Fiqh · AlMaghrib Journals

Is Halloween Haram or Harmless Fun?

AlMaghrib — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 11:21:01 GMT

This article is based on an interview with Shaykh Dr Waleed Basyouni

For most people who celebrate it today, Halloween has nothing to do with religion. Ask a child what it means, and the answer is simple: costumes and candy.

So is it a harmless bit of fun, or something a Muslim family should stay away from?

Honestly, it is not one of the easy ones.

It is not a clear-cut haram the way celebrating a theological event like the crucifixion would be, and it is not clear-cut allowed either.

Getting to an answer means looking at where Halloween came from, what it looks like today, and how to handle it in real life, at work, at school, and at the front door.

Where Halloween Came From

Halloween has pagan roots. That is undeniable.

Celtic peoples marked the end of summer around the 31st of October as the point where light gave way to darkness. On that night, they believed the barrier between the living and the world of spirits became blurry, and souls came to visit. Fires and frightening images were used to keep bad spirits away while good spirits were welcomed home.

When Christianity spread, the Church moved its celebration of All Saints’ Day, and with it All Hallows’ Eve, to these dates to replace the pagan practices. Absorbing local customs and giving them a Christian label happened often.

This is exactly the kind of blurring the Shari’ah guards against. A man once vowed to sacrifice camels at a place called Buwanah, and before allowing it, the Prophet ﷺ asked whether an idol had been worshipped there or whether one of their festivals had been held there (Sunan Abi Dawud, narrated by Thabit ibn al-Dahhak رضي الله عنه). Islamic rituals are kept distinct from the rituals of other faiths so that the two never mix.

Does a Change in Culture Change the Ruling?

If a practice had religious meaning centuries ago but almost nobody connects it to that meaning today, does the old ruling still apply? It depends.

Where the Shari’ah has given a specific ruling, that ruling remains even when culture moves on. The name Fir’awn became a symbol of injustice in the Shari’ah, so a Muslim cannot name a football team after him, even though nobody worships Pharaoh anymore. The Prophet ﷺ instructed the Companions to walk briskly in tawaf so the idolaters watching would see their strength (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, narrated by Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما). No idolaters watch today, yet the practice remains, because it became part of the Sunnah itself.

Where there is no specific text, though, a practice whose religious link has been completely cut off cannot be prohibited for its history alone. Prayer beads have been traced back to Buddhist monks. The brand Nike is named after the Greek deity, and the name Denise comes from another Greek idol. Nobody makes those connections today, and declaring these things haram on that basis goes too far.

Why Halloween Still Falls Short

So is Halloween’s link fully cut off? Not entirely. Small groups still observe it as a pagan rite, and how significant that is can differ from one country to another.

But even if every religious connection is set aside, Halloween can be judged by what it contains. Any non-religious practice of non-Muslims is judged on its content: if it is permissible, it is permissible, and if it is harmful, it is harmful. Look at what Halloween carries: demons, witches and monsters celebrated as something cool, violence and gore made into fun, and children going door to door asking strangers for food, with the threat of a ‘trick’ or prank attached to it.

Imagine Muslim families dressing their children on Eid in fake blood, with knives and severed hands. The world would call it barbaric. For Halloween, the same scene is considered harmless. That double standard is something to consider, and it is not a healthy scene for children.

Halloween also touches on the unseen: spirits returning, demons roaming, fire to keep them away. Muslims believe in the unseen, and that belief is not something to dress up as or turn into entertainment.

For these reasons, Muslims should not celebrate Halloween, even with an innocent costume like a firefighter or a butterfly. It sends mixed messages, especially to children.

Keeping It in Proportion

At the same time, Halloween should not be treated like kufr or shirk. It is not in the same category as celebrating the crucifixion or worshipping an idol. If it is haram, it falls among the minor sins, and minor sins are expiated by wudu and salah. The Prophet ﷺ said the five daily prayers wipe out what comes between them, as long as major sins are avoided (Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه).

That does not make minor sins insignificant. But a community that speaks about everything as if it were major loses the ability to weigh harms and benefits, and families need that ability when living in the real world.

Practical Guidance

At work or school. If a manager announces a Halloween dress-up day, a Muslim does not need to take part. The same goes for students at school.

Pumpkin season. Pumpkin spice lattes, pumpkin patches, and seasonal foods carry no problem at all. Carving a scary jack-o’-lantern to display outside is a different matter, because that is imitating the celebration.

With children. A child’s attachment to Halloween is emotional, not theological. Telling an elementary school student that Halloween is pagan means very little to them. What they hear is that Islam means no fun and no candy. Children also are not held accountable, since the pen is lifted from the child until they reach maturity (Sunan Abi Dawud, narrated by Aisha رضي الله عنها). Parents can explain gently and make their own call, choosing their battles wisely.

The better approach is to meet that need for fun throughout the year. Make Eid special. Create family days, even costume days, as long as the costumes follow Shar’i guidelines. Families living in countries where Halloween is everywhere need to do this even more, so that when the 31st comes, their children do not feel deprived.

At the front door. There is no need to turn off every light and keep the house silent in fear. Living normally is enough. If children knock, simply tell them there is no candy.

Handing out pamphlets about Islam instead of candy is the worst option. Children came for a treat, not a lecture, and it pushes people away from the religion. Allah says, “So remind, if the reminder should benefit” (Al-A’la, 87:9). Advice is given when it will be effective, and that moment is not one of them.

Buying candy specifically to hand out to trick-or-treaters is a form of participating in the celebration. But if there is already candy in the house and a child is at the door, giving them some of it is fine, the same as giving to anyone who asks, and for anyone who wants Halloween candy: buy it after the season. It is cheaper.

And Allah knows best.

For more detail on the topic, watch the original discussion with Shaykh Waleed here

How to Name a Child in Islam: Principles and Etiquette

AlMaghrib — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:33:13 GMT

The matter of naming a newborn child is of great importance in the Sharī‘ah, due to the huge effect it has on the psychology of the child and societal ties. Because of this it is not surprising that the scholars paid a lot of attention to this matter and wrote about its rulings and manners in detail.

One of these scholars is Ibn al-Qayyim who wrote about it in his book Tuḥfat’l-Mawdūd bi Aḥkāmil Mawlūd. He wrote a 37-page chapter in this book called ‘Regarding the Matter of Naming and Its Rulings’. Another is Dr. Bakr Abu Zayd who authored a book with the title Tasmiyat’l-Mawlūd in which he wrote on the subject in detail.

It is mandatory for the Muslim parent to put effort into naming his or her child with a beautiful and good name.

Here are some of the key principles to keep in mind.

The Foundational Principle

Of the important principles in this chapter is that the general rule regarding all names is that they are mubāḥ (allowed) unless there is evidence which indicates that its ruling changes to mustaḥabb (recommended), ḥarām (prohibited), or makrūh (disliked).

Part One: Choosing a Good Name

It is mandatory for both parents to take the following matters into account when choosing a name:

1. The name should be beautiful and good

Avoid names with negative or ugly connotations.

The meaning should be positive in three respects:

Positive in the Sharīʿah sense. Examples of this could be the names Mujāhid, Mubārak, Makkah, etc. Another example could be naming after an eminent Muslim; it was found that the companions used to name their children with the names of the martyrs of the battle of Uḥud. Some of the senior companions like Sa’Īd bin Abi Waqqās and al-Zubayr bin al-‘Awwām named their children Mus‘ab after Mus‘ab bin ‘Umayr.
Positive in a linguistic sense. For example: like Sa’Īd (happy), Nabīl (noble), and Sīrīn (Persian name meaning something which is full).
Positive by the customs of the people. For example: like Hend, Samar, and Layth. It was narrated by al-Ḥākim in his Mustadrak that when ‘Ali named his children Ḥarb (meaning war), that the Prophet changed it to al-Ḥasan, then al-Ḥussayn, then Muḥsin. And in the Sunan of Abu Dāwūd it is mentioned that the most hated of names to Allāh are “Ḥarb” (meaning war) and “Murrah” (meaning bitter).

2. Choose from names recommended in the Sharīʿah

Another way of choosing a good name is to choose a name which has been recommended in the texts of the Sharī‘ah like:

‘Abdullāh and ‘AbdulRaḥmān

ابْنِ عُمَرَ رضي الله عنهما قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” إِنَّ أَحَبَّ أَسْمَائِكُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ.” (رواه مسلم)

Ibn ‘Umar said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Surely the most beloved of your names to Allāh is ‘Abdullāh and ‘AbdulRaḥmān.” (Muslim)

عن جابر رضي الله عنه قال: “ولد لرجل منا غلام فسماه القاسم، فقلنا: لا نكنيك أبا القاسم ولا كرامة، فأخبر النبي ﷺ فقال: سم ابنك عبد الرحمن.”

It was narrated by Jābir who said: “A man from amongst us had a son and named him “al-Qāsim”. We said: ‘We will not give you the nickname Abu’l-Qāsim nor will we honor you in that way.’ The Prophet was informed and said: ‘Name your son ‘AbdulRaḥmān.’” (Bukhāri and Muslim)

As soon as the child understands and is old enough to realize, he will hear this name and it will be embedded in his heart that he is ‘Abdullāh, the slave of Allāh, and that Allāh is his Master, and that his Master is Al-Raḥmān Al-Raḥīm, and it will be easy to raise him upon this.

Al-Hārith and Hammām

عن أبي وهب الجشمي قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” أحب الأسماء إلى الله عبد الله وعبد الرحمن، وأصدقها حارث وهمام، وأقبحها حرب ومرة ” رواه أبو داود و النسائي و الترمذي.

It was narrated by Abu Wahb al-Jushamiyy who said: “The Messenger of Allāh said (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam): ‘The most beloved of names to Allāh are ‘Abdullāh (meaning the slave of Allāh) and ‘AbdulRaḥmān (meaning the slave of the Most Merciful), and the most truthful of them are Ḥārith (meaning farmer/worker) and Hammām (meaning hard-working/enthusiastic/ambitious), and the most ugly of them are Ḥarb (meaning war) and Murrah (meaning bitter).” (Abu Dāwūd, al-Nasā’i, and al-Tirmidhi)

Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in his book Majmū‘ Al-Fatāwa: “And his saying that Ḥārith and Hammām are the most truthful of names is because every human being is Hammām and Ḥārith. The Ḥārith is the one who works and earns. The Hammām is the one who has a lot of ambition, and this (ambition) is the beginning of intending to do anything.”

The names of the Prophets

The encouragement to name children after the Prophets is found in the following narration of Abu Wahb al-Jushamiyy which is attributed to the Prophet:

” تسموا بأسماء الأنبياء، وأحب الأسماء إلى الله عبد الله وعبد الرحمن، وأصدقها حارث وهمام، وأقبحها حرب ومرة” (رواه أبو داود والنسائي والبخاري في الأدب المفرد) و قد ضعف بعض أهل العلم هذه الرواية ومنهم الشيخ الألباني.

“Name (your children) with the names of the Prophets. And the most beloved of names to Allāh are Abdullāh and AbdulRaḥmān, and the most truthful of names are Ḥārith and Hammām, and the most ugly of them are Ḥarb and Murrah.” (Abu Dāwūd, al-Nasā’i, and al-Bukhāri in Al-Adab’l-Mufrad)

This narration was considered weak by some of the scholars including Shaykh al-Albāni. However, the principle mentioned is confirmed and correct. Imām al-Bukhāri titled one of the chapters in his collection of authentic narrations: “The Chapter of the One Who Names With the Names of the Prophets.” Anas also said that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) kissed Ibrāhīm, meaning his son. The sunnah of the Prophet in terms of his actions is evidence that it is allowed according to the Sharī‘ah to name children with the names of the Prophets.

It was narrated in Saḥiḥ Muslim and others that Anas bin Mālik said:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “ولد لي الليلة غلام فسميته باسم أبي إبراهيم”.

The Messenger of Allāh said: “A child of mine was born tonight, and I named him with the name of my father Ibrāhīm.”

Also found in Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim is the narration of ‘Alqamah bin Wā’il bin Shu‘bah who said:

“لما قدمت نجران سألوني فقالوا إنكم تقرؤون ‘يا أخت هارون’ وموسى قبل عيسى بكذا وكذا فلما قدمت على رسول الله سألته عن ذلك فقال إنهم كانوا يسمون بأنبيائهم والصالحين قبلهم.”

“When I went to Najrān they asked me saying: ‘You all recite ‘Oh sister of Hārūn’, and Moses came before Jesus by such and such (number of years).’ So, when I came to the Messenger of Allāh I asked him about this, and he said: ‘They used to name after their Prophets and the righteous people who came before them.’”

In another narration in Ṣaḥiḥ Bukhāri:

عن أبي موسى قال: “ولد لي غلام، فأتيت به النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – فسمَّاه إبراهيم! فحنَّكه بتمرة، ودعا له بالبركة، ودفعه إليَّ.”

It was narrated by Abu Mūsa that he said: “A son of mine was born so I brought him to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and he named him Ibrāhīm! He did his taḥnīk with a date (by chewing it and rubbing some of the juice in the mouth of the child), prayed for him to have barakah, and gave him back to me.”

It was also narrated by al-Bukhāri in Al-Adab’l-Mufrad in the narration of Yūsuf bin ‘Abdullāh who said:

” سماني النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – يوسف ” (قال الحافظ في الفتح: ” الحديث وسنده صحيح وأخرجه الترمذي في الشمائل “)

“The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) named me Yūsuf.” (Al-Ḥāfidh in Al-Fatḥ said that this narration and its chain of narrators is authentic and it is narrated by al-Tirmidhi in Al-Shamā’il)

Another evidence of this is the narration found in al-Bukhāri from Jābir bin ‘Abdullāh al-Anṣāri and Anas bin Mālik:

عن جابر بن عبد الله الأنصاري و أنس بن مالك أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: “سموا باسمي .”

That the Prophet said: “Name with my name.”

It was also narrated authentically (according to al-Ḥāfidh in Al-Fatḥ of Ibn Abi Shaybah):

عن سعيد بن المسيب قال : “أحب الأسماء إليه أسماء الأنبياء.”

It was narrated by Sa’Īd bin al-Musayyib who said: “The most beloved of names to him are the names of the Prophets.”

There is no doubt that naming children after the Prophets is a beautiful concept because it connects the child to the best role model possible, considering the Prophets were the leaders of all human beings and the best of them.

The allowance of naming children with the names of the Prophets is so accepted that it is almost considered a matter of consensus between the scholars. However, some of the Ḥanafi and others consider it to be mustaḥabb (recommended), while there is also one opinion that it is makrūh (disliked).

Names indicating servitude to Allāh (e.g. ‘Abdullāh, ‘AbdulRaḥmān)

All of the scholars are in agreement that the best of these names are ‘Abdullāh and ‘AbdulRaḥmān, but other names that have the same general meaning of being a slave of Allāh and use different names of Allāh, are considered to also be praiseworthy because of the similarity to these two names.

Note: There is a narration which states: “The most beloved of names to Allāh are ‘Ābid and Ḥammid”, but this narration is weak. Al-Albāni said about this narration: “It has no basis.” (From Al-Silsilat’l-Dha‘īfah)

The names of the righteous, especially the Companions

It is encouraged to name after the righteous slaves of Allāh, specifically the companions of the Prophet, in the hopes of emulating them and having a high status (in the sight of Allāh).

Of the evidence of this is what was narrated by Imām Muslim on the authority of the Prophet that:

“أنهم كانوا يُسمُّون بأسماء أنبيائهم والصالحين من قبلهم.”

“They used to name with the names of their Prophets and the righteous who came before them.”

Even though this came from the Sharī‘ah of those who came before us, there is nothing in our Sharī‘ah which prohibits or contradicts this concept.

Ibn Ḥajar said in Al-Fatḥ: “And it is said that Talḥa said to al-Zubayr: ‘The names of my sons are the names of the prophets and the names of your sons are the names of the martyrs (he had named them after the martyrs of Badr.’ So he said: ‘I have hope that my sons will become martyrs but you don’t have any hope of your children becoming Prophets.’ He was indicating by saying this that what he had done was better than what Talḥa did.”

Part Two: Names That Are Prohibited or Disliked

The ruling of naming with names which are prohibited by the Sharī‘ah is either makrūh (disliked) or ḥarām; the majority of this section however will cover names which are makrūh and should be avoided, even if not ḥarām.

Category 1: Names belonging only to Allāh

It is ḥarām to give the creation a name whose meaning may only be attributed to Allāh. This takes several forms:

(a) A name that is exclusively one of Allāh’s names or attributes.

For example: “Allāh”, “Al-Raḥmān” (The Most Merciful), “Al-Quddūs” (The Most Sacred/Holy), “Al-Ṣamad” (The Eternal Refuge), “Rabb’l-‘ālamīn” (The Lord of the worlds), “Rabb’l-nās” (The Lord of the people), “Al-Razzāq” (The Provider), “Al-Bāri” (The Producer) etc.

This is the statement of the majority of the Māliki, Shāfi‘i, and Ḥanbali jurists, and their opinion is based on very clear evidence. The evidence they use is the verse where Allāh says:

“Do you know any one worthy of His name?” (Maryam: 65)

The meaning of this verse according to al-Qurṭubi in his tafsīr Al-Jāmi‘ is: “There is no one similar to Him who deserves the equivalent to His name Al-Raḥmān.”

It was narrated in Bukhāri and Muslim on the authority of Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who said:

عن النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- قال: «إن أَخْنَعَ اسم عند الله رجل تسمى ملك الأملاك، لا مالك إلا الله». وفي رواية مسلم: «أَغْيَظُ رجل على الله يوم القيامة، وأخبثه وأَغْيَظُه عليه، رجل كان يسمى ملك الأملاك، لا مَلِكَ إلا الله». قال سفيان: «مثل شَاهَانْ شَاهْ»، وقال أحمد بن حنبل: سألت أبا عمرو عن أَخْنَع؟ فقال: «أَوْضَع».

The most despicable name in the sight of Allāh is a man who names himself “the king of kings”; there is no owner except for Allāh. And in another narration in Muslim: “The most wretched person in the sight of Allāh on the Day of Resurrection, and the worst person and the one who is a target of His wrath, is the person who is called Mālik al-Amlāk (the King of Kings), for there is no king but Allāh.” Sufyān said: “This is like (the name) Shāhan Shāh.” And Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal said: “I asked ‘Abu ‘Amr about the meaning of the word “akhna’” and he said: ‘the most despicable’.”

It was also narrated by Abu Dāwūd from Shurayḥ from his father:

“أنه لما وفد إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مع قومه سمعهم يكنونه بأبي الحكم فدعاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: ” إن الله هو الحكم وإليه الحكم فلم تكنى أبا الحكم فقال إن قومي إذا اختلفوا في شيء أتوني فحكمت بينهم فرضي كلا الفريقين فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما أحسن هذا فما لك من الولد قال لي شريح ومسلم وعبد الله قال فمن أكبرهم قلت شريح قال فأنت أبو شريح.”

“That when he came to the Messenger of Allāh and he heard them calling him by the nickname of Abu’l-Ḥakam, the Messenger of Allāh called him and said to him: ‘Allāh is Al-Ḥakam (the Judge) and judgment is His. Why are you known as Abu Al-Ḥakam?’ He said: ‘If my people differ concerning something, they come to me, and I pass judgment among them, and both sides accept it.’ He said: ‘This is excellent! Do you have any children?’ He said: ‘I have Shurayḥ.’ He said: ‘Then you are Abu Shurayḥ’, and he supplicated for him and his son.”

There is no doubt that naming a child with names similar to these is a form of disbelieving in the names and characteristics of Allāh. Allāh says:

And to Allāh belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. (al-A‘rāf: 180)

As for the opinion of some of the Ḥanafi who have allowed giving any of the names of Allāh to a creation, this is a rejected.

(b) A name of the form “slave of ___” where what follows is not a confirmed name of Allāh.

Examples of this are: ‘AbdulQadīm (the slave of the ancient), ‘Abdul’Ab (the slave of the father), ‘AbdulBāqi (the slave of the eternal), ‘Abdul‘Āl” (the slave of the elevated), ‘AbdulMaqsūd (the slave of the one who is sought), etc.

This is also considered a form of disbelieving in the names of Allāh and Allāh says:

And to Allāh belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His name. (al-A‘rāf: 180)

It was narrated by Ibn Abu Ḥātim from Mubashir bin ‘Ubayd Al-Qurashi who said: “Al-A‘mash said that the word يُلْحِدُونَ in this verse is from the word اللَّحْد (to disbelieve/renounce faith).” He said: “And I asked him about the explanation of it and he said: ‘They enter into them what is not from it’ (meaning they include names which are not names of Allāh in His names).”

Examples of this are to name a child ‘AbdulḤussayn” (the slave of Al-Ḥussayn), ‘Abdulnabi (the slave of the Prophet), ‘Abdulka‘bah (the slave of the Ka‘bah), ‘Abdulmasīḥ” (the slave of the anointed one [Jesus]) etc.

The opinion of the majority of the Ḥanafi, Shāfi‘i, and Ḥanbali scholars, as well as the most correct opinion of the Māliki scholars, is that this is not allowed.

The evidence of this is that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) changed every name of a companion who had a name which indicated being a slave of other than Allāh. He changed the name ‘Abdulḥajar (slave of the stone) to ‘Abdullāh as is found in the narration of Hāni bin Shurayḥ when he came to the Prophet. (narrated by Al-Bukhāri in Al-Adab’l-Mufrad)

There is no doubt that these names are a type of shirk (associating partners with Allāh) in terms of wording because being a slave should be to Allāh alone.

This makes it clear that the opinion of some of the Ḥanafi and Shāfi‘i scholars which have allowed this or have stated that it is simply makrūh (disliked) (instead of ḥarām) if the intention is only to use the name (without actually believing it) and out of seeking honor through this association to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the righteous, is very weak.

As for their claim that the concept of being a slave has many indications, this is accurate. However, the statement of the Prophet “Wretched is the slave of the dinār” (Bukhāri) for example, is not the same as naming someone ‘AbdulRasūl (slave of the Messenger) or ‘AbdulḤussayn” (the slave of al-Ḥussayn). This is because in the second situation these phrases are being used to name a person, and in the first situation in the statement of the Prophet this phrase is being used as a description and as a form of supplicating against that type of person.

As for their claim that it is a way of associating oneself to someone else out of love and following them, but not out of worship, we can accept this claim with extreme caution and dislike if the phrase is being used as a description of someone (for example: To describe someone as being a servant of the Prophet), but not as the person’s actual name which he is known by and endowed with.

The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) used to close any doors that could possibly lead to shirk and excessiveness, including matters that are much less significant than what we have been discussing.

It was narrated in al-Bukhāri by ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb who said:

سمعت النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- يقول: (لا تُطْروني كما أَطْرت النصارى ابنَ مريم؛ إنما أنا عبده، فقولوا: عبد الله ورسوله).

I heard the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) saying: “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians exaggerated in praising the son of Mary; I am nothing but His slave, so say: ‘The slave of Allāh and His messenger’.”

It was also narrated in the Sunan of Abu Dāwūd from ‘Abdullāh bin al-Shikhīr who said:

عن عبد الله بن الشخير -رضي الله عنه- قال: “انطلقت في وفد بني عامر إلى رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- فقلنا: أنت سيدنا. فقال السيد الله -تبارك وتعالى-. قلنا: وأَفْضَلُنَا فَضْلًا وأَعْظَمُنْا طَوْلًا. فقال: قولوا بقولكم أو بعض قولكم، ولا يَسْتَجْرِيَنَّكُمُ الشيطان”.

I went with a deputation of Banu ‘Āmir to the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and we said: “You are our master (sayyid)”. To this he replied: “The Master is Allāh, the Blessed and Exalted”. Then we said: “And the one of us most endowed with excellence and superiority”. To this he replied: “Say what you have to say, or part of what you have to say, and do not let the devil make you his agents.”

It was also narrated by Imām Aḥmad in his Musnad on the authority of Anas bin Mālik that:

عن أنس بن مالك – رضي الله عنه – أن رجلا قال: ” يا محمد، يا سيدنا، وابن سيدنا، وخيرنا وابن خيرنا، فقال رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم -: “أيها الناس عليكم بتقواكم ولا يستهوينكم الشيطان، أنا محمد بن عبد الله، عبد الله ورسوله والله ما أحب أن ترفعوني فوق منزلتي التي أنزلني الله “.

“A man said: ‘Oh Muḥammad, oh our master, and the son of our master, and the best of us, and the son of the best of us.’ So the Messenger of Allāh said: ‘Oh people, you must be mindful of Allāh, and do not let the devil draw you all towards him. I am Muḥammad the son of ‘Abdullāh, the slave of Allāh and His messenger, and I swear by Allāh that I do not like for you all to raise me above the level that has been given to me by Allāh.”

As for their using the statement of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam): “I am the son of ‘AbdulMuṭṭalib (the slave of Muṭṭalib)” as an evidence for their allowance of this, this cannot be used as evidence because this phrase is informing us of the name of his grandfather. What we are discussing is naming which one has power over and the ability to change, not names which came before us. This is why the Prophet changed the names of the companions but not the names of their fathers and grandfathers. So, when the Prophet said “I am the son of ‘AbdulMuṭṭalib” he was simply relaying information and not establishing a rule.

Some scholars get into more detail regarding this matter and say that it is permissible to name someone the slave of something if it is something that no one would ever imagine to actually indicate the worship of that thing. Examples of this could be ‘Abdulkhayr (the slave of goodness), ‘Abdulsunnah (the slave of the sunnah), or Abdul‘ilm” (the slave of knowledge). This is because the aspect of shirk is removed in these types of phrases. This is how we can understand some of the disturbing statements which are narrated on this topic, in which evidence is manipulated to allow naming with names which indicate slavery to other than Allāh.

The root of this catastrophe is really the lack of the true understanding of the meaning of tawḥīd, shirk, and the fact that the Sharī‘ah is preventative of all types of harm and closes any doors which could lead to it. The Messenger said: “Beware of going to extremes in religious matters, because going to extremes is what destroyed those who came before you.”

