Daily Fiqh Thread

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: “What is the ruling regarding taking infant children outside at the time of Maghrib?”

:الجواب ومن الله الصدق والصواب

Answer: “There are a number of Ahaadeeth in which Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم has commanded the people to keep their children indoors at the time of Maghrib.

:عن جابر بن عبد الله رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال

إِذَا كَانَ جُنْحُ اللَّيْلِ أَوْ أَمْسَيْتُمْ فَكُفُّوا صِبْيَانَكُمْ ، فَإِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ يَنْتَشِرُ حِينَئِذٍ ، فَإِذَا ذَهَبَ سَاعَةٌ مِنْ اللَّيْلِ فَخَلُّوهُمْ ، وَأَغْلِقُوا الْأَبْوَابَ وَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ لَا يَفْتَحُ بَابًا مُغْلَقًا ، وَأَوْكُوا قِرَبَكُمْ وَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ اللَّهِ ، وَخَمِّرُوا آنِيَتَكُمْ وَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ اللَّهِ وَلَوْ أَنْ تَعْرُضُوا عَلَيْهَا شَيْئًا ، وَأَطْفِئُوا مَصَابِيحَكُمْ

رواه البخاري ومسلم ، وبوب عليه الإمام النووي رحمة الله عليه بقوله : باب الأمر بتغطية الإناء ، وإيكاء السقاء ، وإغلاق الأبواب ، وذكر اسم الله عليها ، وإطفاء السراج والنار عند النوم ، وكف الصبيان والمواشي بعد المغرب .

Hadhrat Jaabir ibn `Abdillaah رضي الله عنه narrates that Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “When the wings of the night spread - or when enter into the evening - then keep back your children (i.e. keep them indoors), for indeed, the Shayaateen spread out at that time. Then, when a part of the night has passed, let them go (i.e. they can now go back outside if they want). And, close the doors (i.e. when going to sleep at night) and mention the Name of Allaah, for indeed, Shaytaan does not open a closed door. And, tie up your water-skins and mention the Name of Allaah, and cover your containers and mention the Name of Allaah, even if you only put something over them (i.e. the containers), and put out your lamps.” [Narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim, and Imaam an-Nawawi رحمة الله عليه dedicated a chapter to it in his Sharh on Saheeh Muslim, under the heading: “The Chapter on the Command to Cover the Containers, and Tie-up the Water-Skins, and Close the Doors, and Mentioning the Name of Allaah upon it, And Putting Out the Lamps and Fires When Sleeping, and Keeping Back the Children and Animals After Maghrib”.]

عن جابر رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( لَا تُرْسِلُوا فَوَاشِيَكُمْ – أي كل ما ينتشر من ماشية وغيرها - وَصِبْيَانَكُمْ إِذَا غَابَتْ الشَّمْسُ حَتَّى تَذْهَبَ فَحْمَةُ الْعِشَاءِ ، فَإِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ تَنْبَعِثُ إِذَا غَابَتْ الشَّمْسُ حَتَّى تَذْهَبَ فَحْمَةُ الْعِشَاءِ
رواه مسلم

Hadhrat Jaabir ibn `Abdillaah رضي الله عنه narrates that Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Do not send out your children and animals out when the sun has set until the first part of the night has passed, for verily the Shayaateen spread out when the sun sets until the first part of the night has passed.” [Narrated in Saheeh Muslim.]

:قال الحافظ ابن حجر رحمة الله عليه

جنح الليل: هو بضم الجيم وبكسرها ، والمعنى : إقباله بعد غروب الشمس ، يقال : جنح الليل : أقبل
قوله : ( فخلوهم ) قال ابن الجوزي : إنما خيف على الصبيان في تلك الساعة ، لأن النجاسة التي تلوذ بها الشياطين موجودة معهم غالبا ، والذكر الذي يحرز منهم مفقود من الصبيان غالبا ، والشياطين عند انتشارهم يتعلقون بما يمكنهم التعلق به ، فلذلك خيف على الصبيان في ذلك الوقت .
والحكمة في انتشارهم حينئذ أن حركتهم في الليل أمكن منها لهم في النهار ؛ لأن الظلام أجمع للقوى الشيطانية من غيره ، وكذلك كل سواد " انتهى.
(فتح الباري (6/341

Haafiz ibn Hajr al-`Asqalaani رحمة الله عليه writes in Fat’h al-Baari, the Sharh of Saheeh al-Bukhaari:

“The meaning of “the wings of the night” is the arrival of the night after the setting of the sun.

With regards to the words of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم: “leave them (i.e. the children)”, ibn al-Jawzi said the following: “It is only feared for the children at that time, because the Najaasah (impurity) which the Shayaateen are attracted to are generally found to be with them (the children) at that time, and also, the Dhikr which wards off (these Shayaateen) are generally missing from children, and when the Shayaateen spread out, they cling onto whatever they can, so for this reason, there is a fear for the children being out at that time.

The wisdom behind the (Shayaateen) spreading out at that time (i.e. after sunset) is that their movement at night is much easier for them than their movement by day, and the darkness is more conductive to the Shaytaani powers than any other time, and likewise every blackness.” [Fat’h al-Baari, 6/341]

:وقال الإمام النووي رحمة الله عليه

" هذا الحديث فيه جمل من أنواع الخير والأدب الجامعة لمصالح الآخرة والدنيا ، فأمر صلى الله عليه وسلم بهذه الآداب التي هي سبب للسلامة من إيذاء الشيطان ، وجعل الله عز وجل هذه الأسباب أسبابا للسلامة من إيذائه ، فلا يقدر على كشف إناء ، ولا حل سقاء ، ولا فتح باب ، ولا إيذاء صبي وغيره إذا وجدت هذه الأسباب ، وهذا كما جاء في الحديث الصحيح أن العبد إذا سمى عند دخول بيته قال الشيطان : لا مبيت, أي : لا سلطان لنا على المبيت عند هؤلاء
كذا في شرح صحيح مسلم

“This Hadeeth contains a number of types of goodness and etiquettes which combine the benefits of both the Aakhirah as well as this Dunyaa, for Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم has commanded us with these etiquettes which are a means of protection from the harms of Shaytaan, and Allaah `Azza wa Jall has made these means a way of protecting oneself from the harms of (the Shayaateen). This is because he (Shaytaan) is unable to open up a container (that has been closed), nor to untie a water-skin (that has been tied), nor to open a door, nor to harm a child or anyone else when these Asbaab (ways and means) have been adhered to. This is like the Saheeh (vigorously authenticated) Hadeeth which mentions that when a slave (of Allaah Ta`aalaa) mentions (the Name of Allaah) upon entering his house, Shaytaan says: “There is no place to stay.” Meaning, we have no power to spend the night with these people.” [Sharh Saheeh Muslim]

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

- Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam aal-Ebrahim

[30th of Rabee`-ul-Awwal, 1438 - 30th of December, 2016.]
 
:sl:

Is there any bases for keeping windows close at night, or is it just cultural?

It can be hot at nights and closing windows is just too stuffy.
 
:sl:

Is there any bases for keeping windows close at night, or is it just cultural?

It can be hot at nights and closing windows is just too stuffy.

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=281767

The `Ulamaa have explained that the command to close the doors refers to windows as well.

What we must mention firstly is that the Fuqahaa have explained that the command to close doors is one of recommendation and not obligation. It is a recommendation from Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم so that the person can safeguard himself from the evil of Shaytaan. If we read the Sharh of the Hadeeth given by Imaam an-Nawawi رحمة الله عليه, we see that he mentions something very interesting, and that is, Shaytaan is unable to open a door that has been closed (if one took the Name of Allaah Ta`aalaa when doing so), and in like manner, a window that was closed. The most important time to keep the doors and windows all closed is from Maghrib time until the first part of the night has passed, because that time is when the Shayaateen are out in full. Keeping the doors and windows open after that isn't as bad. And then also, we see from the Hadeeth that we have been advised by Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم to close the doors when going to sleep. So there are two important times to keep the doors and windows shut, and that is:


  1. From Maghrib time until the first part of the night has passed.
  2. When going to sleep.

We mentioned earlier that the reason behind this is so that a person can protect himself/herself from the evils and harms of the Shayaateen, and that it is not an obligation. Thus, it is recommended to keep the windows shut at night for this reason (keeping out the Shaayaateen), but if a person keeps some windows open because it is hot, and for circulation, etc. then it is permissible to do so.

والله تعالى أعلم

والسلام
 
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: “If I shot an animal with the intention of eating it, but it died before slaughter, what should I do?”

الجواب ومن الله الصدق والصواب:

Answer: “There is something which you have omitted from your question, and that is what you will be using to hunt this animal. Is it a bow and arrow, a rifle, a shotgun, a crossbow? This affects the ruling. The ruling changes depending on the instrument being used for hunting. Because this has not been mentioned in the question, we will split the answer up into two:

1. Hunting with a bow and arrow / crossbow
2. Hunting with a rifle or shotgun

1. Hunting with a bow and arrow / crossbow

If you are hunting using a bow and arrow or a crossbow, then the Fatwaa is as follows:

If you recited the Tasmiyah at the time of firing, and had the intention of catching up with the animal and slaughtering it before it died, but it died before you got there, then it is permissible to eat. However, if you catch up with the animal before it dies, then you must slaughter it.

عن عدي بن حاتم قال قال لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أرسلت كلبك فاذكر اسم الله فإن أمسك عليك فأدركته حيا فاذبحه وإن أدركته قد قتل ولم يأكل منه فكله وإن وجدت مع كلبك كلبا غيره وقد قتل فلا تأكل فإنك لا تدري أيهما قتله وإن رميت سهمك فاذكر اسم الله فإن غاب عنك يوما فلم تجد فيه إلا أثر سهمك فكل إن شئت وإن وجدته غريقا في الماء فلا تأكل
رواه مسلم

Hadhrat `Adi ibn Haatim رضي الله عنه narrates: Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said to me: When you send out your (hunting) dog, then mention the Name of Allaah. If you catch up to the animal while it is alive, then slaughter it, and if you catch up to it and it had already died, then, if (the dog) had not eaten from it, then eat it. However, if you find another dog along with your dog, and the animal is dead, then do not eat from it, because you do not know which of them had killed the animal. When you shoot your arrow, mention the Name of Allaah. But if it (the animal that has been shot) goes out of your sight for a day, and (when you find it) you do not find in it except the traces of your arrow, then eat if you wish. However, if you find it drowned in water, then do not eat (from it).” [Narrated in Saheeh Muslim.]

When it comes to hunting, there are some Shuroot (conditions) to be followed in order for the animal to be Halaal:

1. Recite the Tasmiyah at the time of firing
2. Shoot with the purpose of wounding, not killing. The purpose is to slow the animal down enough to catch up with it and slaughter it. If you shoot with the purpose of killing, then the animal is Haraam.
3. If you find the animal alive, then in order for it to be Halaal, you must slaughter it. If you find it alive, but you do not slaughter it, and it dies, then it is Haraam.
4. If the animal dies before you slaughter it, then the death must be as a result of the wound, not as a result of the impact of the blow.

To summarise: It is permissible to hunt with a crossbow or bow and arrow. Recite the Tasmiyah at the time of firing. Immediately after shooting the animal, chase after it to slaughter it; it is not permissible to delay. If you delay in looking for it, it becomes Haraam. Once you find it, if it is alive, you must slaughter it. If you find it and it is already dead, then it is nevertheless permissible to eat from it.

Imaam al-Haskafi رحمة الله عليه writes in ad-Durr al-Mukhtaar:

( (وإذا أدرك) المرسل أو الرامي ( الصيد حيا ) بحياة فوق ما في المذبوح ( ذكاه ) وجوبا (وشرط لحله بالرمي التسمية

“If the person who sent out the hunting dog or the one who fired the arrow finds the animal whilst it is still alive, then it is Waajib (obligatory) to slaughter it. The Shart (condition) for an animal being Halaal (in such a scenario) is that the Tasmiyah was recited at the time of firing (the arrow).”

He goes on to say:

و) شرط (أن لا يقعد عن طلبه لو غاب) الصيد (متحملا بسهمه) فما دام في طلبه يحل وأن قعد عن طلبه ثم أصابه ميتا
لا لاحتمال موته بسبب آخر

“Another Shart (condition) for the permissibility of the animal is that he (the hunter) does not sit back from looking for it if it leaves his sight (after being shot), carrying his arrow. As long as he continues looking for it and then finds it, it is Halaal. However, if he sits back from looking for it, and then later on finds it dead, then it is not (Halaal), because there is the possibility of it having died from some other reason (besides the wound).”

Imaam ibn `Aabideen ash-Shaami رحمة الله عليه writes in Radd al-Muhtaar, explaining this issue further:

قال الشامي : ... وإذا توارى الكلب والصيد عن المرسل أو رمى إلى صيد فوجده بعد ذلك ميتا وفيه سهمه ليس فيه جرح آخر حل أكله إذا لم يترك الطلب لأنه لا يستطاع الامتناع عن التواري عن البصر فيكون عفوا اهـ
(رد المحتار 6/ 469)

“If the (hunting) dog or the game leaves the sight of the hunter (the one who sent out the hunting dog or the one who fired the arrow), and then he (the hunter) finds (the game) dead after that, and in it is the arrow and there is no wound besides that, it is permissible to eat it provided he had not stopped looking for it from the time that he had shot it. This is because it is not possible to prevent (the game) from leaving his sight (generally), so it is pardoned.” [Radd al-Muhtaar, 6/469]

2. Hunting with a rifle or shotgun

The difference between hunting with a crossbow/bow and arrow and hunting with a rifle or shotgun is that, generally, an arrow will only pierce the animal but will not kill it. However, in the case of powerful firearms such as shotguns, when you shoot the animal, it can die immediately just from the impact, and in such a case the animal is Haraam. As we have mentioned earlier, one of the Shuroot (conditions) for the permissibility of hunting is that you shoot with the purpose of wounding, not killing. Your intention is to slow it down so that you can catch up with it and slaughter it. In the case of shooting with a shotgun, using a slug, for example, you could kill the animal on the spot. Some animals are weaker than others. If you try to hunt birds, for example, and you use a shotgun with the slug as ammunition, you will likely kill them on the spot. If you are hunting deer, on the other hand, then there is a chance that it can die immediately and there is a chance that it can live long enough for you to catch up with it and slaughter it. Taking this into consideration, it is always better to rather hunt with a bow and arrow or a crossbow, to avoid this risk. If you shoot an animal with a gun and it dies instantly, then it is Haraam, because in such a case it is dying from the impact of the shot and not from the wound.

Imaam ibn `Aabideen رحمة الله عليه writes in Radd al-Muhtaar:

قال قاضيخان لا يحل صيد البندقة والحجر والمعراض والعصا وما أشبه ذلك وإن جرح لأنه لا يخرق إلا أن يكون شيء من ذلك قد حدده

“Qaadheekhaan said: It is not permissible to hunt using a Bandaqah (kind of round stone), a stone, a Mi`raadh (arrow without a sharp point in the front), a staff, and the likes of that, even if they injure (the animal). This is because they do not tear, unless there is something from that which has a sharp edge.” [Radd al-Muhtaar, 6/471]

In summary: It is only permissible to hunt with a rifle, shotgun or the like if after shooting the animal, you slaughter it while it is still alive. If the animal dies before you can slaughter it, in the case of having hunted with a rifle, shotgun or the like, then the animal will be said to have died from the impact of the bullet (because bullets are not sharp and do not cut like arrows do, so they fall under the category of stones, the Mi`raadh, etc.) and not from the wound, and thus the animal is Haraam.

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

- Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam aal-Ebrahim

[30th of Rabee`-ul-Awwal, 1438 - 30th of December, 2016.]
 
Last edited:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: “Can zakaat be given to a soup kitcken @ a mosk?”

:الجواب ومن الله الصدق والصواب

Answer: “No. Allaah Ta`aalaa mentions in the Qur’aan whom Zakaah can be given to. In total there are eight categories, and they are:

1. The Fuqaraa (those who are destitute and have nothing at all)
2. The Masaakeen (poor people)
3. The Zakaah Collectors in an Islaamic State appointed by the Khaleefah himself
4. Those whose hearts may incline towards Islaam (through Zakaah)
5. The (freeing of) slaves
6. Those in debt
7. The Mujaahideen
8. The wayfarers (who are cut off from everything)

These are the eight categories of people to whom Zakaah will be given. From the time of Hadhrat `Umar ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه, he said that the fourth category, namely, the “Muallafat-ul-Quloob” (those whose hearts incline towards Islaam), no longer applies because Allaah Ta`aalaa has honoured Islaam and the Muslims and they are not in need of attracting such people through giving them Zakaah. Thus, there are now only seven categories. A soup kitchen is not from one of those seven categories. Hearing this, a person may argue that: “A soup kitchen provides for the Fuqaraa and Masaakeen, so what’s wrong with giving your Zakaah to it?” That is where a very important and - in today’s time - intentionally overlooked aspect of Zakaah comes in:

One of the requirements for the valid discharging of Zakaah is that “Tamleek” takes place. Tamleek is that the recipient takes full control of the money you have given him. If the money does not go fully into his possession and control, it has not been correctly discharged. It is Haraam to usurp the money of the true Zakaah recipients by giving the Zakaah in avenues which the Sharee`ah has not legislated. Sadaqah can be used for that. The Maqsad (objective) of Zakaah is two-fold:

1. Purification of the wealth of the Muzakki (one giving Zakaah)
2. Providing for the poor and needy

It is the right of each person belonging to one of those seven Divinely Legislated categories of Zakaah recipients to receive their Zakaah and that the money goes into their possession and control. No one else has a right over that money. The money is to be given to them and they can do with it as they want. By giving the Zakaah money to a soup kitchen, a person is in reality saying: “I will do with your Zakaah as I want.” You have no right to do that. Allaah Ta`aalaa has decreed that the Zakaah goes to that person. It is up to him/her how they want to use that Zakaah which they have received; it is not up to you. In giving Zakaah for the digging of a well, or borehole, or funding a soup kitchen, or building a Madrassah or Darul Uloom, this Rukn (pillar of Zakaah) which is Tamleek (the recipient taking full possession of the money) does not come into effect. Thus, the Zakaah is not discharged. Each Faqeer and Miskeen must be given his own Zakaah which he or she can then use as they see fit. It is not for the Muzakki (one giving Zakaah) to decide how that Zakaah money should be used. When the Zakaah money is given to a charitable organisation or a soup kitchen, the poor people do not attain “Tamleek” of that money. Give Sadaqah (charity) to the charity organisations and soup kitchens, and give the poor people their Zakaah directly, as it is their Haqq (right) and no one has the right to usurp it.

:قال الله تبارك وتعالى

إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَالْغَارِمِينَ وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

سورة التوبة

قال الإمام المرغيناني رحمة الله عليه: ولا يبنى بها مسجد ولا يكفن بها ميت لانعدام التمليك وهو الركن
(الهداية في شرح بداية المبتدي, كتاب الزكاة, باب من يجوز دفع الصدفة إليه ومن لا يجوز)

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

- Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam aal-Ebrahim

[1[SUP]st[/SUP] of Rabee`-ul-Awwal, 1438 - 1[SUP]st[/SUP] of December, 2016.]
 
