by Yahya Whitmer, co-edited by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi

In the introduction to this series I explained why I am committed to developing a dialogue around the topic of Tawhid of worship. No matter what terms I use or what phrases I come up with, they are all massive understatements in regards to the importance of this issue. Only the words of the Creator Himself can do this topic justice and He has said, “I have not created the jinn and mankind except to worship Me” (51:56). Tawhid is quite simply the meaning of life and it is tragically unfortunate that there are grave misconceptions regarding it within the Islamic Ummah.

I will list some of those misconceptions here. All of these fatawa come from one website though not one person. Different Shuyukh gave their opinions and justifications regarding this issue. Thankfully, their opinions do not represent the entire body of Sufism and certainly do not represent the majority of the Ummah (despite their claims to the contrary). I assume, since they are all coming from one website, that they do represent a particular school of Sufi thought, but I decline to put an exact label on that school, for fear of painting too broad a stroke. But have no doubt, this is not a fringe group. The people who directly support the concept of making invocation to created beings are major figures in the modern Western Sufi scene and it is safe to say that thousands of Muslims are influenced by them. I would not have bothered with addressing their opinions were this not the case. As I mentioned in the introduction, I will not mention names in the hopes that the dialogue can remain focused on discussing the opinions, evidences, and implications, and not be hijacked by any emotional attachments for the people involved.  I will quote directly where possible, but at the end I will summarize their collective opinion for the sake of clarity and comprehension.

Prayer to the Creation

To put it succinctly, this brand of Sufism allows for direct invocation of created beings. Several similar questions were posted on their website, sometimes expressing concern and discomfort in regards to this practice:

• “I see on some internet forums, people writing such things as “Ya Ali I invoke thee” – I wanted to know is it allowed to say such things? Does this not smack of shirk?”  The Shaykh responds, “This is pure affirmation of Divine O neness. How can it smack of shirk?” In his response he mentions several viewpoints to justify his opinion. We will address those justifications soon.

• Another person asks, “Is it permitted to call someone other than Allah for help? Is this not bordering on shirk?”  And another scholar replies, “there is nothing wrong in using the Prophets, saints and the righteous as intermediaries to Allah, through any of the above mentioned means, as long as one does not believe them to have the power to benefit or harm in of themselves without the granting of Allah.”

• A person seeks validation: “I have a sheikh M******* who has passed away now. Whenever I am in need of help I ask for his help and  my work is done and I know this is through Allah but many people question me that how can this happen he was a human you are doing bidat ask straight from Allah these people do not believe in sheikhs. Could you please tell me how this help arrives?”  The official response: “There is general agreement of Sunni scholarship that tawassul (intercession; seeking a means) of the righteous is permitted, in their life and death”

Translated by Ramy Noaman

Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Saalih Al‐`Uthaymeen was asked about the creed of the Muslims with respect to Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon him.

He replied:

“The creed of the Muslims concerning Jesus, son of Mary, peace and blessings be upon him, is that he is one of the noble messengers. In fact, he was among those of Great Determination, and they were: Muhammad, Abraham, Noah, Moses, and Jesus, peace and blessings be upon them. Allah mentioned them in two places in His Book.

In Surat Al‐Ahzab (Chapter of the Confederates):

ِن ٱبۡ َسى ِعي َو َسىٰ ُمو َو َم ِهي َرٲ َوِٕابۡ ٍ۟ح ُّ نو ِمن َو َك ِمن َو ُهمۡ ِميَثـَٰق َن ٱلَّ نِبِّ يـۧ َن ِم َخذَۡنا َٔاَوِٕاذۡ ًظ ي ِل َغ ا ًق ٰ ـ َث ي ِّ م م ُه ۡ ن ِم ا َن ۡذ َخ َٔا َو َۖم َي ۡرَم

And [mention, O Muhammad], when We took from the prophets their covenant and from you and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus, the son of Mary; and We took from them a solemn covenant. [Qur'an ]33:7

In Surat Ash‐Shura (Chapter of Mutual Consultation):

ِهۦۤ ِب َّ صيَۡنا َو َما َو َك ِٕاَليۡ َحيَۡنآ َٔاوۡ ٓى ِذ َوٱَّ ل ً۟حا ُنو ِهۦ ِب َّ صىٰ َو َما ِن ِّ دي ٱل َن ِّ م ُكم َل َع َرَش َعَلى َٓاُبَر َوَلاَتَتَفَّ رُقواِْفيِۚه ۡنَٔاِقيُمواْٱلِّ ديَن ۖٓىَٰٔا َوِعيَس َوُموَسىِٰٕاۡبَرٲِهيَم ُب ي ِن ُي ن َم ِه ۡ ي َل ِٕا ىٓ ِد ۡ ہ َي َو ُء آ َش َي ن َم ِه ۡ ي َل ِٕا ىٓ ِب َت ۡج َي ُه َّ ل ل ٱ ِۚه ۡي َل ِٕا ۡ م ُه و ُع ۡد َت ا َم َن ي ِٓا ِر ۡ ش ُم ۡلٱ

He has ordained for you of religion what He enjoined upon Noah and that which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what We enjoined upon Abraham and Moses and Jesus ‐ to establish the religion and not be divided therein. [Qur'an :42]13

The Muslims believe that Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, was a human being, from among the progeny of Adam. He was created from a mother, with no father. The Muslims believe that he is the slave of Allah and His Messenger; for he is a worshiper, not one who is worshiped; and a Messenger who does not lie.

They believe that he does not have any attributes of lordship, whatsoever. Indeed, he is as Allah said:

َل ِءي َرٲٓ ِٕاسۡ ِّ لَبِنىٓ ً۟ال َمَث ُه َعلَۡنـٰ َج َو ِه َعَليۡ َعمَۡنا َٔانۡ َعبۡدٌ ِٕاَّ لا َو ُهِٕانۡ

Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor and We made him an example for the Children of Israel. [Qur'an ]43:59

And they believe that he did not command his people to take him and his mother as deities besides Allah. Rather, he said to them what Allah commanded him with:

ۚمۡ ُك َرَّ ب َو َرِّ بى َه ٱلَّ ل ُدواْ ۡعُب ٱ ِن َٔا ۤۦ ِه ِب َمرَۡتِنى َٔا َمآ ِٕاَّ لا ۡم ُه َل ُت ُقلَۡما

In this series of articles, Br. Yayha Whitmer and I will shed some light on the sad phenomenon of Muslims invoking other than Allah for their needs. Making du'aa to other than Allah is a matter that so clearly violates the message of the Quran, and even the testimony of faith, that its mere existence amongst those who subscribe to Islam, and its justification by people of knowledge, continues to boggle the minds of those Muslims who remain upon the fitrah. 

While many of the other theological innovations of non-Orthodox Islamic groups are truly not as relevant to our modern society, and can for the most part be ignored in public discourse, it is this 'line in the sand' that we strongly believe cannot be crossed.  Anyone who propagates the permissibility of making du'aa to other than Allah has violated the most basic message of Islam, and fallen into the essence of shirk that our Prophet came to eradicate. It does not matter what pseudo-Islamic arguments, or perverted understandings of the Scriptures,  are employed in attempting to justify this travesty against Allah. The fact remains that turning to other than Allah with the goal of using these beings as intermediaries to get to Allah is the very religion of the pagan Jahili Quraysh that the Quran was revealed to eradicate.

This article serves as the Introduction to a series of other articles. Most will be written by our dear brother, Ustadh Yahya Whitmer (who studied a few years with our teacher Sh. Muhammad b. Salih Ibn Uthaymin, and whom I befriended while studying with the Shaykh as well). A few will be written by myself. Ustadh Yahya has asked that I read over and comment on the series, and graciously insisted that I be listed as co-author, even though (unless otherwise noted) he is the primary author of these articles.

May Allah cause these series to have a positive effect on the Ummah!
-  Yasir Qadhi 

by Yahya Whitmer

I­­­­ remember the moment very clearly. It occurred 15 years ago and though a whirlwind of events have happened in my life since then, the resonance of this memory has not faded. It was the first time that I felt the fear of God. Not the fear of an unidentified spiritual being, but a very defined and focused fear of my Creator, who existed above and beyond me. This was especially remarkable because at the time I was an avowed and belligerent atheist, who relished debate and criticizing various religions. I was 18. I had been born into a non-practicing Christian family and by the age of 16 I had become convinced that Christianity and all its variations were nothing more than a mix of plagiarized mythologies, oppressive social control, and perhaps a bit of historic truth involving a seemingly noble person. By extension and analogy, I assumed all other religions to be the same, Islam included. I attended an international school in my youth and many of its students were from the Middle East, so I had seen enough examples of Muslim debauchery and hypocrisy to know that they were no different from anyone else. So it was with great consternation, during my first year of college, that I received the news that a young man in my dorm had converted to Islam. I had thought that he was like me: worldly, liberal, educated, and rational (yes, at 18 I thought I was pretty hot stuff). He had come from an elite prep school, he was popular, charismatic. So, what the heck was he doing?! The notion that a person from such a background could readily, of his own free will, adopt such an odd and particularly oppressive religion (so I thought) truly bewildered me.

So it began: debate, questioning, and research. Islam, aside from a nod from Malcolm X, seemed to have little validity or modern resonance. But then this person gave me a copy of the Qur'an and upon reading it my world view began to tilt and pivot; my awareness went in directions I was completely unprepared for. I remember one particular session of reading the Qur'an; the verses had thundered at me, declaring that I must submit to the One True God. Over and over, the Qur'anic message challenged me, demanding that I think, that I search, that I recognize that there is a Creator who deserved my allegiance, that living my life without concern for His wishes was not only inherently wrong and ungrateful, but would result in severe consequences. Never had I heard a call so pure. Although the Qur'anic message was expressed in a variety of ways throughout its thousands of verses, the essence of its call was clear, even to my arrogant 18 year old mind: there was a Creator, whose influence and control permeated every nook and cranny of the world, and I was meant to know Him in a more intimate and direct manner than anything I had ever conceived: He knew my heart, He saw my actions, and no one and no thing stood between us. There was no place to hide. The only option was submission, change, saying that I was sorry, and working to better myself. This was the spiritual mandate, the personal covenant that I understood from the Qur'an, and it rocked my world.

Until Islam, the concepts of God that I had encountered were comical, pitiful, fractured. He had created Adam and Eve and then lost sight of them in Eden. He had been a partisan deity, almost like a servant to the people that believed in Him. Or He looked like a giant old man with a long beard. Or He was irrelevant and salvation lied in extinguishing and controlling the self. Or he was splintered into multiple incarnations, 3 or hundreds. Or my relationship with Him occurred through a multitude of human proxies. Or my salvation could be purchased through the church. Or someone else had taken responsibility for my sins. But the Islamic concept of God was different. The Qur'an informed me that God was absolute, undeniable, irresistible. Nothing happened except by His will. He was above and beyond and yet He was close and aware. Nothing was like Him, yet He was described in terms that I could comprehend. He was Merciful and Just and demanded that we live with each other in mercy and justice as well. And finally, this Ultimate Being wanted to deal with me personally. Through submission, recognition, reflection, and prayer I could be in His presence and required no intermediary. I was promised that through embracing this relationship I would know true peace, but it was still my responsibility and my choice to make.

