PCC is damaging genuine journalism, Lebedev tells MPs

The press in Britain is under-regulated but over-legislated, damaging genuine investigative journalism but allowing scandals like phone hacking to go undetected, the proprietor of The Independent told Parliament yesterday.

Giving evidence to a joint committee of MPs and peers Evgeny Lebedev, chairman of Independent Print Ltd, called for the Press Complaints Commission to be fundamentally reformed to restore public confidence in newspapers.

But he also criticised Britain's draconian libel laws for stifling important investigative journalism in the wider public interest. "The Press Complaints Commission has not worked," he told the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions.

"[The industry] is under-regulated because the PCC is not independent, it is not transparent and it is not understandable to the public how it works. It hasn't managed to hold those responsible for phone hacking to account.

"[But] there is too much legislation that prevents newspapers from carrying out investigative journalism. We have got a few cases in our newspaper at the moment that are legitimate investigative cases that we cannot progress with because of the libel laws in this country."

Mr Lebedev said he believed a new press complaints body should have the power to fine newspapers and in certain circumstances even force papers to take out advertisements in rival publications to apologise. "I definitely believe that the new regulator should be a signal of change. It will be very important for it to be independent of the industry.

"There needs to be a feeling from the public – whose trust we're trying to regain – that it is genuinely independent. It needs to be transparent so people can understand how it is set up, how the code of conduct works, who sits on the board, and how they are selected."

Mr Lebedev said being brought up in Russia "where there was no press freedom whatsoever" had made him acutely aware of how important a vibrant and free press was to democracy.

Chris Blackhurst, editor of The Independent, told the committee that he believed any body that replaced the PCC should have a far smaller role for editors. "I think there is recognition among editors, including myself, that the PCC as it is currently set up is not fit for purpose," he said.

"I think that's regrettable but it's a reflection of the fact that the public has lost faith and we as editors can't ignore that. There is a recognition that the PCC is too much under the influence of serving editors and one way to restore trust would be to have a newly constituted PCC where the majority of people taking decisions were lay members who are not serving editors."

Joan Smith: I've waited for this ever since they told me I'd been hacked

The court was packed, so much so that the judge told late-comers they could be "undecorous" and sit on the floor. I got there early, expecting a crush, and managed to get a seat as the phone-hacking scandal reached one of its periodic peaks. On 18 separate occasions, a lawyer got up and described the extent of the News of the World's surveillance operation on particular individuals, from the actor Jude Law to the former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott.

It was a shameful catalogue of phone hacking, blagging, harassment and interception of emails. And on 18 occasions, News International's counsel, Michael Silverleaf QC, had to get up and apologise to the individual concerned. It was an unenviable task and he performed it doggedly, using the formal language agreed in advance by both sides.

Because the list of victims was alphabetical, I had to wait until close to the end of the morning to get my apology. But it was worth the wait, bringing to an end an extraordinary period in my life which began nine months ago, when I was contacted by a detective from Operation Weeting. A month after that I saw the notes made about me in 2004 by a private detective, Glenn Mulcaire, who'd been asked to spy on me and my then partner by a journalist from the News of the World.

I guess it was all in a day's work for Mulcaire. I don't know if he was even aware that my partner's eldest daughter had been killed in an accident only six weeks earlier. Mulcaire did know that I wrote for another News International title, The Times, because he made a note of it. He also knew I was going to Spain – he made a note of that as well – though possibly not that I was due to speak about the importance of free expression at an international writers' conference.

It's easy to joke about phone hacking and think it's of little consequence. Some people assume that the silent listeners had to sit through dozens of mundane messages about picking up dry-cleaning, but my experience and that of other victims suggests it was much more serious than that. One of the reasons I was so angry was the sickening realisation that strangers had listened to my voicemails in the aftermath of a private tragedy.

Yesterday's statements in open court confirmed the degree of suspicion created between husbands and wives, friends and employees, who couldn't understand how intensely private material was ending up in a national newspaper. Back in 2002 or 2003, the suggestion that hundreds of public figures and people close to them were under illegal surveillance by journalists would have seemed like something out of a thriller.

It's also important to point out that until quite recently, News International was intending to contest many of these cases. Remember the "rogue" reporter defence? News International's lawyers actually entered defences in some of the cases they've just settled, changing their position only after our lawyers kept returning to court. The result was nine separate disclosures that showed the astonishing scale of phone hacking, and what our lawyers describe bluntly as a "cover up".

Of the 18 cases settled yesterday, only a handful of us have chosen to keep our compensation awards private. I've accepted £27,500 plus costs, which I think reflects the gravity of what happened at the News of the World. Our lawyers said that we, the victims, feel vindicated by the settlements. We no longer feel we have to persuade others that bad things were done to us – and I hope it means they won't ever be done to anyone else. The last few months have been gruelling, but my faith in decent, ethical journalism remains unshaken.

Papers will show how much police knew about hacking of Milly's phone

New documents will be published today showing how much Surrey Police knew about the News of the World hacking the phone of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler.

The Independent revealed last year that two senior officers from Surrey met with NOTW journalists in the weeks after the teenager's disappearance and were shown evidence that the paper held information taken from her voicemails - but the senior Surrey officers failed to investigate or take action against Britain's then top-selling Sunday title.

The House of Commons media select committee, which is examining the extent of knowledge about voicemail interception at Rupert Murdoch's News International, is expected to today release information provided by the Surrey force about its interaction with the now-defunct Sunday tabloid in the weeks following Milly's abduction in March 2002.

The select committee material is being made public at the same time as the Leveson Inquiry into press standards is examining submissions from Surrey Police, Scotland Yard and a mobile phone company as part of what Lord Justice Leveson has described as an effort to "get to the bottom of" the controversy about the NOTW's hacking of Milly's phone.

It is understood that a report which aims to provide a full explanation for how voicemails came to be deleted from the murdered schoolgirl's phone in first days of her disappearance - falsely giving her parents hope that she was still alive - has now been put before the judge, who must decide when and how much information from it can be made public.

A source familiar with the submissions said: "All the detail and any new information has now been provided. It is up to the inquiry and the judge what can enter the public domain because this area is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation."

Lord Justice Leveson ordered the new statements following the revelation in December that there was no evidence that journalists were behind the deletion of voicemails which created the so-called "false hope" moment and that the "most likely explanation" was that the messages had been removed automatically by a 72-hour deletion facility on her phone.

The allegation that the NOTW had caused the deletions and made Sally and Bob Dowler believe their daughter was calling her mailbox was first published by The Guardian last summer and proved a tipping point in the phone hacking scandal - provoking public outrage, an advertiser boycott and the eventual decision to close the 168-year-old NOTW.

The revelation that the NOTW was responsible for hacking into Milly's pay-as-you-go phone at some stage in the investigation led to a £2million settlement by NI and a £1m donation to charity by Rupert Murdoch. But confusion now exists about just how the initial deletions came about amid claims that a reporter whose identity is known to Surrey Police had also managed to get hold of Milly's phone number and her voicemail PIN in the early days of the investigation.

Following The Independent's investigation, Surrey Police admitted for the first time that it had been approached by the NOTW in April 2002 and told by the paper that it had accessed Milly's voicemail. The force, which has launched an internal investigation into the incident, has been criticised on the grounds that its failure to investigate the hacking was a missed opportunity to prevent the practice becoming endemic at the NOTW.

Apology after apology on Wapping's day of humility

It was so busy in Court 16 of the Chancery Division of the High Court yesterday that Mr Justice Vos allowed people to sit on the floor. But among the crowd there were no executives from Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers (NGN), the company at the heart of the matter.

Click HERE for 'settlements' gallery

It fell to Michael Silverleaf, QC, to be the face of the giant media organisation on this day of contrition. He jumped up after each of the 18 statements from victims to offer the same words of apology. "This information should never have been obtained in the manner that it was," he kept saying.

Mr Silverleaf may have felt a sense of déjà vu, given that he warned of this as long ago as 2008. As NGN's counsel in a legal claim brought by Gordon Taylor, the head of the footballers' union, Mr Silverleaf told the company: "There is a powerful case that there is (or was) a culture of illegal information access used at NGN in order to produce stories for publication... to have this paraded at a public trial would, I imagine, be extremely damaging to NGN's public reputation."

His imagination did not deceive him. The statements read in court yesterday revealed that NGN has in recent weeks paid more than £600,000 in settlements (plus an estimated £4m in legal costs). They showed that, in addition to the phone hacking and blagging that prompted Lord Justice Leveson's public inquiry into media standards, NGN was involved in hacking into email accounts, a "manner" of obtaining information not previously uncovered. The statements repeatedly emphasised how the illicit methods of the News of the World created an environment of suspicion and distrust that put the families, friendships and business relationships of victims under immense strain.

Things could have been worse for NGN, if famous victims of NGN illegality such as Jude Law (paid £130,000), designer Sadie Frost (£50,000) and Lord Prescott (£40,000) had braved the waiting television cameras to have their triumphant day in court. But the Labour MP Chris Bryant was there to hear vindication of a legal action that NGN had originally fiercely defended. "This is act IV, scene II, of a five-act play," he said afterwards. "We would never have had the Leveson Inquiry or the reopened police investigation if it wasn't for these individual actions. But after years and years of lying, [NGN] are finally beginning to let us touch the hem of the truth."

As the statements were read out, it was clear that NGN had come forward with a series of admissions on 13 December in an effort to end cases before they came to trial. Those admissions coincided with James Murdoch being forced to deny he had read emails informing him of a wider illegal culture at NGN.

Mr Justice Vos himself was in a jovial mood, reminding those present it was his intention to find an "expedited resolution" to the remaining civil actions so Lord Justice Leveson can "get on with his inquiry". A further 10 victims are due to take their cases to trial on 13 February. Yesterday may have been an attempt by NGN to put an end to a wave of litigation but, as Hugh Tomlinson, QC, warned the judge: "It is anticipated there will be more."

Jude Law's statement: 'I was under surveillance for years'

"For several years leading up to 2006, I was suspicious about how information concerning my private life was coming out in the press. I changed my phones, I had my house swept for bugs but still the information kept being published. I started to become distrustful of people close to me.

I was truly appalled by what I was shown by the police and by what my lawyers have discovered. It is clear that I, along with many others, was kept under constant surveillance for a number of years.

No aspect of my private life was safe from intrusion by News Group Newspapers, including the lives of my children and the people who work for me. It was not just that my phone messages were listened to. News Group also paid people to watch me and my house for days at a time and to follow me and those close to me, both in this country and abroad.

[News Group] have accepted that the information published in the News of the World articles and The Sun articles that I complained about was private. I hope this means that they will never invade my privacy again. They have also finally given a proper apology.

For me, this case was never about money. It was about standing up for myself and finding out what had happened. I owed it to my friends and family as well as myself to do this.

I believe in a free press but what News Group did was an abuse of its freedoms. They have overstepped the mark for many years. They were prepared to do anything to sell their newspapers and to make money, irrespective of the impact it had on people's lives. It was not just those like me, whose work involved them being in the public eye, but also many other people, often at the most vulnerable times of their lives. It is now up to the police and the Leveson Inquiry to continue their investigations."

The settlements

Chris Bryant Labour MP and former Minister. Awarded: £30,000. Messages eavesdropped and phone numbers obtained of close family.

Claire Ward Former Labour MP. Awarded: Substantial undisclosed damages. Concerned that her private life was being targeted along with information she held in capacity as a government minister.

Ciara Parkes PR consultant. Awarded: £35,000. Messages targeted in her role as friend and assistant to Sienna Miller, who changed her phones multiple times.

Ben Jackson Personal assistant to Jude Law. Awarded: £40,000. Targeted on numerous occasions, including allegedly in New York while travelling with Mr Law.

Graham Shear Solicitor. Awarded: £25,000. Targeted as a lawyer for a roll call of top footballers.

Ashley Cole Chelsea and England footballer. Awarded: Undisclosed.

Denis MacShane Labour MP and former minister. Awarded: £32,500. Voicemails intercepted while he was in a relationship with journalist Joan Smith.

Joan Hammell Former chief of staff to Lord Prescott. Awarded: £40,000. Targeted during the revelation of Lord Prescott's extra-marital affair.

Joan Smith Novelist and journalist. Awarded: £27,500. Targeted during relationship with Labour Minister Denis MacShane.

Lisa Gower Awarded: £30,000. Targeted for her relationship with actor Steve Coogan, who also had his phone hacked.

"HJK" Anonymous member of the public. Awarded: £60,000. Voicemails hacked after he began a gay relationship with a celebrity. The love affair was abruptly ended by celebrity after HJK was approached by a journalist.

Lord Prescott Former Deputy Prime Minister. Awarded: £40,000. Voicemails and mobile phone targeted following revelation of Lord Prescott's affair with diary secretary Tracey Temple.

Gavin Henson Rugby player and ex-partner of singer Charlotte Church. Awarded: £40,000. Messages eavesdropped during relationship with Ms Church, "souring" relationship with her family.

Guy Pelly Entrepreneur and nightclub owner. Awarded: £40,000. Allegedly targeted in 2002 as a friend of Prince Harry.

Tom Rowland Freelance journalist. Awarded: £25,000. Voicemails and emails allegedly hacked over knowledge of high-profile property deals.

Jude Law Actor. Awarded: £130,000. Subjected to hacking campaign over several years, leading him to change phones and have his home swept for bugs.

Christopher Shipman Son of serial killer Harold Shipman. Awarded: Substantial and aggravated undisclosed damages. Illegal access of medical, financial and legal information, including emails.

Sadie Frost Designer and ex-wife of Jude Law. Awarded: £50,000. Voicemails hacked during marriage to Law and his relationship with actor Sienna Miller.

We hacked emails too – News International

Criminal practices inside the News of the World went far further than phone hacking, it emerged yesterday, as News International finally admitted in the High Court that it also illegally accessed computer emails.

In an hour-long series of humbling and expensive apologies that potentially passed £10m in damages and legal costs, the admission of computer hacking opens up a new chapter in the scandal, threatening the already shredded reputation of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

After months of denial and legal obstruction, News International offered a series of "sincere apologies" for the "damage and distress" it had caused to the private lives of victims of phone hacking, blagging and excessive surveillance.

News International's leading counsel, Michael Silverleaf QC, confirmed that its titles had unlawfully accessed the emails of the son of the serial killer Harold Shipman and the freelance journalist Tom Rowland. The scale of the payouts to victims – including £130,000 to the actor Jude Law and £50,000 to his former wife Sadie Frost – dominated the hearing before Mr Justice Vos. But Mark Lewis, the lawyer for the family of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, described the settlements as "just the tip of the iceberg".

Another solicitor, Tamsin Allen, who represents a number of the successful claimants, said that after continually being told by executives at the NOTW that they were wrong, that there had been no illegal practices, and that Mr Murdoch's News Group Newspapers intended to offer an aggressive defence, "we have now discovered a massive conspiracy involving criminal activity and a cover-up".

In the new settlements, announced in the High Court, a total of £645,000 was awarded to 15 hacking victims, with "substantial" damages awarded to three others. News International will be responsible for the legal costs, which are likely to be six-figure sums in most of the cases.

Confirmation that email hacking took place backs up the claim made last April by Sienna Miller that her email account had been accessed. An out-of-court settlement of £100,000 prevented further disclosures by the actress. The Independent has previously revealed that the Metropolitan Police's ongoing investigation into computer hacking, Operation Tuleta, has uncovered evidence that the former British intelligence officer Ian Hurst had his emails hacked as part of a NOTW commission. Eighteen other seized computers are being investigated by Tuleta officers for further evidence of illegal email access.

Mr Justice Vos rejected an appeal by Mr Silverleaf to cancel the trial scheduled for 13 February. NI's counsel said it was "not necessary for a civil trial of any kind", because it was "ready, willing and able" to offer "fair and generous" damages to the 10 individuals who have so far not reached an agreement. The unresolved cases include the actor Steve Coogan, football agent Sky Andrew, singer Charlotte Church, jockey Kieren Fallon and the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes.

Indicating that News International would now engage in a final push to avoid any further revelations that could be revealed in court proceedings, Mr Silverleaf said: "If they [the remaining cases] are settled, then there can't be a trial."

But Hugh Tomlinson, QC, counsel for the victims, told the court: "It is anticipated there will be more phone- hacking cases to come."

Recent evaluations by the Scotland Yard team investigating the extent of phone hacking at the Sunday tabloid claim there are potentially 800 victims.

Following revelations last year in which News International was accused of destroying computers that may have held vital evidence during an office move, Mr Justice Vos yesterday ordered the company to search computers that he said may show executives deliberately tried to destroy evidence. The judge told NI's counsel he had seen evidence that raised "compelling questions about whether you concealed, told lies or actively sought to get off scot free". Although NI has denied the accusations of a corporate cover-up, the huge settlements were calculated on "the basis of the facts alleged".

Following the hearing, a number of the claimants offered further insight into what had happened to them:

* Christopher Shipman said he had been shown and provided with copies of emails dating from 2004 which had been intercepted by the detective Glenn Mulcaire, who was regularly commissioned by the NOTW.

* Lord Prescott claimed News Group Newspapers admitted some employees requested the methods used by Mulcaire.

* Jude Law said he was "truly appalled" by what the police and his lawyers had discovered. He said that no aspect of his private life was safe from intrusion – including the lives of his children and those who worked for him.

We hacked emails too – News International

Criminal practices inside the News of the World went far further than phone hacking, it emerged yesterday, as News International finally admitted in the High Court that it also illegally accessed computer emails.

In an hour-long series of humbling and expensive apologies that potentially passed £10m in damages and legal costs, the admission of computer hacking opens up a new chapter in the scandal, threatening the already shredded reputation of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

After months of denial and legal obstruction, News International offered a series of "sincere apologies" for the "damage and distress" it had caused to the private lives of victims of phone hacking, blagging and excessive surveillance.

News International's leading counsel, Michael Silverleaf QC, confirmed that its titles had unlawfully accessed the emails of the son of the serial killer Harold Shipman and the freelance journalist Tom Rowland. The scale of the payouts to victims – including £130,000 to the actor Jude Law and £50,000 to his former wife Sadie Frost – dominated the hearing before Mr Justice Vos. But Mark Lewis, the lawyer for the family of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, described the settlements as "just the tip of the iceberg".

Another solicitor, Tamsin Allen, who represents a number of the successful claimants, said that after continually being told by executives at the NOTW that they were wrong, that there had been no illegal practices, and that Mr Murdoch's News Group Newspapers intended to offer an aggressive defence, "we have now discovered a massive conspiracy involving criminal activity and a cover-up".

In the new settlements, announced in the High Court, a total of £645,000 was awarded to 15 hacking victims, with "substantial" damages awarded to three others. News International will be responsible for the legal costs, which are likely to be six-figure sums in most of the cases.

Confirmation that email hacking took place backs up the claim made last April by Sienna Miller that her email account had been accessed. An out-of-court settlement of £100,000 prevented further disclosures by the actress. The Independent has previously revealed that the Metropolitan Police's ongoing investigation into computer hacking, Operation Tuleta, has uncovered evidence that the former British intelligence officer Ian Hurst had his emails hacked as part of a NOTW commission. Eighteen other seized computers are being investigated by Tuleta officers for further evidence of illegal email access.

Mr Justice Vos rejected an appeal by Mr Silverleaf to cancel the trial scheduled for 13 February. NI's counsel said it was "not necessary for a civil trial of any kind", because it was "ready, willing and able" to offer "fair and generous" damages to the 10 individuals who have so far not reached an agreement. The unresolved cases include the actor Steve Coogan, football agent Sky Andrew, singer Charlotte Church, jockey Kieren Fallon and the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes.

Indicating that News International would now engage in a final push to avoid any further revelations that could be revealed in court proceedings, Mr Silverleaf said: "If they [the remaining cases] are settled, then there can't be a trial."

But Hugh Tomlinson, QC, counsel for the victims, told the court: "It is anticipated there will be more phone- hacking cases to come."

Recent evaluations by the Scotland Yard team investigating the extent of phone hacking at the Sunday tabloid claim there are potentially 800 victims.

Following revelations last year in which News International was accused of destroying computers that may have held vital evidence during an office move, Mr Justice Vos yesterday ordered the company to search computers that he said may show executives deliberately tried to destroy evidence. The judge told NI's counsel he had seen evidence that raised "compelling questions about whether you concealed, told lies or actively sought to get off scot free". Although NI has denied the accusations of a corporate cover-up, the huge settlements were calculated on "the basis of the facts alleged".

Following the hearing, a number of the claimants offered further insight into what had happened to them:

* Christopher Shipman said he had been shown and provided with copies of emails dating from 2004 which had been intercepted by the detective Glenn Mulcaire, who was regularly commissioned by the NOTW.

* Lord Prescott claimed News Group Newspapers admitted some employees requested the methods used by Mulcaire.

* Jude Law said he was "truly appalled" by what the police and his lawyers had discovered. He said that no aspect of his private life was safe from intrusion – including the lives of his children and those who worked for him.

Ed Miliband: Labour is a party for all times, not just for good times

Miliband sets out proposals for Labour in tough times. Link to this video

The opposition leader, Ed Miliband, has set out a new leaner public spending ethos for straitened times, pointing to three areas in which he would "use the power of government in new ways" as he readies his party to fight a 2015 "austerity election".

In a speech billed as one of the more significant of his 15-month leadership, Miliband said he would "demonstrate once and for all that Labour is a party for all times, not only a party for good times".

Sketching the problem, Miliband said: "Each time New Labour won an election, it won at a time when business was prospering: when entrepreneurs could set up new firms and be confident of a return; when companies knew that there were markets for their goods, and consumers ready to spend. That growing economy meant that there were tax revenues to invest in our infrastructure, to help hardworking families and to protect the most vulnerable in our country.

"Next time we come back to power, it will be different. We will be handed a deficit. We will have to make difficult choices that all of us wish we did not have to make. So we must rethink how we achieve fairness for Britain in a time when there is less money to spend."

In his speech, he made a policy proposal intended to exemplify the new approach, proposing Labour would in future force energy companies to offer lower tariffs to the most vulnerable in society, shifting part of the job of improving living standards from the state to big business.

"How can we offer the help people need when there is very little money to spend?" he asked. "The government has already cut the winter fuel allowance so that it provides less support. That cut may be something we cannot reverse. With the economic outlook that we face, we will find it hard to do that.

"But that doesn't mean we give up. Instead, our new approach starts by looking at the root of the problem – the way our energy market is letting British consumers down. We've got six main energy companies in Britain. Competition should be good for consumers. But the way that the current market works is disadvantaging them.

"We know who the most vulnerable are, those least able to find the cheapest deal, or to be online: often the elderly. Offering different products is a good thing. But if those products end up taking advantage of older people, that is wrong.

"So I'll give the energy companies a simple rule. By all means put different products out there, and for different kinds of consumers. But we will ensure you give pensioners over 75 the lowest tariff on offer. You make it happen or we'll put it into law. There may be less money around. But for those 4 million pensioners, Labour can still deliver fairness in these tough times."

Miliband was speaking at the Oxo Tower, in London, to the London Citizens organisation, a community organisation that campaigns to improve social conditions, and which has successfully persuaded many companies to pay employees a living wage – a higher rate of minimum pay at £7.88 an hour to reflect the cost of living in London. Miliband adduced this as an example of the new mechanisms a possible future Labour government might encourage to iron out unfairness in society without the government necessarily spending money. However, Miliband refused to pledge that a Labour government would roll out a living wage across the board.

Instead of the welter of new ideas his critics crave, Miliband proposed a three-pronged strategy. "First, reforming our economy so we have long-term wealth creation with rewards fairly shared. Second, acting against vested interests that squeeze the living standards of families. And third, making choices that favour the hard-working majority."

He returned to the theme of predator and producer capitalism, which he first aired in his conference speech last year – that some British businesses make a benign economic and social contribution to the communities in which they operate, and others less so. He said: "When I talked about that in my conference speech, you might say I wasn't overwhelmed with support from other political parties. Some even said that I was anti-business." Now, he said, his ideas were being aped by the prime minister, David Cameron, and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg.

He said Labour's challenge was "to use the power of government in new ways. To set new rules that promote the long-term and fair wealth creation we need. To share a vision with British industry of how we pay our way in an ever more competitive world. To nurture a growing, thriving economy which creates better jobs, new companies and innovative industries.

"That means we have to end the situation where British employers want their companies to invest but can't find the finance to do so. That's why we are looking at plans for a British Investment Bank so small businesses can invest and grow. It means we have to end the situation where an industry knows it is in its long-term interest to invest in the skills of its workforce, but each firm doesn't act because it isn't in their short-term interest."

The Labour leader has been under low-level but constant pressure to say more clearly what Labour would do in 2015 rather than what it would have done differently in 2010. Since Christmas, he has been faltering, with critics within the party suggesting he has been too vague, and pointing to his weak personal polling.

For a longer time, shadow cabinet members have cast doubt on whether their economic narrative fits the public mood. The leadership will not give up their party's strident position on how it would handle the current deficit reduction programme differently – they believe the government has cut too far and fast – but it is now seeking to acknowledge that in the medium term the usual terms of what a Labour government provides have to change.

In response to journalists' questions, Miliband said: "We've got a long way to run to win the argument." Later, he said: "You don't win the race when you're one-third of the way into the race."

He also disputed that Labour had failed so far to set out what it would cut, saying Labour had long pledged it would cut the policing budget and part of the schools budget.

But he ended his speech in bullish spirits, claiming other politicians were aping his ideas: "Everyone is now joining us, talking about the squeezed middle, the next generation and responsible capitalism. But it's not enough just to talk about them. Suddenly David Cameron is falling over himself to say he too is burning with passion to take on 'crony capitalism'. Now he has accepted this is the battleground of politics, I say: 'Bring it on.'"

Before Miliband's speech, one of his closest advisers published an article warning against matching the Tories cut for cut or outflanking them on the right. Stewart Wood wrote: "For the past 50 years, Labour's approach to governing has rested on using the proceeds of growth to fund redistribution, social protection and public services. In 2012, we know that these proceeds will be in scarcer supply than in the past, and the claims of deficit and debt reduction on them when growth does return will be greater than before."

Wood argues that the deficit Labour inherited in 1997 was 3.4% of GDP, and this year it will be 8.4%. "We'll still tax and we'll still spend, and in straitened times the politics of tax and spend – making sure tax is properly progressive, making sure spending is well targeted and efficient – will become more not less important. But these choices will be tougher. The 1980s supply-side revolution from the right has run its course. What Britain needs is a supply-side revolution from the left. We will need new types of banks and stronger competition in the banking industry; corporate governance reforms to incentivise good ownership models and longer-term business strategies; ensuring that companies see the continuing upskilling of their workers as an obligation and not simply a luxury; and the courage to challenge vested interests in the economy that charge excessive prices for energy or train fares and squeeze families' living standards."

Tories would have avoided coalition if boundary changes were in place in 2010

Welfare reform: government vows to reverse Lords defeats

Chris Grayling said he had believed his Liberal Democrat colleagues would reverse the Lords defeats. Photograph: Dave Thompson/PA

The government has vowed to reverse a triple defeat in the Lords over plans to cut benefits for people with disabilities, but was being pressed by crossbench peers to make concessions or face further defeats during the report stage of the welfare bill next week over housing benefit caps and other issues.

Labour peer Lady Meacher said the government had crossed the line of decency with its proposed reforms, arguing that young disabled people should have an independent life even if their parents are wealthy.

But the employment minister, Chris Grayling, said if people have savings they cannot expect the state to support them as well. He added: "I am particularly disappointed by the attitude of the Labour party, who last week were talking about the need to take tough decisions on welfare."

He said he had no reason to believe his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition will do anything but reverse the Lords defeats.

Meacher said she would be meeting the welfare minister, Lord Freud, on Thursday evening and would urge him to tell the government to accept the defeats.

She said the "majorities were very considerable, unusually high" adding it was important that these amendments hold if the government "wants to retain the support of the British public".

Meacher said she recognised the need to make savings in the welfare bill, but said these reforms went too far.

In practice, the government has plenty of time to reverse the changes ahead of the end of the parliamentary session in April even if there is other important legislation bogged down in the Lords, a chamber in which there is no guillotine on debate and no overall government majority.

Ministers will have been taken aback by the scale of the crossbench rebellion, and the reluctance of a few Liberal Democrat peers on specific issues to toe the government line.

Ministers are also facing a concerted lobbying campaign by cancer and disabled charities that traditionally receive a sympathetic hearing in the Lords, and can hardly be dismissed as welfare scroungers.

The Liberal Democrats have been reluctant to rebel on welfare reform but on the final and most controversial issue – protecting employment support allowance (ESA) rights for some cancer sufferers, more than half of all Lib Dem peers failed to support the government.

Only five Lib Dem peers rebelled and voted against the government; 42 Lib Dem peers voted for the government. Many abstained, aware on the basis of the previous vote, means testing ESA after one year, that the government was going to be defeated.

The government will have to choose its territory carefully on how to attack Labour. Although it is tempting to criticise Labour for talking tough about the deficit, but failing to deliver in the Lords, ministers will not want to look hard-hearted by withdrawing state help from some of the most vulnerable in society.

They are also up against highly experienced former welfare and social security experts that are as well briefed as ministers in the labyrinth of the benefit system.

Grayling said the welfare state had to be seen as a safety net and help could not be given to all people at all times. He stressed the means testing of ESA after a year was only aimed at those in the work-related activity group, those disabled people deemed fit enough to find work at some stage.

He said jobseekers allowance was already means tested after six months, and it could not be right to provide help to disabled people if they had received a large inheritance or had savings in the bank. Ministers have put the cost of the defeats as close to £1.8bn, but this figure is regarded as over-estimate by campaigners.

Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of disability charity Scope, said: "This is a victory for common sense. Disabled people have been telling the government over and over again that plans to restrict and time-limit employment and support allowance payments were going to make it impossible for them to live their lives.

"The government has so far ignored disabled people, but it cannot ignore the strength of feeling the Lords have shown.

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, said: "In the year of the Beveridge report's 70th anniversary, this government has sought to break one of its core principles – a welfare state based on a fair contributory bargain. In seeking to break that bargain on the backs of cancer patients they have shown they have no interest in keeping that bargain."

Reading Qur’aan with an accent in which some letters such as tha’ and dhal are altered

Is it permissible to read Qur'aan in the manner of some non-Arab people who pronounce letters such as tha’ as if it is seen, and dhal as if it is za’ and so on?.

Praise be to Allaah.

It is obligatory to read Qur’aan with the letters with which Allaah has revealed it, with sound Arabic pronunciation, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And truly, this (the Qur’aan) is a revelation from the Lord of the ‘Aalameen(mankind, jinn and all that exists),

193. Which the trustworthy Rooh [Jibreel (Gabriel)] has brought down

194. Upon your heart (O Muhammad) that you may be (one) of the warners,

195. In the plain Arabic language”

[al-Shu’ara 26:192-195] 

“Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’aan in order that you may understand”

[Yoosuf 12:2] 

It is not permissible for anyone to deliberately change any letter of it when he is able to pronounce it correctly. This is a kind of mistake which is a sin. 

If a person finds it difficult to pronounce the letters correctly – such as people in whose language some of the Arabic letters, such as tha’, dhal and kha’ do not exist – they have to try to learn the correct pronunciation, but if they are unable to master it then they are excused, but their example should not be followed, and they should be called upon to strive their hardest to learn and correct their pronunciation. And none of them should lead the prayer, unless he is leading others like him who cannot pronounce well either. 

Ibn al-Jazari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Whoever is able to read the words of Allaah with correct Arabic pronunciation but he deliberately pronounces it incorrectly like a non-Arab, out of arrogance, stubbornness and complacency, or because he is too proud to go to a scholar who could help him to correct his pronunciation, is undoubtedly falling short and sinning and being dishonest. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Religion is sincerity: to Allaah, to His Book, to His Messenger, and to the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk.” 

But if a person’s tongue will not obey him or he cannot find someone to teach him the correct pronunciation, then Allaah does not burden any soul beyond its scope. 

End quote from al-Nashr fi’l-Qiraa’aat al-‘Ashr, 1/299 

It should be noted that Allaah has made it easy to memorize and recite Qur’aan, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And We have indeed made the Qur’aan easy to understand and remember; then is there any one who will remember (or receive admonition)?”

[al-Qamar 54:17] 

Hence we see many of our brothers in the countries referred to who are able to pronounce the letters perfectly, better than many of their Arab brothers. So you should strive to learn the correct pronunciation and recite Qur’aan with proper Tajweed, and not despair or give up.

 And Allaah is the Source of strength.

Ruling on seeking refuge with Allaah before reciting al-Faatihah in the prayer

What is the ruling on seeking refuge with Allaah before reciting al-Faatihah in the prayer? Is it obligatory or mustahabb?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

It is proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to seek refuge with Allaah before reciting al-Faatihah in the prayer. Narrated by Abu Dawood (775) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani. 

Secondly: 

The scholars differed as to the ruling on seeking refuge with Allaah before reciting al-Faatihah in the prayer. Some of them were of the view that it is obligatory. This is the view of ‘Ata’, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i and Dawood, as was narrated by Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla (3/247-248), and it was the view favoured by him. It was also narrated from Ahmad and was favoured by Ibn Battah, as it says in al-Insaaf (2/119). Among later scholars this view was favoured by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on them all).  

Others were of the view that it is only mustahabb and is not obligatory. This is the view of the majority of scholars among the Sahaabah and Taabi’een and of the Imams Abu Haneefah and al-Shaafa’i, and Ahmad according to the well known view of his madhhab. 

See: Tabyeen al-Haqaa’iq (1/107); al-Majmoo’ (3/280-282), al-Mughni (1/283); al-Fataawa al-Kubra by Ibn Taymiyah (5/332). 

Those who say that it is obligatory quoted as evidence the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“So when you want to recite the Qur’aan, seek refuge with Allaah from Shaytaan (Satan), the outcast (the cursed one)”

[al-Nahl 16:98] 

They said: In this verse there is the command to seek refuge with Allaah, and the basic principle is that a command means that something is obligatory, so long as there is no other evidence to indicate that what is meant in the command is mustahabb. 

Ibn Hazm said in al-Muhalla (2/279): 

With regard to the view of Abu Haneefah and al-Shaafa’i, that seeking refuge with Allaah is not obligatory, this is wrong, because Allaah, may He be exalted, says: “So when you want to recite the Qur’aan, seek refuge with Allaah from Shaytaan (Satan), the outcast (the cursed one)”. When Allaah commands something, it is wrong for anyone to say without any evidence from the Qur’aan or Sunnah that this is not obligatory, especially His command to pray for Him to protect us from the tricks of the shaytaan.  So this command is definitely obligatory, because avoiding the shaytaan and fleeing from him and asking for protection against him are things that no one can dispute are obligatory. Moreover, Allaah has enjoined that upon us when reading Qur’aan. End quote. 

The majority of scholars responded by noting that there is other evidence which indicates that it is mustahabb rather than obligatory. This other evidence is: 

1 – The hadeeth about the man who did not pray properly. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught him how to pray and said: “When you go to pray, say takbeer, then recite whatever you can of the Qur’aan. Then bow …” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim (397). And he did not tell him to seek refuge with Allaah. 

Imam al-Shaafa’i said in al-Umm (1/208): 

If he omits it by mistake or out of ignorance or deliberately, he does not have to repeat it or do the prostration of forgetfulness, but I regard it as makrooh to omit it deliberately. If he omits it in the first rak’ah, I prefer for him to say it in some other rak’ah. The only thing that keeps me from telling him to repeat the prayer is the fact that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught a man what is sufficient in prayer he said: “say takbeer, then recite…”, and it is not narrated that he told him to seek refuge with Allaah or recite the opening du’aa’. This indicates that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) regarded the opening du’aa’ as something optional, and that seeking refuge with Allaah is something that does not invalidate the prayer if it is omitted. End quote. 

2 –It says in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (4/6): 

The majority quoted as evidence that the command means that it is recommended and not obligatory the fact that the salaf were unanimously agreed that it is Sunnah. End quote.  

The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas also favoured the view that it is mustahabb and not obligatory, as did Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen. 

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (6/383): 

What is the ruling on one who forgets to seek refuge with Allaah from the accursed shaytaan and remembers after finishing the prayer, if he remembers that he did not say A’oodhu Billaahi min al-shaytaan il-rajeem (I seek refuge with Allaah from the accursed shaytaan) whilst he was praying? 

They replied: 

Seeing refuge with Allaah is Sunnah, and it does not matter if it is omitted from the prayer whether deliberately or by mistake. End quote. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen was asked: Should one seek refuge with Allaah in every rak’ah or only in the first rak’ah? 

He replied: 

Seeking refuge with Allaah from the accursed shaytaan in prayer is Sunnah. 

The scholars (may Allaah have mercy on them) differed as to whether one should seek refuge with Allaah in every rak’ah or only in the first rak’ah, based on the recitation in prayer – is it regarded as one recitation or is the recitation in each rak’ah separate? 

It seems to me that the recitation in prayer is one recitation, so one should seek refuge with Allaah in the first rak’ah, unless there happens something that requires seeking refuge with Allaah, such as if there come whispers from the shaytaan (waswaas), because if whispers come from the shaytaan, the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) enjoined spitting drily to the left three times and seeking refuge with Allaah from the accursed shaytaan. End quote. 

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (13/110) 

This view is also favoured in the answer to question no. 65847. 

And Allaah knows best.

Repetition in the Qur’aan – types and benefits

I am researching a subject, which is the phenomenon of repetition in the Holy Qur’aan.

Praise be to Allaah.

There follows a brief discussion on the repetitions in the Qur’aan, which suits the nature of our site. You can examine the subject further by looking at the references we refer to, or by studying the books of ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan in general. 

1 – Definition of repetition 

Ibn al-Manzoor said: 

The word takraar (translated here as repetition) is derived from the word al-karr, which means going back to a thing.  

Lisaan al-‘Arab (5/135). 

In sharee’ah terminology, takraar means repeating a word or phrase more than once for various reasons, such as emphasis, exaggeration, reinforcement and so on. 

2 – Repetition is a kind of eloquence 

Some of those who do not have any understanding of the Arabic language criticized the repetition that appears in the Qur’aan, and thought that this is not eloquent. This stems from their ignorance. The repetition that appears in the Qur’aan is not the kind of worthless repetition that is of no value – as we shall see in detail below – and which appears in the speech of one who does not speak the language well or express himself well. 

Al-Suyooti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

Repetition is more eloquent than merely emphasizing and it is reflective of good style, contrary to what some people think. 

Al-Itqaan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan (3/280), Mu’sasat al-Nada’ edition. 

3 – Kinds of repetition 

The scholars have divided the repetition in the Qur’aan into two kinds: 

(i) Repetition of words and meanings 

This is where words are repeated with no difference in the meaning. There are two types, connected and disconnected. 

The connected type appears in various ways, either by repeating the words in the same verse, as when Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Far, very far is that which you are promised!”

[al-Mu’minoon 23:36] 

or at the end of a verse and at the beginning of the following verse, such as when Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And amongst them will be passed round vessels of silver and cups of crystal —

16. Crystal‑clear, made of silver. They will determine the measure thereof (according to their wishes)”

[al-Insaan 76:15,16] 

or at the end of a verse, such as when Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Nay! When the earth is ground to powder [kallaa idha dukkat il-ardu dakkan dakka]”

[al-Fajr 89:21] 

or when a verse is repeated straight after another verse, such as when Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“5. Verily, along with every hardship is relief,

6. Verily, along with every hardship is relief”

[al-Sharh 94:5,6] 

As for that which is disconnected, it appears in two forms, either repeated in the same soorah, or repeated throughout the Qur’aan. 

Examples of repetition in the same soorah include the phrase “And verily, your Lord, He is truly, the All‑Mighty, the Most Merciful” which is repeated 8 times in Soorat al-Shu’ara’ and “Woe that Day to the deniers (of the Day of Resurrection)!” which is repeated 10 times in Soorat al-Mursalaat, and “Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinn and men) deny?” which is repeated 31 times in Soorat al-Rahmaan.   

Examples of phrases which are repeated throughout the Qur’aan include the phrase “They say: ‘When will this promise (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) come to pass if you are telling the truth?’” which appears six times, in Yoonus 10:48, al-Anbiya’ 21:38, al-Naml 27:71, Saba’ 34:29, Yaa-Seen 36:48 and al-Mulk 67:25. And the phrase “O Prophet (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe against them; their abode will be Hell, and worst indeed is that destination” appears twice, in al-Tawbah 9:73 and al-Tahreem 66:9.  

(ii) Repetition of meaning but not words 

Such as the stories of the Prophets with their peoples, and mention of Paradise and its people and Hell and its horrors. 

4 – Benefits of repetition 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

There is no pointless repetition in the Qur’aan, rather there are benefits in every repetition. 

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (14/408) 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, commenting on the repetition of the story of Moosa and his people:

 Allaah mentions this story in several places in the Qur'aan, and in every place He highlights a different idea and conclusion, just as Allaah, His Messenger and His Book are called by different names, each name indicating a meaning that is not indicated by another name. There is no repetition in that, rather it is a kind of diversity, like the names of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as he is called Muhammad, Ahmad, al-Haashir, al-‘Aaqib, al-Muqaffa, the Prophet of Mercy, the Prophet of Repentance, and each name points to a meaning that is not indicated by any other name; the person is the same but the attributes are numerous. 

The same applies to the Qur’aan, which is also called Furqaan (criterion), Bayaan (a plain statement), Huda (guidance), Basaa’ir (clear evidence), Shifa’ (healing), Noor (light) and Rahmah (mercy). Each name points to a meaning that is not indicated by other names. 

The same applies to the names of the Lord, as He is called: al-Malik (the Sovereign), al-Quddoos (the Holy), al-Salaam (the One Free from all defects), al-Mu’min (the Guardian of faith), al-Muhaymin (the Watcher over His creatures), al-‘Azeez (the Almighty), al-Jabbaar (the compeller), al-Mutakabbir (the Majestic), al-Khaaliq (the Creator), al-Baari’ (the Inventor of all things), and al-Musawwir (the Bestower of forms). Each name points to a meaning that is not indicated by another name. The Essence is One but the attributes are numerous.  

The same applies to sentences that are complete in meaning. The story is told in one way that highlights one point, then it is told in another way which highlights a different point. The story is the same story, but its details are numerous, and every sentence conveys a meaning that is not indicated by other sentences. 

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa 919/167, 168). 

Al-Suyooti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:  

There are a number of reasons for repetition: 

This includes confirmation. It is said that if words are repeated the meaning is confirmed. Allaah has indicated the reason why He repeats stories and reminders in the Qur’aan, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“and have explained therein in detail the warnings, in order that they may fear Allaah, or that it may cause them to have a lesson from it”

[Ta-Ha 20:113] 

It also includes emphasis. 

It also includes highlighting a point so that the words will be accepted, such as the verse:  

“And the man who believed said: ‘O my people! Follow me, I will guide you to the way of right conduct [i.e. guide you to Allaah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism with which Moosa (Moses) has been sent].

39. ‘O my people! Truly, this life of the world is nothing but a (quick passing) enjoyment’”

[Ghaafir 40:38].  

In the passage the call is repeated for this reason. 

Another example is if the speech is lengthy and there is the fear that what was said at the beginning may be forgotten, so it is repeated a second time to keep the idea fresh. For example, in the verses: 

“Then, verily, your Lord __ for those who do evil (commit sins and are disobedient to Allaah) in ignorance and afterward repent and do righteous deeds, verily, your Lord thereafter, (to such) is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Nahl 16:119] 

“Then, verily, your Lord _for those who emigrated after they had been put to trials and thereafter strove hard and fought (for the Cause of Allaah) and were patient, verily, your Lord afterward”

[al-Nahl 16:110] 

“And when there came to them (the Jews), a Book (this Qur’aan) from Allaah confirming what is with them [the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], although aforetime they had invoked Allaah (for coming of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when there came to them that which they had recognised, they disbelieved in it”

[al-Baqarah 2:89] 

“Think not that those who rejoice in what they have done (or brought about), and love to be praised for what they have not done,— think not you that they are rescued from the torment”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:188] 

“Verily, I saw (in a dream) eleven stars and the sun and the moon — I saw them”

[Yoosuf 12:4] 

It may also be done for emphasis, as in the verses: 

“The Inevitable (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)!

2. What is the Inevitable?”

[al-Haaqqah 69:1] 

“Al‑Qaari‘ah (the striking Hour, i.e. the Day of Resurrection).

2. What is the striking (Hour)?”

[al-Qaari’ah 101:1] 

“And those on the Right Hand —how (fortunate) will be those on the Right Hand?”

[al-Waaqi’ah 56:27] 

al-Itqaan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan (3/281, 282). 

5 – Benefits of repeating some stories and verses 

1 – Abu’l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

If it is said: What is the point of repeating the verse “Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinn and men) deny?” [in Soorat al-Rahmaan]? 

The answer is: This repetition is in order to confirm the blessing and emphasize the remembrance thereof. Ibn Qutaybah said: It is the habit of the Arabs to repeat things for emphasis and to ensure that they are understood, although they may also speak briefly so as not to tire the listener, because if a speaker addresses a point from different angles, that is better than him approaching it from just one angle, such as if someone said:  By Allaah, I will not do it, and by Allaah, I will not do it – because he wanted to emphasize his point and put an end to any hope that he could do it. And f he wanted to be brief he may say:  By Allaah I shall do it, but omitting the word ‘not’ for the sake of brevity. Similarly, one who is in a hurry may say, Hurry up, hurry up! And it may be said to the archer: Shoot, shoot! 

Ibn Qutaybah said: When Allaah listed His blessings in this soorah, and reminded His slaves of His signs, and drew attention to His power, He repeated this phrase between each two blessings, so that they would appreciate the blessings and recognize them, such as when you say to a man: Didn’t I give you accommodation when you were homeless – can you deny that? Didn’t I take you for Hajj when you had never been – can you deny that?  

Zaad al-Maseer (5/461). 

2 – al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

As for the way in which the repetition is done – i.e., “Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to these Mushrikoon and Kaafiroon): “O Al‑Kaafiroon (disbelievers)” – it is said that it is for emphasis to cut off their hopes, as one might say: By Allaah, I will not do it, and by Allaah I will not do it. 

Most of the scholars of semantics said: The Qur’aan was revealed in the language of the Arabs, and it is their way to repeat things for emphasis and to ensure that they are understood, and also to speak briefly so as not to tire the listener, because when the speaker uses different phrases in his speech, it is better than limiting himself to one phrase. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinn and men) deny?” and “Nay, they will come to know! Nay, again, they will come to know!” [al-Naba’ 78:4, 5] and “5. Verily, along with every hardship is relief,6. Verily, along with every hardship is relief” [al-Sharh 94:5,6]. In all cases, the aim is emphasis. 

Tafseer al-Qurtubi (20/226). 

And Allaah knows best.

Saying takbeer from Soorat al-Duha to Soorat al-Naas

Is it permissible to say tahleel (laa ilaaha ill-Allaah) and takbeer (Allaahu akbar) from after Soorat al-Duha until Soorat al-Naas? Is that proven from the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or the Sahaabah or Taabi’een?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

The scholars differed concerning the ruling on saying takbeer after every soorah from Soorat al-Duha to al-Naas. Imam Ahmad regarded it as mustahabb but the other imams differed with him. There is another report from Imam Ahmad which is in accordance with the view of the majority. The correct view is that it is not prescribed to say takbeer, and this is not proven in any marfoo’ hadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). There is also no saheeh report about this takbeer from any of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them), rather it was proven from some of the qurraa’ (reciters) of the people of Makkah. 

It was narrated that ‘Ikrimah ibn Sulaymaan said: I recited to Ismaa’eel ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Constantine, and when I reached Wa’l-duha (i.e., Soorat al-Duha), he said to me: Say takbeer, say takbeer at the end of every soorah until you complete (the Qur’aan). ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Katheer told him that he recited to Mujaahid and he told him to do that, and Mujaahid told him that Ibn ‘Abbaas had told him to do that, and Ibn ‘Abbaas told him that Ubayy ibn Ka’b told him to do that, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b told him that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told him to do that.  

Narrated by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (3/304). 

This hadeeth is da’eef (weak). Its isnaad includes Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Abi Bazzah al-Muqri’. Abu Haatim said: His hadeeth is da’eef (weak) and I will not narrate from him. Al-‘Aqeeli said: His hadeeth is munkar (odd). Al-Dhahabi said: This is a ghareeb (strange) hadeeth, and it is one of the hadeeth of al-Bazzi that were regarded as munkar. Abu Haatim said: This is munkar. And he said: Al-Haakim regarded his hadeeth about takbeer as saheeh, but it is munkar. 

See: al-Du’afa’ by al-‘Aqeeli (1/127); and Mizaan al-I’tidaal (1/144, 145) and Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ (12/51), both by Imam al-Dhahabi. 

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

Ahmad regarded it is mustahabb to say takbeer from the beginning of Soorat al-Duha until the end of the Qur’aan. This was mentioned by Ibn Tameem and others, and this is the recitation of the people of Makkah, which al-Bazzi took from Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Katheer took it from Mujaahid, and Mujaahid took it from Ibn ‘Abbaas, and Ibn ‘Abbaas took it from Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b took it from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). A number of them narrated that, including al-Baghawi in his Tafseer, and the reason for that is that the Wahy (revelation) ceased.  

This is a ghareeb hadeeth, reported by Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Bazzi, who is sound with regard to recitation but da’eef (weak) with regard to hadeeth. 

Ibn Haatim al-Raazi said: This is a munkar hadeeth. 

It was also narrated from him – i.e., Imam Ahmad – that there should be no takbeer, as is the view of all reciters. End quote. 

Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah (2/295, 296). 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about a group who gathered to read the entire Qur’aan (khatmah) and they were reading to ‘Aasim and Abu ‘Amr. When they reached Soorat al-Duha, they did not say Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah or Allaahu akbar, until they reached the end of the Qur’aan. Is what they did better or not? Is the hadeeth which is narrated about saying tahleel and takbeer saheeh and mutawaatir, or not? 

He replied: 

Praise be to Allaah. Yes, if they recited in accordance with a recitation other than that of Ibn Katheer, their not doing that is better, and is in fact what is prescribed and is Sunnah. These imams of recitation did not say takbeer either at the beginning of the soorahs or at the ends. If it is acceptable to say that Ibn Katheer narrated the takbeer from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), it is acceptable for others to say that these people narrated the omission of that from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) too. It is not possible that the recitation of the majority that was narrated by more people than the recitation of Ibn Katheer omitted something enjoined by the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), because those who narrated mutawaatir reports could not have concealed something for which there was good reason to narrate it. The one who accepts that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told the majority of reciters to add an extra takbeer then they disobeyed the command of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and failed to do what he had commanded them to do, deserves to be punished severely as a deterrent to him and others like him. 

With regard to the takbeer, the one who says that it is part of the Qur’aan has gone astray according to scholarly consensus and must be asked to repent; if he repents, all well and good, otherwise he should be executed. How could the one who does not recite it be denounced for not reciting it? The one who regard a person who does not say this takbeer as an innovator or one who goes against the Sunnah or a sinner, is closer to kufr than Islam and should be punished; indeed if he insists on that after having the proof explained to him, then he should be executed. 

If we assume [?] that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told some of those who recited it to say takbeer, then at most this indicates that it is permissible or mustahabb. If it were obligatory, the majority of reciters would not have neglected it and the imams of the Muslims would not have agreed that it is not obligatory. But none of the imams narrated that the takbeer is obligatory, rather the most that anyone who reads according to the recitation of Ibn Katheer can say is that it is mustahabb. This is unlike the Basmalah, recitation of which is obligatory according to those who regard it as part of the Qur’aan, but despite that the reciters allow not reciting it if one does not want to use it as a break between one soorah and another. So how could it not be allowed to omit the takbeer, which is not part of the Qur’aan?   End quote. 

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (13/417-419) 

And he (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

The takbeer that is narrated from Ibn Katheer is not narrated with an isnad from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and no one attributed it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) except al-Bazzi, who thus went against all those who narrated it, as they only narrated it as something optional that was done by some of those who came after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and he was the only one who attributed it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). His transmission was regarded as da’eef (weak) by the specialists in hadeeth and biography among the scholars of recitation and hadeeth, as was mentioned by more than one of the scholars. End quote. 

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (17/130). 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:  

Some of the reciters of Qur’aan separate one soorah from another by saying Allaahu akbar instead of the basmalah. Is that permissible, and is there any evidence for it? 

He replied: 

This is contrary to what the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) did, who separated one soorah from another by saying Bismillaah il-Rahmaan il-Raheem, and it is contrary to the scholarly view that the soorahs of the Qur’aan should not be separated by takbeer throughout the Qur’aan. 

At the very most, there are some reciters who regard it as mustahabb for a person to say takbeer when he finishes every soorah from al-Duha to the end of the Qur’aan, along with the Basmalah between every two soorahs. But the correct view is that this is not Sunnah, because that was not narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Based on this, what is prescribed is to separate one soorah from another by saying the Basmalah,  Bismillaah il-Rahmaan il-Raheem, except in the case of Soorat Baraa’ah (al-Tawbah), as there is no Basmalah between al-Anfaal and it. End quote. 

Fataawa Islamiyyah (4/48). 

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (may Allaah preserve him) mentions in his Book Bida’ al-Qurraa’ (p. 27) seven things that have to do reading the entire Qur’aan, of which we may mention: 

Saying takbeer at the end of Soorat al-Duha until the end of Soorat al-Naas, both when praying and otherwise. 

Then he said: 

There are no saheeh reports about these seven things from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or from his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them). Most of that which is narrated about some of them cannot be taken as evidence. The correct view is that none of these things are prescribed in sharee’ah. End quote. 

The Shaykh of the reciters in al-Madeenah al-Munawwarah, Shaykh Ibraaheem al-Akhdar, has written an essay entitled Takbeer al-Khatam bayna al-Qurraa’ wa’l-Muhadditheen, at the end of which he says: 

From the above discussion of the reports, examination of their isnaads and biographies of their narrators, we could not find anything but the report of al-Bazzi – as the scholars said – and it is a report whose isnaad is filled with weak and majrooh narrators, and there is no other report apart from the report of al-Bazzi. This was stated clearly by many scholars of reports, although some of the most famous reciters, such as Ibn Mujaahid in his book al-Sab’ah, did not narrate the takbeer, and neither did Abu’l-Qaasim al-Hudhali in his book al-Kaamil. This indicates that the report was not proven in their view. And Allaah knows best. 

A Sunnah cannot be established by means of such a report, rather it is better not to do that, whether it is mentioned in the report of al-Bazzi or the report of anyone else. That is so as to protect the Book of Allaah and to keep out of it anything that is not part of it, whether it is thought to be Sunnah or not. Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. End quote. 

Secondly: 

Many reasons for this takbeer have been mentioned, the most well known of which is that the Revelation to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ceased for a while, and when it resumed after that, the first thing that was revealed was Soorat al-Duha, in which it says (interpretation of the meaning): “Your Lord (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) has neither forsaken you nor hates you” [al-Duha 93:3], and he said takbeer in joy at that. Even if this is saheeh, it does not indicate that it is mustahabb to say takbeer as suggested by some scholars of recitation, for several reasons: 

1.     It does not indicate that takbeer is to be said after every recitation of the soorah.

2.     It does not indicate that takbeer is to be said until Soorat al-Naas.

3.     The takbeer was said only once, because of the Revelation resuming after it had ceased for a while.

4.     The other soorahs do not have the same content as Soorat al-Duha. 

Moreover, this report does not have any saheeh isnaad, or even any da’eef (weak) one.   

Imam Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:  

With regard to saying takbeer after Soorat al-Duha, the reciters said that when the revelation was late in coming to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that went on for a while, then the angel came to him and brought the words (interpretation of the meaning): “By the forenoon (after sunrise). By the night when it darkens (and stands still)” [al-Duha 93:1-2], he said takbeer out of joy and happiness. 

But this was not narrated with any isnaad that can be judged to be saheeh or da’eef. And Allaah knows best. 

Tafseer Ibn Katheer (8/423). 

And Allaah knows best.

When it is obligatory to listen attentively to recitation of the Qur’aan?

What is the ruling if we are sitting in a large gathering in which Qur’aan is being read, and my friend and I are sitting apart from the others who are present, and chatting together; 
If we are in a car or bus, and the driver is listening to Qur’aan or is reciting it, and we are not taking part in what he is reciting, or we are in a room and there is someone there who is praying one of the prayers in which Qur’aan is to be recited out loud, or is reading Qur’aan out loud; 
Or in any other situation in a place where Qur’aan is being recited and we are not taking part in it, must we listen attentively until the reciter finishes, and does the verse apply to us?.

Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars differed concerning the ruling on listening attentively to recitation of Qur’aan outside of prayer. There are two opinions: 

1 – The first view is that is it obligatory. This is the view of the Hanafis, and some of them regarded it as an individual obligation, whilst others said that it is a communal obligation. They quoted as evidence the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy”

[al-A’raaf 7:204] 

It says in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (4/86): 

Listening to recitation of Qur’aan when it is recited outside of prayer is obligatory if there is no legitimate shar’i excuse for not listening. 

The Hanafis differed with regard to this obligation: is it an individual obligation or a communal obligation? 

Ibn ‘Aabideen said: The basic principle is that listening to Qur’aan is a communal obligation, because it is establishing its right to be listened to and not ignored, which is achieved by some listening attentively, as is the case with returning salaams (i.e., it is sufficient for some members of a group to return the greeting). 

Al-Hamawi narrated that his teacher, the prominent judge Yahya who is better known as Minqaarizaadah, said that listening to the Qur’aan is an individual obligation. 

Yes, the verse in Soorat al-A’raaf, “So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy” was revealed to abrogate the permission to speak during prayer, but what counts is the general meaning of the words, not the specific reason for its revelation, and the general meaning includes recitation of Qur’aan both during prayer and otherwise. End quote. 

2 – The second view is that it is mustahabb and recommended. They interpreted the verse in Soorat al-A’raaf as referring to recitation in prayer only. Outside of prayer it is recommended and mustahabb. This is the view of the majority of scholars.  

Ibn Katheer says in Tafseer al-Qur’aan il-‘Azeem (2/372): 

‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas concerning the verse (interpretation of the meaning): 

“So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy”

[al-A’raaf 7:204]: 

i.e., in the obligatory prayer. Something similar was narrated from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Mughaffal. Ibn Jareer said: Humayd ibn Mas’adah told us, Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal told us, al-Jareeri told us, that Talhah ibn ‘Ubayd-Allaah ibn Kurayz said: I saw ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr and ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabaah talking whilst the storyteller was speaking, and I said: Why don’t you listen to the reminder, lest you be subject to the warning? They looked at me, then they went back to their conversation. I repeated it, and they looked at me, then they went back to their conversation. I said it a third time and they looked at me and said: That is only in prayer: “So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy”

[al-A’raaf 7:204].  

This is how it was narrated by more than one person from Mujaahid. ‘Abd al-Razzaaq narrated from al-Thawri from Layth that Mujaahid said: There is nothing wrong with speaking if a man recites Qur’aan other than in prayer. 

Something similar was stated by Sa’eed ibn Jubayr, al-Dahhaak, Ibraheem al-Nakha’i, Qataadah, al-Sha’bi, al-Saddi and ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, that what is meant (in the verse) is in prayer. 

This was the view favoured by Ibn Jareer, that what is meant is listening attentively in prayer and during the khutbah, as it says in the ahaadeeth which enjoin listening attentively behind the imam and during the khutbah. End quote. 

It seems that this view is the correct one, because in order for a thing to be obligatory, clear evidence is required, otherwise obliging the people to adhere to that will clause undue hardship without any evidence for it. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked, as it says in Liqaa’aat al-Baab il-Maftooh (no. 197/ question no. 26): 

There was a group of people travelling by car, and one of them put on a tape of Qur’aan; should they all listen to this tape, and is anyone who speaks whilst the tape is playing sinning thereby? 

The answer was: 

Imam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him) said concerning this verse: This applies to prayer. He said: They were unanimously agreed that this applies to prayer. Based on this, if I am next to a person who is reciting Qur’aan out loud, but I am reciting tasbeeh and saying laa ilaaha ill-Allaah, then I do not have to listen to him, rather that applies to prayer only. 

But I say to the brother who put the tape on: Do not put it on when people are not paying attention, because the least that may said about that is that it is like those of whom Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And those who disbelieve say: ‘Listen not to this Qur’aan, and make noise in the midst of its (recitation) that you may overcome’” [Fussilat 41:26]. If you see that your brothers do not want to listen, and they are busy talking to one another, then do not put the tape on. If you want to listen to it, then there are small headphones that you can put in your ears, and you can listen to it by yourself. End quote. 

It says in al-Muntaqa fi Fataawa al-Fawzaan (3/question no. 437): 

Sometimes I spend a lot of time in the kitchen, to prepare food for my husband, and I want to make good use of my time, so I listen to the Holy Qur’aan either on the radio or on tapes. Is this action of mine correct or should I not do that, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy”[al-A’raaf 7:204]? 

The answer is: There is nothing wrong with listening to the Holy Qur’aan on the radio or on tapes when one is working, and that does not go against the words “So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent”, because listening attentively is required as much as one is able to do, and the one who puts on the tape should listen attentively to the Qur’aan as much as he can. End quote. 

Favouring the view that it is mustahabb does not mean that one may be careless and deliberately fail to listen attentively to the words of Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, when they are recited. Keenness to listen attentively should be the basic principle that is established in the life of the Muslim, and he should not do otherwise except in the case of work or need. 

Al-Nawawi said in al-Tabyaan fi Adaab Hamalat al-Qur’aan (92): 

Something that attention must be paid to and which should be affirmed is respecting the Qur’aan in cases where some of the negligent may be heedless about it in gatherings where Qur’aan is recited, such as not laughing, chatting or talking during the recitation, except in cases of necessity; obeying the words of Allaah, “So, when the Qur’aan is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy”; and following the example that was narrated from Ibn Abi Dawood from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), that when the Qur’aan was recited he would not talk until the recitation ended. End quote. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Liqaa’aat al-Baab il-Maftooh (no. 146, question no. 9): It is not good manners to ignore the Book of Allaah when it is being recited, even if it is on a tape.” End quote. 

And Allaah knows best.