Saturday, December 27, 2008
Obama plans major speech in Muslim worldto ‘reboot’ America’s image abroad
President-elect Barack Obama gestured during a news conference in Chicago, Thursday. He plans to deliver a major speech in an Islamic capital, perhaps within the first 100 days of his presidency. (Charles Dharapak/AP)How Obama addresses sensitive issues of democracy and human rights could help set the tone for efforts to distinguish himself from President Bush’s administration.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff Writer / December 11, 2008 edition
Washington
During the campaign, President-elect Obama put the goal of repairing America’s image abroad – and in particular in the Muslim world – at the top of his foreign-policy agenda. Mr. Obama began defining how he intends to do that this week by discussing his plans to deliver a major speech in an Islamic capital, perhaps within the first 100 days of his presidency.
Obama’s plan, still in the formative stages, immediately set off speculation over where the new American president would choose to deliver his message and what he would say.
“He has to develop how he plans to support and encourage democracy and human rights,” says Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in Washington. “It is something Muslims in general care deeply about, but it was used and abused by the [Bush] administration.”
In an interview published Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said such a speech would take advantage of “a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular.”
Obama said he would convey a message of no-tolerance toward terrorism, while emphasizing the values America wants to share with the world.
Obama did not indicate where he might give the speech, but snap speculation by some experts centered on Cairo. Egypt is a US ally, and a traditional center of Muslim culture. At the same time, the country is governed by an authoritarian regime – a point that would make it a bold setting for Obama to make the case for democracy in the Muslim world.
But Mr. Masmoudi recommends either Istanbul, Turkey; or Casablanca, Morocco. Choosing Istanbul would symbolize a desire to bridge the economic, political, and perception gaps between the West and the Muslim world, he says.
Casablanca would demonstrate an interest in going “deeper into the heart of the Muslim world,” while offering the added advantage of being in an Arab country – since, as Masmoudi says, the issue of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would also have to figure into the speech.
As for how Obama might erase the taint of the Bush administration’s aim of spreading democracy in the Muslim world, Masmoudi says, “He has to say the US has no intention of imposing a model, but it does support the people’s aspirations for freedom and democracy.”
Thursday, December 25, 2008
حفلة وداع ... شعر احمد ابراهيم
Good bye kissحفلة وداع
وقف الحشد يحيّي ناسكا ** جاء يسعي لإله صنم
جمع الصحّاف كي يجتهدوا** في صلاة لولي النعم
في وداع لعدوّغاصب ** جاء يسعى في ثياب المحرم
وقف الناسك في منسكه ** بجوار الوغد ذك اللآثم
سيدي بوش تقدّم فأنا ** عبدك الدّاني لبطنِ القدم
إعتلي مليون روح أزهقت ** فهي قربان، فداء المنعمِِ
وامتطي بغداد لم يبقى بها ** غير مأجوروشعب معدمِ
فانتشى بوش وحيا لحظة ** لفها الصمت كليل مظلمِ
واشرآبت هامة مختالة ** وانحنى الجمع- قطيع الغنمِ
فترى الغاصب يرنو شامخا** يتباهى باغتصاب الأمم
وجبان خائن يتحفه ** جَثة الشعب وأقداح الدم
ثار قلب الحر من غفوته ** وهو يرنو لحقير مجرم
أيقذ البركان في أعماقه ** ولظى النّار وسيل الحمم
فجر الطوفان في منتظرٍ ** مزّق الصمت وستر الصمم
أيها المغرور في خيلائه ** إنك الكلب إذا لم تعلمِ
هذه نعلاي خذها ضربة ** سوف تمحو كبرياء الغاشمِ
هكذا الأحرار لن ينبطحوا ** لعدوٍّ أو حقير ظالمِ
عد إلى أهلك لا مرحى بكم ** قاتل الخلق عدو الأممِ
ونعالي سوف يبقى علماً ** فانحني يا وغد دون العلمِ
لم تعش للظلم يوماُ دولة ** فاقرأ التاريخ يا هذا العمي
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Go out of Iraq USA
Resistance
Zaiydi's shoes will be bought as a monument
No shoes allowed in the press conference room
Destroyer size 44
The opinion of the Iraqi people summed up in throwing the pair of shoes on the president
The last thing seen by Bush in his rein of power
Please click on link to see
President Bush Impersonation - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner - 11:24 - Apr 29, 2006
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Please read these attachments
Please read these attachments
LORRAINE ABOUGNAH
THIS TREATY IS BAD FOR MUSLIMS IN IRELAND – VOTE NO!
Having suffered an embarrassing defeat some months back, the Irish government is gearing up for Lisbon II. A recent Irish Times poll has indicated an uncomfortable swing in favour of the treaty, partly because of a misguided perception of a link between the initial rejection and the current downturn in the economy. MPACIE believes that the Lisbon Treaty is bad for Muslims in Ireland for a number of reasons, primarily because of its impact on state neutrality.
Paragraph 27 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.” Paragraph 50 further adds that Irish embassies around the world would be obliged to propagate the official EU line. “The diplomatic missions of Member States ... in third countries and international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach.” These foreign policy provisions have far-reaching implications and possible consequences.
The UK is currently embroiled in two wars it cannot possibly win (in both Afghanistan and Iraq). Its illegal occupation and subjugation of Muslims in those countries has invited retribution to its shores. In what was widely propagated as the last will and testament of alleged 7/7 bomber, Shehzad Tanweer, he is reported to have said: "What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel." Clearly in the mind of Tanweer and others, the UK’s foreign policy invited reprisal.
Indeed on our own shores we have suffered. The occupation of Ireland by British Crown forces led to a protracted war that lasted almost 750 years and saw a vicious campaign of bombings and attacks on mainland Britain - retaliation for a misguided foreign policy.
If the Lisbon treaty is ratified, no member state can have an independent foreign policy that conflicts with the EU majority. This means that if the EU were caught up in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ireland would be obliged to support and assist that action.
Ireland’s neutrality has served it well in recent years, and despite being a close neighbour to Britain, we have not suffered atrocities such as 7/7 or the failed Glasgow bombings. That security could end if this treaty is ratified, placing both Muslim and non-Muslim in harm’s way. Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer has candidly stated “We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies.”
THIS TREATY IS BAD FOR MUSLIMS IN IRELAND – VOTE NO!
--
MPAC
Ireland Branch
Paragraph 27 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.” Paragraph 50 further adds that Irish embassies around the world would be obliged to propagate the official EU line. “The diplomatic missions of Member States ... in third countries and international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach.” These foreign policy provisions have far-reaching implications and possible consequences.
