salawat that are not in the hadith

Discussion in 'Adhkar' started by naqshbandijamaati, Mar 10, 2009.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. and i say a thousand plagues upon the devs of devband!
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    but another well-known mufti has other ideas (at least on this particular site, unless the opinion has been revised; or unless this is a fabrication to malign the mufti).

    permissibility of durud taj

    selected parts:
    To begin with, let it be known that the Shariah has not fixed a specific method of sending peace and blessings (salat and salam) upon the beloved Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). The obligation of sending blessings upon the beloved of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is a general one, hence in whichever wording (seegha) blessings are sent, one would be fulfilling one’s responsibility.

    In light of the above text and the general understanding of the scholars, it becomes clear that to recite the Salawat in any form or wording is permitted and rewarding. Sending blessings upon our beloved Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is not restricted to any time or any specific wording. One may send blessings upon him by using any wording, as long as there is nothing wrong in the wording itself. It is not necessary that the wording (seegha) of the salutations be established and narrated from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace).

    english translation: it is permissible to recite durud/salawat in any form [that does not contradict established aqidah] and not restricted to the one taught by the Master SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

    Having said that, one must always consider the established and narrated forms of sending blessings upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) to be superior, as stated by Imam al-Sakhawi in his text quoted above. It is also wrong to consider non-established forms of salutations to be specifically established through the Sunna. One should keep in mind that the recitation of salutations that are not narrated from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) are not superior to reciting the ones established from him, and that the non-established forms are not Wajib or Sunna, although there are great rewards in reciting them.

    english translation: durud ibrahimi is superior; but others are also fine.

    undertone: but i won't let it go so easily. i will insinuate that people claim durud taj to be wajib. i will insinuate that people will claim that it is found in sunnah.

    aH: it is like saying:

    mufti ibn adam claims to be a hanafi and a human. as long as he has started to recite the kalimah properly and believes in it, he is a muslim. as far as i know, he probably prays five times a day. as long as he does not think that prayer times are only four (it also applies to three or two or one or zero in certain cases where people deny the obligatory nature of prayer), he cannot be ruled a kafir, even if he prays only four times and omits one. and even if he prays, but as long as he has not rejected/denied a necessary fundamental article of the faith, he cannot be ruled a kafir.

    similarly, i do not have any specific information that he has broken any fast in ramadan [during day, because as it has been mentioned in hanafi fiqh works, breaking the fast at sunset completes the fast and is established by the sunnah] and Allah ta'ala knows best - however, just this one act does not entail kufr, though it is a sin and it would require him also give kaffarah. the only condition is that he should not believe that it is wajib or even sunnah to eat while fasting during daytime.

    and the verdict:

    The Salutation of the Crown (Durood al-Taj) was compiled and drafted many years after the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them). In light of the above explanation, there is nothing wrong in reciting it and one will be rewarded for doing so insofar as the aspect of it not being established from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is concerned.

    translation: durud taj is permissible.

    undertone: i am in a fix. what can i do? i have to either justify muhannad or reject durud taj (vide thanawi et al). let us follow the path of lesser-evil and side with muhannad, as it is more important. but i won't quit before i pepper it with a few more insinuations.

    aH: it is akin to saying:
    imam bukhari was born approximately two hundred years after the prophet's time (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam). as long as you don't believe that imam bukhari narrates directly from the prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) himself, which is not possible at all - and is against aql or naql - (or that he was a sahabi or a tabiyi) it is permissible to narrate or use the hadith of bukhari by saying "RasulAllah said:" and mentioning bukhari as the reference. note that whenever it is said that 'hadith of bukhari' it does not mean imam bukhari (raHimahullah) heard this hadith directly from the Messenger (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam).


    As such, when the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is described as the “Averter of affliction, disease, drought, illness and pain” it is in this metaphorical and non-absolute sense.

    aH: yeah, and it took more than a hundred years for you guys to come around? but still, the rotten nature of the deobandi remains: he insinuates that we muslims consider RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam as 'absolute healer'.

    yaa sub'HanAllah! the modern follower is a diligent follower of khalil ahmed and his taqiyyah!

    may Allah protect us from liars, hypocrites and slanderers.

    [note that i did not explicitly say that ibn adam or khalil ahmed are one of those or that all those qualities can be found in them, even though i could have said it explicitly but many times implicit meaning suffices and is preferable to that which is explicit because explicit expressions are not as subtle as implicit assertions and so goes the story.]


    what a mufti! ​
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2009
  3. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    sajaad has changed his mind:

    As for "Darud Taj" it is not Hadith or even the work of the later three great generations. Thus, one should avoid it and restrict oneself to the well known Salaat and Salam upon the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, such as the Ibrahimi Salutations upon the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. []

    so, he used to agree with gangohi in 1999 [that's when the above was written] but now in 2009, he disagrees with gangohi.

    liars have a bad memory.
  4. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    "provided it is understood in a manner that does not in any way compromise Islamic Belief"

    Duroods can be involved in compromising Islamic Belief? Durood Nariyyah?

    la hawla wala quwwata illa bilAllah

    I have never heard such dispicable nonsense ever, astaghfirulAllah nor anyone in my family. What is left then? Hamd of Allah ta'ala?
  5. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    gangohi said about durud al-taj that because it isn't from the hadith:

    And this Durood was drafted years after [him]. So how can the reading of this wording (seegha) of durood be declared worthy of reward? To disregard the wordings of durood which are established by sahih hadith and hope for merits in this (durood) and reciting it, is Bid'a Dalaala. []

    sajaad deobandi says about a durud that is not in the hadith:

    The salutations upon the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, you mention is not found in the hadith. It would be permitted to say it, provided it is understood in a manner that does not in any way compromise Islamic Belief. []

    which deobandi is wrong? gangohi or sajaad? one says that if it isn't found in the hadith, it is prohibited and other says even if it isn't found in the hadith, it would be permitted.

Share This Page