Archive for March, 2013

Who was the sacrificial son?




There’s this staunch Christian fellow insisting with my husband that is’haaq (as) was b4 Ismaaeel (as) and that Ibraaheem (as) was commanded to sacrifice Is’haaq and not Ismaaeel!!!!!!

Please give proof from quraan and Hadeeth. Jzk




Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem.


Alhamdulillaahi was salaatu was salaamu `alaa Rasoolillaahi wa `alaa aalihi wa sahbihi wa man waalaahu, wa ba`d:


It is a futile argument of this Christian because regardless of which son was born first it does not make the bible superior to the Qur’aan, which is what he hopes to achieve with this argument.


But in any case we say Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam was the first born son, and the sacrificial son, based on the following proofs:


1: Allaah mentions the story in Surah Saaffaat and starts from when Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam made du`aa for a son:


“My Lord, grant me (a child) from among the righteous. So We gave him glad tidings of a forbearing boy.

And when he reached with him (the age of) exertion, he said, “O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I (must) sacrifice you, so see what you think.” He said, “O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allaah wills, of the steadfast.”

And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his side. We called to him, “O Ibraaheem. You have fulfilled the vision. Indeed, in this manner We reward the doers of good.

Indeed, this was the clear trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice. And We left for him (favorable mention) among later generations.”

“Peace be upon Ibraaheem.”

“Indeed, in this manner We reward the doers of good. Indeed, he was of Our believing servants.

And We gave him glad tidings of Is’haaq, a Nabi from among the righteous.”Surah Saffaat Aayaat 100-112. [i]


Commenting on this last Aayah, Imaam As-Suyooti Raahimahullaah says in Tafseer Al-Jalaalayn: “This has been used as proof to show that the sacrificial son was not him (i.e. Is’haaq `Alayhis Salaam.)” [ii]


Which is to say that when Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam made du`aa for a son, then Allaah granted him one, which was Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam, and after this boy had grown up and Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam had undergone this test of sacrificing his only son and passed the test, Allaah then gave him glad tidings of another son by the name of Is’haaq `Alayhis Salaam.


2: Imaam Ibn Katheer Rahimahullaah says in Tafseer Ibn Katheer commenting on the Aayah: “So We gave him glad tidings of a forbearing boy.


He says: “This boy was Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam, because he was the first son that Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam was given glad tidings of, and he is older than Is’haaq `Alayhis Salaam according to the consensus of the Muslims and the People of the Book, in fact it’s in the text of their book that Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam was born while Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam was eighty six years old, and Is’haaq `Alayhis Salaam was born when Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam was ninety nine years old.

According to them Allaah Ta`aalaa commanded Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam to sacrifice his only son, and in another copy (of their book) his firstborn son, then they falsely and slanderously inserted “Is’haaq” here, and this is not permissible as it contradicts the direct text of their book, the reason why they inserted the name “Is’haaq” (`Alayhis Salaam) is because he is their forefather, while Ismaa`eel (`Alayhis Salaam) is the father of the Arabs, and they became envious of them, so they added that (i.e. Is’haaq) and twisted the meaning of “only son”.” [iii]


The altered books of the Jews and Christians today attests to what Imaam Ibn Katheer Rahimahullaah said, as it is mentioned in Genesis 17: 17-19 when according to them Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam was given the glad tidings of another son, it says:


“Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”

And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”

Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac…” [iv]


So even their scriptures mentions that Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam was the first born son, and was the son to be sacrificed, but simply because of their jealousy they twisted their scriptures to make it refer to Is’haaq `Alayhis Salaam instead of Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam.


Imaam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah Rahimahullaah says in Zaadul Ma`aad:


“Ismaa`eel (`Alayhis Salaam) is the sacrificial son according to the correct view of the `Ulamaa of the Sahaabah and the Taabi`een and those who came after them.


As for the saying that it (the sacrificial son) was Is’haaq (`Alayhis Salaam) then it is false from more than twenty angles, and I have heard Shaykhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullaah) saying: “This saying has been taken from the People of the Book, despite the fact that it is false according to the direct text of their scripture, because it is mentioned in it (their scripture) that Ibraaheem `Alayhis Salaam was commanded to sacrifice his first born, and in another wording, his only son, and there is no doubt between the Muslims and people of the Book that Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam was his first born son, and the thing that has deceived the people who hold this view (that Is’haaq `Alayhis Salaam was the sacrificial son) is that they find in the Torah that is in their hands: “Sacrifice your son Is`haaq”, but this addition is from their distortion and lies, because it contradicts the text which says: “Sacrifice your first born (or) only son”, but the jews envied the children of Ismaa`eel `Alayhis Salaam because of this honour and desired to have it for themselves and possess it instead of the Arabs, but Allaah refuses except to grant His virtue to its people (the Arabs).” [v]



And Allaah knows best.