The UK is currently embroiled in two wars it cannot possibly win (in both Afghanistan and Iraq). Its illegal occupation and subjugation of Muslims in those countries has invited retribution to its shores. In what was widely propagated as the last will and testament of alleged 7/7 bomber, Shehzad Tanweer, he is reported to have said: "What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel." Clearly in the mind of Tanweer and others, the UK’s foreign policy invited reprisal.
Indeed on our own shores we have suffered. The occupation of Ireland by British Crown forces led to a protracted war that lasted almost 750 years and saw a vicious campaign of bombings and attacks on mainland Britain - retaliation for a misguided foreign policy.
If the Lisbon treaty is ratified, no member state can have an independent foreign policy that conflicts with the EU majority. This means that if the EU were caught up in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ireland would be obliged to support and assist that action.
Ireland’s neutrality has served it well in recent years, and despite being a close neighbour to Britain, we have not suffered atrocities such as 7/7 or the failed Glasgow bombings. That security could end if this treaty is ratified, placing both Muslim and non-Muslim in harm’s way. Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer has candidly stated “We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies.”
THIS TREATY IS BAD FOR MUSLIMS IN IRELAND – VOTE NO!
--
MPAC
Ireland Branch
it is no friend of Muslims in Palestine, or of Muslims in Ireland – VOTE NO!
The EU-Israel Association Agreement promises greater ties between European countries, including Ireland, and the illegal Zionist state in occupied Palestine. At a time when the world should be condemning this murderous creature for its genocide campaign and unethical, immoral and inhuman treatment of Gazans, your MEP is considering stronger ties with this rogue entity.
This agreement will give the Zionist state preferential access to the markets of the European Union, unprecedented admittance to science and technological industries and unfettered access to the telecoms industry. Given the recent debacle in the US, which exposed the Zionist state’s espionage capabilities, which were firmly embedded in the telecommunications industry, should Europe be considering this?
Lisbon II will in essence ratify this agreement and will, according to paragraph 27 of the treaty offer military assistance if need be. In essence, Lisbon II does the dirty job for the Zionist State; it is no friend of Muslims in Palestine, or of Muslims in Ireland – VOTE NO!
MPAC
Ireland Branch
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
you might consider praying altogether one Eid prayer Said Lawrence Smallman
Salaam alaykum
Might I suggest that at next years Eid, you might consider praying altogether one Eid prayer - this might mean having to get permission to use a public park or similar space, and perhaps even renting a large tent. But it would be a good bit of Dawa' in itself, might even make it into the news, and would bring Muslims together.
RegardsLawrence
Might I suggest that at next years Eid, you might consider praying altogether one Eid prayer - this might mean having to get permission to use a public park or similar space, and perhaps even renting a large tent. But it would be a good bit of Dawa' in itself, might even make it into the news, and would bring Muslims together.
RegardsLawrence
sorry that the email upset you said Mujahid
Firstly, Omar - I am sorry that the email upset you. I understand that it is natural to defend those we know and associate with; however, I am pleased it provoked a response because it is angry people who change the world. Those who are comfortable and satisfied will never be movers and shakers; they will never lift the Ummah out of the quagmire it currently finds itself in. It is not enough to say someone must do something about our pitiful state; it is time to say I MUST do something about it.
Indeed, we are debating about fiqh, but we must not enter into a situation where all positions are considered correct, that is simply untenable. The guiding principle in this of course, is did the Prophet or his companions do it and what was the practice of the blessed three generations [As-Salaf us-Salih (or briefly: the Salaf) refers to the first and best three generations of Muslims. They are the Companions (Sahabah) of the Prophet (S), their immediate followers (Tabiun), and the followers of the Tabi'in. These were highly praised by the Prophet (S): The best of people is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them [Bukhari and Muslim]. The term Salaf also applies to the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah after the first three blessed generations who followed their way in belief and practices.] . This is the reference point for all scholarly discussion; those who depart from it are innovators and dissenters.
There are of course methods used to derive rulings, and it isn't the place of ordinary people to do so, hence our recourse to the scholars. Perhaps the South Circular Imam could tell us which scholars he has consulted in deriving such rulings (banning the Eid prayer outdoors, praying two Eid salah indoors, shaking hands with the opposite sex and banning the niqab), bearing in mind the reference point indicated above. In the absence of a governing rule then men are free to invent or say whatever they wish. You are correct that the Shaytan can quote scripture, and they may even speak the truth - based on the authentic narration : Abu Hurayrah was entrusted with the Zakaat revenue of the month of Ramadan. Someone started stealing from it, having been caught, Abu Hurayrah threatened to take him to the Prophet , the thief then said: "I am needy and have many dependents, and I am in great need". On hearing this, Abu Hurayrah released him and let him go, however, he narrated the incident to and told the Prophet, who told him "indeed he told you a lie and he will come again". Again, the man came again, and again he was caught and told the same lie he told at first, and for the third time, on being caught, he told Abu Hurayrah "I will teach you some words with which Allah will benefit you", Abu Hurayrah asked what are they, and the man replied "whenever you go to bed, recite Ayahtul-Kursi and Allah will appoint for you who will stay with you and no Shaytan will come near you till morning". Upon telling the Prophet of this, he said: "He really spoke the truth, although he is [absolutely] a liar. Do you know whom you were talking to, these three nights, O Abu Hurayrah?" Abu Hurairah said, "No." He (sa) said, "It was a Shaytan." (Bukhari). However, know that your statement about the Shaytan equally applies to the Imam of South Circular Mosque and everyone else who quotes scripture.
As for the statement emanating from Gavin, then know that he has given himself over to the devils of Qadian, his opinions matter little in a dialogue amongst Muslims.
Islamophobia and political engagement are extremely important, but that's only part of the picture. When the very institutions that govern us, the maasajid, are despotic hovels powered by nepotism and whim then our challenge is two-fold. Allah says he will not change a people until they change what is in themselves, it's all well and good criticising the government for contemplating the restriction of rights for Muslim women, but when the Patron and chairman of the Muslim school say the same as the kuffar then I say we have a problem within ourselves that must also be rectified.
Muslims have been in Ireland for almost 50yrs and we have just two primary schools, only three purpose-built maasajid, one allocated cemetery space and absolutely NO public representation. This is a disgusting indictment of the indolence and inward focus of those in responsible positions. We have a population of 45,000 but we may as well be 45 for all the good we do. The Jews number no more than a thousand, they have synagogues in Dublin and Cork. They had a whole street ostensibly called Little Jerusalem. They have their own school and a special fund for sending their people off to the Zionist State for training. They have two public representatives and a host of other Zionist friends in the Dail. We truly are like the scum that washes in from the sea. Our youth look and act no different from the kuffar, in nightclubs you'll find Muslim men and women in an inebriated state rubbing shoulders with their kuffar friends and the Imam of the South Circular Mosque has the impudence to state, for all of Ireland to see, that he encourages Muslims to shake hands with members of the opposite sex, may Allah have mercy on us – what next??
It isn't simply a matter of choosing a different mosque Omar, these places have a duty to uphold truth and must be held accountable when they don't. You say leave these matters to those whose business it is to discuss such things, I say there is no one in Ireland of that calibre hence our need to seek the opinions of the scholars. I have, I wonder if the same has been done at South Circular. Nevertheless, this I do know, it is their duty to inform, they have failed to do so – where is the example from the first three generations? Where is the statement from a scholar who uses his reference point of the first three generations? There is no accountability in our masaajid and that must change. If a woman can stand and castigate the Ameer-ul-Mumineen, then by Allah I will challenge an Imam of any mosque. It is time to reinstitute the Sunnah of accountability, those in responsible positions must be made accountable to their flock, if not, why not!
Indeed, we are debating about fiqh, but we must not enter into a situation where all positions are considered correct, that is simply untenable. The guiding principle in this of course, is did the Prophet or his companions do it and what was the practice of the blessed three generations [As-Salaf us-Salih (or briefly: the Salaf) refers to the first and best three generations of Muslims. They are the Companions (Sahabah) of the Prophet (S), their immediate followers (Tabiun), and the followers of the Tabi'in. These were highly praised by the Prophet (S): The best of people is my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them [Bukhari and Muslim]. The term Salaf also applies to the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah after the first three blessed generations who followed their way in belief and practices.] . This is the reference point for all scholarly discussion; those who depart from it are innovators and dissenters.
There are of course methods used to derive rulings, and it isn't the place of ordinary people to do so, hence our recourse to the scholars. Perhaps the South Circular Imam could tell us which scholars he has consulted in deriving such rulings (banning the Eid prayer outdoors, praying two Eid salah indoors, shaking hands with the opposite sex and banning the niqab), bearing in mind the reference point indicated above. In the absence of a governing rule then men are free to invent or say whatever they wish. You are correct that the Shaytan can quote scripture, and they may even speak the truth - based on the authentic narration : Abu Hurayrah was entrusted with the Zakaat revenue of the month of Ramadan. Someone started stealing from it, having been caught, Abu Hurayrah threatened to take him to the Prophet , the thief then said: "I am needy and have many dependents, and I am in great need". On hearing this, Abu Hurayrah released him and let him go, however, he narrated the incident to and told the Prophet, who told him "indeed he told you a lie and he will come again". Again, the man came again, and again he was caught and told the same lie he told at first, and for the third time, on being caught, he told Abu Hurayrah "I will teach you some words with which Allah will benefit you", Abu Hurayrah asked what are they, and the man replied "whenever you go to bed, recite Ayahtul-Kursi and Allah will appoint for you who will stay with you and no Shaytan will come near you till morning". Upon telling the Prophet of this, he said: "He really spoke the truth, although he is [absolutely] a liar. Do you know whom you were talking to, these three nights, O Abu Hurayrah?" Abu Hurairah said, "No." He (sa) said, "It was a Shaytan." (Bukhari). However, know that your statement about the Shaytan equally applies to the Imam of South Circular Mosque and everyone else who quotes scripture.
As for the statement emanating from Gavin, then know that he has given himself over to the devils of Qadian, his opinions matter little in a dialogue amongst Muslims.
Islamophobia and political engagement are extremely important, but that's only part of the picture. When the very institutions that govern us, the maasajid, are despotic hovels powered by nepotism and whim then our challenge is two-fold. Allah says he will not change a people until they change what is in themselves, it's all well and good criticising the government for contemplating the restriction of rights for Muslim women, but when the Patron and chairman of the Muslim school say the same as the kuffar then I say we have a problem within ourselves that must also be rectified.
Muslims have been in Ireland for almost 50yrs and we have just two primary schools, only three purpose-built maasajid, one allocated cemetery space and absolutely NO public representation. This is a disgusting indictment of the indolence and inward focus of those in responsible positions. We have a population of 45,000 but we may as well be 45 for all the good we do. The Jews number no more than a thousand, they have synagogues in Dublin and Cork. They had a whole street ostensibly called Little Jerusalem. They have their own school and a special fund for sending their people off to the Zionist State for training. They have two public representatives and a host of other Zionist friends in the Dail. We truly are like the scum that washes in from the sea. Our youth look and act no different from the kuffar, in nightclubs you'll find Muslim men and women in an inebriated state rubbing shoulders with their kuffar friends and the Imam of the South Circular Mosque has the impudence to state, for all of Ireland to see, that he encourages Muslims to shake hands with members of the opposite sex, may Allah have mercy on us – what next??
It isn't simply a matter of choosing a different mosque Omar, these places have a duty to uphold truth and must be held accountable when they don't. You say leave these matters to those whose business it is to discuss such things, I say there is no one in Ireland of that calibre hence our need to seek the opinions of the scholars. I have, I wonder if the same has been done at South Circular. Nevertheless, this I do know, it is their duty to inform, they have failed to do so – where is the example from the first three generations? Where is the statement from a scholar who uses his reference point of the first three generations? There is no accountability in our masaajid and that must change. If a woman can stand and castigate the Ameer-ul-Mumineen, then by Allah I will challenge an Imam of any mosque. It is time to reinstitute the Sunnah of accountability, those in responsible positions must be made accountable to their flock, if not, why not!
"Between the two imams, the chicken became haram." Omar Khan Quotes
First of all.
I read this first thing in the morning and it got me really upset. I wrote an e-mail full of insults I don't ever want to send.I want to start off with a funny punjabi saying my father told me. To quote: "Between the two imams, the chicken became haram."We are debating about matters of fiqh and fiqh deals with minitae. With minitae there will be disagreements. Disagreements can lead to arguing, which can lead to fighting and hatred.Fiqh deals with minitae not because this science is obssessed with it. Fiqh is primarily a science of deriving rulings from the Koran and hadith. You have a verse and you have a hadith and these need to be interpreted via a particular method. Or else, even the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose as Gavin mentioned.The 4 madhabs differ in terms of their fiqh. Personally, I find it interesting that these 4 schools can disagree in terms of fundamentals of methodological interpretation and yet we ignorants sit here debating the minitae. It serves us no purpose. It only leads to chaos and anarchy. Attacking each other when, I'm sure, this community has bigger fish to fry. Like issues of Islamophobia and political engagement as you, Mujaahid, have highlighted in pervious e-mails.So let us respect those whose business is to debate and discuss such matters. If we don't like the fiqh opinion of one mosque, then go pray in another mosque. And if there's no mosque, then make your own mosque. Invite your own Imam or train to become one.Finally, I recommend Sheikh Ali Gomaa speech, Between Mercy and Mercy. It is an excellent speech I recommend. I will quote some of it here and leave the link.Also, this is my last e-mail since I don't want my mind to be occupied with these kind of discussions. It's a waste of time and energy.
Wasalaam,
Omar
I read this first thing in the morning and it got me really upset. I wrote an e-mail full of insults I don't ever want to send.I want to start off with a funny punjabi saying my father told me. To quote: "Between the two imams, the chicken became haram."We are debating about matters of fiqh and fiqh deals with minitae. With minitae there will be disagreements. Disagreements can lead to arguing, which can lead to fighting and hatred.Fiqh deals with minitae not because this science is obssessed with it. Fiqh is primarily a science of deriving rulings from the Koran and hadith. You have a verse and you have a hadith and these need to be interpreted via a particular method. Or else, even the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose as Gavin mentioned.The 4 madhabs differ in terms of their fiqh. Personally, I find it interesting that these 4 schools can disagree in terms of fundamentals of methodological interpretation and yet we ignorants sit here debating the minitae. It serves us no purpose. It only leads to chaos and anarchy. Attacking each other when, I'm sure, this community has bigger fish to fry. Like issues of Islamophobia and political engagement as you, Mujaahid, have highlighted in pervious e-mails.So let us respect those whose business is to debate and discuss such matters. If we don't like the fiqh opinion of one mosque, then go pray in another mosque. And if there's no mosque, then make your own mosque. Invite your own Imam or train to become one.Finally, I recommend Sheikh Ali Gomaa speech, Between Mercy and Mercy. It is an excellent speech I recommend. I will quote some of it here and leave the link.Also, this is my last e-mail since I don't want my mind to be occupied with these kind of discussions. It's a waste of time and energy.
Wasalaam,
Omar
innovation that had resulted from leaving off a sunnah
Wa alaikum as salam wa rahmatullah
Dear Ahmad and those who read this,
To begin:The purpose of the email was to highlight an innovation that had resulted from leaving off a sunnah. Everyone is aware that the sunnah of the Prophet was to pray the Eid prayer in the open, to my knowledge and based on the reports of reliable brothers, South Circular did not even consider this and according to one individual actually decided against it, perhaps South Circular can clarify this issue. Their silence is a concern though and it does call in to question the lack of accountability this Mosque feels toward the ummah at large. Please also note that the Imam of this mosque stated that he did not approve of the niqab (in June, when the hijab issue was kicking in) and recently the chairperson of the Muslim school in Dublin publicly stated that the Muslim school 'may not allow niqab', note also that the Imam of the South Circular mosque is also the Patron of the Muslim school and this is the opinion they hold. Not only do the Kuffar discuss the removal of rights, but our own Muslim brothers have the gall to state that they 'may not allow it'. Again in June Metro Eireann broke the news that a Muslim had been stripped of an award because he refused to shake the hands of a woman, when the Imam of South Circular was asked about this he opened his response with the comment: "there is "no one opinion" on how both male and female Muslims should approach the issue of shaking hands with the opposite gender. He said the guiding principle behind the practice is that the prophet Mohammad never touched the hand of a woman to whom he wasn't married. "The idea is that there can be no temptation," he explained. However, he added that the "majority" of Muslims in Ireland would shake hands with individuals of the opposite gender. As to what he encourages, he said "it depends on the situation", citing the risk of causing offence to non-Muslims in some situations." The Imam of South Circular mosque encourages Muslims to shake hands with members of the opposite sex to offset causing offence, what did the Prophet say? The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, when accepting the allegiance (bay'ah) of women: "I do not shake hands with women." And it was narrated that 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: "By Allaah, the hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never touched the hand of any (non-mahram) woman; he used to accept their allegiance in words only." And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allaah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allaah and the Last Day, and remembers Allaah much" [al-Ahzaab 33:21] Muslims in Ireland have a choice, the words of the South Circular Imam or the words of the noble example and Prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdullah - I know who I'd choose! Accountability ya ikhwan, that is what is plainly absent - when individuals, who have been given responsibility in our community can make such statements then we have dishonoured ourselves by not holding them to account. We need to get our house in order and it must be a top down approach!Secondly, the hadith which mentions the individual who arrived late for the congregational prayer has been explained by Shaikh Al Albani:
With reference to the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudree (radi-Allaahu 'anhu), in which he said:
"A man entered the masjid when the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) had already prayed and his Companions were gathered around him (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam). This man wanted to pray, so the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) said: 'Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him?' So a man stood up and prayed with him."
And in the report of Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqee, which is found in his Sunan Al-Kubraa, it is stated that this man was Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (radi-Allaahu 'anhu). However, this report has weakness in its chain. The report that is authentic doesn't name the man in it. So these (scholars) have used this hadeeth as evidence and say:
"The Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) has approved of the second congregation!"
The response to the use of this evidence is that we must consider that the congregation, which the hadeeth talks about, is not the same congregation that is being indicated in the question. This is since the congregation that the hadeeth refers to the congregation of a man who enters the masjid after the first congregation has finished and wants to pray alone. But the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) incited those of his Companions who had prayed with him already to let one of them get up and volunteer and pray a voluntary prayer. So someone did it and that is the way it occurred. So this congregation consists of two people: The one leading the prayer (Imaam) and the one being led (ma'moom). The Imaam is praying his obligatory prayer, while the ma'moom is praying a voluntary prayer. So who is the one who put this congregation together? If it were not for the one praying voluntarily, there would be no congregation. So therefore, this is a supererogatory and voluntary congregation, and not an obligatory congregation. And the differing (mentioned in the question) is only with regard to the second obligatory congregation. So due to this, using the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudree (radi-Allaahu 'anhu) as evidence for this area of dispute is not correct. And what further confirms this is the fact that the hadeeth states:
"Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him?"
In this incident that occurred, there was someone who gave charity and there was someone who received charity. So if we were to ask a person with the least amount of knowledge and understanding:
"Who is the one giving the charity and who is the one receiving the charity in this situation, which the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) has approved of?"
The answer would be:
"The one giving the charity is the person praying the voluntary prayer, who had already prayed the obligatory prayer behind Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam), while the one who is receiving the charity is the person who arrived late."
Now if we were to throw this same question on the congregation that is in dispute right now: for example six or seven people enter the masjid, and find that the Imaam has already prayed. So one of them leads the prayer and the rest follow him in a second congregation. So who is the one giving the charity amongst these people? And who is the one receiving the charity? No one can give the same answer as in the first example. So this congregation (of people) that has entered after the Imaam finished praying, all of them are praying their obligatory prayer. There is no one giving charity, nor is there anyone receiving charity. On the contrary, this obscurity is quite obvious and clear in the first example. The one giving charity is the person who is praying the voluntary prayer, who already prayed behind Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam). His prayer was recorded as twenty-seven levels (of reward). So because of that, he is rich and therefore able to give away in charity to others. And the one who leads the prayer – and if it were not for that person giving charity, he would have prayed alone – he is poor and in need for someone to give him charity. This is since he did not earn what the person who is giving him charity earned (from reward).
So the reason for this person being the one giving the charity and that person being the one receiving the charity is clear. As for the scenario that is in dispute now, then the scenario is not clear, for all of the people (praying) are poor, since they have all missed out on the virtue of the first congregation. So the saying of Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam):
"Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him."
doesn't apply here. Therefore, in a situation like this, it is not valid to use this incident (mentioned in the hadeeth) as evidence. Nor can it be used in reference to this issue, which is the area of our discussion.
We will link this to another evidence they use as proof, which is the Prophet's (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) saying:
"Praying in the congregation is more virtuous than praying alone by twenty-seven degrees."
So they use the generality (in the hadeeth) as evidence, meaning they understand that the word "the" before the word congregation is for a general inclusion (of all congregations). This means that (according to them) every congregational prayer is more virtuous than praying alone. We respond by saying, basing it on the previously mentioned evidences that "the" is not for a general inclusion, but rather it is for a specific designation. This means that the congregational prayer – which the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) prescribed, incited towards, ordered the people to attend, threatened those who abandoned it with burning their houses and which those who abandoned it were described as being hypocrites – is the prayer in congregation that is more virtuous than praying alone. And it is the first congregational prayer.
And Allaah, the Most High, knows best.
Thirdly, the individual who made the reference about devils is the same one who has left Islam to join the Qadiani cult in Galway. As such his comment has little bearing on issues concerning Muslims - that may appear blunt, however know that this individual , and all those in Galway, believes that all Muslims who reject the liar MIrza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi are not Muslim. Please be aware of this and the pernicious evil that this group espouses. For more on this group, please click here and listen to the lecture on the clown of Qadian.
Finally, in writing this I am very aware of the statement of the Prophet when he said: "O you group of people that believe with your tongues but not with your hearts! Do not abuse the Muslims nor seek after their faults. For indeed, he who seeks after their faults, Allaah will seek after his faults. And whoever has Allaah seek after his faults, He will expose them, even if he may have committed them in the privacy of his own home." and I am sure that some will use this and other statements to censure criticism, however in explaining this Imam Zaid-ud-Deen Ibn Rajab Al Hanbalee says: "All of this talk is with respect to the scholars that are followed in the Religion. As for the people of innovation and misguidance and those who imitate the scholars but are not from them, then it is permissible to expose their ignorance and manifest their deficiencies, in order to warn others against following them". (The Difference between Advising and Condemning). Again ya ikhwan this goes back to the lack of accountability, when there is none - individuals do as they please.
And Allah knows best
Mujaahid
Dear Ahmad and those who read this,
To begin:The purpose of the email was to highlight an innovation that had resulted from leaving off a sunnah. Everyone is aware that the sunnah of the Prophet was to pray the Eid prayer in the open, to my knowledge and based on the reports of reliable brothers, South Circular did not even consider this and according to one individual actually decided against it, perhaps South Circular can clarify this issue. Their silence is a concern though and it does call in to question the lack of accountability this Mosque feels toward the ummah at large. Please also note that the Imam of this mosque stated that he did not approve of the niqab (in June, when the hijab issue was kicking in) and recently the chairperson of the Muslim school in Dublin publicly stated that the Muslim school 'may not allow niqab', note also that the Imam of the South Circular mosque is also the Patron of the Muslim school and this is the opinion they hold. Not only do the Kuffar discuss the removal of rights, but our own Muslim brothers have the gall to state that they 'may not allow it'. Again in June Metro Eireann broke the news that a Muslim had been stripped of an award because he refused to shake the hands of a woman, when the Imam of South Circular was asked about this he opened his response with the comment: "there is "no one opinion" on how both male and female Muslims should approach the issue of shaking hands with the opposite gender. He said the guiding principle behind the practice is that the prophet Mohammad never touched the hand of a woman to whom he wasn't married. "The idea is that there can be no temptation," he explained. However, he added that the "majority" of Muslims in Ireland would shake hands with individuals of the opposite gender. As to what he encourages, he said "it depends on the situation", citing the risk of causing offence to non-Muslims in some situations." The Imam of South Circular mosque encourages Muslims to shake hands with members of the opposite sex to offset causing offence, what did the Prophet say? The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, when accepting the allegiance (bay'ah) of women: "I do not shake hands with women." And it was narrated that 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: "By Allaah, the hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never touched the hand of any (non-mahram) woman; he used to accept their allegiance in words only." And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allaah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allaah and the Last Day, and remembers Allaah much" [al-Ahzaab 33:21] Muslims in Ireland have a choice, the words of the South Circular Imam or the words of the noble example and Prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdullah - I know who I'd choose! Accountability ya ikhwan, that is what is plainly absent - when individuals, who have been given responsibility in our community can make such statements then we have dishonoured ourselves by not holding them to account. We need to get our house in order and it must be a top down approach!Secondly, the hadith which mentions the individual who arrived late for the congregational prayer has been explained by Shaikh Al Albani:
With reference to the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudree (radi-Allaahu 'anhu), in which he said:
"A man entered the masjid when the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) had already prayed and his Companions were gathered around him (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam). This man wanted to pray, so the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) said: 'Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him?' So a man stood up and prayed with him."
And in the report of Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqee, which is found in his Sunan Al-Kubraa, it is stated that this man was Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (radi-Allaahu 'anhu). However, this report has weakness in its chain. The report that is authentic doesn't name the man in it. So these (scholars) have used this hadeeth as evidence and say:
"The Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) has approved of the second congregation!"
The response to the use of this evidence is that we must consider that the congregation, which the hadeeth talks about, is not the same congregation that is being indicated in the question. This is since the congregation that the hadeeth refers to the congregation of a man who enters the masjid after the first congregation has finished and wants to pray alone. But the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) incited those of his Companions who had prayed with him already to let one of them get up and volunteer and pray a voluntary prayer. So someone did it and that is the way it occurred. So this congregation consists of two people: The one leading the prayer (Imaam) and the one being led (ma'moom). The Imaam is praying his obligatory prayer, while the ma'moom is praying a voluntary prayer. So who is the one who put this congregation together? If it were not for the one praying voluntarily, there would be no congregation. So therefore, this is a supererogatory and voluntary congregation, and not an obligatory congregation. And the differing (mentioned in the question) is only with regard to the second obligatory congregation. So due to this, using the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudree (radi-Allaahu 'anhu) as evidence for this area of dispute is not correct. And what further confirms this is the fact that the hadeeth states:
"Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him?"
In this incident that occurred, there was someone who gave charity and there was someone who received charity. So if we were to ask a person with the least amount of knowledge and understanding:
"Who is the one giving the charity and who is the one receiving the charity in this situation, which the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) has approved of?"
The answer would be:
"The one giving the charity is the person praying the voluntary prayer, who had already prayed the obligatory prayer behind Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam), while the one who is receiving the charity is the person who arrived late."
Now if we were to throw this same question on the congregation that is in dispute right now: for example six or seven people enter the masjid, and find that the Imaam has already prayed. So one of them leads the prayer and the rest follow him in a second congregation. So who is the one giving the charity amongst these people? And who is the one receiving the charity? No one can give the same answer as in the first example. So this congregation (of people) that has entered after the Imaam finished praying, all of them are praying their obligatory prayer. There is no one giving charity, nor is there anyone receiving charity. On the contrary, this obscurity is quite obvious and clear in the first example. The one giving charity is the person who is praying the voluntary prayer, who already prayed behind Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam). His prayer was recorded as twenty-seven levels (of reward). So because of that, he is rich and therefore able to give away in charity to others. And the one who leads the prayer – and if it were not for that person giving charity, he would have prayed alone – he is poor and in need for someone to give him charity. This is since he did not earn what the person who is giving him charity earned (from reward).
So the reason for this person being the one giving the charity and that person being the one receiving the charity is clear. As for the scenario that is in dispute now, then the scenario is not clear, for all of the people (praying) are poor, since they have all missed out on the virtue of the first congregation. So the saying of Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam):
"Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him."
doesn't apply here. Therefore, in a situation like this, it is not valid to use this incident (mentioned in the hadeeth) as evidence. Nor can it be used in reference to this issue, which is the area of our discussion.
We will link this to another evidence they use as proof, which is the Prophet's (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) saying:
"Praying in the congregation is more virtuous than praying alone by twenty-seven degrees."
So they use the generality (in the hadeeth) as evidence, meaning they understand that the word "the" before the word congregation is for a general inclusion (of all congregations). This means that (according to them) every congregational prayer is more virtuous than praying alone. We respond by saying, basing it on the previously mentioned evidences that "the" is not for a general inclusion, but rather it is for a specific designation. This means that the congregational prayer – which the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) prescribed, incited towards, ordered the people to attend, threatened those who abandoned it with burning their houses and which those who abandoned it were described as being hypocrites – is the prayer in congregation that is more virtuous than praying alone. And it is the first congregational prayer.
And Allaah, the Most High, knows best.
Thirdly, the individual who made the reference about devils is the same one who has left Islam to join the Qadiani cult in Galway. As such his comment has little bearing on issues concerning Muslims - that may appear blunt, however know that this individual , and all those in Galway, believes that all Muslims who reject the liar MIrza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi are not Muslim. Please be aware of this and the pernicious evil that this group espouses. For more on this group, please click here and listen to the lecture on the clown of Qadian.
Finally, in writing this I am very aware of the statement of the Prophet when he said: "O you group of people that believe with your tongues but not with your hearts! Do not abuse the Muslims nor seek after their faults. For indeed, he who seeks after their faults, Allaah will seek after his faults. And whoever has Allaah seek after his faults, He will expose them, even if he may have committed them in the privacy of his own home." and I am sure that some will use this and other statements to censure criticism, however in explaining this Imam Zaid-ud-Deen Ibn Rajab Al Hanbalee says: "All of this talk is with respect to the scholars that are followed in the Religion. As for the people of innovation and misguidance and those who imitate the scholars but are not from them, then it is permissible to expose their ignorance and manifest their deficiencies, in order to warn others against following them". (The Difference between Advising and Condemning). Again ya ikhwan this goes back to the lack of accountability, when there is none - individuals do as they please.
And Allah knows best
Mujaahid
I try to distant myself from these open arguments by Ahmed El-Habbash
Dear Brothers,Assalaam Alaikum.Although I try to distant myself from these open arguments, sometimes I find myself forced to interfere. First, this discussion would have been much better and more beneficial (at least less adverse side effect) if it was on a one to one basis. Perhaps the other side have a point and possibly have their justification. It is is very important that we have a level of trust among our selves unless the opposite has been confirmed, and this should not happen from one side nor should it take a confrontational attitude as a first step.Imam Shahfi'i who has been quoted below, used always to say. "My opinion is right but could be wrong, and their opinion is wrong but could be right". Why don't we think that they are wrong but they could be right? Did you exhaust all ways of discussing the issue with them.
A simple consequence of this email was the response that describes some brothers as devils.
Second, although I am not justifying nor backing (in this response) any body's stand in relation to this issue. However, I don't approve any action that would cause more damage than good.
Did you hear of hadeeth that one man came to the mosque when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the other Sahabah have finished the prayer. The man started to pray alone. However, having noticed that, the Prophet (Pbuh) said to the Sahabah, who would give charity to that man (by joining the prayer with him, i.e., making another Jama'ah), and one of the Companions joined the man. So what happened means that more than one Jama'a took place in the same Masjid in the presence and approval of the Prophet (Pbuh).
I would like to say, however, that I am not quoting the above to prove that it is permissible to have two Eid prayers in the same Masjid, but I wanted to say that people may have their point, they may have other hadeeths, or they may have different interpretation or understanding. Sahabah used to differ based on their understanding of Hadeeths even during the time of the Prophet, and the sunnah of the Prophet (Pbuh) was not to blame any party when the difference was related to the natural difference in understanding (example hadeeth: "You shall not pray Assr except in the land of Bani Quraizah). On the other hand the Prophet (Pbuh) used to condemn Sahabah for taking the literal interpretation of Hadeeth or even the Quran if that was leading to dangerous consequences (example Hadeeth: they killed him, may Allah kill them. This was after some Sahabah poured water (for purification purpose) on the other sahabi who has wounded in the battle. The only way to sort out differences is through direct discussions between the concerned people before opening the issues prematurely to the public debate.
Best Regards
Ahmed El-Habbash
A simple consequence of this email was the response that describes some brothers as devils.
Second, although I am not justifying nor backing (in this response) any body's stand in relation to this issue. However, I don't approve any action that would cause more damage than good.
Did you hear of hadeeth that one man came to the mosque when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the other Sahabah have finished the prayer. The man started to pray alone. However, having noticed that, the Prophet (Pbuh) said to the Sahabah, who would give charity to that man (by joining the prayer with him, i.e., making another Jama'ah), and one of the Companions joined the man. So what happened means that more than one Jama'a took place in the same Masjid in the presence and approval of the Prophet (Pbuh).
I would like to say, however, that I am not quoting the above to prove that it is permissible to have two Eid prayers in the same Masjid, but I wanted to say that people may have their point, they may have other hadeeths, or they may have different interpretation or understanding. Sahabah used to differ based on their understanding of Hadeeths even during the time of the Prophet, and the sunnah of the Prophet (Pbuh) was not to blame any party when the difference was related to the natural difference in understanding (example hadeeth: "You shall not pray Assr except in the land of Bani Quraizah). On the other hand the Prophet (Pbuh) used to condemn Sahabah for taking the literal interpretation of Hadeeth or even the Quran if that was leading to dangerous consequences (example Hadeeth: they killed him, may Allah kill them. This was after some Sahabah poured water (for purification purpose) on the other sahabi who has wounded in the battle. The only way to sort out differences is through direct discussions between the concerned people before opening the issues prematurely to the public debate.
Best Regards
Ahmed El-Habbash
Eid timings for the two main maasajid in the Dublin area, Clonskeagh and South Circular
On Sunday, Dec 7th, the Muslim Community Lobby blog carried the Eid timings for the two main maasajid in the Dublin area, Clonskeagh and South Circular. Amazingly, the announcement for South Circular included two timings, one at 9am and the second at 10:30am. The Sunnah for the Eid salah of course is that it be prayed in an open space (musalla), the seriousness of this issue is highlighted in the following ayah: "And whoever contradicts the Messenger after the guidance has been made clear to him, and follows a way other than the Way of the Believers, We will turn him to what he has chosen and land him in Hell – what an evil destination." [Surah An-Nisaa: 115]. The following ahadith establish the perseverance of the Prophet upon this act:
The First Hadeeth: From Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudree who said: "Allaah's Messenger would go out on the Day of Fitr and Adhaa to the musallaa. The first thing he would begin with would be the prayer. Then he would finish, and stand up facing the people while they were sitting in rows. And so he would admonish them, advise them and order them. So if he wanted an army band to go out, he would dispatch them, and if he wanted to order something, he would order it. Then he would finish. And the people would continue doing this (after him)." Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (2/259-260), Muslim (3/20), An-Nasaa'ee (1/234), Al- Muhaamilee in Kitaab-ul-'Eidayn (vol. 2, no. 86, from my manuscript with my handwriting), Abu Nu'aim in his Mustakhraj (2/10/2), and Al-Bayhaqee in his Sunan (3/280).
The Second Hadeeth: From 'Abdullaah bin 'Umar who said: "He would set out for the musallaa on the Day of 'Eid while carrying a spear ('anazah) in front of him. So when he would reach the musallaa, he would prop it in front of him and pray towards it (i.e. using it as a sutrah). This is since the musallaa would be a vast empty area, which had nothing in it to screen oneself with." Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (1/354), Muslim (2/55), Abu Dawood (1/109), An-Nasaa'ee (1/232), Ibn Maajah (1/392) and Ahmad (no. 6286). The wording here is from Ibn Maajah, which has the most complete (wording), and its chain of narration is authentic. It has also been reported by Al-Muhaamilee (2/no. 26-36), Abul-Qaasim Ash- Shahaamee in Tuhfat-ul-'Eid.
The Third Hadeeth: From Al-Baraa bin 'Aazib who said: "The Prophet went out on the Day of Adhaa to Al-Baqee' [and in another narration: to the musallaa] and prayed two rak'aat. Then he turned and faced us and said: 'Verily, the first of our nusuk on this day of ours is that we begin by praying, then return and perform the sacrifice. So whoever does this, then he has agreed with our Sunnah. And whoever slaughters (his sacrifice) before that (i.e. the prayer), then it is only something he has put forth (in advance) for his family, it is not from the nusuk at all.'" Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (2.372), and the wording is from him. Ahmad (4/282), and Al- Muhaamilee (2/no. 90 and 96) also reported it. The "other narration" mentioned above belongs to them (i.e. Ahmad and Al-Muhaamilee) with a sound chain of narration.
The Fourth Hadeeth: From Ibn 'Abbaas, it was said to him: "Did you witness the 'Eid Prayer with the Prophet?" He replied: "Yes. And if it were not for my place along with the children, I would not have witnessed it. I (was there) to the point when he reached the landmark by the home of Katheer bin as-Salt. So there, he prayed and then gave the sermon. Then he went to the women with Bilaal next to him and admonished them and ordered them to give charity. So I saw the women throwing their hands down and tossing it (i.e. their jewellery) into Bilaal's garment with their hands. Then he and Bilaal would depart to his house." Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (2/373) and the wording is from him, Muslim (2/18-19), Ibn Abee Shaybah (2/3/2), Al-Muhaamilee (no. 38-39), Al-Firyaabee (no. 85 and 93) and Abu Nu'aim in his Mustakhraj (2/8/2-9/1). In his narration, Muslim added the saying of Ibn Juraij: "I said to 'Ataa: 'Is it a duty upon the Imaam nowadays to go to the women after finishing (the khutbah) and admonish them separately?' He said: 'By Allaah, indeed that is a duty binding upon them. What is wrong with them that they don't do that?'
Know O' Muslim that every good comes from following the way of the Prophet, and every innovation is a misguidance and every misguidance is in the Hellfire. From the aforementioned ahadith it has clearly been established that the Prophet prayed the Eid salah in the Musalla, NOT the masjid, what then shall we say of those who have not only forsaken the sunnah but have, as has been reported, prohibited the Eid salah in an open space?
Not content with abandoning the Sunnah, South Circular increases upon their misguidance by announcing TWO Eid salah prayers in the masjid. By abandoning the Sunnah of praying in the Musalla, this masjid found it could not contain all those who wished to pray, so rather than pray in an open space, which would necessarily accommodate everyone – South Circular prayed TWO Eid salah in the masjid! This then falls under the ruling of repeating a congregational prayer in the masjid.
In discussing this, Shaikh Al Albani states: The scholars of Fiqh have differed with regard to the ruling on holding the second congregational prayer. However, before we mention the difference of opinion and clarify which is the most correct of them, we must first identify the type of congregation that they differ on.
The subject of disagreement is with regard to the congregation that is established in a masjid that has a regular employed Imaam and mu'adhin. As for the congregations that are established in any other place, be it in one's home, a masjid built on the road (i.e. musalla) or a store, then there is nothing that prevents one from having repeated congregations in those places.
The scholars who hold the opinion that it is disliked to have numerous congregations in the above type of masjid, the one that has a regular Imaam and a regular mu'adhin, derive their ruling from two evidences. The first is textual and comes from the Divine Legislator, while the other is theoretical and it is a contemplation of the narrations and the wisdom behind the prescription of the prayer in congregation.
As for the textual evidence, then they have investigated and found that the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) went throughout his life leading the people in congregational prayer in his masjid. Nevertheless, whenever any individual from his Companions entered the masjid and found that the congregational prayer had finished, he would pray alone and he would not wait (for others to come). Nor would he turn towards his left or right, as the people do today, looking for one or more people so that one of them can pray with them as an Imaam.
The Salaf never used to do any of this. So when one of them would enter the masjid and find that the people had prayed, he would pray by himself. This is what Imaam Ash-Shaafi'ee concluded in his book Al-Umm, and his discussion on this topic is from the moist comprehensive of talks that I have seen from the discussions of the Imaams on this issue, such that he said:
"If a group of people enter a masjid and find that the Imaam has already prayed, then they should pray individually. But if they pray in a congregation, then their prayer is acceptable and correct, however, I hate that they do this for it was not from the customs of the Salaf."
Then he said:
"As for the masjid that is on the highway, which doesn't have a regular employed Imaam and mu'adhin, then there is no harm in holding numerous congregational prayers in it."
Then he said:
"And we have memorized that a group from the Prophet's Companions missed the congregational prayer, so they prayed individually. Even though they had the ability to congregate and pray together a second time, they did not do this because they hated to hold the (same) congregational prayer in the masjid twice."
This is the saying of Imaam Ash-Shaafi'ee. And what he mentioned that the Companions used to pray individually when they would miss the congregational prayer, has been mentioned as a ta'leeq narration in shortened form. And Al-Haafidh Abu Bakr Ibn Abee Shaibah transferred that to his famous book Al-Musannaf. He reported it with a strong chain of narration on the authority of Al-Hasan Al-Basree that when the Companions would miss prayer in congregation, they would pray individually.
Ibn Al-Qaasim related this understanding in his Mudawwanat-ul-Imaam Maalik on a group of the Salaf, such as Naafi' the servant of Ibn 'Umar, Saalim Ibn 'Abdillaah and others, that when they would miss the prayer, they would pray individually and they would not establish the congregation a second time.
Also, Imaam At-Tabaraanee reported in his Mu'jam Al-Kabeer with a good chain of narration from Ibn Mas'ood that he went out one day with two of his companions from his house to the masjid in order to pray in the congregation. But when they got there, they found the people leaving the masjid for they had finished the prayer. So he returned to his home and led them in prayer. So this returning of Ibn Mas'ood – being who he was due to his accompaniment of the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) and his knowledge and understanding of Islaam – if he knew the prescription of praying numerous congregations in one masjid, he would have entered with his two companions and prayed in congregation with them. This is since he knew the saying of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam):
"The best prayer of a man is the one he performs in his house, except for the obligatory prayer."
So what was it that prevented Ibn Mas'ood (radi-Allaahu 'anhu) from praying this obligatory prayer in the masjid? – his knowledge that if he prayed it in the masjid, he would have to pray it alone. So he held that if he congregated in his home that would be better than if he and those with him prayed individually by themselves in the masjid.
So this is a collection of the quotes that support the point of view of the majority of the scholars that have disliked numerous congregations held in the described masjid in the manner mentioned previously.
Thereafter, people will not miss finding other evidences, while doing some deduction and precise investigation. Thus, the two Imaams, Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim, have reported from the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah (radi-Allaahu 'anhu) that the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) said,
"I felt a strong desire to command a man to lead the people in prayer. Then command some men to fetch firewood, then go to the people who have left off praying in congregation and set their houses on fire. By the One in whose hand the soul of Muhammad is, if one of them knew that he would find two good hunted game in the masjid, he would surely come to witness the two."
In this hadeeth, the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) threatened those who refrained from attending the congregational prayer in the masjid with burning them with fire. I believe that this hadeeth alone informs us of the previously mentioned ruling or it informs us of what Imaam Ash-Shaafi'ee has stated and what Ibn Abee Shaibah has related. And that was that the Companions would not repeat the prayer in congregation in the masjid. This is since, if we were to assume that the second and third congregations were legislated in the masjid, then there came this severe threat from Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) to those who refrained from the congregational prayer, which congregation is it that they are refraining from? And for which congregation that they refrained from attending was this severe threat intended?
If it is said: "For the first congregation", then it must said: These other congregations are not legislated. And if it is said: "This severe threat only applies to the one who refrains from every congregation, however many even if their number is continuous. So then in this case, the argument of Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) against anyone of those people who refrained from any of the congregations would not be established at all. This is since if he were to surprise one of them, after having put someone in charge to lead the prayer, by going to his house and finding him spending leisure time with his wife and children. And so he (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) would reprimand him for this, saying: "Why don't you go pray in congregation?" He would simply reply to him: "I will pray with the second or third congregation." So will the Messenger's (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) argument be established against him? Due to this, the Messenger's strong desire to authorize someone to take his place and for him (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) to surprise those who refrained from attending the congregational prayer and burn their houses down, is the greatest proof that there is no second congregation at all. This is with respect to the textual reports that the scholars have relied on for support.
Dear brothers and sisters, as the noble scholar has established, there is no second congregation and those in South Circular have committed a travesty in abandoning an established Sunnah, Hassaan ibn 'Atiyyah (d.120H)- rahimahullaah - said: "No people introduce an innovation into their religion, except that its like from the Sunnah is ripped away from them." There is no Irish, nor a British or Saudi brand of Islam and those who would distort this noble religion to appease the kuffar have sold the hereafter for this dunya. We humbly call South Circular back to the noble Sunnah of the Prophet, we ask them, as Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood radiallaahu 'anhu said: "Follow and do not innovate, for you have been given that which is sufficient [and every innovation is misguidance]."
Further reading:
Praying Eid in the Musalla is Sunnah
Holding A Second Congregational Prayer In The Masjid
Gorey Muslim Community
Mujahid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)