The Difference between Thikr and Dua

By Shaykul Islam ibn Taymeeyah (728H) (May Allah have mercy on him)

The meaning for Thikr and Dua are both included in each other.  What is noticeable is the person who supplicates to Allah remembers Him. Likewise the one remembering Allah supplicates to Him. The Meaning for this is found in the hadeeth when the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa salim) said:

” أَفْضَلُ الدُّعَاءِ دُعَاءُ يَوْمِ عَرَفَةَ، لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ،

لَهُ الْمُلْكُ، وَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ، 

عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

The best supplication is the dua for the Day of Arafah,:

There is absolutely no deity worthy of worship but Allah, He is alone without any partners.

To him belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth, and to Him belongs all praises.

Allah has the ability to do everything.

[ Al-Bayhaqi Kubara 5/117.Al-Bayhqai graded this hadeeth as being weak]

What’s more is the Dua for Grief:

لا إله إلا أنت سبحانك إني كنت من الظالمين

لا يدعو بها رجل مسلم في شيء قط إلا استجاب الله له

There is absolutely no deity worthy of worship, except you, and verily I have been among those people who oppress.

Any Muslim asking Allah through this supplication will be answered.

[ Hakim 1/505 Al-Hakim graded this hadeeth as being authentic]

The book Ad-Dua by At-Tabarani contains various remembrances of Allah. The scholars of Fiqh consider the various remembrances done prayer as supplication.

There are three instances and situations for remembering Allah:

1: The intention to have a request granted only.
2: The intention to remember Allah only
3: To have a request honored and remember Allah together.

At any rate whenever the person intends one of these actions, the other action will be achieved. This is similar to a person pleading a request. It’s a must that he attaches great importance to the heart, know Allah and fear Him. On one hand, the individual who intends to remember Allah, worship Him and make everything other than Allah a means to reach his goal. On the other hand the person who only wants to have his needed fulfilled, he places Allah as a means to reach this objective. This is the servant of Allah. He knows and is aware that it is Allah Who causes harm and benefit. There is no Lord other than Allah.

Taken from Jam’I Masa’il 8 /18/ pg 12-15
Translated by Abu Aaliyah Abdullah ibn Dwight Lamont Battle Sr.
Doha, Qatar
http://abuaaliyah.multiply.com/journal/item/229

Concerning the Twelve Khalifahs That Will Rule Before the Hour, All Of Them From the Quraish

The Hadeeth of the Twelve Rulers All From Quraish

There occurs in the Saheeh of al-Bukhaaree, in “Kitaab ul-Ahkaam” under the chapter of “Istikhlaaf“:

 

حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ سَمِعْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ سَمُرَةَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ يَكُونُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ أَمِيرًا فَقَالَ كَلِمَةً لَمْ أَسْمَعْهَا فَقَالَ أَبِي إِنَّهُ قَالَ كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ

From Jaabir bin Samurah who said:

 

I heard the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say: “There will be twelve ameers (leaders)“, and then he said a word that I did not hear. Then he said: Meaning, he (the Prophet) said: “All of them are from Quraish.

Ibn Katheer discusses this matter in his tafseer of the verse in Surah al-Maa’idah (5:12), which mentions twelve elders raised amongst Banee Israa’eel:

 

وأصل هذا الحديث ثابت في الصحيحين من حديث جابر بن سمرة قال : سمعت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : ” لا يزال أمر الناس ماضيا ما وليهم اثنا عشر رجلا ” ثم تكلم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بكلمة خفيت علي فسألت أي ماذا قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ؟ قال :” كلهم من قريش ” وهذا لفظ مسلم ومعنى هذا الحديث البشارة بوجود اثني عشر خليفة صالحا يقيم الحق ويعدل فيهم ولا يلزم من هذا تواليهم وتتابع أيامهم بل قد وجد منهم أربعة على نسق وهم الخلفاء الأربعة : أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي رضي الله عنهم ومنهم عمر بن عبد العزيز بلا شك عند الأئمة وبعض بني العباس ولا تقوم الساعة حتى تكون ولايتهم لا محالة والظاهر أن منهم المهدي المبشر به في الأحاديث الواردة بذكره فذكر أنه يواطئ اسمه اسم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم واسم أبيه اسم أبيه فيملأ الأرض عدلا وقسطا كما ملئت جورا وظلما وليس هذا بالمنتظر الذي تتوهم الرافضة وجوده ثم ظهوره من سرداب سامرا فإن ذلك ليس له حقيقة ولا وجود بالكلية بل هو من هوس العقول السخيفة وتوهم الخيالات الضعيفة وليس المراد بهؤلاء الخلفاء الاثنا عشر الأئمة الاثنا عشر الذين يعتقد فيهم الاثنا عشر من الروافض لجهلهم وقلة عقلهم

 

And the basis of this hadeeth is established in the two Saheehs from the hadeeth of Jaabir bin Samurah who said: I heard the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying: “The affair of the people will never cease to continue so long as twelve men take authority over them.” Then the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) spoke with a word which was not audible to me, so I asked, meaning “What?” The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “All of them are from Quraish.” And this is the wording of Muslim.And the meaning of this hadeeth is the glad tiding of the presence of twelve righteous khalifahs who will establish the truth and rule with justice over them [the people]. And it is not binding from this that their rule be successive, following each other [in succession]. Rather, four of them have already been found in order, and they are the four rightly guided khalifahs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan and Alee (radiallaahu anhum), and amongst them is Umar bin Abdul-Azeez without doubt in the view of the Scholars. And after the Banee al-Abbaas, the Hour will not be established until their rule (i.e those who remain from the twelve) has taken place, certainly. And what is apparent is that the promised Mahdi [mentioned] in the reported ahaadeeth is from amongst them. So it has been mentioned that his name will concur with the name of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and that the name of his father will be the name of his (the Prophet’s) father, and that he will fill the earth with justice, just as it had been filled with tyranny and oppression. And this [Mahdi] is not the awaited [mahdi] whose presence and emergence from the cave is presumed by the Raafidah, for that has no reality to it and no existence at all. Rather it is from the fancy of the feeble intellects and the presumption of weak imaginations. And it is not intended by those Twelve Khalifahs the twelve Imaams that are believed in by the Twelver Rafidites [which they believe] due to their ignorance, and lack of intellect.

