Aggregator

10 Lessons After 10 Years Of Marriage

Muslim Matters - 5 February, 2025 - 10:49

I can’t believe that l celebrated 10 years of marriage with my husband this December, mashaAllah! These 10 years feel like it has been just a month but also 100 years at the same time. There have been good times and bad times and everything in between. To force myself to reflect meaningfully on this life milestone, I wrote down ten lessons I’ve learned along the way. I divided the lessons into three categories: myself, my spouse, and marriage in general. 

MYSELF 1. Investing in Myself is Better for the Marriage 10 years of marriage

Invest in yourself [PC: Maria (unsplash)]

A side benefit I never expected from seeking professional counseling services as an individual is that I’ve found my marriage less taxing and more meaningful. Taking the time to put my own oxygen mask on first has allowed me to be a better version of myself. We often hear “my spouse makes me a better person” during wedding speeches, but how true is that, and why should I only be better for them? I know if I work on myself selfishly –meaning I want to be happier, less stressed, more fulfilled, and balanced as an individual for no one other than myself– a more whole and healthy person shows up to complete half of the marriage. I also find that staying current with my understanding of myself lets me function better within my marriage because I’m more sure of my footing, thanks to the work I put in with my counselor every month.

2. Smaller Setbacks Become Bigger with Time

When unaddressed, smaller setbacks can grow into more significant obstacles over time. Sometimes, I’ve thought that a minor issue isn’t significant enough to take the time and energy to improve or resolve. However, these minor infractions can conglomerate into mountains that require tons of energy to dismantle and rectify. When left to fester, smaller setbacks transform into what I perceive as patterns of annoying or hurtful behavior, even though my spouse hasn’t done it intentionally. As the years have gone by, I’ve gotten better at quickly picking up on what I don’t want to be the norm because I know it will come to a head later if not addressed now. 

3 Every Big Disagreement has a Deep-Rooted Emotion Underneath

Do you know that iceberg chart? We’ve all seen it. “Go deeper,” the counselor says. “Now go one level deeper. And one more level after that.” It’s never just about the issue at hand, because we’re complex emotional creatures intertwined as a married couple. If I’m upset about him asking how much milk to feed the baby, it might in reality be me feeling overwhelmed trying to figure out how to raise a baby. If he’s upset the dishes are left in the sink, it might actually be him feeling unappreciated. It’s always a much deeper issue than what appears on the surface. I must be honest with myself and vulnerable enough with my partner to share what’s truly bothering me about a big disagreement. 

MY SPOUSE 4. My Spouse Can’t Be My Everything

Many of us learned that our spouses can’t be our everything during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, so this lesson isn’t big news. I’ve learned that when I need a break from it all, my husband can’t take the spot of my sisters or girlfriends. He is my confidant, but I’ve learned it’s okay not to share every worry or thought with him because it can cause harm to our relationship. I have to invest time and energy into the spaces my husband can’t fill for me, and if I ask him to overextend himself, no one ends up happy.   

5. Stay Curious and Open-Minded about My Spouse

If I placed my husband from 10 years ago next to my husband from today, they wouldn’t be the same. Staying curious about my spouse instead of assuming I know everything there is to know about him allows me to be open-minded enough to accept who he currently is and how he is showing up in our relationship right now. I often find myself asking my husband strange hypothetical questions to see if I can discover something new about how he thinks or perceives the world. Thinking I know everything there is to know about him spoils the adventure that is still unfolding in front of us.  

MARRIAGE IN GENERAL 6. Love is a Verb, and Mercy is a Choice

It’s a popular saying among the married: love isn’t a feeling; it’s a verb you act upon. But as someone who didn’t fall in love and get married after years of dating, l always think of the verse that ties love and mercy together.

Yes, love is meant to be shown through actions so my partner can receive it. Expressing love is something I try to incorporate into daily habits. And yet, there are times when I am so frustrated, either with my husband or anything else, that practicing love is impossible. Those are the moments when extending mercy becomes crucial. If I can’t act lovingly, can I at least act mercifully?

In the instances when I act callously or cruelly towards my husband, it destroys the love I’ve worked so carefully to build. Love and mercy are a tag-teaming duo that jumps in and out of the ring with us every day. 

7. Marriage has Seasons 10 years of marriage

Marriage has different seasons [PC: Wes Hicks (unsplash]

Marriage has seasons because life has seasons. Life with no kids versus life with one versus life with two – that’s impacted my marriage. Life in graduate school versus life with real jobs has also impacted my marriage. Every season has aspects I cherish, abhor, or feel somewhere between. As a sentimental person, I can sometimes be trapped in the rose-colored nostalgia of previous seasons. That’s when I have to remind myself that my relationship now can’t compare with what it was like 10 years ago because everything is different; us as individuals, our lives, the world. When I long for a season of the past, I force myself to think of three things that I didn’t like back then and three things I value in my current season. I also think about a concrete way to bring elements from previous seasons into this one.

8. The Tedium of Life Must be Addressed

Do you know what kills the vibe? The electricity getting shut off because no one’s paid the electric bill in three months, and the final notice hasn’t been seen because no one’s opened the mail. If life is going up in flames around me because I am terrible at adulting and can’t figure out how to work with my co-captain, it will surely ruin my marriage. The tedium of living life and arranging the household must be addressed in whatever fashion both parties agree to. Whenever our lives become more dysfunctional, I become more disgruntled with nearly everything, including my marriage. Household affairs don’t have to be perfect. Still, there needs to be a coordinated plan that works well enough, is clearly communicated and agreed upon, and is subsequently adjusted as life changes. 

9. Both Sides of the Family are Unique

Over the past decade, I’ve learned that all families are beautiful and complicated in their own ways, and that there is no such thing as an ideal family. Staying inquisitive and nonjudgmental has helped me notice the differences in our families and how that impacts our dealings with each other. Differences can be good, bad, and neutral. When it comes to communication and conflict resolution, knowing our families’ norms helps me navigate conflict more quickly and effectively, depending on which side is involved. The additional layer of complexity is that our family dynamics and individuals within both families are not static, so what may have been the case when I was 15, living at home with everyone, may no longer be relevant. Embracing the perks and accepting the flaws in both families help us find the best and mitigate the not-so-best as life goes along. 

10. Accept That it Can Never Be Equal 10 years of marriage

A-team [PC: Sandy Miller (unsplash)]

How many times have we thought the best marriage is where everything is 50-50? You scrub the toilet this week; I’ve got it next week. We’ll both work and parent part-time and put our earnings into a joint account. It sounds reasonable and fair, but splitting everything equally is impossible. Striving towards being equitable over equal is an essential and complicated possibility, but the inevitability of one person giving more in certain areas is a reality to come to terms with. When I give more, I give more knowing that he gives more in different ways. I shouldn’t keep the tabs and write “I-O-U’s” on his behalf that I cash out when he is in a better position to give later. I’m hoping for my reward with Allah subḥānahu wa ta'āla (glorified and exalted be He) for all the extra I do, not him. Part of accepting that it can never be equal also helps me understand how to avoid overextending myself and giving when it’s outside of my capacity to do so. It’s okay not to give 50% or even 1% sometimes if it’s better for the marriage. 

10 Years Down…Many Lessons Left to Learn!

10 years into our marriage, I’m surprised at how much I have yet to learn and discover about myself, my spouse, and what I expect of marriage in general. If you had told me when I was single that making my marriage stronger involves working more on myself than anything else I would not have believed you! So that’s my biggest takeaway as I look forward to the next 10 years inshaAllah

 

Related:

[Podcast] Happily Ever After (Ep 3) | Are Muslim Marriages Doomed?

Getting to Know A Potential Husband/Wife? 3 Questions To Ask Yourself First.

The post 10 Lessons After 10 Years Of Marriage appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Elephant in the echo chamber

Indigo Jo Blogs - 4 February, 2025 - 23:12
A carpet at Mar-a-Lago on which are laid out various A4 documents with 'Secret' and 'Top Secret' on their cover sheets.Classified documents found during a search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida (Source: Wikipedia)

Since Donald Trump won a second term as US president last year and, with the help of Elon Musk, set about slashing the American federal government and sacking officials on the basis of personal enmity, I have seen columnists and social media personalities associated with the Democrats pick over why Kamala Harris, the former vice president, failed so spectacularly in her bid to succeed Joe Biden last year. One of the people I follow on X (Twitter) is Brianna Wu, previously best known for her contribution to the “GamerGate” controversy of the mid-2010s, who has distinguished herself by cheering on Israel during its genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza, stridently denying that the onslaught is genocide, insisting it’s all Hamas’s fault, parroting any atrocity propaganda she finds being spewed out by pro-Israel fanatics while studiously ignoring ample evidence of actual atrocities by violent fanatics both in the West Bank and in Gaza, and accusing anyone who protests against the genocide of being an antisemite, a Hamas supporter or both. The other day she shared a Substack piece by Matthew Yglesias which tore into Biden’s record and his decision-making, including his decisions up until he stepped aside, opining that “Biden alienated an entire cohort of young people, along with many of the leaders of the most important companies in America” while failing to mention Gaza, Israel or Palestine anywhere.

Wu, who is a trans woman, puts Harris’s loss squarely down to the liberal entanglement with the transgender community. Until fairly recently, Americans knew about transsexuals, people who went through a medical and surgical process to change from one sex to a semblance of the other, and for the most part were OK with them. The new transgender movement requires people to accept novel claims, such as that the sex binary is a “social construct”; moreover, it requires them to accept that someone’s gender is however they identify, regardless of physical facts. Someone who “identifies as a woman” is a woman, even if they are in fact an intact male; anyone who denies this is accused of transphobia. Somebody can be ‘transgender’ and have no intention of changing their body surgically, and the new “free gender” ideology holds that this person is no less a woman than one who was born female and has gone through the normal life experiences of a woman. These notions have become the accepted doctrine of much of the Left in the UK since about 2010, even though they were unheard of outside of a few small communities before then — in other words, the last time we had a semblance of progressive government in the UK. This has certainly turned many people away from the Left, but they were also issues in the US in past elections where Democrats won.

The numbers aren’t as stark as they appeared in the weeks following the election, where it seemed that Trump’s vote tally had fallen compared to 2020 (when he lost) and Kamala Harris had polled tens of millions of votes fewer than Biden had. Trump’s tally increased by just over 3 million; Harris’s fell, compared to Biden’s, by well over 6.2 million. This was not against a run-of-the mill Republican but a convicted felon whose presidency was chaotic, marked by continual changes in his cabinet as he fell out with one appointee after another, and who allowed a cult to be built up around him (which arose out of the flattery that was needed to make him look presidential when in fact he is graceless, incompetent and out of his depth) and whose followers attempted a violent coup when they lost the previous election. People were elated when Biden won, and when this coup was defeated and he was confirmed as president, and believed they had put the Trump nightmare behind them. How, then, did he manage to return to the White House just four years later?

What no mainstream white Democrat seems to be admitting is that the complicity of their party with the Gaza genocide is a large part of what alienated those young voters Matthew Yglesias referred to. The party has always relied on persuading a large number of idealistic, often young, left-wing voters to “hold their nose” while voting for a less than ideal (in their view) Democratic candidate: Biden or Clinton as opposed to Bernie Sanders, say. By and large, these voters are often pro-Palestinian, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof), and have become more so as they have become more and more aware of the increasingly oppressive nature of the occupation. There are also, of course, Arab and Muslim voters who largely switched to the Democrats after being kicked in the teeth by the Bush administration after 9/11. When Israel responded to the October 2023 attacks (which they claimed, and the western media accepted without question, as a massacre of 1,200 civilians and supposedly the biggest mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust, though the death toll is disputed, as are the numbers of casualties who were civilians as opposed to soldiers, and the details of how some of the deaths occurred) with an onslaught against Gaza’s civilian population, Democratic politicians at federal, state and local levels proclaimed that these actions were self-defence, that this was war and the casualties were “collateral damage”, regardless of both Israeli rhetoric that clearly indicated that the intent was genocide and the very obvious targeting of hospitals, schools, homes and actual civilians. Congress continued to approve billions of dollars of military aid to Israel while protests on campus were branded antisemitic and participants sometimes suspended or expelled.

