Al-Irjā is the Religion of the Kings & on the Irjā of Abū Hanīfah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū ‘Abdullāh Āl-Hamdān mentions: “Al-Nasr ibn Shumayl (d. 204 AH) said: “I entered upon al-Maʾmūn and he said to me: ‘How are you this morning, O Nadr?’ I said: ‘In goodness.’ He said: ‘Do you know what al-Irjāʾ is?’ I said: ‘It is a religion that suits kings — through it they obtain (something of) their worldly life while it diminishes their religion.’ He said to me: ‘You have spoken the truth.'” End [of quote]. (Tārīkh Dimashq, 33/301)

The ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Maʾmūn said: “…al-Irjāʾ is the religion of kings.” (Narrated by al-Lālikāʾī, no. 2818)

The (various deviant sects of) desires were mentioned in the presence of Raqabah ibn Masmalah (d. 219 AH) and he said: “…As for the Murjiʾah: they follow the religion of kings.” (al-Ibānah al-Sughrā, no. 216)

The reason al-Irjāʾ is the ‘religion of kings’ is that the Murjiʾah make light of the abandonment of obligatory duties and grant concessions in commission of forbidden acts, since actions are excluded from īmān in their view.

For [according to them] the believer of complete īmān is one who affirms [the truth] in his heart and utters [it] with his tongue — even if he abandons obligatory duties and commits forbidden acts. They even claimed that his īmān is like the īmān of the nearest angels — and this is something that accords with the desires of the soul.

There is also another matter no less significant than the first reason: the well-known characteristic of the imāms of the Murjiʾah of following (personal) opinion (raʾī) and abandoning the Sunan.

As Imām Mālik said regarding the imām of the people of opinion (i.e. Abū Hanīfah): “He led the people astray in two ways:

1) Through al-Irjāʾ.

2) Through nullification of the Sunan by way of [personal] opinion.

He is in our view the most calamitous person born in Islām; a great multitude have been led astray by him, and they continue in misguidance through what he introduced until the Day of Judgement.” End [of quote].

This is what drove them toward legal stratagems (hiyal) in issuing rulings, in conformity with the desires of worldly people and those of luxury.

Imām Ahmad said: “These legal stratagems that Abū Hanīfah and his companions devised — they turned to the Sunan and contrived to nullify them; they took what they were told was forbidden and contrived [a way] around it until they declared it permissible.” (Ibtāl al-Hiyal by Ibn Battah, p. 62)

Al-Karjī al-Qassāb said in Nukat al-Qurʾān (1/623): “The legal stratagems that are censured and counted against Abū Hanīfah by way of criticism are those by which he declared the forbidden permissible, or the permissible forbidden.” End [of quote].

For this reason Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī said: “The Murjiʾah have left the religion thinner than a Sāburī garment.” (al-Īmān by Ahmad, no. 199)

The Sāburī garment is the thin garment that does not conceal what lies beneath it of the ʿawrah.” (al-Jāmi Fī Kutub al-Īmān 1/179-180)

The Irjā of Abū Hanīfah



… Ibrāhīm ibn Shammās al-Samarqandī narrated: ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak narrated to us from Abū Hanīfah at al-thagr (frontier/border region). Then a man with the kunyah Abū Khidāsh stood up and said:

“O Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān don’t narrate to us from Abū Hanīfah, for he was a Murji’. ” Ibn al-Mubārak did not reject that from him.

Afterwards, when a hadīth came from Abū Hanīfah and his opinion, Ibn al-Mubārak would strike it out from his books and abandon narrating from him. This was the last of what he read to the people at al-thagr, then he left and passed away.

He said: I was on the ship with him when he returned from al-thagr and he was narrating to us. He came across something from Abū Hanīfah’s hadīth and said to us: “Strike out the hadīth of Abū Hanīfah, for I have abandoned his hadīth and opinion.” He said: Ibn al-Mubārak died on his return from that expedition. (al-Sunnah of Ibn Ahmad 1/213)

al-Muqri’ narrated to us: “Abū Hanīfah narrated to us and he was a Murji’ī,” he would extend his voice high (when saying this)… (Ibn ‘Adī 7/2475)

Al-Muqri’ narrated to us saying: “By Allāh, Abū Hanīfah was a Murji’ī and he called me to Irjā’ but I refused him.“ (al-Sunnah of Ibn Ahmad 1/223)

Abū Ishāq al-Fazārī said: “Abū Hanīfah was a Murjiʾī who would see (permissible) the sword.”

… Abū Ishāq al-Fazārī said: “Abū Hanīfah used to say: ‘The (īmān) faith of Iblīs and the faith (īmān) of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq (رضي الله عنه), are the same – Abū Bakr said: ‘O Lord’ and Iblīs said: ‘O Lord.’” (al-Sunnah of Ibn Ahmad 1/207)

Al-Fazārī who said: Abū Hanīfah said: “The faith of Ādam and the faith of Iblīs are the same. Iblīs said: ‘My Lord, because You have led me astray’ (Qur’ān 15:39) and said: ‘My Lord, then give me respite until the Day that they are resurrected‘ (Qur’ān 15:36) and Ādam said: ‘Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves (Qur’ān 7:23).’” (Ma’rifah wa al-Tārīkh 2/788)

ʿAlī ibn Al-Hasan ibn Shaqīq narrated to us saying: Ibn Al-Mubārak was asked: “Who are the congregation (jamāʿah)?” He said: “Muhammad ibn Thābit, Al-Husayn ibn Wāqid, and Abū Hamzah Al-Sukkarī.”

Abū Zurʿah said: Ahmad ibn Shabūyah told us: “There is nothing of irjāʾ or opinion of Abū Hanīfah among them.“ (Abū Zurʿah Al-Dimishqī in al-Tārīkh 1/208)

‘Abdullāh (ibn Ahmad) said: Abū Mu’ammar narrated to me from Ishāq ibn ‘Īsā al-Tabbā’, he said: I asked Hammād ibn Zayd about Abū Hanīfah, and he said: “That one is known for disputation in Irjā‘.” (al-Sunnah 1/202)

Muhammad ibn Mu’ādh narrated to me, he said: I heard Sa’īd ibn Muslim say: I said to Abū Yūsuf [the Imām and student of Abū Hanīfah]: “Was Abū Hanīfah a Jahmī?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Was he a Murji’?” He said: “Yes.”… (Ma’rifah wa al-Tārīkh 2/782)

Sufyān narrated to us saying: “The companions of Abū Hanīfah asked Abū Hanīfah to repent two or three times.” Sufyān was severe in his words regarding al-irjā’ and refuting them. (Ilal of Ahmad 3/239)

Abū Zur’ah said: “Abū Hanīfah was a Jahmī, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan was a Jahmī, and Abū Yūsuf was a Jahmī, clearly manifesting al-Jahmiyyah.” (Questiones of al-Bardhā’ī pg. 570)

And Abū Zur’ah said (p. 718): “…And he (i.e. Abū Hanīfah) says: The Qur’ān is created, and he rejects [the narrations] the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) and he ridicules the āthār (narrations), and he calls to innovations (bid’ah) and misguidances. Then he concerns himself with his hadīth – none does this except a foolish ignorant person, or something similar to what he said. And he began to get angry about Ibrāhīm. And he mentioned ahādīth from the narrations of Abū Hanīfah that have no basis…“

Abū Zur’ah said: “So he (i.e. Abū Hanīfah) and Abū Sinān made īmān (to be merely) the pillars of īmān [i.e. beliefs]. And he mentioned ahādīth in which he (Abū Hanīfah) made errors and he criticised them from his narrations. Then he said to me: Whoever says that the Qur’ān is created, then he is a disbeliever (kāfir)…”

Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: “Abū Hanīfah was a Murji and he called others towards that, and he was nothing in hadīth. As for his companion Abu Yusuf, there is nothing wrong with him in hadīth.” (Al-Sunnah 1/226)

Al-Bukhārī said: “He (Abū Hanīfah) was a Murji, and we remained silent about his opinion and his narrations.” (al-Tārīkh 8/81)

Muhammad ibn Sa’īd narrated to us from his father, he said:
I was with Amīr al-Mu’minīn – Mūsā – in Jurjān, and with us was Abū Yūsuf (the student of Abū Hanīfah). So I asked him about Abū Hanīfah, and he said: “What do you want with him when he died as a Jahmī?” (al-Tārīkh 13/381)

Ibn Hibban said: “Nu’mān ibn Thābit Sahīb al-Ra’ī… hadīth was not his craft… he narrated 130 ahādīth and erred in 120 of them…from another perspective, it is not permissible to use him as evidence because he was a caller to al-Irjāʾ, and the caller to innovations (bid’ah) – it is not permissible to use him as evidence according to all our scholars – I do not know of any disagreement among them regarding it. Moreover, the leaders (aʾimmah) of the Muslims and the people of piety (ahl al-waraʿ) in the religion in all the regions and all the lands criticized him and openly impugned him…” (al-Majrūhīn 3/61)

Weak hadīth: “Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise and Hellfire”

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Imām al-Hākim narrated: ‘Alī ibn Hamshādh al-‘Adl > Hārūn ibn al-‘Abbās al-Hāshimī > Jundal ibn Wāliq > ‘Amr ibn Aws al-Ansārī > Sa’īd ibn Abī ‘Arūbah > Qatādah > Sa’īd ibn al-Musayyib > Ibn ‘Abbās, who said:

أَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَى عِيسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ : يَا عِيسَى، آمِنْ بِمُحَمَّدٍ، وَمُرْ مَنْ أَدْرَكَهُ مِنْ أُمَّتِكَ أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهِ ، فَلَوْلَا مُحَمَّدٌ مَا خَلَقْتُ آدَمَ ، وَلَوْلَا مُحَمَّدٌ مَا خَلَقْتُ الْجَنَّةَ وَالنَّارَ، وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْتُ الْعَرْشِ عَلَى الْمَاءِ، فَاضْطَرَبَ ، فَكَتَبْتُ عَلَيْهِ : لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللهِ فَسَكَنَ

Allāh revealed to ‘Īsā (Jesus), peace be upon him: “O ‘Īsā, believe in Muhammad, and command whoever of your community reaches him to believe in him. For were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Ādam, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise and Hellfire. And indeed I created the Throne upon the water, and it trembled, so I inscribed upon it: ‘There is none worthy of worship but Allāh, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh’, and it became still.” (#4273)

Al-Dhahabī said in his comments regarding this narration: “I think it is fabricated, attributed to Sa’id (Ibn Abī ‘Arūbah).” (al-Mustadrak 5/334)

In al-Mīzān (3/255) he said regarding ‘Amr ibn Aws: “His condition is unknown (majhūl). He brought a rejected report (munkar), recorded by al-Hākim in his “Mustadrak,” and I think it is fabricated…”

In Lisān al-Mīzān of Ibn Hajr he concurred with Al-Dhahabīs statement. (6/189)

Muhammad al-Tamīmī said: “These fabricated hadīths and their like cannot be relied upon in establishing a matter of Islamic law such as this.

Add to that their contradiction of (Islamic) law (al-shar’), for what the legal texts indicate is that Allāh, The Mighty and Majestic, created jinn and mankind only for a purpose which He mentioned in the Noble Qur’ān, where He, the Mighty and Majestic, said:

وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالأِنْسَ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُونِ

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me (alone)”.” (Huqūq al-Nabī 2/715)

As for the inscription on the Throne and their like, Ibn al-Jawzī included some of them in his Kitāb al-Mawdū’āt, such as:

…Abū Bakr ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Affān al-Sūfī > Muhammad ibn Mujīb al-Sā’igh > Ja’far ibn Muhammad > from his father > his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: “On the night I was taken on the night journey, I saw inscribed upon the Throne: ‘There is no none worthy of worship but Allāh, Muhammad (is) the Messenger of Allāh, Abū Bakr al-Siddīq, ‘Umar al-Fārūq, ‘Uthmān Dhū al-Nūrayn (was) killed wrongfully.”

Ibn al-Jawzī said: “This hadīth is not authentic from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ), and Abū Bakr al-Sūfī and Muhammad ibn Mujīb are both liars — as stated by Yahyā ibn Ma’īn.” (2/91)

Prayer of the Woman is Better in her Home – Hadīth Authenticity and Explanation

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The ahādīth and their authenticity

Hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar:

Ibn ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه) narrated that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

لَا تَمْنَعُوا نِسَاءَكُمُ الْمَسَاجِدَ وَبُيُوتُهُنَّ خَيْرٌ لَهُنَّ

“Do not prevent your women from [going to] the mosques, though their homes are better for them.”

(Abū Dāwūd 567 and others.

Al-Hākim authenticated it saying: ‘This is a Sahīh hadīth according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, for both of them cited al-ʿAwwām ibn Hawshab as evidence, and Habīb’s hearing from Ibn ʿUmar has been established — though neither of them recorded the addition “their homes are better for them.”‘ He then cited a corroborating witness from the hadīth of Umm Salamah, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. (al-Mustadrak 1/327)

Al-Nawawī and al-ʿIrāqī said: ‘its isnād is Sahīh.’

