Hatem al-Haj – QWD012 The Coherence of Sharia – About the Intention
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of the NAA and the place of the hesitation in relation to worship. They emphasize the need to speak aloud and not just in a written form in the math hub, and stress the importance of uttering the intentions and emotions of the Nornishist's book. They also discuss the use of the "has been said" meaning in the context of the statement of the Lord and the importance of showing evidence on the support of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea of the idea
AI: Summary ©
To proceed.
So today, we will still be talking about
the the intention.
It's an important topic.
I mean, without,
your hard deeds are invalid.
So we should
spend a little bit of time,
discussing.
And last time, we were talking about the
nullifiers of
because we we said that there are conditions
of validity.
And among the conditions of validity of the
how to make make ensure
the validity
of our,
is the absence of nullifiers.
Adam Al Munafi, absence
of nullifiers. So last time we finished the
null nullifiers,
we talked about, you know, interruption. We talked
about hesitation.
We we talked about different things last time.
And prior to this, we talked about,
or, you know, mixing and and things of
that nature.
So today,
we will be talking about,
3 different issues.
One of them is in.
And the other one is the place of
the.
And the third one is the time of
the.
When does need to be made? When do
you need to conclude the
in your heart,
before the,
action?
So these are the 3 issues that we
will address today
in this order from right to left.
Versus
short, place
of time of,
So the first discussion is about
whether it's is a short or a.
We've gone over this, and we know that
the difference between the short and the
is that the short
is not part of the essence,
of the not part of the essence, not
an essential part
of the act of worship,
but it's a prerequisite. It's a prerequisite.
Like,
is
not part of the salah, but it is
a prerequisite.
So that's the chart. The would be a,
a an essential part
of the act of worship,
like standing in
is an essential part.
Like
is an essential part
of the act of worship. So that's the
difference between the sharta and the rukn. So
would you say the is short or
given this explanation?
Short?
You guys are all Hanbalis here.
Okay. So the Hanbalis
has disagreed over this. Shafi'i said it's a
ruck, and the Hanbali said it's a shard.
However, in the Hanbali madhhab,
there is also a position that is in
agreement with the Shafi'i that the Neia is,
in fact, a ruckan. In the Shafi'i madhhab,
there is disagreement. In the Hanbali madhhab, there
is disagreement.
However,
the popular position dominant position in the Shafa'i
Madhub is that Naniyah is a broken,
and the popular position or dominant position in
the Hanbali Madhub is that Naniyah is the
shard.
And
in fact, it does have mixed features. Naniyah
has mixed features
to the point that
some of the scholars said it's both.
So,
for instance, an imam Abdul Kadir al Jirani,
who is a Hanbali, well versed in the
Shafa'i mad hub.
Sometimes the Shafais claim him, but he's really
Hanbali.
So Alimam Abdelkader Al Gilani,
said the nayah is a short prior to
the,
worship,
and a rockin,
in inside the the worship.
So prior to the worship, it's a short.
In the worship, it's a rockin. And why
is he saying this?
I will tell you why he's saying this.
If we say that the
talked about the
the consecration
of, the rights of Hajj and Umrah.
So and is
basically the nayya.
It is the intent to be in a
state of consecration for Hajj and Umrah.
Sort of this,
you know, one of these rituals.
So
is not what you put on. You know?
These are,
you know, what you put on the the
and,
you know, the the things that you should
avoid and all of that stuff.
Certainly, what you put on is not,
it's not basically a positive requirement.
There is a negative requirement. A negative requirement
is not you do not put on any
sort of form, fit, and close.
But whatever it is that you wanna put
on, put it on, but not form, fit,
and close for men.
So these are basically
These are things that would invalidate your uhram
if you do them, but that's not a
harm in and of itself.
Is the state of consecration.
Is the naiya. It is to be in
this.
So naiya, you know,
in that sense, the sense of the naiya,
of the of Hajj and
Umrah, said it looks like,
in some, sense and arkan in some sense.
So you have to have the. It's a
prerequisite.
But again, at the same time,
you you are maintaining this
throughout.
It's like a.
You're maintaining this throughout. So are
parts.
So is part in salah.
Has part in the salah.
You
you these are the ingredients of salah. You
combine them, you get the salah.
Is a part.
Your your parts, your limbs are your.
So,
unlike
the, is. Meaning, it has to be ongoing.
