It has come to my attention that some mosques and scholars have bandied together to investigate the current prayer times in the UK and decided that the current ones are wrong.

They have used their "new research" and come out with new salaah time tables.

The timetables have fajr time starting at 1am for this time of year. Which sounds odd to me (almost 4 hours of fajr time?).

Apart from releasing the new time tables which some mosques have adopted there does not seem to be any literature out there of the methodology they have used and how they got to the calculations they did.

Anyone know more?

Imagine a person who manufactured two models of a certain item. Model 'A' has much more features than model 'B'. The reasons for him doing so are obviously known best by him. Being the inventor, he will specify the exact usage and benefits of model 'A' and model 'B'.

Likewise, Allah Ta'ala created man and woman, both in different capacities. He sent a kitab explaining the different roles and functions of each one. The reason for doing so is known best by Allah, The Supreme, Perfect and Most wise, and none has the authority to question His decision.

HONOUR

Both man and woman are equal with regard to respect, honour, reward etc. In fact, Islam has given women such an honour, that an entire chapter of the Holy Quran has been dedicated to them. Not only did Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) intercede on their behalf, even Almighty Allah Ta'ala Himself has commanded men to be kind to them. In fact, Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has declared: "The best among you is the one who is best to his wife".

DIFFERENCE

However, it is a reality that men and women are not identical. There definitely exists a difference between them. One possible reason for such a difference is to enable a harmonious, loving and lasting bond between husband and wife. Had both been identical in every respect, this would be an impossible task. This difference is not only restricted to a man and woman. Rather in every sphere of life; be it wealth, power, respect etc. there always exists a difference between people. This is the divine wisdom of Allah Ta'ala. Otherwise, there would have been total mayhem and confusion in the world.

DESTRUCTION

Indeed, it is due to having disregarded the separate roles of men and women that Europe, America and other westernised countries are witnessing the destruction of their societies. Broken families, abandoned children, single parents, morally deprived children, suicides are all a direct result of the man-made concoction of 'gender equality'. What our creator; Almighty and All Wise Allah Ta'ala had designed to be a harmonious pair, has been reduced to two equal counterparts, both fighting for dominance, with the children bearing the brunt of the fight and the woman often becoming a mental wreck in the process.

FARCE

When the differences between man and woman are as evident as broad daylight, the advocators of women liberation are only fooling themselves. Which professional sports team in the entire world has half males and half females? Which army in the world has exactly the same number of women as men fighting in the front line of the battlefield? Have we ever wondered why there never was a boxing or wrestling match where a man contested a woman? Why is it considered chivalrous for a man to open the door for his wife and not vice versa? The list of examples can go on... All the above clearly 'shouts out' that, "Gender equality is a farce!"

LIBERATION?

In Western society it is regarded as cruel and unjust for a woman to be left at home to take care of household chores. To prepare meals for her husband and children is regarded as something 'against equality'. To clean the house is slavery. Funny enough, the champions of this so called 'liberation' have absolved women from these acts of slavery, only to enslave them into cooking and serving food in restaurants, as air hostesses on aircrafts and as cleaners in hotels. That woman who was the Queen of her home, is dragged out of her home, undressed, made to slog, forced to put up with dirty looks and advances and compelled to tolerate many other injustices just to fill the pockets of her employer in the name of liberation? According to statistics, the majority of working women in the United States have been harassed by their male bosses. Is this any kind of liberation???

EVILS

Let us take a cursory glance at some of the evils that the fallacy of gender equality has bred:

1.Instead of improving the quality of life for women, it has only turned life into a misery for them. Added responsibilities, extended working hours, abuse, etc. has made their life chaotic.

2.Broken marriages: Countless marriages have broken down or are on the verge of breaking down. While there are many reasons for the escalating rate of divorce, a major contributing factor is the unnatural situation brought about by the notion of gender equality.

3.Delinquent children: Since both parents no longer have any time for their children, they have no direction, system or values in life.

4.Harassment and rape.

5.Total destruction of society: Individuals make up a society. The "gender equality" farce has led to various social ills, among which is the degeneration of morals. Once morals are completely eroded, the society is destroyed.

SUPPORT

No matter how educated or affluent a woman may be, she still requires the support of a man. This is the system of Allah Ta'ala. Allah Ta'ala says in the Quran, "They (your wives) are an outer garment for you and you are an outer garment, (a covering) for them". Just as a man needs a woman for his comfort and solace, similarly every woman is dependant upon and requires the support of a man. This is also necessitated by the fact that a woman is weaker than a man.

