Islamic Salvation

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    1,749
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Islamic Salvation last won the day on August 20 2014

Islamic Salvation had the most liked content!

About Islamic Salvation

  • Rank
    الدودومي
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Private
  1. The case of Tila' is that of Inqilab [transformation]. The Imam did not allow the fermented grape juice unless 2/3 of it evaporates and 1/3 remains. The Imam did not allow to drink one drop unless the evaporation occurs, and what remains is considered not to have any potential to intoxicate and that is why it has been allowed, because it has changed in a fundamental way [it is considered vinegar]. So, I don't think we can say that Imam allowed an intoxicant as long as it did not intoxicate because here the substance itself has changed. Look at the Fatwa of Shaykh Makarem Shirazi as an example: Issue No 219: If the juice of grapes ferments when heated with fire, it is not impure but it is haraam to eat it. However, if it boils so much that 2/3 of it evaporates and 1/3 part of it is left, it becomes halal, and if it ferments by itself and becomes intoxicating, it is impure and haraam. It will be pure and halal to drink only when it turns into vinegar. Sayyid Sistani states in Islamic Laws that if grape juice “ferments by itself, or when heated, it becomes haraam. However, if it boils so much that only 1/3 part of it is left, it becomes halal. In ruling 204, he does state that if the remainder ferments and is considered grape juice then it would be haraam (per obligatory precaution.) --> This means that even if the remaining one-third ferments again to have a potential to intoxicate it is forbidden. Note also that anyone who boiled fermented grape juice only until half was evaporated was considered to be drinking a Muskir by the Imam. It has to be two-thirds gone. As the Ahadith of the Aimma show some in Kufa were considering it boiled by one-half as enough to allow them to drink which is wrong in our Fiqh. As for Tila', I have already answered it above. Yes, Ahnaf did not promote intoxication as you point out, but those who followed Abu Hanifa were probably drinking alcoholic beverages [from non-grape] in small amounts, and to the Imam this would have been considered drinking a Muskir. For example, it is said in Waki's Akhbar al-Qudat Pg. 372, that in response to a group of Medinese prohibiting Nabidh, Sharik allowed it, also in Pg. 594 Sharik allows people to drink it if it agrees with them but advised them not to drink so much such as they become drunk. Ibn Abi Layla would not accept witness of one who rejects drinking Nabidh, and he also drank a few glasses himself before going out to judge [ibid, Pg. 576, 578]. You are absolutely right that these terms were flexible to a degree, for example the Nabidh which the people of Madina including al-Sadiq accepted was not the one of the people of Iraq - who were influenced by their scholars who got this wrong. This is why the companions had to ask these questions and even describe to the Imam how it is prepared. Consider below: محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن حنان بن سدير قال سمعت رجلا وهو يقول لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: ما تقول في النبيذ فإن أبا مريم يشربه ويزعم أنك أمرته بشر به؟ فقال: صدق أبومريم سألني عن النبيذ فأخبرته أنه حلال ولم يسألني عن المسكر، قال: ثم قال عليه السلام: إن المسكر ما اتقيت فيه أحدا سلطانا وغيره قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: مسكر حرام وما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرام، فقال له الرجل: جعلت فداك هذا النبيذ الذي أذنت لابي مريم في شربه أي شئ هو؟ فقال: أما أبي عليه السلام فإنه كان يأمر الخادم فيجيئ بقدح ويجعل فيه زبيبا ويغسله غسلا نقيا ثم يجعله في إناء ثم يصب عليه ثلاثة مثله أو أربعة ماء ثم يجعله بالليل ويشربه بالنهار ويجعله بالغداة ويشربه بالعشي، وكان يأمر الخادم يغسل الاناء في كل ثلاثة أيام كيلا يغتلم فإن كنتم تريدون النبيذ فهذا النبيذ 1. Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Muhammad b. Ismail from Hanan b. Sadir who said: I heard a man ask saying to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: what do you say about Nabidh? because Aba Maryam drinks it and claims that you permitted him to drink it. al-Sadiq said: Abu Maryam is truthful, he asked me about Nabidh so I informed him that it is permissible - he did not ask me about an intoxicant! then al-Sadiq said: I have never done Taqiyya about an intoxicant whether to a Sultan (ruler) or apart from him, the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said: "the intoxicant is forbidden, and what intoxicates in large quantities then even small quantity of it is Haram", the man said to him: may I be made your ransom, this Nabidh that you permitted for Abi Maryam to drink it what thing is it? al-Sadiq said: my father used to order his servant to come with a tumbler and to put into it grapes, then to wash it thoroughly, then he puts this in a bowl, then he pours on it three or four times as much water, then he leaves it for one night, and he drinks it the next day, or if he leaves it in the morning he drinks it at night, and he would order the servant to clean the bowl every three days so that it does not leave any remnant [which will cause juice to become excited], so if you want Nabidh then this is Nabidh. NOTES: - There is no Taqiyya about Nabidh even in front of the Abbasid rulers who used to drink it and their court scholars had permitted this for them. - It is clear that the Abu Hanifa Fatwa is wrong because he allowed fermented beverages in small amounts while the Imam makes clear that even one drop after fermentation is not allowed. - Leaving grapes in water only for one night or one day is also what Abbas used to do in Siqaya of the pilgrims, and it is clear that this is done to remove the bitter taste of water. - The Imam makes clear that it should not ferment. - This is the Nabidh of the people of Madina [grapes soaked in water without fermentation]. محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، ومحمد بن إسماعيل، ومحمد بن جعفر أبوالعباس الكوفي، عن محمد بن خالد جميعا، عن سيف بن عميرة، عن منصور قال: حدثني أيوب ابن راشد قال: سمعت أبا البلاد يسأل أبا عبدالله عليه السلام عن النبيذ فقال: لا بأس به فقال: إنه يوضع فيه العكر فقال أبوعبدالله عليه السلام: بئس الشراب ولكن انبذوه غدوة واشربوه بالعشي قال: فقال: جعلت فداك هذا يفسد بطوننا، قال: فقال أبوعبدالله عليه السلام: أفسد لبطنك أن تشرب مالا يحل لك 2. Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ali b. al-Hakam and Muhammad b. Ismail [and Muhammad b. Ja'far Abu al-Abbas al-Kufi from Muhammad b. Khalid] all together from Sayf b. Umayra from Mansur who said: Ayyub b. Rashid narrated to me saying: I heard Aba al-Bilad asking Aba Abdillah عليه السلام about Nabidh, so al-Sadiq said: there is nothing wrong with it, Abu al-Balad said: they put the dregs [the sediment settled at the bottom of a past liquid] into it [to make it ferment], so Abu Abdillah said: What an evil drink! [it is forbidden], what you should do is soak it in the morning and drink it by night, Abu al-Bilad said: may I be made your ransom - that [soaking only for a day] disturbs our stomach, Abu Abdilah said: what is even more bad for your stomach is to drink that which is not Halal for you [i.e. after fermentation]. NOTES: - Again the time-frame is just twelve hours, by which time the juice cannot have fermented. - Abu al-Bilad is from Kufa and he is describing what they do, in puttingالعكر into it - the Imam is shocked and considers that one impermissible. الحسين بن محمد، عن معلى بن محمد، وعدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد جميعا، عن محمد بن علي الهمداني، عن علي بن عبدالله الحناط، عن سماعة بن مهران، عن الكلبي النسابة قال: سألت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام عن النبيذ، فقال: حلال، قلت: إنا ننبذه فنطرح فيه العكر وما سوى ذلك؟ فقال عليه السلام: شه شه تلك الخمرة المنتنة، قال: قلت: جعلت فداك فأي نبيذ تعني؟ فقال: إن أهل المدينة شكوا إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله تغير الماء وفساد طبايعهم فأمرهم أن ينبذوا فكان الرجل منهم يأمر خادمه أن ينبذ له فيعمد إلى كف من تمر فيلقيه في الشن فمنه شربه ومنه طهوره، فقلت: وكم كان عدد التمرات التي كانت تلقي؟ قال: ما يحمل الكف قلت: واحدة واثنتين فقال عليه السلام: ربما كانت واحدة وربما كانت اثنتين، فقلت: وكم كان يسع الشن ماء؟ مابين الاربعين إلى الثمانين إلى مافوق ذلك قال: فقلت: بالارطال؟ فقال: أرطال بمكيال العراق 3. al-Husayn b. Muhammad from Mualla b. Muhammad AND a number of our companions from Sahl b. Ziyad all together from Muhammad b. Ali al-Hamdani from Ali b. Abdallah al-Hannat from Sama'a b. Mihran from al-Kalbi the geneologist who said: I asked Aba Abdillah عليه السلام about Nabidh, so al-Sadiq said: permissible, Nassaba said: we soak it and we drop in it dregs and other things [to make it ferment faster]? so he said: Sha Sha [a phrase to show dislike], that is putrid wine! Nassaba said: may I be made your ransom, which Nabidh do you mean [as permissible]? al-Sadiq said: the people of Madina complained to the prophet about the changing of water's taste and the deteriorating of their health, so he ordered them to soak, so a man from among them used to order his servant to soak for him, so he takes a handful of dates and sinks them in a water bag, so he then uses it to drink and also perform ablution, Nassaba said: how many date stones were put in the water? he said: what can be grasped by a hand, Nassaba said: one or two? al-Sadiq said: sometimes it was one handful, sometimes it might be two, Nassaba said: how much water did the water bag hold? al-Sadiq said: between forty to eighty or even more, Nassaba said: unit of volume in calculated in Ritl? al-Sadiq said: yes, the Ritl as the Iraqis measure it. NOTES: - Nassaba is from Kufa and he also notes that dregs are also mixed to speed up fermentation in Kufa. The Imam rejects that drink. - The Nabidh of Madina was just placing one or two handfuls of dates in large quantity of water to change its taste and make it sweeter, not one in Kufa which was fermented. محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن الحسين بن سعيد، عن إبراهيم بن أبي البلاد عن أبيه قال: كنت عند أبي جعفر عليه السلام فقلت: يا جارية اسقيني ماء فقال لها: اسقيه من نبيذي فجائتني بنبيذ من بسر في قدح من صفر قال: فقلت: إن أهل الكوفة لا يرضون بهذا قال: فما نبيذهم؟ قلت له: يجعلون فيه القعوة، قال: وماالقعوة قلت: الداذي قال: وما الداذي؟ فقلت: ثفل التمر قال: يضرى به الاناء حتى يهدر النبيذ فيغلى ثم يسكن فيشرب، فقال: هذا حرام 4. Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from from al-Husayn b. Said from Ibrahim b. Abi Bilad from his father who said: I was at Abi Ja'far's عليه السلام place when I said: O slave-girl - bring me water to drink, so Abu Ja'far said to her: bring for him from my Nabidh to drink, so she brought out for me Nabidh containing an unripe-date in a cup of brass, Abi Bilad said: the people of Iraq do not like to drink this, al-Baqir said: what is their Nabidh? Abi Bilad said: they put into it <<Qa'wa>>, al-Baqir said: what is <<Qa'wa>>? Abi Bilad said: <<al-Ddadhi>>, al-Baqir said: what is <<al-Ddadhi>>? Abi Bilad said: the waste-residue of dates - it is smeared around the pot until the Nabidh boils and ferments, after which it is cooled and then drunk, al-Baqir said this is Haram. NOTES: - The Nabidh of the people of Iraq is Haram. Apart from some exceptions.
  2. Yes, it is permissible to drink alcoholic beverages if they are non-grape [and some add: non-date] according to Abu Hanifa's principle - however with two conditions. I have not listened to the Ghendy video, but if he is not taking into consideration these two conditions than the Hanafi scholars are not with him. Let me quote a contemporary scholar [Mufti Ebrahim Desai]: http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/31176 The contemporary Hanafī ‘ulamā’ who feel that all products containing alcohol are unconditionally harām and impure, even when the alcohol is not sourced from grapes or dates, are entitled to their opinion. This was one of the views reported from Imām Muhammad (rahimahullāh).[1] The opinions expressed on the Askimam website are based on the view of Imām Abū Hanīfah and Imām Abū Yūsuf (rahimahumallāh). In fact, this view has also been reported from Imām Muhammad[2], and is even regarded as the more correct opinion from him.[3] It is also the position he adopts in his work Kitāb al-Āthār.[4] According to this view, only khamr (which is defined as “uncooked/raw grape juice when it bubbles, ferments and froths”) or those drinks which share the ruling of khamr (that is, certain other types of alcoholic beverages derived specifically from dates or grapes) are unconditionally harām and impure. Alcoholic beverages which are not sourced from dates or grapes do not fall under this category, and are thus, by default, permissible and pure.[5] However, this permissibility is premised on two conditions:[6] - It is not permissible to drink them with the purpose of intoxication or to the amount that will intoxicate - It is not permissible to drink them in the manner associated with open sinners i.e. fussāq When the two above-mentioned conditions are met, it is permissible, according to this view, to drink alcoholic beverages that are not sourced from dates or grapes. The Hanafī jurists have mentioned that amongst the permissible objectives of consuming such drinks are: taking down food, gaining strength and medication. I am not sure whether these two conditions date back directly in this form to Abu Hanifa or were developed over time [he is quoting them from Kanz al-Daqaiq of al-Nasafi (d. 710 AH)]. Note also that he clearly says - alcoholic beverages - which means that they contain some amount of alcohol, which means they are fermented to some degree. The problem of this Fatwa of Abu Hanifa is that he may not have a bad intention but he ignored the clear Hadith of the prophet which is authentic which indicates that what intoxicates in large quantity is forbidden in small quantity regardless of intention. In al-Sharai, as you have bolded, it clearly states that Nabidh is Haram, even if it is a single drop. Abu Hanifa allowed this single drop and only forbade the last round. It also makes clear that a juice if it ferments (the substrate rises to the top) by itself or because of the fire then it is still Haram even if it does not intoxicate [because it has the potential to - in large quantities], but this is also against Abu Hanifa because he allowed cooking with fire. Similarly, Fuqqa [malt/barley beer] is again Haram even a single drop, and it is Najis, while this would not be the case for Abu Hanifa. As for what our Ulama are saying here, then they are right in allowing juices, so long as it does not intoxicate ما لم يسكر, they have not divided it into Kalil and Kathir like Abu Hanifa. Abu Hanifa is wrong because he says الذي لا يسكر القليل is Halal, which is not the case with us. Wine [fermented grape juice] or fermented non-grape juice when it boils and evaporates can return to being a juice that does not intoxicate in any quantity. And there is no controversy about that. May he bless you too. You have increased me in knowledge and have shown a good mastery of the sources. Jzk
  3. Nabidh in this context is clearly the fermented one. If not - then why is Sayyid Sabiq highlighting the Khilaf of these scholars? What is the difference of the Fuqaha of Iraq with others if not in fermented beverages? Sayyid Sabiq is attributing to Abu Hanifa that الذي لا يسكر القليل - the little (amount) which does not intoxicate is Halal NOT that "non-grape juice that is not supposed to intoxicate is Halal". There is a big difference between the two, because we do not allow even this little that does not intoxicate while Abu Hanifa only prohibits drinking in large amount. It clearly can intoxicate - Why do you think that Abu Hanifa is qualifying it to little! Again you have ignored the evidence from Ibn Abidin which is still a standard Hanafi text to this day from the final Muhaqiq of that school. وفي حاشية ابن عابدين: والقدح الأخير المسكر هو المحرم أي على قول الإمام دون ما قبله وإن كان المفتى به قول محمد أن ما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرام By only prohibiting the last portion because it intoxicates - this means that it is admitted that the liquid does intoxicate in large quantity. This is also placed in juxtaposition to al-Shaybani's view which is what our Madhhab agrees with. What more evidence do you need? Do you accept that you can drink a liquid so long as you do not reach this last round? This might make sense to them in their Madhhab, but it is in opposition to what the prophet said. In our Madhhab, anything that is "suppose" to intoxicate is Haram. And we apply this without restriction, provided it is in liquid form. All the examples he gives of what can intoxicate - if it is true that they can intoxicate - then it is Haram even one drop of them. Although chemically speaking some of the examples given is just hyperbole used by Hanafi Fuqaha. al-Sarakhsi is actually supporting Abu Hanifa's opinion here and making the same mistake as his Imam. He is saying that just because something intoxicates in large quantities does not mean that it is Haram to imbibe in small quantities. But this is wrong. The Hadith from the prophet is clear, anything that intoxicates in large quantities is forbidden in smaller quantities. What you quote also supports my argument directly from Abu Yusuf's mouth - it places a condition that one should not drink it with the intention to get intoxicated, for if he does that with such an intention it will be forbidden, but he allows drinking it so as to aid digestion and give appetite of food because then it is not prohibited. Again I put to you, how can you claim that they are not talking about fermented non-grape juice when Abu Yusuf allows that it can intoxicate you - just that you should not drink it for that purpose! Also, do you think our Madhhab allows drinking such fermented non-grape juice that has the potential to intoxicate as an appetizer! Not really, some of the later Ahnaf continued to hold Abu Hanifa's opinion as valid, you have just kindly quoted al-Sarakhsi above who supports drinking fermented non-grape juice. You keep saying they were all in agreement while the Hanafi scholars themselves differentiate between the opinions of Abu Hanifa/Abu Yusuf and al-Shaybani. What do you know which they did not? This is what Mulla Ali Qari - the famous Hanafi says: والفتوى في زماننا على قول محمد The Fatwa is that of Muhammad in our times. They clearly understood a difference of opinion between Abu Hanifa and al-Shaybani. Yes, most of the Basran Ulama did allow it [Madhhab of the Iraqis], and we see here that Ibn Ulayya had to even be carried on a donkey and needs to find someone to direct him to the way home. And the Kufans drink the same Nabidh, but in small quantities, so that they do not get drunk [like the Basran in the example], they drink for Diin, apparently it gave them energy to do Ibada. I am not blaming them, I know that many of those who allowed Nabidh in Iraq were pious people, more than even us, but the point is they got it wrong. Nobody is making the ridiculous claim that because many things can intoxicate you every non-grape drink is Haram, rather, every thing that intoxicates when it is in large amounts is a Muskir, and every Muskir is Haram, for even if the Qur'an mentions only Khamr directly, but the Ahadith of the prophet extended it to all Muskir. The only problem is that he allowed it. Nobody is speculating about Abu Hanifa's intentions. All I am saying is that he was wrong in is opinion, and you do not want to admit even this. Pardon me, but you do not want to deal with things that are very clear. I just quoted to you from no less an authority than al-Kasani as saying وأما الأشربة التي تتخذ من الأطعمة كالحنطة والشعير والدَخَنْ والذرة والعسل والتين والسكر ونحوها فلا يجب الحد بشربها ، لأن شربها حلال عندهما ، وعند محمد وإن كان حراما لكن هي حرمة محل الإجتهاد فلم يكن شربها جناية محضة فلا تتعلق بها عقوبة محضة As for the beverages which are made from grain-stuff like wheat, barley, millet, maize and honey, figs, sugar-cane and the like, then the one who drinks it is not to be punished with the Hadd, because drinking them is permissible according to them both (i.e. Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf), and even though it is prohibited according to Muhammad (al-Shaybani) - yet it is a prohibition based on Ijtihad, so drinking it is not considered an explicit crime, so it should not be punished with an explicit penalty [i.e. Hadd]. Why do you think that all the other Madhhahib said that such a one should be punished with Hadd? Do you think it is because they drank non-fermented non-grape drinks like the way we drink pineapple juice today! They are clearly talking about fermented non-grape drinks, and yes, Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf deemed this permissible and did not put any Hadd for it, while we put a Hadd for it, and al-Shaybani differed because he considered it prohibited, but he did not rule that such a one should be given Hadd. I don't think if you drink lots of water you will become intoxicated. In Imami Madhhab we do not have this last round rule. We do not care what your intention to drink is, whether you wanted to become intoxicated or not. The famous Fatwa is that there are two conditions to rule a drink as intoxicating and hence Haram: 1) It is originally liquid 2) Large quantities of it are intoxicating That is it.
  4. Akhi, read Sayyid Sabiq's words in Fiqh al-Sunna carefully, maybe you can see where we differ in: و لم يخالف في ذلك أحد – أي تحريم الخمر بجميع أنواعها – سوى فقهاء العراق ، و إبراهيم النخعي ، و سفيان الثوري ، و ابن أبي ليلى ، و شريك، و ابن شبرمة، و سائر فقهاء الكوفيين ، و أكثر علماء البصريين ، و أبي حنيفة, فإنهم قالوا: بتحريم القليل و الكثير من عصير العنب، أما ما كان من الأنبذة من غير العنب، فإنه يحرم الكثير المسكر منه ، أما القليل الذي لا يسكر، فإنه حلال No one differed in that - that is - in prohibiting Khamr in all its forms - except for the Fuqaha of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Nakhai and Sufyan al-Thawri and Ibn Abi Layla and Sharik and Ibn Shubruma and the rest of the Fuqaha among the Kufans, and most of the Ulama among the Basrans, and Abi Hanifa - they said: small amounts and large amounts of the fermented grape juice is forbidden (i.e. it is Khamr), as for the different kinds of Nabidh apart from that of grape - then what is forbidden from them is the large amounts that cause intoxication, as for the small amounts which do not cause intoxication then it is Halal. When the Imams said no Taqiyya about Nabidh it was because it must have been a problem, and most of their companions came from Kufa, which was the epicenter of such belief, and the Imams made clear to their Ashab - "What has the potential to intoxicate is Haram" but Abu Hanifa says "What has the potential to intoxicate is not Haram in small amounts". And al-Shaybani went against his Shaykh in this. The Hashiya of Ibn Abidin وفي حاشية ابن عابدين: والقدح الأخير المسكر هو المحرم أي على قول الإمام دون ما قبله وإن كان المفتى به قول محمد أن ما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرام The last portion which intoxicates is what Haram - that is - based on the opinion of the Imam (i.e. Abu Hanifa) - not that which precedes it, even though the Fatwa [the popular opinion of later Hanafis] is taken from the opinion of Muhammad (al-Shaybani) that whatever intoxicates in large amount, then small amount of it is Haram.
  5. Nobody is arguing about al-Shaybani, he differed with Abu Hanifa about this. The question is about Abu Hanifa and the other early Kufan jurists. Furthermore, nobody is saying that Abu Hanifa permitted intoxication. However, he did not consider Nabidh to fall under Khamr [which he limited to grape], and he considered non-intoxicating quantities of fermented Nabidh to be permissible. Which other scholars disagreed with. I repeat again the words of Ibn Rushd in Bidaya وقال العراقيون: إبراهيم النخعي من التابعين وسفيان الثوري وابن أبي ليلى وشريك وابن شبرمة وأبو حنيفة وسائر فقهاء الكوفيين وأكثر علماء البصريين: إن المحرم من سائر الأنبذة المسكرة هو السكر نفسه لا العين And the Iraqis: Ibrahim al-Nakhai from the Tabi'in and Sufyan al-Thawri and Ibn Abi Layla and Sharik and Ibn Shubruma and Abu Hanifa and the rest of the Fuqaha of the Kufans and most of the Ulama of the Basrans said: what is prohibited in all the remaining beverages (besides wine derived from grape juice) that have the potential to intoxicate is intoxication itself and not the substance of the beverages. Abu Hanifa and others differ here with the Hijazi scholars and the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt in that the latter maintained - what will intoxicate in large amounts is prohibited even in small amounts (i.e. the substance itself is Haram). This is a fundamental difference! Another piece of evidence for this which is very clear and coming from one of the foremost scholars of the Ahnaf : From Bada'i al-Sanai of Ala al-Diin al-Kasani (d. 587 H) وأما الأشربة التي تتخذ من الأطعمة كالحنطة والشعير والدَخَنْ والذرة والعسل والتين والسكر ونحوها فلا يجب الحد بشربها ، لأن شربها حلال عندهما ، وعند محمد وإن كان حراما لكن هي حرمة محل الإجتهاد فلم يكن شربها جناية محضة فلا تتعلق بها عقوبة محضة As for the beverages which are made from grain-stuff like wheat, barley, millet, maize and honey, figs, sugar-cane and the like, then the one who drinks it is not to be punished with the Hadd, because drinking them is permissible according to them both (i.e. Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf), and even though it is prohibited according to Muhammad (al-Shaybani) - yet it is a prohibition based on Ijtihad, so drinking it is not considered an explicit crime, so it should not be punished with an explicit penalty [i.e. Hadd]. It cannot be claimed that this is about Nabidh before fermentation, otherwise al-Shaybani would not have prohibited it. NOTE: Before fermentation it does not have the potential to intoxicate and no one doubts the permissibility of that.
  6. The sources, including Durr al-Mukhtar, which is itself depended upon by Hanafis and written by one, notes that Abu Hanifa allowed non-intoxicating quantities of fermented drinks. All these scholars cannot be wrong in representing Abu Hanifa's opinion. They knew about Shaybani's stance and considered it diverging from that of his teacher. He did not get away with it, there was much controversy, and he was blamed by it from some, refer to Siyar A'lam al-Nubala. But as the Imams of Ahlulbayt made clear there is no Taqiyya about Nabidh.
  7. al-Tahawi (d. 321) who was himself a Hanafi and therefore quite sympathetic - quotes (or paraphrases) Abu Hanifa as saying [in his Ikhtilaf al-Ulama]: عن أبي حنيفة: الخمر حرام ، قليلها وكثيرها ، والسكر من غيرها حرام ، وليس كتحريم الخمر ، والنبيذ المطبوخ لا بأس به ، من أي شيء كان ، وإنما يحرم منه القدر الذي يسكر From Abi Hanifa: Khamr is Haram, whether it be less or more, and becoming intoxicated from other than Khamr is also Haram, but it is not like the prohibition of Khamr [in the sense of the quantity], and there is no problem in Nabidh, it is only forbidden from it the amount which causes intoxication. This goes against "every intoxicant is prohibited, and whatever intoxicates in large quantity then even a small quantity of it is prohibited"
  8. What is clear to me is that there was a Nabidh which is Halal, because it does not intoxicate even if drunk in large amounts. But there was a Nabidh which would intoxicate in large amounts, wich many jurists in Iraq, prominent among them Abu Hanifa permitted, though they put the caveat that one should not drink it until becoming intoxicated. And this is Haram to us because as the messenger of Allah said - What intoxicates in large amounts is also forbidden in small amounts. This was the whole crux of the controversy, otherwise there would be no controversy. And later Hanafi apologists tried to ameliorate and lessen the significance of Abu Hanifa's position, while others disagreed with him outright. Most of the companions who came to ask the Imam about Nabidh were Kufans, and we all know who the leading contemporary scholar in Kufa was, thus, the Imam prohibiting it to them is a circumstantial indicator about Abu Hanifa. However, there is also the debate between Mu'min al-Taq and Abu Hanifa in al-Kafi: سأل أبوحنيفة أبا جعفر محمد بن النعمان صاحب الطاق فقال له: يا أبا جعفر ماتقول في المتعة أتزعم أنها حلال؟ قال: نعم، قال: فما يمنعك أن تأمر نساء ك أن يستمتعن ويكتسبن عليك، فقال له أبوجعفر: ليس كل الصناعات يرغب فيها وإن كانت حلالا وللناس أقدار ومراتب يرفعون أقدارهم ولكن ماتقول يا أبا حنيفة في النبيذ أتزعم أنه حلال؟ فقال: نعم، قال: فما يمنعك أن تقعد نساء ك في الحوانيت نباذات فيكتسبن عليك؟ فقال أبوحنيفة: واحدة بواحدة وسهمك أنفذ al-Shaybani disagreed with his teacher and his view has been taken as the Fatwa for most of the Hanafis. But this does not change the accusation against Abu Hanifa. قال ابن رشد الحفيد في بداية المجتهد: وأما الأنبذة فإنهم اختلفوا في القليل منها الذي لا يسكر، وأجمعوا على أن المسكر منها حرام فقال جمهور فقهاء الحجاز وجمهور المحدثين: قليل الأنبذة وكثيرها المسكرة حرام، وقال العراقيون: إبراهيم النخعي من التابعين وسفيان الثوري وابن أبي ليلى وشريك وابن شبرمة وأبو حنيفة وسائر فقهاء الكوفيين وأكثر علماء البصريين: إن المحرم من سائر الأنبذة المسكرة هو السكر نفسه لا العين، وسبب اختلافهم تعارض الآثار والأقيسة في هذا الباب الدر المختار: وحرمها محمد أي الأشربة المتخذة من العسل والتين ونحوهما، قاله المصنف مطلقا قليلها وكثيرها، وبه يفتى، ذكره الزيلعي وغيره واختاره شارح الوهبانية وذكر أنه مروي عن الكل وفي حاشية ابن عابدين: والقدح الأخير المسكر هو المحرم أي على قول الإمام دون ما قبله وإن كان المفتى به قول محمد أن ما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرام And in Mawsua al-Fiqhiyya: الموسوعة الفقهية: وَأَمَّا نَبِيذُ الْعَسَل وَالتِّينِ وَالْبُرِّ وَالشَّعِيرِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ فَمُبَاحٌ عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، بِشَرْطِ أَلاَّ يُشْرَبَ لِلَهْوٍ أَوْ طَرِبٍ، وَخَالَفَهُمَا مُحَمَّدٌ، وَرَأْيُهُ هُوَ الْمُفْتَى بِهِ عِنْدَ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ As for Nabidh of honey, figs, wheat, barley and its like, then it is permissible for Abi Hanifa and Abi Yusuf, with the condition that it is not drunk because of desire, or to bring about change in emotion, and Muhammad differed with them in this, and it is his opinion which has been taken as the decisive one among the Hanafiyya.
  9. محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن صفوان الجمال قال: كنت مبتلى بالنبيذ معجبا به فقلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: جعلت فداك أصف لك النبيذ قال: فقال لي: بل أنا أصفه لك قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: كل مسكر حرام وما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرام، فقلت له: هذا نبيذ السقاية بفناء الكعبة فقال لي: ليس هكذا كانت السقاية إنما السقاية زمزم أفتدري من أول من غيرها؟ قال: قلت: لا، قال: العباس بن عبدالمطلب كانت له حبلة أفتدري ما الحبلة؟ قلت: لا، قال: الكرم فكان ينقع الزبيب غدوة ويشربونه بالعشي وينقعه بالعشي ويش بونه من الغد يريد به أن يكسر غلظ الماء عن الناس وإن هؤلاء قد تعدوا فلا تشربه ولا تقربه Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ali b. al-Hakam from Safwan the Cameleer who said: I was afflicted by Nabidh and liked it greatly, so I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: may I be made your ransom - should I describe for you the Nabidh? So he said to me: rather I will describe it for you, the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said: every intoxicant is prohibited, and whatever intoxicates in large quantity then even a small quantity of it is prohibited, I said to him: here is the Nabidh of Siqaya (giving water to pilgrims) nearby to the Ka’ba [i.e. they were providing Nabidh to pilgrims after making Tawaf], so he said to me: this is not how Siqaya was, Siqaya was done using Zam Zam water, do you know the first one who changed that practice? I said: no, he said: al-Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib, he had a Habala - do you know what a Habala is? I said: no, he said: a grape-vine, so he (Abbas) began to soak grapes in the water in the morning and they used to drink it at night [i.e. not even a full day passes], and at other times he used to soak it at night and they used to drink it the next morning, he wanted by doing this to lessen the bitterness of the water in service of the people, as for these [contemporary supervisors] - they have exceeded the limit, so do not drink it nor come near it [i.e. because it is Najis]. This shows that most of the Nabidh at that time (including the one in Iraq) was prohibited by the Imam. It becomes clear that the Nabidh of Iraq was clearly different from what was known in prophetic times in Madina [or even in Jahiliyya when al-Abbas was making Siqaya]. However this was allowed by Abu Hanifa, and this is a great shame for him, and he was rightly castigated for it. For even if he claims that he allows it so long as it does not reach level to intoxicate, then something that intoxicates in large quantity is not allowed in small quantity even a single drop.
  10. Obviously in our Madhhab, It is clear that every intoxicant is considered to be equivalent to Khamr, and Khamr is Haram. Also, what intoxicates if it is much is Haram even if it is less. محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن معاوية بن وهب قال: قلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: إن رجلا من بني عمي وهو رجل من صلحاء مواليك أمرني أن أسألك عن النبيذ فأصفه لك، فقال عليه السلام له: أنا أصفه لك قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: كل مسكر حرام فما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرام، قال: قلت: فقليل الحرام يحله كثير الماء فرد عليه بكفه مرتين لا لا In a Sahih Narration from Muawiya b. Wahb who said: I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام - a man from the sons of my uncle, who is also from the righteous ones among your followers ordered me to ask you about Nabidh - should I describe it to you? he عليه السلام said: I will describe it for you, the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله said: every intoxicant is prohibited, and whatever intoxicates in large quantity then even small quantity of it is forbidden, I said: so the small quantity of what is prohibited can it be made permissible by large quantity of water, so he replied to him with his palm - [indicating] No, No (twice). أبوعلي الاشعري، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن علي بن النعمان، عن محمد بن مروان، عن الفضيل بن يسار، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن النبيذ فقال: حرم الله عزوجل الخمر بعينها وحرم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله من الاشربة كل مسكر In another Narration from Fudhayl b. Yasar from Abi Ja'far عليه السلام, he said: I asked him about Nabidh, so he replied: Allah Mighty and Majestic prohibited Khamr (wine) explicitly, and the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله prohibited all that intoxicates among drinks. --> It also becomes apparent that the way that Nabidh was being produced changed, and this made even a little of it to be Haram.
  11. Nabidh is produced by soaking fruit until it ferments and becomes sweet. It is not intoxicating in all stages of preparation. This adds to the problem because one can say Nabidh and mean the non-intoxicating juice. The dispute boils down to the scope of the Qur’an’s prohibition on wine (Khamr) - is this limited only to wine drinking or includes all intoxicants. Many Iraqi jurists [including Abu Hanifa] permit Nabidh. Such Hanafis argue that the text prohibiting wine has to be interpreted within the context of the period in which it was revealed. They claim that Nabidh was a common drink ingested during the time of the prophet in Madina [we have evidence for this in one of our narrations in al-Kafi, but it makes clear that the Nabidh which was sanctioned by the prophet was a non-intoxicating one]. They also cite examples of prominent companions such as Umar, Abu Dharr and many of the Tabi’in who supposedly continued to drink Nabidh even after the prophet’s death. They also have a report from Ibn Mas’ud who was considered the bed-rock of teaching people the Shar’iah in Kufa [and which the Abu Hanifa school tried to claim descent from] deeming it permissible though the report continues to say that he himself did not drink it. Permissibility of drinking Nabidh is also attributed to Abu Hanifa’s direct teacher Ibrahim al-Nakhai. Even a contemporary rival of Abu Hanifa who also resided in Kufa i.e. Ibn Abi Layla (d. 148) is said to have drank it liberally. This is also attributed to the renowned judges of Kufa - Shurayh (d. 80) and Sharik (d. 177). It seems that this issue was localized to Iraq because the Hijazi jurists like Malik and Shafi’i did not allow it, and even within Iraq dissenting voices increased. A significant break from this Iraqi tradition was the Kufan judge Ibn Shubruma (d. 144) who outrightly banned it. The proof used by him was the prophetic Hadith “anything that intoxicates is wine”. There is also an Asl in their Madhhab which states that any legislation having to do with a general concern (drinking was a widespread practice) would have been made known by explicit statements and not implicit ones (the lack of explicit statements is to them a tacit permission for allowance). Furthermore, a blanket prohibition would have been reflected by Tawatur and not Akhbar Ahad (isolated reports). They also claim that since there exist both sets of reports, those seeming to indicate permissibility and those seeming to indicate prohibition - these two sets should be reconciled. Reports that equate wine with all intoxicants should be read in such a way so as not to contradict reports permitting non-wine intoxicants such as Nabidh. How? Non-wine intoxicants should be considered Khamr in a figurative sense when they do in fact intoxicate, not because they have the capacity to intoxicate. The Hanafis also argued that since all Muslims consider people who declare as lawful what God has unambiguously prohibited to be Kafirs, the fact that no one accused the Kufan jurists who permitted Nabidh to be Kafirs was an admission that even their opponents acknowledge that the prohibition is not solidly grounded in the text.
  12. Fevered media speculation about Donald Trump’s psychological motivations and psychiatric diagnosis has recently encouraged mental health professionals to disregard the usual ethical constraints against diagnosing public figures at a distance. They have sponsored several petitions and a Feb. 14 letter to The New York Times suggesting that Mr. Trump is incapable, on psychiatric grounds, of serving as president. Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder. Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither). Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers. His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab. The antidote to a dystopic Trumpean dark age is political, not psychological. ALLEN FRANCES Coronado, Calif. The writer, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College, was chairman of the task force that wrote the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (D.S.M.-IV). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html
  13. The aim is not to paint all Wall-Street traders with one brush. I have been careful in my word-selection to limit discussion to certain types of people and dealings [whether they are within Wall-St. or beyond]. Maybe the title has confused you. It is mostly a pun based on the movie with the same name. However, it is undoubted that an age which will be dog eat dog in its aggressiveness and ferocity is alluded to in the Ahadith. In any case, if you had read the whole piece you would have seen that it is a commentary on what was said by the Prophet about the signs of the aforementioned age. They include: 1. << the well-off will cling on tightly to that which is in his hands >> i.e. stinginess and greed. 2. << deals are conducted with the one in distress, while the messenger of Allah prohibited the sale of the one in distress >> 3. << the messenger of Allah prohibited the deceptive sale >> If you do not recognize these three traits as features of the modern economic system then you can choose to benefit us with your knowledge and elaborate on it.
  14. A Hadith I came across writing the blog-post linked below. It is No. 448 in Rawdha al-Kafi. إسماعيل بن عبد الله القرشي قال: أتى إلى أبي عبد الله عليه السلام رجل فقال له: يا ابن رسول الله رأيت في منامي كأني خارج من مدينة الكوفة في موضع أعرفه وكان شبحا من خشب أو رجلا منحوتا من خشب على فرس من خشب يلوح بسيفه وأنا أشاهده، فزعا مرعوبا فقال له عليه السلام: أنت رجل تريد اغتيال رجل في معيشته، فاتق الله الذي خلقك ثم يميتك فقال الرجل: أشهد أنك قد أوتيت علما واستنبطه من معدنه اخبرك يا ابن رسول الله عما فسرت لي إن رجلا من جيراني جاءني وعرض علي ضيعته فهممت أن أملكها بوكس كثير لما عرفت أنه ليس لها طالب غيري فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: وصاحبك يتولانا ويبرأ عدونا ؟ فقال: نعم يا ابن رسول الله رجل جيد البصيرة مستحكم الدين وأنا تائب إلى الله عز وجل وإليك مما هممت به ونويته فأخبرني يا ابن رسول الله لو كان ناصبا حل لي اغتياله فقال: أد الأمانة لمن ائتمنك وأراد منك النصيحة ولو إلى قاتل الحسين عليه السلام Ismail b. Abdallah al-Qarashi who said: a man came to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام and said: O the son of the messenger of Allah I saw in a dream as though I am outside the town of Kufa in a place which I know, and there was something like an apparition made of wood or a man carved out of wood on a wooden horse brandishing his sword while I look on in fright and terror, so he عليه السلام said to him: you are a someone who wants to cheat a man out of his livelihood so be fearful of Allah who created you and will make you to die, so the man said: I bear witness that you have been given knowledge and have derived it from its real source (treasure-mine), I will inform you O the son of the messenger of Allah the background to that which you have interpreted for me, a man from among my neighbors came to me and offered me his walled-up land so I wished to own it at a very low price since I knew that there isn’t anyone else who wants to buy it, so Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said to him: is your fellow someone who follows us and disassociates from our enemies? He said: yes - O the son of the messenger of Allah, he has good insight and follows the religion, and I repent to Allah Mighty and Majestic and to you from what I wanted and had intended to do, but inform me O the son of the messenger of Allah - if he was a Nasibi [a hater of the Ahl al-Bayt] could I have cheated him in this way? He said: return back the trust to whomsoever has placed his confidence in you and expects good-counsel from you - even if he be killer of al-Husayn! NOTES: Some of the people of Ilm in Ta’wil of Ru’ya claim that the Imam’s interpretation is wholly consistent with their methods. They interpret wooden things in dreams as having association to Nifaq (hypocrisy) because of the Aya from Surat al-Munafiqun “as though they were pieces of wood propped up” (63:4). The sword as an allegory for his evil intention. That this intention harbors some financial aspect can be inferred from the horse which symbolizes “the world” and “livelihood” because it is in of itself a steady source of income and the potential to earn. The main take away point is that a Muslim lives up to the trust shown in him and the confidence of one seeking counsel. He does not taking wanton advantage of someone. This extends not only to a fellow faithful but even the killer of al-Husayn!
  15. المسلم أخو المسلم لا يظلمه ولا يخذله، إن كان عندك معروف، فعد به على أخيك وإلا فلا تزده هلاكا إلى هلاكه The Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he is not unfair with him nor does he cheat him, If you want to make him a good turn then hand it over to your brother, and if not then do not contribute to his financial destruction [The Messenger of God] The Real Wolves of Wall-Street Pt. II « ويبايع المضطر – وقد نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله عن بيع المضطر » << deals are conducted with the one in distress, while the messenger of Allah prohibited the sale of the one in distress >> Al-Tusi narrates from al-Sadiq a similar narration: يأتي على الناس زمان عضوض يعضّ كلّ امرئ على ما في يديه ، و ينسى الفضل ، و قد قال تعالى و لا تنسوا الفضل بينكم ثمّ ينبري في ذلك الزمان أقوام يبايعون المضطرين اولئك هم شرار الناس There will come upon people a severe age wherein every man will cling to what is in his hand, and forget giving, while Allah the Exalted said: “and do not forget liberality between yourselves” (2:237), then will arise in that age groups who will conduct business deals with the distressed and they are the worst of the people. Distress Deals Some scholars have tried to interpret مضطر which I have rendered as ‘distressed’ to be مكره that is ‘compelled’ [to buy or sell]. They claim that it is this latter (compelling someone to buy or sell something) which is forbidden because all transactions must be entered in with full consent. They point out that even if someone is in distress it is still his decision to engage in the transaction. But I consider this to be a limited definition restricting the range of the narration’s applicability, rather, I would say that the مضطر in the context of the society which these narrations describe and the stinginess they attribute to the wealthy - should be taken to mean those whom economical forces (completely out of their hands) exploit and make desperate enough to do anything including allowing the sharks to come out and take advantage of them. In fact they openly brag about finding such deals: “The main reason to buy a distressed property is the price. In most cases, a foreclosure or short sale will be priced below market value, the valuation of the asset is artificial because it was not sold under open and competitive market conditions. From the buyer's perspective, however, property that is sold in a distressed sale can present an opportunity to purchase the asset at a substantial discount to market prices”. Another example which is relevant to our modern age and would fall under the spirit of this Hadith is Big Pharma. Many of these global corporations hike up the prices of important and life-saving drugs to developing countries which cannot afford them. We have psychopathic CEO’s who claim to care only about the balance sheet and answerable only to the shareholders with no shred of mercy in their hearts, while the sick have no option but to pay up. This interpretation is backed up by narrations as the one found below: إسماعيل بن عبد الله القرشي قال: أتى إلى أبي عبد الله عليه السلام رجل فقال له: يا ابن رسول الله رأيت في منامي كأني خارج من مدينة الكوفة في موضع أعرفه وكان شبحا من خشب أو رجلا منحوتا من خشب على فرس من خشب يلوح بسيفه وأنا أشاهده، فزعا مرعوبا فقال له عليه السلام: أنت رجل تريد اغتيال رجل في معيشته، فاتق الله الذي خلقك ثم يميتك فقال الرجل: أشهد أنك قد أوتيت علما واستنبطه من معدنه اخبرك يا ابن رسول الله عما فسرت لي إن رجلا من جيراني جاءني وعرض علي ضيعته فهممت أن أملكها بوكس كثير لما عرفت أنه ليس لها طالب غيري فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: وصاحبك يتولانا ويبرأ عدونا ؟ فقال: نعم يا ابن رسول الله رجل جيد البصيرة مستحكم الدين وأنا تائب إلى الله عز وجل وإليك مما هممت به ونويته فأخبرني يا ابن رسول الله لو كان ناصبا حل لي اغتياله فقال: أد الأمانة لمن ائتمنك وأراد منك النصيحة ولو إلى قاتل الحسين عليه السلام Ismail b. Abdallah al-Qarashi who said: a man came to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام and said: O the son of the messenger of Allah I saw in a dream as though I am outside the town of Kufa in a place which I know, and there was something like an apparition made of wood or a man carved out of wood on a wooden horse brandishing his sword while I look on in fright and terror, so he عليه السلام said to him: you are a someone who wants to cheat a man out of his livelihood so be fearful of Allah who created you and will make you to die, so the man said: I bear witness that you have been given knowledge and have derived it from its real source (treasure-mine), I will inform you O the son of the messenger of Allah the background to that which you have interpreted for me, a man from among my neighbors came to me and offered me his walled-up land so I wished to own it at a very low price since I knew that there isn’t anyone else who wants to buy it, so Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said to him: is your fellow someone who follows us and disassociates from our enemies? He said: yes - O the son of the messenger of Allah, he has good insight and follows the religion, and I repent to Allah Mighty and Majestic and to you from what I wanted and had intended to do, but inform me O the son of the messenger of Allah - if he was a Nasibi [a hater of the Ahl al-Bayt] could I have cheated him in this way? He said: return back the trust to whomsoever has placed his confidence in you and expects good-counsel from you - even if he be killer of al-Husayn! --> Some of the people of Ilm in Ta’wil of Ru’ya claim that the Imam’s interpretation is wholly consistent with their methods. They interpret wooden things in dreams as having association to Nifaq (hypocrisy) because of the Aya from Surat al-Munafiqun “as though they were pieces of wood propped up” (63:4). The sword as an allegory for his evil intention. That this intention harbors some financial aspect can be inferred from the horse which symbolizes “the world” and “livelihood” because it is in of itself a steady source of income and the potential to earn. To be continued …