Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ijtihad Al Nass

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

(salam) I have come across several rullings which has really confused me. I have understood the reasons as to why the Mujthid has given the fatwa that has made him come to this rulling. But If Ijtihad al Nass is not allowed in Shia Islam, shouldn't the rulling be based on the two main sources of Ijthiad? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Disclaimer: I am not an usooli and do not recognize the validity of ijtihad in the technical sense.

That said, which rulings did you have in mind? Regardless of my difference on usool, at the end of the day the rulings tend to be much the same, and find a decent basis in the naql itself. So why don't we start from there, with specific rulings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam brother, thank you for you reply they are several rullings that we can look at consider the following:-

CHESS ALLOWED IN ISLAM OR NOT?

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s), is reported to have told Abu Basir:

“It is Harām to sell chess. It is Harām to spend the income of this sale. To keep chess (board and pieces) in ones possession is tantamount to kufr (disbelief). To play chess is equal to ascribing partners to Allah. It is a sin even to salute one who plays chess. One who touches it in order to play it, it is, as if he has contaminated his hands by touching pork.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shia. Chapter on Business Transactions)

The same tradition is recorded in the book Man La Yahzarul Faqih that:

“To teach chess to others is also a kind of destructive sin.” It is related from Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.S): “Allah pardons all the sinners in the month of Ramadhan except Three kinds of people; those who drink wine, those who gamble and those who harbour enmity and avarice towards a Muslim.”

QURAN

“O you who believe! Intoxicants and (Maesir) games of chance and divining (azlam) by arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan’s work; shun it therefore that you may be successful.” (5:90)

Objects of Gambling and Laying of Bets

There is a universal agreement among the Mujtahids that articles normally used in gambling should not be played with, even if one is not gambling. The tradition mentioned previously which states that one who touches chess is like one who smears his hand in pork; continues,

“The prayers of chess-players are not valid till they wash their hands after the game. And to watch a game of chess is like looking at the genitals of ones own mother.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shia. Chapter of Business Transactions)

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) on being inquired concerning chess replied:

“Leave the preoccupations of the fire-worshippers to them.” That is, Muslims should not even go near chess.In another tradition, Imam (a.s.) says:“Do not even approach chess.”

The tradition from the book, Tohafful Uqūl distinctly states that the articles employed in gambling cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever and it is Harām to do so.

“All the tools and actions of gambling are Harām.”

Hazrat Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s.) has said:“All kinds of games of betting are gambling and the sale, the purchase and the use of all the tools of gambling are Harām. It is only an act that Shaitan instigates you to do.”

(Tafsir al-Qummi)

Chess and cards should not be indulged in even when played only for intellectual stimulation games with no intent to gamble. These games have an inherent power to obsess the player till he becomes oblivious of his responsibilities towards his family and even his livelihood. Such all-consuming activities lead to the disruption of an otherwise happy family life. Shaitan also will not lose the opportunity to incite the players to play for stakes. Very soon, the game started as an intellectual exercise will slip into a game for making money. The only effective way to eradicate gambling from society is to stay clear of such games as commanded by our Imam (a.s.). Hence, Islam has declared that to manufacture the tools of gambling is Harām; to buy or sell them is Harām and to spend from the profits of these transactions is Harām. It is Harām even to have the tools of gambling in ones possession. It is obligatory to destroy them.

We know from the above discussion that to play with articles used in gambling even without betting is Harām.To sit and watch the game is also Harām. The practice of Nahy anil Munkar makes it obligatory on us to leave the place where people are gambling. It is recommended (mustahab) that if perchance our eyes fall upon an article of gambling, we should remember Imam Husain (a.s) and curse Yazid (l.a.).

Fazl Ibn Shazān reports from Imam ‘Ali ar-Riďa (a.s.), “At the time the blessed head of Husain Ibn ‘Ali (a.s) was carried into Shām, Yazid (l.a.) started to dine and drink barley wine (similar to modern day ‘beer’) with his associates. After the meal, Yazid (l.a.) ordered the blessed head to be kept in a salver and placed at the foot of his throne. A chessboard was spread out and the accursed Yazid sat down to play chess. During the game, he ridiculed Imam Husain (a.s), his father (a.s) and grandfather (S). Whenever he won a game, he used to take hold of the barley wine and drink Three goblets. Then he used to pour the remaining wine in the salver upon the head of Imam Husain (a.s).”

Hazrat Imam ‘Ali ar-Riďa (a.s.) then continues, “Whoever is our Shia must abstain from barley wine and chess. One who sees barley wine or chess must remember Imam Husain (a.s) and invoke curse upon Yazid and the progeny of Yazid. If a Shia does this, Allah the Almighty will forgive all his sins even if they are more numerous than the stars.”

(Uyūn al-Akhbār ar-Riďa)

SUMMARY

1) It is Harām to sell chess !

2) To keep chess (board and pieces) in ones possession is tantamount to kufr (disbelief) !

3) To play chess is equal to ascribing partners to Allah(swt) !

4) It is a sin even to do salute(salam) one who plays chess!

5) One who touches it in order to play it, it is, as if he has contaminated his hands by touching pork!

6) And to watch a game of chess is like looking at the genitals of ones own mother!

7) Do not even approach chess!

8) Gambling even without betting is Harām and to sit and watch the game is also Harām!

9) It is recommended (mustahab) that if perchance our eyes fall upon an article of gambling, we should remember Imam Husain (a.s.) and curse Yazid (l.a.)!

10) Shia must abstain from barley wine and chess!

