This blog contains commentary on current events from a Muslim perspective, original translations of Islamic texts, research into various topics related to Hadith, Tafsir, Fiqh and other sciences, as well as issues dealing with Aqidah.
I look forward to sharing with everyone, and reading your comments.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله
As-Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatu Llahi,
I noticed that doubts keep being raised and judgments keep getting delivered by someone who claims to be a student of knowledge, yet they don’t show the requisite fear of speaking without knowledge and delivering verdicts without the necessary qualifications.
A person’s fear in delivering verdicts should be towards Allah and not the creation. And that fear is evident when you find them adhering to scholarly precedents and when they avoid offering their own opinion on matters.
So once again I find myself compelled to respond and In Sha’ Allah, this will be the last effort I make to clarify the confusion that this brother, Nazeelu Chinguetti, has fallen into and is dragging others into along with him.
1) Another point I want to add is that Uthman also rejected this and said it didn’t occur in the lifetime of Rasulullah.
Ibn Ḥajar mentions the view of `Uthmān RA in his Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr without a chain and attributes it to the `Iraqīyūn. Without an ‘Isnād it’s not possible to ascertain the strength or weakness of the report. Please bring forward a chain of narration if you want this to serve as evidence, since you yourself criticize evidence submitted from historical records.
2) Abu Dawud also said that there are narrations in this topic but nothing is authentic from it! And Ibn Hajr mentioned the statement of Abu Dawud to refute the narration that Ali carried the head of Mirhab the Jewish warrior to Rasulullah.
That’s fine, however it’s your opinion of the intention of the author. The point is to stick to the understanding of the scholars and they discussed this matter thoroughly.
An-Nawawī, ar-Rāfi’ī, aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Juwaynī and Ibn al-Mulqin all discussed it in depth and the result was that they held the transport of heads to be permissible. Also, it appears that Ibn ‘Abī Shaybah and al-Bayhaqī held it to be permissible as well. In fact any scholar who discussed the matter in depth appears to have permitted the transport of heads, although some placed conditions on it based on their understanding of the reports, for example, they understood the objection of ‘Abū Bakr to be related to transporting heads or cadavers of polytheists to Madīnah. Some of them mentioned that there should be some Maṣlaḥah in it.
You have yet to produce a single scholar saying that it is Ḥarām. Yet you keep repeating it. Doesn’t that concern you? It should concern readers.
Here’s what Ibn al-Mulqin said after quoting ‘Abū Dāwud’s statement about the lack of authenticity in the reports:
I [Ibn al-Mulqin] say: As for the famous Ḥadīth in an-Nasā’ī and other collections, from Abd Allah bin Fayrūz ad-Daylamī, on authority of his father: ‘I came to the Prophet SAWS with the head of al-‘Aswad al-`Ansī’, then its transmitter Ḍamrah is trustworthy, however he is not corroborated in it.
Al-Ḥākim ‘Abū ‘Aḥmad said in al-Kunā: ‘He is mistaken from two perspectives- 1) He AS mentioned the rebellion of al-`Ansī from Ṣan`ā’ and Musaylimah from Yamāmah after him, not in his lifetime; 2) Al-‘Aswad bin Ka`b al-`Ansī was killed in 11AH in the time of ‘Abū Bakr and Fayrūz ad-Daylamī killed him’.
Ibn al-Qaṭṭān disagreed and said: ‘Its narrators are all trustworthy and it is not said that Ḍamrah is not corroborated in it, for indeed he is trustworthy. With regards to his being unique in reporting it, then it is Gharīb.
As for the statement of `Abd al-Ḥaqq right after this Ḥadīth, saying that the report of the killing of al-‘Aswad did not come until after the death of the Messenger of Allah SAWS, then it is not correct. The historians said it on the basis that there is no text saying that he actually met the Messenger of Allah SAWS, rather it is possible that it means that he came with [the head] to the Messenger of Allah SAWS setting out to reach him and surprise him with the glad tidings of the conquest, then the Messenger of Allah SAWS happened to die [before he reached him]. [Al-Badr al-Munīr 9/109]
And this is btw a good example of how scholars of Sirah oppose the scholars of Hadith! Many scholars of Sirah narrate that it wasn’t Ali who killed Mirhab but rather if was Muhammad Ibn Maslamah and there’s other opinions as well among them while Muslim and others narrated that it was Ali!
That’s why it’s important to rely on the views of scholars and not try to reach our own conclusions. Even if we can get to the bottom of historical events which do not have any primary texts which discuss them, we can at least rely on scholars to put each element of evidence in its proper perspective. They bring to bear their knowledge of history, Ḥadīth, Uṣūl and Fiqh to determine a Ḥukm. Your attempts at flexing your muscles in those areas appears to be amateur at best.
