Shield of Taqwā

Evil eye against yourself according to a hadīth is Haqq and making du’ā for Allāh’s blessings (Allāhumma bārik) is what repels this harm. Imām Abū Bakr Ibn as-Sunnī (major student of Nasā’ī) narrates in “‘Amal al-Yawm wal-Laylah”; "إذا رأى أحدكم من نفسه أو ماله أو من أخيه ما يعجبه فليدع له بالبركة، فإن العين حق". [رواه ابن السني والحاكم] The Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “If one of you sees in himself, his wealth, or his brother something that pleases him, let him pray for blessing for it, for the evil eye is real.” [Declared Sahīh by Al-Hākim in Al-Mustadrak]. • The Isnād is full of reliable (Thiqah) narrators except for Umayyah Ibn Hind who is considered “unknown” according to Imām Yahyā Ibn Ma’īn (رحمه الله), however since he’s from the 1st three generations, unknown narrators are considered trustworthy according to the official Hanafī madhab, contrary to most scholars. In any case, the meaning could be correct based upon the general meaning of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم speaking about the ‘Ayn, and taking precautions is necessary in such matters والله أعلم. Imām Ibn al-Qayyim writes; “A person may give ‘Ayn (evil eye) to himself!” Ibn al-Qayyim said in al-Zād: “If the one who casts the evil eye fears the harm of his eye and its affliction upon the one affected, then let him ward off its evil by saying: Allāhumma bārik ʿalayh (O Allah, bless him), as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to ʿĀmir ibn Rabīʿah when he cast the evil eye upon Sahl ibn Ḥanīf: ‘Why did you not bless him?’ Among what repels the affliction of the evil eye is saying: Mā shā’a Allāh lā quwwata illā billāh (What Allah wills; there is no power except by Allah). Hishām Ibn ʿUrwah narrated from his father that whenever he saw something that pleased him, he would say: Mā shā’a Allāh lā quwwata illā billāh.” End quote. What could support the hadīth about the reality of evil-eye against yourself and your own property is the following Āyah in Qur’ān; قول الإنسان إذا رأى من نفسه أو ماله أو أهله ما يعجبه: "مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ"، هو مأخوذ من قول الله تعالى: وَلَوْلَا إِذْ دَخَلْتَ جَنَّتَكَ قُلْتَ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ إِنْ تَرَنِ أَنَا أَقَلَّ مِنْكَ مَالًا وَوَلَدًا الكهف /39. قال ابن كثير رحمه الله تعالى: " قال: ( وَلَوْلَا إِذْ دَخَلْتَ جَنَّتَكَ قُلْتَ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ إِنْ تَرَنِ أَنَا أَقَلَّ مِنْكَ مَالًا وَوَلَدًا ) هذا تحضيض وحث على ذلك، أي: هلا إذا أعجبتك حين دخلتها ونظرت إليها حمدت الله على ما أنعم به عليك، وأعطاك من المال والولد ما لم يعطه غيرك، وقلت: ( مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ )؛ ولهذا قال بعض السلف: من أعجبه شيء من حاله أو ماله أو ولده أو ماله، فليقل: ( مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ ) وهذا مأخوذ من هذه الآية الكريمة " انتهى من "تفسير ابن كثير" (5 / 158). The saying of a person, when he sees something in himself, his wealth, or his family that pleases him: “What Allah has willed; there is no power except by Allah,” is taken from the saying of Allah تعالى: “And if only, when you entered your garden, you had said: ‘What Allah has willed; there is no power except by Allah. If you see me as less than you in wealth and children’” (al-Kahf 18:39). Ibn Kathīr رحمه الله تعالى said:

He said: “And if only, when you entered your garden, you had said: ‘What Allah has willed; there is no power except by Allah. If you see me as less than you in wealth and children.’” This is an incitement and an encouragement to do so; meaning: why did you not, when it pleased you as you entered it and looked at it, praise Allah for what He bestowed upon you and granted you of wealth and children that He did not grant to others, and say: “What Allah has willed; there is no power except by Allah.” For this reason some of the Salaf said: whoever is pleased by something of his condition, or his wealth, or his child, or his wealth, then let him say: “What Allah has willed; there is no power except by Allah.” And this is taken from this noble verse.

