1843
ޢިލްމު އަދި އެއަށް ލޯބިކުރާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް Notes by, ibn Fahmī Dīdī عفا الله عنه Friends & family
📌 • ދެދޮރުގައި ބީހިގެން ވުޟޫއު ގެއްލުމުގެ ފިޤުހުގެ ޚުލާސާ • [hd ފޮޓޯ]
މަޞްދަަރުތައް: 1) އަލްޢަލްވާންގެ ބުލޫޣުލް މަރާމް ގެ ޝަރަޙަ[ޞ. 192 އިން 198] ، 2) އައްޠަރީފީ ގެ الأحاديث المعلة في الطهارة، 3) ސުލައިމާނު ބުނު އައްލަހީމީދު ގެ ބުލޫޣުލް މަރާމުގެ ޝަރަޙަ، [ޞ. 100]، 4) މުޙައްމަދު އާލްޢިލްވާ ގެ (ލިޔުން). މީގެ އިތުރުން 5) އައްސަޢްދު (އޯޑިއޯ)، 6) އަލްޢުޞައިމީ (އޯޑިއޯ)، 7) މުޞްޠަފާ އަލްޢަދަވީ (ވީޑިއޯ) އަދި އޭގައި ބުސްރާގެ ޙަދީޘް ބަލިކަށި ކުރެއްވި، 8) މާހިރު އަލްފަޙްލު (އޯޑިއޯ)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
①
📌 What is the ruling upon the ashā’irah?
The noble Imām, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir al-‘Alwān (فك الله أسره) says:
❝What remains is a discussion on a separate point, so why don’t ahlus-sunnah make takfīr upon the ashā’irah, while they negate the attribute of speech from Allāh, the attribute of anger from Allāh [1], the attribute of pleasure from Allāh, the attribute of love from Allāh.
They say the Qur’ān is a hikāyah [2] from the speech of Allāh (i.e. that Allāh doesn’t speak the Qur’ān directly with His voice, and its letters are created, but rather the meaning we recite is uncreated and comes from Allāh), and this means that the Qur’ān is created.
The reply to this is that ahlus-sunnah differ concerning making takfīr upon the ashā’irah, contrary to the later scholars who stated that ahlus-sunnah don’t make takfīr upon the ashā’irah, this citation is wrong.
Yes it’s correct that the majority of ahlus-sunnah wal-jamā’ah don’t make takfīr upon the ashā’irah, however there are groups of scholars who make takfīr upon the ashā’irah, due to several matters:
1 — Because they don’t affirm the ‘uluw (ascension) of Allāh over His creation, and this is Kufr, since the textual evidence and intellect both affirm that, and the proofs concerning this is clear-cut.
And when Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned the sayings of the scholars regarding the kufr of whoever rejects the ‘uluw of Allāh over His creation, afterwards he said, when mentioning the statement of An-Nu’mān (i.e. Abū Hanīfah) and a group of scholars:
“Likewise, an-Nu’mān (i.e. Abū Hanīfah) and Ya’qūb after him, while the wording belongs to An-Nu’mān, he said; Whoever doesn’t affirm that His throne is above the heavens and above every place, and doesn't affirm that Allāh is above the throne, which isn’t obscure within the thoughts of every mind. He is the one in which there's no doubt in making takfīr upon, how amazing are you (Abū Hanīfah) as an Imām of your time.”
2 — They also reject the Āhād reports (in ‘Aqīdah — i.e. narrations which only come via 1,2,3 narrators in each level of the chain according to their definition), and this is Kufr in general.
3 — They deviate in negating many names and attributes of Allāh.
4 — They say the Qur’ān is created.
5 — They don’t affirm the attribute of speech for Allāh.
And they have other matters in which they’re made takfīr upon (such as saying the apparent meanings of the Qur’ān is disbelief due to resembling Allāh with the creation + most define Īmān as belief in the heart like the Jahmiyyah). However those who didn’t make takfīr upon them said, that’s because they have a misconception and misinterpretation stronger than other than them, so they are not made takfīr upon except after debating them, establishing the hujjah upon them, and clarifying the truth to them.