It it is continuous. It's ongoing. It's.
And that's the difference between the and the
other archaen.
And it ought to start
prior to the act of worship
because you can't start your act of worship
without
the being there. So it's prerequisite
in this
sense. The bottom line is
the
is a shard according to the Hanbali mad
hub. It does have the features of
because you ought to have it during the
act of worship and throughout the act of
worship
until the fulfillment of the act of worship.
It's not like we do you have it
and then you move on and you start
your salah.
It is,
you know,
a that you need to have it prior
to the salah like, but
you need to keep it throughout the salah
as part of
your salah.
But it
is
It's a part that is ongoing
throughout
from beginning to end unlike the other arkhan.
Clear? Clear.
So the NAA is a shark, but it
does have the features of a,
and it needs to accompany the act of
throughout from beginning,
to end.
Now the second,
issue that we wanted to discuss today is
the place of the naiya.
Where is where where where is the naiya?
Where should the naiya be?
And then we will talk about the time
of. But,
I want
to tell you that there is agreement among
the scholars that,
it's the heart. That is the place of.
There is no controversy over this
whatsoever.
Even the Safa'is who,
consider it,
recommended,
and and certainly, it's not only the Safa'is,
but they're most known for this. We consider
it recommended to utter the,
to speak the.
They still
say that
utterance
is not a substitute for the and the
heart. It is in the heart, and the
utterance is not a substitute. It's just a
recommended thing to
remind the heart
of, your,
your correct nia or your exact nia. But
it is not
it's not it does not so if you
have the niyyah and the heart alone, it
suffices.
If you utter the niyyah without it being
in the heart, it does not suffice. That's
according to the and according to the rest
of the. The niyyah, the place of the
niyyah
is the heart. It's the intent of the
heart.
Okay.
So,
it's a it says here,
this is
by, and
as we said before,
does what?
Brings
together.
You know? In the is
the mother book for all the books that
came after it. It's called the
by. And then
by Imam Al Mardawi. He looked at and
sometimes,
left left it undecided.
He mentioned 2 positions and left it undecided.
He did not favor one over the other.
So
would be to,
to settle
those undecided
sort of,
positions and just to favor
1.
And then this became the main book for
Hanbalis until 2 scholars came and wrote.
By
Ibn al Najjar.
So
this this would be 7th century.
This would be,
9th century.
This would be the end of 10th century.
So it's it's basically a cumulative process.
Are the ones,
that became
then the the the main books in the.
More so
than.
And then
or the imam
Imam
Karmi brought them together. And, no.
With him.
Yes.
Yeah. Yeah. No. I I'm I'm trying to
say that,
I was mixing I was I was gonna
talk about.
Sheikh Mar Al Karmi put them together in
and then came
and explained
the in.
So that's basically
like a a sort of
they they relied on this mainly
this mainly. Then they relied on these 2
mainly.
These 2 were not replaced by, by the
way.
They they still
rely on Al Aqna and Al
Aqna.
Al Aqna was was basically explained in,
and Al Muntaha was explained in, you know,
it's Al Muntaha had 2 commentaries,
1 by
the very Ibn Nadjar who wrote the book
itself, and one by Al Buhuti. So
by.
So El Buhuti, you know,
came after El Nader, but, you know, by,
a few decades. You know? So,
first half of 11th century, El Buhuti,
and explained in Al Mun Tahir in
which
is the.
These were not actually replaced by Bayat al
Mun Tahir. So it's not like people moved
away from Al Aqna al Mun Tahir to
because now they have,
which which brought the brought them together. So
people rely on the agreement of Al Aqna
Al Muntaha.
But if they disagree,
people would visit Al Aqna Al Muntaha,
to see what,
what was favored or chosen
in.
Basically,
the
is an explanation of,
or a commentary on.
So
so in
his, book says
So the place of the naiyah is at
the heart.
The place of the naiyah is in the
heart,
and the a slip of the tongue by
something unintended
does not harm it. A slip of the
tongue by something unintended is does not harm
it. Like, you are
you say you you came in to pray
and you say to you say, you know,
Of course, you don't need to do this,
but let us say you do it. We
will come discussion. Let's say you do it.
You are,
coming into the.
You your heart is
completely aware and, that you're in here to
pray for, and then you say,
no. That does not harm it.
You you like, if you if you made
that that that miss
the tongue doesn't
harm the intention in the heart.
Okay. And this is by unanimous agreement.
This is by unanimous,
agreement.
And I will read a statement here from
an imam in Na'awi
about this for if in his Majmuah. Now
imam Anawi says in his Majmuah that it
is recommended
to speak it. But he says,
So the place of intention is the heart
and honoring it with the tongue is not
required without disagreement.
Uttering uttering it with the tongue is not
required
without disagreement.
However, it's recommended to utter
it along with the intention
of,
the heart.
So
now now just to have, like, a a
clear conceptualization
of this debate. It's a it's a big
debate,
and we will come to, you know,
address it,
in some detail.
But this big debate about the other ends
of the NANIA,
to,
to basically
zoom in and focus
on the substance of the debate, you have
to understand that we're talking about 3 different
levels. So there
is so there is,
and that is the the and the.
And then there is a to
to utter
to yourself
to utter it to yourself.
And then there is
a
not That is to utter it aloud,
to speak it aloud,
to speak it to yourself,
to have it in your heart.
Okay? So having it your heart
is
a requirement
by all scholars, and there is no disagreement
among the scholars
that it is necessary and sufficient.
Necessary
and sufficient.
Which means if you don't honor it by
the heart, there is no naya. If you
don't have it in the heart, there is
no naya.
And sufficient means once you have it in
the heart, that's it. You have an. It's
an it's sufficient.
Now the scholars
also agree that
the scholars also agree
that this is not Mashruah,
that this is not prescribed.
To speak it aloud is not prescribed.
The scholars
disagree over
utter to at the utterance of the
to yourself.
The utterance
of the to yourself.
That is.
Okay? And so that that will be the
disagreement.
We're clear on this and we're clear on
this. This is necessary and sufficient.
This is disliked.
This is
controversial.
Now the controversy.
So,
said in his book, Al Akna, uttering the
intention and what one intends here and in
other acts of worship here, that's in the
prayer. And in other acts of worship is
an innovation
is an innovation. That is.
Many of the later scholars many of the
later scholars, that's the
in the,
recommended it silently
along with the intention in the heart. However,
the explicit statement explicit statement of Imam Ahmed
and a group of verifying scholars is contrary
to this, except in the case of Haram
as will be discussed.
In al Forua and at Tanpi, al Forua
is a book by
Ib ibn Mufleh.
That is not Ibrahim ibn Mufleh, the author
of Al Mubda. That is Muhammad ibn Mufleh,
the direct student
of Al Imam Takedin.
So Al Imam ibn Mufla, that's Muhammad ibn
Mufla, authored al Forua.
And Al, Tanqih
is the book that we talked about,
authored by Al Imam al Mardawi
that that replaced Al Muqna
as the sort of the most important,
book after.
So in in,
a very 2 very important books. Now,
what is the difference between?
Which one would be more important,
It depends on what you want. It depends
on what you want. So if you want,
basically,
like a comparative,
you know,
that is not even limited to the because
addresses you know, it it it brings in
the other as well. But,
is basically the repository
of Hambeli positions.
Repository of Hambeli positions. So if you want
to know the Hambeli, the variety, the spectrum
of Hambeli positions, of course,
is more important.
And if you want to know the Muotamad,
you know,
then of course,
would be more important.
But these are 2 very important books,
and these 2 are very important books.
It says,
it's recommended
to utter it
silently,
which makes it a sunnah. Now who's speaking?
He's looking at these two books, and he's
saying that the later scholars
seem to be despite the fact that the
explicit statement of Imam Ahmed, the position of
verifying scholars,
and, of course, he is referring
to Imam Taqedin ibn Taye'imiya as one of
those verifying scholars.
So he's saying that the statement of Imam
Ahmad and the verifying scholars say that it
is a bidah. It's not.
It's not prescribed.
But
the majority of the later scholars in the
Madhub chose that it is,
recommended. And then he is
saying that it is in.
It's recommended to utter it silently,
which makes it a sunnah.
But this is an oversight.
Utter in it loudly
is
disliked.
Utter in the utter in it, loudly
is,
liked.
So now what he's going to tell you,
so and we said that
are the the 2 books the 2 main
books you know
It
was very strong against the utterance of
which utterance are we talking about here? Silently.
All of them agree that you don't utter
it aloud.
