| Posted By |
Topic: Please help on a question on Hajj
|
|
 nm-questions
|
|
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: May 2003
|
If anyone is able to helpt this brother with the required information, please do so.
 | quote: |
Now the time is getting too close for me since I am about to go on Hajj I will leave here on the 23 of Jan I have no person or shiekh to ask this question, I am in Malaysia there are a few brothers on the manhaj but we are few. So my question is...........?
After I have stoned the jamarat on the 10th, shaved my hair, and slaughtered I can come out of Ihram the first one, meaning i can have no contact with my wife.....then I have to return to Mecca to perform tawaf and Sa'i hajj then my Ihram is complete. But I have read that Shaikh Al-baani may Allah ta 'ala have mercy on him says that if I do not return to Mecca on that day before magrib I must return to the orignal state of Ihram....please could the brothers of knowlege please help me, because I cannot find nay information on this. |
|
|
|
| abooabdilfattaah
|
|
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Sep 2002
|
As Salaamu 'Alaikum wa Rahmatu Allaah ...
From "The Rites of Hajj & 'Umrah From The Book & Sunnah & Narrations From The Pious Predecessors", being a translation of Shaikh Al-Albaanee's Manaasikul Hajj wal 'Umrah Fee Kitaab was-Sunnah wal Aatharis-Salaf produced by Jami'at Ihyaa Manhaj Al-Sunnah (UK); 1995:
*consequently, if the brothers are aware of a better translation having been produced by reliable Salafiyyoon, please do not hesitate to inform me; or, if some of the competant brothers who possess the Arabic text would like to improve upon the following translation, then that may be beneficial if there is such a need*
94) However he should perform Tawaaf-ul-Ifaada on the same day (before Maghrib) if he wishes to continue in his state of having left Ihraam - otherwise, if he has not made Tawaaf before the evening (before Maghrib) then he returns to the state of Ihraam as he was before stoning - so he should remove his clothes and put on Ihraam according to the Prophet's (sallaa Allaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) saying: "Verily on this day has been allowed for you, when you have stoned the Jamrah, that was prohibited for you except the women (sexual intercourse) - so if evening comes upon you before you have made Tawaaf of this House then you revert to the state of Ihraam as you were before stoning the Jamrah - until you make the Tawaaf."
In the footnote that accompanies this point, it states:
Footnote #76:
"And this hadeeth is saheeh and has been authenticated by a number of scholars, from among them Ibnul Qayyim, as I have explained in Saheeh Abi Dawood (no. 1745). And when some of the distinguished scholars came upon this hadeeth before the spread of ths treatise - they regarded it as something strange - some of them quickly declaring it to be weak - as I myself did in some of my earlier works - based upon Abu Dawood's isnaad - even though Ibnul Qayyim strengthened it in his Tahdheeb of Abu Dawood, and as did Al-Haafiz (Ibn Hajr) in At-Talkhees - by keeping silent about it. And I have found other chains of narration for it which will convince anyone looking into the matter of it being raised from the level of da'eef to the level of its being saheeh. However due to their being in a reference work not in common use by the large majority - and that is Imam at-Tahaawi's Sharh Ma'aanee ul 'Athaan - these people quickly declared its being something strange or being da'eef and they were encouraged in this by the fact that they found that some of the earlier scholars had said: 'A I do not know any scholar who has ruled according to that.' And that is a negation of something - it is not a piece of definite knowledge. And it is well known amongst the scholars that lack of knowledge of something does not mean absence of knowledge of it. So when a hadeeth is established to have come from Rasoolullah and is a relevant proof as this is then it is obligatory to act upon it straight away, not waiting to see if the scholars know of it or not, just as Imam ash-Shaafi'ee said: 'A narration is to be accepted as soon as it is confirmed, even if none of the scholars are acting upon it - like the narrations which they accept - for the hadeeth of Raoolullah is confirmed to its own not by anyone's acting on it afterwards.' I say: 'So the hadeeth of Rasoolullah is above needing to be attested to by the action of scholars according to it, as it is a source (of knowledge) by itself judging not being judged. And along with that, indeed, some of the scholars have acted upon this particular hadeeth - from them 'Urawah ibn az-Zubair - the greatest Taabi'ee - so can there remain any excuse for anyone to leave acting according to this hadeeth: 'So verily therein is a warning for any who have a perceptive heart or listens attentively.' And thi sis more fully explained in the Original."
And Allaah knows best.
I remember making my first Hajj in '96 and when I came upon the above, I brought it to the attention of the organizor of the Hajj group I was with to which he responded that Shaikh Al-Albaanee is a scholar in Hadeeth and not a Faqhee and that I should just leave the issue entirely as the Shaikh's Fiqh was not strong. Abul 'Abbaas Moosaa Richardson may remember this as well. Wa Allaahul Musta'aan.
أخوكم
أبو عبد الفتـــاح
Aboo 'Abdil-Fattaah
|
|
| abu.abdul.azeez
|
|
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Feb 2003
|
Some points about this: | quote: |
| ?to which he responded that Shaikh Al-Albaanee is a scholar in Hadeeth and not a Faqhee and that I should just leave the issue entirely as the Shaikh's Fiqh was not strong. |
|
(a) While it is obviously true that Shaykh al-Albaanee specialized in hadeeth, to say that he was weak in fiqh is incorrect - Shaykh al-'Uthaymeen, himself the faqeeh of our generation, attested to his proficiency in fiqh despite his being a muhaddith.
(b) Almost as rare as a mujtahid mutlaq (a complete mujtahid whose usool are for the most part not based on any madh-hab) is a faqeeh-muhaddith, i.e. one who is simultaneously a specialist in both fiqh and hadeeth. Only a handful of 'Ulamaa' reached this level, such as Maalik, Shaafi'ee, Ibn Hanbal, and a select few others over the generations. Thus, that Shaykh al-Albaanee does not specialize in fiqh as he does hadeeth in no way decreases his status nor does it mean that we should discard his opinions in fiqh.
(c) Some 'Ulamaa', like Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree and a few others, even said that Imaam Ahmad was not a faqeeq - only a muhaddith. Although this claim was refuted by Ibn Qayyim refuted, it indicates just how rare it was and is for a person to reach such a high-level of expertise in both fiqh and hadeeth.
If anyone can add something to this, then please do so, as the Qutubiyyoon and zanaadiqah of this Ummah are still searching for ways to attack the Shaykh and cast doubt about his illustrious status in the minds of the confused. And that is what has been made easy for me, wal-hamdulillaahi rabb il-?aalameen. |
|
------------------------------------------
Abu 'Abdil-'Azeez al-Misree
أبو عبد العزيز المصري
This message was edited by abu.abdul.azeez on 1-14-04 @ 5:03 PM
|
|
| al.akhdar
|
|
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Sep 2002
|
This statement that Al-Muhaddith Naasirud-Deen Al-Albaanee was a muhaddith but not a faqeeh is one that has been heard for some years now and Al-Muhaddith Naasirud-Deen Al-Albaanee dealt with this issue himself some years ago where he was asked: ?What is the relation of the science of Fiqh to the science of Hadeeth? And is it a must that a Muhaddith be a Faqeeh or is he a Muhaddith only??
He answered: ?It is a must that a faqeeh become a muhaddith, but it is not a must that a muhaddith become a faqeeh, because the muhaddith by his very nature is a faqeeh. Did the companions of the Prophet study fiqh or not? And what is the fiqh that they studied? It was what they took from the Messenger of Allah, so they studied hadeeth.
As for those fuqahaa who merely study the sayings of the scholars, and their fiqh, and do not study the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah which is the source of fiqh, then it is said to them: ?It is a must that you to study the science of hadeeth, since we can not imagine true fiqh without the knowledge of hadeeth, its memorization, and Tasheeh and Tad?eef, and at the same time we can not imagine a muhaddith who is not a faqeeh.
So the Qur?an and the Sunnah are the foundations of fiqh, all fiqh. As for the fiqh that is common today then it is the fiqh of the [statements of the] ulemaa, and not the fiqh of the Book and the Sunnah, yes some of it is found in the Book and the Sunnah, and some merely consists of opinions, and ijtihaadaat, but much of it is in contradiction to the hadeeth, because they have not become aquainted with its science.? [End of quote]
What also aids the statement of Al-Faqeeh Al-Albaanee is what is mentioned by Al-Haafidh Adh-Dhahabee in the biography of Alee ibn Musa Al-Qummee [As-Siyar 14/236-237]: ??just as the faqeeh clings to fiqh [only] not mastering its science, and does not know what is Hadeeth, rather the fabricated and the authentic are equal with him, rather he may even dispute what is in the Saheeh with weak ahaadeeth and insist that they are more authentic and stronger. We ask Allah for pardon.?
As it was mentioned in another post in this thread this statement was also said of Al-Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and it was even said of the memorizer of the companions, Abu Hurairah.
Sheikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about a man who rejected a ruling that came from Abu Hurairah and used as an argument that Abu Hurairah was not from the Fuqahaa of the companions, so the questioner asked: ?Is this statement that he mentioned correct or not? And what is upon the one who speaks about Abu Hurairah with this speech?
He answered: ?Firstly: his statement: ?Abu Hurairah was not from the Fuqahaa of the companions? then indeed Umar ibnul-Khattaab placed Abu Hurairah over the affairs of [the people of] Al-Bahrain, and they were from the best of the Muslims, from those who a delegation of them came to the Messenger of Allah, and they were the delegation of Banee Abdul-Qays. And Abu Hurairah was their Ameer, the one who gave them fatwa in the most detailed affairs of fiqh??
He went on to say: ?And like this Abu Hurairah gave verdicts in the most detailed matters of fiqh along with the fuqahaa of the companions, like Ibn Abbaas and others, and that which has been reported from his verdicts points to this. And even if Umar and Alee are more knowledgable of fiqh than Imraan ibn Husain and Abu Musa Al-Ash?aree that does not exclude them from fiqh [all together], and like this if Mu?aadh and Ibn Mas?ud are more knowledgable of fiqh than Abu Hurairah, and Abdullah ibn Umar, this does not exclude them from fiqh [all together].? [Majmu? Al-Fataawah 4/83]
So as we see that this statement is not new that so and so is a muhaddith but not a faqeeh, as some tried to reject even the verdicts of the memorizer of the companions, Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him.
Anyone who looks in the writings of Al-Muhaddith, Al-Faqeeh, Muhammad Naasirud-Deen Al-Albaanee will clearly see the great benefit he left in matters of the fiqh of the Kitaab and the Sunnah in works like Sifatus-Salatin-Nabiyy (the description of the Prophet?s prayer), Hajjatun-Nabiyy (The Hajj of Prophet), Ahkaamul-Janaa?iz (Funeral rites), Jilbaab Mar?atul-Muslimah, ect. not to mention the scores of recordings that the Sheikh has left explaining many detailed areas of fiqh, and giving fataawah based on the Book and the Sunnah.
In conclusion I wanted to mention what was stated by Al-Allaamah, Al-Faqeeh, Ash-Sheikh Uthaimeen, rahimahullah, where he said: ?Ash-Sheikh Al-Albaanee, Aalim, Muhaddith, Faqeeh ?though he is a stronger muhaddith than a faqeeh?? This in no way benefits those who say that Sheikh Al-Albaanee was not a faqeeh as firstly Sheikh Uthaimeen clearly calls him ?Faqeeh?, and secondly as Sheikul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned the fact that even if one is not as strong in fiqh as others this does not necessitate his being exluded from having fiqh all together.
أهل الحديث هم أهل النبي وإن
لم يصحبوا نفسه أنفاسه صحبوا
Abul-Hasan Malik Adam Al-Akhdar
This message was edited by al.akhdar on 1-15-04 @ 12:56 PM
|
|
|
13-01-2004 @ 7:10 PM
