The Question:

If a person comes to Makkah al-Mukarramah to perform Ḥajj or ‘Umrah, is it permissible for him, after completing his Ḥajj or ‘Umrah, to perform another ‘Umrah for himself or for someone else in the same season he arrived, by exiting Makkah to At-Tan‘īm for iḥrām (the state of ritual consecration), and then performing this ‘Umrah? Please advise, may Allah bless you.

The Answer by Shaykh Abdul Azeez bin Abdullah bin Baaz (Rahimahullah):

There is no harm in that, and all praise is due to Allah. If one comes for ‘Umrah or Ḥajj, and performs Ḥajj or ‘Umrah for himself, or performs Ḥajj or ‘Umrah for someone else, and then wishes to perform another ‘Umrah for himself or for someone else, there is no harm in that.

However, he must assume iḥrām from outside the sacred precinct (al-Ḥill), meaning he exits Makkah to al-Ḥill—At-Tan‘īm, Al-Ji‘rānah, or other places—then assumes iḥrām from there, then enters to perform ṭawāf (circumambulation of the Ka‘bah), sa‘y (walking between Safa and Marwa), and taqṣīr (shortening the hair). This applies whether it is for himself, or for a deceased relative or loved one, or for an incapacitated elderly man or woman who is unable to perform ‘Umrah. There is no objection.

‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) did this by the command of the Prophet (peace be upon him). She performed ‘Umrah with the Prophet (peace be upon him), then sought permission on the night of Al-Ḥaṣbah—the night of the thirteenth… the night of the fourteenth—she sought permission, rather, on the night of the thirteenth, on the night of Al-Ḥaṣbah, which was the evening of the third day, the night of the fourteenth, she sought permission to perform ‘Umrah, and he (peace be upon him) granted her permission. He commanded ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr, her brother, to go with her to At-Tan‘īm, and she performed ‘Umrah (may Allah be pleased with her). This was a second ‘Umrah from within Makkah.

In summary: there is no harm for a person to perform Ḥajj or ‘Umrah for himself, and then perform ‘Umrah for another person, or perform ‘Umrah for someone else, or perform Ḥajj for someone else, and then perform ‘Umrah for himself. There is no harm in that. Yes.

The Presenter: May Allah reward you with good. If the first and second ‘Umrahs are for himself, do you stipulate a specific time interval between them?

The Shaykh: There is no evidence for that. Some scholars disliked the close succession of two ‘Umrahs, but there is no evidence for this.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “‘Umrah to ‘Umrah is an expiation for what is between them, and an accepted Ḥajj has no reward but Paradise.” [Agreed upon as authentic]. He (peace be upon him) did not specify any particular interval. And ‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) performed her second ‘Umrah less than twenty days after her first. She assumed iḥrām for ‘Umrah at the end of Dhū al-Qa‘dah from Madīnah and completed her Ḥajj with the Prophet (peace be upon him) as qārinah (combining Ḥajj and ‘Umrah), because her menstruation prevented her from performing ‘Umrah, so she performed Ḥajj Qirān. Then she sought permission for a new ‘Umrah on the night of Al-Ḥaṣbah, the night of the fourteenth, and said: “You are departing with Ḥajj and ‘Umrah”—meaning, performing them separately—”while I am departing with Ḥajj,” meaning a Ḥajj combined with an ‘Umrah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) granted her permission, and she performed ‘Umrah.

The point is: there is no clear evidence for stipulating a specific duration between two ‘Umrahs. The Prophet’s (peace be upon him) general statement, “‘Umrah to ‘Umrah is an expiation for what is between them,” encompasses both short and long intervals.

However, if there is overcrowding or hardship, it is preferable to refrain from doing so to avoid causing difficulty for others, especially during the days of Ḥajj when there is much hardship. If many people perform ‘Umrah, they cause difficulty for others, so refraining from it is more appropriate.

This is also because the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions, with the exception of ‘Ā’ishah, did not perform ‘Umrah after Ḥajj; rather, they sufficed with their first ‘Umrah. So, if a believer emulates them and refrains from performing another ‘Umrah, this is better. However, if one performs ‘Umrah after the crowds have lessened and the congestion has decreased, there is no harm in that.

The Presenter: May Allah bless you and reward you with good.

(Translated by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna)

Source

(Original Title:) The Nasibism of Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib! – authored by Shahriyar Ali Shaikh in Urdu and copied from Facebook.

(Translator’s Note: The article below was translated from the Facebook post of brother Shahriyar Ali Shaikh refuting Moulana Saifullah Mohammedi on an important issue. We have translated it into English here because of the benefits it contains. We do not endorse calling Moulana Saifullah Mohammedi a Nasibi or ‘Nasibi influenced’. May Allah accept our good deeds and forgive our mistakes.)

Brother Shahriyar Ali Shaikh wrote:

(Context: Regarding a video of Shaikh Saifullah Mohammedi wherein he was asked can we call Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) as ‘Mawla Ali’? He answers that it is impermissible. Language: Urdu.)

Just as Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib meticulously delves into the propaganda of the Rafidhis, he ought to also consider the propaganda of the Nasibis. But why would he consider it? Because he himself is involved in the Nasibi propaganda.

Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib has baselessly and unfairly leveled accusations against the questioner. The questioner had merely asked: “What is the ruling on calling Hazrat Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) as ‘Mawla’?” and also mentioned the Hadith: “Man kuntu Mawlahu fahadha Ali Mawlahu” (Whosever’s Mawla I am, Ali is also his Mawla).

Now, the question is: where is the justice in accusing someone of being influenced by Shi’ism based solely on this question? Does Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib not know that, Islamically, falsely accusing a Muslim, slandering, and calumniating are extremely grave sins and forbidden acts?

The Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said: “Whoever says something about a believer that is not in him, Allah will make him dwell in the filth of the inhabitants of Hell until he retracts what he said.” 📚 (Sunan Abi Dawud: 3597)

First Objection: Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib stated that the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said: “Whosever’s Mawla I am, Ali is also his Mawla.” He then questioned: “Have you ever heard anyone refer to the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) as ‘Mawla’?” This objection is unfounded (and baseless). The Quran mentions several attributes of the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam), but the Sahaba (companions) did not address the Prophet with every single word. For example, Allah called the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) “Rahmatun lil-‘alamin” (Mercy to the worlds), but did the Sahaba ever call out “Ya Rahmatan lil-‘alamin”? No. Therefore, this question is baseless.

Second Objection: Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib claimed that the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) also referred to Sayyiduna Zayd ibn Harithah (Radi Allahu Anhu) as ‘Mawla’. Yes, he did. And if someone calls Sayyiduna Zayd ibn Harithah (Radi Allahu Anhu) ‘Mawla’, there is no harm in it. The problem is, if someone calls Sayyiduna Ali ‘Mawla’, why does he (Saifullah Mohammadi) have an issue?

Third Objection: This is where Nasibism openly manifests. He said: “‘Mawla’ means friend, and the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said: ‘If I were to take a close friend (Khaleel), I would have taken Abu Bakr.’ Therefore, calling Sayyiduna Ali ‘Mawla’ is impermissible.” Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un (Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return). Here, Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib has caused severe confusion of concepts. The Hadith states: “If I were to take a Khalil (intimate friend), I would have taken Abu Bakr as a Khalil, but he is my brother and my companion.” Here, the word Khalil is used, which means an intimate friend, a highest-grade companion. This Hadith states the virtue of Hazrat Abu Bakr (Radi Allahu Anhu); how does it prove that calling Sayyiduna Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) ‘Mawla’ is impermissible? And did the Salaf (pious predecessors) derive the same meaning from this Hadith as Saifullah Mohammadi is deriving? “Khalil” and “Mawla” are two distinct concepts. Confusing them is ignorance. And most importantly: if calling Sayyiduna Ali ‘Mawla’ was indeed impermissible, then why did Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Radi Allahu Anhu) call Sayyiduna Ali ‘Mawla’? It is not proven that the Sahaba referred to Sayyiduna Zayd ibn Harithah (Radi Allahu Anhu) as ‘Mawla’ in this specific manner. However, it is absolutely proven from Hazrat Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Radi Allahu Anhu) that he addressed Sayyiduna Ali as “Peace be upon you, O my Mawla.”

Rabaah bin Harith (Radi Allahu Anhu) narrates: “While Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) was sitting in Ar-Rahbah, a man with signs of travel came and said: ‘Peace be upon you, O my Mawla.'” Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) asked: “Who is this?” The people said: “This is Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Radi Allahu Anhu).” Then Abu Ayyub (RA) said: “Indeed, I heard the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) say: ‘Whosever’s Mawla I am, Ali is also his Mawla.'”

📚 (Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah (32736), and Ahmad (23959), and authenticated by Al-Hasani in his book “Al-Jami’ Al-Musnad As-Sahih” 2796)

Now the question is: What will Saifullah Mohammadi Sahib, who claims to be on the “Manhaj of the Salaf” (methodology of the pious predecessors), say about the fact that Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Radi Allahu Anhu) himself called Sayyiduna Ali ‘Mawla’? Was he also (Allah forbid) using an impermissible title? End of the note.

[Translator’s Note: The narration of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari was translated from Urdu, in the original urdu text after Ali’s name ‘Alaihis Salam’ was mentioned. I made it ‘Radi Allahu Anhu’ to not confuse the people regarding another issue, i.e. ‘Can we use Alaihis Salam for the Sahabah or Ahlul-Bayt?’, the answer is ‘Yes’, but this isn’t the place to discuss that.]

–Shahriyar Ali Shaikh. (Translated by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna from Urdu to English.)

Shaykh al-‘Uthaymīn (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Scholars are of three types: A scholar of the religion (millah), a scholar of the state (dawlah), and a scholar of the people (ummah).”

As for the scholar of the religion (al-millah): he is one who propagates the religion of Islam and issues religious verdicts (fatwas) based on sound Islamic knowledge, without caring whether what the Divine Law (Shar‘) indicates aligns with people’s desires or not.

As for the scholar of the state (al-dawlah): he is one who observes what the state (the government) desires and then issues religious verdicts (fatwas) in accordance with the state’s wishes, even if that involves distorting the texts of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him).

And as for the scholar of the people (al-ummah): he is one who observes what pleases people. If he sees people inclined towards something, he issues a verdict that satisfies them, and then he attempts to distort the texts of the Book (Qur’an) and the Sunnah in order to conform to people’s desires. We ask Allah to make us among the scholars of the religion who act upon it.”

[Sharḥ Riyāḍ aṣ-Ṣāliḥīn, 4: 307,308]