Monthly Archives: July 2015
Ibn Kathir writes in the beginning of Surah al-Mumtahinah’s tafseer:
The story of Hatib bin Abi Balta`ah is the reason behind revealing the beginning of this honorable Surah. Hatib was among the Early Emigrants and participated in the battle of Badr. Hatib had children and wealth in Makkah, but he was not from the tribe of Quraysh. Rather, he was an ally of `Uthman. When the Messenger of Allah decided to conquer Makkah, after its people broke the peace treaty between them, he ordered the Muslims to mobilize their forces to attack Makkah, and then said,
«اللْهُمَّ عَمِّ عَلَيْهِمْ خَبَرَنَا»
(O Allah! Keep our news concealed from them.) Hatib wrote a letter and sent it to the people of Makkah, with a woman from the tribe of Quraysh, informing them of the Messenger’s intent to attack them. He wanted them to be indebted to him ﴿so that they would grant safety to his family in Makkah﴾. Allah the Exalted conveyed this matter to His Messenger , because He accepted the Prophet’s invocation ﴿to Him to conceal the news of the attack﴾. The Prophet sent someone after the woman and retrieved the letter. This story is collected in the Two Sahihs.
And then he goes on to mention this narration..
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 251 :
Narrated by ‘Ubaidullah bin Abi Rafi
I heard ‘Ali (radiallaahu `anhu) saying, “Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) sent me, Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad (radiallaahu `anhumaa) somewhere saying, ‘Proceed till you reach Rawdat Khakh. There you will find a lady with a letter. Take the letter from her.’ ” So, we set out and our horses ran at full pace till we got at Ar-Rawda where we found the lady and said (to her). “Take out the letter.” She replied, “I have no letter with me.” We said, “Either you take out the letter or else we will take off your clothes.” So, she took it out of her braid. We brought the letter to Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) and it contained a statement from Hatib bin Abi Balta’ah (radiallaahu `anhu) to some of the Meccan pagans informing them of some of the intentions of Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam). Then Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) said, “O Hatib! What is this?” Hatib (radiallaahu `anhu) replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! Don’t hasten to give your judgment about me. I was a man closely connected with the Quraish, but I did not belong to this tribe, while the other emigrants with you, had their relatives in Mecca who would protect their dependents and property . So, I wanted to recompense for my lacking blood relation to them by doing them a favor so that they might protect my dependents. I did this neither because of disbelief not apostasy nor out of preferring Kufr (disbelief) to Islam.” Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) said, “Hatib has told you the truth.” Umar (radiallaahu `anhu) said, O Allah’s Apostle! Allow me to chop off the head of this hypocrite.” Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) said, “Hatib participated in the battle of Badr, and who knows, perhaps Allah has already looked at the Badr warriors and said, ‘Do whatever you like, for I have forgiven you.”
Surah al-Mumtahinah’s first ayah was revealed about Hatib (radiallaahu `anhu):
﴿يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ عَدُوِّى وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَآءَ﴾
“O you who believe! Take not my enemies and your enemies as protecting friends.” [60:1]
The ayah goes on to say: “while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”. It refers to the idolators and the disbelievers who are combatants against Allah, His Messenger and the believers. It is they whom Allah has decided should be our enemies and should be fought. Allah has forbidden the believers to take them as friends, supporters or companions. [Ibn Kathir]
I have one question. If the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) can forgive a man for treason (more or less) based on his past record, why can’t we forgive people for much less complicated mistakes that they make? [Partly referring to the recent NAK incident and partly a general statement..]
Further reading: ruling on revealing secrets.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 250 :
Narrated by Ibn Abbas (radiallaahu `anhu)
That he heard the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) saying, “It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Mahram (i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.).” Then a man got up and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have enlisted in the army for such-and-such Ghazwa and my wife is proceeding for Hajj.” Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) said, “Go, and perform the Hajj with your wife.”
It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman who is not his mahram, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “No man should be alone with a woman unless there is a mahram with them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (1862) and Muslim (1341). And he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “No man is alone with a woman but the Shaytaan is the third one present.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1171) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated in Sharh Muslim (14/153) that there was consensus among the scholars that it is haraam for a man to be alone with a woman who is not his mahram. This was narrated by al-Haafiz in al-Fath (4/77).
“Being alone with” (khalwah) refers to when the man and woman are in a place where no one can see them.
The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked: Does khalwah (“being alone with”) refer to when a man is alone with a woman in some house, far away from the eyes of people, or does it refer to any situation in which a man is alone with a woman, even if they can be seen by others?
They replied: What is meant by the “being alone with” (khalwah) that is forbidden in sharee‘ah is not only when a man is alone with a woman who is not his mahram in a place where they cannot be seen; rather it also includes situations in which he is alone with her in a place where she can converse with him and he can converse with her, even if they can be seen by other people, but their words cannot be heard, whether that is out in the open or in a car or on the roof of a house, and so on. That is because khalwah has been forbidden because it is the harbinger of zina and the means that leads to it. So everything that could lead to that, even making an arrangement to do that later, comes under the ruling of physical khalwah or being alone in a place where they cannot be seen. End quote.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allah ibn Baaz; Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi; Shaykh ‘Abd-Allah ibn Ghadyaan; Shaykh ‘Abd-Allah ibn Qa ‘ood
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 17/57
Khalwah can be avoided with the presence of a mahram or the presence of a righteous woman, according to the correct opinion.
It says in Asna’l-Mataalib (3/407): It is permissible for a man to be alone with two women, but not the opposite; i.e., it is not permissible for two non-mahram men to be alone with a woman even if it is unlikely that they would agree to commit immoral actions, as was clearly stated by al-Nawawi in al-Majmoo‘; that is because a woman feels more shy of another woman than a man feels shy of another man.
So the other day my husband came home from work and opened his Facebook in a hurry, said he wanted to see a recently shared clip from Nouman Ali Khan’s Surah Yaseen tafseer series that was creating some sort of hype. I thought to myself, ugh! he’s such a “NAK fanboy” but he would never admit it (LOL)! Anyway, we watch that 6-minute long clip in silence, he turns to me at the end of it with a straight sarcastic face and says, “this is why only scholars should talk about Islam”. My response: “Convey from me, even if it is one verse” [Bukhari]. :3
After some back and forth we agreed that what NAK said wasn’t entirely incorrect, but it was the way he said it. There was disrespect in his sarcasm. And that was that.
Notice the captions during and after the video. Just for laughs. :D
Until.. two days later, Shaykh Assim Alhakeem posted about this video on his Facebook page. He doesn’t take names, but we all know who he’s talking about! Now that was disturbing. He says things he didn’t need to say, for example:
“If he is ignorant, he can be taught, providing he is willing to learn. Unfortunately, when you are too famous and have followers, your ego, driven by Satan would not allow you to do so!”
I is sad. Even sadder to read the comments under this post. Sigh. :(
With utmost respect for the shaykh, I think what he said was a bit too harsh. I’m sure he meant well and was only trying to point out a mistake that could mislead people, but it could have been done in a better way. May Allah reward him for his intention and effort.
As for Nouman Ali Khan, he is not a scholar, he does an amazing job talking about Quran in a way that hits home with our youth, but is his understanding/opinion always supposed to be correct? Absolutely not. So if he makes a mistake, we can easily overlook it and move on, assuming good of his intentions and praying for his guidance. Take the good and leave the bad. Period.
Long time, eh? May Allah forgive me for my shortcomings. :(
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 249 :
Narrated by Abu Bashir Al-Ansari (radiallaahu `anhu)
That he was in the company of Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) on some of his journeys. (The sub-narrator ‘Abdullah adds, “I think that Abu Bashir (radiallaahu `anhu) also said, ‘And the people were at their sleeping places.”) Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) sent a messenger ordering: “There shall not remain any necklace of string or any other kind of necklace round the necks of camels except it is cut off.”
One of the opinions on theses ‘necklaces’ is that they refer to the bells that are hung round the necks of animals. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh (2113) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The angels do not accompany any group with whom there is a dog or a bell.”
And he narrated (2114) also from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bells are the musical instruments of the Shaytaan.”
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: As for bells, it was said that the reason why the angels dislike them is that they are similar to church bells, or because they are one of the hanging things that are forbidden. And it was said that the reason why they are disliked is their sound, which is supported by the report which mentions “the musical instruments of the shaytaan.”
Al-Nawawi commented on this hadith in Riyad-us-Saaliheen (chapter 307):
“Dog” here stands for that dog which is prohibited to keep. Dogs kept for the purpose of hunting and security do not fall in this category. Angels signify angels of mercy; otherwise we are attended all the time by the angels who record our deeds for us. Bell in this context refers to the bell which is placed in the neck of animals and rings when they move. End quote.
The reason why their sound is disliked is that it is akin to musical instruments, which are forbidden.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: To sum up, the sound has two qualities, one which is the strength of the sound and the other is its tune, and because of its musical tune it was prohibited, and the reason was given as being because they are “the musical instruments of the shaytaan.”
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: (The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) told us that the angels do not accompany people with whom there is a bell, because when the animals walk, it will make a sound like music, and it is known that musical instruments are haraam. End quote. Sharh Riyaadh al-Saaliheen (4/340).
For further reading (in Arabic), click here.