعْضَ قَطْعًا مِقْدَارَ ثَلَاثَةِ أَصَابِعَ كَذَا فِي الْغَرَائِبِ. “Ṭ [1] said: And qaẓaʿ is disliked, and it is that he shaves some and leaves some—specifically a مقدار (amount) of three fingers; as stated in (the book) al-Gharā’ib." ____ [1] Ibn ‘Ābdīn quoted ط which is an abbreviation of a scholar in the Hanafī madhab known as Imām at-Ṭahṭāwī (Died 1231AH) who also has a “Hāshiyah” (12 volumes) upon Haskafī’s book “Dur al-Mukhtār”.

What type of effect does saying “Yā Ḥayyu Yā Qayyūm” have in duʿāʾ? Ibn al-Qayyim رحمه الله mentioned that saying “Yā Ḥayyu, Yā Qayyūm” had a special effect when it comes to the answering of duʿāʾ and the removal of distress. (Zād al-Maʿād, 4/204) But how significant is it? His teacher, Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله explained in al-Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā [Vol. 27, Pg. 241]: When the servant whispers to his Lord in the late night (i.e. before dawn) and seeks His help, He says: “Yā Ḥayyu, Yā Qayyūm, there is no Deity except You, with Your mercy I seek help.” يا حي يا قيوم لا إله إلا أنت برحمتك أستغيث Allāh gives him empowerment of what he (i.e. the servant) does not know except Allāh. Allāh said: “But if they had done what they were instructed, it would have been better for them and a firmer position [for them in faith].” [4:66] “And then We would have given them from Us a great reward.” [4:67] “And We would have guided them to a straight path.” [4:68] Then everything of benefit and good is brought to his character. [End Quote]

Most people are merciless, only turn to the Most Merciful because even the closest of friends can one day become your worst enemy, only Allāh will remain.

It is an obligation for women to seek knowledge throughout their lives, and it should be emphasised on especially before they get married as it is easy to deceive the one who doesn’t have knowledge and understanding. It is not correct for women to blindly follow the man in religious matters thinking they only need to follow their father or husband and not seek any clarification for anything they hear. Seeking knowledge establishes a good foundation in having the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and this leads to success.

Obsessively attaching oneself to a Shaykh or a particular group leads to misguidance because almost every Imām will have weak fatwā’s which oppose Qur’ān and Sunnah no matter how righteous and if the one strictly following them, is close minded to every other opinion, this will lead to a path of misguidance eventually and this is dangerous as it leads to committing many sins and wrongly declaring takfīr without proper knowledge. Following the truth does not mean labelling yourself, being close-minded and declaring every other opinion misguided simply because your Shaykh hasn’t taught it. The truth is vast and easy to understand, but closing oneself to one group can distort the truth and cause an arrogance that they are the only correct ones and everyone else is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with respecting a Shaykh and learning from him as long as it doesn’t reach a level of blinding accepting everything he is saying thinking only he speaks truth which unfortunately is widespread today.

For all the Muslim females who believe they can show the face, there’s 2 opinions if she’s obligated to cover her face when someone looks with desire, and that’s why one of our mashayikh stated the fatwā given in the Mālikī madhab due to corruption of times is that it’s wājib for all women to cover their faces. Imām as-Sāwī al-Mālikī writes in his “Hashiyah ‘ala ash-Sharh al-Kabīr” (1/289): قَوْلُهُ: [غَيْرُ الْوَجْهِ وَالْكَفَّيْنِ] إلَخْ: أَيْ فَيَجُوزُ النَّظَرُ لَهُمَا لَا فَرْقَ بَيْنَ ظَاهِرِهِمَا وَبَاطِنِهِمَا بِغَيْرِ قَصْدِ لَذَّةٍ وَلَا وِجْدَانِهَا، وَإِلَّا حَرُمَ. وَهَلْ يَجِبُ عَلَيْهَا حِينَئِذٍ سَتْرُ وَجْهِهَا وَيَدَيْهَا؟ وَهُوَ الَّذِي لِابْنِ مَرْزُوقٍ قَائِلًا: إنَّهُ مَشْهُورُ الْمَذْهَبِ: أَوْ لَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْهَا ذَلِكَ، وَإِنَّمَا عَلَى الرَّجُلِ غَضُّ بَصَرِهِ؟ وَهُوَ مُقْتَضَى نَقْلِ الْمَوَّاقِ عَنْ عِيَاضٍ. وَفَصَّلَ زَرُّوقٌ فِي شَرْحِ الْوَغْلِيسِيَّةِ بَيْنَ الْجَمِيلَة - فَيَجِبُ - وَغَيْرِهَا فَيُسْتَحَبُّ (اهـ. مِنْ حَاشِيَةِ الْأَصْلِ) . فَإِذَا عَلِمْت ذَلِكَ فَقَوْلُ: [الشَّارِحِ وَإِنْ وَجَبَ عَلَيْهَا سَتْرُهُمَا] إلَخْ مُرُورٌ عَلَى كَلَامِ ابْنِ مَرْزُوقٍ “His statement: [“other than the face and the two hands”] etc. — meaning: it is permissible to look at them (i.e., the face and hands), with no difference between their ظاهر (outer side) and باطن (inner side), as long as it is without the قصد (intent) of desire and without experiencing it; otherwise, it is prohibited. And is it then obligatory upon her to cover her face and hands? This is what is held by Ibn Marzūq, saying that it is the well-known position of the madhhab. Or is it not obligatory upon her to do so, and rather it is upon the man to lower his gaze? This is what is implied by the transmission of al-Mawwāq from ʿIyāḍ. And Zarrūq made a distinction in “Sharḥ al-Waghlīsiyyah” between the beautiful woman — in which case it is obligatory — and other than her, in which case it is recommended (end quote, from the marginal notes of the original). So when you understand that, then the statement: [of the commentator: “even if it is obligatory upon her to cover them”] etc. is a passing reference to the كلام (statement) of Ibn Marzūq.” [End Quote of Sāwī]. This helps us understand the official Mālikī fatwā on why it's wājib to cover the face in corrupt times, as Imām ad-Dardīr al-Mālikī writes in his Sharh: (غَيْرُ الْوَجْهِ وَالْكَفَّيْنِ) : وَأَمَّا هُمَا فَلَيْسَا بِعَوْرَةٍ. وَإِنْ وَجَبَ عَلَيْهَا سَتْرُهُمَا لِخَوْفِ فِتْنَةٍ (“other than the face and the two hands”): “as for them, they are not ʿawrah. And even if it is obligatory upon her to cover them due to fear of fitnah.” And that’s the fatwā given in the Hanafī madhab as well (as-Sighnāqī cites that from his mashayikh), due to the corruption of times, the face becomes wājib to cover. However, because there’s a minority opinion she’s only recommended to cover the face in corrupt times (or if someone looks with desire), and therefore we can’t say covering the face is wājib by Ijmā’, thus it is impermissible to declare such sisters sinful. Although, honesty pertaining to knowledge is required by many mashayikh to clarify that the official Shāfi’ī and Hanbalī madhabs consider the face of a woman ‘Awrah, and that the official fatwā of Hanafī and Mālikī madhab is that the face is not ‘Awrah, but wājib to cover due to the widespread of corruption after the earlier generations. So it’s not correct for any shaykh to make it seem like covering the face is only a minority Hanbalī view, when it is in fact the majority view of every madhab and the minority view is to show the face and even that is not recommended. And Allāh knows best.