Response to Objections regarding Bayaan before Khutbah on Yaum al Jumu’ah

[Darul Uloom T & T]

Below is the article (in Red) which was written by a Shaykh as a refutation against our article: Ruling on the Religious Bayaan/Wa’az Delivered Before the Khutbah on Yaum Al-Jumu’ah.

DECEPTION OR NON-COMPREHENSION?

The practice of giving a Bayaan (talk or lecture) in English on Fridays, not on the minbar, at the time normally allotted for the Khutbah and sometimes takes about half an hour relegating THE KHUTBAH OF JUMU’AH SALAAH TO JUST TWO OR THREE MINUTES IN ARABIC has taken root in some of our masaajid.

It should be noted that:

(1) This practice takes place in the presence of the lmaam.

(2) The Khateeb (the person who gives the Khutbah) for The Jumu’ah Salaah is also present.

(3) Most times the person giving the Bayaan is the Khateeb for Jumu’ah.

(4) The Khutbah of Jumu’ah, which is given purely in Arabic, is not understood by the masses.

(5) Everyone agrees that This Bayaan is not part of The Jumu’ah Salaah and should anyone absent himself or herself from it they would have done no wrong.

The Darul Uloom gave a ruling on this practice saying it is permissible and allowed. This was signed and dispatched by the head of that institute dated 19/05/2005. It was then subsequently published in their newsletter #24. The Darul Uloom quotes a number of ahaadeeth and a Fatwaa (Islamic Ruling) of The Permanent Committee for Religious and Legal Rulings of Saudi Arabia to support their position. However on close examination we discover an attempt to mislead the innocent and un-informed masses.

Firstly, they quote a hadeeth from Al Mustadrak, which says that Aboo Hurairah (Abpwh) will stand besides the mimbar and recite ahadeeth and then The Khaleefah ‘Umar (Abpwh) would deliver the Khutbah.

They insinuate that Umar (Abpwh) was present at Aboo Hurairah’s narration of ahaadeeth.

This was not so. What is found in Al Haakim’s collection of ahaadeeth (Al Mustadrak Vol.1 page306) is that he, Aboo Hurairah (Abpwh) would stand besides the mimbar and narrate ahadeeth and when he heard the movement of the door indicating the emergence of The lmaam he stopped his narrations and sat. The lmaam here is ‘Umar (Abpwh) who is also the Khateeb.

This and the other references that the Darul Uloom quotes, clearly establishes that when the Imaam came there was no preaching or narrating of ahaadeeth

Secondly they, the Darul Uloom quotes out of context the practice of The Prophet (u.w.b.p) going to the women and preaching to them after he delivered the Khutbah of Eid Salaah as evidence. What is contentious is the preaching before the Khutbah in the presence of the lmaam/Khateeb, and not after.

Thirdly, the Darul Uloom again attempts to mislead us by quoting the third part of a Fatwaa, which was given by The Permanent Committee for Religious and Legal Rulings in Saudi Arabia.

Here is how Darul Uloom Quoted The Fatwaa:

“When asked about religious instructions held following The Friday Prayer; the Committee responded by saying: There is no sin in it since there is no prohibition for it in The Sunna”

The Darul Uloom here makes a serious blunder in not presenting the Fatwaa as was given.

Firstly they left out the words {after prayer} at the end of the fatwaa

Secondly the Darul Uloom in its attempt to mislead, also conveniently omits the second part of the Fatwaa of the Committee. This is indeed poor scholarship and not the way the students of knowledge.

Presented for your information is the Second and Third part of the fatwaa of the Permanent

Committee for Religious and Legal Rulings in Saudi Arabia.

“Recitation of Assamadiyyah (saying of Suratul lkhlaas) or anything else from the Qur’aan or remembrance before the start of the Khutbah is not obligatory; in fact. IT IS AN INNOVATION and it has been authentically reported from the Prophet (u.w.bp) that he said: Whoever innovated in this matter (i.e. this religion) of ours will have it rejected; Reported by both AI-Bukhaaree and Muslim.

