Analysis of Ashhab’s Opinion on Combining Prayers

 

Ashhab ibn ‘Abd al-Aziz (140AH – 204AH) was a famous Egyptian jurist and companion of Imam Malik. Some have claimed that he was of the view that combining between two prayers without a valid Shar‘i excuse is permissible. This view contradicts the Mashhur position in the Maliki school. However, has that opinion been established from Ashhab?  Below we will analyse the view of Ashhab:

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 386 H), the famous author of the Risalah, quotes Ashhab as follows:

“[Ashhab said:] The non-traveller also has a dispensation to do that [i.e. join Ẓuhr and ‘Asr/ Maghrib and ‘Isha’], although it is better not to. He has this licence because he is praying in one of the two times that Jibril stipulated. When the shadow becomes the same length (as a standing object), this is the end time of Ẓuhr and the start time of ‘Asr…This is also the case with Maghrib and ‘Isha’. The disappearance of the twilight is a common time for both of them…The Prophet ﷺ joined at the end of one time and the start of the other time. That is, to complete Ẓuhr when the shadow is the same length (as a standing object), or to start it when the shadow is the same length; and then to stand and pray ‘Asr after it. Or to complete Maghrib when the twilight has disappeared or to begin it at that time; and then offer ‘Isha’ thereafter.” (Nawādir, 1:263)

According to the well-known view in the Maliki school, Ẓuhr and ‘Asr have a shared time. That is, when the shadow of a standing object becomes equal to its length, the time of ‘Asr enters. However, the time of Ẓuhr does not end immediately at the start of ‘Asr, but there is a small window of time when they can both be prayed. This is based on the hadith in which Jibril led the Prophet ﷺ in prayer. In this hadith, it states that he led him in Ẓuhr on the second day when the shadow of a standing object was the same length; and this is despite the fact that he led him in ‘Asr on the first day at the very same time. Based on this, according to the well-known position in the Maliki madhhab, there is a shared time between Ẓuhr and ‘Asr. This is also the case with Maghrib and ‘Isha’: there is a small window of time when they can both be prayed just after the twilight disappears. Ashhab, who upholds this opinion, says Ẓuhr and ‘Asr can be combined even without a valid excuse, but only by praying each within their own respective times.

Ashhab’s comment: “because he is praying in one of the two times that Jibrīl stipulated” means that he is praying Ẓuhr at the time that Jibril prayed on the second day i.e. in the common time of Ẓuhr and ‘Asr. His subsequent explanation shows that he believes each of the two prayers are prayed in their own times.

Ibn Yunus (d. 451), a great mujtahid in the Maliki school, also quotes Ashhab saying the exact same thing. (al-Jāmi‘ li Masā’il al-Mudawwana, pp. 712-13) Al-Baji (d. 494) in his commentary of Muwaṭṭa’ narrates this position of Ashhab also, stating the same. (al-Muntaqā, 2:235, 236)

Qaḍi ‘Iyaḍ (d. 544 H) in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim says:

“All the ‘ulama’ have opined that it is not permissible to combine between two prayers without an excuse, except for a fringe group amongst them from the early Muslims, like Ibn Sirin, and from our [Maliki] authorities, Ashhab. They permitted it for a need and excuse as long as it is not made a habit. ‘Abdul Malik said something similar for Ẓuhr and ‘Asr. Their proof for this is the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas, and the statement: ‘He did not want to cause inconvenience to his ummah.” He (‘Abdul Malik) interpreted that to mean delaying the first prayer until the end of its time and bringing the second to the start of its time, as interpreted by Abu l-Sha‘tha and ‘Amr ibn Dinar in Book of Muslim. Ashhab also explained the hadith in the same way. He said: ‘Because he prayed at the second of the two times that Jibrīl prayed’…Once this is so, there is no disagreement.” (Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 3:36)

Qaḍi ‘Iyaḍ makes it clear that there is no disagreement, since Ashhab did not say it is permissible to perform these prayers outside of their own times. They are each performed in their respective times but with an apparent combining (Jam’ Ṣūrī). Also note: the above references are quoting Ashhab’s words directly, explicitly showing he meant apparent combining.

