Strange Fatwās: Literalism and a Correct Understanding of the Sharīʿah

I was recently informed that a group of scholars claiming to follow the Ḥanafi school of jurisprudence in Islamic law were issuing a strange fatwā [legal verdict]: Muslims should have their teeth extracted rather than having them drilled and fit with dental fillings. Why? They argued that according to the Ḥanafī school the mouth must be rinsed entirely when taking a bath [ghusl]. Since this bath is required after intercourse [and other things] a person must bathe before becoming pure and being able to pray.

The reasoning seems fine so far. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his students argued that the verse in the Qur’an which obligates taking a bath includes washing the mouth and nose.[1] This is a legitimate line of reasoning which has been followed by many scholars. Furthermore, all scholars are agreed that anything which prevents water from reaching the body [such as glue, paint, etc.] renders this purifying bath incomplete. Still, so far so good.

Here is where things go wrong. These ‘scholars’ reasoned that since a tooth filling would prevent water from reaching the parts inside the mouth [i.e. the teeth] it is not allowed to have these fillings and Muslims should either leave the cavity or have the tooth extracted completely. To some people this may sound totally ridiculous. Other people, out of their sincerity and dedication to Islam might answer: if this is what Islam orders us to do then I am willing to do it and I know there must be some wisdom in what Allah has prescribed. Both of these reactions are common and understandable.

But the question is: is this what Allah has really prescribed? A more precise question is: does this view really represent the Ḥanafī school? If it does then many people might think something is wrong with the school itself. But there is another option: there might be something wrong with the one claiming to represent the school. I will argue for the latter in this case.

The view that fillings prevent a purification bath is based on faulty and overly-literal reasoning. Yes, it is true that the filling prevents water from reaching the tooth. However, are there any exceptions to the rule that all parts of the body must be washed? Of course there are, even within the Ḥanafī way of reasoning. For example, if a person has an injury with a bandage over it, that part does not need to be washed.[2] An analogy could have been made that a cavity is a type of injury that is being covered with a filling and thus qualifies to be an exception to the rule.

Furthermore, people generally have cavities nowadays [due to their, usually poor, dietary habits] and using fillings is extremely common throughout the world. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his students made several exceptions to rulings because they were based on general necessity in the society. Anyone who peruses the works by Ḥanafī scholars would know that this is a fact. Here are some examples:

  • Imām Muḥammad [one of Abū Ḥanīfa’s most famous students] held that dung is not impure because the streets [during his time] were filled with it.[3]
  • Al-Karkhī preferred the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfa’s students over the Imām himself in that dry semen may be scratched off of a garment without having to wash it. He took this opinion due to the principle of general necessity.[4]
  • Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and many of his followers allowed pig hair to be used in the manufacture of certain products because other hair did not have the same quality.[5] This was an exception to the rule because he considered the parts of a pig to be impure, in essence.
  • Most of the rulings considering an impurity falling into a well are built on exceptions to the general rule.

Most of the more recognized scholars in the world who represent the Ḥanafī school believe that cavities are exceptions to the rule. This is more representative of a respectable legal school than the ruling of extracting teeth.

There are several lessons to be learnt from looking into this issue. First, if something sounds really strange and contrary to common sense, there might be an error in the explanation [or it could be your incorrect understanding of the explanation]. Second, not everyone who claims to represent Islam, let alone represent a legal school of jurisprudence, actually does so in reality. A shallow, literalist reading of some texts might appear to be in line with what some scholars have written, but a deeper analysis reveals that it might not be the case. Furthermore, we also learn that the vast heritage of Islamic literature must be properly understood in depth and in context if we want to be able to actually benefit from it. This means that we must invest more time and resources into arriving at a proper understanding of Islam and produce more students and scholars who are at a sufficient caliber to give proper and well-reasoned answers to the contemporary issues Muslims face today. Lastly, we must understand and admire the complexity of reasoning involved in formulating Islamic law and must promote depth of reasoning and shun shallow literalism which is plaguing the Muslim community in many parts of the world. May Allah guide us to His true teachings.



[1] His argument is very sophisticated and beyond the scope of this article.

[2] There are other details I am omitting for the sake of brevity.

[3] Al-Lubāb fī Sharḥ al-Kitāb, 1:52.

[4] Al-Ikhtiyār li Taʿlīl al-Mukhtār, 1:32.

[5] Al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī fī al-Fiqh al-Nuʿmānī, 1:476; Al-Lubāb fī Sharḥ al-Kitāb, 1:24.

Share
Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Why Does Allah Allow Bad Things to Happen?

Importance of the Question

Since you live in the 21st century, it is very probable that you have at least come across, if not been influenced by, what is known as “the problem of evil”. You might have heard it at school or work after someone was murdered: “How could God allow this to happen?!” You see it in articles and blog posts after the bombardment of an entire village: “What kind of God would allow these things to happen?!” You will even find it in intellectual circles and philosophy books: “If there really were a perfectly good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, then there would be no evil and suffering in the world.”

This so-called problem is one of the most common arguments that skeptics use to deny the existence of God. They assume that they have found an Achilles heel in the religions that believe in God. The common picture we have in our minds is of the skeptic atheist calmly presenting a logical, intellectual, and scientific argument while the religiously-inclined defendant becomes emotionally charged and tries to beat around the bush. However, the strength of this argument does not, in any way, have to do with logic or rationale but rather is emotionally charged to the core and attempts to hijack any sensitive event it can find.

Nor is it a new question. In fact, we find the angels asking something similar even before man was created:

“When your Lord told the angels, ‘I am putting a deputy on earth,’ they said, ‘How can you put someone there who will cause damage and bloodshed, when we celebrate Your praise and proclaim Your holiness?’ but he said, ‘I know what you know not.’” Qur’ān 2:30

In other words, God was asked, “Why would you allow this human, who will do bad things, to exist? Why not create someone who won’t do anything bad, like us?” The answer was, “I understand the wisdom in what I am doing, and you don’t.”

Exploding the Myth

That, in a nutshell, is the answer to the so-called problem. There is no logical contradiction between God being Infinitely Good, Infinitely Powerful, and allowing bad things to happen. The idea that the evil and suffering in the world present an unanswerable challenge to believers is finally being admitted by more open-minded researchers. Stump and Murray make the following confession in their book, Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions:

“The logical problem of evil has been severely criticized in recent years and is regarded in the contemporary literature on the subject as largely discredited. In brief, the problem with this argument is that it assumes something false. Specifically, it assumes that a good being would prevent every evil it can under any circumstances…Thus, at best, the logical problem of evil shows us that if God exists, the only evil that exists is evil for which there is some good reason.”

The rhetorical questions now change to inquisitive questions. Rather than blurting out, “How could God do that?! What kind of God does these things?!” the question now is “Why is the world this way and what wisdom lies in that?”

Life is a Test

The secret to understanding the issue is so simple that it often eludes us. Life is a test. Man has been given a limited free will to do good or bad. Look at the following statement of the Prophet:

“The life of a believer is truly amazing. Everything that happens to him is good. This is only true for a believer and none else. If something pleasant happens to him, he is thankful and that is good for him. If something bad afflicts him, he is patient and that is also good for him.” (Muslim)

Affliction is part of the test of life. If God were to interfere and prevent every bad thing from happening to each individual, it would be like taking the test away from a student.

Saying that the bad that exists in the world is necessary does not mean that it is justified or praiseworthy. Believers are always commanded to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, which is another test in itself.

Wisdom is Behind the Scenes

Skeptics tend to focus on the negative aspects of things and claim that evil and suffering are ugly facts of life while believers try to see the bigger picture and find an explanation for the existence of such things. It is like someone who observes two people fighting and judges that both of them are in the wrong without thinking that one of them may be defending himself or standing up for justice. Evil is, to an extent, relative. A juicy hamburger may be a good thing for someone who’s hungry, but it’s definitely a bad thing for the cow that was slaughtered.

God said: “Fighting is ordained for you, though you dislike it. You may dislike something although it is good for you, or like something although it is bad for you: God knows and you do not.” Qur’ān 2:216

Being able to see the big picture often affects how we perceive what is good and bad. Someone with little foresight may claim that the injection of a vaccine into a patient, which contains traces of disease, is a bad thing while the injection of heroin, which leads to euphoria, is a good thing. Not being able to understand that the vaccine will help develop immunity to that disease or that taking heroin will develop into a drug addiction is due to a lack of medical knowledge and experience.

The following principle is demonstrated in the Qur’ān with the meeting between Moses and a man who was given direct knowledge from God about the unseen. Moses wanted to follow him and learn from him, but the man warned him, “You will not be able to bear with me patiently. How could you be patient in matters beyond your knowledge?” But Moses convinced him to let him tag along. Here is the rest of the story:

“They travelled on. Later, when they got into a boat, and the man made a hole in it, Moses said, ‘How could you make a hole in it? Do you want to drown its passengers? What a strange thing to do!’…Then, when they met a young boy and the man killed him, Moses said, ‘How could you kill an innocent person? He has not killed anyone! What a terrible thing to do!’…Then, when they came to a town and asked the inhabitants for food but were refused hospitality, they saw a wall there that was on the point of falling down and the man repaired it. Moses said, ‘But if you wished you could have taken payment for doing that.’ He said, ‘This is where you and I part company. I will tell you the meaning of the things you could not bear with patiently: the boat belonged to some needy people who made their living from the sea and I damaged it because I knew that coming after them was a king who was seizing every [serviceable] boat by force. The young boy had parents who were people of faith, and so, fearing he would trouble them through wickedness and disbelief, we wished that their Lord should give them another child-purer and more compassionate-in his place. The wall belonged to two young orphans in the town and there was buried treasure beneath it belonging to them. Their father had been a righteous man, so your Lord intended them to reach maturity and then dig up their treasure as a mercy from your Lord. I did not do [these things] of my own accord: these are the explanations for those things you could not bear with patience.’”  Qur’ān 18:71-82

It was the lack of knowledge and foresight that led Moses to object to what the man did. Likewise, we find ourselves, as limited humans, in similar situations. However, we do have enough insight to see some of the wisdoms behind the general occurrences of bad things.

Some Good Reasons Why Evil Exists

1. Suffering and affliction often help return us to the obedience of God.

God said:

“We sent messengers before you [Prophet] to many communities and afflicted their people with suffering and hardships, so that they might learn humility. If only they had learned humility when suffering came from Us! But no, their hearts became hard…” Qur’ān 6:42-43

There is a lesson in the conversion of the famous rock star, Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam. He related the story himself:

“After a year of financial success and high living, I became very ill. I contracted T.B. (tuberculosis) and had to be hospitalized. It was then that I started to think; what is going to happen to me? Am I just a body? Is my goal in life merely to satisfy this body? I realized this calamity was a blessing given to me by God and a chance to open my eyes, to learn ‘Why I am here, why I am in bed.’ I started looking for some of the answers.”

2. It differentiates between the good and bad people.

God said:

“Do people think they will be left alone after saying, ‘We believe’ without being put to the test? We tested those who went before them: God will certainly mark out which ones are truthful and which are lying.” Qur’ān 29:2-3

Upon analysis, we realize that the Prophets, who are the highest in rank in the sight of God, faced the most difficult tests of all people. Clearly, merit must be earned.

3 Affliction is necessary to experience its opposite feelings of joy and achievement.

God said:

“With hardship comes ease. Indeed, with hardship comes ease.” Qur’an 94:5-6

The appreciation of ease and comfort could only exist and be appreciated if the feelings of hardship also existed and were known or experienced. In Chinese Philosophy, the concept of yin and yang is employed to explain this phenomenon. Each part is necessary to understand the unity of the whole. They are in equilibrium: if one disappears, the other must disappear as well, leaving emptiness.

Conclusion

It should be patently clear that the inability to see the wisdom behind something should not be a cause of criticizing that thing. Of course, the final analysis concerning all of this is: God knows best.

Share
Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Guide of the Believer – NEW BOOK

Purchase Here

Kindle Edition

Purification and Prayer in Islam

Authored by Mustafa Umar

This work presents the essential details of purification and prayer which should be known by every serious Muslim. Avoiding hypothetical and unlikely cases, it deals with issues that are likely to arise in the life of the average urban Muslim. Among the main features of this book is that it balances legal issues with healthy doses of spirituality and addresses contemporary issues such as wearing nail polish, holding a digital Qur’an without purifying, using hormones to delay menstruation, praying on an airplane, etc. Guide of the Believer is like a modern instruction manual which can be read independently or studied in detail with an expert in the field.

Purchase Here

More Details

Kindle Edition

 

Share
Posted in News | Leave a comment

Is Breathable Nail Polish Sufficient for Wuḍū’?

UPDATE 8-11-13: Inglot finally releases an experiment with a hygrometer:

UPDATE 07-16-13  For those who are skeptical about using the Inglot polish because of the variance in experiments conducted by various people, I recommend checking out the Tuesday in Love brand of water permeable polish: http://www.tuesdayinlove.com/how-it-works

UPDATE: 04-03-13 I have been contacted by quite a few people from different parts of the world who are claiming that they attempted their own experiments on the nail polish and it isn’t working for them. Here are links to two well-documented experiments performed by others: one and two. Here is a video of another experiment that worked. I am open to feedback and appreciate comments, but please: if you are going to criticize my article, make sure to actually read it first and then specify which part you don’t agree with and why.

UPDATE: 03-25-13: Inglot has conducted tests which may reveal that not only water vapor but even a droplet can permeate a single layer of O2M polish. The results are unofficial and will be finalized soon. In the meantime, here is some information which explains how and why the polish works: download here

UPDATE: 02-25-13: Mr. Inglot, the founder of the company, just passed away on Feb 23. We were scheduled to meet this week and he was going to share his research on some tests being performed on the O2M polish. The tests will now be delayed for a while. You may download his preliminary findings here

UPDATE: 02-07-13: The permeability may be affected by wearing more than one layer [e.g. a base coat, top coat, etc.] so make sure to either test permeability or wait until Inglot releases the tests that they are currently conducting before using multiple layers.

 

One of the most common questions asked by Muslim sisters is whether or not they are allowed to wear nail polish. The frequent query about whether nail polish is ḥalāl [lawful] or ḥarām [prohibited] is worded incorrectly. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wearing nail polish.[1] The real issue is that this substance forms an impermeable barrier over the nails preventing water from getting underneath. So when a sister needs to perform wuḍū’ in order to pray, it cannot be completed without first removing the nail polish.

Many Muslim women have found a solution: wear the nail polish during their period since they don’t need to pray during those days. Yet many sisters will admit that they wish it would be somehow possible to wear nail polish at any time of the month. First, it is highly fashionable nowadays. Second, wearing nail polish usually indicates to another person that a sister is undergoing her period, which can be very embarrassing for others to know.

Now there is a solution. No, I’m not talking about wearing henna. Most scholars advise it as a substitute while failing to realize just how different henna is from nail polish in the world of fashion and beauty. The urge to wear nail polish on a regular basis has even led some sisters to wear a ‘peelable’ variety which can be scraped off without any chemicals. But what if there was a nail polish that allowed the water to seep through?

Good news. Inglot Cosmetics, a company from Poland, has released a new line of polish called O2M that it has labeled “breathable nail enamel”. [2] It borrows a polymer used in some contact lenses which allows oxygen and moisture to penetrate to the nail. [3] One sister wisely decided to call the company and was told that water vapor reaches the nail but not water in its liquid form.[4] The question then arises about whether water vapor reaching the nail suffices for wuḍū’. Let’s look at the issue in detail.

Reasoning Behind the Necessity of Washing

There are several sisters who don’t know that nail polish prevents wuḍū’, and probably just as many who don’t care and will wear it anyways. But for those who do care, this analysis might help clarify things.

Muslim scholars have analyzed the issue of impermeable substances in the following manner. The verse of the Qur’an [al-Mā’idah 5:6] which prescribes the wuḍū’ says “…wash your faces and your arms…” The points which require investigation are: what is meant by ‘arms’ and what is meant by ‘wash’. Mention of the word ‘arms’ [which includes the hands linguistically in Arabic] indicates that every part must be washed and not a single spot should be left dry. Scholars arrived at this conclusion both through linguistic analysis as well as by analyzing reports from the Prophet which emphasize that the body parts must be washed thoroughly. From this they concluded that anything which prevents water from reaching any of these parts must be removed. For example, if someone had dried paint, dough, or wax on their hand while performing wuḍū’, the water would not permeate that substance and the hand would not have been properly washed. The same is true with nail polish which, when dried, forms a solid impermeable layer on the nails. This is why women are instructed to remove their nail polish when performing wuḍū’. Other substances which do not form an impermeable solid layer such as henna, oil, ink, and lotion are allowed due to the ability of water to penetrate through, especially when rubbing over the wet area.[5]

As to the definition of ‘washing’, it means that water flows over the surface of every body part which must be washed during wuḍū’.[6] The bare minimum amount of water that must be used in order to suffice has been a matter of contention among scholars. Some stated that the part being washed must drip off at least one drop of water.[7] Other scholars held that water must have reached every area of that body part, but dripping off is not necessary.[8]

The important thing to realize is that these scholars were trying to precisely define a minimum point at which the body part in question has had water ‘flow’ over it. The first opinion did not imply that drops of water must drip from any particular area but rather from any area of one body part. For example, while washing the arm with the hand elevated above the elbow, it is likely that the water would drop off near the elbow area due to gravitational forces. For our case concerning the fingernails, this opinion [which is the stricter of the two] does not necessitate water having to drip off the fingernails. This makes sense because water usually drips from a small area when it has completely flowed over that region.

Based on this difference of opinion concerning the definition of washing, scholars have differed concerning whether rubbing snow over the body parts suffices for wuḍū’ if no drops fall off.[9] At first glance, it might appear to a student of Islamic Law that this example serves as a good analogy to apply to the issue of breathable nail polish. However, upon further inspection the analogy fails because the case of snow involves no drops falling whereas the case of the fingernails does involve drops falling, even if not from the nail area. Keeping this in mind, if the entire hand was immersed in water and water vapor permeated through to the nails, it would not matter whether or not an actual drop of water in its liquid form reached the nail. The entire hand would still be considered to have been washed since water reached every area.

A Test Case

One of my students[10] decided to perform a test to see whether or not water actually seeped through when using the Inglot O2M nail polish. As a test case, she applied standard pink nail polish and purple O2M on a coffee filter and allowed both to dry. She then placed another coffee filter below the painted one, squeezed two drops of water over the polish, and applied some pressure with her finger.[11] After about ten seconds it was clear that the water was prevented from seeping through [even to the back side of the first filter] on the standard polish but clearly went through the O2M and even wet the second filter. This is sufficient to show that the claims made by the manufacturer are correct and water does indeed permeate through to the nail.

Conclusion

It is imperative that issues such as the legitimacy of wearing breathable nail polish while performing wuḍū’ be properly researched both on the scientific level as well as the fiqhī [Islamic Law] level. It appears to me that there is a sound basis for believing the water seeps through to the nail when wearing O2M breathable nail polish. Perhaps not every brand which claims to be breathable meets this criteria and perhaps the nails need to be soaked in water for a few seconds. Nonetheless, the basis exists for permissibility. As for the questions concerning whether or not nail polish should be used by Muslim women in public, which colors may potentially cross the boundaries of modesty [ḥayā’], and whether these cosmetics are an extravagant use of one’s wealth are all beyond the scope of this article and not directly related to the issue at hand. Sisters must consider all those variables before using any cosmetics, but after they have done so, the research on breathable nail polish points to its permissibility.



[1] This is according to the widely-held opinion by several Muslim scholars that cosmetics containing alcohol are allowed to be worn. Also, cosmetics should not be tested in a cruel manner on animals or contain any pork products such as gelatin. The Inglot brand discussed in this article is free from these deficiencies. See http://veggiebeauty.com/cruelty-free-statement-inglot

[5] It is interesting to note that Ibn ʿĀbidīn [ḥanafī] argues this is not the real reason but substances like henna are allowed due to necessity. See Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Radd al-Muḥtār, 1:154.

[6] Al-Samarqandī, ʿAlā’ al-Dīn, Tuḥfah al-Fuqahā’, 1:8.

[7] Ibn al-Humām, Kamāl, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1:15.

[8] Ibid. This is the opinion of Imām Abū Yūsuf.

[9] Kāsānī, ʿAlā al-Dīn, Badā’iʿ al-Ṣanā’iʿ, 1:3.

[10] Shabana Haxton lives in California and is an RN, MSN, and CNL.

[11] The extra drop on the filter paper seen in the picture was an accidental misfire from the dropper and was not taken into consideration during the experiment.

Share
Posted in Articles | 10 Comments

Do I Have to Perform the Friday Prayer [Jumʿah] if ʿĪd [Eid] is on Friday?

I begin in the name of Allah, the most kind and merciful:

Summarized Answer

Scholars, past and present, have differed over this issue, so it should not be turned into a matter of dispute. It appears to me that Muslims should pray both the ʿĪd and Friday prayer. However, whoever decides to follow the other opinion must pray Ẓuhr and will not incur any sin, since this is a legitimate opinion based on proper reasoning and evidence as well. Mosques must organize the Friday prayer for those people who would like to attend.

Reason for the Difference of Opinion

Pieces of Evidence

A: The verse of the Qur’an stipulates that Friday prayer is an obligation: “You who believe: When the Prayer is called for Friday, hasten toward the remembrance of Allah and leave your business. That is better for you, if only you knew.”[1]

B: There is a report that the third khalīfah, Uthmān ibn ʿAffān, gave permission for some people to skip the prayer: “…then I witnessed the ʿĪd with Uthmān ibn ʿAffān, and that was on Friday. He prayed before the sermon [khutbah], then gave a speech and said: ‘People. This is a day where two ʿĪds have fallen on the same day. So whoever from amongst the people of the outskirts[2] of Madinah wants to wait for the Friday Prayer, they may; and whoever wants to return [home], I have given them permission.”[3]

C: There are reports that the Prophet allowed people to skip the ʿĪd prayer.

  • Zayd ibn Arqam reported that the Prophet performed the ʿĪd prayers early in the day but then offered an exemption for Friday prayer and said, “Whoever wants to may pray it.”[4]
  • “Two ʿĪds were on the same day during the time of Ibn al-Zubayr [a Companion]. He delayed people from coming out until the daylight had spread. When he came out and gave a sermon, he made it long. Then he descended and prayed but the people did not pray the Friday Prayer on that day. This was then mentioned to Ibn ʿAbbās who said: ‘He has acted according to the Sunnah [the way of the Prophet].’”[5]
  • Abū Hurayrah reported that the Prophet said, “Two ʿĪds have synchronized together on this day, so whoever prefers, it may suffice for Friday prayer. We will soon gather.”[6]

D: There is a report that the Prophet himself performed the Friday prayer on ʿĪd day: “The Prophet used to read surah al-Aʿlā and al-Ghāshiyah in the two ʿĪd Prayers and the Friday Prayer. When the day of ʿĪd and Friday would come together on the same day he would still read both of them in both prayers.”[7]

First Opinion

Only people living in isolated areas [who are normally exempted from attending the Friday prayer] coming from out of town to attend the ʿĪd prayer are exempted from the Friday Prayer. This is the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah[8], Mālik[9], and al-Shāfiʿī[10].

Reasoning Behind the First Opinion

  • Verse A cannot be overridden by any report which indicates something different unless it is of the highest authenticity. It must also be reported by several different people because this is not something that would only be heard/observed by one or two people only.
  • There doesn’t seem to be any rational reason why one obligation should be dropped due to another being performed. This is similar to the way people must still pray Ẓuhr after praying ʿĪd.[11]
  • Report B indicates that the leader of the Muslims exempted only a specific group of people [who normally don’t need to pray the Friday prayer because they don’t live in a city] and none of the Companions objected to his decision. This implies they understood that it was in line with the practice of the Prophet.
  • Evidence C may be general in wording but should be understood as being confined to a specific group of people based on the other evidence.
  • Much of evidence C is of doubtful authenticity.
  • Report D indicates that the Prophet himself prayed it and he obviously had other people with him.

Second Opinion

Whoever performed the ʿĪd prayer is exempted from the Friday prayer[12], but must still pray Ẓuhr. This is the opinion of Aḥmad[13]. It is also the opinion of later scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah[14], al-Shawkānī, Ibn Bāz[15], and Sayyid Sābiq.

Reasoning Behind the Second Opinion

  • Evidence C is sufficiently authentic to prove that the Prophet made an exception to the rule in order to make life easier for the Muslims.
  • The sermon for Friday prayer is an addition to the prayer of Ẓuhr. Since one set of sermons was already heard, there is no need for another set later in the day.
  • Friday prayer is a type of ʿĪd and there is no need for two of them in one day. When two acts of worship of the same genre combine together, one of them drops, the way wuḍū’ is not needed when taking a bath [ghusl].[16]

Conclusion

There is clearly a legitimate difference of opinion due to both the clarity and authenticity of the two reports in question.



[1] Qur’an 62:9.

[2] The word used is “al-ʿawālī” which refers to people living about one or two miles from the mosque in Madinah. See al-Laknawī, ʿAbdul Ḥayy, al-Taʿlīq al-Mumajjad.

[3] Bukhārī 7:103 #5572, Muwaṭṭa’ 2:249 #613.

[4] Abū Dāwūd 1:281 #1070, Al-Nasā`ī 3:194 #1591. Scholars differed over the authenticity of this report.

[5] Al-Nasā`ī 3:194 #1592.

[6] Abū Dā`ūd 1:281 #1073. Scholars differed over the authenticity of this report.

[7] Muslim 2:598 #878, Nasā`ī 3:112 #1424.

[8] Al-Shaybānī, Muḥammad, al-Muwatta’.

[9] Ḥāshiyah al-Dassūqī 1:391.

[10] Nawawi, al-Majmūʿ.

[11] Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī 2:265.

[12] With the exception of the imām, unless no one shows up.

[13] Ibn Qudāmah, al-Kāfī fī Fiqh al-Imām Aḥmad 1:338, Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī 2:265.

[14] Majmū’ Fatāwā Ibn Taymiyyah 24:211-213.

[15] Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn Bāz 13:13. His opinion is that it is preferable to pray the Friday prayer.

[16] Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn Taymiyyah 24:211.

Share
Posted in Articles | Leave a comment