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

The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law if the follower (maʾmūm) stands up for the third rakʿah out of forgetfulness while the imam has sat for the middle tashahhud?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the imam sits for the tashahhud while the follower (maʾmūm), out of forgetfulness, stands up for the third rakʿah, he is obliged to return to his sitting position, since following the imam is obligatory. In this case, no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is required of him. If, however, he fails to return, his prayer is rendered invalid.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "If the follower stands up alone out of forgetfulness, he is obliged to return, since following the imam is obligatory... If he does not return, his prayer is rendered invalid, due to his departure from what is obligatory." [Asnā al-Maṭālib,Vol.1/P.190] And Allah the Almighty knows best.

I vowed to give a specific charity if a certain matter came to pass — what is the ruling on giving that charity before the matter is realised?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Fulfilling a vow (nadhr) is obligatory, in accordance with the word of Allah the Almighty: "And let them fulfil their vows." [Al-Ḥajj/ 29] And the saying of our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Him, let him not disobey Him." (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)
The Shāfiʿī scholars distinguished between a financial vow (nadhr mālī) and a bodily vow (nadhr badanī). They permitted the fulfilment of a financial vow to be brought forward — before the stipulated condition is met — but did not permit the same for a bodily vow, which may only be fulfilled after the condition has actually been realised.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is permissible to bring forward the fulfilment of a financial vow before the condition stipulated in it is met — such as saying: 'If I am healed, I vow to free a slave' or 'to give such-and-such in charity' — just as it is permissible to pay zakāh in advance. This is unlike a bodily vow, such as fasting." [Asnā al-Maṭālib, vol. 4/P.246]
Imām al-Bājūrī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Like expiation other than fasting, a financial vow — such as saying: 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave for the sake of Allah,' or 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave on the Friday following the recovery' — it is permissible to bring it forward before the recovery in the first case, and before the Friday following the recovery in the second case." [Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim, Vol.2/P.596] And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More