It becomes very clear from the above that Ashhab did not advocate a real combining (Jam’ Haqīqī). Moreover, some Maliki authorities quote Ashhab as sharing the view of the Hanafis: that apart from Hajj, there is never a real combining, only apparent combining. The author of Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl says:

“The disputed scenario (of joining prayers) is a traveller combining outside of ‘Arafa and Muzdalifa. Malik and al-Shafi‘i said it is permissible to combine in general. Abu Hanifa and his followers said it is impermissible. Ashhab amongst the students of Malik agreed with him.” (Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl, 1:419)

Hence, the position of Ashhab cannot be used to claim there is an opinion of actual combining in the Maliki madhhab, even if some later scholars may have misunderstood his opinion to mean this. From the clear quotes from him above, no room remains for interpretation. Those who wish to respond, should address the clear reference to apparent combining  found in Ashhab’s statement and also Qaḍi ‘Iyaḍ’s comment that based on Ashhab’s own explanation, no disagreement really exists.


By Zameelur Rahman


Also see:

1) Al-Mazari on giving verdicts contrary to the Mashhur in one’s school
2) Importance of following the Mashhur — Protocols of Fatwa

 

Al-Mazari: Giving verdicts contrary to the established positions of one’s school

Al-Mazari [d. 536 AH] was asked:

Is it possible to take the position of Sa`id bin ‘l-Musayyab in an irrevocably divorced woman by considering her legalised by mere contract? And is this issue from the issues of the fundamentals of the religion (Usul), or from the subsidiary issues (Furu’) in which every mujtahid is correct? And if I do this and did follow Sa`id bin ‘l-Musayyab, then [would it be] with sin or not?

He responded:

I already have a detailed answer I gave for this specific issue, when a question from Tunis (may Allah protect it) came. A man who studied Usul under me some time back got married to a woman, divorced her thrice, then had her returned as a legal wife after another man had contracted with her in marriage without penetration. So a question came to me from the judge and scholars of [Tunis]. Upon this, I condemned him so much that they thought I had permitted them to punish him. I mentioned that if this door is opened, a lot of religious irregularities, negative consequences in following [those] rulings, and preferring scholars of the past over competent contemporary scholars (on top of the difference that has occurred between the scholars of Usul regarding the following of a deceased scholar in the presence of a competent [living] scholar).

The advice I gave was that, as part of the fortified religion, exiting from the school of Malik and his disciples must be prohibited (Nahy) as a safeguard for the means. If [following any scholar of any school from any era] was legalised, [another] man would say, “I can sell a dinar for two, due to what has been reported from Ibn `Abbas”, then another would come and say, “I can marry a woman and take her private part as legal without any representative (Wali) or witnesses, by following Abu Hanifah in the issue of representative and Malik in the issue of witnesses, and I would marry her for just a penny by following al-Shafi`i.” This would be the worst place for harm.

Such activity was usually curbed in previous eras despite the piety of its people and their fear for the sake of their honour and religion. So how about an era in which the situation has become such that its people have fallen far too short of those preceding them, as is evident for the intellectual? This era is more worthy of having such a lax approach to religious affairs curbed. The judges and jurists of [this man’s] place should therefore not even consider the position of [Sa`id bin ‘l-Musayyab]; rather they must enact an annulment against that [marriage] and break [it] up. Their own selves should not allow them to abandon the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i and Abu Hanifah due to the agreement of all the [Muslim] cities in following them, as this marriage prevents him from [following them]. And how can his own self allow for him to take a female private part as legal today, and have it declared illegal against him by a judge – who may contemplate punishment over that – the very next day?

As for your question regarding whether this issue is from the fundamentals of religion or from its subsidiaries, then according to me, the most correct position is that it is from the subsidiaries, because the reason for difference therein are inconclusive matters, not definitive. This is because the word of marriage in Allah’s statement “… then she would not be legal for him until she marries a husband apart from him” could be the contract as its literal meaning, and intercourse as its metaphorical meaning, or vice versa…

… However, even though this is from the subsidiaries according to me, then [realise] we have already mentioned what would prevent [that] man from [taking] this [alternative interpretation of the verse].

I remember when I was an adolescent by my master in Usul (may Allah have mercy on him). It was the first [night] of Ramadan, and the people had gone to sleep without having intended to fast [the following day]. I said, “We don’t need to make up for this day as is the position of some students of Malik in a solitary narration.” My teacher took me by the ear and told me, “If you want to read knowledge like this, then don’t bother studying at all, because if you start looking for [only] the convenient things on the path, a little heretic will come out of you…”

So you can see how our Imams — who used to fear Allah — used to condemn the one who is lax in his religious affair and exits from one school to another, as this leads to tribulation. And Allah knows the secrets of His servants. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Leave that which throws you in doubt for that which does not put you in doubt.”

This amount should suffice.

[Fatawa ‘l-Mazari, pg. 151-154, Al-Dār al-Tunisiyyah Tunis, 1st edition, 1414 A.H.]

He further said, indirectly indicating to the lax nature of his contemporaries in passing rulings:

“All praise is for Allah, the only one who is praised, and the only one consulted in every affair. We seek His refuge from becoming those who are overpowered by predilection, and make ignorance their last place and abode. I turn to Allah that he does not make us from those who thinks knowledge is all about claims, and who wants to flood the laymen with his rulings – such a person is far removed. Knowledge is only that which its people testify to, and greatness is only that which is known from those who possess it. The law is not by the one who says ‘Me’, and suffices with being commended and praised.”

[Fatawa ‘l-Mazari, pg. 307, Al-Dār al-Tunisiyyah Tunis, 1st edition, 1414 AH]

Lastly, it should be noted that Al-Mazari’s opinion was directed at those in authority, passing edicts and judgements, not at laymen. He says:

“I would not pass rulings apart from that which is Mashhur. I would not place the people on anything else. Indeed, fear of Allah and safeguarding for the religion has diminished. There are a lot of those who claim knowledge and are bold enough to pass rulings without any insight. If this door was opened for them, so that they could go against the famously established position school, the tear would widen from the patch, and the school’s cover of awe would be breached. This is from the evils from which there is no hiding… “

Praising al-Mazari for his stance, Abi Ishaq al-Shatibi Ibrahim bin Musa al-Gharnati [d. 790 AH], said:

“See how this Imam and scholar, despite his leadership and greatness being agreed upon, did not allow passing rulings apart from the famously established position of the school and its known rulings, and this is a Maslahahand necessity—based viewpoint, that fear of Allah and religiosity has diminished in many of those who have jobs in the spreading of knowledge and passing of edicts. If this door was opened, the foundations of the schools – in fact all schools – would be dismantled whatever becomes necessary for something would become necessary for its likes [as well]…”

[Taken from al-Miʿyār ál-Muʿrib Wa-‘l-Jāmiʿ ál-Mughrib by ál-Wansharīsī (died 914 A.H.), 12/25, Ministry of Awqāf and Islāmic Affairs Morocco, 1st edition, 1401 A.H.; originally sourced in al-Shatibi’s al-Muwafaqat]


By Sayyidi I. Ibrahim

 

Imams of Fiqh and Sufis Aiding Their Followers in The Afterlife

Imam Abdul Wahhab ash-Sha’rani says:

We have mentioned in Kitab al-Ajwibah on the authority of the Imams of the fuqaha (jurists) and the sufis that all the Imams of the fuqaha and sufis  will intercede for their followers. They (their followers) will witness the presence of each of them at the moment their soul leaves their body, at the point they are questioned by Munkar and Nakir (in the grave), when they are resurrected, when they are gathered, when they are brought to account, when their actions are weighed on the scale, and when they come to the bridge (Sirat). The Imams of the fuqaha and the sufis will not abandon them (their followers) at any stage in the stages of the afterlife.

When our Shaykh, Shaykhul-Islam, Nasir-ud-Din al-Laqqani passed away, one of the righteous people saw him in a dream and this righteous person said to him: “What has Allah done with you?” He replied: ‘When the two angels sat me up in the grave in order to ask me questions, Imam Malik came to them and said, “Does someone like him require his Iman (belief) in Allah and His Messenger ﷺ to be questioned?” Then the two angels moved away from him (Imam Malik) and moved away form me.’

If the scholars of the sufis take care of their followers and mureeds in all of their affairs and difficulties in this world and the afterlife, then how will it be with the Imams of the four schools of thought who are Awtad on the Earth, the pillars of the religion, the trustees of the Lawgiver (who are responsible) for His nation? May Allah be pleased with them all.

So, my brother, gladly follow any Imam from amongst them as you wish—all Praise belongs to Allah.


[Abdul Wahhab ash-Sha’rani, Al-Mizan al-Kubra. Tr. Mohammad Jamili]

 

 

Protected: The Relation Between Awrah & The Obligation To Veil The Face According To The Maliki School

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Delaying The Prayers Beyond Their Prescribed Times

Allah says in the Qur’an
“…there came after them generations who neglected prayer and were driven by their own desires. These will come face to face with their evil (Ghayya), but those who repent, who believe, who do righteous deeds, will enter Paradise. They will not be wronged in the least…” [Surah Maryam 19:59-60]
Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
The meaning of ‘neglected’ here does not imply complete abandonment of the prayer but delaying it beyond it time.
Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab, the Imam of the Tabi‘un, said:
It means not praying Zuhr until the time of ‘Asr; not praying ‘Asr until the time of Maghrib; not praying Maghrib until the time of ‘Isha; not praying ‘Isha until the time of Fajr, and not praying Fajr until the sun has risen. If someone dies persisting in this state without repenting, Allah has promised him Ghayy, which is a deep valley in Hell whose food is disgusting.
Sa‘d b. Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
I asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about ‘those who are forgetful of their prayer‘ (107:4-5), and he said, ‘It means delaying it’ – in other words, delaying it beyond its time.
[al-Bazzar]
Ibn Hazm [d. 465AH] said:
After Shirk, there are no wrong actions greater than delaying the prayer beyond its time and killing a believer without right.
Lastly, Imam adh-Dhahabi says, we find in a hadith:
Whoever presevers in the prescribed prayers, Allah Almighty will grant him five honours:
  1. He will release him from straitened circumstances,
  2. protect him from the punishment of the grave,
  3. give him his book (of deeds) in his right hand,
  4. let him pass over the Sirat (The Bridge over hellfire) like lightning, and
  5. admit him to Paradise without reckoning.

May Allah forgive us for our shortcomings and grant us the strength to worship Him in accordance with the Sunnah of our Master Muhammad ﷺ.


[Shams ad-Din adh-Dhahabi, al-Kaba’ir]

 

The Bad Adab in Refutations That Aim to Protect The Noble Religion

In this age of decadence where the moral fabric of the society is being ripped apart, there are some deluded people, sadly “scholars” too, who remain silent about falsehood and wrongdoings that surround them. In some cases, they endorse it, for whatever reason. And in many other cases, they conflate refutation and rejection of falsehood with “bad-adab”. As if Adab (propriety) entails accepting falsehood and wrongdoings and not speaking against them; handing out chocolates and gifts to the one who has slapped you; and overemphasising the Prophetic Jamal while neglecting the Prophetic Jalal.

Allah says in the Qur’an:

“[Believers] you are the best community singled out for mankind: you enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, and believe in Allah…” [Surah Aali ‘Imran 3:110]

‘Good’ in the Arabic language is ‘Khayr‘ and ‘Bad/Evil’ in the Arabic language is ‘Sharr‘. Why then are the words Ma’rūf and Munkar used? Ma’rūf literally refers to that which is known, because it is what the heart is familiar with. Munkar literally refers to that which is not known, as it is not known to the heart but the heart learns it. We don’t have the idea of ‘original sin’ or that children are inherently evil. They have to be taught that as their hearts are originally pure. The reason they begin doing bad things is because they are being taught that by humans or Shayātīn. [R Nsour, Sharh al-Akhdari]

It is interesting that Allah mentions “you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” first and then mentions “and believe in Allah”. Whereas belief in Allah should come first and our actions should then follow. But if we look at the testimony of faith: “There is none worthy of worship except Allah”, we see, as our scholars have mentioned, it is negation (‘There is none worthy of worship…’) followed by affirmation (‘…except Allah’). So, we are negating all deities and refuting all types of falsehood before confirming the Truth; Godhood and Oneness of Allah. One enters the religion with a refutation because falsehood must first be obliterated and only then will true belief manifest. It is also evident from the biography of our Master Muhammad ﷺ that he preached Tawhid (monotheism) for a decade, before conveying anything else, for it is necessary to know the One we are submitting to, before knowing what it is he has commanded us to submit to.

Having said that, to now believe that one must be harsh in preserving the religious boundaries or that we must have a “soft spiritual approach” where transgressions are tolerated, is far from the truth. We discipline our ego, put it aside and love and hate for the sake of Allah only, as that is how our Master Muhammad ﷺ taught us to be. He placed his love and anger appropriately and never got angry for the sake of his own self but only when the rights of Allah were violated.

