بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

Nowadays in England many restaurant owners proclaim meat to be Halāl merely based upon the Halāl label on the meat. Their saying that this meat is Halāl is of no consideration because neither have they seen a Muslim slaughter that meat nor do they have the report of such a Muslim who saw the sharī’ah stipulated slaughter process.

If a reliable, practising Muslim saw the Islamic slaughter process and he informs people that the meat is Halāl and it has not gone out of his supervision into the custody of a non-Muslim then people’s having certainty over his informing, buying from him and eating that meat are all permissible. If the Muslim informing about the meat being Halāl is not reliable and upright, then if one’s heart becomes tranquil and accepting in relation to his informing of that, purchasing and eating that meat is permissible otherwise it is not.

It is stated in Tanwīr al-Absār with its commentary Radd al-Muhtār:

“The adālah (religious uprightness) of an individual is a condition in the matters of Diyānāt [halāl and harām] and one should investigate the information of a sinner and one whose state is hidden and act according to dominant opinion.”

{درمختار شرح تنویر الابصار       کتاب الحظروالاباحۃ      ۲ /۲۳۷}

A’la Hazrat Imam Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him in Mercy) has stated in al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah;

“If the slaughtered animal has not left the sight of the Muslim who carried out the slaughter, or another Muslim [who has seen the slaughter take place], then acting upon the report of this person that this is the very meat that a Muslim has slaughtered, in buying and eating, will all become permissible. This is because this is the report of a Muslim and not a disbeliever. However if the one reporting this a non-trustworthy Muslim then this matter will be conditional on the heart settling upon the truthfulness of his reporting.”

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridwiyyah Volume 20 page 275]

One should remember that the meat of halāl animals is only halāl for consumption when it is slaughtered in the Islamic way. For example as long as a cow is alive it’s meat is haram in consumption. Only when this animal has been slaughtered in the Islamic way, that is when a Muslim slaughters it by mentioning the name of Allāh, will this animal’s meat then become halāl for consumption. When something only becomes halāl through the Islamic method of slaughtering then having certainty in knowledge that this method of slaughtering has taken place becomes necessary. This will be established when one has seen this with one’s own eyes or through the report of an upright Muslim who witnessed it himself.

Sayyidī A’la Hazrat Imam Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him in Mercy) has stated in al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah that the original rule concerning meat is that an animal’s meat, such as a cow for example is harām in consumption as long as it is alive. If a portion was severed from an animal it would be considered carrion and harām. “That which is severed from a living animal then it is carrion.” The meat of an animal will only be halal if it is slaughtered according to Islamic law. Thus if such slaughtering is not known and confirmed then that meat will be judged as forbidden in consumption. If a non-Muslim arranged for a Muslim to slaughter some animals and before the animals left that Muslim’s sight another [Muslim] purchased them this is permissible. [What] if a Muslim slaughtered the animal and the meat left his sight and now the non-Muslim wants this meat to be deemed pure and halāl? Being halāl or harām, purity and impurity are purely religious affairs and in these affairs the report of a non-Muslim is absolutely disregarded.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah Volume 20 page 290]

If the owner of a restaurant did not see slaughtering take pace himself but he informs people that he bought it from were there is only halāl [slaughter]. Or there is such supporting evidence that strengthens certainty and in light of this supporting evidence no doubt is brought about, then there is no harm in having certainty in the report of this Muslim. To buy from him and eat that meat is permissible. It becomes known then that if from the point of a Muslim slaughtering an animal until it reaches the hands of another Muslim it does not leave the sight of a Muslim, even if it passes through the hands of non-Muslim during that time, then it is Halāl.

Yes there is one scenario in which if Muslim slaughtered meat goes into the custody of a non-Muslim and is hidden from the sight of a Muslim it is still Halāl. That is when a Muslim sends a non-Muslim servant of his to get meat and he purchases it and brings it and says I bought it from a Muslim and in light of supporting evidences no doubt occurs then it is permissible for him to eat it. Just as is mentioned in al-Hidāyah:

“Whoever sent a majūsī worker of his or a servant and he purchased meat and said I bought this from a Jew or Christian or Muslim then it is permissible for him to consume it because the statement of a disbeliever is accepted in transactions.”

[al-Hidāyah jild 4 page 451]

Sayyidī A’la Hazrat Imam Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him in Mercy) mentions in al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah that if a Muslim sent his polytheist servant or worker to bring meat and he purchased it and said I bought it from a Muslim it will be permissible for him to consume it when the truth of what he says is firm in his heart. This is because this is explicit in being from transactions and the statement of a disbeliever is accepted in transactions even though it will now implicitly include a shar’i ruling.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah]

In Bahār e Sharī’at it is mentioned that if a Muslim sent his servant or slave to bring meat, even if he was a hindū or a majūsī, and he said I bought it from a Muslim or a person from Ahl al-Kitāb then this meat may be eaten. If he said I purchased it from a polytheist for example a majūsī or a hindū then it will be harām for him to consume it. This is because buying and selling is from transactions (mu’āmalāt) and the informing of a disbeliever is acceptable in transactions. Even though permissibility and impermissibility are purely religious affairs and the statement of a disbeliever is not accepted in them, however because the original statement is concerning buying and in this place permissibility/impermissibility is an implicit matter then when that statement is accepted this will also be established. If the original statement is about permissibility or impermissibility then that statement is not acceptable.

[Bahār e Sharī’at Vol 3 pg 398]

Elsewhere in al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah Sayyidī A’la Hazrat Imam Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him in Mercy) mentions that if in the light of supporting evidence no doubt is brought about regarding the statement of this disbeliever [who is the servant of the Muslim] and dominant opinion falls upon its truthfulness, there is no harm in a Muslim consuming that meat. This because bringing a gift is from the perspective of transactions (mu’āmalāt) and a disbeliever’s word is accepted in transactions. When it has been accepted that this meat is sent by such and such a Muslim then implicity within this is acceptance of it being halāl, even though in the outset of something being halāl or harām it’s purity and impurity and other than these purely religious affairs the report of a non-Muslim is not acceptable.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridwiyyah Volume 20 page 290]

Yes if a disbeliever other than one from Ahl al-Kitāb says “this is a Muslim’s slaughter” then his statement is not accepted because in this scenario he is not informing about purchasing the meat from a Muslim [if he was informing about buying from a Muslim it would be a statement about a transaction as buying is from transactions] rather he is informing that the meat is Halāl and that is from the perspective of purely religious matters and the statement of a disbeliever is not acceptable in these matters.

Just as Sayyidī A’la Hazrat Imam Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him in Mercy) has stated that if that disbeliever who is not from the people of the Book even says that this is the slaughter of a Muslim then this statement is specifically in a purely religious matter of permissibility and impermissibility and in these matters the informing of a disbeliever is absolutely invalid and unacceptable.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridwiyyah Volume 20 page 283]

In countries like England there are Muslims who slaughter according to the Islamic method and personally deliver the meat to the homes of the Muslims. If this is established then that meat becomes free from doubt and suspicion and such a process is not impossible. There is one such brother of ours who has a small halāl meat business slaughtering animals and supplying their meat in England. With the intention of helping Muslims I am mentioning his name and number:

Khādim Husain: 07914717090

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Zameer Ahmad and Mawlana Ibrar Shafi

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/trade-inheritance/q-id0259-buying-halal-meat-without-investigating-where-and-from-whom-it-has-come/

It is indeed a sad sign of the times we live in that the verdicts of the righteous ulama of the past are so easily cast aside and disregarded in favour of the ‘pirs’ and ‘shaykhs’ of the modern era. May Allah give the youth of the Ahlus Sunnah true inner discernment in these troubled times.

The prohibition of celebrating the festivals of the non-Muslims is something mentioned clearly by the Fuqaha’ of the past.