THE BEAUTY OF ISLAM

Our Deen is not the invention of any human. It is Divine. Therefore, every injunction is perfect and complete. It is absolutely flawless. The commands are in perfect harmony with the nature of man. As long as they are adhered to, there will be no problems of this nature. Let us examine the conditions of society prior to the forged farce of gender equality. Every woman was happy and living a comfortable life. Their respect was not at stake. They were not reduced to commercial advertising material or public property, free to every person. Children grew up healthy and with good values. Society consisted of good, upright and honest people. Marriages breaking up were almost not heard of. Even among non Muslims, fornication was frowned upon. In our beautiful Deen, in many cases, women are at an advantage compared to men. Many deeds are such, that women receive equal reward compared to men, but with much lesser effort. However, Allah Ta'ala has divinely granted men authority over them. Together with that, Allah Ta'ala himself has instructed men to treat them kindly. Allah Ta'ala declares: "And men enjoy a superiority over women". In another verse, Allah Ta'ala says, "Men have been given authority over women". It is impossible that Allah Ta'ala and our kind, compassionate Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) would give any command which is unfair and unjust.

Source: Al-haadi

When television was introduced in the middle of the 20th century, it caused unprecedented upheavals in the society, changing moral norms and corrupting social structures. After watching the destruction caused by the glamorous new toy in their societies for decades, and the apparently unstoppable momentum with which it surged forth, many concerned Muslims decided to do something about it; in increasing numbers they wanted to use it to promote Islamic teachings. This decision was based on the assumption that television is just a tool that can be used equally in the service of good or evil. It was further deduced that the problems caused by television were caused solely because it was in the wrong hands and the only thing needed to counter those problems was to have more broadcast power in the right hands. With television signals potentially reaching millions of people, such vast numbers could be educated as had never been possible before.

No Reflection

However, apart from the fact that television involves pictures which are forbidden in Islam, they did not realise the evil that lies within the television as a medium. The medium itself becomes the message. On television, the picture is the centerpiece. It dominates and controls the entire communication and everything else is subordinate to it. Little regard is given to the theory that is presented. Before you can begin to think deeply about an idea, there is another eye-catching picture on the screen to distract you. Thus television does not only not require reflection; it does not even permit it. It can bring images into our heart, not ideas into our mind. Therefore, it appeals to the emotions and not the intellect and is not the medium to teach concepts based on arguments. Television will not just communicate, but shape and distort the message it is carrying. It will mold it in its own image. By moving the religious discourse to the world of entertainment, it will make religious authority irrelevant.

Entertainment

Furthermore, the challenge in captivating the audience on a program on T.V. is far greater as more entertaining programs are just a tap away. Hence, to succeed in building and holding a large audience, there is a need to constantly attract people through eye-catching visuals and entertaining programs. If a camera is placed in front of a scholar engaged in some serious discourse, it is highly unlikely for such a program to have mass appeal. As a result, gradually even religion becomes a recreational pursuit. In short, the entertainment becomes the concern and not the message that should be conveyed.

Christianity and TV

Let us look at how television has affected the Christian world. Decades before us, the Christians also came up with the same idea of using the television to promote their religion. According to Christian critics it was not the promotion of Christianity as it was known before the advent of television. Instead, the audiences were attracted and held though the lure of entertainment. The effect was that people started expecting entertainment everywhere; in churches, preachers or anywhere else. In short, as Neil Postman would say, it was not that religion became the content of television but that television shows were becoming the content of religion.

Islamic TV

If we examine the ‘Islamic TV Channels’ that have evolved over the past few years, we will find exactly the same results. Their aim is to provide entertainment and to shun all serious talk. They provide a seamless connection to the usual programs on TV. This is because the medium itself has certain properties whose impact on the audience is the same, irrespective of the nature of the content displayed. What is more is that presenters who are totally ignorant of the teachings of Islam pass rulings according to their own whims and desires. Whatever judgement they pass is accepted by their audience because they have already charmed them with their personalities and charisma. There is no need to refer to any scholar for any ruling. In fact, Allah Ta`ala forbid, some of the basic beliefs of a Muslim are challenged.

Debates

As far as television is concerned, every topic is debatable. Or else it is not televisable. Controversies and exchanges enliven a program and serious talks drive away viewers. Therefore even the most fundamental and agreed upon principles, such as beliefs, etc, have to be opened up to debates.

The Result

The result of using television to preach our Deen will be that eventually `Aalims and Muftis will be replaced by actor `Aalims and Muftis. Instead of teaching people their religion, entertainment will be promoted. Fundamental issues will be compromised and subject to debate. People will be accustomed to entertainment and will begin searching for it in every aspect of Deen. Their ability to reflect will be lost. Very easily their emotions will be aroused.

The Way Forward?

It is evident from the foregoing that using the television to promote Islam is fraught with dangers. The entire essence of Deen is at stake. Therefore, it is not possible to use the television without causing great damage to the Deen of the onlookers. Thus, the way forward would be to go back to the original mediums of teaching Deen. In this there is protection as it is a tried and tested method of conveying Deen. People should be encouraged NOT to watch television, instead of trying to teach them through television.

(Adapted from an article written by Khalid Baig)

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p92QfWOw88I]

As a person who is generally not a fan of Microsoft, I must say that all that looks interesting.

It is a merging of the Windows Phone 7 UI with WIndows proper and could have interesting results.

The Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence (madhabs) were formed over a thousand years ago at a time when shari’ah (Islamic law) was practised and Islamic legal theory flourished. It was during this period that jurisprudence took shape as an Islamic science, flourishing as discussion and debate on controversial juristic issues became widespread.

With scholars spread throughout the Islamic lands, individual jurists would attempt to deal with the array of new customs and problems found in their own respective regions. As is inevitable, certain scholars would come to prominence, their knowledge illuminating others as well as setting a yardstick for jurists to come. Consequently, the reputation of certain jurists (fuqaha) would attract students, not only from that specific region but from across the Islamic world. Furthermore, scholars in agreement with the principles of the jurist would also join him so as to create a legal paradigm, this being the starting point for the formulation of the Schools of Thought. As the Schools multiplied, various juristic manuals were compiled, many a time the opinions of the jurist was noted and recorded by his students. Across the Islamic empire a number of scholars were renowned for their grasp of Islamic law and theological understanding, jurists such as Malik ibn Anas, Al Awza’i, Al Laith ibn Sa’d, Sufyan Al Thawri, and Abu Hanifah. Later generations included Muhammad ibn Hasan Al Shaibani, Abu Yusuf, Ibn Al Qasim, Al Shafi’i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

The schools of the early jurists came to be powerful institutions enriching the Islamic legal system providing it with many functions, one of these being the ability to deal with unprecedented issues from various angles allowing future jurists to deal with any given issue comprehensively regardless of time or place. However, a brief look into the history of the Schools of law clearly demonstrates that there have been periods in Islamic history where key protagonists belonging to various schools would instigate negative partisanship viewing the schools as ends in themselves rather than merely as a means to understand the Islamic sources of authority. As a result of this distorted outlook, the schools subsequently became institutions of disunity which in turn led to the stagnation of the Muslim ummah (nation) as the development of Islamic thought and law had now become nearly non-existent. This rigid view of the schools of thought led to many adherents viewing other schools with suspicion and reproach, and thus, the mutual understanding and open-mindedness that once existed in the formulative years had now been lost.

In contemporary times, such rigidity has continued whereby adherents of a school of law continue to treat others with suspicion even when there is a legitimate difference of opinion. This is seen no more so than in the staunch opposition found directed by the Madhabis (those who remain ardent in strictly adhering to one school of thought) towards the Salafis, viewing them with contempt although in reality there exists no grounds for doing so. Similarly, there are Salafis who incorrectly claim that the Hanafis have relegated the Qur’an and Sunnah below the sayings of Abu Hanifah – something which clearly demonstrates the Salafis’ ignorance. The Madhabis have advocated a strict adherence to one school of Islamic law. The salafis on the other hand have tended to not to focus on schools of thought, but the sources of Islamic authority themselves. Misunderstandings on both sides have led to a sustained conflict between Salafism and Madhabism which is continuously exacerbated by ignorance, arrogance and insincerity.

This article is merely an attempt to bring about discussion between Salafis and Madhabis with the intention to instigate mutual understanding, unity, and the revival of Islamic thought.