Last edited:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: “Is it permissible for the Khateeb to give the Khutbah in a language other than Arabic? Will such a Khutbah be valid?”

:الجواب ومن الله الصدق والصواب

Answer: “It is not permissible and such a Khutbah will be invalid. The Khutbah has to be given in Arabic. The only time a non-Arabic Khutbah will be valid is if there is absolutely no one present who is capable of giving the Khutbah in Arabic. In that circumstance, on account of necessity, a non-Arabic Khutbah will suffice.”

فإن افتتح الصلاة بالفارسية أو قرأ فيها بالفارسية أو ذبح وسمى بالفارسية وهو يحسن العربية أجزأه عند أبي حنيفة رحمه الله تعالى وقالا لا يجزئه إلا في الذبيحة وإن لم يحسن العربية أجزأه "، أما الكلام في الافتتاح فمحمد مع أبي حنيفة رحمه الله تعالى في العربية ومع أبي يوسف في الفارسية لأن لغة العرب لها من المزية ما ليس لغيرها.
وأماالكلام في القراءة فوجه قولهما إن القرآن اسم لمنظوم عربي كما نطق به النص إلا أن عند العجز
يكتفى بالمعنى كالإيماء بخلاف التسمية لأن الذكر يحصل بكل لسان

ولأبي حنيفة رحمه الله تعالى قوله تعالى: {وَإِنَّهُ لَفِي زُبُرِ الْأَوَّلِينَ} [الشعراء:196] ولم يكن فيها بهذه اللغة ولهذا يجوز عند العجز إلا أنه يصير مسيئا لمخالفته السنة المتوارثة ويجوز بأي لسان كان سوى الفارسية هو الصحيح لما تلونا.

والمعنى: لا يختلف باختلاف اللغات والخلاف في الاعتداد ولا خلاف في أنه لا فساد ويروى رجوعه في أصل المسألة إلى قولهما وعليه الاعتماد والخطبة والتشهد على هذا الاختلاف
(الهداية في شرح بداية المبتدي, كتاب الصلاة, باب صفة الصلاة)

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

- Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam aal-Ebrahim

[2nd of Rabee`-ul-Awwal, 1438 - 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] of December, 2016.]
 
Ok, never thought that in such a condition a non-arabic khutbah will be given, but I suppose its rare.

:jz: for clarifying.
 
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: “If a man opens banking accounts in his step kids' names. Deposits some money in it, but says its still his and the accounts is just to keep the money off his name. If he dies, can those kids claim that? Or does that money become part of his estate?

:الجواب ومن الله الصدق والصواب

Answer: “In Sharee`ah, in order for something to become yours, you must take possession of it. This is known as “Qabdh”. If a person wants to give you a gift, they must give it to you, in your hands so to speak. This is how “Tamleek” (taking possession of the gift) takes place. In the scenario you have described, the stepfather clearly stated that the money is his; thus, he did not intend it as a gift, first of all, and secondly, even if he had, the step sons had not taken possession of the money. There is “Eejaab” and “Qabool” even in gifts. The person has to clearly state that he is giving this item to you as a gift. What this means is that you cannot “assume” someone is gifting you. You have to know it with certainty. They themselves will mention that they are giving it to you as a gift, and you will then take it (Qabdh), and thus it now goes into your possession (Tamleek) and is owned by you and no longer owned by the one who had given it. In the scenario you have described, the money belongs to the stepfather and thus will form part of his estate after he dies. The rightful heirs will inherit it. It was not meant as a gift nor was it given as a gift.”

الهبة عقد مشروع لقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: "تهادوا تحابوا" وعلى ذلك انعقد الإجماع "وتصح بالإيجاب والقبول والقبض" أما الإيجاب والقبول فلأنه عقد، والعقد ينعقد بالإيجاب، والقبول، والقبض لا بد منه لثبوت الملك. وقال مالك: يثبت الملك فيه قبل القبض اعتبارا بالبيع، وعلى هذا الخلاف الصدقة. ولنا قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: "لا تجوز الهبة إلا مقبوضة" والمراد نفي الملك
(الهداية في شرح بداية المبتدي, كتاب الهبة)

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

- Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam aal-Ebrahim

[7th of Rabee`-ul-Awwal, 1438 - 7th of December, 2016.]
 
