ONLY MUNAAFIQEEN CANCEL SALAAT

Munaafiqeen Cancel Salaat25032020

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

 

The Cancellation of Salaah and the Baseless Excuse of a Munaafiq

 

Whenever Allaah Ta`aalaa sends down any test upon the Muslims, there are those who pass this test with flying colours and there are those who fail this test miserably, being flung on account of it into the pit of Jahannam. Throughout the history of Islaam and right until the time when Allaah Ta`aalaa takes the very last Muslim away from this Dunyaa, there will be tests. These Tests separate the wheat from the chaff; they separate the sincere Muslims (`Ibaadallaahil Mukhlaseen) from the munaafiqeen; they separate those who truly believe in Allaah Ta`aalaa from those who are only “Muslim” in name.

 

One of the most recent tests is that of the coronavirus (COVID-19), and this test from Allaah Ta`aalaa has truly exposed the munaafiqeen most thoroughly. It has exposed the fact that most of the so-called “Ulama” do not – and have never – truly believed in Allaah Ta`aalaa. Their Imaan is as flimsy as a cobweb. Their tawakkul is in America.

 

They may outwardly deny this, but in reality, in the back of their minds they know this to be true: they laugh at the belief that it is Allaah Ta`aalaa Who controls both sickness and cure. They hypocritically claim to believe this, but they know as well as we do that they do not truly believe that. They consider this belief to be stupid, backwards, regressive, old-fashioned, dangerous and something which “puts Muslims in a bad light in the eyes of the non-Muslims”.

 

That is a major disease in the hearts of these “Mozlems”: they are forever worried about “what the non-Muslims will think about us”. They care more about the “judgement” of the so-called “non-Muslims” than the Judgement of Allaah Ta`aalaa. They are always “apologising” to the so-called “non-Muslims” on behalf of Allaah Ta`aalaa, wal-`Iyaadhu Billaah. They feel that they need to apologise to the “non-Muslims” for Allaah Ta`aalaa having revealed this “oppressive, fundamentalist, backward, old-fashioned, terrorist religion” known as Islaam.

 

This “coronavirus (COVID-19)” has brought every last munaafiq “scholar” in the world out of the woodwork, and Shaytaan would be proud of them. The Arab Kaafir regimes were in the forefront to close down the Masaajid and ban the Salaah, and their grovelling, bootlicking munaafiq “scholars” were quick to defend it.

 

Never in the past has Iblees had it as easy as he has it today. He can comfortably retire. The Ulamaa-e-Soo are striving to outdo both him and Dajjaal in spreading kufr and munkar throughout the world. With one “coronavirus”, they have gotten rid of Islaam in entirety. Long ago already the munaafiqeen had “interpreted” away Jihaad as either: a) being some “ancient” part of Islaam that was abrogated centuries ago and which must be apologised for, or b) that Jihaad actually means “to strive hard in politics, to have a democratically elected president,” or “to strive hard in advocating human rights”, which to them refers to feminism and gay rights, thus in their minds a “mujaahid” is someone who joins the “gay pride” marches, protesting and “striving hard in advocating LGBTQ+ values and freedom of expression”.

 

Munaafiq Menk would happily be at the forefront, raising high the “gay pride” flag and marching. These Munaafiq “scholars” will soon march with the cross as well.

 

صورته اليوم هو في أول الطابور, يحمل الصليب الضخم الكبير ويسير…

 

Thus, long ago already had they done away with Jihaad, and now with the coronavirus they have done away with Salaah, Hajj, `Umrah and the Sunnah in one go. Already they are having discussions about cancelling Sawm (fasting) as well, because they believe that it will lower the person’s immune system and put them at greater risk of “contracting the coronavirus and dying”, thus, according to their fabricated principles, “it is your duty to not fast”. They have never been giving Zakaat so that does not even factor, thus in one go there is no longer Salaah, Zakaah, Sawm (fasting), Hajj, `Umrah, Jihaad or the Sunnah, because acting on the Sunnah results in people contracting and spreading the coronavirus, according to them.