We note firstly that both sides use terminology sparingly without the slightest inclination as to what these terms actually mean. Over time the usage of words tend to warp their meanings and we come to the point where two people use the same term yet argue two very different things. Thus it is clearly apparent that there needs to be some clarification as to the definitions of Salafism and Madhabism, whereby many disagreements take place due to ignorance of their defining characteristics. Aristotle once said, “How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms.”

The most widespread school of thought in the world today is that of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him). The majority of British Muslims are also Hanafis given that most have a South Asian origin and South Asians are predominantly Hanafi. Yet, the term ‘Hanafi’ proves to be allusive for many of those who ascribe themselves as such, since adherence to the Hanafi School of law can be in many different ways and its ambiguity raises the question as to whether ‘following’ Abu Hanifah’s jurisprudence means to adhere to the end result of his evidence-based reasoning (ijhtihad), or the actual methodology (usul) by which he arrived at a particular outcome.

In the same way, many Salafis are not entirely clear as to what Salafism entails, assuming that it is simply to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah – a problematic definition since it implies that others do not. There are none who claim that Abu Hanifah or any other great Imam for that matter did not adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah - he (may Allah have mercy on him) was one of the four major Imams who have been accepted by the ummah. Thus, it is preposterous to assert, or even imply for that matter, that he disregarded the Islamic sources of Law, and likewise, it is also incorrect to claim that his understanding of Islam had detracted from the way of the Companions. Scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al Qayyim who are widely accepted as having been major proponents of Salafism often quoted and endorsed many views of Abu Hanifah. Ibn Taymiyyah stated that many a time he would ask his opponents to prove whether he had ever contradicted the way and views of the first three generations of Muslims (which Abu Hanifah belonged to). Furthermore, Saudi Arabian scholars are characterised by many as the archetypal Salafis, yet they too endorse many distinctive opinions of Imam Abu Hanifah as they do other Imams. In fact, there is no single genuine Salafi who rejects the four schools of thought.

In examining the methodology of all the great Imams and scholars, we may conclude that they all had the same approach which can be summarised as follows:

1. They consider the Qur’an and Sunnah as the eternal and infallible sources of legislation.
2. They refer to Arabic language as the main tool to interpret the texts of legislation.
3. They accept the consensus of the Ummah as binding and therefore they see it as a source of legislation.
4. They strive to follow the truth insofar as they are able to.

There are a number of statements where the four Imams clearly state that in the case of incongruity between their opinions and a hadith, the hadith should always take precedence. A key Quranic instruction is the verse,

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.”[1]

Problems have occurred when both Madhabis and Salafis blindly and fanatically adhere to the injunctions of their respective Imams without considering the methodology that accompanies them. Consideration of these fundamental principles, the foundations upon which each Imam built his conclusion, should not be ignored. To illustrate this, we find that great scholars within each school would adopt opinions different to those of their respective Imams. For instance, Imam Abu Yusuf, one of the main students of Imam Abu Hanifah, opined as his teacher did with regards to the permissibility of trading in trusts/endowments (waqf). However, when he visited Madinah, Ismail ibn Ulayyah narrated to him that Umar ibn Al Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) gave away his shares in Khaibar (which were part of a trust/endowment) as charity and never sold them. Imam Abu Yusuf altered his position and said, ‘Had Imam Abu Hanifah known of this, he would have adopted it’.

Another example is taken from the great Maliki scholar Ibn Abd Al Barr (368- 463) who stated that Zakah is obligatory on figs although Imam Malik in the Muwatta’ considered it non-applicable as it did not fit his definition of a commodity upon which Zakat is due. Ibn Abd Al Barr said, “Had Imam Malik known that figs can be stored without being spoilt, he would have declared Zakat obligatory on it.”[2] Examples of this nature are numerous and the underlying principle is that true adherence to a school is where one follows the methodology and approach of his Imam rather than merely following each verdict as an isolated ruling. Some may argue that it is impractical for the laity to understand the principles by which the Imam of a school of thought derived his opinions. The response to this is to point out that the matter is not for the laity to study and understand the detailed principles in Islamic Law, but instead for them to be open-minded and possess the flexibility that allows them to adopt other opinions once they are satisfied that it is closest to the truth (while remaining tolerant of other orthodox views). However, those who study Islamic law can, to a certain extent, understand the origins of the legal opinion and the method by which it was derived, and thus will be held accountable by Allah accordingly.

It should also be emphasised that following a particular school does not free a person from putting any effort to follow the truth that has been revealed by Allah the Most High. Allah will not hold people accountable for their lack of adherence to a specific school, but rather for their identification of the correct ruling in any particular matter. Therefore, once an adherent of a school of thought becomes aware of another opinion in opposition to the one adopted by their school of thought, they have been afforded a good enough grounds to investigate further - it is incorrect for anyone to assume that they are not obliged to investigate merely because the opinion does not source from their school.

In conclusion, it is perfectly possible for a Hanafi to ascribe to Salafism whilst a Salafi may be an adherent of a school of thought being convinced of its methodology. To be a Hanafi is to ascribe to a certain understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah, whereas Salafism is to ascribe to an Islamic methodology and outlook, namely that of the earliest generations of Islam. There is no contradiction between the two since they are not in the same category. One is to follow an interpretation of the Islamic sources of authority – fiqh; and the other is to have a distinguished manner by which to practise one’s faith and approach its different aspects - manhaj. Once this is understood, we can call for a revival of the relationship between adherents of the various schools whereby they should strive to follow the same methodology of their Imams. There also needs to be an endeavour where those who attribute themselves to Salafism need to understand what truly is blameworthy when it comes to following Schools of Thought.

Furthermore, we should not limit Salafism to a method of deriving Islamic law, but instead as a way by which to follow the early generations in all aspects of the faith such as believing in and preserving the Orthodox Islamic creed (aqidah), worshipping Allah, keeping away from sins, maintaining morals and etiquettes, and implementing Islamic rules of engagement with Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It is up to us to achieve a breakthrough in uniting Muslims, something which will undoubtedly ensure a lasting revival since we learn from history that the recovery of a nation is preceded by a revitalisation in its thoughts and ideas. Likewise, such a revival equips the ummah with the necessary tools to free its thinking from narrow-mindedness, partisanship, shallowness, ignorance, and an inferiority complex. Allah says,

“And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren - you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His signs clear to you, that you may be guided.”[3]

[1] Quran 4:59
[2] See: Tafsir Al Qurtubi (Al Jami’ li Ahkam Al Qur’an); surah Al Ma’idah, verse 141.
[3] Qur’an 3:103

So, My very anti theist, especially anti Islamic friend emailed me this hadith and asked what I 'thought' of it and how I reconciled it with modern thought cos it seems impossible, and I can't so can someone else.

Or tell me it's not authentic or something.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

How can you be extreme when practising Islam?

How can you be moderate?

Which is better? and when?

Does the 'middle path' have space for 'extremism'?

Guess you'll have to define what you mean by the terms first.

There's about 35 days left till Ramadhan so I think it's time to get reflective 😃

I like to use Ramadhan as a chance to 'revitalise' my spiritual side and just improve myself but I need to know what and how I am going to improve, so time to start thinking now.

I think I should have aims/targets and make some sort of plan for it.

E.g the minimum amount of Qur'an I'm going to read, what kind of stuff I need/want to brush my knowledge on etc.

So yeah.

If you don't feel its too personal or just think your ideas may help others then this thread can be used to write down what sorta stuff you're thinking of doing etc 🙂

World has been facing terrorism in its worst forms whether it’s World Trade Centre or killing innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Death of Osama Bin Laden who was thought to be the face of global terrorism is either a hope of peace or an ignition to a new wave of terrorism. Would the world become a peaceful heaven after him or more threats of furious terrorist attacks are there? Past is always lost, but lessons learned from past guide for a better future. This is the need of the hour.For more details please visit the site below:

http://www.quranreading.com/blog/islamic-news/osama-is-dead-peace-missi…

Gary Smith, 38, was beaten as he walked to Central Foundation Girls' School in Bow, east London, last July.

The gang left him unconscious after attacking him with a metal rod and a brick, Snaresbrook Crown Court heard.

Read whole story here

This teacher is a GREAt teacher and these guys are NOOBS. of the lowest degree.

they dont even have coherent reasons for what they've done.

and how is that a fair fight?!
how dare them try and kill him?
a brick and a metal rod?! dont they have lives?!
and how dare them say " he shouldnt teach Islam he's not Muslim" dude, if YA are out there beating up people, who is at school teaching Islam? :roll:

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

May Allah guide them back to the Straight Path. and show them their wrong.
and May Allah guide this teacher to Islam too, coz he's so cool.