Something long dead inside me stirred. Though I obstinately clung to my atheism, a cognitive awakening had occurred and a question began to creep its way up to the forefront of my consciousness. It was the most basic of questions, but it had been submerged in years of self-indulgence and petty distraction. Finally, one day, as I was heading back to my dormitory, I looked up into the sky and asked myself, sincerely and for the first time, “Was God really there?” And in that moment I knew fear. I knew fear because the simple answer was, “Of course.” My own soul had answered me, my fiṭrah, my innate human nature. The sublime beauty and unified order of the natural world had answered me. The absolute uniqueness and power of the Qur'anic verses had answered me. God was there. I had lived 18 years completely ignoring Him and had planned to live the rest of my life in a similar fashion, but that wouldn't work anymore. This God, the God that the Qur'an described to me, could not be ignored. And He did not deserve to be either.

I became a Muslim approximately 6 months after that incident. There are many things about those sequences of events that I need to be thankful for, but my main purpose in narrating this story is to say that the essence of Islam has always been clear, pure, and simple: A one on one relationship with the Creator of the heavens and the earth. He alone will take us to account and it is our hearts and our deeds that He will judge and only His Mercy that will save us. It is to this message that my soul responded and continues to respond. My studies at an Islamic University in Saudi Arabia, my time spent with Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih Al-Uthaymeen, my readings of the works and collected statements of the earliest and best generations of Islam, all testify, agree, support, and expound on this concept. This is Islam.

Until I learned that it wasn't, at least for a significant segment of the Muslim community.

I generally do not bother myself with what other Muslims are supposedly doing wrong, unless it is directly affecting me and my family. My own flaws tend to cause me more problems than the mistakes of others. However, due to several recent personal events, I felt a responsibility to investigate a particular brand of Sufism … but let me be clear: I abhor blind sectarianism. It is a waste of time in the best of cases and an impediment towards embracing the truth in the worst of cases. But because people I knew and cared for seemed to be heavily influenced by this ideology I felt compelled to investigate it. On one of their primary websites I found what I feared to find: to call upon other than Allah was not a problem, the website said. It was not only your actions that drew you close to Allah, but people as well; through invoking them, you could gain favor with God and your prayers might be answered. It was not singularity (tawḥīd) of worship that Allah required from us, only singularity in recognizing Allah as the Creator.

I was unnerved. Did people really see Islam this way? Did they not realize that through these amendments, these exceptions, the purity of the relationship between Creator and creation was compromised? Is not duʿāʾ the essence of worship, as the Prophet taught us? Was worship not for Allah alone? Were my hopes, my prayers, my salvation subject to the influence of other than God? Then to how many beings may my heart be attached? To how many other beings may a Muslim's heart turn to in times of need?!

As naïve as it may seem to some readers, discovering these fatāwa, reading their justifications, and considering the spiritual implications truly disturbed me. I was familiar that concepts such as these existed in some Sufi traditions, but here it was at my doorstep, affecting people I knew and in many ways admired. Yet the difference between day and night paled in comparison to how different our views of Islam were.

This discussion about the true spirit of Islam is not irrelevant or superficial. I truly understand that we have many pressing social issues that need to be addressed. Education, spousal relations, parenting, personal and community finances, all of these are immensely important. But this issue is one that defines Islam, it is at the heart of what it means to be a servant of God. This is what opens or closes the gates of Heaven and Hell. It is the first building block of a personal relationship with the Creator; the first step towards true love and loyalty, or the first step towards infidelity and ingratitude. Even at the community level, this is relevant because unity is only achieved through a common sense of purpose. The Muslim ummah is not different from other communities because of its Arab origins or its specific rituals. It is different and defined by the message, “Lā ilāha illa Allāh” and discussion about what that really means will never be inconsequential.

Unlike previous explorations of similar topics, I intend to not just discuss whose evidence is stronger and more convincing, but also the spiritual implications of the two opposing viewpoints. The decisions you make about how you interact with your Creator are not detached intellectual choices, rather they have a direct and immediate impact upon your soul. What happens to your personal sense of responsibility, your spiritual work ethic, if you believe in direct intercession? What does it mean to believe that your actions are your only means (waṣīlah) to God's Mercy? Are the pious a model to be imitated or something else? What of praise, what of love and attachment? Questions like these define the servant's path to his Creator.

My ultimate goal in writing this series is not condemnation, but dialogue. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen had a very specific method for dealing with differences within the Islamic ummah. He insisted that only the opinion and its evidences be discussed without mentioning the name of the person whom he disagreed with. By doing this, he was able to maintain focus on analyzing the strength of each argument and minimize individual reasoning from being clouded due to personal attachments. Following in the footsteps of my mentor, I will only be discussing the opinions, through direct quotation and minimal paraphrasing, and I will not mention names. I will also not pass judgment, implied or otherwise, on any person, no matter how vehemently I disagree with them. As a student of knowledge, I am equipped to discuss concepts, but judging individuals and their creed is far beyond my capabilities or responsibility.

Compassion, wisdom, and patience were the hallmarks of the Prophet's call and so should they be with us. The people of the Qiblah have done enough to deserve such courtesy. My only request of any person who reads this series and disagrees with me is that s/he make the arguments and implications of each opinion the primary criteria, not the people who hold the opinions. Allah sent us this Book, this Messenger, and this Message, in Truth and it is to the Truth that we are ultimately obligated.

In this series, Shaykh Yasir Qadhi and I will discuss 4 main domains, where the evidences, conclusions, and implications of the 2 opposing viewpoints will be contrasted:

1. The Jamāʿah. What is this “main body” of Muslims that the Prophet (peace be upon him) has instructed us to adhere to?

2. Tawaṣṣul and Waṣīlah. What are the “means of approach”, the ways in which we may seek closeness to our Creator?

3. Tawḥīd. What does this word really mean and which interpretation of it is represented by “Lā ilāha illa Allāh”?

4. What now? Equipped with the information presented, what should a Muslim do? What attitude should he/she take with people that disagree? What other insights are needed to keep this message relevant and compelling? And how should it affect his/her relationship with Allah?

My secondary goal is to inspire a deeper appreciation of the tenets of Islam that I believe in. There is an old Arabic saying, bi-ḍiddi yatabayyanu al-ashyāʾ (by opposites things become clear); in comparing the differing opinions, I have grown in gratitude and love for the concepts that provide the foundation for my faith; I have a greater realization of how deep their roots grow and of how firm they stand in the face of challenges and opposition… much like a blessed tree. I hope that the reader may find similar or greater inspiration.

I pray that Allah pours His Mercy upon all my teachers, both living and dead, and I pray that you find true benefit in what I have written. And Allah knows best.

Chapter 2: Repentance

16. Abu Mūsa Al-Ash'ari (may Allāh be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: “All, the Exalted, will continue to stretch out His Hand in the night so that the sinners of the day may repent, and continue to stretch His Hand in the daytime so that the sinners of the night may repent, until the sun rises from the west”. [Muslim].

17.  Abu Hurayrah  (raḍyAllāhu 'anhu) narrated: Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, “He who repents before the sun rises from the west, Allāh will forgive him”. [Muslim].

18. 'Abdullāh bin 'Umar bin Al-Khattab  (raḍyAllāhu 'anhu) reported that: The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, “Allāh accepts a slave's repentance as long as the latter is not on his death bed (that is, before the soul of the dying person reaches the throat)”. [Al-Tirmidhi, who categorized it as ḥadīth Hasan].

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen may Allāh have mercy on him says in his explanation of these aḥadīth:

These three aḥadīth which the author had mentioned, may Allāh have mercy on him, are all related to repentance.

As for the ḥadīth of Abu Mūsa, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: “Allāh, the Exalted, will continue to stretch out His Hand in the night so that the sinners of the day may repent, and continue to stretch His Hand in the daytime so that the sinners of the night may repent, until the sun rises from the west”.

It is from the Generosity of Allāh, Glorified and Exalted, that He accepts (one's) repentance even if it is late.  So if the person commits a sin during the day, then Allāh ta'āla accepts his repentance even if he repents at night.  Similarly, if the person sins at night and then repents during the day then Allāh ta'āla accepts his repentance. In fact, He, Almighty, stretches His Hand to receive this repentance from His believing servant.

In this ḥadīth there is evidence that Allāh, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, loves repentance, and we have already mentioned in the previous ḥadīth -the story of the man who lost his camel and then found it- that Allāh is more happy with the repentance of His believing servant when he repents to Him than the man who had found his lost camel.

From the benefits of the ḥadīth of Abu Mūsa is the affirmation that Allāh ta'āla has a Hand.  Rather, He has two Hands, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, as He said:

“The Jews say: “Allāh's hand is tied up.” Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His Hands are widely outstretched.” [Sūrat'l-Mā'idah 5:64]. This Hand which Allāh has affirmed for Himself- rather, the two Hands- we are required believe in them, and the fact that they are affirmed for Allāh.
However, it is not permissible for us to imagine that they are like our hands, because Allāh says in His Book:

There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the Hearer, the Seer [Al-Shu'arā' 42:11], Hence, everything you come across from the attributes of Allāh then affirm it for Allāh, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, without comparing it to the attributes of the creation, because there is nothing like Allāh, neither in relation to His essence nor to His attributes, subḥānahu wa ta'āla.
From the benefits of this ḥadīth: is that Allāh, subḥānahu wa ta'āla, accepts the repentance of the servant even if it is late. However, hastening to repent is obligatory, since a person does not know, for death may surprise him and he dies before repenting. So the obligation is to hasten (to repent), but even if it is delayed, Allāh will accept the repentance of His servant.

In this ḥadīth (of Abu Hurayrah) there is evidence that once the sun rises from the west, the (time for) acceptance of repentance is over. But, a questioner may ask, 'does the sun rise from the west? It is known that the sun rises from the east!'
To this we say: Yes, this (the sun rising from the East) is what is known, and this has been the case ever since Allah created it until this day of ours.  However, towards the end of times Allāh will command the sun to go back from where it came so (its) cycle will be inverted and it will rise from the West, and when the people see it they will all believe, even the disbelievers (such as) the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Communists, and others, they will all believe.  However, the one who did not believe before the sun rises from the West then his belief will not benefit him.
Everyone will repents as well, but the repentance of one who did not repent before the sun rises from the West will not be accepted, because this Sign will be witnessed by everyone, and once the Warning Signs arrive then neither repentance nor belief shall be of any benefit!

As for the ḥadīth of 'Abdullāh bin Umar: “Allāh accepts a slave's repentance as long as the latter is not on his death bed”, meaning: as long as the soul has not reached the throat. But if the soul has reached the throat then there is no repentance, as per His saying:

(And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent) [Sūrat'l-Nisā' 4:18].

So upon you, O my fellow Muslim, is to hasten to repent to Allāh 'azza wa jal from your sins, and to desist from what you have been entangled with from disobedience, and to perform what you have been neglecting from the obligations, and to ask Allāh to accept your repentance.

And Allāh is the source of success.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Indeed all praise is due to Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) and we ask Him to send His peace and blessings to the universe, the final messenger Muḥammad and to everybody who follows his way with righteousness until the last day.

The topic I have chosen to discuss today is the issues related to entertainment in Islam.  This topic is one that comes up with many of the young Muslims.  They seem to have this understanding that having fun is not permitted for the believer, and this understanding is something which drives them away from practicing Islam as they begin to find Islam constraining and difficult upon themselves.

