الأربعاء 24 ربيع الأوّل 1439
Wednesday Rabbi al-Awwal 24 1439
Wednesday 13 December 2017

Fatwa debunking Sanha's pro-Israeli...

 

Our Fatwa in response to SANHA!
While Muslims all over the world are grieving at the plight of their Palestinian
mothers, brothers and children who are under brutal Zionist oppression, SANHA has
issued a ‘fatwa’ in defence of its certification of Israeli products as “Halaal”.
Since SANHA is prepared to certify and ‘bless’ Israeli goods in their commercials
and since it has done so by justifying its stance on the basis of the Shariah, it has
now become imperative upon the Ulama of Haqq to respond and to provide Shar’i
evidence, which would conclusively debunk the evidence they have cited.
SANHA, with the silent concurrence of the Fordsburg Jamiat-ul-Ulama, presented
incidents in the Holy Life of Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) totally unrelated
to the horrendous scenario we are faced with. More shocking than their “Fatwa” is
the silence of the Ulama fraternity at this strange and in-factual Fatwa. Amongst the 5
many reasons for the formation of The Jamiatul-Ulama Gauteng, is that SANHA’s
Fatwa is backed by the silence of the entire Jmaitul-Ulama (formerly Transvaal0.
Thus, the continued silence gives credence to such a ‘fatwa’ and casts suspicion
upon the ability of the Ulama to contest what is clearly an extremely disturbing Fatwa
even to the layman’s limited understanding of Deen. Let us scrutinize the SANHA
‘fatwa’ rationally and judiciously:
1) SANHA in it’s Fatwa says:“Be just?even unto your enemy.”
SANHA’s concept of ‘justice’ is, plainly speaking, a mockery of the Deen. Since
when does Islamic Justice encourage one to serve as agents and servants of a
government whose hands are dyed red with the blood of Muslim mothers, the blood
of Muslim sisters, the blood of Muslim brothers? Since when does Islamic Justice
allow a Muslim to aid the economy of a country who will purchase all types of
weapons in order to kill, maim and displace hundreds of thousands of people from
the very land which bred them? SANHA has confused — in ignorance or by design
— testimony of the truth which is an integral part of The Shariah whilst
simultaneously being a party in the scandalous service to a brutal state. What affinity
does proclaiming the truth have with advertising and promoting Israeli goods to the
Muslim public?
SANHA’s concept of justice allows for certifying the merchandise of a state that has
and is causing untold suffering to Muslims! What is SANHA’s concept of ‘justice’?
Certifying the products of a state with the nobly “Halaal” emblem whilst Muslims are
grinding under the boots and being systematically exterminated and expelled from
their lands.
SANHA proudly declares: “Be just to even your enemy.” But what about Justice to
the wheelchair handicapped Sheikh Yaseen who was made Shaheed whilst coming
out of the Masjied by an Israeli missile? Does Sheikh Yaseen not deserve any
justice? Does the entire population of Gaza who are forced into starvation by the
Israeli Government not deserve any justice? Do the children, the innocent lambs of
Islam not deserve any justice?
2) If SANHA’s logic of justice had to be accepted it follows from there that
Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) was—Na’oothubillah—unjust to even
Muslims. When certain Sahaabah did not participate in the Campaign of Tabook
Nabi (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) severed all relations with them and instructed all
Muslims to do the same. According to SANHA’s logic this is not justice. Can any
Muslim conceive such a dastardly notion in regard to the Nabi of Allah (Sallallahu
alaihi wasallam)? Never! But SANHA has cast a blind eye to the sensitivities of the
Deen in view of the stakes being so high.
3) SANHA “Fatwa” claims: “800 years of bloodshed was not a reason to declare
Roman products Haraam.”
In this fallacious reasoning SANHA equates Israeli occupation of Muslim Lands and
brutal suppression of Muslims to the wars fought with the Romans. This is incorrect
and an attempt at doctoring a fact to suit the Fatwa.
The fight with the Romans was on the battlefield. The sword was an adequate
response to Roman rebellion. Today with Muslims on their knees unable to fight their
enemy, the weapon of economic boycott is just about all that is left to show our
resistance and solidarity with Muslims whom we cannot come to the aid of. SANHA
wishes the Muslim Ummah to lay down this weapon of economic sanctions as well,
thus alluding to their ill-intent or good-intent completely misdirected.
SANHA recognizes the fight with the apartheid regime. Its members as affiliates of
the Jo’burg Jamiat monotonously trumpet this theme. They concede that economic
sanctions played a major role in bringing down the former apartheid government. Let 6
SANHA state unequivocally that the policy of economic sanctions against the
previous government was ‘a departure from justice with thy enemy’. Let them say
that the concept of sanctions plays no role in Islam!
4). SANHA’s Fatwa shockingly claims: “The crops of the Jews of Khaibar were
exported to Madinah.”
In this ambiguous and misleading averment SANHA has scraped the bottom of the
barrel in its desperate bid to provide some basis for its unholy axis with the Mal’oon
Yahood and their products manufactured and harvested at the expense of genocide!
SANHA should make known which period they refer to in their statement: “The crops
of the Jews of Khaibar were exported to Madinah.” If they refer to the pre-Khaibar
conquest period the simple explanation is that the Muslims and Jews were not at war
then. There was a peace-agreement binding on both sides. There was no reason to
call on a boycott and implement trade sanctions of Jewish crops harvested in
Khaibar.
And if SANHA refers to the post-Khaibar conquest then the error in their averment is
too glaring to any student of Deen to proffer any comment. Lest ignorant members of
this Ummah labour under SANHA’s deception we are constrained to present the fact
of the matter. The crops of Khaibar transported to Madinah were not for sale. It was
the share, and in the opinion of Imaam-e-A’zam Abu Haneefah (Rahmatullahi alaih)
the land-tax, which the Yahood of Khaibar were under obligation to pay to
Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). SANHA’s humbug of ‘export to Madinah’ is
therefore ludicrous.
SANHA says:“The Halaal status of a product is determined by the Law of Allah.
Extraneous circumstances, however deplorable, do not make a product Haraam.”
Any experienced, qualified Mufti does not only look at issues in isolation. He
examines and analyses all aspects upon which his Fatwa will impact. Various
dimensions of issues will be scrutinised, evaluated and intensely assessed. It is on
this basis that the illustrious Fuqahaa have prohibited many permissible matters due
to “Saddun li Baabal Fitnah” (Closing the door for future trials).
It will be obvious to any Mufti that the call to declare Israeli products Haraam is
motivated by the burning anger at the injustice and inhumane suffering which their
Muslim brothers are experiencing. The larger issue is to refrain from aiding and
abetting the Zionist terrorists by boycotting their products and not certifying their
goods. This moral-code of Islam in defence of its adherents suffering at the hands of
the kuffaar brutality has been conveniently overlooked by SANHA. If SANHA had
been genuinely keen to identify with the Palestinian suffering, then its Mufti could
surely have qualified his Fatwa by simply adding the words:
“Though it is Halaal, yet it should not be purchased due to the boycott call of
our parent body, The Jamiatul-Ulama (formerly Transvaal)”.
This silence is exactly what confuses the public! Whilst The Jamiat calls for a boycott
of Israeli products, its affiliate SANHA gives a blank cheque to Muslims to purchase
the products and worse, legitimises the brutal Israeli Government!
5) The example of Abdullah Bin Salaam cited is of no relevance to the pressing
issue. Our issue is not one of declaring Halaal to be Haraam.
Extraneous factors, which SANHA’s Fatwa point blankly deny, do play a great role in
formulating Masaa’il as is apparent from the following Ma’saa’il:
• Allah, Most High prohibited Hadhrat Aadam Alayhi Salaam from eating from
the forbidden tree. Allah Ta’aala advised him to take into account the factor of
temptation. Thus, Allah forbade him from even going close to the tree. “And
do not go close to the treeJ” 7
• Likewise, Allah Ta’aala did not only stop at prohibiting Zinaa, but he forbade
us to approach any act which could lead to Zinaa. Says Allah, “And do not go
near to ZinaaJ”
• Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam instructed Hadhrat Ayesha (radiallahu anha)
to adopt Hijaab from one of her foster brothers who was a lewd character. Did
Rasullullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam not take this extraneous factor into
account when he barred Hadhrat Ayesha (radiallahu anha), with whom the
lewd character had no Shar’i Hijaab, from associating with?
• The Law of Allah is that interest is Haraam. Yet, the curse of Allah even
settles upon the person who gains no tangible benefit from the transaction.
Thus a witness to the interest transaction is also cursed.
• Similarly, a person manufacturing a liquor bottle is also cursed though he
himself may not consume the liquor.
• Just before her demise, Hadhrat Fatima (radiallahu anha) requested that a
sheet be spread over her grave when she is buried. Her intense Haya
(modesty) is the extraneous factor which has caused the Ummah to spread a
sheet over the grave of female Marhooms.
• Rasullullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam instructed that all the dogs in Medina
Munawwarah be killed. The extraneous factor was that the intense love of the
dogs which had entered the hearts of the people.
• Says Allah, Most High: “And wherever you may be turn your direction to
Masjidul Haram (in prayer)”. No person in his right senses will perform Salaah
on a paak Musallah in a toilet and cite this Ayah as substantiation that he is
merely following the command of Allah and the Divine Law, no matter how
“deplorable it may be.”
• Rasullullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam prohibited one “who has Imaan upon
Allah and The Day of Qiyaamah” to partake from a place where liquor is
served, though that food may be Halaal.
The above are a few Masaa’il in which extraneous factors play a role the formulation
of a Fatwa. It is upon such basis that the certification of synthetic “Halaal” pork and
attending “The Sunday Times food and liquor show” is impermissible. The public
now have a choice to examine both the Fatwas and accordingly come to their own
intelligent conclusions.
On the one hand they have a Fatwa which is based, as proven, upon highly
questionable historical assumptions, misplaced philosophical and moral postulations
and is devoid of genuine Shar’i basis.
On the other hand, there is a contesting Fatwa which is based upon a solid response
on the premises of The Shariah. It simply does not behove a Mufti to attach a Halaal
emblem on Israeli products and cause the Muslims of South Africa to be viewed by
the world with derision and scorn and brings untold joy to the Israeli Government
since it OPENLY LEGITIMISES THE ISRAELI STATE’S EXISTENCE!
We have presented our Fatwa in good faith. If we have erred then it is from our Nafs
and Shaytaan, otherwise it is an immense Ni’mat from Allah, Most Hig
Which Fatwa Makes Sense to you?...

Our Fatwa in response to SANHA!

While Muslims all over the world are grieving at the plight of their Palestinian mothers, brothers and children who are under brutal Zionist oppression, SANHA has issued a ‘fatwa’ in defence of its certification of Israeli products as “Halaal”

The following letter was received from a brother Ahmed Laher. (Articles by this sincere brother could be googled at Ahmed Laher)

“SANHA, has just completed it's much hyped PR exercise in Klerksdorp's Manzilpark Masjid on the evening of 19th November, 2013. It's posters, advertising the event, proffered that this PR Q & A

event would help attendees "break free" from the chains of "misinformation, myth, fiction" etc.

 

It proved to be anything but a liberating experience.

On my question of why SANHA had seen fit to provide Halaal certification for several Israeli products produced on stolen Palestinian land (all of  post 1948 'Israel is illegitimately occupied Palestinian territory), SANHA once again revealed it's true no name brand (NNB) colours.

"Our job is only to verify and certify irrespective of where the product originates from". To add insult to injury SANHA's Moulana Seedat, to great incredulity, further likened certifying Zionist Israeli products to certifying products and institutions of non-practicing and sinful Muslim individuals.

This was the shocking response of this purportedly 'Muslim' organization, flying in the face of the unanimous worldwide boycott (and non recognition) of the illegitimate Zionist entity by Muslims as well as a growing number of non-Muslims.

When asked why SANHA had just not exercised it's free option to withhold certification and in doing so denying the illegitimate fruit of the Zionist occupation of Palestine access to the Muslim market, SANHA's Moulana Seedat once again engaged in deliberate obfuscation and pointedly refused to allow me any further follow up on the subject.

Thereafter, every time I tried to ask any other question I was intentionally sidelined by the PR Molvi, who acted as judge, jury and executioner. All the PR show proved is that, on issues of immense concern to Muslim's and all justice loving people, SANHA is neither here nor there, a true NNB.

Remaining neutral in the face of oppression is tantamount to aiding the oppressor. Going one step further and providing a marketing platform to an open, unrepentant oppressor of human beings, Muslim or non-Muslim, is direct aid to the oppressor.

By openly defying the boycott and embargo campaign against the illegitimate Zionist cancer destroying the heart of  the Muslim world, SANHA has proved once and for all that it's only objective is money, irrespective of whose broken body it tramples on in the process of grabbing as much of the loot as it can. After this clear proof of SANHA's purely mercenary motives, can I ever trust a SANHA certificate again? I am more convinced than ever that the proper Muslim response to any SANHA certificate should be 'exercise caution' and 'it's advisable to abstain'. Please feel free, at any time. to request extensive documentation I have of SANHA's sickening carrion halaalizing shenanigans.

The above views of the Sanha's Moulana Seedat mirrors a Fatwa in which Sanha justifed their stance a few years ago. This particular Fatwa was debunked by the Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng in detail. Hereby follows the Fatwa which Sanha has no answer to date.

The Fatwa of the Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

Since SANHA is prepared to certify and ‘bless’ Israeli goods in their commercials and since it has done so by justifying its stance on the basis of the Shariah, it has now become imperative upon the Ulama of Haqq to respond and to provide Shar’i evidence, which would conclusively debunk the evidence they have cited. SANHA, with the silent concurrence of the Fordsburg Jamiat-ul-Ulama, presented incidents in the Holy Life of Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) totally unrelated to the horrendous scenario we are faced with. More shocking than their “Fatwa” is the silence of the Ulama fraternity at this strange and in-factual Fatwa. Amongst the 5 many reasons for the formation of The Jamiatul-Ulama Gauteng, is that SANHA’s Fatwa is backed by the silence of the entire Jmaitul-Ulama (formerly Transvaal). Thus, the continued silence gives credence to such a ‘fatwa’ and casts suspicion upon the ability of the Ulama to contest what is clearly an extremely disturbing Fatwa even to the layman’s limited understanding of Deen. Let us scrutinize the SANHA ‘fatwa’ rationally and judiciously:

1) SANHA in it’s Fatwa says:“Be just?even unto your enemy.” SANHA’s concept of ‘justice’ is, plainly speaking, a mockery of the Deen. Since when does Islamic Justice encourage one to serve as agents and servants of a

government whose hands are dyed red with the blood of Muslim mothers, the blood of Muslim sisters, the blood of Muslim brothers? Since when does Islamic Justice allow a Muslim to aid the economy of a country who will purchase all types of weapons in order to kill, maim and displace hundreds of thousands of people from the very land which bred them? SANHA has confused — in ignorance or by design — testimony of the truth which is an integral part of The Shariah whilst simultaneously being a party in the scandalous service to a brutal state. What affinity does proclaiming the truth have with advertising and promoting Israeli goods to the Muslim public?

SANHA’s concept of justice allows for certifying the merchandise of a state that has and is causing untold suffering to Muslims! What is SANHA’s concept of ‘justice’? Certifying the products of a state with the nobly “Halaal” emblem whilst Muslims are grinding under the boots and being systematically exterminated and expelled from their lands.

SANHA proudly declares: “Be just to even your enemy.” But what about Justice to the wheelchair handicapped Sheikh Yaseen who was made Shaheed whilst coming out of the Masjied by an Israeli missile? Does Sheikh Yaseen not deserve any justice? Does the entire population of Gaza who are forced into starvation by the Israeli Government not deserve any justice? Do the children, the innocent lambs of Islam not deserve any justice?

2) If SANHA’s logic of justice had to be accepted it follows from there that Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) was—Na’oothubillah—unjust to even Muslims. When certain Sahaabah did not participate in the Campaign of Tabook Nabi (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) severed all relations with them and instructed all Muslims to do the same. According to SANHA’s logic this is not justice. Can any Muslim conceive such a dastardly notion in regard to the Nabi of Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam)? Never! But SANHA has cast a blind eye to the sensitivities of the Deen in view of the stakes being so high.

3) SANHA “Fatwa” claims: “800 years of bloodshed was not a reason to declare Roman products Haraam.” In this fallacious reasoning SANHA equates Israeli occupation of Muslim Lands and brutal suppression of Muslims to the wars fought with the Romans. This is incorrect and an attempt at doctoring a fact to suit the Fatwa.

The fight with the Romans was on the battlefield. The sword was an adequate response to Roman rebellion. Today with Muslims on their knees unable to fight their enemy, the weapon of economic boycott is just about all that is left to show our resistance and solidarity with Muslims whom we cannot come to the aid of. SANHA wishes the Muslim Ummah to lay down this weapon of economic sanctions as well, thus alluding to their ill-intent or good-intent completely misdirected.