Thirdly, there is no sin in holding a lesson or lessons in circles of learning on Fridays, as there is no

evidence to forbid ATER PRAYER.” (Fatawa Islamiyah Vol. 2 Page 447)

Dear readers know that this practice of giving a Bayaan before the Khutbah as is presently done, is not found in the practices or preaching of the Prophet (u.w.b.p), nor that of The Four Rightly Guided Caliph (Abpwt). Their preaching, admonishments, advices at the time of Jumu’ah Salaah came from The Mimbar

It is indeed imperative that the Muslims adhere to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah in all of their affairs. Allaah The Almighty warns us in Al-Qur’aan: But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (O Muhammad – uwbp-) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission. Ch.4 V65.

We beseech Allaah to pardon us for our shortcomings and to forgive our wrongdoings; He indeed is The Forgiving, The Merciful. (Aameen)

Look out for our next Article where we address the real reason for the persistence by some to give a Bayaan before the Khutbah of Jumu’ah Salaah In Shaa Allaah.

Shaykh Hassan Hamid – Faculty of Shariah University Of Medina Saudi Arabia

[End of Shaykh Hassan’s Article]

THE DARUL ULOOM’S RESPONSE

Before responding to this article we wish to make it abundantly clear that the Darul Uloom’s article was not written to condemn or attack a person’s behavior or opinion, instead it was written as an answer to a question which was posed to the Darul Uloom. As such the article firstly came out in the form of an Islamic ruling and was then published in the Sabeelur-Rashaad publication.

The author of the article prints in bold letters DECEPTION OR NON-COMPREHENSION?’ giving an indication to the reader that the article written by the Darul Uloom is either to deceive others or it is that they have no understanding of the issues involved. Upon close examination it would be seen that this statement is more fitting to the writer of the said article than anyone else. We ask our readers to follow closely to what is being written.

The Shaykh then writes ‘The Practice of giving a Bayaan (talk or lecture) in English on Fridays, not on the minbar, at the time normally allotted for the Khutbah and sometimes takes about half an hour relegating THE KHUTBAH OF JUMU’AH SALAAH TO JUST TWO OR THREE MINUTES IN ARABIC has taken root in some of our masaajid’.

Based on this statement of the shaykh, we ask:- “What is the time normally allotted for Khutbah? Is it ½ hour, is it 1 hour, or is it 2 hours?”

The Shaykh gives the impression that whatever time has been allotted for the Khutbah – it is taken to give this talk which leaves only two or three minutes for the Arabic Khutbah.

According to the Islamic teachings, the time for Jumu’ah salaah/khutbah is the same as that of Zuhr salaah. If the Zuhr salaah lasts for 2 ½ -3 hours, so will be the time for Jumu’ah salaah/khutbah and since this is the allowable time, it means this entire period can be allotted for Jumu’ah salaah/khutbah. As such, if a person uses ½ hour for a bayaan, it is clear misguidance to say that he has used up the allotted time for the Khutbah OR he has relegated the Khutbah to just two or three minutes.

Regardless of the time taken by the one who is giving an English talk, the Khateeb/Imam has the full authority to give the Arabic Khutba in 10 minutes, 5 minutes, ½ hour or one hour. If he chooses to deliver the Arabic Khutbah in a few minutes, it has nothing to do with whatever time the lecturer took, seeing that the allotted time in the Shariah for Jumu’ah salaah is more that 2 hours on a Friday.

Hence it is totally wrong to say that the half hour taken by a lecturer is actually taking away from the ‘allotted time’ for Khutbah.

Further to this, the Shaykh writes that due to the time taken for the bayaan, the Khutbah of Jumu’ah is relegated, to just two or three minutes in Arabic.

On this point, we repeat, that Arabic Khutbahs given in a short or long time, have nothing to do with the time taken by the lecturer who had delivered a bayaan before the Khutbahs. It is up to the Imam or khateeb to take whatever time he wishes to deliver Arabic Khutbahs. And since there is no minimum or maximum time fixed in the Shariah for delivering Khutbahs, the Imam/Khateeb is at liberty to deliver them in a short or long time, once it conforms to the sacred Shari’ah.