If an individual asks, why don’t we make takfīr upon them in general terms, nor make takfīr upon their specific individuals except after establishing the hujjah against them? We say it’s because they are of different types;
- Some of the ashā’irah reject the ‘uluw of Allāh over His creation, and groups of scholars among the ashā’irah affirm the ‘uluw of Allāh over His creation.
- There are groups of scholars among them who don’t explicitly profess in negating ‘uluw (Allāh’s ascension above the creation), they say that we affirm ‘uluw in general, then they make tafwīd (i.e. claim that ‘uluw doesn’t have a meaning — not affirming the reality of ascension).
So due to the misconception they have, many scholars abstained from making takfīr upon them. However if we debated an ash’arī, and he said I don’t affirm the ‘uluw of Allāh over His creation, and I say the Qur’ān is created, and I say that Allāh didn’t speak, and we established the hujjah upon him, and removed the misconception from him, and no valid misconception or misinterpretation remains with him, therefore he would become a kāfir due to that.
Continued ⬇️
🔺ދެދޮރުގައި ބީހިގެން ވުޟޫއު ގެއްލުމުގެ ފިޤުހުގެ ޚުލާސާ (މަޞްދަރުތައް)
—ޝެއަރ ކުރެއްވުމަށް [hd ފޮޓޯ]
~ ގަލަންދާނު
Summary: The Chains of the Narration Regarding the Marriage of 'Āishah (Based on the research by Shaykh al-Muḥaddith Muḥammad Sayyid Shiḥatā)
— Galandān
ފޮޓޯ: ދުވަސް ނިމުމުގެ ޞައްޙަ ޛިކުރުތައް (HD)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
ފޮޓޯ: ދުވަސް ނިމުމުގެ ޞައްޙަ ޛިކުރުތައް (ތަފްޞީލް)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
[HD] Authentic Ad͟hkār After Farḍ Prayers — Al-'Alwān | Galandān
Читать полностью…
•••
"ޢިލްމު އުނގެނެން އުޅޭ ބައެއް މީހުންގެ މައްޗަށް އަރާ އޮޅުން ތަކުގެ ތެރޭ، ދަލީލުތައް މަތިވެރިކުރުން ޙުއްޖަތަކަށް ދައްކައި (ސަލަފުންގެ) އިމާމުންނަށް ތަބަޢަވުން ގެއްލުވާލުން ހިމެނެއެވެ! މިގޮތުން ނައްޞުތަކުން އެޔަކަށް (ސަލަފުންގެ ބޭކަލެއްގެ) އެއްވެސް ބުނުމެއް ނުވާ މާނައެއް މިވެރިން ނެރެއެވެ.
މިއީ (ސަލަފުންގެ ތެރެއިން ބޭކަލުން ވިދާޅުވެ ދެން ފަހުން) ދޫކޮށްލެވިފައިވާ ބަސްތަކުން ބަހެއްގައި ހިފުމަށްވުރެ ބޮޑު ނުބަޔެކެވެ. އެހެނީ އެދޫކޮށްލެވިގެންވާ ބަސްތަކަކީ (ސަލަފަކަށް) ވުޖޫދުގައި އޮތްނިސްބަތެއް، ކެނޑުނު އެއްޗެކެވެ. އެކަމަކު މިވެރިން މިގެނައި (އަމިއްލަ) މާނަކުރުންތަކީ، އެ މާނަކުރުމަށް ނިސްބަތްވާ ފަރާތެއް ވުޖޫދުގައި ނުވެސް ނެތް އެއްޗެކެވެ! އެއީ ދަލީލަށް ނިސްބަތްވާ އެއްޗެއްކަމަށް މިބައިމީހުންނަށް ކުށްހީވިޔަސް އެވެ.
