Archives

There is nothing wrong with making up missed Ramadaan fasts in the second half of Sha’baan

Q) I had many days owing of Ramadaan fasts because of pregnancy and giving birth, which coincided with the time of Ramadaan. I have made them up, praise be to Allaah, with the exception of the last seven days.

I fasted three of them in the second half of Sha’baan, and I want to do the rest before Ramadaan begins.

But I read on your site that it is not permissible to fast in the second half of Sha’baan, except for a person who habitually fasts. Please advise me, may Allaah reward you. I want to know whether I should fast the rest of these days that I owe, or not. If the answer is no, then what is the ruling on the three days that I have already fasted – do I have to make them up again or not?

A) Praise be to Allaah.

It was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When Sha’baan is halfway through, do not fast.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (3237); Ibn Hibaan (1651); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

There are some exceptions from this prohibition, as follows:

1 –One who has a habit of fasting, such as a man who habitually fasts on Mondays and Thursdays, which he may do even after halfway through Sha’baan. The evidence for that is the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “Do not anticipate Ramadaan by fasting one or two days before it, except a man who fasts regularly, who should observe his usual fast.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1914; Muslim, 1082.

2 – A person who started fasting before halfway through Sha’baan, and connects what comes after the halfway point to what came before. This is not included in the prohibition either. The evidence for that is the words of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to fast all of Sha’baan and fast all of Sha’baan except a little.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1970; Muslim, 1165. This version narrated by Muslim.

Al-Nawawi said: “He used to fast all of Sha’baan and fast all of Sha’baan except a little.” The second phrase is an explanation of the first, pointing out that by “all” what is meant is “most”.

This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to fast after halfway through Sha’baan, but only for one who joins that to what came before the halfway point.

3 – An exception from this prohibition is also made for one who is making up missed Ramadaan fasts.

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’ (6/399):

Our companions said: it is not correct to fast on the “day of doubt” just before Ramadaan, and there is no difference of scholarly opinion on this point … But if a person fasts it to make up a missed day or to fulfil a vow, or as an expiation, that is acceptable, because if it is permissible to observe a voluntary fast on that day, it is more likely to be permissible to observe an obligatory fast… and if a person has to make up a day from Ramadaan, then he has to fast it, because the time left for him to make it up has become very short.

The “day of doubt” is the thirtieth of Sha’baan if it has not been possible to sight the moon of the thirtieth because of cloud, fog, etc. It is called the “day of doubt” because there is some doubt concerning it – is it the last day of Sha’baan or the first day of Ramadaan?

In conclusion:

There is nothing wrong with making up a missed Ramadaan fast in the last half of Sha’baan. This is not included in the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on fasting after halfway through Sha’baan.

So your fasting of those three days is valid, and you have to fast the remaining days before Ramadaan begins.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Is it mustahabb to fast the whole of Sha’baan?

Q) Is it Sunnah to fast the entire month of Sha’baan?

A) Praise be to Allaah.

It is mustahabb to fast a great deal in the month of Sha’baan.

It was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to fast the whole of Sha’baan.

Ahmad (26022), Abu Dawood (2336), al-Nasaa’i (2175) and Ibn Maajah (1648) narrated that Umm Salamah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I never saw the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fast two consecutive months apart from the fact that he used to join Sha’baan and Ramadaan.”

According to a version narrated by Abu Dawood: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never used to fast any complete month in the year, apart from Sha’baan, which he used to join to Ramadaan.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2048.

The apparent meaning of this hadeeth is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to fast the entire month of Sha’baan.

But it was also narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to fast all of Sha’baan apart from a few days.

Muslim (1156) narrated that Abu Salamah said: “I asked ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) about the fasting of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and she said: ‘He used to fast until we thought that he would always fast, then he would not fast until we thought that he would always not fast, but I never saw him fast in any month more than he fasted in Sha’baan. He used to fast all of Sha’baan, and he used to fast all of Sha’baan apart from a few days.’”

The scholars differed as to the way of reconciling between these hadeeths.

Some of them said that this had to do with differences of time – in some years the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fasted all of Sha’baan, and in other years he fasted all of that month apart from a few days. This was the view favoured by Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him). See Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 15/416.

Others said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never fasted any month in full apart from Ramadaan, and they interpreted the hadeeth of Umm Salamah as meaning that he fasted all of Sha’baan apart from a few days. They said that this is possible from a linguistic point of view, that if a man fasts for most of a month it may be said that he fasted the whole month.

Al-Haafiz said:

The hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah explains what was said in the hadeeth of Umm Salamah, which says that he did fast any month of the year in full apart from Sha’baan which he used to join to Ramadaan; this means that he used to fast most of it. Al-Tirmidhi narrated that Ibn al-Mubaarak said: It is possible in the language of the Arabs, if a person fasts most of a month, to say that he fasted the whole month…

Al-Teebi said: It may be interpreted as meaning that he used to fast all of Sha’baan sometimes and most of Sha’baan at other times, lest people think that it is obligatory to fast the entire month, like Ramadaan.