Let us Look at the Following:-

http://www.leader.ir/tree/index.php?catid=38

Mujtahid Khameni

Under Gambling Instruments

Chess

Q: What is the ruling on playing chess with/without placing a bet?

A: From the mukallaf’s perspective, should it not now be considered among the instruments of gambling, there is no objection to playing it provided that no betting is involved.

(Astaghfirulla) I do not understand where the Evidance is to come to this rulling based from Quran and Hadith. If we claim Ijtihad is based from these two sources then what about this rulling? :unsure:

Edited by londonsmooth110
Link to post
Share on other sites

(Astaghfirulla)h I do not understand where the Evidance is to come to this rulling based from Quran and Hadith. If we claim Ijtihad is based from these two sources then what about this rulling? :unsure:

(wasalam)

You do realize that his opinion on this is not historically the majority one, and that most scholars have deemed chess to be haram mutlaqan? For instance Sayyid Sistani considers it to be totally haram, as do a number of other contemporary maraji`. The former's argument (and he's really likely just following Khomeini's view here anyway) might be that it being an instrument of gambling (whether you are gambling with it yourself or not) would be the reason for it's being haram. If that essential quality is removed from the equation, and the item is no longer considered a gambling instrument, then the ruling as found in those hadiths giving in the context of it being a gambling instrument would not be applicable to it.

I think there's some flaws in this approach, but regardless, as I said, his view on this mas'ala should not be taken as representational of the whole of usooli methodology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

Salam brother, thank you for you reply they are several rullings that we can look at consider the following:-

CHESS ALLOWED IN ISLAM OR NOT?

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s), is reported to have told Abu Basir:

“It is Harām to sell chess. It is Harām to spend the income of this sale. To keep chess (board and pieces) in ones possession is tantamount to kufr (disbelief). To play chess is equal to ascribing partners to Allah. It is a sin even to salute one who plays chess. One who touches it in order to play it, it is, as if he has contaminated his hands by touching pork.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shia. Chapter on Business Transactions)

The same tradition is recorded in the book Man La Yahzarul Faqih that:

“To teach chess to others is also a kind of destructive sin.” It is related from Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.S): “Allah pardons all the sinners in the month of Ramadhan except Three kinds of people; those who drink wine, those who gamble and those who harbour enmity and avarice towards a Muslim.”

QURAN

“O you who believe! Intoxicants and (Maesir) games of chance and divining (azlam) by arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan’s work; shun it therefore that you may be successful.” (5:90)

Objects of Gambling and Laying of Bets

There is a universal agreement among the Mujtahids that articles normally used in gambling should not be played with, even if one is not gambling. The tradition mentioned previously which states that one who touches chess is like one who smears his hand in pork; continues,

“The prayers of chess-players are not valid till they wash their hands after the game. And to watch a game of chess is like looking at the genitals of ones own mother.”

(Wasa’il ul-Shia. Chapter of Business Transactions)

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) on being inquired concerning chess replied:

“Leave the preoccupations of the fire-worshippers to them.” That is, Muslims should not even go near chess.In another tradition, Imam (a.s.) says:“Do not even approach chess.”

The tradition from the book, Tohafful Uqūl distinctly states that the articles employed in gambling cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever and it is Harām to do so.

“All the tools and actions of gambling are Harām.”

Hazrat Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s.) has said:“All kinds of games of betting are gambling and the sale, the purchase and the use of all the tools of gambling are Harām. It is only an act that Shaitan instigates you to do.”

(Tafsir al-Qummi)

Chess and cards should not be indulged in even when played only for intellectual stimulation games with no intent to gamble. These games have an inherent power to obsess the player till he becomes oblivious of his responsibilities towards his family and even his livelihood. Such all-consuming activities lead to the disruption of an otherwise happy family life. Shaitan also will not lose the opportunity to incite the players to play for stakes. Very soon, the game started as an intellectual exercise will slip into a game for making money. The only effective way to eradicate gambling from society is to stay clear of such games as commanded by our Imam (a.s.). Hence, Islam has declared that to manufacture the tools of gambling is Harām; to buy or sell them is Harām and to spend from the profits of these transactions is Harām. It is Harām even to have the tools of gambling in ones possession. It is obligatory to destroy them.

We know from the above discussion that to play with articles used in gambling even without betting is Harām.To sit and watch the game is also Harām. The practice of Nahy anil Munkar makes it obligatory on us to leave the place where people are gambling. It is recommended (mustahab) that if perchance our eyes fall upon an article of gambling, we should remember Imam Husain (a.s) and curse Yazid (l.a.).

Fazl Ibn Shazān reports from Imam ‘Ali ar-Riďa (a.s.), “At the time the blessed head of Husain Ibn ‘Ali (a.s) was carried into Shām, Yazid (l.a.) started to dine and drink barley wine (similar to modern day ‘beer’) with his associates. After the meal, Yazid (l.a.) ordered the blessed head to be kept in a salver and placed at the foot of his throne. A chessboard was spread out and the accursed Yazid sat down to play chess. During the game, he ridiculed Imam Husain (a.s), his father (a.s) and grandfather (S). Whenever he won a game, he used to take hold of the barley wine and drink Three goblets. Then he used to pour the remaining wine in the salver upon the head of Imam Husain (a.s).”

Hazrat Imam ‘Ali ar-Riďa (a.s.) then continues, “Whoever is our Shia must abstain from barley wine and chess. One who sees barley wine or chess must remember Imam Husain (a.s) and invoke curse upon Yazid and the progeny of Yazid. If a Shia does this, Allah the Almighty will forgive all his sins even if they are more numerous than the stars.”

