NNM wrote in a message

It was questioned by al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim due to its discrepant chains although the authorities term them strong.

The poking is mentioned in the narration of Abu Dawud and - with many chains - Ahmad from the Companion Yaʿish ibn Tikhfa or Tighfa ibn Qays al-Ghifari (ra) with good chains.

One good-chained narration in Ibn Majah and Ahmad comes from Tikhfa (ra) himself, also a Companion.

One weak-chained narration by Ibn Majah comes from Abu Dharr (ra).

There are four alternate wordings: "On his/my stomach/face." There are also the wordings: "This is a posture Allah abhors" and "This is the posture of the people of Hellfire." These are strong warnings.

Other strong-chained narrations in al-Tirmidhi and Ahmad, both from Abu Hurayra (ra), do not mention the poking. See a documentation of its chains in Sahih Ibn Hibban (Risala ed. 12:359-360).

First, he lacks adab that borders on kufr in criticizing an action that may well have been done by the Prophet ﷺ and second, the meaning of such an act is understood from its actual context, not from anachronistic speculation.

Reply:

The Prophet said - Allah bless and greet him:

"May Allah curse women who wear false hair or arrange it for others, who tatoo or have themselves tatooed, who pluck facial hair or eyebrows or have them plucked, and women who separate their front teeth for beauty, altering what Allah has created!"

Al-Dhahabi cited it in al-Kaba'ir [the Enormities] and he said: "It is agreed upon [by al-Bukhari and Muslim]." Both al-Dhahabi and al-Haytami include plucking off facial hair among the enormities.

The enormity lies in the permanency of the change as elucidated by the phrase "altering what Allah has created." Impermanent changes such as dyeing or trimming hair are not prohibited. So the prohibition does not preclude the use of scissors for clipping, and Allah knows best. There are also exceptions to the prohibition on women plucking off facial hair:

Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani said in Fath al-Bari (10:378) in commentary of this hadith:

Mufti Lajpuri's Fatawa Rahimiyya even states it is required (wajib) for her to pluck such hair from her face.

Ibn Hajar did not reject the hadith but said that there was an apparent contradiction between its wording of sixty cubits and the archeological findings of the people of Thamud whose distance from the time of Adam (as), he said, "is less than the time elapsed between them and the beginning of this Umma." This is phrased as just a thought that causes the explanation of the hadith to be problematic, not a rejection of the basis of the hadith. Further, one might see a problem in the objection itself.

In sum, (1) the assumption that Ibn Hajar "rejected" the hadith of the sixty cubits is inaccurate even if thus forwarded by M. Zubair Siddiqi in his _Hadith Literature_ and (2) the problem raised by Ibn Hajar is open to question.

The knowledge imparted by hadith is assumptive (zanni) and becomes categorically binding only with the mutawatir.

Further, is there true conflicting information here, i.e. correctly interpreted and dated findings?

nowadays, many people write sal'am (in urdu) or SAW (in English), this is extremely forbidden and Haraam.

Subhan Allah! Not true.

Yes to all three.

Deobandi = Pertaining to the school of Deoband, India, which is principally Hanafi. Wahhabi = Pertaining to the school of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab presently followed by the Saudis.

Allah does not take to task a people before He sends them a messenger.

After that very last sign (the rising of the sun from the West) there would be no time for a newborn to grow into the age of accountability in which repentence comes into play.

They are in the very midst of means and the heartland of belief (Syro-Palestine).

We will be questioned about Salat and then the way we spent our lives and property. If it was done correctly, it is all Jihad.

One should ask for Shahada in one's duʿa and Allah is able to grant it in the way He sees fit.

The answer is in the question. One is not held accountable for something in which one is not at fault. The lexical Iʿjaz of the Qur'an is a miracle directed first and foremost at Arabic speakers, most especially the Arabs. Hence an obdurate Christian or Jewish Arab is irremediable.

Allah requires worship but does not need it. The Angels were created to worship and obey Allah. The two propositions are compatible.

The last sentence is not agreed upon among those who have delved the topic, which excludes us for good reason: knowing and meeting our own human responsibilities is by far the priority.

Keep a good opinion of your Lord, focus on regular practice beginning with the five prayers, read the lives of the Awliya' after your daily page(s) of Qur'an, and (intend to) keep company with traditional Sufis. May Allah have mercy on you and all of us.

Wa ʿalaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah:

In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim from Abu Saʿid al-Khudri (ra):

[After a distribution of the spoils] There got up a man with sunken eyes, raised cheek bones, raised forehead, a thick beard, a shaven head and a waist sheet that was tucked up and he said, "O Allah's Apostle! Be afraid of Allah." The Prophet said, "Woe to you! Am I not of all the people of the earth the most entitled to fear Allah?" Then that man went away. Khalid bin Al-Walid said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I chop off his head?" The Prophet said, "No, for he may offer prayers." Khalid said, "Numerous are those who offer prayers and say by their tongues (i.e. mouths) what is not in their hearts." Allah's Apostle said, "I have not been ordered to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies." Then the Prophet looked at him (i.e. that man) while the latter was going away and said, "From the offspring of this (man there will come out (people) who will recite the Qur'an continuously and elegantly but it will not exceed their throats. (They will neither understand it nor act upon it). They would go out of the religion (i.e. Islam) as an arrow goes through a game's body." I think he also said, "If I should be present at their time I would kill them as the nations a Thamud were killed."

In Sahih Muslim from Anas (ra):

The Companions were talking about Malik ibn Dukhshum, and they wished that the Prophet ﷺ would curse him so that he should die or meet some calamity. The Prophet ﷺ said: "Does Malik ibn Dukhshum not testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah?" They said: "Yes, he no doubt says this but it is not in his heart." The Prophet ﷺ replied: "No-one ever witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah's Messenger and then enters the Fire nor is consumed by it." Anas said: "This hadith impressed me so much that I ordered my son to write it down and he did." Muslim narrates it.

2:112 Nay, but whosoever surrendereth his purpose to Allah while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. Also 4:125 and 31:22.

There is consensus in the commentaries that these verses point to the two conditions of acceptance of any deed in Islam: 1- It must conform with the Divine Law 2- It must stem from sound intention.

This is why the Sufi Masters stressed knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunna first, then purification of the nafs. Without realizing these two goals, one's faith and deeds remain vulnerable to destruction.

However, one should advise oneself first and the Prophet ﷺ said that the best duʿa is that one makes for oneself. This is because only through reforming oneself can one help others. Short of this it is only the blind leading the blind, even with so-called best intentions.

Al-Shaʿrani said in Lawaqih al-Anwar [al-ʿUhud al-Muhammadiyya]:

"The general covenant was taken from us by Allah's Messenger -- Allah bless and greet him -- that we should not dispute in one of the sciences of the Law except with the intention of supporting the Religion and on the conditions of sincerity and full consciousness (hudur) of Allah Almighty and Exalted. These [intention and conditions] must be based on unveiling (kashf), not conjecture, self-display, heedlessness, or presumption; and with the texts of the authorities before his eyes.

"One who undertakes such work must have a teacher imbued with the sciences of the Law who has looked into the totality of the proofs of the Schools that are practiced and studied, trained in the path of the [Sufi] Folk in the degrees of sincerity.

"As for one who puts this covenant into practice without a teacher, then he is in the majority of cases displaying himself."

And Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril

As-Salamu ʿalaykum wa rahmatullah:

Yes, because there must be positive knowledge or conviction of the haraam nature of an animal food or ingredient, or of its slaughtering process for that food or ingredient to be haraam. Mere suspicion is enough for abstaining, out of scrupulosity, from eating at or entering such places, but not enough for declaring it impermissible. And Allah knows best.

Makruh if one can do otherwise, haram if one does so just because they sell alcohol or to support or promote such sale. And Allah knows best.

We are at the lowest point in the history of the resurgence of Islam right now except for the Friends of Allah that are scattered here and there on the globe, and even they are not permitted to show themselves. The phase is downhill with respect to the beginning of the Umma, and uphill with respect to the expectation of deliverance. The latter was described in great detail in the narrations pertaining to the Fitan and the conditions of the Last Hour.

Keep Salat, travel to visit a holy person, and remember that { the Hour is near} and { Do not let length of time harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you} .

They didn't. They entered into a larger scheme of history at a time Allah saw fit to more fully disclose to us what happens when we put the world before the hereafter.

Sincerity and your best effort in addressing their need from you if they have any, and trust in Allah to do the rest.

It is fard to keep not only hope but certainty that Allah will re-establish the Khilafa, and its signs are all around us so we know it is very near, and He will do so with or without us regardless of the presumed obstacles. The Khilafa is divinely appointed, it is not a question of human organization or power. AND THERE IS NO KHILAFA BEFORE AL-MAHDI.

ʿAli and Ibn ʿUmar - Allah be well-pleased with them - detested chess because of those who neglected worship due to it and because of the gambling and betting involved. This is why it was forbidden (cf. Sahih Muslim vol. IV,no. 5612) and the Faqih of Madina, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad - Allah be well-pleased with him - said: "All that distracts from remembrance of Allah and Salat is dice (maysar)."

Otherwise, al-Nawawi said "In our school it is makruh, not haram, and this is the position reported from a number of the Tabiʿin" while al-Qurtubi said in his Tafsir, it is permitted once in a while without being disliked according to the vast majority of the Fuqaha' and despite the misleading words of Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, "Malik, Abu Hanifa, and Ahmad stipulated that chess is haram while al-Shafiʿi disliked it."

It is established that Abu Hurayra (who entered Islam in the year 7 after the Hijra) and others of the pious Salaf played chess - but not as an all-consuming activity. In the final analysis the correct position in the matter seems that of Imam al-Shafiʿi - Allah be well-pleased with him - who said: "It is disliked and not forbidden, for a number of the Companions played it and countless of the Tabiʿin and those after them" while the Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: "There is not one firmly-established narration to prohibit chess, neither sahih nor hasan." [Fayd al-Qadir.]

Note: The hadith "Whoever plays chess and dice is as one who dipped his hand in swine's blood" is inauthentic. The correct wording does not mention chess but only dice, narrated from Burayda by Imam Muslim in his Sahih.

Lahw. Israf.

Add the condition that the one with the most points has to give a ten-minute talk on a verse or hadith of his choice after they finish playing and eating.

Hajj Gibril

Wa ʿalayk as-Salam. The evidence is Ijmaʿ of the Umma. The wellsprings of the Law are Four: Qur'an - Sunna - Ijmaʿ - Qiyas. There is Consensus about the first three, so it is useless to dispute the validity of Ijmaʿ as a principle, and it is further useless to dispute the fact that its definition does not take into account the non-Sunni sects. I agree with you that this may appear highly arbitrary but it is a Divine Hukm with its roots solidly planted in the Qur'an and Sunna and you will need, not polls of fellow US Muslims, but an actual teacher in Usul to help you begin to see that. Otherwise, you are probably wasting your time. Success is from Allah.

Hajj Gibril

Their decision is probably based on (1) the Prophetic example and (2) the Prophetic injunction to ʿAli and others and therefore is not "unIslamic" in absolute terms as the above seems to suggest. What he may have meant is that it is unIslamic at this point in time because it is illegible to the world other than as an act of inept barbarism.

It seems Mr.Siddiqui needs to brush up on the Sira or at least watch the movie "The Message" which is accurate enough to correct himself in the above respect. The Prophet ﷺ certainly did not ask anyone but went ahead and toppled, destroyed, erased, and removed the idols and images from outside and inside the Kaʿba even when many of the Kuffar had not yet accepted Islam, much less helped him eradicate them.

Mr. Siddiqui should brush up on al-Bukhari and Muslim also. The Prophet ﷺ gave explicit orders for the Muslims to raze any worshipped grave and/or statues or other pagan symbols wherever they saw them. Do not confuse the latter with churches and synagogues.

This is by and large true and correct. The Salaf left those statues in place in Afghanistan although they were more scrupulous and closer to the time of sheer idolatry than we. Why pretend that we must do something that they and all our pious predecessors did not consider such destruction necessary nor even recommended? What is worse, the Afghans have huge problems and priorities which they have not yet addressed, much less resolved.

I agree. On the matter of Tawhid there is no fear that such statues pose a threat to the Religion in that part of the world, nor that the pyramids of Luxor form a risk that pharaonic cults make a comeback in the land of Egypt. I believe this and other recent examples show a real lack of wisdom and compassion in this orphaned and widowed Muslim land upon which trod the feet of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ . Add to this that the primary income of the Talibans is apparently the cultivation and exportation of drug plants, which is completely illicit. No, this cannot possibly be Islam. May Allah forgive us and change us for the better.

Hajj Gibril

and also:

When Mecca was conquered the Prophet ﷺ destroyed the idols of the Kaʿba and sent out ʿAli (ra) and others to destroy any statue and grave used for worship that they would find. Muslim troops would be sent out to that effect. But at the same time Muslims invited non-Muslims into the fold of a new order of previously unseen justice and civilization. Today, Muslims are weak again. And what is being offered to non-Muslims, apparently, except defiance and scorn?

Hajj Gibril

The Most Holy, Blessed, Sanctified, and Exalted Prophet ﷺ said that this world is unholy except for four things: Dhikr of Allah, all that relates to it, the ʿalim, and his student.

The Qur'an is holy. The Prophet ﷺ is holy. The friends of Allah Most high are holy. Ibn al-Jawzi in the introduction to Sifat al-Safwa (his dictionary of Awliya) said: "They [the Saints] are the purpose of creation." Everything that is related to Allah Most High is holy and never perishes while everything else is Batil.

Here are Ibn al-Jawzi's words:

"The Friends of Allah and the Righteous are the very purpose of all that exists (al-awliya wa al-salihun hum al-maqsud min al-kawn), they are those who learned and practiced with the reality of knowledge... Those who practice what they know, do with little in the world, seek the next world, remain ready to leave from one to the other with wakeful eyes and good provision, as opposed to those renowned purely for their knowledge." Sifat al-safwa (Beirut ed. 1989/1409) p. 13, 17.

Probably, the confusion comes from not understanding the words that we use and tending to limit their use arbitrarily.

I vaguely remember an interesting etymological and comparative discussion on the meaning of the English word "holy" ( Germanic?) in Martin Lings' booklet - available in print - _Ancient Beliefs and Modern Superstitions_.

Then I saw the responses from Brothers Dhul-Qarnayn and Mahmud Khan for which I am grateful.

The discussion brought to mind also, that it is a very small step from saying he ﷺ is "just a human being" to denying his Prophetship because the greatest proof of Prophetship is the muʿjiza, meaning "overwhelming miracle". It was called muʿjiza because it overwhelms human capacity (mental and physical) to deny, reject, or come up with anything the like of it. Those who pretend to be not overwhelmed, i.e. the liars who cover up the truth, use expressions like "he is just a human being like us." This is a recurrent theme in the Qur'an, quoting the disbelievers.

No sincere Muslim will say any such thing, except by mistake. Those who believe rather use words like, "he is a special, unique human being who receives Divine revelation and converses with heavenly beings. He is not just a human being like us." Qadi ʿIyad in al-Shifa' said the truth is, Prophets are human only in externals. Internally Allah Most High gives them angelic hearts so that they can receive revelation.