Then al-Haafiz said: The former is the correct view – in other words, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not fast all of Sha’baan. He quoted as evidence for that the report narrated by Muslim (746) from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: “I do not know that the Prophet of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) recited the entire Qur’aan in one night, or spent an entire night in prayer until dawn, or fasted an entire month apart from Ramadaan.”

And he quoted the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (1971) and Muslim (1157) from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never fasted any month in full apart from Ramadaan.”

Al-Sindi said in his commentary on the hadeeth of Umm Salamah:

“He joined Sha’baan to Ramadaan” means that he fasted them both together. The apparent meaning is that he fasted all of Sha’baan… but there are reports which indicate something different. Hence it is to be understood as meaning that he used to fast most of it, so it was as if he fasted all of it and joined it to Ramadaan.

If it is asked, what is the reason for fasting a great deal during Sha’baan? The answer is:

Al-Haafiz said:

The reason in explained in the report narrated by al-Nasaa’i and Abu Dawood, and classed as saheeh by Ibn Khuzaymah, according to which Usaamah ibn Zayd said: “I said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I do not see you fasting in any month more than in Sha’baan.’ He said, ‘That is a month concerning which many people are heedless, between Rajab and Ramadaan. It is the month is which people’s deeds are taken up to the Lord of the Worlds, and I would like my deeds to be taken up whilst I am fasting.’” Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Nasaa’i, 2221.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

The prohibition on fasting in the second half of Sha’baan

Q) Is it permissible to fast after halfway through Sha’baan? Because I heard that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade fasting after halfway through Sha’baan.

A) Praise be to Allaah.

Abu Dawood (3237), al-Tirmidhi (738) and Ibn Naajah (1651) narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When Sha’baan is half over, do not fast.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, 590.

This hadeeth indicates that it is not allowed to fast after halfway through Sha’baan, i.e., starting from the sixteenth day of the month.

But there are reports that indicate that it is permissible to fast at this time. For example:

Al-Bukhaari (1914) and Muslim (1082) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not anticipate Ramadaan by fasting one or two days before it begins, but if a man habitually fasts, then let him fast.”

This indicates that fasting after halfway through Sha’baan is permissible for someone who has the habit of fasting, such as a man who regularly fasts on Mondays and Thursdays, or who fasts alternate days, and the like.

Al-Bukhaari (1970) and Muslim (1156) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to fast all of Sha’baan, he used to fast Sha’baan except a few days.” This version was narrated by Muslim.

Al-Nawawi said: In the words, “He used to fast all of Sha’baan, he used to fast Sha’baan except a few days” the second phrase explains the first, and indicates that the word “all” means “most of”.

This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to fast after halfway through Sha’baan, but only for those who are continuing after fasting before halfway through the month. The Shaafa’is followed all of these ahaadeeth and said:

It is not permissible to fast after halfway through Sha’baan except for those who have a habitual pattern of fasting, or who are continuing after fasting before halfway through the month.

According to most of the scholars, the prohibition here means that it is haraam.

See al-Majmoo’, 6/399-400; Fath al-Baari, 4/129

Some, such as al-Ruyaani, suggested that the prohibition here is to be understood as meaning that it is makrooh, not haraam.

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Riyaadh al-Saaliheen (p. 412):

“Chapter on the prohibition on anticipating Ramadaan by fasting after halfway through Sha’baan, except for one who is continuing after fasting before halfway through the month or who has a regular pattern of fasting such as fasting on Mondays and Thursdays”.

The majority of scholars are of the view that the hadeeth which forbids fasting after halfway through Sha’baan is da’eef (weak), and based on that they said that it is not makrooh to fast after halfway through Sha’baan.

Al-Haafiz said: The majority of scholars said that it is permissible to observe voluntary fasts after halfway through Sha’baan and they regarded the hadeeth concerning that as da’eef. Ahmad and Ibn Ma’een said that it is munkar. (From Fath al-Baari). Among those who classed it as da’eef were al-Bayhaqi and al-Tahhaawi.

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni that Imam Ahmad said concerning this hadeeth:

It is not sound. We asked ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi about it and he did not class it as saheeh, and he did not narrate it to me. He used to avoid talking about this hadeeth. Ahmad said: al-‘Ala’ is thiqah and none of his ahaadeeth are regarded as munkar apart from this one.

The al-‘Ala’ referred to here is al-‘Ala’ ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmaan who narrated this hadeeth from his father from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him).

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) responded in Tahdheeb al-Sunan to those who classed this hadeeth as da’eef and said that this hadeeth is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. Even though al-‘Ala’ is the only one who narrated this hadeeth, that is not regarded as detrimental to the hadeeth, because al-‘Ala’ is thiqah; in his Saheeh, Muslim narrated a number of ahaadeeth from him, from his father from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him). Many Sunnahs are narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) only through one person who is thiqah, but they have been accepted and followed by the ummah.

Then he said:

With regard to those who think that there is a contradiction between this hadeeth and the ahaadeeth which speak of fasting in Sha’baan, there is no contradiction. Those ahaadeeth speak of fasting half of it along with the previous half, and of habitual fasting during the second half of the month, whereas the hadeeth of al-‘Ala’ speaks of the prohibition on fasting deliberately only after the month is halfway over, not about fasts that a person observes regularly or that are a continuation after fasting during the first part of the month.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the hadeeth which says that fasting after halfway through Sha’baan is not allowed. He said:

This is a saheeh hadeeth as Shaykh Naasir al-Deen al-Albaani said. What is meant is that it is not allowed to start fasting after halfway through the month. But if a person fasts most or all of the month, then he is following the Sunnah.

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 15/385).

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said in his commentary on Riyaadh al-Saaliheen (3/394):

Even if the hadeeth is saheeh, the prohibition in it does not mean that this is haraam, rather it is simply makrooh, as some of the scholars have understood it to mean. But whoever has the habit of fasting regularly should fast, even if it is after halfway through Sha’baan.

In conclusion:

It is not allowed to fast during the second half of Sha’baan, and that is either makrooh or haraam, except for the one who has the habit of fasting regularly or who is continuing after fasting during the first half of Sha’baan. And Allaah knows best.

The reason for this prohibition is that continually fasting may make a person too weak to fast in Ramadaan.

If it is said that if he fasts from the beginning of the month he will become even weaker, the response is that whoever fasts from the beginning of Sha’baan will have gotten used to fasting so it will be less difficult for him to fast.

Al-Qaari said: The prohibition here means that it is disliked, as a mercy to this ummah lest they become too weak to fulfil their duty of fasting during Ramadaan in an energetic fashion. But those who fast all of Sha’baan will become used to fasting so it will not be difficult for them.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Laylat al-Nusf min Sha’baan (the middle of Sha’baan) should not be singled out for worship

Q) I read in a book that fasting on the middle of Sha’baan is a kind of bid’ah, but in another book I read that one of the days on which it is mustahabb to fast is the middle of Sha’baan… what is the definitive ruling on this?

A) Praise be to Allaah.

There is no saheeh marfoo’ report that speaks of the virtue of the middle of Sha’baan that may be followed, not even  in the chapters on al-Fadaa’il (chapters on virtues in books of hadeeth etc.). Some maqtoo’ reports (reports whose isnaads do not go back further than the Taabi’een) have been narrated from some of the Taabi’een, and there are some ahaadeeth, the best of which are mawdoo’ (fabricated) or da’eef jiddan (very weak). These reports became very well known in some countries which were overwhelmed by ignorance; these reports suggest that people’s lifespans are written on that day or that it is decided on that day who is to die in the coming year. On this basis, it is not prescribed to spend this night in prayer or to fast on this day, or to single it out for certain acts of worship. One should not be deceived by the large numbers of ignorant people who do these things. And Allaah knows best.

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen.

If a person wants to pray qiyaam on this night as he does on other nights – without doing anything extra or singling this night out for anything – then that is OK. The same applies if he fasts the day of the fifteenth of Sha’baan because it happens to be one of the ayyaam al-beed, along with the fourteenth and thirteenth of the month, or because it happens to be a Monday or Thursday. If the fifteenth (of Sha’baan) coincides with a Monday or Thursday, there is nothing wrong with that (fasting on that day), so long as he is not seeking extra reward that has not been proven (in the saheeh texts). And Allaah knows best.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Is a brother obliged to spend on his sister?

Q) Is a brother obliged to spend on his sister? Is it permissible for her to take zakaah from her brother’s wealth?

A) Praise be to Allaah.

A brother is obliged to spend on his sister if she is poor and he is independent of means and he would inherit from her if she died. If he would not inherit from her because she has a son or because the father or grandfather (father’s father) is still alive, then he is not obliged to spend on her and it is permissible to give her the zakaah of his wealth in that case.

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Mughni (8/169):

In order for maintenance to be obligatory, three conditions must be met:

(i) They should be poor and have no wealth or source of income which would make them independent of being maintained by others. If they have enough wealth or income to make them independent of means, then it is not obligatory to spend on their maintenance.

(ii) The one who is obliged to spend on their maintenance should have enough to do so, surplus to the costs of his own maintenance, either from his wealth or his income. If he does not have any surplus, then he is not obliged to do anything, because of the report of Jaabir that the Messenger of Allaah (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) said: “If one of you is poor, then let him start with himself. If he has any surplus, then let him spend on his dependents, and if he has any surplus, let him spend on his relatives.”

(iii) The one who spends should be an heir, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And on the (father’s) heir is incumbent the like of that (which was incumbent on the father)” [al-Baqarah 2:233]. And because there are ties of kinship between those who would inherit from one another which dictate that the heir is more entitled to the wealth of the one who leaves it behind than anyone else, so by virtue of the ties of kinship he is to be singled out for maintenance rather than anyone else. If he is not an heir, then he is not obliged to spend on his maintenance. End quote.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said in al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (13/503):

The basic principle in our view is that it is essential that the one who spends be an heir of the one on whom he spends, except for direct ascendants and descendants, in which case the issue of inheritance is not a condition. End quote.

Based on this, if the brother is obliged to spend on his sister, it is not permissible to give the zakaah of his wealth to her, but if he is not obliged to spend on her, it is permissible to give the zakaah of his wealth to her, and indeed that is better than giving it to someone else who is not one of his relatives, because by doing this he will attain the reward of both zakaah and upholding the ties of kinship.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Al-Khaafid

Q)  Can you give me an explanation of the beautiful name of Allah Al Khafid ?