Al-Arnāʾūt said in the verification of Sunan Abī Dāwūd: ‘its isnād is Sahīh, for Habīb ibn Abī Thābit did hear [directly] from Ibn ʿUmar — Yahyā ibn Maʿīn explicitly stated this in his Tārīkh in the narration of al-Dūrī (p. 373) — [and] al-Bajalī said in his Thiqāt: ‘he heard from Ibn ʿUmar a number of things, and from Ibn ʿAbbās.’ Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd authenticated it in al-Iqtirāh (p. 430).’

Yāsir al-Fathī said: “A number of imāms established his (i.e. Habībs) hearing from Ibn ʿUmar without any qualification, such as: Yahyā ibn Maʿīn, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, Yaʿqūb ibn Sufyān al-Fasawī, and al-Hākim [Tārīkh al-Dūrī (3/131, no. 541), al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (2/313), Kunā Muslim (3677), Suʾālāt al-Ājurrī (5, f. 48), al-Maʿrifah wa-l-Tārīkh (2/204)].” (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/404)

Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in his checking – Sahīh Abī Dāwūd 3/103, saying: ‘This is an isnād whose narrators are all trustworthy and reliable narrators of the two Shaykhs (i.e. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim), and [scholars] have established Habīb ibn Abī Thābit’s direct hearing from Ibn ʿUmar; however, more than one [scholar] has described him as [practising] tadlīs, as has already preceded…however, the hadīth is Sahīh, for it has been soundly established from Ibn ʿUmar through multiple chains, some of which have preceded before this [hadīth] and some of which will follow after it — without the words “their homes are better for them.” This additional wording has corroborating witnesses, among them what will follow in the next chapter [Hadīth below].’

Hadīth of Ibn Mas’ūd:

‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd (رضي الله عنه) narrated that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

صَلَاةُ الْمَرْأَةِ فِي بَيْتِهَا أَفْضَلُ مِنْ صَلَاتِهَا فِي حُجْرَتِهَا، وَصَلَاتُهَا فِي مَخْدَعِهَا أَفْضَلُ مِنْ صَلَاتِهَا فِي بَيْتِهَا

“A woman’s prayer in her house is superior to her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her inner chamber is superior to her prayer in her house.”

(Abū Dāwūd 570 and others.

Ibn Rajab said in al-Fath (5/318): “Al-Tirmidhī authenticated it, and all of its narrators are trustworthy and reliable.”

al-Hākim authenticated it upon the standard of Muslim and al-Dhahabī agreed with him. (al-Mustadrak 1/328)

Ibn Hazm cited it as evidence in al-Muhallāh (4/201).

al-Nawawī said in al-Khulāsah (2/677): ‘its isnād is Sahīh according to the standard of Muslim’.

Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr (6/406): its isnād is jayyid.

Muqbil al-Wādiʿī said in al-Sahīh al-Musnad mimmā laysa fī al-Sahīhayn (1163): ‘Sahīh according to the standard of Muslim’.

al-Arnāʾūt said in the verification of Sunan Abī Dāwūd (1/426): ‘its isnād is Hasan on account of ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim — who is Abū ʿUthmān al-Basrī — while the rest of its narrators are thiqāt (trustworthy and reliable).’

Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in his checking of Abū Dawūd – 3/108, saying: ‘Its isnād is Sahīh according to the standard of Muslim…the hadīth has corroborating witnesses: from the hadīth of Umm Humayd the wife of Abū Humayd al-Sāʿidī, which has two chains from her — one of which was recorded by Ahmad (6/371), Ibn Khuzaymah, and Ibn Hibbān in their two Sahīhs; and from the hadīth of Umm Salamah, which likewise has two chains — one of which is in al-Musnad (6/301), al-Mustadrak (1/209), and Ibn Khuzaymah’s Sahīh.’

Yāsir al-Fathī declared the Hadīth Sahīh saying: “If it is said: ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim al-Kilābī narrated it alone from Hammām, and he is sadūq (truthful) but not a sufficiently precise preserver to be relied upon for his memorisation, nor one who is given precedence over others in cases of disagreement — in fact others are given precedence over him regarding [narrations from] Hammām; and he has a munkar hadīth that has preceded under no. 412, in which ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim contradicted the precise companions of Hammām, and al-Tirmidhī criticised his hadīth and assigned to him the fault of error therein. Al-Tirmidhī also considered some of his ahādīth gharīb (unique) in chains where there is no one to bear the blame other than [ʿAmr] ibn ʿĀsim.

The response is: No one contradicted him in this particular hadīth from Hammām; rather, he received a partial corroboration, in that the corroboration of Saʿīd ibn Bashīr and Abū Hātim al-Hannāt — with the addition of Muwarriq in the isnād — gives the heart confidence in the report’s soundness from Hammām. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim both recorded [narrations] from ʿAmr ibn ʿĀsim from Hammām, either where he was corroborated or where [only] the underlying basis was corroborated…

When the authentication of al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Hibbān, al-Hākim, and others is added to all of this, it further strengthens the hadīth — and Allāh knows best.

Al-Dāraqutnī said in al-ʿIlal (5/314, no. 905): “Its being marfūʿ (attributed to the Prophet) is Sahīh from the hadīth of Qatādah.”…

In sum: if we set aside the [corroborating] gharāʾib (unique reports) and manākīr (objectionable reports), the hadīth of Ibn Masʿūd is a Sahīh hadith, which is further supported and strengthened by these corroborating witnesses [see below] — and Allāh knows best.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Tamhīd (24/281): “The established narrations have come conveying that prayer in their homes is more superior for women.” (Abridged, Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/430-437)

Hadīth of Umm Salamah:

Version 1 – collected by Ibn Khuzaymah 1683 and others:

Umm Salamah the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ), from the Prophet (ﷺ), who said:

خير مساجد النساء قعر بيوتهن

“The best mosques for women are the innermost corners of their homes.”

Yāsir al-Fathī said: ‘I say: Its isnād is weak — al-Sāʾib the freed slave of Umm Salamah is unknown (majhūl); only Darrāj Abū al-Samh narrated from him, and he narrates extremely rarely — I could find only two ahādīth for him, both narrated from him by Darrāj. Ibn Hibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, as is his habit in deeming unknown Tābiʿīs trustworthy, and named him al-Sāʾib ibn ʿAbdillāh.’ (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/434)

Al-Albānī declared the hadīth Hasan [li-ghayrihī] – Sahīh Ibn Khuzaymah 2/813.

Version 2 – collected by al-Tabarānī in al-Awsat 9101:

From Umm Salamah the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ), who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

صلاة المرأة في بيتها خير من صلاتها في حجرتها، وصلاتها في حجرتها خير من صلاتها في دارها، وصلاتها في دارها خير من صلاتها خارج

“A woman’s prayer in her house is better than her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her courtyard is better than her prayer in her outer dwelling, and her prayer in her outer dwelling is better than her prayer outside of it.“

Al-Haythamī said: ‘Its narrators are narrators of the Sahīh, with the exception of Zayd ibn al-Muhājir, for Ibn Abī Hātim did not mention any narrator from him other than his son Muhammad ibn Zayd.’ (al-Majma’ 4/368)

Al-Mundhirī mentioned this hadīth in al-Targhīb wa-l-Tarhīb (1/226) and said: “Al-Tabarānī narrated it in al-Awsat with a jayyid (good) isnād.”

Yāsir al-Fathī said regarding the narrators: ‘Muhammad ibn Fulayh is sadūq (truthful) but prone to errors; Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir al-Hizāmī is sadūq; and the shaykh of al-Tabarānī, Musʿadah ibn Saʿd ibn Musʿadah al-ʿAttār Abū al-Qāsim al-Makkī, had Abū ʿAwānah, al-ʿUqaylī, al-Tabarānī, and others narrate from him, and he narrated from Saʿīd ibn Mansūr and Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir al-Hizāmī extensively, and I have found no criticism of him nor any declaration of trustworthiness…Accordingly, this is a Madīnan gharīb isnād, and Zayd ibn al-Muhājir ibn Qunfudh is among those counted as unknown.’ (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/434)

Hadīth of Umm Humayd al-Sāʿidiyyah:

Umm Humayd the wife of Abū Humayd al-Sāʿidī: that she came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said:

يا رسول الله ﷺ إني أحب الصلاة معك، فقال: قد علمت أنك تحبين الصلاة معي، وصلاتك في بيتك خير لك من صلاتك في حجرتك، وصلاتك في حجرتك خير من صلاتك في دارك، وصلاتك في دارك خير لك من صلاتك في مسجد قومك، وصلاتك في مسجد قومك خير لك من صلاتك في مسجدي. فأمرت فبني لها مسجد في أقصى شيء من بيتها وأظلمه، فكانت تصلي فيه حتى لقيت الله

“O Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ), I love to pray with you.” He said: “I know that you love to pray with me; but your prayer in your house is better for you than your prayer in your courtyard, and your prayer in your courtyard is better than your prayer in your outer dwelling, and your prayer in your outer dwelling is better for you than your prayer in the mosque of your people, and your prayer in the mosque of your people is better for you than your prayer in my mosque.” She then had [something] arranged, and a mosque was built for her in the most secluded and darkest part of her home, and she would pray in it until she met Allāh.” (Ibn Khuzaymah 1689 and others)

Ibn Muflih said in al-Ādāb al-Sharʿiyyah (3/414): “In its isnād is ʿAbdullāh ibn Suwayd al-Ansārī, who is unknown (majhūl)… though the condition of earlier [narrators] is generally good; the rest of its narrators are trustworthy — and Allāh knows best.”

And he said in al-Furūʿ (1/532): “I found no criticism of its narrators, and the most that can be said is that Dāwūd narrated it alone from ʿAbdullāh, and the condition of earlier [narrators] is overall good.”

Yāsir al-Fathī said: ‘ʿAbdullāh ibn Suwayd al-Ansārī is mentioned by Ibn Hibbān in al-Thiqāt, though he is unknown; the rest of its narrators are trustworthy, as Ibn Muflih said.’ (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/435)

Ibn Hajr declared its isnād as hasan in al-Fath (2/349).

Al-Albānī declared the hadīth Hasan [li-ghayrihī] in his checking of Ibn Khuzaymah 2/815.

Hadīth of Āishah:

Āʾishah, from the Prophet (ﷺ), who said:

لأن تصلي المرأة في بيتها خير لها من أن تصلي في حجرتها، ولأن تصلي في حجرتها خير لها من أن تصلي في الدار، ولأن تصلي في الدار خير لها من أن تصلي في المسجد

“A woman’s praying in her house is better for her than praying in her courtyard, and her praying in her courtyard is better for her than praying in her outer dwelling, and her praying in her outer dwelling is better for her than praying in the mosque.” (Tārīkh al-Kabīr of al-Bukhārī 8/265 and others)

Al-ʿIrāqī said in al-Mughnī ʿan Haml al-Asfār (1/412, no. 1571): “Its isnād is hasan.”

Declared weak by Yāsir al-Fathī in Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dāwūd 6/436 due to weak and unknown narrators in the chains.

Statements of some of the scholars on this issue

Shaykh ul-Islām ibn Taymiyyah said: “Only a small number of women used to attend the Jumuʿah and the congregational prayer, because the Prophet (ﷺ) said: ‘Do not prevent the female servants of Allāh from the mosques of Allāh, though their homes are better for them‘ — agreed upon. And he (ﷺ) said: ‘The prayer of one of you in her inner chamber is superior to her prayer in her courtyard, and her prayer in her courtyard is superior to her prayer in her outer dwelling, and her prayer in her outer dwelling is superior to her prayer in the mosque of her people, and her prayer in the mosque of her people is superior to her prayer with me‘ — or he said: ‘behind me‘ — narrated by Abū Dāwūd.

He informed the believing women that their prayer in their homes is superior for them to attending Jumuʿah and the congregational prayer — except for Īd, for he commanded them to go out for it.”

And he also said: “All of this is on account of the concealment and covering that [praying at home] entails. It is known that dwellings are of the same category as garments — both were [originally] created for protection and the warding off of harm.”

