Islamic Salvation

Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Islamic Salvation last won the day on August 20 2014

Islamic Salvation had the most liked content!

About Islamic Salvation

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. 2.20. One of the Reasons for Differences between Narrations [1/112] التهذيب: محمد بن يحيى عن محمد بن الحسين عن عبدالرحمن بن أبي هاشم البجلي عن سالم أبي خديجة عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: سأل انسان وأنا حاضر فقال: ربما دخلت المسجد وبعض أصحابنا يصلي العصر وبعضهم يصلي الظهر فقال: انا أمرتهم بهذا لو صلوا على وقت واحد لعرفوا فأخذوا برقابهم [1/112] al-Tahdhib: Muhammad b. Yahya from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Hashim al-Bajali from Salim Abi Khadija from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he (Salim) said: a man asked [him] while I was present: I happen to enter the Masjid and one of our companions is praying the Asr prayer while another is praying Dhuhr [why this divergence]? He said: I ordered them to do that, if they were all to pray at one time they would be known and it would be off with their necks. NOTES: Taqiyya was so crucial that the `Aimma gave their Ashab different orders so that they do not stand out as a separate group leading to persecution. The amount of secrecy needed especially in the Abbasid time who were on the lookout for any threat to their rule cannot be overstated.
  2. 2.20. Precedence is Given to what has been Established by the Qur’an over the Sunna [-/1] الكافي: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن معاوية بن عمار، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: قلت له: رجل نسي أن يرمي الجمار حتى أتي مكة قال: يرجع فيرميها ... قلت: فاته ذلك وخرج؟ قال: ليس عليه شئ، قال: قلت: فرجل نسي السعي بين الصفا والمروة؟ فقال: يعيد السعي، قلت: فاته ذلك حتى خرج؟ قال، يرجع فيعيد السعي إن هذا ليس كرمي الجمار إن الرمي سنة والسعي بين الصفا والمروة فريضة [1/-] al-Kafi: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Umayr from Muawiya b. Ammar from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he (Muawiya) said: I said to him: a man forgets to throw pebbles at the pillars [in the Hajj] and departs for Makka, he said: he goes back and throws them [makes up for it] … I said: he misses doing that and leaves [departs back to his land], he said: there is nothing further upon him [he does not have to do anything], I said: what if a man forgets the Sa`i [brisk walk] between Safa and Marwa? He said: he repeats the Sa`i, I said: he misses doing that and leaves? He said: he has to come back and make the Sa`i, this (Sa`i) is not like throwing pebbles at the pillars, throwing is a Sunna while Sa`i between Safa and Marwa is a Faridha. NOTES: Rami al-Jamarat [stoning the pillars] is Wajib, but it is a Wajib which has been established by the Sunna of the prophet [it is not mentioned in the Qur`an], Sa`i between Safa and Marwa is also Wajib but it is a Wajib which has been established from the Qur`an and thus called Faridha. al-Muhsini: other narrations which will be brought in their appropriate place indicate that the Fardh [that which has been proven from the Qur`an] is given precedence over the Sunna - assuming that they vie with each other [you only have time to perform one or the other]. And this Hadith also gives another difference between the two [i.e. Wajib Faridha and Wajib Sunna] - that is - what is derived from the Sunna will not need to be repeated in cases of forgetfulness while the Faridha remains as it is and still demands to be performed even if someone forgets.
  3. 2.19. Some Rulings which are Time-Bound al-Muhsini: The default position as far as the rulings of the Shar`ia are concerned is that they are permanent. This is true for all of them except those which are proven to be temporary. One can infer from some narrations that the rulings they propound are not permanent. We will include three examples of these though there may be more instances. [-/1] الفقيه: باسناده عن عمر بن أذينه عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن المريض كيف يسجد؟ فقال: على خمرة أو على مروحة أو على سواك يرفع إليه وهو أفضل من الايماء، إنما كره من كره السجود على المروحة من أجل الاوثان التي كانت تعبد من دون الله وإنا لم نعبد غير الله قط فاسجدوا على المروحة وعلى السواك وعلى عود [1/-] al-Faqih: Via his chain to Umar b. Udhayna from Zurara from Abi Ja`far عليه السلام, he (Zurara) said: I asked him about the sick person - how does he prostrate? He said: on a small palm-leaf mat or on a hand-held fan or on a tooth-stick which is raised to him [made to touch his forehead], and it is better than gesturing [without the forehead touching anything], verily the one who dislikes prostrating on the hand-held fan dislikes it because of the idols which used to be worshiped apart from Allah, and we never worship anything besides Allah ever - so prostrate on the fan and on the tooth-stick and on a piece of wood. NOTES: خمرة “Khumra” - a small mat made from palm tree leaves. المروحة “Mirwah” - a hand-held fan made mostly from palm tree leaves. Could also have a wooden handle. They were usually rectangular or round in shape and used for both airing and swatting away flying insects. سواك “Siwak” - a stick from the Arak tree used to brush teeth. عود “Uwd” - a piece of wood; a wooden stick stemming from a tree branch. The Imam is asked about the specifics of the prostration of a sick person [who is lying on his back]. There is an opinion which says that he should gesture using his head, or even his eyes if his head cannot move, but this Hadith indicates that it is preferable that he - either by himself or through assistance - raise certain items to his forehead. The items mentioned herein are those which would normally be found in a house. Note that a key feature of all the house-hold items mentioned like the small palm-leaf mat or the palm-leaf fan or the piece of wood (wooden stick) is that they all fulfill the condition of being from the earth. In my research I came across some narrations proving that the `Amma did indeed dislike if not outright prohibit the indisposed to prostrate on such items. عَبْدِ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنْ جَبَلَةَ بْنِ سُحَيْمٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَمْرَ يُسْأَلُ: أَيُصَلِّي الرَّجُلُ عَلَى الْعُودِ وَهُوَ مَرِيضٌ؟ فَقَالَ: لا آمُرُكُمْ أَنْ تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ أَوْثَانًا، مَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ قَائِمًا فَلْيُصَلِّ قَائِمًا، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَجَالِسًا، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَمُضْطَجِعًا يُومِي إِيمَاءً Ibn Umar was asked: does a man pray on a piece of wood when he is sick? he said: I do not order you to set up apart from Him idols, whoever is able to pray standing let him pray standing, the one who cannot should pray seated, and if he cannot then lying on his side and making gestures [Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq] أبو عبد الله الحافظ، أنبأ أبو عمرو بن مطر، ثنا يحيى بن محمد، ثنا عبيد الله بن معاذ، ثنا أبي، ثنا شعبة عن جبلة قال: سئل ابن عمر - وأنا أسمع - عن الصلاة على المروحة، فقال: لا تتخذ مع الله إلها آخر، أو قال: لا تتخذ لله أندادا، صل قاعدا واسجد على الأرض، فإن لم تستطع فأومئ إيماء، واجعل السجود أخفض من الركوع Ibn Umar was asked about prostrating on a hand-held fan - so he said: do not set up besides Allah another god, or he said: do not set up for Allah rivals, pray while sitting and prostrate on the earth, but if you cannot then make gestures, and make your prostration lower than your bowing (your prostration gesture should be lower than bowing one) [Sunan al-Bayhaqi] نَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ قَالَ: دَخَلَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ عَلَى أَخِيهِ عُتْبَةَ يَعُودُهُ فَوَجَدَهُ عَلَى عُودٍ يُصَلِّي فَطَرَحَهُ، وَقَالَ: إِنَّ هَذَا شَيْءٌ عَرَّضَ بِهِ الشَّيْطَانُ، ضَعْ وَجْهَكَ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَسْتَطِعْ فَأَوْمِئْ إِيمَاءً Abdallah entered upon his brother Utba visiting him [in his sickness], so he found him praying upon a piece of wood, he tossed it away and said: this is a thing which the Shaytan appeared with, put your face upon the earth, but if you cannot then make gestures [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba] In another variant of the above, Utba was prostrating on a tooth-stick. عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ، وَالْأَسْوَدَ، أَنَّ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ دَخَلَ عَلَى عُتْبَةَ أَخِيهِ، وَهُوَ يُصَلِّي عَلَى مِسْوَاكٍ يَرْفَعُهُ إِلَى وَجْهِهِ، فَأَخَذَهُ فَرَمَى بِهِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: أَوْمِ إِيمَاءً وَلْتَكُنْ رَكْعَتُكَ أَرْفَعَ مِنْ سَجْدَتِكَ Abdallah entered upon his brother Utba and found him prostrating on a tooth-stick raising it to his forehead, so he took it and threw it away and then said: make gestures and your bowing should be higher than your prostration [Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq] This position is also attributed to Zayd b. Ali قَالَ زَيْدُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: يُصَلِّي الْمَرِيضُ قَائِمًا، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَجَالِسًا، وَيَرْكَعُ وَيَسْجُدُ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ أَوْمَأَ إِيمَاءً، قَالَ : لَا يَسْجُدُ عَلَى عُودِهِ ، وَلَا مُرُوحَةٍ ، وَلَا وِسَادَةٍ Zayd b. Ali said: the sick person prays while standing, if he cannot he does so seated, and he bows and prostrates on the earth, if he cannot do so he makes gestures, he also said: one does not prostrate on his wooden stick, nor hand-held fan nor cushion [Musnad Zayd b. Ali] As can be seen from the above, the aversion to prostrating on these items is connected in some way to idolatry. A clue as to what this could be is found in the words of Ibn Mas`ud below: عَنْ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ ، عَنْ حَمَّادٍ ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، عَنِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ : أَوَّلُ مَنْ جَاءَ بِالْعُودِ الَّذِي يَسْجُدُ عَلَيْهِ إِبْلِيسُ ، وَكَانَ يَكْرَهُهُ مِنْ أَجْلِ النَّصَارَى وَصُلُبِهِمْ Ibn Mas`ud: the first one to come with the wood which they prostrate on is Iblis, and it is disliked because of the Christians and their wooden crosses [al-Athar of Abu Yusuf] Apparently, prostrating on wood was linked to the christian veneration of wooden crosses (which they touch on their foreheads) and thus in turn with polytheistic trinity. Another possible reason could be the fact that the idols in the time of Jahiliyya were mostly constructed using wood and also palm leaves [Ref. to Kitab al-Asnam of al-Kalbi]. This is as far as the proto-Sunnis are concerned, as for us, the Imam makes clear that we never worship idols and any such aversion does not exist, because any association in these items with idolaters has ceased. It is based on such an argument that Sayyid al-Khumayni legalized chess as it is played in the modern period because he considered the `Illa for its prohibition to be intimately related to the culture in which it was played in the early period [i.e. in gatherings of music, wine-drinking, gambling and dancing among the libertines]. Thus it became a symbol of being lax in the Shar`ia. [-/2] كمال الدين: عن جماعة منهم علي بن عبدالله الوراق عن أبوالحسين محمدبن جعفر الاسدي قال: كان فيما ورد علي من الشيخ أبي جعفر محمدبن عثمان قدس الله روحه في جواب مسائلي إلي صاحب الزمان عليه السلام: ... وأما ماسألت عنه من أمر المصلي والنار والصورة والسراج بين يديه هل تجوز صلاته فإن الناس اختلفوا في ذلك قبلك، فإنه جائز لمن لم يكن من أولاد عبدة الاصنام أو عبدة النيران أن يصلي والنار والصورة والسراج بين يديه، ولايجوز ذلك لمن كان من أولاد عبدة الاصنام والنيران [2/-] Kamal al-Diin: From a number - among them Ali b. Abdallah al-Warraq - from Abu al-Husayn Muhammad b. Ja`far al-Asadi who said: among that which reached me from the Shaykh Abi Ja`far Muhammad b. Uthman قدس الله روحه in reply to my questions to the Master of the Age عليه السلام … as for that which you have asked about in regards the one who prays while the fire, or an image, or a lamp is in front of him - is his prayer accepted? [you ask this] because the people in your midst have differed about that - then - it is permissible for the one who is not a direct descendant of the idol-worshipers or fire-worshipers to pray while the fire, or an image, or a lamp is in front of him, and it is not permissible for the one who is a direct descendant of the idol and fire worshipers. NOTES: al-Muhsini: The reason for this difference in treatment is because of the differences in people’s up-bringing as well as mental states. Some of the rulings were issued having certain circumstances in mind, this being the case, the ruling lapses with the lapse of the concomitant circumstances, and this is a very wide door [which the Fuqaha can use in their Istinbat] but only for those who expend efforts on the `Ahadith and scrutinize all their different aspects thoroughly. I say: most of the converts who came to Islam in the newly conquered lands, like the melting pot of different traditions that was Iraq, continued to have an intimate attachment to their former religions. A lot of converts at the time converted only for reasons of political expediency and to improve their lot in life, this phenomenon was compounded by the fact that the temporal rulers were not from the Ahl al-Bayt and could not impress upon the people the authentic teachings of Islam. In such scenarios, one can easily see why a hybridized religion could be born which borrows practices from both Islam and the ancient pre-Islamic creeds. It is to avoid this that strict demarcations had to be in place so that the corruption of religion is minimized. [-/3] العلل : عن محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد، عن محمد بن الحسن الصفار، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي نجران، عن محمد بن حمران، عن محمد ابن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: كان النبي صلى الله عليه وآله نهى أن تحبس لحوم الاضاحي فوق ثلاثة أيام من أجل الحاجة ، فأما اليوم فلا بأس به [3/-] al-Ilal: From Muhammad b. al-Hasan b. al-Walid from Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Saffar from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Najran from Muhammad b. Humran from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abi Ja`far عليه السلام who said: the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله had prohibited that the meat of the sacrificed animals (in the Id festival) be kept for more than three days because of the prevailing need, as for today then there is no harm in doing so. NOTES: The same ruling has also been narrated in Sunni sources which again demonstrates the convergence between our two sects in terms of the prophetic legacy. They quote Ali عليه السلام as saying: حدثني حرملة بن يحيى أخبرنا ابن وهب حدثني يونس عن ابن شهاب حدثني أبو عبيد مولى ابن أزهر أنه شهد العيد مع عمر بن الخطاب قال ثم صليت مع علي بن أبي طالب قال فصلى لنا قبل الخطبة ثم خطب الناس فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قد نهاكم أن تأكلوا لحوم نسككم فوق ثلاث ليال فلا تأكلوا “The messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited you from eating the meat of your sacrifices beyond three nights, so do not eat it [after that]” [Sahih Bukhari & Muslim] Some of their scholars rule based on this, they claim that the Khutba of Ali was after the death of the prophet and thus this command did not change. However, the famous and stronger opinion is that the command was only a temporary one and was later abrogated, although there remains a question whether it was abrogated forever or whether the ruling returns if the situation changes. The position that it was abrogated is based on the narration of Burayda quoted below (among others): حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ومحمد بن المثنى قالا حدثنا محمد بن فضيل قال أبو بكر عن أبي سنان وقال ابن المثنى عن ضرار بن مرة عن محارب عن ابن بريدة عن أبيه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ... نهيتكم عن لحوم الأضاحي فوق ثلاث فأمسكوا ما بدا لكم ... “The messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: … I had prohibited you from eating the meat of the sacrificed animals (on the Id festival) beyond three days but now store it for as long as you want …” [Sahih Muslim] It is because of this apparent contradiction that al-Shafi’i said: وقال الشافعي : من قال بالنهي عن الادخار بعد ثلاث لم يسمع الرخصة . ومن قال بالرخصة مطلقا لم يسمع النهي عن الادخار . ومن قال بالنهي والرخصة سمعهما جميعا فعمل بمقتضاهما والله أعلم “Whoever prohibits storing it beyond three days did not hear the permission [to do so – from the prophet], and whoever rules about its absolute permissibility did not hear the prohibition of storing [from the prophet], but the one who has both prohibited it [under certain circumstances] and allowed it [otherwise] heard both statements [from the prophet] and acted upon its collective import. And Allah knows better” [al-Jami li Ahkam al-Qur’an of al-Qurtubi] And this reveals an important point, recall that in another Hadith the Imam had said that the Sahaba did not lie about the prophet, but the main cause of their divergences was the phenomenon of abrogation. There can be no better case in point than this one. Perhaps the best narrations to shed light on the matter and resolve it come from Aisha as follows: حدثنا خلاد بن يحيى حدثنا سفيان عن عبد الرحمن بن عابس عن أبيه قال قلت لعائشة أنهى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تؤكل لحوم الأضاحي فوق ثلاث قالت ما فعله إلا في عام جاع الناس فيه فأراد أن يطعم الغني الفقير وإن كنا لنرفع الكراع فنأكله بعد خمس عشرة قيل ما اضطركم إليه فضحكت قالت ما شبع آل محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم من خبز بر مأدوم ثلاثة أيام حتى لحق بالله Abis said to Aisha: the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited the eating of the sacrificial meat [of the Id festival] beyond three? She said: he did not do that except the year in which the people went hungry, because he wished that the rich feed the poor, we used to keep the sheep’s trotters (of the sacrificed animal) and eat it after fifteen days, it was said: what made you do that (for it is a lowly part)? so she laughed and said: the family of Muhammad never satiated themselves from the bread of wheat with meat for three consecutive days ever until he returned to meet Allah [Sahih Bukhari] حدثنا إسحق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي أخبرنا روح حدثنا مالك عن عبد الله بن أبي بكر عن عبد الله بن واقد قال نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل لحوم الضحايا بعد ثلاث قال عبد الله بن أبي بكر فذكرت ذلك لعمرة فقالت صدق سمعت عائشة تقول دف أهل أبيات من أهل البادية حضرة الأضحى زمن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ادخروا ثلاثا ثم تصدقوا بما بقي فلما كان بعد ذلك قالوا يا رسول الله إن الناس يتخذون الأسقية من ضحاياهم ويجملون منها الودك فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وما ذاك قالوا نهيت أن تؤكل لحوم الضحايا بعد ثلاث فقال إنما نهيتكم من أجل الدافة التي دفت فكلوا وادخروا وتصدقوا Abdallah b. Waqid: the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited eating the sacrificial meat after three [days], Abdallah b. Abi Bakr said: so I mentioned that to Umra - she said: he is right, I heard Aisha saying: some families the desert-dwellers [bedouins] came to Madina close to Id al-Adhha in the time of the messenger of Allah, so the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: store it only for three days then give as charity whatever remains, but when it (the Id) occurred again (the next year) they said: O messenger of Allah - the people are used to making water-bags out of their sacrificed animals (curing the skins) and also melting fat out of them! So the messenger of Allah said: what about it? they said: you prohibited eating (and making use) of the sacrificed animals after three [days]? He said: I prohibited you then because of the bedouins who had come - so (as for now) you can eat of it and store it (as long as you want) and give it out as charity. دافة “Dafa” - the poor people who have migrated temporarily to the urban centers to find provisions to sustain life because of the suffering in the desert as a result of drought. The explanation given by Aisha is the same one given by our Imams. أحمد بن محمد بن يحيى العطار، عن أبيه ، عن محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، عن محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع، عن يونس، عن جميل بن دراج قال : سألت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام عن حبس لحوم الاضاحي فوق ثلاثة أيام بمنى ، قال : لا بأس بذلك اليوم ، إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله إنما نهى عن ذلك أولا لان الناس كانوا يومئذ مجهودين، فأما اليوم فلا بأس Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar from his father from Muhammad b. al-Husayn b. Abi al-Khattab from Muhammad b. Ismail b. Baz`i from Yunus from Jamil b. Darraj who said: I asked Aba Abdillah عليه السلام about storing the meat of the sacrificed animals (in the Id festival) in Mina beyond three days, he said: there is no problem in doing that today, the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله had only prohibited doing that at first because the people at that time were struggling, as for in our times then there is no impediment [in doing that]. قال الصدوق: وقال أبو عبدالله عليه السلام: كنا ننهي عن إخراج لحوم الاضاحي بعد ثلاثة أيام لقلة اللحم وكثرة الناس، فأما اليوم فقد كثر اللحم وقل الناس، فلا بأس بإخراجه al-Saduq quotes Abu Abdillah عليه السلام as saying: we were forbidden to take out (continue to use) the sacrificial meat after three days because of the paucity of meat and the abundance of people, as for today then the meat has increased and the people have decreased so there is no problem with taking it out [after three days]. al-Muhsini: Know that the prophet issued some commands that were temporary and he contradicted it later [with an opposite command] either with a clear explanation from him about the changed circumstance or without. And such instances exist in our narrations and in the narrations of the `Amma, whoever is able to research this and gather all such instances together in one book then he would have done good. The commands and prohibitions are sometimes issued in the sense of a Fatwa, that is a permanent ruling which is established in the Shar`ia, and sometimes it is issued in the sense of a ruling that is dependent on certain external conditions [on the ground], thus the ruling will lapse with their [the conditions which led to the rulings] lapsing. And the latter type of rulings, just as it is right that they issue from the prophet and the Awsiya, because of them being administrators of human affairs, similarly it is also appropriate if they are issued on the part of the Mujtahidin.
  4. 2.18. Lapsing of both Injunctive and Declaratory Rulings in Cases of Necessity المحسني: لاحظ ما يدل عليه في كتاب الصلاة. وتشخيص الاضطرار موكول الى المكلف نفسه كما يدل عليه ما ياتي ولاحظ ما ياتي في باب التقية al-Muhsini: The one who is responsible for identifying the urgent circumstances which can cause a ruling to lapse is the legal agent himself. Refer to what is to come in the book of prayer (Kitab al-Salat) and the book of dissimulation (Kitab al-Taqiyya) as evidence for this. NOTES: I say: An injunctive ruling (Hukm Taklifi) is a ruling which imposes an obligation directly upon an individual legal agent. Specifically, the ruling that a particular act is categorized as one of the following: mandatory (Wajib), encouraged (Mustahab), permissible (Mubah), discouraged (Makruh), forbidden (Haram). Example can be: the prohibition of eating pork lapses when there is necessity to preserve life and avoid death by starvation. A declaratory ruling (Hukm Wad‘i) is a ruling which does not impose an individual obligation directly but rather sets up an institution (such as marriage) from which a variety of individual obligations subsequently flow. Specifically, it enacts something as a cause (Sabab), a condition (Shart) or a hindrance (Mani). Example can be: The condition requiring presence of witnesses in a marriage lapses if someone is in a totally non-Muslim society and there is no one to do the witnessing.
  5. 2.17. Ijtihad [-/1] الكافي: أحمد بن محمد العاصمي، عن علي بن الحسن الميثمي، عن علي بن أسباط، عن عمه يعقوب بن سالم، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: كانت امرأة بالمدينة تؤتى فبلغ ذلك عمر فبعث إليها فروعها وأمر أن يجاء بها إليه ففزعت المرأة فأخذها الطلق فانطلقت إلى بعض الدور فولدت غلاما فاستهل الغلام ثم مات فدخل عليه من روعة المرأة ومن موت الغلام ما شاء الله فقال له بعض جلسائه: يا أميرالمؤمنين ما عليك من هذا شئ وقال بعضهم: وما هذا؟ قال: سلوا أبا الحسن فقال لهم أبوالحسن عليه السلام: لئن كنتم اجتهدتم ما أصبتم ولئن كنتم قلتم برأيكم لقد أخطأتم، ثم قال: عليك دية الصبي [1/-] al-Kafi: Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Asimi from Ali b. al-Hasan al-Maythami from Ali b. Asbat from his paternal uncle Ya`qub b. Salim from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: there was a woman in Madina who used to be approached by men [she was a prostitute], this news reached Umar so he sent for her and frightened her and ordered that she be brought to him, so the woman became terrified and started getting contractions, she fled to one of the houses and gave premature birth to a boy, the boy cried out loud and then died, so it entered in his (Umar’s) heart what Allah wished to enter because of his frightening of the woman and the death of the boy, some of his sitting companions said to him: O commander of the faithful - you don’t have to do anything because of this, while others said: what is this? [belittling it - as if to say it is nothing], he said: ask Aba al-Hasan, so Abu al-Hasan عليه السلام said to them: if you have done Ijtihad then you have not got it right, and if you have said it based on your personal opinion then you have made a mistake, then he said: upon you is to give the blood-money of the child. NOTES: al-Muhsini: It has already come in the ninth and tenth chapter what evidences the need for Ijtihad, because comparing the Hadith with the Qur’an and the Sunna and preferring that which differs with the opinion of the `Amma is nothing but Ijtihad. I (the translator) say: Ijtihad was - in the early age - a bad word in Shi`a Islam because of what it connoted of independent reasoning and the incompleteness of the Shar`ia. We can only find censure for it in the Ahadith of the `Aimma. It is claimed that the companions did not need to do Ijtihad because they had access to the answers of the Imam which is the absolute truth. The Imam is not doing Ijtihad when giving an answer but sourcing it directly to what the prophet said or what the Divine Law intends. The Usulis claim that with the passage of time, and in the age of the Ghayba, doubt crept back into the sources as a result of many factors, including loss of circumstantial indicators (Qarain). This meant that the door for Ijtihad [Ijtihad as they have redefined it - which they claim has the sanction of the `Aimma] needs to be open. A good book to trace how its meaning evolved to the extent that it was rehabilitated by the Usulis is that of the martyr Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr: A Short History of Ilm Ul Usul. It is also true that the Akhbari point of view in the debate has been deliberately distorted by some Usulis setting up a straw-man argument to defeat it easily.
  6. 2.16. Principle of “No Harm” [1/111] الكافي: عن عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، عن أبيه، عن عبدالله بن بكير، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إن سمرة بن جندب كان له عذق في حائط لرجل من الانصار وكان منزل الانصاري بباب البستان وكان يمر به إلى نخلته ولا يستأذن فكلمه الانصاري أن يستأذن إذا جاء فأبى سمرة فلما تأبى جاء الانصاري إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فشكا إليه وخبره الخبر فأرسل إليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وخبره بقول الانصاري وماشكا وقال: إن أردت الدخول فاستأذن فأبى فلما أبى ساومه حتى بلغ به من الثمن ماشاء الله فأبى أن يبيع فقال: لك بها عذق يمد لك في الجنة فأبى أن يقبل فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله للانصاري: اذهب فاقلعها وارم بها إليه فإنه لا ضرر ولا ضرار [1/111] al-Kafi: From a number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid from his father from Abdallah b. Bukayr from Zurara from Abi Ja’far عليه السلام who said: Samura b. Jundub had a date-palm tree in the garden of a man from the Ansar, and the house of the Ansari was adjoined with the door to the garden, and he (Samura) used to pass by it on his way to the date-palm tree without asking for permission, so the Ansari talked to him about seeking permission when he comes through, but Samura refused, so when he had refused the Ansari came to the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله and complained to him and informed him of the matter, so the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله sent for him (i.e. Samura) and relayed to him what the Ansari had said and his complaint and then said: if you want to enter then ask permission first, but he refused, so when he had refused he (the messenger) bargained with him (to buy the tree from him) until he increased his offer to the the price that Allah wished - but he continued to refuse to sell it, so he said: you will get a palm tree to support you in heaven in return for it [if you give it up], but he refused to accept that, then the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said to the Ansari: go and uproot it and throw it at him for there is no [causing] harm [in and of itself] nor harming with intent [in Islam]. NOTES: This has also been narrated by al-Saduq in al-Faqih in the following manner: وروى ابن بكير، عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إن سمرة ابن جندب كان له عذق في حائط رجل من الانصار وكان منزل الانصاري فيه الطريق إلى الحائط فكان يأتيه فيدخل عليه ولا يستأذن، فقال: إنك تجئ وتدخل ونحن في حال نكره أن ترانا عليه، فإذا جئت فاستأذن حتى نتحرز ثم نأذن لك وتدخل، قال: لا أفعل هو مالي أدخل عليه ولا أستأذن، فأتى الانصاري رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فشكى إليه وأخبره، فبعث إلى سمرة فجاءه، فقال له: استأذن عليه، فأبى وقال له مثل ما قال للانصاري، فعرض عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أن يشتري منه بالثمن فأبى عليه وجعل يزيده فيأبى أن يبيع، فلما رأى ذلك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله قال له: لك عذق في الجنة فأبى أن يقبل ذلك فأمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله الانصاري أن يقلع النخلة فيلقيها إليه وقال لا ضرر ولا إضرار And Ibn Bukayr narrated from Zurara from Abi Ja’far عليه السلام who said: Samura b. Jundub had a date-palm tree in the garden of a man from the Ansar, and the path to get to the garden passed through the house of the Ansari, so he (Samura) used to come and enter on him without seeking permission, so he said: you come and enter while we may be in a state in which we do not like for you to see us, so when you come make sure to seek permission so that we can prepare ourselves and then permit you to enter, he said: I will not do so for it (the tree) is my property and I do not require permission to get to it, so the Ansari went to the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله and complained to him and informed him of what had happened, so he sent for Samura who came, he said to him: seek permission from him, but he refused and replied in the same way he had replied to the Ansari, so the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله put to him that it should be bought from him at a price, but he refused, the messenger kept on raising the price but he kept on refusing to sell it, so when the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله saw that - he said to him: you will have a palm-tree in heaven [if you give it up - as compensation for it], but he refused to accept that, then the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله ordered the Ansari to uproot the date-palm tree and throw it at his feet and said: there is no [causing] harm [in and of itself] nor harming [another] purposely [in Islam]. I (the translator) say: The legal maxim ‘La Dharar wa La Dhirar’ is a very important one in Islam. al-Suyuti says that all of Fiqh revolves around five narrations - and this is one of them. Volumes upon volumes have been written discussing it. There has been a difference of opinion about what ‘Dharar’ and ‘Dhirar’ mean exactly. The famous opinions are four: (ã) Dharar is simply a harm [without any additional implications - could be unintended] while Dhirar is purposeful harm in the sense that one inflicts harm with the intention of harming. And this is what al-Muhaqiq al-Naini had concluded. I also found this to be a view of the near contemporary Salafi scholar Ibn Uthaymin. - If someone opens the window to let in the air and it causes another person to get sick [without intending for that to happen] it is called Dharar. If someone purposely turns up the sound level of the TV so that his neighbor cannot sleep it is called Dhirar. (b) Dharar is the first instance of inflicting harm [preemptively] while Dhirar refers to reciprocating by inflicting harm after having been harmed. - If someone punches another person for no reason it is called Dharar, if the victim bides his time and then deflates his enemies tires it is called Dhirar. (c) There is no difference between the two words and the second i.e. Dhirar is just an emphasis on the first i.e. Dharar. - The prophet is repeating it a second time to insist on it. (d) Dharar is self-harm and Dhirar [Idhrar] is inflicting harm on others. - If someone puts on thin clothes in winter which makes him vulnerable to sickness it is called Dharar but if he disregards another person's intellectual property and passes it as his own it is Dhirar. --> After looking at the different options above, I have chosen (ã) because of Shaykh al-Irawani’s strong arguments in its favor. Anyone who wants more detail on this can refer to his book al-Durus al-Tamhidiyya Fi Qawaid al-Fiqhiyya [beginning at Vol. 1 Pg. 87]. How the maxim is interpreted is very significant. Our Fuqaha are divided into two main camps: (i) The ‘لا’ is a ‘لا’ of Nafy [negation], this being the case - the prophet is describing the nature of the Sharia and saying that it can never impose something that is harmful. This would mean that the Shar`i ruling is lifted if it entails undue harm. This interpretation was developed by Shaykh al-Ansari in his Rasail, and it is also the view in more recent times of Sayyid al-Khoei and his students like Sayyid al-Sistani (who has a separate treatise on this). This interpretation gives the Mujtahid wide-ranging power because it allows him to lift the Wujub [obligatoriness] of a ruling if it entails causing harm on the believer. For example, if someone will be harmed because of making the ablution using cold water then making Wudhu is lifted for him and he can substitute it by Tayammum (for ‘there is no harm in Islam’). If he insists in making Wudhu despite the harm then that Wudhu is not acceptable. Similarly, the maxim would allow the lifting of the prohibition of shaving the beard if doing so would lead to harm, or lifting the prohibition of a woman exposing herself to a Non-Mahram like a doctor if not doing so would cause harm etc. (ii) The ‘لا’ is a ‘لا’ of Nahy [prohibition], this being the case - the prophet is simply instructing us that it is not allowed for us to do something that harms ourselves or others, it has nothing to do with lifting the ruling of the Shar`ia. This was the view developed by Shaykh al-Shar`ia al-Isfahani. For example, if it is said that smoking is harmful then it would become prohibited. This is not accepted by the other scholars who demur, they say that incurring mere harm is not prohibited unless it reaches a level where it can be considered to be Tahluka [destruction] - which has been prohibited by the Qur'an.
  7. 2.15. Legal Injunctions are Predicated on Pubescence [1/100] الخصال: عن أبيه، عن سعد بن عبد الله، عن أحمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر البزنطي، عن أبي الحسين الخادم بياع اللؤلؤ، عن عبد الله بن سنان، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: سأله أبي وأنا حاضر عن اليتيم متى يجوز أمره قال: حتى يبلغ أشده قال: وما أشده قال: الاحتلام قلت: قد يكون الغلام ابن ثمان عشرة سنة أو أقل أو أكثر [1/100] al-Khisal: From his father from Sa’d b. Abdallah from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr al-Bazanti from Abi al-Hasan - the servant and seller of pearls - from Abdallah b. Sinan from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he (Abdallah b. Sinan) said: my father asked him about the orphan while I was present - when does his affair become permissible [when does the authority to oversee his affair devolve to him]? he said: when he attains his maturity, he said: what is his maturity? he said: beginning to have nocturnal emissions, he said: a boy may be eighteen years or a little below that or a little more than that and yet does not have nocturnal emissions (what then)? he said: if he becomes pubescent and something begins to be written for him (of good-deeds and sins by the angels) - then his affair [taking charge of financial decisions] is valid unless he is a fool or mentally incapacitated. NOTES: Ihtilam [“Nocturnal emissions” also “wet dreams”] - Refers to ejaculation of semen as a direct result of sexual desire and stimulation. Safih [“fool”] - An irresponsible person “with the intellect of a child” who does not know what is good for him and society e.g. would thrift-spend to destruction. Dhaif [“mentally incapacitated”] - Lit. weak. al-Muhsini says: this is also how this narration has been recorded in the Bihar of al-Majlisi. However, what is apparent is that the Imam’s answer at the end of the narration is vague (i.e. it does not answer the question of when the boy becomes pubescent) and such an answer does not befit the station of the Imam (he is casting doubt on the preservation of the exact wording of the narration). [2/101] الكافي: عن عدة من اصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن الوشاء، عن عبدالله بن سنان، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إذا بلغ أشده ثلاث عشرة سنة ودخل في الاربع عشرة وجب عليه ما وجب على المحتلمين احتلم أو لم يحتلم كتبت عليه السيئات وكتبت له الحسنات وجاز له كل شئ إلا أن يكون ضعيفا أو سفيها [2/101] al-Kafi: From a number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from al-Washsha from Abdallah b. Sinan from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: if he reaches his maturity, that is, completes thirteen years and enters the fourteenth - then it becomes obligatory on him what is obligatory on those who have nocturnal emissions whether he himself has emissions or not, and his sins are written down for him, and his good-deeds are also written down for him, and everything becomes permissible for him [in financial terms] except if he is mentally incapacitated or foolhardy. [3/102] التهذيب: باسناده عن محمد بن علي بن محبوب، عن عن محمد بن الحسين، عن الحسن بن علي، عن عمرو بن سعيد، عن مصدق بن صدقة، عن عمار الساباطي، عن أبى عبدالله عليه السلام قال: سألته عن الغلام متى تجب عليه الصلاة؟ قال: إذا أتى عليه ثلاث عشرة سنة، فان احتلم قبل ذلك فقد وجبت عليه الصلاة وجرى عليه القلم، والجارية مثل ذلك ان أتى لها ثلاث عشرة سنة أو حاضت قبل ذلك فقد وجبت عليها الصلاة وجرى عليها القلم [3/102] al-Tahdhib: Via his chain from Muhammad b. Ali b. Mahbub from Muhammad b. al-Husayn from al-Hasan b. Ali from Amr b. Sa`id from Musaddiq b. Sadaqa from Ammar al-Sabati from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he (Ammar) said: I asked him about a boy - when does prayer become obligatory on him? he said: if he completes thirteen years, but if he has nocturnal emissions before that then the prayer has already become obligatory on him and the Pen begins to record for him, and the girl likewise if she completes thirteen years or if she menstruates before that - the prayer become obligatory on her and the Pen begins to record for her. [4/103] الخصال: عن أبيه، عن علي، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن غير واحد، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: حد بلوغ المرأة تسع سنين [4/103] al-Khisal: From his father from Ali from his father from Ibn Abi Umayr from more than one from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: the threshold for a woman’s pubescence is nine years. [5/104] الكافي: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن حماد بن عثمان، عن الحلبي وزرارة، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام أنه سئل عن الصلاة على الصبي متى يصلى عليه؟ قال: إذا عقل الصلاة قلت: متى تجب الصلاة عليه؟ فقال: إذا كان ابن ست سنين والصيام إذا أطاقه [5/104] al-Kafi: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hammad b. Uthman from al-Halabi and Zurara from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام that he was asked about the prayer over a [deceased] child [Salat al-Mayyit] - when is it prayed over him? he said: when he can understand the prayer, I said: when is prayer obligatory on him (to begin praying)? he said: if he is a child of six years, and fasting is when he has the strength for it [is capable]. NOTES: The Hadith obligates prayer for a boy at the age of six, and this is among that which we have to return its knowledge to its people (we cannot explain it without recourse to the Ahl al-Bayt themselves). Unless obligation here is understood as recommendation [in light of the other narrations] - in which case the Hadith would be emphasizing that the training of the boy should begin at six so that he can become familiar with it and get used to it, otherwise he will rebel when it becomes Wajib on him later due to lack of practice and discipline. [6/105] التهذيب: باسناده عن محمد بن علي بن محبوب، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن معاوية بن وهب قال: سألت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام: في كم يؤخذ الصبي بالصلاة؟ فقال: فيما بين سبع سنين وست سنين قلت: في كم يؤخذ بالصيام؟ فقال: فيما بين خمس عشرة أو أربع عشرة، وان صام قبل ذلك فدعه فقد صام ابني فلان قبل ذلك وتركته [6/105] al-Tahdhib: Via his chain from Muhammad b. Ali b. Mahbub from al-Abbas b. al-Ma`ruf from Hammad b. Isa from Muawiya b. Wahb who said: I asked Aba Abdillah عليه السلام: at what age is the boy taken to task over prayers? He said: between seven and six years of age, I said: at what age is fasting demanded from him? he said: between fifteen or fourteen years, and if he fasts before that then leave him to do it for one of my sons began fasting before that and I let him. [7/106] الفقيه: باسناده عن صفوان، عن إسحاق بن عمار قال: سألت أبا الحسن عليه السلام عن ابن عشر سنين يحج؟ قال: عليه حجة الاسلام إذا احتلم وكذلك الجارية عليها الحج إذا طمثت [7/106] al-Faqih: Via his chain from Safwan from Ishaq b. Ammar who said: I asked Aba al-Hasan عليه السلام about a boy of ten years - can he make the Hajj? He said: upon him is the Hajj of Islam if he has begun getting nocturnal emissions, and the same is the case for the girl - Hajj is upon her if she has begun menstruating. [8/107] الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، وعلي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه جميعا، عن ابن أبي نجران، عن عاصم بن حميد، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: لايصلح للجارية إذا حاضت إلا أن تختمر إلا أن لا تجده [8/107] al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Sahl b. Ziyad AND Ali b. Ibrahim from his father all together from Ibn Abi Najran from Asim b. Humayd from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abi Ja’far عليه السلام who said: it is not proper for a girl if she has begun menstruating to not veil herself - unless she cannot find it. [9/108] الكافي: محمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان، وأبوعلي الاشعري، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار جميعا، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن عبدالرحمن بن الحجاج قال: سألت أبا إبراهيم عليه السلام عن الجارية التي لم تدرك متى ينبغي لها أن تغطى رأسها ممن ليس بينها وبينه محرم ومتى يجب عليها أن تقنع رأسها للصلاة؟ قال: لاتغطى رأسها حتى تحرم عليها الصلاة [9/108] al-Kafi: Muhammad b. Ismail from al-Fadhl b. Shadan AND Abu Ali al-Ash`ari from Muhammad b. Abd al-Jabbar all together from Safwan b. Yahya from Abd al-Rahman b. al-Hajjaj who said: I asked Aba Ibrahim عليه السلام about a girl who has not attained puberty - when is it incumbent on her to cover her head from the one one with whom she does not share any relation? and when is it obligatory on her to veil her head fully in the prayer? He said: she does not have to cover her head until the prayer starts becoming prohibited on her [i.e. she begins menstruating]. [-/10] الكافي: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن منصور بن يونس، عن منصور بن حازم، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: لارضاع بعد فطام ولا وصال في صيام ولا يتم بعد احتلام ولا صمت يوما إلى الليل ولا تعرب بعد الهجرة ولا هجرة بعد الفتح ولا طلاق قبل نكاح ، ولا عتق قبل ملك ، ولا يمين للولد مع والده ولا للمملوك مع مولاه ولا للمرأة مع زوجها ولا نذر في معصية ولا يمين في قطيعة فمعنى قوله: لا رضاع بعد فطام ان الولد إذا شرب لبن المرأة بعد ما تفطمه لا يحرم ذلك الرضاع التناكح [10/-] al-Kafi: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi Umayr from Mansur b. Yunus from Mansur b. Hazim from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said: there is no suckling after weaning, there is no joining [two consecutive days] in fasting, there is no orphanhood after nocturnal emission, there is no vow of silence from morning to night, there is no return to the nomadic ways after migration [to the urban center of faith], there is no Hijra after the conquest [of Makka], there is no divorce before marriage, there is no setting free [of a slave] before ownership, there can be no oath from a child without the consent of his father, nor from a slave without the consent of his master, nor for a woman without the consent of her husband, there can be no promise to do an evil, nor an oath to break blood-ties. The meaning of his words: there is no suckling after weaning is that - a child if he drinks the milk of a woman after he has been weaned off milk [two years] then that suckling does not prevent marriage [she does not become his Mahram/foster mother]. NOTES: The last statement is either the words of the Imam interpreting what the prophet said, one of the narrators in the chain, or the author of al-Kulayni himself. The Hadith itself contains pithy legal maxims from the prophet which were easy to memorize and were a particularly important source of guidance in daily life. They summarize whole sections of the Law in a few words. Identical maxims have also been preserved in the two early Musannafs, those of Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shayba [further confirming the fact that the Ahl al-Sunna have not wholly lost the prophetic legacy]. I have also found fragmentary traces of the some of the maxims in Sunan Abi Dawud. Vows of silence as taken by past communities like Buddhists and monks in monasteries have no significance in Islam. The concept of “returning to the nomadic ways after migration” is understood in its modern context as moving to a place where one cannot practice his religion and is under constant temptation of sin. There can be no “promise to do an evil” means that one is not supposed to give any credence to a promise which involves committing a sin to fulfill it, in fact such a promise has no value and should be ignored. Similarly, one cannot uphold an oath that calls on him to break ties of blood relationship. [11/109] الكافي: محمد بن يحيى، عن احمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن منصور، عن هشام بن سالم، عن ابي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: انقطاع يتم اليتيم الاحتلام وهو اشده وان احتلم ولم يؤنس منه رشد وكان سفيها أو ضعيفا فليمسك عنه وليه ماله [11/109] al-Kafi: Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Muhammad b. Isa from Mansur [b. Hazim] from Hisham b. Salim from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: the termination of the orphanhood of the orphan is by nocturnal emission and it is considered his maturity, however if he begins to have nocturnal emissions but signs of intellectual maturity are not detected from him such that he is foolhardy or mentally incapacitated then his guardian withholds from handing over his wealth to him. NOTES: Rushd rendered here as “intellectual maturity” refers to the capacity to behave in a responsible and constructive manner. It is the opposite of Safh “foolishness” of the Safih. [12/110] الفقيه: عن البزنطي عن الرضا عليه السلام قال: يؤخذ الغلام بالصلاة وهو ابن سبع سنين ولا تغطي المرأة شعرها منه حتى يحتلم [12/110] al-Faqih: From al-Bazanti from al-Ridha عليه السلام who said: a boy is taken to task over prayers when he is seven years old, and a woman does not cover her hair from him until he begins to have nocturnal emissions. When do children become Baligh? Adapted from the discussion by al-Muhsini in Vol. 2 of Hudud al-Shar`ia All the narrations above allude to the same thing and can be reconciled despite seeming to contradict. This is what we can take away from them when read together: It is sexual maturity, indicated by ejaculation in the case of a boy and menstruation in the case of a girl, which should be taken as the point at which someone enters his/her “age of majority” and assumes command of his/her own wealth, making financial decisions about it independently. This is also when he/she becomes a legal agent and his/her good-deeds and/or sins are recorded for him/her and he/she is held liable for performing the Wajibat and abstaining from the Muharamat. Those narrations which attempt to pin-point an exact age [e.g. thirteen, fourteen, fifteen etc] are to be understood as mere clues specifying when Bulugh occurs conventionally. They vary because this biological phenomenon varies in relation to genetic and environmental factors. This interpretation is also aided by the fact that the Imam is purposely non-committal in specifying an exact age because of his knowledge that such a thing cannot be universal. As for the narrations that deem a lower age such as six or seven then there is no option but to understand them as an Istihbab [recommendation] to begin Ibadat early so that they can grow up with such habits and it also becomes a way by which the sins of the parents are forgiven God willing. It can be claimed that nine years of age has a special significance for a girl by looking at the Sahiha of Muhammad b. Abi Umayr [No. 4 above]. However, it is very likely that those are not the exact words of the Imam himself rather the phrasing as we see it today embodies the understanding of Ibn Abi Umayr based on what he heard attributed to the Imam. Furthermore, when looking at another narration of a similar nature [Muwathaqa of Ibn Sinan - not included in this chapter] we see that even this age (nine) is dependent on her menstruating - which as we have noted is the indicator of sexual maturity for her. Thus, we conclude that even this particular age has no special significance apart from serving as a clue to when Bulugh usually occurs, and that it is menstruation which is essential. Having said this - permission has been explicitly given to marry a girl when she is nine years old, this being the case, one cannot assume that after her marriage an obligation like bathing the Janaba (after intercourse) would not be mandatory upon her, this means that we have to add another exception to the Bulugh of the girl. In conclusion: A boy becomes Baligh if he acquires the ability for sexual intercourse biologically speaking [the narrations specify ejaculation], and if there is any doubt about that having been met then by completing fifteen years (the uppermost age/ceiling mentioned in all the related narrations). A girl becomes Baligha if she acquires the ability for sexual intercourse biologically speaking [the narrations specify menstruation], unless she gets married and has intercourse after she has completed nine years. al-Muhsini also notes that allowance of marrying a girl at nine while undeniable is lifted if there is any credible medical evidence that it would cause undue harm on her.
  8. No, apart from the Mu'min al-Taq debate which alludes to something like this. Despite the lack of the `Aimma specifying Abu Hanifa by name, the fact that they were in the camp that believed all Muskir are Haram in any amount means they would have considered Abu Hanifa's ruling of allowing some Muskir before the point of intoxication to be wrong. And since they are the true interpreters of God's law they would have considered it against the Deen. And the early Fuqaha like al-Tusi and others were harsh on Abu Hanifa based on what they understood of him diverging from the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt on this point.
  9. وقيل الطلاء هو المثلث وهو المطبوخ من ماء العنب حتى ذهب ثلثاه Tila’ is also the name given to what remains after two-thirds of the grape juice has evaporated away due to boiling i.e. to the one-third remaining. This is how the Imams have used it in the `Ahadith you bring. The Imams did not allow drinking cooked grape juice because heating speeds up fermentation [and they considered the resulting beverages to be Muskir], once grape juice is cooked then they only allowed it if it is boiled so much so that it loses two-thirds of its contents - then the remainder (Muthallath) is not considered a Muskir to them. I am not sure what modern science would say about that! But what is clear from the overall narrations of the `Aimma is that even this remainder if it is a Muskir then it cannot be drunk even a single drop of it. We have not found any words from the Aimma admitting that Muthallath can still be Muskir but you can drink it in small amounts without getting intoxicated for this or that purpose. Sayyid Sistani states in Islamic Laws that if the remainder (after boiling away two-thirds) ferments and is considered grape juice then it would still be Haram (per obligatory precaution). The only other way the Khamr can be allowed is if it goes on to change its substance (it "over-ferments" until it transforms to Khall [vinegar]). In other words, if after 2/3 of boiled grape juice has evaporated and the remaining 1/3 is still considered a Muskir, it is only licit to consume it after it converts into vinegar. The difference is that it is attributed to Abu Hanifa that he allows the Muthallath even if it ferments (is Shadeed) and therefore a Muskir to him so long as one drinks it not for intoxication purpose and without reaching Iskaar. "وأما" المثلث فنقول: لا خلاف في أنه ما دام حلوا لا يسكر يحل شربه. "وأما" المعتق المسكر فيحل شربه للتداوي واستمراء الطعام والتقوي على الطاعة عند أبي حنيفة وأبي يوسف رضي الله عنهما وروى محمد رحمه الله أنه لا يحل، وهو قول الشافعي رحمه الله As al-Kasani says: As for Muthallath then we say: there is no difference in opinion about permissibility of drinking it so long as it is still sweet and is not a Muskir. As for when it is a Muskir then it is permissible to drink it for medication and as an appetizer for food and other pious purposes in obedience to Allah according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, and it has been narrated from Muhammad that it is not permissible and this [that it is Haram] is also the verdict of al-Shafi’i. Yes, I saw this, good examples. Sharik b. Abdallah and al-Awzai had even worse opinions, but that does not exonerate Abu Hanifa who is still wrong because his whole classification of intoxicating drinks into three categories is a Bid'ah in our view. Sharik may have permitted Sakkar outright (which is worse), but Abu Hanifa permits it after slight heating even if it is a Muskir. al-Awzai might have permitted Badhiq and Munassaf (which is worse), but Abu Hanifa permits Muthallath even if it is a Muskir. And the worst thing which I blame Abu Hanifa for was considering Mubah drinks that come from other than the two-trees, like barley, even if they are Muskir, and it is also reported that he did not rule Hadd for this even if someone reaches Iskaar in this third category!
  10. That was tongue in cheek. The discussion has been good Alhamdulillah and I thank you for it. Yes by my explanation Abu Hanifa did allow it as the person is not intending to get intoxicated. Do you have a different explanation? For example, have you found anywhere Abu Hanifa prohibiting this type of drink? I don't think they had to necessarily add yeast themselves for it to begin fermenting. Such dates soaked in water under certain conditions (oxygen starvation) and over certain period does "go bad" by itself i.e. because such organisms are naturally found on skin of fruits for example. If something has not fermented there is no Khilaf between the Madhahib. Abu Hanifa allows drinking Nabidh of dates if cooked even slightly [touched with heat] even if the resultant drink is fermented. [Note: I am not saying the slight heat has fermented it, it has changed the status/category of the drink acc. to Abu Hanifa and made it a legal drink]. Abu Hanifa will not give the Hadd to the one who did not reach point of Iskaar and will give Hadd to the one who has crossed it [and he will know you have crossed it if you cannot even differentiate between a man and a woman or the earth and the sky]. This is what I have gathered of the original Hanafi position.
  11. 2.14. Principle of Continuity I (the translator) say: The meaning of the principle of Continuity is that the Mukallaf (legal agent) should maintain adherence in practice to anything about which he or she was formerly certain but then subsequently has come to doubt that it persists. An example can be: you presume that the impure state of a garment continues (the impurity of which you were once certain) if there is doubt concerning the fresh occurrence of its cleaning. [1/94] العلل: عن أبيه عن علي عن أبيه عن حماد عن حريز عن زرارة قال: قلت لابي جعفر عليه السلام انه أصاب ثوبى دم من رعاف أو غيره أو شئ من مني ... وحضرت الصلاة ونسيت أن بثوبى شيئا فصليت ثم اني ذكرت بعد؟ قال: تعيد الصلاة وتغسله ... قلت فان ظننت انه قد اصابه ولم اتيقن ذلك فنظرت فلم ار شيئا ثم طلبت فرأيته فيه بعد الصلاة؟ قال: تغسله ولا تعيد الصلاة، قال: قلت ولم ذاك؟ قال: لانك كنت على يقين من نظافته ثم شككت فليس ينبغى لك أن تنقض اليقين بالشك ابدا ... فانى رأيته في ثوبى وانا في الصلاة قال: تنقض الصلاة وتعيد اذا شككت في موضع منه ثم رأيته فيه وان لم تشك ثم رأيته رطبا قطعت وغسلته ثم بنيت على الصلاة فانك لا تدري لعله شئ وقع عليك فليس ينبغى لك ان تنقض بالشك اليقين [1/94] al-Ilal: From his father from Ali from his father from Hammad from Hariz from Zurara who said: I said to Abi Ja’far عليه السلام - my clothes come into contact with blood either because of nose-bleeding or some other reason or it comes into contact with some amount of semen … and the time to pray arrives and I forget that my clothes have something (impure in them) - so I pray and then remember after finishing? He said: you repeat the prayer and you wash it off (the impurity) … I said: if I only suspect that it has come into contact with it and am not certain of that, and I try to inspect (to look for it) but find nothing, then I inspect it again after finishing the prayer and find it? he said: you wash it and do not repeat the prayer, I said: how come it is like that (repeat the prayer in the former case and not here)? he said: because you were certain of its purity (when you began praying) and then you doubted later, so it is not appropriate for you to override your certainty because of doubt ever … (Zurara said): what if I see it on my clothes whilst I am praying? He said: you will only break the prayer and repeat it anew if you had doubt about where exactly it was (location of it - having not found it before) and go on to find it (while praying), but if you had no doubt [of having contracted impurity at all] and then see it (the impurity) - still wet - you cut off your prayer and wash it, then you continue with the same prayer [where you left off], because you just don’t know perhaps it is something that fell on you [while praying], for it is not permissible for you to override certainty by doubt. NOTES: Taken from Sayyid al-Khoei’s lecture notes (Taqrirat) recorded in Misbah al-Usul. The 1st question was about the ruling concerning one who performs the Salat whilst being Najis - having forgotten to clean it despite having knowledge of the Najasa - so he replied that Salat should be repeated and also the clothes should be cleaned. And this fact has been substantiated by other narrations, and the reason for this given in some of them is that - the one who forgets has taken the matter of Tahara lightly unlike the one who is totally ignorant. And there is no controversy about this ruling. The 2nd question was about someone who had doubt about Najasa and prays in such circumstances - so he replied that cleaning off the Najasa is necessary but repeating the prayer is not required, because the person began the prayer while being certain of his Tahara (he even looked for the Najasa but did not find it), then he doubted and came to find it, and certainty is not overriden by doubt. The 3rd question was about noticing a Najasa in the course of praying - so he replied that this noticing if it was after someone had some non-specific knowledge [incomplete knowledge] about there being a Najasa but uncertainty about its exact location before the Salat began - it is mandatory upon him to repeat it, and if he notices it for the first time while praying without having any inkling of fore-knowledge of anything to do with it, such that he does not know whether he contracted it before beginning to pray, or whether he contracted it while praying - then it is not mandatory on him to repeat the prayer, rather he washes it off and continues with the same Salat if it [the purification process] does not necessitate him breaking the prayer he is in, like turning away from the Qibla. [2/95] الاستبصار: عن المفيد عن جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه عن سعد بن عبدالله عن أحمد بن محمد عن الحسن بن محبوب عن عبدالله بن سنان قال: سأل أبي أبا عبدالله عليه السلام وأنا حاضر إني أعير الذمي ثوبي وانا اعلم انه يشرب الخمر ويأكل لحم الخنزير فيرده علي فاغسله قبل ان أصلي فيه؟ فقال أبوعبدالله عليه السلام: صل فيه ولا تغسله من أجل ذلك فانك اعرته اياه وهو طاهر ولم تستيقن انه نجسه فلا بأس أن تصلي فيه حتى تستيقن انه نجسه [2/95] al-Istibsar: From al-Mufid from Ja’far b. Muhammad from his father from Sa’d b. Abdallah from Ahmad b. Muhammad from al-Hasan b. Mahbub from Abdallah b. Sinan who said: my father asked Abi Abdillah عليه السلام while I was present [the following question]: I sometimes lend my clothes to a Dhimmi and I know that he drinks wine and eats the meat of swine, so when he returns them to me should I wash them before praying in them? Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: pray in them and do not wash them because of that, for you lent them to him while you were certain that they were pure and you do not have certainty about its impurity (when he returns them), so there is no harm in you praying in it until you become certain that it is impure. [96/3] التتهذيب: بالاسناد عن الحسين بن سعيد عن حماد عن حريز عن زرارة قال قلت له: الرجل ينام وهو على وضوء أتوجب الخفقة والخفقتان عليه الوضوء؟ فقال يا زرارة: قد تنام العين ولا ينام القلب والاذن فإذا نامت العين والاذن والقلب فقد وجب الوضوء، قلت فان حرك إلى جنبه شئ ولم يعلم به قال: لا حتى يستيقن انه قد نام حتى يجيئ من ذلك أمر بين وإلا فانه على يقين من وضوئه، ولا ينقض اليقين أبدا بالشك ولكن ينقضه بيقين آخر [3/96] al-Tahdhib: By the chain to al-Husayn b. Sa`id from Hammad from Hariz from Zurara who said: I said to him: a man in Wudhu falls asleep - closing his eyes for a beat or two - does this mean that he is obliged to renew Wudhu? he said: O Zurara, the eye may sleep while the heart and the ear are awake, only when the eye, the ear and the heart all sleep does Wudhu become obligatory, I said: what if something moves near him while he is not even aware of it, he said: no [that does not mean he has to renew Wudhu], unless he is certain that he has fallen asleep and unless there manifests a clear sign indicating that, if not then he was certain about his initial Wudhu and certainty is never overriden by doubt rather what overrides it [certainty] is another certainty [he become sure of a new event]. [97/4] الخصال: في حديث الأربعمائة: قال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام: من كان على يقين فشك فليمض على يقينه فان الشك لا ينقض اليقين [4/97] al-Khisal: In the ‘Four Hundred’ Narration: the commander of the faithful عليه السلام said: whoever is upon certainty - and then doubts - should continue upon his certainty for doubt does not override certainty. [5/98] الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا عن أحمد بن محمد، عن العباس بن عامر، عن عبدالله بن بكير، عن أبيه، قال: قال لي أبوعبدالله عليه السلام: إذا استيقنت أنك قد أحدثت فتوضأ وإياك أن تحدث وضوء ا أبدا حتى تستيقن أنك قد أحدثت [5/98] al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad from al-Abbas b. A’mir from Abdallah b. Bukayr from his father who said: Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said to me: if you are sure that you have broken your Wudhu then renew it, beware of ever renewing a Wudhu unless you are certain that you have broken it. [6/99] الكافي والتهذيبان: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، ومحمد بن إسماعيل، عن الفضل بن شاذان جميعا، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن زرارة، عن أحدهما عليه السلام قال: قلت له: من لم يدر في أربع هو أم في ثنتين وقد احرز الثنتين؟ قال: يركع ركعتين وأربع سجدات وهو قائم بفاتحة الكتاب ويتشهد ولا شئ عليه وإذا لم يدر في ثلاث هو أو في أربع وقد أحرز الثلاث قام فأضاف إليها اخرى ولا شئ عليه ولا ينقض اليقين بالشك ولا يدخل الشك في اليقين ولا يخلط أحدهما بالآخر ولكنه ينقض الشك باليقين ويتم على اليقين فيبنى عليه ولا يعتد بالشك في حال من الحالات [6/99] al-Kafi, al-Tahdhib and al-Istibsar: Ali b. Ibrahim from his father AND Muhammad b. Ismail from al-Fadhl b. Shadhan all together from Hammad b. Isa from Hariz from Zurara from one of them عليه السلام, he (Zurara) said: I said to him: the one who does not know whether he is in the fourth or the second (Rak’a) but is sure that he has completed two [what should he do]? He said: he will perform two units and four prostrations and he stands reciting al-Fatiha and makes the Tashahud, and there is nothing further upon him, and if he does not know whether he is in the third or the fourth but he is sure that he has completed three - he stands and adds another (unit) to them and there is nothing further upon him. Certainty is not overriden by doubt and doubt does not enter certainty, one of them does not mix with the other, rather doubt is overriden by certainty, and one completes upon certainty building upon it, and doubt is regarded in any situation whatsoever.
  12. How do you understand the difference between concentration and fermentation? What are their Arabic equivalents? What starts before the other - if indeed they are two different things? When you say "boils 2/3 of it" do you mean 2/3 of it evaporates and we remain with 1/3? This remaining 1/3 is it fermented/concentrated or not? All these are questions that need answering first. Since we are playing questions. Someone gets a fermented barley beverage. He drinks it claiming he is not doing it for intoxication and will stop before the round that intoxicates. Is this permissible according to Abu Hanifa? Yes/No? [If you say No - please bring proof-text quoting him] Do you agree with him? Because as for me I agree with al-Tusi when he says فاكلام معه في ... وهو حرام، وعنده ليس بحرام، إلا ما يعقبه السكر، فانه متى شرب عشرة فسكرعقيبها فالعاشر حرام، وما قبله حلال
  13. Firstly, the famous position is that Abu Hanifa did not consider Iskaar to be shown by slurred speech. He required such level of misjudgment that one cannot differentiate between the earth and the sky! Secondly, Abu Hanifa prohibited only four things outright, everything else is permitted to him before it creates Iskaar. Are you telling me - apart from these four all the rest are just hyperglycemics? In other words, does it mean according to your interpretation that apart from these four things the rest cannot have alcoholic content in them - of course they can - like fermented barley - but he still permitted it before Iskaar. Why limit it to four, why not just say like other Fuqaha: "Kullu Ma Yuskir Kathiruhu Fa Kaliluhu Haram" Acc. to Abu Hanifa: - Nabidh of dates which has not fermented is Halal. - Nabidh of dates which has fermented (has the potential to intoxicate) and remains uncooked is absolutely prohibited. - Nabidh of dates above if cooked even slightly (2/3 of it does not need to evaporate) becomes Halal - even if it remains fermented after this slight cooking. That is why they put as a condition that the latter can be drunk but the last round from it which intoxicates is Haram. This condition would be redundant if the Nabidh of dates they were speaking about was not alcoholic.
  14. I agree. There are exceptions. So what? How does this change anything I said? As I quoted al-Shaybani وأما محمد بن الحسن فإن هشاما ذكر أنه سأله عن النبيذ ما أسكر كثيره فقال: أحب إلي أن لا أشربه ولا أحرمه Can you show any evidence of this distinction that they drew? If it creates Iskaar to them it would be Muskir [the clue is in the word]. The fact that it is alcoholic is indisputable because in other quotations they speak clearly as Nabidh Shadeed which means fermented. And anything which has fermented has alcoholic content, that is why it could potentially intoxicate in large quantities. Anyway, I have brought my evidences that it is fermented and has alcoholic content from the understanding of various scholars.
  15. Heating is an actuator that speeds up fermentation [this is how they saw it in their minds]. If fermented grape juice "over-ferments" it changes to vinegar. Look up "wine-vinegar" which is absolutely Halal. Thanks for the perspective you brought @Muzzammil And this is exactly why the position of all the classical schools of Fiqh [including ourselves] apart from the early Hanafi scholars was that - anything which intoxicates in large amounts is forbidden even a single drop of it. They had to confront this problem which you have raised and thus ruled accordingly. I don't understand where you want to go with this. As the brother said: "Hyperglycemia is normally asymptomatic... and it has has less to do with the amount of sugar ingested ..." The people at that time did not know about the chemical constituents of various drinks. They defined intoxication by what could be seen of symptoms. But they did have a basic idea of what fermentation entailed and did prepare drinks which can be considered alcoholic beverages. --> This is why the debate here is about drinking fermented drinks which have the potential to intoxicate because of alcoholic content. According to what has been attributed to him, Abu Hanifa considered someone to be intoxicated if he cannot tell the difference between the earth and the sky or a man and a woman. Let me try to summarize what I consider to be the differences between ourselves (the Imamiyya) and Abu Hanifa for what I hope is the final time. 1. Abu Hanifa considered Khamr (mentioned in the Qur'an) to be referring specifically to raw/uncooked grape juice that has fermented, bubbles and froths. Abu Hanifa prohibits Khamr [as he has defined it] whether in small amounts [even a single drop which will not intoxicate you] or in large amounts. To us, every Muskir is Khamr. Muskir is defined as potential intoxicant i.e. what intoxicates when drunk in certain amounts. We prohibit Muskir [anything which has the potential to intoxicate] whether in small amounts [even a single drop which will not intoxicate you] or in large amounts. 2. Abu Hanifa permitted drinking fermented grape juice if it is cooked and two-thirds of it evaporates away. In other words, he allows the remaining third. This remaining one-third is allowed even if it is fermented and has the potential to intoxicate. So long as one does not drink this to purposely get intoxicated and stops before he crosses the threshold of intoxication. We also have this practice of boiling until two-thirds evaporates, but we investigate the remaining third. If it progresses to ferment further [i.e. because of acetobacter] until it is no longer considered a Muskir [potential intoxicant] i.e. it has changed to vinegar, then the resultant drink is Tahir and permissible to consume. If it has not changed substance, it is still considered Muskir and forbidden to drink even a single drop of it. 3. Abu Hanifa allowed the Nabidh of raisins and dates if it is cooked slightly [touched with heat]. This slightly heated Nabidh of raisins and dates is allowed even if it is fermented and has the potential to intoxicate. So long as one does not drink this to purposely get intoxicated and stops before he crosses the threshold of intoxication. We would consider such Nabidh which has the potential to intoxicate forbidden even a single drop of it. 4. Abu Hanifa allowed beverages apart from those mentioned above e.g. Nabidh of wheat, barley, figs, corn etc. whether heated or not. This Nabidh of wheat, barley (malt), figs, corn etc. is allowed even if it has fermented (and therefore has alcoholic content). So long as one does not drink this to purposely get intoxicated and stops before he crosses the threshold of intoxication. We would consider such Nabidh which has the potential to intoxicate forbidden even a single drop of it.