SANHA recognizes the fight with the apartheid regime. Its members as affiliates of the Jo’burg Jamiat monotonously trumpet this theme. They concede that economic sanctions played a major role in bringing down the former apartheid government. Let 6 SANHA state unequivocally that the policy of economic sanctions against the previous government was ‘a departure from justice with thy enemy’. Let them say that the concept of sanctions plays no role in Islam!

4). SANHA’s Fatwa shockingly claims: “The crops of the Jews of Khaibar were exported to Madinah.” In this ambiguous and misleading averment SANHA has scraped the bottom of the barrel in its desperate bid to provide some basis for its unholy axis with the Mal’oon Yahood and their products manufactured and harvested at the expense of genocide!

SANHA should make known which period they refer to in their statement: “The crops of the Jews of Khaibar were exported to Madinah.” If they refer to the pre-Khaibar conquest period the simple explanation is that the Muslims and Jews were not at war then. There was a peace-agreement binding on both sides. There was no reason to call on a boycott and implement trade sanctions of Jewish crops harvested in Khaibar.

And if SANHA refers to the post-Khaibar conquest then the error in their averment is too glaring to any student of Deen to proffer any comment. Lest ignorant members of this Ummah labour under SANHA’s deception we are constrained to present the fact of the matter. The crops of Khaibar transported to Madinah were not for sale. It was the share, and in the opinion of Imaam-e-A’zam Abu Haneefah (Rahmatullahi alaih) the land-tax, which the Yahood of Khaibar were under obligation to pay to Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). SANHA’s humbug of ‘export to Madinah’ is therefore ludicrous.

SANHA says:“The Halaal status of a product is determined by the Law of Allah. Extraneous circumstances, however deplorable, do not make a product Haraam.” Any experienced, qualified Mufti does not only look at issues in isolation. He examines and analyses all aspects upon which his Fatwa will impact. Various dimensions of issues will be scrutinised, evaluated and intensely assessed. It is on this basis that the illustrious Fuqahaa have prohibited many permissible matters due to “Saddun li Baabal Fitnah” (Closing the door for future trials).

It will be obvious to any Mufti that the call to declare Israeli products Haraam is motivated by the burning anger at the injustice and inhumane suffering which their Muslim brothers are experiencing. The larger issue is to refrain from aiding and abetting the Zionist terrorists by boycotting their products and not certifying their goods. This moral-code of Islam in defence of its adherents suffering at the hands of the kuffaar brutality has been conveniently overlooked by SANHA. If SANHA had been genuinely keen to identify with the Palestinian suffering, then its Mufti could surely have qualified his Fatwa by simply adding the words:

“Though it is Halaal, yet it should not be purchased due to the boycott call of our parent body, The Jamiatul-Ulama (formerly Transvaal)”. This silence is exactly what confuses the public! Whilst The Jamiat calls for a boycott of Israeli products, its affiliate SANHA gives a blank cheque to Muslims to purchase the products and worse, legitimises the brutal Israeli Government!

5) The example of Abdullah Bin Salaam cited is of no relevance to the pressing issue. Our issue is not one of declaring Halaal to be Haraam. Extraneous factors, which SANHA’s Fatwa point blankly deny, do play a great role in

formulating Masaa’il as is apparent from the following Ma’saa’il:

• Allah, Most High prohibited Hadhrat Aadam Alayhi Salaam from eating from the forbidden tree. Allah Ta’aala advised him to take into account the factor of temptation. Thus, Allah forbade him from even going close to the tree. “And do not go close to the treeJ” 7

• Likewise, Allah Ta’aala did not only stop at prohibiting Zinaa, but he forbade us to approach any act which could lead to Zinaa. Says Allah, “And do not go near to ZinaaJ”

• Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam instructed Hadhrat Ayesha (radiallahu anha) to adopt Hijaab from one of her foster brothers who was a lewd character. Did Rasullullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam not take this extraneous factor into account when he barred Hadhrat Ayesha (radiallahu anha), with whom the lewd character had no Shar’i Hijaab, from associating with?

• The Law of Allah is that interest is Haraam. Yet, the curse of Allah even settles upon the person who gains no tangible benefit from the transaction. Thus a witness to the interest transaction is also cursed.

• Similarly, a person manufacturing a liquor bottle is also cursed though he himself may not consume the liquor.

• Just before her demise, Hadhrat Fatima (radiallahu anha) requested that a sheet be spread over her grave when she is buried. Her intense Haya (modesty) is the extraneous factor which has caused the Ummah to spread a

sheet over the grave of female Marhooms.

• Rasullullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam instructed that all the dogs in Medina Munawwarah be killed. The extraneous factor was that the intense love of the dogs which had entered the hearts of the people.

• Says Allah, Most High: “And wherever you may be turn your direction to Masjidul Haram (in prayer)”. No person in his right senses will perform Salaah on a paak Musallah in a toilet and cite this Ayah as substantiation that he is

merely following the command of Allah and the Divine Law, no matter how “deplorable it may be.”

• Rasullullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam prohibited one “who has Imaan upon Allah and The Day of Qiyaamah” to partake from a place where liquor is served, though that food may be Halaal.

The above are a few Masaa’il in which extraneous factors play a role the formulation of a Fatwa. It is upon such basis that the certification of synthetic “Halaal” pork and attending “The Sunday Times food and liquor show” is impermissible. The public now have a choice to examine both the Fatwas and accordingly come to their own intelligent conclusions.

On the one hand they have a Fatwa which is based, as proven, upon highly questionable historical assumptions, misplaced philosophical and moral postulations and is devoid of genuine Shar’i basis. On the other hand, there is a contesting Fatwa which is based upon a solid response on the premises of The Shariah. It simply does not behove a Mufti to attach a Halaal emblem on Israeli products and cause the Muslims of South Africa to be viewed by the world with derision and scorn and brings untold joy to the Israeli Government since it OPENLY LEGITIMISES THE ISRAELI STATE’S EXISTENCE!

We have presented our Fatwa in good faith. If we have erred then it is from our Nafs and Shaytaan, otherwise it is an immense Ni’mat from Allah, Most High.

Visitors Map

CURRENT MOON

Visitor Stats

We have 73 guests and no members online

Banking Details

Jamiatul -Ulama of Gauteng

Standard Bank
Meyerton
Branch code: 01-45-37
Swift Code: SBZAZAJJ

Madrassah Ashraful Uloom
N.P.O Registration no: 052 506

Account no: 302 217 401

Zakaat Account
302 217 959

Lillah Account
302- 217- 967

The Jamiatul-Ulama Gauteng is not a fund raising organization.
When depositiong funds,
make us your unfettered “Wakeel”.
If you are depositing Zakaat,
do please ensure that a few extra Rands are deposited in order to offset bank charges.

ZAKAAT INDICATOR

12 December 2017 

Zakaat Nisaab: R 4 445.73
Mahr Fatimi: R 11 114.33
Minimum Mahr: R 222.28

Fidya Amount:

Hanafi: R20.00 
Shafi'i/ Hanbali/ Maliki: R7.00

What is meant by nisaab?

Date Conversion

Date Conversion
Gregorian to Hijri Hijri to Gregorian
Day:Month:Year

STREAMING THIS WEEK

 JUMUA BAYAN 13

SUNDAY BAYAN 17

 HISTORY ROLLOVER 2

MUFTI SHOAYB 5

HADITH AND TAFSEER 1

 

 

MISSED THE LAST LIVE BAYAAN?
Listen to this week's Bayaans here:
 Friday Bayaan
 Sunday Bayaan
 

E-mail us @ This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

THE HADEETH CORNER

12-12-2017

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شَبَابَةُ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْعَلاَءِ، عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَرْزَمٍ الأَشْعَرِيِّ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ، يَقُولُ

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِنَّ أَوَّلَ مَا يُسْأَلُ عَنْهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَعْنِي الْعَبْدَ مِنَ النَّعِيمِ أَنْ يُقَالَ لَهُ أَلَمْ نُصِحَّ لَكَ جِسْمَكَ وَنُرْوِيكَ مِنَ الْمَاءِ الْبَارِدِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏ وَالضَّحَّاكُ هُوَ ابْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَرْزَبٍ وَيُقَالُ ابْنُ عَرْزَمٍ وَابْنُ عَرْزَمٍ أَصَحُّ ‏.‏

Abu Hurairah Radiallahu Anhu narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:

“Indeed the first of what will be asked about on the Day of Judgment – meaning the slave (of Allah) being questioned about the favors – is that it will be said to him: ‘Did We not make your body, health, and give you of cool water to drink?’”

Tirmidhi

Visitors