What we will be looking at in this short video is some of the proofs as to what is the Islamic position towards entertainment which is ḥalāl, which is ḥarām, and what is recommended.

Attitude of People Towards Entertainment

We need to begin by first examining the attitude of people towards entertainment.  Among those who live a worldly life without any attachment to the religion, their understanding of entertainment is that this is what life is all about.  Many people live their lives for entertainment.  They want to have fun even though they work and earn money.  The money is used to purchase more means of entertainment.  If they have a television, they are working harder to buy a bigger television.  If they have a car with a radio in it, they want to buy a radio with an MP3 player.  If it has an MP3 player, they want to buy a DVD player for the car.  If they have PlayStation 2, they want to buy PlayStation 3.  It is always about more and getting more entertainment and enjoying life more.

This is the attitude of those who are caught up in the dunya among the Muslims and the non-Muslims.  This is a very destructive attitude as it distracts us from the purpose of life.  Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) created us to primarily worship and obey Him.  If we are distracted too many hours by making money and then using that money to have fun, what happens is that we now do not have time to worship Allāh.  You find people who when you tell them to join you for an Islamic project, the first excuse is “we don't have time.”  They have time to watch 3 hours of movies every day and play four hours of video games every day, but they don't have one hour to devote to Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla).  This is a very dangerous position to be in.

It is these types of people who Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) speaks about in the Qur'ān in Sūrat'l-Takāthur when He says, “The competition to gather the nice things in this world has distracted you until you visit the graves (meaning until you die).  Then only will you come to know the reality.  Definitely then only will you come to know the reality.”  Allāh continues in the surah and says that these people who spend their entire lives chasing after the dunya when they die “they will see the hellfire with their own eyes, and on that Day, Allāh will ask them about the good things He gave them in this world and what they did with them.”  It is very important for us that while we as humans want to have fun, we should not allow this to distract us from our purpose in life.  We need to prioritize and realize that the purpose why Allāh created us is to worship Him.  This should always be a priority.

The idea of just having fun and enjoying life and making money is not an Islamic understanding of the world.  The Islamic understanding, however, is not the opposite extreme.  There are Muslims who go to the opposite extreme and say that we are here only to worship Allāh so there is no such thing as entertainment and there is no such thing as having fun, but this is a misunderstanding.  This is a wrong understanding of Islam.

The correct attitude of a Muslim is that Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) created us upon the fiṭrah.  He created us with natural inclinations towards good or evil.  There is nothing in this religion which is against our fiṭrah.  Anything that is part of human nature is accommodated for in Islam, and so to the human need for recreation is also accommodated.

We find that Islam allows people to enjoy themselves but in ways that are wholesome, pure and ḥalāl.  If you look at the principles of fiqh, one of the principles of fiqh when it comes to things of this world is that everything is permissible unless you have proof that it is prohibited.  This applies to forms of entertainment as well.  Those forms of entertainment which are clearly prohibited in the Qur'ān or in the Sunnah or by analogy are the prohibited forms, but everything else is permissible as long as they fulfill basic criteria.

There is a narration that some people bring forth, and they say that this narration prohibits all forms of entertainment except three.  There are two versions, and one says three and one says four.  The narration is that all of the recreational things of this world are bāṭil (void) and a waste of time except for three (another narration says four).  The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) described them as archery, horseback riding, and swimming.  In the other narration the fourth one added is wrestling.

Some scholars based on this narration say that these four are the only permissible types of entertainment.  In his Iḥyā' 'Ulum'l-Dīn, Imām al-Ghazāli (raḥimahullāh) gives a very good response to this.  Imām al-Ghazāli mentions that, “Just because these few are mentioned in one ḥadīth does not necessarily mean that other forms are all ḥarām because there are many other narrations that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) and the ṣaḥābah entertained themselves in other ways not mentioned in this ḥadīth.”  The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) used to race with his wife on foot and used to watch people play with swords in the masjid.  They used to have competitions with watermelon seeds, and they used to do many other things.  Some of the children used to play with toys, and it goes on and on.  There were many other things they used to do.

This ḥadīth is not limiting what is ḥalāl.  Furthermore, the word in the ḥadīth is not ḥarām.  The word in the ḥadīth is “bāṭil,” meaning that there is no reward in it.  If there is no reward in something, it does not make it ḥarām.  It is still ḥalāl unless you have proof for it to be prohibited.  The Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) is telling us that these forms of entertainment are rewarding.  If you ride a horse, train with archery, or are swimming, these are types [of entertainment] that are rewarding because they keep you physically fit and energized and this is something which is good in Islam.  It does not necessarily mean that others are prohibited.

We need to understand the primary principle is that when it comes to entertainment, everything is permissible unless we have proof for it being prohibited.

Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla) tells us in the Qur'ān, “Allāh wants things to be easy for you.  He does not want to make things difficult for you.”  Allāh says, “There is nothing in this religion which is a burden.”

Conditions that Make the ḥalāl ḥarām

From among the other principles which cover the issue of entertainment, besides the rule that everything is ḥalāl unless proven ḥarām, there are certain things if they are found in the aspect of entertainment, they become ḥarām.  These things include:

1.  Including any element of ḥarām.

Something might be ḥalāl in itself, but the minute elements of ḥarām get involved, a person should stay away from it.  For example, playing sports like cricket, football, soccer, or these types of things, in itself is ḥalāl, but if playing is going to make a person vulgar and abusive to his friends, then it is not permissible for such a person to play it even though it is permissible for others.  The first thing is that it should not lead to what is ḥarām.

2.  It should not consume too much of our time.

If one is playing video games for ten hours a day or one is watching two or three movies a day or one is watching cricket for five days in a row for six hours a day, then this can become ḥarām as you allow wasting time.  To waste our time is not permissible in Islam.  We should have entertainment in ways which refresh us without consuming all our time.  Two hours a day or three hours a day is ok if you are spending the rest of the day in what is good in issues of 'ibādah and work and family time.  To let it consume your time is not permissible.

3.  It should not consume your resources.

Somebody who is spending all of his money on entertainment, this is not permissible.  We are responsible for not only how we earn money but also how we spend it, so again, we need to balance our lifestyle and not be from those whom Allāh calls the musrifūn, those who are wasteful when it comes to spending their money.

These are some of the conditions that could make something which is ḥalāl ḥarām.

Prohibited Forms of Entertainment

There are certain forms of entertainment which are completely prohibited in Islam from the Qur'ān and Sunnah.  Anything involving intoxication, whether it is alcohol or drugs, is prohibited.  Anything involving or leading to zina is prohibited.  Any such a place where people go to entertain themselves which is again of alcohol or zina or drugs or nowadays you get places where you can find all of these things together, such places are prohibited for us to attend.

Likewise, gambling is completely prohibited.  Any form of entertainment which involves shirk is also prohibited.  Many times Muslims don't realize when they are doing something for fun that it actually involves shirk.  You will hear Muslims playing a game and one Muslim will tell his friend, “My character is omnipresent” or “My character is lives for eternity.”  This is shirk.  Only Allāh has these qualities.  Even to give these qualities to characters in a game is not permissible.

Likewise, any form of entertainment which involves fortune telling is not permissible.  There are various other things.  For example, when it comes to the issue of joking and comedy, there are many rules which regulate this in Islam.  Islam is not against joking in itself, but the content needs to be clean and free from shirk and must not be mocking Islam or the Muslims.  Anything which is part of Islam cannot be mocked.  If there is something that Muslims do which is not Islamic and you are mocking them to show them that this is not Islamic, that is ok.  But when you are mocking Islam, this is kufr.  It is very important for those Muslims involved in the field of entertainment known as comedy to be very careful what they say and to study deeper the fiqh of joking and to use this fiqh accordingly and to make the jokes accordingly so that they do not step onto this dangerous territory.

Recommended Forms of Entertainment

There are other forms of entertainment which are recommended, as we mentioned in the ḥadīth: swimming, archery, horse riding and wrestling and other forms of physical martial arts.  These types of things are recommended because they help keep the body fit.  Likewise, spending time with your wife and your children is all recommended in Islam and in fact it sometimes even becomes obligatory on a person to spend at least a minimal amount of time with their family members.  Having fun together with your children and with your wife are things which Islam recommends.  Take them out.  Go to a park.  Go and eat out together.  These things are very much recommended as it helps to strengthen the unity of the family.

Likewise, dealing with nature brings you closer to Allāh (subḥānahu wa ta'āla), so if you enjoy visiting zoos and parks and places where there is a lot of nature and animals, alḥamdulillāh this is something which is good.  Islamic songs are also something which is recommended according to some and permissible according to others.  In my view, it is something good which will take people away from the prohibited forms of music.  Likewise there are many other things when you study the Qur'ān and Sunnah.  You will find in the sīrah of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) many ways in which he and his companions used to have fun which are completely ḥalāl.  If the Prophet (peace be upon him) recommended it, then it becomes something which is recommended as well.

When it comes to the issues of entertainment, there are two main areas where we have a lot of questions.  The first is in the issue of animations and drawings and the second is the issue of music and musical instruments.  I want to focus primarily on these two topics for the remainder of the session.

Animation and Drawings

When it comes to animation, there are various opinions from the scholars.  As 'Ā'ishah (raḍyAllāhu 'anha) narrates a ḥadīth, the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited the drawing of living creatures. 'Ā'ishah (raḍyAllāhu 'anha) herself also narrates that she used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam).  One of these dolls was a horse with wings, and the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not see anything wrong with her playing with these dolls.

So the scholars have differed on this issue.  Some scholars looking only at the first ḥadīth have said that the drawing of living creatures is completely prohibited.  Other scholars, trying to reconcile between both ḥadīths, have come to various opinions.  The two most common opinions are that either drawings are permissible unless they lead to glorification or shirk or the more common, and the stronger opinion, is that drawings are prohibited unless they are for entertainment and education of children.  Any form of drawing or depiction of living creatures which is for the entertainment of children or for the educational purposes, many of the scholars have ruled that these are permissible.  So children's toys, animated movies, and these sorts of things based on this will be permissible.

Obviously then the issue comes about content.  When it comes to animation, even these days many of the animated movies produced by non-Muslims have content which is questionable for Muslims to watch, so parents need to screen the type of animation they allow their children to watch, something they themselves have gone through first to make sure that there is nothing in it which will take the children away from Islam and that the content is clean and then allow them to watch it.

While this is going on, it is very important for Muslims who have access to making media and producing videos, such Muslims should focus on making animated movies for Muslim children, which have Islamic content.  Alḥamdulillāh this is something which is happening nowadays and it is something where there is a lot of room for growth and expansion.  This will become an alternative for the children so that they do not get involved in the types of movies and entertainment which are prohibited.

Some people might say that television in itself is prohibited, but this is not the correct opinion.  The correct opinion is that it depends on the content.  If somebody is watching this video, there is absolutely nothing wrong with watching such a video as the content is Islamic.  If somebody is watching a video that has ḥarām elements in it, then that is not permissible.  One has to look at the content of the specific video to declare if it is permissible or not.  The television and videos are in themselves tools, and the tools are ḥalāl.  What they are used for and what is viewed on them is what makes them ḥalāl or ḥarām.  The same ruling applies to animated movies.

From the ḥadīth of 'Ā'ishah (raḍyAllāhu 'anha), scholars have deduced that children's toys are permissible, animated movies for children are permissible, animated books for children are permissible.  This is one of opinion of scholars.  Some scholars do disagree with this, there is no doubt about it.  This is the opinion that I follow, and Allāh knows best.

Music and Musical Instruments

The other issue which crops up most often when it comes to entertainment is the issue of music.  We have one group of Muslims who are saying that music is completely prohibited and there is no two ways about it.  We have another group of Muslims saying that music is completely permissible and those who are saying it is prohibited are extremists.  Both of these groups have not understood the nature of fiqh when it comes to the issue of music.  Imām al-Shakwāni (raḥimahullāh) has written a very good book on this topic called Ibṭālu Da'wa'l-ijmā' 'Ala Taḥrīm Muṭluq'l-Samā'.  This book is available in Arabic and has not been translated into English yet.  In this book, Imām al-Shawkāni mentions something very interesting and a very different approach to this debate that many of us have today.

He says, “I have never listened to music in my life.  I believe that musical instruments are prohibited, but I am writing this book and showing all the different viewpoints with their arguments so people can understand that there is difference of opinion on this issue and so that we can tolerate each others' opinions and not accuse our Muslim brother of kufr and deviation.”

This is a very important point when it comes to this issue.  There is a difference of opinion here, and if somebody is convinced of a different opinion than you, it does not make them a disbeliever and it does not make them a deviant, rather this is an issue of fiqh which the scholars have differed over.

If you look at the madh-habs, the Ḥanafi madh-hab ruled that all musical instruments are prohibited.  Even the tapping of your finger on the table or the desk to make noise is prohibited according to the Ḥanafi madh-hab.  The Ḥanbali madh-hab is of the view that the hand drum, the duff, is permissible.  They differ over whether it is only permissible for women and only for special occasions and whether it is permissible for everyone.  The Māliki madh-hab, if you study it carefully, is of the view that drums are permissible.  In the Māliki book of fiqh which I have read, whenever it talks about the prohibition of music, it only mentions wind instruments, and from there scholars have mentioned that drums are permissible according to that madh-hab.  The opinion of the Ẓāhiri madh-hab, the madh-hab of Ibn Ḥazm (raḥimahullāh), is that all musical instruments are permissible.

These views all exist among the madh-habs, and nobody can deny that they have existed among the madh-habs.  It is for the scholars to study the different evidences and to follow that which their study has led them to believe is the most correct conclusion.  If that conclusion is different from yours or mine, we must tolerate it and accept it as a difference of opinion.

Nonetheless, for the average Muslim who does not have knowledge of fiqh and the principles of fiqh and the ability to decide between the madh-habs, in these issues it is always better to stay on the safe side and to follow the majority opinion and to follow the strongest opinion.  When it comes to the prohibition of musical instruments, the majority of madh-habs agree that wind instruments are prohibited even though Ibn Ḥazm and Imām Ghazāli and a few others disagreed with them.  The majority said that it is prohibited.  To be on the safe side, the average Muslim who has not been able to research this issue should stay away from such instruments and songs which include such instruments for their own safety as this is now a grey area.

The other issue of the drums and the duff is something where there is a lot more difference of opinions among the scholars.  There is a much bigger difference of opinion amongst them.  As a result, on such issues there is a lot more room for differences.  This is an area of difference of opinion amongst the scholars – musical instruments and whether they are prohibited or permissible – and accordingly every scholar and those who follow a specific scholar have the right to follow what their ijtihād has led them to even if it is a different conclusion from you or me.

Linking this to the issue of animation and movies:  Somebody will ask, “I believe and follow the opinion that musical instruments are prohibited, but the animated movies and other movies have a lot of background music in them.  Can I watch these movies while ignoring the music?”  We go back to a fatwa of Shaykh'l-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who mentioned that just like hearing the Qur'ān is not rewarding (you have to listen to the Qur'ān to receive the reward), similarly hearing music is not sinful and you have to listen to the music for it to be sinful.  If you are in a place where there is music being played in the background and you are not paying attention to it, you are not sinful for it.  Likewise, if you are watching a program on television where there is music in the background and you are not paying attention to the music, then – and Allāh knows best – that would be in my opinion permissible.

For those Muslims who are involved in media and in producing animated movies or documentaries or any other type of Islamic media, my recommendation to you is that even if you are of the opinion that instruments are permissible, you should not include them in your videos.  The reason for this is that you are trying to reach out to the Muslims.  When you include music in your videos, the majority of Muslims or at least 50% of the Muslims are not going to watch that video because there is music in it, so you are now alienating a portion of the ummah from receiving your message.  If your purpose of making the video was as many Muslims as possible watch and benefit from it, it will be better to avoid those instruments which most Muslims regard as prohibited even if your personal opinion is that it is permissible.  For the sake of benefiting the ummah in general, it is better even for those who view it as permissible to stay away from it.

These are some of the issues of entertainment which crop up.  The issues of music and animation are perhaps two of the more common areas in which we have questions.

Games

Another area where there are a lot of questions is when it comes to games and two types of games:  board games and video games.  The ruling for both is the same.  The ruling for both is that the content would make it permissible or prohibited.  Those board games which are generally for gambling will not be permissible.  If you are playing those same games without any gambling involved, then too the scholars have ruled it to be makrūh (disliked) as it is one of those things that leads to gambling, so it is better to stay away from such games.

One of the games that crops up often is playing the game of chess.  Many scholars have ruled chess to be ḥarām while others have ruled it to be permissible.  From my study of the evidences and arguments used, I honestly believe that the playing of chess is permissible with the conditions I mentioned earlier that it does not constitute too much of your time and it does not lead to other prohibited things, etc. and whatever I mentioned earlier as being the conditions for a form of entertainment to be permissible.  In my view, this applies to chess as well.  In itself, it seems to be a harmless game to me.  The evidences I have seen against it are either weak or mistranslated or even at times misunderstood.

For example, in one of the books of fiqh, one of the scholars of the madh-habs said, “There is no good in chess,” so some scholars took this as a prohibition of chess.  The wording of this statement is not saying it is ḥarām, but it is just saying that there is no reward in it.  It doesn't necessarily make it ḥarām, it is just saying there is no reward and no good in it.  Allāh knows best.  My opinion is that the game of chess is permissible.

When it comes to video games, again the content is what matters.  It should not be addictive and should not consume too much of your time or too much of your wealth and resources or lead you to do anything ḥarām.  All of this needs to apply.  Such a video game which fulfills these conditions, and again which has clean content and you yourself do not play too much of so that it does not consume your time and you are not spending too much of your money on it, then Allāh knows best, but such games would be permissible with these conditions.  And Allāh knows best.

Advice

I would like to conclude this short discussion by mentioning that the times we are living in entertainment is everywhere, and we as Muslims if we want our children and the young Muslims to be safe from the various forms of vulgar and sexually provocative entertainment that is out there, then we need to start producing alternatives for them.  We need to start producing Islamic media.  We need more Islamic songs, Islamic movies, Islamic animations, Islamic games.  All of this needs to be produced as a wholesome alternative for the young Muslims, so that they do not have to turn to other people and other resources when they want to have fun.  They have good and wholesome fun available to them.

Likewise, the masjids need to open up for youngsters to have fun at the masjids and build sports centers at the masjid or in the sisters section allowing room where they can sit and talk about things which are permissible and have some fun.  Maybe build a swimming pool.  Whatever is within the budget of the masjid.  Create these recreational facilities for the Muslims because if we don't provide alternatives, they by their nature, especially those who are young, want to have fun.  If the alternatives are not there, then people will turn to the ḥarām sources for fun.

It is very, very important that we as an ummah start working towards producing these ḥalāl forms of entertainment.  It is very important that we make this a priority to produce alternative ḥalāl media for the Muslim youth and ḥalāl forms of recreation for them.  I ask Allāh to make it easy for us to practice our religion, to understand our religion correctly, and to enjoy what Allāh has made ḥalāl in this world in a way that does not cause us to forget Him and to forget our purpose in life.

Anything I said that is wrong is from my own self and from Shayṭān.  Everything I said which is correct is from Allāh.  I ask Allāh to make this an addition to our scale of good deeds on the Last Day.

In our previous parts, we discussed the travel distance required to be considered a traveler. In this article,
we shall discuss the time duration that one remains a traveler.

2. For How Long Does One Remain a Traveler?

The final issue that we need to discuss is the time duration for which one is allowed to shorten the prayer while one remains a ‘traveler’. In other words, once one has arrived at one’s initial destination and intends to remain there for a duration before returning home, for how long can s/he shorten and combine? Once again, we face a myriad of opinions on this issue (I have come across at least eighteen different opinions, and there are more); for the purposes of this article, we shall restrict ourselves to the more common ones.

2.1 The State of ‘Travel’ Ceases after 15 days

The Ḥanafīs considered a ‘traveler’ to be someone who intends to reside at a place for fifteen days or less (inclusive of the day that he intends to travel). They based this on qiyas, or analogy, with the longest possible days of a woman’s period. At first glance, this analogy does seem rather bizarre. However, they reasoned that both a traveler and a woman in her menses must ‘return’ to a more permanent state of worship (the menstruating woman returns to her prayers after desisting from them, and the traveler returns to the full prayer after ceasing to be a ‘traveler’), hence there is a commonality between these two scenarios that would allow us (or so the Ḥanafīs felt) to extrapolate the same ruling to these two scenarios.

They also use as evidence a tradition of Ibn ʿAbbās in which he stated that the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam stayed in Makkah for fifteen days, praying qaṣr (Reported by Abu Dawud; most scholars of hadith consider this version to be inauthentic for a number of reasons, one of which is that more authentic versions of this hadith mention even higher numbers.)

The Ḥanafis also attributed this position to Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn ʿUmar,[1] and it is also one opinion of Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib.

2.2 The State of  ‘Travel’ Ceases after 4 days

The Mālikīs, Shāfiʿīs, and Ḥanbalīs claimed that the time that makes a traveler into a resident is four days.

Note that the Ḥanbalīs have qualified this as ‘twenty prayers’ and not four days; also there is some difference of opinion between the Mālikīs and the Shāfiʿīs over when this time frame should start and end and whether the day that one arrives and leaves counts or not. For the purposes of this article, all of these differences will be ignored. What is important to note is that these three schools have a similar time frame of ‘four days’.

Their main evidence is the command of the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam that the Emigrants (Muhajirūn) who were performing Hajj with him should not stay in Makkah for more than three days [Reported by Muslim].

In order to understand the reasoning of these three schools with respect to this tradition, an important fact must be understood. The Emigrants who had left Makkah for Madinah during the hijra were prohibited from returning to Makkah as ‘residents’, since they had given up that land for the sake of Allah. The point derived by the majority, therefore, is that the reason the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam prohibited them to stay more than three days is that it is the staying of four days or more that converts a traveler into a resident. To buttress this point, these schools also mention that the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam himself prayed qaṣr when he remained in Makkah for three days, after performing ʿUmrah.

Another evidence that is used is the travel restrictions that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb placed on non-Muslim traders who wished to conduct business in Makkah or Madinah: he only allowed them permission to remain for three days.[2] Once again, the interpretation given is that it is four days or more that converts a traveler to a resident, hence he forbade them from remaining for more than three days.

And it is also reported from Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib (d. 95), who said, “If you want to stay for four, then pray four!”[3] This is also the opinion of the Permanent Committee of Scholars, the fatwa of Shaykh Ibn Bāz, and the opinion of our Shaykh Muḥammad al-Mukhtār al-Shanqīṭī.

2.3 The Opinion of Ibn Taymiyya

Ibn Taymiyya, extrapolating from many of the same premises as his earlier position on the distance of travel, felt that there exists no explicit evidence or reasoning that would specify a particular time period that effectively converts a traveler into a resident. Therefore, he felt that a traveler would remain a traveler even if he stayed at a specific location for a longer period of time, as long as his lifestyle was that of a ‘traveler’.

As part of his evidences, Ibn Taymiyya also pointed out that there are authentic narrations that indicate the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam would pray qaṣr for more than fifteen days. Of them is the hadith of Jābir that the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam camped at Tabuk praying qaṣr for twenty days (Reported by Abu Dawud). Another is the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās in which he reported that the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam stayed in Makkah nineteen days, praying qaṣr (Reported by al-Bukhārī). The four schools all re-interpreted these evidences (by claiming, for example, that the Prophet did not know how long he would camp at Tabuk during that expedition, so he did not intend to stay for more than ‘x’ number of days; and so forth). However, Ibn Taymiyya clearly takes an unbiased and apparent reading of these evidences to suggest that there is no specific number that the Prophet  ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam suggested and that at times he prayed qaṣr for more than four or fifteen days.

Nonetheless, perhaps understanding that this open-ended response also had potential problems, Ibn Taymiyya did feel that the majority opinion of four days was safer to follow.

In one fatwa, Ibn Taymiyya was asked about a traveler who intends to remain for one month in a city: is he permitted to shorten? He replied that it was safer for him not to shorten but to pray in full.[4] In another fatwa that he was asked, he explicitly permitted a person in a similar situation to shorten the prayer for this longer period, even while saying that it is ‘safer’ to pray the full amount.[5]

In other words, Ibn Taymiyya himself did not unequivocally allow such a person to pray qaá¹£r for a limitless number of days. Even though he said that it is permitted and that one should not rebuke those who do this, he also said that it was better to pray full.

However, a modern follower of Ibn Taymiyya, Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, took this fatwa to a possible logical conclusion. According to Ibn ʿUthaymīn, as long as a person did not intend to remain permanently in a city, such a person would be considered a traveler, even if he remained in that city for years on end. Based on this fatwa, numerous Saudi students (some of whom I personally met) would pray qaṣr for years while students overseas. They reasoned that since they had the full intention of returning to Saudi Arabia after their four or five years of study, they were, in fact, in the state of ‘travel’, even if they purchased houses and cars, and put their kids in a local school. When Ibn ʿUthaymīn was asked about this scenario, he agreed with this interpretation and reasoned that since there was no actual time limit, even the duration of ten years would constitute ‘travel’ as long as one wished to return to a place called ‘home’.

2.4 The Strongest Opinion

Before mentioning what appears to be the ‘strongest’ opinion, it should be mentioned that there are many other opinions on this issue as well. For example, some have said that the time duration is twenty days; Isḥāq b. Rāhwayh said this period was nineteen days; others said seventeen; yet others thirteen; al-Awzāʿī said twelve; al-Ḥasan b. Ṣāliḥ said ten; Ḥasan al-Baṣrī said three; and Rabīʿa al-Raʾy said a stay of one day converts one from a traveler to a resident. However, for the purposes of our discussion, we will limit the opinions to these famous and mashhūr ones.

Also note that the issue of one who is not certain about the time that he is remaining in a land is a separate one, and even within these schools, the majority would allow qaṣr for much longer periods in this case. The classic example mentioned in legal books is that of the soldiers of the army guarding the borders; they could be called for duty at any time, and they are most certainly not ‘residents’ considering the harsh conditions they live in. There are authentic reports that some of the Companions prayed qaṣr for months on end (perhaps even for years). It is reported that Ibn ʿUmar prayed qaṣr for six months while in Azerbaijan.[6] However, this was done in a state of war, and therefore when one is in such a state that one can leave at any time, obviously this would take a separate ruling from the one who intends a particular number of days.

Returning to our discussion, once again, Ibn Taymiyya’s points resonate strongly with the open-minded researcher. The ‘four-day rule’ seems derived, and not intended. There are numerous authentic traditions in which the Prophet ṣalla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam stayed at a location for more than four days while shortening the prayers. Therefore, even though the majority of the schools of law did stipulate four days, there really seems no evidence whatsoever to limit such a ruling to a specific time period. In our times, it is extremely common for office workers (in particular, consultants) to travel for five days of the week to an on-site location, and such workers are travelers in every sense of the word, despite the fact that they are remaining in the same location for more than four days.

Yet, to allow no limit whatsoever (as our respected Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn did) really does not seem to be either in the spirit or the intent of the Shariah. Yes, it is true that a traveler cannot be defined by a particular time-frame, but surely s/he can be defined as a resident by actions that s/he undertakes. A traveler does not buy a house, or ‘settle down’, or take care of his children’s long-term education. Therefore, a person who comes to a town, knowing that he will stay for a few years, is clearly not a ‘traveler’ anymore, since he must take care of all of these matters and more. Owning or renting a house is not the same as living in a motel.

No doubt, such a distinction is not a black-and-white one, and there are many shades of grey in between. It is precisely because of such grey areas that most legal scholars are prone to give solid numbers (‘48 miles’, or ‘4 days’) rather than the more ambiguous yardsticks of Ibn Taymiyya. And therefore, should someone prefer to follow one of these standard opinions mentioned in our classical schools, this is something that should be encouraged and not looked down upon. Nonetheless, if someone were to follow the more academic position of Ibn Taymiyya, this (in my humble opinion) would be closer to the intent of the laws of the Shariah.

And in the end, it is indeed Allah alone who knows best.

NOTES:

This article did not discuss the following issues in detail; for the sake of completeness, they will be mentioned in passing:

Firstly, the legal status of shortening the prayer (qaṣr). The Ḥanafīs deemed it to be obligatory for the traveler and stated that if the traveler prays the regular prayer, he will in fact be sinful. The majority said that shortening the prayer was preferred, but not obligatory.

Secondly, the legal status of joining between two prayers (jamÊ¿), specifically of course, áº'uhr and Ê¿Aá¹£r, and Maghrib and Ê¿Ishā. [No school of law allowed jamÊ¿ for any other two combinations of prayers].

The Ḥanafīs did not allow any joining of the prayers except for the pilgrims during the days of Hajj. They did not view joining as one of the concessions granted to the traveler and claimed that the joining together during the days of ʿArafat and Mina are related to the rites of Hajj and not to the issue of traveling.

The vast majority of other scholars allowed áº'uhr and Ê¿Aá¹£r to be joined, and Maghrib and Ê¿Ishā to be joined, based on explicit, authentic traditions on this matter. Additionally, they said that this should preferably be done only during the actual travel. Once a traveler arrives at his temporary destination, it is preferred (but not obligatory) to pray each prayer at its proper time.

Ibn Taymiyya writes, after mentioning some traditions that describe the Prophet’s prayer during travel,[7]

So all of this shows that combining the prayers (jamʿ) is not from the sunnahs of traveling, unlike shortening them (qaṣr) – rather, combining the prayers is only done where there is a need to do so, regardless of whether one is traveling or not, for it is also permissible for the resident to combine. Therefore, if a traveler needs to combine, he may do so, for example: if he will be engaged in the act of travel during the first or second prayer time, or he needs to sleep or rest… However, as for someone who stops for a few days in a village or city, then his ruling is the same as that of the people of that village. So such a person, even though he should pray qaṣr as a traveler, should not combine, just like he should not pray on an animal, or resort to tayammum, or eat a dead animal. All of these matters are only allowed when there is a need to do so, unlike shortening the prayer, for this is a sunnah for all travelers.

Note that this is contrary to what most travelers do: they assume that combining the prayers takes the same ruling as shortening does and regularly combine for the entire duration of the travel.

Thirdly, when precisely is it allowed for a traveler to begin shortening and combining the prayers? A small minority said that he may do so as soon as he commences the travel, even if he still be in his house (i.e., immediately before he leaves). However, the majority said that he may only begin shortening and combining once he has left the city walls (or, in our times, when he has exited the last settlements that are still considered a part of his city).

Continued from Part 1

1.5 The Distance in Modern Measurements

So what exactly does a ‘day’s journey’ mean? Not surprisingly, there is no easy method of converting classical measurements into modern ones. It appears that many researchers (classical and modern) did not pay due attention to scientifically converting such measurements into modern ones. What follows is my brief attempt to illustrate the hurdles that one faces.

The standard units of measurement for travel during early Islam were the farsakh and the barīd. However, the Prophetic traditions use the term ‘day’s travel’. So the first issue at hand is to convert the Prophetic ‘day’s travel’ into the classical terms of farsakh and barīd. Before we even begin that, let us first define these terms and establish a relationship between them.

A barīd was a distance that a messenger could travel before he needed to stop to allow his animal to rest. If the message was urgent, then at the end of every barīd there would be a fresh animal waitingfor him. Eventually, the term began to be applied to the ‘messenger’ himself and then to the actual ‘message’, hence modern Arabs still call the postal service ‘barīd’.[1]

A farsakh appears to be a Persian measurement that the Arabs adopted (it was also adopted by the British and called a ‘league’). Most early works mention that four farsakhs make up one barīd.[2] So it can be said that each barīd is divided into four smaller units of a farsakh (plural is farāsikh).

1 barīd = 4 farāsikh

So far, so good. Now the real confusion begins.

The first real issue is: How many barīds can be traversed in a 24-hour period? Unfortunately, this is not something that is unanimously agreed upon, and it is this difference of conversion that results in one difference of opinion over the number of days required to consider someone a ‘traveler’.

Collectively, the Ḥanbalīs, Shāfʿīs and Mālikīs all agreed that the distance of ‘travel’ was four barīds. However, they disagreed amongst themselves as to what exactly this meant in terms of ‘days of travel’. Some within these schools said that in any 24-hour period, a maximum of two barīds could be traversed; other scholars within these same schools, however, said that four barīds could be traversed in one 24-hour period. It is because of this conversion difference that these three schools of law had opinions of both one-day and two-days as being the minimal amount of ‘travel’.

One day’s travel = EITHER two barīds OR four barīds [both opinions held]

What is important for us to note is that these three schools were in agreement with the limit as being ‘four barīds’.

Therefore, for the ‘three schools’,

Sharʿī distance of travel = 4 barīds = 16 farāsikh [For the ‘3 schools’]

This is the opinion of the schools of law other than the Ḥanafī school. As for the Ḥanafīs, they also disagreed regarding how many farsakhs can be traversed in a day [and there is significant disagreement amongst their own scholars as well].

In order to simplify matters, the majority opinion within the Ḥanafī school appears to be that five farāsikh can be traveled in a 24-hour period [note that some Ḥanafī scholars said six, some said seven].[3]

Thus, for this school:

Sharʿī distance of travel = 3-day journey = 3 days x 5 farāsikh/day = 15 farāsikh [Ḥanafī school]

Ironically, even though the Ḥanafīs have a larger quantity in terms of travel days, because the actual journey traveled per day is shorter, the net difference was not of great significance.

Therefore, in the end, all four schools of law are relatively close to one another in terms of farāsikh (16 or 15).

The second dilemma that we face is: How exactly does one translate a farsakh into the modern measurements of miles and kilometers? Obviously, depending on one’s estimate of a farsakh, the distance of a day’s journey will vary accordingly.

Here is where we encounter our first serious problem.

We begin by pointing out that many medieval texts define a farsakh as being ‘3 mīls’. Mīl is, of course, how the Arabs pronounce the word ‘mile’. This would be absolutely perfect, until we understand that this mīl is not the equivalent of the modern ‘mile’! It appears that the Arabs got this word (as did the Romance languages) from the Roman mīllia, which they (i.e., the Romans) measured as a thousand paces by foot.  A ‘pace’ was defined to be a full stride of a Roman soldier (in our understanding, that would be two steps, one with each foot). It has been estimated that this ‘Roman mile’ was actually around five-thousand feet (in our current understanding of ‘feet’). It was only centuries later that the English Parliament standardized the exact length of miles and feet, and decreed that 1 mile = 5280 feet (around 1.6 km). [Why and how they came up with number is really beyond the scope of this article – our readers are already confused by now, and those who are interested may look this tidbit up in any encyclopedia].

While the Arabs took the name from the Romans, they did not take the same measurement. It is also claimed that the Roman soldier’s step was considerably larger than the average step of other ethnicities, especially those who had shorter statures.

The Roman mīllia was adopted by many different cultures. Therefore, to distinguish this Arab version of the mile from other adopted versions,  it was called the ‘Hashemite mile’. Other versions of the mile were the Russian, the Danish, the Portuguese, and the German (not to mention the Nautical Mile, which is different from land equivalents).

Our scholars did attempt to define this Hashemite mile (a.k.a. a mīl); however, in the days before scientific measurements and  international treaties that governed such matters, they could not come up with a unified definition. Some classical texts mention that a mīl consists of twelve-thousand steps; others claimed that a mīl was as far as the eye can see; yet others claimed that it was the distance where one could recognize a figure of a human in the distance but could not tell whether it was a male or female.[4]

What is clear from all of this is that not only is a mīl undefined, even if one of these definitions were to be taken, it would not be scientifically precise. The bottom line is that the Arab mīl, a.k.a. ‘Hashemite mile’, had never been scientifically defined. How could it, in an era before the Newtonian scientific revolution that we are all familiar with and upon whose standards we conduct experiments?

In the 16^th century, the British parliament offered a precise definition that has stuck to this day: that 1 mile = 5280 feet (around 1.6 km).  Remember that this conversion factor was a relatively recent one, offered by the British. However, when some of our modern scholars attempted to then translate these ancient distances of farāsikh and barīd into modern units, they appeared to have read in the British conversion units into the ancient terms. Hence, they simply ‘chugged and plugged’ away, using the ancient definition of one farsakh being three medieval Hashemite mīls, and every ‘mile’ (sic.) being 5280 feet. Thus, they moved from an ancient term (farsakh) to a medieval one (mīl) to a British definition of another (mile).

This was not the only attempt to translate the farsakh into a recognizable unit. The famous scholar Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) stated that a farsakh is roughly 10,500 ‘arm-lengths’ (dhirāʾ).[5] Very well, but what does that mean for us in our units of measurement? An average arm-length has been estimated in our times to be around 48 centimeters (i.e., 0.48 meters).[6] It appears that a large group of later scholars accepted Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s conversion factor and based modern calculations on it.

Other scholars, such as al-Nawawī, al-Ramlī, and al-Ḥajjāwī all held the position that a farsakh is in fact eighteen-thousand dhirāʾ.[7]

Hence, plugging and chugging away:

- With the conversion factor of one farsakh = 3 mīl = 3 ‘standard’ miles

Four barīds = 16 farsakhs x 3 mīl/farsakh = 48 mīl = 48 miles = 77.25 km

- With the conversion factor of Ibn Ê¿Abd al-Barr:

Four barīds = 16 farsakhs x  10,500 dhirāʾ/farsakh x 0.48 meters/dhirāʾ = 80.64 km (50.4 miles)

- With the conversion factor of al-Nawawī:

Four barīds = 16 farsakhs x 18,000 dhirāʾ/ farsakh x 0.48 meters/dhirāʾ = 138.24 km (86.4 miles)

For reasons that I could not understand, the modern Ḥanafi position typically calculates a distance of 15 farsakhs to be 77 km (or 48 miles).

It can be seen that the conversion factor of al-Nawawī actually yields almost double the distance of the first conversion factor. It can also be seen that all of these conversions are rather tenuous; none of them could have been known or measured with such precision during the time of the first generations of Islam.

Now that we have successfully (?) translated these ancient units into three possible distances (and note that there are even more possibilities if we were to discuss other conversion factors), let us return to the issue of the distance required for one to be considered a ‘traveler’.

1.6 The strongest opinion

Now that we have discussed the actual distance of these measurements, let us return to the original question: which of these opinions appears to be correct?

The strongest opinion – and Allah knows best – appears to be the last one (viz., that a traveler is one who customarily understands his situation to be one of ‘travel’), for a number of reasons:

1) Ibn Taymiyya’s point that the Prophet did not specify any distance is a very poignant one. He neither ordered that the earth be measured, nor did most of the travelers of the time calculate the distance that they traveled. It does not make sense, therefore, that the Shariah would place a numerical value when such unit-definitions were not known or followed by the majority of that generation.

2) Even in the hadiths that the majority use (about a woman traveling without a maḥram), there are discrepancies between ‘one-day’, ‘two-days’ and ‘three-days’ – all three wordings are reported in one or both of the Saḥīḥ works. So which one should be resorted to?

Additionally, all three hadiths use the word ‘travel’; would it not, therefore, be safe to assume that the Prophet was not trying to link the word ‘travel’ to any distance, but rather simply discussing the issue of a woman traveling without a maḥram? Furthermore, the tradition about permitting wiping over the socks has nothing to do with setting a limit for ‘traveling’ – it merely sets a time-limit for allowing someone to wipe over one’s socks.

Therefore, there is nothing in the hadith literature that one can safely use as a defining distance for travel.

3) As can be clearly seen, there is no precise and agreed upon conversion factor for translating a ‘day’s journey’ into a tangible and precise measure. There are a number of ‘grey areas’ in this calculation.  What exactly is a ‘day’s journey’? How many barīds are in such a journey? How many farsakhs can be traveled in a day? How long is a farsakh? What exactly is a mīl? And so forth.

If this is the case, it does not make sense that our Shariah would have obligated us to measure ‘travel’ in units that to this day remain undefined and ambiguous.

4) To place a precise measurement on ‘travel’ seems to contravene the purpose of the law and hence the maqāṣid of the Shariah. The purpose of this ruling is to ease the burden upon the traveler by allowing him to shorten and join the prayer. If a traveler is engrossed in figuring out how far he has traveled (imagine in the days before car odometers gave this information), it is as if the Shariah is placing a bigger burden on him by asking him to calculate a distance that he is, in all likelihood, not capable of doing.

5) This distance really makes very little sense in modern times. A distance of 80 km is more akin to a picnic than to a travel – and according to Ibn Taymiyya’s definition, if one were to go to a park outside of one’s city with the express intention of returning in a short period of time, this would not constitute travel. If we look at the frame of mind of a family who is going on a day-trip to a park outside the city versus going on a journey, there is a significant difference. When one goes on a day-trip, the house is left as is, the neighbors are not told, life ‘at home’ is not assumed to be interrupted, and so forth. On the other hand, when one goes on a ‘travel’, miscellaneous factors must be taken care of before embarking on a ‘journey’. All of this is known to and experienced by the people of our time.

6) Before even beginning to ‘convert’ such ancient units into modern ones, an even more profound dilemma can and should be discussed. For those who follow one of the ‘standard’ opinions, the issue must be raised: is it not too literalistic to measure a ‘day’s- journey’ by the means and methods of eras gone by? In other words, if the primary means of travel of the time were horses and camels, and based on that one extrapolates a day’s journey, would it be permissible (in fact, would it not be more in line with the goals of the Shariah) to measure a modern day’s journey in car-travel time?

Personally, if I were to follow this opinion (meaning, if I were to follow a ‘two-day journey’ opinion), it would make more rational sense to me to measure a ‘day’s journey’ in the standard travel-means of our times, namely: a car. This then raises a further question: Does this mean we can eventually extrapolate to a passenger plane? How about a private jet? Questions abound; answers, on the other hand, are not so easy to bring forth.

All of this lends further credence to the position of Ibn Taymiyya: that a ‘traveler’ is one who is customarily considered one. An average Muslim does not need to resort to a scholar, or to a map, in order to find out if s/he is a traveler or not: you know it by what you do to prepare for a trip and your psychological frame of mind.

To be continued…

In our next and final installment, we will discuss how long one remains a traveler at a non-resident location.

One of the five main principles upon which Islamic law is based (i.e., the Legal Maxims, or al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyya) is: “Difficulty begets ease” (al-mashaqqa tajlib al-taysīr). This principle is manifested throughout all of the rules of fiqh, and in particular that of travel (safar). A traveler may shorten the prayers (qasr), combine them (jamʿ), and be legally permitted to break the fast of Ramadan (fiṭr).

There are explicit evidences from the Quran, the Sunnah, and unanimous consensus of the scholars of Islam that allow a traveler to shorten his or her prayers.

The Quran says, “And if you travel in the land, there is no sin on you that you shorten your prayers (taqṣurū min al-ṣalāt) if you fear that the unbelievers may harm you.” [Sūra al-Nisāʾ:101].

The verse seems to suggest that ‘fear’ is a necessary condition, along with travel, in order to shorten the prayer. However, even though the verse mentions ‘fear’ as a condition, it is no longer a requirement.  ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb was asked how it was still permissible to shorten prayers even though there was no ‘fear’ remaining. He replied, “I asked the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam the exact same question, and he said, ‘This is a charity that Allah has given to you, so accept His charity’” [Reported by Muslim]. In other words, Allah has graciously lifted the condition mentioned and allowed Muslims to shorten even if there is no fear of impending attack by enemy forces.

It is narrated in numerous traditions that the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam would shorten every four-unit prayer to two-units whenever he was traveling – in fact, he never prayed any four-unit prayer while in a state of travel.[1]

Hence, there is unanimous consensus amongst all the scholars of Islam that a traveler who is undertaking a legitimate journey may shorten the four-unit prayers to two.[2] [Note that the issue of combining (jamʿ) is a separate one, and there is a difference of opinion regarding the permissibility of combining prayers while traveling].

The question that arises, however, is: when does one legally become a ‘traveler’? And for how long may one continue to shorten the prayer?

To answer this question, we will divide this article into two sections. Firstly, we shall discuss the opinions of scholars regarding the distance that constitutes ‘travel’. This will also require us to go into a tangent and convert the distances narrated in the classical and medieval textbooks into modern measurements. Secondly, we shall discuss the opinions of the scholars regarding the time-duration that is required for the status of a traveler to change into a resident once he arrives at some destination.