Secondly, we have not seen anyone who has delivered two Arabic Khutbahs in just two or three minutes. This, in our opinion is undue exaggeration in order to swerve the minds of the reader.

The Shaykh continues by saying ‘it should be noted that:

(1) This practice takes place in the presence of the lmaam.

(2) The Khateeb (the person who gives the Khutbah) for The Jumu’ah salaah is also present.

(3) Most times the person giving the Bayaan is the Khateeb for Jumu’ah.

(4) The Khutbah of Jumu’ah, which is given purely in Arabic, is not understood by the masses.

(5) Everyone agrees that This Bayaan is not part of The Jumu’ah Salaah and should anyone absent himself or herself from it they would have done no wrong’.

It seems that the message which is being put across by the Shaykh in these statements are:

(1) This bayaan should not take place in the presence of the Imaam.

(2) This bayaan should not take place when the khateeb is present.

(3) The khateeb for Jumu’ah should not give the bayaan.

(4) The Khutbah of Jumu’ah should be given in a language which is understood by the masses. Since the masses cannot understand Arabic, the Khutbah should not be given purely in Arabic.

(5) A person who absents himself/herself from this bayaan is not doing anything wrong.

If this is the message of the shaykh, then we ask:-

*1. Where is it stated in any Islamic teaching that a bayaan cannot be given in the presence of the Imaam?

*2. Where is it evident in the Shari’ah that such bayaan cannot be given in the presence of the khateeb?

*3. Which law of the Shari’ah prohibits a khateeb from giving the bayaan himself?

*4. ‘The khutbah of Jumu’ah is not understood by the masses’. We ask, Is this a condition for the validity of the Jumu’ah Khutbah/Salaat? If this be the case then during the Hajj season where the majority of pilgrims are non arabs, the khateebs at the both harams (Makkah/Madinah) should be giving their khutbahs in a language which the masses or at least the majority can understand.

*5. Sure, this is not part of the Jumu’ah Salaah and there is no wrongdoing on the part of anyone who is not present for such bayaans. In fact this was explained clearly in our article since many people had the misunderstanding that this was a third Khutbah.

After this the Shaykh states: The Darul Uloom quotes a number of ahaadeeth and a Fatwaa (Islamic Ruling) of The Permanent Committee for Religious and Legal Rulings of Saudi Arabia to support their position.

We find that this statement of the shaykh is vague and can be misguiding to the reader, hence we will explain why the ahadeeth were quoted and why the fatawaa of the permanent committee was also quoted.

In explaining our point we wish to let the reader know that the purpose of our article was to respond to two questions which were brought to our attention by a few Muslim brothers. These questions were:

1. Is the lecture before the formal Khutbahs (on the minbar) on a Friday a third Khutbah? Some are saying it is a third Khutbah.

2. What is the ruling of delivering a lecture or bayaan given before the Khutbahs?

Based on these questions, the article incorporated a few traditions which proved that the two Khutbahs for Jumu’ah salaat are done in a manner specified by the Shariah and since these are not to be found in the lecture or bayaan, it cannot be deemed or called a Khutbah. Those who possess understanding would see that the quoted ahadeeth in this aspect had nothing to do with the permissibility or impermissibility of the bayaan or lecture before the Khutbahs.

In answering the other question certain ‘Athaar’ (traditions) were quoted to show that this act was done in the past and hence cannot be considered as forbidden. In addition, a fatawaa of the permanent committee was given simply to prove that an allowance was given by the committee for religious instructions to be done after the Jumu’ah Khutbah/Salaah. This was given to show that such religious instructions could not be deemed as a third Khutbah and it was permissible because there is no prohibition for it in the Sunnah. As such, if the same is done before Jumu’ah, then there is also no prohibition for this in the Sunnah.

The Shaykh then writes, ‘However on close examination we discover an attempt to mislead the innocent and un-informed masses.’

We think that this statement is an error from the Shaykh. We firmly believe that the Shaykh did not have a close examination of our article or probably he did not or could not understand it. It seems that upon seeing our article he was overcome with so much anger and displeasure that he immediately responded to it without understanding its content. We think that the problem with this Shaykh is that he cannot tolerate any opinion which is opposing to his. (And Allah knows best).

The Shaykh then states: ‘Firstly, they quote a hadeeth from Al Mustadrak, which says that Aboo Hurairah (Abpwh) will stand besides the minbar and recite ahadeeth and then The Khaleefah ‘Umar (Abpwh) would deliver the Khutbah. They insinuate that Umar (Abpwh) was present at Aboo Hurairah’s narration of ahaadeeth. This was not so. What is found in Al Haakim’s collection of ahaadeeth (Al Mustadrak Vol.1 page 306) is that he, Aboo Hurairah (Abpwh) would stand besides the minbar and narrate ahadeeth and when he heard the movement of the door indicating the emergence of the lmaam he stopped his narrations and sat. The lmaam here is ‘Umar (Abpwh) who is also the Khateeb.

The Shaykh uses these statements to try to prove to the reader that we are misrepresenting the truth. We ask: “Which part of the statement of our narration tells anyone that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was present?”

The word ‘then’ simply means ‘after’ and whether or not Umar was there, he (Umar) did deliver the Khutbah after Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated the traditions. Our narration is therefore correct.

If anyone, such as the shaykh wishes to deduce anything from this narration according to their thinking, then he/they are at liberty to do so, however we have not narrated anything that indicates that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was present nor can anyone think that the narration means that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was present.

As such, the shaykh’s statement: ‘They insinuate that Umar (Abpwh) was present at Aboo Hurairah’s narration of ahadeeth’,   is a slander and false allegation against us (of something which we have not said or written).

Besides this, it is clearly established that this preaching (lecturing) of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) prior to the Khutbah on Fridays was officially okayed and sanctioned by the Khalifah Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) himself, since it was tolally impossible that Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) may do this without the consent of the Khalifah. As such, whether Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was present or not, his official consent was given for this practice.

The Shaykh then concludes his first point by saying ‘This and the other references that the Darul Uloom quotes, clearly establishes that when the Imaam came there was no preaching or narrating of of ahadeeth’.

Based on what the shaykh has established and his acceptance of the tradition from Al-Mustadrak it shows that he is allowing the preaching and lecture to take place before the formal Khutbahs, however it should be stopped when the Imaam comes to deliver the Khutbahs. Probably the people of his masjid who are in favour of the said lecture or bayaan can use this strategy in order to avoid confrontation with the Shaykh.

As for us, we have not established such a principle or law from such narrations, nor is there such a principle in any Islamic text, nor has there been any such rulings held by the former and latter Jurists of Islam, as such we think that this is the Shaykh’s personal deduction which is not binding upon anyone to follow.

The Shaykh further writes: ‘Secondly they, the Darul Uloom quotes out of context the practice of The Prophet (u.w.b.p) going to the women and preaching to them after he delivered the Khutbah of Eid Salaah as evidence. What is contentious is the preaching before the Khutbah in the presence of the lmaam/Khateeb, and not after.’

When we read statements such as these, we have no choice except to beg Allah to show mercy to the shaykh and grant him wisdom and understanding. Statements such as these clearly indicate to us that the sheikh did not even read or understand our article.

Even a child who understands our article would see that the above practice of the Rasool (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was not used to prove the permissibility of giving a bayaan or lecture before the Jumu’ah Khutbahs. Instead, this tradition was simply used to prove that a bayaan, lecture, advice or religious instruction given after the two Khutbahs cannot be deemed a Khutbah. As such, when this was not considered to be a third Khutba then why should the lecture or bayaan before the Jumu’ah Khutbahs be called a third Khutbah. This is the context in which the tradition was quoted.

The Shaykh should pay more attention to what he reads before misjudging others. The Shaykh goes further to state his third point by saying, ‘Thirdly, the Darul Uloom again attempts to mislead us by quoting the third part of a Fatwaa, which was given by The Permanent Committee for Religious and Legal Rulings in Saudi Arabia. Here is how Darul Uloom Quoted The Fatwaa:

“When asked about religious instructions held following The Friday Prayer; the Committee responded by saying: There is no sin in it since there is no prohibition for it in The Sunnah.”