Category 2: Names that praise the person

One evidence of this is a narration found in the Ṣaḥīḥayn on the authority of Abu Hurayrah who said: “That Zaynab’s name used to be Barrah (meaning obedient/righteous) and it was said: ‘She is praising herself.’ So the Prophet renamed her Zaynab.”

In his book Zād’l-Ma‘ād, Ibn al-Qayyim explains the reasoning for the prohibition of names which indicate praise of the person by saying: “…And another issue is that the one who carries this name may believe that he/she is in fact that way, and this would be considered praising and magnification of oneself and a form of raising himself/herself above others. This is what the Prophet was prohibiting when it came to the name Barrah and he said: “Do not praise yourselves; Allāh knows best who amongst you are the obedient/righteous people.” Based on this, it would be disliked to name a child al-Taqiyy (the God Conscious), al-Muttaqi, al-Mutī‘ (the obedient one), al-Rādhi (the content one), al-Muḥsin (the person who practices iḥsān), al-Mukhlis (the sincere one), al-Munīb (the repentant one), al-Rashīd (the rightly guided), or al-Sadīd (the one who has hit his target).

For the same reason, it is also disliked to name someone with a name in which there is a word connected to the words dīn and Islam which would serve as a form of praise for the person who carries that name. Examples of this would be Nūr’l-dīn (the light of the religion), Dhiyā’l-dīn (the light of the religion), Ṣayf’l-Islam, and Nūr’l-Islam (the light of Islam). To assign these types of names to a person is such a huge claim that it is very close to lying. For this reason, some scholars have actually stated that it is ḥarām, while most have stated that it is makrūh (disliked), because it is incorrect to assign the meaning of these names to human beings.

This is why Imām Al-Nawwawi hated the fact that he was nicknamed Muḥyi’l-dīn (the reviver of the religion), and why Shaykh’l Islam Ibn Taymiyyah used to also hate that he was nicknamed Taqiyy’l-dīn and used to say: “However my people have given me that nickname and it became well-known.”

What is most correct is that there is a difference between naming a person these names and using them as a nickname or description of a person who deserves that nickname, like the phrases Nāṣir’l-dīn” (the one who gives victory to the religion) and Ḥujjat’l-Islam (the proof of Islam), etc. Using these phrases as a nickname or description would be permissible.

Ibn Taymiyyah indicated that the using of such titles was introduced to Muslims by non-Arabs, after the time of the best generations (the companions and tābi‘īn).

Category 3: Names it would be improper to negate

There are many narrations which serve as evidence for this:

It was narrated in Muslim by Samurah bin Jundub who said:

عَنْ سَمُرَةَ بْنِ جُنْدُبٍ ، قَالَ : “قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” لَا تُسَمِّيَنَّ غُلَامَكَ يَسَارًا ، وَلَا رَبَاحًا ، وَلَا نَجِيحًا ، وَلَا أَفْلَحَ ” ، فَإِنَّكَ تَقُولُ : أَثَمَّ هُوَ ؟ فَيَقُولُ : ” لَا”.

The Messenger (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Do not name your son Yaṣār (prosperity) or Rabāḥ (gain) or Najīḥa (correct/successful) or Aflaḥ (successful) because you will say: ‘Is he there?’ and he will say: ‘No’.”

The scholars have agreed that the ruling of this is that it is makrūh (disliked).

Abu al-Walīd al-Bāji the Māliki scholar said: “The prohibition narrated by Samurah bin Jundub is a prohibition which indicates that this is makrūh (disliked) (rather than ḥarām). This is why the Prophet allowed the name Ḥuzn (sadness) because the man wanted to keep his name and was content with it and hated to change it. If this was ḥarām the Prophet would not have allowed it. This was also the reason he allowed the names Ḥarb and Murrah and didn’t order them to change their names even though he disliked these names. And Allāh knows best.” (From the book Al-Muntaqa Sharḥ Al-Muwatta’)

Al-Nawawi said in his explanation of Muslim: “It is disliked but not ḥarām.”

Ibn al-Qayyim said in his book Zād al-Ma‘ād: “As for the prohibition of naming a boy Yaṣār, Aflaḥ, Najīḥ, and Rabāḥ, this is due to another reason which is indicated in the narration when the Prophet said: “And you would say: ‘Is he there?’ and it would be said: ‘No’.” And Allāh knows best regarding whether this addition is a completion of the narration which is attributed to the Prophet, or an addition from the companion who narrated it. Regardless, these names could cause superstition and pessimism which is disliked by people. For example if you say to a man: “Is Yaṣār (prosperity) with you? Or Rabāḥ (gain)? Or Aflaḥ (success)?” and then he responds “No”, this may cause both you and him to consider it to be a bad omen. And for he who is superstitious, it is often that his superstition will actually befall him (as a punishment from Allāh because of their negative assumption of Allāh).

It is of the wisdom of Allāh our Law-Giver, Who is both Kind and Merciful to his ummah, that He prevents them from that which will cause them to hear or experience negative things, and turns them instead towards names which will be effective in accomplishing the goal (of naming), without causing any harm. And this is better. It is also important to add that a person could actually end up being the opposite of his name. For example, a person named Yaṣār (prosperity) could end up being financially strained, and Najīḥ (correct/successful) could end up being unsuccessful, and Rabāḥ could end up being a loser. This could also set up expectations of this person which he is not able to meet, and this in turn could cause him to be blamed and cursed by other people because of that.

What is most correct is that in the end, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not actually prohibit these names. This is based on the following narration in Muslim:

أن جابراً قال: أراد النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام أن ينهى أن يسمى بيعلى وبركة وأفلح ونافع ويسار وبنحو ذلك ثم رأيته سكت بعد عنها فلم يقل شيئاً، ثم قبض صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم ينه عن ذلك ثم أراد عمر بن الخطاب أن ينهى عن ذلك ثم تركه”.

That Jābir said: “The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) wanted to prohibit naming with the names Ya‘la, Barakah, Aflaḥ, Nāfi‘ (beneficial), Yaṣār, and other names similar to these. Then I saw him remain silent regarding this matter after that and he didn’t say anything about it. Then the Prophet passed away without prohibiting this. Then ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb wanted to prohibit this but then left the matter alone.”

It was also narrated by al-Bukhāri in his book Al-Adab’l Mufrad that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

“إن عشت نهيت أمتي إن شاء الله أن يسمي أحدهم بركة ، ونافعاً ، وأفلح ـ ولا أدري قال: “رافع” أم لا؟ ـ يقال: هاهنا بركة؟ فيقال : ليس ها هنا ” !! فقُبض النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم ينه عن ذلك.” (وصححه الألباني في “صحيح الأدب المفرد)

“If I live (long enough) I will prohibit my nation, if Allāh wills, from naming anyone Barakah, or Nāfi‘, or Aflaḥ [and I don’t know if he said Rāfi‘ or not]. For it will be said: ‘He is not here!’” Then the Prophet passed away without prohibiting it. (Deemed authentic by al-Albāni in Al-Adab’l-Mufrad)

Al-Mubārakfūri said in his book Tuḥfat’l-Ahwathi which is an explanation of al-Tirmidhi: “The Prophet stayed silent after that out of mercy for his nation, because of the hardship and difficulty it would cause, especially considering that most people are not able to differentiate between good and bad names. So, the prohibition which we find negated in the narration of Jābir was the prohibition which indicated taḥrīm (that its ruling is that it is ḥarām), and the prohibition which was established and confirmed in the narration of Samurah indicates tanzīh (that it’s ruling is that it is makrūh (disliked) and should be avoided).

Category 4: Names with an ugly or blameworthy meaning

For the name to have an ugly/negative meaning according to the Sharī‘ah.

This includes:

Names of the devils, or of people known for disbelief, evil, or oppression (e.g. Fir‘awn, Hamān, Qārūn, Hitler, al-Jahm).

The Ḥanbali opinion is that naming with the names of tyrants is makrūh (disliked). Ibn al-Qayyim said regarding disliked names in his book Tuḥfat’l-Ahwathi: “And of them are the names of the Pharaohs and tyrants like Fir‘awn, Qārūn, Hamān, and al-Walīd”. (This was also mentioned in Kashāf Al-Qinā‘ by al-Bahūti the Ḥanbali scholar)

In the Shāfi‘i and Ḥanbali texts we also find that it is disliked to name with the names of devils like Khinzib, Walhān, and al-Ajda‘.

(This is mentioned in the book Mughni Al-Muḥtāj by al-Shirbīni the Shāfi‘i scholar, and in the footnotes of the book Kanz Al-Rāghibīn fi Fiqh Al-Shāfi‘iyyah by Aḥmad ‘Umayrah and Aḥmad al-Qalyūbi, and in the book Kashāf Al-Qinā‘ by al-Bahūti the Ḥanbali scholar)

Names indicating something ḥarām or sinful, e.g. ‘Āṣiyah (disobedient) or Ghāwiyah (seductress).

The evidence of this is what was narrated by Muslim in Kitāb Al-Adab in the “Chapter of the Recommendation to Change a Name to Something Good”:

عن عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنه “أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم غير اسم عاصية، وقال: أنتِ جميلة”

It was narrated by ‘Abdullāh bin ‘Umar: “The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) changed the name of ‘Āṣiyah (disobedient) and said: ‘You are Jamīlah (beautiful)’.”

(Note: this narration is regarding the name عاصية with an “ع” which is different from the name of the wife of pharaoh آسية with an “ا”)

This principle was written about by the Ḥanbalis in the books Al-Rawdh’l-Murbi’ and Kashāf Al-Qinā‘ by al-Bahūti, and by the Shāfi‘s as is found in the book Mughni Al-Muḥtāj by al-Shirbini

Category 5: Names involving prohibited imitation

For the name to be similar to the type of imitation which is prohibited. This is of two types:

To give a name which is specifically for men to a woman or vice versa. This is prohibited because it is a form of imitation which is ḥarām.
To name with the names of the disbelievers and sinful people out of wanting to imitate them and out of loyalty to them. An example of this is someone who names his child after a non-Muslim singer or actor out of love and loyalty to them. Like someone who names their child Bush, Diana, Madonna, etc.

Disliked: names with a negative connotation in language or custom

This matter is made clear by the following narrations:

روى أبو داود عَنْ أَبِي وَهْبٍ الْجُشَمِيِّ ، وَكَانَتْ لَهُ صُحْبَةٌ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( تَسَمَّوْا بِأَسْمَاءِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ ، وَأَحَبُّ الأَسْمَاءِ إِلَى اللَّهِ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ ، وَأَصْدَقُهَا حَارِثٌ وَهَمَّامٌ ، وَأَقْبَحُهَا حَرْبٌ وَمُرَّةُ )

It was narrated by Abu Dāwūd from Abu Wahb al-Jushamiyy, a companion, who said: “The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Name with the names of the Prophets, and the most beloved names to Allāh are ‘Abdullāh and ‘AbdulRaḥmān, and the most truthful of them are Ḥārith and Hammām, and the most ugly of them are Ḥarb and Murrah.”

عن علي بن أبي طالب – رضي الله عنه – ، قال : لما ولدت فاطمة الحسن جاء النبي – صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم – فقال : ” أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ ” قال : قلت : سميته حربا ، قال : ” بل هو حسن ” ، فلما ولدت الحسين جاء رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم – فقال : ” أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ ” قال : قلت : سميته حربا ، فقال : ” بل هو حسين ” ، ثم لما ولدت الثالث جاء رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم – قال : ” أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ ” قلت : سميته حربا ، قال : ” بل هو محسن ” ، ثم قال : ” إنما سميتهم باسم ولد هارون شبر وشبير ومشبر ” .رواه الحاكم و قال: هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه .

It was narrated by ‘Ali bin Abu Ṭālib who said: “When Fatima gave birth to al-Ḥasan, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) came and said: ‘Show me my son, what have you named him?’ He said: ‘I said: ‘I have named him Ḥarb (war).’ So he said ‘Rather he is Ḥasan (good)’. Then when Fatima gave birth to al-Ḥussayn, the Prophet came and said: ‘Show me my son, what have you named him?’ He said: ‘I said: ‘I have named him Ḥarb (war).’ So he said ‘Rather he is Ḥussayn’. Then when she gave birth to the third, the Prophet came and said: ‘Show me my son, what have you named him?’ He said: ‘I said: ‘I have named him Ḥarb (war).’ So he said ‘Rather he is Muḥsin’. Then he said: You have named them with the names of the children of Hārūn, Shibr, Shubayr, and Mushbir. (Narrated by al-Ḥākim who said: this is a narration with an authentic chain)

وعن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت: “جاءت عجوز إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو عندي, فقال لها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: من أنتِ؟ قالت: أنا جَثَّامَةُ الْمُزَنِيَّة، فقال: بل أنت حسانة المزنية” رواه الحاكم وصححه الألباني.

And it was narrated by ‘Ā’ishah who said: “An old woman came to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) while he was with me. So, the Messenger of Allāh said: ‘Who are you?’ She said: ‘I am Jathāmah (lazy, unintelligent) al-Muzaniyyah.’ He said: ‘Rather you are Ḥassānah (very good and beautiful) al-Muzaniyyah.’” (Narrated by al-Ḥākam and deemed authentic by al-Albāni)

Jathāmah is a name which is heavy on the tongue and includes multiple meanings which are all negative including: stupidity, laziness, and nightmares.

This principle was mentioned by the Ḥanbalis as is found in Al-Rawdh’l-Murbi‘, Kashāf Al-Qinā‘ by al-Bahūti, and by the Shāfi‘is like in Mughni Al-Muḥtāj by al-Shirbini.

The Sunnah of Giving Children Nicknames (Kunya)

Beneficial Note: It is from the Sunnah to give children nicknames.

It was narrated by Anas bin Mālik who said:

عن أنس بن مالك قال: “[إن] كان النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ليخالطنا، حتى يقول لأخ لي صغير: يا أبا عُمَير، ما فعل النُّغَير؟” (رواه البخاري في الأدب المفرد)

The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) used to intermingle with us so much that he said to a younger brother of mine: “Oh Abu ‘Umayr, what happened to al-Nughayr (a bird he used to play with)?” (Narrated by al-Bukhāri in Al-Adab’l-Mufrad)

It was also narrated by Um Khālid bint Khālid bin Sa’Īd who said:

و عن أم خالد بنت خالد بن سعيد، قالت: ” أتي النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – بثياب فيها خميصة سوداء صغيرة، فقال: ائتوني بأم خالد، فأُتِيَ بها تُحمَلُ، فأخَذَ الخميصة بيده فألبَسها، قال: أبْلِي وأخلِقِي، ثم أبلي وأخلقي، وكان فيها علم أخضر أو أصفر، فقال: يا أم خالد هذا سَنَاهْ – وهي بالحبشية حسنة – قالت: فذهبتُ ألعب بخاتم النبوة، فزَبَرَني أبي، فقال رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم -: دعْها.” (رواه البخاري)

The Prophet was given some clothing amongst which was a small black shirt. He said: “Bring me Umm Khālid.” So she was carried to him and he took the shirt with his hand and put it on her. He said: “May you live so long that your dress will wear out and you will mend it many times”, and then again said: “May you live so long that your dress will wear out and you will mend it many times”. On the khamisa (specific type of garment) there were some green or yellow designs. (The Prophet saw these designs) and said, “Oh Um Khālid! This is Sanah.” (Sanah is an Ethiopian word meaning beautiful). She said: “So I started to play with the seal of Prophethood and my father admonished me.” Then the Messenger of Allāh said: “Let her.” (Bukhāri)

Note: It is also permissible for a person to be given a kunya (nickname) with other than the names of his children.

Examples of a kunya given without a corresponding child of that name:

The nickname Abu Bakr was given even though he didn’t have a child named Bakr.
The nickname Abu Ḥafs was given to ‘Ūmar bin Al-Khaṭṭab even though he didn’t have a child named Ḥafs.
The nickname Abu Hurayrah was given even though he didn’t have a child named Hurayrah.
The nickname Abu Tharr was given even though he didn’t have a child named Tharr.
The nickname Um ‘Abdullāh was given to ‘Ā’ishah even though she didn’t have a child named ‘Abdullāh.

May Allah grant you righteous children exemplifying beautiful names.

How to Perform Hajj: The Basics

AlMaghrib — Tue, 12 May 2026 15:18:37 GMT

Right now, millions of Muslims are preparing to undertake the journey of a lifetime:

Hajj, the fifth pillar of Islam. Most will be going for the first time ever, many will have spent their entire lives saving for this moment, and so getting it right is crucial!

For the uninitiated, here is a simple, step-by-step guide to the rites of Hajj. Whether it’s for yourself or a family member, we hope this helps!

What you need to know about Worship…

The scholars of Islam have broken down all acts of worship into three core components, and understanding them is the first key to clarity.

These are the Arkaan (pillars), Wajibat (obligations), and Sunan (recommended acts).

This classification helps the pilgrim understand the essential components of the ritual, distinguish between what is mandatory and what enhances the experience, and ensure their Hajj is valid and accepted.

The Pillars (Arkan) of Hajj

The Arkan are the most critical components of Hajj. If any of these pillars are omitted, the Hajj becomes invalid. There is no form of compensation or expiation for missing a pillar—one must return and complete the Hajj properly.

There are four essential pillars:

Entering the State of Ihram

This refers not just to wearing the special garments but to entering into the spiritual and legal state of Ihram through intention. This includes committing to abstain from prohibited acts such as cutting hair, engaging in marital relations, or other restricted behaviors. The garments serve to emphasize this sanctified state, but the essence lies in the intention and mindset.

Standing at Arafah

Spending at least a moment in Arafah during the day or night of the 9th of Dhul Hijjah is a pillar of Hajj.

Even a few minutes at Arafah are sufficient to fulfill this requirement, but it must be within the designated time.

Tawaf al-Ifadah (Main Circumambulation)

This is the key circumambulation of the Ka‘bah that must be performed after returning from Arafah and Muzdalifah. It is a mandatory part of Hajj and cannot be omitted.

Sa’i between Safa and Marwah

This act involves walking briskly between the hills of Safa and Marwah, symbolizing the devotion of Hajar, the mother of the Prophet Ismail. Like Tawaf, this Sa’i is essential and must be completed.

The Obligations (Wajibat) of Hajj

The Wajibat are actions that must be done, and omitting any of them requires a compensatory sacrifice. However, unlike the pillars, missing a wajib does not invalidate the Hajj.

There are seven obligations in Hajj:

Assuming Ihram from the Miqat

Pilgrims must enter the state of Ihram at designated points known as Miqats—such as Dhul-Hulayfah for those coming from Madinah, or Juhfah for those flying into Jeddah. This involves both the physical garments and the spiritual state.

Remaining in Arafah until Sunset

While merely arriving at Arafah during the designated time fulfills a pillar, staying until sunset is considered an obligation. The distinction lies in the duration of presence.

Spending the Night at Muzdalifah

Pilgrims must spend the majority of the night at Muzdalifah after leaving Arafah. This overnight stay is a key obligation.

Spending Nights in Mina

Pilgrims are obligated to stay in Mina for the nights of the 10th, 11th, and 12th of Dhul Hijjah. While the 13th is optional, the first three nights are compulsory.

Ramy al-Jamarat (Stoning the Pillars)

This act must be performed in the correct sequence and on the prescribed days. It symbolizes the rejection of evil, following the tradition of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham).

Shaving or Trimming the Hair

Shaving (for men) or trimming (for men and women) the hair is a required act of ritual purification upon completion of the major rites of Hajj.

Tawaf al-Wada (Farewell Tawaf)

Before leaving Makkah, pilgrims must perform a farewell circumambulation of the Ka‘bah, known as Tawaf al-Wada. This symbolizes taking leave from the sacred sanctuary.

For every wajib act that is missed, a compensatory sacrifice must be made—typically a sheep, or a share in a cow or camel (one-seventh per person).

The Recommended Acts (Sunan) of Hajj

All other actions associated with Hajj fall under the category of Sunnah. These enhance the spiritual reward and beauty of the pilgrimage but are not required for its validity. Omitting them does not incur sin, nor does it necessitate a sacrifice.

Examples of Sunnah acts include:

Running between the green markers during Sa’i (for men)
Performing Tawaf al-Qudum (the arrival Tawaf)
Reciting specific Adhkar and Duas at various stages of Hajj
Performing two units of prayer after Tawaf
Engaging in extended supplications during the day of Arafah

These recommended acts serve to enrich the pilgrim’s experience, offering spiritual depth and greater reward.

In summary, you have:

4 Pillars (Arkan): Absolutely essential; missing any invalidates the Hajj.

7 Obligations (wajibat): Mandatory; missing any requires a compensatory sacrifice.

Many Sunnah actions: Recommended actions that bring extra reward and barakah to the Hajj, but are not required.

Understanding these distinctions will allow you to perform your Hajj with confidence, clarity, and the highest standard.

What if I have other questions?

All this sounds good, but what about the nitty-gritty aspects?

What should women do if their menses begin during Hajj?

What nullifies my Ihram?

How much hair am I supposed to cut?

What if I don’t have a mahram with me?

If you or someone you know is travelling to perform Hajj this year, then be sure to check out Hajj AI, our flagship AI companion trained to answer all your Hajj questions according to our senior scholars and instructors!

Everything from the basic rites and order of Hajj rituals to the fiqh of menstruation, illness, dua & dhikr, and more!

HajjAI is designed to clear all confusion for those travelling to perform this blessed pilgrimage, so you can fulfil your Hajj journey with confidence.

Get your answers here

“Can I perform Hajj while I am in debt?” Let’s talk about it…

AlMaghrib — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 23:17:06 GMT

This question was originally answered in Shaykh Abu Eesa Niamatullah’s video for FaithIQ. You can watch the full video here

It’s a thought in the minds of many Muslims holding themselves back from performing Hajj or ‘Umrah:

“I have loans to pay off. How can I go on Hajj right now?”

A question like this must first be put into perspective.

The background

In the not-so-distant past, Hajj was an arduous journey.

When you hear people describe it as a “once-in-a-lifetime experience,” that is not an exaggeration… it was exactly that!

It could involve weeks or even months of dangerous travel, often with the real risk that the pilgrim might never return home.

In those circumstances, a person with a loan or unpaid debt could not simply leave home without any notice to their debt collector, and if they were to do so intentionally would be even worse.

But that was then, what about now?

In short, the answer is yes, it is permissible, so long as you have considered these two factors:

Can I afford it in the first place?

If this debt is something overwhelming and dominating your finances to the point that Hajj would place you in a vulnerable position, then that pilgrimage is not yet an obligation.

2. Do I have my debt under control?

If you have an agreed plan to pay back your debt in instalments or at a later date, and are able to recover and continue paying off that debt when you return, then this should not be a barrier for you to perform your obligatory Hajj.

Your Hajj may even bring increased barakah to your wealth, as the Prophet ﷺ said:

تَابِعُوا بَيْنَ الْحَجِّ وَالْعُمْرَةِ فَإِنَّهُمَا يَنْفِيَانِ الْفَقْرَ وَالذُّنُوبَ كَمَا يَنْفِي الْكِيرُ خَبَثَ الْحَدِيدِ وَالذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ وَلَيْسَ لِلْحَجَّةِ الْمَبْرُورَةِ ثَوَابٌ إِلَّا الْجَنَّةُ

“Perform the Hajj and ‘Umrah pilgrimages, one after another, for they both erase poverty and sins just as the furnace removes impurity from iron, gold, and silver. There is no reward for an accepted Hajj but Paradise.”

[Sunan at-Tirmidhi]

If your debt is owed to an individual, then it is wise to still make them aware of your intention to perform Hajj before leaving, as this is good adab or etiquette.

It should be noted that one should avoid interest-bearing loans and mortgages, however even in such circumstances, these debts do not legally prevent you from making the Hajj.

And Allah knows best.

Can School Students Be Exempt From Fasting Due To Exams?

AlMaghrib — Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 GMT

The subject of Ramadhan and UK school exams has been brewing for a few years now in anticipation of this year’s cohort in May/June 2016, and for the next 5-6 years where the Holy Month of Fasting will occur at the same time as exams and/or revision for those exams.

In January this year, the issue made the headlines as it was announced that UK exam authorities had factored in Ramadan 2016 as much as possible and had attempted to bring forward the main exams with most students to before Ramadhan starting (i.e. before June 6th 2016) in order to minimise any adverse effects that fasting might have on students sitting exams. The usual suspects in the media tried to sensationalise the story as is their wont into the #creepingsharia event of 2016. Rumours that Katie Hopkins would try to swim across the Atlantic Ocean unassisted if such an exam schedule were to go ahead, proved sadly untrue especially as the exam schedule did indeed try to be as fair as possible to all students. However, the authorities were forced by the media to get defensive and fall into PR mode, denying that any major changes had been executed. But deep down, we know they tried to help us out *wink wink*.

What is of far greater concern has been the press release of a guidance paper for schools, parents and students by the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) advising students on matters concerning Ramadhan this year. In it, they consulted a number of British Muslims of different backgrounds who shared various opinions on the matter, some which have been represented and some not in the final draft.

You can read the entire paper here.

As to be expected, there is some useful general background information on Islam and Ramadhan and its spiritual benefits blah blah, and there are even some useful life-saving tips where they advise to give a sip of water to someone who is fasting and is about to faint or die even. On a more serious point, there are good tips on how to help students revise, as well as promoting the allocation of areas for rest and the like during the fasting hours in school, with particular emphasis and rightly so for those girls who might be menstruating. We should thank the ASCL for their concern and help in these matters, we genuinely should.

But there is little doubt about the paper’s real direction. The ASCL is obviously very concerned that fasting in Ramadhan and other acts will lead to poor exam results and thus wishes for young Muslims to try and find a way out of their predicament – frankly the ASCL does a poor job hiding its fears despite its repeated disclaimers that it “cannot be prescriptive” even though they are bursting at the seams to, and that the paper is simple a “positive opportunity for engagement” etc etc when actually…wait, perhaps they got that part right because people are certainly contacting me in their droves requesting me to engage!

I personally, as well as most orthodox Muslim scholars and the laity will find the following statements from the paper for example which address all Muslim students in the most general of terms, to be completely unacceptable:

“Children and families should be informed of the flexibility Islamic law offers to delay or exempt themselves from fasting and late-night prayers if they believe their performance in exams could be affected.”