And he also said: “He made clear that the more concealing a place is for her, the superior her prayer therein — for the inner chamber is more concealing than the room in which [people] sit, and the room is more concealing than the courtyard which is closer to the door and the street.” (Jumhurat al-Ahādīth allatī Sharahahā Ibn Taymiyyah 2/142-144)

Al-‘Aynī said: “The reason her prayer in her inner chamber is superior to her prayer in her house and to her prayer in her courtyard is that it is more concealing for her and more protective from the gaze of people — for the foundation of their affair is concealment as much as possible.” (Sharh Abī Dāwūd 2/56)

Imām ibn Kathīr said: “As for women, their prayer in their homes is superior for them, as narrated…[he then mentions the narration above – of Ibn Mas’ūd, Umm Salamah, Umm Humayd].” (Tafsīr ibn Kathīr 5/551)

Shaykh Abū Muhammad ‘Adhīm al-Ābādī said: “(their homes are better for them)” — meaning: their prayer in their homes is better for them than their prayer in the mosques, were they to know that; however, they do not know [this], and so they ask to go out to the mosques and believe that their reward in the mosques is greater. The reason why their prayer in the home is superior is [the fact of] being safe from fitnah (i.e. temptation/trial); and this is further emphasised following the emergence of what women have introduced of tabarruj (ostentatious display) and adornment. It is on account of this that Āʾishah said what she said.” (‘Awn al-Ma’būd 2/14 – see also Nayl al-Awtār of al-Shawkānī 3/157 )

Shaykh, Imām al-Shinqītī said: “The fifth issue: Know that women’s prayer in their homes is superior for them to prayer in the mosques, even if the mosque in question were the mosque of the Prophet (ﷺ). By this you will understand that his statement (ﷺ) — “A prayer in this mosque of mine is better than a thousand prayers elsewhere, except the Masjid al-Harām” — is specific to men. As for women, their prayer in their homes is better for them than prayer in congregation in the mosque.” (Adwā al-Bayān 5/547)

He also said: “From the textual evidences we have mentioned, you will know that women’s prayer in their homes is superior for them to their prayer in congregation in the mosque of the Prophet (ﷺ) and in other mosques, by virtue of its being established from the Prophet (ﷺ).” (Adwā al-Bayān 6/266)

Shaykh, Imām Ibn Bāz said: “I advise all women: their homes are better for them, and prayer in their homes is superior — whether in Makkah, in Madīnah, or in any place, their homes are superior and further removed from fitnah. If they do pray in the mosque, let them be careful to cover themselves properly, keep away from men, and avoid mixing with them.

There is no doubt that their prayer in the mosque may sometimes be called for in order to hear hadīth and exhortations; so if a woman comes for this reason, or because she may become lazy at home and not perform the night prayer of Ramadān, and so attends in order to maintain her motivation — all of this is acceptable. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allāh from the mosques of Allāh,” and he (ﷺ) said: “their homes are better for them.”

If she is able to pray at home as she ought, that is superior for her. But if her going out to the mosque serves a benefit — such as hearing knowledge and gaining understanding of the religion, or for the sake of motivation because she may otherwise grow lazy with regard to the night prayer of Ramadān — then this situation is acceptable.” (Fatāwā Nūr Alā Darb 7/270)

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Muhsin al-‘Abbād said: “Question: Which is superior for a woman who has come for Hajj — to pray in the hotel where she is staying, or in the Masjid al-Harām or the Masjid al-Nabawī?

Answer: The Messenger (ﷺ) informed us that women’s prayer in their homes — whether those homes are owned or rented — is better for them. However, if a woman requests to go to the mosque, she is not to be prevented, on account of his (ﷺ) words: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allāh from the mosques of Allāh.” (Sharh Sunan Abī Dāwūd 38/450)

The Ruling on Attending Jumu’ah if Eid Falls on the Same Day – Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-‘Uthaymīn

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Imām Abū Dawūd said: Chapter: When Friday Coincides with (the Day of) ‘Īd

Isrāʾīl (narrated): ʿUthmān ibn al-Mughīrah narrated to us from Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah al-Shāmī, who said: I witnessed Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān while he was asking Zayd ibn Arqam, (saying):

شهدت مع رسول الله ﷺ عيدين اجتمعا في يوم؟ قال : نعم ، قال : فكيف صنع؟ قال: صلى العيد، ثم رخص في الجمعة، فقال: «من شاء أن يصلّي ، فليصل

“Did you witness with the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) two ‘Īds that coincided on (the same) day?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “So how did he act?” He said: “He prayed the ‘Īd(prayer), then granted a concession (rukhsah) regarding the Jumuʿah (Friday prayer), and said: ‘Whoever wishes to pray, let him pray.'”

Hadīth verification:

Collected by Abū Dawūd 1070, declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in his checking. Declared Hasan by Al-Nawawī in al-Khulāsah. Declared Sahīh li-ghayrihī by Al-Arnāūt in his checking of Abū Dawūd. Authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah as related by Ibn Hajr in Bulūgh al-Marām. Authenticated by al-Hākim and al-Dhahabī

In the version of Ahmad and Ibn Khuzaymah:

من شاء أن يجمع، فليُجمع،

“Whoever wishes to attend the Jumuʿah (Friday prayer), let him attend it.” (Declared Sahīh li-ghayrihī by Al-Arnāūt in his checking of al-Musnad 32/68)

Al-Athram said: Abū ʿAbdullāh — meaning Ahmad ibn Hanbal — was asked about two ‘Īds coinciding on a single day, and he cited this hadīth. (al-Badr al-Munīr, 5/99)

Imām ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī said: “In this chapter there are several hadīths from the Prophet (ﷺ) with a sound (jayyid) chain of transmission.” (al-Istidhkār 2/386)

Shaykh Abdullāh al-Fawzān said in Minhatul ‘Allām 4/49-50: “The narrators of this hadīth are all trustworthy and reliable (thiqāt), except for Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah, who is unknown in status (majhūl) — no one narrated from him other than ʿUthmān ibn al-Mughīrah, and he has nothing (to his name) other than this hadīth… however, this does not prevent the authentication of his hadīth when it is sound (mustaqīm) and in conformity with the narrations of the trustworthy narrators (thiqāt), as is the case here.

The hadīth has corroborating witnesses (shawāhid)…

قَدِ اجْتَمَعَ فِي يَوْمِكُمْ هَذَا عِيدَانِ، فَمَنْ شَاءَ أَجْزَاهُ مِنَ الْجُمُعَةِ وَإِنَّا مُجَمِّعُونَ

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ)said: “Two ‘Īds have fallen on the same day. So whoever wishes, it (the ‘Īd prayer) will suffice for his Friday prayer. And as for us, then we will pray the Friday prayer.” (Abū Dawūd 1073).”

Its chain contains weakness. It was also narrated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq (3/304) and others via the route of al-Thawrī and others, from Ibn Rafīʿ, from Dhakwān, as a mursal (narration). Both Ahmad and al-Dāraqutnī authenticated its irsāl (mursal status).”

Shaykh al-Arnāūt said: “And another (corroborating witness) from the hadīth of Wahb ibn Kaysān [Abū Dawūd 1071], who said:

اجتمع عيدان على عهد ابن الزبير، فأخَّر الخروج حتى تعالى النهار، ثم خرج فخطب، فأطال الخطبة، ثم نزل فصلَّى، ولم يصلّ للناس يومئذ الجمعة، فذكر ذلك لابن عباس، فقال:أصاب السنَّة

“Two ‘Īds coincided during the time of Ibn al-Zubayr. He delayed going out until the day had risen high, then he came out and delivered the khutbah (sermon) at length, then descended and prayed — and he did not pray the Jumuʿah for the people that day.” This was mentioned to Ibn ʿAbbās, and he said: “He followed the Sunnah.” And it’s chain is Sahīh. [T.N – Then he brings further corroborating narrations].” (Takhrīj al-Musnad 32/69-70)

In a variant:

Wahb ibn Kaysān, who said:

اجْتَمَعَ عِيدَانِ فِي عَهْدِ ابْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، فَأَخَرَ الْخُرُوجَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ فَخَطَبَ فَأَطَالَ الْخُطْبَةَ، ثُمَّ صَلَّى، وَلَمْ يَخْرُجُ إِلَى الْجُمُعَةِ، فَعَابَ ذَلِكَ أُنَاسٌ عَلَيْهِ، فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فَقَالَ: أَصَابَ السُّنَّةَ. فَبَلَغَ ابْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، فَقَالَ : شَهِدْتُ الْعِيدَ مَعَ عُمَرَ فَصَنَعَ كَمَا صَنَعْتَ

Two Īds coincided during the time of Ibn al-Zubayr. He delayed going out, then came out and delivered the khutbah (sermon) at length, then prayed — and he did not go out for the Jumuʿah. Some people criticised him for that. This reached Ibn ʿAbbās, and he said: “He followed the Sunnah.” This reached Ibn al-Zubayr, and he said: “I witnessed the Īd with ʿUmar, and he did just as I did.” (Musannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 5963, declared hasan by the verifier, Dr. Saʿd al-Shithrī and by Zakariyyā Ghulām in Mā Sahhah min Āthār al-Sahābah)

In a variant:

اجْتَمَعَ عِيدَانِ فِي يَوْمٍ، فَخَرَجَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ فَصَلَّى الْعِيدَ بَعْدَ مَا ارْتَفَعَ النَّهَارُ، ثُمَّ دَخَلَ، فَلَمْ يَخْرُجْ حَتَّى صَلَّى الْعَصْرَ، قَالَ هِشَامٌ: فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِنَافِعٍ، أَوْ ذُكِرَ لَهُ، فَقَالَ: ذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لَابْنِ عُمَرَ فَلَمْ يُنْكِرُهُ

Wahb ibn Kaysān, who said: Two Īds coincided on (the same) day, and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Zubayr came out and prayed the Īd after the day had risen high, then entered (his home) and did not come out again until he prayed ʿAsr. Hishām said: “I mentioned that to Nāfiʿ — or it was mentioned to him — and he said: ‘That was mentioned to Ibn ʿUmar and he did not disapprove of it.'” (Musannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 5968, declared Sahīh by the verifier Dr. Saʿd al-Shithrī)

Shaykh ul-Islām ibn Taymiyyah was asked about two men who disputed regarding the ‘Īd (prayer) when it coincides with the Jumuʿah: one of them said “the ‘Īd (prayer) must be prayed and the Jumuʿah is not to be prayed,” whilst the other said “it (the Jumuʿah) is to be prayed.” So what is the correct position regarding that?

He answered:

“All praise is due to Allāh. When the Jumuʿah and ‘Īd coincide on a single day, the scholars have three positions regarding that:

The first: that the Jumuʿah is obligatory upon one who attended the ‘Īd, just as all other Jumuʿahs are obligatory, based on the general evidences indicating the obligation of the Jumuʿah.

The second: that it drops from the people of the open land, such as the people of al-ʿAwālī and the outlying areas — because ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān granted them a concession in leaving the Jumuʿah when he had prayed the ‘Īd with them.

The third position — and it is the correct one — is that the Jumuʿah drops from whoever attended the ‘Īd ; however, it is upon the Imām to establish the Jumuʿah so that whoever wishes to attend it may attend it, as well as those who did not attend the ‘Īd. And this is what has been transmitted from the Prophet (ﷺ) and his Companions, such as ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn al-Zubayr, and others. And no disagreement is known from the Companions regarding this.

The proponents of the first two positions had not received the Sunnah established in this matter from the Prophet (ﷺ) — that when two ‘Īds coincided on his day, he prayed the ‘Īd (prayer) then granted a concession regarding the Jumuʿah (prayer). And in one wording, he said:

أيها الناس، إنكم قد أصبتم خيراً. فمن شاء أن يشهد الجمعة فليشهد، فإنا مجمعون

“O people, you have (already) received goodness. So whoever wishes to attend the Jumuʿah, let him attend — for we (shall) hold the Jumuʿah.”

Furthermore, when one has attended the ‘Īd, the purpose of (communal) gathering has been fulfilled. Then one prays the Dhuhr (prayer) if one does not attend the Jumuʿah (prayer), so the Dhuhr is prayed in its time; and the ‘Id (prayer) fulfils the purpose of the Jumuʿah. And making the Jumuʿah obligatory upon the people (in such a case) constitutes a burden upon them and a spoiling of the purpose of their ‘Īd and what has been prescribed for them therein of joy and ease. For when they are detained from that, the ‘Īd returns (as though) voided in its purpose.

Also, the day of Jumuʿah is an ‘Īd, and the day of Fitr and (the day of) al-Nahr (sacrifice) are an ‘Īd — and it is the way of the Lawgiver that when two acts of worship of the same kind come together, one enters into the other; just as the wudūʾ (minor ritual purification) enters into the ghusl (major ritual purification), and one of the two ghusls enters into the other. And Allāh knows best.” (Majmū al-Fatāwā 24/114)

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn was asked: Is it correct that when the day of Īd coincides with (the day of) Jumuʿah, the Īd prayer suffices in place of the Jumuʿah prayer?

He answered — may Allāh the Most High have mercy upon him: “Yes, it suffices in place of the Jumuʿah prayer for one who prayed the Īd with the Imām. As for the Imām himself, it is obligatory upon him to establish the Jumuʿah prayer. And whoever attended the Īd prayer has a choice: if he wishes he may attend the Jumuʿah, and if he wishes he may pray Dhuhr. As for one who did not attend the Īd, it is obligatory upon him to attend the Jumuʿah prayer.

It is thus clear that the Jumuʿah prayer does not drop from the Imām — he must establish the Jumuʿah prayer. However, a distinction is drawn regarding the followers (al-maʾmūmūn): it is said that whoever attended the Īd prayer with the Imām may attend the Jumuʿah with him — and that is better  — and he may also pray Dhuhr in his home; however, the Dhuhr prayer is not to be established in the mosques. As for one who did not attend the Īd prayer with the Imām, it is obligatory upon him to attend the Jumuʿah prayer.” (Fatāwā Nūr Alā Darb 5/584)

The Excellence & Etiquette of Fasting: Two Joys, a Shield, and a Boundless Reward – Hadīth Commentary by al-Mubārakfūrī and Al-Ithyūbī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū Hurayrah narrated from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ):

كُلُّ عَمَلِ ابْنِ آدَمَ يُضَاعَفُ الْحَسَنَةُ بِعَشْرِ أَمْثَالِهَا إِلَى سَبْعِمِائَةِ ضِعْفٍ، قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: إِلَّا الصَّوْمَ فَإِنَّهُ لِي وَأَنَا أَجْزِي بِهِ ، يَدَعُ شَهْوَتَهُ وَطَعَامَهُ مِنْ أَجْلِي لِلصَّائِمِ فَرْحَتَانِ : فَرْحَةٌ عِنْدَ فِطْرِهِ، وَفَرْحَةٌ عِنْدَ لِقَاءِ رَبِّهِ ، وَلَخُلُوفُ فَمِ الصَّائِمِ أَطْيَبُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ مِنْ رِيحِ الْمِسْكِ، وَالصِّيَامُ جُنَّةٌ ، وَإِذَا كَانَ يَوْمُ صَوْمٍ أَحَدِكُمْ فَلَا يَرْفُثْ وَلَا يَصْخَبُ ، فَإِنْ سَابَّهُ أَحَدٌ أَوْ قَاتَلَهُ فَلْيَقُلْ : إِنِّي امْرُؤٌ صَائِمٌ

“Every deed of the son of Ādam is multiplied — a good deed (rewarded) tenfold up to seven hundred times. Allāh The Most-High said: ‘Except fasting, for it is Mine and I (Myself) give recompense for it. He forsakes his desire and his food for My sake.’ For the one who fasts there are two joys: a joy at his breaking of the fast, and a joy at meeting his Lord. And the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk. And fasting is a shield. And when any one of you has a day of fasting, let him not engage in obscene speech nor shout; and if anyone insults him or tries to fight him, let him say: I am a man who is fasting.'” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī 1904 and Sahīh Muslim 1151)

Imām al-Mubārakfūrī said: (Every deed of the son of Ādam) – al-Qārī said: meaning: every righteous deed of the son of Ādam — (is multiplied) meaning: its reward, as a favour from Him, The Most-High.

(Tenfold) — based on His saying The Most-High:

مَن جَاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَهُ عَشْرُ أَمْثَالِهَا

“Whoever comes with a good deed, for him is (a reward of) ten times the like thereof” (al-Anʿām: 160) — and this is the minimum of the multiplication, for otherwise it may be increased further.

(Up to seven hundred times) – meaning: the like (of it), rather up to many multiples, as (comes) in the revealed (Book):

مَن ذَا الَّذِي يُقْرِضُ اللَّهَ قَرْضًا حَسَنًا فَيُضَاعِفَهُ لَهُ أَضْعَافًا

“Who is it that will lend to Allāh a goodly loan so that He may multiply it for him many times over?” (al-Baqarah: 245) — and as occurs in (another) narration with the additional words: “up to whatever Allāh The Most-High wills.”

(Except fasting) – The meaning (being): the good deeds are multiplied in reward from tenfold up to seven hundred times, except fasting — for it is not multiplied up to this extent; rather, its reward is beyond measure and cannot be enumerated except by Allāh The Most-High.

(For it is Mine and I (Myself) give recompense for it) – meaning: fasting is a secret between Me and My servant; he performs it sincerely for My sake, seeking My Face, and the servants cannot perceive it, for fasting has no outward form in existence, unlike other acts of worship. And I (am) the One who knows its recompense; I take it upon Myself of giving its recompense and do not delegate it to another. And in this is an indication of the magnification of the gift and the greatness of the recompense, and that the multiplication of the reward of fasting is without number or reckoning.

(He forsakes his desire) – meaning: he abandons what his soul desires from among the things forbidden during fasting. And this is the rationale for its being singled out with a great recompense.

(And his food) – (this is) specification after generalisation; or alternatively, desire is a metonymy for sexual intercourse, and food is an expression for the rest of the things that break the fast.

And in (another) narration food is placed before desire. And (in the narration of) Ibn Khuzaymah [1897, Sahīh]: “He forsakes food and drink for My sake, and he forsakes his pleasure for My sake, and he forsakes his wife for My sake” — and this is explicit in indicating that what is meant by “desire” is the desire for sexual intercourse. And even more explicit is what is found in the narration of al-Hāfidh Samawayh: “He forsakes his desire for food, drink, and sexual intercourse.”

(For My sake) — meaning: for the sake of complying with My command and intending My pleasure and My reward.

(For the one who fasts there are two joys) — meaning: two great instances of joy: one in this world and the other in the next.

(A joy at his breaking of the fast) — meaning: at his breaking the fast — either by (the sense of) fulfilling the obligation commanded of him, or by finding the success granted to him in completing the fast, or by the soundness of the fast and its safety from corruptors, obscene speech, and idle talk, or by what he hopes for in terms of attaining the reward, or by eating and drinking after hunger and thirst.

Al-Qurtubī said: Its meaning is: he rejoices at the departure of his hunger and thirst, now that breaking the fast has been made lawful to him — and this joy is natural and is what first comes to mind. And it was said: his joy at breaking the fast is due to the fact that it marks the completion of his fast and the conclusion of his act of worship, an easing from his Lord, and an aid toward his future fasting.

Al-Hāfidh said: And there is nothing preventing a broader understanding than what was mentioned, for the joy of each person is according to his (spiritual) station, as people differ in their ranks in this regard. Some have a permissible joy — which is the natural (joy) — and some have a praiseworthy joy — which is the one whose cause is one of the things mentioned.

(And a joy at meeting his Lord) — meaning: by receiving the recompense, or by attaining the meeting (with Allāh). And it was said: it is the delight (arising from) the acceptance of his fast and the consequent abundant recompense accorded to him.

(And the breath-change, al-khulūf, of the fasting person’s mouth) — And they are agreed that what is meant is the change in the smell of the fasting person’s mouth due to fasting, as stated in “al-Fath.”

Al-Bājī said: al-khulūf: the change in the smell of the fasting person’s mouth, and it arises from the emptiness of the stomach due to leaving food, and it does not go away with the tooth-stick (siwāk), for it is the smell of the breath coming from the stomach — and what the siwāk removes is only the change caused by food residue in the teeth.

And al-Burqī said: It is the change of the taste and smell of the mouth due to the delay of food.

(Is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk) — meaning: the possessor of the breath-change is more pleasing to Allāh, more acceptable, more esteemed, and nearer to Him The Most-High, than the possessor of musk is on account of its smell to you; and He The Most-High turns more toward him on account of it than you turn toward the possessor of musk on account of it. And in a wording of Muslim and al-Nasāʾī: “More pleasing to Allāh on the Day of Resurrection.“

And there arose a disagreement between Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām as to whether the pleasantness of the breath-change applies in this world and the next, or in the next life only.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām held that it is in the next life, as with the blood of the martyr, and cited as evidence this narration of Muslim and al-Nasāʾī. And Abū al-Shaykh narrated — via a chain containing weakness — from Anas in a raised report: “The fasting ones will emerge from their graves, recognised by the smell of their mouths, and their mouths are more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk.”

And Ibn al-Salāh held that it is in this world and the next together, citing as evidence the narration: “And the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth, at the time it changes from (the absence of) food, is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk.” Al-Walī al-ʿIrāqī said: This narration is apparently indicating that its pleasantness applies in that very state, and interpreting it to mean that it is merely a cause for pleasantness in a future state is an interpretation contrary to the apparent meaning. And supporting this is what al-Ḥasan ibn Sufyān narrated in his “Musnad” and al-Bayhaqī in “al-Shuʿab” from a hadīth of Jābir — within a raised hadīth on the merits of this ummah in Ramadān — “As for the second: the breath-change of their mouths at the time of the evening is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk.“

(And fasting is a shield, junnah) – Al-Mundhirī said: It is what protects you, meaning: it shelters and protects you from what you fear. And the meaning of the hadīth is: fasting shelters its possessor and protects him from falling into sins.

I say: Al-Tirmidhī and Saʿīd ibn Mansūr added: “A shield from the Fire.” And al-Nasāʾī, from the hadīth of ʿUthmān ibn Abī al-ʿĀs: “A shield from the Fire like the shield of one of you from battle.” And Ahmad, from the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah: “A shield and a fortified fortress from the Fire.” And Ahmad, al-Nasāʾī, and al-Bayhaqī, from the hadīth of Abū ʿUbaydah ibn al-Jarrāh: “Fasting is a shield as long as it is not torn” — to which al-Dārimī added: “by backbiting.” Al-Hāfidh said, after mentioning these narrations: It has become clear through them what this protection pertains to — namely, (protection) from the Fire. And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr stated this decisively.

And ʿIyād said in “al-Ikmāl”: its meaning is a cover from sins, or from the Fire, or from all of that.

(And when) meaning: now that you know the merits and comprehensive benefits of fasting.

(Any one of you has a day of fasting. Let him not engage in obscene speech, rafath) – And al-rafath, is used variously to mean: sexual intercourse and its preliminaries; or obscene speech; or a man’s address to a woman concerning matters related to sexual intercourse. And many scholars said: what is meant by it in this hadīth is obscene, vile, and reprehensible speech. And it was said: it is possible that the prohibition encompasses something broader than that.

(Nor shout) – meaning: let him not yell nor quarrel. 

And in a narration of the Two Shaykhs: “nor act ignorantly” in place of (nor shout) — meaning: let him not perform any act from among the acts of the people of ignorance, such as shouting, foolishness, mockery, and the like.

And in the narration of Saʿīd ibn Mansūr: “nor dispute.” And all of this is forbidden in absolute terms, but it is particularly emphasized in fasting.

(And if anyone insults him) — and in a narration of the Two Shaykhs: “curses him” — meaning: quarrels with him verbally.

(Or tries to fight him) – meaning: if anyone readies himself to fight or insult him, let him say: “I am fasting” — for if he says this, it is possible that the person will desist. And if (the person) persists, (the fasting one) repels him with the gentlest means progressively, as with an aggressor. This is regarding one who intends to actually fight him. 

And if what is meant by (tries to fight him) is “curses him,” then the meaning of the hadīth is: that he should not treat him in kind, but should confine himself to saying: “I am fasting.””

(Abridged, Mir’āt al-Mafātīh Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābīh 8/139-149)

Imām Al-Ithyūbī said:

“The Second Issue: Regarding its benefits:

  • The clarification of the excellence of fasting.
  • The establishment of the attribute of speech for Allāh The Most-High — that He speaks when He wills, and speaks to whom He wills with what He wills — and that His speech is not restricted to the Noble Qurʾān. And this is what is called the Hadīth Qudsī, which is the speech of Allāh The Most-High in reality. And the difference between it and the Qurʾān is that the Qurʾān is an act of worship to recite, unlike this.
  • That acts of worship differ in terms of reward.
  • That the extent of the reward of fasting is known by none except Allāh The Most-High.
  • That the fasting person has joy in this world and the next.
  • That the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is greater than the blood of the martyr — for the blood of the martyr’s smell is likened to the scent of musk, while the breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is described as more pleasing (than musk itself). However, it does not necessarily follow from this that fasting is superior to martyrdom, for reasons that are not hidden.

The Fifth Issue:

Al-Hāfidh Walī al-Dīn, may Allāh The Most-High have mercy on him, said:

There is disagreement regarding the meaning of this breath-change being more pleasing than the scent of musk — after agreement that He, Glorified and Most High, is exalted above finding pleasant smells pleasing and foul smells disgusting, for that is a characteristic of (living) creatures which have natures that incline toward something and find it pleasing, and recoil from something and find it repugnant — holding the following opinions:

The first: Al-Māzarī said: It is a metaphor and a figurative expression…

The second: That its meaning is that Allāh The Most-High will reward him in the next life, such that his breath becomes more pleasing than the scent of musk…

The third: That the meaning is that the possessor of the breath-change will obtain a reward greater than the scent of musk (is great) to us…

The fourth: That the meaning is that (Allāh) reckons the smell of the breath-change and stores it for (the fasting person) as it is…

The fifth: That the meaning is that the breath-change carries more reward than musk — given that (the use of) musk is recommended for Fridays, the two ʿĪds, gatherings of hadīth and remembrance, and other gatherings of goodness. This was said by al-Dāwūdī, Ibn al-ʿArabī, the author of “al-Mufhim,” and some of the Shāfiʿīs. Al-Nawawī said: This is the most correct opinion.

The sixth: The author of “al-Mufhim” said: It is possible that this is with respect to the angels — that they find the smell of the breath-change more pleasant than the scent of musk. End of the words of Walī al-Dīn.

The compiler  (i.e. Imām Al-Ithyūbī) — may Allāh The Most-High pardon him — said: All of these opinions are void, with no trace of knowledge supporting them — rather, they are built upon the whims of corrupt desires and the imagined, stale (notion of) likening (Allāh to creation). And none of them has any basis from the Salaf; rather, they all came from the later Ashāʿirah and those who followed their path.