All of them agree that it's sufficient and
necessary in the heart.
The silent utterance is basically
when you use, before you start to the
prayer and you say.
And if you the the would be, you
know,
or etcetera. You you like, the the whole,
thing.
So
but,
was pretty much against it. Now
as a as a Hambari,
when you,
want to address this issue, what should you
say? What should you say the mad hub
is?
You should say the mad hub
is that the other ends of the Naniyah,
silently,
is recommended.
And why should he say this? Because in
because you have the majority of the later
scholars
saying it is recommended. So that is the
method. So when you have in and,
you know,
and others
saying that this is recommended
it is recommended.
It is recommended in the math hub. Now
your particular preference
does not mean that you change the position
of the math hub.
But
the issue here is the position of the
mad hub binding like it would be haram
to take any other position.
It that that would not make any sense.
What if you have, you know, a peculiar
position in the mad hub that is in
disagreement
with the majority, the 3 other imams, and
most of the people past and present?
To say that it would be haram
to leave that position and to take the
position of the majority does not make any
sense.
Likewise,
there there is no problem whatsoever in a
Hanbali scholar choosing
the position that is not favored in the
math hub as long as that is not
dominant in the math hub, that is not
popular in the math hub, as long as
you're accurate
in your citations. You're accurate
in your evaluation, your citation,
your
relaying of information.
You relay the information accurately,
precisely,
and then you say, this seems to be
strong
even if it is not the chosen position.
It's not the popular. It's not the dominant,
position.
Otherwise,
it would be
conformity and sectarianism
result in
massive,
massive
losses
side effects losses,
intellectually
and even spiritually and morally.
So
so that should be your way of doing
it. Now,
and you will see that Ibn Al Qayim
will speak in a different tone now. So
Al Hajawi
is is a great imam,
but,
when when it comes to his encyclopedic
knowledge of the sunun of the prophet, particularly,
that this statement
is not in a, you know, traditional fiqhih
book, but is in his book, Zad Al
Ma'ad. You will see the different tone that
he will be speaking
because he is a scholar of hadith. He
is a Hafiz, you know, a scholar of
hadith.
So he'll speak in in a different tone,
different way. So he says,
the prophet
would say Allahu Akbar when he stood for
prayer, and he would not say anything before
it nor would he utter the intention at
all. He did not say, I am praying
to Allah such and such prayer facing the
qibla, 4 units, as an imam or a
follower,
nor did he say timely performance
at the or makeup
or the obligation of the time, Fardil Waqed.
And then he says,
So which which means these are 10 innovations
that have never been reported from him, whether
by a sound or weak chain of transmission,
nor by a connected or disconnected
chain of transmission,
nor from any of his companions.
Do you see the the difference in tone
here?
So here, he's he's basically,
saying his opinion without any
so, you know,
without any reluctance,
and he is substantiating
his opinion from
the,
sort of the Quran and the sunnah.
And he's saying that the prophet
never said it, never said any of this.
And it's not it's not reported from him
through a connected or a disconnected chain
or from any one of his companions.
Still,
what is the position of the Hanbali method?
The utterance of the naya silently
to oneself is recommended.
Okay.
But you want to know that that position
of.
And
if you if you take it, then you're
absolutely
justified
to take it. If you believe that his
statement
makes sense,
that this is this is never been reported
from the prophet
then it is fine. And I would show
you that major scholars
from the other mazahib
had also been affected
by
sort of this
assertive tone assertive tone. I'll show you how.
But before
that,
is the book by.
Has marginalia
on
but also has marginalia on
a marginalia is, you know, when they write
on the sides of the book,
how.
So
nowadays, people
write footnotes, and they used to write on
the sides. It's called marginality or, you know,
So
that book by Imam al Mardawi
keep in mind that Imam al Mardawi himself
says it's sunnah. It's it's recommended.
But the imam al Hajawi says in and
Nawawi
said
and Nawawi said in in in in in
in in in in in in in in
in in,
intention is in the heart, and it is
recommended to utter it before the Takbir of
Iran.
The commentator of min Al Minhaj, which
is a,
said
said,
in in
you know, it's probably in Al Qut, but
it is written here in Al Qura.
That's probably a typo in the book, but
it's probably in Al Qut.
That is that Imam al Adrai al Shafi'i
in his book Al Qut. So Al Khatib
is Sherbini is quoting
from Al Adrahi al Shafi'i in his book
Al Kut,
there is no recommendation. Al Adrahi says there
is no recommendation.