In ‘al-Durr al-Mukhtar’ it is stated:

“Gifting something in the name of an-nayruz or al-mihrajan (two festivals of the zoroastrians in which they exchange gifts) is impermissible i.e. exchanging presents in the name of these two days is haram. If a person intended veneration of these days like the way in which the polytheists revere them then he has committed kufr. Al-Imam Abu Hafs al-Kabir has said: ‘If a man worshipped Allah for 50 years then he gifted an egg to a polytheist on the day of nayruz intending reverence of that day then indeed he has committed kufr and his deeds are lost.”

[Al-Durr al-Mukhtar Vol 6 pg 754]

Dawate Islami’s Dar ul-Ifta Ahl al-Sunnah has thus mentioned:

“In ‘Fayruz al-Lughaat’ it is mentioned regarding ‘Christmas day’:

“The major celebration of the Christians and according to them the day of the birth of Hazrat Isa (peace be upon him) 25th December the celebration day of the Christians”

[Fayruz al-Lughaat pg 1003]

The involvement of Muslims in the activities of Christmas day, giving greetings and other than that is not permissible in any way, in some forms it is Kufr.”

[Dar ul-Ifta Ahl al-Sunnah, Jamia Masjid Kanz al-Iman, Babri Chowk, Bab al-Madinah, Karachi, Pakistan]

Al-Habib Zayn bin Sumayt Ba Alawi (hafizahullah) (al-Madinah al-Munwwarah), one of the leading Shafi’i scholars of our times, was asked regarding this matter recently by this faqir and the shaykh confirmed that celebrating christmas is completely impermissible including the exchanging of christmas greetings. He also pointed out that it is impermissible to attend their religious gatherings and it is particularly abhorrent when a person who is in a position where other Muslims follow him does this.

May Allah preserve the righteous Ulama and give us tawfiq to stay upright on the way of our righteous predecessors in these turbulent times.

The following are some references from the righteous Imams of the Shaf’ii school on this matter:

Shaykh ul-Islam al-Hafizh ibn Hajar al Haytami (رحمة الله عليه) states while explaining the impermissibility of following and resembling the disbelievers:

“Then I saw from one of our Iater Imams that which supports what I have said, so he stated: ‘From amongst the most reprehensible of innovations is the conforming of the Muslims with the christians in their celebrations through resemblance in their food and the giving and receiving of gifts from them on that day and those most involved in this are the people of Misr. Indeed the Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam) has said: {Whosover resembled a people then he is from them}”.

[Al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah, Imam Ahmad bin Hajar al-Haitami, volume 4, page. 238- 239]

The Shafi’i jurist Imam al-Shirwani (رحمة الله عليه) states:

“The one who concords with the disbelievers on the days of their celebrations should be given ta’zir (a discretionary punishment whose relative amount is left for the Muslim ruler to decide under an Islamic state).’

He then mentions:

‘and also one who congratulates a dhimmi (christian or jewish resident under an Islamic state) on the day of their celebration.’

[Hashiyah al-Shirwani ‘Ala Tuhfat al-Muhtaj Bi Sharh al-Minhaj, Imam ‘Abd al-Hamid al-Shirwani, Chapter 9 pg 212]

The Seal of the Hadith Scholars, The Mufassir, The prolific author, The Mujaddid Imam of the 10th Hijri Century al-Imam al-Hafizh Jalal ud Din al-Suyuti (رحمة الله عليه) states:

[Note: al-Imam al-Suyuti is the author of ‘Husn al-Maqsid fi Amal il-Mawlid’ – an entire treatise dedicated to the evidences supporting the commendability of commemorating the Mawlid of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وصحبه وسلم)]

“From the reprehensible innovations and evil acts is the resemblance of the disbelievers and concordance with them upon their cursed celebrations and festive seasons the way that many of the ignorant Muslims participate with the christians in their Easter celebrations which are the largest of their celebrations and that which many of the people take part in winter claiming it to be the birth of Sayyiduna Isa (alayhi al-salam) so everything they do in this from the evil acts such as lighting fire preparing special foods, buying candles and other than these is from the evil acts and innovations. For indeed taking these days as seasons of festivity is from the religion of the christians and there is no basis for it in Islam. There is no mention of this birth date from the pious predecessors rather its origin is taken from the christians.”

[al-Amru Bil-Ittiba’ Wa al-Nahyu ‘An al-Ibtida’, Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, pg145-150]

Allah knows best.

Answered by Mawlana Ibrar Shafi

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/belief-aqaaid/q-id0148-muslims-celebrating-christmas/

A woman can shave her arms, legs and other parts of her body. The same applies for men, so it would be permissible for them to shave their back or chest.

It is better for men not shave the chest or back, however there is no prohibition or sin in them doing so.

When the hair on the hands, legs and other parts of the body are very dense, it would be permissible to remove them. This way there will be less consumption of water whilst performing wudhu and ghusl

Fatawa Alamgiri from the authority of Qaniyah states:

عن القنیۃ فی حلق شعرالصدر والظھر ترک الادب

“shaving the hairs of the chest and back is not liked.”

[Alamgiri 5/358]

Imam Ahmad Rida (رحمة الله عليه) also writes that it is allowed to shave the hairs on chest and back but it is better not to do it.

[Fatawa Ridawiyyah 22/122]

Mufti Amjad Ali al-A’zhami (رحمة الله عليه) writes, “If there are hairs on the hands, legs, chest and back; remove them with hair removing soap or shave them, else it will consume more water.”

[Bahar-e-Shari’ah 2/303]

Allah knows best.

Answered by Mufti Mohammed Kashif

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/purity/q-id0132-is-shaving-or-waxing-the-legs-arms-chest-allowed-in-islam/

A very similar question was asked to Bahr al-‘Ulūm Muftī ‘Abd al-Mannān (رحمة الله عليه). He writes:

“Respect of someone or something is related to the customs of people (‘Urf). If people regard and act as disrespectful then it will be regarded as disrespectful. And if certain people do not regard is as disrespect then it will be not regarded as disrespect.

Firstly, according to us one should avoid using used such prayer mats on which are images of sacred places. Allāh says in the Holy Qur’an “So it is; and whoever reveres the symbols of Allah – this is then part of the piety of the hearts.”

[Surah 22: verse 32]

Floor is a place of disrespect (meaning to place such sacred images on the floor is a sign of disrespect).

It is in Hidāyah: ‘If there is a picture on a lying cushion/pillow or on a carpet which is spread (on the floor) then Şalāh is not disliked (Makrūh) as it is trampled over and walked over (and not respected), in contrast to when the cushion is placed (on a high place) or if the picture is on a cover because it is a sign of respect.”

[Hidīyah vol.1, p. 145]

Sometimes we have witnessed that people are careless and they sit on the actual image. The same prayer mat is placed on the pulpit and the lecturer sits on that image or has his back to it. These two are classed as disrespect. If people are mindful and they only use the prayer mat for the prayers, thereafter fold and place the mat in a dignified place, then they should only use that mat on which the image is on the top half. If there are images on the whole prayer mat, then the feet should not be placed on those type of prayer mat.”

[Fatāwā-e-Baĥr al-‘Ulūm, vol. 1, p. 158]

Therefore it is better not to use such prayer mats which can be disrespected by others. If the custom of the people is to use such prayer mats, then it will only be allowed if they are not disrespected.

Allah knows best.

Answered by Mawlana Mohamed Husein Qadri

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/prayer-salah/q-id0156-prayer-mats-that-have-pictures/

All the customs and acts which are not deemed haraam by the shari’ah are allowed.

Makeup is not impermissible unless it is done to show to a ghayr mahram. However one thing to bear in mind is that most of the makeup products create a waterproof layer on the skin which restricts the flow of water onto the skin and would cause wudu and ghusl to be invalid. Therefore extra caution must be shown to remove the makeup whilst making wudu or ghusl.

Allah knows best.

Answered by Mufti Mohammed Kashif

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/purity/q-id0174-a-career-as-a-makeup-artist/

الحمدللہ والصلوۃ والسلام علی رسول اللہ

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب

An engagement in actuality is a promise to marry. If this ceremony is conducted in accordance with Sharī’ah requirements then it is permissible. For the boy’s family to gift the girl a gold ring or other items or the girl’s family to gift the boy clothes or a silver ring, which weighs less than 4.5 Mashas (4.374 grams), bearing only one precious stone, is permissible, but not necessary. It is also necessary that the boy does not place the ring onto the girl’s finger with his own hand, or any other item, because they do not become husband and wife through the engagement ceremony, on the contrary it is necessary for them to still observe shar’ī segregation and veiling at this stage.

Even if there is no engagement ceremony prior to the nikāh (wedding ceremony) there is no problem in this. People have made it a binding part of the nikah whereas this is not true. Neither is it a part of the nikāh nor is it necessary for the nikāh. The engagement ceremonies that are in vogue first began in India and spread into the Muslims from the Hindus as mentioned by Muftī Ahmad Yār Khān Na’īmī (may Allah shower him with mercy) in his book ‘Islami Zindagi’.

Nowadays it is observed that the engagement ceremony is a collection of many un-Islamic customs. For example the playing of music, the gathering of men and women in one house without observing segregation and veiling, laughing and joking amongst themselves. All of this is harām. The boy is given a gold ring to wear whereas the wearing of gold is forbidden upon men as has reached us from the blessed hadith:

Sayyidunā ‘Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) narrates that: Indeed the Prophet ﷺ took hold of some silk placing it in his right hand and some gold placing it in his left hand and then said:

“Verily these two are harām upon the males of my ummah.”

[Sunan Abū Dāwūd Hadīth 4057]

To place a gold ring onto a man’s finger is a sin because this is aiding another upon sin and Allāh (Most Transcendent is He) has forbidden this in the Qur’ān:

{And help not one another in sin and transgression}

[Surah al-Māidah Verse 2]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم
کتبہ محمد قاسم ضیاء القادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mawlana Ibrar Shafi

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/marriage-divorce/q-id0187-ruling-on-engagement-rings-exchanging-gifts-in-islam/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

It is wājib (necessary) to grow the beard to the length of one fist (i.e. four fingers) starting from below the chin. To shorten it from this length is impermissible because it is wājib to refrain from shortening the beard from its sharī’ah established amount and the beard is a perpetual sunnah of the Leader of creation the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon them) and all the other Prophets (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon them). The beard is also from the outward signs of the people of Islām and opposition to it is forbidden, harām and the outward sign of the disbelievers.

Sayyiduna ‘AbdAllah ibn ‘Umar (may Allāh be please with them both) narrates from the Messenger of Allāh (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) that he said:

“Oppose the polytheists, make the beards copious and trim the mustaches”

[Sahīhayn]

The Noble Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) also said:

“Ten [matters] are from fitrah (natural disposition) cutting the mustache and making the beard copious…[to the end of the hadith].”

[Sahīh Muslim]

Shaykh al-Muhaddith Abd al-Haqq al-Dehlawī in his commentary states:

“It is harām to shave the beard, it is the way of the europeans, the hindūs and the jāwālaqiyān who are also known as qalandars [pseudo Sufis]. To leave the beard to grow in size to a fist length is wājib. That which is said regarding the beard that it is sunnah then the meaning of this is that keeping a beard is an established action in the Dīn or that it is established from the Prophetic Sunnah just as the eid prayer [whose ruling is wājib] is termed Sunnah also.”

[Ashi’ah al-Luma’āt volume 1 page 212]

A’la Hazrat al-Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him with mercy) says concerning the size of the beard that it is wājib to grow the beard hair to a fist length i.e. four fingers and to trim it less than this is impermissible. He furthermore states that it is evident that this length is understood from beneath the chin i.e. that the hair that is grown should be of this length. That which some audacious ignorants do by placing their fingers from below their lips and measuring four fingers such that only one finger remains below the chin is sheer ignorance and audacity before the pure Sharī’ah. This amount [four fingers from below the chin] is agreed upon by the ‘ulamā of the Sunnah.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridwiyyah volume 22 page 581]

Cutting the beard because of the skin conditions mentioned in the question is impermissible because the beard is not the cause of these conditions. If an extreme necessity (darūrah) was established in cutting the beard for the purpose of treatment then it will be permissible to cut the beard when there is no other possible way.

It is mentioned in al-Ashbāh wa al-Nazhā’ir that “extreme necessities permit the forbidden”.

[al-Ashbāh wa al-Nazhā’ir pg 107]

As for the cutting of the beard due to the saying of the people at the workplace then this is also impermissible and harām. In fact obedience to them in every harām action is harām. Just as the Noble Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said:

“There is no obedience to creation in disobedience to Allāh”

[al-Mu’jam al-Saghīr hadith 367]

In the blessed hadith reported in al-Tirmidhi from Sayyidunā ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with both of them) it is said: the Messenger of Allāh (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said:

“It is upon a Muslim to hear and obey in that which he likes and dislikes as long as he is not ordered with disobedience. So if he is ordered with disobedience then there is no hearing and no obeying.”

[Sunan al-Tirmidhī, hadith 1707]

If these people force you to cut off his beard then one should leave this employment and take up another means of earning. Allāh will grant blessing in that because it is Allāh alone, Who is the granter of better provision.

It is mentioned in the Holy Qur’ān:

“And Allāh is the Best of providers.”

[Sūrah al-Jumu’ah Verse 11]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mawlana Ibrar Shafi

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/guidance-counsel/q-id0217-what-is-the-ruling-regarding-the-beard-and-its-length-my-workplace-says-i-must-shave-it/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

To shave different areas of the head hair, for example to shave the hair of the centre of the head and leave the sides long or to shave the sides or to shave all the surrounding hair and leave a tuft of hair at the back of the head, is known as Qaz’ in Arabic and this is forbidden and opposes the Sunnah. This has been prohibited in the hadith:

Sayyidunā ibn ‘Umar narrates that the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) prohibited al-Qaz’. One of the narrators says I asked Nāf’i what is al-Qaz’? He replied: To shave part of the hair of the head of a child and leave a part.

[Sahīh Muslim Hadith 5681]

In the commentary of this hadith in Ashi’at al-Lumu’āt it is mentioned:

“Qaz’ is to shave the hair of the head at different places even though outwardly the expression that has come in the explanation of Qaz’ is absolute but all the commentators have clearly mentioned this condition (that different areas of the head be shaved) and in the Fiqhī narrations this has also been mentioned in this way.”

[Ashi’at al-Lumu’āt, Vol 3 Page 571]

In al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah it is stated:

“al-Qaz’ is makrūh (disliked) and it is the shaving of part [of the hair] such that another part is left the amount of 3 fingers.”

[al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah Volume 5 pg 357]

My master A’lā Hazrat the Imām of the Ahl al-Sunnah al-Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him with mercy) mentions in al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah that only two manners of head hair have been mentioned in the pure sharī’ah:

“One is that hair should be kept all over the head and a parting should be made. This is the specific sunnah of the Master of the Messengers (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him). Apart from in Hajj and for the need of performing Hijāmah (cupping) shaving the hair of the head is not established form the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him). The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) was in Madīnah for ten years and he only shaved the hair of his head three times; the year of Hudaybiyah, the ‘Umrah of Qadā’ and the Farewell Hajj (according to that which Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī relates in Jam’ al-Wasā’il from some of the commentators of al-Masābīh).”

[Jam’ al-Wasā’il Fī Sharh al-Masā’il Volume 1 pg 82]

Secondly shaving all the hair of the head was the habit of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (may Allāh ennoble his noble face), who would shave it all fearing that any hair might be left unwashed in ghusl.

Apart from these [two], all other ways are opposite to the sunnah. These new modern styles, leaving a finger width of hair and when they grow beyond that to cut them, or to leave the front hair to grow and cut the hair from the back. Or to open the hair from the centre of the head to the forehead, or to shave the hair of the back crown of the head, to make a line of hair from the forehead to the back of the head, or to extend wide sideburns and make them hang on the cheeks or to blend them in with the beard, whether the rest of the head hair is shaved or not. These matters apart from opposing the Sunnah and being contrary to the manner of the righteous Muslims are mostly the invention of the disbelievers whose resemblance the Muslims should save themselves from.

In Radd al-Muhtār it is stated:

In al-Rawdah of Zandawaysī it is stated that the Sunnah concerning the hair of the head is either to grow it and part it or to shave it completely.

[Radd al-Muhtār Volume 5 page 261]

In this same Fatwā A’la Hazrat has mentioned that al-Qaz’ is prohibited.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridwiyyah Volume 22 pg 576]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mawlana Ibrar Shafi

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/halaal-haraam/q-id0224-are-hair-styles-of-today-allowed-in-islam/

The money collected from life insurance policies is regarded as a debt with the life insurance company. Anything which is received back beyond this amount is interest because it is conditioned in the contract. Every debt that brings about a further benefit then that benefit is interest. Just as the Noble Prophet of Allāh (may the peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said:

“Every debt that brings about a benefit then it is ribā (interest)”  

[al-Jām’i al-Saghīr Hadīth 6336]

Life insurance is also qimār (gambling). This is because if the policy holder fails to pay any one of the instalments then the life insurance company will keep all of the instalments that he has already paid. Life insurance is thus impermissible and prohibited.

My master A’la Hazrat, the Imām of the Ahl al-Sunnah Ahmad Ridā Khān (عليه رحمۃ الرحمن) was asked a question regarding life insurance which he answered by saying this is gambling and to some extent there is a loss of money in this. Even considering the imagined benefit which is hoped for, if the debt is received back, then a company is not foolish enough to give 1000 or 1500 from interest earned, rather it is the lost wealth of others from amongst whom are Muslims also and that money can never be permitted for him in any way.

Allāh (Most Transcendent is He) says:

{And do not eat up unjustly the property of each other among yourselves}

[Sūrah al-Baqarah Verse 188] [Fatawa Ridawiyyah chapter 17 page 381]

However in a non-Muslim country life insurance may be permissible with a few conditions:

1.The Life Insurance company owners must all be non-Muslims. There should not be a single Muslim partner/shareholder.

2. The Muslim should be certain it will be beneficial for him i.e. he should have overriding opinion that in his current state he will be able pay the necessary instalment amounts for the designated next 3 years or for a wider time period [i.e the minimum period in the contract after which the amount can be paid out]. This is because an invalid contract (‘aqd fāsid) can only be contracted with a non-Muslim when there is a definite benefit for the Muslim. If the policy is terminated by him before 3 years are completed [or whatever the designated minimum period may be] then all his paid instalments would be lost and this is loss for the Muslim.
3. The Muslim should not be forced into any disobedience due to this undertaking.

Just as my master A’la Hazrat the Imām of the Ahl al-Sunnah Ahmad Ridā Khān عليه  رحمۃ الرحمن while stating the conditions for the permissibility of life insurance has mentioned:

With whichever company this dealing is carried out, if there is even one Muslim partner in it then this dealing is a definite, absolute, harām as it is gambling and whatever increase is gained is interest and these two are harām and severe major sins. If there is absolutely no Muslim [partner] then it is permissible here, as long as in maintaining one’s bodily well-being and other affairs one is not forced into sin. It is permissible as there is no form of loss in it.

If he remains alive for 20 years he will get all his money back, rather, he will gain an additional amount above that. If he passes away before then his inheritors will get even more. For example if he died after a year then he would have given 246 and a quarter rupees in total instalments and 5000 rupees will be returned to them. Yes it is necessary that the increased amount received is not taken as interest but should be considered as a non-Muslim’s wealth being given to him of his own will without any deception, this is permissible.

[Fatawa Ridawiyyah chapter 23, page 599]

In another place he has mentioned:

When this life insurance is run by the government and there is no form of loss to oneself then this is permissible and there is no harm in that. However the condition is  that as a result of it there is no precautionary measure binding upon him which opposes the Sharī’ah such as the forbiddance of Fasting or Hajj.

[Fatawa Ridawiyyah chapter 23, page 605]

Furthermore in answer to another question he says:

This is gambling absolutely and completely false as it does not fall under any Sharī’ah transaction. In such a place the permissibility of invalid transactions without an excuse is conditioned with it being in such a form that from every perspective there should be self-benefit and this is not expected from such companies, therefore there is no permissibility just as the absolute Research Scholar [al-Imām ibn al-Humām] has researched in Fath al-Qadīr.

[Fatawa Ridawiyyah chapter 17, page 365]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Zameer Ahmad & Mawlana Ibrar Shafi

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/contemporary-issues/q-id0228-what-is-the-islamic-ruling-on-taking-out-a-life-insurance-policy-in-the-uk/

The dictionary defines vinegar as “a sour liquid obtained by acetic fermentation of dilute alcoholic liquids and used as a condiment or preservative.”

Most vinegars are initially from alcohol. Once the certain type of alcohol or material containing sugar is fermented in a particular way it becomes vinegar. The alcohol loses its essence (intoxication) and no longer remains alcohol therefore becoming vinegar which is pure as well as Halal to use.

Cider vinegar or Apple vinegar is made from the two-fold fermentation of the juices of apples. Vinegar can be made from other fruits such as peaches and berries with the labels describing starting materials.

Wine vinegar or Grape vinegar is made from the two-fold fermentation of the juice of grapes.

Spirit or distilled vinegar is made by the acetic fermentation of dilute distilled alcohol.

It is labelled white wine vinegar, spirit vinegar etc. As this was the alcohol/ material that was fermented to become vinegar.

It is stated in Kanz al-Daqaiq;
“Vinegar from alcohol is Halal, regardless of if it was made or became [vinegar] itself.”

Therefore, it is permissible to consume White vinegar, spirit vinegar etc. As it is no longer alcohol containing intoxication, and the state has completely changed. Also, this type of vinegar is clean and pure, thus if it falls on clothing etc. then the cloth is clean.

Allah knows best.
(Information regarding vinegar and its preparation taken from various reliable sources on the internet)

Answered by Mawlana Muhammad Kalim

verified by Mufti Zahid Hussain Al-Qadiri – answer from www.thesunniway.com

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/halaal-haraam/q-id0240-is-white-wine-vinegar-or-spirit-vinegar-haram/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

Yes, it is permissible. It should be noted that if there is fear of harm from someone’s evil, then in order to protect others if one mentions to the amount that is necessary that specific evil, or to prevent that evil he informs the police then this is wholly permissible, and this will be worthy of reward when when coupled with a good intention.

The Messenger of Allāh said: “Do you refrain from mentioning the evil-doer? [when will the people save themselves from him!] Mention the evil-doer along with that thing [evil] which is found in him, so that the people can recognise him and save themselves from him”.

[al-Sunanal-Kubrā, Bāb al-Rajul min Ahl al-FiqhYusalu ‘an Rajul, Volume 10, pg 210, Hadīth No. 21442]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Zameer Ahmad

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/character-moral/q-id0245-should-we-inform-the-police-of-drug-dealers-or-should-we-conceal-their-sins/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

It is not suitable for such a woman to work, however if five conditions are fulfilled then it will be permissible;

My master A’lā Hazrat the Imām of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the reviver of the religion, al-Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allāh cover him with mercy) states, “here there are five conditions”:

1. The clothes should not be so thin such that the hair of the head or the wrist etc. or any part of the sitr [that what is necessary to cover from the body] is visible
2. The clothes should not be so tight or close-fitted such that they make the shape of the body [i.e. the raising of the chest or the roundness of the calves etc.] apparent [such as is the case in wearing jeans etc.]
3. No part of the hair, neck, belly, wrist or calf should be visible
4. She should not be alone with a Non-Mahram for even a moment
5. There should be no possibility of fitnah occurring in her staying there or travelling there and back

If these five conditions are found then there is no harm, but if any one of them is not found, then taking up employment and it’s like is Harām”.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah, Volume 22,pg 228]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Zameer Ahmad

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/marriage-divorce/q-id0247-can-a-woman-work-in-a-place-where-non-mahram-men-are-present/

There are narrations from the Sunnah supporting the permissibility of wearing the ring on any hand:

“The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wore his ring on his right hand” [Shamail e Muhammadiya].

“The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wore a silver ring in his right hand, it had an African stone and he (peace and blessings be upon him) kept the stone towards his palm.” [Mishkaat Al-Masaabeeh]

“Anas (Allah is pleased with him) said the Prophet’s ring was in this and he gestured towards his small finger on his left hand.” [Saheeh Muslim]

“Ibn Umar (Allah is pleased with him) said the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wore his ring in his left hand.” [Sunan Abi Dawood]

There is also a narration from Sayyiduna Ali (Allah is pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) advised him to wear the ring on his left hand because he writes with his right hand.

This is why it says in Bahar e Shariat,

“A male is permitted to wear his ring on any hand.” [Bahar e Shariat]

Also as it has been mentioned above from the Sunnah,

“A man should keep the stone inwards facing towards his palm rather than outwards.” [Bahar e Shariat]

One must not wear the ring on the middle finger or the index finger as it is narrated from Sayyiduna Ali (Allah is pleased with him),

“The Messenger of Allah prohibited me to wear the ring in this finger of mine or this and he gestured towards the middle finger and the index finger.” [Saheeh Muslim]

One may wear the ring on his small finger as is mentioned above in a narration or the finger next to it.

A male must only wear one ring made of silver with only one stone of any type. The weight should be less than one “Mithqaal” – as mentioned in the narration of Sunan Abi Dawood after forbidding a ring made of brass and another made of iron, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said,

“Have it made from silver and ensure the weight does not complete a Mithqaal.” [Sunan Abi Dawood]

One Mithqaal is four and a half Maasha which has been calculated by some as approximately 4.365 grams and approximately 4.7 grams by others.

It is impermissible for a man to wear more than one ring or a ring made of gold, brass, iron or any other metal besides silver. [Bahar e Shariat]

It is also impermissible for a man to wear a ring with more than one stone and also to wear a “challah” which is a simple round ring all the way through without a stone or any carving on the surface that resembles the surface of where the stone is generally placed.

And Allah knows best.

Answered by Mawlana Muhammad Kalim (Preston, UK)

Verification:
The answer you have provided above is complete and correct and Allah knows best. – Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Qadri

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/halaal-haraam/q-id0250-is-it-permissible-for-men-to-wear-rings-what-is-the-sunnah/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

If a Muslim deals interest with another Muslim, then this is harām and without doubt, the one who does this is a sinner [fāsiq]. However, if a Muslim carries out such a transaction with a harbī kāfir which is otherwise harām between two Muslims, and he obtains some wealth via this transaction, this is not considered as interest. But, the condition is that there be no loss to any Muslim, rather, there should be a benefit. It is mentioned in a Hadīth: “There is no ribā [interest] between a Muslim and a harbī kāfir in dār al-harb.”

[Sharhal-Wiqāyah, Volume 2, pg 164]

Even though there is a discussion on the chain of narration [sanad] of this Hadīth, nevertheless, a Muslim’s taking of benefit through an invalid [fāsid] transaction with a harbī kāfir is proven by strong legal reasoning. The cause is that in dār al-Harb, the life and wealth of a disbeliever are not protected. Therefore, without lying and deceiving, it is permissible to take a harbī kāfir’s wealth in anyway one can. Therefore there is no interest between them [harbī kāfir and Muslim]. This wealth is lawful, even if the disbelievers have labelled it as ‘interest’. However, in this invalid transaction, the Muslim should be the one receiving benefit, and not giving benefit to the kāfir, because giving interest to a kāfir is impermissible.

It is mentioned in Waqār al-Fatāwā: “due to the wealth of a harbī kāfir being lawful [mubāhal-asl], to obtain it via these means [via an invalid transaction] is permissible,as long as there is no deception, dishonesty and force involved. In regards to giving this interest to a harbī kāfir, no Imām or Faqīh [jurist] has mentioned this, and according to us also, a Muslim can take ‘interest’ [and he considers it lawful wealth] from a harbī kāfir, but he [Muslim] cannot give it to him [harbī kāfir].”

[Waqār al-Fatāwā, Volume 1, pg 246]

Also, it is mentioned in Bahār-e-Sharī’at, “to obtain wealth from a harbī kāfir via an invalid transaction is not prohibited i.e. that transaction which is prohibited between two Muslims. If it is carried out with a harbī then it is not forbidden, however, the condition is that the transaction be beneficial for the Muslim.”

[Bahār-e-Sharī’at, Volume 2, Part 11, Law No. 29, pg 775]

However, to buy a house with cash in countries such as England, America and Canada etc. is extremely difficult. If buying a house falls into ‘Darūrah’ (necessity) or ‘Hājah’ (need), then one can fulfil one’s ‘hājah’ even if it means that a disbeliever will benefit. But, it is necessary that necessity or need is real and actual.

‘Darūrah’ is such an action which is so necessary, that if it is not carried out, there is certainty or pre-dominant assumption that one of these five things [religion, intellect, lineage, life or wealth] will be lost.

Just as it is mentioned in Fatāwā Ridawiyyah, that the divine laws are established for the protection of five things, namely; religion, intellect, lineage, life and wealth, and all actions revolve around these five things, except for useless works. If leaving an action will result in any of these [five things] being lost or close to being lost, then this is darūrah.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah, Volume 21, pg 205]

Undoubtedly, such a necessity will make the prohibited, permissible. Just as it is mentioned in al-Ashbāh: “Necessities make the prohibited, permissible”.

[al-Ashbāh wal-Nadhā-ir al-Fan al-Awwal al-Qā’idah al-Khāmis, Volume 1, pg 118]

‘Hājah’ is an action which is important, but the protection of five things, namely; religion, intellect, lineage, life and wealth are not dependant on it. However, there will be difficulty, obstacle or loss if it is left.

Just as it is mentioned in Fatāwā Ridawiyyah, and if it is not depended upon, but, leaving it will result in difficulty, or obstacle then it is hājah, for example, having a lamp is not necessary for living one’s life. During the era of Prophethood, those blessed houses never had lamps; the Mother of the believers (may Allāh be well pleased with her) states, “in those days, the houses never had lamps”, narrated by Bukhārī and Muslim. However, there not being any light in the homes of the public is definitely a cause of difficulty and obstacle.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah, Volume 21, pg 205]

In our Sharī’ah, harm/injury is repelled i.e. wherever harm is present, it will done away with and ease will brought in its place. It is for this reason that our scholars have mentioned two well known juristic principles: 1. Harm is done away with 2. Hardship brings ease.

[al-Ashbāh wal-Nadhā-ir al-Fan al-Awwal, Volume 1, pg 118]

The proof for these rules is present in the Qurān: Allāh (Most High) states,

“Allah does not wish to place you in difficulty”

[Sūrah al-Māidah, Verse 6]

Thus, in light of these these evidences, if your buying a house falls into darūrah or such a hājah which will result in difficulty, then to take out a loan which will give result in giving the other side benefit, from a bank which has no Muslim owners or from a kāfir [on an individual basis] is permissible.

It is in Fatāwāh Ridwiyyah that if any Muslim has a share in that company, then to take even one rupee extra [interest] is harām unrestrictedly.

[al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah, Volume 17, pg 339]

In Fatāwā Bareilī, in reply to a question about purchasing a house in America via a interest based loan, it is stated that,if it there is necessity or need, whether it be for religious or worldly purposes, then to take out such a loan [even if the disbeliever is benefiting] from a bank or an individual [who is a disbeliever] is permissible. It is further in the fatwā mentioned that, it is harām to take a loan from the disbelievers and return a greater amount back to them due to ‘so-called’ necessities [which in reality are not necessities], because this is giving benefit to a harbī kāfir, which is forbidden in the sharī’ah.

[Fatāwā Bareilī, pg 33]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Zameer Ahmad

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/trade-inheritance/q-id0260-is-it-permissible-to-take-out-a-mortgage-in-england/

The noble scholars have written several scenarios for this issue. The easiest one is that Zayd, the person who wants to take the loan, should sell `Amr an item in his possession, like a pot or article of clothing, for $150. `Amr should buy this and give the $150 over to Zayd’s possession. After this meeting, or after another meeting, `Amr should sell this item back to Zayd for $200, and the amount should be payable after one year. Zayd should buy this item back, and `Amr can keep it in his possession as collateral (rihan) if he wants. In this way, Zayd obtains his item against which $150 was given, and $200 is now mandatory (wājib) for `Amr. However, `Amr must not obtain any benefit from the item held as collateral because that will be considered interest. It is written in “Fatāwa Qāḍī Khān”:

رجل له على رجل عشرة دراهم فاراد ان يجعلها ثلاثة عشر الى اجل قالوا يشتري من المديون شيئا بتلك العشرة و يقبض المبيع ثم يبيع من المديون بثلثة عشر الى سنة فيقع التجوز عن الحرام و مثل هذا مروي عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انه امر بذلك

“[The scholars say] that if a man who is owed ten dirhams from another man wants to make that amount thirteen dirhams payable after a specific time period, he should buy something from the creditor for those ten dirhams and take possession of that item. Then he should sell that item back to the creditor for thirteen dirhams payable after one year. [In this way], tolerance of the illicit occurs, the like of which is narrated from the Messenger of Allah  commanded such.”

[Fatāwa Khāniyya, Kitāb ul Buyū`, Faṣl fī mā Yakūnu Firāran `an ir Ribā, Vol. 2, pg. 279, Dār ul Kitāb]

And Allah knows best.

[Fatāwa Ridāwiyya, 12-Vol. Edition, Vol. 7, pg. 121]

Translated by Omair Shariff – answer from alhaneef.com

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/trade-inheritance/q-id0262-i-want-to-loan-money-to-someone-but-want-some-benefit-from-it-what-can-i-do/

Since paying back extra was neither specifically promised, and since it is not usually a condition of repayment, any idea of interest is not considerable here, especially since Zayd verbally specified the negation of interest. This will be considered a recommended (mustaḥabb) act and is an established Sunna based on the Hadith present in Saḥīḥ Bukhārī and Saḥīḥ Muslim from Jabir ibn Abdullah رضي الله عنهما:

اتيت النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم و كان لي عليه دين فقضاني و زادني

“I came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم when he owed me a debt, so he paid me, and he paid extra.” [Saḥīḥ Bukhārī, Kitāb fi’l Istiqrāḍ, Bāb Ḥusn il Qaḍā’, Hadith 2394. Saḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb Ṣalāt il Musāfir, Bāb Istiḥbāb Taḥīyyat il Masjid bi Rak`atayn, Hadith 715]

It is also established by another hadith in the same two collections from Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه:

كان لرجل على النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سن من الابل فجاءه يتقاضاه فقال اعطوه فطلبوا سنه فلم يجدوا الا سنا فوقها فقال اعطوه فقال اوفيتني وفى الله بك فقال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ان خياركم احسنكم قضاء

“A man who was owed a camel of a certain age by the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم came to him to ask for it back, so the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم told his companions to give it to him, but they only found a camel that was one year older than the camel that was given. The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم told them to give it to him, and the man said, ‘You have paid me in full, may Allah pay you in full’. The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said, ‘The best of you are those who pay their debts handsomely’.” [Saḥīḥ Bukhārī, Kitāb fi’l Istiqrāḍ, Bāb Ḥusn il Qaḍā’, Hadith 2393, Saḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb ul Musāqah, Bāb Man Istaslafa Shay’an fa Qaḍā Khayran minhu, Hadith 1602]

The same practice is established in yet another Hadith from Suwayd ibn Qais al-`Abdi:

جلبت أنا ومخرمة العبدي بزًا من هجر، فجاءنا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فساومنا سراويل، وعندي وزان يزن بالأجر، فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للوزان ‏ زن وأرجح

‏“Makhrama al-`Abdi and I brought some cloth from [the land of] Hajar. The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم came to us and bargained with us for some trousers, and I had a man who was weighing the cloth in order to fix the price. The Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم said to the man, ‘Weigh and add a little’.” [Musnad Imām Aḥmad Hadith 19098. Jāmi` Tirmidhi, Kitāb ul Buyū`, Bāb ma Jā’a fi’l Rujḥān fi’l Wazn, Hadith 1305, Ḥasan-Saḥīḥ. Sunan Abi Dāwūd, Kitāb ul Buyū`, Bāb fi’l Rujḥān fi’l Wazn wa’l Wazn bi’l Ajr, Hadith 3336. Sunan ibn Mājah, Kitāb ut Tijārāt, Hadith 2305. Sunan Nasā’ī, Kitāb ul Buyū`, Bāb ur Rujḥān fi’l Wazn, Hadith 4592]

However, the condition of this type of repayment is that the amount should be either indivisible, like owing $9.50 and paying back $10 all at once such that one dollar cannot be divided into two parts (i.e. one dollar does not split into two dollars), or divisible and paid separately, like owing $10 and paying back $10 and then paying $1 separately. In these two scenarios, any extra money paid to Bakr will be considered lawful (halal). If the amount was divisible but paid all at once, like owing $10 and paying back $11, then this payment will neither be considered a valid gift, nor will Bakr be considered the owner of that extra amount. It is written in Fatāwa `Ālamgīri:

رجل دفع الى رجل تسعة دراهم و قال ثلاثة قضاء من حقك و ثلاثة هبة لك و ثلاثة صدقة فضاع الكل يضمن ثلاثة الهبة لانها هبة فاسدة و لا يضمن ثلاثة الصدقة لان صدقة المشاع جائزة الا في رواية كذا في محيط السرخسي

“If a man pays someone nine dirhams and says, ‘Three are your debt, three are a gift for you, and three are charity’, then the entire amount is wasted. He will be liable for the three dirhams given as a gift because it is an invalid gift. He will not be responsible for the three given as charity because charity mixed with other money is permissible except according to one opinion. This is the position mentioned in the ‘Muḥīṭ’ of Sarakhsi.”

[Fatāwa Hindīyya, Kitāb ul Hibah, al-Bab uth-Thānī, Vol 4, pg. 379, Dār ul Kitāb]

And Allah knows best.

Translated by Omair Shariff – answer from alhaneef.com

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/trade-inheritance/q-id0264-can-i-pay-the-person-who-loaned-me-money-extra-alongside-the-repayment-or-is-that-interest/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

There is no harm in celebrating one’s birthday by performing good and permissible actions, and neither is there any blame in exchanging gifts, with the condition that no unlawful actions are found in it. Nowadays, in various birthdays parties, there is free mixing of men and women, music and other acts of transgression to be found; anyone possessing intellect will consider this impermissible.

On such an occasion, it is better that one recite something from the Qurān and supplicate for the conveyance of the reward [īsāl al-thawāb], there should be supplication for a long life which is full of good deeds, and alongside distributing food amongst family, one should also feed others.

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Zameer Ahmad

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/contemporary-issues/q-id0266-is-celebrating-birthdays-allowed-what-about-exchanging-gifts-food/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

If the participants pay the fee and the winner will get the money, then it is impermissible to participate in such competitions as it is gambling.

However, if they pay the fee for the services to the person who is not a competitor and he gives them any kind of prize, then this is fine. But they should abide by the rulings for these games or sports.

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

Answered by Muftī Syed Owais Ali

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/contemporary-issues/q-id0321-can-i-join-a-competition-to-win-prizes-if-there-is-an-entry-fee/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

If the Union is Muslim owned or Muslims have a share in it or any one of its owners are Muslim then to make such a dealing with such a Union is interest and Harām. This is because the contributions from the members which will be accumulated in the union, will be a loan, according to the Shari’ah, and in this way receiving 80% of one’s income on losing one’s job will be a benefit conditioned on the loan. A benefit conditioned upon a loan is interest, it is harām and whoever did such an act then repentance becomes necessary upon him.

Just as it related in a Hadīth Sharīf:

“Every loan that draws benefit is interest.”

[Al Jām’i al Saghīr lis Suyūtī vol2 page 283 Hadith no: 4334]

If the Union belongs to a Harbī Kuffār [non-Muslims that are not residing under an Islamic state], then to make such a transaction with them which is prohibited between Muslims without an intention of taking interest money is not impermissible. But the condition is this that a Muslim should not be at a loss but benefit through such a transaction. However in the scenario described here there is also a possibility of loss as one’s first employment may not terminate during one’s entire lifetime, and having not sat a single day unemployed at home the monthly amount given to the union will have been squandered, gone to waste and there will be a loss for the Muslim. For this reason it is best in every way to refrain from such membership.

To take the wealth of a Harbī Kāfir via an Aqd Fāsid [a flawed transaction] with the condition that it is beneficial for a Muslim is permissible.

Just as it is in Bahāre Sharī’at:

“It is not prohibited to gain a Harbī Kāfir’s wealth through Aqd-e-Fāsid i.e. that business transaction which is prohibited between two Muslims. If it is done with a Harbi Kāfir then it is not prohibited but the condition is this that it should be beneficial for a Muslim.”

[Bahāre Sharī’at part 11 vol 1 rule 29 page 775]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mohamed Raza Qadri

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/trade-inheritance/q-id0317-can-i-become-a-member-of-a-work-union-which-will-pay-me-if-i-lose-my-job/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

Lighting torches and lanterns in the happiness of the birth of the noble Prophet ﷺ, has been a sign of the Ahl al-Sunnah and is still today, now electrical lighting is used in place of torches and lanterns. Hence in the happiness of the noble Prophet ﷺ plenty of lighting should be done; there is no harm in this.

Avoiding the resemblance of non-Muslims and diverging from them is in the meaning of avoiding those actions that are not liked by the sharī’ah and are their signs. It is not regarding those actions, which the pure sharī’ah likes and are the signs of the Muslims, so that if a group of non-Muslims later takes these as their signs then Muslims should leave them. Rather, Muslims should continue the action so it remains the sign of Muslims and so upcoming Muslims commemorate it as a religious festival.

As Sayyidī Ala Hazrat, Imam e Ahl al-Sunnah, Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān (may Allah envelope him in His Mercy) states in al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah;

“Firstly, who in the world will blindly understand the meaning of ‘opposing polytheists’ as; if polytheists eat bread you stay hungry, they drink water you die thirsty. ‘Opposing polytheists’ is regarding the signs of polytheists, not that if some polytheist adopts some of our actions or an action that our pure shari’ah has liked is also found amongst a polytheist community, then we leave that action; meaning it will definitely not be left.”

[Fatāwā Ridawiyyah, Volume 22, pg 623]

Christmas has been more recent, whereas in the happiness of the birth of the noble Prophet ﷺ Muslims have been lighting torches and lanterns for a a long time. Hence if a non-Muslim does this, it will not be left.

Secondly alongside lights, Muslims should differentiate by displaying a green flag, pictures of the Roza Mubarak and of the Ka’bah. Thus the conjecture of ‘resemblance of the disbelievers’ is removed.

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Hamza Hussain

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/guidance-counsel/q-id0316-should-we-avoid-putting-lights-up-for-mawlid-because-they-resemble-christmas-lights/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

When you are the owner of one house, from which your need is being fulfilled and you want to purchase the second house only to put it on rent then in this scenario acquiring the second house via mortgage is not permissible, as without need and necessity providing profit to a harbī kāfir is not permissible.

In Fatāwā Bareilī, in reply to a question regarding the acquisition of a house in America, via interest based loans, it is written – In ‘so-called’ necessities [which in reality are not necessities] getting a loan from them [kuffār] and returning extra to them is harām, as this is providing benefit to a harbi kāfir which is legally forbidden.

[Fatāwā Bareilī – Page 33]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Hamza Hussain

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/trade-inheritance/q-id0307-i-already-own-one-house-can-i-buy-another-via-a-mortgage/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

It is not permissible to consume this medication because it contains gelatine (pig’s fat). The pig in its entirety is Najis (impure), for this reason leaving this medication is necessary and any other medication should be used. There are numerous types of pain killers available in the market. If this particular medication has to be taken, then it is also available in a form that is without gelatine, its name is Flucloxacilin suspension.

Whereas the pig in it’s entirety is Harām and Najis (impure).

Almighty Allah جل جلاله states:

“The flesh of swine, for it is indeed filth.”

[Sura Al Anaam verse 145]

The swine (pig) is impure and Najas al-‘Ain (absolutely impure in its entirety) and every part of it is forbidden and impure.

It is mentioned in the famous book of Hanafī Fiqh al-Hidāyah:

“The entire swine (pig) is impure, because in the divine injucture of Almighty Allah جل جلاله the pronoun [it] points back to the pig because of it being close [in mention].”

[Al Hidāyah Bāb Al Mā’ul Ladī Yajūzu Bihil Wudū vol 1 page 125]

It is mentioned in ‘Ināyah (the commentary of Hidayah):

“Besides the flesh of the pig every other aspect of it revolves between being harām and not harām (forbidden) i.e. there is possibility of both situations, but due to caution every part of it has been mentioned as harām as the pronoun in ‘it is indeed filth’ returns back to the thing being annexed to [in: ‘flesh of swine’].”

[Al ‘Ināyah Shar Hidāyah vol 1 page 127]

It is mentioned in Fatāwā Hindiyyah:

“Every part of the pig is impure.”

[Al-Fatāwā Al Hindiyyah, Kitāb al-Tahārah vol 1 page 24]

It is mentioned in Bahāre Sharī’ah:

“The flesh, bones and the hair of the pig, even if it is slaughtered, all are major impurities.”

[Bahāre Sharī’at part 2 vol 1 page 913]

When every part of the pig is impure and forbidden, then its fat or tissue is also forbidden and that in which any part of the pig is included in is also forbidden. Let alone mixing it, if any part of it touches any liquid then that liquid becomes impure, just as it is stated in Fatāwā Hindiyyah:

“If any completely impure thing such as a pig falls into the water, then the water becomes impure, even if it were to be removed immediately and it’s mouth were did not touch the water.”

[Al Fatāwā Al Hindiyyah, Kitāb al-Tahārah vol 1 page 19]

If alcohol is mixed in a medication and there is preponderant opinion that one will be cured and besides this medication there is no other medication available, then some of our scholars in this case have permitted it but they excluded the pig from this scenario. Just as it is mentioned in Radd al-Muhtār:

Imam Hamawī رحمة الله عليه relates that it is not permissible to use the flesh of the pig in medication even though there is likely to be a cure.

[Radd al-Muhtār Bāb Furū’ Tadāwi bil Muhrim vol 2 page 118]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mohamed Raza Qadri

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/contemporary-issues/q-id0304-can-i-consume-medicine-that-contains-gelatine/

A mother can breastfeed her child until the child reaches the age of 2 years old. The measure of years is LUNAR years (i.e. Islamic years).

It is stated in Holy Qur’ān:

وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ ۖ لِمَنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُتِمَّ الرَّضَاعَةَ ۚ وَعَلَى الْمَوْلُودِ لَهُ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ۚ لَا تُكَلَّفُ نَفْسٌ إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۚ لَا تُضَارَّ وَالِدَةٌ بِوَلَدِهَا وَلَا مَوْلُودٌ لَّهُ بِوَلَدِهِ ۚ وَعَلَى الْوَارِثِ مِثْلُ ذَٰلِكَ ۗ فَإِنْ أَرَادَا فِصَالًا عَن تَرَاضٍ مِّنْهُمَا وَتَشَاوُرٍ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا ۗ وَإِنْ أَرَدتُّمْ أَن تَسْتَرْضِعُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا سَلَّمْتُم مَّا آتَيْتُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ۗ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ

“Mothers may breastfeed their children two complete years for whoever wishes to complete the nursing [period]……..”

[Sūrah al-Baqarah verse 233]

And also in another verse:

وَوَصَّيْنَا الْإِنسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ حَمَلَتْهُ أُمُّهُ وَهْنًا عَلَىٰ وَهْنٍ وَفِصَالُهُ فِي عَامَيْنِ أَنِ اشْكُرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيْكَ إِلَيَّ الْمَصِيرُ

“His mother carried him, in weakness upon weakness, and his period of weaning is two years”

[Sūrah al-Luqmān verse 14]

To breastfeed the child after the age of 2 years old is forbidden (Harām). Nor can a mother breastfeed her child beyond this age for a remedy or cure.

[Bahār-e-Sharī’ah]

However, if a woman breastfed a child before the child reached the age of 2.5 [two and a half] (lunar) years old, then she will be classed as the child’s foster mother and become a Mahram of the child.

[Bahār-e-Sharī’ah, vol, 7 with reference to al-Durr al-Mukhtār and al-Hidāyah]

Breastfeeding after two and a half years will not establish a fostering-relationship.

Allāh ﷻ knows the best.

Answered by Mawlana Mohamed Husein Qadri

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/marriage-divorce/q-id0295-till-what-age-can-a-mother-breastfeed-her-child/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

Alcoholic medication is deemed as permissible because of Umūm-e-Balwā (common plight) [the affliction of the elite and the general masses]. This permissibility is to eradicate obstacle and hardship.

Almighty Allah states:

“Almighty Allah does not will to place you in hardship”

[Surah Mā’idah verse 6]

Sayyidī Imām Ahmad Rida Khān (may Allāh cover him in mercy) with consideration to Umūm-e-Balwā gave the verdict of purity concerning a colouring satchet into which alcoholic spirits were added. Sayyidī Imām Ahmad Rida Khān (may Allāh cover him in mercy) states:

“If the mixing of spirits into the coloring satchet is proven in accordance to the Shar’iah [method of establishing proof], but there is no doubt that those who live in the Sub-Continent are afflicted by its colouring in a widespread manner and Umūm-e-Balwā in regards to agreed upon impurity is a cause of lightening [of the ruling].”

[Fatāwā Ridawiyyah Vol. 4, Pg. 381]

Sayyidī Imām Ahmad Rida Khān (may Allāh cover him in mercy) further states:

“Just as Umūm-e-Balwā causes the judgement to be lightened in the case of impurity, it is similarly effective in regards to the permissible and the forbidden… It is not hidden from the servant of Islamic Jurisprudence that just as this principle is in application in the chapters of purity and impurity it is likewise in application in the chapters of permissibility and prohibition.”

[Fatāwā Ridawiyyah Kitāb al-Ashribah Vol. 25, Pg 88]

But this permissibility is specifically for those scenarios where there is widespread, common plight [the elite and the general masses are all afflicted] and hardship is proven. Whereas this is not the case in regards to the scenario of alcohol in drinks and for this reason there is no permissibility in consuming alcoholic drinks.

Firstly, the consumption of alcohol containing drinks is not an absolute necessity in order to stay alive, nor is there Umūm e Balwā in regards to them, furthermore nonalcoholic drinks are also available and easily attainable in every place. Likewise, all those liquids containing alcohol do not fall under the ruling of Umūm e Balwā.

In those liquids wherein alcohol is mixed, even if it is added for processing and in due course of the process the alcohol evaporates, safety is in refraining from then.

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

کتبہ ابو الحسن محمد قاسم ضیاء قادری

Answered by Mufti Qasim Zia al-Qadri

Translated by Mohamed Raza Qadri

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/contemporary-issues/q-id0289-what-is-the-islamic-ruling-on-consuming-medicine-that-contains-alcohol/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

If the participants pay the fee and the winner will get the money, then it is impermissible to participate in such competitions as it is gambling.

However, if they pay the fee for the services to the person who is not a competitor and he gives them any kind of prize, then this is fine. But they should abide by the rulings for these games or sports.

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

Answered by Muftī Syed Owais Ali

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/contemporary-issues/q-id0321-can-i-join-a-competition-to-win-prizes-if-there-is-an-entry-fee/

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم

الجواب بعون الملک الوھاب اللھم ھدایۃ الحق والصواب

All the body parts of a Halal animal (including meat, brain etc.) are Halal to consume. However, there are some parts which are either Haram or Makruh or Prohibited. The latter includes the Ojri (stomach) and testicles. Therefore, it is unlawful to eat Orji and testicles, whereas consuming the brain of a Halal animal is permissible. As it is mentioned in Fatawa al-Ridawiyyah:

حلال جانور کے سب اجزاء حلال ہیں، مگر بعض کہ حرام یا ممنوع یا مکروہ ہیں (۱) رگوں کا خون (۲) پتا (۳) پُھکنا (۴) و (۵) علامات مادہ ونر (۶) بیضے (۷) غدود (۸) حرام مغز (۹) گردن کے دو پٹھے کہ شانوں تک کھنچے ہوتے ہیں (۱۰) جگر کا خون (۱۱) تلی کا خون (۱۲) گوشت کا خون کہ بعد ذبح گوشت میں سے نکلتا ہے (۱۳) دل کا خون (۱۴) پت یعنی وہ زرد پانی کہ پتے میں ہوتاہے (۱۵) ناک کی رطوبت کہ بھیڑ میں اکثر ہوتی ہے (۱۶) پاخانہ کا مقام (۱۷) اوجھڑی (۱۸) آنتیں (۱۹) نطفہ (۲۰) وہ نطفہ کہ خون ہوگیا (۲۱) وہ کہ گوشت کا لوتھڑا ہوگیا (۲۲) وہ کہ پورا جانور بن گیا اور مردہ نکلا یا بے ذبح مرگیا

All the parts of a Halal animal are Halal except a few which are either Haram or prohibited or Makruh.

[They include] (1) blood of the veins (2) gall bladder (3) bladder (4-5) genitals of male and female [animals] (6) testicles (7) glands (8) spinal cord (9) tendons that stretch from the neck to the shoulders (10) liver-blood (11) spleen-blood (12) meat-blood emanating from meat after the slaughter (13) heart-blood (14) bile or gall (i.e. a yellowish fluid in the gall bladder) (15) nasal fluid mostly found in sheep (16) anus (17) tripe (18) intestines (19) sperm (20) the sperm that has turned into blood (21) the sperm that has turned into a piece of flesh and (22) the one that has turned into a complete animal and is born dead or born alive but has died without being slaughtered. [Fatawa al-Ridawiyyah vol 20, pg. 240-241]

واللہ تعالی اعلم ورسولہ اعلم صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

Answered by Muftī Syed Owais Ali

http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/miscellaneous/q-id0329-what-is-the-ruling-on-eating-ojri-stomach-and-brains-of-an-animal/