For when Allāh, Glorified be He, revealed to His Messenger (ﷺ): “The breath-change of the fasting person’s mouth is more pleasing to Allāh than the scent of musk” — He did not command him to clarify that it is among the ambiguous (mutashābih) texts, nor that its apparent meaning is not intended, nor that its interpretation is such-and-such. Yet He the Most High is the One who said to him: “And We have sent down to you the Remembrance that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them” (al-Nahl: 44). And the Prophet (ﷺ), when he conveyed this report, did not address the supposed problem nor answer it. Nor did the noble Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them — who were the most knowledgeable of people in the Arabic language and in the objectives of Islamic law after their Prophet (ﷺ) — when they heard the hadīth, find any problem in it, nor did they ask about its interpretation. And likewise the Tābiʿūn who followed them in goodness, may Allāh the Most High have mercy on them, followed their approach. Does what was sufficient for them not suffice us?

So, O people of reason — O fair-minded ones whose minds have not been coloured by the fantasies of the philosophers and the illusions of the theologians (mutakallimīn): it is the duty of every Muslim, when he hears any of the texts, to receive it with acceptance, and not to take it in every direction that his soul imagines — for these texts came only from the All-Knowing, All-Wise, who knows best what it is permissible to attribute to Him. And the Prophet (ﷺ) says nothing but the truth, as Allāh the Most High said: “Nor does he speak from (his own) desire. It is not but a revelation revealed” (al-Najm: 3–4).

And in summary: what is established as being attributed to Allāh the Most High — whether in His Mighty Book or in an authentic hadīth of His Messenger — must be accepted and understood according to its apparent meaning in the sense that Allāh The Most-High intended, without likening (Him to creation), without drawing equivalences, without (distorting) interpretation (taʾwīl), and without negation (taʿtīl).”

(Abridged, Sharh Sunan al-Nasā’ī 21/68-75)

Fasting Ramadān with Īmān and Ihtisāb: Hadīth Commentary – al-Mubārakfūrī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū Hurayrah narrated from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) that he said:

مَنْ صَامَ رَمَضَانَ إِيمَانًا وَاحْتِسَابًا غُفِرَ لَهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهِ ، وَمَنْ قَامَ رَمَضَانَ إِيمَانًا وَاحْتِسَابًا غُفِرَ لَهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهِ ، وَمَنْ قَامَ لَيْلَةَ الْقَدْرِ إِيمَانًا وَاحْتِسَابًا غُفِرَ لَهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهِ

“Whoever fasts Ramadān with faith (īmān) and seeking (divine) reward (ihtisāb), his previous sins will be forgiven. And whoever stands (in prayer throughout) Ramadān with faith and seeking reward, his previous sins will be forgiven. And whoever stands (in worship) on the Night of Decree (Laylat al-Qadr) with faith and seeking reward, his previous sins will be forgiven.” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī 1901)

Imām al-Mubārakfūrī said: (whoever fasts Ramadān) — meaning: during it, by fasting all of it when capable of doing so, or (fasting) part of it when incapable, with the intention to fast (the entirety) were it not for the incapacity.

(with faith) — (meaning) affirming that it is an obligation incumbent upon him as a right, and that it is one of the pillars of Islām, and (believing in) what Allāh has promised of reward and recompense for it. Al-Suyūtī said this.

It is said: it is in the accusative as a cause-indicating object, meaning: for the sake of faith in Allāh and His Messenger, and faith in what has come regarding the virtue of Ramadān and the command to fast it — i.e., the motivating factor and the impetus for doing so is faith in Allāh, or (faith in) what has been reported regarding its virtue and the obligation of fasting it.

It is also said: it is in the accusative as a circumstantial qualifier, with the verbal noun carrying the meaning of the active participle i.e., while being a believer — meaning one who affirms it as truth and an act of obedience, or one who affirms what has been reported regarding its virtue.

It is also said: it is in the accusative as a specification, or as a verbal noun — i.e., a fast of faith, or the fast of a believer.

(and seeking (divine) reward) — means: seeking reward from Him, The Most-High, in the Hereafter; or (it means) sincerity (ikhlās), i.e., the motivating factor for the fast is what has been mentioned (of faith and seeking reward), not fear of people, nor shame before them, nor the intention of (gaining) reputation and showing off (riyāʾ) before them.

Al-Khattābī said: (ihtisāb – seeking reward) means: with intention (niyyah) and resolve, which is that he fasts it with a desire for its reward, his soul being content with that, neither disliking it, nor finding its fasting burdensome, nor finding its days long; rather, he considers the length of its days an opportunity (to earn more reward) due to the greatness of the reward.

Al-Baghawī said: His statement: “ihtisāb” means: seeking the Face of Allāh, The Most-High, and His reward. It is said: “fulān (so-and-so yahtasibu l-akhbāra wa-yatahassabuhā)” — meaning he seeks them out. End (of his words).

(his previous sins will be forgiven) — “his sins” is a generic noun in the construct state, so it encompasses all sins; however, according to the majority (of scholars) it is restricted to minor sins.

[T.N: al-San’ānī said: “this is apparently (indicative of) the forgiveness of both major sins and minor sins, and Ibn al-Mundhir emphatically affirmed this.” (al-Tahbīr 6/38-39)]

Al-Nasāʾī added in al-Sunan al-Kubrā [#2523] , via the route of Qutaybah from Sufyān: “and what follows (of sins).” A group (of narrators) followed Qutaybah in this addition [T.N: The hadīth verifier Shu’ayb Al-Arnāūt commented on this hadīth saying in summary: A small number of narrators followed Qutaybah in transmitting this addition, all of them tracing it back to Ibn ʿUyaynah. However, a considerably larger and more reliable group of narrators — transmitting from the same Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah from al-Zuhrī — narrated the hadīth without this addition. On this basis, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr judged the addition to be munkar (rejected), and the verifier considers the narration without it to be the correct/preserved one]

This addition has been questioned on the grounds that forgiveness presupposes a preceding sin, and the sins that come later have not yet occurred — so how can they be forgiven? The response (given) is that it means their sins will occur (already) forgiven.

(and whoever stands (in prayer throughout) Ramadān) – meaning (during) its nights, or the majority of them, or part of each night through the Tarāwīh prayer and other (acts of worship) such as Qurʾān recitation (tilāwah), remembrance of Allāh (dhikr), circumambulation (tawāf), and the like.

Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr) said: (it) means: stood (in prayer) during its nights, and what is intended by qiyām al-layl (night-standing in prayer) is whatever constitutes a general standing (in prayer).

Al-Kirmānī went further, saying: they (the scholars) are agreed that what is intended is: qiyām Ramadān (is realized through) the Tarāwīh prayer.

(and whoever stands (in worship) on Laylat al-Qadr) — meaning whoever enlivens it (with worship), whether he knows it (to be Laylat al-Qadr) or not.

It is said: what suffices for this is whatever is called qiyām (standing in worship), to the extent that whoever performs the ʿIshāʾ prayer in congregation has (achieved a form of) qiyām. However, the apparent meaning of the hadīth, by (conventional) usage, as al-Kirmānī said, is that one cannot be said to have “stood the night” unless he stood for all of it or most of it.

(his previous sins will be forgiven) — that acts of expiation, if they encounter sins erase them when they are minor sins, and lighten them when they are major sins; and (if no sins are encountered, then) they serve as a means of elevation in degrees in the Gardens (of Paradise).”

(Abridged Mir’āt al-Mafātih Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābīh 8/137-139)

The Ruling on Cupping for the Fasting Person – ‘Abdullāh al-Fawzān

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Hadīth 1: Narrated by a group of Sahābah, among them Shaddād ibn Aws (رضي الله عنه) who narrated:

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ أَتَى عَلَى رَجُلٍ – بِالْبَقِيعِ – وَهُوَ يَحْتَجِمُ فِي رَمَضَانَ ، فَقَالَ:أَفْطَرَ الْحَاجِمُ وَالمَحْجُومُ

that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) came upon a man — at al-Baqīʿ — who was undergoing cupping during Ramadān, and said: “The one who performs the cupping and the one upon whom it is performed have both broken their fast.” (Abū Dawūd 2369, Al-Nasā’ī in al-Kubrā 3/319, Ibn Mājah 1681, Ahmad 28/235, Ibn Hibbān 3534.

Ibn Hajr said in Bulūgh al-Marām: “Authenticated by Ahmad, Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibbān.” Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in al-Irwā #931. Al-Arnāūt declared it Sahīh upon the conditions of Muslim in his checking of Ibn Hibbān 8/304.

‘Abdullāh al-Fawzān said: “The majority (of scholars of Hadīth) have authenticated it. Among those who authenticated it is Imām al-Bukhārī, the shaykh of al-Bukhārī, ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī; Ishāq ibn Ibrāhīm; ʿUthmān al-Dārimī; Ibn Khuzaymah; al-ʿUqaylī; Ibn Hibbān; al-Nawawī; and others.” (Minhatul-‘Allām 5/43))

Hadīth 2: Ibn ‘Abbās narrated:

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ احْتَجَمَ وَهُوَ مُحْرِمٌ، وَاحْتَجَمَ وَهُوَ صَائِمٌ

“That the Prophet (ﷺ) underwent cupping while he was in a state of ihrām, and (also) underwent cupping while he was fasting.” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī 1938, 1939)

Hadīth 3: Anas ibn Mālik narrated:

أَوَّلُ مَا كُرِهَتْ الحِجَامَةُ لِلصَّائِمِ، أَنَّ جَعْفَرَ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ احْتَجَمَ وَهُوَ صَائِمٌ، فَمَرَّ بِهِ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ فَقَالَ: «أَفْطَرَ هَذَانِ» ، ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ بَعْدُ فِي الحِجَامَةِ لِلصَّائِمِ، وَكَانَ أَنَسٌ يَحْتَجِمُ وَهُوَ صَائِمٌ

“The first (occasion) on which cupping became disliked for the fasting person was when Jaʿfar ibn Abī Tālib underwent cupping while he was fasting, and the Prophet (ﷺ) passed by him and said: “These two have broken their fast.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) subsequently granted a dispensation (rukhsa) for cupping for the fasting person, and Anas used to undergo cupping while he was fasting.” (al-Dāraqutnī 2260, who said: “All of (the narrators) are trustworthy and reliable, and I don’t know of (it having) a defect.” Al-Albānī agreed with al-Dāraqutnī in al-Irwā 4/73 and further added: “This hadīth of Anas is explicit in (establishing) the abrogation of the preceding hadīths (i.e. Hadīth 1).”)

In a different narration from Anas:

سئل أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه: أكنتم تكرهون الحجامة للصائم؟ قال : لا ، إلا من أجل الضعف، وزاد شبابة : حدثنا شعبة : على عهد النبي

Thābit al-Bunānī narrated: Anas ibn Mālik (رضي الله عنه)  was asked: “Did you consider cupping disliked for the fasting person?” He said: “No, except on account of (the resulting) weakness.” And Shabābah added: Shuʿbah narrated to us: “during the time of the Prophet (ﷺ).” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī 1940)

Hadīth 4: Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī narrated:

رخص رسول الله ﷺ في القبلة للصائم ، والحجامة

“The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) granted a dispensation (rukhsa) for the kiss for the fasting person, and for cupping.” (Ibn Khuzaymah 1967, al-Dāraqutnī 2262 and 2267 – both routes as marfū’ and who said after narration 2267: “all the narrators are trustworthy and reliable and others besides al-Mu’tamir narrated it as mawqūf (a statement of a companion).”, declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in al-Irwā 4/75 and his checking of Ibn Khuzaymah, declared Sahīh by Al-Arnāūt in his checking of Ibn Hibbān 8/304 – and they (i.e. Al-Albānī and al-Arnāūt added:

Al-Muʿtamir has been corroborated in his raising of (the narration to the Prophet) — (as found) in al-Tabarānī’s al-Awsat — where it is narrated from Ibrāhīm ibn Hāshim, from Umayya, from ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAtāʾ, from Humayd, from Anas. This isnād is Sahīh: Ibrāhīm ibn Hāshim was declared trustworthy and reliable by al-Dāraqutnī, and those above him are trustworthy narrators of the Two Shaykhs (i.e., al-Bukhārī and Muslim) — except for ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, who is among the narrators of Muslim.

And it has another route from Abū al-Mutawakkil [narration collected by al-Dāraqutnī 2262]

And it has a supporting witness from the hadīth of Anas [see hadīth 3])

Hadīth 5: Ibn Abī Laylah narrated from a man from the Sahābah:

نهى عن الحجامة للصائم، وعن المواصلة ولم يحرمهما إبقاء على أصحابه

“He (the Prophet ﷺ) prohibited cupping for the fasting person and continuous fasting, but did not make them forbidden — (doing so) out of concern for his Companions.” (Abū Dawūd 2374, declared Sahīh by Al-Arnāūt)

‘Abdullāh al-Fawzān said: “The hadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنه) is evidence for the permissibility of cupping for the fasting person, and that it does not affect the fast — because the Prophet (ﷺ) underwent cupping while he was fasting. This is the position of the majority (of scholars) including the three Imāms: Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, and al-Shāfiʿī. It is also the apparent choice of al-Bukhārī, and Ibn Hazm gave it preponderance.