The Mahdi will be upon the Prophetic khilaafah, and thus he is included amongst the twelve mentioned as he is also from the Quraish, as is apparent from the texts. Regarding the apparent conflict between these ahaadeeth regarding the Twelve Khalifahs, ameers and the hadeeth of Safeenah that the khilaafah will last thirty years, Ibn Katheer expains, in the sixth volume of al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah, under the title of “Reports Concerning The Twelve Imaams All of Whom Are From the Quraish” – and he is addressing what has been put forward by al-Bayhaqi of the explanation of the twelve, and al-Bayhaqi had stated that the twelve are the first twelve successive leaders, inclusive of the four rightly guided khalifahs:

 

فإن قال: أنا لا أعتبر إلا من اجتمعت الأمة عليه لزمه على هذا القول أن لا يعد علي ابن أبي طالب، ولا ابنه لأن الناس لم يجتمعوا عليهما وذلك أن أهل الشام بكمالهم لم يبايعوهما، وعد حبيب معاوية، وابنه يزيد، وابن ابنه معاوية بن يزيد، ولم يقيد بأيام مروان ولا ابن الزبير كأن الأمة لم تجتمع على واحد منهما، فعلى هذا نقول في مسلكه هذا عادا للخلفاء: أبي بكر، وعمر، وعثمان، ثم معاوية، ثم يزيد بن معاوية، ثم عبد الملك، ثم الوليد بن سليمان، ثم عمر بن عبد العزيز، ثم يزيد، ثم هشام، فهؤلاء عشرة، ثم من بعدهم الوليد بن يزيد بن عبد الملك الفاسق، ولكن هذا لا يمكن أن يسلك فأخذها يلزم منه إخراج علي وابنه الحسن من هؤلاء الاثني عشر وهو خلاف ما نص عليه أئمة السنة بل والشيعة، ثم هو خلاف ما دل عليه نصا حديث سفينة عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: الخلافة بعدي ثلاثون سنة ثم تكون ملكا عضوضا .وقد ذكر سفينة تفصيل هذه الثلاثين سنة فجمعها من خلافة الأربعة، وقد بينا دخول خلافة الحسن وكانت نحوا من ستة أشهر فيها أيضا ثم صار الملك إلى معاوية لما سلم الأمر إليه الحسن بن علي، وهذا الحديث فيه المنع من تسمية معاوية خليفة، وبيان أن الخلافة قد انقطعت بعد الثلاثين سنة لا مطلقا بل انقطع تتابعها، ولا ينفي وجود خلفاء راشدين بعد ذلك كما دل عليه حديث جابر بن سمرة.

وقال نعيم بن حماد: حدثنا راشد بن سعد عن ابن لهيعة، عن خالد ابن أبي عمران، عن حذيفة بن اليمان قال: يكون بعد عثمان اثنا عشر ملكا من بني أمية، وقيل له: خلفاء؟

قال: لا بل ملوك.

 

And if he says: I do not consider [as being from these twelve] except the one upon whom the ummah has united upon, then it is binding upon him, based upon this saying, to not count Alee bin Abee Taalib and nor his son [as from the twelve] because the people did not unite altogether over them. This is because the people of Shaam as a whole did not pledge allegiance to them both, and to consider the beloved Mu’aawiyah, his son Yazeed, and his grandson, Mu’aawiyah bin Yazeed (as being from the twelve), and it is not restricted to the days (of rule) of Marwaan and nor Ibn az-Zubayr, as the ummah did not unite behind either of them.So upon this we say that with his approach in counting the khalifahs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, then Mu’aawiyah, then Yazeed bin Mu’aawiyah, then Abdul-Malik, then al-Waleed bin Sulaymaan, then Umar bin Abdul-Azeez, then Yazeed, then Hishaam. So they are ten, then after them al-Waleed bin Yazeed bin Abdul-Malik, the faasiq. However, it is not possible to take this approach for taking this [approach] means expelling Alee and his son al-Hasan form those twelve.

And this is different to what the Scholars of the Sunnah, and also the Shi’ah have textually stated. Further, it also opposes what has been indicated textually in the hadeeth of Safeenah from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), “The khilaafahafter me is for thirty years, then there will be biting kingship.”

And Safeenah has mentioned the explanation of these thirty years bringing them together in the four khilaafahs, and we have explained the inclusion of the khilaafah of al-Hasan, which was for around six months, into [these thirty years] also. Then it turned tokingship with Mu’aawiyah when al-Hasan bin Ali submitted the affair (the rule) to him. And in this hadeeth is the prohibition of labelling Mu’aawiyah as “khalifah”, and an explanation that the khilaafah had terminated after the thirty years, not absolutely, but its succession had terminated, and it does not negate the presence of rightly-guided khalifas after that as has been indicated by the hadeeth of Jaabir bin Samurah.

And Nu’aym bin Hammaad said: Raashid bin Sa’d narrated to us from Ibn Luhay’ah, from Khaalid ibn Abee Imraan, from Hudhayfah bin al-Yaamaan, who said: There will be twelve kings from the Bani Umayyah after Uthmaan.” It was said to him, “Are they khalifahs?” He said, “No, rather they are kings”.