At least we should say "The Prophets are human beings the like of whom crush the imagination and boggle the minds of normal human beings." That would be a truly scientific observation.

Hence Hassan ibn Thabit said:

The above in Arabic, by the way, is a RUQYA for facilitating child delivery bi idhnillah. Its design is described in al-Zurqani's commentary on al-Qastallani's Mawahib al-Laduniyya, chapter on the Names of the Prophet ﷺ .

Similarly the Companions compared him ﷺ to a Light Illuminating Darkness, to the Full Moon Without Eclipse, to the Peerless One from the Hashemite House, to ... to.... but never did you hear any of them use such a miserly expression as "he is just a human being."

Contact with awliya' is astronomical enough for us. Or even reading a book by one of them such as al-Ibriz, overwhelms the mind enough to prevent us from calling even them "just human beings". With Prophets, in truth we must hang our heads in shame even lower but there is no more room. Our stiff-necked brothers will say we are making sajda.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©

"Muhammad is the noblest of the Arabs and ʿAjam. Muhammad is the best of those who trod the earth." (Al-Busiri)

This was a helpful post to which can be added the following precision by Shaykh Ahmad Rida Khan - Allah sanctify his secret.

In al-Dawla al-Makkiyya he says that all agree that knowledge of the creature is like a drop or less in the ocean of Divine knowledge. The difference between the two parties is that Ahl al-Sunna consider the drop of the Prophet's knowledge to be a huge ocean in comparison to the drop of everybody else's knowledge.

So yes, the Prophet's knowledge has boundaries, but those boundaries cannot be known by other human beings so they do not exist in relation to them. And Allah knows best.

GF Haddad

There is a stronger, MUTAWATIR hadith in al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, Malik, and al-Darimi that states:

From ʿA'isha:

"I used to prepare the garlands of the sacrificial animals of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ then he would send his sacrificial animals to the Kaʿba; and he refrained from none of all the things from which the muhrim refrains until the slaughter of the sacrifices."

Another wording states: "He ﷺ would stay away from nothing and quit nothing at that time."

According to the vast majority of the authorities including Imams al-Shafiʿi, Abu Hanifa, Malik, and their Schools, it is neither obligatory to not touch the hair and nails nor haram to do so. The Sunna in fact indicates two things and the resolution of this apparent contradiction is that it is a *recommended sunna* and NOT obligatory to refrain from cutting hair and nails until the sacrifice is offered.

As for the "soundest opinion" mentioned above is only according to the Hanbali madhhab and this should have been mentioned in keeping with Islamic criteria of faithful Nasiha! For the vast majority, however, including Imams al-Shafiʿi, Abu Hanifa, Malik, and their Schools, hair and nails may be cut like at any other time, although al-Shafiʿi considers it somewhat disliked (makruh tanzihi) and so does Malik in one of the two positions reported from him, while Abu Hanifa sees no dislike in it whatsoever. And Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©

There are more than two hundred years between Imam al-Ghazzali and Imam Ahmad - Allah have mercy on them and be well-pleased with them - and the latter's position on this or any other topics surely needs not be taken from outside his madhhab or other than those directly connected with him.

Secondly, assuming the veracity of the report, the meaning of the question put to Imam Ahmad would be: Can we narrate the hadiths from the owner of the paper as if he had given us ijaza? This method of narrating from the original source a "found" (wujida) document is called ijaazat al-wijaada and is mentioned among the types of isnaads in Manhaj al-Naqd fi ʿUlum al-Hadith by our teacher Dr. Nur al-Din ʿItr. The Imams of hadiths are known to differ on this particular issue. Imam Ahmad's position is that an ijaza to narrate through wijaada is invalid - while many or most other authorities accept it as valid. In fact, our fashion of saying, X (who perhaps died 200 years ago) said in his book... is a type of wijaada transmission the validity of which everybody takes for granted.