The conditions for enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong are mentioned by Ibn Rushd in al-Bayan wa’l-Tahsil:

Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is obligatory upon every Muslim, subject to three conditions:

  1. He should know what ‘right’ is and what ‘wrong’ is. If he is ignorant of the ruling then there is a possibility that he will forbid something that is right and enjoin something that is wrong.
  2. The denunciation of wrong should not lead to a greater evil, such as if he tells people not to drink alcohol and that may result in murder and the like. In that case, it is not permissible for him to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.
  3. He should know or think it most likely that his denunciation of evil will put a stop to it, and that his enjoining good will be effective and beneficial. If he doesn’t know that or doesn’t think it (will be effective), then it not obligatory upon him to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

The first two conditions are essential for it to be permissible, and the third condition is essential for it to be obligatory. If the first and second conditions are not met, then it is not permissible to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. If the third condition is not met, but the first and second ones are, then it is permissible for him to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, but it is not obligatory.

Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman bin Qudamah says in Mukhtasar Minhaj al-Qasidin:

Knowing that there is a certain evil in a market that can be reformed, one should rectify it. Every Muslim should reform himself first, keeping obligations and deserting sins. He should then do the same to his household and relatives, then comes his neighbours, then his fellows of his hometown, then citizens of his country. Finally come people of the world.

Lastly, Ustadh Amjid Mahmood mentions that Shaykh M.S. Ramadan al-Bouti said during a Dars he delivered on Jami’ al-Iman, almost a decade ago:

People often confuse using Hikma (wisdom) as being soft and gentle. But Hikma is rather to use the most effective method and treatment, which can sometimes be harsh and other times soft.

May Allah grant us the right understanding of our religion; forgive us for our shortcomings; and grant us ‘Afiyah (wellbeing) in religion, in our life in this world and in the world to come. Amin!


By Abdul Samad Ali

 

“Every Saint has a past and every sinner has a future”

This statement of Oscar Wilde truly summarises the Islamic tradition where sinners like Malik ibn Dinar (d. 130 AH), ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181 AH), al-Fudhayl ibn ‘Iyadh (d. 187 AH), and many others, abandoned their sinful lives and lived on to become Saints after a sincere utterance of Astaghfirullah [I seek Allah’s forgiveness].

Many classical texts on Tasawwuf or Islamic Spirituality highlight that one’s spiritual journey begins with Tawbah or Repentance. Allah says in the Qur’an: ‘Believers, all of you, turn to God so that you may prosper.’ [Surah an-Nur 24:31]

Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi (d. 741AH) comments on the above verse in his commentary Al-Tashil li ‘Ulum al-Tanzil:

“Repentance is an obligation upon every legally-responsible believer according to the evidences in the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the [Muslim] nation.

It has three obligations:

  1. Feeling remorse over the sin due to disobeying God, not due to some harm that may have come to one’s wealth or self.
  2. Refraining from the sin as immediately as possible, without procrastination or slackness.
  3. Resolving not to repeat it again; but if one does, then one renews the resolve.

It has three etiquettes:

  1. To acknowledge one’s sin along with feeling utterly broken.
  2. To increase in entreating God and beseeching His forgiveness.
  3. To increase in doing good works so as to erase past wrongs.
It has seven degrees:
  1. Repentance of disbelievers from disbelief.
  2. Repentance of the sincere ones from major sins.
  3. Repentance of the upright ones from minor sins.
  4. Repentance of the devout worshippers from slackness.
  5. Repentance of wayfarers from the defects and vices of the heart.
  6. Repentance of the high-minded, scrupulous ones from doubtful matters.
  7. Repentance of those spiritually witnessing God from being distracted from God.
The causes of repentance are seven:
  1. Fear of punishment.
  2. Hope of reward.
  3. Embarrassment of being held responsible.
  4. Love for the Beloved.
  5. The vigilance of the vigilant one who is near.
  6. Glorifying the station.
  7. Gratitude for numerous bounties.”


[Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, Al-Tashil li ‘Ulum al-Tanzil (Hawally, Kuwait: Dar al-Dhiya’, 2009), Vol. 2 pg. 537. Tr. Abu Aaliya]
[Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, Al-Tashil li ‘Ulum al-Tanzil (Hawally, Kuwait: Dar al-Dhiya’, 2009), Vol. 2 pg. 537. Tr. Abu Aaliya]