Madrasatuna || مدرستنا

“Knowledge is like prey, and writing it down is the rope that captures it.” A beautiful poem by Imām ash-Shāfiʿī رحمه الله reminding us that knowledge must be preserved. Just as a hunter captures his prey, the student of knowledge captures what they learn by recording it. Your notebook is an essential tool in your journey of seeking knowledge, for what is not written down is easily forgotten. 🎙 Speaker: Ustādh Abū Isḥāq حفظه الله T.me/knowledgeknotes

Were they commanded to wear the veil, to cover the face, or to do other things regarding modesty? The Qur'an did not explain any of that, and there is nothing in the Sunnah to clarify it. So it is not permissible to build an argument on a matter about which revelation is silent. In fact, the apparent meaning of the surah indicates that Yusuf was living in a society that was different from the religion of the prophets. Therefore, he said: "And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim, Ishaq, and Ya'qub. It was not for us to associate anything with Allah." [Surah Yusuf, 12:38]. And he said after that: "O my two companions of the prison, are separate lords better or Allah, the One, the Subduer? You do not worship besides Him except names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command is only for Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him. That is the straight religion, but most people do not know." [Surah Yusuf, 12:39-40]. These verses clearly show that Yusuf was calling a people among whom polytheism was prevalent to worship Allah alone, and was explaining to them the corruption of what they were doing in worshipping others besides Allah. Allah also said: "He could not take his brother according to the king's law, unless Allah willed." [Surah Yusuf, 12:76]. Sheikh Abdurrahman as-Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Because it was not part of his religion to take possession of the thief. They had a different punishment for him. So if the matter was referred to the king's law, Yusuf could not have kept his brother with him. But he made the ruling according to their system to accomplish what he wanted." [Taysir al-Karim ar-Rahman, Tafsir of Surah Yusuf, verse 76]. These verses indicate that the society in which Yusuf lived was not based on Allah's law. As for the rulings regarding women in Yusuf's law concerning the veil and modesty, revelation is silent about them. So it is not permissible to build an argument on an unknown matter. If someone says: If Yusuf was given such great beauty, why was he not commanded to cover his face by analogy with women? The answer is that this is exactly the kind of reasoning that scholars have shown to be invalid. Sheikh Muhammad Nasir ad-Din al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "...And they were told, by way of counter-argument: The most handsome part of a man, in relation to a woman, is his face. So command men also, with your philosophy, to cover their faces in front of women, especially those who are exceptionally beautiful. As mentioned in the biography of Abu al-Hasan al-Wa'iz, known as 'al-Misri': 'He had a gathering where he would speak and give sermons. Men and women would attend his sermons. He used to put a face veil over his face, fearing that women would be tempted by his handsome face.' (Tarikh Baghdad, 12/75-76)." [Ar-Radd al-Mufham, p. 12]. This question is based on a philosophy that al-Albani showed to be flawed. If this analogy were correct, it would have to be applied to all men, because the assessment of beauty differs according to individuals, times, and tastes, and cannot be regulated by a legal standard. No scholar has ever said this. Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) clearly stated this, saying: "Men were never commanded to wear the veil so that women would not see them." [Fath al-Bari, 9/337]. This clearly shows that Islamic law made a distinction between men and women in this matter, and that this distinction is an intended legislation. It is not permissible to cancel it by mere analogy or personal preference. This does not mean that Islamic law ignored the temptation of women by men. In fact, it deals with it if it occurs in a particular individual, without making it a general legislation for all men. This happened in the story of Nasr ibn Hajjaj. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Even more than that is that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab exiled a man about whom women spoke and desired, namely Nasr ibn Hajjaj. He heard a woman speaking about him and desiring him, and saw that this was a cause of temptation. So he cut his hair, thinking that the cause of temptation might be removed. But he saw that he had the most beautiful cheeks, so he sent him to Basra. Then he sent word asking to return to his homeland and saying he had no sin, but 'Umar refused, saying: 'As long as I am alive, no.' This is because when a woman is commanded to cover herself, to avoid displaying her beauty, and to do other things that are causes of temptation for her and through her, then if there is a man who has become a temptation for women, he is also commanded to remove the cause of temptation, either by changing his appearance or by moving away from the place where the temptation occurs. This is because by doing so, he protects his religion and protects the religion of women." [Al-Istiqamah, 1/362]. This is a specific treatment for a specific situation, not a general legislation for all men. This is unlike the veil, which Allah legislated for all women. It confirms that Islamic law considered the temptation of women by men, but dealt with it in a way that suits it, just as it considered the temptation of men by women and legislated general rulings for them that achieve the Lawgiver's aim of preserving honour and blocking the means to corruption. An important methodological point is that, in what I have seen of the interpretations of the early scholars, I have not come across any of the great commentators, such as at-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Baghawi, Ibn 'Atiyyah, al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir, who addressed this point when interpreting the verses of Yusuf or the verses of the veil. Nor did they make a comparison between the two places. If this were a correct way of reasoning or a valid method of deriving rulings, the early commentators would have preceded us in explaining it. They would not have missed such a meaning, given their great concern for addressing the questions and objections that arise regarding the verses. Thus, it becomes clear that using the story of Yusuf to raise this question is not valid for opposing the legislation of the veil. Because it combines opposing clear texts with a flawed analogy, building that on unsupported assumptions, and using a narrative story that is not a source of legislation, while ignoring the distinctions that the Lawgiver made between men and women. Moreover, the texts themselves show that the Lawgiver considered, in this matter, causes of temptation that are broader than mere beauty. He even forbade the woman from making the sound of her covered adornment heard. This indicates that the basis of the legislation is not merely physical beauty, but rather what Allah knows about the strength of men's attraction to women and the resulting harms. If this were a correct way of reasoning or a valid method of deriving rulings, the early commentators would have preceded us in explaining it, as far as we know. But it appears to be based on a kind of reasoning that is not found in the sayings of the early scholars or in the interpretations of the predecessors. The story of Yusuf is a report of an event, not a general legislation. So it is not permissible to use it to oppose the clear texts regarding the rulings of the veil, nor to deviate from the rulings established by explicit revelation. Allah knows best about what He created, and He is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware. And Allah knows best. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions. Abu 'Atiyyah Al Husayn 9 Safar 1448 AH.