Nasīhatu Ahli Az-Zamān authored by Shaykh Mujaddid `Uthmān Dan Fodio rahimahullāh 36

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين
والصلاة والسلام على سيد الأولين والآخرين
سيدنا وحبيبنا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين

Assalāmu Alaykum Warahmatullāh Wabarakātuh

Honored brothers and sisters, you are welcome to this morning’s session of the Halqah

We ask Allāh to make it sincere for His sake and to make it beneficial ij this life and the Hereafter for us and for you altogether, amin

We have been on the Commentary of the illustrious book ‘Nasīhatu Ahli Az-Zamān authored by the Enlightened Shaykh Uthmān Dan Fodio – rahimahullāh –

We stopped at an explanation of the Diffences of Opinion he discussed under the following Matter:

ومن أمثلة ما وقع في هذا الزمان من الأمور التي اختلف العلماء في حكمها: اقتناء أواني الفضة من غير استعمال والمموه والمضيب، وإناء الجهاهر
وفي المعيار: واختلف في اقنتاء الأواني المتخذة من الذهب والفضة من غير استعمال. انتهى

“And among the matters that have occurred in this era about whose ruling the Ulama differed is the possessing of plates made of silver without using them, that which is coated, alloyed, and plates made of jewels”

And then we explained the differences referred and promised to expatiate further on this this weekend to accommodate for alloyed and plated plates and cups that are of Silver and Gold.

Alhamdulillāh
The First Matter:
That which is mended with Gold or silver
This is known as the Mudabbab
Scenario: when a plate or container gets broken or torn, a string of Silver or gold is used to tie the broken parts together. Or a little flat piece of it is used to mend the break

On Mending with Silver

As for this, there are two verdicts within our Ulamā

The first, that it is permissible. And this is the position favoured by the Hanafi, the Shāfi’ī, and the Hanbali Schools, and the unofficial position held by some of the Mālikī Imams. It was explained by An-Nawawī in Al-Majmū’ and Ibn Taymiyyah in the Fatāwah that this is allowed as a necessity and provided it was not done by way of beautification and luxury.

The Second, that it is not permissible, and this is the position upheld by the Mālikī School in their official position. Imām Mālik mentioned in the ‘Utbiyyah as was credited to him that he disliked the use of it and Imām Al-Bājī – rahimahullāh – interpreted the dislike as the dislike that accompanies forbidance. Ibn Rushd Al-Mālikī – rahimahullāh – also referred to this in At-Tāju Wa Al-Iklīl
In Mending with Gold, there are also Two verdicts. The Mālikī, the Shāfi’ī and the Hanbali Schools held that this was Harām whether for necessity sakes or for beauty and luxury. Abū Yūsuf, a student of Abū Hanīfah concurred with them in this. Whereas, the verdict held by Abū Hanīfah was that this was permissible. The Khurasānis from among the Shāfi’ī Scholars agreed with Abū Hanīfah on the condition that this was small and negligible. They therefore allowed for the use of gold rings or strings for mending of any sort provided that it is little. Whether to mend plates, containers or chairs, etc
Ar-Rāfi’ī mentioned this. Refer to Fat’hu Al-‘Azīz

We say, and Allāh knows best, that as for Silver, then we have a proof from the Hadīth that is sound that the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – used a string of Silver to mend and tie his leaking container.

The Hadīth is recorded by Imām Al-Bukhāri from Āsim, from Ibn Sīrīn, from Anas Ibn Mālik who said:

“The container of the Prophet – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – broke and he used a string of Silver to mend the place of leakage.”

‘Āsim said:
“I saw this particular container and drank from it myself”
The point of dispute on this Hadīth is the position held by the Mālikī Imāms.

The brilliant Imām Al-Bājī, after mentioning that Ibn ‘Umar forbade mending with silver as was authentically reported by Ibn Abī Shaybah from Nāf’i and graded Sahih by Ibn Hajar in At-Talkhīs, also mentioned the Hadīth recorded by Al-Bukhārī that Abū Talhah forbade Anas from using a gold or silver string from mending the container of the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – that was mended with an iron string. And then concluded that the ‘he’ referred in the Hadīth from Anas as recorded by Al-Bukhārī that mend the broken container with a string of silver was Anas Ibn Mālik and not the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam. He also argued that it means this was a position held by Anas Ibn Mālik and not that of the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – which was opposed by other Sahābah. Ibn ‘Umar for example.

We say, and guidance comes from Allāh, that this Interjection is returned by saying that Abū Talhah in the Hadīth referred prevented Anas from changing the iron string to a silver string because the use of the iron string was a deed of the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – and he wanted him to leave it as the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – had left it.

Likewise, if the Hadīth in which Abū Talhah was mentioned refers that Anas was prevented from using the Silver string to replace the iron string used to mend the container and he refrained from doing that due to the command not to do so by his step father, which container did Ibn Sīrīn narrated that was mended with the silver string? Can it be the same container? Or another container?

What gives tranquility to the heart and which is sound is that the mending referred was done by the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – and that the forbiddance of Anas to change the iron string to silver string by Abū Talhah was either for another container or another patch on the same container. Allāh knows best.

Now, if we were to assume, as some Fuqaha have argued, that the deed of mending was done by Anas and not the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – this does not debunk our position that mending with silver string by way of necessity is permissible. Reason is that Anas lived with the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – and was his servant and Orderly. If he differed with Ibn ‘Umar on this, then his position holds more weight because the matters of containers are more likely to be known by the one who serves. And Allāh knows best.

As for mending with gold, then what holds more weight is impermissibility. Reason: there is nothing to prove permissibility because of the general ruling of the Hadīth that forbade the use of gold and silver for eating and/or drinking. And we have referred to that Hadīth last week
And Allāh knows best

We will close here for the week.

Bārakallāhu fīkum
Jazākumullāhu Khayran
Assalāmu Alaykum Warahmatullāh Wabarakātuh

24th Shawwal 1439H
(07/07/2018)
IslamNode
🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