އެހެނީ، އެދަލީލުތަކީ އުއްމަތުގެ އެންމެ ހެޔޮ ބުއްދިތަކާއި ހިތްތައް ހުރަސްކޮށް އައިސްފައިވާ އެއްޗެކެވެ. ވީމާ އެބޭކަލުންގެ ބުއްދިތަކާއި ހިތްތައް އެފަދަ ބަހެއް އެދަލީލުން ނުނެރުއްވާނަމަ، ފަހެ އެއީ އެއަކުން (އިތުރު މާނައެއް) ދެން ދަރިމައިނުވާ އެއްޗެކެވެ! ވީމާ ކޮންމެ ދަލީލަކީ އެއިން ޤައުލުތަކެއް އުފަންވަނިވި އެއްޗެއް ނޫނެވެ! "
— ޢަބްދުލް ޢަޒީޒް އައްޠަރީފީ (ބަސްކޮޅު)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
މަރްފޫޢު ގޮތުގައިވާ އަނަސް ބިން މާލިކުގެ ޙަދީޘް:
« الدَّال عَلى الخَير كَفَاعلهِ »
"ހެޔޮކަމަކަށް މަގުދައްކާ މީހާ އެކަންކުރި މީހާ ފަދައެވެ."
ރިވާކުރެއްވީ އައްތިރުމިޛީ އެވެ. އަދި "އާދަޔާ ޚިލާފުކަން" ސަނަދުގައިވާކަމަށް ކަނޑައެޅުއްވިއެވެ.
އަދި އަލްބައްޒާރު އާއި އަބޫ ޙާތިމް އަދި އަލްޢުޤައިލީ މިރިވާޔަތުގެ ސަނަދުގައި ހާމަނޫން ބަލިކަށިކަން ވާކަމަށް ކަނޑައެޅުއްވިއެވެ... އެހެންކަމުން މިރިވާޔަތް މުންކަރެވެ.
އަދި ސަލާމަތާއި އެކު އައިސްފައިވާ ރިވާޔަތަކީ: އަބޫ މަސްޢޫދުލް އަންޞާރީގެ ޙަދީޘެވެ.
ނަބިއްޔު ﷺ ޙަދީޘް ކުރެއްވިއޭ:
« مَن دَلَّ عَلى خَيرٍ فَلهُ مِثلُ أَجرِ فَاعِله.» (أخرجه مسلم)
"ހެވަކަށް މަގުދައްކައިފި މީހާ، އެކަން ކުރާ މީހާއާއި އެއްވަރަށް އަޖުރު ވެއެވެ."
— ޝައިޚް ޢަބްދުލް ޢަޒީޒް އަލްޚުޟައިރް (ޓުވިޓަރ)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
②
The Ṣaḥābiyyāt (female companions) and tābi'iyyāt (followers) used to cover their faces in front of men, even during Ḥajj. ‘Āishah was asked: “How does a woman veil (with head cover) her face?” So she took the end of her veil (khimār) and covered her face with it.” This report is authentic, narrated by Musaddad [bin Musarhad] in his Musnad.⁽²⁾
Imām Mālik waives the obligatory fidyah (penalty), for a woman in iḥrām who covered her face due to the presence of men, and ⌜it is know that⌝ the fidyah is not waived for a permissible act (i.e. not obligatory) ⌜which are done⌝ by choice, because the fidyah is obligatory...” Al-Bayan 13/4
The error in attributing the permissibility of uncovering the face to the three imāms is not in the base of the matter. Al-Mūzi'ī Al-Shāfi'ī said: “I do not think that any of the four imams allowed a young woman to uncover her face without a necessity.”
Al-Mūzi'ī Al-Shāfi'ī said in Aḥkām Al-Qurān: “People have always practiced this, in the past and in modern times, in all (islamic) regions. So they tolerate the old woman in uncovering her face and do not tolerate the young woman, and they see it as 'awrah and (revealing it as) reprehensible. The aspect of combining the two verses (i.e. from his previous explanations) has become clear to you, as well as the error of those who permitted looking at a woman’s face without a necessity. And the predecessors (salaf) and Imāms such as Mālik, Al-Shāfi'ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and others did not talk ⌜on this topic⌝ except regarding the 'awrah pertaining to prayer. Al-Shāfi'ī and Mālik said: “Except for the face and the hands” and I do not think that any of them permitted a young woman to uncover her face without necessity. Nor is a young man allowed to look at her without necessity.” — Aḥkām Al-Qurān (2/1002)
It is inferred from the ḥadīth of the ⌜young woman from the tribe of⌝ Al-Khath‘amiy, that it is permissible to uncover the face. It was authentically reported in the Musnad on the authority of Ibn 'Abbās that her father came to offer her to the Prophet ﷺ for marriage, and revealing ⌜the face⌝ for this is permissible, so Al-Faḍl turned away and stayed...” —Narrated by Abū Ya’lā with an authentic chain of narrators.⁽³⁾
As for the ḥadīth: “When a woman reaches menstruation, it is not correct to reveal from her except her face and her hands.” The ḥadīth was narrated by Khālid bin Durayk from ‘Āishah, and he did not hear (ḥadīth narrations, directly) from her, so it is disconnected... Abū Dāwūd weakened it and Al-Bayhaqī and others.⁽⁴⁾ Then again, it was regarding the clothing of prayer not about ḥijāb.
And in the end: Here are the books of the four Imāms: Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, Al-Shāfi'ī, and Aḥmad amidst our hands. There is no text in them that permits the uncovering of a woman’s face. And whoever stops at it, let him benefit ⌜from this summary⌝, and the saying of their students, is not a saying attributing to them. ❞
— ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Al-Ṭarīfī (source)
~ Galandān
--------------------------
[1] That which should be covered as intimate parts.
[2] See, ibn ‘Abdul Barr "Al-Istidhkār" (4/25)
[3] Also, ibn Ḥajar cited it in Fatḥ Al-Bārī (4/80) and he said: “Narrated by Abū Ya'lā, with a strong chain, from the path of Sa‘īd bin Jubayr, from Ibn ‘Abbās from Al-Faḍl bin ‘Abbās.”
[4] See, Abū Dāwūd (4104) and his subsequent comment.
•••
❞ [ޒަޚަމެއް ފަދަ އެއްޗަކުން] ހަށިގަނޑުން ލޭ ބޭރުވުމުން ⌝ވުޟޫއު ގެއްލުމާއިމެދު⌜ : ރާޖިޙު ބުނުމަކީ، އެއިން ވުޟޫއު ނުގެއްލޭނޭ ކަމެވެ. މިއީ ޢިލްމުވެރިން ތެރެއިން ގިނަ ބޭކަލެއްގެ ޤަޥްލެވެ. ވުޟޫއު ގެއްލުވައިލާ އެއްޗަކީ ދެދޮރުންނިކުންނަ ތަކެއްޗެވެ. ކުޑަކަމުދާ ތަކެއްޗާއި ބޮޑުކަމުދާ ތަކެއްޗާއި ވަޔެވެ. މިއީ އަލްބުޚާރީގެ ދެކިލެއްވުމެވެ. އަދި މާލިކީންނާއި ޝާފިޢީން ތެރެއިން ފިޤުހުވެރީންގެ ބައިގަނޑެއް ދެކިލެއްވިގޮތެވެ. އަދި އިމާމް އަޙްމަދު އަރިހުން އައިސްފައިވާ އެއްރައުޔެވެ. އަދި ޝެއިޚުލް އިސްލާމް (އިބްނު ތައިމިއްޔާ) އާއި އެކަލޭގެފާނުގެ ދަރިވަރު، އިބްނުލް ޤައްޔިމް ޚިޔާރުކުރެއްވި ޤަޥްލެވެ. ❝
— އައްޝެއިޚް އަލްމުޙައްދިޘް ސުލައިމާނު ބުނު ނާޞިރަލް ޢަލްވާން (ބަސްކޮޅު)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
•••
❞ ބާޠިލުގެ އަހުލުވެރިޔާ ނިކަމެއްޗެވެ. އެއީ އޭނާ އަށް ލަޝްކަރުތަކާއި އަޢްވާނުން ވިޔަސްއެވެ. އަދި ވަނީ ހިތްނުތަނަވަސް ކަމުގައެވެ. އެއީ އޭނާ އަށް ގަނޑުވަރުތަކާއި މުދާތައް ވިޔަސްއެވެ.
އަދި ޙައްޤުގެ އަހުލުވެރިޔާ ޢިއްޒަތްތެރިއެވެ. އެއީ ⌝ނުރައްކަލާހުރެ⌜ ފިލައިގެން ނޫނީ ޖަލު ފާރުތަކެއްމެދު ބަންދުގައި ހުއްޓަސް އެވެ. އަދި ވަނީ އުފަލުގައެވެ. އެއީ ދަނޑިފަނުގެ ގެއެއްގައި ދިރިއުޅުނަސްއެވެ. ❝
— އައްޝައިޚް ސުލައިމާން ބުނު ނާޞިރް، އަލްޢަލްވާން (ބަސްކޮޅު)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
②
Because ahlus-sunnah in general make takfīr upon whoever rejects the ‘uluw (ascension of Allāh over His creation), and the ashā’irah reject the ‘uluw.
And they declare the one who says the Qur’ān is created a kāfir, as the Jahmiyyah say, and the ashā’irah state this.
And they make takfīr upon whoever rejects the Āhād reports in general, and the ashā’irah reject them.
And they make takfīr upon whoever negates a single attribute of Allāh, as Mālik, Ahmad and a group of scholars mentioned, and the ashā’irah negate dozens of attributes from Allāh.
However, they have ta’wīl due to it coming from Āhād narrations, and due to it necessitating and implying such and such (i.e. affirming it implies equating and resembling the creation with Allāh), for that reason many scholars, infact most of ahlus-sunnah abstained from making takfīr upon them.❞
______
[1] Sh. Al-‘Alwān (فك الله أسره) was asked in “Fatāwā gatherings” (part 30/129) whether the word “La’n” which means “excluding someone from the mercy of Allāh” is considered a ta’wīl from its true meaning, and whether this supports the ashā’irah.
The shaykh replied by saying that most scholars explained “La’n” as that, even though some of them explained it upon its original meaning of “curse” (from Allāh upon the individual), however there is nothing wrong with describing “La’n” as excluding someone from the mercy of Allāh since this is not considered diverting it from its original meaning, but rather explaining the affect of this curse (La’n).
For example, the ashā’irah say that the anger of Allāh means “his punishment”, whereas this is distorting the attribute of Allāh from its true meaning, but rather we can say that from the consequences of Allāh’s anger upon the people, is that he punishes them and afflicts them with calamities.
Likewise with “Rahmah” (mercy of Allāh), the ashā’irah twist this into meaning “providing blessings”, whereas this is an innovative misinterpretation, rather we affirm the attribute of mercy to Allāh, but we say from the consequences and traces of this mercy, is that He provides the creation with blessings, favours, peace, delight and so forth.
[2] When the ashā’irah say the meaning of the words in the Qur’ān comes from Allāh (while Allāh didn’t speak the letters of the Qur’ān), it necessitates that these two statements have the same meaning;
“May the hands of Abū Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.” [111:1], and “Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One.” [112:1], which is pure misguidance!
🔺
“What is the ruling upon the ashā’irah?” — Al-'Alwān
[English below]
(This was translated by Abū Bakr Al-Tarābulsī)
📌 ދެދޮރުގައި ބީހިގެން ވުޟޫއު ގެއްލުމުގެ ފިޤުހުގެ ޚުލާސާ [hd ފޮޓޯ]
މަޞްދަަރުތައް: 1) އަލްޢަލްވާންގެ ބުލޫޣުލް މަރާމް ގެ ޝަރަޙަ[ޞ. 192 އިން 198] ، 2) އައްޠަރީފީ ގެ الأحاديث المعلة في الطهارة، 3) ސުލައިމާނު ބުނު އައްލަހީމީދު ގެ ބުލޫޣުލް މަރާމުގެ ޝަރަޙަ، [ޞ. 100]، 4) މުޙައްމަދު އާލްޢިލްވާ ގެ (ލިޔުން). މީގެ އިތުރުން 5) އައްސަޢްދު (އޯޑިއޯ)، 6) އަލްޢުޞައިމީ (އޯޑިއޯ)، 7) މުޞްޠަފާ އަލްޢަދަވީ (ވީޑިއޯ) އަދި އޭގައި ބުސްރާގެ ޙަދީޘް ބަލިކަށި ކުރެއްވި، 8) މާހިރު އަލްފަޙްލު (އޯޑިއޯ)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
📌 ޢަޤީދާގެ މުޙިއްމު މައްސަލަތަކެއް އަދި ތަކްފީރާއި ހައްދުފަހަނަ އެޅުމުގެ މައްޗަށް "ގަލަންދާން" އިން ތަރުޖަމާ ކުރަމުންދާ ސިލްސިލާ:
”ފާޅުވަނިވި އިސްލާމުކަމުން ޙުކުމް ކުރުމަށް - ޠާހިރުވަނިވި މަގުދެއްކުން“
📣 وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا لسُّبُل /Dv ޗެނަލްގައި ޝާއިޢު ކުރެވެމުންދާކަން ހަނދުމަކޮށްލަދެން.
~ ގަލަންދާނު
Summary: The Chains of the Narration Regarding the Marriage of 'Āishah (Based on the research by Shaykh al-Muḥaddith Muḥammad Sayyid Shiḥatā)
— Galandān
ފޮޓޯ: ދުވަސް ފެށުމުގެ ޞައްޙަ ޛިކުރުތައް (HD)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
ފޮޓޯ: ދުވަސް ފެށުމުގެ ޞައްޙަ ޛިކުރުތައް (ތަފްޞީލް)
~ ގަލަންދާނު
Authentic Ad͟hkār After Farḍ Prayers — Al-'Alwān | Galandān
Читать полностью…
📌 [ ބަސްތަކަށް ނަސަބެއް އޮތުމުގެ ޤަވާޢިދު ] އައްޠަރީފީގެ ”އައްތަފްސީރު ވަލްބަޔާން“ ގެ މުޤައްދިމާގެ ތެރެއިން (1/18)
🔻🔻
Note:
Al-Shaykh al-Muḥaddith, ‘Abdul Azīz bin Ibrāhīm Al-Khuḍayr's twitter account has been removed (optionally) since the end of last month.
May Allah keep him safe.
①
A Note On The Ruling On Islamic Ḥijāb According To The Four Imāms [Al-Ṭarīfī]
❝ From the mistakes ⌜on this topic⌝ is attributing the three Imāms — Abū Hanīfah, Mālik and Al-Shāfi’ī — of permitting a woman to reveal her face. (In those statement) the three Imāms did not mention uncovering the face in itself, rather they talked about its requirement connected to a ruling: such as in prayer, in iḥrām and in ⌜the case of⌝ ẓihar. So they (who attribute the Imāms falsely) take a text out of its context, giving it a new meaning.
The quotes that are erroneously attributed to Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, and al-Shāfi’ī regarding a woman uncovering her face are not (totally) forged, but they are ⌜originally⌝ the sayings of the Jurists from ⌜the schools of⌝ Shāfi’iyyah, Mālikiyyah, and Ḥanafiyyah — not the Imāms themselves.
The Shāfi'ī jurist, Al-Mūzi'ī said: “The Imāms like Mālik, Al-Shāfi'ī and Abū Ḥanīfah, did not talk ⌜on this topic⌝ except regarding the 'awrah⁽¹⁾ during prayers.”
I (i.e. Al-Ṭarīfī) have read the general books of Mālik, Al-Shāfi’ī, and Abū Ḥanīfah and their juristic matters (masāil), and I have not seen an explicit statement by them that permits uncovering the face. Rather, what is proven is them affirming it. As for their followers then yes (opposing views are found.)
In Al-Umm, Al-Shāfi'ī said: “...If she makes ṭawāf during the day, she is to do it while pulling down her garment over her face.” There by, while it is forbidden for a woman in iḥrām to cover her face, he waives the prohibition because the obligation of ḥijāb is definite.
The three imāms while talking about the prayer, says regarding women: “All of them are ‘awrah, except for her face and hands.” From the partial phrases ⌜used in this topic⌝, this is that which is used the most. Verily this is ⌜regarding⌝ the ḥijāb during the prayer, and not the ḥijāb of woman ⌜in general.⌝
In Al-Mudawwinah, Mālik said: “...⌜while⌝ even others can look at her face...”. Verily this ⌜statement⌝ was regarding the matter of Ẓihar. And its meaning is that: ẓihar does not make her (the wife) forbidden to be seen by those who were allowed before it. Rather her marriage persists, him being allowed to see her, as well as others who were allowed to see her before it.
Attaching the ruling of forbiddance of the niqāb for the woman in iḥrām to the chapter on "the ruling of ḥijāb" is like attaching the forbiddance of pants for the man in iḥrām (to men outside iḥrām). Because these are the prohibitions ⌜specific⌝ to Iḥrām, not the aḥkām (rulings) of ḥijāb and clothing. =
#حديث_صحيح
Ḥadīth on the 73 sects
«افْتَرَقَتِ الْيَهُودُ عَلَى إِحْدَى أَوْ ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً وَتَفَرَّقَتِ النَّصَارَى عَلَى إِحْدَى أَوْ ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً وَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً»
❝ It is proven that the Prophet ﷺ said:
(The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two groups; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two groups; and my community will be split up into seventy-three groups.)
This was narrated by Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, Al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah and others⁽¹⁾ via Muḥammad Bin ‘Amr, from Abū Salamah from Abū Hurayrah. And its chain ⌜of transmission⌝ is Ḥasan (fair).
And it came in the ḥadīth of Mu‘āwiyah⁽²⁾ : (And this Ummah will split into seventy three sects — i.e. people of desires — all in the Fire except one, that is, the Jamā‘ah...)
This was narrated by Aḥmad and Abū Dāwūd via Ṣafwān bin ‘Amr. He said: “Azhar bin ‘Abdullah Al-Ḥarāzī told me, on the authority of Abī ‘Āmir Al-Hawzānī, from Mu‘āwiyah”, and it is a preserved ḥadīth. (Maḥfūd).
And on this topic came the ḥadīth of ‘Awf bin Mālik, and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘Āṣ, and Anas, and Abū Umāmah, and Sa’d bin Abī Waqqās, and Ibn Mas‘ūd and others.
These sects and groups [referred in the ḥadīth] are of misguidance and innovations and are not of disbelief. The judgement of fire ⌜upon them⌝, does not indicate kufr nor is evidence to eternality [in hell]. Verily whoever's covanent of Islam is established with certainty, he will not be expelled from it, except with certainty. And whoever came up with a statement, or an action or a belief that invalidates the aṣlul Īmān (principles of faith), and the impediments of takfīr were cleared (i.e. the process of excommunication), such a person is an apostate, infidel (kāfir, murtad), and is not counted in the seventy-two sects. ❞
— Shaykh Sulaymān bin Nāṣir Al-‘Alwān (source)
~ Galandān
------------------------------
[1] Ref: Sunan of Abī Dāwūd (7/ 5) (4596)، Sunan of Al-Tirmidhī (4/ 322) (2640)، Sunan of ibn Mājah (5/ 128) (3991)، Musnad of Aḥmad (14/ 124) (8396)
[2] Ḥadīth of Mu‘āwiyah, in Musnad of Aḥmad 16937
[Pdf] Summary On The Chains Of the Ḥadīth Of Ummul Mu'minīn Juwayriyah :
«سبحان الله [وبحمده] عدد خلقه..»
~ Galandān