Ibn Katheer, in this passage and what occurs before it in his quotation of the view of al-Bayhaqi and another group of scholars, explained that specifying the condition that the whole ummah has to be united behind them means the expulsion of Alee and al-Hasan from the twelve and others from all those who were successive in time. Ibn Kather explained that the condition that the khalifahs have to be successive, one after the other, also means the expulsion of Umar bin Abdul-Azeez from the twelve, since the the twelve end with Sulaymaan bin Abdul-Malik (after inclusion of al-Hasan). And thus, what is correct is that while the khilaafah ended after thirty years, and was replaced by kingship, then that does not prevent the presence of rightly-guided khalifahs being found, in accordance with the hadeeth of Jaabir, even if that be during the period of kingship, or through the mode of kingship.

Summary

From the previous two articles on this subject and this article – see here and here – the following points are clear:

 

  • After the period of Prophethood, there was a khilaafah upon the way of prophethood for thirty years. 
  • This khilaafah spanned the rule of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Alee, and some include al-Hasan bin Alee. 
  • Mu’aawiyah was the first king in Islaam and his rule broke the succession of the khilaafah, and here kingship entered the Ummah and was the mode of rule and will remain the mode of rule until the approach of the hour when the Prophetic khilaafah will return. However, with the succession of the khilaafahended, this does not prevent the naming of rulers as “khalifahs”, even if they are kings, or took their rule in the period of kingship, and their being named with “khalifahs” in turn, does not negate that the mode of rule had been passed through “kingship“, or that they are in the period of kingship, as explained by Ibn Hajr (see this article). 
  • Within this long period of kingship that is in between the two periods of Prophetic khilaafah, there will be found khalifahs who are rightly-guided, and the hadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) states that the affair will never cease until twelve rulers, ameers, khalifahs have taken the rule, and the presence of these twelve spans all these periods, the first Prophetickhilaafah, the period of kingship (both biting and tyrannical) and the second Prophetic khilaafah. The proof is that the Mahdi is included amongst these twelve, just as the Ummah is united that the rule of Umar bin Abdul-Azeez was a righteous rule, even if it took place during the period of kingship
  • Claiming that these twelve ameers, khalifahs are in direct succession after each other is not a strong viewpoint. 
  • The khilaafah, upon its original state and way, will return after the period ofkingship, and the Mahdi, who is from the Quraish will rule in this period for a time of seven years (and possibly others after him), and after his departure the affair will then deteriorate and get worse. 
  • The twelve imaams, or ameers or khalifahs are not those of the heretical Rafidite Twelvers who claim their twelfth Imaam is present in person, hiding in a cave, and has been for hundreds of years and will eventually emerge out of the cave to establish justice.

Finally, in the discussion of this topic, some of the scholars mention that since there was a mention of “twelve” great men from the offspring of Ismaa’eel in the Torah, when the Jews who became Muslims heard the Rafidah speak of their “twelve” Imaams, many Jews inclined towards the Rafidah and took on their way. Ibn Katheer said (in his tafseer of al-Maa’idah 5/12):

 

وفي التوراة البشارة بإسماعيل عليه السلام وأن يقيم من صلبه اثنا عشر عظيما وهم هؤلاء الخلفاء الاثنا عشر المذكورون في حديث ابن مسعود وجابر بن سمرة وبعض الجهلة ممن أسلم من اليهود إذا اقترن بهم بعض الشيعة يوهمونهم أنهم الأئمة الاثنا عشر فيتشيع كثير منهم جهلا وسفها لقلة علمهم وعلم من لقنهم ذلك بالسنن الثابتة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

 

And in the Torah is the glad tiding regarding Ismaa’eel (alayhis salaam) and that twelve great men will arise and be established from his offspring, and they are the twelve mentioned in the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood and Jaabir bin Samurah. And some of the ignoramuses from the Jews who accepted Islaam, when some of the Shi’ah associated with them and made them presume that they (the Shi’ah) are the twelve imaams, many of them (the Jews) took on Shi’ism out of ignorance and foolishness, due to their lack of knowledge and the [lack of] knowledge of those who dictated that to them of the established Sunan (narrations) from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

And this would explain a route through which Jews took on the way of the Rafidah Shi’ah, out of their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the religion of Islaam.

Another View By Shaykh Ibn Baaz

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) has a view different to that of Ibn Katheer on this subject, regarding the specification of these twelve rulers. He states (Majmoo’ Fataawaa 4/99-101, English translation, alifta.com, with some corrections):

 

There are some of the scholars who gave some irregular opinions in this regard but their views are not considered here. As for what Al-Hafiz Isma’il ibn Kathir (may Allah confer His Mercy on him) stated in his book of the exegesis of the Qur’an in Surah of Al-Ma’idah while speaking about the deputies of the people of Medina, that Al-Mahdi may be one of The Twelve Imams, this is doubtful.The Prophet (may Allah’s Peace and Blessings be upon him) said: “The matter of this nation will continue well-established when they are ruled by twelve caliphs who all belong to Quraysh“. The saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) indicates that religion at their time is established and prevailing and the truth is apparent. It is known that this prophecy was fulfilled before the end of the era of Banu Umayyah. However, during the last days of this era a great difference occurred which caused disunity and was a disaster for Muslims for they divided into two countries, one in Andalusia and one in Iraq as well as other inflictions which affected Muslims during this time as known.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The matter of this nation will continue well-established…” Then, there were many great matters that helped unbalance the system of caliphate and the Islamic territory disunited into small countries with their own rulers, as is the case in the present time, even widely and apparently.

To this day, Al-Mahdi has not appeared so how can one dare to say that the matter of religion will continue well-established until the coming of Al-Mahdi? Indeed, this is rejected by fair thinking and contemplation.

According to some scholars, the most proper meaning of the Hadith, “The matter of this nation will continue well-established when they are ruled by twelve caliphs who all belong to Quraysh“, is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) intends the four caliphs, Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with them), his son Yazid , ‘Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan, his four sons and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul-`Aziz. These are twelve caliphs.

What I want to assure is that the strongest and soundest view concerning the twelve Imams is that they end with Hisham ibn ‘Abdul-Malik as religion in their time was established, Islam was prevailing, the truth was apparent and Jihad was in force. As for what happened after the death of Yazid of difference and disunity in the caliphate so that Marwan ruled Al-Sham (The Levant) and Ibn Al-Zubayr ruled Hijaz all of this did not harm Muslims in their religion for their religion was predominant and widespread and their enemy was subjugated in spite of the dispute that happened then it ended by paying the pledge of allegiance to to ‘Abdul-Malik and people became united in spite of the trouble that happened at the hands of Al-Hajjaj and others.

It becomes clear that the matter which the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us about has happened and ended whereas the matter of Al-Mahdi is to be during the last days (of the world) and that it has no relation to the Hadith narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah concerning the Twelve Imams .

Upon this view, four of the rulers were in the period of Prophetic khilaafah and the rest were in the period of kingship, and the reign of all of these twelve rulers (ameers, khalifahs) ended before the first century of Islaam, as Umar bin Abdul-Azeez died in 97H.

 

 

A Brief Historical Look at When and Who First Spoke with the Innovation that the Speech of Allaah is Created

A Brief Historical Look at When and Who First Spoke with the Innovation that the Speech of Allaah is Created

None of the Companions (radhi Allaahu ‘anhum) have narrated anything in this affair, and this deviation was unknown in their times. They believed in everything that was revealed in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) regarding that which Allaah described Himself with and that which the Messenger affirmed for him, from His Speech, His Hearing, His Seeing and other than that.

Shaikh al-Islaam Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 728H) stated in Minhaaj as-Sunnah (6/336):

 

And the intent is that the Sahaabah, may Allaah be pleased with them, never fought each other due to any difference in a fundamental from the fundamentals (qawaa’id) of Islaam. And they did not differ in anything from the principles of Islaam; not in the Attributes (sifaat of Allaah); not in the Pre-Decree (al-qadar); not in the affairs of titles and passing rulings; and not in the affairs of rulership.They did not differ in this in terms of quarelsome speech, let alone fighting each other with the sword – rather they were firmly established as it relates to the Attributes of Allaah that He informed of regarding Himself. They would negate from Him (the Most High) any resemblence to the creation.

Who were the First to Openly State their Denial of the Speech of Allaah?

What is shown in the books of ‘aqeedah [1] is that the first who is known to have made apparent his denial of the Speech of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, was al-Ja’d Ibn Dirham (ex. 124H) and this was at the end of the era of Banu Umayyah.

So when he made open his wicked speech, the rulers of Banu Umayyah called for him, so he fled to Koofah in Iraaq. He was arrested and then executed on the day of ‘Eid al-Adhaa by Khaalid ibn Abdullaah al-Qusree – a representative and worker of Banu Umayyah in Koofah. During the course of his Khutbah to the people, he said:

 

O people! Sacrifice! May Allaah accept your sacrifices, and indeed I will sacrifice ja’d ibn Dirham! Indeed he claims that Allaah did not take Ibraaheem as a friend (i.e. as a khaleel); and that He did not speak to Moosaa directly – High is Allaah, the Exalted, the Great, above what al-Ja’d is saying… then al-Qasree descended and slaughtered al-Ja’d at the foot of the mimbar. [2]

However before this misguided one was executed he passed his innovation on toJahm Ibn Safwaan of Tirmidh (executed in 128H) whome he met in Koofah. He was then banished to Tirmidh and remained their until he was executed in Asbahaan or (as it is said) in Marw by Salam ibn Ahwaz.

Then this innovated speech passed from the followers of Jahm to Bishr al-Mareesee(d. 218H) who was the head of the Jahmiyyah and their scholar in his time. And he isBishr ibn Ghiyaath ibn Abee Kareemah al-Mareesee. He was from the people of opinion (As’haab ur-Rayy) who busied himself with ‘ilm al-kalaam (intellect-based theological rhetoric) and he claimed, amongst other evil saying that have been narrated from him, that the Qur’aan was created – the scholars charged him with unbelief due to these sayings. The sect known as the Mareesiyyah are ascribed to him. [3]

Then Ahmad Ibn Abee Duwaad (d. 240H)[4] took this corrupt ‘aqeedah from Bishr. And it was he who incited the ruler al-Ma’moon al-‘Abbaasee to set up the mihnah (i.e. the inquisition) and the compelling of the people to say that the Qur’aan is created. Many, many people were put to trial and were compelled to agree – however the Imaam of the Sunnah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullaah, died 241H), remained steadfast upon the truth and remained patience even though he was beaten and tortured.

So we know from that which has has preceeded that the first to propound the belief in the ‘negation of the Speech of Allaah’ from those who ascribed themselves toIslaam was al-Ja’d Ibn Dirham (executed 124H); and we can see that he had successors who inherited this doctrine from him and led astray many many people. However, do we have any indication where al-Ja’d Ibn Dirham learnt his evil doctrine?

