Nasīhatu Ahli Az-Zamān authored by Shaykh Mujaddid `Uthmān Dan Fodio rahimahullāh 32

🕌 HALQAH SESSION

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين
والصلاة والسلام على سيد الأولين والآخرين
وعلى آله وصحبه ومن تبعهم أجمعين
Honored brothers and Sisters on the Platform,

Assalāmu Alaykum Warahmatullāh Wabarakātuh.

You are welcome to this morning’s session of the Halqah

Where we have been studying the Nasīhatu Ahli Az-Zamān authored by the Shaykh and Mujaddid of West Africa, Shaykh Uthmān Dan Fodio – rahimahullāh.

We stopped at where he said:
قلت: وعلى هذا فلا ننكر إنكار الحرام على من أخذ أموالهم وأكلها وإن كان الورع ترك ذلك لأنه من المسائل التي اختلف العلماء في حكمها

“I say: and based on this, we do not rebuke, the rebuke of Harām, the one that seizes their wealth and consumes it even though what scrupulousness calls for is to abandon that because this is a matter about whose ruling the Ulamā have differed”
And we explained the matters arising from that.

Then the Shaykh said:

فمن أمثلة الأمور التي اختلف العلماء في حكمها، تحلية آلات الحرب غير السيف بالذهب والفضة
“And among the matters about whose ruling the Ulamā have differed is decorating other than swords among the weapons of war with gold and silver”

قال ابن جزي في القوانين في بيان ما يجوز من الحلي: أما للنساء فيجوز مطلقا، وأما للرجال فتحلية السيف بلفضة اتفاقا، وفي تحليته بالذهب قولان وفي إلحاق سائر آلات الحرب بالسيف قولان. انتهى

“Ibn Juzayy said in Al-Qawānīn while discussing what is permissible of ornaments:

As for women, then there is unrestricted permissibility. But for men, ornamenting swords with silver is permissible by agreement. And in ornamenting it with gold is two verdicts, and in encompassing other weapons of war with the permissibility of ornamenting the sword with it is two verdicts”
وفي المختصر:
وحرِّم استعمال ذكر المحلى ولو منطقة وآلة حرب
قال الخراشي في هذا المحل:
أي يحرم تحلية المنطقة وآلة الحرب في المشهور، سواء كان ما يتقى به كالترس أو يضارب به كالرماح والسكين، أو يركب كالسرج والركاب، أو يستعان به على الفرس كاللجام
“And in the Mukhtasar:
And it is not permissible for the man to ornament (with gold) on belts and weapons of war.”
Al-Kharāshī said while explaining this point:

“What this means is that the more dominant position is that it isnt permissible to ornament the belts and weapons of war whether it be what is used for defence such as the shield, what is used to attack such as spears and knives, what is climbed such as tool that supports the legs of the rider on a mount or the mount, or that it is used for anything that aids on horses such as the bridles.”

Then he said:
قلت: وعلى هذا فلا ننكر إنكار الحرام على من استعمل بما ذكر، ولو كان المشهور عدم جواز ذلك في غير السيف لأنه من المسائل التي اختلف العلماء في حكمها
“I say: and based on this, we do not rebuke by way of Harām the one who uses what has been mentioned even though what is dominant is the impermissibility in other than the sword. This is because this is of the matters about whose rulings the Ulamā have differed.”

What the Shaykh referred to is very important for the Ulamā have differed on the ruling of ornamenting the weapons of war with gold.

The position favoured by the majority among the Hanafiyyah, the Malikiyyah and the Shāfi’iyyah is impermissibility. This is also a position within the Hanbali School. Their proof is the Hadīth in which the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – said:

إن هذين حرام على ذكور أمتي

“Indeed these two are Harām for the men of my Ummah”
This Hadīth is recorded by Abū Dāwud and An-Nasa’ī from ‘Alī Ibn Abī Tālib among the Sahābah

They also made evidence with the fact that in such doing is the increase in pomposity and arrogance, and wastefulness. Whereas the official position in the Hanbali position is that it is permissible to use gild for war materials. This position was the choice of Al-Āmidī in Al-Insāf and Ibn Taymiyyah – rahimahullāh – in the Majmū’ah.

As for the use of Silver, the Shāfi’ī and Hanbalī position is permissibility as was mentioned in Kashshāfu Al-Qinā and Muntahā Al-Irādāt whereas the Hanafis and the Malikis disagree and consider it impermissible, this was referred to in An-Nihāyatu Shar’hu Al-Hidāyah and the Shar’h of Al-Kharshī.