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds, and peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions. To proceed: Some people have raised a question: If Yusuf (peace be upon him) was given such great beauty that Allah said about the women who saw him: "When they saw him, they were amazed and cut their hands, and said, 'God forbid! This is not a human being; this is no less than a noble angel.'" [Surah Yusuf, 12:31] Then why was Yusuf not commanded to cover his face or hide his beauty, while women were commanded to wear the veil? Does this show that the difference between men and women in this matter is not consistent? This question is based on reasoning that is not sound in several ways. In fact, it is a type of opposing clear texts with a comparison that has no support from the Qur'an or the Sunnah. The first thing that should be established is that Islamic rulings are not built simply on what seems logical to the mind. They are taken from revelation. Because Allah is the Creator, and He knows best about what He has created. He said: "It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have any choice in their matter." [Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:36] And He said: "Does He who created not know? And He is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware." (Surah Al-Mulk, 67:14) It is a settled principle among scholars of Islamic jurisprudence that analogy cannot be used when there is a clear text. It is not allowed to oppose a correct text with an analogy, especially when the Lawgiver Himself has made a distinction between the two cases. So when a ruling is proven by a clear text, it is not allowed to oppose it with an analogy that assumes equality between two situations, while the wise Lawgiver has differentiated between them. One of the principles of scholars is that if the text shows a difference between two cases, that difference itself is a legal proof that prevents it from being cancelled by analogy. Because analogy is only used when there is no text, not to oppose it or ignore the differences that the Lawgiver considered. There is no doubt that the temptation caused by women to men is a great temptation. It is the greatest trial that men face in their lives. The truthful and trusted Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "I have not left after me any trial more harmful to men than women." [Agreed upon, from Usama ibn Zayd]. The Prophet did not only explain the severity of this temptation, but he also described the woman as something to be covered, and that Satan looks at her with desire when she leaves her home. He said: "The woman is a 'awrah (something to be covered). When she goes out, Shayṭān seeks her." Narrated by at-Tirmidhi from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him). Al-Mubarakfuri, in his explanation of the hadith, said: "When she goes out, Shayṭān seeks her" means he makes her appear attractive in the eyes of men. It is also said that he looks at her to lead her astray and to lead others astray through her. The original meaning of "looking at" is raising the gaze to look at something and placing the hand above the eyebrow. The meaning is that a woman's going out and appearing is considered improper, so when she goes out, he stares at her to lead her astray through others and to lead others astray through her, so that he causes one or both of them to fall into temptation. Or he means by "Shayṭān" the human devils from among the immoral people, calling them by this name as a comparison. [Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, 4/283]. From here came the wise legislation of commanding the veil, and forbidding showing off adornment and revealing beauty. This is to block the means to temptation, protect honour, and preserve society. As Allah said: "O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments close around them. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be harmed." [Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:59]. And He said: "And not to reveal their adornment except what is apparent of it." And He said: "And not to reveal their adornment except what is apparent of it" to the end of the verse [Surah An-Nur, 24:31]. Among the things that some scholars mention as a way of deriving some wisdom, not as a legal reason for the ruling, is what Ibn 'Adil al-Hanbali (may Allah have mercy on him) pointed out regarding the secret behind mentioning the adulteress before the adulterer in Allah's saying: "The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each one of them one hundred lashes." [Surah An-Nur, 24:2]. Ibn 'Adil said: "If it is asked: Why was the adulteress mentioned before the adulterer at the beginning of the surah, and here the opposite is the case? The answer is: That verse came first for her punishment because of her betrayal, for the woman is the main source in adultery. As for here, it is mentioned in the context of marriage, and men are the main party in it, because he is the one who desires and seeks." [Al-Lubab fi 'Ulum al-Kitab, 14/289]. He did not mean that the man is not a cause of adultery, or that the woman bears the sin more than him. Allah made them equal in the punishment. He only meant to explain one aspect of the wisdom in mentioning the adulteress first: that when a woman shows her beauty, makes herself available, and arouses desire, she becomes one of the greatest causes of temptation. This is consistent with the many texts that command the veil, forbid showing off, and block every path that leads to corruption, in order to fulfill the aims of Islamic law in preserving religion and honour, and protecting hearts from causes of temptation. Furthermore, this reasoning is based on the assumption that beauty alone is the reason for legislating the veil. This is an assumption with no evidence. In fact, the texts show otherwise. The Lawgiver did not make the veil obligatory based on whether a woman is beautiful or not. He did not differentiate between a beautiful woman and one who is not. He made it obligatory for all women. This shows that the reason for the ruling is not simply beauty, but rather what women contain in terms of causes of temptation that the texts take into consideration, to block the means to corruption and preserve honour. This is confirmed by the fact that Allah forbade the woman even from an action in which nothing of her body is seen, but only the sound of her adornment is heard. He said: "And let them not stamp their feet so that what they hide of their adornment becomes known." [Surah An-Nur, 24:31]. He forbade stamping the feet if it causes the sound of anklets to be heard, even though the adornment itself is covered and only its sound is heard. This is to block the means of temptation. Imam al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Meaning, the woman should not stamp her foot while walking to make the sound of her anklets heard. Making the sound of adornment heard is like showing the adornment itself, and even more severe. The aim is concealment... Hearing this adornment is more stirring to desire than seeing it." (Al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Quran, 12/229). So reflect on how the law considered even the sound of covered adornment, and forbade the woman from making it heard, because of what it might lead to in stirring desire and causing temptation. If this is the case with the sound of an anklet, even though the adornment itself is not seen at all, then this is clear evidence that the legislation of the veil was not based merely on the beauty of the face. Rather, it is based on what Allah knows about the strength of men's attraction to women and the resulting harms. Therefore, the rulings in this matter came in a way that is not similar to what was legislated for men. Allah knows best about what He created, and He is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware. Moreover, this objection is based on another assumption with no evidence: that we actually know what the rulings regarding women were in the law of Yusuf (peace be upon him).