We have that which has been mentioned by Ibn Asaakir and others that:

 

Al-Ja’d Ibn Dirham took his saying from Bayaan ibn Sam’aan; and Bayaan ibn Sam’aan [5] took it from Taaloot the son of the sister of Labeed ibn al-A’sam; and that Taaloot took it from his maternal uncle Labeed – and this is the Jew who did magic upon Allaah’s Messenger (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam) and he used to say that the Tawraat was created![6]

From this you can see how corruption entered the Ummah and who are the true founders of those sects that outright deny, distort and explain away the lofty Attributes of Allaah, from them His Speech (kalaam). May Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, protect us from misguidance in all of it’s forms – and all praise is due to Allaah, Lord of the Worlds.

Notes

[1] See Sharh Usool I’tiqaad Ahlis-Sunnah 2/382, al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah 9/35,Fatawaa Ibn Taimiyyah 12/26, al-Wasaa’il fee Ma’rifatil-Awaa’il 121.

[2] See al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah 9/35, Mizaan al-I’tidaal of adh-Dhahabee 1/399.

[3] See his biography in Taareekh Baghdaad of al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee 7/56,Wafayaat al-A’yaan of Ibn Khalakaan 1/277, al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah of Ibn Katheer 10/281, Mizaan al-I’tidaal of adh-Dhahabee 1/322, and Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa of adh-Dhahabee 10/200.

[4] Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa of adh-Dhahabee 11/169.

[5] And he is Bayaan ibn Sam’aan an-Nahdee from Banee Tameem. He appeared in Iraaq sometime after 100H. He claimed that ‘Ali (radhi Allaahu ‘anhu) was divine and that ‘Ali had within him a divine portion united with his human portion; and then divinity passed after him to Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah and then to Abu Haashim the son of Ibn al-Hanafiyyah and then after him to Bayaan ibn Sam’aan. Ibn Numair said: “Khaalid ibn Abdul-Malik al-Qusree executed him and burnt him in fire.” SeeMizaan al-I’tidaal 1/357.

[6] al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah 9/350, Al-Wasaa’il fi Ma’rifatil-Awaa’il of as-Suyootee 131-132.

When the Wife is Unhappy With the Husband By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

When the Wife is Unhappy With the Husband

By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

(1984)


Qur’an 4:34 (Surah Nisa, ayah 4) gives some guidance as to how to deal with marriage difficulties when husbands feel that their wives are being deliberately nasty to them. The Holy Qur’an also gives guidance for cases when it is the wife who thinks that she is being mistreated and feels unhappy about it.

In this connection it must, first of all, be clearly understood by all Muslims that the Holy Qur’an unequivocally prohibits keeping women in wedlock against their will. In Surah al-Baqarah, verse 231, it is said:

“And do not retain them (i.e. women) in wedlock against their will in order to hurt them. He who does such a thing indeed sins against himself. And do not take the signs of God lightly…”

And in Surah an-Nisa verse 19 we read:

“O YOU who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to [try to] become heirs of your wives [by holding onto them] against their will.”

These verses appear in some particular contexts but they clearly contain the principle (also found in Hadith) that women can be brought into the marriage relationship and kept in that relationship only if they want to do so.

In some cultures, including parts of the Muslim world, women are sometimes beaten by their relatives into marrying men of the relatives’ own choice or beaten to stay in the marriage bond. Those who do that commit a sin and unless forgiven by the women concerned will be punished by hell-fire in the hereafter.

It is true, as we have seen in another article, that husbands can lightly beat their wives when they show prolonged and deliberately nasty behaviour but such beating can be done only when the intention to stay in the marriage bond is intact on the part of both the husband and the wife. The moment the wife makes up her mind that she does not wish to remain in the marriage bond and she clearly expresses this decision on her part, the husband ceases to have any justification in the sight of God to beat her.

It is not only by physical force that women are sometimes kept in marriage against their will. More often it is social or economic pressures that are used, consciously or unconsciously, to keep them tied in the unwanted relationship. In Surah an-Nisa’ the Book of God combats such social and economic pressures:

“If a woman fears ill-treatment (mushuz) or indifference (i’radh) from her husband, it is not wrong if (at her initiative) the two set things peacefully to right between themselves; for, peace is best, and selfishness is ever present in human souls. But if you do good and are conscious of Him, behold, God is aware of all that you do… If the two break up, God provides everyone out of His abundance, for God is resourceful, wise.” (4:128-130)

In many cultures, including the Muslim culture, it is considered taboo on the part of a woman, especially if she is of “noble” (sharif) descent, to express unhappiness with marriage and to try to do something about it (except in cases of extreme cruelty on the part of the husband). This type of attitude is part of the social pressure which is used to keep women suppressed. The Qur’an says that if a woman feels that her husband is too indifferent to her, i.e. does not give enough love to her or mistreats her and she is therefore unhappy, there is nothing wrong if she initiates steps to change the situation.

It should be noted that whenever the Qur’an says “there is nothing wrong” or “it is not wrong” (la junaha), it means to fight certain social taboos and established psychological attitudes. In the above passage it is fighting the attitude which expects women to continue in the marriage bond as the husbands keep them regardless of whether the wife is reasonably happy or not.

The first step that a woman should take to change her marriage situation, if she is unhappy with it, is, of course, to “talk it out” with her husband. This may lead to one of two things: a greater understanding between the two resulting in a satisfactory change in the husband’s attitude or a mutual decision to dissolve the marriage bond (with the wife possibly returning par of the dowry (2:229)). Such peaceful settling of matters is beautifully encouraged in the words

“peace is best, and selfishness is ever present in human soul. But if you do good and are conscious of God, behold, God is aware of all that you do.”

Selfishness is accepted here as an inevitable condition of the human soul, so we are not expected to altogether get rid of it. What we are expected to do is to balance our selfishness with God consciousness and consideration for others. This means that we should pursue our self-interests within the limits set by God for our own good and also do something for others instead of being all the time concerned with ourselves.

It is in such a spirit that the husband and wife should discuss their marriage difficulties. Both have the right to expect happiness from the marriage relationship but each of them should seek happiness with consciousness of God and some concern for the happiness of the other partner in marriage. If the husband is not inclined to discuss things in this spirit and continues to mistreat the wife, then the wife can go to an Islamic court which must then impose a settlement on the husband on just terms. This is because it is the duty of Islamic courts to enforce the law of God and deal with all forms of zulm (injustice).

The Holy Qur’an wishes to make it socially acceptable for a wife to seek a change in her marriage situation if she feels that her husband mistreats her or is indifferent to her. But social acceptability alone is not enough; for, as noted earlier, tied with social taboos are economic considerations that often pressure the woman to accept her unhappy marriage situation. The Qur’an says that this should not be the case. It reminds all the concerned persons – the wife, the husband and relatives that:

“God provides everyone out of His abundance, for God is resourceful, wise” (4:130)

If all attempts on the part of the wife to establish a reasonably happy and dignified relationship with her husband fail and breakup of the marriage is the only option, then this option should not be rejected only for economic reasons. Let the wife and her relatives trust in God who is the real provider of all. Marriage should be viewed primarily as a love relationship (30:21) and not as an economic relationship.

The reminder that God is the provider of all is also meant for the husband. It tells him that he should not be too stingily and try to get back every penny that he might have spent on the wife but rather settle on equitable, if not generous, terms. God, who provided him all that he spent on his wife, may provide him yet more out of His infinite abundance.

It is instructive to note a couple of differences between the passage considered above and verse 34 of the same Surah an-Nisa’ dealing with the case when it is the husband who is unhappy with the wife. In the latter case it is simply said: “If you (i.e. husbands) part” whereas in the above passage it is said “If a woman fears nushuz or i’radh on her husbands part.” The addition of i’radh meaning turning away or becoming indifferent in case of a husband and its omission in the case of a wife is significant. This is a recognition that in love and sex relationship man’s role is a more active one in the sense that he is the one who makes most of the first moves and therefore as a rule he alone can do i’radh: she can, as a rule, only refuse to respond (which if done willfully and too often would come under nushuz and would be dealt with as such).

Another difference between the two cases is that when the husband fears nushuz on the part of the wife he can, after due admonition and talking, separate the wife in bed and then lightly beat her while such measures are not suggested to the wife if she is the one who fears nushuz or i’drah from the husband. This is, of course, not because the Qur’an sees anything wrong in principle with the wife separating herself in bed from the ill-treating husband or even beating him. The reason rather is that the Qur’an recognizes the well-observed fact that as a rule women are physically weaker than men and therefore it would be difficult for her to implement such measures against the husband. Unlike the sentimental feminists, the Qur’an is wise enough and realistic enough to first admit that in general women are indeed physically weaker than men and then to realize that it would be totally unhelpful to ask a weaker partner to use forceful methods against a stronger one, especially if that stronger partner is already mistreating her.

But this does not mean that Islam leaves women at the mercy of their husbands. If despite being a Muslim a husband fails to respect the principles outlined in the Qur’an and instead of peacefully settling matters with the wife shows neither the inclination to treat her as a husband should treat a wife nor lets her go in a maruf (just and public) way, then it is the collective duty of the Muslim society to step in and, through a suitable legal system, enforce the law of God by imposing a settlement on the husband on terms judged equitable by an impartial court. It is regrettable that Muslim societies have not yet evolved such a suitable legal system to give women adequate protection against their stronger marriage partners should these stronger partners abandon love and tenderness and turn nasty.

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/UnhappyWife.htm

The Messenger of Allah (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam / may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “When a man dies, his deeds come to an end except for three things: Sadaqah Jariyah (continuous charity); knowledge which is beneficial; or a virtuous descendant who prays for him (the deceased).” [Sahih Muslim]..

 (O Allah, I a…

Image

 

(O Allah, I am Your servant, son of Your servant, son of Your maidservant, my forelock is in Your hand, Your command over me is forever executed and Your decree over me is just. I ask You by every name belonging to You which You name Yourself with, or revealed in Your Book, or You taught to any of Your creation, or You have preserved in the knowledge of the unseen with You, that You make the Qur’an the life of my heart and the light of my breast, and a departure for my sorrow and a release for my anxiety.)

Allah the Exalted and Ever-Majestic will remove his grief and will change his sorrow into happiness.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allah! (do) we have to learn these word?” He said, “Yes, whoever hears them should learn them.”

===========Explanation==========

This great prophetic tradition implies certain matters of knowledge, monotheism and submission, for example the supplicant starts by saying, “I am Your servant, the son of Your servant, the son of Your maidservant.” This includes the forefathers of the supplicant until we reach Adam and Eve. In other words, the supplication indicates submission and full compliance to Allah besides the confession of being His servant along with his forefathers.

It asserts the fact that the servant has no one but his Lord, His Blessings and His Graces. Whenever his Lord ignores him, surely his a looser, with no refuge or support.

This confession means, “I am in dire need of You, and I have no supporter or refuge other than You and it infers that the supplicant is submissive, obedient, and forbearing. He acts according to his submission to Allah, not according to his feelings of self-sufficiency. To provide help and comfort is the role of kings and master, not servants. However, the actions of servants are based on submission, in order to reach the level of those obedient servants described by Allah, the Exalted.