The party, in short, threw its moral compass into the ocean, and did so eagerly. Two wrongs don’t make a right and one atrocity does not justify another; “but 7th October” ceased to be an excuse after a while. When faced with a choice of voting between two candidates who both supported whatever Israel would do and would write them a blank cheque, millions of voters could not justify voting for either, hence the 2.7% drop in turnout compared to 2020. The fact that Harris is a woman, or Biden’s senility and poor decisions, or the intransigence of sections of the trans community do not account for Harris losing so badly against such a dreadful opponent; the Biden administration’s decision to stand four-square behind one of the most viciously racist regimes in the world as it pummelled a long-suffering civilian population for more than a year, at the time of the election, better accounts for the drastic drop in both turnout and the Democrats’ share of it. It remains to be seen whether party strategists and their allied blogs and media will ever face up to their failure.

Possibly Related Posts:


The Aga Khan, philanthropist and spiritual leader, dies aged 88

The Guardian World news: Islam - 4 February, 2025 - 23:06

Considered a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad, the Aga Khan spent billions on homes, hospitals and schools in developing countries

The Aga Khan, who became the spiritual leader of the world’s millions of Ismaili Muslims at the age of 20 as a Harvard undergraduate, and who poured a material empire built on billions of dollars in tithes into building homes, hospitals and schools in developing countries, has died. He was 88.

His Aga Khan Foundation and the Ismaili religious community announced on their websites that His Highness Prince Karim al-Hussaini, the Aga Khan IV and 49th hereditary imam of the Shia Ismaili Muslims, died on Tuesday in Portugal surrounded by his family.

Continue reading...

Study Classical Texts the Traditional Way | Session 18

Muslim Matters - 4 February, 2025 - 17:00
Reading Time
  • Summary Transcript: ~5 minutes
  • Full Transcript: ~27 minutes
Learning Objectives
  • Understand the significance of zakah as one of the five pillars of Islam and its role in both personal and communal life.
  • Identify the deeper spiritual purposes of zakah, including purification of wealth, testing attachment to material possessions, and expressing gratitude to Allah.
  • Recognize the ethical guidelines and etiquettes involved in giving zakah, such as secrecy, humility, and sincerity.
  • Distinguish between types of zakah (zakat al-fitr and zakat al-mal) and the appropriate forms of giving, whether in kind or in cash, based on the recipient’s needs.
  • Comprehend the concept of loving for others what one loves for oneself and how it relates to the completion of iman (faith).
  • Appreciate the importance of humility in giving zakah and understand why Islam discourages seeking superiority or dominance over others.
  • Analyze positive competition in Islam in the context of seeking knowledge and wealth for charitable purposes.
  • Explore the dual responsibility fulfilled by zakah—meeting both Allah’s command and the needs of the community.
  • Apply the concept of zakah as a form of spiritual connection with Allah, beyond its role as a charitable transaction.
Class Summary Understanding the Spiritual Essence of Zakah: Beyond Financial Obligation

Zakah is often seen as a financial obligation in Islam, but its essence goes far beyond simply calculating and distributing wealth. This post explores the deeper spiritual and ethical meanings of zakah, as taught by scholars like Imam Ibn Qudamah, who urge us to approach zakah as a transformative act of worship.

Zakah: A Pillar of Faith and Compassion

As one of the five pillars of Islam, zakah is as fundamental to a Muslim’s faith as prayer. Like prayer, it is an obligation—mandatory for those who can afford it—and is deeply tied to a believer’s spiritual and communal well-being. In fact, zakah is frequently paired with salah in the Qur’an to emphasize its significance, reminding us that both financial giving and prayer are integral to a complete, compassionate faith.

The Purpose of Zakah: Purifying Wealth and Heart

The true purpose of zakah is threefold:

  1. Testing Love for Allah: By giving from what we love most—our wealth—we demonstrate our love for Allah over material possessions.
  2. Purification from Stinginess: Regularly giving a portion of our wealth helps purify us from miserliness, making us more generous and humble.
  3. Expressing Thankfulness: Zakah is a way to show gratitude for the blessings Allah has granted, by sharing them with those in need.
Duty and Etiquette in Giving Zakah

To fulfill zakah properly, certain guidelines and intentions should be followed:

  • Give in Secrecy Where Possible: Giving in private preserves the dignity of the recipient and helps avoid pride in the giver. However, public giving can be acceptable if it inspires others or clarifies any doubts about fulfilling the obligation.
  • Avoid Self-Righteousness: We should avoid seeing ourselves as “better” for giving; rather, we should view the poor as doing us a favor by accepting what Allah has obligated us to give.
  • Choose Lawful and Good Wealth: Allah is pure and only accepts what is pure. Therefore, we should give from the best of our lawful earnings, not what we ourselves wouldn’t want.
Loving for Others What You Love for Yourself

A core value in Islam is to love for others what we love for ourselves. This concept, emphasized by the Prophet ﷺ, highlights the importance of empathy in completing our iman (faith). True iman isn’t only about personal piety but about compassion and wishing good for others. If we see others facing difficulties, we should be moved to help them, and if we see them blessed, we should feel joy, not envy.

Humility and Zakah as a Path to Completion of Faith

The Qur’an praises those who do not seek superiority on earth nor cause corruption. Similarly, believers should strive to be humble, not seeking to outdo others in material gains. In fact, the only competition encouraged in Islam is in acts of goodness. The Prophet ﷺ said there is no “envy” except in two cases: wishing to have wealth to give in charity, or knowledge of the Qur’an to teach and live by it.

Conclusion: Zakah as a Transaction with Allah

Ultimately, zakah is not just a transaction with people—it’s a transaction with Allah. By fulfilling this duty with sincerity, humility, and compassion, we purify our wealth, strengthen our connection with Allah, and complete our faith. May Allah grant us the understanding and sincerity to perform zakah in its true spirit, loving for others what we love for ourselves, and helping us fulfill this sacred duty to our communities.

Full Transcript The Inner Secret of Zakah

Today, we will be discussing the inner secret of zakah. Usually, when we talk about our ibadat, we focus a lot on salah and siyam, but we rarely think much about zakah because it’s a financial obligation. Often, we see it as just a matter of calculating the numbers, giving away the amount, and considering it done. We don’t always pay close attention to the spiritual side of zakah.

Understanding the Essence of Zakah

When preparing for this class, I came across some insights from Imam Ibn Qudamah, who emphasized the importance of understanding the essence of zakah. We should reflect on why we give zakah and how to prepare ourselves spiritually when performing this form of ibadah. Even though it’s a financial worship, it has profound spiritual aspects. Let’s explore Imam Ibn Qudamah’s discussion on the inner secrets of almsgiving and zakah.

Zakah as a Pillar of Islam

Imam Ibn Qudamah begins by noting that zakah is one of the pillars of Islam. Allah mentions it alongside prayers in His command: “And establish prayer and give zakah.” This emphasis highlights that zakah is not optional; it is obligatory for every individual who has the financial ability to pay it. Allah combined zakah with salah to underscore its significance. The Prophet ﷺ said in a hadith that the first matter a servant will be questioned about on the Day of Judgment is salah. If it is accepted, the rest of one’s deeds will be accepted; if not, everything else will be in jeopardy. Since salah is so critical, anything consistently paired with it, like zakah, holds similar importance.

The Significance of Zakah in the Time of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq

This connection also explains why Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, fought those who refused to pay zakah after the Prophet ﷺ’s death. Some people argued that they used to pay zakah to the Prophet ﷺ, and with his passing, they no longer needed to fulfill this obligation. Abu Bakr saw this stance as a severe threat to the faith and insisted on fighting them for every penny owed in zakah, equating it to the significance of salah. This incident reflects the serious nature of zakah in Islam.

The Focus on the Spirit of Zakah

When discussing the nature of zakah, Imam Ibn Qudamah clarifies that his focus is not on the legal rulings, the fiqh of zakah—such as how much to give or from which wealth—but on the essence, etiquette, and spirit behind it. He speaks on whether zakah should be given in physical items, like food, as specified in divine texts, rather than in monetary value, highlighting that the aim of zakah goes beyond simply alleviating poverty.

Categories of Zakah: Zakat al-Fitr and Zakat al-Mal

Zakah can be divided into two categories: zakat al-fitr and zakat al-mal. Zakat al-fitr is given at the end of Ramadan, usually in food items like dates or wheat, while zakat al-mal is an annual payment on accumulated wealth. When it comes to zakat al-fitr, some scholars debate whether it’s better to give it in the form of food, as the Prophet ﷺ prescribed, or in cash, which may be more practical for the poor’s needs today. Imam Ibn Qudamah leans toward the opinion that adheres to the Prophet’s tradition of giving food, viewing it as essential to retain the spirit of the sunnah.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and other scholars suggest a balanced view, saying it depends on the poor’s needs. If the poor need food, then give food; if their needs are better met with cash, then cash is acceptable. In certain circumstances, providing cash may be more helpful, particularly in areas where food is not the primary concern but other expenses like rent or utilities are. Therefore, depending on the situation, zakah may be given in a way that best fulfills both the spirit of the sunnah and the practical needs of the community.

Legal Obligations in Worship and Their Types

Imam Ibn Qudamah also categorizes legal obligations into three types: sheer worship with no apparent reason, actions with clear reasoning (such as paying back debts), and a combination of both. Zakah falls into the third category, where it is both a spiritual act and a practical means of helping those in need. By doing so, it combines the spirit of worship with a real-world impact, helping both the giver in their obedience to Allah and the recipient in their material needs.

Duties and Etiquette in Giving Zakah

In the act of giving zakah, certain duties or etiquettes should be observed.

Duty 1: Understanding the Purpose of Zakah

The first duty is understanding the purpose of zakah, which includes testing one’s love for Allah by giving away what one loves, purifying oneself from miserliness, and expressing thankfulness for the blessing of wealth. These purposes align with verses from the Qur’an. As Allah says, “You will not attain righteousness until you give from what you love.” Giving zakah is an act of detaching from the things we love most, such as wealth, to strengthen our connection with Allah.

Duty 2: Secrecy in Giving Zakah

The second duty is secrecy. Giving zakah in secret is preferable to protect the dignity of the recipient and avoid the temptation of showing off. However, if there is a fear of being accused of not giving zakah, it may be given publicly, especially if the recipient is comfortable with that. The Qur’an says, “If you give charity openly, it is well; but if you conceal it and give it to the poor, it is better for you.” Public giving can inspire others, but when possible, secrecy is advised.

Duty 3: Avoiding Self-Righteousness and Harm

The third duty is refraining from self-righteousness or causing harm to the recipient. We should not consider ourselves superior for giving zakah. Instead, we should view the poor as doing us a favor by accepting Allah’s right, which purifies us. Zakah is an obligation, and once calculated, it is no longer our wealth but the right of the poor. Holding onto it too long or becoming overly selective about where to give it is inappropriate.

Additionally, zakah should be considered a small gesture regardless of the amount. No matter how large a sum, it’s best to view it as minimal, as a means to guard against pride. In the end, even large amounts like $25,000 given from a wealth of a million dollars are only a fraction of one’s total blessings. Zakah is different from taxes; it is given from excess wealth, not from one’s essential earnings. It’s a means to help those who are less fortunate with our extra wealth.

Duty 4: Giving From Lawful and Good Earnings

Moreover, zakah should be given from lawful and good earnings. Allah is pure and accepts only that which is pure. We should avoid giving the poorest quality of our wealth. When we give, we fulfill two rights: Allah’s right and our own, as what we give will meet us on the Day of Resurrection. Just as we want to see the best of what we have on that Day, we should give the best of what we possess.

Duty 5: Giving from What You Love Most

Loving money is natural, as Allah says, “And you love wealth with immense love.” When we give, it’s a test of parting with what we hold dear. This is illustrated in the story of Ibn Umar, who once longed for fish while ill. When a fish was finally found and prepared, a poor man came asking for food, and Ibn Umar immediately gave him the fish. His wife was surprised, but he explained that since he loved the fish, giving it away fulfilled the command to give from what one loves.