This is further supported by what was narrated previously via the route of ʿAbd al-Rahmān ibn Abī Laylāh — (who said): a man from the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) narrated to me that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) prohibited cupping and continuous fasting (al-wisāl), but did not forbid them — (doing so) out of concern for his Companions.

Al-Bukhārī also narrated with his isnād from Shuʿbah, who said: I heard Thābit al-Bunānī say: Anas ibn Mālik (رضي الله عنه)  was asked: “Did you consider cupping disliked for the fasting person?” — and in one narration: “during the time of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ)?” — He said: “No, except on account of (the resulting) weakness.” [Sahīh al-Bukhārī 1940]

The hadīth of Shaddād ibn Aws is evidence that cupping invalidates the fast, on account of his (the Prophet’s ﷺ) saying: “The one who performs the cupping and the one upon whom it is performed have both broken their fast” — the one upon whom cupping is performed breaks his fast due to the exiting of blood, because it weakens him; and as for the one who performs the cupping, (he breaks his fast) because he sucks the blood.

This is the madhhab (legal school) of Imām Ahmad, and it was chosen by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. It is also the position of some of the Shāfiʿīs, such as Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Khuzaymah, and others.”

What appears (to be correct) — and Allāh knows best — is the position of the majority: that cupping does not break the fast of the fasting person. Rather, it (only) used to break the fast in the beginning (of the legislation), then this ruling was abrogated.

They said: And what indicates the abrogation is the hadīth of Abū Saʿīd… [Hadīth 4]…Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr) said: Ibn Hazm said: “Its isnād is Sahīh (authentic), so it is obligatory to act upon it — because a dispensation (rukhsa) only (comes into existence) after a binding ruling so this indicates the abrogation of breaking the fast through cupping, whether (one is) the one who performs it or the one upon whom it is performed.”

And the apparent (indication) of the hadīths of permissibility is that they are later than the hadīths of prohibition.

Many subsidiary issues branch off from the question of cupping, among them: phlebotomy, blood donation, and the taking of blood for medical analysis;

– on the position that cupping breaks the fast of the fasting person: blood donation, or the taking of a large amount of blood for analysis, would (likewise) break the fast; though if it is a small amount it would not have an effect.

– As for the position that cupping does not break the fast: the taking of blood does not break the fast at all, whether it is a large amount or a small amount.

As for nosebleeds and blood exiting from a wound or a tooth — so long as one does not swallow it — this does not break the fast at all, whether it is a large amount or a small amount, because it exited without his choice (i.e., involuntarily). And the foundational principle is the validity of the fast, unless there is a sound evidence indicating its invalidity.” (Slightly Abridged, Minhatul-‘Allām 5/44-46)

The Gate of Al-Rayyān: Hadīth Commentary on The Distinction of the Fasting in Paradise – al-Mubārakfūrī, Al-Ithyūbī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū Hurayrah narrated: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

مَنْ أَنْفَقَ زَوْجَيْنِ مِنْ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الْأَشْيَاءِ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ؛ دُعِيَ مِنْ أَبْوَابِ الْجَنَّةِ، وَلِلْجَنَّةِ أَبْوَابٌ، فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الصَّلَاةِ ، دُعِيَ مِنْ بَابِ الصَّلَاةِ ، وَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْجِهَادِ، دُعِيَ مِنْ بَابِ الْجِهَادِ ، وَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الصَّدَقَةِ ؛ دُعِيَ مِنْ بَابِ الصَّدَقَةِ ، وَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الصِّيَامِ ؛ دُعِيَ مِنْ بَابِ الرَّيَّانِ ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : مَا عَلَى مَنْ دُعِيَ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْأَبْوَابِ مِنْ ضَرُورَةٍ ، فَهَلْ يُدْعَى أَحَدٌ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْأَبْوَابِ كُلِّهَا ؟ قَالَ : نَعَمْ، وَأَرْجُو أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنْهُمْ

“Whoever spends two of a pair from anything among things in the way of Allāh, shall be called from the gates of Paradise. And Paradise has gates — so whoever was among the people of prayer shall be called from the gate of prayer, and whoever was among the people of jihād shall be called from the gate of jihād, and whoever was among the people of charity shall be called from the gate of charity, and whoever was among the people of fasting shall be called from the gate of al-Rayyān.” So Abū Bakr said: “There is no hardship upon one who is called from any of those gates — but is anyone called from all of those gates?” He said: “Yes, and I hope that you will be among them.” (al-Bukhārī 3666 and Sahīh Muslim 85/1027)

Sahl ibn Sa’d narrated: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

فِي الْجَنَّةِ ثَمَانِيَةُ أَبْوَابٍ ، مِنْهَا بَابٌ يُسَمَّى الرَّيَّانَ، لَا يَدْخُلُهُ إِلَّا الصَّائِمُونَ

“In Paradise (there are) eight gates, among them a gate called al-Rayyān — none shall enter it except those who fast.“

In the version of al-Nasāʾī #2236:

لِلصَّائِمِينَ بَابٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ يُقَالُ لَهُ الرَّيَّانُ لاَ يَدْخُلُ فِيهِ أَحَدٌ غَيْرُهُمْ فَإِذَا دَخَلَ آخِرُهُمْ أُغْلِقَ مَنْ دَخَلَ فِيهِ شَرِبَ وَمَنْ شَرِبَ لَمْ يَظْمَأْ أَبَدًا

“For those who fast there is a gate in Paradise called Al-Rayyān, through which no one but they will enter. When the last of them has entered it, it will be closed. Whoever enters through it will drink, and whoever drinks will never thirst again.“

Imām al-Mubārakfūrī said:

“(And Paradise has gates) — meaning: eight, as in the authentic hadīths.

Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr) said: “the meaning of the hadīth is: whoever was a doer (of an act) shall be called from the gate of that act. And this has come explicitly from another chain from Abū Hurayrah: ‘For every doer (there is) a gate from the gates of Paradise through which he is called by that act.‘ Reported by Ahmad and Ibn Abī Shaybah with a sound chain.” End of (his words).

And in sum: whoever was abundant in a type of worship is singled out for a gate befitting it, through which he is summoned — recompense befitting the deed.

(Called al-Rayyān) — either because it itself is rayyān (saturated/lush) on account of the abundance of rivers flowing through it and the fresh flowers and fruits beside it, or because whoever reaches it, the thirst of the Day of Resurrection is removed from him, and freshness endures for him in the Abode of Permanence.

Al-Zarkashī said: “al-Rayyān is on the pattern fa’lān, (meaning) abundant in satiation, al-riyy, the opposite of thirst. It was so named because it is the recompense of those who fast for their thirst and hunger, and mention of satiation suffices over (the mention of) satiation from hunger, because it points to it insofar as it necessitates it.”

And it is said (it was so named) because (thirst) is more difficult upon the fasting person than hunger, since one often endures hunger but not thirst.

(None shall enter it) — meaning: none shall enter through it, i.e. through that gate.

(Except those who fast) — as a recompense for them for the thirst that would afflict them during their fasting. And what is intended by them is: those in whom fasting predominates among (all their) acts of worship.

Al-Sindī said: “His statement (al-sā’imūn) — meaning those who fast abundantly, like al-‘ādil (the just) and al-dhālim (the unjust) — it is said of one who habitually does something, not of one who does it once. And it is apparent that abundance is not achieved by the fast of Ramadān alone, but rather by adding to it what has been reported (to carry) the equivalent of fasting perpetually. And Allāh knows best.” End of (his words).

Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr) said: “As for what Muslim reported from ‘Umar: ‘Whoever performs ablution then says: I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allāh… the hadīth, and within it: ‘the gates of Paradise are opened for him, he enters from whichever of them he wishes‘ — this does not contradict what has preceded, even if its apparent meaning seems to be in opposition to it, because it is interpreted as: they are opened for him as an honouring, then at the time of his entry he does not enter except from the gate of the deed that most predominates in him — as has preceded.” End of (his words).

Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr also) said: In the hadīth there is an indication of the scarcity of those called from all those gates. And in it is an indication that what is intended is the voluntary acts from among the mentioned deeds — not their obligations — because of the abundance of those for whom fulfilment of all the obligatory acts is combined, as opposed to the voluntary acts: for few are those for whom the performance of all types of voluntary acts is combined. Then of those for whom this is combined, they are only called from all the gates as a manner of honouring them — otherwise their entry is through only one gate, which is the gate of the deed that most predominates in them.”

(Abridged, Mir’āt al-Mafātīh Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābīh 8/5-8 and 8/135-137)

Imam al-‘Ithyūbī said:

“Zayn ibn al-Munīr, may Allāh have mercy upon him, said: “He said only ‘fī al-jannah’  (in Paradise) and did not say ‘lil-jannah‘ (for Paradise), so as to indicate that within the mentioned gate there is (such) bliss and ease as (is found) in Paradise (itself) — making it more eloquent in (stirring) longing toward it.” End of (his words).

(Whoever enters it shall drink) — al-Sindī, may Allāh have mercy upon him, said: “meaning: at the gate, and in direct connection with (the moment of) entry. And perhaps those who enter from the other gates do not drink at the moment of entry in direct connection with it. And Allāh, The Most-High, knows best.” End of (his words).

Regarding Its Benefits

-A clarification of the greatness of the virtue of fasting.
– Aclarification of the honour of those who fast, in that Allāh, The Most-High singled them out over all other people by their entering through the gate of al-Rayyān.
-And among them: the affirmation of gates for Paradise, and among those gates is the gate of al-Rayyān, designated specifically for those who fast — such that when they have entered through it, it is closed and none other than them enters through it.
-And among them: the superiority of the gate of al-Rayyān over other gates, in that whoever enters through it drinks at the moment of entry and then never thirsts again thereafter.”

(Sharh Sunan al-Nasā’ī 21/107-108)

When Ramadān Enters: Hadīth Commentary on the Opening of the Gates, the Shackling of the Devils, and Why Sin Still Occurs – al-Mubārakfūrī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Abū Hurayrah narrated from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ):

إِذَا دَخَلَ رَمَضَانُ فُتِّحَتْ أَبْوَابُ السَّمَاءِ وَفِي رِوَايَةِ : فُتِحَتْ أَبْوَابُ الْجَنَّةِ وَغُلِّقَتْ أَبْوَابُ جَهَنَّمَ، وَسُلْسِلَتِ الشَّيَاطِينُ – وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ : فُتَّحَتْ أَبْوَابُ الرَّحْمَةِ

“When Ramadān enters, the gates of heaven are opened” — and in (another) narration: “the gates of Paradise are opened” — “and the gates of Jahannam are closed, and the devils are shackled” — and in (another) narration: “the gates of mercy are opened.” (al-Bukhārī 1898–1899, Muslim 2/1079)

Imām al-Mubārakfūrī said:

“His saying: (When Ramadān enters) – meaning: the month of Ramadān.

It is derived from al-ramadā‘ (intense/scorching heat). It is said: ramida al-nahār — (meaning) the heat became intense. And (they say) qadimahu — his feet stepped upon it — (meaning) his feet were scorched by al-ramadā‘, (which refers to) ground of intense heat. The month of Ramadān was named (thus): either because of the irtimād (burning sensation) endured by those fasting in it from the heat of hunger and thirst; or because of the irtimād of sins in it; or because of the ramad (scorching heat) and the intensity of its occurrence at the time of naming — because when (the Arabs) transferred the names of the months from the ancient language, they named them according to the seasons in which they fell, and so this month coincided with the days of ramad al-harr, meaning: its intensity.

It is also said: it was named so because it yarmidu al-dhunūb — i.e., burns away sins.

And in (this hadīth) there is evidence for the position held by the majority that it is permissible to say “Ramadān” without appending the word “month” (shahr) to it.

The followers of Mālik prohibited this based on the hadīth: “Do not say ‘Ramadān,’ for Ramadān is one of the names of Allāh, but (rather) say ‘the month of Ramadān‘” – reported by Ibn ‘Adī in “al-Kāmil” from Abū Hurayrah as a marfū’ narration (i.e. raised as a statement of the Messenger), and he weakened it due to (the narrator) Abū Ma’shar Najīh al-Madanī.

(The gates of heaven) – Ibn Battāl said: what is meant by “heaven” is Paradise, by virtue of the contextual pairing with Jahannam.

Al-‘Aynī said, drawing from Ibn al-‘Arabī: there is no contradiction in this, for the gates of heaven are (those) through which (one ascends) to Paradise, since Paradise is above the heavens and its ceiling is the Throne of the All-Merciful, as is established in the authentic (hadīth).

(And in (another) narration: the gates of Paradise are opened) – meaning: literally, for whoever dies in Ramadān or performs a deed that does not nullify (his fast for him).

(and the devils are shackled) — meaning: bound with chains, literally.

Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr) said: ‘Iyād said: it is possible that — i.e., the opening of the gates of Paradise, the closing of the gates of Jahannam, and the shackling of the devils — all of this is (to be taken) upon its apparent and literal (meaning), and that all of this is a sign for the angels of the entry of the month and a glorification of its sanctity, and (a means) to prevent the devils from harming the believers.

