THE CORRECT ETIQUETTES OF DU’A’

By Jamiatul Ulama of Gauteng

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

اُدۡعُوۡا رَبَّكُمۡ تَضَرُّعًا وَّخُفۡيَةً‌ ؕ اِنَّهٗ لَا يُحِبُّ الۡمُعۡتَدِيۡنَ‌

Supplicate to your Lord humbly and secretly. Surely, He does not like those who cross the limits.

[Maariful Quran 7:55]

Commentary

Mentioned in previous verses were particular manifestations of the perfect power of Allah Ta`ala, and His major blessings. The present verses lead us to consider: When He is the Master of perfect power, the sender of all blessings, and the Lord of all the worlds, it naturally follows that He should be the One to be called upon and prayed to under all circumstances, whether in distress or in need. The attitude of by-passing Him and turning towards some other direction is ignorance and failure.

Along with it, identified in these verses are some rules of etiquette to be followed when making Du’a’ (prayer, supplication). If due consideration is given to these rules, the hope that a prayer will be answered increases.

The Meaning and Etiquette of Du`a’ and Dhikr

The word: دُعَاء (Du’a’), in the Arabic language, means “to call upon someone to remove one’s need”. It is also used “to remember” in the absolute sense. Both meanings can be taken here. The verse says: اُدعُوا رَبَّکُم (Supplicate to your Lord) that is: 1. Call your Rabb for your needs, or 2. Remember your Rabb and worship Him.

In the first case, it would mean: Ask Allah alone for what you need. In the second case, the sense would be: Do your Dhikr and Ibadah for Him alone. Both these explanations have been reported from Tafsir authorities among the early righteous elders.

THE FIRST MEANING OF DUA – IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS ‘HUMBLY AND SECRETLY’

After that, it was said: تَضَرُّ‌عًا وَخُفْيَةً (humbly and secretly). The word: تَضَرُّ‌عً (tadarru`) means realization of inability, humility, and submission in a refined spirit of self-abasement (not found in the English language and its modern, secular, cultural context). And the word: خُفْيَةً (khufyah) means secret, secluded, or private (as opposed to open and public – as used in English too, but with no relevance to the dominant sense of secret in English bearing on the mysterious, the occult, and the whole field of espionage).

We should make Du’a’ from our souls, crying from our innermost essence of being

In the frame of these two words, described there are two important rules of etiquette which govern Du`a’ and Dhikr. First of all, in order that Du’a’ be answered, it is necessary that one appears before Allah Ta`ala as weak, helpless and simply unable to hold on his own, modest and humble, and submits to Him with a total negation of what is supposed to be pride, dignity, honour, ego, or self-view – and then makes Du’a’. Du’a’ is a thing of the soul which requires that its words match the feebleness and humbleness of the maker of Du` a’, that the manner of saying it remains a mirror of modesty, and that this overall humility should ooze forth from the very physical approach to this making of Du’a’.

The oversight of our ritualistic Du’a’s – Du’a’ is not ‘read’, it is ‘asked’

Given this anatomy and profile of Du’a’, the common practice of making Du`a’ these days cannot really be called the making of Du’a’. It would, rather, be the reading of it. What happens most of the time is that we do not know what we are saying and it has become a routine as we notice in common Masajid. Imams would usually say, rather read, some words of Du`a’ in the Arabic language which they have memorized and do this at the end of Salah. Most of the time, in some areas, the Imams themselves do not know the meaning and sense of what they say – and even if they do know it, at least the less-knowing participants of the congregation are virtually unaware of what is being said. They would almost mechanically go on saying ‘Aameen’, ‘Aameen’ after the words read by the Imam without having any clue as to what was being said there. The outcome of all this stage demonstration is the vocalization of some words. Du`a’ has a reality of its own which is just not there. Then, this is an entirely different matter that Allah Ta`ala, in His infinite mercy, may accept these very lifeless words and give them the effect of answered prayers. But, it is necessary that everyone understands that Du`a’ is not ‘read.’ It is ‘asked.’ Therefore, it is crucial that one asks as one should, properly, as due.

Dua must be accompanied by proper approach, manner and physical bearing

Then, there is another aspect of Du’a-‘. If a person does know the meanings of the words of his Du`a’ – and even understands what he is saying – still, if it is not accompanied by proper approach, manner and physical bearing, the Du`a’ stands reduced to a bland claim to which no created servant of Allah is entitled.

A simple analogy

Imagine that the love of your life has left you. The one who is an integral part of your life, who you fully depend on, who you can’t live without, suddenly walks out on you and is infuriated with you and also immensely hurt due to your disrespect, treachery, betrayal, deceit, disobedience and due to your transgression and wrongdoing.

You subsequently seek counsel from a trusted senior as to how to make amends and bring that person back into your life. He gives you sound advice and writes for you a few words of atonement and apology and explains that you henceforth intend to reform your vile and loathsome ways.

You then go to the house of your beloved who eventually succumbs and only opens the window a little to hear what you have to say. You then very overconfidently read out the letter in a very blank, superficial and shallow way which has no real feeling of remorse. The only reply you would get is “Get lost!” Your plea will fall on deaf ears, even though all the words were correct and they had a beautiful meaning.

So, given in the first word was the spirit of Du’a’ which requires that one shows his humility and prays to Allah for what he needs.

3 Widoms for making Du’a’ ‘secretly’ (in a lowered voice)

Then, in the second word, the instruction given by Allah Ta’aala, is that the asking in Du`a’ for what one needs should be done secretly and in a lowered voice which is superior in merit and more likely to be answered. The reason is that making Du`a’ in a raised voice is not free of three possible drawbacks.

Firstly, it is difficult to maintain modesty and humility in doing so.

Secondly, there is the danger of hypocrisy and desire for recognition creeping in through this mode.

Thirdly, the manner in which this Du’a is made only goes to show that the person making it almost does not know that Allah Ta`ala is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. He knows what we show on the outside and also that which we conceal inside. He hears everything said quietly or loudly.

Therefore, when the voice of the Companions reached a loud pitch during Du’a’ made on the occasion of the Battle of Khaybar, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: ‘You are not calling someone deaf or absent that you say it in such a loud voice. Instead, your addressee is someone Hearing, Near, that is, Allah Ta`ala’ (so, to raise your voice is redundant).

Allah Jalla Sha’nuhu has Himself mentioned the Du`a’ of a righteous person in these words:

إِذْ نَادَىٰ رَ‌بَّهُ نِدَاءً خَفِيًّا

When he called his Rabb calling in a lowered voice – [19:3]

This tells us that the state of Du’a’ liked by Allah Ta’ala is that it be asked of Him in a lowered and subdued voice.

Ibaadat done in secret is far superior to that done in open and broadcasted

Sayyidna Hasan al-Basri Rahmatullahi Alayhi says: There is a difference of seventy degrees in making Du’a’ openly and loudly when matched by the one made in a lowered voice. It was the habit of early righteous elders that they would exert to their maximum in Dhikr and Du’a which kept them busy most of the time, but their voice was not heard by anyone. In fact, their supplications would remain between them and their Rabb. Many of them would memorize the whole Qur’an and keep engaged in reciting it, but others would not know about it. Then, there would be others engaged in their pursuit of advanced religious knowledge, but they would never go about telling others that they were doing so. There would be many others who would return from their homes after having long sessions of Salah but no one would come to know anything about that. He also said that he had seen such blessed people who would never perform `Ibadat, which they could do in private, out in the open where people could see them – and their voices during Du’a’ would be very low. [Ibn Kathir, Mazhari]

Noisy Du’a’ is Makruh (reprehensible)

Ibn Jurayj has said that raising voices in Du’a’ and making it noisy is Makruh (reprehensible). In his Ahkam al-Qur’an, Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) has said: This verse tells us that making Du’a’ in a lowered voice is more merit-worthy than making it in a raised voice. It has been reported likewise from Hadrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) and Sayyidna Ibn `Abbas (Radiallahu Anhu). This verse also tells us that the ‘Amin’ said at the end of Surah al-Fatihah should also be said in a lowered voice, which is more merit-worthy, because ‘Aameen’ is also a Du’a’.

Let not the erroneous custom of loud Du’a’ become a source of disturbing others

May Allah Ta`ala guide Imams of Masajid in our time who seem to have forgotten this teaching of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the instructions of early righteous elders in this matter. After every Salah, what follows as Du`a’ has become an artificial procedure. Some words are read out loudly which, besides being contrary to the etiquette and rules of Du’a’, become the source of disturbing the Salah of those who joined the congregation after it had started and were busy completing the missed part after the Imam had finished. The overwhelming influence of custom has made them incapable of noticing its drawbacks.

This excludes such gatherings where the entire congregation is engaged in one Du’a’

On a particular occasion where the purpose is to have a whole group make a particular Du’a’, one person may say the words of Du`a’ in a reasonably audible voice and others say ‘Amin’ after it, then, it does not matter. However, the condition is that this activity does not displace an established Sunnah practice or become the source of disturbance in the Salah and `Ibadah of others – and that this does not become a matter of habit and custom whereby common people start believing in it as the standard method of making Du`a’, as happening so commonly these days.

THE SECOND MEANING OF DU’A’ – IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS ‘HUMBLY AND SECRETLY’

What has been said above concerned the making of Du`a’ for one’s needs. If Du’a’ is taken in the sense of Dhikr (remembrance) and `Ibadah (worship) at his place, then, according to the established position of early `Ulama, low-voiced Dhikr is more merit-worthy than loud Dhikr. As for the practice of Shaykhs in the Chistiah Order who recommend loud Dhikr for beginners, they do so in view of the spiritual condition of the seeker, as a measure of treatment, so that by voicing it any lack of alertness would go away and the heart would learn to become attuned to the Dhikr of Allah – otherwise, raising the voice in Dhikr, as such, is not desirable even with them, though it is permissible, and its justification stands proved from Hadith as well, of course, subject to the condition that, in it, there be no hypocrisy or the desire to show off (riya’).

The best Dhikr is silent Dhikr

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban, Al-Baihaqi and others have reported from a narration by Sayyidna Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (Radiallahu Anhu) that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said:

خَیرُ الذِّکرِ الخَفِیُّ وخَیرُ الرِّزقِ مَا یَکفِی

‘The best Dhikr is hidden and the best sustenance is what becomes sufficient.’

However, under particular conditions and timings, a voiced Dhikr is actually more desirable and merit-worthy. Details of these timings and conditions have been explained by Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam through his word and deed, for example, calling Adhan and Iqamah with a raised voice, reciting the Qur’an during the voiced prayers with a raised voice, saying the Takbirs of Salah the Takbirs of Tashriq, the Talbiyah in Hajj etc., with a raised voice. Therefore, Muslim jurists, may Allah have mercy on them all, have reached the decision that in particular conditions and places where Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has, by word or deed, taught us to raise the voice, voices must be raised. Under conditions and situations other than these, voiceless Dhikr is most preferable and beneficial.

Allah Ta’ala does not love those who transgress (in making Du’a’ or otherwise)

At the end of the verse, it was said: إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ (Surely, He does not like those who cross the limits). The word: الْمُعْتَدِينَ (al-mu` tadin) is a derivation from I`tida’ which means to cross the limits. The sense is that Allah Ta` ala does not like those who cross the limits, exactly as given in the translation. This crossing of limits, whether in Du`a’ or some other activity, has the same outcome – that Allah Ta`ala does not like that. In fact, if looked at closely, the religion of Islam is the very name of observing limits and restrictions and electing to submit and obey. Take the example of Salaah, Sawm, Hajj, Zakah and all dealings and transactions, when limits set by the Shari`ah of Islam are crossed in them, they do not remain acts of worship anymore – instead, they become sin.

Crossing the limits in Du’a’ may take several forms.

Firstly, that literal formalities, such as loud Du’a’ after salaah, raising the hands at the graveside, rhyming and other stylistic devices, are employed in Du`a’ which may spoil its essential ingredients of humility and submission.

Secondly, that unnecessary restrictions are introduced in Du`a – as it appears in Hadith that Sayyidna `Abdullah ibn Mughaffal (Radiallahu Anhu) saw that his son was making Du`a’ in the following words: ‘O Allah, I seek from You the palace in Paradise which is white in colour and located on the right hand side.’ He stopped him and said: ‘Making such restrictions in Du`a is crossing the limit, which has been prohibited in the Qur’an and Hadith.’ [Mazhari from a narration of Ibn Majah and others]

The third form of crossing the limits is that someone makes a Du`a’ wishing ill of Muslims in general, or asks from Allah something which is harmful for them. Similarly, it is also a form of crossing the limits – as mentioned here – that Du`a’ be made in a raised voice without the need to do so. [Tafsir Mazhari, Ahkam al-Qur’an]

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

وَلَا تُفۡسِدُوۡا فِى الۡاَرۡضِ بَعۡدَ اِصۡلَاحِهَا وَادۡعُوۡهُ خَوۡفًا وَّطَمَعًا‌ ؕ اِنَّ رَحۡمَتَ اللّٰهِ قَرِيۡبٌ مِّنَ الۡمُحۡسِنِيۡنَ

And do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order. And supplicate to Him in fear and hope. Surely, the mercy of Allah is close to the good in deeds.

In the second verse (56), it was said: وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا (And do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order). Two antonyms have appeared here: صَلَاح (salah) and: فَسَاد (fasad). ‘Salah’ means the state of being good, correct, right, proper or set in order as in the translation. Then, Fasad refers to the state of evil, corruption, mischief, disorder. Imam Raghib al-Isfahani has said in his Mufradat al-Qur’an that Fasad refers to something going beyond the limits of moderation, whether this crossing over is insignificant or enormous, and the measure of an increase or decrease in every Fasad depends on this crossing of the limits of moderation. The farther the limits are crossed, Fasad will increase. Fasad means to make things bad and Islah means to correct, reform or put into order. Therefore, the verse: وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا means: ‘do not make things bad on the earth after that Allah has made it good and proper.’ [For the detailed Tafseer of this part of the Aayat kindly refer to Maariful Quraan, we have included the Tafseer concerning Du’a’ below]

Therefore, included in the sense of the verse: لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا (And do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order) are crimes and sins which cause disorder in the world physically and outwardly – and also included there are sin, disobedience, and heedlessness towards Allah Ta`ala. Immediately afte,r in this verse, it was said: وَادْعُوهُ خَوْفًا وَطَمَعًا (And supplicate to Him in fear and hope). It means that it should be done in a way that, on the one hand, one has the fear of the Du`a.’ remaining unanswered, while on the other hand, one has full hope tied to His mercy. These very twin attitudes of fear and hope are the two wings of the human soul on its journey with truth and fortitude. On these it flies high and through these it reaches superior ranks destined for it.

The balance between hope and fear

Then, as the text obviously shows, the degree of fear and hope should be equal. Some `Ulama have said that it is appropriate to keep fear dominate during life with health, so that there be no shortcoming in being obedient. And when comes the time to die, it is better to let hope dominate, because the strength to do what should have been done is not there anymore and there is nothing left to do except hope for the mercy of Allah Ta’ ala. [Al-Bahr Al-Muhit]

Another interpretation of hope and fear

And some researchers among scholars have said that the purpose is to hold on to the straight path of religion and be constant in obedience to Allah Ta`ala. Then, the temperaments and tastes of human beings differ. Some achieve this station of fortitude and constancy in obedience by keeping fear as the dominant factor. Others achieve these by keeping love and hope as dominating factors. So, whoever finds help’ to achieve this purpose through either of these two options, should try to achieve it through that option.

The physical etiquette of Du’a’

To summarize the comments made about Du`a’, it can be said that the first verse tells us about two rules of etiquette relating to Du’a’: (1) That it be with humility and submission, and (2) that it be secret and low-voiced. These two qualities belong to the outward human physique – because “tadarru”‘ suggests that one should, while making Du`a’, assume the looks and manners of someone weak, helpless and needy and should never allow it to be proud, arrogant or seemingly need-free. Then, that it be secret also relates to one’s speech through the mouth and tongue.

The spiritual etiquette of Du’a’

As for the spiritual etiquette of Du’a’ as given in this verse, there are two rules to be followed. These relate to the human heart. They require that the person making the Du`a’ should feel the danger in his heart that his Du’a’ may, perhaps, remain unanswered while, at the same time, he should also hope that his Du’a’ may be answered – because becoming careless about one’s errors and sins is contrary to ‘Iman (faith) and losing hope in the infinite mercy of Allah Ta`ala is Kufr (disbelief). Both are impermissible extremes. The hope that a prayer will be answered can be entertained only when one keeps in between the two states of fear and hope.

An incentive for hope

Then, at the end of the verse, it was said: إِنَّ رَ‌حْمَتَ اللَّـهِ قَرِ‌يبٌ مِّنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ (Surely, the mercy of Allah is close to the good in deeds). The hint given here is that, though there should be the two states of fear and hope present while making a Du`a’, but, out of the two states, the option of hope is the weightier option – because the prayer is being made to the Lord of all the worlds the extent of Whose mercy cannot be conceived, and in whose generosity and favour there is no shortage or reluctance. He can answer the Du`a’ of the worst of offenders, even the Du’a’ of the Satan himself. Of course, should there be a danger of Du`a’ remaining unanswered, that could only be possible on account of one’s own misdeeds or due to the hanging curse of sins – because being good in deeds is necessary to become close to the mercy of Allah Ta`ala.

Ahaadeeth on Dua

Therefore, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said that some people travel long distances, look like faqirs and raise their hands for Du`a’ before Allah Ta`ala, but حَرَام haram is their food and حَرَام haram is their drink and حَرَام haram is their dress. So, how can a Du`a’ made by such a person be answered? [Muslim, Tirmidhi from Sayyidna Abi Hurairah Radiallahu Anhu]

According to another Hadith, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: The prayer of a servant of Allah keeps finding acceptance until such time that he does not pray for some sin or for the severance of some relationship – and that he does not make haste. The noble Companion asked about the meaning of ‘making haste.’ He said: It means that one may think – here I am making a Du`a’ for all this time and it has not been answered yet – until he becomes disappointed and stops making Du`a’. [Muslim, Tirmidhi]

According to yet another Hadith, the Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: Whenever you make Du` a’ before Allah Ta` ala, do it in a state when you have no doubt about its being answered.

It means that one should keep his or her sight on the most extensive mercy of Allah Ta’ ala and let the heart believe that the prayer be¬ing made shall be answered. This is not contrary to the danger one may feel that his or her sins may become an impediment in the acceptance of one’s Du`a’. صلی اللہ تعَالیٰ علی نَبِیِّنَا وسلم

[Maariful Quran 7:56]

THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY FAKE JAAHIL ‘SUFIS’

By Mujlisul Ulama

Once Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “No other sect/group has caused so much harm to the Deen as have the sufis (i.e. the jaahil, fake/fraud ‘sufis’). They have harmed the Deen by means of narration, beliefs, practices and concepts.

The spiritual power of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was of such a lofty calibre that even the greatest kaafir who recited Laa ilaha il lallaah would attain the rank of Ihsaan (this is an extremely lofty state of Divine Proximity). In the next era of the Taabi-een, there was a reduction in the spiritual power, and in the following age there was a further reduction. 

Therefore, for achieving the elevated stage of spirituality, the   Auliya in the later eras introduced Mujaahadaat and Riyaadhaat practices which were regarded as mere ways and means of achieving the objective (Maqsood), which is Ihsaan. However, the further the early eras receded, the more practices were increased, and ultimately began to be considered as Maqaasid (objectives) whilst in reality these spiritual exercises were only the means for attaining the Maqsood.

The consequence of this development was the innovation of innumerable bid’aat (innovations) in the Deen pertaining to beliefs, practices and concepts. Although the   genuine Sufiya had combatted and reformed these innovations, the result was only a reduction in the bid’aat, not total eradication. Among the Muhaqqiqeen Sufiya who had been reformers were Shaikh Abdul Qaadir Jilaani, Shaikh Shuhaabuddin Suharwardi, Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani and Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (Rahmatullaah alayhim). Although these illustrious Sufiya had effected considerable reformation, total elimination of all the bid’aat was not achieved.

Allah Ta’ala had revealed to these illustrious Sufiya the Tareeq of the Sunnah. Alhamdulillaah, Allah Ta’ala has also opened up this Tareeq for me. A great barkat of the Sunnah Tareeq is that shaitaan finds extremely little scope for perpetrating dacoity.  While according to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the Maqsood is Ihsaan (Divine Proximity), the ignorant sufis considered Istighraaq (absorption in contemplation) to be the Maqsood.”

Gunyat al-Talibeen and Answer to the Accusation of Irja to Imam Abu Haneefah (Rahmatullah Alayh)

Ghair Muqallideen, the so-called Ahl-e-Hadith, target Hanafis and present a text of Gunyat al-Talibeen by Shaikh Abdul Qadir  Jeelani (rahmatullah alayh) against the Hanafis and label them as deviant and Bid’ati sect.

The Ghair Muqallideen say that Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani (rahimahullah) has counted Hanafis and their Imam Abu Hanifa Nu’man  Bin Thabit (rahimahullah) under the category of Murjiya sect and regarded them as Ghair Naji (who will not get deliverance from hellfire).  [Gunyat al-Talibeen by Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani (rh), Page: 222, Translation: Hafiz Mubassir Hussain Lahori, Darul Ilm Mumbai]

So, therefore, let us analyze this text in detail:

Answer 1:

Imam Ibn Hajr Haythami  (rahimahullah) says about the book Gunyat al-Talibeen: “There were inserted many things in the book which were not therein earlier” as Imam Ibn Hajar Haythami (rahimahullah) writes in his book:

ﻭَﺇِﻳَّﺎﻙ ﺃَﻥ ﺗﻐﺘﺮ ﺃَﻳْﻀﺎ ﺑِﻤَﺎ ﻭَﻗﻊ ﻓِﻲ ‏[ﺍﻟﻐُﻨْﻴﺔ‏] ﻹِﻣَﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﻴﻦ ﻭﻗﻄﺐ ﺍﻟْﺈِﺳْﻠَﺎﻡ ﻭَﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﻠِﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻟْﺄُﺳْﺘَﺎﺫ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟْﻘَﺎﺩِﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻼﻧﻲ، ﻓَﺈِﻧَّﻪُ ﺩﺳَّﻪ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻓِﻴﻬَﺎ ﻣَﻦْ ﺳﻴﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻣِﻨْﻪُ ﻭَﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻓَﻬُﻮَ ﺑﺮﻯﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺫَﻟِﻚ ﻭَﻛَﻴﻒ ﺗُﺮﻭَّﺝ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻫَﺬِﻩ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺴْﺄَﻟَﺔ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺍﻫِﻴَﺔ ﻣَﻊَ ﺗﻀَّﻠُﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟْﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭَﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺔ ﻭَﻓﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺎﻓِﻌِﻴَّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻨﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﺣَﺘَّﻰ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻳُﻔْﺘِﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻫﺒﻴﻦ،

“You must not be deceived by the contents of the book [Ghuniya] of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani  (rahimahullah)”, THESE THINGS WERE ADDED TO IT, Allah Ta’ala  will take revenge from them, otherwise the author should not be blamed for it. And how can this issue be hidden from him even being well-versed in the Qur’an, Sunnah and the fiqh of Shafi’i and Hanbali Schools, even he used to issue fatwas according to these schools.” [Fatawa Hadaththiyah by Ibn Hajr  Haythami, Vol.: 2, Page: 280]

Note: There are distortions at many places in Gunyat al-Talibeen as it was quoted by Ibn Hajr Haythami (rahimahullah). Therefore, calling Hanafis as deviant by referring to the distorted book is stubborness and fraud.

Answer 2:

Even the Ghayr Muqallid scholar, Hafiz Mubasshir Hussain Lahori  Sahib, has written marginal note on GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN (Published by DARUL ILM, MUMBAI) and therein he very categorically refuted the attribution of Irja to Imam AbuHanifa (rahimahullah) with the reference of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Hafiz Mubasshir Hussain Lahori  Sahib writes in the footnote:

“In some versions of Gunyat al-Talibeen, there is mention of GHASSANIYA instead of Hanafis. See for example: Al-Gunyat Ma-Ta’aliq Wa Takhreej by Iza Abu  Abdur Rahman Saleeh Bin Muhammad Bin Owaizi Vol. 1, Page: 185.

Moreover, he writes in refutation of Murjiya sect: “However if we suppose it means Hanafis, so why Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani  (rahimahullah) has regarded Hanafis a branch of Murjiya? The reason seems that it was due to allegation of Irja against Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah)! But what is the reality of the quotes from which this allegation was hatched. Shaikh Ibn Abi Al-Izz, the commentator of Aqeeda al-Tahawiyah has presented several interpretations of the same. (Sharah Aqeeda al-Tahawiyah, Page: 232-234). It is also to be clear that IBN TAYMIYYAH has mentioned several praiseworthy attributes of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) and refuted many allegations levelled against him and counted him among the Aimma-E-Salaf. See for example: Minhaj Al-Sunnah Vol.: 1, Page: 259 and Vol.: 2, Page: 333. [Gunyat al-Talibeen, Translated: Hafiz Mubasshir  Hussain Lahori, Page: 222, 223, Darul Ilm, Mumbai]

Note: There are two clarifications in the footnote of Ghayr Muqallid scholar Hafiz  Mubasshir Hussain Lahori.

1. The distorters replaced the word Ghassaniyah with Hanfiya.

2. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah  (rahimahullah) refuted the allegation of being Murjiya against the Imam Abu Hanifah.

Answer 3:

According to the great scholar and Imam of Ghair Muqallideen, Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai, the versions of GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN are not proved with right connected chains, as he writes in the answer to a question:

“As far as I know the prevalent version of GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN are not proved with right connected chain, Allah Knows Best.” [Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah, Vol.: 2, Page: 421]

Therefore, referring to the book which is not proved as per the Imam and Shaykh of Ghayr Muqallideen is mere deceit and fraud.