Enquiry: السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته I would like to raise a genuine exegetical question. I ask that the response engage with it directly. Please engage with the reasoning directly and not defer to 'trust the hikmah' and please do not treat the question itself as a reflection on my aqeedah... I am asking precisely because I want to understand the wisdom, not bypass it. Surah Yusuf presents Yusuf's (‏عليه السلام) beauty as so acute it drove women to cut their hands. This is a fitnah the Qur'an itself names explicitly: فلما رأينه أكبرنه وقطعن أيديهن Then, when they saw him, they exalted him (at his beauty) and (in their astonishment) cut their hands. (12:31) Yet, the narrative response is entirely internal. So, it is Yusuf's self-restraint, not concealment. He is given no instruction to cover or diminish his appearance. By contrast, An-Nur (24:31) and Al-Ahzab (33:59) prescribe external covering for women. This is partly framed around protection from harassment and recognition. My questions are: 1) What is the actual usul that determines when fitnah is addressed through the viewer/beholder's self-restraint versus the source's concealment? 2) Is this asymmetry grounded in textual reasoning that classical mufassirun addressed directly? Or is it a distinction that later fiqh imposed onto the narrative? I would value citations if available. Tabari, Qurtubi or Ibn Kathir's treatment of this comparison would be especially useful. BarakAllahu feekum for your patience. May Allah reward you all with goodness.

Allah the Most High also says: "Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord, and do not follow other protectors besides Him. Little do you remember." [Surah Al-A‘rāf: 3] Drawing lines is not something that has been revealed to us, nor is it something that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ brought to us. Allah the Most High says: "Whoever obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah. And whoever turns away, then We have not sent you over them as a guardian." [Surah An-Nisā’: 80] And the Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever obeys me has indeed obeyed Allah.” Obeying the Messenger ﷺ, just as it can be through doing something, can also be through leaving something, according to the previously mentioned principles. There is the practical Sunnah (things the Prophet ﷺ did), and there is the Sunnah of leaving something (things the Prophet ﷺ did not do), as the scholars of knowledge have explained. Both types are included in the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: “Upon you is my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided, guided caliphs. Hold firmly onto it and bite onto it with your molar teeth.” So when you understand this properly, the doubts and difficulties will disappear from you, and you will leave behind matters based merely on personal preference. Although we respect the people of knowledge and virtue, and the scholars of the Sunnah from both sides, this does not allow us to oppose what is correct and what is strongest. They are all our scholars, our imams, and our respected leaders. However, the truth is more beloved to us than anything else, and the guidance of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ takes precedence for us over every other guidance, regardless of who the person following that other view may be. ✅ For: May Allah reward you with goodness. You have clarified and made the matter clear, and you have removed every confusion from me. ❌ Against: That is by the success and guidance granted by Allah. There is nothing from me, and there is no ability in me. All praise belongs to Allah, in the beginning and in the end, outwardly and inwardly. May Allah reward you with goodness for accepting the truth and what is correct. This is what we expect from everyone who honours the Qur’an and the Sunnah and gives precedence to evidence over personal preference that has no proof from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. May Allah send abundant peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and companions. Source:

So if you say to him: "This is an innovation. It was not done by the Prophet ﷺ, his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) or the Tābiʿīn who followed them upon goodness. The reason for it—which is removing whispers—existed during their time." He will reply: "The reason did not exist during their time. And even if it did exist, it was rare and uncommon, unlike today, where whispers and doubts have become widespread, and many people have little khushūʿ and presence of heart in their acts of worship—except those whom Allah has shown mercy to and protected from the plots of Shayṭān. Therefore, this means has become necessary to eliminate the problem of whispers and to protect acts of worship from deficiencies." So you, who have opened the door to endless objections, will find it difficult to convince someone like this. In fact, you may eventually become unable to respond and be defeated by his argument, and you will be forced into false conclusions. You will remain constantly defending your position day and night, and you may not be able to refute every argument. How much easier it is to hold firmly to the guidance of the Prophet ﷺ, outwardly and inwardly. And Allah is the One whose help is sought. As a point of clarification: the correct comparison for the lines is to compare them with the prayer beads (subḥah) used for counting adhkār. Whoever says that drawing lines is legislated must also say that using prayer beads is legislated, because the reason for them existed during the earliest generations, the means were possible for them, and they were easy to obtain. Yet they were not used, nor were they legislated. Therefore, this is the correct comparison for the lines. This is one of the objections that arise against those who permit them. ✅ For: Then what is the solution? How do we straighten the rows when they are so long and it is difficult to move between people in order to straighten them?" ❌ Against: We straighten the rows in the