Likewise, one’s zakah should reflect sincerity and gratitude, not arrogance. Acts of zakah are transactions with Allah, using the poor as vessels to fulfill our duty to Allah. This mindset shifts the focus from a transactional relationship with the poor to a connection with Allah, done with humility and gratitude.

The Perfection of Iman in Loving for Others

The Prophet ﷺ said, “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” This hadith emphasizes the perfection of iman (faith). If one feels no joy for others’ success or no sorrow for their hardships, there’s a flaw in one’s iman. Islam promotes empathy, compassion, and collective well-being.

Humility and Refraining from Arrogance

The Qur’an also encourages a humble spirit, praising those who do not seek to exalt themselves on earth nor cause corruption. Imam Ibn Jarir relates a statement from Ali where he says that even trivial matters like being conceited over a better sandal strap can fall under this warning, emphasizing humility and caution against arrogance.

One may wonder whether wishing for a better station or condition than others conflicts with this teaching. The answer is that as long as there is no envy or ill feeling, it is acceptable to wish for one’s own improvement in dunya. In matters of the Hereafter, however, competition is encouraged, especially in good deeds. The Prophet ﷺ said there should be no envy except in two situations: a person blessed with wealth who spends it generously and a person blessed with knowledge of the Qur’an who recites and practices it with devotion.

Mutual Affection and Sympathy in Islam

On the whole, a believer should love for others what they love for themselves and should strive to correct their fellow Muslims’ shortcomings without malice. Muhammad Ibn Wasir was once selling his donkey, and a man asked, “Are you pleased with it for me?” He replied, “If I were pleased with it, I would not sell it.” This indicates his sincerity, as he didn’t want to pass off something he no longer found valuable as something desirable to someone else.

The hadith of Nu’man ibn Bashir describes the believers’ mutual affection, sympathy, and compassion, comparing it to the unity of the body: “When any of its members suffers, the rest of the body rallies with fever and sleeplessness.” This unity reflects how believers should feel for one another—if one person suffers, others should feel it as if they themselves are in pain.

The Qur’an also encourages a humble spirit, praising those who do not seek to exalt themselves on earth nor cause corruption. Ibn Jarir relates that even minor conceit can violate this principle. In matters of dunya, Muslims should not wish to surpass others, but in matters of faith and good deeds, competing for excellence is encouraged.

The mu’min who completes their iman is one who loves for others what they love for themselves. They will correct others’ faults with compassion, not judgment, and feel sadness at their brothers’ hardships while rejoicing at their blessings. Those who love Allah see others with His light, detesting the sins but not the sinner. They wish for all Muslims, even those weak in faith, to turn back to Allah with guidance and mercy.

Conclusion

May Allah grant us the understanding and ability to embody these principles, and may He make us among those who strive for the completion of iman, loving for others what we love for ourselves.

Q&A
  1. What is zakah, and why is it significant in Islam?
    • Answer: Zakah is a pillar of Islam that emphasizes charity and purification of wealth. It’s an obligatory act that not only aids those in need but purifies the giver’s wealth and heart.
  2. How does zakah compare to salah in terms of importance?
    • Answer: Zakah is often paired with salah in the Qur’an, highlighting its importance. Like prayer, it’s essential for fulfilling one’s obligations in Islam.
  1. What are the three main purposes of zakah according to Imam Ibn Qudamah?
    • Answers:
    • To test one’s love for Allah by giving away beloved possessions.
    • To purify oneself from stinginess.
    • To express thankfulness for Allah’s blessings.
  2. How does giving zakah help in purifying one’s heart?
    • Answer: Regularly giving zakah reduces attachment to wealth, combats stinginess, and promotes generosity, leading to a purer heart.
  1. Why is giving zakah in secrecy recommended?
    • Answer: Secrecy protects the dignity of the recipient and prevents the giver from becoming prideful.
  2. When is public giving of zakah appropriate?
    • Answer: Public giving is acceptable if it encourages others to give or clarifies that the obligation is fulfilled.
  3. What type of wealth should be given as zakah?
    • Answer: Zakah should be given from lawful, good, and valued wealth, as Allah accepts only that which is pure.
  4. How should we view the act of giving zakah in terms of self-perception?
    • Answer: We should avoid seeing ourselves as superior for giving zakah and should instead feel gratitude for fulfilling an obligation.
  1. What did the Prophet ﷺ say about loving for others?
    • Answer: The Prophet ﷺ said, “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
  2. How does loving for others complete one’s iman (faith)?
    • Answer: True iman includes compassion and empathy, caring for others’ well-being, and sharing in their happiness or sadness.
  1. Why does the Qur’an praise those who don’t seek exaltation on earth?
    • Answer: Seeking humility over superiority aligns with Islamic values, encouraging a life of service and kindness rather than dominance.
  2. What are two areas in which “envy” or competition is considered positive in Islam?
    • Answer: Positive competition is allowed in seeking knowledge of the Qur’an to teach it and wealth to use in charity.
  1. How should zakah be viewed beyond financial charity?
    • Answer: Zakah should be viewed as a transaction with Allah, purifying wealth and strengthening one’s connection with Him, while benefiting the community.
  2. What two rights are fulfilled by giving zakah properly?
    • Answer: Zakah fulfills the rights of Allah by obeying His command and the rights of the community by supporting those in need.

The post Study Classical Texts the Traditional Way | Session 18 appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

A Shadowy Guest: The Life And Lives Of Muhammad Daif

Muslim Matters - 4 February, 2025 - 09:31

The Israeli genocide bagged perhaps its most elusive Palestinian victim with the confirmed assassination of Hamas military commander Muhammad Daif. An extremely shadowy but influential presence in the Gaza Strip for a quarter-century, this wily, resilient operator played a fundamental role in Hamas’ evolution from an originally modest insurgency to a force capable of challenging Israel in sustained warfare.

Daif, or Abu Khaled Muhammad Diab Ibrahim Masri, has been at the top of Israel’s hitlist for over two decades, yet, so elusive a figure was he that during that period no remotely current photograph of his was available. This was ironic for a man who, as a student in the 1980s, had shown a passion for theatre and even set up an acting troupe, whose plays circled themes of Palestinian resilience and resistance. Upon joining the emergent Hamas group, however, Daif withdrew to the shadows, participating in militancy against the Israeli occupation until the low profile that would mark his career.

A Life in the Shadows

Given Israel’s invariable vilification of opponents, of course, Daif would be portrayed in coming years as a spectral figure haunting the hapless ethnostate’s cosseted sons. By contrast, he enjoyed a legendary reputation among his compatriots. His nickname, Daif or “guest”, referenced a life on the run, as the guest of one compatriot or another. Clearly, there were a great number of willing hosts among the Palestinian populace given how long the Hamas military commander was able to keep this up: a reflection of widespread opposition to Israeli occupation and support for whatever resistance could be mustered.

Though he had briefly been arrested on Israeli insistence by its Palestinian collaborators in 2000, Daif was soon released as another revolt began against the occupation, and in 2002 he took over the Hamas military command. His predecessor Salah Shihadeh had just been assassinated -along with his entire family and neighbors- by Israel in circumstances, during ceasefire talks, that even a neoconservative Washington considered excessive. These would, of course, become not only a signature of Israeli policy but even a staple of the United States’ emerging “war on terror”. But even in a period where more and more states used airstrikes to target their opponents with abandon, Daif was an extraordinarily common, and, for the Israelis, maddeningly elusive target. An early strike two months after Shihadeh showed him emerging drenched in blood from the wreckage of a vehicle. Another strike in the summer of 2006 reportedly injured him badly enough to require surreptitious treatment across the Sinai border.

Meanwhile, Daif helped transform Hamas’ military wing from one that had largely focused on hit-and-run attacks -such as the assassinations of soldiers and, more controversially, suicide attacks in Israeli cities- into one that could engage the Israeli military in drawn-out skirmishes and battles. It was under his leadership that Hamas also developed rockets, which would be frequently fired at Israel in response to its attacks on Palestinians. One factor in this was Iranian expertise and resources, though these were often vastly exaggerated by an Israel that sought to reduce Hamas to an Iranian proxy rather than an organic movement. Recent information has confirmed that most of Hamas’ arsenal was locally produced; unsurprising given the number of engineers in the movement.

During the protracted Israeli blockade and siege on Gaza -one that was punctuated with mass assaults in 2008, 2012, and 2014- Hamas’ unexpectedly improving military capability became clear. This was most obvious during the summer 2014 Israeli assault, where the Palestinians were able to hit back far more effectively than had been the case five years earlier. This did not go unnoticed in Israel, which has always been extremely sensitive to losing personnel, and instead resolved on a blockade punctuated with occasional massacres. The 2014 campaign left its mark on Daif, who lost much of his family in yet another Israeli strike.

In keeping with his pattern, Daif remained in the shadows, severing contact with most of the outside world; even the father of his martyred wife, it was reported, had only met him once, when he had proposed. Instead, he focused on improving Hamas’ military and increasing coordination with other militant groups. On occasion, Hamas would launch rockets, notably during the 2021 Israeli assault on Jerusalem’s Aqsa mosque. But the draining effect of the blockade and Israel’s own freedom to act without international repercussions -such as the wholesale massacre of a Palestinian protest “march of return” in 2018- lulled Benjamin Netanyahu-Mileikowski’s regime into a sense of impunity. This was shattered in October 2023 when the Palestinians, led by Daif’s Hamas troops, mounted a devastating hostage raid that caught the occupation by surprise.

Martyrship Status Confirmed

Israel responded with the first of several massacres to herald a full-scale genocide. Inevitably along with an enormous expansion of its strikes and the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians, it occasionally struck gold. In summer 2024 Israel reported that it had also killed Daif. Hamas, who are usually prompt in confirming casualties, did not confirm Daif’s assassination until last week, six months later. Daif was confirmed to have been slain in the past year, along with his second-in-command Marwan Issa, their aides Ghazi Abu-Tumaah and Raed Thabit, and field commanders Ahmad Ghandour, Ayman Noufal, and Rafai Salameh. They join a long list of Hamas’ “caravan of martyrs” that includes, in the last year alone, its top-ranked leaders Saleh Arouri, Ismail Haniyeh, and Abu Ibrahim Sinwar.

Given Hamas’ typical promptness in congratulating “martyrs”, why the belated confirmation for Daif’s assassination? It is possible that he only just succumbed to mortal wounds sustained in the summer. Conversely, it is possible that he had already lost his life in 2024 and that, unusually, Hamas kept it a secret until the short-lived ceasefire of winter 2024-25. If the latter is true, it is an indication of Daif’s reputation in the group that his removal would be thought to have an unusually sharp blow on morale. Of course, Hamas, like other Palestinian and Muslim groups, sees its casualties as martyrs. But after a quarter-century of dodging death with positively feline dexterity, the slaying of Daif would be a shock to even the famously resilient people of Palestine.

 

Related:

Israeli Assault On Lebanon Kills Hassan Nasrullah: A Look Back On The Politics That Shaped His Leadership

A Year of Being Witnesses to Genocide: Psycho-Spiritual Perspectives To Help Grapple With Dissonance And Overcome Complacency

The post A Shadowy Guest: The Life And Lives Of Muhammad Daif appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Man who participated in Qur’an-burnings convicted of incitement in Sweden

The Guardian World news: Islam - 3 February, 2025 - 12:50

Stockholm court gives Salwan Najem, whose co-defendant was shot dead last week, suspended sentence and fine

A man who participated in several Qur’an burnings in Stockholm that contributed to a diplomatic crisis between Sweden and the Muslim world has been convicted of incitement against an ethnic group.

Stockholm district court gave Salwan Najem a suspended sentence and a fine on Monday morning, saying his actions and behaviour in summer 2023 exceeded what could be described as engaging in objective debate and criticism of religion.

Continue reading...

Two disastrous transport projects

Indigo Jo Blogs - 31 January, 2025 - 21:57
A picture taken from the air of Stansted airport, showing the runway and buildings amid open countryside.An aerial view of Stansted Airport

This week the Labour government announced that it supported the plan to expand Heathrow airport with a third runway as well as to build the East Thames crossing, an additional road tunnel (or two) between Essex and Kent, east of London. The former in particular had been shelved by the former Tory government which had originally supported it, as a result of the contraction of air travel during the Covid pandemic. However, they’re both insane, wasteful, destructive projects which will cause huge amounts of disruption for years to come, and in the case of Heathrow, be bad for the planet at a time when the climate is already starting to collapse faster than the forecasts of 20 years ago said it would. George Monbiot tackles the issue in today’s Guardian; he accuses the new government of behaving like Liz Truss when she was PM, using insults such as “time-wasting nimbys”. In opposition, Starmer congratulated climate campaigners who won a legal victory against Heathrow’s expansion, proclaiming that “there is no more important challenge than the climate emergency” in a tweet from February 2020. Today, his chancellor Rachel Reeves tells us that growth trumps other things.

The air travel lobby has been pushing hard for the expansion of Heathrow for decades; they tell us we risk losing out to Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt because our sole hub airport is at full capacity. The upshot, they tell us, is that planes are circulating in the air waiting for a runway slot, producing more pollution, and a third runway will enable them to land more quickly. That sounds convincing, until you hear the government telling us that this is all about growth. The way growth works is that flights will increase, until that new runway is full to capacity as well and the owners will be demanding more of west London to bulldoze for yet another new runway (Heathrow’s own website tells us that the plans make way for another 260,000 flights annually). We do have other airports, of course, notably Stansted which is in the middle of the countryside with fairly good road links which are not full of local traffic as a result of being within, or right on the edge of, a big city. The region around London has three other airports with a full-size runway each; two of these overwhelmingly offer flights to Europe, while Heathrow largely offers long-haul flights. Connecting these up better would enable people to fly into Heathrow, take a train to Luton and then another plane to a smaller European destination while Heathrow concentrated on the long haul flights; right now there is no direct link between any of London’s airports except between Gatwick and Luton. But really, we should not be building opportunities for more air travel when the planet needs us to be flying a lot less.

Having worked in air cargo, I know that the cargo infrastructure there is bursting at the seams; it long ago outgrew the actual cargo area inside the airport estate, much of it now being based outside it on the Stanwell Road. Facilities are miserly, with two toilets between all the truck drivers, some of whom (at least before Brexit) had travelled from Europe. Much of the cargo that formerly went on passenger planes out of Heathrow is now going on dedicated cargo planes from Stansted (where facilities for drivers are equally dire, though waiting times are usually much shorter). The new runway would be located over part of the M25, with other local roads ripped up or rerouted; that stretch of the M25 is the widest (six lanes each way) and probably busiest with local traffic, airport traffic and long-distance traffic all in competition. The western route around London is preferred by some drivers as it avoids the toll at the Dartford crossing on the other side; the government has no plans to remove this. The expansion will require the destruction of an entire village (Longford) and large parts of other neighbouring villages, such as Colnbrook, Harmondsworth and Sipson, and the new flight paths will blight other areas currently unaffected by aircraft noise, such as Harlington, Cranford and Heston; some of these areas also contain a lot of airport-related industries, such as hotels and distribution depots. Two main roads will have to be rerouted, with the new arrangement providing a short cut across Colnbrook between the M25 and M4, something the current arrangement prevents, freeing up local roads for local traffic.

As for the east Thames crossing, I have not yet heard an answer as to how they plan to improve links between the A2 and A20 corridors east of the M25. Currently, there are two dual carriageways (the A229 and A249) with complicated, slow, roundabout-based interchanges and there seem to be no plans to change that. The main route to the port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel nowadays is the M20, not the M2, and cross-channel freight has to go via Maidstone to queue for customs clearance on the M20; the A2 is mostly used by local traffic to north Kent. The danger of building another crossing east of Dartford is that people going to Dover, the Channel Tunnel and elsewhere in south Kent will use it to avoid congestion at Dartford, causing more congestion at these junctions (and along other local roads, such as the A227 and A228) while seeking to reach the M20. The major cause of congestion at Dartford is the intermittent closure of one of the tunnels to escort petrol tankers; all that is needed is an extra tunnel so that this can be carried out without disrupting normal traffic. This will have the added benefit of permitting three lanes in each direction when the bridge is closed because of the weather or maintenance.

Finally, we have to address the London-centricity of these plans. A major and increasing source of discontent for people in the north of England is that infrastructure investment always goes to London and the surrounding area; transport links between the two groups of cities on either side of the Pennines consists of one motorway, one unelectrified double-track rail line and a selection of two-lane mountain roads, one of the better used of which is in danger of falling down a hillside. Northerners often say that you can tell which trains are going to London as they are the modern electric ones with more carriages. By throwing yet more money at infrastructure in the wealthy south while continuing to neglect the north, Labour risks losing the voters it won back from the Tories in 2024 to Reform come the next election, as opinion polls published this week suggest they might. We cannot have growth solely based on endless roadbuilding and airport expansion; we need industries which can sustain themselves and there’s a limit to how much productive land we can spare, but if Labour are going to invest in infrastructure, it should be in parts of the UK that aren’t already smothered with it.

Image source: Danielson8181, via Wikimedia. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution (BY) 4.0 licence.

Possibly Related Posts:


A Prayer On Wings: A Poem Of Palestinian Return

Muslim Matters - 31 January, 2025 - 17:14

The concept of Palestinian return encompasses not only refugees displaced by conflict but also millions in the diaspora who have preserved their cultural identity and connection to their homeland despite generations of exile. For them, return goes beyond a physical journey; it signifies a restoration of rights, history, and a sense of belonging.

A bird Soaring the skies Wings beating Bringing blessings As it embraces the air A messenger of hope And symbol of peace rare The sound of silence Resonating Within those who dare To have upturned eyes To the heavens To witness Where A solitary creation Of Allah In His might Has been given The gift of flight Thus, we stand in awe In Allah’s Light And take flight Towards The magnificence Of Allah’s Light All praise to Allah As He foresees Human plight And acknowledges The flight Of freedom Given And ordained By the King of Heaven

Related:

Standing With Palestine: A Poem

If You Could Speak: A Poem

The post A Prayer On Wings: A Poem Of Palestinian Return appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

Beyond Polarization: An Attempt at Impartial Discussion on the Concept and Rulings of Religious Innovation

Muslim Matters - 31 January, 2025 - 12:00

The concept of bidʿah (innovation) has long been a subject of discussion and debate within Islamic scholarship. Anchored in the principle that acts of worship must be based on divine authorization (tawqīfī), this discourse aims to define the boundaries between permissible and impermissible religious practices.

By drawing upon foundational texts from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and the insights of the pious predecessors as well as leading scholars, this article examines the definition, classifications, and implications of bidʿah.

Regarding this principle:

The Default Principle Regarding Acts of Worship Is That They Require Divine Authorization (Tawqīfī)

This should remain beyond dispute.

Evidence for it from the Qur’an includes the statement of Allah (Most High):
أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ﴾ [الشورى: 21]﴿

“Or have they partners who have ordained for them a religion that Allah has not permitted?” [Al-Shūrā: 21]

From the Sunnah, there is the hadith of ʿĀʾishah in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:

“مَن أَحْدَثَ في أمْرِنَا هَذَا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ.”

“Whoever introduces something into this matter of ours that is not part of it, it will be rejected.”

In the narration of Muslim:

“مَن عَمِلَ عَمَلًا لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أمْرُنَا فَهُو رَدٌّ.”

“Whoever performs an act not in accordance with our command, it will be rejected.”

And the saying of the Prophet ﷺ recorded by Ahmad and others with an authentic chain:

“‌وَإِيَّاكُمْ ‌وَمُحْدَثَاتِ ‌الْأُمُورِ، ‌فَإِنَّ ‌كُلَّ ‌مُحْدَثَةٍ ‌بِدْعَةٌ، ‌وَإِنَّ ‌كُلَّ ‌بِدْعَةٍ ‌ضَلَالَةٌ”

“Beware of newly invented matters, for every innovation is a bidʿah, and every bidʿah is misguidance.”

However, disagreement arises among people in defining and delineating bidʿah (innovation). This is not a new phenomenon. It is sufficient to look at the debate between Imām al-ʿIzz and Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ concerning the prayer of al-Raghāʾib to realize this. Contrary to what some might assume, this was not a dispute between hadith scholars and jurists.

In fact, the one opposing this innovation was the jurist, and more surprising still is the inconsistency in Imām Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ’s own fatwas on this very issue.

The difficulty of the matter is evident in the abundance of their historical and contemporary disagreements over whether various practices constitute innovations. The verifying scholar Imām Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd remarked on the topic of bidʿah: “This is as much as can be mentioned on this topic, despite it being among the significant challenges, due to the lack of clear regulations established by earlier scholars. People’s opinions on this matter have diverged greatly.”1

Before attempting to clarify the ruling on bidʿah, let us first define the term and identify those practices unanimously recognized as innovations.

Definition of Bidʿah

As for its linguistic definition, bidʿah (innovation) refers to

“ما عمل ‌على ‌غير ‌مثال سابق.”

“Something done without a precedent.”2

Imām al-ʿIzz provided the following definition for its technical meaning: “Bidʿah is any act not practiced during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. It is divided into: obligatory, prohibited, recommended, disliked, and permissible innovations.”3

Notice the broad scope of bidʿah in this definition, which necessitated classifying it into rulings ranging from obligation to prohibition. Most scholars adopted a similar approach, as evidenced by the statement of the author of al-Muṭliʿ: “Bidʿah is divided in accordance with the five legal rulings of taklīf.”4

This is with what Imām Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah pointed to when he said: “When some scholars speak of bidʿah being divided into praiseworthy and blameworthy, they are referring to bidʿah in its linguistic sense. However, when the Prophet ﷺ said, «كل بدعة ضلالة» ‘Every bidʿah is misguidance,’ he was referring to bidʿah in its legal sense.”5

Sultan al-ʿUlamāʾ (Imām ʿIzz al-Dīn) elaborated further, stating:

“Innovations are of three types:

  1. The first is permissible, such as expanding upon food, drink, clothing, and marriages; there is no harm in any of that.
  2. The second is praiseworthy. This encompasses every innovation that aligns with the principles of Sharia and does not contradict any of its rulings. Examples include building ribāṭs (fortified stations for defense and/or worship), khānqāhs (Sufi lodges), and schools, as well as other forms of good deeds that were not practiced in the early period. Such innovations are in harmony with the objectives of Sharia, which encourage enjoining good and cooperating in piety and righteousness. Similarly, studying Arabic, though an innovation, is indispensable for understanding and contemplating the Qur’an and its meanings…
  3. The third is blameworthy, comprising what contradicts the noble Sharia or entails such contradiction. An example is Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib, which is falsely attributed to the Prophet ﷺ and constitutes a fabrication against him.”6

As for the first category, it pertains to customs that are not intended as acts of worship and are therefore definitively excluded from the concept of bidʿah as referred to in the address of the Lawgiver. As for the second category, the correct position is that it is also not encompassed by the usage of bidʿah in the address of the Lawgiver. It is preferable that the technical definition of bidʿah aligns with the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “Every innovation is misguidance.” We will clarify the necessity of adhering to this emphatic generalization.

Imam Ibn Rajab said: “The intent of Imam al-Shāfiʿī (rA) is what we have mentioned previously: that the blameworthy bidʿah is that which has no basis in the Sharīʿah to which it can be referred. This is bidʿah in the terminology of the Sharīʿah. As for praiseworthy bidʿah, it is that which aligns with the Sunnah, meaning it has a basis in the Sunnah to which it can be referred. It is, therefore, a bidʿah linguistically, not in the Sharīʿah, due to its conformity to the Sunnah.” 7

Thus, bidʿah in the terminology of the Sharīʿah refers to that which is innovated without sufficient basis in the Sharīʿah to which it can be referred. This definition aligns with the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: “Indeed, every newly introduced matter is a bidʿah, and every bidʿah is misguidance.” This refers to innovations in religion, as indicated by his words: “Whoever introduces into this matter of ours…” Innovations that have a basis in the Sharīʿah are not included in this statement.

However, there should be no dispute over terminology as long as the meanings remain clear. If you say, as we prefer, that every innovation is misguidance and define it narrowly, there is no issue. Similarly, if you define it broadly, categorize it, and deem only that which has no foundation in Sharia as blameworthy, that too is acceptable.

