The main aim of our site is to purify The Seerah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ from weak and fabricated narrations using the works of the scholars of Islam. We may add other beneficial material as well.
Question: A hadith attributed to the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) has been reported regarding the child, stating that he said: “Play with him for seven [years], discipline him for seven, befriend him for seven, then leave his rope on his shoulder [i.e., grant him full freedom].” This is frequently cited as an argument against some parents who are strict with their children when they deviate or fall short in performing the congregational prayers. What is the degree of authenticity of this hadith? May Allah reward you.
Answer by Shaykh Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Baaz:
This hadith has no basis (la asla lahu) and is not known [in the authoritative collections]; rather, it is among the fabricated narrations—we ask Allah for safety. “Play with him for seven, discipline him for seven, befriend him for seven”—all of this has no basis, and Allah is the One whose help is sought.
The Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said: “Command your children to pray when they are seven years old, and beat them [lightly] for [neglecting] it when they are ten, and arrange their beds separately.” Thus, the parent is commanded to care for his children, direct them toward good, and discipline them with physical correction when necessary after the age of ten, and he should never abandon them, even when they grow up. And Allah is the One whose help is sought.
1. Fanatical Attachment to Sports Clubs Produces Enmity, Insult and Evil (Munkar) — Advice for Those Who Are Fanatical About Sports Clubs- Shaykh Ibn Baaz (Rahimahullah)
The Question:
Many youths — and even elders as well — become deeply enthusiastic in their support of sports clubs (with over-excitement), causing among them fights, disputes, even enmities and personal exchanges of insults. What is your eminence’s advice for such people? May Allah reward you with good.
The Answer by Shaykh Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Baaz (Rahimahullah):
There is no doubt that this enthusiasm toward these clubs, which leads to widespread dispute, enmity, hostility, and verbal abuse — there is no doubt that it is an evil (munkar). For the purpose of sport is strength of the body, and this is what is sought through sport — toughness and hardness of the limbs, strength of the nerves, endurance of hardship, and endurance of burdens. Therefore, it is not fitting for its people to insult one another, bear grudges against one another, or be fanatical (taʿassaba) — no.
The obligation upon them is to be brothers. This is what Allah has made obligatory upon them, whether one succeeded or failed, whether team such-and-such won or team such-and-such won. They are brothers absolutely. The winner and the one who did not win — between them there should be nothing but good speech, address in the best form, and the resolution of problematic matters with wisdom and an excellent methodology — not with insult, grudge, quarrel, and foul language.
It is also not fitting for them to do what happens in the markets nowadays — the racing about, shouting, and harming people on the roads. This is a kind of madness, and a kind of foolishness that no person of sense would find acceptable.
The people of the clubs should be reasonable. Whoever succeeded should praise Allah, and should not be arrogant toward his brother, or mock his brother, or harm his brother or anyone else.
The matter is trivial: did you succeed or did you not succeed? Did you kill the enemies of Allah? Did you kill the Russians so that you might succeed? What have you done? What have you achieved through this? What is the value of this victory?
If people possessed any sense, it would not be fitting for a person of reason to allow this supposed success to become the cause of grudges, quarrels, or harm to anyone — neither in the markets nor anywhere else. They come in their cars to the markets as if they were out of their senses — this is a grave error that does not befit people of reason at all. The obligation upon them is to be reasonable in their cars, in their speech, and in all their conduct — neither the loser nor the victor. What is the matter with the loser? And what has the victor done? What has he achieved? Did he drive the Jews out of Palestine? Did he aid the Afghans and defeat the Russians? What did he do?
It is all of no value whatsoever. Rather, we ask Allah to grant us and them guidance. We ask Allah to grant them sound intellects, sound opinions, and complete guidance.
2. The ʿAdāwah wal-Bughḍāʾ Verse Applies to Football — The Ruling on Playing Football and Other Such Games- Shaykh Ibn Baaz
The Questioner:
What is the ruling on playing football and other such games?
The Answer by Shaykh Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Baaz (Rahimahullah):
Any form of amusement (lahw) that leads to turning one away from the remembrance of Allah and from the prayer is forbidden — among them: backgammon (nard), chess, and every other type of game that distracts people from the obedience of Allah, turns them away from the obedience of Allah, and preoccupies them with that which Allah has made obligatory upon them. For Allah — Mighty and Majestic — said:
“Indeed, intoxicants, gambling, altar-stones, and divining arrows are impurities from the work of Satan. So avoid them so that you may be successful. Surely Satan intends to incite enmity (al-ʿadawah) and hatred (al-bughḍa) between you through intoxicants and gambling, and to prevent you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you not then desist?” [Al-Maʾidah 90-91]
So al-maysir (gambling) is the wagering (muqaamara), and wagering is a diversion — wagering over money diverts people. So when a game resembling wagering comes and produces diversion — chess for money, nard for money, that is wagering (maysir) — and when chess comes without money, or what they call poker (buluut), it is from this same category: it is also a diversion and an occupation.
The same applies to the ball — football. If its players are distracted by it from the prayers, then it becomes forbidden upon them. However, if a people happen to play it — out of training, strengthening the body, running, and the giving and receiving — at a time that does not approach the prayer, does not turn them away from the prayer, and does not turn them away from any obligation, then the original ruling is permissibility; if found at a time in which it does not divert from the remembrance of Allah, nor from the performance of any obligation, then the original ruling is permissibility.
But what is observed today of its people — and we seek refuge in Allah — is that it has turned them away from every good, and preoccupies them from the prayers, and preoccupies others through them. It is not only them — it has preoccupied even the viewers, even at home — we seek refuge in Allah — it has preoccupied people at home and in the stadium.
The apparent judgement concerning it as it stands today is that it is forbidden (muharrama) and it is an evil (munkara). It is not permissible to engage in it at all — because it has turned them away from the remembrance of Allah and from the prayer, it has preoccupied them and others from the prayer, and it may cause them to miss the ʿAṣr prayer and the Maghrib prayer both because of this evil act. So what then? And what is the value of this ball? What value does it have? Were it not that Shaitan (Satan) has adorned it for its people — yes, if we suppose they were to practise it at a time in which it does not preoccupy them — we would not say it is forbidden; for it is a game, there is nothing of ribā (usury) in it, nor anything of maysir (gambling) in it. However, its matter today has grown, and they have exceeded all bounds in it — to the point that — and we seek refuge in Allah — it has become for them an obstacle to the performance of two obligatory prayers: the ʿAṣr prayer and the Maghrib prayer, when they hold it at the time of ʿAṣr — this is of the gravest evils (munkar). Then hundreds, and thousands attend it, all of them occupied with it, paying money to attend, and missing the prayer along with the players.
The Presenter: And the private parts (ʿawrāt) are uncovered?
The Shaykh: This is another affliction as well. If the thigh is exposed — and it is an ʿawrah — then this is another evil (munkar). We ask Allah to grant success to the state to eliminate it and prohibit it categorically, if it cannot be arranged that it has a designated time, with no harm in it and nothing contrary to the command of Allah.
Great effort has been expended in this — do not imagine that we have been heedless of this, nor that the people of knowledge have been heedless of it. Rather, great effort has been expended in this by the people of knowledge, and the people of knowledge have written to those in authority, and those in authority have agreed that it should be held at times that are sound, in which there is no turning away from the prayer. However, the implementation of this is difficult, and those in charge of it do not have the complete concern for this matter — to the extent that they would choose a fitting time, or to the extent that if the prayer comes in the venue, they would establish the prayer, and the people present would pray, then when Maghrib comes they would pray. This would be no harm — the matter in this regard would be broad. Yet they attend and then disperse — no prayer, neither ʿAṣr nor Maghrib. This is the calamity. However, if Allah were to guide them, and they were to establish the prayer in its time — ʿAṣr and Maghrib in their time — and then return to their play, that would not be harmful.
3. Football Today Is Haram Until Its Harms Are Removed — The Ruling on Watching Football Matches- Shaykh Ibn Baaz
The Question:
Today, football matches are frequent, and they are broadcast on television. What is the ruling on watching them, if it is without fanaticism (ʿasabiyyah) and without anything resembling it, but simply for the purpose of relaxation for oneself?
The Answer by Shaykh Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Baaz (Rahimahullah):
What is evident to us concerning football is: it is a distraction from good, and a distraction from the prayers in congregation, and it should be abandoned. If it were safeguarded and held at limited times, with the guarding of the ʿawrāt (private parts), their protection, and the establishment of the prayers, then the matter would have been easier. However, given what we observe among the people today — their preoccupiation with it, the tribulation (fitnah) it causes, and the waste of the prayers by both the viewers and the players — what we hold is that this act is forbidden (muḥarram), it is an evil (munkar), and it is not permissible to engage in it at all, neither in this country nor in any other land of the Muslims. For their practise of it has led them to great evil: it has preoccupies the people on the radio, it has preoccupies them on the television, it has preoccupies them in their times, and it has caused them to waste the prayers. And many of them wear clothing that exposes their ʿawrah, that exposes their thighs, and leads people into tribulation (fitnah) through them. All of this is among the evils (munkarāt) for which there is no justification.
In short: the football as the people practise it today, its evil is great and its benefit is null — and if there is any benefit in it, then it is very little on account of activity and the need for strength, and this little benefit is overshadowed by the abundant evil.
What we hold today is: that engaging in it is forbidden (muharram), and it is an evil (munkar) — except if its people commit to covering the ʿawraat (the thighs of players), preserving the times of the prayers, establishing the prayers in their proper times, and the playing of it is restricted to a defined and limited time that does not extend into causing waste of the prayers — whether by the viewers, or by the players, or by all of them. This is the reality, and we ask Allah for safety.
The Presenter: O Shaykh, do they uncover their Awraat to asevere degree? (TN: Not a literal translation of the questioner’s words, but this is what he wanted to ask.)
The Shaykh: May Allah guide them, may Allah return them to what is correct.
The Presenter: Do you write to them, O Shaykh, or—
The Shaykh: Allah al-Mustaʿān (Allah is the One sought for help). How much has been written, and how much has been written. Allah al-Mustaʿān. Do not think the matter is such-and-such — indeed, I have exerted every effort, but we ask Allah for guidance for ourselves and for them.
In the early 1990s, as the streets of Sarajevo ran red and the mountains of Bosnia echoed with the cries of widows and orphans, the Ummah of Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) was being butchered on European soil. Following Bosnia and Herzegovina’s declaration of independence in March 1992, Christian Serb forces unleashed a genocidal campaign against the Bosniak Muslims — a campaign of shelling, starvation, sniper fire, mass rape, and systematic ethnic cleansing.
A devastating UN arms embargo (UN Security Council Resolution 713) was imposed, which cruelly disarmed the newly-formed Muslim Bosnian government while their aggressors — armed to the teeth with the vast arsenal of the former Yugoslav National Army (JNA) — continued their slaughter unhindered.
The Bosniaks were left to be massacred while the world watched. The Ummah was bleeding. The believers were crying out — a living embodiment of the words of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam):
“The believers in their mutual kindness, compassion and sympathy are just like one body. When one of the limbs suffers, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever.” [Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim]
In this darkest of hours, while the international community hid behind the shameful shield of the embargo, a bearded, God-fearing Pakistani general — a servant of the Ummah before he was a servant of the state — decided that the command of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) outweighed the command of the United Nations.
His name was Lieutenant General Javed Nasir (Rahimahullah).
A Soldier Who Rediscovered His Deen
Javed Nasir (Rahimahullah) was born in Lahore on 22 December 1936 and joined the Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul in 1956. Commissioned into the Corps of Engineers in 1958, he rose steadily through the ranks — Major in 1964, Colonel in 1976, Brigadier in 1981, Major General in 1985 — until he was elevated to the three-star rank of Lieutenant General in September 1991. [Wikipedia — Javed Nasir]
But what set him apart from the vast majority of career officers was not his uniform, nor his ribbons, nor his command of the Corps of Engineers.
It was his rediscovery of Islam in 1986.
After what he himself described as a “libertine” youth, Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) guided him back to the Deen. He became a devoted member of the Tablighi Jamaat, keeping a full beard, guarding his prayers, and — as his colleagues in the military and political circles later attested — “a practising Muslim who would not compromise on the interests of Islam and Pakistan.” [Wikipedia — Javed Nasir]
Then, on 14 March 1992, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appointed him the Director-General of Pakistan’s most powerful institution: the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Just weeks earlier, the guns had opened up on Sarajevo.
Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) had placed a faithful believer at the head of a formidable intelligence apparatus at precisely the moment when the Ummah needed him most.
The Airlift That Shook The New World Order
While the West wrung its hands and Europe passed empty resolutions, General Javed Nasir (Rahimahullah) got to work.
Under his direct supervision and orders, the ISI launched a covert military intelligence programme to arm, train, and support the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) against the Serb aggressors — in open defiance of the UN arms embargo. [Wikipedia — ISI activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina]
The scholar and intelligence historian Cees Wiebes, in his authoritative work “Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 1992–1995” (commissioned by the Dutch government), records the operation in unequivocal terms:
“Pakistan definitely defied the United Nations ban on supply of arms to the Bosnian Muslims and sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles were airlifted by the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, to help Bosnians fight the Serbs.” [Wiebes, Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 1992–1995, Vol. 1, p. 195]
These were no ordinary weapons. The anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), airlifted directly from the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) at Wah, were precisely the tools the besieged Bosniaks needed to neutralise the Serb armour that had been rolling across their villages with impunity.
The historian Hassan Abbas further documents:
“Javed Nasir confesses that despite the U.N. ban on supplying arms to the besieged Bosnians, he successfully airlifted sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles which turned the tide in favour of Bosnian Muslims and forced the Serbs to lift the siege.” [Abbas, Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism, Routledge, 2015, p. 148]
The tide of the war turned. Serb tanks began to burn. Sieges were broken. And Bosniak men, women, and children who had been marked for slaughter began, for the first time in years, to breathe.
According to British historian Mark Curtis, this ISI-run pipeline into Bosnia was coordinated with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia — the same Saudi effort spearheaded by King Fahad (Rahimahullah) — making it a truly pan-Islamic act of Jihād (self defence) by wealth and by hand. [Curtis, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, Profile Books, 2011]
More Than A Warrior — A Refuge For The Displaced
But General Javed Nasir’s (Rahimahullah) concern for the Ummah did not end at the shipment of missiles.
While airlifting weapons in, he was simultaneously airlifting Bosnian refugees out. He personally pressured the Government of Pakistan to open its doors to fleeing Bosniak Muslims, ensuring that thousands of endangered families were evacuated from the killing fields of the Balkans and given sanctuary in Pakistan. [Wikipedia — Javed Nasir]
This was Jihād by wealth, Jihād by hand, and Jihād by mercy — all at once.
Pakistan, under his and the government’s resolve, went further still. In a meeting of Muslim countries at Geneva in July 1995, Pakistan officially declared the UN arms embargo illegal. President Farooq Leghari thundered:
“The Western policy of appeasement of the Serbian aggressors is not going to pay.” [UPI, “Pakistan says it will stay in Bosnia”]
Pakistan became the fourth-largest troop contributor to UNPROFOR, and — unlike France and other Western nations that scrambled to withdraw their soldiers — Pakistan refused to leave, pledging to stay on the ground to protect Bosnian Muslims and confront the Serbs, even when the UN itself asked them to withdraw. [UPI reporting, 1995]
The Hague Came Knocking — And Pakistan Slammed The Door
Years later, in 2011, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague demanded the custody of General Javed Nasir (Rahimahullah). They wanted him tried for the “crime” of having armed the Muslims of Bosnia against those who were slaughtering them.
The Government of Pakistan flatly refused to hand him over. [Wikipedia — Javed Nasir; The Express Tribune, September 2011]
Officially, the refusal cited his poor health and memory loss following a road accident. But unofficially — and unmistakably — Pakistan was telling the world what every believer already knew:
A man who defends the blood, honour, and lives of his Muslim brethren is not a criminal. He is a hero.
The very tribunal that had failed to prevent Srebrenica, that had watched 8,000 Muslim men and boys be slaughtered under its own “safe area,” now had the audacity to demand the head of the man who had actually done something to stop the killing.
Pakistan’s refusal was, in itself, a deed for the Ummah.
Return To His Lord
On 16 October 2024, at the age of 87, Lieutenant General Javed Nasir (Rahimahullah) returned to his Lord in Lahore. [Wikipedia — Javed Nasir]
He passed away largely unsung in the mainstream press — no state funeral broadcast around the world, no Western obituaries listing his achievements. The world’s media, which had once tried to drag him to The Hague, offered him only silence in death.
But the mothers of Sarajevo, the widows of Srebrenica, and the orphans of Mostar remember.
The Bosniak grandfather who is alive today because a Pakistani missile stopped a Serb tank — he remembers.
The Muslim child who grew up in Lahore because a bearded Pakistani general opened Pakistan’s doors — he remembers.
And Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) — the One who sees the sincere deed hidden from all creation — He remembers.
Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) says in His Noble Book:
“Indeed, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are a [single] structure joined firmly.” (Qur’an, As-Saff 61:4)
And the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said:
“Whoever relieves a believer’s distress in this world, Allah will relieve his distress on the Day of Judgement.” [Sahih Muslim]
If ever a man relieved the distress of the believers, it was Lieutenant General Javed Nasir (Rahimahullah).
We ask Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala), the Most Merciful, the Most Just, to accept this monumental deed from Lieutenant General Javed Nasir (Rahimahullah), the servant of Islam and defender of the oppressed. We ask Him to forgive the general’s shortcomings, to overlook his sins, to illuminate his grave, to make his grave a garden from the gardens of Jannah, and to raise him — on the Day when nothing will benefit man except a sound heart and a sincere deed — among the Shuhadaa (martyrs), the Siddiqeen (truthful), and the Saaliheen (righteous).
We ask Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) to grant him the highest ranks of Firdaws al-A’laa for every anti-tank missile that stopped a Serb tank, for every refugee whose life he saved, for every believer whose distress he relieved in a Europe that had abandoned them.
And we ask Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) to raise more Javed Nasirs from among the Ummah in every generation — men of the beard, men of the prayer, men of the trigger when the trigger is due — who fear Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) more than they fear the United Nations.
⚠️ Disclaimer:This article is written purely from an Islamic and humanitarian perspective, honouring an individual’s specific historical role in aiding the oppressed Bosniak Muslims during the 1992–1995 genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As proud and loyal citizens of the Republic of India, we categorically do not endorse, support, or promote the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Pakistani state, or any activity — past, present, or future — directed against India, its sovereignty, its armed forces, or its people. Our loyalty lies firmly with our beloved motherland, India. This piece is a standalone tribute to a single humanitarian act for the global Ummah, and must not be interpreted otherwise.
Introduction Among the recurring objections raised by the Rafidhi Shia against Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah is the historically documented marriage of Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them all). When confronted with this marriage — which stands as a shining proof of the brotherly relationship between the Ahlul Bayt and the Khulafa ar-Rashideen — the Rafidha typically resort to two escape routes:
First Objection: They claim the Umm Kulthum married to ‘Umar was not the biological daughter of ‘Ali, but rather the daughter of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq who became ‘Ali’s step-daughter after Asma bint ‘Umays married him.
Second Objection:They allege that even if she was ‘Ali’s daughter, ‘Umar coerced ‘Ali into the marriage — and they attempt to attribute this claim to Sunni scholars such as Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi and Abu al-Qasim ar-Rafi’i.
Both objections are historically fabricated, textually indefensible, and self-refuting from the Rafidha’s own most authenticated sources. What follows is a systematic dismantling of these claims, first through the Qur’an and Sunnah, and then through a Final Rebuttal drawn from their own (Rafidhi Shia) books.
Part One: Response from the Qur’an and Sunnah
Refutation of the First Objection — “She Was Abu Bakr’s Daughter, Not ‘Ali’s” This claim is a desperate historical fabrication with no basis in authentic history. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (Radi Allahu Anhu) did indeed have a daughter named Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr — but she was born after Abu Bakr’s death, still in the womb of her mother Habibah bint Kharijah when he passed away. She was later married to Talha ibn ‘Ubaydillah (Radi Allahu Anhu), not to ‘Umar.
The Umm Kulthum married to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was, without doubt, the biological daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib from Fatimah az-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with them). This is established in the classical Sunni sources including at-Tabaqat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d, Tarikh at-Tabari, al-Isabah of Ibn Hajar, Usd al-Ghabah of Ibn al-Athir, and al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah of Ibn Kathir.
Allah the Exalted commands in His Book: Wa ankihu al-ayama minkum was-saliheena min ‘ibadikum wa ima’ikum “And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves.” (Surah an-Nur 24:32)
‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) — a scholar from amongst the Companions— would never violate this Qur’anic command by marrying his daughter to a man who was not righteous. If ‘Umar was, as the Rafidha claim, a usurper, an oppressor, and an enemy of the Ahlul Bayt, then ‘Ali’s action would constitute a major sin and a violation of the Qur’anic injunction itself. This is a theological dead-end for the Rafidhi position.
The Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said: Idha khataba ilaykum man tardawna deenahu wa khuluqahu fa-ankihuhu, illa taf’alu takun fitnatun fi al-ardi wa fasadun ‘areed “When someone whose religion and character you are pleased with proposes to you, then marry your daughter to him. If you do not do so, there will be tribulation on earth and widespread corruption.” (Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1084; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1967 — graded Hasan)
Since ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) gave his daughter in marriage to ‘Umar, it means — by the Prophet’s own criterion — that ‘Ali was pleased with ‘Umar’s religion and character. To claim otherwise is to accuse Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali of violating the direct command of Rasulullah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam).
Refutation of the Second Objection — “‘Umar Coerced ‘Ali into the Marriage” This is perhaps the most shameless slander against Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu), because it portrays him as a coward who surrendered the honor of his daughter — and by extension, the granddaughter of Rasulullah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) — under threat.
Allah the Exalted describes the true believers: Alladheena qala lahumu an-nasu inna an-nasa qad jama’u lakum fakhshawhum fazadahum imanan wa qalu hasbuna Allahu wa ni’ma al-wakeel “Those to whom people said: Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them. But it merely increased them in faith, and they said: Sufficient for us is Allah, and He is the best Disposer of affairs.” (Surah Aal-‘Imran 3:173)
‘Ali ibn Abi Talib — the hero of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, and Khandaq — the one who slept in the Prophet’s bed on the night of Hijrah while the assassins of Quraysh waited outside — this man was coerced by ‘Umar?
The Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said about ‘Ali on the Day of Khaybar: La-u’tiyanna ar-rayata rajulan yuhibbu Allaha wa Rasulahu, wa yuhibbuhu Allahu wa Rasuluhu “I shall give the banner tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger love.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3701; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2406)
By Allah! The one whom Allah and His Messenger loved — being coerced into surrendering his daughter? This is not merely historically false; it is a degradation of ‘Ali’s manhood, his faith, and his character. The Rafidha, in their zealous attack upon ‘Umar, end up defaming ‘Ali himself.
Furthermore, Imam at-Tabari in his Tarikh (Vol. 3, p. 269) and Ibn Sa’d in at-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Vol. 8, p. 463) narrate that when ‘Umar proposed, ‘Ali responded positively and mentioned only that Umm Kulthum was still young. When she came of age, ‘Ali himself sent her to ‘Umar, was pleased with the match, and pronounced the marriage contract with his own tongue. This was a voluntary, joyful contract witnessed by the senior Muhajireen and Ansar, including al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them all).
On the Alleged Attribution to an-Nawawi and ar-Rafi’i- The Rafidhi claim that Imam an-Nawawi and Abu al-Qasim ar-Rafi’i supported the coercion theory is a classic case of academic dishonesty. What both scholars actually did was mention the variant opinion only to refute it or to record it as a weak minority view. Citing a scholar’s mention of an opinion as if it were his endorsement of that opinion is a fundamental breach of scholarly integrity. Both Imam an-Nawawi and Imam ar-Rafi’i affirmed the validity of the marriage in their final rulings. Any student of usul al-fiqh knows the difference between naql (transmission of a view) and ikhtiyar (adoption of a view).
Part Two: The Final Rebuttal — From Their Own Books
Having answered the objection from the Qur’an and Sunnah, we now turn to the method known among the classical scholars as ilzam — binding the opponent with his own evidence. What follows are proofs drawn exclusively from the Rafidha’s own most authenticated sources, from which they have no escape.
Proof One: The Testimony of al-Kafi Al-Kulayni, whom the Shia title Thiqat al-Islam (“The Trustworthy of Islam”), records the marriage of Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab in al-Kafi, Volume 5, page 346, Kitab an-Nikah, in a chapter he himself titled “Bab Tazwij Umm Kulthum” — “The Chapter on the Marriage of Umm Kulthum.” Additional narrations affirming this marriage are recorded in al-Furu’ min al-Kafi, Volume 6, pages 115–116, where the marriage is discussed alongside its legal implications and the offspring born from it — Zayd ibn ‘Umar and Ruqayyah bint ‘Umar. Al-Kafi is to the Twelver Shia what Sahih al-Bukhari is to Ahlus Sunnah — their most trusted collection. If the marriage was a Sunni fabrication, why does the most authoritative book of the Shia devote an entire chapter to it?
Proof Two: The Rulings of Shaykh at-Ta’ifah at-Tusi
At-Tusi, titled Shaykh at-Ta’ifah (the Shaykh of the Sect), addresses this marriage in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, Volume 8, page 161, and Volume 9, page 262, as well as in al-Istibsar, Volume 3, page 352. In these fiqh works, at-Tusi discusses the legal rulings surrounding the marriage — including matters of the ‘iddah after ‘Umar’s death and the inheritance from her son Zayd ibn ‘Umar. Both Sunni and Shia jurisprudence agree on a fundamental principle: a coerced or invalid marriage produces no legitimate offspring in the eyes of the law, and consequently no rights of inheritance between the spouses. Yet the greatest jurist of the Twelver Shia treats this marriage as producing legitimate children and valid inheritance rulings. This is complete self-contradiction. If the Rafidhi narrative of coercion were true, the entire Shia fiqh treatment of this marriage — as documented by at-Tusi himself — would be built upon an invalid foundation, which the leading Shia jurists would never accept.
Proof Three: The Testimony of al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar
Al-Majlisi, the compiler of the encyclopedic Bihar al-Anwar — considered by many later Shia to be the greatest hadith collection of their school — records the marriage in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 38, page 88. Al-Majlisi himself authenticated several of the narrations from al-Kafi that confirm this marriage. When the most encyclopedic Shia compiler affirms the marriage’s occurrence, on what basis can the ordinary Rafidhi commenter deny it?
Proof Four: The Deafening Silence of Nahj al-Balagha
Ash-Sharif ar-Radi compiled Nahj al-Balagha, which the Shia consider the second most sacred book after the Qur’an — a book they claim contains the sermons, letters, and sayings of ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu). Within its pages, ‘Ali is recorded as openly discussing his grievances and criticizing many affairs. Yet nowhere in Nahj al-Balagha does ‘Ali mention being coerced or humiliated by ‘Umar into surrendering his daughter. If such a monumental humiliation had truly occurred against the honor of the granddaughter of Rasulullah, would ‘Ali remain silent about it while addressing lesser matters? The silence of Nahj al-Balagha on this alleged coercion is itself thunderous refutation.
Proof Five: The Names of the Sons of Ahlul Bayt — Documented in Shia Sources
The most devastating proof is recorded in the Shia sources themselves. The naming of the sons of the Ahlul Bayt after the three Khulafa is documented across their most authoritative books:
Regarding the sons of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (Radi Allahu Anhu): * Ash-Shaykh al-Mufid in al-Irshad, pages 167–168, records that ‘Ali had a son named ‘Umar and another named ‘Uthman (both from Umm al-Baneen, both martyred at Karbala with al-Husayn), and a son named Muhammad al-Asghar whose kunya was Abu Bakr (also martyred at Karbala). * Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, the Shia historian, in Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, pages 33–34, names Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ali and ‘Uthman ibn ‘Ali among the martyrs of Karbala. * ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa al-Irbili in Kashf al-Ghummah, Volume 1, page 590, lists among the sons of ‘Ali: Abu Bakr, ‘Uthman, and ‘Umar. * Ibn ‘Inabah in ‘Umdat at-Talib, page 361, mentions ‘Umar al-Atraf ibn ‘Ali. * Al-Majlisi in Jila al-‘Uyun, pages 464–465, lists ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and mentions the disagreement over whether Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ali was martyred at Karbala.
Regarding the sons of al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu): * Al-Ya’qubi, the Shia historian, in Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, Volume 2, page 228, names among al-Hasan’s sons: ‘Umar, al-Qasim, and Abu Bakr. * Ash-Shaykh ‘Abbas al-Qummi in Muntaha al-Amal, Volume 1, page 240, mentions ‘Umar ibn al-Hasan and Abu Bakr ibn al-Hasan.
Regarding the sons of al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu): * Al-Mas’udi, the Shia historian, in at-Tanbih wal-Ashraf, page 263, explicitly lists Abu Bakr as one of the sons of al-Husayn who was martyred at Karbala. Now let every fair-minded reader ask: does any father in the history of humanity name his son after his worst enemy? Would any man name his son after the alleged usurper of his father’s right, the alleged oppressor of his mother, the one who — according to Rafidhi mythology — attacked Fatimah az-Zahra? This is psychologically, biologically, and Islamically impossible. And these are not Sunni claims — they are documented in the Shia’s own books by their own historians and scholars.
Proof Six: The Testimony of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq Himself
The Rafidha claim to follow the school of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (Rahimahullah). Yet in Kashf al-Ghummah by al-Irbili — a foundational Shia biographical work — Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq is recorded as declaring: Waladani Abu Bakr marratayn “Abu Bakr gave birth to me twice.” This statement is documented in Kashf al-Ghummah, Volume 2, page 374 (Dar al-Adwa, Beirut edition, as cited by Shia sources themselves). He said this in reference to his lineage, because his mother was Umm Farwah bint al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, and his maternal grandmother was Asma bint ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr. So Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq — the sixth Imam of the Twelver Shia themselves — proudly proclaims his double descent from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (Radi Allahu Anhu). How can any Rafidhi reconcile this proud declaration with his cursing of Abu Bakr?
Closing Summary
To the Rafidhi objector: by insisting on this claim, you have committed the following theological and historical offenses:
1- You have accused Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) of being a coward who surrendered his daughter’s honor under threat. 2-You have accused ‘Ali of violating the Qur’anic command in Surah an-Nur by marrying his daughter to a man you consider unrighteous. 3-You have accused ‘Ali of violating the Prophetic Sunnah of only marrying his daughter to a man whose religion and character pleased him. 4-You have contradicted your own most authentic book, al-Kafi, which devotes an entire chapter to this marriage. 5-You have contradicted your own Shaykh at-Ta’ifah at-Tusi, who ruled the fiqh matters of this marriage as valid. 6- You have contradicted your own al-Majlisi, who documented and authenticated the marriage in Bihar al-Anwar. 7-You cannot explain why ‘Ali, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn named their sons Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman — as documented by al-Mufid in al-Irshad, al-Isfahani in Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, al-Irbili in Kashf al-Ghummah, al-Ya’qubi in his Tarikh, al-Mas’udi in at-Tanbih wal-Ashraf, and al-Majlisi in Jila al-‘Uyun. 8-You cannot explain why Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq proudly declared: Waladani Abu Bakr marratayn — “Abu Bakr gave birth to me twice.” 9-You have done academic dishonesty by misrepresenting the positions of Imam an-Nawawi and Imam ar-Rafi’i. Allah the Exalted commands: Qul hatu burhanakum in kuntum sadiqeen “Say: Produce your proof, if you are truthful.” (Surah al-Baqarah 2:111)
Wa lillahi al-hujjatu al-balighah — And to Allah belongs the conclusive argument. Wa sallallahu ‘ala Nabiyyina Muhammad, wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma’een.
Sources and Acknowledgments
The primary source references cited in this rebuttal — including volume and page numbers from Shia works such as al-Kafi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, al-Istibsar, Bihar al-Anwar, al-Irshad, Kashf al-Ghummah, Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, at-Tanbih wal-Ashraf, Jila al-‘Uyun, Muntaha al-Amal, and ‘Umdat at-Talib — have been compiled with reference to the established Sunni scholarly corpus on this subject.
The author acknowledges reliance upon the following:
Contemporary Research and Compilations:
– Mahajjah Research Institute, Ruhama Baynahum, particularly the chapters on the marriage of Umm Kulthum and the naming of the children of the Ahlul Bayt (mahajjah.com).
– Shaykh ‘Uthman al-Khamees, Kashf al-Jani and related polemical works.
– Shaykh Ihsan Ilahi Zaheer (Rahimahullah), ash-Shia wa Ahl al-Bayt.
While the prose, arrangement, and argumentative framework of this rebuttal are the author’s own, the underlying research corpus stands on the shoulders of these scholars, whose works remain the standard references for any serious study of this subject. The reader is encouraged to consult the original works for the full Arabic texts and complete contextual reading.
(Compiled by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna.)
The principle that “anything done regularly is automatically bidah because the Prophet ﷺ did not fix it in that exact form” is not the methodology of the Salaf, nor the understanding of the people of knowledge.
Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] says:
[Wa dhakkir fa-inna al-dhikrā tanfaʿu al-muʾminīn — And remind, for indeed the reminder benefits the believers.]
Surah al-Dhāriyāt 51:55
This command is unrestricted in its أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis]. Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] did not limit reminders to random or sporadic occurrences. If a scholar, teacher, or طَالِبُ عِلْمٍ [ṭālib ʿilm — student of knowledge] arranges weekly or monthly reminders for tawhid, fiqh, or admonition, this enters under the generality of this verse.
Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] also says:
[Wa-l-takun minkum ummatun yadʿūna ilā al-khayri wa yaʾmurūna bi-l-maʿrūfi wa yanhawna ʿani al-munkar — Let there arise from you a group inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.]
Surah آل عِمْرَان [Āl ʿImrān] 3:104
None of these texts restricted organisation, scheduling, or consistency. Rather, the objective is legislated, and the means remain open so long as they do not oppose revelation.
Imam Mālik ibn Anas رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] said:
[Lan yaṣluḥa ākhiru hādhihi al-ummati illā bimā ṣaluḥa bihi awwaluhā — The latter part of this Ummah will not be rectified except by what rectified its first part.]
His intent was not to prohibit all structured means, but to prohibit innovated acts of worship with no أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis] in revelation.
Imam al-Shāfiʿī رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] said:
[Al-muḥdathātu mina al-umūri ḍarbān: mā uḥditha mimmā yukhālifu kitāban aw sunnatan aw atharan aw ijmāʿan fa-hādhihi al-bidʿatu al-ḍalālah, wa mā uḥditha mina al-khayri lā khilāfa fīhi li-wāḥidin min hādhā fa-hādhihi muḥdathatun ghayru madhmūmah — Innovations are of two types: that which opposes the Book, Sunnah, narrations, or consensus, this is blameworthy misguidance. As for what is introduced of good and does not oppose any of these, then it is not blameworthy.]
Imam Abū Ḥanīfa رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] had regular circles of fiqh. Imam Mālik ibn Anas رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] had his established gatherings in Madinah. Imam al-Shāfiʿī رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] taught in organised sittings. Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] had consistent lessons of hadith.
Were the four Imams practising bidah? Of course not. They understood the difference between the act itself and the means of preserving it.
The clearest proof comes from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him].
He used to remind the people every Thursday. They said to him: O Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, we wish you would remind us every day. He replied:
[Amā innahu yamnaʿunī min dhālika annī akrahu an umillakum wa innī atakhawwalukum bi-l-mawʿiẓati kamā kāna al-nabiyyu ﷺ yatakhawwalunā bihā makhāfata al-saʾāmati ʿalaynā — Nothing prevents me except that I dislike boring you. Indeed I choose suitable times for admonishing you just as the Prophet ﷺ used to choose suitable times for us, fearing we may become weary.]
Reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
This is explicit: a fixed weekly reminder by a Sahabi رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him], based on the prophetic methodology itself.
So the issue is simple.
If someone believes a specific day or format is worship in itself and divinely legislated, this is bidah.
But if he organises reminders for benefit, discipline, and consistency, while knowing the أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis] is already legislated, this is from الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means] and الْمَصَالِح الْمُرْسَلَة [al-maṣāliḥ al-mursalah — unrestricted considerations of benefit].
To make every form of organisation into bidah is not fiqh. It is confusion.
And this understanding that all regularisation is innovation is not from Ahl al-ʿIlm. It is a dangerous oversimplification that, if applied consistently, would force one to condemn the teaching circles of the Salaf, the four Imams رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ [Raḥimahumu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on them], and the structured preservation of sacred knowledge itself.
اللهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ أَعْلَمُ
[Allāhu subḥānahu wa taʿālā aʿlam — And Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, knows best.]
***
A Twitter user responded, “Shaykh Abdur Rahman al-Barrak and Shaykh Sulaymān ar-Ruḥaylī disagree with you. Your understanding of bidʿah is wrong. Every act of worship is restricted until proven to be permissible. ʿIbādah is tawqīfī. You have to follow the Prophet ﷺ in the way he gave reminders, and he never did this.”
***
Dr. Hamza Ash-Shafii replied:
بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيْمِ 🖊️🧵📚
With sincere respect to this muslim confusion here is in failing to distinguish between الْمَقَاصِد [al-maqāṣid — the objectives] and الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means], between the act of worship itself and the means by which that worship is taught, preserved, and conveyed. This distinction is fundamental in أُصُوْلُ الْفِقْه [uṣūl al-fiqh — the principles of jurisprudence] and without it many matters become confused.
Yes, ibadah is tawqifi. No one from Ahl al-Sunnah disputes that. Meaning the أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis] of worship, its cause, type, number, manner, and time cannot be established except with evidence. But this principle applies to the عِبَادَات [ʿibādāt — acts of worship] themselves, not necessarily every means connected to them.
Teaching, reminding, organising lessons, setting schedules, and structuring educational benefit are not acts of worship in themselves. They are وَسَائِل [wasāʾil — means] to worship. And الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means] take the ruling of permissibility unless they contain a prohibited matter or become ritualised as an independent act of devotion.
This is why the Salaf differentiated between التَّعَبُّدُ بِالْفِعْلِ [al-taʿabbud bi-l-fiʿl — worshipping through the act itself] and اتِّخَاذُ الْوَسِيْلَةِ إِلَيْهِ [ittikhādh al-wasīlati ilayh — adopting a means towards it].
Your argument collapses because you have treated the means as though it is the objective itself.
The Prophet ﷺ did not establish a weekly hadith circle after Maghrib every Thursday. He did not fix monthly fiqh seminars. He did not gather the Quran into one mushaf in his lifetime. He did not establish schools with structured curricula. He did not compile the sciences of jarḥ wa taʿdīl, muṣṭalaḥ, or أُصُوْلُ الْفِقْه [uṣūl al-fiqh — the principles of jurisprudence]. Yet all of this was done by the Salaf and those after them because these are means serving the preservation of the religion, not independent ritual acts.
To say “he never did it” is not enough by itself. تَرْكُ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ [tark al-nabiyy ﷺ — the Prophet’s ﷺ abandonment of an act] is not automatically evidence of prohibition unless there is an accompanying reason showing that the omission was intended as legislation. This is a major principle.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] clarified that mere abandonment by the Prophet ﷺ does not establish prohibition unless the cause existed, the need was present, and there was no preventative barrier, yet he still intentionally left it as a form of legislation.
Otherwise, much of what the Ummah agreed upon later would be condemned.
Your claim that restricting reminders to Fridays every single week makes it worship is inaccurate. Restriction in itself does not make something عِبَادِي [ʿibādī — devotional/pertaining to worship]. Restriction may be administrative, pedagogical, or circumstantial.
If a person says: “Every Friday I will remind the people because it is the day of Jumuah, people gather, hearts are softer, and the subject is relevant,” this is no different in principle to a khatib preparing a recurring khutbah every week.
Would you now say khutbah itself is bidah because it recurs weekly and is restricted?
Of course not, because the restriction there is tied to a legislated occasion. Likewise, reminders tied to that occasion for benefit are تَابِعٌ لَا مُسْتَقِلٌّ [tābiʿ lā mustaqill — subordinate, not independent], connected and secondary, not independent legislation.
The issue of bidah enters only when one believes the format itself is legislated, or that its exact recurrence carries special reward from Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] without evidence. That is the actual مَحَلُّ النِّزَاع [maḥall al-nizāʿ — the actual point of dispute].
If someone says “sending this reminder every Friday is Sunnah in itself and whoever leaves it has abandoned a specific Sunnah,” then yes, this would be false attribution to the religion.
But if he says “I use Friday because it is relevant and beneficial,” this remains under maslahah and الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means].
Your comparison with “otherwise all bidah would be halal” is also weak because bidah is not defined merely by repetition or timing. It is defined by introducing into the religion a devotional act, form, or belief without evidence.
By your logic, every mosque timetable, every weekly دَرْس [dars — lesson], every annual conference in Ramadan, every Hajj seminar before Dhul Hijjah, and every scheduled class after Fajr would be bidah because the Prophet ﷺ did not formalise them in that exact way. No scholar says this.
Even ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] and Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] permitted structured lessons and organised recurring reminders because they understood this distinction.
The Prophet ﷺ himself used timing strategically. ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] said that the Prophet ﷺ would choose suitable times to admonish them, fearing boredom. This proves selecting times for reminders is legislated by principle, even if the exact recurring structure differs.
So the principle is simple and precise. If the act itself is being worshipped, then it must be proven.
If it is merely a means to facilitate worship, teach worship, or remind of worship, then its basis is permissibility unless it contains corruption.
Failing to distinguish between these two categories is precisely what leads to over-expanding bidah beyond what the Salaf intended. And this is why many students confuse administrative regularity with religious innovation. They are not the same.
And this is why the scholars speak about الْبِدْعَةُ الْإِضَافِيَّة [al-bidʿah al-iḍāfiyyah — relative/additive innovation], where an originally legislated matter becomes blameworthy only when an unlegislated restriction, description, or belief is attached to it as though it were part of the religion itself. This is the crucial distinction your argument overlooks.
Not every specification is bidah. Specification only becomes bidah when it is intended as taqarrub in that specific specification without evidence.
For example, fasting is legislated. But if a person singles out the fifteenth of Shaʿbān believing that exact day carries a specific virtue without proof, this enters innovation because the specification itself is devotional.
But if a teacher singles out Friday to remind people about Jumuah rulings, Sūrah al-Kahf, salawat upon the Prophet ﷺ, and the etiquettes of the day because that is when people need it most, this is rational specification tied to benefit, not devotional specification.
The usuli principle here is clear.
تَخْصِيْصُ الْعِبَادَةِ بِلَا دَلِيْلٍ بِدْعَةٌ
[Takhṣīṣ al-ʿibādati bilā dalīlin bidʿah — Specifying worship without evidence is innovation.]
[Takhṣīṣ al-wasāʾili bi-l-maṣlaḥati laysa bi-bidʿah — Specifying means due to benefit is not innovation.]
Confusing these two principles is where many students slip.
Also, your statement “the Prophet ﷺ never gave reminders this way” assumes complete knowledge of all possible formats of his reminders, which is impossible. What is established is that he reminded, taught, repeated, selected timings, addressed circumstances, and used occasions to teach. That is the أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis].
The exact organisational form remains open so long as it does not contradict revelation.
This is why ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] gathered the people behind one imam in Tarāwīḥ and said “what an excellent thing this is,” not meaning legislative innovation in worship, but reviving and organising an established principle.
This alone demolishes the simplistic claim that every newly structured religious format is misguidance.
Likewise, the compilation of the Quran under Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] and later standardisation under ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] was a structured religious means never done in that form by the Prophet ﷺ, yet accepted unanimously because the objective was preservation, not innovation. The same applies here.
A weekly Friday reminder is not a sixth prayer, not a new dhikr, not a newly invented Eid, not a fixed ritual formula. It is simply organised admonition.
And organised admonition remains under the generality of Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] saying:
[Wa dhakkir fa-inna al-dhikrā tanfaʿu al-muʾminīn — And remind, for indeed the reminder benefits the believers.]
Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] did not restrict reminders to random occurrence only. Nor did the Messenger ﷺ prohibit organising them.
So whoever claims prohibition must prove that the organisation itself has crossed from وَسِيْلَة [wasīlah — means] into عِبَادَة [ʿibādah — worship]. That burden is on him.
Otherwise, the default remains that structured teaching, recurring reminders, and organised benefit fall under permissibility and maslahah, not under bidah.
Because the reality is that this religion was preserved not only through the transmitted texts themselves, but through organised means of preservation developed by the Salaf and those after them, all operating under the broader objectives of the Shariah. The one who absolutises the principle of tawqif without distinguishing between the maqasid and the wasail ends up undermining the very mechanisms through which the religion was preserved.
Take the isnad system as an example. The Prophet ﷺ did not command the Ummah to formalise chains of narration in the technical manner later scholars did. Yet ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] said, “The isnad is from the religion.” That formalisation was a means of preservation, not a newly invented act of worship. Likewise, the categorisation of hadith into ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan and ḍaʿīf, the codification of uṣūl al-fiqh by Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him], the structured books of aqidah by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him], and the fixed teaching circles in the masajid of the Salaf all demonstrate one clear principle: organisation in service of revelation is not itself revelation.
This distinction is foundational. Otherwise, one would have to claim that every structured syllabus in aqidah, every weekly explanation of Al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah, every yearly Ramadan series, every scheduled khutbah preparation, and every formal ijazah system are all bidah simply because the Prophet ﷺ did not do them in that exact form. No serious student of knowledge can hold this consistently.
The usuliyyun discuss this under the principles of means and objectives. Means are judged according to their objectives and outcomes. If the means preserve the Sunnah, facilitate knowledge, and strengthen adherence without becoming independent devotional rites, then their ruling remains under permissibility or recommendation according to the maslahah.
What is being confused here is the difference between عِبَادَةٌ مَقْصُوْدَةٌ لِذَاتِهَا [ʿibādatun maqṣūdatun li-dhātihā — an act of worship sought for its own sake], an act sought for itself as worship, and وَسِيْلَةٌ مُعَيَّنَةٌ تُوْصِلُ إِلَيْهَا [wasīlatun muʿayyanatun tūṣilu ilayhā — a defined means leading to it], a defined means leading to it. Failing to distinguish these categories is a flaw in conceptualisation before it becomes a flaw in deduction. This is why the scholars said:
الْحُكْمُ عَلَى الشَّيْءِ فَرْعٌ عَنْ تَصَوُّرِهِ
[Al-ḥukmu ʿalā al-shayʾi farʿun ʿan taṣawwurih — Ruling upon something depends on first conceptualising it correctly.]
So before hastily declaring bidah, the first question must always be: is this an act of worship in itself, or merely a means serving an already legislated act? If it is the former, then proof is required. If it is the latter, then the default remains permissibility unless evidence proves otherwise.
This is the balance of Ahl al-Sunnah. They preserve the sanctity of tawqif in worship while recognising the flexibility of means in teaching, preserving, and conveying that worship. Without this precision, one does not protect the Sunnah. Rather, he risks weaponising the concept of bidah against the very tools by which the Sunnah reached him in the first place.
[Allāhumma-rzuqnā ʿilman nāfiʿan wa fahman ṣaḥīḥan wa thabātan ʿalā al-sunnah wa jannibnā al-bidaʿa wa-l-ahwāʾa wa-jʿalnā min ahli al-ḥaqqi ḥattā nalqāk — O Allah, grant us beneficial knowledge, correct understanding, steadfastness upon the Sunnah, keep us away from innovations and desires, and make us from the people of truth until we meet You.]
(A response written on Twitter by Dr. Hamza Al-Shafii @DrHamze_M to the video of Shaykh Abdur Rahman Al-Omaisan, may Allah preserve them both, stating that regular reminders to perform acts of Sunnah are a Bidʿah.)