The Darul Uloom here makes a serious blunder in not presenting the Fatwaa as was given. Firstly they left out the words {after prayer} at the end of the fatwa. Secondly the Darul Uloom in its attempt to mislead, also conveniently omits the second part of the Fatwaa of the Committee. This is indeed poor scholarship and not the way of the students of knowledge.

Presented for your information is the Second and Third part of the fatwaa of the Permanent Committee for Religious and Legal Rulings in Saudi Arabia.

“Recitation of Assamadiyyah (saying of Suratul lkhlaas) or anything else from the Qur’aan or remembrance before the start of the Khutbah is not obligatory; in fact. IT IS AN INNOVATION and it has been authentically reported from the Prophet (u.w.bp) that he said: Whoever innovated in this matter (i.e. this religion) of ours will have it rejected. Reported by both AI-Bukhaaree and Muslim.

Thirdly, there is no sin in holding a lesson or lessons in circles of learning on Fridays, as there is no evidence to forbid ATER PRAYER.” (Fatawa Islamiyah Vol. 2 Page 447).

In this false allegation, the shaykh tries again to mislead the reader, by saying that the Darul Uloom is trying to mislead others, and quotes three points from which he made deductions. First he says: ‘The Darul Uloom here makes a serious blunder in not presenting the fatwa as was given’.

In our article, we simply presented the message of the Fatawaa which was given by the Permanent Committee. If one looks at our statement in the article, it would be clear that the opinion was not reported with a direct speech nor was a quotation made with quotation marks. The purpose was simply to convey the opinion of the Permanent Committee and not to quote their statement word for word.

We ask, was it essential upon us to present a fatawaa in exactly the same words as it was given in the article? We wrote, ‘when asked about’, this statement goes to show that what is being related is indirect and not direct. What we did was to give the message of the fatawaa and not the fatawaa itself, and this is acceptable by the jurists of Islam when the original message is not distorted. This practice is to be found in many books written by great scholars and occurs also in the field of hadith, where scholars would give the meaning and message of the hadith rather then quoting the hadith itself. We therefore ask the question, ‘what wrong have we done if we did not misrepresent or distort the message of the fatawa’. (We will later explain that the message was the same as indicated in the fatawaa).

The other point quoted by the Shaykh is, ‘firstly they left out the words {after prayer} at the end of the fatawaa ’.

In order for our reader to see the lack of understanding of simple English by the Shaykh we will put both statements together to see if there is any difference between the both.

The Shaykh is reporting that the Fatawaa says, ‘there is no sin in it since there is no prohibition for it in the Sunnah after the prayer.’   He then says that because we used the word  ‘following the Friday prayer’ instead of ‘after the Friday prayer’  we have made a blunder, hence we are misleading the people.

We ask you, our readers, Is there any difference between these two statements:-

1) ‘Religious Instructions done following the Friday prayer’ and

2) ‘Religious Instructions done after the Friday prayer’.

If both have the same meaning then what is the problem with the Shaykh? The Shaykh wants the reader to think that the Darul Uloom is misleading the people and has changed the words of the Fatawaa.

The truth my dear readers, is that the Permanent Committee was asked about a statement made by a person upon which they responded. The statement made by the person, which is mentioned in Fatawaa Islamiya, is: ‘Religious instruction following the Friday prayer is something highly preferred and there is no objection to it’. The Committee was asked to say whether this is correct or not. As such, commenting on this statement the Permanent Committee said, ‘There is no sin in holding a lesson or lessons in circles of learning on Fridays, as there is no evidence to forbid it after the prayer.

We want our readers to know that the Permanent Committee was asked about lessons held ‘following the Friday prayer’. As such, the Darul Uloom noted the exact words that were used in the statement as given in the book Fatawaa Islamiyah.

While reporting this, our article states (indicating to the point of after the prayer), ‘when asked about religious instructions held following the Friday prayer’.

In presenting this to our readers we simply conveyed the message of both the question and answer instead of narrating the full question and its answer. We wrote, ‘when questioned about religious instructions held following the Friday prayer, the permanent committee responded ……’

This, in simple English, means that the permanent secretary was asked about the ruling regarding holding religious instructions after the Friday prayer.

