Topic: Obligatory Knowledge

[samsparky]

To say: ‘Something happened without the Destining of Allaah’;

If someone says, even about one single matter, that it occurred without Allaah willing it to happen, he blasphemes.

Every matter, whether good or evil, occurs only by the Will of Allaah.

Allaah is not blamed for destining the evil.

Rather, the slave who chooses to commit the evil is blamed for his choice.

To say: ‘If prophets, angels, or all Muslims testified before me about something, I would not accept from them’;

The one who does not accept the testimony of prophets, angels, or all the Muslims is declaring them as untrustworthy; this is blasphemy.

The one who says the prophets or the angels are not trustworthy blasphemes, because he is belittling them and belying the Qur’aan.

The one who claims that all Muslims are not trustworthy is attempting to destroy the credibility of our Religion, because the rules of the Religion were transmitted through them.

If the unanimous testimony of all the Muslims was something rejected because it was not trustworthy, then there would not be any credibility to what we have received.

This is why the person who utters such a statement is a blasphemer.

To say: ‘I will not do so and so even if it is a recommended matter (sunnah)’- with the purpose of mockery;

Any statement containing dispraise or mockery of the Sunnah of the Prophet ? ? ? is blasphemy.

For example, if one says, “I don’t want to use the siwaak,” and means by his statement that although he believes using the siwaak is Sunnah, it is still a disgusting habit, he blasphemes.

However, if he did not mean to mock the Sunnah of the Prophet ? ? ?, rather he just meant that he did not want to use siwaak at that point in time, then he would not blaspheme.

To say: ‘If someone were a prophet, I would not believe in him’;

The one who says such a statement blasphemes, even if he knows that the person whom he named was not a prophet, because his statement belittles the office of Prophethood.

To say: ‘What is this Law (Shar^)?’ when a scholar gives one a religious judgement- with the purpose of belittling the judgement of the Islamic Law;

It is blasphemy to belittle any of the Laws revealed to Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? or imply that they are not true.

For example, if a person asked a  religious scholar for the religious judgement of a particular case, and upon hearing the ruling he said, “What kind of Law is that?” meaning the Laws revealed to Prophet MuHammad ? ? ? are not true, or he did not like that particular judgement, he blasphemes.

However, if his statement meant that he did not believe this ruling conform to the rules of the Religion (i.e. he does not trust the person he asked), then his statement is not blasphemy.

To say: ‘May Allaah’s damn be upon every religious scholar’. However, if one did not mean all of the religious scholars, but meant those of one’s own time and there was an associating matter which indicates this meaning because of their corrupt condition, then one would not blaspheme. One’s words, however, are not clear of sin;

If one generalised one’s statement to include dispraise of all the religious scholars, one blasphemes because one’s statement is belittling the status of Islamic knowledge.

However, if it was understood from the context that one’s dispraise was of a specific group of scholars, such as the scholars of one town or the scholars of one specific period, then this is not blasphemy.

For example, to damn a particular group of scholars or the scholars of a certain city because they are not implementing their knowledge is not blasphemy.

It is, however, sinful except if one had an acceptable religious excuse.

An acceptable religious excuse would be if one said that statement to prevent those scholars from being disobedient or to warn the people against their bad status.

To say: ‘I do not acknowledge Allaah, the angels, the Prophet, the Qur’aan, the Islamic Law (Shar^), or Islaam;

To acknowledge a matter here means to recognise the existence or the truth of that matter.

So if one utters words which mean one does not acknowledge the existence of Allaah, the angels, the Prophets, the Qur’aan, the Islamic Laws, or Islaam, one blasphemes.

To say: ‘I do not know the judgement’- with the purpose of mocking the judgement revealed by Allaah;

Saying, “I don’t know the Religious judgement” of a particular matter and intending by such a statement that the Religious judgement has no value, is blasphemy.

On the other hand, saying, “I do not know” in the proper place is a praised matter.