“Inform pupils of the allowances Islam gives for them to break the fast and make it up later if they feel fasting will in any way jeopardise their performance.”

This last statement in particular is especially galling, incorrect and Islamically invalid. The obligation of seeking knowledge does not trump the obligation of fasting in Ramadhan. And then they claim “in any way jeopardise their performance”!? I can think of a hundred things from Islamic ritual practice that would in some way jeopardise an exam performance, so are they all up for debate too?!

Let me make the following brief points in response to this and the paper in general:

– There is no discussion to be had about students who are sick, or are having to travel for their exams, or girls who are menstruating. Islamic law concerning these issues is well known and fasting is not required from either of these groups, and the missed fasting days are to be made up later, even during cooler shorter days in the year if required.

– Our contention is with the claim that normal, healthy post-pubescent students who are obligated to fast the entire month of Ramadhan from dawn to sunset who feel their exams will be jeopardised are suddenly now able to “postpone fasting and make it up later”. This is completely and utterly false and should be ignored outright. Exams and the like are not legitimate reasons to break the fast. There is consensus on this point between all the schools of Islamic law.

– Fasting generally makes most people hungry, thirsty and tired. That is why it is such a great act of devotion to God and why it is so heavily rewarded by Him and thus so treasured by Muslims. This pillar from the key obligations of Islam clearly involves a certain level of difficulty and sacrifice and will make any normal activity during the month just that little bit more challenging. If it didn’t, where would there be a need for patience and sacrifice? Why would we be so happy when we break the fast and why would the Prophet (peace be upon him) describe that happiness as a divine blessing and a time where one should supplicate and that it would be granted due to the level of sacrifice? How would there be any associated reward if it didn’t make us work and strive harder and discover extra levels of intensity and energy that we never knew we had? So, let us also state that exams could indeed be potentially jeopardised as well as many other activities, but we should expect that and more so we should prepare for it better by taking other means as I shall mention below, and not by suggesting that one can leave their obligatory fast.

– However if a student who is fasting was found to become ill during the day or suffered from thirst to such an extent that they would be physically harmed, then it is not permissible for such a person to be fasting and they must drink and eat (and/or administer medication as appropriate) immediately to stave off the harm. If they recover from the illness or emergency, they must then refrain from food and drink for the remainder of the day until sunset, and then that day’s fast must be made up later. This is the position of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i school and the main position of the Hanbali school.

– Exams are psychologically stressful and also have a physical toll on the body too with the extra preparation they require. However, they do not belong to those categories of acts or situations which usually allow a person to break their fast for, such as extreme thirst when working in a furnace and one is about to faint, or if one is in the army and is about to engage with the enemy in a very physical and demanding battle.

– It should be also noted than even in the extreme case where one is allowed to break their fast due to the difficulty of the moment such as war etc, then this permission can only be given on an individual basis by a scholar well-versed in the tradition and with knowledge of the situation at hand. Furthermore, it is completely impermissible for an individual to anticipate such a situation from the beginning of dawn and thus not fast, whilst knowing that they will not encounter that extreme situation until many hours later. One is obliged to be fasting from dawn and then break it at the last moment when one now has that legal excuse given to them from a scholar due to their extreme situation. This is the agreed position of all the schools of Islamic law, and is based on the apparent meaning of verse 185 of the second chapter of the Qur’an, as well as the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he travelled to Makkah during the month of Ramadhan as reported in the traditions of Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir, may God be pleased with them all, as collected in Sahih Muslim and the Musnad of Imam Ahmad.

– Therefore even if one was to erroneously argue that exams are also a hardship which leads to an exception to fasting, and make an analogy to war or even to travelling, then the only resultant legal concession would be to break the fast during the actual act itself, and not before or after it. Patently, that would be of little value considering that one would really want a “concession” before the exam itself and during the preparation for it. It is clear that the ASCL hasn’t even been able to get this basic Islamic legality right in its mind despite the panel of Muslims it consulted.

– The United Kingdom enjoys a clearly defined day-time period, and a clearly defined night-time period even if in the Summer time the twilight persists and the night is brighter than usual. Because of that, all Muslims in the UK are obligated to fast until sunset however late that might get whether that fast lasts only 9 hours in the Winter time or even 19 hours in the Summer time. The ASCL paper mischievously tries to bring this issue up as well, which probably has more to do with some of the non-orthodox modernist contributors to the paper rather than the ASCL themselves.

– To illustrate the absurdity of this paper trying to suggest a Muslim doesn’t need to fast the next day or week because of exams whilst they revise and prepare during the critical moments, reflect on this: the biggest barrier during the Summer time to one’s normative work or exams even to use this current example, will be a lack of sleep. If you were to ask 1000 students at 11pm after they had just had a significant, healthy, energy-packed meal, “What would you prefer for optimum preparation for tomorrow’s exam? That you have to wake up again in a few hours for the Fajr dawn prayer, and then later you are allowed to have breakfast at 8am and a drink later on during the exam, or instead a full night’s sleep without waking up for any Fajr dawn prayer at 4am and thus wake up in time for the exam and sit the exam hungry with no drink but fully rested?” I think you would find many more choosing the rest and extra sleep over the food. So does that mean that the ASCL will now be releasing a paper telling all its students that they don’t need to offer the Fajr dawn prayer on any morning of the Summer that will effect studies and exams that day?

– There is also a fundamental difference in the way Muslims and non-Muslims will approach this issue. Certain difficult acts of worship bring their own benefits, especially in the spiritual realm. We all enjoy the fruits of empiricism in this country but Muslims recognise the limitations of empiricism too. We embrace the concept of “blessings”, something which will never be able to be explained empirically. We believe that through greater time with the Qur’an spent reflecting and acting upon it, that time itself will be extended and will become in the control of the beholder as opposed to the other way round. This is the very definition of blessing: that we take more out of the time, the item, the subject, the moment, the capacity, the level, the energy limit, than what normally seems possible! That is why so many people will not have any issue at all in their exams during Ramadhan, and indeed some will perform even better (!) and perhaps if we find that some students are having difficulties and they haven’t taken sensible rest precautions (as explained in my next point) then perhaps they need to actually revisit how they are fasting Ramadhan itself and their character and behaviour therein. It is not uncommon that those who fast still fail to exhibit the signs of extra blessings and actually lose out because of their poor spiritual presence and integrity during the fast; this is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) described such people as just earning hunger and thirst from their fast, and not much else. No wonder they’d have difficulties during their exams!

– What we perhaps can focus on to help our students is to clearly identify those extra acts of worship which are popular during Ramadhan and see what can be rearranged to ensure more time for revision, and more time for recuperation. So for example and using the experience of my own children and their studies:

(a) They should be focusing a lot on the Qur’an before the month of Ramadhan so that there is less pressure during the actual month itself to catch up on a year’s worth of reading and reflecting when they didn’t do enough, something which is unfortunately very common in Muslim households. In fact, I am comfortable for those households that regularly read the Qur’an with their children, to reduce it down significantly in Ramadhan to just ten minutes a day during final exams time etc. And indeed those who do regularly read the Qur’an outside of Ramadhan, will find it easy to fit the Qur’an in daily during the Holy Month with absolutely no effect on revision schedules.

(b) Likewise if more of the Qur’an is reviewed and studied outside of Ramadhan, it makes the Tarawih prayer in the mosque – the nightly congregational prayer during the nights of Ramadhan where a portion of the Qur’an is recited – less vital to attend. I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever just how blessed and spiritually necessary it is to witness these gatherings and to reflect upon the Qur’an therein and the great rewards on offer for full attendance, but at the same time there is a consensus on the fact that this is not an obligatory act of worship and so if we are not going to exercise this legal concession at a time of need like now, then when are we going to exercise it?! Therefore, I think it is reasonable that young Muslims sitting their exams need not attend every Tarawih prayer of the week itself and perhaps avail of the opportunity on the weekends and the odd day here and there, using the extra time saved to rest properly (and not to cheat or blag their parents and spend the time playing games instead!)

(c) I like the idea that students go to sleep immediately on their return from school seeing as the next ‘Asr afternoon prayer is still a good few hours away. That allows one to gain extra rest and then wake up for ‘Asr and revise with a fresh mind, as well as making up for any sleep deprivation due to the late ‘Isha time and any possible Tarawih or Fajr prayers offered in congregation and then the early start the next morning. It is also important for parents to cut out any extra studies and activities during Ramadhan especially during Summer time such as regular Arabic lessons or other hobbies and game playing etc so as to maximise time for rest and study. Also, on an individual case-by-case basis, I deem it permissible for young students at home who need to get an early night due to not getting enough sleep, to combine the Maghrib and ‘Isha prayers at home by themselves due to the need and the ijtihad nature of the constant twilight during this time period anyway. I do not hold this to be acceptable in the Mosques for the entire congregation during the Summer, but for individuals at home with a specific need then that it is permissible from time to time.

In summary, whilst we appreciate the general advice from the ACSL for students studying for exams in the Summer whilst fasting, it is not permissible to plan to miss fasts because of these exams.

And Allah knows best.

Is It Permissible To Use Medical Marijuana?

AlMaghrib — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 GMT

Introduction

Marijuana, cannabis, ḥashīsh and hemp are well-known names of plants and derivatives that belong to the genus Cannabis. Cannabis is most popularly characterized by its narcotic, near-intoxicating effect which is caused by its main psychoactive constituent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Cannabis is categorised in the Sharī‘ah under those substances which are called narcotics, otherwise known as the Mukhaddirāt or المُخَدِّرات.

A study of the words connected to its Arabic root verb shows interesting connotations. The word al-khidr الخِدر linguistically means that which is covered. The word al-khudārī الخُداري refers to a very dark night, or very dark clouds. When a camel is called khudārī it means that it is a rare black colour, ever rarer than a white camel. The word al-khadar الخَدَر refers to when someone is feeling lazy and languid, and al-khādir الخادر refers to one who gets left behind, or is slow to respond.

Thus, linguistically speaking from the Arabic language, if someone was to ingest a substance which was a mukhaddir or narcotic, then despite any initial peaking of senses and reactions, one would expect to feel “slow” and “left behind”, feel languid and lazy, things would feel dark and heavy, and one’s vision would not be clear like as if trying to make things out on a dark night.

Technically speaking though, a narcotic in medicine¹ is a drug which induces narcosis-like symptoms such as stupor, insensibility, numbness, drowsiness and pain relief. A narcotic is almost always seen as something psychoactive i.e. that it alters perception, mood and consciousness.²

The Fuqahā’ in general didn’t classically give a definition for something which was mukhaddir even though they spoke about various narcotics or intoxicants, and instead used their general principles concerning intoxication to explain its rulings.

This last point concerning intoxication is important. In the Sharī‘ah a narcotic in of itself is not necessarily forbidden especially if its primary effect is analgesia for example. Numbness and drowsiness are the side effects of a huge number of medications especially opioid analgesics, or stimulants or sleeping tablets or more accurately anti-depressants, anxiolytics, anti-psychotics etc. This is similar to the medical community, where the word “narcotic” in of itself doesn’t have a negative connotation. Legally speaking though, narcotics refer to illegal drugs in general. That is why it is important to be accurate in definition when we discuss this group of drugs.

The Ruling on the Use of Recreational Marijuana

When looking to see what the Islamic ruling on a substance is, one looks to those effects or “states of being” as a whole and not individually. Addictive substances are problematic but one can be addicted to chocolate very easily. Stimulants can be a problem but coffee is something allowed by the mass majority of scholars. Those substances which induce a stupor or drowsiness are problematic, however sleeping tablets do nothing but that. Euphoric elation-inducing substances are a problem area however the majority of anti-depressants make people happy for all intents and purposes. Anything which is harmful to the individual or the society at large is one of the most simple of all principles to apply, but then many halal things can be harmful if not used correctly.

I hope it is clear then that it is only when such effects are combined, or any individual effect becomes so dominant or addictive or dangerous do the scholars then consider such a substance to be forbidden in the Sharī‘ah. Alcohol is a classic example, likewise heroin, cocaine, LSD etc.

Thus if a narcotic’s primary effects include elation, euphoria and delirium, alongside its normative effects of drowsiness and insensibility, then in the Sharī‘ah³ it is also classed as an intoxicant or a مُسْكِر i.e. it changes one’s perception, behaviour, judgement and cognition. Not all narcotics are intoxicants, even though they might display some “intoxicating effects”.

A quick word on intoxication: it might be surprising to some but the scholars generally failed to reach agreement on the exact definition of what the state of “intoxication” entails. There is no shame in this. The medical community with all its tool and facts has similarly struggled, indeed it is the case that it might be difficult to describe however we all know what it is when we see it. Naturally, such an approach is not sufficient for legal purposes. Intoxication as a word or even a concept has such a vast richness of application, from the romantic and innocent intoxication of love, to the spiritual and obligatory with respect to our ‘ibadah, to the dangerous and prohibited of physical substance abuse which has dire consequences.

It is important to note now that when scholars rallied against any substance that was an intoxicant, it is because the state of intoxication they refer to is a very holistic one. It is not just being “off your head” or not being able to perceive correctly or being slightly insensible. Rather, there is a loss of modesty with immorality becoming the status quo. Not only are you a danger to yourself in that you have very little control of your physical motor functions and senses, but you are a significant risk to others too. Just from a legal standing in the modern world, alcohol is not a particularly dangerous chemical substance to the individual despite the impact of ethanol on the body, but rather it is the costs of crime, damage, policing and hospitalisation associated with alcohol use which is staggering. It is essential to remember this point. Likewise, the spiritual dimension must never be ignored. When intoxicated, one is unable to worship Allah as He should be. A person is not just in sin throughout the entire time of inebriation, but prone to further evil, and most importantly, removed from all opportunities of good. The consequences of such a state could be devastating. Full intoxication with alcohol just at the physiological level is not something quick and indeed can last for a significant period of time. From an Islamic point of view, how risky is such a state? How many possible crimes could occur in such a time period when one’s social inhibitions have been removed? What is the spiritual cost of not being in a state to worship one’s Lord for so long? It is unsurprising that in the Book of Allah when alcohol was prohibited, it was paired up with polytheistic practices, and in another place, with the inability to pray. This spiritual cost is far more serious than any other cost.

That is why it is vital one is holistic when trying to understand the meaning of intoxication; many drugs can lower a person’s inhibitions, but their behaviour might still be within control. Other drugs might have a very quick intoxicating effect, or are limited in scope. In principle, we don’t want to give license to drug use if it intoxicates exactly and to the same level as alcohol does, due to the multitude of effects and risk of addiction. As I will explain later, that is why we differentiate between substances that exhibit only part effects of intoxication or show a different profile. It is therefore possible to allow a drug to be used in medical emergencies which is 100 times more dangerous than alcohol, indeed perhaps even a poison, because in a holistic sense it is more safe overall than alcohol will ever be. But now back to Cannabis.

The two main strains of Cannabis – indica and sativa – differ primarily due in the amount of active ingredient THC they contain. Cannabis sativa in general has a higher amount of THC which has the greater psychoactive euphoric effect, whereas Cannabis indica has relatively less THC but more cannabinoid (CBD) which almost reduces the psychoactive effect of THC and gives cannabis its more sleep-inducing effect. In layman terms, it can be said that THC causes the “high” and that CBD causes the “stoned” feeling. From an emotional angle, THC is bad and CBD is good. From a legal point of view, depending on the strain and the ratio of THC to CBD in that product, we have both intoxicating and euphoric effects, or the opposite i.e. little intoxication and more sleep-inducing relaxation effects.

It is also vital to mention the harmful effects of cannabis, similar to most other drugs classified as narcotics. Most narcotics are indeed illegal because of their dangers to the body, both in small doses and overdoses, as well as their addictive qualities which make users stop at nothing in order to get their fix, and thus regularly turning to crime to feed their habit. Although not as dangerous as say heroin, cannabis has been identified as a prime activator of many psychotic illnesses especially schizophrenia.⁴

Therefore because of marijuana’s combined narcotic, psychoactive, intoxicating, euphoric and harmful effects, it is considered Islamically impermissible to consume in any of its forms as I explained earlier here.⁵ It is also considered an illegal drug in most of the modern world – a narcotic in the “negative” sense of the word i.e. an illegal illicit drug – and its use and supply is punishable by the State.

But this is all related to recreational use. Marijuana has been used by different civilisations as a medicine for thousands of years, and in recent times there has been a lot of interest in its potential medicinal use especially for muscle spasms and severe pain relief.

Both THC and CBD have important pharmacology. THC has analgesic, anti-spasmodic, anti-tremor, anti-inflammatory, appetite-stimulant and anti-emetic properties. CBD has anti-inflammatory, anti-convulsant, anti-psychotic, anti-oxidant, neuroprotective and immunomodulatory effects. CBD is not intoxicating and is considered to alleviate some of the unwanted psychoactive side effects of THC.⁶

So, is there any space in the Sharī‘ah for the use of what has been termed “medicinal marijuana”?

What Is Medicinal Marijuana?

Firstly it must be said that the phrase “medicinal marijuana” is a vague and inaccurate one. Within the scientific community this would refer to medicines under statutory control which are very carefully regulated both chemically and legally. This would include licensed medication such as Sativex® which is an oromucosal spray based on Cannabis sativa corresponding to 27mg/ml of THC and 25mg/ml of CBD.⁷ It is this medicine that is the main focus of this paper.

However a more lay approach to “medicinal marijuana” would be the simple use of normal cannabis in any of its original popular forms whether simply smoking a joint of weed or using cannabis oil/spray or ḥashīsh resin, with “the intention of medicinal benefit” in an illegal manner and most probably outside the supervision of specialists and physicians. You shouldn’t be surprised that this is a far more difficult and risky area to deal with, and one which could be abused by many people. This is one of the reasons why the ‘Ulemā have been loath to rule on the issue in case the general public take matters into their own hands as is likely to happen. Indeed, such realities are often behind the call to hurry through products such as licensed medication versions taken under supervision, or indeed changes in legislation such as decriminalizing marijuana use to reduce the uncontrolled, dangerous, illicit use of the drug.

Is Marijuana A Pure Intoxicant?

It has been postulated that if cannabis is an out an out intoxicant, then it would not be permissible to use in any circumstance because the Prophet ﷺ said concerning alcohol when one of the Companions said he was brewing it for medicinal purposes, “It is not a medicine, rather it is a poison.”⁸ As far as I know, none of the scholars ever allowed the use of alcohol for example for medicinal purposes, even in the populist sense as a way of numbing pain prior to an amputation in the absence of any anesthesia. This ḥadīth was literally applied and agreed upon by the Ummah.

Thus if any narcotic or indeed marijuana is to be seen as an intoxicant like alcohol, then it would also theoretically not be possible to use for medicinal purposes. There is a difference between a substance having some intoxicating effects, and a substance being an intoxicant in its main use and identification. Cannabis strains differ in their composition, especially those which have been modified, and some hardly intoxicate at all especially those with a high ratio of CBD to THC. We should of course remind ourselves here that it isn’t just for intoxication reasons that narcotics like marijuana are prohibited for recreational use.

The majority of the Fuqahā’ opined that the impermissibility of narcotics is “less” than the impermissibility of alcohol⁹, that the one who consumes them is not punished with the ḥadd (prescribed punishment) for alcohol but rather with a ta‘zīr discretionary punishment¹⁰, that they are not physically impure unlike alcohol¹¹, and that it is possible to consume a small amount unlike alcohol which is prohibited in any single amount.¹²

On this latter point the scholars differed. Ibn ‘Ābidīn considered it permissible to use a small amount of non-liquid intoxicant in cases of necessity unlike liquid intoxicants. He considered the ḥadīth “Whatever intoxicates in large amounts, is forbidden even in small amounts”¹³ to only apply to liquid intoxicants such as alcohol in all its forms. He considered any physical intoxicants to not be intrinsically prohibited (unlike alcohol) but rather prohibited for its harmful effect, and so if it had a beneficial use in small amounts then this was permissible in medicinal cases and not for recreation. He gave the example of poison, saying, “Some medicines are poisonous and yet their use in small amounts for beneficial purposes is permissible unlike in large harmful amounts which is impermissible.”¹⁴

There is an interesting corollary here with the issue of nutmeg, a well known cooking ingredient which also has intoxicating properties if taken in significant, but pure amounts. When it is a part of another product however such as a cake, it is in tiny amounts, and it cannot cause intoxication even if huge amounts of that cake was consumed. It is not because nutmeg is a non-liquid substance but more because even in large quantities it is more harmful than it is an intoxicant, that it was allowed by a number of the Fuqaha’ in cooking and even to sell as a raw product for spice use etc as long as there were no nefarious intentions.

It should be noted here that the position of the majority of scholars is that there is no difference between liquid and non-liquid intoxicants in their impermissibility, and that is the position of this author as well.¹⁵ One does understand though why there is such a focus on only liquid intoxicants by some of the scholars, indeed it’s unsurprising if you consider that even in the time of al-Fayrūzābādī (d. 1414 CE) he collected the names of 357 intoxicating liquids in his al-Jalīs’l-Anīs fī Taḥrīm al-Khandarīs!

In summary, cannabis as mentioned earlier is not a pure intoxicant, especially in its variant forms where the CBD ratio is high compared to the amount of THC which has the intoxicating effect. Thus, one must judge on a case-by-case basis on the strain of cannabis being presented. If it leads one to alter their behavior significantly, causing insensibility and such a change in consciousness so that one has no idea what one is saying or doing, then it would be considered an intoxicant. Although the classical Fuqahā’ differed on the exact details of what they considered intoxication to technically be, common themes include shamelessness, depravity of character, debauchery, a tendency towards immoral behavior, and inebriation to the level of committing clear criminal acts without feeling any ethical or moral accountability or conscience. They considered “foolish” behaviour, silliness, forgetfulness, being confused, having a tendency to lie and to rave on madly all to be signs of intoxication, whereas Ibn Nujaym the famous Ḥanafi even stated that a person would be so unware of reality that “they wouldn’t be able to differentiate between a man and a woman, or the Earth and the sky.”

The Ruling On Non-Intoxicating Narcotic Use

We must be able to categorise a narcotic drug to see whether it is primarily an intoxicant or not. If it is, we cannot use it even for medicinal purposes. If it is not an intoxicant, then if it is for recreational use etc then it is impermissible. However if there were a need such as for a medicinal purpose then its use would become permissible, for the following reasons:

That it is not an intoxicant and thus the ḥadīth “It is not a medicine, rather it is a poison” would not apply, and then it would come down to clinical testing. If it can be shown that there is a beneficial effect and use of the drug – as there has been in many cases for various types of narcotics – then it is allowed in controlled amounts as per the instructions of specialists.
The amount and frequency of use of the drug does not cause addiction. If one starts to use it outside of the stipulated frequency then it becomes impermissible. Note that having to continuously need a drug because of its desired legal effect, where its absence would bring back the illness or symptom, is not considered as addiction. Most of the time, addiction is a problem because of the harmful effect it might have, but if there are no harmful effects due to that addiction then the scholars allowed that substance such as coffee etc, even though they correctly caution again losing one’s discipline and self-control when it comes to items of desire, food and drink etc.
What Ibn ‘Ābidīn mentioned concerning the use of “poison” is to be applied here in this case. As long as the amount used does not cause harm, it is permissible to use.
It is well known in the religion that a ḍarūrah or necessity allows for the use of impermissible products in order to safeguard one’s life, whether that is the eating of carrion or pork when faced with starvation, or even drinking alcohol if one is dying of thirst (here it is not being consumed for any medicinal purpose). The permissible use of a narcotic here for medicinal purposes is born from this principle.¹⁶

It is for these above reasons that we find a number of interesting statements from the Fuqahā’ from the various madhāhib.

The Mālikis allowed the use of a marqid or narcotic, and the taking of those substances that would induce heavy drowsiness – almost like the general anesthetics of today – in cases of amputation of limbs or great pain. They argued that any harm emanating from such a narcotic, was far more controllable than the harm emanating from the limb and the medical emergency/situation. They applied the principle of “the lesser of the two evils being permissible” in such cases.¹⁷

The Shāfi‘īs mentioned the permissibility of using any medicine that would allow a person “to lose their senses” if there was a valid reason for doing so. They stated that it was permissible to use narcotics for medicinal purposes if there was no other choice.¹⁸

Scholars from the Ḥanbali school of law discussed a situation where a person was “out of his head” due to narcotics use: they said if it had been for medical reasons then he was excused, and he would be treated like an insane person would be treated i.e. he is not to be punished. However if the person had taken narcotics for no medical/genuine need, then he would be treated like one who is drunk i.e. he is to be punished.¹⁹

The Ḥanafi jurists stated the permissibility of taking anything that would make a person unaware of the pain during the amputation of a limb affected with gangrene, as long as it was not wine/alcohol. They also discussed a scenario where someone had ingested opium or marijuana etc and were not in control of their senses, and then divorced his wife. They considered the divorce void if the person was “legitimately” out of his mind due to medicinal reasons i.e. he was using the substance for a legal reason. However if he was in a narcotic stupor for no medicinal reason, then the divorce remains valid.²⁰

This goes back to a well-known discussion amongst the Fuqahā’ i.e. is there such a thing as an “excused” intoxication? Nearly all the Fuqahā’ agreed that if there was legitimate excuse such as a medical necessity, or someone had been forced to drink alcohol etc and then subsequently became intoxicated and unaware of their actions, then their “crime” would not be considered a crime, even if it was murder or apostasy. However “unexcused” intoxication led to differences amongst the scholars with Ibn Ḥazm and others still continuing with the same principle and considering certain acts still void. So even if a person intentionally got himself drunk and he divorced his wife, the divorce would be void. But the majority of the scholars agreed with the Ḥanafis i.e. that there should be no pardon for someone who became intentionally inebriated. And thus the divorce would remain valid.

In any case, the main point to take here is that Ḥanafis considered it legitimate to use a mukhaddir or narcotic for a medical necessity even though it is a forbidden product in principle, and as stated above this was also the position of the other three classical schools of fiqh.

Summary

It is the opinion of this author that narcotics which are not intoxicants²¹ – in that a person is still aware of his senses – are permissible to use if there is a genuine need to do so because of a medical necessity etc. If carrion and the like are allowed due to necessity, then emergency medical use is even more obvious; a number of narcotics fulfil essential roles in controlling chronic or even severe acute pain and are considered permissible in their minimum amounts to stave off the problem. Al-‘Alā’ī the Shāfi‘ī jurist stated in commentary to the maxim “There should no harm or reciprocation of harm” that, “(this maxim also means that one should be) Using impure substances for medicinal use under the specific instructions of specialists, because the harm caused by taking such substances is less than the harm of remaining in severe pain which no-one can put up with.”²²

The Permissibility Of Using Sativex®

Before anything else, it would be useful for us to state here a number of conditions that have been mentioned by the Fuqahā’ for similar cases, and can be extrapolated here as stipulations that must be met for the permissibility of using not just Sativex® but potentially other cannabis-based products and narcotics in general:

The need for the use of such substances must reach the level of absolute necessity or a ḍarūrah. This is because only a necessity can make that which is normally forbidden, permissible to use. Symptomatic relief for chronic pain/conditions or severe acute pain is considered such a medical necessity.
The substance being used in order to induce a narcosis-like state of relief must be genuinely beneficial and attested as such by trustworthy and specialist doctors and experts of the field. It is the opinion of this author that it is not a condition that these doctors are Muslim, even though a number of the Fuqahā’ stipulated that as a condition.²³
One is only allowed to use the minimum amount of the narcotic in order to stave off the medical necessity.²⁴ Any increase in the ingestion of that substance above the level which controls the problem, is impermissible.
One can only use such a narcotic on the condition that there are no other permissible substances that would do the same thing, or that there is no other substance which is “less” forbidden.
The use of the narcotic must not create a harm worse than the harm that the narcotic is being taken for in the first place.²⁵

As long as these conditions are followed, we can consider each narcotic drug on its own merits and then apply these stipulations for its permissible use.

As mentioned earlier, this paper was meant to be focusing on a specific, well-known cannabis-based product that recently became a legal, licensed medication in twenty seven countries including the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Italy. Sativex® is a cannabis-based spray taken by mouth, and contains a 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD which is not found in smoked herbal cannabis. The spray reduces peaking of THC as seen when one smokes cannabis, and its effect is reduced by the high ratio of CBD, leading to only relatively low levels of intoxication in clinical studies. Its biggest strength is its low potency, its low dosage in each spray, its purity compared to a smoked version of the herb, and its low risk of addiction which even then can be very accurately titrated down (reduced) to a clinically beneficial level with few side effects or addiction.

Its primary use is for symptom improvement in adult patients with moderate to severe spasticity due to multiple sclerosis (MS) who have not responded adequately to other anti-spasticity medication and who demonstrate clinically significant improvement in spasticity related symptoms during an initial trial of therapy. It is also used for neuropathic pain due to MS and other conditions, as well as an advanced analgesic in some cancer pains.

After a detailed study of its pharmacological properties, its clinical facts, the data from its clinical studies, its side effect profile and the SPC (Summary of Product Characteristics), I consider the use of Sativex® to be Islamically permissible as long as the five conditions are met, as outlined above.

It is a narcotic, which does not intoxicate in principle, and provides an essential medical function for those in desperate pain and difficulty especially those with MS and non-responsive neuropathic pain in other conditions. It has been well studied, well-formulated, well-tested and given to the public under only the highest levels of care and supervision from qualified specialists. The patients who usually use it have very good compliance profiles with little abuse or self-intoxication, and the significant price of over £4000 a year makes it a medicine which is given out in only the most severe of cases. Therefore, as long as the need for symptom-relief remains, the use of Sativex® is permissible, at the lowest dose possible, to be self-titrated and increased if necessary in a safe and non-intoxicating manner, under the continuous supervision and advice of one’s Doctor or specialist. It is not to be initiated by oneself and it is not to be used in obvious contraindicated groups such as pregnant women and children unless absolutely necessary. It should also be avoided by those who already suffer from mental illnesses such as schizophrenia which could theoretically lead to that existing mental condition – once “activated” by the THC content in Sativex® – to be even worse and more harmful than the reason the drug is being taken for in the first place.

And Allah jalla wa ‘alā knows best.

The Use Of Herbal Cannabis & Other Cannabis Forms For Medicinal Purposes

You will remember what I wrote earlier in the section “Medicinal Marijuana”; compared to the ultra-controlled and relatively safe form of Sativex®, the plethora of supposed cures and uses for a wide number of unlicensed cannabis-based products, usually in their raw unrefined form and with a wide range of THC:CBD ratios, is of a significant number.

It is not surprising then that despite all the claims and anecdotal testimonies, nearly every single country in the world still prohibits the smoking of, or ingestion of, or the application to the skin of cannabis-based products. This is mainly due to the uncontrolled psychoactive properties of the preparations, their harm especially to mental health, their addictive properties and then their populist and actual link to individual crime, and that which potentially affects wider society too even though admittedly this is at the lower end of narcotic-related crime.

There is no doubt that through the many funded research programmes around the world in clinical settings, there seems to be growing evidence that cannabis could be used in many medicinal applications. Israel is one of the world leaders in cannabis research, and Israeli scientists were the first to isolate the “bad” aspect of cannabis i.e. THC. Their expertise in creating strains of cannabis which have very low levels of THC and a high CBD effect for mostly relaxant and sleep-inducing properties, has led to trials using smoked herbal cannabis as well as other forms, but consistently in carefully titrated trials.

The cannabinoid (CBD) constituent of cannabis promises much. It is not an intoxicant (which is more the action of THC) and it has proved especially beneficial (in licensed and unlicensed preparations).

From an Islamic and even legal point of view, the question of allowing access to these cannabis products is a nightmare. The vision of millions of people reading fatwas and then going off and justifying to themselves that they are ill, all in order to smoke a joint with their “ill” friends, is terrifying. It is this self-diagnosing, self-justifying, self-purchasing, self-medicating portion of the population that we should fear most will abuse any such fatwas. It goes without question that the scholars cannot be held responsible for the actions of the ignorant if they are just looking for an excuse to get high, especially if the scholars faithfully gives their opinion on the matter and allow restricted use of such drugs as per the five key conditions outlined above.

Likewise, we cannot treat all the people the same. There are indeed genuine, sensible people out there who are desperate for a solution to their problem and who are not interested in the slightest in using narcotics for the fun of it, to get high or to get stoned. An example of this are the growing claims for the benefit of cannabis oil in cases of cancer. It is a highly controversial matter, briefly but nicely discussed here; it seems there could be a case for THC having anti-cancer properties, as well as high CBD percentage cannabis oil in a controlled 1:1 ratio (like Sativex®) having a low-intoxicating anti-tumour action.

My conclusion on the matter is actually quite simple: research in humans has not shown conclusive results with these products, and cannabis is illegal anyway. No one person should unilaterally use any of these products for their condition, indeed this would be impermissible, dangerous and uncontrolled.

However, if a patient is chosen to be part of a legal clinical trial, with a cannabis-strain that does not cause full-on complete intoxication (i.e. causing a potential scenario that might have consequences worse than the original medical condition in the first place), and/or the specific use of that herb or cannabis-product is given in a titrated and supervised fashion under the guidance of experts, based on existing predictions and studies by specialists, all whilst fulfilling the five conditions mentioned above, then I cannot see the reason to block this.

I believe that such use will be permissible on a case-by-case basis after a detailed analysis of the form of the drug, for the same reasons as mentioned above: it is permissible in the Sharī‘ah to use a minimum amount of a prohibited product for a medical necessity under the supervision of experts only, in the absence of any other alternatives.

Conclusion

As usual, for those who couldn’t bear the thought of reading through all the details and legal discussions, we can summarise this paper by saying that in the opinion of this author:

– It is impermissible to use narcotics – which includes cannabis – for any recreational use.

– It is permissible to use narcotics for medicinal purposes as long as the conditions of the scholars are met.

– Sativex® is a cannabis-based spray used primarily for symptomatic control in MS patients. It is permissible to use.

– It is permissible to use certain cannabis-based products for medicinal purposes only as long as all the stipulations above have been met i.e. under the supervision of specialists and not through self-diagnosis and application.

Please read the details above for more clarity on all these points.

And Allah jalla wa ‘alā knows best.

Note:
There were a few more things I wanted to discuss concerning other drugs like morphine and codeine which are also narcotics, but this paper has already become very long. I am thinking of taking these few points to my Ilmsource email list before I forget them. If you are interested in seeing more on the issue, you can enter your details below and I’ll send it soon in shā Allāh, perhaps across one or two emails. Thank you for reading, wa jazākumullāhu khayra.

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/ ↩
http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap1/sect1.htm ↩
http://ilmsource.com/2016/02/08/the-islamic-ruling-on-e-cigarettes-vaping-and-synthetic-marijuana/ ↩
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864503/ ↩
http://ilmsource.com/2016/02/08/the-islamic-ruling-on-e-cigarettes-vaping-and-synthetic-marijuana/ ↩
“The Development of Sativex® – a natural cannabis-based medicine”, Guy & Stott, 2005, p.235 ↩
Sativex® Physician Product Information, GW Pharma Ltd, p.1 ↩
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 1984 ↩
It is essential to remember that this is referring to individual use, and not the intent to supply to the masses and endanger the weak and desperate, which is of course a far more severe crime than just the drinking of alcohol, as can be seen by laws threatening capital punishment in a number of countries for the supply and dealing of narcotics. ↩
This would be reflected in the severity of the relationship with that narcotic. For individual use, the punishment would be relatively light, whereas if the danger posed was more serious such as manufacture and supply then even the discretionary punishment could be worse than the prescribed one for alcohol i.e. resulting in capital punishment. ↩
This author does not consider alcohol to be an impure substance, as also opined by a number of the scholars ↩
Ḥāshiya Ibn ‘Ābidīn (6/457), Sharḥ al-Zarqānī ‘alā Khalīl (1/24), al-Furūq (1/218), Nihāyat’l-Muḥtāj (8/10) and I‘ānat’l-Ṭālibīn (4/156) ↩
Abu Dāwūd (4/87), the version of Jābir was considered to be Ḥasan by al-Tirmidhi, and Ṣaḥīḥ with all its chains taken into account by al-Albāni (see al-Irwā’, 8/42) ↩
Ḥāshiya Ibn ‘Ābidīn (4/42-43) and (6/457-458) ↩
http://ilmsource.com/2016/02/08/the-islamic-ruling-on-e-cigarettes-vaping-and-synthetic-marijuana/ ↩
Aḥkām al-Adawiyyah fī al-Sharī‘ah al-Islāmīyyah, p.276 ↩
Ḥāshiya al-Dasūqī, (1/50) and Tabṣirat’l-Ḥukkām, (2/169-170) ↩
Rawḍat’l-Ṭālibīn, (8/438) and Jāmi‘ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam (2/464) ↩
Al-Inṣāf, (8/438) ↩
Ḥāshiya Ibn ‘Ābidīn, (2/102 and 4/42), as well as Fatḥ’l-Qadīr, (3/491) ↩
I remind readers that an intoxicated state is very problematic, not only in one’s duties to Allah but in one’s responsibilities to oneself and others. One becomes a threat and a danger to all because one does not know what one is doing! Thus, taking a drug which knocks one out and doesn’t allow one to do evil, is far more safer and preferable to an intoxicant which leads one to actually commit evil. ↩
Al-Majmū‘ al-Madh-hab, (1/34) ↩
Al-Majmū‘ by al-Nawawi, (2/286) ↩
Al-Ashbāh wal-Naẓā’ir by al-Suyūṭī, p.84 ↩
Sharḥ al-Sunnah by al-Baghawi (12/147) ↩

The Islamic Ruling on E-Cigarettes, Vaping and Synthetic Marijuana

AlMaghrib — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:00:00 GMT

If our heads weren’t hurting enough over the Islamic debate on whether smoking cigarettes is makrūh, harām or death itself, along comes another pain in the backside: e-cigarettes.

The modern e-cigarette comes in a few different forms such as an e-pen, e-pipe, e-hookah etc and are known collectively as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). They are basically vaporisers, devices that allow users to inhale an aerosol (vapour) containing nicotine or other substances. They are battery-operated and use a heating element to heat e-liquid from a refillable cartridge, releasing a chemical-filled aerosol.

The idea here is that smoking normal cigarettes are super-harmful because of the effects of smoking tobacco, tar and thousands of other carcinogens on our bodies and lungs in particular all in order to get a shot of the addictive drug nicotine.

So what if we can get you your shot of nicotine but without having to burn tobacco and all the nasty stuff, surely that is better right? And so “vaping” is all the rage: here we get nicotine in an e-liquid form (and sometimes flavoured to reel in the kids) and inhale its vapour through this device. Almost like an artificial cigarette but instead it is meant to be “safe and clean”.

To make things worse, it’s not just smoking which is undergoing an artificial revolution. Drug laws have always made it difficult for people to get hold of marijuana and smoke weed and get high and stoned out of their heads. Naturally, the effects of smoking weed come with very similar harms to that of smoking a cigarette.

So what if we can get you your shot of weed but without having to smoke it or fall foul of the drug laws etc, surely that is better right? And so “vaping” – not with nicotine e-liquid – but with c-liquid is now spreading: here we get a synthetic cannabinoid (an artificial, manufactured product which mimics the psychotropic active ingredient in cannabis) in an e-liquid form and inhale its vapour through this device. Almost like an artificial joint but instead it is meant to be “safe and clean”.

Lā ilāha illallāh.

We are now not just faced with the issue of whether using e-cigarettes in their original form is permissible or not, but also the worrying development of people – especially the youth – using novel concoctions such as synthetic cannabis which effectively gives you weed through vaping in what might seem a “clean and pure” way and not get you thrown in prison either. I want to concentrate on this latter issue more but let me put the first one to bed.

E-Cigarettes

The mass majority of scholars and fiqh councils consider the smoking, manufacturing and supplying of cigarettes to be impermissible. This position of ḥarām should be the public stated ruling of the Muslims in order to push people away from cigarettes which is something harmful to the body, something repulsive in its effect on appearance and smell, and something displeasing to Allah jalla wa ‘alā. This ruling also applies to shisha and hookah which are very common in Muslim gatherings, despite popular belief to the contrary. Shisha is actually at least ten times more harmful than just smoking cigarettes and even more clearly impermissible.

There should be no doubt whatsoever about promoting these legal positions to the masses.

However e-cigarettes have been deemed to be less harmful than normal cigarettes because of the lack of tobacco and the reduction of carcinogens. This is undoubtedly true and thus some Health Authorities consider “vaping” a safer alternative. However, from an Islamic point of view, “safer” as a word and a concept needs further investigation.

It is safer to jump out of a window five stories high, than jumping out of a window twenty stories high. That doesn’t make it safe to jump out of a window.

The nicotine inhaled from an e-cigarette is still the original nicotine drug found in a cigarette, a drug which is addictive, a poison in large quantities, cell-damaging in small quantities including apoptosis, necrosis and DNA splitting, and thought by some to cause cancer and real damage to the body. This is the harm which renders the intake of nicotine to be impermissible regardless of whether that intake is via a cigarette, cigar, shisha pipe, vaping on a e-cigarette or anything else, as the Prophet ﷺ said, “Let there be no harm or any reciprocation of harm.”

Also, the wider ingredients that make up a typical solution which is vaporised in an e-cigarette are also problematic. Although not as many as in normal “smoked” tobacco cigarettes, there are a number of other carcinogenic components in e-cigarette vapour – some identified such as formaldehyde and diacetyl, some not – which cause harm to the body, and in particular to cells and their DNA. A number of countries continue to ban e-cigarettes due to the evidence body that is building against them showing their real harm.

As for the social impact: statistics show more and more school children getting involved with e-cigarettes (my own 13 year old in a decent public school tells me that it is rife in his year). Mitch Zeller of the FDA, the body responsible for drugs and medicines regulation in the USA, says, “The striking increase in middle school and high school use of e-cigarettes . . . is really a public health emergency.”

Moreover, the respected journal JAMA Pediatrics published a study which shows that one is four times more likely to start smoking normal cigarettes after using e-cigarettes, than not using e-cigarettes at all. And even if they don’t move onto cigarettes, every puff of “pure” nicotine that is inhaled via one of these devices is causing untold damage. Zeller continues, “I can say definitively that nicotine is harmful to the developing teenage brain. And no teenager, no young person, should be using any tobacco or nicotine-containing products.”

After a good few years of decreasing cigarette use amongst teens, we are starting to reverse all that good work by ignoring the danger behind the “innocence” of vaping.

Therefore, it is impermissible to use e-cigarettes because of their harmful nature, and in addition they also break the fast due to the ingestion of nicotine as well as the manner of its ingestion, identical to the rulings applied to normal cigarettes.

It should be noted that vaporiser devices also take non-nicotine e-liquids of different flavours and aromas which can be “vaped”, being marketed as a shisha-esque cool alternative. However, the presence of carcinogens in the vapour which is inhaled – regardless of the presence of nicotine or not – has proved to be damaging to cell development and one cannot rely on the safety of the different concoctions on the market. At the very least, all of these products should be avoided to safeguard one’s deen from its doubtful legal nature, to protect one’s health from the clear threat of carcinogens, and last but not least to protect one’s honour from the rightful shame associated with such pathetic and weak behaviour which is more the wont of the people of Shaytān than the people of Allah.

The Use Of E-Cigarettes In Nicotine Addiction

If one cannot overcome his/her smoking addiction after trying and failing with every other possible means, I hold it to be permissible for such a person to move to e-cigarettes as part of a program that will titrate the smoker downwards and off smoking, and then vaping too, altogether. Despite the harm of vaping, it is not as dangerous as smoking, and will become the lesser of the two evils performed due to the necessity of addiction. This is of course for a limited time only as a course of treatment, and not a fatwa for continued use of vaping/e-cigarettes. And Allah knows best.

The Use Of “Marijuana E-Liquid” In E-Cigarettes

If cannabis didn’t have enough slang synonyms as it is, here’s another one: “marijuana e-liquid” or more commonly known as “c-liquid”. What is the ruling of using this liquid in a vape device and thus avoiding all the dangers of physically smoking it as dry weed/skunk etc?

The main psychotropic ingredient of cannabis is a compound called tetrahydrocannabinol or better known as THC, and is what gives cannabis/marijuana/weed its intoxicating and thus impermissible effect.

Due to drug laws making it difficult to work with naturally occurring cannabis, as well as the undoubted harmful effects of inhaling the smoke which is produced when weed is smoked in a joint/cigarette, people started to focus on a product free from the above restrictions by creating compounds synthetically which mimic the action of THC.

They eventually created cannabinoid compounds which they called “synthetic marijuana” which act on the same cell receptors as those affected by the THC in all-natural marijuana. That means they create more or less the same feeling of intoxication, altered perception, relaxation, euphoria, “being high” and “stoned” as one finds with normal smoked cannabis/weed.

The synthetic marijuana was then either smoked directly, or turned into a spray which was sprayed onto natural herbs that were smoked, or in current times, turned into an e-liquid so that it could be vaporised and vaped in an e-cigarette device. The use of this “c-liquid” is rocketing amongst young people especially due to its perceived cleanness, legality (it’s not technically cannabis), and cool status.

Again, similar to the case of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, the ruling which will apply to marijuana will apply to synthetic versions as well. This is without taking into consideration the harms of the associated carcinogens which are inhaled along with the marijuana vapour, which would be enough to bring doubt to the whole issue. So what is that ruling on marijuana?

The General Ruling On Cannabis/Marijuana

Cannabis – also known by its other colourful slang names of spliff, marijuana, ganja, weed, hash, skunk etc – was used initially as a food product thousands of years ago and then later for other uses. It is well known across the Muslim world in all of its slightly different forms; whether we call it charas/qinnab (Indian hemp), hashīsh, banjj, and so on, they are all either solid resin, liquid, or herbal forms of cannabis plants, either purified, or slightly mixed with other compounds.

As a recreational drug, it is completely impermissible to use marijuana by consensus of the scholars. Those ignorant of usūl’l-fiqh have sometimes argued that there is no single ḥadīth or Qur’ānic verse which prohibits drugs like marijuana. Not only is this not true, but Islamic law is also dependent on the use of qiyās or the tool of analogy. As Allah has prohibited alcohol consumption for its intoxicating effect, anything which similarly intoxicates is also impermissible. It is for this reason that the Ummah has unanimously held the impermissibility of drugs such as cannabis.

Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmū‘ al-Fatāwa (34/206):

“Hashīsh is one of those things which Allah and His Messenger ﷺ have prohibited from the categories of alcohol and intoxicants – in name and meaning – and the aḥādīth on the matter are many. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ with his pithy speech has referred to every single substance which impairs the ability to think and intoxicates, and he did not differentiate between the forms they may take or whether they are eaten or drunk.

As for the one who claims there is no āyah or ḥadīth concerning these forms, then that is from his ignorance. The Qur’ān and Ḥadīth use comprehensive words, and establish general principles and rules that cover all matters under it. All of these products are mentioned in the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth using their general name because it wouldn’t be possible to mention all their many individual names.

So just like Allah sent Muḥammad ﷺ to all of the creation, He said, “Say [O Muhammad], ‘People, I am the Messenger of Allah to you all’” (7:158) and He said, “We have sent you [O Prophet] only to bring good news and warning to all people” (34:28) and He said, “Exalted is He who has sent the Differentiator down to His servant so that it may be a warning to all people” (25:1) and He said “It was only as a mercy that We sent you [O Prophet] to all people” (21:108).

The word “people” and “‘ālamīn” include the Arabs, the Persians, the Romans, the Indians, the Berbers etc. If someone said “Muḥammad was not sent to the Turks, the Indians and Berbers because Allah did not mention them in the Qur’ān” then he is an ignoramous, similar to if someone said that he was not sent to the tribes of Bani Tamīm, or Bani Asad, or Bani Ghaṭafān and any other tribes. Allah did not name these tribes by their specific names!”

This is not the place to go through all the evidences that establish the impermissibility of cannabis and intoxicants like it – perhaps another time – but the consensus on hashīsh’s forbidden nature is clear.

Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbali commenting on the statement of the Prophet ﷺ in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that, “Every intoxicant is a khamr, and every khamr is forbidden,” said:

“An intoxicant brings about pleasure and joy…a group of the scholars said, “This doesn’t matter whether it is a solid or a liquid, whether it is eaten or drunk, whether it comes from a seed or a date or from milk or whatever.” That is why ḥashīsh resin made from the leaves of the cannabis plant was included as well as other substances which are consumed, because of the pleasure they induce and because of their intoxicating effect.” (Jāmi‘ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam, 2/464).

Ibn Ḥajr and al-Nawawi confirmed the same ruling as in al-Fatḥ al-Bāri, 10/47.

For those who just think that cannabis is prohibited due to its intoxicating effect should also be aware of its many health risks. Apart from the obvious short-term dangers related to being intoxicated such as driving and other mechanical tasks, and of course the inability to make dhikr and perform obligatory prayers, there are long term risks too. Fertility can be affected, carcinogens in the smoke can cause all the problems mentioned earlier, but worst of all are its links to developing a number of mental illnesses such as schizophrenia etc. Indeed, many cases presented to Muslim faith healers (for ruqyah) as jinn possession or black magic, are nothing more than drug use such as cannabis, something which I have personally witnessed a number of times.

The Ruling On Marijuana E-Liquid

The ruling on recreational use of c-liquid or any form of cannabis product, whether natural or synthetic cannabinoid, solid or liquid, smoke or vapour, is the same. They are all completely impermissible in Islam.

Islamic law does not look to the form of the substance, but to its impact and effect. As we have established above, once a substance has an intoxicating effect then it becomes forbidden to ingest it in any form, and in any amount, despite any argument that small amounts will not intoxicate. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Whatever intoxicates in large quantities, a little of it is also harām.” (Tirmidhi, 1865)

C-Liquid and other forms of marijuana e-liquid to be vaporised and inhaled, all aim to create a euphoric and intoxicating effect on the user, and this must be avoided at all costs.

Summary

– smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products is forbidden

– “vaping” or inhaling vapour from an e-cigarette with nicotine in it, is forbidden

– smoking and ingesting marijuana and cannabis products is forbidden

– vaping “marijuana” synthetic cannabinoid e-liquid is forbidden

– vaping substances which have no nicotine or marijuana, should be avoided

And Allah knows best.

The Only Solution To Domestic Violence…Is You

AlMaghrib — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 GMT

I guess you could react in a number of ways when you see an outrageous photo like this:

sadness, fear and bad memories if you have yourself been a victim of domestic violence
disappointment that I (AE) would use such a photo and article “to make an issue out of something which isn’t common at all”
fury that something which is completely prohibited in Islam happens at the hands of Muslims
shock perhaps because you never thought this even happened
impressed that someone is brave enough to allow themselves to become a public face in a matter so sensitive
angry that one is giving Islamophobes something new to bash Muslims with
irritated that the focus always seems to be on women and no mention of a number of men who suffer domestic abuse as well

I know people will hate it if I was to dictate what your reaction should be or shouldn’t be, but what I certainly will dictate to you is my own experience of dealing with hundreds of cases that have presented themselves to me in the last ten years odd when I settled down permanently in Manchester at my own Masjid.

Firstly, I should say that I’ve had a long history with domestic abuse and violence.

That was the money line or the sensationalised sentence if you like. Unfortunately for my haters, that history isn’t what you were quite hoping. Alhamdulillah I’ve never personally been involved in such an incident and I pray to Allah jalla wa ‘ala that I never will be, ameen.

The “history” that I’m talking about refers to the many desperate women presenting themselves to me because they had nowhere else to turn to; it refers to my efforts to help launch two charities helping such women, including Nour DV in 2010; it refers to my current support of Amirah Foundation which is based in Birmingham and helps so many people; it also refers to domestic violence in my own family, but more on that later.

Secondly, I know I shouldn’t interfere with your reactions to the photo but a few things must be said simply because it would be irresponsible of me to turn a blind eye.

Yes I know that people feel uncomfortable when they see realities like this, which isn’t nice but I tell you what’s even less nice and comfortable: being beaten like this and then being silenced and then to top it off, being ignored by your brothers and sisters too. All because they feel “uncomfortable”.

Also, I know men are suffering the same too. Actually – and I am not exaggerating – but there has been a significant rise in the number of men who have approached me and then after my investigating, I have found very unrepentant and frankly shocking wives who abuse their husbands in ways you would never believe. Seriously, I’m not making this up. And no, not all of those men are immigrants on temporary visas who won’t dare answer back their British-born Red-Passport privileged wives, because you might think that’s understandable and is the stereotype of the female abuser. In a number of cases, the man getting abused and often beaten badly – yes, not exclusively small, weak men – allows this to continue because of their noble refusal to hit a woman, even in self-defence. So they soak up the violence and try to claim the upper path. And they suffer as a result of it.

But it would be folly to try and compare abuse from women, to abuse from men, because the latter is ten times more prevalent if not more. And people (read: Muslims who second guess everyone’s intention) have just got to stop assuming that when a person addresses a subject, it doesn’t mean that every other subject has been downgraded or denigrated. When I highlight the abuse of women, it doesn’t mean that men don’t get abused, and it also doesn’t mean that I have to justify myself or write disclaimers each time when I am dealing with a specific issue. Our community does this all the time: make du‘a for five Muslim countries and it’s “But what about this country?!”, or raise money for one country and it’s “We always knew you were racist!”, or champion the rights of women and it’s “You American sellout, you’re just looking for more female fans!”

The last one makes me laugh the most of course. Female fans and AE don’t work well in the same sentence ya’ni.

Furthermore, on the publishing of such a provocative photo and giving Islamophobes ammunition to shoot our community down more with: well, I’d firstly say that they don’t need much ammunition frankly. We’ve given them the keys to the arms dump many years ago with the way we behave and conduct ourselves in all parts of the world. Once we left Islamic teachings and values, we lost our ability to claim the higher moral ground and can only depend on the charity of good-willed citizens who will stand up and defend us and our rights.

And on the issue of washing our dirty laundry in public: this is a valid point, and we should try and deal with matters ourselves, internally. Agreed. But when that laundry stinks so much that the stench can be smelt all through the neighbourhood, well, then it doesn’t matter what we publish or say or do. They know we Muslims suffer from it, and they know that they’ve got their own problem too. It’s no point me putting up a photo of a badly beaten girl in a bikini because I’m speaking to a Muslim audience, not a wider one. The wider world doesn’t give two hoots what I say, and the Muslim one isn’t far behind in its rejection of my messages, but at least I have a chance with the Muslims. At least if they see a Hijabi as opposed to a non-Muslim, they might actually realise that this does happen to our own women as well, and that it’s not just some problem that “happens to other bad women who live under the influence of the Big Satan in the Wild West”.

It’s our problem too and we have to own it. Especially as we have Scripture which is often misinterpreted to allow the beating of women. That puts an extra onus upon us.

So after saying all that, I do actually have a message I want to give in this article, because whatever anyone believes, we really do have a domestic violence problem within the Muslim community that only we Muslims can sort out and deal with. So let’s see how. Here are my three points:

1. I want to say that I don’t think the problem has got any better by using emotional rhetoric and shock tactics. We told the people a hundred times, “Imagine this happening to your own mother or your own sister, so how can you do it to your wife??!”

We showed them hundreds of videos and images. They expressed shock and outrage. And then they still went back to abusing their wives when they couldn’t control their anger or even after valid grounds for complaint.

But regardless, I’ll say it again just to make it clear: I’ve published a shock photo so look at it and think that this could be your daughter or sister or someone very dear to you. No woman should be seen as someone less because she is not a close relative. And no anger should justify violence, because that violence is a sign that you have failed to solve your problem. And abuse just shows that you can’t handle it either. Which probably means you’ve failed as a man, because men are meant to honour, protect and serve women, not abuse, terrorise and beat them.

2. I want to say that I don’t think the problem has got any better by the scholars stepping up and really taking this battle to the masses by clarifying how anti-Islamic all of this is. One thing that the last decade has really seen is the rise of the English-speaking Western-born speaker/leader who will not let a village mentality and regressive cultural mindset stop him from speaking the truth. They have openly and proactively condemned all abusive practices, revived sacred texts and the alternative ideal, and shown what the true way is.

They told everyone that Allah ‘azza wa jall has said that the believing men and women are protectors of one another, not abusers.

They told everyone that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) never hit a women ever.

They told everyone that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) forbade everyone from hitting the female servants of Allah, leaving any kind of visible mark or bruise or cut or anything.

They told everyone that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said that the Believer is not one who curses, or abuses, or lies, or slanders, or physically hurts, or emotionally harms other people.

They told everyone that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said that the best of men were those who were best to their wives.

They told everyone that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) warned women of marrying certain men who had a reputation for violence to their spouses.

They told everyone that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) expressed incredulity that a man could possibly beat his wife and then want to enjoy her love and warmth at the end of the night.

They told everyone, everything and more. All that Islam says and calls for. May Allah bless them for their work. But I don’t think it worked very well.

Why? Because this was never a religious issue frankly. This is a human issue. A human failing.

Domestic abuse is carried out by “name-only” Muslims who don’t practise their religion at all, and also by very practising Muslims with beards and hats and short trousers. That’s because this is an issue with Muslims when it comes to our community; a human failing, not the Divine.

We can tell them all what the Deen says until we are blue in the face. If a person cannot control himself, or thinks that no-one is going to prosecute him, or believes that people will value their “honour” more over going public with the news that their daughter was abused and thus destroying her chances of remarrying etc, then religious exhortation has little effect. And it has had little effect and that’s my observation. Allah knows best.

But regardless, I’ll say it again just to make it clear: it is absolutely haram, haram, haram to abuse anyone in this way that causes so much pain and physical damage. All the best my friend when you choose to meet Allah with this kind of abuse on your neck, and with the abused being free to speak and make their complaint with no more fear about honour or reprisals or culture or reputation or “What about the children?? I’ll keep quiet for their sake!” or any other type of emotional pressure or blackmail. All the best son, all the best.

3. But I’ve already told you that I think we failed when it came to the effectiveness of the above. So we have one last real chance, and to my mind, this is the one that really At two levels. And they both depend…on you.

See, it is you, me, us, who really control the outcomes of this problem. No public awareness program, or poster campaign, or Domestic Violence Month promotion, or quoting of hadith and verses, is ever going to stop abuse if we ourselves don’t decide to become proactive and deal with it ourselves.

And this happens at two levels.

The first is obvious. You need to stop at the end of this paragraph and say to yourself, “I will never, ever hit or abuse or hurt another person except in self-defence or for that which is required from me by duty. Ya Allah help me to fulfil my promise and strengthen me to not become weak, and fail in my manliness when the situation gets out of control.” Ok, so you should be saying that now. Ameen.

The second level though is where things really heat up.

I found that more so than anything else, the only real solution to this ‘ayb on our community – this slur and disgrace – is to boycott and shun those who show signs of it, and worse, actually go ahead and do it.

See, loyalty is a very misunderstood concept when it comes to friends and family. There is this absurd understanding that if someone close to you does something wrong, you should stick by them regardless of the crime. This is absolutely wrong, not least as shown by the statement of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to his daughter Fatimah (radhyAllahu ‘anha) that if she was ever to steal something then despite her being his daughter, she would be punished without hesitation.

Compare this to today. Not only do you have friends – and “religious” ones too! – who turn a blind eye to clear and proven abuse – because the perpetrator is “one of the lads” or “a good brother who isn’t like that” etc etc – but you also find even female family members rallying around the perpetrator due to this misplaced loyalty. In many cases, this gives the abuser the moral support and confidence that he is in the right, and that the abused “deserved it”, and moreover it can also act as the green light to others who take the wrong message from it all.

I will not pretend that this is easy. The concept of boycotting someone in Islam is a detailed and restricted tool which is to be used to try and improve a situation and help sinners to reform, and not to completely destroy someone for one big mistake or crime. Its rules and parameters differ on a case-by-case basis, and that makes the entire process a subjective and difficult one to start, maintain and then end.

When exactly do you resume relations? How far does one go in the boycott process? Does it even work?

The answer to the last question is clear: yes it does. There’s no feeling in the world than being shunned and shamed by those who you love and trust implicitly. Sure, bravado and ego might take you forward a week or two, but then you will really feel the pain of isolation and abandonment. And remember, we did this to the perpetrator only after a long process where we advised and censured, openly and without fear or shame. The abuser deserves what it happening to them.

When I look at most cases that I can recall, I found that out of all the ways of trying to solve this problem, it was this that was the most effective but unfortunately, it was this approach that requires the biggest personal sacrifice. No-one wants to boycott or shun their friend or family member, but when they won’t empathise with the “fragile glass vessels” of our community as the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) described them, when they ignore the painful pictures and videos, when they refuse to act upon the verses and narrations condemning them for this crime, then the only thing left is for you to be brave, step up, and call that person out big time. And it will be hard. And it will cost you.

I told you I had history in this area and so to complete that story, this happened to me as well and I don’t mind sharing this in the hope that it achieves some good. A distant but well known family member of mine hit his wife in an argument. The wife was from “outside the family”. My family member and my relatives came to me to try and solve the situation and they were incredibly bitter that I sided with the girl. That’s not to say that the girl didn’t play her own little part in this story and she certainly wasn’t any angel but she never deserved to be treated like that. Ever. And I was not going to accept it. Subhanallah, she was punched in the face. In the face.

The anger from my relatives reached such a level, that I was ostracised from a large portion of the family due to their misplaced loyalty. That was difficult for me for all the natural reasons you can guess, but, hey. Someone had to make a stand amongst all this cultural ignorance and if I had to be that sacrificial bakrah, then yaa Zindabad.

To cut a long story short, they tried to mediate between the couple, and it only got worse, with even more violence. After many years, the family resumed relations with me. I never apologised. They knew they were wrong but they won’t admit it. And the abuser himself I shunned in a very direct way and you could see the impact on him.

It was the same impact it had on a very close friend that I used to have about 12-13 years ago who also started beating his wife. That was extremely difficult to deal with because he was very close to me – I think friends are more difficult than family in some ways and many will agree – but I had to tell him straight that I couldn’t handle or accept this any longer, that I wouldn’t just laugh it off, that I wouldn’t just try and sneak in a few hidden words of advice in a soft way so that it didn’t feel like a proper rebuke, that I wouldn’t turn a blind eye, that I wouldn’t avoid the big moment just because of how incredibly awkward it made me feel, that I wouldn’t let the fact that my voice trembled and my throat was drier than sandpaper stop me. No. I told him straight. And he was shocked. And it worked. But I lost him forever. He can’t look me in the eye anymore and it’s been all those many years.

This approach is not easy like I said. After many years of experience, both being married, and then dealing with community problems, I can tell you that if we were to get involved in every single marital dispute that comes your way, then not only would you go crazy but life would stop. This is something unnatural and reality dictates that people argue all the time and may even say things to hurt one another, but that doesn’t mean we run in gung ho trying to be a hero to save the day. Often, married couple kiss and make up – quite literally. And before someone misquotes me, that wasn’t my attempt to justify beating your wife and then engaging in make-up sex to make it all better. I’m of course referring to non-serious disputes. But how would you know what is serious or not if you are prying into every single argument? Often, non-interference deals with the majority of disputes, even the loud and what seem quite scary ones from the outside. Husband and wife usually know best.

When we were taught the science of Qadha’ – “the giving of judgement between people in their disputes” – our teachers always advised us the importance of discouraging people from our formal intervention, especially in such marital problems cases. Our teachers would say, “They know each other best. They’ll work it out. Trust them. Even if they ask you many times, you should only get involved if you absolutely must.”

Being born in the West, this was difficult to swallow. We live in an age where there are experts and professionals for everything, and when there’s even the slightest whiff of a problem, we run to someone else to help or to fix it. It’s our new accepted culture.

And then when folks do come to see you, our fear of getting it wrong, i.e. by encouraging a couple to keep trying themselves and then things getting far worse leading to potential abuse and violence, is always in the back of your mind. Remember, especially in marriages, the man perhaps more so than the woman, resents the fact that internal household secrets have been exposed to others. This would make sense especially as the man is usually the abuser and the abused woman is always being silenced, even more so when our cultures are taken into account. She is genuinely terrified what will happen to her, her family, her reputation, her children, her immigration status, so many things actually, if she was ever to go public. She sometimes lives in a foreign country, no close family, might end up in a shelter with other women who come from backgrounds of abuse or even crime leading to an environment which is less than ideal.

But if what if there was no abuse or violence between the couple but one of them, again usually the woman who has more to lose here, jumps the gun and gets you involved. Well, usually that only increases the problems and distrust between them. So the main thing to take home here is that these matter are incredibly complex and the masses rarely get that. Single people especially have no idea.

Anyway, 20 years later – wiser? – of being in this game, I only see more and more proof that our scholars were right. Most of the time they do fix it themselves. And our involvement often makes things worse. I was just reading that the famous Shaykh ‘Ali al-Tantawi who presided over 20,000 marital dispute cases, said that 3/4 of those cases ended up peacefully and for the better when no-one external became involved and they decided to sit down and heart to heart it out themselves.

And believe me, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t get involved in all marital disputes because of some religious reason, or because of the famous hadith narrated by Imam Abu Dawud (2/225) that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “A man should not be asked about why he beat his wife,” – a weak narration which cannot be used as an evidence and thus is not a statement of the Prophet – but I say this because of our social reality. It is just one of the facts of life that people argue and most of the time, they sort it out themselves. In fact, it is not even permissible for us to stick our noses in these private affairs all the time. For us to do so, there must be compelling reason and evidence.

Yes there are times when we must get involved to protect people, but sometimes, we just need to trust them more as well. But this is an article focusing on when that trust has broken down, and when there is clear and painful abuse and harm being afflicted. The abused needs your help. And it’s going to take your time and huge mental and emotional effort.

Like I said, it’s not going to be easy, but until we all adopt the same attitude of zero tolerance to this kind of abuse, and we sacrifice all our friends and family and great relationships that we have with people, until they realise that hurting and abusing other people is never acceptable, never justified, and never okay…well, things won’t change.

That’s why I say: the only real solution to domestic violence is you.

All the khutbahs and reminders and campaigns and photos in the world will always remain aimed “at someone else” until YOU make it specific and personal to yourself by committing to never do such a crime, and until YOU make your loved ones around you realise that you will never tolerate the same, and that so help you God, if they don’t change then they will hugely regret it afterwards and in the Hereafter.

And Allah knows best.

The Ruling on Making Wudhu’ For Those With Irregular Vaginal Bleeding (Istihadhah), Incontinence, Excessive Flatulence, etc

AlMaghrib — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Below is a detailed response to a question put to me from a brother, which I invested some time in due to what I felt to be the importance of the issue and what I felt to be a lack of detail available on the internet in English. I hope it will be of some benefit iA.

QUESTION:

Salaam Respected Shiekh,

I have the following 2 medical problems which are causing me considerable inconvenience in my Ibaadah. I hope you will be kind enough to comment from a Shariah viewpoint on what the official ruling is.

Problem 1 – Inability to keep Wudhu due to possible Irritable Bowel syndrome (IBS).

I have a medical condition (suspected Irritable Bowel Syndrome) due to which my bowel is not properly regulated – this is made worse due to my stressful lifestyle and diet (both of which I am trying to change). Although this can be painful, the bigger problem is a real inability to keep Wudhu due to possible flatulence/excess wind. The problem is sometimes very bad but sometimes not as bad (meaning I can perform Salah normally sometimes). The problem though is that the condition can arise at any time meaning until I have started salah it is not easy to know whether or not I will be able to keep Wudhu. I have heard a fatwa issued by Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah which is repeated in Fiqh-us Sunnah that people with such irregular circumstances should make Wudhu once for each Salah. This Wudhu however must be after the beginning of the prayer time of that Salah and one need not worry about wudhu thereafter till the next Salah’s time. I would be grateful if you can comment on this and where the Islamic validity for such a position comes from. Moreover I would be grateful if you can mention the position of the 4 schools of thought on this too?

Connected to the above point is a question of combining Salah. If the above fatwa of making wudhu once at beginning time is valid then if one is combining the salah then is one Wudhu sufficient for both salah?

Also, if one breaks wudhu during the wudhu (because sometimes things can be very bad) then does one have to keep starting from the beginning again or is it sufficient to make wudhu just once even though one may have broken it whilst making it?

Also, during Ghusl, it is generally accepted that one does not need to make a separate Wudhu after it as Ghusl incorporates the washing of the parts required within wudhu. However unlike most people, it is perfectly possible for me to break wudhu during the ghusl process. Does this mean that I have to fully perform Ghusl first and then a separate Wudhu too after it or is possible to assume Wudhu has been made with a complete Ghusl even if Wudhu was broken during it?

Final point on this is concerning Nafl Ibaadah. Is it permissible (for someone with the above condition) to engage in any Nafl Ibaadah (eg reciting Quran/Nafl salah) once they have made wudhu at the beginning time of the respective Salah even though wudhu may have broken since the Salah was prayed.

Problem 2 – Very minor urine leakage due to weak muscle.

The second problem I have is that once I have passed urine I wait a while for all the drops to come out. This is because I have a weak muscle in the pelvic area meaning everything does not come out straight away. Once I feel I am clear from urine I wash down there. However there can on a few occasions be tiny amounts of urine which may still come out thereafter. I have heard that Ibn Umar used to sprinkle water on his underpants and tell himself that it was just water if he felt something wet. Please can you kindly comment on this. I can confirm that the number of occasions this happens is not many and the urine amount is tiny. I have tried wiping the affected area with tissue after Istinja so it is dry and hence I can detect any drops – however this leaves me in a constant state of guessing whether or not I am feeling something wet down there or whether it is just the damp feeling after Istinja. It makes concentration in salah very difficult. Please also confirm what the Shar’ee position with regards to Najs on clothing is – I ask because in this situation it may be that my clothing has Najs on those few occasions when drops occur. The hanafi school seems to tolerate Najs amounting to a 50p coin which I would be well within.

I would greatly appreciate your kind comment of these urgent matters.

ANSWER:

Wa ‘alaykum’l-salām wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh

Indeed all Praise is due to Allāh, and may His peace and blessings be upon His Messenger Muḥammed, his family and his companions.

So to answer your question properly, we need to return back to the original sources to try and find evidences for your specific situation.

Actually, we don’t find much discussion on this matter at a primary evidence level and thus we have to use the principle of qiyās (analogy) to try and find a response to the challenges of Irritable Bowel Syndrome such as continual flatulence, irregular involuntary flatulence and indeed other forms of involuntary incontinence.

The scholars agreed that the way to answer this question is to use the aḥādīth on the issue of istiḥāḍah (prolonged irregular vaginal bleeding/abnormal uterine bleeding). In essence, this is almost a form of “incontinence” in that it is the irregular or continual flow of blood from “one of the two passages” which the female has no control over, over and above her normal menstruation. Understanding this issue will give us a basis on how to answer the rising challenge of intestinal problems which seem to have increased in modern times largely due to the proportional increase in stress due to modern day realities, as well as the large array of unsuitable and unhealthy artificial foods that we consume.

So the question put to the scholars is: does the blood of istiḥāḍah and anything else which comes out continuously and involuntarily, invalidate one’s wuḍū’? The opinions are as follows:

The Ḥanafi¹ and Ḥanbali² school: it is wājib (obligatory) to make wuḍū’ for every prayer time.

The Shāfi‘ī³ school: one must make wuḍū’ for every individual obligatory prayer (and not the time of the prayer itself), regardless whether that prayer is one which is being prayed on time, or one which is being made up after it had been missed earlier. One is allowed to pray voluntary prayers (nawāfil) using the same wuḍū’ made for the obligatory prayer.

The Māliki⁴ school: it is not obligatory to make wuḍū’ for each prayer, but it is recommended to do so only.

(It should be noted that in this Māliki opinion therefore, it would be sufficient to do all the prayers with a single wuḍū’ and to ignore the incontinence/istiḥāḍah, without needing to have to repeat the wuḍū’ unless the person invalidates their wuḍū’ by some other means other than the incontinence such as via sleeping, sexual relations etc.)

The Ẓāhiri⁵ school: it is obligatory to make wuḍū’ for every prayer, whether it be the farḍ or nafl prayer.

These are the well-known opinions from the earlier madh-habs. And it was based upon this response to irregular vaginal bleeding, that the ruling was issued for all other forms of incontinence.

From the later scholars, perhaps this fatwa from Ibn Taymiyyah sums up the issue and its application rather well. The text of the question and his answer is as follows⁶:

وسئلَ ـ أيضًا ـ رحمَه الله ـ عن رجل كلما شرع في الصلاة يحدث له رياح كثيرة؛ حتى ‏[‏إنه‏]‏ في الصلاة يتوضأ أربع مرات أو أكثر، إلى حين يقضى الصلاة يزول عنه العارض، ثم لا يعود إليه إلا في أوقات الصلاة، وهو لا يعلم ما سبب ذلك‏؟‏‏:‏ هل هو من شدة حرصه على الطهارة‏؟‏ وقد يشق عليه كثرة الوضوء، وما يعلم هل حكمه حكم صاحب الأعذار أم لا لسبب أنه لا يعاوده إلا في وقت الصلاة‏؟‏ وما تطيب نفسه أن يصلي بوضوء واحد‏؟‏

Ibn Taymiyyah was asked:
“There is a man who when starting his Ṣalāh, will pass copious amounts of wind to the extent he will make wuḍū’ perhaps four times or even more; this might even continue until he completes the prayer and then the problem will stop, and indeed he will not pass wind thereafter until the time for the next prayer has arrived! He is not sure what the reason for that could possibly be, but is it perhaps because of his extraordinary concern for remaining ritually pure? The continual performing of wuḍū’ is becoming difficult for him and he doesn’t know if the ruling of someone with a valid excuse applies to him or not, because of the doubt surrounding the fact that he only seems to get the problem during prayer times. He doesn’t feel comfortable praying with just a single wuḍū’.”

/فأجاب ـ رضي الله عنه‏:‏
نعم، حكمه حكم أهل الأعذار‏:‏ مثل الاستحاضة وسلس البول، والمذى، والجرح الذي لا يرقأ، ونحو ذلك‏.‏ فمن لم يمكنه حفظ الطهارة مقدار الصلاة، فإنه يتوضأ ويصلي ولا يضره ما خرج منه في الصلاة، ولا ينتقض وضوؤه بذلك باتفاق الأئمة، وأكثر ما عليه أن يتوضأ لكل صلاة‏.‏
وقد تنازع العلماء في المستحاضة ومن به سلس البول وأمثالهما، مثل من به ريح يخرج على غير الوجه المعتاد، وكل من به حدث نادر‏.‏ فمذهب مالك‏:‏ أن ذلك ينقض الوضوء بالحدث المعتاد ـ ولكن الجمهور ـ كأبي حنيفة؛ والشافعي؛ وأحمد بن حنبل ـ يقولون‏:‏ إنه يتوضأ لكل صلاة أو لوقت كل صلاة‏.‏ رواه أهل السنن وصحح ذلك غير واحد من الحفاظ؛ فلهذا كان أظهر قولي العلماء أن مثل هؤلاء يتوضؤون لكل صلاة أو لوقت كل صلاة‏.‏
وأما ما يخرج في الصلاة دائمًا فهذا لا ينقض الوضوء باتفاق العلماء‏.‏ وقد ثبت في الصحيح‏:‏ أن بعض أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كانت تصلي والدم يقطر منها، فيوضع لها طست يقطر فيه الدم‏.‏ وثبت في الصحيح أن عمر بن الخطاب ـ رضي الله عنه ـ صلى وجرحه يثعب دما‏.‏ ومازال المسلمون على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يصلون في جراحاتهم‏.‏
/وقد تنازع العلماء في خروج النجاسة من غير السبيلين ـ كالجرح والفصاد والحجامة والرعَاف والقيء‏:‏ فمذهب مالك والشافعي‏:‏ لا ينقض‏.‏ ومذهب أبي حنيفة وأحمد‏:‏ ينقض‏.‏ لكن أحمد يقول‏:‏ إذا كان كثيرًا‏.‏
وتنازعوا في مس النساء ومس الذكر‏:‏ هل ينقض‏؟‏ فمذهب أبي حنيفة‏:‏ لا ينقض‏.‏ ومذهب الشافعي‏:‏ ينقض‏.‏ ومذهب مالك‏:‏ الفرق بين المس لشهوة وغيرها‏.‏ وقد اختلفت الرواية عنه هل يعتبر ذلك في مس الذكر‏؟‏ واختلف في ذلك عن أحمد، وعنه ـ كقول أبي حنيفة ـ‏:‏ أنه لا ينقض شيء من ذلك وروايتان كقول مالك والشافعي‏.‏
واختلف السلف في الوضوء مِن ما مست النار‏:‏ هل يجب أم لا‏؟‏ واختلفوا في القهقهة في الصلاة‏:‏ فمذهب أبي حنيفة تنقض‏.‏ ومن قال‏:‏ إن هذه الأمور لا تنقض‏:‏ فهل يستحب الوضوء منها‏؟‏ على قولين‏.‏ وهما قولان في مذهب أحمد وغيره‏.‏
والأظهر ـ في جميع هذه الأنواع ـ‏:‏ أنها لا تنقض الوضوء، ولكن يستحب الوضوء منها‏.‏ فمن صلى ولم يتوضأ منها صحت صلاته‏.‏ ومن توضأ منها فهو أفضل‏.‏ وأدلة ذلك مبسوطة في غير هذا الموضع، ولكن كلهم يأمر بإزالة النجاسة، ولكن إن كانت من الدم أكثر من ربع/ المحل فهذه تجب إزالتها عند عامة الأمة، ومع هذا إن كان الجرح لا يرقأ مثل ما أصاب عمر بن الخطاب ـ رضي الله عنه ـ فإنه يصلي باتفاقهم؛ سواء قيل‏:‏ إنه ينقض الوضوء، أو قيل‏:‏ لا ينقض، سواء كان كثيرًا أو قليلًا؛ لأن الله ـ تعالى ـ يقول‏:‏ ‏{‏لاَ يُكَلِّفُ اللّهُ نَفْسًا إِلاَّ وُسْعَهَا‏}‏ ‏[‏البقرة‏:‏ 286‏]‏، وقال تعالى‏:‏ ‏{‏فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ‏}‏ ‏[‏التغابن‏:‏ 16‏]‏، وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم‏:‏ ‏(‏إذا أمرتكم بأمر فأتوا منه ما استطعتم‏)‏‏.‏
وكل ما عجز عنه العبد من واجبات الصلاة سقط عنه، فليس له أن يؤخر الصلاة عن وقتها، بل يصلي في الوقت بحسب الإمكان، لكن يجوز له ـ عند أكثر العلماء ـ أن يجمع بين الصلاتين لعذر، حتى أنه يجوز الجمع للمريض والمستحاضة وأصحاب الأعذار في أظهر قولي العلماء، كما استحب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للمستحاضة أن تجمع بين الظهر والعصر بغسل واحد فهذا للمعذور، سواء أمكنه أن يجمع بين الصلاتين بطهارة واحدة من غير أن يخرج منه شيء في الصلاة، جاز له الجمع في أظهر قولي العلماء‏.‏
وكذلك يجمع المريض بطهارة واحدة إذا كانت الطهارة لكل صلاة تزيد في مرضه، ولابد من الصلاة في الوقت‏:‏ إما بطهارة إن أمكنه وإلا بالتيمم، فإنه يجوز لمن عدم الماء أو خاف الضرر باستعماله إما لمرض وإما لشدة البرد أن يتيمم وإن كان جنبًا، ولا قضاء عليه في أظهر قولي /العلماء‏.‏ وإذا تيمم في السفر لعدم الماء لم يعد باتفاق الأئمة‏.‏
وكذلك المريض إذا صلى قاعدًا أو صلى على جنب لم يُعِد باتفاق العلماء‏.‏
وكذلك العريان‏:‏ كالذي تنكسر به السفينة، أو يأخذ القطاع ثيابه‏:‏ فإنه يصلي عريانا ولا إعادة عليه باتفاق العلماء‏.‏
وكذلك من اشتبهت عليه القبلة وصلى ثم تبين له فيما بعد ، لا يعيد باتفاق العلماء ، وإن أخطأ مع اجتهاده لم يعد ـ أيضًا ـ عند جمهورهـم‏:‏ كمالك وأبي حنيفة وأحمد بن حنبل، والمشهور في مذهب الشافعي أنه يعيد‏.‏
وقد تنازع العلماء في التيمم لخشية البرد‏:‏ هل يعيد‏؟‏ وفيمن صلى في ثوب نجس لم يجد غيره‏:‏ هل يعيد‏؟‏ وفي مواضع أخر‏.‏
والصحيح في جميع هذا النوع‏:‏ أنه لا إعادة على أحد من هؤلاء، بل يصلي كل واحد على حسَب استطاعته ويسقط عنه ما عجز عنه، ولا إعادة عليه، ولم يأمر الله ـ تعالى ـ ولا رسوله أحدًا أن يصلي الفرض مرتين مطلقًا، بل من لم يفعل ما أمر به فعليه أن يصلي إذا ذُكِّر بوضوء باتفاق المسلمين‏:‏ كمن نسى الصلاة؛ فإن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال‏:‏/ ‏(‏من نام عن صلاة أو نسيها فليصلها إذا ذكرها‏)‏‏.‏ وهذه المسائل مبسوطة في غير هذا الموضع‏.‏

والمقصود هنا بيان أن الله ـ تعالى ـ ما جعل على المسلمين من حرج في دينهم، بل هو ـ سبحانه ـ يريد بهم اليسر ولا يريد بهم العسر‏.‏ ومسألة هذا السائل أولى بالرخصة، ولهذا كانت متفقًا عليها بين العلماء وهذه المسائل مبسوطة في مواضع أخر‏.‏ والله أعلم‏

So he responded, may Allah be pleased with him:
Yes, his ruling is that of those who have a valid excuse, such as those suffering from irregular vaginal bleeding, or urinary incontinence, or continual discharge of prostatic fluid, or a wound which will not stop bleeding etc. The one who is unable to maintain his state of purity for the length of a prayer should make wuḍū’ and then pray and he is not affected by anything which may exit from him during the prayer, and indeed his wuḍū’ is not invalidated by that according to the consensus of the scholars – in actual fact the most being upon him is to make wuḍū’ for every prayer.

The scholars debated concerning the one who suffers from istiḥāḍah and the one with urinary incontinence and others like them such as those who excessively pass wind – more than what would be considered normal – and those with other rare conditions. The madh-hab of Mālik is that the state of wuḍū’ is only broken by an invalidator (such as going to the toilet, going to sleep etc) which is occurring at a normal rate and fashion (i.e. that one is in control of).

But the majority of scholars, such as Abu Ḥanīfah, al-Shāfi‘ī and Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal said that he is to make wuḍū’ for every prayer, or for the time of every prayer. This has been narrated by the Imams of the four Sunan (Abu Dāwūd, Ibn Mājah, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasā’ī) and a number of the Huffādh have authenticated these reports. Therefore the most apparently correct of the two opinions of the scholars is that one should make wuḍū’ for every prayer or for every prayer time.

As for that which might continuously exit during the prayer itself then this does not invalidate the wuḍū’ by the consensus of the scholars; it has been established in the Ṣaḥīḥ that some of the wives of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would pray and blood would be dripping from them, and so a pan would be given to them so that the blood would drip in it. It is also established in the Ṣaḥīḥ that ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu) prayed whilst his wound was still pouring blood, indeed the Muslims from the time of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) always prayed whilst their wounds bled.

The scholars have also debated the excretion of that which is impure from other than the front and back passages, such as when wounded, or during a phlebotomy, or during ḥijāmah, or during a nosebleed or whilst one is vomiting. The madh-hab of Mālik and Shāfi‘ī is that these do not invalidate wuḍū’ whereas the madh-hab of Abu Ḥanīfah and Aḥmed is that they do invalidate the wuḍū’ except that Aḥmed added: only if it is of a large quantity.

They also debated the touching of women or touching the penis: does this break wuḍū’? The madh-hab of Abu Ḥanīfah is that it doesn’t, whereas the madh-hab of al-Shāfi‘ī is that it does. The madh-hab of Mālik is that there is a difference between touching with and without desire; there is a difference of opinion reported from him whether the same applied to the touching of the penis. They also differed in their reporting from Aḥmed as well, but one of the positions related from his is the same as Abu Ḥanīfah i.e. that none of the above invalidate the wuḍū’, whereas the other two narrations from him are the same as the positions of Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī.

The Salaf differed on whether one needs to make wuḍū’ after eating something which has been cooked by fire – is it obligatory or not? They also differed on whether laughing out loud during the prayer – the madh-hab of Abu Ḥanīfah is that it does invalidate it, whereas others said such matters do not invalidate it. So is it recommended to make wuḍū’ from such matters? Some said yes and some said no, and both positions are related in the madh-hab of Aḥmed and others.

What seems apparent from all of these types of actions is that they do not break the wuḍū’ but it should be considered recommended (mustaḥab) to perform it. If anyone doesn’t make wuḍū’, his prayer will still be valid.

Whoever does perform wuḍū’ after the above incidents/actions, then this will be better – the evidences for this (recommendation) are spread all over this work but it should be noted that all of the scholars insisted that any najāsah (physical impurity) also be removed (from oneself). If for example some blood comes to be of an amount greater than a quarter of the area in question then this obligates its removal according to the majority of the Ummah, yet despite this we know that if a wound doesn’t stop bleeding such as what afflicted ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu) then he is to continue praying as per the consensus of the scholars. This is regardless of whether one feels that it (the invalidator i.e. the urine or wind passed in a state of incontinence) breaks the wuḍū’, or it is said that it doesn’t break the wuḍū’, regardless of whether it is a large amount (of najāsah) or a small amount. This is because Allah, Most High, says, “Allah doesn’t burden a soul more than it can bear.” (al-Baqarah, 286), and He, Most High, says, “Have as much taqwa of Allah as you possibly can…” (al-Taghābun, 16), and the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “If I order you to do something, then do as much of it as you can.”

So whatever the slave is not able to do from the obligatory acts of the prayer, these are pardoned from him. He is not to delay the prayer from its rightful time rather he should pray it within its time however he can – but it should also be noted that it is permissible according to the majority of the scholars to combine between two prayers for a valid reason, to the extent that it is permissible to combine for the sick person, the one suffering from istiḥāḍah and others with similar excuses as per the most obvious and correct position from the scholars. This is like when the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) recommended for the woman suffering from istiḥāḍah to combine between Ẓuhr and ‘Asr with her washing herself just once, because this is for the excused one. This is also regardless of whether one combines between two prayers using just one act of purification and yet then still nothing bleeds from her during the prayer – it is still permissible for her to combine according to the correct position of the scholars.

Likewise, the sick person can combine as well using only one wuḍū’ if the making of that wuḍū’ for every single prayer will make his condition worse. It is a must that prayer is performed within its correct time, either by normal ablution or by tayammum – this is permissible if there is no water available or if one fears harm in the use of water whether for the reason that it will make his condition worse, or because of extreme cold. He can make tayammum even if he is in a state of sexual impurity and there will be no qaḍā’ (making up) upon him as per the more correct of the two positions of the scholars. And if he makes tayammum whilst he is travelling and there is no water available, then we have a consensus of the scholars that there is no repetition needed from him later.

Likewise, the sick person who prays sitting down or lying on his side – he does not repeat anything later by the consensus of the scholars.

And likewise the one who finds himself naked such as one who is shipwrecked or one who is robbed of his clothes; such a person should pray naked and there is no repeating (of the prayer) for him as per the consensus of the scholars.

Likewise the one who is not able to determine the direction of the Qiblah (for some reason out of his control), and then prays and then discovers that it was incorrect, he doesn’t need to repeat his prayer according to the consensus of the scholars. As for the one who estimates the direction and makes a mistake (and there was more that he could have done to determine the Qiblah) then even he doesn’t need to repeat the prayer according to the majority of the scholars namely Mālik, Abu Ḥanīfah, and Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal. The popular position of the Shāfi‘ī madh-hab is that he should repeat his prayer.

The scholars debated the permissibility of making tayammum simply for the reason that it was too cold (to use water) – does he need to repeat his prayer? Also the one who prays in najas (ritually impure and filthy) clothes because he hasn’t got access to anything else – does he repeat the prayer later too? And there are many other similar situations to this.

The correct position in all of the above is that there is no repeating or making up upon any of these people, rather they should all pray according to their ability and anything which was obligated upon them which they weren’t able to perform, they are pardoned for and there is no repeating required. Neither Allah, Most High, nor His Messenger ever ordered a person to pray an obligatory prayer twice… and we have explained these issues across our works.

The key point to remember in conclusion is that Allah, Most High, has not placed difficulty upon the Muslims in their religion, rather He – may He be blessed and exalted – wishes only ease for them and not hardship for them. And the issue which the questioner puts forward is most deserving of a concession and thus one sees a consensus of the scholars concerning it.

And Allah knows best.”
The purpose of the translation of that entire fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah was to give the reader a complete overview and appreciation of the subject matter at hand and how the scholars in approach the issue of sickness in general, or inability or those with valid excuses.

It should be noted that despite all of what has been said from the positions of the Imams and the discussion of their evidences, we hold that the correct position is that of the madh-hab of Imām Mālik i.e. that one’s wuḍū’ is not broken by such involuntary acts such as excessive flatulence for the one suffering from IBS, or the one who continually or erratically leaks urine etc because of incontinence or other conditions.

To understand this, we need to look at the evidences on the matter in a bit more detail.⁷ The position of the fuqahā’ on this issue is well known, based upon the ḥadīth narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ’l-Bukhāri (306):

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يُوسُفَ ، قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا مَالِكٌ ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ : قَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ أَبِي حُبَيْشٍ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، إِنِّي لَا أَطْهُرُ أَفَأَدَعُ الصَّلَاةَ ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” إِنَّمَا ذَلِكِ عِرْقٌ وَلَيْسَ بِالْحَيْضَةِ ، فَإِذَا أَقْبَلَتِ الْحَيْضَةُ فَاتْرُكِي الصَّلَاةَ فَإِذَا ذَهَبَ قَدْرُهَا فَاغْسِلِي عَنْكِ الدَّمَ وَصَلِّي “

It was narrated to us by ‘Abdullāh b. Yūsuf who said, “(Imām) Mālik informed us on the authority of Hishām b. ‘Urwah on the authority of his father (‘Urwah b. Zubayr) on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhā) that she said,

“Fāṭimah bint Abi Ḥubaysh said to the Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), “Yā Rasūlallāh, I am a woman who never becomes pure. Should I leave off the prayer?” The Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) replied, “This is only bleeding from a vein, not menstrual blood. When you have your menses, stop praying, but when it is complete then wash the blood away and begin praying again.”

This ḥadīth has been narrated with almost one hundred different chains across all the books of ḥadīth, the majority on the authority of ‘Urwah b. Zubayr on the authority of his aunt ‘Ā’ishah, may Allāh be pleased with all of them.

Indeed in another version of this ḥadīth (no. 228) in Ṣaḥīḥ’l-Bukhāri, we have:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عُرْوَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ، قَالَتْ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ أَبِي حُبَيْشٍ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، إِنِّي امْرَأَةٌ أُسْتَحَاضُ فَلَا أَطْهُرُ ، أَفَأَدَعُ الصَّلَاةَ ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” لَا ، إِنَّمَا ذَلِكِ عِرْقٌ وَلَيْسَ بِحَيْضٍ ، فَإِذَا أَقْبَلَتْ حَيْضَتُكِ فَدَعِي الصَّلَاةَ ، وَإِذَا أَدْبَرَتْ فَاغْسِلِي عَنْكِ الدَّمَ ثُمَّ صَلِّي ” ، قَالَ : وَقَالَ أَبِي : ثُمَّ تَوَضَّئِي لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ حَتَّى يَجِيءَ ذَلِكَ الْوَقْتُ

It was narrated to us by Muḥammed (b. Sallām b. al-Faraj) who said, “Abu Mu‘āwiyah narrated to us on the authority of Hishām b. ‘Urwah on the authority of his father (‘Urwah b. Zubayr) on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhā) that she said,

“Fāṭimah bint Abi Ḥubaysh came to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and said, “Yā Rasūlallāh, I am a woman who suffers from istiḥāḍah and I never become pure. Should I leave off the prayer?” The Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) replied, “No, that’s bleeding from a vein, not menstrual blood. When you have your menses, stop praying, but when it is complete then wash the blood away and begin praying again.” Hishām then said, “My father (‘Urwah) said, “Then make wuḍū’ for every prayer until your menses starts again.”

The main reason that the scholars differed over whether the blood of istiḥāḍah invalidates one’s wuḍū’ or not is because of the above statement of Hishām, the son of ‘Urwah b. Zubayr who was the nephew of ‘Ā’ishah, may Allah be pleased with all of them.

Is this extra statement by Hishām i.e. “My father said, “Then make wuḍū’ for every prayer until your menses starts again”” something which was said by the Prophet himself (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and thus marfū‘, or was it just a statement of ‘Urwah himself and thus mawqūf? And is this narration continuous to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and thus muttaṣilah or is it missing key narrators and thus mu‘allaqah? And if we assume that this ḥadīth is indeed marfū‘, then is such a Prophetic statement to be considered preserved (maḥfūẓ) or odd and contradictory to other more authentic narrations (shādh)?

To investigate this further, we see that this ḥadīth in its main is reported by Hishām b. ‘Urwah, from his father, from ‘Ā’ishah. As from Hishām himself, many narrators reported this ḥadīth with only small differences in the text itself, with some narrations mentioning the above extra statement, and some of them not.

For example, one path for the isnād using the authority of Abu Mu‘āwiyah from Hishām, does have the extra statement about making wuḍū’ for every Ṣalāh. But then they differed from Abu Mu‘āwiyah, with some narrators reporting the ḥadīth without any mention of the extra statement, and some of them narrating the ḥadīth with the extra statement being stated clearly as being marfū‘ i.e. as if it was a statement of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) himself and then finally some of them reporting the ḥadīth with the extra statement being confirmed as an increase from ‘Urwah only i.e. mawqūf.

Others who narrated the extra statement include Abu Ḥamzah al-Sukari, and they differed in narrating from him as well – some reported the extra as marfū‘ and some reported it as mursal i.e. just a statement of ‘Urwah.

Other major ḥadīth scholars have also narrated the extra statement such as Ḥammād b. Zayd and Ḥammād b. Salamah on the authority of Hishām except that they mention the making of wuḍū’ but didn’t mention that it had to be for every Ṣalāh, rather they narrated, “…so wash the blood from yourself, make wuḍū’ and pray.” So just as making ghusl from the condition only once is considered sufficient and it is not required each time for every Ṣalāh, the same goes for wuḍū’ as well, as per the wording collected by the two above Muḥaddithīn. Interestingly, ‘Affān who is one of the most accurate and best narrators from Ḥammād b. Salamah, has also narrated this ḥadīth from Ḥammād and not mentioned the extra statement of making wuḍū’ for every prayer either.

Others who narrated the extra statement include Abu ‘Awānah (al-Waḍḍāḥ b. ‘Abdillāh al-Yashkari) and Abu Ḥanīfah.

These are in total the main scholars who narrated this extra increment, but they were opposed by a large number of narrators who didn’t report the extra statement, some of who are considered more qualified in ḥadīth than the above, such as: Mālik, Wakī‘, Yaḥyā b. Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān, Zuhayr, Sufyān b. ‘Uyaynah, Abu Usāmah, Layth b. Sa‘d, ‘Amr b. al-Ḥārith, ‘Abdah, Muḥammad b. Kināsah, Ma‘mar, Ja‘far b. ‘Awn, al-Darāwardi, ‘Abdullāh b. Namīr and Sa‘īd b. ‘Abd’l-Raḥmān.

It is no surprise to find then that Imām Muslim, al-Nasā’ī, al-Bayhaqi, and Abu Dāwūd all ruled that this extra increment of making wuḍū’ for every Ṣalāh is ḍa‘īf (weak), as Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbali also opined in his commentary to Ṣaḥīḥ’l-Bukhāri⁸:

“The correct position is that the wording of (making) wuḍū’ (for every prayer) is an extra addition in the ḥadīth from only ‘Urwah himself; indeed Mālik narrated from Hishām on the authority of his father that he himself said, “The one who suffers from istiḥāḍah does nothing other than make ghusl once and then she performs the wuḍū’ for every prayer thereafter.”

Imām al-Zayla‘ī the great Ḥanafi Muḥaddith said⁹,

“This extra wording i.e. “perform the wuḍū’ for every Ṣalāh” is mu‘allaqah according to Bukhāri (i.e. not a statement of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)…and Ibn al-Qaṭṭān also ruled that this narration was mu‘allaqah in his book.”

One can see some of the other versions of this ḥadīth to understand the above described situation. In the versions narrated by Imām Aḥmed, Ibn Mājah, Abu Dāwūd, Ibn Abi Shaybah and numerous other Muḥaddithīn, you will find similar wording to the above agreed upon narrations from Bukhāri but with usually a significant difference i.e. the statement of ‘Urwah (“Then make wuḍū’ for every prayer until your menses starts again.”) is included in the narration to make it look as if it is the statement of the Prophet himself (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)

For example, in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah (1303), we have:

حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا الْأَعْمَشُ ، عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ، قَالَتْ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حُبَيْشٍ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَتْ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ , إِنِّي امْرَأَةٌ أُسْتَحَاضُ فَلَا أَطْهُرُ أَفَادَعُ الصَّلَاةَ ؟ قَالَ : ” لَا ، إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ عِرْقٌ وَلَيْسَتْ بِالْحَيْضَةِ اجْتَنِبِي الصَّلَاةَ أَيَّامَ حَيْضَتِكِ ثُمَّ اغْتَسِلِي وَتَوَضَّئِي لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ ثُمَّ صَلِّي وَإِنْ قَطَرَ الدَّمُ عَلَى الْحَصِيرِ “

It was narrated to us by Wakī‘ who said, “Al-A‘mash narrated to us on the authority of Ḥabīb b. Abi Thābit, on the authority of ‘Urwah, on the authority of ‘Ā’ishah, who said:

“Fāṭimah bint Abi Hubaysh came to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and said, “Yā Rasūlallāh, I am a woman who suffers from istiḥāḍah and I never become pure. Should I leave off the prayer?” The Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) replied, “No, that’s bleeding from a vein, not menstrual blood. Avoid the prayer during the days of your menses, then take a bath and make wuḍū’ for every prayer and then pray, even if the blood is so much that it drips on to the mat below.”

As you can see, this narration and indeed many other narrations show the extra addition of the making of wuḍū’ for every prayer look like a Prophetic command.

It should be also said that the weakness in some of these versions that have the extra increment is quite clearly to be seen from the chains themselves. For example the version narrated by Imām Aḥmed (474) is ḍa‘īf because of the ‘an’anah of Ḥabīb b. Abi Thābit. In the narration of al-Dārimi (793), a number of scholars ruled the chain ḍa‘īf jiddan (very weak). In the narration of Imām al-Ṭabarāni in his Mu‘jam’l-Awsaṭ (1620), he said, “This ḥadīth has not been narrated on the authority of Abi Ayyūb al-Afrīqī who is otherwise known as ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Alī, other than Abu Yūsuf.” Hence, this chain is also weak.

As a result of the above brief study we find that the scholars differed in their conclusions with respect to the narrations relating to making wuḍū’ for every prayer for the one suffering from istiḥāḍah – indeed some as we have already mentioned considered all the ḥadīth on this matter to be weak.

Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbali said¹⁰,

“The aḥādīth of performing wuḍū’ for every Ṣalāh have been narrated from many different paths, all of them doubtful and full of hidden faults.”

This is why the Mālikiyyah opined that there is no obligation to repeat the wuḍū’ for every prayer for the one suffering from istiḥāḍah.

Ibn ‘Abd’l-Barr said¹¹,

“To make wuḍū’ (for every prayer) is only considered to be recommended by Mālik, not obligatory. They based their position on the fact that there is no mention of wuḍū’ by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) when he said, “Once the period of menses has passed, take a bath and then pray” and he did not mention wuḍū’. And from amongst those who said that wuḍū’ is not obligatory for the one suffering from istiḥāḍah were Rabī‘ah, ‘Ikrimah, Mālik, Ayyūb and a group of the scholars.”

Our conclusion is the same: not only is the extra wording ḍa‘īf for this issue of istiḥāḍah, but if this is the case then it also suggests that none of this type of impurity such as the blood of istiḥāḍah, urinary incontinence and the like are all not considered to be a ḥadath i.e. something which breaks the wuḍū’. This is namely for the following reasons:

a) Someone who is suffering from a continual condition which breaks the wuḍū’, then even if they were to perform ablution, it will never lift his impurity or his condition causing impurity. If we agree on this then the purification is only being done out of recommendation, and not obligation.

b) If indeed the blood of istiḥāḍah doesn’t break one’s state of purity after making wuḍū’ before you pray in that prayer time, then neither will that same blood break your state of impurity after the prayer, or after the time period for that prayer has expired. Thus, we have considered any kind of command to make wuḍū’ for every Ṣalāh as something recommended only.

c) If the blood which flows from a vein does not invalidate wuḍū’, then any blood flow from a vein in the hand or in the foot will also not invalidate the wuḍū’ according to the most correct position. Therefore we should apply the same for the blood of istiḥāḍah for it is also blood from a vein as the ḥadīth in the Ṣaḥiḥayn confirm. It’s not right to say that just because it is bleeding from a vein in the genital area, it has a different ruling to other wounds suffering from bleeding. No, indeed reflect on the fact that sperm exists from the genitalia and yet is still considered to be clean.

d) Allah jalla wa ‘ala is the Wise. He doesn’t take people to account except for what they have wilfully done. So if one is suffering from bleeding which was not wanted or intended by him, his acts of worship are still valid.

Let us quote what Ibn al-Mundhir states in al-Awsaṭ:¹²

“Common sense in this issue dictates that what Rabī‘ah has said is correct – that it is not obligatory to repeat the wuḍū’ each time – except for the fact that it is an opinion which I have seen no support from anyone before him. The reason I mentioned “common sense” is because if there is no difference between the appearance of the blood of istiḥāḍah before, during or after wuḍū’, and if indeed the blood of istiḥāḍah obligates wuḍū’ after it, then surely a little or a lot of the blood would necessitate wuḍū’ – and if that’s the case then when the one suffering from istiḥāḍah starts her wuḍū’ and then some blood comes out after she has already washed some body-parts, her wuḍū’ is invalidated, because the blood which necessitates purification (according to the opinion that the one with istiḥāḍah is obligated to make wuḍū’ for each Ṣalāh) is present and invalidating.

But if that which comes out during wuḍū’ or that which comes out before she starts the Ṣalāh, or indeed during the Ṣalāh, does not break the wuḍū’, then this necessitates that whatever comes out after she has finished the Ṣalāh likewise does not break the wuḍū’, unless she breaks her wuḍū’ with something else other than the blood of istiḥāḍah. This is clearly what makes the most sense.”

This is the evidence of the Mālikiyyah for not obligating wuḍū’ for every prayer for the one suffering from istiḥāḍah and thus by extension for all those suffering from incontinence and other similar conditions, including excess uncontrollable flatulence as a result of Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

In conclusion, we feel that this is the strongest and the most correct opinion on the matter. The narrations from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) on this issue have not been established, Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbali declared all the ḥadīth on the subject to be weak, it is the opinion of not only Imām Mālik but other major Imāms of the Salaf including Rabī‘ah, ‘Ikrimah, Abu Ayyūb as well as some of the contemporary scholars today, and crucially this agrees with the objectives of Sharī‘ah and the mercy of Allah jalla wa ‘ala in not wanting difficulty for the Muslims and bringing ease whenever possible. The one who is ill or suffering from such conditions is already in difficulty as it is – how then can we obligate upon them wuḍū’ for every single prayer and make their lives even more difficult and miserable? To recommend wuḍū’ is good and a virtuous action, but obligate?

Therefore it is sufficient for you in your condition to make wuḍū’ and then pray all your prayers and perform all other deeds that require purification, without having to repeat your wuḍū’ at any time unless you break your wuḍū’ by something other than your medical condition.

You also ask about the combining of the prayer due to your condition. We find from the books of fiqh that it is allowed to combine the prayers for the one who is ill, or is in a state of istiḥāḍah or becoming weak from breast-feeding or suffering from incontinence etc. This is the position of the Mālikiyyah, the Ḥanābilah and some of the Fuqahā’ of the Shāfi‘ī madh-hab as well such as Qāḍī Ḥusayn, Ibn al-Muqri, al-Mutawallī and Abu Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābi. Imām al-Nawawi said, “This is a very strong position.” We also quoted Ibn Taymiyyah’s support of this position above.

As for the Ḥanafi and Shāfi‘ī madh-habs then they did not consider it permissible for the sick person to combine their prayers because nothing has been narrated to this regard from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). They stated that the timings of the prayer and the command to observe them are clear and well established, and cannot just be ignored due to something which is not definite and based upon doubt (such as the above argument). They also stated that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) also suffered from illness yet we have not seen any evidence of his combining for that reason ever narrated.

Our position is that of the majority i.e. that it is allowed to combine due to a legitimate excuse or difficulty as stated by Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu) in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) combined the prayers when there was no fear (of war etc) nor any rain, rather it was to lift difficulty from his Ummah i.e. give them an option of respite during difficult times.

In your next question, you ask about the problem of potential urine drops still being present after you completed the act of istinjā’.

This is a well-known matter in the books of fiqh, and it is sufficient to state that the juristic maxim, “Certainty is not removed by doubt” comes into play here. Once you have dried yourself and then washed yourself, then you are now clean. This is what is certain. After this, everything else is just doubt. Any wetness is of course more likely to be the water you have just used, and the amount of urine that might exit after some time cannot possibly be considered with respect to the water used.

Indeed, even in the absence of water to cleanse yourself with (which is allowed of course, and is called “dry istinjā’” or “istijmār” using tissue paper only or clods of earth etc), Allah jalla wa ‘ala has not put such a hardship upon mankind that they would need to remain seated after urination for 20 minutes each time waiting for every single tiny drop of urine etc to exit. Life could not function with such a reality and that is why the scholars have unanimously agreed that one cleans the area the recommended number of three times and then that is sufficient and he/she continues with the rest of their wuḍū’ and ignores anything else they may feel or indeed the Shayṭān whispering his deviant thoughts and doubts.

Of course, if drops of urine do indeed come out shortly after one has performed istinjā’ and one is not suffering from some medical condition, then they are obligated to repeat their istinjā’ and clean and wash the area that has been soiled.

Ibn Taymiyyah was asked¹³ about someone who feels drips during his prayer after making istinjā’, to which he replied:

“Simply feeling that there is a drip does not invalidate the wuḍū’ – it is not possible to leave an obligatory prayer simply based upon uncertainty. As for if there is definitely urine which comes out externally then his wuḍū’ has become invalid and he needs to do istinjā’. As for the one who has some form of urinary incontinence then his prayer is not invalidated by this as long as he fulfils the usual conditions that are to be followed.”

If indeed you do have a weak pelvic muscle which is causing real leakage of significant amounts of urine, one should make his istinjā’ and then cover the private parts with a separate cloth or pad to minimise any impurity going to the clothes, and then even if it does get onto the clothes because of its continuous and uncontrollable nature then this is considered to be pardoned if the quantity is not significant. The word “significant” was never defined by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and thus the madh-habs put forward their own criteria, some mentioning the approximate area of a 50p piece, whereas some even said as large as a quarter of the total area in question. In reality, none of these definitions are binding due to their lack of evidence – we opine that “significant” would be the amounts that the society at present would consider “significant” i.e. what amount of apparent impurity/filth on your clothes would it take for someone to be shocked if they looked at it? That is the criteria to use for someone who is suffering from incontinence and it is easy for them to change clothes for the prayer, but as we have already said, even if the amount is large as the evidences above from the wives of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) illustrate, then he continues because of the legal excuse that he has.

We hope that all of the above discussion of the evidences and explanation of the matters and principles at hand have answered your questions but in summary, we can state:

– You do not need to repeat your wuḍū’ for every prayer

– With a single wuḍū’ you can perform all obligatory and “nafl” acts of worship

– Passing wind etc due to your medical problem in the midst of making wuḍū’ or ghusl will not affect what you are doing and you should continue as normal

– You can combine between the prayers when your condition causes you difficulty to pray in the prescribed times

– You should ignore any wetness felt after making istinjā’

And Allah knows best.

Signed:

Abu Eesa Niamatullah (Member, al-Qalam Sharī‘ah Panel)

Al-Ikhtiyār li-ta‘līl’l-Mukhtār 3/508, Ḥāshiyah Ibn ‘Ābidīn 1/504, al-Baḥr’l-Rā’iq 1/226, Marāqiy’l-Falāḥ p.60, Sharḥ Fatḥ’l-Qadīr 1/181, Tabyīn’l-Haqā’iq 1/64 and Badā’i‘ al-Ṣanā’i‘ 1/28. ↩
Al-Mughni 1/421, Sharḥ Muntahā’l-Irādāt 1/120, Kashshāf’l-Qinā‘ 1/215, al-Inṣāf 1/377, al-Furū‘ 1/279 and Sharḥ al-Zarkashi 1/437. ↩
Al-Majmū‘ 1/363, 1/543, Mughniy’l-Muḥtāj 1/111 and Rawḍat’l-Ṭālibīn 1/125 and 1/147. ↩
The author of Mawāhib’l-Jalīl (1/291) said:

The path chosen by the ‘Irāqi Mālikiyyah from amongst us is that anything which exits the body involuntarily (i.e. in a continuous, incontinent fashion) does not invalidate one’s wuḍū’ at all. One is only recommended to make wuḍū’ as a result (not obligated).

As for what is well known from the Moroccan Māliki school, then incontinence is of four types:
1. If one is constantly in a state of incontinence, wuḍū’ is neither obligatory nor recommended for there is no benefit to it, thus his wuḍū’ is not broken by his (urinary) incontinence
2. If one is in a state of incontinence for longer than he is not in a state of incontinence, then it is recommended for him to make wuḍū’ unless that becomes difficult for him due to cold or some other harm. In such a case, it doesn’t become recommended to do so.
3. If the length of time that he is incontinent and he isn’t, is the same. Here, with respect to the obligation and recommendation of the wuḍū’, there are two opinions (i.e. that it is obligatory, and the second that it isn’t obligatory but just recommended)
4. If the time that he is free from the incontinence is greater than when he is incontinent, then the popular opinion is that it is obligatory for him to perform wuḍū’ in contrast to our companions from the ‘Irāqiyyīn, for it is but recommended according to them.
For further discussion of the dominant Māliki position, see Ḥāshiyat’l-Dusūqi 1/116, Fatḥ’l-Barr fī Tartīb’l-Tamhīd 3/508, al-Istidhkār 3/225, and al-Qawānīn’l-Fiqhiyyah li Ibn Juzayy, p.29. ↩
Al-Muhallah, point 168 ↩
Majmū‘ al-Fatāwah 21/222-225 ↩
Taken from the study of Shaykh Dubyān Muḥammed al-Dubyān in his book al-Ḥayḍ wal-Nifās Riwāyah wa’l-Dirāyah ↩
2/72 ↩
Nasb’l-Rāyah 1/201 ↩
Sharḥ’l-Bukhāri by Ibn Rajab 2/73 ↩
ibid ↩
Al-Awsaṭ 1/164 ↩
Majmū’ al- Fatāwa 21/219 ↩

Your Menstruation Is Not Found In Your Hand

AlMaghrib — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Islam is often accused of dishonouring women which is not only an outrageous slur, but should be thrown back in the face of many who claim it. Anyone who studies religions deeply and sincerely will find it impossible that it’s Islam which has a problem.

Let’s have a quick religious comparison using the topic of the day i.e. menstruation in islam, and whether a woman who is menstruating is impure and to be shunned for it as many people believe.

In the Old Testament, it says:

“When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean…” (Leviticus 15:19-21)

For that reason, it states in the Talmud that in Jewish law, a couple with the wife menstruating:

– cannot touch each other even indirectly using an intermediate object
– cannot handle an object at the same time
– cannot sit together on an object that moves such as a swing etc
– cannot eat from the same plate
– cannot serve food to each other, etc etc

In Islam however, the only thing which is prohibited at the human level is intercourse, which is for good reason, and even that can be circumvented if there is a legal necessity. Medically, ignore the newspapers which tell you intercourse is good during menstruation. Ask the Gynaecologists instead and you will see that because of the cervix being more open, the proof for increased risk of infections – bacterial and fungal – as well as an increased chance of pelvic inflammatory disease is quite clear. Some even claim a greater risk of endometriosis and have good arguments too.

The Prophet Muhammad (s) made it absolutely clear in direct response to the beliefs of all other religions, that the Believer can never be impure, and by extension *all* people, regardless if they are menstruating. The human body is pure and sacrosanct.

And the Prophet (s) told his wife A’ishah (r) that her menstruation was not in her hand that she had to worry about its “impurity”!

And the Prophet (s) would place his head in her lap whilst menstruating and recite the Qur’an.

And more interestingly, how many times have we heard about the romance of the Prophet (s) with A’ishah (r) and actually realised that these famous incidents were often when she was *menstruating*, so whether that was close intimacy or even this famous incident where A’ishah (r) narrates:

“I would eat meat from a bone *when I was menstruating*, then hand it over to the Prophet (s) and he would put his mouth where I put my mouth; I would drink, then hand it to him and he would put his mouth at the place where I drank from.” (Muslim)

Salawatullahi wa salamuhu ‘alayka ya Rasulallah.

This man was so tuned in how to change paradigms and perceptions, it’s breath-taking. Even someone doing this *today* in our modern, hip, romantic, liberal, sex-in-the-city culture would struggle to pull it off. So what then of a man in the most simple, macho, and difficult of periods 1400 years ago, going against everything and everyone of that time!?

We thank the Lord for blessing us with Islam. And sufficient a blessing it is.

Keep Or Release, But In A Good Way

AlMaghrib — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Allah jalla wa ‘alā says:

الطَّلاَقُ مَرَّتَانِ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ

“Divorce can happen twice, and [each time] wives either be kept on in an acceptable manner or released in a good way.” (2:229)

Allah jalla jalālahu also says:

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النَّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ

“When you divorce women and they have reached their set time, then either keep or release them in a good manner.” (2:231)

In these two noble verses, Allah commands His servants to show iḥsān – the best and most righteous of conduct – to our wives during the two states of either remaining married, or getting divorced. They are commanded to treat them with iḥsān and ma‘rūf and not evil and transgression. “Ma‘rūf” is the good which is automatically accepted by all those with sound fitrah, nobility and rightly guided intellects – it is universal good moral behavior.

This therefore prohibits harming them with either words or actions, indeed this meaning has been emphasized again and again in many verses and ḥadīth. There is a very severe threat and warning to those who might exploit and take advantage of them such as the end of this very verse when Allah says:

تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

“These are the boundaries set by Allah: do not overstep them. And those who overstep Allah’s boundaries are indeed the Oppressors.” (2:229)

The Arabic in the verse reflects a huge amount of emphasis on the level of oppression committed by such a husband: note how this is a nominal sentence (al-jumlat’l-ismīyyah), the use of the demonstrative pronoun (ism’l-ishārah) “tilka”, the use of the separate isolated pronoun (al-ḍamīr’l-munfaṣil) “hom”, and the use of the definite term “al” when it comes to “Oppressors”.

It would be fair to say that the seriousness of this crime is almost entirely lost in translation.

Allah also commanded those who divorce their wives to give them a gift of significant value due to the damage that has been caused, and in order to soothe their hearts. He made it a duty upon the Muḥsinīn and a duty upon the Muttaqīn – the people who do righteousness, and those who are always mindful of Allah in whatever they do:

وَمَتِّعُوهُنَّ عَلَى الْمُوسِعِ قَدَرُهُ وَعَلَى الْمُقْتِرِ قَدْرُهُ مَتَاعًا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْمُحْسِنِينَ

“But make fair provision for them, the rich according to his means and the poor according to his – this is a duty upon those who do righteousness.” (2:236)

And He also said:

وَلِلْمُطَلَّقَاتِ مَتَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْمُتَّقِينَ

“Divorced women shall also have such maintenance as is considered fair: this is a duty upon those who are always mindful of Allah.” (2:241)

Here, one learns that from the components of taqwa and iḥsān is to be kind and generous at the time of divorce, through a monetary gift; but what also becomes clear is that whoever doesn’t give this right to women then they cannot be from the people of taqwa or iḥsān – the Muttaqīn or Muḥsinīn.

So what then of those who prevent these women from their right and then go further than that by abusing them, cursing them and even beating them like animals?!

Manliness is not found in the beating of women, but in the protection of women. It is not found in throwing them out, but in giving them shelter. It is not found in humiliating them, but in being honourable to them.

In fact, when Allah allowed the disciplining of a wife who violates her marital duties, He reminded the husbands at the end of the same verse by saying:

إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا

“Indeed Allah is most High and Great.” (4:34)

It is as if to say, “O you so powerful, proud arrogant husband, don’t forget that Allah is Higher than you, and Greater. So be warned, and again be warned lest you be oppressive or transgress; and if you do go there, then remember that it is Allah Who will be your opponent, and woe be upon he whose opponent is Allah.”

The Prophet (ṣallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said in respect of women, “Treat women kindly” (Bukhāri and Muslim).

He also said to Anjasha (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu) who was driving the caravan of women on camels, “Slow down, you’re carrying fragile glass vessels” (Bukhāri and Muslim). The use of glass as a similitude to women is to illustrate how easy it is to damage them, and how impossible it is to repair the damage afterwards.

If I was to actually put forward to you all the evidences from the Book and the Sunnah on this matter, this would become very lengthy, so it is just a reminder. And the reminder benefits the Believers.

And Allah knows best.

The Hijab vs The Beard

AlMaghrib — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 00:00:00 GMT

It’s very difficult not to get irritated by those men who try to equate the challenge of wearing hijab with their own “challenge” of keeping a beard.

The fear being of course that men might belittle the believing women and look down upon them, and conflate the difficulty of what women face with what the men face themselves, and thus not appreciate their struggles at all.

Brothers, your growing your beard isn’t even 10% of the mission, the fitnah, the danger or even the Islamic obligation that the hijab is. Yes, even though the majority of scholars consider it obligatory to grow a beard as best as one can, there are still differing levels of obligation. So for you to feel good about yourself keeping a beard but expecting your sisters to match your “sacrifice” by reciprocating with a hijab is a joke frankly. It’s comparing chalk and cheese. She wouldn’t be reciprocating. She would be exceeding.

Your beard can be short. It can be long. It doesn’t have to look lame, it can be shaped within set parameters, and enhances a man and shows him in his best natural form. A beard invites respect and doesn’t make you look weak. Women should be physically attracted to a proper man with a proper beard, and most are alhamdulillah. You look unnatural without one, naked almost, and very few want to see men naked.

In summary, you could keep a beard for the sake of Allah. And you could keep it for a multitude of materialistic reasons. And so many do.

The hijab on the other hand is almost the exact opposite. There’s very little room to play with. It doesn’t enhance a woman because her best natural form is obviously without it. A hijab invites racist criminals and puts her in potential danger, far more than men will be with a beard. Men shouldn’t be physically attracted to a proper woman with a proper hijab otherwise they’d make her keep it on day and night. And most don’t alhamdulillah. And a woman looks absolutely great without one, naked almost, and very many want to see women naked.

In summary, you’d never put on a hijab for any reason other than for the sake of Allah. And for those very few who might wear hijab for other than Allah’s sake, well, they must have completely lost their minds.

Dear brother, that makes her better than you straight away when you are trying to make a comparison between the two states. And that makes the struggle to get to those states different as well. Remember that next time when you feel something negative in your heart against your uncovered sister. Make du’a for her instead. Indeed, make one for yourself. Please.

And yes dear sister, for the record let me also say to you: the proper Islamic hijab and its associated behaviour is a definite and absolute obligation which you must all strive for immediately. It is something that must not be seen as minor or insignificant, and must be prioritised and you really must try your best.

Despite what might be described as my friendly demeanour with all those uncovered sisters I know (and don’t know i.e. online) from my students, or those who benefit from my work, or are just on this site passing by, it does pain me deeply that the struggle is still overcoming you as I would dearly love for you all to gain the supreme pleasure of Allah jalla wa ‘ala in your sacrifices for Him.

But as most of you should all know by now, I’m here for you always. Never hesitate to hook me up whenever you see me. I’ll always have your back and remember we’re all part of the Struggle. Because it’s our Struggle. Together.

And it really is real.

#NeverGiveUp

Beautifying Yourself For Prayer

AlMaghrib — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Allah jalla wa ‘alā says:

يَا بَنِي آدَمَ خُذُواْ زِينَتَكُمْ عِندَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ

“Children of Adam, beautify yourself in your place of worship.” (7:31)

This is part of the 31st verse of Sūrat’l-A‘rāf, and in it there have been mentioned three words which are “names” that are meant to be general, each “name” being able to be split into different types. These names are Banī Ādam, zīnatakum and kulli Masjid, represented in the translation above as “Children of Adam”, “beautify yourself” and “place of worship”.

“Children of Adam” includes both Muslim and non-Muslim men and women. Some of the scholars of the Salaf mentioned that this verse was actually revealed concerning the non-Muslims and their circumambulating the Ka‘bah naked in al-Masjid al-Ḥarām. And so Allah was commanding them to cover their ‘awrah or those parts of the body that are impermissible to be displayed to others.

Based on this understanding, if today some non-Muslims were to enter Masjids for the intention of visiting it, or tourism purposes etc, then they must cover their private parts and also ensure to wear something modest.

“Beautify yourself” is more general than covering the ‘awrah, and is also more general than just clothes. To cover the ‘awrah falls under the category of those things which are essential in life (al-Ḍarūrāt), whereas covering the rest of the body comes under the category of those things which are needed in life (al-Ḥājiyāt), and then beautifying yourself (zīna) comes under the category of those things which complete and perfect life and the religion (al-Taḥsīniyāt).

The generality of the concept of zīna is so broad and encompassing of all the above, that it also includes beautifying, grooming, perfuming, applying koḥl, oral hygiene and wearing the very best of cloth and clothes etc.

Therefore, if the people beautify themselves when they visit one another’s houses, or they receive guests who are of high status, then “indeed Allah is more deserving to be beautified for” as narrated by al-Ṭabarāni on the authority of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) or from ‘Umar (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu) as some said.

Some of the Salaf used to reserve their most beautiful and expensive clothes and only use them in prayer. Thus, it is not right for someone to pray in battered or dirty clothes, when they beautify themselves for certain individuals of the creation.

“Place of worship” not only includes every Masjid, but also includes every action that a Masjid is built for such as Ṭawāf (circumambulating the Ka‘bah), I‘tikāf (seclusion in the Mosque), Ṣalāh (ritual prayer), reciting the Qur’ān, Dhikr (making remembrance of Allah) etc. The ruling is general, referring to both the place and the intended act of worship as well.

If we take the general Islamic meaning of “Masjid” then we know that the whole Earth is a Masjid; and with the verse commanding us to beautify ourselves for every prayer, that would even then apply to a man who is praying by himself in the night.

The verse also indicates that it is obligatory for a woman to cover her head in prayer even if she is praying by herself and even if she is allowed to uncover her head in front of her maḥrams who might be present.

Finally, the psychological effect of looking your best for the most important moment in your day – when you converse with Allah – should not be underestimated. Dressing up and beautification brings about confidence and happiness which should all be channelled into a positive and spiritual experience that is worthy of the prayer. Thus by obligating us to physically prepare well for the prayer, we are actually being helped perform that prayer spiritually properly as well, and that is from the mercy of our Lord.

And Allah knows best.

Are We Really Prohibited From Cutting Nails If Offering A Sacrifice?

AlMaghrib — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:00:00 GMT

I was sitting there with my folks the other day – actually the day before Dhu’l-Hijjah started – and a conversation ensued on the matter of offering our uḍḥiyah i.e. the sacrificial animal which is offered on the day of ‘Eed’l-Aḍḥā.

My mother then said to me, “I was watching TV yesterday. What’s this about a hadith which says you can’t cut your nails or hair during Dhu’l-Hijjah if you are offering a qurbani, until it has been sacrificed?”

So I said, “Yeah that’s right Mum. It’s actually in Sahih Muslim. Umm Salamah (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhā) narrated that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said,

“When the new moon of Dhul-Hijjah appears and one of you wants to do the sacrifice, let him not take anything from his hair and nails.”

My father who was on his iPad suddenly looks up and says, “Eh? What’s that? Never heard of that hadith in my life! We always cut our hair and nails!”

“Yep, me neither! That’s why I asked. We’ve never followed this way before!” pipes up my mother God bless her.

I had a little laugh. “Wait, there’s a difference between hearing the hadith and knowing about the issue and having a different opinion on it all,” I said.

“I’m a simple man son, don’t give me all that. I don’t know about all that business, but what I do know is that in decades, we never saw our father do that or our mother do that or my grandfather do that or the elders do that. Our people don’t do this.” replied my father.

“Aha Dad, that’s because they follow the Hanafi position on this which seems to be the opposite to this hadith but don’t worry Dad, it’s all cool man. I like that position a lot personally…”

“I’m cool. But our people don’t do this,” he concluded.

And what a conclusion it was.

So I thought let me write this little episode up, because the last time I heard that statement – or I should say more accurately read that statement – was from the great Imam al-Layth b. Sa‘d (raḥimahullāh) who when he was asked his opinion about the above hadith of Umm Salamah, replied:

“The hadith has indeed been narrated, but our people are not upon this.”

See, what we had inadvertently entered upon is one of the most famous differences of opinion in fiqh: is it completely prohibited to cut any of our hair or nails if we are offering a sacrifice “back home” as non-Hujjāj?

Ok so here’s the long technical discussion, but don’t get scared off as it’s actually quite interesting. Seriously. But if you really can’t handle it then let’s meet down the bottom in about 4500 words time which is roughly 8 pages down. Laters.

So, to look initially at what would seem the obvious opinion – that it is indeed prohibited to remove any hair or nails because of the clear ḥadīth of Umm Salamah above – then this first opinion was held by some greats Imams such as Rabī‘ah, Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyib, Ibn Sīrīn, Isḥāq b. Rāhway, ‘Aṭā’ b. Abi Rabāḥ, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī, Dāwūd al-Ẓāhiri, and famously this was the position of the Ḥanbali madh-hab.

This was inferred to be the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah but was certainly the position of his student Ibn al-Qayyim. It was also the position of ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abbās as narrated by al-Bukhāri, and also ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Umar and Qays b. Sa‘d b. ‘Ubādah (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhum) as narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah.

From the contemporary scholars, Ibn Bāz, al-‘Uthaymīn and Muḥammad Amīn al-Shanqīti held this same opinion, as did the Muḥaddith al-Albāni.

The ḥadīth in question is namely that collected by Imām Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ (1997) which is narrated by Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyib who said on the authority of Umm Salamah (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhā) who said that the Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

“When the new moon of Dhul-Hijjah appears and one of you wants to do the sacrifice, let him not take anything from his hair and nails.”

It has no ambiguity in its text. There are also a few narrations, notably on the authority of the Imāms of al-Tābi‘īn such as Qatādah and Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyib himself which indicate that this was the practice of many of the Ṣaḥābah too, who when they would purchase their sacrificial animals, would then refrain from taking anything from their hair and nails until the Day of al-Naḥr i.e. the 10th of Dhu’l-Ḥijjah or the Day of Sacrifice itself.

They also said this ḥadīth encourages those who will be doing an uḍḥiyah to be like those at Ḥajj, that the reason we are not to cut our nails and hair etc is to almost emulate our Ḥujjāj who are in iḥrām during this time and upon whom it is prohibited to cut their nails and hair as well, and who will remain like that until they also complete their sacrifices on the 10th of Dhu’l-Ḥijjah.

Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned something interesting in Tahdhīb’l-Sunnan (94/4) where he opined that there is an intrinsic connection between the “excess extra” of our bodies such as our nails and hair especially, and between a sacrificial animal, and that it was this reason why when an ‘aqīqah is offered for the new born, the head is shaved as well. Thus for the uḍḥiyah he said, it should not be surprising that we are allowed to do what the normal Muḥrim (person in Iḥrām performing Ḥajj/‘Umrah) is prohibited from such as marital relations, normal clothes and perfuming etc, but we refrain from cutting our nails and hair because this is linked to the animal when it is slaughtered as an extension of the sacrifice and “purification” process.

However, the majority of scholars did not consider it ḥarām to cut one’s hair or nails.

This second opinion is split into two groups: the first group considered it completely permissible to cut one’s hair as required, whereas the second group considered it recommended not to cut one’s hair – or to put it in other words, they considered it makrūh i.e. disliked to cut the hair and nails. Thus, if one was to refrain from doing so, they would be rewarded for their good deed.

From the scholars who considered it permissible to cut one’s hair in Dhu’l-Ḥijjah even if they intend to sacrifice an animal, include ‘Aṭā’ b. Yāsir, Abu Bakr b. ‘Abd’l-Raḥmān, Abu Bakr b. Sulaymān, Sufyān al-Thawri, al-Layth b. Sa‘d, Abu Ya‘lā and some of the earlier Ḥanbalis, Imām al-Shāfi‘ī and Imām Mālik in one narration from them both, Imām Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni, Abu Yūsuf al-Qāḍī and most famously, Imām Abu Ḥanīfah, which then became the position of the Ḥanafi madh-hab. This was also the well-known position of ‘Ā’ishah, and also Ibn Mas‘ūd, Anas b. Mālik and Ibn Zubayr amongst others (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhum).

It is also narrated from al-Shāfi‘ī and Mālik that they considered it makrūh to cut one’s hair and nails. This became the official positions of their later madh-habs. This was also adopted by some of the later Ḥanafi scholars.

The reasoning behind this second opinion is based primarily on the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhā) as narrated by Imām al-Bukhāri (1613) that Zayd b. Abi Sufyān wrote to ‘Ā’ishah that ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abbās had said,

“Whoever sends his Hadi, all that which is impermissible for the one doing Ḥajj is also impermissible for him, until the Hadi has been slaughtered.”

‘Amrah said that ‘Ā’ishah (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhā) responded:

“It’s not like what Ibn ‘Abbās has said. I personally prepared the garlands of the Hadi of the Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and then he himself garlanded them with his own two hands and then sent them with my father. And nothing was prohibited for the Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) from that what Allah had permitted for him until the Hadi had been slaughtered.”

Let me explain a little background to this very authentic ḥadīth, the principle story of which Imām al-Bukhāri has narrated a number of times in his Ṣaḥīḥ, as well as other Muḥaddithīn.

A “Hadi” is a name given to a sacrificial animal – usually a sheep, goat, cow or camel – which the one performing Ḥajj takes along with themselves and slaughters as part of the Ḥajj rites. It is essentially the same kind of animal that would be slaughtered at home if one didn’t go to Ḥajj but it would be known by its more narrated name of the “uḍḥiyah” or as we call it today a “Qurbāni”.

The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) only performed Ḥajj once, in the tenth year after the Hijrah, and when he did so, he prepared his Hadi at home in Madīnah, which included a meticulous examination for an appropriately healthy specimen, and then it was marked and indicated as a sacrificial animal (usually with a garland etc), and then it was led along the journey all the way to Mina where it was sacrificed as per the rites of Ḥajj. An important note here which will become relevant at the end when we see Imām Aḥmed’s opinion on the matter, is that these preparations and sending offs of the Hadi would of course be happening in the month of Dhu’l-Qi‘dah (one month before Dhu’l-Ḥijjah) because of the long journey time to Makkah needed in order to get there in time for the days of Ḥajj.

When someone has their animal with them along the way and then they enter the state of Iḥrām once they go past the Mīqāt station approaching Makkah, they are subject to certain prohibitions such as marital relations, perfuming, plucking or cutting hair, nails and any other skin etc. One has to observe these prohibitions until the Hadi has been sacrificed on the Day of Sacrifice which we know back home as ‘Eed’l-Aḍḥā or the 10th of Dhu’l-Ḥijjah. They can now leave the state of Iḥrām completely other than for marital relations, which are still prohibited until one has completed all the rites of Ḥajj such as the main Ṭawāf and Sa‘ī of Ḥajj.

However in the ḥadīth above narrated by al-Bukhāri, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was not going to Ḥajj. He was staying home with his family in Madīnah and celebrating ‘Eed there whilst the rest of his Companions left for Ḥajj as led by Abu Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu). So on this occasion as ‘Ā’ishah says, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) instead sent his sacrificial animal with Abu Bakr to go with him to Mina and to be sacrificed there, which is then not actually to be considered a sacrificial animal for the Ḥajj rites, but rather the more general sacrifice one does that we call the uḍḥiyah.

However it still has been called a “Hadi” in the ḥadīth above even though the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) didn’t go to Ḥajj and didn’t sacrifice it himself (which also incidentally shows the permissibility of having a sacrifice done for you by someone else you appoint, and not eating from the meat yourself, if there is a reason – this is something which is a need today in many afflicted places around the world). This is possibly to differentiate that animal from the other animals that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) sacrificed himself on ‘Eed day in Madīnah which would have been considered his Uḍḥiyah. We know that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would still have offered more animals for sacrifice other than the Hadi that he sent because of the narration in Aḥmad (4935) where Ibn ‘Umar (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhumā) confirmed that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) stayed in Madīnah for ten years offering sacrifices every year at ‘Eed’l-Aḍḥā.

But what is more interesting about the above ḥadīth is ‘A’ishah very clearly correcting those Companions who thought that if someone didn’t go to Ḥājj but were still offering a sacrifice – whether home or away at Ḥajj – then they were prohibited all the things that the usual Muḥrim (the one in Iḥrām about to do ‘Umrah and Ḥajj) were also prohibited from.

‘A’ishah said no, not at all. Not a single thing was prohibited upon the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) even though he sent a sacrifice to Hajj, and even though we know later he did more at home.

Now, as you can imagine, this leaves us with a conundrum. We have one ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim which says that it is impermissible to cut one’s hair and nails if you are going to offer a sacrifice, and then you have another ḥadīth in Bukhāri which shows that there were no such prohibitions upon the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) when he wanted to offer the exact same.

It is for this reason why the scholars differed on the matter, and it is not an easy one to resolve but it certainly is a fascinating one to try and study.

For the more advanced students of knowledge, at this juncture it should be stated that there were a number of classical ḥadīth specialists – at the head of them the Imām of the Science of Naqd and the uncovering of hidden faults in the chains and texts of ḥadīth, Imām al-Dāraqutni – who considered the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah to be problematic in not only its chain (for example over the identity of one its narrators whether it was ‘Amr b. Muslim or ‘Umar b. Muslim and so on) but also actually considered this to be a mawqūf narration i.e. not a ḥadīth or statement of the Prophet but rather a statement of Umm Salamah herself.

A reminder again: we are talking about this narration here collected in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (1977) as narrated by Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyib who said on the authority of Umm Salamah who said that the Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

“When the new moon of Dhul-Hijjah appears and one of you wants to do the sacrifice, let him not take anything from his hair and nails.”

A number of early scholars backed this decision of this ḥadīth of Umm Salamah being mawqūf, which is a controversial one considering that great Imāms such as Muslim, al-Tirmidhi and al-Bayhaqi all considered the ḥadīth to be mawṣūl i.e. connected all the way back to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and therefore a bona fide authentic ḥadīth.

However it does seem that the argument that the ḥadīth is actually a statement of Umm Salamah has some merit, and Ibn Ḥajr al-‘Asqalānī himself suggested that it was because of these small doubts over the ḥadīth that Imām al-Bukhāri himself did not include this ḥadīth in his own Ṣaḥīḥ collection, which as we know, would only have complete and 100% perfect supremely authentic ḥadīth included to avoid exactly this kind of controversy as we are studying now.

It should be said that Ibn Ḥajr considered these criticisms of this ḥadīth of Umm Salamah to not be significant ones: “they are not fatal flaws” he says frankly in his al-Amālī al-Mutlaqah (p. 12).

However that did not stop later Imāms from being wary about the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah. And so armed with the ḥadīth of Bukhāri as their base position, they put forward their criticism.

The Faqīh and great Muḥaddith Imām Abu ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd’l-Barr discusses this all in his superb work al-Tamhīd (233-238/17) where he opines the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah to be weak. In fact he even claimed that the majority of the people of knowledge considered the two main ḥadīth of those who held the first opinion of prohibition i.e. the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah and the ḥadīth of Qatādah which suggests that this was the action of the Ṣaḥābah as well, to both be weak ḥadīth! He also quoted Imām al-Layth b. Sa‘d as I did earlier when al-Layth said that yes the ḥadīth might be narrated, but the people do not act according to it (because of the ḥadīth of ‘Aishah). And most fascinatingly is the position of Imām Mālik who was a narrator of this very ḥadīth of Umm Salamah himself (!) who when asked about his opinion on the ruling therein and quoted this ḥadīth of “his”, then said, “This is not my ḥadīth.”

Ibn ‘Abd’l-Barr explains this statement further by saying that in the madh-hab of Imām Mālik, even if Mālik narrates a ḥadīth himself but he finds the scholars and people and the city of Madīnah – basically the evidences according to him – to be upon a different more stronger opinion, then he will not claim or state that ḥadīth as “his” even though he may have narrated it, be in the chain of it, and have collected it in his own Muwaṭṭa’ himself!

Thus Imām Mālik and Imām al-Shāfi‘ī considered the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah to be stronger and more dominant in the matter, and either put forward that the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah was not as strong, or they simply said that the warning therein (“let him not take anything from his hair and nails.”) is not indicating prohibition but rather one of dislike, because of the presence of the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah.

It should be said that both of these ḥadīth are quite strong, and to open the door to “yes, it was narrated by Muslim but it’s weak” is a big statement which only few experts will reluctantly make. That is why we see some of the great scholars of our history refraining from passing a judgement on the issue. Even Imām Aḥmed himself who ruled by the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah and thus considered it ḥarām to cut the hair and nails, was not comfortable with this difficult issue. He asked two of the greatest ever ḥadīth scholars to have lived – ‘Abd’l-Raḥman b. Mahdī and Yaḥyā b. Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān – about their opinion on this issue and the two “contradicting” ḥadīth. Yaḥyā said, “Both opinions are possible.” ‘Abd’l-Raḥmān b. Mahdī refused to answer.

Think about that for a second: one of the greatest ḥadīth scholars ever, chose to stay silent on the conundrum on how to combine between these two ḥadīth, or whether to declare the narration of Umm Salamah to be weak. Silence was genuinely the easier option!

Imām Abu Ḥanīfah’s opinion on the matter is that it is permissible for one to cut his hair or nails if intending to offer an uḍḥiyah. He said that the idea of prohibiting the cutting of nails and hair didn’t make sense if one was emulating the Hujjāj as they prepared their sacrificial animals. He said that if this was really the case, then it would have been more important to prohibit marital relations and perfuming etc for those people back home performing an uḍḥiyah, just like it is prohibited for those who are Muḥrims performing Ḥajj and ‘Umrah.

It is interesting to note though that the Ḥanafi school generally adopted a more cautious approach later on and decided to combine between all the evidences in a way which would not exclude anything: thus, in agreement with the Māliki and Shāfi‘ī schools, they opined that it was recommended for a person to not cut his hair or nails if they are offering a sacrifice. Thus if someone did cut them, they would not be sinful. It is useful to note here that even those scholars who held the opinion that it is prohibited to cut the hair and nails, said that if someone did cut their hair or nails then they would be deemed as sinners and as having done something ḥarām but that there would be no expiation required and that the uḍḥiyah offered would still be valid and unaffected.

The reason that this fiqhi debate is so fascinating is because of just how many disciplines and principles need to be understood to try and solve it. Many of the sciences get a showing. Well known partnerships are split up (Aḥmed and al-Shāfi‘ī); controversial areas are entered upon (the status of some ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim); we see an attempt to let Qiyās (anaology) supercede a text (a clear ḥadīth); the importance of the action of the People of Madīnah makes an appearance, something which led Mālik to go against the ḥadīth that he himself narrated; we see a fascinating reversal of methodologies almost with the “Ahl’l-Ra’ī” i.e. Imām Abu Ḥanīfah and Imām Mālik showing their willingness to combine between various ḥadīth and incidents to try and come to a middle path between all positions etc etc etc.

I wish to conclude this discussion by stating that it is the way of Ahl’l-Ḥadīth to try and combine between all evidences as best as possible without rushing to try and negate or weaken one of them especially if there is no reason to.

That is why so many scholars – the majority – decided that there is an indication of a clear prohibition in the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah, but that the prohibition (“let him not take anything”) could be reduced to a dislike (makrūh) with the presence of an evidence which indicated the opposite, a ṣārif which takes the ruling away from its original apparent understanding. And they agreed that this evidence was the ḥadīth of ‘A’ishah and thus the final ruling on the matter after combining all the evidences is that we are requested or it is mustaḥabb to avoid cutting our hair and nails, and we shouldn’t do so, but if we do, it won’t be sinful. This is the position of the majority.

However Imām Aḥmed wanted to stick to his position of prohibition and thus offered his own attempt at combining between both ḥadīth which led him to say:

“The ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah is about a person who stays at home and sends his Hadī and does not wish to offer any further uḍḥiyah after that Hadi which he just sent. If he then does wish afterwards (in Dhu’l-Ḥijjah) to offer an uḍḥiyah then he is not to take anything from his hair or his nails, and that is because the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah according to me applies to all those people who stay behind and offer an uḍḥiyah in their cities.”

(al-Istidhkār, 187/11)

This is an interesting statement and one that Ibn al-Qayyim alluded to as well, however it doesn’t tick every single box. It still leaves a few questions unanswered such as how can ‘Ā’ishah have said that nothing was prohibited upon the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and we know that he would later do more uḍḥiyah as per the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar that Aḥmed himself narrated? The Ḥanbalis could argue that ‘Ā’ishah in her ḥadīth is not even referring to a later act of uḍḥiyah but was rather refuting a different matter i.e. the belief of Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn ‘Umar that when the Hadi was being sent at the earlier time, one was prohibited from everything like a Muḥrim was prohibited.

Another question could be posed: why would the one staying at home but sending a Hadi to Makkah – to be sacrificed by a butcher or agent on his behalf and used during Dhu’l-Ḥijjah – be free from any restrictions as per the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah, whereas someone who also stays at home and wants to offer the uḍḥiyah and could very well have that done for him in a different city and location via an agent or butcher on his behalf etc, and indeed even have it done in Makkah as well but just for charity purposes and not for any Ḥajj rites, have to be subject to restrictions similar to the Ḥajji or Muḥrim?

There isn’t any technical difference between the two actions. The Hadi being sent by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was clearly not some kind of replacement for him not going on Ḥajj, so it didn’t have a ritual aspect to it but must have been more of a charitable act for the poor and the Ḥujjāj to eat from. If that is indeed the case then there is little difference between this act and the offering of an uḍḥiyah by sending it abroad or to Makkah as well, for charity purposes.

These questions show exactly why so many contemporary scholars do not want to dismiss either of the two narrations, regardless of the classical positions of their madh-habs and instead wish to pursue a position of combining between all the evidences. This would suggest that the final ruling should be that it doesn’t matter whether one cuts their hair or nails or not, there is no issue either way.

But this was not the chosen position and that is because giving a ruling to the people is not just about fiqh and the evidences, but also to try and take into account the ethos and attempt a holistic explanation.

It actually makes sense as alluded to earlier that there is a connection between offering the sacrificial animal and the purification of our bodies, as seen in the ‘aqīqah of the newborn, or as seen in the cutting of one’s hair in Ḥajj once you have sacrificed your obligatory Hadi.

Likewise, it is almost as if the Deen is trying to involve all of us at home who missed out going to the Ḥajj to try and spiritually connect with those who are there.

What are their main rites?

Well, the early days of Dhu’l-Ḥijjah are days full of good deeds for the Ḥujjāj as they perform copious Ṭawāf and acts of ‘ibādah in the holiest of holy places. But we were also given a taste of that reward by being told that these first ten days of Dhu’l-Ḥijjah can work for us as well, especially if we fast therein, and recite, and give charity etc. We can actually attain some of that same good deed flavor as the Ḥujjāj!

Likewise ‘Arafah is massive for them. It is their Ḥajj, simple as that. They make it and break it on that day, but likewise so do we back home because we’ve been given a mini-version of what they have: they can get all their sins forgiven for what they get done on that day, and we at home can get two years of minor sins forgiven just for fasting it. They will make a du‘ā that will be the most emotional of their lives, and the most powerful, and the most responded to. But we also get a shot at that, and should spend our ‘Arafah day at home making du‘ā and it will also be accepted as the best du‘ā possible as stated by many of the Salaf.

And finally, the Ḥujjāj during these ten days are not spick and span and squeaky clean but instead rough and dirty and disheveled and tired. And when it comes to the sacrifice, it’s loud and raw and bloody and real. So how do we emulate that back home in some little way? Well by our loud takbīrāt throughout the ten days as was the Sunnah, and through our own appearances also being a bit rough and unkempt in as far as our nails and hair need a good trim. And then we should offer our uḍḥiyah and it is of course the instruction of Allah in the Qur’ān to do it ourselves and to eat from it, as was the Sunnah, and that will also therefore be a raw and bloody and real act. You will really feel this lost act of ‘ibādah and appreciate ‘Eed that little bit more, and then follow the Sunnah in eating from the meat and then distributing the rest of it to friends, family and the poor. It is a real shame that we now send all our uḍḥiyah abroad to needy places (when we should really be offering two of them, one for ourselves and then if necessary an extra one for the needy abroad) and likewise in Ḥajj as well where the Ḥujjāj don’t get to feel this great nusuk or rite of Ḥajj but instead simply purchase a government voucher who then do it in a slaughterhouse somewhere where we don’t see or feel the Qur’ānic flavor of this great Ḥajj rite.

In any case, it can be well argued that to maintain a state where we avoid purifying our outer through the cutting of our hair and nails and we instead focus on purifying the inner through fasting and dhikr and Qur’ān and ṣadaqah, makes a lot of sense and also fits with the evidences suggested.

And so let me welcome back anyone who couldn’t bear reading through the discussion above and just want a ruling, which is a crying shame to be honest but hey, I get it. I’m not a hater. And so:

It became the dominant position both traditionally and in our times, and it is the position that I follow and advocate, that it is recommended to avoid cutting your hair and nails in Dhu’l-Ḥijjah until you or your agent has actually slaughtered the uḍḥiyah animal. If one was to cut their hair or nails early, they would not be sinful and there is no affect on their uḍḥiyah.

And Allah jalla wa ‘alā knows best.

Notes:

Let me briefly add:

it is rigorously recommended (Sunnah mu’akkadah) for you to offer an uḍḥiyah
if your wife cannot afford her own, then you can offer one for yourself and your whole family i.e. those who are dependent upon you. One animal will cover all of you.
The animal should either be a sheep or goat, or seven of you should share a cow or a camel
The rest of the family such as your wife et al, are not restricted by the ḥadīths above. So it is permissible for your wife and children to cut their hair and nails
It is a Sunnah to do your own uḍḥiyah with your own hands. Of course there is a greater need for food and meat abroad but that should be met by you purchasing another animal and not you neglecting the rites of uḍḥiyah for you and your home that makes ‘Eed’l-Aḍḥā i.e. the Celebration of The Sacrifice, an actual “celebration of the sacrifice” of your animal and your eating from it!
If it is difficult or illegal to offer your own uḍḥiyah then it can be done locally by a butcher. If not, then it is ok to have it all done abroad.
If a man is performing the Ḥajj and he will be offering an uḍḥiyah for his family back home, even the scholars who considered it ḥarām to remove one’s hair as per the ḥadīth of Umm Salamah ruled that as soon as he has finished his ‘Umrah, he is still to cut his hair because that is a specific obligation and rite of ‘Umrah – and by extension the Ḥajj – itself.

Giving Cash As Zakat’l-Fitr

AlMaghrib — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Once Ramaḍān ends, our empathy for the poor whilst fasting throughout the blessed month still continues with hopefully a new habit of giving charity regularly. The first stage of this is something which is given just before the ‘Eed Prayer itself called Zakāt’l-Fiṭr which could almost literally be translated as “The Purification For The End Of Ramaḍān”. It is to be given on behalf of everyone in a household which has enough food for themselves for a day and night, to all those who don’t, one or two days before the ‘Eed prayer but no later than the prayer itself.

‘Abdullāh b. ‘Umar (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhumā) narrated that, “The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) obligated the giving of a ṣā‘ of dates or a sā‘ of barley upon all Muslims, whether slave or free, male or female, and young or old. He ordered that it should be given before the people went out to pray.” (Bukhāri)

Abu Sa‘īd al-Khudri (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhu) said, “We used to give our Zakāt’l-Fiṭr as a ṣā‘ of food or a ṣā‘ of barley or a ṣā‘ of dates or a ṣā‘ of dried yoghurt or a ṣā‘ of raisins.” (Bukhāri)

A ṣā‘ is a measure equal to four medium-sized handfuls, which approximates to about 2.25kg in weight.

Because the above aḥadīth mention only food, one of the fiqhi matters associated with Zakāt’l-Fiṭr is whether one can pay the needy in cash as opposed to giving them food items.

It is the opinion of the majority of the scholars such as Imām Mālik, Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, Imām Aḥmed and many more that it is not permissible to give Zakāt’l-Fiṭr except as a food item; specifically the requirement is to give it in the form of the staple food of that country. Rice is used very commonly for this in the Muslim world because it can be stored, weighed easily and is readily available in most countries.

However, some scholars like Imām Abu Ḥanīfah allowed the Zakāt’l-Fiṭr to be paid in cash, without any conditions. This is thus the official position of the Ḥanafi school as well as Mu‘ādh b. Jabal, ‘Umar b. ‘Abd’l-‘Azīz, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Sufyān al-Thawrī, Ṭāwūs, Bukhāri and others. Some scholars like Abu Thawr only allowed paying in cash if there was a pressing reason and it would be to the greater benefit of the poor.

The difference of opinion revolves around the fact that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the Companions did not give their Zakāt’l-Fiṭr except as food. The question is: does the fact that they only gave it as food, mean that it is prohibited to give as money?

At first glance, this would seem the case. They had access to money and other valuables whether dirhams or dinars or gold etc. So why did the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) only mention food items except that this means it is restricted to food? Yes, this could be argued but the reverse is also worthy of consideration: much of the trade at that time was not with dinars and dirhams but with bartering of foodstuff and the like. Life was very simple back then and many folks had little need for a small piece of valuable metal as much as their immediate need for food or different types of food. Thus it would be quite understandable why the focus was on foodstuff alone. But in our time today, it’s all about money.

Not only that, but the description of the way the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had told his Companions to give x or y or… and this repeated use of “or” would suggest flexibility. This is further indicated by the fact that the majority of scholars extended the possible food groups to those which were not mentioned by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) because they understood the intention to be a focus on the staple food of that country. That is why in our time, wheat and rice are the most commonly distributed items for Zakāt’l-Fiṭr even though they were not mentioned in the ḥadīth.

Practically speaking though, there are many occasions where the poor and needy prefer money itself. It is often the case that people will purchase food in local areas of need to give to the poor, who ironically will sell it back to the shopkeepers for half the price because their need for money is greater. Other times the poor themselves are able to purchase that same food for much less than it is being paid for by the one donating it.

It is useful to reflect on the purpose of Zakāt’l-Fiṭr, as explained by ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abbās (raḍyAllāhu ‘anhumā) who said, “The Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) obligated Zakāt’l-Fitr as a purification for the fasting person from useless talk and obscenities, and to feed the poor.” (Abu Dāwud, 1609, ḥasan)

Feeding the poor can be done easier with money than with just one type of food. Indeed you may give your ṣā‘ of rice but then what of the other ingredients and costs involved to cook it and make it satisfactory to eat? There is a weak narration as collected by Imām al-Dāraquṭnī where the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was meant to have said, “Enable them to not have to beg anyone today.” Begging is solved equally by money as it is by food, indeed perhaps money is even better.

It is interesting when we remember that in the normal obligatory Zakāh that we give on wealth, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) allowed in certain cases upon camels for the Zakāh to be given as either two sheep, or 20 dirhams cash when in principle it should also be paid in camels or a lesser camel. This flexibility due to the need was allowed in the major Zakāh, what then of in the minor one i.e. Zakāt’l-Fiṭr?

Also, giving one’s Zakāt’l-Fiṭr in food form can bring unnecessary hassle for a person who has to go and find the food and then take it around to distribute it. The majority of the people in the West don’t do this anyway and give a sum of money approximating $5-$10 to a charity for them to do this on their behalf by purchasing the food in bulk and distributing it.

Often the people who receive the food from such charities have a need for other types of food and will then go and barter, or sell it back at a loss. This has been proven anecdotally and by personal experience. This does not benefit the poor, and the entire objective behind this charity before ‘Eed is to benefit the poor as much as possible and not to give them extra problems and hassle.

It must be conceded by those who insist on giving food only that there is not a single clear evidence that prohibits giving Zakāt’l-Fiṭr in money form.

However because difference of opinion exists amongst the scholars, we should respect that and take a safer option. Thus if someone has food that they can give to a poor person who will readily and happily accept it and use it, then one should do that and you will have taken a position that satisfies all scholars.

But if someone does not have food to give, then they shouldn’t hassle themselves to go and buy it, and it is permissible to give money to the poor and those deserving of Zakāt’l-Fiṭr as per the rules of fiqh.

Wallahu ta‘āla a‘lam.

Fiqh · AlMaghrib Journals

Is Halloween Haram or Harmless Fun?

Where Halloween Came From

Does a Change in Culture Change the Ruling?

Why Halloween Still Falls Short

Keeping It in Proportion

Practical Guidance

How to Name a Child in Islam: Principles and Etiquette

How to Perform Hajj: The Basics

What you need to know about Worship…

The Pillars (Arkan) of Hajj

Entering the State of Ihram

Standing at Arafah

Tawaf al-Ifadah (Main Circumambulation)

Sa’i between Safa and Marwah

The Obligations (Wajibat) of Hajj

Assuming Ihram from the Miqat

Remaining in Arafah until Sunset

Spending the Night at Muzdalifah

Spending Nights in Mina

Ramy al-Jamarat (Stoning the Pillars)

Shaving or Trimming the Hair

Tawaf al-Wada (Farewell Tawaf)

The Recommended Acts (Sunan) of Hajj

What if I have other questions?

“Can I perform Hajj while I am in debt?” Let’s talk about it…

The background

But that was then, what about now?

Can School Students Be Exempt From Fasting Due To Exams?

Is It Permissible To Use Medical Marijuana?

Footnotes

The Islamic Ruling on E-Cigarettes, Vaping and Synthetic Marijuana

The Only Solution To Domestic Violence…Is You

The Ruling on Making Wudhu’ For Those With Irregular Vaginal Bleeding (Istihadhah), Incontinence, Excessive Flatulence, etc

Footnotes

Your Menstruation Is Not Found In Your Hand

Keep Or Release, But In A Good Way

الطَّلاَقُ مَرَّتَانِ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النَّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ

تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

وَمَتِّعُوهُنَّ عَلَى الْمُوسِعِ قَدَرُهُ وَعَلَى الْمُقْتِرِ قَدْرُهُ مَتَاعًا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْمُحْسِنِينَ

وَلِلْمُطَلَّقَاتِ مَتَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْمُتَّقِينَ

إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا

The Hijab vs The Beard

Beautifying Yourself For Prayer

يَا بَنِي آدَمَ خُذُواْ زِينَتَكُمْ عِندَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ

Are We Really Prohibited From Cutting Nails If Offering A Sacrifice?

Giving Cash As Zakat’l-Fitr