As for any Hadd such as Ridda, Zina, Sariqah, Hirabah, Baghiy, Qisas and others, this must all be applied as this itself is not related to having Bara’ah against the person having it except for Ridda which is still obligatory to be applied. There is no Bara’ah against the Muslim who is obliged a Hadd if he repents and is not a Fasiq. These are still obligations that must be carried out, the same for Ridda. In the case where there is no Hadd obliging, a person does not fight against the parents except if they fight him which is not the same as with other infidels. It is not allowed to obey the parents that involves anything sinful even if it upsets them such as driving them to a church where they will worship other than Allah or traveling with them which causes a person to fall into sins and any other sin. If they harm the child unjustly or commit any evil against the child, this evil must be prevented and Qisas must be applied against the doer by the one who it was done against, this also applies to property taken without right, besides food. Allah says: “And all violations will bring about retaliation” [2:194]. These are obligations of Allah, it applies for everyone, when the evil is changed with the hand it remains obligatory to keep ties with the parents and relatives. This is all also the exact view of Ibn Hazm and others.

It is also important to know that anyone does not have a father if they are born from Zina. The marriages of the Kuffar are valid, the marriages of Muslims are only valid with the conditions met for it. If these conditions are left out on purpose knowingly, the marriage is invalid and if a child is born it is from Zina, such a person only has a mother and not a father. Rasulullah ﷺ said: “The child is for the bed (meaning the child is for the mother) and the stone is for the fornicating male” (6) والله تعالى أعلم .

(1) Sahih al-Bukhari 5984
(2) Sahih al-Bukhari 5990
(3) Sahih Muslim 204
(4) Sahih Muslim 832
(5) Sunan Abi Dawud 2761
(6) Sahih al-Bukhari 6818

The obligation of being good towards the parents, relatives and maintaining the ties are all not Mansukh. Not every kind of goodness in itself indicates Wala’ or goes against Bara’, as I mentioned previously that venerating is one of the ways of Wala’. Allah says: “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes” [60:8]. It is clear that this was revealed after the obligations of having Bara’ah from infidels. There is indication in this Ayah for everything mentioned. This Ayah does not indicate the prohibition of fighting, it only indicates the permissibility of dealing kindly with them. These permissibilities and obligations to do good towards disbelieving relations are all not Mansukh as it is revealed after the obligation of Bara’ah and did not declare Bara’ah against Kuffar as Mansukh. So not all acts of kindness are from Wala’ and are also not venerating. So one obligation did not go against the order for it to become Mansukh and as it is clear.

It is also additionally narrated from that Rasulullah ﷺ said: “The family of so-and-so (Abu Talib) are not my Awliya’. My Waliy is Allah and the righteous believing people. But they (that family) have kinship (Rahm) with whom I will maintain good the ties of kinship” (2).

And Abu Huraira said: “When this Ayah was revealed: ‘And warn your tribe (O Muhammad ﷺ) of near kindred’ [26:214] (This was around 7 AH). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ called the Quraish; so they gathered and he gave them a general warning. Then he made a particular (reference to certain tribes) and said: ‘O sons of Ka’b Ibn Luway, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O sons of Murrah Ibn Ka’b, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O sons of Abd Shams, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O sons of Abd Manaf rescue yourselves from the Fire; O sons of Hashim, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O sons of Abd al-Muttalib, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O Fatimah, rescue thyself from the Fire, for I have no power (to protect you) from Allah in anything except this that I would sustain relationship with you’” (3).

And Rasulullah ﷺ said: “Allah sent me to strengthen the ties of kinship, to destroy idols so that Allah alone should be worshiped and nothing should be associated with Him” (4).

This was all not revealed in early Islam. Rasulullah ﷺ did not severe kinship with them while his relatives were infidels. And if it would be Mansukh it would go against many views which are held by all Madhahib. Such as the permissibility of letting in Messengers sent from lands of the infidels. If it would be Mansukh then the permissibility for that would also be Mansukh. While Ibn Mas’ud said (This was after 9 AH): “When Ibn al-Nawwaha and Ibn Uthal—who are the messengers of Musaylimah—came to Rasulullah ﷺ. Rasulullah ﷺ asked them if they testified that he was the Messenger of Allah. They replied: ‘We testify that Musaylimah is the messenger of Allah.’ Rasulullah ﷺ said: ‘I believe in Allah and His Messenger. By Allah, if it would be allowed to kill sent messengers, I would have cut your heads off’” (5).

This is known in the latest times from the lifetime of Rasulullah ﷺ. The exact time Ayat ul-Sayf was revealed is not known, it is only known that it was revealed very late.

Question: “Is it allowed for a man or woman to make conditions for Nikah, can a woman make it a condition that the man cannot marry other women or make anything a condition?”

The answer: Making such conditions is prohibited and it invalidates the Nikah. No condition is ever permissible except what Allah and his Messenger allowed from conditions. The method: “every condition is permissible except what makes the Halal Haram and the Haram Halal” is false. If it's said: But Rasulullah ﷺ said: “The condition which most deserves to be fulfilled is that by means of which intimacy becomes permissible for you.” (1). They say: “So Rasulullah ﷺ allowed making conditions for Nikah.” This is false, this narration is without any doubt about the conditions that Allah ordered together with the intimacy which becomes allowed with Nikah such as the dowry, obligatory spending from clothing and food, providing for a house, living with her in comfort without causing her hardship, releasing her with good treatment after Talaq. This is without any doubt not about what Allah prohibited with Nikah by which intimacy becomes permissible from conditions that are not what Allah and his Messenger ﷺ allowed, which are all a transgression from the limits set by Allah. If they mention all other Ayat and narrations about the obligation of fulfilling the covenants and obligations, these are all limited to fulfilling that which Allah obliged fulfilling only, it is not regarding conditions that are not obliged by Allah and his Messenger without any doubt. Rasulullah ﷺ said: “What has led people to impose conditions that are not found in the book of Allah? Any condition not found in the book of Allah is false, even if there were a hundred such conditions. The Qur’an is the paramount source of truth, and conditions established by Allah hold unparalleled authority” (2). This applies then for every single condition made that is not from Qur‘an and Sunnah, all of it is false. No condition is ever valid except what is made permissible والله أعلم .

(1) Sahih al-Bukhari 2721
(2) Sahih al-Bukhari 2155

Mawlud al-Sariri al-Maliki admits al-Baji was defeated by Ibn Hazm رحمه الله . Abu Turab said: “No one has refuted Ibn Hazm on Qiyas.” I have clarified this in great detail in Ibtal ul-Qiyas and also every single argument mentioned by al-Baji, Ibn Sam’ani, Ibn Qudamah, Abu Bakr al-Razi al-Jassas, al-Tufi, al-Ghazali, Yusuf Ibn Abd al-Rahman, al-Shanqiti, Ibn Uthaymin, Abu ’Ubayd and others ولله الحمد

Question: “Is it obligatory for someone who has prayed the voluntary Fajr prayer to lie down on his right side? Will the obligatory Subh (Fajr) prayer be invalid if he does not lie down after praying the voluntary Fajr prayer?”

The answer: It is not obligatory so it does not affect the obligatory Subh prayer, as for the narration that Rasulullah ﷺ said: “If any of you prays two Rak’ahs [of voluntary Fajr before the [obligatory] Subh prayer, then he must lie at his right side” (1), this is weak. This narration with this Matn is Shadh and it is a mistake from Abd ul-Wahid Ibn Ziyad al-’Abdi, he is a Thiqah, except that he is Shadh in narrating that Rasulullah ﷺ ordered to lie on the right side. What is preserved is that this was only the actions of Rasulullah ﷺ which does not rule something an obligation, not him ever ordering it. Abd ul-Wahid Ibn Ziyad is a Thiqah, he is declared that by many such as Ibn Ma‘in, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, al-’Ijliy, Yahya al-Qattan, Ya‘qub Ibn Sufyan and others. Except that specifically his narrations from al-A‘mash have defects which occurs in the narration with this Matn. Yahya Ibn Sa‘id said: “I have never seen Abd ul-Wahid Ibn Ziyad al-’Abdi seek a Hadith at al-Basrah and also not al-Kufah, one day we sat with him after Jumu‘ah prayer and I reminded him a narration from al-A‘mash, he did not know a single letter from it” (2). This narration with this Matn is also declared to have defects by Ahmad, al-Dhahabi, al-Zarkashi, al-Munawi and others (3). What is authentic is only that it is the actions from Rasulullah والله أعلم.

(1) Sunan Abi Dawud 1261
Sahih Ibn Hibban 2468
(2) Al-Jarh Wal-Ta‘dil 6/20, 108
(3) Mizan al-I‘tidal 2/672, 5287
Al-Nukat ’Ala Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah 2/161-162
Zad al-Ma‘ad 1/311