Answer 4:

Even Allama Ibrahim Sialkoti, the prominent Ghayr Muqallid scholar, has refuted this accusation as he writes in his book Tareekh Ahl-e-Hadith:

“Indeed some authors (may Allah have mercy on them) have counted Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah), Imam Muhammed (Rahimahullah), and Imam Abu Yusuf (Rahimahullah) among the Murjiya sect.” while in the next lines he discards this notion saying: “This is an accusation against him. [Tareekh Ahl-e-Hadith, Page: 56]

Answer 5:

There are scores of Muhaddithin and Ulama who have refuted the allegation of Irja to Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah); for example:

1. Imam Muhammad (rahimahullab) writes that labeling any “SALAF” as Murjiya is “KUFR”. [Kitab Zad al-Sunnah]

2. Imam Ibn Qayyim says that accusing any Salaf of being  Murjiya is destroying one’s own faith.

3. Imam Ibn Rajab and Shaykh Abdul Aziz Bin Bazz wrote that it is Kufr to associate the Salaf and the Four (4) Imams with the Murjiya sect… [Mukhtasar Zadal- Ma’ad]

4. Ibn Taymiyyah says: “It is a great Innovation (Bid’at) to accuse the Four (4) Imams as being Murjiya.” [Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, Vol.: 4, Page: 46]

5. Saleh Al-Fawzaan also has refuted the allegations of Irja to Imam Abu Haneefa (rahimahullah). [Lu’mat Ul-I’tiqaad, Page: 312]

6. Imam Ali Ibn Abi Al-Izz Hanafi (d. 792 Hijri) also refuted the accusation of Irja to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah). [Sharh  Aqeedah Tahawiyah, Page: 283-284]

7. Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahimahullah) also rejected the attribution of Imam Abu Hanifa  (rahimahullah) to Murjiya. [Faydh al-Baari, Vol. 1, Page: 61]

Answer 6:

Allama Ibn Abdul Barr Maliki  (Rahimahullah) has very emphatically refuted the attribution of Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah) to Murjiya, as he writes:

“Some scholars of Hadith have accused Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah) with Irja, whereas there are many Ulama who have been accused with it, but the accusation towards Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahimahullah) was very much publicized unlike others;since it is also fact that some people have malice against him and accuse him with things that he never had. They fabricate improper things against him, whereas he was overwhelmingly commended by a large number of Ulama and they admitted his merits and virtues.” [Jaame Bayan al-Ilm Wa Fazlihi, Vol.: 1, Page: 1081]

Therefore, I request the Ghayr Muqallideen to pay heed to the words of the “SALAF” at least, otherwise abandon proclaiming to be SALAFI.”

NOTE: The famous scholar of Ghair Muqallideen, Maulana Ibrahim Sialkoti , the author of “Salaatur Rasool”, writes: “One who disrespects the Imams of Deen is semi-Rafidhi.” [Taarekh Ahl-e-Hadith, Page: 73]

Therefore, one who accuses  Imam-E-Azam Abu Haneefa (rahimahullah) he, according to Ghayr Muqallid scholars, is as semi-Rafidhi (Shia).

And Allah Knows Best!

Upheavals – Allah’s Taqdeer

By Mujlisul Ulama

“WHAT! Do you not see (realise) that Allah has created the heavens and the earth with Haqq (i.e. not in idle sport). If He Wills, He can eliminate you and substitute you with a new creation (to inhabit the earth).” [Ibraaheem, Aayat 19]

The massive political, economic, social, moral and natural upheavals occurring in this world are not fortuitous or accidental happenings devoid of purpose and direction. All these upheavals are created by Allah Ta’ala. Everything, down to the most infinitesimal particle acts and happens by His Command.

“Not a leaf drops (from a tree),  but He is aware.” [Qur’aan]

The primary concerns of Muslims are the disastrous upheavals which have emaciated, humiliated and disempowered this Ummah in every sphere of life. While Muslims, even the Ulama of this era, are seeking for the causes and searching for solutions, their focus is in entirety diverted from Allah Ta’ala, The Actual Cause. The Qur’aan and Ahaadith conspicuously spell out the earthly or secondary cause for these upheavals.

However, despite the awareness of the Ulama of the diagnosis and prescriptions of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, even they fail to understand the relationship between these upheavals and Divine Ordainment.  Thus even the Ulama resort to humiliating bootlicking of the kuffaar in search of solutions for remedying the disgraceful state of impotency and decadence of the Ummah.

Due to abject Imaani deficiency, they fail to realise that all these upheavals are created by Allah Ta’ala as punishments for the treachery of the Ummah, the worst treasonists being the Ulama about whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Soon there will dawn an age when the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be their Ulama. From them will emanate fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

The preaching and the supposedly ‘deeni’ activities of the Ulama – their Darul Ulooms, Khaanqas, Tablighi Jamaats, Jalsahs and so-called ‘deeni’ functions will be FITNAH which they will present to the ignorant Ummah in Deeni guise to further ruin their morals and Imaan. With their fitnah will they aid the zanaadaqah (deviates and blasphemers) to undermine Islam.

They scan over all the Qur’aanic aayaat and Ahaadith which state with the greatest clarity that the calamities befalling Muslims are the consequences of their treacherous misdeeds, and that these calamities are Allah’s punishment which he administers to Muslims in a variety of ways such as kuffaar domination, natural disasters, crime, etc.

The Qur’aanic aayat cited in the  beginning as well as many similar Aayaat and Ahaadith state with clarity that Allah Ta’ala is in control. If He so wishes, He has the power to eliminate in a second all mankind and replace them with another creation.

Similarly, He can change the condition of the Ummah overnight from defeat to victory, disgrace to honour and weakness to power. But whilst the pre-condition for this success is the full adoption of the Sunnah and submission to the unadulterated Shariah as it has reached us from the Sahaabah, this Qur’aanic prescription has become meaningless for the Ummah of today. While Muslims are knocking at the door of aliens and bootlicking the kuffaar for honour and worldly prosperity, Allah Ta’ala says in His glorious Qur’aan:

“What! Do you search for honour from them? All honour belongs to only Allah.”

Allah Ta’ala further informs us:

“Say: Allah is the King of Mulk (the lands and the world). You grant Mulk to whomever You will, and You snatch away Mulk from whoever You will. You honour whomever You will and You humiliate whomever You will. In Your Power is goodness (success, prosperity, honour, etc.). Verily, You have power over all things.”

But, Alas! This Aayat and numerous other Qur’aanic verses and Ahaadith of this theme have become antique for Muslims.

Remember and understand that whatever we desire is obtainable from only Him. But the condition for its obtainment is obedience. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whatever (of goodness which) is by Allah, is obtainable only by means of obedience.” Obedience is only in the Shariah and the Sunnah.

Understand well that in all the upheavals overtaking us, there is Divine purpose and direction. The kuffaar have no inherent power. They are being automated by Allah Azza wa Jal.

کوے کی حلت و حرمت کا مسئلہ – حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ پر اعتراض کا تحقیقی جواب

[علامہ ساجد خان نقشبندی مدظلہ العالی]

قارئین کرام! دراصل قطب الاقطاب فقیہ العصر حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ سے سہانپور کے کسی باشندے نے سوال کیا کہ:

سوال: جس جگہ زاغ معروفہ کو اکثر حرام جانتے ہوں اور کھانے والے کو برا کہتے ہوں تو ایسی جگہ اس کوا کھانے والے کو کچھ ثواب ہوگا۔ یا نہ ثواب ہوگا نہ عذاب؟

جواب: ثواب ہوگا۔

(فتاوی رشیدیہ، ص۱۳۰، ج۲)۔

اتنی سی معمولی بات پر نام نہاد بریلوی مولویوں نے اپنا کمالِ علم یہ ظاہر فرمایا کہ وعظ و تقریر اشتہارات و رسائل غرض جملہ مراحل طے کر ڈالے اپنے اکابر و اساتذہ کو گالیاں دیں اور عوام سے دلوائیں حالانکہ متعارف کوے کا یہ مسئلہ کوئی جدید مسئلہ نہیں ۔دیگر آئمہ کرام کے زمانے میں بھی اس کے متعلق سوال ہوئے اور انھوں نے اس کی حلت پر فتوے دئے۔۔

لیکن زمانہ کا اقتضاء اور چودہویں صدی کی آزادی کا منشاء ہے کہ عقل و فہم کو، اصول و شریعت کو، مسلک حنفیت کو سب کو بالائے طاق رکھ کر آنکھیں بند کرکے وہ وہ خامہ فرسائی کی گئی کہ الامان والحفیظ۔

جبکہ مجھے یہ سمجھ نہیں آتی کے محض زاغ معروفہ کی حلت کے فتوے کی بنیاد پر اگر علمائے دیوبند کو طعن و تشنیع کا نشانہ بنایا جارہا ہے تو یہ حضرات امام مالک رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے بارے میں زبان کیوں نہیں کھولتے جو ہر طرح کے کوے کو حلال مانتے ہیں۔حوالہ ملاحظہ ہو:

مسلک مالکی میں ہر قسم کا کوا حلال ہے:

المالکیۃ قالوا: یحل اکل الغراب بجمیع انواعہ۔

(الفقہ علی المذاہب الاربعہ، ج۲، ص۱۸۳، کتاب الحظر والاباحۃ، طبع مصر)

مالکیہ کے نزدیک ہر قسم کا کوا کھانا حلال ہے۔

حیرت ہے کہ مسلک مالکی والے اگر ہر قسم ،ہر نوع کے کوا کھانے کو حلال لکھ دیں تو ان کے خلاف ایک لفظ ان حضرات کے منہ سے نہیں نکلتا۔ مگر علمائے دیوبند اگر فقہ حنفی کی روشنی میں کسی چیز کی حلت کا فتوی دے دیں تو آسمان سر پر اٹھالیا جاتا ہے ۔۔؟؟؟ آخر یہ محض تعصب اور دیوبند دشمنی نہیں تو اور کیا ہے۔؟۔

پھر بریلوی حضرات کو فتاوی رشیدیہ کا یہ فتوی تو نظر آتا ہے مگر کیا کبھی اپنے گھر کی خبر بھی لی ہے کہ جن کے اعلحضرت نے ’’چمگادڑوں ‘‘ اور ’’الوؤں‘‘ تک کے حلت کے فتوے دئے ہیں۔ملاحظہ ہو:

مولوی احمد رضاخان کے نزدیک ’’چمگادڑ‘‘ حلال ہے:

چمگادڑ چھوٹا ہو یا بڑا جسے ان دیار میں باگل کہتے ہیں اس کی حلت و حرمت ہمارے علماء کرام رحمہم اللہ تعالی میں مختلف فیہ ہے ۔بعض اکابر نے اس کے کھانے سے ممانعت فرمائی۔ اس وجہ سے کہ و ہ ذی ناب ہے مگر قواعد حنفیہ کے موافق وہی قول حلت ہے کہ مطلقا دانت موجب حرمت نہیں بلکہ وہ دانت جن سے جانور شکار کرتا ہو۔ ظاہر ہے کہ چمگادڑ پرند شکاری نہیں لہٰذا درمختار میں قول حرمت کی تضعیف کی گئی ہے۔

(فتاوی رضویہ، ج۲۰، ص۳۱۸)

بریلوی حضرات اب بتلائیں کہ تمہارے گروجی احمد رضاخان بریلوی تمہیں کس مقام پر لے آئیں ۔اب تو مہمانوں کی ضیافت پر اور میت کے سوم یعنی تیسرے دن اور میت کے چالیسویں میں اور ششماہی اور سالانہ ختم شریف میں اور شادیوں کے موقعہ پر مرغی کا انتا مہنگا گوشت خریدنے سے تمہاری جان چھوٹ گئی۔

اگر آپ کہیں کہ حضرت آپ ذرا صبر سے کام لیں ہمارے ’’آلہ حضرت ‘‘ نے اس کو اپنی طرف سے حلال نہیں کیا بلکہ فقہاء احناف کے حوالے دئے ہیں تو یہی بات ہم کہتے ہیں کہ ہم بھی کوے کی ایک قسم کی حلت پر فقہاء احناف کے حوالے بطور دلیل رکھتے ہیں اس وقت آپ حضرات کو یہ اصول یاد کیوں نہیں آتے۔۔۔؟؟؟۔

’’الو‘‘ حلال ہے احمد رضاخان صاحب کا فتوی:

اہلسنت والجماعت پر اعتراض کرنے والوں ذرا آنکھیں کھول کر دیکھو کہ آپ کے خان صاحب نے تو ’’الو‘‘ کے حلال ہونے کابھی ایک قول نقل کیا ہے۔ فتوی ملاحظہ ہو:

بعض نے کہا کہ شقراق نہ کھایا جائے اور بوم (الو) کھایا جائے ۔۔۔و عن الشافعی ؒ قول انہ حلال اما م شافعی کا ایک قول ہے کہ یہ (الو) حلال ہے۔

(فتاوی رضویہ ،ج۲۰، ص۳۱۳ ،۱۳۴)

اگرچہ خان صاحب نے الو کھانے کے قول کی تضعیف کی ہے مگر کل کو اگر کوئی بریلوی اس فتوے کو دیکھ کر امام شافعی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے فتوے پر عمل کرتے ہوئے الو کھانے لگ جائے تو کیا بریلوی حضرات اس شخص پر بھی اسی قسم کے سوقیانہ جملے کسیں گے جو وہ علمائے دیوبند پر بولتے ہیں اور کیا امام شافعی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے خلاف بھی کبھی ان لوگوں کی دراز زبانیں کھلیں گی ۔۔یا یہ گالیاں صرف حضرات دیوبند کیلئے رہ گئی ہیں؟؟؟۔۔

ہاں ہاں کبھی ان کے خلاف ایک لفظ نہ بولیں گے اس لئے کہ علمائے دیوبند کے خلاف بکواس کرنے پر اوپر سے مرغ مسلم ملتا ہے اور ان حضرات کے خلاف بولنے پر جوتے۔

اے چشم اشکبار ذرا دیکھ تو سہی یہ گھر جو بہہ رہا ہے کہیں تیرا ہی نہ ہو

زاغ معروفہ اور فقہاء احناف

قارئین کرام حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی صاحب رحمۃ اللہ علیہ نے جو فتوی دیا اور فقہاء حنفیہ کی تصریحات کے عین مطابق ہے اور ان کی فقاہت کا منہ بولتا ثبوت ہے ۔اس سلسلے میں حضرات سلف رحمہم اللہ کے اقوال پیش کرنے سے پہلے یہ بتانا ضروری سمجھتا ہوں کہ *کو ے کی تین قسمیں ہیں:*

(۱) وہ کوا جس کی خورا ک صرف اور صرف نجاست ہو یہ بالاتفاق حرام ہے۔

(۲) وہ کوا جس کی خوراک صرف پاک چیزیں ہوں جوصرف دانہ وغیرہ کھاتا ہے عموما دیہات وغیرہ میں ہوتا ہے یہ بالاتفاق حلال ہے۔

(۳) وہ کوا جو کبھی غلاظت کھاتا ہے کبھی پاک چیزیں اور اس کی خوراک دونوں قسم کی چیزیں ہیں۔تو یہ کوا امام ابو یوسف علیہ الرحمۃ کے نزدیک مکروہ اور امام اعظم امام ابوحنفیہ رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک حلال ہے ۔اور فتوی بھی حضرت امام ابو حنیفہ رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے قول پر ہے۔ اور یہی کوا ہمارے علاقے میں پایا جاتا ہے اور اسی کو فتاوی رشیدیہ میں حلال کہا گیا ہے۔

چنانچہ امام محمد بن محمد سرخسی الحنفی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ اپنی مشہور کتاب مبسوط میں کوے کی اقسام اور ان کے احکام کے بارے میں بحث کرتے ہوئے تحریر فرماتے ہیں:

فان کان الغراب بحیث یخلط فیاکل الجیف تارۃ والحب تارۃ فقد روی عن ابی یوسف ؒ انہ یکرہ لانہ اجتمع فیہ الموجب للحل والموجب للحرمۃ وعن ابی حنیفۃ ؒ انہ لا باس باکلہ وھو الصحیح علی قیاس الدجاجۃ فانہ لاباس باکلھا۔

(المبسوط، ج۱۱، ص۲۴۸، بیروت)

اگر کوا وہ جو کبھی گندگی کھاتا ہے اور کبھی دانے تو حضرت امام ابویوسف ؒ سے روایت ہے کہ وہ مکروہ ہے ۔کیونکہ اس میں حلت و حرمت دونوں موجب جمع ہوچکے ہیں۔ا ور حضرت امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ سے روایت ہے کہ اس کے کھانے میں کوئی حرج نہیں ۔اور یہی صحیح ہے۔ مرغی پر قیاس کرتے ہوئے کیونکہ اس کے کھانے میں بھی کوئی مضائقہ نہیں۔

اب بریلوی حضرات جواب دیں کہ امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ کو تم لوگ بھی اپنا پیشوا مانتے ہو مندرجہ بالا عبارت کو بار بار پڑھیں اور غور فرمائیں کہ امام سرخسی ؒ امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ سے کیا نقل کرگئے ہیں اور کس طرح اس کو صحیح قرار دے چکے ہیں ۔اور یہ بھی بتادیں کہ کوے کی مذکورہ قسم پر حلت کا فتوی صرف ہمارے پیشوا حضرت گنگوہی ؒ نے ہی دیا ہے یا امام اعظم ؒ سے بھی اس کاکچھ ثبوت ملتا ہے۔۔۔؟؟؟
جادو وہ جو سر چڑھ کر بولے

اسی طرح امام علاؤ الدین ابو بکر کاسانی حنفی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کوے کی حلت و حرمت پر بحث کرتے ہوئے فرماتے ہیں کہ:

فحصل من قول ابی حنیفۃ ان ما یخلط من الطیور لا یکرہ اکلہ کاالدجاج و قال ابو یوسف ؒ یکرہ لان غالب اکلہ الجیف ۔

(البدائع الصنائع ، ج۶، ص۱۹۷)

امام ابو حنیفہ کے قول سے معلوم ہوا کہ جو پرندے حلال و حرام دونوں طرح کی غذا کھاتے ہیں وہ مکروہ نہیں ہیں جیسے مرغی او ر امام ابویوسف ؒ فرماتے ہیں کہ مکروہ ہیں کیونکہ ان کی غالب غذا مردار ہے۔

اس عبارت سے معلوم ہوگیا کہ امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک اگر کسی جانور میں مردار و نجاست کا غلبہ ہو تو وہ بھی حرام ہے یہی وجہ ہے کہ وہ عام پھرنے والی مرغی کو بھی حرام کہتے ہیں اور امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ کے نزدیک اس قسم کا پرندہ حلال ہے ۔حیرت ہے کہ بریلوی حضرات دیوبند دشمنی میں کوے کی حرمت پر تو امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کی تقلید کرتے ہیں مگر مرغ مسلم ٹھونستے وقت امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے فتوے کو بالکل پست پشت ڈال دیتے ہیں۔

در مختار میں ہے کہ:

حل (غراب الذرع)الذی یاکل الحب (والارنب والعقعق) ھو غراب یجمع بین اکل جیف و حب والاصح حلہ ۔

(درمختار مع فتاوی شامی، ص۳۷۳، ج۹)

اور کھیتی کا کوا جو دانا کھاتا ہے حلال ہے اور خرگوش اور عقعق وہ کوا ہے جو گندگی اور دانا دونوں کھاتا ہے صحیح قول کے مطابق اس کا کھانا حلال ہے۔

اسی طرح فقہ حنفی کی مشہور و معروف کتاب فتاوی عالمگیری میں ہے کہ:

والغراب الابقع مستخبث طبعا فاما الغراب الذرعی الذی یلتقط الحب مباح طیب و ان کان الغراب بحیث یخلط فیاکل الجیف تارۃ والحب اخری فقد روی عن ابی یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ انہ یکرہ و عن ابی حنیفۃ انہ لا باس باکلہ وھو الصحیح علی قیاس الدجاجۃ۔

(فتاوی عالمگیری، ج۵، ص۳۵۸)

اور غراب ابقع جو صرف مردار کھاتا ہے طبعا گندہ ہے اور غراب زرعی جو صرف دانہ چگتا ہے مباح اور پاکیزہ ہے۔اور اگر کوا ایسا ہو جو مردار اور دانہ دونوں کھالیتا ہو تو اس کے بارے میں امام ابو یوسف ؒ سے مروی ہے کہ مکروہ ہے اور امام ابو حنیفہ رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک اس کے کھانے میں کوئی حرج نہیں یہی صحیح قول ہے جیسا کہ مرغی دونوں چیزیں کھانے کا باوجود حلال ہے۔

ان حوالوں سے بھی صاف طور پر معلوم ہوا کہ وہ کوا یا کوئی بھی پرندہ جو غلاظت اور پاک اشیاء دونو ں کھائے وہ صحیح تر قول کے مطابق ہے حلال ہے اور اسی بنیاد پر فتاوی رشیدیہ میں حلت کا فتوی دیا گیا۔ غرض اس قسم کے کوے کی حلت میں کسی قسم کا کوئی شبہ نہیں مگر چونکہ متروک الاستعمال ہے اس لئے نہ کسی نے اس کو کھانے کا خیال کیا نہ استفتاء کی ضرورت پیش آئی بلکہ عوام کا خیال یہی رہا ہے کہ حرام کوا یہی ہے۔لہٰذا سہارنپور کے کسی باشندے نے شیخ المشائخ مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی ؒ سے استفتاء کیا اور مولانا ممدوح نے معمولی طور پر جواب دے دیا۔اتنی سی معمولی بات پر نام نہاد مولویوں نے اپنا کمال علم یہ ظاہر فرمایا کہ وعظ و تقریر میں وہ وہ گالیاں دی کہ الامان والحفیظ حالانکہ ان جاہلوں نے ذرا یہ نہ سوچا کہ ان گالیوں کی زد میں صرف حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی ؒ ہی نہیں آرہے ہیں۔۔بلکہ یہ اعلام امت بھی اس کا نشانہ بن رہے ہیں۔غرض فقہ حنفی کی ہر مستند کتاب میں یہ مسئلہ مذکور ہے طوالت کے خوف سے ہم انہی حوالہ جات پر بس کرتے ہیں اس لئے کہ ماننے والے کیلئے ایک حوالہ بھی کافی ہے اور نہ ماننے والے کیلئے دفتر کے دفتر بھی ناکافی۔

پس ہم نے ثابت کردیا کہ امام اعظم رحمۃ اللہ علیہ زاغ معروفہ کو حلال مانتے ہیں

پس یہ کس قدر حیرت کی بات ہے کہ علمائے دیوبند کی ضد میں ان لوگوں نے نہ صرف امام اعظم رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کی تقلید کو چھوڑدیا بلکہ اپنے دین کے بانی جن کے نام پر ان کے پیٹ کے دھندے چل رہے ہیں کہ تقلید کو بھی خیر باد کہہ دیا۔

پھر یہ بھی دیکھیں کہ ہم نے ماقبل میں ثابت کردیا کہ اما م ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک مرغی کھانا مکروہ ہے یہ لوگ کوے کی حرمت پر تو ان کے قول پر فتوی دیتے ہیں مگر نہ معلوم مرغی کے حرام ہونے پر یہ لوگ امام ابو یوسف کے مذہب پر کب فتوی دیں گے۔۔؟؟؟

مرجائیں گے مگر مرغی کھانا نہ چھوڑیں گے اگرچہ حرام کی ہی کیوں نہ ہو ۔۔

پس بریلوی حضرات کو بھی غور کرنا چاہئے کہ اگر وہ کوے کے مسئلہ میں امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے مذہب پر فتوی دیں گے تو رد عمل میں مرغی کی حرمت پر بھی فتوی دینا ہوگا۔ اور اس صورت میں مولوی احمد رضاخان کے وصایا شریف میں درج ایک درجن مرغن غذاؤں سے بھی ہاتھ دھونا پڑے گا۔۔ توکیا اس کیلئے تیار ہو۔۔۔؟؟؟

Muslims and having Dogs – Reponse to a Modernist Arguments

An article appeared in the Huffington Post ‘What’s up with Muslims and dogs’ written by Ingrid Mattson. She attempts to prove that prohibition of dogs is a cultural issue and has nothing to do with Deen. Ingrid Mattson’s profile states that she is a professor of Islamic studies. Below is the article from Huffington Post. 

We had many requests to respond to the article. 

Advocate Mufti Emran Vawda has adequately responded to the article rebutting her erroneous claims and expounding the reality of dogs from the Shariah perspective with academic references.

It is very unfortunate that today the claim as professor of Islamic studies has become a title without any merit. This becomes very clear from the texts cited by Advocate Mufti Emran Vawda.  Anyone having little knowledge of Ahaadith would have known these Ahaadith referred to in the response. The article makes an enjoyable academic read. 

_ Mufti Ebrahim Desai 

What’s Up With Muslims and Dogs?

By Ingrid Mattson

I’m not a big follower of reality television, but was happy to hear about TLC’s new reality show “All-American Muslim.” We know that personal contact is the best way to break down stereotypes, but with Muslims less than 2% of the U.S. population, many Americans will never get to know a Muslim. Meeting us through reality television might not be ideal, but it’s better than nothing.

After watching “All-American Muslim” for a few weeks, I now believe that the show is good for our community beyond the way it might lessen prejudice against Muslims. The additional benefit is that the show has engaged our community in discussing some of the many challenges we face making distinctions between critical religious values and flexible cultural practices. In the fourth episode, the issue of Muslims having dogs in the home came up, and this is worth further discussion.

In this episode, newly-wed Arab-American Shadia tells Jeff, her Irish-American convert husband, that she does not want his dog to move with them to their new home. Shadia has allergies, and her asthma is exacerbated by the dog’s hair. This is an understandable and common dilemma. But Shadia bolsters her position with statements about the impermissibility for a Muslim to have dogs in the home. Her father will not pray in the house if the dog is there, she says, because dog hair is impure and a prayer space needs to be pure. Later, Shadia backs off from the religious argument, admitting that the main reason she doesn’t want a dog in the house is “I wasn’t raised with dogs; I’m not used to them.” I appreciated this moment of honesty. The use of a religious norm as a trump card in an argument we want to win is a temptation we all face.

So what is the Islamic position about dogs? In fact, there are a variety of opinions according to different legal schools. The majority consider the saliva of dogs to be impure, while the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs, only considering the saliva of the latter to be impure. The question for Muslims observant of other schools of law is, what are the implications of such an impurity?

These Muslims should remember that there are many other impurities present in our homes, mostly in the form of human waste, blood, and other bodily fluids. It is fairly common for such impurities to come in contact with our clothes, and we simply wash them off or change our clothes for prayer. When you have children at home, it sometimes seems you can never get away from human waste. But we manage it, often by designating a special space and clothing kept clean for prayer.

Some Muslims object to having a dog in the home because of a prophetic report that angels do not enter a home with dogs in it. If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic, it still requires an analysis of context to determine its meaning and legal application. Ordinary people are not recipients of divine revelation through angelic messengers, so it is possible that this statement, although in general form, might suggest a rule for the Prophet’s home, not all homes. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact the Qur’an states that angels are always present, protecting us and recording our good and bad actions.

Whatever the implications of this report, there is no doubt that the Qur’an is positive about dogs. The Qur’an allows the use of hunting dogs, which is one of the reasons the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs – since we can eat game that has been in a retriever’s mouth. But most compelling is the Qur’anic description of a dog who kept company with righteous youths escaping religious persecution. The party finds shelter in a cave where God places them in a deep sleep; the Qur’an (18:18) says:

You would have thought them awake, but they were asleep And [God] turned them on their right sides then on their left sides And their dog stretched his forelegs across the threshold

This tender description of the dog guarding the cave makes it clear that the animal is good company for believers. Legal scholars might argue about the proper location of the dog – that he should stay on the threshold of the home, not inside – but home designs vary across cultures. In warm climates, an outdoor courtyard is a perfectly humane place for a dog – its physical and social needs can be met in the yard. This is not the case in cold climates, where people stay indoors most of the day for months at a time.

Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in under-developed countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.

I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them. It is one of the reasons why I try to introduce my students and friends to my very sweet, very large dog Ziggy.

Ziggy came into our home to be like the dog in the cave: to keep company to my child who lies in exile from the world because of a debilitating illness. He has been nothing but a blessing – guarding the house while we sleep, forcing me to exercise daily, and showing us, as he happily follows our tiny cat around the yard, that if cats and dogs can get along so well, then we people have no excuse.

There is another reason why I love having my dog around. Ziggy came from Tennessee. He was rescued by an animal control officer who uses her own resources to save dogs who would otherwise be destroyed in a few days. Tina saves as many dogs as she can by bringing them home and putting them up for adoption on the internet. When I called Tina to speak about adopting Ziggy, she had 65 dogs she had rescued out in her yard. After being disheartened by some terrible things that have come out of Tennessee lately – mosque burnings and anti-Shari`ah legislation among them – I love looking at Ziggy and thinking about the woman with the thick southern accent and big heart who saved his life.  (End of the Article)

Response:

Muslims and Dogs: Is it really just a cultural thing?

Post by: Emraan Vawda[1]

A boil that erupts on the foot does not necessarily mean that one has to rush of to the podiatrist. It could be indicative of a serious imbalance in the blood, which is likely to affect the whole body. When I received a copy of an article entitled “What’s Up With Muslims and Dogs?”[2] by Ingrid Mattson, I could not help discern the underlying hidden malady that incidentally manifested itself through the topic of Muslims keeping dogs in the home. The brief column is a good example of the common ailment of apologetics coupled with pseudo-scholastics.

The unique feature of traditional Islamic learning is the continuous chain of authorization. A genuine Islamic scholar is tutored for a considerable period under the feet of a master until such time that he/she receives Ijaazah (authorization). The teacher himself or herself must have been similarly authorized. The uninterrupted and verifiable chain of reliable transmitters eventually links up directly with the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). It is this unparalleled feature that sets traditional Ulama apart from self styled scholars of Islam. Therefore the following maxim has been repeatedly echoed over the past fourteen centuries:

Had there been no safeguard such as continuous transmission, anyone could have said anything they wished.

The column is a stark example of personal confusion passed off as Islamic academics, supposedly representing the correct position of the religious texts.

The writer attempts to transpose the prohibition of keeping dogs in the home from the religious source to a social misunderstanding. It is after all, she argues, just a cultural thing, and has been ignorantly attributed to the Islamic religious texts. In an attempt to urge the reader to “back off from the religious argument”, she endeavours to re-interpret the texts. Herein lies the fundamental flaw of her reasoning. No matter how one interprets the religious texts, it is nonetheless an interpretation of religion, which cannot be relabelled as culture. It remains religious, whether or not we agree with such an interpretation.

In order to bolster her theory, she raises the question of the status of dog’s saliva. However, the topic under question was whether the prohibition of keeping dogs in the home is based on Islam or culture. The impurity or otherwise of dog’s saliva is merely one factor that could influence the real question. There are other reasons why Islam has prohibited the keeping of dogs in the home, as will be elucidated below. Zooming in on the matter to saliva conveniently obscures the topic’s broader religious angle.

The writer narrows the topic to the dog’s saliva. What she does not tell us is that there are different views within the Maliki school, one being that the saliva is impure. Even if we accept the view within the Maliki school that the saliva is not impure, how do we explain the fact that according to all the Ulama (scholars) within the Maliki school the keeping of dogs as pets is reprehensible. According to the majority of schools, all the dog’s body fluids, including sweat, are impure. Two of the four juristic schools view the hair that falls of the dog as impure as well. Muslims’ concern about the purity of their body, clothes and immediate environment can hardly be termed as something cultural. It is precisely a religious issue. This belies the writer’s vociferation that Muslims need to back off from the religious argument.

Very strangely, the impurity issue is sort to be downplayed by the ridiculous proposition that those with children at home have impurity all over the place, and they still manage to live with it. I don’t know whether this is a cultural thing or not. Maybe in the ‘All American Muslim’ culture homes with children have impurities spread all over the place. Where I come from, certainly this is the furthest from the truth. The same goes for the majority of Muslims in the world. Yes, with young children there is the occasional mishap which is attended to. Otherwise, the purity within the Muslim is always maintained.

The writer is then compelled to address the reality that the issue of keeping dogs within the home transcends beyond the issue of impurity. It has a spiritual dimension. The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has said:

Whoever keeps a dog; other than the dog for guarding the crops, hunting, or guarding the livestock; looses one Qiraat of reward every day. [Bukhari and Muslim]

In another Hadith (Prophetic saying) Qiraat is described as the reward equivalent to Mount Uhud, a huge mountain outside of Madinah Munawwarah.

Yet another Hadith states:

The angels do not enter the home wherein there are pictures or dogs.

In an attempt to diminish the significance of the Hadith, the writer begins with “If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic…”. She suggests that it is a question of personal preference for Muslims to choose certain reports and reject others. In fact the very thread and theme of her article is premised on the approach that she first has her ad hominem view on dogs, and then goes cherry picking to the religious texts to suit her own personal conclusions. Anything that comes in the way is re-interpreted or explained away to suit her objectives. This narration appears in the following books of Hadith compilation: Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmithi, Abu Dawood, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, Baihaqi, Haakim, Tabrani, Ahmad, etc. It has been accepted as authentic by the authorities in the field of Hadith, and therefore there is no “if” that applies here.

The ludicrousness intensifies when the writer suggests that since we cannot receive revelation, this Hadith does not apply to us. The following quotation from Allamah Dimyari succinctly addresses this point:

The angels that do not enter the homes that have a dog or picture within them are those angels that distribute mercies and blessings; and who seek forgiveness on behalf of the Muslims. As far as the recording angels and those instructed to remove the souls at the time of death, they enter all homes. The recording angels do not leave a person under any condition, since they are ordered to write down and preserve all a person’s actions. [Hayaatul Hayawaan al Kubra]

Some angels are also deputed to inspire good thoughts into the hearts of Muslims.

If the only function of angels was to convey revelation, then the Hadith would be, in the estimation of the writer, absurd. It would imply that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is discouraging his followers from the impossible, which is non-sensical. It is preferred that we dismiss the writer as non compos mentis than rather even remotely attributing absurdity to the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

The writer then resorts to the oldest trick used by modernists, the fallacious not-found-in-the-Qur’aan argument. She postulates that since there is no negative mention of dogs in the Qur’aan, therefore it is not a religious issue but a cultural one. Like one cannot expect the Constitution of a State to include every law and rule, similarly the Qur’aan does not contain every fine detail. It lays out the principles. In numerous verses we are instructed to follow the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and that is our second source of the detailed laws.

If we had to follow the not-found-in-the-Qur’aan argument, we would not be able to carry out our most basic religious duties. Where in the Qur’aan does it say that we have to perform the mid-day prayer, at what time, and how many raka’at (units of prayer)? The Qur’aan does not tell us how much Zakaat (compulsory charity) should be discharged. The list can go on infinitely. What the Qur’aan instructs us to do is to follow the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). For Muslims, therein is our guidance, and it is here that we locate our attitude towards keeping dogs in the home, not in our culture.

The writer then resorts to utter drivel in order to dramatise her cultural thing hypothesis. She says:

Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in underdeveloped countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.

I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them.

After acknowledging that there are Prophetic reports on the topic, she still wishes to locate the source in culture and not religion. As Muslim communities urbanised, they had a few run-ins with dogs, which resulted in fear and negativity. This then germinated into “confused religious reasoning”. The poor lady is the one who is really confused.

She accepts that there are valid concerns around the purity related to dogs. Muslims are overtly concerned about issues of purity as it is a pre-requisite of prayer. She then shifts the entire scenario and implies that it was solely a case of human experience. As if, so to say, there was no religious position on dogs. There existed a pure vacuum. In this vacuum, Muslims of the past had some negative experiences with dogs. The poor souls were in search for some basis on which to shun dogs. They therefore invented a religious dimension in order to give some force to their own negative human experiences. In other words, the religious dimension is a fabrication of the mind, it is a myth and an invention to pacify human fears. The implication is that the Prophetic reports are something invented by Muslims to give credence to their inner negativity. Concerns around purity are fictions introduced by the jurists. They do not really exist. Those who attribute a religious dimension to the topic do so since they are confused.

The absurdity of her hypothesis is self manifest and does not require an in-depth analysis.

As alluded to above, the discussion goes deeper than the mere issue of dogs. The ruptures generated by this type of article penetrate far beyond the surface, and have the potential of damaging a Muslim’s faith. Those brought up in Muslim homes have learnt Islam through observation. Islamic norms and practices were imbibed through experiencing practical Islam. A relatively small fraction of Islamic awareness is attributable to formal Islamic education. Such Muslim have accepted and placed faith in the generally accepted norms and practices of the religious communities in which they were brought up. The overwhelming majority of Muslims would have learnt through experience that Muslims do not, for religious reasons, keep dogs at home. They had hitherto absolute confidence in the general attitude of their religious communities.

Somebody now comes along and claims that the entire Muslim communities were wrong, were all relying on “confused religious reasoning” and were in error in giving it a religious connotation. In reality it was a cultural thing. Muslims were for over a millennium confused and without guidance. In this enlightened age we are able to trace the real source of their attitudes. It is only now in the 15th Hijri century that we are truly guided and realised the colossal error. With a few more debates of this nature on relatively minor issues, the confidence this Muslim has in his experience of Islam through observation is shattered. His whole community has been proven wrong, and his entire Islamic experience has now been rendered spurious. The issue may be minor – the keeping of dogs – but the implications are catastrophic. My entire Muslim community, including the learned, were ignorant and mislead. We had all along taken such norms and practices for granted. From now on, nothing can be taken for granted. Everything is up for debate, even the most accepted of norms. We need to rethink the whole of Islam as we know it. It is this shattering of confidence and faith that is the most destructive consequence of this exercise aimed at reinventing Islam.

This is not to say that all communal experience must be taken to correctly represent Islam. There are certain cultural practices that have been confused with Islam. However, in this discussion we are dealing with a norm that is universal. Wherever one goes one would experience practicing Muslims abstaining from keeping dogs in the home. The writer now wishes to reverse a fourteen century old position in order to suit her whims.

It is a reality that some Muslims drink liquor, commit adultery, sodomise or abandon the compulsory prayers. As long as they accept these misdeeds to be their own personal weakness, there is hope of repentance and reformation. Salvation is dependent on acknowledgement of our weaknesses. To some degree or the other we all sin. What is frightening is the recent trend of justifying our sins and weaknesses. Islam is being re-interpreted to suit our own fancies. Guilt is pacified by the re-invention of Islam. Herein lies our self destruction. May Allah Ta’ala save one and all.

References

[1] An Islamic scholar and Mufti (juriconsult) from Durban, South Africa.

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-mattson/whats-up-with-muslims-and_b_1144819.html

KUFR SAUDI REGIME ARRESTS IMAAM OF THE HARAM

By Mujlisul Ulama

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The noblest Jihad is to proclaim the Truth  to a tyrannical ruler.”

On the basis of this command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam),  Sheikh Saleh Talib, an Imaam of Baitullah Shareef, and  the Qaadhi of Makkah Mukarramah, in his Khutbah criticized intermingling of sexes and the rising tide of immorality in Saudi Arabia.  For proclaiming this Haqq, he was promptly arrested and is being detained by the kuffaar  regime.

The desperate attempts of the current kuffaar rulers to  extinguish the Deen and to totally westernize and kufrize the Holy Land of Arabia signal the doom of the Saudi Najdi regime. Gagging and imprisoning the Ulama-e-Haqq  –  those  Ulama who proclaim the Haqq and condemn the  bootlicking of the rulers, will not avail. Trump  and Israel whom  the Najdi kaafir king is wooing and bootlicking will not be able to save him when the Wrath of Allah Azza Wa Jal strikes.

It is also imperative for Muslims to understand that the kaafir king is in reality the reflection of the vast majority of the Saudi population. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:“Your deeds are your rulers.” Allah Ta’ala has saddled  the Holy Land of Arabia with a kaafir king because its people are kuffaar masquerading as Muslims. Their performance of mock ‘salaat’ and  other  ostensible Islamic rites does not negate  their kufr status. Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“There will dawn on the people an age when they will assemble in their Musaajid and perform Salaat whilst not a single one among them will be a Mu’min.”

Outwardly they will be ‘Muslim’, but their hearts will be bereft of Imaan.

It is at least heartening that there are still Ulama-e-Haqq in Arabia who are proclaiming  the Haqq in obedience to  the command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Proclaim the Haqq  even though it is bitter.”

Zulm (oppression/injustice) signals the demise of the regime. The Mashaaikh say: “A power can endure with kufr, but not with zulm.” The writing is on the wall for the  Divine Destruction of the kufr  Najdi regime of Arabia. But, along with the impending destruction of the kuffaar regime, the kuffaar populace too will  suffer horrendously for  its  flagrant and gross transgression and rebellion against Allah Ta’ala.

Reporting the arrest of  Shaikh Saleh Talib, Al Jazeera News states:

SAUDI DETAINS IMAM WHO CHALLENGED MIXED GATHERINGS

Sheikh Saleh al-Talib arrested after delivering sermon on duty in Islam to speak out against evil in public, group says.

Saudi Arabia has detained a prominent imam and preacher at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, activists said, after he reportedly delivered a sermon criticising mixed public gatherings.

The social media advocacy group Prisoners of Conscience, which monitors and documents arrests of Saudi preachers and religious scholars, said on Sunday that Sheikh Saleh al-Talib was arrested after he delivered a sermon on the duty in Islam to speak out against evil in public.

Khaleej Online reported that in his sermon, Talib, who also serves as a judge in Mecca, derided the mixing of unrelated men and women at concerts and other mixed entertainment events.

While there was no direct criticism of the Saudi royal family in his speech, the kingdom has in recent months relaxed laws on female attendance at public events.

Saudi Arabia has yet to issue an official statement on the issue.

Hours after his reported arrest, both of al-Talib’s Engish and Arabic Twitter accounts were deactivated.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Yahya Assiri, a UK-based Saudi human rights activist, said the kingdom’s “authorities are looking at everyone that’s influential and has a presence on the scene”.

He added: “Even those that have kept quiet or pledged allegiance to the state, even those that have been drumming up the authorities and their initiatives, even these are not safe.”

Wave of arrests

Since Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, became the Saudi crown prince in June 2017, dozens of imams, women’s rights activists and members of the ruling royal family have been detained.

Among those arrested are prominent Islamic preachers Salman al-Awdah, Awad al-Qarni, Farhan al-Malki, Mostafa Hassan and Safar al-Hawali.

Al-Awdah and al-Qarni, who have millions of followers on social media, were arrested last September and accused of having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group Saudi Arabia blacklisted as a “terror organisation”.

Meanwhile, al-Hawali, 68, was detained after he published a 3,000-page book attacking bin Salman and the ruling family over their ties to Israel, calling it a “betrayal”.

Earlier this year, bin Salman softened the kingdom’s stance on Israel, telling the US-based Atlantic magazine that Israelis “have the right to their own land” and “there are a lot of interests we [Saudi Arabia] share with Israel.”

In March, Riyadh granted India’s national carrier permission to use its airspace to operate a direct flight between New Delhi and Tel Aviv.

SOURCE: Al Jazeera News