 

A) Praise be to Allaah.  

 

Before discussing the meaning of this name, we should understand some important issues that have to do with the names of Allaah. 

 

Firstly: The names and attributes of Allaah should be based on evidence from the Book of Allaah (the Qur’aan) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); there is no other source for knowing the names and attributes of Allaah apart from these two sources. 

 

Based on this, whatever names of Allaah are affirmed in the Qur’aan and Sunnah are what we must accept and affirm. 

 

Whatever is denied in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, we must also deny, whilst affirming its opposite. 

 

What is neither affirmed nor denied in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, we must refrain from uttering it and neither affirm it nor deny it, because it has not been narrated in the sense of either affirming or denying.  

 

With regard to the meaning of the name al-Khaafid, it should be noted that if what is meant by it is something that is befitting to Allaah, then it is acceptable, and if what is meant is something that is not befitting to Allaah, then we must reject it. 

 

From al-Qawaa’id al-Mathla fi Sifaat Allaah wa Asmaa’ihi il-Husna by Ibn ‘Uthaymeen. 

 

Secondly: An action is broader in meaning than a name. Hence Allaah has attributed to Himself actions for which He is not called by the active participle of the verb in question, such as wanting (araada), willing (shaa’a) and causing to happen (ahdatha); He is not called al-mureed (the wanter or seeker) or al-shaa’i (the willer) or al-muhdith (the causer). Similarly He did not call Himself al-saani’ (the maker), al-faa’il (the doer), or al-mutqin (the one who does things perfectly), or other names derived from actions that He attributes to Himself. The scope of actions is broader than the scope of words. 

 

Those who derive a name for Allaah from every action made a serious mistake and made the number of His names reach more than one thousand. They called Him al-maakir (the plotter), al-mukhaadi’ (the deceiver), al-faatin (the causer of tribulation), al-kaa’id (the schemer), etc. 

 

Similarly He has told us about Himself in words that are broader in scope and are not names by which He has called Himself. We may refer to Him as shay’ (a thing), mawjood (one who exists), madhkoor (one who is mentioned or remembered), ma’loom (one who is known), muraad (one who is sought), and so on, but He is not to be named in these terms. 

 

The word al-Waajid (the one who is independent of means) is not mentioned as a name of Allaah except in the hadeeth which lists the beautiful names (of Allaah). But the correct view is that this is not the Prophet’s words, although the meaning is sound. For Allaah is indeed the One Who has the means (dhu’l-wajd) and is independent of all others, so it would be more apt to call Him al-Waajid than al-Mawjood (the one who exists) or al-Moojid (the initiator). The word al-mawjood (one who exists) may refer to something that is perfect or imperfect, good or evil (so the thing referred to by this name may be perfect or imperfect). If a name may refer to either of these, then it cannot be a name of Allaah, so we cannot call Him al-Shay’ (the thing) or al-Ma’loom (the one who is known). Hence Allaah is not called al-Mureed (the seeker) or al-Mutakallim (the speaker) or al-Moojid (the initiator). He has called Himself by names that carry the most perfect meanings in that regard viz. al-Khaaliq (the Creator), al-Baari’ (the Creator), and al-Musawwir (the Shaper). Al-Moojid (the initiator) is like al-Muhdith (the one who causes things to happen), al-Faa’il (the doer) and al-Saani’ (the maker). This is a very subtle and deep understanding of the beautiful names of Allaah, so give some thought to it. And Allaah is the Source of strength, 

 

From Madaarij al-Saalikeen by Ibn al-Qayyim, 3/383-385 

 

Thirdly:  The names that are given to Allaah must be taken from the sound texts; this is not a matter that is subject to ijtihaad or individual reasoning. But what is said in the context of speaking about Him is not subject to the same restrictions, so for example it may be said that He is al-qadeem (the Ancient), al-shay’ (the thing [i.e., as opposed to nothing]), al-mawjood (the one who exists), al-qaa’im bi nafsihi (the self sufficient). This is the bottom line with regard to the issue of whether His names are tawqeefi (i.e., not subject to ijtihaad) or it is permissible to call Him by some names that are not reported in the texts. 

 

From Badaa’i’ al-Fawaa’id by Ibn al-Qayyim, 1/162 

 

Fourthly: Among the names of Allaah there are some which cannot be used in isolation unless their opposite is also mentioned; if such a name is used on its own, it may give an impression of imperfection – exalted be Allaah far above that. These names include al-Mu’ti, al-Maani’ (the Giver, the Withholder); al-Daarr, al-Naafi’ (the One who harms, the One Who benefits); al-Qaabid, al-Baasit  (the Constrictor, the Expander); al-Mu’izz, al-Mudhill (the Honourer, the Humiliator); al-Khaafid al-Raafi’ (the Abaser, the Exalter). Allaah cannot be called al-Maani’ (the Withholder), al-Daarr (the One who harms), al-Qaabid (the Constrictor), al-Mudhill (the Humiliator) and al-Khaafid (the Abaser) using these names on their own; rather they must be accompanied by their opposites, because they only appear as such (in pairs) in the Revelation. 

 

From Ma’aarij al-Qubool by al-Hakami, 1/64. 

 

Once the following is understood, the name al-Khaafid is only narrated in the hadeeth which lists the beautiful names of Allaah. The correct view is that this is not the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as stated above in the words of Ibn al-Qayyim. This is what has been confirmed by more than one scholar such as Imam Ibn Taymiyah (as stated in al-Fataawa, 6/379-380, 8/96, 22/482); al-Haafiz ibn Katheer in his Tafseer (3/515); al-Haafiz ibn Hajar in al-Fath (11/221) and al-Buloogh (1395), and others. 

 

But the meaning of this name is correct, so long as it is accompanied by the name al-Raafi’ (the Exalter). It was proven in Saheeh Muslim (179) from the hadeeth of Abu Moosa al-Ash’ari that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah does not sleep and it is not befitting that He should sleep. He lowers justice and raises it. The deeds of the night are taken up to Him before the deeds of the day, and the deeds of the day before the night…”  There are also some reports from the salaf concerning that, and the mu’allaq report which al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh (al-Fath, 8/487) from Abu’l-Darda’, which says that he said concerning the verse “Every day He is (engaged) in some affair (such as giving honour or disgrace to some, life or death to some)” [al-Rahmaan 55:29 – interpretation of the meaning]: “He forgives sins, relieves distress, raises some people in status and humiliates others.” This was also narrated in a marfoo’ report (i.e., attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)). 

 

Once this is understood, the scholars have also discussed the meaning of the name al-Khaafid, such as the following: 

 

1 – al-Khattaabi said in Sha’n al-Du’a’(58):  

 

Al-Khaafid, al-Raafi’ (the Abaser, the Exalter): similarly when it comes to these two names, it is better to mention them together. Al-Khaafid is the one who brings down tyrants and humiliates the arrogant Pharaohs, and al-Raafi’ is the one who raises His close friends (awliya’) in status through their acts of obedience; He raises them in status, supports them against their enemies and grants them the ultimate victory. No one can prevail except the one whom Allaah raises and no one can be lowered except the one whom He humiliates. 

 

2 – al-Haleemi said, according to al-Asma’ wa’l-Sifaat by al-Bayhaqi (1/193): 

 

The name al-Khaafid should not be used on its own in du’aa’ without the name al-Raafi’. Al-Khaafid is the one who puts people in a lower position, and al-Raafi’ is the one who puts them in a higher position. 

 

3 – Qiwaam al-Sunnah al-Asbahaani said in al-Hujjah fi Bayaan al-Mahajjah (1/140): 

 

Among His names are al-Khaafid, al-Raafi’ (the Abaser, the Exalter). It was said that al-Khaafid is the one who brings down tyrants and humiliates the arrogant Pharaohs, and al-Raafi’ is the one who raises His close friends (awliya’) in status and supports them against their enemies. He humiliates whomsoever He will among His slaves, lowering him in status and making him unknown and insignificant. And He elevates whomsoever He will among His slaves, raising him in status and position. No one can rise except those whom He raises in status and no one can be humiliated except those whom He lowers in status. And it was said that

 

He raises justice and lowers it. 

 

Then he narrated the hadeeth of Abu Moosa that was narrated by Muslim (293): “Allaah does not sleep and it is not befitting that He should sleep. He lowers justice and raises it. The deeds of the night are taken up to Him before the deeds of the day, and the deeds of the day before the night…” 

 

Then he said: The scholars said: what is meant by “He lowers justice and raises it” is: He lowers justice by causing oppressors to prevail, and He raises justice by causing justice to prevail. He lowers justice by means of the unjust and he raises justice by means of just leaders. By alternately lowering and raising the level of justice He tests His slaves to see how they will be patient in the face of adversity and thankful for times of ease. 

 

4 – Shaykh Ibn Sa’di said in al-Haqq al-Waadih al-Mubeen (258):  

 

He is al-Raafi’ for people who are righteous and knowledgeable and have faith, and He is al-Khaafid for His enemies. 

 

It says in Tawdeeh al-Kaafiyah al-Shaafiyah (390): Know that the divine attributes that have to do with deeds are all connected to or based on these three attributes: absolute power, ever-executed will and perfect wisdom. All of these are attributes of Allaah. The effects of these attributes prevail everywhere in the universe, giving precedence to some and putting others behind, benefiting some and harming others, giving to some and withholding from others, abasing some and exalting others. There is no difference in this between physical and moral, religious or worldly.  

 

Shaykh Muhammad Khaleel Harraas said in Sharh al-Qaseedah al-Nooniyyah, 2/114: 

 

Allaah is al-Khaafid, al-Raafi’ (the Abaser the Exalter). He abases the kuffaar by making their lives miserable and keeping them away from Him, and He raises His close friends by drawing them close to Him and making them happy. He alternates things amongst His slaves, so He humiliates some people and makes them insignificant and takes away their pride, and He raises others by causing them to inherit the authority and land of the former. 

 

All of these words are true, and they are included in the meaning of al-Khaafid, al-Raafi’ (the Abaser, the Exalter). 

