Assalamu 'Alaikum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh.

The goal of this channel is to translate the posts of our Shaykh, Abū Ja'far Al-Khulayfī, to the English language, so that those who do not understand Arabic can benefit, bi'ithnillāhi ta'ālā.

If any major issues are in the translation, please contact: @hamzabinahmad.

‏﷽

This comment on the death of Francis, the great Christian, is only a sample.

And another person wrote: What a loss, he did not have an honorable stance regarding Gaza.

And another wrote: Rather, an honorable stance, then he placed pictures of some sheikhs, insulted them, and praised him.

And a woman was angry at those who say he is going to Hell, while he did not cause them direct harm or take a stance against Gaza.

When I typed his name in the search engine on the X [Twitter] site, immediately his name appeared next to the word (Gaza).

With great regret, I saw many asking for mercy [for him]. It is good that you feel pain for your brothers and strive for the removal of their affliction with all the power you have, but remember that what is between you and them is the bond of Islam, so do not let your emotion toward them be above Islam, leading you to ask for mercy upon a head of the heads of disbelief, of those who lived his life supporting the statement about which the Lord of the Worlds said: “The heavens almost rupture from it, the earth splits open, and the mountains collapse in devastation, that they ascribe to the Most Merciful a son.” [Maryam: 90–91]

So where is the majesty of the Most Merciful in our hearts?

Many people understand direct criminality like killing and destruction, but they do not understand what people like Francis do, who was one of the pillars of the Abrahamic House [a concept promoting unity between Abrahamic religions], and calls for the unity of religions and claims that salvation is possible even for atheists. This is the soft destruction which is a thousand times more dangerous than harshness, to the extent that he would enter the temples of idolaters and prostrate to their idols. Such diluted thinking spreading among Muslims is more dangerous than extermination, despite its great affliction. Allah the Exalted said: “And fitnah is worse than killing”—and fitnah is shirk [associating partners with God].

We cannot ask for mercy upon Abu Talib, who supported the Prophet ﷺ, nor upon his ﷺ parents, so would we ask for mercy upon a caller to disbelief?

And even offering condolences, the scholars differed regarding consoling a Muslim for his disbelieving father or a neighbor for his disbelieving son or father, but as for consoling the disbelievers over one of their greats, there is no difference in the prohibition of it.

And in Kashf al-Qināʿ [a Hanbali jurisprudence book]: “(Offering condolences to a disbeliever is prohibited), whether the deceased is a Muslim or a disbeliever, because in it is glorification of the disbeliever, such as beginning him with peace.”

Meaning: do not offer condolences to the disbeliever for a Muslim relative of his. And some people may think this is extreme beyond the limit, but this is mercy if you reflect, for if you glorify the disbeliever over his disbelief, you have enticed him to remain in his disbelief—and that is the greatest harm upon him.

This is a post by an elderly Egyptian surgeon, in which he expressed his comfort in dealing with girls, and his speech was purely lustful.

And I saw the comments of his companions on the post, not devoid of these bad insinuations.

The brother’s comment pleased me very much.

A large part of the discourse on "suspicions regarding women" is caused by the fact that capitalism decided to benefit from women entering the labor market, and then an educational and media system was built on this basis, and that her going out [to work] became an obligation.

And everything that contradicts this system in the Sharia became a suspicion that needs an answer, and we spent days and nights and years repelling these suspicions, and stabilizing [the faith of] the (those whose hearts are to be reconciled) among those who are threatened to leave the religion if it does not suit their desires.

Then what is the conclusion?

That it is a battle between a vile man—like the author of the post—and a noble man.

I am not talking about a victim woman.

Many of those harassed by this one and his likes keep the matter under extreme secrecy, so as not to awaken jealousy in the hearts of men.

And here we apply the principle of (gain comes with liability), which we don’t want to apply in the woman’s relationship with her husband.

Except for those who thought of benefiting from something like this.

As for this one, he declared openly. As for others, they do it without declaration.

And we are deceived by wrapped-up discourses and empty victimhoods.

This is what Dr. Hatim al-‘Awni strives diligently to spread among the common folk, with intense enthusiasm that outweighs his zeal in urging them towards the Book of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.

The words of al-Shāfiʿī complement one another and the Shāfiʿīs do not disagree in attributing to him the prohibition of singing with instruments.

Al-Shāfiʿī said in Al-Umm [6/226]:
"As for the man who sings and makes singing his occupation, who is sought for it and who comes for it, and becomes known and famous for it — and the woman [also], then the testimony of neither of them is accepted; because it is from the disliked amusement that resembles falsehood. And whoever makes this their craft is attributed to foolishness and a lack of dignity [manhood], and whoever is content with this for himself is deemed contemptible, even if it is not explicitly forbidden [i.e. harām beyond doubt]. But if he does not attribute himself to it, and he is only known to become elated occasionally and chants in those moments, and does not seek it, nor is he sought for it, and he is not pleased with it — this does not nullify his testimony. And the same applies to the woman."

Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
"As for the man who keeps a boy and girl singer and people are gathered for them, and this is attended for their sake — this is foolishness that invalidates his testimony. And in the case of the girl, it is even worse because it involves foolishness and cuckoldry [lack of protective jealousy]. But if people are not gathered for them and it is not attended for their sake, I dislike that for him, but it does not reach the level to nullify his testimony."

He said:
"Likewise, the man who frequents houses of singing, or singers visit him — if he is addicted to this and it is public and witnessed upon him, it is like foolishness that invalidates testimony. But if it is rare from him, it does not invalidate his testimony because, as I have explained, it is not clearly forbidden [harām bayyin]."

Listening to ḥidāʾ [camel drivers’ chanting] and Bedouin chant:
"As for listening to ḥidāʾ and the chant of the Bedouins, there is no harm in it, whether little or much."

These are his words, and they are clear in the prohibition of singing, evidenced by the nullification of the testimony of one who is accustomed to it, inclined to it, known for it, and engages in it excessively.

As for a small amount of it between a man and himself — this is lighter in his view.

As for the aforementioned narration, its explanation lies in distinguishing between samāʿ [hearing] and istimāʿ [listening attentively].

Ibn al-Qayyim said in his book Mas'alat al-Samāʿ:
"Similar to this is your argument by the singing of the two young girls in the house of the Prophet ﷺ, and that he heard it and did not object — you erred in reasoning, and you did not distinguish between the action of the Prophet ﷺ and your action, nor between the action of Nāfiʿ and your action. You intend istimāʿ [intentional listening], and samāʿ [mere hearing] is different from istimāʿ. Likewise, the jurists distinguish in the prostration of recitation [sujūd al-tilāwah] between the sāmiʿ [one who hears unintentionally] and the mustamiʿ [one who listens intentionally]; they recommended it for the mustamiʿ, and some even made it obligatory, unlike the sāmiʿ. The sāmiʿ is the one to whom the sound reaches without him intending it, and the mustamiʿ is the one who gives his hearing to it deliberately. The first is not blameworthy in what is blameworthy to listen to, nor praiseworthy in what is praiseworthy to listen to. And Allah the Exalted said: {And when they hear ill speech, they turn away from it} [al-Qaṣaṣ: 55] — so He praised them for turning away from it, and did not blame them for hearing it when it was not of their own intention."

The conclusion is: one who hears singing without intending it is not obliged to place his fingers in his ears, though it is recommended to do so.

As for intentional listening, that is outside this [concession].

Al-ʿImrānī al-Shāfiʿī said in al-Bayān:
"If one intends to listen to what is forbidden, he sins thereby.