The area of agreement among them all is the use of Silver to ornament Swords. This is due to the Hadīth of Anas Ibn Mālik – radiyallāhu ‘anhu – as was recorded by At-Tirmidhī that the Sword of the Rasul – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – was lined with silver and the Hadīth recorded by Al-Bukhāri that the swords of ‘Abdullah and ‘Urwah the sons of Az-Zubayr were ornamented with Silver.

As for Gold ornaments on Swords, then the Hanafis and the Shāfi’īs do not see to its permissibility as was mentioned in An-Nihāyah and Al-Mughnī Whereas there are opinions within the Mālikī and the Hanbali schools that allow this.

For this reasons, Ibn Fūdī – alayhi rahmatullah – though mentioned that the dominant and more popular position is that it not be used except for silver on swords, he allowed for this difference of opinion to be accommodated.

And this is a part of his Fiqh for the Ulamā are at a consensus that a matter about which there is difference of opinion about is not like that about which there is no difference of opinion. Even if the stronger position is that it were Harām, as long as the cause of this difference of opinion is that which holds weight.

We say, and Allāh knows best, that the most correct position concerning all of this is the pemrissibility of using silver on swords only and this is based of the Hadīth to which we referred implying a general impernissibility for the use of Silver and Gold for men.

We do not leave the princints of that which is generic by implication unless there is a text exempting certain members of that set from the ruling. This exemption ( Takhsīs) is only found with regards to Silver on swords as the Hadīth of Anas showed.

If it is said: doe this ruling apply to modern tools of war such as rifles, tanks and their likes? We say: yes it does.

Then it remains to be asked: “What if there are parts of these modern tools of war that are necessarily made from silver and gold. Does this ruling make them Harām for usage?” We say: No they don’t.

Reason: this falls under the category of necessities. The Muslims don’t produce even a bullet in this era and have entirely no control over the materials that are used to produce the tools of war. How and why then should this be a reason to not use such tools?

And the Ummah today finds itself between the fangs of its enemies from before, behind, its sides, above and below it. Yet, some ignorant ones claim that Jihād has been abrogated. Or that Jihād has no place in Military exercises today. That what is left of jihad is preaching and debating or using one’s wealth to propagate the Dīn.

These are the kinds of messages that the enemies of the Dīn love to propagate and to hear Muslims accept; No wonder they inserted into the curriculum of secondary school Islamic Religious Knowledge the Hadīth that says “The Greatest Jihād is Jihād An-Nafs” – fighting one’s heart’s desires. There is no doubt that fighting one’s desires is a Jihād. But fighting the enemies of Allāh to establish the Sharī’a of Allāh is the greatest Jihād as the texts of the Hadīth have shown. And we ask Allāh to grant to us a time in which the Ummah will rise from its slumber and organize its affairs under a Muslim leader who is sound in Dīn and upright to lead it against its enemies in a Blessed Jihād, āmīn.
Then he said:
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 havee 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 (it is said) in Al-Mi’iyār: And there is difference on possesing plates that are made from gold and silver that are not been used (for eating)”
Then he said:
وفي المختصر:
وفي المغشي والمموه والمضبب وذي الحلقة وإناء الجوهر قولان. انتهى
“And in the Mukhtasar: And in possessing the coated, the alloyed, the plated the lined and the plates made of jewels are two verdicts”
As for the Mi’yār, it is attributed to Al-Wansharīsī and we have referred to it and to its author in previous sessions. And rightly said, the Ulamā have agreed that it is Harām to eat or drink from gold and silver cups or plates.
Then they differed as to the ruling of having them without using them. The majority of the Ulamā held that it were Harām just as its use is Harām. This was the position of Imām Mālik and the dominant position in his school. This is the official position of the Maliki, the Shāfi’ī and the Hanbali schools whereas the Hanafis considered it permissible. Note that this is as regards the gild or silver plates or cups themselves.
As for the plated, coated, lined, designed and alloyed, we shall, Allah willing expound on these with details next week
We ask Allāh for guidance and succour, āmīn.

Jazākumullāhu Khayran
Bārakallāhu fīkum
Alhamdulillāh Awwalan Wa Ākhiran

17th Shawwal 1439H
(01/07/2018)
IslamNode
🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿🌿