Questions about Black Stone

1- Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah  may  Allah  have  mercy  upon  him said, “No inanimate object can be kissed or given salutations except for the Black Stone.”

2- Kissing the Black Stone is an act of worship that is done by only one person at that moment.

3- Some hadiths stated: The Black Stone was sent down (to earth) from Paradise. But their isnad (chain of narrators) is doubtful.

 

4- Some hadiths stated: The Black Stone will testify for those who touched it. But their isnad is doubtful.

5- Some hadiths stated: When the Black Stone was sent down (to earth) from Paradise, it was whiter than milk, but the sins of the children of Adam turned it black. But their isnad is doubtful.

6- It is a stone that can neither bring about benefit nor cause harm, as ‘Umar Al-Farooq  may  Allah  be  pleased  with  him said, and it was proven in the two Saheehs [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

7- While kissing it, one should kindly kiss it and not make a noise (of kissing), as the scholars has stated.

8- It is not permissible for the Muslim to cause crowds and cause annoyance to the Muslims while kissing it. This is the opinion that was adopted by most of the scholars. Ibn ‘Umar  may  Allah  be  pleased  with  him used to kiss it in spite of the crowd.

9- If the Black Stone is stolen (may Allah protect us from this), as it was stolen in the past by the Qaramitah from Ar-Rafidhah, is it permissible to kiss its place?
Answer: It is not permissible to kiss its place, rather, one should say, “Allahu Akbar,” at its place.
10- It was authentically narrated that the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) kissed it with his mouth. It was also authentically narrated that he touched it with a crooked staff that he had with him and then kissed the staff, as was reported in Saheeh Muslim.

11- If a person is unable to kiss it with his mouth or touch it with a crooked staff, then he should touch it with his hand and then kiss it.

12- If a person is unable to kiss it with his mouth, touch it with a crooked staff, or with his hand, but he is able to throw a tip of his ihram over the Stone, is it permissible for him to do so?

Answer: It is permissible to do so for it was reported that Ibn ‘Abbas  may  Allah  be  pleased  with  him used to touch the Stone with his clothes and kiss it. [‘Abdul-Razzaq: Musannaf with a Saheeh chain of narrators]

13- Is it permissible to kiss the Black Stone for some reasons other than Hajj and ‘Umrah?

Answer: Scholars hold the opinion that it is not permissible to kiss the Black Stone as long as one is not in ‘Umrah or Hajj. Imam Malik  may  Allah  have  mercy  upon  him allowed this. The matter should be mentioned in some detail. If kissing the Stone is related to acts of worship such as Hajj or ‘Umrah, then it should be as the other matters that are related to acts of worship and it should not be kissed.

However, if kissing the Stone is related to acts of worship and other things such as honoring and loving it, then it may be kissed at times other than those of ‘Umrah and Hajj. It was authentically narrated in Saheeh Muslim that when ‘Umar  may  Allah  be  pleased  with  him kissed it, he said, "I saw the Messenger of Allah  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) having great love for you."

The Miracles of Islam,

Fourteen centuries ago, Allah sent down the Qur'an. This book of guidance and wisdom calls man to the truth and instructs all human beings to adhere to the values which this mighty revelation contains. From the day of its revelation to the Day of Judgement, this last divine book will remain as the sole guide for humanity. The book of Allah states, “But it is nothing less than a Reminder to all the worlds.” (Qur’an, 68:52)

Ever since the Qur’an was revealed, it has possessed an easily understandable language and tone, accessible to all people and in all times. Allah tells us of this style in the Qur’an: “We have made the Qur’an easy to remember...” (Qur’an, 54:22)

The perfection of the literary language of the Qur’an, the incomparable features of its style and the superior wisdom contained within it are some of the definitive proofs that it represents the Word of our Lord.

In addition, the Qur'an contains within its words many miracles which prove it to be Allah’s Word. One of these attributes is the remarkable number of scientific truths which are contained in the holy book of Islam. In this book which was revealed over fourteen centuries ago to the Prophet Muhammad (saas), there are innumerable examples of information humanity have only been able to uncover by the technology of the 20th and 21st century.

Of course, we should not view the Qur'an as a book of science for it is primarily a book of moral and spiritual guidance. However, many scientific facts that are expressed in an extremely concise and profound manner, within the verses of the Qur’an, have only been discovered by scientists with the aid of the technological advancement of the 20th and 21st century. Quite simply, these facts which we now point out to the reader could not have been known at the time of the Qur'an's revelation, and this is still more proof that the Qur’an is the Word of Allah.

History of islam

 

  Islam could become another. It’s concise (under 200 pages), sympathetic, and clear. Or as clear as a book can be that tries to explain the differences between Umayyads and Abbasids, ulama and mujdadid, Shiis and Sunnis, Sutis known as Whirling Dervishes and Sutis who just sit still and breathe deeply.

Confusion is almost the point. Confronted by Islam in all its dizzying diversity, readers may begin to feel like Whirling Dervishes themselves as old stereotypes suddenly fly from their grasp. Armstrong’s theme is that centuries of conflict between the West and Islam (not to mention centuries of entertainment from Mozart operas to Hollywood movies that feature fiendish Saracens and narrow escapes from cruel sultans) have produced an archetypal Muslim in Western minds. He’s at once intolerant and indolent, despotic and submissive, puritanical and sensual, crafty and primitive, capricious and fatalistic. Above all, he’s a religious fanatic. Any progress in overcoming this image was presumably set back years on Sept. 11 — which is why a book like this is suddenly essential.

In Armstrong’s brisk narrative, the clichés evaporate fast. Islam advocates the enslavement of women? The Prophet Muhammad, as was customary, took numerous wives, but he broke with the harsh treatment of women that prevailed in seventh-century Arabia by giving them considerable respect and freedom. And the Koran — the Islamic scriptures — gave women rights to divorce and inheritance long before Christian Europe did. Jihad? Armstrong says it’s properly translated as ”effort” or ”struggle,” not ”holy war.” And, she adds, the Koran justifies defensive war but ”does not sanctify warfare.” The Arab conquests that created an Islamic empire from Spain to Afghanistan after Muhammad’s death in 632 were not primarily driven by religious motives, the author insists, and the Koran insists ”there shall be no coercion in matters of faith.”

Armstrong doesn’t neglect the dark side of Islamic history, which she notes contains about as many massacres as the dark side of Christian history. But what makes the book so appealing is that it doesn’t reduce Islam to its dark side or any other side. And she finds that Islamic fundamentalism has more in common with other fundamentalisms, including Christian and Jewish, than with Islamic traditions. All, she argues, are modern ideologies born of hatred and fear of modernity — science, individualism, the independence of women. All invent purified versions of the faith that have little to do with authentic origins and practices. Armstrong ascribes the particularly virulent form fundamentalism has taken in the Islamic world to the desperation aroused by the combination of Western secular culture and oppressive Middle Eastern dictatorships. And she points out that Islam’s deepest precepts mix up God and history (and God and politics) more than any other world religion, which can be a formula for fanaticism. But all religions have their demons to overcome, and her history shows that Islam is capable of overcoming its own, even now, when it finds itself with an ungodly number of them.   Islam could become another. It’s concise (under 200 pages), sympathetic, and clear. Or as clear as a book can be that tries to explain the differences between Umayyads and Abbasids, ulama and mujdadid, Shiis and Sunnis, Sutis known as Whirling Dervishes and Sutis who just sit still and breathe deeply.

Confusion is almost the point. Confronted by Islam in all its dizzying diversity, readers may begin to feel like Whirling Dervishes themselves as old stereotypes suddenly fly from their grasp. Armstrong’s theme is that centuries of conflict between the West and Islam (not to mention centuries of entertainment from Mozart operas to Hollywood movies that feature fiendish Saracens and narrow escapes from cruel sultans) have produced an archetypal Muslim in Western minds. He’s at once intolerant and indolent, despotic and submissive, puritanical and sensual, crafty and primitive, capricious and fatalistic. Above all, he’s a religious fanatic. Any progress in overcoming this image was presumably set back years on Sept. 11 — which is why a book like this is suddenly essential.

In Armstrong’s brisk narrative, the clichés evaporate fast. Islam advocates the enslavement of women? The Prophet Muhammad, as was customary, took numerous wives, but he broke with the harsh treatment of women that prevailed in seventh-century Arabia by giving them considerable respect and freedom. And the Koran — the Islamic scriptures — gave women rights to divorce and inheritance long before Christian Europe did. Jihad? Armstrong says it’s properly translated as ”effort” or ”struggle,” not ”holy war.” And, she adds, the Koran justifies defensive war but ”does not sanctify warfare.” The Arab conquests that created an Islamic empire from Spain to Afghanistan after Muhammad’s death in 632 were not primarily driven by religious motives, the author insists, and the Koran insists ”there shall be no coercion in matters of faith.”

Armstrong doesn’t neglect the dark side of Islamic history, which she notes contains about as many massacres as the dark side of Christian history. But what makes the book so appealing is that it doesn’t reduce Islam to its dark side or any other side. And she finds that Islamic fundamentalism has more in common with other fundamentalisms, including Christian and Jewish, than with Islamic traditions. All, she argues, are modern ideologies born of hatred and fear of modernity — science, individualism, the independence of women. All invent purified versions of the faith that have little to do with authentic origins and practices. Armstrong ascribes the particularly virulent form fundamentalism has taken in the Islamic world to the desperation aroused by the combination of Western secular culture and oppressive Middle Eastern dictatorships. And she points out that Islam’s deepest precepts mix up God and history (and God and politics) more than any other world religion, which can be a formula for fanaticism. But all religions have their demons to overcome, and her history shows that Islam is capable of overcoming its own, even now, when it finds itself with an ungodly number of them.