The rivers of Paradise present in this world

The rivers of Paradise present in this world

Abu Hurairah (رضي الله عنه) narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said:

1. “Sayhaan, Jayhaan, Al-Furaat (i.e. the Euphrates) and An-Neel (i.e. the Nile) are all rivers of Paradise” – Saheeh, As-Saheehah no. 110.

Abu Hurairah (رضي الله عنه) narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said:

2. “Four rivers are gushed forth from Paradise: Al-Furaat (i.e. the Euphrates), An-Neel (i.e. the Nile), As-Sayhaan and Jayhaan” – Hasan, As-Saheehah no. 111.

Anas bin Maalik (رضي الله عنه) narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said:

2. “(The tree) Sidratul-Muntahaa appeared before me in the seventh heaven; its fruits were (enormous) like jugs from (the town of) Hajar and its leaves were (enormous) like the ears of elephants. Two visible rivers and two hidden rivers were flowing out from its trunk. I said: ‘O Jibreel! What are these?’ He replied: ‘The hidden ones are in Paradise and the visible ones are the Nile and Euphrates.’” – Saheeh, As-Saheehah no. 112.

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“Furthermore, perhaps what is meant by these rivers being from Paradise is that they are originally from there, just like man is originally from Paradise; and such is indicated by the wording of the second hadeeth: ‘are gushed forth . . .’ So the hadeeth does not contradict the perceived phenomenon of these rivers emanating from their well-known springs on Earth.

If this, or something similar, isn’t the meaning, then the hadeeth is one of the matters of the unseen: it is obligatory to believe in them and submit to the one informing us of them. {But no, by your Lord, they will not have faith until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in whatever disputes occur between them, and then find within themselves no discomfort over what you have judged and submit completely} [4:65].”

[nudhum al-faraa.id vol. 2 p. 460-1 / alalbaany.com]

the meaning of ‘actions are only judged by intentions’


THE MEANING OF ‘ACTIONS ARE ONLY JUDGED BY INTENTIONS’
sources: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor, 340/8 & nudhum al-faraaid, 21
asaheeha translations

~ Explanation of the hadeeth: ‘Actions are only judged by intentions’
[Saheeh al-Bukhaari #1] ~

Shaikh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah):

“This hadeeth means that righteous actions are only (sound/accepted/rewarded) by sincere intentions, not that actions opposing the Legislation turn into righteous legislated actions due to coupling them with righteous intentions. No one will say that except someone ignorant or pursuing his own interests!

Many people know this hadeeth in wording but don’t understand its meaning. Why? Because oftentimes we turn (to some people) and say: ‘Yaa akhi, this action that you are doing, or this statement that you are uttering, is not a righteous action.’ What is the answer? ‘Yaa akhi, the Messenger (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Actions are only judged by intentions’ and my intention is good! My intention is righteous!’

So what is the meaning of the hadeeth? Does the hadeeth mean that evil actions are only (sound/accepted/rewarded) by righteous intentions? Or does it mean that righteous actions are only (sound/accepted/rewarded) by righteous intentions? This latter statement is the meaning. As for if one’s actions are not righteous but intention is righteous – this is not enough. Likewise it is also not enough if it is vice versa: i.e. if one’s actions are righteous but intention is not righteous. So the hadeeth gives us two opposites: just like it is a condition for righteous action that there be righteous intention, it is likewise a condition for righteous intention that there be righteous action. So either one is not enough without the other.

You hear many people nowadays swearing by their fathers for example, saying: ‘Yaa akhi, by Allaah, my intention is good.’ Sometimes you may find a person coming to a grave and praying there – a grave of a prophet or righteous person or the like – then when they are prohibited from that, he tells you: ‘My intention is not to worship him, my intention is to seek nearness to Allaah (tawassul) through him.’ Ok, your coming to this grave – granted that the intention is righteous – is an action, so is this a righteous action? The answer is no, because the Messenger (‘alayhi ssalaam) used to say: ‘Don’t sit on the graves nor pray toward them.’ And du’aa is part of prayer, in fact du’aa is worship as he (‘alayhi ssalaam) said. Hence turning to the grave with du’aa is like turning to it with prayer: it is an action that is not righteous, and this unrighteous action is not justified by the intention being righteous, if we grant that the intention is righteous.

Thus, for our actions to be righteous, they must be in agreement with the Legislation. This is what our Lord (‘azza wa jal) pointed to with His Statement in the Noble Qur’aan: {whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work and not associate any partner in the worship of his Lord}.”

Is marriage fate or a choice?

Q: “Is marriage fate or a choice?”

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“What is the difference between this question and the question: (is it fate or a choice that) one is rich and another is poor, and one is beautiful and one is ugly, and so on. No doubt what is decreed for a person is something that will happen and there is none that can avert it. But he is responsible for making the effort; after that, he is not at fault for the outcome of the matter if it happens contrary to his choice.

So if this person got engaged to a woman and was eager to do so as she was righteous, then with time it became clear that she was evil! Of course, this was fate. But everything happens as decreed, like the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Everything happens as decreed, even laziness and activeness.’[1] However, this does not mean that a person, within his capabilities, is not responsible for striving to choose that which is good. No, this is something else. So a person must strive, then the rest is up to Allaah تبارك وتعالى.

So the answer is: of course it is fate, but we shouldn’t understand that it is fate and so -as some people say- a person just puts his trust in Allaah and that’s it. No, (rather) he takes the means, then he puts his trust in the Lord of all lords.”[2]

[silsilatul hudaa wa nnoor 134/5]


[1] Saheeh Muslim 2655
[2] ‘lords’ meaning masters, owners and the like

Mocking the religion is major disbelief

Q: “With regard to mocking the religion, which was mentioned in Allaah’s Statement: {Say: Was it Allaah and His Aayaat (verses, revelations, proofs, lessons, signs) and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed},[1] is the disbelief here kufr i`tiqaadi (disbelieving by one’s heart) or kufr `amali (disbelieving by one’s limbs)?”[2]

Shaikh al-Albaani:

“No doubt, this is kufr i`tiqaadi, indeed this is disbelief with two horns (i.e. it is clear disbelief) because it is not possible for a believer – no matter how weak his eemaan (faith) is – to mock the Aayaat of Allaah عز وجل. And this type of disbelief is what falls under our previous statement when we were saying that it is not permissible to declare a Muslim to be a disbeliever unless he utters something which would show us what is settled in his heart. So here, his mocking the Aayaat of Allaah عز وجل is the greatest confirmation from him that he does not believe in that which he is mocking. Hence, he is a disbeliever who has committed kufr i`tiqaadi.”


[1] Surat ut-Tawbah 9:65-66
[2] “Whoever does an act of disbelief due to his opposing the Legislation while disbelief in it is also settled in his heart, then this is kufr i`tiqaadi: the disbelief that Allaah does not forgive, and its doer will dwell in the Fire forever. But if this act of disbelief is contrary to what is settled in his heart such that he believes in the judgment of his Lord but he opposes it (only) by his action, then his disbelief is only kufr `amali and not kufr i`tiqaadi: so he is under the Will of Allaah تعالى; if He wills, He will punish him, and if He wills, He will forgive him” – Shaikh al-Albaani, Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth is-Saheehah 6/112

[silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor 672/3 / asaheeha translations]

the ruling on the one who abandons prayer – part 4

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light tape no. 323

~

*Question #23: “Our Shaykh, I am asking you about the issue of proofs with regard to the ruling on the one who abandons the prayer. In the treatise ‘The ruling on the one who abandons prayer’ by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, he is of the opinion that the one who abandons the prayer is a disbeliever, and he has many proofs, such as Allaah’s statement about the mushrikoon:[1] {But if they repent, perform salaah (the prayer), and give zakaah (obligatory charity), then they are your brethren in religion}.[2] So he says that what is understood from the aayah is that if they don’t do that, they are not our brethren; and the religious brotherhood isn’t negated by sins even if they are great, but it is negated when one leaves Islaam”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“Yet he is not saying that if the person prays but doesn’t give the zakaah that he is (likewise) not a Muslim and that he has disbelieved by that. May Allaah guide you, you are bringing his proof but I would like to turn your attention to (the fact) that there is no proof in it because he is not saying about the one who abandons the zakaah the same as he is saying about the one who abandons the prayer. You didn’t just narrate his opinion, rather you narrated (both) his opinion and his proof, but I would like to turn your attention to (the fact) that this is not a proof for him, because the aayah includes zakaah along with the prayer, [yet he is differentiating between the one who abandons the former and the one who abandons the latter].”

 

*Question #23 (continued): “What is the ruling on this man who has abandoned the prayer, not out of denying (its legislation) but out of laziness? And what is the daleel (evidence)?”

Shaykh al-Albaani answers:

“This (man) is one who is rebellious and disobedient (to Allaah), and not a disbeliever. The daleel is that ‘Whoever says laa ilaaha illAllaah[3] (sincerely) will enter Paradise,’[4] and the daleel is that ‘Allaah has prescribed five prayers upon (His) slaves, so whoever performs them and does them well, and completes their rukoo’ (bowing), sujood (prostration) and khushoo’ (submissive humility and attentiveness), then he has a covenant with Allaah that He will enter him into Paradise, and whoever does not perform them and does not complete their rukoo’, sujood and khushoo’, then he does not have a covenant with Allaah; If He wills, He will punish him and if He wills, He will forgive him,’[5] and if he was a disbeliever, He would not forgive him because Allaah says: ‘Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him (in worship), but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He wills.’”[6]

 


[1] those who associate partners with Allaah
[2] Surat ut-Tawbah, 9:11
[3] none has the right to be worshiped but Allaah
[4] Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth is-Saheeha #2355
[5] Saheeh ibn Maajah #1158, Saheeh at-Targheeb #400, Hukm Taarik is-Salaah p. 46
[6] Surat un-Nisaa, 4:48

~

asaheeha translations

Allaah and the name “an-Noor”

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light tape no. 514

~

Question #4: “Some of the students of knowledge found it strange that you explained Allaah’s saying, the Most High – ‘Allaah is the Light of the heavens and the earth’[1] – to be that He illuminates them[2] and that He does not have the name ‘An-Noor’ (The Light); so we would like a detailed explanation about this.”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“I don’t have any detailed explanation except that I don’t know of An-Noor being one of the names of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, in an authentic hadeeth. Rather, (the Prophet) (‘alayhi ssalaam) had said that ‘His Veil is light’ – when he was asked ‘Did you see your Lord?’, he had said: ‘A light,[3] how could I see Him?’[4] [5] [6] And (also) in the narration of Abu Moosaa al-Ash’ari in Saheeh Muslim, he said ‘His Veil is light…’[7]

 


[1] Surat un-Noor; 24:35
[2] Tafseer Ibn Katheer and Tafseer as-Sa’dee mention similar statements, with both literal meanings and also metaphorical ones such as ‘Allaah is the One who guides those in the heavens and the earth,’ ‘His Book is a light,’ ‘His legislation is a light’ etc.
[3] it was not clearly heard that the Shaykh said ‘A light’ due to a problem with the tape recording, but it is part of the hadeeth
[4] Saheeh Muslim #178; it was also narrated in this same chapter with the wording: ‘I saw a light’
[5] what is meant by ‘A light, how could I see Him?’ is the light of the Veil, which is mentioned in another hadeeth: ‘His Veil is light,’ and it is also mentioned in another hadeeth: ‘I saw a light’ – so its meaning is that ‘how could I see Him while the light of the Veil had prevented me from seeing Him?’; refer to Shaykh ‘Abdul Muhsin al-‘Abbaad in Sharh Sunan at-Tirmithee, tape #361
[6] the meaning of ‘A light, how could I see Him?’ is: ‘His Veil is a light, so how could I see Him?’; refer to Imaam an-Nawawee in his explanation of Saheeh Muslim, part 3, p. 12
[7] Saheeh Muslim #179

~

asaheeha translations

the shape and orbit of the earth – part 1

source: silsilat ul-hudaa wa nnoor – the series of guidance and light tape no. 435 & 436

~

Question #10/1: “Is the earth round or flat?”

Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) answers:

“It is round,[1] and the issue of the earth being round or flat is not an affair related to actions nor faith, such that it is obligatory for the Muslim to know the Islamically legislated ruling about it if it is related to actions in order to worship Allaah by it like the rest of the acts of worship, or for him to believe in it in the depth of his heart and soul if it is a belief that every Muslim is commanded to believe in. Rather, it is an issue that can be understood upon two (different) ways from the explanation of some aayaat in the noble Qur’aan. And no doubt – as is the case with most issues – one of the views will be correct and the other will be wrong. Thus, whoever makes ijtihaad[2] while he is qualified to do so – and the first condition for this qualification is knowledge of the Arabic language – then whether he is right or wrong, as (the questioner) himself knows, whoever is right has two rewards and whoever errs has one reward.[3]

And these aayaat that have come with regard to the earth, about whether it is moving, round or whether it is stationary – there isn’t a decisive text that would support either of the two different views. Therefore, we said that this is not an affair related to belief about which there must be a united opinion as we believe to the case with the ‘aqeedah (belief) of the salaf (righteous predecessors). It could be understood from some of the aayaat from the noble Qur’aan related to this subject that the earth is stationary and flat, and it could be understood from some other (aayaat) that it is moving and orbiting. And this (latter) opinion is that which carries more weight in our view and agrees with the natural reality which every individual from the people perceives (to be true), whether he is a Muslim or a disbeliever.

And it is sufficient for us to know that there isn’t a decisive proof about this issue with those who insist on opposing that which is established scientifically today: that the earth moves and that it orbits around the sun. It is sufficient, for knowing that there isn’t a clear text contradicting this idea or this astronomical view, that many of the Muslim scholars whose knowledge and excellence all of the Muslims acknowledge – especially us Salafis[4] who believe in the leadership of Shaykh ul-Islaam ibn Taimiyyah in knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah, and Ibn Qayyim az-Jawziyyah, let alone other than them – used to believe the opposite of what is being spread now based on some apparent indications of the Qur’aan, such as the aayah {And the mountains He has fixed firmly}[5] for example, {And after that He spread the earth}[6] and similar aayaat. They did not understand (and deduce) this opposing rigid opinion from (these aayaat), firstly due to the apparent indications of other (Qur’aanic) texts, and secondly due to astronomical, scientific fact. And the like of the aayah that describes the mountains with respect to the earth to be like anchors with respect to ships does not necessitate linguistically that the earth does not move at all, but rather it negates a disordered movement.[7] And similar to this aayah is the aayah: {And the mountains [We have made] as pegs},[8] because we know by observation that the peg with respect to the animal does not prevent it from moving [i.e, when you tie the animal to the peg], but rather the peg prevents it from moving chaotically such that it would flee and go off however it wants – no, our Lord has arranged the orbiting of the earth like the circulating of the horse around the peg. Hence, Him making the mountains as pegs is contrary to what they claim; it (actually) confirms the movement of the earth, but it confirms a scientific movement that is well-known today to be organized and very precise throughout the year such that it does not change by a single second. Likewise, the anchors don’t prevent the ship from moving.”

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2


[1] the words that follow were said by the Shaykh upon request from the questioner to explain more on the issue
[2] independent reasoning
[3] Saheeh al-Bukhaari #7352
[4] those who follow the way of the Salaf
[5] Surat un-Naazi’aat, 79:32
[6] Surat un-Naazi’aat, 79:30
[7] also refer to the aayah: “And He has affixed into the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you…;” Surat un-Nahl, 16:15
[8] Surat un-Naba, 78:7

~

asaheeha translations