 

All of the munaafiqeen organisations have thus come out to cancel Islaam: the “Jamiats”, the MJC (Murtadd Juhalaa Council), etc., as well as the Munaafiqeen-In-Chief like Munaafiq Menk, Taha Karaan, Yasir (Yes-Sir) Qadhi, etc. The kuffaar governments had not even brought in any laws yet when the munaafiqeen rats, the “Tujjaar-ud-Deen”, the “Dajjaalian Scholars” had begun squawking like parrots in the trees, ever eager to please their masters (America and its allies), ever eager to grovel, ever eager to bootlick, to kowtow, to snivel, ever yearning for “acceptance” from the kuffaar.

None of the munaafiqeen have presented any scrap of true daleel to justify the widespread shutting down of the Masaajid, the cancellation of Jumu`ah, Jamaa`ah, Taraaweeh and possibly Eid as well if their masters have not yet given them the “green light” to go ahead with it by that time.

 

Recently, “Yes-Sir” Qadhi (groveler-in-chief) presented a so-called “daleel” for closing down the Masaajid. Now, Yes-Sir Qadhi is not someone whose words hold any weight for true Muslims. His words are only meant to be printed on toilet roll and used by someone who has had a bad case of diarrhoea. Nevertheless, because some Muslims asked us about this so-called “daleel” of his, we shall briefly respond to it, إن شاء الله.

 

Yes-Sir Qadhi quotes the following passage from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah of Imaam ibn Katheer رحمة الله عليه:

فلمّا مات استخلف على الناس عمرو بن العاص فقام فيهم خطيباً فقال:

أيّها الناس، إنّ هذا الوجع إذا وقع فإنّما يشتعل اشتعال النار، فتحصّنوا منه في الجبال. فقال أبو وائل الهذلي: كذبت والله لقد صحبت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأنت شرّ من حماري هذا. فقال: والله ما أردّ عليكم ما تقول، وايم الله لا نقيم عليه. قال: ثم خرج وخرج الناس فتفرّقوا ودفعه الله عنهم.

قال: فبلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب من رأى عمرو بن العاص فوالله ما كرهه

This passage is on the chapter of the Plague of `Amwaas wherein 25,000 people died, according to Imaam al-Waaqidi رحمة الله عليه, or 30,000 people according to others. Many great Sahaabah died in this plague, including:

 

  1. Hadhrat Abu `Ubaydah ibn al-Jarraah رضي الله عنه
  2. Hadhrat Abu Maalik al-Ash`ari رضي الله عنه
  3. Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه
  4. Hadhrat Yazeed ibn Abi Sufyaan رضي الله عنه
  5. 5. Hadhrat Haarith ibn Hishaam رضي الله عنه[1]

In fact, both Hadhrat Abu `Ubaydah رضي الله عنه and Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه died from the plague after asking Allaah Ta`aalaa to give them that sickness so that they would die from it.

 

Nevertheless, the above passage from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah states that after Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه passed away and Hadhrat `Amr ibn al-`Aas رضي الله عنه was placed in charge, he told them that this plague spreads like fire, thus they must “seek shelter” in the mountains, and the narration then states that they تفرّقوا (dispersed) and Allaah Ta`aalaa removed the plague. When the news of this was taken to Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه, he did not dislike it.

 

“Yes-Sir” Qadhi then makes the following baseless statement:

 

“It is reasonable to assume that the prayers were suspended.”

 

This is the apex of his “daleel”: “it is reasonable to assume.”

 

“To assume.”

Since when has there been an addition to Usool-ul-Fiqh? Has anyone heard about this? We certainly have not. We know that the Ahkaam of Sharee`ah are derived from four sources: two of them being primary and two being non-primary. The two Primary Sources are Qur’aan and Sunnah. The two non-primary sources are ijmaa` and qiyaas, that being qiyaas done by a Faqeeh, and there are no Fuqahaa today.

 

Where do “assumptions” fit in?