:sl:

Can you please explain the method of gifting a property, how does ownership take place and what is the procedure?

:jz:
 
Touching the Qur'an ayats on the phone screen without wudhu - is that permissible?
 
:sl:

Can you please explain the method of gifting a property, how does ownership take place and what is the procedure?

:jz:
وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

In terms of Sharee`ah, as long as the person - let's say for example it is the father - says to his son, "I have given this house to you," and he intends by that to give the house to the son as a gift, then transfer of ownership (Tamleek) has taken place. There is no specific procedure. As long as you give someone a gift with the intention of gifting them, and it is known that it has been given as a gift, then it has gone into the possession of the one who has been gifted.

الهبة عقد مشروع لقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: "تهادوا تحابوا" وعلى ذلك انعقد الإجماع "وتصح بالإيجاب والقبول والقبض" أما الإيجاب والقبول فلأنه عقد، والعقد ينعقد بالإيجاب، والقبول، والقبض لا بد منه لثبوت الملك. وقال مالك: يثبت الملك فيه قبل القبض اعتبارا بالبيع، وعلى هذا الخلاف الصدقة. ولنا قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: "لا تجوز الهبة إلا مقبوضة" والمراد نفي الملك
وكذا إذا قال جعلت هذه الدار لك عمرى لما قلنا

كذا في الهداية في شرح بداية المبتدي, كتاب الهبة

والله تعالى أعلم
 
Touching the Qur'an ayats on the phone screen without wudhu - is that permissible?

I actually answered a question just like this not too long ago, so I will paste that one here:

---------------------------------
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: “With all these electronic devices, is it permissible to touch the screen, upon which ayaat are visible/displayed , without Wudhu?”

:الجواب ومن الله الصدق والصواب

Answer: “No. It is not permissible to touch the screen without Wudhoo. This will fall under the same ruling as touching the Mus-haf itself without Wudhoo.”

(وَ) يَحْرُمُ (بِهِ) أَيْ بِالْأَكْبَرِ (وَبِالْأَصْغَرِ) مَسُّ مُصْحَفٍ: أَيْ مَا فِيهِ آيَةٌ كَدِرْهَمٍ وَجِدَارٍ، وَهَلْ مَسُّ نَحْوِ التَّوْرَاةِ كَذَلِكَ؟ ظَاهِرُ كَلَامِهِمْ لَا (إلَّا بِغِلَافٍ مُتَجَافٍ) غَيْرِ مُشَرَّزٍ (رد المحتار على الدر المختار)

"و" كذا الوضوء فرض "لمس المصحف ولو آية" مكتوبة على درهم أو حائط لقوله تعالى: {لا يَمَسُّهُ إِلَّا الْمُطَهَّرُونَ} وسواء الكتابة والبياض وقال بعض مشايخنا إنما يكره للمحدث مس الموضع المكتوب دون الحواشي لأنه لم يمس القرآن حقيقة والصحيح أن مسها كمس المكتوب ولو بالفارسية يحرم مسه اتفاقا على الصحيح (حاشية الطحطاوي على مراقي الفلاح, ص 82)

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

- Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam aal-Ebrahim

[7th of Rabee`-ul-Awwal, 1438 - 7th of December, 2016.]
 
:jz: for the excellent answers and detailed explanations, brother sheikh Huzaifah ibn Adam. Some people are even spreading that the Qur'an shareef on phone screen is not mushaf - and they even use the word mushaf, but now you've cleared it up for us.


On the topic of name changes - because many people are unsure about this, and it is: Can a person change his or her original surname, the name that belongs to their father? Is it allowed? There is some confusion about this.
 
:jz: for the excellent answers and detailed explanations, brother sheikh Huzaifah ibn Adam. Some people are even spreading that the Qur'an shareef on phone screen is not mushaf - and they even use the word mushaf, but now you've cleared it up for us.


On the topic of name changes - because many people are unsure about this, and it is: Can a person change his or her original surname, the name that belongs to their father? Is it allowed? There is some confusion about this.

The first thing to understand, respected sister, is that surnames are an invention of the West. They don't exist as part of Islaam. In Islaam, a person's name is connected to the name of his or her father, and that doesn't change. For example, Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم is "Muhammad ibn `Abdillaah". The name of his father was `Abdullaah. Hadhrat Faatimah رضي الله عنها, her name is "Faatimah bint Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ورضي الله عنها". "Son of so-and-so," "Daughter of so-and-so." That is the Islaamic way. The Sunnah way. The surname system is, from the very onset, a Western invention. In these days it is taken to a sign that a person belongs to a certain family, and there's nothing wrong with this. The original, Islaamic name of a person, though, whether it be a man or a woman, will never change. A woman, if her name is Faatimah bint Ahmad, for example, "Faatimah, the Daughter of Ahmad", then that will always be her name, in this Dunyaa and the Aakhirah, even if her surname is, for example, Essop, so she's "Faatimah Essop", and then she marries an Umarjee so her surname changes to "Faatimah Umarjee", the thing is that her Islaamic name has remained the same: Faatimah bint Ahmad. It is `Urf (customary practice) among the Muslims for a Muslim woman to change her surname to the surname of her husband, to show that she is now part of his family. There is nothing wrong with this at all, and in fact it is good for her to do so, because it shows obedience to her husband and a willing acceptance of him and his family, and it will make his family more accepting of her, and there are other benefits besides this, such as her being more easily identified as his wife, etc.

What the Sharee`ah says is that a person must never lie about his or her Nasab (lineage). He or she must not attribute themselves to a Nasab other than their own. This would only happen if a person changes the name of their father (their Islaamic name), and that woman, for example, calls herself "Faatimah bint Yusuf" instead of "Faatimah bint Ahmad", but this is generally not done. By her changing her surname she is not attributing herself to a Nasab other than her own. Nobody regards it as such. Her Nasab will always be that of her father. The surname is simply a means of identification, and she can be identified like this as being his wife. Therefore, it is completely permissible, and advisable.

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

والسلام
 
اتفق أهل العلم على أنَّ مَن أنكر حجية السنة بشكل عام ،أو كذَّبَ حديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم- وهو يعلم أنه من كلامه صلى الله عليه وسلم – فهو كافر

"The `Ulamaa are unanimous that whosoever rejects the Sunnah as being a Hujjah (evidence) in Islaam, or he rejects a Hadeeth of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم - despite knowing it to be from the speech of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم - then he is a Kaafir."

Therefore, it is the unanimous verdict of Islaam that all Munkireen Hadeeth (Hadeeth Rejectors) are Kaafirs. There is also a trend among modernists to reject Saheeh Ahaadeeth if these Ahaadeeth go against their modernist ideas and fancies, or if these Ahaadeeth are displeasing to their American masters. Such people are Kaafirs. They must accept Islaam, for they have left it through their Kufr.


والله تعالى أعلم

والسلام
 
Last edited:
السلام عليكم

Brother Huzaifah, the surname usually refers to the family or the tribe in which a person is born. For example, a person with surname Aal Ibrahim would be from the progeny of someone named Ibrahim in a distant past. If he changes his surname, wouldn't that mean he's lying about his lineage?
 
السلام عليكم

Brother Huzaifah, the surname usually refers to the family or the tribe in which a person is born. For example, a person with surname Aal Ibrahim would be from the progeny of someone named Ibrahim in a distant past. If he changes his surname, wouldn't that mean he's lying about his lineage?

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

No, he would not be lying, akhi. A more detailed answer regarding this question has been given by Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari and can be found here:

https://jamiat.org.za/wife-changing-her-last-name-after-marriage/

Baarakallaahu feek.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top