Rejecting what
Ali Ma'am and Nawi mentioned about the utterance
about the utterance.
So
to have free discourse even within the same
mad hub is absolute
is healthy, is important,
is essential
for not only
not only,
accuracy,
not not only
academic integrity
and accuracy,
but also for,
moral and spiritual integrity.
If you've
if truly something is different,
something is is being said that is not
that you don't believe
was done or practiced or recommended by the
prophet,
you should be able to say, I don't
think so.
Certainly, if you're qualified.
And these people are all qualified.
So when Imam al Azrai
rejected it, of course, Al Khattibi Sharbini commented
on Al Al
Azrai's rejection
of a Na'oei's
assertion
and said, strong.
So Adrai is wrong. I go back to
Anawi. Adrai is wrong.
So it has even been said that it
is required. It's obligatory
to, speak it. Now that is an eccentric
child's position.
The vast majority of scholars, as we said
before,
said that the heart is sufficient.
Okay.
Now
so then
just to show you that when when when
a scholar brings up an issue, like, that
has become
popular and dominant and
sort of,
challenges
that dominant view.
It does have some ripple effects.
So in,
you know, Turturi is a Hanafi scholar. There
is a book called, Al Bahir Ra'ib Shar
Heqans
Adhaka'ib.
Al
Bahir Ra'ib is a Hanafi
book
known Hanafi book,
where an imam
wrote a commentary
on a book, a Hanafi book called
that is by an imam
al Nasafi.
And then
didn't fill it. So
wrote Takmila.
He I'm sorry. Ibn al Zaymila didn't finish
it. Died before he finished
the
for the commentary. So the of the commentary
that Takmila
was written by
Al Turi Rahimahullah.
So it's called,
you know,
In at Turi in his
says the following.
Tore in Hiztec Miller says the following.
In,
it is said to be an innovation.
So he's saying now in,
this the other ends of the naya is
said to be an innovation.
Unless one cannot establish it in the heart
except by uttering
it with the tongue. So it's innovation unless
you're unable to establish it in the heart
except by the,
verbal utterance,
in which case it's permissible. He reported from
some scholars that the sunnah is to limit
oneself to the intention of the heart. And
if one expresses it with the tongue, it's
permitted.
If it is sufficient to do it with
the heart, if one expresses it with the
tongue, it is
it's not recommended. It's permitted.
Some have reported in,
that it is disliked.
It appears that in in is
a book by Al Kamal ibn al Humam,
one of the greatest Hanafi scholars.
So Al Kamal al Kamal ibn al Humam
says in the
following.
Came a few decades after died,
but he didn't want to mention the name
of for
known reasons.
So he says,
You know, some of the scholars
said,
it has not been established from the messenger
of Allah by a sound or weak chain
that he would say at the beginning, I
am praying such and such,
nor from any of the companions or followers.
Rather, it is reported
that he, sallallahu alaihi wasalam, would say Allahu
Akbar when he stood for,
prayer.
And
ibn al Humam says it is an innovation.
So, certainly, he's
he's quoting verbatim, Ibn al Qayyim, you know,
to just changing, you know, the order. But
he's quoting him verbatim. He's he's quoting him
Badal Hafav, you know, one of the half
of, scholars.
But the yeah. But it is healthy to
have this,
free discourse.
And someone who says that the prophet never
said it
should not be dismissed. The prophet never said
it. You know, nobody ever
produced
a hadith from the prophet
and the challenge, you know, stands,
where the prophet
spoke of the naiyah, uttered the naiyah in
in salah
in salah.
Okay.
So now
the utterance of the naiyah of salah, when
you speak about this issue,
you have to keep in mind that the
majority of scholars recommended the authorance of the
nayah and salah.
So you have to be calm about it.
But, again, at the same time,
you should not be too shy to say,
I believe the sunnah
is
is not other than aya, is that the
naya should be in the heart. There is
no problem
whatsoever. This is a position by
taken by many verifying scholars
from different mazahib,
and all of them agree that the heart
is necessary and sufficient.
So to speak it silently
is the subject of disagreement.
To speak it loudly is disliked.
Art is necessary and sufficient. Silently is the
subject of this agreement.
So now
I know that this is branching off a
little bit, but, you know, just to to
show you
the the
side effects of
or drawbacks of sectarianism.
So someone told me one day that Al
Imam Al Temiar thinks
that Shafi'i should be killed.
Should be killed.
So I said to him, okay. You know,
why?
Where is that?
He said, well, he says that whoever,
others the the the Neia,
or speaks of the Neia,
he said that they should be killed.
Of course, this is like a sort of
a funny like, you know, like a criminal
mischaracterization
of the fatwa.
So here is the fatwa,
quickly.
Remember,
there are 2 3 different levels. The heart,
you know, the utterance
to to oneself,
the utterance
allowed.
Nobody said that the utterance allowed, not the
Shafais.
The utterance to oneself,
that is even contested whether Imam Al Shafa'i
himself,
recommended it or not because there is nothing
explicit from Imam Shafi'i about the utterance.
In fact,
one of the greatest Shafi'i books
by one of the greatest Shafi'i imams,
he's suggesting that all Imam Shafi'i
said is that,
it is not like that that, you know,
salah,
basically, is not like haram.
You can't enter salah without zikr.
You can't enter into salah without
zikr.
The zikr here was suggested
by the author of Al Hawi
to be a takbir. Allahu Akbar is the
that will bring you into a state of
consecration
of salah.
It is not the utterance of the nayya.
It's not the utterance of,
the nayya. But, anyway, at any
rate,
the the the majority
are recommending the utterance of the
for,
to assist to the heart to assist the
heart.
So in Imam Tamia was asked
about someone
who stands in in line
and utters the
that he is disrupting
the people who are trying to basically get
into the salah.
So
then when people advise him
to say to himself,
Now this man is not simply uttering the
naiyah. He's uttering the naiyah aloud, disrupting the
rest of the musalin.
When people advise him
to say it to himself,
he
says what?
Everybody
does in his deen, whatever he pleases, whatever
he likes,
whatever he desires.
Okay. So Al Imam Al Taymiyyah
then said,
no one no one
said that Al Jahr, not
anybody else, said that Al Jahr
is recommended.
That speaking the Naiyah aloud is recommended.
And he should not be causing disruption
to the people.
And he should be advised.
He should be advised.
If he insists,
Okay.
That he should be,
that he should be,
he should be sort of asked to repent
or be killed.
When did he say be killed?
In what context?
What is it that would warrant his death
penalty?
He clearly said,
He said he should when he said that
he didn't say that this man should be
killed, by the way. He said,
He should be punished.
He said because
insisting on this statement
warrants the death penalty.
Everyone
does in his deen whatever
he desires.
He said,
this man
should be taught,
should
be educated,
and if he insists, he should be punished
because
insistence
on this statement
warrants death.
Now
if you disagree with this, that is fine.
However,
this statement
can amount to apostasy.
Like, everyone does in his deed whatever he
desires can amount to apostasy.
The majority of Muslim scholars
considered apostasy a capital crime,
punishable by death.
Consider the apostasy a capital crime, punished by
punishable
by,
death.
And that is basically the agreement of the
4 imams. So this is not, like, an
eccentric position.
You can disagree
disagree. That's fine.
But you have to be honest.
Like, you should be like
no. It was a certainly, Imam
is not
get
you know,
basically,
is not justifying
getting all the.
This would be, you know, the results of
sectarianism.
Sectarian people
lie,
but that's what sectarianism
leads to.
It it diminishes us. It makes us dumber.
It makes us shallower.
It makes us hypocritical
because we always have to adopt double standards,
and
it makes us, as I said,
morally compromised, spiritually impoverished.
Now what do I mean by sectarianism? It
doesn't mean that there is no right and
wrong and there is no hack and button.
No. I mean by sectarianism
zealotry,
not sectarianism
in
sort of, you know, modern American terminology.
Because sectarianism
American terminology would be if you say that
if you if you if you make a
distinction between Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism,
that's all about that's all bad. No. I'm
not talking about sectarianism in this sense.
Talking about zealotry,
and dishonesty.
So
now
here is here is an issue with when
it comes to a. Like, I,
if you look at
for instance, it does recognize that some
but they say
and they don't say others, which they should.
But it does recognize that some said that
in you know, that
the other ends of the is,
is not prescribed,
and it's it's an innovation. They didn't say
it's necessarily haram. They said
it's disliked.
But
in the in Darul Iftar al Masriyah, they
they said that they based this
on a Turk.
You know? So the the scholars
who said that speaking of the naiyah
is not recommended
and is a beta.
They based this on their principle of atark.
Atark
to leave out.
Leaving out. That the prophet
left it out, didn't say it,
and then they say this is not sufficient
to basically consider it
disliked
or to consider it
not prescribed,
or or disliked or an innovation.
They say that the mere talk
is not sufficient.
Now in all honesty,
the
many of the disagreements
that happen in our times are about
and when something would qualify
for
that particular designation,
And there are extremes on both sides.
You know? And and that's the that that's
the problem always when you recognize
the,
the extremism,
the inaccuracy,
the inequity
on both sides,
you feel
you feel under pressure to
basically join one side.
Because
staying out there in the cold is usually
not
not desirable
by most people. People want
love and affection and support mutual support and
all of those things. The sense of belonging
is one of the human desires
according to Abraham Maslow.
Somewhere,
you know, right
close to the most basic ones, need for
food and drink and stuff.
So the need for belonging. But, anyway,
so
the
when the prophet
leaves out
a practice,
can we can we do something the prophet
left out?
Didn't he
leave out
the Jam Al Quran?
You know, to bring the Quran into a,
one one book.
This was done by Abu Bakr
after him.
So,
whenever we organize our the the Saturday morning,
halakkah,
I haven't heard that the prophet had any
Saturday morning halakkah,
you know, on consistent basis
and things of that nature. So
this would take a lecture
by itself
to, you know, figure out the the the
happy medium.
However,
when it comes to this particular example, I
feel very strongly
that a tark
by the prophet
should be used
as an evidence
on
abstention,
to refrain.
Why? Because we're talking about the salah.
We're talking about the thing that the prophet
detailed for us in,
you know, beyond belief,
beyond imagination.
The amount of reports about the salah and
the prayer of the prophet
and how he you how he pointed with
his finger and how he sat down and
how he bent his feet and how he
no.
The
the, you know, this is
This is a that
should be done just like the prophet
did it. He said
pray as you see me praying.
He didn't really leave room for us
to improvise
when it comes to the salah. So this
is one example when it is clear
that the prophet leaving out
a particular practice
or a particular action
should be enough for us to leave it,
to not do it, to refrain from it
because it has never been reported
from him.
Okay.
Now,
Yush So
some contentions,
against this position that should not be uttered.
That nayah
is in the heart and it's
you know, the nayah in the heart is
necessary and sufficient.
So
why is that then that the prophet
said,
Isn't this
an utterance of?
Isn't this an utterance of?
You may say that and you would be
justified,
But someone may say that this is Asda
by itself. This is
a an act of the Hajj al Umrah
by itself. It is not the niyyah. The
niyyah is still in the heart,
but it is,
you know, in Hajj and Umrah. Italbayyah
bil Hajj and Umrah is a separate act
of al Hajj and Umrah.
It is a separate act of al Hajj
and Umrah. You would be justified to say
this.
And
if you say this is an utterance of
the nayyah, that is fine.
Then
in Hajj al Umrah, you utter the nayyah.
You speak the nayyah.
That's it. It's just as simple as that.
Because, like,
here is not
should not be done in the acts of
worship
liberally.
It should be limited
because
The the the you know? So
in the chapters of transactions,
there are usually
effective causes that are comprehensible.
Why did why is this rebah? Why is
this undue risk taken? And so
on.
And then
you can extrapolate
easily. But
in, no.
Are built
to be are meant to be,
you know,
whatever it is that Allah
had wanted.
The the same form, the the the same.
So there there is no one that can
give you a clear answer
about
the effective cause or the purpose
of the very acts of
the salah.
Why is
and the
Maghreb 3?
What what makes me what would some people
may say it would make much more sense
to make the shorter because it's people are
busy, people are working, people are tired, people
are doing this. Why don't you make a
2 or 3?
And then
should be 4
because, you know, that's the beginning of the
day, and then you're getting all your energy
and you should,
of course, that's that would be blasphemy.
But
I am telling you that
it's not basically
comprehensible so that you make the ask. So
in this case, you will say, okay.
If you believe that Labayk Allahumma umrah is
an utterance of the nayyah,
do it because it's reported from the prophet
in this particular
act.
So
what about the prophet saying
Bismillah,
Wallahu
Akbar,
Allahumma
Ava Ani wa Amalami Abahiimin Umati.
Bismillah Allahu Akbar,
O Allah. This is on my behalf
and on behalf of those who did not
offer a sacrifice
from my ummah, when he offered his sacrifice
or his,
you know, offering.
So,
Oh Allah, this is on my behalf and
on behalf of the people who did not
who would not offer a sacrifice from my
ummah.
Isn't this an utterance of the nayah? Oh,
Allah. This is on my behalf.
Many people would say it's not an utterance
of the nayah.
Many people would say it's quite obvious that
there is another purpose here than the utterance
of the nayah. It is the prophet, salaam,
instructing
people that he is,
you know, sacrificing
on his behalf and on behalf of those
who would not sacrifice
from among his ummah. So in this case,
you you say,
if you believe this is an utterance of
the nayyah,
do it. And this would be the second
case where you utter the nayyah.
If you still believe that Bismillah wallahu akbarallahu
maha'ani,
of course, you're not gonna say, I'm I'm
malamidahiminummati,
but you'll you'll say, laha'aniyahanahlih
or something.
If you believe that this is an utterance
of the naiyah, do it. And in this
case, you're completely justified.
You're just repeat saying what the prophet
said,
and you will say
do it.
You should do this,
and that's it. These are
the 2 scenarios
where the,
where where some people may think it's an
utterance of the. And in this case, that
that should be completely fine.
Now so what about the requirement for utterance
for the intention of divorce, vows, and walk?
So
so if you if you if you intend
to divorce your wife, if you intend to
make an endowment,
if you intend,
a vow,
is this does this intention
is this intention?
No. It's not.
Until
you speak
it. Until you make the vow. Until you
divorce your wife. Until you speak and say,
I made make this waqf,
endowment.
So is this speaking of the nayah? No.
It's not.
It's at all. It's not at all.
This is basically because these acts,
it's just like
salah.
Did you pray just by intending to pray?
No. There are that you have to perform
so that you would be considered,
you know, having prayed.
Does not happen
without the utterance.
A vow does not happen
without the utterance,
you know, to make a walk
that does not take place
without the utterance.
So in this case, the naiyah is valid,
but the naiyah
is not sufficient. The naiyah is not valid
without utterance, but the naiyah is not sufficient.
The act itself, the, you know, the the
the the legal
action that will be consequential here would be
to speak it, to make the vow, to
make the oath, to pronounce
divorce.
Okay.
Finally,
it is not relevant to this topic that
buying a sheep
buying a sheep for sacrifice or
or as an offering had does not make
it so until he makes an utterance.
Rather, it is because it involves transferring ownership
as an active devotion.
So mere intention does not fulfill it,
not that the intention
is invalid without utterance.
When you buy
when you buy a goat,
for or,
does this become
an
or?
Just by
mere then the by the mere intention at
the time of purchase.
No.
When you drive it,
like the,
does this make it,
No.
So you have to do something
external,
such as the or the
marking and branding.
You know, the marking and branding to designate
it
as an.
And then it will have different rulings from
the rest of the animals that you have.
But it will not have different rulings
until you have designated it as.
The
here
is basically not dependent on utterance.
The here is not sufficient
to designate
the animal as
or.
There has to be something additional
to
this whether it is taqleed marking or
branding
or, you know, saying
that this is an this is
or something of that nature. This is when
it becomes or
when it becomes
ahad.
Otherwise, the naya itself
is not sufficient.
And
this was one
we we talked a lot about the the
place of the naya. So in summary, the
play the place of the naya is in
the heart. Necessary ends it and the niyyah
in the heart is necessary and sufficient.
Speaking the niyyah aloud, particularly if you're going
to disrupt the the rest of the Muslim,
is disliked,
not prescribed,
and that's by agreement.
The adherence of the Neia
to yourself
is a, contentious
issue. The majority of the scholars,
and that's the dominant position in the Hanbali
madhab,
find it recommended.
There are
there is a minority of scholars,
not limited to
of course, like some people think or
like to think, but a minority of scholars
said it is an, it's an innovation. It
is not recommended. It has never been reported
from the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. As long
as you
relay,
relate,
convey
the information,
you you make your quotations and citations
accurately,
you're fine
even if you decided
to choose a position
that is not the dominant in the.
Yes.