 

Perhaps we need to rewrite the Kutub of Usool-ul-Fiqh to make this very important change: Qur’aan, Sunnah, Ijmaa`, Qiyaas and the Assumptions of Yasir Qadhi. There are now five sources of istidlaal.

 

فإلى الله المشتكى وهو المستعان…

A few points to briefly debunk his ridiculous “assumption”:

 

1) As stated above, we have established sources of istidlaal. History books are not one of those sources. Daleel is Qur’aan and Sunnah, and for those who are not Mujtahideen, they refer to the Kutub of Fiqh. The Kutub of taareekh as not used for daleel for a very simple reason: tahqeeq has not been done for most of the Kutub of taareekh. Hence, you can find baseless or weak narrations in many Kutub of taareekh. Shias commonly go through the books of taareekh to dig out baseless narrations which they feel are in support of Shi’ism and which “paint a bad picture of the Muslims”.

 

However, the narrations they present are mawdhoo`aat, baseless lies. Hence, we state emphatically: Ahkaam of Deen are not derived from history books.

 

In fact, according to the Hanafi Madh-hab, if an Aayah of the Qur’aan gives a particular ruling, then a person cannot add onto that ruling with even a Hadeeth if that Hadeeth is from the Aahaad (solitary narrations), as stated by Fakhrul Islaam al-Bazdawi رحمة الله عليه and others.

 

Let alone naskh (abrogation), even ziyaadah `alan-nass is not permissible unless the Hadeeth is mutawaatir, or mash-hoor as stated by Imaam ibn Ameer Haajرحمة الله عليه in at-Taqreer wat-Tahbeer.

 

Now, the Jumu`ah Salaah is Fardh-e-`Ayn according to the Hanafi Madh-hab, and the one who denies it is a Kaafir, as stated in Radd-ul-Muhtaar `alad-Durril Mukhtaar, and the daleel for this is the Aayah:

 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نُودِيَ لِلصَّلاةِ مِنْ يَّوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللهِ وَذَرُوا البَيْعَ

 

{“O you who have Imaan! When the nidaa (call) for Salaah is made on the Day of Jumu`ah, then hasten to the Dhikr of Allaah (the Khutbah and Jumu`ah Salaah) and leave off trade…“}

 

[Soorah Al-Jumu`ah, 62:9]

 

These munaafiqeen want to cancel something that is Fardh-e-`Ayn, established as qat`iyy (definitively proven and undeniable) by the Qur’aan Kareem, on the basis of an “assumption” made by a “Yes-Sir Qadhi” because of something he dug out of a history book? Because they are munaafiqeen, they take the Deen of Allaah Ta`aalaa as a joke, but the true Muslims happily give their lives for this Deen. In fact, a true Muslim happily gives his life for the protection of a single Sunnah from the Sunan of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

 

2) Even if this narration is accepted as Saheeh, nowhere does it state that Salaah was “suspended” as the munaafiq claims. The munaafiq also claims that the Sahaabah spent months in this condition, but this too is not mentioned. It is another “assumption” from his own side. This is a person who has based his entire religion upon “assumptions”.

 

Another person can “assume” that تفرّقوا means this: those who were healthy separated from those who were sick, and those who were healthy performed Jumu`ah together, and those who were sick performed Jumu`ah together. Why is that assumption not “reasonable” as well?

 

Istidlaal is not done using a history book, especially not when the incident cited has multiple ihtimaalaat (possibilities).

 

Anyone who has studied taareekh (history) and knows the ways of the mu’arrikheen knows that the method of the old mu’arrikheen was to compile all narrations concerning a particular incident, and they would present these incidents in their kutub, because they focused primarily on jam` (collecting) and not on tahqeeq.

 

A well-known example of this is the case of Imaam al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi رحمة الله عليه with Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه: a person who reads through the books of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi will find so many narrations insulting Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه that he would think that there must have been some enormous enmity on the part of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi towards Imaam Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi Madh-hab. Yet, if he reads those very same kitaabs, he will also find many narrations praising Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه very highly.

 

Hence, the `Ulamaa have explained that Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi simply gathered everything he had heard regarding Imaam Abu Haneefah and presented these in his Kitaab, regardless of whether those narrations were authentic or not. These mu’arrikheen expected those who came after to do tahqeeq of those kutub of taareekh, sorting out what is authentic from what is not authentic.

 

Now, if a person were to adopt the methodology of Yes-Sir Qadhi and the other Ulama-e-Soo who try to look for daleel for their baatil views in the books of taareekh, then this person will come across these kitaabs of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi and arrive at the conclusion that Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه was not even a Muslim – والعياذ بالله – and that the Ahnaaf are “like Christians”, thus he uses this as “proof” that the other three Madhaahib are on Haqq and the Hanafi Madh-hab is on Baatil, when in reality those narrations are nothing more than baseless lies.

 

Thus, matters of `Aqaa’id and Ahkaam are only taken from rigorously authenticated sources.

 

3) If the Fuqahaa and `Ulamaa of Islaam were in the habit of closing down the Masaajid and cancelling Salaah each and every time there was a plague or pandemic, it would be well-known. There would be no need to hunt through the kutub of taareekh to pull out an incident which 1) he cannot prove as being saheeh, qat`iyy-uth-thuboot and 2) which has multiple possibilities. The very fact that he had to labour to scratch out this incident shows that this “cancellation of Salaah” is not something well-known among the `Ulamaa for 1,441 years. There have been many plagues over the years; this is not the first.

 

4) If the people had completely cut off from each other, like he claims, not even performing Salaah together, then what happened to those Muslims who died? Did each person simply die by himself and lay where he was, rotting away, not being buried? There was no janaazah Salaah and no burial?

 

If he says that there was burial and Janaazah Salaah, that means they had to come together. If they could congregate for Janaazah Salaah – which they would have to be doing very frequently, because people were dying every day – why could they not congregate for Jumu`ah Salaah which is only once a week? Does that make sense to any person with `aql (intellect)?

 

5) Why restrict this cancellation of Salaah to only the coronavirus (COVID-19)? Why not also cancel Salaah for the flu, TB, AIDS and the many other “contagious” illnesses?

 

Currently, approximately 15,496 people have died from this COVID-19 according to worldometers.info, but WHO puts the number of deaths from the common flu each year at somewhere between 290,000 to 650,000. That is significantly higher than COVID-19, to say the least.

 

Hence, we pose this question to them: “If the Masaajid must be closed down and Salaah cancelled because of COVID-19, why must the same thing not be done in the case of the common flu? More people have died from the flu than from COVID-19. According to worldometers.info, approximately 100,657 people have recovered from COVID-19. The very kuffaar that you people worship claim that most of those who die from COVID-19 are old people who were already suffering from other illnesses.

If the Masaajid must be closed due to the risk of contracting the coronavirus, why must they not be closed due to the risk of contracting the flu, or TB? You could be performing Salaah in the Masjid next to someone who has TB, and he is coughing next to you the entire time, and thus you contract TB. Why, then, must the Masaajid not also be closed to prevent the risk of getting TB?”

 

Every single argument they present in favour of closing the Masaajid and cancelling Salaah due to COVID-19 applies in the case of the flu.

 

They believe that we must reject the command of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم to “stand shoulder to shoulder” and instead stand two meters apart, due to the risk of contracting COVID-19. Why must a person not do the same due to the risk of catching the flu from the next person?

 

In fact, there is always some risk or the other involved in performing Salaah next to people in the Masjid, as you do not know what illness the next person has, so why not permanently shut down all Masaajid and cancel Jamaa`ah Salaah, Jumu`ah, Taraaweeh, `Eed, etc., indefinitely? Why “take the risk”? Is the “principle of saving lives” not more important than Jamaa`ah Salaah?

 

Why run the risk of getting the flu or TB on account of performing Salaah in Jamaa`ah, instead of performing it individually at home? Why is it okay for a person to run the risk of getting the flu and dying, or getting TB and dying? Why, in the case of the other “contagious” illnesses, is it okay to run the risk of contracting them due to performing Salaah next to other people, using towels in the Masjid that other people have used, shaking hands with people, eating out of the same plate with people (as is the Sunnah), etc.?

 

We want them to answer these questions.

 

6) As stated earlier, the Kuffaar claim that 15,496 people so far have died from COVID-19. Compare this to the plagues of the past:

 

  • The Black Plague, known also as the Great Plague, the Great Bubonic Plague, Pestilence, the Great Mortality and the “Black Death”, killed 200 million people worldwide. It wiped out 60% of Europe’s population. It took Europe over 200 years to recover from the Black Plague. Some places, like Florence, only recovered in the 19th century despite the Black Plague having broken out in the 14th century.

 

  • The Cocoliztli epidemic, in the 1500s, killed 15 million people.

 

  • The Spanish flu, which broke out in 1918, killed 50 million people.

 

  • The Asian flu, which broke out in 1957, killed 1.1 million people.

 

  • The Swine Flu, which broke out just a few years ago in 2009, infected 1.4 billion people around the world and killed up to 575,400 people, according to the CDC, and, unlike COVID-19, it killed mainly those younger than 65.

 

These are just a handful of plagues. There have been many more in the past.

 

Take just the Black Plague, for example, which killed 200 million people: why did the `Ulamaa at that time, in the 14th century, not call for the Masaajid to be closed down and Salaah to be cancelled? Why did Salaah continue like normal? 200 million people versus 15,496: that is a massive difference. Did the `Ulamaa back then not understand Islaam? Did they not know about the “Maqaasid-ush-Sharee`ah” and the “principle of saving lives”? Did they not know the Aayah:

 

ولا تلقوا بأيديكم إلى التهلكة

 

{“Do not throw yourselves, by your own hands, into destruction…“}

 

(This Aayah, as a matter of fact, refers to abandoning Jihaad. The Qur’aan says that those who abandon Jihaad are throwing themselves into destruction by their own hands.)

 

Did they not know about this incident from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah which Yes-Sir Qadhi has quoted? The difference is simply that the so-called Ulama of today are severely lacking in Imaan and Tawakkul. They do not believe in the Power of Allaah Ta`aalaa. They believe only in the so-called “power” of the West.

 

Yes, the Fuqahaa of the past stated that those who are sick are exempted from coming to the Masjid, but never did they call for the closure of the Masaajid and the suspension of even Hajj itself.

 

7) Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

 

من ترك ثلاث جمع تهاوناً بها طبع الله على قلبه

 

“Whosoever abandons three Jumu`ahs due to taking it (the matter of Jumu`ah) lightly, Allaah will place a seal on his heart.”

 

[Narrated in Sunan Abi DaawudSunan at-Tirmidhi and Sunan an-Nasaa’i.]

 

Explaining this Hadeeth, Imaam al-Munaawi رحمة الله عليه states in Faydh-ul-Qadeer that “placing a seal on his heart” means:

 

يصير قلبه قلب منافق

 

“His heart will become the heart of a munaafiq.”

 

Obviously, the governments will impose restrictions: that is entirely expected. The governments are not Muslims, thus they do not rule according to the Laws of Islaam. Hence, they will act according to what they believe is most suitable for the welfare of the people. It is expected for them to impose restrictions, but it is not befitting for the so-called “Ulamaa” to have out of their own decided to shut down the Masaajid, cancelled the Hajj, cancelled Salaah, imposed the haraam, Baatil “two meter distance” in the Masaajid, etc. That they did from their own side – they were not compelled to do so. Hence, they will have to answer for that on the Day of Qiyaamah.

 

Finally, to those who believe in throwing out the Sunnah simply on the basis of flimsy excuses: know that when people abandon a Sunnah, Allaah Ta`aalaa takes away from them the Tawfeeq to act upon it thereafter, even if they want to. They will have to bleed in order to act upon it once again.

 

يا مثبّت القلوب ثبّت قلوبنا على دينك

ربّنا لا تزغ قلوبنا بعد إذ هديتنا وهب لنا من لدنك رحمة إنّك أنت الوهّاب

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتمّ وأحكم

– Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim

Monday, 28th of Rajab, 1441 – 23rd of March, 2020.


[1] He was the brother of Abu Jahl, `Amr ibn Hishaam. He accepted Islaam on the day of the Conquest of Makkah, and he became a very great Sahaabi and was an Ameer in the battlefield.

30 Rajab 1441 – 25 March 2020

 

AQEEDAH QUESTIONS

SALAAT BEHIND DEVIATES
Q. I have read in Aqeedatut Tahaawi and also in Mullah Ali Qaari’s commentary of Fiqhul Akbar that the Ahlus Sunnah perform Salaat behind a man even if he is a faajir (immoral). However, I do not perform Salaat behind these deviant Salafis in prison because Az-Zabeedi’ Al-Hanafi said that Salaat behind the Ahl-e-Hawa is Laa Ya jooz (not permissible).
Please explain the conflict between our Hanafi Scholars on this issue.
A. What you have read in Aqeedatut Tahaawi and Fiqhul Akbar is correct. That is the belief and practice of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. It is the official position.
Regarding Az-Zabeedi’s statement, firstly, it does not say that Salaat behind the Ahle-Bid’ah is invalid. It says: ‘La tajooz’ which does not mean ‘invalid’. The statement says that one should not perform Salaat behind them. Secondly, his advice is in conflict with the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf.. Thus, we do not make amal on the obscure and rare opinion. Whilst we do not intentionally seek out a Bid’ati to follow in Salaat, nevertheless if we are in a situation where the Imaam is from among the Ahl-e-Hawa (people of nafsaani desire/deviates), then we do not perform our Salaat alone. We join the Jamaat. In Musjdul Haraam in Makkah, and in Musjidun Nabawi in Madinah, the Imaams are generally Salafi. We join the Jamaat and perform Salaat behind them, and this is in accord with the Aqeedah stated in all our kutub of Aqeedah as you are aware. Thus, you may not utilize AzZabeedi’s version to cancel the clear-cut ruling of the Jamhoor Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf. Salafis (Wahhaabis) are astray, but they are Muslims. We perform Salaat even behind them. However, if a Salafi who makes masah on ordinary socks leads the Salaat, and if we are aware of it, then we repeat the Salaat we had performed behind him, not because we believe him to be a
kaafir, but because his wudhu is not valid.
TA’WEEL
Q. Salafis propagate that it is kufr to make ta’weel (to interpret) the allegorical Qur’aanic verses whereas according to the Ahlus Sunnah it is permissible and sometimes even necessary to resort to ta’weel. I find it difficult to appropriately interpret certain aayat.
A. You are not qualified to resort to Ta’weel. If you do not understand anything, seek guidance from the Ulama and do not distort any meaning with unqualified interpretation.
This can be dangerous for Imaan. Even the Muqallideen Ulama do not resort to Ta’weel. We merely narrate the Ta’weelaat (interpretations) of the senior Ulama of bygone times. The Arabic text which you have quoted in your question No.5, clearly instructs you to refer to the Ulama who understand these issues.
MATH-HAB
Q. I am a follower of the Shaafi’ Math-hab. However, for certain reasons I am inclining to the Hanafi Mathhab. Please offer some advice.
A. You will be justified to come over to the Hanafi Mathhab, only if you lack expert guidance in the Shaafi’ Mathhab of which you are a follower. You may adopt the Hanafi
Math-hab only for a genuine Deeni reason, not for any worldly reason. If it is to gain sound knowledge for the purpose of practising, then your adoption of the Hanafi Mathhab will be correct. In fact, Imaam Tahaawi too was at one stage a Shaafi’. Later he accepted the Hanafi Math-hab.

TAQDEER
Q. Regarding Taqdeer, I have read that the Taqdeer which does not change is called Taqdeer Mubram (Conformed Taqdeer). But Taqdeer Muallaq (Impending Taqdeer) Can change with Dua. Could you expound these concepts?
A. Even Taqdeer Muallaq is an integral part of the allembracing, eternal Taqdeer of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Mubram-Muallaq exposition is a weak attempt to logically explain what is inexplicable due to its eternal dimension. In other words, in eternity Allah Ta’ala has always been aware that a certain act a million years hence will be changed and substituted with another decree. Brother, this is an issue which should not be probed in depth. The more you probe it, the more intricate and difficult it becomes. Created minds cannever encompass the eternal meanings of eternal issues – issues related to the Zaat and Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala. You tread dangerous ground when you attempt to enter into this minefield. Neither can we explain such issues satisfactorily, nor will we understand these issues in entirety even after entering Jannat.

DIFFERENCES
Q. Why are there so much difference among the Scholars on these issues of Aqeedah?
A. All the finer and subtle transcendental issues pertaining to Aqeedah, Allah’s Zaat and Sifaat – issues on which the Qur’aan, the Ahaadith and the Aathaar of the Sahaabah are silent, are products of the human mind. Thus, the opinions of the Scholars on such issues are essentially the products of their minds, not the products of Wahi. Differences are therefore natural and logical. Thus, the principle is always to find a reconciliation between the conflicting statements of the senior Scholars of the valid  Mathhabs.

MAJLIS VOLUME 21 NUMBER 10

Performing Salaah while having the need to relieve oneself

Q: Is it permissible for one to perform salaah if his bladder is full and he has the need to relieve himself? Similarly, if one is performing salaah and one feels the pressing need to relieve oneself, can one continue his salaah or should he break his salaah, and after relieving himself, make wudhu and thereafter perform the salaah?

 

bismillah.jpg

A: It is makrooh to perform salaah in this way. You will not receive the thawaab (reward) for the salaah when you are pressed to relieve yourself.

If the need is so pressing that you cannot concentrate in salaah correctly and your mind is more towards relieving yourself then it is not right to continue the salaah. Rather, you should break the salaah and after relieving yourself, you should make wudhu and then perform the salaah.

And Allah Ta’ala (الله تعالى) knows best.

( و ) كره ( كفه ) أي رفعه ولو لتراب كمشمر كم أو ذيل ( وعبثه به ) أي بثوبه ( وبجسده ) للنهي إلا لحاجة ولا بأس به خارج صلاة ( وصلاته في ثياب بذلة ) يلبسها في بيته ( ومهنة ) أي خدمة إن له غيرها وإلا لا ( وأخذ درهم )  ونحوه ( في فيه لم يمنعه من القراءة ) فلو منعه تفسد ( وصلاته حاسرا ) أي كاشفا ( رأسه للتكاسل ) ولا بأس به للتذلل وأما للإهانة بها فكفر ولو سقطت قلنسوته فإعادتها أفضل إلا إذا احتاجت لتكوير أو عمل كثير ( وصلاته مع مدافعة الأخبثين ) أو أحدهما ( أو لريح )

قال الشامي: قوله ( وصلاته مع مدافعة الأخبثين الخ ) أي البول والغائط قال في الخزائن سواء كان بعد شروعه أو قبله فإن شغله قطعها إن لم يخف فوت الوقت وإن أتمها أثم لما رواه أبو داود لا يحل لأحد يؤمن بالله وليوم لآخر أن يصلي وهو حاقن حتى يتخفف أي مدافع البول ومثله الحاقب أي مدافع الغائط والحازق أي مدافعهما وقيل مدافع الريح ا هـ وما ذكره من الإثم صرح به في شرح المنية وقال لأدائها مع الكراهة التحريمية بقي ما إذا خشي فوت الجماعة ولا يجد جماعة غيرها فهل يقطعها كما يقطعها إذا رأى على ثوبه نجاسة قدرالدرهم ليغسلها أو لا كما إذا كانت النجاسة أقل الدرهم والصواب الأول لأن ترك سنة الجماعة أولى من الإتيان بالكراهة كالقطع لغسل قدر الدرهم فإنه واجب ففعله أولى من فعل السنة بخلاف غسل ما دونه فإنه مستحب فلا يترك السنة المؤكدة لأجله كذا حققه في شرح المنية (رد المحتار 1/641)

Answered by:

Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)