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

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling on mentioning Allah`s name upon slaughtering an animal?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is a Sunnah (prophetic tradition) for the person slaughtering to say: "Bismillah" (In the Name of Allah), though the most complete and perfect phrasing is to say: "Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim" (In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful). This is in accordance with the words of Allah Almighty: "So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned." (Al-An'am/118)
 
However, pronouncing it is not an obligatory requirement (Wajib). If someone omits it—whether deliberately or out of forgetfulness—the meat remains entirely lawful (Halal) to eat, though purposely omitting it is considered disliked (Makruh). And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

What is the ruling on water that contains ornamental fish — does it become impure on account of their waste?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The water in a pond containing ornamental fish is pure so long as it has not been altered, for a small amount of fish waste (rawth) is pardoned and overlooked — provided it does not change the water.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Jamal ʿalā Sharḥ al-Manhaj (Vol.1/P.178): "A small amount of hair from a non-edible animal is pardoned, as is a small amount of hair from a riding animal — on account of the hardship involved in avoiding it — and likewise a small amount of fish waste is pardoned, unless it alters the water." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the Islamic ruling on the Udhiyah (sacrificial offfering)?

 
 
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) is a Confirmed Sunnah (Sunnah Mu’akkadah) for every adult Muslim of sound mind who possesses the financial means, whether they are a resident, a traveler, or a pilgrim (Haj). This is based on the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: 'When the ten days [of Dhu al-Hijjah] begin and one of you desires to offer a sacrifice, let him not touch [cut] anything of his hair or skin' [Narrated by Muslim].
 
The point of evidence (Wajh al-Dalalah) here is that the Prophet ﷺ linked the sacrifice to the individual's will and desire by saying, 'and one of you desires.' This indicates that it is not obligatory (Wajib); had it been mandatory, he would have simply said, 'let him not touch his hair until he sacrifices' [without making it conditional upon desire].
 
Furthermore, it is narrated that Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes refrain from offering the sacrifice out of fear that people might mistakenly view it as an obligatory duty [Narrated by al-Bayhaqi and others with a good (Hasan) chain of transmission]. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

See More