(Uyūn al-Akhbār ar-Riďa)

SUMMARY

1) It is Harām to sell chess !

2) To keep chess (board and pieces) in ones possession is tantamount to kufr (disbelief) !

3) To play chess is equal to ascribing partners to Allah(swt) !

4) It is a sin even to do salute(salam) one who plays chess!

5) One who touches it in order to play it, it is, as if he has contaminated his hands by touching pork!

6) And to watch a game of chess is like looking at the genitals of ones own mother!

7) Do not even approach chess!

8) Gambling even without betting is Harām and to sit and watch the game is also Harām!

9) It is recommended (mustahab) that if perchance our eyes fall upon an article of gambling, we should remember Imam Husain (a.s.) and curse Yazid (l.a.)!

10) Shia must abstain from barley wine and chess!

Let us Look at the Following:-

http://www.leader.ir/tree/index.php?catid=38

Mujtahid Khameni

Under Gambling Instruments

Chess

Q: What is the ruling on playing chess with/without placing a bet?

A: From the mukallaf’s perspective, should it not now be considered among the instruments of gambling, there is no objection to playing it provided that no betting is involved.

(Astaghfirulla) I do not understand where the Evidance is to come to this rulling based from Quran and Hadith. If we claim Ijtihad is based from these two sources then what about this rulling? :unsure:

Well this is one of the rulings that has just been recently changed by Al-Khomeinee, and other scholars have followed. Chess has always been haraam from the beginning of time.

I have written an article taking out SaHeeH hadeeth which talk about chess being haraam.

There is no question that chess is haraam, and it has been said to be haraam for many reasons not just because it was a "gambling instrument".

Click here: http://revivingalislaam.blogspot.com/2010/06/chess-is-haraam.html

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thanks brother, I have read it but is there any reason as to why Khameni has made it halal? Is Ijtihad not suppose to be based from Quran and Hadith? am I missing somthing here? is this not like what Abu Hanfia did? :unsure:

Consider the next example:-

Marja Khameni

----- Original Message -----

From: Syed Hassan

To: fatwa@leader.ir

Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:19 PM

Subject: Questions

Salam, My Name is Syed Hassan,

1)If a child born was born by IVF from other then the sperm of a Husband will the child not be born a [Edited Out], as It is out of wedlock?

Reply

Salamun `alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.

The answer is as follows:

Bismihi Ta`ala

1) He/she will be legitimate and his parents will be the man whose sperm was used and the woman who owns the egg and the uterus. There is no Problem in it

With prayers for your success,

wassalam.

First Proof

Sistanis offical website.. http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=5&cid=411

Question: A woman was inseminated with the sperm of a stranger; she conceived and gave birth to a baby. What is the fatwa about the child?

Answer: If this happened accidentally, in that she was inadvertently inseminated by another man’s sperm, there is no ishkal that such a child be treated as t he offspring of the man whose sperm was used in the process. In a way it is akin to sexual intercourse by error (bishubha).

If, however, this was deliberately done and with intent, it is likely that the child be treated as the offspring of the owner of sperm. Thus, all rules regarding pedigree and inheritance apply. This is being so, for he who is exempt from inheritance is the offspring of an adulterous relationship. The child, the subject of this article, is not the same, albeit the act that led to conceiving his seed was haraam.

Question: What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa about artificial insemination?

Answer: It is not permissible(Haram) to inseminate a woman with the sperm of a man, other than her husband, irrespective of whether or not she was married. It makes no difference whether husband and wife consented to the act or not. Likewise, if insemination is done by the husband or another man.

Also based on Logic for Islamic Laws by Ayt. Makarim Shirazi & Ayt. Ja'far Subhani http://www.al-islam.org/falsafa/

Chapter 72

Islamic view on Artificial Insemination

Quote

Question: What is the Islamic view on Artificial Insemination? (Artificial Insemination means the insertion of sperm into the woman’s uterus through special means).

Two kinds of Artificial Insemination

In the first kind the sperm of a man is inserted into his own wife. From the viewpoint of proofs of jurisprudence there is not problem in this artificial insemination because on both sides the two people are legal and religious spouses. The husband and wife have the right to become parents. It does not make any difference that this procedure is through sexual intercourse or medical means. Although at the time of artificial insemination it must be ensured that during this some illegal action is not committed. For example, another man must not perform this, rather the husband must do it.

The next type of artificial insemination is that a stranger’s sperm is inserted into the wombs of someone else’s wife. This kind of artificial insemination in the view of Islam (which has based marriage on precaution, carefulness, accuracy and piety) is absolutely illegal and the same is view of the great jurists of Islam and from some traditions regarding marriage we can know that it is prohibited.

In addition to this from the ethical, social and psychological points of view this is absolutely illegal and prohibited. And it has three main defects as described.

1. From the ethical point of view it encourages promiscuity in women and slowly it attracts her to illegal liaisons. She tends to think that what difference does it make because the sperm of a stranger is inserted into her womb or this is carried out through illegal intercourse. After this procedure (even if this had the husband’s sanction) this woman most of the time attempts illegal liaisons. Because in doing thus she has no fear from the husband. And if she becomes pregnant she can easily transfer the responsibility to artificial insemination which has been carried out with the permission of the husband.

2. From the social point of view this shakes the foundation of the family and it causes the destruction of family system and genealogy. As we know one of the evils of illegal relationship is enmity among the people and the severing of relation between children and the father. And this is seen as an unavailable effect of artificial insemination. As a result when the child grows up he does not know who the real father is.

3. The training and rearing of children and arranging of the necessities of their life natural emotions play a very important role and we must never be careless of this because it is the natural emotion which prepares the father to provide the necessities of life for his children, this human emotion is created only when he considers the child a past of himself. But if he knows that the child is the issue of someone else, there remains no reason why he should fulfill the needs of the child.

Are these fatwas really based on Quran and Hadith? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

Well this is one of the rulings that has just been recently changed by Al-Khomeinee, and other scholars have followed. Chess has always been haraam from the beginning of time.

I have written an article taking out SaHeeH hadeeth which talk about chess being haraam.

There is no question that chess is haraam, and it has been said to be haraam for many reasons not just because it was a "gambling instrument".

Click here: http://revivingalislaam.blogspot.com/2010/06/chess-is-haraam.html

(salam)

This is the flaw in your understanding. No ruling was "changed."

Rather, we have an entirely new situation requiring an entirely new ruling.

The imams talked about a gambling game, while today we are talking about a purely recreational game. Gambling is haram. Recreation, within reason, is not.

So unless there are ahadith forbidding recreation in general, in actuality there exist NO ahadith applicable to chess in the modern reality.

It's really not that hard to understand, for those who think at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So have you got a Quran and Hadith to the above rulling? :unsure:

There are no ahadith speaking to the modern game of chess as it exists and is played today, period. That is the point.

People mistakenly apply old narrations about the ancient (and different) gambling game of shatranj, but this is reasoning by analogy, qiyas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother ok putting chess a side a moment, what about the rulling on I.V.F? :unsure:

Never the less If you are sayying that Chess is no longer a gambling tool, then however today chess gambling happens in broad daylight in parks loool , what do you think about this site? http://www.paddypower.com/bet/chess :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother ok putting chess a side a moment, what about the rulling on I.V.F? :unsure:

The argument of Khamenai is reasonable. There's no act of fornication taking place, and the recognition of biological paternity of the donor is reasonable.

There is the question of the method of collecting the sperm, but this is a side matter.

Never the less If you are sayying that Chess is no longer a gambling tool, then however today chess gambling happens in broad daylight in parks loool , what do you think about this site? http://www.paddypower.com/bet/chess :unsure:

Random people can find a way to gamble with anything. The question is not if it is possible, or if it happens. The question is one of 'urf. Is it typical or customary for it to be anything other than a game for leisure? The answer is no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Quote

"The argument of Khamenai is reasonable."

Dude I love you ;) but not like how hazrat Umar would love his slave boys... but anyway I dont think it is reasonable at all rather based on Logic of Islamic Laws, not to mention it is the name of the book I quoted from :P it has no basis of Aql in the rulling as the majorty consenus is it is haram . Based on your reply becuase there is no contact involved then it is not considered as fornication, how do you consider this same principal for a girl who is virgin? seen that there is no contact involved in it, does she still remain a virgin? not to mention is seamen is nijis anyway...

Also how do you view these three points as mentioned before..

1. From the ethical point of view it encourages promiscuity in women and slowly it attracts her to illegal liaisons. She tends to think that what difference does it make because the sperm of a stranger is inserted into her womb or this is carried out through illegal intercourse. After this procedure (even if this had the husband’s sanction) this woman most of the time attempts illegal liaisons. Because in doing thus she has no fear from the husband. And if she becomes pregnant she can easily transfer the responsibility to artificial insemination which has been carried out with the permission of the husband.

2. From the social point of view this shakes the foundation of the family and it causes the destruction of family system and genealogy. As we know one of the evils of illegal relationship is enmity among the people and the severing of relation between children and the father. And this is seen as an unavailable effect of artificial insemination. As a result when the child grows up he does not know who the real father is.

3. The training and rearing of children and arranging of the necessities of their life natural emotions play a very important role and we must never be careless of this because it is the natural emotion which prepares the father to provide the necessities of life for his children, this human emotion is created only when he considers the child a past of himself. But if he knows that the child is the issue of someone else, there remains no reason why he should fulfill the needs of the child.

Edited by londonsmooth110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Quote

"The argument of Khamenai is reasonable."

Dude I love you ;) but not like how hazrat Umar would love his slave boys... but anyway I dont think it is reasonable at all rather based on Logic of Islamic Laws, not to mention it is the name of the book I quoted from :P it has no basis of Aql in the rulling as the majorty consenus is it is haram . Based on your reply becuase there is no contact involved then it is not considered as fornication, how do you consider this same principal for a girl who is virgin? seen that there is no contact involved in it, does she still remain a virgin? not to mention is seamen is nijis anyway...

I'm not sure why you're so certain of yourself on this matter. It's not nearly so black and white as you might think. The scenario in the question would not even have been conceivable (no pun intended) technologically 50 years ago. It's a new situation, and there really are no traditions that are a close easy match.

I seem to recall that Macisaac, a pretty staunch ahlil hadith type more or less admitted such recently. The closest parallel he could find was a scenario about a woman havinge sex with her husband and then having genital to genital lesbian sex with a slave girl, impregnating her.

It's not immediately applicable.

Given the notion that something is permissible unless there is a strong basis to forbid it, it is a grey zone. Would I be completely comfortable with this for my own wife? Hard to say; thankfully, my wife and I are pretty compatible reproductively, and had no problem conceiving, so it never became a practical issue. Personally I'd probably say adoption is a better option. But does the position of Khamenai and the fair number of scholars with similar views have some sensibility to it? Yes.

Personally, it gets a but uncomfortable for me the idea of simply inserting the sperm into the woman. This is grey, but tthe darker side of grey.

But in reality, the way it's often done today is that the sperm is extracted, and eggs are extracted from the woman, they are combined in a tube, and then implanted.

This is arms length enough that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Actually you mentioned IVF = in vitro fertilization = fertilization in glass, so presumably this second method is what you are talking about rather than the first method I mentioned above (simple artificial insemination) Or maybe you're just really uneducated and confused about this, based on the fact that you mention IVF and "inserting strange sperm into her womb" (two different technologies) in thhte same breath. I often find that people who think something is so clear in advance usually think this way because they have not spent enough time to understand all the nuances and specifics.

But anyway, whatever. It's a grey zone, Khamenai has thought out carefully a position and explained his reasoning. If you're not comfortable with it, don't do it. Simple enough.

As for your claims of a consensus the other way, this is flat out nonsense.

First of all, this is a new situation going back only a generation or two, so there's no weight of centuries of authority to appeal to.

Second, it is a lie that there is a consensus amongst modern ulema. I can name at least 4, 5 maraja off the top of my head with basically the same position.

Also how do you view these three points as mentioned before..@

1. From the ethical point of view it encourages promiscuity in women and slowly it attracts her to illegal liaisons. She tends to think that what difference does it make because the sperm of a stranger is inserted into her womb or this is carried out through illegal intercourse. After this procedure (even if this had the husband’s sanction) this woman most of the time attempts illegal liaisons. Because in doing thus she has no fear from the husband. And if she becomes pregnant she can easily transfer the responsibility to artificial insemination which has been carried out with the permission of the husband.

2. From the social point of view this shakes the foundation of the family and it causes the destruction of family system and genealogy. As we know one of the evils of illegal relationship is enmity among the people and the severing of relation between children and the father. And this is seen as an unavailable effect of artificial insemination. As a result when the child grows up he does not know who the real father is.

3. The training and rearing of children and arranging of the necessities of their life natural emotions play a very important role and we must never be careless of this because it is the natural emotion which prepares the father to provide the necessities of life for his children, this human emotion is created only when he considers the child a past of himself. But if he knows that the child is the issue of someone else, there remains no reason why he should fulfill the needs of the child.

My view is that these points are nonsense as generalizations. 1 and 3 are absurd, and show a total ignorance of the subject. IVF encourages promiscuity? Horse pucky. A man is not going to love a child because it's not "his own?" No. It's one thing if a woman conceived another man's baby through an affair. But when it's through a detached, clinical process of mixing egg and sperm in a test tube so that two loving spouses can fulfill a dream of overcoming a fertility issue and raising a baby together? No.

There are enough examples out there to show that the man comes to think of the child as his own.

As for 2, it is true that the child, and this is true with IVF, artificial insemination, and adoption, when he or she finds out later, will often feel some temporary confusing feelings and an urge to know where they came from.

But experience shows that these children, if the home environment was loving, do still consider the non-biological guardian(s) as " their parents." A father is the man who, with their mother, loved them and suppported them and was there for them growing up.

Biology is important, but so is love.

Bottom line. If you think this stuff is simple, black and white, cut and dried, then you frankly haven't done your homework in understanding all the angles.

Being a father is about so much more than shared alleles, much more than being a sperm donor.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

What is more: I am not a Khameni muqallid, and don't get me started about the current Iranian system of governance, but if you want to make some point of saying, "oh look, Khamenai has some weird views compared to Seestani" then frankly, I don't think you're in any position to judge.

According to Seestani, I need to wash by hands of the inherent najasat if I shake wet hands with my Christian parents. According to Seestani, a woman with the brains and character and education and experience cannot be a marja, political leader, or judge, because she lacks the mighty penis.

These are absurd opinions for an educated man in the 21st century.

My respect to Seestani for his efforts at peacemaking in Iraq, but it is very evident that this is a very old man who has spent his life in male dominated, predominantly Muslim environments with little meaningful connection to the outside world or people who are different.

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year, my heart and my support will be with those who carefully but boldly exert creative mental effort to understand how the shape of expression of timeless Islamic principles changes to fit the shape of an evolving modern world over one who "plays it safe" and sticks with the status quo because it is old rather than because it works or in spite of the fact that it does not.

I will forgive the inevitable occasional missteps of the careful, but bold one, because overall, his approach, with proper checks and balances and review and reflection, leads the society upwards in positive evolution.

The other approach takes less immediate, visible risks, but in doing so takes the biggest and most ultimately certain risk of all - that of stagnation and ultimately decay as the system fails to keep adapting to the changing environment.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As for a start a Mujthid when doing Ijtihad should be giving a rulling based from Quran and Hadith and to imply that sex between two lesbians can be made a hujut upon us is a litle strange considering the fact it was accidental and not planned in anyway. Not to mention in a situation like that, was never latter practice by any one who wanted to have a child rather as stated before addoption is the most Islamic method. As for the points mentioned above they are not mine but rather they are from Ayt. Makarim Shirazi & Ayt. Ja'far Subhani http://www.al-islam.org/falsafa/ so If you think they are talking rubbish then God help us all. I totaly under the process of how the modernage Ivf takes places however as stated before, If there is no sexual contact involved in the process, does a woman still remain as a Virgin when applying these very same principals becuase there is no contact ? If having sex between brother and sister is haram, then what is the harm of getting inseminated by a family member as long as there is no contact involved? there was a recent case in the states where a woman has got inseminated and later found that the donar belong to her father (mazallah) so is this not just asking for trouble? what If after a husband gives sperm donar during his life but later passes away is her wife still allowed to have his baby after he is dead becuase there is nothing in Quran and Hadith to forbid it?, would you consider this halal also? Please try to stick the the topic as your last post was based on a personal view, I just think you should not waste your time and effort where it really is not needed.

Edited by londonsmooth110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

As for the points mentioned above they are not mine but rather they are from Ayt. Makarim Shirazi & Ayt. Ja'far Subhani http://www.al-islam.org/falsafa/ so If you think they are talking rubbish then God help us all.

Forgetting who made the point for a second, do you agree with:

1. From the ethical point of view it encourages promiscuity in women and slowly it attracts her to illegal liaisons. She tends to think that what difference does it make because the sperm of a stranger is inserted into her womb or this is carried out through illegal intercourse. After this procedure (even if this had the husband’s sanction) this woman most of the time attempts illegal liaisons. Because in doing thus she has no fear from the husband. And if she becomes pregnant she can easily transfer the responsibility to artificial insemination which has been carried out with the permission of the husband.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As for a start a Mujthid when doing Ijtihad should be giving a rulling based from Quran and Hadith and to imply that sex between two lesbians can be made a hujut upon us is a litle strange considering the fact it was accidental and not planned in anyway. Not to mention in a situation like that, was never latter practice by any one who wanted to have a child rather as stated before addoption is the most Islamic method.

I think you seriously misunderstood something above. I didn't offer the story about the lesbians as proof of anything. Noone did. What I said is that one reason to not consider IVF as forbidden is that there is nothing in the ahadith comparable to these new situations.

As a support for this, I mentioned that Macisaac said much the same on a recent post, saying that the ahadith about the woman sharing her husband's sperm with a lesbian lover was about as close as it gets to a comparable situation. But as he admitted there, that's not really comparable to IVF at all.

As for the points mentioned above they are not mine but rather they are from Ayt. Makarim Shirazi & Ayt. Ja'far Subhani http://www.al-islam.org/falsafa/ so If you think they are talking rubbish then God help us all. I totaly under the process of how the modernage Ivf takes places however as stated before, If there is no sexual contact involved in the process, does a woman still remain as a Virgin when applying these very same principals becuase there is no contact ?

I'm sorry, this is a silly question. Virgin women don't take part in fertility treatments. Why would it occur to them?

Women undertake fertility treatments because they are married or in a relationship, and are trying without success to conceive.

If having sex between brother and sister is haram, then what is the harm of getting inseminated by a family member as long as there is no contact involved?

Are you serious? The risk of genetic abnormalities in any resulting child. That's WHY it's haram to marry anyone closer than a cousin in the first place. It's also messed up psychologically, but that's a secondary reason.

Whereas the reason fornication is forbidden is that people sleeping around outside of formal, committed relationships produces social ills, though the genetic pairing of two unrelated individuals is not likely to produce a sick, deformed child.

Incest and fornication are illicit for two different reasons. It's a terrible analogy.

there was a recent case in the states where a woman has got inseminated and later found that the donar belong to her father (mazallah) so is this not just asking for trouble?

Documentation. I don't buy this. It would seem common sense that the labs helping out would run a genetic screen prior to fertilization to ensure such unlikely events would not occur. If they are not doing that, that is an organizational mistake, not an inherent problem to IVF.

what If after a husband gives sperm donar during his life but later passes away is her wife still allowed to have his baby after he is dead becuase there is nothing in Quran and Hadith to forbid it?, would you consider this halal also?

This is an imaginary hypothetical. It has no relevance to the general issue of legitimacy of IVF.

Please try to stick the the topic as your last post was based on a personal view, I just think you should not waste your time and effort where it really is not needed.

Tip. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.

Don't post opinions dissing marja #1 compared to marja #2 if you are not ready to hear another's opinions of the ways in which the marja #2 comes up short compared to marja #1.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
According to Seestani, I need to wash by hands of the inherent najasat if I shake wet hands with my Christian parents.

This isn't true.

The Ahlul Kitab (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure (tahir) as long as you do not know that they have become ritually impure (najis) by coming into contact with an impure object. You can follow this ruling when dealing with them.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/5/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This isn't true.

The Ahlul Kitab (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure (tahir) as long as you do not know that they have become ritually impure (najis) by coming into contact with an impure object. You can follow this ruling when dealing with them.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/5/

If accurate, my congratulations to him for his belated arrival on the logic train. A pleasant surprise.

But this is a relatively recent reversal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Err, no. It's not. Read his risala.

I have it. I started on his taqleed when I came to the faith 8 years ago. In the English translations distributed at that time, the non-Muslims were universally stated to be impure. The treatment of ahlul kitab as najis in his risala was as I recall stated as a matter of precaution, rather than as a solid definitive matter, but nevertheless, at that time he was not willing to definitively state that they were clean.

The wording was something to the effect that "as for the ahlul kitab, they are commonly considered to be najis, though it is not improbable that they are pak (taher). But it is better to avoid them."

I remember this distinctly because a few months into my conversion I took classes on basic fiqh based on the fiqh of Seestani with a prominent, well respected sayyid in the community here in Montreal, someone who definitely knew what he he was talking about, and this point caused me no small degree of consternation at the time.

If he has been willing to come out more definitively recently, that is great, but it is revisionist history to claim this has always been his stance.

As an avid student of the historical development of fiqh, you should know quite well that the inherent najasat of ahlul kitab was the majority opinion until very recently.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites

No.. it isn't being "revisionist", you just didn't understand his ruling. His ruling has long been that you can consider them as tahir, but as a matter of ihtiyat mustahabb it's better to avoid them. From his Minhaj:

و أما الكتابي فالمشهور نجاسته و لكن لا يبعد الحكم بطهارته و إن كان الاحتياط حسنا

Yes, it has long been the majority opinion (the ahl al-kitab being najis), and for some pretty substantial reasons. Have you ever read the hadiths on this?

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/tahara/kafir

However, the issue of the tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab as opposed to the other kuffar is not something that has only recently gotten discussion. In fact variant views on this have been attributed to some of the earliest jurists, e.g. Ibn Abi `Aqil and Ibn Junayd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

This isn't true.

The Ahlul Kitab (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure (tahir) as long as you do not know that they have become ritually impure (najis) by coming into contact with an impure object. You can follow this ruling when dealing with them.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/5/

Also...

Since the followers of the past revealed religions (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure, many of the problems concerning the status and permissibility of the book are resolved when we live in their midst. It becomes permissible for us as Muslims to eat from their food no matter whether they touched it with their wet hands or not as long as we do not know or are not sure that it consists of what is forbidden to us, like intoxicating drinks. As for meat, fat and their extracts, there are specific rules that will be discussed later on.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
No.. it isn't being "revisionist", you just didn't understand his ruling. His ruling has long been that you can consider them as tahir, but as a matter of ihtiyat mustahabb it's better to avoid them.

I understood what I read, thank you very much, and as mentioned, the reading was accompanied with guided explanation by someone who knew the material well. (A well educated gentleman from Najaf from two of the prominent scholarly families there)

My wife has been messing with the arrangement of our bookshelves, rendering the book currently missing, but when I track down the book I'll type out word for word what was written then. Bottom line is that, at least based on what was expressed in the authorized English translations, he was not willing to definitively state that ahlul kitab were taher as of 2002. He has revised his published views in the interim.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood what I read, thank you very much, and as mentioned, the reading was accompanied with guided explanation by someone whp knew the material well.

My wife has been messing with the arrangement of our bookshelves, but when I track down the book I'll type out word for word what was written then. Bottom line is that he was not willing to definitively state that they were taharat as of 2002, and probably later.

Do you even understand what ihtiyat mustahabb is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Do you even understand what ihtiyat mustahabb is?

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of recommended precaution, the lesser degree of precautionary advice given in cases of ambiguous or conflicting primary evidence sets. Do you understand what an arrogant jerk is?

Do you understand that there is a qualitative difference between:

1) "There is some evidence to indicate that ahlul kitab are taher, or the evidence that they are najis is inconclusive, but it is better to assume, for practical purposes, that they are najis"

2) Ahlul kitab are taher by default and you should only consider them najis to touch if you definitively know that their exterior (hands, eg) has been contaminated by one of the categories of najasat (blood, semen, pork, dog, urine, maytah, etc)

One is wishy-washy, non-committal, and unworkable from a practical standpoint in a Muslim minority environment.

The second is a committed positive statement that is sensible and workable practically.

Anyway, to get back on track here with the thread, if Seestani has come out more definitively on this point, that is great. The other shortcomings in his views remain.

Anyway, this is a digression on a digression on a sidebar.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sorry for the late reply been little busy, I have read your brief reply and in short I would like to ask, If somthing has strictly not been made haram in Islam it is allowed? therfore what is your view regarding smoking weed provided you dont get stoned? also marriage is for the legitimacy of the child, so what is the criteria of not been a [Edited Out] according to Shia School of law?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sorry for the late reply been little busy, I have read your brief reply and in short I would like to ask, If somthing has strictly not been made haram in Islam it is allowed? therfore what is your view regarding smoking weed provided you dont get stoned? also marriage is for the legitimacy of the child, so what is the criteria of not been a [Edited Out] according to Shia School of law?

The marijuana example is not a good one. There are narrations warning in general about muskir (intoxicants) and saying that a small amount of a substance that is generally used for intoxication is forbidden.

Generally, legitimacy of birth means that one was conceived in a legitimate way. If IVF is legitimate, then those children born of it, as explained in the various fatawa, are legitimate of birth. QED.

On a side note, the legal notion of status of "legitimacy" having consequences of what the child, who had no fault in the illicit manner of his birth, can do with his life path (who he can marry, what he can do for career, etc), probably requires a second look by scholars. The notion of providing an encouragement to not engage in illicit relationships is a sound one, but there is injustice in punishing someone who wasn't responsible for the act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Al-Hasan ibn 'Al; (as) was asked regarding a woman who after intercourse with her husband engages in Lesbian intercourse with a virgin transferring his sperm to her, consequently making the latter pregnant. The Imam (as) replied: The mahr of the virgin shall be exacted from the marric d woman because the child would not be delivered without the virgin losing her virginity. Then, the other woman shall be stoned to death because of her marital status.

Regarding the pregnant woman, they shall wait until she delivers and the child shall be given to the father, i.e. the person of whose sperm it was born. After this, she shall be flogged.

Four rules can be deduced from this tradition: (1) stoning of the married woman, (2) liability of the married woman to pay the mahr of the other woman as a compensation for her lost virginity, (3) flogging of the other woman, (4) attribution of the child to the person of whose sperm the child was born. If, as a result of artificial insemination, a child is born, what shall be its legal status and to whom shall it be attributed specialy when most sperm centers do not tell you the donor?

And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts.... (24:31 )

God has commanded women that they 'safeguard' their organs of reproduction; but He (swt) has not mentioned from what they are supposed to be safeguarded. Neither has He specified that they safeguard them from intercourse or some other thing. The jurisprudents as well as linguists of the Arabic language concur that any proposition devoid of any particular specification implies the generality of inclusion. Similarly the inclusion of a specification in a proposition limits the proposition to that extent. For example, if it is said, "Safeguard your wealth from thieves", it denotes that wealth must be protected only from being robbed. But if it is said, "Safeguard your wealth," without specifying any specific thing, it implies that wealth is to be protected from being robbed, from damage, from waste, etc. Accordingly, the verse of the Qur'an connotes that the organs of reproduction be safeguarded from everything including insemination. This verse is reinforced by verses 5-7 of the Surat al-Mu'minun:

And who guard their private parts. Save from their wives or those whom their right hands own, for then they surely are not blameworthy. But whoever seeks to go beyond that, those are the transgressors. (23 5-- 7)

Now a child is born as a result of artificial insemination; shall it be a legitimate child, and to whom shall it be attributed? regards the sterile husband, the child cannot be attributed to him under any circumstances, and adoption is not valid in Islam:

"...Nor has He made your adopted sons your (biological) sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers; that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if you know not their father's (names, call them) your brothers in faith, or your trustees. But there is no blame on you if you make a mistake therein. (What counts is) the intention of your hearts. And Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful."

(Qur'an 33:4-5)

As to the woman who bears it illegitimate child inherits from its mother and from its relatives through her and they inherit from it. Therefore, if an illegitimate child can be attributed to its mother, a child born by artificial insemination is better entitled to be similarly attributed. The child born by artificial insemination does not inherit from its father or mother, and neither do they inherit from it. Agha Sayyid Muhsin al Hakeem Tabataba, has differentiated between an illcgitimate child and a child born by insemination. He observes: A child born by insemination shall be attributed to its mother, because there is no valid reason to negate its status, and the grounds which prohibit an illegitimate child from attribution to its mother do not apply here.

But as regards the man whose sperm is inseminated, Agha Sayyid al Hakeem says: The child shall not be attributed to him, because in order for a child to be attributed to a person it requires that he should have had intercourse irrespective of whether he performs it, or is unable to perform it but has his sperm reach her reproductive organ during his el'fort, or is transferred to another woman as a result of Lesbian intercourse as mentioned in the tradition from Imam Hasan (as). Apart from these cases, a child shall not be attributed to the person of whose sperm it was conceived, even if he is the husband.

Whatever the case, artiticial insemination is haram and no Muslim may pronounce it halal. But the impermissibility of artificial insemination does not necessarily imply that the child born of it is an illegitimate issue, for at times intercourse may be prohibited but the child born of it is considered legitimate as in the case of the person who has intercourse with his wife during her menses or during the fast of Ramadan, in both of which cases it is a prohibited act; but nevertheless the lineal bond between the child and the parents shall be established. Accordingly, if a person has artificial insemination performed despite its impermissibility, the child born shall not be attributable to the husband because it was not born of his sperm, nor shall it be attributable to the man whose sperm was inseminated, because he has not had sexual intercourse, neither by marriage nor by mistake. But the child shall be attributed to its mother because it is hcr actual offspring and her legal child, and every actual offspring is recognized issue unless the opposite is proved.

Edited by londonsmooth110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

What claim?

You're alternating here between incoherent posts and cut and pasting other people's work without attribution of source.

I'm not responsible for answering for Khamenai. I've said all that I need to say, namely that the issue is one that lacks close precedent in the narrations, and is therefore one that is a legal grey zone open to interpretation, and that Khamenai has his rational arguments. These arguments can be accepted or not, but the point is that he has an argument. Therefore you were wrong to act as if his conclusions are obviously wrong or unthinkable.

If you want more details about how he reached his conclusions, I suggest you ask him yourself.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

:huh: well I never once claimed this is my work ? so just becuase you come to that assumption it was, this is a lack of your understanding. Also mentioned Khameni has a argument, so what is that exactly? becuase I am still waiting for a logical understanding behind his fatwa which 99 % Mujthids reject. If he does not have a argument then we can only conclude that this is a example of "Ijithad Nass" which then Inshallah we can move to the next fatwa.

Edited by londonsmooth110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
well I never once claimed this is my work ? so just becuase you come to that assumption it was, this is a lack of your understanding.

If you post something and DON'T indicate someone else wrote it, you are automatically claiming that you wrote it. That's how things work. Where do you come from that that is not how things work? You posted some pamphlet or article in post #29 above. Who wrote it? Where did you get it from?

Also mentioned Khameni has a argument, so what is that exactly? becuase I am still waiting for a logical understanding behind his fatwa which 99 % Mujthids reject.

I'm tiring a bit of repeating myself. I explained the basics to you. No explicit Quran or ahadith touching on either of the two fertility technologies, no physical sexual contact between the two people. For more detail than that, ask Khamenai himself. I don't understand why you're asking us instead of going directly to the source.

What is more, his view is not rejected by "99%." It is a minority view, but there are a fair number with the same view.

then Inshallah we can move to the next fatwa.

By all means. You're going nowhere on the current point.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is work I have accumulated over a period of time from various articles, and once again unless you can prove it is not my work then I let you believe what ever you want. As for contacting Khameni directly, how do you know I already have not? I am always one step ahead my friend. I have a recorded conversation (which I can upload on youtube) where his representive based in the Islamic centre of london (which I will not disclose his name right now) states the both treatments I.V.F and A.I are allowed what you think about that? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...