More importantly, there are two types of innovations that all scholars acknowledge as distinct, although Imam al-Shāṭibī (rA) was the first to name them as true innovation (al-bidʿah al-ḥaqīqiyyah) and additive innovation (al-bidʿah al-iḍāfiyyah). Before delving into his definitions of these two types, let us first consider his general definition of bidʿah. He (rA) stated:

“فالبدعة إذن عبارة عن: طريقة في الدين مخترعة، تضاهي الشرعية يقصد بالسلوك عليها المبالغة في التعبد لله سبحانه.”

“Thus, bidʿah refers to an invented method in religion that mimics the prescribed practices, with the intention of pursuing it as an exaggerated form of worshiping Allah, the Exalted.”8

Then he distinguishes between two types of innovations, stating:

“True innovation (bidʿah ḥaqīqiyyah) is that which has no basis in any legal evidence—neither from the Qur’an, nor the Sunnah, nor consensus, nor analogy, nor any reasoning deemed valid by scholars—whether general or specific. For this reason, it is called an innovation, as previously mentioned, because it is something invented without any precedent…

As for additive innovation (bidʿah iḍāfiyyah), it is characterized by two aspects: one of them is connected to evidence, and thus, it is not an innovation from that perspective; the other aspect, however, lacks a basis, like true innovation. Because the act encompasses these two aspects and cannot be fully assigned to one or the other, we have designated it with this term, additive innovation. This means that with respect to one aspect, it is a sunnah, as it is based on evidence; while with respect to the other aspect, it is an innovation, as it is rooted in doubt rather than evidence or has no basis whatsoever.”9

His intention—may Allah have mercy on him—regarding that which has two aspects refers to what has evidence permitting its generality, such as sending blessings upon the Prophet ﷺ, but is specified by a cause or time without evidence justifying such specification.

True innovation (bidʿah ḥaqīqiyyah), therefore, is the invention of a type of worship that has no basis in our religion. It includes numerous examples, such as seeking closeness to Allah through listening to music or dancing, worshipping by standing in the sun, abstaining from permissible speech, abstaining from eating meat or marriage, handling snakes, performing prayers in a manner different from the prescribed form, undertaking a pilgrimage to Mount Sinai, denying divine decree, negating Allah’s attributes, or likening Him to the creations (tashbīh).

Scholars are in agreement on certain points:

  1. They agree that innovation does not apply to customs since the default for customs is permissibility. This holds unless someone adopts or abandons a custom as a form of worship without evidence. Thus, there is no room for discussion about matters like using cars, phones, or any other customs and transactions for which no evidence of prohibition exists.
  2. They also agree on the prohibition of true innovations, even though disagreements regarding its application may occasionally occur.
  3. They are also unanimously agreed that acts of worship designated with a specific form, cause, time, place, or quantity must not be altered in any aspect. For instance, there is no standing (wuqūf) except at ʿArafah, no circumambulation (ṭawāf) except around the Kaʿbah, no sacrificial offering (uḍḥiyah) during Eid al-Fiṭr, no witr prayer after ẓuhr, no zakāh on personal possessions kept for use, and no addition of a fifth unit to any obligatory prayer.

The disagreement among scholars lies in additive innovations, which are practices that have a basis in Sharia and fall under a general or analogous ruling, such as unqualified prayer, fasting, or remembrance of Allah. However, they involve modifications to the form of worship or adherence to a cause, location, time, or specific quantity not legislated, or the attribution of a virtue to something without evidence. This is where differences and variances emerge. Acknowledging this, al-Shāṭibī said: “Additive innovations themselves are of two types: one that approaches true innovation, to the extent that it may almost be considered a true innovation, and another that is so distant from it that it may (almost) be regarded as a pure Sunnah.”

Among the examples of these additive innovations are instituting a call to prayer for the two ʿĪds or for the solar eclipse, as well as the performance of Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib. Both are deemed reprehensible by all or the majority of scholars. On the other hand, practices such as group dhikr and the use of prayer beads are commended by many or most scholars. There are also numerous practices that some scholars have categorized as innovations, such as persistently invoking blessings upon the Prophet ﷺ aloud by the mu’azzin after the call to prayer, the act of prompting (talqīn) of the dead, vocalizing one’s intention (niyyah), celebrating the Prophet’s birthday (mawlid), and hosting elaborate banquets for visitors offering condolences by the family of the deceased.

The matter requires careful consideration. For those quick to permit additive innovations based on general principles, one might argue that scholars nearly unanimously disallow two units of prayer after saʿy by analogy with ṭawāf . Similarly, they oppose introducing an adhān for the two Eids by analogy with Friday prayers. The verifying scholars have also condemned the Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib, a specific congregational prayer performed on the first Friday of Rajab, despite its potential inclusion under general texts about prayer.

There are numerous other additive innovations, many of which were deemed objectionable by most or at least many scholars. Where do you stand amidst all this? And for those who define blameworthy innovation solely as what the Sharīʿah has explicitly prohibited, the question arises: What, then, is the purpose of warning against innovation? Would it not suffice to simply warn against disobedience? If we disallow fasting specifically on Fridays due to the prohibition while encouraging fasting on Mondays and Thursdays due to commendation, by what reasoning do we then permit fasting specifically on Wednesdays?

Do not let your opposition to a group of people blind your vision. It is for this reason, among others, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ referred to discord as the “shaver,” which shaves away religion. Read the book Al-Bidaʿ wa-l-Nahy ʿAnhā by Ibn Waḍḍāḥ (rA), who was born in the second century. If you are unable to do so and you affiliate yourself with a particular maddhab, then gather the statements of the scholars of your school about innovations, and you will find a considerable amount of these “additive innovations” among them. If that too is beyond you, then refer to those electronic programs to assist you in your search.

And it may be said to those who hasten to forbid all of them: Where do you stand regarding what has been narrated from many of the Salaf about adhering to specific devotional practices, such as particular prayers, fasts, and remembrances, or adding certain phrases? Indeed, similar actions have even been reported from some of the greatest opponents of innovations, as will be mentioned later.

The cause of the disagreement among scholars is explained by Imām Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, who states:
“…The divergence in this matter stems from the point we previously mentioned, which is either including a specific matter under general principles or requiring a specific proof for that particular matter. The Mālikīs tend toward the latter. There are instances from the pious predecessors that support this approach. Do you not see that Ibn ʿUmar (rAa) said about the Duḥā prayer, ‘It is an innovation,’ because he had no evidence proving it, and he did not consider it to fall under the general principle of prayers due to its specification to a particular time? Similarly, he said about the Qunūt supplication that people practiced in his era, ‘It is an innovation,’ because he did not consider it to fall under the general principle of supplications.

Likewise, al-Tirmidhī narrates from ʿAbdullāh ibn Mughaffal, who told his son regarding the audible recitation of the Basmalah, ‘Beware of this innovation,’ as he did not consider it to be covered by a general proof. Furthermore, there is the narration of Ibn Masʿūd (rAa), reported by al-Ṭabarānī in his Muʿjam, with a chain from Qays ibn Abī Ḥāzim, who said: ‘Ibn Masʿūd was informed of a storyteller sitting at night, instructing people to say this or that. He said: “When you see him, inform me.” They informed him, and Ibn Masʿūd approached him veiled. He said: “Whoever knows me knows me, and whoever does not know me, I am ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd.

“تعلمون أنكم لأهدى من محمد  وأصحابه، يعني أو إنكم لمتعلقون بذنب ضلالة.»

Do you think you are more guided than Muḥammad ﷺ and his Companions? You are clinging to the tail of misguidance.”'”10

Whoever holds that the statement of the Prophet ﷺ, “Every innovation is misguidance,” is not from the general expressions intended to be specific (ʿāmm yurādu bihi al-khuṣūṣ) but rather a general expression subject to specification (ʿāmm makhṣūṣ), will be more meticulous in seeking a specifying factor or evidence to justify the legitimacy of an additive innovation based on its cause, description, quantity, time, or place.

Our scholars have differed regarding the generality of the Prophet’s ﷺ statement, “Every innovation is misguidance,” and whether it remains entirely general until a specification arises. Imam Ibn Rajab (rA) said:

“The statement of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Every innovation is misguidance,’ is among the comprehensive expressions (jawāmiʿ al-kalim) from which nothing is excluded. It is a fundamental principle of the religion, akin to his statement, ‘Whoever innovates in this matter of ours what is not of it, it is rejected.’ Thus, whoever introduces something and attributes it to the religion, without having an established basis in the religion to which it refers, it is misguidance, and the religion is free from it. This applies equally to matters of belief, actions, or both outward and inward statements.

As for what has been mentioned in the words of the early generations regarding their approval of certain innovations, this refers only to linguistic innovations, not innovations in the religious sense. An example is the statement of ʿUmar (rAa) when he united people in praying behind one imam during Ramadan. He saw them praying this way and said: ‘What an excellent innovation this is.’ … By this, he intended that such an act had not previously been done in this specific manner. However, it has roots in the Shariah to which it returns.

For instance, the Prophet ﷺ used to encourage praying during Ramadan and would exhort people to it. During his time, people prayed in the mosque in scattered groups or individually. The Prophet ﷺ led his companions in Ramadan for a few nights but then refrained from continuing, explaining that he feared it might be made obligatory upon them, and they would then be unable to maintain it. This concern no longer existed after him ﷺ.”11

This is a robust statement, emphasizing that the default stance is the general prohibition of innovations. It is more refined than the statement of Imam Ibn al-Jawzī in the same context:

“His saying, ‘What an excellent innovation,’ refers to innovation as the act of doing something without prior precedent. He called it an innovation because it did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in that specific form, nor during the time of Abū Bakr. Innovations may pertain to either good or evil, but the reprehensible type of innovation is what contradicts or opposes something that has been legislated.”12

Ibn al-Jawzī was among the opponents of innovations, yet the preference for the expression of Ibn Rajab lies in its clarity: had an innovation been simply about contradicting or opposing something legislated, it would already be prohibited by that criterion, without necessitating repeated warnings against introducing innovations. Moreover, attributing something to the religion and claiming that a particular act holds virtue without evidence constitutes speaking about Allah without knowledge—a matter of grave severity. After all, who receives revelation following our Prophet Muhammad ﷺ? Likewise, ascribing virtue to a place, time, number, or specific characteristic requires clear proof.

Ibn Rajab’s statement aligns with that of Imam Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, who said:

“I have written elsewhere that adhering to the generality of the Prophet’s ﷺ saying, ‘Every innovation is misguidance,’ is essential, and acting upon its general meaning is obligatory. Those who classify innovations into good and bad and use this classification as a pretext to not use innovation as evidence for prohibition are mistaken. This is what some among the jurists, theologians, Sufis, and devotees do when they are prohibited from engaging in ‘innovative acts of worship’ or ‘innovative religious practices.’ They claim that only those innovations explicitly forbidden are disliked. This leads to the statement: ‘Everything forbidden,’ or ‘Everything prohibited,’ or ‘Everything contradicting the Prophet’s ﷺ guidance is misguidance.’ This is self-evident and requires no clarification. However, what is meant here is that anything not legislated within the religion is misguidance.

As for what is termed ‘innovation’ and deemed praiseworthy based on evidence from the Sharīʿah, one of two things must apply:

  1. It is not an innovation within the religion, even if it is termed as such linguistically, as when ʿUmar said, ‘What an excellent innovation this is.’
  2. The prohibition against innovations is a general rule with specific exceptions due to a stronger counter-evidence, while the general ruling remains applicable to everything else, as is the case with other generalities in the Qur’ān and Sunnah.”13
The Intent of Those Who Generalize the Prophet’s ﷺ Statement “Every Innovation Is Misguidance”

With our agreement with Imām Taqī al-Dīn in this position, we generally cannot ascertain the precise and detailed intent of the scholars without examining their applications. Imām Taqī al-Dīn (rA) permitted practices such as collective remembrance (dhikr), prompting the dead, the use of prayer beads, and other acts that some adherents of the madhhabs and others consider as innovations. In fact, Imām Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned:

“Among the tried and proven experiences of those traversing the spiritual path is that whoever frequently repeats the invocation: Yā Ḥayy Yā Qayyūm, Lā Ilāha Illā Anta (O Ever-Living, O Sustainer, there is no deity but You), it instills life in their heart and intellect. Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah was deeply devoted to this invocation, and he once told me: ‘These two Names—al-Ḥayy and al-Qayyūm—have a profound impact on enlivening the heart,’ and he hinted that they are the Greatest Name (al-Ism al-Aʿẓam). I heard him say: ‘Whoever adheres to reciting forty times every day between the Sunnah of Fajr and the obligatory Fajr prayer: Yā Ḥayy Yā Qayyūm, Lā Ilāha Illā Anta, bi-Raḥmatika Astaġīth (O Ever-Living, O Sustainer, there is no deity but You; by Your mercy, I seek assistance), will experience a heart alive and free of death.’”14

This supplication (duʿāʾ), in its origin, is from the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ, but the specification of time and number is not explicitly traceable to him ﷺ. Also, among the practices of Abū al-ʿAbbās was the repetition of Sūrat al-Fātiḥah after Ṣalāt al-Ṣubḥ. These are actions that may be classified as additive innovations, yet the domain of dhikr and supplication is vast. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said regarding protective invocations (ruqāʿ): “Whoever among you is able to benefit their brother, let them do so.”

Since a person is permitted to praise their Lord with all forms of beauty and call upon Him with any request that involves no sin or severance of family ties, there is no objection to performing such acts or advising others regarding their various forms. However, this should be done without asserting the virtue of any specific act unless it has been clearly established through knowledge from our infallible Messenger, the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ.

Imam Taqī al-Dīn’s claim that this particular dhikr, repeated a specific number of times at a designated time, revives the heart, is subject to acceptance or rejection. This stands in stark contrast to the definitive guidance of the infallible Prophet ﷺ.

Additionally, the awrād prescribed by the Prophet ﷺ take precedence and are the ultimate remedy, leaving no doubt that one should begin with them. If someone then supplements these acts with practices grounded in legitimate origins, having personally experienced their benefit, or advises others regarding them—without claiming their status as Sunnah but rather sharing their positive impact as a blessing from Allah—there is no objection to such actions, in shāʾ Allāh.

There are numerous reports from the Companions illustrating their additions to practices not explicitly detailed in the Sunnah. Among these is Ibn ʿUmar’s addition to the talbiyah, as recorded in al-Muwaṭṭaʾ from Nāfiʿ, and a Companion’s addition to the praises (taḥmīd) after rising from bowing. Furthermore, the early generations adhered to specific numbers of dhikr beyond what was transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ, in instances too numerous to enumerate. ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said, “My father used to perform 300 units of prayer daily, but when his body weakened due to lashes, he performed 150 units daily.”15

However, in matters where the Prophet ﷺ specified a particular number, adherence to that specification is preferred. Imam Al-Qarāfī (rA) stated:

“… As with increasing prescribed recommendations, such as making the post-prayer tasbīḥ a hundred when the prescribed number is thirty-three, this reflects a presumption of exceeding the Messenger’s ﷺ guidance, which is a lack of proper etiquette with him. The proper behavior with the great is that when they specify something, it is to be adhered to, and departing from it is a lack of proper etiquette.” 16

This judgment, as Allah knows best, applies to those who adopt a non-legislated number as a binding practice. However, if one performs the recommended act as prescribed and then adds voluntarily without imposing it, it is hoped that such an addition increases in goodness.

The wisdom of Imam Mālik in this regard is noteworthy. Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah narrated:

“I heard Mālik ibn Anas approached by a man who asked: ‘O Abū ʿAbdullāh, from where should I enter the state of iḥrām?’ Mālik replied: ‘From Dhū al-Ḥulayfah, where the Messenger of Allah ﷺ entered iḥrām.’ The man said: ‘But I want to enter iḥrām from the mosque.’ Mālik responded: ‘Do not do so.’ The man persisted: ‘But I want to enter iḥrām from the mosque, near the Prophet’s ﷺ grave.’ Mālik replied: ‘Do not do so, for I fear fitnah (tribulation) for you.’ The man asked: ‘What tribulation is there in this? It is merely a few additional miles!’ Mālik said:

وأي فتنة أعظم من أن ترى أنك سبقت إلى فضيلة قصر عنها رسول الله

‘What greater tribulation is there than believing you have attained a virtue which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ fell short of achieving?’”17

The Indication of Abstention

Does the Prophet’s ﷺ abstention from an act make its performance inherently forbidden? Not necessarily. The mere fact that the Prophet ﷺ refrained from doing something is not, in itself, conclusive evidence of its prohibition. Even among those strict in matters of innovation, no one has argued that his abstention from certain customary practices is a basis for prohibition—though there is a broader usūlī (principle-based) debate about whether the default ruling on things is permissibility or prohibition.

The critical issue concerns his consistent abstention from practices later claimed to be acts of devotion. Imam Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, a moderate voice in this regard, elaborates on abstention as a deterrent from subsequent claims of religious validity for omitted practices:

“Consistent abstention is a Sunnah, just as consistent performance is a Sunnah, except in cases where his abstention was due to the absence of a reason, the lack of a condition, or the presence of an obstacle. If later circumstances arose where the necessary conditions were met or the obstacle was removed, then what the sharīʿah indicates in such cases should be done—like the compilation of the Qur’an into a single volume, organizing the people in the Tarāwīḥ prayer under one imām, learning Arabic, or identifying the narrators of knowledge. These are actions necessitated by the requirements of religion, without which religious obligations or recommended acts cannot be fulfilled. The Prophet ﷺ only refrained due to the absence of such conditions or the presence of an obstacle.

However, if his abstention concerns acts of worship—where, if such acts had been legitimate, he would have performed them or at least permitted them, and where his successors and Companions would have done the same—then it is necessary to assert that performing such acts constitutes innovation and misguidance. Analogical reasoning cannot justify such innovations, unlike other categories. An example is attempting to analogize the call to prayer (adhān) for the ʿĪds or the prayer for rain (ṣalāt al-istisqāʾ) to the five daily prayers by instituting an adhān or iqāmah for them, as some of the Marwanids did for the ʿĪds.”18

He further states elsewhere:

“The meaning is that when the complete indication (al-muqtaḍī al-tām) for an act existed during his life as it does after his death, what he left undone becomes an established Sunnah, and introducing it becomes an innovation.”19

Note his statement: “When the complete indication for an act existed during his life as it does after his death,” which provides a precise criterion. Circumstances may change, making the rationale for an act more evident after his passing.

Addressing Those Who Deny Evidence in Abstention

Those who reject using abstention as evidence in acts of worship argue, in cases of consensus, such as the absence of an adhān for the ʿĪdayn, that this was an omission in the context of clarification (maqām al-bayān), which implies exclusivity. They may also assert that abstention was accompanied by contextual indicators suggesting its lack of legitimacy.

This perspective invites questions: Can it be imagined that the Prophet ﷺ persistently refrained from actions of virtue without guiding his community to them? What, then, is the essence of condemned innovation if his consistent abstention from a supposed act of devotion, despite the presence of its rationale and prerequisites, conveys nothing more than the permissibility of refraining?

The salaf and scholars frequently cited his and his Companions’ non-performance of certain acts as evidence against their religious validity. Consider the statement of Abū Bakr and Zayd ibn Thābit:

” ‌كيف ‌نفعل شيئا لم يفعله رسول الله ؟”
“How can we do something the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not do?”

And do not let yourself be distracted from reflecting on their statement by the fact that they accepted the existence of a reason for it after his ﷺ death that did not exist during his life.

Similarly, Muslim narrates from ʿUmārah ibn Ruwaybah, who saw Bishr ibn Marwān raising his hands while delivering a sermon and said:
“قبح الله هاتين اليدين. لقد رأيت رسول الله  ‌ما ‌يزيد ‌على ‌أن ‌يقول ‌بيده ‌هكذا. وأشار بإصبعه المسبحة.”
“May Allah disfigure these hands! I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ doing no more than pointing with his index finger.”

Reconciling the Evidence

The question remains: how then do we distinguish between praiseworthy and blameworthy aspects of what may be considered additive innovations that involve attaching a cause, attribute, quantity, time, or place to an act of worship without specific evidence? This is especially pertinent given examples like the Companions adding phrases in dhikr, the pious predecessors adhering to additional litanies beyond what is established in the Sunnah, and Bilāl’s (rAa) commitment to performing two units of prayer after wuḍūʾ. Bilāl practiced this before it was affirmed by the Prophet ﷺ, although it only became a Sunnah after his approval.

It appears that a person imposing upon themselves specific litanies—whether prayers, acts of charity, recitations, or supplications—does not fall under the blameworthy category of innovation. This includes adding to the established numbers, timing, or enhancing praise and supplications, provided it is done as a means of self-discipline and organization. Also, advising loved ones about it after personal experience is permissible, provided there is no assertion of virtue that can only be known through revelation. Even collective gatherings for dhikr or supplication at certain agreed-upon times, chosen for their suitability, may be acceptable. All of this seems permissible, as long as there is no contradiction to or competition with the prescribed acts (mashrūʿ), or other factors that warrant prohibition, and as long as two major pitfalls are avoided:

  1. Attributing something to the religion without evidence – It is critical to avoid declaring such practices as religious obligations or virtues unless supported by explicit proof.
  2. Mimicking prescribed practices or competing with them and creating new symbols of religiosity or communal practices that deviate from the way of the early generations.

As for the first, it is clearer than the sun at midday: whoever asserts the virtue of a particular form of worship, location, time, or number—beyond telling of what they have personally experienced—must undoubtedly provide evidence to substantiate their claim.

It is also imperative not to engage in practices that could be construed as affirming their status as sunnah. Regularly performing an act publicly, especially in mosques, during specific seasons, or by scholars, can easily mislead people. Sultan al-ʿUlamāʾ said:

“First: If a scholar performs it [the innovated Ṣalāh al-Raghāʾib], it gives the general public the impression that it is among the sunnah acts, thereby falsely attributing it to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ through one’s actions. Such implicit indications can sometimes outweigh explicit statements.’”20

As for the second pitfall: mimicking the sunnah, competing with it, or introducing rituals into the public domain that were unknown to the early generations is unanimously condemned by the scholars. The matter of innovation becomes particularly severe when such practices are publicized, encouraged for the general masses, or established as communal gatherings. For this reason, the Companions disapproved of introducing an adhān for the two ʿEīds.

Al-Shāṭibī (rA) said:

“Adhering to matters that are not legislatively binding gives the impression of being part of the religion—especially when undertaken by figures of authority or in public spaces such as mosques. If these practices are displayed prominently—similar to the rituals instituted by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in mosques, such as the adhān, and the ṣalāh of the two ʿEīds, rain prayers, and eclipse prayers—they will undoubtedly be understood as sunnah, if not as obligations. This makes them less likely to be covered by any general evidence. From this perspective, they become reprehensible innovations.”21

Imam Aḥmad (rA) was asked: “Is it disliked for a group of people to gather, supplicate to Allah, and raise their hands?” He replied: “I do not dislike it for the brothers if they do not gather intentionally, unless it becomes frequent.”

Isḥāq said: “As he said. The meaning of ‘unless it becomes frequent’ is that they should not make it a habit such that they become associated with it.”22

The reports regarding Aḥmad’s stance vary. In al-Furūʿ, it is mentioned: “If people gather for recitation, supplication, and remembrance, one report says, ‘What could be better?’ … Another says, ‘There is no harm in it.’ Yet another says, ‘It is an innovation.’ Ibn Manṣūr narrated: ‘I do not dislike it if they do not gather intentionally unless it becomes frequent.’

Ibn Manṣūr explained: ‘This means they should not make it a habit.’ (+M) and he disliked it (+M) In al-Funūn, it is stated: ‘I dissociate myself before Allah from the gatherings of our time in mosques and sacred sites during nights they call Iḥyāʾ (revival).’” 23 These differing accounts can be understood as referring to different contexts and conditions.

Imām Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“Gathering for the remembrance of Allah, listening to His Book, and supplicating are righteous acts and among the most virtuous forms of drawing closer to Allah. However, such gatherings should occur occasionally at certain times and places. They should not be made into a regular practice unless it is something the Messenger of Allah ﷺ specifically legislated as a continuous act for groups, such as the five daily prayers in congregation, Friday prayers, Eids, and similar acts.”24

He also stated:

“Group recitation in sequence (al-idārah) is considered good by most scholars. One form of group recitation is for a group to read together in unison. The Mālikīs have two views regarding its dislike, and Mālik disapproved of it. However, the practice of one person reading while others listen attentively is unanimously not disliked and is considered commendable. This was the practice of the Companions, such as Abū Mūsā and others.” 25

Group dhikr and recitation, while validated by Imam Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah and recognized within our madhhab, remain subjects of well-known scholarly disagreement. In al-Madkhal by Ibn al-Ḥājj and other Mālikī works, it is stated: “There is no difference in Mālik’s opinion (rA) that group recitation and group dhikr are among the disliked innovations.” 26

The Ḥanafīs express a similar stance. In Barīqah Maḥmūdiyyah, it is noted: “It is disliked to recite the Qurʾān collectively because it entails neglecting the command to listen and pay attention. However, it is also said there is no harm in it.”27

Thus, there is no blame on those who avoid such practices or feel uncomfortable with them, provided they do not denounce those who engage in them, as the majority opinion supports their perspective. However, dedicating specific times in mosques for regular group remembrance—such as after Friday prayers every week or before Maghrib every Thursday—such that it becomes a consistent practice and a symbol akin to established sunan is the very scenario to which the prohibition of Imām Aḥmad and others applies.

From this category arises the widespread denunciation by the majority of scholars of those who perform the Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib in mosques. They did not argue, as some have, that it falls under the general commands encouraging prayer and voluntary acts.

Imām al-Nawawī stated:

“Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib is a reprehensible and detestable innovation (bidʿah), worthy of the most severe denunciation. It includes objectionable elements, making it imperative to abandon, avoid, and denounce it. It is also incumbent upon the ruler—may Allah guide him—to prevent people from engaging in it, for he is a shepherd, and every shepherd (caretaker) is accountable for their flock. Scholars have authored works to refute and condemn it, as well as to criticize its practitioners. One must not be deceived by the widespread performance of this prayer in many lands, nor by its mention in Qūt al-Qulūb and Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn or similar works, for it is an invalid innovation.” 28

Sulṭān al-ʿUlamāʾ (ʿIzz al-Dīn) highlighted the distinction between Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib and other prayers performed by the Prophet ﷺ occasionally in congregation:

“The distinction lies in the fact that following an imam in Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib gives the public the impression that it is a Sunnah and a religious hallmark. This contrasts with the incidents mentioned in the hadiths of Anas and ʿItbān (may Allah be pleased with them both), where such congregational prayers were rare occurrences and did not lead the public to believe they were Sunnah. Instead, they indicated permissibility, which is a matter of consensus.”29

Ibn al-Ḥāj, in his al-Madkhal, further explained:

“The Prophet ﷺ clarified all types of prayers, detailing them through both his actions and words, leaving no room for anyone to add or subtract from his practice, as previously established. If adding to his practice is deemed a prohibited innovation, then it is even more prohibited to introduce specific names and designated times for such prayers, transforming them into conspicuous rituals widely known only after the fifth century. When such prayers, in their social and collective format, become established as symbols of worship, their recommendation requires an independent, explicit Sharīʿah-based proof justifying their performance in congregation within mosques and public venues.”30

Imām Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ initially stated:

“As for the night of mid-Shaʿbān, it indeed holds virtue, and its observance through acts of worship is recommended, but individually and not in congregation. The practice of people turning it, along with the night of Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib, into a festival or emblematic occasion is a reprehensible innovation.”31

For further perspective, observe the stance of some Mālikīs, which sheds light on certain contemporary behaviors and opinions. Imām Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd said:

“I was informed that some Mālikīs, during one of the two nights associated with Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib—either the one in Rajab or that in Shaʿbān—encountered groups engaged in this prayer and others indulging in unlawful acts or their like. They deemed the state of those involved in the prohibited acts better than those performing this prayer. The reasoning was that those engaged in the unlawful acts knew they were committing sins, making it likely they would seek forgiveness and repent, whereas those performing the prayer—believing it to be a righteous act—would neither repent nor seek forgiveness.”32

It is thus correct to assert that innovation (ibtidāʿ) does not pertain to customs and transactions, as the default ruling in these matters is permissibility unless one seeks to worship Allah through a particular act or abstention without evidence or proof. Similarly, innovation does not apply to means, such as adding diacritical marks to the Qurʾān, using prayer beads for tasbīḥ, or drawing lines on the ground to align rows in prayer. It is well-established that the realm of supplications, remembrances, and invocations is broad, as long as they do not involve transgressions or violations.

Innovation is also excluded in cases where the intent pertains to purposes other than pure worship, such as structured educational curricula or different methodologies for documenting and developing knowledge. Nor does it include personal commitments to acts or litanies aimed at disciplining oneself or optimizing one’s time. Advising others about beneficial practices that have been personally experienced carries no issue, provided it is devoid of assertions about religious merit that can only be known through the revelation.
However, inventing an act of worship that was not practiced by the Messenger ﷺ is undoubtedly an innovation that is rejected and falls under the category of condemned innovations.

This also applies to altering the defined characteristics of acts prescribed in the Sharīʿah or substituting their designated places or times without Allah’s permission. Additionally, affirming, with certainty, the virtue of a specific characteristic, quantity, time, or place—or inviting the general public to it—without substantiation is objectionable, especially when it becomes an emblem competing with established Sunnah practices.

Important Benefits

The Era of the Companions and Those After Them

The Companions (Ṣaḥābah) did not have a license to innovate in religion, but they hold a distinction over those who came after them. According to the majority, the statement of a Companion is considered authoritative, and their consensus is more reliable than the consensus of later generations. For this reason, scholars show greater leniency toward narrations from the Companions, even if such narrations are non-traceable to the Prophet (mawqūf).

Imām Ibn Ḥajar (rA) said:

“I have heard that in the western provinces (Maghreb) today, they do not perform adhān except once. Ibn Abī Shaybah narrated through Ibn ʿUmar (rAa) that he said: ‘The first call to prayer on Friday is an innovation (bidʿah).’ This could mean he said so in condemnation or that he intended to point out that it did not exist during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. Everything that did not exist in his time is termed an innovation, although some innovations are good, while others are not. It has become evident that ʿUthmān introduced this first call to alert people to the time of prayer, analogizing Friday prayer to the other prayers. He thus integrated Friday prayer into the other prayers’ framework while maintaining its unique call to prayer right before the sermon. This exemplifies deriving meanings from foundational principles without nullifying them. As for what some people have introduced before the Friday prayer, such as collective remembrance or invoking blessings on the Prophet ﷺ, it occurs in some regions but not others. Following the righteous predecessors (al-Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ) is always preferable.”33

Reprehensible Innovations Are Not All Prohibited

Al-Qarāfī said:

“(The fourth) Disliked (makrūh): This includes actions that fall under the general principles and evidences of disapproval in the Sharīʿah, such as dedicating virtuous days or nights to specific acts of worship, as indicated by the Prophet’s ﷺ prohibition against fasting exclusively on Fridays or performing the night prayers during its night, as found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and other sources. Also, exceeding the prescribed limits for recommended acts, such as making tasbīḥ one hundred times after prayers.”34

Innovations are often described as disliked. It is essential for the seeker of knowledge to distinguish between what is merely disliked and what is prohibited, assigning each its appropriate status.

Differentiating Between Innovation (Bidʿah) and the Innovator (Mubtadiʿ)

It is within a scholar’s right to describe a practice whose legitimacy is not substantiated, in their view, as an innovation. Imām al-Nawawī (rA) said:

“(Regarding their statement that some of the Successors (Tābiʿūn) considered reciting the basmalah aloud an innovation) — this carries no weight as proof because it reflects their own belief and jurisprudential stance. Similarly, Abū Ḥanīfah considered the ʿAqīqah and the Prayer for Rain (Ṣalāt al-Istisqāʾ) as innovations, although the majority of scholars view them as sunnah based on authentic reports. The opinion of one individual does not serve as evidence for another mujtahid, let alone as proof against the majority when authentic reports contradict it.”35

However, these eminent scholars did not regard every person involved in an innovation as an innovator. Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (rA) remarked:

“This is akin to other matters known with certainty by scholars of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, even if others doubt or deny them. For example, the mutawātir (mass-transmitted) narrations regarding his intercession, the Ḥawḍ (Prophetic pool), and the eventual release of grave sinners from Hellfire; and the mutawātir narrations about the Divine Attributes, Qadar (preordainment), the Divine Above-ness, and the Vision (ruʾyah) — all of which are fundamental principles upon which scholars of the Sunnah unanimously agree. Even if others remain unaware of these matters, they are to scholars as rulings on pre-emption (shufʿah), oaths by the defendant, stoning of married adulterers, and theft penalties are among jurists — issues that some innovators may contest. For this reason, the Imams of Islam collectively deemed opposing these core principles as innovation, in contrast to disagreements in ijtihād that have not reached the level of definitiveness established by mutawātir Sunnah.”36

Precaution in Abandoning Doubtful Innovations

Imām al-Kāsānī (rA) stated: “When an action oscillates between being a sunnah and an innovation, the inclination toward its being an innovation prevails. This is because refraining from an innovation is obligatory, whereas attaining a sunnah or fulfilling a recommended act is not obligatory.”37

Imām al-Nawawī (rA) said: “Abandoning a sunnah is preferable to committing an innovation.”38

For instance, if a Ḥanbalī abstains from collective dhikr due to Mālik’s opposition or doubts about its basis in the Sunnah, this would be commendable.

Exercising caution by avoiding innovations introduced after the era of the Companions is praiseworthy, and even more so for practices emerging after the first three virtuous generations. Our guiding principle should align with the statement of Imam Ibn al-Ḥāj: “It is not for us to establish acts of worship outside their rightful places, as delineated by the Lawgiver and practiced by the Salaf of this Ummah.”39

Even better is the statement of Imam Mālik:

“من ابتدع في الإسلام بدعة يراها حسنة، زعم أن محمدا خان الرسالة، لأن الله يقول: {الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ}، فما لم يكن يومئذ دينا، فلا يكون اليوم دينا.»

“Whoever innovates in Islam a practice he perceives as good has claimed that Muḥammad ﷺ betrayed the message. For Allah says: {Today I have perfected for you your religion} [Sūrat al-Māʾidah: 3].

What was not part of the religion then cannot be part of it now.40

And how excellent is the reasoning of some — provided it is not taken to an extreme — with their statement: “If it were good, they would have preceded us to it,” drawing a reverse analogy with what Allah has narrated about the disbelievers’ statement regarding the Companions (rAa):

“If it had been any good, they would not have preceded us to it” [Sūrat al-Aḥqāf: 11].

On Not Condemning Differences of Opinion

Imām al-Nawawī (rA) noted:

“Scholars only condemn matters unanimously agreed upon as blameworthy. As for matters of disagreement, they do not warrant condemnation, for every mujtahid is either correct or excused for his error. Advising someone to avoid disputed matters as a precaution is praiseworthy, provided it is done gently and without compromising a sunnah.”41

In our school, the correct opinion is singular. Imām al-Nawawī’s words evidently concern excusable differences, excluding disputes involving unqualified individuals or cases where the truth is evident, and scholarly consensus aligns, even if earlier opinions existed but are now abandoned. Disagreements over whether something constitutes an innovation should not result in mutual condemnation but in sincere counsel.

Ibn Yūnus al-Madīnī said:

“I was sitting with Mālik ibn Anas when Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah sought permission to enter. Mālik said: ‘A righteous man, a follower of the Sunnah, let him in.’ When he entered, he greeted: ‘Peace be upon you, and Allah’s mercy and blessings.’ Mālik returned the greeting. Sufyān said: ‘Peace, both private and general, be upon you, O Abū ʿAbd Allāh, and Allah’s mercy.’ Mālik then shook his hand and said: ‘O Abū Muḥammad, were it not an innovation (bidʿah), we would have embraced you.’ Sufyān replied: ‘Someone better than us embraced others—the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’ Mālik asked: ‘Jaʿfar?’ Sufyān said: ‘Yes.’ Mālik responded: ‘That was specific, O Abū Muḥammad, and not general.'”42

Considering Public Interest in Condemnation

Imām Abū al-ʿAbbās Ibn Taymiyyah (rA) said:

“If boycotting someone neither deters them nor leads to their reform but instead results in the loss of many required good deeds, such boycotting is not prescribed. This is akin to what Aḥmad mentioned regarding the people of Khurasān at that time—they were unable to oppose the Jahmiyyah. When they lacked the capacity to openly display animosity toward them, the obligation to perform this act of virtue was lifted. In such cases, accommodating them served to avert harm from weak believers and might even foster reconciliation with the powerful wrongdoer.”43

Conclusion

The issue of innovation (bidʿah) in religion is among the most intricate topics in Islamic jurisprudence due to its multifaceted nature and overlapping dimensions. While there is unanimous agreement on the prohibition of true innovations—those introduced into the religion without any basis in the Sharīʿah—disagreement persists regarding additive innovations (bidʿah iḍāfiyyah), which have some foundation in the Sharīʿah but include additions or qualifications unsupported by specific evidence.

It appears that the matter varies depending on several considerations and becomes more critical when something is attributed to the Sunnah without evidence, suggested implicitly, or when emblematic rituals (shaʿāʾir) unfamiliar to the earliest generations are displayed publicly.

Distinguishing between reprehensible innovations and legitimate acts of devotion may be at times subtle. For this reason, exercising caution by avoiding doubtful matters that have been contested among the Imams, and adhering to the general rule of the Prophet ﷺ: “Every innovation is misguidance,” is a safe path for those who seek protection in their faith.

However, this caution is primarily applicable to an individual’s personal practice. As for others, not every act introduced is a reprehensible innovation, and not everyone who engages in an innovation is to be labeled an innovator. There is no room for condemnation in areas of excusable disagreement among qualified jurists. Even where condemnation is warranted, it remains subject to considerations of public interest and benefit.

And may Allah’s blessings be upon Muhammad, and all praise is due to Allah, Lord of all worlds.

Biblio

1. Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Al-Qāḍī Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh Abū Bakr ibn al-ʿArabī al-Māʿāfirī al-Ishbīlī al-Mālikī (d. 543 AH). Reviewed and edited by Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut – Lebanon. 3rd ed., 1424 AH – 2003 CE.

2. Al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā li-Ibn Taymiyyah. Taqī al-Dīn Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm ibn ʿAbd al-Salām ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī al-Ḥanbalī al-Dimashqī (d. 728 AH). 1st ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1408 AH – 1987 CE.

3. Al-Furūq = Anwār al-Burūq fī Anwāʾ al-Furūq. Abū al-ʿAbbās Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Idrīs ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Mālikī, famously known as al-Qarāfī (d. 684 AH). ʿĀlam al-Kutub, no edition or date.

4. Al-ʿIqd al-Farīd. Abū ʿUmar Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Rabbih al-Andalusī (d. 328 AH). 1st ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1404 AH.

5. Al-Iʿtiṣām. Ibrāhīm ibn Mūsā ibn Muḥammad al-Lakhmī al-Gharnāṭī, famously known as al-Shāṭibī (d. 790 AH). Edited by Salīm ibn ʿĪd al-Hilālī. 1st ed. Saudi Arabia: Dār Ibn ʿAffān, 1412 AH / 1992 CE.

6. Al-Madkhal. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAbdarī al-Fāsī al-Mālikī, known as Ibn al-Ḥājj (d. 737 AH). Dār al-Turāth, no edition, no date.

7. Al-Madkhal. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-ʿAbdarī al-Fāsī al-Mālikī, known as Ibn al-Ḥājj (d. 737 AH). No edition. Cairo: Dār al-Turāth, n.d.

8. Al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab. Abū Zakariyyā Muḥyī al-Dīn ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH). Reviewed by a committee of scholars. Idārat al-Ṭibāʿah al-Munīriyyah, Maṭbaʿat al-Taḍāmun al-Ukhuwwī, Cairo, 1344–1347 AH.

9. Al-Muṭliʿ ʿalā Alfāẓ al-Muqniʿ. Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Fatḥ ibn Abī al-Faḍl al-Baʿlī (d. 709 AH). Edited by Maḥmūd al-Arnāʾūṭ [d. 1438 AH] and Yāsīn Maḥmūd al-Khaṭīb. 1st ed. Jeddah: Maktabat al-Sawādī lil-Tawzīʿ, 1423 AH / 2003 CE.

10. Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ fī Tartīb al-Sharāʾiʿ. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Abū Bakr ibn Masʿūd al-Kāsānī al-Ḥanafī, known as “Malik al-ʿUlamāʾ” (d. 587 AH). 1st ed., 1327 – 1328 AH. Maṭbaʿat Sharikat al-Maṭbūʿāt al-ʿIlmiyyah, Cairo & Maṭbaʿat al-Jamāliyya, Cairo.

11. Barīqah Maḥmūdiyyah fī Sharḥ Ṭarīqah Muḥammadiyyah wa-Sharīʿah Nabawiyyah fī Sīrah Aḥmadiyyah. Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Muṣṭafā ibn ʿUthmān, Abū Saʿīd al-Khādimī al-Ḥanafī (d. 1156 AH). Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Ḥalabī, no edition, 1348 AH.

12. Fatāwā al-Imām al-Nawawī al-Musammā bi-l-Masāʾil al-Manthūra. Abū Zakariyyā Muḥyī al-Dīn Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH). Arranged by: ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ibn al-ʿAṭṭār. Edited by: Muḥammad al-Ḥajjār. Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, Beirut – Lebanon.

13. Fatḥ al-Bārī bi-Sharḥ al-Bukhārī. Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773–852 AH). Numbering by Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī [d. 1388 AH]. Edited and proofread by Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb [d. 1389 AH]. Cairo: Al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah, first Salafī edition, 1380–1390 AH.

14. Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ wa-Ṭabaqāt al-Aṣfiyāʾ. Abū Nuʿaym Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Iṣbahānī (d. 430 AH). Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿādah, Cairo, 1394 AH / 1974 CE.

15. Iḥkām al-Aḥkām Sharḥ ʿUmdat al-Aḥkām, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd (625–702 AH). 1st ed. Beirut: Dār ʿĀlam al-Kutub, in agreement with Dār al-Kutub al-Salafiyyah in Cairo, 1407 AH / 1987 CE.

16. Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-al-Ḥikam fī Sharḥ Khamsīn Ḥadīthan min Jawāmiʿ al-Kalim. Zayn al-Dīn Abū al-Faraj ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Shihāb al-Dīn al-Baghdādī, later al-Dimashqī, famously known as Ibn Rajab (736–795 AH). Edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ [d. 1438 AH] and Ibrāhīm Bājis. 7th ed. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1417 AH / 1997 CE.

17. Kashf al-Mushkil min Ḥadīth al-Ṣaḥīḥayn. Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Faraj ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH). Edited by ʿAlī Ḥusayn al-Bawwāb. Dār al-Waṭan – Riyadh.

18. Madārij al-Sālikīn fī Manāzil al-Sāʾirīn. [Āthār al-Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah wa-mā Laḥiqa-hā min Aʿmāl (31)]. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr ibn Ayyūb Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (659–751 AH). Dār ʿAṭāʾāt al-ʿIlm (Riyadh) – Dār Ibn Ḥazm (Beirut), 2nd ed., 1441 AH / 2019 CE.

19. Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, authored by Shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah. Compiled and arranged by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Qāsim, assisted by his son Muḥammad. Madinah: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran, 1425 AH / 2004 CE.

20. Masāʾil al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal wa-Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh. Isḥāq ibn Manṣūr ibn Bahrām, Abū Yaʿqūb al-Marwazī, known as al-Kawsaj (d. 251 AH). ʿImādat al-Baḥth al-ʿIlmī, al-Jāmiʿah al-Islāmiyyah, Madinah, Saudi Arabia, 1st ed., 1425 AH / 2002 CE.

21. Musājala ʿIlmiyya Ḥawla Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib. Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī and Muḥammad Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh. Al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 2nd ed., 1405 AH.

22. Qawāʿid al-Aḥkām fī Maṣāliḥ al-Anām. ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd al-Salām al-Sulamī (d. 660 AH). Reviewed by Ṭāhā ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Saʿd. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azharīyah.

23. Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa-ʿUmdat al-Muftīn. Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH). Edited by the Research and Verification Department at al-Maktab al-Islāmī in Damascus, supervised by Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh (d. 1434 AH). 3rd ed. Beirut-Damascus-Amman: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1412 AH / 1991 CE.

1    Iḥkām al-Aḥkām Sharḥ ʿUmdat al-Aḥkām, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, 1:201.2    Al-Muṭliʿ, Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Fatḥ al-Baʿlī, p. 406.3    Qawāʿid al-Aḥkām, Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām, 2:204.4    Al-Muṭliʿ, Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Fatḥ al-Baʿlī, p. 406.5    Al-Radd ʿalā al-Shādhilī, Ibn Taymiyyah, 1:14.6     Al-Madkhal, Ibn al-Ḥājj, 4:277.7    Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-al-Ḥikam, Ibn Rajab, 2:131.8    Al-Iʿtiṣām, al-Shāṭibī, 1:50.9    Al-Iʿtiṣām, al-Shāṭibī, 1:367.10    Iḥkām al-Aḥkām Sharḥ ʿUmdat al-Aḥkām, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, 1:201.11    Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-al-Ḥikam, Ibn Rajab, 2:128.12    Kashf al-Mushkil min Ḥadīth al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, Ibn al-Jawzī, 1:116.13    Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, 10:370.14    Madārij al-Sālikīn, Ibn al-Qayyim, 2:78.15    Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ, Abū Nuʿaym, 9:181.16    Al-Furūq, al-Qarāfī, 4:218.17    Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, Ibn al-ʿArabī, 3:432.18    Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, 26:172.19    Al-Radd ʿalā al-Shādhilī, Ibn Taymiyyah, 1:14.20    Al-Madkhal, Ibn al-Ḥājj, 4:278.21    Al-Iʿtiṣām, al-Shāṭibī, 1:318.22    Masāʾil al-Imām Aḥmad wa-Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh, al-Kawsaj, 9:4879.23    Al-Furūʿ and Taṣḥīḥ al-Furūʿ, Ibn Mufliḥ and al-Mardāwī, 2:385.24    Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, 22:520.25    Al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5:344.26     Al-Madkhal, Ibn al-Ḥājj, 1:96.27    Barīqah Maḥmūdiyyah, al-Khādimī, 3:269.28    Fatāwā al-Nawawī, p. 57.29    Musājala ʿIlmiyya Ḥawla Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib, al-Albānī and al-Shāwīsh, 1:37.30    Al-Madkhal, Ibn al-Ḥājj, 4:260.31    Musājala ʿIlmiyya Ḥawla Ṣalāt al-Raghāʾib, al-Albānī and al-Shāwīsh, 1:41.32    Iḥkām al-Aḥkām Sharḥ ʿUmdat al-Aḥkām, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd, 1:201.33    Fatḥ al-Bārī, Ibn Ḥajar, 2:394.34    Al-Furūq, al-Qarāfī, 4:218.35    Al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, al-Nawawī, 3:356.36    Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, 4:425.37    Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, al-Kāsānī, 1:204.38    Al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, al-Nawawī, 1:440.39    Al-Madkhal, Ibn al-Ḥājj, 2:250.40    Al-Iʿtiṣām, al-Shāṭibī, 1:64.41    Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa-ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, al-Nawawī, 10:219.42    Al-ʿIqd al-Farīd, Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, 2:288.43    Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah, 28:212.

The post Beyond Polarization: An Attempt at Impartial Discussion on the Concept and Rulings of Religious Innovation appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

‘Illegal’ among words most often linked to migrants in UK politics, report finds

The Guardian World news: Islam - 31 January, 2025 - 12:00

Exclusive: Language during debates reinforces view of migration as inherently unlawful, says Runnymede Trust

The word “illegal” has been one of the terms most strongly associated with migrants in UK parliamentary debates over the past 25 years, research has found.

Findings from the Runnymede Trust, published on Friday, examine how politicians and the media have portrayed migrants, refugees and Muslims in their discourse.

Continue reading...

Pages