End quote from Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (5/158).

The terminology of Imām Abū Hātim ar-Rāzī (رحمه الله) is that “Munkar al-Hadīth” can be used as supportive evidence to strengthen slightly weak Isnāds, as he differentiates between Munkar al-Hadīth and “Matrūk” (abandoned narrator who can’t be used to strengthen other evidence); Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī said in ‘al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl’: إبراهيم بن مهاجر بن مسمار المديني روى عن صفوان بن سليم وعمر بن حفص بن ذكوان روى عنه معن بن عيسى وإبراهيم بن المنذر الحزامي سمعت أبي يقول ذلك. حدثنا عبد الرحمن أنا ابن أبي خيثمة فيما كتب إلي قال سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول إبراهيم بن مهاجر بن مسمار ليس به بأس، سمعت أبي يقول هو منكر الحديث وليس بالمتروك، قال وسئل مرة أخرى فقال: شيخ مديني. • Ibrāhīm Ibn Muhājir Ibn Mismār al-Madanī narrated from Ṣafwān Ibn Sulaym and ʿUmar ibn Ḥafṣ Ibn Dhakwān. Maʿn Ibn ʿĪsā and Ibrāhīm Ibn al-Mundhir al-Ḥizāmī narrated from him. I heard my father say that. • ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrated to us, he said: Ibn Abī Khaythama [narrated] to us in what he wrote to me, he said: I heard Yaḥyā Ibn Maʿīn say: Ibrāhīm Ibn Muhājir Ibn Mismār — there is no harm in him. I heard my father say: He is munkar al-ḥadīth but not matrūk. He said: And he was asked another time, so he said: A Madinan shaykh. Ibn Taymiyyah also explains Abū Hātim ar-Rāzī’s terminology of “His hadīths are to be written down, but not to be used as evidence”; "يعني أنه يصلح حديثه للاعتبار والاستشهاد به، فإذا عضَّده آخرٌ مثله جاز أن يُحتجَّ به، ولا يُحتجُّ به على انفراده" “Meaning that his ḥadīth is suitable for consideration and for being cited as corroborative evidence; so if it is supported by another like it, it becomes permissible to use it as proof, but it is not used as proof on its own.” [Majmū’ al-Fatāwā (32/577)].

The role of qawwām (maintainer) over women which Islām gives to men cannot truly be fulfilled unless the husband is a successful leader of his family. The Muslim husband does not assert his manhood through roughness, cruelty, violence and harsh words. This is the manhood of jāhiliyyah; Islamic manhood is something else altogether. The Islamic ideal of manhood is: a strong and likeable personality; a noble attitude; tolerance and forgiveness of minor mistakes; strong adherence to the laws of Allāh and determination to apply them to every member of his family; brilliant leadership in guiding his family to the truth; generosity without being extravagant; a thorough understanding of his responsibilities in this world and the next; a clear idea of the ideal Muslim home. These are the characteristics of the true Muslim as Islām wants him to be… The true, sincere Muslim woman understands the heavy burden that Islām has placed on her shoulders, by obliging her to be a good wife to her husband, to surround him with care and meet his every need, to give him enjoyment and to renew his energy so that he may fulfil his mission in life. So she does not withhold her advice when she sees that he needs it, and she never hesitates to stand by his side, encouraging him and supporting him and offering advice and consolation. The true Muslim parent – whether father or mother understands the psychology of his or her children and knows how to deal with them, using the best and most effective methods of parenting and upbringing. He endears himself to them in all kinds of ways, and gets close to them, according to their age and mental levels, so he plays with them, praises them, jokes with them and tells them words of love and care which make them happy. Then they will love him, and accept his direction eagerly. When they obey him, it will be from the heart, for there is a great difference between the obedience which is based on love, respect and trust, and that which is based on violence and cruelty. The former is lasting obedience, while the latter is shallow and baseless, and will quickly vanish when the violence and cruelty reach extreme levels. Some people think that if the father comes down to his children’s level and interacts closely with them, this will diminish his paternal status in their eyes and undermine his parenting efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth, for this kind of approach is the most efficient method of raising children properly, and is promoted by modern experts. It is also the method promoted by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم fourteen hundred years ago, and clearly demonstrated by him in words and deeds. – From ‘The Ideal Muslim’ and ‘The Ideal Muslimah’.

Ibn al-Qayyim (رحمه الله) said: The 4 things which harm the body are: 1. Anxiety (about the future) 2. Sorrow (for what happened in the past) 3. Staying hungry 4. Staying up late – Stated in “Zād al-Ma’ād” (4/367).

“Headaches are from the signs of the people of Īmān and the people of Jannah.” – Stated by Ibn Rajab (رحمه الله) in “Latā’if al-Ma’ārif” (page 153).

#Quran | Al-Ḥasan Ibn Aḥmad Ibn al-Bannā al-Ḥanbalī (d. 471 AH) said in his book Bayān al-ʿUyūb allatī yajibu an yajtannibahā al-qurrāʾ — edited by Dr. Muḥammad Tawfīq Ḥadīd (p. 109): [Chapter: On the grave flaws of the self which the reciter must avoid during recitation and study] Among these is: moving the head to the right and left — like turning (the head); or moving it with a shaking motion from down to up, or from up to down — like nodding “yes” or “no” in conversation. قال الحسن بن أحمد ابن البنا الحنبلي (ت ٤٧١ هـ) في كتاب بيان العيوب التي يجب أن يجتنبها القراء - تحقيق د. محمد توفيق حديد (ص١٠٩): «[باب العيوب الفظعة في النفس التي يجب أن يجتنبها القارئ حين القراءة والدرس] من ذلك: تحريك الرأس عن يمين وشمال؛ كالالتفات، أو تحريكه بزعزعة من سفل إلى علو، أو علو إلى سفل؛ كالإيماء بـ نعم ولا في المخاطبات».

What is the criteria of fitnah mentioned by those who do not consider the niqāb obligatory, but still regard it as required in certain circumstances? Fitnah refers to the corruption of times, meaning the widespread increase of immorality and its spread due to weak faith, weak religious observance, and the absence of a strong leadership deterrent. For this reason, some scholars, who do not declare the niqāb obligatory, have issued fatwās declaring it obligatory due to the prevailing conditions. In “Majma’ al-Anhar” (1/81), it is stated: “In the book ‘al-Muntaha’, it mentions that a young woman should be prevented from unveiling her face to avoid leading to fitnah. In our time, the prevention is obligatory, and indeed a duty, due to the overwhelming corruption. And from ‘Ā’ishah (رضي الله عنها), it is reported that the entire body of a free woman is considered ‘awrah (private) except for one eye, based on the necessity to prevent harm.” In “al-Durr al-Mukhtar” (1/406), it is stated: “A young woman should be prevented from unveiling her face in front of men, not because it is ‘awrah, but because of the fear of fitnah.” Ibn ‘Ābidīn, in his footnotes, adds: “The meaning here is that she should be prevented from unveiling her face for fear that men might see her face, which could lead to temptation (fitnah), as revealing it may lead to a lustful glance.”

Imām Ibn Qudāmah al-Hanbalī (رحمه الله) stated in his book “Mukhtasar Minhāj al-Qāsidīn”: وإن افترى عليك بما أنت منه بريء، فينبغي أن تتفكر في ثلاثة أشياء: أحدها: أنك إن خلوت من ذلك العيب لم تخل من أمثاله، فما ستر الله عز وجل عليك من عيوبك أكثر، فاشكره إذ لم يطلعه على عيوبك ودفعه عنك فذكر ما أنت عنه بريء. الثاني: أن ذلك كفارات لذنوبك. الثالث: أنه جنى على دينه، وتعرض لغضب الله عليه، فينبغي أن يسأل الله العفو عنه، كما روي أن رجلاً شج إبراهيم بن أدهم، فدعا له بالمغفرة وقال: صرت مأجورا بسببه، فلا أجعله معاقبا بسببي. “And if someone slanders you with something of which you are innocent, then you should reflect on three things: First: If you are free from that particular fault, you are not free from similar ones. What Allāh has concealed of your faults is far more. So thank Him for not exposing your flaws, and for turning people’s attention instead to something of which you are innocent. Second: That slander serves as an expiation for your sins. Third: The person has harmed his own religion and exposed himself to the wrath of Allāh, so he should ask Allāh to forgive him. It is reported that a man once injured Ibrāhīm Ibn Adham, and he (Ibrāhīm) prayed for his forgiveness, saying: ‘I have been rewarded because of him, so I will not be the cause of his punishment.’”

Imām Abū al-Husayn Ibn Abī Ya’lah narrates in “Tabaqāt al-Hanābilah”; "وأنبأنا المبارك، عن ابن العشاري (١)، عن أحمد بن الجندي، قال: سمعت علوان بن الحسين أبا اليسير يقول: سمعت عبد الله بن أحمد يقول: سئل أبي: لم لا تصحب الناس؟ قال: لوحشة الفراق." Al-Mubārak informed us, from Ibn al-‘Ushārī, from Ahmad Ibn al-Jundī, who said: I heard ‘Alwān Ibn al-Husayn Abū al-Bashr Abā al-Yasīr say: I heard ‘Abdullāh Ibn Ahmad say: My father (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) was asked: Why do you not keep the company of people? He said: Because of the pain of separation. _____ Note: The phrase “لوحشة الفراق” literally means “because of the loneliness of separation”, implying that forming close bonds with people can be emotionally painful when those bonds are broken. This chain to Imām Ahmad is differed upon if authentic or weak. Al-Mubārak is thiqah. Abū Ṭālib al-‘Ushārī is a thiqah Hanbalī scholar according to the vast-majority of Imāms. Although, Ahmad Ibn al-Jundī is differed upon if thiqah or weak. Likewise, Al-‘Alwān Ibn al-Husayn is considered “mastūr al-Hāl” from what I’ve seen, which means there’s a dispute if such a narrator is considered thiqah or not.

Do people get upset at you when they CALL or MESSAGE and you are not as prompt as they would like? Does it annoy you to see people have READ your message and not responded? If yes, then please read this through… “And if it is said to you, ‘Go back,’ then go back; it is purer for you. And Allah is Knowing of what you do.” [An-Nur: 28] فَإِن لَّمْ تَجِدُوا۟ فِيهَآ أَحَدًۭا فَلَا تَدْخُلُوهَا حَتَّىٰ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ ۖ وَإِن قِيلَ لَكُمُ ٱرْجِعُوا۟ فَٱرْجِعُوا۟ ۖ هُوَ أَزْكَىٰ لَكُمْ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ عَلِيمٌۭ I have long been fascinated by this verse. Allah speaks here about the etiquette of visitation, and says that it is “purer for you” to simply return home when someone – who may have initially invited you – refuses you at the door. What does this have to with your purity? The God-centered (the purer) will recall that Allah gave people this right; maybe they had an embarrassing health meltdown (think: diarrhea); maybe World War 3 just erupted between the spouses as you arrived; maybe they just received a tragic call about something; maybe… The self-centered will not be able see past the: I went out of my way to visit him or her; I cancelled plans for this; I bought a pricey cake or gift; I… I… I… In simplest terms, handling rejection requires humility, and humility requires purity of spirit. Spirituality – beholding God – gets you to keep humble; the world does not revolve around me; maybe it is perfectly justified; maybe I would do the same – or have done the same – in a similar scenario. Having said that, please remember this: when you CALL or MESSAGE someone, that does not make you entitled to their immediate undivided attention. Maybe they were in the middle of something; maybe they need to consult family or Google before answering you; maybe their kids read that message and they never noticed it; maybe… just maybe...you’re just a tad bit on the narcissist trip. So remember, had I invited you, and you cancelled plans for me, and you bought me my favorite dessert, and you reached my door and knocked, Allah said I still do not have to let you in if I have legitimate reason (yes, honoring guests is otherwise mandatory in Islam). So what about when all you did is throw a few thumb-jabs at a touch screen at an inconvenient hour and sent it my way? Humility, my friends, it is “purer for you.” — Shared.

Some benefits taken from Shihāb ad-Dīn as-Subkī (Died 1032AH) in his explanation of Imām Suyūti’s 175 line poem about the grave; 1. There’s a difference of opinion if the angels Munkar and Nakeer are the only two angels who ask every dead person the three questions of the grave, or if there are millions of angels called “munkar and nakeer”, and the two angels that ask one dead person are different than the angels who ask the dead person next to him. 2. There’s a difference of opinion on whether the questioning of the grave will last 7 days or not. Some scholars have stated that you will literally be asked three questions only, while other scholars have stated you will be asked much more about your Dīn. In the footnotes Dār al-Minhāj (the publication company) cited from a manuscript of Imām al-Fāsī of his own commentary of Suyūṭī’s poem a nice benefit in regards to reconciling between the general hadīths which don’t mention 7 days and what’s narrated from some Tābi’īn like Tāwūs, Mujāhid and ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Umayr (with some considering him a Sahābī). Imām al-Fāsī wrote that this can be reconciled based upon the principle of “Ziyādat ath-Thiqah” from a hadīth perspective, i.e., additional knowledge mentioned by 1 narrator which another narrator either left out or didn’t hear. And it could also be reconciled from an Usūl perspective of holding the “Mutlaq” upon the “Muqayyad”, i.e., the unrestricted hadīths are to be interpreted as restricted based upon the salaf who said the testing lasts for 7 days in the grave. Although it’s beneficial to add that there’s a dispute if we can treat the statements of these great Tābi’īn (مقطوع) as having the ruling of مرفوع (being ascribed to Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم) based upon some scholars considering that Ijtihād isn’t possible here, hence they must’ve taken that knowledge from Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم. However this is strongly disputed in the books of Usūl, especially since there’s a possibility the Tābi’ī could’ve taken that knowledge from another weak Tābi’ī, thinking he’s reliable in what he ascribes to Sahābah to Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم. 3. There’s a difference of opinion if the angels will speak Arabic only during the questioning of the grave, or whether they will speak other languages as well. If they speak only Arabic, Allāh will create the ability for the dead to speak Arabic إن شاء الله, just like there are narrations that babies who die at a young age will receive an intellect in the grave. 4. There’s a difference of opinion if children under the age of maturity who pass away will be tested. The Shāfi’ī madhab believes the hadīth where Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم made du’ā that they’re protected from the torment of grave doesn't mean they will be questioned, but rather torment means facing some unease or hardship (and that could be due to bad neighbours beside them in the grave or people wailing at the grave etc). Side note: On the other hand the Hanbalī madhab states they will be questioned. And some have stated the reason behind their questioning will be in accordance with what they testified of Allāh being their Lord when they were in the loins of Prophet Ādam عليه الصلاة والسلام. There’s also a dispute if Prophets will be asked questions, but those who stated they would be asked mentioned the questioning will be done in an honourable way. 5. There are a category of people who won’t be questioned in the grave, such as the Shahīd and those who take his ruling. Ibn Hajr al-Haytamī also cites a dispute if a fāsiq can receive the reward of a shahīd or not (some narrations reject calling some people as shahīds). May Allāh protect us from the fitnah of the grave and allow us to answer the questions from the angels correctly, Āmīn.

Rulings related to tawbah and lying: Imām Najm ad-Dīn Ibn Hamdān in “Nihāyat al-Mubtadi’īn” states that tawbah is valid if you “highly think” you committed a sin. He then cites a second opinion that it’s not wājib to make tawbah just like if someone forgot the sin and this second opinion is adopted by Al-Qāḍī Abū Ya’lah. However, Imām Abū Ya’lah states if someone doubted if an action is harām, yet still did it out of negligence, then he must make tawbah for acting without knowledge, not for the action itself (which could be halāl or harām). There’s no doubt that tawbah is regret in one’s heart, not to return back to the sin again, however is it an obligation to utter with your tongue “I make tawbah to Allāh from this sin” or “AstaghfirAllāh”? There are two opinions; i) Imām Ibn Hamdān states it’s wājib to utter atleast one of these two phrases. ii) Imām al-Buhūtī in “Kashāf al-Qinā’” clarifies the official Hanbalī view doesn’t obligate uttering that with one’s tongue, and As-Saffārīnī writes in غذاء الألباب “The madhab’s position is not requiring either of these two phrases”. Ibn Hamdān also mentions a difference of opinion on whether it’s valid if a kāfir repents from some sins (despite remaining upon his kufr). As there’s an opinion which states a kāfir will be held to account and punished for all sins and kufr he committed, even if he regrets some of them. In regards to someone being falsely accused of a sin, and people believe you’re not trustworthy, should a Muslim display a “fake tawbah” to deter such harm? There are three opinions; i) Imām al-Qarāfī al-Mālikī clarifies that lying is permitted in maslahah, and this is a situation where lying is permitted. ii) Some scholars have stated that denying the accusation is considered a valid tawbah, and therefore it’s not permitted for someone to remain accusing you of a sin or bid’ah. 3) If trustworthy witnesses accuse you of disbelief, and you deny the accusation and display the belief of Īmān (refusing to make tawbah), then Ibn Taymiyyah cites from most scholars in the ummah that this is a sufficient retraction, and that those who accused him, even if they think he’s wrong for denying such, must accept his word and not remain accusing him of such. If he’s lying by his denial, then that’s a seperate sin between him and Allāh, but the main thing is that he rejects kufr, so there’s no need to persist in trying to force him to confess to the accusation. Finally, it’s important to share that Ibn al-Wazīr defined lying as intending to make the listener perceive something which is not true, as he states below; "الكذب هو : ما قصد المتكلّم به إيهام السّامع ما ليس بصدق , والمتجوّز لم يقصد ذلك." And this is agreed upon as being forbidden if speaking about the past. However there are two opinions if lying applies to the future; i) Imām Ahmad stated it’s a forbidden lie if you say “I won’t eat this, then eat it a moment later”, while your intention was certain in eating it from the beginning. ii) Imām al-Qarāfī in “Al-Furūq” states that lying cannot occur for the future, as you don’t know what will happen in the future, therefore you aren’t telling the opposite of the truth. Returning back to the definition of lying cited by Ibn al-Wazīr, the Shāfi’ī madhab has a major dispute if exaggerations poets write which are impossible to happen fall under lies, as their intention is to beautify their poetry, not to perceive the opposite of truth. Imām Kamāl ad-Dīn ash-Shāfi’ī (Died 748AH) in “Al-Imtā’ Fī Ahkām as-Samā’” cites from Ar-Rāfi’ī that most shāfi’iyyah prohibited this, while some such as Al-Qaffāl and as-Saydalānī permitted it, along with ar-Rāfi’ī speaking highly of this opinion. This shows that writing a novel or fake story whereby one easily knows it’s not intended to perceive falsehood as true, is not a lie for many Imāms. Sarcasm is also fine if done with proper adab. والله أعلم