Answered by:

Ubaidullah Ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim.


Checked and Approved by:

Mufti Rashid Ahmed Moosagie.


Tuesday 13th Jumaadaa Al-Oolaa 1434 – 26th March 2013.


[i] رَبِّ هَبْ لِي مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (100) فَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِغُلَامٍ حَلِيمٍ (101) فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ مَعَهُ السَّعْيَ قَالَ يَا بُنَيَّ إِنِّي أَرَى فِي الْمَنَامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ فَانْظُرْ مَاذَا تَرَى قَالَ يَا أَبَتِ افْعَلْ مَا تُؤْمَرُ سَتَجِدُنِي إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الصَّابِرِينَ (102) فَلَمَّا أَسْلَمَا وَتَلَّهُ لِلْجَبِينِ (103) وَنَادَيْنَاهُ أَنْ يَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ (104) قَدْ صَدَّقْتَ الرُّؤْيَا إِنَّا كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ (105) إِنَّ هَذَا لَهُوَ الْبَلَاءُ الْمُبِينُ (106) وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ (107) وَتَرَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ فِي الْآخِرِينَ (108) سَلَامٌ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ (109) كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ (110) إِنَّهُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (111) وَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِإِسْحَاقَ نَبِيًّا مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (112)


 [ii]اُسْتُدِلَّ بِذَلِكَ عَلَى أَنَّ الذَّبِيح غَيْره. – قاله الإمام السيوطي رحمه الله في تفسير الجلالين.

[iii] {فَبَشَّرْنَاهُ بِغُلامٍ حَلِيمٍ} وَهَذَا الْغُلَامُ هُوَ إِسْمَاعِيلُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، فَإِنَّهُ أولُ وَلَدٍ بُشِّرَ بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمُ، عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، وَهُوَ أَكْبَرُ مِنْ إِسْحَاقَ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَأَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ، بَلْ فِي نَصِّ كِتَابِهِمْ أَنَّ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وُلِدَ وَلِإِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، سِتٌّ وَثَمَانُونَ سَنَةً، وَوُلِدَ إِسْحَاقُ وعمْر إِبْرَاهِيمَ تِسْعٌ وَتِسْعُونَ سَنَةً. وَعِنْدَهُمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى أَمَرَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ أَنْ يَذْبَحَ ابْنَهُ وَحِيدَهُ، وَفِي نُسْخَةٍ: بكْره، فَأَقْحَمُوا هَاهُنَا كَذِبًا وَبُهْتَانًا “إِسْحَاقَ”، وَلَا يَجُوزُ هَذَا لِأَنَّهُ مُخَالِفٌ لِنَصِّ كِتَابِهِمْ، وَإِنَّمَا أَقْحَمُوا “إِسْحَاقَ” لِأَنَّهُ أَبُوهُمْ، وَإِسْمَاعِيلُ أَبُو الْعَرَبِ، فَحَسَدُوهُمْ، فَزَادُوا ذَلِكَ وحَرّفوا وَحِيدَكَ.

[iv] Genesis 17: 17-19 – New International Version (NIV).


[v] وَإِسْمَاعِيلُ: هُوَ الذَّبِيحُ عَلَى الْقَوْلِ الصَّوَابِ عِنْدَ عُلَمَاءِ الصَّحَابَةِ وَالتَّابِعِينَ وَمَنْ بَعْدَهُمْ.

وَأَمَّا الْقَوْلُ بِأَنَّهُ إِسْحَاقُ فَبَاطِلٌ بِأَكْثَرَ مِنْ عِشْرِينَ وَجْهًا، وَسَمِعْتُ شَيْخَ الْإِسْلَامِ ابْنَ تَيْمِيَّةَ -قَدَّسَ اللَّهُ رُوحَهُ- يَقُولُ: هَذَا الْقَوْلُ إِنَّمَا هُوَ مُتَلَقًّى عَنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ، مَعَ أَنَّهُ بَاطِلٌ بِنَصِّ كِتَابِهِمْ، فَإِنَّ فِيهِ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ أَنْ يَذْبَحَ ابْنَهُ بِكْرَهُ، وَفِي لَفْظٍ: وَحِيدَهُ، وَلَا يَشُكُّ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ أَنَّ إِسْمَاعِيلَ هُوَ بِكْرُ أَوْلَادِهِ، وَالَّذِي غَرَّ أَصْحَابَ هَذَا الْقَوْلِ أَنَّ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ الَّتِي بِأَيْدِيهِمْ: اذْبَحِ ابْنَكَ إِسْحَاقَ، قَالَ: وَهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةُ مِنْ تَحْرِيفِهِمْ وَكَذِبِهِمْ لِأَنَّهَا تُنَاقِضُ قَوْلَهُ: اذْبَحْ بِكْرَكَ وَوَحِيدَكَ، وَلَكِنَّ الْيَهُودَ حَسَدَتْ بَنِي إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَلَى هَذَا الشَّرَفِ وَأَحَبُّوا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمْ، وَأَنْ يَسُوقُوهُ إِلَيْهِمْ وَيَحْتَازُوهُ لِأَنْفُسِهِمْ دُونَ الْعَرَبِ، وَيَأْبَى اللَّهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يَجْعَلَ فَضْلَهُ لِأَهْلِهِ.


Read Full Post »

Is it mandatory to move the lips in salah




Is it mandatory to move the lips in salah, while reciting the Quran? If so, can you provide evidences for this?




Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem.


Alhamdulillaahi was salaatu was salaamu `alaa Rasoolillaahi wa `alaa aalihi wa sahbihi wa man waalaahu, wa ba`d:


It is necessary for a person to move his lips and tongue when reciting in order for his Salaah to be valid, the proofs for that are:




Hadhrat Maalik Ibn Al-Huwayrith Radhiallaahu `Anhu narrates that Rasoolullaah Sallallaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam said: “Pray the way you have seen me pray.”As-Sunan Al-Kubraa of Imaam Al-Bayhaqi Rahimahullaah. [i]


And we know that Rasoolullaah Sallallaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam moved his lips when reciting in both the audible and inaudible Salaah, the audible needs no explanation as you cannot recite for people to hear you if you are not moving your lips.


As for the inaudible, then one of the Sahaabah `Radhiallaahu `Anhum narrates and says: “The recitation of Nabi Sallallaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam could be recognised in Dhuhr by the movement of his beard.”Reported in the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad Rahimahullaah. [ii]


Meaning that they could see Rasoolullaah Sallallaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam’s beard moving as he Sallallaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam was reciting, while if a person were to recite in his mind without moving his lips then his beard would not move.




Imaam Al-Kaasaanee Rahimahullaah says in Badaa’i`us Sanaa’i`: “A person who performs Salaah on his own and recites softly enough for his ears to hear him then it is permissible without any difference of opinion because of the certainty of the existence of recitation, because hearing without any recitation is unimaginable.

As for the case of a person who recites while pronouncing the letters correctly with his tongue but his ears does not hear it, however he has the knowledge of the fact that his tongue had moved and the letters had come out from its Makhaarij, is his Salaah valid?

There is some difference of opinion on that point; Imaam Al-Karkhi Rahimahullaah said it’s valid.” [iii]


He continues and says: “The point of Imaam Al-Karkhi Rahimahullaah is that Qiraa’ah (recitation) is an action of the tongue which is a collection of words strung together in a specific way, and that has been found (here).” [iv]


So from all this we come to understand that Qiraa’ah, recitation, is an action of the tongue and lips, and not merely reading in one’s mind, therefore we say for the validity of a person’s Salaah it is necessary that a person physically moves his tongue and lips, and he should recite at the level where he can at least hear himself, though if he recites and is not able to hear himself then too his Salaah will still be valid.



And Allaah knows best.



Answered by:

Ubaidullah Ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim.


Checked and Approved by:

Mufti Rashid Ahmed Moosagie.


Monday 12th Jumaadaa Al-Oolaa 1434 – 25th March 2013.


 [i]قَالَ فِي حَدِيثِ مَالِكِ بْنِ الْحُوَيْرِثِ: صَلُّوا كَمَا رَأَيْتُمُونِي أُصَلِّي. – السنن الكبرى للبيهقي رحمه الله.

[ii] عن أبي الأحوص، عن بعض أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: كانت تعرف قراءة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في الظهر بتحريك لحيته. – رواه الإمام أحمد رحمه الله في مسنده.

 [iii]ثُمَّ الْمُنْفَرِدُ إذَا خَافَتَ وَأَسْمَعَ أُذُنَيْهِ يَجُوزُ بِلَا خِلَافٍ لِوُجُودِ الْقِرَاءَةِ بِيَقِينٍ، إذْ السَّمَاعُ بِدُونِ الْقِرَاءَةِ لَا يُتَصَوَّرُ، أَمَّا إذَا صَحَّحَ الْحُرُوفَ بِلِسَانِهِ وَأَدَّاهَا عَلَى وَجْهِهَا وَلَمْ يُسْمِعْ أُذُنَيْهِ وَلَكِنْ وَقَعَ لَهُ الْعِلْمُ بِتَحْرِيكِ اللِّسَانِ وَخُرُوجِ الْحُرُوفِ مِنْ مَخَارِجِهَا – فَهَلْ تَجُوزُ صَلَاتُهُ؟ اُخْتُلِفَ فِيهِ، ذَكَرَ الْكَرْخِيُّ أَنَّهُ يَجُوزُ. – بدائع الصنائع للإمام الكاساني رحمه الله.

 [iv]وَجْهُ قَوْلِ الْكَرْخِيِّ أَنَّ الْقِرَاءَةَ فِعْلُ اللِّسَانِ وَذَلِكَ بِتَحْصِيلِ الْحُرُوفِ وَنَظْمِهَا عَلَى وَجْهٍ مَخْصُوصٍ وَقَدْ وُجِدَ. – بدائع الصنائع للإمام الكاساني رحمه الله.

Read Full Post »

Bismillaahir rahmaanir Raheem.


This is a short article written on the usage of Pronouns in the Arabic language:


Download in .doc format: https://darulilm.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/arabic-pronouns.doc

Read Full Post »

Is it permissible to consume horse meat?




In light of the “horse meat” scandal which erupted in Europe not to long ago, I’m curious as to whether its permissible 2 consume horse meat? (Just curious)




Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem.


Alhamdulillaahi was salaatu was salaamu `alaa Rasoolillaahi wa `alaa aalihi wa sahbihi wa man waalaahu, wa ba`d:


It is permissible to eat horse meat, though it is better not to do so.


Imaam Abu Haneefah Rahimahullaah had originally been of the view that it is not permissible to eat horse meat, as Imaam Al-Margheenaani Rahimahullaah mentions in Al-Hidaayah:


“It is (prohibitively) disliked to eat horse meat according to (Imaam) Abu Haneefah (Rahimahullaah).” [i]


He then mentions:


“According to Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Ash-Shaafi`i Rahimahumullaah they say: “There is no harm in eating it (i.e. horse meat) because of the Hadeeth of (Hadhrat) Jaabir Radhiallaahu `Anhu who said: “Rasoolullaah Sallallaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam prohibited the eating of the meat of domestic donkeys on the day of (the conquest of) khaybar, and he (Sallallaahu `Alayhi Wa Sallam) gave permission to eat the meat of horses.”” [ii]


This Hadeeth is reported by Imaam Muslim Rahimahullaah in his Saheeh. [iii]


However Imaam Abu Haneefah Rahimahullaah retracted this view (of impermissibility) at the end of his life and followed the view of its permissibility, though he said that it is better not to eat it.


Imaam Al-Haskafi Rahimahullaah mentions in Ad-Durrul  Mukhtaar:


“It was mentioned that (Imaam) Abu Haneefah (Rahimahullaah) retracted this view three days before he passed away, and the Fatwaa is upon that (i.e. its permissibility).” [iv]


Imaam Ibn `Aabideen Rahimahullaah narrates in Raddul Muhtaar the words of Imaam Abu As-Su`ood Rahimahullaah who said:


“There is no difference between the Imaam (Abu Haneefah Rahimahullaah) and his two companions (Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad Rahimahumallaah), because though they said it is permissible but it is disliked (i.e. better not to do so).” [v]


So in summary, a person should try and avoid eating horses, but if he does eat it then it will be permissible.


And Allaah knows best.


Answered by:

Ubaidullah Ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim.


Checked and Approved by:

Mufti Rashid Ahmed Moosagie.


Thursday 24th Rabee` Al-Aakhir 1434 – 7th March 2013.



[i]ويكره لحم الفرس عند أبي حنيفة. ذكره الإمام المرغيناني رحمه الله في كتابه الهداية.

 [ii]وقال أبو يوسف ومحمد والشافعي رحمهم الله: لا بأس بأكله لحديث جابر رضي الله عنه أنه قال “نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن لحوم الحمر الأهلية، وأذن في لحوم الخيل يوم خيبر. ذكره الإمام المرغيناني رحمه الله في كتابه الهداية.

 [iii]عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللهِ، «أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ عَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْأَهْلِيَّةِ، وَأَذِنَ فِي لُحُومِ الْخَيْلِ».  رواه الإمام مسلم رحمه الله في صحيحه.

 [iv]وَقِيلَ إنَّ أَبَا حَنِيفَةَ رَجَعَ عَنْ حُرْمَتِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ بِثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ وَعَلَيْهِ الْفَتْوَى.  ذكره الإمام الحصكفي رحمه الله في كتابه الدر المختار.

 [v]لَا خِلَافَ بَيْنَ الْإِمَامِ وَصَاحِبَيْهِ لِأَنَّهُمَا وَإِنْ قَالَا بِالْحِلِّ لَكِنْ مَعَ كَرَاهَةِ التَّنْزِيهِ.  ذكره الإمام ابن عابدين رحمه الله في كتابه رد المحتار.

Read Full Post »