Source: “Ahkam wa Masail in the Light of the Qur’an and Hadith”, Volume 02
Referenced from: Fatawa Nadhiriyyah, Volume 1, pp. 214–216
What do the scholars of Islam say regarding the situation where two mosques exist within the same locality, and both hold separate Jumu‘ah prayers?
In one case, there is a central mosque (Jamia Masjid) which was originally used for Jumu‘ah, Dhuhr, and ʿAsr prayers only. The surrounding area has a majority of non-Muslim (Hindu) residents, and the Imam leaves after ʿAsr prayer.
The second mosque is situated near the homes of the Muslim population, and congregational prayers are regularly held there, with the exception of Jumu‘ah, which was formerly observed at the Jamia Masjid by mutual agreement for a long period.
However, due to recent religious conflict, the Ahle Hadith and Muwahhidin (Monotheists)—who form the congregation of the second mosque—began holding separate Jumu‘ah prayers in their mosque to avoid fitnah and harm. The Hanafi group, who are part of the Jamia Masjid, declared the new mosque a “Masjid Dhirar” (a mosque built to create division), issued a fatwa declaring prayers invalid, and even demanded its demolition or burning. Their accusations rest on three points:
① Qur’anic Evidence:
﴿وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًا بَيْنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ﴾
“And [there are] those who took a mosque for causing harm, disbelief, and division among the believers…”
② Historical Report from Sayyiduna ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه):
“When Allah granted victory in the lands, ‘Umar instructed the Muslims to build mosques but forbade them from building two mosques in one place that would harm one another.” (As quoted in Tafsir al-Khazin)
③ Fiqh-based Reasoning:
“Every mosque that is built for pride, rivalry, or ostentation, or with impure wealth—even if it is not explicitly intended to oppose Allah—falls under the ruling of Masjid Dhirar.” (al-Madārik)
However, the Ahle Hadith group states on oath that the new mosque was built solely for the sake of Allah, and has existed for the past four years. They only began separate Jumu‘ah prayers one month ago, due to escalating fitnah and opposition from the other group. Moreover, the same Hanafis had previously prayed in this mosque multiple times.
They request clarification:
In the case presented, where the Ahle Hadith group have built and used their mosque for the past four years, and swear that it was built solely for the sake of Allah (تقربًا إلى الله), and have only started holding separate Jumu‘ah prayers for the past one month to avoid conflict and religious strife caused by the opposition from the Hanafi group—then, this mosque can in no way be deemed a Masjid Dhirar, and the prayers held therein are valid and sound.
Those Hanafis who declare the mosque a Masjid Dhirar, issue fatwas of invalidity of prayer, and call for its demolition or burning, are committing a grave injustice. They are essentially working toward the destruction of a house of Allah.
Even though they themselves have prayed in this mosque before, they now label it Masjid Dhirar solely due to sectarian conflict.
Regarding the three arguments presented:
① The Qur’anic verse refers to a mosque built by the hypocrites (munāfiqīn) whose intention was to cause harm, disbelief, and division among the believers, and to support enemies of Allah and His Messenger.
This mosque under question, however, was built for the sake of Allah, and does not meet the conditions of that verse. Therefore, this verse cannot be applied here.
② The report from Sayyiduna ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) simply means that two mosques should not be built so close that one harms the function or relevance of the other.
In this case, it is clear from the circumstances that the second mosque brings benefit, not harm. It was established for worship and nearness to Allah, not rivalry or pride.
③ As for the statement, “Every mosque built for pride, rivalry, or ostentation… is like Masjid Dhirar,” this also does not apply to the mosque in question. The intentions of the founders were sincere, and the purpose was to avoid conflict and establish peaceful worship.
In fact, when hostility and obstruction prevent worship in one location, it is completely permissible to establish a separate mosque and hold independent prayers and Jumu‘ah.
Consider the example of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه):
When the Mushrikeen of Makkah obstructed the Sahabah from praying in the Ka‘bah, Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) built a mosque in the courtyard of his house and performed Salah there.
This is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
Thus, the action of the Ahle Hadith group is valid, permissible, and based on Islamic precedent.
والله تعالى أعلم
Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Written by: Ahmad ʿAfī ʿAnhu
Verified by: Sayyid Muhammad Nadhir Husayn
(Fatawa Nadhiriyyah, Volume 1, pp. 214–216)
Referenced from: Fatawa Nadhiriyyah, Volume 1, pp. 214–216❖ Question:
What do the scholars of Islam say regarding the situation where two mosques exist within the same locality, and both hold separate Jumu‘ah prayers?
In one case, there is a central mosque (Jamia Masjid) which was originally used for Jumu‘ah, Dhuhr, and ʿAsr prayers only. The surrounding area has a majority of non-Muslim (Hindu) residents, and the Imam leaves after ʿAsr prayer.
The second mosque is situated near the homes of the Muslim population, and congregational prayers are regularly held there, with the exception of Jumu‘ah, which was formerly observed at the Jamia Masjid by mutual agreement for a long period.
However, due to recent religious conflict, the Ahle Hadith and Muwahhidin (Monotheists)—who form the congregation of the second mosque—began holding separate Jumu‘ah prayers in their mosque to avoid fitnah and harm. The Hanafi group, who are part of the Jamia Masjid, declared the new mosque a “Masjid Dhirar” (a mosque built to create division), issued a fatwa declaring prayers invalid, and even demanded its demolition or burning. Their accusations rest on three points:
① Qur’anic Evidence:
﴿وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًا بَيْنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ﴾
“And [there are] those who took a mosque for causing harm, disbelief, and division among the believers…”
② Historical Report from Sayyiduna ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه):
“When Allah granted victory in the lands, ‘Umar instructed the Muslims to build mosques but forbade them from building two mosques in one place that would harm one another.” (As quoted in Tafsir al-Khazin)
③ Fiqh-based Reasoning:
“Every mosque that is built for pride, rivalry, or ostentation, or with impure wealth—even if it is not explicitly intended to oppose Allah—falls under the ruling of Masjid Dhirar.” (al-Madārik)
However, the Ahle Hadith group states on oath that the new mosque was built solely for the sake of Allah, and has existed for the past four years. They only began separate Jumu‘ah prayers one month ago, due to escalating fitnah and opposition from the other group. Moreover, the same Hanafis had previously prayed in this mosque multiple times.
They request clarification:
- What do the above three evidences truly imply?
- Is this new mosque truly a Masjid Dhirar?
- Are prayers and Jumu‘ah valid in this mosque or not?
❖ Answer:
In the case presented, where the Ahle Hadith group have built and used their mosque for the past four years, and swear that it was built solely for the sake of Allah (تقربًا إلى الله), and have only started holding separate Jumu‘ah prayers for the past one month to avoid conflict and religious strife caused by the opposition from the Hanafi group—then, this mosque can in no way be deemed a Masjid Dhirar, and the prayers held therein are valid and sound.
Those Hanafis who declare the mosque a Masjid Dhirar, issue fatwas of invalidity of prayer, and call for its demolition or burning, are committing a grave injustice. They are essentially working toward the destruction of a house of Allah.
Even though they themselves have prayed in this mosque before, they now label it Masjid Dhirar solely due to sectarian conflict.
Regarding the three arguments presented:
① The Qur’anic verse refers to a mosque built by the hypocrites (munāfiqīn) whose intention was to cause harm, disbelief, and division among the believers, and to support enemies of Allah and His Messenger.
This mosque under question, however, was built for the sake of Allah, and does not meet the conditions of that verse. Therefore, this verse cannot be applied here.
② The report from Sayyiduna ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) simply means that two mosques should not be built so close that one harms the function or relevance of the other.
In this case, it is clear from the circumstances that the second mosque brings benefit, not harm. It was established for worship and nearness to Allah, not rivalry or pride.
③ As for the statement, “Every mosque built for pride, rivalry, or ostentation… is like Masjid Dhirar,” this also does not apply to the mosque in question. The intentions of the founders were sincere, and the purpose was to avoid conflict and establish peaceful worship.
In fact, when hostility and obstruction prevent worship in one location, it is completely permissible to establish a separate mosque and hold independent prayers and Jumu‘ah.
Consider the example of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه):
When the Mushrikeen of Makkah obstructed the Sahabah from praying in the Ka‘bah, Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) built a mosque in the courtyard of his house and performed Salah there.
This is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
Thus, the action of the Ahle Hadith group is valid, permissible, and based on Islamic precedent.
والله تعالى أعلم
Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Written by: Ahmad ʿAfī ʿAnhu
Verified by: Sayyid Muhammad Nadhir Husayn
(Fatawa Nadhiriyyah, Volume 1, pp. 214–216)
