Imam Ibn Kathîr on Naming Allah’s Name On What You Eat

Allah, exalted is He, said, «And do not eat from what Allah’s name was not mentioned on, and surely it is truly a sin» (6:121).

[Those] who opined that the slaughtered animal is not lawful if Allah’s name is not mentioned upon it, even if the slaughterer were a Muslim, acted according to this noble verse. The imams, may Allah have mercy on them, have differed in this issue according to three statements. From them are [those] who said this slaughtered animal, with this description, is not lawful; leaving the naming [of Allah's name] intentionally or absent-mindedly is the same. It is narrated from Ibn ‘Umar and Nâfi’, his freed slave, ‘Âmir ash-Sha’bî and Muhammad bin Sîrîn. It is a narration from Imam Mâlik and a narration from Ahmad bin Hanbal [that] a group of his earlier and latter companions aided. It is Abî Thawr and Dâwud adh-Dhâhirî’s preference and Abul-Futūh Muhammad bin Muhammad bin ‘Alî at-Tâ’î, from the latter Shâfi’îs, preferred that in his book, al-Arba’în.

Who Are the Murji’ah?

Murji’ah is an active participle from ijrâ’. In the language, irjâ’ comes with two meanings. The first of them is with the meaning of delaying, just as in His statement, exalted is He, «They said, “Delay him and his brother”» (7:111), meaning give him time and delay him. The second is the presentation of hope.[1]

As for the Murji’ah in the terminology, then Imam Ahmad had defined them with his statement,

They are those who claim that faith is mere articulation with the tongue; that the people do not contend for precedence in faith; that their faith, the angels’ faith, the Prophets’ faith, may Allah’s salutations and peace be upon them, are one; that faith does not increase or diminish; that [making an] exception[2] is not in faith; and that whoever believed with his tongue and did not act is a believer in truth.[3]

Quote … Unquote … no. 10

Consider His wisdom, exalted is He, in that He made the servant’s kings, emirs and rulers of the genus of their deeds. Rather, it is as if their deeds appeared in the images of their rulers and kings. So if they were upright, their kings were upright, If they were just, they were just to them, and if they strayed, their kings and rulers would stray. If slyness and deceit appeared among them, their rulers would be like that. If they hindered Allah’s rights before them and were stingy with them, their kings and rulers would hinder what they had with them of the right and be stingy with them with regards to them. And in their business, if they took what they did not deserve from those they deemed weak, the kings would take what they did not deserve from them and taxes and duties would be imposed on them; whatever they extracted from the weak, the kings would extract it from them by force. Thus, their deeds appeared in the images if their deeds. And it is not from the divine wisdom that He entrusts the immoral evil [people] except to whoever is of their genus. So when the forefront was the best and most reverent of the generations, their rulers were like that. Then when they became white-haired, the rulers became white-haired for them. Thus, Allah’s wisdom refuses to entrust us, in the likes of these times, to the likes of Mu’awiyah and ‘Umar bin ‘Abdil-’Aziz, let alone the likes of Abi Bakr and Umar. Rather, our rulers are according to our worth, the rulers of those before us are according to their worth. Each of the two matters is wisdom’s reason and requisite.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah
Miftâh Dâr as-Sa’âdah, vol. 2, pgs. 177-178.

Is It Really Being Careless?

One of my wife’s friends recently sent her an email containing an article produced by the Canadian Council of Muslim Theologians titled, Is It Really Worth Being Careless?. The article deals with the never dying issue revolving around lawful and forbidden foods. It is presented in a question and answer format with questions based on some of the issues raised in the on-going debate of what’s lawful and what’s forbidden. The article is basically a scare-mongering tactic by some of the Deobandi Hanafîs here and not only implicates non-Muslim distributers and retailers selling “halâl” food, but Muslim retailers and distributers as well. My wife’s friend wanted to know if one particular part of the article was correct. The passage she was asking about reads:

Key to Paradise in Review: Part 1

As I said a couple of entries ago, I would jot down my thoughts about the recent conference we just had @ QSSC with Shaikh ‘Alî bin Hasan al-Halabî of Jordan and post them up for you eager beavers when I could get some time for it.

To those who were waiting to hear about how the conference went, I apologize for the long delay. As you know (that is, if you’re a regular visitor to my blog and actually read the blog entries), I’ve had my mind elsewhere trying to finish an article I had been working on for some time, as well as starting a new article (which will also probably take a long time to complete) due to some things that have come up that need addressing.

I’ll try to remember what I can regarding the details of the conference and whatever else I can remember from the shaikh’s visit. Hopefully, I remember enough about what went on to make this read worth your while. If not, then again, I apologize.

Some Legal Evidences for the Conditions of Jihad

The following was taken fromthe book, al-Jihâd: Anwâ’uh wa Ahkâmuh wal-Hadd al-Fâsil Bainah wa Bain al-Fawda, by Shaikh Dr. Abu Anas Hamad bin Ibrâhîm al-’Uthmân, a professor in the College of Sharî’ah and Islamic Studies in the University of Kuwait. I’ve only mentioned the conditions listed by the shaikh along with some of the evidences to support them from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. I’m currently working on translating at least a good deal of it, if not the whole section. That’s going to take some time though, so for now, I hope this suffices for those interested in knowing the evidences from which the scholars of the People of the Sunnah and Congregation stipulated these conditions.