Diary of a Muslim

I apologize. I will make du’a for your mother, Inshaa Allah. May Allah give you and your family ease.

"Anyone who turns away from my Sunnah is not one of my (followers)." 

Moreover, even though Niqab is Wajib (obligatory, based on a speculative text), it is known that Fard is the same as Wajib according to the Four Schools of Jurisprudence, except for that of Imam Malik who maintained that Wajib comes in intermediate status between Fard and Nafilah (supererogatory). Kindly give us your Fatwa in this regard. If wearing Niqab is Fard, how can this girl abide by that obligation, while her father threatens to pull her Niqab off in public if he sees her wearing it. He takes this attitude because he thinks that wearing Niqab will jeopardize the girl's brothers.

A: It should be known that obedience to parents is obligatory provided that what they request is reasonable and approved by the Shari`ah (Islamic law). If obedience to parents leads to committing sins, then there should be no obedience to them. It is authentically reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

"Truly, obedience is only in what is good."

Therefore, the girl should stick to wearing the Niqab, and try to convince her parents by explaining the legal ruling, without being bothered by their threats. Furthermore, she should always seek Allah's Help and the help of the pious relatives within the family who can advise them, so that Allah may benefit them with such advice.

May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.

Wa'alaykum asalam. 

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said: 

This label is wrong with regard to wording, and with regard to the meaning. 

With regard to wording, that is because the da’wah is not being attributed to the one who started it, namely Shaykh Muhammad, rather it is being attributed to ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, who had nothing to do with it. The proper name for it would be al-Da’wah al-Muhammadiyyah (“the Muhammadan call”).  

But these opponents realized that this would be a good name that would not put anyone off, so they changed it to this distorted name. 

With regard to the meaning, that is because this da’wah did not drift away from the way of the righteous salaf, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and their followers. So it should rightly be called the Salafi da’wah, because the one who founded it did not introduce any innovation in that which was named after him, as the promoters of misguided sects such as the Ismailis and Qarmatiyyah introduced innovations. If those misguided sects had called themselves salafis, the people and the historical record would have rejected this name, because they are outside the path of the salaf and were introduced by their founders. 

The correct name, both in wording and meaning, for the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab is the Muhammadan da’wah or the Salafi da’wah. 

But because this name annoys the enemies, they used an incorrect name. Therefore the word Wahhaabi was not known among the followers of the Shaykh, and it is their opponents who gave them this offensive nickname. Indeed, they gave this name to everyone who follows the way of the salaf, even in India, Egypt, Africa and elsewhere. By giving it this label, its opponents wanted to isolate the da’wah from the right path. So they excluded it from the four madhhabs and counted it as a fifth madhhab, “out of envy from their ownselves, even after the truth has become manifest unto them” (al-Baqarah 2:109).

Relying on the Holy Qur’aan and the saheeh Sunnah as the primary sources of legislation.

Keenness to adhere to the way of the righteous Salaf, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi’een, the four imams and those who followed them.

Calling people to Tawheed and rejection of shirk.

Affirming that which Allah has affirmed for Himself and denying that which He has denied for Himself with regard to the divine names and attributes.

Rejection of fanaticism in following imams and calling for adherence to the truth based on evidence.

65 million years ago: Humankind roamed around, practically naked.

So

EID MUBARAK guys.

Shaykh Muhammad al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Cutting anything from the beard goes against the command of the Prophet(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said: “Leave the beard alone”, “Let the beard grow,” etc. Whoever wants to follow the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and follow his teaching should not remove anything from his beard at all, because the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is that nothing should be removed from the beard. This was also the way of the Prophets before him. 

Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 11/126. 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Whoever quotes the action of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) to show that he used to cut whatever of his beard was longer than the “handful” during Hajj cannot use this as evidence, because this is ijtihaad on the part of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), and proof is to be found in reports (from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)), not from ijtihaad. The scholars (may Allaah have mercy on them) clearly stated that the reports from the Sahaabah and those who came after them that are proven to be sound are what constitute evidence and proof, and they take precedence over any opinion if it goes against the Sunnah.  

Fataawa wa Maqaalaat al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 8/370. 

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Qaasim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Some scholars granted a concession allowing removal of whatever is longer than the “handful”, based on the actions of Ibn ‘Umar, but most of the scholars regard that as makrooh. This is more correct, for the reasons stated above. Al-Nawawi said: The preferred view is that the beard should be left as it is and should not be shortened in any way at all… and it says inal-Durr al-Mukhtaar: with regard to cutting it any shorter than the “handful”, no one said that this is permissible.