The incident of Mirhab is mentioned in authentic narrations without the addition of ‘he went the head’ and the narration that adds it doesn’t equal the other one in strength while all of Sahabah didn’t object to Abu Bakr’s Inkar on this and therefore it’s weakened by these Qara’in.
That’s fine, however Ibn Ḥajar declared the narration of Ibn ‘Abī ‘Awfā’ to be Ḥasan, and it mentions the head of ‘Abū Jahl being brought to him SAWS. As for ‘Abū Bakr’s rejection of the head brought to him, then you have yet to address the reason for his rejection. If there are Qarā’in which indicate his rejection was due to the head being brought to Madīnah as some scholars suggest, then you have to submit that it is possible.
3) al-Sha’bi also denied that any head was carried to Rasulullah.
What does this prove except ash-Sha`bī was not aware of any authentic narration on the matter, just like az-Zuhrī?
4) This in an action that didn’t occur in the lifetime of Rasulullah but since people started doing it in the time of Sahabah and Tabi’in they rejected this action. This is why we see Abu Bakr, Uthman, al-Zuhri and others rejecting it.
You have made a judgment of ‘weakness’ on narrations that scholars consider authentic/fair. That does not give you the right to declare that something did or did not occur in the lifetime of the Prophet SAWS based on your own judgment. This is not the behavior of a student of knowledge. Scholars have authenticated narrations which indicate heads were brought to the Prophet SAWS, among them Ibn Hajar and al-‘Albani. The most you can do or say is that you adhere to the views of other scholars on those narrations, but you have yet to bring those scholars forward.
Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī made the argument that all the commanders of the armies and Companions RA who were in ash-Shām when the head of Yannāq was sent to ‘Abū Bakr RA agreed on doing so. ‘Abū Bakr RA used his ‘Ijtihād and they used theirs. The Companions RA also did not object when a head was sent to Ibn az-Zubayr RA. You named az-Zuhrī and ash-Sha’bī from the Tābi’īn, however there were far more Companions RA whose agreement is implied in dispatching the head to ‘Abū Bakr RA and far more Tābi’īn whose agreement is implied by not rejecting the head being sent to Ibn az-Zubayr RA.
Please stop making a fool of yourself in the areas of Usul, Fiqh and Hadith, In Sha’ Allah. And stick to the views of qualified scholarship instead of inventing your own.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله
As-Salāmu `Alaykum wa Raḥmatu Llahi,
In what has become somewhat of a small series of articles on the subject, this latest and perhaps final entry is in order to present to readers a succinct and complete discussion on the topic of transporting and displaying the severed heads of Disbelievers from a well-known and respected early scholar of Islam.
As mentioned elsewhere, these articles are intended only to convey the general legality of a matter as viewed through the Sharī`ah of Islam, without regard for what current international or man-made laws dictate. These articles are also not intended as legal or religious verdicts on any recent acts that may resemble the content therein. As with all statements and actions for which a legal verdict is sought, details and circumstances must be verified and confirmed, and the correctness of a verdict is proportionate to the extent an act or statement in question is verified and verifiable.
As with any and all quotes from scholars dealing with Islamic law, please be responsible in sharing and citing them, ‘In Shā’ Allah. It has become a trend in the past few days to find unscrupulous individuals continuing to chop up quotes and present them to others with gross misunderstandings and reckless conclusions drawn as a result.
Here is the translation of the entire chapter dealing with the transport and display of severed heads from the book ‘Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār’:
As with any and all translations, if any mistakes are found please let me know.
The Ikhwani Awakening resident ‘student of knowledge’ – ‘Nazeelu Chinguetti’ states:
“Secondly, some IS soldiers have beheaded other Mujahidin in Syria by hitting the throat and then cutting which is called Nahr in Arabic and it’s Haram to slaughter a sheep and goat in this way according to Malikis and Makruh according to other scholars! As for camels and giraffes then they are slaughtered by Nahr.”
Really? These are the kinds of results expected when those who are unqualified attempt to invent their own analogies in Fiqh.
Not that I would want to indulge this character, however, for argument’s sake, let us follow the above logic to its conclusion and verify what scholars have said on the topic.
Below one can read for themselves how several scholars held that slaughter by Naḥr is permissible. Let me say that I do not agree or disagree with drawing an analogy between beheading people and slaughtering animals for consumption.
Ḥanābilah
“Slaughter is permissible with anything sharpened whether of iron, stone, reed or other materials except fingernails and teeth; as for bones other than teeth then there are two transmissions; and regarding tools unlawfully acquired two aspects.
What is complied with regarding slaughter of that which is restrained is to cut the throat, esophagus, and nothing else; and on his authority it is stipulated along with that to cut the jugular artery. The Sunnah is to ‘Naḥr’ the camel and to ‘Dhabḥ’ everything else; if what should be slaughtered by way of ‘Dhabḥ’ is slaughtered by way of ‘Naḥr’ or the reverse, it is permissible. And when the head is separated by the slaughter, it does not become prohibited [to eat]; Abu Bakr related a transmission that it is prohibited.”- end quote
[al-Muḥarrar fīl-Fiqh 2/191 by the grandfather of Ibn Taymīyah, Majd ad-Dīn]
‘Thus Dhabḥ is on the throat and Naḥr is on the upper-chest; and it is the Sunnah to Naḥr camels and to Dhabḥ all other animals; [to do] the reverse is sufficient; and Naḥr is to stab with something sharpened into the upper-chest.’
[Al-‘Iqnā` 4/318 by al-Ḥajāwī]
Mālikīyah
‘Do you not see that if someone does Naḥr of a sheep in its slaughter, it is not eaten by consensus? That is because the slaughter does not take place except by cutting the jugular arteries and the throat, while the Naḥr does not entail that…’
‘And in the book of slaughter in al-Mudawwanah is that the slaughter is not eaten except when the jugular artery and the throat are cut together…’
[Al-Bayān wat-Taḥṣīl 3/309 by Ibn Rushd]
Ḥanafīyah
“So if one slaughters by way of Naḥr what is to be slaughtered by way of Dhabḥ, or [vice-versa], then he has opposed the Sunnah, thus it is disliked, however it is permissible due to the existence of the basis [for permissibility].”
[Ṭilbat aṭ-Ṭalabah 1/104 by an-Nasafī]
Shāfi’īyah
‘…that the weapon strikes its throat, then one has slaughtered it by way of Dhabḥ; or its upper-chest, then one has slaughtered it by way of Naḥr; or its midsection, then separates its innards- then it is permissible to eat.’
[Al-Bayān fī Madh’hab al-‘Imām ash-Shāfi’ī 4/549 by al-`Imrānī]
What is Dhabḥ and Naḥr?
“Our Shaykh said: ‘The issue is that Dhabḥ and Naḥr are synonyms and the correct view is that Dhabḥ is [cutting] the throat and Naḥr is [cutting] the upper-part of the chest [Labbah]- some of the jurists divided it as such’.”
[Tāj al-`Arūs 6/367 by Murtaḍā az-Zubaydī]
‘…because Naḥr is to stab with the tip of the knife at the bottom of the neck, and Dhabḥ is at the end of it next to the head.’
[Gharīb al-Ḥadīth 1/71 by ‘Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī]
‘…and that is when you strike with a knife or similar object in any place [on the body].’
[Al-Miṣbāḥ al-Munīr 2/649 by al-Fayyūmī]
It should be clear that some scholars did permit slaughtering by Naḥr. So the analogy between Naḥr, torture and the alleged prohibition of beheading with a knife is not a legitimate ruling with any precedent. Perhaps this student has tunnel vision because he has mostly studied the Mālikī school and is ignorant of the rulings of the other schools. At the very least, he should study the topic before making sweeping claims in Fiqh.
His next statement is:
“Al-Tamthil includes al-Nahr and al-Dhabh.”
Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī believed that there was Muthlah in crucifying a person while alive [see al-Mabsūṭ 9/196], however as-Sarkhasī argues that the correct view in the Madh’hab is to do so while they’re alive and to leave them for three days. The fact is that there are going to be scholars that agree and disagree about whether there is Muthlah in beheading a person as well.
“Al-Zuhri is a Tabi’i, Muhadith and a Faqih and he determined that no head was ever carried to Rasulullah.”
‘Abū Naḍrah is also a Tābi’ī, Muḥaddith and major scholar of Basrah, and he related a Ḥadīth which stated that two heads were carried to the Prophet SAWS. Also, Ibn ‘Abī ‘Awfā, a Companions RA. narrates that the head of ‘Abū Jahl was transported to the Prophet SAWS.
So what is the relevant principle when we have two Tābi’īn who contradict each other, with one affirming something and another rejecting it?
Ash-Shāfi’ī stated that evidence is equally required for both denying and affirming a ruling. So on the one hand we have az-Zuhrī denying that anyone carried heads to the Prophet SAWS and we have ‘Abū Naḍrah and Ibn ‘Abī ‘Awfā saying that it did happen. The corroborating proofs are that other Companions RA permitted that heads be displayed and in order to counter that, the supporters of az-Zuhrī’s view would have to disprove those incidents or show a narration in which it is prohibited. Also, a lack of knowledge of something is not proof of its non-existence.
“Therefore the incidents of the heads of Abu al-Jahl and Ibn ul-Ashraf are unauthentic! Furthermore this action (carrying the head to another land or to the Wali) itself is considered Haram by al-Malikiyyah at least and Makruh by others!”
Ibn Ḥajar says in his Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr that the Ḥadīth is fair/Hasan. Al-Albani views it as weak. I do not think that a student is going to come along and settle the issue with his keyboard.
No, in fact many of the books of Fiqh mention the matter of transporting and displaying heads, with many scholars saying that it is not Makrūh, rather it is permissible. Ar-Rāfi’ī, aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Juwaynī, an-Nawawī and others state that transporting heads of Disbelievers is allowed or explain the `Illah behind the disapproval of ‘Abū Bakr RA as dealing specifically with Madinah. You are the one who made the analogy between transporting and televising, so by your own analogy they would have approved of that as well.
“And could these people only find these incidents from the books of Sirah???”
No. These events are discussed in books of Fiqh and ‘Aḥkām. It seems that you are simply unaware of the views that contradict that which you have adopted. To deny the existence of the other view and to threaten those who adopt it of wrongdoing is immature, arrogant and ignorant.
This is yet another attempt to mislead Muslims into judging the actions of one another on false premises under the guise of scholarship.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله
As-Salāmu `Alaykum wa Raḥmatu Llahi,
My discussion of current events is limited in scope to what our rich and well-preserved texts on Islamic law have to say about the legality of statements and actions in general. As Muslims, our first reaction to any statement or action should be to question what, if any guidance there is about any given matter from the Quran, the Sunnah or the verdicts of the Companions and Tābi`īn, may Allah be pleased with them. And once we discover that guidance, we should not abandon it for the opinions of anyone else.
So when a prominent American Muslim leader decides to speak on current events and he references relatively classical texts of Islam, it is the duty of those who are able, to verify the references and scrutinize the conclusions drawn. This is due to the fact that American Muslim leaders have proven to be treacherous time and again, whether in spying on the Muslim community and aiding the prosecution of Muslims or remaining silent in the face of the oppression and slaughter of Muslims. In addition, as if these crimes are not enough, many American Muslim leaders dare to condemn other Muslims for their statements and/or actions even if they are well within the bounds of Islamic law.
And this last crime has more to do with attempts by Disbelievers to white-wash Islam and change it from within. Disbelievers rely on their allies among the Muslims to alter and corrupt Islam through adding and subtracting from the laws of Islam in their influence over curricula at Islamic universities; reinterpreting texts in a manner which benefits the enemies of Islam; and outright making false claims to those who do not have access to original texts and the Arabic language.
It is for the above reasons that I have decided to check the references of one Mr. Waleed Basyouni who chose to speak on the matter of beheadings. In his treatment of the issue are the following issues: 1) selective quoting, 2) improper interpretation, 3) omission of relevant facts, 4) misdirection of readers, 5) false conclusions.
This is not a refutation, rather the intention is to clarify what the classical texts cited actually state and what the author of said texts concluded. I think readers will find that it is the opposite of what Mr. Basyouni suggests.
The first substantive statement from Mr. Basyouni is in the form of a question and then an assertion:
“So is it true that Islam allows beheadings as we have seen from this group? It has not been narrated that the messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam ever commanded that or approved of it in all of his years of war against the disbelievers of Quraysh or any other entity whom he fought against.”
The phrase ‘beheadings as we have seen from this group’ is ambiguous because it can be read two ways- 1) ‘beheadings in general, which a group carries out’ or 2) ‘beheadings as specifically carried out by a particular group’. Since Mr. Basyouni does not indicate in the rest of his writings any reference to a specific manner of beheading versus another, then I must assume that he is referring to beheadings in general with his comments.
This is his first mistake, namely the allegation that the Prophet SAWS never commanded or approved of beheadings. The very book Mr. Basyouni proceeds to cite for evidence, as-Sunan al-Kubrā by al-‘Imām al-Bayhaqī, in fact the very same chapter which Mr. Basyouni references repeatedly in his article, contains the following Ḥadīth:
On authority of ‘Abū Naḍrah: ‘The Prophet SAWS met the enemy and said: “Whoever brings a head, then it shall be incumbent upon Allah to grant him whatever he wishes”. So two men brought him a head and they contested with one another [over the matter]. Then he ruled in favor of one of the two.’ [as-Sunan al-Kubrā 9/223 #18354]
So why omit this important detail? I investigated the chain of narrators and as ‘Abū Dāwud states, it is Munqaṭi` or reported on authority of a Tābi`ī directly from the Prophet SAWS. Al-Bayhaqī expresses a reluctance to reject or accept the Ḥadīth as does ‘Abū Dāwud, however the Tābi`ī is considered trustworthy as well as the rest of the narrators in the chain. But the fact remains that there is a narration that reports beheadings and that Ḥadīth is found exactly where Mr. Basyouni conducted his ‘research’. Yet he fails to mention this fact when surely he could not have missed it, as the chapter is very brief.
Other proof exists for the fact that the Prophet SAWS ordered beheadings, namely what is widely reported regarding `Uqbah bin ‘Abī Mu`ayṭ during the conquest of Makkah. The Prophet SAWS ordered Alī RA to kill him and the texts say that he RA: ‘Struck his neck’.
Also, as I mentioned in another discussion, Ibn Taymīyah stated the following:
“The legislated manner of killing is to strike the neck with a sword or something like it because that is the least painful way of killing, and as such is how Allah legislated killing that which it is allowed to kill whether human or beast, when possible in this manner. As the Prophet SAWS said: “Indeed Allah has prescribed the most excellent way in all things- thus when you kill, then kill in a good way; when you slaughter, then slaughter in a good way- sharpen the blade and calm that which you will slaughter [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim].” [Fiqh of Jihād by Ibn Taymīyah p. 61-62]
Striking the neck does not always mean cutting off the head, however by and large, when ‘striking the neck’ is mentioned in connection with battles and warfare in the books of history, it means decapitation as well. There are many proofs that beheadings were commonly practiced in Islam, especially when dealing with ‘Ahl al-Ḥarb, specifically because it is violent and harsh, just as al-Qurṭubī explains in his Tafsīr [which will be mentioned below].
The next statement of Mr. Basyouni contains some manipulation of the interpretation for effect and selective quoting as well:
“Imam Al-Zuhri said, “No head was ever carried to the messenger of Allah, not even on the day of Badr. A head was once carried to Abu Bakr and he condemned that” (AlSunan AlKubra, Al-Bayhaqi)”
In dealing with the ‘condemnation’ of ‘Abū Bakr RA, the question must be asked and answered: what is ‘Abū Bakr RA disapproving of? The fact is that ‘Abū Bakr RA is not disapproving of the beheading itself.
The objection of ‘Abū Bakr RA is made evident by several factors- first and foremost is the very chapter title in which the reports are mentioned. Al-Bayhaqī named the chapter: ‘Transporting Heads’.
And as with many narrations, there are short and long versions, with the longer versions adding more explanation. So the report of az-Zuhrī is further elaborated upon in a report on authority of a Companion RA, as az-Zuhrī was in fact a Tābi`ī. In the report of the Companion, a direct witness to the reaction of ‘Abū Bakr RA, he quotes ‘Abū Bakr RA directly stating what his objection is:
On authority of `Uqbah bin Āmir al-Juhanī: ‘`Amrw bin al-Āṣ and Shuraḥbīl bin Ḥasanah both sent `Uqbah as a courier to ‘Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq RA with the head of Yannāq by route of ash-Shām. When it reached ‘Abū Bakr RA, he rejected that and `Uqbah said to him: “Oh Caliph of the Messenger of Allah SAWS, they do that [as well]”. ‘Abū Bakr RA said: “Are the traditions of Persia and Rome taken as a Sunnah? Do not carry heads to me, for indeed writing or reporting alone suffices”.’ [as-Sunan al-Kubrā 9/223 #18351]
In fact, an-Nawawī mentions the incident and clearly states that the objection was to the transport of the head specifically to Madīnah:
“Yanāq al-Biṭrīq the Disbeliever: The one mentioned in al-Muhadhdhab in the section of the Prophet’s Biography, regarding the matter of the killing of captives. He was killed as a Disbeliever in ash-Shām and his head was transported to Madīnah to ‘Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq RA. He rejected the transportation of his head and said: ‘Do you transport a cadaver to the city of the Messenger of Allah SAWS?'” [an-Nawawī, Tahdhīb al-‘Asmā’ wal-Lughāt 2/165]
So the reader can see that the objection is related to the head being transported. That is what ‘Abū Bakr RA was objecting to and he says at the end of the more elaborate report: “Do not carry heads to me, for indeed writing or reporting alone suffices.” So it is clear that he is not objecting to beheadings, but rather to transporting the heads to him in Madīnah.
Mr. Basyouni omits from the quote of az-Zuhrī the end where he says:
“And the first to have heads carried to him was `Abd Allah bin az-Zubayr RA.”
Isn’t this something relevant? Ibn az-Zubayr RA was also a Companion and he lived during the time of Companions. Certainly his allowing this to be done is relevant. Why omit the end of the report of az-Zuhrī? Is it because the approval of Ibn az-Zubayr RA would complicate the false narrative and conclusions that Mr. Basyouni is positing? Let us hope that it was simply a gross error on Mr. Basyouni’s part.
So this matter of concealing the real reason for ‘Abū Bakr’s disapproval and Ibn az-Zubayr’s approval is either deceptive or a display of ignorance. I do not believe that Mr. Basyouni is ignorant.
