Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ozzy last won the day on February 12

Ozzy had the most liked content!

About Ozzy

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Religion
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

15,716 profile views
  1. Mufti Ebrahim Desai's view certainly collaborates with your explanation. Aini's explains that it was due to corruption that the fatwa was changed. It is the situation that changed, not the fatwa. I don't believe Shaibani changed or disagreed with the original fatwa, rather he issued a new fatwa to address the new situation, as explained by Ahnaaf and even non-Ahnaaf. الكاساني في البدائع: (وأما) الطلاء فهو اسم للمطبوخ من ماء العنب إذا ذهب أقل من الثلثين وصار مسكرا i.e. Talaa’ is considered an intoxicant if less than a 3rd is boiled, also by its very definition it is considered an intoxicant. الكافي: محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن علي بن أبي حمزة، عن أبي بصير، قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: وقد سئل عن الطلاء فقال: إن طبخ حتى يذهب منه اثنان ويبقى واحد فهو حلال وماكان دون ذلك فليس فيه خير أبوعلي الاشعري، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن منصور بن حازم، عن ابن أبي يعفور، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إذا زاد الطلاء على الثلث فهو حرام. علي عن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن الحسن بن عطية، عن عمر بن يزيد قال: قلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: الرجل يهدي إلي البختج من غير أصحابنا فقال عليه السلام: إن كان ممن يستحل المسكر فلا تشربه وإن كان ممن لا يستحل شربه فاقبله أو قال: اشربه According to Imam Sadiq عليه السلام Talaa’ is halal as long as less than 2/3 is boiled. By such definitions it would mean Imam Sadiq عليه السلام also allowed an intoxicant as long as it didn’t intoxicate. However, looking at what Maturidi and Wakee were saying, the drinks in Kufa were made differently, and the way things were defined changed with time and location. Imam Sadiq عليه السلام also says as long as the seller is not from a sect who believes intoxicants are permissible then there is no issue, this would exclude the Ahnaaf who clearly did not promote intoxication. The definition of drinks like Tilaa and other non-grape based juices were the same for the Imam and scholars of Kufa. As time passed the names remained the same, but the breweries and their purposes changed. If we are to insist that Tilaa’ by definition is an intoxicant then it would mean the Imam also said it is permissible to drink an intoxicant as long as it wasn’t boiled too much and you didn’t get drunk. Why would the companions be asking the Imam about these drinks if they were obviously all halal or haram, I assume the drinks served by the same names were made differently or deceptively which caused confusion. Here is a question related to Bakhtadj: محمدبن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن يونس بن يعقوب عن معاوية بن عمار قال: سألت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام عن الرجل من أهل المعرفة بالحق يأتيني بالبختج ويقول: قد طبخ على الثلث وأنا أعلم أنه يشربه على النصف أفأشربه بقوله وهو يشربه على النصف؟ فقال: لا تشربه، فقلت: فرجل من غير أهل المعرفة ممن لا نعرفه يشربه على الثلث ولا يستحله على النصف، يخبرنا أن عنده بختجا على الثلث قد ذهب ثلثاه وبقي ثلثه نشرب منه؟ قال: نعم Absolutely. However, in relation to quotes in the OP, when people spread oversimplified statements and captions like 'Abu Hanifa allowed intoxicants', or that 'Abu Hanifa: Muslims can drink whiskey but not wine' etc and others simply help it spread further for whatever reason, these are deceptive statements. Anyone who reads that would understand it to mean: according to Abu Hanifa one is allowed to drink regular alcohol as long as one does not get drunk. This creates many other negative inferences which may or may not be true. If people can't distinguish such terms they don't seem sober either. Such statements are in themselves deceptive. Just as it is important not to drink the first drop of an intoxicant it is just as important that people don't spread comments that has drops of deception. The language spread in the media does not do justice to the subtle language used in fiqh. Just like Abu Hanifa is held responsible for his tongue, so is everyone else.
  2. In the following texts by Shia fuqaha, they mention muskir followed by 'as for non-grape based' it is permissible as long as it does not intoxicate. If we are to assume what the Ahnaaf meant by their text then these texts would read the same. شرائع الاسلام في مسائل الحلال والحرام للحلي الرابعة: شارب المسكر ترد شهادته ويفسق، خمرا كان أو نبيذا أو تبعا أو منصفا أو فضيحا، ولو شرب منه قطرة. وكذا الفقاع. وكذا العصير اذا غلى من نفسه أو بالنار ولو لم يسكر، إلا أن يغلي حتى يذهب ثلثاه أما غير العصير من التمر أو البسر، فالاصل أنه حلال ما لم يسكر الوسيلة إلى نيل الفضيلة - عماد الدين بن حمزة الطوسي فالفقاع حرام نجس وغير الفقاع ضربان: رب، وغيره فالرب حلال طيب على اختلاف أنواعه مثل رب التوت، والسفرجل، والتفاح، والرمان وغيرها وما يتخذ من التمر، والزبيب، والعنب، والعسل ما لم يسكر المهذب البارع - ابن فهد ومعنى الغليان أن يصير أسفله أعلاه من نفسه ، أو بالنار ، وإن لم يقذف بالزبد ، ويحل إذا ذهب ثلثاه سواء كان ذلك بالنار أو بالشمس أو بغيرهما وبقي دبسا أما عصير التمر والرطب فلا يحرم وإن أزبد ما لم يسكر Anyone can claim that Hilli, Tusi and Ibn Fahad permit the drinking of khamr as long as the drink is not of grapes and you won't get intoxicated. We would state that it is obvious that muskir is haram. Occasionally the obvious is not stated, that is where people impose meaning and context.
  3. Is it permissible to drink fermented beer, whiskey, cider, and other alcoholic beverages in stores according to Abu Hanifa's principle? I would like to see Hanafi scholars agree with you as you understand it. If they did, the Khaled Gendy comment would not have been controversial even among the Ahnaaf. I'm just curious as to what exactly did Abu Hanifa say. I respect your perspective on the issue, it's their problem anyway not ours alhamdulillah. بارك الله فيك وجزاك الله خيرا
  4. السيد سابق في فقه السنة: أما ما كان من الانبذة من غير العنب، فإنه يحرم الكثير المسكر منه، أما القليل الذي لا يسكر، فإنه حلال Sayyad Sabiq says that Abu Hanifa saw that non-grape juice that is not suppose to intoxicate is permissible. This is very different to saying that fermented non-grape juice is permissible, which has been explicitly mentioned as being haram. As for the prohibition for the round that intoxicates and that prior to that it is permissible: The reason they say it is permissible is because it is not supposed to intoxicate, if the rule of anything that intoxicates is applied without restriction then many things can be haram as mentioned by Samarqandi. قال صاحب التحفة : لأن هذا من جملة الأطعمة، ولا عبرة بالسكر، فإن في بعض البلاد قد يسكر المؤمن الخبر ونحوه البنج يسكر ولبن الرمكة يسكر Sarakhsi also clarifies what is meant by the last round and expanding on Samarqandi: سرخسي في المبسوط: فإن كان يسكر بشرب الكثير منه، فذاك لا يدل على أنه يحرم تناول القليل منه كالبنج، ولبن الفرس، وأما الحديث، فنحن نقول به، وكل مسكر عندنا حرام، وذلك القدح الأخير، وروي عن أبي يوسف أنه قال في تأويله: إذا كان يشرب على قصد السكر، فإن القليل، والكثير على هذا القصد حرام، فأما إذا كان يشرب لاستمراء الطعام فلا، فهو نظير المشي على قصد الزنا يكون حراما What the later Ahnaaf are saying is that it was given that anything which is supposed to intoxicate - grapes based or otherwise - is haram. The issue is if a non-grape drink is boiled or nearly fermented then is that permissible? and Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Shaibani were all in agreement that it is, since they saw such substances not generally used for intoxication, for that people drank wine, as explained in tafseer of Maturidi, Wakee further distinguished between the drinks of Kufa and Basra: تفسير الماتريدي: وأما ما اتخذ من غير النخلة والعنب فلا يحرم وإن كان نيئًا إلا السكر منه؛ لأن غيرهما من الأشربة قد يتخذ لا للسكر سير أعلام النبلاء للذهبي: قلت لوكيع : رأيت ابن عليه يشرب النبيذ حتى يُحمل على الحمار يحتاج من يرده إلى منزله ، فقال وكيع : إذا رأيت البصري يشرب فاتهمه ، وإذا رأيت الكوفي يشرب فلا تتهمه . قلت : وكيف : قال : الكوفي يشرب تدينا ، والبصري يتركه تدينا What they said was in theory many things can intoxicate you, would that mean every non-grape drink is haram? So they said no it must be permissible, but knowing that it would intoxicate immediately makes it haram, as pointed out by Maturidi. Later, as people did start making intoxicants from non-grape, Shaibani explained this is not what the Tarafain meant and thereafter closed the issue with an outright ban. As for the Imam عليه السلام criticising a group in Kufa, it is not clear which group since many fuqaha were named, and as for Abu Hanifa, Shaibani clarified it. The others we have to find who continued to allow it. For non-Hanafis to insist that Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf allowed 'small amounts of fully fermented non-grape juice' requires an explicit Hanafi text that would say just that. Every Hanafi text is clear كل مسكر حرام and that includes all drinks after fermentation, regardless of the ingredient. It would be relevant to find a contemporary source to support these claims, even Tusi in his khilaaf did not mention it. On the contrary, here are some explicit texts that even 'small amounts of fully fermented non-grape juice' is haram according to Abu Hanifa by Non-Ahnaaf: تفسير الخازن لباب التأويل في معاني التنزيل: وقال أبو حنيفة: الخمر من العنب والرطب ونقيع التمر والزبيب فإن طبخ حتى ذهب ثلثاه حل شربه والمسكر منه حرام تفسير القرطبي المالكي: وذهب أبو حنيفة إلى قصر التحريم على المعتصر من ثمرات النخيل والأعناب على تفصيل، فيرى أن سلافة العنب يحرم قليلها وكثيرها إلا أن تطبخ حتى ينقص ثلثاها، وأما نقيع الزبيب والتمر فيحل مطبوخهما وإن مسته النار مسا قليلا من غير اعتبار بحد، وأما الني منه فحرام، ولكنه مع تحريمه إياه لا يوجب الحد فيه، وهذا كله ما لم يقع الإسكار، فإن وقع الإسكار استوى الجميع بن تيمية في مجموعه الحنبلي: ومن نقل عن أبي حنيفة إباحة قليل ذلك فقد كذب؛ بل من استحل ذلك فإنه يستتاب فإن تاب وإلا قتل ولو استحل شرب الخمر بنوع شبهة وقعت لبعض السلف أنه ظن أنها إنما تحرم على العامة؛ لا على الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات؛ فاتفق الصحابة كعمر وعلي وغيرهما على أن مستحل ذلك يستتاب فإن أقر بالتحريم جلد وإن أصر على استحلالها قتل. بل وأبو حنيفة يحرم القليل والكثير من أشربة أخر وإن لم يسمها خمرا كنبيذ التمر والزبيب النيء فإنه يحرم عنده قليله وكثيره إذا كان مسكرا وكذلك المطبوخ من عصير العنب الذي لم يذهب ثلثاه فإنه يحرم عنده قليله إذا كان كثيره يسكر. فهذه الأنواع الأربعة تحرم عنده قليلها وكثيرها وإن لم يسكر منها We disagree with Abu Hanifa on many things, and he did come up with verdicts that were unacceptable, I just don't find it compelling in this case to say that he allowed small amounts of fermented non-grape drinks. All sects find a loophole in their system, this is not to speculate that the leader intended the results, though he will be criticised for not being more vigilant. The last round rule can be applied to any substance such as cough syrups, mouthwash, inhalants, even water etc, in all cases where the principle is the same, it is permissible to use them as long as the purpose is not to get intoxicated, and if you know one more will intoxicate you, then it is haram. Yet the rule 'if it intoxicates you in large amounts then even a small amount is prohibited' cannot be applied to every substance that is not supposed to be used as an intoxicant.
  5. have the potential to intoxicate ... this is what I've been saying about 'supposed to intoxicate' vs 'not suppose to intoxicate. ... because it is not suppose to intoxicate ... even though it is prohibited according to Muhammad (al-Shaybani) - because of the abuse as he clearly mentioned, even Shaibani says that he did not disagree with Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf's opinion per se but because of its ramifications. We disagree on the nuances.
  6. الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين قال الحصكفي: ... فلو شرب ما يغلب على ظنه أنه مسكر فيحرم، لأن السكر حرام في كل شراب (و) الثاني (الخليطان) من الزبيب والتمر إذا طبخ أدنى طبخة، وإن اشتد يحل بلا لهو (و) الثالث (نبيذ العسل والتين والبر والشعير والذرة) يحل سواء (طبخ أو لا) بلا لهو وطرب (و) الرابع (المثلث) العنبي وإن اشتد، وهو ما طبخ من ماء العنب حتى يذهب ثلثاه ويبقى ثلثه إذا قصد به استمراء الطعام والتداوي والتقوي على طاعة الله تعالى، ولو للهو لا يحل إجماعا حقائق No mention of fermented drinks being permissible. There is mention of Tabkh (boiled) and Tabkh Shadeed (almost fermented but not supposed to intoxicate) for nutrition and Muskir (fermented and which is supposed to intoxicate). It is very clear that fermented drinks are haram, and even almost fermented ones if one knows it will intoxicate. It seems apparent that people later began to abuse the fatwa and drank the muskir claiming that they thought it hadn't fermented yet or that they were just trying to gain nutrition (it is possible that the Imam عليه السلام was criticising this group of people), this is why Shaibani closed the door. As for controversy, it can be created either way. If the people started getting intoxicated, it becomes easy to blame the founder of the school. Abu Hanifa could be blamed for the effects of his opinion but that is not the same as saying that is what he had in mind. I believe this is what the fuqaha tried to resolve.
  7. If the purpose is to mourn, black is mustahab. If not then there is no harm in black for personal reasons, as long as you aren't being extreme about it.
  8. The issue is regardless of when we came into existence. What meaning does "2 days to refer to a 2,000 - 50,000 years to create the Ard'" have in Modern Astronomy? @iCambrian
  9. Then there is no issue.
  10. According to modern astronomy the Earth could not have been made in 2 days or 2,000 years, but atleast over 10m years. There is much conflict between the Islamic narrative and modern astronomy. Modern Astronomy needs to be verified and not accepted blindly, especially in matters where it directly conflicts with the Quran. Before we start doubting, rejecting and reinterpreting our verses, we need Astronomers to be transparent with us.
  11. This is why the Hanafi jurists say it is already known that intoxicants are forbidden. The entire discussion is how much can be boiled and what happens if it ferments, as Tusi also explained in his Khilaaf when discussing Abu Hanifa's view. Their conclusion being it can be boiled and consumed without restriction on amount (since this is not supposed to intoxicate). However, not a drop of fermented drink is permissible, since it is expected to intoxicate. Muhammad Shaibani later gave a stricter opinion because the initial view was being abused. No scholar no matter how self-opinionated would get away by opposing something so basic so explicitly. Furthermore, there seems to be no direct quote from Abu Hanifa, just what others assumed he meant, which too was discussed and refuted by Shaibani et al. Furthermore, no Hanafi jurist seems to have given a fatwa according to the understanding that fermented drinks are permissible until recently, hence it all seems like a misinterpretation of the madhab.
  12. No doubt the controversy exists, especially what Ibn Hazm had to say about Abu Hanifa on the issue. I would just like to see an explicit quotation from Abu Hanifa to close the matter. Otherwise it seems as if one group is misquoting him or choosing to find an interpretation that implicates him while another is defending him. While the closest quotation comes from Muhammad Shaibani who says Abu Hanifa did not say or intend what others thought.
  13. Its a public forum which people post by will. Is there copyright?
  14. Kufa had a mix of sects. Who exactly is the Imam عليه السلام referring to? Does this include Abu Hanifa or other contemporaries ? Since Muhammad Shaibani clarified Abu Hanifa's view. Please provide quote from Abu Hanifa himself.