Zayn ibn al-Munīr said: the first (view, i.e. interpreting the statements upon the literal, apparent meaning) is more appropriate, and there is no necessity compelling the turning of the wording away from its apparent meaning. As for the narrations containing “gates of mercy” and “gates of heaven,” they are from the discretion of the narrators, and the original is “gates of Paradise,” evidenced by what is paired with it — namely, the closing of the gates of the Fire.

Al-Qurtubī said: it is valid to take it literally, and its meaning would be: that Paradise has been opened and adorned for whoever dies in Ramadān, due to the excellence of this act of worship occurring in it; and the gates of the Fire are closed, so none of those who die in it enter it; and the devils are shackled so as not to corrupt (the deeds of) those fasting.

Al-Qurtubī said — after having preferred the literal interpretation (of the hadīth): If it is said: how do we see evils and sins occurring in Ramadān frequently — if the devils were shackled, that would not occur?

The answer is: their (diminishment) is only (with regard to) those fasting whose fast is maintained with its conditions and whose etiquette is observed — meaning: that (this benefit) is in relation to those fasting who maintained the conditions of the fast and observed its etiquette.

Or (another answer is that) what is shackled are some of the devils — namely, the rebellious ones (al-maradah) — not all of them; Ibn Khuzaymah titled a chapter for this in his “Sahīh” and cited the forthcoming hadīth of Abū Hurayrah in the second section. [The narration of Abū Hurayrah: “When the first night of Ramadān comes, the devils and the rebellious among the jinn are chained, and the gates of the Fire are locked — not a single gate of it is opened — and the gates of the gardens (of Paradise) are opened — not a single gate of them is closed — and a caller calls out: ‘O seeker of good, come forward! And O seeker of evil, desist!’ And Allāh has those whom He frees from the Fire.” Ibn Khuzaymah #1883, declared Hasan by Al-Albānī in his checking)

Or the intent is to reduce evils in it — and this is perceptible, for their occurrence in it is less than in other (months) — since the shackling of all of them does not necessitate that no evil or sin occur at all, because evil has causes other than the devils — such as wicked souls, ugly habits, and human devils.

And close to this meaning is what has been said: that the commission of sins in Ramadān is not from the effect of the devil, but rather from the effect of the commanding soul that has been saturated with the devil’s influence throughout the rest of the year — for when the soul has been colored with his color, his actions emanate from it. And the benefit, in that case, of shackling the devil is: the weakening of (his) influence in (inciting) the commission of sins — so whoever wishes to avoid that finds it easier (to do so).

Al-Sindī said: (the shackling of the devils) does not contradict the occurrence of sins, for the wickedness and vileness of souls suffices for the existence of sins, and it is not necessary that every sin be through the means of a devil — otherwise, every devil would require another devil (to have led him astray), leading to an infinite regress. Furthermore, it is well-known that no devil preceded Iblīs (in sin), and so his sin was none other than from his own soul.

al-Bājī said: it is possible that the devils are shackled literally, and are thereby prevented from some actions that they can only perform when free — and in that there is no evidence for the prevention of their activity altogether, because the shackled one is the one whose hands are bound to his neck, (yet) he still acts through speech, opinion, and much effort. End (of his words).”

(Abridged Mir’āt al-Mafātih Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābīh 8/130-145)

Weak hadīth: Seating of the Prophet on Allahs Throne

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Narration 1: of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd

…Salamah al-Ahmar from Ash’ath ibn Tulīq from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd who said:

بينا أنا عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أقرأ عليه حتى بلغت {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} قال يجلسني على العرش

“While I was with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) reciting to him until I reached {‘Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station’} he said: ‘He seats me upon the Throne (al-‘arsh).'” (al-‘Ulū of Al-Dhahabī #202)

Imām Al-Dhahabī said: “This is a rejected hadīth (hadīth munkar) – do not rejoice in it. This Salamah is abandoned in hadīth (matrūk al-hadīth) and Ash’ath did not meet Ibn Mas’ūd.” (al-‘Ulū pg. 94)

Salamah al-Ahmar:

Salamah ibn Sālih al-Ahmar al-Ju’fī, al-Kūfī.

He held the position of judge in Wāsit during the time of al-Rashīd. Ibn Ma’īn said: “Weak (da’īf)”, and he said: “Not trustworthy and reliable.” Al-Nasā’ī said: “Matrūk in hadīth”. And he said: “(He is) Weak (da’īf)”. Abū Dāwūd said: “(He is) Abandoned (matrūk) in hadīth.” al-Dāraqutnī said: “Weak” and he included him in “the weak and abandoned (narrators).” He died in the year 180H. – see Jāmi’ Likutub al-Du’afā wal-Matrukīn #5149.

Ash’ath ibn Tulīq [in al-Mīzan: “ibn Tābiq“]

Ibn Abī Hātim mentioned:

“982 – Ashʿath ibn al-Tulīq narrated from al-Hasan al-ʿUranī, Khallād ibn Muslim al-Saffār Abū Muslim narrated from him. He is counted among the people of Kūfah. I heard my father and Abū Zurʿah say that.

983 – Ashʿath ibn Tulīq al-Nahdī: He heard (from) Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn ʿUyaynah narrated from him. He is counted among the people of the Hijāz. I heard my father and Abū Zurʿah say that. ʿAbd al-Rahmān narrated to us, he said: My father mentioned it from Ishāq ibn Mansūr, from Yahyā ibn Maʿīn, that he said: Ashʿath ibn Tulīq al-Nahdī is trustworthy and reliable.” (Jarh wa Ta’dīl 2/200)

Ibn Hajr said: “He [Ibn Abī Hātim] differentiated between him and the first [Ashʿath] and did not mention authentication/praise nor disparagement/criticism regarding this one. And Allāh knows best.

In my view, they [both] are one [and the same person].” (Lisān al-Mīzān 2/201)

Al-Dhahabī said: “Ashʿath ibn Tābiq, (narrated) from Murrah al-Tayyib.

His hadīth is not sound said al-Azdī.

Then he [al-Azdī] cited for him the hadīth of Murrah from Ibn Masʿūd, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ), announced…

Then I saw that in the second part of the hadīth of Ahmad ibn Shabīb al-Hubtī… [isnād]…from Ashʿath ibn Tulīq, that he heard al-Hasan al-ʿArabī narrate more than once from Ibn Masʿūd, who said: Our Prophet and our beloved announced…” (Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl 1/255).

Narration 2: of ‘Abdullāh ibn Salām

…Sa’īd al-Jurīrī from Sayf al-Sadūsī from ‘Abdullāh ibn Salām who said:

إذا كان يوم القيامة جيء بنبيكم صلى الله عليه وسلم فأقعد بين يدي الله على كرسيه فقلت للجريري يا أبا مسعود إذا كان على كرسيه أليس هو معه قال ويلكم هذا أقر حديث في الدنيا لعيني

“When it is the Day of Resurrection, your Prophet (ﷺ) will be brought and seated before Allāh upon His kursī.” So I said to al-Jurīrī: “O Abū Mas’ūd, if he is upon His kursī, is he not with Him?” He said: “Woe to you! This is the most beloved hadīth in the world to my eyes!” (al-‘Ulū of Al-Dhahabī #204 and #425, Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim ##786)

Imām Al-Dhahabī said: “This is stopped (mawqūf – statement of a companion) and its chain is not established.” (al-‘Ulū pg. 94)

Also weakened by Ibn Kathīr in al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 8/205.

Shaykh Al-Albānī said: “The narrators in its chain are trustworthy and reliable (thiqah) except for Sayf al-Sadūsī, whom I did not find [details in the biographical sources]. In his generation/class there is: Sayf Abū ‘Ā’id al-Sa’dī. He narrated from Yazīd ibn al-Barā’ (a Tābi’ī [Successor]). Al-Jurayrī narrated from him. Al-Bukhārī, Ibn Abī Hātim, and Ibn Hibbān wrote biographies of him, and he is among the unknown [narrators], so perhaps he is the one [in question], and it is possible that “al-Sadūsī” was a scribal error [corrupted] from “al-Sa’dī.” And Allah knows best.” (Takhrīj Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī Āsim pg. 326)

Narration 3: of Ibn ‘Abbās

…from al-Dahhāk from Ibn ‘Abbās:

قوله تعالى {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} قال يقعده على العرش

regarding His saying, The-Most High: {‘Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station’}, he said: “He seats him upon the Throne (al-‘arsh).” (al-‘Ulū of Al-Dhahabī #204 and #329)

Imām Al-Dhahabī said: “Its chain is sāqit (fallen, i.e. very weak and not suitable for using as evidence nor for consideration), and this ‘Umar al-Rāzī is abandoned (matrūk) and in it is Juwaybar who has been spoken about (i.e. criticised).” (al-‘Ulū pg. 131)

‘Umar ibn Mudrik, Abū Hafs al-Qāss al-Rāzī:

Ibn Ma’īn said: “(he is) a liar (kadhdhāb).” (Mīzān 3/232)

Al-Dhahabī declared him weak in Mughnī fī al-Du’afā 2/128 and Dīwān al-Du’afā pg. 297.

Juwaybir ibn Sa’īd:

Ibn Hajr said in al-Taqrīb #1089: “(He is) very weak”.

Ibn Ma’īn said: “He is nothing”. Al-Nasā’ī said: “Abandoned.” al-Dāraqutnī said: “Abandoned.” Ibn Junayd said: “Abandoned.” (Tārīkh al-Dūrī 2/89, Mīzān 1/427, al-Du’afā 147)

Al-Dahhāk ibn Muzāhim

He was declared thiqah by Yahyā ibn Ma’īn in one narration, Ahmad, Abū Zur’ah, al-Ijlī (who said: “Thiqah, but he wasn’t a Tābi’ī”), al-Dāraqutnī, and included in al-Thiqāt by Ibn Hibbān (Dīwān al-Du’afā pg. 198, al-Mughnī 1/494, Mīzān 2/299, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 2/226-227)

from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Maysarah, who said: I said to al-Dahhāk: “Did you hear anything from Ibn ‘Abbās?” He said: “No.” (Su’ālāt al-Bardhā’ī 1/385)

Mishshāsh, who said: “Al-Dahhāk did not hear anything from Ibn ‘Abbās.” (Su’ālāt al-Bardhā’ī 1/383)

Salm ibn Qutaybah, he said: Shu’bah narrated to me, he said: I said to al-Mishshāsh: “Did al-Dahhāk hear from Ibn ‘Abbās?” He said: “No, not even a word.” [al-Du’afā’ al-‘Uqaylī 3/141)

‘Alī Ibn al-Madīnī said: “Shu’bah would not narrate from him, and he used to deny that he [al-Dahhāk] ever met Ibn ‘Abbās.” ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Maysarah said: “He did not meet Ibn ‘Abbās. He only met Sa’īd ibn Jubayr and took Quranic commentary (tafsīr) from him in al-Rayy.” Ibn ‘Adī said: “Al-Dahhāk is known for [Quranic] commentary (tafsīr). As for his narration from Ibn ‘Abbās, Abū Hurayrah, and all those he narrated from, there is an issue with that (i.e. that requires examination).” (Mukhtasar al-Kāmil pg. 435)

Ibn Abī Hātim said, from his father: “He narrated from Abū Sa’īd, but it is not authentic, and [from] Ibn ‘Abbās, but it is not authentic.” Abū Hātim ibn Hibbān said in the book al-Thiqāt [The Trustworthy Narrators]: “He met a group of the Successors (tābi’īn) but did not directly encounter any of the Companions. Whoever claims that he met Ibn ‘Abbās has erred.” (al-Iktifā’ fī Tanqīh Kitāb al-Du’afā’ 1/469)

Al-Khalīlī said: “He did not hear from Ibn ‘Abbās, the scholars of Kūfah said: He heard it from Ikrimah during the time of al-Mukhtar ibn Abi Ubayd.” (al-Irshād pg. 134)

The above narration was also collected by al-Khallāl #295 in al-Sunnah via: Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Sharīk. Al-Dhahabī said: “he is not reliable.” and Ahmad ibn al-Faraj, and ‘Ubādah ibn Abī Rawq al-Hamadānī who are unknown. And al–Dahhāk from Ibn ‘Abbās – see the verifiers comments on Kitāb al-‘Ulū 2/797, Dār al-‘Aqīdah)

Also collected by al-Tabarānī in “al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr” #12474 via Abdullāh ibn Sālih, ‘Abdullāh ibn Laī’ah, Atā ibn Dīnār, Sa’īd ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbās:

أَنَّهُ قَالَ فِي قَوْلِ اللَّهِ : ﴿ عَسَى أَن يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا تَحَمُودًا ، قَالَ : يُجْلِسُهُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ جِبْرِيلَ ، وَيَشْفَعُ لِأُمَّتِهِ ،فَذَلِكَ الْمَقَامُ الْمَحْمُودُ.

he said: “He will seat him between Himself and Jibrīl, and he will intercede for his nation (ummah), and that is the praised station (al-maqām al-mahmūd).”

Declared weak by al-Haythamī who said: “in it is Ibn Lahī’ah, who is weak when not corroborated, and ‘Atā’ ibn Dīnār—it is said: he did not hear from Sa’īd ibn Jubayr.”

The verifier commented on the above, saying: “Abdullāh ibn Sālih and Ibn Lahī’ah are both weak, and the narration of ‘Atā’ ibn Dīnār from Sa’īd ibn Jubayr is a written document and not a direct hearing.” (Majma al-Zawāid 14/236, Dār al-Minhāj)

Abdullāh ibn Sālih

Click here

Abdullāh ibn Lahī’ah

Click here

[There are also other similar narrations attributed to a group of sahābah, such as Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Āishah and others.

Qādī Abū Ya’lā mentions after narrating some of those narrations:

“…Abū Bakr (al-Najjād) said: I asked Abū Muhammad (Yahyā) ibn Sāʿid about (the hadith of) ʿUbaydullāh ibn ʿAbdillāh ibn ʿUmar from Nāfiʿ from Ibn ʿUmar from the Prophet (ﷺ) regarding His saying: “Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station” [al-Isrāʾ: 79]. He said: “He will seat me upon the Throne (al-ʿArsh).” He (Ibn Sāʿid) said: This is a fabricated (mawdūʿ) hadīth, it has no basis (asl). And as for the hadith of Yazīd ibn Hārūn from the Prophet (ﷺ) regarding His saying: “Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station” [al-Isrāʾ: 79], he said: “He will seat me with Him upon the Throne (al-ʿArsh)” – (he said, it is) a fabricated (mawdūʿ) hadīth, it has no basis (asl)….

Abū Bakr al-Najjād said: I asked Abū Bakr al-Bāghundī and he said: All these hadīths are false (bātilah), they are not preserved, except the narration of Mujāhid. And I asked Abū Ishāq ibn Jābir and Abū al-ʿAbbās ibn Surayj and Abū ʿAlī ibn Khayrān and Abū Jaʿfar ibn al-Wakīl and Abū al-Tayyib ibn Salamah, and each wrote with his (own) hand: that these hadīths have no basis, except what Ibn Fudayl narrated from Layth from Mujāhid.

Abū Bakr al-Najjād said: And he (Ibn Sāʿid) wrote to Abū Muhammad ibn ʿAbdān, and to Abū Yaʿlā, and to Abū Zakariyyā ibn Yahyā al-Sājī, and to Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Makram, and to Sahl ibn Nūh al-Basrī, and to Abū Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Marwazī, and to Abū al-ʿAbbās ibn al-Sarrāj, and to Muhammad ibn Ishāq ibn Khuzaymah. And their letters (were) with (different) wordings but all of them (conveyed) one (message): that whoever narrates these hadīths should seek Allāh’s forgiveness, The Mighty and Majestic, for they are false (bātilah) and have no basis (asl), except what Muhammad ibn Fudayl narrated from Layth from Mujāhid. Except that Muhammad ibn Ishāq ibn Khuzaymah said: Whoever narrated from Ibn Masʿūd and from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar, then he has narrated lies and falsehoods from the Prophet (ﷺ). And whoever deliberately narrates lies from the Prophet enters into the threat of the Prophet (in the hadīth): “Whoever lies about us deliberately, then let him take his seat in the Fire.”

Abū Bakr al-Najjād said: And all who wrote to me from the scholars of Hadīth according to this explanation said: And what I say regarding whoever narrated these hadīths: If he does not know their source, it was upon him to ask the people of knowledge. So when they inform him and make him aware it becomes obligatory upon him to reject them. So whoever narrates them after the scholars’ rejection, enters into the saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): “Whoever lies about me deliberately, then let him take his seat in the Fire.” (Abridged, Ibtāl al-Ta’wilāt pg. 529-531)

Shaykh ul-Islām ibn Taymiyyah said: “And al-Qādī Abū Yaʿlā authored his book Ibtāl al-Taʾwīl (The Refutation of Misinterpretation) as a response to the book of Ibn Fūrak. And he (Abū Yaʿlā), even though he provided chains of transmission for the hadīths he mentioned and mentioned who narrated them, in them are several fabricated hadīths, like the hadīth of direct visual seeing on the night of the Ascension (al-Miʿrāj) and the like.

And in them are things from some of the Salaf which some people narrated as raised (to the Prophet), like the hadīth of the seating of the Messenger (ﷺ) upon the Throne (al-ʿArsh). Some people narrated it through many chains as raised (to the Prophet), and they are all fabricated (mawdūʿah).” (Dar al-Ta’ārud 5/237)]

Narration 4: of Mujāhid

{عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} قال يجلسه أو يقعده على العرش

… from Mujāhid [regarding the verse]: {‘Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station’}, He said: “He seats him” or “He makes him sit upon the Throne (al-‘arsh).”

Imām Al-Dhahabī said: “This statement has numerous/five routes and Ibn Jarīr extracted it in his Tafsīr.” (al-‘Ulū pg. 124)

Imām Al-Dhahabī also said: “I say: This [narration of the Prophet seating on the throne] is famous/well-known from the statement of Mujāhid and is narrated as elevated [to the Prophet (ﷺ)] (marfū’an), but it is false (bātil, i.e. like the fabricated hadīth).” (al-‘Ulū pg. 131)

Yahyā ibn ‘Abd al-Hamīd al-Himmānī Abū Zakariyyā al-Kūfī:

Al-Bukhārī said: “Ahmad and ‘Alī used to speak (critically) about him.” And Ibn Numayr and Ahmad said: “a liar (kadhdhāb).” And al-Nasā’ī said: “weak.” (Jāmi Li-Kutub al-Du’afā #14257)

Layth ibn Abī Sulaym:

Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: “(He is) weak.” Ahmad said: “(He is) confused in hadīth.” ‘Uthmān ibn Abī Shaybah said: “He is trustworthy, truthful but he isn’t used as proof.” (Jāmi Li-Kutub al-Du’afā #10834)

Abū Hātim said: “Weak in hadīth.” Abū Zurʿah said: “Soft (weak) in hadīth, proof cannot be established by him according to the people of knowledge of hadīth.” Al-Jūzajānī said: “His hadīth is weakened.” (see al-‘Ilal 1/24, Jarh wa Ta’dīl 7/177, al-Kāmil 6/87 and Jāmi Li-Kutub al-Du’afā #10834)

Al-Nasā’ī said: “(He is) weak.” (al-Du’afā of al-Nasāʾī #541)

Al-Dāraqutnī said: “He is not strong.” (al-‘Ilal 6/21)

Ibn Hazm said: “(He is) weak.” (Jarh wa al-Ta’dīl of Ibn Hazm pg. 222)

Ibn al-Qattān said: “Layth is weak.” (Bayān al-Wahm 3/549)

Ibn Hajr said: “Truthful, (but) suffered mental confusion in his later (years), and his hadīth could not be distinguished, so (he was) abandoned.” (Taqrīb #6382)

Al-Albānī said: “Al-Manāwī said: “…and al-Tirmidhī himself constantly weakened him and considered (narrations) weak because of him”….Al-Bayhaqī said: “…he cannot be used as proof…” Ibn al-Jawzī said: “Ahmad and others abandoned him.” And Ibn Hibbān said: “He suffered mental confusion at the end of his life, so he would invert chains of transmission and elevate the mursal…”. Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī said in Al-Sārim al-Munkī (p. 63): “(he is) Weak, it is not permissible to use (him) as proof.” Al-Tahāwī said: “Even if he was from the people of virtue, his narration is not considered strong according to the people of knowledge.”

(Al-Albānī continues)… It became clear that the Imāms (of Jarh and Ta’dīl) are in consensus on his weakness, and his being trustworthy in himself (i.e. Truthful) does not remove from him the weakness with which he was described with…” (Mu’jam Asāmī al-Ruwāt 3/491-499)

Imām Al-Dhahabī also said: “As for the issue of seating our Prophet upon the Throne (al-‘Arsh), no text is established regarding that.” (al-‘Ulū 2/944)

Imām Al-Albānī declared the narration as Bātil (false) in al-Da’īfah 865 saying: “What indicates this is that it is established in the authentic [hadīth] that the praiseworthy station (al-maqām al-mahmūd) is the general intercession (al-shafā’ah al-‘āmmah) specific to our Prophet.”

In his checking of Mukhtasar al-‘Ulū pg. 191-192, Al-Albānī said: “And even if the (narration) were authentic as mursal (a statement of a Tābi’ī), there would be no proof in it…is the mursal hadīth anything except from the categories of weak hadīth according to the muhaddithīn (scholars of Hadīth)? So how can a virtue be established by it?! Rather, how can a creed be built upon it that Allāh, The Most-High seats His Prophet with Him upon the Throne?!”

Imām ibn ‘Abdul-Barr said: “Upon this (interpretation) are the people of knowledge regarding the interpretation of Allāh’s saying, The Mighty and Majestic: “Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station” – that it is (a reference to the) intercession (al-shafā’ah).

It has been narrated from Mujāhid that the praised station (al-maqām al-mahmūd) is that He (Allāh) will seat him with Him on the Day of Resurrection upon the Throne (al-‘Arsh).

This [statement], in their view, is rejected (munkar) as an interpretation of this verse.

What the community of scholars from the Companions, the Successors (al-Tābi’īn), and those after them among the later generations (al-khālifīn) hold is that the praised station is the station in which he intercedes for his community (ummah).

It has also been narrated from Mujāhid similar to what the community holds regarding this, so it became a consensus (ijmā’) in the interpretation of the verse among the people of knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah.

Ibn Abī Shaybah mentioned, from Shabāba, from Warqā’, from Ibn Abī Najīh, from Mujāhid regarding His saying: “Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station,” he said: The intercession of Muhammad (ﷺ).” (al-Tamhīd 11/671-672)

Imām ibn ‘Abdul-Barr also said in another place: “There is no one among the scholars except that his statements are taken and left, except the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ).

Mujāhid, even though he was one of the foremost in knowledge of the interpretation (ta’wīl) of the Qur’ān, has two statements regarding the interpretation of two verses that are abandoned by scholars and avoided by them.

One of them (is) this, and the other (is) his statement regarding Allāh’s saying, The Mighty and Majestic: “Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station” [al-Isrā’: 79]. Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allāh narrated to us, he said: Abū Umayya al-Tarsūsī narrated to us, he said: ‘Uthmān ibn Abī Shaybah narrated to us, he said: Muhammad ibn Fudayl narrated to us, from Layth, from Mujāhid: “Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praised station,” he said: (Allāh) will widen (the space) for him on the Throne and seat him with Him*.

This is a statement contrary to the community of Companions and those after them. What the scholars hold regarding the interpretation of this verse is that the praised station (al-maqām al-mahmūd): (is) the intercession (al-shafā’ah).”

*The verifier commented on this statement of Mujāhid and said: “[extracted]…through various chains from Muhammad ibn Fudayl, with it (the same chain). The chain of transmission (isnād) of this report is weak, because its basis (madār) is on Layth, and he is Ibn Abī Sulaym – and he has uniquely narrated it from Mujāhid, and Layth’s memory had deteriorated, and he was contradicted by one who is more virtuous than him and more reliable, and that is Ibn Abī Najīh, who narrated from Mujāhid that the praised station is the intercession of the Prophet (ﷺ).

Likewise Ibn Jurayj narrated from Mujāhid the same (interpretation). Al-Tabarī extracted it 15/144, and this interpretation is more (correct) as al-Tabarī said, due to its agreement with what is established as elevated (marfū’) from (the Prophet ﷺ) that the praised station (refers to) intercession. (al-Tamhīd of Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr 5/170, al-Furqān print)

Hāfidh Ibn Kathīr said: “…And Layth ibn Abī Sulaym, Abū Yahyā al-Qattāt, ʿAtāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib, and Jābir al-Juʿfī narrated from Mujāhid that he said in the interpretation (tafsīr) of al-Maqām al-Mahmūd: “That He (Allāh) will seat him with Himself upon the Throne.”

And something similar to this was narrated from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām, and Abū Bakr al-Marwazī compiled a large volume about it. And he and others narrated it from more than one of the predecessors (al-Salaf) and the people of hadīth, such as Ahmad and Ishāq ibn Rāhawayh and many others. And Ibn Jarīr said: “This is something that neither the one who affirms it nor the one who denies it can reject.” And al-Hāfidh Abū al-Hasan al-Dāraqutnī versified it in a poem of his [note that the chain of narration to al-Dāraqutnī regarding the attribution of this poem was weakened by Al-Albānī in al-Da’īfah 2/256 – in the chain is Ibn Kidāsh who was a liar and would openly fabricate narrations].

I say (i.e. Ibn Kathīr): The like of this should not be accepted except from an infallible one (i.e. the Prophet (ﷺ)), and no hadīth has been authentically established regarding this that can be relied upon or turned to for its sake. And the statement of Mujāhid and others regarding this—that it is al-Maqām al-Mahmūd—is not a proof by itself. And likewise, what was narrated from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām is not authentic. However, a group from among the people of hadīth received it with acceptance, though its chain of narration (isnād) to Ibn Salām is not authentic. And Allāh, The Perfect and Most-High, knows best to what is correct.” (al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 8/204-205)