1. The Distance that Constitutes ‘Travel’

The distance that constitutes ‘travel’ is one of the most highly contested issues amongst the early scholars of Islamic law, so much so that Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 310/922) mentioned close to twenty opinions on this matter. For the purposes of our article, we shall concentrate on the four most famous opinions.

1.1 First Opinion: A three-day journey

What is meant by a ‘three-day journey’ is the distance that a traveler on a camel of average speed would traverse in three complete days.

This is the position of the Companion Ibn Masʿūd, some of the famous scholars of Kufa such as al-Shaʿbī (d. 105/723) and al-Nakhaʿī (d. 96/714), and the standard position of the Ḥanafī school of law.

They based this figure on the famous hadith in which the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam said, “It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she travel for a distance of three days without her father, son, husband, brother or any maḥram ” [Reported by Muslim]. They reasoned from this hadith that the Prophet called the distance of ‘three days’ a ‘travel’, hence this can be taken as a definition for what constitutes traveling.

Another evidence that they used was the hadith pertaining to wiping over the socks, in which the Prophet “…allowed a traveler to wipe over his socks for a period of three days and nights” [Reported by Muslim]. The Ḥanafīs reasoned that since the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam set a particular time limit in place, this demonstrates that anyone traveling a distance less than a three-day journey would not be allowed to wipe over his socks, which would then imply that he would not be a traveler.

1.2 Second Opinion: A two-day journey

This is the famous opinion of the Ḥanbalīs, Shāfʿīs and Mālikīs (note that even within these schools there are other opinions as well, as shall be pointed out in the next section). This opinion has also been reported from Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 129/746), and others. From amongst the modern scholars, this is the opinion of Ibn Baz (d. 1999) and the fatwa of the Permanent Committee of Scholars of Saudi Arabia. It is claimed that this is the majority opinion of the classical scholars of Islam.

Their evidence is the fact that the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam said, “It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she travels for a distance of two days without a maḥram” [Reported by Muslim]. They also used the action of Ibn ʿUmar as an evidence, for it is reported that he would shorten his prayers if he traveled the distance of four barīds (i.e., two days, as we shall discuss later in this article) [Reported by Imam Malik in his Muwaṭṭa].

1.3 Third Opinion: A one-day journey

This was the opinion of Imam al-Bukharī (d. 256/869) which he explicitly mentions in his Ṣaḥīḥ. It has also been attributed as a second opinion within the three schools of the last opinion (viz., the Ḥanbalīs, Shāfʿīs and Mālikīs). [It will be explained later why this second opinion for these three schools is not in essence different from their first one].

The famous scholar of Syria, al-Awzāʿī (d. 151/768), said, “This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, and we hold it as well.” Amongst the modern scholars, this is the opinion of our teacher Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Mukhtār al-Shanqīṭī.

Their evidence for this is the fact that the Prophet salla Allahu ʿalayhī wa sallam said, “It is not allowed for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day that she travels for a distance of one day without a maḥram” [Reported by al-Bukhārī]. Al-Bukhārī commented on this hadith by saying, “So it is clear that the Prophet called [the traveling of] one day and night a ‘travel.’”

They also use as evidence the statement of Ibn ʿAbbās, when he was asked by a person residing in Makkah, “Should I shorten when I go to Mina or Arafat?” He said, “No! But if you go to Taif, or Jeddah, or travel an entire day’s journey, then do so. But if you travel less than that, then do not shorten.”[3] Therefore, he expressed ‘an entire day’s journey’ as being the minimal limit for shortening the prayers.

1.4 Fourth Opinion: It is not defined by distance but by experience

What is meant by this opinion is that a journey is not defined by how much one has traveled but by what one does and how one prepares for it. According to this opinion, a ‘journey’ is not a particular distance as much as it is a physical and psychological experience.

This is the opinion of Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064) (although he placed a minimum of ‘one mile’), Ibn Qudama (d. 610/1213), Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1327), Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 756/1355), al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 1182/1768), al-Shawkanī (d. 1250/1834), and others. It has been interpreted to be the opinion of Ibn Masʿūd, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān, and Ibn Sirīn. In fact, there is an explicit statement from Ibn Sirīn which shows that this opinion might have been more prevalent in the past, for he states, “They used to say that a travel in which one may shorten the prayer is a journey in which one takes provisions and baggage.”[4] Amongst the modern scholars, it is the opinion of Ibn ʿUthaymīn (d. 2000) and Ibn Jibrīn (d. 2010).

Their evidence is the lack of any Scriptural evidence that defines ‘travel’, and hence the necessity of resorting to what is culturally understood to be ‘travel’.

Ibn Taymiyya was perhaps the most vocal proponent of this opinion. He disagreed with any specific distance that other scholars sought to derive. According to him, there is no explicit evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, language or custom of that generation that would be binding on later Muslims. He views the distances that the legal schools and other scholars adopted as having been resorted to because these scholars did not find anything more explicit to demarcate the distance required to be considered a ‘traveler’. In fact, all three of the previous opinions use the same basic hadith that prevents women from traveling without a male companion – yet, as is obvious, each hadith uses a different limit. This in itself shows that the intention of the hadith is not to define the distance of what constitutes 'travel'.

Ibn Taymiyya writes,[5]

So demarcating a specific distance does not have any basis in the Shariah, or in the language, or in the intellect. Most people, in fact, do not know the distance of the earth, so it is not allowed to link something that the average Muslim is in need of (i.e., when to shorten the prayer) with something that he does not know (i.e., how much he has traveled). No one measured the earth during the time of the Prophet, nor did the Prophet himself put limits, neither in mīls nor in farāsikh (units of measurement). And a person might leave his village to go to the desert in order to collect wood, and he leaves for two or three days, and he will be a traveler, even though the distance might be less than a mile! In contrast to this, another person might go [a longer distance] and come back the same day, and he will not be a traveler. This is because the first person will take provision for the journey, and bags [with his necessities], whereas the second person will not. Therefore, even a near distance can be considered a ‘travel’ if someone stays for a period of time, and a longer distance will not be considered a travel if a person stays for a short period. A ‘travel’ is therefore defined by the actions that are required in order for that journey to be called ‘traveling’… and this is a matter that people recognize by their own customs.

Ibn Taymiyya did, however, place a condition that such a travel be considered a travel according to one’s custom, such that a person would prepare for a journey and travel into the wilderness (meaning, an uninhabited area). Hence, if a person visited an outlying district of a city (in Ibn Taymiyya’s explicit example, if a person living in Damascus visited a small population outside of Damascus), even if this distance was considered large, this would not constitute travel, as this is not considered ‘traveling’ for a person in this situation.

Therefore, according to Ibn Taymiyya, a ‘travel’ is not merely a distance but also a frame of mind. Someone who leaves his house, intending to return the same evening, is not a traveler, even if (as in our times) he travels to another country and then returns. Ibn ʿUthaymīn also holds the same position.[6]

Ibn Taymiyya also pointed out that this interpretation was in accordance with the very word safar in Arabic, because this word indicates ‘exposure’. Thus, a woman who exposes her face is called sāfira. Therefore, a safar’ would be a journey in which a person ‘exposes’ himself/herself to the wilderness by abandoning the cities and towns and journeying into an uninhabited area.

To be continued…

Part Two deals with converting these measurements into modern units.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Reading the highly charged words exchanged between Muslims in the past two weeks over the issue of Tunisia, and now Egypt, I felt sad to see a number of people taking very extreme stances and forgetting the middle path of Islam that we have been guided to by Allah.

Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against mankind, and that the Messenger may be a witness against you. [2:143]

There is no doubt that this is an issue that has presented many challenging questions, and that we should all be reminded that when clarity is not present that it is better for us to remain silent and protect ourselves from the evil of both harming others with our words, and worse, speaking about Allah without knowledge. May Allah protect us all from these evils and imbue our words with wisdom.

I myself spent a great deal of time both reflecting on the events as they unfolded, as well as reviewing the various stances of our noble scholars on matters of this nature. Initially, despite my excitement and du’a for the safety and success of the people of Tunis, I was nonetheless very concerned by the number of people who turned away from Allah and instead to major sins like self-immolation to solve their problems.

Yet there is no doubt that there is an indescribable degree of desperation that has taken hold of so many people in these countries, a desperation that may very well have led to outright madness in many of our brothers and sisters. Hence, it is my sincere du’a that Allah, the All-Merciful and All-Forgiving, will overlook their actions done in these dire moments and that He reward them with success against their oppressors and with His pleasure and Mercy – ameen.

On the matter of suicide, let us briefly take the time to remember this important hadith from Sahih Muslim. When the Prophet (saas) made hijrah to Madinah, Tufayl ibn 'Amr came as well, along with a man from his tribe.  This man became ill when he first reached Madinah and his illness became so severe that he took a knife and slit his wrist, and the blood spilled out until he died.  Tufayl then saw him in a dream, in a good vision, except that his hands were wrapped up.

So he asked him, 'What has your Lord done with you?'

He replied, 'He has forgiven me because of my hijrah to His Prophet (saas).' The he asked, 'Why are your hands wrapped up?'.

He said, 'It was said to me: We shall not fix something you have corrupted yourself!'

So Tufayl relayed this to the Messenger of Allah (saas), so he said: 'O Allah! And forgive his hands (too)!'

From this hadith we understand that suicide does not expel a person from Islam, but rather it is a major sin that can lead to punishment in the Hereafter.

Al-Qaadi 'Iyadh said in Ikmaal al-Mu'lim:

“In this hadith is proof for Ahlus-Sunnah for what they say, that Allah may forgive the sins of whomever He wants, and it explains the ahadith before it that might seem to give the false impression that someone who commits suicide faces the eternal threat of remaining (in the Fire) forever.”

Yet as the events continued to unfold, I witnessed the images of people being sprayed with water cannons while in sujud, the commitment of the overwhelming majority of the people to keep the protests free of the use of weapons and killing and the selfless acts of the brave and courageous Egyptian youth who set up neighborhood watches to protect their neighbors’ homes and shops. It was then that I realized the goodness of this effort and that the people had continued to remain close to Allah in these difficult days. This point was also mentioned by Shaykh Muhammad Hassan in Egypt, who called the efforts of the people, particularly the youth, “a blessed and good act.”

I then decided to write this article to demonstrate the expansiveness of Islam on the issues relevant to these events because I noticed that the people had turned away from Islam and from the scholars. There is the idea that some people have mistakenly spread, that these events are against Islam – and whereas this may be in fact the opinion of some scholars, it is by far not the only opinion on this issue. To illustrate this point, in having this article reviewed before publication, I had three PhD’s in Islamic Studies as well as a holder of a Master’s degree comment to me on it and I received four completely different opinions subhan'Allah. So let us not by hasty in declaring the issue to be black and white, and let us move past this question to tackle the real issues at hand of how to make an impact.

Scholars and the Knowledge of the Condition

The scholars of Egypt have been divided in their opinions on this matter as it is a very controversial one. There are some who have praised it, others who have been silent and those who have recommended that people not participate in it. Yet, the scholars of Egypt are best aware of the circumstances on their streets and the scholars outside of Egypt have refrained to speak much on the matter since this case is particular to every nation in its own way depending upon several factors.

