Skip to content

[Notification] Are you receiving more than one message for the same article published ?

Dear Subscribers, AsSalam Alaikum wa Rahmatullaah

Some subscribers informed me that they are receiving more than one message for the same article published.

This might be due to merging some blogs/sites into this site

To mitigate the issue , please visit the below link and manage all your subscriptions. You can delete / unsubscribe duplicate subscriptions.

I apologize for the inconvenience caused.

Baarak Allaah Feekum
AbdurRahman Meda

Ruling on Peaceful Demonstrations – Shaykh Saalih al Fawzan

Demonstrations only became known through the West | Shaykh al Fawzan
Translation and Video Courtesy : (site is down)


Explanation of The Laamiyyah Poem of Shaykh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah – Shaykh Badr al-Badr al-Anazy [Audio|Ar-En]

Explanation of The Laamiyyah Poem of Shaykh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah - Shaykh Badr al-Badr al-Anazy

Explanation of The Laamiyyah Poem of Shaykh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah

دروس أسبوعي – شرح منظومة اللامية لشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله مع فضيلة الشيخ بدر بن محمد البدر العنزي

Speaker: Shaykh Badr Ibn Muhammad al-Badr al-‘Anazy الشيخ بدر بن محمد البدر العنزي
Country of Speaker: Saudi Arabia المملكة العربية السعودية
Category: ‘Aqeedah عقيدة

Class # 01 – 24.02.15  Download / Listen تحميل / استماع

Class # 02 – 02.03.15 – Download / Listen تحميل / استماع

Class # 03 – 10.03.15  Download / Listen تحميل / استماع

Class # 04 – 17.03.15  Download / Listen تحميل / استماع

Class # 05 – 31.03.15  Download / Listen تحميل / استماع 

Posted from :

Further Book Study :

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen about the Arab rulers

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen about the Arab rulers (exclusive, detailed Fatwâ)

Scholar: Imâm Muhammad bin Sâlih bin ´Uthaymîn
Source: Liqâ’ al-Bâb al-Maftûh (51 B)
Translation and Video by (site is down)

Question: There is a matter it is written much about and it goes by the name “Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamâ’ah” while in fact it is the methodology of Khawârij. We would like to confirm this matter with you. It is namely about the general legislation the rulers are judged by. They argue with your Fatwas in “al-Majmû’ ath-Thamîn” and that this deed is clear disbelief since it is about Tabdîl, replacement. This opinion is also attributed to Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrâhîm [Âl ash-Shaykh] (rahimahullâh). In order for the answer to be explicit and clear, the question goes as follows; does one take into consideration the factors that hinder from Takfîr or the Iqâmat-ul-Hujjah which Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamâ’ah put as a condition for the one who rules by a general legislation rather than the law of Allâh?

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymîn: A factor that hinders from Takfîr shouldn’t exist when a person performs a disbelieving deed [I.e. if we are to do Takfîr]. It is therefore mentioned in the authentic Hadîth when the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was asked if they should fight against the rulers that he said:

“Except if you see clear and explicit disbelief of which you have proof from Allâh.”

The disbelief has to be clear and known and it shouldn’t be possible to misunderstand it. If one can misunderstand it, then one doesn’t do Takfîr on the person who falls into it (this deed) EVEN IF THE DEED IS DISBELIEF. There is a difference between the speech and the speaker and (between) the deed and the doer. The deed can be a defiant sin without the person (whom performs it) being a defiant sinner because there is an obstacle that hinders him from being it. It can also be disbelief without the person being a disbeliever because there is an obstacle that hinders him from being is (I.e. a disbeliever).

It was nothing other than this unsound misinterpretation that made the rebellion of the Khawârij harm the Islâmic Ummah. Khawârij get the idea that the deed is disbelief and (thusly) they revolt, which they said to ‘Alî bin Abî Tâlib. They were together with ‘Alî bin Abî Tâlib against the army of Shâm. After the peace treaty between ‘Alî bin Abî Tâlib and Shâm, Khawârij revolted against him after having been with him. He fought against them and killed them and all praise is due to Allâh. The point lies in the fact that they revolted against him and said:

“You have judged by something other than the law of Allâh. You have let the human judge.”

As a result thereof, they revolted against him. Thus, the catastrophe of the Ummah is because of this misinterpretation. A person can mistakenly get the idea that something is clear and explicit disbelief and revolt (due to it). It is possible that the deed really is disbelief without its doer being a disbeliever because of an obstacle (I.e. ignorance, compulsion etc). The rebel believes that this person is free from excuses and (thus) does the likes of these revolts.

Therefore, a person has to make sure not to be in a hurry with making Takfîr or Tafsîq upon the humans. There is a risk that a person falls into a clear, defiant sin without knowing about it. When he finds out that it is forbidden, he thanks you (Jazâk Allâhu khayr) and leaves it. Does this exist? Yes, beyond the shadow of a doubt [it does]. How can I then judge a person to be a defiant sinner while he hasn’t received the truth?

Those you accuse among the Arab and Muslim rulers can be excused. They have perhaps not received the truth. They maybe have received it while at the same time somebody made them misunderstand the matter. Thus, one has to be sensible when it comes to this matter.

Let us say that all of the conditions have been met for us to be allowed to revolt in the way that we have seen clear and explicit disbelief of which we have proof from Allâh. It is a condition to have seen it. The disbelief is a condition. That it is clear and explicit is a condition. That we have proof of it from Allâh is a condition. These are four conditions. His (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) words “except if you see…” are there so that one doesn’t fall victim to baseless rumours. It means that one should be convinced. The word “disbelief” (Kufr) is there so that one doesn’t get hung up on a defiant sin. If the ruler is a sinning alcoholic without having fallen into disbelief, then it is not allowed to revolt against him. The words “clear and explicit” mean that it is definite and that it (the Kufr) can’t be misinterpreted. The fourth is “of which you have proof from Allâh”. It should thusly not only be definite according to us. Rather, we should base ourselves on clear and definite evidence. These four conditions are the conditions for it to be allowed to revolt.

However, there is a fifth condition for the revolt to be obligatory. Is it obligatory for us to revolt against the ruler just because it is allowed? One has to consider the advantage. Are we able to overthrow him? [If yes] then in this case we revolt. If we are unable, then we do not revolt. All religious duties are only [duties] if they are doable.

Moreover, if we are able to revolt, then there is a risk that the disadvantage is greater and worse than if this leader were to keep his (position as a) leader. If we revolt against him and he wins, we become more humiliated while he becomes even worse in his transgression and disbelief.

These matters require common sense and that it is tethered with the Sharî’ah and that it isn’t led by emotions. We are in need of emotions in order to have enthusiasm and we are in need of the Sharî’ah to curb us. We have to have brakes. A car without brakes will crash and a car without power doesn’t drive.

Further Links

Condemning the Rulers from the Pulpits – Imam Ibn Baz

Scholar: Imâm ´Abdul-´Azîz bin ´Abdillâh bin Bâz

Question: Does it belong to the methodology of the Salaf to condemn the leaders, mention their errors and backbite them from the pulpits? How does one advise the rulers according to the methodology of the Salaf? How should it occur?

Shaykh Ibn Bâz: This question has been posed several times. It does not belong to the methodology of the Salaf to mention the shortcomings of the rulers from the pulpits. It leads to revolts and that people refrain from hearing and obeying in that which is allowed. It leads to something that only harms and benefits nothing.

Salaf’s followed methodology is to advise him in seclusion, write to him and let the scholars contact him so that they can lead him to that which is good.

The sins should be mentioned without the mentioning of the sinner. Fornication, spirits and interest [all of these] should be condemned without condemning the one who falls into them. It is enough that one condemns the sins and warns against them without mentioning the sinner, regardless if he is the ruler or anybody else.

When the tribulation of ‘Uthmân’s (radhiya Allâhu ‘anh) time broke out, some people said to Usâmah bin Zayd (radhiya Allâhu ‘anh):

“Will you not condemn ‘Uthmân?”

He answered:

“Should I condemn him amongst the people? I will condemn him in seclusion without opening the gate of evil to the people.”

When they initiated the evilness in the time of ‘Uthmân (radhiya Allâhu ‘anh) and condemned him publicly, the tribulation, battles and corruption became a fact. To this day one finds traces of all that. It led to the Fitnah between ‘Alî and Mu’âwiyah. ‘Uthmân and ‘Alî were killed because of it. Many companions and others were killed because of the public condemnation. As a result, the people started hating their ruler and killed him.

Book Study : A Piece of Advice and Admonition for the Women – Shaykh Abdur Razzaaq al Badr | Jameel Finch [Audio|En]

A Piece Of Advice & Admonition For The Women

“A Piece Of Advice & Admonition For The Women” is a short treatise that includes some advice and words of direction that are specific to the Muslim woman. The origin of much of this advice and many of these directives are from sermons that Shaykh ‘Abdur Razzaq ibn ‘Abdul Muhsin al-Abbaad delivered at different times.

Book Excerpts:

An extremely valuable reminder.

It was certainly from the guidance of the Messenger of Allaah to specifically address the women with admonishments and reminders, just as is found in al-Bukhari on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas:

“The Messenger of Allaah exited, prayed and then delivered a sermon. Then, he approached the women, admonished them, gave them a reminder and commanded them with charity.”

O successful woman, may Allaah fragrance your life with knowledge and Iman, your time with obedience and awareness of Him, and may He beautify your body with a covering modesty.

Shaykh Adb al-Razzaq ibn Abd al-Muhsin al-Abbad

Resources for this Book Study

Study Guide – A Piece of Advice and Admonition for the Women – Jameel Finch [PDF]
(From – website of Jameel Finch hafidhahullaah)

Concise Lecture

Listen / Download Mp3 Here (Time 48:46)

Posted with Permission-

Detailed Book Study (from

This class is taught by our noble and beloved brother Abu Adam Jameel Finch at Masjid Ad Da’wah Ilat Tawheed in Baltimore, MD.

Visit the link below to Listen or Download Mp3s

Currently 4 Lectures available

Obligation To Obey Husband – Moosa Richardson [Audio|En]

Listen / Download Mp3 (Time 8:49)

Excellent reminder on the Obligations of the husband
by Abul Abbas Moosa Richardson حفظه الله
Sisters conference Sunday 1st February 2015
Posted with Permission-

Characteristics of a righteous Woman – Mustafa George [Audio|En]

Listen / Download Mp3 Here (Time 32:42)

Abu Isma’eel Mustafa George حفظه الله
Posted with Permission-

Clarity Regarding The Issue Of Abortion – Shaykh ‘Uthaymeen [Video|Ar-En Subtitles]

Clarity Regarding The Issue Of Abortion – Shaykh Uthaymeen رحمه الله
Translated by Raha Batts hafidhahullaah…

Video Courtesy : Brother Bilal Nahim

This Post URL / Link :

Disqualifying a Man’a Right To Being The Walee (Guradian) in A Marriage is a Serious Ruling – Moosaa Richardson

Warning: Disqualifying a man’s right to being the walee in a marriage is a serious ruling. It is not permissible to be done based on one person’s claims against the man that -for example- he does not pray or he drinks alcohol. These matters are to be investigated by people who have knowledge of this affair and their judgments are respected.

Do not take this lightly, as it has become all too common for well-wishing brothers to hear a sister’s claims against her father or uncle and they replace him as walee and “marry” the woman off without verifying the claims carefully, as if the Muslims’ rights to their positions as walee are cheap or not worth investigation.

A marriage without the legitimate walee is INVALID, so check yourself before you step in and lead a couple into zinaa, thinking to be helping them.

When a claim is made that a walee is unsuitable, refer the case to those responsible and excuse yourself.

May Allaah protect us from overburdening ourselves and harming the Muslims.

-Moosaa Richardson

Can a Woman get Married without a Wali (Guardian) ? – Imam Ibn Uthaymeen

Scholar: Allamah Imam Muhammad bin Salih bin Uthaymin
Video by: (site is down)

Question: Is it permissible for the virgin woman who has no wali (guardian) or without his presence to marry herself off or not? And is there in this ruling a difference between a virgin or a previously married whether divorced or widowed?

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymin: It is not permissible for the woman to marry herself off or others whether she is a virgin or previously married.

And that is because Allâh, Glorified and Exalted, has made the contract of marriage in the hands of other than the woman as He said:

{And do not marry polytheistic women}
(The Qur’ân, interpretation of the meaning 2:221)

In men He said

{And do not let marry polytheistic men}
(The Qur’ân, interpretation of the meaning 2:221)

and He added that the marriage is for the husband himself but with the women He said:

{And do not let marry polytheistic men [to your women] until they believe.}
(The Qur’ân, interpretation of the meaning 2:221)

So He made the marriage in the hands of other than the woman and He, Glorified and Exalted, said:

{Do not prevent them from remarrying their [former] husbands if they agree among themselves on an acceptable basis.}
(The Qur’ân, interpretation of the meaning 2:232)

And from the narration of the Prophet, peace & blessings of Allâh be upon him:

There’s no marriage without a wali (guardian).” (Bukhâri)

So that is the proof of the narration that there’s no other option for the woman than with a guardian marrying her off.

As from the point of view then the woman is deficient in intellect and religion as she is limited in thinking and she is also weak in religion and I say this from the narration of the Messenger of Allâh, peace & blessings of Allâh be upon him:

I have not seen anyone more deficient in intellect and religion than you. A cautious sensible man can be led astray by some of you.” (Bukhâri)

And from the saying of Allâh Almighty:

{Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allâh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth.}
(The Qur’ân, interpretation of the meaning 4:34)

And if it wasn’t for the deficiency of the woman then a man would not be in charge of her but rather in the âyah:

{by [right of] what Allâh has given one over the other}
(The Qur’ân, interpretation of the meaning 4:34)

So if the woman was in such description, as the Qur’ân and Sunnah indicated, from deficiency of intellect and religion then she is in need of a guiding guardian who knows the appropriate/capable and knows the interests of marriage and knows who the woman is for him until he decides to marry her off or refrain (from such). This is why there should be a guardian for the woman to marry her off within the known requirements to the people of knowledge.

And the woman shall not marry herself off whether she is a virgin or previously married. However, there is an issue that should be noted/addressed which is that a woman must be asked for permission and consent whether she was a virgin or previously married and whether the one who marries her off is her father or anyone else. And the most correct saying is that it is not permissible for the man to marry his daughter off or anyone else until she agrees upon that husband and gives permission.

However, if she is a virgin then her permission is enough by being silence and if she stated/uttered to agree then that is better/complete however being silent is enough. And if she is previously married then she must state (speak) to agree and says ‘Yes’ that she agrees to marry this man.

And as for the guardian whether it is the father or anyone else, he must describe the suitor to the woman with a description that will take her to know him (suitor). So he does not say ‘do you want me to marry you to such’ until he clarifies to her the situation of this man and his description because as much as the man wants in a woman in beauty and righteousness, a woman wants this too in a man in beauty and righteousness. Therefore the man must clarify to the woman whose permission is sought (for marriage) in a way which takes her to know him but vagueness will not lead to the goal. Of course if the woman trusts fully her guardian and will suffice with what her guardian sees and she asked for example ‘are you happy/convinced with him (the suitor)’ in regards to his religion and to his manners then this would suffice if she trusts him and she is pleased with what he (guardian) is pleased with.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 18,657 other followers