Weak hadeeth on 4 rak^aat before Jumu^ah Prayer

Question:

I Heard that this hadeeth is extremely weak, and that Nawawi in Hulasa said that 4 weak narrators where together in this hadeeth:

 

Atiyya: Weak bij conencus

Hadjjaas Mudalhis, Muabbashir bin Ubayd: Liars

Bakiyya Ibn Walid: A Mudallis

 

Abdullah Ibn Abbas (Allah have mercy on him), related that, 'The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to pray four rakats before Jumu`ah without separating between them at all.' (narrated in Ibn Majah)

 

Is this true?

Answer: Yes, the many authors state this. However, Al-Haafith Al-^Iraaqiy stated that the hadith has been narrated with an acceptable chain of narrators. 

SUNDAY, JANUARY 14, 2007

Re: imam changing place afer fard prayer

Question:

  Must the imam change place after the fard prayer if he wants to pray the sunnah? Please give dalil

Answer:

It is Makruuh for him to pray in the same place, because the Prophet ordered to move a little from the place of the Fard. This is more important for the Imam to avoid confusion as to what prayer he is in, but also encouraged for followers.

Re: prayer beads

Question: 

Shouldn't we avoid the use prayer beads as the Christians also use a similar prayer beads in the church?

Answer:
No, because great early Muslims also used them. It is mentioned in hadith that a companion used pebbles to count remembrances in front of the Prophet, and he did not forbid it. It is therefore not counted as imitating Christians. 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2007

Re: photos

Question:

Is taking photos with a camera haraam or allowed?

Answer:
The Hanafi scholars in Damascus allow photography, unlike painting or drawing images of live beings. 

MONDAY, JANUARY 08, 2007

Regarding the Attributes of Allah

A Faqir asked:

shaikh, one of the most common attacks of the pseudo-salafis upon the ash'aris in the West is that they say ash'aris are mu'attila because they affirm only some attributes and reject others which does not agree with their intellect.

they say that if we can accept 'as-sam' and 'al-basar' as "literal" attributes of Allah's Essence bila kayf then what is stopping us from accepting 'wajh', 'yad/yadain', and 'ayn', for example, as being "literal" attributes of Allah's Essence bila kayf. Why not accept them literally bila kayf like we do Irada, sam', basar instead of making ta'wil? How do we answer this ya shaikh?

Answer and comment:
First of all, that does "literal bi laa kayf" mean? This appears self contradictory.

Ash^ariys do not deny any attribute of Allah that has been unequivocally verified as His by the Quran or sound Hadiiths. What the Ash^ariys do not accept is to understand the words referring to Allah's attribute as having the meaning of things that are created. That is, location, direction, weight, volume, length, width, starting, stopping or changing. This is not denial of attributes except according to someone who believes Allah has such attributes. The one that believes that is a Kaafir by the agreement of Abu Hanifa, Maalik, Al-Shaafi^iy and Ahmad.

We do accept to say "yad bilaa kayf". as long as it is understood that there is no kayf, NOT that there is an unknown kayf. Making ta'wiil is only needed if it is to protect people from believing that Allah has limbs. We have not said that one MUST make ta'wiil. The ta'wiil is made to settle doubts and confusion that presents a danger to people's faith. It is to show that phrases that some are mislead by have an acceptable meaning according to the Arabic language. This has been done by virtually all scholars, even Ahmad ibn Hanbal, so what is the problem?

A Faqir asked:

Let me give you another example ya shaikh. Some Wahabis recently translated as statement from imam adh-dhahabi as follows:

"Why do you say: 'A hand in reality is this bodily limb'? Rather, a 'hand' is homonym, and it is in accordance with, and of the same category of what it is attributed to ..... If it were that of which neither there is a like, nor it is a body, the hand would also be that of which neither there is a like, nor it is a body"

Answer and comment: There is nothing that Ash^ariys would disagree with here, except that I cannot see the use of it. Why is he saying "why do you say.."? Is he addressing the anthropomorphists or the Ash^ariys? If the latter, then he is contradicting himself.

A Faqir asked:

He (Al-Dhahabiy) also says: "If it is said: 'In its conventional usage, a hand only refers to the limb that we all know of' We would say in reply: Similarly, in conventional usage, knowledge, hearing and seeing are only accidents that subsist in bodies. Where, then, is the difference?" What would be the reply to this issue ya shaikh?

Comment: This is very silly. While words like knowledge, hearing and seeing can refer to events in bodies, this is not what immediately comes to mind when you hear such words. This is very different from words like Yad, Wajh, etc. because what comes immediately to mind when hearing such words are bodily attributes.