same way that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, his noble Companions, the Tābiʿīn, and the early generations of this Ummah used to straighten them. The worshippers should cooperate with the imam in doing so. The imam should look at the rows and the worshippers and say: "Stand straight," "Straighten your rows," "Join your rows together," "Heel to heel," "Shoulder to shoulder," and other similar expressions that are authentically reported from the Prophet ﷺ. Everyone should seek the reward of this from Allah, and the reward is according to the effort and hardship involved. As for what some people say: "Heel to heel, stand opposite each other," and what Ibn ʿUthaymīn رحمه الله also mentioned: "Stand straight," and similar expressions, these are not mentioned in the Sharīʿah, and they are also not correct in meaning. Note: Straightening the rows, correcting them, and giving attention to them are among the duties of the imam. The worshippers should cooperate with him in this, as mentioned previously. Imām Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd rahimahullah said: "The hadith contains evidence that straightening the rows is the responsibility of the imam. Some of the early imams would appoint someone to straighten the rows of the people." [End of quote from Iḥkām al-Aḥkām, 1/219] Imām Ibn al-Mulaqqin rahimahullah said: "The imam should regularly ensure that the rows of the people are straight, and the people should ensure this themselves." End of quote from At-Tawḍīḥ li Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 6/593] ✅ For: How can you say that the lines are an innovation when major scholars have issued verdicts allowing them? Are you declaring these great scholars, who are among the imams of the Muslims, to be people of innovation? ❌ Against: You have little insight and limited understanding, may Allah rectify you. Does everyone who commits an innovation become an innovator? Pay attention to the answer: Firstly: These scholars are scholars of independent reasoning (ijtihād), and their scholarly reasoning led them to the view that drawing lines is legislated. If they are correct, then they receive two rewards: the reward for their effort in making ijtihād and the reward for reaching the correct conclusion. If they are mistaken, then they still receive the reward for their effort in making ijtihād, and they are not unsuccessful in either case. Secondly: Remember this principle: "Not everyone who falls into an innovation has the innovation applied to him." This is a very beneficial principle that will help you in many situations and resolve many difficulties for you. A person who falls into an innovation is not automatically judged by the ruling of that innovation until the conditions are fulfilled and the barriers preventing that ruling are removed. Thirdly: Are there not scholars and imams who prohibited it? They are the majority. In fact, some went further and stated that it is an innovation. Footnote: I say: This is based on what I have come across from the statements of the scholars, especially the scholars of our time, as will be mentioned in the appendix. One of the two opinions must be correct and the other must be incorrect, because the truth is one and cannot be multiple. It is not possible to combine both opinions because they contradict each other. So, what is the justification for allowing opposition to those who prohibit it, while forbidding opposition to those who permit it? Is this not imposing personal preference upon the religion of Allah? Footnote: Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah said regarding some people's use of the argument that introducing new festivals and occasions is permissible because some people of knowledge and virtue did so and practised them: "If people who possessed virtue and religious commitment did this, then during their time there were others who abandoned it, believing that it was disliked, and people objected to it who, even if they were not better than those who did it, were not beneath them either. Even if they were less virtuous than those who did it, the matter was disputed among those in authority, so it should be referred back to Allah and the Messenger and to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger—along with those who disliked it, not with those who permitted it. Furthermore, the majority of the early generations, who are better than those who came later, were with those who disliked it." [End of quote from Iqtiḍāʾ as-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm, 2/116–118] Fourth: The truth is known through its evidence, not through the status of individuals. There is no scholar who is protected from making mistakes, nor does anyone possess a guarantee that they will never err or slip. Rather, every person is capable of being correct or mistaken. So, when scholars or people differ over an issue, where should people return and refer to in their disagreement? The answer is clear in the Book of Allah. Allah the Most High said: "O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Then, if you differ over anything, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination." [Sūrah al-Nisāʾ: 59] Allah the Most High says: "And in whatever matter you differ, its judgment is with Allah. That is Allah, my Lord; upon Him I have relied, and to Him I turn in repentance." [Surah Ash-Shūrā: 10] So if we refer our disagreement regarding this issue back to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ, we will find that the truth is with those who prohibit it, due to the evidences and proofs that have already been mentioned to you. This is because Allah the Most High says: "Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you from, refrain from it. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is severe in punishment." [Surah Al-Hashr: 7] What the Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave us was to leave off the lines. So, should what was sufficient for him ﷺ, his Companions, and the noble early generations — may Allah be pleased with them — not be sufficient for us?