This reminds us of an important principle in fiqh, that there are some rulings which are universal for time, place and condition; and there are other rulings which will vary to some extent based upon certain factors or circumstances. Ibn al-Qayyim, in his book ‘Ilaam al-Muwaqiyeen, has written that the one who gives fatwa must first have specific practical knowledge of the issue that he is speaking about, and secondly have the religious knowledge of the fiqh of that matter before he issues a ruling.

Many times, people have asked specific questions on this website, at times even demanded answers from the people of knowledge in the West regarding certain matters in the East. Yet, this guiding principle has caused many to rightly remain silent and leave certain matters to the people who know them best, those who are living them and seeing the reality with their own eyes and can thus judge them the best.

Understanding Khurooj Against the Ruler

The concept of khurooj against the leader has been understood by various scholars in different ways, but generally it refers to taking up arms against the ruler in order to forcibly remove him from power. Speaking out against the leader has also been considered by some to also be a form of prohibited khurooj. As Muslims, we must understand that this is a very detailed and elaborate matter and beyond the scope of this simple article to explore in its fullness. I only wish to provide a foundation for those who are unfamiliar with it here. With that in mind, let us now briefly consider the evidences for this important principle.

Allah has said in the Quran what means,

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those who are in authority over you. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day.” [4:59]

And the Prophet (saas) also stated,

“The best of your leaders are those whom you love and who love you, who pray for you and you pray for them. The worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and who hate you, and you send curses on them and they send curses on you.” He was asked, ““O Messenger of Allah (saas) should we not fight them by the sword?” He said, “Not as long as they are establishing prayer amongst you. And if you see from those in authority over you something that you hate then hate his action and do not remove your hand from obedience” (Muslim)

Imam an-Nawawi said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim:

And as for rebelling against the rulers and fighting them, then it is prohibited by unanimous agreement (ijmā') of the Muslims, even if they are sinful oppressors. And the ahadith are many with the meaning that I have mentioned. And Ahlus-Sunnah are united that the ruler is not to be removed on account of his sinfulness … And the scholars have said, that the reason for prohibiting his removal (by these means) and the forbidding of revolting against him is due to what accompanies such acts from that of tribulations, shedding of blood, and corruption. Hence, the harm from his removal is greater than from him remaining in place.

From Imam an-Nawawi’s explanation we derive an important point that has been used by some scholars, and that is the prohibition of fighting the Imam stems from the great chaos that accompanies it and most often outweighs the evil of the ruler himself. Those scholars today who have been opposed to the protests racing across the Muslim world have not been opposed to them because they love the tyrants in those countries or because they are pleased with their oppressive and dictatorial policies. No. They are opposed to them because they are afraid of the harm that may come from them when things get out of control. Unfortunately, most of the revolutions in our history have not had positive results and this is something we must keep in mind.

Controversy as Regards the Extent of Obeying the Ruler

The fact that Muslims must listen to and obey their rulers is not a matter of disagreement in Islam, but to what extent they do so, and when do they abandon this obedience is an area of varying opinion among the scholars. The obedience to the ruler is always contingent upon the command of the ruler not being in defiance to Allah and His Messenger (saas) as has been established by a number of ahadith:

“The Muslim is required to hear and obey in that which he likes and dislikes, unless he was commanded to sin. When he is commanded with sin, then there is no hearing or obeying.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

and

“… Obedience is only in righteousness.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

Yet, do the Muslims continue to obey when the ruler judges by other than Islam? This specific matter is something relatively new in our time (ruling by other than Shari’ah) and was not experienced by the earliest generations. It is authentically narrated from the Prophet (saas) that he said,

“Even if a slave was appointed over you, and he rules you with Allah's Book, then listen to him and obey him.” (Muslim)

This same stream of thought is found in the noble words of Abu Bakr when he said upon assuming the khilafah,

O people! I have been put in charge over you, but I am not the best of you. If I act well, then help me, and if I act badly, then put me right. Truthfulness is a trust and lying is treachery … Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience. (Sirat Ibn Hisham)

Do these above ahadith specifically give Muslims the permission to revolt? Upon this, the scholars have differed. Some argue that non-compliance with the leader’s command is not equal to rebelling against him, and others say that when they violate their agreement with their people – the agreement to rule them by the Book of Allah – that the people owe them no allegiance and can act to replace them.

Acting to Replace a Tyrannical Ruler

Allah states in the Quran what means,

“And cooperate with one another in righteousness and obedience to Allah, and do not cooperate with one another in sin and transgression, and obey Allah.” [5:2]

In the very important hadith of Umm Salamah (ra), the Messenger of Allah (saas) said:

“You shall have leaders over you, some of their actions you will accept and other things you will reject; whoever rejects with his tongue will be safe from sin, and whoever hates with his heart he will at least have escaped blame, but whoever follows and accepts (he shall be guilty)!” It was said, “Should we not fight them?” The Messenger of Allah (saas) said, “No, as long as they pray.” (Abu Dawud)

This hadith of Umm Salamah has other ahadith which support its meaning. For example, the Prophet (saas) also said,

“Whoever from amongst you sees an evil should change it by his hand, if he is unable to do so then he should change it by his tongue (by speaking against it), and if he is unable to do so then he should reject it in his heart – and this is the weakest of Iman.” (Muslim)

He (saas) also said,

“The best Jihad is the word of Justice in front of the oppressive Sultan.” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Majah)

And the Prophet (saas) also said,

“If the people witness an oppressor and they do not take him by his hands (to prevent him) then they are close to Allah covering them all with punishment.” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Majah)

These very important ahadith on this issue provide some options in the Islamic approach towards rulers who transgress. The greater action, which is among the highest forms of Jihad, is to reject with the tongue by speaking out against their crimes and thus be safe from sin. Yet, there are conditions in which speaking out or acting may bring greater harm to both the person and the society and in these cases one must be patient and refrain from speech as it is the lesser of the two evils. In this case, he hates in his heart, and he will still have escaped blame.

The case for being patient and hating in the heart was evidenced by one of the statements of the great tabi’ee al-Hasan al-Basri. A group of Muslims came to him seeking a ruling for rebelling against al-Hajjaj. So they said: “O Abaa Sa'eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt the blood, and unlawfully taken wealth, and did this, and did that?” So al-Hasan said:

“I say not to fight him. If this is a punishment from Allah, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allah, then be patient until Allah's Judgment comes, and He is the Best of Judges.” (Tabaqat ibn Sa’d)

Here al-Hasan recognized the relative impotence of the people before the strength and ruthlessness of al-Hajjaj and thus he recommended patience. Notice that he did not tell them that this act was forbidden, only that he advised them against it for practical reasons. Had the people been greater in number or greater in strength, then the situation may well have been different.

Furthermore, Ibn Hajar records in his commentary to Sahih al-Bukhari:

Imam Nawawi said: “…one should not object to the actions of the rulers unless they carry out clear and open transgression, and that which is contrary to the general principles of Islam.”

Ibn Teen narrates from al-Dawudi: ‘The scholars have stated that if one is able to remove a transgressing ruler, without causing any Fitnah and oppression, then he should be removed, otherwise it is necessary to be patient.”

The real question that remains then, a question that can only be assessed by each population in its own land, “will our efforts to remove this tyrant create a greater fitnah and oppression than that which he has exacted upon us?”

Thus, if a leader or ruler becomes corrupt he should first be advised, in private if possible, or in public if his evil deeds were done in public. [This unfortunately is an act which is limited to a select group of people in our time and is not a practical point for the majority of the Ummah.] If he does not turn away from his evil deeds, he should be overthrown or removed from position if this can be done without creating further upheaval in the society. However, in the process of removing him from position, he should not be physically fought, such as waging war with weapons. And Allah knows best.

The Position of Some Contemporary Scholars Who Uphold the Legality of Protests

Shaykh Salman al-‘Awdah in Saudi Arabia has previously expressed that he sees no harm in gathering for protests so long as they remain for the most part peaceful and civil. He states that the foundation of matters such as this (peaceful protests) is that it is permissible and doesn’t require any specific evidence to support it. It suffices us that there is no evidence that forbids this type of action unless it is accompanied by obvious harm or sin.

In this valuable statement, we understand that some scholars see protests as a worldly act and not a religious one. Among the principles of Islam is that all religious actions are by default forbidden and can only be done when one has a clear evidence from the Quran or Sunnah. On the other hand, worldly actions are by default permissible and can only be forbidden by clear evidence against them from Quran or Sunnah.  Some other scholars disagree and see protests as a religious action wherein Muslims aim to command good and forbid evil and thus say that an evidence is required (despite the fact that the gathering is simply a means and not a religious act itself). Again, a matter of controversy.

This same position voiced by Sh. Salman has also been taken by Shaykh AbdulRahman Abd al-Khaliq who used a similar reasoning, and added that the concept of Muslims going out in large numbers to demonstrate their strength is well established in Islam by such things as the Jumu’ah prayer, the two Eid prayers and so forth.

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi has also supported these protests and supported the removal of Mubarak from his office as can be read elsewhere on this website. And from within Egypt, Shaykh Muhammad Hassan as already alluded to has voiced support for the act of the youth and said in a televised statement, “I am not blaming you for what you have done.” And he also emphasized the peaceful nature of this protest that calls for the rights of the people and for goodness in praising it.

Concluding Remarks

From these various ahadith and statements of our scholars across the width of Islamic history, we can find evidence to support the protests in the Muslim nations today. They have gathered together to reject with their tongues the evils in their respective governments after having been patient for many years and restraining themselves. They have furthermore kept their efforts relatively peaceful and free from much harm and they have avoided the greater harm, and potential sin, of raising weapons against their leaders. As an Egyptian myself who knows what many of these people have experienced of fear, oppressive policies, illegal detainments, police brutality and so forth; I believe that their efforts thus far have been the lesser evil – and Allah knows best.

It is also important for us to remember that these protests are far from reaching any real gains. Yes, the people have thrown aside the shackles of fear, but what awaits them tomorrow and the next day? For those who equated Mubarak with Pharaoh, then the appointment of Omar Sulaiman as the next leader is equivalent to Pharaoh taking Haman as his confidant. Sulaiman, in his role as head of the murky Egyptian Intelligence, has been the supervisor of numerous evils not limited to the torture of the citizenry (including the scholars), the illegal rendition programs, and of course a key player in walling off the people of Gaza. To have him take over the helm in Egypt is a nightmare that I ask Allah to protect all the Muslims from.

Will there be those among the scholars and thinkers that disagree with the actions of the Tunisians, Egyptians and those who follow this path? There is no doubt that such disagreement has already occurred, as it is very controversial and always has been.  But as Muslims we must live in the real world and recognize that there will be differences of opinion on such controversial issues. The reality at hand is that these protests have already begun and we need to do more for our brothers and sisters in these lands than argue the legitimacy of their efforts. They have begun and they have a valid Islamic case for their actions, alhamdulillah.

My humble recommendation to readers is that they spend their efforts wisely in helping these noble causes by turning to Allah. Gathering to show support in our own cities is wonderful and gives us a sense of unity, alhamdulillah, but what is needed now more than anything is calling upon Allah to accept these efforts and overlook whatever wrong may be in them. To show our sincerity in our love to them by waking up in the night to cry out to Allah to aid them and make their feet firm, and to bring about good from their efforts and rid them of the tyrants. Ameen!