Saturday, 27 August 2011

Is it permissible for the wife of a man who does not pray to pay zakaat al-fitr on behalf of herself and her children?

 

Will zakaat al-fitr be accepted from a man who does not pray? And is it permissible for his wife to give it without his knowledge on behalf of herself and her children?.

Praise be to Allaah.

If the one who does not pray denies that prayer is
obligatory, then he is a kaafir according to scholarly consensus. If he
affirms that prayer is obligatory, but he does not pray out of laziness and
carelessness, then he is also a kaafir according to the correct scholarly
opinion, because of evidence that is well known, some of which has been
quoted in the answer to question number
2182. 

Based on this opinion, the zakaah, fasting and Hajj of one
who does not pray is not valid, and it is not permissible for a Muslim woman
to allow him to be intimate with her until he repents and starts to pray. 

The wife has to pay zakaat al-fitr of behalf of herself, and
if she pays it on behalf of her children that is fine. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Zakaat al-fitr is obligatory and like all other obligatory duties, each
person is obliged to do it for himself. So you, O man, are obliged to pay
zakaah on your own behalf, even if you have a father or brother. Similarly,
the wife is obliged to pay zakaah on her own behalf, even if she has a
husband. End quote. 

Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen,
18/261 

Based on this, you should pay zakaat al-fitr on your own behalf. As for the children, if they are young then you should pay it on
their behalf, and it does not matter if that is done without the father's
knowledge. 

But if they are adults and have reached the age of majority,
they should pay it on their own behalf if they have wealth. 

And Allah knows best.

Can they offer the funeral prayer over one who did not pray for fear of fitnah that may result if they do not do it?

 

There is a village in which most of the inhabitants do not pray, but they adhere to some Islamic customs. There may be among them some who are kaafirs. We are a group who are religiously-committed and we are calling them to Allaah, and we have hopes that they will be guided. We only offer the funeral prayer for those who pray, but this causes fitnah if we do not offer the prayer for those who do not pray. 


Is it permissible to offer the funeral prayer for all people for the sake of da’wah?.

Praise be to Allaah.

The ruling on offering the funeral prayer
for one who did not pray is based on the difference of opinion among the
scholars as to whether he is a Muslim who is a sinner or a kaafir. The
apparent meaning of the texts and the consensus of the Sahaabah (may Allaah
be pleased with them) is that the one who does not pray is a kaafir in the
sense of major kufr. This has been discussed in the answer to question no.
10061. In the answer to question
no. 70278 we stated that if a
person does not pray, we cannot eat meat slaughtered by him. In the answer
to question no. 37820 and
49698 we stated that if a person
does not pray, no good deeds, zakaah, fasting, Hajj or anything will be
accepted from him. In the answer to question no.
7864 we stated that the Muslims
should have their own graveyards, in which no one else should be buried, and
the one who does not pray and dies when he is not praying should not be
buried in the Muslim graveyard. 

At the same time, we cannot deny that there
is another scholarly opinion on this issue, and there is nothing wrong with
the one who adopts it and believes in it. 

If you think that the one who does not pray
is a kaafir, then do not offer the funeral prayer for one who died when he
was not praying, and put up with any trouble that may be caused to you by
the foolish. 

If you do not think that the one who does
not pray is a kaafir, then there is nothing wrong with you offering the
funeral prayer for one who died when he was not praying, although it is
better not to offer the prayer for him, as a punishment to him and as a
deterrent to others from this major sin. Perhaps by not offering the funeral
prayer for him and others like him, you will motivate people to establish
regular prayer. 

And Allaah knows best.

 

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Is it better to recite Qur’aan from memory or to read from the Mus-haf?

 

Is it better to read Qur’aan whilst looking at the Mus-haf, or to recite from memory?.

Praise be to Allaah.
 

 

In prayer, it is better to recite from memory. See question no.
3465. 

Outside of prayer, it is better for a person to do that which will increase his
khushoo’ (humility, focus). If his khushoo’ will be increased by reciting from memory, then that is better; if his khushoo’ will be increased by
reading from the Mus-haf, then that is better. If it is the same in either case, then reading from the Mus-haf is better, because it combines
reading and looking, and his eyes will be protected from looking at things that may distract him from reciting and pondering the meaning. 

Al-Nawawi said in al-Adhkaar (p. 90-91): 

Reading Qur’aan from the Mus-haf is better than reciting from memory; this is the view of our
companions and it is well known from the salaf (may Allaah be pleased with them). This does not apply in all cases however; if the reader can
focus and ponder the meanings more when reciting from memory than when reading from the Mus-haf, then reciting from memory is better. If it is the
same in both cases, then reading from the Mus-haf is better. This is what the salaf meant. 

There are weak (da’eef) ahaadeeth narrated from the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) which cannot be used as proof that it is better to look at the Mus-haf. We mention them only to draw attention to
the fact that they are weak. These include: 

“Looking at the Mus-haf is an act of worship; for a child to look at his parents
is an act of worship; looking at ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib is an act of worship.” This is a fabricated (mawdoo’) hadeeth, as al-Albaani said in
al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah, 1/531. 

“Give your eyes their share of worship: looking at the Mus-haf, thinking about it
and pondering its wonders.” This is also fabricated (mawdoo’). Al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah, 4/88. 

“Five things are acts of worship: eating little, sitting in the mosque, looking at the Ka’bah,
looking at the Mus-haf and looking at the face of a scholar.” This is a very weak (da’eef jiddan) hadeeth. Da’eef al-Jaami’ al-Sagheer, no.
2855. 

And Allaah knows best.

Are precious stones mentioned in the Qur’aan?

 

Please let me know about this query ? how many stones [ precious / semi precious ] are mentioned in the holy quran ? in which surah are they mentioned ? is there any spiritual significance of these stones ?

Praise be to Allaah.
 

 

The primary purpose of the Qur’aan is to
guide mankind to Allaah, so that they will affirm His Oneness and worship Him alone, and attain His Paradise and His pleasure. The Qur’aan is not
a book of science, medicine or astronomy, even though its verses may contain a little of such things. 

Hence the Muslim should not let himself be
distracted from the greater purpose of reciting the Qur’aan and look for the number of stones or rivers or kinds of animals mentioned therein. 

Some precious stones such as rubies, pearls
and coral are mentioned in the Qur’aan. 

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“(In beauty) they are like rubies and
coral”

[al-Rahmaan 55:58] 

“Out of them both come out pearl and
coral”

[al-Rahmaan 55:22] 

“Like unto preserved pearls”

[al-Waaqi’ah 56:23] 

“And round about them will (serve) boys of
everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls”

[al-Insaan 76:19] 

These stones do not have any spiritual significance, rather they are mentioned in the Qur’aan
to explain the blessings that Allaah has bestowed upon His slaves, of the seas and the things that are brought forth from them, or as a metaphor –
so al-hoor al-‘iyn are likened to rubies, coral and preserved pearls, combining the purity of rubies and the whiteness of pearls and
coral. 

The boys are likened to scattered pearls, to
indicate their beauty and good looks. 

And Allaah knows best.

 

He claims that the Qur’aan is lacking in eloquence and contains grammatical errors

 

In Soorat al-Baqarah it says (interpretation of the meaning): 


“And indeed, We gave Moosa (Moses) the Book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers. And We gave ‘Eesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), clear signs and supported him with Rooh-ul-Qudus [Jibreel (Gabriel)]. Is it that whenever there came to you a Messenger with what you yourselves desired not, you grew arrogant? Some you disbelieved and some you killed”


[al-Baqarah 2:87] 


My Christian colleague says, look at the way the word taqtuloon (translated as “you killed” – appears in present tense form) follows the word kadhdhabtum (“you disbelieved” – past tense). He says that the wording should be [Allaah forbid that we should alter His Holy Book] fa fareeqan kadhdhabtum wa fareeqan qataltum (Some you disbelieved and some you killed) [i.e., both verbs appearing in past tense form], because the Prophets have ceased and Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets. It should be noted that he does not believe that the Prophet Muhammad was a Prophet, rather he believes that Prophet ‘Eesa (Jesus) was the last of the Messengers. 


In Soorat Aal ‘Imraan it says (interpretation of the meaning): 


“When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!’__and it is [kun fa yakoon]”


[Aal ‘Imraan 3:47] 


My Christian colleague also thinks that this is ineloquent and he says that it would be more correct [Allaah forbid that we should alter His Holy Book] to say Kun fa kaana (Be and it was).  


Please explain so that I can refute his comments. “So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know” [al-Anbiya 21:7 – interpretation of the meaning].

Praise be to Allaah.
 

 

Firstly: 

The one who is not able to engage in debate
with others should fear Allaah and not get involved in debates and arguments with others; rather he should try to protect his religious commitment
by refraining from arguing with the ignorant or those who promote specious arguments.  

Secondly: 

With regard to the specious arguments
mentioned – which are more flimsy than a spider’s web – these may be answered in two ways. 

The first way is in general terms, which is
to say that the Qur’aan is the Book of Allaah which was revealed to the pure Arabs, who were the most advanced nation in the field of eloquence;
they paid a great deal of attention to that and had reached a high level of eloquent self-expression. They had established festivals of poetry and
speech-giving, they hung their mu’allaqaat poems on the Ka’bah as a sign of the high esteem in which they held eloquence and literature; they
competed in poetry and beautiful speech. Poetry flowed through their veins and they recited poems on all occasions, for joy and sorrow, birth and
death, happiness and misery, victory and defeat. This was something that was unknown in any other nation. 

Hence by His wisdom Allaah revealed to them
this Qur’aan in this language of which they were so proud and because of which they thought themselves superior to other nations. The Qur’aan
dazzled them with its beautiful words and meanings, its great purpose and structure. So they submitted to it out of respect for its language and
dare not speak any word of criticism against its wording, grammar or expression.  

Allaah challenged them in His Book to produce
anything like the Qur’aan, but they could not match it, let alone find fault with its grammar. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Say: ‘If the mankind and the jinn were
together to produce the like of this Qur’aan, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another’”

[al-Isra’ 17:88] 

Then Allaah challenged them to produced ten
soorahs like it, as He said (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Or they say, ‘He (Prophet Muhammad)
forged it (the Qur’aan).’ Say: ‘Bring you then ten forged Soorah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allaah (to your
help), if you speak the truth!’”

[Hood 11:13] 

When they were unable to do that, then Allaah
challenged them to produce just one soorah like it. Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and
Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur’aan) to Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a Soorah (chapter) of
the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allaah, if you are truthful”

[al-Baqarah 2:23] 

No one who comes afterwards, when the
language has become corrupted and mixed with foreign languages, has any right to support such nonsensical ideas that do no more than point to the
depth of his ignorance and the shallowness of his thinking, and his lack of knowledge of the Arabic language. As it was said,  

“How often do you see someone criticizing
something that is sound, and his problem is that he cannot understand it properly.” 

The second way is in specific, detailed
terms, discussing the aspects of eloquence in the words that he criticized. This is as follows: 

With regard to the words of Allaah
(interpretation of the meaning): 

“Some you disbelieved and some you killed
(fa fareeqan kadhdhabtum wa fareeqan taqtuloon)”

[al-Baqarah 2:87] 

The scholar al-Taahir ibn ‘Ashoor said in his
commentary (al-Tahreer wa’l-Tanweer, 1/598): 

The word taqtuloon (translated as “you
killed”) appears in the present tense form to emphasize more vividly the terrible action that they did, namely killing the Prophets. This is like
the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And it is Allaah Who sends [arsala – part
tense form] the winds, so that they raise up [fa tutheeru – present tense form] the clouds, and We drive them to a dead land, and revive therewith
the earth after its death”

[Faatir 35:9] 

Moreover, the form taqtuloon fits with
the rhyme of the soorah and makes it more vivid; this provides eloquence of meaning and beauty of form. End of quote. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen quoted in his
Tasfeer (1/283) from some of the scholars another reason for using the present tense form taqtuloon, which is to provide a sense of
continuity, i.e., the Jews kept on killing the Prophets, even the last of them, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). They
killed the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with the poison that they gave him at Khaybar, and he (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) continued to suffer the effects of that until, in his final illness, he said, “I still feel pain from the food I
ate at Khaybar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.”

Abu Dawood; also narrated by al-Bukhaari in a
mu’allaq report. Al-Albaani said in Saheeh Abi Dawood (3784), it is hasan saheeh. 

With regard to the verse in which Allaah says

(interpretation of the meaning):

 “When
He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!’ __and
it is [kun fa yakoon]”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:47] 

This is more indicative of the ignorance of
this objector, because this verse is speaking of when Allaah wills to create something in the future, not in the past; this is to be understood
from the use of the word idha (meaning when, if), which refers to something in the future. Hence the verb yaqool (says) appears in
the present tense, to indicate that it is referring to something in the future, and it is followed by the verb yakoon (it is), also in the
present tense, which also refers to something in the future. 

And Allaah knows best.

The revelation of the Qur’aan in seven styles (ahruf, sing. harf)

 

I have read that during the third Khalief, Oethmaan, a committee under supervision of Zaid ibn Thabit has been ordered to make an official editorship of the whole Koran. But this "Oethmanian" text didn't give yet a uniform reading.


Because early arabic language didn't have vowels and also some consonants had the same or almost the same form. New signs were introduced to seperate the different letters. But this still did not stop the different ways of reading.


In the first half of the fourth/tenth century the 'imaam of the Koran readers' in Baghdad, Ibn Moedjahid, gave a solution to this problem. He said that the word harf should be put equivalent to kira'a. He declared seven ways of reading correct. Because according to him the saying of the Prophet (PBUH) that the Koran was send in seven ahroef means that seven ways of reading are inspired.


Nowadays only to ways of reading are in use, Warsj of Nafi' and Hafs of 'Asim.


Could you tell me more about these different ways of reading? Are there ahadieth about this?.


Praise be to Allaah.
 

 

Firstly :

you should note, may Allaah bless you, that the Qur’aan was
revealed in one style at the beginning, but the Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept asking Jibreel until he
taught him seven styles, all of which were complete. The evidence for that
is the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas who narrated that the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Jibreel taught me one style and I
reviewed it until he taught me more, and I kept asking him for more and he
gave me more until finally there were seven styles.”

(narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3047; Muslim, 819) 

Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing.
harf)? 

The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant
is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may
differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it
is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction. 

Thirdly: 

Some of the scholars said that what was meant by ahruf
was the dialects of the Arabs, but this is far-fetched, because of the
hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said: “I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem
reciting Soorat al-Furqaan in a manner different from that in which I used
to recite it and the way in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught me to recite it.  I was about to
argue with him whilst he was praying, but I waited until he finished his
prayer, and then I tied his garment around his neck and seized him by it and
brought him to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I heard this man reciting
Soorat-al-Furqaan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.’ The
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to
him, ‘Recite it,’ and he recited it as I had heard him recite it. The
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said,
‘It was revealed like this.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite it,’ so I recited
it and he said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ This Qur'aan has been revealed
in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2287; Muslim, 818) 

It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the
clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the
clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh
had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a
difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different? 

The scholars mentioned nearly forty different opinions
concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have
mentioned above. And Allaah knows best. 

Fourthly: 

It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different
wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection
was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are
not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous,
as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil
or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).” 

Fifthly: 

With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat
al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it
is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People
thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were
al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to
be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or
it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was
narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people
thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a
mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations
are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for
all the Muslims.  

Sixthly: 

When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according
to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that
some other styles could also be accommodated.  So the Mus-haf that was
copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever
styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the
styles that could not be accommodated fell into disuse. The people had
started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan
united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan. 

Seventhly: 

Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the
seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam
ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210) 

Eighthly: 

The seven readers or reciters were: 

1-    
Naafi’ al-Madani

2-    
Ibn Katheer al-Makki

3-    
‘Aasim al-Kufi

4-    
Hamzah al-Zayaat al-Kufi

5-    
Al-Kisaa’i al-Kufi

6-    
Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’
al-Basri

7-    
‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Aamir
al-Shaami 

The ones who have the strongest isnaad in recitation are
Naafi’ and ‘Aasim. 

The most eloquent are Abu ‘Amr and al-Kisaa’i. 

Warsh and Qaaloon narrated from Naafi’.

Hafs and Shu’bah narrated from ‘Aasim. 

And Allaah knows best.

Distortion of the Qur’aan by the Raafidis

 

I have also heard by a shia collegue that their is a surat in their book which is not in the QURAN. can u confirm this? the surat in qs is called SURAT AL-WILAYAT.


Praise be to Allaah.
 

 

With regard to Soorat al-Wilaayah, some of
the Shi’ah scholars and imams have stated that it exists. Any of them who denies that does so by way of taqiyah (dissimulation). One of those who
clearly stated that it exists is Mirza Hussein Muhammad Taqiy al-Noori al-Tubrusi (d. 1320 AH). He wrote a book in which he claimed that the
Qur’aan had been distorted and that the Sahaabah has concealed some parts of it, including Soorat al-Wilaayah. The Raafidis honoured him after his
death by burying him in al-Najaf. This book by al-Tubrusi was published in Iran in 1298 AH, and when it was published there was a great deal of
controversy because they wanted the doubts about the validity of the Qur’aan, which were known only to their leaders, to remain scattered
throughout hundreds of their major books, and they did not want that to be compiled in one book. At the beginning of his book he said:  

“This is a good and noble book entitled
Fasl al-khitaab fi ithbaat tahreef Kitaab Rabb il-Arbaab (Decisive comment on the distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords)… He mentioned
aayahs and soorahs which he claims that the Sahaabah concealed, including ‘Soorat al-Wilaayah,’” the text of which, according to them, and as
quoted in this book, is: 

“O you who believe, believe in the Prophet
and the Wali [i.e., ‘Ali] whom We have sent to guide you to the straight path, a Prophet and a Wali who are part of one another, and I am the
All-Knowing, All-Aware…”  

And they have another soorah which they call
Soorat al-Noorayn: “O you who believe, believe in the two lights (al-noorayn) which We have sent down to you to recite to you My Verses and to
warn you of the punishment of a great Day. They are part of one another and I am the All-Hearing, All-Knowing. Those who fulfil the covenant with
Allaah and His Messenger mentioned in the verses (of the Qur’aan), the Gardens of delight will be theirs, but those who disbelieve after they
believed by breaking their covenant and disobeying the command of the Prophet, they will be thrown into Hell. They have wronged themselves and
gone against the wasiyyah of the Prophet (i.e., the appointment of ‘Ali as khaleefah), and they will be given to drink of boiling water…” and
other such nonsense. 

You can see the entire soorah, along with a
telegraphic picture of the Persian mus-haf at the following site: 


http://arabic.islamicweb.com/shia/nurain.htm
 

Prof. Muhammad ‘Ali Sa’oodi – who was one of
the greatest experts of the Ministry of Justice in Egypt – examined an Iranian mus-haf kept by the Orientalist Bryan and he obtained a copy of
this soorah; above the lines of Arabic script there is written the translation in the Iranian language. 

As it was mentioned by al-Tubrusi in his
book, Fasl al-khitaab fi ithbaat tahreef Kitaab Rabb il-Arbaab, it is also mentioned in their book Dabastan Madhaahib, which is in
Farsi, written by Muhsin Faani al-Kashmiri. This book has been printed numerous times in Iran, and this false soorah was quoted from it by the
Orientalist Noeldeke in his book The History of Qur’anic Manuscripts, 2/120, and was published by the French Asian newspaper in 1842 (p.
431-439). 

It was also mentioned by Mirza Habibullaah
al-Haashimi al-Kho’i in his book Manhaaj al-Baraa’ah fi Sharh Nahj al-Balaaghah (2/217); and by Muhammad Baaqir al-Majlisi in his book
Tadhkirat al-A’immah (p. 19, 20) in Farsi, (published by) Manshoorat Mawlana, Iran. 

See also al-Khutoot al-‘Areedah li’l-Asas
allati qaama ‘alayha deen al-Shi’ah by Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb. 

This claim of theirs is a denial of the words
of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down
the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”

[al-Hijr 15:9] 

Hence the Muslims are unanimously agreed that anyone who claims that anything in the Qur’aan
has been altered or changed is a kaafir. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: 

The same applies to those among them who claim that some verses of the Qur’aan have been taken
away or concealed, or who claim to have some esoteric interpretations that exempt him from having to do the actions prescribed in sharee’ah etc.,
who are called al-Qaraamitah and al-Baatiniyyah, and who include al-Tanaasukhiyyah [names of esoteric sects]. There is no dispute that they are
kaafirs. 

Al-Saarim al-Maslool,
3/1108-1110. 

Ibn Hazm said: 

The view that the Qur’aan has been altered is
blatant kufr and is a rejection of what the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said. 

Al-Fasl fi’l-Ahwa’ wa’-Milal wa’l-Nihal,
4/139. 

And Allaah knows best.