Allah say:

“Certainly you shall have no authority over My slaves…..” (Surah Al-Hijr 15: 42)

And He, The Almighty says:

“And the slaves of the Most Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness.” (Surah Al-Furqan 25: 63)

Other kinds of servants are those slaves of submission and lordship. Ascribing them to Allah resembles ascribing hoses to His Kingdom, or ascribing the Sacred Mosque to Him, or like ascribing the camel to Him, or His Paradise and finally ascribing the submission of His Messenger to Him in the following Qur’anic verse Allah say,

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur’an) to Our slave (Muhammad)…….” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 23)

And He, The Almighty says,

“Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allah) [above all the evil they associate with Him] who took His slave (Muhammad) for a journey by night. (Surah Al-Isra’17: 1)

And The Almighty says:

“And when the slave of Allah (Muhammad) stood up invoking (his Lord-Allah) in Prayer to Him………” (Surah Al-Jinn 72:19)

To be continued………….
==============
Submission

The correct meaning of, “I am Your servant” indicates full submission, compliance and repentance to Allah, as well as being obedient to one’s Lord and avoiding His prohibitions, depending on Him, seeking His help and support, seeking refuge in Him from evil and finally being related to Him with feelings of love, fear and hope. It also indicates, “I am Your servant” in all cases, whether young or grown up, living or dead, obedient or disobedient, in a good condition or otherwise (i.e. being afflicted in the soul, heart, tongue or bodily organs.)

Moreover, it means, “I am all Yours both my money and myself”, for the servant and all that which he possesses belong to his master.

It also means, “You are the one who bestowed all those blessings upon me, so those blessings are really Yours.”

It also includes, “I can’t act freely in that which You granted me, either my money or myself, except by Your orders, as no servant can behave freely except with his master’s permission. I can neither hurt nor benefit myself, and I possess no power (of causing) death, nor (of giving) life, nor of raising the dead.” So, if he really believes in all that which was previously mentioned, then he has confessed his full submission to Allah.

The sentence, “My forelock is in Your hands,” means, “I cannot act freely as far as my soul is concerned,” for how can he act freely when his soul is possessed by his Lord, his forelock is in His hands, his her is between two of His fingers and moreover his death, life, happiness, misery, good condition and afflictions are in the charge of his Lord, the Exalted. By no means is the servant in charge of himself. The master owns him, and he is weaker than any worthless slave whose forelock is in the grasp of a powerful and mighty ruler. It is so much more than that.

Whenever the servant of Allah confesses the fact that his forelock and the forelock of all other servants are in the grasp of Allah (i.e. under His control), he will neither fear or aspire to any worldly sovereign nor will he overestimate them, because he knows quite well that they are but subdued servants, whose destiny is controlled by allh. Whoever confesses this fact surely will stand in need of Allah and whenever he witnesses the reality of other people, he will neither overestimate them nor exaggerate in seeking their support. In this way, his belief, trust and submission will be turned to Allah alone. This is the reason behind Hud’s speech to his people when he said in the Qur’anic verse:

“I put my trust in Allah, my Lord and your Lord. There is not a moving (living) creature but He has grasp of its forelock, verily my Lord is on the Straight Path (the truth)” (Surah Hud 11: 56)

The sentence, “Your judgment is executed on me, Your Decree on me is just,” implies two themes, the first of which is the execution of His judgment on His servant. The second theme implies praising Him and that His Decree is just, in addition to the fact that Allah, the Exalted is the Dominion, and that to Him belong all praise and thanks, and that is the meaning of Hud’s words, “There is not a moving (living) creature but He has grasp of its forelock,” and also his words, “verily my Lord is on the Straight Path.” In other words, despite the fact that Allah is the Dominion, the Almighty and The Controller of the destiny of His servants as their forelocks are in His grasp, yet He is on the straight path, He is the Just One, Who oversees His servants’ affairs justly. He is on the straight path in His words, His actions, His judgment, His destiny, His commandments, His prohibitions, His rewards and His Punishment. His verses are truthful, His Judgment is correct, and His commandments are beneficial, He prohibited all that which is evil and mischievous. His reward descends upon those who deserve His mercy and grace. His punishment descends upon those who deserve torment by means of His Justice and wisdom.

To be continued…………..

=====================

Judgment and Decree

There is a distinction between judgment and decree, because judgments are executed and decrees are just.

The judgment of Allah, the Exalted, implied His legitimate judgment and His preordained judgment upon the whole universe. Both judgments are executed on human beings, who are subjected to them, either willing or unwilling. However, there is only one distinction between the two, the preordained universal judgment is compulsory, whereas the religious judgment is optional.

On the other hand, decree means completion and perfection whenever it is executed. The expression “Your decree is just” means “Your decree which you completed and perfected is the rightful one.

The word “judgment” refers to every commandment prescribed by Allah, the Exalted. The judgment of Allah is ordained, Religious judgments will surely be executed, and universal ones will be executed if it is ordained by Allah. Verily, Allah executes that which He ordains, and anyone else can decide whichever judgment he wants but he may still lack the ability to execute it. Allah alone has the power of judgment and implementation. The expression, “Your decree is just” comprises all the decrees ordained Allah upon His servant illness or health, luxury or poverty, pleasure or pain, life or death, punishment or reward etc.

Allah, the Exalted says,

“And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much (Surah Ash-Shura 42: 30)

And

“…..but when some ill befalls them because of the deeds which their hands have sent forth, then verily man, and (becomes) ingrate!” (Surah Ash-Shura 42: 48)

Every decree ordained upon the servant of Allah is just.

The Perception of Destiny and Decree in Other Sects

It was argued, “If sin is preordained by Allah’s decree and destiny, then where is justice?” Justice here is concealed.