Mr. Basyouni goes on to make claims regarding the phrase ‘strike the necks’ in the Quran:
“As for using as evidence, ‘Strike their necks,’ (Surat Muhammad v. 4) the mention of the striking of the neck was due to the majority of casualties in war being caused in that fashion as Al-Qurtubi mentions in his tafsir. Also what is narrated in the seerah from some who would say, ‘Allow me to strike the neck of this hypocrite’ what they intended was permission to kill them as that is how killing was executed in that time.”
This will be the second time that Mr. Basyouni is selective in his quotation of a text he wishes to use as evidence. It’s true that al-Qurṭubī says that the phrase ‘strike the necks’ was used because it happened a great deal in war at the time. However, al-Qurṭubī also intimates another reason why the phrase is used, and I quote:
“[Allah] said: {So strike the necks…} and not ‘So kill them’ because of what the expression ‘strike the necks’ entails of harshness and violence that is not found in the term ‘kill’; and for what it entails of painting a picture of the killing in its ugliest form.” [Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī 16/226]
Once again, the reader can plainly see that for a second time Mr. Basyouni omits what is right in front of him and it appears he does so because it does not corroborate the narrative and conclusions he wishes to draw. And what are Mr. Basyouni’s conclusions as a result of his selective quoting, omissions and deceptions:
“As for beheading individuals and boasting about it, that is something that has no place in Islam.”
On the contrary, beheadings do have a place in Islam, in fact it has had a place since the time of the Companions RA and was commanded by the Prophet SAWS himself. As for the ‘boasting’ part, not a single quote he brought mentioned anything about that, and frankly it is irrelevant.
In the book, the Conquest of Syria, al-Wāqidī mentions that az-Zubayr RA ordered that the heads of the polytheists be mounted onto the tips of the spears. It shook the hearts of the Romans to see 80,000 horses with heads on the spears. He mentions how ‘Abū `Ubaydah orders 1,000 captives to have their necks cut while the Romans were looking on. [1/173] Ibn al-Athīr mentions many incidents similar to this as well throughout Islamic history.
And if it is not bad enough that Mr. Basyouni has gravely misled readers, then he makes matters worse by moving on to condemning Muslims based on his own misunderstanding and/or attempts at deception:
“As for what these terrorist groups commit of torture and taking pleasure in that it as if mercy has been removed from their hearts, and so they are more resembling of drug cartels and thugs. Those are the ones who spread fear with these types of barbaric actions and so they are their real sources of inspiration and predecessors.”
When did beheading become ‘torture’? And since we have proven that beheadings were conducted by the Companions RA and ordered by the Prophet SAWS, then how do we prevent these insults and disparaging comments from being cast at the best of creation and his righteous successors RA? We can only hope that Mr. Basyouni is casting aspersions out of ignorance of the fact that if they hit their mark, then they fall on the Prophet SAWS, his Companions RA and those who followed them in goodness, wal-`Iyādhu bi-Llahi.
Once again, ignorance and deception compounded in the speech of the leaders of American Muslims forces those of us who are capable, to verify their references to the noble texts of Islam. And once again we find that American ‘Shuyūkh’ cannot help but mislead and misguide those who are gullible or deprived enough to follow them. It is incumbent upon Muslims in the US to abandon these false callers and claimants to scholarship and leadership. And after abandoning them, the next step is to learn the Arabic language, ‘In Shā’ Allah.
It is through knowledge of the Arabic language that hearts and minds find freedom from dependence on callers to falsehood and deceptive leaders.
Translated from the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence 17/223:
Al-Ḥisbah- The Legal Definition
The majority of jurists defined it as enjoining good when its abandonment surfaces and preventing evil when its perpetration surfaces.
Matters Related to ‘Ḥisbah’:
Al-Qaḍā’: informing others regarding the legal ruling in a binding manner.
Maẓālim: the jurisdiction of injustices is leadership of those who have been wronged towards reparation through fear and restraint of litigants from fighting [one another] through fear.
‘Iftā’: a pronouncement on authority of Allah or His Messenger, and the Mufti is someone well-versed in the obtainment of the rulings related to events sufficiently without resorting to study.
Shahādah: a report of a witness to the authority; a report based on certain knowledge and not speculation or doubt.
Who is Responsible for ‘Ḥisbah’?
It is obligatory in general with respect to not considering that which is related to it; when it is related to an obligation, it is commanded; [when related to] a recommendation, its performance is requested; [when related to] a prohibition, it is proscribed. Thus when it relates to an obligation or prohibition, then it is obligatory for whoever is clearly capable of doing so at that time; and when it is related to a recommendation or detested matter, then it is not obligatory at that time.
Types of ‘Ḥisbah’
The authority of ‘Ḥisbah’ is of two types:
Fundamental ‘Ḥisbah’ which originates from the Legislator [i.e. Allah], and it is the authority which responsibility dictates in order for it to be affirmed for all who it is demanded from. And derived ‘Ḥisbah’, and it is the authority which is obtained by someone whom it is entrusted to by the Khalīfah or `Amīr, and he is the ‘Muḥtasib’.
The jurists have designated as ‘Mutaṭawwi’ the one who carries out ‘Ḥisbah’ without having been delegated the authority from the Imām or his agent; and as for the one who has been delegated the authority by the Imām and the one who is entrusted with oversight of the condition of the citizenry, finding out their affairs and their general welfare, then he is the ‘Muḥtasib’.
Pillars of ‘Ḥisbah’
Al-Ghazālī mentioned there are four: 1) the Muḥtasib, those under the Muḥtasib, that which the Muḥtasib is concerned with, and the ‘Iḥtisāb itself. And for every pillar are limits, rulings and conditions specific to it:
The first pillar- the Muḥtasib: and he is the one who the Imām or his agent authorizes to oversee the conditions of the citizenry, to find out about their affairs and their general welfare, to browse the conditions of the market concerning their dealings, to assessing their weights and any deception therein, observing what is easy for him of their affairs, seeking the repentance of violators, warning them with consequences, and punishing them in accordance with what is appropriate proportionate to the crime.
Conditions of the Muḥtasib
The jurists stipulated about the possessor of this authority conditions so that the purpose behind it can be realized, and these conditions are as follows:
1) Islam- being a Muslim is a condition for the validity of ‘Iḥtisāb due to what that entails of authority and the honor of arbitration, thus the Disbeliever is exempted since he is degraded and not deserving of the honor of arbitration over the Muslims.
2) Responsibility (Puberty and Sanity)
3) Knowledge- that he be aware of the rulings of the Sharī`ah in order to know what is commanded and what is prohibited … however it is not stipulated that he have attained the level of legal ‘Ijtihād according to the view of the majority of the jurists.
4) Integrity- an innate condition which prevents from the commission of major or minor sins, indicating ignobility or allowing for the lack of manhood.
5) Ability- Ibn al-`Arabī said: ‘As for ‘ability’, then it is the basis and it is in the self and in the body- if he needs to prevent something by force and he himself is afraid of being hit or killed by someone else, then if he expects for [this situation] to end, he is allowed according to the majority of scholars to rush into this danger, and if he has no hope, then what benefit is there in it?
6) Permission of the Imām- a group of the scholars stipulated about the Muḥtasib that he be granted permission from the Imām or authority.
7) Male- a group of scholars stipulated regarding the one entrusted with ‘Ḥisbah’ that they be male; Ibn al-`Arabī upheld this view and al-Qurṭubī followed up with saying: ‘Indeed there should not arise from women that they show up to the assemblies, mix with the men, or confer with them in the conferences peer-to-peer.’
Other allowed entrusting them due to what is affirmed in that Samrā’ bint Naḥīk al-‘Asadiyyah would pass through the markets enjoining good and preventing evil, and she would prevent the people with a lash she had with her. And the allowance of her authority and lack of opposition shows the possibility of allowing her authority in ‘Imārah and Qaḍā’.
After quoting the words of al-Khaṭṭābī, Ibn Ḥajar said: ‘Indeed women are not to be entrusted with ‘Imārah or Qaḍā’, and that she cannot wed herself to anyone nor is she entrusted with taking a covenant over anyone else. The prohibition from entrusting women with ‘Imārah and Qaḍā’ is the view of the majority while aṭ-Ṭabarī allowed it, and there is a transmission on authority of Mālik; on authority of Abū Ḥanīfah is that women can be entrusted with ruling over matters for which the testimony of women is allowed.’
-end quotes
As-Salamu Alaykum,
Ramadan Mubarak.
Just thought I’d share some research I’ve conducted on the Sahabiyyah, ash-Shifa bint Abd Allah RA. I posted it on Facebook sometime ago and was asked to retrieve it, however I found the retrieval process daunting to say the least. So I thought it best to save the material here for future reference, In Sha’ Allah.
Ash-Shifa’ bint Abd Allah RA is constantly referred to as the Sahabiyyah who was put in charge of the market. Ibn Hajar states in his Tahdhib at-Tahdhib:
وربما ولاها شيئا من أمر السوق…
“PERHAPS she was entrusted ‘something’ of the marketplace.”
However Ibn Sa’d mentions in his ‘Tabaqat’ 1/379 the following:
وَكَانَتِ الشِّفَاءُ بِنْتُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ أُمُّ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ مِنَ الْمُبَايِعَاتِ، وَلَهَا دَارٌ بِالْمَدِينَةِ فِي الْحَكَّاكِينَ، وَيُقَالُ إِنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ اسْتَعْمَلَهَا عَلَى السُّوقِ، وَوَلَدُهَا يُنْكِرُونَ ذَلِكَ وَيَغْضَبُونَ مِنْهُ
“Ash-Shifa’ bint Abd Allah is the mother of Sulayman bin Abi Hathmah and among the those who gave the oath of allegiance; she had a residence in Madinah in al-Hakkakeen. It is said that Umar bin al-Khattab employed her in the marketplace and her children rejected that and were angered by it.”
Given the weak manner in which the authorities mention the matter briefly and this reported rejection of the fact by her own son, it’s time that people stopped quoting this matter as evidence for the mixing of men and women or the permissibility of entrusting affairs of the Muslim community to women.
In the Tarikh of Ibn Abi Khaythamah, the exact same wording used by biographers to attribute employment to ash-Shifa RA is used instead to refer to her son:
وَكَانَ ابنُها مِنْ صَالِحِي الْمُسْلِمين، اسْتَعْمَلَهُ عُمَر عَلَى سُوقِ الْمَدِيْنَة
“Her son was among the righteous Muslims and Umar employed HIM in the market of Madinah.” [at-Tarikh al-Kabeer 2/786]
This same alternative statement is found in Tarikh Dimashq 22/214:
أخبرنا أبو غالب وأبو عبد الله ابنا البنا قالا أنا أبو الحسين بن الآبنوسي أنا أحمد بن عبيد بن بيري نا محمد بن الحسين الزعفراني نا أبو بكر بن أبي خيثمة أنا مصعب بن عبد الله (2) قال سليمان بن أبي حثمة بن حذيفة من صالح (3) المسلمين استعمله عمر بن الخطاب على سوق المدينة وابنه أبو بكر بن سليمان بن أبي حثمة بن حذيفة بن غانم من رواة العلم
With a chain of narration on authority of Mus’ab bin Abd Allah that: “Sulayman bin Abi Hathmah bin Hudhayfah was among the righteous Muslims- Umar bin al-Khattab employed HIM in the market in Madinah and his son Abu Bakr bin Sulayman bin Abi Hathmah bin Hudhayfah bin Ghanim was among the transmitters of knowledge.”
No more mystery about the role of ash-Shifa’, also known as Layla bint Abd Allah RA, under Umar RA- and this is directly from al-Bukhari:
Umar bin Khalid and Abd al-Ghaffar bin Dawud narrated to me, Ya’qub bin Abd ar-Rahman narrated to us, on authority of Musa bin Uqbah, on authority of Ibn Shihab:
“Umar bin Abd al-Aziz asked Abu Bakr bin Sulayman bin Abi Hathmah what was Abu Bakr writing from Abu Bakr, the Khalifah of the Messenger of Allah SAWS, then Umar, the Khalifah of Abu Bakr. He said: ‘My grandmother ash-Shifa’ narrated to me, and she was among the first immigrants in Islam, when Umar used to enter the market he would visit her.’ [Ash-Shifa’ herself states]: ‘Umar bin al-Khattab wrote to those employed in Iraq to send two steadfast men to ask them about Iraq, so he was sent Labid bin Rabi’ah and Adi bin Hatim who both arrived and asked permission to enter upon the Commander of the Believers, Umar RA. Thus the writing proceeded from that day on.”
*Abu Bakr bin Sulayman bin Abi Hathmah is among the narrators of al-Bukhari and Muslim, a Tabi’ee, who transmitted on authority of Abd Allah bin Umar RA and is considered trustworthy as a narrator.
In Sha’ Allah, there is a lot of misinformation about ash-Shifa’ RA being some sort of ‘economic minister’ and the only case of a woman being entrusted with the affairs of the Muslims among the Salaf. Her own children rejected the idea and became angry at the mention of it, and a trustworthy compiler [al-Bukhari] and a trustworthy narrator [her own grandson] very clearly state that was not the case. Also, many biographers record that it was her grandson who worked under Umar RA in the market of Madinah and not his grandmother ash-Shifa’ RA. And while it is possible that they both worked in the market under Umar RA, it is also possible that there was a scribal error which led to the notion, as one can see the wording of both statements is exactly the same but for two pronouns ‘ha’ and ‘hu’.
Barak Allahu feekum.
-Abu Najm
As-Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatu Llahi,
In an effort to help brothers and sisters improve reading comprehension and translation skills, the Mihbarah Collective has established a free study group where fellow students will learn to apply acquired Arabic grammar and morphology knowledge to classical Islamic texts. The current text is Rawd al-Murbi’ by Imam al-Bahuti.
Please refer to the following link for information:
