عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Underestimating People of Specialty
Author : Dr. Hassan Abu_Arqoub
Date Added : 10-05-2023

Underestimating People of Specialty

 

There is no doubt that every person can determine right from wrong in his/her field of specialty. Of course, this is based on a set of rules and foundations on which that specialty rests. He/she also have the competence to determine the experts and the non-experts of that field.

One stunning matter of this era is that some unspecialized and unqualified individuals judge people of specialty. This isn`t new since similar it also existed in past times. For example, some questioned the knowledge of Al-Ghazali and claimed that he wasn`t qualified as a jurist. When this news reached Imam Sayooti, he gave a full answer and it read as follows:

"The ignorant who said that Al-Ghazali wasn`t qualified to be a jurist deserves to be severely whipped and imprisoned for a long time to stop similar people from daring to criticize this great Imam of Islam. His saying as such about this eminent scholar emanates from extreme ignorance and lack of religiosity, so he is the most ignorant of the ignorant and the most evil of the evil sinners. During his time, Al-Ghazali was called Hujjat al-Islam (An honorific title meaning "authority on Islam" or "proof of Islam) and the Master of Jurists. He wrote valuable books on Fiqh and the Shafie Madhab rests on his works. Al-Ghazali revised and edited the Shafie Madhab where he removed irregular Fatwas and weak sayings and summarized it (Madhab) in the books: Al-Baseet, Al-Waseet, Al-Wajeez, and Al-Kholasah. Moreover, the books of the two Sheikhs are adopted from Al-Ghazali`s books.

Accordingly, the person who said the above about al-Ghazali was controlled by ignorance, stupidity and sin. It is safer to ignore what he said and leave his punishment in the Hands of Allah.

The above text indicates that transgression against the scholars existed in the past, still exists, will exist and isn`t something strange since Prophets and Messenger (PBUT) were subjected to worse that by the incompetent.

Al-Sayooti described such person as "Ignorant" and "Stupid", so he is considered as an evil sinner. Therefore, from an Islamic perspective such person has sinned and must make sincere repentance.

Al-Sayooti suggests a solution for such an audacity by disciplining this person and applying a discretionary punishment embodied in "Whipping" and "Imprisonment" to be an example for others and avoid transgressing against the scholars. This punishment is also meant to prevent the spread of such ill behavior amongst the members of society and prevent other ignorant individuals from undermining the people of knowledge and specialty. However, this disciplining and discretionary punishment is within the jurisdiction of the Muslim ruler or the authorities representing him. This clearly shows that it is the duty of government to defend the people of knowledge and specialty.

Finally, Al-Sayooti seized this opportunity to clarify the grace-virtue of Al-Ghazali and described him as "Hujjat al-Islam". Here, Al-Sayooti is teaching us to defend the people of grace-virtue and never accept undermining them in any form, and this is the duty of all the members of society.

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible to eat from an Udhiyah slaughtered on behalf of a deceased person?

Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon our Master the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible to eat from the sacrifice (uḍḥiyyah) that is offered on behalf of a deceased person. This is the madhhab (school of thought) of the Hanbalis. In this case, the heirs take the place of the deceased as if he were alive, with the same rights to eat from it, give it in charity, and offer it as a gift.
 
It is stated in Maṭālib Uli al-Nuhā (Vol.2/P.472): "Offering a sacrifice on behalf of a deceased person is better than offering one on behalf of a living person, because the deceased is unable (to perform deeds) and is in need of reward. It is to be treated like a sacrifice on behalf of a living person in terms of eating, giving charity, and giving gifts." And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the expiation for perjury?

One who commits perjury should repent, seek Allah`s forgiveness and offer an expiation which is: feeding ten indigent persons, or clothing them, or giving a slave his freedom, but if that is beyond his means then, he should fast for three days. Allah, The Almighty, Says in this regard (What means): "Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." [Al-Ma`idah/89].

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on kissing while fasting?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is prohibitively disliked (makrūh taḥrīman) for a husband to engage in foreplay with or kiss his wife during the daylight hours of Ramaḍān if doing so stirs his desire. If pre-seminal fluid (madhī) is released as a result, the fast is not invalidated; however, if seminal fluid (manī) is released, the fast is broken.
Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Sharbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated: "It is prohibitively disliked to kiss — whether on the mouth or elsewhere — for one whose desire is stirred, whether man or woman, to the extent that he fears it may lead to intercourse or ejaculation. Embracing, touching, and similar acts without a barrier carry the same ruling as kissing in this regard, because such acts expose the act of worship to being corrupted — and as the two Ṣaḥīḥs record: 'Whoever circles around a protected boundary is liable to fall into it.'"
He further added: "It is preferable for one whose desire is not stirred — even if he is a young man — to refrain from such acts as well, so as to close the door entirely. For he may believe his desire has not been aroused when in fact it has. Moreover, it is Sunnah for the fasting person to abstain from all desires without exception." — Summarised with minor adaptation from [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More