 

And Allaah knows best.

 

 

Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid

He cut off his relationship with his wife a while ago. Does he have to divorce her?

Q)  I am a man who is married to 2 wives, and I have children aged 20 and above from my first wife, but I married the second wife on the basis that I have no relationship with the first wife. Since I married the second one and before I married her, I had no relationship with the first wife. What I mean is that I did not stay overnight with her because I did not get along with her, but I did not divorce her. That was in accordance with my children’s wishes, because they asked me not to divorce their mother out of concern for their reputation for their friends, and I respected these wishes. I want to know whether I have committed any sin thereby, and what is the solution? Can I keep her as a wife even though I do not have any intimacy with her, or do I have to divorce her?

 

A)  Praise be to Allaah.

 

The wife has the right to have her husband stay overnight with her, and she is entitled to kind treatment and intimacy. She has the right to ask for divorce if her husband fails to give her these rights. But if she agrees to stay and give up her rights, then she may do that and you do not have to divorce her in that case. 

 

Muslim narrated (1463) from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that when Sawdah bint Zam’ah grew old, she said: O Messenger of Allaah, I have given my day with you to ‘Aa’ishah. The Messenger of Allaah (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) used to give ‘Aa’ishah two days: her day and Sawdah’s. 

 

This indicates that it is permissible for a woman to give up her right to a share of her husband’s time, and to give her night to her co-wife. 

 

But if the wife does not accept this situation, and she also does not want divorce, then you have to review your case and try to resolve the problem, give her her rights, treat her kindly and show her some appreciation, because she is the mother of your children and she has lived with you all this time. 

 

We ask Allaah to set all our affairs straight. 

 

And Allaah knows best.

 

 

Islam Q&A

Ruling on eating meat and plants that have been genetically modified

Q)  What is the ruling on eating the meat of animals that have been fed with plants that have been genetically modified?

 

A)  Praise be to Allaah.

 

Firstly: 

 

Research is still ongoing into the effect of genetically modified plants on humans, plants, animals and the environment, and even on the economy. There are still specialists who advise not hastening to accept what appears to be the case with regard to genetically modified plants of abundant production and the ability to overcome defects and resist disease. 

 

There are two main points of view with regard to this issue: the first is that which is adopted by American companies and American government organisations, which is to allow the use of genetically modified plants and marketing of their products. The other view, which is the opposite view, is that which is adopted by the European Union, which bans cultivation (of genetically modified plants) in its territory and warns against its possible consequences. 

 

The matter is still not definitive with regard to its effects, because it needs years for the impact to materialise, according to specialists. The fact that we have some plants which are more resistant to pesticides means that they will be used a great deal, which will pose a danger to the environment and human health. The fact that the plant has this strength means that it will enter the body of the one that eats it. As is well known, the countries that import these plants will never be able to plant the seeds of these plants in their lands again. What this means is that they will remain under the control and domination of the companies that produce these seeds, and this is what will affect the quality of the plants produced and will affect the economy of the importing country, as it will continue importing and consuming, and not producing independently. 

 

The Arab Organisation for Agricultural Development held a conference in Sudan 15-17/6/2003 CE, the subject of which was: Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Introducing Various Kinds of Genetically Modified Plants and Animals. 

 

We will quote from that conference statements which will explain this issue, before ruling on what was mentioned in the question. 

 

1.

(on p. 45) Dr. ‘Awad-Allaah ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ‘Abd al-Mawla — Prof of Horticulture and Genetics in the College of Agriculture, Khartoum University — says:

 

What are genetically modified products?

 

This is a phrase which refers to the products of some crops which have been genetically engineered, which means introducing a foreign gene to the original genetic material. The foreign gene may come from different sources, and is introduced to increase the value and improve the genetic qualities of the genetically engineered plant. Usually plants are genetically altered for two purposes, namely:

 

(i)                To reduce the cost of producing these plants, by making the plant resistant to disease.

 

(ii)              To improve the quality of the product, by improving its appearance or nutritional components with regard to qualities that have to do with manufacturing and storage. 

 

Production of these genetically modified products is done using genetic engineering techniques. This involves first identifying the gene responsible for the desired quality and isolating it, then introducing it to the living being (the receiver). After this new gene has been mixed with the genetic material of the genetically engineered plant, it is possible to increase the number of cells in which the new gene is successfully mixed, then by means of tissue planting it becomes possible to produce complete plants from the cells, and these plants become genetically modified or engineered. Once this gene becomes well established in the genetically engineered plant, it becomes possible to transfer it to other types of the same crop by using traditional methods of raising plants, by means of hybridisation and crossbreeding. 

 

2.

 

In a paper entitled Genetic Modification: Justifications, Benefits and its Impact on the Environment and Society, by Dr. Lakhdar Khaleefi and Dr. Maajidah Khaleefi, it says (p. 15):

 

In the field of genetic modification in particular, there is a clear difference between American and European law. Whilst American law regards genetically modified foods as natural foods that do not pose any danger until proven otherwise, European law — especially French law — regards genetically modified foods as unnatural and a possible source of danger until proven otherwise. End quote. 

 

Secondly: 

 

The one who researches this issue cannot state that it is haraam to eat genetically modified crops and fruits unless it is proven for certain that they are harmful. This does not mean that we can be careless about this matter, because of what we have pointed out above of the possibility that they may pose a danger in many ways, and because people still prefer natural plants and crops, and people like them even if they are more expensive. 

 

The matter still needs more research and more time until the effects of these plants and the harm they may cause becomes clear. 

 

Until it is proven that they are harmful, the basic principle is that these plants are permissible and it is permissible to eat animals that have been fed on these plants, but it is also essential to be cautious about what these plants may cause in the future, and it is essential to follow up on research and information about these plants. 

 

And Allaah knows best.

 

 

Islam Q&A

 

Ruling on working in the tourism field as a booking agent

Q)  What is the ruling on working in a tourism company or an airline company booking airplane tickets or making reservations on ships? What is the ruling on working as a tourist guide? Please note that I am a graduate of the college of tourism and hotel management.

 

A)  Praise be to Allaah.

 

Firstly: 

 

There is nothing wrong with working in an office booking plane tickets or reservations on ships, if that does not involve helping in evildoing. Helping in evildoing includes selling tickets to one who it is known or thought most likely that he is travelling for haraam purposes, such as one who takes his family to a kaafir country for tourism and leisure, or one who goes to places of corruption such as resorts and tourist areas which are not free of all evils and corruption, such as mixing between men and women, consumption of intoxicants and haraam things, and so on, because Allaah says (interpretation meaning):

 

“Help you one another in Al‑Birr and At‑Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment”

 

[al-Maa’idah 5:2] 

 

Secondly:

 

It is well-known that tourism, as it is known nowadays, it is not free of things that incur punishment and major sins, such as drinking alcohol, nakedness, promiscuity, spread of immorality, neglecting prayers … and all the other evils which have been seen and are known about by everyone who hears about tourism. But if we could say that tourism was free of such evils, then our words would be theoretical and we would be speaking about some other kind of tourism that is different to that which people know and see nowadays. 

 

There is no doubt that working in this field is cooperating in sin and transgression, and inclination towards immoral people and evildoers, and towards the people of sin. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you, and you have no protectors other than Allaah, nor you would then be helped”

 

[Hood 11:113]. 

 

Shaykh al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

 

“And incline not toward those who do wrong” because, if you incline toward them and join them in their wrongdoing or approve of their wrongdoing, “the Fire [will] touch you”, if you do that, “and you [will] have no protectors other than Allaah” to protect you from the punishment of Allaah, and they will not bring you anything of the reward of Allaah. “nor [would you] then be helped” i.e., the punishment would not be warded off from you if it touched you. This verse is a warning against inclining towards any wrongdoer or joining him in his wrongdoing or approving of the wrong that he is doing. 

 

If this warning has to do with inclining towards wrongdoing, then what about the wrongdoers themselves? We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound from wrongdoing. End quote. Tafseer al-Sa’di (290). 

 

Moreover, tourism is based on moving between archaeological places which attract tourists, such as the dwellings of Thamood and Pharaonic temples and tombs, but these are places of punishment and curses and it is not permissible to enter them or visit them. 

 

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) passed by al-Hijr, he said: “Do not enter the dwellings of those who wronged themselves unless you are weeping, lest there befall you what befell them.” Then he covered his face with his upper garment (rida’) while he was on the camel saddle. Agreed upon. 

 

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

 

This shows that we are encouraged to be alert when passing by the dwellings of the wrongdoers and places where punishment came down. A similar example is hastening when passing through Wadi Muhassir, because the companions of the elephant were destroyed there. The person who passes through such places should be alert, feel a sense of fear, weep, and learn a lesson from them and the places where they met their doom, and he should seek refuge with Allaah from that. End quote. 

 

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah: 

 

At the end of your letter, you say that you are a tourism manager in your city. If this tourism includes facilitating the committing of sin and evil actions, and promoting them, then it is not permissible for a Muslim who believes in Allaah and the Last Day to be a helper in disobedience to Allaah and going against His commands. The one who gives up something for the sake of Allaah, Allaah will compensate him with something better than it. End quote. 

 

Fataawa al-Lajnah (26/224). 

 

The committee was also asked: 

 

What is the ruling on travelling to Arab and Muslim countries for the purpose of tourism? Please note that we do not go to entertainment venues.  

 

They replied: It is not permissible to travel to corrupt places for the sake of tourism, because of the danger that that poses to religious commitment and morals, because sharee’ah seeks to block the means that lead to evil. End quote.  

 

Fataawa al-Lajnah (26/331). 

 

Conclusion: 

 

It is not permissible to work in tourism or any other field which facilitates the aims of sinful people, or to approve of their sins and help them to commit them, or to refrain from denouncing them when one is able to. Rather the one who is unable to change an evil or denounce it, must shun its people and not keep company with them or show them the way to do it. 

 

Please see also the answer to question number 82402 and 125799

 

And Allaah knows best.

 

 

Islam Q&A

Dividing Tawheed into categories

Q)  I hear from some knowledgable brothers concerning Tawheed and its categories that Shaykh ul Islaam Taqi`ud deen Ibn Taymiyyaah (Rahimahullaah) held 2 catergories of Tawheed (ie; Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyyaah and Tawheed Al Asmaa Was Sifaat) How true are these statements? Did Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem (rahimahullaah) hold 4 catergories? and finally does Shaykh Saleeh Al Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) hold 4 catergories of Tawheed?

 

A)   Praise be to Allaah.  

 

Firstly: 

 

We must understand the principle which says that there is nothing wrong with using new terminology. This principle is well-known among the fuqaha’ and scholars of usool. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

 

There is nothing wrong with new concepts and new words, unless there is something bad about them. 

 

Madaarij al-Saalikeen, 3/306 

 

Secondly: 

 

From early times the scholars have categorized the rulings of sharee’ah. This has only been done to make it easier to understand the texts and rulings of sharee’ah, especially as time goes by and knowledge of Arabic language becomes weaker and the language gets mixed with foreign languages. 

 

The scholars thought it wise to set out principles, issues and categories to make it easier to understand. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it is a good thing because it makes knowledge more accessible to the Muslims. Al-Shaafa’i set out the principles of fiqh and his categorization was well-received and was followed by the scholars of usool who wrote commentaries on what he said and added to it. This was done in all branches of Islamic knowledge such as tajweed (recitation of Qur’aan), Qur’aan and others, including Tawheed. 

 

Thirdly: 

 

With regard to what the questioner mentions, that Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah] divided Tawheed into two categories and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem divided it into four, as did Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, there is nothing wrong with that. We will explain this to you. 

 

Some of the scholars said that Tawheed can be divided into two categories: 

 

Tawheed al-Ma’rifah wa’l-Ithbaat (Oneness of knowledge and affirmation): which includes believing in the existence of Allaah and in His Lordship and His names and attributes. 

 

Tawheed al-Qasd wa’l-Talab (Oneness of object and aim), which includes believing in the divine nature of Allaah. 

 

With regard to those who divided Tawheed into three categories, they explained the previous categorization in more detail and made it easier to understand. So they said that Tawheed is divided into three categories: 

 

Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah (Oneness of divine Lordship): which includes belief in the existence of Allaah. 

 

Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah (Oneness of the Divine nature) or Tawheed al-‘Ibaadah (Oneness of worship) – which mean the same thing. 

 

Tawheed al-Asma’ wa’l-Sifaat (Oneness of the Divine names and attributes) 

 

Then some of the scholars added to this categorization and said that Tawheed may be divided into four categories: 

 

Belief in the existence of Allaah. 

 

Belief in the Lordship of Allaah. 

 

Belief in the Divinity of Allaah. 

 

Belief in the names and attributes of Allaah. 

 

As we see, there is nothing wrong with this categorization as long as it does not point to anything false, and there is nothing wrong with the terminology. This categorization is only to make it easier to understand. The more time passes, the less people understand, and the scholars need to make things easier and simpler.  

 

To sum up, there is nothing wrong with what the questioner mentioned, because dividing Tawheed into two categories includes everything that is explained in detail by the others. Those who divided it into three or four categories explained in detail that which was mentioned in concise fashion by those who divided it into two. 

 

But all are agreed that Tawheed includes all the things that they mentioned.

 

There is nothing wrong with this categorization and this use of terminology, on condition that it does not lead to any problems, such as leaving out some of the concepts that are part of Tawheed, or introducing ideas that have nothing to do with it. 

 

There may come a time when it needs to be explained further, so the scholars will explain it with more categories in order to make it easier to understand. 

 

This is a brief explanation of what is meant by the three categories of Tawheed: 

 

Belief in Divine Lordship (ruboobiyyah): This means believing that Allaah is the only One Who creates, gives life and death, etc. 

 

Belief in the Divine nature (uloohiyyah): This means believing that Allaah is the only One Who to whom the people should devote their words and actions, both inward and outward. So none is to be worshipped but Him, may He be glorified and exalted. 

 

Belief in the names and attributes of Allaah (al-asma’ wa’l-sifaat): which means affirming what Allaah has affirmed for Himself of names and attributes, and denying any attributes that Allaah has said are not His, without denying any of His attributes or likening any of His attributes to the attributes of any of His creation. 

 

Fourthly: 

 

The scholars’ dividing Tawheed into these categories is nothing new, rather it was known in the third and fourth centuries AH, as was mentioned by Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, a member of the Council of Senior Scholars, in his book al-Radd ‘ala al-Mukhaalif.  This categorization was also narrated from Ibn Jareer al-Tabari and other scholars. 

 

Note: what the questioner mentioned, that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah divided Tawheed into two categories – Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah (Oneness of divine Lordship) and Tawheed al-Asmaa’ wa’l-Sifaat (Oneness of the divine names and attributes) – is not correct. Rather he divided it into two categories which were Tawheed al-Ma’rifah wa’l-Ithbaat (Oneness of knowledge and affirmation) and Tawheed al-Qasd wa’l-Talab (Oneness of object and aim), the first of which includes Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah and Tawheed al-Asma’ wa’l-Sifaat. 

 

See Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 15/164; al-Fataawa al-Kubra, 5/250 

 

And Allaah knows best.

 

 

Islam Q&A