What is the distance within which it is obligatory to pray in the mosque?

 21969

Publication : 11-10-2001

Views : 41418

Question

Iam ging to travel to the UK and stay there for one week InshAllah ,the nearest mosque to my residence there is about one and a half kilometres away. Of course I would not here the call to prayer because adhan is not announced in the UK in most places . It would be rather difficult for me to walk this long distance five times a day back and forth for jamaa prayers( I am in very good health but this distance five times daily would be some effort). I know I could take a bus but still would be alot of work when done five times a day. Would it be permissible for me to pray alone at my residence for that week? I have read that the distance beyond which adhan could not be heard is about five kilometres but I believe this is a very long distance indeed to ask anyone to walk to reach the mosque, besides I could not imagine how adhan could be heard anyway from this very long distance even if it is very quiet. I believe there is some mistake in this calculation. Kindly please give me your opinion as to praying at my residence , is it allowed or not?

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

It is obligatory upon the one who hears the call to prayer given in a normal voice, without the use of loudspeakers, to respond and attend the prayer in congregation in the mosque from which the call is given, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever hears the call and does not come [to the mosque], there is no prayer for him, except for one who has an excuse." This was narrated by Ibn Maajah, al-Daaraqutni, Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim with a saheeh isnaad.

Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) was asked what counts as an excuse. He said, "Fear or sickness." Muslim narrated in his Saheeh from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that a blind man said, "O Messenger of Allaah, I do not have anyone to guide me to the mosque; may I have a dispensation to let me pray in my house?" The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "Can you hear the call to prayer?" He said, "Yes." He said, "Then respond."

In Saheeh Muslim it is narrated that Ibn Mas'ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "Whoever wants to meet Allaah tomorrow as a Muslim, then let him pray these prayers regularly when the call for them is given, for Allaah has shown your Prophet the ways of guidance, and they are part of the ways of guidance. If you pray in your houses like this one who stayed at home, then you have forsaken the Sunnah of your Prophet, and if you forsake the Sunnah of your Prophet you will go astray. And at that time we saw no one stay behind except for a hypocrite who was known for his hypocrisy or one who was sick. A man would be brought to the prayers, supported by two others, so that he could stand in the row."

In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "I was thinking of commanding that the call to prayer should be given, then the iqaamah, then I would command a man to lead the people in prayer, and I would go out with some men carrying bundles of wood to people who do not attend the prayers, and I would burn their houses with them inside." There are many ahaadeeth which speak of the importance of the prayer and urge us to pray in the mosques. It is obligatory for the Muslims to pray regularly in the mosques and encourage one another to do that and to co-operate in doing so… But in the case of one who is far away from the mosque and cannot hear the call to prayer except via the loudspeaker, he is not obliged to attend the mosque and he and others who are with him can pray in jamaa'ah on their own, because of the apparent meaning of the ahaadeeth quoted above. But if they take on the hardship and join the congregation in the mosque from which they cannot hear the call to prayer except via loudspeakers, because they are far away from it, that will increase their reward, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "The people who will earn the greatest reward for prayer are those who live farthest away, (and the further away you live, the more reward you will earn)." And there are very many ahaadeeth which speak of the virtues of going to the mosque and encourage us to do so. And Allaah is the Source of strength.

Majmoo' Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 12, 58-61

The scholars said concerning the guidelines on hearing the call to prayer (adhaan):

Al-Shaafa'i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: [the guideline is the distance within which the adhaan can be heard] if the muezzin has a loud voice and a person can hear (i.e., he is not deaf), and there is little noise and the wind is still – because if the muezzin does not have a loud voice, and the people are not paying attention, and there is a lot of noise, then fewer people would hear the call.

Al-Umm, vol. 1, p. 221

Al-Nawawi said: the guideline with regard to hearing the call to prayer is that the muezzin stands at a certain location in the city, there is no noise and the wind is still, and a person can hear him; if a person can hear him he is obliged to attend the prayers in the mosque, and if he cannot hear him, he is not obliged.

(al-Majmoo' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, vol. 4, p. 353

Ibn Qudaamah said: The furthest place from which the call can usually be heard– if the muezzin has a strong voice and stands in a high place, and the wind is still and there is no noise, and the listener is not inattentive – is the distance which is to be taken into account.

500 plus renowned scientists jointly share why they reject Darwin’s theory of evolution

 

500 plus renowned scientists jointly share why they reject Darwin’s theory of evolution

In Brief

• The Facts:

  Many scientists around the world have voiced their concerns regarding Darwin's theory of evolution. The science is not adequate to explain life and human creation.

• Reflect On:

  Why is this theory pushed so hard? Is this an example of scientific dogma? Some educational institutions are teaching it as fact. Why aren't we taught to question accepted beliefs regarding the origins of human life? Why are there only two options?

It’s amazing how the theory of evolution is pushed on the populace as fact and sound science, but like Professor Colin Reeves, from the Department of Mathematical Sciences from Coventry University explains, “Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned science the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour. “

He is one of 500 scientists in several fields that came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Here’s another great quote from one of the scientists, Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University:

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Although this seems to be ongoing, and new information has emerged, I’d like to have a discussion about it.

We’re dealing with a controversial topic here, one that has some scientists reprimanded for going against it in some cases. This theory is really being pushed hard on the scientific community, which could be the reason why these scientists chose to voice their concern in such a manner. It’s being taught, in some cases, in schools as fact.

Although the list is an old one, it goes to show that this thought is out there, and this type of thinking is clearly legitimate and exists for several reasons. There are multiple theories out there which we should be discussing, take for example, Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, as Gregg Braden points out, Crick believed that life’s building blocks have to be the result of something more than random mutations a “quirk” of nature…

Crick risked his reputation as a scientist by publicly stating, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” In the scientific world, this statement is the equivalent of heresy, suggesting that something more than chance evolution led to our existence.

Crick is was one of many scientists who believed that intelligent intervention had something to do with it, and also postulated an extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Gregg Braden makes another great point,

The feeling that there’s something more to our story is not just a recent phenomenon. Archaeological discoveries show that, almost universally, from the ancient Mayan Popol Vuh and the indigenous traditions of the American desert Southwest to the roots of the world’s major religions, ancient humans felt connected to more than just their immediate surroundings. They sensed that we have our roots in other worlds, some that we can’t even see

It wasn’t long ago when Apollo 15 pilot, Alfred Worden stated,

We are the aliens, but we just think they’re somebody else, but we’re the ones who came from somewhere else. Because somebody else had to survive, and they got in a little spacecraft and they came here and they landed and they started civilization here, that’s what I believe. And if you don’t believe me, go get books on the ancient Sumerians and see what they had to say about it, they’ll tell you right up front.

At the end of the day we simply have to ask ourselves, why is it becoming more and more difficult to question things? Many people live in a state of fear and feel worried about how they will be perceived these days for taking a particular view, be it on human evolution, vaccines, whichever…

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
–Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Mainstream education teaches us that 99% of DNA links is indicative of where we came from, but we share approximately 65 percent of our DNA with a Banana, what does that mean?

Human beings aren’t stupid, and this is why in 2014, a Gallup poll revealed that in the United States alone, almost half the population believe that there’s something more to the origins of human existence than the two options that are constantly presented to the masses. They believe that there is something more than Darwin’s theory of evolution.

This tells us that human intuition is pointing us towards something more and some of the greatest scientific minds agree.

It’s also very important to mention the fact that multiple discoveries continue to be left off the record. The discovery of giant skeletons is an excellent example. We have written some heavily sourced articles, displaying a fraction of the evidence that’s out there today, you can access them here.

The point is, there are still many questions left unanswered, and still many discussions to be had.

 REGISTER NOW