Imaam Muslim and Ibn Hibbaan related that when the Prophet was asked about the best and the worst of the places, he said:

((?? ?? ?? ?))

(laa adree, as’alu Jibreel)

It means: “I do not know, I will ask Jibreel.”

He asked Jibreel, who said, “I do not know, I will ask my Lord.”

Then it was revealed to the Prophet that the best of all places are the mosques, and the worst of all places are the marketplaces.

[samsparky]

To mention an ayah with the intention of belittling its meaning, like:

To say ayah 34, Surat an-Naba? after one has filled a cup: {??? ??}. This ayah refers to a cup full to the brim with the drinks of Paradise;

Or to say ayah 20, Surat an-Naba? after one has emptied a drink:
{ ??}. This ayah refers to mountains that will vanish on the Judgement Day as if they were a mirage;

Or to say ayah 3, Surat al-MuTaffifeen upon weighing or measuring:
{? ? ??}. This ayah refers to some people cheating in measuring and weighing;

Or to say ayah 47, Surat al-Kahf when seeing a crowd:
{ ?? ?}, which refers to the Judgement Day when the people will be assembled without any of them being left out.


If one uses the ayahs of the Qur?aan in other than their proper context, without belittling them, one does not blaspheme. However, Shaykh AHmad Ibn Hajar, may Allaah have mercy upon him, said: ?This is not far from being unlawful (haraam).?;

It is blasphemy to recite any verse of the Qur?aan with the purpose of belittling the terms of the verse or its meaning.

For example, a person blasphemes for belittling verse 34 of Suratan-Naba? if he recited it while filling a cup with wine, and he was indicating that the wine he poured was actually like or better than the delicious drink promised to the people of Paradise.


However, simply reciting one of the verses of the Qur?aan out of context without belittling it is not blasphemy.

For instance, if one does not have the intention to mock verse 47 of Surat al-Kahf (which refers to the Judgement Day when all the people will be assembled, and none will be left out), however, he recites it when a large crowd of people enter a place, he does not blaspheme.

However, Shaykh AHmad Ibn Hajar al-Haytamiyy (d. 974 AH), may Allaah have mercy on him, said that reciting the verses of the Qur?aan out of context reflects a lack of due respect to the Qur?aan and this is sinful.

To cuss a Prophet or Angel;

The one who cusses a prophet or an angel definitely is judged as a blasphemer.

To say words which mock the prayer, such as:

To say, ?I would be a pimp if I performed prayer?;

Or to say, ?Nothing good has happened to me since I started praying?;

Or to say: ?Prayer is not proper for me? with the purpose of mockery;

The one who says such statements with the purpose of mocking the prayers is definitely a blasphemer.

If someone says, ?If I pray, I will be similar to a pimp,? he is belittling and mocking the prayers and therefore blasphemes.

However, it is not blasphemy for a menstruating woman to say, ?The prayer is not proper for me,? intending by her statement that while she is menstruating she is not permitted to pray.

To say to a Muslim: ?I am your enemy and the enemy of your Prophet?;

Or to say to a descendent of the Prophet (Shareef): ?I am your enemy and the enemy of your grandfather,? meaning the Prophet, sallallaahu ^alayhi wa sallam;

Or to say anything similar to those aforementioned, abhorrent, and ugly words.

The one who belittles the Prophet ? ? ?, or uses words to mock the Prophet ? ? ? is by concensus a blasphemer.

Moreover, whoever curses the Prophet ? ? ? is a blasphemer.

Judge Abu Yusuf said that whoever doubts the blasphemy of such a person is himself a blasphemer.

Also, doubting that such a person (curser) deserves punishment in the Hereafter is itself blasphemy.

The famous Maalikiyy scholar, SaHnoon, gave a similar judgement.

A large number of faqeehs, like the Hanafiyy, Badr-ur-Rasheed, who lived close to the eighth Hijriyy Century, and Qaadi ^IyaaD, may Allaah, ta^aalaa, have mercy upon them, enumerated many blasphemous words which one needs to know, because whoever does not know evil is more likely to fall into it.

Qaadi ^IyaaD (d. 544 AH) is one of the most famous Maalikiyy scholars.

He mentioned many blasphemous statements in his book, ash-Shifaa, with the purpose of warning the Muslims against uttering such words.

Other scholars from the four madh-habs (schools) did the same.

Among them is Badrur-Rasheed, a Hanafiyy scholar, who lived in the eighth century.

He authored a book specifically to list many blasphemous sayings.

The purpose in authoring such works was to warn the Muslims of the great danger of saying such statements.

May Allaah protect us from blasphemy.

The rule is: Any belief, action or saying which belittles Allaah, His Books, His Messengers, His Angels, His Rites, the well-known practices of His Religion, His Rules, His Promise, or His Threat is blasphemy.

Hence the human being must use caution with his utmost effort to avoid blasphemy at all times.

Any conviction, action, or saying which belittles Allaah is blasphemy.

Likewise blasphemy is to belittle the Revealed Books of Allaah, His Messengers, or the Angels, or to belittle the Rites of Allaah or the well-known practices of His Religion.

For example, the adhaan, Pilgrimage, mosques, the Feasts of FiTr and ADHaa, the religious slaughtering, and prayers are all among the rites and well-known practices of the Religion of Islaam; anyone who belittles them blasphemes.

Also, belittling the Rules of the Religion or the Promise of Allaah or His Threat is blasphemy?whether the person did that from a conviction in his heart, or as an action of the body, or by uttering words to that effect.


The person needs to be cautious and exert the utmost effort to avoid such matters.

The person who dies as a Muslim, even if he did not repent of his sins, is still hopeful for the forgiveness of Allaah.

Even if he was tortured in Hellfire, he would not remain there forever.

However, the one who dies in the state of blasphemy loses in this life and in the Hereafter.

Death separates the blasphemer from any enjoyment he may have had in this life and sets him on the course of everlasting torture.


One needs to preserve one?s faith in Islaam and to exert the utmost effort in avoiding blasphemy.

We ask Allaah by Prophet MuHammad
? ? ?
to protect us from blasphemy and to end our lives successfully.
 
Aameen. 

A side note:

Asking Allaah by the Prophet (tawassul) is deemed permissible by the consensus of the top scholars (mujtahids). Tawassul is seeking to gain benefit or to alleviate harm, from Allaah, by mentioning a Prophet or a righteous Muslim, in honour of the mentioned, with the firm belief that Allaah is the Creator of benefit and harm.

Allaah said:

{ ? }

Suratul-Maa?idah, Ayah 35 means: [Seek the means of obedience to Allaah.]

[samsparky]

Chapter 3

Repentance of the apostate (murtadd)

It is obligatory upon the apostate (murtadd) to return to Islaam immediately by uttering the Testification of Faith and leaving off whatever caused apostasy (riddah).

It is obligatory on the one who apostatized by a blasphemous belief, action, or saying to immediately clear oneself of whatever caused one’s apostasy and return to Islaam by uttering the Testification of Faith.

For example, if a person apostatized as a result of a blasphemous conviction, then this person must clear himself of that blasphemous conviction, hold the correct belief, and utter the Testification of Faith so that he would become a Muslim again.


To clear one’s self from a blasphemous belief, action, or saying by uttering the Testification of Faith, it is a condition that one knows that what he did, said, or believed was blasphemy.

That is, he must know that the matter committed by him actually took him out of Islaam and rendered him a blasphemer.

So, if someone intentionally uttered an explicit blasphemous word, however, he never learned and did not know afterwards that the judgement of uttering this word was blasphemy, then even if he uttered the Testification of Faith one thousand times, it would not benefit him.

This means those Testifications of Faith he uttered in this case would not return him to the state of Islaam.


In addition to knowing the judgement of blasphemy and hating it, it is conditional as well that the apostate utter the Testification of Faith to become a Muslim again.

It is not enough that he just leaves the blasphemous creed, action, or saying, and believe what is correct.