You can see that if this evidence were relevant it would actually draw attention to the jumhur's position which is the opposite of what al-Buti is attempting to support, except that the evidence, as I said, is not relevant to copyright issues but to the validity of a specific technique of hadith or other narration.

There is undoubted consensus that the rule "whoever owns something has the right to dispense of it in whatever way he likes" applies for true ownership i.e. of tangible possessions over which there is no doubt that the right of property extends and applies. The issue here, however, is a moral or abstract type of property called "intellectual property," over which there is disagreement in the Shariʿa, the other side arguing that there is no such thing as intellectual ownership in Islam other than the common good of the believers. This is the viewpoint of the Hanafi Shaykh Adib al-Kallas the student of Sayyidi Abu al-Yusr Ibn ʿAbidin rahimahullah, as I heard it luminously exposed last ʿEid in his home in Damascus although most of the mustaftis around him were hoping to hear otherwise. But he was firm in his answer: Once out there, it belongs to everyone - and there many proofs to support this fatwa - especially if it is part of the knowledge of the Shariʿa, which is the common property of the believers. WAllahu aʿlam.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©

There is no provision for you to write off the outstanding money owed to you against a zakat payable amount owed by you, because zakat is paid for wealth that has been in one's possession for a year, and out of that same wealth. At the very least, it must be paid out of wealth that is in one's possession. Whereas the money owed to you is not in your possession nor has it been for a number of years. Secondly, supposing your friend were eligible for zakat remittance, nevertheless it is invalid to use a pardon of his debt as a zakat remittance. For a zakat remittance to be valid, the actual, tangible zakat must go from the muzakki's hand to that of the beneficiary(ies). The only way this could be done in the present case would be for him to remit you his debt, then for you to give it right back to him as zakat of your other money. I heard this fatwa from Shaykh Adib Kallas and Shaykh Wahbi al-Zuhayli in Damascus. And Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©

Tatoos are forbidden for both men and women except in certain war and child-abduction situations when tribesmen feared the probability of losing their sons and daughters to the enemy. If one had them before reverting to Islam then there is no offence whatsoever and Allah knows best.

Following are the bases for the prohibition of tattoos in Islam.

The meaning of the verse [And obey the Prophet] (4:59, 5:92, etc.) is not that the Prophet ﷺ is also a judge whose orders and prohibitions are law issuing from him rather than Allah Most High. Allah Most High declared the obligatoriness of obeying the Prophet ﷺ only in the sense that He made it obligatory for us to obey him in whatever he ﷺ orders and makes obligatory for us to do. It is Allah Most High Who makes it obligatory for us both to obey and to do, except that the order for some of the acts are formulated by the Prophet ﷺ. Such formulation is only a proof or sign of Allah's own binding order. The meaning of [And obey the Prophet] is therefore "Know that whatever the Prophet ﷺ commands or forbids you to do, it is I Who commands and forbids you to do" as explicited in the verse [And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids, abstain from it] (59:7). Without such order, the Prophet's ﷺ command would not have been binding upon us. Illustrating this principle is the following narration from ʿAlqama:

ʿAbd Allah ibn Masʿud ra said: "Allah Most High curses women who tatoo others, women who have tatoo applied to them, women who have their eyebrows clipped, and women artificially tooth-gapped, all for cosmetic purposes, changing Allah's fashioning." News of this reached a woman of Banu Asad called Umm Yaʿqub. She came to him saying: "O Abu ʿAbd al-Rahman! I heard that you cursed such-and-such." He replied: "Why should I not curse those whom Allah's Messenger ﷺ cursed?" She said: "Lo! I certainly read all that is between the two covers [of the volume of Qur'an], and I did not find this." He replied: "Had you read it you would have certainly found it. Did you not read [And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids, abstain from it] (59:7)?" She said yes. He said: "Allah's Messenger ﷺ forbade it."

Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah in their Sunan, Ahmad and al-Darimi in their Musnads, al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7:312) and Shuʿab al-Iman (6:170), Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (12:314), ʿAbd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf (3:145 #5103), al-Humaydi in his Musnad (1:53), and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr in Jamiʿ Bayan al-ʿIlm (2:1181-1182 #2336-2337). Al-Dhahabi narrated it in al-Kaba'ir [the Enormities] and he said: "It is agreed upon [by Bukhari and Muslim]."

Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani said in Fath al-bari (10:378) in commentary of this hadith:

Nawawi said: "An exception from the prohibition of plucking away facial hair is when a woman has a beard, mustache, or hair growing between her lower lip and chin, in which cases it is not unlawful for her to remove it, but rather is commendable (mustahabb)," the permissibility being on condition that her husband knows of it and gives his permission, though it is prohibited if he does not, because of the deception it entails. End of excerpt.

Mufti Lajpuri in his Fatawa Rahimiyya declared it required (wajib) for her to pluck such hair from her face.

There is a kind of temporary metaphorical "tattoo" that is desirable for women: to dye the hands and feet with henna. Of course women also use it for the face and hair, and men for the beard. In some countries of the Borneo peninsula men also apply it on their hands and feet on the occasion of weddings, although it is actually forbidden in their [Shafiʿi] madhhab. However, it would be wrong to call all this tattoo since that word lexically means an _indelible_ marking of the skin.

A man came to the Prophet, Peace be upon him, with his hands dyed with saffron. This is a removable, temporary skin ornament, yet the Prophet ﷺ did not even return his salam. All he said to him was: Go wash this away. He went and came back, and there was a little bit left. Again the Prophet ﷺ did not address him except to tell him to wash it away more thoroughly. So this is a lesson for men that decorating/altering the skin in such manner is not allowed.

Another factor which makes it prohibited is that tatooing is the fashion of unbelievers, and the Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever looks [i.e. wilfully] like a people is one of them." And Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©

s-Salamu ʿalaykum:

In his beautiful page on "Studying Islam in Yemen,"
(xL =broken link 2020-10-02: http://www.abuhanifah.8m.com/Yemen.html), brother S E says, "It is more important that the shaykh love the student than that the student love the shaykh."
This sentence drew my attention because it obviously came out from personal experience and so must be very true to the one who experienced its meaning.
However, Sidi ʿAbd al-ʿAziz al-Dabbagh in al-Ibriz stated that in reality, the very reverse is true. Meaning, it is absolutely vital for the student to love the Shaykh and far more important than vice-versa.
The reason for this is that the love of the student for his Shaykh is an eye and ear-opener, it brings out the best in the student and prepares in the best way to learn from the Shaykh. The Shaykh always loves his students, he loves those Allah has placed in his care more than a mother cherishes her infant. However, as much as a Shaykh loves his student, or a father his son, if on the receiving end there are only deaf ears and a rush to misguidance, then on the giving end there is nothing that can be done. I.e. nothing other than ask Allah Most High to guide them beyond the usual causes and effects. Look how much the beloved Messenger of Allah ﷺ loved his uncles and supplicated Allah for their guidance.
The only relation of senior to junior in which the rule does not apply that the junior MUST love the senior to benefit, Sidi ʿAbd al-ʿAziz al-Dabbagh said (qaddas Allahu sirrah), is the relation of Allah to the servant. In the latter relation, if Allah decides to love that servant, then it does not matter at all where or who that servant is: he will be raised instantly and "despite everything" including himself........

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad ©

Like you said, there is a difference of opinion among the Ulema about copyright laws, so they cannot be declared haram. Furthermore, the Shariʿa dictates that the law of the land - yes, ostensibly man-made laws - be obeyed as long as this can be done without disobedience to Allah and the Prophet. And with regard to copyright laws, there is no problem in obeying them in most cases that can be imagined but Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril