Ask the all knowing Imam!! Does your wind smell, and have a voice?

Urgent please.I read in one hadist that if the wind is not smell, and no voice then no need to repeat wudhu', please give explaination. jazakallhu khair.

I live in Singapore where almost every where people use air conditioner (AC), so it will make a cold condition. If I feel cold then I will fart oftenly and of course it will cause problem when I want to pray. and I also still confuse with the hadist, please give explaination, Insya Allah. jazakallahu khair

We are unaware of such a Hadith. If wind comes out, then the Wudhu breaks.
This does not differ whether the wind smells or not.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

Ah yes... quotes from followers of the religion of peace, from the site linked above:

why doesn't anyone ever read this? :

Shaykh Hammood's Fatwa on 9/11
9/11 attacks were BLESSED

Sheikh Hammoud Al-Uqlaa' Ash-Shuaibi
FATWA ON RECENT EVENTS

Praise is due to Allâh, Lord of the Worlds, may the salât and salâm be with the unlettered Prophet, his family, his companions and all who live according to his path till the Day of Judgment.

Before answering the question we should know that whatever decision the non-Muslim state, America, takes - especially critical decisions which involve war - it is taken based on opinion poll and / or voting within the house of representatives and senate, which represent directly, the exact opinion of the people they represent - the people of America - through their representatives in the Parliament. Based on this, any American who voted for war is a like a fighter, or at least a supporter, as we will explain later.
Let it also be understood that the guide and final decision on the interactions of Muslims with the Unbelievers are the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah of His Prophet may the salât and salâm be with him; And not politics or personal benefits. And the Qur'ân has explicitly explained this issue and clarified it because of its importance and danger. When we refer to the Qur'ân we realize that it has left no one in doubt nor did it leave any grey areas on this issue.

And all the various verses which discuss this issue emphasize two things, namely al-Walâ' (love and alliance) and al-Barâ'ah (hate and opposition), which confirms the fact that al-Walâ' and al-Barâ'ah are strong pillars in the Islâmic Sharî'ah, an issue on which the scholars - both the past and contemporary - have consensus. Allâh says warning against loving the unbelievers, taking sides with them and leaning towards them:

"O believers! Take not Jews and Christians as your (protecting) friends, they are allies of one another. Whosoever allies with them, amongst you, then he is one of them ... "

"O Believers! Do not take My enemy and your enemy, as friends, giving them your affection ... "

And Allâh said: "O Believers! Take not private friends from among your enemies expressing open love to them ... "

And He said on the necessity of rejecting the unbelievers,
" ... certainly you had an excellent example in Ibrâhîm and those with him, when they said to their people we are free from you and from whatever ye worship other than Allâh, we have rejected you hostility has stated between us and you till the Day of Judgment..."

And the Exalted said:
"Never will you find a people who believe in Allâh and the Last Day making friendships with those oppose Allâh and His messenger even though they were their parents or their sons ... "

And the Exalted and praised said:
"Say: if your parents, your children, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth you have acquired, the commerce in which you fear decline, or the dwellings you are pleased with, are dearer to you than Allâh and His Messenger and striving hard and fighting in His cause, then wait until Allâh brings His Decision. And Allâh guides not the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient)."

These verses and tens of others are clear statements on the obligation and necessity of opposing unbelievers and hating them, as well as rejecting them. And I don't think any person with the slightest level of knowledge is ignorant of this.

Having said this, you should know that America is a Kufr State that is totally against Islâm and Muslims. In fact it has reached the peak of that arrogance in the form of open attacks on several Muslim Nations as it did in Sudân, Irâq, Afghanistân, Philistine, Libya and others, where it - America - allied with the forces of Kufr such as Britain, Russia and others in attacking and trying to exterminate them. Similarly, America expelled the Palestinians from their homes and housed the 'brothers of Pigs and Apes' in them; and stood firmly in support of the criminal Zionist State of the Jews, giving them all they need in the form of wealth, weapons and training.

How then can America after all these things not be considered an enemy of the Muslim Nations and at war with them?

But, because they have reached the peak of tyranny and arrogance; because they have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union in the hands of the Muslims in Afghanistân, they thought that they are the Ultimate Power above which there is no power. Unfortunately, they forgot that Allâh, the Exalted and Mighty, is stronger than them and can humble and destroy them.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate and disturbing to see that a lot of fellow scholars have preferred the side of mercy and emotion and forgotten or ignored what that Kufr Nation (America) is doing such as killing, destroying and spoiling most of the Muslim Lands, and showing no mercy or kindness in that.

Consequently, I find it incumbent upon me to refute some false claims and misconceptions that some fellow scholars are relying upon in trying to support their positions.

MISCONCEPTION No. 1
One of them is what I heard from some of them, " ... that we have agreements and pacts between us and America and hence it is binding on us to fulfil them."
My response to this is from two points of view:
1. The person saying this has already concluded that it is Muslims who committed the act, and up to now, no proof of law has been established to the effect that Muslims are behind the attack, or that they participated in it, in which case it may be said that they have broken the covenant.

So, since, it is yet to be established that we committed the act, nor that we did partake in its execution, how then can it be said that we have broken the 'Pact'?
Of course expressing our hatred for those unbelievers and rejecting them has nothing to do with breaking covenants or pacts. It is just something Allâh has compelled upon us in clear texts of His Glorious Book.

2. Even if we accept that there are covenants and pacts between Muslims and America, why then did America not fulfil its side of the agreement?

Why has it not stopped its aggression and harming a lot of Muslims? Is it not an established fact that: all pacts are binding on both parties; and that whenever they do not fulfil their roles, the pact becomes invalid and the covenant broken?
Allâh the Exalted said:
"But if they break their covenants after its solemnizing it, and attack your religion, then, fight ye the leaders of Kufr, for they (deserve) no covenant ... "

MISCONCEPTION No. 2
They say that: " ... among the victims were some, innocent and sinless."

Response to this is from several points of view:
1. Sa'ab bin Jathamah (may Allâh be pleased with him) reported from that the Prophet was asked about the people in the homes of Mushrikûn (Polytheists) when they are attacked at night and their women and children are affected, he said: "they are part of them".

So, this hadîth shows that women, children and all those the killing of whom is forbidden, when they are separate, it is permissible to kill them when they are mixed up with the fighters and it is not possible to separate. This is because they had asked the Prophet about the case which is "attacking at night", in which case it is not possible to differentiate, and he permitted them because "things may be allowed when they occur along the way but be forbidden when separate."

2. Also, Muslim commanders have always used Catapult when fighting the Kuffar (a kind of weapon that was used in the past when trying to break into an enemy camp which is fully fortressed - it destroys whatever it meets by its weight, i.e. something like a catapult - translator), and it is obvious that a Catapult when applied in a war does not differentiate between a fighter and others, hence it may afflict some those so-called 'innocent souls', but that not withstanding this is an established practice among Muslims in their wars.

Ibn Qudâmah, may Allâh have mercy on him, said: "And it is permissible to use the Catapult because the Prophet may the salât and salâm be with him used Catapult on the people of Tâ'if; and Amr bin al-Âs did the same to the people of Alexandria." (Al-Mughnî, vol. 10, p503)

And Ibn al-Qâsim said, " ... it is permissible to use the Catapult against Kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertently, because Nikayah (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the consensus of the Ulamâh. Ibn Rushd said: 'Nikayah is permissible according to Ijmâ' and on any type of polytheists.' " (Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271)
Here, there is a question we will like to ask those who use the word "Terrorism" on what happened in America, and I want their reply.

The question is: When America attacked a Pharmaceutical firm in Sudan, using its planes and bombs, destroying it and killing everybody in it, staff and labourers, what was this called? Shouldn't the action of America in the Sudanese firm be considered as an act of terrorism? Else how can what those people did in America be treated as an act of terrorism? Why is everybody condemning and rejecting what was done to those buildings in America and yet we did not hear any such condemnations on the destruction caused by America in the Sudanese firm?

I certainly don't see any difference between the two acts, except that the money that was used in building the firm is Muslims' and the workers and staff killed by destroying the firm were Muslims; Whereas, the buildings destroyed by those hijackers was built with the money of non-Muslims and the victims of the explosion were non-Muslims.

So, is this the difference that made some fellow brothers to call what happened in America 'Terrorism'!! While at the same time they neither condemned what happened in Sudan, nor called it TERRORISM?

Similarly, what happened to the Libyans of deliberate and imposed 'starvation'; 'starvation' of the Irâqis plus almost daily attacks; the sanctions and attacks launched against Afghanistân, a Muslim Nation: all these, why are they not termed "terrorism"? What else can we term them if not terrorism?

In addition, we should ask those people, what do you mean by "innocent and sinless"?

Those are one of three categories/groups:
The first category:
They may be among those who neither fought, nor supported their country by their persons, wealth or opinion and suggestions or anything else. It is not permissible to kill this category, on condition that they can be differentiated from the rest, but if they are mixed up such that they can't be separated, then it is allowed to kill them along with the others and by extension, like old men, women, children, the sick and the disabled or devoted monks.
Ibn Qudâmah said: "It is allowed to kill women and children in night attacks and in demolished buildings or ditches, so far as the intention is not to kill them in particular; And it is allowed to kill their (the enemies') animals as a means for killing and subduing them; there is no difference of opinion on this." (Al-Mughnî, with the Sharh - commentary, 10/503)

Similarly he said: "It is permissible to attack enemies at night. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: 'there is no problem with night attacks, were the Romans not attacked at night?' And he said: 'we don't know anybody who disliked night attacks' " (Al-Mughnî 10/503)

The second category: Or, they (the victims) may be part of those who did not participate directly in the war but helped with their wealth or opinions, these cannot be called "innocent", nay they are among the fighters and part of the strength of the enemy.

Ibn Abdil-Barr may Allâh has mercy on him, said in Al-Istizkar: "There is no dispute among the scholars that whoever fights among women or old men, killing him is allowed, similarly, any child capable of fighting , if he does may be killed." (Al-Istizkar vol. 14, p 74).

Similarly, Ibn Qudâmah reported the Ijmâ' on killing women, children and old men if they help their people; Ibn Abdil-Barr said: "They have a consensus on the fact that the Prophet killed Duraid on the Day of the Battle of Hunayn because he was an experienced in war and contributed his opinions. Thus whoever is like that among old men deserves to be killed according to all (scholars)." (At-Tamhîd, vol. 16 p 142)

And an-Nawawî, may Allâh have mercy on him related the Ijmâ' (in Sharh Sahîh Muslim in "the Book of Jihâd") that elderly men among the non-Muslims should be killed if they have knowledge of war strategies.

Ibn Qâsim also quoted in Al-Hashiyat that: " ... they had Ijmâ' that the ruling concerning any strategist is that of any fighter in Jihâd. This Ijmâ' was reported from Ibn Taymiyyah. Similarly, he related from Ibn Taymiyyah that "those who assist a group and their helpers are (to be considered) part of them, in whatever is for or against them."

The third Category:
Or they may be Muslims, and it is not permissible for these to be killed separately; But when they are mixed up with others in such a way that they have to be killed with them, then it is allowed, and these is the case known as 'Mas'alatut Tatarrus' (when non-Muslims hold Muslims as shield against attack), which was discussed earlier.
Thus, what many are babbling and repeating on the case of the "innocent victims", is nothing but the effect of the West and its media, to the extent that many an unwary person repeats the words and expressions of our enemies, which are in direct contradiction with the expressions of Sharî'ah.

Let us not, also, forget that it is permissible for us to treat non-Muslims similar to the way they treated us; and in this there is a reply and clear proof to all those who repeat the words "innocent victims", because Allâh the Exalted has made that. Among the texts on that:

"Thus, if you retaliate, retaliate with what equals the aggression afflicted upon you" and He said:
"...and those whom, when an aggression afflicts them, they revenge, but the reward of an evil is an evil equal to it."

Also among the sayings of scholars on the permissibility of taking revenge:
Ibn Taymiyyah said: " ... it is their right to mutilate. So it is their right to do it in revenge and payback in the same coins, OR they may waive it, but patience is better. This is in a case where the mutilation does not lead to a gain in the Jihâd, and it is not for an equal treatment from them (the enemies); But when mutilating them will lead to their accepting the faith or warn them against another aggression, then, it is - in this case - part of recommended Jihâd and retribution." (This was quoted
by Ibn Muflih in Al-Furu' vol.6 p.218)

Else, whoever says that there are "innocent victims" without any differentiation between their categories, must accept that he is accusing the Prophet and the Companions and those after them that they killed "innocent victims", according to them! Because the Prophet used Catapult in his war against Tâ'if, and it is the nature of Catapult that it does not differentiate.

Similarly, the Prophet sallallâhu 'alayhi wa sallam killed all whom those who had attained puberty among the Jews of Banî Quraydah without differentiating between them.

Ibn Hazm, commenting on the hadîth that "Banû Quraidah were paraded before the Prophet, and he ordered the killing of all those who had attained puberty," said: " ... this is a general ruling from the Prophet, since he did not leave out an old man, a merchant, a farmer or any other person; this was related from him with genuine Ijmaa' " (Al-Muhallâ vol. 6 p. 299)

Ibn al-Qayyim said in 'Zâdul Ma'âd': "it is part of his guidance (i.e. the Prophet's) that whenever he made a pact with some people and they broke the covenant, or some of them broke the agreement, and the rest supported them on that, and accepted it; he fights all of them and considers all as having broken the covenant. As he did to Banû Qurayzah and Banû an-Nadhîr and Banû Qaynuqa', and as he treated the people of Makkah. So this is Sunnah (method or approach to those who betray their covenants."

Similarly, he said: "Ibn Taymiyyah has certainly ruled that the Christians of Mashriq should be fought when they assisted the enemies of the Muslims against them, and helped them with their wealth and weapons, despite the fact that they did not did not fight us. He considered them to have broken the covenant as Quraysh did during the time of the Prophet by helping Banû Bakr bin Wa'il in fighting those in alliance with the prophet."

In conclusion, we all know that the non Muslim west, especially America will definitely seize this opportunity and utilize that in its favour and through fresh injustice to the Muslims in Afghanistân and Palestine, Chechnya and other areas, whoever the perpetrators may be. And they will try to eradicate Jihâd and those who engage in it and it will never succeed; and they will do that in the name of fighting Terrorism; and they will go ahead and fight our brothers in faith, in the Talibân ruled, Muslim Nation of Afghanistân, the only nation that has given a cover for genuine Mujâhidîn and assists them at a time when everybody has forsaken them, and who never bowed down to the Non-Muslim Western nations.

Thus, it is compulsory to assist this Islâmic Nation in Jihâd, with whatever we can Allâh the Exalted says:
"The Believers, men and women, are helpers of one another,"
And He said, "Help each other in righteousness and obedience"

Thus, it is compulsory to assist them with wealth and persons and opinions and advices and through the Media by defending them and their honour and their public image; and through prayers for them that they vanquish the enemy and have steadfastness.

And like we said, it is compulsory upon all Muslims to help the Talibân Government it is also equally compulsory upon the Muslim Governments especially the neighbouring countries to assist them against the Kufr of the West.
And let those know that that failing to assist Talibân that is being fought for its religion and because of the help it gives to Mujâhidîn and, assisting the kuffar against them is the kind of friendship and support of the kuffar that Allâh warned against when He said:

"Believers, take not my enemy and your enemy as friends in whom you put love."

And He said "Believers take not my enemy and yours as protecting friends."

Certainly it will go down in history that these countries betrayed their brothers and it will remain as a kind of bad record on them and their people that will remain forever!!
Similarly let those neighbouring and nearby countries beware that if they refuse to help the brothers and allowed the enemy to attack them, that Allâh may face them with His Natural Disasters and terrible situations as a punishment and chastisement on them. The Prophet said a Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he does not forsake or betray him ... and he also said in a hadîth Qudsî: "Allâh said "Whoever fights my Friend should get ready for war with Me And He said "Whoever allowed a Muslim to be humiliated while he could assist him, Allâh will humiliate him in front of the entire creation on the Day of Judgment." (reported by Ahmad).

And we wish to remind the Pakistan Government that allowing the Americans, the enemies of Muslims, to use their land is not informed by wisdom nor borne out of experience politics at all because it will lead to giving the opportunity for America to discover their secrets of their country and know the location of its nuclear power with all precision and something that has terrified the West, and that may lead to the Americans giving the Jews the chance to attack the Nuclear Plants in Pakistan as they did those of Irâq earlier. And why does Pakistan trust America is enemy that has been warning and warning them!

I really think that the reasonable personalities in Pakistan will not allow it, not to mention their Good Muslims will ever accept this nor will they just fold their arms and watch surrender to their enemies of yesterday.
We pray to Allâh that He helps His Religion and raises His Word and exalts Islâm and the Muslims and the Mujâhidîn and to destroy America and its followers and those who assist them. Verily He has that Power and is Able to do so.
Wa-sallâhu wa-sallam 'alâ Muhammad wa aalihi wa sahbihi was-sallam

__________________
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."[2:191]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.