“Eww, sorry! No fatwas, please. I only follow Qur’an and Sunnah.”

هل للعامي أن يطلب من المفتي أن يذكر له الدليل ؟

So is it for the layman making a query to the mufti that he ask the mufti to mention the evidence to him?

قال الإمام محمد بن النجار الفتوحي رحمه الله : “ينبغي حفظ الأدب مع مفتٍ وإجلاله فلا يفعل معه ما جرت عادة العوام به […] ولا يطالبه بالحجة على ما يفتي به ولا يقال له : “إن كان جوابك موافقا فاكتب وإلا فلا.” [مختصر التحرير]

The Imam, Muhammad ibn An-Najjar Al-Futuhi (d.972), may Allah have mercy upon him, said of the matter, “It is necessary to preserve etiquette with any mufti and show him due deference and the questioner should not conduct matters with him as he would normally do with the laity.[1] He does not seek to dispute with him regarding the evidence that he gave fatwa with and it should not be said to him, ‘So if your answer is in agreement with what I know, then write it. And if not, then do not write it’.”[2] [Mukhtasar ut-Tahrir]

وقال الإمام النووي رحمه الله : “ومن آداب المستفتي أن […] لا يقول إذا أجابه : “هكذا قلتُ أنا.” ولا يطالب بالدليل فإن أراد معرفته سأل عنه في وقت آخر.” [روضة الطالبين]

The Imam, Yahya An-Nawawi (d.676), may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “It is from the etiquettes of goodness that the one enquiring from the mufti not say when he receives an answer, ‘Oh, I say that as well’. And nor does he seek from him evidence. If he should so desire to know it, he should ask about it at another time”.[3]

وفي المسودة : “لا ينبغي للعامي أن يطالب المفتي بالحجة فيما أفتاه ولا يقول له لمَ ولا كيف.”

Imams Majd ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.652), Shihab ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.682) and Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728), may Allah have mercy upon all of them, remarked, “It is not for the laymen to seek the proof from the mufti regarding what he gave the fatwa for and he is neither to say to him, ‘why’ nor ‘how’?” [Al-Musawwadah]

قال الإمام الشاطبي رحمه الله : “فتاوى المجتهدين بالنسبة إلى العوام كالأدلة الشرعية بالنسبة إلى المجتهدين والدليل عليه أن وجود الأدلة بالنسبة إلى المقلدين وعدمها سواء إذا كانوا لا يستفيدون منها شيئا فليس النظر في الأدلة والاستنباط من شأنهم. [الموافقات]

The Imam, Abu Ishaq Ash-Shatibi (d.790), may Allah have mercy upon him, declared, “The fatawa of the mujtahids with respect to the laity are like the evidences of the Revealed Law with respect to the mujtahids. The evidence to him – whether it is present or not – with respect to the people of taqlid is the same. In the case that those making taqlid would not benefit from it, then the mujtahid does not look into the matter for them with the evidences.[4] Extracting rulings is not from the matter of the laity but from the affair of the mujtahids”. [Al-Muwafaqat]

قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله : “إذا كان عند الرجل الكتب المصنفة فيها قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم واختلاف الصحابة والتابعين فلا يجوز أن يعمل بما شاء ويتخير فيقضي به ويعمل به حتى يسأل أهل العلم ما يؤخذ به فيكون على أمر صحيح. [ذكره الإمام بن القيم في أعلام الموقعين والإمام الخلال في زاد المسافر]

The Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “In the case of the man who possesses authored books containing therein statements of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, differences of opinion among the Companions and their Followers, it is not permitted for him to act by what he so wills, choose among the texts and make judgment by it and act by it. Such is not permissible for him to do until he asks the People of Knowledge what is to be understood from that and the authenticity of the matter is established”. [As cited from the Imam, Ibn ul-Qayyim in I`lam ul-Muwaqqi`in and the Imam, Abu Bakr Al-Khallal in Zad ul-Musafir]

(Shaikh) Faaris ibn Faalih Al-Khazraji

[1] Someone in the post of mufti is engaged in answering numerous questions and may have a short duration of time to answer them before seeing the next questioner. It is for this reason that the requester should not belabor the point.

[2] This is tantamount to quizzing or “checking up” if someone gives the “right answer”. And this is in deep error from two points: (1) if the questioner does not know the answer to the question, why is he cross examining the mufti, who’s responsibility it is to furnish him with the answer? (2) if the questioner already knows the answer, why is he then asking the mufti to rehearse to him the SAME information the questioner supposedly knows? This is time wasting and also a form of debate that in the English speaking world too many people derive ecstasy from in their daily lives.

[3] This is on account of the fact that the mufti in question may have a specific period of time dedicated only to answering queries for fatwa and then another time for answering questions with evidence. If this partition exists, the questioner should heed this while if he allows follow up, then the questioner may do so, mindful of the fact that if there is a line or a room full with people, he may need to be brisk in leaving and allowing others to take their turn.

[4] And this is from the assessment of the situation. If the common man only requests the ruling, then he should give it. If he requests more than that, he should allow it if he sees that he can comprehend the answer. This should be done on a case by case basis when looking at the questioner.


Shaikh Abdullah Badran with his uncle, the late marja, Imam Muhammad Badran

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله: هذا أخوك في الإسلام الأخ أبو جعفر حسن الحنبلي وعندي أسئلة قليلة لحضرتكم، إن شاء الله يا شيخ

As-Salaamu `Alaikum wa Rahmatullah, this is your brother in Islam, Br. Abu Ja`far Hasan Al-Hanbali and I have some small questions for you, if you could answer them please, Shaikh (`Abdullah Isma`il Badran)?

أنا أعرف علماء ومراجع الحنابلة في هذا العصر هم: الوالد السعيد إسماعيل بن بدران، عبد الرحمن الشامي، صالح الشامي, وعبد الباسط الرحيباني. فبعد هؤلاء من هم من خلفاء العلماء المذكورين؟

I know the scholars and authorities of the Hanbalis in this time include: the noble father, Isma`il ibn Badran, `Abdur-Rahman Ash-Shami, Salih Ash-Shami, `Abdul Basit Ar-Ruhaibani; but after these, who are the successors of these aforementioned scholars?

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته، اهلا وسهلا اخي الكريم، حياك الله وبياك، اخي الكريم انا فقير بعلم والدي حفظه الله

Wa `Alaikum us-Salaamu wa Rahmatullah, welcome to you, noble brother. May Allah preserve you and give you long life! Noble brother, I am destitute of knowledge compared to that of my father (Imam Isma`il ibn Badran), may Allah preserve him!

في اهل علم بالفقه الحنبلي كثر ولكن الذين ذكرتهم هم الذين عندهم الاجازات بالمذهب تقريبا

With respect to the luminaries or knowledge of the Hanbali fiqh, they are many indeed; but those you mentioned are those possessing permission in the madhhab in totality or nearly so.

As written by (Shaikh) `Abdullah Badran.

Son of Imam Isma`il ibn Badran.

Answered 11 Sha`ban 1442


Imam Isma`il ibn Badran gave the following ruling when asked:

للخروج بالتظاهرات هناك اسباب عدة ومنها الخروج لتغيير شيء او الخروج على الظلم

On the topic of going out to do demonstrations or protests, there are a number of causes and reasons behind that. So this is either to (1) change something or (2) to come out against oppression.[1]

لهذا يجب ان تضمن بعض الشروط لهذا الامر وهو ان تضمن ان خروجك سيغير شيء من الامر الذي خرجت من اجله

And it is due to that which is understood above that it is wajib[2] that[3] one of the conditions to be safeguarded in this affair is that it is guaranteed that the going out will indeed change the thing which you went out to protest or demonstrate against in the first place.[4]

وثانيا ان خروجك لا يعود بالضرر عليك وعلى الاخرين وان تضمن حقن الدماء

The second condition is that going out for the demonstration or protest does not bring back to you or others some harm[5] and that the safety from bloodshed and loss of life[6] is guaranteed.[7]

 والسبب الرئيسي بهذا الامر ان تضمن ان خروجك سيغير الامر الذي خرجت من اجله بشكل قطعي والدليل على ذلك ما حصل بسوريا لم يضمو ولا امر واحد من شروط الخروج

The overarching reason for this affair is that it must be safeguarded and guaranteed that your coming out to protest or demonstrate will indeed change the affair that you came out for in the first place in a definite capacity.[8] The evidence on that can be seen according to what took place in Syria. They could neither guarantee the overarching matter nor one of the conditions for going out to demonstrate or protest.[9]

هذا ما افتى به الوالد وانا كنت موجود وسمعت منه والله تعالى اعلم

[`Abdullah Badran[10] said: And this is the fatwa that my father gave that I heard directly from him. And Allah knows best].

[1] This is on account of the fact that this type of action is from the types of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong (Ar. Al-Amr bil-Ma`ruf wan-Nahi `An il-Munkar) and not from the affair of armed combat (Ar. jihad) as has been stated by some lesser ranking shaikhs (who mistakenly conflated these two related but separate principles). Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi (d.968), may Allah have mercy upon him, explained, “Enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is indeed a principle. Enjoining the right means enjoining the righteousness of what is commanded in the Revealed Law. Forbidding the wrong means forbidding from that which is repudiated in the Revealed Law”. Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.124-125

Some Slaves of Allah might say, “Well, this is only being said because they’re scared of jihad and rising up against the tyrants and apostates”.

To dispel this myth, all the quotes that we will give will not only be from the marja` people but also those who engaged in armed combat or explicitly called to it. This starts with the very Imam’s ruling we are citing. He was among the first to give the ruling for the necessary action of armed combat taken in Afghanistan and the Balkans as well. So he should not and could not in any sense be guilty of what is said in the claim above.

In terms of jihad always meaning armed combat and that it is a separate matter to enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, we will cite some sources.

Imam Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamah (d.620), may Allah have mercy upon him, fought cultists, Crusaders and won and he says this of armed combat, “Jihad is armed combat against those who are unbelievers”. Al-Iqna`, vol.2, pp.2-3.

Imam Baha’ ud-Din Al-Maqdisi (d.624), may Allah have mercy upon him, also fought against cultists and Crusaders in his time and won and when discussing Hajj called it: “A jihad without any fighting in it, namely the Hajj and `Umrah”. Al-`Uddah Sharh ul-`Umdah, pp. 647-648. This shows that jihad is indeed armed combat except when specified otherwise. And the exceptions prove the general rule, that it is armed combat.

This same thing was uttered by another authority and warrior, Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi (d.968), may Allah be pleased with him, who was an archer and warrior against the Portuguese and Spaniards (and won) that were acting as pirates in the Mediterranean. He stated, “Jihad is indeed armed combat against the unbelievers”. Al-Iqna`, vol.2, pp.2-3.

Imam Mustafa Ad-Dumani (d.1192), may Allah have mercy upon him, who fought alongside of the Ottomans against the Portuguese, French, Spaniards, English and in some instances won, said the following: “Jihad in the Revealed Law is armed combat against the unbelievers which is the opposite to fighting against rebels from among the Muslims, robbers and the like”. Hashiyat Dalil it-Talib, vol.1, pp.456-457

Imam `Abdul Wahhab ibn Muhammad ibn Fairuz (d.1205), may Allah have mercy upon him, who fought against Salafiyyah and helped stamp it out in armed combat on many fronts, avoided assassination attempts and was exiled, said the following, “Jihad is armed struggle exclusively against the unbelievers”. Hashiyat ur-Rawd il-Murbi`, vol.2, pp.378-679

Imam Mustafa Ar-Ruhaibani (d.1243), may Allah have mercy upon him, fought against the French invasion that turned Egypt into Dar ul-Harb and was valiant in battle and he says the following: “Jihad in the Revealed Law is armed combat against the unbelievers, which is the opposite to armed combat against rebels from among the Muslims, robbers and the like”. Matalib Uwl in-Nuha, vol.2, pp.509-510

Imam Hasan Ash-Shatti (d.1274), may Allah have mercy upon him, was a warrior that fought against the French, Americans, British and also Nusairis and Alawis along with the fact that he uncovered a Freemason lodge in Syria, had this to say along with his aforementioned teacher, “Jihad in the Revealed Law is armed combat against the unbelievers, which is the opposite to armed combat against rebels from among the Muslims, robbers and the like”. Matalib Uwl in-Nuha, vol.2, pp.509-510

Imam `Abdul Ghani Al-Lubadi (d.1319), may Allah have mercy upon him, who fought against invading forces trying to establish the State of Israel, the kibbutzim, the British colonial authorities, Palestinian secularists and statists, the French and Americans in constant jihad, said the following: “Jihad is armed combat exclusively against the unbelievers”. Hashiyat ul-Lubadi, pp.161-162

Now that we have established the definition of jihad using valid authorities who were also mujahidin as well, we will also cite them for the rest of the topic to lay to rest any idea that the ruling given by the marja` in the main body of the text is only due to “fear of the kuffar” or “desire not to unseat and demolish the thrones of the apostate rulers” or that anyone not doing these is “a scholar for dollars” or one of the “wicked scholars entangled in the web of Shaitan” and all the other spicy language usually employed by monolinguals, pamphleteers and pre-natal intellectuals.

[2] Imam `Abdul Qadir Ibn Badran Ad-Dumi (d.1346 (AD1929), may Allah have mercy upon him, says of the matter, “So wajib entails what is necessary to carry out and what is blameworthy – according to the Revealed Law – to abandon in any sense, meaning at all times”. Al-Madkhal, pp.146-147. Also remember that this Imam engaged in jihad against the French and countless other forces in the run up to the takeover of Sham.

[3] Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi (d.968), may Allah have mercy upon him, said of this affair: “The ahadith on the topic of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong are many indeed. And had it not been for enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, gross ignorance would have been universally dominant and knowledge would have been completely swept away. It is compulsory on every Muslim, no matter the state that he is in, and it is certainly possible to forbid the wrong at any time, even if it is in the heart alone. And it is due to this that it is wajib on every Muslim and it is not permissible for him to be pleased with disobedience, even if he is not able to lift it”. Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.126-127

[4] Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi (d.968), may Allah have mercy upon him, declared, “The companions of the School have conditioned that enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong may be done when there is real hope of the result of that which is being intended being realised. So in the event that he does not have this beyond a reasonable doubt, then what about the situation? Is it compulsory? There are two narrations from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on the topic. Abul Harith narrated that it is indeed wajib in one circumstance while Hanbal ibn Ishaq narrated the opposite ruling in another circumstance. Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali elucidated, ‘Two narratives were given by Al-Qadi Abu Ya`la Al-Baghdadi on the topic from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on the topic of the wajib state of forbidding the wrong with respect to the one who knows that his action will not be accepted from him. Al-Qadi Abu Ya`la declared as authentic the statement that it is compulsory to forbid the wrong and it is the statement of most of the scholars. And some of the First Three Generations have spoken on the matter as well.’ Ibn Rajab then said, ‘By forbidding the wrong in these circumstances it acts as an excuse for you in the Sight of Allah’.” Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.129-130

[5] Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi (d.968), may Allah have mercy upon him, said of this affair: “Ibn Abid-Dunya collected a hadith from the narrative of Abu Hurairah who stated that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, ‘Whoever was present at the time some disobedience was done and disliked it, it is as if he was absent from it. Whoever was absent from some disobedience and liked it, it is as if he was present for it’. Due to this it becomes clear that forbidding the wrong with the heart is compulsory on every Muslim in any circumstance and this shall be a completed statement when we treat the topic under the expression the weakest of it is in the heart.  Enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is wajib on every Muslim according to Ibn `Abdul Qawi (d.699) for whoever (1) decisively knows the affair in question, (2) witnesses it and (3) knows that which is to be forbade from while at the same time having no fear of the whip, stick, jail, detention, exile, harm – and Ibn Hamdan (d.695) also said, ‘Or the said wrong increasing or being replaced with a wrong like it’ – tribulation to himself, wealth, sanctity of family, neighbours and no one else can do it. And this was said by all the companions of the School. And the individual should also be enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong against one who is openly committing the wrong and the thing specified as wrong must be agreed upon by Consensus as such and this shall be explained later. If he should fear any of the affairs above coming to pass or even one of them, then the obligation of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is lifted from him. Imam Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali has said, ‘This is the explicit statement of all the Imams, including people such as Malik ibn Anas, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahuwaih and others’.” Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.127-129

[6] Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi (d.968), may Allah have mercy upon him, said of this affair: “Whoever abandoned what he is so required to do without a manifest excuse – as was discussed by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d.695) – then such a one should be repudiated and the one who abandoned forbidding the wrong should likewise be rebuked according to one’s ability. No one is to be rebuked or repudiated with the sword except with authority or a ruler”. Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.143-146. This is because enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong does not fall under offensive or defensive jihad, thus one would not be authorised to use weaponry. This is why it is so important to distinguish between armed combat and enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong so that the principles of each can be understood.

Let us head back to the words of Imam Al-Hajjawi: “Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi said, ‘Striking with the hands and feet or other things besides that as implements in which no indication has been given for the use of weapons or swords is only licit for certain individuals in times of dire necessity (Ar. darurah) or pressing need (Ar. haajah). Now in the case someone requires assistance that would require the use of these implements as he cannot forbid the wrong by himself, such a thing requires the position of the Imam as to do so could precipitate tribulations, the spread of corruption although it has been said in some cases the permission of the Imam is not a condition but a requirement’.

“Imam Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali said, ‘The jihad of the rulers with their hands is in order to use his power to remove the wrong affairs that are happening, like in the case of pouring out storages of intoxicants, destroying wind and string instruments or similar things. This same jihad is used to remove oppression that could not be removed any other way and all of this is permitted. This does not belong to the subject of fighting against the rulers or rebelling against them that has been forbidden but it is assisting them’.

“As far as rebelling against them, then there is the fear that comes from this in which the blood of Muslims could be spilled. There has been explicitly narrated from Imam Ahmad statements that indicate sufficing oneself with repudiating evil with the heart. Abu Dawud As-Sijistani narrated from him the statement, ‘We hope that repudiating the wrong with the heart shall keep one safe although if he repudiates wrong with the hand, it is more virtuous’.

“In the case of where the principle of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is lifted due to non-acceptance or lack of benefit in the wider affair, the evidence adduced is in the Sunan of Abu Dawud and other collections from the narrative of Abu Tha`labah Al-Khushani in which it was said to him: ‘What do you say of the ayah: Take care of yourselves. [Surat ul-Ma’idah (5), ayah 105]?’ Al-Khushani said, ‘By Allah, I asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, about it to which he said: Indeed you have been commanded to do the right, forbidden from the wrong! This is the case unless you have seen stinginess and greed obeyed, desires followed, earthly matters given precedence and each group being pleased with his own opinion. When such is the case, then you just take care of yourself and leave alone the affairs of the public folk’.

“And likewise it was narrated from a group of the Companions that they said, ‘The meaning of this ayah has not come to pass yet. This will only be the case near the end of time’.

“And it was narrated from `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, who said, ‘When the hearts and desires differ, parties and groups form and cause confusion, each one glorying in one another’s position, then the human being at that point has been commanded to look after himself and this is the meaning of this ayah’. “`Abdullah ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, said, ‘This ayah is for people to come after our time in which if they speak it will not be accepted from them’.

“And it was mentioned by Mak-hul who said, ‘The meaning of the ayah has not come to pass yet. When the preachers are scared, that which they say is repudiated, then at that time you have to look after yourself as no one will harm you with his evil when you have taken guidance for yourself first’. And it was narrated that when Al-Hasan Al-Basri, may Allah be pleased with him, recited this ayah, he said, ‘What is the situation of the trustworthy one who has no trust and vast is the affair when this comes to pass?!’.

“So all of this bears on the fact that whoever is unable to use the principle of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong out of fear of real harm, the responsibility falls from him. The words of `Abdullah ibn `Umar prove that whoever knew that his word would not be accepted then it is not wajib for him to go forward with the principle. This is just like what was narrated from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal by Ibn Rajab just moments ago along with the discussion of the difference of opinion in that regard”. Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.143-146

[7] Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi (d.597), may Allah have mercy upon him, who was in jail in Wasit for speaking against governors in his area as well as aberrant Muslims, says this of the affair, “Is it permitted – in the principle of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong – announcing and making it clear by preaching to the rulers. In terms of striking fear in the heart by saying, ‘Oppressive ruler!’ or if he said, ‘You who does not fear Allah!’ and so forth, if that should move the hearts of those people to tribulation or bring harm to others besides him, then it is not permissible. And in the case that the speaker only feared harm coming to himself, then in that case it is permitted according to the vast majority of scholars. In my own response, I would say that I forbid that as the objective of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is to remove the wrong while moving the heart of the ruler to take action by what a preacher said will ultimately result in a wrong action greater than the one that he was trying to lift in the first place”. Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.137-138

[8] Some often quote the hadith of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, “Whoever among you sees a wrong, let him change it with his hand. And if he cannot, let him change it with his tongue. And if not, then let him change it with his heart. And this is the weakest of Iman”. Collected by Imam Muslim. Many in the English-speaking world believe that the “changing it with the hand” entails violence. Consider this point made by Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi, “Abu Bakr Al-Marrudhi said to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ‘How is enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong done?’ The Imam said, ‘With the hand, the tongue and the heart while the heart is the weakest of Iman’. Al-Marrudhi said, ‘How does one change it with the hand?’ The Imam said, ‘By separating the fighting parties’. Al-Marrudhi goes on to say, ‘I once saw Imam Ahmad pass by a group of youths from the local kuttab that were fighting and he separated them’. Salih Al-Baghdadi quoted Imam Ahmad as saying, ‘Changing the wrong with the hand does not mean with the sword or weaponry’.” Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.126-127

[9] And now we see what these demonstrations did. They did not safeguard people from bloodshed, lift the affair, lead to the jihad that eliminated oppression or the stated purpose. This alone demonstrates the impermissibility in the start of them. So let the reader now think about each and every demonstration he or she would like to join in the future before taking action.

Let me leave the reader with the words of Imam Musa Al-Hajjawi (d.968), may Allah have mercy upon him, yet again, “It is necessary for the one enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong that he himself has taken heed from that which he is to forbid from and that he himself is engaged in what he is to command others. The one carrying out this principle is not to be from those who his words contradict his deeds, so it then becomes the case that he enjoins the right that he does not do and forbids the wrong that he actually commits. When someone has this state, he opens himself up to the Wrath of Allah, His Anger and His Punishment. Such a one has his knowledge shown to be barren, as knowledge without action is barren and a trial for the one in the situation”. Sharh ul-Manzumat il-Adab, pp.138-139

Ask yourself: are the people doing these demonstrations free of what they are marching out and chanting against?

[10] This is the son of the Imam who is a shaikh in his own right.


The two great marja people, Imams Faaris Saraiwal (R) and Abdul Majid Abdul Majid (L).

[ما جاء في تشريك نية صيام رمضان وصيام ست من شوال عند الحنابلة]

What was mentioned about joining between the intention to make up fasts of Ramadan and the six siyam of Shawwal according to the Hanbalis

لا يمكن الجمع بين قضاء صيام رمضان وست من شوال.

It’s not possible to join between making qada’ of sawm from Ramadan and the six sawm of Shawwal.

قال الفتوحي في المنتهى:

Imam Taqi ud-Din Al-Futuhi (d.972) mentioned in his work The Uttermost Boundary:

(وَإِذَا نَوَى خَارِجَ رَمَضَانَ وَقَضَاءً وَنَفْلًا أَوْ نَذْرًا، أَوْ كَفَّارَةَ نَحْوِ ظِهَارٍ فنَفْلٌ)

“When someone has intented a sawm outside of Ramadan to make up a sawm and an optional fast at the same time or even a vow or expiation like disavowal of a wife, then it is only sound as a nafl”.

لا يصح صيام ست من شوال قبل قضاء صيام رمضان.

The siyam of the six days of Shawwal is not valid to do before the qada’ of the siyam of Ramadan.

قال الفتوحي في المنتهى:

Imam Taqi ud-Din Al-Futuhi (d.972) said in The Uttermost Boundary:

(وَحَرُمَ تَطَوُّعٌ قَبْلَهُ وَلَا يَصِحُّ)

“It is impermissible to make optional sawm before the compulsory has its qada’ completed and thus the optional action would not be valid”.