He must utter the Testification of Faith to clear himself of blasphemy.

Moreover, it is obligatory upon him to regret having apostatized and to intend not to return to committing anything like it.

It is obligatory on the one who re-entered Islaam after having committed apostasy, to regret having apostatized in the first place.

However, if one does not regret his having committed apostasy, this does not affect the validity of his return to Islaam as long as he does not like blasphemy and does not have the intention to blaspheme in the future.

So, if that apostate re-embraced Islaam, but did not feel the remorse in his heart for his apostasy, his re-entering Islaam was valid. However, he committed a sin because he did not regret (make himself feel remorse in his heart about it).

On the other hand, uttering the Testification of Faith does not help the one who has the intention to blaspheme in the future.

If he does not quit the blasphemy by uttering the Testification of Faith, he must be ordered to do so.

If he does not re-embrace Islaam, the caliph will have him killed.

The caliph will rely on the testimony of two upright (^adl), male witnesses or upon the person’s own admittance of committing blasphemy.

This is done in compliance with the Hadeeth related by al-Bukhaariyy, which means: <<Kill the one who leaves Islaam. >>

If it is confirmed to the caliph that a person apostatized, either by his own admission or from two upright Muslims who testify they witnessed the blasphemy, then it becomes obligatory on the caliph to order him to re-embrace Islaam.

The caliph imprisons the apostate for three days, each day ordering him to leave out his blasphemy and return to Islaam.

If the three days pass and the person still refuses to return to Islaam, it becomes obligatory on the caliph to have him killed.

This judgement is relying upon the Hadeeth of the Prophet ? ? ? related by al-Bukhaariyy:

((? ? ? ))

It means: <<Kill the one who leaves Islaam. >>

As a result of apostasy, the apostate invalidates one’s:

Fast (Sawm),

If the person apostatized while fasting during the day of RamaDaan, his fast is invalidated by his committing apostasy.

It becomes obligatory on that person to immediately clear himself of that blasphemy, re-embrace Islaam, and to refrain from eating, drinking, and other invalidators of fasting for the rest of that day.

The one who invalidates a day of fasting during RamaDaan, because of committing apostasy, must make up that day immediately after the day of ^Idul-FiTr.

Dry purification (tayammum),

One’s dry purification (tayammum) is invalidated by apostasy.

So, if a person had performed dry purification, then apostatized, he needs to re-perform his purification after he re-embraces Islaam to perform prayers.

This is not the case with one’s Ablution (WuDoo’), which is not invalidated by apostasy.

So, if the person performed WuDoo’, then apostatized, then returned to Islaam before any of the invalidators of Wudoo’ occurred, then this Wudoo’ is still valid.

The dry purification is invalidated by apostasy, and not one’s Ablution, because the dry purification is a weaker kind of purification than Ablution.

[samsparky]

As a result of apostasy, the apostate invalidates one’s:

•Marriage before the marital consummation, and

If two people were married, and before the first sexual intercourse took place between them, one of the two committed apostasy, then their marriage contract is invalidated.

If they want to join together again in marriage, they need to conduct a new marriage contract after the one who has committed apostasy returns to Islaam.

•Marriage after the marital consummation if one did not return to Islaam within the (wife’s) post-marital waiting period (^iddah).

The post-marital waiting period (^iddah) is the period the woman must wait before she is allowed to get married again.

The divorced woman’s ^iddah is three (3) non-bleeding intervals.

The pregnant woman’s waiting period (^iddah) ends when her pregnancy terminates—either by delivery, miscarriage, or otherwise.


After the marriage is consummated, i.e., the first sexual intercourse between two married people has taken place, if one of the two spouses apostatizes, the marriage contract is breached.

This means that the two are no longer married.

If the apostate does not return to Islaam until after the post-marital waiting period has lapsed, then to re-marry, they need to conduct a new marriage contract.

However, if the one who apostatized returned to Islaam within the ^iddah, they would not need a new marriage contract.

They would still be husband and wife based on the first contract.

The marriage contract of an apostate-male or female-is not valid with a Muslim or a non-Muslim.
 
An apostate cannot and does not have a valid marriage contract.
 
If a marriage contract is conducted for him/her, it is invalid.
 
An apostate cannot marry a Muslim or a non-Muslim—whether an original blasphemer, or an apostate like himself/herself.
 
It is unlawful (Haraam) to eat from what the apostate slaughters.
 
What the apostate slaughters is Islamically forbidden to eat, even if he apostatized to embrace Christianity or Judaism.
 
Allaah made it lawful for us to eat the edible animals slaughtered by the jews and the Christians.
 
However this pertains to the original jews and Christians, and not to those who became Christians or jews after having been Muslim.
 
The apostate does not inherit; his wealth is not inherited.
 
The apostate does not inherit his relatives, nor do his relatives inherit from him.
 
He is not prayed for, washed, shrouded, or buried in Islamic cemeteries.
 
It is not lawful to perform the prayer for the apostate when he dies, because he died a blasphemer.
 
Doing so, when one knows another died a blasphemer, is in itself blasphemy.
 
It is not obligatory to wash the dead apostate or shroud him.
 
It is not permissible to bury him in Islamic cemeteries, because these cemeteries were dedicated for burying the Muslims according to the rules of waQf.
 
If a non-Muslim woman pregnant from her Muslim husband died with her foetus, she would be buried in a place which is neither dedicated as a Muslim cemetery, nor as Christian or jewish cemetery.
 
They would direct her back towards the Qiblah in the grave, so that the chest of the foetus in her womb would be facing the Qiblah.
 
His money* will be put in the Muslim treasury (fay’).
 
The relatives of an apostate do not inherit from him.
 
His money is placed in the Muslim treasury to be spent on the Muslim’s public benefit, or for their well-being.
 
For example, it might be used to build a mosque or spent on poor Muslims or the like.
 
*Money here includes currency, properties, owned crops, etc.

[samsparky]

Chapter 4
Commanding the Obligatory (Ma^roof) and
Forbidding the Unlawful (Munkar)

Every accountable person is obligated to perform all the obligations which Allaah ordained upon him.

One must satisfy their integrals (rukns*) and their conditions (sharts#).

Also, one must avoid their invalidators.


*Intergral (Rukn): is a part of a deed, without which the deed is invalid. For example, the opening saying of ‘Allaahu akbar’ in prayer is an integral (rukn) of the prayer.

#Condition (Shart): is not part of a deed, however, without which the deed is invalid. One example is performing WuDoo’ for prayers.


It is an obligation to perform all what Allaah made obligatory on us—satisfying all the integrals and conditions.

It is not sufficient to perform the outward manifestation of the deed while contradicting or leaving out some of its conditions or integrals.

As well, one must avoid what invalidates these obligatory deeds, or else one’s case will be similar to those whom the Prophet ? ? ? spoke about in his Hadeeth related by Ibn Hibbaan.

He said:

((?? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ))

   Which means: <<You would find some people who stay up late at night praying, and the only thing they earn is tiredness. You would find some people fasting, however, the only thing they earn from their fast is hunger and thirst. >>

This Hadeeth emphasizes the importance of learning the Obligatory Knowledge of the Religion because through this knowledge, one will learn what the obligatory matters are and how to perform them in the valid manner.

One needs to learn what the integrals and conditions of these obligatory matters are.

As well, one needs to learn what the invalidators of this deed are, so that one avoids them.


If one sees another person leaving out any of these obligations or performing them incorrectly, one must order him to perform them correctly,


This means if one person sees another leaving out performing any obligatory matter, he must order him to perform it.

Moreover, if one knows another person is performing an obligatory matter incorrectly, one must order him to perform it correctly.

In doing so, one should keep in mind that some of the integrals, conditions, and invalidators of certain obligatory deeds may differ from one Islamic school (madh-hab) to another.

So, one should not rush to object to the performance (or non-performance) of another person, if the matter in question is not among the matters agreed upon by consensus, in the different schools, to be sinful.


For example, it is not a matter of consensus among the imams that one must wipe one’s entire head in performing wuDoo’.

According to the school of Imaam Maalik, it is obligatory upon one to wipe over the entire head in performing wuDoo’.

However, according to Imaam ash-Shaafi^iyy, wiping over a part of the head is sufficient.
 
So, if one following the Maalikiyy school sees someone performing his WuDoo' by wiping over part of his head, one need not rush to object to his performance.

This is unless it is known that the one making WuDoo' believes it is obligatory to wipe the entire head, however, he does not do so.

In this case, the person is not performing what he himself believes is an integral of WuDoo', and it is obligatory to order him to perform WuDoo' correctly.

[samsparky]

...and force him to do so if able.

The obligation on one of forcing another to perform an obligation if he does not, or to force him to perform it correctly if he performs it incorrectly is a detailed matter, and will be discussed shortly.

One must denounce that incorrect performance in one’s heart when one cannot force or order its change.

This is the least that is required if one was unable to change the unlawful by hand or tongue.

If one knows an unlawful matter is happening, one must prevent that matter if one was able; and if one was unable to prevent that matter, then it is an obligation to hate it in one’s heart.

For example, if one knew another was committing an unlawful matter, and one knew that if one spoke to him about this matter and advised him to leave it, he would listen and correct his situation, then it would be an obligation on one to do so (i.e., to advise him in this matter, if no one else does it.)

Also, if one believed the one committing the sin would not listen to one, but he would listen to another person, one might speak to this other person whom one knew would be able to influence the second one to leave out that unlawful matter.

If, however, one knows that the one who was committing that unlawful matter was a person who does not listen to proper advice, however, he can be forced (in some other way, i.e., other than verbally advising him), then one must force him to leave that unlawful matter.

This is due to the Hadeeth of the Prophet ? ? ? related by al-Bukhaariyy:

((? ?? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? . ? ?? ??))

It means: <<If one knows of an unlawful matter, then it is an obligation on one to change that matter by one’s hand. If one is unable, then one must change it by one’s tongue. If one is not able, then one must denounce it in one’s heart—this is the least one must do. >>


Hence, if one knows of an unlawful matter, however, one is unable to change—neither by one’s hand, nor by one’s tongue, then one must denounce that matter in one’s heart.

If one does that, one will be safe; if one does not, one is sinful.


It is conditional in using one’s hand or tongue to change an unlawful matter that doing so does not lead to a situation involving a sin worse than what one is trying to change.

If one believes that using one’s hand or one’s tongue will lead to a worse matter, it becomes forbidden for one to do so.

It is obligatory to leave out all the unlawful matters, forbid whoever commits them, and if able, force him not to commit them, or else one must reject those actions in one’s own heart.

The unlawful (haraam) is what Allaah threatened its committer with punishment and promised its avoider with reward; the obligatory (waajib) is its opposite.

The statement of the author highlights the importance of teaching the people the Obligatory Knowledge of the Religion—in particular the issues concerning the fundamentals of the belief.

If it is obligatory in our Religion to order the one who drinks alcohol to quit drinking alcohol, or the one who steals to quit stealing, or the one who lies to quit lying, then it is of a greater priority to order the one who apostatizes to quit that blasphemy and return to Islaam.

Teaching the people the matters of the Religion, and in particular the matters of the creed these days is a very great matter with a great reward.

The Prophet ? ? ? said:

((? ? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ?))

It means: <<The one who revives the methodology of the Prophet at a time when most of his nation commits wrong acts, has the reward of a martyr. >>

The reward of a martyr is Paradise without any torture.

This Hadeeth indicates that the one who correctly learns the matters of the creed and reaches them to the people will earn Paradise without torture, even if he committed certain sins.


Today, the factions of misguidance have become active in spreading their falsehood among the people.

One must not isolate oneself and refrain from fighting their evil.

This is not how the Muslims acted in previous times.

During the fourth and fifth Hijriyy centuries, the people of misguidance became very active in spreading their misguidance.

They became prominent figures in the community, i.e., rulers or close to the rulers, therefore had the power to inflict a lot of hardship on the people of Ahlus-Sunnah.

They caused much hardships for the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.

Some of those scholars even moved out of the cities to remote mountain areas to escape those hardships.

Among those who stayed to confront them and fight their evil was Abu IsHaaq al-asfaraayiniyy.

He even addressed the scholars who had escaped to the mountains, telling them, “Where are you escaping to?” meaning to remind them that it was their duty to confront the people of misguidance.

He said, “O you grass eaters. You escaped to the mountains and left the wolves behind preying on the Religion of Prophet MuHammad.”

He meant by his statement to dispraise them for leaving the cities to escape the tribulations and settling for eating whatever they found growing in the mountains, while they were able to confront those people of misguidance.

Abu IsHaaq dispraised them because forbidding the unlawful with the tongue, when one is able, is obligatory.

May Allaah guide us to do that and not fall short in it.
   

[muslima1001]

May Allah bless you my dear sister for your big efforts and for aaaaall your knowlegde of islam you share with us -
I think you are one of our best  writing-islamknowlegde-member ...
TAI wouldnt be the same without you :wink:...
May Allah grant you and the others here in the highest paradise - Ameen :-)

[samsparky]

aameen & you dear sis

Thanks for the great encouragement.

I am waiting for the day when I can meet all my TAI brothers & sisters in Paradise in shaa' Allaah

[samsparky]

PURIFICATION AND PRAYERS

(TAHAARAH AND SALAAH)


Chapter 1 Times of Prayer (Salaah)

Among the obligations is to perform five (5) prayers within the day and the night.

It is obligatory upon every Muslim to perform five (5) prayers daily.

These five prayers are the only prayers that are obligatory on every Muslim to perform.

Performing these obligatory prayers is the best deed after believing correctly in Allaah and His messenger.

Neglecting to perform any of these obligatory prayers is an enormous sin.

The one who is negligent about performing them is close to blasphemy.

May Allaah protect us from it.


These are:

The Noon Prayer (Dhuhr) (four (4) rak^ahs):

Its time begins when the sun has declined westward from the middle of the sky.

It remains until the length of the shadow of an object becomes equal to the length of the object itself, in addition to the length of the shadow cast by that object when the sun was at its zenith (istiwaa’).

Each of the five (5) obligatory prayers has a specific time in which it must be performed.

It is important to know the times when each prayer time sets in and when it ends so that the person is sure to perform the prayers in their due time.


The Dhuhr Prayer must be prayed during the Dhuhr time.

The time of Dhuhr starts when the sun begins its decline from the middle of the sky towards the west.

It ends when the length of the shadow of any object becomes equal to the length of that object plus the length of the shadow cast by that object at the istiwaa’ (zenith time).


The time of istiwaa’ is the time at which the sun is at its highest point in the middle of the sky before it begins its decline towards the west.

At this point, the shadow of any object is the shortest it will be during that day.

The shadow of an object at that point in time is called its istiwaa’ shadow.


For example, if one considers the object to be a three-foot pole which casts a shadow of one foot at the istiwaa’ time, then the time of Dhuhr starts when the sun begins its decline towards the west (the shadow starts to lengthen), and ends when the shadow of that pole becomes four feet long.

This point is the end of the Dhuhr time and immediately afterwards, the time of the Mid-afternoon Prayer (^ASr) begins.

Nice illustration:
http://talkaboutislam.com/forums/index.php/topic,2896.msg44005.html#msg44005
 

[muslima1001]

aameen & you dear sis

Thanks for the great encouragement.

I am waiting for the day when I can meet all my TAI brothers & sisters in Paradise in shaa' Allaah

Mash'Allah me too   :lol: dear sister may Allah gather us there together!!!