The only thing that was done was to simply use the word ‘following’ and everyone who understands the English language knows very well that the word ‘following’ in this context means ‘after’. Remember, we said in the beginning that we were presenting the message of the question/answer and not narrating the identical words.

As such, the statement made by the Committee is exactly what was conveyed in the Darul Uloom’s article.

The Shaykh who is saying that we left out the words ‘after the prayer’ should know that ‘following the prayer’ and ‘after the prayer’ have the same meaning. He should make an effort to understand what has been written rather than looking for faults which he alone can see.

The Shaykh again shows his lack of understanding by writing the following: ‘Secondly the Darul Uloom in its attempt to mislead, also conveniently omits the second part of the Fatawaa of the committee’.

Having quoted this he says: ‘This is indeed poor scholarship and not the way of the students of knowledge.’

We say this is poor understanding on his part, for one who has studied at an Islamic University. The question is why did we leave out the part which has annoyed him? Was it a mistake or was it intentional? These are questions the Shaykh should have asked, before drawing wrong conclusions from our article in order to make false allegations.

The reason that the second part of the fatawa was not given is that it was not relevant to the issue which was being discussed. The main topic of the article was about the permissibility and impermissibility of the lecture/bayaan before the Jumu’ah Khutbahs, the second part of the fatawa (which the shaykh speaks about) has nothing to do with the topic. This part of the fatawa was given in response to a question asked about a person/persons reciting surah Ikhlaas or anything else from the Qur’an or remembrance (Zikr) before the start of the Khutbah. Many people who have seen this practice being done can immediately understand the question asked. This, I have seen for myself in certain masjids in different parts of the world where a few people would normally gather together prior to the Jumu’ah salaah and recite the Zikr, (remembrance of Allah, by saying the first Kalimah) loudly.

In other places some gather together to recite salaat and salaam collectively before and after Jumu’ah salaah. In our opinion, this was the nature of what was asked of the permanent committee, which they responded to. These actions are undoubtedly Bid’ah and innovations which we also condemn. With this understanding, it is clear that this part of the fatawa has no relevance to the topic of discussion and hence was left out. This also has been the practice of many scholars of the past and present, even in the field of ahadith many of the Muhadditheen would quote only part of a hadith and leave out other parts. Many Jurists have done the same regarding fatawas in their books of Islamic Jurisprudence and this is an acceptable practice among the Scholars of Islam, (they would quote only that which is relevant to the topic of discussion).

Further to this, it seems that the Shaykh himself is guilty of the same thing which he accuses us of. He writes, ‘Presented for your information is the Second and Third part of the fatawa of the Permanent Committee for Religious and Legal Rulings in Saudi Arabia’.

We ask: “Why did the shaykh leave out the first part of the fatawa and why did he not quote the questions which were asked, so that the reader would have a full understanding of the responses?”

For the information of the readers, we will give the entire section which dealt with this issue as given in Fatawa Islamiyah, so that the readers would see for themselves that the Darul Uloom was not misleading anyone when only a part of the fatawa was quoted. The readers would also see that while the Shaykh was accusing us of leaving out a part, he has also done the same.

The Permanent Committee for Religious Research and Legal Rulings read the following letter which was addressed to His Excellency, the General Director and whose text was as follows:

Q. Allah, the Most High says: “But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you (O Muhammad Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) judge in all disputes between them and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions and accept (them) with full submission” (4:65).

Khalid: There must be religious chanting before the Adhan of Zuhr on Fridays.

‘Umar: No, rather, recitation of the Quraan through the loudspeaker is more loved by Allah than that.

Khalid: The recitation of As-Samadiyyah (Surah Al-Ikhlaas) before the start of the Khutbah and religious chanting is obligatory and highly preferred.

‘Umar: That has not been prescribed by Allah, nor by His Messenger (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and it is not obligatory. In fact it is obligatory to be silent until the Imam ascends the pulpit and the Adhan is made.

Khalid: Religious instruction following the Friday prayer is something highly preferred and there is no objection to it.

‘Umar: This has not been reported from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) nor from his companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and they did not do it during their lifetimes.

Khalid: Praying two Rak’ahs before the Friday prayer is obligatory and it is a Sunnah.

‘Umar: The Messenger of Allah  did not pray it neither did his companions, may Allah be pleased with them.

Khalid: The Mu’adhin sending blessings upon the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) after the Adhan is something highly preferred and there is no objection to it.

‘Umar: No, it is not permissible and it was not done by the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) nor was it done by his companions, may Allah be pleased with them.

It is requested that you provide the correct answer in writing, in accordance with the ruling of the Islamic Law. May Allah reward you with the best reward.

A. First of all, Nasheed (Religious chanting) prior to the Adhan for Friday prayer has not been confirmed as lawful; rather, it is an innovation. And Friday should not be singled out for the recitation of the Qur’aan through the loudspeaker, or otherwise – neither before the Adhan, nor after the prayer – and its recitation is not an Islamic feature of Friday; rather, its recitation is prescribed everyday, so making it particular for Fridays is an innovation. The confirmed Sunnah is to confine oneself to the Adhan for it.

Secondly, recitation of As-Samadiyah or anything else from the Qur’an or remembrance before the start of the Khutbah is not obligatory; in fact, it is an innovation, and it has been authentically reported from the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) that he said: “Whoever innovated in this matter (i.e. this religion) of ours will have it rejected.” (Bukhaari and Muslim).

Thirdly, there is no sin in holding a lesson or lessons in circles of learning on Fridays, as there is no evidence to forbid it after prayer.

Fourthly, there is no Sunnah prayer before the Friday prayer, because this has not been authentically reported from the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), neither has it been reported from his companions, may Allah be pleased with them. But it is lawful for the one who comes to the Friday prayer to pray whatever supererogatory prayers are easy for him, until the Khatib ascends the pulpit. And whoever enters after the Khatib has ascended the pulpit, it is only prescribed for him to pray Tahiyyatul-Masjid.

Fifthly, sending prayers on the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) is encouraged in the Islamic law and its reward is great, and it is a Sunnah after the Adhan; but the Mu’adhin should send prayers on him after the Adhan quietly, not aloud. It is an innovation for the Mu’adhin to do so upon completing the Adhan. As for the one who hears the Adhan, it is Sunnah for him to repeat it and to send prayers on the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) after the Mu’adhin completes the Adhan, and he should ask Allah to grant intercession to His Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), saying “O Allah! Lord of this complete supplication, and of the established prayer, grant Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) intercession and the most virtuous place and raise him to the praiseworthy station which You have promised him” (Bukhari).

The Permanent Committee

As can be seen, the last part of the fatawa is relevant to our topic of discussion since in allowing the establishment of circles of learning on Fridays after Jumu’ah salaat the permanent committee said, ‘there is no evidence to forbid it after prayer’. What is established from this statement of the permanent committee is that when there is no evidence to forbid a thing in the Shariah, it would be allowed to do it. Using this same principle we ask the shaykh: ‘where is the evidence to prohibit the bayaan or lecture before Juma?’

Our opinion on this matter remains the same that, ‘since there is absolutely no evidence to prohibit the lecture or bayaan before the formal Khutbahs on the day of Jumu’ah, it would be permissible.

In the aforementioned statements of the shaykh, the reader would note that while narrating the fatawaa of the Permanent Committee, the shaykh made a special highlight of the words ‘IT IS AN INNOVATION’, by putting it in capital letters, underlining it and also typing it bold. In addition he also highlighted in bold letters the words, ‘before the start of the khutba is not obligatory’. We want our readers to know that this is not the way it has been narrated in the book ‘Fatawaa Islamiyah’. This special highlight of these words gives the impression to the reader that this is the way it has been given in the book, when it is not so. As such, this is deception on the part of the Shaykh.

In our opinion (and Allah knows best) the Shaykh wants to convey to the reader that the lecture/bayaan done before the Khutbah is an innovation.

We wish to ask our readers to pay careful attention to the words written by the Permanent Committee before these statements, so that they may understand what exactly is being considered an innovation. The statement reads ‘Recitation of Assamadiyah (saying of Surah Ikhlaas) or anything else from the Qur’an or remembrance before the start of the Khutbah is not obligatory; in fact, it is an innovation’.

If the reader examines the statement carefully, it will become clear to him/her that the above ruling of the Permanent Committee has no connection with the issue of giving a bayaan or lecture before the Khutbahs. If the Shaykh wishes to use this statement to prove to the readers that giving a lecture or bayaan before the Friday Khutbah is an innovation, then it will be sheer ignorance and misguidance on his part.

The Shaykh further writes, ‘Dear readers know that this practice of giving a Bayaan before the Khutbah as is presently done, is not found in the practices or preaching of the Prophet (u.w.b.p), nor that of the Four Rightly Guided Caliph (Abpwt). Their preaching, admonishments, advices at the time of Jumu’ah Salaah came from The Mimbar’.

We say that there are many things which are being presently done and are not in accordance to the practices of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) nor from the rightly guided Caliphs. Is this a principle in the Shariah which tells us to categorize all such actions to be haraam, bid’ah or impermissible? Such principles are certainly not in the Shariah.

Besides this, it is clearly established in Mustadrak Al Hakim that Abdullah bin Basr (Radhiyallahu Anhu) used to preach prior to the Khutbah on Fridays and it is also evident that Tameem Daari (radhiyallahu anhu) used to preach before the Khutbah on Fridays. (Musnad Ahmad, Al Isabah Fi Tazkirah As Sahaba).

The Shaykh concludes the article by stating: It is indeed imperative that the Muslims adhere to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah in all of their affairs. Allah the Almighty warns us in Al-Qur’aan: But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (0 Muhammad – uwbp-) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept them with full submission. Ch.4 v.65.

In the above verse the shaykh calls upon Muslims to adhere to the Quran and Sunnah in all their affairs, this is a very good invitation to which every Muslim must adhere. However the Shaykh should have explained the ‘concept of Sunnah’ so that people may have the proper understanding of the word. It is important that Muslims understand what can be classified under the word ‘Sunnah’ and what cannot (be classified). This understanding is extremely important, especially in today’s world where there have been a lot of condemnation simply due to the misunderstanding of ‘what is Sunnah’ and ‘what is Bid’ah’. We have seen the roaming about of many uneducated and ignorant ones preaching about ‘Sunnah’ and often quoting from Sahih Al-Bukhari and upon being confronted it is seen that they possess absolutely no knowledge of that which they preach or invite towards.

In conclusion, we wish to let the Muslims know that the Darul Uloom has never misguided anyone and its agenda has never been to create factions, disunity and dissension among Muslims.

As readers can see, our article which was circulated amongst the Muslims did not criticize, condemn or attack anyone. We believe that differences of opinion can always be settled in a better way.

However since our brother’s article in condemning the Darul Uloom was widely circulated, then its correction must be done in the same manner. In doing so, we did not use ‘names’ for our dear brother, instead we pointed out to certain mistakes, which we believe, needed to be corrected.

With respect to what we say or write, we know that we are all accountable to Allah and as such we ensure that a proper and thorough research is done on any given topic before an official opinion is given and only that is given which conforms to the true and authentic teachings of Islam coming through the generations of the Sahabahs to the Pious Predecessors (Salafus Saaliheen) and to the rightly guided scholars throughout the ages until our time.

In all matters, Darul Uloom does not give its own personal opinion; instead it adopts that which has been agreed upon by great Jurists and Scholars of the past and present. Hence with respect to the topic of discussion, we clearly state that ‘there is absolutely no prohibition for the talk or bayaan given before the official Khutbas on the day of Jumu’ah. Whoever wishes to prohibit it must provide sound and valid texts for the same.

As for its allowance, besides the explanations we have given in our article, we see that many great Muftis and Scholars throughout the world have all allowed it, since there is no prohibition for it in the Shariah.

In the end, we pray that Allah gives us all the true understanding of the teachings of His beautiful religion and may He give us the wisdom to preach, propagate and teach it to others. We beg Him to accept our humble efforts and to keep us on the straight path. We also beseech Him to protect the Muslims from all forms of mischief and dissension and to keep them on the straight path.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s