The following is a translation of Mufti Taqi Usmani’s Urdu article (from his Fiqhī Maqālāt) on the ruling of delivering the Khuṭbah of Jumu‘ah in a language besides Arabic. The article looks at:
- The position of the four Madhhabs on this issue.
- The issue of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s retraction. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah held (a) that the obligation of Qirā’ah in Ṣalāh can be fulfilled by reciting a Farsi translation, and (b) that the obligation of the adhkār of Ṣalāh (like the Takbīr al-Taḥrīmah & Tashahhud) and the Khuṭbah of Jumu‘ah can be discharged by reciting them in another language. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah took back his earlier stance on the first issue but not the second. Some scholars conflated the two issues, hence a detailed study is undertaken on this matter.
- The misunderstanding that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s position entails that reciting the Khuṭbah of Jumu‘ah and the adhkār of Ṣalāh in non-Arabic is “permissible”. While Imām Abū Ḥanīfah believed that the obligation is discharged by reciting them in non-Arabic, he did not believe it to be permissible to do so. In fact, he regarded it to be Makrūh Taḥrīmī and sinful.
An addendum has been added to explain the theological implications of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s earlier stance, on a translation of Qur’ān sufficing as recitation in Ṣalāh. It addresses the important question: “Does this mean Imām Abū Ḥanīfah considers a translation of the Qur’ān to be ‘Qur’ān’?”
Note: The Urdu article is different to, and more detailed than, Mufti Taqi Usmani’s English article on the same topic.
Find the original Urdu article here.
Some rulings of Islām change based on a person being in a Muslim-governed territory or “Dār al-Islām” or in a non-Muslim governed territory or “Dār al-Ḥarb”. What constitutes a Dār al-Islām or Dār al-Ḥarb is therefore a vitally important question of Fiqh.
In the context of British-rule in 19th century India, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī* (1244-1323/1829-1905) provides a detailed answer to this question. There is in particular some misunderstanding over the position of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah. Hence, Mawlānā Gangohī outlines the principle used to designate a region as Dār al-Islām or Dār al-Ḥarb, clarifies the view of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and then applies the principle to the context of British India.** A translation of his answer is provided below.
Muftī Muḥammd Shafī‘ (1897 – 1976) narrates the following statement from his father, Mawlānā Muḥammad Yāsīn Deobandī (1865 – 1936) , about his experience at Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband in the late 19th century:
“I witnessed such a period at Dārul ‘Ulūm [Deoband] when, from the headmaster to the lowest teacher, from the chancellor to the caretaker and servant, all were great possessors of a permanent bond [with Allāh] (ṣāḥib-e-nisbat) and friends of Allāh (awliyā’ullāh). At that time, Dārul ‘Ulūm felt like an institute of learning in the daytime and a Khānqāh in the evening. The sound of remembrance and recitation [of Qur’ān] could be heard from most rooms until the end of the night. This, in reality, was Dārul ‘Ulūm’s mark of distinction – which made it stand out from all the madrasas in the world.” (Mere Wālid e Mājid, Idārat al-Ma‘ārif, p. 62) 
Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī (1905 – 1997) describes his father, Ṣūfī Aḥmad Ḥusayn (d. 1949), as someone whose “concern for Ᾱkhirah was greater than his concern for Dunyā, and while fully occupied in his work, he was from those who remembered Allāh much. The adhkār at different times included within his daily practices numbered around 20,000 in total. In one period, his practice was to recite Durūd Sharīf 4,000 times after ‘Ishā prayer. He was so punctual on Tahajjud that when I asked my noble deceased mother after his demise whether she was aware that our dear father had ever missed Tahajjud, she replied that when she first arrived, he would at times miss Tahajjud but on those days he would definitely keep fast, but for around thirty years, he never once missed it. My respected father died in Ramaḍān of 1368 in such a state that the tasbīḥ was in his hand and he was making dhikr.” (Taḥdīth e Ni‘mat, p. 22)
The great recent Ḥanafī jurist of Shām, ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Ᾱbidīn (1783 – 1836), was connected to the Naqshbandī spiritual line via his teacher, Mawlānā Khālid al-Naqshbandī, a Kurdish-Damascene spiritual master. Mawlānā Khālid al-Naqshbandī (1779 – 1827 CE) spent some time in India where he became a disciple and successor (khalīfah) of Shaykh Ghulām ‘Alī al-Dehlawī (1743 – 1824 CE), the foremost successor of Mirzā Maẓhar Jān-e-Jān (1701 – 1781), whose spiritual chain reaches Mujaddid Alf-e-Thānī. (Shaykh Ghulām ‘Alī al-Dehlawī is also known as Shaykh ‘Abdullāh al-Dehlawī). Ibn ‘Ᾱbidīn describes Mawlānā Khālid al-Naqshbandī as “the unique imām, the noble, committed and matchless scholar, Ḥaḍrat Sayyidī Shaykh Khālid, who has spent his efforts in benefitting [Allāh’s] slaves, and guiding them towards holding fast to the profession of Tawḥīd, such that he became the pivot (quṭb) of the gnostics in all places and the absolute refuge of the aspirants (murīdīn), and the clear and manifest Naqshbandī Ṭarīqah became famous through him in all Islāmic lands…” (Majmū‘ah Rasā’il Ibn ‘Ᾱbidīn, 2:284)
The father of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905) – the spiritual and scholarly fountainhead of Deoband –, Mawlānā Hidāyat ‘Alī (d. 1836), was, like Mawlānā Khālid al-Naqshbandī, a disciple and spiritual successor (khalīfah) of Shaykh Ghulām ‘Alī. (Tazkirat al-Rashīd, 1:17)
Is hair transplantation permissible?
Hair transplantation is a form of treatment for baldness. It involves taking hair follicles from parts of the body/head and attaching it to the balding area.
Hair transplantation entails making use of detached solid parts of the human body for medical treatment which as a rule is not permissible.
Making use of a detached solid part of the human body for treatment is only permissible when the detached part is returned to its original place (e.g. a fallen tooth or a cut finger is put back in its place).
Hence, hair transplantation is not permissible as it would fall under the general impermissibility of making medical use of detached solid parts of the human body.
Are a woman’s feet part of her ‘awrah? Do they have to be covered in ṣalāh?
According to the strongest opinion in the Ḥanafī madhhab, a woman’s feet are not ‘awrah and hence do not have to be covered in ṣalāh. However, since there is a difference of opinion (even within the Ḥanafī madhhab), it would be better to cover them.
Imām al-Ṭabarānī (260 – 360 H) narrates in his al-Mu‘jam al-Awsaṭ:
حدثنا محمد بن الفضل السقطي، قال: نا مهدي بن حفص، قال: نا إسحاق الأزرق عن أبي حنيفة عن محارب بن دثار عن ابن عمر قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
من صلى العشاء في جماعة، وصلى أربع ركعات قبل أن يخرج من المسجد كان كعدل ليلة القدر
Muḥammad ibn al-Faḍl al-Saqaṭī narrated to us: He said: Mahdī ibn Ḥafṣ narrated to us: He said: Isḥāq al-Azraq narrated to us from Abū Ḥanīfah from Muḥārib ibn Dithār from Ibn ‘Umar: He said: The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
“Whoever prays ‘Ishā’ in congregation, and prays four rak‘āt before leaving the masjid*, it will be equal to [praying them on] Laylat al-Qadr.” (al-Mu‘jam al-Awsaṭ, 5:254) Continue Reading
The following article is a translation of a section from the Urdu work, Tasawwuf Kiyā He, by Mawlānā Manzūr Nu’mānī. It comprises of a group of essays written by the author on his observations on Tasawwuf and, in particular, the practices (ashghāl) prescribed by the Sūfī guides (mashāyikh). He offers a strong argument for the need for Tasawwuf and a rationale for the specific practices designed by the scholars of Tasawwuf for spiritual reform. Although the original work comprises of essays by other authors, only those by Mawlānā Manzūr Nu’mānī are presented in this translation. His discussion and analysis is concerned mostly with the practical dimensions of Tasawwuf as they have been observed throughout history amongst its orthodox champions and handed down to its true inheritors in the present time. The other essays (which are not included in this translation) deal with Tasawwuf from its historical and academic/philosophical dimensions also. Continue Reading
In his comprehensive hagio-biography of Imām Abu l-Hasan al-Ash‘arī (260 – 324 H) Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī, Hāfiz Ibn ‘Asākir (499 – 571 H) quotes a lengthy letter written by Imām al-Bayhaqī (384 – 458 H) to the grand vizier of the Seljuk Empire, ‘Amīd al-Mulk (415 – 456 H), on his views about the personality and theology of Imām al-Ash‘arī. Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī reproduces most of the letter in his Tabaqāt al-Shāfi‘iyyah al-Kubrā with his chain via Ibn ‘Asākir.
Below we present a translation of the letter, which demonstrates Imām al-Bayhaqī’s great respect for Imām al-Ash‘arī and his appreciation of the efforts he made to defend the ‘aqīdah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah. Continue Reading