And in the hadith of Abū Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet ﷺ said: "The mu'adhdhin is forgiven as far as his voice reaches. Everything, whether living or non-living, bears witness for him. And whoever attends the prayer will have the reward of twenty-five prayers recorded for him, and his sins committed between them will be forgiven." This was recorded by Abū Dāwūd and others, and was authenticated by Shaykh al-Albānī rahimahullah. These hadiths, and others like them, show that raising the voice for the adhān is something prescribed and encouraged in the Sharīʿah. Therefore, any means that achieves this objective, without involving anything prohibited, is also permissible. That is why the mu'adhdhins in the early generations would climb onto the roofs of houses and buildings so that their voices could reach as far as possible. Once you understand this, and you also realise that loudspeakers did not exist in their time, it becomes clear that they used whatever means were available to them, namely climbing onto rooftops. Later, in subsequent generations, they climbed minarets. When loudspeakers became available, they replaced the earlier method of climbing onto rooftops, because they achieved the same purpose—and even more effectively. This makes the difference between loudspeakers and prayer lines clear. Furthermore, loudspeakers unquestionably achieve their intended purpose. This is not based on guesswork or assumption. The same cannot be said about the lines, whose intended purpose is to straighten the rows. Anyone who looks at the matter fairly can see that the lines do not fully achieve this objective. In fact, they may even become a cause of crooked rows. This is because if people use the lines to align themselves by their toes, it is impossible for the rows to be truly straight, since people's toes are not all the same length. Some people have long toes, while others have short toes. So the intended benefit is not achieved. If, instead, they align themselves by their heels or the backs of their feet, the result is no different. True straightness is still not achieved, because some people have long heels while others have short heels. This is something that can be clearly observed, and no one would deny it except someone who is being stubborn. Therefore, the intended purpose of the lines is not achieved in the manner required by the Sharīʿah. Furthermore, the lines on the carpet often distract people from reflecting and having khushūʿ in the prayer. Khushūʿ is the very essence and soul of the prayer. The Sharīʿah places great importance on preserving attentiveness and presence of heart during the prayer and on removing anything that distracts from it. For this reason, the Prophet ﷺ forbade praying when food has been served, or while a person is resisting the urge to relieve himself, and anything else that has the same effect of distracting a person from having khushūʿ in the prayer. Likewise, when the Prophet ﷺ prayed while wearing a garment that had decorative markings on it, his gaze fell upon those markings. When he finished the prayer, he said: "Take this garment of mine to Abū Jahm, and bring me the plain garment of Abū Jahm instead, for it distracted me during my prayer." If this was the case with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, then what about those who came after him? This shows that a person should keep away from anything that distracts him from having khushūʿ in the prayer. Furthermore, drawing lines has caused the Sunnah of straightening the rows and giving it proper attention to die out. The imam now relies on the lines and begins the prayer immediately without first checking whether the rows are actually straight, as the Prophet ﷺ used to do. In fact, some imams do not even look behind them at all. If they do turn around, people call out to them, "Start the prayer! Start the prayer!" Anyone who reflects carefully and thoughtfully will realise that this alone is enough reason to abandon drawing lines altogether. This is the nature of innovations: they cause the Sunnahs to die out and replace them. Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah said: "For this reason, it is reported from the Prophet ﷺ in a hadith: 'Whenever a people introduce an innovation, Allah removes from them a Sunnah equal to it.' This was narrated by Imām Aḥmad. He then said: "This is something that anyone who reflects on his own condition can observe, whether he is a scholar, a worshipper, a ruler, or one of the common people. That is why the Sharīʿah strongly condemns those who introduce innovations and dislikes them. If innovations merely left a person with neither reward nor sin, the matter would be light. But they inevitably bring corruption. One of their harms is that they diminish the benefit a person receives from the Sharīʿah, because the heart cannot contain both the replacement and that which it has replaced." [End of quote from Iqtiḍāʾ as-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm, 1/543–544] He also said: "Likewise, you will never find anyone who abandons part of the Sunnah that must be believed in and acted upon except that he falls into an innovation. And you will never find a person of innovation except that he has abandoned some part of the Sunnah, as mentioned in the hadith: 'Whenever a people introduce an innovation, they abandon an equivalent Sunnah.' This was narrated by Imām Aḥmad." [End of quote from Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 7/173] Footnote: The hadith mentioned by Imām Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah was narrated by Imām Aḥmad with the wording: "Whenever a people introduce an innovation, an equivalent Sunnah is taken away from them." It is narrated from Ghudayf ibn al-Ḥārith ath-Thumālī, whose status as a Companion is disputed. Shaykh al-Albānī rahimahullah graded this hadith as weak in As-Silsilah ad-Ḍaʿīfah (no. 6707). What is authentically established is the statement that will be mentioned next from the eminent Tābiʿī Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah al-Muḥāribī rahimahullah, who said: "Whenever a people introduce an innovation into their religion, Allah removes from them an equivalent Sunnah, and it will not be returned to them until the Day of Resurrection." This was narrated by ad-Dārimī in the introduction to his Sunan (no. 99), and also by Abū Nuʿaym in Al-Ḥilyah (6/73), and Ibn Baṭṭah in Al-Ibānah al-Kubrā no. (228), and al-Lālikā’ī in Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahlis-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah no. (129), and Ibn Waḍḍāḥ in Al-Bidaʿ no. (90). Imām Abū Muḥammad al-Barbahārī rahimahullah said: "Know that people never introduce an innovation except that they abandon an equivalent Sunnah. So beware of newly invented matters, for every newly invented matter is an innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and misguidance and its people are in the Fire. Beware of the small newly invented matters, because small innovations eventually become large. Likewise, every innovation that was introduced into this Ummah began as something small that resembled the truth. Those who entered into it were deceived by this, then they were unable to leave it. It then became great and turned into a religion that people followed."] End of quote from Sharḥ as-Sunnah, pp. 37–38] Furthermore, if we open the door to personal preferences and things people consider beneficial without evidence, we will be forced into many innovations, and many problems and objections will arise. For example, as has occurred with some misguided people, they will say that pronouncing the intention aloud is legislated. Some may even say that it is obligatory. Why? They will say: Because it is a means of achieving a great benefit that is required in the Sharīʿah. It is a means of cutting off Shaytan’s attempts to whisper doubts to the Muslim regarding his acts of worship. This is a noble objective intended by the Lawgiver. So, if a person verbally says his intention and makes himself and those near him hear it, he closes the door of whispers for Shayṭān, and Shayṭān will no longer be able to whisper to him afterwards.

A Discussion on Lined Carpets in the Masjid: The Arguments For and Against ✅ For: Drawing lines on the masjid carpet has great benefits and clear advantages that cannot be properly achieved without them. They make it easier to straighten the rows and help people do so more quickly and in a more orderly manner. ❌ Against: If there was really benefit and advantage in it, then why did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) not do it? The benefit of ensuring that the rows are straight was just as important during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, his Companions, the Tābiʿīn, and those who came after them. ✅ For: The reason for doing this did not exist during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, his Companions, or the Tābiʿīn, because their prayer rows were short and easy to straighten. In contrast, our rows today are long and difficult to straighten, so there was no need in their time to draw lines. ❌ Against: The claim that there was no reason to draw lines in the masjid to straighten the rows during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, his Companions, and the Tābiʿīn is incorrect. Rather, it goes against the reality of the situation. The reason did exist, and drawing lines was possible. This will become clear to you through the following points: First: The reason for drawing lines—namely, to straighten the prayer rows—already existed. That is why the Prophet ﷺ personally took care to straighten the rows, and it took some of his time to do so. So why did he not draw lines? The Prophet ﷺ would always choose the easier of two permissible options, and drawing lines would have been easier for them. Yet he and his Companions did not do it. Second: The claim that their rows were short is not completely correct. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ led around 120,000 people in prayer during the Farewell Pilgrimage. Can that number really be considered small, with short rows? Apart from the Two Sacred Masjids, where today do you find a masjid that holds such numbers? Even though the Prophet ﷺ led these huge crowds in prayer, he did not draw lines, nor did he command them, encourage them, or even suggest them. This alone invalidates your argument and the reason you have given. Third: Even if we assume that there was no need for lines in the past, and that this need only arose later, the question that naturally follows is: What caused this need to appear in these later times? Is it because there are more worshippers in the masjids today than there were in the early generations, or is it something else? Without doubt, the correct answer is that the reason is not the large number of worshippers. Rather, it is because many people have become negligent in learning the rulings of the prayer and in acting according to the guidance of the Muhammadan Sharīʿah. If that is the case, then the scholars say that when the underlying reason is because of the negligence of the people, then it is not legislated to introduce this practice in order to achieve a benefit that was lost due to their own negligence. ✅ For: We say that, although the reason existed, they were not able to draw lines. Making lines on the ground was difficult and burdensome, since someone would have had to redraw them before every prayer. The same applies to praying on mountains and in valleys. As for today, it is very easy—you simply buy carpets that already have the lines woven into them. ❌ Against: They could have drawn lines in several ways. For example, they could have marked lines on the gravel that covered the floor of the masjid using plaster, tin, or other materials or colours, and that would have achieved the intended purpose. ✅ For: That would still have been difficult because they would have needed to redraw the lines before every prayer, and hardship calls for ease. ❌ Against: This is contrary to reality. At the very least, they would only have needed to renew the lines once a day. Would that not have been easier than straightening the rows before every prayer, five times each day and night? Another possibility is that they could have used fixed or movable ropes as lines, tying them in place before the prayer and removing them afterwards. ✅ For: This would cause inconvenience and hardship, and people might trip over the ropes. ❌ Against: This is not necessarily the case. If the ropes were laid flat on the ground, and the ground was firm gravel, then it would be very unlikely for people to trip over them. This shows that the reason for drawing lines did exist, and that it was possible to do so. Yet the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not do it. Therefore, introducing it amounts to legislating a means that is not legislated, and the best guidance is the guidance of the Prophet ﷺ. Whenever the reason for an act of worship existed during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ, at the time when revelation was still being sent down, and it was possible to carry it out, yet neither the Prophet ﷺ, nor his noble Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), nor the Tābiʿīn did it, then it is known to be an innovation (bidʿah), not a legislated means. This is what the statements of the scholars indicate, and it is also supported by the hadith of ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her) recorded in both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: "Whoever introduces into this matter of ours something that is not from it, it will be rejected." In the wording of Muslim: "Whoever does an action that is not in accordance with our matter, it will be rejected." What is meant by "our matter" here is the Islamic legislation. ✅ For: These lines are not an act of worship in themselves. Rather, they are only a means of straightening the rows. The principle regarding the existence or absence of the reason applies to acts of worship, not to means. That is why all the examples mentioned by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah under this principle relate to acts of worship. ❌ Against: Even if we accept that they are a means and not an act of worship in themselves, have you forgotten the well-known principle: "The means take the same ruling as the objectives," or "Means are judged according to their ends"? So, if these lines are a means to an act of worship, then they also become part of that act of worship, and according to your view, the person who introduces them would be rewarded for doing so. Therefore, your argument still faces the same problem. There is another point as well: the statement of Shaykh al-Islām rahimahullah is general. The fact that he gave examples involving certain acts of worship does not restrict or limit his principle, as will be explained later. This is because, as scholars say, an example is only a particular case mentioned to clarify a general principle. By itself, it does not restrict or limit that principle. It only does so if there is supporting evidence indicating such a restriction. ✅ For: We compare this to the permissibility of using loudspeakers, since they are also a means. ❌ Against: This comparison is incorrect. It is an analogy despite there being a clear and obvious difference between the two. The purpose of loudspeakers is to carry the voice as far as possible, and this objective is something encouraged by the Sharīʿah. The hadiths point to this. In the hadith of ʿAbdullāh ibn Zayd ibn ʿAbd Rabbih (may Allah be pleased with him), recorded by Abū Dāwūd and others, and authenticated in Al-Jāmiʿ as-Ṣaḥīḥ by Imām al-Wādiʿī rahimahullah, the Prophet ﷺ said: "It is indeed a true dream, if Allah wills. Go with Bilāl and teach him what you saw so that he may call the adhān with it, for he has a stronger and more beautiful voice than you." So I went with Bilāl and taught him the words, and he gave the adhān with them. ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) heard it while he was in his house. He came out dragging his cloak and said: "By the One who sent you with the truth, O Messenger of Allah, I saw the same as he saw." The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then said: "All praise belongs to Allah."

Some scholars also say that the reason for marking lines did not actually exist during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, because the Prophet's masjid was not carpeted. Masjids were only carpeted later. Also, drawing lines directly on the ground would involve difficulty, since the lines would not remain. As for marking the masjid before each of the five daily prayers, that would involve considerable hardship. Likewise, stretching ropes across the masjid would also involve difficulty, especially in those times, because ropes were expensive and not as readily available as they are today. This is one point. Another point is that ropes would obstruct people as they walked through the masjid. People only needed such markings after masjids began to be covered with carpets. At that point, there was a need to place lines on the carpets, and carpets began to be manufactured with lines already marked on them, which fulfilled the purpose of straightening the rows. In any case, as we have explained, this practice is originally from the category of permissible matters. It is simply a means of straightening the rows, and the means take the ruling of the objectives. What is condemned is introducing new acts of worship. The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever introduces into this matter of ours that which is not from it, it will be rejected." What is meant here is introducing acts of worship, not introducing permissible means that help achieve legislated objectives. Such means are not included in the Prophet's ﷺ statement, "Whoever introduces into this matter of ours that which is not from it, it will be rejected." In any case, this issue has been discussed extensively by the scholars, and there has been disagreement among them. Some permitted it, while others prohibited it. It is one of the issues in which scholarly reasoning (ijtihad) is exercised. As for saying that these lines are obligatory, that does not appear to be correct, because straightening the rows can be achieved without them. They are not the only way to straighten the rows. Therefore, they should be regarded as something legislated and permissible, but not as something obligatory, since the rows can still be straightened by other means. However, in our times, people experience difficulty in straightening the rows if such lines are not present, especially in large masjids. When the rows are very long, it becomes difficult to keep them straight. This is unlike smaller masjids, where the rows are short and straightening them is much easier. This was the situation in the Masjid of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ during his lifetime. At that time, it did not have such long and wide rows. But in our time, because masjids are much larger, people face considerable difficulty, especially in large masjids such as Al-Masjid Al-Haram and Al-Masjid An-Nabawi. If people tried to straighten the rows without these lines, they might spend so much time arranging them that the prayer time could pass because of the large number of worshippers. Getting everyone to stand properly and straighten the rows would take a long time, causing hardship and inconvenience for the people. With so many worshippers and such long rows, a person might walk all the way along a row to straighten it, then look back and notice that it has become uneven again. He would then have to return and correct the part that had already passed, and so on. A person may try to straighten one part of the row, then look to the other side and find that it has become uneven. As the saying goes, "He wanted to apply kohl to beautify the eye, but instead made it blind." In other words, he corrects one side only for the other side to become crooked. With long rows, this results in hardship and difficulty. With the great size of today's mosques and the length of the rows, this hardship becomes even greater. In al-Masjid al-Haram, the matter is even more serious. Were it not for the curved lines marked on the floor, people might turn away from the qiblah. Many people could end up praying in a direction other than the qiblah, especially those praying in the outer courtyards. How would they know where the qiblah is? How would they know which direction to face? In those areas, the rows need to curve. If those lines were not marked, many people might pray facing a direction other than the qiblah, and their prayer would become invalid. It is obligatory for the person praying in that location to face the actual direction of the qiblah. If those lines were not there, this serious problem could occur, with people praying in the wrong direction. It is true that someone inside the mosque can usually see the Ka'bah and therefore face it directly. But this is not the case for those praying in the outer courtyards, or in other places where the Ka'bah cannot be seen. If people were left without these lines, this problem would occur, and they would not be able to face the qiblah correctly. So there is clear benefit in these lines. In some places, their benefit is even greater than in others. At the very least, they always provide some benefit. Likewise, because the rows are so wide, they can easily become uneven, and with such large numbers of worshippers there is also considerable hardship. These lines make things easier and simpler. They are not acts of worship in themselves, so it cannot be said that they are religious innovations. Rather, they are only a means—a means of carrying out an act of worship. The act of worship is straightening the rows, while these lines are simply one of the means used to achieve it. A means that helps to fulfil a legislated objective is itself regarded as legislated. This is what appears to be the correct view regarding this issue, and Allah knows best. We have spoken at length about this issue, and time has become short. So we will stop at what we have read up to this point. And all praise is for Allah.

Are Lines on Masjid Carpets to Straighten the Rows Permissible? Shaykh Abu Bakr Al-Hammadi (may Allah preserve him) mentioned in his explanation ʿUmdat Al-Aḥkām, Lesson No. 204: The Prophet ﷺ said: "Straighten your rows, for straightening the rows is part of completing the prayer." As we have already learned, the Prophet ﷺ commanded that the rows be straightened. Whatever permissible means help to achieve this legislated objective are not prohibited. Rather, such means are allowed. An example of this is the lines marked on the floors of masjids. They are simply a means of helping people straighten the rows. When these lines began appearing in masjids during more recent times, a difference of opinion arose among the scholars. Most of the scholars permitted them, while others prohibited them and regarded them as an innovation (bid‘ah). So the scholars differed regarding these lines. Those who prohibited them said: These lines are something newly introduced, and this practice was not known during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Therefore, they fall under the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: "Whoever introduces into this matter of ours that which is not from it, it will be rejected." They said: The reason for having such lines existed during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He could have marked lines on the ground, but he did not do so. Whenever the reason for doing something existed during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ, yet he did not do it, then introducing it later is considered an innovation. Those who allowed these lines said: These lines are merely a means to achieve a legislated objective—an objective that the Islamic legislation itself has commanded, namely straightening the rows. The Prophet ﷺ instructed the Muslims to straighten their rows in numerous hadiths, and these lines are simply a means of achieving that legislated objective. There is a well-known principle: "The means take the ruling of the objectives." What is meant here is permissible means. They take the ruling of the objectives they serve. Therefore, the means that lead to obligatory matters take the ruling of being obligatory, and the means that lead to recommended matters take the ruling of being recommended. Likewise, the means that lead to prohibited matters also take the ruling of being prohibited. So they said: These lines are a means to achieving a legislated matter, namely straightening the rows. Based on this, they ruled that they are permissible and legislated. As for saying that they are innovations, that is somewhat far-fetched, because these lines are not acts of worship in themselves. Rather, they are only a means that assists an act of worship; they are only a means of carrying out an act of worship. They are not acts of worship in themselves. Therefore, they are not judged to be innovations, because they fall under the category of means used to perform worship, not under the category of acts of worship themselves. The basic principle regarding means used to achieve a legislated objective is that they are legislated, as long as they are originally permissible and are not prohibited in themselves. So if a means is permissible by nature and helps to achieve a legislated objective, then it is considered permissible and legislated. The lines marked on the floor are of this type. They help achieve the legislated objective of straightening the rows. Therefore, they are a means, not an act of worship. Another example is raising the voice for the adhan. This is a legislated objective. Loudspeakers are simply a means of achieving that objective. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are innovations just because they are something new and did not exist during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, since they are not acts of worship in themselves. Rather, they are only a means of achieving a legislated objective. The same applies to microphones and speakers that amplify the sound. People use them during the prayer. The imam uses them in his prayer, and the khatib uses them during the Friday sermon so that the people can hear the imam clearly and hear the sermon properly. It cannot be said that this is an innovation simply because it did not exist during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. That is because these are means, not acts of worship. Making the people hear the imam's recitation is a legislated objective, and making the people hear the Friday sermon is also a legislated objective. These devices are only means to achieve those objectives. The same applies to other things that appeared after the time of the Prophet ﷺ. As long as they are means and not acts of worship, they do not come under the innovations referred to in the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: "Whoever introduces into this matter of ours that which is not from it, it will be rejected." If someone says, "Loudspeakers and the other examples you mentioned are different because the need for them did not exist during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. But as for the lines on the floor, the Prophet ﷺ could have made lines, yet he did not. This shows that doing so is not legislated." The response is that this argument requires closer examination. The statement mentioned by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in Iqtidāʾ aṣ-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm is referring to matters of worship, not to matters that are merely means. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) spoke about this issue. He explained that if the reason for doing something existed during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, yet the Prophet ﷺ deliberately did not do it despite that reason being present, then it is not legislated, and introducing it later is considered an innovation. He gave examples from acts of worship, such as giving the adhan for the two Eid prayers. The reason for giving an adhan existed during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. Yet the Prophet ﷺ did not give an adhan for the Eid prayers, even though the mu'adhdhin would give the adhan for the five daily prayers. Since the reason existed during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ, anyone who says it is recommended to give the adhan for the Eid prayers has placed that recommendation where it does not belong. Whoever gives the adhan for the Eid prayers has introduced something into the religion of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, and has done something that the Prophet ﷺ deliberately left. This ruling applies in matters of worship. Likewise, if the reason for doing something did not exist during the time of the Prophet ﷺ but arose afterwards, and that reason was the sins of the people, then introducing something because of the people's sins is also not legislated. An example of this is what some rulers did when they moved the Eid sermon to before the Eid prayer. They said, "Things have changed from how they were during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. In the Prophet's time, people would remain after the Eid prayer and listen to his sermon. But now people's situation has changed. As soon as the Eid prayer ends, they leave and do not stay to listen to the sermon." Because of this, some rulers wanted to deliver the sermon before the prayer, thinking this would serve a beneficial purpose. However, the scholars strongly objected to this. Although the people's situation had changed from what it was during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, that change had only occurred because of the people's sins. This was because the preachers themselves had introduced things into their sermons that differed from the way of the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet ﷺ would address the people about what they needed, teach them what benefited them, and they would gain benefit from his words and his sermons. But the rulers began speaking about their own affairs, their political matters, and issues that concerned themselves. This caused the people to lose interest and turn away. So the reason people became unwilling to listen was because of what the rulers themselves had done. That did not justify changing the place of the sermon and delivering it before the prayer. In any case, it appears that the statement of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) does not include permissible means.

#Dawrah #Summer_Conference Journey Of The Soul 1st of August 2026 https://t.me/masjidsahabah/2190

#Dawrah #Summer_Conference Journey Of The Soul 1st of August 2026 https://t.me/masjidsahabah/2186