It was replied, “That’s a good question, and for that reason a sect once claimed that only justice is preordained but injustice is inconceivable,” They answered, “Injustice is the disposal in other’s property, and Allah is the Owner of all things. Accordingly, His disposal of affairs is just, concerning His creation.

Another sect claimed, “Justice means to abstain from punishing for that which is preordained and predestined, so as long as He approved of the punishment then sin is neither preordained nor predetermined. Thus punishment for one’s sin is just, and it is the consequence of one’s words and deeds in this worldly life.”

It was difficult for this sect to combine justice and destiny. They claimed that whoever believes in destiny, should never believe in justice, and likewise whoever believes in justice should never believe in destiny. It was hard for them, as well, to combine monotheism with the validity of the Attributes of Allah. They claimed that it is impossible to validate monotheism except by disbelieving in the Attributes of Allah. In brief, their monotheism turned out to be suspension, and their justice turned out to disbelief in Justice.

On the other hand, the Sunnis believe in both (i.e. justice and destiny). Their definition of Injustice is putting a matter in other than its place like punishing the obedient and innocent person. Verily Allah is too Exalted for this, which is His characteristic as explained in the Glorious Qur’an. The fact that Allah, the Exalted, sends astray whom He wills and preordained sin and transgression on whomever He will, is simply justice, because He places mischief and aberration in its right place. It is worth mentioning that one of the Names of Allah is “The Just” whose judgments are correct, proper and rightful.

Moreover, Allah clarified all paths, by sending His Messengers, and revealing His Divine Books. He facilitates the ways of guidance and obedience by means of hearing, insight and the use of the mind, which is justice.

Furthermore, Allah guides him who wants to be guided which is a great blessing. On the other hand, He sends astray those who are unworthy as well as those who are unwilling to receive the blessings of Allah, so He deprived them of His blessing but not His justice. Such people are divided into two kinds.

The first kind is him who Allah leaves to stray due to his misguidance as he turned away from Allah, preferring His enemy and neglecting to remember and thank him. As a result he deserves to be abandoned by Allah.

The second kind is those whom Allah is initially unwilling to support because He knows that they underestimate the guidance of Allah. Such people are not thankful to Allah and do not praise Him, and this is the reason behind their being deprived of His Blessings.

Allah the Exalted says:

“Thus We have tried some of them with others that they might say: ‘Is it these (poor Believers) that Allah has favored from amongst us?’ Does not Allah know best those who are grateful?” (Surah Al-An’am 6: 53)

He, the Almighty also says,

“Had Allah known of any good in them, He would indeed have made them listen.” (Surah Al-Anfal 8: 23)

So if Allah decrees misguidance and disobedience upon these souls, then it is just, like for example His decree that the serpent and the scorpion can be killed. All these decrees are just, for they have been created with such characteristics. We mentioned this subject in detail in the book, “The Decree and the Destiny.”

In brief, the supplication, “Your judgment is executed on me and Your decree on me is just”, is the best answer to both sects, the Anti-Fatalists who deny the decrees of Allah upon His servants and believe that man’s actions are excluded from the destiny and the decree of Allah, and it is also a refutation against the other sect. “The Jabriyyah who believe that every decree is just a concept which makes that supplication namely, “Your decree on me is just”- of no value. According to them justice is every predetermined applicable action while injustice is inconceivable.

To be continued…………..

===========================
Invocation using the Names of Allah

The expression, I ask You by every name belonging to You which You name Yourself with, or revealed in Your Book, or You taught to any of Your creation, or You have preserved in the knowledge of the unseen with You,” is an invocation with all the Names of Allah whether they are known or unknown. It is allowable in the Sight of Allah, as it is an invocation with the Attributes of Allah which refers to the connotations of His Names.

The expression, “to make the Qur’an the spring (delight) of my heart, the light of my chest,” the word ‘spring’ means the rain, which brings the life to the earth. The Qur’an is compared to the rain because it revives the hearts. He makes a similarity between water, which is the cause of life, and between light, which is the cause of brightness. Allah the Exalted, makes that similarity in the Qur’anic verse in which He says:

“He sends down water (rain) from the sky and the valleys flow according to their measure, but the flood bears away the foam that mounts up to the surface, and also from that (ore) which they heat in the fire in order to make ornaments” (Surah Ar-Ra’d 13: 17)

Allah, the Exalted say,

“Or like rainstorm from the sky.” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 19)

And the verse in which Allah says,

“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth………” (Surah An-Nur 24: 35)

And

“See you not that Allah drives the clouds gently then joins them together……….. (Surah An-Nur 24: 43)

So the supplication implies that the heart is revived by the spring of the Qur’an, for it is the light of the chest, a concept which combines life and light.

Allah, the Almighty says,

“Is he who was dead (without Faith by ignorance and disbelief) and We gave him life (by knowledge and Faith) and set for him a light (of Belief) whereby he can walk amongst men, like him who is in the darkness (of disbelief, polytheism, and hypocrisy) from which he can never come out?” (Surah Al-An’am 6: 122)

Since the chest is broader than the heart, then enlightening it will surely affect the heart. The life of the body and organs are dependant on the life of the heart, which derives life from the chest and then gives life to the organs.

On the other hand, if grief, distress and sorrow contradict the life of the heart and its brightness, the supplication involves the desire that they be totally removed by the Qur’an.

However, if the previous feelings are to be removed by other than the Qur’an, for example, enjoying health, this worldly life, status, a wife or children, then surly those feeling are temporary and will eventually dissipate. There are three kinds of passive feelings, which affect the heart and they are either related to the past, which causes sorrow, or related to the future so as to cause grief or finally related to the present so as to cause distress.

Reference: Al-Fawaid – Ibn Al-Qayyim (Rahimahullah) Pages 36-47